I earlier gave notice that I was accepting as a proper subject for debate on the Adjournment the question raised by Senator West concerning the dumping of chemicals.
Private Business. - Adjournment Debate: Dumping of Chemicals.
I raise this matter to clarify the position about the dumping of Danish chemicals in the Atlantic. I wish to share the 20 minutes at my disposal with Senator Browne. I also give notice of the fact that Senator Browne and I intend to withdraw Motion No. 17 from the Order paper as a consequence.
The whole position seems to indicate a great lack of information. Since this is a very important issue and one which we will face no doubt on other occasions we ought to take steps at an early stage to see that we are dealing with the specific situation before others slip past us and receive either negligible treatment or no publicity in the Press, or that chemicals are dumped and waste is disposed of before we know where we are. We have also some problems of pollution in the air over the country and in the water which surrounds this country.
The dangers of dumping of these chemicals are obvious. First of all, there is the danger to the fishing grounds both to the spawning fish in the area and then to the fishermen as the chemicals drift inshore to the actual fully-grown fish. A diagram in The Irish Times of today indicates quite clearly that the Gulf Stream is going to tend to bring the chemicals towards our shores and towards the shores of the Scandinavian countries, in particular Norway. The Gulf Stream, flowing more or less due North at the point at which the chemicals are being dumped, will at this time of year bring them slowly but surely on to our shores.
There is also the question of the composition of the chemicals. There seems to be no indication of what these chemicals are made. We just have blanket assertions from the Danes that the chemicals are not sufficiently toxic to have a dangerous effect. Also there is the question of quantity. What is the tonnage and what exactly is the quantity of the chemicals to be dumped in the Atlantic at this particular point?
There is another problem here. A report in The Irish Times of today talks about a single dumping of 2,400 tons in one operation, but the possibility of a permit being issued to dump 25,000 tons of chemicals per year in the Atlantic. That is equivalent to ten single dumpings. The magnitude of the problem makes the mind boggle, particularly when one realises what five barrels of pesticide did for the Rhine on one occasion. Five barrels of pesticide killed every fish for hundreds of miles in the Rhine.
The point I should like to stress is that there is a complete lack of information on this proposed dumping. We do not have the composition of the chemicals. We have a statement from the Danish Ministry of the Environment saying that it carried out tests on the effects of waste on small flat fish but admitted it could say nothing about the long-term effects on marine life. There is no real information there. We have a blanket statement that our own Government are satisfied that the proposed dumping will not have any damaging effects on fisheries off the Irish coast. That is stated in The Irish Times of today. What information at the Government's disposal allows them to make a statement of this type? In today's papers there is also a reference to the Oslo Convention. According to The Irish Press the Government declined to give an assurance that dumping would be supervised and it is understood — by whom it is not clear — that because the operation is being carried out in accordance with the Oslo Convention, which laid down maximum limits for dumping at sea, there could be no Irish presence. Another danger is that the Government can hide behind an international convention and therefore take no action.
As I have indicated on other occasions, I think we should take international conventions with a grain of salt. If necessary we should have an Irish presence at the site and ignore these conventions. The only time that could hit us would be if we were dumping chemicals off the Atlantic coast. These international conventions are traditionally used by governments as an excuse for inaction when they wish to do nothing on a particular problem on which action should be taken. We have got a situation in which a large quantity of unknown chemicals is being dumped in the South Atlantic when the Gulf Stream will tend to make these chemicals drift in our direction, a situation in which responsible bodies, such as oceanographers and marine biologists in University College, Galway, and An Taisce have protested, and in which every right-thinking person should protest because of the lack of information. Yet the Government can appear to make blanket statements and take a blanket attitude on this issue and say there is going to be no damage to Irish fish, Irish fishing grounds and no possibility of pollution on our coast.
What is important is what information is at the Government's disposal that they can make a blanket statement and a straightforward assertion that we can suffer no damage and that there is no danger. What information do they have which we do not have which allows them to make this assertion and which appears to indicate that they are giving carte blanche to the Danes on this issue? Whatever the quantity of chemicals and whatever the composition, we should join with the UK, France, Spain and Norway and make an official protest to the Danes and nip in the bud this dumping of waste in the Atlantic. If we do not do this now, it will continue to grow and the consequences must be clear to everybody.
It has occurred to some Members of the Dáil, and I am glad that we have been given an opportunity in the Seanad of expressing the great concern of many people at this decision to permit the dumping of these pollutants in the Atlantic off our coast. It would appear that the Government are so preoccupied with their unavailing and unsuccessful attempts to control prices that they have not got time to consider the grave implications of this matter and to act as their predecessors acted. Frequently we find ourselves in the distressing position of being told, if we protest about anything, that the other Government were just as bad. In this instance the other Government were better because they protested successfully on a Dutch incident of this kind. It is difficult to see why this Government do not protest.
One of the sad reflections which I make from time to time is of the occasions when my colleague in my one-time constituency, the present Minister, Deputy FitzGerald, and other colleagues, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, Deputy Keating and so on, at the drop of a hat were prepared to protest on different issues — perhaps not the drop of a hat but certainly the drop of an atomic bomb. They would come out and protest and march. Now that they have power they do not seem to be prepared to do anything at all. Power seems to be the great healer of youthful ambitions and enthusiasms. We find now that when they have power to do something about these matters they are silent. This matter is particularly grave. I believe a boat is leaving New Ross for Denmark tonight. It will load up in Denmark and then come down and dump its toxic substances in the Atlantic off our western coasts.
To me the most impressive authority on this matter is certainly not myself, or, I would suggest respectfully, the Government, or the Minister's advisers. I would be inclined to believe that Professor Barry, mentioned by Senator West, and all his staff in this excellent Marine Biology Department on the western seaboard are all gravely disturbed by this happening. It has been suggested that this will be a safe dump. Professor Barry points out that because we have no monitoring device whatever on the western seaboard nobody has the right to make that claim with any authority. If anybody could make that claim it would be the people in Galway in the Marine Biology Department. Professor Barry cannot make that claim. Therefore, nobody else has a right to do so.
It has been suggested that the dumping will be in the form of thick sludge which will sink down to 15,000 feet. Professor Barry makes the point that this is most unlikely. It can quite easily move either North to us or East across to the Spanish coast. I was amused by the cynical indifference of the Minister for Finance who said it is all right, it will go off to Spain. Only a few Spaniards, a few Wogs, will be poisoned, so why should we worry? We are all right Jack.
What about the people in Galway?
This is the great European comradeship of which we have heard so much. It is just as bad for the Frenchman, the Englishman, Spaniard as the Irishman — they are all concerned. They are all equally a concern of ours. If the bell tolls for Don Juan, it tolls for us. We are all concerned about these things. If we have any say in the matter at all then we should do everything we can in order to stop this act being carried out. It is obviously the first of many such acts, as Senator West has pointed out. We should see that it stops now. There can be no safety in an operation of this kind in present circumstances. It is a reasonable assumption, as Professor Barry says, that some of this pollutant can be carried nowhere else but North to us or across to Spain. Secondly, it is possible that even if it were dumped in containers, while the container idea is reasonably successful, containers have been known to break. In these circumstances the pollutant can be carried up on to the West coast.
We have on the west coast a unique feature and that is that, I believe with Japan, we have the only unpolluted coastline in which it is possible to introduce this new development of pisciculture in the great deep unpolluted fjords on the western seaboard of our country. There is no doubt whatever that there is a grave risk that if this operation is unsuccessful then this unpolluted, unique asset which we have on the western seaboard may be ended. I understand that they have told us they tried these pollutants out on plaice. I am given to understand that this is not a test for all of the marine life on the western seaboard. The fact that a pollutant might not affect plaice does not mean that you can extrapolate this to the whole of marine life on the western seaboard. Unless all of these pollutants are tested against all possible forms of marine life on the western seaboard you cannot say that this will be a successful operation.
There is no reason in the world why we should take a commercial firm's undertaking that this dumping will be safe for Ireland. What in the name of God do they know about the marine life on our Western seaboard that Professor Barry does not know? Are they better authorities? Are they more reliable? Is he an unreliable authority? Are the Marine Biology Section staff people on whom you cannot depend? Are their fears ungrounded? If they are not ungrounded what grounds do you go on? What grounds has the Minister to refute the charges which are made by Professor Barry and the Marine Biology Department on the western seaboard? What authority has the Minister or his civil servants except the authority they get from Professor Barry and his very talented staff on the West coast? Surely they will not take the Danish authorities before our own authorities who are particularly skilled in this particular case? They happen to be quite outstanding in their knowledge of the problem.
The Oslo Agreement was mentioned. I cannot find the Oslo Agreement but I found the Stockholm Agreement, 1972. I do not know if we are parties to it. There are 57 countries who are parties to it, and if we are not parties to it we should be. It was an agreement entered into in order to prevent this kind of marine pollution in situations such as ours. Under that agreement it was decided that there were various substances which should not be dumped at all. Senator West asked if the Minister knows how many of these substances are included in the proposed dump, those substances which are forbidden under the Stockholm Agreement.
Under the Stockholm Agreement various things like pesticides, mercury, arsenic, poison gases and so on are referred to. These are not to be dumped unless they are in the first instance rendered innocuous. If they are not to be rendered innocuous why are they being dumped in this form? If they are being dumped in this form is it so that they are being dumped in contravention of the Stockholm Convention, to which if we are not a party we should be? It was agreed that a special permit would have to be granted for the dumping of pollutants of this kind. If this permit was given to create a chemical septic tank in the Atlantic it is in blatant breach of the Convention, because it was entered into on the understanding it was at last accepted that there is a limit to the amount of pollution that can be discharged. If pollution was at a dangerously high level this International Convention of nearly 60 nations was to bring it to a halt.
If we were to allow this dumping in the Atlantic it was understood that the dumping would all be recorded and monitored. I understand from Professor Barry and his staff that it cannot be monitored. Why are we in default of this convention? Why are we allowing this to happen? The Minister is in no position to give an undertaking that the dumping can be monitored because I understand there is no monitoring service on the West coast which can carry out any survey. For 11 weeks on our coast the Danish fishermen picketed the boat that is to do this dumping, until they were forbidden to dump this on the Danish coast. Why in the name of God are we allowing this to happen off our coasts? I am ashamed to hear of the Danish Government, of whom I have the highest regard, allowing this antisocial act off our coasts when they know their own people did not allow it. Above all, why is the Minister — a man for whom I have great personal respect and who over the years has protested repeatedly and effectively in matters such as this — allowing this to happen?
The dumping of any waste or toxic products in the sea is a matter for concern. Statements made in this House should not suggest that we are unconcerned about this; as a country which is surrounded by the ocean it is obviously of particular concern to us. However, we must look unemotionally and factually at the actual situation and see what courses of action are open to us.
It has been suggested that details of the chemicals concerned have not been published. There is no reason why they should not be; there is no secret about them. My worry is whether time will permit me to say all I wish to say on this matter.
If the House will permit I will read out what is involved. There are two different lots:
A maximum of 8.000 cubic metre lyes
|
inorganic salts, preferably sodium sulphate and sodium chloride, and small quantities of the corresponding acids, and sodium hydroxide, so that the acidity is kept within a range specified by the Agency of Environmental Protection |
1.360 |
tons |
|
Sodium acetate and acetic acid |
360 |
,, |
|
Ethyl alcohol |
12 |
,, |
|
formic acid |
7 |
,, |
|
sulphanilic acid and sulphonamides |
7 |
,, |
|
malonic acid and acid malonester |
10 |
,, |
|
aniline plus acetanilide plus azobenzene plus toluene |
.6 |
,, |
|
cyanide |
.6 |
,, |
|
vitamin B2 |
5 |
,, |
|
carbohydrates |
65 |
,, |
|
as an expression of the total content of organic matters (chemical oxygen demand) maximum |
650 |
tons |
The House will not, I hope, expect me to explain what that means but the House are entitled to the information.
Could the Minister tell me which of these fall outside or inside the terms of the convention?
Please let me finish as time is against me. The House is entitled to the maximum information.
There is permission to dump 3.500 cubic metre lyes. These cover a six-month period. The second one consists of:
|
inorganic salts, preferably sodium sulphate, sodium chloride and small quantities of the corresponding acids, and sodium hydroxide |
400 |
tons |
|
sodium acetate and acetic acid |
75 |
,, |
|
ethyl alcohol |
30 |
,, |
|
methyl alcohol |
45 |
,, |
|
butyl alcohol |
2 |
,, |
|
sodium formate |
5 |
,, |
|
barbituric acid derivatives |
3 |
,, |
|
heterocyclic intermediary products for the production of vitamins and sulphonamides |
13 |
,, |
|
as an expression of the total content of organic matters (chemical oxygen demand) maximum |
490 |
,, |
This may be summed up as follows:
About two-thirds of the material consist of inorganic salts of the nature of common salt and similar harmless chemicals. There are small quantities of acids. The other third consist of organic, that is, carbon compounds most of which are harmless. A very small proportion of organic matter might be harmful in high concentrations close in-shore but will rapidly break down in contact with sea water. The main effect of this organic matter will be to temporarily reduce the oxygen content of the sea water into which it is discharged, but the reduction in dissolved oxygen will be soon remedied by dispersion and re-aeration.
Of the things I have mentioned there is no item which comes under Annex I of the Oslo Convention in respect of which dumping is banned.
How about cyanide?
Why are they being dumped if they are harmless?
Please let me finish.
Why do they not dump it in the North Sea?
Annex I covers items listed under article 5 of the convention. I am not aware of a Stockholm Convention. The only relevant convention is the Oslo Convention. These are the prohibited substances. There are no prohibited substances included in this cargo. Annex II consists of items in respect of which——
Is the Minister saying there is no Stockholm Convention?
I am not aware of a Stockholm Convention.
Rubbish. What about articles 72, 57, 80.
For our purposes the relevant convention is the Oslo Convention. I am not aware of a relevant Stockholm Convention. If the Senator has information about that and it is relevant I should be glad to hear it in due course.
Of course it is relevant.
I am merely telling the Senator of my information. If the Senator thinks it is inadequate the sooner he hears my information the better he will be in a position to proclaim its inadequacy.
Annex II covers items requiring special care. The only part of the whole cargo falling under Annex II requiring special care is the 0.6 tons of cyanide. There is no other product which comes within the terms in either respect of the Oslo Convention except that, as we understand it.
On the question of the Gulf Stream, my information is that the products will sink rapidly because of the difference between their weight and the weight of water. The waste water is so much heavier than sea water it will sink rapidly and the currents at the level to which they sink do not go in our direction.
May I ask an important question?
I will answer any questions when I have finished, if time permits. I must answer questions already asked. The country is entitled to hear these answers.
I note the reference to 25 tons per year. I have no such information. My information relates to the items and the quantities I have mentioned. I will investigate that report. The map published this morning as to the direction of the Gulf Stream even on surface water in incorrect. It breaks up much more and the Gulf Stream going through the area of dumping will be moving more directly West rather than North. The map is misleading in that respect.
It has been suggested that we join with other maritime countries in an official protest. The contacts we have made with some of the countries concerned and we have tried to contact all of them, have indicated that they find nothing to protest about and regard this dumping as being within the Oslo Convention and as offering no danger to their coasts, which are more directly threatened by any such dumping than ours are. Therefore, we cannot join in an official protest with people who do not want to protest.
The other case mentioned, in regard to which the previous Government took steps — the Dutch chemicals — concerned chemicals which were toxic and should not have been dumped under the Oslo Convention. The same is true of the chemicals dumped in the Rhine. There are about 0.6 tons of cyanide which, we are informed, may be highly poisonous at the time of discharge but which decomposes rapidly, and the concentration of such material will soon fall to a harmless level under the influence of dispersion and re-aeration of the sea water.
And must not be dumped off the Danish coast.
They are permitted to be dumped with special care being taken under Annex II of the Oslo Convention. The special care includes, I presume, that they should not be dumped in shallow water but only in very deep water running down three miles to a level where they can do no harm.
I note what has been said about Professor Barry's comments on the matter. He is a distinguished oceanographer. On the question of the chemicals, he is not himself a chemist and did not have access to the information I have just given the House. I think it would have been better if this information had been made available more quickly. When he sees this information he may or may not modify his opinion.
Why not consult him? You run the authority.
There are a number of authorities involved here. The first authority is somebody who understands chemicals. Secondly, the question arises, in so far as the chemicals are dangerous and regarded as such under the Oslo Convention, of what conditions of care are required in dumping them in which part of the sea. The latter part of Professor Barry's views will be very valuable here.
Having said that, I have given the House all the facts available to me. There is no ground for protest because one cannot protest when action is taken which is within the terms of the Oslo Convention. If any country went outside it, then of course one would protest. The previous Government protested very effectively in such a case. A protest would not be appropriate when a Government have gone to some trouble to make sure they were acting in accordance with the convention concerned.
I believe we should look into the matter further. It may well be that these conventions have some defects or inadequacies. I do not know. In view of our particular interest in the matter we should look into that and if we find that the convention is in some way inadequate we should take steps to try to improve it in future international legislation so that we can get the matter under control.
On the evidence available to us there is no danger from this material being dumped in this way. The Government will certainly examine the matter further, will keep in touch with any developments in the situation and will try to ensure that if there is any evidence that the present convention is inadequate steps will be taken to make it adequate and to ensure the fullest protection of our coast and the Atlantic waters generally from any kind of pollution which could be dangerous.
There is one point I should like the Minister to clarify. In his speech he said "The information at my disposal concerning the depth to which these chemicals would sink" and went on to say what would happen to them in so far as they are exposed. Does this information come from the Danish Government or is it from our own experts?
The information is from our own sources.
Professor Barry says something completely contrary to this. Presumably the Minister can produce an Irish expert who gives the information which he has given us.
The only information from the Danish Government is on the question of the chemicals and where they are going to dump them. The information as to the effect and the assessment of whether it is damaging is an assessment made by our own people. I should like to make that clear. But if there is a dispute betwen experts we must investigate it further and be satisfied that the advice we have is correct.
Professor Barry says it was not just the 15,000 feet. There is a stream at about 200 meters and that stream could carry it either north to us or west across to Spain.
It is obviously a point of tremendous importance as to what will happen.
This is becoming quite disorderly.
I do not recall that particular comment of his and I cannot track it down here at the moment, but in so far as there is a conflict of experts here the matter will be further looked into.
May I put a question?
Senators must appreciate that the procedure in regard to debate on the Adjournment is a procedure of a statement by the Senator raising the matter and by anyone to whom he yields and a reply by the Minister. There can be no general debate.