An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

WW03.WW0415

DEVELOPMENT:-

Description: Licence to Discharge Treated Sewage Effluent from ‘Cois na Sionna’ Housing Development to Lower .

Address: Main Street, O’Brien’s Bridge, .

PLANNING APPLICATION

Type of Application: Licence Review under Section 4 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1977 to 2007.

Planning Authority Reg. Ref. W.P. 115

Applicant: Tom Kelly

Local Authority Decision: Grant Licence Review

APPEAL

Appellants: Tom Kelly

Observers: None

Date of Site Inspection: 9/5/14

Inspector: Paul Caprani

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 23 1.0 INTRODUCTION

File no. WW0415 relates to a first party appeal against a number of conditions attached to a review of a licence to discharge treated sewage effluent into the Lower River Shannon from a small housing estate at O’Brien’s Bridge, County Clare. The grounds of appeal argue that a number of conditions attached to the licence are unreasonable and result in a significant financial burden on the licensee.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

O’Brien’s Bridge is a small village straddling the banks of the lower River Shannon and Shannon Canal between and Killaloe in County Clare. A small residential estate located to the north of the main street of O’Brien’s Bridge is served by a proprietary wastewater treatment system. This estate comprises of 15 houses. An additional house (no. 2) which fronts directly onto Main Street is also served by the proprietary wastewater treatment plant. Thus 16 houses are served in total. The wastewater treatment plant is located in an area of open space within the estate. It comprises of a septic tank and large modular puraflo treatment plant where the effluent is passed through fibrous material where microbial breakdown of the effluent takes place. The treated effluent is then discharged via a sewage pipe which to the River Shannon approximately 150 metres to the south of the site. The outfall from the wastewater treatment plant is located at the Quay wall on the northern side of the River Shannon. At the time of site inspection the discharge pipe was above the water level within the river (see photographs attached).

3.0 APPLICATION

Clare County Council initiated a review of the licence issued under the provisions of the Water Pollution Act 1977-2007. An application for a licence to discharge effluent was submitted on 11 th March 2014.

The planning application form indicates that Clare County Council originally granted a licence under reg. no. P98/2053. It is stated that the type of effluent being discharged is domestic wastewater only. The wastewater treatment plant serves a population equivalent (PE) of 46. The expected dry weather flow from the wastewater treatment plant is estimated to be just less than 7 cubic metres per day. The maximum

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 23 volume of effluent to be discharged on any one day is 15 cubic metres. It is stated that the private houses are occupied all year round and therefore no seasonal variability in the discharge is expected.

The domestic effluent is discharged into a septic tank with a baffle wall. Following primary settlement, the effluent is then pumped through a Bord na Mona puraflo system which comprises of a peat fibre bio filter with an area of 120 square metres for secondary treatment. There is no tertiary treatment on site. The septic tank is desludged on an annual basis.

On 8 th January 2012 a submission was received from Clare County Council from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Clare County Council is advised by the Department that screening for Appropriate Assessment or full Appropriate Assessment will be required as part of the licence review process. It is noted that more stringent requirements than those under the Water Framework Directive may apply in certain cases particularly in relation to the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Regulations.

3.1 Local Authority Assessment

A detailed Planning Report was prepared in relation to the licence review.

The report notes that the status of the Lower River Shannon is designated as “moderate” under the Shannon River Basin Management Plan. It is also noted that the Lower River Shannon is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (site code 002165) and a Special Protection Area (site code 004077). An Appropriate Assessment screening is attached to the report. The performance associated with the operation of the wastewater treatment facility on the site indicates poor maintenance. While there is a 90% compliance with the BOD licence limit (10mg/l) there is only a 20% compliance for suspended solids (15mg/l). It is considered however that the present limit of 15mg/l in the final effluent discharge is difficult to achieve on an on-going basis therefore a licence limit of 30mg/l is considered more suitable.

A technical assessment was carried out using background concentrations in the river taken at Killaloe Bridge approximately 6 kilometres upstream of the discharge point. In terms of assimilative capacity it is stated that there is adequate capacity in this stretch of

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 23 water to assimilate the discharge from the development. The resultant concentration of pollutions in the River Shannon is less than the standard set out for good status for each pollutant. It is also noted that the discharge utilises less than the recommended 25% of available headroom in the River Shannon. There is sufficient dilution in the River Shannon to assimilate the pollutants of MRP, total ammonia and BOD concentrations. Based on the technical assessment of the receiving waters there is no indication of any impact of this discharge on the quality status of the River Shannon. It is noted that there is a drinking water extraction point downstream of Village, 7 kilometres downstream of the effluent discharge point. Data for the raw water intake for 2012 and 2013 has been assessed to review any potential elevated levels of ammoniacal nitrogen. No deterioration in water quality is noted downstream of the discharge. The assimilative capacity of the receiving waters indicates that very significant dilution rates are available. The mixing of the discharge and the exposure to UV in the 7 kilometre channel between the discharge point and the Castleconnell intake for water abstraction is such that there is no likelihood of issues arising from the intake of this supply. The lower River Shannon is not designated as a sensitive water, a bathing water or is not designated under the Freshwater Fish Directive or the Shellfish Water Directive. The continued discharge is therefore deemed to be appropriate subject to the following emission limit values.

o BOD 20mg/l (increased from the old licence limit of 10mg/l).

o Suspended solids 30mg/l (increased from the old licence limit of 15mg/l).

o Total ammonia 35mg/l.

o Molybdate reactive phosphate 2mg/l.

An Appropriate Assessment screening and details of assimilative capacity calculations including mass balance calculations and headroom assessment are set out in a number of tables attached to the report.

Clare County Council granted a reviewed licence subject to 17 conditions. The copy of the licence decision submitted to An Bord Pleanala is undated. The following conditions are particular pertinent for the purposes of the grounds of appeal.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 23 Condition no. 4

Condition no. 4 requires the characteristics of the treated final effluent to discharge to surface water shall not exceed the parameter limits set out in Schedule 1: namely

- BOD 20mg/l 02. - COD 100mg/l 02 - Suspended Solids 30mg/l - pH 6-9 - Total ammonia 35mg/l as N and - MRP 2mg/l P.

Condition No. 5

The licensee shall undertake a treated effluent monitoring programme on a bi-monthly basis. The programme should be undertaken by a replicable monitoring agency on behalf of the licensee. The parameters to be analysed are listed in Schedule 1 of the licence. The results of the monitoring shall be submitted to the Environment Section of Clare County Council. In the event of any exceedance of the limit value defined in Schedule 1, the licensee shall immediately investigate such exceedance and report the matter as soon as may be to the licencing authority. The submission of results shall then be accompanied by a brief report attributing the causes for the said exceedance and indicating remedial measures taken at the time to ensure (as far as possible) no reoccurrence of the exceedance.

Condition No. 7

A monitoring programme shall be commenced on the River Shannon flowing due south of the site, with details of the monitoring locations to be agreed with the licencing authority within one month of the date of grant of this licence. The parameters and frequency of the monitoring associated with this monitoring programme shall be in accordance with Schedule 2 of the licence.

Condition No. 10

All pumps and motors shall have appropriate standby facilities which will be controlled (automatically, if deemed to be necessary after the commissioning programme) to operate in an emergency overload situation. These pumps and motors shall be routinely alternated in

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 23 accordance with good practice. Provision shall be made to use a standby generator in the event of mains power failure.

Condition no. 11

In the event of the wastewater treatment plant failure, a holding tank of at least two days capacity shall be provided to hold untreated/partially treated domestic effluent on site.

Condition No. 15

The licensee shall appoint a person who shall be responsible for the day-to-day inspection, operation and maintenance of the system. The person appointed shall be adequately instructed in the operation and maintenance of the treated system in accordance with the design and recommendation and shall be provided with such equipment necessary for the discharge of his duties. The name and contact no. of the appointed person shall be supplied to the licensing authority and in an event of any change in personnel, this change shall be made known immediately.

Condition No. 16

The licensee shall reimburse Clare County Council to the value of €200 per visit for the costs of the check monitoring of the above licence conditions. Thereafter the fee shall be subject to the normal rate of inflation for costs of such analysis.

4.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

A number of conditions were appealed on behalf of the licensee Mr. Tom Kelly by RG Green and Associates Consultant Engineers.

In relation to the wastewater treatment plant it is stated that Clare County Council carried out monitoring of the system in the early years. However the licensee has retained the laboratory BHP to carry out monitoring since 2009. Test reports on a six monthly basis were prepared for the years 2009, 10, 11 and 12. Quarterly test reports were prepared for the year 2013. The tests invariably show that the quality of effluent is generally in full compliance with the maximum permissible limits with the parameters set out in the license. It is highlighted that the

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 23 tests show that the result for Total ammonia and MRP are low, and within the maximum permissible limits as set out for such parameters.

It is contended that the local authority had no reasonable grounds for believing the discharge authorised by the original licence to be a significant threat to public health in regard to the manner of which the treatment works is currently operated and maintained.

It is contended that there has been no material change in conditions of the receiving waters.

It is contended that the treatment works is operated and maintained entirely compliant with the conditions attached to the licence which was granted in 2002. The conditions attached to the licence would place significant financial burden on the community which is served by the treatment system.

In particular reference is made to condition no. 4 and the inclusion of strict limits for total ammonia and MRP as specified in Schedule 1 of the licence. Unit processes for the reduction in the concentration of these parameters are not specifically provided in the original treatment package.

Condition no. 5 requires the undertaking of bi-monthly monitoring by a reparable outside agency of the licence. This again will place an undue financial burden on the licensee and is not warranted in this instance.

Likewise condition no. 7 which requires the licensee to undertake a monitoring programme on the River Shannon is not appropriate. This function is to be carried on outside the curtilage of the development and is the proper duty of the local authority.

The requirement to provide a standby generator as stipulated in condition no. 10 is being appealed on the basis that it will impose extreme financial burden on the licensee and that it is wholly unnecessary.

Likewise the requirement to provide a holding tank of at least 2 days capacity as required under condition no. 11 is being appealed on the basis that it will impose extreme financial burden on the licensee and is wholly unnecessary in these circumstances.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 23 The requirement to appoint a caretaker as stipulated by condition no. 16 is also being appealed on the basis that it would impose severe financial burden on the licensee and that it is absolutely unnecessary in the context of treatment works of this scale.

Finally the costs proposed under condition 16 are being appealed on the basis that they are grossly excessive.

5.0 APPEAL RESPONSES

Clare County Council submitted a response to the grounds of appeal. Clare County Council submitted the following response to the appeal on 11 th March 2014.

The local authority had no reason to believe that the discharge was of any public health concern. The review was required by statute. Clare County Council accepts that there have been no material changes in the status of the water in the vicinity of the discharge and it also accepts that the treatment works is operated and maintained in compliance with the original licence condition. Clare County Council acknowledge that the requirement to include nutrient removal can impose financial obligations on the licensee. The Surface Water Regulations require all licences include limit values for phosphorus and nitrogen based nutrients.

Condition no. 5 is a general condition which allows licensing authority to take account of licensee management performance and ensure that no undue burden of excess monitoring is required where good management is in place.

Their requirement to provide monitoring closer to the outfall of the discharge was considered appropriate with specific locations to be agreed. Monitoring is being undertaken on the River Shannon at critical bridge locations. If the Board with to allow for this monitoring to reflect the receiving water status, Clare County Council has no issue with this approach.

The matter of providing standby equipment for power outrages is a normal licensing condition. However Clare County Council accepts that this is a small development and the settlement tank is likely to provide adequate holding capacity for power outages. A modified condition which requires the emptying of the holding tank in the case of prolonged

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 23 power outages to ensure no public health risk would be a reasonable approach.

The matter of appointing a responsible person to monitor the wastewater treatment plant is a reasonable condition. It does not imply a paid caretaker but simply a person who can note that the alarm light is on indicating that the pump is not working and make general arrangements to contact a repair agent etc.

The costs are considered to be quite minimal particularly as self- monitoring was commenced in 2009. Costs to the licensee only occur if there are problems with the unit or for audits on site. The cost in this instance is considered reasonable.

6.0 POLICY CONTEXT

6.1 The Shannon River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015)

The lower River Shannon is located within the confines of the Shannon River Basin Management Plan. According to the information submitted in the licence application and the local authority report, it is stated that this section of the lower River Shannon is designated as “moderate status”. The main pressures within the area are listed as agriculture, wastewater and industrial discharges, wastewater from unsewered properties, forestry and various physical modifications. There are a number of water abstractions along the lower stretches of the River Shannon including a water abstraction for the purposes of drinking water at Castleconnell Village approximately 7 kilometres downstream.

This section of the River Shannon is not designated as sensitive under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations (SI no. 254 of 2001 as amended). There is no designated bathing area downstream of the discharge and there are no designated shellfish waters downstream of the discharge.

The lower Shannon River is also a designated SAC (site code 002165) and SPA (site code 004077). There are a large number of qualifying interests associated with the SAC including:

• Freshwater pearl mussel • Sea lamprey

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 23 • Brook lamprey • River lamprey • Salmon • Bottlenose dolphin • Otter • Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation. [3260] • Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clavey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae). [6410] • Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno- Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae).

The River Shannon and SPA has a total of 22 bird species which are protected within the confines of the SPA.

7.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Each of the issues raised by the licensee in the grounds of appeal are dealt with separately below.

(i) The local authority had no reasonable grounds for believing that the discharge authorised in the original licence to be a threat to public health.

Section 7(1) of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 permits the local authority to review a licence issued under Section 4 of the Act “at intervals not less than three years from the date of the licence”. Furthermore Section 5(2) of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1992 permits the local authority “ where it has grounds for believing that the discharge authorised by the licence is or is likely to be injurious to public health or renders or is likely to render the water concerned unfit for domestic, commercial, industrial, fishery, agriculture or recreational use ” has the right to review a licence. It is a further requirement under the provisions of Article 11 of the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations SI272 of 2009 (hereafter referred to as the Surface Water Regulations) that a public authority shall “ as soon as may be practicable - but not later than the 22 nd of December 2012 shall examine the terms of every authorisation for discharge in its administrative areas”.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 23 Therefore under the various provisions of the Acts and Regulations cited above it is within the remit of the local authority to carry out a review of the licence to be discharged.

(ii) It is contended that there is no material change of use in the conditions of the receiving waters.

There may not have been any material change of use in the receiving waters since the granting of the original licence back in 2002 however it is still the local authority’s prerogative and indeed requirement under the Acts and Regulations referred to above to review discharge licences on a periodic basis. The local authority is therefore entitled to carry out a review in the absence of any material change in the conditions of the receiving water. Furthermore regard should be had to the fact that the effluent is discharging into the lower reaches of the River Shannon SAC approximately 6 kilometres south of the village of Killaloe. No historical information has been supplied by either the Planning Authority or the licensee in this instance as to whether or not there has been a material change in the water quality as a result of new licensable activities granted by either the local authority or the EPA upstream of the discharge point.

(iii) It is contended that the treatment works is operated and maintained entirely in compliance with conditions attached to the original licence.

Since the original licence is granted in 2002, it appears that there have been quite a number of exceedances of the parameters specified in the licence particularly in relation to suspended solids. Of the 14 test reports submitted with the grounds of appeal, the suspended solid limit of 15mg/l was breached on no less than 9 occasions and BOD limits of 10mg/l were breached on 3 occasions. The later breaches all occurred in 2013. This suggests that the wastewater treatment plant has not, on all occasions, operated entirely in compliance with the conditions attached. I do note however that the Planning Authority have relaxed the Emission Limit Values (ELVs) in relation to BOD and Suspended Solids in reviewing the current licence, this is likely to result in less exceedance levels in the future.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 23 (iv) Condition no. 4 attached to the reviewed licence would place a significant financial burden on the community particularly in relation to the requirements to reduce the levels of MRP and total ammonia in the discharge.

In relation to MRP there is a requirement to adhere to a limit of 2mg/l and in the case of Total ammonia there is a requirement to comply with a limit of 35mg/LN.

It is difficult to determine from Map 3.2 (surface water ecological status in the Shannon IRBD) the current ecological status of this stretch of the River Shannon. The Planning Authority has determined however that this section of the river is classed as being of “moderate status”. A similar conclusion was arrived at in the information submitted with the planning application. It is a requirement under the Water Framework Directive that all waters achieve at least ‘Good Status’ by 2015. The environmental quality standards set out in Schedule 5 of the Surface Water Regulations require, that in order to class a particular surface water body as achieving ‘Good Ecological Status’ the following limits in the receiving waters (besed on 95%ile flows) must be achieved:

BOD 2.6mg/l MRP 0.075mg/l and Total ammonia 0.14mg/l

The existing background concentrations for these parameters upstream of the river (at Killaloe c.6 kilometres away) are indicated in Table 1 of the assimilative capacity calculations which are attached as an appendix to the local authority report. The table indicates the following concentrations:

BOD 0.8mg/l MRP 0.009mg/l and Total ammonia 0.03mg/l.

This sample would seem to suggest that this section of the lower River Shannon is currently achieving ‘Good Status’ in relation to oxygenation conditions (BOD) and nutrient conditions. However these background concentrations are more likely to be based on a grab sample as opposed to a composite sample and therefore may not be fully indicative of background levels over a longer period of time.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 23

In terms of the discharge from the wastewater treatment plant, this plant currently serves 16 houses. The dry weather flow associated with the plant is stated on the planning application form as 6.96 cubic metres per day (based on a population equivalent of 46 PE. and a usage of 150 litres per household). Having regard to the fact that the mains infrastructure in this instance is relatively small in scale, levels of infiltration of rainwater and stormwater to augment the dry weather flow is unlikely to be very significant. Notwithstanding this, a worst case scenario of 15 m 3/d discharge from the outfall is referred to in the licence application and this limit has been imposed by way of condition no. 2 of the licence (it is noted that the licensee is not appealed in this condition). We can assume therefore under a worst case scenario that the hydraulic and the associated organic loading from the wastewater treatment plant will be equivalent to 15 m3/d.

In terms of the volumetric flows of the receiving waters, this stretch of the lower River Shannon, as would be expected, carries significant volumes of water. For the purposes of assimilative capacity calculations the Planning Authority uses a 95 percentile flow of 10 m3/s. It is not altogether clear where this figure is derived from. I do note however that the same figure was used in the licence application form submitted as part of the licence review. Having consulted OPW hydrometric data I note that no figures are available for this stretch of the River Shannon. The hydrometric data from the EPA recorded 95 percentile flows at Killaloe (6 kilometres upstream) of 20.53 m 3/s. It should be noted that EPA hydrometric data is generally more conservative than OPW hydrometric data, as the OPW have been recording data over a longer period, it is considered that the OPW data is on the whole more accurate. It should also be born in mind that the flow along this section of the River Shannon is affected to a considerable entent by lake storage and by the operation of sluices by the ESB. Thus figures should be treated with some caution when using such figures for the purposes of calculating assimilative capacity. With this in mind I recommend that the Board for the purposes of assessing assimilative capacity use the more conservative volumetric flows within the lower River Shannon as utilised by Clare County Council i.e. 10 m 3/s.

7.1 Total Ammonia

The licensee argues that the limit of 35mg/l is too stringent for ammonia and that in order to comply with such limits the applicant would be required to install additional unit processes which would create a

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 23 significant financial burden on the licensee and in turn on the community for which the wastewater treatment plant serves.

It is important to point out to the Board at this initial stage that the requirements in Schedule 1 of the revised discharge licence sets Total Ammonia limits at 35mg/l. Whereas the test results submitted with the grounds of appeal, calculate ammonia concentrations in the discharge

in the form of ammonia (NH 3-N). Ideally all figures should be expressed in the same units to ensure that like is being compared with like.

Converting Total Ammonia to Ammonia in the form of NH 3-N involves a conversion factor of approximately 1.2 (see ‘Guidance on Analysis Parameters in Water for Licensing’ (EPA, 2007)). Thus a total ammonia

limit of 35mg/l would equate to a limit of ammonia expressed as NH 3-N of 42mg/l.

Of the last 14 test reports presented by the applicant, only on one

occasion did ammonia levels (expressed as an NH 3-N) exceed 42mg/l. A level of 43.5mg/l was recorded on the 18/07/2013. Therefore only one exceedance in total ammonia concentration occurred on the survey results submitted since 2009 and this was only marginally above the limit specified. This suggests that the treatment plant in question is capable of treating ammonia to the requisite requirements specified in the licence. In fact on five occasions the levels of ammonia recorded in the discharge amounted to less than 1mg per litre. However it should also be acknowledged that there are significant variations in the levels

of ammonia (as NH 3-N) recorded in the various samples undertaken. And this also suggests that the licensee in this instance may have to incorporate some additional treatment in order to ensure that total ammonia concentrations remain in all instances below 35mg/l.

7.2 MRP

In the case of MRP, the same 14 samples submitted with the grounds of appeal indicate that the limit of 2mg/l as set out in Schedule 1 of the discharge licence was exceeded on three occasions. On two occasions however the limits were exceeded to a significant extent, 6.6mg/l on the 11/01/2011 and 10.2mg/l on the 19/12/2013. Again it can be concluded that while significant variations in MRP occur, some level of additional treatment may be required for phosphorus removal in order to ensure that the limit set out in the revised licence is universally adhered to.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 23 7.2.2 Determining the Assimilative Capacity of Receiving Waters

In accordance with the spirit of the Surface Water Regulations, the appropriate level of treatment required at the wastewater treatment plant for a small scheme such as that being assessed, any assessment should have particular regard to the level of assimilative capacity in the receiving waters. The critical issue under the Surface Water Regulations, is not the levels of pollutant concentration in the discharge, but rather the subsequent background concentrations in the surface water body downstream of the discharge point. The figures submitted on file indicate that there is ample capacity for the assimilation of the discharge in the receiving waters for both MRP and ammonia. Photos attached to this report indicate the size and scale of the river at this location.

Assimilative Capacity Calculations

Even if an absolute worst case scenario was presented such as that indicated in the calculations below, there would still be significant assimilative capacity available for the nutrients in question. The calculations under a worst case scenario are set out below. The assimilative capacity calculations for Total Ammonia and MRP are set out separately:

Ammonia Calculations

Ceff = [(C max x (F 95 + F eff )) – (C back x F 95 )]

Feff Where:

Ceff = Is the maximum permitted concentration of the effluent in the discharge without breaching the requirements in the SI 272 of 2009.

Cmax = Maximum permitted concentration of Ammonia downstream for ‘Good Status’ (0.14mg/l).

Cback = The background concentration of pollutant (ammonia) upstream (0.03mg/l). 3 Friver = the 95%ile flow in the River (10 m /s) 3 3 Feff = The discharge from the WWTP (0.000173 m /s or 15m /d)

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 23 The maximum permitted discharge per day from the WWTP (without exceeding the prescribed ammonia levels in the receiving waters as specified in Schedule 5 of the Surface Water Regulations) would be as follows:

Ceff = [ (0.14 x (10 + 0.000173) – (0.03 x 0.10)] = 8,029 mg/l. 0.000173

Alternatively if ‘Mass Balance’ calculations were applied where the ammonia limit was set at say, 50 mg/l in the discharge, the amount of ammonia that would be added downstream which can be directly attributed to the discharge in question would be as follows:

Mass Balance = T = FC + fc F + f Where T = resultant concentration due to discharge F = 95%ile flow C = mean background concentration f = discharge flow c = concentration in discharge.

T = 10x0.03 + 0.000137x50 = < 0.001mg/l 10+0.000137

MRP Calculations

Ceff = [(C max x (F 95 + F eff )) – (C back x F 95 )] Feff Where:

Ceff = The maximum permitted concentration of the pollutant in the discharge.

Cmax = The maximum permitted concentration of pollutant (MRP) permitted in SI 272 of 2009 to achieve good water status (in this case 0.075 mg/l)

Cback = Background upstream concentration of the pollutant (in this case 0.009 mg/l) 3 F 95 = The 95%ile flow of the river (in the case 10m /s) 3 3 F eff = The flow form the outfall (0.000137 m /s. or 15 m /d)

Ceff = [0.075 x (10 + 0.000137) – (0.009 x 10) = 4,817 mg/l 0.000137

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 23 Again if ‘Mass Balance’ calculations were applied, where the concentrations in the discharge were set at 10mg/l, the amount of MRP that would be added downstream which can be directly attributed to the discharge, would be as follows:

Mass Balance = T = FC + fc F + f Where T = resultant concentration due to discharge F = 95%ile flow C = mean background concentration f = discharge flow c = concentration in discharge.

T = 10x0.009 + 0.000137x10 = 0.009mg/l 10+0.000137

What becomes immediately apparent from the above calculations is that even under a worst case scenario (with the highest recorded pollutant concentration in the discharge for both ammonia and MRP and under very conservative 95 percentile flows in the river (10 cubic metres per second) the amount of assimilative capacity headroom utilised resulting from the discharge in terms of ammonia or MRP is negligible.

In the case of ammonia the above calculation illustrates that an ammonia level of over 8,000mg/l in the discharge would be required to utilise all the headroom available downstream in the river. Even in the case where the highest recorded ammonia level in the discharge was recorded (at 43.5mg/l) this utilises a mere 0.5% of the assimilative capacity available in the river.

Or to put it another way, the mass balance calculations for ammonia indicate that if a concentration of 50mg/l ammonia was permitted in the discharge the wastewater treatment plant would contribute less than 0.001 milligrams per litre to background concentration levels of ammonia. It is clear therefore that due to the volume of the discharge in the context of the volume of the receiving waters, relatively generous levels of nutrients can be accommodated in this section of the River Shannon without contributing to increased nutrient background levels.

Likewise in the case of phosphorus, a concentration of 4,000mg/l of MRP in the discharge would be required to utilise all the available assimilative capacity (or headroom) in this section of the river. The

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 23 highest recorded concentration in the effluent at 10.22mg/l represents a mere 0.2% of the available assimilative capacity. Likewise in terms of mass balance calculations, a permitted concentration of 10mg/l MRP in the discharge would increase background MRP levels downstream in the river by a mere 0.009mg/l.

The calculations performed above generally concur with the estimations contained in Table 7 of the assimilative capacity calculations undertaken by the local authority. Both sets of calculations indicate that the discharge for the WWTP is contributing very little to the overall pollution levels in the river. Table 7 of the local authority assimilative capacity calculations indicate that if the limits as set out in the discharge licence were to apply in the case of MRP (2mg/l) and ammonia (35mg/l) approximately 0.05% and 0.055% of the headroom would be utilised respectively.

This suggests in my opinion, that a more flexible or generous approach could be taken in setting the nutrient ELVs for the discharge. It is noted that the local authority in this instance adopted a more generous approach in relation to suspended solids and BOD increasing the emission limit values in the case of BOD from 10 to 20mg/l, and in the case of suspended solids from 15 to 30mg/l on the grounds that there was more than sufficient assimilative capacity available.

A critical consideration is the fact that there is a drinking water extraction point at Clonlara approximately 5 kilometres downstream of the discharge point. The local authority planning report notes in relation to the Drinking Water Abstraction Regulations that, data for raw water intake for 2012-2013 (details are contained on file) have been assessed and no deterioration in water quality was noted downstream of the discharge. Raw water data at the Clonlara abstraction point indicate ammonia levels of between 0.008mg/l and 0.039mg/l. Schedule 1 of the Drinking Water Regulations (SI. 278 of 2007) do not set specific parametric values for ammonia in Table A of Schedule 1 of the Regulations. However ammonium is listed as an indicator parameter in Table C of the Regulations and a parametric value 0.3mg/l is listed. In the case of the raw water data at Clonlara, in the vast majority of cases, the levels of ammonia recorded in the raw water is less than 10% of the parametric value listed in the Regulations. A level of 0.03mg/l was recorded in the raw data in less than 5% of the samples undertaken at the Clareville wastewater treatment plant. There are no parameters set out in the Drinking Water Regulations in relation to phosphorus or MRP.

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 23 Based on the information contained on file therefore I consider that the Board should consider applying a less stringent standard in the discharge in relation to both Total ammonia and MRP.

7.3 Appropriate Assessment

The river in question is a designated SAC and a number of aquatic species form the qualifying interests of the SAC. I note that the local authority has carried out an appropriate assessment screening and concluded that the treatment plant will not adversely impact on the designated SAC or SPA. This conclusion should be revisited for the purposes of this assessment.

The changes in the nutrient and oxygenation conditions specifically arising from this discharge are negligible in this in this application and will not result in any discernible increase in background pollutant concentrations downstream. As a result the qualifying interests associated with the SAC and SPA which could be potentially affected; such as fresh water pearl mussel, sea lamprey, brook lamprey, river lamprey, salmon and other larger cetacean species and otters will not be adversely affected in this instance. Avian or terrestrial habitats which constitute qualifying interests will not to be impacted upon for the same reason. It is reasonable to conclude therefore based on the information available in conjunction with my assessment, that I consider it adequate to issue a screening determination as follows; that the proposed development either individually or in combination with other plans or projects would not have a significant effect on any European Site and in particular the Lower SAC (site code 00265) and the River Fergus and Lower Shannon SPA (site code 4077) in view of the conservation objectives of both sites and therefore an Appropriate Assessment and a submission of a Natura Impact Statement is not required.

7.4 Condition No. 5 – Bimonthly Monitoring

The grounds of appeal argue that the requirement to carry out bimonthly monitoring by an outside agency places an undue financial burden on the applicant and is not warranted in this instance. Having regard to the very modest impact of the proposal on the assimilative capacity of this section of river and the very modest hydraulic or organic loading associated with the discharge in the context of the receiving waters, the potential in terms of causing pollution is minimal. As such I would

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 23 consider it reasonable that a condition be attached whereby the applicant would be required to submit details of monitoring on a quarterly basis as opposed to bimonthly basis.

7.5 Condition No. 7 – Monitoring on the River Shannon

The requirement to undertake a monitoring programme on the River Shannon is appealed on the grounds that it is a function of the local authority and not the applicant to carry out such a monitoring programme. Clare County Council in its response to the appeal against this specific condition somewhat ambiguously states that “ if the Board wish to allow for this monitoring to reflect the receiving water status, Clare County Council has no issue with this approach”. Again having regard to the impact of the proposed discharge on the receiving waters, I do not consider it either appropriate or necessary for the applicant to undertake monitoring downstream of the discharge point. Any changes to the river quality downstream are unlikely to be attributable to the discharge in question. It is improbable therefore that the nature of the hydraulic or organic loadings associated with the discharge will be so significant as to result in changes in water quality downstream and therefore it is inappropriate to request the applicant to carry out such monitoring downstream. It has been concluded in the calculations carried out in both this assessment and the Planning Authority that the discharge from the development in question has the potential to contribute minutely to background concentrations of pollutants in the river. There would be no variation in the nature of the wastewater being discharged or no significant variations in the hydraulic loading associated with the discharge. The impacts from the proposed development will be indiscernible on background pollutant concentrations downstream and for this reason I consider it inappropriate that the applicant be required to carry out water quality surveys downstream of the discharge.

7.6 Condition No. 10 – Standby Generator

Condition no. 10 is appealed on the ground that it imposed extreme financial burden on the applicant. In response Clare County Council accept that this is a small development and that the settlement tank is likely to provide adequate holding capacity for power outages. It is clear from the information contained on the licence application form that the septic tank has the capacity to accommodate two days discharge in the event of a power outage. The Council accept therefore that emptying

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 23 the holding tank in the case of a prolonged power outage, to ensure that no public health risks would arise is a reasonable approach in this instance. I therefore agree that the existing septic tank would act as a sufficient holding tank in the case of a power outage and that a condition be attached requiring the applicant to empty the septic tank within 48 hours of a failure of the wastewater treatment works.

7.7 Condition no. 11 – the Provision of a Holding Tank

I reiterate above that I would consider it reasonable that this issue be addressed by way of a condition requiring the applicant to employ a contractor to empty the existing septic tank within 48 hours of any failure in the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

7.8 Condition No. 15 – The Requirement of a Caretaker

Again this condition is being appealed on the grounds that it would place a severe financial burden on the applicant. Clare County Council in its response to the grounds of appeal indicate that the caretaker in this instance refers to a person who will be responsible for notifying contractors in the case of a wastewater treatment plant failure. I would consider it reasonable that a designated person is responsible to notify appropriate bodies in the case of a breakdown. I therefore consider that this condition should be retained.

7.9 Condition No. 16 – Financial Contribution

Condition no. 16 requires a licensee to reimburse the local authority to the value of €200 per visit for the cost of monitoring the above licence conditions. The licensee has appealed this condition on the grounds that it is deemed to be “grossly excessive”. I consider it reasonable and not unusual that a local authority receives some form of reimbursement for carrying out independent monitoring of a private wastewater treatment plant from time to time. The local authority point out that “costs to the licensee have only arisen if there are problems with the unit or for an audit for the site”. The cost of €200 per visit is not deemed to be excessive and is therefore reasonable in my view.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 23 Arising from my assessment above I consider the Board should grant the review of the licence with the following amendments to the conditions as stipulated by Clare County Council.

Condition no. 4: the characteristics of the treated effluent prior to discharge of surface water shall not exceed the parameter limits contained in Schedule 1.

Schedule 1:

BOD 20mg/l O 2 COD 100mg/l O 2 Suspended solids 30mg/l SS PH 6-9 PH units Total ammonia 50mg/ N MRP 10mg/l P

Condition no. 5: The licensee shall undertake a treated effluent monitoring programme on a quarterly basis. This programme shall be undertaken by a reputable monitoring agency on behalf of the licensee. The parameters to be analysed are listed in Schedule 1 of this licence. The results of this monitoring shall be submitted to the Environmental Section of Clare County Council. In the event of any exceedance of any limit value defined in Schedule 1, the licensee shall immediately investigate such exceedance and report the matter as soon as possible to the licensing authority. The submission of results shall then be accompanied by a brief report attributing causes for the said exceedance and indicating remedial measures taken at the time to ensure (as far as possible) that no reoccurrence of the exceedance takes place.

Condition no. 7 shall be deleted.

Condition no. 10 shall be deleted.

Condition 11: In the event of a wastewater treatment plant failure a holding tank of at least two days capacity shall be provided to hold untreated/partially treated domestic effluent on site. Arrangements shall be made within 48 hours of the wastewater treatment plant failure for a licence contractor to empty the content of the holding tank. Should this failure occur, Clare County Council shall be notified immediately by the licensee. The discharge to the River Shannon shall cease immediately and arrangements shall be put in place for the transportation and

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 23 disposal of the effluent acceptable to the licence authority and agreed with the licenses authority beforehand. In this regard all legislation pertaining to the movement and disposal of waste shall be complied with under the Waste Management Act (as amended) and all legislation and Regulations made thereunder. A detailed report of the investigation and the cause of the problem shall be provided to the licensing authority.

Condition no. 15: The licensee shall appoint a person who shall be responsible for the day to day inspection, operation and maintenance of the system. The person appointed shall be adequately instructed in the operation and maintenance of the treatment system in accordance with the designer’s recommendation and shall be provided with such necessary equipment for the discharge of his duties. The name and contact of the appointed person shall be supplied to the licensing authority and in the event of any change of personnel this change shall be made known to the licensing authority immediately. Details of the exact duties of the appointed person shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority within two months of this decision.

Condition no. 16: The licensee shall reimburse Clare County Council to the value of €200 per visit for the costs of check monitoring of the above licence conditions. Thereafter the fee shall be subject to the normal rate of inflation for costs of such analysis.

______Paul Caprani Senior Planning Inspector

3rd June 2014

WW03.WW0415 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 23