Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
established at the same level as for the elementary school lagoon. Bloomer foresaw no difficulties. He added that the School Board could challenge effluent standards for the high school if it felt that limits had been set too high.
Lagoon Over Limits
Bloomer informed the School Board that suspended solid levels at the elementary sewage lagoon remained over the temporary discharge permit limits but within the standards set for the system when it was constructed.
(Problems with the sewage treatment lagoon began during the winter of 19761977. A deep freeze and subsequent turn over in the lagoon raised BOD and suspended solids levels above the maximum allowed by the SWCB. The system was shut down and discharge into the stream stopped. When new. I«»wer SWCB regulations on BOD and suspended solids went into effect in June, 1977. the lagoon system dropped even further below standards and the school's discharge permit expired.
The SWCB offered two alternatives: either sign a consent order agreeing to upgrade the lagoon systeih and in the meantime, comply with special interim standards or face legal action.
Commonwealth Attorney George Davis came up with a third alternative. Davis contended that the SWCB should supply funds for upgrading the treatment lagoon since it was constructed to meet SWCB standards. As long as the lagoon continues to operate within the limits established when the original permit was issued, the School Board should not be responsible for the costs of improvements, according to Davis.
61.5%