Laserfiche WebLink
in case the comparison shows it is cheaper to do in house, the money will <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 will need to <br /> know, by the time they 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 as for the two present schools. <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 the purchase of equipment, bond , <br /> depreciation , etc. <br /> SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT MEETING <br /> Steve explained he attended a meeting with the DEP, Elias McQuiad 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. They used a factor of 7 . 5 . They noted that the school is <br /> used 5 days, not 7 days per week and the DEP requires peak flow rates. With <br /> all the safety factors in, the plant gets much bigger. Woodard and Curren <br /> is understandably hesitant about providing us with a plant without enough <br /> safety margins. <br /> Steve said DEP was aloof. It is up to the engineers to get more <br /> information and firm up the numbers. <br /> The problem is the DEP guidelines suggest you design the entire plant for <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 base 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 kinds of impact. <br /> Woodard and Curren will get data on plants that use the batch reaction <br /> process ( like Cromaglass) . It is used in another system they designed ad <br /> they will check their design data. DEP will check their records on that <br /> plant. <br /> Steve explained another issue with Cromaglass, when the process is complete <br /> and it has reduced the original load , the water that is ready for the <br /> ground may still have pathogens that you don ' t want to put in the ground. <br /> Cromaglass mixes chlorine in it to disinfect it but DEP does not want to <br /> put chlorine in the ground. The other option is to use ultraviolet light. <br /> Steve said he feels Woodard and Curren are being overly conservative in <br /> their approach. The Committee would prefer they stick their neck out a <br /> little with DEP and the Committee will support them. They are 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 />