EPA 'guidelines' or SR 6 'law'

The Engineer

Quick Edit:
Im starting a new thread on this here. This is mainly to debate the standing of the EPA manual in certification as compared to other legal documents such as SR 6 1991.

Please feel free to add.

Syd

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

hear hear! Seriously OP, you should follow the regulations to a T, thats what they're there for. And not following them will only lead to trouble

Paddy, to the best of my knowledge there are no regulations governing this area. Local Authorities try to enforce compliance with the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manual - Treatment Systems for Single Houses, but this is merely a guidance document. For designers, compliance with a guidance document does not relieve their legal duties and they must satisfy themselves of the fitness for purpose of their design. I've seen cases where strict compliance with the EPA Manual would have lead to shocking designs on sites, only for the designer to step in and over-rule the document, as is his obligation!

The EPA Manual is not the "Bible" of On-Site Wastewater Treatment, no matter how many Local Authorities treat it as such. I'm convinced that it will be severely exposed via litigation in the not-too-distant future!

Supertech

Certain counties will impose a planning condition that the sewage treatment works for a development must be certified by a suitably qualified professional prior to the occupation of the house. I would imagine that this is what engineer 24/7 is referring to.

Penn

The Engineer wrote: »

Paddy, to the best of my knowledge there are no regulations governing this area. Local Authorities try to enforce compliance with the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manual - Treatment Systems for Single Houses, but this is merely a guidance document. For designers, compliance with a guidance document does not relieve their legal duties and they must satisfy themselves of the fitness for purpose of their design. I've seen cases where strict compliance with the EPA Manual would have lead to shocking designs on sites, only for the designer to step in and over-rule the document, as is his obligation!

The EPA Manual is not the "Bible" of On-Site Wastewater Treatment, no matter how many Local Authorities treat it as such. I'm convinced that it will be severely exposed via litigation in the not-too-distant future!

Well, fair point I suppose. I know the EPA Manual isn't strictly 'regulation' but as the OP doesn't seem to have a designer for the system and it is for a one-off house, I referred to it as being regulation because it may as well be. I know the current EPA manual and the SR6:1991 will be superceded by a new EPA manual, and although they are not regulation, they are held in a similar regard as regulation by planning authorities who will insist that it is designed and constructed in accordance with the EPA manual.

Even though it is not regulation, in the vast majority of cases, if you have no engineer or designer, it is best to follow the EPA manual as close as possible.

Supertech

The case for designers overruling the guidance document in relation to effluent treatment works could be also be made for all the Building Regulations TGD's - they too are only a guide, and not the regulation.

However, conditions on a Planning Permission would be enforced under the Planning Acts, so where the EPA manual is conditioned in the Planning Permission as the standard to which the works have to be carried out, it then becomes 'the Bible' rather than a guide, and any variation would entail retention being applied for. In this case, if I recall correctly the OP was in an area where SR6 was the standard, so the same would hold true for that.

The Engineer

I'm sorry, but this is most definitely not the case! A guidance document can never be treated as anything but a guidance document. One of the main reasons for a lot of the confusion surrounding the status of the EPA Manual stems from the fact that it is missing a statement such as that in BS6297, i.e. "This code of practice represents a standard of good practice and takes the form of recommendations. Compliance with it does not of itself confer immunity from relevant legal obligations".

Just because Planning Departments have been operating ultra vires and trying to force designers to comply with a draft technical guidance document does not justify treating this document as something that it is not, and will never be!

Supertech wrote: »

However, conditions on a Planning Permission would be enforced under the Planning Acts, so where the EPA manual is conditioned in the Planning Permission as the standard to which the works have to be carried out, it then becomes 'the Bible' rather than a guide

The Engineer

Paddy, you are correct insofar that when the new EPA Manual is circulated it will immediately supersede its predecessor, EPA 2000. However, it could take up to 2 years before it gets any legal recognition and it will, therefore, not supersede SR6 immediately. With respect to how planning authorities regard this document, please see my reply to Supertech.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I know the current EPA manual and the SR6:1991 will be superceded by a new EPA manual, and although they are not regulation, they are held in a similar regard as regulation by planning authorities who will insist that it is designed and constructed in accordance with the EPA manual.

The purpose of the EPA Manual is to assist planning authorities, developers, system manufacturers, system designers, system installers and system operators to deal with the complexities of on-site systems for single houses. It is not meant to be used by persons operating outside of their field of experience without the assistance of an engineer or designer. One of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive is to prevent the further deterioration of all waters (including ground waters), and this will be very difficult to achieve if persons lacking the relevant experience are carrying out work based on their own interpretation of a draft technical guidance document.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Even though it is not regulation, in the vast majority of cases, if you have no engineer or designer, it is best to follow the EPA manual as close as possible.

Supertech

So what do you propose ? That everybody granted permission ion a county where the EPA manual is used as the standard refuse to comply with planning conditions ?
The point I'm making is that there are certain counties where the EPA manual is enforced through the intial testing procedure and through the imposition of Planning conditions and people building in these counties therefore have to comply with those conditions. Therefore for these people, the EPA manual is their 'Bible' when it comes to compliance. Otherwise they are in breach of their planning. The average punter is just happy to get permission to build, and is not concerned with the bigger picture, and maybe that's where the bigger part of this problem lies in that many sites are simply not suitable for on site waste water disposal.

Do you feel SR 6 is a better document ?

Supertech

The purpose of the EPA Manual is to assist planning authorities, developers, system manufacturers, system designers, system installers and system operators to deal with the complexities of on-site systems for single houses. It is not meant to be used by persons operating outside of their field of experience without the assistance of an engineer or designer. One of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive is to prevent the further deterioration of all waters (including ground waters), and this will be very difficult to achieve if persons lacking the relevant experience are carrying out work based on their own interpretation of a draft technical guidance document.

Sorry The Engineer, only saw this after I had posted. I agree with you here. However, the OP in this instance fell into the final category, ie no experience, no professional on board etc. etc. and seemed determined to plough on regardless. All that happened in this thread was that he was advised to a) engage a professional and b) adhere to the guidance set out in the EPA manual for constructing his percolation area.

Penn

Supertech wrote: »

Sorry The Engineer, only saw this after I had posted. I agree with you here. However, the OP in this instance fell into the final category, ie no experience, no professional on board etc. etc. and seemed determined to plough on regardless. All that happened in this thread was that he was advised to a) engage a professional and b) adhere to the guidance set out in the EPA manual for constructing his percolation area.

Exactly. I may not have said it to the OP, but people here did strongly advise him to hire a professional. But he didn't, and continuously came here and asked questions. As he wasn't going to get a professional in, we advised following the EPA manual because it is the best document to follow for this type of work. And the OP knew that if he had any questions, he could ask us here, which he did.

By asking the OP to follow the EPA manual, we were merely trying to ensure he followed what is regarded to be best practice details, because he was going to do this himself without a professional.

sydthebeat

in my experience rural effluent treatment is dealt with in a very ad hoc way by most county councils. i cannot, for the life of me, understand why there is no nationwide compulsive regulation to adhere to. Heres my experience of some local councils

Laois
In Laois they still use SR 6 1991. A council official carries out the test at a fee of €300. However, in some circumstances they do not carry out the test properly. SR 6 allows for overnight saturation of holes if required, but the council NEVER carry this out, even when it is proper procedure. Also, they make no allowances for top level rain water off-flow into the test holes. In my opinion, if they go to a site and there is water in the test holes they should at least empty the holes, then test!! Laois co co prefer to see a working septic tank than an effluent treatment system. Private certifiers are expected to certify the suitability of these systems and percolation areas, as per drawings and documents submitted during the planning process.

Offaly
Offaly use a wierd mixture of EPA and SR 6. The council carry out the test and they do both T and P tests. In offaly every rural dwelling is required to install an effluent treatment system. Private certifiers are expected to certify the suitability of these systems and percolation areas, as per drawings and documents submitted during the planning process.

Kilkenny, Carlow, Kildare
Private agents on a prescribed list carry out an EPA test in kilkenny, kildare and carlow. As far as i know only kilkeeny are including a condition of planning stating the effluent treatment system and percolation area (more-so) is to be specifically certified on intallation. Problem here is that there is, as of yet, no course that someone can do which will enable them to certify these systems and percolation areas. Kilkenny co co are accepting certification from persons who have qualified in the FETAC "suitability of on-site waste water treatment".....



so as you can see, from my experience, there is no nationwide standard of either testing or certifying of these systems.

sydthebeat

as regards the legal status of the EPA 'guideline', id like to ask The Engineer, in the absence of a legal document, how would you expect to certify a percolation system?? would you revert back to SR 6??

The use of a 'guideline' as a standard, prior to having statutory standing, is common place through out irish law. i have seen many draft county development plans enforced before voted into law. The sustainable rural 'guidelines' are in fact only guidelines, made possible by a flimsy section of the P & D act 2000.

The EPA manual is currently published as a consultation "code of practise" at the moment and close to being given statutory basis, from what i hear.

Jimbo

It's only a matter of time with the greens in power that the EPA manual will become statutory. It's becoming evident with the currentroll-out of the FAS/EPA site suitability course although places are very limited.

Sinnerboy started an intersting thread in the Arch Tech forum asking what manual the different local authorities require testing to. Link here

The Engineer

With regard to “legal status”, let's go back-to-basics here guys. Is there any statutory document out there that we know we must comply with? The answer is "yes"; the Building Regulations! If we look to Part D of the Building Regulations, whereas it does not specifically refer to wastewater treatment systems (e.g. septic tank, secondary treatment system, etc.) or disposal areas (e.g. percolation area, tertiary polishing filter, etc.) per se, we find that it does define "proper materials".

"proper materials" mean: materials which are fit for the use for which they are intended and for the conditions in which they are to be used, and includes materials which

(a) bear a CE Marking in accordance with the provisions of the Construction Products Directive; or

(b) comply with an appropriate harmonized standard, European technical approval or national technical specification as defined in article 4(2) of the Construction Products Directive; or

(c) comply with an appropriate Irish Standard or Irish Agrément Board Certificate or with an alternative national technical specification of any State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, which provides in use an equivalent level of safety and suitability.

Section (c) above is probably the most interesting of the lot. Assuming that we are all site assessors, we do not have an Irish Standard covering this area, only Standard Recommendations (i.e. SR6) and a draft Technical Guidance Document (i.e. EPA Manual). We could potentially use a German DIN standard, etc. for designing the system. The fundamental question, that does not get asked often enough is as follows: Why are site assessors being asked to design wastewater treatment systems and disposal areas in the first place? Why is a site assessor not being asked to work within his area of expertise (i.e. assessing the characteristics of sites) and leaving the design of the treatment system and disposal area up to those best placed – the manufacturers / installers! Remember, the Sections 4 and 5 of the EPA Site Characterisation Form are forcing the site assessor to make definitive statements regarding the suitability of the site and as to the type of treatment system that should be installed. Does a site assessor’s Professional Negligence Indemnity Insurance cover such work? Would a site assessor not be far better off detailing the site’s characteristics and then passing his report to a manufacturer / supplier of wastewater treatment systems (e.g. septic tank, secondary treatment system, etc.) and get him to design the system and the disposal area and, most importantly, accept responsibility for his design. As it stands, by completing Sections 4 and 5 of the EPA Manual, the site assessor is potentially shouldering all the liability regarding the wastewater treatment system. If this has not yet been tested by The Courts, I suspect it is just a matter of time before it is!

We should, therefore, refer our Site Characterisation Form to a manufacturer of a wastewater treatment system and get them to design a wastewater treatment system and disposal area, making reference to their Irish Agrément Board Certificate. (although IAB Certification is a flawed process, but that’s another day’s work). The cosy situation that manufacturers / suppliers have found themselves in, whereby they can purely supply “off-the-shelf” wastewater treatment systems should not be tolerated! You would not buy a car without an exhaust system – similarly, you should not buy a treatment system without a disposal area. In other words, the supplier, or installer, of the wastewater treatment system should also be the supplier / installer of the disposal area. There are some wastewater treatment system suppliers out there that take this approach, and they are to be commended.

Essentially, Section 5 of the Site Characterisation Form (i.e. Recommendations) could then read:

Propose to install: Any wastewater treatment system that can be certified as fit for purpose.

The above might sound bizarre, but when you think about it, why are site assessors being forced to take the bulk of the responsibility? Interestingly, Local Authorities have managed to reduce their exposure with regard to Site Characterisations – the original Site Characterisation Form, as contained in Appendix A of the 2000 version of the EPA Manual contained a section entitled “Verification (by Local Authority)”. In the re-drafted Site Characterisation Form, available on the EPA’s website, this section now reads “Review (by Local Authority)”. Reviewing something is substantially less onerous than verifying it, as you will no doubt agree!

sydthebeat wrote: »

as regards the legal status of the EPA 'guideline', id like to ask The Engineer, in the absence of a legal document, how would you expect to certify a percolation system?? would you revert back to SR 6??

The use of a 'guideline' as a standard, prior to having statutory standing, is common place through out irish law. i have seen many draft county development plans enforced before voted into law. The sustainable rural 'guidelines' are in fact only guidelines, made possible by a flimsy section of the P & D act 2000.

The EPA manual is currently published as a consultation "code of practise" at the moment and close to being given statutory basis, from what i hear.

Supertech

We should, therefore, refer our Site Characterisation Form to a manufacturer of a wastewater treatment system and get them to design a wastewater treatment system and disposal area, making reference to their Irish Agrément Board Certificate. (although IAB Certification is a flawed process, but that’s another day’s work). The cosy situation that manufacturers / suppliers have found themselves in, whereby they can purely supply “off-the-shelf” wastewater treatment systems should not be tolerated!

Surely this is what's being done at present in any case. (It is in my area certainly) Site Characterisation carried out by registereed assessor. Forwarded to manufacturer of IAB certified system for site specific proposal. Manufacturer of plant recommends suitable model for particular site and designs size and construction of percolation area / polishing filter etc. etc.
Manufacturer's recommendation forms part of assessor's report.

The Engineer

If this is the case, then why do Local Authorities require that installations of wastewater treatment systems and disposal areas be professionally certified to comply with the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manual "EPA 2000" (a draft technical guidance document with no legal status) and its attendant planning requirements, and not with Irish Building Regulations or European Construction Regulations. There is no requirement even to certify that the system will actually work in any given situation!

To the Site Assessors; have any of you picked up on my comment regarding why site assessors are being asked to essentially design wastewater treatment and disposal systems in the first place (i.e. completing Section 5 of the EPA Site Characterisation Form)? Can you see the increased exposure on this is putting on you? Are your insurers aware that you are being asked to do this work, or are they of the opinion that you are just carrying out an assessment of the characteristics of a site? Have any of you sent the EPA Site Characterisation Form to your insurers for their comments?

I'll give you an example of a potential pit-fall regarding Section 5 of the EPA Site Characterisation Form:

Mr. X, a site assessor in County Y, is asked to carry out a site assessment. The Local Authority in County Y require that all Site Assessors complete the EPA Site Characterisation Form and that all designs be carried out "in accordance with EPA 2000". Mr. X assesses the site and discovers that it is unsuitable for a septic tank and percolation system, and in Section 4 of the EPA Site Characterisation Form he concludes that the type of system suitable for use on the site is a mechanical aeration system and polishing unit. In section 5 of the Form he states "Propose to install: System Z ."

Everything appears to be going great until a few years down the line, when the homeowner discovers that there are elevated levels of faecal coliforms in their drinking water well. The legal experts are immediately summoned upon. It turns out that System Z did not have the necessary fail-safe items built into its design in order to prevent it reverting back to a septic tank-type function. Hence, Mr. X, who recommended System Z in the first place, is challegend in Court for recommending the installation of a Wastewater Treatment System that a reasonably-minded designer would have known had the potential to revert back to a septic tank-type funtion. Worse still, his credibility is seriously questioned over the fact that he designed a disposal area in accordance with a draft technical guidance document with no legal status. His only response is that the Local Authority made it incumbent on him to do so in order that his client get planning approval! Notwithstanding the fact that the Local Authority were operating ultra vires, the Judge would inform Mr. X that an experienced and reasonably-minded designer should have been aware of the potential for the above situation to arise.

Supertech wrote: »

Surely this is what's being done at present in any case. (It is in my area certainly) Site Characterisation carried out by registereed assessor. Forwarded to manufacturer of IAB certified system for site specific proposal. Manufacturer of plant recommends suitable model for particular site and designs size and construction of percolation area / polishing filter etc. etc.
Manufacturer's recommendation forms part of assessor's report.

Supertech

why site assessors are being asked to essentially design wastewater treatment and disposal systems in the first place

I don't beleive this is accurate. Any site characterisations I have seen recommend a parrticular system 'to be designed and installed in accordance with the manufacture's specification'.

Secondly, all of the site assessments I have seen further recommmend that any treatment system installed should be the subject of a suitable ongoing maintenance contract with the manufacturer. This is in turn made a condition of the planning permission, and is therefore the responsibility of the owner of the property to comply with.

So the process in my area is as follows :

Site Assessment by member of LA panel, carrying adequate PI
Design of System and Disposal Area by TP Manufacturer whose product must be IAB certified
Installation of Plant and Construction of Disposal Area in accordance with manufacturer's specification (in theory)
Certification of Works by 'competent person' - architect, engineer, technician etc. (not necessarily the assessor)
Maintenance Contract between purchaser and plant supplier (conditioned in PP)
Annual inspection and report on plant by manufacturer.

The post design stage is where I feel the system falls down.

What are the 'fail safe' items in treatment plants you allude to, and are you suggesting that their absence is a design flaw ?

The Engineer

Supertech, In my opinion my previous statement is accurate. I have just looked up three randomly selected Site Characterisation Report Forms on-line (submitted as part of planning applications) and each of the three stated the name of a wastewater treatment system in the "propose to install" line of the recommendations section. In recommending a specific wastewater treatment system here a site assessor is essentially making a statement as to the suitability of that product for the site in question. The ideal thing to write here would be "propose to install any wastewater treatment system that can be certified as fit-for-purpose on this site, in accordance with the Building Regulations".

Regarding the fail-safes on a secondary treatment system to prevent it reverting to a septic tank-type function, these are all common sense items such as the system not having a gravity discharge - if it has a gravity discharge the system, if not correctly maintained, will revert back to a septic tank-type function. Now, you can start off another discussion about the onus being on homeowners to maintain their treatment plant, but there is also a fundamental onus on the designer / specifier to ensure that the proposed plant has the relevant fail-safes to prevent this eventuality.

Supertech, if you are a site assessor and you are satisfied that you have minimal exposure, then good for you, and I mean that. Having gotten out of this area a number of years back, I can unequivocally state that am glad I no longer work in a field where Local Authorities are dictating to experienced professionals as to how they should carry out their work. Talk about having your cake and wanting to eat it!

Carpe Diem

I have to agree with The Engineer with the suggestion that it is only a matter of time that the EPA 2000 Manual will be found seriously lacking in substance from a legal perspective, and unfortunately it will undoubtably result in some site assessor being hung out to dry after being rail roaded by a county councils interpretation of a draft guidance document.

I have a working knowledge of the EPA 2000 manual, I have to concur with much that has been said in these forums. This is not a legal document, and neither are the hybrid codes of conduct that some local Authorities have recently forced professionals to sign up to.

The lack of strong substance in this document, and its tendency to allow multiple interpretations, has been further compounded by an adversarial approach of Co. Council official's, whom for some strange reason, are pre-occupied with T values being less than 50. Less significance seems to be applied to the overall site characteristics, the type of system proposed( which vary hugely in performance), and not to mention the disposal method.

It is clear that the Co. Councils across the country are all taking vastly different approaches to the regulations of this form of development. I believe there are real concerns here for Site Assessors, whom i understand are anxious for work in the current climate, but I feel they need to be very careful as to their legal responsibilities in light of the ambiquity of these guidance documents, and indeed the even less reliable in-house codes drafted by some public servant with no professional indemnity liability!!

The Engineer

Carpe Diem wrote: »

I have a working knowledge of the EPA 2000 manual, I have to concur with much that has been said in these forums. This is not a legal document, and neither are the hybrid codes of conduct that some local Authorities have recently forced professionals to sign up to.

I don't understand why Local Authorities are forcing Site Assessors to comply with EPA 2000! Is it an attempt to control development, or is it simply a lack of understanding regarding the EPA's role in issuing guidance. The EPA has advisory functions in relation to local authorities, as is evident from the below excerpt from the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 2002:

The Agency may, and shall when requested by the Minister, give information or advice or make recommendations for the purposes of environmental protection, to a local authority or to local authorities generally in relation to the performance of any of its or their functions and the authority or authorities shall have regard to any such information or advice given or recommendations made.

Note that it does not state that Local Authorities shall comply rigidly with everything the EPA print. It merely states that Local Authorities "shall have regard to any such information or advice". Surely, the Local Authorities should afford the same courtesy to the Site Assessors, i.e. request that they have regard to the guidance documents?

The Engineer

I noticed that this thread has gone very quiet over the past few months, so I thought I'd throw this into the melting-pot...

Westmeath Co. Co., on their application form for inclusion on panel of approved assessors for Site Suitability Assessment and Design of on-site waste water treatment systems have an interesting section on Professional Indemnity Insurance. They want the applicant to confirm that he/she is insured for design of waste water treatment systems for single houses. I only became aware of this recently, and I'm sure it pre-dates my previous post:

The Engineer wrote: »

Sections 4 and 5 of the EPA Site Characterisation Form are forcing the site assessor to make definitive statements regarding the suitability of the site and as to the type of treatment system that should be installed. Does a site assessor’s Professional Negligence Indemnity Insurance cover such work? Would a site assessor not be far better off detailing the site’s characteristics and then passing his report to a manufacturer / supplier of wastewater treatment systems (e.g. septic tank, secondary treatment system, etc.) and get him to design the system and the disposal area and, most importantly, accept responsibility for his design. As it stands, by completing Sections 4 and 5 of the EPA Manual, the site assessor is potentially shouldering all the liability regarding the wastewater treatment system. If this has not yet been tested by The Courts, I suspect it is just a matter of time before it is!

Does anyone have anything to add to this, or am I the only one that thinks this is absolutely ridiculous?! Since when does completion of the FÁS/EPA/GSI course mean that a site assessor is suitably qualified to design a waste water treatment system?!

I would love to know if any site assessor out there has actually contacted their insurers for confirmation as to whether or not they are covered for this area of work?

Let's get the debate going again chaps!

Penn

The Engineer wrote: »

I noticed that this thread has gone very quiet over the past few months, so I thought I'd throw this into the melting-pot...

Westmeath Co. Co., on their application form for inclusion on panel of approved assessors for Site Suitability Assessment and Design of on-site waste water treatment systems have an interesting section on Professional Indemnity Insurance. They want the applicant to confirm that he/she is insured for design of waste water treatment systems for single houses. I only became aware of this recently, and I'm sure it pre-dates my previous post:



Does anyone have anything to add to this, or am I the only one that thinks this is absolutely ridiculous?! Since when does completion of the FÁS/EPA/GSI course mean that a site assessor is suitably qualified to design a waste water treatment system?!

I would love to know if any site assessor out there has actually contacted their insurers for confirmation as to whether or not they are covered for this area of work?

Let's get the debate going again chaps!

I think you're taking 'design wastewater treatment system' too literal. It means that the site assessor should be able to tell from the site characterisation/assessment and percolation tests which type of system should be used, what capacity tank and how many lengths of distribution pipe is necessary, and all designed in accordance with the necessary regulations.

If a certain system was to be used (BioCycle or whatever), they wouldn't actually 'design it', they would give the information to the manufacturer who would design it based on the information received. The site assessor would then used their report as part of his overall design

The Engineer

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I think you're taking 'design wastewater treatment system' too literal. It means that the site assessor should be able to tell from the site characterisation/assessment and percolation tests which type of system should be used, what capacity tank and how many lengths of distribution pipe is necessary, and all designed in accordance with the necessary regulations.

If a certain system was to be used (BioCycle or whatever), they wouldn't actually 'design it', they would give the information to the manufacturer who would design it based on the information received. The site assessor would then used their report as part of his overall design

I'm pretty sure that if a dispute arose, the legal professionals would take the phrase literally too, paddyirishman! Perhaps the LA need to provide a better explanation so the text is not open to interpretation, but until such a time as they do, site assessors in Westmeath need to have PI for design!

Schooby

just a couple of brief points,

the engineer made ref to Part D of the Building regs, Part H deals with Waste water disposal and makes specific reference to SR6 which is an added level of difficulty with this whole area.

there is a European standard for on site waste water treatment systems its introduction in Ireland (supposed to have been last year from memory) which was going to sort out alot of the messing was delayed on the basis of a circular letter from the DOE apparently because there were so few suppliers in Ireland up to scratch and couldn't comply (back benchers doing what they do best, taking care of the 'local business man')

A couple of years ago I looked into the issue of PI insurance policies for site assessors from a range of different backgrounds and all contained a very specific exclusion for pollution so therefore I am of the understanding that 99.9% of those carrying out the assessments are doing so with no PI cover in that regard.

As with almost everything local authorities are operating with such limited resources that it is rarely the case that anyone with any expertise will be involved in assessing this aspect of a planning application for a single rural house so the only fall back is to rely on the best available information, and that is EPA 2000.

This whole issue is a mess on so many levels.

glencoe

Gents
In my opinion if the LA have granted permission with conditions, the conditions must be complied with or strictly the grant could be voided - non compliance.
What if the LA granted red tiles on the roof and you used black slates have you complied?

Many years ago i got refuse permission because the percolation area was not the same as in the example figures in the then building regs. This was the opinion of the planning engineer then.

Uasually the engineer will only vary if a professional can convince him, but to cover the LA engineer. PI if available will completely remove his responsibility.

Catch 22 is always at play
If someone can take responsibility then the LA are OK.

The Engineer

I am glad that this debate / discussion appears to be taking-off again. There are some very interesting issues being raised here.

[font=Arial, sans-serif]

Schooby wrote: »

the engineer made ref to Part D of the Building regs, Part H deals with Waste water disposal and makes specific reference to SR6 which is an added level of difficulty with this whole area.

[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]Schooby, the reason I referred to Part D was because it defines proper materials (i.e. materials which are fit for the use for which they are intended and for the conditions in which they are to be used).[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]

Schooby wrote: »

there is a European standard for on site waste water treatment systems its introduction in Ireland (supposed to have been last year from memory) which was going to sort out alot of the messing was delayed on the basis of a circular letter from the DOE apparently because there were so few suppliers in Ireland up to scratch and couldn't comply (back benchers doing what they do best, taking care of the 'local business man')

[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]It is important to bear in mind that this Standard, EN 12566-3 purely specifies requirements, test methods, the marking and evaluation of conformity for packaged and/or site assembled domestic wastewater treatment plants used for populations up to 50 inhabitants. It is for use by manufacturers of wastewater treatment plants in order to CE mark their plants, providing a statement on the percentage removal efficiency of the plant for various parameters (e.g. BOD, SS, COD, etc.). Based on a known or assumed influent strength, and a known effluent requirement, designers can then use the removal efficiency percentage to determine if the plant is suitable for a particular application. Remember that just because a wastewater treatment plant has a CE Mark does not guarantee its fitness for purpose on all sites!
[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]

Schooby wrote: »

just a couple of brief points,
A couple of years ago I looked into the issue of PI insurance policies for site assessors from a range of different backgrounds and all contained a very specific exclusion for pollution so therefore I am of the understanding that 99.9% of those carrying out the assessments are doing so with no PI cover in that regard.

[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]Schooby has made an excellent point here regarding Professional Negligence Indemnity Insurance. As per a previous post, on the application form for inclusion on a particular Local Authority's panel of approved assessors the Local Authority want the applicant to confirm that he/she has PI cover for design of waste water treatment systems for single houses. Where a designer of a wastewater treatment system (e.g. septic tank, percolation area, treatment plant, polishing filter, etc.) is negligent, it will invariably result in a pollution incident (e.g. ponding of effluent, fly nuisance, odour, well contamination, surface water contamination). As per Schooby's post, PI insurance policies contain a very specific exclusion for pollution, and it would therefore appear that PI cover is not available for what some Local Authorities are looking for. [/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]

Schooby wrote: »

As with almost everything local authorities are operating with such limited resources that it is rarely the case that anyone with any expertise will be involved in assessing this aspect of a planning application for a single rural house so the only fall back is to rely on the best available information, and that is EPA 2000.

[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]Schooby, I'm not so sure that the above statement is accurate. When carrying out a building project, the legal obligation is to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, and not the guidance contained in a Code of Practice, Standard Recommendations, or other approved Technical Guidance Document. In other words, there is no legal obligation to use a Technical Guidance Document; it is entirely up to the individual Building Professional (i.e. the designer) to choose whether or not to use all or some of the Technical Guidance Documents, or even some parts of them.[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]As the legal obligation is to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, the designer has the option of coming up with his own solution or of following some other authoritative guidance. There can often be circumstances in which it would be unnecessary or inappropriate to follow the guidance contained in a Technical Guidance Document, such as the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manual, in full. Indeed, the Guidance Document may offer no guidance whatsoever on a particular issue being faced.[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Essentially, the main issue is as to whether or not compliance with a Technical Guidance Document allows a designer to be confident that he is satisfying the requirements of the Building Regulations. A common opinion amongst Building and Legal Professionals is that the onus is on the designer to show that he has met the requirements of the Building Regulations, whilst being mindful of the fact that non-compliance with a Technical Guidance Document does not necessarily mean that the Building Regulations have been contravened![/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]

glencoe wrote: »

In my opinion if the LA have granted permission with conditions, the conditions must be complied with or strictly the grant could be voided - non compliance.
What if the LA granted red tiles on the roof and you used black slates have you complied?

[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]Glencoe, I am not suggesting that designers should ignore planning conditions. However, where a planning condition forces strict compliance with a Technical Guidance Document issues can often arise. Consider a proposed house with 8 inhabitants on a site with a T-value of between 41 and 50. For a wastewater treatment plant with a pump-discharge to a soil polishing filter, the EPA Manual requires a 288 square metre filter, using a 25mm distribution manifold. Any design engineer with practical experience of hydraulics will explain that such a design will not be fit for its intended purpose.[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]I note your reference to the granting and usage of different colour tiles on a roof, but this is not really a relevant example here. Either way, the tiles should be fit for their intended purpose – the issue of the colour is an aesthetic debate.[/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]

glencoe wrote: »

Uasually the engineer will only vary if a professional can convince him, but to cover the LA engineer. PI if available will completely remove his responsibility.

[/font]
[font=Arial, sans-serif]Glencoe, I am not unsure of (and slightly worried by ) what you mean here. How will having PI completely remove someone's responsibility? [/font]

The Engineer

sydthebeat wrote: »

a septic tank does not have any movable parts. its basically a two chamber concrete tank that uses anaerobic bacterial action to break down effluent waste.

biocycle and other 'effluent treatment systems' have movable parts such as maceraters, aerators etc to aerobically break down the effluent.

treatment systems have shown to remove a higher percentage of nasty particles and have safer residue than septic tanks.

the requirement to use a septic tank or treatment system is usually dependent on the site conditions and topography.

The septic tank's main function is to remove gross solids from the effluent, thereby allowing a liquid effluent to seep into the soil and water table via a percolation area. Some septic tanks can achieve a 40-50% biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 80% suspended solids removal, but the frequent desludging required can prevent anaerobic digestion from every fully developing and giving these removal percentages.

A secondary treatment system, such as the biocycle, is often a complete treatment system that incorporates a septic tank and a submerged aerated filter for secondary treatment within a single tank. A much greater level of treatment can be achieved, with much greater desludging intervals in certain cases (always check with the manufacturer, as desludging costs are the major hidden cost with treatment systems, and in my experience many of the manufacturers / installers will hide behind the small-print).

SolarCharge wrote: »

Hypothetically, if you had the choice between the two, which would you go for?

There is a misconception that a septic tank is a green, or environmentally friendly solution for on-site wastewater disposal due to the fact that in many cases it does not require power. However, when you consider the highly concentrated and dangerous nature of the effluent being emitted from a septic tank directly into the environment, it is difficult to comprehend how the issue of power consumption is given so much weight. If we took this approach with every facet of engineering, city streets would still have knee deep levels of horse-sh1t, with people still travelling by horse-drawn carriage.

A correctly designed and installed secondary treatment system, although requiring power, can emit a much cleaner effluent to the environment. The emphasis here should be on the correct design and installation!

From the point of view of trying to "certify" a development for the purposes of property conveyancing, a septic tank will generally pose lots of problems for the engineer, and their certification will be littered with disclaimers. A correctly designed and installed secondary treatment system should have a paper-trail associated with it, whereby the engineer can essentially check the history of the system and then issue his certificate with much more confidence.

The reputability of the manufacturer / installer is very important here, but if I could satisfy myself on this front, I would go for the secondary treatment system. It has the potential to give you a lower whole-life cost over its usefull life.

changes wrote: »

My treatment plant runs on electricity 24 7 all year round and needs desludged once every year (or 2 depending on the intake).

My sister has a septic tank for years and years and I don't think they have ever had to desludge it and it does not need electricity.

Your secondary treatment system probably uses about 1 - 2 units of electricity per day. This is comparable to your domestic fridge, and is (broadly speaking) negligible over the course of a year.

You've mentioned desludging, but don't mention the cost of it. Desludging is often the big hidden cost associated with septic tanks and secondary treatment systems, and a licensed waste collection and disposal contractor will often charge in excess of €300 to desludge a septic tank or a secondary treatment system. However, you could have shopped around for a secondary treatment system that did not require desludging once or twice per annum. Some manufacturers can offer desludging intervals in excess of 8 or 9 years.

Your statment regarding your sister's septic tank may be valid, notwithstanding any environmental issues emanating from an unmaintained septic tank, of course! However, in light of the October 2009 European Court of Justice ruling, which highlighted our government’s abject failure to comply with EU law in regard to the operation of septic tanks, licensing of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal (e.g. septic tanks, secondary treatment systems, filter systems, etc.) such as that already in-place in Co. Cavan is not too far away. On foot of such licensing, it is likely that septic tanks will require annual desludging. Secondary treatment systems will need to be desludged in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. Therefore, if the manufacturer says it needs to be desludged once per annum, it needs to be desludged once per annum! If the manufacturer says it needs to be desludged once every 10 years, it needs to be desludged once every 10 years, etc.

SolarCharge, it is worth noting that an on-site wastewater treatment system, be it a septic tank and percolation area, or a secondary treatment system and polishing filter, is not your typical "building product". In fact, the word "product" is grossly misleading - they are "processes" and require detailed and careful design considerations. My advice to you would be to have your site assessed by a competent person (i.e. a person with an appropriate level of insurance cover who has acquired, through training, qualification and experience, the knowledge and skills to carry out an assessment of the suitability of a site to safely dispose of treated wastewater). You then need to have your on-site wastewater treatment system designed by a competent person ( i.e. a person with an appropriate level of insurance cover who has acquired, through training, qualification and experience, the knowledge and skills to design an on-site wastewater treatment system).

You may be able to find one person to undertake both of these tasks, but be advised that the insurance cover for the design of an on-site wastewater treatment system is a very specific insurance cover - just because a site assessor has Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance for assessing sites, this does not automatically mean that he has the same cover for selecting / designing an on-site wastewater treatment system. Always ask for a copy of their insurance details up-front. Just because someone is on a Local Authority's "Approved Panel of Site Assessors" does not mean that they are insured to undertake the work you want them to. Caveat emptor.

I hope this is of use!

The Engineer

muffler wrote: »

A lot of Planning Authorities have an approved list of assessors. Give them a quick ring or check their web site.

The OP mentioned his site was in Connemara. To the best of my knowledge, Galway County Council do not have an approved list of assessors. In any case, as I mentioned in an earlier post:

The Engineer wrote: »

Always ask for a copy of their insurance details up-front. Just because someone is on a Local Authority's "Approved Panel of Site Assessors" does not mean that they are insured to undertake the work you want them to.

In a previous thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055539979&page=2) it came up for discussion that a Local Authority was requiring the "approved" site assessors to carry Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance for not only site assessment, but also for design of the on-site wastewater treatment system. I would contend that a large portion of those persons that made it onto this particular Local Authority's list of approved assessors (or in fact any other Authority's list, for that matter) do not carry Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance for the design of the on-site wastewater treatment system. I also find it odd that the EPA / FÁS / GSI course makes no reference to Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance. Nor does it make reference to its applicability for completing the EPA Site Characterisation Form. In fact, not too many people out there, be they "approved" site assessors, Local Authorities, etc., seem to want to face facts and accept that the design of an on-site wastewater treatment system is specialist work and requires specific insurance cover.

So, once again to the OP, I would say Caveat emptor. The onus is (unfortunately) always on you, the end-user, to verify that the person you are getting to undertake the work is competent and insured.

sydthebeat

The Engineer wrote: »

I would contend that a large portion of those persons that made it onto this particular Local Authority's list of approved assessors (or in fact any other Authority's list, for that matter) do not carry Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance for the design of the on-site wastewater treatment system.
.

any local authority to me, ie kildare, carlow, kilkenny, all require PI insurance and FETAC level 6 qualification.

The Engineer wrote: »

I also find it odd that the EPA / FÁS / GSI course makes no reference to Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance.
.

I dont see why they would include an 'insurance' topic in the course work? If its required to practise, so be it... if its not, its not....

The Engineer wrote: »

Nor does it make reference to its applicability for completing the EPA Site Characterisation Form.
.

again, not correct for LAs near me. All site characterisation forms must be submitted with a copy of PI insurance and qualification attached. Kildare do, however, accept one submission of PI and qualification per year as proof of cover and qualification.

The Engineer wrote: »

In fact, not too many people out there, be they "approved" site assessors, Local Authorities, etc., seem to want to face facts and accept that the design of an on-site wastewater treatment system is specialist work and requires specific insurance cover.
.

Strange... again, all the local authorities near me DO recognise that its specialised work in that they require proof of qualification and proof of PI insurance. With the advent of the EPA 'code of practise' every LA has been ordered to implement it... some are doing this in-house and others are farming it out to external agents.

The Engineer

sydthebeat wrote: »

any local authority to me, ie kildare, carlow, kilkenny, all require PI insurance and FETAC level 6 qualification.

Yes, they all require Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance. However, just because you have Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance for carrying out a site characterisation does not automatically mean that you have Professional Negligence Indemnity for designing an on-site wastewater treatment system.

It is questionable as to whether or not an insurane underwriter would be willing to take a risk on providing Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance for the design of an on-site wastewater treatment system to someone with a FETAC level 6 qualification. They tend to look at the designer's competencies under a microscope.

sydthebeat wrote: »

I dont see why they would include an 'insurance' topic in the course work? If its required to practise, so be it... if its not, its not....

See my comment above. By developing the Site Characterisation Form that has found its way into the EPA Code of Practice, the EPA have shown that they have a very questionable understanding of Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance (I won't bore the OP with them here, as they have been discussed in previous posts!). An 'insurance' topic in the coursework would be far more beneficial and would focus the mind an awful lot more than some of the topics currently covered.

sydthebeat wrote: »

again, not correct for LAs near me. All site characterisation forms must be submitted with a copy of PI insurance and qualification attached. Kildare do, however, accept one submission of PI and qualification per year as proof of cover and qualification.

Again, see above.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Strange... again, all the local authorities near me DO recognise that its specialised work in that they require proof of qualification and proof of PI insurance. With the advent of the EPA 'code of practise' every LA has been ordered to implement it... some are doing this in-house and others are farming it out to external agents.

I am quite sure that the Local Authorities are not rigorously checking the Professional Negligence Indemnity insurance certificates submitted to them. Although the certificates may specifically state "Professional Negligence Indemnity Insurance", the key section of the certificate is the Business Description (or Occupation, etc.) and this is most likely not receiving the attention it deserves. There is a big difference between site characterisation and on-site treatment system design / recommendations. As per a previous thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055539979), I will, once again, ask the following questions (so much for not boring the OP! ):

To the Site Assessors; have any of you picked up on my comment regarding why site assessors are being asked to essentially design wastewater treatment and disposal systems in the first place (i.e. completing Section 5 (and now section 6 also) of the EPA Site Characterisation Form)? Can you see the increased exposure on this is putting on you? Are your insurers aware that you are being asked to do this work, or are they of the opinion that you are just carrying out an assessment of the characteristics of a site? Have any of you sent the EPA Site Characterisation Form to your insurers for their comments?

There was very little, if any, response to these questions back in April 2009.

SolarCharge, sorry if this thread seems to have grown legs, but I just want to reiterate that the onus is on you to verify the competencies and insurance cover of the professionals you employ - you cannot rely on a panel of "approved" site assessors as prepared by a Local Authority.

imitation

Very interesting post the engineer. I`m currently building myself, the current plan is to go with a a septic tank as have been warned about the apparent troublesome nature and expense of biocycle systems. I`m on farm land with the closest neighbour about 200m away, but the land is sloping downhill with nothing but farmland beneath it. I have also told there are more advanced septic tank systems out there than your basic concrete tank.

RKQ

I agree with a lot of what the Engineer has written above.
S.R.6:1991 is refered to in TGD H but the EPA Manual is not, therefore the EPA manuals legal standing is questionable at the very least. This has been recognised by the Oireachtas and the European Court. The words "recommendations", "code of practice" & "manual" say a lot.

I understand from the Oireachtas Report May 2009, Joint Committee on the Envirnoment, Heritage & Local Government - The Regulation of Waste Water Treatment Services & Related Matters - found, "The EPA code of practice must be published without further delay and incorporated in the building regulations guidance section:"

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-EnvHerLocGov/Reports_2008/05052009-3.doc

The European Court fined the Irish Government last October 2009.

The Court also noted that the standards in Building Control Standard S.R.6 of 1991 (referred to in Technical Guidance Document H) are not suited to the geological and soil characteristics generally found in Ireland. It therefore, found that planning permissions granted on the basis of these standards did not ensure a level of environmental and human health protection that was required under EU law.
www.iro.ie/documents/EUPolicyReview09-6.pdf

sydthebeat

Why do you think qualified assessors are incapable of 'designing' the treatment process??

Lets be clear, they are not asked to 'design' the treatment system.. these systems exist as package solutions and are agrement certified. The assessor is being asked to make 'recommendations' as to the waste water treatment process. Do you not think their training is suitable for this purpose?

Whether or not insurance companies understand the risk involved is purely a matter for them. Once the assessor has informed them of the nature of work, and the company accepts to cover risk, then the assessor is covered, full stop, end of. I know oif an assessor who has PI insurance for this specific work alone, and nothing else. Do you honestly think his insurance company dont know what they are covering??

h_orse

Sorry if i seem to be jumping on the back of this debate here, I got recommended for a tertiary system from the site characterisation test done. However this was all completed back in 2008. Is this characterisation test still valid now on the same site...? I have been on to the tertiary treatment system company for them to inform me whether the system has been updated since 2008, where do i take it from here, as im at the stage of handing in a drawing application once more to the planning council. The percolation has also to be of raised percolation, does this limit the type of tertiary waste water treatment unit i can apply for...?:(

The Engineer

The test results and the site characterisation report should still be valid, unless you have made changes to the site or are relocating the proposed filter. However, the bigger question is as to whether or not the design is indemnified. Get professional advice before proceeding - I will send you a PM with some additional info.

RKQ

Op if the Suitability test was carried out in 2008 & Planning Permission was granted in 2008, then your Planning Permission is still valid and you must comply with the conditions of tha Permission.

If the test was carried out 4 years ago but you didn't apply for Planning Permission, then certain L.A. will not accept it. Contact the Planning or Enviro Department of your Local Authority for a definite answer, relevant to your L.A.

As the Engineer says, P.I insurance / indemnity on the original test may be an issue worth considering - is the original tester still in business?