I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the order in which they submitted their questions to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.
Private Notice Questions. - Incinerator Plants.
Acting Chairman
asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if he will reverse his pro-incineration policy in view if the disturbing and alarming report published in the British Medical Journal that living near an incinerator increases the risks of a baby being born with spina bifida by 17% and being born with congenital heart defects by 12%.
asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government his views on the claim in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health published by the British Medical Journal that living close to an incinerator increases the risks of a baby being born with spina bifida; and his further views on the need, in view of this latest information, for the Government to reconsider its support for incineration.
asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government his views on a report in the British Medical Journal that living near an incinerator increases the risks of a baby being born with spina bifida and congential heart diseases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if he will support, on public health grounds, a ban on the construction of waste incinerators in view of the study in the British Medical Journal which shows increased incidence of spina bifida and congenital heart defects in the vicinity of such incinerators.
asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if he will ban the construction of waste incinerators in view of the study in the British Medical Journal which shows increased incidence of spina bifida and congenital heart defects in the vicinity of such incinerators.
I have only today become aware of the report referred to in these questions. Deputies will appreciate that my Department has not had an opportunity to study it in detail and therefore is not in a position to respond definitively at this stage. I will make a number of points arising out of this report but before I do will first place the matter in context. In August 2001 my predecessor commissioned the health research board to commission a study to provide an objective and expert analysis of information regarding the likely effects of landfill and thermal treatment activities on public health and the environment. The report was published by the HRB last February and I welcomed it as a lengthy and detailed body of work which merits careful consideration. I have indicated that I will make a fuller statement on the report once my Department's consideration of it, which will involve the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Children, is completed.
In addressing the health effects of landfilling and the incineration of waste the HRB report referenced more than 120 studies or assessments. The report referred to in the Deputies' questions was not among these. Having taken account of all these reports the report came to the view that while incinerator emissions have been associated with respiratory symptoms this may not have been a causal factor noting that incinerators have tended to be located in industrial areas. In addition, the report concluded that evidence of association with other potential health effects is also inconclusive. The report was careful to point out that almost all of the available research relates to old facilities whereas new facilities would have to comply with much more stringent environmental and operational standards. Accordingly, the performance of older facilities is not directly comparable with that of new designs.
Turning now to the study which was referred to in media reports this morning I understand the study's objective was to investigate the risk of still births, neonatal death and lethal congenital abnormality among babies of mothers living close to incinerators and crematoria in Cumbria, north west England, in the period 1956 to 1993. I will examine this study carefully. At this point, while I am reluctant to pick out particular parts of the study for comment, there are a number of points which need to be put on record. First, it should be noted that the study's authors have indicated that they cannot infer a causal effect from the statistical associations reported in their work. This is similar to the conclusion reached in the HRB report and as in that report the need for further study is highlighted. Second, they warned that their findings need to be interpreted cautiously. Third, the study period, in so far as incinerators are concerned, stretches back over 30 years. Mass burn incinerators as they were and as they are today are like chalk and cheese. I propose therefore to have appropriate consideration given to the study alongside consideration of the HRB report and the related inventory of dioxin emissions to the Irish environment. As I have mentioned already that consideration will involve my Department and the EPA, as well as the Department of Health and Children, which has also been contacted in this regard.
In the meantime the EPA will continue to implement its rigorous environmental licensing system in respect of all significant waste facilities with the objective of ensuring that such activities do not present a significant risk to public health or to the environment. On the more general point of where I stand on the question of thermal treatment I will again put the record straight here. My aim is to put in place an effective basis for addressing our waste management responsibilities through the Changing Our Ways policy statement on waste management; the Prevention and Recycling Waste Delivering Change policy statement; the waste management plans largely prepared on a regional basis adopted by the local authorities; and the comprehensive regulatory framework now in place regarding waste.
The Government's approach is based on the internationally recognised waste management hierarchy of prevention, minimisation, significantly increased levels of recycling, energy recovery and utilising landfill as a last resort for residual waste that cannot otherwise be recovered. The Government's priorities on waste management are now focused on implementation. While much work remains to be done, we have within recent years made considerable progress on a number of fronts. I am carrying out a national overview of the state of delivery of the objectives and targets in the local authority waste management plans. I will consider what further steps may be necessary in light of this exercise which I expect to complete shortly. I intend to fully consider this research study in the context of examination of the HRB report and to issue a full response on the matter in due course.
Given that applications for incinerators are proceeding in Cork and in Counties Louth and Meath will the Minister introduce an immediate moratorium on all planning applications whether with the EPA or with the planning authorities until he has a definitive response to the health research board report? Is it not a fact that the health research board reported that Ireland has insufficient resources to carry out adequate risk assessment for proposed waste management facilities, and that our health information systems cannot support routine monitoring of the health of people living near waste sites?
There is an urgent need to develop the skills and resources required to undertake health and environmental risk assessment in Ireland and while the Minister is sitting back these applications are going on. People are deeply concerned about the health impacts of incineration. Is it not a fact that the director general of the EPA wrote to the Department of Health and Children which then wrote to the Minister in March about their concerns about the health research board report? What will the Minister do about it? Will he not bring in that moratorium now until he has all of the facts? He cannot proceed and put the lives of people living near these facilities at risk.
Acting Chairman
Before I call on the Minister to reply I remind Members that quotations are not allowed during questions.
I did not read quotations. I was speaking from memory. I might have been looking at the page but it was not a quotation.
This issue has been misinterpreted consistently in regard to the HRB report partly because the body of the report does not particularly address or discuss current Irish capabilities or practice. Risk assessment in the context of the HRB recommendation does not mean the site-specific risk assessment that is routinely carried out by the EPA before it grants a waste licence to a proposed new facility. Instead, the report is referring to a perceived need for health information systems to support routine and long-term monitoring of health for people living near waste facilities. That is the context notwithstanding people's legitimate concerns. I accept that there are concerns but let us put them in context. We have nine incinerators here. In 2000 their combined emissions contributed 0.015% of total emissions in the air.
Says who?
That is not MSW. It is not solid waste. The Minister should be accurate. That is not municipal solid waste.
Let me put the facts on the record.
Acting Chairman
Allow the Minister to answer without interruption.
When all of the municipal incinerators that I am proposing are in place and working they will not increase that combined total by more than 1%. So the total emissions if we had all the new facilities in place—
What sort of emissions?
It is not possible to measure dioxins.
I will tell the Deputies in a second if they want me to answer the questions.
Acting Chairman
I will call on the Deputies to ask supplementary questions in the order in which the questions were put.
By comparison, again for the information of the Members – so that we can deal with this discussion in a very accurate and calm fashion – burning of domestic waste, as we speak, is contributing more than 2,600 times more emissions than the nine incinerators are contributing.
Which substances?
Accidental house fires contribute more than 750 times more. Domestic heating and cooking contributes more than 300 times more. Hallowe'en bonfires contribute more than 130 times more and transport contributes more than 140 times more. We need to put this in context in order that the people get factually correct information and are not subject to incredible scaremongering.
Assuming we put in place by 2010 thermal treatment of one million tonnes of municipal waste, the estimated dioxin emissions to air –which is what I believe Deputy Gormley was referring to – would amount to 0.5 grammes or 1.65% of total projected emissions to air. That is what we are talking about if all these facilities are in place by 2010. Taking account also of hazardous waste incineration, total dioxin emissions to air would amount to 0.55 grammes or 1.8% of total projected emissions to air. They are the facts. If we continue the way we are going compared to putting all these facilities in place by 2010, dioxin emissions from domestic burning of waste will be 30 times higher; dioxin emissions from accidental house fires will still be nine times higher; dioxin emissions from domestic heating will be over twice as high, and there will also be dioxin emissions from bonfires.
In the context of having a calm and reasoned debate, I point out to Deputies Gormley, O'Dowd and others that I am trying to stop the huge emission source of dioxins from unregulated burning of domestic waste. It is 2,600 times higher in its dioxin emissions contribution than that contributed by the proper management of waste. We could reduced dioxin emissions to 0.5 grams or over 1% of total emissions by properly managing the process. This is part of a respected and recognised international hierarchy of waste management. I have emphasised over and over again minimisation, prevention and recycling, of which a residual is that two other factors must form part of the equation, landfill and thermal treatment.
I would like somebody to explain the reason people do not want their waste properly managed in proper, highly technical, well run facilities, yet I am told waste management facilities in Sweden, Denmark and Austria are fantastic and asked the reason we cannot have the same facilities. The countries in question have all these facilities in place and are building new ones. They are closing down many of the older ones and putting in place modern, effective facilities, which we will also have.
On a point of order, the Minister did not answer my question.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Gormley is due to speak next. As we will proceed to Adjournment debate matters at 4.45 p.m., I ask Members to be as succinct as possible in their questions and the Minister to be likewise in his replies in order that all the Members present can put their questions.
The Minister is avoiding the issues.
I am not.
The Minister did not answer my question concerning the Health Research Board report.
I have three brief questions. Does the Minister accept that municipal waste incineration is still the number one source of dioxins according to the 1999 UNEP report? As we get rid of older incinerators and build newer ones, is it not a fact that dioxins and harmful substances are contained more and more in ash? Does the Minister believe in the precautionary principle? If so, in the light of this report will he act responsibly and introduce a moratorium until such time as we are very clear on this?
We should get the facts.
That is the nub of the matter. I would like the Minister to answer that question directly.
I spoke about the Government, which consists of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. This proposal affects my constituency in regard to which I am trying to reassure the women of Ringsend and Sandymount. Have representations been made to the Minister by my constituency colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Deputy McDowell, who claimed in the run-up to the general election that, if elected, he would stop the incinerator in Ringsend going ahead? I have a document from which I do not want to quote directly because I know the Acting Chairman does not want me to do so. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said he was determined to stop it and that all that was required was the political will to do so. Does the Minister have the political will to do so? Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have the political will to do so and has he made representations to the Minister on the matter? Has he expressed his concern?
The answer to the Deputy's first question is, "No, I am not". I have tried to put this matter in context. Having regard to the lives we lead in this modern world, I accept there are risks associated with a whole range of issues but thermal treatment in modern facilities is at the lower scale of risks in comparison to the way in which we are currently treating the environment. There are a range of issues which I want to resolve, on which the Deputy does not seem to focus or about which he does not seem to be bothered about, and which are contributing enormously to dioxin emissions and damaging the environment.
I have been speaking about domestic refuse for a long time.
The Minister is prevaricating.
I am not. Deputy Gormley asked me a straightforward question, in reply to which I have said "No", directly to him. I do not believe I can be clearer. "No" in the English language contains two letters. It is a pretty definitive statement – my answer is "No". We will continue in parallel with progressing many of the facilities which have to go through the most rigorous EIA assessments and the most rigorous licensing systems, with which the EPA, an independent body, is charged. We are a long way from having them in place because the process will involve an enormous amount of public consultation, which is only right. The people have to be directly involved in their regions in order that they will know exactly what is going on. I will ensure this happens.
All of the facts have to be made available in order that the people understand them. They should not be eschewed with the result that there is misinformation designed for political capitalisation and which seeks to suggest there is a way of dealing with waste that consists of all the soft options. There are no soft options. Across the system there are a range of balanced measures under an integrated approach. As regards my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is well able to answer for himself.
What about the Minister for the Environment and Local Government?
I have made my position clear.
As a mother – I do not take from the fact that the majority of men in the House are also parents – I point out that, following on today's report, mothers, whether expectant or the mothers of very young babies, are not impressed by dioxin levels, whether they derive from the burning of domestic waste, thermal treatment of waste or incinerators. They are not impressed because their main and overriding concern is the health of their children, whether before or after birth or in the early stages of life. Taking on board everything the Minister said, it needs to be pointed out that the majority of the incinerators about which the Minister talked are located in the Ringaskiddy area. That is a fact. They are privately owned.
Acting Chairman
Does the Deputy have a question?
We cannot ignore this study.
I never said I would.
I know that. It covers a 37 year period. Normally studies of this kind cover a much shorter period. It shows there has been a 17% increase in the incidence of spina bifida and a 12% increase in the incidence of congenital heart defects. These figures cannot be explained in any way other than by the location of the mothers and where their children were born. We cannot dismiss the findings of the study by talking about the levels of dioxin emissions and the safest way to manage waste. The facts remain. While I accept the argument that these are old facilities and that new ones would be put in place, that is poor comfort to mothers living in such an area who consider their babies would be at risk. As Deputy O'Dowd said and to use the Minister's own words, we must proceed "with caution" because of these latest findings.
In case the Deputy believes this might be an argument that only involves men, I advise her that the most impressive person I met lately on this issue, with whom I shared a platform before an audience of 200 to 300, who spoke passionately about the facts with regard to thermal treatment and incineration, was a young woman who carried the day brilliantly. I take my hat off to her as a young woman who could demonstrate and convince an audience on the real facts of the issue. Men and women equally and all of us as parents are deeply concerned about all the issues involved which I would not for one minute dismiss out of hand. While they all have to be brought into the discussion and debate, I emphasise what the report states.
(Interruptions).
I am quoting what the authors said; it is not what I am saying. This is what they said.
That is what BNFL says about Sellafield.
I have outlined that the study period runs from the early 1950s up to 1993. The difference between what was available in terms of thermal treatment when I gave up my seat on the local authority in 1997 and what is available today is radically different. While we are facing the challenge of a waste crisis, we are perhaps fortunate to be at this point now given the changes in technology and its capacity to deliver.
On a point of information, the study was from 1977, not 1956.
We know that 2,600 times the damage any incinerator could do is being done by people illegally burning waste in their backyards or on their farms. This is causing incredible damage and releasing many harmful emissions. I want to do put an end to such behaviour. I want to reduce the damage being done to the environment and to the air we breathe by something in the order of two and a half times than anything that could be done in the context of incineration.
The proposed emission levels for incinerators are significantly lower than the international norms and what is acceptable. I am only prepared to proceed with them in the context of reaching the highest level – 40% – which applies in the best performing countries in the European Union. That is our target for recycling and we will then deal with the other elements.
There are slightly less than five minutes left and two questions, in the names of Deputies Ó Caoláin and Morgan, remain to be answered.
We will take them together because the time does not allow any other procedure.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am concerned that the Minister has not addressed what we asked in the questions posed to him. I asked him to examine the proposition of a ban, or even a moratorium, pending further clear and absolute information on the construction of waste incinerators in the light of this new study by researchers from the University of Newcastle, which has been published in the British Medical Journal. There can be no question about the level of concern this report will generate throughout this country regarding such significant increases in the incidence of spina bifida and congenital heart defects in new births. To say that this refers to old utilities, that is, covering the period 1956 to 1993, the period within which the study was based—
The authors could not come to a conclusion.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy should keep his question brief because the Minister will not otherwise have time to reply.
They have demonstrated the extent of the increased incidence of spina bifida and congenital heart disease in new births. It is not enough to say that it is the difference between chalk and cheese and how much time it will take subsequently. I am most dissatisfied with the Minister's reply.
Is the Minister aware that the HRB report did not refer to the United States' EPA report which found that incineration is extremely poisonous and dangerous? Does he agree that his reference to so-called old technology as against modern incinerators is picking up the slogan of the incineration companies who want to try to poison our communities? I refer here to companies such as Indaver, which is seeking to develop a major incinerator near Drogheda in County Louth? Is the Minister aware that, contrary to what he said, plans for incinerators were not adopted by all local authorities and that many rejected his predecessor's plans in this area? Will he agree to a moratorium on this poisonous process known as incineration until there is greater clarity on the health issues involved?
We are continuing to study the various health issues involved. The HRB report said that an integrated systems approach is required if effective waste management is to be accomplished at both local and national levels. It also stated this approach should reflect the waste management hierarchy of prevention, substitution, re-use, recycling and energy recovery.
It said it could not be monitored.
The report went on to say that, since the early 1990s, the application of stringent emission limit values to a broad range of environmental pollutants had significantly reduced the environmental impact of municipal waste incineration. It further stated that a combination of improved combustion practices and staged air pollution control techniques allow modern municipal incinerators, if operated according to the design standards, to meet the environmental requirements embodied in the EU directive on incineration. That is the HRB report from which Deputies quoted.
That is not the point.
We need balance on this issue. If anyone thinks that those members of the Fianna Fáil Party, or any members of the Government, who are parents are not as concerned as anyone else in the House, he is sadly mistaken. However, I will not treat this issue as if there were some simplistic solution. The poisoning and damage done by illegal waste disposal must stop.
What action is the Minister going to take?
I will work with the best available technology and within the management hierarchy to which I referred to ensure that it is done.
What action will the Minister take?
What action will the Deputy take?
I am progressing the hierarchy of regional waste management plans that have been passed by all local authorities.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.