Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
0137 SHORT BEACH ROAD - Health
13-7 _�hortbeach Road, Centerville _ Y No. 42101/3 ORA ESSELTE � 10% O O O O Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments °M 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name. _... ... information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for for y every page. City/Town State Zip Code Date of Inspection Inspection results must be submitted on this form. Inspection forms may not be altered in any way-Please see completeness checklist at the end of the form. Important:When filling out A. General Information forms on the computer,use 1. Ins M v ector: I P I only the tab key Y� to move your Patrick M. O'Connel! - cursor-do not Name of Inspector use the return key. Septic Inspection Services Co. Company Name 189 Cammett Road Company Address Marstons Mills MA 02648 City/Town State Zip Code 508-428-1779 SI 12855 Telephone Number License Number B. Certification I certify that I have personally inspected the sewage disposal system at this address and that the information reported below is true, accurate and complete as of the time of the inspection. The inspection was performed based on my training and experience in the proper function and maintenance of on site sewage disposal systems. I am a DEP approved system inspector pursuant to Section 15.340 of Title 5(310 CMR 15.000). The system: ® Passes ❑ Conditionally Passes ❑ Fails Needs Further Eualuation by the Loci Approving Authority May 17, 2012 Job# 12-77 pector's Sig ature Date The system inspector shall submit a copy of this inspection report to the Approving Authority (Board of Health or DEP) within 30 days of completing this inspection. If the system is a shared system or has a design flow of 10,000 gpd or greater, the inspector and the system owner shall submit the report to the appropriate regional office of the DEP. The original should be sent to the system owner and copies sent to the buyer, if applicable, and the approving authority. ****This report only describes conditions at the time of inspection and under the conditions of use at that time. This inspection does not address how the system will perform in the future under the same or different conditions of use. l5ins•11110 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 1 of 17 V Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for y every page. City/Town State Zip Code Date of Inspection B. Certification (cont.) Inspection Summary: Check A,B,C,D or E/always complete all of Section D A) System Passes: ® I have not found any information which indicates that any of the failure criteria described in 310 CMR 15.303 or in 310 CMR 15.304 exist. Any failure criteria not evaluated are indicated below. Comments: Tank had liquid only and was not in need of pumping. Leaching system showed no signs of saturation. B) System Conditionally Passes: ❑ One or more system components as described in the"Conditional Pass" section need to be replaced or repaired. The system, upon completion of the replacement or repair, as approved by the Board of Health, will pass. Check the box for"yes", "no" or"not determined" (Y, N, ND) for the following statements. If"not determined," please explain. The septic tank is metal and over 20 years old*or the septic tank (whether metal or not) is structurally unsound, exhibits substantial infiltration or exfiltration or tank failure is imminent. System will pass inspection if the existing tank is replaced with a complying septic tank as approved by the Board of Health. *A metal septic tank will pass inspection if it is structurally sound, not leaking and if a Certificate of Compliance indicating that the tank is less than 20 years old is available. ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): t5ins-11110 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 2 of 17 1 Commonwea lth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments °M 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection B. Certification (cont.) B) System Conditionally Passes (cont.): ❑ Observation of sewage backup or break out or high static water level in the distribution box due to broken or obstructed pipe(s) or due to a broken, settled or uneven distribution box. System will pass inspection if(with approval of Board of Health): ❑ broken pipe(s)are replaced ❑ 'Y 0 N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ obstruction is removed ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ distribution box is leveled or replaced ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ The system required pumping more than 4 times a year due to broken or obstructed pipe(s). The system will pass inspection if(with approval of the Board of Health): ❑ broken pipe(s) are replaced ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ obstruction is removed ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): C) Further Evaluation is Required by the Board of Health: ❑ Conditions exist which require further evaluation by the Board of Health in order to determine if the system is failing to protect public health, safety or the environment. 1. System will pass unless Board of Health determines in accordance with 310 CMR 15.303(1)(b)that the system is not functioning in a manner which will protect public health, safety and the environment: ❑ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a surface water ❑ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh t5ins-11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System-Page 3 of 17 i Commonwealth of Massachusetts w Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments ;M 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for Y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection B. Certification (cont.) 2. System will fail unless the Board of Health (and Public Water Supplier, if any) determines that the system is functioning in a manner that protects the public health, safety and environment: ❑ The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system (SAS) and the SAS is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within a Zone"! of a public water supply. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is less than 100 feet but 50 feet or more from a private water supply well". Method used to determine distance.- This system passes if the well water analysis, performed at a DEP certified laboratory, for fecal coliform bacteria indicates absent and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis must be attached to this form. 3. Other: D) System Failure Criteria Applicable to All Systems: You must indicate "Yes" or"No" to each of the following for all inspections: Yes No ❑ ® Backup of sewage into facility or system component due to overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Discharge or ponding of effluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Static liquid level in the distribution box above outlet invert due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Liquid depth in cesspool is less than 6" below invert or available volume is less than_day flow 15ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 4 of 17 i i Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for Y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection B. Certification (cont.) Yes No ❑ ® Required pumping more than 4 times in the last year NOT due to clogged or obstructed pipe(s). Number of times pumped: ❑ ® Any portion of the SAS, cesspool or privy is below high ground water elevation. ,.�,� ❑ .Any portion of cesspool-or privy is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within a Zone 1 of a public well. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is less than 100 feet but greater than 50 feet > from a private water supply well with no acceptable water quality analysis. [This system passes if the well water analysis, performed at a DEP certified laboratory,for fecal coliform bacteria indicates absent and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis and chain of custody must be attached to this form.] ❑ ® The system is a cesspool serving a facility with a design flow of 2000gpd- 10,000gpd. ❑ ® The system fails. I have determined that one or more of the above failure criteria exist as described in 310 CMR 15.303, therefore the system fails. The system owner should contact the Board of Health to determine what will be necessary to correct the failure. E) Large Systems: To be considered a large system the system must serve a facility with a design flow of 10,000 gpd to 15,000 gpd. For large systems, you must indicate either"yes"or"no"to each of the following, in addition to the questions in Section D. Yes No ❑ ❑ the system is within 400 feet of a surface drinking water supply ❑ ❑ the system is within 200 feet of a tributary to a surface drinking water supply ❑ ❑ the system is located in a nitrogen sensitive area (Interim Wellhead Protection Area—IWPA) or a mapped Zone II of a public water supply well If you have answered "yes" to any question in Section E the system is considered a significant threat, or answered"yes" in Section D above the large system has failed. The owner or operator of any large system considered a significant threat under Section E or failed under Section D shall upgrade the system in accordance with 310 CMR 15.304. The system owner should contact the appropriate regional office of the Department. t5ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 5 of 17 I Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for y every page. City/Town Slate Zip Code Date of Inspection C. Checklist Check if the following have been done. You must indicate"yes"or"no"as to each of the following: Yes No ® ❑ Pumping information was provided by the owner, occupant, or Board of Health V%'are any of the system components pumped out in the previous two weeks? ❑ ® Has the system received normal flows in the previous two week period? ❑ ® Have large volumes of water been introduced to the system recently or as part of this inspection? ® ❑ Were as built plans of the system obtained and examined? (If they were not available note as N/A) ❑ ® Was the facility or dwelling inspected for signs of sewage back up? ® ❑ Was the site inspected for signs of break out? ® ❑ Were all system components, excluding the SAS, located on site? ® ❑ Were the septic tank manholes uncovered, opened, and the interior of the tank inspected for the condition of the baffles or tees, material of construction, dimensions, depth of liquid, depth of sludge and depth of scum? ❑ ® Was the facility owner(and occupants if different from owner) provided with information on the proper maintenance of subsurface sewage disposal systems? The size and location of the Soil Absorption System (SAS)on the site has been determined based on: ® ❑ Existing information. For example, a plan at the Board of Health. ® ❑ Determined in the field (if any of the failure criteria related to Part C is at issue approximation of distance is unacceptable) [310 CMR 15.302(5)] D. System Information Residential Flow Conditions: Number of bedrooms (design): 4 Number of bedrooms (actual): 4 DESIGN flow based on 310 CMR 15.203 (for example: .110 gpd x#of bedrooms): 440 t5ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 6 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is y ,Centerville MA 02632 May 17 2012 required for � every page. City/Town State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information Description: Number of current residents: 1 Does residence have a garbage grinder? ❑ Yes ® No Is laundry on a separate sewage system? [if yes separate inspection required] ❑ Yes ® No Laundry system inspected? ❑ Yes ❑ No Seasonal use? ® Yes ❑ No Water meter readings, if available (last 2 years usage (gpd)): Detail: Sump pump? ❑ Yes ® No Last date of occupancy: CurrentlyOccupied. Commercial/Industrial Flow Conditions: Type of Establishment: Design flow (based on 310 CMR 15.203): Gallons per day(gpd) Basis of design flow (seats/persons/sq.ft., etc.): Grease trap present? ❑ Yes ❑ No Industrial waste holding tank present? ❑ Yes ❑ No Non-sanitary waste discharged to the Title 5 system? ❑ Yes ❑ No Water meter readings, if available: t5ins-11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 7 of 17 I Commonwealth of Massachusetts W Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments °M 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17 2012 required for y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Last date of occupancy/use: Date Other(describe below): General Information Pumping Records: Source of information: Tank was last pumped in 2011 Was system pumped as part of the inspection? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, volume pumped: gallons How was quantity pumped determined? Reason for pumping: Type of System: ® Septic tank, distribution box, soil absorption system ❑ Single cesspool ❑ Overflow cesspool ❑ Privy ❑ Shared system (yes or no) (if yes, attach previous inspection records, if any) ❑ Innovative/Alternative technology. Attach a copy of the current operation and maintenance contract(to be obtained from system owner) and a copy of latest inspection of the I/A system by system operator under contract ❑ Tight tank. Attach a copy of the DEP approval. ❑ Other(describe): l5ins-11110 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System-Page 8 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts w Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is y required for Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 every page. City/Town State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Approximate age of all components, date installed (if known) and source of information: Installed in 1990 Were sewage odors detected when arriving at the site? ❑ Yes ® No Building Sewer(locate on site plan): 1' Depth below grade: feet Material of construction: ❑ cast iron ® 40 PVC ❑ other(explain): Distance from private water supply well or suction line: feet Comments (on condition of joints, venting, evidence of leakage, etc.): Septic Tank(locate on site plan): 6" Depth below grade: feet Material of construction: ® concrete ❑ metal ❑ fiberglass Ll polyethylene ❑other(explain) If tank is metal, list age: years Is age confirmed by a Certificate of Compliance? (attach a copy of certificate) ❑ Yes ❑ No Dimensions: 10.5' long x 5.8'wide- 1500 gal. Sludge depth: 0" t5ins-11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System-Page 9 of 17 . _ t Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for y every page. City/Town State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Septic Tank (cont.) Distance from top of sludge to bottom of outlet tee or baffle Scum thickness 011 . ,Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle: Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee.or baffle How were dimensions determined? Measured Comments (on pumping recommendations, inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.): Tank had liquid only, no solids. Liquid level was at bottom of outlet invert and tees were intact and clear. Grease Trap (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: feet Material of construction: ❑ concrete ❑ metal ❑ fiberglass ❑ polyethylene ❑ other(explain): Dimensions: Scum thickness Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle Date of last pumping: Date t5ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 10 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for Y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Comments (on pumping recommendations, inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.): Tight or Holding Tank (tank must be pumped at time of inspection) (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: ❑ concrete ❑ metal ❑ fiberglass ❑ polyethylene ❑other(explain): Dimensions: Capacity: gallons Design Flow: gallons per day Alarm present: ❑ Yes ❑ No Alarm level: Alarm in working order: ❑ Yes ❑ No Date of last pumping: Date Comments (condition of alarm and float switches, etc.): *Attach copy of current pumping contract (required). Is copy attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No t5ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 11 of 17 r Commonwealth of Massachusetts W Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is y required for Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Distribution Box (if present must be opened) (locate on site plan): Depth of liquid level above outlet invert Comments (note if box is level and distribution to outlets equal, any evidence of solids carryover, any evidence of leakage into or out of box, etc.): Pump Chamber(locate on site plan).- Pumps in working order: ❑ Yes ❑ No Alarms in working order: ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments (note condition of pump chamber, condition of pumps and appurtenances, etc.): Soil Absorption System (SAS) (locate on site plan, excavation not required): If SAS not located, explain why: 15ins•11110 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 12 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for every page. Cityfrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Type: ❑ leaching pits number: ® leaching chambers number: 4 Flowdifussors ❑ .leaching galleries number: ❑ leaching trenches number, length: ❑ leaching fields number, dimensions: ❑ overflow cesspool number: ❑ innovative/alternative system Type/name of technology: Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, damp soil, condition of vegetation, etc.): Stone and soils surrounding SAS were probed with no signs of saturation or hydraulic failure found. Cesspools (cesspool must be pumped as part of inspection) (locate on site plan):- Number and configuration Depth—top of liquid to inlet invert Depth of solids layer Depth of scum layer Dimensions of cesspool Materials of construction Indication of groundwater inflow ❑ Yes ❑ No l5ins-11110 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 13 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, condition of vegetation, etc.): Privy (locate on site plan): Materials of construction: Dimensions Depth of solids Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, condition of vegetation, etc.): t5ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 14 of 17 . f • Commonwealth of Massachusetts w Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form Not for Voluntary Assessments u„ 137 Short Beach Road -- Property Address Ladner — Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for ------ ------------------ - - every page. CitylTown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cost.) Sketch Of Sewage Disposal System: Provide a view of the sewage disposal system, including ties to at least two permanent reference landmarks or benchmarks. Locate all wells within 100 feet. Locate where public water supply enters the building. Check one of the boxes below: ® hand-sketch in the area below ❑ drawing attached separately f / 36 47 3 {' 56 Commonwealth of Massachusetts w Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is required for Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 every page. City/rown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Site Exam: ® Check Slope ® Surface water ® Check. cellar ® Shallow wells Estimated depth to high ground water: 4+ feet Please indicate all methods used to determine the high ground water elevation: ❑ Obtained from system design plans on record If checked, date of design plan reviewed: Date ® Observed site (abutting property/observation hole within 150 feet of SAS) ❑ Checked with local Board of Health - explain: ❑ Checked with local excavators, installers -(attach documentation) ❑ Accessed USGS database -explain: You must describe how you establit4bed the high ground water elevation: t Auger hole T below SAS found no water. Before filing this Inspection Report, please see Report Completeness Checklist on next page. 15ins-11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System-Page 16 of 17 I Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments �M 137 Short Beach Road Property Address Ladner Owner Owner's Name information is Centerville MA 02632 May 17, 2012 required for y every page. Cityrrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection E. Report Completeness Checklist ® Inspection Summary: A, B, C, D, or E checked ® Inspection Summary D (System Failure Criteria Applicable to All Systems)completed ® System Information—Estimated depth to high groundwater ® Sketch of Sewage Disposal System either drawn on page 15 or attached in separate file t5ins•11/10 Title 5 Official Inspection Form:Subsurface Sewage Disposal System•Page 17 of 17 iil YV.. s No.- 74-7_ Fss _ ......._ THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH TOWN OF BARNSTABLE Appliration for UWpoiial Works Toustrurtinn ramit Application is hereby made for a Permit to Construct ( ) or Repair ) an Individual Sewage Disposal System at: _ .......... _ .. .:.................................•-•-•. catio -Address t No. _ ...... .... -- ........... -- ------------------- •.. --...... -' � Ad /I a •....... .. ........ :.. � -GI��LG � _. .: ./.. / Installer Address -�s- Type of Building Size Sq. feet U D elling—No. of Bedrooms___._. .__._. -Expansion Attic ( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) --- ther—Type of Building __ �-+ .._....._ No. of persons____________________________ Showers ( ) — Cafeteria ( ) a Other fixtures •-------•--------------------------------------•-- . W Design Flow.................. .............gallons per person per day. Total daily flow..............�- .e.................gallons. 0 t Septic Tank—Liquid capacit}uC530-_gallons Length...........:.... Width................ Diameter__.____..:_---_- Depth................ W x Disposal Trench—No........../....... Width........ �.._____-- Total Length.__..C�....._... Total leaching area....................sq. ft. Seepage Pit No--------------------- Diameter.................... Depth below inlet.................... Total leaching area..................sq. ft. Z Other Distribution box ( ) Dosing tank ( ) Percolation Test Results Performed by.......................................................................... Date........................................ a Test Pit No. I................minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit.................... Depth to ground water........................ Gz, Test Pit No. 2................minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit.................... Depth to ground water........................ a -•-•---•--•-----••......••••.--•----•------•-••--•-••.............. r --- ---- ---------- O •----------------- -escrptonoo ..=...-----•.. ..4. ----•- -• .................... x W ••---•-•-•-•-----•-•-•--••--•--•-------•---•--------•--•--•--••••--•---•-••-----•••......--•-----•----------- ---- -------------------------------------------------- •----•.............•- UNature of Repairs or Alterat' ns—Ans er when a plicable: ..__.. �t��.--- Agreement: The undersigned agrees to install the aforedescribed Individual Sewage Disposal System in accordance with the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Environmental Code—The undersigned further agrees not to place the system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance as een issue by t board of health. gned .... : . ...... . .. � to Application Approved By --------------- 4ti ..... --= --------- ................... �-..... ...� �....... to Application Disapproved for the following reasons- ---------------------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .............. .............................. Permit No. L/ Y . .. ............ Issued --------- D.-----------------.ate----- re No......�V W ................ ............ ii THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSE17S - BOARD OF ;HEALTH TOWN OF BARNSTABLE Appliration for Dispooal Works Toustrurtion-Ilermit Application is hereby made for a Permit to Construct or Repair (,V_) an Individual Sewage Disposal System at: �01 ------------- ......... .. .. . .... .-Address"o -Add OeFt No ................ ...................................... P . ........... ....... ... . ......... .. Owner Ad ad ere 5".. ........... Installer Address 1 2!; Type of Building Size ...Sq. feet Dwelling—No. of Bedrooms------ -------- ---Expansion Attic Garbage Grinder aOther—Type of Building .....Z�� -------. No. of persons............................ Showers Cafeteria Otherfixtures ...................................................................................................................................................... Design Flow.................... .............gallons per person per day. Total daily flow..............�Z.................gallons. x Septic Tank—Liqdid.capacity,404gallons Length................ Width................ Diameter................ Depth................ Disposal Trench 0. Z......./...... Width.........47..... Total�,Length...... Total leaching area....................sq. ft. Seepage Pit No_____________________ Diameter-----:.............. Depth belovV inlet.................... Total leaching area..................sq. f t. Z Other DistributiomC6x,'(L)) Dosing tank'7( Percolation Test'Re'sL1f`V- ...................................................PeHorinedkbg� ............... Date........................................ -'Test,Pit No..,- ...............minutes per incli/Depth of Test Pit._____._........._.. Depth to ground water.._..._............... . Test Pit No.V2................minutes per inch det'p thiW-�Test Pit.................... Depth to ground water.........__...__...__... - P1 ................................................................. ..................................... 0 Description of Soil_..- �------- U. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... W j I �V ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..........................P,--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- 7 U N�a,, re of Repairs or Alterations—Answer when applicable_&46� %4,1 14aQ-,'a....... -------------j:;7- ----- -ww_15 Agreement: The undersigned agrees to install the aforedescribed Individual Sewage Disposal System in accordance with the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Environmental Code—The undersigned further agrees not to place the system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance s been issued by th board of health. gned ........ ... ......... .. �Z 1�1 ...... ------ . .. ....... . . .. ............. Application Approved By .............. ------------------------- ......................... ---- -----------_____ De Application Disapproved for the following reasons: ..........................................................................................................................----------- .................................................. ............................. ........................... ................................................. - -----------------D-.-------------------- Permit No. ..ft,274/ ................................ Issued ......... .......... ............ IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSE17S BOARD OF HEALTH TOWN OF BARNSTABLE (9jertifirate of (fantyliattre THIS IS TO CE Y T wage ispo_XTInF at.., Individual Se /Di �a System constructed or Repaired'( by.................. . ................... .......... --------------- . ... ... .... ..... .. .e_............................................... ------------ ----------------- ...................../ -7............---—=- _7 .... ...... ........ at �_e. .............. ....... ------------ has been installed in accordance with the provisions-of TITLE 5 of The State Environmental Cod described in n erm the application for Disposal Works Constructi,o' -P it No. .....IV------��5_?............. dated ...... --- ---- AGUAVRANTE /THAT THE THE ISSUANCE OF THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SYSTEM WILL FUNCTION SATISFACTORY. 41 ........................ ................... ..... DATE.......... .... .... ...................................... Inspector ............ THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH TOWN OF BARNSTABLE No..�.2.-1-1W FEE.............. ....................... Disposal rho Tonstrurtion papuff Permission is hereby granted........ _ ..... ........... ............................................. to Construct or Repair ( k,kan Individual Sewage 6sposal-System. at No. -:?2......_.. . .Street as shown on the application for Disposal Works Construction Permit No. .756.. Dated..-..ZP... a:.............. .. ........ -------------------"---------- Board FORM 36508 HOBBS 6 WARREN,INC..PUBLISHERS AsBuilt Page 1 of 1 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE LOCATION EWAGE # 9D VILLAGE �',��¢7 �/ ASSESSOR' AP & LOTS 0:9--0 INSTALLER'S NAME 6t PHONE NO. SEPTIC TANK CAPACITY LEACHING PACILITY:(type) '-S6 (size) NO. OF BEDROOMS PRIVATE WELL OR-PUBLIC WATER' BUILDER OR OWNER /�1y C A�itJ£e DATE PERMIT ISSUED: r DATE COLIPLIANCE ISSUED; VARIANCE GRANTED: Yes No �6y I i http://issgl2/intranet/propdata/prebuilt.aspx?mappar=206047&seq=1 4/5/2012 362-4541 939 main street rt 6a ' yarmoulh port mass 02675 down Cope engineerin't civil engineers& land surveyors structural design August 30, 1989 Arne H.Ojala P.E.,R.L.S. land court Richard R.Fairbank P.E. surveys 'Thomas McKean Barnstable Health Agent . Barnstable Board of Health site planning South Street Hyannis, MA 02601 sewage system RE: Joseph Sullivan, 130 Short Beach Road, Centerville designs - Brian' Ladner,- 137 Short Beach Road, Centerville Dear Tom: inspections Enclosed please find two copies of the revised septic upgrade plans prepared for the above referenced �ry permits properties. The revised plans propose a 2'7" sand filter between the leaching facility and the adjusted groudwater _j_- table. According to an article published in the March/April 1989 Journal of Health, written by Thomas C. Peterson and Robert C. Ward entitled "Bacterial Retention in Soils, New Perspectives, New Recommendations" this 2'7" sand filter will retain approximately 84% of the initial bacterial concentrations found at the soil/leach field interface. In order to obtain a larger sand filter, I believe some sort of a retaining wall will be required to prevent breakout. I feel these proposed systems are such a substantial improvement over the existing systems that these variances should be considered. If you have any questions, please call me at 362-4541 . Sincerely, Thomas McLellan Down Cape Engineering, Inc. TJM/amp/2TJML101 Encl. cc: Joseph Sullivan Brian Ladner Brian Garner I DATE fr-� moo" TOWN OF 13ARNSTABLE FEE -go— OFFICE OF RECEIVED BY S .'�►s"r"`i j BOARD OF HEALTH r��a • er+� 367 MAIN STREET 6 % 3�i HYANNIS, MASS.02601 / VARIANCE REQUEST FORM All variances must be submitted FIFTEEN (15) days prior to the scheduled Board of Ilealth meeting. NAME OF APPLICANT Brian Ladner TEL. NO. 775-9428 ADDRESS OF APPLICANT 56 Brunell Drive, Holden, MA 01606 NAME OF OWNER OF PROPERTY Same SUBDIVISION NAME Short Beach Road DATE APPROVED ASSESSORS -W AND PARCEL NUMBER Map #206 Parcel #47 LOCATION OF REQUEST 137•short Beach Road, Centerville SIZE OF LOT 11,037 SQ. FT. WETLANDS WITHIN 200 FT. OF PROPERTY: Yes X No VARIANCE FROH REGULATION(List Regulation) See attached list REASON FOR VARIANCE(May attach letter if more space is needed) Septic system upgrade at the Town of Barnstable Health Department request. Existing dwelling on small lot with high ground water table. - PLAN - TWO COPIES OF PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED CLEARLY OUTLINING VARIANCE REQUEST. VARIANCE APPROVED NOT APPROVED REASON FOR DISAPRGVAL • r v k�r�r�CWSTR8IE �•.,,Y Robert L.�,Childs, Chairman Ann Jane Eshbaugh Grover C.M. Farrish, N.D. BOARD OF IIEALTN TOWN-OF BARNSTABLE r _w TITLE V VARIANCES REQUESTED: 15.15 (6) - No reserve area. 15.15 (9) - P minimum cover over leaching field (variance of 6"). TOWN OF BARNSTABLE VARIANCES REQUESTED: + 12-22-85 4' minimum distance between leaching facility and adjusted ground water table (variance of 1.4'). i Brief Barnstable Board of Health Request for Variance on Vertical Separation "Groundwater to Bottom of Leaching Facility" FACTS. The Applicant is the owner of a dwelling located at 137 Short Beach Road, Centerville, MA, shown on Assessors Map 206 Parcel 047 . Applicant had earlier received a notice to abate violation. ( 310 CMR 15 . 00) for a failed septic system. The Applicant has applied for a disposal works construction permit and the Board has determined that a variance from the Barnstable Board of Health regulations would be necessary. The variance relief requested is from Regulation 15 . 13 ( 2 ) to allow the distance from bottom of the leaching facility to the maximum . groundwater elevation to be reduced to 2 . 7 feet in lieu of the required 4 . 00 feet. The applicant has submitted other variance requests with respect to sideyard setbacks and similar situations that are the subject of a variance application previously submitted. However, those variance requests stem from the previously existing septic system and are not material to the relief requested herein. RELIEF SOUGHT. Pursuant to 3 . 10 CMR 15 . 20, Applicant seeks a variance from Regulation 15 . 13 ( 2 ) to reduce from 4 feet to 2 . 7 feet the distance between the bottom of the leaching facility to be repaired and the maximum groundwater elevation. ARGUMENT. Regulation 15 . 20 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations specifically grants authority to the local Board of Health to grant a variance of any provisions of that title with respect to any particular case when the enforcement thereof would (i) do manifest injustice and ( ii) when the same degree of environmental protection can be achieved without strict application of the particular provision. The Board of Health mailed to the Applicant a notice to abate ' violation for a failed septic system in 1988 . The Applicant has applied to the Board of Health for all necessary permitting to allow for the upgrade and repair of the existing failed system. The topography and conditions specifically affecting Applicant's lot will require a reduction in the 4 foot distance required between the bottom of the leaching facility and the maximum groundwater elevation. The Applicant has, through its engineer, spent considerable time and expense to engineer a system that far exceeds the 2 foot minimum which is allowable under the regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection. The Applicant seeks a 1 . 3 foot variance rather than the maximum allowable variance of 2 feet. 1 Y The past year ranted much Board of Health has within the P Y 9 more extensive 2 foot variances to a number of other owners of dwellings in the immediate surrounding area (see attached Exhibit "A" ) . The variance requested by Applicant represents only 66% of the variance granted to similarly situated owners by the Board of Health in the past. To comply with the groundwater distance regulation as it currently exists would work a substantial hardship on the Applicant without a concomitant health benefit. Substantially more excavation and construction must take place to comply, including the construction of a 2 foot high concrete retaining wall around the entire septic system. The likelihood of potential damage to the lot or the dwelling and. the potential increased maintenance costs are substantial . The Applicant respectfully submits to the Board that granting of a variance to Applicant will still provide the same .degree of environmental protection. According to the attached article provided by the Board of Health, the 2 foot variances granted earlier by the Board provide approximately 65% of the bacterial protection that would be afforded by the existing regulations . However, the Applicant's proposed 2 . 6 sand filter will provide approximately 84% of the protection found in a 4 foot sand filter, an increase in effectiveness of 30% of the previously granted variances . The variance, if granted by the Board of Health, would also provide approximately 86% of the effectiveness provided in the required 4 foot sand filter. The Board should note that this proposal is a thousand fold more efficient and protective of the environment than the existing system which has been deemed failed by the Board of Health. The cost of complying with the existing regulation would entail many thousands of dollars and an extreme burden on the quiet use and enjoyment of the property to which Applicant has come to expect. The proposed variance request will provide almost 86% of the protection afforded by the existing regulation while , working to remove a substantial hardship from the Applicant. WHEREFORE, the Applicant respectfully requests the Board to grant its request for a variance from regulation 15 . 13 (2 ) . Respectfully submitted, Brian R. Ladner, Applicant By his attorney, Brian F. Garner Dated: October 3, 1989 2 i EXHIBIT "A" 1. Ruth Hill, 56 Short Beach Road, approved 2 foot variance, October 14 , 1988 . 2 . William Maher, 65 Short Beach Road, approved 2 foot variance, October 14, 1988 . 3 . Frank Wachter, 64 Short Beach Road, approved 2 foot variance, October 14 , 1988 . 4 . William McGrath, 59 Short Beach Road, approved 2 foot variance, October 14 , 1988 . 5 . Gerald Healy, 16 Short Beach Road, approved 2 foot vriance, December 22 , 1988 . . 6 . Tellier, 55 Short Beach Road, approved 2 . 4 foot variance, October 14, 1988 7 . Tellier, 118 Short Beach Road approved 3 . 1 foot variance, October 14, 1988 . 8 . Hines, 127 Short Beach Road, approved 3 . 1 foot variance, October 14 , 1988 . F ��Cterial reten lon in sails New perspectives, new recommendations Thomas C. Peterson : Robert C. Ward water distribution systems to be limited by both the mulrienl content within the A r Wastewater and the competition for those �u��raci nutrients by other orgnnisms. Monitoring growndu'ater for the presence of jecnl colijorm bacteria trill rennin flit Crane and Moore (3) suggest that the primary method for determining potential groundtrnter contamination by pathogenic major reason for bacterial die-off in a organisms present in domestic trasteteater discharged jron on-site u•asten•ater treatment foreign environment is the inability of the systems. Public health officials assunte that microbial contanrinatiort of u•a(er•by on-sift, introduced orgnnisms to loner their metn- ujasteuvalersystentsisuncon innnif4ft(120cm)njsttitablesoilexistsbetweenfheba.cenfa bolic r•equirelnents in n sit unlion of lower leachfield and the high(tinter table. Researrh suggests that this assumption is incvrrcct tint nutrient availability. Within the soil mat coarse-grained soils. Enteric bacteria are likely to be transported beyond 4/t(120(-at)in rix, enleric bncterin are subiected to a coarsesoils. 'lorc(hiceor•aNeviole this problem,prelim ill nry Soil anal):sis, ill additiontonr mtlrieni-pour (cm-bon-limited) environ- instead of(It e'soil percolation test, should be Made. 7I1v.cr encl;:,cs should irtrludepor6cle meal (18). --size a;iti distribution a naiysis and possibly organic matter content analysis. Indigenous soil microorganisms,typically found at soil particle surfaces,have a coin- petilive edge in this nutrient-poor envi- ronn)ent. For.-enteric bacteria to survive, icrobial life in domestic waste- posal systems may be necessary to reduce they must be able to tolerate abiotic r waters is varied and commonly bacterial, and possibly,viral transport. stresses, to maintain their viability in the pathogenic. Health considers- The purposesofthispaperareforeport absence of nutrients and to coexist with tions dictate monitoring of water subject the results of bacterial transport sinitrin- antagonistic orgnnisms(13). Enteric bac- i to contamination from these potentially lion studies,to suggest that bacterial con- terin (lint survive in this "rigorous" en- pathogenic contaminants. The focus of tamination of groundwater via on-site vironn)ent have file potential of being monitoring by public health officials is on wastewater treatment systems may be transported great distances. Fviruses and pathogenic bacteria,,the most very common in coarse-grained soils and Recent studies(I ll,l 1,16) indicate that t:ommon microbiological wastewater con- to recommend procedures which rnny help sf arvitir bncterin cony not only lower their stituents.If these organisms can find their reduce or alleviate the potential for ad- metabolic requirements, but also reduce tvay into groundwater supplies, then a ditional bacterial contamination. their volume or possibly fragn)ent into potential health hazard does exist. smaller, viable cells called "dwnrfs" or Soil can be effective in retaining bac- Background .1 till rnmicrocells." If starving enteric bac- teria and viruses contained in wastewater teria are subject. to the same processes, discharged from an on-site wastewater tViruses found in domestic wastewater are then the probability of bacterial retention treatment system(septic tnnk/leachfield/ a Rreaterpublic health problem for humans within n short distance of travel in soil is system). Straining and adsorption are than bacteria. The viral population is reduced. thought to be effective in limiting mic- much more likely to cause infectious dis- Whether starving enteric bacteria are robial transport (5). Straining is thought ease than the bacterial population because subject to size redurl ion or fragmentation to be the primary factor in bacterial reten- the dose required to cause sickness(infec- in soil associated with an on-site disposal tion (6), while adsorption is the primary tious dose)is much less(17).Sampling for ' system fins not been proven. Dwarfs will primary retention factor for viruses (5). viral contamination of waters is more ex pass through standard writer sampling Health officials commonly assume flint pensive, more time-consuming and less fillets, so their presence is more difficult if bacteria, which are much larger than reliable than sampling for bacterial con- to assess. viruses, are not being retained in the soil tamination. during transport, then the sane might be Sampling for bacterial contamination Simulation 1•esults said of viruses. Therefore, bacterial con- will continue to be the prinnnry method for tamination of water supplies is a good in- verifying the quality of the drinking water The results of computer simulations re- dicntion of viral contamination. supply,although recent research suggests cent'• presented 1)y Peterson and Ward Recent research ofthe nuthors 0 8)and that the results from bacterial sampling (18) suggest that enteric bacteria may be information from the literature suggest may be unreliable (1,12,15). For these tronsported heyond acceptable limits (4 enteric bacteria may be transported greater reasons, bacterial retention in soils in the feet or 1.2 meters of unsaturated,suitable distances in,the soil than commonly as- focus of this paper. soil).Their research was limited to coarse- sumed. 'These results and associated in- Pathogenic enteric bacteria — Escher•- grained soils ty picall' found in the moun- . formation suggest that new installation ichia, Salmonella, Shigella, l ibrio. Yet- tnins of Colorado and did not account for procedures for on-site wastewater dis- sinia, Pseudontonas acid Staplt,rlocnccus nny size reduction or fragmentation of are common constituents of waste- baclerin. water entering and possibly Ieming oil- Initial bncterin) concentrations were Robert C. Ward, 1'hU., 1)epnrtment "f Agricutlural site wnalewatersystemA.One might expect within the range of those flint might be and Chemical F•ngincering, Colorado State Unler- the variety, number and vinbilily of the expected at the soil/lenchfield trench in- eily,Fort Collin,Co 80523. organisms entering the soil from was(e- terface— apl)roxitnately 50,000 bacteria 196 Journal of Environmental Health Volume 51, Number 4 i271 per cubic centimeter of soil bulk volume. Recommendations for must be careful when arbitrarily applying the results of this research Utilizing a bacterial transport model regulatory revision , under field or field situn- coupled with a soil water flow model, g y bona. Additional research, Peterson and Ward(18)ran simulations of A common practice in wastewater engi conditions,is required before a direct ac- a 100-year rninstorm on a hypotheticnl on- neering when bacterial retention cannot relation between depth of soil end bc- site wastewater(eachfield located in coarse be obtained within the allocated soil depth terinl retention is justified. soils. The coarse soils were classified as is to increase the depth Ifistoricnlly, this Analysis oft he lit era(tire and tile results sandy and loamy sand based on their has been an arbitrary practice with little of the computer simulations presented in physical properties. A deterministic(con- scientific justification(21). this paper indicate that the percentage of start input) simulation was run to com The results of the research, sum- fines (silt and clny particles able to pass pare the depth of bacterial transport rnorized earlier, suggest that an increase the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 200, with between the sandy and lonrny solid soils. in soil depth can have an important impact openings of 0.()75 nun) is very likely the The results (Figure 1) are whnt one on bacterial retention. For comparative mnjor factor lending to bacterinl ret.en-- mightexpect.Loamy sands retained more purposes only, analyze the solid curve in' Lion, whether by straining or adsorption. bacteria than sandy soils. The greatest Figure 2. An increase in soil depth from Stotzky (20) is very specific when he relative difference in bacterial concert- 120 to 140 cm(an increase of 17 percent), says,"the major inorganic particulates that trationswas0.23 ot60 clot soil depth.Brised produces computer simulation results affect microbinl events in soil are within on this simulation, no bacteria traveled which indicnte that the probability of bac- the clny•sized fraction and consist pri- beyond 110 cm in loamy sand soil, while terinl retention increases from 0.64 to marilyofclnytninernlsnndpolymerichyd- bacteria)transport did exceed 120 ctn soil 0.84 (an increase of 31 percent). roux oxides of mainly Fe(3+), AI(3-1-) depth in sandy soils. Soil depth is a important factor,but one and i1•In(4-f-)." The relative concenlrnlion in holIt cases was smnll. The important point to mote is that the presence of fine-grained particles in the loamy sand reduced bacterial trans- Figure 1 port The soil environment is n•complex eco- Comparison of relative bacterial concentrotion versus depth for loamy sand(solid lino)and sandy soil(dashed line)at the EPA design system. Modeling a complex system de- terministically produces results that cony percolation rates have limited value. Modeling bacterial transport stochastically(with vnrinble in- puts) accounts for some of the variability t.o +on YEAR strmM inherent in the soil ecosystem.The results °'° ctot-60000 of stochastic modeling of bacterial trnns• 0.0 IF-uo tm port in soil are expressed as probabilities 0.7 rather than specific bacterial concentra- o 0.e Cons. u 0.5 Simulations were performed to indicnte v 0.4 the relative importance of bacterial ad- 0.3 sorption/straining and die-off on the nax- 0.7 imum depth of bacterial transport(Figure 0.1 2) The results show the importance of 0.0 •- �•r- both die-off and adsorption/straining to o 20 40 so so too 120 140 too bacterial transport DEPTH (CM) The probability of bacteria reaching 120 cm (4 ft) in 168 h when die-off and lid- sorption/straining are taken into con- sideration is 0.35 (solid curve). If the soil Figure 2 water temperature were very low, thus Cumnfativo trnmienc el+nwine maximum depth of bac- inhiniting bacterial activity and die-oil, lariat transport when oil parameters are included(solid line);when the the probability of reaching 120 crn(4 ft)is dio-off coefficient-(dotted line),and when the die-olf ndsotpliord 0.64 (dotted curve). straining -0(chain-dot line) If adsorption,straining and die-off were not factors, such as might be the case in 100 I very cold; coarse-grained soils, then the _ B0 O , I probability of reaching 120 cm (4 ft) is ? too YEAR s -SAND zs r-too nounsuns 0.88(chain-dot curve).Dispersion accounts +u ro for the 0.12 difference from plug flow D c-e0000 v so conditions. li The results of this investigation suggest, 60 that enteric bacteria eventually will be. > 40 ' ......................... ,:•••••"""".'... J transported beyond 120 cm(4 ft) of suit- F JO able soil depth in coarse-grained soils.With 20 t these results in mind, it is suggested that 1° r.existing regulations for designing on-site _. . .--- - o wastewater treatment systems may need ° :° ; 40 I an ton 120 +.o tee � MAXIMUM DEPTfi(CM) to be revised to account for hncterinl trans- port in these coarse-grained soils. March/April 1989 Journal of Environmental Ilenith 197 • Loamy sands have a higher uercentriep tic:: test ahuuid be repinced by or amen- A suggesled procedure for estitunlii,g of fines than sands. Results reported in ded with particle size analysis and possibly the bacterial retention capability of a soil Peterson and Ward(18) indicate that the orgnnic matter content analysis. using a method based on soil particle probability of bacterial retention within The percolation test indicates the rate minlysis is the Busch-L tickmer (2) equn- 120 cm (4 ft.) soil depth is 0.64 for lonnty water is accepted by the soil. It provides tiom referenced in Mritthess and 1'ek- -sand and 0.62 for sand.This is an increase no indication of either microbial or cheini- degger(1.1). Busch find Luckmer(2)define in retention probability of 23 percent cal retention. Microbial and chemical re- security vnlue,S,which crinbe used for the when a soil with additional fines Is used. tenlion by soil are primarily functions of determination of mechanical filtering cri- As with soil depth,these results cannot be soil mineralogy and surface area and or. ' terin for soil ret enl ion of bncterin. The transferred directly to field conditions. ganic matter content. Because organic vuloe of S must be greater than 1.5 to limit Until new quantitative procedures are inntter cony be assumed more transient bncterin Irnnspoil. available, temporary modificntions or re- than soil particles,its use cony be limited. The equnlion is basically a ratio of the visions of existing regulations finny he Clay-sized particles, clay minerals and. dinnleterof the nlicroorgnnisnls of interest necessary. The commonly used percale- organic matter retain bacteria. to the dinmeter of the soil pnrticle size . with 10 percent finer— 10 percent of the particles nip sampler than this specific diameter. This equnlion is analogous to the coefficient of uniformity used in geo- Table 1 technical enrineeiiug.'I'he Ilusch-Luckner equation with pnrnmeters defined is: Relationship between grain size and critical pore size S= Idrrl/(Fs*elk)I > 1.5 IiI [After Malthess and Pekdeger(14)] 'where dltl=dininvierofmicroorgnnismILA SOIL GRAIN SIZE(mm) F� 'ilk (um) Fs= empirical h rinsit factor— nuntei ically 6 is used; this fnctor Fine silt 0.002-0.006 0.72 nceounls for the heterogeneity of Medium silt 0.006-0.020 2-4 the pot-ous media Coarse silt 0.02-0.06 7•2 dk= hydrnulic equivalent dinmeter Fine sand 0.06-0.20 —.-.. .._ 24.0 of porous media.(it,eouals 11,2'd • Mcdii:i-ii sand ---- - U.2-0.6 72.0 (grain size will] 10`7, finer ILI) Coarse sand 0.6-2.0 240.0 When the cril ical pore size values('liable Fine gravel 2.0-6.3 720.0 1) and the size of n typical bacterium Medium gravel 6.3-20.0 2400.6 (0.001 nun) nre used in evaluating the Coarse gravel . 20.0-63.0 7200.0 Iitisch-Luckner equation, the result indi- Cates no bacterial retention by the various soil types. 'I'he limiting pore dinmeter for coarse silt is 0.0072 tam. )lecause natural soils Flgure 3 are not uniform ill pnrticle sizes, nssunle Comparison of grnin sizo,polo slro nod mlcroblal sizo Iltnt n rertfiill pel ceninge of Ilse soils list ed IAllor Matihoss nod f'okdogor(14)) in Tithle I will minim hnclr•rin. A rom- pnrison of ginrll size is plovided Ill Figure 3. >40t7Nm 400pm-12,um I'o utilize the Busch-Luckner equation, dk-Gravel dk-Sand 12,um-0.4Nm sevrrid dilfercol soils must be tested under m-- dk-Sill field conditions. 'this procedure can pro- vide fill esl imnt ion of bacterial removnl by 100-10vm niechnnical fillrnlion in soil and a subjec- Prolozoa tive feeling for the soil adsorption poten- Fungi 5,um-0.2pm tial — if that is n factor. Bacteria Another empirical nppronch, requiring 500-200nm more extensive initial research, is a retrir- Rickellsiae drition factor, commonly used in solute Cl�lomydiae transport equations. A retardation factor 250-20nm indicates the relnlive velocity of writer Virusesflow to that of bacteria. Retardation is f 10-1nm defined as: Macro- Molecules It= vw,/vb= 1 + (p/0) Ka Iii1 1 nm where: Large Pores Medium Pores Fine Pores Molecules vw= soil wnterseepnge velocity 11'r, Sand 70% 15% 15% vlr= bn rn c(riifillnsportvelocity L7`l Loam 33% 3301c 33% Atoms p= soil bulk density In1 L-31 0 = soil water content I1,3 I:31 Umm 1mm O.1mm 0.01mm 0,001mm )Cri= soil partition coefficient IL3 Af 11 100f.im •. Upm 1Nm The soilpnrlition coefficient isainensure 1000nm Wnm Unm inrri Wpm Upm of the partitioning of the bacteria between the soil wWer rind the soil pnrticle sur- faces. 1'he mnnericnl value of this coeffi- 198 Journal of Environmental Health Volume 51, Number 4 cient indicates tiie degree of straining or adsorption of bnclerin on soil prrticles Research indicate whether the adsorption— a higher value indicative of and organic matter. Straining of bacteria percentnge of lines is equn)in importance greater retention at particle surfaces. is not included. to n uniformity coefficient. Most likely the It is known that when hydrophobic 'Yo account for straining, n multiplicn- percentage of fines is more important,he- solutes are introduced into soils,the amount live fnctor to the soil partition coefficient cause it ig possible to have n well-graded c 'ninted, arse soil with few cln -sized particles. of solute that disappears from solution hi equations Iiij or Iiiij can be e.tn co Y often correlates with the amount of organic As indicated enrlier,straining of bacteria After nccounling for partitioning due to matter in the soil material (4). It also is is a function of the percentage of fine- adsorption, the percentage of fines, And understood that the partition coefficient sized particles.Straining is also n function the particle size distribution, the final for organic solutes is a function of tl►e soil- of the pnrlicle size distribution. Large- retardation equation is: water partition coefficient and the frac- sized particles mixed with small-sized R=vw/vb=--I+(p/U)Ka(a'%fines)(b*Cj tional mass of organic carbon (9,19). particles can be all effective retentive A soil partition coefficient which is n material. where function of both soil particle size slid The soil partition coefficient nrul- Cu= uniformity coefficient (v( organic matter content cnn be deter- tiplicative factor call be based on either n= fine-grain weighting factor mined. The partition coefficients for silt- the percentage of fines, the pnrticle size b= uniformity weighting factor and ciny-sized particles and organic mutter distribution, or n combination of both. An example of the use of this equation is can beestirnated using procedures similar Retardation in bacterial movement in- given with the following hypothetical ex- to those presented in Hendricks et al. (7) creases as the percentage of tine-sized ample. A hypothetical soil has n bulk den- or with data existing in the literature. particles increnses. sily of 1.55 and saturated water content.is An estimate of the relative contribution 'Fo account for particle size distribu- 0..14. 'I'he soil partition coefficient is 1.0. of ench fraction to the soil partition coeffi- lion, n form of the uniformity coefficient The percentnge of fines is 40 percent slid cient, Ka, is made by soil pnrlicle and (8) can be utilized: the coefficient of uniformity is 10. The organic matter content analysis.'I'he con- Cu= dGU/d10 (iv( fine-grain weighting fnctor and the unifor- tributions of each could be summed in the where mity weighting factor are 1.0 and 0.2, following form: d80 = grain dinmeter(in nun) corres- respectively. ponding to 60% passing by weight For these pni-nnneter values, the retnr- Ka= (i ka fi (iiij df 0 = grain dinmeter(in nun) corres- dnlion fnctor is 3G9,,inplying tlint the soil where ponding to 10% passing by weight venter seepnge velocity is 369 times that of ka=partition coefficient for ench grain diU means that 10 percent of the particles the bacterial transport velocity.If the soil size ororgiu ic matter fraclion10 NI-11 are smaller than the diameter dip. A is drier, such as 0.15, then the velocity i= size or organic matter fraction ' uniform,poorly graded soil ling n very low ration is 825. 'I•hese retardation values ; fi= fraction of the total mass presen- value, while a very well graded soil tnny indicate whether the particular soil is ode- ted by-component i have a value of 15 or above (Figure 4) qunte to retain bacteria long enough for Note that this procedure applies to (8). them to die-off. The assumption in this Flgura 4 Typical particle size distribution (After Holtz and Kovacs(e)J Sieve analysis fU.S.Standard sieve) 7 a, No. 200 100 40 10 4 s in. 4 ill. 3 in. 0 100 I 1 Uniform 80 -- ---- —j —- I- -- 20 c 1 L ,9 c E 60 - — —r.. ._ — — --- -- -- -- 40 u E o I -- o 60 c r 40 —• ---- Well graded Cu D I y a Gap graded v a 20 1 - — -- — -- ---- _. ..— 80 I Q I�r l i l i i i il/ J too 0.001 6.01- 0.1 1 f 10 IOU Grain diameter fmrn) Nlarch/April 1989 Journal of Elivironnneninl Henith 199 .Ill:; i . hypothetical situation is that bacteria are Iteferencen Microbial Spr.iee or Potential Use in Grneli adequately retained. 1. NiPsonnetle, C K; 3A. .le±ems.!i, C.A. R!vFf!!•r• Enrinrrrinn A;.,,t R'n„¢lire. A/irrahinl. 44:708 if particle size and organic matter annly find D.G.Stunit(1976),Influence of F.nvinnunen• 714. lnl Strew on Enumeration of Indirnfur Ilnrlrrin 14. Mollhrss, G. lint] A. Prkdeger(19P51, Survive, i sis indicate limited relnrdnlion, their two frnmNnlurnlWnter+.App.Afirrnl,int 29:Isf.191. mid'frnnctrnrtnfl'nthoQrniclSnrtrrinnndViru?r Jil additional procedures can be considered. 2. Busch.K.F.Fill dL.Lock tier(1974),Grohcdrauld', in Gfotindtcnlrr. lit:Grou,rd Writcr Qunlity. CAI Ili A large volume of soil can be removed slid 2nd Ed Enke.Slullgnrl. 14nrd,W.Gicer,and l'.L.hlrCarty(eds.),,).Wilet I,! "homogeneously mixed"to provide n greater 3. Crane,S.K.ant1J.A.Nloore119P41.ILnt•Irrinl Pol- slid Sons.NY,pp.472.482. lullon of Groandwalec A Review. II'nlrr Air Soil 15. Mcl'rlrrP,(:.A..S C.Critnemo.nod M.W.Lei'Itrt I'. depth for bacterial retention mid die off. /'nlhtr.22:a7 83. allier 119s7). Inllnrocr of Oiluroo'. Mrdin, ,no !I '\'lie addition of fides to the still rllixt(Ire 4. nrnntbnk, DA cool U.g. Loch%.WIP-Ii,I:elintnl• MenilmowFillrnsooDrleclionoffnjurrdWiller I� li May accornplish the swine objective. Fidler Ing Adunption of I'olyrpcllc Armmntle Itsdrttcnr- bowe Cofifonn Rncterin.App.Ent•irnn.Alicrahtol I I, bane on SoIIP,.Snil.Sri. 117:2.2.30P. 4:1:9 i•1 ua, activity should be considered a I short-ter, e ll 6• Cerlm C.P.. C. Wallis, nd.I.L. \lrlmik(197h1, 16. Moritn,lr.l'.11!IP21.SInrvMinn 4urvivalollleter solution provide I 1 Fate of 11'aPlewnter B tit, teriat]\'lininter.In Soil olrnphs in Ih Willie Environment. Ado. ALf definitive answers, A.SCE J blip. I)rai,r !lit•. lilt 1111MAr,7.17.1. rohial I. "l.6:1 71-199. II 0. flsgrdnrn,l'.,h;.1..�1cCop,and'I'.11.Rnhr11!IPI►, 17, Olkir,i, V.P. (1119:1). It"enrch Nerd.R: Ilenlih !i Potenlinl for Ground Water Contnrnination front Impfirnliona of Ili clrrin nod Pntasilee in Soil Srplie•\•rink Efflurnl!.J. Enviran. dual. 10:1-s. Alrsotpli•m of Wnstrwnler. In:l cor. n'.SF'Work Sunitilictiy 7. flendriekP, h.w., F.J. Poet, acid D.R. Khnirnnr shoponitesear(liM-rdsHrfnticgln,SniIAl,snrptinI 0:i l�, (1979).Adenrptionnf nncterinonSolln.Worer-Air o/11'na.tealrr. Fort Collins. (•R, R.C. Wnrd and ftesult9 from recent research indicate that' Soil 1'nllul. 12:219.2:12. R.M.Morrison(cde.),Nnl.Sri.Foundation,wnsh. bacteria are transported greater distances 8. Ifoftr,R.D.and W.D.Kovnca 119131).An/alrodne- DC.pp.76 101. than originally thought in coarse-grained lion to Grntrrhnicnl Engineering. Prentice•liall, 18. Peterson,T.C. and K.C. Wnrd(19P7), Bricletinl ill Inc.,F,ngle Aond Clilfe,N.J. Unnsporl in Conrse Soils Renrnlh Oil Site\Pasta soils. 77pe results indicate tlint 4 feet(1.2 9. Kariekhoff, S.W., 1).S. Drown. nnd 'I'.A. Scott w"nter'Itratntent Scstrtns.Cnlorndo State I'niv. ,I m) of suitable soil is not adequate to pre (1979), Sorption of Hydrnphohic 1'nllutnntP on Eryr. .Strdiort 7e•ch. !lull. No. 'I'1187.4. Colorado vent enteric bacteria from reaching 9attir- Nalnrnl Srditornte. II•rtfer Nos. 1:1:2.11.2 is. SIniv lloiv.,Foil Collitis.VO. cited soils beneath OIl-91te 14'BslCWaler la. Kjellr lie rg,S.nn(IN1.11rtmnIIssunll9Hll,tiIitivn- 19, Ro), %V.R. cud II.A. (:Tiffin 119P51, Mobility of 'I. leachfield9. lion lnducrdEfferlaonnnclrrinfSur(tire Clounc. (hFnnic�:okvols Ili lCnft•rSntoraled Soil hInletinla. terlmire.Appt Ent iron. Afirrnhint IS:497 Sf13. Em"irno (;(nl ll'nler-Sri. 7:2.11.247. Existing regulations for assessing the 11. Kirlleherg.S..I1.A.Humphrey,nod KC.Nlnrehnfl 20. Slolrkv, C. (19A1;1. Influence of Soil Minrrnl suitability of soil for on-91te wns(ewnter (19P:►I,Initlnl l'haeePofSlnn'nlinnmtdAclivilyof ('ollltids tilt Mrinhnlir horrssrs,growth,Adhe- i systems, therefore, need to be revised or lincterin at Surfaces.App. Eneiron. Alirrolmll. Pion, nod Erolor.c of Nlirrnhes slid 1'irusrs. In: replaced. Particle size and distribution D-Che.nflie Iafrruefin,nnfSnilAliru'ralcu'iNtNnnnnl!)rgnrtirs i !2. LeChrcnllicr, h1.R'. and C.A. McFNrre (19P51, aadAli(nrhns ('.M.IlnnngnndM.SrhniVer(rds.), analysis and organic it)tit ter con tent analy- Inletactione Hetween Ileteroltophir Plate Count Spec.Pull,f!17,Soil ScL Soc.Am.,Madison,WI, li, sis provide better information regarding Nncteria and Colilorm OrgnniernP.rlppl.Enl'iron. pp.305 42s. bacterial retention in soil than methods Afirrobiol. 49:1.138.1141. 21. Winnebrrret, JAI.T. 119RI), .Scpfir•71rnk S v- Illi r 1.1. Linng. LN.,J.1. Sinclnir. LA1. Mnflorv, nod M. (rets, Vol. I.,Sult.<ur/tor Jlisposal of Septic-1'ank LI. presently used. O 3 _), Fate In:.10 61 Ecucyclrntc of 1.;Jltrrrt. ,lruttcr::nrt Pub.Los!--n.SIA. I. Alrr.,..J..r1 on i ,.. t t erforme'unce of r ilk is r tormwat rManagement You can expect better results and greater design flexibility in a r, P 9 9 y septic leachfield or stornlwaler Infiltration system that uses the Infiltrator engineered system. ( ►r{''f ' '� ,I' '- �:" O High density molded polymer chamber, impervious to sail, r, acid, sewage, chemicals and sunlight, easily meets H-10 I` orH-20loading. ® Each unit, 76" x 34" x 15" (hiyh capacity)or 76" x 34" x 12" (standard), oilers tar greater storage capacity and appiox i >, .A' 1'' r•. �i imately 500ib mote infiltrative surface area than found in traditional systems. Inspection is quicker and easier to perform, and there's no .I • worry over dirty gravel and gravel compaction. F ({. _` '.:i r. !.alp U , Call or write for free brochure. f:�� '' ii t't•' �- � SYSTEMS INC. rr t ' , . -u.r . 123 Elm Street• Suite 12 • Old Saybrook,CT 06475 r 203-388-6639 Fax: 203-388-6810 � . 1; (': 200 Jourinil of Environmental Health Volume 51, Number 4 A Brief Barnstable Board of Health Request for Variance on Vertical Separation "Groundwater to Bottom of Leaching Facility" FACTS. The Applicant is the owner of a dwelling located at 137 Short Beach Road, Centerville, MA, shown on Assessors Map 206 Parcel 047 . Applicant had earlier received a notice to abate violation ( 310 CMR 15 . 00) for a failed septic system. The Applicant has applied for a disposal works construction permit and the Board has determined that a variance from the Barnstable Board of Health regulations would be necessary. The variance relief requested is from Regulation 15 . 13 ( 2 ) to allow the distance from bottom of the leaching facility to the maximum groundwater elevation to be reduced to 2 . 7 feet in lieu of the required 4 . 00 feet. The applicant has submitted other variance requests with respect to sideyard setbacks and similar situations that are the subject of a variance application previously submitted. However, those variance requests stem from the previously existing septic system and are not material to the relief requested herein. RELIEF SOUGHT. Pursuant to 3 . 10 CMR 15 . 20, Applicant seeks a variance from Regulation 15 . 13 ( 2 ) to reduce from 4 feet to 2 . 7 feet the distance between the bottom of the leaching facility to be repaired and the maximum groundwater elevation. ARGUMENT. Regulation 15 . 20 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations specifically grants authority to the local Board of Health to grant a variance of any provisions of that title with respect to any particular case when the enforcement thereof would (i) do manifest injustice and ( ii) when the same degree of environmental protection can be achieved without strict application .of the particular provision. The Board of Health mailed to the Applicant a notice to abate violation for a failed septic system in 1988 . The Applicant has applied to the Board of . Health for all necessary permitting to allow for the upgrade and repair of the existing failed system. The topography and conditions specifically affecting Applicant's lot will require a reduction in the 4 foot distance required between the bottom of the leaching facility and the maximum groundwater elevation. The Applicant has, through its engineer, spent considerable time and expense to engineer a system that far exceeds the 2 foot minimum which is allowable under the regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection. The Applicant seeks a 1 . 3 foot variance rather than the maximum allowable variance of 2 feet. 1 F SECTION - SEWAGE -SEPTIC TANK- -LEACHING �? 1 A_J.(MSL30 -2"OF 118TO IG" �V4� S �O _lpEMov I~ WAY VNS VIT L6Tb, _E 501" WASHED STONE k / _YIITHl11 L (0'R•dDIU5 OF 1_t&Gll IN G I Abu 5l0 1 -&7 t-& w*e zia POS5-0BLS, r&epL-eGtE to C*. 0.5'MIN. O �P i C 2 bl/GLEGN MED. SAND, COv1ciL �h -3/ GoVEIZ To �IzAD� � ti} F�'c � (�.'i4 MIN) tN• OUT• (l�x iG 1 FI E_L D % 1 5 O OG EL. IN-. — — — — — — "� TN'#3 PRoP fvvlP r i / ,I 7(O SEPTIC 5 !'jl TES �j �'1 3 / \ PUMP GI•'�^M TANK EXIST'. ELEV. ELEV. ELEV. 5 4 ELEV. J ) —� GAG / -S>=?TiG TOr1l�cTEES To �kTE.NDTO - . �LEv. CEtITEQ of Yct:K Sa nS To FSE e / Q 17l>z1 f.TL`( UNCcF' ndNHOL� 7 coVEYS . aOJ. t'l TErL L£VErL =2.� �'� / - IR1 .E.T TEE TO EXTEND 10'8fiLOW INVEeT. + \ v Q - OUTLET SEE To EXTt?+tb 14"$£LOW INYEeT. WASHED STONE—3`.-2-. OF IA"-11h•' \ FF``'r�s. / v� T M YERS SrZ.M`}A PVM P �WITH C,oNc T�rtP cHAM i Ca 9gP A cd � �` ��&Ssr rr (4.4. L44+,IAeCS ot_'EQ VA L) ogS YEn k 1�T�Tz I.3 i t:s ` \A s CQ TEST HOLE LOG M © C5, i ei R.�d I>?Sbt1 K,P E. J- 'D u NI.I i hi G ��•o,I•}L .` ,\�L /�;.�•� a TEST SY WITNESS N 4 BEDROOM HOUSE TEST DATE 8�� 2-19•88 DESIG T.H. 1 T.H. * 3 , . X CWMp �IL 9g 2: 2 40— ELEV. 5.Z ELEV. /.3. NO �, DISPOSER DISPOSER �`\ �� _ &d5 SEE?`{ICE Lodp — 2 \ 56M , MIN/IN. \ -`4i� i 12- �•3• PERC RATE -= L6f FLOW RATE 110 x q- (GAL/DAY) A-4-0 _ \� 1�� 1 I,o3-7 = �lr Loe SEPTIC TANK 4-40 (1.51= Ca 0 � v s_6µD en J weTs:e c L s e REQ'D SEPTIC TANK SIZE f' T St-, 30" Lc vs t / LEACH FACILITY } S �.�•/� o� ��� / CLT--b SIDE WALL ( Nh G/D. h� 44 _ w�Ta=e C� >1IrU. BOTTOM 50"15=45a -_5F ( 1.10 ) 4-50 G/D. EL.t 5 aDJVSTI-ID sbly - -- wstrze em FL.2.-7 TOTAL 450 Gjr� 1JeTEeO e / QL¢ 1:$ USE: ONe, LEACHING �1�'� C \ `•_. _ j o� f/ > E L• I.3 WATER ENCOUNTERED �` U 5 G S. W E•L 1 D aT& / , •1 /� � WE-LL 'I T5W - eq �Z, /L1.1`f AbbIT10NAL <-F-SSTQ S �� H J �� �c 8 1 NOTES (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) zoNE '• b Fovt•Ip rumINU CON4 TPUGTIION 4c, ?¢3 S2' / NGYD do�ust�nl=�tT: 1.41 W1BE pk)tIj GD SAIJD F=1lt.EA �y 1.DATUM .; TAKEN FROM -.-- c 2.MUNICIPAL WATER W VAILABLE /C cdTCN aes11J !.PIPE PITCH:14"PER FOOT 44•1 C -44 4.DESIGN LOADING FOR ALL PRECAST UNITS:AASHO• I S.MIN.GROUND COVER OVER ALL SEWAGE FACILITIES:(1)FT. E 6.PIPE JOINTS SHALL BE MADE WATER TIGHT A 7,CONSTRUCTION DETAILS TO BE ACCORDANCE WITH COMM.OF MASS. �,' \ SITE PLAN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE TITLES 1N 4r' � �.'(t•HS PLJ+,.I �, Pf�PG�iEp t,JOP�, 01.lLef 4 �a.1'lD ►.� Be t1lED v� � .���; �, LOCUS: 13'1 5 H D>�T 8 E d.C+-} UQ6 e3(jd ----- '� A ANNE ti��\ CCENTE2VII.LE $JlTzt,1ST&.81-E MA. 1• _I�� II 4o fVCi?e �� L� �Iwij,I� -i , y6 pr1c r����, L ENGINEER 1 y�ll�W" �Yl�J k'. 10.�1=G16N E�J61NC-E7r E.GT 4 cERTl1=Y ALL GONSTILV cTtON. REF: TO lW5P ti. GONTRdCZe2 Td YIsL1FY LEc!►Tt0A1 oT tdATB�.�-IK�S AT T�hE Op - down cape ea�ineerin� '^ q' 5R1dN LdDNER GOWSTYUCj10N, IF WeTs:R�112E5 AeT WIT4113 to, of LEt.eµING vet . ft � / PREPARED FOR izELOG4Tl-eSo a57a 13E10'MIMIMVVI• IF SEWER �INi=S. CRoSS udTvrr CIVIL ENGINEERS s�okl �• LINES BOTH P1?ES To $E 150 tS, pR>`5Suv_C- CL4.gs• - _ ----- a BOARD OF HEALTH 040 Pain at. LANDSURVEYOR$ RE DSURVEYOR SCALE a- 20' 2 (EXISTING)--------•-•-• APPROVED DATE MA(PROPOSED)CONTOURS -O-O'-0-0- - �HEEr I /�j� 7 13-e`I oATE g�'�9�