Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DETAILS OF HOW much householders will have to pay for water are likely to become clear in August with those who experience a lower quality of supply likely to pay less, an Oireachtas committee has heard.
The Commission for Energy Regulation’s (CER) Paul McGowan told the Oireachtas Environment Committee today that a public consultation on the structure of water charges and customer protection issues will take place in April following submissions from Irish Water by the end of this month.
By June, the energy regulator will hold a consultation on water charge levels based on submissions from Irish Water with a decision in July on the codes of practices and finally a decision on the structure of water charges and the level of water charges in August.
Cathy Mannion, director of the CER’s Energy Retail and Water division, told the committee that the consultation process will examine the question of whether a person should pay the full cost of water if they can’t drink it.
She said that while “we can’t presume the outcome of the consultation” she would “expect” customers “to pay somewhat less as the quality is not the same as elsewhere”.
115,000 water meters in the ground
McGowan admitted that though the energy regulator has experience of pricing controls through its work with Bord Gais and other utilities, there was an “additional complexity” as a result of Irish Water being a new utility.
He said that the CER will be looking at international best practice and benchmark against that, as well as establishing a “network of fellow water regulators around Europe” to learn from other countries’ experience.
Earlier, Irish Water chief executive John Tierney outlined the improvements the new semi-state utility intends to make in the country’s water infrastructure including reducing boil water notices by two thirds by the end of 2014.
He said that so far Irish Water’s metering programme has seen some 115,000 water meters put into the ground, at a rate of around 27,000 a month, describing this as an “enormous achievement”.
The issue of spending on consultancy – which caused controversy last month – arose at the meeting, with Irish Water’s John Barry insisting that the €44 million spent on external services from IBM “compares well with what has been spent in other jurisdictions”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good that disaster was averted but are they certain it wasn’t some old charleville cheese? Had to carry out a similar exercise one time when the wife left some really odourous stuff in the fridge.
Why does this seem to becoming such a frequent thing now in schools. The ABD unit seems to be spending a lot of time dealing with unstable chemicals in schools.
The chemical, Dinitrophenylhydrazine, is a chemical reagent routinely used in labs
If this happened in Iran, the US would use it as more evidence of a chemical weapons program!!!!! Just as well those ‘chemistry sets, of da 80′s are no
Longer on da market
Who is responsible?
Hmmmm…. We’l say Anglo for this one?
Cool suit.
You’ve got to be kidding.
Anyone got any info on this stuff still being issued to chemistry labs in schools or was this something done many years ago and now seized. It would somewhat explain why the BDU are called out after routine audits if this stuff is found on the premise which could be decade or more old, leaving a chance its less stable. Its a know carcinogenic and from its data sheet,
Section 11: Toxicological Information
Routes of Entry: Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion.
Toxicity to Animals: Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 654 mg/kg [Rat].
Chronic Effects on Humans: The substance is toxic to lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes.
Other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Very hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant, permeator)
Hm, you’re right. Our schools should be safe, we should remove all hazardous “learning” tools at once! Lets remove this next:
Section 56B: Crapology catalog:
Name: Car
Description: Dangerous metal object responsible for over 1.2 million deaths last year alone.
Toxicity: Toxic to both humans and animals may also leak flammable and toxic substances.
Chronic Effects on Humans: The entity is toxic, may cause weight gain on use, known to cause back pain and blood clots.
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!
Wow, No need to be a dick Aidan!
I simply asked if it’s still used in school as I personally don’t recall it being used when I did chemistry but it’s been a while. Its the 4th time in a year its been found during a routine audit and needed to be removed by Bomb Disposal, so I’m still asking, is it deemed a danger due to its age or for what reason required the BDU to be called? What conditions trigger this response from the auditor?
Any answer or do you prefer to be a narky smartass?
Seems like a picture of that robot bomb yoke pops up on here every day in some capacity
If I had known that stuff was in the lab when I was there, I would have had great craic! LOL
I hope this unstable chemical was not Beamish (a drink I love).
have your say