Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputies Cooper-Flynn and Cowley. I was surprised last Sunday evening to receive a message on my telephone that it was proposed to unveil a new proposal for thermal treatment of asbestos to be sited at the old Asahi plant at Killala, run by Irish Environmental Processors Limited of Dublin, in association with ARI Technologies of Washington, USA. This has given rise to grave concerns in the area. Local people have expressed fears about the disposal of asbestos.

I wish to highlight the Government's policy on the disposal of asbestos. As the Minister of State will be aware, the Asahi plant was the recipient of acrylonitrile, a very dangerous substance that was transported by rail to Ballina station for many years and from there to the Asahi plant at Killala by special container. The road was specifically developed for that purpose. Six hundred people attended a meeting last night on the situation. I wish to ask the Minister of State about Government policy on thermal treatment of asbestos as distinct from disposal of asbestos in landfill as licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Whatever proposal was made for an incinerator at Ringaskiddy, Cork County Council refused to zone the land for that purpose and the application could not proceed. Twenty thousand objections were received. The proposers brought their proposal to Bord Pleanála and the board's inspector gave 15 reasons the incinerator should not go ahead. However, it did go ahead, by virtue of an extraordinary decision by Bord Pleanála, because it was based on "Government policy". What is Government policy in regard to the disposal of toxic asbestos by thermal treatment? We know nothing about this. I understand that ARI Technologies has been licensed and certified by the EPA in the United States. This seems to be a proposal that will cause a great deal of controversy. The road system in that region is not capable of dealing with this proposal. If this is to be the only asbestos disposal treatment unit in Europe, does this not mean that imports of other contaminated and toxic waste could end up on the shores of County Mayo? For the sake of an investment of €10 million and 31 jobs, it does not appear to be a very favourable solution for an area that has been suffering from unemployment for some years. If it is possible I wish the Minister of State to inform the House of the Government policy on the disposal of asbestos by thermal treatment. Is the Government in support of that method?

With reference to Ringaskiddy, if the Government supports this method, there is little we can do about it but if it does not, then we can fight it.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Kenny for allowing me a few brief moments of his time. One thing on which we know Government policy is the issue of job creation. Government policy states that through the Government agencies, 50% of all new jobs created will go to the BMW region. In light of that fact, the House will be surprised to know that in 2002 and 2003, the net jobs created in County Mayo was minus 366 in 2002 and minus 87 in 2003. A cynical person and a cynical Deputy, which I do not believe I am, would say that the only two new projects that came to my county in recent years were a sludge drying plant for Geesala and this proposal for an asbestos thermal treatment plant at the old Asahi site near Killala. This will create a maximum of approximately 30 jobs over a period of ten years. Some 600 people from the local community, a large proportion of the people from the Killala area, attended a local meeting last night. They are totally opposed to this project. It means three to five truck movements carrying asbestos through the town of Ballina out to the plant every day. It might represent a €10 million investment at the plant but that is of no benefit to the people of the area. An examination of the risk benefit analysis, would cause one to ask what is in it for the people of Mayo. What is known about the pioneering technology that this company proposes to use? Does the Government know anything about it? Does it consider it to be safe? What is the track record of this company in the area in asbestos thermal treatment? What are the policies of the Government with regard to bringing asbestos from other countries into Ireland and treating it here thermally? What is the current level of asbestos?

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very grateful to Deputy Kenny for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. I attended the meeting last night, which was attended by several hundred people, and not one person spoke in favour of this project because Mayo is getting the jobs no other area wants. We do not want the jobs other areas do not want. We want the same jobs as other areas but we have not been getting them because we do not have the necessary infrastructure. The Indecon report and the mid-term review of the national development plan proved that we did not get the investment for infrastructure that was given to other areas. There is underinvestment in Mayo.

We already have too much waste in Mayo. The waste from Sligo is brought to Ballina. A super-dump is planned for Carracastle to take the waste from Roscommon. These are dirty jobs. There was supposed to be 1,000 jobs in Asahi but it turned out to be 300. Those people are gone now but the mess has been left behind, yet it is intended to bring all the asbestos in the State to Mayo. Moving asbestos is dangerous. It causes fibres which can cause fibrosis and cancer of the lungs. That is a fact. It is obvious this project will create a major problem. The people of the area are not prepared to take these dirty jobs. They want proper jobs but they will be powerless if a Ringaskiddy type job is done on this. Will that happen or will the Minister allow democracy take its course because no one in Mayo wants these jobs?

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Kenny, Flynn and Cowley for raising a matter that is obviously of major importance to them.

I am aware from media reports of the apparent intention of a company to seek to develop a waste facility for asbestos in County Mayo. I understand also that the proposers of the project have had discussions with the local authority. There is nothing to prevent individuals or companies from seeking to develop waste management facilities. Indeed, the private sector plays an important and growing role in the provision of waste management services and infrastructure. Any such development, however, must comply with our stringent planning and environmental standards. It would be necessary for such a facility to obtain planning permission from the relevant local authority and to secure appropriate licensing from the Environmental Protection Agency. These processes operate independently of the Government.

The EPA has prepared a national hazardous waste management plan, as it is required to do under the Waste Management Act, and established an associated implementation committee. This national plan recommends that Ireland strive to become self-sufficient in the management of hazardous waste. In this context, it recognises that the lack of hazardous waste disposal capacity is the principal bottleneck in dealing with this waste stream. Consequently, the plan recommends that hazardous waste disposal capacity in the form of thermal treatment and landfill be developed. Such developments would reduce or eliminate the unsustainable situation whereby significant and increasing quantities of hazardous waste are exported for recovery and disposal. There is an onus on Ireland to address this problem and to take responsibility for the waste we generate.

Proposals for hazardous waste treatment facilities will be examined by the EPA bearing in mind the national hazardous waste management plan's target that we move towards self-sufficiency in dealing with this waste stream. In dealing with licence applications, however, the EPA is precluded from licensing a facility unless satisfied that the activity, when carried out under licence, will not cause environmental damage. The agency sets stringent emission value limits to meet the accepted EU standards and guidelines as a minimum requirement. It also evaluates the potential impact of the maximum licensed emission on the environment surrounding the facility to ensure that all EU standards for the environment and all guidelines of the World Health Organisation are met. The agency takes the view that if the licensed emission limit is complied with, human health is protected in line with best international practice. Appropriate monitoring and auditing of the operation of the facility is carried out by the agency to ensure compliance.

The reality is that additional capacity is required nationally to deal with the hazardous waste we generate. However, proposals on the provision of such facilities will be subjected to the normal stringent and independent planning and environmental assessments. I am satisfied that these processes are sufficiently robust to ensure that necessary facilities are developed only to a scale and in locations compatible with the highest standards in terms of the protection of human health and the environment.