Vol. 409 No. 3
16 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Energy if the Government will consider the installation of scrubbers in the ESB generating station at Moneypoint in order to reduce its contribution to the acid rain problem and the danger of upsetting the delicate balance of the Burren biosphere; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The ESB have installed extensive and scientifically based equipment at many locations to monitor Moneypoint emissions. This process is validated independently. One of the 14 stations is located in the Burren. The evidence so far indicates that the impact of Moneypoint emissions on the Burren and the Irish environment generally is negligible.
The cost to the ESB and to the consumer of providing scrubbers in Moneypoint would be very expensive. This expense is not immediately necessary to meet our existing obligations under EC law or under the Helsinki Protocol. If scrubbers become necessary at some time in the future the electricity consumer will, of course, have to meet the additional cost.
The Minister's reply is very interesting. The ESB are monitoring their own emissions, just as Sellafield are monitoring their own emissions. The Minister will agree that a power station or an industry in such a case will always indicate that the dangers to health are negligible. That is the answer in this case, that the danger to the Burren or any other area is negligible. Could the Minister say where the 80,000 tons of dust emissions from Moneypoint land, if they do not land in the Burren? Since our winds are mostly south-westerly, they must land somewhere in the country. Could the Minister say, if not in Clare, where?
It is very interesting that Deputy Mac Giolla should seek to attack the ESB in this way——
I am not attacking the ESB.
——particularly when one recalls that he should have a more benign view of that organisation as a result of his experience of how efficiently they operate. I said that the ESB had installed monitoring facilities and the Deputy said that they were carrying out their own tests. I also said that the monitoring process is being evaluated independently. It is not the ESB's opinion as to whether or not the effects of the emissions are negligible. It is the opinion of a body who are independent of the ESB. If the Deputy has any concerns in that matter I can send him full information with regard to that body.
Does the Minister have figures on the readings and how near are they to EC limits?
I have information with regard to EC limits. If the Deputy is interested in the full answer I will send on the full information.
I appreciate that the Minister will send on some of the details. I would like to have details as to the body which monitors the monitor. It is very important both for the ESB and for the Minister to have all the facts published. People are apprehensive about environmental problems. I am sure the Minister will agree that people are apprehensive about the dangers of acid rain from fallout from Moneypoint. Will the Minister ensure that available data is published regularly so that public fear is allayed and so that we can have details such as those Deputy Flaherty suggested with regard to EC limits and what the monitoring equipment has shown in various areas? Could that be done, Minister?
Yes.
The Minister is being very coy about who this body is. Does the Minister have the information with him? If he has he should tell us. I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the keys to the acknowledged problems with fallout from Moneypoint relates to the use of low sulphur coal. Could the Minister say what the sulphur content of the coal has been and how many tons of coal have been used in Moneypoint over the last three years?
These are very specific matters worthy of a separate question.
If the Minister has the answers perhaps he will give them to us.
I do not have the name of the body carrying out the validation of the results of the monitoring but I have some information on the EC directives and on the Helsinki Protocol. Under the EC directive which was adopted in 1988 all sulphur dioxide emissions from power plants in Ireland must be reduced to 120,000 tons by 1993. However, this directive has now effectively been overtaken by the Government's intention to accede to the Helsinki Protocol on transboundary air pollution. This Protocol provides for a 30 per cent reduction in the total sulphur dioxide emissions from all sources in each country by 1993, based on 1980 levels. The amount for the ESB will be 75,000 tons. The Protocol has been open for signature since 1985 and it has been signed by 21 countries out of 35. Of the 21 countries which signed five were EC member states. It is the Government's intention to sign the Protocol. The Government in their environment action programme stated that they will accede to this Protocol. This implies a limit of 157,000 tons of SO2 from all sources in 1993, both in the industrial sector and the power plants. Power generation accounts for just less than 50 per cent of existing national emissions with industrial activities contributing to the greater part of the balance. To ensure that emissions remain below the limit of 157,000 tons and that power generation and industrial sectors contribute towards that end, a mix of the following steps will have to be taken: use of low sulphur coal at Moneypoint and low sulphur fuels at other stations; increased use of natural gas by the ESB, installation of desul-phurisation equipment, if necessary, and action to reduce industrial emissions at source.
