"When he heard the news, he got paint and cloth out and composed the banner. The message done he got
in his car and drove into Limerick city and onto the Ennis Road in County Clare. Less than an hour after
leaving his farm in East Limerick the man, whose herd of cows had been killed by toxic pollution, was
stood outside the gates of Syntex's chemical factory in Clarecastle with a banner letting everyone who cared
to know what he thought about the Irish Environmental Protection Agency. "How can you licence these
people when you don't even know what killed my cattle ?"
"I was overwhelmed," said one person who has been fighting Syntex's plans to build a toxic waste
incinerator for the best part of a year, "that a sixty year old man whose livelihood had been destroyed can
do something like this. We got up there to join him along with a rake of children." That morning the EPA
had turned down the community's appeal against the incinerator, effectively dismissing their fears about the
health effects from toxic pollution. "We're being poisoned and the state doesn't care."
Contact Ballyhoura Talamh Glas: 062 48668
Toxic waste incineration in Clare
Iva Pocock
Clare Action Against Incineration
A week before Christmas, last year, permission was granted to Roche Ireland (formerly Syntex) to burn
toxic waste at their factory in the small town of Clarecastle, a few miles from Ennis. The licensing authority,
the Environmental Protection Agency( EPA) gave the go ahead for the incinerator, after local people had
campaigned for over 18 months for the plan to be dropped.
Roche Ireland manufacture antiarthritc drugs, but in doing so, they also use highly toxic chemicals and
create toxic waste. Many of these chemicals are carcinogenic, ande some have been recently identified as
hormone disruptors. For 20 years Roche has operated in Clarecastle with no limits set on what they
released into the air and into the Frgus River, a tributary of the Shannon.
In 1992, the EPA was set up, and there was hope that the state was going to protect the environment.
Clare Alliance Against Incineration (CAAI) campaigned to stop Roche from building their incinerator,
illustrates clearly that communities must continue their fight for the environment of the EPA, whose job it
is.
CAAI, supported by Greenpeace, followed every official means of objecting to Roche's incinerator. Clare
County Council were unable to consider any of the potential environmental effects of the incinerator in their
decision to grant planning permission or not, because of the absurd nature of the system.
In 1992, the separation of the environment and plannning process came about with the passing of the EPA
act. To divide the resposnsibilities involved in protecting the environment is a retrogressive step, ignoring
the holistic viewpoint.A further weakness of the act is that there is no system for considering the effects of
the proposals in human health.
The CAAI made subsmissions and paid £100 to detail their objections to the EPA and at the same time
requested an oral hearing. When an oral hearing was granted they were delighted. In reality, the hearing was
a sham.
The CAAI presented a mass of evidence ranging from foetal toxicology to clean production. The hearing was overseen by one engineer
with a pile of A4 pads and a pen. He was to chair the hearing, then listen absorb and understand the
evidence, take notes on it (no electronic recording was allowed) and then go off and write a report.
Disheartened by the indequacy of the hearing, the community battled on, with the support of Greenpeace,
the Clare Green Party, Askeaton Animal Health Group, and other expert witnesses from UK, USA and
Belgium and Canada.
According to Dr Vivien Howard, incineration was not a method of destroying toxic
waste, but simply a way of changing the chemical nature of the waste and then dispersing it into the
environment.
Of the five thousand chemicals, estimated in the gasses emitted from incinerators the
toxicology of only a few is known.
Those that are known include Dioxins: perhaps the most toxic group of
chemicals ever produced by humans. They are linked to a range of cancers, developmental problems,
disruption of the immune system, and most recently, hormone disruption. They are fat soluble, and thus
they bioaccumulate and biomagnify in the food chain. What is perhaps most worrying is that they seem to
exert negative effects even at the most infinitesimally low levels.
The EPA choose to deny every piece of evidence before them.
Chairperson Kieran O'Brian said in his report "I do not consider that new evidence of the toxicity of dioxins
has been presented....that would justify serious concerns regarding the emmissions of dioxins as provided
for" in the EPA licence.
It seems that Mr O'Brien was paying more attention to Prof C.Rappe, the expert witness for Roche.
Incidentally, Prof Rappe recently completed research for the EPA on dioxin levels in Ireland. He flew all the
way over from Sweden in order to hand out copies of his four page CV. Unfortunately, his written evidence
as submitted was hardly longer than a CV and only contained a couple of references. It seems the people of
Clare are not worthy of the same academic rigour, that Prof Rappe would presumably employ when
consulting to international institutes, such as the World Health Organisation.
So the EPA went for the easy option.
They did not insist that Roche do a thorough audit of every toxic
chemical that comes into its Clarecastle factory, what quantities of it goes into their producs, and what
amounts end up in the air, soil and water. Such an audit is an essential precursor to responsible watse
management.
They did not insist that Roche immediately set tagets for ending the use of their most
dangerous chemicals.
They did not insist that Roche take up an offer by Ecologic, a pioneering waste
disposal company, to test a sample of their waste.
Instead the EPA sanctioned Roche to:
Build a £12 million incinerator, although it may reduce air
emmissions, will also emit unknown and toxic chemicals into the air,
and greatly increase the amount of
contaminated water being discharged into the Fergus estuary and produce toxic ash.
The incentive to
detoxify their manufacturing process is removed for another while, as the incinerator can now "solve
" their toxic waste problems.
"I consider that this oral hearing showed clearly that the EPA are little more than a Endustrial Protection
Agency. At present, toxic waste incineration, the EPA (IPA?) seem determined to ignore new evidence about
the dangers of dioxins. Given that there are thousands of other chemicals released by incineratoprs, the
dangers of which have never been tested, licencing of incineration is also a blatant denial of the
pecautionary principle. if we don't know what they do, don't make them!!!!!" says a CAAI member.
So with a planning process that will not consider the environment nor human health, the EPA conducts sham
oral hearings. Is there hope for environmental justice in Ireland?
I believe there is because in many places,
people like those in the CAAI are saying NO and will continue to say NO TO TOXIC WASTE.