My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-299A
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2007
>
2007-299A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2016 11:54:35 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 11:07:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Report
Approved Date
09/04/2007
Control Number
2007-299A
Agenda Item Number
14.B.3
Entity Name
Geosyntec
Subject
Landfill Consolidation Study Report
Area
Indian River County Landfill
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
6545
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
r <br /> Geo syntec -Consultants <br /> r 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of C&D debris disposal in a dedicated <br /> r� unlined landfill with those of co-disposal of C&D debris and MSW in a lined, Class I landfill . <br /> Florida rules approve both methods of disposal and each landfill facility owner or operator can <br /> select the one most appropriate to their circumstances. Presently, the SWDD employs the <br /> r separate disposal alternatives whereby C &D debris is disposed of in an unlined C&D landfill <br /> operated by SWDD staff. MSW is disposed off in a lined, Class I landfill operated by Waste <br /> r Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF) under a seven- (7-) year operating agreement with the <br /> SWDD Board. The cost for construction and operation of the unlined C&D landfill is <br /> determined by the SWDD ' s annual budget, which is required to fund all labor, equipment and <br /> +■ administration expenses associated with this facility. The total cost for operating the Class I <br /> landfill consists of construction and closure expenses including long term care, estimated at <br /> $ 6 . 87 per ton landfill capacity; and the operation and maintenance cost determined by the <br /> r disposal fee, which is defined by the operating agreement, and the quantity of MSW delivered <br /> for disposal. <br /> r <br /> The results of the economic analysis indicate that the cost advantage or disadvantage of a <br /> particular method of disposal depends on the quantity of C&D debris delivered to the IRCL <br /> r facility. The SWDD funding mechanism of an annual budget is less costly only when the <br /> quantity of C&D debris delivered for disposal exceeds a minimum value. For the SWDD <br /> operating budget, this critical quantity is estimated at approximately 93 ,000 tons per year and is <br /> projected statistically to be reached in 2018 . Below this amount, it would be less costly to co- <br /> dispose the C&D debris in the Class 1 landfill along with MSW . The County could still <br /> r experience years with C&D debris in excess of the critical amount prior to 2018 due to the <br /> occurrences of uncontrollable events such as hurricanes or periods of exceptionally high <br /> economic growth. However, based on past records, such quantities cannot be sustained by the <br /> r projected County population until 2018 . <br /> The estimated crossover year of 2018 could change by any of the following events : <br /> • Different population growth rate — Higher rate of growth would advance the crossover <br /> - year whereas a lower rate would distance it. <br /> • . Change in operating cost of the Class I landfill — Increasing the contract fee to WMIF <br /> - would advance the crossover year. <br /> • Establishment of a competing C&D debris recovery facility would distance the <br /> r <br /> crossover year. <br /> FL0996-03UL70184 08- 10-200Zdoc_doc 7- 1 2007-08- 10 <br /> r <br /> r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.