Septic tank charges

Please learn about some hydrology.
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.
This is why we have about 6 million cows and 8 million sheep pissing and ****ting all over the place without trouble (plus 100,000 horses and millions of other smaller animals.).

Why is this?

Soil Filters gray water & germs.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/plants-soil-filter-gray-water
You`ll notice some of these links contain teaching material for children - it is a wonder so many people here don`t understand it.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.earthsys.waterfilter/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01688.htm
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/flash/flash_filtration.html
http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/education/4h_manual_ch9a.pdf

In many respects, the soil on the land surface serves a very effective purpose by protecting groundwater-and by filtering water as it passes from the soil surface to the groundwater aquifer. The soil acts both as a physical filter and as a chemical filter.

Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged. A good deep well will not cause any problems even next to a broken well. This is why when your dog, cat or pet horse or whatever does their business in your garden it doesn`t make you sick.

If anything inspections should be make on wells. Water samples should be taken from taps. But this should be up to the private dwellers to look after their own water supply. It is nanny state rubbish.

Inspect septic tanks 100m from all lakes, rivers and the sea - anymore is simply a money spinner.

Funny to see everyones nickers in a twist - ye all bought the propaganda. Start questioning things and stop taking things at face value from politicians.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything inspections should be make on wells. ...

Inspect septic tanks 100m from all lakes, rivers and the sea - anymore is simply a money spinner.

+1
The only real exception being in Karst areas where there is little surface water, but lots of fissures and fractures going deep underground, such that the effluent run-off could get into the underground aquifers.

Ironic then, that Clare Co Council has reacted to this by banning fracking, of all things, which is the last thing they need to worry about

Tipp Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn about some hydrology.
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.
This is why we have about 6 million cows and 8 million sheep pissing and ****ting all over the place without trouble (plus 100,000 horses and millions of other smaller animals.).

Why is this?

Soil Filters gray water & germs.
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/plants-soil-filter-gray-water
You`ll notice some of these links contain teaching material for children - it is a wonder so many people here don`t understand it.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.earthsys.waterfilter/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01688.htm
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/flash/flash_filtration.html
http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/education/4h_manual_ch9a.pdf





Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged. A good deep well will not cause any problems even next to a broken well. This is why when your dog, cat or pet horse or whatever does their business in your garden it doesn`t make you sick.

If anything inspections should be make on wells. Water samples should be taken from taps. But this should be up to the private dwellers to look after their own water supply. It is nanny state rubbish.

Inspect septic tanks 100m from all lakes, rivers and the sea - anymore is simply a money spinner.

Funny to see everyones nickers in a twist - ye all bought the propaganda. Start questioning things and stop taking things at face value from politicians.

Great post

People are absolutely clueless as to how septic tanks actually work

Another point - the concentration of a town like Arklow (and there are dozens more) pumping raw sewage into a river is many many many times worse than a malfunctioning septic tank, which has only 1 family. The septic tank will have a large area for the sewage to break down naturally. The pipe from the town is puming in raw sewage from hundreds of houses into 1 point in a river. Its nuts

Tipp Man

n97 mini wrote: »

5 years is far too long. You could have a tank leaking for 4.9 years before it's inspected. 2 years for new tanks and annually for tanks 10+ years old and annually for tanks with some sort of electro-mechanical system.

Threads like this show why septic tanks are not a good idea, and why inspections are needed...

that thread that you quoted had a septic tank that was unused in a while

A septic tank needs regular usuage - it needs regular food i.e. sewage. Thats how they work

I don`t think people realise that sand is the main ingredient in water filtration in public treatment works.
Slow sand filters are used for Londons water supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_sand_filter

Soil is much much deeper that the sand filters in treatment plants. Rainfall in some areas can take weeks, sometimes months and years before it finds its way into ground water

Tora Bora

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn about some hydrology.
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.
This is why we have about 6 million cows and 8 million sheep pissing and ****ting all over the place without trouble (plus 100,000 horses and millions of other smaller animals.).

.

You forgot that the geniuses who run this coutry already issued a wise decree, that ensures horses don't pollute with their pooh:cool:

recedite

Tipp Man wrote: »

the concentration of a town like Arklow (and there are dozens more) pumping raw sewage into a river is many many many times worse than a malfunctioning septic tank, which has only 1 family. The septic tank will have a large area for the sewage to break down naturally.

And this has been established by the EPA, here's a quote from one enlightened politician (one of the few)

The River Basin Management Plans which have been developed in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive all identify the major threat to the country’s water quality and that is the discharges from deficient municipal waste water treatment plants. In this regard it is totally unacceptable that Government Ministers and politicians, together with other ill informed organisations such as An Taisce have sought to blame the devastating outbreak of cryptosporidium in Galway in 2007 on septic tanks

source


It seems that when the EU instructed the Irish Govt. to "do something" to monitor and/or inspect septic tanks, they assumed that the waste discharges from urban areas were already being treated to a higher standard.

Huey.K

50 euro .. ya its gona be 50 euro. .... (massive uproar)... 5 euro .. ya ist gona cost 5 euro. there just pullin figures out of their backsides

Tora Bora

Tora Bora wrote: »

You forgot that the geniuses who run this coutry already issued a wise decree, that ensures horses don't pollute with their pooh:cool:

once upon a time people collected that for fertilizer

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged.

When my septic tank was faulty a few weeks ago there was raw sewage seeping out of it and down the hillside towards the bottom of my garden. At the bottom of my garden there is a stream leading to a lake.

Should I have left it alone? Seeing as it wasn't causing any problems to wells, like.

Sponge Bob

You should have desludged should you not.

Back to the horses mouth though.

1. Where exactly is that sludge supposed to go??
2. Why am I being Double Taxed to pay for these urban expenditures???

http://www.epa.ie/news/pr/2012/name,31932,en.html

Date released: Feb 16 2012, 12:05 AM

Nearly half of Ireland’s wastewater treatment plants serving urban centres are failing to achieve national and EU standards, according to a new report released today by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Commenting on the report Mr. Gerard O’Leary, Programme Manager, in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Enforcement said:

“This level of performance is poor and needs to improve. In order to meet EU targets further investment in infrastructure is required and we need a step change in the operation and maintenance of these valuable assets.”


This report, the eighth in the series, is the first review of the operation of waste water treatment plants at 529 urban areas since they became subject to a new licensing regime being rolled out by the EPA. The main findings are as follows:

46% of waste water treatment plants did not meet all waste water quality standards or EPA guidelines.
Eleven large urban areas do not meet the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) requirement to have secondary treatment in place (Table 1). These include, for example, Bray and Ringaskiddy where the provision of treatment is now ten years overdue; Clifden, where the old plant is impacting on bathing water; and Moville where discharges are causing serious pollution to the River Bredagh.
Eight urban areas do not meet the UWWTD requirement to provide nutrient reduction in addition to secondary treatment for discharges to sensitive water areas by specified dates (Table 2). Because these relate to more sensitive environments a higher level of treatment is required – in these cases, nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen have to be removed. Areas affected include the cities of Cork, Dublin and Kilkenny.
The EPA expects that by 2015 the necessary treatment will be in place for the large urban centres – work to be completed by the relevant local authorities.

They 'expect' this because I will be double taxed to pay for these urban systems.

Cedrus

Deleted User wrote: »

Please learn about some hydrology.

Fantastic* graphic! Amazing how the chemical stops just short of the water table, must be the change in color. That Erin Brockovich didn't know what she was talking about (USD333 million for nothing!).

Water quality is only compromised by broken septic tanks when well bore casing is damaged. A good deep well will not cause any problems even next to a broken well. This is why when your dog, cat or pet horse or whatever does their business in your garden it doesn`t make you sick.

More Fantastic* Facts
Septic tanks are never undersized.
Septic tanks never overflow.
Wells always have liners, liners are always undamaged even after 30 years.
Animal dung is always concentrated into one area so is therefore directly comparable to septic tanks.
Everybody in the country is capable and willing to maintain their septic tanks therefore any inspections are unecessary.


*fan•tas•tic [fan-tas-tik] adjective
1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrainedimagination
2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions
3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational
4. extravagantly fanciful

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

When my septic tank was faulty a few weeks ago there was raw sewage seeping out of it and down the hillside towards the bottom of my garden. At the bottom of my garden there is a stream leading to a lake.

Should I have left it alone? Seeing as it wasn't causing any problems to wells, like.

Go look at the post again I also wrote:
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.

are you being pedantic with how i phrased it both with 'only'?
The one you quoted refers to ground water and is in the context of drinking water quality.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Go look at the post again I also wrote:
Water Quality is only an issue when broken septic tanks are within a few meters of rivers & lakes.

So only owners of septic tanks near rivers or lakes should have to pay an inspection fee? Or only owners of broken tanks? Or only owners of broken tanks near rivers or lakes?

The point is that we don't know which tanks are causing problems without inspecting them, and that means inspecting them all.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

So only owners of septic tanks near rivers or lakes should have to pay an inspection fee? Or only owners of broken tanks? Or only owners of broken tanks near rivers or lakes?

The point is that we don't know which tanks are causing problems without inspecting them, and that means inspecting them all.

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

Define "near".

Tipp Man

oscarBravo wrote: »

When my septic tank was faulty a few weeks ago there was raw sewage seeping out of it and down the hillside towards the bottom of my garden. At the bottom of my garden there is a stream leading to a lake.

Should I have left it alone? Seeing as it wasn't causing any problems to wells, like.

Seems strange that your perfectly (I assume??) functioning tank suddenly became faulty a few weeks ago?

did you find out the cause for this sudden malfunction??

Cedrus

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

That is highly dependant on local geology, a defective tank could be nowhere near water but adjacent or even directly over a sub-surface sink hole particularly in limestone areas.

It's hardly more efficient to test the destination of contamination rather than the source.

bbsrs

n97 mini wrote: »

Can you tell if it's leaking below the water line?

How will an inspector know if it's leaking below the water line ? The water table is different on every site and changes seasonally so how will this inspector know the water table level and how can he look at a tank and know its leaking without emptying in and getting in for a look or digging all around it for an external inspection .
When I was applying for planning it cost €900 for a council approved inspector to determine water table and percolation and that didn't include the cost of getting the test holes dug , the water table test hole was about 2 metres deep IIRC. The proposed inspections will either be totally inadequate or very expensive , most probably inadequate with a bit of guess work to compensate.

oscarBravo

Tipp Man wrote: »

Seems strange that your perfectly (I assume??) functioning tank suddenly became faulty a few weeks ago?

I didn't say it was sudden. I noticed a problem and got it fixed.

did you find out the cause for this sudden malfunction??

An outlet filter was clogged, causing the tank to overflow. The tank is on a slope, so I noticed effluent leaking from under an exposed edge of the lid. If the tank had been buried flush with level ground, I mightn't have seen it as soon as I did.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more efficient and simple to test those near water.

Hard to get away from a water table.

Tipp Man

MadsL wrote: »

Hard to get away from a water table.

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

Cedrus

Tipp Man wrote: »

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

This thread is about septic tank charges not the town wastewater treatment plants that the NIMBYs keep objecting to.

MadsL

Tipp Man wrote: »

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

When you can post some evidence that the septic tank problem has been improving in the same way that water treatment plants across the country have been steadily improving -

The EPA carried out 83 audits of water treatment plants in 2010. Improvements were found across all key indicators examined with the exception of source protection and reservoir security which were identified as areas for further improvement. The EPA issued 9 legally binding Directions to 7 local authorities in 2010.

http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/enforce/pa/drink/quality/

Is there any evidence that improvements have been made with regard to pollution from septic tanks?

Tipp Man

MadsL wrote: »

Tipp Man wrote: »

Even harder for towns and villages across the country to get their sewage away from rivers

When you can post some evidence that the septic tank problem has been improving in the same way that water treatment plants across the country have been steadily improving -

The EPA carried out 83 audits of water treatment plants in 2010. Improvements were found across all key indicators examined with the exception of source protection and reservoir security which were identified as areas for further improvement. The EPA issued 9 legally binding Directions to 7 local authorities in 2010.

http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/enforce/pa/drink/quality/

Is there any evidence that improvements have been made with regard to pollution from septic tanks?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that councils have 2 problems, 1 is current treatment plants not working properly and 2 is towns and villages across the country having NO treatment plants. It would take thousand upon thousands of poorly functioning septic tanks to cause as much pollution as 1 town dumping untreated sewage into a river. The concentration of pollution that the councils are doing couldn't possibly be equalled by septic tanks even if every tank in the country wasn't working due to the huge area across which septic tanks are spread ie the whole country

MadsL

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that councils have 2 problems, 1 is current treatment plants not working properly and 2 is towns and villages across the country having NO treatment plants. It would take thousand upon thousands of poorly functioning septic tanks to cause as much pollution as 1 town dumping untreated sewage into a river. The concentration of pollution that the councils are doing couldn't possibly be equalled by septic tanks even if every tank in the country wasn't working due to the huge area across which septic tanks are spread ie the whole country

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself. Read that last sentence again and tell me why we must wait until every last townland has a world-class water treatment system before looking at septic tanks??

MadsL wrote: »

You are aware that businesses in urban areas pay rates, so the cost of repairs is covered by rates paid by businesses frequented by urban dwellers.

Why would additional charges be necessary in your view?

County councils will be forced by EU law to improve standards, and in fact the EPA report that says half of systems are substandard that everyone is spouting to beat the councils with states the vast improvements in monitoring that have been made in recent years.
Since the last report, there has been significant improvement in the monitoring of waste water treatment plants. In 2007, 112 plants did not take sufficient samples; this figure has reduced to 38 in the current report.


If monitoring is important for urban areas, then naturally inspection is important for rural areas on individual tanks.

Bear in mind the EU Water Framework Directive requires member states to take a holistic approach to managing their water resources. It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters. Member States must aim to achieve good status in all waters by 2015 and must ensure that status does not deteriorate in any waters.

Therefore we cannot simply wait until urban councils are in compliance, it has to be done hand-in-hand.

Tipp Man

MadsL wrote: »

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that councils have 2 problems, 1 is current treatment plants not working properly and 2 is towns and villages across the country having NO treatment plants. It would take thousand upon thousands of poorly functioning septic tanks to cause as much pollution as 1 town dumping untreated sewage into a river. The concentration of pollution that the councils are doing couldn't possibly be equalled by septic tanks even if every tank in the country wasn't working due to the huge area across which septic tanks are spread ie the whole country

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself. Read that last sentence again and tell me why we must wait until every last townland has a world-class water treatment system before looking at septic tanks??

MadsL wrote: »

You are aware that businesses in urban areas pay rates, so the cost of repairs is covered by rates paid by businesses frequented by urban dwellers.

Why would additional charges be necessary in your view?

County councils will be forced by EU law to improve standards, and in fact the EPA report that says half of systems are substandard that everyone is spouting to beat the councils with states the vast improvements in monitoring that have been made in recent years.
Since the last report, there has been significant improvement in the monitoring of waste water treatment plants. In 2007, 112 plants did not take sufficient samples; this figure has reduced to 38 in the current report.


If monitoring is important for urban areas, then naturally inspection is important for rural areas on individual tanks.

Bear in mind the EU Water Framework Directive requires member states to take a holistic approach to managing their water resources. It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters. Member States must aim to achieve good status in all waters by 2015 and must ensure that status does not deteriorate in any waters.

Therefore we cannot simply wait until urban councils are in compliance, it has to be done hand-in-hand.

So what is the objective here, charge septic tank owners or actually improve our water pollution. If its the later then we know the councils are the main problem. It makes sense to treat the biggest aspect of a problem first, or at least simultaneously, if you want to fix the problem.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

So only owners of septic tanks near rivers or lakes should have to pay an inspection fee? Or only owners of broken tanks? Or only owners of broken tanks near rivers or lakes?
The point is that we don't know which tanks are causing problems without inspecting them, and that means inspecting them all.

This is not an inspection fee. This is a registration charge. There is no connection between the two. When you pay to register, it does not mean somebody comes out to inspect your tank. If you don't register, the legislation states that the inspector can come onto your property and inspect your tank anyway (without permission) and then gives you a certain number of days to register or be fined.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say it was sudden. I noticed a problem and got it fixed. An outlet filter was clogged, causing the tank to overflow. The tank is on a slope, so I noticed effluent leaking from under an exposed edge of the lid. If the tank had been buried flush with level ground, I mightn't have seen it as soon as I did.

Your outlet was clogged because the sludge level had got too high. If you had inspected the tank for that earlier, then it might have been cheaper for you. If the tank had been on level ground, you would have noticed the problem quicker, because the effluent would have pooled around the tank instead of escaping down the hill. Your experience is very typical; it shows how the owners of septic tanks are forced, by the very nature of septic tanks, to maintain them and to take action when the time comes.

Contrast this with the many Irish towns where thousands of toilets flush straight into rivers or seas with no treatment whatsoever. Those "systems" never give any bother to the householders, and are totally maintenance free.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

This is not an inspection fee. This is a registration charge. There is no connection between the two. When you pay to register, it does not mean somebody comes out to inspect your tank. If you don't register, the legislation states that the inspector can come onto your property and inspect your tank anyway (without permission) and then gives you a certain number of days to register or be fined.

Semantics. It's a registration charge that contributes to the cost of inspection. Tanks need to be inspected.

Your outlet was clogged because the sludge level had got too high. If you had inspected the tank for that earlier, then it might have been cheaper for you.

Much more to the point, if someone was mandated to inspect the tank on a regular basis, then the problem almost certainly wouldn't have arisen in the first place.

Leaving aside the fact that there's much about my situation that you're not aware of (and that I'm not going to bother going into, as it's not relevant), the key learning point is that people don't routinely inspect their own septic tanks. That's a good reason to have the inspections mandated.

MadsL

Tipp Man wrote: »

So what is the objective here, charge septic tank owners or actually improve our water pollution. If its the later then we know the councils are the main problem. It makes sense to treat the biggest aspect of a problem first, or at least simultaneously, if you want to fix the problem.

Err, they are treating the problem simultaneously, which is why you need to register. That's the point I'm making. Read the EPA reports.

Would you disagree with that approach now, as you just suggested it?