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 1 · column 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
By DAPHNE HUTCHINSON
Rapinhanmx-k Nrw» Staff Writer
a meeting in Richmond oi^Monday, the Virginia Hcpth Department and State W«ter Control Board turned thumbs down> on a proposal for a mound-type sewage treatment system for the community in Sperryville.
In essence, the proposed system consisted of a septic leJt|h field built up into a mound. With the design, raw serfage that now flows directly into the Thornton River was to be collected in individual septic tanks for the first stage of treatment and then pumped for final treatment to the mound located on five acres owned by the Rappahannock Water and Sewer Authority in Sperryyille’s flood plain.
It was the location that brought a negative reaction from the health department and SWCB. By the admission of engineers for the project, the sewage treatment facility could be inoperable as much as 20 percent of the time, due to high water in the flood plain. Representatives from Buchart-Horn, designers of the proposed facility, had sought approval of the technology employed for the Sperryville project before proceeding further on the contract.
“We’re looking for something more reliable in the long term,” explained Stu Wilson of the SWCB. Treatment only 80 to 90 percent of the time is not acceptable to either the „S1J£C^ or health department, he said. In addition, Wilson noted that Buchart-Horn engineers had not followed the Wisconsin manual
89.1%