I welcome Dr. Mary Kelly, director general, and Mr. Dara Lynott, director, from the Environmental Protection Agency. This is their first time to appear before the committee on this the fifth day of hearings. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Dr. Kelly to make her presentation.
Contamination of Meat Products: Discussion.
Dr. Mary Kelly
I thank the Chairman for inviting us to meet the committee. This is the first time we have appeared before it and we welcome the opportunity. I am accompanied by Mr. Dara Lynott, director of the office of environmental enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency. In advance of any questions on the recent contamination of Irish pork products, members may wish to ask, it may be useful to set out the role of the EPA in the current investigation and the regulation of waste. I will be happy to answer questions and if I or my colleague are unable to provide answers today, we will arrange for the relevant information to be forwarded to the committee.
The Environmental Protection Agency is an independent statutory body, established in 1993 under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. Our sponsor is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The agency has a wide range of responsibilities, including regulation of large-scale industrial and waste facilities, monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment, overseeing the environmental responsibilities of local authorities, co-ordinating environmental research in Ireland and regulating Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. Its powers, including those of licensing, regulation and enforcement, are derived from various Acts of the Oireachtas and regulations made thereunder.
On 7 December 2008 I was invited to attend a meeting held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss issues arising from the contamination of pork with dioxins and the subsequent withdrawal of pork products from the marketplace. I was made aware that a surplus food recycling plant in County Carlow, Millstream Limited, was the subject of an investigation into the source of the contamination. The meeting was attended by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials and senior members of the National Bureau for Criminal Investigation of the Garda Síochána. The assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency was sought in helping to identify the source of the contamination and in advising on environmental issues that might arise in the disposal of contaminated product. I was also made aware that a potential source of the contamination was oil used to fuel a burner at the Millstream facility for the drying of bread to be used in animal feed. The agency agreed to assist the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its investigation and subsequently the Garda Síochána in any criminal investigation that might arise.
The immediate tasks for all concerned were to verify the source of the contamination and ensure no further contamination, either through contaminated feed or potentially contaminated oil, could occur. At the meeting it was alleged that the oil suspected of being contaminated had been originally sourced in Northern Ireland. In the context of the investigations, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed to inspect a number of facilities in addition to the Millstream facility in County Carlow to investigate possible movements of oils and waste oils to and from Northern Ireland. These inspections were carried out on 8 and 9 December 2008. Samples of oil were taken for further analysis at some of these sites. The agency has continued to assist the Garda Síochána in its investigations into the incident. The results of the analysis of oils and waste oils and investigations by the agency into sites in the Republic of Ireland form part of the investigation being led by the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation. I hope the committee understands I am constrained in what I can say about the investigation and any results it may have yielded to date, as the investigation is still open and may result in legal actions being taken at some time in the future. I would not want my comments to compromise any such action.
As part of its assistance to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of this contamination incident, the Environmental Protection Agency published guidance on 10 December 2008 on the disposal of contaminated pork products, a copy of which is included as an appendix to this statement and which includes disposal options for the various waste streams arising as a result of the incident. We have also included a press statement that accompanied the guidance. Furthermore, the agency has agreed with the Department that animals requiring to be slaughtered should be dealt with in approved slaughtering plants and the carcases rendered at rendering plants licensed by the agency and defined as category 1 rendering plants as per Article 13 of the relevant EC regulation. The agency continues to work with the Department to clarify any issues that arise.
Waste legislation at EU and national level is very complex and subject to frequent change, updating and amendment. Waste oils are specifically regulated under the waste oils directive, as amended, which sets out the requirements for their collection and disposal. This includes both its regeneration to base oil and burning waste oils. Article 8(1) of the directive and the associated annex of the waste oils directive relating to the measures required for the burning of waste oils was repealed by the waste incineration directive. In future the management of waste oils will be regulated under the waste framework directive which came into force in December 2008 and consolidates a number of earlier directives relating to waste. These directives are given effect in Ireland by the Waste Management Acts and regulations made thereunder. The Environmental Protection Agency has a number of roles in the regulation of waste, including the regulation of waste oils. The regulation of waste is amended on a regular basis.
Waste oil is classified as hazardous waste in the European waste catalogue. It may be stored at the point of generation for up to six months without the need for a waste permit or waste licence. Any facility that stores — for over six months — recovers or disposes of waste oil needs a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency. Any company which collects waste oils for onward transport is required to hold a waste collection permit from the relevant local authority under the hazardous waste collection regulations. Local authorities manage the C1 forms required for the movement of hazardous waste within the State. Waste permits are issued by local authorities for certain classes of waste activity specified in the Schedules to the Waste Management Acts. Waste licences are issued by the agency for larger or more complex types of waste activity specified in the Schedules to the Waste Management Acts. There are two principal facilities managing waste oils in the Republic of Ireland and licensed by the agency.
As appropriate, EPA licences issued for industrial and waste activities include conditions relating to the management of hazardous waste and the control of emissions of scheduled substances, for example, dioxins and furans. The office of environmental enforcement enforces the licences issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. It also provides for strategic co-ordination of the enforcement activities of local authorities, including combating illegal waste activities. Additionally, the office co-operates with the Garda Síochána and other enforcement authorities in investigating serious environmental crime. In enforcing licences with significant air emissions, the office samples and analyses emissions to check for compliance with licensed emission limit values. The Millstream facility does not hold a licence from the agency for any activity carried out on site, nor would an application for the use of contaminated waste oil be approved for the site in its current configuration.
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the preparation of a national hazardous waste management plan. The latest plan was published in 2008 and gives details on the management of waste oils among many other hazardous substances. In 2006 approximately 27,000 tonnes of waste oil was generated in Ireland and approximately 12,000 tonnes of oily sludges. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes go unreported. The main sources of waste oils are commercial garages, fleet maintenance, machine maintenance, rail depots, ports, industry and do-it-yourself oil activities. Waste oil and oily sludges are subject to pre-treatment at EPA licensed facilities to generate reprocessed oil. Enva Portlaoise is licensed to treat 35,000 tonnes per annum of waste oil and oily sludges and 1,000 tonnes of oil filters. RILTA and Enva Dublin have authorised treatment services for 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes per annum of oily sludges and oily wastes by centrifugation and settlement. Enva generates a reprocessed fuel oil that meets quality standards specified in the facility's waste licence and is mainly used in making bitumen. RILTA operates an oily sludge and oily waste recycling facility.
Current treatment capacity in Ireland is considered to be adequate for the quantities arising. Waste oils and mineral oil waste are one hazardous waste stream for which Ireland is substantially self-sufficient. Collection rates for garages are reported to be close to 100%. The national hazardous waste management plan recommends minor steps to improve collection rates even further such as local enforcement actions and a pilot project with a view to informing a national enforcement policy for garages and waste oils. The Environmental Protection Agency has taken out advertisements in a number of auto magazines to alert waste oil producers to their legal requirements in this respect. Like all of our reports, the national hazardous waste management plan is available on the EPA website.
A separate directive deals with the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, and polychlorinated terphenyls, PCTs. The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementation of the directive on the disposal of PCBs and PCTs which requires member states to compile an inventory of PCB holdings and also requires the making of plans and actions for the decontamination and disposal of PCBs and PCB-contaminated equipment. It includes a requirement that PCB holdings above 5 litres be notified to the agency on an annual basis and destroyed by the end of 2010. The agency first published a PCB management plan in 2002. The most recent plan which includes a code of practice for the in-use management of PCBs and PCB-containing equipment was published in August 2008. It sets out, among other things, guidance to holders of PCBs, both large and small holdings, on how to manage these holdings, including advice on how to meet legal obligations and practical information such as disposal options.
The Environmental Protection Agency is also responsible for the co-ordination of implementation of the persistent organic pollutants, POPs, regulation. PCB is one of the POPs family of chemicals. A national implementation and action plan for POPs will be progressed this year once the relevant regulations are in place.
Other EPA activities relating to PCBs and dioxins include publication of reports on dioxin levels in the Irish environment, based on analysis of cows' milk sampled in 1995, 2000, 2004 and 2006, and publication of research on the inventory of dioxin and furan emissions to air, land and water in Ireland for 2000 and 2010. Also, surveillance was carried out on animal health in the Cork Harbour region. This is an EPA sponsored programme which is funded by a number of major industrial facilities in the region and carried out by Cork County Council veterinary department. A PCB information leaflet was published and is available on our website. We estimated POPs emissions between 1995 and 2005 for the purposes of implementing the POPs regulations and are also active in enforcing a ban on backyard burning of waste which we determined to be one of the major sources of dioxins, although dioxins in Ireland are at an extremely low level.
As a hazardous waste, waste oils are required to obtain prior authorisation under the transfrontier shipment of waste regulations before they can be transported across borders. Prior to July 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency was the competent authority under the regulations. However, under new regulations, the Dublin City Council national transfrontier shipment, TFS, office is now the appropriate authority. Dublin City Council, as the national competent authority, follows up on suspected breaches of TFS legislation and is part of the ongoing investigation team into the contamination incident.
I hope I have provided the committee with an overview of the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in the investigation into the contaminated pork incident and also the wider issue of the regulation of waste, including PCBs and waste oils. I am happy to answer any questions committee members may have for me. I apologise for the technical nature of the presentation but it is the world in which we work.
I thank Dr. Kelly for her presentation and will now take questions from Deputy Creed.
I welcome Dr. Kelly and Mr. Lynott. We have entered a technical area with the discussion on POPs, PCBs and the OEE. It would have been great if we had received this submission yesterday in order that we could have studied it in greater detail. However, I will make a stab at some of the questions which jump out at me. With the Chairman's permission, I will ask further questions later.
Interestingly, Dr. Kelly stated categorically that the "Millstream facility does not hold a licence from the agency for any activity carried out on site, nor would an application for the use of contaminated waste oil be approved for the site in its current configuration."
If the facility unknowingly operated with a PCB contaminant blended with its normal fuel source, is it not the case that the Environmental Protection Agency would not have had any responsibility in dealing with the Carlow plant? Millstream Limited would not have been in breach of any regulation if unknowingly it had been sold oil with a PCB contaminant. Perhaps I am not using the correct technical term but Dr. Kelly will understand from where I am coming.
Will Dr. Kelly advise us on the level of contaminant which might have been blended? For argument's sake, if I had 500 gallons of diesel oil delivered to operate the burner at the Millstream facility, would one pint of PCB contaminated oil blended with this mix cause the disastrous result which we witnessed, or are we discussing something more significant?
I got the distinct impression early on that a game of tennis was being played between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in finger pointing, in the taking of responsibility and apportioning blame. It is emerging that in the normal run of events the agency would not have a role to play in a facility such as the Millstream recycling plant if it were operating without an oil contaminant. Therefore, to point the finger would have been premature or unfair.
Dr. Kelly has referred to inspections carried out on 8 and 9 December, after the meeting held by the Department on 7 December, and mentioned that samples of oil were taken for further analysis at various sites. Are these similar to the recycling plant in Carlow? Will Dr. Kelly comment on the results of these tests? Is she concerned about the level of contamination and the use to which contaminated oils might have been put and the consequences this might have elsewhere in terms of dioxin contamination in the food chain?
Dr. Mary Kelly
The Deputy is correct. The Environmental Protection Agency is not responsible for licensing the Millstream plant because it does not carry out any of the activities listed in the Schedules to the Waste Management Acts or the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. I cannot pronounce on its legal responsibilities, as it will be for the courts to decide whether any action was carried out knowingly or unknowingly. If the Millstream plant did what it was supposed to do, namely, drying breadcrumb, it would not come under the provisions of the Waste Management Acts or the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. If it had wanted to use waste oil in its burner, it would have needed to apply to the agency for a licence. In order to grant that licence we would require the plant to use a particular type of burner which would be compliant with the waste incineration directive and would require a huge amount of abatement technology. The plant would not have been likely to apply for such a licence and never did so.
Would it have been obliged to do so?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Absolutely not. If it had wanted to burn waste oil, it would have had to apply but the question of whether its actions were carried out knowingly or unknowingly is a legal one.
The plant would not have wanted to burn waste oil to conduct its operations in an efficient way as it would have been at enormous cost with no real benefit.
Dr. Mary Kelly
If it was to burn waste oil under licence, it would have been at enormous cost and would not have made economic sense.
The investigation is ongoing. The Environmental Protection Agency cannot say anything in public about the level of contaminant in the oil because that information will be evidence in any court case. However, there are specific PCB and dioxin limit values relating to the use of oil. I cannot say if one pint in a 500-gallon delivery would produce disastrous results but the limit value is 50 parts per million.
In its early stages the investigation focused on what could have happened. There were allegations that the contamination had been caused by oil but we did not know. The regulations dealing with waste are very complex; therefore, it was not clear who would be responsible for regulation. I did not consider that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was pointing a finger at the Environmental Protection Agency.
I was asked about the other sites we had undertaken to investigate. On the evening we were asked to assist, a number of sites — which I cannot mention — were alleged to have had some involvement in the transport of waste oil to and from the Millstream plant. We undertook to look at these sites and others identified by the Garda Síochána. We also carried out inspections of two sites to which we granted licences and those sites are mentioned in the submission. We carried out the inspection to rule out the possibility that other feed producing sites were using contaminated oil. We found no evidence to that effect.
Dr. Kelly has cleared up one point. There was a perception that the Environmental Protection Agency was the licensing authority but who is the licensing authority for plants such as this? What is the role of the agency in what happened in the factory in question? We have also learned that it is very important to regulate oil used in these plants and Dr. Kelly said there were two principal players. Do these players charge for the collection of oil? As the agency is responsible for regulation in this area, what investigation will it carry out? How will it detemine what happens to oil which is not recycled? Dioxins are a very serious contaminant.
I have one question. Has the Environmental Protection Agency followed the paper trail of the supplier of the oil? Did the supplier supply other plants? Does the agency have any further information on what happened at the Carlow plant?
Dr. Kelly has said any facilities which store waste oil for over six months need a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency but the core of the problem seems to be a cross-Border issue. She also talked about the transfrontier shipment of waste which is now the responsibility of Dublin City Council. If contamination was to occur in fuel mixed outside the jurisdictions of the agency and Dublin City Council, what rules are in place to facilitate co-operation?
Dr. Mary Kelly
This morning we gained clarification of the fact that we were not the licensing authority. The plant is licensed for the manufacture of feed, which I presume is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or some agency under its aegis. It also has a permit from Carlow County Council for recycling food into breadcrumb for feed. It is licensed in this way.
Is that the same permit that covers all types of recycling?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes.
I think that is ridiculous because we are talking about a feed recycling business.
Dr. Mary Kelly
To be honest, I do not know the details behind that permit because we do not issue them. It is a permit for recycling and may have conditions specific to the activity. I have not seen the licence so I do not know.
Regarding the EPA's role in what happened, as I explained, we were asked to assist by contributing expertise in the area of combustion. At that stage it was an investigation by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that escalated to become a Garda investigation. The Environmental Protection Agency is providing technical assistance to the Garda. We have helped with environmental legislation, taking and sending samples and interpreting them. We do not have a role in this matter as a regulator.
I was asked about the oil situation. As I outlined, waste oils are regulated at European and national level. They can be a serious pollutant, not only in this area, where a problem had not arisen previously, but in terms of waste oils from garages entering the water system. They are regulated tightly. In Ireland there is a good collection system for waste oils from garages and our surveys and work under the national hazardous waste management plan have satisfied us that almost 100% of waste oil is collected from garages around the country. The two companies involved impose a charge for this service on garages and smaller players around the country to collect oil and reprocess it. Unusually for Ireland, we are self-sufficient in terms of the collection and reprocessing of that waste stream. The EPA issues the licence for this reprocessing and the licence for Enva says where it may be sold afterwards. We have specified that it should be used in the making of bitumen; it goes to makers of asphalt to be used in burners. We included a specification relating to PCBs and dioxins in the end product.
Therefore, the EPA can determine where reprocessed oil can go.
Dr. Mary Kelly
We can determine things relating to the reprocessed oil collected by the two companies we licensed. We know what they collect and have a handle on where it will go.
Is Dr. Kelly quite satisfied that it is all going in the right direction?
Dr. Mary Kelly
We inspected the two premises and were satisfied that it was not being used with feed.
Have all the questions been answered?
Dr. Mary Kelly
May I just add that if the companies, or anyone else, collect oil contaminated by PCBs it must be inventoried? We will then hold the inventory and publish it on our website. PCB oil must be disposed of in a particular way that cannot be accommodated in Ireland. It must be exported for destruction and the company must get a certificate proving this has been done. PCB oil is well regulated in the Republic of Ireland.
I was asked what happens to oil that is not collected. We are quite happy with the amount of oil that is collected at the moment; we estimate that a small amount is not collected. We are starting a new programme this year to increase the amount that comes back into the system, but only a small amount is in question.
What happens to the oil that is not collected?
Dr. Mary Kelly
We do not know what happens to oil that is not collected. We are conducting an awareness campaign to ensure garages know they have a responsibility to dispose of it correctly and to increase the amount of oil coming into the system. In fairness, almost all oil comes into the system and we are happy with this.
Regarding the PCB management plan, we have issued an information note on PCBs that has pictures showing the type of notification that must be placed on machinery and equipment that might contain PCBs. The area is well regulated in the Republic of Ireland.
Deputy Sheahan asked me about a paper trail linking the supplier to other plants and units. This is part of the Garda investigation and one of the first things done was to ensure that any oil imported from that supplier was not going to other feed plants. We have helped the Garda in this regard.
Would the EPA have inspected that facility?
Dr. Mary Kelly
The Northern Ireland facility?
Yes.
Dr. Mary Kelly
No, we have no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.
Would a sister body in the North have inspected the facility?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes, I was just coming to that because I was asked about cross-Border co-operation. First, the transfrontier shipment of waste regulations are in place to regulate the movement of waste across borders. The regulation holds on both sides of the Border and elsewhere in the EU. There is ongoing co-operation between the EPA and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and between the Garda and the PSNI; the investigation involves both sides of the Border but I cannot comment further in that regard.
Did Deputy Doyle have a question?
That was my question.
Does Deputy Creed's question relate to this issue?
Yes. I understand that PCB oils have been illegal since the late 1970s. They continue to be used in transformers but we are discussing appropriate legal ways to get rid of them. Are we talking about hundreds of thousands of gallons of PCB oil that may still be in use or are we talking about significantly less? Can we have an idea of the scale involved? Obviously, another issue is the cost involved in getting rid of this oil appropriately. What kind of businesses could now have PCB oil on their premises legally? At some stage appropriate arrangements will be necessary to get rid of this oil. What kind of business uses these materials?
I was going to ask the question posed by Deputy Creed. We were told that the oil used in the plant in Carlow related to transformers. Does new oil contain PCBs when it is first used or do they only arise when it goes through a system and emerges as waste? Is it true that PCBs are not harmful unless the material is used for burning purposes? The witnesses are talking about sludges containing 11,500 tonnes of oil and 27 tonnes of waste oil which is reprocessed and used again in bitumen. I presume it is used in briquettes or something similar. However, at the end of the day it is all burned again, whatever form it is given. If there are PCBs in that, would they not cause contamination when burned again, or are all PCB and dioxin-contaminated oils exported and destroyed by controlled incineration abroad?
As a farmer I know there is always a small amount of waste oil when the tractors are serviced every year, which is done by a mechanic. I keep that oil, which is black waste oil, and use it to oil machinery for the winter, as most farmers do. This is not harmful because the oil is not being burned. It is just used to keep rust off the machinery. At what point do the PCBs enter the oil? When the oil is used in transformers it is then waste oil. Are the PCBs in it at that stage, or are they in it from the beginning when the oil is used for the first time? Should waste oil ever have been allowed to be used in this plant? Is someone responsible for allowing waste oil to be used in milling and mixed with the dried bread being used for the feed? If that is the case, it was an awful mistake. What oil should the manufacturer have been using instead of this oil?
Deputy Doyle has a supplementary question. I do not want to delay proceedings.
My question is very simple. Dr. Kelly said earlier that the contaminated oil used in this case was the one form of oil in the waste oil stream that we did not have a facility to deal with. It must be exported. I presume it is the same in the North of Ireland and that there is no facility in the North to destroy such oil. As I understand it, transformer oil is a lubricant rather than a fuel. Dr. Kelly mentioned holdings over five litres, which means, presumably, that nearly all facilities with transformers would have to notify their holdings to the EPA. Is this covered by the same EU regulation that applies in all EU countries and therefore would apply in Northern Ireland as well?
Dr. Mary Kelly
A question was asked about how PCBs arise. PCBs do not arise naturally. They were manufactured and used because of their excellent insulating properties, mainly in electrical equipment such as transformers, capacitors and fluorescent lighting ballasts. It was a very particular use which was due to their properties. As Deputy Doyle said, they were not used for combustion but for their insulating properties. They have been out of use since the late 1970s, and since then people have been trying to remove them from the system. The regulation referred to is a European Union regulation——
I am sorry. When Dr. Kelly says PCBs are out of use, I presume she means it is illegal to manufacture them, but they are legal in use in——
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes. They are legal but they are being phased out. They are not put into those systems any more, but if they are in them, there is a plan for getting rid of them. Those pieces of equipment must go through a PCB inventory, for which the EPA is responsible. We survey all companies. For example, the Defence Forces, Iarnród Éireann, the ESB, the HSE, RTE, or local authorities might have large electrical capacitors or similar equipment. We surveyed all these organisations and asked them to identify older equipment that might contain PCBs. There is an assumption that if one does not know whether an old piece of equipment contains PCBs, it does. It is a conservative assumption. Those pieces of equipment, under the regulation, must be labelled to say they contain PCBs so that people working around them know they are hazardous and when they are being dismantled, people know they have to be disposed of in a certain way. The organisations holding this equipment must dispose of it, as it comes up for disposal, in the proper way. Thus, they first have to be inventoried.
According to the inventory we published in 2007, there were 71 tonnes of material containing PCBs in Ireland. We are not talking about thousands of tonnes but 71 tonnes. We do regular surveys on this. The number will probably go down, or it could rise a little if people discover they have some equipment they did not know about. Such equipment will be phased out. Any organisation that holds more than 5 kg must be on this inventory, so any reasonably large piece of equipment will be on it, and must be phased out by 2010. There is a plan to get rid of PCBs from the official system. Unless one takes that transformer oil and mixes it with combustion oil, there will be no PCB contamination in oil such as that we buy for heating and so on. It does not arise. For example, Deputy Aylward spoke about how he uses oil on the farm. PCBs will not just appear in oil. The oil would have to be mixed with transformer oil, which must be drained out of a transformer and somehow mixed with it. That, allegedly, is how the contamination arose in this case.
We must ask how this type of oil was supplied to the plant in Carlow.
Dr. Mary Kelly
That is exactly what the Garda investigation is for.
There is something serious there if this oil which should not have been in the system got into the system.
To get rid of this oil in the appropriate manner, what kind of costs are we talking about?
Dr. Mary Kelly
I can try to find out that information and provide it to the committee, but I do not have it now.
Where does the oil go? Is it Germany?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes, for incineration. I do not have the exact information but I imagine it goes either to Germany or to the UK, where there are probably facilities to dispose of it. I cannot tell the Deputy exactly, but it does go abroad.
There are probably very few companies involved in the recycling business who are appropriately equipped to deal with this oil.
Dr. Mary Kelly
Absolutely.
The companies Dr. Kelly listed who may have such equipment all sound like very reputable main players which, one would hope, make appropriate arrangements for disposal.
Dr. Mary Kelly
In case I gave the wrong impression, I just mentioned that those are companies who may have used PCBs in the past, because they were in the products they might use. We are satisfied that those companies are doing the right thing under the regulations — they are telling us what they have and disposing of the equipment properly.
Do they tell the EPA what facility they use to dispose of the equipment appropriately?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes.
Is the EPA pursuing that line of inquiry?
Dr. Mary Kelly
This is all information that is in the public domain under our PCB management plan.
Dr. Kelly said there were 71 tonnes of such material in Ireland. What about Northern Ireland? The oil in question is alleged to have come from Northern Ireland. Does Northern Ireland have the same kind of regime in terms of handling waste oil from transformers? Is it being sent abroad for incineration as it is here? Do we have any information on that?
Dr. Mary Kelly
I do not know the answer to that question. Northern Ireland is certainly subject to the same EU regime in terms of disposal of PCBs and PCTs, so I assume it operates according to the regulations. I have never——
Does Dr. Kelly know the tonnage of PCB-containing materials in the North?
Dr. Mary Kelly
I do not have that information.
How many companies hold a licence from the EPA to get rid of PCB oil?
Dr. Mary Kelly
There are four or five organisations that are licensed to collect the oil, but the two I have mentioned here are the two main players. They have to go through the licence——
Given the list of reputable main players listed by Dr. Kelly — although that list may not be exhaustive — as organisations that might have PCB oil on their premises, and the relatively small number of companies that are appropriately licensed to deal with it, is it reasonable to conclude that either one or the other did not make the necessary arrangements?
Dr. Mary Kelly
No, absolutely not. What I have been saying is that waste oil regulation in the Republic of Ireland is well handled. I believe the two licensed companies are operating satisfactorily and that we have a good handle on the management of PCBs in this country. The companies that handle them do so in the appropriate way and the material is exported for appropriate disposal. I do not wish to say too much about the investigation and I cannot do so. However, arising from what we have looked at in the Republic of Ireland, it does not appear to us that PCBs are contaminating the oil.
Has the EPA any role in the control of oil that comes from other countries, for instance, waste oil, or any other type of oil used? What about oil that comes from Northern Ireland or from England? Does the EPA test that oil to make sure it meets a certain grade?
Dr. Mary Kelly
No, we do not. That oil would be imported under the trans-frontier shipment of waste regulations. At one stage we had responsibility for issuing permits for people to do that, under those regulations. That responsibility has now passed to Dublin City Council which does it centrally for all local authorities. Dublin City Council transfrontier shipment office is responsible for allowing——
Dr. Kelly says "responsible". If a shipment came in from Northern Ireland during September, for instance, and part of it ended up in this plant would anybody know about that shipment? Is it just paperwork or does anybody know the amount in question, or where it is?
Dr. Mary Kelly
I cannot tell the Deputy that but what I can say about the trans-frontier shipment of waste regulations is that for hazardous waste — any oil containing PCBs would be hazardous waste — under those regulations a company would need prior authorisation. In other words, it would have to apply for a permit to import that waste across borders, whether from England or Northern Ireland, or wherever it comes from. It would have to apply to the trans-frontier shipment office for a permit and would have to get that permit in advance of moving the oil. I am not aware that any such permit was sought or granted.
Would the fact that PCBs were in that waste oil be evident in the bookwork or on the permit?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes, that information would be sought. If a company wished to bring hazardous waste into the Republic of Ireland, an obvious factor required to be known is the nature of the hazardous waste.
I must move on with the proceedings and will take a few short supplementary questions.
Dr. Kelly answered my previous question by stating that the EPA is effectively giving a clean bill of health to those who might have been the source of the waste, and to those licensed to get rid of it. Is it a logical conclusion, therefore, given the cross-Border nature of this business, that the finger of suspicion must rest north of the Border either on premises that could be identified as the source or on those who may be licensed to get rid of waste?
This is the last supplementary question.
As the transfrontier shipment regulations are only concerned with waste oils, this may have come in as a fuel oil. One can surmise what one likes. I presume there are no regulations concerning the importation of fuel oil except those that permit standard licensing. There is no strict monitoring of people who bring down petrol, diesel or kerosene across the island.
In fairness, this is the last thing one would suspect. It is probably fair to say that this oil came in under disguise, if one might call it that. It did not show on the radar of either the EPA or the transfrontier shipment office of Dublin City Council. The source of the problem is in Northern Ireland. This is very similar to what happened here some years ago. Hospital waste was disposed of in good faith by hospitals but for reasons of cost it caused contamination that was outside the control of the people in the hospitals. That is exactly what happened here. One can surmise it.
Dr. Mary Kelly
I am not able to speculate on what happened. If oil came across the Border as a product, and was subsequently determined to contain PCB-contamination, it would be classified as waste and would be in contravention of those regulations as it came across the Border.
If it were the case that it came across mixed in a fuel it would never have to go before the transfrontier shipment regulations overseen by Dublin City Council, or before anybody else, because it would not be declared.
Dr. Mary Kelly
That is correct but I cannot speculate whether it came from Northern Ireland.
Yes——
This is important. As I understand it, this investigation is concentrating on only two jurisdictions. Given that the EPA is effectively giving a clean bill of health to its own oversight role regarding those which it has licensed and those from which the oil might possibly be sourced, ipso facto the conclusion must be that the source of the problem is in the other jurisdiction.
Dr. Mary Kelly
I do not wish to say that I am giving a clean bill of health. What we are doing is assisting the Garda in its investigation. We investigate what the Garda asks us to investigate. I cannot draw any conclusions about it. What the investigation is trying to determine is, first, precisely how the contamination got into the oil and, second, how it arrived at the inappropriate use to which it was put. I am not trying to be unhelpful here but I cannot speculate about any direction the investigation might take.
I welcome Dr. Mary Kelly and thank her for her comprehensive address on this very serious matter. It is clearly evident now that polluted oil of some description was responsible for this outbreak of dioxin in pork. In Dr. Kelly's statement I note that:
The EPA is responsible for the preparation of a national hazardous waste management plan. The latest plan was published in 2008 and gives details on the management of waste oils . . . It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes are unreported. The main sources of waste oils are commercial garages, fleet maintenance, machine maintenance, rail, ports, industry and DIY . . . The EPA licensed facilities to generate re-processed oil are Enva in Portlaoise which is licensed to treat 35,000 tonnes per annum . . . Rilta and ENVA Dublin have authorised treatment for 30,000 to 35,000 tons per annum of oily sludges and oily wastes by centrifugation and settlement in place. Enva generates a "reprocessed fuel oil" that meets quality standards specified in the facility's waste licence and is mainly used in bitumen making. Rilta operates an oily sludge and oily waste recycling facility. . . The current treatment capacity in Ireland is considered to be adequate for the quantities arising. Waste oils and mineral oil waste is one hazardous waste stream for which Ireland is substantially self-sufficient. Collection rates for garages are reported to be close to 100%.
How better can anybody go than that 100% guarantee on collection rates from garages throughout Ireland? Furthermore, Dr. Kelly outlined nine main points regarding waste oil and the way in which it is treated. Each point appears to be above the letter of the law. They seem to be as good as they can get in the monitoring of this inferior oil that has come into this country, probably by accident, or at least with no knowledge on the part of the EPA. The agency appears to have this situation copperfastened. I am quite happy that the EPA is approaching the matter in the right direction.
There is not much more tightening the agency can do. No matter what regulations are in place — there are enough of them emanating from the European Union, God knows — there is bound to be a breach. By the time one goes through the lot it is hard to see how the situation could be improved.
I am convinced the matter was approached on a firm footing. With that kind of surveillance it is difficult to see where contaminated Irish pork could appear in any of the manufacturing plants. Perhaps rogue dealers supplied the oil to these plants and it may be hard to blame them, because for the past two years the price shot up and made it nearly impossible to buy oil.
The price has now come back to realistic levels. It is to be hoped this is an isolated incident. It is probable that insufficient testing was done on the oil the firm in question was using. There may be other similar firms throughout the country. I would not tag Millstream as the one and only because price controls everything.
There may be a rogue dealer in the North that we do not know about who supplied this oil. I am confident that as far as the EPA is concerned, it has proved its case and is in control of the situation. Let us hope it keeps up the standard of inspection.
My question has nothing to do with the recent difficulties in the bacon trade. It concerns food sources in pig production. To what extent is swill being used as a food source in pig production? In the mid-1980s regulations were introduced on the preparation of swill as a food source for pig production. If that is the case, what monitoring practices are currently employed where swill is fed as a food source?
Dr. Mary Kelly
I thank Deputy P. J. Sheehan for his analysis of the situation. I would not like to be too complacent and state we had everything in place, but we have a good regime to control oil. The 2,000 kg outstanding could be used by garages to burn in small burners on their premises and we are putting advertisements in newpapers to tell them that is not a suitable activity.
Some of the oil may be kept on farms and used, as Deputy Aylward suggested, but it does not come back into the system. We are reasonably happy there is a good regime in place.
On the question of food sources and swill, this is an area for which we do not have responsibility. I will ask Mr. Lynott to address some of those issues.
Deputy O'Sullivan has a supplementary question.
Dr. Kelly stated in her presentation that there are suitable burners for burning this oil. Is that correct?
Dr. Mary Kelly
Yes, but to all intents and purposes they are incinerators. They are not small; we are talking about large pieces of kit.
I thought there were no incinerators in Ireland
Dr. Mary Kelly
We have industrial incineration in Ireland. We have licensed 11 industrial incinerators in pharmaceutical companies.
Regarding Deputy Aylward's point about using the oil on a farm, many farmers use waste oil for painting wooden fences. Is it acceptable to do that?
There is only a danger of combustion. There is no contamination.
Dr. Mary Kelly
I probably would not encourage it because it may be able to enter the watercourses. The pollution which occurs from waste oil is not all about PCBs. It is about trying to ensure oil does not get into the watercourse, into the groundwater and out into surface water.
Putting it on the timber is recycling.
Dr. Mary Kelly
I will allow Mr. Lynott to discuss swill and food sources.
We will blame the Chairman if every farmer is prosecuted
Mr. Dara Lynott
On the issue of pig swill, the EPA has a very small role in that area. It is a feed for pigs. Our role is in the licensing of the production of pigs from an environmental point of view. I understand the animal by-product regulations, which are supervised by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, set down many strict rules. For example, if food comes off an aircraft it must be buried deep in landfills to avoid outbreaks of disease, such as occurred in England a few years ago.
There are very strict regulations to avoid a situation where human disease in waste food is not transferred to animals. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes care of those regulations. It is not a function of the EPA; it assumes the feed is fine to begin with and then works from that point onwards.
I think all the questions have been answered.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the EPA representatives for coming before us today, for their comprehensive presentation and answering the questions raised.
I propose to suspend the sitting to allow the witnesses to withdraw and the delegation from Bord Bia to come before us. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 11.50 a.m.