Laserfiche WebLink
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 />AJternafive 3 $6,450 $2,200,000 ($2,193,550) capita~ costs onJy- does not <br />Convert the 14-acre include annual O&M costs <br />lagoon at the S1WF <br />into a new FSL <br /> <br />Alternative 4 $6,450 $1,400,000 ($1,393,550) capita~ 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 IVIWMC's biosolids and effluent reuse <br />program. General conclusions regarding the SIWF can be grouped into three categories: <br /> <br />,, Financially - the prox~nJty 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 [-reatment and reuse program. <br /> <br />e Politically - the current program and facLlities are accepted by the surrounding <br /> community. Siting and construction at another locatiov, will likely incur additional <br /> regulatory costs and obstacles. <br /> <br /> Strategically - the SIWF lagoon can provide additional storage for sludge, effluent, or <br /> supematant as these needs occur in the future. The land itself offers a signLficant buffer <br /> capaczty and a strategic location for reuse of effluent, biosol~ds, BFP pressate a_qd/or <br /> supernatant. <br /> <br />Based on the above cor~ch, zsions and the previous dLscrtssion of the alternatives, the <br />following recommendations have been made: <br /> <br />,, Selling the land Ls not recommended. <br /> <br /> Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative. A reclaimed water pipeline is already in place, <br /> and with fairly mia~,imal additional investment it could receive effluent. The secondary <br /> option within fids alternative is to implement the modifications that w~ also allow the <br /> site to receive liqrdd biosolids. <br /> <br /> Dewatered biosolJds could also be applied to the site at any fuVare t~ne. <br /> <br />,, At a minimum, I¥~VMC 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 J[or effluent or liquid biosohds storage is not currently required based <br /> on other analyses, upgrading the FSL for storage purposes is not recommended at this <br /> <br />6-50 ~W~C_6 0_REV~ 1.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />