Vol. 403 No. 2
19 Mr. G. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Environment the reason he has recommended that the proposed national waste incinerator facility be relocated in the Cork harbour region; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The intention is that a central hazardous waste incinerator will be provided by a private sector operator, who will be responsible for selecting the location of this facility subject to the necessary planning and other permissions.
Is the Cork Harbour area one of the areas under consideration for the proposed national waste incinerator facility? Is it a fact that a national waste incinerator will be working under capacity and, therefore, will necessitate the importation of waste from other countries to be processed?
No it is not. The answer is "no" to the question about the importation of toxic hazardous waste.
Can the Minister give any indication of how many would be employed at such an incinerator?
That is a separate question.
It is a separate question but I would like to answer it if I can. I have visited this type of facility in other places. From recollection 50 or 60 people were employed but, of course, it depends on the size of the facility.
Will the Minister indicate when he is likely to state which tenders will be given the contract to provide the incinerator? Will he put on the record the promise made by his junior Minister, Deputy Harney, when in Cork that such an incinerator would not be sited in Cork?
I should like to think that we will come to a decision smartly. The incinerator is necessary for a number of reasons, particularly because of the principle of self-sufficiency and also the principle of proximity in relation to hazardous waste disposal. I believe a hazardous waste facility is an integral part of any modern industrial infrastructure. The location will be a matter for whichever operator is finally favoured.
Could the Minister advise the House why there has been such a long delay in a tender being agreed when he told the House some six months ago that there were only two tenderers in the field? Is the Minister confirming that the promise made by his junior Minister in Cork cannot be stood over because there is no question of the Government directing a tenderer not to site a hazardous waste facility in Cork?
Repetition is not to be engaged in.
I am trying to clarify the meaning of the Minister's reply. One Minister is saying one thing at press conferences which the other Minister is not prepared to put on the record of this House.
There is no undue delay. I should like the matter to be speedily disposed of. The question of the selection of a site would be a matter for the operator. The grant assistance is another matter to be dealt with.
What is the reason for the delay?
One has to negotiate about the grants and the contractual arrangements in a major undertaking like this. There is no undue delay; it will be proceeded with as soon as possible. As far as Cork is concerned, the operator will finally decide where it is hoped to locate such a facility. Then it will have to go through an EIA process and the planning process.
So it could be sited in Cork.
The only reference I have in this regard is a newspaper article which referred to the Minister of State, Deputy Harney. She was reported as saying she did not believe Cork was a suitable location for the incinerator. That is quite a fair comment.
I hope she does not think Dublin is a better site.
The Minister of State is at liberty to make such a comment and I see nothing wrong with it. It is not in conflict with what both of us know to be the position.
A tenderer will be free to pick Cork, Ringaskiddy or Cork Harbour. That is the reality.
That is a matter for the operator. The planning process will be the determining factor.
The Minister's stance is hogwash.
On the contrary, it was quite legitimate for the Minister of State to say that.
Would the Minister confirm that he has received very strong representations from the environmental organisations, Greenpeace and Earth-watch, about the irresponsibility of proceeding with this project until such time as the technology can be made safe?
We have had quite a few representations in this regard. We have also had considerable representations from industry asking us to get on with the job. It is reckoned that we must have this facility to deal with toxic hazardous waste accumulating in this country and now being exported. Within a few years we will not be in the happy position of being able to export our hazardous waste, so we will have to deal with it ourselves. It would be irresponsible not to grasp this nettle. We are prepared to do it and that includes me and the Minister of State.
Would the Minister not agree that the right answer is to make a determined effort to reduce production of toxic waste so that this problem can be phased out and that we should not encourage the production of further toxic waste?
I wholeheartedly agree with the Deputy that we should seek to improve production processes and reduce waste at source. I have put forward that view on a number of occasions, as has the Minister of State, Deputy Harney. I also believe we should have a greater recycling programme which would reduce the amount of hazardous toxic waste. No matter how well these things are done, we will still generate an increasing tonnage of hazardous waste which must be disposed of in a safe way which can be monitored.
