Talk:Septic tank

problem with the name of this page =

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)

"Potential Problems"

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?

I shall take this question to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Dunc|☺ 19:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk#From talk:Septic tank. hydnjo talk 20:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Erma Bombeck's book The Grass is Always Greener Over the Septic Tank (ISBN 0070064504) and the common expression that is the same as the title is technically incorrect; the grass is greener over the leach field which is better watered and has more nutrients than the surrounding land. However, it is not unusual to find better growth over the septic tank itself as well, particularly the end nearest the leach field.

TRL 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase has 19,000 hits+ in Google and 3 references within Wikipedia. In the list of books article it is wikilinked suggesting that the book merits a Wikipedia article. If you want to remove the book reference, fine, but please leave the explanation that the phrase itself is wrong. Samw 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure that this is a "common expression" except in relation to the book. "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" is a common expression and a metaphor, but it seems to me that the septic tank reference is just a humorous adaptation of that. Even if it is generally regarded as true, how is it an "expression"? People don't use that phrase to "express" anything other than the literal meaning of the phrase. --Universe Man (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Issues

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)

Don't septic systems have a critical aerobic polishing treatment stage referred to as a leach field. Isn't the discharge to the environment of anaerobic effluent considered evidence of leachfield failure? -- Paleorthid 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning controls

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 staement is to be retained. Velela 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The phrase "in most parts of Europe" is certainly correct. Just as a reminder: septic systems were common in communist countries, and after German re-unification, they disappeared in the former German Democratic Republic within a few years, because of environmental concerns. At the time of this writing, other countries in Eastern Europe have largely followed suit. It is too bad that apparently some regional authorities in the UK still permit septic systems. PeterH (2006-07-10)

From my own experience, which I agree is limitd and doesn't extend to eastern Europe, but I have seen planty of septic tanks in rural Ireland, Spain, France and Italy. I have also seen septic tanks in builders merchant yards in Greece. Velela 06:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term “septic tank” is used erroneously to refer to an informal cesspit. (see footnote, page 36 of this). Cesspits in lower latitudes (Hawaii, Bahamas, Florida Keys) were constructed with open bottoms and are associated with coral reef loss. Are we all on the same page here? These open bottomed pits are not septic tanks. Agreed? In Florida, cesspits are illegal, and have been associated with loss of coral reefs due to impaired water quality. In my visit to Hawaii in 1994, I picked up a brochure from a Health District office explaining that cesspits were being eliminated in the state due to US-EPA regulatory enforcement action to be replaced by properly designed and maintained septic systems. The article needs to be consistent with these current situations. -- Paleorthid 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When PeterH wrote "septic systems were common in communist countries, and after German re-unification, they disappeared..." Does this rather mean "~~septic systems~~ open bottom cess pits were common..."? If so, this would explain the disconnect in this discussion. -- Paleorthid 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge of septic tank and septic system

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 disinction 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)[reply]

I also concur with what you say above. The "septic tank" article should be retained with current content and the "septic system" content merged or added initially. I think the distinction is that "septic system" when used by those "in the know" includes all the components that result in a functional system, ie Septic tank and french drain.., as opposed to other systems such as a municipal connection. Gregorydavid 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too support the use of Septic tank as the main article into which information from Septic system should be merged. In other places the phrase Septic system has been used to describe a variety of anaerobic processes whereas septic tank is specifically a system from treating and disposing of human sewage. Velela 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the system begins with a flush toilet, the middle is the septic tank and it ends with a french drain. Gregorydavid 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been done during June 2006. septic system added to this article septic system changed to redirect --209.244.43.113 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The components other than the tank have their own articles. --209.244.43.113 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comparison to aerobic sewage treatment was misleading

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)[reply]

Survival of pathogenic bacteria in Septic tanks

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.

Many pathogenic bacteria can survive in septic tanks for a very long time, owing to the anaerobic conditions. Depending on soil conditions, pathogenic bacteria can leach into groundwater and surface waters. In North America, this is the case with many lakeshore communities.

Can anyone justify this sentence. If not it will go. Velela 08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this line. Who do you expect to confirm this, other than the too few scientists like myself who are working in this field? I am not aware of any mandatory testing - so again, who do you think can comment? PeterH 2006-0713

some reference to published evidence such as scientific papers would help. If the problem is acute as the line suggests I cannot believe many lakeshore communities would tolerate such a position without insisting on some investigation. Without such an investigation who can say whether there is an causative link between disease (is there any ?) and septic tank effluent? And even is that were demonstrated it would need more research to demonstrate that pathogens were surviving because of anaerobic conditions. Velela 06:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further observation is that I am aware of many examples of pollution from septic tanks mostly from people using Cesspits as if they were septic tanks, septic tanks left unemptied for years with influent short-circuiting directly to the discharge point, over-loaded soakways, "soakways" laid on bare impermeable rocks, soakaways in boggy ground and even direct discharges by-passing septic tanks straight into lakes etc. etc. In any of these cases pathogenicity may certainly arise but these examples shouldn't condem well mainatained system and nor does it demonstrate that pathogens survive in well maintained systems. Velela 07:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added a parenthetical ((fact)) to a statement when I think you intended to tag it {{fact}}. Hopefully, anyway because I think it deserves such a tag. The last sentence (3rd) in particular seems like it should be referenced or removed. The 2nd sentence need to be qualified as misleading - the danger of pathogen movement is related to a combination of short-circuiting in the septic tank and anaerobic failure in the leach field and needs to be so specified. I have been looking for a reference to address this and the 1st sentence "Many pathogenic bacteria can survive in septic tanks for a very long time, owing to the anaerobic conditions." I believe this 1st sentence is highly inaccurate as to normal operation. It is an error based on a simplistic undertanding of the range of reducing environments that are covered by the term anaerobic. My understanding is that the deep anaerobic (methane producing) conditions in a properly working septic tank are toxic to facultative anaerobes. This is a more extreme reducing environment than occurs in the body tissue where disease organisms operate. Those species which do survive extreme reducing chemistry are those particularly vulnerable to the aerobic conditions in the leachfield. My understanding was that this 2-stage redox shift disinfection was by design. That is, we do not depend on just oxidative conditions to protect human health as it relates to groundwater. So far, I am still looking for the reference to corroboarate this. You have a background in the little critters, perhaps you can comment here. Please encourage/discourage me as needed. - Paleorthid 19:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am wholly in agreement (and apologies for the incorrect mark-up - it was done huriedly and I was called away). Practical work that I did some 40 years ago and showed clear evidence of very substantial drops in pathogenicity as measured by survical rates of some chosen indicator species . Not alway a good test but it is reasonable to believe that by using well selected indicator species others will follow the same pattern. The (unpublished ) conclusions was that a major force was active bacterial competition, with saprobic bacteria actively predating on bacteria of faecal origin. This would certainly be aided by the reductive and oxidative environents. What I don't know about is how encysting species such as Cryptosporidium might behave. Velela 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

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)[reply]

Alternatives to Septic Systems

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septic tank → Septic system — Septic systems include the tanks and drain fields —Paleorthid (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

Support: The proposed move better represents article content. The current name is a source of confusion, and discourages editing on the larger topic. -- Paleorthid (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised assessment: with Velela's comment, my proposed move becomes controversial, and this is the wrong process for anything controversial. A workable alternative is to move sections (per Andrewa comment). However, to address the controversy, the article needs to first heed the disconnect in understanding of the terms involved.--Paleorthid (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The page should either be called septic systems or there should be a separate septic system (no redirect). There is no place to put information about septic system drain fields because septic system has a redirect. December 5, 2007. SoilMan2007 (talk)

Oppose. There is no need for a move if there are to be separate articles, which seems the sensible thing. The difference between cultures is not one of terminology but of focus: Some tend to focus on the tank itself, and some on the whole system. There's plenty of material for three articles, so there's no problem. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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)[reply]

Velela left me the following comment in opposition to the move: --Paleorthid (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a debate about the name change in May 2006 when the consensus was for Septic tank (also reflected by a much greater number of Google hits for S. Tank rather than S system whatever significance that may have). They are known throughout the commonwealth English speaking world as Septic tanks. The position was exacerbated by a unilateral move to Septic system (the record of this appears to be missing so it may have been an Admin roll-back) since when it has remained at Septic tank. Personally I know them as Septic tanks and would vote for the name to be retained. Velela (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minimal disruption

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.

There is no such law. The actual tank is the least likely component to fail. The soil component is the most likely treatment component of the septic tank system to fail. --Paleorthid (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lift pump alarm system?

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)[reply]

See: http://forum.doityourself.com/wells-sump-pumps-septic-sewage-systems/162996-septic-lift-pump-alarm.html

Essentially a pump failure alarm triggered by rising fluid levels. Samw (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]