My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A-MWMC Facilities Plan
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-05/19/04WS
>
Item A-MWMC Facilities Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:11:10 PM
Creation date
5/12/2004 3:16:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/19/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
349
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MWMC FACILITIES PLAN <br /> <br />TABLE 6.5.5-1 <br />Alternatives Cost Benefit Comparison <br />MWMC Facilities Plan, Eugene-Springfield <br /> <br /> Alternative Revenue Cost Net Cost Comments <br /> <br />Alternative 3 $6,450 $2,200,000 ($2,193,550) capital costs only- does not <br />Convert the 14-acre include annual O&M costs <br />lagoon at the SIWF <br />into a new FSL <br /> <br />Alternative 4 $6,450 $1,400,000 ($1,393,550) capital costs only - does not <br />Biosolids and Effluent include annual O&M costs <br />Reuse only. <br /> <br />Conclusions and Alternative Recommendation <br />The SIWF provides long-term program flexibility for MWMC's biosolids and effluent reuse <br />program. General conclusions regarding the SIWF can be grouped into three categories: <br /> <br /> Financially - the proximity to the BF and BMF and the value of the land will help reduce <br /> costs in the future for any expansion of the current treatment and reuse program. <br /> <br />· Politically - the current program and facilities are accepted by the surrounding <br /> community. Siting and construction at another location will likely incur additional <br /> regulatory costs and obstacles. <br /> <br />· Strategically - the SIWF lagoon can provide additional storage for sludge, effluent, or <br /> supernatant as these needs occur in the future. The land itself offers a significant buffer <br /> capacity and a strategic location for reuse of effluent, biosolids, BFP pressate and/or <br /> supernatant. <br /> <br />Based on the above conclusions and the previous discussion of the alternatives, the <br />following recommendations have been made: <br /> <br />· Selling the land is not recommended. <br /> <br />· Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative. A reclaimed water pipeline is already in place, <br /> and with fairly minimal additional investment it could receive effluent. The secondary <br /> option within this alternative is to implement the modifications that will also allow the <br /> site to receive liquid biosolids. <br /> <br />· Dewatered biosolids could also be applied to the site at any future time. <br /> <br />· At a minimum, MWMC should continue to lease the land and attempt to reduce its <br /> permitting fees at the site to make the lease more profitable. <br /> <br />· Because the need for effluent or liquid biosolids storage is not currently required based <br /> on other analyses, upgrading the FSL for storage purposes is not recommended at this <br /> time. <br /> <br />6-50 MWMC_6.0_REV11.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.