Laserfiche WebLink
Recommendations: <br />The high cost and likely difficult installation methods needed to install a gravity <br />collection system appear to preclude this alternative. Both alternatives 1 (dedicated <br />emergency power generators to the existing system) and 3 (replacement of the existing <br />system with a vacuum collection system) are more likely for the County to consider. <br />IRC staff has conducted further evaluations to investigate the viability of these two <br />alternatives to mitigate the existing sewer system. The staff felt the vacuum system is <br />more desirable due to lower maintenance cost than standby generators, possible outcrop <br />of rock formations can be designed around to meet the critical profiles required meeting <br />the hydraulic jumps. After further consideration and input from staff, PBS&J and <br />County staff have concluded that the installation of standby generators or standby <br />p^ewer feed OYSLe111 would nGt Ue LAI li1GSt dcsirabic a1LUIIIat1VO. The re81On 15 subjcet to <br />flooding at the generator scenario in concert with ancillary equipment would also be <br />susceptible to flooding, making the system unreliable. While gravity sewer is desirable, <br />the economics make this alternative cost prohibitive. Therefore the vacuum system <br />provided the greatest level of reliability at a cost substantially less than gravity sewer. <br />Due to the urgency to correct existing problems prior to the next hurricane season, <br />funding should begin through normal County means while reimbursement funding from <br />available FEMA grants is concurrently pursued, beginning with timely submittal of the <br />appropriate application. <br />Page 7 of 7 <br />F:\UJlinics\UrIGTY-ENGB ER G\Projccrs-Utility Conswaian Pe AiURC- Rocimdge Sewo FEMA Mingazion UCP N 2521\PBSU Enginecering Report\Tech Mil n <br />Roctr dgc - Vuuum Opuon.doc <br />