alfa beta wrote: » I just find it annoying that even though I already have a 5-year contract in place with Bord na Mona requiring them to come out annually and inspect the wastewater treatment system they installed when we built our house (and that 5 year contract setting me back €400 but necessary as part of planning conditions), it now seems I have to register for someone else to come out and do exactly the same thing.... ...you'd think with Bord na Mona being a semi-state and all that, that their inspections could simply be passed on to whoever the new gang of inspectors will be...dunno, seems a bit daft.... ...soon I'll have more septic tank inspectors calling round than jehovah's witnesses....
Ellen Rose wrote: » Perhaps someone can help me as I'm a little confused about this septic tank requirement. Is this an EU requirement across all member states?
If so why aren't other countries like UK & France implementing this?
Also could someone post the direct link to the EU directive please
murphaph wrote: » It's an EU directive we've (with the exception of Cavan CC) been ignoring for 20 years. We are facing fines for not implementing it. The NCT is not a revenue raising exercise. They actually check things are in order with stadardised testing (better than the UK MoT). It was implemented at a time when no extra revenue was needed. It was implemented under pressure from the EU who had passed the directive years before. This is no different except that we are broke at the same time.
alfa beta wrote: » ...soon I'll have more septic tank inspectors calling round than jehovah's witnesses....
OssianSmyth wrote: » Yes They are. In France you get registered and inspected by SPANC http://www.spanc.fr/page.php?action=page&lk=technique1&lg=fr&tp=h In Scotland you go to The Scottish EPA http://apps.sepa.org.uk/WfdReg/pages/welcome.aspx European Commission referral of Irish case to the ECJ http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Current waste directive:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:PDF The commission says we have been in breach of prior waste directives since 1993.
bbam wrote: » I don't understand the problem people have with this... If your neighbour was dumping bags of dirty nappies and waste along the road most people would be disgusted and up in arms, calling in the Garda and whoever to have it stopped or the person prosecuted... For many systems, essentially the same thing is happening, just under the ground where you can't see it... Some systems are not working properly and discharging waste into the environment, day after day. This is pollution plain and simple, it needs to be identified and corrected. the interesting thing will what standards will be imposed on older systems..
Welease wrote: » The issue for many people is the manner in which pollution is being addressed.
Welease wrote: » in fairness to those with septic tanks there should be an equitable system of payment for those services across both municipal and unconnected systems.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » I’m not sure it is. Some rural dwellers sound like they are perfectly happy for pollution to continue – they’re not really demanding that everyone cleans up their act. The campaign is really just about the fact of a charge – and the prospect of having to replace inadequate systems.What do you mean by “equitable system of payment”? I’d take it that the cost of a municipal system, per head, is much lower than the cost of stand-alone systems. Presumably, given the complications and risks, it’s at least arguable that people who don’t want to live where they can connect to the municipal system should have to pay through the nose.[/QUOTE] What a statement:( Farmers, who were born and reared on the farm, and continue to live there, and hopefully pass it on to the next generation, in your mind, just stubbornly refuse to up sticks, and live in the next village, which is connected to the municipal system. That's the D4 kind of thinking, which sows the sees of dissent, against these "revenue gathering", charges, dressed up as "green, environmental measures":rolleyes:
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » I’m not sure it is. Some rural dwellers sound like they are perfectly happy for pollution to continue – they’re not really demanding that everyone cleans up their act. The campaign is really just about the fact of a charge – and the prospect of having to replace inadequate systems..
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » What do you mean by “equitable system of payment”? I’d take it that the cost of a municipal system, per head, is much lower than the cost of stand-alone systems. Presumably, given the complications and risks, it’s at least arguable that people who don’t want to live where they can connect to the municipal system should have to pay through the nose.
Welease wrote: » There is likely an element of people that fall into each and every camp.
Welease wrote: » I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.. Those who are unconnected systems already pay the full and total cost of their systems for the existance of the system but thats not the point I am making... The new charges for checking/administration can be borne by the owners, but given the €5 initial cost its likely that the council will be bearing a considerable cost of providing the service (people can argue if thats fair/unfair to owners/council etc as part of a discussion on an equitable payment system).. If we aim to minimise pollution then a similar system should be implemented for municipal/industrial etc. systems.. and a similar equitable payment system should be implemented. As to what form that payment system should take.. well thats open to discussion and much like the pollution element, I'm sure there will be 1000's of differing opinions.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » Perhaps, but the only ones making a noise are people incensed about the inspection fee – although, I’d expect their real problem is an expectation that their systems will fail inspection, leaving them with an obligation to incur significant cost to replace them. .
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » But where’s the point of comparison? Users of municipal systems don’t need to be individually inspected, so the situation doesn’t really arise. There’s no need for an individual inspection, such as would require a fee to be paid.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » Perhaps, but the only ones making a noise are people incensed about the inspection fee – although, I’d expect their real problem is an expectation that their systems will fail inspection, leaving them with an obligation to incur significant cost to replace them. But where’s the point of comparison? Users of municipal systems don’t need to be individually inspected, so the situation doesn’t really arise. There’s no need for an individual inspection, such as would require a fee to be paid.
Welease wrote: » The issue for many people is the manner in which pollution is being addressed.. According to the media/reports (which depending on source will have their own agenda) septic tanks account for around 7% of water quality deterioration, Inadequate municipal systems account for about 30%, with Industial effluent accounting for around 10%.. So for many.. questions such as why are we primarily focussed on the the smallest primary area of pollution first? Will those connected to municipal systems have to pay for their own remedy (and will their response of it needs to be tackled at the owners/users cost continue to be the solution they propose when suddently they are being asked to pay the bill).. Why are municipal systems not being addressed in the same manner? etc etc.. As you say.. I am not happy for my neighbour to dump effluent into the land.. but that applies to all neighbours.. not just the ones with septic tanks.. and in fairness to those with septic tanks there should be an equitable system of payment for those services across both municipal and unconnected systems. (I personally don't have an issue with the system or requiring payment for those services.. once those payments fund a system that makes sense in a cost effective & environmental manner..)
bbam wrote: » So there are bigger polluters out there, does that mean people have no responsibility to their own systems? Yes pressure needs to be applied to the councils to have their systems in order, that however doesn't negate the responsibility of individuals to register and ensure their systems are correct. The €5 or even €50 per five years charge will go nowhere regarding the execution of the system. I'd imagine if it were free people wouldn't register as a protest against the government, just like the household charge. People who pollute have a responsibility to correct the defects or face the consequences. Pollution is pollution, if it be fly tipping, leaking tanks, or council treatment systems.
recedite wrote: » There is no inspection fee.
Black Smoke wrote: » What a statement:( Farmers, who were born and reared on the farm, and continue to live there, and hopefully pass it on to the next generation, in your mind, just stubbornly refuse to up sticks, and live in the next village, which is connected to the municipal system. That's the D4 kind of thinking, which sows the sees of dissent, against these "revenue gathering", charges, dressed up as "green, environmental measures":rolleyes:
Welease wrote: » And equally, there are 1000's of people not complaining, so one can assume they have little issue with the system proposed at present.
Welease wrote: » But there is a need for inspection and removal of the source of the municipal pollution issues.
Welease wrote: » Personally, I'm happy with any proposed payment system once it solve the issue in the most cost effective manner possible.
recedite wrote: » The way to tackle all these problems is to first search for and detect water/groundwater pollution through general water testing. Then fix the problems ASAP, on a "polluter pays" principle.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » I'm just confirming that none of us sees this as a reason to stop implementing regulation of domestic septic tanks.
recedite wrote: » I agree, but why put the cart before the horse? As a priority the EPA should be dealing with the well known mega polluters first, then establish an inspection regime for the small fry; the faulty septic tanks, all the while collecting some fines, and only then, finally, ask for money from the innocent majority of the responsible septic tank owners (who are already well used to fully paying all their own costs). Also this idea that people in a city are entitled get all their services "free" would only apply if they were individually paying rates. Free municipal bin collections have gone, free municipal water is on the way out. Perhaps the toilet tax is not so unlikely after all.
recedite wrote: » Also this idea that people in a city are entitled get all their services "free" would only apply if they were individually paying rates. Free municipal bin collections have gone, free municipal water is on the way out. Perhaps the toilet tax is not so unlikely after all.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » I'm sure Phil will be glad to hear that..
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » But isn't still a different slate of issues. I doubt there's much difficulty in discovering where Arklow's waste water is going, if there's a will. Trying to bring order to a few hundred thousand domestic systems, though, seems like a different proposition.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » But I'm still not clear what it is you envisage as being in the scope of this payment system. I mean, fine if urban dwellers cover the cost of their water systems - the cities are probably already doing it out of their general income. But I still don't get what significant issue you see as being at stake here..
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » And isn't the substantial issue with rural dwellers really what they will do if their systems are condemned. A registration fee of €5 or an inspection fee of €50 might be an annoyance. But the real issue is what happens if you are instructed to spend thousands on a new system.OK, there are likely to be existing problems to be fixed. But isn't the hope to be a bit more proactive than that, and maybe identify risks before they become problems?.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » In all this, can I agree there's no reason to ignore any source of pollution, and fix it on a polluter pays principle. I'm just confirming that none of us sees this as a reason to stop implementing regulation of domestic septic tanks.
MadsL wrote: » By that argument the Gardai should stop issuing speeding tickets until they have caught all the bank robbers.
Welease wrote: » The significant issue is that we are only addressing 7% of the source of pollution.. Addressing the primary industrial and municipal sources is not currently underway, and requires both a plan and suitable funding. Argueably many of those who believe septic tanks owners should fund their issues (polluter pays) won't support a system which could see they themselves be landed with a large bill to rectify their own issues. If they don't support a global model, then I find it difficult to understand why they believe the current payment model is "fair".
