English: I would like to thank Rhun and Darren for tabling this important debate today, and to thank Neil for his efforts to ensure the sediment being dumped poses no risk to human health or our environment. The Hinkley waste may be being dumped in Neil's 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 several weeks now I've been inundated with e-mails regarding this. I know that according to the licence holder, the sediment from the nuclear power station has been tested and deemed to be no threat to humans, and is not classed as radioactive under UK law. However, there are concerns that the testing methodology was not sufficiently robust. The testing methodology only looked at the top 1 m of sediment, and only looked at gamma particles. [ Interruption.] Can I finish first, Jenny, and then I will, if I'm within time? Research conducted elsewhere shows that higher concentrations of radionuclides are found at depths greater than 1 m. 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, nor were the other 50 radionuclides known to be present in discharge from these old nuclear power plants. As Neil McEvoy's amendment highlights, there were incidents in the 1960s that saw radioactive discharges into the cooling ponds at the Hinkley plant, and several independent researchers believe that harmful radionuclides are contained deep within the sediment. I understand that the Welsh Government is convinced of the safety of this material, and that it is sincere. However, a large number of Welsh residents are not convinced, and we owe it to them to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this material is safe before dumping it on our coastline. Until there is a thorough, scientifically robust, independent safety inspection conducted on this sediment, the licence should be suspended. If the report categorically deems the sediment to be safe to humans, wildlife and the environment then, by all means, grant the licence. But, until then, we risk doing untold damage to our ecosystem and threaten the viability of some of the world's top beaches, like Rhossilli and Three Cliffs bay. The Welsh Government has to put Wales first and insist that more robust testing is carried out, and I urge Members to support the motion and support amendments for the people of Wales. Thank you.
Welsh: Hoffwn ddiolch i Rhun a Darren am gyflwyno'r ddadl bwysig hon heddiw, a diolch i Neil am ei ymdrechion i sicrhau nad yw'r gwaddodion sy'n cael eu dympio'n creu unrhyw risg i iechyd pobl na'n hamgylchedd. Efallai mai yn rhanbarth Neil y mae gwastraff Hinkley yn cael ei ddympio, ond mae'n effeithio ar fy rhanbarth i hefyd, rhanbarth sy'n gartref i rai o draethau gorau'r byd a hafan i blanhigion ac anifeiliaid morol. Ers wythnosau bellach rwyf wedi bod yn derbyn llu o negeseuon e-bost ynglŷn â hyn. Gwn fod profion wedi'u gwneud ar y gwaddod o'r orsaf niwclear yn ôl deiliad y drwydded a bernir nad oes bygythiad i bobl, ac nid yw'n cael ei ystyried yn ddeunydd ymbelydrol yng nghyfraith y DU. Fodd bynnag, mae yna bryderon nad oedd methodoleg y profion yn ddigon cadarn. Edrych ar yr 1 metr uchaf yn unig o waddod a wnaeth methodoleg y profion, a dim ond ar ronynnau gama. [ Torri ar draws.] A gaf fi orffen yn gyntaf, Jenny, ac fe wnaf wedyn os bydd amser gennyf? Dengys ymchwil a wnaed mewn mannau eraill fod crynodiadau uwch o radioniwclidau i'w gweld ar ddyfnderoedd mwy nag 1 metr. Rydym hefyd yn gwybod bod 16 gwaith yn fwy o radioniwclidau'n cael eu cynhyrchu gan adweithyddion niwclear nag y gwnaed profion ar eu cyfer. Cynhaliodd yr arolygon gwaddod brofion ar gyfer caesiwm-137, cobalt-60 ac americiwm-241, ond beth am blwtoniwm neu gwriwm? Pam na phrofwyd ar gyfer y rhain? Beth am strontiwm neu dritiwm? Onid yw'r radioniwclidau hyn yn peri risg i iechyd pobl? Wrth gwrs eu bod, ond ni chynhaliwyd profion ar eu cyfer hwy na'r 50 o radioniwclidau eraill y gwyddys eu bod yn bresennol mewn gwastraff o'r hen orsafoedd niwclear hyn. Fel y mae gwelliant Neil McEvoy yn ei ddangos, cafwyd digwyddiadau yn y 1960au a arweiniodd at ollwng gwastraff ymbelydrol i mewn i'r pyllau oeri yng ngorsaf Hinkley, ac mae nifer o ymchwilwyr annibynnol yn credu bod radioniwclidau niweidiol wedi'u cynnwys yn ddwfn o fewn y gwaddod. Rwy'n deall bod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi'i hargyhoeddi ynglŷn â diogelwch y deunydd hwn, a'i bod hi'n ddiffuant. Fodd bynnag, nid yw nifer fawr o drigolion Cymru wedi'u hargyhoeddi, ac mae'n ddyletswydd arnom i brofi y tu hwnt i unrhyw amheuaeth fod y deunydd hwn yn ddiogel cyn ei ddympio ar ein harfordir. Hyd nes y cynhelir archwiliad diogelwch annibynnol trylwyr a chadarn yn wyddonol ar y gwaddod hwn, dylid atal y drwydded. Os bydd yr adroddiad yn bendant o'r farn fod y gwaddod yn ddiogel i bobl, bywyd gwyllt a'r amgylchedd, ar bob cyfrif caniatewch y drwydded. Ond tan hynny, rydym yn creu risg o wneud niwed difesur i'n hecosystem ac yn bygwth hyfywedd rhai o draethau gorau'r byd, fel Rhosili a bae'r Tri Chlogwyn. Rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru roi Cymru yn gyntaf a mynnu bod rhagor o brofion mwy cadarn yn cael eu cynnal, ac rwy'n annog yr Aelodau i gefnogi'r cynnig ac i gefnogi gwelliannau i'r cynnig er mwyn pobl Cymru. Diolch.