Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-21-1985
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1985
>
Agenda - 05-21-1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2016 10:38:50 AM
Creation date
9/9/2016 10:00:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/21/1985
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
d. "No Action" alternative - The result of taking no action to <br /> provide additional sludge management capability has been <br /> considered. OWASA presently utilizes only privately-owned <br /> • property for ultimate disposal of the sludge produced at <br /> the Mason Farm wastewater treatment plant. This has created <br /> problems for ultimate disposal of this sludge because of <br /> conflicts with the schedules of the private property <br /> owners' agricultural operations. If no action is taken to <br /> provide additional sludge management capability, then these <br /> problems� will worsen as the loading on the Mason Farm plant <br /> increases. <br /> e. Land application of liquid sludge - This is the most cost- <br /> effective alternative for the following reasons: (1) OWASA <br /> would have the capability of managing sludge when weather <br /> conditions and scheduling problems result in the inability <br /> to utilize privately owned sites, (2) expensive deviatering, <br /> facilities would not have to be purchased, (3) the energy <br /> costs are less with the land application approach, (4) sludge <br /> is used as a soil conditioner, and (5) inexpensive liquid <br /> sludge transport and application system can be used. <br /> The amendment resulted in an examination of three different <br /> sites for sludge disposal. Two of the three sites examined <br /> are 'Located in the planning area. Both sites were located <br /> closer to the treatment plant. However, both sites were <br /> rejected for the following reasons: (1; land cost was five <br /> times greater than the selected site, (2) tb -S <br /> wer Q tg M ro:l-`motto,residentia „ur► ts, and <br /> (3) the owners were unwilling- to, convey title and OWASA_doi�,s, np.t <br /> have the authority dons, <br /> not <br /> li,.r -y n <br /> P. Environmental Consequences; Mitigative Measures <br /> The proposed land application site has been examined and there are no rare, <br /> threatened or endangered plant and animal species involved. The Department <br /> of Cultural Resources has determined that the project must be,.Purveyed to <br /> determine if there will be any impact on cultural resources. There would <br /> be some limited environmental impacts associated with preparing and operating . <br /> the site�, (1) land disturbing activities from site preparation will be <br /> required but any erosion and siltation would be minimized by maintaining a <br /> 2001 buffer strip between applicatioii area and watercourses; ((2) a cover crop <br /> would be established to further reduce adverse runoff;) (3) noise and dust problems <br /> will occur but the relative remote location of the sife should limit these <br /> problems to the area; (4) the site is owned by Weyerhasuer Company and no <br /> residence will have to be relocated;• (5) a 100 foot vegetated buffer zone <br /> will be maintained between the application area and other property boundaries; • <br /> -6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.