Template talk:Wastewater

Ion exchange as a wastewater source??

I don't understand why you have added ion exchange as a wastewater source, Thewellman. This would seem to me a very very specialised case. If you include such cases then there would be potentially lots of users, too (like listing any possible treatment process). How about rather brine? Ion exchange is not a source of wastewater, it's a treatment process. 07:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Brine is included among the sources of wastewater, but brine comes from a wide variety of sources, and the brine article does not include ion exchange regeneration fluids. I have revised the template link to go directly to the section on ion exchange regeneration wastes to clarify the listing.

Ion exchange is a treatment process; but generation of more concentrated wastewater with reduced disposal options effectively makes ion exchange a water treatment process with very limited applicability to wastewater treatment. I consider it important to include treatment waste streams among the sources of wastewater to give laymen an understanding of the mass balance considerations limiting the utility of some treatment methods. Thewellman (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, partly but not totally convinced, seems a very specialised case - did I understand right that you are thinking of ion exchange for water treatment (which is producing a waste stream)? Still, then how about all the different industrial processes also producing waste streams, like tanneries, breweries, abattoirs, dairy farms? EvM-Susana (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have added ion exchange to the list of wastewater treatment options. I support including the industrial wastewater sources you mentioned when the internal link moves readers directly to the discussion of wastewater generated by that industry rather than getting lost in a large article broadly describing the industry. Thewellman (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, done, I think I found a good section to link to for industrial wastewater treatment EvM-Susana (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of sewerage

I have restored the former arrangement of sewer system articles. I consider a wastewater collection category unnecessary and potentially distracting from the fundamental choice between treatment or disposal. Sewer use by waste producers who may have no responsibility for treatment requires listing as a disposal option; and advantages or disadvantages of treatment require listing as waste sources. Each sewer type produces waste with differing treatment requirements, and the listing of sanitary sewer overflow events with sewerage infrastructure is inappropriately confusing. Thewellman (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. It is logical to speak of generation, collection, treatment, disposal/reuse - and not omit the collection step. For me it is misleading to say that a sewer is a source of wastewater. It is not a source, it is a piece of infrastructure to collect and convey wastewater. The purpose of the sewer is usually to transport it to somewhere else - hopefully to a treatment site and only in exceptions to straight disposal. Marine outfall is OK to be classified as disposal. OK, "sanitary sewer overflow" might not fit, although it is still closely related to sewerage. Anyhow, let's see if we can get some further opinions, how about User:Velella and User:Reify-tech? EMsmile (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:EMsmile that collection is a valid and useful category for the template. The articles listed there deserve to be understood as part of the entire system, and not arbitrarily ignored as if the infrastructure for collection did not exist. Many US cities have ignored their collection infrastructure for decades, but have gradually been forced to address this aspect to deal with issues such as separation of stormwater and physical collapse of neglected sewers. Reify-tech (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest the value of any navigation bar may be diminished by too much complexity. Collection system infrastructure may be more appropriately navigated through a separate navigation bar similar to the following example. Some wastewater articles may have both navigation bars while others require only one. The example below is only a rough draft to be improved if it might provide a satisfactory alternative. Thewellman (talk)

I don't think that one or two additional rows add that much complexity. Rather it gives the reader a more complete overview. Having said that, I do like your new template for sewerage. So that's good to have. Nevertheless, we still need a better solution how sewage systems are mentioned in the wastewater template. Currently it's a mess as some are mentioned under "sources" and some are mentioned under "disposal". In my opinion neither is correct; they are simply pieces of infrastructure to transport the liquid from A to B (whatever A and B might be). EMsmile (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest rather than being neither, the fact that sewers go from A to B illustrates they are both a disposal option at A and a source of waste at B. Thewellman (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  I perceive the subject of wastewater engineering as having two major areas of diversity: transport and treatment. Transport came first (basically get the stuff out of here, evolving into move it from A to B) while treatment came later. Wikipedia lists and categories are useful for a complete overview, while navigation bars allow a more narrowly focused menu of options. I would prefer to limit the wastewater bar to sources, measurement, treatment options, and disposal options. The equally important sewerage bar can focus on alternative reasons for and means of transporting wastewater from A to B. While sewers may seem intuitively simple, advances in technology are creating hybrids like decentralized wastewater systems. Flow variation and solids concentrations in the wastewater may cause sewer variation more complex than you suggest. Options coming to mind include:

source to disposal (primitive sewers; storm drains)

source to treatment (sanitary sewers)

treatment to disposal (outfalls; water reclamation piping; septic tank leachfields)

treatment to treatment (industrial pretreatment; individual septic tanks for solids removal with community treatment of liquid waste; Los Angeles CSD system of water reclamation plants with sludge transfer to central treatment)

and complexity is increased by chemical variation and the choice between gravity, vacuum, or pressure sewers with various types of pumps. Thewellman (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

To me it doesn't make sense that sewers are listed as either "source" or "disposal". And I think it will confuse lay persons to see the same terms in both rows! We could solve this by changing the title of the row "Wastewater disposal and reuse" to "Wastewater transport, disposal and reuse" and then put the main sewer topics there: combined sewer, sewerage, sanitary sewer. And why does the list of wastewater treatment options now have its own row rather than being part of the row on wastewater treatment? And how could we give people a hint from the template on wastewater to the new template on sewerage (if indeed we need to keep them as two different templates)?EMsmile (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have placed the sewerage navigation bar on the articles for storm drain (with the stormwater, wastewater, infrastructure, and streets and roadways navigation bars), combined sewer (with the wastewater navigation bar), sanitary sewer (with the wastewater, public health, and biosolids, waste and waste management navigation bars), and outfall (alone) to illustrate availability to readers. Thewellman (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps we have different concepts about the purpose of this navigation bar. I envision it as a means of offering interested readers with a concise menu of choices encompassing sources of wastewater, measurable characteristics of wastewater, means of changing those characteristics, and alternatives for disposing of wastewater. I perceive two threats to the usefulness of this template. The first threat is addition of so many minor variations that the list of alternatives becomes too long and complicated. The second threat is addition of tangentially related aspects of wastewater infrastructure which have little bearing on wastewater characteristics or disposal options.

I suggest those interested in alternative objectives consider devising one or more alternative navigation bar templates tailored to those objectives rather than altering this template to meet multiple objectives. The old adage about multiple-use tools doing neither job well seems applicable. The two templates would appear one below the other following articles applicable to both allowing readers to choose either or both depending upon the focus of their interest. Why is modification of this template to meet additional objectives preferable to designing a new navigation template to meet those objectives?

I separated the list of wastewater treatment technologies because it is redundant. I would have preferred to simply remove it as unnecessary, but do not wish to imply my preference should prevail over the preference of the editor who added the list.

The addition of a transport category, however, is simply inappropriate because how many ways or times the wastewater may be transported make little difference to the ultimate need to select either treatment or disposal. I wonder how long the list might become. Should it include floor drains? vacuum trucks? hopper barges? manure spreaders? unit trains transporting Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District sludge? or purple water reclamation piping networks? I am reminded of the magician distracting his audience by moving the object around until it vanishes, and see little reason to offer readers the hope wastewater will disappear or be made less objectionable by some transportation method. Thewellman (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

OK most of your reasoning is fine by me, but I still am not in agreement with the point I made above: To me it doesn't make sense that sewers are listed as both "source" and "disposal". And I think it will confuse lay persons to see the same terms in both rows! And how could we give people a hint from the template on wastewater to the new template on sewerage (so that they become aware that there is a connection between wastewater and sewerage?EMsmile (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Public concern about sewer outfalls and sewer overflows indicates sewers are perceived as sources of wastewater. It may be inappropriate to include an article more than once in a single list, but this template includes multiple lists. Articles may appear in multiple lists if they meet the definition of both lists. Wikipedia may not reflect a worldwide perspective if this template makes assumptions about treatment being provided to wastewater after discharge to sewers. I suggest readers will find the bold heading of the adjacent navigation bar a more effective hint than repeating the word within this template. Thewellman (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)