Resolution No. 4793 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT "tABLE 9.5.2 d. Comparison of WPCF NPDES Permit Conditions with Predicted Conditions Under System Alternative 4 (Hiqh Rate Clarification) MWMC Facilities Plan, Eugene-Spnngfield Permit Limit/Removall Predicted Discharge/Removal Parameter Requirements Efficiency Maximum Week TSS 28,000 Ih/day 18,820 lb/day Maximum Week CBODs 24,000 lb/day 13,908 lb/day Maximum Month TSS Removal 85 percent 88.0 percent Maximum Month CBOD5 Remova~ 85 percent 86,5 percent Mitigation planning would be the same as that in System Alternative 5. Sediment and erosion control BMPs and SPCC planning would be implemented during construction activities. These practices would eliminate, reduce, or avoid the potential for discharge of sediment, petroleum products, hazardous materials and debris to the Willamette River during the construction period. 9.5.3 Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources in the vicinity of the WPCF trader the High- Rate Ctarificahon alternative would be limited and essentially identical to those under the Parallel Primary/Secondary Treatment alternative (see section 9.4.3). Temporary, construction-related impacts on wildlife and habitat (e.g., from noise and dust generation) would be minhnal, because animals likely would avoid areas near construction activity. Temporary riverbank disturbance from construction of the third outfall would be limited to the immediate construction area and would be mivJm2ed through Lmplementation of construction BMPs and sedimentation and erosion control measures. Potential permanent wetland losses resulting from 'installation of the third outfall would be mitigated through direct measures (e.g., creation of replacement wetlands) or indirect measures (e.g., purchase of credits from a mitigation bank). No direct wildlife mortality or other permanent habitat alterations or losses are expected under System Alternative 4. 9.5.4 Air Quality, Odor, and Noise Impacts to air quality, odor, and noise under System Alternative 4 will be similar to impacts under System Alternative 5 (see section 9.4.4.). 9.5.5 Energy i anagement and Consumption Similar to System Alternative 5 (see section 9.4.5), it is assumed that the WPCF would consume more energy under System Alternative 4 than is currently consumed, as well as more energy than would be consumed under System Alternative 1. As described for System Alternative 5, the proposed upgrades would roughly double the capacity of the facility; therefore, it could be assumed that under System Alternative 4 energy consumption would increase relative to the amount of energy cttrrently used. MWMC_9.0.,REV14.DOC 9-21