EU told that lack of an LNG Marine Risk Assessment would stop the Shannon Estuary from reaching its full development potential.

Irish, Romanian, Greek and German  M.E.P.s discuss and raise serious question marks over the planning and approval of the Hess LNG / Shannon LNG project in Ireland

TRANSCRIPTS OF EU PETITIONS COMMITTEE MEETING

Discussing

Petition Number 0013/2008

On

Breaches of, inter alia, the 

SEA, EIA and HABITATS Directives

in the planning and approval of a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Regasifcation Terminal on the Shannon Estuary, Ireland.

Chrysoula PALIADELI M.E.P. Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Member Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement :

We are moving from Sardinia to Ireland, but the topic is similar – Liquid Natural Gas. And we have Mr. McElligott who is going to presenting this petition. You have the Floor Sir.

  John McElligott   (Safety Before LNG) :

Thank you.

Ms. Chairman,

Thank you for affording me the opportunity of speaking here today.

We have two main issues of concern about the Shannon LNG project. Firstly, no Strategic Environmental Assessment was undertaken. And, secondly, no Marine Risk Assessment was undertaken.

On the first issue, the lack of a Strategic Environmental Assessment:

Articles 1 and 3 of the SEA Directive clearly require that an environmental assessment is carried out of plans which are “likely to have significant effects on the environment” or which set a “framework for development consent” of projects such as LNG terminals.

The facts are as follows: The Shannon LNG project was first announced in 2006 in the Irish Parliament, with Shannon LNG paying almost half a million euros for the land purchase at that time. This was a project, therefore, which any neutral observer would have to say was at least likely to go ahead.

However, the framework which would allow the Shannon LNG project to proceed successfully at the development consent stage would not exist until the rural land was first rezoned to ‘Industrial’. A problematic and time-consuming Strategic Environmental Assessment was avoided to the benefit of the developers by simply not mentioning the Shannon LNG project in the rezoning wording in March 2007.

I now ask you to interpret the words “likely” as per Article 1 and “framework for development consent” as per Article 3 and determine if they cover the land rezoning consequences for the Shannon LNG project as I just described.

A draft Strategic Plan for the development of the Shannon Estuary has now been published thanks in part, we believe, to the continued oversight shown by the EU in this petition. However, this plan is highly limited because it cannot now assess alternatives to the LNG project which has already obtained planning permission. This means that the most sizeable hazard in Ireland which will sterilise large areas of the Shannon Estuary has slipped through the net and cannot be strategically assessed unless the EU rules in favour of this petition.

Now, On, the second issue, the lack of a Marine Risk Assessment:

The Irish authorities have stated to the Commission that they were sufficiently advised by the Irish ‘Health and Safety Authority’ (the H.S.A.) on the marine aspects of the Shannon LNG project.

However, this is extremely misleading because the advice only related to the situation where an LNG ship was docked at the LNG site.

The advice did not deal with the dangers posed by the travelling hazard which is LNG ships travelling up the estuary waters outside of the LNG terminal area.

I have now submitted documentary proof to this effect which I ask you to assess.

I would also like to point out that The Petitions Committee has already dealt with a very similar petition for the two Milford Haven LNG terminals in the Cleddau Estuary in Wales. In that case you found in 2011 that a Marine Risk Assessment should have been carried out under the EIA Directive and the EU Commission even issued a formal notice to the British authorities on the matter. I now respectfully request, in the interest of fairness, that you apply the precedent created by the Milford Haven LNG petition 354 of 2006 here.

Please also note that, unlike at Milford Haven, the Shannon LNG project has not yet even started construction so time is on your side.

Without a Marine Risk Assessment, we cannot know what the safety, environmental and cumulative impacts of LNG traffic and exclusion zones on the Shannon Estuary would be until after completion of the project.

This will stop the Shannon Estuary from reaching its full development potential.

The HSA has clearly stated, for example, that the advice it gave excludes any assessment of the other type of port facilities that could be allowed next to the LNG terminal.

We feel very strongly that the Irish planning authorities should not be allowed to ignore both the spirit and the letter of EU planning laws to which they have signed up for the sole benefit of the Cayman-Islands based promoters of such a dangerous LNG project.

I am therefore here to request that you keep my petition open in order to assess the further detailed information I have just submitted via email on the proposed Shannon LNG project in Ireland because we feel that there is a regulatory gap in the way the EIA Directive is transposed into Irish and UK law and that this is being manifested in a repeated pattern of no marine risk assessments in Wales or Ireland for LNG terminal projects.

Thank you

Chrysoula PALIADELI M.E.P.M.E.P. Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Member Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement :

From the Commission Mrs. Paine.

 Mrs. Paine, EU Commission:

Great, Thank you very much for the opportunity to listen directly to the Petitioner.

Obviously this petition has been aready going on for a very long time. We prepared 5 communications to the Petitions Committee. The issues regarding, raised by the petitioner, regarded the EIA Directive, the SEA Directive, Habitats Directive and as well Seveso Directive. And we have, in order to examine this petition had to open the Pilot Investigation with the Irish Authorities. We met with them as well to discuss the issues mentioned by the petitioner. And also we started an Infringement Procedure which was, which regarded SEA Directive. It was not resulting directly from the petition but it was related as well.

And I will only reflect on the 2 issues raised today by the petitioner. Thank you for sending yesterday your introduction. It was very helpful.

The lack of a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Obviously,   For most of the land use plans which provide, set the framework for projects requiring EIA such plans and programmes would be subjected to the full Environmental Assessment. But the EC Directive gives also the member states margin of discretion in Article 3.3 for the plans which determine the use of small areas at the local level or minor modifications of plans of programmes, there is the possibility for not carrying out a full strategic environmental assessment but to carry out an SEA screening which means classification, a procedure to identify whether a full EIA, SEA is needed or not. In this case Irish authorities carried an SEA screening for the rezoning of the Kerry Council County Plan and the conclusion was negative, which means they decided that there is no need for the full SEA. This margin of discretion was based for the screening was related also to the threshold in SEA legislation – Irish legislation – which referred  to the size of the population 10,000 inhabitants for such areas covering 10,000 population, there was need for SEA. The conclusion was negative. What can we do in this situation right now? The Infringement which was addressed to Ireland, as regards the SEA Directive, concluded that the thresholds were too high. The thresholds have been changed. As well there have been introduced changes to the SEA, to the transposition of the SEA Directive in Ireland and Irish authorities committed themselves to be more rigorous.

The Commission is closely following this case so the issue is… this is not a black and white situation with this SEA screening, whether full or SEA should be required or only screening .That’s why we don’t really have as a Commission very clear evidence really, that we have strong arguments to show that there is a clear breach of the SEA Directive in this particular case as regards the screening.

I imagine at the moment with the new legislation, this would never happen any more. It would be full SEA most probably if not SEA screening.

As regards Marine Assessment, we have received information from the Irish authorities that the Quantitative Risk Assessment has been carried out for the facility. It regarded the onshore facility and it was done also in the context of the Seveso Directive. But we also looked at the environmental impact statement and the environmental impact assessment documentation and in fact we found out that in this documentation there is also assessment of risk resulting from the shipment of LNG ships so such an assessment we can see that there are elements of marine risk assessment than within the environmental impact assessment. So we don’t really have to take information to what extent this assessment is deficient or not. You mentioned that….

  John McElligott (Safety Before LNG) :

Yes, because we were saying that they presented an assessment under the guise of a Marine Risk Assessment, but it was actually a navigational assessment proving that the ships could come up the estuary. But there was no account taken of any of the risks posed by those ships. And now in Milford Haven. The Milford Haven issue. When the European Commission…. They were coming to the idea of applying shipping route risk contours as you would have on the land to the shipping routes in Milford Haven issue. So the idea was that at the moment land use planning, you create risk contours around a project and you say within this contour you can have a certain type of development. But there was absolutely nothing done on the water. So, proving that they could get the ship up the estuary was not the same as saying what other projects could take place like a deep-water port facility that could rival Rotterdam – that kind of idea. They have never looked at would that shipping affect those plans. And even SIGTTO, their own regulatory bodies, they say there should be no ship within 500 metres either side of any LNG ship travelling on the estuary. The estuary is only a mile wide at either side of the ships. So once the ships are in the estuary, technically nothing else can travel. So the EIA did not cover those issues. And that is why I was asking you to look at the marine risk assessment and the effect it would have on other projects in the Estuary.

Mrs. Paine,  EU Commission:

Um-hum. So I follow up maybe on your… thank you very much. Obviously, there are some elements.  According to the Commission there are some elements of a marine risk assessment. It is not that there was nothing there in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The issue is whether the Commission should be now a technical body examining those different LNG terminals and the way how marine risks have been assessed. And also obviously, to what extent it will compare the documentation from the Welsh case with the Irish case; to what extent this is a matter of good practice of the planning authorities and risk and safety authorities and to what extent this is the issue of the compliance with the EU Environmental legislation – in this case the Environmental Impact Assessment. I am aware on the basis of the petition communication to the petition for the UK case that now the additional maps, risk assessment maps, are being drawn for the offshore areas. The issue is to what extent this could be imposed for example for the Shannon Estuary and whether we could go beyond the requirements of the EIA Directive in this case or it would fit into the requirements of the EIA Directive. So thank you. I imagine that we will have obviously to examine your arguments and detailed submission which was provided together with your overview, So Thank you. For now, thank you.

Paul MURPHY MEP. Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left Ireland Socialist Party :

Thanks very much and thanks to the petitioner and to the Commission. I think that this petition forms part of a pattern, an unfortunate pattern, in Ireland whereby you have major projects pursued by major corporations, often oil and gas corporations, which pose serious health, safety and environmental risks. And that they are developed in areas that are quite uninhabited, quite isolated. But that the wishes of those inhabitants, who should have the same rights as everyone else are entirely ignored. And that these corporations feel they are able to simply ignore them. And that the governments, all too often unfortunately, go along with that same line.

It seems from what the Commission is saying that to some extent was enshrined in legislation in the sense of the need for Strategic Environmental Assessment being a limit being hit at a population of 10,000 people. Which seems to me a bit incredible in a sense of what are we saying? That people who don’t live in highly-populated areas have less rights than those who do?

Obviously the most infamous example of this is the development of Rossport in the west of Ireland. But there are other cases. As we have heard here before. The case of Aughnish again beside the Shannon Estuary and where you know it’s just people’s concerns are ignored. But also, it seems that there are major problems in the case of the process and the case of the Directives.

It seems from that the Commission is saying. If the Commission is saying that this wouldn’t happen now given the change in the legislation in Ireland in terms of that there would be a proper strategic environmental assessment that that’s an argument really that there has been a certain injustice done here where that hasn’t taken place. The government has taken some measures now to correct the legislation but that there is no reason that this community should suffer because the project, the beginnings of the process of the project, were started in advance of the legislation being changed. They should be entitled to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. And also from what the petitioner is saying, it’s clear that half of a marine risk assessment or a quarter of a marine risk assessment is insufficient. It’s clear that an LNG terminal has major ramifications. Not only onshore, but also offshore. And that deserves to be assessed properly.

I think, I would ask I mean obviously for people’s opinions, but it would be good if we could keep the petition open obviously. But also if we could incorporate it into the visit to Ireland I think planned for next September. I think it could make... it would be good obviously for members to see the situation there but also it would assist with those who are involved in campaigning on the issue in Ireland.

Thanks a lot.

Chrysoula PALIADELI M.E.P. Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Member Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement :

Thank you very much. Would you like to add something Mr…? Oh, yes Mr. Bostinaru

Victor BOŞTINARU M.E.P. Member Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Romania Partidul Social Democrat:

You see this morning we have been discussing about the amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment. And now at least in the 3 cases we can already prove how important it is to amend the Environmental Impact Assessment so to prevent problems as the one we are discussing now.

And now, looking to the content of the petition. We do have a precedent. It’s Milford Haven. If it was good in the Welsh case why it’s not that good in the Irish one? That shows, clearly shows, that the way in which the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment it’s meant poses problems. Raises question marks. In one place it’s good, in other not… and then…. Why do not make it to happen and to be implemented in each similar case? Because this should not be negotiable.

Number 2. Definitely, the petition should remain open.

And thirdly, I will ask the Commission to be even more vigilant because looking in

to the content of the petition we can see “Cayman-Island “ – based investors / promoters. When, I have not against with the investors coming out from Cayman Islands. But I do have something. Because how to make sure that their liability will be a real one? How to make sure that once a catastrophe may produce, somebody will cover the financial cost to address and to redress the damages?

Usually, as my culture is not that sophisticated in terms of fiscal havens, usually they disappeared.

After 1, 2 years they just vanished. And you may find a mailbox, somewhere, which will never answer to any letters being signed by the President of the European Commission or by the president of the European Parliament. This is the habit. So what? The liability, the financial guarantees should be considered because if a catastrophe will happen and the damages will be at the large scale somebody should pay because there is a basic principle: polluter pays. And with my… in my report,  on the cohesion for the regulation I did enhance the possibility the principle polluter pays should be properly used. And not to give the possibility that EU money to cover the cost for similar cases. So the Commission should be consistent with the principle polluter pays and to make sure that financial guarantees and the liability should be solved. Because usually, in that particular case, I am not that confident. Definitely not. And please remember this is not the Mexican Gulf case and United States versus British Petroleum. You know very well how much money they were obliged to pay as compensation. Who will gonna pay in that case if something will happen?

And here, it’s also an obligation not only on the member state to make sure that the European Commission as the one who guarantees the proper implementation of the Treaties, should make sure that those principles should be permanently and constantly properly implemented. Thank you.

Chrysoula PALIADELI M.E.P.. Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Member Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement :

Thank you very much Mr. Bosinaru. I think that was a very wise completion of the discussion. I have a suggestion to make to both of you because you are the only from the Petitions Committee still here. 

I think that some important petitions such as the ones we have being dealing with this morning could be sent to the ENV Committee because they could produce or find out gaps that they might legislatively feel. so do you agree?

 Peter Jahr: M.E.P. Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats); Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands

I agree on condition that we see to it that we get a reply in a timely fashion. I am very interested in the Committee’s position. We don’t need the answer in 6 month’s time. That’s what I would suggest that you do Ms. Chairman.

Chrysoula PALIADELI M.E.P. Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament Member Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement :

I thank you  all.