Procter & Gamble disputes charges of polluting Nenagh public water supply

The US-owned multinational Procter & Gamble yesterday disputed findings in an Environmental Protection Agency investigation into the causes of pollution of the public water supply in Nenagh, Co Tipperary, in August 1996. The company, which has a cosmetics and skin-care products manufacturing plant in the town, was before Nenagh District Court being prosecuted by the EPA on three counts of causing or permitting polluting matter to enter waters contrary to Section 2 (1) of the Local Government Water Pollution Act 1977 at Gortlandroe Industrial Estate.

Procter & Gamble (Manufacturing) Ireland Ltd contested the alleged offences, which relate to on or about August 3rd, 17th and 18th, 1996, and concern a well used for public water supply on the company's property.

Mr Martin Hayden BL, for the EPA, told Judge John O'Neill the agency was not contending that Procter & Gamble was responsible "for the entirety of the contamination of the well". While there were other contaminants not caused by the company, Procter & Gamble products - siloxene and nonylphenols - were alleged by the EPA to have caused the pollution, he said.

The court heard that the well, owned by Nenagh UDC, had been so contaminated it necessitated a drinking water ban and the use of water tankers to maintain supply for a large section of the town. Many households had no water for toilet use. The EPA case followed the discovery of a leaky flange at the plant, he said.

Liquid from this source was alleged to have found its way into the well. "Tracer tests" carried out for the EPA had established a link between where the leak was occurring and the well by examining the flow of liquid from one point to the other, Mr Hayden said.

A sanitary services engineer with North Tipperary Co Council, Mr Joseph Tierney, gave evidence of issuing a recommendation that the consumption of water from the well be banned after examining it on August 16th, 1996.

This had been implemented by the local authority with a plan to provide alternative water supply. "My prime concern was the health and safety of consumers," he said.

He had arranged for the well to be pumped out after the town clerk said he had received complaints about the water. Difficulties for the town, he added, were compounded by a festival that weekend when an extra 6,000 people were expected.

An EPA official had suggested that a sewer near the well be temporarily by-passed in an effort to establish the cause of pollution. When this was done, there was some improvement in water quality. The well was pumped out and sterilised on August 18th but when allowed to fill up with water again, it was cloudy and had a strong odour.

He was called back to the plant late that day when a sanitary services overseer rang to say he believed he had found the source of pollution. At a manhole-type "inspection chamber" for liquid discharges at the plant, there was an accumulation of "pinkish" liquid and indication that it had climbed up the walls of the chamber.

A joint in the piping system was loose while rubber gaskets around it were in bad condition, he said. He understood the fluid was coming from the cosmetic section of the factory. Mr Tierney admitted to Mr Michael McGrath BL, for Procter and & Gamble, that there was mention during August of the well being contaminated by E coli bacteria, but he said there was a question mark over a utensil used to take a water sample for testing. He accepted that E coli indicated the presence of sewage effluent.

Mr McGrath said the E coli is sue was essential to Procter & Gamble's defence. It was the company's view that the sewer "lacked integrity" and was leaking. In such circumstance, it was not the company's fault. He also objected to suggestions it owned a foul sewer and storm-water drain in the area. It would claim that these were not its responsibility to maintain.

A sanitary services maintenance overseer, Mr Colm Grace, of North Tipperary County Council, said that on August 3rd, 1996, he found the well to be discoloured and in his view polluted. It was pumped out and by next day had returned to "fairly normal".

On August 17th, he went to the Procter & Gamble plant. The water in the well was cloudy again. When a sewer was cut off its quality seemed to improve. However, after the well was sterilised next day and water allowed back into it, contamination was again evident, he said.

He examined veins in the well through which the water came. He found the "tangy" taste was not closest to the blocked-off sewer. Manholes over surface water drains near the plant were examined. At one near a loading bay, coloured pigment was found.

Water was added to see where it might be leading to. Liquid arose in another manhole. A pipe inspection chamber was found to be full of liquid. A factory employee tried to tighten bolts across a flange but rubber gaskets in the joint were found to be damaged. He was present, he said, when a Procter & Gamble employee had stated that the chamber was most recently inspected "last June".

The hearing was adjourned until October 3rd.