The Environmental Protection Agency has argued before the Supreme Court that it was not obliged under law to be absolutely satisfied that no harmful effects would be caused before granting a licence for a waste incinerator in Co Clare.
The EPA denied suggestions it had doubts about the absence of a dioxin study before issuing a licence for a hazardous waste incinerator at a pharmaceutical plant operated by Roche Ireland Limited near Clarecastle and that this made it impossible for the agency to satisfy itself to the appropriate statutory standard before granting the licence.
The evidence before the agency when considering the licence application showed that Roche Ireland had carried out a survey of background dioxin levels in the immediate vicinity of the proposed incinerator and such levels were typical background levels for a rural area, the EPA said. A 1996 report, based on a survey commissioned by the EPA on dioxins in Ireland, also showed the level of dioxins at three sites in the vicinity of the incinerator were below the levels found in other European countries.
The EPA accepted a suggested survey of dioxin levels in the breast milk of the local population was not carried out but denied that the absence of that study caused it doubt or concern. The agency disputed a claim that the applicable statutory standard for the issuing of the licence to Roche was that "no harmful effects would be caused" by the licensed activity.
Under the EPA Act 1992, the agency had a number of obligations, including to have regard for a high standard of environmental protection and to consider the need for precaution over the potentially harmful effects of emissions.
The statutory standards specifically applicable included provisions that the agency should not grant a licence unless it was satisfied that any emissions would not contravene the relevant air and water quality standards and would not cause significant environmental pollution. Nowhere in the legislation was there an absolute standard of "satisfaction of no harmful effects", the agency stated.
The submissions were made to the Supreme Court on the third day of an appeal by Ms Orla Ni Eili, of Harmony Row, Ennis, Co Clare, against a High Court judgment refusing to quash the EPA decision of December 1996 to grant Roche Ireland a licence to operate the incinerator. The EPA rejected all the grounds of appeal advanced by Ms Ni Eili, including several on the handling of the High Court judicial review hearing.
In its submissions, Roche Ireland said it and its predecessor had been manufacturing pharmaceutical products at its Clarecastle factory since 1995. It said there was no allegation that there had been a breach of any licence granted or that the company had polluted or caused any harm.
The company said the purpose of its licence was to reduce emissions by 95 per cent and a regime of EPA monitoring and inspection of its incineration activity was provided for by the licence and the EPA Act. Roche said the EPA was the proper specialist body to decide on the issuing of such licences and the courts should be reluctant to intervene. It disputed the claim that the agency should have refused a licence because final design details for the incinerator were not available. It submitted the EPA had been supplied with information on design details and had sufficient information before it to reach its decision.
The appeal resumes today.