Second hearing for Corrib

Second hearing for Corrib

Áine Ryan

THE CONTROVERSIAL Corrib gas project is set to undergo its second oral hearing, as Seanad candidate Dr Mark Garavan and Independent TD, Dr Jerry Cowley, call again for an Independent Commission to enquire into the project. In a joint statement, they claim the situation in north Mayo remains ‘tense and volatile’ and that the absence of political leadership could lead to ‘further serious conflict’.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that objectors may make further submissions, until April 11, to the issuing of an Integrated Pollution and Prevention (IPPC) license for the  proposed Bellanaboy refinery, before a date for the hearing is set.
The first oral hearing, in 2002, was part of a planning appeal to the construction of the proposed refinery and was held by An Bord Pleanála (APB) as part of the appeal. It lasted for 22 days, in two separate periods, and was the second longest hearing in the State, since the establishment of the APB.
Welcoming the announcement of the hearing, Shell said in a written statement: “The oral hearing will be an opportunity for people to air their genuine concerns at an independent and transparent forum.
“The EPA recently announced its provisional determination to grant an IPPC License. The Corrib Gas Partners note that the EPA, which is the competent environmental authority in Ireland, confirmed that emissions from the gas terminal ‘will not adversely affect human health or the environment and will meet all relevant national and EU standards’, when operated in accordance with the conditions of the proposed license,” it continued.
Drs Cowley and Garavan also welcomed the EPA’s decision to hold an oral hearing, but urged the need for ‘a far more comprehensive, root and branch review of the project’.
“The Corrib gas conflict needs to be resolved. It has gone on for far too long,” they said, observing that the people of north Mayo deserved better treatment.
“We are concerned that Shell’s insistence on proceeding with construction of the refinery prior to an agreement regarding a production pipeline and prior to EPA approval will deepen the dispute,” they added.
Meanwhile, responding to an accusation, publicised on the Shell to Sea website, that there was evidence of ‘faulty piles’ being used at Bellanaboy, Shell said it ‘had no Health and Safety issue regarding piling equipment or piles on the site’.
However, the anonymous source, quoted on the website, claims that ‘[while] attempting to dig a ditch on the site, a section of steel piling was discovered to be defective. When other sections of the piling were examined, it was found that a large number of other piles were suffering the same problem’. The piling will support site roads over which large amounts of peat, machinery and materials will be transported.
Shell conceded that ‘[during] routine construction works it was noted that a number of concrete piles had a slight variation in diameter. This technical issue can be overcome using normal engineering practices’.
“It should be noted that 100 per cent of the piles installed on site to date have successfully passed integrity tests,” Shell said.