'EPARTMENT OF
HE ENVIRONMENT

N ROINN COMHSHAOIL

u jOUSE, DUBLIN I
;
BACH AN CHUSTAIM

MLE ÄTHA CUIATH I

:L 01 679 3377
1X 01 874 2710
:LEX 31014

IN 7108

  
 
 

erh nneneETREETHereeree;

“irn I Ä nr
eBlıkataniteiktuhhkllg).

DEPARTMENT OF THE

ENVIRONMENT

  

   

 

 

|
Mr sie
Head of Unit,
DGX1.D.1, ——

Directorate-General XI

Environment, Nuclear Safety & Civil Protection,
Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049

Brussels

Dear

I wish to refer to your letter of 9 December, 1996
requesting comments on implementation of the Nitrates
Directive (91/676/EEC) for the purposes of your
presenting a report to Council by 1 January, 1998.

You will recall that by letter of 17 July, 1995, we
provided a report to the Commission under Article 10
of the Directive dealing with the implementation of
the Directive in Ireland. A further copy of that
letter issued to you on 4 October last.

The report concerned provided detailed information in
relation to (i) the first phase of monitoring carried
out under the Directive, (ii) the data sources used,
(iii) the assessment procedure adopted, (iv) the
monitoring results obtained and (v) the overall
assessment which concluded that no waters coming
within Article 3.1 had been identified and, in the
circumstances, the designation of vulnerable zones
under Article 3.2 did not arise at that time.

Our report also outlined the position regarding
preparation of the code of good agricultural practice
and the statutory provisions available to my
authorities to give effect to the provisions of the
Directive. Since that report, the code of good
practice has been finalised and copies transmitted to
the Commission (15 August, 1996).

You will be aware that, more recently, the Commission,
acting under Article 169, has sent a letter claiming
that (i) we have not adequately transposed the
Directive, (ii) there were deficiencies with respect
to the first phase of monitoring under the Directive
and (iii) we were not justified in contending that no
groundwaters come within the provisions of Article

Printed on re<ycled pa: =

ANNEX 6

2 -
3.1. We are currently finalising our detailed
response to that letter, and this may provide a
further source of relevant data for your report.

You may wish to note at this stage that concerns which
the Commission had regarding our approach to
monitoring point sources of nitrate pollution

are being addressed during the repeat monitoring
programme as required under Article 6.1 (b) which
local authorities have been instructed to carry out
starting this month. The instructions on monitoring,
determination of pollution sources and their
elimination, as contained in circular letter WP 1/97
(copy attached) make no distinction as between
different sources of nitrate pollution.

As regards the Commission's concern over our non-
designation of vulnerable zones, it would appear that
the interpretation of the Directive by the Commission
and our approach to specific, localised point sources
of nitrate pollution are responsible for concerns in
this regard. Such pollution sources might, for
example, include defective (cracked/leaking) storage
facilities for farmyard manures, slurries, silage
effluent, etc. While recognising that these are
agricultural sources, we are convinced that they can
be more readily dealt with under statutory water
pollution provisions which are specifically directed
at point source discharges e.g. section 12 notices
under the Water Pollution Act, 1977. In addition, we
are not entirely satisified that the intention of the
Directive is to deal with such localised point sources
of pollution through the deployment of the full range
of instruments such as designation of vulnerable
zones, drawing up of action programmes, etc.

In our view, the type of measures envisaged in Annex
III (action programmes) on foot of the designation of
a vulnerable zone would be disproportionate, while
many of the prescribed measures of such programmes
would be of no practical relevance in the case of a
nitrate pollution problem arising from a point source
of agricultural origin of the kind already mentioned.
The types of measures required to be included in an
action programme are largely concerned with the land
application of fertilisers, their nitrogen content,
soil and climate conditions and land use and
agricultural practices.

The only other measures envisaged under article 5.4 of
the Directive are those contained in codes of good
agricultural practice. Again, these are primarily
concerned with land use management practices and
supporting infrastructure such as adequately sized
waste storage facilities to facilitate correct timing
and rates of landspreading of such wastes. It is

3 -
important to emphasise that we are not questioning the
need for the provision of adequate waste storage
facilities and that our concerns relate to those
situations where localised pollution may occur due to
defective/leaking storage tanks in circumstances where
the groundwater is not affected by pollution from
farming practices on the land.

We have commented on this matter in some detail
previously. The enclosed extract from our letter of
11 October, 1995 to the Commission provides
elaboration and will, I hope, help to highlight the
issues involved.

We would welcome further consideration and
clarification of these issues. You may also wish to
consider whether the issues raised in relation to
point sources of nitrate pollution warrant a revision
of the Directive so as to more clearly specify the
obligations involved and the appropriate measures to
be taken to deal with such pollution sources. This
appears to be an aspect that might usefully be
addressed in the report to Council under Article 11.

These are our preliminary views on implementation of
the Directive. We would be interested in obtaining

details of the comments made by other Member States
to facilitate your finalisation of the report.

Yours sincerely,

Water Direcbhr

Extract from Letter of 11 October, 1995

Point Sources of Pollution

My authorities wish to clarify the position in
relation to point sources of nitrate pollution, an
aspect which has been raised by the Commission
services in assessing the adequacy of the measures
taken to implement Directive 91/676/EEC.

Potential farm point sources of pollution identified
in Circular WPp 7/92 which issued to local authorities
included defective storage facilities for farmyard
manures, slurry or effluent. Direct (intentional)
discharges of farm wastes and effluents to waters are
not a feature of the Irish situation; such discharges
are not authorised in view of their high pollutant
content and the inability of farmers to finance the
installation and operation of waste treatment systems
which might be capable of producing a more acceptable
final effluent discharge, i.e. one amenable to control
under our effluent discharge licensing system.
Problems that existed in this area in the past have
been eliminated through a combination of farm surveys
conducted by local authorities and the environmental
awareness programmes directed at farmers which have
been undertaken at national and local levels,
including those conducted by farmer representative
organisations.

My authorities have noted the Commission's concerns
about the manner in which Directive 91/676/EEC is
being applied in Ireland in respect of farm waste
storage facilities. They are not convinced that the
Directive is intended to address the provision of such
facilities, per se, but rather envisages the provision
of storage of sufficient capacity as one of the
mandatory elements of the action programmes required
under Article 5 where vulnerable zones are designated.
In this regard, my authorities are satisfied that the
obligation to designate such zones (Article 3) is
intended to relate to land extending over a reasonable
area from which nitrates from agriculture drain,
causing water pollution. The nature of the individual
elements to be included in action programmes serves to
emphasise that the target of the Directive is to
regulate the manner in which farming practices are
carried out on lands e.g. the timing and rate of
chemical fertiliser and livestock manure applications
to land, land use management practices, including crop
rotation systems, maintenance of a minimum quantity of
vegetation cover, etc. It is their view that the
inclusion in the Directive of a requirement on the
capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure, as
an element of action programmes, is intended to
provide farmers with a management tool which will
enable them to regulate the land application of such
manure in a manner which respects action programme

2
rules on the timing and rate of application.

In Ireland, problems associated with leaks from
defective farm waste storage facilities are localised
("pockets of contaminated groundwater') as noted by
Daly and confirmed by the monitoring programme
conducted for the purposes of the Directive. In these
circumstances, my authorities must question any
suggestion that the area responsible for pollution,
i.e. individual defective storage tanks, should be
designated as a vulnerable zone and that a control
regime in the form of an action programme
incorporating an extensive range of mandatory elements
(virtually all of which would be meaningless in
dealing with the storage issue) should be put in
place. Such a course of action is considered neither
appropriate nor to be required by the Directive. My
authorities views in this regard are also influenced
by the factors to be taken into account by Member
States in applying the criteria for the identification
of vulnerable zones (Annex 1,B of the Directive) viz:!-

"1. the physical and environmental characteristics of
the waters and land;

2. the current understanding of the behaviour of
nitrogen compounds in the environment (water and
soil)

3. the current understanding of the impact of the
action taken pursuant to Article 5."

As already stated, my authorities have taken steps to
have remedial measures put in place for point sources
of pollution, such as those involving defective
storage facilities for livestock manure. Local
authorities are using a combination of advice and
warning letters as well as recourse, where necessary,
to statutory notices under section 12 of the Water
Pollution Act, 1977 to effect remedies. The approach
is entirely consistent with Article 130 r.2 of the
Treaty on European Union which, inter alia,
incorporates the principles of preventive action and
that environmental damage should as a priority be
rectified at source.

No_or Inadequate Storage Facilities
My authorities would also like to comment briefly on

circumstances which could arise where no or inadequate
waste storage facilities are provided on farms and the
manner in which the Directive could apply in such
situations.

In the absence of appropriate waste storage capacity
the farmer concerned would lack the means to properly
regulate the timing and rate of land application of

3 _
livestock manure, etc. There would be a significantly
heightened risk of pollution occurring due to
applications when weather and ground conditions are
unsuitable and the potential for excessive quantities
of manure to be applied to land because of the need to
“get rid' of manure, etc. The extent to which waters
would be affected by nitrates draining from land as a
consequence of the circumstances outlined would be
influenced by local conditions. However, where
pollution did occur, my authorities are satisfied that
the appropriate response would be to designate the
land concerned as a vulnerable zone and to implement
an action programme. Storage requirements would be
addressed under the programme as part of the
comprehensive strategy to eliminate pollution from the
zone concerned.

The Commission may be assured that the Directive would
be applied in this way should waters be polluted by
nitrates from agriculture in the circumstances
outlined. My authorities have no evidence of such
pollution from the monitoring conducted for the
purposes of the Directive but will keep the position
under review when monitoring is repeated in accordance
with the provisions of the Directive.

FRANK\[LETFEB.97]

il .
ea

ENVIRONMENT

 

16 January, 1997.
WP 1/97

Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the Protection of Waters

against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural
JEPARTMENT OF Sources

FHE ENVIRONMENT .
A Chara,

AN ROINN COMHSHAOIL
1. I wish to refer to the requirement in Article 6 of

Council Directive 91/676/EEC (forwarded to local
authorities with circular WP 7/92 of 19 October,

aL OP SERBEBEINGE 1992) whereby Member States are obliged to carry out
_ ! repeat monitoring programmes in respect of the
EASVEAN EHUSTAIM . nitrate concentration in freshwaters (circular WP

. 7/92 of 19 October, 1992 dealt with the initial
AILE ATHA CLIATH I programme). For this purpose, I enclose a Direction

from the Minister which sets out requirements in
relation to timescale, including starting date,

sampling frequencies, coverage and . methods of

ED 679 BUN} measurement.

AX 01 874 2710

. 2. where monitoring establishes that waters are affected

FREU by elevated nitrate levels (suggested guide level of
» 35 mg/l NO,3), local authorities should undertake

fin 71102 such additional monitoring or other appropriate

investigations to establish the sources responsible
e.g. agriculture, sewage, industry. Local
authorities should make full use of the statutory
powers available to them to eliminate and prevent the
pollution concerned. Relevant water pollution
provisions include $

= taking of prosecutions (section 3 of the Water
Pollution Act, 1977),

- court orders to prevent or terminate pollution
(sections 10 and 11 of the 1977 Act as amended
by the Water Pollution (Amendment) Act, 1990),

- notices to prevent or terminate pollution
‚(sections 10 and 12 of the 1977 Act as amended
by the 1990 Act),

_ bye-laws regulating agricultural practices
(section 21 of the 1990 Act) and

_ preparation of farm nutrient management plans

(section 21A of the 1990 Act as inserted by the
waste Management Act, 1996).

Printed on recycled pase-

2

Details of the actions taken in this 'regard and the
current situation in relation to pöllution should be
included in the report to be submitted to the
Department (see paragraph 4 below).

In addition to the repeat monitoring programme
referred to above, Article 6 of the Directive
requires a four-yearly review of the eutrophic state
of fresh surface waters and estuarial and coastal

waters. In the case of fresh surface waters, it is
most unlikely that nitrates would be a factor in
eutrophication. However, should a local authority

suspect or have reason to believe that nitrates of
agricultural origin are a likely cause of such
eutrophication, it should investigate the matter and
provide details of the findings in the report to be
furnished to the’ Department. In the case of
estuarial and coastal waters, the EPA annual
monitoring programme (carried out in association with
local authorities) should provide a basis for local
authorities' review of the eutrophic state of these
waters. .

with regard to the monitoring programme and the
review of the eutrophic state of waters required
under this circular, a report on the outcome of such
monitoring/review should be furnished to the
Department by 31 March, 1998. The report should
include:

(i) results of analysis for each freshwater station,
indicating the max. NO, found and highlighting
all results > 25 mg/l,

(ii) outcome of the review of the eutrophic status of
surface waters, -

(iii) details of the actions taken pursuant to
paragraph 2 above, and

(iv) a summary overview with conclusions indicating
where the local authority considers there is a
basis for the designation of any area as a
vulnerable zone in accordance with the criteria
for the identification of such zones as set out

‚in Annex 1 df Directive 91/676/EEC. A map of
each such area should be included with the
report. The map should (a) be of adequate
scale, (b) indicate the appröximate boundaries
of the relevant land catchment zone and (c)
indicate the river/lake or aquifer concerned
together with the location of the affected
sampling point(s).

3

5; Circular letter WP 9/95 of 8 September, 1995 (in
relation to the initial programme of monitoring
carried out under Directive 91/676/EEC) asked that a
comprehensive report be forwarded to the Department
by 30 June, 1996 on the‘ measures taken by local
authorities to clearly establish the causes of any
elevated nitrate levels detected and to instigate
appropriate remedial action. Where such reports are
outstanding, local authorities are requested to
submit reports without further delay.

Code of Good Agricultural Practice

6. Further to circular letter WP 7/96 of 24 July, 1996
concerning the above Code, local authorities are
asked to redouble their '’efforts in promoting the Code
among the farming community. It is important that
every effort is made in the exercise of your
pollution control and prevention functions/activities
to promote the recommendations and advice contained
in the Code. In addition, contacts with farming and
other local organisations and community groups should
be utilised for this purpose. Local events
throughout the year such as agricultural shows should
also be availed of as useful opportunities for
distribution of the Code. Further copies of the Code
are available on request from the Department.

7. Any queries about this circular may be addressed to
Tom Walsh, ext. 2317 or Dave Moore, ext. 2438.

Yours sincerely,

A

Assistant' Principal Officer
Water Quality Section
Ext. 2118.

To each local authority

Direction by the Minister for the Environment under Section 22.of the
Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 on monitoring of nitrate
concentration in freshwaters under Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
12 December, 1991.

ls (1) For the purposes of meeting the requirements of Article 6
(1)(b) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC, local authorities
shall carry out, or cause to be carried out, or arrange
for, a monitoring programme to determine the nitrate
concentration in freshwaters.

(2) The monitoring programme referred to in sub-paragraph (1)
shall, subject to sub-paragraph (3), entail monitoring
over a period of one year commencing not later than 10
February, 1997 -

(a) at surface water sampling. stations laid down in
Article 5:(4) of Directive 75/440/EEC and/or at other
sampling stations which are representative of surface
waters within the functional area of the local
authority at least monthly and more frequently during
flood periods, and

(b) at sampling stations which are representative of the
groundwater aquifers within the functional area of
the local authority and taking into account the
provisions of Directive 80/778/EEC. Sampling shall
be taken at least once during each of the seasons,
Spring, Summer and Autumn and at least monthly during
the Winter (November-January).

(3) . In accordance with the provisions of Article 6 (1)(b) of
Council Directive 91/676/EEC, sampling stations which
recorded nitrate concentrations less than 25 mg/l in all
previous samples and in respect of which no new factors
likely to increase the nitrate content has arisen are not
required to be included in this monitoring programme.

2a (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), sampling of groundwaters
shall, as far as possible, be taken from the upper layers
of the aquifer concerned.

(2) Where a drinking water supply is abstracted from
groundwater, sampling of the water concerned should
reflect the quality of the raw water.

31; Nitrate concentration shall be measured in accordance with
Article 4a (3). of Council Decision 77/795/EEC of 12 December,
1977 establishing a common procedure for the exchange of
information on the quality of surface freshwater in the
Community, as amended by Decision 86/574/EEC.