The comments below have been received from sources reviewing the WRRF Conceptual Design Report and Effluent Reuse and Discharge Study (Study, or CDR). Draft responses are provided for review by the District’s Board. The District will eventually place this list on their website as a living document, to allow it to be amended as future questions and comments on the District’s wastewater infrastructure planning and design are received.
- Last year the cost of the project was in the $22M range, now I hear it is + $30M. What happened to $22M? Comment Source: Multiple Sources
- With the stated uncertainty of future DEQ decisions related to snowmaking and… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- It appears to me that the limited size of the existing treatment plant site is being used… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- I remain concerned about the estimated cost of this project and the future direction… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- I noticed that the cost estimates for the various treatment processes all include line… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- The Indirect Subsurface Discharge method, using either Rapid Infiltration basins or… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- the investigation of viable treatment processes should be expanded to include an… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- Not knowing what the current physical condition of the existing plant is, I wonder… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- I would place the MBR process in the category of a system that can produce very… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- Does it make sense to proceed on a path that treats the entire wastewater stream… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- My concern with going down a path that recommends the latest and best… Comment Source: Ratepayer, Scott Olsen
- TM 14: Surface Water Discharge Question: Is algae (chl a/biomass) required as… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- TM 13: Reclaimed Water Irrigation Comment: I would not estimate what is possible… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- TM 12: Question: to replace the drainfield at FMS, what was the reasoning to… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- TM 12: Indirect Subsurface Discharge Comment: You analyzed the best option… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- TM 11, Comment on Figure 3: Where did you obtain Middle Fork discharge?… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- TM11 – Executive summary Question: Where did the 185 MG for Direct discharge… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- TM1: I understand that MBR would treat effluent to a much lower level of nutrients… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- This point may be mute but I was told of a new disposal system… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- Snow Disposal Option: I think the potential snowmaking number could be significantly… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- Page 18, #2: Minor note, but the West Fork and South Fork may have been listed… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- Just curious is it typical of other municipalities that reuse wastewater to have a… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- I would like to see some discussion for each of the proposed options of how they… Comment Source: Kristen Gardner/GRTF
- SP and YC combined disposed of approximately 100 MG of water in 2018… Comment Source: Ducuennois
- Discuss operational costs of YC and SP reuse versus direct discharge… Comment Source: Ducuennois
- Indicate that both YC and SP will add disposal capacity in the coming years… Comment Source: Ducuennois
- 160 million gallons per year (MGY) of disposal in one water balance, 70 MGY of… Comment Source: Multiple Sources
- Cost estimate ranges in the Report seem excessive Comment Source: Scott Olsen, Shropshire
- Provide an approximate timeline for all recommended projects… Comment Source: Shropshire
- Provide Project Cost for continuing with current treatment systems (SBRs… Comment Source: BSCWSD Board
- Activated Sludge System Design … Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Basic and crucial treatment process data, such as specific growth rate for nitrifying… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- For convenience, Appendix B3 of this report contains excerpts from the… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- There is also a risk that with anticipated chemical use (aluminum sulfate) the… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Biosolids (Sludge) Handling: multiple comments regarding biosolids capacity… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- The proposed outfall design calls for a maximum flow of 5 mgd, which… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Total Phosphorus discharges would have to come down to 0.03 mg/L to meet all… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Nor does BSC identify the class of reclaimed wastewater for existing conditions… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- The AE2S study did not evaluate existing effluent concentrations relative to regulatory… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- The overall proposed schedule, treatment unit completion and basis for… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Toxicants such as chlorine, ammonia, metals and other pollutants will also be… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- full nutrient removal of TN and TP will not be available, at the future facility, before… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Under the proposed schedule, the future effluent pipeline and Gallatin River outfall… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Report did not consider primary treatment in its design analysis though this… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- The proposed BNR system will not have the capacity to achieve target nutrient… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- …the design is handicapped by restricting it to the existing facility footprint… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- Provide additional information on process model inputs and outputs… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- The proposed treatment processes being called-out for biological nutrient… Comment Source: LEA/Conservation Group Reviewer
- We believe this outcome (litigation) can be avoided if we work together… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- We respectfully remind the District that opportunity cost must be considered… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- Throughout the conservation group letter, there are references to other… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- If more robust treatment works capable of producing higher quality effluent is built,… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- The District should weigh the economic benefits of a scalable, state-of-the-art WRRF… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- The Draft Report does not contemplate WWTF capacity upgrades capable… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- The Report reflects a primary driver of WRRF upgrades emphasizes protecting… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- In fact, it appears that community feedback – including that made by key ratepayers… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- The Draft Report does not consider proven disposal alternatives to direct-discharge… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- If the District takes an aggressive approach to bringing an MBR facility and other… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- We respectfully request the District take the time to thoroughly investigate… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- Through the Big Sky Sustainable Water Solutions Forum (BSSWSF), the greater Big Sky … Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- The conservation letter references “disposal of at least 160 mgy”… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- There are multiple comments in the November 9 2018 (conservation letter)… Comment Source: Conservation Groups Letter
- Figure References were broken in the pdf Comment Source: Multiple Sources