Upcoming Events

Cork | Environment

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link New Books Worth Reading Mon Sep 19, 2016 23:25 | Seán Sheehan

offsite link 13 Billion ? Lucky for some? Mon Sep 05, 2016 13:04 | Tony Phillips

offsite link Rebuilding Ireland: Long on Promise, Short on Detail Mon Aug 29, 2016 22:20 | Eoin O'Mahony

offsite link Brexit and Other Issues: Comments on the Current Situation Mon Aug 29, 2016 21:52 | Brendan Young

offsite link Bin Charges: From Private Circus to Public Service Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:38 | Michael Taft

Irish Left Review >>

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link Officials and Provisionals Sat Apr 01, 2017 22:54 | James O'Brien

offsite link Interview with Cathal Goulding Mon Dec 26, 2016 17:11 | Cathal Goulding

offsite link Trump, Russia and the CIA Sat Dec 10, 2016 18:23 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Why is my rent so high? Mon Oct 31, 2016 18:51 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Review of Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises by Anwar Shaikh Sun Oct 30, 2016 16:21 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Fitzpatrick decision: A Banana Republic decision

offsite link Mattie McGrath TD: A dangerous ignoramus Anthony

offsite link Religion should have no control over the political process Anthony

offsite link Diarmaid Ferriter: Denial and the language of cute hoorism Anthony

offsite link Fianna Fail liars Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2017/05/24 ? Open Thread Wed May 24, 2017 22:30 | Herb Swanson
2017/05/24 21:30:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link About options for encrypted/secure communications ? a tiny addendum Wed May 24, 2017 20:18 | The Saker
Dear friends, I just wanted to let you know that a reader and a member of the Saker community has pointed me to two other products which we can trust

offsite link Syrian War Report ? May 24, 2017: Govt Forces Advance On Multiple Frontlines Wed May 24, 2017 18:37 | Scott
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-rep... If you?re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn?t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or

offsite link Undercover in Idlib Wed May 24, 2017 18:16 | The Saker

offsite link Syrian War Report ? May 23, 2017: Syrian Army Expels US-backed Militants From Syrian Desert Tue May 23, 2017 19:12 | Scott
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-rep... If you?re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn?t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or

The Saker >>

Ringaskiddy Incinerator Oral Hearing Report

category cork | environment | news report author Tuesday May 12, 2009 00:07author by John Report this post to the editors

An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing on Indaver’s proposed incinerators at Ringaskiddy. The International Airport Hotel, Cork 27th April - ?


This is the latest stage in the 8 yr saga of multinational waste management company Indaver and their efforts to construct two incinerators (a municipal and industrial one, now called Waste to Energy Facilities) at Ringaskiddy, Cork Harbour and the work of local group CHASE (Cork Harbour for a Safe Environment) to stop them. It is possibly the third oral hearing in this long drawn out, gruelling and horrendously complicated process.


The reason it has been so long and drawn out is due largely to the efforts of a relatively small group of people. This group (CHASE) have engaged in the work of halting this project, on health, environmental and social grounds by raising and spending nearly e200000, and no-one knows how many thousands of hours of work. They have contested the project by means of planning objections, judicial reviews and oral hearings and for those of us living in the Cork Harbour area they deserve our utmost gratitude and support for keeping this monster at bay since 2001 and keeping our air and our water that bit cleaner and raising humanity’s consciousness that little bit by not letting this go by unchallenged.

Indaver themselves gave them credit when they revealed during the hearing that the reason they had applied for a ten year licence this time as opposed to a 5 yr one the last time was because they had spent that 5 years dealing with local opposition to the project and their licence had run out (my heart bleeds for you Indaver). Of course this time they have applied under the Strategic Infrastructure Bill that was brought in to speed up unpopular but oh so necessary projects like high pressure pipelines and toll roads and incinerators they also have a multi million euro turnover so it’s not like there’s any sort of unfair advantage here.
I couldn’t help but notice the way that the face of John Ahern (managing director of Indaver) kept changing shade up and down the scale from dark red to light and back again. Perhaps this reveals that he is feeling some of the pressure he has helped put Ringaskiddy and Cork Harbour residents under in recent years.

Anyway, I was in the hearing for only about an hour, ( it has been going on nearly 2 weeks since 27th April). There was a lot of important but hard to digest information coming out. It’s hard to get much of a picture in such a short time but here are my impressions. A point that will be surprising to some and strangely heartening to others is that Cork County Council are opposed to the project. Indaver seemed to be trying to make the point that there is a need for this project because Cork’s landfill capacity is too small while the council representatives and Chase were raising issues around waste minimization through education, appropriate technologies and changed habits. One of the council guys used phrase something like. “Decoupling waste increase from economic expansion”. They seem to have done a lot of work in this respect.
The basic thrust of the discussion was that incineration runs counter to Cork County Council policy and that if approved it will put the spanner in the work that is being done around waste minimization because once fired up it requires constant feeding.
In Cork the pharmaceutical, In Erris the oil and gas

This is practically the last stage in resistance to this project through official channels. If An Bord Pleanala give it the go ahead despite all this work (as they did before) it will require more people to pick up the baton if we really want to stop it. The Oral Hearing doesn’t have much longer to run. CHASE would very much appreciate people to drop in to the Hearing to offer support and learn about the issues.

author by Johnpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 00:09Report this post to the editors


It would be interesting for someone with a lot of time on their hands to do a study comparing this campaign to opposition to the Corrib gas project. A few points jump to my mind:

Cork harbour is already industrialized while Broadhaven Bay is unspoilt

Cork Co Council have come out against Indaver whilst Mayo Co Co have colluded with Shell

Resistance to the Cork incinerator has been predominantly local with little national support or interest. Corrib has captured the imagination of people nationally and internationally who have come to get involved in the campaign though it has remained locally led and focused

Chase have almost entirely used “official channels” with minimal direct action (frustrating to some)while the Erris campaign has emphasized the direct action and civil disobedience approach.
It struck me how polite everyone was being at the recent Oral Hearing, yet the frustration and anger of CHASE people and Ringaskiddy inhabitants was still palpable. It was an interesting contrast to being in a ruck with cops and security at Glengad or Bellinaboy. Yet underneath it the dynamics felt very similar, a community having to protect itself against encroachment from industry. Again the dynamic is shamefully uneven.

Pressure on campaigners in Cork has been through the time and money they have had to expend and the considerable stress taken on through this. Erris people have been physically assaulted and intimidated in addition to the everyday work of running a campaign.
This is not to belittle the situation of the Cork Harbour folk. In fact the pressure on them from industrialization has been going on for over 30 years and the physical violence has mainly been in the form of toxic substances in the air and the food chain as well as the stress of having the pharmaceutical industry as a neighbour. Perhaps the people of Erris have taken note of this and it has informed and spurred on their struggle.

author by JJpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 09:48Report this post to the editors

Thanks for that John. I just wonder which tactic will be the more successful - CHASE with their softly softly "legal" route or the people of Erris who have been forced to turn to civil disobedience due to the violence and intimidation visited upon them by Shell and its henchmen be it the hired mercenaries or the gardaí.

The semi urban nature of Ringaskiddy would make it much easier in some ways to mount major protests (being just 12 miles from a major city and with a large local population from Carrigaline around to Cobh) but the people of Erris have their backs to the wall at this stage and it is either fight or die - perhaps not physicially die, but their livelihoods are in grave threat.

Personally I suspect that the incinerator in Ringaskiddy will go ahead despite the legal charade of another oral hearing. Corrib is a different matter - it is being delayed and can be stopped if enough people care and get involved. It really needs a massive mobilisation however (thousands, not hundreds) to achieve this.

On another point - the media here seem to have deliberatly played down news of a major explosion in a gas pipeline in Central Moscow, Russia over the weekend. Five people were injured, one of them with 35% burns when a low pressure gas pipeline ruptured and caught fire in the city. This is the damage done when a low pressure pipeline bursts -the one in Mayo will be a considerably higher pressure (and more dangerous) one.

Related Link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6Gt...fcVYA
author by Johnpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 11:08Report this post to the editors

I think that the two campaigns are linked, whether the protagonists realise it or not and both have lessons to teach the other.
I think there is also a strategic benefit in looking at them both as aspects of the same struggle.

The CHASE campaign also has a resources aspect to it. By handing over "waste" management to Indaver (Invader) we are handing over a large chunk of our resources in the form of materials that given a bit of imagination we could put back to use

The situation in Cork harbour now is the kind of thing we may see in Erris if Shell's project goes ahead. Back in the late 60s and 70s when the pharmchem industry started coming in there was less awareness of the issues and people were relieved at the chance of jobs so with a few notable exceptions resistance was minimal. We now know where this leads.

The people of Ringaskiddy know what it is to be beaten by gardai also. I refer to the Raybestos Manhattan campaign of the 70s. What we see now with the CHASE campaign is merely the latest manifestation of a struggle that goes back at least as far as this.

We, or the inhabitants of the harbour area are now faced with the apparently intractable problem of what to do with the mess that the industry has left behind. I refer to Irish Steel's slag heap at Haulbowline and who knows what else, as well as the long term health impacts on people living in the area, not to mention the social impacts of living under what it could be argued is a form of occupation.

Perhaps the reason Ireland is seen as such an easy mark for multinationals is because it has not yet healed from the damage done by 800 years of a less subtle form of occupation. The greatest challenge of living under oppression is maintaining the strength of will not to begin accepting that oppression and seeing it as normal.

Anyway, we cannot simply write off the CHASE campaign, whether we agree with their tactics or not. It is as important as Erris because if it is successful it sets the stage for developing strategies for bringing industry to heel and getting the mess cleared up in areas where it has already become entrenched.

What will happen after this oral hearing I do not know. We may see different actors coming to the fore and things may move into a civil disobedience phase. The campaign may be defeated and die a death or something else entirely unexpected may happen.

Either way my purpose in writing this is to give a heads up to people living in the harbour area and beyond and to give credit to the work done so far by CHASE and others.

author by Eanna Dowlingpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 11:13Report this post to the editors

CHASE post regular press releases conveying their views on how the Oral hearing is progressing on their website - www.chaseireland.org

Over the last two weeks or so, topics such as site selection, emergency procedures, national hazardous wast management policy and health have been aired

of the 295 submissions received by An Bord Pleanala, none were in favour

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Eanna Dowlingpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 11:29Report this post to the editors

just a comment on the direct action versus legal action tactics alluded to above.

Some 30 years ago at Barnahely, Ringaskiddy, Gardai forced their way through a human barrier trying to prevent asbestos being dumped at a site granted planning permission by Cork County Council. Women and children were hospitalised, May 15 1979. Raybestos Manahattan, the company dumping the waste, eventually pulled out of Cork, due to a concerted local direct action and legal campaign opposing them.

Since the 1960s, the communities around Cork harbour have been subjected to ongoing toxic pollution. Yet the sources of pollution often provide the source of employment to local families. One could make the case that the local community's capacity for direct action is exhausted, others say that in a (hypothetical) post oral hearing, permission and construction scenario, direct action may occur to prevent the facility being built.

Also, for those inclined to protest, Ringaskiddy represents a more complicated situation, with no Premier League multinational baddie to rail against. The collusion of State and industry to co-create the poison harbout at Cork has defined the economic and social live of the region, with a beleagured community using whatever means they have at their disposal to fight unwelcome developments.

Robert Allen's book "No Global, the People of Ireland versus the Multinationals" sheds light on the history, the issues and the direct action and other tactics employed by the community around Cork Harbour, and other places. Read it.

author by Johnpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 14:00Report this post to the editors

Thanks for clarification and background info Eanna

Another situation currently ongoing in the harbour area is the proposed construction of an underwater high voltage cable across the East Channel of the harbour. This is the same one that Cobh residents fought so hard to get put undersea some years back.
Unfortunately the fishermen who still use Cork Harbour (there are still a few left) were not consulted about this and are objecting to the development on environmental grounds. I don't have much more on this at present but will try and get more info.
Perhaps there is a need for a cross harbour forum where diverse groups can get together and work out a long term strategy for the sustainable stewardship of the area.

author by Hamishpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 16:06Report this post to the editors

at the end of the day, building an incinerator will create a good few jobs during construction, and then require a much smaller number of jobs to keep it running, while it pollutes the place.

Whereas, a move to a greener economy, waste minimisation, separation etc, would surely create more sustainable jobs and more of them.

Hopefully that argument will prevail with the Co. Council.

author by Johnpublication date Tue May 12, 2009 18:30Report this post to the editors

It's An Bord Pleanala who have to be convinced in this case Hamish cos they are the one's doing the oral hearing. Not to mention industry figures who seem able to exert a lot of pressure on ABP given the result of the last hearing where the Board overruled the conclusion of a senior planner who found conclusively against the project.

author by Mairepublication date Wed May 13, 2009 08:38Report this post to the editors

Greed and Need is a play , all about the greed of a private developer who attemps to come into Cork Harbour with a plan for a gigantic building and an 85 meter stack, so visible it would become iconic and would perpetuate his standing forever, a monument with a dominant position.
The site to build it on is so irresistible that the private developer believes, that with a little outside help he could get around all difficulties, - an eroding boundary, which the sea is claiming, a flooding road and site, which the sea with the help of climate change is making difficult planning, or so he thinks.
The plot is, to get planning permission to poison the people within a 10 mile radius and even depending on the wind even further. The script is very exciting, as he must keep the people in the dark in case they discover that Best Available Technology - BAT is available to take over and scupper his chances to make him the owner of a tolling monopoly incinerator, for all the toxic waste of all Ireland, North and South.He has a great problem - the resulting ash from a 240,000 ton incinerator must go somewhere - he has not decided that yet, not quite as he comes up again with rules and regulations.
He must act quickly but he needs fast tracking, and he needs to get Hazardous facilities included in any fast tracking.
The outside help comes , early in Act 1, Wink and Nod enter, and enable his own Project Manager be appointed to the licencing board before they get their licence. The actor used in this act is the same actor who played the part in "E-voting" - that play ran for years.
In act two, the help of another Minister is introduced, he Strategic Infrastructural Act "fast tracking"becomes law very quickly in case greedy private developers, might feel discouraged and walk away because of quidelines or rules involved in handling Hazardous waste.
The script may sound a bit jaded at this point but it works well, maybe not now, but in the past .
I won't give away the ending except to say it includes the audience with effects like toxic emission, thermal inversions, traffic congestion etc. Read the reviews.

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by old codger - pensionerpublication date Wed May 13, 2009 15:59Report this post to the editors

All these problems with multinational industries could be avoided if the government ratified this United Nations agreement. We are signed up to it but we are the only one of 83 countries that have not ratified it.
I have information that the civil servants that studied the agreement were in favor of ratifiying but the Fianna Fail crooks were against it.
Fianna Fail have apointed their cronies to most of the state boards and have almost total control over this country.
As regard Rosport the greena Fail minister Eamon Ryan said on morning Ireland that the gas will be brought in regardless and that mayo will be the major center for oil and gas creating lots of jobs. Patricia mckenna was correct here is a clasic example of a hypocrite. The Greens condemned Fianna Fail on many occasions for their coruption but have now joined them in crime.
The opositon is strangely silent on this and many other important issues.

author by maire - chasepublication date Mon May 18, 2009 18:28Report this post to the editors

John and Hamish,
All the very progressive work done by the County Council in their waste management plans has very little effect, as under the SIA the fast tracking means it goes straight to An Bord Pleanala, it will be up to them to take this into account or not.
It has very little connection with the last planning, as this is completely new under the Strategic Infrastructural Act. This time health and the environment will be assessed. It is for an increased capacity and scale, on a deminishing site because of road requirements of their site for the N28, and the effect of erosion of their boundary because of existing claims of tides and storms, and now climate change.
Those of us in Chase represent - Cobh, Carrigaline, Monkstown, Passage, Glenbrook, Rushbrook, Whitepoint, Ringaskiddy, East Cork, Youghal, Kinsale, and Cork City. We represent the 30,000 objectors who eights years ago signaled we don't want it.
A privater developer on the back of the Celtic Tiger is driving this - his need, his greed.

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Miriampublication date Tue May 19, 2009 19:32Report this post to the editors

CHASE has done a fantastic job so far. Maybe a strategy rethink in light of changing circumstances in near future?

author by katrina - cobhpublication date Tue May 19, 2009 19:56Report this post to the editors

I heard a loud bang while sitting in my conservatory this morning.I was later to hear that there was some explosion this am at the Hammond Lane scrap yard.Does anyone know what happened.?f It was an extemely loud bang. If it was as the result of some process at the site we should be told what happened. We have just had the first part of the Oral Hearing where risks associated with incineration, fire and explosion were discussed.It is not safe to have a scrap yard located in the middle of such a dangerous site.Indaver are looking for planning permission for two incinerators and a waste tranfer station.What would have happened this morning if there were built??It is not good enough to expose us to these risks.

author by Anna - Carrigalinepublication date Wed May 20, 2009 09:52Report this post to the editors

Indaver really are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, they've got coastal erosion on one side, and on the other side, they've got as we saw again yesterday - a combustion station, and the boundary of their site. So they can't move their incinerator to engineer their way out of these problems that they say are manageable.

The county architect stated at the Oral Hearing that the site was too small for the structure, and said they were trying to make the shoe fit after the purchase - like a cinderella site!

There isn't any question that the site in question is unsuitable, the proposed location a disaster. The real question is if in the current political climate, the mehtods being used by CHASE will be successful.....

author by Lisapublication date Wed May 20, 2009 10:10Report this post to the editors

First Cinderella, then Homer Simpson, gee all the famous cartoon characters are up for shouts it's such a bad choice of site. Any good satirists would have such great material with the site choice.

PDF Document Homer's Site Selection Guidelines 0.61 Mb

author by mairepublication date Thu May 21, 2009 15:26Report this post to the editors

Anna,
Indaver made the choice to become stuck between a rock and a hard place. (They believe the rock is gold)
They have taken no responsibility for any calamity that takes place outside this undersized site, which would require toxic lorries to perhaps park outside on the road, which could be flooded.
Nor have they taken any responsibility for what goes on inside their site which they share with a car shredding metal company, and a boundary on an eroding soft cliff, which must be moved every year.
This proposed incinerator would be built on a stoney beach !!!

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Baywatchpublication date Thu May 21, 2009 19:54Report this post to the editors

Miriam if I get this right Indaver bought the site ten years ago, have pumped millions into trying to build on it, and have been prevented from even turning over a shovel full of earth.

Is there anyplace else you can say that about? Rossport? Tara? Carrickmines?

The strategy, whatever it is, seems to be working pretty well so far.

author by Linda Fitzpatrick - CHASEpublication date Fri Jun 05, 2009 23:58Report this post to the editors

CHASE
Cork Harbour Alliance
For a Safe Environment
Www.chaseirela

PRESS RELEASE - 4 June 2009

Department Of Environment Circular To Planning Authorities Confirms Policy Moving Away From Incineration

A Circular issued (Fri 29 May) by John Gormley to all planning authorities makes it clear that mechanical and biological treatments, not incineration, are to be the cornerstones of national waste policy in the future and outlines that the Minister will instruct local authorities and the EPA to "refrain from exercising their powers in such a way as to direct waste to landfill or incineration." (Full Text at end)

This circular was sent to all City and County Managers and Environment Directors, to An Bord Pleanala and the EPA. The circular states that the Programme for Government emphasises in particular movements away from the high reliance on incineration forseen in the National Development Plan, and increases commitment to the use of alternative technologies, including those known as mehanical and biological treatment.

The circular also states that the Minister has initiated a process which would require the EPA and local authorities
- to refrain from exercising their powers in such a way as to direct waste to lanfill or incineration
- to limit incineration capacity to ensure that waste is not drawn to incineration which could have been dealt with by recycling or other methods higher up the waste hierarchy

CHASE has welcomed this clarification, and says "This policy movement away from incineration, towards waste minimisation and resource focused solutions is very significant. It is a positive step towards achieving the developent of a waste and resource policy as set out in the Programme for Government (Department Statement of Strategy 2008 - 2010) , and reinforces policy already adopted by Cork City and County Councils, who are currently on target to meet 2012 landfill directives without any need for incineration. Cork City Council has stated in addition that they will look towards modular, flexible solutions if the need arises to meet 2016 solutions. These clear moves away from incineration leave Indavers incinerator with no role to play in Waste Management."

The Oral Hearing resumes on Monday next 8 June at Cork International Airport Hotel.

ENDS

________________________________

Full Text from Department of the Environment is below:

May 2009 Circular

Update on progress in respect of implementing the waste management provisions of the Programme for Government

I am directed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to update you on progress in respect of implementing the waste management provisions of the Programme for Government, and in particular the commitment to conduct an international review of waste management policy.

The Programme for Government makes major commitments in relation to national waste policy. In particular, there is an emphasis on moving away from the high reliance on incineration foreseen in the National Development Plan and reflected in the regional waste management plans for which the local authorities have statutory responsibility, generally operating in regional groupings. In this regard it is intended that there be an increased commitment to the use of alternative technologies, including those known as mechanical and biological treatment.

The Department’s Statement of Strategy 2008-2010, which is published on the Department’s web site and which was noted by Government in July 2008, states:

"The new Programme for Government indicates a further development of waste and resource policy in the direction of sustainability, in particular, to move away from mass burn incineration towards alternative technologies and to minimise waste going to landfill, subject to the outcome of the review of the waste management strategy. This major international review being undertaken by the Department will address how best to implement waste prevention and minimisation, and the emergence of new technologies in waste management."

Progress on the review of waste management strategy
Consultants have been retained to conduct the study of waste policy options which will underpin the conclusion of the overall review later this year. This work is well advanced and a series of interim reports has been considered by the Review Steering Group. It is considered that the study itself should be concluded on time, July 2009, with policy proposals being brought to Government shortly thereafter.

Interim policy measures
While this work is on target, it is acknowledged that progress towards meeting Ireland’s targets under the Landfill Directive and the requirements of the recently adopted Waste Framework Directive cannot wait. Therefore the Minister is pressing ahead with key initiatives which are compatible with the overall objectives of the review in order to meet the targets. These include:
increase in the landfill levy and the introduction of a levy on incineration;
roll-out of brown bin collections;
intensifying efforts to promote at source/home composting;
supporting small-scale local composting initiatives;
encouraging access to waste streams for composting/anaerobic digestion, recycling and other processes high on the waste hierarchy; and,
source segregated collection of commercial biowaste.

The Minister has also initiated a Strategic Environmental Assessment on proposed policy directions to the EPA and local authorities which would (in relation to their functions under the Waste Management Acts and any instruments made thereunder), inter alia, require the recipients to:
limit incineration capacity to ensure that waste is not drawn to incineration which could have been dealt with by recycling or other methods higher up the waste hierarchy;
refrain from exercising their powers in such a way as to direct waste to landfill or incineration.

The proposed policy direction is subject to consultation with both the public and all stakeholders, including local authorities.

The above are interim actions intended to help meet the Landfill Directive targets while implementing the commitments in the Programme for Government. The Minister considers that they are in line with the policies emerging from the overall review.

Queries in relation to this Circular may be addressed to the undersigned.

Yours sincerely,

­­­­

Michael Layde

Principal Officer
Waste Policy: Review and Regulation

+353 1 888 2434
+353 1 888 2797 (Fax)

michael.layde@environ.ie
www.environ.ie

TO: Each County and City Manager, each Director of Services (environment)
CC: Director General, Environmental Protection Agency; Chief Officer, An Bord Pleanala

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by shoegirlpublication date Fri Jun 12, 2009 16:18Report this post to the editors

I've always felt that one of the big reasons why CHASE failed to entirely block Indaver is that they conveniently ignore the existence of large industrial incinerators in at least 2 factories in Curabinny.

The fact that there is already incineration going on, you would have thought would have been used as evidence either way - incredible that its just been ignored in my opinion.

I suspect part of the reason for it, though, is that a lot of local people work at these two facilities and local protestors don't want to threaten existing jobs.

author by shoegirlpublication date Fri Jun 12, 2009 16:22Report this post to the editors

So can anybody in CHASE or StS actually explain why you are not protesting outside the factories of the two companies who are currently incinerating industrial waste in the area? I'd be very interested to hear why not.

author by Blondepublication date Fri Jun 12, 2009 22:39Report this post to the editors

Hey Shoegirl,

I'm not sure how serious your question is, given that you've already answered it. Too many are employed (or at least were employed!) in the pharmachem sector to risk antagonising them and alienating the whole business community.

Plus, those incinerators are part of the status quo, any problem with them should have been being raised before the current campaign to keep Indaver out.

And they are small, and the pharmachems are moving towards waste prevention for cost purposes.

But wow, why didn't we click that they, not Irish Steel, could have caused the elevated Cancer rates in Cobh?

Thanks for that!

author by COBHITE 74 - HEALTH AND HAPINESS publication date Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:58Report this post to the editors

a STACK 83 mts high really tells the true horror of this monster . WHY SO TALL I SAY IT IS TO DISPERSE THE KILLER TOXINS OVER AS WIDE AN AREA AS POSSIBLE . SO when people start to DIE prematurely INDAVER CAN SAY NOT US .IF the stack was 10 mts high the death rate will be sooner and greater as the poisions fall on all like rain .I can only PRAY THIS NEVER NEVER HAPPENS .LONG LIVE CHASE .HEALTH IS WEALTH WE OWE THIS AT LEAST TO OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN

COBHITE 74

author by Linda Fitzpatrick - CHASEpublication date Mon Jun 15, 2009 21:06Report this post to the editors

CHASE PRESS RELEASE - Monday June 15, 2009
 
Explosive evidence was presented at this mornings Oral Hearing by Mr Peter Daly, Chief Emergency Management Officer for the HSE (Health Services Executive), South, whose function in that role is to prepare emergency plans for the HSE for all type of Major Emergencies.  Mr Daly said that distances claimed to be safe by Indaver would be regarded as well inside the danger zones by Public Response Agencies in the event of an accident or emergency.

Mr Daly said that should an accident occur, response plans prepared by Principle Response Agencies would define a 'Warm Zone' that "in this instance will at least include the public road" and "will carefully consider the risk of allowing even their own staff into that Warm Zone".  The Warm Zone is described as being inside the 'Inner Cordon' where "airborne concentrations above which the general population could experience irreversible or other serious effects occur".  Mr Daly also said that

- credible scenarios MUST include the possibility of a Vapour Cloud Explosion, which is currently omitted
- in the event of an emergency there is insufficient infrastructure with only one entry and the same exit point to and from the same area
- the occupants of the NMCI (Maritime College) should not be required to evacuate in the direction of the incident, indeed to within a few meters of the proposed plant

Mr Daly is a former Defense Forces Engineering Officer and served as a Chemical Weapons Inspector to UNSCOM in Iraq.  He holds a postgraduate qualification in Mechanical Engineering, and has made a study of the Seveso Legislation and related matters.  He stressed that he made his submission as a private individual, but that the detailed knowledge he has in relation to Seveso issues is a result of his education, training, experience and derived from his current HSE responsibilities.
 

Outlining the process by which Principle Response Agencies prepare emergency plans at Seveso sites, which use the Public Safety Zone as a basis for emergency response, Mr Daly said  "The Public Safety Zone (PSZ) addresses low probability scenarios.  These incidents may however be of high consequence.  In the unlikely event of an incident occurring there will be casualties with varying degrees of injury.  The Public Safety Zone consists essentially of three zones i.e. Hot, Warm and Cold (Zones).  Distances claimed as safe in the application would be regarded by the Public Response Agencies in emergency response as well inside a PSZ Warm circle.  The area that they would regard as being in a 'warm zone' would be significantly greater than the perimeter of the plant."

Mr Daly also highlighted that in planning an emergency response, the Public Response Agencies must provide for primary and secondary access as a basic tenet.  He said "This principle is not achievable in the proposed site. The area is effectively a cul-de-sac with only one entry point and if that entry point along the Ringaskiddy road is compromised then the Public Response Agencies will be significantly affected with the potential of very serious consequences.
 
The same principles dictate that "the concept of persons being evacuated from the Maritime College being compelled to move towards the facility, before being able to flee to the left or to the right will be of significant and on-going concern."."
 
ENDS

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by mairepublication date Mon Jun 15, 2009 21:08Report this post to the editors

Shoe girl and Blond,

Indaver want a commercial toxic and municipal co-incinerator. The one that you toss everything in and hope that nothing reacts with each other to cause any problems.

Incinerators in the pharmaceutical companies are single stream in house burners, so they know what they are burning.

Yes, we don't know how they affect our health, but setting up a business to burn toxins from the whole country of Ireland - that's a different kettle of fish. We are in new territory here as is Indaver.

WE need to pause and plan and look for a sustainable way to manage waste. We have decided here in Cork to go for MBT a more benign way of managing waste, less risk. less cost, less air pollution, water pollution, environmental pollution, - why?

Because we can.

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by annemariepublication date Tue Jul 28, 2009 13:20Report this post to the editors

John,
I am a geography teacher and i was wondering if i could use your views on this topic in my lesson plan. we will be studying ringaskiddy incinerator as part of the title 'a conflict of interest between industrialists and a local community.' I think your views would add to the lesson.
In my own personal view, I think the incinerator should go ahead. The plant would atrract more industry to the area and create more jobs, especially in the construction industry. Furthermore, 60 more jobs would be created directly. Do you not agree that this would be excellent in our current economic climate? 62% of Ireland's toxic waste is produced in Cork and this would be the most economical way of disposing of it also. Energy from the incinerators could be harnessed to create electricity for the local area. Wouldnt this also be a great advantage to the people of Ringaskiddy. I see you said that a group apposing the matter spent over 200000e on its campaign. I find that rediculous spending so much money on a campaign that will more than likely not hinder an bord pleanála's decision.
I do realise the arguments against the plant by the local community and I accept them as being very good arguments but i do believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Look what landfills are doing to the environment! We have to put our waste somewhere and an incinerator is the most economical. I suppose it is fine for me to argue when I dont live in RIngaskiddy. I am from Wexford.
Anyway, I am rambling on.
I hope to be able to use your views in my lesson plan.
Thank you for reading this,
Anne Marie

author by Pete.publication date Tue Jul 28, 2009 15:58Report this post to the editors

If we do what the Danes do we can use incinerators to DECREASE pollution.

In Copenhagen they use the waste heat from local incinerators to heat thousands of homes thereby greatly reducing pollution.

97% of Copenhagen's heating comes from waste heat from Electricity generators many of which are themselves waste incinerators.

Described here:

http://www.c40cities.org/bestpractices/energy/copenhage...t.jsp

They did it without the hysteria which seems to accompany ANY form of proposed industrial development here in Ireland.
.
Irish Mantra: "We are all Dead if this goes Ahead".
.

author by maire - CHASEpublication date Wed Jul 29, 2009 22:11Report this post to the editors

Annemarie,

A pity you could not have supported Indaver at the oral hearing, as they were the only group supporting this private development
which will put in jeopardy the 500 jobs which could be created at the Maritime College. Chase were one of many groups opposing this private development. In all the groups represented 2000 objections.
Incineration is not the Best Available Technology at this stage and can not offer sustainable waste management.

Please read up on evidence given at the oral hearing on www.chaseireland.org.

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Baywatchpublication date Sat Jun 11, 2011 21:17Report this post to the editors

As its second Senior Inspector said this should be refused, the Board finally gets the message. Planning for slow learners.

Well done Chase.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2017 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy