REPRESENTATION PERMANENTE AVENLE GALILEL 8 (Bre 22)

" DE L'IRLANDE - . 1030 SruxELLes
AUPRES DE TEL. 218 06 08 le
L'’UNION EUROPEENNE FAX 218 13 47

17 July, 1995

Mr M___

Director-General

D.G.XI - Environment, Nuclear Safety
and Civil Protection

Commission of the European Union

Avenue de Beaulieu 5

1160 Bruxelles

 

Re : Nitrates Directive
r

Dear Director-General

I have been asked by my authorities to inforn the Commission of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in
Ireland for the purpose of complying with Council Directive
91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources as is required by
Article 12.

ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFYING AND DESIGNATING
VULNERABLE ZONES "

Article 3 of the Directive requires Member States to identify
waters affected or which could be affected (in the absence of
appropriate measures) by pollution caused by nitrates fron
agriculture and to designate as vulnerable zones all known areas
of land draining into such waters. This identification process
is developed further by Article 6 which obliges Member States :-

 

(a) to monitor, within two years of notification of the
Directive, the nitrate concentration in freshwaters over a
period of one year:

(i) at surface wäter sampling stations laid down in
Article 5(4) of Directive 75/440/EEC and/ör at other
sampling stations which are representative of surface
waters of Member States, at least monthly and more
frequently during flood periods

(ii) at sampling stations which are representative of the
groundwater aquifers of Member, States, at regular
intervals and taking account of the provisions of
Directive 80/778/EEC.

(bB) to repeat the monitoring programmes outlined at (a) at

been below 25 mg/l and no new factor likely to increase the
nitrate content has appeared, in which case the monitoring
programme need be repeated only every eight years;

(C) to review the eutrophic state of their fresh surface
waters, esturial and coastal waters every four years.

IRELAND’8 APPROACH TO_THE IDENTIFICATION or VULNERABLE ZONES

My authorities brought the requirements of the Directive to the
attention of local authorities i.e. the statutory pollution
control authorities, in October 1992, (by circular WP7/92 copy
enclosed) and guidance on the establishment of a suitable
monitoring programme was provided. County maps produced by the
then Environmental Research Unit (now EPA) on which
aquifers/groundwaters and known abstraction Points had been
entered were supplied to the local authorities for their
assistance. The advice given, which was the basis for the
monitoring programmes subsequently undertaken, was as follows :-

Monitoring Requirements

l. General

 

1.1 All waters affected or that could be affected by pollution
were to be identified by local authorities in accordance
with the criteria laid down in Article 3.1, Article 6.1(a)
and in Annex I of the Directive.

1.2 For the purpose of identifying fresh waters in 1.1 above,
local authorities were required to monitor, for a period of
12 months, all waters which are known to have had a level
of nitrates > 25 mg/l (NO,) at any time in recent years and

1.3 Unless there was definite evidence that the source of
nitrate was due to domestic or municipal sewage, or
defective storage facilities for farmyard manures, slurry
or effluent, or industrial discharges, it was to be assumed
that the cause was of diffuse agricultural origin. If
evidence that the nitrate was non-agricultural or from a
Point source became available and this was confirmed during
the course of monitoring and investigation, local
authorities were advised that, monitoring of such waters

or t Epose of this Directive could cease.,

(It should be noted that local authorities were left in no
doubt as to the unacceptability of point sources of
pollution - whether from agriculture or other sectors - and
were instructed to avail of their Powers under water
pollution and planning legislation to eliminate such
sources. This aspect is addressed inıdetail in Circular
WP7/92).

Surface Fresh Waters (Art. 6.1. (a) (i))

Determination of waters coming within the terms of 1.2
above was to be done on the basis of screening the results

1990 - 1992 (and earlier if deemed relevant), paying
particular attention to winter time values, to identify

of surface waters for any purpose could be taken into
account. In addition, in the case of rivers which did not
have drinking water abstractions but had been monitored by
local authorities, regional laboratories or the
Environmental Research Unit, each local authority was asked
to screen the results of such monitoring for their area and
identify any occurrence of nitrates > 25 mg/l.

All identified surface waters within the scope of 1.2 above
were to be monitored for nitrate for a period of 12 months,
at least monthly and more frequently during flood periods
(minimum of 2 per month). Local authorities were
instructed to put the necessary monitoring arrangements
into effect without delay.

Groundwaters (Art. 6.1. (a) (ii)).

 

County maps showing aquifers were produced by the then ERU
(now EPA) using data compiled by the Geological Survey of
Ireland. The maps also showed known groundwater
abstraction points and incorporated the national grid for
reference purposes. Copies of the maps relating to each
County were supplied to local authorities to assist in the
preparation of an appropriate monitoring programne for
groundwaters taking account of requirements outlined in 1.2
and the following paragraphs. A schedule of groundwater
abstractions identifying sources at which Concentrations >
25 mg/l had been recorded in the course of monitoring
carried out up to 1990 for Directive 80/778/EEC (Drinking
Water) was given to the local authorities. Such sources
were to be covered in the monitoring programmes unless
there was definite evidence that the nitrate concerned was
from a source other than diffuse agriculture.

In order to.identify. groundwaters: coming within the scope
of 1.2 abcve, local authorities were asked to screen the
results.of analysis of all groundwater monitoring in their
area for the years 1990 - 1992 (and earlier if deemed
relevant), paying particular attention to winter time
välues, to identify those values 2 25 mg/l. Special
attention was to be paid to the results of monitoring for
Directive 80/778/EEC (Drinking Water) where these related

to groundwater sources,

Results of analyses from boreholes, wells or springs
supplying water to small numbers of domestic dwellings may
not be reliable as they can be unrepresentative of general
aquifer quality or be subject to localised Contamination by
septic tanks or stored farmyard wastes. For these reasons
local authorities were advised that, in general, individual
supplies serving populations of less than 500 could be
given a low priority for monitoring. However, where a
significant number of single-dwelling supplies in an area
indicated the presence of elevated nitrates, thena
representative sampling regime for the aquifer concerned
was to be established outside the influence of point source
pollution.

All identified groundwaters within the Scope of 1.2 were to
be monitored for nitrate over a period of 12 months, i.e.
Once per quarter for Spring, Summer and Autumn and monthly
during the Winter. Local authorities were instructed to
make immediate arrangements for this purpose,

In addition to those groundwaters identified as coming
within the scope of 1.2 above, local authorities were asked
to identify any aquifers particularly susceptible to
nitrate pollution from agriculture. In this regard account
was to be taken of the nature and intensity of the
agriculture practised in the area (in general pasture would
give rise to lower nitrate losses than tillage) and of the
type of soil and sub-soil cover over the aquifer (confined
aquifers are in general less susceptible to nitrate
pollution than other types). Maps were issued to assist
local authorities in identifying relevant aquifers and
authorities were instructed to monitor sites representative
of water quality of all susceptible aquifers.

Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Waters

For the purpose of complying with 1.1 local authorities
were asked to review the eutrophic status of these waters
with a view to identifying waters affected by nitrates of
agricultural origin. It was not envisaged at the time that
local authorities would conduct specific additional
monitoring to establish the trophic status of such waters
and the cause responsible. However, existing information
on the status of such waters was to be compiled by local
authorities with a view to making it available for national
assessment at a later stage.

Geographie Information Systen

More recently the State agricultural research and advisory
body, Teagasc was commissioned to establish a geographic
information system which would relate existing ERU
groundwater aquifer maps to farming intensity and soil maps
of the same region.

Maps have been prepared by Teagasc which illustrate
Groundwater Nitrate Pollution Risk and Nitrate Loading

can be overlain. The simultaneous geographic occurrence of
aquifers, areas susceptible to leaching and areas with
leachable quantities of nitrate can be determined visually.

Because there is no guarantee that the nitrate will be
evenly distributed within the DED, the "real" nitrate
loading boundaries are not accurately known.

The soil vulnerability classification is as follows

Rank 1 : High Risk consists of soil associations where the
probability of groundwater Contamination conditions
occurring is high. These include areas where thin soil
cover over fissured bedrock is prevalent, and areas (e.g.
Burren) where soil cover is thin, or non-existent.

Rank 2 : Low Risk consists of soil associations where the
probability of groundwater contamination conditions
occurring is low. These include areas where there are
infrequent occurrences of thin soil cover or very coarse
textured soul cover over fissured bedrock. .

Rank 3 : Very Low consists of soil associations where the
probability of groundwater contamination conditions
occurred is very low. These include areas where soil cover
is generally deep or where soil cover is somewhat thin, but.
land use intensity is low, or the land is atahigh
altitude.

Rank 4 :; Extremely Low consists of soil associations where

the probability of groundwater contamination conditions
occurring is extremely low. These include areas of high
altitude, lowland blanket peat and areas of low intensity
pasture where soil cover is deep and where underlying.
bedrock or deep Quaternary deposits has low hydraulic
transmissivity. ni

 

The quantity of nitrate which ultimately leaches fron
agricultural sources depends on a nunber of factors
including livastock density, land use, the chemical forn of
the waste nitrogen, the carbon nitrogen ratio of the waste,
effective rainfall (i.e. rainfall minus evapotranspiration)
and the nitrogen losses from the soil to the air through
volatilisation and denitrification. In the Teagasc study
the factors considered are livestock density on the forage
area and the extent of land use (tillage),.

Agricultural Statistics for the year 1991 were analysed on
DED basis to assess the possible nitrate risk from these
two variables. The 'nitrogen loading’ or NL from livestock
was estimated for each DED from the census of cows, cattle,
sheep, pigs and poultry in the DED and literature values
for the nitrogen excreted by various sizes and types of
livestock.

The possible nitrogen effects of tillage were obtained from
the percentage of land area ploughed, %$LAP i.e, the tillage
area as a percentage of the utilised agricultural area of
each DED.

calculated "maximum river nitrate Concentration’ MRNC. Two
breakpoints were used for NL i.e. 150 and 170 kg N ha’!.
The value of 170 kg N ha”! was chosen to Correspond with the
nitrate Directive’s provisions as it represents the maximum
permissable annual loading of N from livestock manure in
vulnerable zones. An MRNC threshold of 5.65 mg was chosen
for additional shading of the Overlay map as it represents
the ‘guide level’ for permissable Concentration of N in
water for human consumption.

The Teagasc assessment in terns of livestock density,
extent of land use (tillage) and probability of groundwater
contamination was also taken into account in arriving at
decisions regarding the need to designate vulnerable zones
at this time and willbea particularly important
management tool in future monitoring as required by the
Directive.

ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY DATA_AND CONCLUSIONS .

IRELAND’S APPROACH TO THIS DIRECTIVE AND DECISION RE DESIGNATING
VULNERABLE ZONES

' Data examined

There were 5 data sources examined by my authorities in assessing
whether vulnerable zones needed to be designated, viz:-

l.

Reports submitted by the local aüthorities on their
monitoring programmes carried out in accordance with the
previous paragraphs. These included authorities’
conclusions as to whether any areas in their jurisdiction
merited designated as a vulnerable zone.

"Water Quality in Ireland 1987-1990" published by the
former ERU, now EPA.

"The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland - A Report for
the Year 1992 with a review of the period 1990-1992"

published by the EPA. i

4. Published reports on 2 lakes viz.,

"Lough Derg : an investigation of eutrophication and
its causes" (ERU and Teagasc) .

"Report on the Trophic Status of Lough Conn".

(Other lakes, insofar as data is available, are dealt with
in the report mentioned at 2 above).

5. Teagasc geographic information System for farming intensity
and soil vulnerability maps.

Assessment Procedure

warranted and Teagasc GIs maps were used as a cross check.
Natural freshwater lake and estuarine, coastal and marine data
was mainly derived from the ERU Water Quality in Ireland 1987-
1990 Report, supplemented as appropriate by other available
sources. Decisions on the need for vulnerable zone designations
at this time were taken by Department of the Environment in
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Main Findings regarding Nitrate Levels

Rivers

Rivers and streans showing concentrations of oxidised nitrogen
of 5 mg/l N or greater as recorded in the period 1987-1990 are
set out in the ERU 1987-1990 review document. More recent local
authority reports confirm (with perhaps 1 or 2 additions or
deletions) the levels as detailed by the ERU Report. Examination
of trends, and the probable causes showed that most elevated
readings were due to isolated point incidents from industrial
Or sewage sources or intermittent agricultural point discharges.
Median levels were generally satisfactory.

Overall the situation was as follows :-

1461 sampling points on rivers nationally (ERU 1987-1990)

127 > 25 mg/l NO, 8.7%
21 > 40 mg/l No, 1.4%
30 > 50 mg/l no, 2.0%

As regards stations showing > 50 mg/l NO, it was clear from the
data, i.e. minimum and median values and also the more recent
local authority/EPA reports, that point sources were responsible
and not pollution resulting from the land spreading of farm
manures and effluents or the excessive use of fertilizers.

=

8

'In the case of sampling stations showing > 40 mg/l NO,, local
authorities are being asked to follow Up, as appropriate, relevant
pollution sources and to use the comprehensive controls contained in
the Water Pollution Acts 1977 and 1990 to eliminate then. In
addition, certain rivers e.g. Aghalona, Munster Blackwater, Lerr,
Moyle, Owenduff and Stoneyford Stream, have been targeted for careful
examination at the next review for the purpose of possibly designating
vulnerable zones.

Overall the data indicates that the level of nitrate contamination in
Irish rivers is generally low and well within the 50 mg/l limit set
for abstraction and drinking waters. While upward trends in
concentrations have been observed in a number of areas, they are not
of sufficient concern at this stage to merit identification in
accordance with Article 3(1). Some cases will require more intensive
monitoring e.g. Aghalona river and other rivers already mentioned, but
in almost all cases point agricultural sources, industrial sources,
defective sewage treatment and localised pollution from septic tanks
were the causes of elevated levels. In Ireland the relatively low
level of national usage of artificial nitrogenous fertilisers and tha
large proportion of agricultural land given over to grass producti.
are factors which lessen the likelihood of contamination of waters by
nitrates.

Lakes

All available data for lakes recorded NO, at less than 11 mg/l. The
position in respect of eutrophication of these freshwaters is that the
main stimulus to the excessive growth of algal and other plants in
Irish freshwaters is the increased supply of phosphorus. Strategies
to reduce the supply of this nutrient are the only effective counter
eutrophication measures for Irish lakes. My authorities are satisfied
that where eutrophication occurs, nitrogen compounds are not the
nutrient responsible. This position is further backed up by the fact
that levels of nitrates in our freshwaters, particularly in lakes, are
not greatly elevated above natural concentrations.

Groundwaters

The vast majority of groundwaters recorded levels below the 25 me ’\
guide value. However, a small number of sources (68) had readings -
40 mg/l NO;. The position in relation to populations served by these
was as follows:-

58 < 500 population
4 > 500 < 1000 population
6 > 1000 < 5000 population

Almost all of the above schemes are monitored for the purposes of the
European Community (Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption)
Regulations, 1988. My authorities are satisfied having examined these
exceedances that the problems have been generally caused by "bad
housekeeping practices". This is particularly the case in relation.
to the smaller supplies which are invariably contaminated by run-off
from septic tanks located in undue proximity to them, or in locations
which will influence them at some distance. In addition, elevated
levels have occurred because of incorrect siting of silage or slurry
pits in-relation to water sources. Better farm management practices
and better siting of septic tanks and other waste storage facilities
are among the matters recommended to tackleıthese problems. Local
authorities have been instructed to use their statutory powers to
eliminate these sources of pollution.

"Estua @, Coastal and Marine Waters

The latest published ERU Review (1987-1990) is relied on as the
data base for these waters. The data presented for the 16 tidal
waters assessed indicates that serious pollution is of very
limited occurrence and any problems identified are amenable to
solution under the Urban Waste Water Directive and not the
Nitrates Directive, It is acknowledged that a more detailed
estuarine and coastal waters monitoring PrFogramne is needed and
arrangements are in hand to address this matter.

Overa Conclusions

coming within Article 3.1 of the Directive have been identified
and, in these Circumstances, the designation of vulnerable zones
under Article 3.2 does not arise at this time.

CODE OF PRACTICE AND INFORMATION PROGRAMMES

Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to take

As regards Ireland’s plans to implement the Code :-

(a) All local authorities will receive copies and these will be
distributed as widely as possible e.g. with planning
decisions concerning agricultural developments, follow-up
enforcement procedures under Water Pollution Acts, etc.

(b) An in-house seminar for local authorities to, inter alia,
explain the requirements of this Article is envisaged.

(EC) Teagasc will disburse copies through its outlets with the
object of achieving a high level of circulation among
farmers. ;

(d) Copies will be sent to farm and environmental magazines,.

(e) Teagasc will Organise training courses for farners.

.(£f£) Farm bodies wili be consulted on implementation and
Progress in this regard.

ACTION PROGRAMMES IN RESPECT OF DESIGNATED VULNERABLE ZONES

Article 5 requires Member States to establish and implement

action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones and.

nitrogen containing fertilisers and, in particular, sets specific
limits for the application of livestock manure.

10

” As Ireland has no designated vulnerable zones, this Article is
not applicable at present. The powers contained in the Water
Pollution Acts, 1977 and 1990 are sufficient to comply with this
Article should the need arise at a future date - in particular
section 12 of 1977 Act and section 21 of 1990 Act. Copies of
these provisions are enclosed for reference,

TRANSPOSITION INTO IRISH LAW

 

The key definitions inArticle 2, viz "groundwater",
"freshwater", and "pollution" are already catered for by the
Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990 viz
"aquifer", "waters" and "polluting matter", Similarly, the
statutory basis required to ensure compliance with the monitoring
requirements of the Directive are provided for in section 22 of
the Water Pollution Act, 1977. It is my authorities’ intention
to avail of the powers therein whereby future monitoring as
required by Article 6 will be the subject of a direction by the
Minister for the Environment to local authorities.

Should it prove necessary in the future to designate vulnerable
zones and to apply action programmes as required by Article 5,
it would be my authorities’ intention to ensure that the
provisions of section 21 of the Water Pollution (Amendment) Act,
1990, are used to secure full compliance with this Article. The
section(copy enclosed) provides for the introduction of
comprehensive controls on all aspects of agriculture which could
entail a risk of water pollution. There is provision to prohibit
specified activities or to regulate them and these controls can
be applied to specified lands.

My authorities are of the view that the remaining Articles of the
Directive do not require specific legal transposition.

This letter is submitted as a report for the purposes of Articles
10 and 12,

Yours sincerely

„EN
nm 5

 

-1ı % i uns
Environment Attache&