Sceptic Tank inspection.

yop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not having a go at you in turn, but you clearly weren't working on mainframe or midrange software systems back then. There were millions of man-hours put into fixing y2k bugs.

Granted, the media did what they always do and made up stories about planes crashing, but if we hadn't done what we did to fix the bugs, entire supply chains and financial systems would have imploded. It wouldn't have been as "sexy" as plane crashes or ATMs spewing money, but it wouldn't have been pretty.

It really grinds my gears to hear people say there was no y2k problem. The vast majority of people will never realise just how big the y2k problem was, and just how much work went into fixing it.

Dragging this back on topic: in many ways this is analogous. The vast majority of septic tank owners believe that their tank is working perfectly because they have no evidence to the contrary. The only way we could tell whether our ERP systems were y2k-ready was to test them. The fact that they appeared to be working perfectly in the 1990s didn't mean that they were.

Ah sure the Y2K put the merc under your arse so course you were going to say ye saved the world ( I am joking of course)

I didn't say there wasn't Y2K problems, what I did say was re the planes and ATM, was more scare mongering to suit the suits to charge big bucks.

With regards the tanks, as I said, let them chat with my engineer, the installers of the system and the engineer who did (cough cough) my percolation test.

oscarBravo

yop wrote: »

Ah sure the Y2K put the merc under your arse so course you were going to say ye saved the world ( I am joking of course)

I didn't say there wasn't Y2K problems, what I did say was re the planes and ATM, was more scare mongering to suit the suits to charge big bucks.

There was scaremongering, yes. There were chancers who conned people out of their hard-earned, yes.

But dwarfing all that in the background was the very real problem, which required very real effort to fix. The amount of money that was spent (in analyst/programmer man-hours) on necessary fixes is probably orders of magnitude more than was wasted on scams. To put it in context: I first started doing y2k repairs on enterprise systems in 1988.

With regards the tanks, as I said, let them chat with my engineer, the installers of the system and the engineer who did (cough cough) my percolation test.

If you've got an infallible system, fair play. I had a guy out this morning to look at the tank in the house I'm renting. The tank is working perfectly apart from the minor detail of the outflow filter which was clogged. Now it's completely perfect again.

Why was the guy out? Because I spotted something that I thought might indicate a problem with the tank, and I contacted the landlord who organised the call-out. If I hadn't noticed the problem, I could have been contaminating groundwater for the foreseeable future.

We need a systematic approach to inspecting tanks and making sure that these problems are spotted and fixed at an early stage. If your tank is well-designed and working perfectly, yay. Lots are not - and it troubles me to see the likely failure rate used as a reason not to inspect them.

yop

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was scaremongering, yes. There were chancers who conned people out of their hard-earned, yes.

But dwarfing all that in the background was the very real problem, which required very real effort to fix. The amount of money that was spent (in analyst/programmer man-hours) on necessary fixes is probably orders of magnitude more than was wasted on scams. To put it in context: I first started doing y2k repairs on enterprise systems in 1988. If you've got an infallible system, fair play. I had a guy out this morning to look at the tank in the house I'm renting. The tank is working perfectly apart from the minor detail of the outflow filter which was clogged. Now it's completely perfect again.

Why was the guy out? Because I spotted something that I thought might indicate a problem with the tank, and I contacted the landlord who organised the call-out. If I hadn't noticed the problem, I could have been contaminating groundwater for the foreseeable future.

We need a systematic approach to inspecting tanks and making sure that these problems are spotted and fixed at an early stage. If your tank is well-designed and working perfectly, yay. Lots are not - and it troubles me to see the likely failure rate used as a reason not to inspect them.

I was in at your office last Friday, might be about tomorrow, will give them merc tires a kick for ya!

What problem did you notice out of interest?

Listen I am not be holier than thou on this, of course there are tanks with issues, if the sh!ite isn't spurting into the air then it doesn't mean its not messing the ground water, but its the timing and approach that is the kick here.

As I said earlier, IF this approach, like they took in Cavan (which mightnt be right!!) was done 10 years ago with the massive build burst, then people would have, like a typical Irish person, with a grunt have accepted it, but the perception is that this isn't for the good of our groundwater but solely to pay the bondholders. And by heck they are going to have some crack in convincing people otherwise.

If only an internet provider could wirelessly covert my septic waste into binary and transfer it to the treatment plant in Westport it would be purfec!

TopTec

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was scaremongering, yes. There were chancers who conned people out of their hard-earned, yes.

Shall we take bets on when the first advert on the TV or radio from some con artist appears offering pre-registration inspections and special rates on any follow on corrective work as long as you pre-pay for the work. This is usually aimed at the elderly and those that don't know any better.

TT

oscarBravo

yop wrote: »

What problem did you notice out of interest?

Water seeping out from under the tank lid. There's a separate (third) chamber with a pump to send the effluent to the percolation area, but with the filter clogged it wasn't getting to that one and was overflowing from the second chamber.

As I said earlier, IF this approach, like they took in Cavan (which mightnt be right!!) was done 10 years ago with the massive build burst, then people would have, like a typical Irish person, with a grunt have accepted it, but the perception is that this isn't for the good of our groundwater but solely to pay the bondholders. And by heck they are going to have some crack in convincing people otherwise.

That's an argument that holds no water (par'n the pun) with me.

We have a choice here: we can cross our fingers and hope like hell that every septic tank in the country is working properly. Or we can check them, and fix them if they're not. One of those approaches will contribute to clean, healthy drinking water. One won't. Bondholders don't come into it; and people wanting to believe that bondholders have something to do with the issue don't magically make it so.

If only an internet provider could wirelessly covert my septic waste into binary and transfer it to the treatment plant in Westport it would be purfec!

I think there's enough sh*t travelling over our network as it is...! :pac:

TopTec wrote: »

Shall we take bets on when the first advert on the TV or radio from some con artist appears offering pre-registration inspections and special rates on any follow on corrective work as long as you pre-pay for the work. This is usually aimed at the elderly and those that don't know any better.

It may well happen. Scam artists are, sadly, a constant fact of life.

But to reiterate my point earlier: the existence of scam artists thirteen years ago didn't make y2k not a real problem, and the existence of scam artists today isn't going to make faulty septic tanks not a real problem.

woody1

The Engineer wrote: »

Firstly, Architects have no training in carrying out this sort of work - not having a go, just stating a fact! Remember, the inspection is likely to require the design of upgrades on many of the "legacy sites".

Secondly, the EPA will not be providing a course here. They are often mistaken as running the Site Suitability Assessment course, but it is FÁS that runs that one!

Thirdly, nobody seems to accept responsibility for anything at the minute. Local Authorities have panels of Site Assessors, but there is usually a disclaimer for the homeowner to do their own research before employing an assessor. The EPA Manual has a MASSIVE disclaimer in it.

Most Site Assessors do not have the relevant experience / qualifications / insurance cover to design an on-site wastewater treatment system. The key word here is design. An assessor's PI insurance for assessments does not extend to design or making design recommendations, as required in the EPA Code of Practice Site Characterisation Report Form. Now…who exactly is assuming responsibility for what?! What we do know for sure is that it is the end-user that is liable under statutory law.

fair enough architects dont have any training to do this sort of thing, and sorry yes it was fas that provided the course, with many guys and girls from the epa giving the lectures/presentations so thats where the confusion arises..
but i was just saying what i think will happen myself, which will be that therel be some kind of course given by someone to relevant qualified people (i think this will include architects/technicians and probably many other non relevant qualifications, you dont , fair enough, by the way im not saying it should include them, just that i think it will ) , theyl probably be given a framework and a methodology to follow and will be sent off into the country to inspect tanks... that may not be what happens, but its what I THINK will happen.... what i think should happen is that relevantly qualified engineers are assessed on their suitability to do the job and then they are employed by the councils ...but i dont think that will happen as it makes too much sense

The Engineer

yop wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is some measurement out there that defines the parameters for the "perfectly treated sh1t3"? That someone will be there with a measure to know what they are at, and at the same time not have a "connection" who for those with concrete tanks, who can do a "For you today me do special offer" on a treatment system.

There are physical, chemical and biological processes that are important in the movement of pollutants through the environment and in the processes used to control and treat pollutant emissions. It is only through understanding the pollutants and the processes used to treat them that we can protect the environment and public health. So, yes - there are parameters that can be specified on any given site in order to protect groundwater, public health, etc.

Wastewater treatment and disposal on one-off houses is typically a risk-based exercise - if you have certain soil conditions, a water table below a certain level, etc., a septic tank might not pose a risk to sensitive receptors (e.g. wells, surface waters, etc.). However, in certain cases a much higher level of treatment than is achieved in a septic tank and percolation area system might be needed. In all cases, the system must be designed, installed and maintained correctly! Do you buy a car and expect to drive it indefinitely for 30 years without ever having it inspected / serviced? Is it not also reasonable to assume that an on-site wastewater treatment system will also need inspections and servicing?

yop wrote: »

I paid 250 euro for an "independent" engineer to come out to do the percolation test, assigned by the Co Co, my own engineer and a friend who is an engineer said a figure 8 would be very sufficient as the site is very dry, but alas no. What is even funnier said engineer and this is fact, didn't even leave his car. As 2 neighbours noted his presence outside the house.

So that was the 250. I paid 4k euro+ for the treatment system.
I had an engineer I paid nearly 8k euro to sign it all off.

Now if that has issues it can come down on 1 of the 3 individuals above, not me or they can as I keep saying use my development tax to fund it.

The "independent" engineer assigned by the local authority to do a percolation test was most likely a site assessor (with a FETAC Cert, rather than a degree in an appropriate engineering discipline), and not an engineer. Similarly, it is also unlikely that your engineer would be classed as a competent person in terms of designing an on-site system, as most of the engineers involved in property conveyancing are civil / structural engineers. The ideal route to go would be to employ a registered, accredited professional (e.g. a Chartered Engineer - the key word being "chartered") with verified expert knowledge, skills and competences (i.e. for undertaking the work required) to give you an end solution fully covered by his professional indemnity insurance. This way, if the design doesn't work, you have a course for redress. Similarly, if he sits in his car but claims to have carried out works on the site, you can lodge a complaint with his regulatory body (e.g. Engineers Ireland).

yop wrote: »

I'll put it this way:
Has anyone inspected the 1000's of leaks on the public water schemes which is costing millions?
Can we take it that lucky towns who have public sewage schemes have perfect piped systems with no leaks at the joints etc......
Has anyone been inspecting the wards in our hospitals for bugs and where people are dying on trollies?

I don't know if anyone is inspecting PWSs for leaks. Some towns with public sewers and treatment plants have perfect piped systems, others do not. These are all valid points you raise. Valid points, but they do not offer a lot to this debate. Going back to the original reason I threw my tuppence worth in, you said your septic tank (and those of your family members) gave "zero problems". I simply pointed out that septic tanks need on-going maintenance. This is not about scaremongering or fear-tactics to drum up work for specialist engineers. Similarly, it is not about burying our collective heads in the sand and saying: "well, everything else in the country is f**ked three ways towards the weekend - water is leaking, sewers are broken, hospitals are riddled with bugs - so lets throw in the towel".

Who was it that said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"? Edmund Burke, I believe. My point is (and I'm sure I have one!!!), keep your septic system maintained properly - not because someone else (e.g. DoEHLG, EU, LA, etc.) tells you to - do it because it is the right thing to do.

yop wrote: »

They will hook people in then bend them over year after year…but even bosco knows that this is going straight out to Europe.

This is quite likely very true - I am not pro-EU, which is all the more reason for us as men and women to take the matter into our own hands and fix our sites because it is the right thing to do.

yop wrote: »

Out of interest, your last line of "LOL! If you saw enough of these tanks, you'd understand!"..... does that mean you inspect tanks, hence it could offer employment to you???

Yes, it could - but I can think of nicer jobs. Some of the tanks I have seen are in bits and it is a major health hazard even inspecting them.

yop wrote: »

Once again its not a personal attack on you, its just my opinion. ,

Thanks Yop - and don't worry, I don't take anything personally!

oscarBravo wrote: »

The vast majority of septic tank owners believe that their tank is working perfectly because they have no evidence to the contrary. The only way we could tell whether our ERP systems were y2k-ready was to test them. The fact that they appeared to be working perfectly in the 1990s didn't mean that they were.

Well said oscarBravo. Did you ever hear of Paddy's Law? "If everything seems to be going well, you don't know what is going on"…this sums up on-site wastewater treatment nicely!