Drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment: Maintenance, perceptions, and priorities

Curtis, John A. Research Report Drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment: Maintenance, perceptions, and priorities Research Series, No. 195 Provided in Cooperation with: The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin Suggested Citation: Curtis, John A. (2024) : Drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment: Maintenance, perceptions, and priorities, Research Series, No. 195, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs195 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/306693 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ DRINKING WATER AND DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT: MAINTENANCE, PERCEPTIONS, AND PRIORITIES JOHN CURTIS RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 195 OCTOBER 2024 E V I D E N C E F O R P O L I C Y Drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment: Maintenance, perceptions, and priorities John Curtis October 2024 RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 195 Available to download from www.esri.ie © The Economic and Social Research Institute Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 https://doi.org/10.26504/rs195 This Open Access work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. ABOUT THE ESRI The mission of the Economic and Social Research Institute is to advance evidence-based policymaking that supports economic sustainability and social progress in Ireland. ESRI researchers apply the highest standards of academic excellence to challenges facing policymakers, focusing on 12 areas of critical importance to 21st century Ireland. The Institute was founded in 1960 by a group of senior civil servants led by Dr T. K. Whitaker, who identified the need for independent and in-depth research analysis to provide a robust evidence base for policymaking in Ireland. Since then, the Institute has remained committed to independent research and its work is free of any expressed ideology or political position. The Institute publishes all research reaching the appropriate academic standard, irrespective of its findings or who funds the research. The quality of its research output is guaranteed by a rigorous peer review process. ESRI researchers are experts in their fields and are committed to producing work that meets the highest academic standards and practices. The work of the Institute is disseminated widely in books, journal articles and reports. ESRI publications are available to download, free of charge, from its website. Additionally, ESRI staff communicate research findings at regular conferences and seminars. The ESRI is a company limited by guarantee, answerable to its members and governed by a Council, comprising 14 members who represent a cross-section of ESRI members from academia, civil services, state agencies, businesses and civil society. The Institute receives an annual grant-in-aid from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to support the scientific and public interest elements of the Institute’s activities; the grant accounted for an average of 30 per cent of the Institute’s income over the lifetime of the last Research Strategy. The remaining funding comes from research programmes supported by government departments and agencies, public bodies and competitive research programmes. Further information is available at www.esri.ie THE AUTHOR John Curtis is a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and Adjunct Professor at Trinity College Dublin (TCD). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is an output of the Joint Research Programme on Water between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (DHLGH) and the ESRI. Thanks to the Programme Steering Committee for guidance on the research, and specifically to Mary Gurrie, Stephen McCarthy and Caroline Murphy (Environmental Protection Agency); Triona McGrath (An F´ oran Uisce); and anonymous reviewers for detailed comments and suggestions on the report. This report has been accepted for publication by the Institute, which does not itself take institutional policy positions. The report has been peer-reviewed prior to publication. The authors are solely responsible for the content and the views expressed. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS .......................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... VII 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 2 METHODS ............................................ 3 3 SURVEY FINDINGS ....................................... 5 3.1 Drinking water ....................................... 5 3.2 Domestic wastewater treatment systems (DWWTS) .................... 7 3.3 DWWTS inspections and remediation grants ........................ 10 3.4 Environmental attitudes, knowledge, health and priorities ................. 11 3.5 Water testing and DWWTS maintenance: Multinominal analysis ............. 13 4 CONCLUSION .......................................... 19 4.1 Drinking water ....................................... 19 4.2 Domestic wastewater treatment systems (DWWTS) maintenance ............. 19 4.3 Septic tank grant scheme .................................. 21 REFERENCES ............................................ 21 LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Drinking water supply and perceived quality, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Drinking water testing among households with private well supply, % . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Experience of following issues from water as comes from tap, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 Wastewater treatment and discharges, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5 DWWTS desludging and service frequency, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.6 Reasons for (not) desludging in the past 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7 Experience of issues with wastewater system over past 5 years, % . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.8 Resolving issues with DWWTS, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.9 Awareness of grants for DWWTS remediation, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.10 Perceived severity of potential health consequences of sub-standard drinking water or a malfunctioningDWWTS,% ................................ 12 3.11 Awareness of potential environmental impacts of malfunctioning DWWTS, % . . . . . . 12 3.12 Households’ spending priorities, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.13 Logistic regression: odds ratios estimates for well water testing & DWWTS desludging . 18 II.1 Logistic regression: odds ratios estimates for well water testing & DWWTS desludging . 27 II.1 continued from previous page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Households’ priority for social policy issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2 Households’ priority for environmental policy issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3 Households’ priority for environmental and social policy – Median responses . . . . . . 16 ABBREVIATIONS CI Confidence interval DHLGH Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage ESRI Economic and Social Research Institute LAWPRO Local Authorities Water Programme DWWTS Domestic wastewater treatment systems EPA Environmental Protection Agency GDPR General Data Protection Regulation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The objective of this research is to capture householders’ views and experiences related to drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment systems (DWWTS), including public health concerns and experience accessing the septic tank remediation grant. Capturing data on the level of maintenance undertaken by households with respect to their private drinking water supplies and DWWTS provides insight on the extent to which additional policy interventions are required to protect both public health and environmental quality. Drinking water testing • Most households sourcing their drinking water from a private well do not regularly send their water for laboratory testing, as recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Just one in five households with a private well supply have had their water tested in the past three years. • The most common reason given for not having water tested is that there is no (perceived) problem with supplies. • Cost is not a primary reason why households do not send samples for laboratory testing. DWWTS desludging • Almost one in five DWWTS were not desludged in the past five years. • Among households that desludge their DWWTS, the majority are aware of the operational benefit to their DWWTS of regular desludging, while a substantial minority are also aware of the environmental protection benefits. • For households that have not emptied their DWWTS, the primary reason for not doing so is a belief that it isn’t necessary. Cost was not indicated as a significant contributory reason for not undertaking regular maintenance of DWWTS. • Households with awareness of environmental pollution risks are not any more likely to have their DWWTS emptied compared to those without any awareness of the pathways and risks of pollution. • Households with ultraviolet light treatment on their drinking water supplies are half as likely to desludge their DWWTS as those without ultraviolet light treatment. DWWTS remediation • DWWTSs can malfunction for a variety of reasons but most households indicated that they have never experienced specified symptoms of a malfunctioning DWWTS. • Approximately 10 per cent of surveyed households had observed symptoms of poorly functioning DWWTS within the past five years. 3 SURVEY FINDINGS 3.1 Drinking water Table 3.1 reports the source of drinking water supply among the surveyed households, which is 55 per cent from a private well, 35 per cent from a public supply, and 9 per cent from either a public or private group water scheme. A small number of households either purchase bottled drinking water, source their supplies from rainwater or don’t know the source of their drinking water. Respondents were also asked about the quality or purity of their drinking water as it comes from the tap, with almost four in five respondents indicating that it was either good or excellent. Up to 7 per cent of households with either a private well or a public supply said that the quality of the water from the tap was of poor quality. Table 3.1: Drinking water supply and perceived quality, % Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Private well 21 22 8 4 55 Group water scheme 3 4 2 0 9 Public water supply 11 16 6 2 35 Bottle/rainwater 0 0 0 0 0 Don’t know 0 0 0 0 1 Total 35 42 15 7 100 N=1,822 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that households test their well water supplies at least once a year for microbiological contamination (e.g., E. coli and coliform bacteria), and every three years for chemical contamination. Only 36 per cent of respondents indicated that they ever sent their water for laboratory testing, with just 19 per cent of respondents doing so in the three years prior to the survey, in line with the EPA’s guideline for chemical contamination testing, as reported in Table 3.2. For those who ever had their water tested, the most common reasons for doing so are that the household regularly undertakes tests, that they had a concern about the physical appearance of their water supply (e.g., odour or discolouration), or because it was a requirement of a grant application (i.e., under the Rural Water Programme for improvement works to a private water supply). Only 7 per cent of respondents indicated that they had their water tested due to illness concerns either within the family or locally. That there wasn’t a problem with their drinking water supply was the most common reason for not having their water tested, as reported by one in two respondents who never had their water tested. Up to roughly one in three respondents indicated that they didn’t know how to have their drinking water tested or that testing it was too much hassle. Between 10 and 12 per cent of respondents indicated that either testing was too expensive or that they had other spending priorities. Table 3.3 reports households’ experiences with a broad range of issues that occur in drinking water supplies. Several of the issues listed potentially relate to water treatment (e.g., chlorine or detergent smell), water hardness (e.g., oily film), or reflect the chemical composition of the source water (e.g., 5 Table 3.2: Drinking water testing among households with private well supply, % % 95% CI Ever tested drinking water? (N=1,014) 36 +/-3 Reason for test (N=364): Regularly test 38 +/-5 Concern re: odour/discoloration 17 +/-3.9 Concern re: illnesses 7 +/-2.6 Awareness of local issues 9 +/-2.9 Grant application 17 +/-3.9 Tested within prior 3 years 19 +/-2.4 Lab tests of those tested within prior 3 years (N=186) Within acceptable ranges 80 +/-5.8 Not within acceptable ranges 20 +/-5.8 Recommend disinfection 48 +/-17.6 Recommend treatment 52 +/-17.6 Reasons for not testing in prior 3 years (N=233) No problem with water 52 +/-6.4 Too much hassle 7 +/-3.3 Don’t know how to get tested 33 +/-6 Too expensive to test 12 +/-4.2 Other spending priorities 10 +/-3.9 Multiple answers were allowed; answers do not sum to 100%. 6 metallic taste, blue or green stains) and may not necessarily breach drinking water standards. The righthand side of Table 3.3 reports the primary reasons why households have not had these issues fixed. The most common response was that the issue didn’t sufficiently bother the respondent, followed by not knowing how to fix the problem. The cost of remediation or other spending priorities, while important for some respondents, is less common as a reason for not resolving the issue. The broad conclusion from these survey results is that most households sourcing their drinking water from a private well do not regularly send their water for laboratory testing. Just 19 per cent have had their water tested in the past three years. The compliance rate with the EPA recommendation of yearly testing for microbiological contamination is likely to be substantially lower. When households do have their drinking water tested, it is likely triggered by some event that impacts the appearance of the water or a grant application. The most common reason for not having water tested is that there is no (perceived) problem with supplies. Cost is not a primary reason why households do not send samples for laboratory testing. Table 3.3: Experience of following issues from water as comes from tap, % % 95% CI Cloudy 17 +/-1.7 Sediment 7 +/-1.2 Reasons for not fixing problem (N=719) Brown or orange hue 8 +/-1.2 % 95% CI Chlorine smell 13 +/-1.5 Too much hassle 3 +/-1.3 Sulphur smell 3 +/-0.8 Don’t know how to fix 27 +/-3.2 Oily film on top standing water 2 +/-0.7 Too expensive 9 +/-2.1 Metallic or bitter tasting water 4 +/-0.9 Other spending priorities 11 +/-2.2 Blue or green stains in showers/sinks 3 +/-0.8 Doesn’t bother me 35 +/-3.5 Detergent smell 1 +/-0.5 Poor water pressure 16 +/-1.7 (N=1,849) Multiple answers were allowed; answers do not sum to 100%. 3.2 Domestic wastewater treatment systems (DWWTS) Table 3.4 presents the share of DWWTS among the surveyed sample, including their discharge location. The 76:24 ratio of septic tanks to wastewater treatment plants represents an under-representation of households with septic tanks compared to 2022 Census data, which reports an 89:11 ratio. Given the focus of interest relates to DDWTS maintenance activity and associated behavioural motivations, it is unlikely that the imbalance in ratios between the sample and the wider population would have a sufficient impact to substantially change the research findings and conclusions. Table 3.5 reports desludging frequency for both septic tanks and wastewater treatment plants, with the latter usually comprising treatment by aeration or biological media. Desludging frequency is not substantially different between septic tanks and wastewater treatment plants, so is not reported separately. Almost one in five DWWTS were not desludged in the prior five years. This figure is broadly consistent with data from Naughton & Hynds (2014), who find that 67 per cent of their respondents had previ7 Table 3.4: Wastewater treatment and discharges, % Percolation area Soak pit Surface water/drain Don’t Know Total Septic tank 47 20 3 7 76 WW treatment plant 21 1 0 1 24 Total 68 21 3 8 100 (N=1,773) ously desludged their DWWTS.2The recommended frequency of desludging depends on tank size and household occupancy or as recommended by the system’s manufacturer. Table 3.5: DWWTS desludging and service frequency, % No. of times in past 5 years Desludged (N=1,778)* Serviced (N=424)** 0 18 17 1 26 25 2 25 23 3 13 15 4 6 4 5 10 13 Don’t know 3 2 100 100 * Includes both septic tanks and treatment systems ** Includes treatment systems only Table 3.6 reports the primary reasons why households did or did not desludge their DWWTS during the past five years. For those who have emptied their DWWTS at least once in the past five years, the majority, at 74 per cent, do so to ensure that it functions properly. Approximately one-quarter do so for the protection of ground and drinking water. Among those who have not desludged their DWWTS, the primary reasons for not doing so are that they feel such action isn’t necessary or that they didn’t know that it should be emptied. There are two clear conclusions that can be drawn from these survey results. First, among households that have previously emptied their DWWTS, the majority are aware of the functional benefits of regular desludging, while a substantial minority are also aware of the environmental benefits. For households that have not previously emptied their DWWTS, the primary reason given for not doing so is ‘Isn’t necessary, working fine’. Some households also indicated that they didn’t know that the tank had to be desludged. Cost was not indicated as a significant contributory reason for not undertaking regular maintenance of DWWTS. However, as desludging costs are typically e250–300, this would be 2Naughton & Hynds’s (2014) survey sampling approach is substantially different and the desluding question is not limited to prior 5 years. 8 a barrier for many households even if they were behaviourally inclined to undertake regular DWWTS maintenance. Table 3.6: Reasons for (not) desludging in the past 5 years Desludging (N=1,465) Not Desludging (N=313) % 95% CI % 95% CI To ensure it functions properly 74 +/-2.2 Isn’t necessary, working fine 70 +/-5.1 To protect ground & drinking water 24 +/-2.2 Didn’t know had to desludge 16 +/-4.1 Advised to desludge regularly 31 +/-2.4 It’s not a priority 2 +/-1.5 Don’t want to spend money on it 1 +/-1.1 Multiple answers were allowed; answers do not sum to 100% Table 3.7 lists issues that arise with improperly functioning DWWTS, as well as their reported incidence across the surveyed households. For most households, these issues never arise. A small minority, up to 3 per cent, report these issues occurring on a regular basis. However, it is likely that some of the issues reported as occurring only occasionally are long term issues too. For example, excessive plant growth, greyish slime, or wastewater lying in the garden indicate serious malfunctioning of the DWWTS. Leaving aside slow drainage and odours, which may reflect pipe blockages and tank vents, rather than necessarily a malfunctioning DWWTS, across the other issues listed, approximately 10 per cent of surveyed households had poorly functioning DWWTS that required remedial action at some point in the past five years. From Table 8 we see that 80 per cent of households have attempted to resolve the problems with their DWWTS. For those that have not attempted to remediate a malfunctioning DWWTS the majority, at 58 per cent, report that the problem isn’t that severe. People also report that it is too much hassle to fix the problem, or that they don’t know how to resolve the issue, while 23 per cent report that the issue is too expensive to fix. Table 3.7: Experience of issues with wastewater system over past 5 years, % N= Never On occasion On regular basis Total Slow draining toilets, sinks or drains 1,756 70 27 3 100 The smell of sewage in garden 1,739 72 26 3 100 Overflow of wastewater into garden 1,734 91 8 1 100 Water regularly lying in the garden near wastewater system 1,735 91 7 1 100 Greyish slime growth in nearby drains 1,712 95 4 1 100 Excessive plant growth near wastewater system 1,734 87 10 3 100 9 Table 3.8: Resolving issues with DWWTS, % Attempted to resolve issues with DWWTS, as indicated in Table 3.7 % 95% CI Yes 80 +/-2.7 No 20 +/-2.7 (N=844) Reasons for not attempting to resolve DWWTS issues % 95% CI Problem isn’t that severe 58 +/-7.5 Too much hassle 5 +/-3.4 Don’t know what to do 11 +/-4.8 Too expensive to fix 23 +/-6.4 Other spending priorities 15 +/-5.4 N=168. Multiple answers were allowed; answers do not sum to 100%. 3.3 DWWTS inspections and remediation grants The survey asked households whether their DWWTS had been inspected by their local authority within the prior five years. Given the absolute number of inspections undertaken by local authorities each year, the survey sampling frame, as well as the anticipated low response rate to the survey, it was expected that relatively few households would respond affirmatively to that question. In total, 107 households indicated that their DWWTS had been inspected by their local authority in the past five years, with 65 per cent reporting that they passed the inspection without remedial action required. Remedial actions advised to those that failed include ceasing discharge of effluent, repair mechanical or structural defects, diversion of clean water to separate soakaways, and desludging the DWWTS. The EPA publishes more comprehensive information on DWWTS inspections (EPA,2023). The survey also asked respondents whether they were aware of a grant scheme administered by their local authority to assist in the remediation, repair or upgrade of septic tank/wastewater treatment systems. Just 31 per cent of respondents were aware of the grant assistance programme. Among respondents with awareness of grant support, almost half were not aware of the three different grant schemes, as reported in Table 3.9. While there is relatively little awareness of the remediation grant scheme, in the event remediation works are required, there is almost universal willingness to consider applying for grant aid (up to 85 per cent of approved costs subject to a maximum of e5,000).3 Across the surveyed households, just 3 per cent (50 households) applied for a DWWTS remediation grant. With approximately 200 grants awarded per annum (EPA,2023), a low affirmative response to this survey question was also anticipated but an open-ended question was included to elicit feedback on their experience with the grant application process, specifically prompting for views on the application process, eligibility criteria and administrative burden, whether positive or negative. All responses to this 3The maximum grant value was subsequently increased to e12,000. 10 question are reported in an appendix for review. With a small number of responses, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Nonetheless, the responses broadly report positive engagement with local authority staff. In several instances, households appreciate local authority staff’s expertise and guidance in navigating the remediation process. This suggests that the technical and engineering requirements of septic tank remediation represent a significant challenge to some households. Some households are reluctant to engage with the local authority; one respondent noted, ‘we were fearful in contacting the Council originally’. This may reflect fear of what might transpire if they actively engaged. Overall, this suggests that it would be beneficial to provide independent technical advice on remediation options to households with a poorly functioning DWWTS. Other examples from the verbatim responses highlight cases where households are attempting to remediate poorly functioning DWWTS but administrative rules preclude their eligibility.4If DWWTS outflows represent a risk to water quality, consideration should be given to minimising the number of administrative barriers facing households that are attempting to remediate their systems. Three pieces of data from the survey suggest that a review of the remediation grant schemes and their eligibility criteria should be undertaken. There is relatively low awareness of the remediation grant schemes, and almost universal willingness to consider applying for grant aid; whereas there are few successful grant applications per annum. The motivation for the septic tank remediation grant schemes is the protection of the environment and public health. If the grant scheme is to be an effective policy tool to combat environmental pollution from septic tanks and mitigate public health risk, a review of the grant schemes should be considered, including scheme objectives and eligibility criteria. Table 3.9: Awareness of grants for DWWTS remediation, % Prior awareness of grant (N=1,818) 31 +/-2.1 Conditional on awareness, knowledge of specific grant types (N=558) Following local authority advisory notice 47 +/-4.1 Situated in a Prioritised Area for Action 9 +/-2.3 Situated in a High Status Objective Catchment Area 8 +/-2.2 Not sure/None of above 52 +/-4.1 Willingness to avail of DWWTS remediation grant (N=1776) Yes 67 +/-2.2 Possibly 27 +/-2.1 No 6 +/-1.1 3.4 Environmental attitudes, knowledge, health and priorities Health psychology research offers insight into why people choose to carry out certain behaviours, with Rosenstock (1974) being an early influential paper codifying the Health Belief Model. This model posits 4Since the survey was completed eligibility criteria related to DWWTS registration date have been relaxed. 11 that for behavioural change to occur, individuals need to feel vulnerable to a threat (e.g., malfunctioning DWWTS), believe possible threat outcomes to be severe (e.g., sickness), and believe in their own efficacy to bring about desirable beneficial change without considerable costs. The first two of these factors are easily investigated within a survey. Within the context of the Health Belief Model, Devitt et al. (2016) undertook a small-scale exploratory study to identify drivers and barriers to DWWTS maintenance among Irish households. Relying on focus groups, they find that most households have a limited awareness of the potential risks associated with poorly functioning DWWTS, with most reporting not having a regular maintenance routine in place. They conclude that households’ capacity to engage in risk management (i.e., regular maintenance of DWWTS) is limited. In this survey, 24 per cent of households responded that there are individuals within their family who, from a health perspective, might be especially vulnerable if their water supply is below safe drinking water standards or their DWWTS is malfunctioning. Over two-thirds of households believe that the potential health consequences would be moderate or severe if family members became ill due to either sub-standard drinking water or a malfunctioning DWWTS, as shown in Table 3.10. Moderate was defined as causing substantial discomfort, potentially necessitating a GP visit or prescription medicines, while severe was defined as major discomfort and pain with necessity of medical intervention. In the next section we statistically analyse whether households’ perception of vulnerability and threat severity is associated with a higher likelihood of DWWTS maintenance. Table 3.11 reports respondents’ awareness of the environmental impacts associated with a malfunctioning DWWTS. Between six or seven in every ten respondents are aware of each of the environmental impacts listed, including pollution of ground and surface water. Just 13 per cent responded that a malfunctioning DWWTS was unlikely to have any substantial environmental impact. Table 3.10: Perceived severity of potential health consequences of sub-standard drinking water or a malfunctioning DWWTS, % Mild 27 Moderate 39 Severe 34 Total 100 N=1,780 Table 3.11: Awareness of potential environmental impacts of malfunctioning DWWTS, % % 95% CI Ponding in lawn potentially exposing people to sewage & risk of illness 61 +/-2.2 Odours impacting on normal use of own and neighbours’ gardens 69 +/-2.1 Polluting groundwater water quality, potentially impacting on drinking water 70 +/-2.1 Affecting surface water quality, potentially damaging wildlife/habitats, etc. 72 +/-2.1 ’Unlikely to have any substantial impact’ 13 +/-1.5 N=1,849 12 The survey asked a series of questions to gauge households’ relative priority for a range of both public policy issues related to the environment and society, plus households’ own spending priorities. On environmental and societal issues, respondents were asked how much priority the Government should devote to specific issues on a seven-point scale from lower to higher priority. Responses are illustrated graphically in Figure 3.1. Most respondents attach a high priority to Government devoting resources to housing, health and cost of living. Opinions are more diverse with respect to traffic congestion, immigration and litter. Figure 3.2 reports responses with respect to environmental policy issues. Pollution of rivers, the biodiversity crisis and extinction of species are considered with relative higher priority among at least half of households surveyed. A relatively small minority of respondents attach a low priority to these public policy issues. To compare responses across all 12 social and environmental policy issues, Figure 3.3 plots the median response, where the answer options ranged from 1: Higher priority to 7: Lower priority. At least 50 per cent of households expressed a preference of ‘higher priority’ for public policy in the areas of health, housing and pollution of rivers. We focus now on households’ own personal priorities in terms of household spending. Respondents were asked to rank nine potential household expenditures. In Table 3.12 we report the percentage of households that rank each item among the top three spending priorities. Not surprisingly, heating system maintenance is highest, with 78 per cent of respondents ranking it among the top three priorities. Servicing the car also receives relatively high priority. The other two expenditure items that rank highest are desludging the DWWTS and laboratory testing of well water. For instance, 50 per cent of respondents ranked desludging the DWWTS as a top three priority among the nine listed items. However, of these respondents, 15 per cent report not emptying their DWWTS in the previous 5 years. What this latter statistic suggests is that respondents may have answered this question in a socially desirable manner (i.e., elevating spending priority on DWWTS maintenance and well water testing as the survey was focused on these topics), as the question itself occurs towards the end of the survey after the questions on DWWTS maintenance and well water testing. 3.5 Water testing and DWWTS maintenance: Multinominal analysis Earlier we reported data on laboratory testing of private well water (Table 3.2) and DWWTS maintenance frequency (Table 3.5), as well as the motivations behind households’ testing and maintenance records (Table 3.2 & Table 3.6). In this sub-section we explore whether there are any additional factors associated with a higher likelihood of either laboratory testing of well water or DWWTS maintenance, including whether the Health Belief Model has relevance. The proposed analytical approach is to estimate the likelihood of either laboratory testing or DWWTS desludging as a function of various household factors, such as education levels, age, income and household occupancy. Additionally, we include variables capturing attitudes relevant to the Health Belief Model, as well as the variables discussed earlier. Modelling results are presented as odds ratios, showing the impact of a variable (e.g., vulnerable household occupants from a health perspective) on testing or 13 Figure 3.1: Households’ priority for social policy issues 15 30 45 60 75 Percent .Higher priority Lower priority Housing 15 30 45 60 75 Percent .Higher priority Lower priority Health 15 30 45 60 75 Percent .Higher priority Lower priority Cost of living 15 30 45 60 75 Percent .Higher priority Lower priority Traffic/Congestion 15 30 45 60 75 Percent .Higher priority Lower priority Immigration 15 30 45 60 75 Percent .Higher priority Lower priority Litter maintenance, versus a baseline (e.g., no vulnerable occupants). Estimation results are reported in Table 3.13, which includes only variables with the highest statistical relevance. The full regression model results are reported in an appendix. The odds ratio estimates are a measure of the association between an exposure and an outcome. In the context of the results in Table 3.13, they represent the odds that either well water testing or DWWTS desludging will occur given the presence or exposure of variables describing household characteristics or beliefs, compared to the odds of the outcome occurring in the absence of that exposure. We start with the well water testing results. Households that possess a water softener are 2.13 times as likely as households without a water softener to have tested their well water in the prior five years. An odds ratio of one would indicate no statistical difference between households with or without a water softener. The p-value relates to a two-tailed test of the hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to one. Water softeners do not provide any treatment that improves the safety of drinking water, especially with respect to microbial contamination. Ultraviolet light treatment is normally effective against viruses, bacteria and protozoa, though microorganisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia can be resilient to some ultraviolet light treatment systems. Households with ultraviolet light treatment systems are almost 3.7 times more likely to have had their well water tested in the prior 5 years than households without ultraviolet 14 the overall number of inspections is relatively low. At national scale, the equivalent annual inspection rate is approximately 1 in 460 properties, which should be substantially improved if enforcement is to have a deterrent effect. Additionally, if maintenance and desludging records were integrated into the Protect Our Water system, it would provide better data to assist enforcement activity. 4.3 Septic tank grant scheme There are currently three separate grant schemes to support households with remediation costs of a malfunctioning DWWTS. General awareness of the grant schemes lies at 31 per cent of respondents, which given the nature of the grant and the relatively low number of recipients (e.g., approx. 200 in 2022) is comparatively strong. However, households’ capacity to distinguish between grant schemes is relatively low, with most unaware of the schemes specifically for Prioritised Area for Action or High-Status Objective Catchment Areas. Even if a large majority of households expressed no awareness of the remediation grant scheme, there is almost universal willingness to consider applying for grant aid in the event remediation works are required. Among households that had applied for a grant, their experience of the application process was generally positive. What was notable in the qualitative feedback from some respondents is their appreciation of council staff’s guidance and support in navigating the remediation works, which for many households would be administratively and technically challenging. Where feedback is negative, it is generally related to grant ineligibility criteria. In several instances, respondents attest to efforts to improve their inadequate DWWTS yet being ineligible for grant support due to administrative criteria.5If DWWTS outflows represent a risk to water quality, consideration should be given to minimising the number of barriers facing households attempting to remediate their systems. Demand for the grant scheme is relatively low, with approximately 200 grants processed in 2022. With the largely positive feedback from grant applicants, the reason for the low grant uptake levels must fall elsewhere. It is likely that most grant applications are subsequent to a DWWTS inspection; i.e., enforcement activity is driving remediation activity. Although councils may initiate inspections for other reasons, the current scale of the National Inspection Programme is unlikely to generate advisory notices substantially beyond the current scale of grant applications.6 References Devitt, C., O’Neill, E., & Waldron, R. (2016). Drivers and barriers among householders to managing domestic wastewater treatment systems in the Republic of Ireland; implications for risk prevention 5The grant scheme rules have recently been changed to remove a pre-2013 registration requirement. 6In 2022 of the 1,143 DWWTS inspections under the National Inspection Plan approximately half failed, of which 30 per cent were not maintained and 23 per cent were not desludged (EPA,2023), which means that the balance of those failing potentially fall within the criteria of the grant schemes. 21 behaviour. Journal of Hydrology,535, 534–546. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016 .02.015) EPA. (2021). National Inspection Plan for Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems 2022–2026. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford. (https://www.epa.ie/publications/compliance- -enforcement/waste-water/2022-2026-NIP---Final.pdf) EPA. (2023). Domestic Waste Water Treatment System (DWWTS) Inspections 2022. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford. (https://www.epa.ie/publications/compliance--enforcement/ waste-water/2022-NIP-Report---Final.pdf) Hynds, P. D., Misstear, B. D., & Gill, L. W. (2012). Development of a microbial contamination susceptibility model for private domestic groundwater sources. Water Resources Research,48(12). (https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012492) Naughton, O., & Hynds, P. (2014). Public awareness, behaviours and attitudes towards domestic wastewater treatment systems in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Hydrology,518, 108–119. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.049) O’Boyle, S., Trodd, W., Bradley, C., Tierney, D., Wilkes, R., Longphuirt, S. N., . . . Gurrie, M. (2019). Water quality in Ireland 2013–2018. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford. (https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring--assessment/freshwater- -marine/Water-Quality-in-Ireland-2013-2018-(web).pdf) RBMP. (2022). Draft river basin management plan for ireland 2022-2027. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. (https://assets.gov.ie/199144/7f9320da-ff2e-4a7d-b238 -2e179e3bd98a.pdf) Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328–335. (https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403) Withers, P. J., Jordan, P., May, L., Jarvie, H. P., & Deal, N. E. (2014). Do septic tank systems pose a hidden threat to water quality? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,12(2), 123–130. (https:// doi.org/10.1890/130131) 22 Appendix I Verbatim responses to the following question to household that applied for a septic tank remediation grant: “Could you describe in a few words your experience with the grant application process? We’d like to hear your views on whether you found the application process easy or not, the eligibility criteria, the application forms and paperwork, etc., both the positives and the negatives.” 1980 as part of building house & laborious. 25 years ago but cannot recollect any problems Application was submitted and I had no problem. My septic tank supplier was invaluable in helping me fill out application Easy enough to apply, criteria too strict as previous owner may not have registered in time to receive grant. Excellent and easy to apply for. Found the whole system very very expensive. The grant didn’t cover 85%. Not even close. So much expense even before we got to apply for grant. Was mostly un necessary and new system is ridiculously evasive percolation area takes up our whole garden. Ridiculous Got grant for percolation but it wasn’t enough money to cover job. It should be increased by at least 2 thousand. Some contactors wanted 12k. Had to wait a year to get the money as the budget was gone for 2022. Grant application was easy and efficient Grant application was straight forward. The inspector was very helpful and recommended several installers for the system installation. The new treatment sysyem was installed as per regulations by a recommended installer, inspected on completion and operating trouble-free to date. Overall a very positive experience. Grant process was fine. It would have been helpful to have been advised that prior to engaging a contractor, I would be responsible for ensuring the contractor had an up to date tax clearance certificate. This has resulted in an inordinate delay with the grant being paid over which i am still waiting for. Grant process was very good. Very important, co co should recommend a list of approved contractors for customer to choose from as i firmly believe that there are a lot of cowboys out there. Had to replace old septic tank to Biocycle treatment one all paperwork completed by installers and eventually obtained grant with not too much issues Happy Have no complaints on any issue . I don’t recall any particular problems. 23 I found it very stressful as you had to get quotations from different well drillers and it took a long time to have it finalised I found the whole process very easy. Once the information that was asked was give there was absolutely no issues. It was actually excellent I installed a new bathroom in my home and extension which needed planning permission. I received retention in the normal way which necessitated the upgrade ie. replace existing septic tank . I installed a new septic tank and percolation area at a cost of e10,000. I applied for a grant to the local authority – Meath and provided all the necessary supporting documentation required. My application was refused and when I enquired why, I was told because I did not fail the septic tank test which was never carried out. I missed out house was built in 2011 and tank wasn’t registered till 4-5 years ago I was served with an Improvement notice in 2005 by Meath County Council. I was given two weeks to rectify the problem. While the house and associated septic tank was built in 1969 by Meath County Council, they refused to entertain an application for grant assistance. The installation of a replacement treatment system c/w percolation system cost me in the region of e10,500. Meath County Council refused to communicate with me with respect to a grant application. The outcome was obviously very negitive. I presume there was no grant available? Initially efficient. Process following completion and settlement of award onerous, in efficient and effectively obstructive requiring perseverance to see through. It’s a while ago so don’t remember details. It doesn’t stick out as particularly painful so must have been okay. It’s okay but it covered very little of the total cost–about a third, I think. And a third of the grant was spent on water testing necessary to claim the grant. It’s a long time ago when we put in our system It’s very good but it’s still only a septic tank which is very rudimentary treatment. It leaves sewerage treatment in the hands of homeowners. That’s wrong. What’s really needed is for the Govt. and Irish Water to take on their responsibilities for providing proper sewerage treatment that complies with the Europen Directives. Gweedore in Co. Donegal is currently being provided with an innovative sewerage treatment plant. The experience there should be used to start an annual programme, ridding the Island of septic tanks. My application for grant was declined as the septic tank was not registered in time. I acquired the house after the registration dead line date. The septic tank is very old and needs to be replaced but I can not do so without grant funding. No major problems 24 No problems Ok Positive experience once we clarified correct address. Money was released once works were inspected Process is good. Approved quickly but waiting a bit too long for the grant. Process very straight forward with LA Quick and efficient Simple So long since I can’t remember , but it was installed as per council instructions 50 years ago Straight forward although tendering well digging contractors are very selective in how they present their estimate quotes so the estimates are very close to max value of the grant values. Upon completion of well digging, all the extras appear with the homeowner bearing a large extra cost above the grant value. Straightforward The application process took about 5 months which involved some paperwork, emails and calls to the Water Services Division. All officers were very helpful and advised me of what I needed to do. It was all relatively straightforward. As the water quality was so poor, I think this fulfilled the eligibility criteria. I had the water tested and was told the issues with it. Had it tested again after the treatment system was installed to show it was now fit to drink. The application wasn’t difficult and I can’t say there were any negatives during the process :) The grant application process is easy enough. Supporting documentation was provided by the Site Suitability Assessor and Works Contractor. Engagement with the County Council Inspector was very positive, helpful and supportive. A voluntary inspection regime and increased level of grant aid is advised. The person I dealt with from Meath County Council was very sympathetic to my situation and was very accessible when I asked for advice or guidance. His professional approach made the process a lot easier than it might have been. The process is not very clear as on the application forms some of the questions asked were a bit confusing. Also no where on the form was I asked for my bank details or informed as to when I will be repaid for my work done as I had to pay for it when the work was carried out. Also I don’t have contact details for someone to update me on my repayment date? The process was very straight forward... following inspection we got and his crew who did the job... My son-in-law and my daughter landscaped the area and sowed a new lawn... now every thing is good & ’s people inspect it annually Took a few weeks as water had to be sent to the lab twice but overall it was worth it 25 Very disappointing. My septic tank was very clearly not fit for purpose. It was inspected by the drain company and explained my septic tank was basically just a hole in the ground. When I asked for the council to inspect for grant purposes they refused citing it was not dangerous/unfit for purpose, yet it was less than 5m from a stream and as above stated not even a proper septic tank. Had to replace it fully at my own cost Very simple and straightforward and cant remember as real issue, albeit it is over 10 years ago now We are both old age pensioners’. We were delighted to meet, of Meath Co Council. immediately put our minds and explained what type would suit us best. We installed the recommended system and have not had a problem since. It has been examined and passed its test since instillation. We were fearful in contacting the Council originally We have just completed the work and have yet to apply for the grant. We are awaiting the receipt from the installer before we can proceed. We installed an upgrade in 2010. This was provided by the local authority as part of CPO of part of our site for road development. We needed a new system and wanted to be proactive befire pollution occurred. asked for assistance but even on appeal were refused as we had not been Inspected. Not a fair process at all. straightforward 26 Appendix II Table II.1: Logistic regression: odds ratios estimates for well water testing & DWWTS desludging Well water testing DWWTS desludging Odds ratio Std. error pvalue* Odds ratio Std. error pvalue* Drinking water treatment (ref: treatment not used/installed) Water softener 2.13 0.39 0.00 1.41 0.25 0.10 Iron & manganese removal 4.85 1.12 0.00 0.78 0.20 0.26 Ultraviolet light 3.68 0.99 0.01 0.52 0.15 0.00 pH balancing units 1.21 0.81 0.80 6.27 6.64 0.43 Sulphur removal 1.13 0.46 0.78 0.53 0.22 0.04 Reverse osmosis 0.74 0.20 0.19 0.84 0.23 0.48 Sediment filter 1.80 0.46 0.08 1.11 0.28 0.70 Carbon filter 0.61 0.17 0.02 2.01 0.52 0.05 Jug filter 0.27 0.30 0.02 1.69 1.07 0.52 Income (Ref: <e2,000/month) e2-3,000 1.45 0.50 0.38 1.33 0.37 0.38 e3-4,000 1.74 0.63 0.24 0.82 0.23 0.44 e4-5,000 1.12 0.44 0.79 1.08 0.33 0.81 e5-6,000 1.53 0.62 0.39 1.76 0.61 0.21 e6,000+ 1.25 0.50 0.62 0.90 0.29 0.74 Prefer not say 1.28 0.50 0.57 1.26 0.39 0.51 Overall financial status (ref: “Struggling to make ends meet”) “Just about coping” 0.72 0.26 0.27 1.39 0.44 0.37 “Living comfortably” 0.78 0.30 0.46 1.08 0.35 0.81 Any household occupants with education level (ref: no occupants with education level) Primary 1.37 0.58 0.53 1.25 0.44 0.57 Secondary 1.02 0.27 0.95 1.48 0.35 0.17 Undergraduate 1.21 0.29 0.47 0.99 0.21 0.94 Post-graduate 1.30 0.33 0.37 1.20 0.27 0.46 Any household occupants in age category (ref: no household occupants in category) 18–29 1.10 0.43 0.81 0.77 0.29 0.43 30–49 0.87 0.26 0.61 0.83 0.22 0.42 50–70 1.06 0.30 0.84 1.02 0.24 0.92 70+ 0.88 0.28 0.68 0.46 0.12 0.00 Household members vulnerable from health perspective Yes 1.29 0.25 0.26 0.94 0.16 0.71 27 Table II.1: continued from previous page Perception of health consequences of sub-standard drinking water or malfunctioning DDWTS (ref: Mild) Moderate 0.84 0.18 0.35 1.21 0.21 0.31 Severe 0.88 0.19 0.53 1.17 0.22 0.42 Perception of health consequences of sub-standard drinking water or malfunctioning DDWTS (ref: Mild) Moderate 0.84 0.18 0.35 1.21 0.21 0.31 Severe 0.88 0.19 0.53 1.17 0.22 0.42 Awareness of environmental impacts associated with malfunctioning DWWTS (ref: not aware) Ponding in lawn - increasing health risk 0.71 0.17 0.08 0.91 0.19 0.64 Odours impacting garden use 0.63 0.16 0.02 0.99 0.22 0.97 Polluting groundwater - impacting well water 1.31 0.37 0.41 1.03 0.24 0.90 Polluting surface waters - impacting wildlife & habitats 0.90 0.24 0.66 0.98 0.23 0.93 “Unlikely to have any substantial impact” 0.66 0.21 0.11 0.68 0.18 0.07 Number of household occupants 1.05 0.08 0.50 1.17 0.08 0.03 Items ranked among top-3 spending priorities (ref: not ranked in top-3) Heating system maintenance 0.69 0.14 0.02 0.78 0.14 0.12 Home re-decoration 1.09 0.27 0.74 0.63 0.12 0.00 Desludge DWWTS 0.75 0.14 0.07 1.90 0.33 0.01 Family holiday 0.82 0.19 0.36 0.92 0.19 0.66 Test well water 1.97 0.41 0.02 0.63 0.13 0.00 Replace household items (e.g., TV, etc.) 1.03 0.30 0.92 0.95 0.21 0.82 Install treatment on well water 1.74 0.36 0.04 0.75 0.16 0.10 Upgrade kitchen or bathroom 0.62 0.19 0.04 0.60 0.13 0.00 Car service 1.06 0.21 0.79 0.71 0.12 0.01 28 Appendix III 29 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 1/26 Drinking water & Wastewater treatment The purpose of this survey is to collect your views and experiences related to drinking water and domes c wastewater treatment systems (septic tanks), as well as public health and the environment. The Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI) is undertaking this survey and the information collected will underpin their research related to Ireland’s water resources. The ESRI’s research is funded by Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (DHLGH). The ESRI does not hold your contact information. The invitation to participate in this survey was issued by your local authority, as the registered owner of a domes c wastewater treatment system. Survey responses are anonymous plus any data you provide in the survey will only be used for research purposes by the ESRI and will not be shared with any other organisation. Read on the ESRI's website (https://www.esri.ie/privacy-policy)how ESRI manages and protects data collected for research purposes. Please contact John Curtis (john.curti[email protected] (mailto:john.curti[email protected]?subject=ASSAP%20farmer%20survey)) if you would like further information about the survey or research. The survey should take about 6-10 minutes to complete. Thanks for your me and input. There are 40 questions in this survey. Your drinking water supply 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 8/26 You registered a domesc wastewater treatment system with “Protect Our Water”, possibly as much as 10 years or so ago. What type of domesc wastewater treatment do you currently use?  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Septic tank Wastewater treatment plant (usually comprises treatment by aeration or biological media) Public sewer Don't Know Other Where does your septic tank/wastewater treatment system discharge to? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Septic tank' or 'Wastewater treatment plant (usually comprises treatment by aeration or biological media)' at question ' [W1]' (You registered a domestic wastewater treatment system with “Protect Our Water”, possibly as much as 10 years or so ago. What type of domestic wastewater treatment do you currently use? )  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Percolation area Soak pit Surface water/drain Don't know 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 9/26 Sludge must be removed from all sepc tanks and domesc wastewater treatment systems to ensure that they work properly. The recommended frequency of desludging depends on tank size and household occupancy. How many mes over the past 5 years have you had your tank emped? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: ((W1.NAOK (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1170/qid/35823) == "A1") or (W1.NAOK (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1170/qid/35823) == "A2") or (W1.NAOK (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1170/qid/35823) == "A3") or (W1.NAOK (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1170/qid/35823) == "A4"))  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Not emptied 1 2 3 4 5 Don't Know 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 10/26 As well as emptying your tank, how many mes over the past 5 years have you had your wastewater treatment plant serviced? (e.g., for filter replacement, etc Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: ((W1.NAOK (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1170/qid/35823) == "A3") or (W1.NAOK (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1170/qid/35823) == "A4"))  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Not serviced 1 2 3 4 5 Don't Know 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 11/26 What are the primary reasons that you had your sepc tank/wastewater treatment system emped within the past 5 years? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was '1' or '2' or '3' or '4' or '5' or 'Don't Know' at question ' [W2]' (Sludge must be removed from all septic tanks and domestic wastewater treatment systems to ensure that they work properly. The recommended frequency of desludging depends on tank size and household occupancy. How many times over the past 5 years have you had your tank emptied? )  Check all that apply Please choose all that apply: Understand that emptying it ensures it continues to function properly To protect groundwater and drinking water supplies Was advised to have it emptied regularly Other: What are the primary reasons that you did not have your sepc tank/wastewater treatment system emped within the past 5 years? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Not emptied' at question ' [W2]' (Sludge must be removed from all septic tanks and domestic wastewater treatment systems to ensure that they work properly. The recommended frequency of desludging depends on tank size and household occupancy. How many times over the past 5 years have you had your tank emptied? )  Check all that apply Please choose all that apply: Emptying isn't necessary, it’s working fine Didn’t know I had to empty it It’s not a priority for me Don’t want to spend my money on that Other: 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 12/26 Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? Please choose the appropriate response for each item: Never On occasion On regular basis Slow draining toilets, sinks or drains The smell of sewage in your garden Overflow of wastewater into your garden Water regularly lying in the garden near wastewater system Greyish slime growth in nearby drains Excessive plant growth near wastewater system 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 13/26 Given that you've had some issues with your septic tank/wastewater system have you acted to solve the problems? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: -------- Scenario 1 -------- Answer was 'On occasion' or 'On regular basis' at question ' [W6]' (Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? (Slow draining toilets, sinks or drains )) -------- or Scenario 2 -------- Answer was 'On regular basis' or 'On occasion' at question ' [W6]' (Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? (The smell of sewage in your garden)) -------- or Scenario 3 -------- Answer was 'On regular basis' or 'On occasion' at question ' [W6]' (Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? (Overflow of wastewater into your garden)) -------- or Scenario 4 -------- Answer was 'On occasion' or 'On regular basis' at question ' [W6]' (Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? (Water regularly lying in the garden near wastewater system)) -------- or Scenario 5 -------- Answer was 'On occasion' or 'On regular basis' at question ' [W6]' (Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? (Greyish slime growth in nearby drains)) -------- or Scenario 6 -------- Answer was 'On occasion' or 'On regular basis' at question ' [W6]' (Have you experienced any of the following issues with your wastewater system over the past five years? (Excessive plant growth near wastewater system))  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Yes No 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 14/26 What are the primary reasons why you haven't resolved the issues with your septic tank/wastewater treatment system? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'No' at question ' [W7]' (Given that you've had some issues with your septic tank/wastewater system have you acted to solve the problems? )  Check all that apply Please choose all that apply: The problem isn't that severe Too much hassle to organise getting it fixed Don't know what to do Investigated fixing problem but it but was too expensive Other spending priorities Other: Septic tank inspections & remediation grants In this section we'd like to ask you a few questions about your septic tank/wastewater treatment system Over the past five years has your wastewater treatment system been inspected by your local authority?  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Yes No Don't Know 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 15/26 Following the local authority inspecon what were the remedial measures, if any, recommended for your wastewater treatment system to bring it back to proper working order? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: (S1 (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1171/qid/35839) == "A1")  Check all that apply Please choose all that apply: Passed inspection, no remediation actions Cease existing discharge of effluent (e.g., to surface waters, onto the surface) Repair mechanical/structural parts Desludge the tank or treatment system Divert roof water or yard water to separate soakaway Other: 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 16/26 What is the status of the remedial acons recommended by the local authority inspector? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question ' [S1]' (Over the past five years has your wastewater treatment system been inspected by your local authority? ) and Answer was NOT 'Passed inspection, no remediation actions' at question ' [S2]' (Following the local authority inspection what were the remedial measures, if any, recommended for your wastewater treatment system to bring it back to proper working order? ) Please choose the appropriate response for each item: Completed Not yet completed {S2_SQ002.shown} {S2_SQ003.shown} {S2_SQ004.shown} {S2_SQ005.shown} {S2_other} 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 17/26 What is the primary reason that you haven’t been able to implement the remedial acons on your wastewater treatment system? Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: (S3_SQ001 (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1171/qid/35841) == "A2") OR (S3_SQ003 (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1171/qid/35841) == "A2") OR (S3_SQ002 (/questionAdministration/view/surveyid/895519/gid/1171/qid/35841) == "A2")  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: I’ve yet to find a suitable contractor It’s not a priority for me I don’t believe the recommendations are necessary I can’t afford to have the work completed Other At present, where eligible, grant aid is available up to 85% of the approved cost of the septic tank/wastewater treatment remediation works subject to a maximum of €5,000. In the event your wastewater treatment system needed remediation works, would you seek to avail of the government grant knowing that you would still have to pay a share of the costs?  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Yes No Possibly Septic tank/wastewater treatment system 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 24/26 How many people live in your home (i.e., sleep there most nights)?  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Among the adults within the household that are primary decision makers (i.e., bill-payers), what is the highest level of educaon or training successfully completed?  Check all that apply Please choose all that apply: Primary School Secondary school Undergraduate degree / Diploma / Apprenticeship Post-graduate degree 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 25/26 Among the adults living within your household that are primary decision makers (i.e., bill-payers), in what age categories are they?  Check all that apply Please choose all that apply: 18-29 30-49 50-70 70+ What is the approximate level of the take-home pay within your household? We'd like to assure you once again that all information you give is entirely confidential.  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Less than €1999 per month €2000 - €2999 per month €3000 - €3999 per month €4000 - €4999 per month €5000 - €5999 per month Greater than or equal to €6000 per month Prefer not to say This means income, after tax and PRSI, of ALL MEMBERS of the household including wages, social welfare, child benefit, rents, interest, pensions etc. 10/31/23, 3:19 PM LimeService - Your online survey service - Drinking water & Wastewater treatment 26/26 Finally, in terms of your household income, how would you rate your financial status?  Choose one of the following answers Please choose only one of the following: Struggling to make ends meet Just about coping Living comfortably Your response has been saved. Thanks for participating. Data collected in the survey will be held by ESRI and will be used for research purposes only. For any queries you can contact John Curtis ([email protected]) Submit your survey. Thank you for completing this survey. Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 Telephone +353 1 863 2000 Email [email protected] Web www.esri.ie Twitter @ESRIDublin