The High Court has directed that experts for three defendants may inspect and take samples from an inert landfill in north County Dublin under a revised protocol, provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first approves the works and may impose changes or restrictions.
The ruling by Ms Justice Costello followed a dispute over the scope of an earlier inspection order. In May 2017, Mr Justice McGovern ordered inspection of the first plaintiff’s entire site and directed the parties’ experts to agree a protocol for inspection and sampling. They could not agree. The plaintiffs sought to limit the work to a protocol prepared by their expert, Golder Associates; the defendants sought to use a revised proposal prepared by Marron Environmental on 2 August 2017.
The plaintiffs operate an EPA-licensed inert landfill at Hollywood Great, Nags Head, The Naul, County Dublin. They allege that waste transferred from the first defendant’s Spencer Dock site, directly or through the other defendants, included non-inert and hazardous soil that had been misdescribed as suitable for an inert landfill. About 6,000 tonnes was accepted in February 2017, the plaintiffs plead. After the material was found not to be inert in March, it was quarantined in Cell 4 under EPA instructions. These are allegations in the underlying proceedings; the judgment concerned inspection arrangements, not liability for the waste.
The plaintiffs objected that sampling elsewhere on the site was unnecessary and could damage capped areas or create environmental risks. They said existing monitoring data, collected since 2003, could provide baseline information. The defendants sought sampling of the impugned material and other areas, including soil, surface water, groundwater and leachate.
The revised protocol dropped a proposed 60-point survey and trial pits, replacing them with 22 drill holes no more than 150 millimetres in diameter. The holes were to be backfilled with bentonite. The judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence did not address the revised backfilling proposal and that the court could not resolve the experts’ disagreement about environmental risks on affidavit evidence. She noted that the EPA would assess the proposed works and could require assurances or changes, or refuse some or all of them.
Justice Costello refused the plaintiffs’ request to confine inspection to the Golder protocol and directed that inspection proceed under the Marron proposal, subject to any variations, restrictions or amendments the EPA imposed if it authorised the works. The parties may return to court if difficulties arise from the order or the EPA approval process. The judge made no order varying Mr Justice McGovern’s May order, saying that was unnecessary to decide.