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 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
for design, the model used in Virginia for mounds. If designed properly and located on a site that isn’t flood prone, a mound system to serve Sperryville would be acceptable, according to the SWCB representative.
Either-Or Question
As the result of an earlier March 3 meeting here with the health department, SWCB personnel and members—since resigned—of Rappahannock’s Water and Sewer Authority, BuchartHorn engineer Hank Gerhart said he thought the Sperryville project was an ’’either-or” proposition. "Either treatment 80 to 90 percent of the time or no treatment at all,” he said.
Gerhart explained at Monday’s special Richmond session that he based his conclusion on the WSA’s position that Sperryville residents couldn’t afford any more than $15 or $16 monthly fees for sewage disposal. That type of rate schedule was only possible if a mound system was built on land already owned by the authority, he said. Gerhart added that he’d expected a yes or no answer on the proposed mound design much earlier. “Now you say that a mound is accept&ble if it's on a different site and if it's operable more than 80 to 90 percent of the time?”
“With proper design and site, was the acceptance of a mound system ever in doubt?” asked SWCB representative Steve Hogye.
“Yes sir,” Gerhart replied, noting that he’d received correspondence two years ago on a state health department
93.5%