(29) Environmental Law

Environmental Law: New York State significantly revises Part 360 Solid Waste Management Regulations

The environmental law comes into force in Ukraine

Australia's birds are not being protected by environmental laws, the report says

Punishing Polluters: A Crash Course on Canadian Environmental Law and How it Affects You



 Air pollution

  1. Relevant definitions

The definition of air pollution is found at s 4 of the Air Pollution Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), which states as follows:

‘Air pollution’ in this Act means a condition of the atmosphere in which a pollutant is present in such a quantity as to be liable to:

(i) Be injurious to public health; or

(ii) Have a deleterious effect on flora or fauna or damage property; or

(iii) Impair or interfere with amenities or with the environment.

The definition of air pollution in the 1987 Act was imported into the definition of ‘environmental pollution’ by virtue of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, s 4(2)(a). In addition, environmental pollution is also defined in s 4(2)(d) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to mean: Noise which is a nuisance or would endanger human health or damage property or harm the environment.

  1. Statutory noise nuisance

For the first time under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (the EPA Act) a statutory remedy was created which is set out at s 108 of the EPA Act, which is misleadingly entitled in the margin as ‘Noise as a Nuisance’. This is not a nuisance in the sense of the common law tort of nuisance but rather represents a new statutory nuisance provision.

Section 108 provides as follows:

108(1). Where any noise which is so loud, so continuous, so repeated, of such duration or pitch or occurring at such times as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to a person in any premises in the neighbourhood or to a person lawfully using any public place, a local authority, the Agency or any such person may complain to the District Court and the court may order the person or body making, causing or responsible for the noise to take the measures necessary to reduce the noise to a specified level or to take specified measures for the prevention or limitation of the noise and the person or body concerned shall comply with such order.

This provision also provides for a statutory defence as follows:

108(2). It shall be a good defence, in the case of proceedings under subsection (1) or in a prosecution for a contravention of this section, in the case of noise caused in the course of a trade or business, for the accused to prove that - (a) he took all reasonable care to prevent or limit the noise to which the complaint relates by providing, maintaining, using, operating and supervising facilities, or by employing practices or methods of operation, that, having regard to all the circumstances, were suitable for the purposes of such prevention or limitation; or

(b) The noise is in accordance with

(i) The terms of a licence under this Act, or

(ii) Regulations under s 106.

The section also provides for exceptions so that it shall not apply to noise caused by aircraft or statutory undertakers or local authorities in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by or under any enactment (s 108(4)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992).

  1.  The general obligation not to cause harmful emissions

The Air Pollution Act 1987 imposes a statutory prohibition on creating environmental pollution as follows:

(a) The occupier of any premises other than a private dwelling shall use the best practicable means to limit and, if possible, to prevent an emission from such premises (s 24(1) of the Air Pollution Act 1987).

(b) The occupier of any premises shall not cause or permit an emission from such premises in such a quantity or in such a manner, as to be a nuisance (s 24(2) of the Air Pollution Act 1987).

(c) Under both the 1987 Act and the EPA Act there are specific provisions which make it an offence to contravene any provision of either Act or any regulations made under them or of any notice served under the Act.

  1. Statutory penalty

Specifically, in relation to air pollution, the statutory penalty is set out in s 11(1)–(3) inclusive of the Air Pollution Act 1987:

(1) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation made under this Act or of any notice served under this Act shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate or by a person acting on behalf of a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent, connivance or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other official of such body, such person shall also be guilty of an offence.

(3) In this section, a reference to the contravention of the provision includes, where appropriate, a reference to a refusal, or a failure, to comply with that provision.

  1.  Air pollution case law

The best known and most detailed air emissions case in Ireland is that of Hanrahan v Merck, Sharp & Dohme Ltd [1988] ILRM 629, which was a case decided ultimately in favour of the plaintiffs, not on the grounds of negligence, which was not proven, but on the grounds of (malodorous) nuisance, which is a strict liability tort. In that particular case, the Hanrahan family claimed not only in respect of property damage but also damage to their cattle and to themselves individually in terms of personal injuries. The evidence was painstakingly gone through by each court, including the Supreme Court, which ultimately remitted the case to the High Court. It did so on the basis that, although negligence had not been proven, no amount of scientific or theoretical evidence, no matter how expert and learned the witnesses, could displace the empirical evidence on oath of the numerous witnesses who gave evidence on oath of their physical discomfort and medical conditions arising at times when sharp, chemical-type smells were noted in the air in the vicinity of the defendants’ factory.

On the facts, causation was found and therefore, nuisance being a strict liability tort, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favour - at least in part - of the plaintiffs.


  1.  Noise as a pollutant

The definition of noise as a nuisance in the EPA Act is the most practical guide available to the ordinary person on the type of noise which one can successfully prosecute. However, it should be noted that compensation does not arise as a remedy under this statutory provision. In addition there are other specific reference and guidance documents on what is or is not acceptable noise and, in particular, the EPA has issued Guidance Notes for Noise in relation to its IPPC licensed activities as well as Environmental Noise Survey Guidance documents, created to assist IPPC licensed facilities in complying with the atmospheric emissions and noise conditions of their licences. Typically, noise sensitive locations are agreed/stipulated by the EPA. These locations become the monitoring points for compliance by the IPPC licence holder with its noise emissions conditions. As with other emission monitoring data, the information gathered is publicly available both at the EPA’s offices and at the IPPC licensed site premises.

In the Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document most recently issued by the EPA (ISBN 1-84095-113-3) the definition of noise is: Any sound that has the potential to cause disturbance, discomfort or psychological stress to a subject exposed to it, or any sound that could cause actual physiological harm to a subject exposed to it, or physical damage to any structure exposed to it, is known as noise.

For all IPPC licence holders, noise sensitive locations are defined as: Any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building, educational establishment, place of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or another area of high amenity which affords proper enjoyment requires the absence of noise at nuisance levels.

  1.  How noisy can it get?

The EPA accepts that in a modern world, noise is almost ubiquitous. Most normal everyday activities lead to the production of noise. Noise from traffic, lawnmowers, household appliances, concerts, industrial activities and so on, are considered commonplace, particularly in the urban setting. In most cases, the majority of people scarcely notice these noises and if they do, they are not bothered by them, but in some cases, people can perceive the same noise as a nuisance. Such people may have more sensitive ears than others or maybe less reasonable than others. Some may be annoyed by noise because they have a personal particular need to sleep at a particular time or relax in a quiet atmosphere. In some cases, noise may present such a nuisance as to cause harmful effect on the health of those exposed to it. It inevitably depends on all the circumstances whether noise is a nuisance, and both subjective and objective criteria must be used when considering this question.

  1.  Noise measuring

In the Guidance Notes the EPA explains that, in order to assess whether intervention is needed to prevent, control or minimise noise, it is necessary to be able to quantify it and ascribe a scale of measurement to it. This is not as simple or straightforward a science as one might think. Noise is usually measured on the decibel scale, which is a logarithmic scale of sound intensity. For human noise response, the decibel scale is adjusted slightly to compensate for slight aberrations in the way the human ear ‘hears’ sound along the scale. This adjusted scale is known as the A-weighted decibel scale, and the units of the scale are dBa. As a general rule, the sensitivity to noise is usually greater at nighttime than it is during the day and this has been worked out as by about ten decibels A weighted dBa. Audible tones and impulsive tones at sensitive locations should be avoided irrespective of the noise level. In addition, it should be noted that noise includes vibration, under s 3 of the EPA Act.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com