Effluent Outfalls

An Board Pleanala June 2009

Moville-G/castle Sewerage Scheme

2

Background to this Proposal

1990 Members of DCC Unanimously Agreed:

Discharge of effluent & Plant would be sited outside the Lough regardless of level of treatment.

1996 Modelling Study:

DCC stated that the sewage loading must receive a high standard of treatment & that the outfall must lie outside the entrance to Lough Foyle.

3

The Comparison

Site A Northwest of Moville Site B Carnagarve Site C East of Greencastle

Potential Outfalls Considered

AB

C

Potential Outfalls Considered

B

C

6

Relevant Reports

The Nov. 2004 Preliminary Outfall Report

Compared 2 outfall site; Carnagarve & Portavela

January 2005 Site Selection Report

Compared 3 sites; Breda Glen, Carnagarve & East of Greencastle

Relationship Between 04&05 Reports

2004 Outfall Report

2005 Site Selection Report

EIS

Conclusions

Conclusions

INPUT

8

How Reports Influenced Each Other

Authors of 2004 Outfall Report were made aware that...

Site A at Moville had been eliminated on economic grounds.

(And more importantly)

That JB Barry would be recommending Site B at Carnagarve in their forthcoming 2005 Site Selection Report.

.

9

2004 Outfall Report

“Following a detailed technical, environmental and economic evaluation of these sites JBB recommended site B, approximately midway between Moville and Greencastle as the preferred site for the new wastewater treatment works”

10

Other Influences on the Outfall Report

“Donegal County Council has indicated that they consider the beaches around the Golf Course to be important recreational assets…”

Photo

Input of DCC into Outfall Selection Report is significant and inappropriate

12

Other Influences on the Outfall Report

“Donegal County Council has indicated that they consider the beaches around the Golf Course to be important recreational assets…”

“The potential impacts on the small pocket beaches around both of the outfall locations under consideration are likely to be similar therefore any preference between the two locations will depend on the relative significance DCC attaches to the two beaches”.

Run

Input of DCC into Outfall Selection Report is significant and inappropriate

13

2004 Outfall Report – Water Quality

(Outfall at Carnagarve)

Have insignificant impact on southern coastline

14

2004 Outfall Report – Water Quality

A short outfall discharging secondary treated effluent at Carnagarve poses “a significant risk that the guideline limits of the bathing waters directive could be exceeded along the shore where there is a public car park and costal walkway”.

15

Water Quality in 2004 Outfall Report

“There is significant potential for sewage discharge in this area to impact on shellfish operations in Lough Foyle if the process and outfall are not designed correctly”

However this impact “is likely to be less than that of the present untreated wastewater discharges from Moville”

16

Conclusion of the 2004 Outfall Report

“…there is very little to differentiate between the two sites in terms of either marine construction or water quality issues. The slight advantage of site C in terms of potential impact on shellfish operations is balanced by slight advantage in terms of construction afforded to site B due to its more sheltered nature”.

Run

One of the final statements in the conclusions of this report states that…

Proposed Outfall Location

BB1

18

Outfall B1 at Greencastle

No outfall outside the Lough included in EIS EIS has no real outfall alternatives The two outfall locations in EIS driven by plant

location. Finding the optimum outfall was never a priority

19

Why Include Outfall B1

It is accessible from the Carnagarve site To give the EIS the facade of completeness B1 is closer to sites outside the Lough B1 adds an additional €.5m to the Carnagarve

costs Carnagarve more expensive than processing

and discharging outside Lough Inappropriate alternatives to present to ABP

20

Carnagarve Outfall Restriction

Current outfall location is restricted to 300m Same restriction doesn’t apply elsewhere Previous modelling outside Lough at 600m Previous modelling off Moville at 600m Mixing zone at end of outfall pipe Carnagarve mixing zone near beach & over

shellfish beds Carnagarve has onshore drift Whatever is in mixing zone will come ashore

21

Residue of Seaweed on Beach

22

Slick Edging Ashore at Carnagarve

23

Ammonia Modelling

Ammonia is detrimental to fish life. No modelling for ammonia undertaken. So why was ammonia ignored in the EIS?

24

Previous Modelling

Previous studies included ammonia modelling

“Total ammonia concentrations are expected to exceed the guideline level for salmonid fish in the area between the outfall and the coast”

25

Outcome of this Analysis

Long term strategy not evident No attempt to find the optimum outfall No real consideration for the Lough as the

most important resource in this area Openness & partnership not widely displayed No realisation of the effects this project had

Effluent Outfalls

An Board Pleanala June 2009

Moville-G/castle Sewerage Scheme