HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptic Correspondence 10 Barber Hill Roa r
0qN Sf 4t
co
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
e•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511
M E M O R A N D U M September 10, 1985
TO: Water Pollution Control Authority
RE: FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEM AT 10 BARBER HILL ROAD
On September 10, 1985, an eight foot deep observation pit was dug
adjacent to the failing septic system at the above address. The
purpose of this pit was to observe sub-soil conditions so that
criteria for an effective replacement to the failed system could be
determined.
In conjunction with the observation pit, the Town Environmental
Health Officer also composed a very rough "field sketch" of the
usable front yard area. This was based on the location of the
existing septic tank and information obtained from the Kuehnel ' s
on September 9 , 1985 as to approximate property lines and well
locations.
A percolation test was not conducted for several reasons; the
upper soil layer in which the system would be placed was without
question capable of absorbing septic tank effluent. Secondly,
there does not appear to be enough usable area to install the
minimum amount of leaching area required; therefore, the maximum
amount of leaching area which would fit in the usable area would
be installed.
Based on the above stated observations, the following information
is offered. Sub-soil types and maximum groundwater table are such
that a septic system replacement could be installed in compliance
with the State Public Health Code.
Assuming the septic tank was moved so that it was seventy-five
feet from the Kuehnel ' s well (it is the opinion of an installer
that the tank should be replaced) and assuming the least amount
of usable area, the Kuehnel ' s could install enough leaching area
to closely approach the minimum amount required for a three bedroom
home (375 square feet) . This could be accomplished by two options;
first would be the installation of a leaching bed, (approximately
300 square feet) , secondly, would be the installation of leaching
galleries (approximately 320 square feet) . The second alternative
although probably the more expensive would be the preferred one
here since that installation would cause less ground disturbance and
could be serviced in necessary. If the driveway area were disturbed.
even more effective leaching area could be obtained.
TO DATE TIME a P
P IAREA CODE /NUMBER
FROM
V hh OF (O q q-13 EXTENSION
N ' u
E m
E
S
A
E G
E SIGNED
M
O PHONED CALL ETURNEO❑ SWANTS EEYOUO WILL❑ AGAIN ALL ❑ wASIN❑ URGENT ❑
sACIc CALL
AICO FORM NO.50-176
-zz to 109, 6
Memorandum
To: water Pollution Control Authority
Re: Failing Septic System at 10 Barber Hill Road
September 10, 1985
Page 2
The State Health Code allows for the local Director of Health to
grant variances to the code for the repair of an existing septic
system if those variances are unlikely to create a health hazard.
The small reduction in the leaching area referred to in the above
paragraph would not cause a health hazard.
Assuming the existing septic tank was utilized, a variance would
not be needed since it is existing. If the tank was replaced with
a new one in the same location, a State Health Department variance
would be required. The State Health Department has indicated the
variance would be granted provided there is no septic system pollution
problems with the well. The Town Health Department will have the
well water tested if the property owners request it.
If the same area was used for the septic tank, even more leaching
area would be available.
Local Health Department variances may be needed for separation
distances from property lines or footing drains of the dwelling.
Those would be granted since they would not create a health hazard.
To accurately determine property lines, including the Town right-of-way
for Barber Hill Road, the Kuehnel 's must obtain a plot plan of their
property showing boundary lines, their well location, house location
and location of the two neighboring wells. An engineer' s plan will
not be required but the new leaching system must be located on the
plot plan. A final determination of usable leaching area will be made
once the plot plan is reviewed.
Since the usable area is limited, the existing leaching area will have
to be utilized. The existing leaching area must be removed and
properly disposed of.
In summation, it appears as though the septic system can be repaired
using the front yard area. Another option would be to relocate the
well to the front yard and place the septic system in the rear yard
where there appears to be ample room.
Robert Dep ula, R.S.
Environmental Health Officer
RD:bmr
cc: C. F. Shaw, Supt. of Pollution Control
10- ,%#A
7 �
l
y
-7
v -Y -?6p so. / �w t
layer
> 134)
I a
ly
s
n
C i
��
`�� �o
�/
ISPFSTICATIOf FOR SMAGE DISP0 M S?SM fjwpcc i/"
caner JCL LOCATION
MCOIATION (Record all teats) SOIL IDISTURE:
Date
TEST RRAM S °
HolB X= J2 =3 #3 IDoiLE
Time Reading Time Reading Tine Reading Time Reading
TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS
Depth Presoak Min Percolation IAte
;ole Location (Mins. Inch
3 •
IBSERPA`FIOIf PITS: (Record all pits) -lo- Ground Hater Table: -
Date Near msx ,,BeLov Xiac.��E c�
ESC. -riONS
P= A PIT 8 PIT C PIT D
-
3(,-Ss" — .fi/ply:�•w,.d 1.eyc^ -
,fS
I�io }l%ray
TABULATION OF OBSERVATION PITS
Ground soil
Pit Location De th hedge At Hater At Mottling At
A - -
B
C
D -
SPECIAL CONDITIONS '
System design larger than 2,000 g.p.d. Water supply watershed
High ground water (less than 41 ft:) Possible seasonal high
ground water
Watercourse., msrsh,or pond possible seasonal flooding
'Limier suitable axes Excessive slope (over 15%)
IMar6Ln&1 soil (30 - 60 mins./inch) Shallow ledge (less than ? ft.)
Underlying tight soil (less than 4 ft) Other
CONCLUSION
Suitable for sewage disposal
Unsuitable for sewage disposal
Additional investigation required
Retest during vet season
Engineer's plan required
DESIGN FMOMMZNMMONs
OF
Investigated by__ Title
Confirmed/Witnessed by Title
Comments•
Bench mark location Elevation
mm-140 (Rev 4/?7)