Septic tank charges

Sponge Bob · 03-02-2013 2:20am

I'm sure I am not alone in failing to grasp what that last post was about.

Therefore I will invite you again to show where the active sludge generated by this inspection regime can be processed to a point where it is INACTIVE and in IRELAND.

And then we might try a civilised discussion on what to do with all of this inactive sludge.

Farmer Pudsey · 03-02-2013 3:18am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I'm sure I am not alone in failing to grasp what that last post was about.

Therefore I will invite you again to show where the active sludge generated by this inspection regime can be processed to a point where it is INACTIVE and in IRELAND.

And then we might try a civilised discussion on what to do with all of this inactive sludge.

Look Bob it saturday night now and again we have to forgive and forget you know what saturday nights are like especially running into sunday morning some people have not got yours and mine staying poooooooweeeeeeeeeeeeeer

MadsL · 03-02-2013 7:01am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I'm sure I am not alone in failing to grasp what that last post was about.

Therefore I will invite you again to show where the active sludge generated by this inspection regime can be processed to a point where it is INACTIVE and in IRELAND.

And then we might try a civilised discussion on what to do with all of this inactive sludge.

You first need to demonstrate that there is a problem with the existing methods of disposal, do you have any proof that there is insufficient capacity other than your own assertion that there isn't?

Currently we have (restricted, not illegal Pudsey) agricultural disposal, WWTP disposal and composting. What evidence are you presenting to say that these methods will be unable to process additional sludge.

You are one asserting there is a problem Bob, not me, and so far you have presented NO evidence to support such claims.

recedite · 03-02-2013 11:57am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Therefore I will invite you again to show where the active sludge generated by this inspection regime can be processed to a point where it is INACTIVE and in IRELAND.

Septic tanks need to be desludged every few years anyway, regardless of any new legislation. 80l /person/annum seems a reasonable estimate. Why do you think an inspection regime will generate additional sludge?

Sponge Bob · 03-02-2013 8:40pm

recedite wrote: »

Septic tanks need to be desludged every few years anyway, regardless of any new legislation. 80l /person/annum seems a reasonable estimate. Why do you think an inspection regime will generate additional sludge?

Septic tanks should be desludged every few years as you said, many are not so that catchup factor will cause a demand spike when the inspections start. I'd advise anyone who hasn't done so to desludge quickly....I suspect prices will rocket fairly soon....starting around April I should think. Currently a desludge costs around €150-180.

I would think the result of the inspection regime will be a greatly enhanced frequency of desludging and that enhanced frequency is where the 'additional' sludge will come form to overwhelm the processing capacity nationwide.

MadsL · 03-02-2013 9:18pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Septic tanks should be desludged every few years as you said, many are not so that catchup factor will cause a demand spike when the inspections start. I'd advise anyone who hasn't done so to desludge quickly....I suspect prices will rocket fairly soon....starting around April I should think. Currently a desludge costs around €150-180.

I would think the result of the inspection regime will be a greatly enhanced frequency of desludging and that enhanced frequency is where the 'additional' sludge will come form to overwhelm the processing capacity nationwide.

And you say this will be a problem. Do you have any evidence for that? Increased volumes may make commercial processing and composting facilities more economically viable. And "overwhelm"? The link that you posted about the Bray WWTP specifically mentions a capacity potential increase of 33% in future.

Poolbeg incinerator will add an incineration option in future as well, and with 26,000 net emigration, population numbers look to stabilise in the medium term.

You are making an argument that we should not fix a current problem in case we run into a future problem that you have so far failed to show is even a problem with existing capacity, never mind future capacity. It makes no sense to not inspect tanks from that viewpoint.

If inspections will cause capacity problems, then explain to me how Cavan County Council who have been conducting septic tank inspections since 2007 do not appear to be "overwhelmed" by sludge.

Sponge Bob · 03-02-2013 10:52pm

MadsL wrote: »

explain to me how Cavan County Council who have been conducting septic tank inspections since 2007 do not appear to be "overwhelmed" by sludge.

Because it shows up in other counties than Cavan is why.

Again you refuse to address the fact that owing to the cack handed design of the entire scheme there no headroom in the system to process a sudden surge of sludge and your Bray 33% extra goodness that I pointed you at originally will take years to provision, it aint even built. I also assume you counted up the headroom factors I asked you to, found out I was right and decided to ignore the issue. Nothing I can do about that I suppose.

I suspect that those who did not register will be ignored for years, the 80% who did will overwhelm the system anyway.

MadsL · 03-02-2013 10:56pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Because it shows up in other counties than Cavan is why.

Again you refuse to address the fact that owing to the cack handed design of the entire scheme there no headroom in the system to process a sudden surge of sludge and your Bray 33% extra goodness that I pointed you at originally will take years to provision, it aint even built. I also assume you counted up the headroom factors I asked you to, found out I was right and decided to ignore the issue. Nothing I can do about that I suppose.

I suspect that those who did not register will be ignored for years, the 80% who did will overwhelm the system anyway.

You haven't shown any evidence of that though.

You are asking me to prove your point for you. Figures please, and sources.

Sponge Bob · 03-02-2013 11:41pm

Ringsend was at capacity years ago which is why they propose to build that tunnel etc. Do you accept that ( it is by far the largest WWTP)

In order to desludge regularly we need a National Surplus WWTP capacity of around 1,100,000 P/E. Do you accept that too.

If no to either or both a one liner explaining why will suffice.

recedite · 03-02-2013 11:52pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I would think the result of the inspection regime will be a greatly enhanced frequency of desludging and that enhanced frequency is where the 'additional' sludge will come form to overwhelm the processing capacity nationwide.

I don't think the maths works here. Enhanced frequency does not mean more volume. Even if we assume more frequent desludging, it would mean less sludge per desludging event.

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 12:00am

recedite wrote: »

I don't think the maths works here.

Oh yes it does, in 2013.

Enhanced frequency does not mean more volume. Even if we assume more frequent desludging, it would mean less sludge per desludging event.

Correct in principle but unadjusted for more grey water and its consequences.

recedite · 04-02-2013 12:28am

Connecting grey water would increase the sludge volume slightly alright, in the minority of cases where grey water was not already connected.

But don't lose sight of what all this regulation is really about. I used to live beside a guy who never desludged his tank. It was full to the top with sludge. There was no tee on the outlet, and raw sewage went in one side, and straight out the other side. Normally, nobody wants to $hit on their own doorstep, so this won't happen very often, but this guy was "lucky" because there was a small stream a few metres away, and a short pipe to the stream carried it all away. I tried talking to him about it, but he wasn't interested in fixing it, and its tricky when you're living next door. That's the kind of guy who will be caught by new regulations. But there can't be too many of these people around, so I don't see overall sludge deliveries increasing too much to the secondary treatment plants.

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 2:13am

recedite wrote: »

Connecting grey water would increase the sludge volume slightly alright, in the minority of cases where grey water was not already connected.

We produce vastly more grey than brown though. A single washing machine load would nearly outscore the toilets.

But don't lose sight of what all this regulation is really about. I used to live beside a guy who never desludged his tank. It was full to the top with sludge.

A sensible system would start by catching the likes of him out while ensuring that processing capacity for his crap is in place.

A very sensible system would ensure that processing capacity for all the urban crap in is place together with headroom for yer man and his ilk as well.

MadsL · 04-02-2013 5:57am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We produce vastly more grey than brown though. A single washing machine load would nearly outscore the toilets.

A sensible system would start by catching the likes of him out while ensuring that processing capacity for his crap is in place.

A very sensible system would ensure that processing capacity for all the urban crap in is place together with headroom for yer man and his ilk as well.

An even more sensible system would ensure that X% was composted and X was a rising figure each year.

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 11:38am

MadsL wrote: »

An even more sensible system would ensure that X% was composted and X was a rising figure each year.

Back to first principles. I asked you this yesterday and go no answer.

"Ringsend was at capacity years ago which is why they propose to build that tunnel etc. Do you accept that ( it is by far the largest WWTP)

In order to desludge regularly we need a National Surplus WWTP capacity of around 1,100,000 P/E. Do you accept that too."

martian1980 · 04-02-2013 12:47pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Back to first principles. I asked you this yesterday and go no answer.

"Ringsend was at capacity years ago which is why they propose to build that tunnel etc. Do you accept that ( it is by far the largest WWTP)

In order to desludge regularly we need a National Surplus WWTP capacity of around 1,100,000 P/E. Do you accept that too."

Maybe people would accept it if you listed some sources for ringsend being at capacity.

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 1:01pm

martian1980 wrote: »

Maybe people would accept it if you listed some sources for ringsend being at capacity.

You have my word Martian. Is that OK???

martian1980 · 04-02-2013 3:14pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You have my word Martian. Is that OK???

It's quite a departure from the regular policy of providing sources for claims on the Irish Economy forum. It's hard to accept the word of someone when you don't know who they are. Someone else could say that Ringsend is running just fine and has loads of capacity, offering their word, and where would we be then?

antoobrien · 04-02-2013 3:19pm

martian1980 wrote: »

Maybe people would accept it if you listed some sources for ringsend being at capacity.

It's well known if one doesn't have one's head stuck in the sand - or one passes Ringsend with the breeze going in the wrong direction - that the plant is overcapacity. However since you asked for proof see the information on the extension works:

The first phase provided facilities to cater to an equivalent population of 1.64 million persons (PE). The daily average influent to the works is currently c1.8 million PE and so the plant is operating slightly over its most effective treatment capacity

"over its most effective treatment capacity" means that there is influent that is being discharged without being properly treated.

martian1980 · 04-02-2013 3:28pm

antoobrien wrote: »

It's well known if one doesn't have one's head stuck in the sand - or one passes Ringsend with the breeze going in the wrong direction - that the plant is overcapacity. However since you asked for proof see the information on the extension works:

"over its most effective treatment capacity" means that there is influent that is being discharged without being properly treated.

Thank you for the reply.

Does arrogance come as standard with replies in this thread? Providing sources for assertions should not be too much to ask for.

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 3:31pm

Ringsend has been known to be at/over capacity since 2008 and it is the largest plant in the state.

The consents for the necessary upgrades went through ABP in 2012 and now we are faced with the battle of the tunnel to keep us amused for the next year or three.

I assumed, being a sensible type, that all the experts KNEW Ringsend is already at capacity and that the upgrade process will be protracted..... and that we could dimension some bounds rather easily by simply removing it from any equation and without boring anyone with details.

My invitation to agree with the 2 Bounds still stands, we still have some complicated stuff to get through once we try to figure out where 1.1m P/E worth of active sludge is to go!

antoobrien · 04-02-2013 4:47pm

martian1980 wrote: »

Thank you for the reply.

Does arrogance come as standard with replies in this thread? Providing sources for assertions should not be too much to ask for.

It helps, especially with the kind of obnoxiousness one gets around here. It's well known that many of the sewage treatment plants around the country have hit capacity, ringsend is no different - especially if one has had the misfortune of being in the wrong part of Dublin when the breeze is going the wrong way.

For what it's worth, Sponge Bob is one of the few I'd take a claim from at face value.

flutered · 04-02-2013 5:30pm

antoobrien wrote: »

It helps, especially with the kind of obnoxiousness one gets around here. It's well known that many of the sewage treatment plants around the country have hit capacity, ringsend is no different - especially if one has had the misfortune of being in the wrong part of Dublin when the breeze is going the wrong way.

For what it's worth, Sponge Bob is one of the few I'd take a claim from at face value.

most if not all plants nationwide are running on overcapacity, stating that emigration will steady the number of people in the country does not take into account our birthrate and immegration, add in the disporia thing this year, if it is a success imagne the amount of crap involved, it was always the case hereabouts that each house had a septic tank and soakaway for the sewrage, with a seperate soakaway for the grey water in a different area, back then it was just a bare trickle of clean water that left the soakaway, as the tank worked effecently, when the grey is added the tank cannot operate efficently, i know that shortly i will be bombarded with facts and figures putting me in my box.

MadsL · 04-02-2013 6:09pm

Sponge Bob, back to first principles indeed. Are you trying to make the argument that the septic tank inspection system should not take place because.

A. The WWTP system is at/near/over capacity.
B. This situation is fixed and can never change
C. There no other method of disposal for sludge.

Is that your argument?

A. Not all WWTPs are at/over capacity. Ringsend serves a largely urban area and is due to be supported by an incinerator shortly.
B. Investment in WWTPs is required anyway, as you have been complaining previously on this thread about urban WWTPs - they have to be upgraded.
C. Composting, land application, and incineration are all further options.

Again, doing nothing and allowing a problem to persist in order to solve a problem we might have is not really a solution is it?

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 7:49pm

flutered wrote: »

most if not all plants nationwide are running on overcapacity

Most significant plants but not all of them Flutered. I happen to have a good idea of which so worry not about that for now.

MadsL wrote: »

Sponge Bob, back to first principles indeed. Are you trying to make the argument...<snip!!!> Incinerator < snip snip snip >

Do you accept that

1. Ringsend is at capacity
2. That the tanked figure today is around 1.1m P/E

we are still trying to arrive at an agreed outer bound here.

If you do not show how Ringsend will be inside capacity or why the 1.1m Population Equivalent on septic tanks is wrong I'll state them as irrefutable facts just so that we can move the discussion on instead of introducing more circularities such as an Incinerator which will not be built for quite some years. That's mainly because nobody has refusted the facts mind.

This is all about 2013, the here and now.

MadsL · 04-02-2013 9:02pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Most significant plants but not all of them Flutered. I happen to have a good idea of which so worry not about that for now.

Do you accept that

1. Ringsend is at capacity
2. That the tanked figure today is around 1.1m P/E

we are still trying to arrive at an agreed outer bound here.

If you do not show how Ringsend will be inside capacity or why the 1.1m Population Equivalent on septic tanks is wrong I'll state them as irrefutable facts just so that we can move the discussion on instead of introducing more circularities such as an Incinerator which will not be built for quite some years. That's mainly because nobody has refusted the facts mind.

This is all about 2013, the here and now.

Bob, you appear to be trying to set bounds to the argument based on 1. Ringsend's capacity and 2. 1.1m population all presenting sludge at the same time.

Firstly, Ringsend is an urban processing environment (how many of your 1.1m will be using it) and secondly, simultaneous delivery of 1.1m worth of sludge seems unlikely. Finally, capacity for transportable sludge is easier to build than fixed sewage systems.

To be crystal clear...is your argument that the inspection regime should be stopped on the basis of the "problems" you claim to have identified. That would appear to be the primary bounds of the debate, no?

Farmer Pudsey · 04-02-2013 9:26pm

MadsL wrote: »

Sponge Bob, back to first principles indeed. Are you trying to make the argument that the septic tank inspection system should not take place because.

A. The WWTP system is at/near/over capacity.
B. This situation is fixed and can never change
C. There no other method of disposal for sludge.

Is that your argument?

A. Not all WWTPs are at/over capacity. Ringsend serves a largely urban area and is due to be supported by an incinerator shortly.
B. Investment in WWTPs is required anyway, as you have been complaining previously on this thread about urban WWTPs - they have to be upgraded.
C. Composting, land application, and incineration are all further options.

Again, doing nothing and allowing a problem to persist in order to solve a problem we might have is not really a solution is it?

Composting may be an option but land spreading is not an option as it is not approved to spread sludge on land producing food for human consumption as far as I am aware. The only land it can be spread is land for biomass and there is a limited amount available

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 9:31pm

MadsL wrote: »

Firstly, Ringsend is an urban processing environment (how many of your 1.1m will be using it) and secondly, simultaneous delivery of 1.1m worth of sludge seems unlikely.

Can we keep this reeeeeeeaaaallly simple and for the 4th or 5th time.

You do accept Ringsend is maxed out and that a P/E of 1.1m persons must all take their sludge elsewhere. That's great. It's only taken 24 hours and about 5 asks so phew to that!

Can we move on while we 'hold' those numbers.....simple Y or N sort of Q that!

MadsL · 04-02-2013 9:32pm

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Composting may be an option but land spreading is not an option as it is not approved to spread sludge on land producing food for human consumption as far as I am aware. The only land it can be spread is land for biomass and there is a limited amount available

Pudsey, are you aware of any Coilte sites that are coppicing using untreated sludge. I assume Willow or Poplar are viable crops that could utilise untreated sludge. Likewise our old friend Hemp

MadsL · 04-02-2013 10:22pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can we keep this reeeeeeeaaaallly simple and for the 4th or 5th time.

You do accept Ringsend is maxed out and that a P/E of 1.1m persons must all take their sludge elsewhere. That's great. It's only taken 24 hours and about 5 asks so phew to that!

Can we move on while we 'hold' those numbers.....simple Y or N sort of Q that!

No we cannot move on. :mad: If you are (once again) going to put words in my mouth then we cannot have reasoned discussion.

Firstly I haven't agreed that Ringsend's capacity has anything to do with septic tanks in, say, Co. Clare. You have already been shown that there are certainly less than 2000 tanks in the greater Dublin area and probably less than 100 in fact. Why are you relying on Dublin capacity for your argument.

And secondly you seem very keen to take a figure of 1.1m P/E as a yearly figure, when you haven't even begun to show how every tank will be desludged every year. The regulations do not require yearly desludging.

And for the X time of asking, please clarify if you are using these as a basis for arguing that no inspection regime is necessary

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 10:44pm

MadsL wrote: »

No we cannot move on. :mad: If you are (once again) going to put words in my mouth then we cannot have reasoned discussion.

Firstly I haven't agreed that Ringsend's capacity has anything to do with septic tanks in, say, Co. Clare. You have already been shown that there are certainly less than 2000 tanks in the greater Dublin area and probably less than 100 in fact. Why are you relying on Dublin capacity for your argument.

Is Ringsend at capacity or is it not.? How hard is it to answer a simple Q. You mentioned Clare not me so don't mention Clare again, simples.

And secondly you seem very keen to take a figure of 1.1m P/E as a yearly figure, when you haven't even begun to show how every tank will be desludged every year. The regulations do not require yearly desludging.

Your assertion. I am seeking to count or dimension an upper bound on what is in the total of tanks out there today. I have asked you the same question ....to startlingly little avail, around 5 times. Each time you refuse to answer a simple question or posit an answer which may not be what I said but with is a number.

I'll give you three choices this time for the 1.1m P/E answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I haven't a notion!

And for the X time of asking, please clarify if you are using these as a basis for arguing that no inspection regime is necessary

Answer two simple questions instead of trying to drag the thread off topic again by mentioning incinerators that don't exist....or Clare.

Farmer Pudsey · 04-02-2013 10:50pm

MadsL wrote: »

Pudsey, are you aware of any Coilte sites that are coppicing using untreated sludge. I assume Willow or Poplar are viable crops that could utilise untreated sludge. Likewise our old friend Hemp

Most of these sites are unsuitable for Sludge for a number of reasons one most sites are on poorer land that is wet or hilly, it can only be treated with sludge in the year after coppicing as after that it may be un accessable. Yes Hemp and elephant grass can but these are of very limited area as I stated earlier.

The window for treating with Sludge is very little and often coppicing takes place in winter so a spreading window of early spring is all that is available. I would imagine that 15-20K litres/acre would be the maximum this would mean that 100 acres would take 1500-2000m cubed. If this was a possibility what are the local authorities allowing unban plants to discharge untreated sludge into seas and rivers when this could be land spread at present.

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 11:00pm

Pudsey , may I presume on you a moment.

Am I correct in saying,

1. Farmers may only spread sewage sludge ( biosolids ) where they come from sewage plants and are certified by the county council or plant operator like Anglian Water etc.

2. Otherwise they may spread their own farm slurry * cows etc * under careful circumstances.

and

3. They may only spread 1 or 2 in the context of a Nutrient ( eg Nitrate) management plan

AND

4. Only on cereals or silage at least 6 weeks before harvest ...hard with silage in a good season....and on certain soil / groundwater conditions and not on horticultural crops eg Cabbage or Lettuce...ever.

AND

5. On lowland forestry not upland forestry if on forestry.

From which there is one other question.

Can the 'fresh contents' of a septic tank legally be spread on farmland or forestry any more. ???

Sorry for all that Pudsey.

MadsL · 04-02-2013 11:10pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Is Ringsend at capacity or is it not.? How hard is it to answer a simple Q. You mentioned Clare not me so don't mention Clare again, simples.

And I asked you to simply explain what Ringsend has to do with rural septic tanks. What proportion of septic tanks will require Ringsend in your view? How many tanks within range of Ringsend?

But to answer your question, Ringsend currently treats 1.8 million P/E and according to Fingal will not reach full maximum treatment capacity of 2.1 million P/E until 2020.

So that would be a NO.

I have asked you the same question ....to startlingly little avail, around 5 times. Each time you refuse to answer a simple question or posit an answer which may not be what I said but with is a number.

I'll give you three choices this time for the 1.1m P/E answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I haven't a notion!

Or 4. Nobody knows.

Make your case and stop being so unpleasantly aggressive about some notional number. We won't really know the true number of tanks until we have a count of registrations and non-registered. If you want to assume that figure, please make your case - at the moment you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Answer two simple questions instead of trying to drag the thread off topic again by mentioning incinerators that don't exist....or Clare.

The incinerator has contracts issued and full planning permission. You want to restrict this debate to existing facilities knowing full well that plans are underway for Poolbeg. How about we have a debate that includes all the factors, not just the ones you wish to talk about?

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 11:24pm

MadsL wrote: »

And I asked you to simply explain what Ringsend has to do with rural septic tanks. What proportion of septic tanks will require Ringsend in your view? How many tanks within range of Ringsend?

But to answer your question, Ringsend currently treats 1.8 million P/E and according to Fingal will not reach full maximum treatment capacity of 2.1 million P/E until 2020. So that would be a NO.

Well it can treat around 1.7m pending the upgrade ( including the tunnel under Dublin Bay) AFTER which it will have a capacity of 2.1m P/E that it will not reach until 2020 by which time Fingal INTEND to have a new plant built around Portrane or Rush to handle a few 100k of P/E as part of the Northern Fringe Scheme or some such name.

But we sort of agree. No septic tanks ( other than an insignificant number in Dublin itself) will be dealt with in Ringsend.

If you want to assume that figure, please make your case - at the moment you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Grand. 1.1m P/E it is.

The largest sewage plant in Ireland is Ringsend which is unusable.
The next largest one is in Cork with a capacity of 400k P/E ...most but not all used by Cork people and with spare capacity of around 100k P/E at most.
The next tier of large plants can handle around 200k P/E ...eg Shankill/Bray Dundalk and Waterford, none at capacity but with headroom of no more than around 150k p/e between them

Limerick at 130k P/E , Ennis at 30k P/E and Galway at 90k P/E are at capacity now and Drogheda within c.30k P/E capcity of its overall capacity of 100k P/E

Youghal Carrigaline Cobh and Arklow have no treatment and discharge to the sea today, there are plans to add 100k P/E of treatment there....some nearing construction this year.

Everywhere else ( inland) is rather or very small, and that is assuming they are even modern.

Happy enough with those figures.??? Amendments and observations welcome

The incinerator has contracts issued and full planning permission. You want to restrict this debate to existing facilities knowing full well that plans are underway for Poolbeg. How about we have a debate that includes all the factors, not just the ones you wish to talk about?

Come back to me in 2015 with that one ...m'kay. There is no Incinerator in Ringsend and no Incinerator under construction in Ringsend....one may commence construction this year...maybe!

MadsL · 04-02-2013 11:40pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Grand. 1.1m P/E it is.

No, it is what you are assuming. I haven't agreed it because it is an unknown figure. Nobody knows how much extra sludge will be generated as a result of the inspection regime. You say 1.1m P/E as figure that frankly represents almost a quarter of the entire population of Ireland. In one year.

Your figures acknowledged total spare capacity in the larger capacity WWTPs running to 100+150+30+100 gives 380k headroom or 35% of the total maximum yearly sludge and accounts for NO composting, landuse or other disposal methods to come on stream nor development of methane CHP plants nor future incineration plant capacity.

So, to ask again. Are you saying inspections should be stopped until we build enough WWTP capacity to deal with your theoretical max sludge production?

That strikes me as similar to building enough powerstations to allow everyone to turn their kettle on at the same time or enough hospitals with enough beds to house the entire population.

Correct me if I am wrong, but sludge can be stored until disposal or treatment, no?

Come back to me in 2015 with that one ...m'kay. There is no Incinerator in Ringsend and no Incinerator under construction in Ringsend....one may commence construction this year...maybe!

Are you saying Poolbeg will not be built?

Sponge Bob · 04-02-2013 11:59pm

Lot of stuff there....1.1m P/E it is so.

I enumerated 130k P/E spare capacity in those systems, not 380k like you added up somehow.

First dibs in many cases must go to non compliant public systems in their own counties and need pumping across.

I did not enumerate spare capacity inland as the like of Portlaoise/Athlone/Mullingar/Navan/ Clonmel etc are not particularly large and the largest scheme inland is the Liffey Valley scheme (Osberstown) in east Kildare which is at capacity too.

Farmer Pudsey · 05-02-2013 12:06am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Pudsey , may I presume on you a moment.

Am I correct in saying,

1. Farmers may only spread sewage sludge ( biosolids ) where they come from sewage plants and are certified by the county council or plant operator like Anglian Water etc.

2. Otherwise they may spread their own farm slurry * cows etc * under careful circumstances.

and

3. They may only spread 1 or 2 in the context of a Nutrient ( eg Nitrate) management plan

AND

4. Only on cereals or silage at least 6 weeks before harvest ...hard with silage in a good season....and on certain soil / groundwater conditions and not on horticultural crops eg Cabbage or Lettuce...ever.

AND

5. On lowland forestry not upland forestry if on forestry.

From which there is one other question.

Can the 'fresh contents' of a septic tank legally be spread on farmland or forestry any more. ???

Sorry for all that Pudsey.

Bob I will try ro answer as best as I can

1. the spreading of sludge on crops for human or animal consumption is not carried out now as far as I understand this includes cereals. borad Bial will not certify any farmer that spreads sludge as far as I am aware.

2 and 3 the spreading of slurry is regulated by a nitrates this limits the amount od cattle any farm can carry. There is also regulations re timing ie there is a closed period usually mid October-Mid January. This causes headahes for pig farmers in that unless they have access to tillage land slurry spreading is an issue. Also poultry manure has become a hugh issue s it has to be ploughed in straight after application to prevent the spread of Samonella.

4 As I stated earlier it is virtually non existant in cereals and definately not on horticulture produce. In reality the only time it could be spread on Tillage is at tilling stage but as far as I am aware it is not allowed even on cereals by Bord Bia.

5 As far as I know some sludge is spread on Elephant Grass but it is limited as is the amount of Elephant grass that is growing in this country.There may also be an issue down the line re birds spreading disease due to untilled in sludge like poultry manure.

The untreated contents of septic tanks cannot be spread on on Farmland.

Sponge Bob · 05-02-2013 12:15am

Thanks Pudsey, that was really quick.

But were sewage sludge spread on farmland it would have to be well treated sludge that could exit a sewage plant under an EPA licence and would be certified as such by the Waste Water Plant operator...eg a county council or an outsourcer like Anglian Water...otherwise the farmer cannot accept it if I recall.

MadsL · 05-02-2013 12:27am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Thanks Pudsey, that was really quick.

But were sewage sludge spread on farmland it would have to be well treated sludge that could exit a sewage plant under an EPA licence and would be certified as such by the Waste Water Plant operator...eg a county council or an outsourcer like Anglian Water...otherwise the farmer cannot accept it if I recall.

Genuine question. Mobile dewatering plants could produce a certified treated sludge could they not?

Farmer Pudsey · 05-02-2013 12:34am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Thanks Pudsey, that was really quick.

But were sewage sludge spread on farmland it would have to be well treated sludge that could exit a sewage plant under an EPA licence and would be certified as such by the Waste Water Plant operator...eg a county council or an outsourcer like Anglian Water...otherwise the farmer cannot accept it if I recall.

As far as I know no sludge even treated sludge is spread on even cereal ground now. I know that a very little used to be spread arounf wexford however I believe because of liciening and Bord Bia virtually none is spread now. Most of the approved sludge is used on elephant grass.

There may be some exceptions but I do believe so.

Untreated sewage is a nono and even if it is allowed and I do not think it is within a few years it will not be allowed for healthreasons.

Farmer Pudsey · 05-02-2013 12:37am

MadsL wrote: »

Genuine question. Mobile dewatering plants could produce a certified treated sludge could they not?

No it is not just the removal of water aerobic bacterial must be used to remove toxins from the sewage. As well in septic tanks you have fresh raw sewage this has health issue re cholera dipteria etc

Sponge Bob · 05-02-2013 12:37am

MadsL wrote: »

Genuine question. Mobile dewatering plants could produce a certified treated sludge could they not?

You fix that 380k P/E Number first. I did not say there is 380k P/E of spare capacity in the system ( outside Ringsend of course) as you said I did.

We'll have a stab at the certified sludge issue then perhaps although it is a sideshow TBH.

MadsL · 05-02-2013 12:47am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You fix that 380k P/E Number first. I did not say there is 380k P/E of spare capacity in the system ( outside Ringsend of course) as you said I did.

We'll have a stab at the certified sludge issue then perhaps although it is a sideshow TBH.

Sorry, just saw your post now.

MadsL · 05-02-2013 1:00am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Lot of stuff there....1.1m P/E it is so.

That is your best guess. I re-iterate that nobody knows as we until now had no register of systems. If you dispute that, then link to a peer-reviewed proof of that 1.1m figure.

I enumerated 130k P/E spare capacity in those systems, not 380k like you added up somehow.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Well it can treat around 1.7m pending the upgrade ( including the tunnel under Dublin Bay) AFTER which it will have a capacity of 2.1m P/E that it will not reach until 2020 by which time Fingal INTEND to have a new plant built around Portrane or Rush to handle a few 100k of P/E as part of the Northern Fringe Scheme or some such name.

The next largest one is in Cork with a capacity of 400k P/E ...most but not all used by Cork people and with spare capacity of around 100k P/E at most. [/QUOTE]

So 100k there.

The next tier of large plants can handle around 200k P/E ...eg Shankill/Bray Dundalk and Waterford, none at capacity but with headroom of no more than around 150k p/e between them

So 150k there.

Limerick at 130k P/E , Ennis at 30k P/E and Galway at 90k P/E are at capacity now and Drogheda within c.30k P/E capcity of its overall capacity of 100k P/E

So 30k from Drogheda.

Youghal Carrigaline Cobh and Arklow have no treatment and discharge to the sea today, there are plans to add 100k P/E of treatment there....some nearing construction this year.

And 100k planned with some "nearing construction this year"

100+150+30+100 = 380k P/E from your own figures, including 100k within the very near future. So 35% of your maximum production figure is available or near future available without even touching Ringsend or incineration. And your figures assumes every tank desludging every year. Not very realistic, frankly.

MadsL wrote: »

So, to ask again. Are you saying inspections should be stopped until we build enough WWTP capacity to deal with your theoretical max sludge production?

Hello. Asking again. It would be nice if you answered this question.

Sponge Bob · 05-02-2013 1:16am

MadsL wrote: »

That is your best guess. I re-iterate that nobody knows as we until now had no register of systems. If you dispute that, then link to a peer-reviewed proof of that 1.1m figure.

There isn't any and you will simply have to take my word for it.

The next largest one is in Cork with a capacity of 400k P/E ...most but not all used by Cork people and with spare capacity of around 100k P/E at most.
So 100k there.
So 150k there.
So 30k from Drogheda.

so not 380k , have you edited that out of your post ?

And 100k planned with some "nearing construction this year"
100+150+30+100 = 380k P/E from your own figures

Precisely how much sewage can a "nearing constriuction" plant handle.

???

including 100k within the very near future. So 35% of your maximum production figure is available or near future available without even touching Ringsend or incineration. And your figures assumes every tank desludging every year. Not very realistic, frankly.

No. My figures are simply designed to enumerate ( and leaving out your non existent incinerator that is stuck in planning together with the "mobile dewatering plants")

"HOW MANY TANKS CAN REALISTICALLY BE DESLUDGED/INSPECTED IN 2013? "

Now for the last time Remove that 380k P/E system overhead figure you falsely attributed to me!!!!!

MadsL · 05-02-2013 1:26am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There isn't any and you will simply have to take my word for it.

Pointless converstaion then. "Here, agree my imaginary figures so I can prove my own point".

so not 380k , have you edited that out of your post ?

But not the 130k you claim

Precisely how much sewage can a "nearing constriuction" plant handle. ???

We have this thing called time that keeps passing, causing this thing called "progress".

"HOW MANY TANKS CAN REALISTICALLY BE DESLUDGED/INSPECTED IN 2013? "[/SIZE]

How many do you think will be inspected/desludged in 2013? All of them?

Now for the last time Remove that 380k P/E system overhead figure you falsely attributed to me!!!!!

I'll revise it to 280k plus planned near future capacity of 100k when you answer my question.

For at least the third time of asking Are you saying inspections should be stopped until we build enough WWTP capacity to deal with your theoretical max sludge production?

Why so slippery on this Bob? Because you know that tehre isn't a hope in hell that 1.1m P/E worth of sludge will be produced in 2013 and you are simply scaremongering to try and make a case for no inspections.

Where did the Cavan sludge go?

Sponge Bob · 05-02-2013 1:32am

MadsL wrote: »

For at least the third time of asking Are you saying inspections should be stopped until we build enough WWTP capacity to deal with your theoretical max sludge production?

No.

Why so slippery on this Bob? Because you know that tehre isn't a hope in hell that 1.1m P/E worth of sludge will be produced in 2013 and you are simply scaremongering to try and make a case for no inspections.

It is sitting in septic tanks now...where is it to go??

Where did the Cavan sludge go?

Glad you asked, a Cavan sludge tanker with MN plates barreled up a road in South Roscommon one day in 2008 and asked me and a mate of mine who is a farmer if he could.......

....Never mind, my mate said no. Off the Cavan Sludge tanker drove and I never heard what happened.

solas111 · 05-02-2013 1:49am

When the powers that be had trouble figuring out how to spend all of the spare cash it was decided that they would build a sewerage scheme in the area where I live. Of course it didn’t happen due to a lack of political will and other factors but detailed plans were drawn up anyway and those plans were very interesting.

There were to be many pumping stations serving the proposed scheme. Some of the pumping stations were in the area where the ‘important’ people lived and those pumps had stand-by generators that kicked in automatically in case of power failure. The other pumping stations were in areas where the less worthy people resided and they did not have stand-by generators. What they had instead was a large tank that would hold the effluent for a couple of hours. These second class pumping stations were to be situated right next to streams and rivers and if I told you the reason for that you would find it difficult to believe. In the event of a prolonged power failure, after the holding tank had reached capacity, the material was to be allowed to overflow into the adjacent waterway and eventually to the sea via several salmon rivers.

The sewerage scheme was never built but there are several others in the locality. Some of these schemes, operated by the local authority, discharge raw sewerage into the ocean. This is in an area where tourism is supposed to be an important industry. This material is carried along by the tide and comes ashore on several once fine beaches where green algae is now starting to grow. I am no expert and I would say that part of the trouble on the beaches is caused by a high concentration of septic tanks in the area but it is probable that the majority of those tanks are working satisfactorily. What is certainly not working properly are the sewerage schemes that are the responsibility of the local authority.

Now, we are being asked to register to have septic tanks inspected by this same local authority that is discharging raw sewerage into the ocean. The people who use the sewerage schemes have not been asked to pay anything and the one who don’t use them but whose taxes contributed to their construction are being screwed again by the dishonest gobs***es who run/ruin the country. Horrible Phil Hogan, you are in need of inspection because judging by your actions you are full up to the top of your head with ….er, sewerage.

MadsL · 05-02-2013 2:09am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No.

Then what's your point? You agree with inspections and registrations it seems?

It is sitting in septic tanks now...where is it to go??

Will it all move in one year?

Glad you asked, a Cavan sludge tanker with MN plates barreled up a road in South Roscommon one day in 2008 and asked me and a mate of mine who is a farmer if he could.......

....Never mind, my mate said no. Off the Cavan Sludge tanker drove and I never heard what happened.

Ah, an anecdote. How lovely.

Septic tank charges

Comments