WSP08165 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1"""''''';''1 -' ~ .... ...... ...) . recovered ITom RSI process and compares RSI to current Metro discharge limits and Title 22 California standards. Metro's Nitrification Alternatives Study reflects on the prospect of substantial cost saving by "non-conventional" treatment by stating: "As this process evolves [study of ammonia nitrification alternativesJ, the District can define further potential implementation and institutional issues through ongoing discussions with regulatory agencies, ditch companies, and other affected parties The praclical combination of Ihese lechniques ill/o a viable Effluel1l Managemenl Plan could save Ihe Dislricl $40 10 $70 million in capilal costs and $1.010 $3,5 million in ann1/al operaling cosls over convelllional in-planlnilrificalion improwmel1ls. " (Metro Study, January, 1992, page ES-7, emphasis added). While any teniary treatment process providing "California standard" water would be acceptable, the Barr Lake Plan proponents foresee additional benefits available ITom RSI, as contrasted to extensive "in-plant" modifications: I. A RSI system is more tolerant to plant upset. A list of Metro discharge violations obtained during EP A litigation against Metro is included in Appendix E. Water received directly ITom the Metro plant would be subject to plant upset. Water filtered through a RSI basin has a treatment period of months and would not be subject to chlorination failures or other similar plant upsets. 2. RSI facilities and operational costs are tens of millions of dollars less expensive than alternative plant modifications. 3. The infiltration basins and the land between infiltration basins have created significant wildlife habitats at many facilities. Such areas would substantially 19