Laserfiche WebLink
C. Summary of options <br />OPTION 1. ALTERATION OF WATER USE HABITS, relies on the <br />ability to change the long -ingrained water use habits of an <br />entire neighborhood. At a cost of $750-3,000 per residence, low <br />water use fixtures could be installed that would reduce the waste <br />load on existing septic systems, but would not eliminate the need <br />for septic systems. <br />OPTION 2. REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEMS as <br />they have failed, has been historically the method relied upon to <br />avoid installation of municipal sewers in the Stubbs Bay area. <br />Although many properties have the capability to replace their <br />existing systems, replacement cannot be accomplished on a <br />significant number of properties within the confines of the <br />minimum code standards, even under reduced water use conditions. <br />OPTION 3. USE OF INNOVATIVE METHODS, has limited <br />applicability in Stubbs Bay, but again requires the homeowner to <br />accept unusual methods of sewage treatment and disposal. <br />Incinerating or composting toilets are viable methods of <br />eliminating the toilet waste portion of household wastewater, but <br />do not eliminate the need for septic systems. Shared drainfields <br />might have limited application in the Stubbs Bay NW sub -area, but <br />likely would require major re -platting of that area, requiring <br />further study as to actual feasibility. <br />OPTION 4. A COLLECTION SYSTEM DISCHARGING TO A COMMUNITY <br />DRAINFIELD, is not an environmentally sound method of solving the <br />long term concerns of sewage treatment for the entire Stubbs Bay <br />area. There are social concerns with the mere idea of a <br />community drainfield located within Orono's 2 acre or 5 acre <br />rural residential zones which are rapidly developing. A system <br />large enough to handle the waste load from either the Stubbs Bay <br />NE or the Stubbs Bay NW sub -areas would require a relatively <br />large area (5 to 6 acres approximately) of open land area, which <br />is not readily available adjacent to either area, hence forcemain <br />costs would be excessive. <br />OPTION 5. INSTALLATION OF HOLDING TANKS with off -site <br />disposal, is technically sound but economically prohibitive <br />unless coupled with many of the water -saving methods described <br />under Options I and 3. <br />26 <br />