1. National Urban Waste Water Study (Covers catchments with a population equivalent of 2,000 or more outside the Greater Dublin Area) Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government National Urban Waste Water Study

2. Objectives & Deliverables

3. Study Objectives  Capture and analyse all readily available data  Assess scheme capacities & future shortfalls / excesses  Identify future network investigation needs and costs  Assess management and maintenance practices  Make recommendations for targeting investment & monitoring performance

4. Specific Deliverables  National Report plus Executive Summary  County Reports (26) including 170 individual Catchment Reports  Assessment Methodologies  Development Guidelines  Database and Geographic Information System  Cost estimates for future network survey & analysis

5. Project Management

6. Team Structure Joint Venture Region 1 E G Pettit Region 2 J B Barry Region 3 White Young Green Babtie Project Management Peer Review Group Steering Committee

7. Regional Management Barry & Partners White Young Green Pettit & Company

8.  Nov 01- Apr 02: Pilot study to test questionnaire approach  May 02 – Oct 02: Questionnaire survey  Nov 02 – Apr 03: Draft the catchment reports  May 03– Nov 03: Validate & finalise catchment reports  Dec 03 – Apr 04: Draft the county & national reports Programme of Work

9. Data Management  Data collection questionnaires issued to each county  Data collection team visited county staff & treatment plant  Questionnaires populated 200,000 cell database  Analysis presented in 170 catchment reports  County/catchment reports: 20,000 key output numbers  National report: 200 key output numbers

10.  Questionnaires reviewed by JV with LA staff at the time the data was compiled  Key values checked against industry average values or standard estimates  JV quality management procedures applied  Reports reviewed by LA staff and/or DEHLG  Comments considered by JV teams - reports amended as necessary & finalised Audit & Verification Process

11.  High level of commitment to NUWWS by LA staff  LA operator knowledge of unrecorded assets  Web sites for environmental & population data  Detailed verification by LAs & DEHLG Key Success Factors

12. Report Structure

13. Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Findings (7 items) 4 Recommendations (10 items) (10 page document complete with CD Rom of whole report)

14. National Report 1 Introduction 2 Method of Approach 3 The Catchments 4 Environmental Factors 5 Sewerage System 6 Waste Water Treatment 7 Sludge Disposal 8 Database & GIS 9 Guidelines 10 Cost Estimates

15. Appendices A Method of Approach Questionnaires, Network statistics Flow & load assessment Receiving waters & treatment plant capacity Network survey requirements B Database & GIS User manual – a guide to accessing & updating information C Development Guidelines Asset inventory & valuation Investment prioritisation Network rehabilitation practices D Cost Estimates

16. County Reports 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Catchment Report Summaries Appendices The Brief Catchment Reports 1 The Catchment 2 Environment Factors 3 Sewerage System 4 Waste Water Treatment 5 Sludge Treatment

17. Catchment Reports 1 The Catchments Areas, planning targets & population projections 2 Environmental Factors Receiving water characteristics, flows & loads 3 Sewerage System Asset inventory & network integrity audit Operational management Surveys & investigations, performance & capacity 4 Waste Water Treatment Process & inventory, condition performance & capacity Operational management, Upgrading requirements 5 Sludge Disposal

18. Report figures: network layout

19. Report figures: Treatment works

20. Data Deficiencies (Assessed from data collection exercise)

21.  Flow & load assessed for the following sectors: - Domestic - Industrial - Commercial Wastewater Flow and Load - Institutional - Tourism  Domestic population figures frequently open to question  Non-domestic flow & load data frequently incomplete

22.  Up to date network plans frequently not available  Combined sewer overflow records suggest there may be many unlisted overflows  Little reliable data on overall structural condition  Almost no information on frequency of storm events causing flooding Sewerage System

23.  Monitoring of effluent load frequently did not conform to statutory requirements  Flow & load records frequently of limited value as they did not identify dry weather flow periods  Water quality & stream flow data not available for all sites Treatment Plant

24. Some National Findings

25. Sewerage Network Assets Finding One  Little detailed knowledge for some 40% of networks  40% of networks have no recorded overflows !  Indicative network quantities : - 5,900km of Sewers & Rising Mains - 480 Combined Sewer Overflows - 640 Pump Stations

26. Performance of Network  89% of networks reported one or more failures as below  Frequency of failures not commonly known ! - 17% of catchments reported property flooding - 72% of catchments reported flooding of environs - 42% of catchments reported structural failures - 56% of catchments reported watercourse pollution Finding Two

27. Receiving Waters  Assimilative capacity of 111 receiving water assessed  86% of receiving waters found to have restricted capacity - 76% due to Phosphate levels - 29% due to BOD levels Finding Three

28. Some Recommendations

29.  Update the network records & plans  Confirm condition of networks & ancillaries  Monitor/record network performance/incidents Understand Sewer Network Recommendation One

30.  Upgrade sampling of treatment plant effluents  Locate all combined sewer overflows  Install monitoring devices on key overflows Receiving Waters – Quality Monitoring Recommendation Two

31.  Compile & maintain accurate asset records  Understand the condition of the core assets  Compile & maintain reliable performance data Key Issues: Summary

32. Thank you all Ian Aikman Project Manager End of storey so far…… Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government National Urban Waste Water Study

33. Footnote As of 12 August, Babtie Group became part of the Jacobs group of companies and is now known as Jacobs Babtie