THE Aughinish Alumina plant in Limerick could close if over stringent controls are imposed, a company official warned at an Environmental Protection Agency oral hearing in Limerick.
The hearing was also told that there was no evidence that people living near the plant would suffer adverse health effects.
The hearing being conducted by the EPA concerns the conditions imposed on the plant in the Draft Integrated Pollution Control Licence. The company has specified four conditions concerning emissions which it says would be too costly and unnecessary and would threaten the viability of the plant.
Prof Cornelius H. Scannell, who is assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, told the oral hearing that the levels of sulphur dioxide required to produce adverse health effects in humans were much greater than those recorded.
Mr Mike Skinner, a chartered engineer and environmental consultant, concluded that the local ground-level air quality measured within the Aughinish Askeaton area was within all relevant air quality standards or guidelines in long and short-term criteria.
The contributions of the key releases from Aughinish to the local area had been modelled and, even taking the most pessimistic assumptions, these contributions could not be considered significant in the context of air quality.
He added that, by comparison with the UK, the total emission from tall-stack Shannonside industry, of which Aughinish represents approximately 10 per cent, was relatively small.
The firm's financial controller, Mr Michael Collins, said the decision to locate the plant at Aughinish did not turn out to be a good one.
It was based primarily on the shareholders' desire to have some production located within the European Union and thereby have protection from the threat of import tariffs.
He added that the logistical advantage had been far removed from the bauxite source and not being beside a smelter out-weighed any tariffs which might arise.
While recognising Aughinish's strategic disadvantages and heavy losses to date, the operation had nonetheless made steady progress towards reducing its costs and improving its competitive position.
He pointed out that the four conditions being objected to would add £6.2 million per year to the plant's cost, which would go a long way towards making the operation unsustainable.
"It would certainly mean that Aughinish would be on our share-holders' agenda for closure at the next serious downturn in the industry. Plants of this magnitude when closed are rarely reopened. Aughinish is a most vulnerable plant in the Alcan system and is not integrated and distant from its resources," he said.
Mr James F. King, an independent consultant specialising in economic and commercial aspects of the aluminium and associated raw materials industries, said the Aughinish plant was one of the largest and most modern in Western Europe.
The plant's costs of £104 per tonne meant that about 30 million tonnes, two third of the industry's capacity, had lower operating costs than Aughinish. The lower cost plants in the industry had operating costs in the range of £66 to £93 per tonne and were located mainly in Australia and the Caribbean. They were able to deliver alumina to customers in Europe at a cost at least £7 to £10 per tonne lower than the delivered cost of alumina from Aughinish.
Mr King added: "Aughinish Alumina is now at a significant cost disadvantage relative to other existing alumina plants and to new alumina plants which can be built in other areas of the world."
Prof Ian Selman told the hearing he had seen nothing that suggested to him that industrial pollution was or ever could have been responsible for the problems on the farms of the Somers and Ryan families.
In his opinion the problems that were encountered on the Somers and Ryan farms were not necessarily related and he emphasised that both situations had been largely controlled since March 1995 by the careful application of nutritional and managerial improvements.
The hearing concluded yesterday.