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
~