The next item is the debate on the the petition 'Demand an EIA now on the dumping of radioactively contaminated mud in Welsh waters'. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Motion NDM7438 Janet Finch-Saunders

To propose that the Senedd:

Notes the petition 'P-05-1003 Demand an EIA now on the dumping of radioactively contaminated mud in Welsh waters' which received 10,692 signatures.

Motion moved.

Diolch. Thank you, Llywydd, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, for the opportunity to introduce this debate on the petition calling for an environmental impact assessment, or EIA, to be carried out into the proposed disposal of sediment from outside Hinkley Point into the Bristol channel. Now, this petition collected more than 10,000 signatures, and I do not need to make Members aware of the concern that has been expressed publicly about this issue. That concern is not new, of course. This petition follows up a previous one, which was considered in detail by our committee and debated in 2018.

The sediment proposed for disposal is to be dredged as part of the construction of the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset. Because the nominated disposal site, known as the Cardiff Grounds, is in Welsh waters, the licensing process for the disposal is determined by Natural Resources Wales. This includes deciding whether an EIA is required. However, earlier this month, EDF announced that it has decided itself to undertake an EIA, pre-empting that decision. Now, I want to acknowledge that step taken by EDF as part of this debate. They state that they have done so

'in order to provide the public with further reassurance that all concerns have been addressed.'

On 12 October, NRW also formally confirmed that an EIA is required. NRW has also sought to reassure that all marine licence applications are thoroughly and robustly assessed to protect people and, indeed, the environment. The fact that an EIA will be carried out answers the primary calls made in the petition, and I want to welcome the fact that this will be the case. It is clear that concern does still exist amongst some members of the public about the potential environmental and health impacts of this work. These concerns primarily relate to the contents of the sediment, due to previous nuclear power generation at Hinkley Point. It is vital, therefore, that the licensing process is conducted in an open and transparent way. That is the only way that you can reassure people that the sediment will only be disposed of if it is safe to do so. 

I also want to acknowledge that both NRW and EDF are providing regular public updates on this process, and have indeed set up a dedicated web page. The Petitions Committee has expressed concern about public communication during the early stages last time, and I am really pleased to acknowledge that improvements have been made and that people have been listened to. NRW has also pledged to consult publicly on the full licence application it expects to receive early next year. This is all to be welcomed.

For the last part of this speech, I want to refer to the concerns of the petitioners in a bit more detail. Many of these relate to the safety of the nuclear power industry full stop. Whether or not the UK uses nuclear power generation is clearly a matter beyond the scope of the marine licensing process, and indeed the powers of the Welsh Government or NRW. However, the petitioners also have concerns that can be addressed here in Wales through these processes. Most importantly, it is crucial that detailed testing and analysis is done on this sediment. That is the only way to be sure that it is safe to be deposited back into the Bristol channel. The adequacy of sampling and testing was the major area of concern for the Petitions Committee last time, as outlined in our 2018 report. NRW has approved EDF's sampling plan this time around, and the results of that testing will clearly be critical. So, I hope the Minister will be able to provide us with confirmation today that testing for the full range of radioactivity will be carried out this time around. It is also essential that the outcomes of the testing and the EIA process are openly and transparently communicated. Again, that is the only way to take the public with you and for them to achieve the confidence they need and they deserve.

Beyond the headline call for an EIA, the petition also makes detailed demands for what this should involve. The EIA process is outlined in law and regulations, but it is clearly vital that it should present a full and robust assessment of the possible impacts and risks of disposing of the sediment in this way. So, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these points today and also state her commitment to seeking the public reassurances that I am sure we would all like to see achieved on this matter.

I look forward, now, to hearing the contributions of other Members of this Senedd during the rest of this debate. Diolch yn fawr.

I think the fact that we're discussing this in the Chamber today highlights that there are very real concerns among the people of Wales on the intention to dump mud from Hinkley off the south Wales coast.

I have been in touch with scientists, campaigners and the Geiger Bay campaign particularly, and all of them expressed real concerns about the impact of such dumping on the environment, marine life and also public health this side of the Bristol channel. I've also had discussions with the regulatory body, Natural Resources Wales, in order to discuss the process around these proposals. I made it clear in my meeting with them that we need a thorough EIA that is also transparent as part of this process. And if there are any significant questions that haven't been answered at the end of that process, then it's unlikely that either I or anyone else in their right mind could support the intention to dump hundreds of thousands of tonnes of mud, which could be contaminated, in Welsh waters.

It's perhaps illuminating that EDF, the firm behind the project, have now felt it necessary to undertake an environmental impact assessment before Natural Resources Wales insisted on them doing so. I think that that is a recognition of the need for a comprehensive and thorough analysis of sediment samples. And this goes beyond the initial sampling plan, which was the subject of public consultation, of course. I trust that EDF's scoping will be comprehensive and that the findings, of course, importantly, will be made publicly available to everyone.

Now, EDF says that it intends to go further than normal regulatory requirements in order to provide the public with additional reassurance. Well, that in itself, I think, is a measure of the campaign's effectiveness to date, and we'll wait to see details of how thorough and how deep the tests will be, including tests for pure alpha emitting particles and tritium.

So, to quote EDF on their reason for the unilateral decision to undertake an EIA, they say, 

'We believe it is right to go beyond technical arguments to provide the necessary public confidence that all concerns have been addressed.'

'All concerns have been addressed'—well, I should hope so, too, because such is the level of public interest in this that we have to retain public confidence as well. And that is welcome news because no such impact assessment was carried out in the initial dump in 2018. And I have to say that the nuclear industry generally doesn't have a very good track record in terms of openness and transparency, which may well explain some of the opposition that we're looking at here in Wales to these proposals.

So, Plaid Cymru supports a full and transparent environmental impact assessment, which, of course, is the main thrust of the petition before us today, quite simply because of the history of the site; it's been a nuclear power plant for more than half a century. Radioactive particles from the outflow pipes of Hinkley Point A, which operated from 1965 to 2000, and Hinkley Point B, which has been open since 1976, have been flushed out into Bridgewater bay for the last 55 years. And, of course, we know that there were plutonium leaks from Hinkley Point A in the 1970s, which may also have contaminated the mud that they now, of course, want to dump in Welsh waters. And this new proposal, remember, is to dump eight times as much mud compared to the last dump in 2018. It's 600,000 cubic tonnes, compared to 82,000 tonnes last time.

Enough time has elapsed to enable the EIA this time to examine and assess what happened to the sediment dumped at the Cardiff grounds dispersal site in 2018. And the EIA should also ensure that radiation levels along the southern coast of Wales are measured before any further dumping, and that would give us baseline data against which any increases in radiation, as a result of any further dumping, could be determined. With the tidal range in the Severn, of course, it's very likely that this mud will disperse far and wide and particles could be washed ashore, and the impacts of this on people living along the coast, using the beaches, even those who eat seafood, should be measured and assessed as well.

Testing in Cumbria in the 1980s by researchers from the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell established that sediment dumped from Sellafield nuclear power plant was washed ashore and subsequently blown several miles inland. So, any impact assessment on this proposal should also focus on the potential for this mud to be washed ashore and blown inland from the south Wales coast. Understanding the extent of the dispersal of this mud, especially onto our shores, and the impact of the actual particles contained in it that may be harmful to wildlife and to humans is absolutely paramount. Comprehensive measuring should also mean testing to detect alpha emitters, not just gamma emitters, because alpha emitters are more dangerous when they're inhaled.

During my meeting last month with Natural Resources Wales, I made it clear what I expected from this process before any possibility of granting a licence for further dumping. And EDF is carrying out this EIA, but, of course, it shouldn't be allowed to mark its own homework. It needs to show all of its working publicly so that we can all have confidence in the robustness and validity of the process. If the well-being of future generations Act is to mean anything, then the precautionary principle has to apply here. The onus here has to be on EDF and Natural Resources Wales to prove that the mud dumping is safe beyond doubt and not just leave it to campaigners to try and prove that it isn't, and any failure in that respect should mean no dumping. I'll be watching over this process with an eagle eye, as I know others will, I'm sure, over the coming months to make sure that we get the right outcome for our environment and, of course, for the health and the well-being of the people of Wales.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute in the debate this afternoon, as someone who was on the first Petitions Committee back in the 2007 to 2011 Assembly, when we adopted this principle of people being able to bring petitions to the Assembly, not just to be deposited in a sack behind the Speaker or the Presiding Officer's chair, such as happens in Westminster, but for a committee of the Assembly to actually scrutinise and bring Ministers to account and, obviously, make sure that petitioners feel that their concerns are being answered. So, I do welcome the Chair's opening remarks and the positivity with which the committee have engaged in this process, noting that this is the second petition to come, because, as has been said earlier, this is the second planned mud drop, if it does go ahead. And I, as someone who represents the region of South Wales Central, which has a large coastline that potentially could be affected by this mud drop, I've had numerous constituents obviously raise their concerns.

I come at it from a slightly different perspective in that I do support nuclear power. I believe it is part of the energy mix that we need to see, and in fact have visited the Hinkley power construction site and noted the number of Welsh workers who are on that site and the Welsh pound that has been rewarded with investment from the project as a whole. But that said, I think it is of critical importance that the developer does undertake an EIA and it does address the concerns—the genuine concerns—that people have put before me and many other Assembly Members and, indeed, the Petitions Committee. I do welcome the company's willingness to actually now commission such an EIA before it submits its evidence to Natural Resources Wales, who, ultimately, will be the determiner of the licence in this particular instance.

But what is equally important is that they do not mark their own homework, that the evidence and the methodology and all workings are shown crystal clear so that they can be tested, because, obviously, this has the potential to affect a large part of the south Wales population, but also the west country coast as well, by movement within the estuary. It's my understanding that the mud has to stay within the estuary because of the sensitivity and the nature of restrictions that are on that particular part of the Bristol channel, and this is one of two grounds that they can identify as being suitable to take the mud from the discharge site.

But I do accept that there's a broad spectrum of opinion on this. Indeed, the Chair of the committee highlighted that in her opening remarks, when she said there is a broad body of opinion that is concerned about the mud that might be dumped because it might have contaminants in, and the EIA, hopefully, will either prove or disprove that argument, but, equally, there is a body of opinion that is against nuclear energy and doesn't believe that we should be developing nuclear sites. I do not fall into the category of stopping nuclear power, and I want to be honest and transparent about that, but I do fall into the category of making sure that the developers' feet are held to the fire, that they are held accountable and that all the evidence that is put before Natural Resources Wales, and, in particular, the levers that the Welsh Government have at their disposal are exhausted to make sure that all these queries, these concerns are addressed, so that we can have confidence that the second mud drop that will be undertaken is safe, is compliant with the rules that will be imposed and, ultimately, will safeguard the estuary from any pollutants that might be disturbed, should anything be proven when they start digging out that mud.

So, I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject this afternoon. I welcome the work that the Petitions Committee has undertaken, but, above all, I welcome the 10,000 plus signatures that have gone on to this petition that have brought it before the Assembly, so that we can, hopefully, play our part in making sure that we get a just outcome and an outcome that satisfies people's concerns.

The safety of the nuclear power industry is something that I am concerned about too, but I don't think that is what we are discussing here. I oppose the nuclear power industry because there is no safe method of disposal of nuclear waste, but I just want to emphasise that we are not talking about the disposal of nuclear waste, potentially, in the Cardiff sound. So, we really need to be clear about that, because there is a completely different set of regulations for the disposal of nuclear waste, and this is completely separate to the process that's being described by Janet Finch-Saunders.

There are indeed concerns, because some people have been given the impression that this is nuclear waste, and I'm not clear at the moment whether they're justified, as hinted by Llyr Huws Gruffydd. However, I do think that an environmental impact assessment should have been carried out before the mud was disposed of in 2018, simply because the nuclear industry is very secretive in the way it goes about its business. Certainly, up at Sellafield and Windscale, there is a very lengthy history of hiding what's been going on from the local population. So, I think it's important that we know that what is proposed for disposal in the Cardiff sound is not in any way going to impact on the health of our citizens.

There is no way in which EDF is going to be allowed to mark its own homework, because NRW will have to decide on the basis of the environmental impact assessment whether or not this meets the criteria for disposing of waste in the Cardiff sound. So, it is NRW who will make that decision, and also they will be informed by the expert group that has been set up under the chair of Jane Davidson, which I understand has met four times to discuss this matter, and it is a pity, in a way, that we're discussing this today without having had a report from that expert group to advise us on whether or not there is any indication whatsoever that the disposal of this waste is not appropriate in the way in which the licence has been applied for. So, I think it's really important that we don't raise hares running where none exist. We need to look at the evidence, we need to rely on the scientists who understand what is harmful and what is not, and ensure that we're only disposing of material that doesn't pose any danger to the health of our citizens.

I'd like to thank the petitioners for bringing forward this petition. I have opposed the dumping of sediment dredged from the Hinkley C nuclear power station site in the past because of the uncertainty regarding the safety of sediment. The dredged sediment may be being dumped in the South Wales Central region, but it also affects my region, home to some of the world's top beaches and a haven for marine flora and fauna. For the past several years, many of us in this Chamber have raised concerns about the safety of this sediment, and thanks to us raising those concerns, and thanks to the efforts of this petition, EDF have now consented to a full environmental impact assessment and appointed CEFAS to conduct radiological tests at depth.

I hope CEFAS will also test for a wider range of radionuclides. Research conducted elsewhere shows that higher concentrations of radionuclides are found at depths greater than 1m. We also know that there are 16 times more radionuclides produced by nuclear reactors than were tested for. The sediment surveys tested for caesium-137, cobalt-60 and americium-241, but what about plutonium or curium? Why were these not tested for? What about strontium or tritium? Do these radionuclides not carry a risk to human health? Of course they do, but they were not tested for, and nor were the 50 other radionuclides known to be present in discharge from these old nuclear power plants. CEFAS needs to test for these.

Will the report and the EIA deem the sediment safe for humans, wildlife, and the environment? Because we cannot risk doing untold damage to our ecosystem and threatening the viability of some of the world's top beaches, like Rhossili, Three Cliffs bay and Rest bay. We need openness and transparency. Once dumping starts, who can tell whether that will open the doors for excessive dumping of greater amounts, larger than suggested? I fully support the petitioners and thank them once again for what they are doing to protect Wales's marine environment. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the debate today, which follows a petition calling on the Welsh Government to demand an EIA in respect of Hinkley. Firstly, like the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I too would like to acknowledge the recent announcement made by EDF Energy and its intentions to conduct a full EIA to provide reassurances to members of the public on its proposed activity. Welsh waters are a shared resource and an important asset to us all. They are home to a diverse range of habitats and species and used by many to support their livelihoods. I understand the concerns surrounding the proposed disposal of marine sediment associated with the Hinkley development in Welsh waters, and I've listened very carefully to the points raised today. I can assure Members we have robust marine licensing legislation in place to ensure the environment and human health is protected against potential impacts from regulated activities at sea. Marine licensing is evidence based, and it's one of the key tools used to sustainably manage Welsh waters. The process is well established, fully supports the requirements of Welsh and UK legislation, and ensures decisions are not made contrary to international law.

As Members are aware, NRW administers and determines marine licence applications on behalf of Welsh Ministers. I am confident it acts in full compliance of its legal obligations, and it continues to act within the spirit of the previous direction, which I issued in 2018, in respect of the now-expired marine licence. NRW is providing better transparency on the marine licensing process, and Senedd Members and the public are afforded more opportunity to engage in the process, where it is appropriate to do so, in respect of this project.

The Welsh Ministers are the appeals body for marine licensing, so I must be mindful of this legal duty and not comment in detail today on the specifics of an EIA in respect of Hinkley. I can, however, talk more broadly about EIAs. By law, EIAs must be carried out by a competent person, and therefore they are typically undertaken by accredited environmental assessment practitioners. EIAs assess the likely environmental impact of an activity, both positive and negative, taking into account matters such as biodiversity and human health. The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 establish the EIA process and set out the legal grounds for reaching a decision on whether an EIA is needed and the information that must be included in the environmental statement, a document produced as part of the EIA to present its findings.

Under these regulations, NRW is both the appropriate authority and the regulator. EIA is, therefore, a technical and regulatory matter for NRW. It is not for Welsh Ministers to demand an EIA. The legal processes must be followed. I can assure Members NRW will require a robust and thorough EIA process to support an application for a marine licence, which will be subject to consultation with NRW's technical experts and with members of the public. A marine licence to dispose of marine sediment will only be granted by NRW following a favourable decision on the EIA, and only if the necessary sediment testing, which will be conducted in line with international standards, determines clearly the material is safe and suitable for disposal back at sea, and poses no significant risk to environmental or human health.

Last year, I announced the publication of the Welsh national marine plan, setting out our vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse seas. This is an ambitious plan that represents a major step forward in the way we manage our waters and secure a sustainable future. I am committed to ensure sustainability is at the heart of decision making and that we have a marine licensing process in Wales that is fair for all, fit for purpose, robust and transparent, with decisions based on sound science. This ensures our precious waters are clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse, now and for future generations.

Finally, as Members are aware and as Jenny Rathbone referred to, an external expert stakeholder reference group was established earlier this year, at the request of the First Minister. The group, chaired by Jane Davidson, will provide Ministers with advice on the implications of the Hinkley development on the well-being of Wales. The group has met several times and, to ensure transparency on the matters considered by the group, summaries of its discussions are published on the Welsh Government website, where terms of reference for the group and working methods are also available for anyone to view. Diolch.

I now call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to thank the Minister for responding to this debate in a very comprehensive manner. I wish to thank all Members for their contributions. In concluding today's debate, I want to particularly thank the petitioners, who, once again, have raised their concerns, brought it to this Senedd and then this has found its way to a debate, where there has been ministerial intervention, there has been Member intervention, and there has been what I call very good scrutiny and challenge. But that is not the end of it yet.

This debate has enabled some very important issues to be raised, and the Petitions Committee will consider these further. But before I conclude, I want to note another important element of the openness that I spoke about earlier. Anybody who feels very concerned about these works to be carried out, I believe, should use the opportunity that will be forthcoming from what the Minister's mentioned—the stakeholder groups, the consultations. I think they, too, really do need to be part of the ongoing process so that they do feel more assured about safety—public safety and also any impact on our marine environment.

We have stressed the importance of being able to expect openness and transparency from those making decisions, and I really am hopeful and would stress that all process must be followed, a full assessment of the evidence be made before any decision is taken, and that when those assessments are made and the decisions are made, then hopefully people will have the confidence vested in those decisions. Thank you. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the petition. Does any Member object? Are there any objections?

No, I see no objection.

Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We will now take a short break before we move to item 8. A short break. 

Plenary was suspended at 16:39.

The Senedd reconvened at 16:45, with David Melding in the Chair.

Order. Order. The Senedd is back in session.