Laserfiche WebLink
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br /> 120 .......................... '1 <br /> 1 O0 <br /> <br /> .~ 80 <br /> <br /> ~ 60 - Filtered Secondary J <br /> _~0 Effluent Required to <br /> I,I. 40 Meet 85 % Removal~ <br /> for MMWW <br /> <br /> I I I <br /> <br /> 20t0 2015 2020 2025 <br /> [-~' Filtered Flow <br /> FIGURE 6.2.6-2 <br /> Filtration Required at Worst Case Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow <br /> MWMC Facilities Plan, Eugene-Springfield <br /> <br />The following filtration technologies were identified as either appropriate or preferred for <br />the WPCF. <br /> <br />· Deep bed granular media filtration <br />· Fabric disk or Fuzzy Filters <br /> Membrane filtration <br /> <br />A detailed cost evaluation m~d non-monetary analysis was not performed for these <br />alternatives. Conventional deep bed granular media filtration is currently recommended to <br />meet the large scale filtration needs identified above. This is due to the following reasons: <br /> <br />· The technology is well established in the industry <br /> <br />· Siting of deep bed granular media filters will occupy the largest site space relative to <br /> other alternatives and thus the planning will be conservative <br /> <br />· The filters can be constructed using a modular approach to meet the projected facility <br /> needs in a "just in firne" approach <br /> <br />· The technology is well suited for large volumes of filtered flow <br /> <br />· The cost of constructing deep bed granular media filters will be adequate for plmming <br /> purposes. If MWMW would like to evaluated other technologies when the facilities are <br /> actually needed there would be adequate ftmds available. <br /> <br />MWMC_6.0_REV11.DOC 6-21 <br /> <br /> <br />