Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFI Disposal of Const & Demo Wastes . . ,< . ., REVIEW REPORT; PLANNING FOR DISPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES FISHERS ISLAND, NY October 9, 1991 PREPARED FOR THE FISHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 COLUMBUS BOULEVARD, CD2N HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 (203) 725-6860 FAX (203) 725-6861 . . PMA PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. . 10 COLUMIJUS BOULEVARD, CD2N . HARTFORD, CT 06106 October 9, 1991 John Thatcher, President Fishers Island Conservancy, Inc. Box 553 Fishers Island, NY 06390 Re: Construction and Demolition Wastes Dear Mr. Thatcher: Following is our review report regarding demolition and construction waste management on the Island, prepared in accordance with our recent discussions, and your authorization dated September 26, 1991. As you will note from our recommendations section, we believe opportunities exist for managing this waste stream in a cost-effective manner. In addition, although not part of our initial direction, it is apparent that the pending closure of the Town's "metals dump" also argues for planning for the handling and disposal of materials now deposited at the site (which appears to include a wide range of wastes, including some construction wastes, not just metals,) Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this report. Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the Conservancy, and the residents of the Island. Sincerely, ~~ President \sc (2m) 725-6X60 / FAX (203) 725-6X61 .' . . REVIEW REPORT; PLANNING FOR DISPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES FISHERS ISLAND, NY PURPOSE Fishers Island has been confronted with the need to plan for transitioning from managing the disposal of wastes on the Island with traditional methods; discontinuing the landfilling the mixed municipal wastes generated in residences and businesses, cessation of open burning of brush and clean wood wastes, and pending closure of the so called "metals dump". The Garbage and Refuse District has proceeded with the construction of a transfer station to facilitate off-Island management of mixed municipal wastes. Further, contractors have been informed that the "burnable dump" (where brush and clean wood wastes have historically been open burned) will be closed and unavailable to serve the businesses and residents of the Island after January 1992. In recognition of the above, the Fishers Island Conservancy, with the direction of its President, John Thatcher, authorized this review of issues related to the disposal of construction and demolition wastes. In performing this review, a visit to the Island was conducted on September 30, which included: · Visits to the transfer station, the burnables dump", and the "metals dump." . Discussions with representatives of Gada Construction, Z&S Construction (Island-based contractors), Mr. Hancock of the Garbage and Refuse District, and Mr. Falvey, representing Falvey Construction, builders of the transfer station. Subsequent thereto, and independent review of the current budget (projected budget not available) for the Garbage and Refuse District was conducted through conversation with a representative of the District Board. I . . Conclusions and Recommendations As a result of this review, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for consideration by the Island: 1. Following January 1992, it appears there will be no place for residents or businesses on the Island to legally dispose of wood, plaster, sheetrock, and similar construction and demolition wastes generated in the normal course of remodelling, reconstruction and new construction of businesses and residential homes. 2. The design of the Island's transfer station has not contemplated management of wastes which have been historically been disposed of at either the Garbage and Refuse District's "bumables dump" or the Town's "metals dump." 3. It is recommended that for initial planning purposes, until actual operational data becomes available, that the Island plan for disposal of between 40 and 80 cubic yards of routine (small amounts from residents, and day-to-day activities of contractors) construction and demolition wastes weekly, with separate provisions for large renovation and demolition projects. This should be accomplished through at least one open-top roll-off container at a central transfer station facility. This activity is likely to call for a permit from DEC, since it will involve a transfer activity. 4. Contractors operating on the Island should be required to retain the services of a refuse hauler (for placement and removal of roll-off containers) to manage the construction and demolition wastes that will result from larlJer projects. The contractors could collectively retain a single hauler to perform this service (as-required), as a means to induce the hauler to provide a more cost-effective service. Conversely, a public body could select a hauler by open bid, who would then be licensed to perform this service on the Island. The bidding process could even be combined with the activities of the Garbage and Refuse District, which will, in any event, retain a hauler to serve its transfer station. 2 . . 5. At some time in the future (possibly soon) the Town will face closure of the metals dump (it is nearly full, and appears to be an unpermitted landfill, poorly managed and largely unsupervised by the Town.) Inspection of the site indicated the residents of the Island , are depositing at the site materials such as oversized furniture items, sheetrock, paint cans and other construction wastes, some mixed refuse, appliances, and a range of oversized items. 6. Should the "metals dump" close, it would appear that one open-top container will be needed for metals (appliances, lawn furniture, storm doors, and other metal materials). Another container will be necessary for the oversized, residential and commercial bulky wastes that are neither metal, nor able to be processed by the compactors being implemented by the Garbage and Refuse District. Examples of items in this category are furniture, upholstered items, mattresses, carpeting, and similar wastes. 7. As a result, th~ Island should plan to provide at least three additional roll-off containers to manage the off-Island delivery of the following wastes (one container for each category): -Construction & Demolition Wastes . -Metals and Appliances -Bulky, Oversized Wastes (non-compactor) - It is believed a new transfer facility will be needed to manage these wastes, or, alternatively, that space could be obtained at the new transfer station to meet these needs (probably most cost-effective alternative, on an overall basis.) 8. Space appears to be available at the Garbage and Refuse District's transfer station for reconstruction and provision of two open top containers to the immediate North of the planned compactors. An initial budget figure of $37,400 has been offered by the contractor, should authorization be given to proceed with this change without requiring re-mobilization. 3 . . 9. The Garbage and Refuse District reports that it currently has on hand a total of $267,000 (in all accounts), and known obligations for the remainder of the year of approximately $231,000. Further, they report activities associated with landfills on the Island may exhaust the unallocated budget amounts through potential demands for engineering and legal support for the District. 10. A summary of the annual operating costs that may be applicable for the new, yet unplanned above transfer activities is difficult to prepare with confidence due to the lack of data regarding generation rates, and related issues. Those responsible for budgeting should be prepared to make adjustments as actual operating datq on quantities and costs becomes available. An initial attempt at preparing such a budget (excluding capital costs and any additional annual cost associated with monitoring the deposit of wastes into the containers) is offered by the following: SUMMARY-OPERATING COST BUDGET SUGGESTIONS (1991 COSTS) ROUTINE C&D WASTES: $51,090 PER YEAR OVERSIZED MUNICIPAL WASTES: $10,790 PER YEAR METAL WASTES TO RECYCLING: $7,150 PER YEAR TOTAL: $69,030 PER YEAR Construction And Demolition Waste Generation And Budget Estimate In planning for the management of this construction and demolition wastes, one of the first and most elemental questions is, "How much is generated?" For the Island, no records exist 4 . . .. of the amount produced and disposed of, or the sites it is currently directed to; some material goes to the "burnables dump", and some to the "metals dump." Further, the unique character of the Island - with its tenfold increase in summer population and large number of summer residences - precludes use of traditional per capita average generation rates for this material. As a result, it was determined the most reliable data is that which may be available from the larger generators themselves. In order to obtain this data, meetings were held, as previously indicated, with representatives of construction firms operating on the Island. Based on information provided in our meetings, it appears that, of the contractors which are Island-based, the three larger companies appear to generate an average of 8 to 9 cubic yards per week of mixed construction and demolition wastes, not accounting f~r large jobs involving substantial renovation or dismantling of buildings. Recognizing that only five significant contractors are reported to operate on the Island, it is therefore assumed that approximately 3S to 40 cubic yards per week of construction and demolition wastes are produced on average (not accounting for wastes of this type which are produced and delivered to either the "burnables or metals dumps" by residents.) This does not include the large renovation projects, which may involve significant demolition or "gutting" activities. No estimate is available at this time of the quantity involved. Further, no information is available of the amount of construction or demolition wastes originating from the residents themselves ("do-it-yourselfers".) Consequently, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the total quantity of this material, given the limited time and scope of this review. Fortunately, the quantity of construction and demolition wastes produced by residents (which may include the utilities on the Island, the Town, itself; and other parties), as opposed to contractors, is likely to be small. While the representatives of the firms contacted confirmed there is some seasonality to the generation pattern, they were quick to state that the construction and remodelling work is performed on a year-round basis. As a result of the above, it is recommended that, for initial planning purposes, until actual operational data becomes available, the Island plan for disposal of 40 cubic yards of routine construction and demolition wastes weekly, plus an additional 40 cubic yards every other week. Separate provisions for large renovation and demolition projects should be made, so that the S . . "roll-off boxes" are left at the job site, filled, and immediately transported off-Island. This approach would result in approximately 78 container loads leaving the Island from the routine generation of construction and demolition wastes. A preliminary estimate of the annual costs that might be experienced, should 40 cubic yard roll-off containers be used (excluding capital costs and any annual cost associated with monitoring the deposit of wastes into the containers) is as follows: ROUTINE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES ASSUMED LOADS PER YEAR: 78 CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHARGE: $175 PER LOAD TOTAL TRANSPORT CHARGES: $13,650 CONTAINER RENTAL: $1,920 PER YEAR A VERAGE TONS/LOAD: 8 TONS PER YEAR, EST.: 624 ASSUMED TIPPING FEE: $60 ANNUAL TIPPING FEES: $37,440 TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $51,090 Management of Construction and Demolition Wastes As the "bumables dump" closes, the only option for management of the construction and demolition wastes produced on the Island will be to arrange for their transportation off-Island. This will require an arrangement with a legally permitted site (such as the Yaworski Landfill in Canterbury, Connecticut), and a means to transport the material off-Island. 6 " . . For certain, large projects, it will be possible for the contractors to arrange to have an empty, roll-off box to be delivered to the Island, and for the wastes to be loaded into the box on an as-generated basis. It is recommended that this practice be required of the contractors operating on the Island. This could be accomplished on an unorganized basis, where each contractor arranges for the delivery of boxes to the Island, or each contractor could be left to his own. However, many smaller projects are routinely undertaken by contractors. Further, residents and small quantity generators (which may include utilities and other businesses on the Island) also produce this waste, and it would not be practical for each to hire a collector to deliver a container, for a small amount of waste. Provisions are recomll)ended for management of the small quantity generators of this material. The most appropriate arrangement would be for reliance upon a permitted transfer operation, wherein the wastes would be deposited into an open-top container (40 cubic yard "roll-off" containers are well suited to this practice.) Under most circumstances, based on the limited data available at this time, it appears such a container may require replacement once per week, and twice per week during peak activity periods (see earlier budget estimate.) Three options were considered for siting such a facility: I. At the "burnable dump". It is not possible to estimate the cost of this activity, should a fully permitted activity be accomplished. An attempt should be made to depress the containers so that loading by residents can be more easily accomplished. The subsurface structures at this site are substantial, and the cost of excavation may be significant. The site would require separate management and supervision, since it is removed from on-going operations of the District or the Town. Further, based on a discussion with Mr. Hancock, it is not clear that the Garbage and Refuse District has assured access to the site on a long term basis. Should this site be targeted for further consideration, it is advised that the question of access be addressed, and that discussions be held with'representatives of the DEe to resolve design and permitting requirements for this parcel. 7 .': . . 2. At the "metals dump." This site appears much more limited than the burnables dump, and the subsurface questions are more troublesome. The extent of past landfilling on the parcel is unclear, and long term instability of the area may impact its use. Further, until the Town and DEe resolve the method of closure of the site, and extent of closure activity to be conducted, it is not advised that this site be placed high on the list of candidate sites. Use of this site would also likely call for separate supervision of activities. 3. At the District's new transfer station. This facility is not now in service, and still is under construction. Its design did not call for inclusion of extra space for containers to serve construction and demolition wastes. In discussions with Mr. Falvey, it was reported that space was available for the addition of two open-top containers to the immediate North of the area where the compactor units will be placed. This would require additional surface at both the upper and lower levels of the station, and additional excavation and retaining wall construction. His preliminary budget estimate (not based on a specific design) of the cost of this activity is $37,400, assuming the work is accomplished without having to re- mobilize forces. Use of this site would not require additional supervisory personnel, since it will already be staffed. Other viable sites may be available for placement of containers for this transfer activity. In considering any such alternate site, the following issues should be considered: . Is the site large enough to allow for deliveries of wastes, and receiving the trucks that will deliver and retrieve the containers? Is the site suitable for permitting by the DEe? Will the site require engagement of additional staff to supervise the transfer activity? . . 8 . . The "Metals Dump" Inspection of the metals dump indicated that a wide range of wastes are being deposited at the site, including construction wastes and similar materials. Mr. Hancock, of the Garbage and Refuse District, reported the Town has been directed by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (the "DEC") to close all landfills within its jurisdiction, including those on the Island. Since the metals dump has been reported to have been operated by Town forces, on property owned by the Town, one would expect the Town would be responsible for closure of the site, and not the Garbage and Refuse District. Mr. Hancock reported the District has sought the assistance of its counsel to defend the District from the Town's initial response that the responsibility should lie with the Garbage and Refuse District. Without regard to assignment of closure responsibility, at such time as the site is no longer available, a means will be needed to plan for the disposal and management of the items now deposited there. These generally fall into the following categories: 1. A range of metal items, including old appliances, lawn furniture, etc., which are primarily recyclable items, and which cannot be placed into the compactors at the transfer station. 2. Oversized municipal waste materials such as furniture, carpeting, mattresses and similar items which also cannot be processed by the compactors at the transfer stations. 3. Demolition and construction items that are currently deposited at the "metals dump", and which also cannot be processed by the transfer station (previously discussed. Since the Garbage and Refuse District does not now plan to serve users of the "metals dump", it is recommended thai planning for the management of these items, by a responsible party, begin as soon as possible in order to insure that the residents of the Island are served without interruption. ~ 9 . . At the outset, it would appear that one container for metals (appliances, lawn furniture, storm doors, and other, metal materials) will be needed. No information is available on the amount produced. It is suggested for budgeting purposes, that the Island will generate one 40 cubic yard container of this material on average every other week. Given this assumption, the following preliminary budget results (excluding capital costs and any annual cost associated with monitoring the deposit of wastes into the containers): METAL WASTES TO RECYCLING ASSUMED LOADS PER YEAR: 26 CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHARGE: $175 PER LOAD TOTAL TRANSPORT CHARGES: $4,550 CONTAINER RENTAL: $960 PER YEAR A VERAGE TONS/LOAD: 5 TONS PER YEAR, EST.: 130 ASSUMED TIPPING FEE: $20 ANNUAL TIPPING FEES: $2,600 TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $7,150 Another container will be necessary for the oversized, bulky wastes that are neither metal, nor able to be processed by the compaCtors being implemented by the Garbage and Refuse District. Examples of items in this category are furniture, upholstered items, mattresses, carpeting, and similar wastes. The potential budget demands (excluding capital costs and any annual cost associated with monitoring the deposit of wastes into the containers) for this category of wastes are; 10 . . OVERSIZED MUNICIPAL WASTES ASSUMED LOADS PER YEAR: 26 CONTAINER TRANSPORT CHARGE: $175 PER LOAD TOTAL TRANSPORT CHARGES: $4,550 CONTAINER RENTAL: $960 PER YEAR AVERAGE TONS/LOAD: 4 TONS PER YEAR, EST.: 104 ASSUMED TIPPING FEE: $60 ANNUAL TIPPING FEES: $6,240 TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $10,790 11 ~