Agenda - 08-03-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 Dan Zipple referred to the November meeting. of the Site Search Committee and noted that there was a long di.0cussion of seismic refraction as an alternative to drilling on maybe eight or nine sites instead of 4 sites. There is a geologist on the committee and a decision was made that seismic refraction would not provide enough information to justify the extraordinary cost -of pursing this on even four sites. With this method, the type of soil on top of the bedrock will not be determined. At best, this method would reduce the..number from:four sites to three. The most they could . gain with seismic refraction is that all these sites are equally good. They would still rreed to drill to find out what kind of soil is there. He encouraged the Board to give an endorsement to the citizens' committee to go ahead and do the drilling and whatever testing is necessary to select the site. He noted that it takes a lot of courage for elected officials to proceed with the testing that'is.necessary. Mark Marcoplos questioned why the County is- trying to site -a large landfill. In answer to a question from Commissioner Insko, Marcoplos indicated that he has heard conflicting descriptions of the size of the site. One was 300 to 500 acres needed for a period of 20 to 40 years. He feels that the question of how large a landfill site is needed based on waste reduction projections and the current rate of consumption and the 40% reduction as required by state law by the year 2001 have not been brought together. His point is that the County can do with a 250 acre landfill and it would save a lot of pain and expense. His impression is that the entire size of the lots under consideration will be made into a landfill. Commissioner Insko noted that it seems that what they want is a site that is about 300 acres and if they explore in a 1200 acre site, they have a better chance of finding a 300 acre site somewhere within that acreage rather than just picking 300 acres. She feels there is an assumption that just because the County is testing a 1200 acre site that the County will site a landfill that large. She understands they are looking for 300 acres which would be buffered and last approximately 30 to 40 years depending on the amount of recycling that takes place. Commissioner Willhoit noted that 200 acres was purchased in the early 701s. If they were using it at two acres a year, this 200 acres ought to last for 100 years. In the near future, they will be moving south of Eubanks Road where there is 70 acres. This is currently projected to last until the year 2000. In siting a landfill, consideration must be given to buffers and land within the fill area that may not be usable because of streams, rocks, outcropping, etc. The site selection criteria called for looking for a site from 300 to 500 acres which would provide a life expectancy of 20 to 25 years. but that was with no assumptions for volume reduction. The site should last much longer because the County expects to achieve significant volume reduction. He feels it is necessary to find the largest landfill that is consistent with the sites that are available. The acreage listed for each of the four sites is the total acreage of the parcels that are touched by the ameba and not the size of the potentially usable Area. He would like to see the engineers reduce that figure to the area that is most likely to come out of the search rather than use the total r acr h ge. One reason for stating the total acreage is because one app to acquisition of land would be to purchase the entire tracts that are affected instead of negotiating for just the portion that is needed.