Septic tank charges

Steven81

The real reason they want to charge us is to make a quick few pounds and to ensure that we are not going to be penalised by the EU, my question though is can every household here have good water that is drinkable, can every house guarantee that the council will not turn off the water either in the bad winters we had or in some rare cases due to a drought, more should be done to ensure that the water we do have isnt being lost first and then get it correct, we the people of Ireland paid to get these sceptic tanks in correct in the first place out of our own money.

Personally i think if they employed people to go about and look at these tanks and 99% are going to be ok and for the government to pay to get the ones that are in bad need of repair done, lets face it if we dont register which we wont do the problem will still exist anyway so a different approach has to be looked at.

Sponge Bob

Welease wrote: »

But if thats what your tank vs your usage supported before then nothing changes.. There is no specific requirement to have it desludged any more or less than was previously done (within accepted healthy boundaries)

There will be if you do not want to pay reinspection charges. Anyway, there is nowhere to send that volume of sludge except onto a barge and out into the Atlantic.

Cedrus

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There will be if you do not want to pay reinspection charges. Anyway, there is nowhere to send that volume of sludge except onto a barge and out into the Atlantic.

The amount of sludge has not changed. IF there is nowhere to send the current amount of sludge, then the current system has already failed and septic tanks are no longer viable.

Head The Wall

It's septic not sceptic. It's amazing the number of people getting this wrong, I am now less sceptical of our PISA ranking

Cedrus

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's septic not sceptic. It's amazing the number of people getting this wrong, I am now less sceptical of our PISA ranking

Oh, this thread is FULL of sceptics.

Welease

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There will be if you do not want to pay reinspection charges. Anyway, there is nowhere to send that volume of sludge except onto a barge and out into the Atlantic.

Now thats the bit i am unclear on..

I don't mind doing the inspection myself to check if it need to be emptied.. Thats what I already do.. I don't mind them sending someone around every few years to check that I am not polluting the environment with a faulty setup..

I do object to having to pay every year to have some guy visit and tell me my tank is not full and i dont need it emptied if thats what they are proposing..

murphaph

Welease wrote: »

I do object to having to pay every year to have some guy visit and tell me my tank is not full and i dont need it emptied if thats what they are proposing..

This is effectively what happens when your car passes the NCT with flying colours though.

Welease

murphaph wrote: »

This is effectively what happens when your car passes the NCT with flying colours though.

Argueably there are safety issues involved with cars on the road.. (opening a can of worms here).. Plus I would argue thats a different analogy.. Inspections I agree with.. but would you pay for the council to check each week whether you need to put fuel in the car?

Do i need someone to tell me that my toilet is working because my tanks isn't full? No, it's a waste of time and money.. especially if they are going to charge me a fraction of the cost of the inspection..
We don't do yearly inspections on house electrics etc..

Again, I agree that tanks needs to be inspected for maintenance.. but a suitable timeframe needs to be introduced, but I don't need the council to waste money telling me that my toilet is working because my tank is not full on a yearly basis (if thats how its going to be implemented)

If I am a single person with an 8K tank.. their own appendix says it would need emptying every 20+ years.. Would a yearly inspection be a good use of time and money? The maximum they require is an inspection based on the expected frequency for desludging to maybe a max of 5 years.

Cedrus

Ideally, as part of the registration process each system should be categorised according to the risk of failure. Something like;

Cat 1 Failure - Immediate remediation required
Cat 2 High Risk - Small tank, poor percolation etc. Annual Inspection Required
Cat 3 Medium Risk - Adequate system 5-10 year OR random inspection required
Cat 4 Low Risk - 21st Century system - random inspection only

MadsL

Welease wrote: »

Argueably there are safety issues involved with cars on the road.. (opening a can of worms here).. Plus I would argue thats a different analogy.. Inspections I agree with.. but would you pay for the council to check each week whether you need to put fuel in the car?

I presume your car has a fuel gauge, an oil pressure light and a check engine warning. The manufacturer also gave you a suggested maintenance regime based on mileage or your onboard computer.

If your septic tank came with such bells and whistles, I would agree with you.

Welease

MadsL wrote: »

I presume your car has a fuel gauge, an oil pressure light and a check engine warning. The manufacturer also gave you a suggested maintenance regime based on mileage or your onboard computer.

If your septic tank came with such bells and whistles, I would agree with you.

It has a lid.. I open it and look My toilet system doesn't work with a full tank, and my pump is visible and audible..so there is my warning system..

What other checks will the council man be providing on a yearly basis?

If you are happy to fund the unnecessary checking of a system.. then fine.. I can afford it and it's no skin of my nose as I dont need to be here for them to check it.. but its seems a collosal waste of precious resources to me, because there is no way the fee covers the cost to the council.

MadsL

Welease wrote: »

It has a lid.. I open it and look My toilet system doesn't work with a full tank, and my pump is visible and audible..so there is my warning system..

What other checks will the council man be providing on a yearly basis?

If you are happy to fund the unnecessary checking of a system.. then fine.. I can afford it and it's no skin of my nose as I dont need to be here for them to check it.. but its seems a collosal waste of precious resources to me, because there is no way the fee covers the cost to the council.

Would you prefer a spot random inspection system with significant four figure fines?

Welease

MadsL wrote: »

Would you prefer a spot random inspection system with significant four figure fines?

No.. I'd prefer a system that was fit for purpose and didn't waste taxpayers money /shock

Uncle Ben

Septic tank legislation here:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2012/a212.pdf

Pete_Cavan

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Septic tank legislation here:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2012/a212.pdf

I had a read through the legislation and picked out the main points:

It is up to the water services authority to maintain a ‘register of domestic waste water treatment systems’;

70B.—(1) Each water services authority shall establish and maintain a register of domestic waste water treatment systems situated within its functional area (in this Part referred to as a ‘register of domestic waste water treatment systems’).

Once you register, it is valid for 5 years, so not an annual thing;

70B.(5) A certificate of registration shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date on which it was issued.

It will be an offence not to produce a certificate of registration within four weeks of being requested to do so by an authorised person appointed by a water services authority;

70B.(11) An authorised person appointed by a water services authority may request the owner of a premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment system to produce a valid certificate of registration in respect of the system.
(12) A person who fails to comply with a request under subsection (11) within 20 working days, commits an offence.

The registration fee is fixed at no more than €50, so wont be jumping up;

70B.(13)(b) the fee payable to the water services authority, which shall not exceed €50, which shall accompany an application under subsection (2);

Responsibilities of owners of a premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment systems;

70C.—(1) The owner of a premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment system shall—
(a) comply with regulations made under section 70L,
(b) ensure that the system does not constitute, and is not likely to constitute, a risk to human health or the environment, and, in particular does not—
(i) create a risk to water, air or soil, or to plants and animals,
(ii) create a nuisance through noise or odours, or
(iii) adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest, and
(c) ensure that the system is entered on a register of domestic waste water treatment systems in accordance with section 70B.

The Environmental Protection Agency will appoint inspectors;

70E.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Agency shall appoint such persons as it considers appropriate to carry out inspections of domestic waste water treatment systems for the purposes of this Part.
(2) The Agency shall not appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of this Part unless that person—
(a) has made an application to the Agency in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee,
(b) is the holder of a prescribed professional or technical qualification,
(c) has satisfactorily completed a prescribed training course,
(d) is the holder of the prescribed professional indemnity insurance, and
(e) has complied with any other prescribed requirements.

There will be an independent appeals officer;

70E.(5) The Agency may, with the consent of the Minister, appoint one or more persons who, in the opinion of the Agency, have the relevant knowledge and experience in relation to domestic waste water treatment systems and the procedures in relation to carrying out an inspection to be an appeals officer for the purposes of this section (in this section referred to as an ‘appeals officer’).

(6) An appeals officer shall be independent in the performance of his or her functions under this section.

Powers of Inspectors;

70G.—(1) For the purposes of carrying out an inspection under section 70H, an inspector may—
(a) enter and inspect any premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment system,
(b) inspect, examine or test the course or condition of a domestic waste water treatment system, including any fixture, fitting, appliance, plant, drain, service or process associated with the treatment system,
(c) monitor any domestic waste water which is contained in or discharged
from a premises or domestic waste water treatment system,
(d) take samples of any substance or thing associated with or discharged to or from, a domestic waste water treatment system,
(e) take photographs,
(f) carry out surveys, take levels and measurements, make excavations, take samples and carry out examinations of the depth and nature of subsoil,
(g) require information regarding the maintenance, servicing or operation of a domestic waste water treatment system from an owner or occupier of the premises or any person employed on the premises or any other person
present on the premises,
(h) require the production of, or inspect, records or other documents (including records or documents stored in nonlegible form) relevant to the maintenance, servicing or operation of a domestic waste water treatment
system, or take copies of or extracts from, or take away if considered necessary for the purposes of inspection or examination, any such records or documents,
(i) require that the premises or any part of the premises or anything in the premises shall be left undisturbed for such period of time as may be necessary for carrying out the inspection.

The inspector will need the premission of the owner to enter their house;

70G.(2) An inspector shall not, other than with the consent of the occupier, enter into a private dwelling under this section.

Although it will be an offence to prevent them from doing their job after after receiving notification;

70G.(5) Any person who, following notification of an inspection by a water services authority—
(a) refuses to allow an inspector to enter any premises or to bring any person or equipment with him or her in the exercise of his or her powers,
(b) obstructs or impedes an inspector in the exercise of any of his or her powers,
(c) gives either to an inspector, a relevant water services authority or the Agency, information which is to his or her knowledge false or misleading in a material respect, or
(d) fails or refuses to comply with any reasonable request or requirement of an inspector,
commits an offence.

The council or EPA will tell inspector who to inspect and notification of inspections will be given at least two weeks before the inspection is carried out;

70H.—(1)(a) An inspector shall inspect such domestic waste water treatment systems as he or she is directed by the Agency, or a water services authority, to inspect.
(b) The Agency or a water services authority shall notify in writing the owner of a premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment system of a proposed inspection at least 10 working days before such inspection.

If the inspector isnt sadisfied that the system is up to scratch, the water services authority issues an ‘advisory notice’;

70H.(5) A water services authority notified by an inspector under subsection (4) shall, within 21 days of that notification, issue a notice (in this Part referred to as an ‘advisory notice’) to the owner of the premises to which the treatment system concerned is connected.
(6) An advisory notice shall—
(a) state that the water services authority is of the opinion that—
(i) the owner of the premises connected to the domestic waste water
treatment system has contravened regulations made under section 70L, or
(ii) the domestic waste water treatment system constitutes, or is likely to
constitute, a risk to human health or the environment, and, in particular—
(I) creates a risk to water, air or soil, or to plants and animals,
(II) creates a nuisance through noise or odours, or
(III) adversely affects the countryside or places of special interest,
(b) state the reasons for that opinion,
(c) direct the owner of the premises to remedy the matters specified in the advisory notice by a date specified in the notice, and the notice may specify measures to be taken to remedy any contravention or matter to which the notice relates,
(d) include information regarding the making of an application under subsection (7),
(e) be signed and dated by an officer of the water services authority, and
(f) include any other requirement that the water services authority considers appropriate.

The owner can have the ‘advisory notice’ reassessed, and it may be upheld or cancelled;

70H.(7)(d) Where an advisory notice is confirmed under subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (c), the notice under paragraph (c) shall include information regarding the making of an appeal under subsection (9).
(e) Where an advisory notice is cancelled under paragraph (c) the water services authority concerned shall refund the application fee to the person who made the application.

If the ‘advisory notice’ is upheld, an appeal can be made to the District Court;

70H.(9) A person aggrieved by an advisory notice
confirmed under subparagraph (i) or (ii) of subsection
(7)(c) may, within 14 days beginning on the day on which the notice is served on him or her, appeal against the notice to a judge of the District Court in the district court district in which the domestic waste water treatment system the subject of the notice is situated, on the following
grounds:
(a) that the appellant is not the person on whom the notice should have been served; or
(b) any substantive or procedural illegality.

The EPA shall supervise the water services authority;

70I.—(1) The Agency shall supervise a water services authority in the performance of such of its functions as the Agency considers appropriate.
(2) Where the Agency is of the opinion that a water services authority has failed to perform all or any of its functions, the Agency shall issue a direction to the water services authority concerned.

The EPA directs the inspectors on how to carry out inspections;

70J.—(1) The Agency may, from time to time, issue directions to inspectors with regard to—
(a) the manner in which an inspection under section 70H is to be carried out,
(b) the period or periods to be specified in an advisory notice during which
remedial works are to be carried out,
(c) the manner, including by electronic means, in which an inspector is to
notify a water services authority in relation to an inspection,
(d) the details in respect of an inspection which are to be notified by an inspector to a water services authority, and
(e) any other matters the Agency considers relevant for the purposes of this Part.
(2) An inspector shall comply with a direction issued under subsection (1).

The number of inspections are determined by the National inspection plan which is prepared by the EPA;

70K.—(1) The Agency shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this section, but not later than such date as may be prescribed, make a national plan (in this Part referred to as ‘the national inspection plan’) with regard to the inspection and monitoring of domestic waste water treatment systems.

Offences (for both system owners and water services authorities);

70M.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 70B(12), 70C(2), 70E(10), 70G(5), 70H(18), or 70L(2) is liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine.
(2) A water services authority guilty of an offence under section 70I(6) is liable on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €50,000.”.

Vizzy

Excellent post Pete.

Brings clarity to the situation and dispels a lot of the myths being bandied about regarding annual fees,powers of inspectors etc.

n97 mini

Welease wrote: »

It has a lid.. I open it and look My toilet system doesn't work with a full tank, and my pump is visible and audible..so there is my warning system..

Can you tell if it's leaking below the water line?

Welease

n97 mini wrote: »

Can you tell if it's leaking below the water line?

????? This is not about the need for the maintenance inspections.. they are required. I'm not sure how many times I can state this over and over again..

The discussion was in response to Sponge Bob's concerns about the potential need for yearly inspections to ascertain if desludging was required.. From Pete's subsequent post, it looks as though this isn't and won't be the case..

n97 mini

Welease wrote: »

????? This is not about the need for the maintenance inspections.. they are required. I'm not sure how many times I can state this over and over again..

The discussion was in response to Sponge Bob's concerns about the potential need for yearly inspections to ascertain if desludging was required.. From Pete's subsequent post, it looks as though this isn't and won't be the case..

Oh sorry, I thought you were implying that you were able to tell if your tank was performing perfectly.

Welease

n97 mini wrote: »

Oh sorry, I thought you were implying that you were able to tell if your tank was performing perfectly.

No... thats why inspections are needed (and also to catch those who know they have a faulty tank)..

We were quite clearly talking about full tanks.. .

murphaph

Welease wrote: »

Argueably there are safety issues involved with cars on the road.. (opening a can of worms here).. Plus I would argue thats a different analogy.. Inspections I agree with.. but would you pay for the council to check each week whether you need to put fuel in the car?

Do i need someone to tell me that my toilet is working because my tanks isn't full? No, it's a waste of time and money.. especially if they are going to charge me a fraction of the cost of the inspection..
We don't do yearly inspections on house electrics etc..

Again, I agree that tanks needs to be inspected for maintenance.. but a suitable timeframe needs to be introduced, but I don't need the council to waste money telling me that my toilet is working because my tank is not full on a yearly basis (if thats how its going to be implemented)

If I am a single person with an 8K tank.. their own appendix says it would need emptying every 20+ years.. Would a yearly inspection be a good use of time and money? The maximum they require is an inspection based on the expected frequency for desludging to maybe a max of 5 years.

I think you might be right that annual inspections of septic tanks are a bit overboard. Perhaps every 2 years, like the NCT, would be more appropriate.

As for house electrics, that's something that will likely only harm the occupant, not the neighbors or environment, but I think there should be annual inspections of gas appliances in any apartments where malfunctions could kill others. My gas appliances in Berlin are tested annually anyway.

n97 mini

murphaph wrote: »

I think you might be right that annual inspections of septic tanks are a bit overboard. Perhaps every 2 years, like the NCT, would be more appropriate.

Cars 10 years old and older are subject to an annual NCT. Maybe the same should be applied to septic tanks.

Welease

murphaph wrote: »

I think you might be right that annual inspections of septic tanks are a bit overboard. Perhaps every 2 years, like the NCT, would be more appropriate.

From Pete's post, it sounds like inspections will be every 5 years.. but the scope of the inspection is not really defined..

"70B.(5) A certificate of registration shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the date on which it was issued. "

Their power's include ...

"70G.—(1) For the purposes of carrying out an inspection under section 70H, an inspector may—
(a) enter and inspect any premises connected to a domestic waste water treatment system,
(b) inspect, examine or test the course or condition of a domestic waste water treatment system, including any fixture, fitting, appliance, plant, drain, service or process associated with the treatment system,
(c) monitor any domestic waste water which is contained in or discharged
from a premises or domestic waste water treatment system,
(d) take samples of any substance or thing associated with or discharged to or from, a domestic waste water treatment system,
(e) take photographs,
(f) carry out surveys, take levels and measurements, make excavations, take samples and carry out examinations of the depth and nature of subsoil,
(g) require information regarding the maintenance, servicing or operation of a domestic waste water treatment system from an owner or occupier of the premises or any person employed on the premises or any other person
present on the premises,
(h) require the production of, or inspect, records or other documents (including records or documents stored in nonlegible form) relevant to the maintenance, servicing or operation of a domestic waste water treatment
system, or take copies of or extracts from, or take away if considered necessary for the purposes of inspection or examination, any such records or documents,
(i) require that the premises or any part of the premises or anything in the premises shall be left undisturbed for such period of time as may be necessary for carrying out the inspection."

Theydon't seem to define what will actually be inspected every 5 years. I have a feeling it will be a quick visual inspection unless they find any obvious issues in which case they would do a more thorough inspection.

woodoo

Welease wrote: »

From Pete's post, it sounds like inspections will be every 5 years.. but the scope of the inspection is not really defined..
.

5 years is probably a good compromise. I wouldn't want to see them any sooner than that.

Not everyone empties their tank every year either and they'd prob be asking about that.

recedite

I'm going to get my septic tank dug up and removed altogether, and then I'll direct the waste pipe straight into the nearest river instead, like they do in the nearby town. In this way, I hope to completely avoid the septic tank charge, just as the "townies" do.

oscarBravo

You might just have missed the point of this exercise.

MadsL

recedite wrote: »

I'm going to get my septic tank dug up and removed altogether, and then I'll direct the waste pipe straight into the nearest river instead, like they do in the nearby town. In this way, I hope to completely avoid the septic tank charge, just as the "townies" do.

Pete_Cavan

Welease wrote: »

From Pete's post, it sounds like inspections will be every 5 years.. but the scope of the inspection is not really defined..

No, registration is done every five years. Each time you register there is a registration fee of no more than €50 (so €50 for five year) for which you will be issued a certificate of registration. AFAIK the certificate of registration is just a piece of paper saying something like "the septic tank connected to this property is registered with x County Council" but will say nothing about the condition of the tank. It will be an offence not to produce a certificate of registration within four weeks of being requested to do so by an authorised person appointed by a water services authority.

From what I could see, the frequency of inspections is not set out in the legislation but will be determined by the National inspection plan prepared by the EPA. The water services authority is to keep records of all inspections, advisory notices, notices of compliance, etc.

n97 mini

woodoo wrote: »

5 years is probably a good compromise. I wouldn't want to see them any sooner than that.

5 years is far too long. You could have a tank leaking for 4.9 years before it's inspected. 2 years for new tanks and annually for tanks 10+ years old and annually for tanks with some sort of electro-mechanical system.

Threads like this show why septic tanks are not a good idea, and why inspections are needed...

MadsL

I got thanked by the poster as well...

recedite wrote:

I'm going to get my septic tank dug up and removed altogether, and then I'll direct the waste pipe straight into the nearest river instead, like they do in the nearby town. In this way, I hope to completely avoid the septic tank charge, just as the "townies" do.

(facepalm)

Oh. Dear. God.

Threads Posts like this show why septic tanks are not a good idea, and why inspections are needed...

FYP.

Please learn about some hydrology.
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.
This is why we have about 6 million cows and 8 million sheep pissing and ****ting all over the place without trouble (plus 100,000 horses and millions of other smaller animals.).

Why is this?

Soil Filters gray water & germs.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/plants-soil-filter-gray-water
You`ll notice some of these links contain teaching material for children - it is a wonder so many people here don`t understand it.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.earthsys.waterfilter/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01688.htm
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/flash/flash_filtration.html
http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/education/4h_manual_ch9a.pdf

In many respects, the soil on the land surface serves a very effective purpose by protecting groundwater-and by filtering water as it passes from the soil surface to the groundwater aquifer. The soil acts both as a physical filter and as a chemical filter.

Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged. A good deep well will not cause any problems even next to a broken well. This is why when your dog, cat or pet horse or whatever does their business in your garden it doesn`t make you sick.

If anything inspections should be make on wells. Water samples should be taken from taps. But this should be up to the private dwellers to look after their own water supply. It is nanny state rubbish.

Inspect septic tanks 100m from all lakes, rivers and the sea - anymore is simply a money spinner.

Funny to see everyones nickers in a twist - ye all bought the propaganda. Start questioning things and stop taking things at face value from politicians.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything inspections should be make on wells. ...

Inspect septic tanks 100m from all lakes, rivers and the sea - anymore is simply a money spinner.

+1
The only real exception being in Karst areas where there is little surface water, but lots of fissures and fractures going deep underground, such that the effluent run-off could get into the underground aquifers.

Ironic then, that Clare Co Council has reacted to this by banning fracking, of all things, which is the last thing they need to worry about

Tipp Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn about some hydrology.
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.
This is why we have about 6 million cows and 8 million sheep pissing and ****ting all over the place without trouble (plus 100,000 horses and millions of other smaller animals.).

Why is this?

Soil Filters gray water & germs.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/plants-soil-filter-gray-water
You`ll notice some of these links contain teaching material for children - it is a wonder so many people here don`t understand it.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.earthsys.waterfilter/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01688.htm
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/flash/flash_filtration.html
http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/education/4h_manual_ch9a.pdf





Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged. A good deep well will not cause any problems even next to a broken well. This is why when your dog, cat or pet horse or whatever does their business in your garden it doesn`t make you sick.

If anything inspections should be make on wells. Water samples should be taken from taps. But this should be up to the private dwellers to look after their own water supply. It is nanny state rubbish.

Inspect septic tanks 100m from all lakes, rivers and the sea - anymore is simply a money spinner.

Funny to see everyones nickers in a twist - ye all bought the propaganda. Start questioning things and stop taking things at face value from politicians.

Great post

People are absolutely clueless as to how septic tanks actually work

Another point - the concentration of a town like Arklow (and there are dozens more) pumping raw sewage into a river is many many many times worse than a malfunctioning septic tank, which has only 1 family. The septic tank will have a large area for the sewage to break down naturally. The pipe from the town is puming in raw sewage from hundreds of houses into 1 point in a river. Its nuts

Tipp Man

n97 mini wrote: »

5 years is far too long. You could have a tank leaking for 4.9 years before it's inspected. 2 years for new tanks and annually for tanks 10+ years old and annually for tanks with some sort of electro-mechanical system.

Threads like this show why septic tanks are not a good idea, and why inspections are needed...

that thread that you quoted had a septic tank that was unused in a while

A septic tank needs regular usuage - it needs regular food i.e. sewage. Thats how they work

I don`t think people realise that sand is the main ingredient in water filtration in public treatment works.
Slow sand filters are used for Londons water supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_sand_filter

Soil is much much deeper that the sand filters in treatment plants. Rainfall in some areas can take weeks, sometimes months and years before it finds its way into ground water

Tora Bora

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn about some hydrology.
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.
This is why we have about 6 million cows and 8 million sheep pissing and ****ting all over the place without trouble (plus 100,000 horses and millions of other smaller animals.).

.

You forgot that the geniuses who run this coutry already issued a wise decree, that ensures horses don't pollute with their pooh:cool:

recedite

Tipp Man wrote: »

the concentration of a town like Arklow (and there are dozens more) pumping raw sewage into a river is many many many times worse than a malfunctioning septic tank, which has only 1 family. The septic tank will have a large area for the sewage to break down naturally.

And this has been established by the EPA, here's a quote from one enlightened politician (one of the few)

The River Basin Management Plans which have been developed in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive all identify the major threat to the country’s water quality and that is the discharges from deficient municipal waste water treatment plants. In this regard it is totally unacceptable that Government Ministers and politicians, together with other ill informed organisations such as An Taisce have sought to blame the devastating outbreak of cryptosporidium in Galway in 2007 on septic tanks

source


It seems that when the EU instructed the Irish Govt. to "do something" to monitor and/or inspect septic tanks, they assumed that the waste discharges from urban areas were already being treated to a higher standard.

Huey.K

50 euro .. ya its gona be 50 euro. .... (massive uproar)... 5 euro .. ya ist gona cost 5 euro. there just pullin figures out of their backsides

Tora Bora

Tora Bora wrote: »

You forgot that the geniuses who run this coutry already issued a wise decree, that ensures horses don't pollute with their pooh:cool:

once upon a time people collected that for fertilizer

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged.

When my septic tank was faulty a few weeks ago there was raw sewage seeping out of it and down the hillside towards the bottom of my garden. At the bottom of my garden there is a stream leading to a lake.

Should I have left it alone? Seeing as it wasn't causing any problems to wells, like.

Sponge Bob

You should have desludged should you not.

Back to the horses mouth though.

1. Where exactly is that sludge supposed to go??
2. Why am I being Double Taxed to pay for these urban expenditures???

http://www.epa.ie/news/pr/2012/name,31932,en.html

Date released: Feb 16 2012, 12:05 AM

Nearly half of Ireland’s wastewater treatment plants serving urban centres are failing to achieve national and EU standards, according to a new report released today by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Commenting on the report Mr. Gerard O’Leary, Programme Manager, in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Enforcement said:

“This level of performance is poor and needs to improve. In order to meet EU targets further investment in infrastructure is required and we need a step change in the operation and maintenance of these valuable assets.”


This report, the eighth in the series, is the first review of the operation of waste water treatment plants at 529 urban areas since they became subject to a new licensing regime being rolled out by the EPA. The main findings are as follows:

46% of waste water treatment plants did not meet all waste water quality standards or EPA guidelines.
Eleven large urban areas do not meet the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) requirement to have secondary treatment in place (Table 1). These include, for example, Bray and Ringaskiddy where the provision of treatment is now ten years overdue; Clifden, where the old plant is impacting on bathing water; and Moville where discharges are causing serious pollution to the River Bredagh.
Eight urban areas do not meet the UWWTD requirement to provide nutrient reduction in addition to secondary treatment for discharges to sensitive water areas by specified dates (Table 2). Because these relate to more sensitive environments a higher level of treatment is required – in these cases, nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen have to be removed. Areas affected include the cities of Cork, Dublin and Kilkenny.
The EPA expects that by 2015 the necessary treatment will be in place for the large urban centres – work to be completed by the relevant local authorities.

They 'expect' this because I will be double taxed to pay for these urban systems.

Cedrus

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn about some hydrology.

Fantastic* graphic! Amazing how the chemical stops just short of the water table, must be the change in color. That Erin Brockovich didn't know what she was talking about (USD333 million for nothing!).

Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged. A good deep well will not cause any problems even next to a broken well. This is why when your dog, cat or pet horse or whatever does their business in your garden it doesn`t make you sick.

More Fantastic* Facts
Septic tanks are never undersized.
Septic tanks never overflow.
Wells always have liners, liners are always undamaged even after 30 years.
Animal dung is always concentrated into one area so is therefore directly comparable to septic tanks.
Everybody in the country is capable and willing to maintain their septic tanks therefore any inspections are unecessary.


*fan•tas•tic [fan-tas-tik] adjective
1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrainedimagination
2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions
3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational
4. extravagantly fanciful

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

When my septic tank was faulty a few weeks ago there was raw sewage seeping out of it and down the hillside towards the bottom of my garden. At the bottom of my garden there is a stream leading to a lake.

Should I have left it alone? Seeing as it wasn't causing any problems to wells, like.

Go look at the post again I also wrote:
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.

are you being pedantic with how i phrased it both with 'only'?
The one you quoted refers to ground water and is in the context of drinking water quality.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Go look at the post again I also wrote:
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.

So only owners of septic tanks near rivers or lakes should have to pay an inspection fee? Or only owners of broken tanks? Or only owners of broken tanks near rivers or lakes?

The point is that we don't know which tanks are causing problems without inspecting them, and that means inspecting them all.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

So only owners of septic tanks near rivers or lakes should have to pay an inspection fee? Or only owners of broken tanks? Or only owners of broken tanks near rivers or lakes?

The point is that we don't know which tanks are causing problems without inspecting them, and that means inspecting them all.

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

Define "near".

Tipp Man

oscarBravo wrote: »

When my septic tank was faulty a few weeks ago there was raw sewage seeping out of it and down the hillside towards the bottom of my garden. At the bottom of my garden there is a stream leading to a lake.

Should I have left it alone? Seeing as it wasn't causing any problems to wells, like.

Seems strange that your perfectly (I assume??) functioning tank suddenly became faulty a few weeks ago?

did you find out the cause for this sudden malfunction??

Cedrus

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

That is highly dependant on local geology, a defective tank could be nowhere near water but adjacent or even directly over a sub-surface sink hole particularly in limestone areas.

It's hardly more efficient to test the destination of contamination rather than the source.

bbsrs

n97 mini wrote: »

Can you tell if it's leaking below the water line?

How will an inspector know if it's leaking below the water line ? The water table is different on every site and changes seasonally so how will this inspector know the water table level and how can he look at a tank and know its leaking without emptying in and getting in for a look or digging all around it for an external inspection .
When I was applying for planning it cost €900 for a council approved inspector to determine water table and percolation and that didn't include the cost of getting the test holes dug , the water table test hole was about 2 metres deep IIRC. The proposed inspections will either be totally inadequate or very expensive , most probably inadequate with a bit of guess work to compensate.

oscarBravo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Seems strange that your perfectly (I assume??) functioning tank suddenly became faulty a few weeks ago?

I didn't say it was sudden. I noticed a problem and got it fixed.

did you find out the cause for this sudden malfunction??

An outlet filter was clogged, causing the tank to overflow. The tank is on a slope, so I noticed effluent leaking from under an exposed edge of the lid. If the tank had been buried flush with level ground, I mightn't have seen it as soon as I did.