THE terms of a pollution control licence proposed for the giant Aughinish Alumina plant in the Shannon estuary, if implemented threaten the survival of the company, it has claimed in a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The company has lodged 40 objections to the licence proposed under a new stricter integrated pollution control licensing system operated by the EPA. The draft licence calls on Aughinish Alumina to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions - a gas pollutant to a third of current levels by 2000.
In a submission to the EPA, managing director, Ms Cynthia Carroll, said the company "is gravely concerned about its survival should certain conditions to which we are objecting be imposed".
Aughinish Alumina is the biggest industrial plant in the State. It employs 300 people and contributes £50 million a year to the midwest economy. It produces alumina from the processing of bauxite which is imported from Guinea in west Africa. The plant, which opened at Askeaton in 1983, was built for £620 million with almost 3 per cent covered by the Government. It has reported major losses. The Canadian multinational, Alcan, the sole shareholder, says it has lost $139 million in the operation while total losses run at $370 million.
Aughinish Alumina says it took the unusual stop of seeking an oral hearing on the licence terms because of the gravity of what is envisaged. It claims they are not environmentally justified a company spokesman said the latest EPA study on cattle fatalities in the Askeaton area, published yesterday, vindicates this view.
The EPA also received submissions from environmental interests who claim the terms are not strict enough. An oral hearing opens on Thursday in Limerick.
The Aughinish Alumina submission, which has been seen by The Irish Times, makes repeated reference to the threat the licence terms, in the form of 850 conditions, represent for the plant, which "has always been very precarious in financial terms".
It adds: "It would appear that Aughinish Alumina Ltd has failed to adequately convey the seriousness of this financial situation. Many of the draft conditions will add substantial operating costs, yet have little or no environmental justification."
The company claims that financial viability was "absolutely critical" to the determination of the licence as the plant's ability to compete would be seriously jeopardised. The EPA terms are stricter than EU standards, it says.
A revised EU directive on emissions would not be as restrictive. The EPA terms would necessitate the use of fuels with reduced sulphur for its extraction process but Aughinish says this would "destroy its competitive position both within Europe and globally".
The company also claims that before construction, the Government gave assurances that no discriminatory taxes or charges would be imposed on the operation, which was reiterated in a letter from the IDA in January 1974. The move to apply the integrated pollution control licence as proposed represents a compromise of such agreements, it contends.
Aughinish Alumina defends its environmental record and adherence to planning permission terms which require monitoring and control of emissions. Its operation has had "no discernible environmental impact on the locality". Last year, it said it was finding it "a challenge to be successful globally" and claimed high electricity costs were a factor.
