Laserfiche WebLink
Mr William Waldron <br />5 April 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />7 8.7 <br />8 .9 <br />9 lu. <br />Average 7 <br />(ground s'_ape = 5.7%) <br />The above data together with some initial judgments as to construc- <br />tion economics confirms that the only allowable treatment system on <br />the site is a wa;-;tewater treatment mound. The mound type of system <br />is necessary to clear the zone o' = sonal saturation as indicated <br />by mottled soils. It may be locat.., in either area tested; with the <br />remaining area reserved as an alternate site, at separation dis- <br />tances required in MR Ch 7080. <br />Based upor an estimate of wastewater flow for a 5 BR Type T resi- <br />dence (750 gpd), A i dR Type I residence (300 gpd), the percolation <br />rates, and other data, we have generated a detailed system designs <br />for two possible onsite systems. They are enclosed in triplicate <br />together with design calculations, detail sheets and schematic <br />drawings. <br />Special attention is drawn to the following: <br />- The 'Lower area was chosen as a primary site due to ir.s .latter <br />slope and more out of the way location <br />- Each residence has its own septic tank(s), sized assuming a gar- <br />bage disposal in each <br />'itti '_ly treated wastewater will flow by gravity to a pumping <br />amber ^n the 1880 property <br />e deal _n consists of one long treatment bed and the her of <br />a dual bed; th- dual bed takes better advanta(v- of the existing <br />land form and requires less intrusion into t,F. area of woody <br />vegetation <br />We suggest s*t bids un both 5y5tems and _ or— based <br />14pon your. t.iiteYia (cost, aesthetics, etc) <br />Data is 613o attached to each design showing that the alter- <br />nate site size is sufficient. <br />Your next step is to select an installer P with hi- )— 4, pro- <br />ceed tr obtain a permit f9r the system t' e f Orono. <br />The only additionai advisory is that TV- 'EM AREAS BE <br />IMMEDIAT:aLY OFF-LYMITS TO TRAVEL by and THE AREA <br />SHOULD F& BARRIEREt Tu PREVENT THIS T. 4F. i.s .3scause such <br />travel sill cow..pact the soi ossibi, :he pe;cColation <br />rate which c.s ':d lea.? system failure. <br />In r ^;usion, I mu,t staff,:% that, because the boring and test holes <br />ireaent only a smn_1 port - of the total site and for other rea- <br />%A3, we o..-.. n.nt warrant that the boring --id to-t holes are repre- <br />sent?t-lve of the entire sit, ut only of the b.r; i and test hole <br />locations at the time of investigation. Review (` construction <br />should be an in*- -al part of this. design to enhance the likelihood <br />of hi ; ng a able system. N^, warranty of the sites is made or <br />