ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL
LEGISLATION – OBTAINING COMPLIANCE
Finola McCarthy
Solicitor
Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors
14 April 2005
It is generally understood that the purpose of environmental legislation in protecting the
environment is not to achieve an absolute prevention of pollution or harm to wildlife and
habitats. Rather, its role is to balance competing interests in the environment to achieve a
level of reduction in harm to the environment which is acceptable to the public but which
still allows industry to operate efficiently and economically. The effective enforcement
of rules and standards to achieve compliance is as vital to this objective as the rules and
standards themselves.
In this paper, I wish to touch on a few general aspects of enforcement in the context of
compliance with environmental obligations, considering the enforcement styles and
methods, the effectiveness of both traditional and other tools of enforcement and looking
at the possible role of a specialist environmental court. Over the last couple of years there
has been growing research in the UK on the question of environmental justice relating
primarily to the question of effective enforcement of environmental regulations by public
authorities and the issue of access to the judicial system by the public. The UK
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has sponsored a number
of reports on this subject.1
These reports provide some interesting findings and
recommendations, and certain of these are considered below.
Traditional Enforcement
There are two recognisable styles of enforcement of environmental regulations which are
apparent in environmental legislation and practice over the last number of years – “the
compliance” style based on maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between the
regulatory agency and the regulated operators to encourage compliance and the
“deterrence” style which focuses on imposing punishment for breaches of environmental
regulations through legal action under criminal law and civil law (in the form of private
rights arising in statute and common law2) to prevent future transgression3.
1
see Environmental Justice? A report by the Environmental Justice Project (2003); Using the Law: Access
to Environmental Justice – Barriers and Opportunities for Environmental Justice Maria Adebowale 2003;
Environmental Civil Penalties Michael Woods and Professor Richard Macrory CBE UCL 2003 [ ]
2
For example section 20 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act 1990 imposes civil
liability for water pollution in addition to the common law
3
Bell and McGillivray “Environmental Law” 5th Edition, Blackstone Press 2001
1
Formal Enforcement Remedies
Irish environmental legislation provides for a number of remedies where a breach of the
legislation occurs. A list of some of the main formal remedies is summarised in the Law
Society Practice Guide on Environmental Law4 as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Fines
Imprisonment
General damages for damage to property/person
Restitution eg restocking of fish spawning grounds
Clean-up costs: a public authority can recover the costs of clean up of a
polluted site
Expert Costs
Laboratory/technician costs
Legal costs
One common feature of some of these main remedies is that they are dependant on the
matter being pursued by the appropriate enforcement agency or individual as the case
may be through the courts.
Prosecutions and Role of Criminal Law
Criminal law is an important feature of environmental enforcement by the authorities
either for policy reasons - because these are acts that that are punishable in the public
interest or, as suggested by Woods and Macrory5, simply because criminal procedures
appear to offer a more effective means of control.
There is a wide range of environmental criminal offences from breaches of environmental
permits and licences through industrial activity, accidental emissions to water and air to
illegal dumping etc. Typically in many environmental crimes, the prohibited activity may
be inchoate, requiring no specific harm to be proven but rather contemplating the
possibility of such a risk being present.6 “Traditional” crimes such as assault and murder
are clearly distinguishable from activities which breach environmental regulations but
nonetheless, environmental legislation provides that criminal law is applied to breaches
of these regulations whether serious or minor.
Whether neglect or inadvertence resulting in an emission of waste from a factory to the
neighbouring stream should be categorised as a crime in the same way as deliberate
illegal dumping is open to debate.
4
page 215 Environmental Liability (Orla Joyce)
Environmental Civil Penalties Michael Woods and Professor Richard Macrory UCL 2003
6
For a description of the recognisable characteristics of an environmental offence see De Prez P “Excuses,
Excuses: the Ritual Trivialisation of Environmental Prosecutions” Journal of Environmental Law Volume
12 No 1 2000
5
2
Environmental legislation distinguishes between minor breaches which are recognised as
summary offences and more serious breaches being categorised as indictable offences
and for the most part, we see that the prosecutions when taken are for summary offences.
Whether the enforcement of minor offences is effective in achieving compliance,
particularly in view of the level of fine that can be imposed, is questionable however and
would these minor offences be more appropriately dealt with under civil law, reserving
the criminal law for serious offences. It is notable that in recent years we have seen some
District Court Judges refusing jurisdiction to hear summary proceedings relating to
environmental offences.
The standard of proof which applies in criminal law is “beyond reasonable doubt” which
is a higher level of proof than applies in criminal law. To minimise recognised evidential
difficulties faced by environmental authorities, one of the features of environmental
crimes is the imposition of strict liability in many cases – conviction is not dependant on
the existence of intention, recklessness or negligence – it is sufficient for the purposes of
imposing liability that the breach occurred, for example a breach of a condition of an
Integrated Pollution Control Licence. However there is a concern that the overuse of
strict liability in criminal offences might be counterproductive in that it can give rise to
an inclination on the part of businesses to treat fines as a business overhead because guilt
is applied automatically and there is no real sense of moral fault.7
Another feature of environmental legislation is that for some offences the burden of
proof is reversed where involvement in particular types of operation justifies this
approach in the public interest, for example in Sections 32-39 of the Waste Management
Act 1996 as amended recently by the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, the burden
of proof on establishing environmental pollution is reversed and it is for the defendant to
show that an activity carried on which either should have had a waste licence or permit or
which is in contravention of such licence or permit did not cause pollution.
There is a growing public interest in the environmental compliance through greater public
awareness and the increasing level of public participation in the regulatory process. With
this growing interest is the increasing public expectation that regulators will successfully
enforce all environmental regulations and achieve full compliance. Arguably the number
of objections to industrial activity which is perceived to be harmful to the environment
and to health might be fuelled by the lack of confidence that compliance is being
enforced. One of the findings by the Environmental Justice Project in the UK8 is that it is
apparent that enforcement may only be addressing a limited percentage of the actual
number of breaches which occur and that there is a lack of consistency countrywide in
the UK in relation to the level of enforcement. Although the public expect zero tolerance
in relation to environmental crime, this is not an appropriate objective. Not only would it
demand unlimited resources among the regulatory agencies, but also there is a view that
such a policy would undermine the impact of the sanction of criminal prosecutions
7
Environmental Civil Penalties Michael Woods and Professor Richard Macrory UCL 2003 at pg 9
8
Environmental Justice Report published by the Environmental Justice Project, March 2004, ELF, Leigh, Day & Co,
WWF
3
because if all offences were to be prosecuted, it would become more normal and common
for companies to be known to have committed environmental offences.9
If enforcement by prosecution is to be a successful deterrent, the low level of fines is an
issue which needs to be addressed. The legislation requires that in imposing the penalty
the court should have regard to the risk or extent of damage to the environment arising
from the activity complained of. However the maximum fine for conviction of a
summary offence under the Waste Management legislation is now €3,000 since 2003, this
is still considered to be too low to act as a deterrent (particularly given the profits to be
made by illegal waste operators). While the maximum fine on indictment is €15,000,000,
only two High Court cases are reported by the EPA as having been concluded in the last
five years. In 2004, the total fines imposed in the 17 prosecutions brought by the EPA
was €32,768 and the total costs imposed in these prosecutions was €79,23910.
The question of fines was reviewed recently in the UK by the Sentencing Advisor Panel
and they have proposed that fines should be substantial enough to have real economic
impact by creating sufficient pressure on a company’s management and shareholders to
tighten regulatory compliance and change company policy. Consistency in sentencing
was advocated and it was suggested that fines could be expressed as a percentage of
turnover, profitability or liquidity with a preference for turnover as being the most fair
and that compensation orders which are rarely used by the courts could be used.11 The
Environmental Justice Report states: “the EA would wish to see turnover and profitability
being taken into account when fines against companies are levied. However, the EA also
pointed out that “financial liability does not always end with a fine. A company may have
to improve its practice around the country to ensure future compliance – and incur costs
of a much higher order of magnitude.” They cite the case of a manufacturer of domestic
fridges who was fined UK£2,000 – but had to spend in excess of UK£250,000 to ensure
future compliance.12
A review of the OEE statistics on enforcement for 2004 to date, indicates that there is no
apparent consistency in sentencing. I have attached as an appendix to this paper details
of the prosecutions brought by the EPA between 2004 and to date (as reported by OEE on
the EPA website): the difference in the fines relating to the same offences is notable.
Obtaining Effective Enforcement
What are the other options available to enforcement agencies to obtain effective
enforcement?
The use of enforcement options other than criminal prosecutions to achieve compliance is
an essential part of effective enforcement. This is recognised in the growing development
Paula De Prez, ‘Beyond Judicial Sanction: the Negative impact of conviction for environmental offences’ [2000] Env
L R 11.
9
10
11
12
Calculated from the information published on the EPA website.
Civil Penalties Report
Page 83, paragraph 189.
4
of another style of regulation referred to as “responsive regulation”. Responsive
regulation recommends the flexible use of a range of enforcement mechanisms on the
understanding that a regulatory agency should minimise regulatory interference where
possible13 therefore prosecution is resorted to only once less formal action such as
warning letters etc has failed. Key features of this style of enforcement are flexibility and
discretion.
The Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) which was established in 2003 supports this approach. The OEE
Enforcement Policy states that it applies the principle of proportionality in the application
of environmental law – the enforcement action which it takes will be proportionate to the
risks posed to the environment. It states:
“While in many cases a prosecution will be the ultimate sanction that will be used
by the OEE it may not always be the most appropriate course of action. The
alternatives to prosecution that may be considered by the OEE include the
following:
Warning letters….
Statutory Notice…
Court Orders …..”
At a practical level, the imperative for using the “responsive “approach to enforcement
must be the fact that that regulatory resources are limited (and perhaps even reducing
relative to the growth in industrial operators). This factor requires that regulators adopt
enforcement measures which are both efficient (in terms of consuming the minimum of
resources) and effective (in terms of deterrence).14
Other Enforcement Remedies and Options
The UK Environmental Agency (UKEA)’s Enforcement and Prosecution Policy15 refers
to enforcement options which include enforcement notices, works notices, prohibition
notices, the suspension or revocation of environmental licences the variation of licence
conditions and the issuing of cautions or warnings. It has also suggested that its statutory
powers could usefully be augmented in various ways and that benefits could come about
by various amendments to legislation and guidelines which include the power to serve
notices with immediate “stop” provisions without the need to obtain injunctions or
provide time to comply. It has also suggested that fly-tipping convictions become
“recordable” offences so that they appear in crime statistics and allow greater
13
Ibid at page 10
Neil Gunningham “Beyond Compliance: Next Generation Environmental Regulation” presented at
Conference on Current Issues in Regulation: Enforcement and Compliance, Australian Institute of
Criminology.
15
Environment Agency – Enforcement and Prosecution Policy 1 November 1998, available at
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
14
5
intervention by the police at UKEA request and that fly-tipping offences become
arrestable either by a police officer or a certified officer of the UKEA.16
If the responsive regulation style of enforcement is to be effective in Ireland in achieving
compliance, it would seem that greater use of additional enforcement tools might be
available which are flexible and discretionary to the enforcement agencies.
One suggestion to consider is the mechanism of civil penalties which were recommended
in a recent report. The “Environmental Civil Penalties” report defines them as “a
discretionary monetary sum which is imposed flexibly under the civil law rather than the
criminal law, in order to achieve deterrence and reparation”17 These penalties are
distinguishable from fixed fines which are imposed without any discretion in the
assessment of the amount of the fine. The report describes civil penalties as a hybrid
form of sanction lying between the criminal and civil law which can address harm caused
to the public in general and in this way are more closely aligned to criminal fines than
private law civil damages because they retain a more punitive element.18 (They also
concluded that “Criminal prosecution is too rigid an approach to be used for all but the
most serious offences.”) I believe that issues such as what environmental offences would
be appropriate for the application of civil penalties and whether the public and regulated
entities would view what is currently a crime becoming a civil offence, as “going soft” on
environmental crime could be addressed satisfactorily.
Arguably another useful weapon in the enforcement armoury is naming and shaming
companies that have been successfully prosecuted. The OEE publishes details of each
prosecution taken on the EPA website and this information is easily accessible. However,
a random check of local authority websites indicates that information on prosecutions
taken by local authorities is not as readily available and also the type of information on
enforcement varies from place to place. For example, Waterford County Council
publishes on its website the Environment Department’s Monthly Report for Council
which summaries details of the number and types of notices issued under environmental
legislation and the number of legal proceedings commenced while the enforcement
information on Cork County Council’s website was found in its latest annual report. In
reviewing the various sites, it was apparent that litter enforcement was a significant
feature of enforcement. One explanation for this might be that there are substantially less
breaches of the other legislation or perhaps another explanation might be that
enforcement of the Litter Pollution Act is relatively easier than the other legislation.
It would be preferable to have a central information source on prosecutions, complaints,
statutory notices which relates to all of the enforcement agencies which would be easily
accessed by the public. The EPA in its 2004 Report stated that better enforcement
cooperation is needed between the agencies involved in environmental enforcement. It
16
See pages 68-69 of the Environmental Justice Report published by the Environmental Justice Project, March 2004,
ELF, Leigh, Day & Co, WWF.
17
Ibid at page 11
Woods and Macrory point out that civil penalties are being used in other jurisdictions such as Germany,
Australia, USA. They state that civil penalties are being used by other enforcement agencies in the UK
such as the Competition Authority, The Registrar of Companies and the Financial Services Authority.
18
6
is hoped that central reporting of enforcement will develop as this cooperation and
coordination develops further.
It might also be considered whether it might be effective to highlight information on
enforcements taken in a separate report19 or publish this information at intervals in the
media (in the same way as tax defaulters) so as to increase its visibility and maximise its
deterrent effect.
The practice of naming and shaming is generally considered to be an effective deterrent
in the UK where I understand that the experience has been of companies contacting the
UKEA to seek advice of how to best avoid doing something illegal that their competitors
have done. Similarly public limited companies are more sensitive to bad publicity and the
potential effect on share value.
However De Prez20 argues that while successful
prosecutions and naming and shaming have a deterrent impact, this is only in exceptional
cases and the effect is sporadic.
Other alternative enforcement measures to consider might be the use of administrative
directions by the regulatory authorities – Gunningham suggests clean up notices, nonstatutory directions etc, as well as greater use of on the spot fines.21 Flexibility in
enforcement could hopefully permit the potential to negotiate innovative solutions to
breaches of environmental obligations. For example, in appropriate cases, the regulators
might consider requiring the offender to contribute towards remedying the harm itself (if
this has not already been required by an enforcement notice) and/or towards another
scheme in the area, for example, protecting a natural habitat. This might be more
effective than a fine because the proceeds from the fines are not directed to the problem
and therefore the damage to the environment that has been caused is not necessarily put
right in the most efficient way possible.
In relation to serious environmental offences such as illegal dumping, is also worthwhile
considering whether the use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 to confiscate profits from
this activity may be a more effective deterrent in the regulation of illegal dumping and
unauthorised waste activity.
Looking to the future of enforcement, Gunningham makes the point that policies and
initiatives should be also developed to encourage and reward the willingly compliant
operators. He cites the example of the US which offers incentives such as fast tracking of
licences or permits, reduced fees, technical assistance, public recognition, penalty
discounts under certain conditions, reduced burdens from routine inspections and greater
flexibilty in means permitted to achieve compliance.
19
Similar to the UKEA’s Annual Spotlight on Business Performance Report
Paula De Prez, ‘Beyond Judicial Sanction: the Negative impact of conviction for environmental offences’ [2000]
Env L R 11.
20
21
Gunningham Ibid pg 9
7
There is no doubt that a perception of “going soft” on environmental crime would have a
negative effect in relation to some operators. Furthermore the traditional system of
enforcement remains necessary to bring some operators up to a minimum level of
compliance. Woods and Macrory although advocating the efficacy of most of the
enforcement mechanisms (including enforcement notices) relies heavily on the perceived
threat of criminal prosecution as the main “fall back” sanction.
Therefore criminal
prosecutions have an important role to play in achieving compliance but the importance
of this role might be better maintained if greater use of other enforcement options was
made where appropriate.
Environmental Court or Tribunal?
Environmental law continues to grow as a body of law and the challenges which it
presents continue to change. There is a case to be made that it would be beneficial to
environmental regulation and enforcement if environmental cases were dealt with by a
specialist environmental court and tribunal, due to the complex nature of environmental
law, the technical and scientific aspects of the issues which arise. The idea benefits of a
specialist court is not unique to environmental law – in the area of employment law there
are a number of specialised tribunals and more recently we have seen the establishment
of the Commercial Court (a division of the High Court) to deal with high value
commercial cases.
Research has been carried out in the UK on the concept of an environmental court and is
finding positive support.22 The Environmental Justice Project reported that significant
numbers of those consulted during its research thought the best way to achieve
environmental justice was through the creation of a specialist environmental court or
tribunal.
Many of the reasons for a specialist court which have been advocated in the research on
this subject are relevant in this jurisdiction also namely:
-
the need for improved understanding by judges of environmental issues
the need for consistency and coherence in decisions in environmental cases
the extent that technical and scientific evidence is a feature of environmental
cases
the need to improve the interpretation and application of environmental law and
policy
difficulties with the judicial review process in environmental cases
difficulties with access by third parties to environmental justice in light of the
implementation of the Aarhus Convention23
22
See 23rd Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2002, UCL Report: Modernising
Environmental Justice Regulation and the Role of an Environmental Tribunal Macrory and Woods 2003,
Environmental Justice Project Report 2004
23
The Aarhus Convention was adopted on 25 June 1998 by the UNECE and entered into force on 30
October 2001. It contains important principles concerning public participation and access to justice which
are addressed in three EU Directives: Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information,
8
There are different suggestions as to the possible structure and scope of such a court or
tribunal. The Environmental Justice Project suggests that the specialist court or tribunal
should have the jurisdiction to hear all civil law claims with a significant environmental
component, including judicial reviews, statutory applications and appeals to the High
Court and environmental claims relating to nuisance, property damage, toxic torts and
certain regulatory appeals such as appeals relating to decisions of specialised
environmental agencies such as the UKEA, appeals in respect of industrial processes
regulated by local authorities etc. It suggests that the court could appoint judges from
beyond the bar to include those with demonstrably diverse environmental experience.
The UCL Report however proposed a limited role for an environmental tribunal which
would be made up of a panel of legal and non-legal experts and would consolidate
environmental appeals to a single appeal tribunal such as appeals relating to IPC, waste
and water permits and licences. It suggests that as the environmental tribunal develops
experience and reputation, the tribunal could also provide a forum for appeals arising
under new environmental legislation for example environmental liability and emissions
trading. Interestingly, the UCL report recommends that the hearing of criminal
environmental cases and the application of penalties to ensure compliance with
environmental law would remain with the ordinary courts but it recognises that the remit
of an environmental tribunal could be extended to include some form of criminal function
perhaps to handle the less serious environmental offences. In relation to enforcement, it
suggests that the environmental tribunal could operate as the appropriate body for hearing
appeals against the imposition of “alternative” enforcement tools referred to earlier in this
paper such as civil penalties.
Some environmental lawyers in the UK Environmental Law Association have gone
further and suggested that planning and environmental law should be combined to better
serve the “total” environment and that a Planning and Environmental Tribunal should be
established which would take account of broad environmental principles, including the
principle of sustainable development in its decisions.
In relation to the question of access to justice by third parties, it is suggested that a
specialist environmental court might address the requirement in the Aarhus Convention
that review procedures must be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.24
The question of an environmental court is attracting quite a lot debate and is a
development which is to be watched closely.
Conclusion
Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation, and currently a proposal for a Directive on access to justice
in environmental matters.
24
Modernising Environmental Justice Regulation and the Role of an Environmental Tribunal Macrory and
Woods
9
Criminal law and reliance on the courts will remain a feature of environmental
enforcement in the continuing effort to prevent environmental harm and altering
behaviour for the better. However there is a growing need for enforcement agencies to be
more inventive and use a wide range of instruments and tools to apply and enforce
environmental law to find the right mix between incentives (carrots) and threats (sticks).
Better reporting of enforcement activities and consistency in sentencing are also to be
encouraged in achieving effective enforcement. As the body of environmental law grows
in complexity and size, the need for a specialist environmental court is becoming
apparent and merits serious consideration.
10
Appendix
Reports from EPA website of details of prosecutions
taken by the EPA in 2005 and 200425
2005
1.
Donegal Meat Processors
“The EPA prosecuted a well-known Donegal animal slaughtering facility on Monday, 10th January 2005.
The company, Donegal Meat Processors Limited, pleaded guilty to offences under the EPA Acts, 1992 and
2003 in Letterkenny District Court for breaches of the conditions of their integrated pollution control (IPC)
licence.
The offences related to:
 The lack of adequate management and operational practices at the wastewater Treatment Plant, which
resulted in the inability of the EPA to fully monitor and enforce the activity on-site. This was
evidenced by:
- Not notifying the EPA of a breakdown of their monitoring equipment and
- Failing to ensure that monitoring equipment was operating at all times;
- Failing to submit monthly monitoring reports of process effluent;
- Giving false and misleading information by intentionally submitting inaccurate monitoring reports
to the OEE.
- Failure to manage waste in a manner required by the licence, increasing the potential for pollution
to ground by:
- The disposal of waste to an unauthorised location;
- Failing to maintain an organic waste register;
- Failing to carry out the testing of bunds;
- Failing to ensure that provision was made for the collection and proper disposal of leachate run-off
generated by wastes stored on open ground;
- Failing to submit a report to the EPA on the assessment and inspection of all on-site and off-site
waste storage facilities;
- Failing to ensure that all landspreading activities were undertaken in accordance with a nutrient
management plan so as to ensure environmentally sound application of organic waste to ground.
After hearing evidence from an OEE inspector, Judge O’Donnell imposed fines totalling €5,200 and the
EPA’s costs of €14,110 were also awarded.
Donegal Meat Processors is involved in the slaughtering of cattle and sheep at its site in Drumnashear,
Carrigans, Co Donegal. The company was issued an IPC licence for the slaughtering of animals where the
daily capacity exceeds 1,500 units on 16 September 1998.
This prosecution was taken following the outcome of site investigations undertaken by the Office of
Environmental Enforcement. This is the second prosecution of this company by the EPA, the first of which
was taken on 27 January 2000.
2.
E Smithwick & Sons Limited
The Agency successfully prosecuted E Smithwick & Sons Limited for breaches of its integrated pollution
control (IPC) licence, Reg. No. 448, at Kilkenny District Court on 18 January 2005.
 The company admitted breaching its licence conditions and indirectly causing the pollution of the
River Nore by:
25
Details obtained from the EPA Web-Site.
11

Exceeding the emission limits specified in the licence for discharges to sewer between January and
June 2004.
The company also displayed environmental mismanagement by:
- Failing to install monitoring equipment resulting in the company not taking samples as is required
by the licence;
- Failing to notify the EPA of an emission, which did not comply with the conditions of the licence.
Failure by the company to maintain compliance with the emission limits specified in the licence for
discharges to sewer caused the Purcellsinch Sewage Treatment Plant, which is operated by Kilkenny
County Council, to malfunction resulting in the discharges from the treatment plant to pollute the River
Nore.
Following a complaint received from the Southern Regional Fisheries Board about discharges to the River
Nore from the Purcellsinch Sewage Treatment Plant the Office of Environmental Enforcement initiated a
series of site inspections and audits and introduced an extensive sampling program for effluent emissions
from the brewery.
On hearing details of the offences, Judge Harnett imposed fines totalling €9,000 and awarded the EPA’s
costs of €7,267.
E Smithwick & Sons Limited is located in the centre of Kilkenny at the site of the St. Francis Abbey and
was granted an IPC licence on 13 January 2000 for the commercial brewing and distilling, and malting
where the production capacity exceeds 100,000 tonnes per year. The brewery is currently capable of
producing 1.2 million hectolitres of beer per year.
This prosecution was taken following the outcome of the OEE’s site investigations with the co-operation of
Kilkenny County Council and the Southern Regional Fisheries Board.
3.
Murray Timber (Ballon) Limited
On the 27th January 2005 at Tullow District Court, Co Carlow, Murray Timber (Ballon) Limited pleaded
guilty to two charges under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts, 1992 and
2003.
The charges related to the failure by the company to comply with conditions of its Integrated Pollution
Control (IPC) Licence by
- Moving waste to an illegal landfill located in Craan, Kildavin, Co Carlow, thereby increasing the
potential of pollution to ground and to the nearby River Clashavey, a tributary of the River Slaney.
- The unauthorised burning of waste on-site resulting in pollution to the atmosphere.
On hearing details of the offences and inspecting photographic evidence from theEPA, Judge O’Buachalla
imposed fines totalling €2,700 and awarded costs of €6,621to the EPA.
The company, located in Ballon, Co Carlow, operates a sawmill, which produces approximately
130,0000m3 of sawn timber per annum, 10% of which is treated with preservatives. The company was
issued with an IPC licence on 19th February 2002 for the treatment or protection of wood involving the use
of preservatives, with a capacity for exceeding 10 tonnes per day.
The prosecution was taken in light of site investigations by the Office of Environmental Enforcement
(OEE) with the co-operation of Carlow County Council.
4.
FSW Coatings Limited
12
On the 7th February 2005 at Virginia District Court, Co Cavan, FSW Coatings Limited pleaded guilty to
four charges under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts, 1992 and 2003.
The charges related to the failure by the company to comply with conditions of its Integrated Pollution
Control (IPC) Licence thereby increasing the potential risk of pollution to ground by:
- The stockpiling and storage of waste on-site which was not in accordance with the requirements of
the licence.
- The unauthorised storage of waste at a warehouse leased by the company at Cornanaff,
Bailieborough, Co Cavan.
- Failure to protect storage tanks from leakage.
- The failure to store liquid materials and waste, awaiting disposal in designated areas protected
against spillage.
On hearing evidence from an Inspector from the Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE), Judge
McBride imposed fines totalling €1,000 and awarded costs of €12,450 to the EPA.
The company, located in Virginia, Co Cavan, is involved in the manufacture of solvent and water based
paints. The company was granted an IPC licence (Reg. No. 244) on 13 May 1998 for the manufacture of
paints, varnishes, resins, dyes, pigments or elastomers where the production capacity exceeds 1000 litres
per week.
The prosecution was taken in light of site investigations by the Office of Environmental Enforcement
(OEE) with the co-operation of Cavan County Council.
5.
Joe McLoughlin t/a Joe McLoughlin Waste Disposal
The EPA successfully prosecuted Mr Joe McLoughlin t/a Joe McLoughlin Waste Disposal at Carrick-onShannon District Court on Wednesday, 9th February 2005, under Section 39 of the Waste Management
Act, 1996.
Mr McLoughlin pleaded guilty to carrying on unauthorised waste activities at a waste transfer station at
Ardcolum, Drumshambo, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim. Under the Waste Management Act, where a
facility is accepting greater than 5,000 tonnes of waste per annum, a waste licence is required. Based on
information obtained from local authority landfills in the vicinity of the facility, Mr McLoughlin’s facility
exceeded this threshold in 2003 and thereby required a waste licence.
Judge Browne imposed fines totalling €250 and the EPA’s costs of €10,283 were awarded.
This prosecution was taken following site investigations by the Office of Environmental Enforcement with
the co-operation of Cavan and Roscommon County Councils and Ballinasloe Town Council.
6.
AIBP Ltd t/a AIBP Rathkeale
On the 24th February 2005 at Newcastle West District Court, Co Limerick, AIBP Limited t/a AIBP
Rathkeale pleaded guilty to offences under Sections 8 and 84 of the Environmental Protection Agency
Acts, 1992 and 2003 and Section 3(1) of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977.
The company admitted breaching conditions of its Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence and causing
the pollution of the River Deel by:
- Causing or permitting polluting matter to enter waters, and
- Exceeding the emission limits specified in the licence for discharges to water from the facility’s
wastewater treatment plant.
Following receipt of complaints from local residents and a follow up site visit by OEE inspectors, a
brown/red discharge from the company’s wastewater treatment plant to the River Deel was detected.
13
-
The company also displayed a lack of adequate management and operational practices at the
wastewater treatment plant by failing to ensure that the monitoring equipment was operating at all
times, failure to record all complaints of an environmental nature related to the operation of the
activity and not notifying the EPA of any breakdowns of the control equipment. Which resulted in
the inability of the EPA to fully monitor and enforce the activity on-site.
On hearing details of the offences, Judge Malone imposed fines totalling €3,000 and the EPA’s costs of
€6,878 were also awarded.
The company is primarily involved in the slaughter of cattle at its meat processing facility in Rathkeale, Co
Limerick and was granted an IPC licence on 30th September 1998 (Reg. No. 191) for the slaughtering of
animals in installations, where the daily capacity exceeds 1500 units (1 head of cattle = 5 units).
This prosecution was taken following the outcome of site investigations and monitoring of the River Deel
undertaken by the Office of Environmental Enforcement with the co-operation of residents from the area
and Limerick County Council.
7.
Limerick City Council
On the 18th March 2005 at Limerick District Court, Co Limerick, Limerick City Council pleaded guilty to
offences under Sections 39(1) and 39(9) of the Waste Management Acts 1996 and 2003 for breaches of its
Waste Licence (Reg. No. 76-1).
The Council admitted breaching conditions of its Waste Licence by failing to put in place the infrastructure
necessary for the handling and management of landfill gas, leachate and surface water at its landfill facility
at Longpavement, within the timeframe specified in the licence. The absence of this infrastructure
increases the potential for pollution to atmosphere, surface and groundwater.
On hearing details of the offences, Judge O’Donnell imposed fines totalling €3,000
and the EPA’s costs of €3,152 were also awarded.
Limerick City Council was granted a waste licence for landfill operations at Longpavement, Monabraher,
Limerick on 19th February 2003 (Reg. No. 76-1). Two major requirements of the licence included the
installation of infrastructure to collect and manage landfill gas from all areas within the facility and the
installation of a leachate management system at the facility for the protection of surface and groundwaters
by 19th August 2004.
This prosecution was taken following a Site Inspection undertaken by the Office of Environmental
Enforcement on 28th April 2004.
8.
Yellow Bins (Waste Disposal) Limited
On the 30th March 2005 at Naas District Court Yellow Bins (Waste Disposal) Limited pleaded guilty to
offences under Sections 39(1) and 39(9) of the Waste Management Acts 1996 and 2003 for breaches of its
Waste Licence (Reg. No. 114-1).
The Company admitted breaching conditions of its Waste Licence by
Failing to install infrastructure prior to the acceptance of waste
Carrying out waste processing in the absence of this enclosed facility building

Removal of waste off site by waste carriers and to facilities neither of which received prior
approval from the Agency.
14
The licence stipulates that no waste is to be accepted at the facility prior to the provision of an enclosed
facility building for waste processing. The absence of the required infrastructure resulted in the activity
being carried on outdoors, increasing the potential for pollution to air, water and ground.
On hearing details of the offences, Judge Murrough Connellan imposed fines totaling €1,200 and the EPA’s
costs of €8,152 were also awarded.
Yellow Bins (Waste Disposal) Limited were granted a waste licence for the operation of a waste transfer
station and recycling facility at Donore, Caragh, Co Kildare on 8 th October 2002. This facility has now
ceased operating at this location.
This prosecution was taken following receipt of complaints from local residents and OEE site
investigations.
9.
Waterford Crystal Limited
On the 1st April 2005 at Waterford District Court, Waterford Crystal Limited pleaded guilty to a charge
under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts, 1992 and 2003 after the
company had breached conditions of its Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence.
The company admitted sending waste off site to disposal/recovery facilities, which did not have the prior
written agreement of the Agency. The Court heard that during the period of February to July 2004 2,538
tonnes of gypsum waste from the effluent treatment plant was sent to unauthorised outlets, of which 2,159
tonnes went to mushroom composters, three of which were in the UK.
The court imposed a fine of €2,500 and costs totalling €5,816 were awarded to the EPA.
The company, located at Kilbarry, Waterford was issued with an IPC licence on 19 th September 1997 (Reg.
No. 157) for the production of glass (special) in plants with a capacity exceeding 5,000 tonnes per year.
The EPA issued a revised licence to the company (Reg. No. 584) on 14th August 2003.
This prosecution was taken following the outcome of OEE site investigations.
200426:
1.
Brivin Enterprises Limited.
Brivin Enterprises Limited, a waste transfer station trading as Westside Waste and based at Blacklion,
Dublin Road, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, pleaded guilty to six offences under the Waste Management Act
1996 in Kilcock District Court on 12th Janurary 2004.
The judge gave maximum fines in relation to two of the charges (€1,904 each) concerning the lack of
bunding and waste inspection areas. The court awarded costs €12,472 sought by the EPA.
The Probation Act was given for the remaining four charges, which related to the sending of waste to
Northern Ireland, lack of infrastructure, fire controls and quarantined areas for unsuitable waste.
At the hearing, evidence was heard from the EPA’s inspector. The EPA initiated legal action after a number
of complaints were received from local residents that led to a subsequent investigation and site visit on 31st
March 2003.
2.
26
Just the Plating Company Limited.
Details obtained from the EPA web-site.
15
On the 26th January 2004 at Dublin Metropolitan District Court, Just the Plating Company Limited pleaded
guilty to three charges under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 after
they had breached conditions of their Integrated Pollution Control licence.
The charges related to the failure to comply with emissions limit values for discharges to sewer, failure to
monitor and analyse these same emissions and the failure to submit an Annual Environmental Report to the
EPA.
The court imposed a fine of €250 for each of the charges, and awarded full costs to
the Agency of €4,074.
The company, located in Mulcahy Keane Industrial Estate, Greenhills Road, Dublin 12, are licensed to
carry out electroplating operations under licence Register Number 277. The prosecution was taken in light
of EPA sampling and analysis results for emissions to sewer and the outcome of an EPA audit and site
investigations.
3.
Dairygold Co-Operative Society Limited
The EPA successfully prosecuted Dairygold Co-Operative Society Limited for breaches of its Integrated
Pollution Control (IPC) licence, Reg. No. 404, at Mitchelstown District Court, on the 19th March 2004.
In pleading guilty to two of the three charges, the court fined the company €1,250 whilst awarding costs
totalling €6,684 to the EPA.
The prosecution was taken after officers of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board, conducting a site visit
on 6th May 2003, alerted the EPA about their findings and earlier reports of water discolouration in the
River Funshion. The EPA carried out a follow up visit on 26th May 2003.
The company was charged with breaches of emission limit values for emissions to sewer and nonnotification of a serious malfunction with its wastewater treatment plant.
4.
Kildare Chilling Company Limited.
The EPA successfully prosecuted Kildare Chilling Company Limited., a slaughtering factory located on the
outskirts of Kildare Town, for breaches of its Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) Licence, at Kildare District
Court on Monday, 26th April 2004.
The alleged offences related to odour nuisance, failure to comply with emissions limit values for discharges
to sewer, failure to bund tank and drum storage areas, and failure to notify the EPA of a breakdown of
monitoring equipment.
In pleading guilty to seven of the fourteen charges, the court fined the company €2,500 whilst awarding
costs totalling €7,000 to the EPA. The company contested the charge relating to odour, which the court
found unproven.
This prosecution was taken in light of an increase in the number of odour complaints for this facility
received by the EPA from local residents, the results of EPA sampling and analysis for emissions to sewer
and the outcome of site investigations by both the EPA and Kildare County Council. This is the second
prosecution of this company by the EPA, the first of which was heard at Kildare District Court on 5
February 2001.
5.
Dundalk Town Council
16
On the 26 May 2004 at Dundalk District Court, Dundalk Town Council pleaded guilty to four charges
under Section 39 of the Waste Management Act, 1996 after it had breached conditions of its waste licence.
The charges related to the failure to put in place the necessary infrastructure required for the handling and
management of landfill gas and leachate.
The court imposed a fine of €1,200 for each of the charges, and awarded full costs to the Agency of €4,596.
The Council’s landfill facility, located at Newry Road, Dundalk, Co Louth, was licensed on 20 April 2001
for the phased closure of the landfill. A major requirement of the licence included the installation of
infrastructure to collect and manage landfill gas from all areas within the facility by 20 October 2001. The
Council was also required to install, commission and maintain a leachate management system at the facility
for the protection of surface and groundwaters by 20 April 2002.
The prosecution was taken following the outcome of an audit and ongoing site investigations undertaken by
the Office of Environment Enforcement and continued failure by the Council to comply with its licence
requirements.
6.
Alert Packaging Limited
On the 8th June 2004 at Bray District Court, Alert Packaging Limited pleaded guilty to three charges under
Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 after the company had breached
conditions of its Integrated Pollution Control licence.
The charges related to the failure by the company to comply with emissions limit values for discharges to
atmosphere as set out in its licence. The Court heard that, since the EPA took the proceedings, the company
had installed costly abatement equipment, thus limiting the air pollution to licensed standards. Additionally,
the company has obtained a revised licence, which has brought it into compliance with its regulatory
requirements.
Having regard to the circumstances and the cost of the compliance measures the court imposed a fine of
€10 for charge 1 and took charges 2 and 3 into consideration. Costs of €3,079 were awarded to the Agency.
The company, located in the IDA Business Park, Bray, Co Wicklow, is a flexographic printing company,
specialising in food-grade metallised wrappers and plastics and is licensed to use coating materials in
processes with a capacity to use at least 10 tonnes per year of organic solvents under licence Register
Number 366*.
The prosecution was taken in light of sampling and analysis results for emissions to atmosphere by the
Office of environmental Enforcement (OEE) and the outcome of OEE site investigations.
*The Agency issued a revised licence to the company (Reg. No. 676) on 13th May
2004
7.
Liffey Meats (Cavan) Limited & Director
On the 17th June 2004 at Ballyjamesduff District Court, Liffey Meats Limited was convicted of four
charges under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 after the company
had breached conditions of its Integrated Pollution Control licence.
The company admitted breaching licence conditions by discharging effluent to waters outside set licence
limits, not providing an impenetrable surface area nor constructing bunding for storing tank and drums, not
notifying the EPA of a breakdown of monitoring equipment and failing to submit an Annual Environmental
17
Report. The company’s Director, Mr Francis Mallon, in his role as a senior manager, also pleaded guilty to
a charge, regarding the failure by the company to comply with licence limits for emissions to water.
In pleading guilty to four of eight charges, the court directed the company to make a payment of €1,000 to
Cavan Hospice whilst awarding costs totalling €11,689 to the EPA. In relation to Mr Mallon, the court
noted the conviction but gave the benefit of the Probation Act.
The Environmental Manager for the company made an undertaking to the court that there would be no
repetition of the offences and that the integrity of the environment would be respected.
The company, located just outside the town of Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan, is a slaughtering facility and is
licensed for the slaughter of cattle.
The Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) took the prosecution in light of the results of its own
sampling and analysis of emissions to water as well as site investigations by the Office.
8.
Waterford Crystal Limited
On the 16th July 2004 at Waterford District Court, Waterford Crystal Limited pleaded guilty to three
charges under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 after the company
had breached conditions of its Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence.
The company admitted breaching limits set in the licence for discharges to sewer and air, and failure to
provide adequate bunding for storing tank and drums.
The Court heard that, since the Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) took the proceedings, the
company had invested significant capital, and resources in an effort to comply with the conditions of its
licence.
The court imposed a fine of €1,000 for each of the three charges. Costs totaling €5,602 were awarded to the
Agency.
The company, located at Kilbarry, Waterford was issued with an IPC licence on 19 th September 1997 (Reg.
No. 157*) for the production of glass (special) in plants with a capacity exceeding 5,000 tonnes per year.
The OEE took the prosecution in light of the results of its own sampling and analysis of emissions to water,
the results of the company’s monitoring of emissions to atmosphere and site investigations by the OEE.
*The Agency issued a revised licence to the company (Reg. No. 584) on 14th August
2003
9.
Kevin Kiernan
On the 22nd July 2004 at Cavan District Court, the Environmental Protection Agency took two separate
prosecutions against Mr. Kevin Kiernan of Kilnaleck, Co. Cavan, for breach of conditions of two Integrated
Pollution Control (IPC) licences Mr. Kiernan holds IPC licences for the rearing of pigs at two locations,
one at Mullacastle, Kilnaleck and the other at Aghafad, Kilnaleck, Co. Cavan.
Mr. Kiernan admitted breaching conditions of the licences relating to landspreading that was not in
accordance with Nutrient Management Plans and not maintaining a slurry register. He pleaded guilty to
three charges in all.
The court imposed fines totalling €900 in all for the three charges. The amount of €4,100 was awarded
towards the EPA’s costs.
18
Mr. Kiernan was issued with the IPC licences on 1st June 2000 (Reg. No. 469) and 14th November 2000
(Reg. No. 451), respectively for the pig-rearing activities which fall under the scope of Class 6.2 of the
First Schedule to the EPA Act 1992.
The OEE took the prosecutions following its assessment of Nutrient Management Plans submitted and
having carried out site inspections at the facilities.
10. Brendan Kiernan
On the 21 October 2004 at Ballyconnell District Court, Mr Brendan Kiernan pleaded guilty to a charge
under Sections 8 and 84(2) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, after he breached a
condition of his Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) Licence.
The charge related to landspreading that was not in accordance with his Nutrient Management Plan (NMP).
Failure to have on-site controls such as an adequate NMP indicates that slurry is being disposed of in an
uncontrolled manner likely to cause significant environmental pollution.
An NMP identifies the amount of fertiliser (pig slurry in this case), which is needed on particular fields to
give the optimum crop growth without causing pollution. The amount of fertiliser to be applied is based on
Department of Agriculture or Teagasc recommendations, which vary according to the amount of nutrients
(chiefly phosphorus) currently in the soil of the particular field. When pig slurry or any other fertiliser is
applied to land for which there is no NMP, there may be no information on the levels of nutrients in the soil
of these fields. This can lead to overapplication of fertiliser, and subsequent water pollution if the excess
phosphorus or nitrogen is washed to surface water or groundwater.
Solicitors for Mr Kiernan stated that he had been let down by his previous consultants and that as a
satisfactory NMP had now been submitted to the Agency, they requested that the court record no
conviction against Mr Kiernan.
The EPA pointed out that it had taken over 18 months to submit an adequate plan since the the plan for
2003 only had an area approved by the Agency for spreading of 40% of approximately 30,906m3 slurry
produced at this pig unit annually, resulting in the remaining 60% being spread on lands whose fertiliser
requirements were not known, some of which may not have required any additional fertiliser and also in
excess of the fertiliser requirements on the approved lands, with a risk of pollution if the excess nutrients
were washed to water.
The court acceded to Mr Kiernan’s request and dismissed the summons, on the provision that he undertake
to pay the Agency’s costs of €3,787 and make a donation of €700 to St Vincent de Paul.
Mr. Kiernan was issued with the IPC licence on 13 September 2002 (Reg. No. 600) for the pig-rearing
activities at his 1,950 integrated sow unit at Ballyheady, Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, which fall under the
scope of Class 6.2 of the First Schedule to the EPA Act 1992.
The OEE took the prosecution following its assessment of the NMP submitted and having carried out a site
inspection at the facility.
11. Brivin Enterprises Limited.
Brivin Enterprises Limited, trading as Westside Waste pleaded guilty to six offences under the Waste
Management Acts 1996 - 2003 in Kilcock District Court on 23 November 2004 for breaches of its waste
licence (Reg. No. 162-1).
In operating a waste transfer station with an annual throughput of 30,000 tonnes per annum at Blacklion,
Dublin Road, Maynooth, the company admitted failing to:
19






install infrastructure prior to the acceptance of waste,
build and maintain a waste transfer building,
provide a concrete surface skip storage area,
install appropriate infrastructure for the collection of all wastewater discharges from the facility,
provide and maintain a civic waste facility prior to the commencement of waste activities and;
process waste indoors as required.
The absence of the required infrastructure resulted in the activity being carried on outdoors, increasing the
potential for pollution to air, water and ground. Waste stored on bare ground increased the risk of leachate
entering groundwater. Run-off water from the site was not collected thus risking contamination of a small
stream adjoining the eastern boundary of the site. The waste activities, including truck movements,
loading/unloading of skips and the tipping of waste from a height caused a considerable noise nuisance to
local residents. Dust emissions were also significant.
This is the second successful prosecution the EPA has taken against this company in 2004, the first of
which was heard on 12 January 2004 and which related to similar offences. In each instance, the
investigations into the alleged offences arose from both complaints from members of the public and
planned site visits conducted by OEE enforcement officers.
Solicitors acting on behalf of the company stated that the facility had now closed and that the activity was
no longer causing any pollution. Judge Brophy stated that, if the company could not maintain compliance
with the conditions of its waste licence it should have shut down following its previous conviction in
January 2004.
The maximum fine of €3,000 was imposed in respect of Charge one, with fines of €500 imposed on each of
the remaining five charges. The Agency’s costs of €4,550 were also awarded.
The Company was granted a waste licence on 17th February 2003, for the acceptance of commercial,
construction and demolition waste and also waste from domestic sources. The facility is situated on a .55ha
site, 1km east of Maynooth Town and consists of a partially concreted yard where waste arriving in skips is
sorted into its recyclable components, with the residual waste being sent to landfill.
12. Kerry Ingredients(Ireland) Limited
Kerry Ingredients (Ireland) Limited, a dairy and food ingredients processing plant for Kerry Group PLC,
pleaded guilty to an offence under the EPA Acts 1992 and 2003 in Listowel District Court on 29 November
2004.
The company, which manufacture milk and other dairy products, admitted breaching a condition of its
integrated pollution control licence by failing to store waste oil drums and effluent treatment chemical
storage containers in a storage area, which was protected from leakage, increasing the potential risk of
pollution to groundwater.
After hearing evidence from an EPA inspector, Judge Lucey imposed a fine of €750 in relation to the
offence. The Agency’s costs of €7,484 were also awarded.
The company was issued with an IPC licence on 11 May 2001 (Reg. No. 393) for the manufacture of dairy
products where the processing capacity exceeds 50 million gallons of milk equivalent per year. The facility
is located on the outskirts of Listowel Town on the Tralee Road, major products include butter, cheese,
casein and whey derivatives.
The prosecution was taken following the outcome of site investigations undertaken by
the Office of Environmental Enforcement.
20
13. South East Recycling Limited
South East Recycling Limited pleaded guilty to an offence under the Waste Management Acts 1996 - 2003
in Wexford District Court on Monday, 6th December 2004 for breaches of its waste licence (Reg. No. 1111).
The company admitted breaching conditions of its waste licence by the unauthorized sending in excess of
300 tonnes of waste off-site for disposal to a waste facility in Northern Ireland and the sending of
construction and demolition waste to a quarry in County Wexford. Given that both the facility in Northern
Ireland and the quarry in Co. Wexford were unsuited to this type of waste, disposal in this uncontrolled
manner had the potential to cause pollution to ground.
The facility operates as a waste transfer station, accepting commercial and industrial non-hazardous wastes
and recyclable waste collected from bring banks. The recyclable waste consist of glass, cardboard and
aluminium cans. Waste collected from skips is also brought to the facility to extract recyclable materials.
Nonrecyclable waste is brought to landfill whereas the recyclable waste is sent to relevant recovery
facilities.
The Barrister acting on behalf of the company stated that the offences related to housekeeping matters and
asked the court to apply the benefit of the Probation Act, Judge O’Buchalla refused the application, stating
that this was a serious matter, he imposed a fine of €1,400. The Agency’s costs of €5,965 were also
awarded.
The Company was granted a waste licence on 24th January 2001 for the operation of a waste transfer
station and recycling facility, which is situated on a site a little over three hectares in extent, in
Pembrokestown on the outskirts of Wexford Town.
The prosecution was taken following the outcome of site investigations undertaken by the Office of
Environment Enforcement with the co-operation of Wexford County
Council.
14. Oxigen Environmental Limited
The EPA successfully prosecuted Oxigen Environmental Limited on 9th December 2004 for breaches of its
Waste Licence (Reg. No. 152-1) during the year 2003, at Dublin Metropolitan District Court on Thursday,
9th December 2004.
The company, who pleaded guilty to six charges, operate a waste transfer station at Robinhood Industrial
estate, Robinhood Road, Ballymount, Dublin 22. The company was convicted for sending waste off site to
facilities without the EPA’s consent, and for accepting more waste that the permitted amount.
The other convictions related to offences for failure to manage the site by not providing impermeable
hardstanding throughout the facility, not carrying out necessary improvements to the Waste Transfer
Building, improper waste management practices at the facility and failure to maintain a written record of all
waste loads being accepted at the facility.
In giving his judgement, Judge Haughton acknowledged that while the company had agreed to plead guilty
to the offences, these included serious offences, which were essentially for profit. He imposed fines of
€1,000 each on the charges relating to the use of unapproved facilities and exceedance of the licensed
annual tonnage for the facility, and fines of €500 on each of the remaining four charges. The Agency’s
costs of €5,225 were also awarded.
The company was granted a waste licence on 18 December 2001 for the acceptance of non-hazardous
waste i.e., household, commercial, industrial and construction and demolition waste.
21
15. Adhmaid Cill Na Martra Teoranta
The EPA successfully prosecuted Adhmaid Cill Na Martra Teoranta, for offences under the EPA Acts 1992
and 2003 and the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 in Macroom District Court on 15
December 2004.
The company, which is located at Kilnamartra Macroom, Co Cork admitted failing to store materials
awaiting disposal in an area protected against spillage and leachate run-off and causing the pollution of two
on-site wells, as well as the public water supply in Kilnamartra Village during December 2003. The
contamination of the public water supply resulted in Cork County Council having to tanker water into the
village for ten days while an alternative water supply was sourced. Approximately sixty households and
businesses were affected by the incident.
Judge O’Connor imposed a fine of €500 in relation to the first offence and took the remaining two offences
into consideration. The Agency’s costs of €5,990.65 were also awarded. The company processes small logs
into fencing posts by debarking and pointing, followed by the impregnation of the posts with celcure AO
(copper, chromium and arsenic preservative).
The EPA issued an Integrated Pollution Control licence (IPC) on 6 November 1998 (Reg. No. 334) for the
treatment of wood involving the use of preservatives.
The prosecution was taken following the outcome of site investigations undertaken by the Office of
Environment Enforcement with the co-operation of Cork County Council.
16. Castlemahon Food Products
The EPA prosecuted Castlemahon Food Products, a well-known chicken processing company, for the
fourth time on Monday, 20th December 2004. The company pleaded guilty to offences under the EPA
Acts, 1992 and 2003 in Listowel District Court as a result of several breaches of the conditions of their
integrated pollution control (IPC) licence:
 Their operations caused odour nuisance to neighbouring residents;
 They increased the risk of creating further odour nuisance by:
- Storing offal in uncovered skips in an open yard prior to processing instead of inside the storage
building;
- And in not repairing a damaged door on the rendering intake area.


They exposed local groundwater to potential pollution when they failed to protect tank and drum
storage areas from leakage.
They failed to install equipment to:
- Control and monitor emissions, which meant that they didn’t take samples or report to the EPA on
some of their emissions.
- Warn of potential spillages from their wastewater treatment plant.
After hearing evidence from two OEE inspectors, the Court imposed fines totaling
€3,600 and the EPA’s costs of €8,925 were also awarded.
Castlemahon Food Products is primarily involved in the slaughtering and processing of poultry in addition
to the rendering of poultry off-cuts/blood at its site in Castlemahon, Co Limerick. The company was issued
an IPC licence for the rendering of animal by-products on 25 September 1996.
This prosecution was taken following the outcome of site investigations undertaken by the Office of
Environmental Enforcement and the receipt of odour complaints from a number of residents of
Castlemahon.”
22