MANY constituents have understandably raised concerns about news of plans to dredge thousands of tonnes of mud from Bridgwater Bay near the decommissioned Hinkley Point A and B nuclear power stations, and dispose of it at the Cardiff Grounds, off Cardiff Bay and Penarth, in preparation for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant project – itself a matter of significant controversy.

People across Penarth, Cardiff and wider south Wales are understandably worried, not least after concerns raised by an independent marine pollution consultant who claims sampling of the mud has been inadequate, that radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants will enter inshore waters, and that coastal areas could be exposed. The mere mention of the word ‘radioactive’ generates understandably strong reactions, and so I have been making urgent enquiries about this matter. While marine licensing and enforcement is a devolved matter, nuclear power building and regulation is not, and so I wanted to understand the nature of the mud, how it is being tested, and why it is being moved in the first place.

In the last few weeks I have spoken personally with senior officials at EDF, the energy company responsible for Hinkley Point, to Natural Resources Wales, and made enquiries in Parliament to the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to understand their role.

EDF have claimed to me that: “the sediment poses no radiological risk to the public or the environment…the radiation dose to the public from the dredging activity is at least 1500 times less than that received by the public on a daily basis, and at least 4000 times less than that received by members of the public in Cornwall from naturally occurring Radon.” They also told me that due to local ecological concerns they are “required to keep the sediment within this Special Area of Conservation” and that Cardiff Grounds represents the only “practical” solution.

NRW have made clear to me that there are clear criteria in the license for “sampling and prior approval requirements before any material can be deposited at the Cardiff Grounds location”, which must be complied with, and that the“decision to select this particular disposal site was made by the applicant [EDF]”.

I should be clear that I am not opposed to nuclear power in general, as I believe that as part of the wider picture it will unfortunately be vital in helping tackle climate change, but there are much wider and serious questions about the Hinkley project in general, for example Chinese involvement and spiralling costs, let alone the question of opportunity cost versus investment in more renewables.

My primary concern is for the safety and health of people in Cardiff South and Penarth, and for our local ecology, and so while the answers I have received from EDF are helpful (we must always be led by scientific evidence on these issues) I remain unsatisfied. I will be pressing them as to a) the nature and depth of the testing, and whether this will be independently verified so as to ensure confidence in their claims as to the levels of potential radioactive material – and b) why they chose to apply for a license for this site in the first place, as opposed to keeping the mud closer, on the English side of the channel or moving it elsewhere.