JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 9 Sep 2008

Domestic Waste Water Treatment Services: Discussion with Irish Agrément Board.

Chairman

Members will recall presentations made before the joint committee on the issue of domestic waste water treatment services by officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency. Arising from these presentations we welcome a delegation from the Irish Agrément Board to brief the committee on its role in this matter. This is the committee's first opportunity to meet officials of the board. I welcome Mr. Seán Balfe, director, and Mr. Maurice Buckley, chief executive officer, and thank them for the briefing material submitted to the committee.

Members are conscious of the position on domestic waste water treatment facilities and many of us will have noted references to the application of Irish Agrément Board standards in various planning decisions. While I am not familiar with practice in this area, I am aware that the board has a key role in setting standards. I invite Mr. Balfe to commence the presentation.

Mr. Seán Balfe

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to come before it to explain the functions and powers of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, and the Irish Agrément Board, IAB. The NSAI which was established under the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act 1996 is responsible for the drafting of national standards and is the national representative on European bodies for the drafting of European standards or ENs. It also encompasses the Legal Metrology Service which was established under the Metrology Act 1996 and is responsible for exercising regulation and control functions with regard to measurements, in particular those used for the purposes of trade. Through its client services division, the NSAI carries out certification services for Irish industry which allows the use of national and internationally recognised marks.

The Irish Agrément Board is an operational division of the NSAI. The board is an advisory committee to the NSAI and comprises representatives from the following organisations: the Royal institute of Architects of Ireland, RIAI; the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC; the Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland, ACEI; the Construction Industry Federation, CIF; the Irish Home Builders Association, IHBA; the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI; Enterprise Ireland; and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The board publishes national technical approvals for innovative construction and civil engineering products under the Irish building regulations and in accordance with the rules of the international union of agrément bodies of 17 European countries.

The purpose of agrément is to raise standards in the building industry, particularly in respect of innovative products. Certification under agrément is certification as to fitness for a specific purpose rather than certification against a standard. The onus is on applicants to produce evidence to support their performance claims for the product or material in respect of which agrément is sought. Statutory Instrument 497 of 1997, also known as the building regulations 1997, defines "proper materials" as "materials which are fit for use for the use for which they are intended and for the conditions in which they are to be used" and includes materials which hold an appropriate Irish Agrément Board certificate. Certification by the IAB is not the only method to show that a material is a "proper material". The regulations also allow other means of establishing proof of fitness for purpose. Certification by the IAB is, therefore, a voluntary procedure.

IAB certification establishes proof of conformance with building regulation requirements. National technical approvals are undertaken for product manufacturers and of proven benefit in expanding European and world markets through the multilateral agrément confirmation process. To date, more than 300 products have been approved, for example, complete building systems, insulation products, waste water treatment systems, radon barriers and cross linked polyethylene pipes. Of more than 200 currently valid certificates, 29 are related to waste water treatment systems.

The European Union has developed a CE marking for innovative construction products under the Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC and the Irish Agrément Board has been designated by the Government as the national co-ordinating body for Ireland in this process in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. European technical approvals, when developed, will constitute a CE mark related certification service for the NSAI. Through the IAB, the NSAI has recently formed a strategic alliance with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and SEI to ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to allow the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government achieve his ambitious plans on the reduction of carbon emissions from housing.

The NSAI has had a long history of involvement in the area of waste water treatment systems for single dwellings. Standard recommendation 6 or SR6 was first released in 1975 and that enabled the industry to adopt a systematic approach to site assessment and design of septic tank systems. The greater need at the time was the provision of indoor sanitary facilities and SR6 recognised that.

In 1991 SR6 was revised and a higher emphasis was placed on the disposal of effluent into the ground. Throughout the 1990s, amid sustained economic growth and an associated demand for single rural dwellings, the NSAI responded to society's needs through its agrément function and introduced a method for assessing proprietary waste water treatment systems. It was clear that Irish manufacturers were developing products that would lead to an improved treatment of waste water. The efficacy of those systems needed to be verified and in the absence of any testing facilities in Ireland the Irish Agrément Board developed an assessment method after conducting wide-ranging consultations with all interested parties. That round of public consultation took place in 2003 and the IAB has incorporated all the salient inputs into its assessment procedures. The systems are capable of treating waste water to a high level and therefore allow the possibility of development on a wider range of sites with varying ground conditions.

The certification process will see six operating units monitored over a nine-month period to ensure that satisfactory treatment is taking place. Structural tests are also carried out on the tank and evaluation and testing of all safety devices. In addition to certifying the products, the NSAI agrément recognised the need for proper installation, commissioning and maintenance to ensure that the proprietary systems continue to function correctly. To address that we insist on the manufacturer having the capacity to offer a maintenance contract to all purchasers, either directly or through an agent. Our certificates highlight the requirement for ongoing maintenance and clearly set out the conditions under which the units are to be used. It is our policy to audit each certificate holder annually to ensure that the units continue to be manufactured to a high quality. In 2004 a contract was introduced that placed a five-year time limit on the certificate. If a manufacturer decides to renew the certificate then a significant re-examination of the product is carried out at that time. Notwithstanding any of what I have outlined, we fully recognise that for these products to treat sewage to a high quality they require regular maintenance from the end user who will incur significant ongoing costs.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I thank Mr. Balfe and Mr. Buckley for their attendance at today's meeting. I admit I never heard of them until the name of their organisation began to appear in correspondence and submissions to the committee. That is no reflection on the good work done by the board but more to do with the range of agencies with which we have to deal. Perhaps it is the case that, quite rightly, a head of communications does not exist in the organisation.

I am grateful for the witnesses' attendance at today's meeting on an issue that affects many of our constituents, namely, the treatment of waste water. What we are most concerned with is the lack of consistency across all of the planning authorities in dealing with planning applications on behalf of constituents. There is no agreement on what works in varying soil conditions. I would have expected that a board charged with responsibility for the area since 1996 would be able to give an indication re consistency.

I am not in favour of the onus being on an applicant to say whether a system works as applicants do not have a clue. A householder applying for planning permission employs the professional expertise of people in the workplace and he or she expects that the manufacturer of the system would be able to stand over whatever is recommended. I do not know what requires to be done to ensure the onus is on the manufacturer to certify septic tanks rather than on applicants who in most respects would not be technically equipped to say whether a system is good for his or her new house. I expect that a developer of a housing scheme would have the necessary wherewithal to buy in the expertise to ensure everything was in order. However, at the same time the onus should be on the manufacturer to ensure a certification process. The onus should be on the manufacturer to deal with the issue of product liability. It is a source of great frustration for members that local authority planners allow one system in one county but not in another. I hope the board understands this and will help in our discussions.

Senator Camillus Glynn

Like Deputy Hogan, I was not aware of the board's existence. Given its brief, I am glad it is in place. The opening statement says everything. Will the board enlighten me on the efficiency or otherwise of the Puraflow septic tank system? It has been linked to several planning permissions in which I have been involved and is particularly apt in infill developments. I do not know what the system does but I am interested to know if it works.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I support previous speakers. No later than this morning I was in contact with a planner with Meath County Council concerning an applicant's percolation test. As the T-value did not reach a certain height, the applicant was turned down.

I note the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland is involved with the board. How can an architect allow a planning application go before a planner knowing it will fail? This is a regular occurrence. Architects will take money from applicants and allow them spend €500 on percolation tests. The architect will then allow the report to go before the council knowing the application will fail. I would like to see some improvements in this area. It is unfair on public representatives, as we are not qualified. However, architects are not giving the proper information to clients.

Senator Camillus Glynn

Public representatives then get it in the neck.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I concur with previous speakers. I have a case in Sligo in which an applicant had a percolation test done but the county council's planner was not happy with it. A second test was done by a different company but still the planner was unsatisfied. The total cost of the two tests came to €1,100. It is not good enough. If the board recommends a system, at least it should ensure county councils accept the results. There are different regulations in different counties. It is unfair on those trying to build a house for themselves when they could easily seek local authority housing. People who are willing and able to provide a home for themselves receive absolutely no help. It is most unfair.

I wish the delegates well in their work. I hope they can get their message across to those local authority staff who seem to be doing all in their power to impede individuals who wish to build their own homes.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome the delegates and the report they have provided. Sites for rural houses tend to differ greatly from one another. Can a system be designed to overcome any conditions that might pertain for a rural dwelling, no matter how difficult?

Chairman

I ask the delegates to respond to the points made thus far, after which members may put further questions. The delegates should be aware that while Oireachtas Members have experience, through our work with constituents, of the problems experienced in dealing with local authorities on these issues, the difficulties experienced by the general public must be far greater. What members have outlined is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. Seán Balfe

I will try to address the issues raised. However, our role in this is limited in that we have no function in overseeing what local authorities will accept.

In regard to home ownership, I have circulated a sample of one of our certificates. During an assessment we endeavour to establish that the manufacturer which supplies the treatment unit has the capacity to offer the home owner ongoing maintenance contracts in order to ensure the product continues to be in compliance with the regulations and will treat the effluent to a standard whereby it can be safely disposed of into groundwater. The Water Services Act 2007 clearly places the responsibility for groundwater pollution on the owners of the plants themselves. Ultimately, if the system malfunctions and groundwater pollution occurs as a result, that is the responsibility of the home owner.

Deputy Phil Hogan

In other words, it would require an amendment to the Act to effect change in this regard?

Mr. Seán Balfe

Yes.

I do not have the certificate for the Puraflow system with me. We have certified 29 such products.

Chairman

Will Mr. Balfe send us a list of the 29 products, including names and addresses?

Senator Camillus Glynn

I asked Mr. Balfe and Mr. Buckley to explain the Puraflow system, as I am not au fait with how it works.

Chairman

Puraflow is one particular company's product.

Senator Camillus Glynn

I understand that.

Chairman

Twenty-nine such products have been certified. The documentation supplied by the delegates lists other examples such as Aquastar, bioCycle and Bord na Móna. Puraflow is simply one particular company's product. Will Mr. Balfe send the list of products to the committee?

Mr. Seán Balfe

I will.

Chairman

Does the Irish Agrément Board circulate the list to local authorities? In other words, how is the information that these products work conveyed from the board to local authorities?

Mr. Seán Balfe

To the best of my knowledge, local authorities are aware that all our certificates are published on our website.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

The difficulty is that not all the local authorities seem to accept that certification. Some local authorities accept certain products, while others do not. There seems to be a breakdown somewhere along the line.

Senator Camillus Glynn

To clarify why I asked the question, I understood certification was a condition of obtaining permission. Several permissions have been given and I wanted to know how they worked.

Chairman

The applicant probably specified a particular product and the decision followed from this. A product must have been specified in the application. I ask Mr. Balfe to respond to the other points raised. We will then have a second round of questions.

Mr. Seán Balfe

In order to obtain certification, the systems we assess must be able to treat effluent to the 20:30:20 standard. This is the level that must be reached before we will certify a product.

Senator Paddy Burke

Is it drinkable?

Mr. Seán Balfe

No, it is not quite drinkable. It relates to the biological oxygen demand, the level of suspended solids and the measure of the ammonia content of the effluent coming out of the tank. It was a standard suitable for discharge directly into a watercourse. Our systems are discharged into a percolation area and then into groundwater, so there is an additional level of treatment before it reaches groundwater.

The T-value, mentioned by the Deputy, is a measure requested in SR6. If a person engages an architect to carry out a site investigation and measure T-values they will get a pass or fail value in SR6. Whether a site passes or fails is between the architect and the council.

One of the Deputies mentioned that tests carried out by qualified persons were not accepted by Sligo County Council. I am not in a position to comment on what is and is not accepted by Sligo County Council but I do not see why it should have an issue as the standard exists.

Our function is to test the efficacy of the product. We merely state that if the product is manufactured and installed as per the certificate, it will function correctly and give the desired level of effluent. Whether local authorities accept tests from architects is outside our remit.

Chairman

While the Irish Agrément Board certifies the treatment system, the problem most of us encounter relates to percolation and ground conditions at the end of the treatment system. The product certified by the board forms only part of the sewerage system. Ground conditions cause problems regarding T-value, high water table, slow test holes and fast test holes. It is no use telling our constituents that the system is approved if the soil conditions are affected. Everything Mr. Balfe has said presumes satisfactory soil conditions, but those conditions present our main problem, not the treatment plant.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Do the witnesses not think an architect should know what T-value is acceptable or unacceptable? Some architects submit their report and take money from the unfortunate applicant, in addition to the cost of the test, only for the application to be refused as the T-values have not been met. Architects should know what T-value is acceptable.

Mr. Seán Balfe

I agree with the Deputy and SR6 defines what T-value is acceptable.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Architects should know what T-value is acceptable but they tell applicants to apply regardless of this, only for the application to be rejected as unacceptable.

Senator Paddy Burke

Mr. Balfe is saying the system is designed to allow the outflow go into a watercourse. However, in most local authorities there is a percolation area after that stage in the process. Is Mr. Balfe suggesting that the percolation area is unnecessary and that the water is treated to such a standard that it can go directly into a watercourse?

Mr. Seán Balfe

That is not quite what I am saying. The standard we have set for the quality of treatment before we certify a tank is an old standard that was adopted prior to the introduction of these systems. That standard could be discharged directly into a watercourse. However, if one wishes to discharge directly into a watercourse, one now needs a licence from a local authority. We have designed the system to discharge into percolation areas and subsequently into groundwater.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Do the witnesses have any advice for the committee on what we should do to ensure consistency across local authorities regarding the proper discharge and treatment of effluent? In respect of residential development — either single houses or small or large developments — we need that type of consistency. I understand what we must do to put the onus on the manufacturer. Based on what we are talking about here, it should be possible to devise a system to overcome any problem, but local authority officials do not seem to know this. There is no engagement, as far as I can see, between the Irish Agrément Board and the local authorities. They do not seem to think it worth their while to look at the board's website. In the context of our report, however, we must do our job and make sure they know the board exists and that they are aware of the work it does and the certification of products.

In addition could the representatives advise us on what organisation we should target to ensure the product is consistent and the ground conditions are appropriate to the product being certified?

Deputy Johnny Brady

I remember meeting some of the manufacturers of these systems when they first appeared. We were led to believe there was a system to suit any set of conditions or any type of soil. Now, all of a sudden, this is not the case, and applicant after applicant is being turned down because the T-values are not acceptable.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

To Mr. Balfe's knowledge, are there systems available that can operate with any soil type?

Mr. Seán Balfe

There are systems available that can treat effluent to a very high standard. The anecdotal evidence is that the problem local authorities have is the maintenance costs associated with these products and the charge for installing them. The maintenance costs run at between €800 and €1,200 per annum. Our anecdotal evidence is that people are not maintaining these systems as they should. If the systems are not maintained and the costs are not being paid, ground pollution may result.

Chairman

The representatives have given us a sample licence. It is a standard licence with the name Aquastar and reference number 08/0318. Glancing through this, I have some difficulties with it. There is a picture of the system. In the licence there is a paragraph relating to additional requirements for wet sites. A wet site is defined as one in which "the local water table can rise above the base of the treatment unit". In this case the tank should be filled with water during construction so it will sink. I would have thought that if the water table is that high in the first place, no council will accept any system there. The board is certifying a system for an area with a high water table that will make the unit float, and it provides instructions on how to install this. However, no local authority could accept an application for a site in which the water table was so high. The board should know that although it will certify a product for use in difficult conditions, no local authority would accept such an application.

Mr. Seán Balfe

I take the Chairman's point.

Chairman

A system should not be installed if the water table is that high in a particular area. This is based on a cursory glance at the document.

Mr. Seán Balfe

We also outline that in such situations a raised percolation area, above the prevailing ground level, would also be constructed. That would act as a——

Chairman

Is that in this licence?

Mr. Seán Balfe

I think it is, yes. It should be cited there.

Chairman

The solution Mr. Balfe is suggesting for areas with bad ground conditions is a raised percolation area. I know my local authority would frown on that. We are talking about bringing in lorry-loads of material to build up an artificial mound.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Perhaps Mr. Balfe would answer some of the questions I raised earlier. What I am confused about is who calls the shots. Is it the local authority or the Irish Agrément Board? Who devises policies? Is the Irish Agrément Board ultimately able to show the local authorities what to do? The board is supposed to be the arbiter of the implementation of SR6/91. However, no local authority minds one bit what the board is telling it. What power does the board have to enforce its obligations and responsibilities with regard to local authorities?

Mr. Seán Balfe

We do not have any power. It is a voluntary process to get certification by the Irish Agrément Board. Certification is one way of showing compliance with the building regulations. There are other ways of doing it. We cannot force the local authorities to adopt our certification.

Chairman

What are the other ways? I know they are not the IAB ways.

Mr. Seán Balfe

There is a standard to be introduced in this area of CE marking in 2009 from EN12566, which means if a product is tested to that EN, it will be CE marked.

Chairman

Who does the Irish testing?

Mr. Seán Balfe

Any certified test house can do it, but none is available in Ireland. They are in mainland Europe.

Chairman

Or in Europe.

Mr. Seán Balfe

There are no testing facilities in Ireland. The only testing facilities I am aware of at the moment are in Europe.

Chairman

One coming from Europe will be acceptable.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Another problem for the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy Johnny Brady

What qualifications are needed to become a percolation tester at present?

Chairman

A 12-week FÁS course.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Maybe that is the way because I often wonder about some of the people who are doing them.

Chairman

That is a social employment scheme course. It is a FÁS approved training course for a week.

Senator Paddy Burke

In fairness, they all have experience.

Chairman

This committee will do a report on this topic because the EPA was in the other day talking about its standards. An Bord Pleanála is saying something else, while the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is saying another thing. The IAB has another view. The 32 local authorities say 32 different things, depending on which panel one meets.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Never mind 32 counties, one could have a different planner within the one county. One could have three or four.

Chairman

Sitting beside each other.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Yes.

Senator Paddy Burke

Can I ask Mr. Balfe about certification? The outflow to a percolation area is designed first, but is a licence needed for anything above that if it is going into a water course? If it was not acceptable to the local authority, more than likely due to a high water table or groundwater, could there be two systems where the percolation would be acceptable in one and another system would be granted a licence? Essentially, there would be a higher specification puriflow system to deal with an outflow under licence into a watercourse. Would that be possible?

Mr. Seán Balfe

I have not heard of a licence being granted for single dwelling units. That is generally for multiple dwelling units or for commercial waste.

Senator Paddy Burke

I understand that, but is it a possibility?

Mr. Seán Balfe

That is up to the local authority.

Senator Paddy Burke

They have the power to do it if they want.

Mr. Seán Balfe

I think so, yes.

Senator Paddy Burke

Has the IAB the wherewithal to design a system to that level so that it can go into a watercourse for a single dwelling?

Mr. Seán Balfe

There are systems that can treat effluent to a very high standard.

Chairman

Is there something whereby existing septic tanks will have to come up to a set standard? My local authority has produced a document on that. It may not be Mr. Balfe's area but he might advise us. They want a regime to test all existing septic tanks.

Deputy Phil Hogan

In roofs and basements.

Chairman

Yes, I know. It will be another bonanza for these 29 companies and we do not know if they are going to work depending on the style of treatment. I know it is not Mr. Balfe's direct area but perhaps he can advise us, even informally.

Mr. Seán Balfe

I understand the EPA regularly carries out monitoring of groundwater and it finds a lot of faecal and e-coli contamination in the samples. It could affect up to 40% of the samples. The legislation regarding environmental pollution is tightening all the time, so I would not be surprised if there is something on the way that would improve septic tanks. In the submission I stated the original SR6 of 1975 gave a method for assessing sites but recognised the overriding requirement to provide indoor sanitation facilities. Perhaps those older systems might now be revisited and checked to see if they are polluting the groundwater.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

The board is only responsible for assessing the product and the manufacturer to ensure it has personnel in place to do maintenance work. That is where its role ends. Is that correct?

Mr. Seán Balfe

Yes.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

What we are talking about is outside of the board's remit. While the people would be in place to do the maintenance work, many of these treatment plants are never maintained. That is where the problem arises after the board has completed its job. It is the county councils, the local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency that have responsibility after the board has completed its job.

What is the board's view on the old traditional septic tank? I had one of them for 20 years that was never emptied. It worked perfectly over the years and never caused any problems. It never had to be cleaned out because it never blocked up.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

A condition of planning states that the system is supposed to be maintained. I have come across cases as an auctioneer where solicitors have insisted, where houses are for sale, that the sellers comply with that regulation. They have to show the system has been checked annually and if not, some solicitors will not run with the sale. They will insist on proof that testing has taken place.

Mr. Maurice Buckley

I will correct for the record that I am the chief executive officer of the National Standards Authority of Irelandrather than of the board.

Chairman

My mistake at the beginning.

Mr. Maurice Buckley

I wish to pick up on some of the points raised. I hear very clearly the message from the committee and the frustration with all the different bodies involved in the area. I shall deal first with the last point raised. Certainly the issue of insulation and maintenance is a major one. That is the bugbear of our work. As the committee rightly points out, we certify the product and give guidance as to how it is used, but then our role stops. I suspect for planners there is a concern at the back of their minds that even though conditions might be right on day one, if maintenance is not properly carried out in four or five years, the output will deteriorate and there is a risk of damage being done. That is something that may need to be addressed with the planners and through the regulation. It will go in the direction the committee suggested whereby in selling or extending a house, a person will have to provide evidence that a septic tank or a waste water system has been maintained. That makes sense.

One of the beauties of the agrément certificate, as the committee will see from the example Mr. Seán Balfe circulated, is that it provides independent advice on the issues around the product. It is not just a certificate for the product. It provides much detail about the installation, the conditions in which it operates, how it is to be maintained and so on. This is something we do in the Irish Agrément Board for all the various products we certify. That is a valuable source of independent information. It is not the manufacturer's catalogue. It is independent, verified technical information. That is available in these certificates to all the people coming to their technical advisers.

Deputy Brady mentioned the engineer and the assessor. They have access to that information through the NSAI website. They can look up the agrément certificate for the particular system they are dealing with. Indeed, the home owner has access also if, as appears to be the case, he or she is not satisfied with the professional support being obtained.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Normally they do not find that out until they are refused.

Mr. Maurice Buckley

Maybe.

Deputy Phil Hogan

They are not technically equipped.

Mr. Maurice Buckley

The obvious question is whether some of this advice or guidance on ground water and soil conditions and so on could be generalised in an effort to support the request for some guidance for planners throughout the various local authorities to achieve a level of consistency. I am not a technical expert in this area but it may be something Mr. Seán Balfe and our colleagues can look at. The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing a code of practice in this area. The NSAI has stepped back and, on the recommendation of the EPA, we will withdraw SR6 and replace it by the EPA code of practice when that becomes available. That will probably contain some of this advice. However, if that is still some time away or if something can be done supplementary to that, even for Oireachtas Members, county managers and so on, in terms of a reference document to ensure consistency, we would look into doing that if it can be provided.

The other thing we can do — we do it all the time in the standards area — is to hold a seminar on waste water treatment and the installation and maintenance of waste water treatment facilities. The seminar could be held somewhere convenient and all local authorities could be invited. We could try to provide a discussion forum where these issues could be addressed among technical experts and uniformity achieved.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Mr. Buckley might write to the local authorities' representative bodies, such as the General Council of County Councils, the Association of Municipal Authorities and the County Managers Association, and suggest he is available to give that advice. It is critical that everybody knows the hymn sheet and is going in the same direction.

Chairman

That is a useful suggestion. Something should be done to achieve a degree of uniformity and consistency.

Mr. Maurice Buckley

The talk now is about integration of public services and we have a responsibility as well, even if we only look after one niche of that. We must and will do what we can to link all the different bodies.

Chairman

The misconception that arose among the public and public representatives a number of years ago was that if a site had bad percolation, one of the proprietary treatment systems would solve the problem. That view spread and is now entrenched. If one has a good site, a septic tank is fine but if the site is bad, the proprietary treatment system will deal with it. However, I understand that is not the case. If the site has bad percolation, the treatment system does not reduce the volume of outflow, although it might make it cleaner. Where the percolation is bad, the site will not take the volume of outflow regardless of how clean it is. Nevertheless, the perception grew that these treatment systems would overcome the problem of bad percolation. They do not, and have nothing to do with percolation. Will you comment on that?

Mr. Seán Balfe

These systems will treat effluent to a higher standard than septic tanks and there is a smaller percolation area.

Chairman

What if the ground has a bad T-value?

Mr. Seán Balfe

A smaller percolation area is associated with them. The main concern of the councils is the ongoing maintenance of the products. If they are not maintained properly, they will fail.

Chairman

It might be no harm to bring An Bord Pleanála into the frame. The board seems to be unhappy with these individual systems. When it sees them included in an appeal, it appears to throw them out without looking at them. It seems to throw them all out. The board should be included in the mix. Perhaps if we knew something was not acceptable, we would not be wasting our time with it.

Deputy Phil Hogan

You are right, Chairman. The main discovery we have made since we started this process is the huge array of organisations and responsibilities that exist. Mr. Buckley's suggestion regarding the integration of service organisations in this area is critical to the citizen. It is also critical to the public representative's knowledge in terms of what we are trying to achieve. If we do nothing else but that, an enormous amount would be achieved in delivering a better service.

Chairman

Mr. Buckley and Mr. Balfe will understand where we are coming from and our concerns. You have helped us but, as we have established today, it is only a piece in the jigsaw. The committee will look at the broader picture and consider compiling a short report on the general issue of individual treatment systems. I thank Mr. Buckley and Mr. Balfe for attending the meeting. It was our first opportunity to meet them and the meeting was interesting and informative. We have learned a little but there is more to be learned from other people.

We will adjourn until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 September, when we will deal with the implementation of aid schemes, such as housing aid for the elderly and other new housing schemes.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 September 2008.