JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 13 Jan 2009

Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant: Discussion.

Chairman

We will now proceed to the main item on today's agenda, namely, the report on the Ringsend waste water treatment plant. Members will recall that at the meeting on 18 November 2008 we decided to invite the author of the recent report on the Ringsend waste water treatment plant to a meeting. I am delighted that Mr. Brendan Fehilly, the author of the report, has agreed to attend today to discuss his findings. I thank him for coming before us. He is most welcome.

I also welcome officials from Dublin City Council: Mr. Matt Twomey, assistant city manager; Mr. Michael Phillips, director of traffic and city engineer; and Mr. Pat Fullam, waste water treatment projects engineer. We are joined by officials from the Environmental Protection Agency: Dr. Mary Kelly, director general; and Mr. Dara Lynott, director, office of environmental enforcement. We are joined also by officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government: Mr. Tom Corcoran, assistant secretary, water and natural heritage division; Mr. Terry Allen, principal officer, water services section; and Mr. Gerry Galvin, principal adviser in the water inspectorate. I thank them all for attending today's meeting and assisting us with the questions that will follow. The format of the meeting will involve a brief presentation by Mr. Fehilly, the Department and the EPA. Dublin City Council does not have an opening statement but it will deal with questions.

Before we proceed, I wish to inform those present that a delegation from the committee visited the waste water treatment facility in Ringsend this morning. We were there from approximately 11.30 a.m. for a couple of hours. The visit was arranged by Dublin City Council officials. We appreciate their help. It was good to see the plant as we will be discussing it this afternoon. I thank the officials from Dublin City Council for arranging that visit.

I advise witnesses that while Members of the Oireachtas have absolute privilege, that same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Fehilly to proceed with his presentation.

Mr. Brendan Fehilly

I thank the Chairman. In his terms of reference, the Minister asked me to deal with five main points that I have listed on the first page of my briefing notes. My briefing notes are a small precis of my main report, which ran to about 60 pages. I shall deal with each item in turn, and I will then summarise my findings and my recommendations.

I was asked to comment on the basis for, and the timing of, the determination of the design capacity of the Ringsend waste water treatment plant. The treatment plant was designed to cope with the estimated loadings from population and industry in the greater Dublin area until 2020. When designing a treatment plan, it is normal to have a design horizon, and the year chosen for this case was 2020. This required predicting population growth in the greater Dublin area to 2020 and the behaviour of industrial loadings until that time. The design was predicated on the following assumptions. The population of the greater Dublin area would grow at a rate of 0.8% per annum up to 2020, giving a total figure of 1,145,050 persons by that year. Industrial loadings would reduce to 50% of their 1998 values once treatment charges were levied by Dublin City Council under the polluter pays principle, this happened in Europe and there was no reason to expect that it would not happen in Dublin.

An additional allowance of 10% was added for contingencies, bringing the total allowance to 60% of the existing licensed load. It is common to express loads in equivalent persons, so that there can be comparison between the different contributors to the load. This total industrial allowance was deemed to be equivalent to a population of 453,000 persons. An additional allowance was made for hospitals and daily commuters representing 10,900 persons, and a design margin of 31,414 equivalent persons was added, which was 10% of the population of the north Dublin area, the greatest growth area in the greater Dublin area. When the above figures are added, the final design population was equivalent was 1.64 million persons.

I was then asked to comment on the measured load versus the design load. Since the inception of the proposals to extend the treatment plant at Ringsend, there have been a number of surveyed loads reaching the works. At various times, the measured load exceeded the estimated design load derived from population and industry, in spite of the fact that both the population and the licensed industrial load have more or less conformed to the original design. The results of these surveys leads to the inevitable conclusion that a pollution load from another source or sources is arriving at Ringsend that was not accounted for in the original design. The load arriving at the treatment plant every day is not constant. It varies with the amount of rainfall. When rainfall is persistent and prolonged, the load arriving at the works drops significantly. The explanation for this is that some of the pollution load is discharged with storm water at storm water overflows in the old sewerage system in Dublin. The maximum recorded loadings will always occur during a prolonged dry spell. During this time, the entire pollution load discharged to the sewerage system arrives at Ringsend. My report re-examines the possible sources of pollution loads, in order to determine why this extra loading is occurring.

The third point deals with the appropriateness of the design capacity determined. I found that the projected population increases were in line with the results of the 2002 and 2006 censuses. I found that the allowances made for industrial loadings were adequate, having regard to considerable improvements in housekeeping carried out by the major industrial contributors. There was an allowance of 6,700 for daily commuters in the original design, which consisted of one third of a notional figure of 20,000 commuters into the Dublin area. I found that the allowance made for daily commuters could have been under-estimated by a population equivalent of up to 23,300 persons. This assessment is based on information compiled by the CSO from the 2006 census. This information would not have been available at the time of the original design. During the Celtic tiger period, the amount of commuting into Dublin increased enormously. The CSO estimate is that it is now over 90,000 persons. Therefore, I have taken one third of that figure, and allowing for the 6,700 persons that were already in the design, the net figure is 23,300.

The type of tourism known as "same day" tourism has only been investigated recently by Fáilte Ireland and the CSO. Estimates are based on data both from Ireland and outside of Ireland. Such tourism may add an equivalent of 12,000 persons to the loadings at Ringsend. Such information was not available at the time of the original design. Loadings derived from commercial properties, such as shops, offices, pubs, restaurants, sporting facilities and so on, were deemed to be part of the contribution from the population of the greater Dublin area, and no additional allowance was made for them in the original design. In my opinion, this approach led to a possible under-estimation of load of up to 190,000 equivalent persons. The summation of these possible discrepancies comes to 225,300 persons, which goes a long way in explaining the overloading being experienced at Ringsend.

It has been suggested to me that perhaps there were immigrants living in the greater Dublin area who did not declare themselves during the censuses of 2002 and 2006. I put this suggestion to the CSO, but its officials categorically denied that anything like that could happen, because if such were the case, the supervisors and enumerators of the census would pick it up very readily. Therefore, I have not included any allowance for that in my estimation.

The enormous growth in food and drink outlets in Dublin during the years of the Celtic tiger could hardly have been anticipated in the design, which was mainly carried out in the early to mid 1990s. Until recently, such outlets used kitchen macerators to dispose of surplus waste and waste food. This saved them sending the food to the landfill, where they would have to pay landfill charges. This was discharged to the sewerage system, thereby greatly increasing the pollution load from such premises. I understand that the use of these macerators is now forbidden by Dublin City Council.

I was asked what consideration was given to nutrient reduction in the context of water quality in Dublin Bay. The effluent standards for the new treatment works at Ringsend were expected to satisfy the requirements of three documents. The first was the Dublin Bay water quality management plan. The second was the urban waste water treatment regulations of 1994, and the third was the quality of bathing water regulations of 1992. The urban waste water treatment regulations of 1994 did not designate the Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay as sensitive water. The required standard of effluent under the regulations was met by the requirements of contract No. 2, which is the contract made for the construction of the new plant. However, in 2001 the urban waste water regulations were updated and the Liffey Estuary was designated as a sensitive area from Islandbridge Weir to Poolbeg Lighthouse.

Under the new regulations, the position of Dublin Bay is somewhat anomalous, as most of the bay lies outside the sensitive area. However, the discharge from the Ringsend treatment plant is just upstream from the Poolbeg Lighthouse and therefore discharges into the sensitive area. Consequently, the discharge from the treatment plant is subject to more stringent requirements on the removal of nitrogen and phosphorous. The new regulations did not become law until May 2008, which is seven years after the SI was issued. Consequently, the discharge from the treatment is now in breach of the regulations. However, Dublin City Council has already appointed consultants to design the upgrade of Ringsend to meet the requirements of the regulations, and this work will proceed in due course.

I was then asked to examine and report on the factors that contributed to the odour problems experienced at Ringsend, and the effectiveness of the measures taken to remedy them. Environmental Impact Statement No.1 on the Dublin Bay project deals with the new Ringsend waste water treatment plant. Section 7.1 of the EIS deals comprehensively with odour. Based on the results of odour modelling, the EIS sets an odour standard of 5 parts per billion of hydrogen sulphide to be achieved at the site boundary. Hydrogen sulphide is a very foul smelling gas, which smells of a rotten egg and it is commonly used as a standard for odour control in sewerage treatment plants. While the EIS requirements were referred to in a general way when the contract documents were drawn up, the level of hydrogen sulphide cited as a standard at the site boundary was given as 100 parts per billion.

Between August 2003 and November 2008, odour problems at Ringsend were recurrent and, at times, severe. Many of the odour problems were created by inadequate design and plant failure, and did not represent odours to be expected from a treatment plant that was being operated in a normal mode. All the defective plant issues between the contractor and Dublin City Council have now been resolved, and odours which could be attributed to defective plant have now been eradicated. Furthermore, the odour control plant for normal operation of the treatment plant has been significantly upgraded. I believe members of this committee saw the works in Ringsend, which are very impressive. Few people realise what a huge industrial undertaking they represent. It would be foolish to suggest that there will never again be an odour problem associated with Ringsend. Inevitably, plant breakdowns and accidental emissions will occur from time to time, but the equipment now in place should be capable of dealing with any such occurrences quickly and effectively.

According to measurement, the Ringsend plant is overloaded, particularly in dry weather. In wet weather, some of the pollution load is washed out at points where stormwater is overflowed and never reaches the treatment plant. In dry weather, the maximum pollution load reaching the works has been measured as being 200,000 to 300,000 equivalent persons greater than the design population of 1.64 million. I have tried to explain why I think this is so. The final upgrading of the works should address the current overload.

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of measurement of the pollution load entering the works, and I have recommended that the methods of measurements should be reviewed and improved, if necessary, in the upgrading of the works. I have also recommended that the pollution load from each contributing area be measured and recorded separately — there is a sewerage main coming from Sutton, one from Dún Laoghaire, one from the Dodder Valley and there is also the old Dublin sewer — so that more information will become available about the origins of loadings on peak-load occasions.

With regard to the present discharge of effluent to sensitive waters, I recommend that this issue be dealt with by the consultant appointed for the final upgrading of Ringsend. I understand that this is so. Finally, I recommend that the constituent local authorities in the greater Dublin area should focus more attention on pollution loads coming from commercial enterprises that are not subject to integrated pollution prevention and control or trade effluent licences, so that the polluter pays principle can be more rigidly enforced.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Fehilly. At this stage, we will proceed with the opening statements together and we can then have a full discussion. I call on Mr. Corcoran from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to make an opening statement.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. I would like to make a very brief statement in order to set the background for the committee from the point of view of the Minister and of the Department.

As the committee is aware, the Minister commissioned Mr. Brendan Fehily to carry out an independent examination of the design parameters of the Ringsend waste water treatment plant, mainly to determine whether they adequately addressed existing and projected loads. The Minister was particularly concerned about the odour problems being experienced beyond the site boundary since the plant was first commissioned. He wanted the investigation to establish the primary factors that led to the overloading of the plant and to the ongoing odour issue. He also wanted to ensure the odour problem was dealt with and solved permanently.

As the Deputy who lives the closest to the plant, less than a kilometre away, he has experienced at first hand the consequences of the odour problems at the facility. The Minister is particularly keen that lessons be learned from the Ringsend waste water treatment facility to ensure that other communities around the country need not experience problems similar to those endured in Ringsend and the surrounding areas.

The water infrastructure budget continues to be one of the largest ongoing infrastructural programmes, with in excess of €500 million allocated for this year. The Minister believes it is imperative that such spending be underpinned by good procedures aimed at procuring the best built and operated facilities possible.

Mr. Fehily's report, which was submitted to the Minister on 31 October and published on 17 November, finds that the Ringsend plant has improved water quality in Dublin Bay significantly and to such an extent that Dollymount Strand qualifies for blue flag bathing status. As Mr. Fehily has outlined, higher levels of commuter, tourism and commercial activity than were anticipated when the plant was being designed would largely explain the difference between the original design capacity and actual loading on the plant.

Mr. Fehily's report also found that the odour standard prescribed in the contract documents for the new plant did not reflect the requirements set out in the environmental impact statement, EIS. In regard to the odours issue, the report also concludes that the recently installed odour equipment at the plant is fit for purpose and should eliminate the nuisance to nearby residential areas and that the treatment plant now consistently meets required effluent standards for chemical and biochemical oxygen demand. The resolution of the odour problem was made possible by the sanctioning, following detailed assessment, of additional Exchequer financing by the Department for a final settlement with the contractor.

Mr. Fehily's report and recommendations have been carefully considered by the Minister and the Department. In addition, the report and the recommendations were drawn to the attention of the Dublin city manager and the local authorities in the greater Dublin area, as some of the recommendations are relevant to other areas served by the Ringsend plant. Dublin City Council was the contracting authority for the construction of the plant and is responsible for managing it. In the main, the findings of the report are matters for the city council in the first instance. I appreciate that Dublin City Council is represented today at the request of the committee.

From the Department's point of view, the apparent conflict found between the odour standards in the EIS and the contract documents was a particular cause of concern. The Department has, therefore, instructed local authorities to ensure that tender and contract documents for water services schemes replicate the specific requirements of the EIS and include any impact mitigation measures required. The objective is to avoid any potential for tender or contract documents to be in any way ambiguous or inaccurate in so far as what is required by the EIS. The Department has also brought this new requirement to the attention of the Government Contracts Committee for wider consideration.

It is worth recalling that the planning process for the Ringsend plant was carried out in the early 1990s. The tendering occurred in 1997 and 1998 and the plant began operation in 2003. This was the first public private partnership contract used in the water services sector and was adopted because it allowed the expanded plant to be accommodated within the existing site. A conventionally designed and procured plant would have required the reclamation of 28 hectares from Dublin Bay with significant environmental and cost implications.

Regarding the capacity of the Ringsend plant, the greater Dublin strategic drainage study examined the future waste water requirements throughout the Dublin region until 2031 and has proposed an expansion of the plant to cater for a population equivalent of approximately 2.2 million to meet future development needs. The study also envisaged additional waste water treatment capacity being provided at other locations within the region. Planning for the Ringsend expansion and upgrading is under way and I understand that Dublin City Council has appointed consultants to draw up design proposals.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Corcoran. I call on the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to make its statement.

Dr. Mary Kelly

I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting the EPA to meet them. In advance of any discussion on the Ringsend waste water treatment plant, it might be useful to set out for the committee the EPA's role in the regulation of waste water discharges and water quality. We have made presentations to the committee on our wider role. I will be happy to answer any subsequent questions. If neither I nor my colleague can provide answers, we will arrange for the relevant information to be forwarded to the committee.

As members are aware, the EPA is an independent statutory body established in 1993 under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 with a wide range of responsibilities, including the regulation of large-scale industrial and waste facilities, monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment, overseeing local authorities' environmental responsibilities, co-ordinating environmental research in Ireland and regulating Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. The work of the EPA is carried out by its four offices, namely, the office of environmental enforcement, of which Mr. Dara Lynott is the director, the office of climate licensing and resource use, the office of environmental assessment and the office of communications and corporate services.

In terms of waste water discharges and water quality, the EPA has specific roles under a number of directives and regulations. I will briefly outline some of those roles. We have included in our short opening statement an appendix to give more detail.

Under section 61 of the Act, the EPA is required to report biennially on the quality of effluents being discharged from treatment plants controlled by local authorities. The report is based on data collected and submitted by local authorities and audited by the EPA. The primary discharge from the Ringsend waste water treatment plant is generally in compliance with the urban waste water directive for the parameters of biochemical oxygen demand, BOD, and chemical oxygen demand, COD. However, total suspended solids exceed the specified standard.

The water framework directive came into effect on 22 December 2000. Its environmental objectives require that surface waters achieve at least good surface water status by 2015. The Liffey Estuary has undergone a marked improvement in water quality in recent years with most of the observed improvement as a result of the upgraded waste water treatment facilities at Ringsend. The trophic status of the estuary, which we measure, has improved from eutrophic in the 1995-99 surveys to potentially eutrophic in 1999-2003 and improved further to intermediate status in 2002-06.

The EPA assesses compliance of bathing waters with standards prescribed by the European Union for the protection of public health. In this respect, the status of Dollymount Strand bathing area changed between 2006 and 2007. Improvements in water quality were noted at Dollymount Strand, moving from the mandatory compliance category to the stricter guide compliance category. This standard was maintained in 2008. Dollymount Strand qualified under the An Taisce scheme for a blue flag in a number of the years in question.

The EPA is now the competent authority for the purpose of authorising a waste water discharge under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007. It is new work for the agency. The regulations provide for the phased authorisation by the EPA of local authority waste water discharges in accordance with their size. Authorisations will be granted by the EPA over the next two years and will set specific deadlines to meet the required standard for emissions.

A licence application was received by the agency in December 2007 concerning the greater Dublin area agglomeration in accordance with the regulations of 2007. The application was submitted by Dublin City Council as the lead authority. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, South Dublin, Fingal and Meath county councils were joint applicants and provided information regarding their sections of the agglomeration. The EPA has subsequently requested detailed information from Dublin City Council in order to process this application.

The EPA is also responsible for licensing major industrial facilities under the EU integrated pollution, prevention and control directive, IPPC. This includes licensing discharges into water and sewers. Our role in this regard in the greater Dublin catchment area is dealt with in sections 4 and 5 of the Fehily report. Evidence is given that industrial loadings to the Ringsend plant are dropping annually, particularly those licensed under IPPC licences. Combined with clear charging policies for industrial effluent, the licensing regime operated by the EPA has proven very effective in controlling these industrial discharges.

The agency is also required under the European Communities (Wastewater Treatment) (Prevention of Odours and Noise) Regulations 2005 to ensure a wastewater treatment plant under a local authority's control is so operated and maintained as to ensure it avoids causing nuisance through odours and noise. This function may be exercised under section 63 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act or by inspection of any wastewater treatment plant.

The first complaints regarding odours associated with the Ringsend treatment plant were received by the Environmental Protection Agency's office of environmental enforcement in May 2005. The office of environmental enforcement subsequently issued a notice under section 63 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act requesting information on corrective actions by Dublin City Council. The following actions have been taken by the council thus far.

In November 2005 the sludge line was decommissioned. In 2007 short-term measures to deal with odours were completed. These included improved sludge handling, the partial covering of tanks and the upgrading of the odour control system. In November 2008 the city council was scheduled to complete the provision of new enlarged combustion chambers for the sludge drying units and the permanent covering of the primary treatment tanks and the installation of odour control units for these tanks. No complaints regarding odours associated with the Ringsend plant have been received by the office of environmental enforcement since August 2008.

Chairman

On a point of clarification, in the paragraph on the wastewater treatment directive Dr. Kelly referred to the potential to achieve eutrophic status. Will she explain what that word means because I do not understand it?

Dr. Mary Kelly

For water to be considered to be eutrophic there are a number of criteria. It means there are too many nutrients in the water which cause algae to grow in it. It is nutrient enrichment of the water which is sometimes caused by wastewater treatment plants and, in other areas, by agricultural run-off, nitrates and phosphorous.

Senator Camillus Glynn

I have just one question. Are Mr. Fehily, Dr. Kelly and Mr. Allen satisfied that, as a result of the action taken, adequate measures will be put in place to ensure what has happened will not happen again?

Deputy Pádraic McCormack

If there have been no complaints about smells since August 2007, does that mean everything is in order?

Senator Paudie Coffey

I have some general comments and queries. This plant was meant to be state of the art and the answer to everything with regard to large urban centres. There were great hopes for it when it was installed at major cost. We have learned the hard way with regard to design, the functions that must be performed and the lessons learned. As a Member, I hope the lessons learned will be documented and circulated to all relevant local authorities and agencies to ensure the same mistakes are not made again. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made.

Mr. Corcoran referred to the final settlement and mentioned that additional funding was required from the Government for a final settlement with the contractor. Can he tell us how much the figure was or is that a private matter?

I have a query about expanding capacity. It was stated more capacity would be required. Where is it envisaged that this land will be provided? What is the position of the Minister on the matter?

Design margins were calculated in the initial design of the project but it was not enough and did not allow for over-capacity. Mr. Fehily has told us that there was an underestimation as regards commuters and the commercial output. In any engineering design function, one should allow for over-capacity. Why was this underestimated, or why was the design margin insufficient to cover the underestimation as regards commuting and commercial output? I thought there were design margins to address the deficit if it is not picked up in the original design concept.

The last question for the EPA concerns odours. The first complaint was issued in May 2005 and corrective action was taken by Dublin City Council. Is the EPA satisfied that the process happened quickly enough and that the council was responsive enough to the enforcement orders issued? That the last complaint was made in August 2008 is very welcome from the view of residents who must be happy that there are no reasons to complain. Are we protected enough in respect of other facilities in other areas or landfill sites? There are major problems with odours. To enforce EPA standards or the section 63 measures to which Dr. Kelly referred, it is difficult to control odours. I would like this point to be further clarified for the sake of the committee by the EPA. The EPA was successful on this occasion but can the success be replicated in other areas?

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I will direct a couple of questions to each of the speakers. On page 3 of Mr. Fehily's report, he refers to unaccounted loads through the plant. Will he outline for the committee the quantities of these unaccounted loads, the materials involved and the examination undertaken of these unaccounted loads when he compiled his report?

Mr. Fehily also refers to same day loadings, with tourists being in town, numbering approximately 30,000 people. Did he also take into account what happens on all-Ireland day and when there are big concert events when there are in excess of 100,000 people in Dublin? If there was a major conference in the O2 centre and another event in the RDS during an all-Ireland weekend, there would be an extra 200,000 people.

I welcome the measures carried out to reduce odours. This was pointed out succinctly to Dublin City Council members who visited the site this morning. In her report Dr. Kelly commends the actions taken to reduce odours. I put the following questions to her. She referred to the broader context. I learned a new word today, "agglomeration", a waste treatment plant in ordinary man's language. I looked at this in the index. Am I correct? The European Commission has recorded a number of infringements in Ireland at a number of these centres. A number of infringements have been taken on board by the European Court of Justice in ascertaining whether there was non-compliance with certain requirements at centres in Bray, Howth, Letterkenny, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore. There was a deadline of 31 December 2000 to have these rectified. In this context, it appears waste water is not just an issue for Dublin but for the island of Ireland in terms of, for example, blue flag measurements. I would like to know what Dr. Kelly's agency is doing to deal with the matter.

My final series of questions is to Mr. Corcoran from the Department. From his report I am not sure if he represents the Minister, Deputy Gormley, or the Department. It tends to drift, but I will assume he represents the Department in his report. The use of macerators has been outlawed by Dublin City Council. Do the Minister and his Department intend to broaden this scope, whereby some legislation or directive will be made for councils? This is a very "convenient" means of disposing of waste into a water system when one is not weighing water. It is a costly issue to deal with.

Following on from this morning's visit to the site, during storms in the Dublin area there is an overflow from the storm drains on the site over the wall into the harbour. There is not a pipe to Howth Head; this water is being discharged from one side of the wall to the other. Will Mr. Fehily give some explanation on what testing systems are in place as part of his examination? Was he testing the purity of this water on an ongoing basis? In his report he talks about the proximity or aspect of the site being further up the harbour region and mentions that this has some measurement and calculations. I am not sure what he is saying. The storm wells deposit water into the harbour occasionally, probably last year more than others because of the inclement weather we had during the summer. Will he comment on this?

Chairman

As we have heard from a number of members, I will ask for a response. We will then have more questions. I will begin with the departmental officials.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

My colleague, Mr. Galvin, will deal with the questions on additional capacity, design margins and the engineering of the plant. I am from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but represent the Minister. I have to wear two hats. Many lessons have been learned. One very acute lesson we learned was that it was not enough to append the EIS to the contract, but that one had to replicate the EIS recommendations in the contract document. I referred to this in my opening statement. As has been suggested, we have communicated it to all local authorities to ensure the terms of and recommendations made in an EIS are fully bound and stated in the contract in order tht it becomes a contract requirement. We have communicated this to the Government contracts committee. We learned other lessons about odours, about which my colleague, Mr. Galvin, will say something. There are lessons to be learned. We share the committee's concern that as far as one can, one should not repeat but learn from experience.

There were questions on the commercial settlement. The final sum was €35 million. The contractor made a very large claim for additional final contract costs of €171.8 million. Claims for additional costs were provided for under the standard form of Government construction contract which has now been replaced by the fixed price contract. We are going back some years. The claims concerned disputed items such as changes in electrical equipment standards, the higher load of the plant, odour standards and the capacity of the sludge driers which had been put in place before the present contractor came in. A number of issues had to be resolved. In the end a sum of approximately €100 million was disputed. Following detailed assessment by us and Dublin City Council and a very detailed risk analysis, a commercial settlement involving a sum of €35 million was reached. We carried out a very rigorous risk assessment because the alternative to agreeing was arbitration which can be a risky process. Therefore, one assesses the risks and we settled on a figure of €35 million.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Galvin, to deal with the issues of additional capacity, including the existing land, whether we need additional land, of redundancy in the design margins and overflows.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

The Ringsend plant was very much state-of-the-art when completed in 2003 to the extent that it was the largest plant of that type in Europe providing for secondary treatment. One of the major advantages of the public private partnership route was that it enabled the plant to be constructed within the existing site leaving some spare site area available, which is sufficient to allow for the proposed expansion of the plant to allow for a figure of 2.2 million. Normal design allows for growth until 2020, as Mr. Fehily outlined in his opening statement. In highlighting the level of commuting and the extent of commercial load into the plant Mr. Fehily highlights that what was not anticipated was the level of growth arising from the Celtic tiger. The basic design figures for the plant would have been completed and reviewed in 1996 before going to tender in 1997, which marked the onset of the Celtic tiger.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch mentioned the infringement proceedings against the named locations. Construction of the Tramore plant was completed in 2008; the Sligo plant has just been completed and is beginning operations; a combined plant serving Bray and Shanganagh has just commenced construction; the work to link Howth with the Ringsend plant is nearing completion, while tenders for the Letterkenny plant are due in to Donegal County Council in mid-February. We have been engaged with the European Commission in dealing with these infringement proceedings and are well on the way to solving all the problems at the cited plant locations, albeit we still have to complete construction at two principally.

Regarding overflows, for historic reasons our collection networks within older city centres involve combined systems which take rain water and foul sewage discharges from properties. Because they take rain water, the EU directive recognises it is impossible for the sewage collection system to accommodate all rainfall amounts throughout the year. There will be times when particularly heavy rainfall will result in overflows. The key to ensuring no environmental damage results from such overflows is to limit the duration and volume of storm water overflows, albeit it is more dilute than foul sewage at the time of overflow, having been diluted by rain water, and the receiving water into which it discharges is usually in spate from the heavy rainfall in the catchment at the time. The target is to ensure that through the licensing regime any environmental impact resulting from such discharges is minimised.

The question of macerators, or food waste disintegrators as they are sometimes called, was raised and what can be done to extend that outside Dublin. Studies have been undertaken, through the Environmental Protection Agency, over the past number of years that have yet to reach a conclusion. We are hopeful the conclusion will be reached later this year which will inform us on the position.

Dr. Mary Kelly

I will deal with issues in so far as they refer to the EPA. A number of answers have already dealt with some of the issues, so I will not repeat them. To start, Senator Glynn asked if we are satisfied this will not happen again. I would side with Mr. Fehily in the sense that one cannot guarantee nothing like that would ever happen again but we have learned enough of a lesson from this particular issue that we are happy with the current design. We will be insisting on constant vigilance and management at all urban wastewater treatment plants, which would be necessary in order for us to ensure it will not happen again. Part of our responsibility will be in seeing that this vigilance and management is brought to bear.

Deputy McCormack asked if everything is now in order. We are satisfied the measures in place, as stated by Mr. Fehily, will solve this particular problem. There is a major upgrade planned for our new licensing system, and we are confident that will go according to plan and there should not be a problem with it.

Others have dealt with the documentation of lessons learned. Clearly, the EPA will also bring any lessons from this incident to bear on any licences we are issuing and in terms of Dublin City Council's application to us for expanding capacity or otherwise. We will take that into account. From our perspective, adopting an integrated approach, particularly on the odour problem, from the outset is the answer. This is in preference to trying to fix it after something has happened. We will be seeking an integrated approach and we will be very conscious that this issue has caused a problem with odour. We will seek distinct odour abatement in any areas that need it.

Mr. Galvin has provided an update on where we stand regarding solving problems arising from EU infringements. From our perspective in the Environmental Protection Agency, one of our responsibilities is to produce a report every two years on urban wastewater treatment in Ireland. We will be producing a consolidated report this year on the performance of the past two years and we would be very happy to return to make a presentation to the committee at that stage on the state of urban wastewater all around the country, if this is helpful.

Dublin is not the only area with a problem and if odour had not been a problem, the treatment of the water at the Ringsend plant is of a very high quality. It will meet standards as set out. Around the country there are other problems with water quality, on which we will report. We would be happy to make a presentation at a later date.

I will add to the comments of storm water overflows. In a licensing regime, we will license the primary discharge of course, setting emission limit values on primary discharge from all the urban wastewater treatment plants required to come to us. Secondary discharges, including storm water overflows, will be part of that. We we will be setting emission limit values for those or they will be directed through the main water treatment plant. They will be dealt with, although there is not an instant solution to the extent of the problem we have across the country.

It will be a number of years before Ireland is in full compliance with all directives that I mentioned, particularly the urban waste water treatment directive. Although investment is committed from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities are at various stages of getting these treatment plans in place, they are not in place in many areas and it will be a number of years before we get there. We are confident that will happen.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Dara Lynott, to speak about odours and whether the process was quick enough. He will also address the comments about landfills.

Mr. Dara Lynott

On the question of odour, we got our first complaints in May 2005. If we review the process we would have liked the response to have been a bit quicker than it was. The initial response was to consider spot treatments, individual processes and trying to sort them out rather than having an integrated approach. The integrated approach required an evaluation of the entire system, which is being delivered now through the CDM report and the abatement systems being put in place.

The Deputy asked if it could be difficult to achieve compliance. We agree with Mr. Fehily in terms of the assessment of inputs, which will be crucial to the new design. That is to say there will be a strong measurement regime in place as regards what is going into this plant from particular areas and especially, as Dr. Kelly pointed out, storm water overflows and secondary discharges. As they are cut off they will come into the plant and increase the flow. Once the inputs are controlled, the treatment process itself has to be operated to the optimum level at all times and will require vigilance.

The head spaces, that is, the foul air around these treatment plant processes, will have to be gathered. This will require appropriate pumps to pump the air and put through appropriate abatement systems. There is a range of abatement systems, scrubbers and thermal oxidisers at this plant. It is a complex system that will require constant management and vigilance. The integrated approach taken by the CDM in regard to the design should ensure that, at least, all the issues will be addressed. The management will be a constant cause for examination by ourselves.

Chairman

Deputy Lynch referred a question to Mr. Fehily.

Mr. Brendan Fehily

There were a number of points. Dr. Kelly and Mr. Gerry Galvin have dealt with most of the points raised. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked about unaccounted loads. The word "load" refers to pollution load and the most common way of measuring it is by way of BOD, biochemical oxygen demand. We know that on average per day, a human produces 60 g of that material and we relate all other loads to that in person equivalence. Even with industrial loads, if there is a load coming from Guinness or Diageo, we convert that into the equivalent persons. In other words, we take the load in BOD terms and divide it by 60 g. That load may then be equivalent to 100,000 persons or whatever is. We end up with a person equivalent as our load coming into the works. Does the Deputy understand this?

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I do.

Mr. Brendan Fehily

Taking the design population that is contributing to Ringsend and the industries contributing to the project and added the two, that should be the load going to Ringsend. It was consistently found that the load arriving at Ringsend, when measured, was greater than that. There had to be some other source, which I said was not included in the original design. This has to be taken in context. Much of the original design was done in 1992, 1993 and 1994. Casting one's mind back to this period, there was a totally different outlook than there was in 2003, when the greater Dublin strategic drainage study was done, for example. The outlook was divergent; there was no tomorrow.

When I worked in 1992, 1993 and 1994, people were very cautious. As Mr. Galvin stated, this was one of the biggest sewage treatment plants ever built in Europe at the time. We did not want to build this huge structure and find we had overestimated the load. There was much caution. Having been cautious, over the next ten years there was huge growth in the country. It is easy for me to examine something in hindsight; it is a great attribute to have. Going back to the people originally designing the scheme, they were being cautious not to over-design it.

I mentioned the figure of 60 g per person per day, which is a standard laid down in the European directive on urban waste water. Before that was introduced, people in our profession used figures of perhaps 54 or 55 g, not 60 g. Thus, when the designers were designing and had to use a figure of 60 g, they may have said to themselves that there is already a 10% margin built in. Even though I say that the load was underestimated at the time, I am saying that in hindsight, because I know it was underestimated.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I thank Mr. Fehily for the presentation and commend him on the clarity of its findings. There are two main findings in the report, which are to do with significant design flaws in the Ringsend waste water treatment plant, one of these being a significant underestimate of the potential loadings, which are in excess of a 200,000 population equivalent, and the other a significant discrepancy between the odour standards as recommended in the EIS that accompanied the design of the sewage treatment plant and those in the eventual contract document. In fact, the odour standards in the contract document appear to have been 20 times greater then those recommended in the EIS.

I would like to put a number of questions to the representatives from Dublin City Council. They are fairly simple questions. Why did it take a report commissioned by the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, more than five years after the sewage treatment plant opened, to publicly identify the commissioning and design problems that led to the odour fiasco? Was the council aware of these problems previously and, if so, why did it not publicly acknowledge them? Who in the council is responsible for this fiasco? Who has accepted responsibility? The plant was designed with a lifetime of 20 years and on the very first day of its operation it was overloaded. The independent report does state that the population projections were correct, but it is clear that commercial loadings were not included, and nor were same-day tourism loadings or daily commuter loadings. Somebody somewhere in the civic offices was supposed to ensure that these issues were being addressed. Why did this not happen? A further €35 million of taxpayers' and Dublin rate-payers' money had to be paid out to the contractor last year in order to settle the outstanding commercial dispute, and that paved the way for the odour problem to be dealt with. I welcome that resolution. However, mistakes on this project have cost the taxpayer and rate-payers tens of millions of euro. Does the council have any plans to hold somebody to account for this?

Senator Donie Cassidy

I will be brief. I welcome the commitment by Mr. Tom Corcoran on behalf of the Minister that €500 million is being allocated. The water programme continues to be one of the largest ongoing infrastructural programmes, which is to be welcomed.

As someone who has operated in the city centre for the last 30 years at a strong level in the business community, I can say that most of the big events, fortunately for these good people, have been at weekends, including all-Ireland finals, rugby internationals, soccer matches, and concerts. We all know that the minimum number of people leaving Dublin on a Friday evening is 20% of the population. The council is saved by that but by Sunday night things could have caught up.

My question is specifically to Mr. Twomey, whom I fully respect in his professional capacity. He is an efficient, hard-working and decent man and Dubliners are fortunate to have him working for them. Nobody has mentioned the cost to the tourist trade with regard to the challenges facing it at present. We must consider that 80% of the businesses that were on O'Connell Street 30 years ago no longer exist. This is an alarming statistic in light of the enormous charges levied by Dublin City Council on business, and particularly on the tourist business. My question is simple. How does Dublin compare, with regard to water charges and service charges, to our competitors in Lisbon and Madrid? These are the two destinations with which Dublin must compete in the hotel sector. It is a matter of bringing people to Ireland, keeping them for a week, giving them value for money and getting the repeat business. The services sector is a major employer, as the Chairman knows in his professional capacity, and one in which we are looking forward to maintaining jobs.

Jobs will be the priority of this Government over its lifetime of the next three and a half or four years. We must get real. Whatever is going to happen must be addressed by this committee. We are delighted to be in the presence of Deputy Fleming, who was an accountant before he became a Member of this House. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to ask this question.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I welcome the reports by Mr. Fehily, Mr. Corcoran and Dr. Kelly. I thank the members of Dublin City Council for inviting us down this morning to look at this fabulous plant. I was very impressed by what I saw. It was the first time I had visited a plant of this nature. There have been problems, but I am certain from what I saw today that massive improvements have been made. I know all about odour problems as there was a rendering plant in my old constituency with which we suffered for a long number of years. It was a constant battle. However, there have been massive improvements in that area. I know the difficulties involved. There are teething problems in any business or set-up. This was something new to all those involved. As somebody stated earlier, it is one of the finest such plants in Europe, and from what I saw this morning it was excellent. I thank Mr. Twomey, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Fullam for their presentation and the tour they gave us in Ringsend this morning.

We can all be very critical and, as a member of a local authority for many years, I can confirm that it is a very popular thing for a public representative to be critical when things are going wrong, but they are never complimentary when things are going well and improvements have been made. In my own constituency and council area over the years we have had difficulties with sewage plants, including serious difficulties in Oldcastle and Kells. The members of the EPA know all about these two plants, which have given serious problems. We all know about the court cases that have taken place.

It is great to see such improvements. I was also impressed by the catchment area of the Ringsend plant. I did not realise that so much of Meath's sewage came into Ringsend until this morning. That was part of my old constituency, but unfortunately I was never allowed into that area. Because of the way we divided up the constituency I was always left in the poor end in north Meath. I did not realise so much sewage from the Ratoath, Dunboyne and Ashbourne areas went into Ringsend, although I knew Ashbourne was involved from early on. It is a massive catchment area. The members who did not go on that visit this morning missed a great opportunity. We were told when we were leaving we could return if we wished. It was a valuable experience to go down and see what has taken place.

When I went in this morning I thought it was an excellent industrial plant. I complement and thank the delegation for the great work it has done and the marvellous improvements made. We read in the newspapers and heard on the television and radio of the great difficulties there.

Chairman

I apologise to Deputy O'Sullivan for skipping him earlier.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I hope Deputy Brady and the people of Meath are paying the price. There is a cost of €35 million.

I am happy for the people of Ringsend who have put up with a lot over the last number of years. I would not like to live near one of those plants which causes these kinds of odours and problems.

I was not at the plant this morning as I was unable to get there in time. I have to come from west Cork and the time did not fit with my schedule. I do not think we will be in a position to get a plant like it in west Cork and perhaps a smaller one would do.

Some €35 million was spent on getting this right and that money would put many plants in place in my part of the constituency. We would be very happy to get something like that from the Department. I will be pressing for the area to get them as we are able to spend this type of money in Ringsend. At one stage a figure of €100 million was mentioned as the extra cost and a figure of one third of that, €35 million, was settled on. I am not up to speed with the overall cost of the project and perhaps someone could clarify the figures.

I am glad Dr. Kelly acknowledges there are a number of other plants all over the country which are causing problems. Perhaps after this experience we may be able to learn lessons and get value for money by getting projects causing problems in other parts of the country right.

There were a number of new words mentioned today such as "eutrophic". Dr. Kelly may be able to help me. There has been a problem with sewage in Courtmacsherry for a long time. A lot of algae grows in the bay in summertime and causes serious problems such as odour. There is conflict over where the problem comes from. It was suggested that it could come from farms or local authorities discharging secondary treatment into the bay. Is it possible to determine where the problem comes from by testing the water in the bay? Can specific samples from the bay show it comes from the local authority or farming community?

I hope we have learned from this experience. The cost concerns me. I see that a sum of between €1 million and €3 million might provide a plant in other parts of the country. I hope we will not return to this issue too often because it is serious.

Chairman

Senator Coffey wanted to intervene briefly.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Regarding the points on finance raised by my colleagues, I queried the amount and it was clarified. The settlement was €35 million. Due to the fact that this was a public private partnership project, did the State finance the total amount or was there a private element to the settlement?

Is there any mechanism for the Government to recoup any of the settlement monies? A design team, consultants and Dublin City Council were all involved. Can any of the money be recouped, due to the design underestimation? There must be someone who is accountable for the design underestimation and as a professional they would have adequate insurance to cover such events. A significant liability has arisen as a result of the design underestimation. It is the taxpayer and the citizen who are losing out. Is there any follow up?

Where any environmental infrastructure is being built the residents and citizens are totally dependent on the professionals in local authorities, Departments and the EPA to protect the environment they live in. In this case all of this failed and we must learn from this lesson and ensure it does happen again.

Chairman

I will begin with the Department. There are questions for everyone, including the city council. Are there questions specific to the Department or the City Council? There was a question from Senator de Búrca addressed to Mr. Corcoran.

Mr. Matt Twomey

I thank the Chairman. Regarding what were described as design flaws and overloading, that issue was looked at independently by Mr. Fehilly and he has given his conclusions to the committee. We accept those conclusions and there is no more to add to that.

The population loadings are on target. The IPPC licensing projections are also on target even though there is still a need to reduce approximately 100,000 PE to be in line with projections. The loads which were described as unaccounted for have now been accounted for and that is the current situation, as set out in the report.

It did not take five years for these problems to emerge. Rather, they emerged very quickly in 2003 when the commissioning of the plant took place. The way in which the problem manifested itself publicly was the odour. When the problem arose we went back to the contractor and consultant because this was a public private partnership. The design, build and operation elements were contracted out to the private sector and that was our first port of call when problems began to arise.

As recorded in the report, the initial efforts to resolve those problems were not successful. At that stage the city council felt it had no option but to take back some of issues contracted out, such as looking after the odour problems and engage independent international experts to look at the performance of the plant in terms of odour and to prepare a programme of works to resolve the problems, including day-to-day operational problems which arose and were also, as Mr. Fehilly pointed out, contributing to the problems.

That was done and the report was implemented in full. The report had two phases. Some immediate works had to be done and were done in 2007. There were two significant items, and those who visited the plant will have seen how large the areas were where design work had to be done. A procurement process had to be gone through which took time. The two major items of covering the tanks and dealing with the driers was completed in 2008.

Regarding the responsibilities, as we discussed this morning I am the assistant city manager with responsibility for environmental, fire and emergency services in Dublin City Council. Mr. Michael Phillips is the city engineer and his traffic duties are separate. Mr. Pat Fulham is our representative for the contract on site. There are four parties to this project which was one of the biggest infrastructural plants in Europe. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the city council, the consultants, as the employer's representative, and the contractor all had roles. Certain responsibilities in respect of the outcome will rest with those bodies.

Before a commercial settlement is entered into a detailed risk assessment must be conducted. The consultants did that on our behalf. A legal assessment was also conducted, to see how the issues might break down in conciliation, arbitration or litigation. The recommendation to us, based on those assessments, was that a settlement of the order of the figures mentioned was in the interests of the city council and the public purse. That is why we recommended it to the Department and it was agreed. City council officials negotiated that arrangement. No consultants, legal, technical or other, were involved.

When we got bogged down in legal and contractual issues we asked the parent companies to implement their guarantee that the plant would operate in accordance with the requirements. It was agreed to put aside the contract for a few months to deal with the technical issues, such as how the plant worked day to day, how the odour abatement equipment worked and the long-term solutions to those problems. It was not an easy exercise but the issues were dealt with in great detail and an agreed solution was arrived at. We then studied the contract to see how to implement the solutions. That was a partnership process whereby each of the four parties to the problem implemented its part of the solution. That was one of the positive contributions of the contractors to the process.

Conciliation and arbitration or litigation can cost anything from €5 million to €10 million and it would have been extremely difficult to make progress on the site or solve the problems. Had we adopted a rigid legalistic approach to the contract and to relations on site we would likely still be in court or bogged down somewhere and the odour problems would not have been mitigated.

While it is not for me to point out problems in other local authorities there are examples of a rigid contractual approach to resolving problems which have cost the taxpayer much more. In anyone's language €35 million is a large sum of money but the claims were well in excess of €100 million and we did resolve the defects problem in the contract, and the odour problems, as has been independently acknowledged. Lessons have certainly been learned.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I was not underestimating the complexity of the process. Mr. Twomey said it was a huge infrastructural project involving several bodies. While much has been learned from the process this is no good unless we decide where responsibility lay. We are told that public private partnerships represent good value for the taxpayer's money but we must prove that to be so. There is an assumption that the public body participating in the partnership is in a position to use its expertise to ensure that the design of the project meets the requirements of the citizens and the area.

Deputy Pádraic McCormack

Who received the €35 million, the original contractor, or the contractor and others?

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I do not want to disagree with how Mr. Twomey and the council officials handled the matter but if we cannot say where the fault lay, whether with the design team or the contractors, what have we learned?

Chairman

On a couple of occasions in the past six months this committee and the Committee of Public Accounts, have listened to local authorities which have rejected conciliation and arbitration, gone to court and spent a fortune. I am pleased to see that the other avenue is being taken too because otherwise the parties could still be arguing in court running up legal costs, and loss of profit and so on. I do not know the right or wrong of the €35 million expenditure but I am pleased that the process was concluded smartly.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

We all are in agreement with that.

Senator Paudie Coffey

We are all very pleased with that. They have done well.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

The outcome is satisfactory but we are trying to learn from the process. Accountability is always an issue. We need to know who is responsible for what the very good report identifies as two major design flaws.

Mr. Matt Twomey

I was just coming to the question of whether anybody was held to account. The priority was to get the work done and ensure that Dublin Bay was not polluted before considering liability and responsibility. We have given the file to our solicitor to examine the process and determine whether any liabilities exist in any of the processes and whether any actions would lie against any of those involved. The solicitor has told us that in addition to the legal issues there are complex technical issues involved and those who saw the plant will realise that none of these issues is straightforward. He is engaging technical advice to help his assessment. If actions are required, they will be brought. Unfortunately, we did not compare ourselves with Lisbon and Madrid. We did look at a few comparisons which show us in a reasonable light. If one looks at the all-in costs for water supply and sewerage costs for Ireland last year, Dublin City Council was in the lowest three. There were two lower than us. We looked at the cost of water supply and drainage for England and Wales as shown in figures by Ofwat the regulatory authority for water services in England. Before the recent turmoil in exchange rates our full costs were roughly half the average costs in England and Wales. We had a discussion over a cup of coffee down at the plant about the cost of water in Dublin. We supply a gallon of water to the tap, take away dirty water and treat it to the highest environmental standards and put it back into the river to complete the water cycle. The solids are taken away and applied to agricultural land. We do all that for 0.7 cent per gallon of water. The rate quoted on bills sent out this year is €1.64 per cubic metre, but there are 222 gallons in a cubic metre, so the cost of delivering a gallon of water to anybody's tap in Dublin, taking all the dirty water away and treating it to the highest standard, is 0.7 cent per gallon. In many ways that is the bottom line. There are other comparisons one can make, for example, the capital cost of providing the plant is approximately €147 or €150 per head. That may not be a good comparison, but that is what it turned out to be in Dublin. We can get comparisons for Lisbon and Madrid, but the ones for the rest of Ireland and for England and Wales are the ones I have outlined.

This is a regional plant. The catchment area is shown on maps at Ringsend. We serve the area south of Dublin Airport, the area on a line with Fingal, Blanchardstown and out into parts of Meath, all Dublin City, most of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council area and all of south Dublin. That is where the volumes and economies of scale come from. Our unit charges are very competitive for those reasons. It is worth remembering that no land had to be reclaimed for this project. It is provided within the same site. It is, as somebody described, like doing a heart transplant on a live patient. An average of 400,000 tonnes of sewage arrives in Ringsend every day and that must be treated, come hell or high water, because the alternative is to put it into Dublin Bay untreated, and it never happens that the entire flow goes into the bay. Environmental objectives and so on are met. We have complied with all our requirements for 2008.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Perhaps Mr. Twomey would say something about the value of the electricity provided from the plant.

Mr. Matt Twomey

I thank the Deputy for reminding me. We looked at the green elements of the project. The first one is that the Cambi process is very efficient in dealing with the solids in that the digestion capacity that is required is only half of what it might otherwise be. The solids are reduced by about 50% and the drying capacity is reduced by about 50%. Clearly, however, it is a very smelly operation and it must be got exactly right. There is very little room for any problems. During the early years of operation there were problems and it took a while for those teething problems to be resolved. Those are now behind us and the plant is working very efficiently. That was one of the major contributions to being able to fit the plant within the existing site at a time when the existing flows were going to Ringsend and still being treated. As members saw, 0.8 of a hectare has been reserved for future expansion, and the Cambi process produces 3 MW of electricity every year. That is roughly 40% to 50% of the energy requirements of the plant and, depending on the price, it is valued at €3 million to €4 million. From an environmental point of view it makes a major contribution. It is the same size as a dedicated power plant, the first one that was built in Dublin in 1902 to provide the first public lights in Dublin. This is in addition to the requirements of the EPA and others in terms of the quality of water going into the bay. In an overall sense we believe the positive elements far outweigh the negative elements. There were negative elements and we dealt with them as quickly as we could. People may say we should have done it quicker. Perhaps we should have, but in any case it is now fully implemented in terms of the most up-to-date equipment. We repeat our invitation to any members who were unable to get to the plant today to come another day and we will have no problem showing them the site and how we manage it.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I asked a question on the financial side.

Mr. Matt Twomey

The overall cost of the plant was €280 million. That represents a cost per head of approximately €150. By some standards that is a very good price. Clearly, given the volumes and the population we have, that measure might not be valid for other plants. I would not like the Deputy to think this could be the standard for small plants in different locations.

There was also a question as to whether the public purse bore all the costs of solving the problems. The answer to that question is a very definite "No". To put that in context, the cost of remediating the odour problems was just over €24 million. The council bore €19.6 million of that and the contractor bore €4.6 million. In percentage terms the overall cost of dealing with the odour problem was 7% of the total cost. The contractor bore 19% of the cost of resolving the problems in relation to the waste water. The claims were substantially mitigated down from over €100 million to €35 million. That was done on the basis of both technical risk assessment and legal advice. That is the basis on which we made the recommendation and we believe that is a good outcome overall.

We have referred the file to a solicitor to examine whether liabilities arise. It is clear that the consultants have professional indemnity. That is a statement of fact; it is not a threat or anything of that nature. The city council is extremely conscious of community issues in terms of relations with the communities in which we operate. We have put in place a number of new arrangements to deal with residents and local neighbourhoods. We have set up five area offices throughout the council's administrative area. They are staffed by members of staff who deal with all the services. Somebody in Ringsend or Ballyfermot, therefore, can transact most of the business they want to do with the city council in those local offices. Regular liaison meetings take place through our housing and community department in terms of local community relations. That was put in place as part of the Better Local Government package agreed some years ago. We have made many improvements in terms of community relations.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I apologise. I am like a dog with a bone but——

Chairman

The Senator is welcome to speak again.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

——I am seeking clarity on this issue. Mr. Twomey mentioned that the council has asked a solicitor to examine the possibility of taking action on the basis of the design flaws identified in the project. Will he confirm that he is talking about action in regard to the consultants that were employed or are there other bodies he might be considering action against?

Does Mr. Twomey believe there is any responsibility on any element of the city council regarding the design flaws and is that something that would be important to identify in terms of learning from this overall process?

Mr. Matt Twomey

If I may start with the last question, regarding the design, I remind the committee that as part of a public private operation the design, building and operation of the plant was transferred to the private sector because the conventional wisdom is that that is the way to get the best solution. To return to the question, the lesson we have learned is that we needed to take a more proactive involvement in terms of what the outcomes of the design were leading to and we had to intervene and take back part of the design process relating to the order. The clear lesson was that we need to be more prescriptive when design, build and operate contracts are being handed out. It cannot all be handed to the private sector. There must be some prescription and a close eye kept on the outcomes as they are emerging. We have done that in the sense that we have full-time staff on the site monitoring the ordering. We have an accredited laboratory staffed by qualified chemists that carry out tests and so on to verify what the contractor is doing and what he is claiming.

The primary examination by the solicitor would involve the consultants in that a number of questions have been raised about that aspect but he will be reviewing the entire process. We will await a report from him and when we get it we will assess the actions that are open to us.

Chairman

I want to put some questions to the gentlemen and Dr. Kelly that have not been covered. I support what Deputy Brady said earlier. I was very impressed by the plant I saw today. It was of a much higher standard than I would have expected. I understand that statement could not have been made some years ago before all the areas that had caused the odour were covered and the other treatment facilities put in place to deal with the problem. As of now it appears to be operating well but that was not the case earlier. There has been progress and improvements, notwithstanding the earlier complaints.

I have a number of questions on which all the representatives may comment. The first concerns the financing end of the whole process. The plant was designed to cater for a population equivalent of approximately 1.64 million. The representatives need not write this down; the information is in front of them. It seems to be accepted that there was an under-design of 200,000 to 300,000 when all the extra factors are taken into account. It states somewhere in the report that the plant operated to cater for approximately 1.9 million. The population in the Dublin area on which the assumptions were based was 1.1 million. I may be wrong but I assume that about 60% of the 1.9 million population equivalent on which the plant is operating is domestic whereas it would appear to me that industrial loadings, daily commuters, same day tourism and loadings from commercial properties make up the other 800,000, which is 40%. Is the commercial sector paying 40% towards the operation of this plant each year? The representatives might have to refer this to the Dublin City Council. I am sure it is a matter that would have arisen in the discussion on the Estimates immediately before Christmas.

We all hear from the Department about the polluter pays principle. It would appear that 40% of the throughput in the plant is non-domestic and therefore if the polluter pays principle is being applied, 40% of the operation of the plant is being paid by the non-domestic sector, namely, the commercial sector to which I have just referred. Dublin City Council might send back figures. Is 40% of the cost being collected? I suspect it is not. From the representatives' knowledge around the country, would 60:40 be the normal ratio or would it be higher? Is that the amount they would expect local authorities to collect to meet the cost of these new PPP treatment plants? Perhaps Dublin City Council can do that.

One of the lessons I learned today is that the issue of the level of odour being five parts per billion was mentioned in the EIS. The contract referred to 100 ppb, which was much different. The contract referred to the EIS but I gather from what the representatives said that the basic problem was what was in the EIS was not stitched into the formal contract. That is where the mistake was made. They have indicated to the committee that they have informed Government contractors that this should be done in future but what other contracts were signed in other cities and towns before it was realised that a reference to the EIS was not sufficient in the contract? They have told us about agreed Government contracts. What other contracts were signed throughout the country on the basis of the Dublin city plant before the plan was changed? Has that been changed?

I have a difficult question for the Department on this aspect. Did it not approve the contract? Those of us who were members of a local authority and who asked what was happening with a project were familiar with the reply that the contract documents are with the Department awaiting approval. Every public representative in the country heard that reply until they were blue in the face. Why did the Department not spot this during all the months these contract documents were in the Department? The reason we invited all of them to attend today is to ensure that the city representatives cannot say it is the Department's fault and the Department cannot say the city had primary responsibility. I have to ask if the Department representatives if they could have picked it up.

A different aspect relating to this plant which was not mentioned but was included in the brochure in the plan is the question of what happens to sludge when it is spread. The EPA may have issued a report on urban waste water in 2003 indicating — the delegates might correct me if I am wrong on this — there was a high level of heavy metals on lands in the Carlow-Wicklow area on which this sludge was being spread. We know that the presence of such heavy metals is a serious issue. If that is the case, how did these heavy metals work their way into the system? We saw at first hand tankers delivering material to the plant today. What part of the process from outside the pipe network does such material involve? Mr. Fehilly's report indicates the incidence of such metals is minuscule, but what quality control does the EPA carry out in terms of what is carried in those tankers that come into the plant daily? We saw them at the plant today. If heavy metals are components of the sludge, they must be going through the system somewhere. I would like clarification on that aspect.

On a related point concerning the location where this sludge is being stored in Carlow, I understand An Bord Pleanála refused planning permission on two occasions for that location to be used as a commercial storage unit for this purpose. A contract is signed by whoever operates the plant but, as is the case with public contracts, I would expect any public body entering into a public contract, whether it is a public private partnership, a traditional contract or a fixed priced contract, to ensure all steps in the implementation of the contract to the end point comply with all State legislation. I have been informed — I do not know whether such information is correct — that the plant in Carlow where this material is being stored does not have planning permission for the purpose for which it is being used. I am from the midlands and therefore the delegates can understand why I raise this issue.

I have also been advised that there was an issue in the past concerning the presence of heavy metals in such material. People have asked if the IPC licence for this facility caters for a population equivalent. I do not know whether it does, but that is an aspect of some licences. What is the population equivalent for the plant under the IPC licence given that it was designed to cater for a population equivalent of 1.64 million, even though it now caters for one of 1.9 million?

The Department officials might respond first and they will note the broader questions I have raised. They highlight the lessons to be learned. We have all heard of bundles of schemes and these are public private partnerships for design build and operate projects for sewage treatment plants. They are been put in place in every county in Ireland. We do not want the mistakes that were made replicated down the line. If mistakes were made, at least we must learn from them. I would like to see some evidence that we have learnt from them.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

The Chairman's questions are relevant and important. I will do my best to respond to them with the help of my colleague, Mr. Gerry Galvin, and Dr. Mary Kelly might also respond.

Chairman

Mr. Corcoran can forward members, by way of correspondence, any information on this that he does not have to hand today.

Mr. Tom Corcoran

We will glad to do that. Senator Cassidy is not present but he raised the important issue of competitiveness. We all have to examine the issue of costs and what costs in this respect are being imposed on tourism or on jobs in the service industry. Forfás completed a study on the cost of water charges in Ireland compared with those of our European competitors and countries further afield. We have remarkably low water charges. That is part of the problem because we cannot fund proper standards. Our costs do not reflect adequately the real costs of providing a quality product and we are moving increasingly towards providing a quality product. We want to ensure our water standards are high in producing drinking water and in disposing of waste water. On the competitive front, in comparison with other European member states, which are all subject to the water framework directive, as are we, we charge very little for water in Ireland.

The Chairman asked how representative is the 60:40 ratio breakdown between domestic and non-domestic loadings. That is a pretty typical ratio. Some variation in the ratio of such loadings is found throughout the country, but it is in or around those figures. I will ask Mr. Galvin to respond to comment on public private partnerships.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

On that last point, a ratio of 60:40 or 70:30 in such loadings would be typical. The ratio in Dublin would be slightly higher because of the level of licensed industrial discharge relative to the size of the population.

Chairman

Therefore, the ratio there would be closer to 60:40.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

A ratio of 70:30 would be more typical.

Chairman

With 70% representing domestic loadings.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Some 70% domestic loadings and 30% non-domestic loadings would be typical in most other locations. In terms of what contracts might be affected by failing to translate environmental impact statement requirements into contract documents, we are hopeful at this stage that there are none, principally because when this was realised, the more specific translation of EIS requirements into contract documents took place. Furthermore, most of the contracts which might have been affected in that way would not have been anywhere near as large as the Ringsend plant and therefore have been long constructed at this stage.

Regarding the Department's approval procedures, the Department's role primarily is to ensure the Department of Finance's capital appraisal guidelines are applied to——

Chairman

Mr. Galvin is bringing the Department of Finance into the equation and passing the buck.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

——ensure value for money is obtained in the planning and procurement procedures. The Department reviews schemes at five key stages.

Chairman

I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and every week I hear Department of Finance officials respond to such an issue by saying it is not their job to micromanage the particular projects and contracts in a Department. If they were here, they would say it is this Department's job.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Exactly.

Chairman

The Department has been issued with the guidelines and it is its job to implement them.

Mr. Gerry Galvin

Exactly. Our role is the application of those guidelines to the specific schemes. That includes review and approval by the Department at five stages of all schemes, namely, the brief for the appointment of consultants, the preliminary report or feasibility study, the content of tender documents, the report on tenders and the final account. Our objective in the assessment of DVO tender documentation is to review the design loadings and the requirements for plant performance in so far as statutory quality standards are concerned. Our scrutiny would not extend to all matters line by line in a set of contract documents. In the case of the Ringsend project, the set of contract documents comprised ten volumes running to many hundreds of pages. If we were to engage in such scrutiny, it would negate the work of the consultants and local authorities who were managing them and lead to even more extraordinary delays than those about which some of the Chairman's colleagues may be currently complaining. The local authority when submitting contract documents to us is required to sign off that all statutory processes have been completed and are being complied with.

I will leave it to the delegates from Dublin City Council to respond to the questions on the sludge and the tankers and those from the EPA can deal with the licensing issue.

Chairman

Mr. Galvin might know or ask an official in the council to give the committee details of the sum the Department collects from the commercial sector in terms of water charges.

Mr. Matt Twomey

I do not have those figures with me.

Chairman

I would not expect Mr. Twomey to have them with him.

Mr. Matt Twomey

It is a little complicated to do that, as the other three counties are also included. I will have to get a breakdown in respect of them, but we would be delighted to get that information and forward it to the committee.

Chairman

Mr. Twomey can forward that to us.

Mr. Matt Twomey

Exactly. In regard to the environmental impact statement, it is important that people realise the EIS was a document that was mentioned. We are talking about stitching it into the contractual documentation in a firmer way because the contractors, when they got into difficulties, began to raise all manner of problems, and this was one of them. It is right that it should be improved at this stage.

In regard to sludge and the issues the Chairman raised about the storage of the material in Carlow, there is a subcontractor to the main contractor in Ringsend. A requirement of that contract, as of all other contracts, is that all the participants comply with the statutory requirements in regard to storage, distribution and all the activities involved in the contract. There is a dispute in Carlow about whether the storage area complies with relevant planning permissions. The local District Court held, following the initiation of proceedings by Carlow County Council, that the planning permission for the facility was satisfactory. That decision was appealed to the High Court, as we understand it, on the basis of a private appeal. Our current information is that a decision on that has not yet been made. That contract has been in place since 1999 and is due to expire in 2010.

We will be commencing the procurement process in the next couple of months in order to identify and enter into contractual arrangements in respect of the position after 2010. While the outlet to agricultural land has worked — we believe very satisfactorily — in the past eight or nine years, it is clear that with the changes emerging, particularly those relating to the co-firing of materials in cement furnaces, etc., there are possibilities that solutions other than the application of biosolids to land may arise during the procurement process. We have already received initial inquiries regarding possible other outlets. We will discover more during the course of the year.

The outlet to land is becoming more difficult for a variety of reasons, not least among which is the requirement for land for agricultural sludge. We are competing in that regard as a result. An extremely strict regime governs the application of biosolids to land and a number of requirements must be met. We monitor those requirements on a regular basis to ensure that contractors, distributors, farmers and everyone else complies with them. We do that independently.

The final point I wish to make is that as a result of these protocols, etc., it is quite an expensive operation. Even though farmers inform us that they like using this material and want it to be supplied, we do not receive much income from it. While it is a good environmental solution, it is expensive. We are hoping that we might obtain a solution which might be more economically advantageous to local authorities. The process to which I refer will be ongoing throughout the year.

Chairman

When does the contract expire?

Mr. Matt Twomey

In 2010.

Chairman

I take a slightly stronger view in respect of this matter and I suggest that every public body should follow my lead. Dublin City Council pays the full rate to the main contractor at the Ringsend plant. If that contractor is not in a position to confirm that the sludge has been disposed of in compliance with the planning legislation, the council should withhold part of the payment until such time as such confirmation is forthcoming. Mr. Twomey appears to be stating that this matter has been ongoing since 1999. As far as I am concerned, the final part of the contract resides in somewhat of a grey area. A public body such as the council should be in a position to receive confirmation from the contractor that the sludge has been disposed of in compliance with the planning legislation. Until that confirmation can be provided, part of the payment should be withheld.

Mr. Matt Twomey

The Chairman may have misunderstood what I said.

Chairman

Perhaps, but that is what I understood Mr. Twomey to have indicated.

Mr. Matt Twomey

Litigation took place and the owner was successful in that regard. We cannot inform him that he is in breach of the planning legislation. As already stated, a local resident has appealed the matter to the High Court. In legal terms, the answer to the question is that——

Chairman

Does the contractor have planning permission for this purpose?

Mr. Matt Twomey

Yes.

Chairman

That is fair enough. Local sources indicated to me that the position was different but I accept what Mr. Twomey has stated. I was not quite sure of the position.

Mr. Matt Twomey

I apologise if I misled the Chairman.

Chairman

There is no problem. Local residents have also informed me about an issue relating to heavy metals. Perhaps Dr. Kelly might comment in that regard.

Dr. Mary Kelly

I will ask Mr. Lynott to comment on the issue of heavy metals as it relates to Wexford.

Mr. Dara Lynott

If, under the land application of sludge regulations, one wishes to spread sludge from a waste water treatment plant on one's land, it must be tested for a certain number of metals. This requirement must be met prior to its being recovered onto land. One must then recover it in accordance with a nutrient management plan. In general, a subcontractor applies to a local authority to obtain permission to spread the material on lands within its remit. The authority would prove, through testing, that the requirements relating to metals have been met.

We were not directly involved with what happened in Wexford. However, I understand that Wexford County Council was not satisfied with the manner in which some of the sludge was being recovered and issued a section 55 notice under the Waste Management Act directing the contractor to take a certain number of actions to deal with it. I do not have the details of that notice in my possession.

Chairman

Has the EPA ever compiled a report relating to complaints about the presence of heavy metals?

Mr. Dara Lynott

No. Dr. Kelly referred earlier to our report on waste water treatment plants which is due to be published this year. The report tries to estimate the quantities of sludge that are generated by waste water treatment plants and refers to the regulations I mentioned. As far as I am aware, we have not carried out any studies which would confirm increased levels of metals in soils on which sludge has been spread.

Mr. Matt Twomey

Nutrient management plans are prepared in respect of all the lands to which it is proposed to apply biosolids. In the past, the lands on one farm were identified as having metal excedences. However, no applications were made to that farm. When the nutrient management plans were examined, those responsible considered the entire testing arrangement and not merely the lands to which biosolids were applied. For example, biosolids cannot be applied to some lands in Kildare as a result of an excess of cadmium in the soil. The nutrient management plans encompass the assessment. The application is monitored using GIS and so forth in order that we can verify that material which was supposed to be applied to a particular field was in fact applied. The protocols are extremely tight.

Mr. Brendan Fehily

I was the author of a national study on sludge, compiled in 1993, which gave rise to the debate on the application of sludge to land. One of the findings of that study was that, in general terms, the level of heavy metals in Irish sewage sludges was very low and was not a cause of concern. Nevertheless, the checks and balances to which Mr. Twomey referred remain in place.

Chairman

We have had a useful debate on this matter. I thank everyone involved, Mr. Fehily and the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the EPA and Dublin City Council, in coming before the committee to assist it in dealing with this important issue.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 January 2009.