Septic tank charges

sh1tstirrer · 29-01-2012 11:54am

Some clown on the radio during the week gave an example of two pensioners living in the same house (married couple I presume). He said if they had no percolation and didn't have enough land to install it they would have to buy more adjoining land or else they could be forced from their home.

Welease · 29-01-2012 11:58am

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

Some clown on the radio during the week gave an example of two pensioners living in the same house (married couple I presume). He said if they had no percolation and didn't have enough land to install it they would have to buy more adjoining land or else they could be forced from their home.

Well in those cases where they are polluting the environment then something does need to be done... The system should never have been installed like that, but it cannot be left like that either..

murphaph · 29-01-2012 12:13pm

Welease wrote: »

But thats the point.. it is different.. The NCT/DOE applies to the vast majority of vehicles.. this "environmental" inspection doesn't, it applies to only one type of system. Akin to only having to NCT Ford's.

What about main sewerage systems that are leaking due to subsidence, root invasion, age, damage etc. Why are they not being inspected? If there is an issue with pollution of water tables, then we should be inpecting all potential points of pollution.

What exactly do we know about inspection regimes for municipal waste water treatment systems? I (perhaps in my naivety) assumed that inspections and maintenance of sewage pipes and systems do take place.

I fully agree with you that there should be a regimented system of inspection where there's a known pollution risk. I would however argue that the risks in rural Ireland from septic tank polluting the groundwater pose a more significant problem than an urban pipe leaking for one simple reason: the vast majority of urban water is not sourced from the ground beneath our feet, but from rivers upstream-there's a much higher risk of an urban area being poisoned by a rural septic tank than by their own pipes leaking beneath them.

In contrast, the density of septic tanks and wells in rural Ireland means a polluting tank poses the real risk of poisoning the owner and/or his neighbours as the drinking water comes directly out of the ground adjacent to the percolation area.

Welease · 29-01-2012 1:29pm

murphaph wrote: »

What exactly do we know about inspection regimes for municipal waste water treatment systems? I (perhaps in my naivety) assumed that inspections and maintenance of sewage pipes and systems do take place.

Waste can travel a long way before it reaches treatment plants.. I am over 40, and I assume you like me (nor anyone I know) has never had a visit from the council to check if my sewerage pipes are in satisfactory condition. I have personally done remedial work on two houses I owned, which had been leaking for years previous to me purchasing them.

I have read various articles about up to 50% water loss (primarily UK based) in delivery systems, it would be a safe assumption we could be losing as much in waste return systems.

murphaph wrote: »

I fully agree with you that there should be a regimented system of inspection where there's a known pollution risk. I would however argue that the risks in rural Ireland from septic tank polluting the groundwater pose a more significant problem than an urban pipe leaking for one simple reason: the vast majority of urban water is not sourced from the ground beneath our feet, but from rivers upstream-there's a much higher risk of an urban area being poisoned by a rural septic tank than by their own pipes leaking beneath them.

True, but if that were the basis of the need for inspection.. then wouldn't only those in areas where water is being collected pose a risk?.. If a city dweller poses a low risk due to distance, then a distant septic tank would also pose an equally low risk.

murphaph wrote: »

In contrast, the density of septic tanks and wells in rural Ireland means a polluting tank poses the real risk of poisoning the owner and/or his neighbours as the drinking water comes directly out of the ground adjacent to the percolation area.

Placement of wells and percolation areas should be addressed by regulations..Plenty of rural houses with septic tanks are served by mains water (we are).

As you clarified in response to my original post, this is an EU directive.. So on that basis I don't actually object.. but a lot of the responses here smack of it's fine once it doesn't effect me. The "it 's good for the environment" brigage dont seem so gung-ho to pay for inspection of their own mains pipes which can equally leak as much effluent into the environment.

murphaph · 29-01-2012 3:09pm

Welease wrote: »

Waste can travel a long way before it reaches treatment plants.. I am over 40, and I assume you like me (nor anyone I know) has never had a visit from the council to check if my sewerage pipes are in satisfactory condition. I have personally done remedial work on two houses I owned, which had been leaking for years previous to me purchasing them.

I don't know. I genuinely don't think the risk of passive systems like sewage pipes in urban areas is as likely to fail as an active system like a septic tank. I am not saying there should be no inspections but we should start where the risk is greater. Urban waste water should certainly be an issue however-in Germany you have install special drainage in your driveway if you want to wash your car there to ensure no detergents enter the waste water system. They are light years ahead here though in all matters environmental.

Welease wrote: »

I have read various articles about up to 50% water loss (primarily UK based) in delivery systems, it would be a safe assumption we could be losing as much in waste return systems.

Not so sure about that. Delivery systems are fairly highly pressurised. Waste water systems aren't AFAIK as the waste only has to flow downhill in 90% of cases. Water has to be delivered to multi storey buildings and this requires a head and the consequent pressure. A small hole in a water main will lose a lot more than the same sized hole in a sewage pipe. I'm not an expert here, so I stand to be corrected on that.

Welease wrote: »

True, but if that were the basis of the need for inspection.. then wouldn't only those in areas where water is being collected pose a risk?.. If a city dweller poses a low risk due to distance, then a distant septic tank would also pose an equally low risk.

Placement of wells and percolation areas should be addressed by regulations..Plenty of rural houses with septic tanks are served by mains water (we are).

A fair point. Perhaps the inspections should start in areas of highest tank to tank or tank to well density and/or with older tanks.

Welease wrote: »

As you clarified in response to my original post, this is an EU directive.. So on that basis I don't actually object.. but a lot of the responses here smack of it's fine once it doesn't effect me. The "it 's good for the environment" brigage dont seem so gung-ho to pay for inspection of their own mains pipes which can equally leak as much effluent into the environment.

Ireland has much growing up to do in relation to environmental matters, in all quarters-rural and urban

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 11:22am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Will you accept a Master's degree in environmental science and a couple of years working for the Geological Survey's groundwater unit? Plus regular contacts with colleagues still in the field.

Septic tanks = pollution sources. Arguments based on them not being will fail to move the debate at the official level, because they're based purely on personal ignorance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Misleading.

Septic tanks are not a pollution source otherwise septic tanks wouldnt be allowed to be installed.

Failed septic tanks are a pollution source.

cordially,
solidchrome

Sponge Bob · 30-01-2012 11:43am

Septic tanks are a pollution source but public sewage scheme users on polluting schemes are being bailed out by the taxpayer. Why will the government not admit that.

Those with septic tanks are ALSO paying for those upgrades.

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 12:36pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Septic tanks are a pollution source..

A failed septic tank is a source of pollution but I cant accept that a new fully functioning tank is a source of pollution. If thats right then septic tanks should be banned and the government should roll out a national public sewage scheme, like they should of decades ago.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

.. public sewage scheme users on polluting schemes are being bailed out by the taxpayer. Why will the government not admit that.

Those with septic tanks are ALSO paying for those upgrades.

The government will address present public sewage schemes when it has sorted the shenanigans with septic tanks. First we will hear horror stories on state television about how the public are mistreating the scheme by flushing aligators/nuclear toxic waste etc down the toilets and how bad it is for the enviroment. Then there will be much debate about these evil people causing diseases and how to make them pay. Then Hogan will propose that everyone on the public scheme must pay, out of their own pockets, thousands of euros to repair the pipes under their properties because European legislation demands it.

Regards
solidchrome

Gareth2011 · 30-01-2012 12:44pm

I didn't even know it was in effect yet. I registered for the household charge only to find out it might hit people with large gardens/land like myself. I'm fu*ked if im registering for this too for them to tell me I need to spend 5 grand upgrading it. They want it upgraded they can pay for it to be upgraded.

Cedrus · 30-01-2012 1:03pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Septic tanks are not a pollution source otherwise septic tanks wouldnt be allowed to be installed.

They frequently are NOT allowed, hence why many people are forced to install mini treatment plants.

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 1:13pm

Cedrus wrote: »

They frequently are NOT allowed, hence why many people are forced to install mini treatment plants.

Which cost alot of money to install, run and maintain

Now can someone answer me do people who have treatment plants have to pay this silly charge?

bbsrs · 30-01-2012 2:49pm

wiseguy wrote: »

Cedrus wrote: »

They frequently are NOT allowed, hence why many people are forced to install mini treatment plants.

Which cost alot of money to install, run and maintain

Now can someone answer me do people who have treatment plants have to pay this silly charge?

Yes to ensure its installed and functioning properly.

I have a well on site too so I'm happy enough to have it inspected.

I think if every system was functioning properly people wouldn't mind the inspections for €50 euro , it's the fear of having to bring a system up to standard and not having the funds is what's worrying most people , if there was a grant in place to help those that can't afford it similar to the grant available for a well it would ease the fear and resistance to this inspection . But people who didn't fulfill the requirements of their planning permission with regards to sewage treatment would not be able to access the grant.

My system is 4 years old , was installed and designed by County Council approved people and is maintained yearly by the manufacturer . Cost 10k roughly in total . It's not just the price of the bio cycle treatment system , it's the percolation area too which can cost more than the bio cycle system itself depending on the percolation bed you need .

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 2:53pm

bbsrs wrote: »

Yes to ensure its installed and functioning properly.

But one already has to pay ~170 euro a year inspection charge to ensure that treatment plant is working properly.

Thats like doing an DOE/MOT on a van/car twice (and paying for it twice)

n97 mini · 30-01-2012 3:05pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Septic tanks are not a pollution source otherwise septic tanks wouldnt be allowed to be installed.

By design septic tanks over flow into the percolation area and even a perfectly functioning tank can be polluting (depends on usage). They are permitted as there is no better alternatives.

Solidchrome wrote: »

If thats right then septic tanks should be banned and the government should roll out a national public sewage scheme, like they should of decades ago.

The local authorities should get real about one-offs, like in NI and England.

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 3:08pm

n97 mini wrote: »

By design septic tanks over flow into the percolation area and even a perfectly functioning tank can be polluting (depends on usage). They are permitted as there is no better alternatives.

Yes there ****ing is, its called a treatment plant, many councils already require them, and the water coming out the other end of these is cleaner than the **** (quite literately) that still goes largely untreated in most town and cities in this country

n97 mini wrote: »

The local authorities should get real about one-offs, like in NI and England.

Your telegraph links points to and has a picture of a housing estate...
Maybe the state should bulldoze all one off homes in the countryside and forcibly move everyone to a ghetto in Dublin, there you go enviro-fascism rears its ugly head again.

n97 mini · 30-01-2012 3:15pm

wiseguy wrote: »

Your telegraph links points to and has a picture of a housing estate...

I should have relised you'd only look at the pictures. Sorry, but you walked into that one. Here's some text from it:

It was Éamon de Valera’s dotty vision, in 1943, that Ireland would have a countryside “bright with cosy homesteads”. But now it is littered with them. In Kerry, “one-off houses” account for more than half of the county’s total housing stock and average out at one unit per kilometre of public road. That’s an awful lot of buildings strewn around the landscape of a county so heavily dependent on tourism...
“Eighty per cent of the visitors to Co Kerry come here for the quality of the landscape and the unspoilt scenery,” senior Kerry planner Paul Stack said recently. “I drove around areas such as the Cotswolds and to see the tourism product they have in comparison to what we have done to ours is embarrassing and upsetting.”

wiseguy wrote: »

Maybe the state should bulldoze all one off homes in the countryside and forcibly move everyone to a ghetto in Dublin, there you go enviro-fascism rears its ugly head again.

No need to move to Dublin, just to somewhere that has all the services in place already (e.g. hamlet, village, town)

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 3:16pm

n97 mini wrote: »

No need to move to Dublin, just to somewhere that has all the services in place already (e.g. hamlet, village, town)

Or how about using something called a waste treatment plant :rolleyes:

Instead of resorting to Fascist methodology and evicting people against their will out of their homes.

bbsrs · 30-01-2012 3:17pm

wiseguy wrote: »

bbsrs wrote: »

Yes to ensure its installed and functioning properly.

But one already has to pay ~170 euro a year inspection charge to ensure that treatment plant is working properly.

Thats like doing an DOE/MOT on a van/car twice (and paying for it twice)

Not really it like getting a mechanic to service your car and give it the once over so you can pass the NCT/DOE/MOT.

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 3:19pm

n97 mini wrote: »

By design septic tanks over flow into the percolation area and even a perfectly functioning tank can be polluting (depends on usage). They are permitted as there is no better alternatives.

The local authorities should get real about one-offs, like in NI and England.

Interesting. This and other posts Ive seen by you make me believe you are either anti-rural and/or employed by the government. Am I right?

Regards
solidchrome

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 3:21pm

bbsrs wrote: »

Not really it like getting a mechanic to service your car and give it the once over so you can pass the NCT/DOE/MOT.

Many people already dont bother servicing their car and wait for the NCT to tell them whats wrong.
the reasoning goes something like this "If you pass the NCT then you saved money by not doing checkup before the test, if you fail then not so bad either."

This brain-dead idea will cause more waste not less.

A solution would be to upgrade any septic tanks to treatment systems (with grants available as carrot) and require the household owner to show that the system is being inspected (as is already the case in some locations) as the stick.
Sort of what is being done with home insulation scheme, where we have grants (carrot) and BER certs and requirement to use them (stick)

Or you could resort to eco-fascist methods as is being promoted by our friend few posts up and evict people out of their homes into concentration camps.

Sponge Bob · 30-01-2012 3:28pm

The single measure that would make a big difference would be to permit a Group Sewage Scheme...a la group water. This would pool a single large septic tanks across a number of premises where feasible and dramatically reduce the cost to each.

But no, that would be altogether too intelligent.

Again nobody is telling me why I have to pay taxes to upgrade public sewage schemes as well as pay on the double for my own septic tank.

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for polluting public schemes and yet I must pay towards their replacement...as a septic tax owning taxpayer.

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 3:38pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The single measure that would make a big difference would be to permit a Group Sewage Scheme...a la group water. This would pool a single large septic tanks across a number of premises where feasible and dramatically reduce the cost to each.

Thats a good idea there, there's 7 houses within 100 meter radius of mine, all could feed to same treatment plant with minimal works (they already had to dig up the road to put group water scheme and pump anyways)

And of course some of us already help out each other by sharing internet.

Mind you there are hundreds of sheep, cows and horses in fields all around (hey those city folk get their "organic" food from somewhere right

) which continue to poop on ground (fertilising it) and farting (adding to global warming)
I cant wait for some greenie genius to invent a pipe to stick up an animals rear in order to save the environment from very polluting methane farts

murphaph · 30-01-2012 4:11pm

wiseguy wrote: »

But one already has to pay ~170 euro a year inspection charge to ensure that treatment plant is working properly.

Thats like doing an DOE/MOT on a van/car twice (and paying for it twice)

This is a fair point. If someone is paying for an authorised person to service the unit annually, that authorised person should be able to sign off on it, similar to gas appliance inspections.

Not sure if there's an equivalent of RECI or Board Gais Approved Installers for septic tanks, but one would think there should be.

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 4:16pm

murphaph wrote: »

This is a fair point. If someone is paying for an authorised person to service the unit annually, that authorised person should be able to sign off on it, similar to gas appliance inspections.

Not sure if there's an equivalent of RECI or Board Gais Approved Installers for septic tanks, but one would think there should be.

From what the installer and inspector told me (Kingspan Environmental) in some areas the person has to have an annual inspection contract and in return they get a cert of inspection which they have to show to council.
This could be in NI I am not sure of details, ill ask next time.

What I am afraid of is being slapped on with another tax that makes little sense and might actually be counter-productive to what its "stated" aims are.

n97 mini · 30-01-2012 4:25pm

wiseguy wrote: »

Or how about using something called a waste treatment plant :rolleyes:

Do waste treatment plants resurface sparsely populated roads? Do they pay for the portion of school bus schemes that parents don't have to pay? Do they subsidise the many other services that are not economical to provide?

Or am I mistaken and by "waste treatment plant" you mean people in cities and towns that subsidise the living standards of others.

n97 mini · 30-01-2012 4:26pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Interesting. This and other posts Ive seen by you make me believe you are either anti-rural

The only thing I oppose is subsidising other people's lifestyles.

wiseguy · 30-01-2012 4:29pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Do waste treatment plants resurface sparsely populated roads?.

Motor tax already brings in more than is spend on maintenance and building of roads. Check motoring and infrastructure forum for stats.

n97 mini wrote: »

Do they pay for the portion of school bus schemes that parents don't have to pay? Do they subsidise the many other services that are not economical to provide?

If a service is not economical then dont provide it!

You are the bigger fool if you think than waste taxes would go towards services you outlined and not be paid out to banks, public service wages+salaries and inflated welfare state.

n97 mini wrote: »

Or am I mistaken and by "waste treatment plant" you mean people in cities and towns that subsidise the living standards of others.

Provide proof that waste treatment systems in rural locations produce more environmental damage than the same system in towns (thats if a town has one!)

n97 mini wrote: »

The only thing I oppose is subsidising other people's lifestyles.

It is very likely that I am the one subsidising your lifestyle.

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 4:50pm

n97 mini wrote: »

The only thing I oppose is subsidising other people's lifestyles.

Ah. You are anti-people, that explains it.

You didnt answer my question about whether you are employed by the government or not because that would explain alot also.

n97 mini · 30-01-2012 4:50pm

wiseguy wrote: »

It is very likely that I am the one subsidising your lifestyle.

Explain please.

ardmacha · 30-01-2012 4:56pm

It was Éamon de Valera’s dotty vision, in 1943, that Ireland would have a countryside “bright with cosy homesteads”. But now it is littered with them.

Are there more homesteads than in de Valera’s day? There are more cosy, for sure.

Black Swan · 30-01-2012 5:00pm

MOD COMMENT:
Be advised that recent posting on this thread has been reported. Some posters are getting too personal, or asking questions that are too personal. Please focus on making contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

monkeypants · 30-01-2012 5:08pm

There's no urban-rural divide, but the government would like there to be as it's a nice distraction tactic. There'll be a water charging system brought in, but rural folks will probably avoid that because they have their own well. Can't have that. However, the people who have their own well probably have a septic tank and can be made pay for that. Woo hoo, money from everyone!

bbsrs · 30-01-2012 5:58pm

monkeypants wrote: »

There's no urban-rural divide, but the government would like there to be as it's a nice distraction tactic. There'll be a water charging system brought in, but rural folks will probably avoid that because they have their own well. Can't have that. However, the people who have their own well probably have a septic tank and can be made pay for that. Woo hoo, money from everyone!

I'd gladly swop my well for a public scheme if it was available .Mine cost €3500 to to bore plus €800 for a pump , then €3000 for water treatment system plus €200 for testing and it must be serviced once a year at €180 per service plus €16 every month for salt to soften the water so I'll pay for the water I use if the government pay for treating and maintenance.

The big bonus for me is there is no flouride in my water unlike most public water in this country.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/eu-ambassadors-in-ireland-warned-that-tap-water-is-not-safe-for-baby-bottles/

Sponge Bob · 30-01-2012 6:17pm

wiseguy wrote: »

Thats a good idea there, there's 7 houses within 100 meter radius of mine, all could feed to same treatment plant with minimal works (they already had to dig up the road to put group water scheme and pump anyways)

And of course some of us already help out each other by sharing internet.

But Hogan wont let us is the problem. :-(

n97 mini · 30-01-2012 6:45pm

bbsrs wrote: »

I'd gladly swop my well for a public scheme if it was available .Mine cost €3500 to to bore plus €800 for a pump , then €3000 for water treatment system plus €200 for testing and it must be serviced once a year at €180 per service plus €16 every month for salt to soften the water so I'll pay for the water I use if the government pay for treating and maintenance.

You could have built a house near an existing water supply.

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 7:02pm

n97 mini wrote: »

You could have built a house near an existing water supply.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Fact remains that you need only to go half a mile from a town center in Ireland and you have no public water service and no public sewage system. This country is so retarded when it comes to public services its almost third world. Even the pavements end half a mile from the town center where I live.

Regards
solidchrome

chieftan65 · 30-01-2012 7:18pm

n97 mini wrote: »

You could have built a house near an existing water supply.

HA HA HA.... Did you actually just say that?? what age are you???

L1011 · 30-01-2012 7:24pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Fact remains that you need only to go half a mile from a town center in Ireland and you have no public water service and no public sewage system. This country is so retarded when it comes to public services its almost third world. Even the pavements end half a mile from the town center where I live.

Regards
solidchrome

Half a mile from a village centre. Any actual proper towns will have more than half a mile from their centre serviced.

That we have undersized villages where we should have towns is yet another symptom of the one-off housing blight.

Scofflaw · 30-01-2012 7:37pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Misleading.

Septic tanks are not a pollution source otherwise septic tanks wouldnt be allowed to be installed.

Failed septic tanks are a pollution source.

cordially,
solidchrome

Fair point, but you'll see I earlier referred to septic tanks as potential pollution sources - hence an inspect and remedy regime.

cordially yourself,
Scofflaw

azzie · 30-01-2012 7:52pm

Septic tanks are inspected everywhere else in Europe - and householders have to pay for the inspection AND to then bring the system up to standard.

murphaph · 30-01-2012 8:26pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Fact remains that you need only to go half a mile from a town center in Ireland and you have no public water service and no public sewage system. This country is so retarded when it comes to public services its almost third world. Even the pavements end half a mile from the town center where I live.

Regards
solidchrome

How far out into the countryside do you think mains water and sewage pipes should be run?

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 8:46pm

azzie wrote: »

Septic tanks are inspected everywhere else in Europe - and householders have to pay for the inspection AND to then bring the system up to standard.

Just because its done in other European countries, doesnt mean its right. If you were mugged in Germany would you go and complain or would you shrug your shoulders and say "Ah well, it happens in other European countries so it must be all right"?

murphaph wrote: »

How far out into the countryside do you think mains water and sewage pipes should be run?

More than half a mile would be reasonable but as I dont have a career in laying water pipes maybe someone with experience could answer that.

bbsrs · 30-01-2012 8:50pm

n97 mini wrote: »

You could have built a house near an existing water supply.

Correct, I could have, anyways with regards to water, I'm quiet happy to pay for my decisions but to be charged rates for a service I completely installed and maintain myself doesn't seem fair to me .

Dai John · 30-01-2012 8:52pm

Question; If you fit a macerator between the house and tank,and then filter the waste would it help ?

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 8:52pm

MYOB wrote: »

Half a mile from a village centre. Any actual proper towns will have more than half a mile from their centre serviced.

That we have undersized villages where we should have towns is yet another symptom of the one-off housing blight.

No, I live near a town. If I lived by a village I would have said that.

L1011 · 30-01-2012 9:03pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

No, I live near a town. If I lived by a village I would have said that.

I suspect its actually a village in the eyes everyone but those who live there.

People in Ireland seem to assume that having a SuperValu and a secondary school makes their village a "town"

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 9:37pm

MYOB wrote: »

I suspect its actually a village in the eyes everyone but those who live there.

People in Ireland seem to assume that having a SuperValu and a secondary school makes their village a "town"

Even if it is a village you should still have basic water/sewage service more than half a mile from its centre. This country is retarded in that aspect.

L1011 · 30-01-2012 9:48pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

Even if it is a village you should still have basic water/sewage service more than half a mile from its centre. This country is retarded in that aspect.

Half a mile from the centre of a village should be open countryside.

Solidchrome · 30-01-2012 9:52pm

MYOB wrote: »

Half a mile from the centre of a village should be open countryside.

So you are saying that not having a basic water/sewage system half a mile outside a village is acceptable in the 21st century? I says it not and its retarded.

L1011 · 30-01-2012 10:17pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

So you are saying that not having a basic water/sewage system half a mile outside a village is acceptable in the 21st century? I says it not and its retarded.

Its not normal to provide services to emptiness.

Septic tank charges

Comments