|
|
| Home | Search | Contact the IWAI | Join the IWAI |
|
Environment Home Masonite Ireland
Updated: 02-Sep-06 For easy reading you can save and print this page in PDF format: |
MASONITE IRELANDA Background Briefing
 The Masonite plant at Derryoughter, from Drumsna Masonite Ireland is a division of International Paper and manufactures moulded door facings at its plant at Derryoughter near Carrick-on-Shannon in the Irish Republic. It is located along the river Shannon, the N4 national primary road and the Dublin - Sligo railway line. The area in which it is situated is extremely rural and unspoiled. The plant is located about 100 miles west of Dublin and approximately 40 miles from Sligo in the West and 20 miles from Longford in the Irish Midlands. News of this factory first came to the attention of the local community in 1994 and was seen by some as a major and positive development for the region. Others had their doubts given the environmental record of the parent company in the U.S. (It had paid huge sums in fines for pollution offences). All state agencies supported the development and it was eventually granted planning permission by Leitrim County Council (the planning authority) in the Summer of 1995. The factory would be built on forest lands owned by the State Forestry Board (Coillte Teo). It would be one of the largest covered buildings in Europe we were told and would use waste from local sawmills. The planning decision was appealed by a number of groups both National and local. This appeal under Irish legislation was lodged with An Bord Pleanala, the Irish Planning appeals board. As a result of this action an oral hearing was convened in Carrick-on-Shannon in September 1995 by An Bord Pleanala. This oral hearing on the planning decision was conducted by Mr Padraig Thornton a senior inspector with the organisation. The company and the local planning authority also had to attend. The main groups who were objecting to the development were as follows: The Irish Boat Rental Association (who withdrew their objection prior to the hearing due to pressure from local politicians), The Inland Waterways Association, Greenpeace, An Taisce, Local Residents, Mr M. D. Higgins a government minister for arts heritage and the gaeltacht (who withdrew his objection after modifications were agreed to roof height of the proposed facility) and a small number of private individuals, who withdrew objections just before the Oral Hearing commenced as Masonite was offering to buy their properties. Having heard the concerns of all sides Mr Thornton prepared an extremely detailed report for his board. In his conclusions Mr Thornton found for the objectors and recommended that Planning Permission should not be granted by the local planning authority i.e. Leitrim County Council. His report cited three reasons for this. They are as follows:-
The above are the reasons cited by Mr Padraig Thornton, Senior Inspector of An Bord Pleanala. It should be noted that Mr Thornton could not by Irish Law take into account any environmental issues in relation to the proposed facility. This was a matter for the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) which would take account of these issues when considering an application from Masonite for an Integrated Pollution Control Licence (IPC Licence) prior to commencement of operations. This law was subsequently changed as it was accepted that proper planning can not be considered without taking into account the environmental impact of a proposed development. However Mr Thornton's report to the members of the board of An Bord Pleanala was rejected by them and contrary to their senior inspectors report the board decided to allow the planning permission to stand and so an area of great rural character now became an industrial zone.
Masonite then applied for an Integrated Pollution Control Licence from the EPA. Two local residents and Greenpeace objected to the proposed licence and after minor changes the EPA granted an IPC licence in December 1995 (register No. 21).The emission limits set in the licence are those for industrial as opposed to rural areas. This licence now forms the basis of all Environmental reporting by Masonite to the EPA.
The construction phase of the plant commenced in early 1996 and the plant went into production in July 1997. The plant from this point onwards would have to comply with the terms of its IPC licence granted by the EPA everyone understood. Sadly this was not to be the case. From an early stage serious pollution problems began to emerge, mainly in relation to noise levels, linseed oil odour emissions, dust spills and exceedances in particulate matter. Being a "state of the art facility" to be operated to "world class standards" and licensed by the EPA (a state agency) this was not what was expected in the countryside surrounding the plant.
Complaints began to arrive with the EPA with alarming regularity. However it became very clear that the EPA (especially at board level) was extremely reluctant to enforce the terms of the licence it had granted. As problems arose, the policy of the agency was to accept remedial plan after remedial plan from the Company hoping to solve the problems. Monthly monitoring reports filed to the EPA catalogued a continuous series of exceedences and so called remedial plans many of which were tried and revised. The EPA have been subject to severe criticism in the local and national media in relation to its attitude to this Company and its policy of allowing the Company to operate for over two years outside the terms of the IPC licence once it has remedial plans submitted. Over this period the monthly monitoring reports submitted to the EPA by Masonite show that the Company have never yet complied with all aspects of their licence.
Under pressure from local residents and embarrassed by a successful High Court action (taken by a local couple) on Noise, the EPA successfully prosecuted the Company in the District Court for Odour Nuisance (1998). The company were fined one hundred pounds and paid costs of over sixteen thousand pounds. This odour case related to a particular six month period in 1997, but another period of almost a year of similar nuisance was not actioned in the courts by the EPA. The present situation regarding Masonite's compliance or otherwise with the IPC licence is as follows.
Air pollution has been the biggest problem at the Masonite facility right from the beginning of production. After the prosecution in 1998 for odour nuisance they changed their production process and switched to the use of Modified Urea-Formaldehyde (MU-F). This has however resulted in a considerable rise in formaldehyde emissions and in fact since the change over to MU-F the formaldehyde emissions have exceeded the IPC licence limits every single month. In June of this year a new and dubious record was set when formaldehyde emissions exceeded the licence limits by up to 600%.
REMEMBER: Masonite can emit 31 tonnes of Formaldehyde into the local atmosphere every year without breaking the terms of their licence. Formaldehyde is classified as an "animal carcinogen" i.e. it is proven that it can cause cancer in laboratory animals and as an "Industrial Substance suspected of carcinogenic potential for man". As such it is treated as "hazardous waste". Over the last few months Masonite have conducted various trials with different resins and chemicals looking for a solution to the formaldehyde problem. In July 1999 the emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (e.g. the chemicals you smell when you open a tin of gloss paint or white spirits) exceeded the licence limits by up to 400% and it is suspected that this might be a result of trials at the plant.
The Masonite track record with regard to water pollution has not been too good either and in most months since they started production they have exceeded the IPC licence limits. The main problem area is with suspended solids.
In June 1999 however 3 out of 10 samples for nitrogen and ammonia were up to 130% above the licence limits. This was caused by spills of Urea Resin into the waste water plant. REMEMBER: Nitrogen and ammonia are used in artificial fertilisers and are harmful by causing growth of algae in freshwater. After the successfull case brought against Masonite in the High Court by a local couple for breaking the terms of their licence regarding noise, Masonite fitted additional equipment and the noise levels are presently just below the licence limits. Even at these levels however local residents would find it impossible to sleep with their windows open. Masonite have admitted that at present they are not able to comply with their IPC licence regarding formaldehyde emissions and in their latest report to the EPA of the 26th of August they have not identified a solution to this problem. Masonite have indicated that they might be looking for a review of their licence which would allow them to emit even more formaldehyde than presently allowed. In other words if Masonite can not operate to the standards laid down in their licence they will seek to have the licence modified to allow them to comply at the higher levels. Frankly it is scandalous that they should even contemplate such a move and it must be made clear to the EPA in any way possible that such modifications to the licence are totally unacceptable.
Attn: Mr Dara Lynott.
Compiled by The Jamestown and Kilmore Concerned Residents Committee.
|
