This Report has been cleared for submission to the Director by r Karen Creed ate: 891//~/&~/

LICENSING & RESOURCE USE.

To: DIRECTOR

Environmental Licensing From: Jennifer Cope Programme Date: 03 March 201 1

Application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence froin RE: County Council, for the agglomeration, Reg. No. DU244-

01 *

Schedule of discharge licensed: Discharges fi-om agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 1,000 and 2,000. Licence application received: 27 February 2009 Notices under Regulation 18(3)(b) issued: 30 September 2009, 13 August 201 0 Information under Regulation 18(3)(b) received: 3 March 2010,7 May 2010,3 November 2010 Additional Information: 08 February 201 1 Site notice check: 26 March 2009 Site visit: 17 July 2009 Submission(s) Received: None

1. Agglomeration This application relates to the Derrinturn agglomeration. Derrintum is located in the north west of approximately 12 km from and 9 km to the east of Edenderry, Co. Offaly. A new waste water treatment plant (WWTP) was commissioned in winter 2009 (260m from the former WWTP). The former WWTP has been demolished. As pai-t of the new WWTP works the primaiy discharge point was relocated from the Ballyshannon river via a rising main to the Cushaling river, approximately 2.3 km fi-om the WWTP. The WWTP is an activated sludge system which provides secondary treatment with nutrient removal. It has a design capacity of 1,600 population equivalent (p.e.) and design effluent quality levels of 8 mg/l BOD, 8 mg/l suspended solids, 0.5 mg/l total phosphorus and 1.5 mg/l ammonia. Based on flow and BOD tests in February 2010 the agglomeration is estimated to be receiving a load of approximately 1,286 p-e., (approximately 1,204 pe., domestic and 82 p.e., non domestic). There are an additional 256 p.e., in developments granted planning permission which have not yet commenced. The applicant estimated the maximum future population equivalent would increase to 1,542 by 2015

I The wastewater collection network serving the agglomeration drains by gravity, apart from a pumping station serving the Ashgrove Estate. The network is a partially separate system.

The WWTP comprises of an inlet pumping station, package inlet works - screening & grit removal, package treatment plant - secondary treatment, tertiary sand filter, chemical dosing facilities for precipitation of phosphorus, sludge holding tank, control/administration building and an outlet pumping station. Treated effluent from the WWTP is pumped via a rising main to enter the Cushaling River at Ticknevin, downstream of the confluence with the Ballyshannon river. There is one stormwater tank located at the inlet pumping station. The design dry weather flow (DWF) is 4.17 l/s and the plant has been designed to cater for up to 3 DWF (12.5 l/s). Flows above 3 DWF will be diverted to the storm tank. The storm water tank provides a minimum of 2 hours retention at peak flow (6 DWF). In order to provide this, a minimum capacity of 90 m3 is required. The constructed storm tank provides a capacity of 140 m3 including the storm tank and inlet pumping station. Flows in excess of 6 DWF will be discharged to the adjacent Ballyshannon river at SW-2. The wastewater stored in the storm tank will be re-routed back to the inlet pump station via a noli-return valve upon cessation of high storm flow conditions. Kildare County Council has identified three pumping stations (Ashgrove Estate, WWTP inlet and WWTP final effluent) along the sewer network. 2. Discharges to waters

Parameter BOD mg/l Suspended Aininonia 111g/1 Total Phosphorus Ortho-P mg/l Soiids mg/l mg/l

Average concentsat ions 3.2 4.8 0.3 0.5 0.28 Note 1

WWTP design 8 8 0.5 standasds 1.5

2 Emergency overflows Kildare County Council has identified three pumping stations within the sewer network. Kildare County Council has identified that there is one emergency overflow, which is associated with the WWTP Final Effluent Pump Station (to rising main discharge), which, if activated, would discharge to the Ballyshannon river adjacent to the WWTP. The emergency overflow would require both a power failure and /or total pump failure to result in a discharge. In the event of a power failure, the on-site emergency generator will provide power to enable pumping and operation of the WWTP to continue. According to the applicant I “as the sump handles final effluent that has been treated to a relatively high degree, it would be reasonable to conclude that the impact upon the receiving waters would not be as significant as that in the event of a storm water overflow. ” Site Inspection An inspection of the Derrinturn agglomeration was carried out on 17 July 2009 and focussed on the former WWTP, the new WWTP, the primary discharge point, the Ballyshannon river and the Cushaling river. At the time of the inspection the new WWTP was undergoing water testing. The new WWTP has a rising main and pump to discharge the effluent to the Cushaling River approximately 2.3 km away. 3. Receiving waters and impact The following table summarises the main considerations in relation to the Cushaling River downstream of the primary discharge. Table 2.0 Receiving waters Characteristic Classification Comment Receiving water name Cushaling river (EPA name: Figile river) (Water body code: IE-SE-14-987) and type Resource use None reported There is no surface water (i.e. drinking) abstraction point identified downstream of the primary discharge point. Amenity value None reported The status of the river is ‘bad’, due to bad ecological status (fish). Applicable Regulations UWWT Regulations Note Compliant (See below) Environmental Objectives Regulations Note Non-compliant (See below) Designations The and SAC The primary discharge does not (site code 2162) discharge directly into a designated site. The Cushaling river flows into the River Figile which is a tributary of the River Barrow. The River Barrow and River Nore SAC is approximately 32 km downstream of the primary discharge. River Cushaling (EPA name: Figile) is not The Cushaling river flows into the designated as a nutrient sensitive river River Figile which is a tributary of the River Barrow, which is a nutrient sensitive river. The River Barrow is approximately 32 km downstream of the primary discharge. EPA monitoring stations There is no upstream monitoring station.

14F0 10050 Approximately 23 5m downstream of sw1-P. Biological quality rating I Downstream (Station ID: 0050 I (QV0 in 1997,Q2-3in 2009) (Q value) WFD status Bad Based on bad ecological (fish) status WFD Risk Catenorv 1 a (at risk of not achieving good status) Date obiective to be achieved: 2021

Cushaling river which is approximately 32 km upstream of the

3 issues downstream of the primary discharge. (42- 3 in 2009). There is no biological data since the new WWTP was installed in winter I 2009. Note 1: Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 and amendments. S.I. No. 254 of 2001. Note 2: European Communities Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009. In winter 2009 the primary discharge point was relocated fiom the Ballyshannon river (which is a tributary of the River Cushaling) via a rising main to the Cushaling river (see Appendix I). The River Cushaling (EPA name: Figile) is seriously polluted (biological rating of 42-3 in 2009) downstream of the primary discharge. I consulted with the Agency’s Office of Environmental Assessment in relation to the latest biological monitoring of the River Figile. The Figile River was in an unsatisfactory ecological condition when surveyed again in 2009. There was no change in status with signs of eutrophication evident at the Jive stations examined. Poor ecological conditions were apparent in the upper reaches (OOSO), the dominance of pollution tolerant macroinvertebrate species, excessive algal growth, heavy siltation and low dissolved oxygen levels (72% saturation) indicated sign @cant ecological disruption. Measures need to be put in place to reduce high background concentrations of BOD, orthophosphate and ammonia in the River Figile (Cushaling) upstream of the primary discharge. The South Eastern River Basin Management Plan (2009-20 15) provides details of recommendations and planned measure to reduce pollution in water courses. In particular, the Figile Water Management Unit Action Plan (2009-2015) identifies measures to protect and restore water status by addressing the main pressures such as waste water treatment plants, industry and agriculture. Under the Figile Water Management Unit Action Plan, the River Figile is required to achieve good status by 2021. In addition, the Figile Water Management Unit Action Plan requires the Derrinturn WWTP to be provided with tertiary treatment or the WWTP outfall to be relocated. The new WWTP with nutrient removal and tertiary treatment was commissioned in winter 2009. The primary discharge point was also relocated fiom the Ballyshannon river to the River Cushaling (approximately 2.3 km from the WWTP). This should improve the quality of the Ballyshannon river and the Cushaling river. However, there is an extremely low number of dilutions available in the River Cushaling at the primary discharge point (SW1-P). Approximately 2 dilutions are available on the basis of normal discharge volume (465 m3/day) and the 95%ile flow (0.011 m3/s) in the River Cushaling. Assimilative Capacity The population equivalent is estimated to increase to 1,542 by 2015 and the design capacity of the plant is 1,600 p.e. I consulted with the Hydrometric section of the EPA who estimated the flow of the river Cushaling at the point of discharge to be 0.01 lm3/s. The results of the assimilative capacity (AC) calculations are depicted in Table 3.0. The assimilative capacity calculations are based on the loading of the WWTP at the design load of 1,600 p.e., (579 m3/day) and the effluent discharge limit values (ELV’s) as specified in the RL.Assimilative capacity calculations use both actual background concentrations and the ‘notionally clean’ river approach’.

~~ ~~ 1 The’ notionally clean river approach’ considers a hypothetically clean stretch of river (i.e. river of pristine water quality where the EPA’s Office of Environmental Assessment uses background concentrations of 0.26mg/l BOD, 0.005mgA orthophosphate, 0.008mg/l ammonia) to determine if the proposed discharge on its own is likely to cause a significant deterioration in the status of the water body into which it enters.

4 Table 3.0 Assimilative Capacity Parameter Background Proposed Contribution (mg/l)No" ELV's for from discharge primary quality from SW-1 discharge (mg/l) BOD (1,600 Actual 1.95 5 P4 Background Notion ally 1.89 Clean River 0.26 5 Pod-P Actual Note (1,600 p.e.) Background 0.03 0.25 Notionally 0.095 0.1 <0.075N0te3 Clean River 0.005 0.25 Notionally 1 Clean River 0.005 0.185 0.07 0.075 Ammonia Actut 0.213 (1,600 p.e.) Back round 0.0995 0.11 <0.14N0te3 1 Notionally 1 71 Clean River 0.008 ~ ~ ~~~ ::: Note 1: Background water quality data, based on two grab samples, January and February 2010. Note 2: This is based on the effluent design standard1 for total1 phosphorus (0.5 mg/l). Assumption that 50% of the Total Phosphorus is in the form of molybdenum reactive phosphate. Note 3: Good status 95%ile value (as per European Communities Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009) to restore waters of less than good status by 2015.

Table 3.0 shows that there is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for BOD, orthophosphate and ammonia based on the water quality standards specified in S.I. No. 272 of 2009 and the background concentrations in the river. There is extremely low number of dilutions available in the river to assimilate the discharge. The results of the assimilative capacity calculations are summarised as follows: (i) Biological Oxygen Demand At the design emission limit value (8 mg/l), there is no assimilative capacity in the receiving water for BOD based on the quality standards under the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009, (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). Based on the notionally clean river approach an emission limit value (elv) of 5 mg/l BOD at the 1,600 p.e., would be necessary to avoid causing deterioration of the water quality. The effluent design standard of 8 mg/l BOD has been set as the emission limit value until 31 December 2012 in the RL. The RL sets a tighter emission limit value of 5 mg/l BOD to be achieved from 01 January 2013. The November 2009 to September 2010 effluent monitoring data submitted as part of the application shows an average of 3.2 mg/l for BOD (19 samples), which indicates that the emission limit values set for BOD are achievable. It should be noted that the effluent monitoring data submitted shows a maximum level of 7 mg/l for BOD. (ii)Phosphorus Based on the notionally clean river approach an emission limit value of 0.185 mg/l orthophosphate at 1,600 p.e., would be necessary to avoid causing deterioration of the water quality. The RL sets an initial emission limit value of 0.25 mg/l and a tighter emission limit value of 0.185 mg/l orthophosphate to be achieved from 01 January 2013. The November 2009 to June 2010 effluent monitoring data submitted as part of the application shows an average of 0.28 mg/l for orthophosphate (17 samples). However, 6 out of 17 samples in November 2009 - June 2010 did not meet the total phosphorus design discharge limit of 0.5 mg/l which indicates that improvements to the WWTP operation may be required.

5 Phosphorus reduction is achieved at the WWTP by chemical dosing. Optimisation of phosphorus reduction will be required to achieve the initial emission limit value of 0.25 mg/l and the tighter emission limit value of 0.1 85 mg/l applicable from 0 1 January 20 13. Condition 5 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce total phosphorus emissions in the discharge. (iii) Ammonia Based on the notionally clean river approach an emission limit value of 0.3 mg/l ammonia at 1,600 p.e., would be necessary to avoid causing deterioration of the water quality. The RL sets an initial emission limit value of 0.4 mg/l ammonia and a tighter emission limit value of 0.3 mg/l ammonia to be achieved from 01 January 2013. The effluent monitoring data (November 2009 - September 2010) submitted as part of the application shows an average of 0.3 mg/l of ammonia, which indicates that the initial emission limit value set for ammonia is achievable. However minor changes may be required to achieve the tighter emission limit set in the RL. Condition 5 of the RL requires the licensee to continually reduce ammonia emissions in the discharge. (id Suspended Solids

Parameter Upstream Note Downstream Note Water quality Average (95%ile Average (95%ile values in values in brackets) brackets) BOD 1 mg/l (1.95 mg/l) 1.5 mg/l (1.95 mg/l) _< 1.5 mg/l (mean) Note (2 samples) (2 samples) 52.6 mg/l(95%ile) Ortho- 0.025 mg/l 0.033 mdl(O.039 mg/l) 50.035 mg/l (mean) Note 1 phosphate Note (0.03mg/l) (2 samples) (2 samples) 50.075 mg/l(95%ile)

Ammonia 0.095 mg/l (O.lmg/l) 0.15 mdl(O.20 mg/l) 5 0.065 mg/l (mean) (2 samples) (2 samples) Note 1 5 0.14 mg/l(95%ile) Waters)

Table 4.0 indicates that the 95%ile upstream concentrations of ammonia (O.lmg/l) and BOD (1.95 mg/l) are comparatively elevated before consideration of the impact of the WWTP discharge. Table 4.0 also indicates that the water quality downstream of the WWTP discharge is significantly poorer

6 for ammonia than that upstream. While it is recognised that the limited number of samples taken downstream of the primary discharge makes it more difficult to draw clear conclusions regarding the impact of the primary discharge, the downstream levels of ammonia are raised to a significant degree. The water quality downstream of the WWTP discharge is in breach of the water quality standards for, ammonia (for ‘Good Status’) stipulated in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009, as shown in Table 4.0. The improvement of operational performance of the WWTP and the more stringent emission limit values for ammonia set in the RL, should improve the situation for ammonia in the receiving water. Schedule B.4 of the RL sets out the requirements for ambient monitoring, upstream and downstream of SWl-P, (the primary discharge point) on the River Cushaling. An annual Small Stream Risk Score (SSRS) assessment is required to determine the effect of the new WWTP and relocation of the primary discharge point on the biological quality of the River Cushaling. 5. Combined Approach The Waste Water Discharge Authorisation Regulations, 2007, as amended, spec@ that a ‘combined approach’ in relation to licensing of waste water works must be taken, whereby the emission limits for the discharge are established on the basis of the stricter of either or both, the limits and controls required under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (S.I. No. 254 of 2001) and the limits determined under statute or Directive for the purpose of achieving the environmental objectives established for surface waters, groundwater or protected areas for the water body into which the discharge is made. The RL as drafted gives effect to the principle of the Combined Approach as defined in the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007, as amended. 6. Programme of Improvements The new WWTP was commissioned in winter 2009. There are no immediate proposals to further upgrade the WWTP. The applicant states ‘the new wastewater treatment plant provides a significantly improved level of treatment in place of the former treatment plant which has since been decommissioned and demolished. 7. Compliance with EU Directives In considering the application, regard was had to the requirements of Regulation 6(2) of the Waste Water (Discharge) Authorisation, Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007) notably: Drinking Water Abstraction Regulations There are no drinking water abstraction points identified on the River Figile downstream of the primary discharge point. Sensitive Waters The River Figile is not designated as a Sensitive Water under the UWWT Regulations. European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009 The water quality downstream of the WWTP shows that the River Cushaling does not comply with the water quality standards for ammonia stipulated in S.I. 272 of 2009. The RL, as drafted, provides emission limit values that will assist towards compliance with these Regulations, based on hypothetically clean water quality upstream of the WWTP. Schedule A: Discharges specifies limit values for those substances contained within the waste water discharge. Those limits specified in the RL are determined with the aim of contributing towards compliance with S.I. No. 272 of 2009. The RL has regard to the requirements of S.I. No. 272 of 2009. Water Framework Directive r2000/60/EC1 The RL, as drafted, transposes the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In particular, Condition 3: Discharges provides conditions regulating discharges to waters while Schedule A: Discharges specifies limit values for those substances contained within the waste water discharge. Those limits specified in the RL are determined with the aim of contributing towards achieving good water quality status by 2021.

7 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive [9 1/27l/EECl It should be noted that the population equivalent (p.e.) of the agglomeration is below the 2,000 p.e. threshold. Therefore “appropriate treatment‘’ is required “in respect of discharges to fieshwater and estuaries@om agglomerations with a population equivalent of less than 2,000” as specified in Article 7 of the UWWT Regulations (S.I. No. 254 of 2001 and amendments). The term appropriate treatment is defined in the Regulations in terms of the level of treatment necessary to protect water quality. The agglomeration was deemed by the EPA to have treatment that was not appropriate based on the effluent results in 2006. However, since winter 2009 the new WWTP provides secondary treatment with nutrient reduction and tertiary treatment for the Derrinturn agglomeration, which is considered to be “appropriate treatment”. The RL, as drafted, has regard to the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. EC Freshwater Fish Directive [2006/44/ECI The River Figile is not designated as a salmonid water. Dangerous Substances Directive r2006/11/EC1 The applicant has provided sampling results for all of the 19 dangerous substances in the primary discharge for the purposes of the licence application. The measured concentrations are not considered significant. The limit of detection used for tributyltin was not sufficiently low to confirm compliance with the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, S.I. No. 2 72 of 2009. However, the Regulation standards are ambient standards which apply to receiving waters and are not directly applicable to the primary discharge. Monitoring of the receiving waters has shown compliance with S.I. No. 272 of 2009 for 18 of the 19 dangerous substances. The limit of detection used for tributyltin was not sufficiently low to confirm compliance with the Regulations. The agglomeration is effectively domestic in nature with a limited contribution from some commercial activities. Further monitoring is not required by the RL. Birds Directive [79/409/EEC] & Habitats Directive r92/43/EECl There are no discharges from the Derrinturn agglomeration directly into any site designated under the E.U. Habitats or Birds Directives. A Stage 1 appropriate assessment (AA) screening was undertaken by Golder Associates on behalf of the applicant and concluded that a stage 2 appropriate assessment of the discharges was not required. The AA screening report notes that the primary discharge does not discharge directly into the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 2162). It is considered that the primary discharge is not likely to have a significant impact on the SAC. The following are Natural Heritage Areas (NHA’s) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 5 km of the primary discharge, however they are not affected by the discharges from the Derrinturn agglomeration, i.e. not hydraulically connected: NHA (site code 2 104), the river Cushaling flows beneath the through an aqueduct; Long Derries, Edendemy SAC (site code 925) is approximately 2.6 km south west from the primary discharge point; and Carbury Bog NHA (site code 1388) is approximately 4.8 km north from the primary discharge point. It is considered that the RL as drafted will provide a high level of protection to the River Cushaling (Figile), as it will ensure that all discharges fiom the agglomeration will be provided with an appropriate level of treatment as per Condition 3:Discharges. By ensuring that all waste water is treated to a high standard the RL will act to ensure no deterioration of the receiving water quality and contribute to the Water Framework Directive’s objective of safeguarding Protected Areas and achieving good status by the proposed date of 2021 in the South Eastern River Basis Management Plan. Environmental Liabilities Directive (2004/35/EC1) Condition 7.2 of the RL as drafted, satisfies all the requirements of the Environmental Liabilities Directive in particular those requirements outlined in Article 3 (1) and Annex I11 of 2004/3 5EC.

8 I consulted Lvith Rebecca Quinn in the Age1icy.s Office of E:n\rii-oninental Assessment, I Iydrometric section iii relation to the flow of the i-iler Cushaling (EPA narne:Figile). 1 consulted with Catherine Bradicy and Jolin 1,uce~-in the CItTice of' ht.it-ori~nental Assessiiienk Aquatic En\ ironiiisnt (Ri\ws) section in rclntion to the 2009 river quality dala ofthe Cushaliiig. Acfvice and g~iiclilnceissued b) the 'i'echnical Working Group (TulG) ti as followed in iny assessment of' this application. Advice atid guidance issued by the 'TU:(; is prepared through a detailed cross- office co-operative process, \\ itti the coricei-ns of all sidcs taken into account, The Board of the Agency has endorsed the advice and guidance issued by the 'IWG for use by licoiisiiig Inspcctors in 1h e as scs slit erit of \+asiewa t er- d i sc11 a rge I i cen ce a p 11 I i c a t io 11s. Submissions No submissions received in re\ation to this ;ipplication. Charges

The RI, sets an annuat charge for the aggltmcration at €3.041 niid is retlectiie of the monitoring and enforccnicnt regime being propused ibr the agglomcra~ion.

R ec om 1x1 end at i o n

I recoinmend that a Final Licence be issued subject to the conditions and f'ot- the reasons as set out in the attached Kecofnincndrd 1-icsiice. c A -. , ......