Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Nov 2014

Proposed Incinerator at Poolbeg: Dublin City Council (Resumed)

We will now consider the waste-to-energy facility at Poolbeg, Dublin, with representatives of Dublin City Council. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome Mr. Owen Keegan, chief executive, Mr. Michael Phillips, city engineer and director of traffic, and Mr. James Nolan, project engineer, on behalf of Dublin City Council. I draw their attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements and any other document that they provide to the committee may be published on the committee's website once the meeting has concluded. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before the city council addresses the committee, I wish to draw the witnesses' attention to a number of issues that we wish to discuss: the moneys that have been to date spent by the various local authorities; whether value for money has been achieved; the cost and size of the proposed facility; what contributions the stakeholders will make to meet that cost; what volumes of waste will be supplied to the facility; what its capacity to meet the demands placed upon it will be; what its ability to meet or exceed landfill diversion targets will be; what priority will be given to and targets expected from an integrated, effective and comprehensive recycling and recovery programme within the process; who the suppliers of waste material will be, for example, Dublin-based or Leinster-based local authorities, private waste operators and so on; and what costs and profits will accrue to the local authorities and local communities, including the authority contingent obligation, waste revenue, commercial returns on investment, the community gain fund and benefits from job creation. I ask the witnesses to be mindful of these questions in their interactions with the committee and invite Mr. Keegan to make an opening statement.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I will make a short introductory statement that I have already sent to the committee. On 22 January when Dublin City Council last appeared before the committee regarding the Dublin waste-to-energy project, I made a detailed submission on the project's background and developments up to that date. I do not propose to cover this material in my opening statement today. I also advised the committee that the project could not proceed until the following issues had been successfully dealt with: the negotiation of a revised project agreement; a resolution in favour of the city council of the complaint to the European Commission on state aid grounds; a resolution in favour of the city council of the complaints to the European Commission on procurement grounds; and an assessment of the project by the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, and the issuing by same of a value for money letter in respect of it. I also indicated that I would not sign the revised project agreement on behalf of Dublin City Council without first briefing elected members and considering their views on the project.

I will address the issues in turn. A revised project agreement negotiated between Dublin City Council and Dublin Waste to Energy Limited, the public-private partnership, PPP, company, was finalised in September 2014. DG Competition of the European Commission issued a formal decision on the state aid complaint on 7 May 2014, concluding, "The European Commission has found that a series of measures by the Dublin local authorities to participate in the Waste-to-Energy project in Poolbeg, Dublin, are in line with the EU state aid rules". The basis for the Commission's decision was that the project would be carried out on terms that would be acceptable to a private investor operating in a market economy. The city council has also been advised by the European Commission that the latter is no longer pursuing any of the complaints that have been made against the Dublin waste-to-energy project on public procurement grounds.

In line with the Department of Finance PPP guidelines, Dublin City Council engaged with the NDFA to enable it to assess the value for money associated with proceeding with the Dublin Waste to Energy project. The NDFA in its capacity as adviser on the value for money associated with PPP projects issued a value for money letter in respect of the proposed Dublin Waste to Energy project on 4 September 2014.

A detailed briefing note on the Dublin Waste to Energy project was circulated to the elected members of the four Dublin local authorities. It covered the revised project agreement, which is covered in my submission to the committee in Appendix 1; the Dublin Waste to Energy project in the context of EU and national waste management policy, which is dealt with in Appendix 2; projections for municipal solid waste in Ireland and the Dublin Waste to Energy gate fee, which is dealt with in Appendix 3; the economic benefits of the project, as set out in Appendix 4; and it presented the results of a cost benefit analysis of the Dublin Waste to Energy project, which is covered in Appendix 5.

The Dublin Waste to Energy project was considered by the elected members at a special meeting of the City Council on Monday 8 September 2014. The project was also considered at meetings of other Dublin local authorities. The project board met on 26 August 2014 and agreed to recommend the project. The four Dublin local authority chief executives met on 17 September 2014 and agreed unanimously that the Dublin Waste to Energy project should proceed. The revised project agreement and related documentation were signed on 19 September 2014.

Essentially there were two options facing the chief executives. The first option was to abandon the project. Under this option, the Dublin local authorities, DLAs, would have had to accept the loss of the expenditure that has already been incurred on the project, that is, €97.4 million gross or €85.3 million net after State aid. In addition, the Dublin local authorities would be liable for significant compensation payments to Dublin Waste to Energy Limited in respect of the considerable costs it has incurred on the project. The current market value of the site has been estimated at €6 million. Even after disposing of the site the overall net cost of option one to the Dublin local authorities is likely to be in the region of over €100 million when the need to compensate Dublin Waste to Energy Limited has been taken into account. In my report I have outlined the share accruing to the four Dublin local authorities. We have estimated a total net cost of €105 million and this would fall to be divided between the four local authorities.

The second option was to proceed with the project. If the project proceeds then under the revised project agreement the full cost of constructing the Dublin Waste to Energy facility, estimated at about €500 million, will fall to Dublin Waste to Energy Limited. The project agreement contains an authority contingent obligation, ACO, clause under which the Dublin local authorities will provide partial revenue support for the first 15 years of operation of the plant in return for which they will share in the waste revenue stream, over a certain threshold, for 15 years. The Dublin local authorities will also share in the energy revenue stream for the 45 year life of the project above a certain threshold.

The arguments that convinced the four Dublin local authority chief executives that they should proceed with the project are as follows. The proposed facility has always been and remains entirely consistent with regional, national and EU waste management policy. Current national waste policy is strongly supportive of the provision of the facility. In addition to its importance in meeting waste management objectives for the new eastern and midlands waste region, the Dublin Waste to Energy project is crucial if the State is to meet landfill diversion targets, without being dependent on the export of municipal waste to overseas facilities. It is also essential if Ireland is to meet the objectives of self-sufficiency and proximity, which are enshrined in the EU waste framework directive. It it was clear from the RPS report, Dublin Waste to Energy Waste Market Assessment, which was circulated to the elected members and put in the public domain, that there should be more than sufficient residual municipal solid waste available for the facility to operate at its contracted capacity of 550,000 tonnes per annum, even after demanding EU mandatory recycling and landfill diversion targets are met. The RPS analysis also provided a degree of confidence that the gate fee that will be achieved by the facility will ensure the threshold waste revenue figure is realised with the result that the authority contingent obligation mechanism will not operate and the Dublin local authorities will receive a share of both the waste and energy revenue of the facility over the first 15 years of its operation and will share in the energy revenue over the remaining 30 years.

The Dublin Waste to Energy facility has the support of major operators in the waste industry. The project will generate significant employment, including 300 direct construction jobs and 100 direct jobs at the facility once it is operational. It will make a major contribution to economic activity and generate significant tax revenue during both the construction and operating phases. Aside from these economic benefits, the project will provide renewable energy and generate electricity sufficient to meet the equivalent needs of more than 80,000 homes annually, thereby helping to achieve the country’s renewable energy goals. The project will also finance a substantial community gain fund of more than €10 million during the construction period and of up to €0.6 million or €600,000 per annum during the operation phase.

A cost benefit analysis of the two options facing the Dublin local authorities was undertaken by PwC. This was circulated to the elected members and put in the public domain. PwC estimated that the discounted value of the net benefits to the Dublin local authorities of selecting the second option, which is to proceed with the project, ranged between €155 million and €30 million depending on the assumptions used. This compares with a certain loss associated with the first option, to abandon the project, of more than €100 million. The PwC analysis did not take account of the benefits associated with either the community gain fund or the payment of rates on the facility to the City Council which are substantial. PwC concluded its analysis as follows: "The potential financial returns the Dublin local authorities can expect to realise are high and the estimated financial risks of entering the Project Agreement are low. Thus, it seems to be rational for the Dublin Authorities to proceed to complete the renegotiated Project Agreement".

The NDFA is the statutory agency charged with assessing the value for money associated with PPP projects such as the Dublin Waste to Energy project. Following a detailed assessment, the NDFA issued a value for money letter in respect of the project on 4 September 2014. The European Commission in its determination of the State aid complaint confirmed that the participation by the Dublin local authorities in the Dublin Waste to Energy project is on terms that would be acceptable to a private investor operating in a market economy.

Dublin City Council has selected a preferred bidder for the client’s representative for construction and commissioning phases of the facility and has appointed CDM Smith on a fixed price lump sum fee of €2.13 million for the 49 month construction and commissioning period. I wish to correct an error in one of the appendices that estimates that cost at €4 million; the actual price negotiated was €2.13 million. Dublin Waste to Energy Limited via its subcontractors mobilised to site on 22 September 2014 and construction of the facility commenced on 20 October 2014. Facility construction is expected to take approximately three years, with commencement of operations targeted for late 2017.

Compared with the position I presented in December, significant progress has been made. This project is now under construction and will meet a major need in terms of waste management infrastructure. It will comply fully with the process laid down by the Oireachtas and the Department of Finance. The project is under construction and I am very happy that is the position.

I welcome Mr. Owen Keegan and the senior officials who are appearing before the committee. The issue of the waste energy facility at Poolbeg is very important. In his opening remarks Mr. Keegan said that the meetings of the Dublin local authorities considered this matter. I suggest to him that they could not have considered it because he went in and told them what he was going to do. One cannot consider anything unless one has options such as to run with something or not to run with it. The democratically elected councillors on the four Dublin local authorities were not given that option. I ask Mr. Keegan to explain what he means by the word "consider".

In respect of the project Mr. Keegan said it was substantial and that progress is being made. I contend that progress is being made down the wrong road. Household recycling rates are at an all-time high, having increased by 8% in the past few years up to 65%. That is before one begins to talk about a reduction, which should be the first issue.

In regard to Covanta, the company involved with the project, perhaps Mr. Keegan would explain its safety record and whether he is satisfied with it, given the long list of transgressions by the company. I have selected a few of these, for example, in respect of nickel emissions in Chester involving excessive toxic nickel and related compound emissions in November 2006.

In September 2008, emission rates for dioxins and furins in Pittsfield exceeded by 250% the amount allowed. In another case in 2008, the position was similar. There were excessive dioxin emissions in Wellington in July 2007. Newark fined Covanta excessive emissions in August 2008. This violation included illegal carbon monoxide emissions. In April 2009, the company was fined in West Wareham. I am concerned that on the edge of the capital city, between the capital city and the sea, there is a company with such an appalling track record operating. Despite all of these black marks on its book and serious breaches of regulations in the United States, Mr. Keegan might explain why he is happy with it.

Mr. Keegan stated that construction has started and there was a digger or JCBs on site, eventually, on 20 October. There is almost €100 million spent. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to how one can spend €100 million on a project without sticking a spade into the ground. I have asked professionals in the construction sector about this and about projects of this scale, and how one would spend €100 million without getting to the point where one had a machine on site.

My next concern relates to the volume of waste. I note the terms of the contract set out for this project and I would have concerns about it. I wonder has Mr. Keegan concerns. In trying to come up with this 600,000 tonnes per annum, how many local authorities will it take to feed this large beast planned at Poolbeg? From how far will the waste need to be drawn? I try to get in and out of this city every day and I am aware of the difficulties, for traffic alone. There will be heavy goods vehicles crisscrossing the city trying to deliver this waste unless it is flown in by helicopter and dropped in Poolbeg. How will that traffic be managed? How many local authorities will be involved, from how far afield will this waste be drawn and what traffic will be caused by this?

Given the volumes of waste and that companies will move more towards reduction of waste produced, coupled with the increasing rates of reuse and recycling, is Mr. Keegan certain that he will have the waste to feed this Poolbeg incinerator? I note the penalties. If one falls below the amount, the Dublin local authorities, DLAs, that is, rate payers and taxpayers in the Dublin region, will have to stump up to make up the shortfall. The officials will put it into their annual budgets, but it is the DLAs where the charge on this will fall. Has Keegan any concerns in that regard?

Mr. Keegan is steaming ahead with the project. We live in a small country which supports promoting the food sector. For example, Kerry Group is building a major plant not too far from here. The volume of processed food being exported has increased. We are trying to generate added value. Surely it would be a good sales pitch to be able to state that such food is grown on an island that does not have municipal waste incinerators to dispose of waste. Should we be moving more towards reduction, reuse and recycling, the same as they are doing in New Zealand which is a similar-sized country to ours with many similarities in terms of industry and the economy? Should that not be the way to go instead of going headlong down this road? Mr. Keegan might address that for me.

The Fianna Fáil-led Government in the early 2000s gave the managers the power to do this. They provided for clusters of managers to come together and come up with these waste plans, and to push democratically elected councillors to one side. In local elections in May last year the people elected councillors to the four local authorities. The councillors were elected to the local authorities by their peers to do their best and their views have been completely marginalised. I am at a loss to understand how Mr. Keegan can state that these councillors considered it. They could not consider anything. They have no power to consider anything. Mr. Keegan and the other county managers merely put down a fait accompli in front of them. He might explain that to me.

We will get a few answers now.

Mr. Owen Keegan

On the first point, the reality is that I brought a report to the local authority members and I gave them a lot of information, particularly on the waste market. I commissioned a cost-benefit study which I gave to them and I gave them a detailed briefing on the project agreement. It was considered by the local authority members. It is fair to say a motion was put down, which was carried, advising me not to go ahead but that does not mean the matter was not considered.

It was a decision of the Oireachtas, not of me as chief executive, that the power should be mine and other managers'. Given that such power was given to me, I felt it was appropriate that I should make what I regarded as the best decision having considered all the information available to me. That was a decision of the Oireachtas. I have complied with that. I have fully complied with the process that was laid down.

I would prefer if every local authority elected member had supported the project, but that was not the case. I can understand. There have been a lot of difficulties associated with this project historically and I can understand why members are unhappy about various aspects of it, but at the end of the day it was considered by the elected members who got a detailed briefing. That does not take away from the fact that I would have made the decision with my colleague chief executives to proceed with the project. I will ask Mr. Nolan and Mr. Phillips to deal with some of the other points.

Mr. James Nolan

On Covanta as an operator, it is the largest waste energy operator in the world. Its compliance record is 99.9%. Obviously, it does not achieve 100% compliance but its record is 99.9%. Covanta operates over 1 million boiler hours a year. In terms of Covanta's ability to operate the facility, it was assessed by both ourselves in the procurement process and the EPA for its ability to hold a licence.

In terms of the volume of waste, the latest report from the EPA is that we landfill 1 million tonnes. Mention was made of the waste hierarchy. We are looking to move away from disposal. The national policy is that we start to move up the hierarchy. There has been a significant decoupling of waste generation from economic activity over the past number of years which is a positive development. It is the first step on the hierarchy. In the eastern-midlands region, according to the latest report, we landfill 650,000 tonnes per year. In terms of the size of the facility and from where the volumes will come, it will be predominately from the eastern-midlands region. The information shows that the waste volumes are there. To date this year, the EPA has identified that we have exported probably 400,000 tonnes of waste. The national policy is that we utilise waste as a resource and it is seen as the exporting of jobs.

In terms of traffic, as mentioned by Deputy Stanley, predominantly the traffic will be through the strategic road network. We are talking about less than nine vehicles per hour. The volumes are not significant. It is via the Port Tunnel and the East Link, and it does not go into residential areas at all. There is a small inner-city network which can go directly to the facility.

In terms of penalties and commercial returns, the analysis shows that there is a positive return of up to €155 million over the contract to the local authorities and there is no further liability or cost.

Mr. Michael Phillips

The Deputy referred to the €100 million that was spent previously. If one examines the contract, the design, legal and planning permission matters were with the consultants and the amount for this was just short of €30 million. The bulk of the €100 million was, therefore, spent on land acquisition. In most instances, the land acquisition information does not actually appear on the contract until the project is finished. This is because it takes so long to complete the purchasing and bring matters to finality.

How much was spent on the acquisition of land?

Mr. Michael Phillips

Originally, it was €50 million.

And that land is now worth €6 million.

Mr. Michael Phillips

Yes.

I would not view that as being great value.

Mr. Michael Phillips

I regret the position regarding the current value. At a meeting I attended recently, one of our councillors asked me if we were not undervaluing the land because prices have increased. I stated that we were obliged to call it on a particular day and that was the value on which we decided for the moment. We are obliged to deal with the going rates in the market at any particular time. As the Deputy will appreciate, PwC's analysis shows a positive return in respect of this project.

The officials stated that Covanta had a 99% compliance rate. Is there any data to support this assertion? When reference is made to the eastern region, does this mean the land east of the Shannon and are our guests talking about bringing it from Banagher?

Mr. James Nolan

The east and midlands region is the new region which-----

What areas are included in that?

Mr. Owen Keegan

It includes Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Wicklow, Louth, Laois, Offaly, Westmeath and Longford.

Does it also include north Tipperary? A great deal of haulage trade goes through this area, meaning that a large carbon footprint can be attributed to it.

I thank our guests for coming before us. Since 2000 there has been quite a dramatic change in people's behaviour in the context of waste management. Some of this has to do with the introduction of green bins, composting, etc. It is clear that there has been a change since the notion of the incinerator was first mooted. The first contract that was drawn up contained a guarantee in respect of the disposal of 600,000 tonnes per annum. Does the new contract contain a similar number and, if so, what is it? The first contract contained an obligation to pay if the amount of waste disposed of did not reach 600,000. This is quite an important matter. A new waste target was adopted by the EU in July in order to boost reuse and recycling levels in respect of municipal waste to a maximum of 70% by 2030. The new Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, commented on this in September when he addressed the Environment Ireland conference and indicated that he endorsed the drive towards zero waste. This would imply that Ireland will be moving towards achieving the 70% target by 2030. Does the new contract sidestep the change that has been brought about in terms of recycling behaviour? It appears to assume a rate of 50%, which would ensure that the disposal rate would remain above 600,000 tonnes. I do not know what is the exact figure but I am sure our guests will supply it. If the disposal rate moved towards 70%, then the other rate would be approximately 184,000 tonnes. The latter would be substantially different from 600,000 tonnes. Have our guests factored this in to their proposal?

Have they also factored in the position regarding the new mechanical and biological treatment plant proposed for my constituency? I do not believe people are ever happy to see such plants being built, regardless of where they are located. However, it is proposed that the facility will dispose of approximately 100,000 tonnes of waste per year. It appears that as waste is going to be transported into Dublin for disposal, other waste will be transported out of it to facilities in various counties. This was the case with the Kill landfill facility, the waste deposited in which predominately originated in Dublin. Will what I have outlined have an impact upon the financial viability of the project we are discussing?

Mr. Keegan was county manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council at one point. Was he party to the combined approach adopted when the first proposal was put forward? It seems that the approach could be abandoned or that it could be proceeded with. Obviously, a great deal of consideration had to be given to this matter in view of the fact that a sizeable amount of money has already been spent. Some of the money involved would have been spent on consultants and it may be that a portion of the information provided by the latter remains valid but that much of it is no longer up to date and not capable of being used. Will Mr. Keegan comment on that matter? If our guests were to start with a clean sheet and if they were not obliged to consider whether to proceed with or abandon the project, would they propose this particular initiative? If so, why are they of the view that it is the best solution available in the context of dealing with waste?

People are composting material and the amount of packaging, etc., relating to products is being reduced. We are, therefore, moving into different territory. If the 70% target to which I refer is attained, how much waste will be disposed of at the new facility?

A large amount of money was given to RPS, the main consultancy firm. I accept that a different consultancy is currently being used. Is the €2.13 million the entire amount of money that will be spent on consultants or will further expenditure be required? It was originally envisaged that the total cost relating to RPS would be €8.1 million. However, the final figure exceeded this amount by some way. Is a cap in place with regard to the amount of money to be spent on consultants?

We will obtain a few answers for the Deputy.

I have one more question. Is money being drawn down from the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland? If it is, will the amount involved be the final amount? Has the cross-county boundary issue been taken into account? It would be critically important to be aware of the position in respect of the other facilities that are either being developed or that could possibly be developed. The facility in question will not be the only one to be built in the region. What bearing will the cross-county boundary issue have on the Poolbeg incinerator?

Mr. Owen Keegan

The original project agreement contained a put-or-pay clause whereby the Dublin local authorities were required to deliver 320,000 tonnes of waste to the facility per annum and if this did not happen, financial penalties would be imposed. As a consequence of the length of time for which the project has been under development, significant changes have been introduced. One of these is that we are no longer active in the household waste collection market. It was considered, therefore, that allowing the put-or-pay clause to remain in place would be inappropriate. As a result, this was renegotiated into an authority contingent obligation whereby we underpin the waste market revenue of the facility and guarantee - or partly guarantee - it up to a certain level. If it rises above a certain level, we obtain a share of it. This underpins the new project agreement. People can take different views on whether this represents good value for money. All I can say in that regard is that the NDFA, whose job is to evaluate the risk and distribution of risk relating to PPP contracts, examined the matter at considerable length.

They issued a value for money letter to say this represented value for money for the State, so I think we can have confidence. That is not just our view but the view of the State-appointed agency that evaluates PPP contracts.

What is the number on that? Mr. Keegan said the original requirement was for 320,000 tonnes. I know it is a different arrangement, but is there a guaranteed minimum figure within that?

Mr. Owen Keegan

We guaranteed 58% of the market revenue up to a certain level. I have to be clear here. There are elements of the project agreement that are commercially sensitive and have not been released. The full project agreement was given to the NDFA which carried out its assessment and issued the value for money letter. I cannot say precisely the threshold at which we cease to have any exposure and start to gain revenue. The project agreement was assessed by the NDFA, which issued a value for money certificate.

If Mr. Keegan does not know that number-----

Mr. Owen Keegan

I know it, but I cannot reveal it. It is commercially sensitive. That information was given to the NDFA.

Mr. Keegan said he has no control over the waste market now. How can he guarantee-----

Mr. Owen Keegan

We are not in the waste market. We are no longer major players in the waste market.

How can Mr. Keegan be sure he can guarantee 58% if he has no control?

Mr. Owen Keegan

We believe there is sufficient waste. We are satisfied, as is the NDFA, that the gate price that will be charged will be sufficiently attractive to attract waste from private operators. A number of private operators have written to us indicating that they share that view. We cannot compel anybody to go and this plant will have to compete with other destinations for municipal solid waste, but the assessment that has been carried out and accepted by the NDFA is that it will compete. That was also the European Commission's view. When it determined on state aid, it ruled that this was an appropriate investment for the State and akin to an investment a private investor would make in a competitive market.

I might labour this point somewhat. The private operators are of that opinion. If they get a cheaper option in another county within the region, they may well opt for that. However, it is Dublin City Council that is taking the gamble on that 58%, not the private contractors.

Mr. Owen Keegan

First, it is the four local authorities. Second, this is a PPP contract. Nobody is trying to hide the fact. A common feature of all PPP contracts is that there is an element of risk sharing. We take some of the risk and in return for taking that risk we share in significant revenue streams. The question is whether that represents good value for the ratepayer. That has been assessed independently by the NDFA in accordance with the PPP guidelines with which we were required to comply. The NDFA has issued the letter indicating that it represents a good deal for the State, in our case the ratepayers of the four Dublin local authorities. On that basis, I am confident this is a good deal. It is not just my view. It is a view that has been endorsed by the NDFA. I cannot dispute that it is a PPP contract and that there are risks. I cannot say for certain what will happen, but I would be quite confident that it will work out in favour of the Dublin local authorities.

I ask Mr. Keegan to comment on the recycling rates.

Mr. Owen Keegan

In the material circulated to the committee we presented a forecast for 2030 which had been prepared by RPS. It basically contained ESRI forecasts. We took half the ESRI projected growth rate and assumed a 70% recycling rate. We took account of other facilities that they believed were potential destinations for municipal solid waste. Even then there was more waste than there was capacity, so there would still be need for exports in 2030 on the basis of those assumptions. Other people might have a different view, but those were the market projections endorsed by the ESRI and the Environmental Protection Agency. We took half their growth rate and we made provision for other facilities and the 70% recycling rate. Even at that, we would still need to export waste abroad. On that basis, I would be very confident that there is sufficient waste for this, operating at 550,000 tonnes. A further small point is that this plant is also licensed to take 100,000 tonnes of non-municipal waste, so there is a certain comfort in that.

I will respond to some of the other points. I regret to say I was not a manager when this arose originally. It goes back so long.

Would Mr. Keegan have gone ahead with it?

Mr. Owen Keegan

I do not know. There have been many changes. It is very difficult to say. It is a hypothetical question. If we had anticipated all the difficulties and changes, a different project would have emerged, or I might have said it was a matter for the private sector entirely. In good faith I took on this project a year ago. I have had to deal with the circumstances I found. I believe I have to the best of my ability tried to get out of a very difficult situation. I am very satisfied that we have a very good project and a project that has been endorsed by the NDFA. I believe it will deliver for the Dublin region and for the State.

Mr. Keegan has answered the question based on what Deputy Stanley said about the carbon footprint. If it is a case of going beyond the four Dublin local authorities for refuse - Mr. Keegan mentioned south and north Leinster - has he considered the transportation of that waste? Has consideration been given to shipping waste around the coast or using barges on the canals to reduce carbon footprint?

Mr. Owen Keegan

My colleagues may have something to say. A lot of waste is being moved around the State at the moment, much of it to various ports. There are significant transport costs at the moment. It is likely that much of this waste will be moved to a staging point, will be compacted and moved in bigger vehicles. We are talking about 120 vehicles a day. In the context of movement of goods vehicles or the capacity of the port tunnel, it is very small.

Mr. James Nolan

It is less than 1%.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I would not have concerns in that regard.

I ask Mr. Keegan to comment on the money spent on consultants, on RPS.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I dealt with the expenditure on RPS and I believe I was quite open with the committee. It is difficult to defend the level of expenditure on consultants. I am not saying we would not have had to incur expenditure to that extent. However, I cannot say we got value for money because the city council did not comply correctly with procurement procedures. That contract should have gone out to procurement at least once more if not twice more. Had it gone back out to procurement, I would be able to say that irrespective of the final expenditure, we got value for money, but I cannot say that. It did not go back out; the contract was extended. When I took on this matter, I terminated that contract and most of the work has been done in-house, with on occasion some consultants having been engaged directly. However, that RPS contract was terminated shortly after I took over.

Did part of its contract include ensuring compliance with European Commission rules?

Mr. Michael Phillips

Regarding, for example, EIS, statutory and environmental issues, site monitoring and all that, yes.

What about state aid?

Mr. Michael Phillips

During the project part, state aid would have been part it. The consultants would have gone by the Department of Finance PPP guidelines because the EU rules are localised into this country through the various Departments. The project board in place at the time would have taken cognisance of all the issues RPS brought to the table.

RPS would have had an obligation to put the proposal, but at the end of the day the management of the city council would have signed off on it.

Mr. Michael Phillips

We would get the approval of the project board and once we had all those approvals, the contract would have been for us to sign off. If somebody complains to the EU - any citizen can do that - the EU will investigate whether it is state aid or procurement. In our case it came out in favour. Therefore the advice given was that it was okay. If we were found to be at fault on the state aid, we would have had a difficulty, depending on the issue with which it found fault.

The EU gave us a clean bill of health because in its view we were operating to market conditions or those which could be used by a private investor. In that sense, the advice we were given was fine. We have been cleared by them and the EU procurement office.

On the authority contingent obligation, ACO, issue, Mr. Phillips has stated that the managers have entered into that ACO on behalf of the public. In other words, this will be underwritten by and paid for by the public. However, the public and their elected representatives in the Dáil or on the four councils do not know about this. That is a remarkable situation to be in. In this regard, commercial sensitivity has been cited. However, the public is being asked to pick up the shortfall in this area.

I have a question for the witnesses. If I am not mistaken, RPS Group in a previous incarnation was M.C. O'Sullivan. At the time when I was a councillor, the then M.C. O'Sullivan stated that an incinerator was to be located in each of the eight regions, including one in Laois-Offaly-north Tipperary. M.C. O'Sullivan gave us a detailed presentation at the time, based on data produced by it, on the reason an incinerator per couple of hundred thousand people was needed. In other words, it was proposed at that time that there would be an incinerator in almost every backyard. RPS Group, which now comprises M.C. O'Sullivan, is now guaranteeing that this incinerator can cater for up to 600,000 tonnes per annum of waste, with householders and taxpayers in the four local authority areas in Dublin having to make up the shortfall and pay any penalties arising in respect of the ACO. Are the witnesses not concerned about this? Perhaps they would comment on the initial proposal to have eight incinerators, one of which was to be located in the Laois-Offaly north Tipperary region, which has a population of 200,000 to 250,000 people. How can the council be confident about the current predictions from what are essentially the same sources?

Mr. Owen Keegan

Mr. Phillips will respond to the final issue raised by Deputy Stanley. On the issue of commercial sensitivity, the fact is that the project agreement is commercially sensitive. This is not unusual in public private partnership projects, PPPs. As I understand it, all information is submitted to the NDFA, which is the State agency that evaluates PPPs and either issues, or not, a value for money letter. This project has been evaluated by the NDFA, which in my view gives a degree of confidence and reassurance to elected members and members of the public, including ratepayers, etc. This is the way in which PPPs work in this country. That is the process involved. I have complied with that process. I did not make up the ground rules for PPPs.

I am not saying that.

Mr. Owen Keegan

That is where we are. Mr. Phillips will address the issue of the eight incinerators.

Mr. Michael Phillips

The initial plans were drawn up at the time when the EU strategy had not been fully developed. The Deputy asked why it was initially proposed to have incinerators in eight regions and it is now proposed to have them in only three regions. This is because the project is maturing. So far this year, we have exported 400,000 tonnes of waste. By year end, we will probably have exported 500,000 tonnes of waste. Is it right that we are exporting this waste to another country? This waste is not going into landfill because there is no desire to pay the landfill tax. We are moving towards zero landfill by 2020 or thereabouts. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the alternative in the hierarchy. In terms of waste to energy and electricity and heat generation, incineration will be a comprehensive system. It will not be reliant on fossil fuels and will result in savings on imports and carbon emissions. For a local community, this is a very sustainable solution. As indicated earlier, the quantity of waste required to service the system will be available into the future.

I thank the witnesses for attending and members for their interaction with them.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.15 p.m. until 2.10 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 November 2014.
Barr
Roinn