Laserfiche WebLink
De <br /> <br />Metropolitan Treatment Plant At ~ig's Eye Island <br />(continued) <br /> <br /> 1. MPCA (EPA) has upgraded the effluent discharge <br /> 'standards. <br /> <br />· 2. Unknown amounts of lawsuits have been litigated <br /> <br /> regarding the present and future standards of <br /> the plant's effluent. <br /> <br /> 3.. Temporary NPDES operating permits are being <br /> negotiated to complete the interagency stipu- <br /> lations. <br />4. The total projected CAB area flows up to the <br /> year 2000 will comprise less than 2% of the <br /> total plant flows. <br /> <br />5. The present plant upgrading program and any <br /> additional upgrading decisions will be accom- <br /> plished with or without the CAB area flows. <br /> <br />ISSUES: <br /> <br /> Will the MPCA and EPA require an improved <br /> secondary treatment program, .beyond the preseht <br /> upgrading work, before the 1984 completion date <br /> and an opportunity to experience the total im- <br /> pact of the present program on effluent qualities? <br /> <br /> Will the MPCA approve the CAB interceptor before <br /> these Metro plant decisions are made?. <br /> <br /> Is the EPA a present litigant in the overall rash <br /> of Metro plant lawsuits? <br /> <br /> Will the EPA and MPCA approve federal and state <br /> funding for improved secondary (tertiary) <br /> <br />treatment? <br /> <br />Area-Considerations <br /> <br />The proposal "meeting development needs" holds a lesser <br />priority than water quality objectives, is not accept- - <br />able. The development of this northwest area is inev- <br />itable and will proceed with'proper planning or in spite <br /> <br /> <br />