HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-299 AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER NUMBER 04
This Amendment to Work Order Number 04 is entered into as of this `-day of
2007 pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Se ces
entered into as of 10 August, 2004 ("Agreement" ) , by and between Indian River County Solid
Waste Disposal District, a dependent special district of Indian River County , Florida , whose
address is clo Indian River County Utilities Department, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach , Florida
32960 (" DISTRICT" ) and Geosvntec Consultants. Inc. (" CONSULTANT").
The DISTRICT has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth
on Attachment 1 , 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
Attachment 2, 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 Attachment 3, 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 . INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
By: 6 ej By: . .
Thomas A. Peel, Ph. D. , Moe President Gary C . eler,'Chairman
Attest: J . K.. Barton , lerk of Court
By: x
Deputy Clerk
Approved:
Jo eph A. B d , County Administra or
Ap oved as to form and legal sufficiency:
`� arian E . Fell , Assistant ounty Attorney
ATTACHMENT 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
GeosMtee ° sonv Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Pit 904.388.8821
consultants FAX 904.388.8163
Www geosynlec.com
I I July 2007
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
Assistant Managing Director
Solid Waste Disposal District
Indian River County
1325 74`h Avenue SW
Vero Beach, Florida 32968
Subject: Amendment to Work Order No. 4
Design and Permitting Services for
Class I Segment 3 Landfill Lateral Expansion
Indian River County Landfill Facility
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) for the provision of professional services
related to the permitting of a Class I landfill expansion at the IRC Landfill (IRCL) facility
located in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. This proposal (Attachment 1 ) specifically
relates to amending Work Order No. 4 (for the Continuing Contract Agreement between IRC
SWDD and Geosyntec, dated 10 August 2004) to include additional professional services
necessary to permit the Cell 2 area, currently permitted as an unlined Construction & Demolition
(C&D) disposal facility, as a lined Class I landfill. The proposal presents the additional scope of
work, schedule, and budget estimate necessary to design and permit the 33-acre Cell 2 area as a
Class I landfill lateral expansion. The proposal was prepared in response to a verbal request
from SWDD during an 18 April 2006 and subsequent meetings at the IRCL site with Messrs.
Erik Olson, P.E. and Mehta, P.E. , both of SWDD, and Dr. Kwasi Badu-Tweneboah, P.E. of
Geosyntec.
The remainder of this proposal presents: (i) project background; (ii) proposed scope of work;
(iii) schedule; and (iv) budget estimate.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The IRCL is located south of Oslo Road, west of Range Line Road (74'h Avenue) and east of
Interstate 95 in Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 38 East in Indian River County, Florida.
The IRCL facility is currently operating as a Class I landfill and C&D debris disposal facility
under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Operations Permit Numbers
X1.060WAmendmenr to Class r landfill Design Work Order.doc
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 2
5031 -0128769-008 and S031 -0128769-009. The overall IRCL site occupies 276 acres, with 63
acres used for Class I disposal and 22 acres used for C&D disposal. Waste materials accepted
for the Class I landfill disposal include residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial
wastes. The landfill serves the unincorporated Indian River County and municipalities of Vero
Beach, Orchid, Fellsmere, Sebastian, Indian River Shores, and Wabasso, Florida.
SWDD initially intended to permit and construct new Class I landfill and unlined C&D disposal
facility expansions within the 276-acre permitted facility. However, a recent feasibility study
(see Appendix A), completed by Geosyntec at the request of SWDD, concluded that co-disposal
of the C&D debris and the Class I municipal solid waste (MSW) in a lined Class I landfill would
provided both economic and environmental (in the long-term) benefits to SWDD and IRC. The
new Class I landfill expansion will consist of the design and permitting of the currently permitted
C&D Cell 2 facility as a lateral expansion of the Class I Segment 3 landfill as an amendment to
Work Order No. 4. Figure 1 shows the layout of the proposed Class I landfill lateral expansion.
Geosyntec has essentially completed the design and permitting of the 44-acre Class I Segment 3
landfill, as originally authorized by SWDD under Work Order No . 4, and intends to submit the
permit application to FDEP by 15 August 2007. Therefore, a new or substantial permit
modification application will have to prepared and submitted to FDEP for the lateral expansion
of Segment 3 to include the 33 -acre C&D Cell 2 area.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed scope of work includes activities to be performed on behalf of SWDD for the
design and permitting services for the 33-acre area as a Class I landfill lateral expansion. The
scope of work is based on the requirements of Chapter 62-701 of the Florida Administrative
Code (FAC). Geosyntec will provide the engineering services necessary to amend the permit
application and address any comments or requests for additional information fiorn FDEP for
issuance of the amended permit for the landfill expansion. For the purpose of budgeting, the
scope of work has been divided into the following six main tasks:
• Task 1 — General Consulting/Meeting Support/Project Management;
• Task 2 — Hydrogeological/ Geotechnical Investigations;
• Task 3 — Design and Permit Application;
• Task 4 — Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Modification;
XL06096\Amendment to Class I landfill resign Work Ordmdoc
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 3
• Task 5 — Response to Regulatory Comments; and
• Task 6 - Feasibility Study of Landfill Consolidation
The remainder of this section presents a general description of the activities to be performed in
each task.
Task 1 — General Consulting/Meeting Support/ Project Management
Geosyntec estimates that the lateral expansion of Class I Segment 3 landfill would extend the
project schedule by approximately 6 months, during which Geosyntec will continue to provide
project management services. These services consist of three components: general consulting,
meeting support, and project management. Geosyntec will provide SWDD with consulting
services necessary to initiate the project and attend pre-application and in-progress design review
meetings with SWDD and the FDEP Central District Office. Geosyntec will prepare
presentation graphics, engineering drawings, and other documents required to support the
meetings and project coordination activities.
Geosyntec will prepare for and attend a meeting with the SWDD Board to present the
justification for the requested amendment, the additional project scope and budget requirements,
and to provide general technical assistance. In addition, two review meetings will be held with
SWDD at the 50 percent and 90 percent completion of the design. Geosyntec will also meet with
the solid waste and environmental resources permitting (ERP) sections of FDEP to discuss
specific permitting issues associated with the change and obtain concept "buy-in" prior to
submittal of the permit applications. Following each meeting, Geosyntec will prepare meeting
minutes that document decisions reached in the meetings.
Project management activities will include: budget and schedule tracking; invoice review; and
project communications, including the preparation of a monthly progress report. The project
report will include a description of the activities completed during the month and planned
activities for the following month. In addition, the progress report will identify any technical or
administrative issues that require the SWDD's attention and the current status of the budget and
schedule.
For the purpose of this budget estimate, Geosyntec has included five additional meetings: (i) one
meeting with the SWDD Board; (ii) two in-progress design review meetings with SWDD; and
(iii) two meetings with FDEP and SWDD staff.
XL06096Wmendment to Class 1 landfill Design Work Order.doc
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 4
Task 2 : Hvdroueological and Geotechnical Site Investigations
The site investigation will be performed in accordance with Rule 62-701 .410, FAC to establish
geotechnical, geological and hydrogeological characteristics of the proposed 33 acre of Cell 2
area as Class I landfill expansion. The purpose of the investigation is to obtain the site-specific
data necessary to address the elements of Rule 62-701 . 410, FAC, and also to support the design,
permitting and groundwater monitoring requirements for the proposed Class I landfill lateral Y
expansion. The proposed scope of work for Task 2 assumes that sufficient hydrogeological and
geotechnical investigations have been performed as part of the design and permitting of the Cell
2 C&D disposal facility.
Geosyntec will review previous geologic, hydrogeological and geotechnical investigation reports
and documents completed for the design and permitting of C&D Cell 2 and compare them with
the corresponding data used for the design and permitting of Class I Segment 3 landfill
expansion, to identify additional information needs. Existing site hydrogeological and
geotechnical information collected from previous investigations and data collected during the
Class I Segment 3 and C&D Cell 2 investigations will be compiled in a relational electronic data
base to facilitate data evaluation.
Geosyntec will revise the Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Investigation Report (report) for the
Class I Segment 3 landfill application to include the results of the additional data from the C&D
Cell 2 investigations . The report will address the following hydrogeological investigation
requirements of Rule 62-701 .410( 1 ), FAC:
• a description of the landfill site geology and hydrogeology and its relationship to the local
and regional hydrogeologic patterns;
• an inventory of all public and private water wells within one-mile radius of the proposed
landfill expansion; and
• a map showing the location of all potable wells within 500 feet of the landfill, and
locations of all wells serving community water supplies within 1 ,000 feet of the proposed
landfill expansion.
The report will also address geotechnical investigation requirements of Rule 62-710.410(2),
FAC, including the following:
• interpretation of the subsurface conditions including soil stratigraphy and ground water
table conditions;
XL0609MAniendment to Class 1 landfill Design Work Order.doc
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 5
• the potential presence of muck, previously filled areas, soft ground, lineaments, and
sinkholes;
• potential fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas;
• estimates of average and maximum high ground water table across the site; and
• foundation analysis to evaluate the ability of the foundation to support the loads and
stresses imposed by the proposed landfill expansion including the infills contemplated for
future expansion.
This report will be prepared as a component of the substantial modification permit application
for the Class I — Segment 3 landfill lateral application, as required by Rule 62-701 .330(3)(f),
FAC. The report will be prepared and certified by a qualified geologist or engineer registered in
the State of Florida.
Task 3 — Design and Permit Application
Geosyntee will design and prepare the substantial modification permit application for submittal
to FDEP for the Class I — Segment 3 landfill lateral expansion of the IRCL. The design will
include the engineering analyses to demonstrate that the landfill lateral expansion complies with
the specific requirements of Rule 62-701 .400, FAC. The following activities will be performed
to design the landfill expansion and prepare the permit application:
• review existing permit application and other relevant reports and documents;
• prepare conceptual plan for landfill development through end-of-life of the facility based
on the initial site development plan prepared by other consultants;
• meet with FDEP to discuss the proposed lateral expansion, including the design and
permitting approach (this will be performed as part of Task 1 );
• prepare detailed phasing plans for the landfill expansion including plans for liner system,
final cover system, and waste fill sequencing;
• evaluate available storage volume and approximate timeline for landfill development;
• design the leachate management system for the expansion area, including collection,
transmission, and disposal of leachate into the nearby county sewer system;
XL0609&Amendment to Class l landfill Design Work Order.doc
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 6
• design the top elevation and final cover configuration for the proposed expansion to meet
the disposal capacity needs of IRC;
• perform hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for extreme rainfall events and design the
surface-water management system for the expansion area, including control features to
separate surface water from leachate during construction and operation of the expansion
area;
• perform slope stability (liner system, interim and final configurations, and veneer
stability of the final cover system) and settlement evaluations for the proposed expansion
and the infill planned for future construction;
• design the gas control and collection system (GCCS) for the proposed expansion;
• prepare permit drawings (with adequate details for permitting) for the proposed
expansion of the landfill (approximately 20 sheets of D-size, 24 inches by 36 inches);
• prepare Technical Specifications and a Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan for
all components of construction for the landfill expansion;
• revise the facility operating plans (Operations Plan, Leachate Management Plan, Gas
Management Plan, Water-Quality Monitoring Plan, and Closure Plan) to incorporate
changes, as needed, from the proposed expansion;
• prepare financial assurance cost estimate for closure and long-term care of the proposed
expansion; and
• complete the required FDEP form (62-701 .900( 1 )) and prepare the supporting plans and
engineering reports.
Geosyntec will prepare the substantial modification permit application for the Class I — Segment
3 Landfill (Permit Application) for the 33-acre lateral expansion. The Permit Application will
include the engineering reports, permit drawings and operating plans required in accordance with
Chapter 62-701 , FAC. The Permit Application will be signed and sealed by a registered
professional engineer in the State of Florida.
Geosyntec will provide four complete copies of the amended Permit Application to FDEP and
two copies to SWDD. An electronic file of the Permit Application will also be provided to
FDEP and SWDD.
Xr.06096Wmendmem to Class I landfill Design Work Order.doc
engineers I Scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 7
Task 4 : ERP Modification
Geosyntec understands that one of SWDD's other consultants is currently applying, on SWDD
behalf, for Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) modification for the entire 276 acre site. This
permit modification is based on the assumption that the 33 -acre Cell 2 area will be constructed
and operated as an unlined C&D disposal facility, which requires an unlined final cover system.
However, conversion of this area to a lined Class I landfill would require liner in the final cover
system that would increase the surface water runoff from the site.
Therefore, under this task, Geosyntec will analyze the effect of adding the proposed expansion
area on the stormwater management system as currently designed and presented in the ERP . A
modification to the ERP will be required for submittal to FDEP to account for any increase in the
amount or timing of stormwater runoff due to grading changes or infiltration differences from the
expansion final cover system or other changes to the site drainage systems. This task does not
include any environmental considerations (i.e., wetlands, endangered species, etc.) associated
with permitting of the Class I landfill expansion. It has been assumed that wetlands and other
environmental issues have already been addressed as part of previous permitting of the overall
265-acre facility.
Geosyntec proposes to initially meet with FDEP to discuss the proposed lateral expansion of the
Class I — Segment 3 landfill and its impact on the existing stormwater management system.
During this meeting Geosyntec will confirm from FDEP the permit modification requirements to
the existing ERP . For the purpose of the budget estimate, Geosyntec has assumed that a minor
modification to the existing ERP will be required. Geosyntec will provide written responses to
RAIs from FDEP on the ERP modification, if deemed necessary. For the purpose of the budget
estimate, Geosyntec has assumed that one response to RAI will be required.
Task 5 : Response to Reeulatory Comments
Under this task, Geosymec will provide FDEP with written responses to RAIs throughout the
course of the permit review process. Geosyntec will also meet with FDEP (if needed) to clarify
or discuss any design or permit issues. For the purpose of the budget estimate, Geosyntec has
assumed one response to RAI and one meeting with FDEP will be required.
Task 6: Feasibility Study of Landfill Consolidation
As previously discussed, SWDD verbally authorized Geosyntec on 18 April 2007 to feasibility
of co-disposing C&D debris in a lined Class I landfill. As part of this task, Geosyntec evaluated
X1,060MAntendmeat to Class I landfill Design Work Order.dw
engineers I scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
1 I July 2007
Page 8
the desirability of continuing the SWDD practice of separate C&D debris disposal in a dedicated
unlined C&D landfill in comparison with co-disposing it conuningled with MSW in a lined Class
I landfill. Geosyntec performed this task by considering the economic and environmental issues,
and prepared a technical report that summarized the results of the study with conclusions and
recommendations for submittal to the SWDD Board. A copy of this report is included as
Appendix A to this proposal. Therefore, Geosyntec has included a budget estimate for the
preparation of this report, which includes attendance of two review meetings with SWDD.
SCHEDULE
Geosyntec estimates that the scope of work of this amendment would extend the project schedule
by six months. A Substantial Modification Permit Application for the Class I — Segment 3
landfill lateral expansion will be prepared and submitted to FDEP during this period.
BUDGET ESTIMATE
A budget estimate for the scope of work outlined in Tasks 1 through 6 of this proposal is
summarized in the following table. The budget estimate does not include FDEP permit
application fees. A detailed budget estimate is provided as Attachment 2 .
• Task I — General Consulting/Meeting Support/Project Management $233206
• Task 2 — Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Investigations S 19,339
• Task 3 — Design and Permit Application $993648
• Task 4 — ERP Modification $23 ,706
• Task 5 — Response to Regulatory Comments $ 18 , 892
• Task 6 — Feasibility study of Landfill Consolidation $ 18,692
TOTAL $2031483
The budget estimate presented in this proposal is based on Geosyntec's understanding of the
project requirements and experience with permitting similar facilities. Geosyntec will not
exceed the budget estimate without prior approval and written authorization from S WDD.
X1_0609MAmendmem to Class 1 landfill Design Work Order.doc
crib nears i scientists I innovators
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
11 July 2007
Page 9
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 Dr. Badu-Tweneboah's attention.
Please call the undersigned with questions you may have as you review this proposal .
Sincerely,
Kwasi Badu-Tweneboah, Ph.D. , P.E.
Associate
Attachments
Copy to : J.F. Beech, Ph.D., P.E. (Geosyntec)
Xf.06096Wmendment to Class I landfill Design Work Ordecdoc
engineers I scl nli.gLS I lnnovatols
FIGURE
PROPOSED BASE GRADES
INDIAN RIVER LANDFILL .!
�*r^^'>� ".F '" -�'t^'sc"^�'r^rix s+� u"xe-•-% '^-•,'n ^� :�.e .3 ' -�,- w. '"
^ x
> .
,�^ �� �•' sem- ��_ i . '�, '� _=--�
°y�..,�✓ if ' \ r f / ^' / • ; r"AOMINSTAH'TION
Lit
rr
FFF
x ( r $ �i ,�, i� —-�./ . .� 4 11 .Cc i �• mss. - _ _
✓
ktj
..t.Yu^'.T �
�G "
2�
y ����� fry. . � —�� "•l 4 f -'h y
� y r
19-
6TORM WATER POND �. h _ "T ) hN 1; h t ,ry ' y I If
s
y i ir-.. -/ x fi It i e LAIYo DLL
7It r-
v-
0 J00'
51 o-eg4, A FI _f++ ,i H35a i " 0
V �
GeosyntecO NENNESAW. DA
Consultants
N,--_ _ _ DATE: APRIL 2007 SCALE: i ' = 300•
PROJECT rv0. FL0996.01 !FILE No. 0996F001
DOCUMENT NQ FIGURE N0. 1
ATTACHMENT 2
FEE SCHEDULE
Table 1
BUDGET ESTIMATE
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES
CLASS I LANDFILL EXPANSION , INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TASK 01 : GENERAL CONSULTING/MEETING SUPPORTIPROJECT MANAGEMENT
ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED
COST
kz Professional.Services . = "
a. Principal Hr $ 185 8 $ 1 , 512
b. Associate Hr $ 160 70 $ 11 ,200
c. Senior Project Engineer Hr $ 142 30 $4,250
d . Project Engineer Hr $ 109 0 $0
e . Engineer Hr $89 0 $0
f. Senior Staff Engineer Hr $82 1 0 $0
g . Staff Engineer Hr $68 1 0 $0
Subtotal Professional Services $165962
B:" Technical/Atlthinstrative"Services ""
a . CADD Designer Hr $95 24 $2,281
J. Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Hr $54 0 $0
c. Technical/Administrative Assistant Hr $ 70 8 $562
d. Technical Word Processor Hr $66 8 $527
e. Clerical Hr $42 24 $ 1 ,014
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $4, 383
C. Reimbursables
a. Lodging Day $100 0 $0
b. Per Diem Day $42 0 $0
c. Communications Fee 3% Labor 0.03 $21 ,346 $640
d . CADD Computer System Hr $ 15 24 $360
e. Vehicle Rental Day $ 100 5 $500
f. 8"x11 " Photocopies Each 1 $0. 12 500 $60
g. CADD Drawings Each $3 100 $ 300
Subtotal Reimbursables $1 ,860
TOTAL ESTIMATED"BUDGET s TASK 01 $23,206
FW0536/ConceptApplCell 2 Design Budget_Estimalel .xls GeoSyntec Consultants
Table 2
BUDGET ESTIMATE
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES
CLASS I LANDFILL EXPANSION, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TASK 02 : HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED
COST
A. Professional Services .'.';
a. Principal Hr $185 0 $0
b. Associate Hr $160 10 $1 ,600
c. Senior Project Engineer Hr 42$1 24 $3,400 '
d. Project Engineer Hr $109 0 $0
e. Engineer Hr $89 48 $4,295
f. Senior Staff Engineer Hr $82 0 $0
g . Staff Engineer Hr $68 48 $3,287
Subtotal Professional Services $12,582
B. Technical/Administrative Services
a. Senior Engineering Technician Hr $95 0 $0
b. Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Hr $54 24 $1 ,296
c. Technical/Administrative Assistant Hr $70 4 $281
d. Technical Word Processor Hr $66 8 $527
e. Clerical Hr $42T 12 $507
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $2,611
C. Reimbursables . .
a. Topographic Survey Subcontractor Lump Sum $500 0 $0
b. Rotosonic® Drilling Subcontractor Lump Sum $2,500 0 $0
c. Geotechnical Drilling Subcontractor Lump Sum $14,000 0 $0
d. Long-Term Monitoring Equipment Lump Sum $1 ,000 1 $1 ,000
e. Analytical Testing Lump Sum $4,000 0 $0
f. Geotechnical LaboratoryTesting Lump Sum $3,500 0 $0
g. Lodging Day $100 5 $500-
h. Per Diem Day $42 5 $210
i. Vehicle Rental Day $100 5 $500
j. Communications Fee 3% Labor $0.03 $15,193 $456
k. CADD Computer System Hr $ 15.00 $24 $360
I. 8'x11 ' Photocopies Each $0.12 500 $60
m. CADD Drawings Each $3.00 20 $60
n. Field Supplies Day $50 20 $1 ,000
Subtotal Reimbursables $4,146
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET- .- TASK -62
F0105361ConceptApplCell 2 Design Budgel_Estimatei .zls GeoSyntec Consutlants
Table 3
BUDGET ESTIMATE
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES
CLASS I LANDFILL EXPANSION , INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TASK 03 : FDEP PERMIT APPLICATION
ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED
COST
A. Prtifes3ional a . Principal Principal Hr $185 16 $2 ,960
b. Associate Hr $ 160 120 $ 19, 200
c. Senior Project Engineer Hr $142 40 $5,667
d. Project Engineer Hr $ 109 60 $62523
e. Engineer Hr $89 80 $7, 158
f. Senior Staff Engineer Hr $82 1201 $9, 788
g . Staff Engineer I Hr 1 $68 160 $ 10,957
Subtotal Professional Servicesl $62,253
9 TechncallAdmiristrative'Services ,
a . CADD Designer Hr $95 160 $153205
b. Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Hr $54 220 $11 ,882
c. Technical/Administrative Assistant Hr $70 0 $0
d . Technical Word Processor Hr $66 20 $1 ,317
e . Clerical Hr $42 '40 $ 1 ,690
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $30,094
C.. Reimbursables
a . Lodging Day $ 100 0 $0
b. Per Diem Day $42 0 $0
c. Communications Fee 3% Labor 0.03 $923347 $2, 770
d . CADD Computer System Hr $ 15 178 $2,670
e. Vehicle Rental Day $ 100 0 $0
f. 8"x11 " Photocopies Each $0. 12 3000 $360
g. CADD Drawings Each $3 500 $ 1 ,500
Subtotal Reimbursables $7,300
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET : TASK 03 $99,648'
FW0536/ConceptApp/Cell 2 Design Budget_Fstimatei .xls GeoSyntec Consultants
Table 4
BUDGET ESTIMATE
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES
CLASS I LANDFILL EXPANSION , INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TASK 04: ERP MODIFICATION
ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED
COST
A. Professional Services
a . Principal Hr $ 185 4 $740
b . Associate Hr $ 160 16 $2, 560
c. Senior Project Engineer Hr $142 12 $ 1 , 700
d . Project Engineer Hr $ 109 20 $2, 174
e. Engineer Hr $89 0 $0
f. Senior Staff Engineer Hr $82 60 $4, 894
g. Staff Engineer Hr $68 60 $4, 109
Subtotal Professional Servicesl $ 16,178
B . Technical%Administrative Services
a . CADD Designer Hr $95 20 $ 1 ,901
b . Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Hr $54 40 $2, 160
c. Technical/Administrative Assistant Hr $70 8 $562
d . Technical Word Processor Hr $66 12 $790
e. Clerical Hr $42 8 $338
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Servicesl $5,751
C. Reimbursables
a. Lodging Day $ 100 0 $0
b. Per Diem Day $42 0 $0
c. Communications Fee 3% Labor 0.03 $21 ,929 $658
d . CADD Computer System Hr $ 15 60 $900
e . Vehicle Rental Day $ 100 1 $ 100
f. 8"x11 " Photocopies Each $0. 12 500 $60
g . CADD Drawings Each $3 20 $60
Subtotal Reimbursables $ 15778
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET ; TASK 05 $23,1O8i
FW05361ConceptApplCell 2 Design Budget_Estimatel As Gecsynlec consultants
Table 5
BUDGET ESTIMATE
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES
CLASS I LANDFILL EXPANSION, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TASK 05: RESPONSE TO REGULATORY COMMENTS
ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED
COST
P"roie`s'sional Services
a. Principal Hr $ 185 2 $370
b. Associate Hr $160 24 $3,840
c. Senior Project Engineer Hr $142 0 $0
d . Project Engineer Hr $109 20 $2, 174
e. Engineer Hr $89 $0
I. Senior Staff Engineer Hr $82 20 $1 ,631
g. Staff Engineer Hr $68 40 $2, 739
Subtotal Professional Services $10,755
B. Tedhriicai/Adnninistfative Service`s"r
a . CADD Designer Hr $95 20 $1 ,901
b. Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Hr $54 40 $2, 160
c. Technical/Administrative Assistant Hr $70 8 $562
d. Technical Word Processor Hr $66 8 $527
e. Clerical Hr $42 20 $845
Subtotal Technical/Administrative Services $5,994
C. <Reiinbursa6lesf 11
a . Lodging Day $100 0 $0�
b. Per Diem Day $42 0 $0
G. Communications Fee 3% Labor 0.03 $ 16,749 $502
d . CADD Computer System Hr $15 60 $900
e. Vehicle Rental Day $ 100 2 $200
f. 8"x11 " Photocopies Each $0. 12 2000 $240
g. CADD Drawings Each $3 100 $300
Subtotal Reimbursables $2, 142
TOTAL ESTIMATEbaUOGET : TASK,07; , $ 18,892
Table 6
BUDGET ESTIMATE
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES
CLASS I LANDFILL EXPANSION, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TASK 06: FEASIBILITY STUDY
ITEM BASIS RATE QUANTITY ESTIMATED
COST
A. - Profeiol6hal',Services
a . Principal Hr $ 185 0 $0
b. Associate Hr $160 20 $3, 200
c. Senior Project Engineer Hr $ 142 0 $0
d . Project Engineer Hr $ 109 60 $67523
e. Engineer Hr $89 0 $0
f. Senior Staff Engineer Hr $82 8 $653
g . Staff Engineer Hr $68 40 $2, 739
Subtotal Professional Services $ 13,115
B. 'Technical/Administrative Services
a. CADD Designer Hr $95 20 $ 1 ,901
b. Drafter/CADD Operator/Artist Hr $54 20 $ 1 ,080
c. Technical/Administrative Assistant Hr $70 4 $281
d . Technical Word Processor Hr $66 8 $527
e. Clerical Hr $42 8 $ 338
Subtotal TechnicaVAdministrative Services $4, 127
C;' Rembursakiles; " ` gym
a . Lodging Day $100 0 $0
b. Per Diem Day $42 0 $0
c. Communications Fee 3% Labor 0.03 $ 17,241 $517
d. CADD Computer System Hr $ 15 40 $600
e. Vehicle Rental Day $ 100 0 $0
f. 8"x11 " Photocopies Each $0. 12 1000 $ 120
g . CADD Drawings Each $3 50 $150
Subtotal Reimbursables $15387
TOTAL% ESTIMATED BUDGET iTASK 07. $ j8,629s.
APPENDIX A
LANDFILL CONSOLIDATION
STUDY REPORT
Prepared for:
`}Rv ea coa
Indian River County
Solid Waste Disposal District
1325 74th Avenue Southwest
Vero Beach, Florida 32968
LANDFILL CONSOLIDATION STUDY
REPORT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LANDFILL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Prepared by:
Geosyntec
consultants
engincers I ack%itriet� I innovators
2258 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Project Number FL0996
July 2007
Geasyntee Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 . 1 Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2
1 .2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 .3 Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 . IRC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
3 . C&D DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
3 . 1 Florida C&D Debris Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .. . 2
3 .2 Typical C&D Debris Management in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
3 . 3 C&D Debris Management in Indian River County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
4. QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF C&D DEBRIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
5 . LEACHATE FROM LAND DISPOSED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
WASTE . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
6 . COST COMPARISON OF C&D DEBRIS DISPOSAL IN AN UNLINED
LANDFILL VS . CO-DISPOSAL IN A CLASS I LANDFILL . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. 2
8 . REFERENCES . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of Composition Results
Table 2 Items Observed in Residential Construction Waste Loads
Table 3 Summary of Steps I through 6 of Cost Comparison
JR70184 i 7/13/2007
Geosyntcc Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Plan
Figure 2 Monthly Variation of Per Capita Generation Rates for MSW and C&D
Debris
Figure 3 Cost Comparison of C&D Debris Disposal in Class I and Unlined C &D
Landfills
Figure 4 Comparison of Disposal Cost Between Separate and Co-disposal
Operations for Three Projections of C&D Debris Quantities
JR70184 ii 7/ 13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
1 . INTRODUCTION
1 .1 Terms of Reference
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) has prepared this Landfill Consolidation Study
Report for the proposed Segment 3 , Class I landfill at the Indian River County Landfill
(IRCL) facility located in Vero Beach, Florida. The IRCL facility, which is owned by
the Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), presently employs the
separate disposal approach to construction and demolition (C&D) debris and municipal
solid waste (MSW) . This approach allows the IRCL facility to dispose of C&D waste
in a dedicated unlined landfill, while diverting the MSW to a lined, Class I landfill.
This report looks at the feasibility of co-disposal of C&D and MSW in a lined, Class I
landfill.
The report was prepared in response to a need for additional information on the
available options for the design and permitting of the Class I landfill expansion. The
report was prepared by Dr. Tanhum Goldschmid, as a consultant for Geosyntec and
reviewed by Dr. Kwasi Badu-Tweneboah, P.E. , of Geosyntec.
1.2 Background
The Solid Waste Disposal District (S WDD) operates and maintains two separate landfill
systems including: (i) a Class I landfill ; and (ii) a Construction & Demolition (C&D)
landfill . All Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is delivered for disposal at the Class I
landfill . The C&D landfill is restricted only to inert debris that originates from
construction and demolition activities. Each of the landfill systems is subject to a
different set of Florida rules, which govern its construction, operation and maintenance,
and long term care. Class I landfills can accept for disposal most types of waste
including C&D debris. They must, however, construct and operate a leachate collection
and removal system consisting of a liner system and a piping network to prevent
groundwater contamination. Class I landfills may also be required to install and operate
an active landfill gas collection and control system to control odor and to minimize the
risk of accidental fire and/or explosion. C&D landfills are exempt from the
requirements to actively collect and control leachate and landfill gas but are restricted to
disposal of inert debris only.
JR70184 3 7/13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
It is generally recognized that C&D wastes present a lower risk to human health and the
environment relative to municipal solid wastes and that they do not merit the same level
of control . Nevertheless, land disposal of C&D waste does present a threat of
groundwater contamination because of small amounts of hazardous constituents that are
sometimes encountered.
This report evaluates the desirability of continuing the SWDD practice of separate C&D
debris disposal in a dedicated unlined C&D landfill in comparison with codisposing it
commingled with MSW in a lined Class I landfill . The principal drawbacks of the
codisposal approach are the high capital and the operating and maintenance costs of the
Class I landfill in comparison with those of the C&D landfill . These, however, are
offset by the improved environmental protection and reduced risks to groundwater
contamination that Class I landfills offer in comparison with unlined C&D landfills.
1 .3 Oreanization of Report
The remainder of this Landfill Consolidation Study Report is organized as follows :
• Section 2 presents the IRC Solid Waste Management Master Plan;
• Section 3 presents the regulations and management practices for C&D disposal
in Florida and IRC;
• Section 4 presents quantity and composition of C&D debris for IRC;
• Section 5 presents the potential groundwater hazards of C&D disposal ;
• Section 6 presents a cost comparison of separate and co-disposal approaches;
and,
• Section 7 presents the summary and conclusions of the study.
2. IRC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The latest update of the Indian River County solid waste management master plan,
which was adopted by the SWDD Board on 20 March 2007, specifies four distinct
footprints of landfill facilities within the 270 acre landfill site as follows (5) (see Figure
1 ) :
JR70184 2 7/ 13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
• Existing 59 acre Class I landfill consisting of Segments 1 and 2, and an
Infill.
• Existing 22 acre unlined C&D landfill (Cell 1 )
• New 33 acre unlined C&D landfill (Cell 2), permitted and under
construction
• New 44 acre lined Class I landfill (Segment 3 ) being designed and
permitted
The existing Class I landfill is active and presently accepts for disposal both C&D
debris and MSW. The C&D debris is placed on the side slopes and top of the unlined
Segment 1 . MSW is placed on the side slopes and top of the lined Segment 2 and the
infill . Under the separate disposal scenario, Segments 1 and 2 and the Infill of the
existing Class I landfill and Cell 1 of the C&D landfill are expected to provide all the
disposal capacity needs of the County through 2010. Thereafter, Class I waste will be
landfilled in the lined Segment 3 and C&D debris in the unlined Cell 2. Two additional
infills are also proposed between Segment 3 of the Class I landfill and each of the two
C&D landfill cells to maximize the disposal capacity of the site (see Figure 2). The two
infills are planned for construction and operation as Class I landfills and projected to
provide 6-year of additional disposal capacity for the County. Cell 2 has a projected
useful life of 18 years compared with the 26 year capacity projected for Class I landfill .
Further disposal of C&D debris, after the completion of Cell 2, will have to be in a
Class I landfill commingled with MSW.
Under a codisposal scenario, Cell 2, presently scheduled for operation as a C&D
landfill, will be integrated into Segment 3 and constructed as a Class I landfill . Once the
existing C&D disposal capacity of Segment 1 and Cell 1 of the C&D landfill is
depleted, an event scheduled to occur in 2010, further C&D debris disposal will be in a
Class I landfill commingled with MSW.
The principal drawback to the codisposal approach is the high capital and operating
costs of the Class I landfill in comparison with those of a C&D landfill . These,
however, would be offset by the savings that would result from the discontinued
operation of the separate C&D landfill, and from several construction steps that would
not be necessary due to the integration of the C&D Cell 2 into Segment 3 of the Class I
landfill . These are further discussed in subsequent sections of this report.
JR70184 3 7/ 13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
3, C&D DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
3.1 Florida C&D Debris Regulations
C&D debris is defined and regulated in Florida under Florida Administrative Code 62-
701 . This regulation provides facility design and operation requirements. The rules
define construction and demolition debris as "discarded materials, generally considered
to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature that originates from the
construction or destruction of a structure. "
Facilities that dispose or process mixed C&D debris are required to :
• Obtain a permit from the FDEP .
• Construct and operate a groundwater quality monitoring system and report
the results to FDEP
• Comply with the financial assurance requirements for closure and long term
care
• Inspect incoming C&D debris loads to identify and exclude contaminated
loads
Some types of C&D debris are considered clean debris and are not regulated under 62-
701 .
3.2 Typical C&D Debris Management in Florida
C&D debris is most commonly managed via one of two mechanisms. The first is
disposal in a landfill. Several different types of landfills may be permitted to operate in
Florida. C&D debris generators and waste haulers have the option of disposing of C&D
debris in Class I lined landfills (those typically used for household and commercial
MSW), and/or in unlined C&D debris landfills .
A second option for management of C&D debris is processing at a materials recovery
facility . A number of facilities in Florida are permitted to accept C&D debris, process it
to recover saleable commodities, and then haul the non- recoverable material for
disposal in an appropriate landfill . The layout of these facilities varies depending on
operator, location, and objectives of the facility. Typical operations include separation
of large or easily recoverable items tip front, screening to remove soil, and separation
using a combination of manual labor and mechanical equipment. The major
commodities recovered include wood, concrete, metal, cardboard, and soil.
JR70184 4 7/13/2007
Geos}mtec Consultants
3.3 C&D Debris Management in Indian River County
The SWDD Board approach to the management of C&D debris is to encourage
recovery, recycling and reuse in order to minimize the quantities of material requiring
landfill disposal . Mixed C&D debris loads delivered for landfill disposal are charged a
disposal fee of $31 . 80 per ton by the SWDD . Generators of C&D debris can reduce
their cost by separating recyclables such as scrap metal and cardboard from mixed loads
and delivering them to the designated recycling area at the County landfill site, free of
charge. In addition, generators can also deliver clean concrete and/ or clean soil to the
landfill site at a reduced fee of $3 . 00 per ton.
Mixed C&D loads arriving at the landfill site for disposal are weighed at the scalehouse
for both gross and tare values in order to determine the disposal fee amount. The loads
are also inspected at the scalehouse by an overhead camera for the presence of
prohibited material . Contaminated loads are directed to the working face of the Class I
landfill for disposal . Acceptable loads are directed to the working face of the C&D
landfill where FDEP trained spotters verify the absence of prohibited materials. If a load
is determined to be unacceptable, it is reloaded on the truck and directed to the Class I
area for final deposition. Acceptable loads are spread and compacted on the working
face of the C&D landfill in compliances with FDEP toles.
Most C&D debris processing facilities in Florida are privately owned and operated.
They derive their revenues from disposal fees assessed on incoming loads and revenues
derived from the sale of recovered materials. Such facilities usually compete with local
landfills for available C&D debris loads by charging disposal fees slightly below the
landfills rates. Because disposal fees represent a significant share of their operating
income, these facilities are usually located in or near counties with high C&D debris
landfill disposal charges . Because of the relatively high disposal fee charged by the
SWDD for landfilling C&D debris, the economics of a competing material recovery
facility at Indian River County is highly favorable. The SWDD has been contacted on
numerous occasions by private entities regarding the feasibility of establishing a C&D
recycling operation within Indian River County. In the event that such a facility
commences operation at or near Indian River County, the quantity of C&D debris
available for landfill disposal would be a factor that could make a separate disposal
operation economically unattractive.
JR70184 5 7/13/2007
Ge syntec Consultants
4. QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF C&D DEBRIS
Unlike MSW generation which varies directly with the County population, C&D debris
generation depends also on the rate of growth of the County. More C&D debris is
generated per capita during periods of high growth than when the growth is low. Figure
3 shows the monthly quantities of MSW and C&D debris delivered for landfill disposal
during the period April 2006 through March 2007 based on SWDD ' s disposal records .
This period was selected to demonstrate the impact of the slow down of construction in
the County on the generation of the two types of waste. It can be seen that MSW
generation rate is fairly stable with the exception of the winter effect caused by the
transient nature of the County's population. More MSW is generated during the winter
months than in the summer period. The C&D debris generation rate; however, shows a
clear decline over the period under consideration because of the steep decline in
construction activity in the County.
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris includes concrete, asphalt (pavement and
shingles), wood, gypsum drywall, and metal . These are primary construction materials .
Mix C&D debris also includes smaller amounts of other materials such as packaging
(paper, plastic, buckets), carpet scraps, and insulation. While not in the strict regulatory
definition of C&D debris, materials such as municipal solid waste (originating from
worker and neighbor waste) and hazardous waste (e. g. lead flashings, fluorescent
lamps) also are present in C&D debris. C&D debris is generated from many sources and
the waste varies as a function of these sources (e. g. building vs . road constriction,
construction vs. demolition, residential construction vs. commercial construction) . A
2003 report of the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management ( 1 )
describes a detailed study to characterize Florida' s C&D debris stream . Table 1
summarizes the results of this study. Materials categorized as other include : paper,
plastic, MSW, carpet, insulation, buckets, vegetative material and dirt . Table 2 presents
a list of materials observed in mixed C&D debris.
Demolition debris in particular is known to contain hazardous constituents. Materials
that may result in possible risk to human health and the environmental often found in
demolition debris include lamps, thermostats, and light switches containing mercury;
batteries from exit signs, emergency lights, and smoke alarms that may contain lead and
a radiological component; lighting ballasts which contain polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) ; and lead pipes and roof vent flashings (2).
JR70184 6 7/13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
5, LEACHATE FROM LAND DISPOSED RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION WASTE
Presently, the SWDD disposes C&D debris in unlined landfills . The leachate created
from the interaction of C&D waste with rainfall or groundwater may contain trace
amounts of hazardous chemicals. Sources of such chemicals include solvents and
adhesives, as well as the primary construction material themselves. While the chemicals
leaching from materials such as wood, drywall and concrete are not typically toxic, they
can contribute to an overall degradation of groundwater quality. Simulated leachate
from C&D debris containing drywalls was found to exceed the secondary maximum
contaminant levels for drinking water for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and sulfate (3 ).
Also, sulfides were formed from the conversion of sulfate by sulfate-reducing bacteria
under the unsaturated and anaerobic conditions.
In another study of the quality of C&D debris leachate, which included both laboratory
and field tests, leachate generated from C&D debris was found to be turbid and black in
color and contained a strong hydrogen sulfide odor (4). The source of sulfate was
believed to be the dissolution of gypsum drywall (CaSO4 2H2O). Also, aluminum, iron,
and manganese were detected in all of the leachate samples. Arsenic, chromium,
copper, and lead were also routinely detected. The most likely source of arsenic ,
chromium, and copper was chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood. CCA-
treated wood was a common construction component in Florida. Trace organic
compounds may be found in paint thinners, stains, motor oils, plastics and paints, which
are not uncommon, but occasionally observed in the construction waste stream.
6. COST COMPARISON OF C&D DEBRIS DISPOSAL IN AN UNLINED
LANDFILL VS. CO-DISPOSAL IN A CLASS I LANDFILL
The methodology of the cost comparison study of the two C&D debris landfill disposal
alternatives includes the following steps:
I . Estimate the landfill capacity of Cell 2 for commingled waste
2 . Estimate the cost of constructing Cell 2 as a Class I landfill
3 . Estimate the Closure cost of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill
4. Estimate the operation and maintenance cost of Cell 2 as a Class I
landfill
5 . Compute a $/ton cost estimate for construction and operation and
maintenance of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill
JR70184 7 7/13/2007
Geosyntee Consultants
6 . Estimate the operation and maintenance cost of Cell 2 as an unlined
C&D landfill
7 . Compare the estimated costs of the two disposal alternatives based on
monthly delivery records of April 2006 through March 2007 .
A summary of the first 6 steps can be found in Table 1 .
Figure 2 presents a comparison of landfill disposal costs of the two alternatives. The
results indicate that the economics of a particular landfill disposal method depends on
the amount of C&D debris delivered for landfilling. A breakeven quantity of C&D
debris was estimated from the intersection point of the two lines to be approximately
7750 ton per month. Separate C&D debris disposal in an unlined landfill is more costly
to SWDD than the codisposal approach in a lined Class I landfill below the breakeven
quantity (December 2006 through March 2007) and less costly above the breakeven
value (April 2006 through November 2006).
Figure 3 presents a cost comparison of the two landfill disposal alternatives for three
projections of annual quantities of C&D debris deliveries to the landfill, calculated for
95 percent confidence limits, designated : low, average and high projections . The
computations are based on SWDD records of annual landfill disposal volumes
consumed by C&D debris from 1996 through 2004 and population projections (5). The
projections are based on an average per capita C&D debris generation rate of 1098
pound and a standard deviation of 233 pound (see Appendix C) . The results indicate
that the codisposal approach would be more cost effective for the entire period of the
low projection scenario; for the first 13 year of the average projection scenario and after
the first 10 year of the high projection scenario. With the high projection scenario, it is
assumed that the SWDD would have to periodically increase its operating budget under
the separate disposal alternative to add equipment and operating personal to handle the
large increase in C&D waste stream. This analysis assumes that such budget increase
would occur every sixth year at an annual rate of 20 percent.
Since historical records of SWDD indicate that the quantities of C&D debris generated
in the County are more likely to follow the low to average projections, the codisposal
alternative where C&D debris is landfilled in a Class I facility commingled with MSW
will be the less costly disposal approach for SWDD.
JR70184 8 7/13/2007
Geosyntee Consultants
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of C&D debris disposal in a
dedicated unlined landfill with those of co-disposal of C&D debris and MSW in a lined,
Class I landfill . Florida rules approve both methods of disposal and each landfill
facility owner can select the one most appropriate to their circumstances. Presently, the
SWDD employs the separate disposal alternative whereby C&D debris is disposed of in
an unlined C&D landfill operated by SWDD staff. MSW is disposed off in a lined,
Class I landfill operated by Waste Management under a seven (7) year operating
agreement with the SWDD Board. The cost for construction and operation of the
unlined C&D landfill is determined by the SWDD ' s annual budget, which is required to
fund all labor, equipment and administration expenses associated with this facility. The
total cost for operating the Class I landfill consists of construction and closure expenses
including long term care, estimated at $6 . 87 per ton landfill capacity; and the operation
and maintenance cost determined by the disposal fee, which is defined by the operating
agreement, and the quantity of MSW delivered for disposal.
The economic analysis results indicate that the cost advantage or disadvantage of a
particular method of disposal depends on the quantity of C&D waste delivered to the
landfill . The SWDD funding method of an annual budget is less costly only when the
quantity of C&D debris delivered for landfill disposal exceeds a minimum value. For
the SWDD operating budget, this critical quantity is estimated at approximately 93 ,000
tons per year and is projected statistically to be reached in 2018 . Below this amount, it
would be less costly to co-dispose the C&D debris in the Class I landfill along with
MSW . The County could still experience years with C&D debris in excess of the
critical amount prior to 2018 due to the occurrences of uncontrollable events such as
hurricanes or periods of exceptionally high economic growth. However, based on past
records, such quantities cannot be sustained by the projected County population until
2018 .
The estimated crossover year of 2018 could change by any of the following events :
• Different population growth rate. Higher rate of growth would advance the
crossover year whereas a lower rate would distance it.
• Change in operating cost of the Class I landfill . Increase in the contract fee
to WM would advance the crossover year.
• Establishment of a competing C&D debris recovery facility would distance
the crossover year.
JR70184 9 7/ 13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
Finally, the disposal of C&D debris in an unlined landfill poses a potential risk to
groundwater quality. There is significant evidence in published reports to the presence
of prohibited constituents in C&D debris loads. The two step screening process
employed at the SWDD landfill may not be sufficient to ensure their complete removal
from the waste stream prior to landfilling. Such material could be transported from the
landfill waste by rain water, potentially contaminating groundwater in the absence of a
liner. This was confirmed in several published reports of studies that examined the
quality and characteristics of leachate from landfilled C&D waste. Such leachate was
always found to contain elevated concentration of aluminum, iron, and manganese and,
to a lesser degree, concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, and lead.
Based on this study results it can be concluded that the economic advantages of separate
C&D debris disposal in an unlined landfill are not certain while there is a potential risk
to groundwater contamination. It is, therefore, recommended that SWDD discontinue
the separate disposal of C&D debris in an unlined landfill, as soon as practical, and
replace it with co-disposal in a lined Class I landfill commingled with MSW.
JR70184 10 7/ 13/2007
Geosyntec Consultants
8. REFERENCES
1 . "Recommended Management Practices for the Removal of Hazardous Materials
from Buildings Prior to Demolition, 2nd Edition, " T. Townsend, 8/04,
#0232009-04
2 . "Characteristics of Leachate from Construction and Demolition Waste
Landfills, " Timothy Townsend, 8/98, #98-4
3 . " Continued Research into the Characteristics of Leachate from Construction
and Demolition Waste Landfills," Timothy Townsend, 7/00, #00-04
4. "Leachate from Land Disposed Residential Construction Waste," J. Envir.
Engrg., Volume 128, Issue 3 , pp. 237-245 (March 2002)
5 . "Solid Waste Management Plan , 2007 Update & Capital Improvement Plan,
Solid Waste Management Plan , 2007 Update & Capital Improvement Plan,"
Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), Indian River County, Florida
JR70184 11 7/ 13/2007
SatZSvZ
Table 1 . Comparison of Composition Results
Composition Predicted Composition Estimate
Using Generation Statistics Using Composition Results
Component and Literature Composition from Field Studies, by
Values, by weight weight
Concrete 54.2% 32 .4%
Wood 13 .6% 14. 8%
Drywall 11 .4% 11 . 7%
Asphalt Roofing 6.9% 6. 1 %
Metal 2 . 8% 5.4%
Other* 11 .2% 29.7%
*Materials categorized as other include : paper, plastic, MSW, carpet, insulation, buckets,
vegetative material and dirt.
FL0996\Table 1
Table 2 . Items Observed in Residential Construction Waste Loads
Alcohol solvents Diapers Metal fencing Roofing tar
Asphalt Dirt Metal molding Scrap lumber
Beverage bottles Drywall Metal straps Sealant Tubes
Bricks Electrical wire Mortar Shingles
Carburetor air Empty motor oil paint cans Stucco
filter bottles
Cardboard Empty paint cans Paint thinner Styrofoam
Carpet Empty paper Pap er Thick elastic
concrete bags asphalt-asbestos
Carpet Padding Fiberglass insulation Particle board Used motor oil
filters
Caulk tubes Food containers Plywood Vinyl acrylic
masonry filler
Ceramic Tile Food waste Polyurethane Wood pallets
Cinder blocks Land clearing debris PVC pipe Wood stains
FL0996%Table 2
Table 3. Summary of Steps 1 through 6 of Cost Comparison
Step # Description Value Reference
1 Cell 2 capacity 2, 131 ,526 ton Appendix A
2 Construction Cost $ 12 ,646,000 $383 ,00 /acre
33 acre SWDD Master Plan
3 Closure Cost $ 1 ,991 ,000 $391 ,000/acre
5 acre SWDD Master Plan
4 O&M Cost Class I $8 , 50/ton Waste Management
Landfill Agreement
5 Total Cost $/ton $ 15 . 37 (4)+[(2)+(3)]/( 1 )
Class I Landfill
6 Annual O&M Cost $ 1 ,432,000 SWDD 2006-07
C&D Landfill Budget Appendix B
FL0996\Table 3
w
It
WINEi €x
VtV
y d
w
n= fix .
t IIVI I,
VY tk
Kt
Q. ! - pUM FNJW I9 -
E w v c U
W %-
u.
ix
> '
LU
- . - -- a
3
y ' I-
I
Z4444 -.x t � _ a� 1It
� '.
LUT
V- [- € Oa7
�W mom4'p
'
- a 1 ,
.!
CL
�.
vv
m JE
� � � ✓ � =lz
1 .
11 a
r
Figure 2.
Monthly Variation of Per Capita Generation Rates for MSW and C&D Debris
7.00
6.50
6.00
l
5.50
R
o
5 .00
U
a
'I
4.50
` I
4 .00
3.50
3 .00
Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07
Month
t MSW –r– C&D Debris — Linear (MSW) — Linear (C&D Debris)
— M n
0 0
`m
� o
� LL
I
N n
a � �
c �
R
U
v �
d
c_
C � o
c � N
R � 1TN
O y 1
R U O m
U E y
M o N C N
R I � O
3 O o m o
LL N
U
a
m � a
� i N
o
c
0
R N c
6 �
O
V N o
0 N N
V
N Or
o a
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N C6 O a N O c6
RA
69 fR fA fA fA f9
UO;(4'
i
y N
d
L
t
W C C
O o 0
a`
0 3 s
Al I
O 0 m
� n n
12 T
Y
C
U Y d d
� C1' m vi
c N
m � i
a a �
OI CL �- N
LL to °� o
U � a
c 46 °
N i >
m � i o
m m
O a
4 m ❑
N I a o m
co
N '
d
E 1
O
U
I
0
0
O O O O O O O O N
O O O O O O O O
N O 47 O L6 O � O
(uoug) isoo lesodsia