My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/18/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
9/18/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:46 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:46:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/18/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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
� i ■ <br />BACKUP DISPOSAL FACILITIES <br />Facilities are required to back up the recommended reuse system when demands for <br />reclaimed water are less than average daily flow at the WWTPs -- primarily <br />during wet weather events. Backup alternatives analyzed included percolation <br />ponds, man-made wetlands, direct surface water discharge, deep well injection <br />and storage. Based on an engineering evaluation that considered capital cost, <br />permittability, and reliability deep well injection was determined to be most <br />feasible in the South, West, Central and North regions and storage most feasible <br />in the Sea Oaks Region. Because deep well injection could have strong public <br />opposition, the County may want to opt for the second ranked alternative. A <br />summary of the alternatives ranking for each region is presented in Table E-3. <br />A potential cost saving measure that the County may want to consider during pre- <br />liminary facilities design is the construction of one backup system for two or <br />more regions. For example, sharing a deep well between the Central and North <br />regions could reduce cost since increasing well diameter is generally more cost <br />effective than construction of two smaller wells. As a less significant cost <br />saving measure, the County may want to consider utilizing the former Bent Pine <br />Utilities/Vero Sands Pines parcels !now owned by the County) as percolation <br />ponds to meet Phase I backup needs, forestalling the need for construction of <br />additional backup until Phase II; however, more detailed hydrogeological studies <br />of these sites is needed to verify disposal capacity. <br />At the conclusion of the Executive Summary, Mr. Morrell <br />reiterated that their main recommendation is to go with reuse of <br />wastewater effluent with the backup alternative of deep well <br />injection. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously ac-cepted <br />the IRC Effluent Disposal Master Plan prepared by <br />Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. <br />COMPLETE MASTER PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF <br />COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br />. 75 mor �. F�ticE .�� <br />��P 1 � 199® <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.