Right to Know has won a case over access to a dataset from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the location of waste crime sites across Ireland.
Under the AIE Regulations, our co-director Ashley Glover had sought a copy of the information which had been compiled by the Office of Environmental Enforcement of the EPA.
The EPA refused saying the information was incomplete, might disclose personal information, and that release was not in the public interest.
We argued that publication of this information should happen by default and that the location of environmental hazards was core to the Aarhus Convention.
In a submission, we added that such waste sites can contaminate household wells and pollute waterways and that adjoining properties had a right to know about such sites.
The EPA argued that the intent of the dataset was “not to categorically document” the extent of illegal dumps or waste sites around the country.
They claimed it had been gathered from local authorities to try and identify trends and that the information “was not validated.”
The EPA said it could involve disclosure of personal information in a scenario where the data is “incomplete, not validated, is inaccurate and cannot be stood over.”
They later argued that release of the information would “be irresponsible and would be misleading to the public.”
In a decision, the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI) said it was clear the data was ‘complete’ in the sense that the EPA had no further plans to change it or use it.
They could not argue it was unfinished even though the agency had indicated their wish was to delete it in the future.
On whether it was personal information, the CEI pointed out that some of the withheld data related to public amenity and commercial sites.
The decision acknowledged however that some of the data related to “personal information” such that it could be used to identity an individual.
The CEI Ger Deering wrote however: “I consider that the public interest in disclosure of information concerning the location of ‘unauthorised waste disposal activity’, or even ‘alleged’ activity, outweighs the interest in preserving the privacy of relevant data subjects.”
You can read the full decision at the following link.
The EPA still has until mid-February to consider whether to appeal the decision to the High Court.