We attended the face to face meeting of Tuesday 25th October 2022 with HIVE Aggregates (HIVE) to hear more about the Retford Circular Economy Project (RCEP). The meeting was held at Lound Village Hall during the public participation segment of an Ordinary meeting of Lound Parish Council.
The session with HIVE was in two parts, a presentation by HIVE representatives which was largely as is available on the HIVE website as the Webinar followed by a question and answer session. In the main the questions were submitted in writing to HIVE before the meeting, read out by the Chair of Lound Parish Council (Chair) followed by a number of questions voiced by local residents at the end.
A summary of what the writer took of the presentation follows followed by a summary of the questions posed and answers given. The summary is from a recording taken of the session to which you might also refer to. You may have a different take on what we have transcribed, let us know! Where there is a number in the margin below it is a reference to the timings on the recording. You can thus jump to the specific questions and associated answers from HIVE. The timings are shown against the questions posed either as put to the HIVE representatives by the Chair or by members of the public in attendance.
HIVE Presentation
HIVE are a new company registered in 2020 but are part of the HIVE Energy Group who were established in 2010.
There were two important announcements made by HIVE that followed the introduction.
-
HIVE announced an extension to the Consultation until Friday 28th October 2022.
-
HIVE will no longer proceed with the establishment of the Temporary Optimisation Site. Meaning their processing operation will be established and will maintain at Bellmoor off the A638 gaining access via the Belmoor Quarry access.
The change of plans will mean that HGV’s serving HIVE will not need to access Chainbridge/Lound Village. As the plant will be remote from the biodigester, there will be no biogas used.
HIVE anticipate that their Application to Nottinghmashire County Council (NCC) would now be made in January 2023 with a decision in the Spring of 2023 or perhaps later.
The current consultation is a voluntary consultation and a formal and mandatory consultation will be undertaken when the Application is presented to NCC.
HIVE made the point that the project is very much work in progress and far from being finalised.
The project aim is to extract around 300,000 tonnes of PFA per annum which will be used as a “Sustainable Cement Alternative”. The project will extend over 22-25 years and will create 20 full time jobs. The PFA, is non hazardous, is defined by HMG as a sustainable Building Product and is supported in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as a Nationally Important Mineral Resource. The production of cement is energy intensive and accounts for around 8% of total carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Up to 40% of cement can be replaced in concrete with PFA without detriment which will assist in reaching the UK’s goal of reaching net zero by 2050.
The Bellmoor site extends to 116 hectare or 286 acres and holds around 6.7 million tonnes of PFA which if all used to displace cement would save around 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The PFA was laid down over 30 years during the life of Cottam Powerstation. The PFA was transported/pumped from Cottam as a slurry to settling ponds at Bellmoor. The settling ponds, now grassed over contain the PFA. In order to harvest the PFA the surface will be removed, the underlying PFA exposed in strips and the material removed. Each strip being progressively restored. The existing embankment material will shield the operation and will be used for backfill. All conveyors on site will be covered. There will be no requirement to import backfill material.
Survey work to prove the resource on site and establish environmental datums started 2 years ago.
The establishment of the site, roadways and plant, will take around 6 months and will require around 10 HGV’s per day. During the production phase there will be 37 HGV vehicles leaving per day (74 movements). Working hours 07-00 to 19.00 Mon to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays and no working on Sundays and Bank holidays.
HIVE are already working with Notts Wildlife Trust and others and hope to re-establish the site as a Biodiversity Restoration project with wet meadows, reed beds and ponds etc.
A full Environmental Impact Assessment will be required to be submitted with the Application. A summary document of all correspondence received during this consultation will be submitted with the application.
QUESTIONS
26.20: HIVE Aggregates have only been around for 2 years and have no track record of PFA extraction and hence none in an environmentally sensitive location. Who are the specialists and their expertise of those employed by HIVE?
ANSWER: HIVE Aggregates are part of HIVE Energy who have experience in other spheres but not in PFA extraction. Every company has to start somewhere! Team will include specialists who have expertise and a nationally significant quarrying and earthmoving equipment company who have run PFA extraction sites. PFA processing specialists will be on hand as well during the development phase. Yes they are new to PFA extraction but have a broader competent team who have the expertise required.
28.30: What date will you submit your planning application and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and will they be submitted together?
ANSWER: January 2023, maybe later depending upon comments raised. Application and EIA submitted together to form an Environmental Statement.
29.30: There were a number of environmental concerns raised by villagers. Whilst PFA itself does not contain asbestos. It has been accepted by the courts that cross contamination from laggers to PFA workers and from uncontrolled removal of asbestos at other powerstations with shared ash pits along the Trent Valley can take place. That contamination might be present in the PFA at Bellmoor. The Environment Agency refused a recent application in the Parish relating to asbestos contaminated soils on the basis that there was no safe level of airborne asbestos dust. What precautions are HIVE taking to deal with such releases to atmosphere from their activities?
ANSWER: Site was originally permitted to accept PFA and PFA alone. If asbestos is present it was put there illegally. HIVE have drilled the site on a 200 metre grid (borehole every 200 metres) and sampled at 1 metre depths through to the base of the deposit. HIVE did not find any traces of asbestos. If they found any it would have to be dealt with appropriately following regulations. Perhaps closing the site down. Would in any event have an asbestos management plan and workers trained appropriately. Such contamination would be considered in the risk assessment for the site.
34: Government guidance document states that users should take into account the environmental impact resulting of its use and possible contamination of water courses or preservation areas. What protections are HIVE implementing.
ANSWER: There will be permits issued that HIVE will comply with. The EIA will highlight the impacts and the relevant bodies (Natural England, Wildlife Trust, EA etc.) will offer advice defining the Environmental Statement. The Scoping Report has been submitted and will allow those relevant bodies to influence the Environmental Statement which if not comprehensive will be rejected at Planning. EIA scoping was a voluntary move by HIVE to allow consideration of the impacts.
36.25: What air quality surveys have been undertaken to show current status. What assessments have been made to consider the release of PFA into the air (fugitive dust emission). What damage to residents and wildlife? Respiratory impacts of particular concern following Covid, what impact on public health?
ANSWER: Current status from Local Authority data. Undertake dispersion modelling, a desk study of emissions from plant and equipment, gaseous and dust. This information included in the Environmental Statement highlighting impacts and appropriate mitigation. Air quality and noise and dust in particular was a concern highlighted in the consultation. The PFA was described as being like wet sand like in the shallower fraction, but wetter with a slurry consistency with depth in the deposit.
39.00: COSHH data sheets state that a fine water spray should be used to manage dust emission.
ANSWER: The material is already conditioned and dust should not be a problem coupled with appropriate management of the site. If the site is not properly managed there might be fugitive dust emission. Working faces should be kept moist, roadways moist and conveyors covered. Drying is a an enclosed process. There will be water bowsers on site and if conditions are too dry/windy then work will stop.
40.15: Where will HIVE get its water from?
ANSWER: Boreholes normally used but will tend to try to reuse water, recycling water through the use of reed beds etc. Will have water from the drying process that might be used in compliance with the EA measures set and permit requirements.
41.30: Where does moisture from the drying process collect and stored. It may contain heavy metals how will you deal with that.
ANSWER: HIVE will have to design a drainage scheme for the site to handle surface, run off and process water. Current thinking is to use filter ponds and reed beds to produce water clean enough to be ground water. Discussing with their designers and EA currently and maybe need to consider additional treatment. Similar drainage systems are used on other PFA sites.
43.30: There are a number of public footpaths that cross the site. Will access be restricted during working.
ANSWER: No closure of footpaths. Common to have footpaths across quarries. However there is no PFA beneath the footpaths and conveyors would likely go underneath. Some form of gated crossing across footpaths for site vehicles. No restriction to public rights of way.
45.00: Suitability of Lound site compared to others in the UK. There are a number of working powerstations producing fresh PFA why are HIVE looking to mine a nature reserve? There are others sites where PFA is available which were laid down more recently, why not use those?
ANSWER: Site has been drilled it has been proven to be top quality meeting the quality standard EN450. The whole resource is usable. There are lots of sites in UK but most are already being mined. Others have been built on. HIVE have looked at other sites, Cottam site for instance but not available to them. Such is the demand for PFA that all assets need to be looked at. To meet carbon reduction targets it supports PFA extraction from landfill. Planning application will include a “Need Study” to add weight to the argument.
49.10: Extraction not a long term solution. Why doesn’t industry look at replacing cement with a sustainable alternative.
ANSWER: We should be doing both! Would have to fundamentally change the construction industry. Need to look at practices that are currently available to reduce carbon, PFA fits the bill and worth looking at other resources as well.
51.45: HIVE refer to ”landfill” but the site is farmland! What will HIVE use to fill the void left following extraction.
ANSWER: It is a former landfill site! The embankments will be used to level off. Where there is a deficit HIVE will look at ponds. Will create wet grassland etc. No materials will be brought in from offsite.
54.00: What is the innovative drying technology?
ANSWER: It is a new development, the second of its type, first one will go to Australia. Basically a Dyson hairdryer using air, blowing air down tubes carrying the PF using air knives. Shearing water off of the particles. A supply of warm air 80 deg is used to drive off the moisture. Device is more expensive than a conventional thermal drier which uses a lot more energy. The device uses 80% less energy than a conventional thermal drier.
Is it noisy?
ANSWER: Not noisy. Noisiest component is the fan but all noise emissions will be considered in the EIA.
May not be noisy but my house within 400 yards!
ANSWER: Remote from most receptors!
57.50: You have stated that assessments on traffic movements have been undertaken. Is this assessment based on current levels of housing, on future developments about to start in the area?
ANSWER: Yes. The assessment will consider all movements. A638 designed to take 64,000 vehicles per day so capacity should not be an issue now that Chainbridge no longer a proosed route.
59.40: Housing development is determined by District Council and this application going to County Council. How therefore will HIVE workaround assess cumulative traffic flows impacts.
ANSWER: Application will go to the public and to statutory consultees of which BDC is one. HIVE will speak to both District and County Councils.
1.01: Why haven’t Hallcroft and other areas of Retford not been consulted when they are as close as the rest of us to the development? They are unaware and thus unable to comment on proposals. Also villages of Torworth, Blyth, Barnby Moor, Ranskill & Mattersey and more will also be disrupted by traffic.
ANSWER: It was our judgement call. Our assessment of those areas most affected. When the application is submitted the County will make its own call for consultation.
1.03: Hallcroft Fisheries and the owner of the caravan park are unaware of the proposals and are in close proximity to the nature reserve. The same at Barnby Moor.
1.03.30 We are not getting any answers!
ANSWER:We do not have the answers at the moment!
There will be another meeting after this one, we will tell you about that later, where more questions can be asked.
Please continue sending us your questions. We are continuously looking at things and will update the website. We do not have all of the answers yet.
1.04.35: Yet you are going for planning permission in January so you must have some of the answers. I’m representing Blyth Parish Council, we learnt about this a week ago and it may possibly have a major effect on our village, this is not satisfactory.
ANSWER: We cannot finalise our designs until we have completed the consultation and things are also changing on site (demise of optimisation site in North) , need a design freeze to be able to add more detail (paraphrased here).
1.5.50: Are there plans to use the product locally (block manufacture). Lound Hive has been listed by yourselves as a manufacturer of construction products.
ANSWER: Lound Hive Limited is a company that was set up to submit the planning application.
1.06.27 As a manufacturer of construction products?
ANSWER: There are a number of set categories when registering
1.6.35: Convenient that isn’t it?
ANSWER: We want to produce a cement substitute product. If it could be used locally then yes. But it is not a finished product it is a component. It would go to large cement plants and concrete batching plants. It is possible that some may go to the Breedon site on North Road.
1.07.35: Could you tell me the precise route that you intend to take to reach the A1 from the site. Where will you access the A1?
ANSWER: All traffic would access the A638. Ideally either option, north or south. Looking at routes at the moment. Need to consult with local people and the highways Authority.
1.08.30: You have already estimated that there will be 74 HGV’s per day. You understand our concern that to reach the A1 through Blyth you have to go through 2 mini islands, it is heavily congested. You have already worked out the number of lorries but not the route which is a concern.
ANSWER: We are looking at the routes at the moment and talking to the council at the moment. If one of the routes are too congested we will not be able to do it.
1.10: What tonnage are the vehicles?
ANSWER: 30 tonnes powder tankers we think.
1.10.43: You do not know where the vehicles will be heading for yet. Nothing to stop HGV’s accessing the North Road (A638) and using side roads through the villages. Need to have weight restrictions in place to stop the “rat runs”.
ANSWER: Cannot comment on rat runs. There are a limited number of end users and we will make sure our drivers use the designated routes.
1.12.45: There is a concrete batching plant at the back of us I assume you will supply product to them.
ANSWER: Potentially. They are not somebody we have earmarked at present. I have spoken to them, they make precast concrete and do not use PFA at present.
1.13.10: Where is the gas now coming from?
ANSWER: Talking about 3 loads per week (LPG) initially but longer term natural gas from the grid.
1.14: If Hive is not in business in 20-25 years time will monies be put aside to cover restoration.
ANSWER: Yes there is a bond or perhaps an insurance policy as a means to ring fence the cost of remediation.
1.15.20: I Understand that the land is leased from the landowner, when the operation is completed who will own that land.
ANSWER: I don’t want to talk about commercial arrangements. Not relevant to the planning application. There are legal requirements imposed upon HIVE to restore the site and then there is an aftercare period. This arrangement will be agreed with the council.