My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-06/22/04JEO
>
Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:57:24 PM
Creation date
6/17/2004 8:20:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
162
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
Facilities Plan and the SDC methodology. Mr. Noesen said the caPacity assessment that is in the <br /> NPDES fact sheet was from 1996 when the staff submitted the permit renewal application to DEQ. <br /> Staff took information from the 1997 Master Plan, which was under development at the time. It <br />· took a number of years for DEQ to re-issue the permit and DEQ kept that 1996 data sheet and <br />never re-evaluated it. There is a 12% increase in the maximum peaking faCtor between the 1997 <br />data and today. <br /> <br /> Mr. Noesen said a critical point is CBOD and TSS are now surrogates for <br />ammonia. Ammonia and thermal load are now in the permit and ~rameters were not in the <br />permit in 1996, when the capacity assessment was done for the laster Plan. When the · <br />SDC methodology was being evaluated, ammonia and not be capacity <br />parameters. Mr. Noesen said the reason these could not for all the users <br />(industrial, residential, and commercial) is because the to be able to <br />implement SDCs and monthly user rates for these To pound of <br />ammonia versus remOving one pound of CBOD is icant impact to ca thiS is <br />captured in the current data but was not lyses, or' ~e permit, in <br /> <br /> Referring to the DEQ letter and statement, C Morrison asked when DEQ <br />changed their policy to req to use flows instead of average flows <br />when looking at capacity. Mr. Noesen pc changed in 1991, and in 1996 <br />DEQ refined the change to that policy. 3at the Master Plan is in error and <br />incorrectly assessed capacity. The Plan s month flows (in' his ' <br />opinion) compared to the 4 ~ermal load and ammonia in <br />the permit. Commission, Iow their own policy and Mr. <br />Noesen agreed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Smith that ~n was not submitted to DEQ for review, <br /> because it was not like the 2004 Facilities plan. The 2004 <br /> Facilities ~ccordance with DEQ guidelines since the <br /> 208 Pla~ <br /> <br /> qoesen rewE projections that formed the base for the 2004 Facilities <br /> Pll ~e SDC data and growth rates were evaluated and used to <br /> pre' populatio ~e basis used for the Facility Plan. It reflects an <br /> antici [ced rate of I: lation growth. He said if the argument is used that the population' <br /> numbers are gh or too when it comes down to determining SDC rates and monthly <br /> sewer rates, ti' a big impact. <br /> <br /> Mr. Noesen the dry season maximum month flow historical and projected <br /> data. He said DEQ statistical method to arrive at the 10-year dry season and five-year wet <br /> season'data and staff is in ongoing discussions with DEQ to use the Plan's projections, which are <br /> conservative, instead of DEQ's numbers, which Would be even more conservative. He commented <br /> that the 2004 Facilities Plan is based on projections that are reasonable, lower than what was <br /> developed in 1997, and significantly lower than what DEQ would like to be used. <br /> <br /> 4-59 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.