Prourvs. HEETD (RL TE

a Dufs. rofaog [EL (Prev. » DA 36/: 28> ,
u Jar,

’ «6
EUROPEAN COMMISSION * 7 72 Aug

‘ DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XI i N
ENVIRONMENT, NUCLEAR SAFETY AND CIVIL PROTECTION f

X

 

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL

- Brussdh611995 /X17 0 2247 0

LC/vod/rep/packmins

Your Excellency;

I refer to the'meeting held in Brussels on 17 October 1995 as ä follow-up to the Irish
environmental package meeting of 10 July 1995. }

My officials found the follow-up meeting useful and constructive, and I would like to
‚extend a thanks to Mr Se of the Department of the Environment for providing’
valuable up-to-date information on Ireland’s implementation of several Community water
directives.

I enclose draft minutes of the meeting, and would be very grateful for your authorities,
comments and observations before these are finalised.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

- DGXI

Permanent Representative of Ireland
to the European Union

5 Avenue Galilee

1030 BRUSSELS

Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium - Office: BU-5 03/3.
Telephone: direct line (+32-2)299.49.49/9.22.89, exchange 299.11.11. Fax: 299.11 ‚os.
Telex: COMEU B 21877. Telegraphic address: COMEUR Brussels.

# 2
- SEE.

*

1.Chodhisehminspack(201093

MINUTES OF MEETING WITH IRISH AUTHORITIES ON 17 OCTOBER 1995

-Agenda
1: Directive T6/464/BEC (dangerous substances)
2. _ Directive 86/280/EEC: (dangerous substances)
3.  Directive-91/271/EEC (urban waste water treatment)
4. Directive 91/676/EEC (nitrates)
B Complaint 94/4077 (Cork Harbour and Shannon re
6. Directive 80/68/EEC (groundwater).
Present
. Ireland: rtment.of the Environment, Dublin)

DG XI: IGXILD.)

| DG XLE.l) :

LEI) ©.

I X1.B.3)

Directive 761464/EEC
.DG XI outlined the two current infringement procedures. These cover respectively:.
o the lack of Article 7 programmes for 9 priority List I substances and

(ü) the lack of quality objectives for phosphorous pursuant to Article T, and failure to _
subject all’ discharges from municipal .sewers to authorisation (on the latter point,
‘implementation of Directive IU2TL/BEC. (urban waste water) means that some
üischarges. are now excl): ER |

So far as the first procedure was oncerned, ME indicated that: | ; \

() the Irish Environmental Protection Ageniey: (EPA) had almost finalised : a discussion -
document. The Department of the Environment (DOE) would look at this, and it
would then be published. Following public consultations (with industry, environmental _
NGOs etc.), the Minister for the Enyironment would. ae statutory environmental ';
„all abjegtives; ar

-(ü) "the EPA was taking a ana roch" abproach; ER the greater pörtich of the

“0... 99.substances. It had had contacts with the. ‚Scientific Committee under the Directive. ;
The DOE favoured a more focused approach, arguing that it would,not make sense to.
“address substances which were.not RER or were ‚not: ‚otherwise of concern.

DG XI observed that, if the more focused approach was followed, it would be necessary to
supply the Commission with proof that excluded substances were not discharged and were.not
detected in’ the environment (information on detection methods should also be supplied). .
Sometimes a substance might no longer be discharged or in use but still give rise to problems
(e.g. contamination arising from old industrial sites), and this should be taken into account.

DG XI also emphasised the need for actual programihes to be sent. Equality of treatment as
between Member States was an important factor: infringement procedures were atan advanced
stage for a number of other Member States.

Given that DG XI will Re ‚to advise on a course of action in this case by mid-November,
ME indicated that Ireland would send additional information before then.

As regards the second procedure, ME indicated that:

(Gi) | Ireland was considering introducing legislation next year to cover municipal sewage
.discharges not covered in the transposition of Directive 91/271/EEC,

(i) _tackling phosphorous pollution was one of the major water pollution obj ectives of the
Irish authorities, and was seen as politically important. The EPA were working on the
basis of a range of phosphorous quality objectives, distinguishing between rivers and. -
lakes, and between different types of lakes. The procedure described above for .
priority List I substances would be followed.

DG XI commented that:

(i) given the infringement procedure, it would be useful to have a clear commitment by
mid-November to introduce legislation;

(ii) the approach of the EPA to proposing phosphorous (quality objectives seemed to be
soundly based, taking account of the concept of aquatic ecosystems (Which can vary)
found i in the Directive’s definition of ' "pollution";

(ii) it would be important to formally present a programme or programmes, though many

= of the measures that might feature had already been communicated to the Commission -
in recent correspondence (installation of nutrient removal facilities, farmyard pollution -
‚control scheme,: REPS, possible voluntary agreement on phosphate-free en
etc.).

Directive 86/280/EEC

The Commission had not had Article 5 programmes for the substances regulated under this

Directive. DG XI pointed out that the purpose of programmes was avoidance as well as
elimination of pollution, and that many of the substances had a range of uses. The lack of

programmes for Ireland needed to be urgently a.

"ME indicated that it would send more information to the Commission by 'mid-Növember. .

Directive 91/271/EEC

DG XI indicated that, subject to any contrary views of the Commission’s Legal Service; the
Commission itself or the Court of Justice, it accepted Ireland’s argument that an
agglomeration of 10,000 p.e. is: necessary for sensitive area obligations under Article 5 to
apply; it also accepted Ireland’s arguments in relation to Article 12(1), second sentence.

It acknowledged the Irish approach of nonetheless addressing the nutrient issue for sub-
threshold agglomerations in eutrophic cätchments, welcomed it, and commented that the
approach tied in with the aim of Directive 76/464/BEC of curbing phosphorous pollution.

Directive 91/676/EEC

‚Ireland had recently sent extensive documentation in relation to the Directive, including some
expert papers, and DG XI welcomed this. \
Code of practice

“A code is substantially drafted, and ME indicated that a draft could be formally sent by mid-
November.

Hizh surface water nitrate readings

ME indicated that in all cases the readings were not representative of generally prevailing
nitrate levels. They did not warrant the identification of vulnerable zones.

Groundwater: diffuse agricultural sources

DG XI noted that there was no evidence: that diffuse agricultural sources had caused high
nitrate levels in groundwater: However, it also noted that increased use of inorganic fertilizers
had led.to a general increase (perhaps up to’20-30 mg/l) in the background concentrations
(less than 5mg/l) of nitrate in groundwater in areas of intensive agriculture. .

ME argued that it was still premature to apply the stringent controls of the Directive. Rt

DG XI observed that:

(i) there was a lack of information on the evolution of this general increase (over what
length of time had it occurred, had the situation stabilized or were levels continuing

to rise?); i

(ii) the Directive, aimed to be preventive and not simply to trigger a response when nitrate
- levels exceeded 50mg/]; er Eı

(ii) account should be taken of delayed effects - nitrate levels may continue to rise because
ö of past activities; conversely, controls may also take time to bring levels down.

+

ME responded that:

@) the situation was now. being carefully monitored in accordance with the Directive.
“Trends in background levels would be watched, and action taken if necessary;

(i) it was hoped that the code of practice would positively change farming practices. The

message to farmers would be that excessive fertilizer application was an unnecessary
cost as well as being a potential pollution source. Farmers would also be aware that,
if the voluntary approach was not seen to be working, more stringent measures might
be introduced.

Groundwater: point agricultural sources

In certain cases, high nitrate levels could be attributed to point agricultural sources. ME
stated that local authorities had been asked in recent months to look again at those cases
where high nitrate levels in groundwater had been found, and to identify links with point
agricultural sources.

DG XI repeated its view that point agricultural sources were covered by the Directive. ME
argued that it would be unreasonable and disproportionate to identify vulnerable zones simply
on the basis of isolated defective storage facilities. :

DG XI suggested that it would help Ireland’s argument if it was clear that, apart from inviting
local authorities to pinpoint offending facilities and to use their discretionary powers (i.e. issue
Section 12 notices), "the Irish authorities ensured systematic follow-up for all identified
defective facilities linked to high nitrate levels.

Complaint 94/4077

.DGXI indicated that it needed to have a response on this by mid-November, and set.out the
essential points. \

ME indicated that the local authorities had already sent extensive information to the DOE and

an effort would be made to convey the information to the Commission as soon as possible.

Directive 80/68/EEC

 

Following representations from the Irish EPA, the DOE wished to amend part of the
implementing legislation for the Directive (to take account of small concentrations of
dangerous substances). ME handed over a draft text. DG XI indicated that the text seemmed
to-be consistent with the Directive, but would consider it more carefully and let the Irish
authorities: know what its position was.