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 6 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Hazel
From Page A-l
writing campaign by those opposing location of the plant on the river. Also as a result of that campaign, lower limits were set for fecal coliform bacteria in the discharge, and the water board required ultraviolet, rather than chlorination and dechlorination, treatment for the effluent.
Those changes fn the plant specifications did not satisfy environmentalists who insisted a precious resource could be lost forever if the plant is allowed to discharge into the Hazel River.
Tom Faha, regulatory services supervisor of the Department of Environmental Quality, which includes the water board, said granting the sew age discharge permit would not affect the Tier 111 nomination, but most in the audience did not believe that. He tried to reassure the audience that the plant wbuld not lower water quality in the river and said fishing could continue in the river but fishermen should use their own discretion in eating fish caught there.
Some people expressed concern also about the traffic the development would generate on U.S. 522 and the effect the. demands for water at the development would have on neighbors who depend on well water.
Supporting the sewage permit were Norma Dunwoody of the Culpeper Chamber of Commerce, John Coates of the Culpeper Board of Supervisors, and Culpeper planning director John Egerston. They generally said Culpeper wants to establish a center for growth near Boston and is depending on the Longlea development and its sewage treatment plant to become a center lor that develop
87.2%