Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.18/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA084182090; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 16:01:30 -0700 Return-Path: <PCHU@epri.com-DeleteThis> Received: from relay3.UU.NET by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA035012090; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 16:01:30 -0700 Received: from atai.epri.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: atai.epri.com [144.58.2.61]) id QQcxuh04795; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 18:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uscabh01.epri.com by atai.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA277403; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 16:01:11 -0700 Received: by uscabh01.epri.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BC8E13.6D0E5570@uscabh01.epri.com-DeleteThis>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:59:34 -0700 Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=EPRI%l=USCAEX01-970711225801Z-43701@uscabh01.epri.com-DeleteThis> From: "Chu, Paul" <PCHU@epri.com-DeleteThis> To: "'wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis'" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Subject: 3rd water quality Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 15:58:01 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You know the sign that was up at 3rd about the water? I called the
South Bayside System Authority - SBSA (the treatment plant downwind of
3rd). A long time ago, I had talked to the plant manager about their
chlorination study, etc. and we chatted at length about various studies
they have conducted (they mailed me several, but I have not had time to
look at them).
As a disclaimer so that you do not jump to too many conclusions, my
background in wastewater treatment is with trace metals for power plants
and not bacteria & coliform. Also the SBSA guy and I have played a
bunch of voice mail tag so I did not get a chance to ask him a lot of
questions, but....
After I left them a message, the SBSA followed up with the County of San
Mateo. SBSA tells me that they are not responsible, and they do not
have authority to put up the sign. The County likely put the sign up.
In the Summer, the County samples every 2 weeks near 3rd Avenue (not
sure exactly where). On July 1, they sampled and got the results back
on July 3. The numbers were very high (total coliform were 1800 fecal
coliform; 950 organisms per 100 ml - btw, I am not too sure about the
units for these results since I always thought it should be "fecal
coliform per 100 ml"). I think the limit (water quality objective) is
either 200 or 100 fecal coliform per 100 ml; and in any case - it's well
above the limit. After the County got the results, they put up the sign
on July 3. On July 4, they resampled and the numbers were low, and so
they later took the sign down. I received no information on where was
the source.
I and others could smell sewage in the parking lot, so I believe these
numbers are real. Fortunately, I and no one that I am aware of got
sick.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:32:12 PST