The US multinational Procter & Gamble has been convicted on three counts of polluting the public water supply in Nenagh, Co Tipperary, during August 1996, and has been fined a total of £1,500.
Judge John O'Neill, sitting in Nenagh District Court, said yesterday that the company, which has a cosmetics and skin-care plant in the town, had shown "grave neglect" by not adequately monitoring an inspection chamber in the plant's effluent discharge system. It had previously experienced problems from pipe blockages.
The company had denied it caused or permitted polluting matter to enter waters contrary to the Local Government Water Pollution Act, 1997, at Gortlandroe Industrial Estate on or about three dates in August 1996. The prosecution was brought by the Environmental Protection Agency, whose costs, £94,600, were awarded against the company.
The EPA claimed the company was responsible for the chemical siloxane contaminating the well located on the industrial estate, which served much of the town. Contamination coincided with the discovery of a damaged pipe joint linking the company's cosmetics plant and a nearby effluent treatment unit. Siloxanes are used in its manufacturing process.
At the conclusion of a six-day case, Judge O'Neill said he was satisfied pollution had occurred on the three dates, and was caused by siloxanes originating from the plant.
He was of the opinion that the chemical "did not go solely through the [nearby] sewer". The company claimed contamination arose due to the poor state of the sewer, whose maintenance was the responsibility of the development agency SFADCo.
He accepted that the siloxane levels found were very low, but added: "I must say I'm surprised that the company did not introduce a system whereby the inspection chamber would be monitored, particularly having regard to previous problems."
Given that a public water supply was in close proximity, he said it was grave neglect not to have regular monitoring. He could not agree with an expert called by the company who said inspection once a year was adequate.
Mr Michael McGrath, for Procter & Gamble, submitted that it should be borne in mind before fining the defendants that the company had no previous convictions. It was adhering to the stringent requirements of an integrated pollution control (IPC) licence, and the EPA had stated that it was not solely responsible for pollution that occurred.
In his closing address, Mr McGrath said conviction meant the company was being penalised for having "a gentle leak" in a flange located in the chamber, and not for polluting water. There was no evidence to link the flange with the well. "["]The sewer was the predominant and most likely source of contamination of the well. Not only is there reasonable doubt, but it's quite clear where the source of the contamination was."
Based on the EPA's own figures, the level of leaked siloxane that could have got into the well from the plant would have been below detectable background levels, he said. Evidence that the SFADCo sewer was leaking to the order of 45 litres of liquid over a 30minute period had not been contested, Mr McGrath noted.
Mr Martin Hayden, for the EPA, said the agency had shown that pollutant matter was involved, and "a pathway existed" between the chamber and the well. This had been established by the findings of a liquid tracer test.
The pipe system, although newly installed, was not of sufficient standard, he added. The company had put in a pipe effluent system but did not have supervision or maintenance procedures to go with it. Whereas a company representative had said six months would be a reasonable time before it was inspected, it had been inspected some eight months later.
Earlier, Dr Robin Patrick of Queen's University Belfast School of Chemistry disputed some of the EPA findings in reports issued after the well was contaminated. Called by the company, he noted there was significant pollution caused by faecal coliform bacteria. While the EPA had not proceeded with a prosecution on the basis of nonyl phenol chemicals found in the well, their presence there suggested they arose because of the poor condition of the sewer.
Recognisances were fixed in the event of an appeal.
