Now, the marine licence for the disposal of sediment dredged as part of the construction of a water cooling system for the new Hinkley Point C power station was issued by NRW to NNB GenCo, a subsidiary of EDF. The petition called for the suspension of the licence under either section 72 or section 102 of the marine Act, arguing that the environmental and human health risks have not been adequately researched and the data used to analyse these is incomplete. In determining an application for a marine licence, section 69 of the Act requires both these risk categories to be taken into full account. Powers over the issuing and enforcement of this licence lie with NRW following the vesting of these powers in April 2013. However, the initial applications were made to the Welsh Government prior to this, and despite what many would think would be clear reasons to request one, an independent environmental impact assessment was not asked for at this time.

Further issues raised by the petitioner include the testing methodology, scope, and concerns over the deposit site. In considering this petition, the committee took evidence from the petitioner, EDF energy, NRW and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—CEFAS—who undertook the test sampling, and it soon became apparent to me that there was no question that there hadn't been sampling; the question and concern was around the depth of the sampling taken. It's my understanding—I don't know whether, Neil, you could confirm—that the actual evidence that we've been seeking was actually taken in 2009, and we're now in 2018, and it worries me that companies of this size would be bothered about going back and doing more sampling.

There is general dispute between the petitioner and CEFAS as to the adequacy of the testing undertaken. Tests were carried out in 2009, 2013 and 2017, but, again, I revert back to the earlier date for the actual depth. However, the petitioner, along with Friends of the Earth Barry and Vale, have expressed serious concerns over the types and numbers of radionuclides reported on. This was conceded by CEFAS in relation to gamma-emitted radionuclides, and they noted that they had only reported on the three that had returned results above a minimum threshold, but accepted the point that, in future, they could make it more clear in reporting which ones were also present but below official detection limits.

Additionally, concerns have been raised, as we've mentioned, regarding non-gamma emitters, alpha and beta-emitting radionuclides, which CEFAS confirm that they did not test further for, given that the generic first-tier assessment indicated that these doses were well below the international recommended limits. Of concern, I think, was the refusal in January this year by the licence holder to undertake further additional sampling and testing at depth following a request by NRW. Now, they do represent the Government and they represent our people. This request was made at the demand of the committee and as a result of the petitioner's concerns that not enough samples had been taken. Further, the issue of other chemical contaminants within the sediment was raised, and I, for one, was concerned to note that EDF reported that those at the Hinkley dredge site were above the CEFAS action level 1, so within the scope to undertake further investigation. This amounts to 'quite a small breach', in the words of EDF, yet Friends of the Earth Barry and Vale suggest that no further consideration has been made of these contaminants.

Deputy Llywydd, NRW provided assurances that they would not give the licence approval unless they were fully satisfied that the material was suitable for disposal, yet despite the very obvious public concerns on the matter, including by us as Assembly Members, they formally discharged condition 9.5 of the marine licence in March this year. I would, therefore, endorse the calls by Mike Hedges AM, and Julie Morgan as well, to seek to use section 102 of the marine Act to put a pause on this licence until further adequate testing has been carried out and a full public consultation undertaken. If these companies have no concerns, if they want to restore public trust—