I am rejecting this response because: I have reason to believe that the work Lashinski Septic did was not up to the MN state standards. I am working with the Pollution Control Agency to have their work reviewed and I believe that this is the proper course of action to take. Thank You- [redacted]
In Aug, 2016 we were hired by [redacted] to perform a septic compliance at [redacted] Oak Grove. The inspection was performed in accordance to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7082.0700 Subp. 4, Compliance inspections. At the time of inspection, it was...
determined that the manhole cover for the septic tank was cracked and in need of replacement, and the tank had not been pumped in 12 years, the City of Oak Grove requires pumping at least once every 3 years. We were give authorization to pump the septic and replace the manhole cover. The tank was pumped, as outlined in MPCA Chapter 7080.2450 and a permit was submitted to the City of Oak Grove, as per City ordinance. Upon completion of the inspection, it was determined that the system did meet minimum requirements set forth in MPCA Chapter 7082.0700, therefore a certificate of compliance was issued, with a copy of the report discussed with, and given to the homeowner,as well as the inspection report filed with the City of Oak Grove. To the best of my knowledge, I have never had, nor anybody in my office, had any discussion with the complainant, either at the time of the inspection or in regards to any subsequent septic issues. It is difficult for me to address the problems the new owners have experienced based on this complaint, as they were either given bad information, or it was relayed incorrectly to me in this complaint, since there is no valve after the drainfield that could corrode. What I can say is, at the time of our inspection, there was no evidence, either current or past, of hydraulic problems. Components can fail at any time, often with no warning.The Certification clearly states "No determination of future system performance has been nor can be made due to unknown conditions during system construction, possible abuse of the system, inadequate maintenance, or future water usage."I have attached a copy of the original inspection report for the complainants review.
I am rejecting this response because: I have reason to believe that the work Lashinski Septic did was not up to the MN state standards. I am working with the Pollution Control Agency to have their work reviewed and I believe that this is the proper course of action to take. Thank You- [redacted]
In Aug, 2016 we were hired by [redacted] to perform a septic compliance at [redacted] Oak Grove. The inspection was performed in accordance to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7082.0700 Subp. 4, Compliance inspections. At the time of inspection, it was...
determined that the manhole cover for the septic tank was cracked and in need of replacement, and the tank had not been pumped in 12 years, the City of Oak Grove requires pumping at least once every 3 years. We were give authorization to pump the septic and replace the manhole cover. The tank was pumped, as outlined in MPCA Chapter 7080.2450 and a permit was submitted to the City of Oak Grove, as per City ordinance. Upon completion of the inspection, it was determined that the system did meet minimum requirements set forth in MPCA Chapter 7082.0700, therefore a certificate of compliance was issued, with a copy of the report discussed with, and given to the homeowner,as well as the inspection report filed with the City of Oak Grove. To the best of my knowledge, I have never had, nor anybody in my office, had any discussion with the complainant, either at the time of the inspection or in regards to any subsequent septic issues. It is difficult for me to address the problems the new owners have experienced based on this complaint, as they were either given bad information, or it was relayed incorrectly to me in this complaint, since there is no valve after the drainfield that could corrode. What I can say is, at the time of our inspection, there was no evidence, either current or past, of hydraulic problems. Components can fail at any time, often with no warning.The Certification clearly states "No determination of future system performance has been nor can be made due to unknown conditions during system construction, possible abuse of the system, inadequate maintenance, or future water usage."I have attached a copy of the original inspection report for the complainants review.