OFFICE OF CLIMATE, LICENSING & RESOURCE @E!!!!_W"W USE. Mr*IDMld-OMLaChd

To: DIRECTORS

Environmental Licensing From: Seh 0 Donoghue Programme

Date: 23/03/2009

Application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence from Limerick RE: County Council for the Castletroy Agglomeration, Reg. No. D0019- 01.

Schedule of discharge licensed: Discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10,000. Licence application received: 13/12/2007. Notices under Regulation 18(3)(b) issued 04/04/2008. Information under Regulation 18(3)(b) received: 22/05/2008, 05/06/08, 15/12/08, Submissions received 2 Site visit: 30" October 2008

Agglomeration

This application relates to the Castletroy agglomeration. The agglomeration has a population equivalent of approximately 30,000, set to increase in the short term to 39,000 (comprising both domestic and non-domestic waste water sources, including leachate). This population equivalent is served, in terms of waste water infrastructure, by a mostly separated sewer network, and an activated sludge treatment plant, located at Dromore, on the southern bank of the Shannon. The plant is designed to accommodate a biological loading of 19,500 p.e., however a proposed upgrade to the plant will enable it to deal with current and future (short term) loads. The agglomeration consists of three catchments, Castletroy, Mountshannon, and Castleconnell. Wastewater from the Mountshannon and Castleconnell catchments is pumped by two pumping stations (F'S) to Castletroy WWTP. There are six discharge points from the agglomeration: The primary discharge point (SW-1) is via a diffuser outfall to the River Shannon, and consists of treated effluent from Castletroy WWTP. There are two emergency overflows associated with the Mountshannon and Castleconnell pumping stations (one per pumping station), discharging to the Rivers Mulkear (Mountshannon PS) and Shannon (Castleconnell PS). There are three stormwater overflows in the agglomeration, two of these are located at the WWTP and discharge through the primary discharge point, with a third located at Castleconnell PS. See Figure 1 below. Treatment at Castletroy WWTP consists of screening (5mm) and grit removal, extended aeration, clarification, and sludge removal and thickening. The current waste water treatment plant was approved for construction in 1982, and thus no EIS was required.

Figure 1: Castletroy agglomeration, MP,and discharge points.

Discharges to Waters

Treated eMuent is discharged through SW-1 (the primary discharge, lo) at an average rate of approximately 6,000 m3/day. Monitoring data for SW-1 was submitted to the Agency as part of the application process. This data has been generated as a consequence of the monitoring regimes imposed by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 254 of 2001). Historically, Water Services Authorities have been required to sample and monitor BOD, SS, COD, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen in order to demonstrate compliance with standards stipulated within these regulations.

The Castletroy agglomeration is regarded as being compliant with the requirements of these regulations, based on the most recent data available. Furthermore, the monitoring undertaken for the purposes of the application process did not indicate that elevated levels of any of dangerous substances, as defined in the Dangerous Substances Directive (2006/1 l/EC), were being discharged.

In the case of both pumping stations (SW-2, SW-3) there are standby pumps in place, and there are no records of any emergency overflows in the past 12 months.

There are three stormwater overflows in total at the agglomeration: two (SW-4 and SW-5) are located at the inlet works to the WWTP, and a third (SW-6) is located at Castleconnell PS. SW-5 is a gravity overflow located at the top of the inlet pump sump. The overflow

2 discharges via the diffuser outfall. This pump sump is served by 3 foul and 2 storm pumps, and has a large retention capacity, and there are no records of SW-5 activating. SW-4 is an overflow weir located at the inlet works (post screening and grit removal). SW-4 is designed to activate at 3 DWF. Although SW-5 does not meet DoEH&LG requirements (i.e. the criteria outlined in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government publication “Procedures and Criteria in relation to storm water overflows”, 1995), in practice it rarely, if ever, activates in response to storm events. This may be due to the mostly separated sewer network serving the WWTP. It is therefore unclear whether the upgrading of this overflow to meet DoEH&LG requirements will have any significant environmental benefit. Conditions 4.13 and 5 of the RL require an assessment of options to ensure that these overflows operate effectively.

The applicant has indicated that SW-6 is part of a recently constructed scheme, and is designed fully in accordance with DoEH&LG requirements. There is very large stormwater retention capacity at the pumping station, and the pumping capacity is also adequate to deal with storm events to date, with no records of SW6 activating in the past.

It should also be noted that SW-2 is designed as an emergency overflow, but may activate during extreme storm events. There is a lack of information as to activation frequency, and the applicant intends to install telemetry and an alarm at the station to allow the collation of information on activation frequency. This in turn will allow an assessment of the best option for ensuring that SW2 operates effectively.

Receiving Waters and Impact of the Discharge.

The following table summarises the main considerations in relation to the Shannon River downstream of the primary discharge. Table 1. Receiving waters

Characteristic Classification Comment Receiving water River Shannon Not designated sensitive under name and type UWWT Regs Resource use None

Amenity value Fishing, Rowing University of Limerick Rowing Club Applicable Phosphorus Regulations’ See assimilative capacity issue Regulations below. EPA monitoring 25S01 2500 Castleconnell 10 km Upstream of 1”discharge stations 25S01 2600 Athlunkard 3km Downstream of 1’ discharge Bridge Biological quality 2500 Upstream Q 4 Last rated 2002 rating (Q value) 2600 Downstream Q3-4 Last rated 2002 I Target Q nA WFD risk category. good status. risk. Programme of improvements to

WFD protected areas SPA (004077) I Site is d/s of Limerick City. I

1998. S.1. No 258 of 1998.

3 Monitoring undertaken by the Agency in recent years has indicated that the quality of the receiving water is rated as being Q4 (unpolluted) at Castleconnell: World’s End (Station 2500) approximately lOkm upstream of the discharge point. This rating falls slightly to Q3/4 (slightly polluted) at Athlunkard Bridge (Station 2600), which is located about 3km downstream of the discharge. The River Shannon is not designated as sensitive under the UWWT Regulations (S.I. No. 254 of ZOOl), and the Shannon Estuary downstream is classified as unpolluted in the most recent EPA State of the Environment Report. The applicant conducted an ‘appropriate assessment’ of the impact of the discharge on key species and habitats in the Lower Shannon SAC (Site Code 0002165), and I am satisfied on the basis of the assessment that the discharge will not have an adverse impact in this regard. As stated above, there are no significant levels of dangerous substances detected in the discharge. The Recommended Licence (U)specifies monitoring for relevant metals and organic compounds on an annual basis. The assessment of the impact of the discharge also considered the waste water composition and quantity, receiving water monitoring results, the Water Quality Management Plan for the Lower Shannon Catchment, and assimilative capacity calculations. A proximately 180 dilutions are available on the basis of normal discharge volume (6,000 mY /day) and 95%ile flow in the River. Table 2 below presents the results of assimilative capacity calculations for the primary discharge. Results are presented for both the existing population equivalent of c. 30,000, and the projected maximum of 39,000 p.e. Background concentrations are based on the results of upstream river monitoring conducted for the application. Median river flow has been used for the orthophosphate calculation whereas 95%ile flow was used for all other parameters.

Table 2. Assimilative Capacity figures Water Concentration assimilative assimilative capacity Quality Standards 30,000 p.e.

BOD 2 4.8 % 6.2 % <4 NMe I

3.9 % <1.0 NMr2

I Orthophosphate 0.026 188 % (@ 3mgil) 246 % (@ 3rngil) 0.03 (as P) 62% (@ 1 mg/l) 82% (@ 1 mgil)

Nitrate 1.2 % 1.6 %

Notel: LowerShannonWaterQualityMm matPlan 1Note 2: Eumpean Communities (Quality of 1lmanid Watas) Rermlations. 1998. S.I. No 293 of 1988. Note 3: Local Government (Water Pallutia Act, 1977 (Water &My Smdads for Phosphorus) Regulations, 1998. S.1. No258 of 1998.

The Assimilative Capacity (AC) calculations, based on the predicted volumetric discharge (at 30,000p.e & 39,OOOp.e) and ELVs for a range of substances (BOD, COD, Nitrate and Total Ammonia), suggest that the receiving waterbody is capable of accommodating the proposed

4 discharge without causing a breach in the standards as outlined in National and European legislation. Given that the Nitrate discharges from the plant (aeration WWTP) will have only a minor impact on the AC for nitrate in the receiving waters, it is not anticipated that Total Oxidised Nitrogen (TON) discharges will have a significant downstream impact on the receiving coastal environment.

However in the case of Ortho-phosphate (as P), calculated for both 30,000 p,e, and 39,000 p.e., and using median receiving water flow data, it is evident from the table that the discharge at a concentration of 3 mg/l (this figure is representative of current emissions) currently uses almost double the available assimilative capacity of the receiving waters at that point, and therefore the resultant orthophosphate levels exceed the 0.03 mg/l standard as outlined in the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 (Water Quality Standards for Phosphoms) Regulations, 1998 - S.I. No. 258 of 1998.

In order to reduce orthophosphate emissions from the discharge, the applicant will be required to install phosphate removal technology, such as femc dosing. The recommended licence (RL) requires the discharge to meet an ELV of 1 mg/l from January 1" 2010. This ELV will prevent the discharge from causing a breach of the Water Quality Standard in the receving waters, on the basis of the background level quoted in the application. As outlined in Programme of Improvements below, sufficient funds are available under the Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP) for the installation of Phosphorus removal technology before the end of 2009.

Schedule A; Discharges of the RL specifies the Emission Limit Values (ELVs) to which the discharge must conform. The ELVs are aimed at providing a high degree of protection to the receiving water body, and are based on data supplied in the application concerning the performance of the WWTP. Monitoring of the discharge will take place as per Schedule B; Monitoring at emission point SW-1.

Programme of Improvements An assessment of the WWTP was carried out by Malachy Walsh & Partners Consultants in 2007. The assessment focussed on problems in dealing with current load, and capacity to accept additional load. Options for the management of future (medium term) load, such as expansion of the WWTP, or transfer of the additional load to Limerick City's WWTP at Bunlicky, were also examined. The assessment recommended a range of short-term measures, which will be implemented by the Council in 2009 at an estimated cost of approximately €800,000, and will improve the treatment capacity and efficiency of the plant, including provision of some P removal facilities. Among these measures is the upgrading of the aeration system, which will improve the biological capacity of the plant to deal with current and future (short term) loads.

A further €5.3m has been allocated for improvements to the Castletroy agglomeration, and this programme of improvements is scheduled to advance through planning under the WSIP in 2009. The applicant has indicated that there are funds available for the installation of P removal technology at the WWTP, the upgrading of pumping capacity at Mountshannon PS (as outlined above), and any upgrading of stormwater overflows SW-4 and SW-5 which may arise on implementation of the requirements of conditions 4.13 and 5 .

Compliance with EU Directives In considering the application, regard was had to the requirements of Regulation 6(2) of the Waste Water (Discharge) Authorisation, Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007) notably: Drinkine Water Abstraction Regulations There are no drinking water abstraction points on the Rivers Shannon or Mulkear downstream of any of the discharges.

5 Sensitive Waters The Rivers Shannon and Mulkear are not designated sensitive under the UWWT Regulations (S.I. No. 254 of 2001).

Water Framework Directive 12000/60/EC] The RL, as drafted, transposes the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. Those limits specified in the RL are determined with the aim of achieving good water quality status by2015. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive r91/271/EECJ The waste water works is currently in compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in terms of the numbers of samples taken and compliance with emission limit values. The RL, as drafted, has regard to the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, specifically with regard to ELVs and monitoring frequencies specified. Bathing Water Directive 12006/7/EC] There are no designated bathing waters on the Rivers Shannon or Mdkear, upstream or downstream of the discharge. EC Freshwater Fish Directive 12006/44/EC] Neither the Shannon nor Mulkear Rivers are designated salmonid waterways. However, as outlined above, salmonid standards have been used in sertting ELVs for some parameters, such that discharges permitted under the RL will not cause any breach of salmonid standards in the receiving water. Shellfish Waters Directive 12006/113/EC1 There are no designated shellfish waters (including Margarififera margaritifera waters) located in the vicinity of the discharge(s). Dangerous Substances Directive 12006/1l/EC] The applicant has provided sampling results for all of the 19 dangerous substances in the primary discharge for the purposes of the licence application. The measured concentrations are not considered significant. Monitoring of receiving waters has shown compliance with the Dangerous Substances Regulations (S.I. No. 12 of 2001). Birds Directive 179/409/EEC1& Habitats Directive 192/43/EEC1 As stated discharges from the Castletroy agglomeration are made to the Rivers Shannon and Mulkear. The Lower River Shannon, Site Code 002165, is a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and also encompasses a proposed National Heritage Area (pNHA),site designation code 000435. Most of the estuarine part of the site (the Shannon and Fergus estuaries downstream of Limerick City) is a designated SPA (site code 004077) under the Birds Directive, primarily to protect the large numbers of migratory birds present in winter.

The applicant conducted an ‘appropriate assessment’ of the impact of the discharge on key species and habitats in the Lower Shannon SAC (Site Code 0002165), and I am satisfied on the basis of the assessment that the discharge will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

It is considered that the RL as drafted will provide a high level of protection to the Shannon, as it will ensure. that all discharges from the agglomeration will be provided with an appropriate level of treatment, as per Condition 3 Discharges. By ensuring that all waste water is treated to a high standard the RL will act to improve the quality of the receiving water environment. This improved environment will contribute to the Directive’s objective of protection of those species prioritised for this site.

6 Environmental Liabilities Directive 12004/35/EC] Condition 7.2 of the RL as drafted satisfies the requirements of the Environmental Liabilities Directive in particular those requirements outlined in Article 3(1) and Annex I11 of 2004135IEC.

Submissions. Two submissions were received from Mr B.F Arthure on 12th February 2008 and 16th June 2008. Mr Arthure makes the following points (paraphrased in italics):

No monitoring of the microbial content of the discharge has been conducted for the application, and therefore no assessment of the risk posed in this regard is possible. The applicant claims that the only recreational uses of the Shannon downstream of the discharge are rowing and$shing. However the river used to be very popular for bathing and swimming up to about Ikm downstream from Castletroy, until the discharge of untreated sewage became obvious to swimmers in the mid 1980s. The relevant Water Quality Management Plan (1990) refers to setting site specific microbial quality criteriafor swimming, bathing and water sports sites, but Limerick County Council have failed to designate any bathing water sites, and also put up notices warning people not to swim. The crooked logic fails to see that there is no swimming only because of the Council’s actions. University of Limerick Rowing club have a boathouse and jetty close downstream of the discharge, and could be at risk, therefore the applicant should submit a microbial risk assessment.

Response: It is the responsibility of the Local Authority to designate bathing water sites under the Bathing Water Regulations. However the Water Quality Management Plan referred to by Mr Arthure confms that a section of the River Shannon just downstream of the discharge was habitually used for swimming at the time (1990). Irrespective of the non-designation of bathing waters downstream of the discharge, the use of this section of the River by UL Rowing Club represents a potential health risk to rowers. The RL requires monitoring of microbiological parameters, such as E. Coli and Faecal Coliforms, in both the discharge and the receiving water, in order to assess the level of risk to the rowers, and to establish the potential for increased use of the river as an amenity in the future.

The applicant, in its assessment of the impact of the discharge, has provided a figure for available dilutions, but does not appear to have assessed how the discharge disperses in the river. The river is slow moving andjlow is laminar in the region of the discharge. Nor has the applicant considered the assimilative capacity of the river at the point of discharge. The receiving waters are already at Q3-4, and the efluent is further reducing the water quality.

Response: The applicant has conducted an assessment of the assimilative capacity for a range of parameters. This report presents the results of assimilative capacity calculations, and an assessment of the impact of the discharge on water quality. The dispersion of the effluent in the river is assisted by the diffuser outfall. There are three ports on this outfall, however only one of these ports is currently in use. The use of all three ports on the outfall would ensure that the best possible dispersion of the effluent in the receiving water is achieved, and the RL requires the eMuent to be discharged through all three ports within three months of the date of grant of licence.

Mr Arthure estimates the downstream monitoring location on the Shannon (the sampling point used for the application) to be located approximately 150m downstream of the discharge pipe. and estimates the River to be about IOOm wide at this point. Given the laminarjlow in the river, and that the sample was taken at the river bank, he initially doubted that the monitoring location is a representative downstream sample. He subsequently

7 confirmed this by throwing oranges into the river, such that they flowed over the discharge point, and observed that none of them came within 30m of the sampling location.

The river banks immediately downstream of Castletroy/Plassey are noteworthy for ecology and unique in the area in terms ofheritage. There are at least sixteen species offish in this part of the river (a deep slow moving pool over 1 km long), three of which are listed in Annex II ofthe Habitats Directive. Some of the applicant's water qualify monitoring would indicate that migration of salmon through this part of the river may well be inhibited at this location. Sea Lampreys, which are sensitive to water qualify, used to be commonplace at this location, but are now in decline. Mr Arthure states that the applicant should have examined the effects of pollution on wildlife as part of the application, and attaches a photograph of an algal bloom on the river downstream of Castletroy.

Response: The downstream sample for the application was taken from a pontoon bridge belonging to UL Rowing Club, which extends into the River some 5 - 10 metres from the bank. It should be noted that the impact of the discharge in terms of downstream concentration of pollutant parameters was assessed mainly using assimilative capacity calculations, as outlined above, and not on the basis of this sample. It is considered that a more suitable downstream monitoring location should be used in future for receiving water monitoring, and Schedule 84 of the RL requires a downstream sampling location to be agreed with the Agency accordingly.

With regard to the impact of the discharge on habitats in and near the River, the applicant has conducted an assessment of this impact, which is outlined above. The RL requires ongoing assessment of this impact to be reported in the AER.

Mr Arthurefeels that it may be feasible to provide tertiary treatment at land near the existing WWTP, and discharge to the River Groody.

Response: The RL does not make provision for any primary discharge other than the existing discharge to the Shannon. The applicant has indicated that tertiary treatment for phosphate removal can be retrofitted to the existing plant, and the RL allows for this. There is greater assimilative capacity in the Shannon than in the Groody, and the benefits to the environment from piping the effluent to the River Groody are not evident.

Charges The RL sets an annual charge for the installation at €6,679 and is reflective of the monitoring and enforcement regime being proposed for the agglomeration.

Recommendation I recommend that a Licence be issued subject to the conditions and for the reasons as set out in the attached Recommended Licence.

Signed

Sean 0 Donoghue J Inspector Office ofClimate, Licensing and Resource Use

8