septic tanks - new EU regulations ?

[aprilswee...@gmail.com]

Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.

I couldnt get out of him what changes exactly but he left me with the impression ( worryingly) that my septic tank is now illegal but didnt explain how or whay that could be .

How can they retrospectively legislate for speptic tanks installed 60+ years ago? Apparently it will stop me ever selling my house ( not that I plan selling it) because I dont have something called a bio drainage system ( a load of reeds stuck in a bed??? ).

Does anyone know about this and can they explain it properly for me please?

Thank you.

( PS to those who helped with my storage heaters, I am am grateful. OH is still deciding which he wants to try - repair or new).

[Robin]

On 15/08/2018 12:03, aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.
>
> I couldnt get out of him what changes exactly but he left me with the impression ( worryingly) that my septic tank is now illegal but didnt explain how or whay that could be .
>
> How can they retrospectively legislate for speptic tanks installed 60+ years ago? Apparently it will stop me ever selling my house ( not that I plan selling it) because I dont have something called a bio drainage system ( a load of reeds stuck in a bed??? ).
>
> Does anyone know about this and can they explain it properly for me please?
>

It's not exactly new news as the changes were announced in 2015 to take
effect in 2020 (unless you sell before then). This may help - if only
to confirm the bad news

<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules-small-sewage-discharge-to-a-surface-water>


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Nightjar]

On 15/08/2018 12:03, aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.

Not the EU, but our own Environment Agency, so Brexit won't stop the
rules coming into effect from 2020.

> I couldnt get out of him what changes exactly but he left me with the impression ( worryingly) that my septic tank is now illegal but didnt explain how or whay that could be .
>
> How can they retrospectively legislate for speptic tanks installed 60+ years ago?

That exempts you from the need for your tank to meet any British
Standard, but the EA can still make rules about discharges from the tank.

> Apparently it will stop me ever selling my house ( not that I plan selling it) because I dont have something called a bio drainage system ( a load of reeds stuck in a bed??? ).
>
> Does anyone know about this and can they explain it properly for me please?

Essentially, if your existing septic tank discharges to a waterway, you
have to upgrade it before 1st January 2020, or when you sell your house,
whichever is the sooner. You can either replace it with a sewage
treatment plant, the outflow from which is clean enough to be discharged
into a waterway, or run the outlet from your existing tank to drainage
field. The latter has to comply with current British Standards, so it is
something you need to get a specialist company in to do.


--
--

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

Cost to install a sewage treatment plant (electric) could be around
£8-10,000

So budget for it.


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

[T i m]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:03:42 -0700 (PDT),
aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:

>Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.

<snip>

As the actual question has been answered elsewhere ... ;-)

Q. If you and your kids were playing in the river downstream of
someone else's ancient septic tank outlet, wouldn't you like to think
something could be done about it?

How many people would voluntarily 'upgrade' their systems if the
legislation wasn't brought into play?

And wouldn't you like to think that the same rules applied if you and
you family were enjoying a river in Italy or Spain?

I wonder which EU member state asked the EU to look into this as they
rarely think these things upon their own?

On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
into it)?

Cheers, T i m

[aprilswee...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 12:26:59 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
> On 15/08/2018 12:03,
>
>

> Essentially, if your existing septic tank discharges to a waterway, you
> have to upgrade it before 1st January 2020, or when you sell your house,
> whichever is the sooner. You can either replace it with a sewage
> treatment plant, the outflow from which is clean enough to be discharged
> into a waterway, or run the outlet from your existing tank to drainage
> field. The latter has to comply with current British Standards, so it is
> something you need to get a specialist company in to do.
>

Oh, thank you. So it doesnt apply then. My drainage field zig zags across my own land and drains into the soil somehow or other through those holes in the pipes that go from the outlet ( if that makes sense).

[aprilswee...@gmail.com]

Can I be brutally honest? Why should it bother me? Most of the sewerage discharged from the water companies is next to raw when it hits the sea anyway.

I dont discharge into a stream or river anyway.

[aprilswee...@gmail.com]

Dont think I need to , thanks. I could find that money if necessay as it happens but it seems it may well not apply to me. I am not near a river or stream and my drains run across my own land.

[Bill]

In message <e84cf892-d6a4-4110...@googlegroups.com>,
aprilswee...@gmail.com writes

>Can I be brutally honest? Why should it bother me? Most of the sewerage
>discharged from the water companies is next to raw when it hits the sea
anyway.
>

Having kept a boat on a mooring not far from a treatment works, I can
confirm that.

And when, locally, they trumpeted about the huge improvements made, all
I could see was that the pollution moved further away. I just think they
mashed it up a bit more and added more pipe to the outlet.

Just another reason why I, and my son, are so angered by the huge
amounts we pay to UU and WW.
--
Bill

[T i m]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:42:44 -0700 (PDT),
aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>> Q. If you and your kids were playing in the river downstream of
>> someone else's ancient septic tank outlet, wouldn't you like to think
>> something could be done about it?
>>

>Can I be brutally honest?

Of course, it's Usenet. ;-)

>Why should it bother me?

Because I guess you and your children plan to carry on living on this
planet?

>Most of the sewerage discharged from the water companies is next to raw when it hits the sea anyway.

Possibly true, but:

1) That's the sea and not a local (and potentially highly confined)
watercourse.

2) Two wrongs don't make a right?

>
>I dont discharge into a stream or river anyway.

Then you are ok. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[NY]

"T i m" <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:bd98ndphpavafv63a...@4ax.com...

>>I dont discharge into a stream or river anyway.

What are the current rules about discharging grey water (bath water, washing
up, washing machine) into a land drain and ultimately a stream, rather than
into a septic tank? Obviously all those things going into a sewer when you
have mains drainage, but when you have a septic tank, is it more important
to put grey water into a septic tank where it is treated and allowed to rot,
or is it more important to limit the amount of liquid going into the tank so
it works better?

I ask because the cottage where I'm living at the moment has a septic tank
dating from the mid 70s at the latest where the toilets discharge, but all
other water goes into a communal land drain for the village (along with
rainwater which has always been required to go into a separate soakaway, for
both mains and septic tank) and this ends up in a stream. Those drainage
conditions were last reviewed in the early 90s when a new bathroom and
utility room were built. I imagine that any modern rules aren't applied
retrospectively.

It's a two-chamber (two-manhole) septic tank, with an outflow of treated
water (guess where it goes!), rather than a sealed single-chamber cesspit
which would need to be emptied far more frequently.

[Brian Gaff]

I imagine a lot of people would dispute the theory its all based on as it
has to be a heck of a lot of years the old systems have operated and we do
not seem to have had any issues so far.


Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:21fa18e3-5b50-6219...@outlook.com...

[Brian Gaff]

I'd be tempted to get an impartial bit of advice to make sure it complies,
and if it does then you have no worries, if not then you have a couple of
years to get it done, however I still feel in the vast expanse of things
that need fixing about sewage and rivers, sceptic tanks are like a pin
prickcompared to the number of commercial sewage plants that just dump raw
sewage if it gets too much water through it and overflows.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

<aprilswee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24e811f9-23bf-4f87...@googlegroups.com...

[noth...@aolbin.com]

There is an important item that hasn't been quoted:
"Your treatment system must meet the relevant British Standard which was
in force at the time of installation. The standards currently in force
for new systems are:"
...
"BS 6297:2007 for drainage fields"
...

"*If there were no British Standards in place when your treatment system
was installed (that is before 1983) you do not need to do anything else
to meet this requirement*."

... bottom line: if you do not discharge to a water course and have a
drainage field that was installed before 1983 then the new rules are not
relevant to you. Don't waste time or money, keep your head down and
remember to get the tank pumped-out regularly so that the drainage field
doesn't get blocked.

[Jim K]

"NY" <m...@privacy.net> Wrote in message:

"Treated" in what way?

Going straight into the land drain? Yum!
--
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:03:42 -0700, aprilsweetheartrose wrote:

> Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said
> that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.
>
> I couldnt get out of him what changes exactly but he left me with the
> impression ( worryingly) that my septic tank is now illegal but didnt
> explain how or whay that could be .

You said it yourself: EU regs. The EU can make anything they like
illegal. And there's a lot of money in doing so - for *them* that is.
EU = Corruption. Never forget it.





--
NO DEAL! NO SURRENDER TO THE EUSSR!

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:26:53 +0100, Nightjar <c...@bignell.me.uk>
wrote:

>On 15/08/2018 12:03, aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.
>
>Not the EU, but our own Environment Agency, so Brexit won't stop the
>rules coming into effect from 2020.

The EA had no choice in the matter. The Waste Framework Directive is
a European Union Directive -

DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives

[Cynic]

When I was a child the main drainage dyke from the nearby town ran past our village into the tidal river. Many houses along the way simply piped wc effluent straight into the dyke, as did most of the houses in the town although a lot of houses had chemical toilets still.
As children we donned Wellington boots and caught sticklebacks in jam jars in the dyke. Even at that age we knew what the bits of paper and brown lumps were. We avoided them. Somehow no one caught any interesting diseases despite the dire warnings from parents. We built up immunity.

[Andrew]

On 15/08/2018 12:33, T i m wrote:
> On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
> Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
> exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
> into it)?

He's got non-hodgkins lymphoma.

This is a disease of unknown aetiology, just like all the
related leukeamias and other diseases.

He is just trying his luck to blame Monsanto for a big
compo payout.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pl1drl$rb4$5...@dont-email.me>,

You could actually try reading the rest of the thread and learn, for a
change. Fat chance.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[tim...]

"Andrew" <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:pl1g66$h3o$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

and seems to have succeeded

tim

[Dave Liquorice]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:35:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Jim K wrote:

>> It's a two-chamber (two-manhole) septic tank, with an outflow of
>> treated water (guess where it goes!)
>
> "Treated" in what way?

Settle ment and anerobic digestion, like any other two chamber septic
tank. The out flow isn't particulary pleasant but it's not raw
sewage.

> Going straight into the land drain? Yum!

Define "land drain". Is that: A system of buried perforated pipes
designed to remove water from the land. Or a system of buried
perforated pipes designed to distribute water into the land?

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Nightjar]

Which was supported by the UK.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[Jim K]

"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> Wrote in message:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:35:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Jim K wrote:
>
>>> It's a two-chamber (two-manhole) septic tank, with an outflow of
>>> treated water (guess where it goes!)
>>
>> "Treated" in what way?
>
> Settle ment and anerobic digestion, like any other two chamber septic
> tank. The out flow isn't particulary pleasant but it's not raw
> sewage.

I doubt much anaerobic has gone in in the liquor, a smidge of
aerobic in the 2nd chamber (depending on flow rates) & then "down
the nearest hole" ending in a stream...

Maybe this is one of the sort that the EA is targeting?

>
>> Going straight into the land drain? Yum!
>
> Define "land drain". Is that: A system of buried perforated pipes
> designed to remove water from the land. Or a system of buried
> perforated pipes designed to distribute water into the land?
>

I refer you to the earlier description...

[mechanic]

...and his case was helped by the Monsanto dirty tricks he received.

[mechanic]

Fairly clueless comment there, mate.

[NY]

"Jim K" <jk98...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XPWdnRL1wth70enG...@brightview.co.uk...

>>>> It's a two-chamber (two-manhole) septic tank, with an outflow of
>>>> treated water (guess where it goes!)
>>>
>>> "Treated" in what way?
>>
>> Settle ment and anerobic digestion, like any other two chamber septic
>> tank. The out flow isn't particulary pleasant but it's not raw
>> sewage.
>
> I doubt much anaerobic has gone in in the liquor, a smidge of
> aerobic in the 2nd chamber (depending on flow rates) & then "down
> the nearest hole" ending in a stream...

I thought that was the whole point of septic tanks and the advantage over
cesspits - that the sewage is treated enough (by settlement and
aerobic/anaerobic digestion) that the liquid *is* clean enough to discharge
into a soakaway, and doesn't all need to be contained hermetically and
removed by a honey wagon. So a septic tank only needs to be emptied of solid
sludge infrequently whereas a cesspit needs to be drained more frequently of
everything that goes into it.

[Jim K]

"NY" <m...@privacy.net> Wrote in message:

> "Jim K" <jk98...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XPWdnRL1wth70enG...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>> It's a two-chamber (two-manhole) septic tank, with an outflow of
>>>>> treated water (guess where it goes!)
>>>>
>>>> "Treated" in what way?
>>>
>>> Settle ment and anerobic digestion, like any other two chamber septic
>>> tank. The out flow isn't particulary pleasant but it's not raw
>>> sewage.
>>
>> I doubt much anaerobic has gone in in the liquor, a smidge of
>> aerobic in the 2nd chamber (depending on flow rates) & then "down
>> the nearest hole" ending in a stream...
>
> I thought that was the whole point of septic tanks and the advantage over
> cesspits - that the sewage is treated enough (by settlement and
> aerobic/anaerobic digestion) that the liquid *is* clean enough to discharge

> into a soakaway....

By "Clean enough" you mean " the chunky bits have been seperated"?

"septic tank is a chamber made of concrete, fiberglass, PVC or
plastic, through which domestic wastewater (sewage) flows
for primary treatment.[1] Settling and anaerobicprocesses reduce
solids and organics, but the treatment is only
moderate.[1] Septic tank systems are a type of onsite sewage
facility(OSSF). They can be used in areas that are not connected
to a sewerage system, such as rural areas. The treated liquid
effluent is commonly disposed in a septic drain fieldwhich
provides further treatment. However, groundwater pollution may
occur and can be a problem"

[tim...]

"Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
news:IMWdnY1SFNIz0enG...@giganews.com...

willingly, or because it was obvious that they couldn't form a blocking
majority

tim


>
> --
> --
>
> Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/08/18 12:42, aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can I be brutally honest? Why should it bother me? Most of the
> sewerage discharged from the water companies is next to raw when it
> hits the sea anyway.
>

Not it damn well is NOT

> I dont discharge into a stream or river anyway.

Ultimately, you do.


--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

[critcher]

On 15/08/2018 12:33, T i m wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:03:42 -0700 (PDT),

> aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.
>

> <snip>
>
> As the actual question has been answered elsewhere ... ;-)
>

> Q. If you and your kids were playing in the river downstream of
> someone else's ancient septic tank outlet, wouldn't you like to think
> something could be done about it?
>

> How many people would voluntarily 'upgrade' their systems if the
> legislation wasn't brought into play?
>
> And wouldn't you like to think that the same rules applied if you and
> you family were enjoying a river in Italy or Spain?
>
> I wonder which EU member state asked the EU to look into this as they
> rarely think these things upon their own?
>

> On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
> Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
> exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
> into it)?
>

> Cheers, T i m
>
>
there are some on here who would gladly send the kids to Australia for
swimming in someone else's river

[Dave Liquorice]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:10:33 +0100, NY wrote:

> I thought that was the whole point of septic tanks and the advantage
> over cesspits - that the sewage is treated enough (by settlement and
> aerobic/anaerobic digestion) that the liquid *is* clean enough to
> discharge into a soakaway, and doesn't all need to be contained
> hermetically and removed by a honey wagon. So a septic tank only needs
> to be emptied of solid sludge infrequently whereas a cesspit needs to be
> drained more frequently of everything that goes into it.

That sums up septic tanks and cesspits fairly well. The only addition
is that a cesspit has no out flow at all, it has to be emptied before
it over flows...

The other type of small sewage plant is an aerobic digester. This has
a powered stirer and air pump that keeps the the lot moving and
aerated. The outflow from one of these is "clean" enough to discharge
directly into a water course.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Rod Speed]

"Cynic" <johnje...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:429f987d-bd4f-4b1e...@googlegroups.com...

And yet clean water saved countless infant mortalitys.

[NY]

"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@news.individual.net...

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:10:33 +0100, NY wrote:
>
>> I thought that was the whole point of septic tanks and the advantage
>> over cesspits - that the sewage is treated enough (by settlement and
>> aerobic/anaerobic digestion) that the liquid *is* clean enough to
>> discharge into a soakaway, and doesn't all need to be contained
>> hermetically and removed by a honey wagon. So a septic tank only needs
>> to be emptied of solid sludge infrequently whereas a cesspit needs to be
>> drained more frequently of everything that goes into it.
>
> That sums up septic tanks and cesspits fairly well. The only addition
> is that a cesspit has no out flow at all, it has to be emptied before
> it over flows...

I thought I'd covered that point by saying that a cesspit is hermetically
sealed (well, sealed so no liquid can get out - air has to get out to make
space for the sewage going in) and that it needs to be drained more

[John Angus]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pl1ukr$8pl$3...@dont-email.me...

> On 15/08/18 12:42, aprilswee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Can I be brutally honest? Why should it bother me? Most of the
>> sewerage discharged from the water companies is next to raw when it
>> hits the sea anyway.
>>
>
> Not it damn well is NOT
>
>
>> I dont discharge into a stream or river anyway.
>
>
> Ultimately, you do.

Not if you are nowhere near one and it ends up being
transpired from what's growing on the discharge field.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:44:42 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed blabbered,
again:

>
> And yet clean water saved countless infant mortalitys.

Darn ...and this thread was Rot-free, so far! <tsk>

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID: <69uiid1ftof4m6jgm...@4ax.com>

[Nightjar]

Member states are free to oppose any proposed legislation, whether they
can raise a blocking majority or not. The UK has done so about 2% of the
time in votes this century. However, there will be no moves to repeal
amend or revoke this particular legislation after Brexit, so it
evidently has the full support of the UK and of the Environment Agency
in particular.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

[Nightjar]

On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...

> Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
> retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.

There is no retroactive application of construction standards to septic
tanks. This legislation merely bans existing practices that may be
damaging to the environment. Precedents for that go back to 1306, when
Edward I banned the burning of coal in London. The Clean Air Act 1956 is
a more modern example, but virtually all environmental legislation does
something similar.


--
--

Colin Bignell

[NY]

"Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message

news:lvSdnc-ASPynwejG...@giganews.com...

Gosh, I hadn't realised that coal smoke was a problem in London as far back
as 1306 with the *very* much smaller number of houses that long ago.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
> On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> ...
>> Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
>> retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.
>
> There is no retroactive application of construction standards to septic
> tanks.

Yes, there is.

The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must
modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.

> This legislation merely bans existing practices that may be
> damaging to the environment. Precedents for that go back to 1306, when
> Edward I banned the burning of coal in London. The Clean Air Act 1956 is
> a more modern example, but virtually all environmental legislation does
> something similar.
>
>

That is exactly the same. 90% of building regulations are effectively
banning something or other.

Corridoors less than 900mm are banned. stairs steeper than 45 degrees
are banned (or something similar) Airtight rooms with solid fuel or gas
fires in are banned. windows smaller than a given size are banned on
forst floors and upwards.

walls without insulation are banned. Ditto floors and rooves.

BUT this has never been made retrospective.

Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

This regulation does that.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

[NY]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:pl3nft$5tl$1...@dont-email.me...

> The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must modify
> your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.

How severe is the standard? How many two-chamber septic tanks installed
(say) in the 1960s and 70s would pass? If not, what sort of modification
would typically be necessary to make it comply (in terms of cost and
disruption during construction)?

Is it similar to the new rules about MOTs and diesel emissions, where there
was a lot of scaremongering in advance, but in practice the vast majority of
cars still pass and it is only ones with a damaged or removed diesel
particulate filter that would fail.

[Robin]

It's not part of the building regulations so I don't know why you are
banging on about them.

Look at it more like the restrictions on leaded petrol, lead paint,
dumping white asbestos in your local park, burning plastic waste or old
tyres in your garden incinerator, etc etc.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[NY]

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:32f6d473-9de1-ef7e...@outlook.com...

>> Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
>> never inisted on modifications to existing properties.
>>
>> This regulation does that.
>>
>>
> It's not part of the building regulations so I don't know why you are
> banging on about them.
>
> Look at it more like the restrictions on leaded petrol, lead paint,
> dumping white asbestos in your local park, burning plastic waste or old
> tyres in your garden incinerator, etc etc.

Not really a fair comparison. Leaded petrol can be solved in cars that need
it by using unleaded and either a fuel additive as a valve lubricant (IIRC)
or an adjustment to ignition timing. Lead paint, asbestos, burning
plastic/tyres - all those come into the category of "don't do it - do this
instead" (eg take to a proper tip).

But if there are going to be tighter restrictions on the outflow from septic
tanks, then that may be a very costly and disruptive conversion. It's not
just a case of modifying your behaviour a bit so as to be more responsible.
I'm sure retrospective changes will be a lot more expensive than modified
regulations and more elaborate septic tank for new build.

I'm wondering because at some stage in the next decade or so we will
probably be selling my parents' holiday cottage which has a dual chamber
septic tank that was installed probably in the late 60s or early 70s
(certainly by 1975 when we bought the cottage). As far as I know, all the
properties have septic tanks and these drain into a common "land drain" that
also takes grey water and rainwater and I think drains into a stream just
beyond the village. I don't think it goes into underground soakaway.

[critcher]

On 15/08/2018 15:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:03:42 -0700, aprilsweetheartrose wrote:
>
>> Sorry to be a pain but I was talking to someone this moring who said
>> that the EU ( them again!) were changing the rules on Septic Tanks.
>>

>> I couldnt get out of him what changes exactly but he left me with the
>> impression ( worryingly) that my septic tank is now illegal but didnt
>> explain how or whay that could be .
>
> You said it yourself: EU regs. The EU can make anything they like
> illegal. And there's a lot of money in doing so - for *them* that is.
> EU = Corruption. Never forget it.
>
>
>
>
>

and of course there is none whatsoever in good old Blighty.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/08/18 12:41, NY wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pl3nft$5tl$1...@dont-email.me...
>> The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must
>> modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard.
>
> How severe is the standard? How many two-chamber septic tanks installed
> (say) in the 1960s and 70s would pass?

None.

> If not, what sort of modification
> would typically be necessary to make it comply (in terms of cost and
> disruption during construction)?

Intsall a klargester or a reverse field drain

>
> Is it similar to the new rules about MOTs and diesel emissions, where
> there was a lot of scaremongering in advance, but in practice the vast
> majority of cars still pass and it is only ones with a damaged or
> removed diesel particulate filter that would fail.

No. I think the situaion is similar to when I built my new house,.
Because it was by then a 'new build' they refused permsission to use the
existing two chamber septic tank.

I had to install a klargester.


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

[Andrew]

On 15/08/2018 16:45, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Andrew" <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:pl1g66$h3o$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

>> On 15/08/2018 12:33, T i m wrote:
>>> On a similar topic, isn't someone in the States currently taking
>>> Monsanto to court over heath issues suggested to be down to his
>>> exposure to Glyphosate (and wasn't it Germany who asked the EU to look
>>> into it)?
>>

>> He's got non-hodgkins lymphoma.
>>
>> This is a disease of unknown aetiology, just like all the
>> related leukeamias and other diseases.
>>
>> He is just trying his luck to blame Monsanto for a big
>> compo payout.
>

> and seems to have succeeded
>

> tim
>
>
>

No he hasn't. A jury of man-in-the-street thickos 'decided'
that they knew more than the scientists. It will be
overturned on appeal.

[Andrew]

I used to be a haematology technician at one of the London
teaching hospitals that pioneered the diagnosis and
treatment of this family of diseases.

You are the one who is clueless.

[The Natural Philosopher]

But not their causes

>
> You are the one who is clueless.

It appears by your own admission, you are.

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

[Nightjar]

On 16/08/2018 12:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 16/08/18 12:12, Nightjar wrote:
>> On 16/08/2018 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> ...
>>> Its not particularly onerous. But it does set a precedent for
>>> retroactive building regulations which is slightly worrying.
>>
>> There is no retroactive application of construction standards to
>> septic tanks.
>
> Yes, there is.
>
> The regulation says that by 2020 or if you sell the house you must

> modify your private sewage plant to meet a given standard...

There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant does
not contaminate a waterway.



--
--

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

On 16/08/2018 14:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...

> No. I think the situaion is similar to when I built my new house,.
> Because it was by then a 'new build' they refused permsission to use the

> existing two chamber septic tank....

That is quite different. New builds must comply with the current
regulations. Existing builds only have to have complied with the
regulations in force at the time they were built, if there were any.



--
--

Colin Bignell

[NY]

"Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message

news:a8mdneQnuuA2B-jG...@giganews.com...

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant so
its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you may
need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather than
waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though your system
met the relevant standards when it was installed.

[Jim K]

"NY" <m...@privacy.net> Wrote in message:

Now you're getting it ;-)
--

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pl3nft$5tl$1...@dont-email.me>,

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Building regulations aim to build to new better standards. They have
> never inisted on modifications to existing properties.

Really? Try renting out legally a 3 story house in London which doesn't
have the correct fire check doors etc protecting the stairs.

--
*My wife and I had words. But I didn't get to use mine.

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pl4080$9cc$4...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Andrew <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> No he hasn't. A jury of man-in-the-street thickos 'decided'
> that they knew more than the scientists. It will be
> overturned on appeal.

Ah. So experts are always right, then? Or at least far more reliable than
the man in the street?

But not when it come to Brexit, obviously. ;-)

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

[Nightjar]

On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
> "Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:a8mdneQnuuA2B-jG...@giganews.com...

...
>> There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
>> existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
>> requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant
>> does not contaminate a waterway.
>
> Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant
> so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you
> may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather
> than waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though
> your system met the relevant standards when it was installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

The OPs plant and drainage filed will not be certified to the relevant
British Standards. However, neither needs to be changed in any way to
meet the regulations. If the General Binding Rules required the septic
tank to be replaced with one certified to BS EN 12566-1 and the drainage
field to be replaced with one designed and constructed to BS 6297:2007,
that would constitute a retrospective application of standards, but they
don't.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

On 16/08/2018 13:19, NY wrote:
...

> I'm wondering because at some stage in the next decade or so we will
> probably be selling my parents' holiday cottage which has a dual chamber
> septic tank that was installed probably in the late 60s or early 70s
> (certainly by 1975 when we bought the cottage). As far as I know, all
> the properties have septic tanks and these drain into a common "land
> drain" that also takes grey water and rainwater and I think drains into
> a stream just beyond the village. I don't think it goes into underground
> soakaway.

The EA rules prohibit a septic tank from discharging into an open
waterway. I am not sure whether that includes a common land drain that
eventually discharges into one. The addition of grey water and rainwater
may make it acceptable. You will probably have to ask the EA or water
authority for clarification.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

On 16/08/2018 12:33, NY wrote:
> "Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:lvSdnc-ASPynwejG...@giganews.com...

...

> Gosh, I hadn't realised that coal smoke was a problem in London as far
> back as 1306 with the *very* much smaller number of houses that long ago.

The density of housing was probably at least as great, so fewer houses
would mean a smaller area was affected, but to no lesser degree. Edward
I considered it enough of a problem to make the burning of coal a
capital offence.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[Steve Walker]

On 16/08/2018 13:19, NY wrote:

My parents have recently sold their holiday home in Brittany. The old
septic tank had to be replaced before they could sell it and due to the
position of the house and the avilable space, it could not go in the
existing position. The new one had to but put at the front of the house
and new drains run under the house (with an existing tiled floor, on
thick concrete and under 3 ft stone walls); across the drive/parking
area (2ft thick concrete, as the previous owner simply had loads poured
to level the land) and a whole new drainage system under the grass
beyond (which had to be built up because the land was too low).

Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
would have had to be started all over again!

SteveW

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes. The water boys have had the rule since at least 2002


Even a dry ditch that potentially used to feed a wartercourse is a nono.

This is not a new rule. What is new is that it is being enforced
retrospectively.

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/08/18 19:53, Steve Walker wrote:
> Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
> but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
> company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
> them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
> forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
> and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
> would have had to be started all over again!

Thank Fuck we are leaving the EU.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

[Roger Hayter]

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 16/08/18 19:53, Steve Walker wrote:
> > Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
> > but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
> > company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
> > them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
> > forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
> > and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
> > would have had to be started all over again!
>
> Thank Fuck we are leaving the EU.

I agree! It will be so much easier to do building work in Britanny once
we can send a gunboat to silence the local mayor.

--

Roger Hayter

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pl4i2q$bvp$3...@dont-email.me>,

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 16/08/18 19:53, Steve Walker wrote:
> > Not only did it cost something like Eu20K (luckily with a Eu12K grant),
> > but it took 6 months to process the grant paperwork, 5 months for the
> > company to actually come and do some work and another 2 months to get
> > them to finish the last couple of hours work and get the completion
> > forms signed off. 13 months of delay, with the house unable to be sold
> > and no ability to switch to another company, as the grant application
> > would have had to be started all over again!

> Thank Fuck we are leaving the EU.

Yup., About time we went back to being able to pollute as much as we want.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

[Handsome Jack]

Nightjar <c...@bignell.me.uk> posted

>On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
>> "Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
>>news:a8mdneQnuuA2B-jG...@giganews.com...
>...
>>> There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
>>>existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
>>>requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant
>>>does not contaminate a waterway.
>> Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your
>>plant so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or
>>else you may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes
>>(soakway rather than waterway). One way or the other you may need to
>>pay, even though your system met the relevant standards when it was
>>installed.
>
>The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
>outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
>current standards to the plant itself.
>
>The OPs plant and drainage filed will not be certified to the relevant
>British Standards. However, neither needs to be changed in any way to
>meet the regulations.

How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
tank or drainage field?


--
Jack

[The Natural Philosopher]

crap in a neighbours house.



--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

[Nightjar]

On 17/08/2018 07:49, Handsome Jack wrote:
...

> How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
> tank or drainage field?

If you have an existing drainage field, you don't need to.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[Handsome Jack]

Nightjar <c...@bignell.me.uk> posted

>On 17/08/2018 07:49, Handsome Jack wrote:
>...
>> How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
>>tank or drainage field?
>
>If you have an existing drainage field, you don't need to.
>

I think I have (it wasn't me who built it in the 1930s) but I don't know
if its eventual outflow to the stream is clean enough to meet the new
standards.

--
Jack

[NY]

"Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message

news:fbmdndPA6bAOJujG...@giganews.com...

> On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
>> "Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:a8mdneQnuuA2B-jG...@giganews.com...
> ...
>>> There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
>>> existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built. The
>>> requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the plant does
>>> not contaminate a waterway.
>>
>> Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your plant so
>> its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or else you may
>> need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes (soakway rather than
>> waterway). One way or the other you may need to pay, even though your
>> system met the relevant standards when it was installed.
>
> The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
> outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
> current standards to the plant itself.

I think you might be splitting hairs (*) here. If you need to clean up the
outfall (or direct the outfall elsewhere), having not been required to
previously, then that is retrospective application of a modern standard onto
an old system. Where you make the boundary between "the plant" and "the
outfall" doesn't really matter.


(*) Or "splitting hares" as I saw someone write, which conjures up the image
of someone attacking a jack or a jill with a cleaver :-)

[Dave Liquorice]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:49:38 +0100, Handsome Jack wrote:

> How do I make the outflow cleaner without replacing or modifying the
> tank or drainage field?

The rules that have been in place since 2015 and have to be complied
with by 2020 are only applicable to systems that discharge into
surface water.

I doubt that there are many, if any, septic tank systems that
discharge into surface water. It's been standard practice for a very
long time for them to discharge underground into a drainage field or
soakaway.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Marland]

When we sold Dads old farm amongst the documentation there was an official
looking document regarding the septic tank from the House and a plan of the
tank and drainage field . I can’t recall now which department or body had
rubber stamped it but some official requirement must have been complied
with.
The tank went in when the house got its first flush toilet in 1952, before
it was just a bucket and chuck it in a pit dug and filled as required .
No idea if a plain cesspool would have been granted if requested but
Grandfather whose farm it was at the time was not noted for spending
unnecessarily so I suspect not.
The documentation was enough to satisfy the purchaser and her solicitors
that it was still legal , this was in 2010. Nearest open water course
would be a field edge ditch about 200 yards from the drainage field so
plenty of soil to filter through. The ditch leads into a stream about 500
yard away and dries out periodically.
I never saw any evidence of contamination in it unlike the outfall of my
brothers Klargester or similar device which discharges into a similar
ditch. A lot of black silt like mud in the ditch around the outfall, his J
Russel pup allegedly white in colour seemed to like paddling in it though.

GH

[Nightjar]

On 17/08/2018 10:57, NY wrote:
> "Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:fbmdndPA6bAOJujG...@giganews.com...
>> On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
>>> "Nightjar" <c...@bignell.me.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:a8mdneQnuuA2B-jG...@giganews.com...
>> ...
>>>> There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
>>>> existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built.
>>>> The requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the
>>>> plant does not contaminate a waterway.
>>>
>>> Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your
>>> plant so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or
>>> else you may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes
>>> (soakway rather than waterway). One way or the other you may need to
>>> pay, even though your system met the relevant standards when it was
>>> installed.
>>
>> The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
>> outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
>> current standards to the plant itself.
>
> I think you might be splitting hairs (*) here.

I am arguing a legal point, which is probably much the same thing.

> If you need to clean up
> the outfall (or direct the outfall elsewhere), having not been required
> to previously, then that is retrospective application of a modern
> standard onto an old system. Where you make the boundary between "the
> plant" and "the outfall" doesn't really matter.

The assertion was that this created a precedent for retrospective
building standards. I am saying that, as it does not apply to all septic
tanks* it does not create a precedent. However, in line with other
environmental legislation, it does mean that some previously acceptable
installations have to be modified.

*in fact the numbers are probably relatively few - it has been a long
time since direct discharge into an open waterway has been permitted.

> (*) Or "splitting hares" as I saw someone write, which conjures up the
> image of someone attacking a jack or a jill with a cleaver :-)

--
--

Colin Bignell