Laserfiche WebLink
in case the comparison shows it i' s cheaper to do in house, the money wi l l <br /> be budgeted to purchase the equipment. <br /> Paul said presently in the budget there is a building to house the <br /> equipment, next to the sewage treatment plant. The committee w101 need to <br /> know, by the time their sign the construction contract about April 1 If <br /> the building will be in or out. <br /> The equipment decisions can wait. <br /> Paul suggested the comparison for the high school would probably have the <br /> same results a for the two present chop1sk <br /> Dr , DeMoura said they did a comparison to privatize the custodial work at <br /> the schools and it caused a lot of concern from the community , <br /> Paul suggested Dr. DeMoura should ask a firm if they could do a study just <br /> for comparison . Take into account h purchaseof equipment, bond , <br /> , <br /> depreciation , etc. <br /> SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT MEETING <br /> Steve explained he attended a meeting with the IEP, Elias Mc u i ad and <br /> Woodard and Curren last Friday . <br /> Woodard and Curren reviewed DEP' s numbers for effluent flow of schools to <br /> determine what they would be comfortable with as a gallons per day per <br /> student figure. T her used a factor of 7 . 5 . Ther noted that the school i <br /> used 5 days, not 7 days per week and the DEP r qui res peak f l ow rates . with <br /> all the safety factors i n , the plant gets much bigger. wooda rd and Curren <br /> is understandably hesitant about providing us with a plant without enough <br /> safety margins . <br /> Steve said CEP was aloof. It is up to the engineers to got more <br /> information and firm up the numbers ,, <br /> The problem i the DEP guidelines suggest you design the entire plant fo r <br /> the peak , which from a practical point of view is excessive. <br /> Hopefully Woodard and Curren will come back to the committee with something <br /> downsized . The baso figures agree with the committee ' s original concept of <br /> gallons per student. <br /> The DEP is still open to alternative systems , if they can get the data. The <br /> data delivered so far from Cromaglass does not break it out to nitrates and <br /> nitrites, which have 2 different i nd of impact. <br /> Woodard and Curren will get data on plants that use the batch reaction <br /> process ( like c romag l a ) , It is used in another system they designed ad <br /> they will chock their design data. DEP will check their records on that <br /> plant. <br /> Stove explained another issue with c romag l as , when the process is complete <br /> and it has reduced the original load , the water that is reader for the <br /> ground may still have pathogens that you don ' t want to put in the ground <br /> c romag l ass mixes chlorine in it to disinfect i t but DEP does not want to <br /> put chlorine in the ground . Tho other option is to use ultraviolet light. <br /> Steve said he fools Woodard and Curren aro being overly con eryative in <br /> their approach. The Committee would prefer they stick their neck out a. <br /> little with CEP and the Committee will support them. They aro very <br /> hesitant. <br /> Paul said he feels Woodard and Curren thought they bought this job <br /> completed and there is a reluctance to scrap the completed drawings and <br /> 7 <br />