Sewage treatment systems

sinnerboy

At a recent seminar I attended - a sewage treatment system company gave their overview of sewage treatment plants . ( Please don't speculate as to who they were on forum - you will all have a pretty good idea I am sure )

They complained of
1
The level of unsuitably qualified persons attending a 2 week Fetac course to become site assesors ( sounds similar to BER to me ) - and therefore suspect suitability reports
2
lack of credible accreditation - IAB investigations into manufactures claims are not vigouros enough - and that IAB certs have riders to the affect that the cert does not warrant that the product will work in practice
3
LA's inconsistent use of SR 6 vs EPA 2000. Without being drawn into detail ( I did try ) they considered EPA 2000 "deeply flawed"

This company claim that there product is the best and "the system works against them" .

Don't know if i heard a load of guff or not now ...... but maybe some of you would have a view ?

Poor Uncle Tom

sinnerboy wrote: »

At a recent seminar I attended - a sewage treatment system company gave their overview of sewage treatment plants.

Any one of the suppliers/manufacturers will have their own spin on any seminar or event they are running, otherwise why hold it? Let me put it this way....
Selling one of their treatment systems to the general public will take a lot of effort for small reward. How would they do it,

i) go to the LA's for planning lists,
ii) take a stand at building exhibitions,
iii) approach as many excavation company's as possible,
iv) offer a few for sale very cheaply,
v) talk comission to excavator driver/agent, etc.,

We've all seen those tactics, and they work for a short time and then what.
Now if you put a task force and a lot of money into promoting your system, what would they come up with?

Maybe something like this.........
a) target the agents, they are the ones who will convince the purchacers,
b) make your presentation believeable, something they will all agree with and identify with, like say a seminar, to get them in make it free or invitation only, but bring your friends
c) base your presentation on something recent, similar, say BER training or certification.
d) Use the flaws in the current legislation to push doubt about certification or rival systems.
e) push your own system as being the answer to all the problems existing within the industry.
f) keep in touch with all who attend, and make sure you have enough brochures.

Sinnerboy, I'm sorry if the above makes me sound like a skeptic, but in this case I really am, skeptical.

sinnerboy wrote: »

lack of credible accreditation - IAB investigations into manufactures claims are not vigouros enough - and that IAB certs have riders to the affect that the cert does not warrant that the product will work in practice

I'm sure that the prototype treatment systems being sent for testing bare passing resemblance only to the actual treatment system which goes into the ground. I wonder, if it were mandatory to test the outflow from each treatment system installed, say every year or two, how many manufacturers would go out of business straight away?

sinnerboy wrote: »

LA's inconsistent use of SR 6 vs EPA 2000.

We all know the planners are clueless when it comes to technical aspects of building sites....:D and ALL other areas of building...:)

sinnerboy wrote: »

This company claim that there product is the best and "the system works against them".

....poor down trodden multi-national, I shall not weep for you..!

sinnerboy wrote: »

Don't know if i heard a load of guff or not now ......

Wisest thing you said tonight, imo.:D

muffler

Its one of the better known companies so theres no harm in mentioning them

On second thought (just in case there would be any negative input) its probably best not to mention them.

Schooby

On your three points, quality of persons getting on the FETAC course,
1 we are in the early days of protecting ground water in this country and in the late days of destroying it on having not far off 50% of the population relying on often poorly sepcified and more often poorly constructed and even more often poorly maintained onsite waste water treatment. Achieving the FETAC cert is a good start as prior to this tests were acepted off completely unqualified persons. the panel of approved assessors operated by many councils should go further in determining competance.

2 certification of the various systems was to be sorted out through the comming into effect of the European standard for onsite waste water treatment systems, its v. detailed and good, however introduction was delayed in Ireland as only two companies had systems that came up to spec and the other ones must had people in a tent in Galway.

3 the continued use of SR6 is in nobodies interest other than the producers of proprietary systems. The recommendation for the correct use of such systems as set out in an appendix is do what the producer tells you to do. The effect of this approach is the equivalent of the regulatory approach applied to the banking sector in this county.

jonnyj

How do you feel about reed bed systems?

sinnerboy

http://www.nsai.ie/index.cfm/area/page/information/irishagrementboard

Wastewater Treatment Systems – Alarms

The Irish Agrément Board is aware of a number of recent incidents involving misuse of Agrément certification concerning wastewater treatment systems.

Agrément certificates describe in detail the product certified and the conditions of certification. If the product is not as described, it should not be advertised, sold or marked as an Agrément certified product.

Please note that all Agrément approved systems should be provided with an alarm in accordance with I.S. EN 12566-3 Small wastewater treatment systems for up to 50PT – Part 3: Packaged and/or assembled domestic wastewater treatment plants Cl 6.1.1 and this has been brought to the attention of all manufacturers.

Certificates which currently state that an alarm is optional, will be amended, in due course.

The Irish Agrément Board will pursue any misrepresentation with certificate holders concerned.

The Engineer

Schooby wrote: »

On your three points, quality of persons getting on the FETAC course,
1 we are in the early days of protecting ground water in this country and in the late days of destroying it on having not far off 50% of the population relying on often poorly sepcified and more often poorly constructed and even more often poorly maintained onsite waste water treatment. Achieving the FETAC cert is a good start as prior to this tests were acepted off completely unqualified persons. the panel of approved assessors operated by many councils should go further in determining competance.

2 certification of the various systems was to be sorted out through the comming into effect of the European standard for onsite waste water treatment systems, its v. detailed and good, however introduction was delayed in Ireland as only two companies had systems that came up to spec and the other ones must had people in a tent in Galway.

3 the continued use of SR6 is in nobodies interest other than the producers of proprietary systems. The recommendation for the correct use of such systems as set out in an appendix is do what the producer tells you to do. The effect of this approach is the equivalent of the regulatory approach applied to the banking sector in this county.

I am intrigued by alot of the posts that I see here. I would like to comment on the above points in the order in which they appear (Also, I would like to state up-front that I don't work for a manufacturer of septic tanks or proprietary systems!):

1. Having successfully completed the FAS/EPA course some years back and received the FETAC Cert, I can state, without doubt, that it is a pretty worthless "item" - qualification is too strong a word - and, from what I've seen in the intervening years, is in no way a definite statement of the holder's competence. Any form of testing on which the results will be used to design something should be carried out by a fully qualified designer (and by fully qualified, I mean someone with an Engineering Degree, or equal approved). Most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, the designer should have Professional Negligence Indemnity (PI) Insurance sufficient to cover the cost of rectifying any damage that may arise out of their negligence, i.e. if your site is worth €X and you are building a house costing €Y on it, then the site assessor should have PI to cover the cost of worst-case scenario negligence, i.e. €X+Y. It's up to the site owner to check that the PI cover is in place and sufficient to pay for potential mess-ups.

The panels that Local Authorities have put in place are potentially a good idea, but poorly put together (The Rudyard Kipling quote "Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages" springs to mind :rolleyes:). To make having a FETAC Cert a basic requirement, and forcing Chartered Engineers with years of experience in design, risk assessment, groundwater hydrology and hydraulics, and environmental engineering (as I have witnessed happening on one such panel) is completely off-side and a gross oversight on the part of the Local Authorities.

2. The European Standard, EN 12566, is for the testing and CE Marking of wastewater treatment plants, septic tanks, soil filters, etc. This test involves sending a treatment plant to a Certified Testing Laboratory for several months, where the plant is loaded with a wastewater of known strength under a variety of different test conditions. The treated effluent is constantly monitored and the results are used to give the plant a treatment efficiency (e.g. 97% removal of BOD, etc.). It is important to realise that, just because a plant has this CE Mark, it doesn't guarantee that it will work on every site. That's why it is crucial to use a properly qualified site assessor to carry out the site assessment. The reults should then be used to design a watsewater treatment solution (i.e. proprietary system, septic tank, etc. and a disposal area i.e. percolation area, polishing filter, etc.) based on the conditions of the site and the removal efficiency of the plant proposed.

With regard to this design work, I seriously doubt that the Insurance Companies that are provide PI cover to the Site Assessors (with just a FETAC Cert) know that they are carrying out design work also - if you look at the EPA Site Assessment Form, it makes the Site Assessor essentially design the treatment plant and disposal area. I also doubt that the Site Assessors fully appreciate the grey area that they are getting into!

3. I think this is a very important point that lots of people posting on boards.ie about site assessments, treatment systems, septic tanks, etc., don't know is that the EPA Manual, Treatment Systems for Single Houses (or "EPA 2000", as it is often called) is only a guidance document. It was, and could still possibly be, in draft format, and has little or no legal status. SR6, which is a dated document - and most definately not in the interest of producers of proprietary treatment systems - is still recognised by statute insofar that it is referred to in the Building Regs Technical Guidance Docs.

My final point (phew!) is Caveat emptor! Whether you are employing someone to design a house, carry out a site assessment, design a treatment plant and disposal area, the onus is on YOU to ensure the person you are employing is fully qualified and has the relevant insurance in place. If in doubt, ask for a copy of their Insurance Certificate (Remember that just because the Local Authority stipulates the level of PI cover required by the Site Assessor, doesn't mean it's enough for the work you are getting them to do - check and re-check!) and get referees off them! Remember, you are employing someone that you need to be up front and honest with you - if your site is unsuitable to develop, there's no point in someone falsifying a report just to get you planning permission because you'll just end up with a poor design. In the case of a site assessment or the design of a wastewater treatment system, there is a real possibility for something that doesn't work, stinks like a wet dog and a garden with effluent ponding on it) and the potential for an environmental disaster (such as pollution of groundwater, drinking water wells, etc.) and the dreaded litigation.