757 Septic Letters HILLTOWN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 226 NORTH HATFIELD, MA 01066
(413) 247 - 5464
To: David Kellogg
757 Florence Road
Florence, MA 01062
Re: Inspection of septic system
Dear Mr. Kellogg,
April 23, 1999
On April 23, 1999, at your request, I visited the above property to inspect
the septic system. Upon my arrival it was evident that the system is in
failure. An area of "bieakout" was visible in one area of your back yard and
the uncovered soil absorption system was completely under water.
Unfortunately both of these observations are failure criteria under the Title
5 inspection procedure. Although the rest of the system appeared in
proper working condition you will need to have a new soil absorption
system designed and installed. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Mark T. Thompson
Certified Title 5 Inspector
BOARD OF HEALTH
MEMBERS
CYNTHIA DOURMASHKIN,R.N.,Chair
ANNE SURES,M.D.
ROSEMARIE KARPARIS,R.N.,MPH
PETER J.McERLAIN,Health Agent
(413)587-1214
FAX(413)587-1264
May 18, 1999
Mr. David Kellogg
757 Florence Rd.
Florence, MA 01062
Dear Mr. Kellogg:
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS 01060
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF HEALTH
210 MAIN STREET
NORTHAMPTON,MA 01060
Re: Septic System Failure, 757 Florence Rd.,Florence, MA
Based on a report dated April 23, 1999, from Certified Title 5 Inspector, Mark T. Thompson,
copy attached, the Northampton Board of Health hereby confirms that the septic system
serving your dwelling at 757 Florence Rd., Florence, MA has failed.
On 5/6/99a percolation test has been performed on your property, septic system repair plans
have been prepared, and a permit to repair the sewage disposal system at 757 Florence Rd.
was issued by the Board of Health on 5/13/99.
Please feel free to contact me at the Board of Health office with any questions concerning
this matter.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Peter J. McErlain
Health Agent
William Volk
Attorney at Law
Edgewater/73 A West Main Si.
West Cummington MA01026
(413)634-5401 /(800)286-5401 (in area 413)
FAX(413)634-2174
May 20, 1999
Edward LaValley& Son
15 Pine Hill Rd.
Easthampton,MA 01027
RE: 757 Florence Rd., Northampton, Septic System
Dear Mr. LaValley
The enclosed letter is self explanatory. The letter is addressed to the former owners of
757 Florence Rd. and regards a septic system which was installed by Ed LaValley& Son in 1989
and certified by you then to the Board of Health of Northampton. Please read through the letter,
contact the Calls or your insurance agent, if you'd like and get back to me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
William Volk,P.E.
WAV/jcl
. William Volk
Attorney at Law
Edgewater/73 A West Main St.
West Cununington MA 01026
(413)634-5401/(800)286-5401 On area 413)
FAX(413)634-2174
Oft
ln
r•
May 20, 1999
Raymond & Charlene Call
9 Cullen Hill Rd.
Huntington, MA 01050
RE: 757 Florence Rd. Septic System
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Call:
l have been asked by David and Joanne Kellogg, the buyers of your former house at 757
Florence Rd. in Northampton to represent them in the matter of the recently failed septic system
on that property. Since I am a Mass. Certified Professional Engineer as well as an attorney, I am
familiar with septic systems and their design.
Under section 24 of the purchase and sale agreement between you and the Kelloggs(and
by state law)you agreed to comply with the inspection requirements of Title V(310 CMR 15 et.
seq.). Toward that end, you, either directly or through your real estate agent, contracted with
Michael Lavigne of Environmental Field Services, Inc. of Leeds MA Mr Lavigne submitted his
report to you on May 28, 1996 certifying the system. He included with his report a complete
description of the system and stating that he examined the as-built plans on file with the Board of
Health, further stating that his inspection showed the system to be as designed.
As it turns out the actual system found after excavation was far smaller and of a much
lower capacity than his report indicated. His failure to do a complete inspection including the
required excavation the distribution box clearly lead to these errors. The system failed 2 V2 years
later.
You should also be aware that the plans which were filed with the Board of Health by Ed
LaValley& Son, the septic system contractor, clearly show a system which is twice in size and
capacity than the system that LaValley actually installed in July of 1989.
At this point, I would assume you are wondering why I am writing to you and not to the
above two contractors. The reason is that Mr. & Mrs. Kellogg did not contract with them; they
contracted with you. The harm that might have been done by Mr. Lavigne's lack of proper
inspection was(legally speaking) done to you, because he failed to perform as contracted. I don't
know if you were the owners in 1989, but the failure of LaValley to install the system as filed is a
harm against the 1989 owner, to whom you succeeded, if you were not the owner then. Copies
of this letter are being sent to Michael Lavigne at Environmental Field Services, Inc. and Edward
LaValley. It is to you, however, that 1 must turn for satisfaction. The Kelloggs septic system is in
the process of being replaced and I do not have final costs at this time. Since the tank and pump
pit do not need to be touched, I would estimate that the final bill will be in the $6,000 to 7,000
range, but that may vary depending on the perc test and the possible need to bring in fill if a built-
up system is required.
Failure of a system within 3 yrs of a Title V inspection is pretty much unheard of and it
points out the deficiencies in both the inspection and the installation. The Kelloggs had the right
to rely upon the assurances of the Title V inspection (that is why the law was passed). I would
welcome opening a dialog with you, your attorney, Mr. Lavigne, his liability insurance agent, Ed
LaValley or his insurance agent (or anyone else for that matter) in order to settle this problem
satisfactorily for the Kelloggs. If you have any questions, comments or concerns on the above,
please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
William Volk, P.E.
cc: Michael Lavigne
Edward LaValley
David and Joanne Kellogg
WAV/jcl
WI-1i ,O'M1elop.-
c_/ai'f'am-e v4Q6n6'6f"6rGcf'
Edgewater 413-634-5401
73A West Main St. 800-286-5401
West Cunt uriunoon, MA 01026 FAX 413-634-2174
July 28, 1999
Michael Lavigne
Environmental Field Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 518
Leeds, MA 01053
RE: 757 Florence Rd., Northampton, Septic System
Dear Mr. Lavigne:
Enclosed are copies of letters sent to you earlier this year via certified mail. The post
office placed several notices in your post office box informing you that a certified letter was
waiting and over a two week + period these notices were ignored and the certified envelope was
returned to this office. While you may have seen a copy of the letter delivered to you by the
Calls, it seems that you may not, at this time, understand the situation.
I have just finished listening to your rather long message on my answering machine. In a
nutshell, your position seems to be (forgive me if in condensing your message I take any liberties):
- yes, I did the inspection; it was done very thoroughly
- Kellogg was standing right there and he knew we weren't going to move the swimming
pool to look at the d-box
- the inspection carries with it no warranties
- we were not contracted by Kellogg, so he can't sue us.
The above might work with some other attorneys, but it won't work with me. I am the
Senior Partner of Lorraine Engineering, a P.E. and a Court qualified expert witness in this area
having testified numerous times in District and Superior Courts. Technical mumbo-jumbo won't
work on me. You are absolutely correct that a correctly done inspection does not carry with it
any warranty that the system will work for even two weeks (your words). It is, as you said a
"snapshot"of the condition of the system at the time (again your words). However, what you are
doing when you, on behalf of Environmental Field Services, Inc., sign that completed inspection
certificate, is to certify that you have inspected the system components, that you are required to
inspect as a matter of law, and that the system conforms not only to the standards required, but
that they conform to the drawing of the system that is filed with the Board of Health. When you
fail to perform a proper Title V inspection, your company is responsible for the direct
consequences of your failure to so perform.
Your mentioning of Child Care at the Kellogg residence is, as you well know, a red
herring. This is not just because the Kelloggs do not run a day care center, but it is because, even
if they did, this would not excuse Environmental Field Services' Failure to do the inspection up to
the standards required under Title V.
Again you are right when you state that the Kelloggs did not contract with you directly.
You stated that, if anyone, the Kelloggs could only sue the Calls. And again, on that point, you
are correct. First of all, however, your statement that Kellogg is out suing everybody is not
correct. In fact, Kellogg is not, at this time, suing anybody. Nor does he wish to. We are simply
trying to see what can be done short of taking such a drastic step. Secondly if you think that you
can hide behind the`he didn't contract with me" wall, you will soon find that this is a very thin
wall indeed. Whom do you think the Calls will implode (as a third party defendant) when and if
they get sued?
Enclosed is a 30 day demand letter under MGT ch. 93A. I am sending this to you despite
the above discussion about no privity of contract, because of the anticipated impleder. lam
mailing this to you via certified mail to both your PO box and your street address. I am also
sending copies via regular mail, because if you again refuse to accept delivery, you will at least get
this by straight delivery and you will read that if certified delivery is refused again, I will have the
Sheriff deliver these letters to you, which at a place of business can be embarrassing.
Throughout your long and rambling message you seem to want to place the blame for the
problem onto someone else. You seem to be forgetting the whole idea behind Title V law in the
first place. The legislature recognized that real estate was being sold across the Commonwealth
with failed or failing septic systems causing not only costs to the new home buyer, but
environmental damage as well. They set up the system of inspection experts (of which you claim
to be one) to do the inspections recognizing that the layman buyer and the layman seller don't
know much, if anything about such systems. The legislature established a standard which must be
met in every case. You yourself can not short-cut these standards, the seller cannot short-cut
these standards (which Call claims he did not) and the buyer can't shortcut these standards (which
Kellogg says he did not, nor would have authorized, even if he could). In the final analysis the
responsibility is yours and yours alone. Who is standing around is immaterial. The fact that you
did not perform the required inspection to standard cannot be disputed.
I again ask you to contact your E & 0 insurance carrier and have them contact me on this
matter. Further stonewalling or attempted obfuscation on this matter will just cause this whole
matter to spiral down toward litigation. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
�Vllliam Volk
cc: David & Joanne Kellogg
Raymond & Charlene Call
WAV/br
;/2
O/'feZ6/ZC ri.ong6l6CCi ei
Edgewater - 413-634-5401
73A West Main St. 800-286-5401
West Cuuuuington, MA 01026 FAX 413-634-2174
July 28, 1999
Michael Lavigne
Environmental Field Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 518
Leeds, MA 01053
RE: THIRTY DAY DEMAND FOR RELIEF UNDER MGL, Ch. 93A
757 Florence Rd., Northampton, Septic System
Dear Mr Lavigne:
Under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, Section 9, David
Kellogg of 757 Florence Rd., Northampton, hereby makes written demand for relief as outlined in
that statute.
The reasons for this demand for relief are as follows:
Under section 24 of the purchase and sale agreement between Raymond & Charlene Call
now of 9 Cullen Hill Rd., Huntington, MA and David and Joanne Kellogg for the purchase of
property located at 757 Florence Rd., Northampton, Environmental Field Services, Inc. was hired
to inspect the septic system located at that address and comply with the inspection requirements
of Title V (310 CMR 15 et. seq.). Environmental Field Services, Inc. of Leeds, MA, under your
signature, submitted your report on May 28, 1996 certifying the system. You included with this
report a complete description of the system and stating that you examined the as-built plans on file
with the Board of Health, further stating that your inspection showed the system to be as
designed.
In fact the actual system found after excavation was far different from and of a much
lower capacity than the Environmental Field Services report indicated. Environmental Field
Services' failure to do a complete inspection including the required excavation the distribution
box clearly lead to these errors. The system failed 2 '/ years later. The plans attested to by
Environmental Field Services, Inc. which were filed with the Board of Health by Ed LaValley&
Son, the septic system contractor, clearly show a system which is twice in size and capacity than
the actually installed system.-
As a result of this unfair or deceptive act or practice, the Kelloggs have suffered
not only the inconvenience of the failure of the septic system, but a financial loss in the amount of
$9903.00 as well for a pew septic system (from the pump station onward). Please keep in mind
that under MGL. Ch 93A, failure to act responsively during the 30 day demand period, can be
adjudged a willful or knowing violation of Ch. 93A, Sec. I, et. seq. and subject Environmental
Field Services to treble damages plus court costs and attorney's fees. On this $9903.00
transaction, that could exceed $30,000.00.
Should you have any questions, comments or concerns about the above, please do not
hesitate to write or call. Any response, offer or communication resulting from this letter should be
addressed to Attorney William Volk, at the address above and not to the Kelloggs.
Sincerely yours
William Volk,
Attorney for David & Joanne Kellogg
l✓
cc: David & Joanne Kellogg
Raymond & Charlene Call
WAV/br
Koard at Henl}tn copy
HILLTOWN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 226 4 NORTH HATFIELD, MA 01066- 5464
Board of Health
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Inspection of replacement soil absorption system installed at 757 Florence Road at
the home of David Kellogg
Dear Board,
On July the abo August 3, 1999 I inspted
The system was nstallt installed
ed by J.C.J.0 and lCo. of Northampton, MA.
for
I found the system to be installed in accordance with the approved design dated May 9,
1999 with the following exceptions:
The leaching gallery was moved back parallel to the back property line as per the
homeowners request and was raised approximately 14"to provide the necessary
4 feet of separation to seasonal high groundwater.
It should be noted that the homeowner opted not to replace the existing sewage pump,
associated wiring and control panel at this time. See the accompanying sketch for
installed locations of the system components.
This letter shall serve as Designer and Installer certification that the soil absorption
system was installed in accordance with the plan created by Hilltown Environmental
Consulting and approved by the Board of Health.
Sincerely,
7roitre--
Mark T. Thompson
I hereby certify that the above referenced soil absorption system was installed in
accordance with Title 5 and the approved design prepared by Hilltown Environmental
Consulting.
X
,ay �� James Dimos
A HILLTOWN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
P.0.SOX
NORTH HATFIELD,N6 M
401066
(413)247-5484
JOB ��d Ilo 75 7
Florence Rot. FlorenceMA
SHEET NO OF
CALCULATED BY � DATE
CHECKED By M 1..1/ DATE AUG rfici
SCALE
LOU.- AasCRF'tolJ Svs'TSM As iNSTT/:LED 'a/ 7.C . sl.Co. — 7uLV (fl?
(SK67ck Not -rb Sc-Act) _... . _..
4 BR. NOME
# 757
EX rruJC
F—SEPfCCTANK (BAFFLES O,K).
PUMP CNRMge&
PgE5Su0E Lo1E '
of
NEW
IZ'xZA-x12"
5,A3.
Aa£55 COVER
NmnSI hee+/114 or r 011
Environmental
Field
Services
P.O. BOX 518, LEEDS, MA 01053
(413) 586-7200 • FAX 587-3100
August 9, 1999
Attorney William Volk
Lorraine Engineering
Edgewater
73A West Main Street
West Cummington, MA 01026
re: Response to MGL93A Section 9 Demand Pursuant to 757 Florence Road,
Northampton, Mass.
Dear Attorney Volk:
Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1999 making Demand for Relief under MGL 93A
Section 9 for your client David Kellogg of 757 Florence Road, Northampton, Mass. Hopefully the
following information will make Environmental Field Services' (EFS) position on the matter clear.
I.) I was the fast person from EFS to visit the Call property at 757 Florence Road for the
purpose of evaluating their septic system. Ray Call had excavated the septic tank, pump chamber
and discharge line to the edge of his swimming pool at that time.
2.) Although the plan on file with the Board of Health indicated the possible existence of a
distribution box (D-Box) somewhere on the property, we were unable to follow the line beyond
the edge of the pool. As your letter indicates the original plan filed by Ed LaValley and Son
several years before was in error. Theoretically the system was inspected by the Board of Health
before the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance and subsequent covering. The 50% size
difference should have been corrected at that time.
3.) EFS never"attested" to the size of the soil absorption system(SAS), and in fact SAS
size is not a pass/fail criteria for a Title V inspection!
4.) The primary purpose for excavating a U-Box is to evaluate possible"back-up" from
the SAS, but in the Call's case Michael Lavigne was able to accomplish this by excavating and
inspecting one of the leaching chambers. This was done while the system was under normal use by
the Calls. At that time there were no grounds for failure pursuant to 310 CMR 15.303 (attached).
Logically the static level in any D-Box would have been at the outlet invert if the leaching
chamber water level was below its inlet elevation.
Perc Testing • Septic Designs • Title V Inspections • Wetland Delineation
5.) Clearly the operative language in 310 CMR 15.302 Criteria for Inspection indicates
that the inspection procedure be as"non-intrusive as possible", and that the inspector"make
reasonable professional efforts to locate system components."To locate the Call's D-Box, the
back yard swimming pool with probably 100.000 gallons of water or more would have required
draining and dismantling. Without sewers, the draining would have had to be above ground,
clearly creating possible problems for the Calls and their neighbors. It is our position that Michael
Lavigne selected an equally effective method for evaluating possible back-up by excavating a part
of the system that was not under the swimming pool. We also hold to be true that Michael
Lavigne made `reasonable professional effort' to determine the condition of the Call SAS. Your
own letter of July 28, 1999 also supports this conclusion by the fact that 2'h years transpired
under the Kellogg ownership before problems were encountered. It is also relevant that 310 CMR
15.302(1) clearly states that "the inspection is not designed to provide information to demonstrate
that the system will adequately serve the use to be placed upon it by the new owner." Over the 2%
year period it is very possible that the Kellogg's discharged a daily volume of wastewater that
exceeded the systems original design capacity.
Based upon what we believe to be the facts regarding the Call septic system, our position
is as follows:
1.)There were no unfair or deceptive practices associated with the Call inspection at 757
Florence Road, Northampton, MA.
2.) EFS exercised `reasonable professional efforts" in as"non intrusive a manner possible"
to determine if any failure criteria existed at the property in question. There were none!
3.) Your client used the system for 2'% years prior to the occurrence of any difficulties.
4.) We firmly deny any professional wrongdoing in this matter, and decline any claim that
you might make for alleged damages.
me e urs
end.
xc: Attorney A.W. Wilson Ill, Morierty and Wilson.
1789 Northampton Street, Holyoke, MA 02664
R
Envtro
Peter McErlain, Agent to Northampton Board of Health
Town Hall, Northampton, MA 01060
Raymond&Charlene Call
9 Cullen Hill Road, Huntington, MA 01050
e, PhPJ', MPH, ASE
Engineer/Soil Scientist
310 CMR. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
15.301: continued
pursuant to 310 CMR 15.303 or 310 CMR 15.304 solely as a result of a voluntary assessment
shall not be subject to the deadlines for completion of upgrades in accordance with 310 CMR
15.305 unless the owner or operator of the system is ordered to do so by the local approving
authority,the Department or court. Inspection forms for systems with design flows over 10,000
gpd and shared systems shall be submitted to the Department by the approved System Inspector
and the owner. All inspections required by 310 CMR 15.301 shall be conducted by a currently
approved System Inspector.
(11) Failure of an owner or operator of a system to have the system inspected, and use or
operation of any system described in 310 CMR 15.3010)through(9)after the dates or events
set forth therein without a required inspection shall constitute violations of 310 CMR 15.000.
1.5.392:__Critrziafarlasprstion
(1) The intent of 310 CMR 15.302 is to provide reasonable guidelines for the inspeection of
existing systems in as non-intrusive a manner as is possible, to avoid damage to the system and
any unnecessary disturbance o the surroundmg soirarea which is related to the treatment
process. The inspection is not designed to provide information to demonstrate that the system
will adequately save the use to be placed upon it Sy the new owner:the inspection cntena are
intended to allow for tun inspection to avoid undue delay in the transfer of property.
(2) An inspection shall consist of the collection and recording of the following information:
(a) a general description of the system components and layout;
(b) quantification of the source/type of sanitary sewage. This should include type of use
(domestic or commercial/mdustal)as well as the design flow and whether or not the facility
being served is occupied at the time of the inspectioq
(c) an analysis of the factors set forth in 310 CMR 15.303 (failure criteria) and if the
system has a design flow of 10,000 gpd or greater, 15.304 (threats to public health and
environment).
(d) water use records for the previous two years for facilities served by public water supply,
if available from the supplier;
(e) a description of the septic tank including:
I. approximate age size and condition of the tank,
2. distance between bottom ofgrease/scum layer and the bottom of the outlet baffle;
3. distance between the top of the scum layer and the top of the outlet tee;
4. thickness of the grease/scum layer;
5. depth of the sludge layer and distance from sludge to outlet tee,
6. physical condition of inlet and outlet tees;
7 any evidence of leakage into or out of tank,and
8. any evidence of backup of effluent
(f) a characterization of the distribution box, and of dosing tanks with pumps, if any,
including:
1. any evidence of solids carryover,
2. leakage into or out of box;
3. is flow equally divided;
4 any evidence of backup, and
(g) a description of the condition of:he soil absorption system including-
I. any signs of hydraulic failure,
2. condition of surface vegetation;
3. level ofponding within disposal area,
4. encroachments into disposal area; and
5. other sources of hydraulic loading.
At a minimum,the septic tank and distribution box if present,or cesspool if present,must
be located and inspected, and reasonable professional efforts made to locate and identify
other components and features,as described in 310 CMR 15.302(2).
(3) The inspector shall make reasonable professional efforts to determine the location and
condition of all system components and relevan vsm—la ETu es. If any component cannot be
located or inspected, or any determination cannot be made, the inspector shall state on the
inspection form the reasons and the steps taken to complete the inspection. In particular, the
following constitute reasonable professional efforts:
3[0 OAR DEPARTMENT OF ENFIRUNMENTAL PROTECT ION
15.302. continued
(a) Determination of high groundwater elevation. A deep hole observation test is not
required to determine high groundwater elevation during an inspection. It is intended that
the high groundwater elevation be estimated by the inspector, using best professional
judgment,based on the methods desribed herein.
1. The inspector shall review local maps and records of groundwater elevation
(previous deep hole observation tests or groundwater monitoring results)on the site or
nearby properties,if available.
2. If the system includes a cesspool,the cesspool shall be pumped during the inspection
and then examined to determine whether groundwater flows into the cesspool,indicating
that the cesspool is below high groundwater elevation.
3. If the system includes a septic tank and distribution r, the condition of these
components and the surrounding soil shall be observed for uscations that groundwater
has infiltrated the system. Care should be taken not to destabilize the distribution box
or the piping to or from.
These minimum requirements shall not prevent the use of additional methods. The
elevation of nearby water bodies,or evidence ofgroundwater infiltration in other subsurface
structures (for example, cellars), or hand augering to determine depth may aide in
determining whether the system is located in the groundwater. The methods used to
determine high groundwater elevation shall be described in the inspection report. A system
owner may choose to have the high groundwater elevation determined by an observation
well or deep hole observation test to confirm or disprove the results obtained by the
minimum requirements of 310 CMR 15.302(3)(a), or in place of the minimum requirements.
(b) Location of soil absorption system. The location of any cesspool must be determined.
For systems with a septic tank and distribution box,excavation is not required to determine
the location of the soil absorption system. Reference may be made to as-built plans of the
system Of any). Where the failure criteria specified in 310 CMR 15 303(1)(c) are not in
issue, the location may be approximated by considering design flow, location of the
distribution box and direction of outlet pipes, and physical condition of the site. The location
may also be determined by running a metal snake or similar device from the outlet of the
distribution box and using a metal detector, or use of similar methods. Nothing in 310 CMR
15.302(3)(b)shall prevent an owner from choosing to establish the location of the leaching
system through more intrusive methods.
15 303' Systems Failing to Protect PnhOr Health ^ v and the Fnvirnnment
(I) If one or more of the following conditions exist as documented by inspection by an
approved System Inspector,or determined by the local approving authonn or the Department,
the system is failing to protect public stealth end safety and the environment and shall be
upgraded in accordance with the ttmeframes of 310 CMR 15 305(1) and the standards of 310
CMR 15.404 and 15.405.
(a) Criteria applicable to all systems.
1. there is backup of sewage into the facility served by the system or any component
of the system as a result of an overloaded and/or clogged soil absorption system or
cesspool;
2. there is a discharge of effluent directly or indirectly to '.n: surface of the round
through ponding,surface breakout or damp sobs above the disposal area or to a surface
water of the Commonwealth,
3. the static liquid level in the distribution box is above the level of the outlet invert;
4. the liquid depth in a cesspool is less than six inches from the inlet pipe invert or the
remaining available volume within a cesspool above the liquid depth is less than K of
one days design flow;
5. the septic tank or cesspool requires pumping more than four times a year;
6. the septic tank is made of metal; or the septic tank is cracked or is otherwise
structurally unsound, indicating that substantial infiltration or exfiltration is occurring
or is imminent;
7. a cesspool,privy or any portion of the soil absorption system extends below the high
groundwater elevation;
(b) Criteria applicable to cesspools and privies.
I. A cesspool or privy is located
a. within 100 feet of a surface wale supply or tributary to a surface water supply;
310 CMR. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
15.303: continued
11/3/95
b. within a Zone I ofa public well,
c. within 50 feet ofa private water supply well
d. less than 100 feet but 50 feet or more from a private water supply well,unless a
well water analysis for coliform bacteria and volatile organic compounds indicates
that the well is free from pollution from that facility and the presence of ammonia
nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm.
2. Evaluation of cesspools and privies near water resources:
A cesspool or privy is failing to protect public health and safety and the environment
if any portion of it is within any of the dimensional criteria below and the local
approving authority in its professional judgment determines the system is not functioning
in a manner to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
a. within 50 feet of a surface water;
b. within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh.
In making a determination pursuant to 310 CMR 15.303(1xb)2,the local approving
authority shall consider
1. the condition,design,and treatment provided by the existing system;
2. the vertical separation of the existing soil absorption system from groundwater,
3. the horizontal separation of the existing soil absorption system from the water body;
4. the soil characteristics of the site;
5. the condition of the walerbody or wetland, including any sensitive use areas such as
beaches or shellfish beds.
(c) Evaluation ofsynernu with septic tanks and soil absorption systems near drinking water
supplies.
If any portion of the soil absorption system is within any of the dimensional criteria
below, unless the local approving authority in its professional judgment, with the
concurrence of the public water supplier if any, determines the system is functioning in a
manner to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
1. within 100 feet ofa surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply;
2. within a Zone I ofa public well;
3. within 50 feet ofa private water supply well;
4. less than 100 feet but 50 feet or more from a private water supply well, unless a well
water analysis for coliform bacteria and volatile organic compounds indicates that the
well is free from pollution from that facility and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and
nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm.
In making a determination pursuant to 310 CMR 15.303(1)(c), the local approving
authority shall consider
I. the condition,design,and treatment provided by the existing system;
2. the vertical separation of the existing soil absorption system from groundwater;
3. the horizontal separation of the existing soil absorption system from the water body;
4: the soil characteristics of the site;
5. the condition of the water supply, including a water supply analysis for coliform
bacteria and volatile organic compounds indicating that the well is free from pollution
from that facility and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to
or less than 5 ppm. Were available, existing data may be used for this analysis.
(2) Any system shall be upgraded upon the order of the Department or the local approving
authority determines that a specific circumstance exists by which any system threatens public
health,safety or the environment or causes or threatens to cause damage to property or creates
a nuisance as determined by the local approving authority or the Department. Where necessary
to protect public health and safety and the aMrorunent,the Department or the local approving
authority may require the owner to install a recirculating sand filter or equivalent alternative
technology in accordance with 310 CMR 15.202 or to obtain a groundwater discharge permit
in accordance with 314 CMR 5.00 and 6.00.
310 CMR-5481
GUIDANCE FOR THE INSPECTION
OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
-NTRODUCTION
On-site sewage disposal systems are governed by Title 5 of the State
Environmental Code (310 CMR 15 . 000) . Experience has shown that when
properly designed and sited, these systems provide an acceptable level of
wastewater treatment and are a legitimate treatment and disposal option in
areas where centralized sewers are not available. However, given the
traditional view that these systems are temporary solutions until sewers
are provided, they are often neglected and this can result in harm to the
environment and threats to the public health. In order to address this
problem and correct the prevailing attitude toward on-site systems, Title 5
requires that systems be inspected under certain circumstances. In this
manner, system owners can be educated about the importance of properly
maintaining their systems, and those systems which are an environmental or
public health threat can be identified and upgraded.
This document is intended to provide guidance to both the system owner
and the system inspector for evaluating the adequacy of existing subsurface
sewage disposal systems. Approved System Inspectors are charged with the
responsibility of inspecting systems in accordance with 310 CMR 15.302,
15.303 , and this guidance and reporting their findings to the approving
authority.
The goal of the inspection is to provide sufficient information to
make a determination as to whether or not the system is adequate to protect
public health and the environment. If conditions exist which show the
ystem is failing 'to protect public health or the environment, the system
must be repaired, replaced, or upgraded. The only grounds for failing a
system or conditionally passing a system are it any of the criteria listed
on the inspection form anC specified in 310 CMR 15 . 303 are met.
The inspection must avoid disruption of the functioning of the system
and should be conducted to minimize disruption of the site in general.
However, at a minimum, all manholes, covers, and cleanouts must be exposed
in order to achieve the goal of this inspection. Pumping of system
components, when required, shall be done after an initial inspection of the
entire disposal system to observe normal operating conditions. Each
component requiring pumping can then be reinspected after pumping has been
completed.
The Department has developed an approved System Inspection Form
(attached to this guidance) which is to be completed by the Inspector when
doing an evaluation. The Form consists of:
(reined 8/29/95)
Part A- Certification
Part B- Checklist
Part C- System Information
1
BOARD OF HEALTH
MEMBERS
CYNTHIA DOURMASHKIN,R.N.,Chair
ANNE BORES,M.D.
ROSEMARIE KARPARIS,R.N.,MPH
PETER J.McERLAIN,Health Agent
(413)587-1214
FAX(413)587-1221
January 3, 2000
Mr. Edward LaValley
15 Pine Hill Rd.
Easthampton, MA 01027
Dear Mr. LaValley:
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS 01060
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF HEALTH
210 MAIN STREET
NORTHAMPTON,MA 01060
Re: Septic System Repair at 757 Florence Rd.
In response to your inquiry about a septic system repair project at 757 Florence Rd.,
Northampton, please be advised of the following:
• On July 12, 1989 a permit to repair a septic system at 757 Florence Rd,
Northampton, was issued to Edward LaValley& Sons, Inc.
• On July 21, 1989, a septic system was installed at 757 Florence Rd. Northampton by
Edward LaValley& Sons, Inc. Peter J. McErlain issued a certificate of compliance on
July 21, 1989.
That septic system repair installation consisted of a "D Box" and two (2) "low boy" leach pits
with four (4')feet of stone around each. The "D box'was located approximately twenty-two
(22')feet from the lift pump.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions.
Si ly
eter J. i4lcErlain
Health Agent