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 2 · column 6 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
“In preparing permits, DEQ has the responsibilities of setting conditions that are fair, equitable, and warranted. The monitoring frequencies in this draft permit are consistent with those for similar sized facilities throughout the state,"stated the DEQ staff response.
However, some members of the FOTR believe that DEQ’s own regulations, aren’t strict enough to protect the Rush. Paul Farmer, President of the Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection, has pointed out that there are many chemicals present in wastewater effluent that DEQ does not regulate. Although, according to DEQ, “The effluent is required to be disinfected to a level that allows primary contact (swimming) in the river even under drought conditions when the only water in the river is that from the plant,” the same response document goes on to admit that DEQ does not regulate or control the amount of pharmaceuticals that could be discharged into the Rush along with the effluent. In her comments at the March 28 hearing, Haskell called on DEQ to ban discharges into zero flow streams, and Farmer has also questioned whether a zero flow is really the worst case scenario for a river.
Despite these questions, it is unlikely that DEQ will change its policies just for Washington’s permit. If their responses are any indication, the June 1 meeting in Richmond will go in the town’s favor.
For more information onthe State Water Control Board June 1 meeting, go to:
http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/meeting/ViewMeeting.
cfm?Meeting_ID=7332
Email the reporter at mtayloe@timespapers. com
94.6%