Vol. 415 No. 4
17 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for the setting up of a toxic waste incinerator, especially in view of the fact that Du Pont have decided not to go ahead with the plant in Derry.
158 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for the Environment if he will outline the proposals which are under consideration for a hazardous waste incinerator for Irish industry; and if he considers that such an incinerator for Irish industry alone would be economically viable.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 158 together.
The environmental action programme stated the Government's proposal to ensure the provision of a central hazardous waste incinerator. Proposals for such a facility were invited by my Department and their assessment was at an advanced stage when, in 1990, a proposal was independently advanced by Du Pont (UK) Limited to locate an incinerator, with capacity to serve all of Ireland, at their Maydown works, County Derry. In view of the changed commercial and strategic conditions created by the Du Pont proposal, my predecessor decided to allow the situation to clarify before supporting any particular proposal. In December 1991, Du Pont announced their decision not to proceed with the proposed all-Ireland facility but instead to improve the treatment and disposal of their own hazardous wastes. This changed situation makes it necessary to review the planning of an Irish central hazardous waste incinerator, and I have already indicated that my Department are addressing this urgently.
A number of important changes have occurred since my Department commissioned proposals in 1989. The following are among these: higher technical standards than those earlier specified are now embodied in new German legislation and in a draft EC directive on hazardous waste incineration; market conditions may be affected by Du Pont's stated policy of dealing with their own wastes; possible new incineration requirements for possible waste and/or sewage sludge may also be relevant, and more up-to-date statistics on hazardous waste will shortly become available.
The review which I have set in train is well justified by reference to these factors. I will communicate its outcome as soon as possible.
The Minister's reply is a total cop-out in regard to our responsibilities to the environment.
Hear, hear.
Does the Minister consider that the absence of a comprehensive waste management policy and the absence of a waste treatment plant here is a major impediment to industrial development and job creation? Will he agree that the indecision and legislative cowardice is costing jobs because industrialists do not know what will happen in the future? Will he agree he is depending on foreign industrialists to do our work for us? Will he now announce the date when the national waste treatment plant will be set up? We are sick of cop-outs.
Please, Deputy, your questions are adequate.
I am disappointed that Deputy Allen was not listening to my reply.
More reports. The Minister used Du Pont as an excuse to wriggle out of it.
I said that the Department are addressing the matter——
Please, Deputy Allen, allow the Minister to reply to the many questions you posed.
I said that the report on industrial waste highlighted the need for a hazardous waste incinerator. However, I believe — and I am sure the House will accept — that my predecessor made a very wise decision when Du Pont announced that they were looking at the feasibility of building an incincerator which would cater for the needs of the whole of Ireland. It was only last December that Du Pont announced they were not proceeding with the plan but that they intended to build an incinerator to cater for their needs and the needs in the locality where they have their factory at Maydown. As soon as we were informed of that we resurrected the plans which were at an advanced stage but, because of events to which I referred — including European Community Directives — we decided to have a total review of the up-to-date position. There is no question of a cop-out, a decision will be made.
Since the Minister now accepts that there is an urgent need for a treatment plant, will there be a decision in three months or three years? How can the Minister agree with his predecessor's reasoning because it showed that he was totally dependent on external forces and factors and that we did not have the situation under control? What will happen when the European Commission insists on this country treating its own hazardous waste?
I would have expected that Deputy Allen appreciated it is necessary to plan——
There has been planning since 1984.
It is necessary to plan on the basis of the amount of hazardous waste which must be treated and the projected amount in the future. If someone intends to build a major plant which will cater for the needs of the whole country it seems appropriate that they would at least know what is happening there before building a plant which might be very expensive and totally out of line with what is required. I assure the Deputy that we are treating this matter with seriousness; I believe that my predecessor was right and we are now conducting a review in the light of the new situation.
How could the Minister's predecessor have been right when we do not have a plant?
To clarify matters, to enable us to understand the position of the Minister and the Government, is the Minister saying that it is Government policy to have a single, national waste incinerator? Is it still a matter of review whether there will be a single national incinerator or a number of small, localised incinerators to cater for toxic waste?
I told the Deputy that the Government are reviewing the situation, recognising the need for proper disposal facilities for hazardous waste.
I got a similar answer in 1987.
Does the Minister's reply mean that the proposals which were submitted by five different companies are no longer being actively considered? I refer to the five proposals which were on the table prior to the announcement by Du Pont.
No. It would be reasonable to accept that the promoters of the project two years ago will again be consulted.
Is the Minister aware of the serious situation in regard to hazardous waste and CFCs being buried in bogs and fields and indeed being dumped across the countryside? That is a fact, the Minister can take my word for it and I can tell him where it is happening if he wants to know. Will he accept that ongoing reviews have failed to make any positive impact? We do not have an incinerator or cleansing apparatus of any kind. Can the Minister give a specific date rather than these ongoing reviews because local authorities are very concerned——
I have to appeal for brevity, Deputy Enright.
I ask the Minister to be more specific and give an undertaking that he will come back into the House in three months——
I think that should be adequate. An t-Aire.
——with the details of what is being done. As I said, an incinerator is urgently required.
The issue is up in the air again.
I can assure the Deputy that there will be no undue delay.
What does that mean?
Does that mean three months or three years?
We recognise the problem and we are anxious to address this issue as expeditiously as possible.
I believe the Minister is not as aware as he should be of the severe restrictions the lack of a toxic waste facility in Ireland is having on industry. Is he aware that some firms have already been told by the providers of a waste facility outside his jurisdiction, that they can no longer use the facilities in Northern Ireland or in Britain? What interim arrangements will the Minister put in place for those firms? Secondly, have the Department come down in favour of the argument that it is not economic to provide a waste facility just for the South? Would it be economic to provide such a facility for the whole island or for the South? The report his Department gave the British-Irish parliamentary body said it was not economic to provide such a facility just for the South.
On the latter part of the question, obviously this is an issue which has to be addressed because it would no longer be practical to have one facility for the entire island if one of the major users set up their own facility in Derry. With regard to the first part of the question, I am well aware of what is happening in the country. Approximately 50,000 tonnes of hazardous waste is produced——
Per year.
——and 5,000 tonnes is exported mainly to Britain, France and Finland.
And Third World countries.
Five major industries have their own facilities and there is also a facility in Shannon. They are well aware of what is happening at present. In view of European Directives and discussions in Europe about the export of hazardous waste, for example, the Basel Convention, we have to address this issue. I want to assure the House that I am as anxious as anyone else to face up to the problem and to deal with it expeditiously.
Then do so.
I believe the Government have done that and they were right——
The Government have done nothing to reduce the high——
They have no policy either.
In the light of what Deputy Owen said about one national incinerator——
Does Deputy Owen believe that if Du Pont had built an incinerator which would cater for the whole of Ireland that would have had no effect on us and we could have proceeded on our way regardless?
I call Deputy Garland.
The Government should be independent and should not have compromised——
Please, Deputy Allen, I have called another Deputy.
I trust the Minister is not going to be railroaded into making a quick decision by the chemical lobby, as represented by Fine Gael. Would the Minister not agree that the time has come for a complete rethink on this issue?
The Deputy's party would close down all our factories.
Du Pont are rethinking the whole question of incineration as a method of disposal. Does the Minister not agree it is time the Government had a rethink on this issue? There are many ways of disposing of toxic waste. There is the option of not creating it in the first instance. Would the Minister agree that it is time the Government reconsidered the entire issue and not give any commitment to the building of a national waste incinerator?
I understand Du Pont are providing a modern incinerator for their own needs in Derry. They are not moving away from the idea of an incinerator, but they have moved away from the idea of a major incinerator which would cater for the whole of Ireland.
Deputy Jim Mitchell was offering. A final question, Deputy.
I regret the environmental extremism of the Green Party who have not faced up to the reality that their resistance to a toxic waste incinerator is damaging the environment because of all the illicit dumping——
Rubbish.
Our waterways and wells are being threatened by this toxic——
This is tending to become a debate. Questions, please.
In view of the need to protect our environment does the Minister not agree that a decision should be made on this issue within a matter of months? Would he agree to come back to the House with a statement within, say, three months?
I agree with the need to ensure the self disposal of hazardous waste but I do not accept that an incinerator is particularly environmentally objectionable. It would be fine if we could do without such a facility but it is necessary. It is a question of balance.
It is not necessary.
It is necessary.
As Deputy Garland knows, incinerators are used extensively for both municipal and hazardous waste disposal in most developed countries. As I have already said, there are five on-site incinerators in this country and environmentally advanced countries such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands all use incinerators to dispose of hazardous waste. The Netherlands, which is one of the most advanced countries on waste reduction in the EC, envisages an increased use of incineration in the future.
Let us come to deal with Question No. 18.
I am surprised at Deputy Garland's——
I have called Question No 18.
The Deputy would want to remember some of his blurbs.
