My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
12/4/2003 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:17:35 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:03:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
{ <br /> i <br /> systems, He wanted to bring a couple issues to the attention of the board <br /> of health. He also felt that Mr. Harrington was going to need the support <br /> of the board for some subsequent action. <br /> Dr. Mantel had spoken to Mr. sanicki about the first point. They were still <br /> not designing the systems the way the manufacturer wants them. For <br /> example, the pipes are supposed a minimum of three inches. Mr. anicki's <br /> plans, which get approved here, routinely shover a one and one half inch <br /> vent. This makes the system basically ineffective. The system is based on <br /> airflow. He spoke to the company representative and advised there of the <br /> one and one half inch design. The representatives advised him that they <br /> were not getting the advantage of the FAST system. <br /> Ms. Warden interjected that they were aware of the need to review and <br /> correct this oversight. They had been doing so with the most recent set of <br /> plans. <br /> Ms, Grady stated that the last set of plans that they had reviewed had <br /> noted the three-inch pipe being made one of the stipulations. <br /> Mrs Harrington added that now that the health agents were looking at the <br /> systems they could check therm in the field. <br /> Dr. Mantel Meted that item number two address the ultra violet light for <br /> the systems closer than 751 to the grater. There are questions as to where <br /> they would sample the effluent, No one seems to have an answer for that. <br /> The boy system on one set of plans that they looked at are in the simple <br /> distribution box. The newest house going up on Great River Road shows <br /> separate distribution box, should the effluent be tested in the box, which <br /> is where the light is or should it be on the discharge side. The same thing <br /> applies to the systers...He could talk because he was beyond the two- <br /> year monitoring. But, for example, today he watched someone sample <br /> from Wastewater Managements They were basically sampling imide the <br /> secondary tank, where the main unit was located. It should be sampled as <br /> an effluent. That was not being done. The monitoring was required for two <br /> years for nitrogen. But there was no goal or standard for nitrogen on these <br /> systems. He had come in and discussed this with I sm Warden. The only <br /> standard that they had was for systems over boo GPD, which was the 1 <br /> mil per liter, They don't have a standard for the other sources. Why were <br /> they monitoring it what was the goal? Some of these people were paying <br /> several hundred dollars per year excess fees for the monitoring of the <br /> effluent and there was no standard. There was a standard they carne up <br /> with in E-coli in their regulation issued in 2000 and that was not getting <br /> done. Waste Water Management has forged documents, He could show <br /> therm the documents. Mr. Bill Everett has signed off on the forms. He was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.