|
bor and equipment coasts to dispose of the .material on city -owned property are kept to a minitmtm, which also helps in
<br /> ping costs low. However, as more material is hauled to landfills, the time and equipment costs increase substantially.
<br /> 4 nservative esthrates place an extra 510 per ton. for labor and equipment on sweepings that are hauled to landfills. The
<br /> ell Best landfill to these carom in the Pine Bend landfill, whose current tip fee is now set at 377 per ton. Table 1
<br /> sh the current :,oats for landitiling based on a 65 p rcenat pick -up of sand used during an average wester.
<br /> Table 1
<br /> Estimated Costs of Landfilling Street Sweepings
<br /> 1 miner Annual Sand Estimated 65% of Use Costs to Landfill Total Annual 1
<br /> zn ity Use in Tons Annual Sand Spring Pickup Costs
<br /> (immunity
<br /> Costs 5
<br /> 9 preview 1, =�00 3 3,850 845 5 71,325 77,675 y
<br /> a Heights 450 3 ;:*025 293
<br /> 24,905 1 26,930
<br /> rden. Hills 600 2,700 390 33,150 35,850
<br /> 9
<br /> akcDn Heights 295 1,318 191 16,150 17,469 1
<br /> udcrdale 65 279 42 3,400 3,579 1
<br /> I 1 2,500 X50 1,625 138.125 9 149,375
<br /> ew Bri,glt.t�oe 2,500 1 1,250
<br /> Kittle Canada 320 1,440 208 17 19.120
<br /> 'Mile!: 3,404) 3 15,300 1 2,210 137,350 203,150
<br /> ''`nitc ?ear 300 :1,3511 1 195 16,575 17,925
<br /> .`uwnshio a
<br /> k'losevllc 3,300 3 13,450 2,470 5209,950 5 227,050
<br /> II County 24,000 5103,000 1 12,000 1,020,E 1,123,000
<br /> otals 137,025 3147,900 20,466 31,739,610 31,906,222
<br /> otu shims cis on y include landfilling a:usts and muting sand pau►.iaaac, anal assumes costs of $4.50 per tan liar
<br /> I and $85 per ton average for landfdlling sweepings.
<br /> Pi res in Table 1 represent only sand for winter ice control, but no seal-coat clops or other material_ Recycled seal -coat
<br /> ch pslgranite would save 37 to 514 compared to purchasing new tnaterial.
<br /> driving motivation behind the idea of recycling road maintenance materials is the projected cost increases faced by
<br /> en. y communities. If landfiiling was not needed, recycling would be only marginally cost effective or perhaps a break
<br /> ev operation. however, in light of the impending, and Limited option of landtilling, recycling as an option looks mate
<br /> p a mining for these communities. Note that in 1994, Roseville has a temporary fill permit that will accommodate their
<br /> 19 spring sweep material, but it is subject to cancelladoa by the property owner, thus possibly requiring an alternative
<br /> roach. Also, Ramsey County currently has limited opacity Tor disposing of their materials, but is intending to recycle
<br /> tier that. use valuable land for dumping.
<br /> liar programs
<br /> rrcntly. we do not know of any similar project where several smeller co uninities are recycling their road maintenance
<br /> terlals. The City of Bloomington, with a gent from the Metropolitan Council, is currently recycling their materials,
<br /> lot only for themselves. Their data show that aaveaaage costs of recycling sand is approximately 52 per ton and 51 per on
<br /> seal at chips, Their program is operating at near capacity because of its size. Smaller cities would neither have
<br /> en gh material to recycle nor the funds available to implement a similar program.
<br /> Grunt Proposal
<br /> Page 2
<br />
|