Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 72: To ask the Minister for Defence the reason he gave his approval for plans to dispose of cylinders of a potentially lethal chemical, hydrogen cyanide, at a Defence Forces facility at Manor Kilbride, County Wicklow; the risk analysis of the proposed disposal that has been carried out; the consultation there has been with local people regarding the plan; if the Defence Forces will be paid for the operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26050/08]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In June 2007, I was asked by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, if the Defence Forces would provide explosives for use in the disposal of a number of hydrogen cyanide cylinders in the possession of a private company and for a site on which they could be disposed of safely.

The disposal of commercial hazardous waste is not a matter for the Department of Defence or the Defence Forces. The involvement of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces in this particular matter is solely in response to a specific request for assistance from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That assistance is conditional on compliance with all planning, environmental and public health and safety legislation. A full legal indemnity in favour of my Department has also been sought from South Dublin County Council. The question of payment has not been raised by my Department as its role arises in response to a request from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Any recoupment of costs in this instance is a matter for South Dublin County Council.

Officials from my Department and representatives from the Defence Forces have participated in discussions on this matter together with representatives of a number of State authorities and agencies including South Dublin County Council, the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Wicklow County Council, the Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive, and the Health and Safety Authority. All these bodies are working together to develop a plan to remove and dispose of the material in a safe and responsible manner. South Dublin County Council, as the relevant local authority in this matter, has lead responsibility.

Local authorities have substantial powers under the Waste Management Act 1996, as amended, to enable them to tackle problems associated with the disposal of waste. Under section 55 of the Act, a local authority has the power to order as it sees fit measures to be taken in the disposal of waste. Section 56 also empowers local authorities directly to take appropriate actions to prevent or limit environmental pollution caused by waste.

South Dublin County Council proposes to use its statutory powers under section 56 of the Act to arrange for the safe disposal of the cylinders. As the lead agency, South Dublin County Council is responsible for the development and implementation of the disposal plan together with the public information and awareness process. In this regard, a fully risk assessed plan has been developed and is being independently risk assessed for South Dublin County Council.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his response. The plan to move seven cylinders of hydrogen cyanide from a safe place in Dublin to a remote Army camp in County Wicklow has been the source of much local concern and criticism. Is the Minister aware, for example, that his colleague, Deputy Joe Behan, has called for the Taoiseach to transfer the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, out of his portfolio given the approach he has taken to this particular plan?

Perhaps the Minister will advise me as to how widespread is this loss of confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as a result of what is essentially a debacle. There has been no public consultation on the matter, the only public understanding of which came about as a result of a leak to the media.

As I understand it, the Department identified four sites from which one was chosen. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House the location of the other three sites and outline why this particular one was chosen. Why was the burn-off and explosion which was due to take place on 23 June cancelled? Was this related to the sabotage of the Army camp in question?

In an effort to re-assure people, will the risk assessment be published? What security checks have been carried out on the British company that will undertake this work?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I can understand the logic of the questions raised by Deputy McManus — I know she is representing her constituency and wants to get answers for her constituents — I must respectfully suggest that many of them would be better addressed to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and South Dublin County Council. The Department of Defence involvement in this matter relates only to the provision of a site. However, I will try to answer those of which I have some knowledge.

As regards the Deputy's comment in respect of the removal of the waste from a safe to a remote location, South Dublin County Council has decided the original location of the cylinders was not safe and that an uncontrolled escape of the hydrogen gas from there could have lethal consequences. In this regard, it decided to exercise its powers under the Waste Management Act 1996 to ensure this material is taken to what it believes is a safe site and destroyed by an agreed and safe process.

As regards what any of my colleagues did or did not say about the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I must confess I did not hear any comments in that regard. I have every confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for Defence would not want his job.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy McManus correctly stated that four sites were examined. The site was selected on the basis that the other three sites did not meet the criteria in terms of safety. I do not know the locations of the other sites. However, I will obtain that information and communicate it to the Deputy.

The Deputy is correct that the burn-off and explosion was cancelled as a result of sabotage on the Army camp. The matter is under investigation by the Army. Security at the camp is being reviewed. The Deputy will appreciate I cannot say much more in this regard.

Security checks of the UK company is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department of Defence simply seeks from that Department a guarantee that it has met its requirements in regard to safety, planning and so on. Once we receive that assurance and are provided with an indemnity we give the go ahead for use of the site.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Obviously, I have put these questions to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, my difficulty is that I have not received a response to them. This, too, may be the reason Deputy Behan is calling for the head of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

On the legal indemnity, has this been provided to the Department of Defence?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The answer is "No". I do not have it yet, but I will have it before the actual procedure takes place. If it had taken place last Monday as planned, I would have insisted on having that indemnity before we allowed it to go ahead on our property.