Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Mutton Island Sewage Plant

Options
  • 01-05-2014 3:01pm
    #1
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Reading a recent article about water standards in coastal areas, I was reminded of the Mutton Island controversy of the 1990s which was more circulatory than the roving slicks of excrement that roamed the Bay. For our younger readers, 8 million gallons of raw sewage was being pumped daily into the Bay in the absence of any kind of adequate treatment plant and given the nature of the Bay, it tended to hang around.

    Looking back, it's hard to see how there was any legitimate opposition to the scheme; the visual intrusion is minimal, there's no smell from the plant, the water quality in the Bay has improved beyond belief and the causeway itself has become part of the walking infrastructure of the City. Architectural tours take in the old Lighthouse on the Island so even up close the presence of the plant doesn't offend.

    It's also unthinkable that we would have been able to proceed without the scheme given the level of growth in the City and the likelihood that subsequent legislation would have entailed massive fines being accrued. Indeed, given that the Mutton Island plant was upgraded during the "boom years" to take into account the City's growth, it's hard to see how one of the alternatives would have been expanded as easily.

    So I fired up the Irish Times archive to see what was the thinking at the time.

    A group called Save Galway Bay (chairman Michael O'Flaherty) were proposing a land based plant in Lough Atalia (on the site of the derelict isolation hospital), threatening (through secretary Derek Hambleton) to take the relevant Minister (then Brendan Howlin) to the CJEU, arguing amongst other things that the famous Habitats Directive (not transposed into Irish Law at the time, but possibly overdue) was violated. It is doubtful that such group would have locus standi to do so but the Commission was prepared at one stage to instigate proceedings.

    A funding row also occurred with the EU wishing to withhold Structural and Cohesion Fund money due to the location, with the Commission being of the view that a mainland location should be chosen. Labour Councillors (and indeed Michael D) at times floated the compromise idea of a Mutton Island plant, but built underground with no causeway, like some kind of lair for the worst James Bond villain ever.

    Parallel to this, An Taisce were objecting to other developments on the basis that without Mutton Island being operational, the sewage problem would be compounded.

    High Court proceedings were brought by SGB through Claddagh based actor Ray McBride seeking to halt the request for tenders to construct the plant and causeway. This action failed and he was landed with reported costs of £160,000. At this point, SGB appeared to cut McBride loose:
    On the appeal issue, Mr Hambleton said: "It is not our decision. The case was in the name of Ray McBride. Ultimately, it's his decision. Naturally, we support our members".

    Pending the Supreme Court appeal, the sewage problem continued and £885,000 was sought to move the outflow pipe further out into the bay. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the scheme in 1998 and there was talk of "eco warriors" occupying the island to prevent construction.

    Tenders were signed in spring 1998 and construction was underway on the causeway until a land dispute arose between the estate of Henry Grattan and the Council. This was resolved (I believe through spending more money) and construction recommenced.

    Dire predictions followed in a letter to the Times by "Galway Native" Tom Conroy, writing from Dublin 6 that:
    The responsibility for this mess lies with Galway Corporation's flawed and stubborn patterns of thinking - as it will in five years' time when the plant may need to be expanded, at escalating cost, and the citizenry realise the full impact of the visual and olfactory pollution; as it will in 20 years' time when future citizens and visitors to Galway will be amazed at such costly environmental blunders that have destroyed the very reasons that made the city worth seeing and living in.

    Construction was completed in May 2004 and the upgrade work approved by ABP in 2007.

    So, nearly 20 years and over €60 million on, is anyone in agreement with the above predictions of Tom Conroy or perhaps Margaret Cox (whose late father, Tom Cox, helped establish SGB) that "it is the greatest mistake ever made in the development of Galway"?

    I acknowledge the possibility that this will "inspire" a piece in one of the local rags so knock yourselves out you plagiarising, press release recycling hacks.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ronnie3585
    Registered Users Posts: 6,675 ✭✭✭ronnie3585


    Great article!

    I too remember the loss of the Blue Flags in Galway and the roaring debate around the proposed use of Mutton Island. However, I was a young'un so I didn't realise it had become so litigious - thanks for that info, very interesting.

    I think the treatment plant is one of the best infrastructure/services projects ever undertaken by the city. The treament plant is completely unobtrusive and provides a benifit to the city and county that is so great, it is difficult to quantify.

    Perhaps in 100 years when (if?) there is finally another bridge across the Corrib, people will look at it in the same light as we view Mutton Island, wondering what all that fuss was about and how would they live without it.


  • Options
    #3
    Red Pepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Red Pepper


    Maybe I got it wrong but I heard that Mutton Island was at 100% capacity the day it was commissioned and that we continue to pour the excess poo into the bay?


  • Options
    #4
    Aerohead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 688 ✭✭✭Aerohead


    Out at Salthill last weekend and I have to say the colour of the water was brilliant, it was crystal clear and blue in colour compared to before the plant went into operation when you could see and smell the sewerage which was clinging to rocks and coming onto the beaches, sure how many of ye got a bit of s...e in your mouth while swimming at Salthill.

    Now if we could only get the dog walkers to remove their pets poo from the prom it would be clean both in and out of the water.


  • Options
    #5
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    The treatment plant has been at full capacity for quite a few years now. I have been told (off the record, so no source, independent corroboration or other evidence to back it up) that after heavy rain the volume of run-off means that the plant has to be 'flushed' into the sea.

    I've been out to Mutton Island, and up close it stinks. Around five years ago I ventured to suggest to some residents of this terrace that odour was not a problem and their response was something along the lines of "why don't you try living here".

    In my opinion the treatment plant, and the causeway out to it, is a visual intrusion. The old lighthouse in its original state was a beautiful and iconic landmark on the bay. The sewage treatment plant is, literally and figuratively, a sh1tty replacement. I wonder what Joe Boske would make of it now.

    IIRC I was out of the country during the controversy, so I'm not au fait with all the details. However, my general recollection is that SGB and others were not against a sewage treatment plant, as some Straw Man ninjas like to claim, but against the selection of Mutton Island as the location, for a variety of reasons.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it was also claimed at the time that a major (undeclared) reason for choosing Mutton Island was that the required causeway would be of benefit as a breakwater (or whatever it's called) to people with a vested interest in the harbour area. Given what those private interests are now pursuing that original notion may not have been wildly speculative.

    Is it "the greatest mistake ever made in the development of Galway"? Given the many fine messes created by the dysfunctional cryptocracy in City Hall, it's quite hard to say for sure where Mutton Island ranks on the list. But it's on that list somewhere, in my opinion.

    lighthouse.jpg

    03.jpg


  • Options
    #6
    Red Pepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Red Pepper


    wow that is a hell of a poo factory!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Just found this by chance while Googling info about Mutton Island.

    The idea of Galway County Council criticising Galway City Council's planning record is rather amusing, like hearing Sinead O'Connor question John Water's sanity.
    Let county run city!

    A CALL was made for the abolition of Galway City Council and for the entire county to be administrated from one central authority based at County Hall, at a meeting of Galway Co Council this week.

    The City Council was accused of consistently failing to live up to its responsibility in important areas such as waste disposal and now waste water treatment and leaving the Co Council to clean up its mess.

    The call was made after the Co Council members were informed that the city's sewage treatment plan at Mutton Island was close to capacity and there was an urgent need for a new plant to be built in the county area if planned economic developments were not to be stopped in their tracks.

    ...

    Fianna Fail Cllr Tomas Mannion stated bluntly that the Mutton Island treatment plant had been a "cop out" by the City Council and it was inevitable that the Co Council would have to step in and bail them out.

    He added that the City Council had never lived up to its responsibilities as far as waste disposal, sludge and now waste water was concerned and it was time to recognise what was obvious to all “that one local authority was all Co Galway needed and that authority should be Galway Co Council."

    When asked by Mayor Jimmy McClearn to clarify his position and whether he wanted to see the abolition of a local authority for the city, Cllr Mannion said no, but he "hoped they could find something useful to do with themselves." However he favoured the Co Council having overall authority of the city, arguing that they were taking the lion's share of responsibility as things stood.

    ...

    Engineer Padraic Fogarty said the new plant was critical to achieving the development objectives for the region, adding that the economic slowdown provided the opportunity to get matters quickly to construction stage.

    He warned that Mutton Island could only cope in the short-term but would not be up to meeting medium or long-term needs as the plant did not have the necessary capacity.

    Without a new plant, economic growth in Galway would come to a standstill and have a serious impact on the jobs situation.

    Many Co Councillors are still aggrieved that the City Council never lived up to its commitment to build a waste incinerator when it was agreed to locate the county's only landfill dump near Ballinasloe.

    It was acknowledged that any future development of Galway city will be in Co Council controlled areas and co-operation between the two authorities is vital in this regard.

    http://www.tuamherald.ie/news/roundup/articles/2014/03/28/4022261-let-county-run-city/print#sthash.bczUL6CF.dpuf


  • Options
    #8
    buzz11
    Registered Users Posts: 749 ✭✭✭buzz11


    Indeed the water quality in Galway Bay is much improved and you can see water activities getting more popular in recent years.

    I never understood how a small number of people could justify holding up the facility on the basis of 'visual' issues when the toxins coming from their own a*s was polluting the environment around them.


  • Options
    #9
    Naux
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭Naux


    I'm glad it was built. You will always have some people that will try to block improvements/development.

    That said, smell is always an issue no matter where you build one of those plants and I feel sorry for the affected residents.

    Hope they develop the Harbour........ Harbour + Outer ring Road would enhance the city greatly.


  • Options
    #10
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ‘Poor’ rating for Galway beaches

    http://galwayindependent.com/20140501/news/poor-rating-for-galway-beaches-S37160.html

    Two Galway beaches are among just three coastal bathing areas nationally that have failed to meet EU standards in relation to water quality.

    Ballyloughane Beach, Renmore and Clifden Beach join Dugort, Achill, Co. Mayo and the inland Lilliput Beach at Lough Ennell, Co. Westmeath as the four bathing areas rated ‘poor’ in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ‘The Quality of Bathing Water in Ireland – An Overview for the Year 2013’ report, launched today.

    Assessors monitored bathing water at 135 popular sites throughout the 2013 bathing season for two microbiological parameters, E.Coli and Intestinal Enterococci. Just three per cent achieved a ‘poor’ rating, with the remaining 97 per cent achieving ‘sufficient’ or ‘good’ status.

    According to the report, Clifden beach “continues to be subject to episodic pollution by the local Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent but work is now underway on improvements to the sewage infrastructure and treatment plant which it is hoped will bring about an improvement in water quality over the coming years and allow the beach to be reopened”.

    Ballyloughane, meanwhile, “experienced two pollution incidents, one of which resulted in E.Coli exceeding the mandatory value” during 2013.

    In addition to Clifden and Ballyloughane, water quality at Grattan Road Beach, Spiddal’s Trá na mBan, and Trá na bhForbacha was identified as being of ‘sufficient’ status, but having “the potential to be of less than sufficient status” in the report.

    Traught Beach in Kinvara was also found to be "exhibiting periodic pollution events" which could influence its overall status.

    However, Traught, in addition to An Trá Mór, Indreabhán; Loughrea Lake; Portumna bathing place; Cill Mhuirbhigh, Inis Mór; Goirtín, Cloch Na Rón; Trá an Dóilín, Carraroe and Trá Chaladh Fínis, Carna, received a ‘good’ rating in the report.

    The report is available to download at www.epa.ie/pubs.

    At present, the inlet pumping arrangements and probe settings at Mutton Island are such that the Inlet 1800mm diameter pipe is always partly full. The modelling work has identified however that this results in significant surcharging of trunk sewers in the approaches to the causeway sewers, and it also results in losses at upstream backwatered Combined Sewer Overflows.

    http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b2801f5c71.pdf



    A question for the OP and others: if you build a city's sewage treatment plant on a small island, and if your single causeway-contained 1.8m diameter inlet pipe is "always partly full", and if storm-water runoff causes euphemistic "losses" upstream in the sewerage, and if "storm water" has to be discharged into Galway Bay on occasion, how do you go about upgrading your treatment plant to cope with the expansion of the city?


  • Options
    #11
    dilallio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭dilallio


    Slightly off-topic, but does anyone remember the boat in the docks which stunk up Galway for a few weeks. I'm guessing the mid to late nineties. I think it was rotting fish in the hold of a boat which had been seized or something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Bogsnorkler
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭Bogsnorkler


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I have been told (off the record, so no source, independent corroboration or other evidence to back it up) that after heavy rain the volume of run-off means that the plant has to be 'flushed' into the sea.

    I've also heard this off record. However if this washout happened the treatment plant would be out of action for weeks if not months so as to get the secondary treatment back up and running.

    Having said that based on your quote from the EPA, it does appear that the overflow storage capacity has been undersized, which I suppose is leading to these storm flow events (which are not that uncommon, every WWTP has this as a safety valve, or damaging as the storm flow itself typically dilutes the waste water to a level where there is unlikey to be much of a health impact).


  • Options
    #13
    Spring Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭Spring Onion


    Bogsnorkler wrote: »
    I've also heard this off record. However if this washout happened the treatment plant would be out of action for weeks if not months so as to get the secondary treatment back up and running.

    Having said that based on your quote from the EPA, it does appear that the overflow storage capacity has been undersized, which I suppose is leading to these storm flow events (which are not that uncommon, every WWTP has this as a safety valve, or damaging as the storm flow itself typically dilutes the waste water to a level where there is unlikey to be much of a health impact).

    What is bog snorkling like?


  • Options
    #14
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Bogsnorkler wrote: »
    I've also heard this off record. However if this washout happened the treatment plant would be out of action for weeks if not months so as to get the secondary treatment back up and running.

    Having said that based on your quote from the EPA, it does appear that the overflow storage capacity has been undersized, which I suppose is leading to these storm flow events (which are not that uncommon, every WWTP has this as a safety valve, or damaging as the storm flow itself typically dilutes the waste water to a level where there is unlikey to be much of a health impact).



    "Unofficially" might have been a more appropriate term. I've done a bit of enquiring since the OP resurrected the Mutton Island story. It seems that what is happening is that Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs in the documentation linked earlier) fill up the sole 1.8m diameter inflow pipe to the Mutton Island treatment plant. At some point valves open in the pipe to relieve pressure, discharging effluent. I gather that CSOs are a well-recognised cause of water pollution, and CSO discharges are not required to be monitored.

    Interestingly enough, the EPA report (The quality of bathing water in Ireland 2013) mentions the source of pollution in Clifden, Lough Ennell and Achill, but apart from some general references to weather it does not suggest what the cause of contamination might have been in the case of Ballyloughane and Grattan Beach. It's just there, somehow.

    The treatment capacity of the Mutton Island WWTP is for a population equivalent (PE) of 91,000. The proposed upgrade will increase capacity to 170,000 PE. Meanwhile, the population of the city is 75,000. There are 25,000 students, and thousands of people commute to work in the city every working day. And it rains an awful lot, apparently. Do the math, as they say in the States.

    The level of treatment depends on a number of factors, and one major limiting factor is the space available:
    The treatment plant site at Mutton Island is surrounded by a wave wall, which set tight horizontal and vertical constraints in relation to any possible upgrade.

    http://www.nodwyer.com/galway%20main%20drainage.pdf

    So, to reframe my earlier question, in the context set by the OP, where is there space on Mutton Island for expansion?

    03.jpg


  • Options
    #15
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Iwannahurl wrote: »


    So, to reframe my earlier question, in the context set by the OP, where is there space on Mutton Island for expansion?

    03.jpg

    Why are you asking that question when they are already planning to almost double capacity?
    Also alot of your points presume that the plant at the second location would have been built to a different spec, what are you basing this on. Do you know for instance that a bigger pipe would have been used, or it would have been built for a bigger population size. And finally I'm pretty sure the alternative location would have smelled also.


  • Options
    #16
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Why are you asking that question when they are already planning to almost double capacity?

    Also alot of your points presume that the plant at the second location would have been built to a different spec, what are you basing this on. Do you know for instance that a bigger pipe would have been used, or it would have been built for a bigger population size. And finally I'm pretty sure the alternative location would have smelled also.


    I suspect the smell is universal!

    How much of the increased capacity is being gained through expansion of the Mutton Island WWTP?

    What was the capacity limitation inherent in the choice of Mutton Island as the site for the WWTP?


  • Options
    #17
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I suspect the smell is universal!

    How much of the increased capacity is being gained through expansion of the Mutton Island WWTP?

    What was the capacity limitation inherent in the choice of Mutton Island as the site for the WWTP?

    I would presume that it all was, do you know different?

    I don't know to second question, do you?

    What about the alternative site, do you know that a different pipe would have been used, or that it would have been built for a bigger pop then 95k? Also do you know the answer to your second question wrt the other site?


  • Options
    #18
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    whatstherush wrote: »
    I would presume that it all was, do you know different?

    I don't know to second question, do you?

    From the tender notice for the upgrade:
    The upgrade works are expected to be by means of alterations to the existing process as the current site is highly constrained.

    ...

    The site is constrained, being on a island [sic], and so the upgrade of the WWTW is expected to be by means of alterations to existing processes with some upgrade to the hydraulic capacity.

    Unlike the OP I am not in a position to search the Irish Times archive. Therefore I can only speculate regarding the likelihood that the original proposers of Mutton Island ever described their preferred island site as "highly constrained".

    Would that term have been a good selling point at the time, do you think?


  • Options
    #19
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    From the tender notice for the upgrade:



    Unlike the OP I am not in a position to search the Irish Times archive. Therefore I can only speculate regarding the likelihood that the original proposers of Mutton Island ever described their preferred site as "highly constrained".

    Would that term have been a good selling point at the time, do you think?

    So in answer to your question the capacity is being nearly doubled using the existing site, by using a more efficient process. This is a problem why?

    And you don't know anything about the second site which may have had all the issues you listed re pipe size and initial capacity.

    So twenty years later what do you think Galway bay hasn't being saved from?


  • Options
    #20
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    whatstherush wrote: »
    So in answer to your question the capacity is being nearly doubled using the existing site, by using a more efficient process. This is a problem why?


    Using more efficient processes is commendable. It's also their only option, along with modifications to the sewerage upstream in order to take the pressure off. There are also strategic proposals for "longer-term redirection [of other inflows, such as those from Oranmore] to a different focal point and a different WWTP."


    Robbo wrote: »
    it's hard to see how one of the alternatives would have been expanded as easily.

    Would you say the original proposers of Mutton Island made much of the fact that their chosen site, being an island, was "highly constrained"?

    Would you say that a highly constrained island site was the best choice?

    That was one of the arguments put forward by opponents of the Mutton Island site in the first place. Were they wrong?

    And were they wrong also when they said that a major motivation for the selection of Mutton Island was that the causeway would act as a breakwater, thereby serving the commercial interests of those desiring an expansion of Galway Harbour?


  • Options
    #21
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Using more efficient processes is commendable. It's also their only option, along with modifications to the sewerage upstream in order to take the pressure off. There are also strategic proposals for "longer-term redirection [of other inflows, such as those from Oranmore] to a different focal point and a different WWTP."
    Again whose to say the same modifications wouldn't have been made to the alternative site. Can you imagine the uproar by Derick and an taisce et al, if the council had said that they were doubling the capacity of the other site by doubling it's footprint instead of using a more efficient process.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Would you say the original proposers of Mutton Island made much of the fact that their chosen site, being an island, was "highly constrained"?

    Would you say that a highly constrained island site was the best choice?

    That was one of the arguments put forward by opponents of the Mutton Island site in the first place. Were they wrong?

    And were they wrong also when they said that a major motivation for the selection of Mutton Island was that the causeway would act as a breakwater, thereby serving the commercial interests of those desiring an expansion of Galway Harbour?
    But the site isn't highly constrained in terms of the only thing that matters, which is capacity. Why would they highlight something that's not an issue? If they are doubling the capacity at the site, what exactly is wrong with it? Do you foresee the pop going above 175k anytime soon.

    As for the break water this is just innuendo. I'm not an engineer, but it would be the first break water I've seen with holes in it. Have the latest plans for the new harbour stated that the causeway has some benefit to their plans, are they not building a breakwater as part of their plans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Double post


  • Options
    #23
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Again whose to say the same modifications wouldn't have been made to the alternative site. Can you imagine the uproar by Derick and an taisce et al, if the council had said that they were doubling the capacity of the other site by doubling it's footprint instead of using a more efficient process.

    I don't believe anyone -- not even the much-maligned SGB -- argued against sewage treatment. Furthermore, I doubt anyone would argue that expansion and improved efficiency would not be necessary or desirable over time.

    Therefore the main issue is the choice of site, and the consequences of that decision.

    I refer you again to the OP, which is why this thread exists:
    Robbo wrote: »
    Indeed, given that the Mutton Island plant was upgraded during the "boom years" to take into account the City's growth, it's hard to see how one of the alternatives would have been expanded as easily.

    I can't recall the particular "boom years" upgrade mentioned by the OP. Perhaps someone else can provide a link/source.

    However, the OP makes a specific claim suggesting that Mutton Island was, or is, "easily expandable". The official record directly contradicts this notion: the site is highly constrained, "being on a island".

    I repeat my earlier question: why choose "a island" in the first place?

    whatstherush wrote: »
    But the site isn't highly constrained in terms of the only thing that matters, which is capacity. Why would they highlight something that's not an issue? If they are doubling the capacity at the site, what exactly is wrong with it? Do you foresee the pop going above 175k anytime soon.

    Are you claiming that the site itself -- ie the WWTP on Mutton Island -- can be modified in such a way as to increase capacity from 92000PE to 170,000PE? If so, have you a source for that assertion?

    Can you also address the issue of how the highly constrained Mutton Island WWTP is creating major problems for the county? See this earlier post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90190439&postcount=7

    Also, on that note, can you comment on the possibility that another WWTP will have to be constructed sooner or later because Mutton Island, even after upgrade, will not be sufficient?

    whatstherush wrote: »
    As for the break water this is just innuendo. I'm not an engineer, but it would be the first break water I've seen with holes in it. Have the latest plans for the new harbour stated that the causeway has some benefit to their plans, are they not building a breakwater as part of their plans.

    Excerpt from the Galway Harbour Extension Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary:
    A simulation was also carried out assuming the Mutton Island causeway to be completely submerged by 200-year Tide with Sea level Rise (4.635 m O.D. Malin). It would then be covered by over 1m of water depth. A westerly deepwater design wave of 4 m significant wave height was applied to the model. The simulation shows that the Mutton Island Causeway would under these submerged conditions break the storm waves and dissipate much of its energy and thus provide protection to the westerly face of the proposed development even under submerged conditions.


  • Options
    #24
    bonzodog2
    Registered Users Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭bonzodog2


    I would have thought the site could be expanded fairly easily with a couple of hundred trucks full of rocks.


  • Options
    #25
    whatstherush
    Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I don't believe anyone -- not even the much-maligned SGB -- argued against sewage treatment.
    Who said they did, so far in this thread your the only one who has brought this up. Every reply from me has mentioned an alternative site, which I thought you would have known was the one proposed by SGB.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Furthermore, I doubt anyone would argue that expansion and improved efficiency would not be necessary or desirable over time.
    Again nothing to do with what you quoted from me, I was merely making the point that in a choice between increasing the capacity of the "alternative Site", by increased efficiency of existing site or increase the size of the plant, I think we know which side An Taisce would come down on. So any ancillary issues you quote with this change would exist with the other site too.


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    However, the OP makes a specific claim suggesting that Mutton Island was, or is, "easily expandable". The official record directly contradicts this notion: the site is highly constrained, "being on a island".

    I repeat my earlier question: why choose "a island" in the first place?




    Are you claiming that the site itself -- ie the WWTP on Mutton Island -- can be modified in such a way as to increase capacity from 92000PE to 170,000PE? If so, have you a source for that assertion?
    This is the second time you asked this, and I said I presumed all the increase was in the plant and asked if you knew different, which you didn't really reply to. Also the first line in the tender you linked states "This Scheme involves the upgrade of the existing Mutton Island WWTP from its current design capacity of 91,600 PE to 170,000 PE". Am I missing something in this statement, Is it not stating that the design capacity of mutton Island WWTP will be increased from 91k to 170k:confused: And if I'm not reading this wrong, what is wrong with the current site, if they can nearly double the capacity on the existing footprint.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Can you also address the issue of how the highly constrained Mutton Island WWTP is creating major problems for the county? See this earlier post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90190439&postcount=7
    Can you clarify what the major problems are from your previous post, and state how an alternatively located WWTP would have alleviated them.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Also, on that note, can you comment on the possibility that another WWTP will have to be constructed sooner or later because Mutton Island, even after upgrade, will not be sufficient?
    I can't because I don't what your basing this on, How high is the possibility, over what time frame, who is making this suggestion?


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Excerpt from the Galway Harbour Extension Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary:

    Ok this is fair enough, but when you say it is too the benefit of commercial interests can you expand on this and was this one of points originally raised by SGB as I don't recall it.

    Also as an aside, do you know is the location of the new harbour at the proposed location for alternative site by SGB, I know its in that general area but I mean specifically.


  • Options
    #26
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    bonzodog2 wrote: »
    I would have thought the site could be expanded fairly easily with a couple of hundred trucks full of rocks.

    Indeed well this is what they did when it was actually built, anyone living in Galway at the time remembers the huge amount of trucks going in and out with rock fill.

    If you look at the aerial photo and compare it to Ordance Survey map (particulary the 25" from 1912) it's obviously that half the footprint of the plant is on land reclaimed from the sea.

    1995 OS photo:
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,529784,723235,7,5

    2000 OS photo: (work in progress)
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,529784,723235,7,4

    2005 OS photo:
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,529784,723235,7,0

    25" map (published in 1912 -- surveyed in 1893 in case of Mutton Island!!)
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,529677,723213,7,9

    The 6" map which was surveyed in 1840 is even more telling, the site of plant was Shingle (probably covered at high water)
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,529630,723233,7,7


  • Options
    #27
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Of course I should mention that the first time a causeway to Mutton Island was proposed was back in the 1820's to prevent silting of the harbour. Of course back in 1900's there was a proposal to turn Rusheen Bay into a harbour (ala Dún Laoghaire) with it's own specific railway branch (using the pre-existing Shantalla "branch" off the Clifden line as a start)


  • Options
    #28
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    bonzodog2 wrote: »
    I would have thought the site could be expanded fairly easily with a couple of hundred trucks full of rocks.


    Would you care to make a prediction in this thread that they are going to do exactly that, ie enlarge Mutton Island by adding some reclaimed land? :)

    Of course the notion that the site could be/would have to be expanded with "a couple of hundred trucks full of rocks" again raises the basic question: why choose an island site to begin with?


  • Options
    #29
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Would you care to make a prediction in this thread that they are going to do exactly that, ie enlarge Mutton Island by adding some reclaimed land? :)

    Of course the notion that the site could be/would have to be expanded with "a couple of hundred trucks full of rocks" again raises the basic question: why choose an island site to begin with?

    Same reason why Poolbeg treatment plant was put on a manmade peninsula, the land is cheap (already in state ownership) plus it's not right in middle of a residential area. Only other viable site in center of Galway would have been the old isolation hospital. Of course the Harbour Company were against that as they ended up building a connecting bridge, demolishing the Isolation hospital and built the "Harbour Enterprise Park" (Part of which also involved landfill/reclaimation)

    1995 (isolation hospital still standing)
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,530507,724782,7,5

    vs. 2005 (use Google for more recent)
    http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,530507,724782,7,0


  • Options
    #30
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Unfortunately I can't see those OSI images so I'll take your word for it.

    The OP seems to be under the impression that Mutton Island WWTW was upgraded "during the boom years". I can't recall that upgrade, though I do know that An Bord Pleanala gave clearance for such a development in 2007. That's still in the pipeline, as it were, and the "expansion" of the system is part of the current City Development Plan:

    One element of the long term [waste water] strategy for Galway City and adjacent Galway County Council area is the provision of a new Galway East WWTW located in the general Oranmore/Athenry area. This facility will service undeveloped lands to the east including Ardaun and alleviate future capacity constraints on the existing network by allowing flows, which are currently treated at Mutton Island WWTW, to be diverted to the Galway East WWTW. This project is being carried out in collaboration with Galway County Council.


    Emphasis added by me. That brings us back to the issue of original site selection and its consequent limitations, as recently highlighted, for example, in the Tuam Herald report I quoted earlier:
    The City Council was accused of consistently failing to live up to its responsibility in important areas such as waste disposal and now waste water treatment and leaving the Co Council to clean up its mess.

    County Council members were informed that the city's sewage treatment plan at Mutton Island was close to capacity and there was an urgent need for a new plant to be built in the county area if planned economic developments were not to be stopped in their tracks.

    Fianna Fail Cllr Tomas Mannion stated bluntly that the Mutton Island treatment plant had been a "cop out" by the City Council and it was inevitable that the Co Council would have to step in and bail them out.

    He added that the City Council had never lived up to its responsibilities as far as waste disposal, sludge and now waste water was concerned and it was time to recognise what was obvious to all “that one local authority was all Co Galway needed and that authority should be Galway Co Council."

    Engineer Padraic Fogarty said the new plant was critical to achieving the development objectives for the region, adding that the economic slowdown provided the opportunity to get matters quickly to construction stage.

    He warned that Mutton Island could only cope in the short-term but would not be up to meeting medium or long-term needs as the plant did not have the necessary capacity.

    My understanding is that there are at least a few unhappy bunnies in Galway Co Co because their plans are somewhat stymied by uncertainty and lack of progress regarding the overall waste water issue. The "cop out" referred to by Cllr Mannion is the original decision to site the WWTP on Mutton Island, which some would regard as having been the easy way out at the time, eg no NIMBY backlash threatening Councillors' votes.

    Here's a reference to such ongoing uncertainty, from the minutes of a committee meeting held in County Buildings in 2012:
    The Department [of Environment] raised concerns in regard to the lack of capacity in the public sewerage scheme to serve future development in Bearna and the uncertainty in regard to the precise capacity (if any) which is to be allocated to Bearna from the upgrade of Mutton Island to 170,000PE. The proposal to provide temporary treatment systems in the interim can proceed only where discharge to a public system is a realistic option in the near future and a clear time schedule for delivery exists.

    It seems that some County Councillors are also a bit vexed that sludge from Mutton Island is transported from the city for storage/dispersal in county areas, such as Tuam.

    http://www.connachttribune.ie/breaking-news/38-archive-news/6629-residents-fury-at-plan-to-recycle-galway-city-sewage-in-tuam


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    bonzodog2
    Registered Users Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭bonzodog2


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Would you care to make a prediction in this thread that they are going to do exactly that, ie enlarge Mutton Island by adding some reclaimed land? :)

    Of course the notion that the site could be/would have to be expanded with "a couple of hundred trucks full of rocks" again raises the basic question: why choose an island site to begin with?

    I wouldn't dream of predicting what a local authority might decide to do in the future! Also, when I mentioned trucks full of rocks, I was just referring to the area of the site; possibly future capacity increase requirements might need bigger pipes, or maybe some other stuff, that as a non-municipal-sewage-engineer type person, I might have no knowledge of.


Advertisement