Deputy Mary Harney has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the siting of the national waste disposal dump at Baldonnel, County Dublin. The Deputy has 20 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - National Waste Disposal Centre.
I have sought for some weeks now to have this matter discussed in the Dáil ever since the Minister for the Environment made a statement that the was now to review the need for the development of a national waste disposal centre at Brownsbarn, Baldonnel. I was delighted to know that the Minister had at last decided to review this proposal. However, I must admit that I, together with many people who live in this area, have become somewhat sceptical of this review in view of the fact it was announced in advance of the local elections and that the Minister does not seem to be prepared to give any kind of commitment other than that he is reviewing the proposal.
I do not believe that is good enough. It is now over three years since the Government announced their intention to provide a national waste disposal centre at this location near the densely populated areas of Tallaght, Clondalkin, the villages of Rathcoole, Saggart and Newcastle. During that time the Minister and the Minister's Department, together with the firm of Danish consultants who were employed by the Department of the Environment, have had a considerable amount of time and have had expertise available to them to finalise their plans and to tell us, once and for all, what their proposals are in relation to this site.
I, together with many of the local people in the area, have tried in the Dáil, at county council level and elsewhere to seek information to clarify what exactly the nature of the development at Baldonnel was. As late as last March I was told by the Minister, in reply to a Dáil question, that the National Building Agency — the group charged with the development of this facility — had now prepared their plans, that these plans were with the Department and that they would shortly be lodged with the county council. In view of that statement by the Minister in reply to a Dáil question last March we have become somewhat cynical of his recent announcement that he might review the possibility of providing this facility. So far as I or anybody else can encourage him to change his mind, I want to do that.
I believe that the provision of a national waste disposal centre is not the correct way to proceed with the treatment of dangerous waste in this country. We have at the moment in use in Ireland 27 dangerous substances which in the main are being used by about 52 manufacturing industries. Approximately 40 of these companies have come from the United States. They have not come here because they like the Irish climate or because they want to provide muchneeded jobs; but they are here because they have not been allowed to locate those industries in their own countries.
That is the primary reason they are here. The second reason is that they have got very generous grant aid and tax concessions. Thirdly, they have come because they realise that we are a country with very low standards for dealing with pollution and the monitoring and controlling of dangerous and toxic materials. The most appropriate way of dealing with these chemicals is to have strict controls on the type of industry which can be located here. Perhaps it is our craving to have three or four jobs here or there which has allowed us to be so lenient with many of these multinationals. We have to accept the fact, however, that they are now here. We have got to decide what is the best way to proceed in dealing with their toxic waste.
I believe that each local authority should be responsible for monitoring and controlling the disposal of toxic waste material in their region and that the cost of disposing of these substances should be borne by the user that is, in most cases the multinational firms. The most inappropriate way to proceed is to have only one central location. In that way dangerous waste will be transported all over the country through densely populated areas. This is a very irresponsible and danerous thing to do.
We must also realise that our own fire authorities do not have the expertise resources or equipment to deal with any serious accident that might occur in the transportation of toxic waste. Are we going to have large tankers travelling through densely populated areas with very bad roads and fire authorities who cannot cope in the event of an accident? We have been very lax in controlling and monitoring any of these substances. The fire authorities have absolutely no idea what substances are being transported since tankers are not adequately labelled. I am not a toxicologist but I do not believe that it takes much knowledge of science to realise that the storage of 27 different dangerous substances together would be a highly dangerous prospect.
Ireland has ratified the EC directive in relation to the treatment of these toxic and dangerous chemicals. Paragraph 2 of that directive, S.I. No. 23 says:
A special waste plan shall be designed to secure that toxic and dangerous waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, (a) without risk to water, air, plant or animals, (b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and (c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
I want us to consider that very seriously, because the proposal is to locate a waste disposal centre at Baldonnel within a very short distance of Peamount Hospital, formerly a sanitorium, which with a recent increase in TB has again been dealing with many cases of TB in Ireland. It is very close to a school for spina bifida children. Are we fulfilling the EC directive that we have been happy to endorse if we locate close to these two institutions a national waste disposal centre? Of course, we are not. The River Camac, which flows through this site, one of the only rivers in this part of Dublin, which is used widely by fishermen in the area, will be adversely affected by this. Many people have been lobbying the local authority to look after this amenity. Are we now to decide we will build a national waste disposal centre beside this river?
Dublin County Council in their wisdom purchased a large acreage of land in close proximity to this site for a major regional park for the residents of Tallaght, Clondalkin, Saggart, Rathcoole and Newcastle areas of County Dublin. Surely the location of a national waste disposal centre beside a major regional park is a frightening thought and would endanger the soil, the amenities and the environment of the area. One must also be concerned, more than anything else in relation to this development, with the health of the people who have to live in the area. This is one of the most densely populated regions in western Europe. We have a population now of just under 90,000 and, as a result of the recently published ERDO study, that population will grow to over 150,000 people. Surely the provision of a national waste disposal centre in an area so densely populated as this is not the correct way to proceed.
The prevailing winds at Baldonnel are westerly. I understand that this will result in fumes and odours being blown across the new towns of Clondalkin and Tallaght. The people who live there are naturally very concerned about this prospect and do not want us to proceed with this toxic dump. I believe the Minister must, before the local elections, make it clear to the people what he intends to do in relation to this matter. When he employed his Danish consultants some time ago to help the NBA in drawing up the plan, I asked him to make that consultants' report available to the House. He refused to do that. He said it was confidential in so many respects. I believe he refused to do so because perhaps the Danish consultants realise that the site at Baldonnel is not the most appropriate one for a national waste disposal centre. I am sure they realise, as most people do, that an area so densely populated and so close to a hospital like Peamount and a school for spina-bifida children is not the correct area to locate a national waste disposal centre that may have to deal with 27 dangerous substances.
We have for far too long ignored our planning laws. We have had irresponsible and dangerous decisions made in many cases in relation to planning matters throughout the country. We have made many planning mistakes in the past and thousands of people have had to live with those mistakes for many years. Let us not make another mistake. This land is zoned for the further development of agriculture. There are no public facilities provided close to this land in the line of water or sewerage services. A site like that is not the appropriate one on which to locate a national waste disposal centre. This site is in very close proximity to the Department of Defence aerodrome at Baldonnel. I do not know what the attitude of the Department of Defence is to this proposal, but I have not heard any opposition from them.
For a considerable length of time the authorities in the Department of Defence have seen fit to object to individuals who come from that area trying to get houses built for themselves and their children. In one case they saw fit to object to a couple who were trying to have an old cottage rebuilt. The objection was based, they said, on the fact that it would endanger aircraft. Yet the Department have not made any noise about the possibility of a national waste disposal centre being erected in the vicinity. Their position in that regard is irresponsible and I hope they do not remain silent on this proposal.
We have to deal with toxic substances and the best way to do so is on the basis of having each local authority look after the toxic and dangerous substances being used in their area. Taxpayers should not have to pay for the disposal of these substances. The authorities should monitor and control these substances and make sure they are appropriately dealt with. The users of dangerous and toxic substances should have to pay for their disposal.
I hope the Minister of State will be able to enlighten us as to his plans in this regard. Having read the bulk of the evidence submitted by many interested groups to his Department, I hope he will be convinced, as most others are, that the site at Baldonnel is not suitable, that this manner of dealing with toxic substances is not the appropriate way to proceed and that we need a regional policy approach in this regard. In the current review I hope the Minister will consider consulting with the groups who have come together in the area, such as the Amalgamated Anti-Toxic Group who have asked time and again for meetings with Ministers and the Taoiseach to discuss the proposals. Indeed when they heard of the Minister's decision to review the matter, they sought to be part of the review. They asked the Minister to consider having some of their representatives involved in the review. That is a reasonable request and it should be granted.
A week or so ago the Minister for the Environment met with his British counterpart to discuss the disposal and treatment of dangerous substances, the pollution of our atmosphere, and the pollution of our seas and general environmental issues. Great play was made about that meeting. If he discussed the provision of a national waste disposal centre at Baldonnel he was told by his British counterpart that they did not have any interest in importing our toxic material. We have been told by the Department of the Environment that, when the facility goes ahead at Baldonnel, the substances will be treated and exported to Britain to be processed. I do not believe the British authorities have any interest in taking our dangerous substances and I have no doubt that the Minister was told that when he met the British authorities recently.
I should like the Minister of State to outline how long the review will take, and if it will be completed in advance of the local elections. If it is not, the people who live in the area who will be most adversely affected by this facility will look cynically at the Government and their candidates in the elections. They are deeply concerned about the matter and see the latest statement about the review as simply another cynical political exercise which the Minister of State will I hope tell them is not the case. I am concerned about the health of the people and the environment of our area.
We have all read and heard of the evidence from other countries of the dangers involved in the treatment of toxic and dangerous materials. We have seen the disasters that occurred and the lives that were lost. We are lucky that we have not had any such disaster here. If we proceed along the lines of the proposal for Baldonnel, it will not be long before we have disasters similar to those that occurred in other countries. I hope the Minister can allay our fears and assure the people of the area that his Department will not proceed with the building of this facility.
The need for a central waste facility was accepted by the Government in 1981 having regard to the problems posed by lack of adequate facilities in the country for the disposal of hazardous industrial waste. Industrial growth had given rise to a greatly increased volume and variety of wastes the safe disposal of which is a matter of serious and growing public concern. There is a problem for industry, and an environment problem, if wastes cannot be disposed of satisfactorily. Lack of suitable waste disposal outlets can hamper the operation of existing industries and inhibit the attraction of new ones at a time when the need to provide employment is a top priority. In addition, the emergence of a number of EC Directives, and in particular a Directive on toxic and dangerous waste to which effect is given in the European Communities (Toxic and Dangerous Waste) Regulations, 1982, emphasises the need from an environmental viewpoint of developing proper disposal arrangements.
Whilst most industrial wastes, including many of the wastes listed in the EC Directive on Toxic and Dangerous Waste, can safely be disposed of on suitable landfill sites, there are some which require treatment or incineration prior to disposal. There are no public treatment or incineration facilities here and considerable quantities of potentially dangerous wastes are exported for disposal in the UK. A number of the larger industries producing hazardous waste have their own in-plant treatment facilities or have well-established export arrangements. Disposal problems arise mainly for firms producing relatively small quantities of waste.
It is estimated that new arrangements are required for a relatively small amount of hazardous waste mainly in the form of metal sludges, solvents and chemical wastes. The idea was that the central facility would develop and streamline an export disposal service for such wastes on a national basis. This would have added significance with the coming into operation in October 1985, of an EC Directive on Control and Supervision of Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Wastes. The proposed centre was to provide for reception, storage and bulking up of wastes for export and not to serve as a dump or a permanent storage area.
In 1982, a 14 acre site at Baldonnel, County Dublin, was acquired for the central waste facility by the National Building Agency which had been asked by the Minister for the Environment to undertake the development role. Following protracted negotiations, the agency commissioned a Danish firm of international standing in toxic waste disposal to design and plan the facility. It was first necessary to identify more precisely the quantities and types of wastes to be catered for and, while some information was available in national data banks, there was need for consultations with a considerable number of industrial interests in order to establish the up-to-date position regarding in-plant treatment capacities and export volumes and plans.
While there have been some unavoidable delays, plans for a facility designed to the highest possible environmental and safety standards have now been virtually completed. In the meantime, however, there have been developments which could have a bearing on the proposal. In particular, consultations with private sector interests have established that the waste disposal services now being provided have developed to a considerable degree since the central waste transfer station was decided upon and that there may well be an interest in expanding these services and providing new facilities. In addition, recent developments suggest that the continuing availability of the export option for certain wastes may be in question. For these reasons, and because the planned facility would provide only part of the total hazardous waste disposal service needed by industry, we consider it essential that all aspects of the proposal should be reviewed.
With a view to exploring further the possibility of developing other options for dealing with hazardous wastes, the Minister has invited interests concerned to submit to him any proposals they may have for the development of existing hazardous waste disposal services, or the establishment of new facilities to deal with these wastes. Such proposals or facilities could relate to depots, transfer stations, or facilities for the incineration, solidification, recovery or other treatment of wastes. We would be particularly interested to learn of possible joint-venture operations between existing Irish firms and firms which operate, or have access to a range of disposal facilities abroad.
On foot of these invitations discussions are being arranged with a number of groups. At this stage it is far too early to say what proposals if any may emerge. We have established a small expert group to assist those interested in development proposals, for example by giving them access to relevant information, to assess whatever proposals may emerge and to make recommendations to the Minister. We will consider on the basis of these recommendations to what extent we could assist in the development by private sector interests of suitable schemes.
Deputy Harney referred to the multinationals and it is up to them to keep their own house in order. What we are talking about is small industry who have problems in dealing with toxic waste. The local authorities have a responsibility to arrange for the disposal of all waste, hazardous or otherwise. We cannot run away from this problem. It is like many problems about which people want something done, they do not want it done in their own areas. I understand the fears of people and I will not minimise them but what is proposed is a facility for the disposal of toxic waste. It is not a disposal unit. It is a facility to monitor the disposal of toxic waste. If we did not do that we could put people at risk. The Government and local authorities must take a responsible attitude.
Since the 1981 decision the situation has changed in industry. We are getting to a stage where a firm decision must be taken. We are now in the process of reviewing the possibilities, meeting interested bodies and so on to see if what is proposed is relevant. I cannot tell Deputy Harney at this stage that the Baldonnel proposal has been forgotten. The proposal is being looked at in a reasonable manner. The situation has changed. That is why we are asking interested groups to make suggestions. We wish to allay the concern of people but a facility must be obtained to ensure that we no longer dispose of toxic waste in a haphazard way which could be dangerous to life. I have covered the Deputy's question by saying that the proposal is being reviewed.
The Government have been reviewing it for four years now.
That is not correct. We commissioned a facility for Baldonnel, a site was purchased, the NDA were authorised to draw up a plan and they had consultations with the Danish people. That has taken some time and in that period things have changed.
They have only changed since March because in the Dáil reply they have not changed. I have it here.
They have changed.
In March the Minister said he was going to lodge the application.
To the best of my knowledge the application was not lodged in March. When we get to a stage where we are considering lodging the application we must be satisfied that everything is in order. Before planning permission is applied for and in the light of changes that have taken place over the four years it was prudent of the Minister to ask for a review. The end result will be that we will do the right thing in relation to the whole question of toxic waste. We will only do what is in the best interest of the community generally. I assure the House that we are not taking precipitate action for short term purposes.