Septic tank charges

Sponge Bob

recedite wrote: »

I don't think the maths works here.

Oh yes it does, in 2013.

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

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

recedite

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

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

Sponge Bob

recedite wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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



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

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

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

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

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

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

martian1980

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sponge Bob

martian1980 wrote: »

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

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

martian1980

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

antoobrien

martian1980 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

martian1980

antoobrien wrote: »

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



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

Thank you for the reply.

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

Sponge Bob

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

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

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

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

antoobrien

martian1980 wrote: »

Thank you for the reply.

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

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

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

flutered

antoobrien wrote: »

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

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

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

MadsL

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

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

Is that your argument?

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

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

Sponge Bob

flutered wrote: »

most if not all plants nationwide are running on overcapacity

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

MadsL wrote: »

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

Do you accept that

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

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

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

This is all about 2013, the here and now.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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



Do you accept that

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

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

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

This is all about 2013, the here and now.

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

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

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

Farmer Pudsey

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

Is that your argument?

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

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

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

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

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

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

MadsL

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

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

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

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farmer Pudsey

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

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

Sponge Bob

Pudsey , may I presume on you a moment.

Am I correct in saying,

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

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

and

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

AND

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

AND

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

From which there is one other question.

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

Sorry for all that Pudsey.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

So that would be a NO.

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

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

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

Or 4. Nobody knows.

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

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

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

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Grand. 1.1m P/E it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Grand. 1.1m P/E it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you saying Poolbeg will not be built?

Sponge Bob

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

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

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

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

Farmer Pudsey

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Pudsey , may I presume on you a moment.

Am I correct in saying,

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

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

and

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

AND

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

AND

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

From which there is one other question.

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

Sorry for all that Pudsey.

Bob I will try ro answer as best as I can

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

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

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

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

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

Sponge Bob

Thanks Pudsey, that was really quick.

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

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Thanks Pudsey, that was really quick.

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

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