My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
02-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
8/18/2025 10:02:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
2/22/1988
Retention Effective Date
8/18/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
374
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
To summarize, - sliance on a change in habits or attitudes <br />toward septic systems would indeed require some major educational <br />efforts by the City, and the history of private system <br />maintenance i:;dicates efforts to date have not been completely <br />successful. Each family is different in their water use habits <br />and a push for major changes in usage patterns would likely be <br />met with conscious and unconscious resistance. Water saving <br />fixtures could be retrofitted into each house at a cost ranging <br />from $750-3,000 per house. These potentially would reduce the <br />daily flow rate by up to 40% but would still require the use of <br />septic systems. <br />OPTION 2. Repair or replacement of _existing individual <br />systems. <br />For the most part, existing septic systems in the Stubbs Bay <br />area are quite substandard. As discussed in the inventory <br />review, the existing tanks generally are of block construction, <br />not sealed off from groundwater 2luctuat'_ons. Where a two tank <br />system exists, when both tanks are in relatively good condition, <br />baff les intact and of 600 gallons each or greater, in a fairly <br />shallow location where groundwater would have a minimal effect on <br />their functioning, existing tanks might be considered as suitable <br />for continued use should system repair or reconstruction be <br />contempletec: New precast concrete sealed tanks could be places' <br />in approximately the same location as existing tanks. But, where <br />an existing drainfield is failing and needs to be replaced, it is <br />not generally feasible to tear up the existing drainfield and re- <br />use the same site unless the existing drainfield aken out of <br />commission for a period of time and allowed to tc ' y dry out. <br />Then, it is conceivable that the old trenches could be re - <br />excavated to a width and depth just greater than the old system, <br />i.e. removing the trench wall areas tha become reduced in <br />absorption capacity due to the biomat. <br />This would only be considered if the existing drainfield <br />site is the only possible site, and if soil and water conditions <br />are suitable for a drainfield system. As described in the system <br />inventory, many existing systems could not be replaced within the <br />confines of the minimum code standards. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.