Laserfiche WebLink
R { 4 <br /> t effluent could get in there. As well as replacing the toilets so that there <br /> wouldn't be constant running water. At the end of August an inspection <br /> was performed on the system, a DEP compliant inspection and if failed <br /> the system. Since that time in an effort to try to replace that system, <br /> replacing the septic system out there was not a short-terra item. They had <br /> the site surveyed dated October 1Inth, 2003, so that they could go ahead <br /> and design the system. Mr. Bricker mentioned that in addition one of the <br /> possibilities that came up was the idea of trying to tie into the Mashpee <br /> Commons treatment system. He felt that that was a dead avenue and at <br /> this point they have all the hands and schedule the field tests and <br /> placement for the system. Typically when a system has been failed and <br /> unless there is an imminent public health danger with the system backing <br /> up, they give you two years to replace the system. They don't necessarily <br /> vivant to.have two years to do it. <br /> Mr, Herrington interjected that the two years was applicable only upon <br /> the transfer of property, <br /> Mr. De oursey continued that given the situation in August when it <br /> backed up,, They had two things that they found that clearly made it back <br /> up the running water and the clog in the pipe, At this point the position <br /> has been made loud and clear that the board wants the system replaced. <br /> They have a survey completed to do that. Those are the items that had <br /> taken place since August. They felt that they were moving forward and <br /> they were in a position to do it. <br /> Mr. Bricker added that the septic system they had out there had tram-leach <br /> pits. From the station they had.a pipe that went out to the septic tank and <br /> then to the d-Pbox, From there they had one pipe going to the primary and <br /> one pipe going to the reserve from the d-box. The d-box was completely <br /> and there was no manhole access. They dug up the d-box and replaced <br /> the manhole there at Nis. Warden's suggestion. They found that both of <br /> the pipes to the leach pits were plugged. For some reason somebody left <br /> the plug in for the reserve pit. He had-it in his wo rk order notes here* So, <br /> when they were able to unplug that the plug to the reserve pit that was <br /> being used was freed up the... <br /> Mr. Harrington interjected that he had to remember that he was <br /> discussing primary and reserve, which was opposite. what had happened <br /> was that there was one pit the original primary when the system was <br /> installed in 1987 had actually failed. The primary that they went out to <br /> look at now was actually the reserve from the original installation. That <br /> cap that was placed there went to the original primary, which was already <br /> failed, So when they went out to leek both pits were essentially failed and <br /> this was ultimately why this system was failed by this Title V inspector. <br /> 1 <br />