DR PAUL JOHNSTON,
Sir, - I have read with considerable interest the recent articles by Dick Hogan concerning the proposed hazardous waste incinerator for Ringaskiddy. The tone of these articles strongly suggests that this scheme is the answer to all of Ireland's hazardous waste problems.
While not wishing to rain on the bonfire, so to speak, it is worth pointing out that, like so many intuitively attractive ideas, this one does not really stand up to scrutiny in a number of important respects.Let's start with the site selected for this large-scale industrial development.
There is a great potential for the emissions from this incinerator to impact upon adjacent residential areas, particularly during still or slow moving air conditions. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a worse site could have been selected, short of placing it in the centre of Cobh itself. As things stand, the local residents are set to have the dubiuous distinction of being the subjects of an entirely uncontrolled and ethically indefensible toxicological experiment.
It could be quite a long-term experiment too. Incinerators are built and operated to an investment cycle spanning some 25 years, and are operated constantly to all intents and purposes. That adds up to a lot of emissions, not only from the chimney but also from the areas where the toxic and hazardous wastes are received, handled, blended and stored.
On the subject of feeding the voracious appetite of this latter day dragon, the proposed incinerator has an annual capacity which exceeds the known total hazardous waste arisings for Ireland. And some of these wastes are already dealt with by on site facilities. So, the spectre is well and truly raised of this installation becoming a focus for a flourishing international trade in some of the most toxic materials known to humanity. It is as well to bear in mind too that any assurances to the contrary are potentially victim to the grim realities of changes in economic conditions in the future. And again there is the impact upon the "industrial ecology" of Ireland itself. This plant, by providing an apparent no-hassle route for the disposal of waste, is hardly likely to encourage the development of clean production systems based upon product and process substitution measures.
Indeed, it is likely to encourage substantial recalcitrance within less responsible sectors of industry with regard to recognising their environmental responsibilities.
Neither should people be gulled into believing that all is well in the Flanders region of Belgium with its "60 per cent recycling rate". For a start this recycling figure refers to domestic waste not hazardous industrial waste, a little sleight of hand on the part of the proponents of the Ringaskiddy project that conveniently ignores the fact that hazardous wastes are not generally amenable to recycling. Besides, the reliance on incinerators in Flanders is actually the inevitable result of many years of poor environmental control and regulation. In turn this has encouraged the unconstrained generation of wastes by industry and fuelled the need for a "quick" fix. The quick fix itself is also a dirty fix, being based on what is essentially very unsophisticated technology.
All things considered, Ireland is perhaps fortunate not to have embraced incineration quite so enthusiastically as have other parts of Europe. It would do well to remain in this position. This would then encourage more innovative and sustainable solutions to the problem of waste, including minimising the quantities and hazards that are produced. The alternative is to set Ireland centre-stage in the international waste trade, with the residents of Cobh key actors in a cynical industrial experiment. - Yours, etc.,
DR PAUL JOHNSTON,
Principal Scientist,
Greenpeace Research
Laboratories,
University of Exeter.