CAMPAIGN TO HAVE WATER CONSUMERS WARNED OF TOXIC CHEMICALS FAILS

February 20, 2016

This is a press release from Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) published on Feb 17, 2016.

EU OMBUDSMAN RULING REVEALS 412,000 CONSUMERS AFFECTED

A campaign in Europe to have Irish Water customers informed of toxic chemicals exceeding the World Health Organisation and European Union safety standards has failed, according to Friends of the Irish Environment.

The environmental lobby group, which specialises in the enforcement of European environmental legislation, has been told by the European Ombudsman that she cannot require the European Commission to force Irish Water to inform consumers on their bill that the water they receive contains levels of trihalomethanes above the EU and WHO permitted levels.

Trihalomethanes are toxic compounds, including chloroform, which occur in drinking water as a result of reaction between organic materials, such as peaty soil, when chlorine is added as a disinfectant. Long-term exposure to THMs include an increased risk of certain cancers, such as bladder and colon; reproductive problems such as miscarriages, birth defects, and low birth rates; and damage to the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, and central nervous system.

FIE says that ‘trihalomethanes are volatile chemicals that are easily removed by simple carbon filters if the consumer knows that his water contains them. Because they are volatile’, the statement continues, ‘there are particularly dangerous in enclosed areas with poor ventilation, through prolonged showering, bathing, ingestion, or in Jacuzzis, with pregnant women advised in particular to avoid exposure.’

During an investigation of the complaint by FIE the Irish authorities informed the Commission that on the basis of their last review, ‘around 412,000 persons are possibly affected by THM exceedances in 79 public water supply zones’.

While they agreed that ‘there is a need to substantially improve consumer communications in relation to THMs’, they have consistently refused to inform consumers on their bills when the level of trihalomethanes exceeds the WHO and EU recommended levels, instead arguing that all Irish Water customers can find out if their water supplies exceed the limit through their website, which ‘they are informed of through Irish Water billing which reaches over 1.5 million domestic premises’.

FIE Director Tony Lowes said that ‘the Irish Water website only gives consumers a snapshot of the most recent water quality results for their supply and does not include previous readings which may have shown high levels of the toxic chemicals requiring filtration upgrades. Thus, a resident of Enniskerry seeking water quality results will not see that his water is contaminated with these toxic chemicals through the Irish Water site, although the Enniskerry public supply is listed on the EPA Remedial Action List as needing an upgrade to filter trihalomethanes.

While Irish Water suggests that consumers can find further information on the EPA website’s ‘Remedial Action List’, in fact this list omits supplies covering almost 150,000 of the 412,000 consumers affected.

Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman, wrote to the organisation that ‘I appreciate that not all customers of the Irish water service (ʺIrish Waterʺ) will be satisfied with the approach to information provision proposed by the Irish authorities. Some customers may prefer to be informed directly rather than having to consult a website. And of course there will be customers for whom consulting a website proves either difficult or not possible.’

Ms O’Reilly said that case law prevented her from requiring the Commission to take legal proceedings against Ireland, suggested the organisation approach the Irish Energy Regulator, who is in charge of complaints against Irish water. The group is also taking legal advice about consumer rights.

Mr Lowes said ‘The core of this problem is land use policies that are allowing the draining of peat soils for forestry, farming, and peat extraction to contaminate drinking water supplies – a problem that is becoming worse as intense rainfall events increase.’

Commission letter refusing to take action

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/images/pdf/EU_pilot_11.12.16.pdf

EU Ombudsman letter

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/images/pdf/EU_Ombuds_trihalo_10.02.16.pdf

Original Friends of the Irish Environment statement and further reading on their website at http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/press-releases/17338-campaign-to-have-water-consumers-warned-of-toxic-chemicals-fails

The Emerald Isles' pure clear waters are swimming in carcinogenic Trihalomethanes

February 18, 2016

In relation to this week's revelation in several national newspapers that Trihalomethane is present in water supplies throughout Ireland, Yeat's poem 'The Song of Wandering Aengus' springs to mind. Instead of the trout turning into ' a glimmering girl with apple blossom in her hair', the trout turns into a lethal carcinogen.

View of Greencastle and Lough Foyle with Magiligan Head in background

This is not meant to be flippant but how else can one view this recent health bombshell? It is even more sinister since the facts have been known for several years, (at least since 2010), by our illustrious administration. Not one local representative, not one official has thought it worthwhile to investigate or inform their community.

Donegal Affected Areas
You can download full EPA Drinking Water Remedial Action List Q4 of 2015. In this you will see Donegal areas highlighted for THM failure (Trihalomethanes), areas include Gashard, Fintown, Greencastle, Pettigo, Portnoo, Rathmullen. Also mentioned for Donegal are areas lacking in Cryptosporidium barriers; Glenties, Kilcar, Cresslough and Letterkenny.

This is awful news, however, the worst part is that it is not new. It was highlighted in a local Donegal online newspaper http://www.donegaldaily.com/2014/11/20doctor-says-towns-water-supply-is-not-fit-to-drink, onNov 20,2014.

Not only that but it was published in 2010 in EPA reporthttp://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water_web.pdf, This indicates that it was known to the EPA, and HSA as far back as 2010.

Also highlighted in the report were problems with other chemicals including lead, and microorganisms i.e cryptosporidium.

Where has the outcry been from our political representatives, local and national? Where has the outcry been from all our health officials and county administrators? It is now 2016 and still the communities are unaware of the potential hazards.

EPA Minimising Risks
There is a couple of other interesting things in the above EPA report that need highlighting. One does not need to be a scientist to see subtle misrepresentations such as in explaining Trihalomethanes, para 2.4.3, the report says

“THM failures are caused by the absence of adequate treatment to remove organic matter (THM precursors). Trihalomethanes are formed when chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic matter in raw water”

However, in http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-ehp-13.pdf it states

” Trihalomethanes are a group of organic chemicals that ofter occur in drinking water as a result of chlorine treatment for disinfectant purposes and therefore are also known as 'disinfection byproducts' or DBPs”.

Do you see the subtle difference?

The EPA report, para 2.4.3 again is downplaying the significance of the carcinogenic properties of trihalomethanes

“Trihalmomethanes are formed when chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic matter in raw water. Chloroform and bromodichloromethane (two of the four THMs) are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a ‘possible carcinogen’. The Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, consumer Products and the Environment (COT) (UK) systematically reviewed the evidence with regard to THMs and cancer in 2008 and stated “Problems remain in the interpretation of published studies. These include the small relative risks recorded, the possibility of residual confounding, and the problems with exposure assessment” They concluded “the evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to chlorination by-products is limited and any such association is unlikely to be strong”

Do you see what I am trying to get at? Even today the EPA is picking and choosing reports and scientific facts in an effort to what can only be construed as risk minimisation. Why?

Authorities Not Obliged to Inform Public
You would be hard pressed to find any information in the report obliging authorities to inform the public about potential dangers to their health. Apart from mention of ‘boil notices’ there isn’t anything statingthat the public have a right to know, especially in the case of Trihalomethanes.

The 2011 EPA report, para 3, states ” 200 of the original 339 public water supplies placed on the EPA Remedial Action List (RAL) have completed the necessary action programmes and have been either replaced, upgraded or have improved operations. Three WSAs did not provide an estimation of the timeframe for completion of remedial actions for 12 supplies, 10 of which were in Donegal.”

Same paragraph “ All WSAs were found to be publishing some or all of the microbiological, chemical and indicator monitoring data as required by the Ministerial Direction on the publication of drinking water results. However, many WSAs are not publishing this information within one month as required. Six WSAs (Galway, city and county, Kilkenny, Limerick, Meath, North Tipperary) were found to be in full compliance”

This would imply all others not mentioned were not in compliance. When EPA says ‘publicising result’, what do they mean? Are these results, or it seems ‘ partial results’ so obscure that even our elected representatives are not aware of them?

Surely the public has a right to know, to be informed what they are consuming, the potential lethal consequences of consuming carcinogenic drinking water? Should we not have a right to expect that everything is being done to protect our health? Should it not be mandatory for all personnel and official bodies, scientist and engineers, employed to monitor and research , to make it known to the public without trying to minimise the hazards? Surely they know and have known since 2011 and beyond. Still people in 2016, in Greencastle and elsewhere in Donegal and nationally are drinking contaminated water.

What this 2011 report shows, together with the more recent EPA 2015 report, is that all is not as transparent as they would like us to believe and it seems that the welfare of citizens is not regarded as first priority .

Related Articles

Irish Times, Feb 17, 2016
Irish Examiner, Feb 17, 2016
The Liberal.ie, Feb 17, 2016

An Inishowen environmentalist has hit out at Irish Water for what he termed a lack of information about excessive chemicals and contaminants in some water supplies.

Highland Radio, Feb17, 2016

Enda Craig of the Campaign for a Clean Community was speaking this week after it emerged that one of the exceedents in the Greencastle supply is a chemical which has been linked with some cancers.

Mr Craig says Irish Water are promising a new supply by 2017, but he believes this could be rectified immediately by switching Greencastle to the East Inishowen supply.

He says this is an issue which needs to be prioritised:

Massive Meath Windfarm Rejected

February 8, 2016

The North Meath Windfarm Group announced in their facebook page on Fegruary 5, 2016 that An Bord Pleanala rejected plans for a massive American owned windfarm in County Meath.

"The American Developers of the massive Emlagh Wind Farm, have failed to get Planning Permission. Bord Pleanala Inspector's recommendation for a Grant of Permission, was overruled by a majority vote of An Bord Pleanala 4-2"

Mr John Callaghan from the North Meath group said in November 2015 "There is no place in Meath that is not under threat from Wind Farm development, not even the Town of Navan. Meath County Council are now considering an application for a 93 metre tall 1500kilowatt Industrial Wind Turbine to be located less than 1000 metres form Navan Hospital.
The Promised Wind Development Guidelines that might have provided protection have been postponed until after the Election.

See An Bord Pleanala's full report here Case reference PL 17.PA0038

Emlagh Wind Farm plans rejected.

Article from the Meath Chronicle Feb 5, 2016

Plans for the controversial 46-turbine Emlagh Wind Farm development in North Meath have been refused by an Bord Pleanala.
Element Power had sought permission for the construction of three wind farm clusters of up to 46 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of up to 169 metres and associated turbines foundations, hardstanding areas and drainage.
An oral hearing into the application held in the Headfort Arms Hotel, Kells, last Summer lasted for five weeks with submissions from 117 individuals and groups.
The inspector who conducted the oral hearing recommended that planning be granted for the development in his report but the board voted by a majority of 4:2 to refuse permission.
The Board’s decision was made having regard to the Wind Energy Development Guidelines, the policies and objectives of the Meath County Development Plan (noting the lack of a Wind Energy Strategy in the Plan), the need to treat wind farm development in the area with particular sensitivity given the proximity of the development to a large number of houses located in the open countryside and within a network of existing villages at Moynalty, Carlanstown, Castletown, Lobinstown and in the nearby town of Kells.

Other considerations included the location of the proposed development in an area with a history of settlement and an associated legacy of places and features of cultural importance from many historical periods, the character of the receiving landscape, the scale, height and number of the proposed wind turbines, the submissions received in relation to the proposed development and the report and recommendation of the inspector.
The Board stated: “It is considered that a wind farm of the scale, extent and height proposed would visually dominate this populated rural area, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would interfere with the character of the landscape and would not be in accordance with the overall development objectives of the Meath County Development Plan 2013-2019.

“Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would not align with the Wind Energy Development Guidelines as this guidance document did not envisage the construction of such extensive large scale turbines in an area primarily characterised as a hilly and flat farmland landscape and in such proximity to high concentrations of dwellings. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
“In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to grant permission, the Board considered that, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Renewable Energy Action Plan, and other national and European Union policies in support of renewable energy development (including wind), the impacts of this very large development on the substantial local residential population, and the impacts of the proposed development on landscape and cultural heritage, would not be acceptable in this location. The Board further considered that the number and height of the proposed turbines would significantly exceed the landscape’s “medium potential capacity” to accommodate wind farm development as set out in the Landscape Character Assessment of the Meath County Development Plan 2013-2019.”
The decision has been welcomed by Senator Thomas Byrne, Cllr Darren O’Rourke and Deputy Helen McEntee.