The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are critical of a recent consultation conducted by Natural Resources Wales on plans to leave low-level radioactive building waste in-situ at the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and remain fearful that without remedial action in the long-term there could be further contamination that runs off into the lake.

Natural Resources Wales launched its consultation on plans by Nuclear Restoration Services on 6 July and this has just ended today.

The NFLAs made clear in its response its criticism of the timetable and process. NRW only allowed a four-week window for responses on the proposals, despite a typical consultation period in the nuclear industry being twelve weeks. The consultation was also held during summer holiday season when many people take holidays with their families. NRW also made things worse by failing to publish all the documents relating to the consultation on their website; instead interested parties had to ring, or email, a case officer to obtain them after an inevitable delay. Other enquirers reported to the NFLA Secretary that they had been informed there would be a charge for supplying the documents. Consequently, we described the consultation as ‘too short, ill-timed and clumsy’.

Nuclear Restoration Services which is responsible for decommissioning the former Trawsfynydd plant and safely deal with the residual radioactive waste is proposing to leave contaminated building rubble on site by burying it in the now redundant cooling pond complex and covering them with a concrete cap.

The NFLAs are concerned that this will prove an inadequate long-term solution as a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency detailed issues with historic contamination of the joints in the ponds, and contamination from the ponds of surrounding land.

Trawsfynydd Lake was also routinely the permitted dumping ground for radioactive liquid discharges from the plant, including the water from the cooling ponds when they became redundant, and so it is contaminated. A scientific study indicated that there were abnormal levels of cancer amongst residents of the local area, including amongst some who have consumed the trout that were introduced into the lake and are now fished.

The NFLAs are obviously anxious to ensure that no more radioactive contamination can come from the rubble, however low level, into the land or lake and we would like to see Nuclear Restoration Services to either look to build a bespoke above ground facility or at least look to place the rubble into a relined cooling pond complex.

Ends://…For more information, please contact Richard Outram, NFLA Secretary by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or by mobile phone on 07583 097793

Notes to Editors

This was the submission made by NFLA Secretary Richard Outram to Natural Resources Wales:

I am responding in my capacity as Secretary on behalf of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities to this consultation.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities were established in 1981 to oppose civil nuclear power and promote renewable energy. Our members comprise local authorities in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic and Wales.

I would first like to comment upon both the timetable and process for the consultation.

A four-week consultation intended to solicit comments from the public and from civil society in the summer months is both too short and ill timed. Many likely respondents will have insufficient time to become aware of the proposal, source and read the consultation documents, and formulate a response; more so in July – August when many people take summer holidays, especially grand/parents with school age children.

It is more common for a 12-week consultation period to be the norm in matters nuclear and I would advise this approach and the avoidance of the holiday season as standard policy. Furthermore, the paucity of the time window that is open to respondents to make a submission is made starker by the fact that not all the applicant’s documents are immediately available to view via the consultation website.

Why has Natural Resources Wales decided to act as a ‘gatekeeper’ to access information with a prospective respondent obliged to make a request to view same via the case officer? Other enquirers have reported to me that they have been told they would have to pay a fee to access certain documents. Both ‘gatekeeping’ and fee-gathering can be perceived as clumsy and regrettable ways to curtail objections. I am myself still awaiting a response to an enquiry with your office, but, as the closing date for submission is fast approaching, I must nonetheless choose to respond with alacrity but without possession of all the facts.

In relation to the proposal to bury radioactive building waste in former cooling ponds on site, given the rubble would be buried in perpetuity, our principal concern relates to the potential for future leaks of radioactivity over time, albeit at low levels, into the surrounding ground and into Trawsfynydd Lake.

In October 2004 the NFLA Steering Committee agreed a set of clear environmental principles which should be used for the management of nuclear waste.

These long-standing principles have stood the test of time and remain as relevant now as when they were agreed by the NFLAs.

These are:

1. The idea that radioactive waste can be “disposed” of be rejected in favour of radioactive waste management;
2. Any process or activity that involves new or additional radioactive discharges into the environment be opposed, as this is potentially harmful to the human and natural environment;
3. The policy of ‘dilute and disperse’ as a form of radioactive waste management (i.e. discharges into the sea or atmosphere) be rejected in favour of a policy of ‘concentrate and contain’ (i.e. store safely on-site);
4. The principle of waste minimisation be supported;
5. The unnecessary transport of radioactive and other hazardous wastes be opposed;
6. Wastes should ideally be managed on-site where produced (or as near as possible to the site) in a facility that allows monitoring and retrieval of the wastes.

In this case, whilst we recognise that Nuclear Restoration Services is looking creditably to mirror our points 6 and 5, by retaining waste on site and avoiding transporting radioactive building waste on heavy trucks over significant distances through Wales’s premier national park, which will save public money, time, and the inexorable carbon footprint, as well as sparing tourists and drivers any associated risk and inconvenience, it is unclear if there is any provision for ongoing monitoring and the possibility of retrieval should any radioactive leakage occur.

Although the application references the intention to cap the pond complex, but there is no mention of lining same, even though the IAEA in its Nuclear Energy Series publication ‘Decommissioning of Pools in Nuclear Facilities’, Section 7.7.6., Page 77[i], states of Trawsfynydd nuclear power plant that:

‘It is notable that difficulties were experienced during decontamination of the construction joints and cracks in the pond owing to the degree of contaminant penetration. Moreover, there is known contamination in the land surrounding the pond and in the drains beneath the pond. Hence, a comprehensive characterization survey of the pond, the joints, the land below the pond and the drain system beneath the pond has been conducted. It has been identified that full remediation of all contamination will not be possible and nor is it beneficial because the surrounding land is contaminated to a greater degree. Hence, a safety and risk assessment is being conducted to identify an appropriate care and maintenance entry state that minimizes residual risks as far as is reasonably practicable.’

The IAEA report clearly indicates that contaminated water leaked from the ponds during its operational life, implying that leakage would continue in the long-term should water be able to enter the ponds from an external source. As this would encounter the radioactive building material it would most likely take that contamination with it. I have seen no reference to NRS planning to make the ponds watertight other than providing a concrete cap.

Trawsfynydd Lake has already been significantly contaminated from historic fission generation. Although Natural Resources Wales has indicated that plans to decommission Trawsfynydd will lead to contamination ‘within safety limits’,[ii] the NFLAs supports the Linear-No Threshold model of the health impacts of radiation. The model says that the relationship between cancer risk and radiation dose is linear, so that even at low doses there is still a small cancer risk. A recent meta-analysis on ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease published in the British Medical Journal also concluded that: “Our findings suggest that radiation detriment might have been significantly underestimated, implying that radiation protection and optimisation at low doses should be rethought.” There is an increasing body of scientists who have concluded that there is no safe level of radiation. It follows, therefore, that it is unethical and immoral to knowingly increase releases of manmade radioactivity into the environment no matter how small, when this can be avoided.

Consequently, we would not wish to see the land surrounding the pond or the lake contaminated anymore.

Academic, scientist and campaigner Dr Chris Busby, has conducted extensive studies into incidents of cancer amongst the population surrounding Trawsfynydd. Welsh speaking researchers were employed to conduct questionnaires amongst residents. In collaboration with other academic partners, Dr Busby has published several reports and articles which conclude that incidence of certain cancers is statistically abnormal. According to Dr Busby, the lake was historically used as a convenient and permitted sink for radioactive discharges from the plant and the ‘Very large amounts of radioactive material exist in the lakebed sediment (Fern, Odell, Cobb 1988) at concentrations which under UK legislation ought to require it to be controlled as Low-Level Waste’. Now ‘the lake is used as a sports amenity and contains trout, which are caught by fishermen and are often eaten. The trout contain radionuclides and are therefore regularly monitored by the authorities’. This has led to the consequence that consumers of the trout live with an ‘elevated risk’ from cancer.

Consequently, we would prefer an above ground bespoke storage facility that would provide a guaranteed barrier between the radioactive waste and the earth. This would prevent any potential long-term run-off from the repurposed cooling ponds into the lake and surrounding land. At a minimum, we believe that NRS should make the cooling pond complex watertight, and any proposal should be accompanied by a commitment by NRS to an appropriate monitoring regime.

Sources are:

Busby, Chris et al, ‘A survey of cancer in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station in North Wales’, (Green Audit: Aberystwyth. June 2006)

Busby, Chris et al, ‘Cancer near Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station in Wales, UK: A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study’, (Green Audit: Aberystwyth. June 2006 and Jacobs Publishers: 2015)

Busby, Chris, ‘Trawsfynydd and cancer: nuclear power kills’, (The Ecologist: 9 June 2015)

Fern, Odell, and Cobb, ‘A Survey of the Distribution of Radioactivity in Lake Trawsfynydd’, (CEGB: 1988)

IAEA, Nuclear Energy Series publication, ‘Decommissioning of Pools in Nuclear Facilities’, (IAEA: Vienna. 2015)

Little, Mark P, ‘Ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis’, (BMJ: 2023)

[i] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1697_web.pdf

[ii] https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/trawsfynydd-12-7-24/

---

Datganiad cyfryngau NFLA, 6 Awst 2024, I’w ddefnyddio ar unwaith

Rhy fyr, di-amser a chlwms: NFLAs Cymru yn feirniadol o ymgynghoriad Trawsfynydd.

Mae’r Awdurdodau Lleol Di-Niwclear yn feirniadol o ymgynghoriad diweddar a gynhaliwyd gan Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ar gynlluniau i adael gwastraff adeiladu ymbelydrol lefel isel yn yr hen orsaf bŵer niwclear Trawsfynydd ac yn parhau i ofni, heb weithredu adferol yn y tymor hir, y gallai fod halogiad pellach sy’n rhedeg i ffwrdd i’r llyn.

Lansiodd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ei ymgynghoriad ar gynlluniau gan y Gwasanaethau Adfer Niwclear ar 6 Gorffennaf ac mae hyn newydd ddod i ben heddiw.

Gwnaeth yr NFLAs yn glir yn ei hymateb ei feirniadaeth o’r amserlen a’r broses. Dim ond cyfnod o bedair wythnos y caniataodd CNC ar gyfer ymatebion ar y cynigion, er bod cyfnod ymgynghori nodweddiadol yn y diwydiant niwclear yn ddeuddeg wythnos. Cynhaliwyd yr ymgynghoriad hefyd yn ystod tymor gwyliau’r haf pan fydd llawer o bobl yn cymryd gwyliau gyda’u teuluoedd. Gwnaeth CNC bethau’n waeth hefyd drwy fethu â chyhoeddi’r holl ddogfennau sy’n ymwneud â’r ymgynghoriad ar eu gwefan; Yn hytrach roedd yn rhaid i bartïon â diddordeb ffonio, neu e-bostio, swyddog achos i’w cael ar ôl oedi anochel. Dywedodd ymholwyr eraill wrth Ysgrifennydd yr NFLA eu bod wedi cael gwybod y byddai tâl am gyflenwi’r dogfennau. O ganlyniad, gwnaethom ddisgrifio’r ymgynghoriad fel un ‘rhy fyr, di-amser a chlwmsi’.

Mae Gwasanaethau Adfer Niwclear sy’n gyfrifol am ddatgomisiynu hen ffatri Trawsfynydd ac ymdrin yn ddiogel â’r gwastraff ymbelydrol gweddilliol yn cynnig gadael rwbel adeilad halogedig ar y safle trwy ei gladdu yng nghyfadeilad y pwll oeri sydd bellach yn ddiangen a’u gorchuddio â chap concrid.

Mae’r NFLAs yn pryderu y bydd hyn yn profi datrysiad hirdymor annigonol wrth i adroddiad a gyhoeddwyd gan yr Asiantaeth Ynni Atomig Rhyngwladol faterion manwl gyda halogiad hanesyddol y cymalau yn y pyllau, a halogi o byllau tir cyfagos.

Llyn Trawsfynydd hefyd oedd y tir dympio a ganiateir fel mater o drefn ar gyfer gollyngiadau hylif ymbelydrol o’r planhigyn, gan gynnwys y dŵr o’r pyllau oeri pan gawsant eu diswyddo, ac felly mae’n cael ei halogi. Dangosodd astudiaeth wyddonol fod lefelau canser annormal ymhlith trigolion yr ardal leol, gan gynnwys ymhlith rhai sydd wedi bwyta’r brithyll a gyflwynwyd i’r llyn ac sydd bellach yn cael eu pysgota.

Mae’r NFLAs yn amlwg yn awyddus i sicrhau na all mwy o halogiad ymbelydrol ddod o’r rwbel, waeth pa mor isel yw’r lefel isel, i’r tir neu’r llyn a hoffem weld Gwasanaethau Adfer Niwclear naill ai yn ceisio adeiladu cyfleuster pwrpasol uwchben y ddaear neu o leiaf geisio gosod y rwbel i mewn i ganolfan pwll oeri wedi’i relinio.

Diwedd://… I gael rhagor o wybodaeth, cysylltwch â Richard Outram, Ysgrifennydd NFLA drwy e-bost at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk neu dros ffôn symudol ar 07583 097793

Cyfieithwyd o’r Saesneg i’r Gymraeg gan ddefnyddio Google Translate:

Rwy’n ymateb yn rhinwedd fy swydd fel Ysgrifennydd ar ran Awdurdodau Lleol Di-Niwclear Cymru i’r ymgynghoriad hwn.

Sefydlwyd yr Awdurdodau Lleol Di-Niwclear ym 1981 i wrthwynebu pŵer niwclear sifil a hyrwyddo ynni adnewyddadwy. Mae ein haelodau yn cynnwys awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru, Lloegr, yr Alban, Gogledd Iwerddon, y Weriniaeth a Chymru.

Yn gyntaf, hoffwn wneud sylwadau ar yr amserlen a’r broses ar gyfer yr ymgynghoriad.

Mae ymgynghoriad pedair wythnos gyda’r bwriad o ofyn am sylwadau gan y cyhoedd a chan gymdeithas sifil yn ystod misoedd yr haf yn rhy fyr ac yn rhy wael. Ni fydd gan lawer o ymatebwyr ddigon o amser i ddod yn ymwybodol o’r cynnig, ffynhonnell a darllen y dogfennau ymgynghori, a llunio ymateb; mwy felly ym mis Gorffennaf – Awst pan mae llawer o bobl yn cymryd gwyliau haf, yn enwedig mamau/mamau/rhieni sydd â phlant oed ysgol.

Mae’n fwy cyffredin i gyfnod ymgynghori 12 wythnos fod yn norm mewn materion niwclear a byddwn yn cynghori’r dull hwn ac osgoi tymor y gwyliau fel polisi safonol. Ar ben hynny, mae prinder y ffenestr amser sy’n agored i ymatebwyr i wneud cyflwyniad yn fwy amlwg gan y ffaith nad yw holl ddogfennau’r ymgeisydd ar gael i’w gweld ar unwaith trwy wefan yr ymgynghoriad.

Pam mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru wedi penderfynu gweithredu fel ‘porthor’ i gael gafael ar wybodaeth gyda darpar ymatebydd yn gorfod gwneud cais i weld yr un peth drwy’r swyddog achos? Mae ymholwyr eraill wedi dweud wrthyf eu bod wedi cael gwybod y byddai’n rhaid iddynt dalu ffi i gael mynediad at ddogfennau penodol. Gellir ystyried ‘cadw gatiau’ a chasglu ffioedd fel ffyrdd trwsgl a gofidus o gwtogi gwrthwynebiadau. Rwyf i fy hun yn dal i aros am ymateb i ymholiad gyda’ch swyddfa, ond, gan fod y dyddiad cau ar gyfer cyflwyno yn agosáu yn gyflym, mae’n rhaid i mi ddewis ymateb gydag alacrity ond heb feddu ar yr holl ffeithiau.

O ran y cynnig i gladdu gwastraff adeiladu ymbelydrol mewn hen byllau oeri ar y safle, o ystyried y byddai’r rwbel yn cael ei gladdu am byth, mae ein prif bryder yn ymwneud â’r potensial i ollwng ymbelydredd yn y dyfodol dros amser, er ar lefelau isel, i’r tir cyfagos ac i Lyn Trawsfynydd.

Ym mis Hydref 2004 cytunodd Pwyllgor Llywio’r NFLA ar gyfres o egwyddorion amgylcheddol clir y dylid eu defnyddio ar gyfer rheoli gwastraff niwclear.

Mae’r egwyddorion hirsefydlog hyn wedi sefyll prawf amser ac maent yn parhau i fod mor berthnasol nawr â phan gytunwyd arnynt gan yr NFLAs.

Dyma’r rhain:

1. Y syniad y gellir “gwaredu” gwastraff ymbelydrol o blaid rheoli gwastraff ymbelydrol;
2. unrhyw broses neu weithgaredd sy’n cynnwys gollyngiadau ymbelydrol newydd neu ychwanegol i’r amgylchedd gael eu gwrthwynebu, gan y gallai hyn fod yn niweidiol i’r amgylchedd dynol a naturiol;
3. Mae’r polisi o ‘wanhau a gwasgaru’ fel math o reoli gwastraff ymbelydrol (h.y. gollyngiadau i’r môr neu atmosffer) yn cael ei wrthod o blaid polisi o ‘ganolbwyntio a chynnwys’ (h.y. storio’n ddiogel ar y safle);
4. Cefnogir yr egwyddor o leihau gwastraff;
5. Gwrthwynebu’r cludiant diangen o wastraff ymbelydrol a pheryglus eraill;
6. Yn ddelfrydol, dylid rheoli gwastraff ar y safle lle cânt eu cynhyrchu (neu mor agos â phosibl at y safle) mewn cyfleuster sy’n caniatáu monitro ac adfer y gwastraff.

Yn yr achos hwn, er ein bod yn cydnabod bod Gwasanaethau Adfer Niwclear yn edrych yn gredydol i adlewyrchu ein pwyntiau 6 a 5, trwy gadw gwastraff ar y safle ac osgoi cludo gwastraff adeiladu ymbelydrol ar lorïau trwm dros bellteroedd sylweddol trwy brif barc cenedlaethol Cymru, a fydd yn arbed arian cyhoeddus, amser, a’r ôl troed carbon annioddefol, yn ogystal ag arbed unrhyw risg ac anghyfleustra cysylltiedig i dwristiaid a gyrwyr sy’n gysylltiedig ag ef, nid yw’n glir a oes unrhyw ddarpariaeth ar gyfer monitro parhaus a’r posibilrwydd o adfer pe bai unrhyw ollyngiadau ymbelydrol yn digwydd.

Er bod y cais yn cyfeirio at y bwriad i gapio cymhleth y pwll, ond nid oes sôn am leinio’r un peth, er bod yr IAEA yn ei gyhoeddiad Cyfres Ynni Niwclear ‘Decommissioning of Pools in Nuclear Facilities’, Adran 7.7.6., Tudalen 77, yn datgan gorsaf ynni niwclear Trawsfynydd bod:

‘Mae’n nodedig bod anawsterau wedi’u profi yn ystod dadlygru’r cymalau adeiladu a’r craciau yn y pwll oherwydd maint treiddiad halogedig. Ar ben hynny, gwyddys bod halogiad yn y tir o amgylch y pwll ac yn y draeniau o dan y pwll. Felly, cynhaliwyd arolwg nodweddu cynhwysfawr o’r pwll, y cymalau, y tir o dan y pwll a’r system draenio o dan y pwll. Nodwyd na fydd gwaith adfer yr holl halogiad yn llawn yn bosibl ac nid yw’n fuddiol chwaith oherwydd bod y tir o’i amgylch wedi’i halogi i fwy o raddau. Felly, mae asesiad diogelwch a risg yn cael ei gynnal i nodi cyflwr priodol o ran gofal a chynnal a chadw sy’n lleihau’r risgiau gweddilliol cyn belled ag sy’n rhesymol ymarferol.’

Mae adroddiad IAEA yn dangos yn glir bod dŵr halogedig a ollyngwyd o’r pyllau yn ystod ei fywyd gweithredol, gan awgrymu y byddai gollyngiadau yn parhau yn y tymor hir pe bai dŵr yn gallu mynd i mewn i’r pyllau o ffynhonnell allanol. Gan y byddai hyn yn dod ar draws y deunydd adeiladu ymbelydrol, mae’n debyg y byddai’n mynd â’r halogiad hwnnw ag ef. Nid wyf wedi gweld unrhyw gyfeiriad at fwriad NRS i wneud y pyllau yn ddyfrllyd heblaw darparu cap concrit.

Mae Llyn Trawsfynydd eisoes wedi’i halogi’n sylweddol o genhedlaeth ymholltiad hanesyddol, ac ni fyddem am weld y tir o amgylch y pwll neu’r llyn wedi’i halogi bellach.

Er bod Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru wedi nodi y bydd cynlluniau i ddadgomisiynu Trawsfynydd yn arwain at halogi ‘o fewn terfynau diogelwch’, mae’r NFLAs yn cefnogi’r model Trothwy Llinol-Dim Trothwy o effeithiau iechyd ymbelydredd. Mae’r model yn dweud bod y berthynas rhwng risg canser a dos ymbelydredd yn llinol, felly hyd yn oed ar ddosau isel mae risg bach o ganser o hyd. Daeth meta-ddadansoddiad diweddar ar ymbelydredd ïoneiddio a chlefydau cardiofasgwlaidd a gyhoeddwyd yn y British Medical Journal hefyd i’r casgliad: “Mae ein canfyddiadau’n awgrymu y gallai niwed ymbelydredd fod wedi cael ei danamcangyfrif yn sylweddol, gan awgrymu y dylid ailfeddwl amddiffyn ymbelydredd ac optimeiddio ar ddosau isel.” Mae corff cynyddol o wyddonwyr sydd wedi dod i’r casgliad nad oes lefel ddiogel o ymbelydredd. Mae’n dilyn, felly, ei bod yn anfoesegol ac anfoesol cynyddu rhyddhau ymbelydredd o waith dyn yn fwriadol i’r amgylchedd ni waeth pa mor fach, pryd y gellir osgoi hyn. O ganlyniad, ni fyddem am weld y tir o amgylch y pwll neu’r llyn wedi’i halogi mwyach.

Mae’r academydd, y gwyddonydd a’r ymgyrchydd, Dr Chris Busby, wedi cynnal astudiaethau helaeth i achosion o ganser ymhlith y boblogaeth o amgylch Trawsfynydd. Cyflogwyd ymchwilwyr Cymraeg eu hiaith i gynnal holiaduron ymhlith preswylwyr. Mewn cydweithrediad â phartneriaid academaidd eraill, mae Dr Busby wedi cyhoeddi sawl adroddiad ac erthygl sy’n dod i’r casgliad bod nifer yr achosion o ganserau penodol yn ystadegol annormal. Yn ôl Dr Busby, defnyddiwyd y llyn yn hanesyddol fel sinc cyfleus a ganiateir ar gyfer gollyngiadau ymbelydrol o’r planhigyn ac mae’r ‘symiau mawr iawn o ddeunydd ymbelydrol yn bodoli yn y gwaddod gwely’r llyn (Fern, Odell, Cobb 1988) ar grynodiadau a ddylai o dan ddeddfwriaeth y DU ei gwneud yn ofynnol iddo gael ei reoli fel Gwastraff Lefel Isel’. Nawr ‘mae’r llyn yn cael ei ddefnyddio fel amwynder chwaraeon ac yn cynnwys brithyll, sy’n cael eu dal gan bysgotwyr ac yn aml yn cael eu bwyta. Mae’r brithyll yn cynnwys radioniwclidau ac felly maent yn cael eu monitro’n rheolaidd gan yr awdurdodau’. Mae hyn wedi arwain at y canlyniad bod defnyddwyr y brithyll yn byw gyda ‘risg uwch’ o ganser.

O ganlyniad, byddai’n well gennym gyfleuster storio pwrpasol uwchben y ddaear a fyddai’n darparu rhwystr gwarantedig rhwng y gwastraff ymbelydrol a’r ddaear. Byddai hyn yn atal unrhyw ddŵr ffo hirdymor posibl o’r pyllau oeri sydd wedi’u hailbwrpasu i’r llyn a’r tir cyfagos. O leiaf, credwn y dylai NRS wneud y pwll oeri yn dŵr cymhleth, a dylai unrhyw gynnig gael ei gyd-fynd ag ymrwymiad gan NRS i drefn fonitro briodol.

Dyma’r ffynonellau:

Busby, Chris et al, ‘Arolwg o ganser yng nghyffiniau Gorsaf Bŵer Niwclear Trawsfynydd yng Ngogledd Cymru’, (Archwilio Gwyrdd: Aberystwyth. Mehefin 2006)

Busby, Chris et al, ‘Canser ger Gorsaf Bŵer Niwclear Trawsfynydd yng Nghymru, y DU: Astudiaeth Carfan Trawsdoriadol ‘, (Archwilio Gwyrdd: Aberystwyth. Mehefin 2006 a Jacobs Publishers: 2015)

Busby, Chris, ‘Trawsfynydd a chanser: lladd pŵer niwclear’, (Yr Ecolegydd: 9 Mehefin 2015)

Fern, Odell, a Cobb, ‘Arolwg o Ddosbarthiad Ymbelydredd yn Llyn Trawsfynydd’, (CEGB: 1988)

IAEA, cyhoeddiad Cyfres Ynni Niwclear, ‘Dadgomisiynu pyllau mewn cyfleusterau niwclear’, (IAEA: Fienna. 2015)

Little, Mark P, ‘Ymbelydredd ïoneiddio a chlefyd cardiofasgwlaidd: adolygiad systematig a meta-ddadansoddi’, (BMJ: 2023)