Vol. 397 No. 10
8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for the Environment if consideration of the proposals from five consortia for the construction of a national toxic waste incinerator, which he indicated in Dáil Éireann on 14 November 1989 was underway, has yet been concluded; the number of such submissions made by Irish firms; when it is likely that a decision will be reached on the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
41 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the present position in relation to the establishment of a central hazardous waste incinerator; the present status of invited applicants to tender for the provision of the facility; the possible location of the facility; and the cost to the private sector and to the Exchequer of the environmental control mechanism envisged by his Department.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 41 together.
Of the five groups which submitted detailed proposals for the provision of a hazardous waste incineration facility, three had Irish participation. It is intended to arrange for further discussions in the near future with the promoters of two preferred proposals both of which include Irish participation. It is likely that a final selection will be made within two months. The selection of a site for the facility will be a matter for the successful promoter. I am not in a position, at this stage, to estimate the proportion of the cost of the project attributable to environmental control requirements and facilities.
Have any of the proposals submitted, in particular the preferred proposals referred to by the Minister, identified possible sites for the incinerator?
No, not at this stage.
Has any consideration been given to the location of the toxic dump?
Does the Deputy mean a holding area for the waste to be disposed of in the incinerator?
I mean the dump in which the residues from the incineration will be disposed of. Has any consideration been given to where that dump will be located bearing in mind that that dump will, inevitably, have to contain waste which by definition will be even more toxic than the waste being incinerated in the first place?
Negotiations are taking place. I cannot give the Deputy the details he requires. I would be happy to give them if they were available. When the negotiations are completed with the preferred promoter we will be able to go about making the announcement as to where and what will happen.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government's mind is closed to the possibility of not having a national waste incinerator at all? I am sure he is aware of the widespread concern and total opposition to this project by Greenpeace and Earthwatch. Will the Minister comment?
I am aware of comments by certain groups concerning this matter. I should like to state that it is our intention to see that, in the first instance, there is a reduction in the total tonnage of waste generated here. We want processes improved and new technology applied to reduce the total level of waste in the first instance. We then see it as important, as Deputy Shatter said, to recycle everything that is suitable for recycling. However, with the best will in the world there will be a certain tonnage of hazardous toxic waste to be disposed of. At the moment we are able to send that waste abroad, to the UK, France and Finland for final incineration. As President of the EC Council of Ministers it has become clear to me that the way forward in Europe is self-sufficiency so far as treating waste is concerned. With that in mind one must be conscious that in a short period we will have to make other arrangements if the European arrangement is not available to us. I have always believed, and I put this forward as a suggestion that could be agreed collectively, that waste should not have to travel far; it does not travel well. There are inherent dangers along the way and the whole principle of proximity should apply in regard to waste management. It would be preferable to have a facility of our own, one we can control and monitor properly to the highest environmental standards, rather than ending up, if nobody takes our toxic waste, with the only option of burying it in Irish soil, our bogs or drains, or dumping it off our coast. I do not think that is an option for the Irish people. Consequently, we will have to get rid of the waste ourselves.
I find myself in agreement with the Minister's conclusions. Will he agree that there is a great sense of urgency for Irish industrial manufacturing companies which of necessity produce hazardous toxic waste as a byproduct to provide in this State a facility to incinerate toxic waste? If the Minister accepts that will he agree that his decision not to designate a specific location for such an incinerator and leaving the location to the choice of the promoter and, consequently, to the long and, perhaps, extended planning process, will add another two years' delay to the erection of such a facility? Will he accept that that amounts to political cop out by him?
I agree that there is an urgency about this. However, it is our hope that the incinerator will be in place between 1993 and 1994. The planning process, the environmental impact assessment and all that must be done to get agreement on the location, will of necessity be pretty long drawn out. The State will be involved in monitoring the incinerator and so on but the facility will be provided by the private sector. It is because of that that we can get on with the provision of the incinerator pretty rapidly, as soon as the negotiations with the preferred company have been completed. I do not see us running out of time in advance of 1993-94 in so far as the availability of space in the European incinerators is concerned. I have spoken to some of my colleagues in the countries where the incinerators which we now use are located and it is agreed at Council level in the European Council of Ministers that small countries must be given a little time to gear themselves to the question of self-sufficiency. We have a little time but, of course, it is running out.
The Minister has been generous in his response to supplementaries so far, for which I thank him. However, I do not agree with him or with Deputy Quinn in this regard because the size of one of these incinerators will be very much bigger than the amount of waste we produce. If we come on stream too early there may be pressure on us — not alone to dispose of our own waste — but to take waste from other countries in Europe who are in exactly the same position as us, who do not produce enough waste to justify providing an incinerator of this type. The Minister said there are two chosen companies with whom he intends to enter into negotiations. Is it true that one of the considerations about the cost of building an incinerator is its location? Obviously the company cannot submit a price unless they know precisely where it will be located because the value of land varies in different parts of the country. Will the Minister say whether the companies have been given a free hand in choosing the location or if they have been allowed to choose from a number of sites submitted to them by this — or another — Department? Will the Minister ensure that this facility is located near the area where most of the waste is produced?
I want to be as forthcoming as I can about this matter because, obviously, it is a major issue which will have to be considered at great length by interested parties. I categorically state that it is not the intention of the Government — I take it I speak for everybody in the House — to ever contemplate importing toxic hazardous waste from other countries. Let us get that clear from the start, it is not on the agenda and is not contemplated. It is possible to have an incinerator geared to our capacity and such facilities already exist in different locations. I have seen one. Obviously it will be necessary for people to know the type of incinerator, how efficiently it works and its record. All that will be gone through but there will not be any imports of toxic waste to this country. The cost has not yet been finally established although estimates are available and many matters would impinge on the overall cost. We are talking to specialised companies at present about the type of incineration, the state of the art technology and the variation in the types of waste of which we have to dispose. Sometimes it is forgotten that we already have quite a number of incinerators working in this country in individual industries, in hospitals and in other locations. The advantages of having a national incinerator would include enticing all those people to use this central facility so that we would have total control over it and be in a position to monitor it. There seems to be technology to enable us to have such an incinerator as long as it is constructed to the highest standards and properly commissioned so that it is environmentally acceptable. It is not necessary to have an incinerator near existing industry which generates such waste and the reason I mentioned waste from hospitals is that there are hospitals all over the country and this type of toxic hazardous waste is generated virtually everywhere. I cannot pre-empt the decision on where the incinerator will be located but it does not necessarily have to be where the predominance of the chemical industry is located.
I want to deal with other questions also. We have made very little progress so far as we have only disposed of eight questions in 35 minutes. I will allow one brief supplementary question and I will then proceed to deal with other questions.
The Minister must have some idea of where the incinerator will be located.
Deputy Gilmore, please.
On the question of the location——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. A study was undertaken in regard to the total amount of tonnage and type of waste which is available.
The Minister must have given the companies an indication of the areas acceptable to him.
That indication was not given by me to any of the six organisations that were invited to tender.
The Minister is not living up to his responsibilities.
This is becoming very untidy. Deputy Gilmore is in possession.
On the question of location, it seems unbelievable that a toxic waste incinerator, which is likely to give rise to major controversy particularly in the area in which it will eventually be sited, was not the subject of discussion between the Department, the Minister and the proposers. The Minister said that the proposers have not indicated a location, he has now whittled it down to two possible projects but there still has not been a discussion of a location for the incinerator or the attendant dump. In the discussions which the Minister proposes to have with the two preferred proposers over the next——
Deputy Gilmore, I expected brevity and if you persist in making a long speech I will go onto another question.
Does the Minister intend to make any proposal or have any discussions with those two proposers over the next two months about a location? Does he intend to leave it entirely to the companies concerned?
It will not be located in Castlebar anyway.
I could mention another place in which it will not be located.
That kind of comment is not helpful.
If it was good news——
We agreed that we need this facility. I know the kind of comments that would be made here in five years' time if we did not have a way of getting rid of our toxic hazardous waste——
The Minister is evading the issue.
Deputy Flynn is the Minister, he should grasp this nettle.
If I was not grasping the nettle I would not be proceeding with this project. The point is that I am proceeding with it.
We should move on to the next question.
If there was toxic waste in a ship in Cork harbour, Clew Bay or Dublin Bay with nowhere to dispose of it except on Irish soil, I know the kind of comment that would be made.
The Minister is evading the issue.
Here we go again, Question No. 9, please.
The Minister is washing his hands of the whole issue.
