-
Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications:
Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement)
Order
ExAWQ1.01 Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s
First Round of Written Questions
PINS Reference EN010062
Document No. ExAWQ1.01
Author Pinsent Masons / GVA / AECOM
Revision Date Description
0 January 2015 Submission Version
1 January 2015 Reformatted Version
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 1
Contents
1.0 GENERAL
..................................................................................................
3
2.0 COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
...............................................................
28
3.0 DESIGN, ACCESS, LAYOUT AND VISUAL
........................................... 32
4.0 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER
...................................................... 65
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL
..................................................................................
99
6.0 HABITATS, ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION
........................ 134
7.0 FUNDING
...............................................................................................
137
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 2
Appendix
Appendix A - WQ1.06(d) – 1 in a 1000yr (climate change) Fluvial
and Tidal Flood
Consequence Plans
Appendix B - WQ3.01(b) – Dwr Cymru e-mail, dated 19th November
2014
Appendix C - WQ3.01(c) – Revised Indicative Site Layout Plan
(Ref:
TATA_150114_2.05_v2)
Appendix D - WQ3.04 – H&SE s42 Consultation Response, dated
14th March
2014
Appendix E - WQ3.07 – Indicative Decommissioning Programme
Appendix F - WQ3.15 – Provisional Construction &
Commissioning Programme
Appendix G - WQ3.19 – E-mail correspondence on Noise
Monitoring
Methodology
Appendix H - WQ3.22 – E-mail correspondence on Traffic &
Transportation
Appendix I - WQ3.29 – Extracts from PDR Harbour Way
Environmental
Statement – Volume 1 – Main Report – Version A
Appendix J - WQ4.14 – Tracked Changes Version of Model
Provisions
Appendix K - WQ5.11 – United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Database
Appendix L - WQ5.56 – Summary Table of Environmental Impact
Study Areas
Appendix M - WQ7.04 – Tata Steel Group Organogram
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 3
1.0 GENERAL
Question 1.01
1.1 CAA Lighting - Can the applicant confirm the conclusion of
their
consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority.
Response
1.2 The applicant considers that it has addressed all of the
issues raised by
the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in its response to the
Section 42
consultation. The position in respect of each issue raised by
the CAA is
set out below:
1) Check aerodrome safeguarding maps lodged with relevant
planning authorities
1.3 The local planning has not notified the applicant the
proposed
development falls within the safeguarding zone for any
aerodromes.
2) Aviation warning lighting
1.4 In response to the CAA's comments, the applicant has
included
requirement 16 in Schedule 2 to the draft DCO which provides
that
aviation warning lighting of a shape, colour and character
specified in
CAA guidance must be installed on the stack forming part of Work
No. 1
that will be 80m in height.
1.5 In addition, the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), which
under
requirement 10 is required to be submitted for approval by the
relevant
planning authority, states that cranes used during the
construction phase
must be operated in accordance with the requirements of BS
7121
'Code of Practice for Safe Use of Cranes' (see paragraph
2.10.1).
1.6 BS 7121, Part 1 indicates that the crane user (contractor)
must consult
with local aerodrome managers for permission to operate a crane
that is
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 4
to be used within 6 km of the aerodrome/airfield if its height
exceeds 10m
or that of surrounding structures or trees, if higher.
3) Gas venting and/or flaring
1.7 As noted in para 3.6.21 of the Environmental Statement (doc
ref. 6.02)
there will be no impacts to aerodromes or aviation users within
the
locality from venting or flaring as the proposed development
will not vent,
and once commissioned and operational, will provide a
significant
reduction in the amount of flaring required at the Port Talbot
site.
4) Civil aviation charting
1.8 The proposed chimney stack(s) will be limited to a maximum
height of
80m by the parameters specified in requirement 4 of Schedule
2.
Consequently, there will be no requirement for civil aviation
charting. In
the event that charting was required for temporary structures
such as
cranes during the construction phase, the relevant authorities
would be
notified in accordance with the Code of Practice mentioned
above.
5) Establish viewpoints of Ministry of Defence and local
emergency services
1.9 The Secretary of State for Defence and Local emergency
services
including the South Wales Police, Mid-West & Wales Fire and
Rescue
and the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust have been consulted
by
the applicant under s. 42. None of these organisations' have
raised any
issues regarding aviation safety.
Question 1.02
1.10 City and County of Swansea Council - Can the applicant
provide an
update of their position regarding agreement with City and
County of
Swansea Council on the following issues:
a) Socio economic impacts;
b) Landscape and visual impacts;
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 5
c) Ecological impacts;
d) Air quality impacts; and
e) Surface water environment impacts.
Response
1.11 The applicant and CCS will be preparing a Statement of
Common
Ground (SoCG) which will cover all of the issues listed in this
question.
1.12 These issues were originally raised by CCS in its response
to the section
42 consultation undertaken by the applicant between January and
March
2014. Though dialogue with CCS, the applicant agreed to address
the
issues raised by CCS within the relevant chapters of the
Environmental
Statement submitted in support of the DCO application.
1.13 The applicant has discussed the issues with Richard Jones,
planning
officer at CCS, and it has been confirmed that the Council will
review the
submitted Environmental Statement and confirm if the issues
raised have
been adequately addressed.
1.14 This is in line with the advice that Richard Jones of CCS
gave to the ExA
during the Preliminary Meeting. This is recorded on page 10 of
the PINS
Preliminary Meeting Note, which states:
"The City and County of Swansea confirmed that they had been
in
discussions with GVA over the timetabling of the SOCG, and that
once
the submissions for Deadline 1 had been received, they would be
aware
of their position over the local impacts, and would be in a
position to
prepare the SOCG with the Applicant."
Question 1.03
1.15 Network Rail - Can the applicant provide an update of their
position
regarding agreement with Network Rail on the following
issues
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 6
a) Compulsory acquisition of Network Rail land;
b) Protective Provisions; and
c) Asset Protection Agreement.
Response
a) Compulsory acquisition of Network Rail land
1.16 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with Network Rail
regarding the
grant of the necessary rights across Network Rail land. The
applicant
has provided Network Rail with information requested about
the
proposed gas and electricity connections to enable Network Rail
to
undertake its land clearance process. The clearance process has
now
completed and Network Rail is currently awaiting a valuation of
the rights
sought.
1.17 The next step will be for the parties to agree the form of
an option and
easement agreement and a side agreement. Network Rail has
indicated
that once these agreements have been settled, it will be in a
position to
withdraw its objection to the compulsory purchase powers
included in the
draft Order (doc ref 3.01).
b) Protective Provisions
1.18 The Protective Provisions included in Part 1 of Schedule 4
to the draft
Order have been agreed with Network Rail subject to a correction
being
made to the paragraph numbering in revision 0 of the draft Order
as
identified in Network Rail's relevant representation. Paragraph
5(1)
which reads "Where Network Rail is asked to give its consent
pursuant to
this paragraph, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld
but may
be given subject to reasonable conditions" should be numbered
as
paragraph 4(5) and forms the final sub-paragraph of paragraph 4.
The
following four sub-paragraphs should then be renumbered as the
four
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 7
sub-paragraphs of paragraph 5. The applicant will correct this
error in
the next draft of the Order.
c) Asset Protection Agreement
1.19 The applicant understands that it will be required to enter
into an Asset
Protection Agreement (APA) with Network Rail prior to any
works
authorised by the Order being carried out over the railway. The
applicant
expects this obligation to be included in the terms of the
agreements
which are proposed with Network Rail regarding the grant of the
option
and easement.
Question 1.04
1.20 Can the applicant confirm whether
a) they propose to include the security provisions as
recommended
by the Crime Prevention Design Advisor; and
b) whether the development forms part of the critical
national
infrastructure.
Response
a) Security Provisions
1.21 The security measures to be implemented at the site will be
consistent
with the high levels of security that the applicant currently
maintains at
the steelworks. The security standards will meet or exceed
those
recommended by the Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA),
except
where those specific measures are not appropriate in the context
of this
development. An explanation of how each of the recommendations
will
be addressed is set out below:
i. Perimeter security: The proposed development is within
the
steelworks site which has perimeter fencing that meets or
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 8
exceeds the standards recommended by the CPDA. The means
of enclosure for the proposed development must be agreed
with
the relevant planning authority before commencement and
erected prior to the commissioning of the generating station
(see
requirement 7). Any proposals for the perimeter fencing
which
the applicant submits for approval will be designed to
maintain
the existing levels of security at the site.
ii. Access control: As part of the existing security
arrangements for
the steelworks, the steelworks has its own security staff onsite
24
hours a day, 365 days a year, and pedestrian and vehicular
access onto the site is controlled with no public access.
The
current strict access control measures will ensure security of
the
proposed development site which will be located within
steelworks.
iii. Door security: Door security systems will be designed
and
installed to comply with both British and European
standards.
iv. Intruder alarm: buildings that are not occupied 24 hours per
day
which contain critical equipment will be protected by a
monitored
silent intruder alarm system that will meet the relevant
British
Standards for alarm installations.
v. CCTV: The proposed development will be integrated within
the
site's existing CCTV system. This is capable of producing
evidential quality imagery with day/night time full
functionality
with signage that is compliant with the Data Protection Act.
vi. Lighting. The scheme of external lighting for the
proposed
development must be approved by the relevant planning
authority and installed before the generating station begins
to
operate (see requirement 12). The applicant will design this
lighting to maintain the existing security standards at the
site.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 9
vii. Landscaping: The proposed development is subject to a
requirement that a landscaping scheme be submitted to the
relevant planning authority and implemented in accordance
with
an approved timetable (requirement 6). Depending on the
details of this scheme, it may not necessarily be appropriate
for
trees to be bare stemmed up to 2 metres from the ground as
recommended by the CPDA. However, in developing the
landscaping scheme, the applicant will have regard to
security
implications and include any elements that would represent a
threat to the security of the site. It should be noted that
requirement 6 requires that the approved landscaping scheme
must be implemented in accordance with the relevant
recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other
recognised codes of practice.
viii. Building: As with existing buildings on the steelworks
site, the
proposed development will be designed to prevent
unauthorised
access to the roof of any buildings.
b) Critical National Infrastructure
1.22 The relevant representation from the South Wales Police
states that
WECTU (The Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit) has
not
received any notification from the Centre for the Protection of
National
Infrastructure (CPNI) indicating that this development will form
part of the
critical national infrastructure (CNI). So far as the applicant
is aware, the
proposed development would not form part of the critical
national
infrastructure.
Question 1.05
1.23 Coal Authority - Can the applicant provide an update of
their position
regarding agreement with the Coal Authority on the following
issues:
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 10
a) Potential ground instability from historic mining activity
that may
impact on the proposed line of the electrical connection;
and
b) Quantification of and potential for prior abstraction of
surface
coal resources.
Response
1.24 Paragraph 9.5.11 of the Environmental Statement (ES)
outlines that the
Landmark report, presented in Appendix 9.1, has identified that
the site is
indicated to lie in an area which may be affected by coal mining
activity.
A British Geological Survey mineral site relating to deep coal
is
registered 808m to the east. As such, coal authority reports
were
obtained for the site.
1.25 Further to the receipt of the Coal Authority's Relevant
Representations,
the Applicant contacted the Coal Authority on the 21st November
2014
via email and advised that site investigation works are
currently ongoing
onsite and that these works will confirm whether coal deposits
are
present in the area beneath the proposed development, and if so,
the
extent and depth of the coal present. The Applicant has offered
to
present an interim report to the Coal Authority in early 2015
which will
provide initial information on the presence of coal reserves and
also on
the geotechnical stability of the site.
1.26 The Coal Authority has stated in its relevant
representation that it is
satisfied on the basis of the information presented in the ES
that coal
mining legacy does not create any risk of land instability to
the proposed
development.
1.27 The Coal Authority responded to the applicant on the 3rd
December
2014 (email received from Mark Harrison) who welcomed the
site
investigation works and confirmed that the Coal Authority would
like to
receive the results in early 2015. The email also confirmed that
the Coal
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 11
Authority would enter into a Statement of Common Ground with
the
applicant on this basis.
Question 1.06
1.28 National Resources Wales - Can the applicant provide an
update of their
position regarding agreement with National Resources Wales on
the
following issues:
a) An application for an Environmental Permit;
b) The preferred development option i.e. Option 1 being full
construction in a single phase or Option 2 with construction
over
two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2) with only one boiler, one
stack and associated turbine sets being constructed at each
phase;
c) The potential for mitigation of the residual effects on
nearby
Natura 2000 sites from aerial emissions of acid/nutrient
nitrogen
deposition (and Nitrogen dioxide/Sulphur dioxide emissions)
should Option 2 be selected if the DCO is granted;
d) The need to take into consideration the climate change
effects
raised in the Welsh Government’s letter dated 9 January 2014
with respect to a flooding event of a 1 in 1000 probability
of
occurrence during the life of the project in relation to either
fluvial
or tidal flooding at the project site;
e) Application of Best Available Techniques in the design of
the
installation to ensure operational noise levels are reduced to
a
minimum of 10dB below the measured background levels;
f) Application of appropriate piling techniques to ensure that
the
public and environment are protected from noise and
vibration
during the construction phase(s);
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 12
g) Provision of appropriate remediation measures for any
contaminated land identified by the site investigations.
Response
1.29 The applicant and NRW are currently in discussions
regarding a
Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) which will cover all of the
issues
listed in this question. The applicant received a revised draft
of the
SoCG from NRW on 9 January 2015 which is currently being
reviewed
by the applicant with a view to an agreed SoCG being submitted
to the
Examining Authority shortly.
1.30 In the meantime, the applicant provides the following
update on the
points raised.
a) Environmental Permit
1.31 In the applicant's meeting with NRW on 17th November 2014,
it was
confirmed that the applicant and NRW will commence
discussions
regarding the application for an Environmental Permit in early
2015. The
applicant attended a pre-application permit meeting with NRW on
9
January 2015.
b) Preferred Development Option
1.32 Option 1 is the applicant's preferred development option
and the
applicant assumes that this option is also preferred by NRW.
This point
will be confirmed in the SoCG.
c) The potential for mitigation of the residual effects on
nearby Natura 2000 sites
1.33 Consultation between the applicant and NRW has been
ongoing
regarding the Habitats Regulation Assessment and in particular,
the
residual effects on nearby Natura 2000 sites from aerial
emissions of
acid/nutrient nitrogen deposition (and Nitrogen dioxide/Sulphur
dioxide
emissions) should Option 2 be selected. This has resulted in a
Report to
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 13
Inform an Appropriate Assessment being produced by the applicant
and
submitted to the Examining Authority (Document reference
5.05).
1.34 The conclusion of the Report to Inform an Appropriate
Assessment has
been agreed with NRW that Option 1 and Option 2 Phase 2 would
have
no adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000
sites.
1.35 In particular, the report concluded that there is no
potential for an in-
combination adverse effect on the integrity of Crymlyn Bog
Special Area
of Conservation / Ramsar site from Option 2 Phase 1 of the
proposed
development in combination with the three other projects -
Biomass II
Power Station, Abernedd Power Station and Prenergy.
1.36 Any small increase in acid/nutrient nitrogen deposition
(and Nitrogen
dioxide/Sulphur dioxide emissions) will be mitigated by more
stringent air
quality targets through the implementation of the Industrial
Emissions
Directive, the UK's ongoing commitment to reduction in NOx
emissions
and the temporary nature of the effects. This would result in
very small
contributions of the proposed development in terms of deposition
and
ambient levels of pollutants in-combination and will mean that
the
conservation objectives for the SAC will not be undermined.
d) The need to take into consideration the climate change
effects raised in the Welsh Government’s letter dated 9 January
2014
1.37 In a meeting with the applicant on the 17th November 2014,
NRW
clarified that they were satisfied with the information
submitted with the
application and that the application was submitted prior to the
Welsh
Government's guidance. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has
now
prepared plans which show the consequences on the project site
of both
fluvial and tidal flooding events with a 1 to 1000 probability
of occurrence.
The plans are appended at Appendix A to this statement. The
applicant
notes NRW's suggestion that the Examining Authority seeks
further
clarification from the Welsh Government on this matter.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 14
e) The need to take into consideration the climate change
effects raised in the Welsh Government’s letter dated 9 January
2014
1.38 As part of its pre-application discussions with NRW
regarding the
Environmental Permit, the applicant will be providing NRW
with
information regarding the application of 'BAT' in the design of
the
installation to control operational noise levels.
1.39 Discussions are ongoing and the applicant will be seeking
to agree these
matters with NRW prior to them being secured through the
Environmental Permit.
f) Application of Appropriate Piling Techniques
1.40 The applicant is seeking NRW's agreement that the measures
proposed
to protect the public and the environment from noise and
vibration during
the construction phase are appropriate. Requirement 11 in
Schedule 2
to the draft DCO provides that a noise management plan (NMP)
(which
must include a construction vibration risk assessment) must be
submitted
to and approved by the relevant planning authority prior to
the
commencement of works. The draft NMP is included at Appendix
15.1.5
of the Environmental Statement. Amongst other things, the draft
NMP
states that:
• piling must be carried out in accordance with codes of
practice for
working an piling set out in BS 5228;
• plant must comply with relevant national, EU or
international
standards on noise and vibration emissions; and
• the choice of piling method will have consideration to
sensitive
receptors and that noise levels will be monitored during
construction.
1.41 The applicant is seeking NRW's agreement that these
measures will
secure the application of appropriate piling techniques to
ensure that the
public and environment are protected from noise and vibration
during the
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 15
construction phase. The outcome of these discussions will be
presented
in the SoCG with NRW.
g) Provision of appropriate remediation measures for any
contaminated land identified by the site investigations
1.42 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with NRW regarding
the
appropriate remediation measures for any contaminated land
identified at
the site. Currently, the draft DCO includes requirement 19
which
requires a scheme to deal with contaminated land to be submitted
and
approved by NRW prior to the commencement of any works. The
scheme must include details of remedial measures to be taken.
Site
investigation works are currently ongoing and an interim report
is due to
be submitted to NRW and NPTCBC (and others) in January 2015.
Once
this report is available, the applicant expects to discuss the
potential
remedial options available with NRW and agree the terms on
which
these will be secured under Requirement 19. The position will be
set out
in the SoCG with NRW.
Question 1.07
1.43 National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc - Can the
applicant provide an
update of their position regarding agreement with National Grid
Electricity
Transmission Plc (NGET) on the following issue:
a) Protective Provisions.
Response
1.44 NGET provided the applicant with draft Protective
Provisions on 8th
January 2015. The applicant is currently considering these
provisions
and will be in dialogue with NGET regarding the wording and
the
inclusion of these provisions within the DCO.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 16
Question 1.08
1.45 Royal Mail Group Ltd - Can the applicant provide an update
of their
position regarding agreement with Royal Mail Group Ltd on the
following
issue:
a) Mitigation measures for any impacts of construction traffic
on
Royal Mail operations in the Port Talbot area and in particular
the
Port Talbot Delivery Office in Eagle Street (SA13 1AA).
Response
1.46 The applicant has been in contact with Royal Mail Group
Ltd, most
recently on 9 January 2015, and confirm its understanding that
Royal
Mail is currently reviewing the DCO application documents and
will
advise the applicant of its position in respect of any further
mitigation
measures that may be required in respect of any impacts of
construction
traffic on Royal Mail operations in the Port Talbot area and in
particular
the Port Talbot Delivery Office in Eagle Street.
Question 1.09
1.47 Associated British Ports (ABP) - Can the applicant provide
an update of
their position regarding agreement with ABP on the following
issues:
a) Impacts on ABP’s operations at Port Talbot dock; and
b) Additional water abstraction from ABP’s dock system at
Port
Talbot.
Response
1.48 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with ABP over these
issues.
1.49 Dry weather flow calculations have been developed in
response to ABP’s
concerns over impacts on the dock from the additional
consumptive
abstraction. This was done in order to address ABP’s concerns
over
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 17
impoundment requirements to maintain a steady state of water
level in
the dock for safe operating of the dock and the applicant
considers that
these calculations provide a 'worst case' assessment of
potential
impoundment required under prolonged periods of dry weather.
Tata are
awaiting ABP's approval of these calculations which will form
the basis of
a SOCG which is currently being drafted for ABP comment.
Question 1.10
1.50 Western Power - Can the applicant provide an update of
their position
regarding agreement with Western Power on the following
issues:
a) Access;
b) Re-alignment /diversion impacts on operations and
operational
costs; and
c) Protective Measures.
Response
1.51 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with WPD regarding
the
protective provisions to be included in the Order and the terms
of any
agreement that may be required between the parties,
particularly
regarding the modifications to WPD's substations (Grange and
Cefn
Gwrgan) that form Work no. 2 of the authorised development.
a) Access
1.52 The applicant does not expect the proposed development to
interfere
with access to WPD's substations, overhead lines or underground
cables
although access to the substations may be temporarily restricted
during
the works to those substations that form part of the
authorised
development. It is the applicant's intention that the
modifications to the
substations would be carried out by WPD and that any
interference to
access that occurs as a result would either be subject to
protective
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 18
provisions in the Order that have been agreed with WPD or to the
terms
of an agreement between the parties.
b) Re-alignment /diversion impacts on operations and operational
costs
1.53 The applicant does not anticipate that the proposed
development will
require the re-alignment or diversion of any WPD apparatus.
However,
in the event that any diversions were required, it is
anticipated that these
would be subject to protective provisions for the benefit of WPD
that are
currently being drafted for inclusion in the Order. The only
impacts on
WPD's apparatus are the modifications to the Grange and Cefn
Gwrgan
substations. The applicant's intends for these works to be
carried out by
WPD in accordance with the terms of an agreement between the
parties.
c) Protective Measures
1.54 At WPD's request, the applicant is currently preparing
draft protective
provisions for WPD's apparatus that are appropriate in the
context of this
Order.
Question 1.11
1.55 Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University / Public Health Wales
(PHW) - Can
the applicant provide an update of their position regarding
agreement
with PHW on the following issues:
a) Air quality mitigation measures during the construction phase
to
address construction traffic pollution and exhaust stack
emissions;
b) Construction-phase dust effects mitigation measures;
c) Mitigation of potential impacts on geology, soils and
hydrogeology resulting from the proposed development during
the construction, operation and decommissioning phases;
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 19
d) Mitigation of any adverse effects on controlled waters
from
intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water associated
with
ancillary equipment and rainwater run-off from associated
construction activities; and
e) Mitigation of any adverse surface water runoff effects on
the
drainage channel (Middle Mother Ditch) outside the Order
Limits,
and other downstream water bodies / courses.
Response
1.56 The relevant representation submitted by Abertawe Bro
Morgannwg
University / Public Health Wales (PHW) states that PHW concurs
with
the comments previously provided by Public Health England (PHE)
in
response to the scoping report and the section 42
consultation.
1.57 PHE has now confirmed in its relevant representation that
it is satisfied
that the development’s potential impacts on public health have
been
adequately addressed and, where necessary, suitable mitigation
has
been proposed.
1.58 On the basis that PHW has not raised any additional points
in its relevant
representation, the applicant has proceeded on the basis that
PHW is
also satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed by the
applicant in
respect of the matters listed in this question. However, the
applicant will
seek confirmation from PHW that this is in fact the case.
1.59 The measures proposed in relation to each of the issues
listed in the
question are set out below and it is the applicant's
understanding that
PHW is satisfied with these measures.
a) Air Quality Mitigation Measures
1.60 Measures to mitigate air quality impacts arising from
construction traffic
are set out in the dust management plan (DMP) that must be
submitted
to and approved by the relevant planning authority under
requirement 10
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 20
of the draft DCO. The DMP must be substantially in accordance
with the
outline version appended to the Code of Construction Practice
at
Appendix 15.1 of the Environmental Statement. The measures set
out in
the outline DMP reflect the Institute of Air Quality Management
(IAQM)
best practice and include:
• Damping down shall control dust during prolonged periods of
dry
weather together with the implementation of site speed limits
set at a
maximum of 10 mph as appropriate.
• All haul lorries shall be appropriately sheeted and stockpiles
of fine
materials shall be covered or damped down as required.
• The MWC contractor shall ensure that public highways are kept
clear
of mud and other debris that may have been tracked from the
site.
• Extra care will be taken to minimise airborne cement dust.
• Any grit blasting operations shall be shielded.
• The monitoring of dust shall form part of the daily site
inspections and
part of the traffic light monitoring system.
1.61 A pollution prevention plan (PPP) must also be submitted to
the local
planning authority for approval under requirement 10. The
outline PPP
at Appendix 15.1.2 of the Code of Construction Practice sets
out
mitigation measures to control pollution to air (see section
2.3).
1.62 The applicant assumes question 1.11(a) is referring to
vehicle exhaust
emissions during the construction phase, rather than the stack
emissions
(during the operational phase). Table 5.7.1 of the ES sets out
the
mitigations measures to be implemented in respect of
construction
emissions. On the basis that these measures are implemented,
paragraph 5.7.4 of the ES concludes that there will be no
significant
effects from construction traffic emissions.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 21
b) Construction-phase dust effects mitigation measures
1.63 The outline DMP referred to above also sets out mitigation
measures in
respect of the control of construction phase dust more
generally. These
measures and the monitoring regime that is also required under
the DMP
will ensure that construction dust effects will not give rise to
any public
health risks.
c) Mitigation of potential impacts on geology, soils and
hydrogeology
1.64 Section 9.7 and Table 9.4 Summary of Assessment of the ES
outline the
potential effects on controlled waters and surface water runoff
during
construction. There are no significant potential impacts during
operation
and decommissioning phases relating to geology, soils and
hydrogeology. The outline CoCP and Water Management Plan
(WMP)
also set out mitigation measures in respect of spoil
/material
management and control of construction phase dust more
generally. These mitigation measures and the monitoring regime
that is
also required under the WMP will ensure that any effects on
geology,
soils and hydrogeology will not give rise to any public health
risks.
d) Mitigation of any adverse effects on controlled waters from
intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water
1.65 The CoCP and WMP provide details of how any intermittent,
construction
derived discharges of water will be controlled throughout the
construction
phase. Through the implementation of the COCP and WMP (as
secure
by Requirement 10), any adverse effects will be managed to
an
acceptable level.
e) Mitigation of any adverse effects on controlled waters from
intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water
1.66 The WMP provides details of how any intermittent,
construction derived
discharges of water will be controlled throughout the
construction phase.
There will be no discharges during operation and
decommissioning
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 22
phase. Due to the scale of the electrical connection works, the
distance
of the Middle Mother Ditch and other watercourses outside the
Order
Limits, it is unlikely that there would be any significant
potential adverse
effects to these receptors. Nevertheless, through the
implementation of
the CoCP and WMP (mandatory by Requirement 10), any adverse
effects will be managed to an acceptable level.
Question 1.12
1.67 Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (NPTCBC) - Can
the
applicant provide an update of their position regarding
agreement with
NPTCBC on the following issues:
a) Dispersion modelling of air quality in relation to nitrogen
dioxide,
sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulates (PM10
and PM2.5);
b) Confirmation that there will be no increase in overall
air
emissions should existing power generation and Phase 1 of
Option 2 be operational concurrently;
c) Mitigation measures for construction dust through
implementation of an approved Dust Management Plan (DMP);
d) Mitigation measures to limit construction noise and vibration
to
acceptable levels;
e) Restrictions on working hours;
f) Maximum final dimensions and finishes of project buildings
to
minimise visual impact;
g) Translocation of protected species (kidney vetch);
h) Further surveys for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder Bees;
i) Construction traffic management plan; and
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 23
j) Petroleum carbon analysis within site investigations to
determine
human health risk.
Response
1.68 The applicant and NPTCBC propose to enter into a SoCG and
it is
anticipated that this will record the position of the parties in
relation to all
of the issues listed in this question. Discussions regarding the
SOCG
are ongoing, but the applicant's provisional understanding of
the current
position in respect of each issue is set out below.
a) Dispersion modelling of air quality in relation to nitrogen
dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulates
(PM10 and PM2.5)
1.69 The applicant believes that NPTCBC is satisfied with the
dispersion
modelling carried out by the applicant which assesses the impact
of
nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine
particulates
(PM10 and PM2.5). Discussions have been held with Martin
Hooper,
Pollution Control Officer at NPTCBC. When asked about the
stack
modelling, Mr Hooper indicated that he would not be commenting
on the
stack dispersion modelling but would accept the outcome of the
NRW
review of the air quality assessment and modelling. The
Council's
position will be confirmed in the SOCG.
b) Confirmation that there will be no increase in overall air
emissions should existing power generation and Phase 1 of Option 2
be operational concurrently
1.70 The applicant assessment concludes that overall aerial
emissions from
the steel works will not increase in Phase 1 of Option 2. This
is due to
the fact that it is not economical to operate the new boiler on
natural gas.
As such, the new boiler will operate using gas from the blast
furnaces
that would otherwise be flared on the site meaning that overall
aerial
emissions would not increase. The applicant is seeking
NPTCBC's
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 24
agreement to this point and the Council's position will be
confirmed in the
SOCG.
c) Mitigation measures for construction dust
1.71 Requirement 10 of the draft DCO reflects NPTCBC's request
that the
DCO be subject to a requirement that a dust management plan
(DMP) be
approved by the authority prior to the commencement of
construction
and NPTCBC has indicated that it is satisfied with this wording.
The
position will be confirmed in the SOCG.
d) Mitigation measures to limit construction noise and
vibration
1.72 Requirement 11 of the draft DCO reflects NPTCBC's request
that the
DCO be subject to suitable noise controls during the
construction phase.
This requirement requires a noise management plan (which must
include
a construction vibration risk assessment) to be approved by the
authority
prior to the commencement of construction and NPTCBC has
indicated
in its relevant representation that it is satisfied with this
wording, but the
position will be confirmed in due course in the SOCG.
e) Restrictions on working hours;
1.73 The applicant notes NPTCBC's relevant representation
regarding the
proposed working hours in requirement 14. This issue will be
discussed
with NPTCBC with a view to seeking an agreement and the
confirmed
position will be set out in the SOCG.
f) Maximum final dimensions and finishes of project
buildings
1.74 The applicant has discussed the maximum building parameters
and the
requirement to obtain approval of building finishes with NPTCBC.
The
applicant also discussed the proposed revisions to the
maximum
parameters with NPTCBC before submitting details of these to
the
Examining Authority on 9 December 2014. The parties' position on
these
issues will be confirmed in the SOCG.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 25
g) Translocation of protected species (kidney vetch)
1.75 In order to facilitate the site investigation works which
are currently taking
place on site, the kidney vetch identified in the ES has already
been
translocated in accordance with the methodology set out in
Appendix 6.7
of the ES. Reports detailing this translocation have been sent
to
NPTCBC for their comment, and the parties' position will be set
out in the
SOCG.
h) Further surveys for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder Bees
1.76 The applicant understood from the pre-application
consultation with
NPTCBC that further surveys for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder
Bees
were not required. The applicant is seeking clarification from
the Council
and the position will be confirmed in the SOCG.
i) Construction traffic management plan
1.77 NPTCBC has requested that a construction traffic management
plan
(CTMP) be submitted for approval by the authority. The
applicant
considers this request has been adequately addressed through
requirement 11(1)(b) in Schedule 2 to the draft DCO. The
position will be
confirmed in the SOCG.
j) Petroleum carbon analysis within site investigations to
determine human health risk
1.78 The site investigations that are currently ongoing will
include a specific
petroleum hydrocarbon analysis. The results of this work will be
shared
with NPTCBC in early 2015 so that appropriate measures, if
necessary,
can be included in the DCO.
Question 1.13
1.79 Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council (RCTCBC) – Can
the
applicant state whether there any outstanding highways issues
that need
to be agreed with RCTCBC.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 26
Response
1.80 A late representation was submitted by RCTCBC (dated 23rd
October
2014) during the Pre-Examination phase. This was accepted as
a
relevant representation by the Examining Authority in the Rule 6
letter
dated 13 November 2014. The representation submitted by
RCTCBC
concludes that: "The proposed development has no significant
adverse
impact on RCTCBC local and strategic highway network and
therefore
no highway objection is raised."
1.81 The applicant has contacted RCTCBC seeking confirmation
that there
are no outstanding highways issues that need to be agreed
between
RCTCBC and the applicant.
Question 1.14
1.82 Coal reserves - Can the applicant provide a quantitative
assessment of
the extent of potential sterilisation of coal reserves
associated with the
development.
Response
1.83 As per our response to Question 1.05, the Applicant
contacted the Coal
Authority on the 21st November via email and advised that
site
investigation works are currently ongoing onsite and that these
works
would confirm whether coal deposits are present in the area
beneath the
proposed development, and if so, the extent and depth of the
coal
present.
1.84 The Applicant offered to present an interim report to the
Coal Authority in
early 2015. The Coal Authority responded on the 3rd December
2014
(email received from Mark Harrison) who welcomed the site
investigation
works and that they would like to receive the results in the new
year.
The Coal Authority has confirmed that it will enter into a
Statement of
Common Ground on this basis.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 27
Question 1.15
1.85 Electric and/or magnetic fields – Can the applicant provide
evidence that
the location, design, construction and operation of the power
station and
associated distribution infrastructure will ensure compliance
with the
current ICNIRP guidelines.
Response
1.86 The applicant considers that the only element of the
proposed
development that could give rise to electric and/or magnetic
fields is the
66kV electrical cables connection forming Work No. 2.
1.87 The World Health Organisation advises that, beneath
overhead electricity
lines, magnetic fields can be about 20 µT
(http://www.who.int/peh-
emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/).
1.88 This is considerably lower than the safe exposure levels
set out in the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP)
guidelines. In 1998, the ICNIRP issued revised guidelines giving
a
reference level of 100 μT for safe public exposure to magnetic
fields at
power frequencies. In 2010, the ICNIRP increased this reference
level to
a less stringent 200μT, although the previous reference level of
100 μT
remains the basis of UK guidance.
1.89 It is anticipated that the majority of the electrical
connection forming Work
No. 2 will be installed underground, therefore it is expected
that the
magnetic field level will be significantly less than 20 µT. Even
in the
event that the electrical cables were installed above ground,
the
magnetic field level potentially generated by a 66kV electrical
cable will
be significantly below the current ICNIRP guidelines of 100
μT.
1.90 Accordingly, the applicant considers that the authorised
development will
operate in compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 28
2.0 COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
Question 2.01
2.1 Does the applicant expect the representations from statutory
undertakers
to be withdrawn and if so by what date or alternatively whether
it intends
to present evidence that the tests set out in s127 and s138 are
met. The
applicant is notified that unless such evidence is presented
sufficiently
early in the examination (for example at the application stage)
for it to be
examined it may not be possible to conclude that any
statutory
undertakers land or rights may be acquired.
Response
2.2 The applicant expects all representations from statutory
undertakers to
be withdrawn on the basis of appropriate protective provisions
being
agreed with each undertaker. At this stage, the applicant
expects the
withdrawal of all representations from statutory undertakers to
be
confirmed to the Examining Authority by mid-March 2015.
Question 2.02
2.3 Order land limits - Can the applicant provide justification
for the dimensions of the order land identified on the land plans
as 01/07 and
02/04.
Response
2.4 Plot number 01/07 will accommodate utilities and
communications pipes (forming part of Work No. 1C) which will
connect Work No. 1A to the
existing on-site infrastructure situated on the other side of
the Ogmore
Vale Railway Line from the proposed site of the generating
station.
2.5 The width length of plot 01/07 (across the railway line) is
determined by
the extent of the Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ownership
at this
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 29
location. As the Applicant owns the land either side of the
railway line,
no further land or rights are required to enable the connections
to be run
from the new generating station into the existing
infrastructure.
2.6 The width of plot 01/07 has been determined to allow
sufficient flexibility
as to the placement of the new connections as part of Work No.
1C. As
the exact locations where these connections will ingress and
egress
Work No. 1A have yet to be determined and will not be known
until the
detailed design stage, the exact angle and route of approach
that the
new connections will take into the existing connections and
where they
will cross the railway line within plot 01/07 is not yet known.
Once the
construction of the connections within plot 01/07 has been
completed
and the final location of the connections known, the Applicant
will only
acquire easements over the area actually required.
2.7 Plot number 02/04 is required to accommodate the 66kV cables
electrical which form part of Work No. 2 connecting Work No. 1A to
the
Grange and Cefn Gwrgan substations.
2.8 The length of plot 02/04 (across the railway line) is
determined by the
extent of the Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ownership at
this
location. As the Applicant owns the land either side of the
railway line,
no further land or rights are required to enable the 66kV cable
to
continue its route from Work No. 1A to the Grange and Cefn
Gwrgan
substations.
2.9 The width of plot 02/04 is dictated by the width of the
limits of deviation
for Work No.2. The limits of deviation have been drawn to
allow:
• an excavated trench to be cut at a sufficient angle to allow
access
underneath the railway line; and
• a sufficient degree of flexibility so that those designing and
laying the
cable route can adapt to local ground conditions and the
location of
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 30
existing services which will only become fully apparent when
the
cables trench is excavated.
Question 2.03
2.10 Jointly agreed statements – Can the applicant provide a
jointly agreed
statement between the applicant and each affected party as to
the
progress made in, and current position of, negotiations on
reaching
agreement on the acquisition of land, rights or easements as
applicable.
In each case, state whether or not all reasonable alternatives
to
compulsory acquisition have been explored – including the use of
way
leaves, temporary access, private treaty, option agreement and
other
agreements – and, if so, why have those alternatives been
rejected.
Response
2.11 The only party affected by the powers of compulsory
acquisition in the
Order is Network Rail Infrastructure Limited. The following
joint
statement has been agreed between the applicant and Network
Rail.
2.12 The rights sought by the applicant over Network Rail
property are
easements to cross the Ogmore Vale railway line in two locations
with
utilities pipes and a 66kV electrical cable respectively. The
rights are
described in the book of reference (doc ref. 4.03) in relation
to plots
01/07 and 02/04.
2.13 The draft Order includes protective provisions for the
benefit of Network
Rail which provide that the applicant may not exercise powers
of
compulsorily acquisition over Network Rail's property except
with the
consent of Network Rail. The parties are therefore in
discussions with a
view to entering into the appropriate arrangements for the
necessary
rights over the railway line to be granted to the applicant by
agreement
rather than being acquired compulsorily under the powers in the
Order.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 31
2.14 The Applicant has provided Network Rail with information
about the
proposed crossings to enable Network Rail to undertake its
land
clearance process. Network Rail confirmed on 22 December 2014
that
the land clearance process has been completed and Network Rail
is
currently awaiting a valuation of the rights sought.
2.15 Once this valuation has been undertaken, the parties intend
to agree the
form of an option and easement agreement which will provide
the
applicant with an option to acquire the necessary easements
across the
railway line in the event that it proceeds with the proposed
development.
The agreement will also require the applicant to enter into an
Asset
Protection Agreement (APA) with Network Rail prior to any works
being
carried out over the railway.
2.16 Once the terms of an option to grant an easement and a form
of
easement have been settled, the Applicant will confirm this to
be the
mechanism through which rights over Network Rail's land will be
granted
and will further confirm that it will not exercise the
compulsory purchase
powers contained within the draft Order. Following this
confirmation
Network Rail will be in a position to withdraw its objection to
the
compulsory purchase powers included in the draft Order.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 32
3.0 DESIGN, ACCESS, LAYOUT AND VISUAL
Question 3.01
3.1 Applicant’s Letter dated 8th December
a) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their assertion
that
the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units
width
dimensions are due to “design optimisation”.
b) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their statement
that
the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units
width
dimensions are as a result of Statutory Undertaker comments.
c) Can the applicant provide a revised indicative site layout
plan
showing the revised orientation and dimensions of the turbine
hall
and cooling tower units together with the alignment of the
Dwr
Cymru Cyfyngedig Afan valley trunk sewer.
d) Can the applicant provide a table of dimensions for Option 2
Phase
1
e) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule
2
Requirement 4 (2) (b) which ensures the maximum dimensions
are
not exceeded.
f) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule
2
Requirement 20 which ensures the maximum dimensions
contained
with DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded.
g) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule
5
which ensures the maximum dimensions contained with DCO
Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 33
Response
a) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their assertion
that the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units width
dimensions are due to “design optimisation”
3.2 Design development work has been ongoing since the
submission of the
DCO application. The designers have proposed the revised changes
to
the turbine hall and cooling towers for the reasons set out
below.
3.3 The increase to the width of the turbine hall will allow the
steam turbines
to be positioned such that the overall footprint of the building
could be
reduced. Initial indications are that the optimised turbine hall
footprint
could potentially be reduced by ~30-40% (when compared to
maximum
footprint currently described in the DCO) saving around £1.5-2m
in
material and construction costs. In addition the revised
positioning of the
turbines, allowed for by the wider building, minimises the
length of high
pressure steam pipe-work connecting the boiler to the turbine
thereby
reducing cost and minimising any risks associated with high
pressure
steam. Finally the revised positioning of the turbines allows
for a much
smaller span for the turbine hall crane - again reducing
costs.
3.4 The increased cooling tower width dimensions allow for a
better fit on the
site especially with respect to the town sewer and also allows
for the
addition of acoustic cladding (if required) to minimise noise
from the
units.
b) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their statement
that the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units width
dimensions are as a result of Statutory Undertaker comments
3.5 One of the factors that led to the revised parameters being
developed
was the dimensions of the protective envelope which Welsh
Water
require around the Afan Valley trunk sewer.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 34
3.6 The initial indicative layout of the plant was developed on
the basis that it
was possible to build above the alignment of the sewer. This
assumption
was made on the basis that the former coke ovens at the
steelworks had
previously stood at this location. However, following a
condition survey
the sewer and ongoing consultation with Welsh Water, it was
established
that a protective envelope would need to be included around
the
alignment of the sewer. The dimensions of the protective
envelope were
confirmed in an email to the applicant dated 19 November
2014
(included at Appendix B).
3.7 A revised layout has therefore been developed which avoids
the need to
build above the sewer. This revised layout has necessitated
amendments to the proposed widths of the turbine hall and
cooling tower
unit (as set out in response to question 3.01(a) above).
c) Can the applicant provide a revised indicative site layout
plan showing the revised orientation and dimensions of the turbine
hall and cooling tower units together with the alignment of the Dwr
Cymru Cyfyngedig Afan valley trunk sewer.
3.8 See the revised plan at Appendix C.
d) Can the applicant provide a table of dimensions for Option 2
Phase 1
3.9 The Applicant proposes to add the following table to
Requirement 4(2) in
the next iteration of the DCO which provides the maximum
parameters
for Option 2 Phase 1:
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 35
(1)
Element of
authorised
development
(2)
max. height
(m)
(3)
max. width
(m)
(4)
max. length
(m)
(5)
Other
parameters
Stacks 80 - - maximum of 1
Cooling tower
unit 22 25 80
maximum
area of
1,280m2
maximum
volume of
28,160m3
Turbine hall 25 45 55
maximum
area of
2,475m2
maximum
volume of
61,875m3
Boiler house 35 (at apex) 45 60 -
Switchgear
station 20 55 35
-
3.10 In addition, the applicant will be providing parameters for
other elements
of Work No. 1 - see the applicant's response to Questions 4.05,
4.06 and
4.08.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 36
e) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 2
Requirement 4 (2) (b) which ensures the maximum dimensions are not
exceeded.
3.11 The applicant does not consider that requirement 4(2)(b)
needs to be
revised to ensure that the maximum parameters are not exceeded.
The
drafting already provides that the maximum parameters must not
be
exceeded except where amendments to those parameters have
been
approved by the relevant planning authority in accordance
with
requirement 20(1).
3.12 The applicant considers that the ability to amend the
parameters in
clearly defined circumstances is necessary to ensure the DCO
provides
a degree of flexibility to accommodate a final design which
could involve
small extensions to those parameters.
3.13 As is normal for a project of this type, a detailed design
has not yet been
developed and this will be prepared by a contractor who will
be
appointed in due course. If the final design exceeded any of
the
maximum parameters specified in requirement 4, the procedure
specified
in requirement 20(1) would allow the relevant planning authority
to
approve amendments to those parameters.
3.14 Crucially, requirement 20(2) provides that approval of any
such
amendments may only be given where it has been demonstrated to
the
satisfaction of the relevant planning authority that those
amendments
would not give rise to any materially new or materially
different
environmental effects to those assessed in the ES. Accordingly,
only
amendments which remain within the scope of the likely
significant
effects identified in the ES could be approved.
3.15 Requirement 20 is based on requirement 37 in Schedule 4 to
the Model
Provisions. This provides that the IPC (now abolished) may
approve
subsequent amendments to any details approved following the
grant of
development consent. The model requirement does not expressly
state
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 37
the parameters within which subsequent amendments may be
approved,
whereas requirement 20 expressly provides that amendments to
the
parameters may only be approved to the extent that they would
not give
rise to any materially new or materially different environmental
effects to
those assessed in the ES. This wording ensures that the scheme
that is
implemented cannot be materially different from that assessed in
the ES
and, in practice, means that only minor extensions to the
parameters
could be approved.
3.16 There are precedents for DCOs providing flexibility in
terms equivalent to
this. For example, requirement 3 of the Network Rail (Ipswich
Chord)
Order 2012 provides that the authorised development "must be
carried
out in accordance with the design drawings certified under
article 32
(certification of plans etc.) unless otherwise approved by the
relevant
planning authority". In that case, the ability for variations to
certified
plans to be agreed with the relevant planning authority is not
expressly
constrained by any reference to the scope of the environmental
impact
assessment.
3.17 The same wording is used in the National Grid (North
London
Reinforcement Project) Order 2014, but in that case the ability
for the
relevant authority to agree variations to the certified plans is
qualified by
wording which provides that such variations may only be approved
"in
relation to immaterial changes where it has been demonstrated to
the
satisfaction of the relevant planning authority or relevant
highway
authority that the subject matter of the approval or agreement
sought is
unlikely to give rise to any materially new or materially
different
environmental effects from those assessed in the
environmental
statement" (see requirement 17).
3.18 Requirement 34 in Schedule 1 to the East Anglia ONE
Offshore Wind
Farm Order 2014 provides that the relevant planning authority
may
approve amendments or variations to approved details "in
relation to
immaterial changes where it has been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 38
the relevant planning authority or that other person that the
subject
matter of the agreement sought is unlikely to give rise to any
materially
new or materially different environmental effects from those
assessed in
the environmental statement."
3.19 The applicant considers that the scope of flexibility
provided by
requirements 4 and 20 is consistent with the approach adopted
in
previous DCOs such as these.
f) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 2
Requirement 20 which ensures the maximum dimensions contained with
DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded
3.20 For the reasons given in response to Question 3.01(e)
above, the
applicant does not consider that it is necessary to amend the
drafting of
requirement 20.
g) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 5
which ensures the maximum dimensions contained with DCO Schedule 2
Requirement 4 are not exceeded
3.21 For the reasons given in response to Question 3.01(e)
above, the
applicant does not consider it is necessary to amend the
drafting of
Schedule 5.
3.22 These provisions purely relate to the procedure by which
any application
for a consent, agreement or approval requirement by a
requirement may
be determined. In particular, the provisions in paragraph 1(3)
expressly
provide that the deemed approval mechanism in paragraph 1(2)
would
not apply to an application to amend the maximum parameters in
the
event that those amendments would be likely to give rise to
any
materially new or materially different environmental effects to
those
assessed in the ES.
3.23 This ensures that amendments to the parameters may only be
approved
by the relevant planning authority where it has been
demonstrated to the
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 39
satisfaction of the relevant planning authority that those
amendments
would not give rise to any materially new or materially
different
environmental effects.
Question 3.02
3.24 Plumes – Can the applicant confirm that there will be no
plumes resulting
from either the burning or cooling operations of the
proposed
development.
Response
3.25 The applicant can confirm that the proposed development
will be
designed to ensure there are no visible plumes from cooling or
burning
operations during normal operating and climactic conditions.
3.26 The cooling tower unit forming part of the proposed
development will be
a modern hybrid system, or a more advanced technology, and will
be
designed to result in no visible plumes (except in exceptionally
adverse
weather conditions). The use of such systems is generally
considered as
the 'best available technique'.
3.27 Burning operations at the proposed development will not
give rise to
visible plumes from the boiler stacks. This is because of the
high
temperature and low moisture content of the process gas that is
to be
combusted.
Question 3.03
3.28 Durability – Can the applicant provide evidence as to the
durability of the
proposed 0.7mm thick metal cladding for the buildings in
relation to the
marine coastal environment in which the building will be
located.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 40
Response
3.29 The 0.7mm cladding which is referred to in the
Environmental Statement
is a preliminary selection by the Applicant.
3.30 At the detailed design stage the Applicant would finalise
the style and
thickness of the external materials of the building to ensure
that they are
appropriate to accommodate the final design and external
factors,
including the marine coastal environment.
3.31 NPTCBC will have the opportunity to input into these
proposals at the
detailed design stage and to ensure that the Applicant's
proposed
cladding material is sufficiently durable and suitable for the
coastal
location. Under requirement 4(3)(b) of Schedule 2 to the draft
DCO the
Applicant's proposals for the 'colour, materials and surface
finishes of all
permanent buildings and structures' have to be submitted to
NPTCBC for
approval before works can commence.
Question 3.04
3.32 Health & safety – Can the applicant provide evidence of
their
consultations with the H&SE regarding the identification and
mitigation of
risks to site operatives and the local community during the
construction,
operation and decommissioning phases.
Response
3.33 The applicant has carried out the following consultation
with the H&SE to
obtain the H&SE's views on the identification and mitigation
of risks to
site operatives and the local community arising from the
project:
1) The H&SE was consulted at part of the EIA consultation on
the
scoping report (September 2013). The H&SE's response (dated
22
October 2013) appears in Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 41
2) The proposed development was discussed in a meeting
between
the applicant and the H&SE in November 2013 as part of
the
applicant’s process of engagement with relevant regulators
and
stakeholders.
3) The H&SE was consulted at part of the applicant's s42
consultation
on the proposed development. The H&SE's formal response to
the
s42 consultation was received on 14 March 2014 and is
appended
to this document at Appendix D.
3.34 A Health & Safety Statement (Document Ref: 10.05) was
submitted as
part of the DCO application. This confirms that the H&SE was
consulted
by the applicant about the proposed development and sets out
the
results of that consultation in terms of the identification and
mitigation of
risks to site operatives and the local community arising from
the project.
3.35 In particular, the statement confirms that, as suggested by
the H&SE,
that an addendum to the applicant's 2013 Safety Report will be
prepared
which will fully describe any potential increase in the on-site
or off-site
risks and the measures being put in place to control them to
ALARP.
Question 3.06
3.36 Working corridor – Can the applicant clarify their
statement “much less in
reality than shown” and confirm whether such would reduce the
extent of
the compulsory acquisition powers sought.
Response
3.37 The permanent cable trench and the temporary working
corridor required
during installation will both be narrower than the limits of
deviation for
Work No. 2 shown on the Works Plan.
3.38 The applicant expects the width of the working corridor to
be
approximately 5 metres. However, the limits of deviation for
Work No. 2
are wider than this and reflect the need for flexibility as to
the final
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 42
alignment of the cables installation. Where there are existing
services
already in place, deeper trenches will be needed which will
require a
wider excavating area. Those designing and laying the cable
route
require room to adapt to local ground conditions and the
location of
existing services, which may only become fully apparent when the
cables
trench is excavated. At present, the applicant cannot determine
where
within the limits of deviation the cables will be laid and,
therefore, where
the working corridor will be situated within these limits.
3.39 The majority of Work No. 2 is on the applicant's land and
therefore is not
subject to powers of compulsory acquisition. The only two
parcels which
are subject to powers of compulsory acquisition are the two
sections of
the Ogmore Vale Railway Line owned by Network Rail
Infrastructure
Limited. Paragraph 4 of the Protective Provisions agreed with
NR
provides that the applicant may only acquire or use NR land with
NR's
prior consent. Therefore, the width of the working corridor and
the
permanent easement that is proposed to be acquired over these
two
parcels of land will be determined by agreement with NR.
Consequently,
there is no requirement to reduce the extent of compulsory
purchase
powers provided for in the draft DCO.
3.40 As noted in the response to question 4.08, the applicant
will specify in
requirement 4 of Schedule 2 to the next draft of the DCO a
maximum
width of 4 metres for the cables where installed below ground
or
supported by existing above-ground structures.
Question 3.07
3.41 Decommissioning – Can the applicant provide an indicative
programme
for the subsequent decommissioning of the newly redundant plant
in
relation to the cessation of emissions, noise etc.
Response
3.42 See indicative programme at Appendix E.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 43
Question 3.08
3.43 Commencement of Option 1 Phase 2 – Can the applicant
confirm and
define the milestone that will become the start date for the
“within 10
years” period.
Response
3.44 If the authorised development is constructed in two stages,
the start date
for the 10 year period within which the second stage must
commence is
the commencement of the first stage of the authorised
development.
3.45 "Commencement" is defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 as
meaning
the carrying out of any material operation comprised in or
carried out for
the purposes of the authorised development. This definition
mirrors the
drafting of section 155 of the Planning Act 2008 (when
development
begins).
Question 3.09
3.46 Cooling water – Can the applicant quantify the extent of
make-up water
that is anticipated to sustain the open circuit cooling.
Response
3.47 Initial thermal design of the plant has shown an actual
water make up
requirement of approximately 250m3/hr (blowdown and
evaporative
losses) for the cooling towers at the normal base case
operation.
Maximum requirements at abnormal operating conditions are
~340m3/hr.
3.48 These levels are significantly lower than those assessed in
the ES which
was prepared on a precautionary 'worse-case' basis. In addition
the
anticipated blowdown requirement from the new boilers is only
20m3/hr
which is again significantly less than the 150m3/hr assumed in
the ES
and is likely to be a net reduction in abstraction for this
requirement when
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 44
considerate is recognised that the blowdown from the existing
boilers
which are to be decommissioned is currently more than this.
3.49 The applicant has assessed the used worst case in the ES
and this is
shown on Figure 14.2 and 14.3 and outlined within Appendix 14.6
and
14.7 and in the following sections within the ES which quantify
the extent
of make-up water required:
"Paragraph 14.7.17 - The cooling towers will require
approximately 600
m3/hr of water abstraction to compensate for evaporation and
drift losses
(approximately 300 m3/hr) and blow down loses (approximately
300
m3/hr) respectively. A further abstraction volume of
approximately 150
m3/hr will be required to compensate for the new proposed
boilers blow
down losses. This gives a total abstraction requirement of
approximately
750 m3/hr (7,000,000 m3/yr).
Paragraph 14.7.18 - As mentioned, this abstraction volume will
be an
additional abstraction requirement from the River Afan on top of
the
current average Port Talbot site abstraction rate at 10,000,000
m3/yr
(based on April 2011- March 2012 abstraction data – Appendix
14.8,
Table 14.8.1). However, the additional abstraction required for
the
proposed new boilers will be negated by the decommissioning of
the four
old boilers, making the total additional abstraction requirement
for the
proposed development during operation approximately 600
m3/hr
(5,000,000 m3/yr). This gives an overall abstraction requirement
of
approximately 15,000,000 m3/yr. This is above the current
abstraction
license for the River Afan (14,933,610 m3/yr), however it is
unlikely that
in reality the additional abstraction required will exceed the
current
licensed limit as the volumes outlined above have been estimated
and
rounded to provide an upper limit of abstraction."
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 45
Question 3.10
3.50 Cooling water – Can the applicant quantify the statement
“significantly
less water volumes will be required for the operation of the
proposed
development than the present system”.
Response
3.51 The proposed development will result in a significant
reduction in
abstraction water (due to decommissioning of once-through
cooling
systems on the old turbines). However, there will be a net
increase in
consumptive losses due to evaporation and blowdown from
cooling
towers, although this will be significantly less than originally
assessed in
ES as outlined in response to question 3.09.
3.52 Appendices 14.6 and 14.7 of the ES provide summaries of
proposed
water volumes from current operations compared to the
proposed
development. Appendices 14.6 and 14.7 calculate that the total
gross
abstraction with the proposed development will decrease by 64%
for
Option 1, and increase by 2% increase for Option 2 Phase 1. This
is
considered to be the worst case scenario as future actual losses
are
currently unknown.
Question 3.11
3.53 Plumes – Can the applicant provide evidence of the design
methods and
standards that will be applied to “address any potential
visibility issues
from the release of plumes”.
Response
3.54 See the answer to question 3.02.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First
Round of Written Questions
January 2015 46
Question 3.12
3.55 Natural gas usage – Can the applicant quantify the likely
extent, duration
and frequency of natural gas usage.
Response
3.56 During normal operation process gases, mainly Blast Furnace
Gas
(BFG), will be fired on the boilers. The Natural gas will be
used for;
1) Boiler start up which is normally required after a statutory
shutdown
every 2 years or in the event of any unplanned extended
downtime
of the boiler for example a failure of a component or boiler
tube leak.
2) Flame stabilisation which is required if and when the
calorific value
(CV) of the BFG drops below 3 MJ/m3. This is not normal
operation
and can occur as a result of various operational issues with the
blast
furnaces. Based on operational experience, this drop in CV is
only
expected to occur for a few hours, on approximately two
occasions a
year.
3) Maintaining minimum load of the boiler/turbine. This scenario
would
occur if and when the boiler loses its main fuel supply of
BFG.
Natural gas would then be utilised to maintain minimum load to
keep
the boiler/turbine operational. The minimum load is
approximately
50% (subject to confirmation as the design develops) of the
overall
boiler capacity. Based on initial estimates, approximately
15000
m3/hr of natural gas per boiler will be required to maintain
boiler(s)
on minimum load. This scenario could occur when a blast
furnace
goes offline for maintenance on a planned basis or has to
come
offline in an unplanned fashion (either for problems within the
Bla