HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-104ACONTRACT FOR SERVICES
8-19 2011
nary -/,73(4 A
This CONTRACT for services entered into by and between Indian River County, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365,
hereinafter referred to as The County, and Langham Consulting Services, Inc., 170 Pier
Avenue, Fairhope, AL 36532, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant:
WITNESSETH THAT
WHEREAS, The County desires to engage Consultant to provide professional services
for Automatic Meter Reading (AMR)/Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Consulting
Services, and,
WHEREAS, The County finds that the proposed Scope of Services (Attachment A) and
terms of this Contract are acceptable; and,
WHEREAS, Consultant desires to provide said services and agrees to do so for the
compensation and upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows
1 Employment of Consultant The County hereby engages Consultant and Consultant
hereby agrees to perform the professional services hereinafter set forth The intent of
this Contract is to set out the general terms by which the Scope of Services (Attachment
A) is agreed to.
2 Scope of Services Consultant shall perform, in a professional manner, the services set
forth in Attachments to this Contract (Attachments A & B) which outline the scope of
services and compensation. Consultant will proceed with each successive Task and/or
Phase of the Project only after the County has given authorization to proceed to the next
item.
3 Extra Services Consultant shall provide extra services, not specifically called for in the
Scope of Services (Attachment A), only upon written authorization from The County.
4. Time of Performance Consultant will commence work within 15 days after the date of
execution of this contract. Phase I (Tasks 1-3) shall be completed within 135 days from
the County's issuance of a Notice to proceed. Should the county decide to pursue
Phase II, both Phases I and II shall be completed in three hundred (300) days or less
(from Notice to Proceed). Work shall be performed only for each Task and or Phase, as
previously directed by The County's designee. Work shall begin on each subsequent
Task or Phase, only after County's designee determines it is in the best interest of the
County to continue, and advises Consultant accordingly.
If the County requests modifications to the Scope of Services (Attachment A), the time of
performance of Consultant shall be adjusted appropriately.
Consultant's services under this Contract shall be considered complete at the date when
submissions for each Task or Phase has been accepted by the County
Page 1 of 9
P,\Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000(\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services\Langham Agreement doc
5. Meetings The County may require attendance by Consultant at meetings to make
presentations or to otherwise review the progress of the work.
6. Reports Consultant shall prepare and submit to The County documents and/or reports
as described in each Task or Phase
7. Compensation Consultant agrees to perform the services provided for in the Scope of
Services (Attachment A) and The County agrees to compensate Consultant for such
services as set forth in the Compensation Schedule (Attachment B).
8 Personnel Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all
personnel required to perform the services under this Contract and that such personnel
will be fully qualified to perform such services
9. Responsibilities of The County It is agreed that The County will have the following
responsibilities under this Contract:
a. Provide all available information, data, reports, records, and maps to which The
County has access and which are needed by Consultant for the performance of the
services provided herein
b. Designate a single representative who will be authorized to make necessary
decisions required on behalf of the County and will serve to provide the necessary
direction and coordination for the project.
10 Delays Beyond the Control of the Consultant It is agreed that events that are beyond
the control of Consultant or The County may occur and may delay the performance of
the Scope of Services (Attachment A). In the event that the performance of the Scope of
Services by Consultant is delayed beyond their control, Consultant shall notify The
County of such delay and the reasons therefore, and The County may, at its discretion,
extend the time of performance accordingly
11. Dispute Resolution The parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any controversy or
claim arising out of or relating to this contract promptly by negotiation between
appropriate parties who have authority to settle the controversy.
The disputing party shall give the other party written notice of the dispute Within ten
(10) days after the receipt of said notice, the receiving party shall submit to the other a
written response. The notice and response shall include
(a) a statement of each party's position and a summary of the evidence and arguments
supporting its position, and
(b) The name and title of the designated representative who will represent the party
The parties shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place within twenty (20) days of
the date of the disputing party's notice and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem
necessary to exchange relevant information and to attempt to resolve dispute
Page 2 of 9
P \Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services\Langham Agreement doc
If the controversy or claim has not been resolved within thirty (30) days of the meeting of the
appropriate parties, the parties shall endeavor to settle the dispute by standard mediation
practices under Florida law This Agreement and all matters arising hereunder shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Venue
hereunder shall lie in Indian River County, Florida
12 Termination of Contract The obligation to provide services under this Agreement may
be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice in the event of
substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof
through no fault of the terminating party or if the County determines it not in the public
interest to continue this Agreement. In the event of any terminations, the Consultant will
be paid for all services rendered through the date of termination. The Consultant will
deliver to the County all work performed prior to termination of the Agreement.
13 Assignability This Contract shall not be assigned or transferred without prior written
consent of County
14 Insurance and Standard of Care Consultant shall perform services for The County in a
professional manner, using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
consultants practicing in the same or similar locality.
Consultant's insurance shall be primary. The County shall be named as an additional
insured for both General Liability and Automobile Liability Consultant shall maintain the
following limits of insurance during the term duration of this agreement.
General Liability
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
Fire Damage -any one fire $50,000
Medical Expenses -any one person $5,000
Personal and Advertising Injury $1,000,000
General Aggregate $2,000,000
Automobile Liability — Combined Single Limit $1,000,000
Worker's Compensation as required by the State of Florida
Each accident $100,000
Each Disease — Each employee $100,000
Each disease — policy limit $500,000
Professional Liability Insurance
$1,000,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate combined single limit
Page 3 of 9
P\Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services \La ng ham Agreement.doc
$5,000 maximum deductible per claim
The policy shall cover Consultant, all employees, and/or volunteers, and all
independent contractors, subcontractors and professional contractual
persons hired or retained by Consultant.
All above insurance policies shall be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less
than A- VII. The insurer chosen shall also be licensed to do business in Florida The
insurance policies procured shall be "Claims Made" policies or as generally available on
the open insurance market.
The Insurance Carriers shall supply Certificates of Insurance evidencing such coverage
to the Indian River County Risk Management Department prior to the execution of this
Agreement.
The insurance companies selected shall send written verification to the Indian River
County Risk Management Department that they will provide thirty (30) days written
notice to the Indian River County Department of Risk Management of its intent to cancel
or terminate said policies of insurance.
15. Indemnification To the extent of the insurance benefits under the insurance policies
required herein, described in item 14 above, whether indemnity payments, defense
costs, or otherwise, the Consultant shall indemnify and save the County harmless from
the actions, payments and judgments arising from personal injuries or act or omission of
the Consultant, his agents, servants or employees, in execution or guarding of the work,
including any and all expense, legal or otherwise, incurred by the County or its
representatives in the defense of any claim or suit.
16. Ownership of Documents All reports, contract documents, and other data developed by
the Consultant for the purpose of this Agreement shall become the property of the
County and shall be made available by the Consultant at any time upon request of the
County When all work contemplated under this Agreement is complete, all of the above
data shall be delivered to the designee for the County
Page 4 of 9
P \Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000(\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services\Langham Agreement.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and Indian River County have executed this Contract as
of the date written below and under the laws of the State of Florida
Dated: Al,,uS-t- I `1 20 14-
Langham Consulting Services, Inc.
By: (7/ 4,7
Print Name:�A✓�� / /u c
WITNESS:
WITNESS
Corporate seal is acceptable in place of witnesses
Page 5 of 9
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Florida
Nr••
0 :a.
ani
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
Approved by BCC: 08-19-14
ATTEST:
Jeffrey R Smit Clerk of i.urt and
ComptrolleA.
B �� -
Dep Ierk
Approved as to Form and Le
fficiency.
Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
Joseph . Bai(d, County Administrator
P-\Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services \Langham Agreement.doc
ATTACHMENT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. PHASE I
Task 1— Feasibility Analysis — estimated time to complete is 30 days
1.1 Within fifteen (15) working days from the date of execution of the contract, the Consultant
shall conduct a "kickoff meeting" to discuss the chain of command and communication matrix between
the County and the Consultant; determine procedures for data acquisition, and review target dates for
initiation and completion of tasks.
1.1.2 Develop an effective communications plan that keeps all County AMR/AMI Team members
and subject matter experts informed of project issues and status as the AMR/AMI initiative moves
forward. Help forge consensus and buy -in among County staff.
1.1.3 Evaluate and summarize the feasibility of AMR/AMI alternatives.
Task 2 — Business Case Development - estimated time to complete is 60 days
1.2 Develop an AMI/AMR Business Case that is inclusive of all benefits and costs applicable to
AMI/AMR implementation. Costs -and -benefits analysis presented in the Business Case should
incorporate a full system pricing mechanism that includes life cycle equipment and operating costs,
operating savings, associated cash flows, inflation, customer service experience, and other
considerations and constraints based on available information. Accuracy of meter reads, response to
customer challenged reads, customer leak detection and conservation analysis and creating a positive
image for the County should be included in the case development. Various phased and full change out
approaches should be considered. Included in the various approaches would be changing out meters
only at the end of their useful life as well as a complete retrofit of the existing systems. Also considered
during this phase should be whether or not to enhance a proprietary meter technology or consider
other non-proprietary systems that are available in the industry.
1.2.1 As part of the Business Case development, assess and report on the organizational impact of
potential AMI/AMR solutions on applicable County business processes, personnel, and technology. This
analysis shall include a review of current meter reading staff, billing staff, customer service staff, and
technical support staff in order to include recommended staffing levels required to support the business
plan as required in section 1.3.3.
1.2.2 Produce a document based on the Business Case development review process that outlines
differences in the estimated costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses, intangible and definitive
benefits, and risks of each business case scenario.
Task 3 — Related Technologies, Alternative Financial Packages, Strategic Assessment — estimated time
to complete is 45 days
1.3. If in the County's opinion the Business Case developed supports upgrading the County's
metering system to an AMR/AMI system, work with the County to develop a preliminary plan and
Page 6 of 9
P\Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services \Langham Agreement.doc
schedule for the implementation process, from RFP development for Contractor selection to system
installation activation, and troubleshooting.
1.3.1 Guide the County in objectively assessing the criteria and conditions that must be addressed
with respect to existing systems within the County to successfully deploy an AMR/AMI system.
1.3.2 Identify and recommend potential synergies and/or modification of current County
business processes to ensure operational efficiency and maximize return on investment (ROI).
Assess the cost/benefits of route optimization during this phase. Quantify specific operational benefits
to be realized through AMR/AMI implementation.
1.3.3 Identify and recommend modification of the current County organizational chart for meter
reading, billing staff, customer service and technical support in order to successfully implement and
maintain an AMR/AMI system.
1.3.4 Identify qualified AMR/AMI vendors and technologies that will meet the County's needs,
including assessment of their long-term viability. This assessment may include hybrid models.
1.3.5 Identify AMR/AMI technology alternatives that present reasonable options for the County.
1.3.6 Educate the County on the functionality of current systems available in the market, the
tradeoffs among those systems, and how the various functionalities of the systems can lead to
operational benefits.
1.3.7 Educate the County about other successful AMR/AMI programs in Florida. Evaluate AMR versus
AMI success in other Florida communities. Compare environmental conditions in those communities to
Indian River County.
1.3.8 Review, evaluate, and report on potential initiatives or opportunities for the County to partner
with local electric power companies (FP&L and City of Vero Beach), or others, to collaborate on AMI
infrastructure costs and trash haulers (Waste Management and Republic) or others, to collaborate on
drive by meter reading.
1.3.9 Conduct a risk assessment of available alternatives and recommend strategies to minimize
AM R/AM 1 implementation risks. Provide alternatives and strategies to reduce the impact and risk in
operations, customer service, AMR/AMI installation, and management.
1.3.10 Evaluate applicable existing County IT hardware, software systems, and staffing or technical
support for required interface with AMR/AMI. Assess if meter data management (MDM) system
upgrades are required and make recommendations.
2. PHASE II
Task 4 — Request for Proposal — estimated time to complete is 30 days
11.4 Formulate and prepare an AMR/AMI Request for Proposal (RFP) that encourages the widest
possible industry response. The proposal may include parameters for retrofitting of existing AMR
meters. The RFP should include performance-based provisions to ensure that the AMR/AMI project
remains on schedule and budget. Assist the County in the vendor solicitation process. The County will
advertise, distribute and accept responses to the RFP in accordance with its policies and procedures.
Page 7 of 9
P \Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services\Langham Agreement doc
11.4.1 Develop a vendor selection process and scoring system that ensures the best possible solution is
selected for the County. Develop appropriate vendor evaluation criteria and coordinate the
overall selection process, including on-site vendor presentations.
11.4.2 Assist the County during the evaluation and vendor selection.
Task 5 — Contract Negotiations — estimated time to complete is 20 days
11.5 Assist the County during contract negotiations for AMR/AMI system installation and
implementation.
3. PHASE III
Task 6 — Strategy Formulation/Implementation Plans
111.6 Work with the AMR/AMI Project Team to develop an implementation plan and time line,
manage day-to-day processes, and involve other departments and organizations in the process and
work to ensure that major project milestones are met. This task shall also include route optimization as
needed, before any implementation.
Task 7 — Installation/System Activation
111.7 Provide ongoing planning, troubleshooting, and support to assist with day-to-day management
of the AMR/AMI implementation project.
111.7.1 Provide expert technical and business support for the changes required to the County's current
metering practices as the new AMR/AMI technologies are implemented.
Task 8 — Information Technology Interfaces
111.8 Evaluate, recommend, coordinate, and assist the County with IT interfaces required for
AMR/AMI implementation.
Phases I — III and Tasks 1— 8 above in general, outline the Consultant services anticipated by the County
such that the County can progress from initial feasibility analysis to final AMR/AMI technology
implementation. However, the County's evaluation of results achieved from each prior completed
Tasks/Phases will be the basis for direction to proceed to the subsequent phase; only if in the opinion of
the County it is determined to be in the County's continued best interests to pursue AMR/AMI
implementation, will the Consultant be directed to proceed to the next phase.
Page 8 of 9
P.\B1ds\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utiht es RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services\La ngham Agreement.doc
ATTACHMENT B - COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Page 9 of 9
P\Bids\2013-2014 FY (2014000)\2014043 Utilities RFP for AMR -AMI Meter Consulting Services\Langham Agreement.doc
Attachment B — Compensation Schedule
All costs are fully inclusive of travel & living expenses at a rate of $195 / hour.
The following table provides the projected cost for Phases 1 and 11 identified in this Contract. These costs
are provided on a not -to exceed basis.
Activities Estimated Hours Cost Estimate
Task 1: Conduct Feasibility Analysis
Task 2: Business Case Development
Task 3: Conduct Strategic Assessment
Task 4: Develop RFP for AMR/AMI system acquisition and assist
" the County with evaluation and scoring of Proposals
Task 5: Assist the County in contract negotiations with selected 164 $31,980
AMR/AMI vendor
167
136
146
418
$32,565
$26,520
$28,470
$81,510
Totals: 1031 $201,045
Assumptions:
Procurement and contract negotiation assumes a single, prime vendor.
The following table provides the projected cost for Phase III identified in this Contract. These costs are
for information only since the scope and length of the project are yet to be determined.
Activities Estimated Hours Cost Estimate
Task 6: Strategy formulation and implementation plans.
Task 7: Assist the County during installation and activation of
the AMR/AMI system.
Task 8: Assist the County with IT interfaces.
Totals:
334
3,411
$ 65,130
$ 665,145
T&E T&E
3,745 $730,275
Assumptions:
A 32 month implementation with a Prime vendor is assumed:
• 2 month mobilization (100% allocation)
• 6 months Proof of Concept (100% allocation)
• 24 month main implementation (50% allocation)
• 2 month Project Close Out (additional 50% for the final 2 months of implementation).
Longhorn will provide a fixed price for interfaces/integration support (Task 8) when the scope of such
work is known, since the inclusion of interfaces with systems such as MDM and GIS can add significant
complexity.
EXHIBIT 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators
Geosyntec '
consultants
6770 South Washington Avenue, Suite 3
Titusville, Florida 32780
P1-1 321.269.5880
FAX 321.269.5813
www geosyntec.com
7 July 2014
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
Managing Director
Solid Waste Disposal District
Indian River County
1325 74th Avenue SW
Vero Beach, Florida 32968
Subject: Proposal for Additional Site Redevelopment Assessment Activities
Former South Gifford Road Landfill
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
Dear Mr. Mehta:
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) is pleased to submit this letter proposal to the Indian River
County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) to provide professional services for
additional assessment activities associated with the ongoing redevelopment evaluation of the
Former South Gifford Road Landfill located in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida (Site).
The scope is intended to expand and build on the preliminary activities completed through the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) under the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant. The assessment activities
are focused on evaluation of direct exposure/human health concerns in support of planning for
redevelopment of the Site. As requested by IRC, this fee proposal includes budget to prepare for
and attend meetings, complete assessment activities on the County -owned portion of the Site
(southwestern 25 acres) that was not assessed as part of the preliminary work, and prepare a
report of the findings. This 25 -acre portion of the property is described herein as the assessment
area. Geosyntec has prepared this proposal (professional services as Exhibit 1) as Work Order
No. 10 for the Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services between IRC SWDD
and Geosyntec, dated 18 June 2013. The remainder of this letter provides an overview of the
project background, a description of the proposed scope of work, a budget estimate, and a
discussion of the schedule for accomplishment of the work described herein.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Geosyntec conducted brownfields site assessment activities for the Site in March through June
2014. TCRPC funded these activities with a USEPA Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant
for evaluation of eligible properties within areas that may ultimately be designated for
brownfields redevelopment. The overall former landfill property is a 115 -acre former trench -
and -fill landfill. The northern portion (approximately 55 acres) of the property is owned by
Indian River County (IRC) and the southern portion (approximately 60 acres) is owned by the
City of Vero Beach. The 30 acres adjacent to 41st Street within the IRC -owned portion of the
XR 14094\XR14053-REV.docx
engineers 1 scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
7 July 2014
Page 2
Site were identified by TCRPC for potential brownfields redevelopment to provide enhancement
to the surrounding Vero Beach community, and therefore; the preliminary assessment activities
were focused on this area. The preliminary assessment activities focused on: (i) identification of
contaminant concentrations in shallow soil above applicable regulatory criteria; (ii) presence of
landfill cover thickness of at least two feet (ft); and (iii) composition of soil gas in subsurface
soil, including the presence of methane, which is found in landfill gas (LFG) and can be
attributable to other sources as well. When this assessment was originally contemplated, IRC
planned to fund additional assessment activities based on the initial results to further the
evaluation of the Site for future redevelopment/reuse purposes. The additional assessment
activities, which are described herein, are designed with the same objectives as the preliminary
TCRPC-funded work and focused on the remaining 25 acres of IRC -owned portion of the
property (southwestern wooded area).
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed scope of work consists of additional assessment activities to be performed within
the 25 acre assessment area on behalf of IRC SWDD at the Former South Gifford Road Landfill.
For the purpose of budgeting, the scope of work has been divided into the following tasks:
• Task 1 — Project Management;
• Task 2 — Meetings/Regulatory Negotiation
• Task 3 — Field Activities; and
• Task 4 — Data Evaluation and Reporting.
The remainder of this section presents a general description of the activities to be performed in
each task.
Task 1 — Project Management: Under this task, Geosyntec will perform project planning and
management responsibilities, such as correspondence with IRC SWDD and FDEP, invoice
review, project coordination, and project administration.
Task 2 — Meetings/Regulatory Interaction: Under this task, Geosyntec will prepare for and
attend up to three meetings, with IRC SWDD, FDEP, local community organizations and/or the
IRC Board of County Commission (BOCC), as necessary. It is anticipated that one of these
meetings will include preparation for and attendance at a Gifford Progressive Civic League to
present an update on the redevelopment assessment activities and results conducted to date with
the TCRPC. The budget assumes that Nandra Weeks, PE (Geosyntec principal that has historical
knowledge of the assessment work completed to date at the Site and has been involved for some
time with IRC SWDD and the BOCC with exploring redevelopment options for the Site) and
Keith Tolson, PhD (Geosyntec toxicologist). Also, under this task, four hours has been included
for the project manager to provide ongoing support to IRC SWDD related to interaction and
negotiation with FDEP.
XR14096\XR14053-REV docx
engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
7 July 2014
Page 3
Task 3 — Field Activities: Field activities will include: shallow soil sampling and a LFG
investigation. The sampling activities will be designed to focus on the 25 acres in the
southwestern part of the County -owned portion of the Site. The general sampling plan will be
designed on a grid pattern and final sampling locations may be selected in the field based on
observations. The sampling plan is designed to extend the assessment that was completed on the
other 30 acres of the Site such that the same assessment scope will be completed across the entire
IRC -owned portion of the Site. The 25 acre assessment area is wooded with limited access. It
has been assumed that some land clearing will be necessary prior to completion of the activities
described below and that IRC personnel will complete the clearing work. No budget for land
clearing (other than limited hand clearing and limited budget for field personnel to mark areas
that need clearing) has been included and it has been assumed (based on site-specific experience)
that proposed fieldwork can be performed in level D personal protective equipment (PPE).
Subtask A: Shallow Soil Sampling
This subtask includes the performance of hand auger soil borings to 2 ft below land surface
(BLS) on an approximate 200 -ft grid, focusing on specific areas of the Site as outlined
previously. Shallow soil samples will be collected from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS and 0.5 to 2 ft BLS at up
to 19 locations. If waste is encountered at a depth shallower than 2 ft BLS, sampling will be
discontinued (i.e., samples of waste material will not be collected for analysis). The collected
soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of semi -volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) by USEPA Method 8270 or similar and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)
Metals by USEPA Method 6010. In addition, a subset (approximately 25% of the total samples
analyzed) of the soil samples will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by
USEPA Method 8260, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081, organophosphorus
pesticides by USEPA Method 8141, and herbicides by USEPA Method 8151. Three equipment
blanks will be collected for QA purposes with laboratory analyses for VOCs and metals. Budget
has been included for analysis of up to a total of 38 samples for this portion of the sampling
work, plus the three QA samples (total of 41 soil samples).
In addition, budget has been included for collecting confirmation and delineation samples at the
three locations that exhibited concentrations above state regulatory criteria during the first phase
of work (SB 100, SB l 09, and SB 111). At each of these three locations, soil samples will be
collected at 0 to 0.5 ft BLS and 0.5 to 2 ft BLS adjacent to the previous sample location. Also at
each location, soil samples will be collected in those same depth intervals at 5 ft and 10 ft
stepouts in each cardinal direction (three confirmation samples and 24 delineation samples). The
soil samples will be analyzed only for the constituents that were observed above state regulatory
criteria during the previous assessment work. The samples around SB111 will be analyzed only
for arsenic and all of these proposed soil samples will be analyzed for PAHs by USEPA 8270 or
similar. The samples will be collected during a single mobilization but will be analyzed by the
laboratory in phases. Confirmation samples will be analyzed by the laboratory first and if the
XR14096\XR 14053 -RE V.docx
engineers 1 scieritists 1 innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
7 July 2014
Page 4
original concentration is confirmed then the stepout samples will be analyzed in two steps (5 ft
stepouts, then 10 ft stepouts, if needed).
Budget has been included for analysis of up to a total of 68 samples. Each soil sampling location
will be surveyed for northing and easting using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with
sub -meter accuracy. Soil samples will be collected in accordance with FDEP SOPs. It has been
assumed that this effort can be completed within five days with a two -person field team.
Subtask B: LFG Investigation
This subtask includes the completion of a LFG investigation at the Site. Based on the observed
depth to groundwater at the Site over the past two years, it has been assumed that the water table
is present at approximately 3 to 5 ft BLS. The LFG investigation will be focused on the interval
from land surface to the water table (i.e., vadose zone). Temporary LFG monitoring wells will
be constructed of diameter pre -packed poly -vinyl chloride (PVC) wells with 5 ft or less of
slotted screen and installed with a track direct -push technology (DPT) rig. This proposal
includes installation of up to eight LFG monitoring wells at locations based on results of the
historical records review, previous observations, and observations from the soil sampling, cover
thickness, presence of waste evaluation results, and areas of potential development. The wells
will be completed at the surface as a stickup with a sampling port at the top of the well. Tubing
will be attached to the sampling port and a gas analyzer (such as a GA -2000) will be attached to
the tubing to measure the concentrations of methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
and hydrogen sulfide in the soil gas. The concentration of VOCs in the soil gas will be measured
using a PID. Since there are historical VOC groundwater impacts at the Site, if VOCs in the soil
gas are observed, up to three samples will be collected for submittal to the analytical laboratory
for analysis of VOCs. Each LFG well location will be surveyed for northing and easting using a
GPS unit with sub -meter accuracy. It is anticipated that this effort will take two days with one
person in the field.
Task 4 — Reporting: Under this task, Geosyntec will perform data evaluation activities and
prepare an assessment report. Data evaluation activities will include database management,
screening results against applicable regulatory criteria, and GIS figure preparation. The results
of assessment activities will be discussed and supported by attachments containing field notes
and observations, photographs, analytical results, and other applicable materials. The report will
incorporate the preliminary assessment results and the results collected as part of the activities
described herein. An evaluation of the human health risk related to the potential site end -uses
will be included in the report. The draft report will be submitted to IRC SWDD for review.
SCHEDULE
Geosyntec will begin planning the assessment activities upon authorization of this proposal and
should be able to initiate the fieldwork within approximately four to six weeks based on
subcontractor availability. The field activities are anticipated to take seven days (five days with
XR 14096\XR 14053 -RE V. docx
engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators
Mr Himanshu H Mehta, P E
7 July 2014
Page 5
two people for soil sampling and two days w ith one person for LFG evaluation). The draft report
will be provided to IRC for review approximately eight weeks after receipt of analytical results
from the laboratory .
BUDGET ESTIMATE
A budget estimate for the scope of work outlined in Tasks 1 through 4 of this proposal is
summarized in the following table, and a detailed budget estimate is provided as Attachment A.
The budget estimate presented in this proposal is based on Geos} ntec's understanding of the
project requirements, our experience gained from executing similar tasks for SWDD since 2002
at the Site, and experience with groundwater monitoring and reporting activities at similar
facilities. Geosyntec will not exceed the budget estimate without prior approval and written
authorization from IRC SWDD.
Task 1 — Project Management $7,093
Task 2 — Meetings/Regulatory interaction $15,363
Task 3 — Field Activities $43.237
Task 4 — Reporting $15,386
TOTAL 581,079
CLOSURE
Geosyntec appreciates this opportunity to offer our services. If this proposal is acceptable.
please indicate your agreement by signing the attached work authorization. which references this
proposal. Please return one signed work authorization to Ms. Johnson's attention. Please call
either of the undersigned with questions y ou may have as you review this proposal.
Sincerely.
f, a w Inti`
).1111 Johnson. P.G.
Senior HydroLzeologist
*U
nndra Weeks. P.E.
Principal
Attachments
\R14 o \R l4 5i -RF\ doc\
engineers 1 scientist' 1 innovators
WORK ORDER NUMBER 10
Former South Gifford Road Landfill
This Work Order Number 10 is entered into as of this day of , 20_
pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as
of November 15, 2011 (the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. ("Consultant").
The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on
Exhibit 1 (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference.
The professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in
Exhibit 1 (Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference.
The Consultant will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set
forth in Exhibit 1 (Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this
reference all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to
paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the
terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in
each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date
first written above.
CONSULTANT:
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
By: 1//\, Jr)
By:
Principal
Title:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
BCC Approved Date:
Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
By:
Approved:
Deputy Clerk
Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: /.,, (2.2
Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney
ATTACHMENT A
BUDGET ESTIMATE
engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators
Table 1
JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL
Task 1: Project Management
ITEM
BASIS
RATE
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
A. ' Professional Services - . ' ` `a <,
Principal
hr
$216
4
$864
Associate
hr
$204
0
$0
Senior Project Geologist
hr
$179
26
$4,654
Project Engineer
hr
$147
0
$0
Engineer
hr
$128
0
$0
Senior Staff Geologist
hr
$113
0
$0
Staff Engineer
hr
$96
12
$1.152
Subtotal Professional Services
$6,670
B.. Teelmical,/Administrative Serviees
Site Manager/Construction Manager
hr
$109
0
$0
Senior Engineering Technician
hr
$81
0
$0
Designer/GIS
hr
$129
0
$0
Drafter/CADD Operator
hr
$80
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$90
0
$0
Technical Word Processor
hr
$92
0
$0
Clerical
hr
$54
4
$216
Subtotal Technicai/Administrative Services
$216
C. •Reimbursables
Lodging
day
$89
0
$0
Per Diem
day
$51
0
$0
Communications Fee
3% labor
0 03
6,886
$207
CADD Computer System
hr
$15
0
$0
Vehicle Rental
day
$97
0
$0
8.5"x11" Photocopies
each
$0 12
0
$0
Second Day Letter
each
$6
0
$0
Subtotal Reimbursables
$207
'TOTAL -ESTIMATED BUDGET“: PHASE.1
$7,093
XR14053-REV xlsx
Geosyntec Consultants
Table 2
JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL
Task 2: Meetings/RetTulatory Interaction
ITEM
BASIS
RATE
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
A. Prefessional Services ;
Principal
hr
$216
22
$4,752
Associate
hr
$204
0
$0
Senior Project Geologist
hr
$179
30
$5,370
Project Engineer
hr
$147
0
$0
Engineer
hr
$128
0
$0
Senior Staff Geologist
hr
$113
24
$2,712
Staff Engineer
hr
$96
0
$0
Subtotal Professional Services
$12,834
13. 'TecbaicaIfA.dministrative Services
Site Manager/Construction Manager
hr
$109
0
$0
Senior Engineering Technician
hr
$81
0
$0
Designer/GIS
hr
$129
8
$1,032
Drafter/CADD Operator
hr
$80
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$90
0
$0
Technical Word Processor
hr
$92
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$54
0
$0
Subtotal TechnicaUAdministrative Services
$1,032
C. Reimbursables
Lodging
day
$89
4
$356
Per Diem
day
$51
0
$0
Communications Fee
3% labor
0.03
13,866
$416
CADD Computer System
hr
$15
8
$120
Vehicle Rental
day
$97
5
$485
8.5"x11" Photocopies
each
$0 12
1,000
$120
Second Day Letter
each
$6
0
$0
Subtotal Reimbursables
$1,497
TOTAL ESTIMA'T'ED BUDGET : PRASE 1
$15,363
XR14053-REV xlsx
Geosyntec Consultants
Table 3
JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL
Task 3A: Field Activities -Soil Sampling
ITEM
BASIS
RATE
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
A. Professional Services
Principal
hr
$216
0
$0
Associate
hr
$204
0
$0
Senior Project Geologist
hr
$179
8
$1,432
Project Engineer
hr
$147
0
$0
Geologist
hr
$128
10
$1,280
Senior Staff Geologist
hr
$113
65
$7,345
Staff Geologist
hr
$96
0
$0
Subtotal Professional Services
$10,057
B. Technical/Administrative Services
Site Manager/Construction Manager
hr
$109
0
$0
Senior Engineering Technician
hr
$81
65
$5,265
Designer/GIS
hr
$129
0
$0
Drafter/CADD Operator
hr
$80
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$90
0
$0
Technical Word Processor
hr
$92
0
$0
Clerical
hr
$54
1
$54
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services
85,319
C, Subcontractors
VOC Analysis
each
$73
10
$728
SVOC Analysis (inc 3 Ebs)
each
$I39
41
$5,703
RCRA Metals Analysis (int 3 Ebs)
each
$70
41
$2,852
PAHs Analysis
each
$139
27
$3,756
Arsenic Analysis
each
$19
9
$173
EPA 8141 Analysis
each
$102
10
$1,017
EPA 8081 Analysis
each
$75
10
$749
EPA 8151 Analysis
each
$91
10
$910
Subtotal Subcontractor Services
$15,886
D. Reimbursables
Lodging
day
$101
10
$1,010
Per Diem
day
$51
10
$510
Communications Fee
3% labor
0 03
$15,376
$461
CADD Computer System
hr
$15
0
$0
Field Vehicle
day
$97
5
$485
8 5"x11" Photocopies
each
$0 12
60
$7
Field Kit
day
$150
5
$750
Equipment Shipping
each
$75
2
$150
Subtotal Reimbursables
83,373
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : PHASE 2
834,636
Notes
1 Lodging and per diem rates were taken from the GSA website for the Vero Beach area (www gsa gov)
2 Monitoring Well Installation Kit includes P1D, water level indicator, GPS unit, field geology kit, and multi -meter (pH, temperature,
conductivity, turbidity dissolved oxygen, and oxidation reduction potential), and miscellaneous supplies
XR14053-REV xlsx Geosvntec Consultants
Table 4
JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL
Task 3B: Field Activities-LFG
ITEiI
BASIS
RATE
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
A. Professional Services
Principal
hr
$216
1
8216
Associate
hr
$204
0
$0
Senior Project Geologist
hr
$179
2
$358
Project Engineer
hr
$147
0
$0
Geologist
hr
$128
6
$768
Senior Staff Geologist
hr
$113
0
$0
Staff Geologist
hr
$96
0
$0
Subtotal Professional Services
$1,342
B. Technical/Administrative Services
Site Manager/Construction Manager
hr
$109
21
$2,289
Senior Engineering Technician
hr
$81
0
$0
Designer/GIS
hr
$129
0
$0
Drafter/CADD Operator
hr
$80
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$90
0
$0
Technical Word Processor
hr
$92
0
$0
Clerical
hr
$54
1
$54
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services
$2,343
C. Subcontractors
Bar Punch
each
$144
0
$0
Prepacked wells
each
$99
8
$792
Gas well drilling
daily
$1,350
1
$1,350
Surface Completions
each
$185
0
$0
Per Diem
each
$220
1
$220
Lab VOC air analysis
each
$350
3
$1,050
Gas meters (PID and GEM)
day
$250
2
$500
Decon
each
$165
1
$165
Sub otal Subcontractor Services
$4,077
D, Reimbursables '
Lodging
day
$101
1
$101
Per Diem
day
$51
1
$51
Communications Fee
3% labor
0 03
$3,685
$111
Field Vehicle
day
$97
2
$194
8.5"x11" Photocopies
each
$0 12
60
$7
Field Kit
day
$150
2
$300
Equipment Shipping
each
$75
1
$75
Subtotal Reimbursables
$839
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : PHASE 2
$8,601
Notes
1 Lodging and per diem rates were taken from the GSA website for the Vero Beach area (www gsa gov)
2 Monitoring Well Installation Kit includes PID, water level indicator, GPS unit, field geology kit, and multi -meter (pH, temperature,
conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation reduction potential), and miscellaneous supplies
XR14053-REA xlsx Geosyntec Consultants
Table 5
JULY 2014 BUDGET ESTIMATE
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL
Task 4: Report
ITEM
BASIS
RATE
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
A. Professional Services
Principal
hr
$216
8
$1,728
Associate
hr
$204
0
$0
Senior Project Geologist
hr
$179
14
$2,506
Project Engineer
hr
$147
0
$0
Engineer
hr
$128
16
$2,048
Senior Staff Geologist
hr
$113
40
$4,520
Staff Engineer
hr
$96
0
$0
Subtotal Professional Services
$10,802
B. Technical/Administrative Services
Site Manager/Construction Manager
hr
$109
0
$0
Senior Engineering Technician
hr
$81
0
$0
Designer/GIS
hr
$129
28
$3,612
Drafter/CADD Operator
hr
$80
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$90
0
$0
Technical Word Processor
hr
$92
0
$0
Technical/Administrative Assistant
hr
$54
0
$0
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services
$3,612
C. Reimbursables
Lodging
day
$89
0
$0
Per Diem
day
$51
0
$0
Communications Fee
3% labor
0 03
14,414
$432
CADD Computer System
hr
$15
28
$420
Vehicle Rental
day
$75
0
$0
8.5"x11" Photocopies
each
$0 12
1,000
$120
Second Day Letter
each
$6
0
$0
Subtotal Reimbursables
$972
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : PHASE 1
S15,386
XR14053-REV xlsx
Geosyntec Consultants
TREASURE COAST
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Prepared for:
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
421 SW Camden Avenue
Stuart, Florida 34994
BROWNFIELDS SITE ASSESSMENT
SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL
4701 41ST STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
Prepared by:
Geosyntect>
consultants
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 201
Pensacola, FL 32502
Geosyntec Consultants Project Number FR0766H
June 2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 20/4
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach, Florida
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Terms of Reference 1
1.2 Purpose 1
1.3 Report Organization 2
2. SITE SETTING AND BACKGROUND 3
2.1 Site Location and Description 3
2.2 Site Background 3
2.3 Summary of Previous investigations and Remedial Actions 3
2.4 Site -Specific Lithology 4
2.5 Aquifer Properties and Groundwater Flow 5
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES 6
3.1 Overview 6
3.2 Soil Sampling 6
3.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation 7
3.4 Soil Gas Probe Installation and Sampling 7
3.5 Management of Investigation -Derived Waste 8
4. ASSESSMENT RESULTS 9
4.1 Overview 9
4.2 Soil Results 9
4.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation Results 10
4.4 Soil Gas Results 10
4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 11
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12
6. REFERENCES 14
FR0766H 1 Jul -14
Broirnfields Site Assessment
June 1014
South Gifford Road Landfill. Vero Beach, Florida
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Summary of Soil Results
Summary of Soil Gas Detections
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Site Vicinity Topographic Map
Assessment Area
Parcel/Surrounding Land Use
Assessment Area Sample Locations
Soil Sampling Analytical Results
Approximate Cover Thickness
Soil Gas Analysis Results
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Field Forms
Laboratory Reports
Summary of Detected Constituents in Soil
Benzo(a)pyrene Toxicity Equivalence Quotient Calculations
Select Photographs from Cover Thickness Evaluation
FR0766H ii Jul -14
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, [ ero Beach, Florida
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Percent
Accutest Accutest Southeast Laboratory
BaP Benzo(a)pyrene
BLS Below Land Surface
Cis-1,2-DCE Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
COC Constituent of Concern
C/I Commercial/Industrial
CVOC Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound
F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOH Florida Department of Health
ft feet
ft2 square feet
Geosyntec Geosyntec Consultants
GPS Global Positioning System
IDW Investigation Derived Waste
IP&T Interim Pump and Treat
IRC Indian River County
K Hydraulic Conductivity
lbs pounds
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
LFG Landfill Gas
NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
OCP Organochlorine Pesticides
OPP Organophosphorous Pesticides
PCE Tetrachloroethene
PID Photoionization Detector
ppm parts per million
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
R- Residential
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SIM Select Ion Monitoring
FR0766H ui Jul -14
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, 1 ero Beach, Florida
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
Site South Gifford Road Landfill
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SCTL Soil Cleanup Target Level
SVOC Semi -Volatile Organic Compound
SWDD Solid Waste Disposal District
TCE Trichloroethene
TCRPC Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
TEQ Toxicity Equivalence Quotient
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
FR0766H iv Jul -14
Brownfields Site .4ssessment
June ?014
South Gifford Road Landfill. Vero Beach, Florida
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) conducted brownfields site assessment activities for the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) at the South Gifford Road Landfill (Site)
located at 4701 41st Street in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida (Figure 1). TCRPC
received a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfields Coalition
Assessment Grant for evaluation of eligible properties within areas that may ultimately be
designated for brownfields redevelopment. The overall former landfill property, a 115 -acre
former trench and fill landfill, is under evaluation to assess eligibility for brownfields
redevelopment. The northern portion (approximately 55 acres) of the property is owned by
Indian River County (IRC) and the southern portion (approximately 60 acres) is owned by the
City of Vero Beach. The 30 acres adjacent to 41st Street within the 55 acres owned by IRC were
identified by TCRPC for potential brownfields redevelopment to provide enhancement to the
surrounding Vero Beach community. TCRPC provided targeted funds to conduct the initial
assessment activities described herein.
1.2 Purpose
There are several potential redevelopment options (and/or combination of options) being
considered for the Site (e.g., community market, recreational uses), but no specific plans are
currently in place. Assessment activities were designed to assess potential human health/direct
exposure -related concerns at the landfill in areas that: (i) are most likely to be redeveloped; (ii)
will be the most accessible to the public; and/or (iii) are likely to be within the former landfill
footprint (i.e., the northern 30 acres owned by IRC adjacent to 41st Street). The landfill and the
area of assessment are identified on Figure 2. Specifically, the assessment activities focused on:
(i) identification of contaminant concentrations in shallow soil; (ii) evaluation of the thickness of
the existing soil cover over waste material; and (iii) evaluation of the composition of soil gas in
subsurface soil, including the presence of methane, which is typically found in landfill gas
(LFG).
It should be noted that this Brownfields assessment work for TCRPC was completed pursuant to
a separate contract from the ongoing groundwater monitoring and remediation work that
Geosyntec is assisting IRC Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) with at the Site. The ongoing
groundwater monitoring and remediation work differs from the Brownfields assessment
described herein in several key aspects. The ongoing monitoring and remediation work is: (i)
funded by IRC rather than the Brownfields grant through TCRPC; (ii) focused on groundwater
rather than the shallow soil and LFG; and (iii) regulatory driven through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) rather than under a voluntary Brownfields program
FR0766H 1 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 201-1
South G fford Road Landfill. 6 ero Beach, Florida
(USEPA) consistent with FDEP guidance (Guidance for Disturbance and Use of Old Closed
Landfills or Waste Disposal Areas in Florida). Although these key aspects vary, the concurrent
activities are collectively focused on the common purpose of meeting environmental regulatory
requirements with respect to public health and safety and returning the landfill to a beneficial use
for the local Gifford community and the community at large.
1.3 Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
• Section 2 — Site Setting and Background describes the Site location and description,
Site background, summary of previous investigations and remedial actions, Site-
specific lithology, and aquifer properties and groundwater flow;
• Section 3 — Assessment Methodologies describes the field activities completed during
the assessment activities, including soil sampling, landfill cover evaluation, soil gas
probe installation and sampling, and management of investigation -derived waste
(IDW);
• Section 4 — Assessment Results summarizes the soil and soil gas analytical results,
results of the landfill cover thickness evaluation, soil gas results, and quality assurance
(QA)/quality control (QC) results for field and laboratory data during assessment
activities;
• Section 5 — Conclusions and Recommendations presents conclusions from the
assessment activities and recommended next steps; and
• Section 6 — References provides a list of references cited within the document.
Tables, figures, and appendices are provided at the end of the report.
FR0766H ? 7/8/2014
Brownfrelds Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach. Florida
2. SITE SETTING AND BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Location and Description
The Site is located in east -central IRC in Section 28, Township 32S, Range 39E (Figure 1).
Various commercial, industrial, and undeveloped areas border the Site to the south, east, and
west, with 41st Street bordering the Site to the north. A Surrounding Land Use Map including
parcel boundaries is included as Figure 3.
2.2 Site Background
Based on historical documents, commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural wastes were
disposed of in the landfill from approximately 1960 until 1977. Records indicate that the waste
cells were excavated to approximately 8 ft below the original land surface grade; however,
interviews with onsite workers indicate that, in some areas, the waste cells may have extended
more than 10 ft below land surface (BLS), below the water table. The waste cells varied in
length from approximately 200 to 500 ft.
Waste disposal activities were terminated in August 1977, and the final landfill cover, which was
comprised of approximately 2 ft of clean fill material pursuant to the permit, was constructed in
1978. Pine foliage was planted in various areas of the site in 1979. A 2008 aerial view showing
the Site boundaries is provided on Figure 2. The Site is currently vacant with the exception of
the use of the northern portion of the Site as a laydown yard by IRC and a residential
convenience center where residents can drop off waste materials.
2.3 Summary of Previous Investigations and Remedial Actions
A source investigation was initiated by Geosyntec in 1999, after volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were discovered in groundwater. The results of the source assessment activities
indicated a VOC contamination source in the waste material approximately 12 ft BLS and
identified a chlorinated VOC groundwater plume approximately 1 -mile in length extending
downgradient in the direction of groundwater flow.
An Interim Pump and Treat (IP&T) system was installed to provide hydraulic containment of the
high concentration area of the dissolved groundwater plume and groundwater monitoring
activities were initiated in December 2002. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed in
July 2003, concurrent with the groundwater monitoring activities and IP&T system operation.
The RAP outlined a proposed remedy for the VOC-impacted area of the Site, including
aggressive source removal, expansion of the existing IP&T system, construction of an infiltration
gallery for effluent re-injection, and monitored natural attenuation for the downgradient
FR0766H 3 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill. Vero Beach, Florida
dissolved plume. The boundary of the excavation footprint for the aggressive source removal,
recovery wells and infiltration gallery injection wells associated with the IP&T system, and VOC
groundwater monitoring network are shown on Figure 2.
A refined source assessment was conducted in May 2003. Soil cores were screened using a
photoionization detector (PID) to evaluate total VOC concentrations in soil. PID responses were
generally elevated within the organic interval identified at approximately 12 to 13 ft BLS, which
ranged in thickness from about 4.5 to 6 ft thick (zone of maximum PID response typically
encountered within a 1.5 to 2.0 ft thick interval). High VOC field screening results in soil were
observed in the organic -rich layer.
Based on the results of the refined source assessment, source removal activities were conducted
from May through October 2004, and resulted in the removal of approximately 800 to 1,200
pounds (lbs) of trichloroethene (TCE) from the source area via the excavation, and an additional
80 lbs of TCE, 73 lbs of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and 2 lbs of vinyl chloride via the
dewatering system. Enhanced bioremediation injection activities were completed in 2008 and
2012 in the excavation footprint, along the eastern landfill property boundary, and east of the
landfill property in conjunction with long-term groundwater monitoring to monitor the progress
of ongoing biodegradation and natural attenuation at the Site. The current remedial strategy for
the Site is a passive solution, which relies on the in situ biological degradation of VOCs. While
the time to ultimately achieve cleanup standards using this approach is extended, the approach
avoids the considerable costs associated with a more aggressive treatment system with
mechanical components (such as plume -wide air sparging or pump and treat).
Additionally, as part of separate work performed for IRC, in December 2008, test pits were
excavated at the Site to assess the nature and extent of landfill material in the subsurface for
purposes of potential redevelopment as a Senior Resource Center. Test pits were excavated at 17
locations (TP -01 through TP -17) in the northeast portion of the IRC -owned parcel at the former
Humane Society building site (formerly located along 41St Street east of GR-MW30 and west of
GR-MW09) and the Road and Bridge laydown yard. Test pit locations are shown on Figure 2.
2.4 Site -Specific Lithology
The subsurface lithology at the Site has been characterized as part of assessment activities at the
Site. The shallow sediments at the Site consist of 10 to 18 ft of fill where waste is present, along
with organic rich native sands in unfilled areas. The underlying soil material consists of loose to
medium dense sand with varying amounts of silt, to depths of approximately 30 to 40 ft BLS.
Below this zone, fragmented shells intermixed with phosphatic sand, can be found to depths of
approximately 65 to 75 ft BLS. The shell and sand layers are underlain by a zone consisting of
FR0766H 4 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach. Florida
thin layers of clay, sand and clay, and clayey sand, which comprise a semi -confining zone
overlying the Tamiami Formation.
2.5 Aquifer Properties and Groundwater Flow
Geosyntec performed aquifer testing in March 2001 to evaluate the hydraulic properties of the
shallow unconsolidated sands within the surficial aquifer system (20 to 55 ft BLS). Aquifer
testing activities were summarized in the June 2001 report titled: "Interim Pump and Treat
System Supporting Activities, Construction, and Start -Up Report". The aquifer testing activities
which included groundwater pumping from recovery well RW -1, yielded the following results:
(i) mean hydraulic conductivity (K) was estimated to be 142 ft/day; (ii) mean transmissivity was
estimated to be 6,400 ft squared (ft2)/day; and (iii) mean storativity was estimated to be 0.001.
Based on depth to water measurements collected sitewide as part of the semi-annual groundwater
monitoring activities ongoing at the Site since 2002, groundwater flow is generally toward the
southeast in the vicinity of the Site.
FR0766H 5 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill Vero Beach. Florida
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
3.1 Overview
Our understanding of conditions and potential exposure pathways that may impact health and
safety of the community guided development of the assessment activities described herein.
These exposure pathways included:
• Surface soils — it is important to evaluate the thickness of the landfill cover soils to ensure
sufficient cover to prevent direct exposure to the waste. It is also important to evaluate
the chemical compositions of the soil cover to verify that the cover soils are "clean".
• Landfill Gas — waste materials decompose as they age and typically generate methane.
Methane can be an explosion hazard under certain conditions. For an explosive condition
to exist, landfill gas must accumulate in a confined space. If buildings or other potential
confined spaces are a part of the development plan, a properly designed and constructed
control system should be in place to minimize potential hazards.
• Groundwater — groundwater is being investigated, remediated, and monitored separate
from this assessment under the purview and with oversight from the FDEP. Much of the
groundwater has been cleaned up; however, there are residual levels of certain
contaminants above cleanup target levels. Limiting groundwater use until it is cleaned up
to levels that allow unrestricted use will minimize potential exposure to contamination in
the groundwater.
The sampling strategy was designed to screen for potential constituents of concern (COCs)
typical of sites with similar historical uses, including: semi -volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs); Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) metals; VOCs; organochlorinated
pesticides (OCPs); organophosphorous pesticides (OPP); and herbicides. The assessment area
and sampling locations completed as part of the activities described herein are shown on Figure
4. Soil and soil gas samples were collected pursuant to the EPA Region 4 -approved Site -
Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Field forms are included in Appendix A.
3.2 Soil Sampling
The soil sampling methodology was designed to characterize surface soils from the ground
surface to 2 ft BLS. Soil samples were collected on an approximate 225 ft -spaced grid (between
points) from 29 locations using a decontaminated hand auger (locations provided on Figure 4).
Prior to mobilizing, Sunshine State One Call of Florida, Inc. was notified of the proposed
subsurface activities to locate utilities in the vicinity of proposed soil boring locations. Two soil
samples were collected at each soil boring location at depth intervals of 0 to 0.5 and 0.5 to 2 ft
FR0766H 6 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach, Florida
BLS. Soils were lithologically logged and visual observations were noted in field logs. Four
proposed sample locations were not sampled: (i) two locations were not sampled because waste
was encountered within the proposed sample interval (i.e., shallower than 2 ft BLS); and (ii) two
locations were not sampled because they were inaccessible. Soil samples were collected in
general accordance with FDEP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). A global positioning
system (GPS) unit with sub -meter accuracy was used to navigate to each proposed soil boring
location prior to sampling activities.
Soil samples were couriered to Accutest Southeast Laboratory (Accutest) in Orlando, Florida
under chain of custody protocol for laboratory analysis of RCRA metals by USEPA Method
6010 and SVOCs by USEPA Method 8270 and Method 8270 select ion monitoring (SIM). A
subset of the soil samples (18 locations) were also analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260,
OCPs by USEPA Method 8081, OPPs by USEPA Method 8141, and chlorinated herbicides by
USEPA Method 8151.
3.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation
An evaluation of the existing landfill cover was conducted on 4 April 2014. A mini -excavator
operated by IRC personnel was used to excavate test pits to approximately 4 ft BLS to evaluate
cover thickness at ten locations (TP -101 through TP -110 shown on Figure 4) in the assessment
area. Observations recorded from each soil boring location completed as part of the activities
described in Section 3.2 and test pits completed in 2008 were used to select the test pit locations
for TP -101 through TP -110. Waste material encountered was segregated from cover soil by the
IRC mini -excavator operator. Excavated materials were temporarily staged on plastic sheeting
to prevent contact of the waste materials with undisturbed cover. The cover thickness and
presence or absence of waste to 4 ft BLS was documented in field notes and photographs at each
test pit location. Test pits were backfilled by the IRC mini -excavator operator using excavated
material, placing cover material on top of the waste. A GPS unit with sub -meter accuracy was
used to navigate to each test pit location prior to excavation.
3.4 Soil Gas Probe Installation and Sampling
Eight temporary soil gas probes (LFGOI through LFG08) were installed in the assessment area
(Figure 4) on 10 April 2014, to evaluate the composition of soil gas. Soil gas probes were
constructed of 3/4 -inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 0.010 -inch slotted screen. Probes
were screened from 1 ft BLS to the water table, and screen intervals ranged from three to five ft.
A 20/30 sand filter pack was placed in the annular space from the base of the screen to
approximately six inches BLS. Hydrated bentonite was placed in the annular space above the
sand filter pack flush with the ground surface. Probes were installed using a decontaminated
hand auger. Probe locations were selected based on observations recorded from soil boring
FR0766H 7 7/8/2014
Broin fields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill Vero Beach. Florida
locations in 2014, the excavation footprint from the aggressive source removal, historical Site
knowledge, and test pits excavations completed in 2008 and 2014. The probes were completed
at the surface as a stickup with an expansion cap equipped with a quick -connect sampling port at
the top of the well. Tubing was affixed to the quick -connect port and subsurface soil gas was
field screened for approximately 60 seconds for methane, oxygen, and carbon dioxide
concentrations using a GEM2000 LFG analyzer. Since there are historical VOC groundwater
impacts at the Site, subsurface soil gas was also field screened for VOCs using a MiniRae 3000
PID.
Three air samples were collected using a flow controller and summa canister and submitted to
Accutest for analysis of VOCs using USEPA Method TO -15. Each soil gas probe location was
surveyed for northing and easting using a GPS unit with sub -meter accuracy.
3.5 Management of Investigation -Derived Waste
Soil IDW generated during soil gas probe installation activities was containerized in 55 -gallon
drums. The drums were labeled and have been temporarily stored on-site pending laboratory
analysis and waste characterization.
FR0766H 8 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill. Vero Beach, Florida
4. ASSESSMENT RESULTS
4.1 Overview
During the assessment activities, soil and soil gas samples were analyzed pursuant to the EPA
Region 4 -approved Site -Specific QAPP. A summary of the assessment results is provided in the
section below. Analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix B.
4.2 Soil Results
The results of the soil analyses were compared to FDEP Residential (R-) and
Commercial/Industrial (C/I-) Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) per Chapter 62-777 Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Comparison of the data to R-SCTLs was included as a
conservative approach as future redevelopment options for the Site continue to be evaluated.
Based on the current understanding of potential future Site uses (i.e., greenspace/recreational,
municipal, and/or commercial/light industrial), C/I-SCTLs, or alternative cleanup levels based on
proposed site use (e.g., recreational) will likely be more applicable than R-SCTLs.
A summary of soil results is tabulated in Table 1 and presented on Figure 5. A summary of
constituents detected in soil is tabulated in Appendix C and Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) Toxicity
Equivalence Quotient (TEQ) calculations are tabulated in Appendix D.
Concentrations of arsenic, BaP and/or total BaP TEQ were observed in three soil sampling
locations, SB 100, SB 109, and SB 111, above default regulatory guidance, as follows:
• arsenic was observed in SBI 11 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS 3.9 milligrams per kilogram
[mg/kg]), above the R-SCTL of 2.1 mg/kg;
• BaP was detected in SB 100 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.6 mg/kg) above the R-SCTL of 0.1
mg/kg;
• total calculated BaP TEQs were above the R-SCTL (0.1 mg/kg) in SB 109 from 0 to 0.5 ft
BLS (0.2 mg/kg) and SB 111 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.2 mg/kg); and
• total calculated BaP TEQ in SB 100 from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS (0.9 mg/kg) was above the C/I-
SCTL of 0.7 mg/kg.
Overall, the soil analytical results collected as part of this effort indicate three locations of
elevated concentrations above conservative regulatory guidance at SB 100, SB 109, and SB 111.
Further evaluation of shallow soil impacts at each of these locations is warranted.
FR0766H 9 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach, Florida
4.3 Landfill Cover Evaluation Results
Typical soil cover required for redevelopment of a landfill, such as Gifford Road Landfill, is two
ft; however, alternative cover systems have been approved by FDEP (e.g., a geonet or geotextile
overlain by one ft of cover soil). Approximate landfill cover thickness observed in the
assessment area is presented on Figure 6. Data collected during the 2008 test pit excavation
activities were used to supplement the data collected from TP -101 through TP -110. Two ft of
landfill cover was observed at all but three test pit locations (TP -101, TP -102, and TP -103). In
addition, less than two ft of landfill cover was observed at soil boring locations between TP -106
and TP -107 and near TP -102. Selected photographs from the cover thickness evaluation
fieldwork are included in Appendix E. Improvements to the existing cap can easily be
completed during grading operations when construction is underway for site development. The
design of the final cover system for the landfill will need to be approved by FDEP prior to
construction.
4.4 Soil Gas Results
Field screening results from the soil gas probes are presented on Figure 7. The results indicated
that methane, which is found in LFG, is present in soil gas in the subsurface within the
assessment area.
LFG is created when organic materials decompose under anaerobic conditions. LFG is typically
composed of methane (50 to 55%), carbon dioxide (45 to 50%), and trace amounts of other gases
(e.g., oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide). Field screening results were found to generally
be within the typical ranges for landfills, with observed carbon dioxide concentrations being
slightly less and methane being slightly higher. In addition to waste decomposition, naturally -
occurring organic material in the subsurface and natural attenuation of VOCs present in
groundwater at the Site (through ongoing bioremediation activities) may also contribute to
methane soil gas concentrations.
PID measurements ranged from non -detect in LFG06 to 18.5 parts per million (ppm) in LFG04.
Soil gas samples were collected from LFGO1, LFG04, and LFG06 on 11 April 2014. The soil
gas results are tabulated in Table 2. Soil gas results were compared to Default Concentrations
for LFG Constituents found in Table 2.4-1 of the 1998 USEPA AP 42, Fifth Edition,
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources.
Of the 67 constituents analyzed, 33 were detected in one or more soil gas probes. None were
above the USEPA default concentrations, suggesting that the soil gas concentrations measured as
part of this effort are indicative of conditions at typical closed/former landfills. There are
currently no state regulatory drivers in Florida to evaluate the chemical composition of soil gas;
however, any construction projects should consider potential impacts from combustible gas.
FR0766H 10 7/8/2014
Broirnfrelds Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, G ero Beach. Florida
Any structures located on the landfill must be designed with proper ventilation and with
explosion proof electrical wiring. Enclosed ground level and underground structures should be
avoided unless designed with adequate protection against landfill gas intrusion and
accumulation.
4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Field activities, including sample collection, were performed in general compliance with the
USEPA-approved QAPP, the most current version of the Florida QA Rule, Chapter 62-160,
F.A.C., and the associated FDEP SOPs. Accutest is certified by the Florida Department of
Health (FDOH) Bureau of Laboratories under the National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference (NELAC) Certification Number E83510.
Fixed -based laboratory samples (soil and soil gas) were analyzed within the established hold
times for each analyte. No significant QA/QC issues were noted in Accutest laboratory reports
and the results of the QA/QC review show that the data set is of adequate quality for its intended
purpose with no limitations to its use.
FR0766H 11 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill. Vero Beach, Florida
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions are made based on the assessment activities completed at the Gifford
Road Landfill during March and April 2014:
• Concentrations of arsenic, BaP and/or total BaP TEQ were observed in soil samples
collected from soil sampling locations SB 100, SB 109, and SB I 1 1 from 0 to 2 ft BLS,
with the highest concentrations observed from 0 to 0.5 ft BLS.
• Soil cover over the landfilled waste was observed to be less than 2 ft thick at test pit
locations TP -101, TP -102, TP -103, and at the soil boring locations between TP -106 and
TP -107 and near TP -102. In all other locations, the cover soil thickness was greater than
two ft.
• Field screening results indicate the composition of soil gas in the assessment area of the
Site is typical of closed/former landfill conditions.
This initial assessment effort focused on the northern 30 acres of the Gifford Road Landfill
owned by IRC, located adjacent to 41st Street. Overall, the data collected as part of this initial
assessment effort described herein indicates that the conditions within the assessment area of the
Site are typical of conditions expected at a closed/former landfill, such as the South Gifford Road
Landfill. None of the site conditions identified as part of this initial assessment effort preclude
redevelopment of the landfill; however, the data will be useful to identify areas where additional
assessment and improvements need to be considered prior to and during the planning of
redevelopment activities, as described further in the recommendations below.
The following recommendations are made for the assessment area investigated during this study
completed at the Site during March and April 2014:
• Conduct additional assessment of surface soils where arsenic, BaP, and/or total BAP
TEQ were observed above default regulatory guidance.
• Once redevelopment plans have been furthered and grading plans developed, conduct
additional assessment to further delineate areas with less than 2 ft of cover soils. The
landfill cover must be constructed and maintained to prevent human contact with the
underlying waste materials. As discussed earlier, the cover system required by FDEP
usually consists of two ft of soils graded to prevent ponding; however, alternative cover
system have been approved (e.g., one ft of soil cover underlain by a geotextile or geogrid
FR0766H 12 7/8/2014
Brou nfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach, Florida
or alternatively, a low -permeability surface cap such as asphalt for a parking lot or other
use).
• In areas of focused redevelopment, conduct a combustible gas survey to assist in design
of landfill gas mitigation measures.
FR0766H
13 7/8/2014
Brownfields Site Assessment
June 2014
South Gifford Road Landfill, Vero Beach, Florida
6. REFERENCES
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Guidance for Disturbance and Use of Old
Closed Landfills or Waste Disposal Areas in Florida, Version 2 1 (Final). February 2011.
Geosyntec Consultants, Interim Pump and Treat System Supporting Activities, Construction, and
Start -Up Report. June 2001.
Geosyntec Consultants, South Gifford Road Landfill Remedial Action Plan. July 2003.
Geosyntec Consultants, December 2013 Semi -Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report for the
Plume Monitoring Network, South Gifford Road Landfill. January 2014.
Geosyntec Consultants, Site -Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Addendum 8A for
Brownfields Site Assessment in Vero Beach, Florida, Revision 0. January 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume 1 • Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4 Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills November 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans.
EPA QA/R-5. EPA 240-B-01-003. Reissued May 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Brownfields Quality Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPs) Interim Guidance Document Generic and Site -Specific QAPPs for Brownfields
Site Assessments and/or Cleanups. January 2009.
FR0766H 14 7/8/2014
Table 1
Summary of Soil Exceedances
South Gifford Road Landfill, Indian River County, Florida
Sample ID
Sample Interval (ft BLS)
Constituent
Result
R-SCTL
C/I-SCTL
Metals (6010C) (mg/kg)
SB -111
0 - 0.5
Arsenic
3 9
2.1
12
Carcinogenic
Mils (82701) and 82701
by SINI) (µg/kg)
SB -100
0 0.5
Benzo(a)pyrene
636
100
700
Total BaP TEQ
890
100
700
SB -109
0 - 0.5
Total BaP TEQ
208
100
700
SB -111
0 - 0.5
Benzo(a)pyrene
112 I
100
700
Total BaP TEQ
155
100
700
SB -111
0.5 - 2
Total BaP TEQ
110
100
700
Notes:
1 ft BLS indicates feet below land surface
2. R-SCTL indicates Residential Soil Cleanup Target (SCTL) Level defined in Chapter 62-777, Florida Administrative Code (F A.0 ).
3 Commercial/Industrial (C/1) SCTL defined in Chapter 62-777, F.A C
4 mg/kg indicates milligrams per kilogram
5 ig/kg indicates micrograms per kilogram
6 PAH indicates polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
7 8270D indicates semi -volatile organic compound (SVOC) analysis by EPA Method 8270D
8 SIM indicates selective ion monitoring mode for PAH
9 BaP TEQ indicates Benzo(a)pyrene Toxicity Equivalent Quotients for BaP using the approach described in the February 2005 'Final Technical
Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter 62-777, F.A.C'
10 Bold, shaded values indicate a concentration above the C/1-SCTL
11 1 indicates the result is greater than the laboratory method detection limit and less than the practical quantitation limit.
Table I
FR0766H I of 1
May 2014
Table 2
Summary of Soil Gas Detections
South Gifford Road Landfill, Indian River County, Florida
Analyte
Default Concentrations
for LFG Constituents
Sample ID
LFG-01
LFG-04
LFG-06
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
NA
16.2
11.5
3 0
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
NA
3 7
2.7
1 0
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
NA
3 1
2.5
28.7
4-Bromofluorobenzene
NA
116
77
87
4-Ethyltoluene
NA
5.1
7.2
0 75 I
Acetone
7,010
44 4
35.5
155
Benzene
NA
0 73 I
1.2 I
11.3
Carbon disulfide
580
24.1
10.1
3 9
Chlorobenzene
250
26.5
0.2 U
0 1 U
Chloroform
30
0.074 U
0 15 U
0 72 I
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NA
0 11 U
0.22 U
3.3
Cyclohexane
NA
22.9
9 7
5.3
Dichlorodifluoromethane
15,700
5.8
235
0.062 U
Ethanol
27,200
8.6
24.1
300
Ethyl Acetate
NA
11.3
0 46 U
0.23 U
Ethylbenzene
4,610
27 4
72.8
66.6
Freon 114
NA
22.5
556
0 085 U
Heptane
NA
7 7
9.7
241
Hexane
6,570
6.6
29.8
53.3
Isopropyl Alcohol
NA
1 6
2.6
5.8
Methyl ethyl ketone
7.090
4 1
1.8
28.0
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1,870
0 12 U
0.23 U
38.9
Methylene chloride
NA
1 7
3.0
2.1
Propylene
NA
24 9
0.25 U
26.7
Styrene
NA
8.8
9 4
0 079 U
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol
NA
3.2
2.1
0 18 U
Tetrachloroethene
3,730
26.8
30 4
0.22
Tetrahydrofuran
NA
1.2
0.36 U
0.18 U
Toluene
NA
27 9
28.7
14 9
trans-1.2-Dichloroethene
2.840
0.059 U
0 12 U
2.8
Trichloroethene
2,820
1.8
8.5
1.5
Trichlorofluoromethane
NA
0 055 U
3.5
0.055 U
Vinyl chloride
7,340
0.068 U
0 14 U
9.3
Xylenes (total)
12,100
44 1
37.9
21 1
Notes:
1 Default Concentrations for landfill gas (LFG) constituents default Concentrations for LFG Constituents found in Table 2.4-1
of the 1998 USEPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1 Stationary Point and Area
Sources
2. Results are in parts per billion by volume (ppbv)
3 U indicates the constituent is less than the laboratory method detection limit (MDL)
4 1 indicates the result is greater than the laboratory MDL and less than the practical quantitation limit
5 J indicates surrogate recovery was outside of the limit
6 NA indicates not applicable
Table 2
FR0766H 1 of 1
May 2014
cJj P0
)
N 24-
1.• • _
. 1.
114711."11
11
111 11 1-T7' 11'r 1 MI MN 11 In =•
, 1 ; , •
I
1 --
.!...;_:-1:—.1:Ll•-1
-.1
L
L I
1 • It, j
i. .
. ,
, I
'" 41 Galt C,ourse
b . •I • • . '
* i
• • . : • ; •Il .
. , • ::: : • •
Av n. •:. :. 1 •
1 r
/ la
N.
L_.
.'•
/ 1 i
i•
7 ,,. ...
'--iii / i - - -- ,
, . _/ _.-,-• - . ;
r''--- .....,/ ,:." ----
-"I'--,/9 1
\;.• ..• gm.x-22 '-
1 .
- - -- •,,, VERO, EtEAC.! I ylkillie:TPAL.,,,A1 fir IR' TI--
..
,./., v < 3 .,_:]..t - -7 744,---:
/7 /,-,,,. 1 r .:
/,
..,
42
‘:I
'it'''.4
''' ' 4
i. -4,
.
.._...„
..,...k -
Ai
.., .'
, • -
Trailer
Pt-, (pensacdc \.00,Dato \iP \ aS \ FROI6e_allortl \MD logo mxcl 15 May 2014
VERO BEACH, FLA.
27080 -F4 -TF -024
1949
PHOTO REVISED 1983
DMA 4939 III NW - SERIES V847
.1 •
•
"II. :•
: •
Legend
Approximate Site Location
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
2,000
1,000
0
2,000 Feet
Site Vicinity Topographic Map
South Gifford Road Landfill
Note:
Source of USGS Vero Beach, FL Quadrangle: FDEP Land Boundary
Information System Website.
Geosyntec°
consultants
Pensacola, FL
May 2014
Figure
1
J
' U-1
4..
• SR6' Vero
0
Beach .
• - ;
Plir. A116 111o110,..91, ,11
Dogiatliate ,cumc 000& USGS
AIX ‘7.10.4.1,10 Ar4vorK1 1111t 1t.1P
111S tamaix
r
Legend
Recovery Well Location
Biobarrier and Infiltration Gallery
Injection Wells
41/ Monitoring Well Cluster Location
Test Pit Location Completed in 2008
Boundary of Excavation Footprint (2004)
w • Site Assessment Area (30 Acres)
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
Parcels owned by Indian River County
Parcels owned by the City of Vero Beach
Runway Protection Zone
Notes.
1 Source 01 2012 Aerial: Honda Department of
Transportation Surveying and Mapping Office.
Assessment Area
South Gifford Road Landfill
Geosyntec
consultants
FIGURE NO. 2
PROJECT NO. FR0766
tr. If nu, 6 6,61,AI., .6,66 666 6 ,
r
'.11. "F
, .�
ill
r
it i ii1
• _
� 'r� "'i'.'l +�,- r I
N
120. um o r200
lrwn
Legend
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
- r_ ...-� �_ ,�111�■
t r tai
l• * `,
i
::,111
P
r---Iil�
.4 1461.
as
:1
iid
��
a r•
rr�
ay"�j�'r�lAd�9�!
...
r
kiL
' Ill
v .
..-
"
II eta € .
"a t 4
� -
Approximate Parcel Boundary
— - - •Site Assessment Area (30 Acres)
One-Mile Radius
LDR (Low Density Residential)
MDR (Medium Density Residential)
HDR (High Density Residential)
CGC (Commun itY /General Commercial)
LI (Light Industrial)
RPI (Residential-Professional-Institutional)
ROS (Recreation and Open Space)
Water
RC (Regional Commercial)
Notes
1. Parcel and landuse mWrn
ration were oolamed hum the
Indian Prier County Properly Appraiser s Olhce and GIS
department.
2 Source o12012 Aerial Fonda Department 01 Transportation.
Surveying and Mappng Othce.
Parcel/Surrounding Land Use
South Gifford Road Landfill
1 III
e;
WIN
�v
y
3 � Mgr
n g
C
-r^ <�
'� '
yy
E
IIi
r
tr
t m
* x
at
ri. ; ":'
r y 1 yr+ -"..
�'
Y 'I lA
gP
• A�4
I.�sl!
N ■
itIOIM
Nail
'„
®-, - „ rt •,. _
-;, •a, _ ., _-•'h - \ -
.
{
,. ..
1.:'
�—
' '•
,
•
i y
•4_,,
b:CN
– t(,
r 'fl)
'` � a r` 7
1*
#'GeosyntecC>
- � " h - "..,"'� 1 , '
FIGURE NO. 3
consultants
PROJECT NO. FR0766
41st Street, _.
For r Locauc- c` mow
Hum-tne Society
i 40
V:codeo A -ea w tr
A cess.ol',t}
IS,
�x ea Sr,,,,o
I1 1 ' -_1
r �.1,
I. 1
as4.
;1st Street
ZOO !OC O c0
Fe&
Legend
Test Pit Location
Sod Boring Location
(Samples collected from 0 to 2 ft BLS)
Not Sampled Due to Limited Access
Soil Boring Location Exhibiting Waste
(no sample collected)
Soil Gas Probe Location
F---1 Boundary of Excavation Footprint (2004)
Site Assessment Area (30 Acres)
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
Parcels owned by Indian River County
Parcels owned by the City of Vero Beach
Soil Sampling Grid
l PAS n4.v_res tat Ocldr 6M sWlaze
00 WA X hnagaiyawe.4 +urn ynd _ger. LA" iweve �vc«y USDA
I�Ii1J A_Y P.ylr�w{ypy AarryrU F:N LA" wU Iw::IStM \'.umimr+ii
Assessment Area Sample Locations
South Gifford Road Landfill
Geosyntec°
consultants
FIGURE NO. 4
PROJECT NO. FR0766
a� +W rve we -e, ";Pi:ltl 'wl vn
ra 117 * IP
r, •w
Former Locat,c^of
31st Street e H11 f113f1P $OCiPIV J
.,..,,..;.,�.,M.„,m-.�w..,w�.+'��R;�'e�R"ii*+".�";'�ii,"�+" :,�.•,.�,,, yam.-.+,:�-�r<-.�:,��..,.>r �.
4 i! 1
jkk
woe
0/e/Mie Ate 4 Wee
Vloodec Area >,v trl r
-,tea Access,c lay
UtEIE EEO r'(<
L®®
®®
4 ' ri
LEMEIEMESIMEN
Ile 4.
11
S
1
!go n n xc
feat
Legend
Not Sampled Due to Limited Access
• Soil Boring Location Exhibiting Waste
(no sample collected)
Soil Boring Location'
(Sample collected from 0 to 0.5 and
0.5 to 2.0 ft BLS)
• Soil Boring Location
(Sample collected from 0 to 0.5 and
0.5 to 2.0 ft BLS)
Boundary of Excavation Footpnnt (2004)
▪ Site Assessment Area (30 Acres)
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
Parcels owned by Indian River County
Parcels owned by the City of Vero Beach
Soil Sampling Grid
Analyse
daP lµykg)
BaP TEQ ligkgl
Residential SCTL
Commercla4
Industrial SCTL
%eka.
MWivesa iaR San.vWa11, y4,c;44;pHePd. 1SV4'sl aKl;Wxw;;'e t,onawvarn
4, ,,.,.nk ;;14,14,n;e'is
'. AtwM1+«, 44.44$ sV,Cs 44.:11A ;;;4444 v;.In4M4x.w. ‘.4144444,
. 4,F .Lassen yaslc.rs 14%431 a;paa,gnixulw;ns p.s'.M 0444,
ad <Morino
.d> Aabldos
.1re4k3av>w4,4,441404,4,44140rwAy t 48.wiwMr. r 4reNaw.8,.;
n
tnrnW, Ynv..)11a-'EY;tWawry 41, v,W w.&nl Hea,44.444,40cC4ara,p i,g'
Lavals
4 SG n enc:ates =UEP Sag 66.444; iargal Laval
111 815 34Suwbs .41144.441.441.4.4.4.41
F41,1*, ndealesnligam5 1pl WWgfam
' 4po,. ; •104,tes nw 44')4 (W' kkgran.
4 CIC ncteaiesmrnik:S, Ncwcern.
9.2010 11,414198,4 I- Scw.m Esr 48 ITIS Gw= 4 ;-.;Dw USDA .;SCS AEA
Ga1ma1PN Aa1.gN I M 104 rW Ma''aLS USW Cannons,
Summary of Exceedances in Soil
South Gifford Road Landfill
eosyntec °
consultants
FIGURE NO. 5
PROJECT NO FR0766
FO' LOC 3tic n. Of_
Huma ne Society
,41st Street .. ..., - .. ., .,"w.., fey
ear
11411111
-.
c.
NOM
VIoote^ Area rn th
L.- tee. Access.b.,J;t�
3
41et Street
4
1. r
{jFN+
mu 1r n
feet
Legend
Cover thickness less than 2 ft BLS
Cover thickness between 2 ft and 4 ft BLS
Cover thickness greater than 4 ft BLS
Site Assessment Area (30 Acres)
Q Boundary of Excavation Footprint (2004)
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
Parcels owned by Indian River County
Parcels owned by the City of Vero Beach
Soil Sampling Grid
C' Test Pit Location Completed in 2008
\Lt, Test Pit Location Completed in 2014
• Soil Boring Location Exhibiting Waste
(no sample collected)
NE RN
1,1S W:llJ .a tiw t.aow Nal ,utb.-e
2010 W 101 Imape., Suuf� 001 1,04, 1ir<., .eat ye c.cwa USDA
IAY:�
At (:AUWiNaI Aaw..l ILN, 0..Y u...1:Im.:, Uwe...um ..u,l.
Approximate Cover Thickness
South Gifford Road Landfill
Geosyntec °
consultants
FIGURE NO. 6
PROJECT NO FR0766
FIGURE NO 7
PROJECT NO FR0766
eovvvveur nfue.
•••,M.1.1,101.rf.,(11117117rn•
• so • 0 op • • • n•
MEEIM
ERMINE
1111111ENII
1111131111121
• I '
tormer1Locationlof--,
1Humane;Society
1.1,FG06
10A
MINN= • 10FG05 '
IIOMMM, _F.0 3 r
F1311.111. MMIMM1 4
MISMIMM5',
=MEM
4---'netfft)
Ilk_FGOR
IMMM/3,61.
ISTEMEIDE
11E31CarefflIMBIN
11211101111
MEMO.
\Wobileil/Areatviith
it4 I 10"
Area(Shown
OniFigure
I
.41st.Street
e .
.;k
200 100 200
Feet
Legend
Soil Gas Probe Location
Site Assessment Area (30 Acres)
Boundary of Excavation Footprint (2004)
Approximate Landfill Property Boundary
Parcels owned by Indian River County
Parcels owned by the City of Vero Beach
Soil Sampling Grid
Notes
1 CH4 indicates methane
2 02 Indicates oxygen
3 CO2 Ind... carbon dioxide
4 PID .nchcales photfoomeation detector
5 ppm ulicetos parts per melon
6 le indicates perunt of gas by av volume
7 2010 VVorfal_Irnagory Source Earl DipitolGlobe Geo Eye 1-11ubod. USDA,
USGS AE% 0.1100pp1119 Ovarogncl .N IGP and the GIS User Conaroun63
Summary of Field Screening Results
in Soil Gas Probes
South Gifford Road Landfill
Geosyntec
consultants
Peth 1Pensec..011DATP, P GISIFF10786_DkPorOVAXDS,Summary_Fkekl_Screen_LFG_NAP,2014 moo 27 1.18y 2014 LVIT