Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force finds old septic system near wetlands; reuse or new septic appears constrained
Summary
Committee presentation identified a 1982 septic system under a lower parking lot near wetlands and a Sphagnum bog; the tank may be uncontaminated but leaching fields sit in protected wetlands, making reuse or a new septic system unlikely without further technical and regulatory review.
At the Aug. 20 meeting Pam Rockwell presented diagrams and site observations showing an older septic system on the Main Street site and outlined remaining technical and regulatory questions relevant to reuse planning.
Pam told the committee the septic system was installed in 1982 as part of a building permit for "Building E" and was not a Title 5 system; diagrams she received show a septic tank near the base of a gabion wall with leaching fields under the lower parking lot close to wetlands and a Sphagnum bog. She said a town investigator named Bruce described the tank as "uncontaminated," and the committee has not located the original town building-permit diagrams in municipal files.
Pam summarized the key open questions: whether the old tank or leaching fields are contaminated; whether there will be access to service or remove the system after remediation work on the gabion wall; and whether the existing system (or a new septic) would meet current Board of Health or Natural Resources Commission requirements. She told the committee that leaching fields are in wetlands and that regulators would likely object to placing a new septic system there.
The facilitator noted that EPA staff had suggested, based on soils and cleanup expectations, that the site could "accommodate a septic system," but that capacity, permitting thresholds (an example threshold of ~10,000 gallons/day was discussed) and detailed design remain to be determined and are outside the task force's technical scope. Committee members suggested that a future reuse planning process include engineered site plans and soils work to determine feasible locations for wastewater infrastructure.
Pam emphasized uncertainty in the diagrams and measurements: the one working diagram she had lacks dimensions and part numbers do not clarify tank size. She said the town may leave the existing tank in place if it is uncontaminated, but that a 40-year-old tank "would never be permanent" and could need repair or replacement in the future. The committee agreed the report should note that septic feasibility requires further, specialized analysis and is not resolved by the task force's present work.
