asked the Minister for the Environment if the review of arrangements relating to the development of a central facility for the disposal of toxic wastes has yet been completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Toxic Wastes.
2.
The review of arrangements to which I referred in my reply to a question by the Deputy on 1 March 1983 has taken much longer than I anticipated at that time. While considerable progress has since been made, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement in the matter. I can assure the Deputy, however, that when all of the necessary information is available, there will be no avoidable delay on my part in making it available.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the considerable unease concerning the Baldonnel proposals and could he give any indication as to how the review is proceeding, what conclusions he expects to draw, or in what direction he intends to move in relation to the disposal of toxic wastes?
When I came into the position I presently hold a number of decisions in principle had been made and a number of proposals initiated. They were based on assumptions in relation to the amount of toxic wastes that needed to be treated. Detailed studies were then required by me to try to measure exactly the amount involved so that we would be dealing with specified quantities rather than varying figures. It has now emerged it is taking more time to get the details of the actual amounts required to be processed and consequently that has a substantial impact on the kind of facility that needs to be constructed.
I want to apologise to the House. I did not have the Order Paper and I wonder if you would give me the courtesy of allowing the Minister to repeat the answer to Question No. 1.
Deputy Gene Fitzgerald asked me yesterday to postpone it until today and, when he was not here today, I took the liberty of postponing it again and inconvenienced the Tánaiste in so doing and brought a small bit of brimstone on myself.
Thank you.
It is simply postponed.
3.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will indicate the system operated by his Department to monitor the operations of firms involved in the transport of toxic waste.
The statutory powers governing the storage, movement and disposal of toxic waste are vested in local authorities under the European Communities (Toxic and Dangerous Waste) Regulations, 1982. These regulations provide for a consignment note system which enables local authorities to monitor the movement of wastes from source to ultimate disposal. They do not, however, provide for licensing or control of hauliers of toxic and dangerous wastes and my Department is engaged in discussions with other interested Departments about these aspects.
I would remind the Minister I asked this question last March and the Minister suggested that I table a question in regard to it, which I did. This question is in relation to safety in the transport of such materials. I would ask the Minister if he could give any indication of the urgency of the timescale involved in the discussions or negotiations in the Department in regard to the transport of such wastes because of the danger involved and the lack of any control over the type of vehicle used and with very little knowledge in any case on the part of local authorities as to what means are being used for transporting such dangerous substances. Could the Minister give any idea of what timescale he has for control in regard to licensing or monitoring these wastes?
I share the Deputy's concern and it is part and parcel of the complexity of this whole area. I would say they are talking in terms of months to get the matter resolved and this question has raised another issue in relation to the whole matter of toxic wastes.
4.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will renew the commitment given by his predecessor that the Dunsink dump in Finglas, County Dublin, will not be used for the storage or disposal of toxic waste.
Any decision as to the future use of Dunsink tiphead, including the types of waste to be accommodated there, is a matter for Dublin County Council. The council are not, as far as I am aware, making the facility available for the disposal of industrial non-hazardous waste and I understand that toxic waste was never accepted at the tiphead.
In these circumstances, the question of a commitment on my part does not arise.
The Minister is probably aware — I am sure it is on file — that his predecessor did give a commitment to the people of Finglas west that toxic or hazardous wastes would not be dumped in Dunsink. The council — again the Minister may be aware — were reluctant to agree to that commitment for a long period. The people are now anxious that, given a new Administration in office, that commitment would be renewed. I am sure the Minister will accept the case that a domestic dump——
A question, Deputy, please.
——is not the best place to get rid of industrial waste and I can see no great difficulty in the Minister giving the requested commitment.
The problem is one of definition. The information I have on file is to the effect that the predecessor to the Tánaiste, the Minister, Deputy Burke, gave an undertaking and requested the council to discontinue acceptance of industrial non-hazardous waste. Apparently such waste is different from toxic waste. Toxic waste, according to the information I have, as defined was never actually dumped in the tiphead in Dunsink. The Deputy can take it that the whole question of disposal of waste is being looked at in a comprehensive way and no change will occur in the current practice until such time as the overall policy has been completed.
Is the Minister satisfied that at the present time toxic waste is not dumped in Dunsink? Many of the local residents believe it is being dumped because it is an open tip.
I have no information that would lead me to believe that toxic waste is currently being dumped at the Dunsink tiphead but, if the Deputy has such information. I shall be happy to receive it.