What is a sewage treatment plant???

[Jeremy Harris]

Just now, Big Neil said:

So if a sewage treatment plant  dos this and doesn't cause pollution. Why on earth would it not be allowed? strikes me as very odd

 

AFAIK, the preferred option anywhere within the EU, where mains drainage isn't available*** is to use a packaged treatment plant approved to EN 12566-3.

 

*** The preferred option is ALWAYS to connect to mains drainage if available, simply because mains drainage treatment plants have a statutory obligation to meet defined discharged standards and are regularly tested to ensure they are compliant with them.

[jamieled]

The regulatory agencies tend not have preferences for this sort of thing as they are overly worried about liability. However with a tested treatment plant it's clearly much easier to prove requirements are going to be met.  In Scotland SEPA only seem to be concerned with meeting BOD and Ammonia standards with no obvious preference as to how that happens.

 

We have a more unusual setup planned involving an aquatron and reed bed. It was accepted on the basis of us showing the design would meet discharge requirements.

[Ed Davies]

SEPA would only allow my plans to discharge to a watercourse because the ground doesn't percolate. If any sort of infiltration was possible they'd have required that, so in that sense they have a preference.

[ProDave]

40 minutes ago, Ed Davies said:

SEPA would only allow my plans to discharge to a watercourse because the ground doesn't percolate. If any sort of infiltration was possible they'd have required that, so in that sense they have a preference.

As I have said before, SEPA will only allow discharge to a burn as a last resort.  It was only after building control had rejected 2 proposals that SEPA finally granted us permission to discharge to the burn.

[jamieled]

It does seem a bit variable. They seemed happy with us not having a soakaway and I hadn't bothered to prove that one wouldn't work (although it won't due the water table in winter), only that the alternative would meet the regs. Their email to me made no reference to needing to consider a soakaway, only that the discharge from our system needed to meet the relevant standards.

[ProDave]

5 minutes ago, jamieled said:

It does seem a bit variable. They seemed happy with us not having a soakaway and I hadn't bothered to prove that one wouldn't work (although it won't due the water table in winter), only that the alternative would meet the regs. Their email to me made no reference to needing to consider a soakaway, only that the discharge from our system needed to meet the relevant standards.

Yes it does seem very variable.  Initially they said no to the discharge and suggested a filter mound which is what we went through planning with.  BC rejected the filter mound and a Puraflow system. Only then did SEPA say yes to the discharge.  We proposed using the Conder plant, and our discharge permit was written to match the BOD specification of the Conder.

[scottishjohn]

15 hours ago, Big Neil said:

Fair play. So now i know how they work which rocks. If anyone knows about the Having to connect to the sewer thing though that would be good. 

Quick question though @scottishjohn, even if it turns out one doesn't HAVE to connect to an available sewer, why would you choose to INSTEAD of having a treatment plant installed?

cost only,,but now doubt that is a real option with changes in laws coming