In December 2016, the district prosecutor in Głogów filed an indictment with the District Court in Lubin against two people: Mirosław D., president of R-Power Polska, and Robert S., the company’s managing director. Investigators accuse both men of storing hazardous waste in unsuitable conditions in Kłopotów from January 2015 to January 2016—in breach of the Act of 14 December 2012 on waste, the decisions of the Lubin starosta granting permits for the recovery, collection and transport of waste and issuing a water-law permit, the decision of the head of Lubin Municipality on environmental conditions with an environmental impact assessment, and fire-safety regulations. The waste was stored non-selectively and without an appropriately designated fire route, which led to a deterioration in soil quality and posed a threat to human health.

Recently, fires broke out at this landfill, during which the waste stored there burned.

Investigators established that waste management in Kłopotów was carried out in violation of the Act on waste. Significant quantities of waste, including hazardous waste, were stored there on either unpaved ground or ground that was paved but impervious and without drainage. Moreover, significant quantities of combustible waste were stored without ensuring fire safety.

The people responsible for this state of affairs were the managers of R-Power Polska in Kłopotów—D. and S.

Analysis of secured soil samples showed significant exceedances of the permissible levels of lead, zinc and copper. As a result of the identified violations, the quality of the soil, and subsequently of groundwater and surface water, may have been significantly reduced.

Questioned as a suspect, Mirosław D. did not admit to committing the alleged offense and refused to provide explanations. S. also pleaded not guilty but gave explanations. He denied that he had dealt with the affairs of R-Power Polska after July 2015, as well as that waste had been stored in violation of regulations during that period. However, the defendant’s explanations contradict the established facts, which are supported by numerous pieces of evidence.

Both defendants face up to five years in prison. The court may also impose a ban on conducting a specific type of business activity.