Jump to content

Thames - Water Points. Changes to drinking and bulk water supply points.


Paringa

Featured Posts

9 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

Buckets take out the uncertainty in life.

 

 

I'm going to get that on a t-shirt. As a philosophy it is simple and concise.

 

 

BACCHUS (gazing dreamily skyward)  Can there be anything up there? Can this aching void in our souls be a yearning to find a higher meaning? As a species do we need... a god?

MAGNETMAN: Nay, lad. It's buckets. We need more buckets.

 

 

 

Edited by Bacchus
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/05/2021 at 11:42, Thames Bhaji said:

I just had a call from someone at the Environment Agency in response to an email I sent querying all this. He was very helpful. 
 

While the regulations have been in place for donkey’s years, the thing that changed very recently was the categorisation of the water in the Thames. How careful you need to be depends on how ‘bad’ the water that could backflow is, from 1 (perfectly fine) to 5 (as bad as it gets, chemical waste etc).  The Thames has always been at 3, but after recent monitoring, probably coinciding with the sewage outflow incidents, it has been changed to 5. 
 

 

 

Only just seen this @Thames Bhaji

 

So the EA - an organisation whose prime objective should be to keep the water clean (actually there's a lot of other stuff they're crap at, like managing navigation etc. but for the purpose of this thread, let's concentrate on the "Environment" part) informed you that they are making this much disapproved move and increasing the need for plastic hose ten-thousand fold because they have failed to do their job?

 

I didn't think my respect for the EA could sink any lower, but this is amazing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bacchus said:

 

Only just seen this @Thames Bhaji

 

So the EA - an organisation whose prime objective should be to keep the water clean (actually there's a lot of other stuff they're crap at, like managing navigation etc. but for the purpose of this thread, let's concentrate on the "Environment" part) informed you that they are making this much disapproved move and increasing the need for plastic hose ten-thousand fold because they have failed to do their job?

 

I didn't think my respect for the EA could sink any lower, but this is amazing.

 

 

 

From what I've read it's more a matter of interpretation, contaminants in the river water are irrelevant unless a hose is left permanently attached to the tap, thereby creating a risk of the other end lying in the water when unattended. That is the justification for removing the previous installation. With hoses being only fitted temporarily there is no risk of back flow at all so a double check valve, as required for category 3, would be perfectly adequate.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/08/2021 at 15:26, Steilsteven said:

From what I've read it's more a matter of interpretation, contaminants in the river water are irrelevant unless a hose is left permanently attached to the tap, thereby creating a risk of the other end lying in the water when unattended. That is the justification for removing the previous installation. With hoses being only fitted temporarily there is no risk of back flow at all so a double check valve, as required for category 3, would be perfectly adequate.

 

Keith

The Thames has two types of taps -

One is a hydrant witha a 1" bore pipe fixed (and could possibly become contaminated)

The other is a 'garden' type tap where   a hose pipe  could be  attached (as you do on the canals) - but which used to have a stern notice stating cans only, and was quite often ignored.

I suspect the pen pushers at EA Thames region made a decision to apply the new ruling to all of their kit to avoid losing their pension - when / if the ultimate fickle-finger-of-fate pointed at them.

More charitably - what woud you (sitting in an office, knowing little about what you customers actually do - but could be on a fizzer if you make a wrong decision and lose your pension as well....)

Edited by OldGoat
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a reader's letter and photo in the latest ( September 2021) "Waterways World" that includes a comment on the problems associated with the new taps: 1 3/4 hours to fill a 150 gallon tank, and wasted metered water (estimates say around 25%)  spraying everywhere in the process.  Evidently a half-inch hose was used with no bicycle tyre inner tube or whatever around the fitting as recommended by posters here. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

There is a reader's letter and photo in the latest ( September 2021) "Waterways World" that includes a comment on the problems associated with the new taps: 1 3/4 hours to fill a 150 gallon tank, and wasted metered water (estimates say around 25%)  spraying everywhere in the process.  Evidently a half-inch hose was used with no bicycle tyre inner tube or whatever around the fitting as recommended by posters here. 

 

 

 

 

I've been to Lechlade and now on way back to Monaco on the boat and have noticed occasional queueues for water and also at one point did see the water coming out of the side holes. 

 

Don't stop that often for water as my bulk supplies come from the cat 5 river via settling tank and filters but it's definitely a dodgy situation in terms of potential for micro conflicts between boaters. 

 

Not an expert on management but I would have thought on a waterway based on leisure and pleasure you would make some moves to minimise conflict between users. 

 

A manifold of taps seems sensible but at £50 a pop those arrowvalves things could get expensive. Needs some sort of roll pin system to make them awkward to take off. And 5 taps per outlet. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Thames Bhaji said:

…or, instead of a hose or bucket, carry a big funnel and have these on the side. Just make sure it’s properly in position before letting loose. 
 

image.jpeg.392c0096790bcf80148f5a5bc4ddc1e0.jpeg

I think that is basically one of the approved set ups

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think that is basically one of the approved set ups

 

I was about to say the same - if you read the legislation it shows illustrations of a very similar set up as being acceptable.

 

 

I'm getting bored posting this I've been posting this document details for about the last 10 years. - do the EA really need these fancy tap fittings ?

Having a cistern meets Cat5 requirements.

 

 

 

Screenshot (525).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I was about to say the same - if you read the legislation it shows illustrations of a very similar set up as being acceptable.

 

 

I'm getting bored posting this - do the EA really need these fancy tap fittings ?

 

 

 

Screenshot (525).png

This document suggests you only need the cat 5 vent units in taps within pumpout units Appendix 2

 https://www.stwater.co.uk/content/dam/stw/stw_buildinganddeveloping/industry-best-practic-for-marinewaterfacilities.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

This document suggests you only need the cat 5 vent units in taps within pumpout units Appendix 2

 https://www.stwater.co.uk/content/dam/stw/stw_buildinganddeveloping/industry-best-practic-for-marinewaterfacilities.pdf

 

 

It never cease to amaze me that these huge overstaffed organisations such as the EA & C&RT do not have someone responsible for keeping their eye on legislation and reading contracts that could affect their business. It could save them a lot of heartache and reacting when a bit of forethought could make things much smoother.

 

The legislation for this came into force in 2006, why has it taken 15 years to implement it - it is similar to C&RT and the Biffa / composting toilet fiasco, if someone had read the BIFFA T&Cs they'd have known and could have nipped it in the bud rather than recommending double bagging and using the bins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The legislation for this came into force in 2006, why has it taken 15 years to implement it

 

Because the Thames has only recently been classed at level 5?  It's all that raw sewage being released into the river by those who don't bag & bin it ) nasty water companies

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Because the Thames has only recently been classed at level 5?  It's all that raw sewage being released into the river by those who don't bag & bin it ) nasty water companies

 

 

Were they previously Cat 3 compliant ?

It seems to be a little more than 'recently' that they were downgraded. When were they downgraded ?

It seemed to take some time before implementing the Cat5  requirements after being downgraded.

Wasn't it 2011 that 230,000 cubic metres (230,000 tonnes) of raw sewage was released into the Thames, and something seems to have happened every year subsequently - particularly after heavy rain fall when the sewage treatment plants simply divert their sewage down the storm drains and into the Thames.

 

Having someone who has the responsibility to know 'these things' should have been in a position to immediately say now we need to do A, or B, or C

 

Maybe my business life of having a proactive management team has "spoiled me"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, OldGoat said:

The Thames has two types of taps -

One is a hydrant witha a 1" bore pipe fixed (and could possibly become contaminated)

The other is a 'garden' type tap where   a hose pipe  could be  attached (as you do on the canals) - but which used to have a stern notice stating cans only, and was quite often ignored.

I suspect the pen pushers at EA Thames region made a decision to apply the new ruling to all of their kit to avoid losing their pension - when / if the ultimate fickle-finger-of-fate pointed at them.

More charitably - what woud you (sitting in an office, knowing little about what you customers actually do - but could be on a fizzer if you make a wrong decision and lose your pension as well....)

Not any more it doesn't. There are just 1/2'' taps now. 

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Were they previously Cat 3 compliant ?

It seems to be a little more than 'recently' that they were downgraded. When were they downgraded ?

It seemed to take some time before implementing the Cat5  requirements after being downgraded.

Wasn't it 2011 that 230,000 cubic metres (230,000 tonnes) of raw sewage was released into the Thames, and something seems to have happened every year subsequently - particularly after heavy rain fall when the sewage treatment plants simply divert their sewage down the storm drains and into the Thames.

 

Having someone who has the responsibility to know 'these things' should have been in a position to immediately say now we need to do A, or B, or C

 

Maybe my business life of having a proactive management team has "spoiled me"

The category has nothing to do with the river water, it is about risk. As I said earlier, the old set up of permanently attached hoses presented a risk of the end of the hose being left lying either on the ground or in the river. Both these scenarios could lead to contamination should back flow occur for any reason e.g. if the water main was interrupted for repairs. 

Some interesting info here-

 

https://www.arrowvalves.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/pdfs/Water_Regs_Tutorial_2-HU_Taps.pdf

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

The category has nothing to do with the river water, it is about risk. As I said earlier, the old set up of permanently attached hoses presented a risk of the end of the hose being left lying either on the ground or in the river. Both these scenarios could lead to contamination should back flow occur for any reason e.g. if the water main was interrupted for repairs. 

Some interesting info here-

 

https://www.arrowvalves.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/pdfs/Water_Regs_Tutorial_2-HU_Taps.pdf

 

Keith

 

I was under the impression (which seems to be reinforced by your attached document) that the higher the risk level the higher the standard of protection, but that the water companies can require less that Cat5 protection if the risk is low.

 

Water Companies do however adopt a risk based approach to their enforcement of the Water Fittings Regulations and where a risk assessment indicates that the risks associated with an individual hose union tap are less than fluid category 5 they will accept alternative approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I was under the impression (which seems to be reinforced by your attached document) that the higher the risk level the higher the standard of protection, but that the water companies can require less that Cat5 protection if the risk is low.

 

Water Companies do however adopt a risk based approach to their enforcement of the Water Fittings Regulations and where a risk assessment indicates that the risks associated with an individual hose union tap are less than fluid category 5 they will accept alternative approaches.

Exactly. As all hoses are now only attached temporarily the risk is reduced, in my eyes at least.

The big question is, have the water companies insisted on the current set up or has EA just gone ahead on the assumption that what they've done will pass any inspection?

My guess is the latter.

 

Keith

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Because the Thames has only recently been classed at level 5?  It's all that raw sewage being released into the river by those who don't bag & bin it ) nasty water companies

 

No where can I find this classification only that the Thames is in amber on a red amber green rating, also calls for it to be cased ok for bathing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Exactly. As all hoses are now only attached temporarily the risk is reduced, in my eyes at least.

The big question is, have the water companies insisted on the current set up or has EA just gone ahead on the assumption that what they've done will pass any inspection?

My guess is the latter.

 

Keith

A slightly different story but a neighbour on the residential mooring where I keep one of my boats had his boat directly connected to the mains water supply. Straight through. Bad idea on principle but I guess it gives good pressure. 

 

CRT owned mooring on a CRT managed ditch. 

 

Anyway as the allocated land addresses are reversed compared to the physical mooring locations it was me who got the letter about it. 

 

It was from Thames water and it was serious including the possibility of criminal proceedings if the problem was not sorted out..

 

They do take municipal water supply seriously. Which is good because it is public elf we are talking about.

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It was from Thames water and it was serious including the possibility of criminal proceedings if the problem was not sorted out..

 

 

Having a boat permanently connected using a 'temporary' system (such as a hose) is illegal under the regs. 

A houseboat can be permanently connected but it must be done correctly, as per a house,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Having a boat permanently connected using a 'temporary' system (such as a hose) is illegal under the regs. 

A houseboat can be permanently connected but it must be done correctly, as per a house,

But still not a good idea. What happens if you get a leak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.