Evaluation of Septic Tank and Subsurface Wetland for

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 – Unit Operation Design Parameters Septic Tanks Septic tanks (see Figure 2-1) separate solids from liquids by gravity settling so the effluent has reduced BOD and TSS. Anaerobic decomposition will reduce the volume of accumulated solids on the bottom of the tank by 40 – 50% producing methane, carbon dioxide, water and reduced sulfur gases (Seabloom et al., 1982; USEPA, 2000). Inorganic solids (i. e. sand) and undigested organic solids form sludge in the bottom of the tank that should be removed before accumulation reaches a volume that hinders performance. The scum layer formed of soaps, oils, greases and light debris should also be removed before it becomes too thick and passes around the sanitary tee and out of the septic tank. Performance of septic tanks depends on influent characteristics and tank design. Septic tank removal efficiencies have been reported as follows: BOD 46 – 68%, TSS 30 – 81%, phosphate 20 – 65%, fecal coliform 25 – 66% (Seabloom et al., 1982; Rahman et al., 1999). Sanitary Tee Inlet Accumulated Sludge Scum Layer Figure 2-1 Typical concrete two-chamber septic tank. 7 Outlet Chamber Dividing Wall
Critical design parameters for septic tanks include proper piping, tank volume and tank dimension. A sanitary tee pipe fitting on the inlet directs the influent downward to reduce short circuiting. A sanitary tee on the outlet prevents floating scum from exiting and clogging the wetland or tile field receiving the effluent. For a two-chamber tank, the chamber dividing wall allows liquid free of scum and sludge to pass from the first chamber to the second chamber, and it has ventilation above the liquid level to allow pressure equalization between the chambers. Sufficient tank volume is necessary so that after the maximum expected volume of sludge and scum has accumulated, the tank has a minimum of 24-hour fluid retention time for particulate settling (USEPA, 2000). Rules of thumb for septic tank volume range from two to five times the daily average flow (USEPA, 1980; Crites et al., 1998). A peaking factor should be used to account for the irregular pattern of flow into the tank during peak water use periods. Two-chamber septic tanks are believed to have an advantage over single-chamber tanks because of the reduced turbulence in the second chamber which provides more quiescent settling conditions. Although the second chamber has a more dampened rate of inflow, proper tank sizing and dimension are still necessary to achieve improved effluent quality. The effect of tank dimension was studied by comparing a single-chamber and a twochamber septic tank of equal volume. BOD and TSS removal were reported to be better in the single-chamber tank. The reason was attributed to the surface area in the chambers and resultant overflow rate which directly impacts discrete particle settling. Because the single-chamber tank was not divided in two, it had a larger surface area with slower overflow rate than the two-chamber tank (Seabloom et al., 1982). The larger surface area also reduces the head differential caused by influent surge and dampens the effect on exit velocity which if too high could draw suspended particles out of the tank (USEPA, 1980). However, other studies showed better solids removal efficiencies in two-chamber tanks because settled solids in single-chamber tanks were resuspended by bubbles rising from the anaerobic digestion of the accumulated solids (Laak, 1980; Rock and Boyer 1995; Rich, 2006 as referenced in WERF, 2007). A single-chamber tank with effluent filter that is periodically cleaned performs better than a multiple-chamber tank without a filter 8
Page 1 and 2: Evaluation of Septic Tank and Subsu
Page 3 and 4: Abstract Locally designed wastewate
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgments Major funding was p
Page 7 and 8: Chapter 6 - Costs ……………
Page 9 and 10: Table 5-6 Parameters Influencing Bi
Page 11 and 12: The predominant geological formatio
Page 13 and 14: plants discharging a volume of 20m
Page 15: lack access to acceptable excreta d
Page 19 and 20: Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland
Page 21 and 22: inging larger rock from a distant q
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 3 - Site Descriptions Figur
Page 25 and 26: Wetland inlet sample point Flush to
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3-4 Pisgah wetland beds befo
Page 29 and 30: times over a two-week period, grew
Page 31 and 32: Figure 3-7 Retrieve youth in front
Page 33 and 34: Chapter 4 - Methodology Field Data
Page 35 and 36: out (see Figure 4-2). Locating the
Page 37 and 38: Figure 4-3 Media porosity measureme
Page 39 and 40: Laboratory Water Quality Analysis A
Page 41 and 42: NEPA laboratory also does not test
Page 43 and 44: Since evapotranspiration decreases
Page 45 and 46: The water level in the middle of th
Page 47 and 48: BOD was determined to be 53% at Pis
Page 49 and 50: solids than a sample point that pul
Page 51 and 52: Table 5-4 Ammonia (NH3-N) for Pisga
Page 53 and 54: Table 5-5 Nitrate (NO3-N) for Pisga
Page 55 and 56: o Alkalinity Nitrification and deni
Page 57 and 58: system were measured to be 3.3 mg/l
Page 59 and 60: coliform by 88%. The Retrieve septi
Page 61 and 62: Chapter 6 - Cost of Pisgah and Retr
Page 63 and 64: The septic tanks will have to be pu
Page 65 and 66: Jamaica may refer to the hydraulic
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 8 - References APHA (Americ
Page 69 and 70:
Pennant, Joseph, (2005), Assistant
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter 9 - Appendices Appendix 1 -
Page 73 and 74:
7-Dec- 2004 SET FIVE Sample BOD TSS
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix 3 - Determination of 90% C
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix 4 - Conductance of Water C
Page 79 and 80:
Appendix 6 - Total Dissolved Nitrog
Page 81 and 82:
Appendix 8 - Evapotranspiration Det
show all

Evaluation of Septic Tank and Subsurface Wetland for

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?