Laserfiche WebLink
.and ~inimizing any cost differences between <br /> alternatives; (3) It is more flexible since <br /> limited space is available to further.expand <br /> or upgrade the Anoka piant;' (4) It is more re- <br /> liable, because a large regional plant is less <br /> subject to toxic upset; and (5) It is consistent <br /> with local preference. <br /> <br />ISSUES: <br /> <br /> Temporary use of the AWWTP. <br /> <br /> Improve the capacity of the A~5~TP to handle <br /> "Anoka Segment" flows to the year 1990. Are <br /> these costs eligible for state and federal <br /> grants? <br /> <br /> Impact of the continued and increased use of <br /> the A~TP on the river environs? Also on the <br /> core city's water intakes? <br /> <br /> Will continued use of the ~¢TP to treat portions <br /> of the CAB area flows, improve the chances of <br /> MPCA approving the CAB Interceptor construction <br /> program? (Downstream flows to the Minneapolis <br /> East Interceptor will be reduced.) <br /> <br />Minneapolis East Interceptor <br /> <br />This existing interceptor presently handles flows from <br />Service Area 2, also the north region of Service Area 1, <br />together with combined storm and sanitary sewer flows <br />from the north area of Minneapolis. Minneapolis has - <br />undertaken extensive city.system improvements to reduce <br />storm water flows to th~ interceptor. Local area uses <br />have diminished as inner city, high use industries have <br />abandoned plants to relocated sites. The interceptor <br />is capable of handling dry weather flows, has overflow <br />discharges to the river during high storm water run-off <br />periods, and has minor structural deficiencies, all ac- <br />cording to the recent MWCC 201 Studies involving the <br /> <br />-6- <br /> <br /> <br />