An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL 11.JA0026

Development

Description: Upgrading and extension of Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Address: Mountmellick, County Laois.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Laois County Council.

Applicant: Laois County Council.

Type of Application: Application under Section 175

Planning Authority Decision: Not Applicable (Application made to the Board Under S.175)

Planning Appeal

Observers: 1. An Taisce. 2. Michael Hoey. 3. EPA 4. Inland Fisheries Ireland 5. Offaly County Council 6. Mountmellick Angling and Conservation Association

Date of Site Inspection: 15/12/11.

Inspector: Paul Caprani

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 47 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Case reference 11.JA0026 relates to an application by Laois County Council under the provisions of Section 175 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for approval to An Bord Pleanála for the upgrading of the wastewater treatment works at Mountmellick, County Laois. An Environmental Impact Statement, a Preliminary Design Report and an Appropriate Assessment on the potential impact of the proposed development on the River Owenass which forms part of the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation have all been submitted with the application. Two observations were also submitted on foot of the application by An Taisce and by Mr. Michael Hoey objecting to the proposed upgrade. Observations were also submitted by a number of prescribed bodies the contents of which are set out further in this report. An oral hearing was held in relation to the application on the 18 th of January 2012. It is summarised in an appendix to this report. A number of other appendices are attached to this report including an evaluation of the contents of the EIS in the context of whether it complies with the requirements of the Directive and a summary of the information contained in the Appropriate Assessment.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The existing wastewater treatment plant is located in the north-eastern edge of Mountmellick village on the eastern side of Bay Road which runs northwards from Emmet Street, one of the main thoroughfares in the village. The site is located approximately three-quarters of a kilometre from O’Connell Square in the centre of Mountmellick. The existing wastewater treatment works is setback from the Bay Road and is located adjacent to the Owenass River which runs along the eastern boundary of the existing treatment works. There are a number of single-storey dwellings facing onto the Bay Road to the west of the site. The separation distance between the dwellings and the existing wastewater treatment plant is between 150 and 200 metres.

Two football pitches are located to the south of the site, one on either side of the Owenass River. A residential estate is located further south of the football pitch, again between 150 and 200 metres from the wastewater treatment works. The nearest residential dwellings to the west of the site are located in the Cullenwood Residential Estate, the closest dwellinghouse being approximately 100 metres to the west of the site, on the opposite side of the Owenass River (no. 40 Cullenwood). Lands to the north of the site are currently vacant and unused. It is proposed to expand the wastewater treatment works into this area. A County Council depot is located immediately adjoining the western boundary of the site between the wastewater treatment works and the existing dwellinghouses which front onto Bay Road. The site is surrounded by c.2 metre high palisade fencing and there is little landscaping along the site boundary.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 47 Access to the site is provided off Bay Road to the west of the site. This 200 metre long access road also serves the local football club to the south of the site.

The Owenass River is a tributary of the River Barrow and its confluence point with the River Barrow is approximately 1.5 kilometres to the north east of the site. According to the information contained in the EIS (based on OPW data) the Owenass River has a 95%ile flow of 0.117m 3/s and an average flow is 1.85m 3/s.

3.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS ON SITE

The existing wastewater treatment plant has been the subject of upgrading which was completed in 2009 and this upgrade formed Phase 1 of the intended expansion of the plant. The existing treatment plant has an organic treatment capacity of 7,000 p.e. which was recently upgraded from 5,000 p.e. The existing wastewater treatment works, including the recent expansion under phase 1 are set out below.

Wastewater is received at an inlet works which comprises of preliminary treatment and also incorporates a newly constructed storm tank under Phase 1 which accommodates storm water flows. A considerable portion of the wastewater infrastructure serving Mountmellick relies on a combined sewer system network thus there was a need to incorporate a storm water tank. The preliminary treatment comprises of a 6 millimetre automatic screen based on an Archimedes screw principle.

Flows from the preliminary works go directly into an oxidation ditch for secondary treatment. There is no form of primary treatment provided on site. The oxidation ditch permits microbial breakdown and nitrification of the effluent. The dissolved oxygen within the oxidation ditch is generated by eight ‘triton propeller type’ floating aerators and two brush type aerators which run continuously to introduce the dissolved oxygen content. The propeller type floating aerators move back and forth across the ditch. The oxidation ditch is approximately 80 metres long, 8 metres wide and has a capacity of just less than 1,500 cubic metres. The retention time of effluent within the oxidation ditch is approximately two days. The sludge removed from the oxidation ditch is divided into Waste Activation Sludge (WAS) and Return Activation Sludge (RAS). The effluent is then transported to two clarifiers (one circular and two rectangular side by side). The rectangular clarifiers were built as part of the original treatment works in the mid-70s before being replaced by the circular clarifier. As part of the Phase 1 improvement works the rectangular clarifiers were refitted and incorporated into the overall design to cater for the increase in p.e.

After clarification the effluent is discharged into an open-ended outfall into the Owenass River immediately east of the site. The maximum flow concentration at the inlet works is 66 litres per second.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 47 Sludge is treated on site by way of a picket fence thickener and a centrifuge which results in a dry solid content with the sludge of about 14%. The sludge is then removed from site to the sludge treatment works in Portlaoise.

Recently, a further temporary plant has been commissioned as part of phase 1 in the north-western corner of the site adjacent to the sludge treatment area. This comprises of two large tanks containing secondary treatment in the form of rotating bio discs and general aeration before being transferred onto a final clarification tank prior to discharge.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development comprises of a capacity upgrade of the existing wastewater treatment works through the provision of an expansion of further wastewater treatment facilities and an improvement in the level of treatment to be provided at the plant. This expansion is to take place over three phases, the first of which has already been carried out on site and essentially comprised of the provision of new storm tanks adjacent to the inlet works and the provision of temporary secondary treatment and final clarification tanks adjacent to the sludge treatment building in the north-western portion of the site (see previous section above).

The existing wastewater treatment works under Phase 1 upgraded the treatment capacity from 5,000 p.e. to 7,000 p.e.

Under Phase 2 it is proposed to increase the capacity upgrade to 8,000 p.e. The Board will be aware that the proposed development involves a design build and operative scheme and therefore only the general design parameters are set out in the EIS. The detailed design has yet to be finalised.

More detailed descriptions of the proposed development as envisaged are contained in Section 6 of the preliminary report. The details provided in Section 6 of the preliminary report together with the indicative layout scheme are indicated on Drawing 20421-56.

It is recommended that the full flow of the wastewater treatment plant be limited to three times the dry weather flow for both Phase 2 and Phase 3 developments.

4.1 Phase 2

As already stated Phase 2 would see an increase in p.e. from 7,000 to 8,000 and will involve the following works on site.

The demolition and rebuilding of the existing inlet works. The inlet works will incorporate a 6 millimetre screening with ancillary screenings processing facilities and a grit separation with an ancillary grit handling system.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 47 Under Phase 2 it is also proposed to incorporate a new primary settlement tank together with an odour control unit to the north of the existing storm storage tanks. It is proposed to incorporate covering tanks to ensure that acceptable odour limits are met. A primary clarifier (9 metres in diameter) should provide a 40% reduction in BOD passing forward to the secondary treatment process. This will reduce energy costs in the secondary treatment system.

In terms of secondary treatment Phase 2 works will involve a new 4,000 p.e. aeration stream and refurbishment of the existing oxidation ditch. The existing oxidation tank may be reused, although the preferred choice is to provide a new tank incorporating a more generous depth which is more efficient in terms of aeration. The overall dimension and capacity of the aeration tank (oxidation ditch) would be reduced to approximately a third of its size in terms of volume but will incorporate the tank depth of 5.5 metres (as opposed to 1.76 metres which currently exists on site). It is argued that the size and scale of the tank proposed is significantly more efficient than that which currently exists on site and because of the new temporary wastewater treatment tanks put in under Phase 1 (described above adjacent to the sludge treatment building), it is estimated that the smaller aeration tank is appropriate in this instance. Thus between the two treatment tanks, a population equivalent of 8,000 can be accommodated.

Subsequent to aeration it is proposed to construct two new secondary clarifiers with a tank diameter of 18 metres and a depth of 3.64 metres. Two tanks are proposed each with a capacity of 756 cubic metres with a maximum flow rate of 344 cubic metres per hour. A water retention time of 2.2 hours is proposed within the clarifiers, the two proposed circular clarifiers are almost three times the size in terms of volume of the existing circular clarifier on site.

A complete replacement of the mechanical and electrical equipment associated with the sludge return sludge waste pumps will also take place.

A new tertiary treatment facility is proposed which will involve nutrient reduction through chemical dosing (with either ferric sulphate or ferric chloride) and a new tertiary sand filter which will also allow for an enhanced phosphorus removal as well as further reduction in relation to BOD and suspended solids. It is suggested in the preliminary report that phosphorus levels as low as 0.1mg per litre can be achieved in these sand filtration systems.

Finally Phase 2 will involve the replacement of the mechanical and electrical equipment in the picket fence thickener and an additional picket fence thickener is also recommended to provide additional sludge storage capacity and to facilitate the continued use of the existing centrifuge under Phase 2.

Additional provisions under Phase 2 involve the provision of additional pipework to connect the extended treatment facilities together with a new access road together with the upgrading of existing site paths and roads and provision of an emergency shower for ferric sulphate.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 47 4.2 Phase 3

Phase 3 of the upgrade seeks to increase the capacity to 18,000 p.e. The date of which this stage will be required is not known yet. Reference is made to the interim plant which has recently been installed on site and can cater for loads of up to 4,000 p.e. It is stated that these interim plants have a lifespan of between 10 and 15 years. No further works are proposed for the inlet works under Phase 3 as the works proposed as part of Phase 2 should have the capacity for the anticipated Phase 3 loads.

Three additional aeration tanks are proposed for Phase 3 of the development each with a p.e. of 4,000. The dimension of these aeration tanks are set out in Table 6.6 of the preliminary report and will have a total capacity of 440 cubic metres.

Two additional clarifiers are proposed for Phase 3 of the development with a p.e. of 4,000. These will incorporate a tank diameter of 18 metres and a depth of 3.64 metres. The retention time in the clarifiers are 2.2 hours.

It is stated that the provision of anaerobic and anoxic zones within the new aeration tanks will remove a significant amount of phosphorus. The primary objective is to reduce the effluent concentration of phosphorus to 0.3mg/l to enhance the biological phosphorus removal. In the event of Phase 3 progressing, a new dewatering building is recommended along with additional sludge storage, as the current building will not have sufficient space to contain the required dewatering equipment.

4.3 Existing Loadings of the WWTP and the Assimilative Capacity of the Receiving Waters

The assimilative capacity of the River Barrow upstream of the Portarlington WWTP is considered to be at its limit. Therefore currently inputs from the Mountmellick WWTP are likely to be compounding the impacts on the water quality of the river Barrow.

The current and predicted flow and load estimates for the base year (2008) and subsequent phases are set out in the Table below:

2008 Phase 1 2009 Phase 2 2011 Phase 3 TBD PE 4,388 7,000 8,000 18,000 DWF m 3 per 2,370 2,957 3,182 5,432 day DWF l/sec 27.4 34.2 36.8 64.9 BOD kg/day 263 420 480 1,080 Total P kg/d 8.8 14 16 36 Ammonia 27.4 43.8 50 112.5

In order to achieve ‘Good Water Status’ in accordance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, the Effluent and Nutrient Parameters are

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 47 set out in Schedule 5 of the Surface Water Regs (SI 272 of 2009). These are set out in the Table below:

Nutrient Conditions Parameter Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous ≤0.035 (mean) or ≤ 0.075 (95% ile) BOD ≤ 2.6 mg/l Ammonia ≤0.065 (mean) or ≤ 0.140 (95% ile) Dissolved Oxygen Between 80% - 120% saturation

Existing Nutrient and Pollutant parameters in the River based on Laois Co Council surveys upstream and downstream of the plant are set out below: (all concentrations are mean concentrations).

Nutrient Upstream Downstream WWTP Orthophosphate 0.03 0.08 2.42 BOD 2.13 1.69 7.87 Ammonia 0.088 0.104 3.878 Dissolved Oxygen 9.67 9.42 0.00 Nitrogen 2.10 2.8 9.85 Phosphorous 0.05 0.06 3.08

A waste assimilative capacity calculation was derived for each of the above parameters based on the following formula:

WAC = [( C max x (F riv + F eff )) – (C back x F riv )] x 86.4 (to express loads as kg/d) Where WAC = The waste assimilative capacity Cmax = the Maximum permissible concentration in the River (as per Schedule 5 of SI 272/2009) Cback = The parameter level upstream Friv = The 95%ile flow in the river. (in the case of the calculations for phosphorous mean flow as opposed to the 95%ile flow is used).

Based on the above calculations the proposed discharge standards for phases 2 & 3 are as follows:

BOD mg/l Ammonia mg/l Phosphorous mg/l Phase 2 4.09 0.31 0.30 Phase 3 3.46 0.24 0.19

5.0 SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION

The planning application was received by An Bord Pleanála on 18 th February 2011. The application was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 175 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The application was accompanied by

• An Environmental Impact Statement

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 47 • A preliminary design report • Preliminary design drawings in A3 format • An Appropriate Assessment of the potential impact of the proposed development on the River Barrow and River Nore Special Areas of Conservation.

Copies of the applications were also submitted to a number of prescribed bodies including

• The Heritage Council • An Taisce • The EPA • The Health Services Executive • The south-eastern river basin district • The Development Applications Unit of the DoEHLG • The Arts Council • Fisheries Ireland • Fáilte Ireland • The Development Application Section of the DoEHLG • The Irish Wildlife Trust • Mountmellick Angling Association.

On 28 th March 2011 An Bord Pleanála requested that Laois County Council re- advertise the newspaper notice for the proposed development as the notice as originally submitted was deemed to be inadequate. On 4 th May An Bord Pleanála received a letter from Laois County Council indicating that it re- advertised the newspaper notice in accordance with the Boards requirements and the re-advertised notice was also circulated to the various prescribed bodies referred to above.

6.0 OBSERVATIONS

Initial observations were received from An Taisce and from Michael Hoey and these observations are summarised below.

6.1 Observation from An Taisce

The proposed upgrade impacts on the River Barrow which is a designated SAC and concern is expressed in relation to the water quality and quantity of water within the River Barrow to accommodate the increase in flows from the wastewater treatment plant. Concerns were expressed that several abstractions from within the catchment area of the River Barrow have resulted in an over abstraction of water. Reference is made to a recent decision by Kildare County Council where planning permission was refused for the modification of lands at Robertstown, County Kildare on the grounds that it is unclear what impact the development may have, if any on a Special Area of Conservation.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 47 Concerns were also expressed that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the Nore freshwater pearl mussel. Section 11.4.19 of the EIS states that in relation to the freshwater pearl mussel that “ the viability of the species has yet to be established and as the only remaining population in the world of this particular species, every effort will be made to ensure its survival”.

The third schedule of SI 254 of 2001 designates the River Barrow downstream of the sewage outfall at Portarlington to Graiguenamanagh Bridge in County Kilkenny as a sensitive area. It is submitted that the decision pertaining to the restoration of the freshwater pearl mussel in the main channel of the River Barrow can only be made by the European Commission. Therefore, under Article 27 of SI94 of 1997 the opinion of the Commission should be requested.

It is submitted that in accordance with Article 3.1 of the Directive 92/43/EEC that a key question must be answered as to whether or not it is appropriate to restore the freshwater pearl mussel to the main channel of the River Barrow before a decision can be made on the application.

It is also implied that the Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate (although the exact grounds as to why the EIS is deemed inadequate is not stipulated in the submission).

In view of the proposed increase in discharge from Portarlington and Mountmellick coupled with the loss of water from the River Barrow, it is suggested that a proven and more sustainable alternative to discharging directly into the river could be achieved by using ready and available cutaway bogs as settlement/reed bed lakes which would not only have an amenity value but would contribute to the reduction in CO 2 emissions from cutaway bogs.

6.2 Submission from Michael Hoey

Concern is expressed in relation to the water assimilation capacity of the River Barrow mainly due to the cumulative loss of water through abstractions which are detailed in Table 1 of Mr. Hoey’s submission. The depletion of bogs in the midlands mainly by Bord na Mona since 1938 has resulted in the loss of a sponge effect whereby the bogs release water to the Barrow during dry periods. The drawdown of water to accommodate the Kildare bypass has exacerbated the loss of water in the River Barrow resulting in little or no overflow of water from the Grand Canal to the Slate River.

Because of this, the cumulative effects of the proposed development have not been addressed adequately or assessed which leaves the EIS deficient.

It is suggested that at Levitstown, County Kildare the abstractions are 130% of the dry weather flow at this point in the river. Waterways Ireland has a responsibility to maintain water levels to ensure a draft of 1.2 metres while allowing for an additional clearance of 300 millimetres for drawdown. This draft depth has to be restored in order to comply with the Water Framework

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 47 Directive. It is suggested that information has been withheld in relation to abstraction rates which is vital and critical to the assessment.

7.0 An Bord Pleanala’s Request for Additional Information

On the 4 th August 2011 An Bord Pleanála requested additional information in relation to the following.

• A section of the EIS clearly identifying the interrelationship and interaction between the likely environmental effects resulting from the proposed development. • A specific statement as to why no consideration was given to alternative sites in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Further details in relation to

• The volumetric discharge from the wastewater. • A detailed analysis of the composition of the wastewater being discharged. • The expected increase in discharge from the wastewater treatment works. • Volumetric flows from the wastewater discharge as a proportion of the flows in the River Barrow. • Further details in relation to the assimilative capacity of the River Barrow. • The identification and quantification of any water abstraction developments in the area which may have reduced the assimilative capacity of the River Barrow. • Further details in relation to dry weather flows and 95 percentile flows in the River Barrow. • The examination of the implications of providing alternative locations for the final effluent outfall. • Reference to and the assessment of cumulative impacts resulting from other discharges. • Examination of the effluent parameters set out in various national and European legislation as they relate to the current proposal.

7.1 Further Information Submitted on Behalf of Laois Co Council

Further information was submitted on behalf of the applicants by Nicolas O’Dwyer Consulting Engineers on 8 th September 2011. In summary it stated the following:

The interrelationship between environmental factors is set out on a matrix attached to the submission.

No consideration was given to alternative sites as the brief to the consultants specifically related to upgrading the existing wastewater treatment works.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 47 The composition of wastewater being discharged into the Owenass River is set out in Table 3.1 of the submission.

The projected increase in discharges from the wastewater treatment plant is set out in Table 3.2.

The volumetric flows of the wastewater discharge as a proportion of the flows in the Owenass River are indicated in Table 3.3 of the submission.

The waste assimilative capacity calculations are contained in Section 5 of the preliminary report which indicates the effluent standards which are required to maintain the allowable downstream concentration in the Owenass River under the various legislative requirements.

In relation to any water abstraction developments reference is made to the River Barrow Extraction Scheme which is currently under construction and located 26 miles downstream from Mountmellick. It is stated that the reduction in flow in the River due to abstraction will have a negligible impact on the assimilative capacity of the River Barrow.

The preliminary report from the Mountmellick Sewage Scheme Phase 2 indicates that the existing outfall has the capacity for the Phase 2 design horizon of 8,000 p.e. Therefore an upgrade in the outfall is not required and was not included as part of the proposed capacity upgrade considered by the EIS.

Consideration of the cumulative impacts resulting from other discharges was included in the report to inform the Appropriate Assessment.

Section 5 of the preliminary report for the Mountmellick Sewage Scheme sets out the legislative basis and demonstrates compliance with legislative requirements indicated in the letter from An Bord Pleanála.

7.2 Further Circulation of the Additional Information Submitted

This further information was circulated to the various prescribed bodies and submissions received from these bodies are set out below.

7.2.1 EPA Submission

An Bord Pleanála wrote to the EPA on 26 th September 2011 asking for comments in relation to the Mountmellick Sewage Scheme. A response was received from the Board on 19 th October 2011. It states that the Agency received a licence application for the Mountmellick agglomeration on 22 nd September 2008. The licence application does not include the proposed upgrade works as referenced above. The application was not accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement.

The EPA in carrying out the assessment of the application must have regard to the EIS and the decision of An Bord Pleanála “only insofar as they relate to the

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 47 risk of environmental pollution of the receiving waters”. Therefore should the proposed works (to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to 18,000 p.e.) be carried out before the licence is issued, a new discharge licence application will be required for agglomerations greater than 10,000 p.e. and the EIS and a copy of the decision by An Bord Pleanála will have to accompany the application. Consequently unless there is a significant change to the application submitted to the Agency it is proposed to await a decision of An Bord Pleanála before progressing with the assessment of the licence applications.

The EPA will not grant an authorisation for a waste discharge licence where the proposed development would cause a deterioration in the ecological or chemical status of the receiving water body or where the proposed development would exclude or compromise the achievement of objectives established for protected species and natural habitats in the case of European sites.

The Agency will also ensure that the wastewater discharge is controlled in accordance with the combined approach where it appears to the Agency that the discharge concerned is likely to have a significant impact on a European site the Agency shall cause an assessment to be made of the implications of the site in view of the sites conservation objectives.

7.3 Further Submissions from Prescribed Bodies

The additional information received from the applicant together with the letter from the EPA was circulated to the prescribed bodies listed above and the following comments were received on foot of this circulation.

7.3.1 Submission from Inland Fisheries Ireland

In relation to Table 3.1 of the additional information submission notes that the values given for phosphorus removal are of concern and there is little doubt that such a low rate of removal is contributing to and resulting in the deterioration of water quality in the Owenass River.

In relation to Table 3.2 of the additional information submission, it is noted that this table suggests that only two times the dry weather flow is currently going to treatment and this is to remain in the future. Normal design practice is to cater for three times the dry weather flow.

Concerns are also expressed in relation to Table 3.3 where the proportions of effluent are greater than the dry river flow in the Owenass River (171%, 184% and 325%) under the three phases, this is also a cause for concern. The fact that the wastewater component would constitute such a large proportion of the actual river flow could give rise to problems particularly if the wastewater treatment plant malfunctions. In this regard the location of the outfall may need to be re-examined in terms of future development and relocated downstream into the main channel of the River Barrow.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 47 The information submitted also appears to suggest that there is a problem with the design of the storm system and suggests the need for segregation of surface water from foul water discharges.

It is stated that the assimilative capacity calculations for BOD are totally unacceptable and flawed. The consultants have used data provided by Laois County Council in the calculation of assimilative capacity for phosphorous and ammonia but in the case of BOD they have used an assumed upstream value of 1.3mg/l. According to the Council monitoring data the upstream mean BOD is given at 2.13 mg/l. It is concluded therefore that the consultants have significantly overestimated the assimilative capacity for BOD. Very stringent parameters in relation to BOD would be required to be met therefore on the Owenass River. It is submitted that this provides further grounds for the Board examining whether the outfall from Phase 2 should be relocated downstream to the River Barrow.

It is also suggested that more recent sets of data published by the EPA should be used in assessing the assimilative capacity and the proposed effluent discharge standards derived.

There is also a degree of confusion over the use of terms average and median and mean in the information submitted.

It is apparent from the documentation submitted by the Council that there are serious water quality issues in the Owenasss River at Mountmellick.

A separate letter was also submitted on the 25 th November 2011 which confined itself to comments in relation to the EPA submission.

It states that the Inland Fisheries is acutely aware of the difficult state of public finances and recognises that funding for such upgraded works are required and may not be provided for some time. Against this background it is essential that the river receive the necessary protection and that existing facilities are maintained and operated to ensure the well-being and protection of receiving waters. Fundamental to this protection is the need for licensing of the existing discharge. Having regard to the lengthy time period which may take place before the Board issue a decision and on foot of this decision that funds become available to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant it is not considered acceptable that no license be granted in the intern.

7.3.2 Submission from Offaly County Council

The submission from Offaly County Council states that the Planning Authority notes the content of the appeal and have no further observations to make.

7.3.3 Submission from Mountmellick Angling and Conservation Association

The Association would welcome any upgrade to the Mountmellick Sewage Scheme as the River Owenass and Barrow are at their limits as can be seen

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 47 from the data supplied. Any works which would improve the water quality would be strongly supported by the Association.

7.3.4 Submission from Laois County Council

This submission outlines the history of the waste license application made by Laois County Council to the EPA on 18 th September 2008.

Once a decision on the current application before the Board is made and if permission is granted for the upgrade negotiations will take place between the Department of the Environment and Laois County Council in relation to funding the programme under the Water Service Investment Programme.

At that time Laois County Council can inform the Environmental Protection Agency of the progress of the Scheme and the agreed programme for implementing the approved plant upgrade (if approved by An Bord Pleanala) and may advise the agency during the annual review process. It should be noted that the implementation of the Mountmellick Sewage Scheme (if approved) will be likely to be included in the construction stage of the 2013- 2015 Water Services Investment Programme. It is unlikely to be completed prior to the issuance of the wastewater discharge license application by the EPA.

8.0 STATUTORY PROVISIONS

8.1 Development Plan

8.1.2 Laois Co Development Plan 2011-2017

Policies within the Plan which relate to the water environment include the following:

With regard to water services the County Plan states the following: “ to ensure a good quality of life and good health for all residents of Laois through maintaining and improving waste water treatment and water supply infrastructure which support the county settlement strategy without harmful effects on the environment”.

Specific policies as they relate to wastewater are set out in Chapter 11 these are:

WS11/P14 Facilitate the provision of adequate wastewater collection and treatment systems in towns and villages in the County to serve existing and future populations in accordance with the county settlement strategy identified in the plan, WFD, the Needs Assessment of Laois County Council as finances permit, thus improving the surface and ground waters in Co Laois.

WS 11/P15 Concentrate infrastructure improvement and provision in those areas of the county which offer the greatest potential for residential, industrial and commercial development, as identified in the County Settlement Strategy.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 47

WS 11/P16 Development of existing treatment capacity at existing plants when required to meet new developments ensuring compliance with the measures of the SRBMP and Shannon International River Basin Management Plans.

WS 11/P17 Co-operate with adjoining local authorities to continue the sustainable development and improvement of wastewater treatment systems throughout the county to meet the anticipated drainage requirements of the area.

WS 11/P19 Ensure that plans and projects associated with the provision of waste water treatment facilities are assessed in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

8.1.2 Mountmellick Local Area Plan 2007 – 2013

In terms of wastewater treatment it is the policy of Laois County Council to provide the necessary drainage facilities to serve the needs of all development within Mountmellick Town and to prevent pollution. Also to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to cater for existing customers and the needs of the projected population increase and to accommodate future industrial and commercial development. Finally in relation to waste water the Plan seeks to encourage only as much development in terms of quantity, based on the infrastructure available ot the period within which they will be provided.

8.2 South- Eastern River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015)

The main catchments of the south-east RBD are the three sisters including the River Barrow. The Owenass River as a tributary of the River Barrow forms part of this catchment. One of the main pressures described in the Management Plan is wastewater and industrial discharges into rivers.

In terms of water abstractions it is stated that most water abstractions are currently sustainable in the south-east river basin district, however abstraction poses a potential risk to 38 rivers and 4 lakes (The individual water bodies which may be affected are not set out the Plan).

Section 3 of the Plan sets out the status of waters in the South-East River Basin District. According to Map 3.2 of the Plan, the surface water ecological status of the Owenass River in the vicinity of Mountmellick appears to be designated as ‘Moderate Status’.

The four core objectives of the Plan are set out in Section 4.1. These objectives are to be achieved generally by 2015. They include

• Prevent deterioration • Restore good status • Reduce chemical pollution

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 47 • Achieve water related protected area objectives.

The Plan notes that some protected areas do not currently meet the protected area objectives due to water quality conditions. The objective for the water bodies associated with these protected areas is to restore them so that they meet all applicable water standards.

The Plan notes that extended deadlines (beyond 2015) may be applied to some water bodies due to technical, economic and environmental or recovery constraints. One of the reasons why extended timescales are required in certain water bodies in the south-eastern RBD include wastewater discharges from some treatment plants. The likely fail status element is mainly due to phosphorus levels or oxygen conditions supporting ecological status. It is stated that the time required to plan and design upgrades to treatment plants and to achieve approvals and licencing means that it is not technically possible to achieve good status in 2015. A case by case assessment showed that infrastructure provision is critical to achieving good status. Map 4.1 shows extended timescales due to time requirements to upgrade wastewater treatment plant discharges in the river basin district. The River Owenass in the vicinity of Mountmellick is one such designated area. It is therefore the objective of the written River Basin Management Plan to restore the Owenass in the vicinity of Mountmellick by the year 2021.

Table 5.1 sets out a summary programme of measures envisaged for the south- eastern river basin district. I note that the Rivers Barrow, Owenass and Triogue are grouped together for the purposes of the summary table. It indicates that one treatment plant discharging into these waters requires capital works. Two WWTP’s require further investigation. The specific treatment plants are not specified in the summary table.

8.3 River Barrow Special Area of Conservation Site Code 002162

The site synopsis states that this site consists of freshwater stretches of the River Barrow/Nore catchments as far upstream as the Slieve Bloom Mountains and also includes the tidal elements and estuary as far downstream as Creedon Head in Waterford. The site is a candidate SAC for alluvial wet woodland and petrifying springs, priority habitats on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The site is also selected as a candidate SAC for old oak woodlands, floating river vegetation, estuary, tidal mud flats, Atlantic and Mediterranean salt meadows, dry heat and eutrophic tall herbs, all habitats listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following species listed in Annex II of the same Directive – sea lamprey, river lamprey, brook lamprey, freshwater pearl mussel, Nore freshwater pearl mussel, crayfish, twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, otter, desmoulin’s whorl snail and the Killarney fern. The site synopsis states that this is the only site in the world for the hard water form of the pearl mussel and one of only a handful of spawning grounds in the country for the twaite shad. The Barrow/Nore is mainly a grilse fishery. The upper stretches of the Barrow and the Nore and particular the Owenass River are very important for spawning.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 47 The main threats to the site and current damaging activities include high inputs of nutrients into the river system from agricultural runoff and several sewage plants, overgrazing within the woodland areas and the invasion of non-native species. Water quality of the site remains vulnerable. Good water quality is necessary to maintain the populations of the Annex II animal species listed above. It requires that sewage be properly treated before discharge. Drainage activities in the catchment can lead to flash floods which can damage many Annex II species present.

Overall the site is of considerable conservation significance for the occurrence of good examples of habitats and populations of plant and animal species that are listed in Annex I and II of the EU Habitats Directive. The occurrence of several red data book plant species including three rare plants in the salt meadows and the population of the hard water form of the pearl mussel which is limited to a 10 kilometre stretch of the Nore add further interest to this site.

The conservation objective for the freshwater pearl mussel states that the status of the freshwater pearl mussel as a qualifying Annex II species for the River Barrow and River Nore SAC is currently under review. The outcome of this review will determine whether a site specific conservation objective is set for this species. Please note that the Nore freshwater pearl mussel remains a qualifying species for this SAC. The document contains a conservation objective for the latter species.

In terms of the white clawed crayfish the conservation objectives seem to maintain the favourable conservation condition of the white clawed crayfish within the River Barrow and the River Nore SAC. It is noted that the crayfish is present almost throughout this SAC.

The sea lamprey and brook lamprey and river lamprey are limited to the lower stretches of the Barrow.

9.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

9.1 Assimilative Capacity of the River Owenass

9.1.2 Water Abstraction

Both the observations submitted by the third parties together with observations from the Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht expressed concerns in relation to the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters to accommodate the increase in discharge from the proposed Mountmellick municipal treatment works envisaged under the various expansion phases. The latter two observations from prescribed bodies expressed particular concerns in relation to the capacity of the river to assimilate phosphorus.

Two aspects in relation to assimilative capacity need to be assessed. Firstly the impact of existing water abstractions both upstream and downstream of the

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 47 River Barrow should be assessed so as to conclude whether or not the abstraction rates are impacting on the assimilative capacity of the river to a material extent. Secondly this assessment needs to address whether or not the River Barrow has the capacity to adequately assimilate the effluent standards proposed to be discharged into the river in terms of BOD and suspended solids, ammonia etc. and perhaps most importantly in terms of phosphorus, having particular regard to the baseline levels of these nutrients upstream of the proposed discharge point.

In relation to the first point, the submissions from An Taisce and Micheal Hoey express particular concerns in relation to the levels of abstraction within and around the River Owenass/ Barrow catchment area and the consequential effect on water levels in the river. Limited information is supplied in relation to the amount of abstraction which is taking place in the vicinity of the River Barrow. The submission from Mr. Hoey sets out (Table 1) the various abstraction schemes which have been approved in the wider area which could have a potential impact on the River Barrow. I note that of the 10 abstraction points which are specifically referred to in this table, 8 are groundwater abstractions and only two are surface water abstractions. The exact locational details of the abstraction points are not indicated in the submission. It is noted that many of these abstraction points are located in Kildare on or in close proximity to rivers which ultimately flow into the River Barrow at a point downstream of the discharge at Mountmellick. In particular I would refer to the Slate River which is in close proximity to the abstractions referred to at Rathangan and Robertstown. The Slate River together with the Figile River and the Cushina River all join the River Barrow at a point c.7 kilometres to the east-southeast of Portarlington, and therefore approximately 17 km downstream from the discharge into the Owenass River. Likewise the Hybla groundwater extraction is located in the vicinity of Monasterevin which is also downstream of the wastewater treatment works at Mountmellick. Reference is also made to the surface water abstraction at Athy which is c.28 kilometres downstream from the outfall of the wastewater treatment plant.

The Clonbulloge Power Station is located to the north of Mountmellick on the River Figile. Again this river ultimately links up with the River Barrow at a point downstream of the outfall of the wastewater treatment point near Monasterevin.

Finally reference is made to the groundwater abstraction at Rhode, again presumably for the power station. According to the river basin management plans, it appears that Rhode is located within the River Boyne catchment area. Although Rhode is located close to the watershed and involves a groundwater abstraction, it cannot be concluded with any degree of certainty that the abstraction won’t in some way impact on the surface water catchment area of the South-Eastern River Basin Management Plan; however having regard to the distances involved and the fact that Rhodes is located in a separate river catchment area, it is likely that any impact from this groundwater abstraction would have a negligible effect on the volume of surface water flows in the Barrow.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 47 It is important to point out, and this issue was highlighted in the oral hearing, that the for the purposes of the project in question, the waste assimilative capacity (WAC) relates to that section of the river immediately downstream of the Outfall, prior to the confluence point with the River Barrow. Again it is further downstream, in the vicinity of Monsterevin, that the River Barrow meets with the tributaries referred to above (Cushina River, Slate River and Slate River). It is obvious that the assimilative capacity is greatly increased beyond the confluence point of these tributaries. Any water abstraction, be it groundwater or surface water, will not impact on the receiving waters beyond the outfall on the Owenass River where the assimilative capacity has been calculated.

A significant extraction upstream of the proposed discharge point would have more profound consequences in terms of assimilative capacity in the vicinity of the discharge point than any abstraction point downstream. No such extraction points exist or have been planned upstream of the outfall. According to the information on file and the information presented at the oral hearing it is not anticipated that any water abstraction will take place upstream. No information was presented in the observations at any water abstraction up stream is proposed.

9.1.2 Flows Downstream of the River Owenass

In terms of the increase of the assimilative capacity downstream, It’s clear from hydrometric data contained on the EPA website that the river flow increases significantly downstream. At station 14003 at Bourness Bridge the 95%ile flow is 0.25 m 3/s. At Portarlington 95%ile flows in the River Barrow increase to 0.56 m 3/s. At Passbridge beyond Monasterevin flows increase significantly and the 95 percentile flows are in the magnitude of 15-20 times that of the flows at the position of the outfall of the wastewater treatment works. At Athy which is specifically referred to in the applicants further information submission the existing dry weather flow at the River Barrow is approximately 1.5 cubic metres per second, the 95%ile is 3.56 m 3/s (over 30 times the flow in the Owenass River). When one considers the volumes of the River Barrow further downstream at Carlow and Graiguenamanagh which have dry weather flows of 2.24 and 3.2 metres per second, the impact of the abstraction schemes would obviously be even less. The Board should also keep in mind that some figures presented in this assessment refer to dry weather flows which are considerably less than 95%ile flows – in many cases up to 75% less. It is more usual to assess the assimilative capacity on 95%ile flows.

I note that with the exception of Scrowland, Athy and the new power station at Clonbulloge south of Edenderry, all other abstraction schemes referred to are groundwater schemes. The level of drawdown from these groundwater abstraction schemes have not been quantified and as such it is difficult to determine what effect, if any, the rate of extraction is having on the surface water bodies in the surrounding area. I am not suggesting that the groundwater abstraction is having no effect on the recharge potential of the above rivers but am of the view that the impact will be difficult to quantify. The level of drawdown or the cone of depression is directly related to the underlying

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 47 hydrogeological conditions including the hydraulic gradient and transmissivity of the aquifer. This would require detailed hydrogeological investigations and therefore the potential impact on the assimilative capacity, at locations downstream of the outfall pipe cannot be readily determined. The cone of depression associated with the groundwater abstraction may have some impact on the groundwater re-charge to the rivers in question, depending on the distance of the abstraction point from the river, the rate of abstraction and the hydrogeological characteristics of the underlying aquifer. There is no doubt that any ground water abstraction is likely to have a significantly lesser impact than a direct abstraction from the surface water body.

I can only conclude therefore based on the evidence presented, that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the ground and surface water abstraction schemes referred to in the submission will not to any significant extent impact on the assimilative capacity of the receiving water serving the wastewater treatment plant.

9.1.3 Capacity of the Waters to Receive Additional Organic Loading

Perhaps a more critical consideration in relation to assimilative capacity relates to the levels of BOD, Suspended Solids and other nutrient inputs from the wastewater treatment plant into the receiving waters. This obviously will have implications for the compliance with regulatory standards (namely schedule 5 of SI 272) and its impact on the ecological carrying capacity of the receiving waters. It is obvious that the assimilative capacity is a particularly important matter having regard to the River Barrow’s designation as a Special Area of Conservation and its designation as a ‘sensitive area’ under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations The Owenass River is included in the former European designation but is not designated as ‘sensitive’ under the UWwTR’s . It is noted that the water quality in the Owenass River both upstream and downstream of the outfall was recorded as slightly polluted Q3- Q4 (EPA Biologically Quality Rating) in the EIS. However information presented at the Oral Hearing (see pages 5-6 of Mr. Tuke’s submission on behalf of Laois Co Council) indicated that upstream of the outfall the Q rating has improved in 2011 to Q4-Q5 - Good Status.

However as in the case of the River Barrow, phosphorus is a water quality parameter which is of particular concern. This point is acknowledged in Section 11.4.30 of the EIS. Laois Co Council surveys for 2007 – 2008 where mean phosphorous levels of 0.03 mg/l upstream and 0.08 mg/l downstream of the outfall were recorded. Subsequent surveys (see below) have shown an overall improvement in background phosphorous levels in the River. The phosphorus load per year into the River Barrow is indicated in Table 11.2 of the EIS. It appears that the wastewater treatment works account for approximately 14% of the phosphorus load into the River Barrow (agriculture is by far the greatest contributor to phosphorus).

It is necessary at this stage of the assessment to set out the legislative requirements under the Water Framework Directive and other legislation which seeks to achieve ‘good status’ of a water body. The Board will note that

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 47 in accordance with the provisions of SI 272 of 2009 and in particular Articles 29-34 of the Regulations, the South-Eastern River Basin Management Plan has exempted this section of the River Owenass to achieve good water quality status until 2021.

The 95 percentile flow for the River Owenass in the vicinity of the outfall is recorded as 0.117 m 3/s cubic metres per second (this is taken from the OPW ie/Hydro website). The Board will note that hydrometric data provided by the EPA shows a 95 percentile flow of 0.12 cubic metres per second. The EPA however has indicated that the OPW figures are based on more comprehensive data and therefore are likely to be more accurate.

The formula used in the Preliminary Design Report for the purposes of calculating the assimilative capacity for the various parameters referred to in the EIS (BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia and suspended solids) uses a formula of which can be essentially simplified as follows:-

The maximum permitted concentration of pollutant as set out in the Regulations (SI272 of 2009) x the 95 percentile flow, plus the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant minus the background concentration of the pollutant upstream x the 95 percentile flow of the river (See section 4.4 of this report for further details). From this calculation we can ascertain the total additional pollutant that can be discharged into the River Barrow from the wastewater treatment plant without contravening the limits set out in the Statutory Regulations for the concentration of such effluents. If the total concentration of the pollutant is divided by the volume of effluent discharged, it will allow the concentration of the effluent in terms of milligrams per litre to be calculated. This methodology was accepted by Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) at the oral hearing to be an acceptable methodology in calculating the residual assimilative capacity in the river.

The above formula allows for the calculation of the available capacity of a particular pollutant to downstream while ensuring that the limits set out in the appropriate legislation are not breached. The limits in relation to the pollutant parameters and nutrients are derived from the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations of 1991 and the Surface Water Regulations SI 272 of 2009. The limits set out in SI 272 of 2009 are particularly important as they prescribe the limits which are required to ensure that a river water body achieves “good status” in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations of the Water Framework Directive (see Schedule 5 of the Regulations).

The main objectives of the South-East River Basin Management Plan for surface waters as set out in Section 4.1.2 is to restore at least ‘good ecological status’ to water bodies. In the case of the Owenass River the Biological Quality Rating carried out by the EPA downstream of the Discharge point is Q3-4 ‘slightly polluted’. The South-Eastern River Basin Management Plan envisages that this section of the River Barrow will have good ecological status by 2021.

In order to attain the standards for ‘good ecological status’ for the Owenass in accordance with the parameters set out in the Surface Water Regulations,

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 47 down- stream of the effluent point the following parameters must be adhered to:

• BOD less than or equal to 2.6mg/l (95 percentile). • Total ammonia less than or equal to 0.14mg/l (95 percentile). • Molybdate reactive phosphorus (mgp/l) 0.075 (95 percentile).

Background mean concentration levels as set out in the EIS

Parameter Mean Concentration Data Source BOD (mg/l) 2.13 Laois Co Council 07-08 Ammonia (mg.N/l) 0.088 Laois Co Council 07-08 Orthophosphate (mgP/l) 0.03 Laois Co Council 07-08

WAC Calculations contained in Chapter 5 of the preliminary report which are set out in Table 11.8 of the EIS, are summarised below. (Ie the amount of pollutant which can be discharged into the Owenass River without exceeding the overall parameters set out in Schedule 5 of SI 272 2009).

Stage BOD mg/l Ammonia mg/l Orthophosphate Review Date mg/l Stage 2 4.09* 0.31 0.3 2012 Stage 3 3.46 0.24 0.19 Post 2020

* The Board will note that the WAC calculations in the Preliminary Report for Phase 1 allow for a BOD calculation of 6.0mg/l.

The figures presented indicate that if these concentrations in the wastewater discharged from the treatment works adhere to the standards set out in Table 11.8 and 11.9 of the EIS, then the concentrations of these pollutants downstream will adhere to the parameters set out in the Surface Water Regulations.

The Board should note that recent figures have been obtained from Laois Co Council for 2010 and 2011 and presented in the oral hearing indicate that background concentrations upstream of the outfall have improved and concentrations are less than those presented in the EIS.

The more recent figures indicate the following baseline concentrations up- stream (Source Data Laois Co Council 2010-11):

Parameter Mean Concentration BOD 1.14 Ammonia 0.074 Ortho-phosphate 0.018

If we were to apply the WAC calculation formula based on the new background levels the following standards for each of the parameters under each phase could be permitted for the discharge:

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 47

BOD(mg/l) Ammonia Orto-phosphate (mgN/l) (mgP/l) Phase 2 7.25 0.51 0.89 Phase 3 5.2 0.45 0.52

Notwithstanding the more recent figures presented, which would allow more leeway in terms of WAC, it is still proposed to adhere to the standards set out in the EIS. This will provide a greater safeguard against exceeding the assimilative capacity in the Owenass downstream of the outfall and will also ensure that the wastewater treatment plant is not utilising the full assimilative capacity of the river at this point. Some concern is expressed by Inland Fisheries Ireland in relation to whether median or mean concentrations should be used in the calculations. In the case of the Mountmellick WWTP, the mean concentration of background pollutants was used in calculations. This is in accordance with the DOEHLG publication entitled ‘Guidance, Procedures and Training on the Licensing of Discharges to Surface Waters and to Sewers for Local Authorities’ which recommends that mean concentrations be used.

Specific concerns are raised by the Inland Fisheries in relation to phosphorus levels and the ability of the wastewater treatment plant to adequately treat phosphorus. In particular concerns are raised in relation to the phosphorus levels which are currently being discharged into the River Barrow from the wastewater treatment plant as indicated in Table 3.1 of the additional information submission to the Board. The phosphorus levels in the effluent currently being discharged into the River Barrow are averaging at 2.3 milligrams per litre. The phosphorus concentration in the effluent discharged as a result of tertiary treatment will be less than 10% of that currently being discharged into the river and 0.19 milligrams per litre.

In relation to BOD, it was noted in the IFI submission and by the Inspector during the course of the oral hearing that in the BOD calculations for the assimilative capacity, a background concentration on 1.3mg/l was used instead of 2.13mg/l. 2.13mg/l which was the actual background concentration recorded by Laois Co Council in 2007-2008. The figure of 1.3 mg/l was, according to Laois Co Council, inadvertently substituted in the formula for calculating assimilative capacity for BOD. The actual calculations are based on the figure 2.13 mg/l as opposed to 1.3 mg/l. That is to say that the figures used in the calculation were predicated on a background concentration of 2.13 mg/l and not 1.3 mg/l as stated in the preliminary report. Finally in relation to this matter, the most up to date data indicates that the background concentrations of BOD upstream are 1.14 mg/l. Thus if the 1.3 mg/l figure for the background concentrations had been used (which of course it was not), it may have reflected a more accurate level of the most recent data on background concentrations upstream.

It is clear from the information contained in Paragraph 11.9.10 of the EIS that there is little available assimilative capacity in the River Barrow in terms of phosphorus. The background levels in the EIS recorded a mean concentration

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 47 level 0.03mg/l. This allowed a spare capacity of 0.005mg/l for phosphorous downstream of the discharge point. According to the EIS (para. 11.9.10 and Table 11.9 it is possible with an effluent concentration of 0.19 mg of ortho-P for phase 3, for the Owenass River to comply with the Surface Water Regulations of 2009. An important consideration is that the latest background data, from Laois Co Council and from the EPA (data for 2009 and 2010) indicate that phosphorous levels upstream are at the lower limit of 00.018 mg/l which is a reduction of almost 50% below the 2007-2008 levels. This provides for a greater assimilative capacity downstream and will result in the limits set out in the Surface Water Regulations to be more readily adhered to. Based on my own calculations using the most recent background phosphorous levels upstream, the WWTP could discharge effluent with a phosphorous concentration of 0.89 mg/l and 0.52 mg/l under phases 2 and 3 respectively and still comply with the parameters set out in the Surface Water Regulations in order to achieve good status. A discharge concentration of 0.3mg/l under phase 2 and 0.19mg/l phase 3 as set out in the EIS will allow the limits set out in the Regulations to be more readily complied with.

Again I would reiterate the wastewater treatment plant has been designed so that the standards will not result in a downstream concentration which would exceed existing concentrations. The standard will be significantly below the 2mg/l limit set in the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations. Realistically it would not be possible to reduce phosphorus levels significantly below 0.1mg/l in a wastewater treatment plant. The EIS suggests that the new sand filtration system to be employed at the treatment plant the “blue PRO” could reduce phosphorus levels to as low as 0.1mg/l.

Table 11.10 of the EIS indicates that the proposed discharge standard is significantly below the 2mg/l standards set out in the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations (UWWTR’s). So much so that it is estimated that at Stage 3 of the expansion almost 9 kg less of phosphorous per day will be discharged into the River than is current the case at the facility, and a reduction of 8.4 kg below the limits set out in the UWWTR’s.

Inland Fisheries Ireland have also expressed some concern that the proposed upgrade to the WWTP will result in a discharge which will take up the entire WAC of the river downstream, thereby not permitting any other discharges along this section of the River. It is clear from the most up to date information that the baseline levels of pollutants have been reduced by between 15-50% (c. 15% in the case of ammonia and almost 50% in the case of BOD) since 2007. If the pollutant parameters under each of the expansion phases as set out in the EIS are adhered to and achieved, than there will be residual WAC within this stretch of the river. Furthermore it should be kept in mind, that the upgrading of the WWPT should obviate the need for any separate discharges into the River at this location. All effluent derived from industry or residential development would be discharged into the river via the WWPT and thus will be suitably treated prior to discharge. Finally in relation to this point, the assimilative capacity will be significantly expanded c. 2km downstream at the confluence point with the River Barrow.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 47 Finally in relation to the assimilative capacity an issue which was not raised by any of the parties but is nonetheless important in my opinion, relates to the time lag between phases two and three. Phase 3 is unlikely to take place prior to 2019. This represents a gap of almost a decade from when the surveys were carried out in the EIS. It could be reasonably argued in my view that a new application should be submitted which would properly evaluate the proposal in the context of the receiving environment in 2020. Significant changes could take place in terms of the WAC of the receiving waters and baseline ecology in the period up to 2019. Incorporating conditions which require surveys to be carried out at some future date as part of an existing permission may be contrary to the spirit of ECJ Judgement C-183/05, which essentially requires that any mitigation measures be evaluated at assessment stage and not be attached by way of condition. For this reason I would argue that the Board should consider omitting the final (albeit the largest) phase and this should be the subject of a separate application when the need arises.

9.2 Capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Inland Fisheries Ireland had particular concerns in relation to the capacity of the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Plant and the fact that it was being designed to treat twice the dry weather flow (2 x DWF) as opposed to three times the dry weather flow (3 x DWF) as indicated in the information submitted to the Board on the 5 th of September 2011. This, it is argued, could result in more frequent incidences of storm water overflows in the river without appropriate treatment.

This issue was dealt with in the oral hearing and Mr Tuke on behalf of Laois Co Council stated that it was noted from operational experience that there are high levels of infiltration on the existing network due to its poor structural condition. The hydraulic modelling indicated that the levels of infiltration are much higher than can normally be expected in sewerage infrastructure. Thus the hydraulic loading at Phases 2 and 3, while sized at 2 times the dry weather flow, actually exceed the design flow of 3 x DWF for standard design parameters (based on 225 litres / head per day).

I consider it reasonable in this instance that the 2 x dry weather flow is acceptable having regard to such high infiltration rates. Catering for a significantly high hydraulic load could result in a very dilute organic load which would impact on the food/mass ratio in the secondary treatment tanks which could adversely impact on the overall performance of the waste water treatment works. Furthermore I note that in phase 1 of the upgrading, an overflow tank has been incorporated at the inlet works. This storm water storage tank has a volume of 715 m 3 or a retention time of 2hrs at 3 x DWF for 13,000 pe. This will reduce considerably the potential for storm water overflow directly into the river. The wastewater treatment plant is in my view of adequate capacity to cater for the anticipated flows.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 47 9.3 Relocating the Outfall Pipe from the River Owenass to the River Barrow

Having regard to the relatively low water volumes of the Owenass River as indicated in Table 3.3 of the additional information submitted to the Board on the 25 th of September 2010, IFI expressed concerns that the baseline flow may not be suitable to cater for the Discharge from the WWTP. Particular concern is expressed in relation to dry weather base line flows within the river. The daily dry weather flows of effluent under phases 2 and 3 (m 3/day) amount to 3,182 and 5,432 respectively. The critical flow to be evaluated in terms of WAC is 95%ile flows and not dry weather flows. The EPA recommend that when calculating the mass balance of the receiving waters the 95%ile of the concentration quality standard should be used in conjunction with the 95%ile flow of the receiving waters. (See submission of Mr Kilfeather IFI when referring to the presentation of Loretta Joyce at EPA conference of 19 th of May 2011). Therefore while the IFI express concerns that the daily dry weather flow of the effluent maybe 325% of the baseline DWF within the river under phase 3, in terms of the 95%ile flow, the discharge from phase 3 will only amount to 54% of the total river volume.

Again would reiterate and highlight that the critical issue is not the baseline flow, be it dry weather or 95%ile, but rather whether the river has the assimilative capacity to cater for the organic load being discharged. This is dependent on the baseline concentrations of pollutants upstream, the volumetric flows with the river together with the organic loading from the waste water treatment plant. I have argued above that the based on the figures presented it has been demonstrated that WAC exists downstream in the river. In this light any need to transfer the outfall pipe to the river Barrow is questionable.

Furthermore it was pointed out in Mr Tuke submission in the oral hearing that the 95%ile flows in the Barrow upstream of the confluence point with the Owenass River are recorded by the OPW as 0.109 m 3/s which is less than that in the Owenass River (albeit marginally). Thus there would be considerable expense and probably no benefit gained relocating the outfall to the Barrow c. 1 km due north of the WWTP.

Relocating the outfall to a point beyond the confluence of the Owenass and the Barrow in the Vicinity of the Bourness Bridge could also be considered. The 95%ile flow at this station according to OPW figures is 0.25 m 3 /s which is approximately twice the flows in the Owenass River. However no details are available as to the background concentrations of pollutants upstream of the confluence point in the Barrow. As a result it is not possible to ascertain with any degree of certainty whether this options offers significant advantages in terms of WAC. Relocating the outfall to this point may also present serious expense in terms of routing the pipework under the Owenass River in order to discharge in the vicinity of Bourness Bridge. The fact still remains that according to the information submitted the Owenass River downstream of the discharge point has the capacity to adequately assimilate the discharge from the WWTP thus a relocation of the outfall is not necessary.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 47 9.4 Impact on the Freshwater Pearl Mussel

The observation by An Taisce highlighted the importance of the River Barrow and River Nore for the freshwater pearl mussel and notes that both the EIS and the South-East River Basin management plan highlighted the importance of this species in ecological terms. It is submitted that the decision pertaining to the restoration of the freshwater pearl mussel in the main channel of the River Barrow can only be made by the European Commission.

The River Barrow and River Nore SAC (Site Code 2162) have many conservation objectives supporting marine habitats. One of the more important objectives relates to the freshwater pearl mussel. The site synopsis notes that the SAC is the only site in the world for the hard water form of the pearl mussel M. Durrovensis and one of only a handful of spawning grounds in the country for the twaite shad . It is stated that the upper stretches of the River Barrow, River Nore and the Owenass River are very important for spawning.

The River Basin Management Plan also makes reference to the freshwater pearl mussel and notes that the species is sensitive to enrichment and/or siltation. The Plan also points out that six designated freshwater pearl mussel locations in the south-eastern river basin district did not meet their protected area objectives due to water quality conditions and therefore the status has been downgraded. There is no specific reference to the presence of the freshwater pearl mussel in the Barrow but there is specific reference to its presence in the River Nore. In relation to the River Nore, it is stated that the quality of the population’s habitat is falling (through evidence of heavy siltation, macrophyte and filamentous green algal growth). Heavy siltation has had a particular adverse impact on the freshwater pearl mussel populations in the south-east region.

The EIS also points out in Section 11.4.20 that the freshwater pearl mussel did occur in the River Barrow catchment but is now extinct in the main channel. There is no reference to the freshwater pearl mussel ever being present in the Owenass River. I note that the Appropriate Assessment did not assess the impact of the proposal on the freshwater pearl mussel on the grounds that its population is restricted to a 10 kilometre stretch on the River Nore and other tributaries. These are all located downstream of the River Barrow.

Based on the evidence presented in the EIS and the South-East River Basin Management Plan together with the information contained in the Appropriate Assessment, it appears that the improvements in the effluent output of the wastewater treatment works, as envisaged under the various phases of the Plan, would not adversely impact on the populations of freshwater pearl mussel. There are no resident population within the River Barrow which could be affected by the proposal. While nutrients and suspended solids in wastewater can have an adverse impact on the living environment of the freshwater pearl mussel, in this instance there is no resident population to be affected, as the freshwater pearl mussel is extinct in the River Barrow.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 47 The works undertaken will represent an improvement in terms of removing greater levels of nutrients and BOD from the wastewater which will contribute towards the ultimate attainment of the receiving waters achieving “good status” under the Water Framework Directive. This may in time contribute to an environment which is more conducive to supporting populations of the freshwater pearl mussel. Improvements in the wastewater treatment plant will serve to improve, support and encourage an aquatic environment which could at some future date see the re-colonising of the river by new species including the freshwater pearl mussel. Therefore it would not be appropriate to refuse permission for the proposed development on the grounds that the quality of effluent being discharged into the River Barrow is not of a sufficient quality that it in itself would create environmental conditions which would support the reintroduction of species such as the freshwater pearl mussel.

The submission also suggests that the opinion of the European Commission should be sought in respect of the potential impact of the wastewater treatment extension on the freshwater pearl mussel in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of SI 94 of 1997 (Habitat Regulations). It is assumed that the submission is specifically relying on Article 27(7) of the said Regulations where the Board may desire to obtain the opinion of the Commission as to whether or not reasons are to be considered imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). As the proposed development will not impact on the integrity or status of the freshwater pearl mussel in the River Barrow (as there is no species currently resident in this section of the river) the issue of IROPI does not arise in this instance.

9.5 Adequacy of the EIS

A separate report is appended to this main report which specifically evaluates the content of the information in the EIS. It concludes that the EIS adequately assesses the potential environmental impact arising from the proposed development. It is difficult to evaluate the specific concern raised by An Taisce or the observation submitted by Mr Hoey as no details are provided as to what aspects of the EIS are deemed to be insufficient. Reference to the Senior Planning Inspectors remarks in relation to the EIS for a combined waste and power facility at Ballard Fermoy, Co Cork under PL04.218581 are of no relevance in this instance as the current EIS has been prepared in relation to a different type of development on a different site.

Reference is also made in a submission to the Oral Hearing by Mr. Micheal Hoey to the European Court of Justice Ruling C-50/09, on Irelands failings to fulfil its obligations under 85/337/EEC. C-50/09 identified a gap in Irish Legislation whereby it is possible for the EPA to grant a licence concerning pollution matters for which an EIA is required prior to the planning authority or the Board carrying out an assessment of the application. This situation has not arisen in this instance as no licence application for the current proposal has been made to the EPA. (An application for a licence was made in Sept 2008 under the Wastewater Discharge Authorisation Regulations but to date the EPA have not issued a decision on this licence application. Furthermore no EIS was prepared or submitted with this application).

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 47

I am satisfied that the critical issues regarding the impact of the proposal on water quality, aquatic ecology in the context of the River Barrow SAC has been adequately evaluated. I am also satisfied that the EIS has provided adequate information in terms of the requirements set out in Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. The adequacy of the EIS is specifically dealt with in Appendix 1 of this report.

I would highlight to the Board that my assessment of the environmental impact is based on the description of the proposed development provided in the EIS and more particularly the Preliminary Design Report. Any deviation from the description and layout set out in the Documentation may have environmental implications and may require further consent. As this application was lodged under section 175 of the Act, it is not altogether clear whether the provisions of Article 22 and 23 of the 2001 Regulations relating to plans and particulars to be submitted with the planning application apply. The Board will note in this instance that the drawings including the layout plans are at a scale of 1:500 where the normal requirement would be at a scale of not less than 1:200 as set out in Article 23(1)(d).

9.6 Other Issues

The An Taisce report makes reference to an alternative method of wastewater treatment which could be achieved by using ready and available cutaway bogs such as settlement/reed bed lakes which would form adequate attenuation and would also have a high amenity value. It is difficult to comment in any great detail on the nature of this objection as very little information is provided. More importantly the Board can only evaluate the application currently before it and this application appears to have been predicated upon a specific terms of reference developed by Laois County Council. The proposed development therefore can only be evaluated in the context of the terms of reference. If the proposed development is not deemed to be suitable and the Board are minded to refuse planning permission, then it is possible that alternatives such as that referred to could be explored. However in the absence of detailed designs in this regard it is not possible to comment on this alternative further.

The submission dated 24 th November 2011 from Inland Fisheries Ireland expresses concerns that a lengthy period may elapse before An Bord Pleanála is in a position to issue a decision on the application. It notes that even when such a decision is made by the Board the funding situation may still be such as not to permit to works to proceed for a considerable time. Concern is expressed that no licence will be granted in the interim by the EPA thereby implying that the EPA should expedite a decision on the existing application for a licence which was lodged in September 2008. The decision on when or if a discharge licence is granted is a matter solely for the EPA and not a matter for An Bord Pleanála. It is not a matter for An Bord Pleanala to comment or otherwise on the granting of a waste licence for the WWTP.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 47 The same submission from Inland Fisheries Ireland states that EPA data for the years 2001 – 2003 has been used in the calculation of assimilative capacity. It is suggested that it would have been more appropriate to use more recent and up to date data and the Inland Fisheries would recommend that EPA data sets for at least 2010 and 2011 be used. The applicant stated during the course of the Oral hearing that this was a typographical error. Data used in the preliminary design report and the EIS were from 2007 and 2008. Furthermore more up to date information from 2010 and 2011 was presented at the oral hearing.

The Fisheries submission also argues that it is not clear whether it is the median or mean value which is used in calculating the assimilative capacity. Again I would refer the Board to the OPW website which specifically provides statistics on the grounds of average annual mean values i.e. values that are the mean or average values of flow or water as calculated over a period of full years. There is no reference to any median values in the OPW website. In relation to the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Plant, mean (average) figures are used in the data presented on background concentrations. No issues arise therefore in relation to the figures presented.

I note that an Appropriate Assessment as required under Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive has been submitted with the application. The Appropriate Assessment identifies the habitats (Annex I and Annex II) of conservation status within the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC. The Appropriate assessment identifies the potential significant effects and also the likely effects which may result from the proposed work to be undertaken. Based on the scientific evidence submitted in the Appropriate Assessment I consider it reasonable to conclude on the basis of the information available that the proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects would not adversely affect the integrity of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC Site no 002162.

10 RECOMMENDATION

Arising from my assessment above I consider the proposed development will be beneficial in terms of treating the wastewater from the Mountmellick WWTP to a higher standard than the current operation on site. This ultimately will be beneficial in improving the water quality status in the River Barrow and will contribute towards the objective of protecting this designated sensitive area and will assist in helping the water body downstream of the outfall to achieve good status in terms of water quality in accordance with the provisions of the Water Framework Directive. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted for the proposed development.

Having regard to the timeframe involved for the upgrading, particularly in relation to phase 3, which is due to be reviewed circa 2019, I would recommend that condition be attached omitting this phase of the development. Any future expansion under phase 3, post – 2020 should be evaluated in the context of the then receiving environment in which phase 3 is to take place.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 47

DECISION

Grant planning permission for the proposed development based on the reasons and considerations set out below:

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having considered the submissions and observations made in respect of the proposed development, the report and recommendation of the person appointed to make a report and recommendation on the matter, and also having regard to:

(a) The wastewater objectives of the Laois County Council County Development Plan 2011 to 2017;

(b) The wastewater collection and treatment objectives of the Mountmellick Local Area Plan 2007-2013 ;

(c ) The South Eastern River Basin Management Plan 2009-2015

(d) The requirements set out under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001, the European Communities (Quality of Salamonid Waters) Regulations, 1988, and the European Communities Environmental Objective (Surface Water) Regulations 2009,

It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below and to the mitigation measures set out in the environmental impact statement, the proposed extension of the wastewater treatment plant at Mountmellick would not result in significant adverse effects on the environment and would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The proposed development shall be constructed to a standard capable of complying with the following treated maximum effluent values, as set out in the environmental impact statement:

For Phase 2 • 4.09 mg/l BOD 5 • 6 mg/l Suspended Solids • 0.31 mg/l Ammonia • 15 mg/l Nitrate (as N) • 0.3 mg/l Total Phosphorous • 8 mg/l Dissolved Oxygen (during 95%ile flows at design loads).

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 47

2. Phase 3 of the development shall be omitted.

Reason: It is considered more appropriate that the receiving environment of any subsequent expansion beyond phase 2 be evaluated at the date in which phase 3 is deemed to be necessary.

3. Any works at the outfall pipe including the installation of any coffer dam shall only be carried out during day light hours between the months of July and October inclusive. Detailed ecological surveys will take place at the time of the construction of the new outfall and coffer dam to ensure that any aquatic or terrestrial species are safely removed from the area in which the works are taking place.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the ecology of the environs of the River Owenass.

5. The odour level emanating from the site of the proposed development shall not 3 th exceed 3OU E/m at the 98 percentile of hourly averages at the site boundary of the proposed development.

Reason: To protect the amenities of properties in the vicinity of the site.

6. Alarm systems and telemetry systems shall be put in place for the alerting of relevant maintenance personnel in the case of a fault arising at the plant. In addition a notice shall be prominently displayed at the entrance of the access road leading to the site alerting members of the general public as to an emergency number to call where an alarm has been activiated.

Reason: To protect the receiving environment.

7. A turbidity monitor shall be attached to the outfall.

Reason: To notify staff in the event of any deterioration in the quality of effluent being discharged into the River Owenass.

8. A long term ecological monitoring programme of the river banks, and of the River Owenass 100 metres immediately upstream and 100 metres immediately downstream of the outfall of the waste water treatment plant, shall be carried out for the proposed development. Testing shall be carried out at a minimum annual frequency, shall include an invertebrate analysis and biological water quality assessment and shall be incorporated into the plant management system. The results, including monitoring of the effluent discharges, shall be made available for public inspection at the offices of the local authority and published annually on the local authority’s website.

Reason: To protect the aquatic environment of this candidate Special Area of Conservation and to ensure that information in relation to the environment is available to the public.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 47 9. A comprehensive site management plan shall be put in place for the duration of the construction works.

Reason: To protect water quality and the amenities of property in the vicinity.

______

Paul Caprani Senior Planning Inspector

30 th January 2012

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 47 APPENDIX 1

Assessment and Evaluation of the EIS submitted.

A. Compliance with the Requirements of Article 4 and Article 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001

The EIS contains the information specified in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations. It is noted however that the EIS explicitly states that at this stage the general design parameters for the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant have been determined but the detailed design has yet to be finalised. This will be developed on behalf of Laois County Council at tender stage of the Scheme. The general design parameters of the Scheme are set out in the EIS and more detailed descriptions of the works are set out in Section 6 of the preliminary report submitted with the application. The EIA was carried out on the basis of the design proposals set out in Section 6 of the preliminary report. Furthermore a worst case scenario was evaluated in terms of the environmental impact. Provided that the detailed design parameters presented in the preliminary report are adhered to I am satisfied that the EIA based on these parameters is generally satisfactory. This will be identified in more detail below.

The EIS describes the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy the significant adverse effects associated with the development. These are set out in sub-section 5 of each of the chapters of the EIS. The measures are set out separately in relation to construction and operational measures.

The EIS provides the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects the project is likely to have on the environment. The data gathering methodology and the baseline in relation to the existing environment is set out in sub-section 3 and sub-section 4 of each of the chapters.

Section 2.2 of the EIS relates to alternatives. Since the proposals specifically sought an extension to the existing wastewater treatment plant no alternative sites were considered. Alternative designs and processes were considered in the EIS.

The EIS contains the relevant information specified in Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations. This includes:

• A description of the physical characteristics of the project and its land use requirements. The project is described in Section 3 of the EIS and Section 6 of the preliminary report. All works will be carried out within the existing site boundary.

• A description of the main characteristics of the treatment processes including the nature and quantity of the effluent being treated is set out in Section 5 of the preliminary report and in Section 11 of the EIS.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 47 • An estimate, by type and quantity of the expected residues from the wastewater treatment plant, including the pollutant parameters of the effluent to be discharged is considered in the EIS. Estimates are also made in relation to the expected residues and emissions from noise and air.

• Any gaps in baseline data is also assessed under each of the chapter headings.

• There is an adequate summary of the EIS and non-technical language.

B. Identification of the Likely Significant Direct and Indirect Effects on the Environment

I have evaluated the main direct and indirect effects of the proposal on the environment in my assessment. I propose here to solely identify the main effects under a range of headings as follows:

Socio-economic Facilitating the extension of zoned land within Mountmellick to accommodate additional development which would aid the local economy.

Traffic Potential impact in traffic arising from construction works and during the operation of the expanded plant.

Noise Increases of noise during both the construction and operational phases particularly due to the operation of new mechanical and electrical equipment.

Ecology Potential impact on aquatic ecology in the Owenass River. The potential impact could be positive or negative.

Potential impact on hedgerows, bats, otter, nesting birds as a result of the works being carried out and the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

Water Environment The identification of likely significant impacts on water quality in the Owenass River. Particularly in terms of BOD, phosphorous, ammonia and suspended solids etc. The impacts could be negative or positive.

Cultural Heritage The potential impact on the archaeology of the area.

Air Quality Potential impact in terms of dust and odour.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 47 Visual Impact The potential impact on the extension and construction of additional plant which could adversely impact on the visual amenities of the area.

C. Description of the Likely Effect Identified and the Mitigation Measures Proposed to Alleviate these Impacts

Socio-Economic No significant effects are envisaged. There will be a small positive impact in terms of employment and the proposed extension to the wastewater treatment works will facilitate the future expansion of Mountmellick which could have positive economic effects.

Traffic The increases in traffic levels resulting from the proposed development are deemed to be insignificant and will not have an adverse impact in terms of pedestrian safety or driver delay.

Noise In terms of the operation of the wastewater treatment plant the EIS states that the final specification and design of the treatment plant is not yet available. Consequently noise emissions of the proposed plant are not available. The detailed design of the wastewater treatment works would be carried out taking into account noise levels at the receptors. Compliance with environmental noise criterion based on existing background levels will be one of the specifications required to fulfil by the contractor appointed to build the wastewater treatment works. The environmental noise criterion has been set so that the noise from the proposed wastewater treatment works will not exceed the existing noise levels at the nearest receptor to the site. The criteria is based on night time noise levels.

The mitigation measures to be employed include:

• No plant to be installed on site which would give rise to tonal or impulsive sound. • All machinery will comply with the standards in accordance with the provisions of BS5228.

I note that the nearest noise sensitive receptors are c.200 metres from the wastewater treatment plant and that noise levels emanating from the plant will attenuate over distance.

Ecology The potential impacts include: • The degradation of the River Barrow SAC during both the construction and operational phases. • The loss of 0.4 hectares of land within the site designated as SAC.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 47 • The potential impact of the works during the construction and operational phase of the wastewater treatment plant on terrestrial and aquatic fauna including bats, otter, white clawed crayfish, and other fish (particularly salmon and lamprey) and nesting birds.

The mitigation measures include:

• Pollution control measures during the construction and adhering to water quality standards in accordance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations and SI272 of 2009 during the operational phase. • The 0.4 hectares of land which forms part of the SAC is deemed to be of low ecological status. • Survey and compensation planting of trees will be implemented to reduce the potential impact on bat colonies. • Otter surveys will take place prior to any works being undertaken within 50 metres of the outfall pipe. • All work will be restricted to daylight hours. • Pollution prevention measures to minimise the risk of pollution on aquatic species. • Compensation planting to ensure that the proposed development will not impact on nesting birds.

Water Environment

The potential impacts include

• The potential contamination or sediment laden surface water due to run-off during the construction phase. • Treated effluent causing deterioration in water quality. • Potential flooding of the wastewater treatment plant from the Owenass River.

The mitigation measures include: • Guidance from statutory authorities and the production of a method statement dealing with how any spillages or siltation will be dealt with including appropriately bunded areas to contain potentially hazardous substances on site. Strict measures in relation to the dewatering of groundwater for the construction of the wastewater treatment tanks on site. • During the operational stage the discharge of effluent will be in accordance with the standards set out in Table 11.8 of the EIS which specifically relate to standards regarding BOD, ammonia and phosphorous. • The wastewater treatment works will be designed to ensure that all sensitive mechanical and electrical instrumentation will be situated above the 1 in 1,000 year flood event.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 47 Cultural Heritage No significant impacts are identified in the area of cultural heritage and archaeology, however there will be a watching brief maintained on site during the construction of the wastewater treatment plant.

Air Quality The identified potential impacts in relation to air quality include potential for fugitive dust to have an intermittent impact on the nearest noise sensitive receptors (the closest receptors are dwellinghouses in excess of 100 metres away).

Increased odour concentrations due to the increase of sewage and sludge production and the incorporation of a primary treatment clarifier.

The mitigation measures to address these potential problems

• Two shell media odour control units will be installed on site. • Annual olfactometry testing of odour control units. • The preparation of an odour management plan. • Detailed records of all complaints will be logged and addressed.

Landscape and visual, No significant visual impacts have been identified. The maximum height of proposed buildings will not exceed 6.5 metres.

Mitigation measures will be provided including placing a height limit on the buildings, retaining hedgerows and trees where possible and the placing of the larger storage tanks into the ground.

D. Conclusions

I would conclude therefore based on my assessment above that the EIS submitted, whilst comprising of a design build and operate type development has assessed the likely effects resulting from the development based on the intended design set out in the documentation. The potential significant environmental impacts have been identified, described and assessed in the EIS in terms of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. The interaction of the impacts has been adequately assessed, as have the potential environmental impacts resulting from both the construction phase and the operational phase of the development. I am therefore satisfied that the EIS complies with the requirements set out in the Directive.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 47 Appendix II – Proceedings of Oral Hearing in relation to the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Works

An oral hearing into the proposed upgrading of the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Works was held in the East End Hotel, Portarlington on Wednesday, 18 th January 2012. In attendance at the hearing were

On behalf of Laois County Council • Philip McVeigh – Senior Engineer • Donal Kiely – Senior Executive Planner • Paraic Joyce – Laois Co Council • Martin Glesson – Laois Co Council • Seamus Quinn – Laois Co Council • Niall Tuke – Civil Engineer – Nicholas O’Dwyer & Associates • Fiona Lane – Chemical Engineer – Nicholas O’Dwyer Ltd. • Emma Marsden of Amec Consultants (authors of the EIS)

On behalf of Inland Fisheries Ireland • Mr. Patrick Kilfeather, Senior Fisheries Officer

On behalf of Mountmellick Anglers Association • Eddie Blanche • David Touhy • James Gormley • Ger Lynch

Other Observers

The Board will note that Michael Hoey did not appear in person at the Mountmellick oral hearing, however the previous day at the Portarlington oral hearing, Mr. Hoey made a formal written submission in relation to the Mountmellick Treatment Plant and requested that this be taken into consideration by the Board in its deliberations on the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Opening of the Oral Hearing

After the introductory remarks to open the hearing, the Inspector called upon Laois County Council to makes its formal submission.

Submission on behalf of Laois Co Council

Mr. Tuke on behalf of Laois County Council made two submissions, one specifically dealing with the assimilative capacity calculations associated with the wastewater treatment plant and secondly a more comprehensive submission which dealt with the water and ecological aspects of the EIS and specifically addressed individual concerns raised by prescribed bodies and observers in relation to the proposal.

The presentation on the waste assimilative capacity outlines the methodology which is employed to calculate assimilative capacity (see assessment above) and highlights the

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 47 requirements that are necessary to comply with the Surface Water Regulations (SI 272 of 2009). Of particular note in this submission is the latest background data for water quality upstream of the outfall of the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment System. It shows a material improvement in the mean concentration of BOD, ammonia and orthophosphate from that used in the EIS.

• The BOD mg/l was recorded at 1.14 (down from 2.13 in the EIS). • the EIS). • The orthophosphate concentration mg/l was down from 0.03 to 0.18.

This new background data was recorded in 2010 – 2011.

Notwithstanding these lower emission values recorded upstream on the Owenass River, the submission indicates that the effluent concentrations proposed in the EIS under the various phases are still proposed to be adhered to in the current application. By way of conclusion, the submission states that the upstream water quality improved to “high status” in 2011 and that the downstream water quality is currently “moderate status”. The proposed upgrade works will assist in achieving good status in the Owenass River.

The second submission by Mr. Tuke outlined the relevant sections of the EIS in relation to the water environment and the ecological environment and sets out the potential impacts arising from the proposed development and the proposed mitigation measures to be put in place to address these potential impacts.

Section 3 of the submission goes onto address the concerns raised in the various submissions from observers and prescribed bodies in relation to the proposal. The issues addressed include: -

• The assimilative capacity. • The freshwater pearl mussel. • The adequacy of the EIS. • The consideration of alternative methods of treatment. • The peak flow rate to the wastewater treatment works. • The possibility of relocating the outfall location. • The sizing of the wastewater treatment plant in terms of two DWF or three DWF and • The various pollutant concentrations used in the waste assimilative capacity calculations.

Laois County Council then called upon Mr. Donal Keily, Senior Executive Planner with Laois County Council. The submission outlined the need for the upgrade of the plant and states that an increase in wastewater infrastructure is fundamental to ensure in the long term physical environmental, social and economic development of Mountmellick.

The submission goes on to outline the various policies and provisions contained in national and local plans and in particular reference is made to:-

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 47

• The National Spatial Strategy. • The Regional Planning Guidelines. • The Laois County Council Development Plan. • The Mountmellick Local Area Plan

It is noted that the County Development Plan seeks to facilitate the provision of adequate wastewater collection and treatment systems in towns and villages and the Mountmellick Local Area Plan seeks to provide a reliable system for the safe and adequate disposal of wastewater in a manner which is environmentally sustainable and within the resources of the Council.

When questions were put to Mr. Keily by the Planning Inspector in relation to population growth in the county, Mr. Keily indicated that preliminary figures from the 2011 census suggested that the population of Laois County Council grew in the order of 20% during inter-census period. He also stated that there is little evidence of high vacancy rates in the residential stock in either Portarlington or Mountmellick.

The Planning Inspector also put a number of questions to Mr. Tuke in relation to dry weather flow issues, the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, the relationship between dry weather flows and 95 percentile flows in the river and a number of questions in relation to the calculation of the assimilative capacity.

Submission on behalf of Inland Fisheries Ireland

Mr. Patrick Kilfeather, Senior Fisheries Officer made the following submission at the hearing: -

Again by way of introductory comment, Mr. Kilfeather stated that IFI welcomed the proposed upgrading of the Mountmellick Wastewater Treatment Works. However significant concern from a fisheries perspective is that the design of the plant to meet only 2 X dry weather flow as normal design practice would cater for 3 X the dry weather flow. It is suggested therefore that even during modest rainfall events, overflows could be discharged directly into the Owenass River without appropriate treatment. A question arises therefore whether the receiving water quality standards can be complied with in such circumstances.

Concern is also expressed in relation to Table 3.3 submitted by Nicholas O’Dwyer & Associates in response to An Bord Pleanála’s request for additional information. The proportions of effluent at dry weather flow to receiving waters are given as 171% and 184% and 325% respectively in Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the upgrade. If for any reason the treatment plant performs badly or a breakdown occurs, the fact that the wastewater component will constitute such a large proportion of the actual river flow is cause for concern. Concerns are also expressed in relation to inadequate dilution of wastewater during low flow summer conditions.

Concerns are also highlighted in relation to the BOD figures used in the calculation of assimilative capacity.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 47 The IFI would also recommend that EPA data for 2010 and 2011 were available at the time of preparing the EIS and application and this more up to date data should be used in calculating the assimilative capacity of the rivers.

Reference is made to the Guidance Proceedings and Training on the Licensing of Discharge to Surface Waters and to Sewers for Local Authorities prepared on behalf of the Water Services Training Groups. The Manual states that discharge limits should be based on the 95 percentile concentration quality standard at the 95 percentile flow. Using this assimilative capacity methodology, the submission notes that it is possible to meet the required 95 percentile good status standards for BOD and ammonia but not for phosphorus. Phosphorus removal therefore is clearly an issue and confirms the need to relocate the wastewater treatment outfall so as to allow a discharge directly into the Barrow main channel.

Again it is noted that the discharge standards proposed to be met in Phase 2 and 3 are particularly onerous and Fisheries would question whether in practice these consistently could be achieved particularly where there might be a breakdown or failure within the mechanical or electrical systems and where microbial activity was affected.

The final sections of the submission set out systems which should be put in place to counteract a malfunction in the discharge to receiving waters.

The Board will not that Mountmellick Anglers Association did not make a formal submission to the Hearing but did contribute during the questions and cross- examinations.

Questions and Cross-Examinations

There then followed discussion between all parties regarding the overall capacity of the wastewater treatment works, and the level of discharges as a proportion of the base flow of the Owenass River. Questions and comments regarding the removal of phosphorus levels and the possibility of relocating the outfall further north to the River Barrow were also made. Issues in relation to the mixing zone in the vicinity of the outfall and the baseline flow of the River Owenass were also debated. Controlling nitrates in the discharge and the possibility of providing improved storm holding capacity were also discussed. Details of these questions and cross-examinations are set out in Sections 17-26 in the recording of the proceedings of the oral hearing.

Closing Submissions

By way of closing submission the IFI stated that it wished to highlight the fact that the overall policies and objectives of both the Local Authority and the IFI are similar as both seek improvement in the quality of water status in water bodies. It also welcomes the more recent figures presented at the oral hearing which show improvements in the baseline quality of the receiving waters. The IFI however do express some concerns at the suggestion by Laois County Council that the discharge from the wastewater treatment plant would augment and provide a consistent baseline flow in the River Owenass. It is suggested that any increase in the baseline flow in the River Owenass

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 47 should not be used as a justification to grant planning permission for the discharge and outfall. The Inspector formally closed the oral hearing at 1pm.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 47

Appendix III Appropriate Assessment Summary

The initial section of this document outlines the background to the proposed development including the regulatory context with specific emphasis on the Habitats Regulations. Section 2 of the report outlines the proposed extension to the scheme.

Section 3 sets out the conservation status of the receiving waters and highlights the Annex I and Annex II species listed in the site synopsis. For the purposes of clarity Table 3.1 sets out those habitats and species that are listed in the site synopsis for the River Barrow SAC but are not considered further in the assessment for reasons which are set out in the accompanying Table. In relation to the Nore Freshwater Pearl Mussel it is stated that this species is restricted to a 10 kilometre stretch of the River Nore. In relation to the Twaite Shad it is stated that this andromonous species which breeds in the lowest reaches of the river and is therefore restricted to this area of the river only. The various ecology and habitats located in close proximity to the outfall and which could be affected by the proposed development are set out in Section 3 of the Appropriate Assessment. These include:

• Floating river vegetation • Alluvial wet woodlands • Petrifying springs • Dry heath • Salmon • Brook lamprey • Otter • White clawed crayfish and • Desmoulin’s whorl snail.

The area around the outfall was subject to a survey for a distance of approximately 100 metres upstream of the outfall of 500 metres downstream. The various zones (aquatic zone, marginal zone, bank zone and adjacent land zone) are described in the assessment. In terms of the aquatic zone the vegetation appeared to be extremely limited except in the most downstream reaches surveyed. It is stated that there is very little marginal zone along much of the stretch of river due to the steep nature of the banks but a narrow fringe of reed canary grass is present along parts of the upper survey reach. The bank zones and bank tops are generally well vegetated.

It is noted that the site offers a suitable habitat for otter and droppings were found within the vicinity of the outfall. No evidence of otter resting sites were found although the hawthorn scrub and thick gorse along the northern most hedge of the bank provide suitable liable habitats for otter. The habitat also appears suitable for lamprey and salmon spawning as areas of gravel and pebble are present within the riverbed. The survey suggests that floating river vegetation communities are absent from the reach and only a few common species were observed. Terrestrial habitat adjacent to the rivers west bank and within the SAC boundary does not support any Annex I habitats or Annex II species (other than the reference to the otter above). In view of the above the assessment will focus on the Annex II species namely the

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 47 Atlantic salmon, brook lamprey, white clawed crayfish and otter and as a precautionary measure will also assume the presence of floating river vegetation.

It is noted that the EPA biological quality rating (2009) both north and south of the outfall at Mountmellick is Q3-Q4.

Section 4 of the AA sets out the potential effects and mitigation measures employed to counteract these effects. It is argued that if the scheme is not implemented and the settlement of Mountmellick continues to expand the existing treatment system will not be able to cope with the increase in flows and this will have adverse implications for the river quality in the Owenass River. This could impact on populations of salmon, lamprey and otter using the river and could give rise to utification with high organic loading.

Section 4.2 sets out the potential construction effects resulting from the proposal. It is noted that the expansion of the wastewater treatment works will result in a permanent loss of approximately 0.7 hectares of terrestrial habitat (approximately 0.4 hectares of which is located within the SAC). It is noted however that this habitat is of low biodiversity value and does contain or support any Annex I or Annex II species set out in the site synopsis. Correspondence with the NPWS has confirmed that there is no record for the reason for the fields inclusion within the SAC boundary. Nevertheless it is recommended that a Management Plan be produced to enhance and retain the terrestrial elements of the SAC for biodiversity, the contents of which will be agreed with the NPWS.

The mobilisation of silt and sediment is one of the most likely pollutants to occur during the construction works.

Studies are currently being undertaken to assess the condition of the outfall. However for the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment it is assumed that a new outfall will need to be constructed which will involve in-stream works. The potential adverse impacts arising from construction are set out and these include increased levels of suspended solids and sedimentation within the River Owenass and the accidental release of fuels, oils and lubricants during the construction phase. The key mitigation measures with respect to minimising construction related risk include

• In-stream machine works should be minimised to protect against leakages of oils and fuels etc. • All refuelling will take place away from the riverbank. • Fuels, oils and greases must be stored in a bunded area away from the river. • Spill kits and method statements for dealing with accidental spillage will be provided. • A site induction course would be provided to ensure responsible working practices. • All construction works including the pouring of concrete must be conducted in the dry. • The proposed outfall upgrade should involve the use of a cutter dam installed in a manner which minimises disturbance on the riverbed.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 47 • In-channel works should only take place between the period July-September thus avoiding the sensitive spawning and early development stages of salmon. • A method statement will be adopted to ensure that these mitigation measures are adhered to.

With regard to aquatic species it is possible during the dewatering operation carried out as part of the outfall upgrade that crayfish, juvenile salmonids and lamprey may be present within the dammed area. To avoid any direct impact an ecologist should be present during the initial dewatering works to remove any subspecies.

With respect to the otter a survey should be carried out prior to any construction works to determine whether any resting sites lies within 30 metres of the working area.

In terms of operational effects the increase in design capacity may affect the total loading of critical pollutants and cause a degree of water deterioration in the receiving watercourse. This again could have a direct impact on the SAC species in view of their high water quality requirements. To mitigate potentially significant effects arising from the discharge of final treated effluent it will be necessary to set effluent standards reflecting

(a) The legislative water quality requirements of this watercourse and (b) The water quality requirements of SAC habitats and species in supports.

The AA sets out the pollutant parameters which must be achieved (see my main report) in order to comply with legislative requirements. It can be seen from Table 4.1 and 4.2 that a BOD discharge standard of 4.09mg/l for Phase 2 and 3.46mg/l for Phase 3 will be required in the effluent discharge to ensure adequate protection of aquatic receptors is provided.

With regard to ammonia Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicate that a discharge standard of 0.31mg/l for Phase 2 and 0.24mg/l for Phase 3 of the capacity upgrade will ensure that adequate protection of aquatic receptors is provided.

With regard to orthophosphate it is stated that there is virtually no assimilative capacity within the Owenass River upstream as concentrations are already at 0.03mg/l due largely to agricultural sources. Again Tables 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate with an effluent standard of 0.3mg for ortho P per litre for Phase 2 and 0.19mg ortho P per litre for Phase 3 it will be possible for the Owenass River to comply with the Surface Water Regulations. The provision of additional capacity and tighter discharge consent will ensure that phosphorus loadings from this particular source will be significantly reduced. There are a number of existing methods to remove phosphorus from effluent mainly through ferric or aluminium dosing. Using ferric dosing is not currently practical to reduce phosphorus levels in effluent to less than 0.5mg/l. However a new filtration system called the “Blue PRO” that enables phosphorus levels as low as 0.1mg/l to be attained has been piloted.

However if a discharge standard of 0.5mg/l can be achieved, whilst this will not enable compliance with the European Communities Surface Water Regulations it will increase the background concentration by 0.016mg/l. The EU Freshwater Fish Directive states that a limit value of 0.2mg/l phosphate for salmonoid waters can be

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 47 regarded as indicative in order to reduce utification. Furthermore this target phosphorus concentration for floating river vegetation will still be complied with and therefore impacts on the SAC are unlikely.

In terms of dissolved oxygen it is stated that given the effluent would represent approximately 36% of the 95 percentile flows in the Owenass River downstream of the wastewater treatment works there is potential for an oxygen sag to develop at the discharge point if the effluent has a low dissolved oxygen content. In order to avoid this scenario provisions should be made for the final effluent to undergo aeration.

With regard to the outfall it is anticipated that there would be little change around this area. However any maintenance operation should be carried out during the period July-September.

Based on the above it is concluded that the additional treatment capacity and the provision of stormwater storage will have a beneficial effect by ensuring that the water quality of the Owenass River is within environmentally protected limits for Atlantic salmon and hence the other qualifying features of the SAC so no adverse effect on the integrity of the European site would result.

Section 4.4 of the AA sets out in tabular form the potentially significant impacts on the SAC and the mitigation/enhancement measures which will be put in place to ensure that the potential impacts are mitigated against. By employing the mitigation measures detailed in this table the risks of such events occurring have been reduced to the lowest possible level (negligible risk) and thus the integrity of the SAC would not be adversely affected.

In terms of in-combination effects with other projects or plans these are set out in Section 4.5 of the AA. Various potential in-combination effects are set out in the report. These include:

• Other building works around Mountmellick, • The Mountmellick Inner Relief Road • Other wastewater treatment upgrades and • Other wastewater discharge applications and licences.

No discharge applications or licences are held by the EPA for the Owenass River in addition to the Mountmellick wastewater treatment works discharge licence. At least one other wastewater treatment works upgrade (Portarlington) is known to be proposed within the River Barrow catchment. This will have a beneficial impact on the water quality of the River Barrow. It is included therefore that there would be no adverse in-combination effects with other plans or projects in the vicinity.

Section 5 sets out the conclusions and recommendations. Overall it is concluded that slight beneficial effects on the cSAC species are likely to result as the improved water quality downstream of the wastewater treatment plant is likely to increase the amount of available habitat of suitable water quality for these species to colonise.

PL 11.JA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 47