Clarification regarding EU legislation and action on septic tanks

Pete_Cavan · 03-09-2011 3:30pm

reilig wrote: »

You would need to be involved in the construction or the maintenance of modern small town and village treatment systems to see what happens (or what doesn't happen). They effectively just break up the human waste (Like a large food processor) and deposit these liquidised solids through a large pipe in the middle of the river so that they can float out into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The funny thing is that most towns and villages on the Shannon get their water supplies from it - even though the sewerage from the town above them may be all part of the big picture.

Now which has less of an environmental impact, modern urban sewerage treatment facilities or septic tanks that operate properly?

I work for a civil engineering contractor and have been involved with the construction of a number of sewerage schemes so I know what happens (and what doesnt happen) and I think your description is far too simplistic. The type of treatment facilities required depends on the PE (population equivalent) of the area, the type of receiving water body (freshwater, estuarine or coastal water) and whether the receiving water body is sensitive (or not), as defined by the Regulations.

This is set out in The Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 254 of 2001);

3. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a sanitary authority shall provide a collecting system for urban waste water -

(a) on the commencement of these Regulations for every agglomeration with a population equivalent of more than 10,000 which discharges into any of the sensitive areas specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule or into the relevant catchment areas of such sensitive areas,

(b) on the commencement of these Regulations for every agglomeration with a population equivalent of more than 15,000,

(c) by 31 December 2005 for every agglomeration with a population equivalent between 2,000 and 15,000.

(2) A collecting system required under sub-article (1) shall satisfy the requirements of the First Schedule.

(3) Sub-article (1) shall not apply where the provision of a collecting system is not justified either because it would produce no environmental benefit or because it would involve excessive cost, provided that the sanitary authority is satisfied that individual systems or other appropriate systems are used which achieve the same level of environmental protection.

4. (1) In the case of urban waste water entering collecting systems, a sanitary authority shall provide treatment plants which provide for secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment -

(a) on the commencement of these Regulations, or such later date, not being later than 31 December 2005, as the European Commission may agree pursuant to a request under Article 8 of the Directive, in respect of all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15,000,

(b) by 31 December 2005 in respect of all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 10,000 and 15,000;

(c) by 31 December 2005 in respect of all discharges to freshwaters and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2,000 and 10,000.

(2) (a) Notwithstanding sub-article (1) and subject to sub-articles (3) and (4), a sanitary authority shall provide treatment plants which provide more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment in respect of all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10,000 into sensitive areas or into the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas where the discharges contribute to the pollution of these areas.

(b) A treatment plant to be provided by a sanitary authority in accordance with this sub-article shall be provided —

(i) on the commencement of these Regulations in the case of a sensitive area specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule, and

(ii) by 31 May 2008 in the case of a sensitive area specified in Part 2 of the Third Schedule.

(3) Subject to sub-article (4), a discharge from a treatment plant required under sub-article (2) shall satisfy the requirements of Parts 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule.

(4) (a) Sub-articles (2) and (3) shall not apply in respect of individual treatment plants where the sanitary authority is satisfied that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in a sensitive area is at least 75% for total phosphorus and for total nitrogen.

(b) Sub-article (3) shall not operate to require the reduction of nutrients in discharges to estuaries, bays or coastal waters where the sanitary authority is satisfied that such reduction will have no effect on the level of eutrophication in the receiving waters.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of article 4, more stringent requirements than those specified in Parts 1 and 2 of the Second Schedule shall be applied to discharges from a treatment plant where this is required to ensure that the receiving waters satisfy any other relevant Community Directives.

6. The water bodies specified in the Third Schedule are hereby identified as sensitive areas for the purposes of these Regulations.

7. A sanitary authority shall ensure by 31 December 2005 that urban waste water entering a collecting system shall before discharge be subject to appropriate treatment in the following cases:

(a) in respect of discharges to freshwater and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of less than 2,000;

(b) in respect of discharges to coastal waters from agglomerations with a population equivalent of less than 10,000.

Basically;
All urban areas with a PE of between 2,000 and 15,000 are to have a collecting system for waste water 31 December 2005.
Secondary treatment (a process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement or other process in which the requirements established in Part 1 of the above legislation) is required for urban areas with a PE of between 10,000 and 15,000 or urban areas with a PE of between 2,000 and 10,000 discharging to freshwaters and estuaries.
More stringent treatment than secondary treatment is required for PE of more than 10,000 into sensitive areas or into the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas where the discharges contribute to the pollution of these areas.
Urban area with a PE less than 10,000 p.e. discharging to coastal water, or PE of less than 2,000 discharging to freshwater, require ‘appropriate treatment’ by 31st December 2005. Appropriate treatment is defined in the Regulations and means that the level of treatment provided must satisfy the quality standards for the receiving water.

Sludge from waste water treatment plants is removed for storage/treatment, see here and here.

According to Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland for Population Equivalents Greater than 500 Persons - A Report for the Years 2006 and 2007;

In 2007 the level of treatment provided at 482 locations, which collectively represent a population
equivalent (p.e.) of 5,835,495 was as follows:
• 4% of waste water arisings did not receive any form of treatment;
• 5% of waste water arisings received preliminary treatment;
• 1% of waste water arisings received primary treatment;
• 75% of waste water arisings received secondary treatment;
• 15% of waste water arisings received nutrient reduction in addition to secondary treatment.

Septic tanks and slurry are bigger problems than urban sewerage treatment facilities.

recedite · 03-09-2011 9:05pm

Yes, why waste resources doing tank inspections where no problem exists?
Water testing is much simpler and quicker, and sufficient pollution would be shown up early on to keep the "Groundwater Pollution Inspectors" busy for a while.

The main public health issue is E.Coli, which has a short enough lifespan, so there is not a timelag of years involved.

Macha · 04-09-2011 10:52am

recedite wrote: »

Yes, why waste resources doing tank inspections where no problem exists?
Water testing is much simpler and quicker, and sufficient pollution would be shown up early on to keep the "Groundwater Pollution Inspectors" busy for a while.

The main public health issue is E.Coli, which has a short enough lifespan, so there is not a timelag of years involved.

Short term, e.coli is the main health concern but in the long term, poor waste water treatment leads to the eutrophication of waterways, algal blooms, and reduced oxygen availability for a healthy waterway ecosystem to support aquatic life.

willowfarm · 04-09-2011 11:50am

hi I wonder about this, the goverment want to check and or change our tanks because of contamination, however they are happy for fracking to take place and contaminate all our water funny old world

Scofflaw · 04-09-2011 12:20pm

willowfarm wrote: »

hi I wonder about this, the goverment want to check and or change our tanks because of contamination, however they are happy for fracking to take place and contaminate all our water funny old world

In fact, the Irish government, left to its own devices, would appear to be happy enough to let anyone pollute anything, pretty much. The septic tank legislation is European in origin - the EU is also looking into fracking, and a ban may be on the cards there, while some kind of limitation or stringent safety regime is highly likely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite · 04-09-2011 8:54pm

Macha wrote: »

Short term, e.coli is the main health concern but in the long term, poor waste water treatment leads to the eutrophication of waterways, algal blooms, and reduced oxygen availability for a healthy waterway ecosystem to support aquatic life.

Again, all these effects disappear very quickly as the nutrient enriched water makes its way down to the sea. Provided the pollution has stopped, and I still maintain the most cost effective way to catch the polluters of groundwater is to monitor wells and local drinking water supplies, and then take it from there.

Macha · 04-09-2011 9:02pm

recedite wrote: »

Again, all these effects disappear very quickly as the nutrient enriched water makes its way down to the sea. Provided the pollution has stopped, and I still maintain the most cost effective way to catch the polluters of groundwater is to monitor wells and local drinking water supplies, and then take it from there.

Do you have any clarification of what you mean by "very quickly" and any sources for this?

But it doesn't really matter how fast the waterway returns to normal status as the pollution entering the waterways happens very frequently, meaning that the waterways don't actually get the chance to return to healthy status.

The proof of this is in the EPA's water quality reports. We are very unlikely to meet our targets of Good Environmental Status for all water bodies by 2015 under the Water Framework Directive and I can see another set of fines looming in a few years.

Scofflaw · 04-09-2011 11:24pm

recedite wrote: »

Again, all these effects disappear very quickly as the nutrient enriched water makes its way down to the sea. Provided the pollution has stopped, and I still maintain the most cost effective way to catch the polluters of groundwater is to monitor wells and local drinking water supplies, and then take it from there.

Why is that 'particularly cost-effective', though? Given the nature of Irish geology, the source of pollution is not always easily detectable - except where we're talking really short-range, as where someone's septic tank is polluting their own well or their next door neighbour's. And in those cases, I can't really see why inspecting their well and analysing the pollution is cheaper or better than inspecting their tank?

Further, one of the advantages of an inspection regime for sources is that there isn't the mental loophole of "sure, I daresay it won't pollute anyone who'll notice". After a while, compliance with standards should become the norm, which is something that wouldn't necessarily happen with well inspections.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite · 05-09-2011 1:17pm

Macha wrote: »

Do you have any clarification of what you mean by "very quickly" and any sources for this?

But it doesn't really matter how fast the waterway returns to normal status as the pollution entering the waterways happens very frequently, meaning that the waterways don't actually get the chance to return to healthy status.

I agree the waterways don't get a chance to recover currently, but if pollution stopped, common sense dictates that rainwater falling on a mountain stream anywhere in Ireland will reach the sea within a few days. For example the ESB release floodwaters at Poulaphuca in Wicklow for the annual Liffey Descent canoe race, and these reach Islandbridge in Dublin a few hours later.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why is that 'particularly cost-effective', though?

A water sample can be posted cheaply to one of the commercial labs who do this already. Perhaps more importantly, its in the interests of the person sending in the sample to report any transgressions honestly.

If inspecting a septic tank, it may appear OK because it was pumped out the week before, but the real proof of that is if the groundwater is unpolluted.

Scofflaw · 05-09-2011 1:43pm

recedite wrote: »

I agree the waterways don't get a chance to recover currently, but if pollution stopped, common sense dictates that rainwater falling on a mountain stream anywhere in Ireland will reach the sea within a few days. For example the ESB release floodwaters at Poulaphuca in Wicklow for the annual Liffey Descent canoe race, and these reach Islandbridge in Dublin a few hours later.

That's surface waters, though, not groundwater.

recedite wrote: »

A water sample can be posted cheaply to one of the commercial labs who do this already. Perhaps more importantly, its in the interests of the person sending in the sample to report any transgressions honestly.

If inspecting a septic tank, it may appear OK because it was pumped out the week before, but the real proof of that is if the groundwater is unpolluted.

On the other hand, a water quality analysis only tells you whether the water is polluted - it doesn't tell you the source(s), something which is a good deal more expensive and laborious. Nor is it an either/or - I'm sure well inspections will continue anyway, because people have an interest in finding out whether their water is polluted, which they don't in determining whether their tank is polluting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite · 05-09-2011 2:05pm

Well water analysis is very rare unless it is required for a planning application. But if there was a regime in place where people sent in lab results every 2 years or so, a picture could be built up of where the polluted groundwater was occurring. Some of the karst areas would be a bit more complicated, but in most areas this simple approach would work well enough.

Scofflaw · 05-09-2011 2:52pm

recedite wrote: »

Well water analysis is very rare unless it is required for a planning application. But if there was a regime in place where people sent in lab results every 2 years or so, a picture could be built up of where the polluted groundwater was occurring. Some of the karst areas would be a bit more complicated, but in most areas this simple approach would work well enough.

To be fair, the karst areas would be a good deal more complicated (and there's quite a lot of sub-surface karst in Ireland), and much of Ireland's groundwater has fracture porosity rather than inter-grain porosity, so that's rather complicated too. Ireland's groundwater systems are actually outrageously complex compared to many other countries - a consequence of our relatively complex geological history. You're also ignoring the complexities of groundwater-surface water coupling.

Also, the concentration on E.coli and its lifespan is slightly wrong. The nitrogen and phosphorus in effluent is also very important - being the main causes of eutrophication and algal blooms - and those, being inorganic pollutants, have no 'lifespan'.

My own experience of voluntary submission regimes in the area of groundwater is that they're very poorly complied with. I appreciate the potential scale of the issue here, but - again - an adequate planning regime would have avoided many of these problems in the first place. As would, perhaps, an adequate national monitoring network - something which we have only had for about 2 years now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jim Martin · 06-09-2011 3:38am

recedite wrote: »

I agree the waterways don't get a chance to recover currently, but if pollution stopped, common sense dictates that rainwater falling on a mountain stream anywhere in Ireland will reach the sea within a few days. For example the ESB release floodwaters at Poulaphuca in Wicklow for the annual Liffey Descent canoe race, and these reach Islandbridge in Dublin a few hours later.

A water sample can be posted cheaply to one of the commercial labs who do this already. Perhaps more importantly, its in the interests of the person sending in the sample to report any transgressions honestly.

If inspecting a septic tank, it may appear OK because it was pumped out the week before, but the real proof of that is if the groundwater is unpolluted.

When I had my well water tested (which I had to, in order to get a grant from the local authority to defray some of the cost of my well installation which was to supply an old house) - the nearest lab which was 40 miles away, said that I must get the sample to them within 3 hrs, otherwise the result would not be accurate due to growth of bacteria.

recedite · 06-09-2011 10:24am

Jim Martin wrote: »

the nearest lab which was 40 miles away, said that I must get the sample to them within 3 hrs, otherwise the result would not be accurate due to growth of bacteria.

Its probably preferable, but not essential. 3 hrs is an arbitrary time limit anyway. Does the time limit vary according to air temperatures?
There is an add for a postal testing company in Cork appearing at the top of my web browser now; presumably google has picked up on some of the keywords on this page.

recedite · 06-09-2011 10:39am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, the concentration on E.coli and its lifespan is slightly wrong. The nitrogen and phosphorus in effluent is also very important - being the main causes of eutrophication and algal blooms - and those, being inorganic pollutants, have no 'lifespan'.

What I'm saying is if the effluent discharges stopped tomorrow, by next month E Coli would be extinct in the groundwater, and nitrogen & phosphorous levels in moving bodies of water would have diminished such that the water in rivers and smaller lakes would be noticeably clearer.
Any organic or inorganic nutrients remaining trapped in static groundwater for a longer period would not necessarily constitute a problem.
I presume you use the term inorganic in a (non-carbon) chemistry sense, as opposed to being "unnatural".

Oldtree · 07-09-2011 12:41pm

The Minister said yesterday that no annual charge only a minimal registration charge for septic tanks, to be assessed annually by the council, with any septic tanks not working to be fixed.

How does a septic tank work? As far as I am aware it collects sludge and expells the (contaminated) watery efluent into the surrounding environment through a hole at the top. Is that what the minister means or is it that if the septic tank has a hole in the bottom that it would be considered not working? If that is the case then Ireland is not really addressing the problem in the spirit of the EU guidelines.

No mention of anything like a puraflo system which may solve the problem.

recedite · 07-09-2011 1:07pm

Oldtree wrote: »

How does a septic tank work? As far as I am aware it collects sludge and expells the (contaminated) watery efluent into the surrounding environment through a hole at the top.

The watery effluent should go out the hole into a "distribution box" from whence a series of land drainage pipes distribute it throughout a designated "percolation area" where the "contamination" or "nutrients" if you like, are absorbed into the soil and taken up by the vegetation. It is this percolation area that is likely to be missing from older systems, meaning the effluent flows down vertically into the groundwater rather than horizontally into the soil nearby.

Oldtree · 07-09-2011 3:34pm

I've worked in a lot of back gardens and never seen a ground level percolation area. Ive seen a few raised areas in newer houses along with puraflo systems (raised percolation areas themselves).

Is there a depth of soil necessary for proper percolation clensing? Most of the soil depth where I live is about 20cm over a regionally improtant aquifer karsified conduit.

recedite · 07-09-2011 6:00pm

If the local soil either has poor drainage, or, as in your area, it's too free-draining, topsoil can be imported; hence the raised areas.

Solidchrome · 08-09-2011 9:09am

*Mods- Im going to continue this discussion on another forum- please delete this post if you wish*

What hasnt been addressed is how Minister Phil Hogan expects home owners to pay, what could possibly be, thousands of euros in remedial work.

I cannot work due to illness and the wife begins an internship next week as finding a job is a joke over here in Co Mayo. I am trying to support a family on social welfare and have no savings. Where the hell does the Minister expect me to get thousands of euros from?? If I cant pay to have any remedial work done what then? Court? That would be a laugh because I cant afford to pay fines. Would I be forced to sell my home to pay for the fines? Over my dead body.

The government receives money from the EU to implement and maintain urban sewage schemes but we are expected to pay for all this ourselves- how is that fair? Why was there no mention of grants or finiancial aid?

I'm not only worried for myself but what of older people who cant afford repairs? There seems to have been no consideration at all about how this is going to be funded and maintained.

recedite · 08-09-2011 12:22pm

Solidchrome wrote: »

I'm not only worried for myself but what of older people who cant afford repairs? There seems to have been no consideration at all about how this is going to be funded and maintained.

Unfortunately that bit was entirely left to our own sleepy govt.
The EU just want an end result where septic tanks are not polluting the groundwater, which seems fair enough.

readmylips · 08-09-2011 7:25pm

surely they should already "know" who has septic tanks, due to the fact that they granted planning for them !! i know i was granted planning for such, and installed it, with proper functioning perc area, signed off by engineer, and no problems since ! So the "council" can bugger off for any euros from moi !!

In saying that though...how do you define a "properly functioning" perc area/septic tank?? is it that you've no blockages, tank backups, floods, smells , seeping water, etc?

what a load of sh*T..pardon the pun

recedite · 08-09-2011 9:38pm

readmylips wrote: »

In saying that though...how do you define a "properly functioning" perc area/septic tank?? is it that you've no blockages, tank backups, floods, smells , seeping water, etc?

Logically? Test for clean groundwater.
What will the Co Council do? Probably send round a guy with a clipboard.

Mahatma coat · 10-09-2011 6:53pm

So, let me get this straight,

The EU Says it wants to see some form of regulation on Septic tanks and checks in place to make sure they do what they're supposed to

And Our government want to use this as an excuse to charge households E100 stealth tax for the privelige of 'registering' their Septic tank :rolleyes:

Oldtree · 28-06-2012 3:16pm

Here we go:

€5 registration charge till September them €50 till Feb 2013, then up to €5,000 fine for not registering.

De-sludging
(1) A domestic waste water treatment system shall be de-sludged at intervals appropriate to the tank capacity and the number of persons resident in the premises connected to it, and such intervals shall be :
(a) at least once in every three years, or
(b) when sludge and scum accumulations exceed 30% of the tank volume or are encroaching on the inlet and outlet baffle entrances, or
(c) as recommended by the system’s manufacturer.

(2) De-sludging shall be carried out by a contractor authorised under the Waste Management (Collection Permit) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 820 of 2007) as amended by the Waste Management (Collection Permit) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (S.I. No. 87 of 2008) and contents disposed of in accordance with all relevant national legislative requirements or directions pertaining at the time.
(3) An owner shall obtain evidence of de-sludging or a receipt from the authorised contractor each time their tank is de-sludged and such evidence or receipt shall be retained for a period of five years.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3), the owner of a domestic waste water treatment system may carry out de-sludging of that system and use its contents in agriculture, subject to compliance with all relevant national legislative requirements or directions pertaining at the time and in particular with the provisions of the Waste Management (Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture) Regulations 1998 (S.I. No 148 of 1998, the Waste Management (Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No 267 of 2001) and the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010 (S.I. No. 610 of 2010).

I wonder if all that means that a farmer can come and empty sludge from tanks for the usual reduced rate as long as a reciept is given???

2.Operation and maintenance of domestic waste water treatment systems

(1) A domestic waste water treatment system shall be operated and maintained by its owner so that domestic waste water or sewage effluent shall not emit, discharge, seep, leak or otherwise escape from the system, or part thereof :

(a) other than from a place or part of the system where the system is designed or intended to discharge domestic waste water or sewage effluent, or

So does this mean that as long as a septic tank's, without a pruaflow or some such polisher, overflow leaks out the designed hole to leak out then its ok???

How is that going to protect our water then???

http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterQuality/News/MainBody,30606,en.htm

https://www.protectourwater.ie/

recedite · 28-06-2012 7:51pm

I think what they are trying to say there is that a farmer can spread his own sludge on his own land, but everybody else has to get a contractor to take it to a treatment plant. That would be fair enough. I agree it is badly worded though. That bad wording will undoubtedly be used by people to "get around" the requirement.

As for the holes in the tank, they want effluent coming out the outlet, not leaking out through the sides. The reason for this is that they can then come along and say either it needs a percolation area for polishing, or it doesn't because it already has one.

Newgrange Warrior · 29-06-2012 4:29pm

In order to comply with Waste Management (Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No 267 of 2001), the farmer by right should have to analyse both soils and sludge for nutrients and heavy metals prior landspreading to ensure the landbank has sufficient capacity.

recedite · 29-06-2012 7:56pm

In my experience people who have a septic tank are more careful about what they put into it compared to people in towns, who are quite happy to pour any kind of toxic chemical "down the drain".
If you are also drawing well water from the site, you'll be even more careful about not polluting the groundwater on your own doorstep.
And if you are a farmer depending on the land for a living, there is a strong incentive not to spread anything nasty on it.
For these reasons I'd let farmers look after their own business, except to check up on any effluent run-off into streams which would be less of a concern to them.

Macha · 30-06-2012 8:25am

recedite wrote: »

In my experience people who have a septic tank are more careful about what they put into it compared to people in towns, who are quite happy to pour any kind of toxic chemical "down the drain".
If you are also drawing well water from the site, you'll be even more careful about not polluting the groundwater on your own doorstep.
And if you are a farmer depending on the land for a living, there is a strong incentive not to spread anything nasty on it.
For these reasons I'd let farmers look after their own business, except to check up on any effluent run-off into streams which would be less of a concern to them.

Even if that were true, there's no scope for exempting farmers and still complying with the EU Directive. But the whole point is that we don't know who's causing the problem. We barely even know how many septic tanks we have in this country and the EPA takes a pitiful number of ground water samples to test for contamination - nowhere near enough to even identify local hotspots. If septic tanks had been registered from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this situation.

As for farmers being inherently against spreading 'nasty stuff' on their land, agriculture is one of the main contributors to water pollution in this country, according to the EPA. Farmers fought against the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in this country, seeking a 1-year moratorium on top of a 10-year moratorium they had already managed to secure. So I don't think I'd be letting them off the hook any time soon.

freddyuk · 30-06-2012 9:47am

It was mentioned much earlier in this thread that there has never been any information provided on how to use and manage a septic tank. I think that would be a great starting point to educate the public on what should and should not go into the tank. A simple testing regime to check for correct operation and suggested sludge removal plan would assist those that want to take responsibility for their own waste and control any unforeseen leakage problems and have them remedied. Putting chemicals into a natural treatment system will cause it to work below efficiency or die off completely.
If there was some simple public information sheet handed out with the ESB bills that would be a start. How much would that cost. There will be those few who will not take responsibility for their systems or even be bothered to check where they are but that is what the big stick should be for. This could ensure a large proportion of the systems are checked and if going wrong be brought back to life. If you are comfortable the system is working and is within the regulations then you would have less of a problem then registering; but not knowing anything means you just assume there is going to be a big bill if you only have a simple but effective septic tank. Everyone is worried they will need a new plastic treatment plant running off the mains which is doing the same job but costs a fortune.
I am keen to have my system working as it should breaking down sewage naturally - no smells and no electricity and no cost except occasional emptying.

Clarification regarding EU legislation and action on septic tanks

Comments