|
discharge points and between units, including treatment units, for the proposed beneficial provider and
<br />beneficial user(s), and describe the flow frequencies. The water balance shall provide a contingency plan that
<br />ensures that no untreated or inadequately treated wastewater will be delivered to the Elk River Station of
<br />Great River Energy. It shall also address methods, procedures and improvements as necessary to ensure that
<br />there shall be no bypassing of untreated or partially treated wastewater from the Elk River Municipal
<br />Treatment Facilities or any intermediate unit process to the point of use by the Elk River Station of Great
<br />River Energy.
<br />(5) A complete projection of the water qualities associated with each of the flows illustrated in the water
<br />balance described in the previous item. This water qualities projection shall include at least the following
<br />potential pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, temperature (heat), residual chlorine,
<br />ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, phosphorus, sulfate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, boron, chloride,
<br />fluoride, bicarbonates, total dissolved solids, specific conductance and pH; the organic priority pollutants
<br />identified under the volatile, acid, base/neutral, and pesticide fractions using EPA methods 624, 625 and
<br />608 (40 CFR Pt. 136, October 25, 1984) as listed in Table II of 40 CFR Pt. 122, Appendix D; the following
<br />total metals using either EPA method 200.7 or 200.8 or their corresponding graphite furnace method found
<br />in Table IB of 40 CFR Pt. 136.3--antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
<br />selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc; total cyanide (EPA method 335), total phenolic compounds (EPA
<br />method 420), hardness (total as CaCO3, EPA method 130); and total mercury (EPA method 1631). This
<br />water qualities projection shall ensure that the cation:anion charge balances are properly accounted for. This
<br />water qualities projection shall ensure that the proposed maximum rates of chemical additions to the water
<br />system are fully accounted for.
<br />(6) An explanation of how, for each specific type of reuse(s) of wastewater effluent for the proposed project,
<br />the level of treatment meets the minimum criteria as specified in the State of California Department of
<br />Public Health, Regulations Related to Recycled Water, January 2009, TITLE 17 and TITLE 22; CODE OF
<br />REGULATIONS which is incorporated herein by reference, and available at:
<br />http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/rwregulations-O1-2009.pdf. One method
<br />of explaining how the specific treatment unit meets the minimum State of California criteria would be to
<br />use an accepted technology as identified in the State of California Division of Drinking Water and
<br />Environmental Management Treatment Technology Report for Recycled Water December 20091ocated at:
<br />www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/DWdocuments/RecycledWaterTechnolo ,g Luting 12_
<br />2009.pdf
<br />(7) The distance over which the water flows identified in item (4) above are proposed to be conveyed between
<br />one NPDES/SDS-authorized facility and another, the means of conveyance, and the public or private entity
<br />that would own and operate the conveyance structures.
<br />(8) MPCA preliminary effluent and, if applicable, land disposal, limits for the proposed project. This should
<br />include any information for those potential pollutants identified in item (5) that may have the potential to
<br />violate water quality standards.
<br />(9) An analysis of the feasible treatment and disposal alternatives according to unit processes and combinations
<br />thereof (including the modification and enhancement of existing unit processes) capable of providing the
<br />treatment necessary to achieve the limit(s) specified in item (8), and for each alternative an identification
<br />and description of applicable local, State and federal requirements and requisite permits (including the
<br />applicable air quality, solid and hazardous waste management rules).
<br />(10) Where conveyance between NPDES/SDS facilities is part of the proposed project (per item (7)), an analysis
<br />of the feasible alternatives capable of providing such conveyance.
<br />(11) An evaluation of the impact of the feasible alternatives on the existing WWTF and its collection system,
<br />including sewers and lift stations.
<br />(12} Selection of a Comprehensive Alternative. Based on the range of feasible alternatives whereby the
<br />purposes identified and described in items (10) through (11) can be integrated and accomplished as a
<br />comprehensive project alternative, a suitable number of such comprehensive alternatives shall be identified
<br />and described. For each such comprehensive alternative a present worth calculation shall be undertaken,
<br />where the present worth shall be based on costs of constructing, and operating and maintaining all of the
<br />facilities and appurtenances (public and private) for a period of 20 (twenty) years. The index factor for the
<br />present worth calculation shall be as provided by the MPCA. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed project
<br />Crrant (Rev. 11/08)
<br />CR
<br />
|