Dear Environmental Protection Authority,

In relation to the Chatham Rock Phosphate application to the Environmental Protection Authority and in relation to the first and second staff reports I request the following information under the Official Information Act.

1. What are the academic qualifications of the authors of the reports, and how relevant are these qualifications to the subject matter of the application.
2. What is the experience of the authors of the reports relevant to the subject matter of the application?
3. Are any of the EPA staff associated with the Chatham Rock application members of, or affiliated with, the Green Party or have they ever been so in the past.
4. Are any of the EPA staff associated with the Chatham Rock application members affiliated with, any environmental association, group, organisation, or entity, or have they ever been so in the past.
5. Did EPA management compare the qualifications and experience of the EPA staff associated with the Chatham Rock application with that of the environmental experts providing evidence at the hearing? If so, what methodology was used and what were the outcomes of such comparisons. If the qualifications were not compared, what reasons were given for the omission.
6. What peer review was carried out on the two reports before submission? Who were the reviewers, what are their relevant academic qualifications and experience, and were they external or internal to the EPA. For each reviewer, what are their affiliations past or present, if any, to environmental organisations, including the Green Party?
7. What risk analysis was conducted prior to these reports being submitted, particularly (but not confined to) in relation to the incomplete status of relevant information at the time.
8. What, if any, legal advice was sought on the two staff reports before or after submission.
9. What is the EPA policy relating to preparation, review and submission of staff reports in relation to an application?
10. What are EPA procedures relating to preparation, review and submission of staff reports in relation to an application? Were these procedures correctly followed? If not please state the procedures which were not correctly followed and what follow up activities in relation to these have been carried out.
11. For each individual environmental uncertainty in the staff reports, was an assessment of the likelihood or probability carried out by EPA staff. If so, please provide a description of the categorisations applied in assessing the relative magnitude of that likelihood, and the results of the assessment.
12. With the benefit of hindsight, has any review of the EPA processes relating to staff reports been undertaken. If not, is such a review planned. In either case will the results of such review be made public?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

A O'Sullivan