Note: this list is not comprehensive as the Irish Water database of Section 16 licenses does not include all agglomerations (catchment area for a waste water treatment plant), but it does highlight a question: how can Irish Water license trade effluent discharges to sewers where there is no treatment plant
Mapping based on EPA Abstraction Register
(via anon AIE Request)
The Commission Decision of 8th February 2018 permits the land application of up to 250 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure under certain conditions.
Article 7 of the Commission Decision requires that maps showing information concerning approved derogations on a county basis be submitted annually to the Commission.
Article 8 sets out the reporting requirements for the purposes of the Commission Decision.
This report is submitted to address the requirements of Articles 8 and 10 and relates to operation of the derogation in Ireland during 2019.
Numbers of derogation applicants and the results of administrative checks 2019
| Number of applications | 6,786 |
| Number withdrawn | 245 |
| Number rejected | 131 |
| Number approved | 6,410 |
| 2019 | % of whole country |
| Number of holdings with grazing livestock | 4.98% |
| Number of grazing livestock units | 15.90% |
| Total net area | 9.61% |
Nitrates Derogations 2019: Applications by County
| County | Number of holdings who applied for derogation |
| Carlow | 96 |
| Cavan | 108 |
| Clare | 56 |
| Cork | 2,149 |
| Donegal | 104 |
| Dublin | 2 |
| Galway | 147 |
| Kerry | 395 |
| Kildare | 67 |
| Kilkenny | 517 |
| Laois | 242 |
| Leitrim | 1 |
| Limerick | 359 |
| Longford | 19 |
| Louth | 82 |
| Mayo | 44 |
| Meath | 166 |
| Monaghan | 276 |
| Offaly | 128 |
| Roscommon | 17 |
| Sligo | 20 |
| Tipperary | 866 |
| Waterford | 399 |
| Westmeath | 61 |
| Wexford | 384 |
| Wicklow | 81 |
| Total | 6,786 |
Percentage of net area encompassed by derogation in 2019 at county level
Percentage of grazing livestock units encompassed by derogation in 2019 at county level
Percentage of holdings with grazing livestock encompassed by derogation in 2019 at county level
Note: creation dates for above maps and report are early Nov 2020, so resubmitted AIE for 2020 report and maps
At a recent Oireachtas Committee hearing, the EPA noted there are 18 drinking water sources that have difficulty with nitrogen
“Thankfully in Ireland we do not have too many sources that are beyond the drinking water standard. We are not the same as other member states, for example, in that regard. We have approximately 18 drinking water sources that have a difficultly with nitrogen.”
The 18 sources referred to relate to a combined number for public and private drinking water supplies
They are based on the detail published in two EPA drinking water reports
Public Water Supplies: Ballydermody, Waterford and Kiltegan Public Supply, Wicklow
EPA Report Drinking Water quality in Public Supplies in 2019
Two supplies with failures notified (in Table 3)
In the Appendix, Table 2 (p51) indicates that these were Ballydermody, Waterford and Kiltegan Public Supply, Wicklow
Private Water Supplies: 16 listed in Excel
EPA Report Focus on Private Water Supplies 2018 (nitrate exceedances in 3 private group schemes and 13 small private supplies – see Appendix 1 and 2)
Starting to see what maps might be useful.. thanks to my new GIS buddy
It is difficult to get water abstraction points specifically.
EPA redact a lot of data in the Water Abstraction Register, including all Irish Water abstraction points but we think workarounds are possible
A lot of the data is in here, but is not exportable in ways that make analysis easy: https://gis.epa.ie/GetData/Download
EPA are currently working to improve their mapping, and in fairness as one of the more open government agencies for data
Obviously having a local authority license a trade effluent discharge near a drinking water abstraction point is a bad thing ?
East coast trade effluent discharge licenses need another look, as do Galway, Cork Harbour and some of the border counties
Thursday, 23 Sep 2021
Mr. Niall Gleeson (Managing Director, Irish Water)
Following a meeting on Saturday, 18 September, with the Minister for Housing Local Government and Heritage and the chief executives of Wexford County Council and Dublin City Council, we have implemented the following immediate additional measures: we have prioritised a knowledge audit of the largest 20 water treatment plants in the country,
We will start with the top 20 and will do that within the next two weeks,
Deputy Joe Flaherty
Can we get a list of the 20 plants? Why is this audit not being completed across the entirety of the network?
Deputy Joe Flaherty
Can he circulate the details of the 20 plants that are being analysed?
Mr. Niall Gleeson
Certainly, yes, we can.
Ms Margaret Attridge (Asset Operations, Irish Water)
The EPA is doing a follow-up of audits on the top 20 sites in the same two-week period after Irish Water does its initial audits.
Deputy Cian O’Callaghan
Okay. Will the audits on the 20 plants that are being done now be published? If so, when?
Mr. Niall Gleeson
I see no reason why we would not publish them, although we had not planned to because they are internal Irish Water reports. …. We will not be hiding anything, that is for sure. These audits are knowledge audits so it is our assessment of the knowledge of the operators and their knowledge of the reporting procedures.
None of the 20 Irish Water audit reports have been published
Committee response as follows:
Following the non publication of the audit reports, I submitted an FOI for the reports (FOIR 1220A – RE: Irish Water appearance at Oireachtas Committee (Thursday, 23 Sep 2021) FOI Request)
Irish Water asked for a four week extension to consider the FOI, I refused. The ignored that, but their own extension date lapsed this week, so sent for Internal Review
In the meantime, in lieu of publishing the twenty audit reports, Irish Water have published an aggregated report of 26 (unclear why not 20 plants), and suggested that this publication is “publicly available, there is no need for an FOI request or internal review so they will close the request”
The publication of an aggregated report as a strategy to avoid publication of the actual audit reports is not a reasonable response, so sent for Internal Review, as I would be confident of getting this data via OIC on Appeal
Here is a copy of the aggregated report
—– Consultation is closed ——
The Programme for Government commits to rewarding farmers for adapting to more sustainable methods of farming and to the development of a new agri-environment scheme capable of delivering broad environmental and biodiversity benefits that will align financial supports with climate objectives. To advance this objective funding has been made available for an agri-environment pilot project. It is proposed to do this as a results-based project in order to align it with the principles of the next CAP.
Results-based agri-environment payment schemes reward farmers for committed environmental effort by linking payments to the quality of environmental outcomes delivered. This contrasts with the standard ‘prescription-based’ model used in GLAS, where payments are made for carrying out defined actions in line with scheme specifications.
Examples of prescription-based agri-environment actions include the planting of Wild Bird Cover, using Low Emission Slurry Spreading technologies and positioning bee and bat boxes as outlined in the GLAS specifications. Prescription based actions can include mandatory requirements to be implemented to qualify for payment such as grazing, mowing dates and fertilizer and herbicide restrictions. Under this approach the same payment is made irrespective of the subsequent ecological quality achieved.
Under the results-based approach farm features are scored to identify how management practices have impacted on the environmental status of the holding. Scoring is calculated with reference to defined indicators, which are chosen to reflect overall biodiversity and ecological integrity. Payments are linked to environmental quality. In recognition of the environmental and biodiversity quality achieved, farms with the highest scoring receive the greatest payment.
Results-based schemes can involve payments awarded solely on results achieved or may be a blended model with payments for ‘non-productive investments’ which support the delivery of biodiversity and environmental benefits. By linking payments to defined indicators the results-based model creates a financial incentive linked with outcomes for participating farmers. The model also makes it worthwhile for participants to gain an understanding of the conditions required for the delivery of optimum biodiversity and environmental benefits.
The results based model has been used successfully by the Burren Project and various EIP (European Innovation Partnership) projects including the Hen Harrier Project, the BRIDE Project and the Protecting Farmland Pollinators Project. To date its application has been confined to specific environmental challenges and geographic areas. The model has not been tested on a national basis to date.
This pilot will trial a results-based scoring and payment system with suitable measures on participating farms across the country with a view to identifying upscaling potential and feasibility for use of the model in the next agri-environment scheme following on from GLAS. The pilot will aim to cover a broad geographic spread and include a wide range of farming enterprise types.
1. To test the potential suitability of a results-based payment system at farm level and the feasibility of upscaling this model as part of the next national agri-environment scheme to follow on from GLAS
2. To identify training needs for farmers, advisors and other stakeholders
3. To identify the barriers to farmer buy-in to the results-based model
4. To raise awareness and achieve attitudinal change among farmers of the value of biodiversity and other ecosystem services on their farms
5. To test the suitability of Department procedures and systems with regards to application procedures, payment procedures/systems, budgeting/financial procedures and audit/control functions.
6. To identify control and inspection implications
7. To test the monitoring and evaluation aspects for results-based payment actions.
1. Biodiversity
2. Water quality
3. Soil health
4. Climate mitigation/adaptation
Phytoplankton are possibly the most important group of organisms on the planet as they generate most of the oxygen that we breath. Also, as they convert inorganic nutrients and sunlight into vegetative matter, most marine food chains depend on their presence as a primary food source.
A small proportion of species produce highly potent toxins and the monitoring of these are very important to ensure food safety.
While blooms can provide more food to organisms higher up the food chain, too much phytoplankton can also do harm. Dissolved oxygen becomes rapidly depleted as the phytoplankton die, sink to the bottom and decompose. This can result in the death of other organisms including shellfish, crabs and fish.
The main groups of Phytoplankton include Diatoms, Dinoflagelates, Coccolithophorids and Micro-Flagellates. Each of these groups has distinguishing features that allow specialists to identify them to species level.
The Marine Institute Phytoplankton Monitoring Programme monitors coastal waters around Ireland for phytoplankton and algal blooms on a year round basis.
The Marine Institute monitors phytoplankton under a national programme which has been in place since the 1980s. During this period, phytoplankton scientists have developed an understanding of phytoplankton populations and dynamics around the Irish coastline.
https://www.marine.ie/Home/site-area/data-services/interactive-maps/weekly-hab-bulletin
Sample HAB Bulletin
PRIMROSE
The PRIMROSE project will develop a web-portal system providing a joint front end for transnational forecasts of harmful events for the aquaculture sector. In addition to the HAB forecasting, PRIMROSE will investigate forecasts models for microbial contamination. Reporting procedures will be standardised, and partly automated for an expert evaluator to have information available to make an accurate forecast.
The Marine Institute are the project lead in PRIMROSE. This project follows on from the successful ASIMUTH project, which delivers weekly HAB’s forecast bulletins to the Irish aquaculture industry.
Further information on the PRIMROSE project is available at www.shellfish-safety.eu
ALERTOX-NET
ALERTOX-NET aims to develop a technology driven applied approach to make industries aware of emerging toxin issues stemming from potential environmental change, in order to ensure the delivery of better, safer seafood-products during the occurrence of naturally occurring toxicity in coastal waters.
The Marine Institute are a project partner in ALERTOX-NET
View the ALERTOX-NET website at www.alertox-net.eu
MARBioFEED
Enhanced biorefining methods for the production of marine biotoxins and microalgae fish feed.
MARBioFEED is a three year project supported by the First Call for Transnational Research Projects within the Marine Biotechnology ERA-NET, involving partners from Ireland (Marine Institute), Norway (Norwegian Veterinary Institute), Spain (Spanish Oceanographic Institute and Neoalgae), and Canada (National Research Council).
Project background and aims:
The quality assurance of fish and shellfish for human consumption is of paramount importance in ensuring the marketability of products from this expanding and predominantly rural sector. The global demand for fish is increasing due to an expanding population and the awareness that fish is a healthy food source. With increased pressure on land-based agriculture due to climate change, the potential for sustainable marine sourced food is growing. The industry and regulators rely heavily on analytical reference materials to guarantee safety for human health. This project will involve large-scale algal biotechnology for the production of value added products (marine biotoxin reference materials and fish feed).
Further information on the MARBioFEED project is available at www.marine.ie and www.researchgate.net
A team of Johns Hopkins researchers in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering has been awarded $1.87 million from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study contaminants in treated sewage sludge, or biosolids.
The team, led by Carsten Prasse, will identify and measure organic pollutants in biosolid samples, trace their movement in agricultural run-off and leaching, and quantify their uptake into food crops. Using advanced modeling approaches, the team will also estimate people’s health risks due to exposure to these compounds through farm contact and from eating food grown with biosolids.
Since the banning of ocean dumping in 1991, biosolids have been increasingly applied to agricultural land, forests, parks, golf courses, home gardens, and lawns.
“We know very little about the organic chemical contaminants in biosolids,” Prasse says. “This information is critical to the development of strategies to understand exposure and potential public health risks.”
Biosolids are created during the wastewater treatment process. When biosolids are spread on agricultural land, they add nutrients, improve soil, and enhance moisture retention. Applying biosolids to land has economic and waste management benefits, since it saves space in landfills, recycles a waste product, and reduces demand for synthetic fertilizers.
We know very little about the organic chemical contaminants in biosolids. This information is critical to the development of strategies to understand exposure and potential public health risks. – Carsten Prasse
Biosolids can also contain a variety of pollutants. Some of the main offenders: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are found in non-stick cookware, carpets and food packaging; triclosan, an antimicrobial found in personal care products; and unmetabolized pharmaceuticals.
“The use of organic chemicals like PFAS and antimicrobial chemicals has dramatically increased over the last 10 to 20 years,” Prasse says. “But regulation of biosolids is so far almost exclusively focused on pathogens and inorganic contaminants such as metals.”
Utilities and states need information on these pollutants to ensure that they are processed, handled, and used in a way that minimizes potential harm. The research has implications for consumers and farm workers, who may be exposed to biosolids through various pathways.
The research team includes Keeve Nachman and Thomas Burke. Nachman will apply computational toxicological tools to assess the potential toxicity of unstudied chemicals. Burke, who chaired the National Academies of Science Committee on Biosolids Applied to Land in 2001, will advise the project and lead the team’s advisory board, which includes representatives from the biosolids industry, farmers and farm associations, and regulators.
“Our project has a solid foundation in the laboratory, but we will directly engage with stakeholder and regulatory communities beyond the scientific community to ensure our research can inform waste management-related public health interventions,” says Prasse.
Arming consumers and regulators with information can make biosolids safer, but Prasse says it can also help inform what goes into consumer products in the first place.
“We need to think about the chemicals we use in our households and industries that are potentially problematic, why we use them, whether we really need them, and can we just take them out,” he says.
The Department of Environmental Health and Engineering (EHE) is a collaborative hybrid under the Whiting School of Engineering and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. This cross-divisional department is uniquely designed to lead pioneering research and prepare the next generation of scholars to solve critical and complex issues at the interface of public health and engineering.
