NOTICE TO MEMBERS. EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "NOTICE TO MEMBERS. EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament"

August Simon
6 years ago
Views:

European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Petitions 29.4.2016 NOTICE TO MEMBERS Subject: Petition No 1393/2014 by R. O. (Irish), on an infringement of the Seveso Directive in Clarecastle, Ireland 1.

1 European Parliament Committee on Petitions NOTICE TO MEMBERS Subject: Petition No 1393/2014 by R. O. (Irish), on an infringement of the Seveso Directive in Clarecastle, Ireland 1. Summary of petition According to the petitioner, the EU s Seveso Directive, whose purpose is to prevent major accidents arising from the use of chemicals and hazardous substances, has been infringed in Clarecastle, Ireland. The name of the company at fault is Hoffmann La Roche, which is licensed to landfill hazardous waste in the place concerned. The petitioner has already contacted the Commission and received a reply from DG Environment, with which he/she is not satisfied. 2. Admissibility Declared admissible on 30 April Information requested from Commission under Rule 216(6). 3. Commission reply, received on 29 April 2016 Following a complaint registered on 16 May 2011 (CHAP (2011) 01426) and subsequently examined, the Commission decided to open an EU pilot file on 7 December 2011 in order to request information from the Irish authorities and clarify the issues raised. This file was the subject of detailed correspondence and discussions between the Commission and the Irish authorities. On the basis of the information provided by the Irish authorities, the Commission came to the conclusion that the relevant legislative framework, including the Seveso Directive, was properly applied by the Irish authorities in this case. The petitioner filed this petition on 16 June 2014, having been notified by the Commission on 11 June 2014 of its intention to close the file. The petitioner refers to the EU pilot file and the Commission's intention to close it; he appeals to the Petitions Committee to examine the case and review certain evidence. The petition is not accompanied by any further information, therefore the only information available to the Commission is that provided in the context of the above- CM\ doc PE v01-00 United in diversity

2 mentioned EU pilot file. Since the filing of the petition, the petitioner has not provided any further information that might bring into question the Commission's conclusions. The Commission closed the EU pilot file on 6 August In his original complaint to the Commission, the petitioner claimed that EU law was being infringed on the following basis: - The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed a Hazardous Waste landfill to exist in a Seveso protected zone. - The EPA has failed to enforce the conditions of its IPPC licence in allowing Roche Ireland Ltd to operate a hazardous waste landfill when the condition of the licence clearly states a non-hazardous landfill. - The EPA has failed to change the status of the conditions of its planning permission granted to Roche Ireland Ltd landfill from non-hazardous to hazardous in its IPPC licence P to Roche Ireland Ltd. - The planning Authority, Clare County Council has failed to enforce the conditions of its planning permission granted to Roche Ireland Ltd for non-hazardous landfill. - The planning Authority, Clare County Council continued to grant planning permission in a Seveso zone known to contain hazardous waste. - The Planning Authority, Clare County Council continued to zone land for planning permission in a Seveso zone known to contain hazardous waste. - The EPA failed to disclose to those members of the public who attended the Agency's oral hearing into the application by Roche Ireland Ltd for an incinerator, that the Roche Ireland Ltd landfill was a hazardous waste landfill. - Clare County Council failed to disclose to those members of the public who attended the Agency's oral hearing into the application by Roche Ireland Ltd for an incinerator, that the Roche Ireland Ltd landfill was a hazardous waste landfill. On the basis of the above, the Commission asked the Irish authorities to reply to several questions in order to clarify the situation. The Irish authorities EPA informed the Commission that the landfills at the Hoffman Laroche facility (including the "H2" area and cells 1-7) were at that time (February 2012) no longer in use and that all areas concerned had been capped and remediated to the satisfaction of the EPA, following appropriate environmental risk assessments in accordance with licence requirements. Therefore, the EPA proposed to not address the matter further until a final decision on the review of the licence would be taken. On 20 December 2013 the EPA completed its review and issued a new licence. The Commission received a formal update from the Irish authorities with respect to this licence on 12 February The Irish authorities explained that the licence was amended on 23 December 2013 to comply with the requirements of the EPA Act (Section 82) in relation to the transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU). They informed the Commission that the licence review process had confirmed that, as a result of remediation measures such as the capping of the landfill and area H2, contaminant migration and dissolution had been curtailed and the underlying groundwater body is now predicted to return to good status by According to the authorities, the review also confirmed that the existing plume associated with the landfill and area H2 was not expanding and did not present a risk to human health and the environment. PE v /5 CM\ doc

3 The Commission understands that the revised licence requires the continuation of these remedial measures, in particular, Condition 3.16 of the licence specifies aftercare requirements for the landfill and area H2 including the continued management of leachate. This licence review was to bring the licence into compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations S.I. No. 272 of 2009 and the Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations S.I. No. 9 of To ensure compliance with these Regulations, the EPA specified, as a condition of the licence, a remediation target and controls (Condition 6.15). If the groundwater body does not return to good status, the licensee is required to implement remedial measures. The licence requires on-going groundwater monitoring and trend analysis of results. The Irish authorities assured the Commission that they had considered all submissions made in the context of the review and objections including all reports submitted as part of the review process and that this is demonstrated in the licence, inspectors' report and technical committee report. This also includes the documentation submitted by and in relation to RPS, a consultancy engaged by Roche. In line with licensing regulations, a copy of the EPA s decision was also forwarded to any person who made a submission or objection. In addition to this, the Irish authorities informed the Commission that all national and European legislation including the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC were taken into account and the licence was updated accordingly. The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is the Irish Competent Authority for the Seveso Directive and they were notified of the review on 9 February 2011 and of the proposed determination on 13 May 2013 indicating that it was open for comments or objections respectively. No comments/objections were received from the HSA. The Irish authorities also responded to some specific follow up raised by points the Commission in the context of the EU pilot file. Firstly, the petitioner argued that EU Seveso implications for H2 has been disregarded by the Agency as has the written direction of Hoffmann La Roche own consultants URS to its client Roche and the Agency that H2 must be excavated as Capping and Monitored Natural Attenuation will not prevent the "unforeseen future incident". Ireland responded that, while the EPA is not the competent authority for the Seveso Directive, it is important to note that the Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) considered the URS report (2005) prior to its agreement to the capping of the H2 area in They stated that this review examined further the impact of the capping and demonstrated that the plume in the groundwater is not expanding and does not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. Moreover, the authorities informed the Commission that the recommended determination requires the licensee to restore groundwater to good status, groundwater monitoring and trend assessment and remedial measures as necessary. They also stated that the recent review confirmed that the capping of the H2 area has led to a reduction in the size of the plume associated with the H2 area and it has been predicted that the groundwater underlying the site will return to good status by Second, the petitioner stated that Contrary to the Agency view that H2 was in the public domain, the existence of the hazardous waste unlined pit was not made available to the public at the oral hearing into this applicant holding a licence. Had it been declared by Hoffmann CM\ doc 3/5 PE v01-00

4 La Roche or the Agency as it should have been, it would in my view have held the dominant objection to the applicant building an incinerator close by as evidenced by the photographs taken by URS of hazardous waste drums just beneath the surface of H2 and URS personnel having to don breathing apparatus and subsequently leave the area as the toxic readings increased. Members of the community were informed by Hoffmann La Roche that "no hazardous waste is landfilled in Clarecastle". This has proven not to be the case. Ireland responded to this claim as follows: as set out in the inspectors report, the URS and RPS reports quoted in the complainant s submissions were previously submitted to the OEE and were considered in the evaluation of remediation options for the H2 area. Documentation submitted by the licensee with a licence application in 1994 includes references to the H2 area. These documents have been in the public domain and available for public inspection since that time. The Irish authorities informed the Commission that reports such as the URS and RPS are available to the public for inspection and all information submitted to the Agency as part of the initial licensing process and the four subsequent reviews is also available for viewing either on-line or in the Agency public offices or on the Licensee site. The initial licence (P issued in October 1995) in Condition required detailed investigation of groundwater and the identification of sources of contamination, the licence was reviewed and the next licence (P issued in December 1996) included more detailed site investigations. These reports and subsequent reports were assessed by the Agency in the process of agreeing the best remediation options for the site. Thirdly, the petitioner argued that the consultant company, RPS, acting for Hoffmann La Roche, is failing to provide all the relevant information to the EPA within the context of the licence review for the facility. He has provided the information to the inspector himself, but is concerned that it will not be taken into account. Have the Irish authorities considered the possibility that RPS may have a conflict of interest in this matter? Is the EPA confident that it is in possession of all the necessary information in order to take a decision?" According to the Irish authorities, the documentation submitted by and in relation to RPS consultants is available on the EPA s website. They also state that all submissions received from the petitioner were taken into account by the Agency in the review process as required under the relevant legislation. The EPA was satisfied that all necessary information was available for the purpose of the review process. In relation to the issue of potential conflict of interest, the authorities informed the Commission that there are several reports and sets of monitoring data available from independent environmental consultants. In that context, RPS was not the only source of information examined by the Agency in the licence review process. Furthermore, according to the Irish authorities, the Agency has no reason to believe that there is a conflict of interest for RPS in this matter. After the explanations given by the Irish authorities, the petitioner did not provide the Commission with any new information. He repeated his request that the waste in question must be excavated, referring in particular to a report by URS from some years ago. In April 2014 he asked the Commission to re-examine several photos taken on the site. The Commission raised this case with Irish authorities once more at a meeting in Dublin on 13 May 2014 and shared the photos with them. However, these photos did not lead the Irish authorities to bring into question their assessment. The Commission also examined the photographs carefully, and failed to see how they could constitute evidence of an infringement of EU environmental law. PE v /5 CM\ doc

5 The petitioner did not provide the Commission with any further evidence that refutes the Irish authorities' conclusion that the remediation measures had been taken to cap the landfill and area H2. In addition, he did not provide the Commission with any basis to question the conclusion that the information necessary to the Irish authorities to carry out a full assessment of the licence review was available to them, including the information related to previous licence applications and decisions of the OEE in relation to area H2 of the site. In particular, the Irish authorities informed us that their conclusion in terms of the appropriateness of the necessary remediation measures was based on a number of reports and sets of monitoring data available from independent environmental consultants. Furthermore, the petitioner did not provide us with any basis to challenge the Irish authorities' assertion that the relevant information was in the public domain. On the basis of the above, the Commission closed the EU pilot file on this issue on 6 August The petitioner lodged this Petition on the same issue on 16 June 2014 but he did not raise any new issues in the Petition. Therefore, the analysis above remains valid. Conclusions The petitioner has asked the Petitions Committee to examine his case. However, he has not provided any additional information that could lead the Commission to question the conclusions reached within the framework of the EU pilot file. The Commission would like to reiterate its position that it has no reason to doubt the Irish authorities' conclusions, that the relevant legislative framework, including the Seveso Directive requirements, was properly applied in this case. In light of the above, the Commission does not see any reason to investigate this case further. CM\ doc 5/5 PE v01-00

Committee on Petitions NOTICE TO MEMBERS

Committee on Petitions NOTICE TO MEMBERS EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2009-2014 Committee on Petitions 29.11.2013 NOTICE TO MEMBERS Subject: Petition 0298/2012 by Arivem (French Association), on the construction of a gas production plant at Romainville