INDAVER IRELAND PROPOSED WASTE MANGEMENT FACILITY AT RINGASKIDDY Who - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
indaver ireland
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

INDAVER IRELAND PROPOSED WASTE MANGEMENT FACILITY AT RINGASKIDDY Who - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 12, 2023 167 likes •1.11k views

INDAVER IRELAND PROPOSED WASTE MANGEMENT FACILITY AT RINGASKIDDY Who is Indaver (Ireland)? Flemish company (Belgium) established in 1985 Specialises in management of hazardous and non-hazardous waste Flemish government had >

slide-1
SLIDE 1

INDAVER IRELAND

PROPOSED WASTE MANGEMENT FACILITY AT RINGASKIDDY

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Who is Indaver (Ireland)?

  • Flemish company (Belgium) established in 1985
  • Specialises in management of hazardous and non-hazardous waste
  • Flemish government had > 50% shareholding
  • Presence in 10 countries in Europe - Belgium, Netherlands, Central and

Eastern Europe, Ireland, UK

  • Employs > 700 people
  • Turnover 2007 = €225 million
  • In 2006, Delta NV purchased majority shareholding
  • In 1999, Indaver purchased Minchem
  • Identify commercial opportunites within Irish waste management
  • Started looking for site in Cork for national hazardous waste incinerator
  • Incinerator (Meath); solvent blending plant (Dublin); solvent waste marine

terminal (Dublin)

  • Taken over Ecotrans, Cara and Safety Kleen (bulk liquid hazardous business)

and Cedar Integrated Waste Management

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Comparison between planning applications

1 No. hazardous + non-hazardous waste incinerator of 45 MW capacity (approx. 100,000 tonnes/y) 1 No. Non-hazardous waste incinerator for industrial, commercial and household waste of 45 MW capacity (approx. 100,000 tonnes/y) Shared building Separate emissions treatment Shared stack Export 14 MW electricity to national grid 1 No. transfer station primarily for hazardous waste 1 No. community recycling park

2001

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Indaver’s history at Ringaskiddy

  • November 2001:

Planning application to Cork County Council for 1 incinerator

  • April 2003:

Waste Licence application to Environmental Protection Agency for 2 incinerators

  • May 2003:

Planning permission refused by Cork County Council

  • June 2003:

Indaver appeal to An Bord Pleanála

  • September 2003:

An Bord Pleanála Oral Hearing

  • January 2004:

An Bord Pleanála Inspector made recommendation of refusal

  • January 2004:

An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for 1 incinerator

  • February 2005:

Environmental Protection Agency Oral Hearing

  • November 2005:

Environmental Protection Agency granted Waste Licence for 2 incinerators

  • (Strategic Infrastructure Act passed)
  • December 2008:

Planning application to An Bord Pleanála for 2 incinerators

  • January 2009:

Previous planning permission for 1 incinerator lapsed

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Comparison between 2001 and 2008 plans

1 No. hazardous + non-hazardous waste incinerator of 45 MW capacity (approx. 100,000 tonnes/y) 1 No. Non-hazardous waste incinerator for industrial, commercial and household waste of 45 MW capacity (approx. 100,000 tonnes/y) Shared building Shared emissions treatment Shared stack Export 18 MW electricity to national grid 1 No. hazardous waste transfer station 1 No. community recycling park

2001

1 No. hazardous + non-hazardous waste incinerator of 50 MW capacity (80,000 - 100,000 tonnes/y) 1 No. Non-hazardous waste incinerator for industrial, commercial and household waste of 50 MW capacity (120,000 - 140,000 tonnes/y) Shared building Separate emissions treatment Shared stack Export 22 MW electricity to national grid 1 No. hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste transfer station

2008

slide-6
SLIDE 6

What does Indaver need to operate?

1. Planning permission from An Bord Pleanála

(approval that the proposal is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area; EIS required to include health impact asessment)

2. Waste Licence from Environmental Protection Agency

(approval that the proposal is the best technology available for the purpose and can operate with minimum impact on the environment)

3. Approval from Health and Safety Authority

(approval that the proposal will not cause major accident hazard)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

EIS was inadequate.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Waste prevention is a far higher priority which has not yet been achieved.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Hazardous landfill is needed to export the hazardous ash resulting from incineration and without it, the aim of self-sufficiency is lost.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Not in accordance with local waste policy.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Contract incineration was a material contravention

  • f the County Development Plan.
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Material contravention of County Development Plan zoning for site.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Material contravention of County Development Plan in not reserving site for port use.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Bulk, scale, height, design and location of proposed development would be visually obtrusive and seriously injurious to the visual amenities of the area.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Site is being eroded, it floods, it is too steep and its geology and hydrogeology are unsuitable.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Proposed development too close to Ringaskiddy village and would depreciate value of residential property.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Site at end of peninsula with single road access and no rail access on southern coast of State. Would lead to excessive road transport compromising public safety and amenity.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Local road infrastructure inadequate compromising public safety.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Premature because local road infrastructure inadequate.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Why did An Bord Pleanála Inspector recommend refusal?

Would cause significant risk to public safety if major accident took place.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

What has happened between 2001 - 2008? Are these concerns still valid?

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Waste prevention is a far higher priority which has not yet been achieved.

Municipal waste generated/person in Ireland

0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Waste prevention is a far higher priority which has not yet been achieved.

Municipal waste generated/person in Ireland

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007- 2010 2011- 2015 2016- 2020 2021- 2025

2006 generation |----- Indaver predictions ----|

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Hazardous landfill is needed to export the hazardous ash resulting from incineration and without it, the aim of self-sufficiency is lost.

  • Still no hazardous waste landfill in Ireland.
  • 48% of hazardous waste in Ireland is exported.
  • More than half of exported waste is recovered.

52% 48%

Recovery Disposal

Total exports = 134,904 tonnes/year (48% of total hazardous waste produced)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Hazardous landfill is needed to export the hazardous ash resulting from incineration and without it, the aim of self-sufficiency is lost.

  • Still no hazardous waste landfill in Ireland.
  • 48% of hazardous waste in Ireland is exported.
  • More than half of exported waste is recovered.
  • Incineration produces ash, 12,500 - 23,500 tonnes/year of which is hazardous.

52% 35% 13%

Recovery Incineration Other (mostly landfill)

Total exports = 134,904 tonnes/year (48% of total hazardous waste produced)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Hazardous landfill is needed to export the hazardous ash resulting from incineration and without it, the aim of self-sufficiency is lost.

  • Still no hazardous waste landfill in Ireland.
  • 48% of hazardous waste in Ireland is exported.
  • More than half of exported waste is recovered.
  • Incineration produces ash, 12,500 - 23,500 tonnes/year of which is hazardous.
  • Exports for disposal would drop only by 7%.

63% 37%

Recovery Other (mostly landfill)

Total exports = 110,696 tonnes/year (39% of total hazardous waste produced)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Hazardous waste

  • “The actions … reflect the waste management hierarchy, putting the emphasis on waste

prevention and minimisation, with specific waste streams examined in detail.”

Not in accordance with local waste policy.

Cork County Waste Management Plan 2004 - 2009

Non-hazardous waste

  • “Cork County Council will endeavour to reduce the quantity of waste for final disposal. This

will be done in the first instance by making every effort to prevent and minimise waste arisings and secondly by recovering as much waste as possible.”

  • “Cork County Council will endeavour to provide for treatment for waste arisings prior to the

final disposal of the unrecoverable residue. The first major step towards this goal will come with the Materials Recovery Facility, where all recoverable municipal waste will be separated out for recovery, with the residue being landfilled.”

  • “Cork County Council will provide a new engineered landfill to serve the Cork region …”
  • “Cork County Council will examine on an annual basis, the results of the on-going studies

being carried out into the possibility of employing thermal waste-to-energy treatment for the treatment of residual waste.”

  • “The Government’s policy suggests that the targets set out in the EU Landfill Directive may

be difficult to attain without the use of some form of thermal treatment.”

  • “In this regard, Cork County Council, in mid-2006, will re-examine the progress made on

recovery rates.”

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Not in accordance with local waste policy.

Bottlehill landfill: 33,500 tonnes industrial waste (max. permitted/year) Ash from Indaver incinerators: 45,092 tonnes (Anticipated non- hazardous ash/year)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Contract incineration was a material contravention of the County Development Plan.

  • New County Development Plan
  • No change in wording relating to contract incineration:

“It is an objective that industrial areas that are not used for small to medium sized industry, warehousing or distribution are considered generally to be suitable for waste management activities (including the treatment and recovery of waste material but not including landfill or contract incineration facilities). In the interests of clarity, contract incineration facilities comprise those whose primary role is to manage wastes that are not generated by the company.”

Objective ZON 3-13 County Development Plan 2003 Objective ECON 3-1 (Draft) County Development Plan 2009

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Material contravention of County Development Plan for site.

Paragraph 5.3.4 ((Draft) County Development Plan 2009) : “Industrial areas are concerned with process-orientated employment and production that includes manufacturing (those activities that create noise, vibrations, smells fumes, smoke, soot, ash dust or grit), repairs, warehousing, distribution, open- storage and transport operating centres. With certain exceptions, as set out in the

  • bjectives below, industrial areas that are not used for small to medium sized

industry, warehousing or distribution are considered generally to be suitable for waste management activities (including the recovery and treatment of waste materials but not including landfill or incineration of waste generated elsewhere).” Site zoning (Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan 2005): “Suitable for large stand alone industry with suitable provision for landscaping and access points and provision for buffer planting, minimum 15 metre wide, open space buffer to the Martello Tower and its associated pedestrian access.”

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Material contravention of County Development Plan in not reserving site for port use.

No change.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Bulk, scale, height, design and location of proposed development would be visually obtrusive and seriously injurious to the visual amenities of the area.

  • Stack height has changed from 60.77 mOD  90.77 mOD.
  • Size of building has changed.
  • Height of building has changed from 40.8 mOD  48.27 mOD.
  • Design of building has changed.
  • “In my judgement, the proposed main process building is grossly excessive in

scale and bulk and would be seriously visually obtrusive in this area. Because

  • f its size and height, it would extend above the level of the hill and hence would

read as a discordant feature in the landscape, especially when viewed from designated scenic routes as at Cobh and Monkstown.” Inspector’s Report, 2004

slide-33
SLIDE 33
slide-34
SLIDE 34
slide-35
SLIDE 35

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-36
SLIDE 36

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-37
SLIDE 37

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-38
SLIDE 38

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-39
SLIDE 39

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-40
SLIDE 40

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-41
SLIDE 41

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-42
SLIDE 42

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-43
SLIDE 43

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-44
SLIDE 44

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-45
SLIDE 45

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-46
SLIDE 46

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-47
SLIDE 47

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-48
SLIDE 48

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-49
SLIDE 49

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-50
SLIDE 50

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-51
SLIDE 51

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-52
SLIDE 52

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-53
SLIDE 53

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-54
SLIDE 54

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-55
SLIDE 55

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-56
SLIDE 56

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-57
SLIDE 57

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-58
SLIDE 58

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-59
SLIDE 59

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-60
SLIDE 60

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-61
SLIDE 61

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-62
SLIDE 62

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-63
SLIDE 63

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-64
SLIDE 64

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-65
SLIDE 65

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-66
SLIDE 66

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-67
SLIDE 67

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-68
SLIDE 68

QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

slide-69
SLIDE 69

Site is being eroded, it floods, it is too steep and its geology and hydrogeology are unsuitable.

Criteria used in selecting sites for new hazardous waste management facilities (World Health Organisation): Exclusionary criteria (4 of 14 relevant) - 1. Flooding (coastal areas with a history of flooding every 100 years or less) 2. Atmospheric conditions such as inversions or other conditions that would prevent the safe dispersal of an accidental release 3. Historic locations or structures 4. Stationary populations

slide-70
SLIDE 70
slide-71
SLIDE 71
slide-72
SLIDE 72
slide-73
SLIDE 73
slide-74
SLIDE 74
slide-75
SLIDE 75
slide-76
SLIDE 76
slide-77
SLIDE 77
slide-78
SLIDE 78
slide-79
SLIDE 79
slide-80
SLIDE 80

Proposed development too close to Ringaskiddy village and would depreciate value of residential property.

  • 500 metres from Ringaskiddy village
  • 220 metres (> 700 feet) from closest house
  • Population of Ringaskiddy increased by 19.8%
slide-81
SLIDE 81
slide-82
SLIDE 82

COBH: +33.6% (2002 - 2006) 8,459 (1996)  12,090 (2011) MONKSTOWN/PASSAGE: +32.7% (2002 - 2006) 3,922 (1996)  5,130 (2011) CARRIGALINE: +6% (2002 - 2006) 7,827 (1996)  12,210 (2011) MIDLETON: +24% (2002 - 2006) 6,209 (1996)  13,149 (20

slide-83
SLIDE 83
  • > 344 traffic movements per day when operational
  • > 55% of these are HGVs
  • N28 from Shannonpark - Shanbally is at link capacity
  • Shanbally roundabout is over capacity

Local road infrastructure inadequate compromising public safety. Premature because local road infrastructure inadequate. Site at end of peninsula with single road access and no rail access on southern coast of State. Would lead to excessive road transport compromising public safety and amenity.

slide-84
SLIDE 84
slide-85
SLIDE 85

NON

CONNAUGHT REGION NORTH-EAST REGION MIDLANDS REGION DUBLIN REGION WICKLOW REGION SOUTH-EAST REGION DONEGAL REGION CORK REGION MID-WEST REGION KILDARE REGION NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE

slide-86
SLIDE 86

YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO YES NO

CARRANSTOWN POOLBEG N7 RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT SOUTH EAST THERMAL FACILITY

NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE

slide-87
SLIDE 87

HAZARDOUS WASTE NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR

slide-88
SLIDE 88

Would cause significant risk to public safety if major accident took place.

  • No evacuation plan for the people or area of Ringaskiddy
  • Ringaskiddy on end of peninsula with only one road in and one road out
  • Cobh connected to mainland only by Belvelly Bridge
  • No public fire service in Ringaskiddy; part time retained service in Carrigaline
  • HSA assessment inadequate

– Based on statistical modelling using data given by Indaver – No modelling of off-site impacts of fires in waste with biologically active pharmaceutical waste or meat and bone meal – No modelling of fire in hazardous waste incinerator – No familiarity with technology. – No external expertise sought.

slide-89
SLIDE 89

What can you do?

  • Assist the CHASE Lower Harbour Residents Group

– Financially – With your time – With your expertise – Join the Monkstown/Passage West committee

  • Submit an objection to the planning application
  • Submit an objection to the application for a Waste Licence
  • Lobby your Ministers, councillors and local TDs
slide-90
SLIDE 90

Submitting an objection to the Planning Application

  • Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006

– For developments of strategic national importance

  • Planning application goes directly to An Bord Pleanála
  • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) accompanies planning

application

  • 7 week period within which to make submissions/objections

– Closing date February 2nd, 2009

  • Cork County Council may also make submissions
  • An Oral Hearing is likely to be heard
  • Once decision is taken, it can be revisited only through the Courts
  • Planning application at: www.ringaskiddywastetoenergy.ie
slide-91
SLIDE 91

Submitting an objection to the Planning Application

  • Send to:

An Bord Pleanála, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin 1.

  • Title each submission as follows:

RE: PL04.PA0010 Waste to Energy Facility and Transfer Station at Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork

  • €50 submission fee to be included (cheques made payable to An Bord Pleanála)
  • Make sure it arrives before closing date (2nd February 2009)

(note 2nd February is a Monday, so it needs to be posted latest 30th January)

  • Make sure you sign your name, indicating your postal address
  • Mention all aspects of the development about which you may be concerned
  • CHASE Monkstown account details:

AIB Passage West Account Name: Monkstown FSE Sort Code: 934348; Account Number: 50392092

slide-92
SLIDE 92

Unsuitability of site

  • Bulk, scale, height, design and location of proposed development would be

visually obtrusive and seriously injurious to the visual amenities of the area.

  • Site is being eroded, it floods, it is too steep and its geology and hydrogeology

are unsuitable.

  • Proposed development too close to Ringaskiddy village and would depreciate

value of residential property.

  • Site at end of peninsula with single road access and no rail access on southern

coast of State. Would lead to excessive road transport compromising public safety and amenity.

  • Local road infrastructure inadequate compromising public safety.
  • Premature because local road infrastructure inadequate.
  • Would cause significant risk to public safety if major accident took place.
slide-93
SLIDE 93

(Aerial photos courtesy of Bateman Photography)