Transcript Focus on Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland

Environmental Drivers
Gerard O’Leary
Environmental Protection Agency
10th October 2012
1
Summary
Framework for the protection of the biology,
chemistry, and natural physical form of all
surface and groundwaters and dependent
waterbodies.
Water
Framework
Directive (WFD)
2
Water Framework Directive
WFD aims to achieve Integration of
 Environmental objectives (Quality, quantity & ecology)
 All water resources (freshwater, coastal, wetlands)
 Disciplines & Data (biology, chemistry, hydrology,
economics)
 Legislation (Nitrates, Urban Waste water, Shellfish
Regs)
 Decision making (Local, River Basin, National)
 Measures (land use, management, pricing)
 Stakeholders (local authorities, NGOs, civil society)
So, our WFD approach should reflect this integration !
Water Quality in Ireland

Groundwater (EPA data)

85% of groundwater aquifers are at Good status

14% of GW area ‘poor’ due to Nitrogen and Phosphate

Rivers

71% is at High or Good status,

29% river channel is polluted

Lakes

42% of lake area is High or Good status

58% of lake area polluted, mainly by Phosphorus

Estuarine and Coastal Waters

64% of bays are at High or Good status,

15% polluted
Comparison of Water Q in Ireland
with other countries
(based on EEA website data)
Urban and Domestic
Wastewater
6
Asset
Map
Level of treatment provided


~ 92% of waste water receives at least secondary
treatment (based on p.e.)
Significant improvement since 2001
Year
No treatment/
Preliminary treatment
%
Primary
treatment
%
Secondary
treatment
%
Secondary
with nutrient
reduction %
2010
2001
5.9
30
1.6
41
72.6
21
19.9
8
Effluent quality at all 2° plants
Over 530 urban areas are subject to the licensing system.

Discharges from all 432 secondary treatment plants assessed
against effluent quality and monitoring standards/guide values.

58% of plants complied with the
standards/guide values.
Achieved all the
effluent quality
and sampling
standards
30%
31%
39%
2007
Did not achieve
the standards due
to poor effluent
quality
Did not achieve
the standards due
to insufficient
effluent sampling
3%
39%
58%
2010
Key pressures from waste water


Observed impacts (WFD - Improve):
- 10 linked with bathing water failures or
seriously polluted river sites
- 52 linked with moderately or slightly polluted
river sites
Vulnerable receptors (WFD – Protect):
- 35 prioritised for protection of freshwater pearl
mussel
- 55 are key pressures on designated shellfish
waters
Cause of reported incidents
Adverse
Weather
Sewer Network (22)
Management (20)
Other
(6)
WWTP Management
(105)
WWTP Capacity (84)
Plant upgrade required to meet ELV (56)
Plant operating above capacity (10)
Plant not designed for N removal (8)
Plant not designed for P removal (10)
Plant or equipment breakdown (29)
Plant or equipment maintenance (22)
Plant or equipment calibration (23)
Plant biological sludge issue (8)
Dosing pump failure or maintenance (7)
Leachate acceptance (7)
Shock load to the plant (9)
Key pressures from waste water

Poor infrastructure (UWWTD)
-
-
18 large urban areas lack the mandatory
treatment required by Directive.
In total 36 urban areas (>500 p.e.) discharge
waste water without treatment.
Data on SWO’s is lacking and many do not meet
specified criteria.
Drinking Water
13
6%
Public Water Supplies
9%
Private Regulated Supplies
Exempted Supplies
Quality of Drinking Water
85%
30.0%
Public
Private
2008
2009
24.9%
25.0%
2010
20.0%
17.0%
15.0%
11.6%
8.6%
10.0%
5.0%
12.1%
7.4%
4.1%
2.9%
2.2%
2.6%
0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
Public Water Supplies
Public Group Water
Supplies
Private Group Water
Supplies
Percentage of supplies where E. coli was detected
Small Private Supplies
E.coli: Outcomes
New EPA
Enforcement
Powers
Chemical Parameters –THMs
100 ug/l
THM limit
No. of Public Water Supplies
120
100
91
105
88
87
77
80
60
48
52
40
34
40
39
39
38
27
20
20
20
27
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
E. coli exceedances
THM exceedances
THM ˃ 150 ug/l
Comparison of no. of public water supplies where E.Coli or THM’s
were detected at least once from 2004 to 2010
18
Currently…The
customer
Currently…
Concluding remarks (sewage)





Move to a Preventative maintenance programme
Management of sewage sludge
Bathing Water Regulations and beach profiles
Waste Water Odour and Noise Regulations
Licensing of effluent discharges to sewers
Concluding remarks contd (drinking water)
 Source protection measures
 The moving from monitoring to risk management (i.e.
implementation of WSPs)
 Management of drinking water sludge
 Vulnerability of drinking plants to env. challenges (e.g.
poor weather and VTEC)
 Improvements in operational practices (e.g. responses to
alarms)
 Communication to the public – availability of information
Thank you
23
WSP steps - Summary
Preparation
1
Assemble the WSP team
2
3
4
5
6
7
System assessment
Describe the water supply system
Identify hazards and hazardous events and assess the risks
Determine and validate control measures, reassess and prioritise the risks
Develop, implement and maintain an improvement programme
Define monitoring of the control measures (operational monitoring)
Verify the effectiveness of the WSP
8
9
Management and communication
Prepare management procedures
Develop supporting programmes
10
11
Feedback and improvement
Plan and carry out periodic review of the WSP
Revise the WSP following an incident