This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Septic tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Can we rename this article Septic Systems because Septic systems include septic tanks and septic drain fields. Septic Systems is a much broader and appropriate term. It looks like that was the original name. SoilMan2007 ( talk)
I just now saw the note at the top of this page. Sorry in the future I'll go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm new at this. If this is inappropriate to keep here, then feel free to delete. Regards, SoilMan2007 ( talk)
In no. 2, it would help to explain what is meant by "non-biodegradable hygiene products."
How long do septic tanks (systems) last? We are in the process of buying a 20 year old home with the existing septic tank, what questions or concerns should I have?
An conceptual image of how a septic tank separates effluent from sludge and scum would be very useful. I found many different digrams that all seem to be similar to the one at this link:
http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/branches/wastewater/maintain-septic-tank.htm The copyright link on that page is broken, though, so I'm unsure if we can directly use that image. This site shows a simpler one-stage tank, but their copyright is expressly reserved:
http://www.watershedcommittee.org/publications/fact_sheets/fact_sheet_4.htm I need to get me a decent drawing program so I can quit complaining about images and start making some. :( --
Mdwyer 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What does this paragraph add to the article? It seems like a promotion of the author's work, without need for it in the article.
TRL 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This section contains several incorrect statements, for example, nitrates as the main culprit in septic systems. Nitrates can only form under aerobic conditions, in a rather slow microbiological process. Septic systems as anaerobic systems produce mainly ammonia as the main nitrogen species. I have edited this section to reflect the main issues: uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, pollution of groundwater with ammonia and phosphate, leaching of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms into the groundwater. I also took out the ridiculous argument that the cost of wastewater treatment is detrimental to community development. PeterH (2006-07-10)
The statement that In most parts of Europe including the UK, planning permission is almost never granted for new septic tanks due to pollution concerns; instead, the only generally accepted off-mains domestic sewerage system is a cesspit, a fully enclosed system which must usually be emptied monthly at much higher expense
is not borne out by the facts. Even today many rural developments are served by approved septic tanks (even in Shropshire) and most planning authorities will strongly reist developments on cesspits. Exactly the opposite of what is stated here. Evidence is required if this statement is to be retained. Velela 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That would also make sense of the reported pollution status of lakes in North America- but it still says nothing about the survival or otherwise of pathogens in real septic tanks ! Velela 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur the contents as they stand now are very similar. I'm not an expert in the field to know whether there's a subtle distinction between the two. Google shows many more hits for "septic tank" than "septic system" thus I'm inclined to keep "septic tank" and make "septic system" a redirect. Samw 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called Septic System rather than septic tank. Septic systems include the tanks and drain fields. SoilMan2007 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the statement referring to dominance aerobic processes in waste treatment on a plant scale. It was misleading to the reader. Certainly most secondary treatment in these municiple wastewater treatment plants is aerobic, but most solids reduction processes is anaerobic digestion. These treatment plants require both water treatment and solids reduction. To be fair, a septic system also does both water treatment and solids reduction. Further it has both an anaerobic treatment stage and is intented to be matched with an aerobic stage in the septic drain field. -- Paleorthid 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have marked the following paragraph as requiring a reference since I have no evidence that this is true. I have also copied below an exchange of views that I and Paleorthid have had.
Can anyone justify this sentence. If not it will go. Velela 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As somebody saw fit to revert my comments on environmental issues, I've had to put a WP:POV tag on this section. As it stands, it provides a very one sided argument and ignores many of the positive aspects. For a reference, my edits are here: [1] 130.95.128.51 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful to describe alternatives to conventional septic systems. Biocycle is marketed as a greener alternative (see for example [2]). I am not an expert, but I gather that the combination of aerobic and anaerobic reactions improves the quality of the waste water. Can someone say whether these types of systems are genuine alternatives or just marketing hype? --RDS 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Septic tank → Septic system — Septic systems include the tanks and drain fields — Paleorthid ( talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Ultimately, I think there's plenty of material for least three articles: septic system, septic tank and septic drain field. Andrewa ( talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Velela left me the following comment in opposition to the move: -- Paleorthid ( talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If the septic tank is required by law to be replaced every 'x' years, why not do the following: construct a pit with concrete floor and walls (and appropriate drains etc so it cannot fill with water, install the plastic tank in the pit, and the seepage beds adjacent to it.
When all is installed and operational build a deck or other easily removable covering over the tank/pit.
Future changeovers can then be achieved with minimum disruption.
pardon me if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I've lived in two residences now, with septic tanks, an older house, which was built in the 60s, and our new house, built in 05-06...but I dont _think_ either of these houses had a septic tank lift pump alarm system. Or is it just something I missed? Lol. What's the purpose of it, where would/should it be located, etc...? -- 67.34.188.252 ( talk) 23:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
They're only used when you have to have a pump tank to move the effluent uphill from the septic tank to the drain field. The alarm sounds when/if the pump in the pump tank fails. 173.22.123.35 ( talk) 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Order does not matter, so don't use numbers. 174.3.111.148 ( talk) 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"The use of garbage disposers for disposal of waste food can cause a rapid overload of the system and early failure". Well, that seems perfectly logical to me. However, compare this opinion from "Country Plumbing" by Gerry Hartigan, pp 71-72 (Alan C. Hood & Company Inc, Chambersburg PA, 1984, ISBN 0-911469-02-8):
Every day I hear people say they have a garbage disposal unit, but don't use it. The excuses are endless. Rather than attempt to list them all, let me say there is no evidence to substantiate any reason for not using a garbage disposal. I have had the opportunity, over twenty-five years, to monitor many tanks, both with and without a grinder in use, and I can honestly say I think those tanks work better with the addition of ground garbage. This, of course, doesn't include the silverware my wife manages to feed ours. My advice is: if you have a kitchen pig, use it. If you don't have one, get one.
Hartigan discloses no interest in the makers of garburators; I have no connection with Hartigan but have found his book most helpful (septic tanks are poorly understood here in the UK). Moletrouser ( talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement that there is no "rule of thumb" for how often you should remove the sludge from the tank is misleading if not factually incorrect. Most building codes specify minimum tank and drainage bed size based upon the designed occupancy of the structures served by the system. The specifications are based on average use and include a specification for sludge removal frequency for systems in year-round operation - usually two years. It would be more helpful to include this information than pretend that no such guidelines exist. Every system has a designed capacity, and part of that design is the pump-out frequency in typical use. The rule of thumb is to follow the designed capacity guidelines - which for modern systems properly permitted, installed and inspected can be obtained from the local permitting body, or simply inferred from the building code on the assumption that the system has not been intentionally oversized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.142.83 ( talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC) --- Also, the single most common problem with septic tank users is not even mentioned: household laundry. Excessive use of washing machines can quickly exceed the hydraulic capacity of the tile or filter bed causing saturation of the soil and subsequent break-outs or surface pooling which indicate bed failure and, in raised-bed systems, permanent damage. It can also result in premature flushing of blackwater, which drainage/filter beds are not designed to handle. Finally, the fibres and other components in laundry effluent can quickly and permanently clog drainage pipes and media, resulting in system failure. Again, the rule of thumb is to find the designed hydraulic capacity of the system, and abide by this constraint. --- The next most common source of problems is under-use. An established system which lies idle for a period of months or years or is simply never exposed to the average volumes for which it was designed will be incapable of suddenly handling wastewater at its designed capacity. Here the rule of thumb is "use it or lose it."
I removed a string which referred users to a page: www.septictank.org in reference to "Biomat Failure" Not only did the linked site not contain information about Biomat failure, it was just a link to the site rather than a link to a page containing the information. It contained septic tank information, but did not contain the description or even term "Biomat Failure". In addition no citations were found and it added no true value to the article. It seemed to be a page to generate Ad Revenue. MediaRocker ( talk) 01:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been successful in the water and waste water treatment business for over twenty years.
I can tell you it is possible to extend the life of your existing septic tank treatment system, period.
Basically you only have two ways you can do it.
1. Reduce the loading to the septic tank system.
2. Improve the treatment capability of the septic tank treatment system.
Here are some ways of doing both safely and with very little work or cost on your part.
1. This one step alone can double the remaining life of your treatment system. Filter the discharge water from your washing machine. Use at least a 300 micron filter capable of capturing most of the non-biodegradable clothing fibers.(usually enough to carpet the living room of a three bedroom home each year). Avoid wasted rinse water cycles. After you have filtered it, not before or you will have a living room carpet, every year, wherever you put it. If you can get the wash or rinse water out of the septic system, then get it out. You can't drink it but its safe to use as toilet water, lawn watering, car washing, etc., and it doesn't stink and can easily be treated by small gravel or sand mound systems easily.
2. Stop drinking tap water. Running tap water for several seconds before drinking or using it can double the flow to be treated by your septic tank system everyday.
3. Reduce bathing water useage, not time bathing, please stay clean. Always use showers for bathing. Install a bypass valve or wand in your shower so you can turn it on and adjust only while you are actually in the stall. Use bathtubs sparingly and at half levels when necessary.
4. Adding air to the water as it comes in or goes out of system will increase biological activity and treatment up to 20 times, period. The trick is to not to disturb settling solids so they end up floating out of the tank and into the drain field. So only aerate minimally and at the very begining or very end after the water has left the septic tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodmom ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The function of a septic tank is to retain and accumulate the organic material contained in sewage waters. Is there an estimate as to what percentage of the organic pollutant can be extracted and removed from the sewer by the use and periodic cleanout of a properly maintained septic tank? WFPM ( talk) 00:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC) For example, if the sewage water production of a person is 100 gallons per day and 0.17 pounds per day of organic material, what will be the output of organic material periodic per day after the sewer water passes through the septic tank?
But if you systematically clean out the sludge from a septic tank, the rest of the system, like a pond or whatever has a lesser job of cleanup to carry out. And I'm trying to quantify the expected quality of the effluent water for further treatment purposes. We use a wastewater quality value of 200-300 mg/l for ordinary sewer water, and I suspect that a cleaned out septic tank system would have a lesser quality loading value for that, due to its inability to support the growth of bacteria. WFPM ( talk) 01:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
A sentences in the article used to read as
I changed this to:
The reason for the change is that there is no evidence provided 'most jurisdictions require [this] maintenance by law, yet often not enforced. I personally know of no such jurisdictions or requirements in countries such as UK, France, Greece or New Zealand.
The statement that :
Actually the statement was true. I am a professional engineer and designer of onsite wastewater treatment systems with over 40 years of experience in the field. The statement about well maintained systems lasting decades or even a lifetime is accurate. My personal home system is over 30 years old and in nearly as good condition as the day it was installed ( I do periodic inspections of the system myself). The non-decomposing materials are removed with periodic pumping of the septic tank. By pumping the tank, solids intrusion into the seepage field is kept to a minimum. I have never seen a system which was compromised in weeks and frankly dont understand how it could even be possible that quick. It takes at least a year, probably several years for solids to build up in a tank to the point where they would exit the tank and enter a seepage field. greybeard ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the current diagram is that it shows a cesspool, not a septic tank. The major difference between the two is that a septic tank has an outflow pipe (which typically goes to a drain field), whereas a cesspool relies on water seeping out through the walls. Any ambitious volunteers with MS Paint skills out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.157.197 ( talk) 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The regulation section is reads like it's 18 months ago, and suggestions of things that should've been implemented by January 2013.
Could someone who is actually familiar with the subject matter drag that up to date? Thanks! Reedy ( talk) 16:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I added information about the current regulations in Ireland including a link to the actual code of practise. Jknappe ( talk), 22 May 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Basic information about France added. Jknappe ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am planning to remove the "see also" link list at the bottom because this doesn't conform with Wikipedia article style. Such hyperlinks should rather be included in the article itself. EvM-Susana ( talk) 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - I have removed the see also links now. If someone wants to ensure all words are mentioned and hyperlinked in the text (if relevant), this is what they were:
|
EvM-Susana ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I moved the text that was visible in the external links section to here: "Note: this could use some improvement. The following links are general agency/department sites covering a whole gamut of related topics. They may very well prove to contain content related specifically to septic tanks, but which would take considerable additional effort to locate. Thus the reader is not provided with relevant information but with an additional searching task. A general internet search would probably be more useful."
And I agree the external links list needs improvement. EvM-Susana ( talk) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
How important is the inlet wastewater pipe? Can the tank operate without it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.44.54 ( talk) 14:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Septic tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Can we rename this article Septic Systems because Septic systems include septic tanks and septic drain fields. Septic Systems is a much broader and appropriate term. It looks like that was the original name. SoilMan2007 ( talk)
I just now saw the note at the top of this page. Sorry in the future I'll go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm new at this. If this is inappropriate to keep here, then feel free to delete. Regards, SoilMan2007 ( talk)
In no. 2, it would help to explain what is meant by "non-biodegradable hygiene products."
How long do septic tanks (systems) last? We are in the process of buying a 20 year old home with the existing septic tank, what questions or concerns should I have?
An conceptual image of how a septic tank separates effluent from sludge and scum would be very useful. I found many different digrams that all seem to be similar to the one at this link:
http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/branches/wastewater/maintain-septic-tank.htm The copyright link on that page is broken, though, so I'm unsure if we can directly use that image. This site shows a simpler one-stage tank, but their copyright is expressly reserved:
http://www.watershedcommittee.org/publications/fact_sheets/fact_sheet_4.htm I need to get me a decent drawing program so I can quit complaining about images and start making some. :( --
Mdwyer 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What does this paragraph add to the article? It seems like a promotion of the author's work, without need for it in the article.
TRL 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This section contains several incorrect statements, for example, nitrates as the main culprit in septic systems. Nitrates can only form under aerobic conditions, in a rather slow microbiological process. Septic systems as anaerobic systems produce mainly ammonia as the main nitrogen species. I have edited this section to reflect the main issues: uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, pollution of groundwater with ammonia and phosphate, leaching of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms into the groundwater. I also took out the ridiculous argument that the cost of wastewater treatment is detrimental to community development. PeterH (2006-07-10)
The statement that In most parts of Europe including the UK, planning permission is almost never granted for new septic tanks due to pollution concerns; instead, the only generally accepted off-mains domestic sewerage system is a cesspit, a fully enclosed system which must usually be emptied monthly at much higher expense
is not borne out by the facts. Even today many rural developments are served by approved septic tanks (even in Shropshire) and most planning authorities will strongly reist developments on cesspits. Exactly the opposite of what is stated here. Evidence is required if this statement is to be retained. Velela 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That would also make sense of the reported pollution status of lakes in North America- but it still says nothing about the survival or otherwise of pathogens in real septic tanks ! Velela 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur the contents as they stand now are very similar. I'm not an expert in the field to know whether there's a subtle distinction between the two. Google shows many more hits for "septic tank" than "septic system" thus I'm inclined to keep "septic tank" and make "septic system" a redirect. Samw 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called Septic System rather than septic tank. Septic systems include the tanks and drain fields. SoilMan2007 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the statement referring to dominance aerobic processes in waste treatment on a plant scale. It was misleading to the reader. Certainly most secondary treatment in these municiple wastewater treatment plants is aerobic, but most solids reduction processes is anaerobic digestion. These treatment plants require both water treatment and solids reduction. To be fair, a septic system also does both water treatment and solids reduction. Further it has both an anaerobic treatment stage and is intented to be matched with an aerobic stage in the septic drain field. -- Paleorthid 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have marked the following paragraph as requiring a reference since I have no evidence that this is true. I have also copied below an exchange of views that I and Paleorthid have had.
Can anyone justify this sentence. If not it will go. Velela 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As somebody saw fit to revert my comments on environmental issues, I've had to put a WP:POV tag on this section. As it stands, it provides a very one sided argument and ignores many of the positive aspects. For a reference, my edits are here: [1] 130.95.128.51 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful to describe alternatives to conventional septic systems. Biocycle is marketed as a greener alternative (see for example [2]). I am not an expert, but I gather that the combination of aerobic and anaerobic reactions improves the quality of the waste water. Can someone say whether these types of systems are genuine alternatives or just marketing hype? --RDS 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Septic tank → Septic system — Septic systems include the tanks and drain fields — Paleorthid ( talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Ultimately, I think there's plenty of material for least three articles: septic system, septic tank and septic drain field. Andrewa ( talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Velela left me the following comment in opposition to the move: -- Paleorthid ( talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If the septic tank is required by law to be replaced every 'x' years, why not do the following: construct a pit with concrete floor and walls (and appropriate drains etc so it cannot fill with water, install the plastic tank in the pit, and the seepage beds adjacent to it.
When all is installed and operational build a deck or other easily removable covering over the tank/pit.
Future changeovers can then be achieved with minimum disruption.
pardon me if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I've lived in two residences now, with septic tanks, an older house, which was built in the 60s, and our new house, built in 05-06...but I dont _think_ either of these houses had a septic tank lift pump alarm system. Or is it just something I missed? Lol. What's the purpose of it, where would/should it be located, etc...? -- 67.34.188.252 ( talk) 23:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
They're only used when you have to have a pump tank to move the effluent uphill from the septic tank to the drain field. The alarm sounds when/if the pump in the pump tank fails. 173.22.123.35 ( talk) 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Order does not matter, so don't use numbers. 174.3.111.148 ( talk) 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"The use of garbage disposers for disposal of waste food can cause a rapid overload of the system and early failure". Well, that seems perfectly logical to me. However, compare this opinion from "Country Plumbing" by Gerry Hartigan, pp 71-72 (Alan C. Hood & Company Inc, Chambersburg PA, 1984, ISBN 0-911469-02-8):
Every day I hear people say they have a garbage disposal unit, but don't use it. The excuses are endless. Rather than attempt to list them all, let me say there is no evidence to substantiate any reason for not using a garbage disposal. I have had the opportunity, over twenty-five years, to monitor many tanks, both with and without a grinder in use, and I can honestly say I think those tanks work better with the addition of ground garbage. This, of course, doesn't include the silverware my wife manages to feed ours. My advice is: if you have a kitchen pig, use it. If you don't have one, get one.
Hartigan discloses no interest in the makers of garburators; I have no connection with Hartigan but have found his book most helpful (septic tanks are poorly understood here in the UK). Moletrouser ( talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement that there is no "rule of thumb" for how often you should remove the sludge from the tank is misleading if not factually incorrect. Most building codes specify minimum tank and drainage bed size based upon the designed occupancy of the structures served by the system. The specifications are based on average use and include a specification for sludge removal frequency for systems in year-round operation - usually two years. It would be more helpful to include this information than pretend that no such guidelines exist. Every system has a designed capacity, and part of that design is the pump-out frequency in typical use. The rule of thumb is to follow the designed capacity guidelines - which for modern systems properly permitted, installed and inspected can be obtained from the local permitting body, or simply inferred from the building code on the assumption that the system has not been intentionally oversized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.142.83 ( talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC) --- Also, the single most common problem with septic tank users is not even mentioned: household laundry. Excessive use of washing machines can quickly exceed the hydraulic capacity of the tile or filter bed causing saturation of the soil and subsequent break-outs or surface pooling which indicate bed failure and, in raised-bed systems, permanent damage. It can also result in premature flushing of blackwater, which drainage/filter beds are not designed to handle. Finally, the fibres and other components in laundry effluent can quickly and permanently clog drainage pipes and media, resulting in system failure. Again, the rule of thumb is to find the designed hydraulic capacity of the system, and abide by this constraint. --- The next most common source of problems is under-use. An established system which lies idle for a period of months or years or is simply never exposed to the average volumes for which it was designed will be incapable of suddenly handling wastewater at its designed capacity. Here the rule of thumb is "use it or lose it."
I removed a string which referred users to a page: www.septictank.org in reference to "Biomat Failure" Not only did the linked site not contain information about Biomat failure, it was just a link to the site rather than a link to a page containing the information. It contained septic tank information, but did not contain the description or even term "Biomat Failure". In addition no citations were found and it added no true value to the article. It seemed to be a page to generate Ad Revenue. MediaRocker ( talk) 01:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been successful in the water and waste water treatment business for over twenty years.
I can tell you it is possible to extend the life of your existing septic tank treatment system, period.
Basically you only have two ways you can do it.
1. Reduce the loading to the septic tank system.
2. Improve the treatment capability of the septic tank treatment system.
Here are some ways of doing both safely and with very little work or cost on your part.
1. This one step alone can double the remaining life of your treatment system. Filter the discharge water from your washing machine. Use at least a 300 micron filter capable of capturing most of the non-biodegradable clothing fibers.(usually enough to carpet the living room of a three bedroom home each year). Avoid wasted rinse water cycles. After you have filtered it, not before or you will have a living room carpet, every year, wherever you put it. If you can get the wash or rinse water out of the septic system, then get it out. You can't drink it but its safe to use as toilet water, lawn watering, car washing, etc., and it doesn't stink and can easily be treated by small gravel or sand mound systems easily.
2. Stop drinking tap water. Running tap water for several seconds before drinking or using it can double the flow to be treated by your septic tank system everyday.
3. Reduce bathing water useage, not time bathing, please stay clean. Always use showers for bathing. Install a bypass valve or wand in your shower so you can turn it on and adjust only while you are actually in the stall. Use bathtubs sparingly and at half levels when necessary.
4. Adding air to the water as it comes in or goes out of system will increase biological activity and treatment up to 20 times, period. The trick is to not to disturb settling solids so they end up floating out of the tank and into the drain field. So only aerate minimally and at the very begining or very end after the water has left the septic tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodmom ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The function of a septic tank is to retain and accumulate the organic material contained in sewage waters. Is there an estimate as to what percentage of the organic pollutant can be extracted and removed from the sewer by the use and periodic cleanout of a properly maintained septic tank? WFPM ( talk) 00:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC) For example, if the sewage water production of a person is 100 gallons per day and 0.17 pounds per day of organic material, what will be the output of organic material periodic per day after the sewer water passes through the septic tank?
But if you systematically clean out the sludge from a septic tank, the rest of the system, like a pond or whatever has a lesser job of cleanup to carry out. And I'm trying to quantify the expected quality of the effluent water for further treatment purposes. We use a wastewater quality value of 200-300 mg/l for ordinary sewer water, and I suspect that a cleaned out septic tank system would have a lesser quality loading value for that, due to its inability to support the growth of bacteria. WFPM ( talk) 01:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
A sentences in the article used to read as
I changed this to:
The reason for the change is that there is no evidence provided 'most jurisdictions require [this] maintenance by law, yet often not enforced. I personally know of no such jurisdictions or requirements in countries such as UK, France, Greece or New Zealand.
The statement that :
Actually the statement was true. I am a professional engineer and designer of onsite wastewater treatment systems with over 40 years of experience in the field. The statement about well maintained systems lasting decades or even a lifetime is accurate. My personal home system is over 30 years old and in nearly as good condition as the day it was installed ( I do periodic inspections of the system myself). The non-decomposing materials are removed with periodic pumping of the septic tank. By pumping the tank, solids intrusion into the seepage field is kept to a minimum. I have never seen a system which was compromised in weeks and frankly dont understand how it could even be possible that quick. It takes at least a year, probably several years for solids to build up in a tank to the point where they would exit the tank and enter a seepage field. greybeard ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the current diagram is that it shows a cesspool, not a septic tank. The major difference between the two is that a septic tank has an outflow pipe (which typically goes to a drain field), whereas a cesspool relies on water seeping out through the walls. Any ambitious volunteers with MS Paint skills out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.157.197 ( talk) 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The regulation section is reads like it's 18 months ago, and suggestions of things that should've been implemented by January 2013.
Could someone who is actually familiar with the subject matter drag that up to date? Thanks! Reedy ( talk) 16:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I added information about the current regulations in Ireland including a link to the actual code of practise. Jknappe ( talk), 22 May 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Basic information about France added. Jknappe ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am planning to remove the "see also" link list at the bottom because this doesn't conform with Wikipedia article style. Such hyperlinks should rather be included in the article itself. EvM-Susana ( talk) 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - I have removed the see also links now. If someone wants to ensure all words are mentioned and hyperlinked in the text (if relevant), this is what they were:
|
EvM-Susana ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I moved the text that was visible in the external links section to here: "Note: this could use some improvement. The following links are general agency/department sites covering a whole gamut of related topics. They may very well prove to contain content related specifically to septic tanks, but which would take considerable additional effort to locate. Thus the reader is not provided with relevant information but with an additional searching task. A general internet search would probably be more useful."
And I agree the external links list needs improvement. EvM-Susana ( talk) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
How important is the inlet wastewater pipe? Can the tank operate without it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.44.54 ( talk) 14:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)