Sceptic Tank inspection.

TopTec · 06-02-2012 8:54pm #1

Just reading about the proposed legislation regarding the sceptic tank inspections. I understand that only about 20% of tanks will be inspected and those that will be are in potential contamination areas.... whatever that means.

I am in an interesting position in that my tank, built in the 50's, is covered by two huge flat stone slabs that needed a tractor lift to open them for cleaning. Will the Inspectors bring that with them?

TT

qrrgprgua · 06-02-2012 9:03pm

TopTec wrote: »

Just reading about the proposed legislation regarding the sceptic tank inspections. I understand that only about 20% of tanks will be inspected and those that will be are in potential contamination areas.... whatever that means.

I am in an interesting position in that my tank, built in the 50's, is covered by two huge flat stone slabs that needed a tractor lift to open them for cleaning. Will the Inspectors bring that with them?

TT

Do you have a well for Drinking water on your land?

If so you could be causing you and your family a higher risk of cancer if the tank leaks.

TopTec · 06-02-2012 9:31pm

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Do you have a well for Drinking water on your land?

If so you could be causing you and your family a higher risk of cancer if the tank leaks.

You will have to explain your mental leap from me highlighting my two large stone slabs to me potentially contaminating my land and my family?

TT

irishgeo · 06-02-2012 10:40pm

TopTec wrote: »

Just reading about the proposed legislation regarding the sceptic tank inspections. I understand that only about 20% of tanks will be inspected and those that will be are in potential contamination areas.... whatever that means.

I am in an interesting position in that my tank, built in the 50's, is covered by two huge flat stone slabs that needed a tractor lift to open them for cleaning. Will the Inspectors bring that with them?

TT

its going to carnage this septic tank inspection lark, 80% of homes in mayo have tanks that are that old.

so do you legally have to allow the inspectors on your land?

i doubt they will bring a tractor. more than likely a light and a camera on a pole they drop down one of the pipes on the tank.

signostic · 06-02-2012 10:48pm

I think you will find when comes to inspection time, the onus, will be on the owner of the septic tank to have it in a proper state so that it can be inspected by the inspectors. I don`t think that when inspectors come on a farm to inspect livestock they are expected to go to field, round up the animals and put them into the pen.
I guess they will put this in the regulations governing septic tanks when the time comes.

TopTec · 06-02-2012 11:02pm

I have just read some of the draft legislation covering this. Inspectors cannot enter a premises or onto land without the owners permission. However, it is an offence to deny the inspector or anyone he deems necessary, access.

I call that being had by the short and curlies!

TT

neiphin · 07-02-2012 7:41am

dont register
dont pay

woody1 · 07-02-2012 10:26am

ive read that dont register dont pay argument a few times ,

it says that the septic tank and house charge are both statutes and
that you have to consent to them to be charged ,
you consent by registering, and then if you dont pay your breaking the law,
but
if you dont register then youve not consented and you cant be prosecuted for not paying..

does anyone know if this is accurate, if it is then i cant believe it hasnt got more publicity,
sounds too good to be true to me

oscarBravo · 07-02-2012 10:41am

woody1 wrote: »

sounds too good to be true to me

It is. It's nonsense, made up by people who like to pretend they know more about the law than judges.

Avns1s · 07-02-2012 11:00am

In reality, I don't see the septic tank issue as any big deal. As rural dwellers, we would each like to think that we are taking care of the environment in which we have chosen to reside. That would include ensuring that our septic tanks are working properly and not polluting all around them. If your neighbour had a tank that was spilling over into your garden where your kids play, you would want to be able to do something about it and pretty quickly at that. This law in relation to groundwater is no different. Just because it may not affect your drinking water does not mean that it's not affecting someone elses water.

In any case, it would seem that the new legislation is now watered (no pun intended) to the point of having a register of septic tanks so that in the event of a problem, the relevant authorities can try and identify the source and that inspections will be based in those areas where there is a genuine risk to groundwater.

It would seem as though most tanks are working sufficiently to be deemed functional. If my neighbour had one that wasn't able to be deemed functional then I would want it dealt with.

The major anomaly as I see it, is that it is the councils that are the enforcers of this legislation and ironically, they would be the greatest polluters of all by virtue of sewage discharges into the sea, and also lakes and rivers.

Another anomaly is that rural dwellers are responsible for the costs of dealing with their sewage into the septic tanks through regular emptying and potential upgrading. This might be rectified when water charges become the norm for all and our urban cousins are being charged for the fresh water they take through their meters and also for the treatment of the same amount of foul water.

yop · 07-02-2012 12:16pm

Avns1s wrote: »

In reality, I don't see the septic tank issue as any big deal. As rural dwellers, we would each like to think that we are taking care of the environment in which we have chosen to reside. That would include ensuring that our septic tanks are working properly and not polluting all around them. If your neighbour had a tank that was spilling over into your garden where your kids play, you would want to be able to do something about it and pretty quickly at that. This law in relation to groundwater is no different. Just because it may not affect your drinking water does not mean that it's not affecting someone elses water.

In any case, it would seem that the new legislation is now watered (no pun intended) to the point of having a register of septic tanks so that in the event of a problem, the relevant authorities can try and identify the source and that inspections will be based in those areas where there is a genuine risk to groundwater.

It would seem as though most tanks are working sufficiently to be deemed functional. If my neighbour had one that wasn't able to be deemed functional then I would want it dealt with.

The major anomaly as I see it, is that it is the councils that are the enforcers of this legislation and ironically, they would be the greatest polluters of all by virtue of sewage discharges into the sea, and also lakes and rivers.

Another anomaly is that rural dwellers are responsible for the costs of dealing with their sewage into the septic tanks through regular emptying and potential upgrading. This might be rectified when water charges become the norm for all and our urban cousins are being charged for the fresh water they take through their meters and also for the treatment of the same amount of foul water.

A few point there on that;
"septic tanks through regular emptying"
A working septic should never need to be emptied.

I paid over 4,000 euro for my treatment system even though none of the houses around me have them, including 2 built since, I have one of the dries sites around due to it been used for holding the stone while the railway line was been built.

I paid Mayo Co Co 4800 euro for development costs, I have 4 large potholes for 5 years on a very very busy road, I have filled them time after time.
I don't have lighting,
I don't have footpaths,
I don't have wired phoneline, if I want one I have to pay 900 euro to Mayo Co Co to cut a 10" line in the road, then get the hole due to take it off the pole and to the house.
I don't have a bin service, I have been lucky that a company has agree to take a detour off their route to service a few houses.

Where I live Irish rail upgraded the line, they tarmaced all along the fences where the water used to escape, so with any major rain there is a big flood.
I rang Mayo Co Co and told them this, they said "it wasn't an issue until you built your house, all the waste water off the road used to go onto your site"....

Not having a go or anything and apologise to the OP for going totally off topic.

Avns1s · 07-02-2012 12:25pm

yop wrote: »

A few point there on that;
"septic tanks through regular emptying"
A working septic should never need to be emptied.

I paid over 4,000 euro for my treatment system even though none of the houses around me have them, including 2 built since, I have one of the dries sites around due to it been used for holding the stone while the railway line was been built.

I paid Mayo Co Co 4800 euro for development costs, I have 4 large potholes for 5 years on a very very busy road, I have filled them time after time.
I don't have lighting,
I don't have footpaths,
I don't have wired phoneline, if I want one I have to pay 900 euro to Mayo Co Co to cut a 10" line in the road, then get the hole due to take it off the pole and to the house.
I don't have a bin service, I have been lucky that a company has agree to take a detour off their route to service a few houses.

Where I live Irish rail upgraded the line, they tarmaced all along the fences where the water used to escape, so with any major rain there is a big flood.
I rang Mayo Co Co and told them this, they said "it wasn't an issue until you built your house, all the waste water off the road used to go onto your site"....

Not having a go or anything and apologise to the OP for going totally off topic.

I think only your first point relates to my post.

I was quoting what the Minister said yesterday in relation to the emptying. It's not quite true that "a working septic tank should never need emptying". You are close though. A working septic tank should need emptying very very rarely BUT there is always an amount of "solids" that will build up and sludge the tank over time. I do know of tanks where the washing machine, sinks, etc are piped into a spearate soakaway that have not been emptied in 20 years or more and are working away perfectly.

Never say "never"!!

:D

yop · 07-02-2012 1:00pm

Avns1s wrote: »

I think only your first point relates to my post.
Never say "never"!! :D

Apologise yes! It was the only one!

My parents hasn't been touched in 30th years!!! Then again as you said the washing machine is out to a separate soak pit, while ours, which is on our planning permission, is into our tank!

This will rumble on and on, but as I said previously I won't be paying it, they can deduct it from the development fees I paid.

TopTec · 07-02-2012 5:05pm

What I object to is paying the small amount this year and probably larger amounts next year to register my tank and it is more than likely I will never have an inspection. In effect I would be paying to have other peoples tanks inspected. I had the tank cleaned out when I bought my small cottage 2 years ago. I consider myself a responsible citizen.

Like Yop I have no mains water or sewage. I pay for my phone and power, the little lane I live on has only my repairs over the past 2 years. I have no benefit whatsoever from my taxes except when I leave my home to travel into Ballina.

Reading all the reports today it seems that the Governement is confused about what should go into a tank and what shouldn't. I was always told "No Suds". So my kitchen grey water now goes into a soakaway. Is that right?

I can see this ending up the same way as Home Inspection Packs did in the UK. People paid several hundred pounds to become registered HIP inspectors then once the politicians had finished squabbling, after a couple of years, HIP's were scrapped leaving a lot of people out of pocket. Septic Inspectors here are being asked to pay 1,000 to be registered. I wonder how many will take this up?

TT

Avns1s · 07-02-2012 5:09pm

TopTec wrote: »

Septic Inspectors here are being asked to pay 1,000 to be registered. I wonder how many will take this up?

TT

Have you a link for that??

I understood that the inspecions were to be carried out by the staff of the Councils, not by private inspectors?

TopTec · 07-02-2012 5:15pm

It is in the original draft legislation. I will find it and post the link.

"
2.3. Inspector & Annual Fee

Each inspector will have to pay a registration fee of €1,000 (max), and will have to pay the same fee every time they re-register. This money is to cover the costs of the EPA; largely in the preparation and control of the National Inspection Plan.

See here:

http://www.siteassessor.com/blog/water-services-amendment-bill-2011-explained-90.html#h0-2-3-inspector-aamp-annual-fee

TT

Avns1s · 07-02-2012 5:25pm

TopTec wrote: »

It is in the original draft legislation. I will find it and post the link.

"
2.3. Inspector & Annual Fee

Each inspector will have to pay a registration fee of €1,000 (max), and will have to pay the same fee every time they re-register. This money is to cover the costs of the EPA; largely in the preparation and control of the National Inspection Plan.

See here:

http://www.siteassessor.com/blog/water-services-amendment-bill-2011-explained-90.html#h0-2-3-inspector-aamp-annual-fee

TT

That site looks like it's a private site selling "training" and "registration" to become a "site assessor". It has probably thrived on the fear and misinformation about this particular legislation.

Any link to an official government site?

Sorry for being somewhat pedantic about it but this is really the first time I have heard of this. I find it hard to believe that the inspectors would come from the private sector when there has to be many council engineers/planners etc on the payroll who aren't too busy with the fall off in planning applications and the reduction in roads funding etc.

washman3 · 07-02-2012 6:55pm

TopTec wrote: »

Just reading about the proposed legislation regarding the sceptic tank inspections. I understand that only about 20% of tanks will be inspected and those that will be are in potential contamination areas.... whatever that means.

I am in an interesting position in that my tank, built in the 50's, is covered by two huge flat stone slabs that needed a tractor lift to open them for cleaning. Will the Inspectors bring that with them?

TT

i attended a meeting along with 600 others last night in coulty Limerick on the septic tank issue.
OP i can virtually guarantee you here and now that your 2 large concrete slabs will be the least of your worries.
probably 90% + of septic tanks throughout the country are not working properly,at least to the standards required by the EPA, who will ultimately have the final say on this.
just because grandad's 60 year old tank "appears" to be working properly is nonsense. the method of inspection here will be very modern indeed, a far cry from the old flashlamp in the hole inspection.!!
remedial works will be compulsory,problem is,at what cost.
no mention of a possible grant for these remedial works have come from the minister Phil Hogan.
the tank issue has been compared to the introduction on the NCT on cars 10 years ago. people were assured then that the NCT was just a directive from the EU which we had to obey.
yet when the contract was issued to a private contractor the situation changed completely. the NCT then became a cash-cow for the contractor who were virtually answerable to nobody. the inspection veered far away from merely the safety issues it was introcuced to address.
could we be in for a repeat on the septic tank issue?
do we trust the present government?
a government whose leader only last week described the ordinary Irish citizen as a mad borrower who sank this country.?
i would urge everyone not to register for this charge until such time as we have a concrete statement of what exact standard is required and exactly what % of the final cost can be retrieved via a grant.
this is not scare-mongering,i am all for clean water and a proper environment, but we are all entitled to the full facts here.

TopTec · 07-02-2012 7:12pm

This is the bill in its full form. You will be interested in the section marked Appointment of inspectors. The section relating to the fee is slightly further down and I quote -

the fee payable to the Agency, which shall not exceed €1,000, which shall accompany an application for appointment or renewal of appointment as an inspector,

I have read in several online articles, including the one I have previously linked to, that the fee has been announced as 1,000 euro.

Having said that it may be reduced now that the Minister has announced a reduction in the householder charge for inspection for the first few months. I suspect the local councils would hope to recover the cost of registration from the fee paid by the householder. Hence the susipcion that this is a stealth tax.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,28352,en.pdf

TT

yop · 07-02-2012 7:13pm

Thats the thing though isn't it.

How many times have the government tried things and had to roll it back because they had thought it through.
Voting machines, decentralization, cutting old age pensions, a few more cuts I can't think off the top of my head, rolling out fibre with Iaranroid Eireann and ESB which lies along the lines but never used etc etc etc.

Now this, it was 50 euro last week, now 5 euro.
They still don't know what the qualification of a good or bad tank is.
They now claim its those who live beside a stream.

All they will do is like everything else is put in an "action group" to look at it, pay them each 70k a year to come up with some BS report.

The monkeys are running this country, they haven't a clue. I for one am not and will not pay them 1 single euro for house reg or septic tank reg.

I have said it on another forum, my parents who are not well off at all, were left my grans house, they can't rent it out as it needs improvements, but they don't have any money to do it up. So it sits there. Yet they had to pay the 200 euro 2nd home tax.

Yet 2 of my mates who have parents in the same setup and they refuse to pay the 2nd home tax. 3 years later no one has come near them.

So is someone telling me that the government are going to find people to check each house?

Why don't they get an action group on getting our postcodes sorted out or going after real social welfare fraud.
The muppets can't even get people to read the water meters!!!!!

Its a farce, don't sign up and feed the bondholders.

irishgeo · 07-02-2012 10:48pm

1000 euro for the privilege to look at **** all day.

woody1 · 08-02-2012 10:28am

TopTec wrote: »

What I object to is paying the small amount this year and probably larger amounts next year to register my tank and it is more than likely I will never have an inspection. In effect I would be paying to have other peoples tanks inspected. I had the tank cleaned out when I bought my small cottage 2 years ago. I consider myself a responsible citizen.

Like Yop I have no mains water or sewage. I pay for my phone and power, the little lane I live on has only my repairs over the past 2 years. I have no benefit whatsoever from my taxes except when I leave my home to travel into Ballina.

Reading all the reports today it seems that the Governement is confused about what should go into a tank and what shouldn't. I was always told "No Suds". So my kitchen grey water now goes into a soakaway. Is that right?

I can see this ending up the same way as Home Inspection Packs did in the UK. People paid several hundred pounds to become registered HIP inspectors then once the politicians had finished squabbling, after a couple of years, HIP's were scrapped leaving a lot of people out of pocket. Septic Inspectors here are being asked to pay 1,000 to be registered. I wonder how many will take this up?

TT

just to clear this one up, the EPA manual for septic tanks and treatment systems for 2010, ( and the previous ones ) says

Under no circumstances should rainwater,
surface water or run-off from paved areas be
discharged to on-site single-house treatment
systems. However, grey waters (washing
machine, baths, showers, etc.) must pass to
the treatment system.

i used to do percolation tests ( up to last year ) and ive had that question asked of me a lot...

as for who will be doing the inspections i would imagine that just like
the current percolation test system , the councils will form a panel
of approved inspectors , who would be engineers, architects, whoever that have done a course probably provided by the epa... id be surprised if the council did it themselves, i cant see them assuming responsibility for saying whether a system is working or not, theyd rather get an outside person to do that...

The Engineer · 08-02-2012 10:36pm

yop wrote: »

A working septic should never need to be emptied.

This is not true. A working septic tank needs to be emptied regularly. How regularly "regularly" is depends on the loading from the house and the capacity and make up of the tank. As a good rule-of-thumb, the tank should be big enough to allow at least 2 years of sludge build-up, as anaerobic digestion will then kick in and make the overall process more efficient.

PS. Sorry to hear of all your other issues…I once had to take my car in to have work done on all four alloy wheels due to our wonderful roads, and I have come across tons of sites with water issues due to hydraulic constraints caused by new road construction. It's not rocket science - if you import tons of material and heavily compact it to build a new road / railway, it will cause a hydraulic barrier and water will back-up! One guy down in Tipperary successfully argued this case with the Local Authority and they paid for site works to upgrade his septic system.

The Engineer · 08-02-2012 10:46pm

woody1 wrote: »

as for who will be doing the inspections i would imagine that just like the current percolation test system , the councils will form a panel
of approved inspectors , who would be engineers, architects, whoever that have done a course probably provided by the epa... id be surprised if the council did it themselves, i cant see them assuming responsibility for saying whether a system is working or not, theyd rather get an outside person to do that...

Firstly, Architects have no training in carrying out this sort of work - not having a go, just stating a fact! Remember, the inspection is likely to require the design of upgrades on many of the "legacy sites".

Secondly, the EPA will not be providing a course here. They are often mistaken as running the Site Suitability Assessment course, but it is FÁS that runs that one!

Thirdly, nobody seems to accept responsibility for anything at the minute. Local Authorities have panels of Site Assessors, but there is usually a disclaimer for the homeowner to do their own research before employing an assessor. The EPA Manual has a MASSIVE disclaimer in it.

Most Site Assessors do not have the relevant experience / qualifications / insurance cover to design an on-site wastewater treatment system. The key word here is design. An assessor's PI insurance for assessments does not extend to design or making design recommendations, as required in the EPA Code of Practice Site Characterisation Report Form. Now…who exactly is assuming responsibility for what?!

What we do know for sure is that it is the end-user that is liable under statutory law.

yop · 09-02-2012 12:12am

The Engineer wrote: »

This is not true. A working septic tank needs to be emptied regularly. How regularly "regularly" is depends on the loading from the house and the capacity and make up of the tank. As a good rule-of-thumb, the tank should be big enough to allow at least 2 years of sludge build-up, as anaerobic digestion will then kick in and make the overall process more efficient.
.

Well mine must be total magic then is it? We are in now heading for 8 years with ZERO issues, my parents tanks hasn't been emptied in 30 years.
My brother is 12 years in his house and the same.

Over the last few weeks I have spoken to many people who have been chatting about their tanks and I could give you another 5+ examples of tanks installed for 10 years without needing to be emptied.

So our "regular" is between 8 and 30 years

MOSSAD · 09-02-2012 12:18am

It's not so much the inspection of the tank, but the **** who will be sent out to inspect. I mean, look at county council planners.

mallachyrivers · 09-02-2012 12:42am

I just can't understand how a tank could be sceptical!

The Engineer · 09-02-2012 6:28am

yop wrote: »

Well mine must be total magic then is it? We are in now heading for 8 years with ZERO issues, my parents tanks hasn't been emptied in 30 years.
My brother is 12 years in his house and the same.

Over the last few weeks I have spoken to many people who have been chatting about their tanks and I could give you another 5+ examples of tanks installed for 10 years without needing to be emptied.

So our "regular" is between 8 and 30 years

When you say "ZERO issues", do you mean that the quality of effluent coming out at the back end of the tank is of a good enough quality to discharge to groundwater? Do you mean that your percolation area is perfectly sited, designed and constructed so as not to be even a remote risk to the environment? Or, do you mean that the tank is out of sight and out of mind and is receiving effluent when you flush the toilet, etc. and it's draining off somewhere?

In all seriousness Yop, when was the last time someone inspected the tank, reviewed it's structural integrity (i.e. checked for cracks, missing t-pieces, etc.) and measured the depth of the sludge layer? Has anyone ever checked out the quality of effluent leaving the second chamber of the tank (assuming that the tank is twin-chambered)? If the answer is never, then you cannot say that the system has given "zero issues", as there may be lots of environmental issues that you are unaware of.

mallachyrivers wrote: »

I just can't understand how a tank could be sceptical!

LOL! If you saw enough of these tanks, you'd understand!

Mickeroo · 09-02-2012 8:36am

The Engineer wrote: »

When you say "ZERO issues", do you mean that the quality of effluent coming out at the back end of the tank is of a good enough quality to discharge to groundwater? Do you mean that your percolation area is perfectly sited, designed and constructed so as not to be even a remote risk to the environment? Or, do you mean that the tank is out of sight and out of mind and is receiving effluent when you flush the toilet, etc. and it's draining off somewhere?

In all seriousness Yop, when was the last time someone inspected the tank, reviewed it's structural integrity (i.e. checked for cracks, missing t-pieces, etc.) and measured the depth of the sludge layer? Has anyone ever checked out the quality of effluent leaving the second chamber of the tank (assuming that the tank is twin-chambered)? If the answer is never, then you cannot say that the system has given "zero issues", as there may be lots of environmental issues that you are unaware of.

I get what you're saying about structure and that, but if a septic tank is working properly I thought it shouldn't need to be emptied regularly at all, otherwise whats the point in having it?

Well said on the house tax Yop, if you don't register then they won't be after you simple as. Its the same with TV licenses, if new houses never bother getting a TV licenses then they never get hassled, its only if you actually go and get one in the first place that they'll be after you.

yop · 09-02-2012 9:04am

The Engineer wrote: »

When you say "ZERO issues", do you mean that the quality of effluent coming out at the back end of the tank is of a good enough quality to discharge to groundwater? Do you mean that your percolation area is perfectly sited, designed and constructed so as not to be even a remote risk to the environment? Or, do you mean that the tank is out of sight and out of mind and is receiving effluent when you flush the toilet, etc. and it's draining off somewhere?

In all seriousness Yop, when was the last time someone inspected the tank, reviewed it's structural integrity (i.e. checked for cracks, missing t-pieces, etc.) and measured the depth of the sludge layer? Has anyone ever checked out the quality of effluent leaving the second chamber of the tank (assuming that the tank is twin-chambered)? If the answer is never, then you cannot say that the system has given "zero issues", as there may be lots of environmental issues that you are unaware of.

LOL! If you saw enough of these tanks, you'd understand!

Listen, I am not having a go at you, but remember back in 1998, 1999 we had a load of IT head who were scaring people about the Y2K bug, they made millions as planes were going to crash, ATMs pump out money etc, but you know what it didn't happen and it wasn't because all the bugs were fixed, it was small issues on some servers and PC's, not every single software or hardware system. So as I said I am not making little of what you said as there is of course perfect logic in it, but it reminds me of that.

This just looks like this again. Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is some measurement out there that defines the parameters for the "perfectly treated sh1t3"? That someone will be there with a measure to know what they are at, and at the same time not have a "connection" who for those with concrete tanks, who can do a "For you today me do special offer" on a treatment system.

I paid 250 euro for an "independent" engineer to come out to do the percolation test, assigned by the Co Co, my own engineer and a friend who is an engineer said a figure 8 would be very sufficient as the site is very dry, but alas no. What is even funnier said engineer and this is fact, didn't even leave his car. As 2 neighbours noted his presence outside the house.

So that was the 250. I paid 4k euro+ for the treatment system.
I had an engineer I paid nearly 8k euro to sign it all off.

Now if that has issues it can come down on 1 of the 3 individuals above, not me or they can as I keep saying use my development tax to fund it.

I'll put it this way:
Has anyone inspected the 1000's of leaks on the public water schemes which is costing millions?
Can we take it that lucky towns who have public sewage schemes have perfect piped systems with no leaks at the joints etc......
Has anyone been inspecting the wards in our hospitals for bugs and where people are dying on trollies?

As I said I am not having a go at you, I am just commenting on the text and the checks that you as well as I know will never ever be carried out.
They will hook people in then bend them over year after year.

I am not a tax dodger, I am self employed and pay my VAT and tax on time ever 2 months/year but on these 2 taxes they are nothing but stealth to feed the bondholders. If they were brought in 10 years ago with the sole reasoning of ensuring that septic tanks complied for ENVIRONMENTAL reasons or to support the local councils then fair enough, but even bosco knows that this is going straight out to Europe.

Out of interest, your last line of "LOL! If you saw enough of these tanks, you'd understand!"..... does that mean you inspect tanks, hence it could offer employment to you???

Once again its not a personal attack on you, its just my opinion.

,

oscarBravo · 09-02-2012 10:28am

yop wrote: »

Listen, I am not having a go at you, but remember back in 1998, 1999 we had a load of IT head who were scaring people about the Y2K bug, they made millions as planes were going to crash, ATMs pump out money etc, but you know what it didn't happen and it wasn't because all the bugs were fixed, it was small issues on some servers and PC's, not every single software or hardware system.

Not having a go at you in turn, but you clearly weren't working on mainframe or midrange software systems back then. There were millions of man-hours put into fixing y2k bugs.

Granted, the media did what they always do and made up stories about planes crashing, but if we hadn't done what we did to fix the bugs, entire supply chains and financial systems would have imploded. It wouldn't have been as "sexy" as plane crashes or ATMs spewing money, but it wouldn't have been pretty.

It really grinds my gears to hear people say there was no y2k problem. The vast majority of people will never realise just how big the y2k problem was, and just how much work went into fixing it.

Dragging this back on topic: in many ways this is analogous. The vast majority of septic tank owners believe that their tank is working perfectly because they have no evidence to the contrary. The only way we could tell whether our ERP systems were y2k-ready was to test them. The fact that they appeared to be working perfectly in the 1990s didn't mean that they were.

yop · 09-02-2012 1:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not having a go at you in turn, but you clearly weren't working on mainframe or midrange software systems back then. There were millions of man-hours put into fixing y2k bugs.

Granted, the media did what they always do and made up stories about planes crashing, but if we hadn't done what we did to fix the bugs, entire supply chains and financial systems would have imploded. It wouldn't have been as "sexy" as plane crashes or ATMs spewing money, but it wouldn't have been pretty.

It really grinds my gears to hear people say there was no y2k problem. The vast majority of people will never realise just how big the y2k problem was, and just how much work went into fixing it.

Dragging this back on topic: in many ways this is analogous. The vast majority of septic tank owners believe that their tank is working perfectly because they have no evidence to the contrary. The only way we could tell whether our ERP systems were y2k-ready was to test them. The fact that they appeared to be working perfectly in the 1990s didn't mean that they were.

Ah sure the Y2K put the merc under your arse so course you were going to say ye saved the world

( I am joking of course)

I didn't say there wasn't Y2K problems, what I did say was re the planes and ATM, was more scare mongering to suit the suits to charge big bucks.

With regards the tanks, as I said, let them chat with my engineer, the installers of the system and the engineer who did (cough cough) my percolation test.

oscarBravo · 09-02-2012 1:36pm

yop wrote: »

Ah sure the Y2K put the merc under your arse so course you were going to say ye saved the world ( I am joking of course)

I didn't say there wasn't Y2K problems, what I did say was re the planes and ATM, was more scare mongering to suit the suits to charge big bucks.

There was scaremongering, yes. There were chancers who conned people out of their hard-earned, yes.

But dwarfing all that in the background was the very real problem, which required very real effort to fix. The amount of money that was spent (in analyst/programmer man-hours) on necessary fixes is probably orders of magnitude more than was wasted on scams. To put it in context: I first started doing y2k repairs on enterprise systems in 1988.

With regards the tanks, as I said, let them chat with my engineer, the installers of the system and the engineer who did (cough cough) my percolation test.

If you've got an infallible system, fair play. I had a guy out this morning to look at the tank in the house I'm renting. The tank is working perfectly apart from the minor detail of the outflow filter which was clogged. Now it's completely perfect again.

Why was the guy out? Because I spotted something that I thought might indicate a problem with the tank, and I contacted the landlord who organised the call-out. If I hadn't noticed the problem, I could have been contaminating groundwater for the foreseeable future.

We need a systematic approach to inspecting tanks and making sure that these problems are spotted and fixed at an early stage. If your tank is well-designed and working perfectly, yay. Lots are not - and it troubles me to see the likely failure rate used as a reason not to inspect them.

yop · 09-02-2012 4:12pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was scaremongering, yes. There were chancers who conned people out of their hard-earned, yes.

But dwarfing all that in the background was the very real problem, which required very real effort to fix. The amount of money that was spent (in analyst/programmer man-hours) on necessary fixes is probably orders of magnitude more than was wasted on scams. To put it in context: I first started doing y2k repairs on enterprise systems in 1988. If you've got an infallible system, fair play. I had a guy out this morning to look at the tank in the house I'm renting. The tank is working perfectly apart from the minor detail of the outflow filter which was clogged. Now it's completely perfect again.

Why was the guy out? Because I spotted something that I thought might indicate a problem with the tank, and I contacted the landlord who organised the call-out. If I hadn't noticed the problem, I could have been contaminating groundwater for the foreseeable future.

We need a systematic approach to inspecting tanks and making sure that these problems are spotted and fixed at an early stage. If your tank is well-designed and working perfectly, yay. Lots are not - and it troubles me to see the likely failure rate used as a reason not to inspect them.

I was in at your office last Friday, might be about tomorrow, will give them merc tires a kick for ya!

What problem did you notice out of interest?

Listen I am not be holier than thou on this, of course there are tanks with issues, if the sh!ite isn't spurting into the air then it doesn't mean its not messing the ground water, but its the timing and approach that is the kick here.

As I said earlier, IF this approach, like they took in Cavan (which mightnt be right!!) was done 10 years ago with the massive build burst, then people would have, like a typical Irish person, with a grunt have accepted it, but the perception is that this isn't for the good of our groundwater but solely to pay the bondholders. And by heck they are going to have some crack in convincing people otherwise.

If only an internet provider could wirelessly covert my septic waste into binary and transfer it to the treatment plant in Westport it would be purfec!

TopTec · 09-02-2012 4:28pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was scaremongering, yes. There were chancers who conned people out of their hard-earned, yes.

Shall we take bets on when the first advert on the TV or radio from some con artist appears offering pre-registration inspections and special rates on any follow on corrective work as long as you pre-pay for the work. This is usually aimed at the elderly and those that don't know any better.

TT

oscarBravo · 09-02-2012 5:09pm

yop wrote: »

What problem did you notice out of interest?

Water seeping out from under the tank lid. There's a separate (third) chamber with a pump to send the effluent to the percolation area, but with the filter clogged it wasn't getting to that one and was overflowing from the second chamber.

As I said earlier, IF this approach, like they took in Cavan (which mightnt be right!!) was done 10 years ago with the massive build burst, then people would have, like a typical Irish person, with a grunt have accepted it, but the perception is that this isn't for the good of our groundwater but solely to pay the bondholders. And by heck they are going to have some crack in convincing people otherwise.

That's an argument that holds no water (par'n the pun) with me.

We have a choice here: we can cross our fingers and hope like hell that every septic tank in the country is working properly. Or we can check them, and fix them if they're not. One of those approaches will contribute to clean, healthy drinking water. One won't. Bondholders don't come into it; and people wanting to believe that bondholders have something to do with the issue don't magically make it so.

If only an internet provider could wirelessly covert my septic waste into binary and transfer it to the treatment plant in Westport it would be purfec!

I think there's enough sh*t travelling over our network as it is...! :pac:

TopTec wrote: »

Shall we take bets on when the first advert on the TV or radio from some con artist appears offering pre-registration inspections and special rates on any follow on corrective work as long as you pre-pay for the work. This is usually aimed at the elderly and those that don't know any better.

It may well happen. Scam artists are, sadly, a constant fact of life.

But to reiterate my point earlier: the existence of scam artists thirteen years ago didn't make y2k not a real problem, and the existence of scam artists today isn't going to make faulty septic tanks not a real problem.

woody1 · 09-02-2012 9:29pm

The Engineer wrote: »

Firstly, Architects have no training in carrying out this sort of work - not having a go, just stating a fact! Remember, the inspection is likely to require the design of upgrades on many of the "legacy sites".

Secondly, the EPA will not be providing a course here. They are often mistaken as running the Site Suitability Assessment course, but it is FÁS that runs that one!

Thirdly, nobody seems to accept responsibility for anything at the minute. Local Authorities have panels of Site Assessors, but there is usually a disclaimer for the homeowner to do their own research before employing an assessor. The EPA Manual has a MASSIVE disclaimer in it.

Most Site Assessors do not have the relevant experience / qualifications / insurance cover to design an on-site wastewater treatment system. The key word here is design. An assessor's PI insurance for assessments does not extend to design or making design recommendations, as required in the EPA Code of Practice Site Characterisation Report Form. Now…who exactly is assuming responsibility for what?! What we do know for sure is that it is the end-user that is liable under statutory law.

fair enough architects dont have any training to do this sort of thing, and sorry yes it was fas that provided the course, with many guys and girls from the epa giving the lectures/presentations so thats where the confusion arises..
but i was just saying what i think will happen myself, which will be that therel be some kind of course given by someone to relevant qualified people (i think this will include architects/technicians and probably many other non relevant qualifications, you dont , fair enough, by the way im not saying it should include them, just that i think it will ) , theyl probably be given a framework and a methodology to follow and will be sent off into the country to inspect tanks... that may not be what happens, but its what I THINK will happen.... what i think should happen is that relevantly qualified engineers are assessed on their suitability to do the job and then they are employed by the councils ...but i dont think that will happen as it makes too much sense

The Engineer · 11-02-2012 4:16pm

yop wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that there is some measurement out there that defines the parameters for the "perfectly treated sh1t3"? That someone will be there with a measure to know what they are at, and at the same time not have a "connection" who for those with concrete tanks, who can do a "For you today me do special offer" on a treatment system.

There are physical, chemical and biological processes that are important in the movement of pollutants through the environment and in the processes used to control and treat pollutant emissions. It is only through understanding the pollutants and the processes used to treat them that we can protect the environment and public health. So, yes - there are parameters that can be specified on any given site in order to protect groundwater, public health, etc.

Wastewater treatment and disposal on one-off houses is typically a risk-based exercise - if you have certain soil conditions, a water table below a certain level, etc., a septic tank might not pose a risk to sensitive receptors (e.g. wells, surface waters, etc.). However, in certain cases a much higher level of treatment than is achieved in a septic tank and percolation area system might be needed. In all cases, the system must be designed, installed and maintained correctly! Do you buy a car and expect to drive it indefinitely for 30 years without ever having it inspected / serviced? Is it not also reasonable to assume that an on-site wastewater treatment system will also need inspections and servicing?

yop wrote: »

I paid 250 euro for an "independent" engineer to come out to do the percolation test, assigned by the Co Co, my own engineer and a friend who is an engineer said a figure 8 would be very sufficient as the site is very dry, but alas no. What is even funnier said engineer and this is fact, didn't even leave his car. As 2 neighbours noted his presence outside the house.

So that was the 250. I paid 4k euro+ for the treatment system.
I had an engineer I paid nearly 8k euro to sign it all off.

Now if that has issues it can come down on 1 of the 3 individuals above, not me or they can as I keep saying use my development tax to fund it.

The "independent" engineer assigned by the local authority to do a percolation test was most likely a site assessor (with a FETAC Cert, rather than a degree in an appropriate engineering discipline), and not an engineer. Similarly, it is also unlikely that your engineer would be classed as a competent person in terms of designing an on-site system, as most of the engineers involved in property conveyancing are civil / structural engineers. The ideal route to go would be to employ a registered, accredited professional (e.g. a Chartered Engineer - the key word being "chartered") with verified expert knowledge, skills and competences (i.e. for undertaking the work required) to give you an end solution fully covered by his professional indemnity insurance. This way, if the design doesn't work, you have a course for redress. Similarly, if he sits in his car but claims to have carried out works on the site, you can lodge a complaint with his regulatory body (e.g. Engineers Ireland).

yop wrote: »

I'll put it this way:
Has anyone inspected the 1000's of leaks on the public water schemes which is costing millions?
Can we take it that lucky towns who have public sewage schemes have perfect piped systems with no leaks at the joints etc......
Has anyone been inspecting the wards in our hospitals for bugs and where people are dying on trollies?

I don't know if anyone is inspecting PWSs for leaks. Some towns with public sewers and treatment plants have perfect piped systems, others do not. These are all valid points you raise. Valid points, but they do not offer a lot to this debate. Going back to the original reason I threw my tuppence worth in, you said your septic tank (and those of your family members) gave "zero problems". I simply pointed out that septic tanks need on-going maintenance. This is not about scaremongering or fear-tactics to drum up work for specialist engineers. Similarly, it is not about burying our collective heads in the sand and saying: "well, everything else in the country is f**ked three ways towards the weekend - water is leaking, sewers are broken, hospitals are riddled with bugs - so lets throw in the towel".

Who was it that said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"? Edmund Burke, I believe. My point is (and I'm sure I have one!!!), keep your septic system maintained properly - not because someone else (e.g. DoEHLG, EU, LA, etc.) tells you to - do it because it is the right thing to do.

yop wrote: »

They will hook people in then bend them over year after year…but even bosco knows that this is going straight out to Europe.

This is quite likely very true - I am not pro-EU, which is all the more reason for us as men and women to take the matter into our own hands and fix our sites because it is the right thing to do.

yop wrote: »

Out of interest, your last line of "LOL! If you saw enough of these tanks, you'd understand!"..... does that mean you inspect tanks, hence it could offer employment to you???

Yes, it could - but I can think of nicer jobs. Some of the tanks I have seen are in bits and it is a major health hazard even inspecting them.

yop wrote: »

Once again its not a personal attack on you, its just my opinion. ,

Thanks Yop - and don't worry, I don't take anything personally!

oscarBravo wrote: »

The vast majority of septic tank owners believe that their tank is working perfectly because they have no evidence to the contrary. The only way we could tell whether our ERP systems were y2k-ready was to test them. The fact that they appeared to be working perfectly in the 1990s didn't mean that they were.

Well said oscarBravo. Did you ever hear of Paddy's Law? "If everything seems to be going well, you don't know what is going on"…this sums up on-site wastewater treatment nicely!

Sceptic Tank inspection.

Comments