Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes which of the required options it prefers. He said that the community may choose to d° something much different. We talked about a $144 million cost after only 20 years. He told me that the treatment facilities only have a lifetime of about 20 years before you have to start replacing things. That bothers me somewhat because almost all of $144 million, is for new capacity. There is some rehabilitation costs, but it is relatively minor. Twenty years from now, are we looking at putting out $300 million to replace the eight secondary clarifiers, etc?.[The existing secondary clarifiers have been in service for 20 years. The facility plan assumes that they will be in service for an additional 20 years, or 40 years total. · There condition will be assessed at the end of the next 20 years to determine their suitability for future treatment. Facilities do not have an infinite life.] Eugene Planning Commissioner Rusch mentioned at the meeting of the joint planning commiSsions that he would like to have a discussion about the type of facilities we build. He said that we are using a design that comes from the sixteenth century, but that revolutionary changes have been made in the last twenty years. I mentioned that to John Gasik and he agreed. [This is incorrect. The technology proposed for MWMC is some of the most recent technology available for all facilities (fine screening, washing, compacting, thickening outside primary clarifiers, step feed plug flow process with anoxic selectors, sodium hypochlorite disinfection, and peak flow management). The step feed plug flow process with anoxic selectors is an innovative process that has seen extensive use and has proven itself over the past lO years. It has been proposed and accepted for treatment at some of the largest and most advanced wastewater facilities in the world (Singapore Facility).] If our current plant really is close to the end of its functional life, why are we not considering the new techniques, especially if we are putting out $144 million to basically add similar capacity to a facility that is becoming obsolete? Why are the new sanitary techniques part of the option discussion? $144 million will always seem like a lot of money to me, but if we end up having to shell that out and then a lot more to rehabilitate the current facility, why not have a discussion about the new technology? [Many new technologies were discussed, considered, and adopted in the facilities plan.] (By the way, it was John Gasik who approved of the way the capacity is being calculated ager it was explained to him, although he did say that he thought it was to address a technical issue. The impact on the actual capacity was evidently not the issue. I think it needs to be an issue when you are talking about that much capacity.) Sincerely, Roxie Cuellar Director of Government Affairs Attachment 4 Page 17 of 17 4-20