Clarification regarding EU legislation and action on septic tanks

Scofflaw

In response to recent press reports, the European Commission would like to clarify a number of points with regard to EU legislation and action on septic tanks in Ireland.

Poorly managed or controlled septic tanks may cause significant harm to the environment and human health, including through discharges containing bacteria such as E. coli and pathogens and parasites. This is a particular concern in Ireland, which has more than 400,000 septic tanks throughout the country. EU legislation sets out an effective framework to address this, however Ireland has not yet implemented it. Following a 2009 European Court of Justice ruling, and a subsequent 2010 formal notice setting out the Irish infringements, the European Commission in May 2011 referred the issue back to the Court of Justice and requested the imposition of a lump sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of €26,173 for as long as the infringements persist. The Commission notes that Ireland is preparing legislation but is not satisfied with the slow pace of progress in complying with EU requirements.

Approximately one third of Ireland's housing stock consists of isolated dwellings almost all of which use individual waste water systems to dispose of their waste water. In total there are more than 400,000 septic tanks throughout the territory of Ireland. In many parts of the country geological and soil conditions may make it difficult for septic tanks to function without causing pollution.

Given the scale, and if poorly managed and controlled, septic tanks may cause significant harm to the environment and human health. In particular, discharges from septic tanks contain bacteria such as E. coli and may contain pathogens or parasites that may put human health at risk because they can enter drinking water sources. In this regard, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency has reported widespread bacteriological contamination of Irish groundwater. Domestic waste water also contains nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrates that contribute to nutrient pollution of surface waters.

Under the 2006 EU Waste Framework Directive, measures must be taken to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health, and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. To ensure this, Ireland is required to introduce a system of monitoring, inspection and maintenance of individual waste water systems in the countryside. This system of inspections and its financing aspects consistent with the polluter pays principle are at the discretion of the Irish government.

In October 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland was failing to comply with the EU Waste Framework Directive (except in County Cavan) in relation to septic tanks.

In November 2010, the European Commission sent a formal letter of notice under ongoing infringement proceedings urging Ireland to comply with the 2009 European Court of Justice ruling on septic tanks. No legal measures had been adopted to ensure that septic tanks were subject to adequate checks and inspections to protect human health and the environment. The letter noted that if Ireland failed to act, the Commission could refer the case back to the Court and request financial penalties. In May 2011, the Commission referred the issue back to the Court of Justice requesting the imposition of fines and penalties as long as these infringements persist.

A fight between rural votes and environmental legislation! Who will win?

cordially,
Scofflaw

reilig

Scofflaw wrote: »

A fight between rural votes and environmental legislation! Who will win?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I definitely agree that all rural septic tanks need to be brought up to a standard where they do not pollute the groundwater. However there needs to be a sensible and affordable approach taken in order to meet these requirments.

However, I feel that an article like this seeks to divide urban and rural dwellers - making the urban dwellers believe that the rural dwellers are most responsible for environmental damage from the disposal of their human waste. In my recent exprience, urban waste treatment systems are hiding behing huge curtains and need to be exposed so that urban dwellers know where and how their waste is treated, rather than thinking that it goes into the bottomless pit never to be seen again.

An example is the many small towns and villages that are on the river Shannon from Carrick on Shannon to Limerick. The majority of small towns and villages only got treatment systems in the last 15 years and previous to this relied on septic tanks. Now, septic tanks were not ideal, because it was impossible to ensure that they all worked to the proper standard. However, those that did work, decomposed the human waste, filtered the water through percolation systems and fed the "clean" water back through rivers and drains into the Shannon, causing almost 0 pollution as they worked.

You would need to be involved in the construction or the maintenance of modern small town and village treatment systems to see what happens (or what doesn't happen). They effectively just break up the human waste (Like a large food processor) and deposit these liquidised solids through a large pipe in the middle of the river so that they can float out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The funny thing is that most towns and villages on the Shannon get their water supplies from it - even though the sewerage from the town above them may be all part of the big picture.

Now which has less of an environmental impact, modern urban sewerage treatment facilities or septic tanks that operate properly?

Something tells me that when they have inspected and attained control of all rural septic tank's, it won't make the slightest bit of difference to the amount of E. coli and pathogens and parasite infections and human health.

Jim Martin

and then there's still the problem of slurry on fields which the EU has encouraged with the giving of grants to put up slatted sheds! When are the gov't going to do something about anaerobic digesters?

Oldtree

Agreed and one has to wonder where a lot of the septic tank contents end up too!

I am lucky enough (I think) to have a puraflo system and the claim here is for the removal of 99.9% of Coliforms and 100% of Pathogenic Bacteria,

See:

http://www.symbiotictrading.com/puraflo.htm

Will that be enough of a system for the government I wonder, along with an annual inspection and a record of where the contents of the septic tank went?

A system like this is not cheap and most houses before 2000ish dont have one.

We are never going to be on a mains system.

Scofflaw

Something tells me that when they have inspected and attained control of all rural septic tank's, it won't make the slightest bit of difference to the amount of E. coli and pathogens and parasite infections and human health.

I wouldn't really agree - while what you say about local sewage systems is undeniably true, septic tanks have been for decades a major source of widespread chronic low-level contamination.

To quote the Geological Survey:

In Ireland, human activities have not yet caused the same degree of pollution problems to groundwater as in most other EU countries. However, an increasing number of localised problems are coming to the attention of the GSI and groundwater researchers, mainly where wells are polluted by septic tanks and farmyards. Beneath some septic tanks and farmyards are pockets of contaminated groundwater. As these sources are associated with houses, water wells are often located nearby, and may be in or close to the polluted pockets of groundwater. So, although the actual quantity of polluted groundwater is small, it can result in significant health risks. In many areas, at least 30% of private domestic and farm wells are contaminated, in some vulnerable areas more than 50% are contaminated at some time during their use. Most of these wells are not just contaminated chemically but are polluted by faecal bacteria, and probably viruses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

reilig

Oldtree wrote: »

Agreed and one has to wonder where a lot of the septic tank contents end up too!

I am lucky enough (I think) to have a puraflo system and the claim here is for the removal of 99.9% of Coliforms and 100% of Pathogenic Bacteria,

See:

http://www.symbiotictrading.com/puraflo.htm

Will that be enough of a system for the government I wonder, along with an annual inspection and a record of where the contents of the septic tank went?

A system like this is not cheap and most houses before 2000ish dont have one.

We are never going to be on a mains system.

If people received correct instruction on what to put into their septic tank, they would never have to empty them. Modern detergents, soaps and chemicals have a lot to answer for.

reilig

Jim Martin wrote: »

and then there's still the problem of slurry on fields which the EU has encouraged with the giving of grants to put up slatted sheds! When are the gov't going to do something about anaerobic digesters?

And what will Anaerobic Digestors do to reduce the amount of slurry being spread on fields? There will still be as much waste from the digestor. Digestors also need to be fed with a lot of maze (mixed with slurry), the by product of this is even more slurry!!

reilig

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't really agree - while what you say about local sewage systems is undeniably true, septic tanks have been for decades a major source of widespread chronic low-level contamination.

To quote the Geological Survey:



cordially,
Scofflaw

I very much agree with you Scofflaw!

However, much of this pollution comes from septic tanks that aren't working or installed properly because there was virtually no enforcement of regulation on, or inspections of, septic tanks for the last 30 years. (actually for ever).

This septic tank issue saw directives sent from Europe to Ireland in 2006 - at the height of the boom. If they enforced the septic tank regulations back then, people would have been better able to afford it (well they would perceive that they were better able to afford it) and it would not appear to be just another form of raising money for cast strapped local authorities (as it currently appears)

Scofflaw

reilig wrote: »

I very much agree with you Scofflaw!

However, much of this pollution comes from septic tanks that aren't working or installed properly because there was virtually no enforcement of regulation on, or inspections of, septic tanks for the last 30 years. (actually for ever).

This septic tank issue saw directives sent from Europe to Ireland in 2006 - at the height of the boom. If they enforced the septic tank regulations back then, people would have been better able to afford it (well they would perceive that they were better able to afford it) and it would not appear to be just another form of raising money for cast strapped local authorities (as it currently appears)

True enough - but it's hardly a surprise when the Irish government fails to implement environmental legislation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't really agree - while what you say about local sewage systems is undeniably true, septic tanks have been for decades a major source of widespread chronic low-level contamination.

To quote the Geological Survey:



cordially,
Scofflaw

In Ireland we have a higher number of cattle than in the whole of the UK, evidently. Having spent a considerable time on farms, I'd have thought the problem with human fecal contamination from sceptical tanks is miniscule compared to the problem of animal fecal contamination from overflowing slurry tanks (particularly pig and cattle slurry tanks), the overflow making its way directly to the nearest watercourse, and run off from fields where animal slurry is spread on top of the land, and is again free to run off into the nearest watercourse.

Just because the animal slurry issue is a greater problem doesn't mean there is no need to ensure sceptical tanks are working properly, although I'd have thought that forcing the issue as the EU seems to be doing is yet another reason why the Eu is less and less popular in the countries of Europe.

Scofflaw

In Ireland we have a higher number of cattle than in the whole of the UK, evidently. Having spent a considerable time on farms, I'd have thought the problem with human fecal contamination from sceptical tanks is miniscule compared to the problem of animal fecal contamination from overflowing slurry tanks (particularly pig and cattle slurry tanks), the overflow making its way directly to the nearest watercourse, and run off from fields where animal slurry is spread on top of the land, and is again free to run off into the nearest watercourse.

It does say "septic tanks and farmyards" - both are problems.

Just because the animal slurry issue is a greater problem doesn't mean there is no need to ensure sceptical tanks are working properly, although I'd have thought that forcing the issue as the EU seems to be doing is yet another reason why the Eu is less and less popular in the countries of Europe.

Because they're used as a bogeyman/scapegoat by national governments? I'd agree. The government agrees these things in Europe, and doesn't bother to implement them until a case is taken against them because they're in breach of their agreement - and then makes out that the big bad EU made them do it. And people do fall for it - every time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

It does say "septic tanks and farmyards" - both are problems.


Because they're used as a bogeyman/scapegoat by national governments? I'd agree. The government agrees these things in Europe, and doesn't bother to implement them until a case is taken against them because they're in breach of their agreement - and then makes out that the big bad EU made them do it. And people do fall for it - every time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure if you saw Declan Ganley sitting in for Vincent Brown the other week. It was interesting and highlighted how our politicians now have very little power, and that we are governed by civil servants, both domestically and at EU level. He had a couple of politicians on and a guy from the Wall St Journal, from memory.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure if you saw Declan Ganley sitting in for Vincent Brown the other week. It was interesting and highlighted how our politicians now have very little power, and that we are governed by civil servants, both domestically and at EU level. He had a couple of politicians on and a guy from the Wall St Journal, from memory.

That's not really the case, though - I can't fault Ganley for his showmanship, but his analysis has always been dubious. In our case, we're governed by - surprisingly - the government, which is to say the Cabinet, because the whip system reduces the Oireachtas to a rubber-stamp body. So legislation is presented in principle as a fait accompli, while the nuance and detail in it comes out of the civil service drafting procedures. At the EU level, the lack of domestic accountability of the Cabinet again means that we have little or no input to what our government agrees to - so, again, the outcome is presented as a fait accompli largely decided in detail, again, by civil servants - often the same ones, even, since much EU legislation is drafted by national civil servants in joint working groups.

Those are, however, domestic Irish issues, and I don't think you'll find many people - outside the Oireachtas, anyway - who don't think our systems need to be reformed. The most useful addition in recent years to the powers of the Oireachtas over EU legislation came through Lisbon rather than any domestic reform, which is pretty sad.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not really the case, though - I can't fault Ganley for his showmanship, but his analysis has always been dubious. In our case, we're governed by - surprisingly - the government,

I assume you didn't see the show in question as it wasn't his analysis, but was the unanimous view of the panel. One had been a French MP, then had been an MEP and is now a French civil servant, another was an MEP who told a story about a civil servant in the EU threatening an MEP and forbidding the MEP to make a speech (curiously the MEP acquiesced) and so on.

Scofflaw wrote: »

because the whip system reduces the Oireachtas to a rubber-stamp body. So legislation is presented in principle as a fait accompli, while the nuance and detail in it comes out of the civil service drafting procedures. At the EU level, the lack of domestic accountability of the Cabinet again means that we have little or no input to what our government agrees to - so, again, the outcome is presented as a fait accompli largely decided in detail, again, by civil servants - often the same ones, even, since much EU legislation is drafted by national civil servants in joint working groups.

Those are, however, domestic Irish issues, and I don't think you'll find many people - outside the Oireachtas, anyway - who don't think our systems need to be reformed. The most useful addition in recent years to the powers of the Oireachtas over EU legislation came through Lisbon rather than any domestic reform, which is pretty sad.

The whip system does turn our MP's into lobby fodder and the results are partially to blame for the mismanagement of so many countries by incompetent governments. Reform is not confined to Ireland, with many in the UK and across Europe wanting radical reform, not just of domestic parliaments but of the EU also.

Jim Martin

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056374212

As I understand it, a great deal! They can take in vast amount of organic waste & when the treatment is completed, all you are left with is solid waste with no odour which can then be safely used as fertiliser. What is more, you can then use the methane gas produced for direct energy or for generating electricity. It seems almost too good to be true, everyone seems to win!

Jim Martin

reilig wrote: »

And what will Anaerobic Digestors do to reduce the amount of slurry being spread on fields? There will still be as much waste from the digestor. Digestors also need to be fed with a lot of maze (mixed with slurry), the by product of this is even more slurry!!

As I understand it, a great deal! They can take in vast amount of organic waste & when the treatment is completed, all you are left with is solid waste with no odour which can then be safely used as fertiliser. What is more, you can then use the methane gas produced for direct energy or for generating electricity. It seems almost too good to be true, everyone seems to win!

Kristopherus

Can anyone point out all this pollution being caused by septic tanks?

easychair

Kristopherus wrote: »

Can anyone point out all this pollution being caused by septic tanks?

Not without going around and checking. Which is the point of the directive.

Kristopherus

There is SFA pollution coming from septic tanks. Of course the Eurocrats don't want to believe that. So they have to find the evidence. An expensive way of doing it IMHO and my fear is that the costs will far outweigh the benefit. Not to mention jobs for the boys and girls who will be out sniffing:D

reilig

Jim Martin wrote: »

As I understand it, a great deal! They can take in vast amount of organic waste & when the treatment is completed, all you are left with is solid waste with no odour which can then be safely used as fertiliser. What is more, you can then use the methane gas produced for direct energy or for generating electricity. It seems almost too good to be true, everyone seems to win!

Digesting manure doesn't avoid the need to apply that
manure as fertilizer, since the manure still exists and has to go somewhere
(it doesn't magically disappear and turn into energy).

Digesters are only marginally effective at reducing problems with odors,
pathogens and greenhouse gas emissions from animal waste or sewage sludge,
but they are incapable of making any chemical contaminants in the wastes go
away. Digesters aren't emissions-free. They are known to emit nitrogen
and sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and ammonia.

Methane Recovery from Animal Manures. The Current Opportunities Casebook

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/25145.pdf

Its well worth a read. Its from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Digestors are all well and good in theory, ideal for the production of renewable energy. However, their initial cost is unrecoupable in their lifespan at current Energy prices and they still produce waste (be it in solid or liquid form) which has to be disposed of.

easychair

Kristopherus wrote: »

There is SFA pollution coming from septic tanks.

We can all make hollow sounding statements, but without evidence you, and I, and the rest of us, have no idea.

Macha

Kristopherus: you can find more information on water pollution caused by septic tanks from the EPA.

Generally, we don't do enough water quality monitoring in this country but what monitoring is carried out clearly points to agriculture and septic tanks as maor sources of pollution for ground water and other water bodies.

easychair

Macha wrote: »

Kristopherus: you can find more information on water pollution caused by septic tanks from the EPA.

Generally, we don't do enough water quality monitoring in this country but what monitoring is carried out clearly points to agriculture and septic tanks as maor sources of pollution for ground water and other water bodies.

I can't remember what proportion of irish private water schemes are said to be contaminated be fecal matter, but I know its a genuine problem and a high proportion. I assume most of that is from slurry tanks as I have seen many of them overflowing, but it may well be that domestic sceptic tanks are an issue, and thats worth finding out.

Oldtree

Both human and animal fecal matter is usually the issue. Ground above an aquifer is usually insufficient to polish (clean) the overflow from a septic tank which is massive, bath water, toilet water, etc. I wonder where most people think the contaminated water goes, evaporate?

Macha

easychair wrote: »

I can't remember what proportion of irish private water schemes are said to be contaminated be fecal matter, but I know its a genuine problem and a high proportion. I assume most of that is from slurry tanks as I have seen many of them overflowing, but it may well be that domestic sceptic tanks are an issue, and thats worth finding out.

As Oldtree points out, it's both human and animal fecal coliforms that has been found. This is how we know that it isn't just agricultural waste that is the problem.

Of course urban waste water treatment systems need some serious attention but as I understand it, most of them tend to discharge to the sea and so wouldn't impact on our groundwater (not that this is any better of course..)

reilig

easychair wrote: »

. I assume most of that is from slurry tanks as I have seen many of them overflowing, .

Farmers pollution control has been very much tightened up in the last 10 years. Much of this was due to the availability of waste management grants which saw the building of secure holding tanks which exceed the calculated holding space for the number of animals that these farmers have. Combine this with the fact that pollution control is a cross compliance measure which farmers must now meet in order to draw down their EU Subsidies and you can be well assured that you could visit 1000 farms across Ireland to carry out a pollution control inspection and find that only 1 of them is not up to a safe and required standard.

While I would agree that pollution from farms in the 1980s was one of the main polluters of irish private water schemes, the figures do not add up. Pollution controls on farms have become tighter and tighter since then, inspections on pollution control compliance rates show that the vast majority of farmers that weren't compliant in the 1980's are now 100% compliant. Yet, tests continue to show an increasing amount of pollution in Irish Water Schemes. Nitrate rules which govern the amount of fertilizer and slurry that a farmer can put on his land, and rules which prevent farmers spreading slurry during the wettest months of the years have all been introduced which ensure that there is much less risk of contamination from run off of slurry or fertilizer as there had been in years gone by.

I have to disagree with macha below and say that the vast majority of villages and towns in this country do not discharge their waste treatment facilities into the sea because the majority of towns and villages are nowhere near the sea. Instead, the vast majority of towns and villages discharge into the local watercourse - normally a river which flows to the sea. However, it must also be noted that most irish Private water schemes source their water from a running source (such as a river) rather than stagnant sources. I would definitely correlate the increase in contaminated private water schemes in recent years with the increase in sewerage treatment plantsover teh last 10 years which flow into the same watercourse as the water from these schemes is sources.

In my own area, the upper River Shannon region, a list of contaminated water schemes was recently published. All were sourced from the River Shannon. Other schemes which sourced from smaller rivers or lakes which have no treatment systems discharging into them were uncontaminated. It is also fair to say the the immediate agricultural hinterland around the Shannon is subject to regular flooding and is therefore farmed less intensively than land which surrounds other private water scheme sources.

Macha

reilig wrote: »

I have to disagree with macha below and say that the vast majority of villages and towns in this country do not discharge their waste treatment facilities into the sea because the majority of towns and villages are nowhere near the sea. Instead, the vast majority of towns and villages discharge into the local watercourse - normally a river which flows to the sea. However, it must also be noted that most irish Private water schemes source their water from a running source (such as a river) rather than stagnant sources. I would definitely correlate the increase in contaminated private water schemes in recent years with the increase in sewerage treatment plantsover teh last 10 years which flow into the same watercourse as the water from these schemes is sources.

Apologies, I should have clarified I meant the majority in terms of volume of waste water. Most waste water is dealt with by our main urban centres, that are on the coast and discharge into the sea or very close to it.

Agriculture is still the main source of water pollution in Ireland.

Scofflaw

Kristopherus wrote: »

Can anyone point out all this pollution being caused by septic tanks?

The Geological Survey of Ireland's Groundwater Department have a pretty fair idea, as do the Environmental Protection Agency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Seems to me we are talking about very localised contamination of groundwater. Eg a neighbour on higher ground has a dodgy septic tank which is polluting your well. This is the reason for the traditional one house to the acre rule for planning applications; an acre is usually sufficient space to keep the well and the septic tank far enough away from each other.

So... the solution is to monitor the wells, not the septic tanks. If someone's drinking water is found to be contaminated, then start looking around for the culprit. it may be a nearby septic tank, or it may be farm slurry discharge. The problem may originate with a neighbour, or the well owner themselves may be to blame.

Scofflaw

recedite wrote: »

Seems to me we are talking about very localised contamination of groundwater. Eg a neighbour on higher ground has a dodgy septic tank which is polluting your well. This is the reason for the traditional one house to the acre rule for planning applications; an acre is usually sufficient space to keep the well and the septic tank far enough away from each other.

So... the solution is to monitor the wells, not the septic tanks. If someone's drinking water is found to be contaminated, then start looking around for the culprit. it may be a nearby septic tank, or it may be farm slurry discharge. The problem may originate with a neighbour, or the well owner themselves may be to blame.

So...wait for there to be a problem? Even if that may not show up for a couple of years after a tank inspection would have caught it - by which time there will be a couple more years of contamination to come?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oldtree

recedite wrote: »

Seems to me we are talking about very localised contamination of groundwater. Eg a neighbour on higher ground has a dodgy septic tank which is polluting your well. This is the reason for the traditional one house to the acre rule for planning applications; an acre is usually sufficient space to keep the well and the septic tank far enough away from each other.

So... the solution is to monitor the wells, not the septic tanks. If someone's drinking water is found to be contaminated, then start looking around for the culprit. it may be a nearby septic tank, or it may be farm slurry discharge. The problem may originate with a neighbour, or the well owner themselves may be to blame.

You appear to be forgetting that a lot of ireland is aquifer territory, i.e. lots of wells are connected via vast networks of underground pipes and in mayo's case only a few feet below the surface, thus contamination can come from some way off. see the GSI website for maps. Monitoring the source of the pollution would seem the most prudent path.

Pete_Cavan

reilig wrote: »

You would need to be involved in the construction or the maintenance of modern small town and village treatment systems to see what happens (or what doesn't happen). They effectively just break up the human waste (Like a large food processor) and deposit these liquidised solids through a large pipe in the middle of the river so that they can float out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The funny thing is that most towns and villages on the Shannon get their water supplies from it - even though the sewerage from the town above them may be all part of the big picture.

Now which has less of an environmental impact, modern urban sewerage treatment facilities or septic tanks that operate properly?

I work for a civil engineering contractor and have been involved with the construction of a number of sewerage schemes so I know what happens (and what doesnt happen) and I think your description is far too simplistic. The type of treatment facilities required depends on the PE (population equivalent) of the area, the type of receiving water body (freshwater, estuarine or coastal water) and whether the receiving water body is sensitive (or not), as defined by the Regulations.

This is set out in The Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 254 of 2001);

3. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a sanitary authority shall provide a collecting system for urban waste water -


(a) on the commencement of these Regulations for every agglomeration with a population equivalent of more than 10,000 which discharges into any of the sensitive areas specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule or into the relevant catchment areas of such sensitive areas,


(b) on the commencement of these Regulations for every agglomeration with a population equivalent of more than 15,000,


(c) by 31 December 2005 for every agglomeration with a population equivalent between 2,000 and 15,000.


(2) A collecting system required under sub-article (1) shall satisfy the requirements of the First Schedule.


(3) Sub-article (1) shall not apply where the provision of a collecting system is not justified either because it would produce no environmental benefit or because it would involve excessive cost, provided that the sanitary authority is satisfied that individual systems or other appropriate systems are used which achieve the same level of environmental protection.


4. (1) In the case of urban waste water entering collecting systems, a sanitary authority shall provide treatment plants which provide for secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment -


(a) on the commencement of these Regulations, or such later date, not being later than 31 December 2005, as the European Commission may agree pursuant to a request under Article 8 of the Directive, in respect of all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15,000,


(b) by 31 December 2005 in respect of all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 10,000 and 15,000;


(c) by 31 December 2005 in respect of all discharges to freshwaters and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2,000 and 10,000.


(2) (a) Notwithstanding sub-article (1) and subject to sub-articles (3) and (4), a sanitary authority shall provide treatment plants which provide more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in respect of all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10,000 into sensitive areas or into the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas where the discharges contribute to the pollution of these areas.


(b) A treatment plant to be provided by a sanitary authority in accordance with this sub-article shall be provided —


(i) on the commencement of these Regulations in the case of a sensitive area specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule, and


(ii) by 31 May 2008 in the case of a sensitive area specified in Part 2 of the Third Schedule.


(3) Subject to sub-article (4), a discharge from a treatment plant required under sub-article (2) shall satisfy the requirements of Parts 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule.


(4) (a) Sub-articles (2) and (3) shall not apply in respect of individual treatment plants where the sanitary authority is satisfied that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in a sensitive area is at least 75% for total phosphorus and for total nitrogen.


(b) Sub-article (3) shall not operate to require the reduction of nutrients in discharges to estuaries, bays or coastal waters where the sanitary authority is satisfied that such reduction will have no effect on the level of eutrophication in the receiving waters.


5. Notwithstanding the provisions of article 4, more stringent requirements than those specified in Parts 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule shall be applied to discharges from a treatment plant where this is required to ensure that the receiving waters satisfy any other relevant Community Directives.


6. The water bodies specified in the Third Schedule are hereby identified as sensitive areas for the purposes of these Regulations.


7. A sanitary authority shall ensure by 31 December 2005 that urban waste water entering a collecting system shall before discharge be subject to appropriate treatment in the following cases:


(a) in respect of discharges to freshwater and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of less than 2,000;


(b) in respect of discharges to coastal waters from agglomerations with a population equivalent of less than 10,000.

Basically;
All urban areas with a PE of between 2,000 and 15,000 are to have a collecting system for waste water 31 December 2005.
Secondary treatment (a process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement or other process in which the requirements established in Part 1 of the above legislation) is required for urban areas with a PE of between 10,000 and 15,000 or urban areas with a PE of between 2,000 and 10,000 discharging to freshwaters and estuaries.
More stringent treatment than secondary treatment is required for PE of more than 10,000 into sensitive areas or into the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas where the discharges contribute to the pollution of these areas.
Urban area with a PE less than 10,000 p.e. discharging to coastal water, or PE of less than 2,000 discharging to freshwater, require ‘appropriate treatment’ by 31st December 2005. Appropriate treatment is defined in the Regulations and means that the level of treatment provided must satisfy the quality standards for the receiving water.

Sludge from waste water treatment plants is removed for storage/treatment, see here and here.

According to Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland for Population Equivalents Greater than 500 Persons - A Report for the Years 2006 and 2007;

In 2007 the level of treatment provided at 482 locations, which collectively represent a population
equivalent (p.e.) of 5,835,495 was as follows:
• 4% of waste water arisings did not receive any form of treatment;
• 5% of waste water arisings received preliminary treatment;
• 1% of waste water arisings received primary treatment;
• 75% of waste water arisings received secondary treatment;
• 15% of waste water arisings received nutrient reduction in addition to secondary treatment.

Septic tanks and slurry are bigger problems than urban sewerage treatment facilities.

recedite

Yes, why waste resources doing tank inspections where no problem exists?
Water testing is much simpler and quicker, and sufficient pollution would be shown up early on to keep the "Groundwater Pollution Inspectors" busy for a while.

The main public health issue is E.Coli, which has a short enough lifespan, so there is not a timelag of years involved.

Macha

recedite wrote: »

Yes, why waste resources doing tank inspections where no problem exists?
Water testing is much simpler and quicker, and sufficient pollution would be shown up early on to keep the "Groundwater Pollution Inspectors" busy for a while.

The main public health issue is E.Coli, which has a short enough lifespan, so there is not a timelag of years involved.

Short term, e.coli is the main health concern but in the long term, poor waste water treatment leads to the eutrophication of waterways, algal blooms, and reduced oxygen availability for a healthy waterway ecosystem to support aquatic life.

willowfarm

hi I wonder about this, the goverment want to check and or change our tanks because of contamination, however they are happy for fracking to take place and contaminate all our water funny old world

Scofflaw

willowfarm wrote: »

hi I wonder about this, the goverment want to check and or change our tanks because of contamination, however they are happy for fracking to take place and contaminate all our water funny old world

In fact, the Irish government, left to its own devices, would appear to be happy enough to let anyone pollute anything, pretty much. The septic tank legislation is European in origin - the EU is also looking into fracking, and a ban may be on the cards there, while some kind of limitation or stringent safety regime is highly likely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Macha wrote: »

Short term, e.coli is the main health concern but in the long term, poor waste water treatment leads to the eutrophication of waterways, algal blooms, and reduced oxygen availability for a healthy waterway ecosystem to support aquatic life.

Again, all these effects disappear very quickly as the nutrient enriched water makes its way down to the sea. Provided the pollution has stopped, and I still maintain the most cost effective way to catch the polluters of groundwater is to monitor wells and local drinking water supplies, and then take it from there.

Macha

recedite wrote: »

Again, all these effects disappear very quickly as the nutrient enriched water makes its way down to the sea. Provided the pollution has stopped, and I still maintain the most cost effective way to catch the polluters of groundwater is to monitor wells and local drinking water supplies, and then take it from there.

Do you have any clarification of what you mean by "very quickly" and any sources for this?

But it doesn't really matter how fast the waterway returns to normal status as the pollution entering the waterways happens very frequently, meaning that the waterways don't actually get the chance to return to healthy status.

The proof of this is in the EPA's water quality reports. We are very unlikely to meet our targets of Good Environmental Status for all water bodies by 2015 under the Water Framework Directive and I can see another set of fines looming in a few years.

Scofflaw

recedite wrote: »

Again, all these effects disappear very quickly as the nutrient enriched water makes its way down to the sea. Provided the pollution has stopped, and I still maintain the most cost effective way to catch the polluters of groundwater is to monitor wells and local drinking water supplies, and then take it from there.

Why is that 'particularly cost-effective', though? Given the nature of Irish geology, the source of pollution is not always easily detectable - except where we're talking really short-range, as where someone's septic tank is polluting their own well or their next door neighbour's. And in those cases, I can't really see why inspecting their well and analysing the pollution is cheaper or better than inspecting their tank?

Further, one of the advantages of an inspection regime for sources is that there isn't the mental loophole of "sure, I daresay it won't pollute anyone who'll notice". After a while, compliance with standards should become the norm, which is something that wouldn't necessarily happen with well inspections.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Macha wrote: »

Do you have any clarification of what you mean by "very quickly" and any sources for this?

But it doesn't really matter how fast the waterway returns to normal status as the pollution entering the waterways happens very frequently, meaning that the waterways don't actually get the chance to return to healthy status.

I agree the waterways don't get a chance to recover currently, but if pollution stopped, common sense dictates that rainwater falling on a mountain stream anywhere in Ireland will reach the sea within a few days. For example the ESB release floodwaters at Poulaphuca in Wicklow for the annual Liffey Descent canoe race, and these reach Islandbridge in Dublin a few hours later.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why is that 'particularly cost-effective', though?

A water sample can be posted cheaply to one of the commercial labs who do this already. Perhaps more importantly, its in the interests of the person sending in the sample to report any transgressions honestly.

If inspecting a septic tank, it may appear OK because it was pumped out the week before, but the real proof of that is if the groundwater is unpolluted.

Scofflaw

recedite wrote: »

I agree the waterways don't get a chance to recover currently, but if pollution stopped, common sense dictates that rainwater falling on a mountain stream anywhere in Ireland will reach the sea within a few days. For example the ESB release floodwaters at Poulaphuca in Wicklow for the annual Liffey Descent canoe race, and these reach Islandbridge in Dublin a few hours later.

That's surface waters, though, not groundwater.

recedite wrote: »

A water sample can be posted cheaply to one of the commercial labs who do this already. Perhaps more importantly, its in the interests of the person sending in the sample to report any transgressions honestly.

If inspecting a septic tank, it may appear OK because it was pumped out the week before, but the real proof of that is if the groundwater is unpolluted.

On the other hand, a water quality analysis only tells you whether the water is polluted - it doesn't tell you the source(s), something which is a good deal more expensive and laborious. Nor is it an either/or - I'm sure well inspections will continue anyway, because people have an interest in finding out whether their water is polluted, which they don't in determining whether their tank is polluting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Well water analysis is very rare unless it is required for a planning application. But if there was a regime in place where people sent in lab results every 2 years or so, a picture could be built up of where the polluted groundwater was occurring. Some of the karst areas would be a bit more complicated, but in most areas this simple approach would work well enough.

Scofflaw

recedite wrote: »

Well water analysis is very rare unless it is required for a planning application. But if there was a regime in place where people sent in lab results every 2 years or so, a picture could be built up of where the polluted groundwater was occurring. Some of the karst areas would be a bit more complicated, but in most areas this simple approach would work well enough.

To be fair, the karst areas would be a good deal more complicated (and there's quite a lot of sub-surface karst in Ireland), and much of Ireland's groundwater has fracture porosity rather than inter-grain porosity, so that's rather complicated too. Ireland's groundwater systems are actually outrageously complex compared to many other countries - a consequence of our relatively complex geological history. You're also ignoring the complexities of groundwater-surface water coupling.

Also, the concentration on E.coli and its lifespan is slightly wrong. The nitrogen and phosphorus in effluent is also very important - being the main causes of eutrophication and algal blooms - and those, being inorganic pollutants, have no 'lifespan'.

My own experience of voluntary submission regimes in the area of groundwater is that they're very poorly complied with. I appreciate the potential scale of the issue here, but - again - an adequate planning regime would have avoided many of these problems in the first place. As would, perhaps, an adequate national monitoring network - something which we have only had for about 2 years now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jim Martin

recedite wrote: »

I agree the waterways don't get a chance to recover currently, but if pollution stopped, common sense dictates that rainwater falling on a mountain stream anywhere in Ireland will reach the sea within a few days. For example the ESB release floodwaters at Poulaphuca in Wicklow for the annual Liffey Descent canoe race, and these reach Islandbridge in Dublin a few hours later.

A water sample can be posted cheaply to one of the commercial labs who do this already. Perhaps more importantly, its in the interests of the person sending in the sample to report any transgressions honestly.

If inspecting a septic tank, it may appear OK because it was pumped out the week before, but the real proof of that is if the groundwater is unpolluted.

When I had my well water tested (which I had to, in order to get a grant from the local authority to defray some of the cost of my well installation which was to supply an old house) - the nearest lab which was 40 miles away, said that I must get the sample to them within 3 hrs, otherwise the result would not be accurate due to growth of bacteria.

recedite

Jim Martin wrote: »

the nearest lab which was 40 miles away, said that I must get the sample to them within 3 hrs, otherwise the result would not be accurate due to growth of bacteria.

Its probably preferable, but not essential. 3 hrs is an arbitrary time limit anyway. Does the time limit vary according to air temperatures?
There is an add for a postal testing company in Cork appearing at the top of my web browser now; presumably google has picked up on some of the keywords on this page.

recedite

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, the concentration on E.coli and its lifespan is slightly wrong. The nitrogen and phosphorus in effluent is also very important - being the main causes of eutrophication and algal blooms - and those, being inorganic pollutants, have no 'lifespan'.

What I'm saying is if the effluent discharges stopped tomorrow, by next month E Coli would be extinct in the groundwater, and nitrogen & phosphorous levels in moving bodies of water would have diminished such that the water in rivers and smaller lakes would be noticeably clearer.
Any organic or inorganic nutrients remaining trapped in static groundwater for a longer period would not necessarily constitute a problem.
I presume you use the term inorganic in a (non-carbon) chemistry sense, as opposed to being "unnatural".

Oldtree

The Minister said yesterday that no annual charge only a minimal registration charge for septic tanks, to be assessed annually by the council, with any septic tanks not working to be fixed.

How does a septic tank work? As far as I am aware it collects sludge and expells the (contaminated) watery efluent into the surrounding environment through a hole at the top. Is that what the minister means or is it that if the septic tank has a hole in the bottom that it would be considered not working? If that is the case then Ireland is not really addressing the problem in the spirit of the EU guidelines.

No mention of anything like a puraflo system which may solve the problem.

recedite

Oldtree wrote: »

How does a septic tank work? As far as I am aware it collects sludge and expells the (contaminated) watery efluent into the surrounding environment through a hole at the top.

The watery effluent should go out the hole into a "distribution box" from whence a series of land drainage pipes distribute it throughout a designated "percolation area" where the "contamination" or "nutrients" if you like, are absorbed into the soil and taken up by the vegetation. It is this percolation area that is likely to be missing from older systems, meaning the effluent flows down vertically into the groundwater rather than horizontally into the soil nearby.

Oldtree

I've worked in a lot of back gardens and never seen a ground level percolation area. Ive seen a few raised areas in newer houses along with puraflo systems (raised percolation areas themselves).

Is there a depth of soil necessary for proper percolation clensing? Most of the soil depth where I live is about 20cm over a regionally improtant aquifer karsified conduit.

recedite

If the local soil either has poor drainage, or, as in your area, it's too free-draining, topsoil can be imported; hence the raised areas.

Solidchrome

*Mods- Im going to continue this discussion on another forum- please delete this post if you wish*

What hasnt been addressed is how Minister Phil Hogan expects home owners to pay, what could possibly be, thousands of euros in remedial work.

I cannot work due to illness and the wife begins an internship next week as finding a job is a joke over here in Co Mayo. I am trying to support a family on social welfare and have no savings. Where the hell does the Minister expect me to get thousands of euros from?? If I cant pay to have any remedial work done what then? Court? That would be a laugh because I cant afford to pay fines. Would I be forced to sell my home to pay for the fines? Over my dead body.

The government receives money from the EU to implement and maintain urban sewage schemes but we are expected to pay for all this ourselves- how is that fair? Why was there no mention of grants or finiancial aid?

I'm not only worried for myself but what of older people who cant afford repairs? There seems to have been no consideration at all about how this is going to be funded and maintained.