As environmental groups last night criticised the £1,500 fine imposed on Procter & Gamble, the company indicated that it was considering appealing the decision.
Local authorities either declined to, or were unavailable for, comment because, it is believed, the issue of paying the costs of providing an alternative water supply has yet to be resolved. It is estimated Nenagh Urban District Council (UDC) spent £330,000 providing a temporary, alternative supply using water tankers.
The president of Nenagh Chamber of Commerce, Mr Peter Ward, said it would not be commenting "at the moment". Mr Tommy Morgan, an independent member of the UDC, said he was unhappy with the decision. However, he said it was clear that Procter & Gamble could not be held responsible for all the pollution which contaminated a well near its plant.
Sewage had arisen in the well, for which the company could not be blamed, he said. "The whole blame should not be on them. They have a very modern plant with very good environmental controls. I only hope that everybody responsible for the pollution is convicted."
A company spokeswoman said: "The Nenagh plant has always taken its environmental responsibilities very seriously, and we are dismayed that this decision ignores the deficiences in the drainage system supplying the plant."
As an "established, corporative citizen of north Tipperary" the company "remains fully committed to its Nenagh plant, its employees and the local community," she said. Procter & Gamble, which employs 430 people, has been in Nenagh for nearly 20 years and is one of the largest employers in north Tipperary.
Throughout the investigation, the company had co-operated fully with the EPA, which had recently awarded it an integrated pollution control (IPC) licence "following stringent and lengthy examinations of the plant's operations", the spokewoman added.
The EPA's senior inspector, Mr Dara Lynott, said it had been a difficult case. The agency wanted to move forward by getting on with the business of licensing industry. In securing an IPC licence, he added, Procter & Gamble had rigorous monitoring and an emergency response procedure in place. It was also reporting to the EPA. "To date, its compliance has been very good."
The environmental group Voice said the fine did not reflect the extent of pollution. With people having to live for nearly two months without water in their taps, total fines of £1,500 were completely inadequate.
A spokeswoman, Ms Iva Pocock, said the EPA had described the incident "as one of the most serious incidents of pollution of a public water supply in recent years". Yesterday's decision highlighted the failure of Irish environmental legislation, despite the creation of the EPA in 1994.
