In January 2006, the Welsh Assembly Government launched the Coal MTAN Consultation Draft. The purpose of the Minerals Technical Advice Note (Wales) is to set out detailed mechanisms for delivering the policy for coal extraction by Mineral Planning Authorities and the coal industry, but should be read in conjunction with Minerals Planning Policy Wales.
This report is the response to the Consultation Draft by Miller Argent (South Wales) Limited ("Miller Argent").
Miller Argent is the developer of the Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme, which includes the extraction of coal by open cast methods near Merthyr Tydfil. This scheme will reclaim c.1,000 acres of acutely derelict, unsafe, unproductive and unsightly land, as well as releasing a coal resource of circa 10.8 million tonnes.
The coal extracted from this scheme will be sent by rail southwards to Aberthaw Power Station, which currently generates some 42% of the electricity required in South Wales.
Whilst obviously in favour of indigenous coal extraction, Miller Argent has tried to look objectively at the Coal MTAN. The principle of the Coal MTAN is welcomed, but it must provide clear, coherent and technically competent guidance to local authorities, consulting bodies, objectors and coal operators, to enable appropriate coal schemes to come forward with minimum delay within Wales.
The UK Government also issued the latest Energy Review for consultation in January 2006.
The objectives of the Review were to address the UK's energy challenge in securing clean, affordable energy for the long term.
Prior to the end of 2005, greater emphasis was being placed on the use of gas to meet our country's energy demands. However, Security of Supply has become a major issue, particularly with Russia turning off the gas to the Ukraine and putting strain on supplies to Western Europe.
In addition, it should be remembered that gas-fired generation also produces CO2, albeit approximately half that produced by coal. However, this means if we turned to 80% gas and 20% renewables, it is doubtful we would meet the UK Government's challenge to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050, if the current demand for electricity in the UK continues.
Nuclear energy is clearly one solution but, before it is embraced, the issue of dealing with nuclear waste and the decommissioning of the plants needs to be addressed. Also, if the costs of dealing with the waste were included in the price of producing nuclear electricity, it would no longer be competitive.
The Energy Review looks at all sources of energy and has clearly identified a Role for Coal in the short to medium term. Already, a number of existing coal fire stations have started to fit Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) to remove up to 95% of the sulphur dioxide from emissions by 2008.
In addition, the Government is supporting the development of clean coal technology - this includes the retro-fitting with supercritical boilers, which increases efficiency and therefore reduces emissions per MW of electricity produced.
However, Miller Argent believes the long term solution in reducing CO2 emissions is the development of carbon capture and storage ("CCS"), which can be used in both gas and coal-fired power stations.
Miller Argent also fully supports the development of renewables where economically feasible. However, in the case of wind generation, it must be remembered that the wind in the UK does not always blow. When this occurs, back-up generation is required, of which the only current forms are gas and coal.
In conclusion, Miller Argent fully supports the need for a balanced, mixed energy portfolio, within which there is an essential Role for Coal. Furthermore, as Security of Supply becomes more of an issue there is a strong argument for the promotion and use of indigenous coal particularly in Wales.
Wales as a whole currently has a fairly balanced energy portfolio, combining gas, nuclear, renewables and coal, and generates enough electricity to meet current demand. However, due to the lack of distribution network between North and South Wales, South Wales has to import power from England. As a result, South Wales has one of the highest electricity prices in the UK. This not only makes it less affordable for more people in South Wales, but also starts to make it a less competitive market, particularly in industries such as manufacturing with large power requirements.
Whilst wind generation is laudable and more feasible in certain parts of Wales, it still needs back-up generation and its overall contribution to the total electricity required is minimal.
The major power station in Wales is Aberthaw Power Station, which is coal-fired and generates c.42% of the power for South Wales. Following the grant of planning permission for Ffos-y-fran, RWE (the owner of Aberthaw) committed c.£200m to fit FGD, renew the turbines and carry out a number of refurbishment projects in 2006, thus setting the framework to prolong the station's life into 2018-2022. Furthermore on fitting FGD the station is expected to operate at a higher load factor and therefore burn more coal.
Aberthaw currently relies on 50% of its coal stocks to come from indigenous sources. The remainder comes from imports, one of which is Russian coal and thus reignites the debate over Security of Supply. It is hoped therefore that indigenous sources of coal can continue to supply 50% of Aberthaw Power Station’s coal requirements, supplying Welsh Coal to a Welsh Power Station for the production of electricity for the people of Wales.
Aberthaw Power Station was specifically designed and built to burn Welsh Dry Steam Coal. The characteristics of this type of coal cannot be found anywhere else in the UK. There is, therefore, a clear and identifiable need to maintain future supplies of indigenous Welsh coal.
The Welsh Assembly Government set out its energy policy in 2004, highlighting five important elements:-
1. Energy efficiency
2. Renewable energy
3. Energy infrastructure
4. Encouraging the production of electricity from clean coal power stations
5. Lowering carbon dioxide emissions
The Welsh Assembly Government quite rightly sees a long term future for coal.
"Welsh indigenous coal is not only crucial for the continued Secure Supply of electricity to Wales as part of a balanced energy mix, but is also a major employer and key contributor to the economy."
Miller Argent welcomes the introduction of the Coal MTAN as a general principle. It is an important document that should set out the future role for coal in Wales and how this can be achieved.
It should not only be welcomed by coal contractors/developers, but also by the local communities, local authorities and the consultees in the planning process. Clear, coherent and technically competent guidance helps reduce the potential conflict between parties and give adequate comfort and protection for those that will be affected by coal mining activities.
The foregoing has to be the key objective of all parties and the Welsh Assembly Government.
Miller Argent believes that the draft Coal MTAN is worded in such a way that would prejudice coal compared with other minerals.
Technical Advice Notes should be exactly as their name suggests; advice notes based on sound technical logic.
Parts of the Coal MTAN, as drafted, constitute a "presumption against" coal, which clearly is not the objective of the Welsh Government, following their comments on energy policy.
Miller Argent has, therefore, used its experience of working in the industry and recent experience on the Ffos-y-fran Reclamation Scheme planning process, to provide a rational basis for the detailed comments that follow in section 5.
This section sets out Miller Argent's detailed response to the Coal MTAN.
The paragraph numbering refers to the equivalent paragraph numbers in the Consultation draft Coal MTAN document, issued by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG).
Para 7
The MTAN should also seek to set out how the impacts should be assessed, mitigation measures to be adopted and what restraints should be placed on such developments.
Para 8
After the words “clean coal technology” suggest adding “(including the use of flue gas desulphurisation)”, as it is not clear that this is acceptable as confirmed by WAG.
Para 11
Suggest reference to the Energy Review paper (Jan 06) and the positive comments about coal (71 references to coal in all). With further reference to the issues of Security of Supply and a continued role for coal, and particularly the relevance of indigenous coal for Wales.
Para 12
Dry Steam Coal is also used for the steam locomotive industry which plays an important part in the tourist industry.
Para 17
Our experience is that the ratio of indirect jobs is a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 times the number of the directly employed workforce on opencast mines. Suggest speak to T&GWU to verify this. Your figures may be for deep mines.
Para 19
We have obtained a copy of the coal resources map from the BGS and feel we need to ensure that the area definedas the primary coal resource is clear. The plan only shows Bassett edge to Bassett edge of the primary seams, whereas the economical coal resource could exist for many hundreds of metres from the Bassett edge of a seam. There are many factors that influence this position including seam dip, topography, surface constraints, old working areas, coal washouts, working void size, coal quality, coal sales prices, etc. The plan could be taken too literally by local authority planners, objectors or statutory consultees.
Para 25
Suggest words "may become" are changed to "is becoming".
Para 28
Need to be careful in assessing at "current values" as with energy prices predicted to soar, it is likely that the value of coal could increase and therefore previously unidentified reserves may become economically viable. We presume that the coal resource plan will be continually reviewed to take account of this fact.
Separation Zones
Diagram shown on page 13 and 14 not 12 as quoted after numbered paragraph 33. We have made representation previously on the differences between buffer zones for aggregates and the greater distances that are proposed for coal. We have seen no evidence or justification as to why coal is to be prejudiced in this way.
Para 34
Is the zone to the application boundary or to the limit of excavation? Suggest latter as mitigation works or landscaping could be prohibited, which would not be in the public’s interest. (para 47 says from operational area).
Para 36
A "settlement" needs to be defined. Is it 10 houses or more?
Para 37
Why is there specific reference to cumulative effects of minerals and waste development. What is so special about this combination? As part of the planning process all cumulative effects have to be assessed if they exist. Suggest waste reference is deleted and general reference added. This is a standard requirement under any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Para 40
Duplicates paragraph 32, but by putting it under medium constraint area, suggests that it applies more to medium constraint areas than to high constraint areas. Suggest paragraph 40 is deleted.
Para 41
Suggest also add where the need for land reclamation exists.
Page 14
Is the bottom figure working ratio or geological ratio (m3/t) or (m3/m3) respectively. What is the relevance of this figure? If it is trying to demonstrate acceptable ratios this is dangerous and does not address site specific restraints.
Section A drawing
This needs redrawing to show the 200m and 350m buffers. Currently shows one 500m buffer zone. Para 53 Should also make a point that where coal extraction is used to reclaim and remediate the land, this may result in a positive contribution to the long setting or the National Park or AONB, and should therefore be encouraged, as set out in para 54.
Para 56
It is ridiculous that the Common's bill is seeking to remove the current exclusion that exists under 'Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925'. If the Bill goes through, after planning is consented an application would have to be made to DEfRA (or a different division of WAG) for consent again and possibly go through another inquiry debating the same topics.
This issue probably relates to Wales more than any other part of the UK and will slow down the delivery process rather than speed it up.
Para 62/63
Why is this more onerous than for aggregates in relation to hydrological/groundwater impact. There is no technical justification for them to be different. Why the distance of 2kms? On what scientific basis has this been derived? Should it not be site specific, Why can the Environment Agency (EA) not be relied upon as set out in Para 63?
Para 68
We fully accept key historic sites should be protected, but how is the conflict between a historic landscape and a landscape in need of remediation/reclamation resolved? This issue should be acknowledged and identify how the matter would be weighed and a balance taken.
Para 74
To clarify this paragraph suggest adding "unless properly mitigated".
Para 78
We understand BAT has been challenged successfully in the Courts and BATNEEC should be adopted instead. Best Available Techniques Not Exceeding Excessive Costs. For example (taking an extreme position), digging opencast by manual labour may be best for minimal exhaust emissions, but is expensive and ridiculous. PPC permits allow BATNEEC. In reality, what is required are "appropriate measures"?
Para 96
Liaison is very important and we endorse it. However, in appraising new sites and opportunities there is often confidentially as operators compete for sites. Therefore, to liaise with the community before exploration may be difficult, as the site at that time may not be fully secured in terms of land ownership, etc.
Paras 107 - 11
It is not clear in the draft MTAN that Health Impacts Assessments (HIA) are not mandatory. Under the EIA process these impacts are already assessed as part of the application process in any event. Generally it is acceptable as long as the extent of such work is understood and the scope set out within this document.
Para 120
Surely a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is combined with HIA and EIA? Aggregates TAN does not ask for SIA or HIA, so why is coal being singled out in this way? What evidence sets out the need for this to be done for coal and not for aggregates or other major applications of whatever type?
Para 124
It would be useful if the definitions of dust and PM10 were consistent with those used elsewhere in the draft MTAN.
Para 138
It should only be new plant that is required to be fitted with diesel particulate filters. We do not believe they can be retro-fitted to all plant that currently is employed in the industry.
Paras 147 - 156
Blasting Blasting on opencast coal sites is very different from blasting in hard rock quarries. In opencast, blasting is only deployed to loosen strata and open fissures.Whereas at hard rock quarries blasting is used to bring down rock faces and fragment rock in preparation for pre-sizing.
Para 150
To put vibration levels in context, hairline cracks in the weakest materials found in residential structures, e.g. plaster or plasterboard, should not be caused at vibration levels less than 20mm per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a frequency of 15 hertz (Hz), or lower than 50mms-1 PPV at 40Hz and above.
Para 151
Why should imperceptibility be a requirement for limiting vibration with respect to laboratories or fragile historic buildings? Any lower limit criteria for precision laboratories or historic buildings must be based on a technical requirement relating to the vibration levels that occur as a result of normal occupancy, as well as the fragility of the structure or equipment.
Para 156
There is no reason for differences in the blasting control limits for stone quarries and coal. Why is coal being prejudiced? The only blasting done on coal sites is to get through the stone. Please reinstate Aggregate TAN limits with vibration levels not to exceed peak particle vibrating of 6mms-1 PPV in 95% of blasts measured over a six month period. No individual blast should exceed a PPV of 10mms-1. If not, please provide the scientific basis and evidence as to why they should be different. Why has Saturday morning blasting been removed; it should be reinstated.
Paras 157- 165
Noise Why are the limits different from the Aggregates TAN. On what scientific basis were these new limits derived? Once again, coal is being treated differently from other minerals.
Para 172
Agree. It is useful to be able to plant/landscape in buffer zones. However, do the constraints proposed under the separation and buffer zones affect the ability to be able to do this?
Para 240
Parent company guarantees should be adequate if companies can demonstrate the necessary financial strength.
Appendix A
Coal Resources
Appendix B
Monitoring
Coal Resource Drawing
Unless you are a geologist or mining engineer this could be quite misleading, as on first glance it appears that mines can only be carried out in the area shrouded grey. It is not clear whether these economically viable seams extend under the other areas, which may also be economically viable and should be classed as a primary zone.
Glossary
Dust
The definition here is the correct one, but different to that given in the main text.
Ratio
The figure of 20:1 is quoted as some kind of limit throughout the document. This should not be a reason for refusal. If the coal has a high sale value (anthracite), then sites in excess of 20:1 could be financially viable. The definition of ratio is not clear - is it in situ m3/m3 or recoverable m3/rec t? Note: Brynhenllys site had an in-situ ratio of 29.55:1.
Appendix E
Working with other regulators E4. Implies that the PPC permit should be in place before planning permission is granted. This is not currently the case; adding more cost prior to knowing the outcome of the planning application, i.e. greater risks.
Appendix K
Blasting K2. This clause implies that, in special cases, the operator is not being required to operate at the X mm/sec for 95% of all blasts, but a more restrictive and arbitrary level that has no scientific basis. Whilst understanding the rationale behind the clause from the Mineral Planning Authority's perspective, surely a better approach would be to require that a detailed vibration and air overpressure monitoring exercise is carried out to determine the limiting values? This could be a stipulation of the clause as well as leaving the Mineral Planning Authority as the final arbiter.
Appendix N
Transport N9. Haul routes - bullet point 6 - surfacing of haul roads with compacted gravel or crushed stone is totally impractical and would be extremely expensive if this material were to be imported. Where is the environmental sense in importing stone, using road haulage vehicles, to put on a haul road made of overburden? The wording could read "Haul roads should be suitably surfaced to ensure low rolling resistance, which…"
In reviewing these comments and those of other respondents, the Welsh Assembly Government needs to be aware of the potential impact of introducing a Coal MTAN that seeks to prevent and/or hinder new Welsh coal resources being realised.
Coal for Aberthaw
If Aberthaw were to rely on more imports, not only would the security of supply issue increase, but so would the logistical restraints of being able to get the coal from port to the Power Station. Less coal means less generation. The additional environmental impacts of moving imported coal thousands of miles should also be recognised, compared to the 20-30 miles travel for indigenous sources.
Employment
The South Wales Coal Industry currently employs c. 800 people directly. The Ffos-y-fran Scheme is also expected to employ a further 200 people direct. In addition to every person employed directly, statistically there are a further 1.5-2.0 people employed indirectly in support Industries. This gives a total figure of c. 2,400 employed by the Industry. If coal schemes do not come forward these jobs will be lost; and once lost the skill base will be gone forever.
Economy
Ffos-y-fran, in employing 200 people direct, will generate c. £67m in wages (2004 rates) over the life of the project itself. The Welsh Coal Industry, as a whole, plays an important role in supporting the Welsh economy. These are highly skilled and well paid jobs, and often, as in the case of Ffos-y-fran, are located in areas suffering from some of the highest levels of unemployment in the UK.
Reclamation of Derelict Land
There still exists large tracts of derelict land in Wales from previous industrial uses (including old mine workings), which have left large scars on a previously rich landscape. Restoration of these areas is enormously expensive and often comes low on the Local Authority’s list when identifying the allocation of its financial budgets.
However, where coal underlies dereliction, opencast coal mining has an important role to play. Not only is the derelict land restored progressively as the works proceed, but the reclamation is also paid for through the sale of the coal and not from the Public Purse.
Investment
The owner of Aberthaw Power Station has committed c. £200m to the environmental upgrading of the plant and, to date, Miller Argent has committed many millions of pounds in bringing forward the Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme. These are huge financial investments and are based on there being a future for the Welsh Coal Industry.
Miller Argent has already had to withdraw from other ventures in Wales (not related to coal) because of the uncertainty over the Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme. Other investments cannot sensibly be made without some certainty and consistency in regulatory matters together with a firm core base from which it can expand.
Without a clear guide from a Coal MTAN, further investment is unlikely to be forthcoming in the Welsh Coal Industry, thus removing a key contributor to the Welsh economy. Stability is required along with a commitment to indigenous coal to warrant the long-term investments needed to keep this industry alive.
Energy for Wales
If Wales is to be self-sufficient in generating its electricity, then it must focus and promote coal in a positive way. Whilst wind power should be encouraged where possible, it is incapable of providing for base load and in any event still needs a back-up resource for when the wind doesn't blow!
Miller Argent firmly supports a balanced energy portfolio utilising a number of resources; Welsh indigenous coal has an important and essential role to play within this portfolio.
If Aberthaw Power Station is restrained by coal supplies and no new, clean coal stations come forward, South Wales will have to rely more on England and on imported gas resources. This will lead to higher electricity prices and will make Wales even less attractive for business, deterring new investments to the region, as it will be less competitive than other locations.
In conclusion, these points substantiate the need for indigenous coal to enable Wales to move forward in the future with a balanced energy portfolio. It is, therefore, extremely important that the Coal MTAN seeks to deliver this important requirement.
Whilst the concept of a Coal TAN is welcomed, it must not through onerous conditions be used to eliminate the ability to obtain indigenous coal from the Welsh coal fields. It must set out clean and coherent guidelines to enable Welsh coal to be extracted, but within acceptable environmental constraints.
It has already been demonstrated that there will be a need for coal to play a key part in the UK’s energy portfolio in the short to medium term. More importantly, with Security of Supply being one of the main areas of concern, the use of indigenous coal is even more crucial.
Aberthaw Power Station is currently being fitted with FGD and supplies 42% of South Wales' electrical demand. Once fitted with FGD, this will increase the station's coal burn and life until at least 2018-2020. The power station was designed specifically to burn Welsh dry steam coal. Other than Welsh coal, there are no other sources of indigenous supply in the UK that meet the specification for coals to be burnt at Aberthaw Power Station. The only alternative is imported coal and is currently being provided by Russian coal supplies; the same country which decided to turn off its neighbour's gas unless they paid double the price for it. Security of supply could never be more important to Wales and is recognised by the owners of Aberthaw Power Station, who have said they wish to burn 50% indigenous coal at the station.
It is, therefore, inherent upon the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that an adequate supply of indigenous coal is made available to supply Aberthaw Power Station and any other clean coal power stations that present themselves in Wales.