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 DEVELOPMENTAND EVALUATION OFALTERNAT~VES <br /> <br />the land lease agreement would remain in place. Advantages and disadvantages of this <br />alternative are listed below. <br /> <br />Advantages: <br />o Reclaimed water main already constructed to the SIWF <br /> Lowest cost alternative for beneficially using the SIWF <br /> Provides MWlvIC with a readily available effluent reuse location <br /> Maintain small revenue source through lease agreement <br /> <br />Disadvantages: <br /> Costs associated with modifications and equipment required to apply liquid biosolids to <br /> the site <br /> <br />The fact that the reclaimed water main from the WPCF is connected to the SIWF makes this <br />an attractive alternative. Effluent could be applied at the SIWF with minor ~_spection and <br />retrofitting of the sprinklers on the center pivots. This cost is estimated at approximately <br />$2,000 per pivot. <br /> <br />Liquid biosolids from the BMF could also be applied to the SIWF with relatively minor <br />piping/equipment additions. Applying liquid biosolids from the BMF to the SIWF would <br />require the following improvements/modifications: <br /> <br />, A new pipeline from the BF pump station to the SIWF that would convey liquid <br /> biosolids. It is assumed that the existing liquid biosolids pumps would have enough <br /> capacity to pump to the SIWF. <br /> <br />· A hose reel system with distribution pipeline. The onsite distribution system would <br /> consist of three hose reels to spread the liquid biosolids on poplars or grass. <br /> <br />· A booster pump station to distribute biosolids to the hose reels. <br /> <br />Alternatives Cost Comparison <br />Table 6.5.5-1 provides a cost esFnnate comparison between alternatives. The net cost <br />presented in the table is the difference between revenue and cost. <br /> <br />TABLE $.5.5-1 <br />Alternatives Cost Benefit Comparison <br />MWMC Facil[ties Plan, Eugene-Spnngfield <br /> <br /> Alternative Revenue Cost Net Cost Comments <br />Alternative 1 $6,450 $11,500 ($5,050) only 1 year of annua~ costs <br />No action - continue to <br />lease the SIWF <br />Alternative 2 $2,030,000 $300,000 $I,700,000 excludes site replacement cost; <br />Sell the S]WF assumes $7K/ac; 6% c~osing costs <br /> and decommissioning <br /> <br /> DOC ~4~ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.