Laserfiche WebLink
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 40 <br />• There is currently insufficient data to quantitatively document the contribution of I/I from <br />private service laterals to the local or MWMC wastewater system. <br />• There is anecdotal evidence from Eugene and Springfield, and quantitative data from peer <br />agencies, of the potential significance of these contributions. <br />• Eugene and Springfield have the capability to conduct flow monitoring of the sanitary sewer <br />systems within their jurisdiction. <br />• There are case examples of, and practical experience with, private lateral programs of peer <br />agencies that can be used for reference and guidance. <br />The full analysis and a list of possible actions to further evaluate the need for a program to address I/I <br />from private service laterals is included as Appendix C. <br />REHABILITATION COSTS <br />The costs of an effective wastewater rehabilitation program are determined by the method(s) used to <br />rehabilitate the system, the size of the pipes and other infrastructure being rehabilitated, and the <br />amounts of pipes needing rehabilitation. The costs are also affected by the quantity of public laterals and <br />manholes attached to the mains undergoing rehab, which are typically rehabbed in complementary <br />projects. <br />Mainline Rehabilitation Unit Costs <br />The three most common methods of wastewater rehab are: chemical grout sealing, cured-in-place pipe <br />lining (CIPP), and reconstruction. Other methods of rehabilitation include slip lining and pipe bursting. In <br />Eugene, slip lining is seldom used, and pipe bursting has been used on smaller pipe sizes but does not <br />represent a significant portion of the rehabilitation program.