Debate on Hinkley Point Mud being dumped in the Bristol Channel 23 May 2018

Debate on Hinkley Point Mud being dumped in the Bristol Channel 23 May 2018
David Rowlands gave a very good summary of what we’ve been through. I think that he understated it when he said there wasn’t a meeting of minds between the petitioners and EDF. I think they probably started off very far apart and didn’t get one inch closer during the whole of the discussion that took place.333
I will start off with what EDF’s view is. They say they’re one of many companies over many decades that have been dredging sediment in the Bristol channel and depositing it at licensed disposal sites at Cardiff Grounds. The sediment, they say, that they are dredging in the Bristol channel is typical of the sediment found anywhere in the Bristol channel, and as such it is no different to the sediment already at Cardiff Grounds. They say the sediment is not radioactive by law and poses no threat to human health or the environment. And they say the sediment has been tested by the independent body CEFAS in 2009, 2013 and 2017, including comprehensive sampling at depth. 334
There is no question about the integrity and independence of the testing carried out by CEFAS, which carries out work to the highest international standard, and is an executive agency of DEFRA. Natural Resources Wales received the latest sample from CEFAS in December 2017. After consultation with independent experts, including Public Health Wales, on 27 March 2018 Natural Resources Wales concluded that the sediment poses no human or environmental risk. The view from Natural Resources Wales in March 2018 was that the sediment from the dredge sites has been tested thoroughly by independent experts and there is no risk from the dredged material to people, the environment, or the wildlife that lives there.335

Jane Hutt AM 16:43:07

Copy To Clipboard Share To Facebook Share To Twitter Share To LinkedIn
Video
Will the Member give way?336

Mike Hedges AM 16:43:09

Copy To Clipboard Share To Facebook Share To Twitter Share To LinkedIn
Video
Certainly.337

Jane Hutt AM 16:43:10

Copy To Clipboard Share To Facebook Share To Twitter Share To LinkedIn
Video
Of course, I’ve had many representations and concerns raised by constituents, and one point relates to the recent sampling and analysis that you refer to. It has been raised with me that it doesn’t necessarily establish the safety of deep-dredged material. So, I just wonder, from your consideration as a member of the committee receiving evidence, do you consider that further sampling of deep sediments is necessary?338

Copy To Clipboard Share To Facebook Share To Twitter Share To LinkedIn
Video
‘Yes’, is the answer. I’m going to come to that in a few moments, but, yes, I desperately do. I’ll just finish off the first part.339
Taking the naturally occurring and artificial radioactivity together, the levels are so low they pose no danger to human health or the environment—that’s the view of EDF.340
Following on from what Jane Hutt said, why is there a problem? We’ve been told it’s all safe and that there are no problems. Why are my constituents contacting me? I’m sure Jane Hutt and others representing the area around Cardiff are getting their constituents contacting them. Why are we debating this today if it’s all safe? Many members of the public are unconvinced, and not just those who have signed the petition. Lots of people have stopped me on the street and asked me about it. People talk to me when I go out about it. It’s a matter of general concern that mud is being brought from opposite Hinkley point and brought back here. EDF have told us all these things about how safe it is, but people are unconvinced. The vast majority of people that I’ve met are unconvinced. They have concerns over the movement of the mud.341
So, what I’ll ask, and it’s what I have asked at the Petitions Committee—. We’ve had all these groups together, CEFAS, Natural Resources Wales, EDF, all agreeing this. What I asked in the Petitions Committee, and I ask it here, is: can the data be made available to academics? Can we have an assessment of the mud by academics? Can samples be taken as requested by the academics? People have got a greater trust in academics, who have got nothing to gain by looking at these things, than they do in the official agencies of Welsh Government and British Government. That might be unfair to the official agencies, it might be unkind to the official agencies, but that’s the view of my constituents and, I’m sure, the constituents of others: they’d like somebody outside to come to have a look at it.342
If it is safe, then the above must be carried out to reassure the public. If it’s not safe, it should not come here. We cannot resolve this today—we’re just going to have a debate and a discussion about it—but it’s a scientific question; it needs a scientific answer, it needs people to be testing it. It needs, in academic parlance, a peer review.343
Can I urge the company to have an academic peer review of the data and methodology and that any additional samples that are requested by the academics are provided? I think that the only thing that’s going to reassure my constituents, and, I’m sure, the constituents of others, that it’s safe is if external academics who are not part of what one of the people who came to see us saw as a little group of people who all work closely together—. One of the people who came said that people move around in jobs between the three organisations. They actually want people who have not got an interest in this, who they feel they can trust. And the only way that we can do this is by having external academics, so I would really urge that EDF bring in the academics. They say there’s nothing to hide—let’s prove it.