My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution No. 4793
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Resolutions
>
2004 No. 4782-4819
>
Resolution No. 4793
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 4:49:14 PM
Creation date
7/7/2004 4:37:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Recorder
CMO_Document_Type
Resolutions
Document_Date
6/28/2004
Document_Number
4793
CMO_Effective_Date
6/28/2004
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.
/
322
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
6.0 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives <br /> <br />This chapter documents the identification and screening of viable system ~nprovement <br />alternatives for addressing the various projected requirements of the planning period. It <br />outlines a range of potential trait process solutions and documents the methodology for a <br />preliminary screerdng evaluation process that advances certain unit process alternatives for <br />further consideration. It further describes a more rigorous unit process alternative selection <br />process. Those selected processes are used in the development of three systemwide <br />alternatives that are evaluated for permit compliance and cost-effectiveness. <br /> <br />Identification of Alternative [init Process Solutions <br />Regulatory drivers, ex/sting WPCF drivers, and technology drivers can all be combined to <br />form a matrix of treatment facility needs and potential solutions. Table 6.0-1 summarizes the <br />project matrix for the WPCF. The matrix identifies potential unit process solutions for all of <br />the various issues identified at the WPCF. <br /> <br />Preliminary Screening Process <br />Each of the unit process solutions identified in the project rnatrix were screened to <br />determine their suitability for further consideration. They were evaluated against important <br />criteria developed by MWMC and Eugene-Springfield staff at a c~harter~ng workshop. <br />Developed criteria fall into three categories: <br /> <br />,, Process Performance <br /> Process O&M <br />- Process Implementation <br /> <br />Process performance criteria included the following: <br /> <br />· Reliabi~ty to meet current requirements <br />· , Capability to meet future requirements <br />· Multiple applications or benefits <br />- Impact to offter processes <br />, Sttstainability ( chemical, power, other resource a_se) <br />,~ Minimal odor, noise, and other impacts <br /> <br />O&M criteria included the following: <br /> <br /> O&M ease and simplicity <br />- O&M flexibility <br /> O&M envircmment and safety <br /> <br />Process implementation criteria included the following. <br /> <br /> Capital cost <br /> Annual O&M cost <br /> 20-year present worth <br /> <br />MWMC_60_REV11 DOC 6-1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.