Thoughts on the Water Testing

This is the source data for the results in the previous post. It states "The test results are not indicative of drainage water contamination" and "The sample results are not indicative of ground water or rain water due to the presence of Trihalomethanes".
I conclude that means it is Mains water. 

This was dated 2nd November 2016.

By mid 2017 I recollect much confusion with the investigation of the water. I did find the title deeds for the cemetery and there were signs of a land drain, or a culvert, on that deed plan. That prompted some digging and the cut away that is evident on the slope now. Water was found but no culvert or drain.

I began to lose the will by mid 2017 when no real plan or direction for finding and managing the water source was apparent, and the spurious smelly sample that was thought to indicate drainage water diverted attention. (No sampling plan, no protocol, no agreement, just a sample taken by a council officer and someone from SW from the outlet of the blue lay flat pipe that dangles into the ground. Hmmmm) . 2 days after the smelly sample was reported I took a syringe and needle and withdrew a crystal clear sample of water from the mid section of the lay flat pipe. 

The water runs on the hill side intermittently, where the second land slip took place, quite a distance from our home. It doesn't affect us, but I did try my best to help find the source. I felt for the council officer left in charge of this project, as he said, he is a horticulturist.

Now that the news has once more appeared that the steps may open, it reminds me of where I was in mid 2017 with this issue. Walk away from it and let it sort itself out was my thought at the time. 

I was pleased though when the community council suggested a Participation project and thought to myself that when everyone is as up to speed as I am with this water testing, then perhaps we can have some useful discussion. This has still to happen but the first meeting is planned for March. 

I don't think local people are up to speed yet, including the people who live in and around Ironmills. They hope that the steps may re open soon. Money has gone into bank stabilisation but there's no sign of works to fix new steps. Trouble is people don't have all the information, and nor do I. I was keen for an information board and I did at one time put up some information of my own onto a fence, for folks to read if they were interested. 

Let me summarise and point out a couple of bits of info that I gleaned from the test results in mid 2017 that perhaps will help folks realise why I will continue to press for an alternative access route and new bridge over the river. 

1. The source water is Mains water but no local water leaks were found. Sound tests were done twice by Scottish Water and no household has found any water leaks. I don't think there are any leaks at the tennis courts either. None of us has water pressure problems and the Mains supply pipes in Cemetery Road were very recently upgraded.

2. The testing in 2016 was signed by Robert C Beattie of the Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services at 4 Marine Esplanade, Edinburgh. Is that a water test lab? It must be I guess. I just don't know why it comes under bereavement services. 

3. The testing included a test for surfactants and they found 118 ppb (micro g per litre) of Lauryl Sulphate (LS). I remember looking into to this at the time. LS is found in shampoo and toothpaste, as well as industrial cleaning materials. It doesn't really fit with the source being Mains water. How can there be surfactant in Mains water? Why did they test for surfactant?

4. The water on the bank must be picking up Lauryl Sulphate from somewhere. Maybe a leak from the septic tank in the vicinity of the water? But the septic tank was 100% checked out for integrity so it can't be that. Also there would be tomatoes and nettles growing if the septic tank leaked (tomato seeds don't digest in the gut and the nitrogen causes nettles to flourish). The things you learn.

5. Where could LS come from? Well it is also used in embalming fluid. 

I have no idea if the graves that sit behind this water leak are providing a contamination to the water on the bank. I don't know how long it takes a cadaver to break down. It's not a nice thought. It's not something to research on the internet I think.

Bottom line though. The test results came from Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services and if the graves are a concern for contamination, what else might be in that water other than lauryl sulphate- that hasn't been tested for?

Water on Ironmills Slope

Midlothian Council and The Advertiser have recently reported on the continued closure of Ironmills Steps.

It's not a great bit of news really, it is basically inconclusive as to whether or not works might start soon to re instate the access with new steps on the land slipped slope.
It's a risk. 

Why is that?

Because despite expensive repair works there's still water running on the slope.

Why is that?

Because the water source can't be found.

Why is that?

Because the councils' investigation was cut short last year.

Why is that?

Because Scottish Water were initially helping out but a sample indicating the water might be drainage water led them to walk away from the problem.

Why is that?

Because SW would have been charged to recompense the council for the land slip costs had it been proven that the water was Mains water. The sight of a cruddy smelly sample led everyone to believe the source was a drain. Thing is - I can't replicate that sample and neither can the council....

So that's it. 5 Why's to get to root cause for the works to the steps not being done this year. Sad, isn't it.

The initial test results of the water on the bank did indicate it was Mains water. Due to the presence of Tri Halomethanes, a reaction between chlorine and organic matter indicating that the source water was chlorinated. Chlorine on its' own being unstable and breaks down, therefore can't be used as an indicator.

I have the data here.

Great shame that the testing stopped after this. Article in the Advertiser states "despite exhaustive tests it is still not clear.....". In my old laboratory this would never have been described as exhaustive tests. 

Trouble is it is all now too late to do anything with Scottish Water. Up side is that all the supply pipes in Cemetery Road were upgraded around 3 years ago, and all testing for any leakages has drawn a blank. So unless there is some other supply pipe that none of us know about, it's pretty difficult to find the source of this water.

It's interesting (well it is to me) to know why the supply pipes were upgraded 3 years ago. Shortly after the local tennis club installed a sprinkler system there was a reduction in water pressure. SW put a monitor on our supply and found it was dangerously low at times, basically in time with the sprinkler tank filling up. This created the need to upgrade the pipes to all in Cemetery Road. That was interesting for about 6 months whilst SW tried to claim it was a private supply. Imagine the costs (to all - including the tennis club). Fortunately we were able to prove SW had serviced the supplies here with hard evidence, and they changed their mind about it being a private supply. 

It's also interesting to know that approval of the planning application for the sprinkler system was completed before SW replied to their consultation. There should have been an impact assessment before approval according to their post decision correspondence. But that would have put the target date for planning approval out of compliance. So the planning officer approved w/o the SW consultation. Lucky tennis club.

Back to the steps. What would you do if you were the council.Take the risk whilst the water runs? 

I wouldn't. Hence it is my best advice that another route and new bridge is the only answer. That would be great if it is possible. We will be left with all the problems on the bank adjacent to us, but perhaps Mother Nature will sort it out. I really can't see any alternative given the amount of money that has already poured into stabilising the bank and the continued need for funds to make sure the land doesn't slip any farther. 

My e mail correspondence from 2017 re the water testing for background reading. It was particularly amusing to note that the councils' correspondence on this issue was titled Dalkeith Water Tower.

Why don't you take a shot at the 5 why's for this - Why did MC title the correspondence Dalkeith Water Tower?

Good, isn't it. You don't really need to do it 5 times for this one :-)