Decision
Right To Know CLG and Environmental Protection Agency
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-133406-B1G8G0
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-133406-B1G8G0
Published on
Whether the EPA provided the appellant with all information relevant to his request
26 April 2024
1. On 25 October 2022, the appellant contacted EPA with the following AIE request:
“Under the AIE Regs to request all records in the EPA LEAP and EDEN systems for the company known as Western Brand, Knock Road Ballyhaunis, Co. Mayo
For the purposes of this request please consider 1/1/22 to the date of the AIE decision
Please note: the reason for this AIE is to compare published data on EPA public website, with EDEN and LEAP records, so please consider the data parameters of 1/1/22 to decision date”.
2. The EPA’s Licence Enforcement Access Portal is known as the LEAP system. The EDEN system (Environmental Data Exchange Network) is described by the EPA as a “an online gateway to Environmental and Radiological Protection Licensing, Monitoring, GIS and Reporting applications for organisations to communicate with the EPA and share data with each other.” The EPA also have internal system called LEMA (Licence Enforcement and Monitoring Application) which will be referred to in this decision.
3. On 23 November 2022, EPA issued its original decision. It outlined that all EDEN Licensing Enforcement records in relation to Western Brand for the period requested by the appellant are available to the public for viewing via the EPA’s LEAP (Licence Enforcement Access Portal) system. EPA informed the appellant that the LEAP system was available for viewing at its offices in Wexford, Dublin and Cork and that he could view this information by contacting the preferred office in advance to arrange access for a visit. EPA also noted that to ensure availability of files at the time of his visit that he should make a prior appointment with the relevant regional office. EPA further noted that it assumed the appellant was interested in licence enforcement information and directed him to the relevant Licence Search pages section of EPA’s website.
4. The appellant sought an internal review of the EPA’s decision on the same day. He noted that he was requesting the records via AIE and not via an in-person trip to an EPA office. He also added that a previous visit to the EPA office to view LEAP showed that the records are not readily accessible for download in electronic format.
5. On 20 December 2022, EPA issued its internal review decision. EPA advised that after reviewing the appellant’s appeal, EPA’s IT Department had confirmed that the current LEAP technology did not allow for files to be downloaded and provided in electronic format. In addition, EPA made reference to article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations and outlined EPA’s position that the information requested is available to the public in another manner that is easily accessible and that it is reasonable to provide the information to the appellant in that manner. EPA also advised that should the appellant wish to visit EPA offices to inspect the relevant files for Western Brand on the LEAP system, that he would be given every assistance on the day with accessing and navigating the system. Additionally, EPA noted that printing facilities are provided (linked to the LEAP system) to make copies of any records he may wish to take with him. Further, EPA noted that it is not unusual for public sector bodies to have a similar in-situ public access service, whereby members of the public would be required to visit the offices of the public body in question to inspect records in situ.
6. The appellant submitted an appeal to this Office on 20 December 2022.
7. I am directed by the Commissioner for Environmental Information to undertake a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to the correspondence between the EPA and the appellant as outlined above and to correspondence between my Office and both the EPA and the appellant on the matter. In addition, I have had regard to:
• the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
• the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
• The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (the Aarhus Guide)
8. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
9. It is outside the remit of this Office to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally, including with respect to their environmental information management practices. This Office has no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain and disseminate environmental information. The role of this Office concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of a request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority and no more than that.
10. Within his appeal to this Office, the appellant made reference to the EPA’s refusal on the basis that records are available on public terminals at EPA office, and also noted the following:
“I can present evidence to demonstrate that records are not all on LEAP, eg inspector’s notes, records of phone calls etc and those that are on LEAP cannot be downloaded, and the print function is locked in such a way as to prevent email. User can only print in a blurry format that prevents OCR / electronic capture”
11. It is my view that this information outlined by the appellant in his appeal does not come within the scope of this appeal. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. It will be open to the appellant to make a fresh request concerning the additional information he thinks should be available.
12. In addition, while I acknowledge that in his internal review request the appellant noted that he was requesting the records via AIE and not via an in-person trip to an EPA office, it could be argued that the appellant differentiated requesting records via AIE with being offered the requested records at an EPA office. Furthermore, although it appears from the appellant’s internal review request that he was not satisfied with access via the LEAP in situ system, it is my position, that had he been seeking access to all records in the LEAP and EDEN systems for Western Brand in a particular form or manner, this should have been specified in his original request.
13. In circumstances where I consider that the appellant omitted to specify in his original request any alternative form or manner by which he was seeking the information requested and the EPA granted access to that information (i.e. all records in the LEAP and EDEN systems for Western Brand for the timeframe concerned) via the LEAP (in situ) system, it is my view that the EPA made the information sought available in accordance with article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations and there is no requirement to consider article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations.
14. It will be set out further below that the EPA’s position is that the EPA have provided the appellant with all information held by EPA on the LEAP system, and that no information is held by EPA in the EDEN system. Accordingly, with regard to the EPA’s position that it cannot provide access to information on the EDEN system on the basis that the information does not exist, in other words, that it is not held by or for it, it is my view that the scope of this review solely concerns whether the appellant has been provided with access to all information relevant to his request in accordance with the AIE Regulations.
15. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to the AIE Regulations, make available any environmental information, the subject of the request, held by, or for, the public authority.
16. During the course of this investigation, EPA provided submissions which confirmed that the LEAP Online facility had launched. As such, the LEAP in situ system, whereby information was made available in terminals in the EPA offices, no longer exists. EPA confirmed within its submissions to this Office that all records covered by the appellant’s request i.e. for Western Brand from 1st January 2022 to the date of receipt of the appellant’s original request i.e. 24th October 2022, are available to view on LEAP Online with the exception of one record. This record is on the EPA’s LEMA system but not on LEAP Online.
17. Regarding this additional record identified by the EPA relating to Western Brand that is available on LEMA and not LEAP Online, I find that the LEMA record does not fall within the scope of this request, which was specifically for “all records in the EPA LEAP and EDEN systems for Western Brand”. The Investigator informed the appellant that it would be open to him to make a separate request to the EPA for this additional record, should he wish to do so. This would give the appellant an opportunity for a full decision making process on that record, including addressing any issues with exemptions relied on by EPA for that record.
18. Accordingly, it is my understanding that all of the information coming within the scope of the appellant’s original request that was on the LEAP (in situ) system is now available on the LEAP Online system.
19. The appellant had some comments regarding the timing of when information is made available on LEAP Online. As set out above, this request concerns the timeframe 1 January 2022 to 24 October 2022 and I am of the view that there is no reason to doubt that the information that was available on LEAP (in situ) is now available on LEAP Online.
20. As the appellant’s request in this case was for “all records in the EPA LEAP and EDEN systems for the company known as Western Brand, Knock Road Ballyhaunis, Co. Mayo”, the remaining issue concerns any records held in the EDEN system by the EPA for the company Western Brand.
21. The EPA’s position is that no information is held within the EDEN system. This Office liaised with the EPA concerning queries the appellant had regarding this system, and they provided substantive submissions in response. Included within their additional submissions was the following:
(i) EPA submitted that EDEN is an EPA IT Gateway (Portal) through which EPA Licensees (and Local Authorities) can submit information to the EPA. Therefore, EPA noted that the EDEN system is used by EPA Licensees i.e. for EPA licensed sites. EPA explained that Licensees sign in and upload information onto the EDEN Gateway which transfers from the Gateway to the EPA’s LEMA (Licence Enforcement Management Application - repository) IT system from which information is published to LEAP Online.
(ii) EPA noted that https://www.edenireland.ie/ states that “EDEN provides an online gateway to Environmental and Radiological Protection Licensing, Monitoring, GIS and Reporting applications for organisations to communicate with the EPA and share data with each other.”
(iii) EPA noted that EDEN links the reporting applications at the two ends of the pathway for data exchange. For example, the “Authorisation Module”, which licensed (and applicant) operators use to manage their environmental regulatory information, links via EDEN to the EPA’s LEMA database. Other modules are used for other types of reporting and exchange functions (national environmental monitoring programmes and so on).
(iv) EPA also outlined that EDEN does not store any of this information – that is not its purpose; the data is managed by the organisations, whether other public bodies, licensed or unlicensed operators, and the various sections of EPA with whom each individual organisation communicates with. Some organisations may access multiple EDEN ‘modules’ to fulfil their various application and reporting obligations.
(v) EPA submitted that EPA Licensees and Local Authorities have full access to EDEN and a small number of EPA Staff have limited access.
(vi) EPA referenced that EDEN is a Gateway through which information is sent or received i.e two-way traffic. It submitted that the licensee uses the EDEN Gateway to send and receive information which then transfers to the EPA’s LEMA IT system. EPA noted that all information sits within LEMA – not EDEN.
(vii) EPA explained that EDEN is used by licensed operators to exchange regulatory data with the EPA, but it does not store or provide for any management, redaction or other processing; these data are stored, managed and processed in the LEMA database. EDEN is not exclusively for regulatory correspondence: it is also used to exchange other types of environmental data, such as water quality sampling results from local authority monitoring programmes.
(viii) EPA also confirmed that it does not redact records between EDEN and LEMA.
(ix) Further, EPA noted that the transmission of data via EDEN is effectively instantaneous, limited only by bandwidth.
22. The appellant was provided with a summary of the submissions made by EPA regarding the EDEN system. The appellant asked if this Office could seek further information, such as screenshots, from the EPA on the EDEN system to show what happens to records once uploaded into EDEN to confirm that nothing remains held within it once the transfer of information is complete.
23. Having considered the submissions made by both parties, I do not consider it necessary or reasonable to seek any further information, including screenshots from the EPA. I am satisfied from the explanation provided by EPA that no records relevant to the appellant’s request are held within the EDEN system. I am satisfied that the purpose of the EDEN system is to send and receive information which subsequently transfers to EPA’s LEMA system. The appellant has suggested that the EPA are “redacting” a category of documents between EDEN and LEAP. However, the EPA have indeed confirmed that there is one record relating to Western Brand that is not available on LEAP and is retained on the EDEN system. Accordingly, I accept the EPA’s statement that all additional information sits within LEMA not the EDEN system. As such, from my investigation I am satisfied that there is no information relating to Western Brand on the EDEN system as no information is held within it. Further, in relation to access to records in the LEAP system for Western Brand, I am satisfied with EPA’s position that all records covered by the appellant’s request are available via LEAP online (LEAP (in situ) no longer exists).
24. It is of course open to the appellant to make a new AIE request seeking access to information that may be contained in the LEMA system.
Conclusion
25. In this case, the appellant sought access to all records in the EPA LEAP and EDEN systems for Western Brand. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to the AIE Regulations, make available any environmental information, the subject of the request, held by, or for, the public authority.
26. Taking all of the above into account, it is my view that the EPA made the information sought available to the appellant in accordance with the AIE Regulations, and that the EPA’s decision in granting access to the information sought should be affirmed. All relevant information on the LEAP system is available online, and I am satisfied that no further information is held on the EDEN system.
27. To conclude, I wish to acknowledge the steps the EPA is taking to disseminate environmental information by way of online access. As noted above, the final phase of LEAP online has launched. Guidance on how to use the system and also what information is available on LEAP is available via the EPA website.
28. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the decision of the EPA.
29. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Julie O’Leary
on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information