JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jan 2009

Contamination of Meat Products: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. John Ahern, managing director, Indaver Ireland, and Ms Jackie Keaney, vice president, CEWEP Ireland. They made a request to appear before the committee to make a presentation, particularly on the link between food safety and waste management. The committee is happy to hear their presentation on this matter. I understand Ms Keaney will speak first and that Mr. Ahern will also make a presentation.

Before I call representatives to make their presentations, 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 Ms Keaney to make her presentation.

Ms Jackie Keaney

On behalf of CEWEP, the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, I thank the chairman, Deputy Johnny Brady, members of the committee and the clerk of the committee and her team for inviting CEWEP to make a presentation today.

I am the vice president of CEWEP in Ireland and, as the Chairman said, I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. John Ahern, managing director of Indaver Ireland, a member of CEWEP. I am also an employee of Indaver Ireland. CEWEP Ireland is an industry body promoting the development of environmentally sustainable waste-to-energy facilities in Ireland.

CEWEP would like to commend the committee on its initiative to convene an inquiry into the recent pork crisis. The pork crisis gave rise to many serious questions, two in particular, namely, how did the pork crisis happen and how can we avoid it happening again. CEWEP hopes that its input to the committee can assist in answering these questions. The first of these questions has been considered in some length already by the committee and by the public at large. However, attention is only recently starting to turn to the second question, the one over which we can now have most influence, namely, how we can avoid this crisis happening again.

The deeper we delve into this issue, one matter is becoming increasingly clear. The pork crisis was not only a health, food and economic crisis, it was and is very much an environmental crisis. This means that, first and foremost, we must ensure our environmental practices, policies, regulations and infrastructure best serve our citizens, economy and international reputation. If we can achieve this, we can avoid scares of this magnitude recurring.

How did this crisis happen? As with any crisis, it is often easy to forget what caused it in the first place. As people instantly seek everything from answers and information to recriminations and compensation, we can often lose sight of the basic fundamentals. What happened here last December is the same dangerous incident that has occurred five times in recent years — each food crisis was caused by inappropriate recycling. In short, food waste mixed with PCB oil ended up in the food chain. That such a banned product would be used in the first place, be it by accident or design, is now a subject of investigation. However, what warrants equal investigation is a far more fundamental matter, namely, how we dispose of food waste and how it is that time and again, contaminated food waste is being passed back into the food chain. The pork crisis is the fifth instance in recent times where inappropriate recycling has had a catastrophic consequence.

BSE, foot and mouth disease crisis, a pharmaceutical waste incident, the Belgian food crisis and now the pork crisis were all caused by inappropriate treatment of waste. With the BSE crisis, animal waste was inappropriately recycled and consumed by animals. Instead of incinerating this waste, as is now the internationally recognised norm, the waste was recycled. The result was the destruction of thousands of animals, a shut down of the beef sector, widespread public distrust and thousands of jobs lost.

With the foot and mouth disease crisis, food waste from a Korean registered ship was inappropriately recycled and ended up in animal feed. The result was that a farming sector was suspended, everyday travel was suspended and our tourist industry was suspended. In many respects, how we now travel was changed forever by the foot and mouth disease crisis.

With the pharmaceutical food crisis, waste from the Irish pharmaceutical industry was inappropriately recycled into pig feed. The result was that animals, which had been accidentally fed contraception drugs, had to be slaughtered by the thousand.

The chief medical officer, Dr. Tony Holohan, relayed in his presentation to the committee the case of the Belgian dioxin crisis of 1999 where, similar to our most recent food crisis, PCB oil — which can only be destroyed safely in the incineration process — was inappropriately recycled into animal food. The result was that billions of euros were spent cleaning up the problem.

We now have the fifth recent example of inappropriate recycling causing a food crisis — the pork crisis. The repetition of these crises, and the fact that they can all be traced to inappropriate recycling, can only but lead to two conclusions. First, we have not learned lessons from previous crises. Second, we have failed to recognise that the recycling of certain waste is potentially dangerous.

To be clear, CEWEP strongly supports the recycling of waste materials where it is done in an appropriate manner. Many of our members practise such recycling. Recycling is and should be a key element of any waste management strategy, but what we all need to wake up to are the dangers of inappropriate recycling.

Recycling of certain wastes — as each of the five recent food crises compellingly demonstrate — is simply too dangerous. It is a fact that certain waste products can only be safely treated using certain technologies. This is particularly true of food waste.

This brings me to the second key point, namely, how do we avoid such a crisis happening again. A good start would be to make sure that any activity where contaminated recycled waste could potentially enter the food chain is licensed by the EPA. At present, these activities are only permitted by local authorities, which do not always have the resources to monitor them properly. Joined-up thinking between the waste industry and the agricultural sector is also needed to prevent contaminated waste from entering the food chain. My colleague, Mr. John Ahern, will give an explanation of this.

Mr. John Ahern

I will deal with the question of how we can avoid such a crisis happening again. As Ms Keaney mentioned, I am managing director of Indaver Ireland. The Indaver Group is an integrated waste management company handling almost 2 million tonnes waste per year in a range of activities from waste prevention, recycling, composting and waste-to-energy plants to landfill. However, our core business is in waste-to-energy. The ownership of Indaver might be of interest to the committee. More than 90% of it is owned by municipalities and local authorities in Belgium and Holland. Our roots are very much in the local authority world, particularly the waste management section of it.

We have assembled a national and international team of respected experts to build a facility costing €130 million in County Meath which will be operational from the start of 2011. Our Meath facility will manage 200,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum and generate enough energy to meet the needs of 20,000 homes, the equivalent of every home in Navan and Drogheda. Some 300 people will be employed during the construction phase in Meath, with 60 full-time jobs in place when operational.

In addition to Meath, we have submitted plans to build a waste-to-energy facility in County Cork which, when operational, will be positioned to supply energy to the local industrial companies that are the main employers in the region. This investment will create up to 400 construction jobs and a further 50 full-time jobs. Our local experience, combined with the European expertise of our parent company, gives us an insight and perspective on the recent pork crisis.

As CEWEP has detailed, the pork crisis is the fifth example of inappropriate recycling in recent times. Every time the effect was profound and every time we united in our response, but every time another crisis followed. Clearly, lessons are not being learned. Even before this committee has got to the bottom of the most recent crisis, Government policy is being advanced that may result in Ireland experiencing further food crises.

I refer to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's stated policy of prioritising mechanical biological treatment, MBT, in his waste management policy. MBT is a pre-treatment technology, which partially treats household and commercial waste by mechanically removing some parts and biologically treating others so that outputs are reduced and are more suitable for certain uses. A typical MBT plant is shown in the diagram. In a typical MBT plant, municipal solid waste, MSW, is separated out using mechanical and biological treatment. About 30% of what comes in is driven off in water vapour and carbon dioxide. Just under 40% of it will be generated as a fuel which can go either to incineration plants or cement kilns.

What I wish to bring to the committee's attention today is the 30% that is produced as a compost, and about 3% is recovered as metals. Therefore, very little recycling actually takes place in an MBT facility unless one uses compost. That is what we want to warn the committee and the public about.

As this diagram shows, the two main outputs of an MBT facility are fuel, which can either go to a cement kiln or an incinerator, and a biologically-treated compost-like output, which the Minister proposes would be used as a soil conditioner or fertiliser to be spread on the land.

Let us imagine the pork crisis happening again, but this time when the Minister's new MBT-centred waste management policy was in place. What would have happened? The start would have been the same. The Government, on the advice of the authorities, would have instructed the removal and destruction of all pork products. As before, the pork products from household fridges and the commercial chain would have been disposed of in black bins and skips. However, the next step is where, under the Minister's MBT-led strategy, new problems would have emerged. Essentially, we would have nowhere to dispose of the waste.

We could not place it in landfill because this would be against the EU landfill directive and the animal by-products regulations, where alternatives are available. The EPA also highlighted the risk of increased odour problems and the potential for contaminating landfill leachate by PCBs with this option. We could not incinerate it because of the Minister's anti-incineration policy. We could not MBT it because the biological processes involved in MBT do not reach temperatures high enough to destroy PCB contamination. So the waste would have come out of our houses, into bins and then into an MBT plant. The PCB that was in the waste would have gone straight through the MBT plant. No technical experts in any areas claim that MBT destroys PCB — it simply does not do so. The only way one can destroy PCB is by high temperature incineration.

Rendering pork waste would also come with real complexities and costs. While identified animals and bulk pork products could be rendered, collecting and separating pork meat mixed with other black bin waste would be a logistical and expensive nightmare. Pigs that were not slaughtered and made into food products, were in fields, sheds or factories. It was easy to render them and incinerate them in cement kilns. It was an easily managed waste stream, as we would describe it. The next level, which would be food products in the large supermarkets, comprised large volumes that are easy to collect in dedicated skips. It is easy to take them to rendering plants and deal with them. The difficulty comes from the 1 million homes scattered around Ireland that all have contaminated meat products in them. How does one get hold of those? That is the difficulty. We would be in a complete limbo because all the black bins in those 1 million homes would potentially have PCB in them. One would not know which ones had PCB or which ones had not. It is a very difficult situation to deal with.

The only option open to us would be exporting it for thermal treatment, but that is too complex. Whatever about sending out dedicated streams of hazardous waste, which one can clearly get a handle on, how do we collect the 1 million bins and for what period of time do we collect them? Some people put their meat products into the bin on that Sunday morning, while others might have waited a week or a month to do so — we do not know.

Even without the introduction of PCBs into the black bin, the compost from MBT is already contaminated by other waste. Only four days before Áine Lawlor, on a special "Morning Ireland" broadcast on RTE radio, announced that all householders were to dump their contaminated pork into the black bin, the European Commission issued a paper that warned member states about the risk of soil pollution from contaminated compost. The paper stated that typical contaminants in compost from MBT plants include heavy metals, broken glass, plastic fragments and, potentially, substances like dioxins and, notably, PCBs. Four days before we had the problem here, the European Commission issued that warning to all member states. It was not linked to what happened in Ireland, it was just a coincidence, but it highlighted the matter. Whatever the committee may think our agenda is, it should certainly take note of what the European Commission said four days before the crisis hit.

The seriousness of this situation should not be underestimated. Indeed, various contributions to this committee in recent days have provided startling scenarios which we now must be mindful. One such contribution, on 15 January last, was made by Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, who raised a pertinent point for the committee's attention. He rightly warned that the next food crisis would likely involve pathogens, an infectious agent that can attack healthy animal cells. These pathogens present the same problems we face in dealing with PCB oil. Just like PCBs, not all pathogens can be destroyed using the MBT process. Some can only be safely destroyed and taken out of the food chain through incineration. One such pathogen is the BSE prion. That was what was in the meal waste that caused the problem. The only way to destroy prions is by using temperatures of over 1,000° C — in other words, by incineration or cement kilns, which is why we no longer send that material anywhere other than as a fuel source.

Our lack of adequate facilities and ill-thought out policy approach means Ireland would be exposed once more in a pathogens crisis. To summarise, not only is MBT bad in a food crisis, in that it would not have worked, but it could also be the cause of a food crisis if the compost-like output is allowed to be landspread as the Minister suggests. Fortunately, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already taken some steps to prevent this from happening.

The most recent guidance notes on composting and anaerobic digestion take a cautious approach to MBT and require that all facilities comply with animal by-product regulations regardless of where the outputs are sent. This approach should be encouraged and extended to any proposed application of the compost-like output to land, for reasons I have already explained.

Unless we wake up to the limitations and dangers of MBT, we will sleepwalk into another food crisis. We have got to be joined-up in our response to the pork crisis. We have got to learn that, first and foremost, we must treat waste safely. We must put in place robust regulations that force certain waste products, particularly food waste, to be handled appropriately. We simply must remove policies and technologies that leave open the possibility of contaminated waste infiltrating the food chain. We must realise the limitations and risks associated with inappropriate recycling and MBT, rather than blindly supporting these options without any regard to their potential impacts.

Unlike before, we must respond comprehensively to this food crisis to ensure it never happens again. That means a root-and-branch examination under all the headings — environment, climate change, health, agriculture, food and economics — to ensure our practices are designed to protect what we value.

A good starting point would be to reassess the policy of widespread MBT roll-out and ensure that our waste management policy structure is flexible enough to handle issues like the food crisis without posing a risk to health and the environment. Ireland faces enough domestic and international challenges without creating new problems.

We believe, therefore, that the following actions should now be taken: the MBT-centered waste management policy should be abandoned; the role of waste-to-energy in the context of inappropriate recycling should be recognised; the international waste policy review should involve consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and other Departments, to ensure that all possible risks, like inappropriate recycling, are recognised and that waste policy is designed to avoid these risks. Therefore, we respectfully submit that the committee requests participation in the consultation or makes a submission to the review highlighting these concerns; and as previously noted, the EPA should be made responsible for licensing activities where there is a risk of contaminated food waste entering the food chain. These recommendations will help to ensure that potentially dangerous waste is kept away from the food chain.

We make these recommendations in the interest of food quality and safety, to protect the thousands of jobs and businesses that are dependent on our food sector and to show that Ireland can manage its waste in a responsible manner.

Ireland requires a robust waste management system that prevents contamination from entering the food chain and, where necessary, can respond in the case of accidental contamination. We cannot prevent the PCB contamination happening again. It was either an accident because of ignorance or it was malicious, but either way no legislation or anything else will potentially prevent it happening again. We must have a waste management system that can deal with it should it happen. This can only be achieved with an integrated waste management system that includes waste prevention, recycling, composting, waste-to-energy, MBT and landfill in line with international best practice.

We are happy to take questions or, outline further any details members would welcome.

Chairman

I thank Ms Keaney and Mr. Ahern for their presentations.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I thank Mr. Ahern and Ms Keaney. First, will they clarify they are not suggesting that the human-grade food waste that was contaminated should be incinerated? The contamination was a result of a hazardous waste of another sort, not a food waste, being inappropriately disposed of for whatever reason, either maliciously or accidentally due to not knowing the consequences of the action. I ask them to clarify whether they are saying the process of allowing human-grade waste like stale bread and dough go into the food chain for animal feed is not one which needs to be addressed.

Mr. John Ahern

As we tried to say, recycling has a role to play. However, we would say that if that waste being recycled has a potential to enter the food chain, the EPA would be better equipped — it cannot prevent an accident happening — to license those activities. I believe the facility in Carlow only had a permit from a local authority.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I do not have an issue with Mr. Ahern's third recommendation and probably there is general agreement on it.

Chairman

Would it be agreeable to take——

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I have two more points.

Chairman

——the questions of three members at a time?

Mr. John Ahern

Yes.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

Mr. Ahern's last suggestion about the EPA is perfectly rational and should happen.

He spoke of dealing with waste — that PCBs, when they arise, would be dealt with in this manner. Is it the case that the facility already under construction could accommodate that as needs arise?

Mr. Ahern did not mention — perhaps it is not for this hearing — any proposals or opinions on slaughterhouse waste, such as the resulting gas by-product and the offal which is currently being rendered and exported. What is his opinion on that?

Deputy Seán Sherlock

Not meaning in any way to be facetious, this document, read objectively, is like an advertisement for waste incineration, and let us not put too fine a point on that. I start from that base point and say so objectively.

In the first contribution made, it was stated "That such a banned product would be used in the first place, be it by accident or design, is now a subject of investigation." Where does it state that the product which was used in the plant in Wexford was a banned product? When, at a previous hearing on this matter, I asked the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it was a banned product, I could not get a straight answer. He told me the plant concerned should have been the subject of HACCP legislation and should have been notified as to the types of products being used in the process. Nobody has been able to clarify whether the use of such oil was covered by a regulation in the first instance and my layman's view is that it is not covered by a regulation. Perhaps Mr. Ahern could clarify his point in that regard.

I seek Mr. Ahern's view on this. In his submission he spoke about this happening after the fact, in essence. We are trying to achieve an enhanced regime that would prevent any type of incineration or the need for such incidence because the regulatory regime would be sacrosanct in the first instance and would apply to all of the stakeholders who are food producers or FPOs. It would not even need to get to a point of incineration.

It is easy to cite examples like the Belgian dioxin scare and the recent food scare to promote incineration here. I question the necessity for this submission. Unless Mr. Ahern can tell us how we could effect a proper regulatory regime that ensures this does not happen again — from the outset of a process in terms of food production and not after the fact — frankly, we are wasting our time.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the presentation. Unlike Deputy Sherlock, we are open to suggestion. Our purpose is to get ideas and take everyone on board to resolve the situation, and the bottom line is to ensure this does not happen again. I suppose I should not have used the word "resolve". This event happened and, according to the figures thrown out here this morning, this is the fifth time. What the committee should try to achieve in getting everybody on board, on which Mr. Ahern's submission is very welcome, is to ensure this does not happen a sixth time. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Ahern is in the business of incineration. He makes the best points for incineration. I respect that and have no problem with it. However, I would be concerned about the type of oil used, which caused the problem. It is not being used anymore. It is oil that is out there only in very small quantities and eventually it will probably be fully eradicated. It will not be the problem in the future but, as the delegation pointed out, there are other matters coming on stream all the time that may arise and may cause problems.

While I welcome the presentation, it is helpful that we hear everybody's point of view. We are here to listen and what we have heard this morning must be taken into consideration when we make our final deliberations on the matter.

Ms Jackie Keaney

I will try to answer what I can and then I will pass on to Mr. John Ahern. Deputy Sherlock raised a couple of points, one of which relates to my presentation suggesting that PCB waste was banned or not in use. To keep in line with what Deputy O'Sullivan stated, we are signatories of the Stockholm Convention under which PCB oil must be phased out. Such oil is not to be promoted or used in manufacturing, and so on. The convention also includes recommendations on how we should treat PCB waste and one of the suggestions is high-temperature incineration in order to deal with it sufficiently.

I understand the point that the committee's focus is on trying to prevent such a crisis happening again. It is difficult, to take the case of a householder, for instance, to control what he or she puts in the green bin or black bin. One depends on his or her discretion and honesty. It is similar to what happens in a garage. One depends on the owner to place proper oil, PCB oil and alternative oil into the correct drums. One assumes they will never mix oils inappropriately. However, I do not believe one should ever make such an assumption. There must be treatment technologies available which will allow one to deal with a potential contamination or food crisis.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

On a point of order, our guests stated that they are signatories to the Stockholm Convention and referred to PCB oil being phased out. Is that a binding or non-binding legal arrangement? One could be a stakeholder signing up to a non-binding arrangement. However, unless this is supported by a legal provision, one will get nowhere. I am trying to establish whether the substance involved in this case was, in the context of the facility in question, a banned or illegal substance. I have not been able to clarify the position in that regard. Perhaps Ms Keaney might enlighten me.

Ms Jackie Keaney

I understand that Ireland has signed up to the convention and that we are obliged to dispose of PCB waste in an appropriate manner. In this instance, the treatment was not done appropriately and was not, therefore, in line with the convention.

Deputy Christy O'Sullivan referred to oil and potential contaminants. We can phase out PCB oil in line with the Stockholm Convention, but so many other possibilities exist. I refer, for example, to food waste being retained too long, being contaminated with pathogens and mechanical biological treatment not being able to cope with this. Such waste could then potentially be composted on to land and put back into the food chain. PCB oil is one of a plethora of examples in respect of which the potential for contaminating our food supply exists. The ultimate plan is to prevent a recurrence of the recent crisis. However, that will be extremely difficult and back-up solutions will always be necessary in the event of a recurrence.

Mr. John Ahern

Ms Keaney's point is well made. The committee is discussing PCBs. A year from now it might be obliged to discuss pathogens and 12 months later it could be discussing PAHs. In three years' time, the discussion might again revolve around prions. One cannot prevent accidents happening.

Members are correct in that we are present to promote incineration. We make no apologies for doing so because we believe incineration has a role to play as part of the solution. There are things we must have in place to manage any situation. We must have doctors because people become ill or they smoke cigarettes, even though we all inform them that they should not. There must be solutions available for those who place the wrong material into the wrong bin — be it in a garage or someone's house.

As members probably discovered, the amount of PCB oil involved in this instance of contamination was tiny. It may only have been a few litres but some thousands of tonnes might have been contaminated. If a person in a household places PCB oil in his or her black bin and it is then brought to an MBT facility, the entire chain would be contaminated. It would be difficult to identify the facility to which it was brought. If such oil is placed in an incinerator, I guarantee that it will not come out again. However, if it is put in an MBT or composting plant, it will re-emerge and will contaminate the area where the compost is spread.

Incineration has a role to play. We are codding ourselves if we proceed on the basis of nice fluffy solutions whereby members of the public all love recycling plants. That is only the case until one is built next to their homes. Incineration must be part of our solution. We should not be tied to solutions that are seen as things that are nice to have and that work well on the good days but not when someone — be it maliciously or by accident — puts the wrong material into the wrong bin. When presented with two containers of oil, 99.99% of people would not be in a position to identify which was a PCB oil and which was not. PCB oil looks like any other oil. We need a waste management system that can cope with any accidents that might occur.

Deputy Doyle inquired whether Meath could cope. It could not do so on its own and not with one incinerator. The Meath facility would not be able to deal with all the country's waste.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I asked if the Meath facility could cope with an incident such as that which occurred recently?

Mr. John Ahern

Yes, the technology could cope with it. However, it would depend on the scale of the incident. If we have 20, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 tonnes of waste, we can store it — refrigerate it if it is meat — and then burn it. However, it would not be possible to bring 1 million wheelie bins to Meath. The people who live in the county would not like that.

We render and incinerate slaughterhouse waste. That is the right thing to do. Some of it could be dealt with by means of anaerobic digesters and methane could be produced. However, what is really important is what one does with the 50% that remains after it has been put through the digestion process. That is where the danger lies. Digestion only reaches a temperature of 80o and does not destroy the PCBs, pathogens, prions, PAHs or any other the other thousands of chemicals that could enter the food chain. It is important that the residue be removed from digesters and then incinerated.

I referred earlier to our origins and from where we come. A number of years ago, Belgium decided, on the advice of its Green Party's Minister for the Environment, to go down the MBT route. Quite correctly, this woman stated that there would be an MBT system but that the residues would be sent for incineration. The Belgians were supposed to build four MBT facilities capable of dealing with 150,000 tonnes per annum but they only built one. They came to the conclusion that if the waste was going to be burned in any event, there was no point engaging in window dressing by building a further three plants. Would one send a rag to the dry cleaner's before throwing it on the fire? I do not believe so.

Chairman

Deputy Doyle inquired with regard to the waste and offal from meat factories, slaughterhouses and so on. Mr. John Ahern stated that Indaver's facility at Duleek can deal with material of that nature.

Mr. John Ahern

Yes.

Chairman

Planning permission was lodged in respect of another proposed facility and this had to be withdrawn because someone else's land was included.

Mr. John Ahern

Yes, it was a site at Nobber.

Chairman

Yes. Nobber, like Duleek, is in my old constituency. I have moved out of the area. Is there a need for another incinerator?

Mr. John Ahern

Yes.

Chairman

Why should another incinerator be built so close to Duleek? Does the material from meat factories and so on have to be ground into meat or bonemeal prior to incineration?

Mr. John Ahern

I will leave it to the promoters of the project at Nobber to fight their corner as to whether the facility is needed. However, Ireland needs more incineration capacity. It is not merely a case of having incinerators in place for when things go wrong. One does not know that things have gone wrong until after the fact. The point is that one must have adequate incineration capacity to deal with the appropriate, non-recyclable, day-to-day waste. When one discovers that something has gone wrong, it is usually too late. PCB oils are not detected in the bins. It is only when animals have been contaminated and meat has been processed and tested that they are detected. By that stage it is too late because the problem has already happened.

Deputy Martin Ferris

What is the position with regard to the dioxin residue that escapes from incineration plants? Mr. John Ahern stated that when contaminated compost is spread on the land, it can find its way into the food chain and affect animals and humans. The same argument can be made in respect of incineration. Does the fact that residue can be released from an incinerator — either into the atmosphere or wherever — undermine Mr. John Ahern's case?

Senator Dan Boyle

This is one of the most opportunistic presentations I have ever seen made to an Oireachtas committee. We are all concerned about the recent pigmeat scare and we are looking for solutions. The strange aspect of the presentation is that incineration is a technology that produces dioxins and it has been involved in food scares throughout the Continent, which have resulted in the movement of cattle herds, bans on the consumption of milk and other dairy products in the areas concerned. It is laughable to suggest it is a solution to the problem.

As Deputy Ferris said, this technology releases contaminants into the atmosphere and produces a toxic ash which must be disposed of but which could also enter the food chain. Mr. Ahern has usefully highlighted that Government waste management policy has changed. Mechanical and biological treatment, MBT, is the first priority in waste treatment and this is not unusual. MBT technology is being adopted as the fastest growing method of waste treatment throughout Europe and incineration is recognised as an outdated technology. In failing to mention these issues, Mr. Ahern and Ms Keaney in representing CEWEP, which is another vehicle of Indaver Ireland because I do not know any other companies involved in promoting incineration, are promoting ideas that address their own commercial interests and do not address the recent food scare. As an Oireachtas Member, I find that offensive and I do not find that a good use of Oireachtas time. I must apologise as I am due to contribute next in the Seanad and must leave. I will read the response to my contribution in the transcript.

Mr. John Ahern

It is a pity Senator Boyle is not present because it would be nice to engage with him. Deputy Ferris asked whether dioxin from incinerators is a problem. It is not because the incineration technology operates to EU standards. We must use gas cleaning in incineration to make sure we do not produce a level of dioxin that would cause a problem. We cannot eliminate dioxins from the environment. If the Deputy drove here today or took the train, the car or train produced dioxins. If the Deputy lights a fire at home tonight, it will produce dioxins. They cannot be eliminated. Dioxins from incineration used to be a problem 20 years ago.

I would like if Senator Boyle could give examples of where the cattle herds and so on were moved because I am not aware of any. Ms Keaney and I operate in waste management at an international level and I hear all the time about the problems that incineration causes but I would love Senator Boyle or anyone else to come before the committee with a paper similar to ours, which shows how inappropriate recycling has caused the food problems. Let him come in with five examples of where incineration caused a problem and I will gladly debate them with him. However, could we see the evidence rather than the hearsay and the statements the food producers will not buy product if there is an incinerator in the vicinity? Where in Europe or anywhere else in the world does that happen? Please give me some evidence and then we will debate it. I came in with five examples. Where are the Senator's examples?

Deputy Martin Ferris

I have an open mind, as do most members, in respect of what would be best regarding waste treatment and so forth. I refer to the arguments made by Mr. Ahern about contamination from compost because nobody can say with certainty that will not contaminate the food supply. Practically everything can contaminate the food supply. I recall seeing a report on incineration plants operating in parts of Europe which have the highest rates of aborted calves. I cannot stand over that but that is what I have been told.

Ms Jackie Keaney

There is a fundamental debate about dioxins and where they come from. Incineration does not produce dioxins. Dioxins are in the waste. If a black bin of waste is put in a landfill, dioxin is spread all over the landfill and it is not controlled. It goes into the air and the water if there is leachate and there is no control. If that waste is put into an incinerator, the dioxins are controlled because the air is cleaned and the level of dioxin leaving the stack is negligible and not measurable. It is concentrated in an ash which is solidified and put in a hazardous waste landfill because that is the best solution for it at the moment. The world has not come up with a better one. If a better solution is found, it can be taken out because one knows where it is. It is controlled and it can be prevented from entering the food chain.

If waste to energy is so bad, why are there more than 400 waste to energy plants worldwide? I take exception to Senator Boyle's comment that MBT is the way to go and that waste to energy is dying out. The contrary is the case. Many companies are building incinerators. They are probably the only ones doing well in the world recession. One cannot get them. To date, I have not met an MBT operator with a piece of kit that works. The manufacturers of the pieces of kit will stand over what they design but I have not met an operator who can operate a facility successfully.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I have an open mind on this issue and, with the possible exception of Greece, Ireland is one of the few countries in the world that does not have incinerators. I have been a Dáil Member for 29 years and I recall a delegation travelling to Copenhagen 25 years ago to visit an incinerator in the middle of the city that was working quite well. There were ideas about building an incinerator in Ireland subsequently.

Chairman

I was there in 1992 and when I was chairman of the council in 1995.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

The incinerator was not harming anyone. A great deal of nonsense has been spoken about dioxins. Rungis, Paris, has the biggest food market in the world and an incinerator is situated in the middle of it. It was built by the municipal authority and a private group. It works well and people hardly know it is there.

Ireland is a high cost country. Waste disposal was costly for Dell in Limerick and it is very costly on farms. We must face the challenges in this area and the greatest losers are the farming community through dead cows, calves and so on at this time of the year. Figures are cited every day in newspapers. The waste disposal cost is significant and we cannot be a backward country and have this nonsense. Some farmers say their herds are affected because of plants built nearby but their herds are affected because of malnutrition and bad management where proper dykes and so on are not in place for animals. This nonsense goes on. If one person gets the story going, away we go. I have an open mind on this and I welcome the delegation. We should have a wider discussion on this issue and the cost factors involved.

We have industrial and agricultural problems. We are in the throes of trying to build an economy in the shadow of domestic and international problems. Both problems are affecting us but we must have industrial development, which incurs significant costs. Foreign investment will not emerge because investors will not be able meet the challenge. Exports are important to Ireland because it is a small country. The pork issue has led to the delegation's appearance before the committee. The rip-off involved, which affected farmers and the State, was unbelievable. If we had an incinerator in this country, costs would be reduced. If a farmer is doing his or her business right, he or she will have no problem. Nonsense is reported about pharmaceutical and other industries causing the deaths of cows. Those animals died because they were not properly managed and fed.

Chairman

We must suspend for a division in the Dáil. We will return following the vote.

Sitting suspended at noon and resumed at 12.15 p.m.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I welcome Mr. Ahern and Ms Keaney and thank them for their presentation. I have, for a long time, considered whether we should introduce incineration here. Some years ago when I was a member of Kilkenny County Council I travelled around Europe looking at incineration plants and systems and did not find any fault with them. I remember visiting one incineration plant in the middle of a city once that provided hot water and central heating to 3,000 houses. We visited a cafe just outside the incineration plant site and ate there and, along with hundreds of others eating there, found no problem with it. I have come to the conclusion we need incineration; I do not say this lightly.

We must look after the waste we produce. The idea of rendering down waste, as is done in my area of Ferrybank in Waterford, and then sending the contaminated waste to Germany for incineration is nonsense. It is time we realised incineration is part and parcel of what is involved in destroying our waste. Some contaminated waste cannot be recycled and the only way we can take care of it is by incineration.

Having considered incineration, I have no hesitation recommending it. As has been said already, more contamination is emitted from a car exhaust pipe than from an incineration plant. I have visited these plants and seen how clean the process and the plants are. It is time to grasp the nettle. Do-gooders and others say this, that and the other, but they are wrong. They are trying to frighten people. We have thousands of tonnes of meat and bonemeal stored in sheds all over the country — we even have some stored on boats — that we must export to Germany for incineration. We pay Germany to take this waste from us and it makes a profit from incinerating it. It is time we woke up, saw the light and decided we need incineration. We do not need an incinerator in every county, or even every province. We need just two or three incinerators that are capable of dealing with our waste. It is time we did this.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Recycling and incineration can work side by side and can complement each other. The delegation members have made their point very well. I am disappointed that Senator Boyle was unable to remain as the points he made could have been answered and he might have been able to add more. Would it be possible for the committee to have a discussion with people who come from the other side of the equation? Would it be within the remit of this committee to have a debate with relevant people from both sides of the equation or would it be a matter for the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Chairman

It probably could be. From an agricultural point of view we certainly can have a debate on it because it is very relevant to the subject of agricultural waste. However, it is not relevant to this hearing. I suggest the Deputy raise the matter in the context of consideration of the committee's work programme.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I have a question about the level of dioxins coming from incineration. Can the level be improved further? I am led to believe the level is minimal. I am aware it is determined by the amount of waste being incinerated but there is a big fuss made about the level of dioxins being released from incineration. I am led to believe it is very limited and is not a significant amount. As Mr. Ahern pointed out, the daily amount emitted by trains and vehicles is huge by comparison. Can the levels be refined further?

Deputy Seán Sherlock

On a point of clarification, we are not Luddites in this committee; we are fairly open-minded in our approach to these matters. As a layman I realise that we cannot keep burying waste. It is just not feasible.

I wish to pick up on what Senator Boyle stated. It leaves me a little confused as to the Government policy on the incineration of waste. I hope someone can clarify it for me. If I interpret Senator Boyle's statements correctly, then the MBT process is the only process in town and not the waste to incineration or waste to energy incineration as envisaged by Indaver Ireland and other such companies. What is the Government position? I suspect Senator Boyle's comments are informed by the fact that there is a proposal for Ringaskiddy, which is in his constituency, and perhaps he is playing a little to the gallery in that respect.

I refer to a specific comment about the dioxins. This is a process of education for me. Can the dioxins be contained within the facility in a safe manner? In the mind of the public, the word "dioxins" is both emotive and potent, conjuring up all sorts of images. I take the point made by the delegation that we ingest or consume dioxins or are exposed to them in our everyday lives and this is not disputed. However, can a high concentration of dioxins being produced in a very specific geographical confine, for instance, 20,000 tonnes per annum in County Meath, be contained on site or stored under rigorous conditions? If such questions are answered this will ease the public mind in some respect. To return to my essential point about the context of the submission and the pork crisis, I think this submission should be made in another context.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

On a similar point, Ms Keaney referred to how the pork crisis happened and how a recurrence can be avoided. That is what the committee is concerned with. We cannot foresee all the eventualities when an accident occurs. It is a case of trying to minimise the impact on health and on the economy — the financial implications. Meat and bonemeal was taken out of the animal food chain post-BSE. It is rendered, stored, exported and incinerated. The people who receive it are paid to receive it and paid to get rid of it. This is the reason I asked the question about slaughterhouse waste and meat and bonemeal.

With reference to the oil which caused the problem, is it proposed to take all PCB or pathogen potential products, which cannot be safely recycled, out of the system and away from the food chain? The committee needs to hear the precise proposal. We are dealing with other aspects of ways to minimise the problem and we are trying to foresee what is around the corner. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe referred to pathogens. How does one separate out the food waste in municipal black bags? How does one ensure it can be separated out so that it does not contaminate any other disposal method? I wish to hear the delegation's proposals in the context of the work of the committee in this regard.

Chairman

This is not relevant to the hearing but what percentage of meat and bonemeal is being used in cement factories? The delegation may not know the answer.

Mr. John Ahern

We will share the answers between us.

We previously attended the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and we know it usually ends up as a debate as to whether one is pro-incineration or anti-incineration. This is not the reason for our attendance today. That decision has already been made by the European Commission in that it has decided we must move away from landfill. The issue is where to go. This subject could be debated forever. Ms Keaney and I have attended many public meetings until late into the night on this subject. We came here today to talk about the problem that occurred in Ireland. Senator Boyle calls this opportunistic. Ms Keaney and I have been talking about this ever since the Minister, Deputy Gormley, proposed MBT as the solution, saying, "Watch out, be careful". We came here today to highlight the risks because now I hope we have captured the committee's attention. Six months ago no one wanted to know about this because it was not an issue. The country received a wake-up call. We came along and said, "We have been telling you this". This is not a case of being pro-incineration or anti-incineration. Incineration has a role to play if one has to deal with something like the PCB crisis but we came here because of the recent PCB crisis. We are saying the next time PCBs, pathogens, PAHs or anything else happens, there will need to be a system that can cope with it. There is no point in wishful thinking when it happens. Incineration is only part of the solution. Recycling can work well side by side with incineration and that is the case all over Europe. Everybody else in Europe except Greece has incineration — Deputy Ned O'Keeffe knew that. They can deal with the problem but we do not have a waste management system that can deal with a food crisis and we should have. The committee members know better than me that food is an important part of our economic reality. We do not have a waste management system and neither is the Minister proposing to build one that will protect that industry. That is why we are here.

Ms Keaney will deal with the questions about Government policy. In answer to the question about cement, most of the waste goes to cement kilns. There may still be some incinerators taking it but it is a very suitable fuel for cement kilns. We pay cement kilns in Germany to take our waste when we could deal with it here. We send it out of the country when we could dispose of it here in either incinerators or cement kilns. It is a cost to the country.

Chairman

How much leaves the country at present?

Mr. John Ahern

All of it — approximately 100,000 tonnes per annum.

Chairman

Would it be true to say that very little of it is being used in Irish cement?

Mr. John Ahern

I believe one cement company mentioned by the EPA——

Chairman

In Kinnegad.

Mr. John Ahern

——has started to deal with it. That is something we should encourage and support.

There will be a food crisis. I cannot say when or what it will entail. If we look back on history we know we cannot legislate to prevent it. Somebody said earlier that we were here today to suggest what should be done to prevent it from happening. We are not. We say that things can be tightened up somewhat perhaps by giving the job to the EPA which has more resources and expertise to look at licensing issues. We cannot prevent it from happening. We are here today to say that if it happens, the incineration technology that we propose and promote is part of what will be needed to deal with it. It will come. It might be ten years or ten days.

Regarding the European Commission, I have never seen anything so close before. I am not sure if Senator Boyle was here when we mentioned this. It is not what we are saying; this is what the European Commission stated. Four days before it happened in Ireland it warned that we should be careful of contaminated compost. We are not against compost from separate collection. That is acceptable. We are against compost out of MBT because it does nothing to the contaminants. It lets plastics, broken glass, PCBs, pathogens and approximately 1,000 other chemicals through. It does nothing to them. It will not come out of incinerators.

I will speak about dioxins and then hand over to Ms Keaney. We are asked about the amount of dioxin. Would it fill a glass? No, it would not. Would it fill an egg cup? No, it would not. Would it fill a teaspoon? No, it would not. That is out of a 200,000 tonne incinerator. It is a tiny fraction. It is not detectable most days. We try to measure how much we produce and we cannot do so. Instruments do not go down that low. That is where we have got dioxin removal from incineration down to. It is tiny.

The Stockholm Convention was mentioned earlier. That convention states that we should rid the world of PCBs and many other chemicals of which members of the committee will become aware in the future because somewhere or other they will crop up in the environment. They are called POPs, persistent organic pollutants, which do not disappear on their own. They do not biodegrade, compost or rot. They stay there until they raise their ugly heads at some point in the future. The Stockholm Convention rightly recommends getting rid of that by putting it into incinerators and burning it. Dioxin is on the list of things the Stockholm Convention wants to eliminate. The Stockholm Convention suggests getting rid of dioxins and PCB by burning in an incinerator. It would hardly suggest that if it was believed that incineration itself produced dioxin.

The Belgian food crisis was mentioned. I can find many newspaper articles suggesting that the Belgian food crisis with PCB oil was caused by incinerators. That is absolutely incorrect. Incineration had a role to play in it. When the contaminated food was found in Belgium, it was sent to the Indaver incinerators to get rid of it. Someone, who has something that is contaminated with PCB or dioxin and is worried that incineration will produce more dioxin, would not send it there. It was sent to us to destroy it. That is what incineration does. It destroys it. Some comes out; some gets through. However, it is very hard to find it. Somebody once said that if the new Croke Park were filled with white billiard balls and one black billiard ball was inserted, that is the level of dioxin we are talking about. In chemistry terms we are talking about parts per billion.

Chairman

Does Mr. Ahern suggest that all waste food that was originally to be used for human consumption should be incinerated rather than put back into the food chain for animals?

Mr. John Ahern

The job should be given to the EPA. We cannot prescribe it. We cannot say that bread waste is acceptable. That was what happened in Carlow. It probably is acceptable. All we are suggesting is that somebody should adjudicate every time. When a plant is being built to run one of these things, someone from the EPA should say "Tell me what you're doing here and let me listen to your story. I'll tell you whether you'll be allowed to get a licence and you'll have conditions on the licence to comply with." Let us look at every single one of them. It might be possible to save a bit of money by recycling. No money at all is saved when we get something like the pork crisis. Members of the committee know how much it cost. Was it €170 million?

Deputy Bobby Aylward

There is nothing wrong with human food recycling provided it is done safely. It was not the food that caused the problem but the oil that was used in treating the food. For years slops were fed to pigs — I know those days are gone. Recycled food is edible by animals. It was the oil, PCBs and dioxins that got into it that caused the problem. During the treatment of the food, dioxins got into the system, which got us to where we are and cost us more than €180 million. It is wrong to say that waste food should be incinerated. If there is potential for recycling, it should be recycled and fed back if it is safe and can be used without any contamination. That is part of the recycling of which we are speaking.

Mr. John Ahern

If it is safe.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

If it is safe, yes.

Mr. John Ahern

It would be for a body like the EPA to issue licences. While I do not know the exact numbers, we might find that instead of having 1,000 facilities in Ireland recycling food waste, we might end up with a smaller number of bigger ones as it would be easier to manage and control. Instead of every town having one, there might be only ten or 20 of them in the country. They would have the resources, wherewithal and management and quality systems to make it safer. That is what licensing these activities would do. The cost of licences is high and we would end up with economies of scale. That would be a better system.

I ask Ms Keaney to deal with Government policy.

Ms. Jackie Keaney

Senator Boyle was not very clear on current and future waste policy. Current policy is an integrated waste management system, involving prevention, recycling, recovery — which included waste-to-energy incineration or mechanical biological treatment — and final disposal being landfill. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is reviewing his policy. He has appointed consultants to carry out an international waste policy review. The findings of that review are due in the summer.

He has also worked in the background on other documents. When he first came into Government, he advocated no incineration. Within three months he said we needed some and probably 400,000 tonnes. He has now gone out to tender for consultants to carry out a strategic environmental assessment as to how much incineration we need. He suggests 30% of municipal waste generated, which works out at more than 1 million tonnes of waste. He has now acknowledged he needs incineration as part of the solution and I do not believe Senator Boyle made that clear.

I will speak about dioxins. To put it in context, several years ago the EPA carried out a detailed study of dioxins in Ireland. It had various monitoring points around the country. It estimated that between now and 2020, some 80% of dioxins would result from ingestion, in other words eating food. Less than 20% comes from what we breathe in. Our bodies are capable of dealing with a certain level of dioxins. To put that in perspective, more than 80% of the 20% comes from incomplete combustion, including fires at home, backyard burning, cars and so on. It has been calculated that by 2020 if all the incinerators proposed as part of our waste plans were to be operational, it would account for less than 1% of the 20%. We are talking about minute quantities.

To put it into another perspective, at one of the Indaver oral hearings several years ago we tried to get our dioxin expert to put it into perspective for a nearby neighbour of an incinerator. The question was how much dioxin that neighbour would ingest or absorb. The expert carried out his mathematical calculations based on living in the worst possible location as close as possible to the worst emission source of the facility. If the person were to sit on top of the stack, his dioxin intake would be equivalent to drinking an extra quarter of a glass of milk a day. That is what we are talking about. There are much bigger issues than dioxins and for some reason incineration has always been labelled as being associated with dioxins.

In terms of it being a safer option for controlling dioxins in waste, the debate really is whether we should spread waste in landfill or put it through an MBT plant where the dioxin intake cannot be controlled, or whether we should burn it. As we clean all the gases leaving the stack we are taking out all the dioxins. There might be a negligible amount left. They would be concentrated in a very small quantity of hazardous ash, which is probably 1% or 2% of the input volume coming in. The ash can be solidified, made into blocks and put in a specially designed landfill. In other European countries, it is put into deep burial salt mines. This means it is controlled and kept apart from the food chain. Experts often say they would like to discover a safer option than this. For now, however, it is the safest option. The alternative is putting it somewhere it cannot be controlled, where it may get into the air and the food chain and be re-ingested.

Chairman

In terms of dioxins, what damage might a burnt out car in Dublin city or any provincial town do to the community?

Ms Jackie Keaney

There would be more potential damage from a burnt out car than from living next door to an incinerator.

Chairman

We see burnt out vehicles all the time in the city and even in provincial towns.

Ms Jackie Keaney

Hallowe'en is dreadful in this regard. More dioxins are emitted from a Hallowe'en night bonfire than are emitted on an annual basis from an incinerator.

Mr. John Ahern

The fundamental issue is to consider the alternatives. Let us set aside for now the argument about whether we should burn household waste, although it is something I would be pleased to debate on another occasion. Many of us heard Áine Lawlor announce that Sunday morning on "Morning Ireland" that there was a problem with contaminated pork products. We were not able to prevent that contamination; it is not something Indaver could control.

The question then was what to do with the contaminated produce. One of the options, which is the one that was taken, was to give the rats an early Christmas lunch by putting it into landfill. That is fine for the rats but not pleasant for those people living alongside the landfills, which will stink for months as a result of all the meat that was put there. We will see the leachate coming out of those landfills in the years to come. PCBs are known as POPs, persistent organic pollutants, and they will come through the landfill.

Another option would have been to send the produce to mechanical biological treatment, MBT, plants. However, nobody can claim that MBT will destroy PCBs. Unless an MBT plant gets up to 1,000° Celsius, in which case it will burn down, it cannot do that. Should the contaminated produce have been sent to an incinerator? Is somebody suggesting it should have been recycled?

The State must devise a strategy to deal with future waste crises. Such crises are bound to happen, even if they are only small-scale, localised events. What solution would Senator Boyle, if he had stayed, promote? Do members have any ideas?

Chairman

A landfill site that has been closed for years is still costing Meath County Council vast amounts of money. In the first instance, there was the matter of compensation to the owners of the three or four houses which had to be purchased. The council has spent millions of euro and the same will happen to every local authority in the State. As Deputy Sherlock observed, we cannot continue to dump waste into the ground. Our underground water supply is of great importance but much of it is polluted. We must move to some other system.

I was never opposed to the incinerator in Duleek. I may not have got many votes in that place but I stood behind the incinerator proposal, as did my colleague, the Minister. We are still Members of the Oireachtas. I am certain that facility will ultimately be beneficial to the community. Even in terms of employment, the 300 jobs it provides are important to the people of Duleek, Drogheda, Navan, Kells and surrounding areas.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Unfortunately, it is usually a case of "Not in my back yard."

Chairman

Yes, that is often the way.

Perhaps the delegates, along with representatives of the rendering plants, will attend a meeting of the committee later in the year, as Deputy Christy O'Sullivan suggested. Whether we will be here in 2011 to visit Mr. Ahern's plant is another question. I certainly hope to be in Meath but there is less certainty about whether we will all still be Members of the Oireachtas. That is a decision for the people. I am sure the committee will still be in existence and whoever the Chairman and members are, they will be eager to visit the facility.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

As per my previous suggestion, I ask for a debate between both sides. I hope that can be facilitated either by this committee or by the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman

Another option would be to have a joint sitting of both committees. Deputy Scanlon and I are also members of the other committee. Issues in regard to agricultural waste, rendering plants and so on are relevant from both an agricultural and environmental perspective. That is something we will consider.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I hope such a discussion will take place sooner rather than later. We have been sitting on our hands on this issue for too long.

Chairman

We will include that as part of our work programme. I thank the delegates for attending the meeting, for their comprehensive presentation and for answering members' questions.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.45 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 January 2009.