The Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues licences to companies
to operate where they meet with certain conditions - if they pollute the
environment, penalties can be imposed on them and they can even be closed down.
Does this mean that the EPA would always protect us from the hazards of
incinerators by withdrawing licences from any incinerator companies which
were polluting the environment and causing injury or danger of injury to
human health?
There are numerous inglorious moments in the recent history of the EPA which show that not only is it eminently fallible but that it is open to allowing pollution to continue where it suits business interests. We can only presume they would act similarly were dioxin pollution from incineration to occur.
Three Important Questions
1. Can we rely on the EPA to detect that pollution or damage to human health is occurring?
Here is an example of a time it did not:
Irish Times August 6, 2002
The author of an independent report commissioned by the Irish Farmers
Association into unexplained animal deaths in the Askeaton area of
County Limerick in the early 1990s said that industrial pollution
could not be ruled out as a cause.
The Irish Farmers Association reporter claimed to have
"identified a series of serious omissions and failures in
scientific monitoring and analysis by the EPA".
He also said that the review identified failures by the EPA to
include pollutants in the environmental monitoring of the area and
stated that there was insufficient reliable evidence to reach the main
conclusions arrived at in the EPA report that industrial pollution did
not cause the animal health problems".
2. Will the EPA always investigate fully claims of health problems by the public?
Here is an example of a time it did not:
Irish Examiner Nov 19, 2002
In Askeaton, County Limerick in the years 1988 - 1993, farmers noticed a high number of deaths and birth deformities among cattle and horses. People suffered from skin rash and women experienced miscarriages.
In 1997-1998, a local family, members of whom had suffered from a variety of health problems which they thought to be connected, gave blood, hair and urine samples to the Mid-Western Health Board to be tested for industrial pollution. These were mislaid and therefore not included in the EPA report on this issue.
The EPA found no conclusive reason for the health problem which afflicted the area.
The family asked for a probe into how the samples were lost to be made. The Minister refused to conduct such a probe.
3. Will the EPA take action if it is found that a company is causing pollution harmful to health?
Here is an example of a time it did not:
Irish Times 24/01/2004
The Environmental Protection Agency eased the terms of a new licence for
an industrial plant, allowing the company to avoid further major
capital investment aimed at reducing emissions at the plant.
In the draft licence, issued in September 2003, the EPA stipulated
that in order to get a new licence, the company would have to
further reduce the plant's nitrogen dioxide emissions, which give
rise to acid rain.
However, the company objected to the condition.
The company claimed that major capital investments would be required
and complained that the condition would be excessively onerous .
In response to this objection, the EPA decided that the emission
levels stipulated in the plant's previous licence could remain in place.
Conclusion
The EPA is not infallible. It cannot guarantee protection from the dangers
posed by incinerator emissions and ash. The only way to guarantee this is
not to build them in the first place.
More..
- People - Who decides to build incinerators? Who monitors them?
- Politicians - Which politicians/parties favour incineration. Who not to vote for.