I raise this matter because, unfortunately, the manner in which I became aware of it was by rumour. I received representations last year from a member of the staff of Blanchardstown hospital who was concerned about the possible recommissioning of the incinerator. I contacted the planning department of Dublin County Council and was assured that there was no application for permission to commission the incinerator at the hospital. On foot of that information, I reassured the member of staff that it was not going ahead. Unfortunately, I did not realise that because there was an existing incinerator in the hospital, it did not require planning permission to be recommissioned. The first problem is that something so significant should have come to my knowledge, and indeed to the knowledge of the community, by way of rumour. That is not the way the hospital should do its business.
Later I was contacted by a community group when it became apparent that there were plans to recommission the incinerator in the hospital. They asked me if I would meet the management of the hospital and the community group to see exactly what was happening. I wish to raise two aspects, one is the principle of incineration of waste and the other is the position in relation to the James Connolly Memorial Hospital in Blanchardstown. In relation to the incinerator in the hospital premises, the Beaumont Hospital Triennial Report states:
The incinerator installed in the hospital has proved to be totally unsuitable for the disposal of hospital waste. As in the case of other stack emissions, the incinerator, when it was in operation, was the single biggest source of complaints from public representatives and residents in relation to smoke pollution.
The hospital was forced through such pressure, and indeed pressure from the operating staff, to close down the incinerator operation after spending considerable time and money in seeking, without success, a satisfactory level of pollution control.
All future incinerator plants will have to conform to the most stringent standards in relation to atmospheric emissions. Funding is not available to provide these complex and highly sophisticated incinerator facilities at hospital level and future developments will be concentrated in hospitals providing central disposal facilities for the use of all hospitals.
The hospital incinerator has been out of commission since mid October, 1989 and will not be recommissioned or replaced in the foreseeable future.
I refer to this because Beaumont Hospital was purpose built. It is one of the most modern hospitals in Dublin. If a hospital of that quality and which cost that amount of money feels there is no possible chance of incinerating its waste, it is nonsensical that a hospital like James Connolly Memorial, which was built in the 1940s or the 1950s, could even consider reintroducing such a practice. I know that the hospital carried out some improvement works to their incinerator at the request of Dublin County Council. I have taken this up and intend pursuing it further with the county council. The environmental section does not seem to speak to the planning department and hence as a public representative, I was not aware until a community group informed me that one arm of the local authority was granting permission for this to go ahead and said they would monitor the emissions. That is the principle of incineration of waste and there is a question mark as to whether this is feasible, practical or safe. I ask the Minister to consider that as a separate issue.
I received correspondence from a representative of the union which was sent to the hospital. That correspondence — and this is where the crux of the matter lies as far as I am concerned — refers to the site of the incinerator. The union says that much work needs to be done at the site on which the incinerator stands. That is an understatement. The improvements detailed in the correspondence include repairs to the roof of the building, the removal of all rubbish inside and outside the building and states that present and future clinical hospital waste needs to be secured properly in containers where there is no possibility of cats, dogs, birds, rodents, or unauthorised person interfering with same. I will not bring you through the whole lot but there are a number of proposals. They state that hot welding operations should not take place where there are plastic bags stored. Clinical waste should only be burnt when the prevailing wind is blowing away from the adjacent workshops. Operators must be properly trained, air samples must be taken, a safety and health audit should be carried out of workshop procedures being carried out nearby by a competent safety and health expert.
I can make this correspondence available to the Minister and I can tell him that almost all the requests by the union have not been complied with. I visited the site and met the member of the staff whose job it is to get this up and running again. I met him on an amicable basis, explained the worries and saw their side of the case. Waste must be disposed of but none of us can ignore the manner in which it is done. I understand the hospital's problems. I asked for details of written reports in relation to the type of waste which would be burnt, how much waste would be burnt, if it was the intention that only waste from Blanchardstown hospital would be burnt or that other waste would be taken in. This was an informal meeting with the hospital staff representative. I also wrote on two occasions seeking this information. To date, neither I nor the community groups in the greater Blanchardstown area have received one iota of correspondence in relation to our representations. What is emerging now, again by way of rumour, is that the hospital authorities are tired of listening to me and members of the community who have expressed reservations about the possible recommissioning of the incinerator. They have reached the end of the line with us and are not prepared to discuss it any further and it is their intention to proceed with the recommissioning of the incinerator. The smoke emissions will be monitored for the ten weeks and on foot of that they will then decide whether they will burn the rubbish on a permanent basis.
I live in Blanchardstown, very close to this hospital. The area around the site where the incinerator is located is completely open. It is a rural area, beside Abbotstown veterinary laboratory. The union letter refers to unauthorised persons. A child is an unauthorised person. The hospital has been singularly unsuccessful in stopping me from driving up to the site, taking photographs and walking around it so they will be totally unsuccessful in stopping young children gaining entry to that site. I am not exaggerating when I say that it looks as if the roof may cave in. The correspondence from the union supports fears that the building in which waste is stored is dangerous. Maybe I should take that up with the dangerous buildings section of Dublin County Council, I possible will. There is a very large ventilation shaft in the room which houses the waste which would allow me — or somebody bigger than me — to gain entry through it. It is certainly big enough for children to get into. There are sharps stored on the floor; they may be securely stored but they are on the floor of this building. Clinical waste in bags, which are easy to open, are also stored on the floor of this building.
The possible environmental pollution is only one aspect and I am not assured that there will be no environmental pollution as a result of emissions from the incinerator. I am convinced that the site at present is dangerous and constitutes a serious hazard to children who will gain access to it. Will the Minister stop Blanchardstown hospital from recommissioning this incinerator, at least until the community have had their worries allayed and the site totally secured?
