Vol. 393 No. 1
asked the Minister for the Environment the present position regarding the proposal to build a national toxic waste incinerator; the companies under consideration by him for construction of the smelter; when he will make a decision on the matter; if it is intended to adopt a planned approach to waste disposal; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23.
asked the Minister for the Environment when a final selection will be made regarding the central hazardous waste incineration facility.
26.
asked the Minister for the Environment whether he has made a decision as to the location for siting a national toxic waste incinerator to deal with hazardous waste; and the present position regarding the tenders received by his Department for the building of such an incinerator.
38.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policies and plans for toxic waste disposal.
190.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will outline his Department's policy on the disposal of household and industrial waste.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21, 23, 26, 38 and 190 together.
The primary object of waste disposal policy is to ensure that all wastes, and particularly any hazardous wastes, are safely disposed of without risk to public health or to the environment. In furtherance of this objective, and bearing in mind developments at the international level, it is necessary to aim at achieving, as far as possible, self-sufficiency in hazardous waste disposal within a realistic time scale. The provision of a hazardous waste incineration facility is a key element of the necessary waste disposal infrastructure.
Five consortia have recently submitted detailed proposals to my Department for the provision of a facility for the incineration of hazardous waste on a contract basis. These proposals are being examined at present but I cannot say, at this stage, when a decision may be reached. It would not be appropriate at this stage to name the consortia involved.
With regard to the location, of such a facility, it has been made clear at all stages that site selection will be a matter for the proposer subject to the requirement to obtain all necessary permits, permissions, and licences under planning and environmental law. In addition, the environmental impact assessment procedure would apply in relation to a proposal of this nature.
Is the Minister satisfied that the quantity of toxic waste being produced in this country warrants the construction of an incinerator? Would it not be better to apply a European solution, and that a number of incinerators in existing locations could be used as the level of toxic waste produced is very small? Could I also suggest that instead of leaving the siting of the incinerator to the developer it would be more in the national and safety interests if it was indicated to the developer that the incinerator should be sited nearest to the point of the greatest production of toxic waste?
I agree that the amount of toxic waste being produced is very small — 52,000 tonnes per year. However, developments at international and EC level require that we be self-sufficient. I do not think we will be able to continue exporting our waste forever.
The recent Basle Convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste enshrines the principle of eliminating cross-border movements of hazardous waste, in so far as this is feasible. I believe it would be unrealistic of this country not to provide — although the amount of waste is small — some form of incineration.
On the question of site location, I do not think it would be appropriate to select the site centrally. It has been made clear all along that that would be a matter for the proposer who, of course, would be subject to strict planning controls and the requirements of an environmental impact assessment study. Those procedures will be sufficient to ensure that an appropriate site is found.
Deputy Taylor.
Have the Government decided that the waste disposal unit will be hived off to private enterprise? Are the Government not prepared to consider setting up a public authority to deal with this? Could the Minister clarify for the House the position regarding the site at Baldonnel, County Dublin, which was once proposed for the incinerator?
I will deal with the Deputy's last point first. The site at Baldonnel which was originally proposed and selected for this purpose is currently for sale and is being disposed of by the National Building Authority.
In reply to the first part of the Deputy's question about leaving this to the private sector, it will be the case——
The site was in public ownership and you and Deputy Taylor objected to it. Do not cry any crocodile tears.
Let us hear the Minister's reply. This is not good enough. Questions have been asked, so let us hear the Minister's reply.
If the Minister had her way the whole town of Clondalkin——
Let me say to Deputy Barry that I was delighted to be able to stop that site because it was most unsuitable, it was close to Baldonnel Airport, Peamount Hospital and to the built-up area of Clondalkin.
I will not settle for that here.
It was not a suitable site. Deputy Taylor asked if this would be left to the private sector. Because of the low quantity of waste involved some incentive will have to be given as it would not be economic for the private sector. Because of the difficulties in this area the Minister for the Environment felt it was appropriate to seek tenders from the private sector for the provision of this facility.
Can the Minister reconcile what she has just said, that is that she is not in a position to state when a decision will be made, with a public statement which was made by the Department of the Environment on 3 October 1989 which stated that a decision was imminent——
Quotations are not in order at Question Time.
I am summarising and not quoting.
It did not seem like that.
Secondly, can the Minister of State tell us if among the proposals made there are suggested locations and, if so, can she tell us what those locations are? Thirdly, can she tell us if it is her intention to make a decision on the national toxic incinerator in the context of a planned approach to waste disposal which would give effect to the objectives she enunciated in the earlier part of her reply?
The answer to the final part of the Deputy's question is yes. The answer to the second part is no, sites were not referred to in the submissions made by the consortia. In answer to the first part of the question on the conflict between what I said and what the Department said, I said today that I was not in a position to give the exact date. However, I am optimistic that a decision on this matter will be made before Christmas.
There is a number of Deputies offering and I will be glad to facilitate them if they will be brief: Deputies Quinn, Byrne and finally——
I hope, Sir, you will eventually come to me. I got up ahead of both those Deputies. However, I am getting quite used to your approach in these matters.
The Deputy must not infer lack of impartiality to this Chair.
I do not have to infer it.
The Deputy will be called in due course.
I know that.
There is no distinction made, none whatever.
Absolutely.
I would like to be as brief as Deputy Shatter normally is. May I ask the Minister of State if Little Island in Cork is one of the locations selected for an incineration plant?
As I said earlier to the Deputy, no site has been selected. It will be a matter for the consortium selected to make their application to the relevant planning authority to have the environmental impact assessment carried out and for the relevant local authority to make the decision. No sites were submitted with the applications to my Department.
That is one thing the Government will be glad to decentralise.
As the Minister of State is aware since the time Britain refused to accept our asbestos and industrial waste we have found an outlet in France. However, because of the extreme cost in shipping this waste to France cowboys are getting in on the act and undercutting legitimate contractors. There is also a temptation for these cowboys to dump illegally asbestos stripped from old factories and other locations. Is the Minister of State aware of this problem and what does she intend to do about it?
I am aware that cowboys are always prepared to get in and do many things which are not desirable. These are among the matters being investigated by my Department.
Would the Minister of State agree that the failure of the Department to locate or identify a site for a toxic waste incinerator is nothing more than a piece of political buck passing to whoever is the suitable tenderer so that the Minister can wash his hands of making any decision on this matter? Will the Minister of State agree that given the failure of the Department to identify a site, it is unlikely that this project will go ahead and would she indicate in the light of her statement that an environmental impact assessment will be required when the necessary domestic legislation will be brought into force to give effect to the EC directive on environmental impact assessments so that if such a project does happen to make progress it will do so within the law prescribed by the EC and the environmental impact assessment will fulfil the requirements of the EC directive?
Even though the final part of the Deputy's question is a separate question I can confirm that the necessary regulations to have the environmental impact assessment enshrined on a statutory basis will be ready in a matter of weeks; certainly well in advance of Christmas. In answer to the earlier part of the Deputy's question, which suggested that the decision on the site should be made centrally, I disagree. I think a unilateral decision of the Minister for the Environment to impose this site in a particular area would be going over the heads of the planning authority and would be highly improper. It is for the local planning authority to decide on the appropriateness having regard to the question of whether a site is suitable.
A recipe for doing nothing.
Question No. 22.
