Laserfiche WebLink
— Geosyntec Consultants <br /> - 6. COST COMPARISON OF C&D DEBRIS DISPOSAL IN AN UNLINED <br /> LANDFILL VS. CO-DISPOSAL IN A CLASS I LANDFILL <br /> The approach used for the cost comparison study of the two C&D debris disposal alternatives <br /> includes the following steps : <br /> r <br /> 1 . Estimate the landfill capacity of Cell 2 for commingled waste; <br /> r 2. Estimate the cost of constructing Cell 2 as a Class I landfill ; <br /> 3 . Estimate the closure and post-closure care costs of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill ; <br /> 4. Estimate the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill; <br /> 5 . Compute a $/ton cost estimate for construction and O&M of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill ; <br /> - 6. Estimate the O&M cost of Cell 2 as an unlined C&D disposal facility; and <br /> 7 . Compare the estimated costs of the two disposal alternatives based on monthly delivery <br /> - records from April 2006 through March 2007. <br /> _ A summary of the first six steps is presented in Table 1 . <br /> Figure 2 presents a comparison of the disposal costs of the two alternatives. The results indicate <br /> ,. that the economics of a particular disposal method depends on the amount of C&D debris <br /> delivered for landfilling. A breakeven quantity of C&D debris was estimated from the <br /> intersection point of the two lines to be approximately 7,750 tons per month. Separate C&D <br /> debris disposal in an unlined landfill is more costly to SWDD than the co-disposal approach in <br /> a lined Class I landfill below the breakeven quantity (i .e. , from December 2006 through March <br /> 2007) and less costly above the breakeven value (i . e. , April 2006 through November 2006) . <br /> r <br /> Figure 3 presents a cost comparison of the two disposal alternatives for three projections of <br /> ,,. annual quantities of C&D debris deliveries to the IRCL facility, The three projections are <br /> designated as: low, average and high projections, and are calculated for 95 percent confidence <br /> limits, based on SWDD records of annual landfill disposal volumes consumed by C&D debris <br /> from 1996 through 2004 and population projections [Neel- Schaffer, 2007] . The projections are <br /> based on an annual average per capita C&D debris generation rate of 1098 pound with a <br /> standard deviation of 233 pound (see Appendix C) . The results indicate that the co-disposal <br /> - <br /> approach would be more cost effective : (i) for the entire period of the low projection scenario ; <br /> — FL0996-03/7L70184_08-10-2007_dm.do 6- 1 2007-08-10 <br /> — <br />