asked the Minister for the Environment if he has satisfied himself that the emissions and the monitoring arrangements in Moneypoint, County Clare comply with the Air Pollution Act, 1987.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Moneypoint Station Emissions.
4.
The overall environmental regime for Moneypoint station is that established under the conditions of the planning permission granted by Clare County Council in 1979. These conditions include requirements as to emission control and related monitoring, which have so far been met.
Licensing of industrial plant emissions, as envisaged under Part III of the Air Pollution Act, 1987, will in the first instance apply to new plant only and not to existing plants such as Moneypoint.
May I ask the Minister if the Government have a similar concern about health dangers from emissions from this plant as they have about emissions from other energy related plants in other jurisdictions?
Yes, and there is very close monitoring of this plant going on and it is proper that there should be. There is a network of 11 stations within County Clare monitoring emissions from Moneypoint. There are five ESB stations in County Kerry and County Limerick monitoring the same station and one station in the Slieve Bloom mountains determining the long range effects. A considerable amount of money of a capital nature had been put in for the cleaning of the flue gases at the time of the installation which cost £25 million and I am satisfied that they are well within the targets set for them.
Would the Minister agree that there should be no lapse in the application of health safeguards and environmental safeguards in regard to energy plants in this country and in other jurisdictions which might affect this country?
Do you mean transboundary?
Yes, one should be as careful in one's own jurisdiction as one would wish others to be in theirs.
We are running from a very low base and that gives us less clout in the European sense in that they already have a very high emission rate and our emissions are much lower and, in establishing what the base will be for the future, ours will be allowed to rise substantially whereas theirs will be decreased. This is unsatisfactory to a degree but at the same time we are very low in so far as emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen are concerned. It is important — and the thrust of the question bears this out — that we should closely monitor everything that comes from Moneypoint and from other stations.
There should be no dual standards.
There have to be dual standards until such time as the standards are finally rationalised by EC Convention, and that has not yet taken place.
It is said that there are emissions of between 65,000 and 70,000 tonnes at Moneypoint. Does the Minister find this excessive? It is causing much concern in that part of the country.
When the wrong figures are promoted there is, of course, cause for concern but that is not the figure. The estimated emissions of sulphur dioxide from Moneypoint stood at 12,000 tonnes in 1986 and the total emissions from all plants throughout the country was 91,000 tonnes. That is not what it will be when Moneypoint is at full production. We must be clear about that.
May I ask the Minister what were the figures for 1987 and what the total figure will be when the plant is in full operation? May I also ask the Minister if he is satisfied that the emissions then will not cause serious pollution?
I do not have the 1987 figures in my brief except to say that at full production it is estimated that Moneypoint will emit up to 70,000 tonnes of SO² when it is at full thrust. As the Deputy knows, we will have an overall annual limit of about 124,000 tonnes placed on us following the arrangements within the EC. As I stated, that is a fairly big increase for us but, of course, it is a huge reduction when compared to what European countries have to reduce their emissions by.
Will there be local pollution?
No, these are the standards that are deemed acceptable by environmentalists and that total emission of 124,000 tonnes will not cause any problem for us.
That is a national figure.
(Interruptions).
I will allow a further question to Deputy John Boland and Deputy Taylor-Quinn.
The Minister's reply relates to new plant being commissioned. Will the Minister indicate whether the provisions of the Air Pollution Act will ensure that the emissions from that new plant will meet the target of 30 per cent which is the objective of most of the European countries, and will he further indicate what steps the Goverment intend to take in relation to the emissions from the existing plant?
The Deputy is right that the emissions control will apply to the certificate and licence attached to the new plant under Part III of the Air Pollution Act, 1987, but that is only initially. They will apply to all plants new or old after that. I am satisfied that the arrangements are in place so that we can have accepted international standards. That is why we have so many monitoring stations, not just in County Clare. It is expected that extra monitoring will be done particularly in the Slieve Bloom mountain area.
Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in Clare, particularly in north and east Clare, in relation to emissions from Moneypoint? While the emissions are containable at the moment, when stages 4 and 5 of Moneypoint go ahead there will be a very real danger from the emissions. Will the Minister's Department be prepared to assist the ESB financially to install scrubbers in Moneypoint to reduce the emissions?
I understand that Moneypoint is equipped with high efficiency electro-static precipitators for cleaning the flue gases, that they cost £25 million and that this was not a requirement of the planning permission granted by Clare County Council. That is not to say that Clare County Council were negligent. I am just saying——
I am anxious to deal with another question.
——that equipment is in place to improve the situation above and beyond what the planning permission would have required.
I am aware of that, but there is a general belief that there is a need to install scrubbers. Will the Minister let us know the view of his Department on that issue?
From the information available at the moment——
I have allowed a lot of latitude on this question.
——the capital expenditure that would be needed to put scrubbers in Moneypoint is not warranted. The emissions of SO² from Moneypoint are monitored. They are within acceptable levels and are not a cause for concern. Monitoring is continuing and should the matter alter significantly to be a cause of concern obviously further measures will be taken.
Can the Minister indicate what steps are being taken to monitor the emissions from the ESB station at Moneypoint and if there is any detectable evidence that emissions are causing damage either in the West or in any other part of Ireland?
The monitoring stations are functioning satisfactorily. There is no cause for concern to date because of the level of emissions. If the level of emissions alters or begins to damage the environment the problems will be addressed. There is not a problem at the moment and the experts on these matters say that everything is quite safe and above board and working satisfactorily in Moneypoint.