Moore v. Stearns — Entry #22: Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kerry P

' Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

WESTERN DIVISION Docket No.05-30010-MAP _
RICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE
SECOND AMENDED
Plaintiffs COMPLAINT
V, (Jury Trial Demanded)
KERRY P. STEARNS and oP ;
LAURIE C. NIKITUK "2 4
Defendants ; = - | 7
PARTIES 7

1. The Plaintiffs RICKY L. MOORE and KATHRYN M. MOORE, are natural persons
residing at 1226 North Ninth Avenue, Iron River, Michigan.

2. The Defendant KERRY P. STEARNS 1s a natural person residing at Otis, Hampden
County Massachusetts.

3. The Defendant LAURIE C. NIKITUK, is a natural person residing at 204 Kingsley Road,
Otis, Hampden County, Massachusetts, and was an agent for and/or employed by Pond
Pasture Real Estate.

JURISDICTION

4. This civil action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy,
exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds $75,000.00. Subject matter jurisdiction exist

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts under 28

U.S.C. 81391 (a).

INTRODUCTION

\\D3xbk31 1\m_riCivil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc


ase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 2 of t2

5. In July of 2002, the Defendant, Laurie C. Nikituk, presented the property known as 1495
Reservoir Road, located in Otis, Hampden County, Massachusetts to the Plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs were given a Massachusetts Association of Realtors® Seller’s Description of
Property by the Listing Agent, Laurie C. Nikituk. Said description contained, inter alia, a
disclosure regarding the drinking water source. The description stated that there were “no
known problems with quality/quantity” of the drinking water or its source.

6. The disclosure was signed by the seller and served as an express representation regarding
the condition of the property.

7, The Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore made an offer to Kerry P. Stearns to purchase the property
commonly known as 1495 Reservoir Road, Otis, Massachusetts.

8. On or about July 22, 2002, the plaintiff Ricky L. Moore and Defendant Kerry P. Stearns
entered into an agreement to buy and sell real estate, specifically the real estate known as
1495 Reservoir Road.

9. Prior to the property being conveyed, the Plaintiff was provided with a Title V inspection
report. The report indicated that it was completed by Dave A. Sullivan. The inspection
was performed at the request of the defendant Kerry P. Stearns.

10. Said report presented to the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore represented that the system
servicing the property conditionally passed the inspection, subject to a passing water test
and subsequent approval of the Otis Board of Health. This was due to the fact that the

well servicing the property was within 50 feet of the soil absorption system.

11. On or about August 20, 2002, the property was conveyed from the defendant Kerry P.

Stearns to Ricky L. Moore.

\\D3xbk31 I\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -2-


Gase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 3 oft2

COUNT I
(FRAUD and DECEIT
RICKY L. MOORE v. KERRY P. STEARNS)

12, Subsequent to the conveyance of the property known as 1495 Reservoir Road, the
Plaintiff discovered that the septic system servicing the property was not in proper
working order. The plaintiff was forced to have the septic tank pumped several times as a
result of the system not working properly. In an effort to repair the faulty system, the
Title V report presented to the plaintiff Ricky L. Moore at the time of conveyance was
submitted to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts executive office of the Department of
Environmental Protection, Western Regional Office.

13. Upon review of the Title V inspection, the program director pointed out several criteria
upon which the Title V inspector should have failed the system.

14. Massachusetts law requires sellers of real property with private sewer systems to have a
thorough system inspection prior to conveyance. If the system fails to meet certain
minimum criteria, the property, as a matter of law cannot be conveyed.

15. The Defendant Kerry P. Stearns is vicariously liable for the actions of his agents. Due to
his agents lack of due diligence, the defendant Kerry P. Stearns provided an inaccurate
and incomplete Title V report to the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore. Said report served as a
material representation that private sewer system was in good working order and that the
condition of the private sewer system met the requirements sect forth in 310

Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301., when in fact it did not.

16. The Title V inspection report induced the plaintiff Ricky L. Moore go through with the

purchase of the property.

WD3xbk31 1\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -3-


Gase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 4 of t2

17. The Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore justifiably relied on the defendant Kerry P. Stearns
representations, to his detriment.

18. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record title
holder to the real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring
the system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301.

COUNT I

(MUTUAL MISTAKE
RICKY L. MOORE v. KERRY P. STEARNS)

19. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 19 as if restated fully herein.

20. The Defendant Kerry P. Stearns provided a Title V inspection report to the Plaintiff Ricky
L. Moore.

21. A passing Title V inspection report was a condition precedent in the contract entered into
by the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore and the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns

22. Subsequent test and review of the Title V inspection report revealed that the report
presented to the Plaintiff was inaccurate and that the private sewer system servicing the
property did not meet the criteria required by 310 Massachusetts Code of Regulations
15.301,

23.The fact that the private sewer system is in failure is material in that the property will not
accommodate a typical septic system design, replacement is very costly and the Plaintiff
would not have purchased the property if provided with this information prior to the
conveyance.

24. The Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore justifiably relied upon the report provided to him from
Kerry P. Stearns and acted with reasonable care under circumstances.

25. As a result of the mutual mistake, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has suffered a damages

\\D3xbk31 1\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc ~4-


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 5 of tz

COUNT Il
(MISREPRESENTATION v. KERRY P. STEARNS)

26. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 26 as if restated fully herein.

27, The Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns representations that
there were no known problems with the drinking water supply.

28. Subsequent to the conveyance of the property, the Plaintiffs became ill. After numerous
months of suffering from the illness and after several visits to a physician, their physician
recommended that the plaintiffs have their drinking water supply tested.

29. The Plaintiffs had the drinking water supply tested and the test revealed that the water
DID NOT meet public drinking water bacteriological standards, and the plaintiffs were
advised that they should not consume the water due to the contamination.

30. The Plaintiff's physician determined that the contaminated drinking water supply was the
cause of the Plaintiffs sickness.

31. The Plaintiffs flushed the drinking water system several times and were able to reduce the
level of contamination to an acceptable level, however it consistently returned to its
previous level within a few weeks.

32. Paragraph 17 of the purchase and sale agreement signed by the Defendant Kerry P.
Stearns specifically stated that the well contained no defects known to seller.

33. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns had problems with the water
supply prior to the property being listed for sale, that the water had been tested on
numerous occasions, that prior tenants were advised to refrain from consuming the water

and he knew or should have known that the well servicing the property was defective.

\D3xbk311\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -5-


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 6 of 12

34. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns took steps to hide the fact
that the water contained high levels of contaminates in an effort to ensure the water test
would pass the Title V inspection.

35. The Plaintiffs have not consumed the water since the test revealed the high levels of
contaminates in the drinking water supply and their health has improved.

36. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record holder
to real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the drinking
water system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301, et
seq..

37. As a result of the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns representation, the Plaintiffs have suffered
from great pain of mind and body. In addition, the Plaintiffs have incurred great expense
associated with medical treatment for both physical and psychological ailments.

COUNT IV

(MISREPRESENTATION/FAILURE TO DISCLOSE/FRAUD/DECEIT
v. KERRY P. STEARNS.)

38. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 38 as if restated fully herein.

39. The Defendant Kerry P. Stearns as seller of the property had a duty to disclose any past
problems with the drinking water supply as he knew or should have known that the defect
was latent and predictably could affect the health, safety and welfare of the plaintiffs.

40. The Defendant Kerry P. Stearns is liable to the Plaintiff Ricky Moore for his omission
because he had special knowledge of a material fact that was not readily discernable and
knew or should have known that a potential purchaser of the property would want to

know prior to making an offer to purchase.

\D3xbk31 I\m_ri\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc ~6-


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 7 of 12

41. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record title
holder to real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the
drinking water system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations
15.301, et seq..

42. As a result of the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns omission, the Plaintiffs have suffered from
great pain of mind and body. In addition, the Plaintiffs have incurred great expense
associated with medical treatment for both physical and psychological ailments.

COUNT V
(MISREPRESENTATION v. LAURIE C. NIKITUK)

43. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 43 as if restated fully herein.

44. Laurie C. Nikituk was the agent and/or employee for Pond Pasture Real Estate, the listing
broker for the Seller Defendant Kerry P. Stearns.

45. Prior to the property being conveyed, the Plaintiffs specifically questioned Laurie C.
Nikituk, the listing agent for the seller, Defendant Kerry P. Stearns if the seller had ever
had any problem with the water quality and quantity.

46. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk represented to the Plaintiffs that the seller had not
experienced any problems with the drinking water supply.

47. Prior to the property being conveyed, the Plaintiffs specifically questioned Laurie C.
Nikituk, the listing agent for the seller, Defendant Kerry P. Steams if the owner had ever
had any problems with the drinking water.

48. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk made a representation to the Plaintiffs, that, inter alia
“the water had already been tested, the water passed and that they would be wasting their

money if they did decide to test it.”

WD3xbk311\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc ~7-


ase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page dofi2

49. The Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the representations of Laurie C. Nikituk and
consequently the Plaintiffs did not have the water tested.

50. The representation made was false.

51. As a result of their reliance on the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk’s representations, the
Plaintiffs have suffered from great pain of mind and body. In addition, the Plaintiffs have
meurred great expense associated with medical treatment for both physical and
psychological ailments.

52. As a further result of their reliance on the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk’s representation,
the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record title holder to real
estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the drinking water
system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301, et seq..

COUNT VI

(UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICE
c. 933A CONSUMER PROTECTION VIOLATION v. Laurie C. Nikituk)

53. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 53 as if restated fully herein.

54. This is an action for damages pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act,
G.L. c. 93A, §§ 2, 9(1).

55. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk as agent for the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns had an duty
relay any questions she did not know the answers to regarding specific conditions of the
property to the seller defendant Kerry P. Stearns.

56. The Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk made a representation as a matter of fact, irregardless of
the fact that she herself had no actual knowledge of the condition and never in fact

relayed such questions regarding the condition of the property to the seller.

WD3xbk31 1\m_\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -8.-


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page Gof tz

57. Laurie C. Nikituk’s actions or failure to act are deceptive in that said actions caused the
Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore to act differently than he would have had the Defendant Laurie
C. Nikituk acted with due diligence. The actions of Laurie C. Nikituk constitute unfair
and deceptive acts or practices violative of Massachusetts Protection Act G.L. c. 93A §
2.

58. The acts or practices of the Defendant resulting in the loss described in paragraphs 52 and
53, supra, were done willfully or knowingly in violation of G.L. c. 93A, §2.

59. On or about March 18", 2004, the Plaintiff served the via certified mail a written demand
for relief identifying the claimant and reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive
practice relied upon and the injury suffered. A copy of this written demand for relief is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1,

60. On or about April 16, 2004, the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk by an through her counsel
responded to said demand, claimed no liability and tendered no offer of settlement.

61. As a result of their reliance on the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk’s actions or failure to act,
the Plaintiffs have suffered from great pain of mind and body. In addition, the Plaintiffs
have incurred great expense associated with medical treatment for both physical and
psychological ailments.

62. As a result, the Plaintiff Ricky L. Moore has been damaged in that he is the record holder
to real estate which requires thousands of dollars in repairs in order to bring the drinking
water system into compliance with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations 15.301, et
seq..

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court grant them the following relief

\\D3xbk31 1\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -9-


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 10 of 12

if.

Il.

Iv.

V.

VI.

Judgment be entered against the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns in the amount
equal to the purchase price of the property and the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns
be enjoined take back title to the real estate; or

Judgment be entered against the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns in the amount
equal the entire amount to replace the existing private sewer system and
private well, and

The plaintiffs be compensated for their actual damages sustained in regards to
the real estate;

The Plaintiffs be compensated for their physical pain and suffering and mental
anguish caused by the Defendant Kerry P. Stearns, with interest

The Plaintiffs be awarded their cost and attorney’s fees;

Any other relief this court feels is just and equitable.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court grant them the following relief against

Laurie C. Nikituk

VII.

VOI.

IX.

Judgment be entered against the Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk and the
plaintiffs be awarded for their actual damages in the amount equal to the cost
to replace the existing private sewer system and private well servicing the real
estate;

The Plaintiffs be compensated for their physical pain and suffering and mental
anguish caused by Defendant Laurie C. Nikituk’s misrepresentations, with
interest;

The Plaintiffs be awarded their cost and attorney’s fees pursuant to M.G.L. c.

93A ;

WD3xbk311\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -10-


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 11 of 12

X. The Court award double or treble damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A;
XI. Any other relief this court feels is just and equitable.
THE PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ON
ALL COUNTS SO TRIABLE
THE PLAINTIFFS
Ricky L. Moore and Kathryn M. Moore

By their attorney,

Dated: July 27, 2005

Bradford Pp. Moir, Esquire *
M & ROSS

45 Broad Street, Suite #2
Westfield, MA 01085

Tel. (413) 568-1957

Fax. (413) 562-4691

BBO# 350600

WD3xbk31 1\m_nCivil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -lil-


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document22 Filed 07/29/2005 Page iZofi2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Bradford B. Moir, Esq., hereby certify that I made service of the foregoing Second
Amended Complaint by mailing a copy of such, postage prepaid, to the defendants at:

Kerry P. Stearns Laurie Nikituk
PO Box 678 204 Kingstley Rd.
Otis, MA 01253 Otis, MA 01253

Mu

Bradfpfd Ff Mapy, Hsduire vu

\D3xbk31 1\m_r\Civil Litigation\Moore, Rick and Kathy\Court Filings\Second Amended Complaint (7-27-5).doc -12-


Page 1 of 23

=
PLAINTIFF S
EXHIBIT

Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005

Sa ——

MOIR & ROSS

LAW OFFICES
45 BROAD STREET, SUITE TWO
WESTFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01085-5200

tabbles-

BRADFORD B, MOIR ANNETTE Z.P. ROSS*
OF COUNSEL

TELEPHONE: (413) 568-1957 *also admitted in Florida

FACSIMILE: (413) 562-4691 with an office in Venice

moiross@aol.com

SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7002 2410 0004 8796 8835 ?OO0e 2410 OO04 APIb 443s
AND UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL

March 10, 2004

Mrs, Laurie Nikituk
204 Kingstley Rd.
Otis, MA 01253

RE: 1495 Reservoir Road, Otis, Massachusetts.
Dear Mrs. Nikituk:

This is a demand for relief pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, GL.
c. 93A, § 9(3). The claimants are Ricky L. Moore and Kathryn Moore, 1495 Reservoir Road,
Otis, Massachusetts.

Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Ricky L. Moore and Mrs. Kathryn
Moore. On the twentieth day of August in 2002 Mr. Ricky L. Moore purchased the above
referenced property from Kerry Stearns. Mr. and Mrs. Moore have related to me that they had
expressed concerns to you regarding the well water. In particular, they had specifically asked
you if they should have the well water tested themselves. Mr. and Mrs. Moore claimed that your
response was “you would be wasting your money, the seller had the water tested and it passed”,
A new test is not going to show anything different then the water test that was already done.”
Your actions were in the very least professionally negligent given the fact that the truth regarding
the well water was easily ascertainable, i.e. asking Mr. Stearns if he had every had any problems
with the well water in the past or if he had experienced any problems with obtaining a passing

water test.

Unfortunately for Mr. & Mrs. Moore, they relied on your representation. The fact of the
matter is, the well water servicing the premises was contaminated and had dangerously high
levels of Total Coliform and does not meet the Commonwealth’s public drinking water
bacteriological standards, In addition, the Moore’s have presented to me evidence that suggest


Case 3:05-cy-30010-MAP Document de-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 2 of 23

Laurie Nikituk
March 10, 2004
Page 2 of 2

that Mr. Stearns knew the well water was contaminated. and that the previous tenants of the
property had problems with the well water. Whether or not that was disclosed to you is yet to be
determined.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Department of Environmental Protection, Western
Regional Office summanizing it’s review of the Title V inspection completed by David A.
Sullivan on August 16, 2001. The review was completed by the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. As you will be able to glean from the report, the Title V inspection
contained many errors and omissions. Of particular interest is the item number 5 of the report,
that the results of the Total Coliform bacteria test were invalid due to the analysis being
conducted more than 30 hours after the sample was collected. In addition, the water test shows
the presence of Dichloromethane at a concentration of 0.79 ug/l, an indication that bleach may
have been used in an effort to bring the Total Coliform levels down to 0 and pass the Title V

inspection.

As a result of your misrepresentation, Mr. and Mrs. Moore had been consuming
contaminated water since the property was conveyed to them on August 20, 2002. Each of them
became very ill and had their primary care physician puzzled for months as to the cause. Mrs.
Moore suffered from head aches, fatigue, muscle pain, diarrhea, sore throat, foul smelling urine,
loss of hair, dry skin, bruising, dizziness, chills, and fainting. Mr. Moore suffer from similar
symptoms, fatigue, muscle pain, diarrhea, and joint pain. After the Moore’s stopped drinking the
well water, each of their symptoms began to resolve within two weeks, but still to this date stil]
affect them.

The Moore’s have spent considerable monies testing and retesting the well water. Each
test revealed a high count of Total Coliform. In addition, the source of the Total Coliform is
unknown, but could quite possibly be the septic system servicing the property given its proximity
to the well. Had they not relied on your representation, all of this may had been avoided.

Given the circumstances surrounding the real estate transaction, Mr. & Mrs. Moore
demand the following:

1. The property can not be sold given the severe well water problem it has. The property is
relatively worthless in its present condition. It cannot be rented due to the poor water

quality. The Moore’s have surmised from experts in the industry that no matter what’

steps they take to correct the problem, there is no guarantee that a new well will not have


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document dz-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 3 of 2s

s - y
“ot Mee

Laune Nikituk
March 10, 2004
Page 3 of 3

the same problem. Since the Title V Inspection was not valid, and that the property
should never have been conveyed, and in addition you misrepresented the quality of the
water, the Moore’s demand that you reimburse them for the full purchase price of their
property, including their cost and expenses, They will in tum deed the property over to
you.

2. Due to your intentional misrepresentation, the Moore’s have suffered both physically and
psychologically, Mrs. Moore in particular has had to undergo extensive psychological
therapy and has developed an aversion to water. This physical pain and suffering is a
direct and proximate result of your negligent misrepresentation and the Moore’s hereby
demand $25,000.00 in damages.

3. The Moore’s demand that they be reimbursed for all of their out of pocket expenses,

including attorney’s fees to date.

In the event you decline to respond to this demand letter, please take notice that the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act provides that if the Moore’s prevail in an action
against you, you can be held liable for double or treble damages, expenses and attorney’s
fees. Under Massachusetts law, you have thirty days to respond to this letter before I initiate

litigation on the Moore’s behalf.

Sincerely,
IR & RDSS

,
Bradford B. Moir, Esq.

Enclosure
CC. Mr. and Mrs. Ricky Moore


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 4 of 23

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
436 Dwight Street ¢ Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 « (413) 784-1100

MITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER
Governor Secretary
KERRY HEALEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr.
Lieutenant Governor Commissioner

Richard and Kathy Moore

P.O. Box 913

East Otis, MA 01029-0913 Re:  Otis-WMM
Moore Complaint
1495 Reservoir Road
Project #03-225-104

Dear Mr., & Ms. Moore:

The Department has reviewed your correspondences of November 5 and 20, 2003 regarding a
Title 5 Inspection Report for 1495 Reservoir Road in East Otis, Mass conducted by David A.
Sullivan on August 16, 2001. According to the Report the system ‘needs further evaluation by
the Local Approving Authority’ due to the system having a septic tank and soil absorption
system (SAS) with the SAS being within 50 feet of a private water supply well. Included with
the Report are results of water sampling collected on July 24, 2001, a September 11, 2001 letter
from Peter Kolodziej, Agent for the Otis Board of Health, and results of water sampling
collected on November 5, 2003.

Based on a review of the Title 5 Inspection Report and accompanying correspondence, the
Department finds the following:

1. Part D, page 4 of the Report requires the Inspector to indicate “yes” or “no” to the
failure criteria listed. The Department finds that at least one criterion was left blank
(i.e. Discharge or ponding of effluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters
due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool).

2. Page 5, size and location of SAS: The word ‘determined’ was crossed off and
‘approximate’ typed in. The Report specifically states that approximating the
location of SAS is unacceptable if the determination involves failure criteria related to

distance (i.e. setback to well).

This information is available in alternate format, Call Debra Daherty, ADA Coordinator at 617-292-5565. TDD Service - 1-800-298-2207,

DEP on the World Wide Web: http:/Awww.mass.govidep
cK) Printed on Recycled Paper


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 5 of 23

a _

3. Page 6 indicates that the last date of occupancy ‘Present’ and that a new septic tank
was installed on June 29, 2001, the date of the inspection is listed as August 16, 2001,
yet Page 7 of the Report indicates that the tank is new and has not been used. If the
house was currently occupied why was the tank not used? In addition the size of the
new tank was listed as 8°6"x5’x48”, Even assuming that the dimensions listed were
mside tank dimensions, then the volume of the tank would be approximately 1270
gallons. Section 310 CMR 15.404 allows the upgrade of a single component of a
system (e.g. septic tank) provided that component upgrade ts in full compliance with
310 CMR 15.00. Section 310 CMR 15.223(1)(a) requires that the effective liquid
capacity of a septic tank be in no case less than 1500 gallons.

4, Page 9 indicates that the SAS was monitored and dye tested for two days and showed
no signs of breakout, ponding, hydraulic failure or abnormal vegetation. Ifthe
monitoring was part of the inspection, why was only one date listed on the Report?
More importantly why was the system dye tested?

5. The accompanying lab analyses with the report that were taken on July 24, 2001
appear to have been taken almost a month prior to the date of the inspection. In
addition, while the samples for Total Coliform bacteria were collected on July 24,
2001 at 2:45 pm, the samples were not analyzed until July 26, 2001, more than the 30
hour holding time for Total Coliform. Hence the results for Coliform analysis were
invalid. The VOC results show the presence of Dichoromethane at a concentration of
0.79 ug/l. The nitrate result was 0.68 mg/l and the ammonia result was listed as ‘not
detected’,

6. The September 11, 2001 letter issued for the Board of Health has determined that the
system is functioning in a manner that protects public health, safety and the
environment (section 310 CMR 15.303(1)(c)). However the Board, as part of its
determination, must consider the condition of the water supply including an analysis
for coliform bacteria. Section 5 above shows the results of the Total Coliform
analysis to be invalid.

7. The results of samples taken by yourself on November 5, 2003, more than 2 years
after the date of the Title 5 Inspection showed a total coliform count of 2 colonies per
100 ml of sample. In addition the sample was analyzed for E.Coli with a result of 0
colonies per 100 ml. The nitrate result was 3.66 mg/l and the ammonia results was
listed as ‘<0,.01mg/1’,

While the more recent analysis does show higher levels of nitrate than the analysis of July 24,
2001, the results do not conclusively indicate that the bacteria problems found in your well are
results of an impact by a septic system. You have indicated via telephone conversations that the
top of your well casing is located in a below ground pit. Furthermore you relayed information
from a contractor who performed well maintenance on your well that the pit had water in it on
previous occasions. You also expressed concem that your neighbor's subsurface disposal system
was, based on surficial topography, at a higher elevation than your well and was therefore
.impacting your well. While any of the above factors could theoretically impact on your well,
there is not, based on the available information you have provided, sufficient information to
conclude with any assurance which, if any of the above factors could cause the bacterial
problems in your drinking supply well. Certainly if there was water present in the well pit, it
would be prudent to raise the well casing above ground.


Oase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 6 of 23

If there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact Paul Nietupski at 413-755-2218 at
this office.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Schleeweis
Program Chief, Wastewater Program
Bureau Resource Protection

PJN/pjn
W Abrp\wpciwpcdoc\Complaints\T 5cpOtisMoore

cc! Otis Board of Health, P.O. Box 237, Town Hall Otis, MA 02153


(O5-cv-3O010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 7 ot as

ae ;
—2, _ CG. JONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS\_’ ) au

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS UP rn 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5

TITLE 5
OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM — NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FOR!
_PART A
CERTIFICATION
Lot#:

Property Address; 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis Map:

Owner’s Name: Kerry Stearns

Owner’s Address: P.O. Box 678
Otis, Ma 01953

Date of laspection: Auqust 16, 2001

Name of Inspector: (please print) David A. Sullivan
Company Name: Sullivan Inspections
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 405?

, East Otis, Ma. 01029
Telephone Number: 413-269-4880

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I certify that I have personally inspected the sewage disposal system at this address and thar the information reported
below is true, accurate and complete as of the time of the inspection. The inspection was performed based on my
training and experience in the proper function and maintenance of on site sewage disposal systems. Iam a DEP
approved system inspector pursuant to Section 1§.340 of Title 5 (310 CMR 15.000). The system:

Passes
Conditionally Passes . .
X__ Needs Further Evaluation by the Local Approving Authority (jieanta 4 frck G

Fails

Inspector’s Signature: VG VS a Date: Pe 17 ; Z2aC}

The system inspector shall submit a capy of this inspection report to the Appraving Authority (Board of Health or
DEP) within 30 days of completing this inspection. If the system is a shared system or has a design flow of 10,000
gpd or greater, the inspector and the System owner shall submit the report to the appropriate.regional office of the
DEP. The original should be sent to the system owner and copies sent to the buyer, if applicable, and the approving

authority.

Notes and Comments ;
This document should not ba acted on until reviewed by the town

Board of Health or its agent. N.A.= Not applicable.

*«**This repart only describes conditions at the time of inspection and under the coaditions of use at that
time. This inspection does not address how the system will perform in the future under the same or different

conditions of use.

Title 5 inspection Form 6/15/2000 page } Sulfivon Inspections
File Ojo Dive Sullivan
2.0, Box 4052, East Otis, MA
415.289-4880

O Bast


‘osoe Dot | Case 3:05-cv-3001T0-MAP Documentd22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page dof 23
‘Page Zo
OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM —NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART A
CERTIFICATION (continued)

Property Address: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
= ecti 16, 290071

I have not found any information which indicates that any of the failure criteria described in 310 CMR
15.303 or in 310 CMR 15.304 exist. Any failure criteria not evaluated are indicated below.

Comments:

B. Sysiem Conditionally Passes: NA.

One or more system components as described in the “Conditional Pass” section neec to be replaced or
repairecl, The system, upon completion of the replacement or repair, as approved by the Board of Health, will pass.

“Answer yes, no or not determined (Y,N,ND) in the for the following statements, If “not determined” please
explain.

The septic tank is meta! and over 20 years old* or the septic tank (whether meta! or not) is structurally
is 1S unsound, exhibits substantial infiltration or ex filtration or tank failure is imminent. System will pass inspection if the
existing tank is replaced with a complying septic tank as approved by the Board of Health.
as) Thee metal septic tank will pass inspection if ix is structurally sound, not leaking and if Certificate of Compliance
ie Su indicating that the tank is less than 20 years old is available. Ot

a

“$C
5 te ip explain:
. - .
ve oy Observation of sewage backup or break out or high static water level in the distribution box due to broken or
\\ ; ne
S aw yy\siobstructed pipe(s) or due to a broken, settled or uneven distribution box. System will pass inspection if (with-
e approval of Board of Health):
a8 Fi broken pipe(s) are replaced
Sa, 5 obstruction ts removed
a oy ° ‘distribution box is leveled or replaced .
> ;
ND explain:

The system required pumping more than 4 times a year due to broken or obstructed pipe(s). The system will
pass inspection if (with approval of the Board of Health):

broken pipe(s) are replaced
obstruction is removed

ND explain:
2 Suilivon Inspections
Diurne Sullivan.
File #0, Sax 4052, Cast Onis, HA

# foto 415-265-d88a


Filed 07/29/2005 Page g of 23

i
a

oe

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PARTA
CERTIFICATION (continued)

ag ESe, 3:05-cv-3001 0-MAP Document 22-2

Property Address: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
Date of Taspection: August 14 2O04

C. Further Evaluation is Required by the Board of Health:

X Conditions exist which require further evaluation by the Board of Health in order to determine if the system
is failing to protect public health, safety or the environment.

1. System will pass unless Board of Health determines in accordance with 310 CMR 15.303(1)(b) that the
system is not functioning in a manner which will protect public health, safety and the environment:

tS Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet ofa surface water - GESe4=- / 5 ali este 2

mR ¢?___. Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh

2. System will fail unless the Board of Health (and Public Water Supplier, if any) determines that the
system is functioning in a manner that protects the public health, safety and environment:

___ The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system (SAS) and the SAS is within 100 feet ofa
surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. ;

4h __. The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within a Zone..|..of.a_public water supply.
Aba g US

AK _ hy ;
wees in ‘See attached well] water ana — =

A We Al __.. The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAG is les 00 feet but 50 feet or more frdm a

S@ oxio® —) private water supply well™*, Method used to determine distance Tape
vt

—x. The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within 50 feet of a frivate water supply well.

"*This system passes if the wel] water analysis, performed ata DEP certified laboratory, for coliform
des t -) bacteria and volatile organic compounds indicates that the well is free fom pollution from that facility and
.. the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other
i) failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis must be attached to this form.

‘dt

Suitisan Insoectisns

File # 14]D 3 isre Sallie
PG, Box d082, Fast Os 164
415-2684 P25


Case 3:0o-cv-30010-MAP Documentec-2 Filed O7/eg/e005 Page 10 of 23

Page Vor ti

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM —- NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART A

CERTIFICATION (continued)

Property Address; _ 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
Date of Inspection! August 16, 2001

fo
- oP. epson Failure Criteria applicable to al! systems:
ySe Su must indicate “yes” or “no” to each of the following for all inspections:

Yes No
__* Backup of sewage into facility or system component due to overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool

e ueK > Discharge or ponding of effluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters due to an overloaded or
[ .

clogged SAS or cesspool
N. Agaric liquid level in the distribution box above outlet invert due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or

N cesspool

_ Aiguid depth in cesspool is less than 6” below invert or available volume is less than ¥% day flow

-X_ Required pumping more than 4 times in the Jast year NOT due to clogged or obsrructed pipe(s). Number
oftimes pumped 1 with replacement of septic tank.

_X%_ Any portion of the SAS, cesspool or privy is-below high ground water elevation.

az pAny portion of cesspool or privy is withity 100 Jeet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface

"water supply,

N. A.Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within a Zone 1 of a public well. <= °

NLA Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a private water supply well.
Any portion of a cesspool or privy is less than 100 feet but greater than 50 feet from a private water

NVA. supply well with no acceptable water quality analysis. [This system passes if the well water analysis,
performed at a DEP certified laboratory, 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, provided that no other failure criteria

ape iggered. A/copy of the analysis must be attached to this form.]

NO (Ye ENG System fails, | have determined that one or more of the above failure criteria exist as
described in 310 CMR 15,303, therefore the system fails. The system owner should contact the Board of

Health to determine what will be necessary to correct the failure.

E. LargeSystems: ~-N-A.

To be considered a large system the system must serve a facility with a desi
gpd.

You must indicate either “yes” or “no” to each of the following:

(The following criteria apply to large systems in addition. to the criteria above)

gn flow of 10,000 ppd to 15,000

yes no
_.. ___ the system is within 400 feet of a surface drinking water supply
____ the system is within 200 feet of a tributary to a surface drinking water supply

| __.. the system is located in a nitrogen sensitive area (Interim Wellhead Protection Area — I WPA) ora mapped

Zone II of a public water supply well

If you have answered “yes” to any question in Section E the system is considered a significant threat, or answered
“yes” in Section D above the large system has failed. The owner or operator of any large system considered a
significant threat under Section E or failed under Section D shal! upgrade the system in accordance with 310 CMR
15.304. The system owner should contact the appropriate regional office of the Department.

eed . oa we — . i .
Bene eS haee ye nos, RA

Pile # [a /0


Case 3:05-cv-300710-MAP Document22-2 Fed 07/29/2005 Page 11 23

ae

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM ~ NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART B

CHECKLIST

Property Address: 1405 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
Date of Inspection: August 16, 200

a

Check if the following have been done. You must indicate “yes” or “no” as to each of the following:

“me ) Yes No requested of
Pumping information Wasprtdeckhy the owner, occupant, or Board of Health

Were any of the system components pumped out in the previous two weeks °

Has the system received normal flows in the previous two week period ?

Have large volumes of water been introduced to the system recently or as part of this inspection ?
Were as built plans of the system obtained and examined? (If they were not available note as N/A)
Was the facility or dwelling inspected for Signs of sewage back up ?

Was the site inspected for signs of break out ?

Were all system comp hents, extluding the SAS, logated on site ?

Were the septic tank manholes uncovered, opened, and the interior of the tank inspected for the condition

| of the baffles Or fees, material of construction, dimensions, depth of liquid, depth of sludge and depth of scum ?

X _ Was the facility owner (and occupants if different from owner) provided with information on the proper

——

maintenance of subsurface Sewage disposal systems ?

The size and location of the Soil Absorption System (SAS) on the site has been cxtainfre ef based on:
Yes no approximated
_ Existing information. For example, a plan at the Board of Health.
vA  Approximated
—.. RIKCERHEN in the field (ifany of the failure criteria related to Part C is at issue approximation of distance
is unacceptable) [310 CMR 15.302(3 Xb)]

File g /Olo


(

~~? DESIGN flow based on 310 CMR. 15.203 (for example: 110 gpd x # of bedrooms): Unknown

_ Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Documenté2-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page te of 23

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM -— NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART C
SYSTEM INFORMATION

Property Address: _ 1495 Reaseryoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
Date of Inspection:

. 3 FLOW CONDITIONS
RESIDENTIAL

Number of bedrooms (design): 2 Number of bedrooms (actual): 2

=

Number ofcurrentresidents’ Varjés NS
Does residence have a garbage grinder (yes or no): No
is laundry on a Separate sewage system (yes orno): we [if yes separate inspection required]
Laundry system inspected (yes orno): NO separate system.
Seasonal use: (yes or no):No_
Water meter readings, if available {last 2 years usage (gnd)): Well, no meter.
Sump pump-+yes-or-no};—. —

ast date of occupancy: Pracsant =

MMERCYTALANDUSTRIAL N.A.
Type of establishment:
Design flow (based on 310 CMR 15.203): gpd
Basis of design flow (seats/persons/sq ft, etc.):
Grease trap present (yes or no): _
Industrial waste holding tank present (yes orno):
Non-sanitary waste discharged to the Title 5 system (yesorno):
Water meter readings, if available: - ;

Last date of occupancy/use:

OTHER (describe):

ee nnn GENERAL INFORMATION

a" Pumping Records Sa me
Was system pumped as part of the Inspection (yes or no):
~ 0 If yes, volume pumped: gallons -- How was quantity pumped determined? .
~~ ~—~Reason-for. pumping: } a
be . —__—

en —-
a a

TYPE OF SYSTEM
X_ Septic tank, Misodkorcierr bx, sail absorption system

____ Single cesspool

____ Overflow cesspool

___ Privy
No. Shared system (yes or no) (if yes, attach previous inspection records, if any)

___. Innovative/A]ternative technology. Attach a copy of the current operation and maintenance contract (to be
obtained from system owner)

_..Tighttank — Attmacha copy of the DEP approva!

____ Other (describe):

=

an

Approximate age of all components, date installed (if known) and source of information:
New tank June 29 , 2001, rest of system unknown.

Were sewage odors detected when arriving at the site (yes or no): No

File # 10 /O 6 ae ow" ; tesiees Pare)
7 : - -


wp Cease D0S-cv-3O010-MAP Document é2-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 1S of 23

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM — NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART C
SYSTEM INFORMATION (continued)

Property Address; 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
Date of Inspection: August 162001

BUILDIN WER ocatgon sit plan)

epth below grade: 30"

, venting, evidence of leakage, etc.}:

udin 2 on condition of j
al with no evidence of leakage or venting.

Sewer appears norm
meaATtan PP

|
4S -iy roan got Tike S lao
ould DE I Cop TC TANK:

epth below grade: 24 "
( Material of construction:—X concrete metal __fiberglass _ polyethvlene

‘locate on site plan)

ain
Iftank is metal listage: Is age confirmed by a Certificate of Compliance (yes or no): ___ (attach a copy of
certificate) ,

Dimensions: 8'6'" x 5' x 48" effective depth, — pee aste Loon Paul (de P S ;
Sludge depth: NA.

Distance from top of sludge to bottom of outlet tee or baffle:
Scum thickness:

Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle:
Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle:

_ How were dimensions determined:
Comments (on pumping recommendations, inlet and o
as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.):

Tank-is new and has not been used. DEP recommends pumping every

( A veape or when the tank is 1/3 full of solids. See Permit #01-36.
a hao ty Pum p 14 oul nt | Ur, 2mis }
GREASE TRAP: ___(locate on site plan) :

Non .
Depth below grade: found
Material of construction: concrete metal___ fiberglass _ polyethylene ___ other

(explain):
Dimensions:
Scum thickness:

Distance forn top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle:

Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle:

Date of last purnping:

Comments (on pumping recommendations, inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels

as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.):

utlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels

File # /O/0 7 a we oe .


-Gase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 14 ot 23

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM - NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART C
SYSTEM INFORMATION (continued)

Property Address: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns
Date of Inspection: Ayayet 14. 2001

TIGHT or HOLDING TANK: (tank must be purnped at time of inspection)(locate on site plan)

Nn .
Dep a weeuad
Material of constriction: corcrete metal fiberglass polyethylene other(explain):
Dimensions:
Capaciry: gallons
Design Flow: gallons/day

Alarm present (ves or no):

Alarm level: Alarm in working order (yes or nay:
Date of last pumping:

Comments (condition of alarm and float switches, etc.):

DISTRIBUTION-BOX: (if present must be opened)(locate on site plan) Depth below grade;

one—found—
Depth-of liquid lével above outlet invert:
Comments (note if box is level and distribution to outlets equal, any evidence of solids carryover, any evidence of

leakage into or out of box, etc.):

PUMP CHAMBER: (locate on site plan)
None found.

Pumps in working order (yes or no):

Alanns in working order (yes or no):

Comments (note condition of pump chamber, condition of pumps and appurtenances, etc.):

———

by


3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page iS af zo

Case

Page 9 of !

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM —- NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM

PART C
SYSTEM INFORMATION (continued)

Property Address:__1495 Raservyoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Ss
Date of Inspection: a,.~..-4 16 9nn1
ey oe ¥ Seer

SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM (SAS): (locate on site plan, excavation nat required)
Location may be approximated by non-intrusive methods.

IfSAS not located explain why:

Type

_x_ leaching pits, number: _1_
leaching chambers, number:
leaching galleries, number: __
leaching trenches, number, length:
leaching fields, number, dimensions:
overflow cesspool, number: _
innovative/alterative system Type/name of technology: ;
Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, damp soil, condition of vegetation,

etc.): _
The SAS wa d_and g a_for_t ene ne
bh Was monitersn an y. Sta or_two day asigi

flow and showed no sions breakout,ponding hydraulic failures
or abnormal vegetation. Testing witnessed by Jack Conboy, OBOH, '

ee
———

CESSPOOLS: (cesspool! must urmped as part of inspection\ locate on. site plan)

Numbe aS SHAS on: _
Depth ~ top-of liquid to inlet invert:
Depth of solids layer:
Depth of scum layer:
Dimensions of cesspool:
Materials of construction:
Indication of groundwater inflow (yes or no):
Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hy

draulic failure, level of ponding, condition of vegetation, etc.):

PRIVY: (locate on site plan)

None found.
Materials of construction:
Dimensions:

Depth of solids: _
Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding

, condition of vegetation, etc.):

~—_—

# /O/d 9 ae


> Case, 3: 0S-cv- 3007 O-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 16 of 23
age

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM — NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART C
SYSTEM INFORMATION (continued)

Property Address: 71495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns

Date of Inspection: —August1s6, 2001

SKETCH OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM NOT TO SCALE !!
Provide a sketch of the sewage disposal system including ties to at least two permanent reference landmarks or
benchmarks. Locate all wells within 100 feet. Locate where public water supply enters the building.

fo Tred
OO

~|
sorbtiop
Y step -

wy

File 4 /&o | to


ver ase 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Documentéd-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 7 of 23

y

OFFICIAL INSPECTION FORM ~=- NOT FOR VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENTS
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSPECTION FORM
PART C
SYSTEM INFORMATION (continued)

Property Address: 1495 Reservoir Road, East Otis

Owner: Stearns,
Date of Inspection: August 16, 2001

E EXAM
Slope . Varies to steep. —
urface Water None
Check cellar Dry
Shallow wells None found.

Estimated depth to ground water 8 feet +

Please indicate (check) all methods used to determine the high ground water elevation:

____ Obtained from system design plans on record - If checked, date of design plan reviewed:

—X_ Observed site (abutting property/observation hole within 150 feetofSAS)< ise #4 veuld be the Creek i)
_—__ Checked with local Board of Health-explain: eR vir hey look uPhiyt ~*
othe =x Checked with loca! excavators, installers- (attach documentation) See Permit #01-36 -

ay —— ‘Accessed USGS database-explain:

=
af Roe estimated

7, You must describe how you estabdishedxhe high graund water elevation: .

The excavation for the new septic tank went to 8' below arada and

Was dry in porous gravelly Sodis.—fulvert below the system was dry.

/

/ \ : |

/ .
cu get be dene SSS ES
[ ypter test vil 5 / :

Hh ape 1S Lie Culvert just A Lean

File # /O48 a


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed O7e9/2005 Page 16 of 23

Report #: 72601872

; ° Date Collected: / 7/24/01

\ lesting —

- i Date Received! 7/26/01

Lab Certification No. 11876 DOH NY ° Page 1 of 4 Date Analyzed:\ 7/26/01
Customer: Sullivan Inspections Client : #1010 Kerry Stearns =

P.O. Box # 4052 Sample

East Otis, MA 01029- Location: 1495 Reservoir Rd.

East Otis, MA

Matrix: Drinking Water

Sample This sample taken by David S. at 02:45 PM on 7/24/01.
Purchase Order #: Description Point of Collection: Kitchen.

* Title 5 Scan Report *

RESULTS

Total Collform

Absent Animal/Vegetational Bacteria (Health Related) 0/100
Nitrate 0.68 5.0 mg/L indicator of Biological Waste (Health Related) 0.10
Ammonia Not Detected | 5.0 mg/L indicator of Waste 0.01

*: Outside of Recommended Limits
Visit us on the Web

quality of sampling. The results a
T Testing shal! be held harmtess fr

The integrity af the sample and results are dependent on the
modified to accomadate transportation. AAA Wate

pply only to the actua} sample tested. Some methods may be
om any liability arising out of the use of such results.

100 Commerciar Roan ¢ LEOMINSTER, MA 01453 6 (978) 840-2941 « (go0Q)} 344-9977
INFO@AAAWATERTESTING.COM ¢ HTTP

W/ WWW AASWATERTESTI NG.COM


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2

Water
| Testing

Lab Certification No. 11676 DOH NY

eee

rled O7/29/2005 Page 19 af 23

t

ed

Report #: 72601872

Date Collected: 7/24/01

Date Received: 7/26/01

Page2of4 Date Analyzed: 7/26/01

| Customer: Sullivan Inspections

P.O. Box # 4052
East Otis, MA 01029-

Purchase Order #:

Client : #1040 Kerry Stearns

Sample
Location: 1495 Reservoir Ra.

East Otis, MA

Matrix: Drinking Water

Sample This sampie taken by David S. at 02:45 PM on 7/24/01.
Description Point of Collection: Kitchen.

ACN
?

* Title 5 Scan Report *

Benzene:
Bromohenzene:
Bromochloromethane:
Bromodichloromethane:

Bromoform:
Bromomethane:
n-Butylbenzene:
sec-Butylbenzene:
tert-Butylbenzene:
Carbon-Tetrachloride:
Chiorodibromomethane:
Chlioroethane:
Chloroform:
Chlaromethane:
o-Chlorotoluene:
p-Chlorotoiuene:
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane:
Dibromomethane:
1,2-Dibromoethane:
m-Dichlorobenzene:
o-Dichlorobenzene:
para-Dichlorobenzene:
Dichloromethane: <

SS

RESULTS

{ug/L) {ug/L) (ug/L)
Not Detected 5.0 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected | 0.5
Not Detacted 5.0 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
fot Deteciead a5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected ; 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 600.0 0.5
Not Detected 5.0 0.5

0.79 5.0 0.5

*=: Outside of Recommended Limits

Visit us on the Web

The integrity of the sample and results are de

pendent on the quality of sampling. The results apply only to the actual sample tested. Some methods may be

modified to accamadate transportation. AAA Water Testing shall be held harmless from any liability arising out of the use of such results.

100 CommerctaL Roap «6 LEOMINSTER, MA O14593 4 (978) 840-2941 « (800) 344-9977
INFO@AAAWATERTESTING.COM é HTTPU/WWW ASAWATERTESTING.COM


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2

%. Water
' Testing

Lab Certification No. 11676 DOH NY

red O7/29/2005 Page 20 af 23

Report #: 72601872

Date Collected:

Date Received:

Page 3 of 4 Date Analyzed:

Customer: Sullivan Inspections
P.O, Box #4052
East Otis, MA 01029-

Purchase Order #:

Client : #1010 Kerry Stearns

Sample
Location: 1495 Reservoir Rd.

East Otis, MA
Matrix: Drinking Water

7124/01
7126/01
7/26/01

Sample This sample taken by David S. at 02:45 PM on 7/24/04.

Description Point of Collection: Kitchen.

Dichloredifluoromethane:
1,1-Dichloroethane:
1,2-Dichioroethane:
1,1-Dichioroathylene:
cis-1 2-Dichloroethylene:
trans-1 .2-Dichloroethylene:
1,2-Dichloropropane:
1,3-Dichloropropane:

2,2 Dichloropropane:

1,1 Dichloropropene:
1,3-Dichloropropene:
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene:
Ethylbenzena:
Fluorotrichioromethane:
Hexachlorobutadiene:
isopropyibenzene:
p-lsopropyitoluene:
Monochlorobenzene:
Napthalene:
n-Propylbenzene:

Styrene:

1,1,1 ,»2-Tetrachloroethane:
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane:

*

* Title 5 Scan Report *

RESULTS
(ug/L) (ug/L) {ug/L}
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected — 0.5
Not Detected 5.0 0.5
Not Detected 7.0 0.5
Not Detected 70.0 0.5
Not Detected 100.0 G.5
Not Detected 5.0 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 700.0 0.5
| Not Detected 6.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 100.0 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Not Detected 100.0 0.5
Not Detected 0.5
Nat Detected 0.5

= Outside of Recommended Limits

Visit us on the Web

The integrity of the sample and results are dependent on the quality of sampling. The results apply only to the actual sample tested. Some methods
modified to accomadate ransportation.,

AAA Water Testing shall be held harmless from any liability arising out of the use of such results.

may be

100 COMMERCIAL ROAD 4 LEOMINSTER, MA 014535 4 (978) B40-2941 «2 (Bag) 344-9977
INFO@ASaAWATERTESTING.COM + HTT Pi/WWW.ASAWATERTESTING. COM


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 21 af 23

aT mee oe

) Ss ay Water Report #: 72601872
° Date Collected: 7/24/01
~ lesttteg

Date Received: 7/26/01

Lab Certification No. 11676 DOH NY Page 4 of 4 Date Analyzed: 7/26/01
Customer: Sullivan Inspections Client : #1010 Kerry Stearns
, P.O. Box # 4052 Sample
East Otis, MA 01029- Location: 1495 Reservoir Ra.
East Otis, MA

Matrix: Drinking Water

| Sample This sampie taken by David S. at 02:45 PM on 7/24/01,
Purchase Order #: Description Point of Collection: Kitchen.

* Title 5 Scan Report *

RESULTS
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)

Tetrachioroethylene: Not Detected §.0 0.5
Toluene: Not Detected 1000.0 0.5
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene: Not Detected 0.5
1,2,4-Trichlorabenzene: Not Detected 70.0 0.5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane: Not Detected 200.0 0.5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane: _ | Not Detected 5.0 0.5
Trichloroethytene: Not Detected 5.0 0.5
1,2,3-Trichloropropana: Not Detected 0.5
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene: Not Detected 0.5.
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene: Not Detected | 0.5
Vinyl Chloride: Not Detected 2.0 05
m+ p-Xylenes: Net Detected ;

*= Outside of Recommended Limits
Visit us on the Web

The integrity of the Sample and resuits are dependent on the quality a sampling. The results apply only to the actual sample tested. Some methods may be
modified to accomadate transportation, AAA Water Testing shall be held harmless from any liability arising out of the use of such results,

160 Commerciat Roap 46 LEIMINSTER, MA O1453 ¢@ (978) 840-2941 « (BO) 344-9977 _
: INFO@AASAWATERTESTING.COM é HTTR/WWW.AAAWATERTESTING.GOM


(29) age 22 of 23
Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2 Filed OM eS1E0OS Page !

ewer tt tan,

TOWN OF wTIS a F's.
BOARD OF SELECTMEN \ \eos ‘ AY “en “I
BOARD OF HEALTH Ys FAO Rg at
_ P.O. Box 237, Otis, Massachusetts 01253 . XE) Va : ' 1810. fp i
Telephone: (413) 269-0103 \- ip: Qe
Fax: (413) 269-0104 “SACHS
: “Stewaeees
Mr. Kerry Sréarns
P.O. Box 678 :
Otis, MA 01053 ' September 11, 2001

Re: Title 5 Inspection1495 Reservoir Road, Otis

Dear Mr. Stearns:

A Section C (2) of the inspection report. |

_Based on the information submitted to date, the septic system serving this property

_ passes, Title 5 Inspection requirements. ——- , .
You are advised that the existing septic system is substandard in comparison to existing
regulations. A Passing Title 5 inspection should not be construed as a guarantee that the

Ce: Board of Health, Jack Conboy, David Sullivan

| | ote ce — stated cthis Inte, H
* T Do Recall - the inspec Vion report — state “:


Case 3:05-cv-30010-MAP Document 22-2

ried 07/29/2005

Page 23 of 23

Mm &§
-)
co
0
-
| aoe
oO Postage |.
a oT
a CertiiedFee| 7? BO = 3
= Return Reciept Fee ~~ & =
Ol {Endorsement Required} . “TF 2 —
CI Restricted Delivery Fee in
rit (Endorsement Required) ee)
a+

— o
TU Total Posiage & Fees $ > : 3 Y “
mW 7
Cl | Sent To a ta? Ui

Autre, Al: milli
al SEE (os kk Mek eeweene err rere ee eee
I~ | Sireat “Apt. Nes . i
Org, nl 01253

"PS Form’ 3800; ‘June 2002!

~ See Reverse for listrictions: