As the director general said, we are trying to steer a course between what we can say and what we will rely on in terms of making a direction in the future. To reiterate, the EPA is trying to secure the remediation of this site in the shortest possible timeframe. That is the principle behind all the work we are trying to do. The case goes back to 2003 when we licensed the company in question to dig up 300,000 tonnes of waste, which was previously deposited before the EPA licensed the site, on an annual basis over an eight-year period. That was the basis on which the EPA issued a licence in respect of the facility.
When it became apparent that this was not being done, the EPA sought and received High Court injunctions against Neiphin Trading Limited and all associated companies to prevent further waste from coming on to the site, to require it to install landfill gas and leachate infrastructure and to remove all previously deposited waste. The High Court confirmed these orders in October 2010 and granted a further mandatory order against Neiphin Trading Limited to clean up the site. These orders were necessary to protect the taxpayer as much as possible from paying for the clean-up of the site contamination for which Neiphin Trading Limited bore responsibility. That company is now in liquidation, Dean Waste Company Limited is in receivership and Jensoph Limited, the owner of the site, is not actively trading and has no assets. The agency is seeking fall-back orders against the directors of these three companies, requiring them to comply with the court order. If they fail to do so, the agency will seek orders against the directors personally.
As required by European law, the EPA collected all available evidence and submitted a file to the DPP in November 2009. We are awaiting direction on whether a prosecution on indictment should be taken in this case. In parallel with all these legal actions - and I do not want to give the impression that those are the only action the EPA is taking - we have commissioned a report on the remediation options for the site, along with the associated costs. This information formed the basis for the options and costs analysis presented to the High Court on the basis of which the court could then make the orders it made in October 2010 and use them subsequently in any potential orders against directors of those companies.
The EPA is mindful that the taxpayer should be protected and that any move by the State to fund a clean-up should not set a precedent for any other contaminated site operators. The agency has, by going to the High Court, confirmed orders against Neiphin Trading Limited for payment for the clean-up. Where there is a failure by the company to carry out the work ordered by the High Court, the EPA is empowered to do the work and to recover the costs from the company. However, Neiphin Trading Limited is in liquidation and has no assets, and the recovery of the costs is problematic in view of that insolvency. The EPA does not have funds to remediate the site. This is a complex issue and the EPA is in discussion with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on funding and remediation options. The aim of all concerned is to clean up the site as quickly as possible, and the EPA sees itself as having an integral role in this regard. When we have concluded those discussions, which bring together all the complexity we are trying to deal with in terms of precedence, DPP direction and High Court orders, we will then be in a position to lay out a plan of funding and remediation for the site.
With regard to the environmental issues in respect of this site, the report, of which the residents have a copy, indicates that leachate is not a short-term issue. There is contamination of ground water under the site, but it pretty much remains within the boundaries of the site. Recent sampling indicates there has been no movement of leachate, but we anticipate that if the remediation of the site does not occur, it will have an effect into the future. We have no idea when that will happen but given that it has not moved in six months we do not expect a short to medium-term reaction.
There is significant odour associated with the site as evidenced by the hundreds of complaints received by our staff from residents. The residents are being impacted significantly in this regard. In terms of the air pollution associated with the site, we are taking air monitoring samples. All of the monitoring parameters are below the lower thresholds that would cause a health impact. That is not to say that people are not being impacted in terms of anxiety, frustration and nuisance; we fully accept that.
In terms of the reports that we are censoring, we have endeavoured to share, and have shared, all of our environmental data with anybody who has asked for it. What we have kept back is the remediation options and costs. We are trying to steer a course between our engagement with the High Court, what the DPP will direct and the options in regard to stating a precedent for any future contamination of land. We are keeping those options open until we can form a final conclusion on how the funding and remediation of the site should proceed.
In terms of our powers to act now, I have already indicated that while the EPA has the power to enter this site and to do the work, it also has the power to recover costs from Neiphin Trading Limited. However, Neiphin Trading Limited is bankrupt and the EPA does not have funds in its allocation to deal with the remediation of the site. As such, there is an important issue for the Department and for the State as to the position regarding private entities which create a liability for the public and which have an expectation of the taxpayer funding the necessary clean-up.