The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to review its procedures for dealing with the reporting of major chemical spillages following its handling of the 255-tonne spillage of caustic soda into Cork harbour last month.
EPA deputy director general Dr Padraic Larkin said the EPA could have been "more proactive" in the way it informed the public about the spillage of caustic soda at the ADM plant in Ringaskiddy on July 2nd-3rd.
Environmentalists had criticised the agency over its confusing response when it initially said the agency had learned of the spillage when an official received an urgent call, but later said the spillage had been reported by the company on the agency's non-urgent line.
Speaker after speaker at a public meeting in Carrigaline organised by the Green Party condemned the EPA for failing to properly protect the Cork harbour area, and almost all said they had no confidence in it to protect the environment.
Dr Larkin rejected criticism that the agency had acted "shoddily" in its handling of the ADM spillage. But the agency was "guilty as charged" over the manner in which it informed the public, and it would be reviewing its method of informing people.
"We are probably not as proactive as we should be in terms of keeping the public informed, but that's different to saying that we are covering things up."
He reminded the 60 or so people at the meeting that ADM was responsible for the spillage, and it occurred because procedures at the factory were not followed when a valve was left open while unloading caustic soda from a ship. "The facts of the matter are that the company sent a fax to our office at Inniscarra here in Cork at 6am on Sunday, July 3rd, and they also phoned our office in Wexford - they chose to leave a non-urgent message which wasn't picked up by our staff until Monday morning."
The EPA initially assumed the call had been made on its urgent incident line and taken by one of its inspectors. It issued a statement to that effect only to discover later it had received the call on its non-urgent incident line.
Asked about the problem of allowing a company with a spillage to decide whether it was serious or not, Dr Larkin said the EPA considered the decision by ADM not to contact the urgent incident line as a significant breach of its licence.
Asked if the spillage highlighted the need for someone to be on 24-hour standby, Dr Larkin said the vast majority of calls were reports of minor incidents.
"But we will look again on the basis of what's been said tonight and the coverage we've got from the spillage."
An ADM spokesman declined to comment on the issues raised at the meeting. He said ADM was responding directly to the EPA.
