This report has been cleared for submission All submissions can pector Dr Karen Crei be viewed on eDMSNVeb - Date: 6(6//2 OFF,,, -. ---. .-. -, LICENSING & RESOURCE USE.

An &nlombmmht YII ChmnhnU (omMml

Directors II Environmental Licensing From: Dona1 Grant 1 Proqramme 6thJune 2012 Application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence from Wicklow County Council, for the agglomeration named , Reg.

~

Schedule of discharge licensed: Discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of 2,001 and 10,000 p.e.

Licence application received: 27th August 2008

Notices under Regulation 18(3)(b) issued: 1gthJune 2009

Information under Regulation 18(3)(b) llthMay 2010 received:

Site notice check: 22ndSeptember 2008

Site visits: gthApril 2009, 22"d July 2010

Submission(s) Received: Eleven

1. Agglomeration This application relates to the agglomeration of Blessington located on the N81 close to the Wicklow-Kildare border, and approximately 5 km from the village of Ballymore- Eustace in Kildare. The agglomeration is served by a waste water treatment plant (MP) that provides secondary treatment with nutrient removal to a design capacity of 6,000 population equivalent (p.e.). The existing loading to the plant has been calculated by the applicant as being approximately 4,570 p.e., and planning permission has been granted for future developments which have the potential to add 3,617 p.e. loading to the sewer network. Condition 1.7 of the Recommended Licence (RL) requires the applicant to undertake periodic assessment of the available capacity of the treatment works and to maintain sufficient capacity in the treatment works to ensure that there is no environmental risk posed to the receiving water environment as a result of the discharges. The plant is located on the southern edge of the town and is served by a sewer network consisting of both separate and combined foul sewer systems. The final

Page 1 of 16 discharge from the plant is conveyed through approx. 5.5 km of 250mm diameter pumped outfall pipe to the , at a point downstream of the Upper Liffey Catchment ( Reservoir), drinking water abstraction point (PAl~O7OOPUB1001). The flow of water in the receiving water at this point is controlled by a dam at the southernmost point of the and can vary significantly depending on prevailing levels in the reservoir and the demand for drinking water at the abstraction point. The treatment plant consists of an inlet works equipped with 6mm screens and grit removal system. The inlet flow is channelled through the inlet works where it passes through 6 mm screens before entering a grit trap and fat removal system. After the inlet chamber the maximum influent design flow of 3X DWF is allowed to pass into the splitter box of the aeration tanks. Any flow in excess of 3X DWF is diverted after the inlet works to the storm water holding tank. Once influent flows have dropped below 1.5X DWF, return pumps in the storm water holding tank pump the contents of the tank back through the inlet works for treatment. The storm water holding tank has a capacity of 337m3, which equates to approximately 3X DWF for 2 hours. If influent flows exceed this capacity, the sewage can further overflow the storm water holding tank to a lined storm lagoon to the south of the site. This lagoon has a storage capacity of over 5,500 m3 and does not possess an overflow facility. The operator of the WWTP has stated that the storm water tank has never overflowed to the lagoon since the last upgrade works in 2007. At the splitter box the flow can be directed to either of the two aeration tanks operating in parallel. These tanks are aerated by fine bubble diffuse aerators, controlled by a Dissolved Oxygen (DO) meter. The treated sludge then passes over an overflow weir in the aeration basin and passes by gravity to the final clarifiers. A coagulant (aluminium sulphate) is dosed into this forward feed as it transfers to the clarifiers in order to assist in phosphorous removal. The clarified effluent then overflows the clarifier weir before discharging to the final effluent sump. From here it is pumped via a 250mm diameter outfall pipe to the discharge point at , approx. 5.5km south of the WWTP.

ESB aqreement: The discharge was installed at its current location in 1985 following a licence agreement between the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) and Wicklow County Council. As the landowners of Golden Falls Lake, the ESB required Wicklow County Council to sign a legal agreement with a number of conditions relating to the infrastructure involved in the discharge, limits on the volume and quality of the effluent to be discharged, the provision of indemnity for the ESB, and a number of other legal provisions. The only conditions of this legal agreement that impact on the licensing of the discharge are the requirements of Condition 11, which states:

a) The total volume of effluent shall not exceed 8,172 cubic metres in any twenty-four hour period, this volume cornpHsing a treated foul flow of 1,362 cubic metres from a potential maximum population of 6,000 people and S, 810 cubic metres of treated storm flow from the town of Blessington and its environs, and b) The effluent shall comply with the following minimum standard, i.e. it shall contain not more than 30 milligrams per litre of suspended solids and shall not absorb more than 20 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per litre in the standard five day test. In the case of conditions such as condition 11 above, which relates directly to the discharge point SWOO1, the treatment works are designed to meet the requirements of these conditions and they shall not conflict with the provisions of the RL, as drafted. Legal advice received by the Agency has confirmed that the Page 2 of 16 requirements of the legal agreement between Wicklow County Council and the ESB do not conflict with the obligations of the Agency to impose conditions on a licence in accordance with Regulation 29 of the Waste Water (Discharge) Authorisation Regulations, 2007. Wicklow County Council wrote to the ESB to inform them of their application for a licence to the Agency for the Blessington agglomeration in accordance with the Waste Water (Discharge) Authorisation Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007). The ESB did not make any submissions to the Agency relating to this correspondence or any other aspect of the application.

2. Discharges to waters The primary discharge point from the agglomeration is located 5.5 km to the south of the WWTP and discharges to a short section of the River Liffey, between the Poulaphouca Reservoir and Golden Falls Lake. The primary discharge is located within the jurisdiction of Kildare County Council and the applicant has submitted correspondence with Kildare County Council, informing them of the intention of Wicklow County Council to submit an application for the Blessington agglomeration to the Agency. Kildare County Council did not make any submissions to the Agency on this application. The treatment plant is designed to treat 6,000 p.e. and it’s current loading is estimated at approximately 4,570 p.e. While planning permission has been granted for development that would add a further 3,617 p.e. loading to the plant, the applicant does not anticipate that much of this development will commence during the lifetime of the licence due to the changed economic circumstances. Condition 1.7 of the RL requires the applicant to maintain sufficient capacity in the treatment works to ensure that there is no environmental risk posed to the receiving water environment as a result of the discharges. The treatment plant provides secondary treatment with nutrient reduction to all waste waters arising within the agglomeration and the quality of the final effluent consistently meets the standards set under the UWWT Regulations. Monitoring results submitted by the applicant for 2007-2008 demonstrate that there have been a small number of occasions when the design standards for final effluent quality have been breached however the requirements of the RL should ensure that the treatment plant is operating to its design standard at all times. There are no secondary discharge points or storm water overflows from the agglomeration. The sewer network within Blessington town is a predominately separate foul and surface water system and is entirely dependent on gravity to feed the collected sewage to the WWTP. The only pumping station in the agglomeration is the final forward feed pumps at the WWTP, and the emergency overflow from this pumping station discharges back into the holding tanks at the plant.

Site Visit A site visit to the WWTP was undertaken by the Agency on 27thJuly 2010 which focussed on the operations of the treatment plant and the receiving waters. During this visit the Agency met with the operators of the plant. The plant appeared to be operating satisfactorily and there were no visible impacts of the discharge on the receiving waters.

3. Receiving waters and impact The following table summarises the main considerations in relation to the River Liffey downstream of the primary discharge.

Page 3 of 16 iaoie 5.u Keceivi J waters Characteristic Classification Comment Receiving water River Liffey (IE-EA-O9-1870-1), Discharge located in short name and type upstream of Golden Falls Lake (1.5km) section of river between Pou Ia phouca Reservoir and Golden Falls Lake Resource use Water Treatment Plant The primary discharge point (WTP), drinking water (SWOOl) is approximately abstraction point, Register 54 km upstream of this Number:PA1~0900PUB1001. abstraction point Up per Liffey Catchmen t The primary discharge is (Poulaphouca reservoir), downstream of this drinking water abstraction point, abstraction point Register Number: PA1~0700PUBl001 Amenity value Fishinq, Watersports Applicable UWWT Regulations Note In compliance Regulations Environmental Objective In compliance Regulations Note Designations River Liffey is a nutrient The primary discharge is sensitive river downstream of approximately 28 km the Osberstown sewage upstream of where the River treatment works outfall to Leixlip Liffey is designated as a reservoir, Co. Kildare nutrient sensitive river. EPA monitoring None upstream stations 09LO 10400 Approximately 1.7 km downstream of SWOOl Biological quality Downstream (station ID (Q 3-4 in 2010) ratinq (Q value) 09LO 10400) WFD status Moderate Good status bv 2021 WFD Risk Category la (at risk of not achieving good status) WFD protected RPA Nutrient Sensitive River - See above comment on areas Liffev desiqnations

Note 2: European Communities (Quality of Surface Water intended for the Abstraction of Drinking Water) Regulations, 1989, S.I. No. 294/1989.

Drinkina Water - Leixlip Water Treatment Plant [WTP) The applicant states that approximately 148,000 m3/day of drinking water is abstracted from the River Liffey, 54 km downstream of the WWTP, for the Leixlip WTP (Register Code: PA1-900PUB1001). Leixlip WTP is not included in the Drinking Water Report 2007/2008 Remedial Action List. There is significant dilution available in the River Liffey at the primary discharge point (SWOOl). Approximately 125 dilutions are available on the basis of normal discharge volume at 4,570 p.e., (1010m3/day) and the 950!0ile flow (1.53 m3/s) in the River Liffey. It is considered that the primary discharge is unlikely to have an impact on the water treatment plant at Leixlip, due to the significant dilution available in the River Liffey (at the primary discharge point, and at the hydrometric station No. 09006 upstream of the Leixlip WTP) and the distance between the discharge point

Page 4 of 16 and the abstraction point. Accordingly, no risk analysis has been completed or considered necessary. It may also be noted that the primary discharge from a much larger agglomeration, Osberstown, Reg. No. D0002-01 (greater than 10,000 p.e.), is located 26 km upstream of the Leixlip WTP. Condition 6.2 requires the licensee to notify Inland Fisheries and relevant downstream water services authority in the case of any incident relating to a discharge to water.

Assimilative Capacity The population equivalent is not expected to have increased significantly since the application was submitted in 2008 (4,570 p.e.) due to the economic downturn. The results of assimilative capacity (AC) calculations are depicted in Table 3.1 below. The assimilative capacity calculations are based on the maximum WWTP loading of 6,000 p.e., 95%ile river flow (1.53m3/s), the water quality standards in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009) and the effluent discharge emission limit values as specified in the RL.

Parameter Background O/O Proposed Contributio Predicted Relevant Concentratio Available ELVs for n downstream standard n Capacity discharge from concentratio (mg/l) (mg/l) Note from SW-1 primary n (mg/l) discharge (mg/l) (ms/l) BOD 1.71 34 20 Note2 0.15 1.86 2.6 Note 3 PO4-P 0.013 83 1 0.016 0.029 0.075 Note Total 0.037 74 5 0.084 0.121 0.140 Note Ammonia - N Note 1: Mean background conc. Note 2: Plant design criteria specified by applicant. Note 3: European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009. S.I. No 272 of 2009.

The emission limit values set in Schedule A: Primary Waste Water Discharge of the RL are based on either the design standards of the WWTP (in the case of BOD) or on monitoring results for final effluent (in the case of Ortho-P and Total Ammonia). Monitoring results submitted by the applicant have demonstrated that the plant is capable of meeting these emission limit values on a consistent basis. The assimilative capacity calculations above demonstrate that the limits set in the RL will ensure that the plant is operated to a satisfactory manner and that discharges from the agglomeration shall not result in any of the standards set in the Surface Water Regulations being breached. The discharge point at SWOOl is located approximately 1 km downstream of the Poulaphouca dam, which controls the flow of water through the reservoir (as determined by water levels in the Poulaphouca Reservoir and drinking water demands at the water treatment plant). The flow of water in the river at SWOOl is subject to variability depending on the factors outlined above however it is anticipated that the flow will not be reduced to a level to cause any significant concern as the DWF volume through the dam is similar to the 95%ile flow of 1.53m3/s. This is due to the fact that Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 requires the ESB to release ‘compensation water’ up to 1.5m3/s when the level in Poulaphouca Reservoir is below ‘low water level’. Compensation water must be provided from the reservoir to allow some water to continue to flow in the river downstream. Sufficient water must be let through to maintain the fish and wildlife that use the river, and the natural vegetation in and around it. This ensures

Page 5 of 16 that a suitable constant flow shall be available in the receiving water to provide the dilution for final effluent discharged at SWOOl. The primary discharge point is located approximately 200 metres upstream of Golden Falls Lake, which is commonly used for recreational purposes, including fishing and watersports. The level in Golden Falls Lake is controlled by a dam at the western end of the lake and the lake itself is designed to further control the levels of compensation water discharged downstream to the River Liffey, and to provide an opportunity to generate electricity at the Golden Falls Dam. Monitoring results submitted by the applicant have demonstrated that the quality of the receiving waters in Golden Falls Lake is within the prescribed quality standards set out in the Surface Water Regulations for BOD, MRP and Total Ammonia. A monitoring campaign was conducted between 2004 and 2007 at a number of locations across the lake. These included sampling locations 200 metres downstream of SWOOl, on the north and south banks of the lake and at the dam controlling the water levels. At two of the sampling locations, samples were routinely taken both at surface level and from 2 metres below the surface. Of the approximately 270 samples taken over a four year period, at 9 different sampling locations, only 20 samples exceeded any of the standards set out in Schedule 5 of the Surface Water Regulations. The majority of these exceedances were for BOD, and could all be considered minor exceedances, with no BOD levels of greater than 4 mg/l being recorded. The River Liffey has been categorised as having moderate status by the Eastern River Basin District. Golden Falls Lake has been categorised as being of moderate status by the Eastern River Basin District. In their River Basin Management Plan, 2009 - 2015, the ERBD states that the reasons for the lake only achieving moderate status is for the excessive chlorophyll production caused by the presence of elevated levels of phosphorous in the water. Of the 270 samples mentioned above, 60 of the samples exceeded the standard of lOpg/l (chlorophyll a) prescribed for moderate water quality in the Surface Water Regulations. According to the ERBD, the presence of elevated phosphorous levels is thought to come from a combination of agricultural sources and from planning and development. The WWTP in Blessington is not considered to be a cause of significant deterioration in water quality in Golden Falls Lake.

4. Ambient Monitoring Schedule 8.3 Ambient Monitoring of the RL requires the licensee to conduct quarterly monitoring for a number of key parameters at locations upstream and downstream of the primary discharge point. The moderate status of Golden Falls Lake has been attributed to poor agricultural and planning & development practices in the vicinity in the ERBD River Basin Management Plan. The discharge from the Blessington agglomeration is not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the receiving waters in the River Liffey, and consequently Golden Falls Lake.

5. Combined Approach The Waste Water Discharge Authorisation Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007) specify 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) as amended and the limits determined under statute or Directive for the purpose of achieving the environmental objectives established for surface waters, groundwater or protected

Page 6 of 16 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 S.I. No. 684 of 2007.

7. Programme of Improvements There are no improvement works planned for the Blessington WWTP. The plant is operating within its design treatment and hydraulic capacities. An upgrade of the plant in 2007 increased its capacity from 3,000 to 6,000 p.e. The plant is currently treating approximately 4,570 p.e. and it is not anticipated that the plant will become overloaded during the lifetime of the licence.

8. 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 Reclulations There is one drinking water abstraction point (Leixlip reservoir) on the River Liffey 54 km downstream of the primary discharge point. No risk analysis has been completed or is considered necessary.

Sensitive Waters The Blessington WWTP primary discharge point discharges to the River Liffey 26 km upstream of where it is designated as a nutrient sensitive river. The River Liffey is designated as nutrient sensitive downstream of Osberstown sewage treatment works outfall to Leixlip reservoir, Co. Kildare.

European Communities Environmental Obiectives [Surface Water] Regulations 2009, S.I. No. 272 of 2009 The water quality downstream of the WWTP shows that the River Liffey complies with the water quality standards for BOD, ammonia and orthophosphate stipulated in S.I. 272 of 2009. It is considered that the primary discharge is not adversely impacting the chemical water quality of the receiving water.

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.

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive [91/271/EECl The Blessington WWTP does comply with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in terms of the level of treatment provided. The RL, as drafted, has regard to the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, in particular the emission limit values specified in Schedule A; Discharges, which take account of the standards set out in the UWWT Regs.

EC Freshwater Fish Directive r2006/44/ECI The River Liffey is not designated as salmonid waters.

Page 7 of 16 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. Monitoring of receiving waters has shown compliance with the Dangerous Substances Regulations (S.I. No. 12 of 2001).

Birds Directive r79/409/EEC1 & Habitats Directive r92/43/EECl The Poulaphouca Reservoir (site code 004063) is designated as a Special Protected Area (SPA) and is located approx. 1000 metres upstream of the primary discharge and is not affected by the primary discharge. A screening (Stage 1) for Appropriate Assessment of the discharge from the agglomeration was undertaken to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge and the conservation objectives of the site, if the discharge, individually or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. The screening assessment undertaken demonstrates that the discharge is not likely to have significant effects, in terms of maintaining favourable conservation status of the qualifying interests, on the European Site(s) having regard to its conservation objectives.

In accordance with the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011), pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the discharge will not adversely affect the integrity, in terms of maintaining favourable conservation status of the qualifying interests of the European Site(s), having regard to its conservation objectives.

Environmental Liabilities Directive [2004/35/EC) 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 2004/35/EC.

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive r85/337/EECl An EIS was not submitted with the licence application and should one be required as part of any programme of improvements, it will be dealt with as per Condition 1.8 of the RL.

9. Cross Office Liaison Advice and guidance issued by the Technical Working Group (TWG) was followed in my assessment of this application. Advice and guidance issued by the TWG is prepared through a detailed cross-office co-operative process, with the concerns of all sides taken into account. The Board of the Agency has endorsed the advice and guidance issued by the TWG for use by licensing Inspectors in the assessment of wastewater discharge licence applications.

10. Submissions Eleven submissions were received in relation to this application, five of which were from the Trout & Salmon Anglers’ Association. For convenience the submissions are labelled Submission No.’s 1to 9 respectively.

Page 8 of 16 I Submission No. 1 I Date Received Mr Gary Bolger, Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon gth September 2008 Anglers' Association (The Association)

Submission No. 2 I Date Received 1 Mr Ian Lumley, An Taisce I 1gthSeptember 2008

Submission No. 3 Date Received Ms Fiona Breslin, on behalf of the Ballymore Eustace 24th September 2008 Community Development Association (CDA), dated 12 November 2009.

I Submission No. 4 I Date Received

Submission No. 5 Date Received Mr Gary Bolger, Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon 15thApril 2009 Anglers' Association (The Association)

Submission No. 6 Date Received Mr. Pat Doherty, Eastern Regional Fisheries Board 7th September 2009 (ERFB)

Submission No. 7 Date Received Mr Stephen Deegan, Ballymore Eustace 2ndDecember 2009

I Submission No. 8 I Date Received I Mr Gary Bolger, Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon 20thApril 2010 Anglers' Association (The Association)

I Submission No. 9 I Date Received Mr Thomas Deegan, Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon 30thDecember 2011 Anglers' Association (The Association)

Submission No. 10 I Date Received Mr Thomas Deegan, Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon 27th April 2012 Anglers' Association (The Association)

Submission No. 11 Date Received Mr Thomas Deegan, Ballymore Eustace Trout & Salmon 315' May 2012 Anglers' Association (The Association)

Page 9 of 16 Submissions 1, 518, 9, 10 & 11 The Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers’ Association raised a number of points in relation to the history behind Golden Falls Lake and the discharge from the Blessington WWTP. They also provided background information on the correspondence they have engaged in over the years with various authorities and politicians and the levels of response they received. In their submissions they requested that the Agency investigate the granting of a licence from the ESB to Wicklow County Council to locate the discharge in Golden Falls Lake. They also asked that the Agency ‘impose stringent tertiary treatment limits, nutrient removal conditions and monitoring arrangements, on Blessington Waste Water Treatment Plant Discharge and to consider possible alternatives to dkcharging into Golden Falls Lake just upstream of Ballymore Eustacg. Submissions 5 & 8 both reiterated their concerns at the high levels of phosphorous recorded in Golden Falls Lake in 2007. Submission 9 expressed the concerns of the Association in relation to the licence agreement of 1985 between the ESB and Wicklow County Council for the location of the discharge in Golden Falls Lake. They requested that the Agency refuse a licence under the WWDA Regs. for the continued discharge at SWOO1 where a minimum dilution of the effluent cannot be guaranteed. The Association also asked that a schedule for the removal of the discharge from the lake be drawn up. Submission 10 reported an on-going problem of algal growth on the River Liffey at Ballymore Eustace which they believe is a result of the discharge from the Blessington WWTP. This submission was copied to Wicklow County Council by Mr. Deegan. Submission 11 elaborated on this algal growth issue by including monitoring results for ammonia in Golden falls lake, which he believes coincides with the ‘perennialproblem of algal growth in the River Liffe).

Aqencv response: It is not within the Agency’s remit to examine the validity or otherwise of the licence granted to Wicklow County Council by the ESB to discharge into Golden Falls Lake. On the issue of imposing strict tertiary limits, nutrient removal conditions and monitoring arrangements, the conditions and schedules of the RL provide for the appropriate operation of the plant and the assurance of a final effluent of consistent quality as to not cause any significant impacts on the receiving waters. In particular, Schedule A; Limitations of the RL sets strict emission limit values for the final effluent discharge. Condition 5.1 of the RL requires the licensee to reduce Total Phosphorus loadings in the discharge to the maximum practicable extent, and Schedule B.1; Monitoring of Primary Waste Water Discharge requires monthly monitoring of the final effluent stream to ensure the plant is operating correctly and that nutrient removal efficiency is maximised. While the plant does not provide tertiary treatment it does provide secondary treatment and nutrient reduction in the form of Aluminium sulphate addition in the clarifiers. In relation to possible alternatives to the current discharge location, the Agency is satisfied that the existing discharge point is situated in an appropriate location and the discharges at SWOO1 will not have a significant impact in Golden Falls Lake. Referring to submission 9, as stated previously Part 6 of the Schedule to the Liffey Reservoir Act 1936 requires the ESB to release ‘compensation water’ up to 1.5m3/s when the level in Poulaphouca Reservoir is below ‘low water level’ thereby ensuring that there will be a constant flow of water in the River Liffey at SWOOl and sufficient dilution for the discharge. In relation to the algal bloom identified in submissions 10 and 11, Wicklow County Council copied the Agency on correspondence they sent to Mr. Deegan. The Page 10 of 16 correspondence provided details of monitoring results for 2008-2011 to demonstrate that the discharge from the Blessington WWTP was not having a significant impact on water quality in Golden Falls Lake.

Submissions 2 & 4 Both submissions by An Taisce are identical and state their agreement with the recommendations of Submission 1, namely that 'the €PA impose stringent tertiary treatment Iimih, nutrient removal conditions and a monitoring arrangement on the Blessington wastewater treatment plant and to consider possible alternatives to discharging into Golden Falls Lake'.

Aclencv response: The comments in these submissions are in agreement with those made in submissions 1,5,8 & 9 and have been addressed in the Agency response above.

Submission 3 A significant submission was received by the Agency from the Ballymore Eustace Community Development Association (CDA) Ltd. on 24th September 2008. The submission provided a good deal of background information on Golden Falls Lake and the discharge from the Blessington WWTP. The CDA proceeded to outline a number of concerns and objections related to the application by Wicklow County Council to discharge into Golden Falls Lake. These concerns were outlined under a series of headings, which shall be reproduced here and addressed in turn.

a) The first statement in the submission is that the Agency should deem the newspaper advertisement by the applicant to be invalid as it does not specify a closing period for submissions on the application. Response: There is no closing period for submissions on an application prescribed in legislation and the Agency accepts submissions up until a decision on the licence application is made by the Board of the Agency.

b) Golden Falls Characteristics: The Ballymore Eustace CDA would like a study to be carried out into the characteristics of the Golden Falls Lake. A list of characteristics which they would like examined is included under this heading.

Response: Only a small number of their concerns, such as the characteristics of the discharge, the impact of the discharge on flora and fauna, impact on fish quality, etc. can be addressed through the WWD licensing process while the remainder are outside the remit of the Agency and are the responsibility of other state bodies such as the planning authorities, ESB, etc. The Agency is satisfied that the discharges from the Blessington WWTP are not having a significant impact on the receiving waters and that the conditions of the RL as drafted, should contribute towards the River Liffey downstream of the discharge achieving good water status by 2021.

c) Pollution: Under this heading Ms. Breslin outlined details of a dispute in the early 2000s between Wicklow County Council and a Section 4 licensee, including details of an alleged photograph that was produced which purported to show a mound of sludge underneath the outfall at SWOOl during a period when the water levels in the lake were reduced. She asked that this alleged sludge mound be investigated by the Agency. Response: This allegation was not highlighted to the Office of Environmental Enforcement at any stage by any of the parties involved in the dispute. The Page 11 of 16 submission does not contain any evidence to suggest that there may be a significant build-up of sludge at the outfall. d) Ownership: As the responsible body for Golden Falls Lake, the ESB granted a licence to Wicklow County Council to locate the discharge from Blessington in the lake. The Ballymore Eustace CDA would like to question the legality of the licence as they believe the ESB may not be the competent authority for the protection of waters. Response: It is not the remit of the Agency to contest the validity of the arrangements of another statutory body. As significant landowners around and including Golden Falls Lake, the agreement between the ESB and Wicklow County Council is a matter for both organisations to decide. The conditions of the agreement are not in conflict with the conditions and ELVs contained in the RL and there is no conflict between the requirements on Wicklow County Council as a result of either the legal agreement with the ESB or the RL, as drafted. e) Wicklow County Development Plan / Blessington Expansion: The Ballymore Eustace CDA would like further development within Blessington town prohibited until such time as an appropriate location for the discharge is identified. They would also like a licence issued that provides for the elimination of the discharge within a certain timeframe, and prohibiting further development in the interim. It is their opinion that the Blessington WWTP is operating above its capacity, which they believe is further reason not to allow any additional development within the town. Response: It is the remit of the Local Authority to manage development through the planning process and the Agency has no authority to influence this process. Condition 1.7 of the RL requires the applicant to ensure that there is no environmental risk posed to the receiving water environment as a result of the discharges. As regards moving the discharge location the Agency is satisfied that the existing discharge point is situated in an appropriate location and the discharges at SWOOl will not have a significant impact in Golden Falls Lake.

9 Stormwater/Emergency overflows: The CDA require clarification on the management of overflows at the WWTP in the event of a malfunction with the equipment. Response: This matter has been addressed in Section 1 of this report. The Agency is satisfied that adequate attenuation is available in the storm water holding tank and in the lined lagoon at the WWTP in the event of an em ergen cy. g) Monitoring and Analysis - From Application: The CDA asked a short series of specific questions in relation to monitoring results submitted by Wicklow County Council as part of the application. These included: Who (What Agency) sets and enforces limits? Has 6,000p.e. already been reached? BOD results 2007-2008 - what is the maximum and how many times was 2Omg/I breached? Suspended Solids (SS) results 2007-2008 - what is the maximum and how many times was 30mg/l breached?

Page 12 of 16 They also asked if Kildare County Council had received any notices from the EPA under Section 63 of the EPA Acts., given that the discharge was located in County Kildare. Response: The EPA sets and enforces limits through the WWDA licensing process. 0 The current p.e. of the agglomeration is 4,570 p.e. 0 The maximum result for BOD was llmg/l. 0 The maximum result for SS was 20.9mg/I.

No Section 63 notices were issued by the EPA to Kildare County Council.

h) Aluminium Sulphate is used by the operators of the Blessington WWTP and the operators of the Poulaphouca Water Treatment Plant as a coagulant - confirmation was required that the Agency has considered the cumulative impact of the release of Aluminium into the receiving water. Response: Aluminium is not considered a dangerous substance and it is not listed in any of the schedules to the Surface Water Regs. (the submission pre- dates the publication of the Surface Water Regs.). Aluminium Sulphate has been developed to exhibit specific coagulating properties and in both the treatment of water and waste water, Aluminium Sulphate is retained in the sludge and removed from the treated effluent stream for drying and disposal. The Agency is satisfied that any residual Aluminium Sulphate carried over into the final effluent shall not have any significant impact on the receiving waters.

Submission 6 In his submission on behalf of the ERFB, Mr. Pat Doherty outlined the history of the River Liffey and Golden Falls Lake and underlines the importance of the River Liffey system as a highly significant salmonid catchment. He expressed a number of concerns in relation to the discharge from the Blessington WWTP and the water quality downstream of the discharge. The first of these concerns is the potential p.e. loading that may be added to the plant as a result of planning permissions granted by Wicklow County Council. Mr. Doherty states that Wicklow County Council must be aware of the provisions of Part I1 (5) of the Surface Water Regulations, which states that ‘apublic authority shall not, in the performance of its functions, undertake those functions in a manner that knowingly causes or allows deterioration in chemical status or ecological status (or ecological potential as the case may be) of a body of surface watet‘. Another concern expressed by Mr. Doherty is the issue of potentially elevated levels of phosphorous in the final effluent discharge from the Blessington WWTP. He states that ‘it is imperative that P loading to the system is addressed immediately and absolutely minimised. He also requested clarification as to ‘the nature of the P issues at the plant and how they have been addressed/resolved to date‘. The ERFB also requested that the issue of climate change be comprehensively considered and integrated into the final licence.

Aclency response: The granting of planning permission and the management of loading to the WWTP is a matter for Wicklow County Council and the Agency has no remit for influencing planning and development in this manner. The Agency is satisfied that the conditions and schedules of the RL shall ensure that the WWTP is managed correctly and that the final effluent will be of sufficient quality to ensure that the River Liffey achieves Page 13 of 16 good water quality status by 2021. In particular the emission limit values set out in Schedule A; Discharges shall ensure a consistent final effluent quality. The requirement to meet these emission limit values shall require the licensee to manage the loading to the plant accordingly. Condition 5.1 (d) of the RL requires the licensee to reduce the Total Phosphorous loading in the discharge to the maximum practicable extent. Even though the RL sets a stringent Orthophosphate limit of lmg/l in Schedule A; Discharges, the licensee is required to continually assess their ability to reduce the phosphorous concentrations in their final effluent. In relation to the previous problems with elevated P levels at the plant, these were recorded in 2007 and the operator has since introduced Aluminium Sulphate dosing in order to assist in P reduction in the clarifiers. This has resulted in a better quality final effluent and shall ensure that the licensee complies with the conditions of the RL, particularly the emission limit value for Orthophosphate. On the issue of climate change, this matter has been addressed by the Agency before in a letter to Mr. Doherty from Ms. Laura Burke, dated 18th November 2009. In her letter, Ms. Burke stated: "....it is considered inappropriate at this point to place specific requirements in a licence to address theoretical climate change impacts. The final licence. ... does however provide a number of mechanisms for the present and future protection of the receiving water, inter alia/ stringent El Vs under Schedule A. 1 Discharges/ monitoring of the receiving water for a wide range of physio-chemical parameters under Schedule B.3 [Schedule 8.4 in this RL) Receiving Water Monitoring/.. . . .and a range of specific Conditions designed to ensure the appropriate collection/ conveyance and treatment of waste water generated within the agglomeration. It is considered that these measures together with the requirements of Regulation 14(1) of S.I. 684 of 200z i.e./ the stipulation that the Agency shall review each licence 'at a time not exceeding 6 years from the date on which the licence.. .was granted; provide the necessaw protective measures against the possible future impacts of climate change. Given the time frame quoted for the likely impacts to manifest themselves within the catchment it is considered prudent and appropriate to monitor the situation through the terms of the licence and accommodate any appropriate actions under the terms of a revised licence."

Submission 7 Submission No. 7 relates to a single submission to a number of open and on-going public consultation processes in order to highlight the inconsistencies with regard to what various local authorities are doing and in relation to what departments within local authorities are doing. In relation to the Blessington WWDA application, the submission states: consideration should be given to bringing a sewer from Blessington to Citywest and discharging wastewater to Ringsend. It is not acceptable to the residents of Ballymore Eustace that the current Blessington Wastewater discharge is upstream of the village. Agency Response: The request to relocate or eliminate the discharge point SWOO1 has been addressed in several of the submission responses above. The Agency is satisfied that the standards set in the Surface Water Regs will not be breached as a result of the existing discharge point into Golden Falls Lake.

Page 14 of 16 11. Charges The RL sets an annual charge for the agglomeration at €3,021 and is reflective of the monitoring and enforcement regime being proposed for the agglomeration.

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

Signed

D&al Grant Office of Climate, Licensing and Resource Use

Page 15 of 16