HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-299A r
Prepared for:
F.RC
T O�
*' Indian River County
r 'tors o* Solid Waste Disposal District
132574 1h Avenue Southwest
" Vero Beach, Florida 32968
LANDFILL CONSOLIDATION STUDY
w
REPORT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LANDFILL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Prepared by:
Geosyntec
consultants
engineers I scientists I inriwitors
r 2258 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
r
Project Number FL0996
August 2007
M
w
r
r
r
Geosyntec Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
M1 . 1 Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
1 .2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 3 Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
r
2 . IRC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1
r
3 . C&D DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 . 1 Florida C&D Debris Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
r 3 . 2 Typical C&D Debris Management in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . 3 C&D Debris Management in Indian River County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
r
4. QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF C&D DEBRIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
r 5 . LEACHATE FROM C&D DEBRIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
_ 6. COST COMPARISON OF C&D DEBRIS DISPOSAL IN AN UNLINED LANDFILL
VS . CO-DISPOSAL IN A CLASS I LANDFILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1
+� 7 . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
_ REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
LIST OF TABLES
r
Table 1 Comparison of Composition Results
Table 2 Items Observed in Residential Construction Waste Loads
Table 3 Summary of Steps 1 through 6 of Cost Comparison
r
r
r
FL0996-03i1L70184_08-10-2007.doc.doc 2-i 100708- 10
ae
r
r
r Geosyntec Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
r
LIST OF FIGURES
r
Figure 1 Site Plan
Figure 2 Proposed Future Expansion/Development of IRCL Facility
Figure 3 Monthly Variations of Per Capita Generation Rates for MSW and C&D Debris
Figure 4 Cost Comparison of C&D Debris Disposal in Class I and Unlined C&D Landfills
Figure 5 Comparison of Disposal Cost Between Separate and Co-disposal Operations for
Three Projections of C&D Debris Quantities
LIST OF APPENDICES
r
Appendix A Cell 2 Capacity Calculations
Appendix B SWDD's Annual C&D Landfill Operating Costs
r Appendix C C&D Debris Quantities and Cost Projections
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
FL0996-031JL70184 08- 10-2007.docAm 2-ii 2007-08- 10
r
r
r
Geosyntec Consultants
M 1 . INTRODUCTION
1 . 1 Terms of Reference
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) has prepared this Landfill Consolidation Study Report
(report) for the proposed Segment 3 , Class I landfill at the Indian River County Landfill (IRCL)
r facility located in Vero Beach, Florida. The IRCL facility, which is owned by the Indian River
County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), presently utilizes separate disposal
approach to construction and demolition (C&D) debris and municipal solid waste (MSW) or
r Class I waste. This approach allows the IRCL facility to dispose of C &D debris 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 debris and MSW in a lined, Class I landfill .
The report was prepared in response to a request from Mr. Erik Olsen, P . E. , Director of
r Utilities and Mr. Himanshu H . Mehta, P.E ., Interim Managing Director of SWDD 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 Goldshmid, as a consultant to
i` Geosyntec, and was reviewed by Dr. Kwasi Badu-Tweneboah, P. E. , of Geosyntec.
1 .2 Backeround
The SWDD operates and maintains two separate landfill systems including: (i) a Class I
,., landfill ; and (ii) a C&D disposal facility. All MSW is delivered for disposal at the Class I
landfill . The C&D disposal facility is restricted only to inert debris that originates from
construction and demolition activities. Each of the landfill systems is subject to a different set
r of Florida rules and regulations, which govern its construction, operation, closure, and long
term care. Class I landfills can accept for disposal most types of solid waste, including C&D
debris. They must, however, require the construction and operation of a liner and leachate
r
collection and removal system that include a piping network to prevent or minimize
groundwater contamination. Class I landfills may also be required to install and operate an
., active landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) to control odor and to minimize the
risk of accidental fire and/or explosion. C&D disposal facilities in Florida are currently exempt
from the requirements to actively collect and control leachate and landfill gas but are restricted
to disposal of inert debris only.
_ It is generally accepted that C&D debris 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 or containment system as MSW. Nevertheless, land disposal of C&D debris does
r
FL0996-03/JL70184_08- 10-2007.doc.doc 2-1 2007-08-10
r
r
a
Ceosyntec Consultants
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 co-disposing it commingled
with MSW in a lined Class I landfill . The principal drawbacks of the co-disposal approach are
the high capital and the operating and maintenance costs of the Class 1 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
r comparison with unlined C&D landfills.
r.
1 .3 Omanization of Report
The remainder of this Landfill Consolidation Study Report is organized as follows :
r.
• 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.
r.
r
FL0996-03/JL70184 08-10-2007_doc.doc 2-2 200708- 10
r —
r
r
Ceosyntec Consultants
r 2. IRC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The latest update of the IRC solid waste management master plan [Neel-Schaffer, 2007] , 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 (see Figure 1 ) :
` • Existing 59-acre Class I landfill consisting of Segments 1 and 2, and an Infill;
r • Existing 22- acre unlined C&D disposal facility — Cell 1 , currently inactive;
• New 33 -acre unlined C&D disposal facility — Cell 2, recently permitted and under
construction; and
• New 44- acre lined Class I landfill — Segment 3 , currently under design and
r permitting.
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 disposed in the lined Segment 3 and C&D debris in the
unlined Cell 2 . The C&D disposal facility Cell 2 has a projected useful life of 18 years
compared with the 26-year capacity projected for the Class I landfill Segment 3 . Two
additional infills are also proposed between Segment 3 of the Class I landfill and each of the
r two C&D 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 six years of
additional disposal capacity for the County. Further disposal of C&D debris, after the
` completion of Cell 2, will have to be in a Class I landfill commingled with MSW .
r Under a co -disposal scenario, Cell 2 , presently scheduled for operation as a C&D disposal
facility, 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 disposal facility 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 co-disposal approach is the high capital and operating costs of
the Class 1 landfill in comparison with those of a C&D disposal facility. These, however,
r would be offset by the savings that would result from the discontinued operation of the separate
FL0996-03/JL70184 08- 10-2007.doe.doe 2-1 2007-08- 10
r
r Geosyntec Consultants
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.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
FI-0996-03tl1,70184 0840-2007.doc.doc 2-2 2007-08-10
r
r
r
Geosyntec Consultants
M 3. C&D DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
3 . 1 Florida C&D Debris Regulations
r
C&D debris is defined and regulated in Florida under Chapter 62- 701 of the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A. C .) . This regulation provides facility design, permitting, operation,
monitoring, closure and post-closure care requirements under Rule 62- 701 . 730, F.A . C . Rule
62-701 . 200(27), F .A. C. defines construction and demolition debris as
r
" . . . discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-
hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt
,. material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of
structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a
structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from
01 the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains,
and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land
_ development operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic,
wood, and metal scraps from a construction project; effective January 1, 1997, except
as provided in Section 403. 707(12) 6), F. S. , unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from
facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their
components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and
pallets are separated,from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such
wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to
minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de
minimis amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at construction or
r demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management
practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and
r demolition debris with other tvpes of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other
than construction and demolition debris. . . "
+� Facilities that dispose or process mixed C&D debris are required to (Rule 62-701 . 730, FAC) :
• Obtain a permit from the FDEP ; which requires submission of a permit application
and fees, including response(s) to FDEP requests for additional information (RAIs)
and public hearings, if necessary;
r
• Construct and manage a groundwater quality monitoring system and report the
results to FDEP that usually involves sampling, laboratory analytical testing and
r reporting of groundwater quality on a semi-annual basis;
FW996-03/11.70184 08- 10-2007.doc.doc 3- 1 2007-08- 10
r
r Geosyntec Consultants
• Comply with the financial assurance requirements for closure and long term post-
closure care (typically for five years); and
• Inspect incoming C&D debris loads to identify and exclude prohibited items from
being disposed into the facility.
Some types of C&D debris are considered clean debris and are not regulated under Chapter 62-
701 , FAC.
r
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 : (i) lined
Class I landfills (those typically used for household and commercial MSW) ; (ii) lined or
unlined Class III landfills (typically used for C&D debris and yard trash); and/or unlined C&D
debris disposal facilities . The FDEP is currently proposing changes to the solid waste
regulations (Chapter 62-701 , FAC) which will include the requirement for all Class III landfills
to be lined. Also, the current and proposed regulations require the owner or operator of a
proposed C&D disposal facility to demonstrate the need not to line the facility during the
_ permitting process.
A second option for management of C&D debris is processing at a materials recovery facility
(MRF) . A number of MRFs in Florida are permitted to accept C&D debris, process it to
recover saleable commodities or recyclable components, 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 up front, screening to remove soil, and separation using a
i combination of manual labor and mechanical equipment. The major commodities recovered
include wood, concrete, metal, aluminum cans, paper, cardboard , and soil .
r 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.
FL0996-03"JL70184 08-10-2007.doc.doc 3-2 2007-08- 10
r —
r
r
r
Geosyntec Consultants
Mixed C&D loads arriving at the landfill site for disposal are weighed at the scale house for
r both gross and tare values in order to determine the disposal fee amount. The loads are also
inspected at the scale house 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 .
r Acceptable loads are directed to the working face of the C&D disposal facility where FDEP
trained spotters verify the absence of prohibited materials . If a load is determined to be
unacceptable, it is reloaded onto the truck and directed to the Class I landfill area for final
disposal . Acceptable loads are spread and compacted on the working face of the C&D landfill
in compliance with FDEP operation requirements as specified in the permit.
r
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 MRF 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.
r
r
it
r
FL0996-03/JL70184 d
08- 10-2007_doc. cx
r — 3-; 2007-08- 10
r Geosyntec Consultants
M 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 disposal at the IRCL facility 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
r 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.
r
As previously defined in Section 3 . 1 , C&D debris includes concrete, asphalt (pavement and
shingles), wood, gypsum drywall , and metal . These are primary construction materials. Mixed
r C&D debris also includes smaller amounts of other materials, such as packaging (paper, plastic,
and cardboards), carpet scraps, and insulation. While not in the strict regulatory definition of
C&D debris, materials, such as unauthorized dumping of MSW and small quantities of
hazardous waste (e. g. lead flashings, fluorescent lamps) by workers and nearby households
into C&D debris dedicated roll-off containers are also present in C&D debris .
r
C&D debris is generated from many sources and the waste stream varies as a function of these
sources (e. g. building construction vs. road construction, construction vs. demolition,
r residential construction vs . commercial construction) . A 2003 report of the Florida Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management describes a detailed study to characterize Florida' s
C&D debris stream [Townsend„ 2004] . 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 [Townsend et al . , 1998 and 2000] .
r
FLO996-03/7L70184_08- 10-2007.doc.doc 4- 1 2007-08-10
r Geosyntec Consultants
S . LEACHATE FROM C&D DEBRIS
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 . (This leachate is presently not collected and tested due to the lack of
liner and leachate collection system underneath the C&D disposal facility cells at the IRCL
facility.) 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 (MCLS) for drinking water for Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS ) and sulfate [Townsend et al, 2000] . Also, sulfides were formed from
the conversion of sulfate by sulfate-reducing bacteria under the unsaturated and anaerobic
r
conditions.
In another study of the quality of C&D debris leachate, which included laboratory and field
r tests, leachate generated from C&D debris was found to be turbid and black in color and
contained a strong hydrogen sulfide odor [Townsend, 2002] . 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, which used to be a common construction
material in Florida [Hinkley, 2003 ] . As part of the proposed rule changes, proper CCA-treated
management and practices, that includes sorting and removal from the waste loads, will be
r. required at all unlined C&D disposal facilities in Florida. Trace organic compounds may be
found in paint thinners, stains, motor oils, plastics and paints, which are uncommon, but
occasionally observed in the construction waste stream .
r
FL0996-03UL70184_08- 10-2007.doc.doc 5- 1 2007-08-10
r
— Geosyntec Consultants
- 6. COST COMPARISON OF C&D DEBRIS DISPOSAL IN AN UNLINED
LANDFILL VS. CO-DISPOSAL IN A CLASS I LANDFILL
The approach used for the cost comparison study of the two C&D debris disposal alternatives
includes the following steps :
r
1 . Estimate the landfill capacity of Cell 2 for commingled waste;
r 2. Estimate the cost of constructing Cell 2 as a Class I landfill ;
3 . Estimate the closure and post-closure care costs of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill ;
4. Estimate the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill;
5 . Compute a $/ton cost estimate for construction and O&M of Cell 2 as a Class I landfill ;
- 6. Estimate the O&M cost of Cell 2 as an unlined C&D disposal facility; and
7 . Compare the estimated costs of the two disposal alternatives based on monthly delivery
- records from April 2006 through March 2007.
_ A summary of the first six steps is presented in Table 1 .
Figure 2 presents a comparison of the disposal costs of the two alternatives. The results indicate
,. that the economics of a particular 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 7,750 tons per month. Separate C&D
debris disposal in an unlined landfill is more costly to SWDD than the co-disposal approach in
a lined Class I landfill below the breakeven quantity (i .e. , from December 2006 through March
2007) and less costly above the breakeven value (i . e. , April 2006 through November 2006) .
r
Figure 3 presents a cost comparison of the two disposal alternatives for three projections of
,,. annual quantities of C&D debris deliveries to the IRCL facility, The three projections are
designated as: low, average and high projections, and are calculated for 95 percent confidence
limits, based on SWDD records of annual landfill disposal volumes consumed by C&D debris
from 1996 through 2004 and population projections [Neel- Schaffer, 2007] . The projections are
based on an annual average per capita C&D debris generation rate of 1098 pound with a
standard deviation of 233 pound (see Appendix C) . The results indicate that the co-disposal
-
approach would be more cost effective : (i) for the entire period of the low projection scenario ;
— FL0996-03/7L70184_08-10-2007_dm.do 6- 1 2007-08-10
—
r
r, Geosyntec Consultants
(ii) for the first 13 years of the average projection scenario; and (iii) after the first 10 years 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
r to add equipment and operating personnel to handle the large increase in C&D debris stream .
This analysis assumes that such budget increase would occur every sixth year at an annual rate
of 20 percent.
r
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 co -disposal alternative
where C &D debris is disposed in a Class I facility commingled with MSW will be the less
costly disposal approach for SWDD.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r FL0996-03/1L70183_08-10-2007.doc.doc 6-2 2007-08-10
r
r
Geo syntec -Consultants
r 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of C&D debris disposal in a dedicated
r� 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 or operator can
select the one most appropriate to their circumstances. Presently, the SWDD employs the
r separate disposal alternatives 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
r Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF) 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
r disposal fee, which is defined by the operating agreement, and the quantity of MSW delivered
for disposal.
r
The results of the economic analysis indicate that the cost advantage or disadvantage of a
particular method of disposal depends on the quantity of C&D debris delivered to the IRCL
r facility. The SWDD funding mechanism of an annual budget is less costly only when the
quantity of C&D debris delivered for 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 1 landfill along with MSW . The County could still
r 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
r 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 — Increasing the contract fee to WMIF
- would advance the crossover year.
• Establishment of a competing C&D debris recovery facility would distance the
r
crossover year.
FL0996-03UL70184 08- 10-200Zdoc_doc 7- 1 2007-08- 10
r
r
Geosyntec Consultants
r
- Finally, the disposal of C&D debris in an unlined landfill poses a potential risk to groundwater
quality. There is significant evidence from published reports of the potential presence of
prohibited constituents in C&D debris loads. The two step screening process employed at the
` SWDD facility may not be sufficient to ensure the complete removal of prohibited materials
from the waste stream prior to landfilling. Such material could migrate from the landfilled
- 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 debris. 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 .
r 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
r, 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.
r
r
r
r
r
r
FL0996-03/J L-70184_08- 10-2007.doc.doc 7-2 2007-08- 10
r
r
r
r Geosvntec Consultants
REFERENCES
r
Hinkley, W. "Regulatory Concerns with the Management and Disposal of CCA -Treated
Wood ", Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL Jul 2003 .
Neel-Schaeffer, Inc., "Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007 Update & Five- Year Capital
r Improvement Plan", Prepared for Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD), Indian River County,
Florida, Mar 2007.
Townsend, T. G. , "Recommended Management Practices ,for the Removal of Hazardous
Materials from Buildings Prior to Demolition ", 2 "d Edition, Report #0232009-04, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL Aug 2004.
r
Townsend, T. G., "Leachate from Land Disposed Residential Construction Waste", Journal
Environmental Engineering, Vol . 128, Issue 3, ASCE, Mar 2002, pp . 237-245
r
Townsend, T. G., Jang, Y. C . and Weber, W. , " Continued Research into the Characteristics of
_ Leachate from Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills ", Report #00-04, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2000.
r Townsend, T. G., Jang, Y. C . , and Weber, W., "Characteristics of Leachate from Construction
and Demolition Waste Landfills, " Report #98-4, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Aug
1998 .
r
r
r
r
r
r
FL0996-011L70184 08-10-2007.doc.doc R-1 8/ 10/2007
r
r
r
i
r
r TABLES
r
i
r
i
Table 1 . Comparison of Composition Results
Composition Predicted Composition Estimate
Using Generation Statistics Using Composition Results
r Component and Literature Composition from Field Studies, by
Values, by weight weight
irr
Concrete 54.2% 32 .4%
r Wood 13 . 6% 14. 8 %
Drywall 11 . 4% 11 . 7%
r
Asphalt Roofing 6 . 9% 6. 1 %
�. Metal 2 . 8% 5 .4%
Other* 11 . 2% 29 . 7%
r
*Materials categorized as other include: paper, plastic, MSW, carpet, insulation, buckets,
vegetative material and dirt.
r
r
r
.. FL0996\Table 1
r
r
Table 2 . Items Observed in Residential Construction Waste Loads
Alcohol solvents Diapers Metal fencing Roofing tar
r Asphalt Dirt Metal molding Scrap lumber
Beverage bottles Drywall Metal straps Sealant Tubes
r
Bricks Electrical wire Mortar Shingles
Carburetor air Empty motor oil
Paint cans Stucco
filter bottles
Cardboard Empty paint cans Paint thinner Styrofoam
r
Carpet Empty paper Paper Thick elastic
concrete bags p asphalt-asbestos
Carpet Padding Fiberglass insulation Particle board Used motor oil
filters
r 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
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
FL0996ATable 2
r
r Table 3. Summary of Steps 1 through 6 of Cost Comparison
Step # Description Value Reference
r
1 Cell 2 capacity 2, 131 , 526 ton Appendix A
r 2 Construction Cost $ 12,646,000 5383 ,000/acre
33 acre SWDD Master Plan
3 Closure Cost $ 1 ,991 ,000 $391 , 000/acre
r 5 acre SWDD Master Plan
4 O&M Cost Class I Waste Management
Landfill $ 8 . 50/ton
Agreement
Total Cost $/ton
5 $ 15 . 37 (4)+ [(2)+ (3)]/( 1 )
Class I Landfill
r 6 Annual O&M Cost $ 1 ,432 ,000 SWDD 2006-07
C&D Landfill Budget Appendix B
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
FL09W`Fable 3
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
FIGURES
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
CURRENTLY PERMITTED CONDITIONS +� r
R7 i 3 I 3t p �4 . r �pi ,
b�
" r
v 1 t $kb �x < cC�rr ,� 'K!`iy �r ar � ap�+ ,� dP� e !{y.� r � ; F s ' +`' rtw , VVI Y
a �
EMERGENCYr� n
4 ACRES
N
1
a °` t g. \ r rc �t ! i� r !. � ` r ' • ri, llitt41„��k ,Y, yyg _r�'6'n'x�i4,. . ' �, r 4 . s Ikn
.. „.r�" `
rmr ww n a sr .a` .rrr4 uur : . i +� .
r '"a" � G�t a; t !p n • ��kT y� "'u d ��! w�" +'FHM ��y ? fq $! r� 4 ,rig �.. 'xW �§aK,' ! ,^�' ^'3axB`
xtn�.j I
. r. r•,` t � . an t + y�. "Y k �;ha k t' u �; ti)j �: :F'a" id -� 'e' "5�em°'Fr��"" 3 ^. '" .NR fr. '^ i"}
$' + ial°P ./�C iS2a'��P�w� �aRk" +wt._#Mc�
It
r . * Vil
t 3
r r � 1S VII4 Wp
I
m EXISTING CLASS I LANDFILL
—; —
59ACRESk"
II tYt ` `
Ii �fi 9 Auk -o
nS 3t II i
f " I (a '1
17
k4!st t
> x
` ,.
y� q r
Y 'S4
a I i I ' Ij t
tgr X ro . ^
Vi
I
ZiI
Ij �+� `.• a� � +yw�+r � , i ' QEXISTING � I � Iki i V
r _ , .x • ". I t :M4�(wz4 � Y -'*wit C`tlq` ,5 ' ' ` STORMWATER t r �` wl F �,.''�° «' " ',
, " '. ' LL
ei, !� 8 ALANDCRIES I lilli + ... .IVI
a PONDI, " 4Yj
Ve A.,.. ,� I l l � t
�' . k�"A"'i tap
�1
gg .... ".:. 1 N^•• . I rl
L"�kTF"'.. rF xro +n 'rN �. +n !(,fpcA,mm r w. VlV
.e:
4xx fi r1" ' r RS'I6t( 1 ' "u x4 � r 7< w
r6rt a�� p a nw' .! M t 6 r n ,�Nro a r b� It
r
{ P ` + 4 r i "�,� ate'
k � krtr qi tt k p .� Y. k ° sl rk «t1'rW ,q r^ is
a {ypir
x . r-` w r w
, I as �( S0.E hkl % . 4 1 rFt Y( 6 tt( pp ��krbyA' e "'! a ( 1 s � � terx4w-
it
FG r 'iAs .- ti as i, rk a Yt "t .ya
ry - ' ! t{{
t 0 � • yj k ai i . P tb4a rn . .�1 y� d�� y I ii f E - r to rNd. w' 4b u .b
r
� Ick n , �:°I V, SIT v t t { h e Y� j I a �+ M"'" > 0 300 600
aC �(f I PL � ki w > $k'r i e isa a ° a �t tr h r Ci >w1L �f r t r s vv g
� qq a
R� ' ! a �Yf ?k i ,4' a� " L1ll. V IL. aF ,Y,- dx . "� 7i !' �`el ! _ I .� 5 9 .� � g t .S"" a � rc
xrr r, r r Feet
u
21 Ir AF71
� r� PHASE II DEVELOPMENTIf
t ;
C ASSINF Itis
,
I INFILL EXPANSION
vr � !t 15 i J .,....w. � � �� x � r �` �� i � 1 � � r
5 BIQSOLIDS w i ` y
�s
y �3i r! �.. �, °" i
� ' ; Y "f k,:11 1 � DEWATERING t e, � , � E k r , � , J "
, n
IFACILITYAREA y a I y �ryy
1 .2RF1NF"vR"� 1 r : f l 5 T:
d �bJq' # ? l' r 11
d by
'S § YnSF� .•M. 'y!. } a.; • "-. ti -abrtkw ,�4 w �. w .»,.cx taw.r. ,,m .i.:,v 1.Y +N4. ,Teivt+ « , .K kr3CC ,�' e
' u"�. `t+ "' +» .. • !
P k x d — — —rI
If
R5R XIc
r {r
s �F vz q . ">, __ . + . ii r= 1LL
qgi
'w �
µs� (.' '
1 � Z� It4k
If
INFILL 1 I III
CLASS I I II
CELL 2 �.
2.3tMil . CY f �, ISTIN <=,
1 iii
f _ AND
Fit I
71
< .
11
o { I � j' NR M u
� � � I '
R q F pT, '.Ut; • ` _ A\ It
F #Gi '
J�
I "r 1 p u
I
"
� . � �, z � -- \`1
IIIIIIIIg
�rvf
IIIIIIIIm
1 ;St 1 a�: i ��+ d Jntek1 ls t 4k t 4lI .niYr.' rIft sS7Y� Ite" � ..... �
} 3' ^fIr
u a
If
of
+ i Li� & 1a ar9y s %+t p r � 1 3 Mil CY 0 360 800 '
rrIf riIIIs . '� If, u « ' . F Mesa I , .,
Irirr � a n t O
xh � tg
s s+ ��' 'w 't . !' . . tr 7i A a �,. '� wFeet w
:Ir ! a �,
r
r
r
Figure 3:
Monthly Variation of Per Capita Generation Rates for MSW and C&D Debris
r
LOC
6 50
r
6.00
r 5 50
0
500
U_
r
450
4.00
0 .50
r 3.00
Apo 06 May-O6 Jun-06 Jul06Aug 06 Sep 06 Ocl-06 Nov-06 DecC6Jan 07 Feb-07 Ma, 07
Month
Lti-- MSW — C& D Debris — Linear IMSW) — Linear ICED Debris )
r _
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Figure 4:
Cost Comparison of C&D Debris Disposal in Class I and Unlined C& D landfills
r
$20.00
ON $1800
$16 00
r
3 $ 14.00
r
$1200
r $10.06 -.
$8 00
10312 12475 12365 106)2 11513 1e98V705681 6605 7563Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-O6 Aug-p6 Se0-06 Oct-06 NoDec-O6 Jan-Ol Feb-0) Mar07
ton per month
Month-year
r
L� CSD Debris - Class
r
r
r
r
t t r r r r t r r r r r t r t r r t t
Figure 5
Comparison of Disposal Cost Between Separate and Codisposal Operations for Three
Projections of C&D Debris Quantities
$45 . 00
i
$40 . 00
i
s
$ 35 .00
c
0
z
$ 30 . 00
N
o
V �
o $ 25 .00 - -- — _
i
CL
D ~IIIIJIg
M
$ 20 . 00
!
$ 15 .00
i
$ 10.00
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
Year
—N— Cod isposal Operation —*— Separate Disposal Low Projection
Separate Disposal Average Projection Separate Disposal High Projection
r
i
r
r
i
r
r APPENDICES
r
i
r
i
i +
r
Appendix A : Cell 2 Capacity Calculations
r
Assumed Parameters
r
Landfill Name
Contact Person
Address
Tel . No .
Base Length (a ) = ft
Base Width ( b ) = ft
r Average Daily waste to Landfill = ton
SlopeLaodrn ( h/v) = 33 . 33% 3
Top Width( d ) = 200 ft
M SlopeAccessRoad( h/v )= 8 .00% 12 . 5
(Access Road + Swale) width (w) = 29 ft
Landfill Height ( H ) =( b-d )/(2'SlopeLa„tlno)= 145.40 ft
M Top Length ( c) = a-6h= 468 . 093267 ft
Base area(AB)= axb= 1 ,437 ,480 ft`
Top Area(AT)=cxd= 93,619 ft`
M Average Cross-Section(AAINAB+AT )/2= 765, 549 ft`
Gross Volume(VG)=AAvxH= 111 , 307 ,436 ft3
Access Road Volume(VRD)=SlopeRoad( H2)(w/2 )= 3 , 831 , 599 ft'
M Net Volume(Vr,)=Vc-V,,= 107 ,475,837 ft'
Net Volume(V,,)= 3,980 ,587 yd3
Lift Height ( 1 )= 10 ft
r Intermediate CoverThickness( ic )= 1 ft
Number of Lifts = 13 , 22
Nunber of Inter. Cover Layer ( N )= 13
r Percent intermediate cover=Nxic/H = 8 ,94%
In place density= 1300 b/yd3
Volume of Daily Waste= 26792 . 3077 ft3
Width of working face= 100 ft
M Partial Triangle volume= 7500 ft3
Triangle Height= 10 ft
Slope Length = 31 . 62 ft
M Triangle surface area= 3162 . 28 ft2
Full Triangul Volume = 7500 ft3
Triangle Height= 10 ft
on Slope Length= 31 .62 ft
Triangle surface area= 3162 . 28 ft2
Square volume= 19292 . 3077 ft3
r Square length= 19. 2923077 ft
Square Surface Area= 1929 . 23077 ft2
Exposed Waste Surface Area= 5091 . 51 ft2
Thickness of Daily Cover= 6.00 in
r Volume of daily cover= 2545 . 75 ft3
Percent volume of Daily Cover= 8 , 68%
Percent volume of Cover ( Daily+ Intermediate)= 17 . 62%
r Available Capacity (volume)= 3 ,279 , 269 yd'
Available Capacity ( Weight)= 2 , 131 , 525 tons
r
1 1 I f I [ f t IN 1 t t I I t 1 I I f
APPENDIX 8'. SW DU'S ANNUAL C&D LANDFILL OPERATING COST
Operating Cost Categories
Smith Victor $36,655 Depreciation Value Salaries $352,558 Depreciation Value
Treacy Withams $39,542 Grader (1989) $25,000 3477.617 Benefits $ 161 ,812 Grader (2007) $250,000 310,000 $43, 122
Morse Jeffrey $35,725 Excavator (2001 $45,000 6259711 Travel $1 ,550 Excavator (2008) $45,000 250,000 $34,776
Vacant $26,362 Off road Truck(0 $200,000 27820.94 Equipment Rental $ 15,300 Offroad Truck(2011 $200,000 340,000 $47.296
Robert Bray $35,343 Compactor (01 ) $285,000 39644.84 Otherinsurance $339,300 Compactor (2008) $285,000 350,000 $48,687
Lawrence Brown $31 ,207 Loader (1995) $50,000 6955.235 Automotive Insurance $20,358 Loader (2607) $50,000 250,000 $34,776
Pecce Thomas $27,579 Tractor ( 1995) $1 ,000 139. 1047 Maintenance Other Equip. $32,000 Tractor (2007) $1 ,000 35,000 $4,869
Brown Lawrence $34, 167 Dozer (D7) (200 $250,000 34776 17 Equipment Maintenance $58,500 Dozer (D7) (2013) $250,000 310,000 $43, 122
SL Andre Daniel $22,793 Excavator (200( $250,000 3477617 Fuel and Lubricants $108,000 Excavator (2013) $250,000 310,000 $43, 122
Gary Easlick $41 ,530 Tire and tubes $17,213 $299, 771
Fonvielle Jared $26,383 Total $ 1 ,106,000 Uniform $2,326
Overtime special Pay $71 ,000 Expendable Tools $4,500
CSD Landfill Salaries $391 ,731 Medical suplies $84
Total Landfill Salaries $ 1 ,045,861 Equipment Amortization Use m Other operating Suplies $1 ,585
Ratio'. 0.374553429 Amount Term (year) Discount landfill Fertilizers, Herbicides etc $ 1 , 100
Equipment amortization'. $ 1 ,080,000 10 0.065 90% Tuition $ 1035
1 .877137465 1 . 140072155 0. 1391047 Road materials & supplies $20,000
Cover Material $5,000
Pumping Equip. Maintenance $750
Cost Projection Comparison Total Annual Operating Cost $1 ,143,071
SWDD WM Annual Amortization $135,210
Projected Projected Annual Annual Annual Unit Unit Annual depriciation $153,850
Year Volume Ouar ity(ton) OperatingCost Ammortization Cost Cost $Aon Coet $Iton Total Annual Cost $1432, 131
2007 132889 100000 $1 ,143,071 $289,060 1 ,432,131 $14.32 $13.00 Annual tonnage 100,000
2008 134956 101500 $1 , 177,363 $327,927 1 ,505,290 $14.83 $ 13.00 Unit Cost $14.32
2009 137055 103023 $1 ,212,684 $400,816 1 ,613,500 $ 15.66 $ 13.39
2010 139187 104568 $ 1 ,249,065 $400,817 1 ,549,882 $ 15.78 $13.79
2011 141352 106135 $ 1 ,286,537 $420.292 1 ,706,829 $ 16.08 $ 14.21
2012 143551 107728 $1 ,325,133 $420,293 1 ,745,426 $16.20 $ 14.63
2013 146024 109344 $1 ,364,887 $420,294 1 ,785,181 $16.33 $15.07
2014 148539 110984 $1 ,405,833 $436,985 1 ,842,818 $16.60 $15.52
2015 151098 112649 $1 ,448,008 $436,986 1 ,884,994 $16.73 $15.99
2016 153701 114339 $ 1491 ,449 $436,987 1 ,928,436 $16.87 $ 16.47
Net Present Value = $113.61 $102.79
Equipment Depriciation
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
43121 43121 43121 43121 43121 43121 43121 43121 43121 Grader (2007)
3477 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 Excavator (2008)
27820 27820 27820 47294 47294 47294 47294 47294 47294 Offroad Truck(2011 )
39645 48685 48685 48585 48685 48685 48685 48685 48685 Compactor (2008)
6955 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 34775 Loader (2007)
139 4869 4869 4869 4869 4869 4869 4869 4869 Tractor (2007)
34776 34776 34776 34776 34776 34776 43121 43121 43121 Dozer (Or) (2013)
34776 34776 34776 34776 34776 34776 43121 43121 43121 Excavator (2013)
192717 265506 265607 285082 285083 285084 301775 301776 301777
I I 1 f 1 1 1 1 endixl Debril ,ties al Projel--
0.59 1 .5
0. 75 1 .75 Landfill Volume County Landfill Capacity Consumption
0.8 Fiscal Year Consumed (CY) POnulation CY/Caeida-
0.78 f year) (LblGap'ta-year)'
1998-97 72251 104408 0.69 953
1 1997-98 80346 106690 0.75
0 .64 1998-88 87445 108845 1037
1 09 0.80 1106 Comparison of Disposal Costs for the Two landfilling Alternatives at Three Projection Rates
1999-00 88343 112845 0.78 1077
1 .09 2000-01 115567 115078 1 .00 1383
0.795 13 77 1094,715 2001 -02 76048 118149 Codisposal
0. 169284 1377 233. 1044 0.64 886 Population Annual C&D Debris Pr - (ton) Separate disposal Cost ($/ton) Cost
2002-03 ]3962 121174 109 840
2003-04 137656 126829 1 ,Og Year Projection Low Avg Hioh Low Aver High Iton
1485 2006 133434 44023 73200 102378 532.53 $ 19.56 $ 1lITI $ 15.37
Average = 0.80 1097 2007 136826 45142 75061 104980 $32.67 $19.65 $14.05 $15.83
Standard Deviation= 0. 17 231 2008 140217 46261 76922 107582 $32.84 $ 19.75 $ 14.12 $16.31
Law Consumption (lb/Capita year)° 048 660 2009 143609 47380 78782 110184 $33.03 $19.86 $14.20 $16.80
Average Consumption (Ib/Capita-year)' 0.80 1097 2010 147199 48565 80752 112939 $33. 19 $ 19.96 $ 14.27 $ 17.30
High Consumption (Ib/Capita-year)' 1 . 11 1535 2011 150143 49536 82367 115198 $33.51 $20. 15
(1 ) Based on average in place density of 1 ,377 Ib/cy $17.29 $ 17.82
(2) At 95% Confidence Limit 2012 153146 50527 84014 117502 $33.84 $20.95
2013 156209 51537 85695 119852 $ 1746 $ 1885
2014 159333 52568 87408 122249 $34.51 $20.75 $ 17.81 $ 18.40]
2015 162520 53619 89157 124694 $34.85 $20,96 $17.98 $20.05
2016 165039 54451 90539 126627 $35.34 $21 .26 $21 .89 $20.66
2017 167597 55294 91942 128589 $35.85 $21 .56 $22.20 $21 ,28
2018 170194 56151 93367 130582 $36.36 $21 .87 $22.51 $21 .91
2019 172833 57022 94814 132607 $3688 $22.18 $22.84 $22.57
2020 175511 57905 96283 134661 $37.41 $22.50 $23. 16 $23.25
2021 178232 58803 97776 136749 $37.94 $22.82 $28.19 $2395
2022 180994 59714 99291 138868 $38.48 $23. 14 $28.59 $24.66
2023 183800 60640 100831 141021 $39.03 $23.47 $29.00 $25.40
2024 186649 61580 102394 143207 $39.59 $23.81 $29.42 $26. 17
2025 189542 62535 103981 145427 $40.15 $24. 15 $29.84 $26.95
2026 192480 63504 105592 147681 $40.73 $24.49 $36.32 $27.76
2027 195463 64488 107229 149970 $41 .31 $24.84 $36.83 $28.59