Farmers living in the vicinity of the giant Aughinish Alumina plant in the Shannon estuary have reacted with dismay to the company receiving an integrated pollution control licence with eased conditions on sulphur emissions.
The Askeaton-Ballysteen Animal Health Committee said a licence should not have been issued to the bauxite-processing facility until a final report on animal deaths in their area was completed. Other environmental groups accused the EPA of facilitating industry ahead of agricultural and local interests.
The Askeaton-Ballysteen committee alleged the EPA had "bent over backwards to facilitate the company". The committee, which had claimed the draft licence was not strict enough, withdrew from an oral hearing held by the EPA last year because it was not satisfied with the evaluation process.
A committee member, Mr Liam Somers, whose farm was among the worst affected, said he was concerned about the long lead-in time Aughinish Alumina was being given to make environmentally necessary changes to its operation when the company had indicated the need to upgrade its plant (opened in 1983) after 10 years of operation.
There is no scientific evidence to link the animal deaths with the Aughinish Alumina operation.
It was ironic, Mr Somers said, that a licence was issued to the company on the same day that he had a cow dying with the same symptoms as others which had died over many years due to what he believed was some form of pollution in the area. "She has skin lesions and is excreting poisons like the others. There's no bright future for me."
The Green Party spokeswoman on agriculture and food, Ms Paula Giles, objected to the licence being granted when the environmental problems in the vicinity of the plant had not been satisfactorily explained. It was another case, she added, of profit taking precedence over health and the environment.
"These industry-biased deals go right back to agreements drawn up with multinational companies when they were setting up in this country."
The EPA said it was "satisfied that emissions from the plant are not causing significant environmental pollution". The licence contains more than 80 specific conditions, and also requires the company to undertake a comprehensive study of the provision of combined heat and power (CHP) facilities at the plant.
If feasible, the use of CHP would lead to considerable environmental benefits, it said. The study would seek to identify the best option, involving the use of natural gas and other environmentally friendly fuels, to meet the huge heat and power needs of the plant.
The EPA has told the company that CHP is potentially superior to the use of low-sulphur fuel or other options, but acknowledged the costs involved could be considerable.
Aughinish Alumina welcomed the EPA's acceptance of its views on some conditions and modification of the licence accordingly.
In the company's view some of the conditions contained in the draft licence were prohibitive in cost terms, and exceeded the requirements of both EU legislation and best international practice under the terms of BATNEEC (best available technology not entailing excessive costs).
Nonetheless, the revised conditions would add costs to the company's operation, a spokesman said. Aughinish Alumina is to seek clarification from the EPA on several legal and technical issues.
