Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> April 2, 2009 <br /> Approved May 7, 2009 <br /> Hauser states that we have given you reports from vendors on Eco Industrial Park . <br /> To see a perfect site for a WtE facility go to Greensboro waste transfer station which <br /> has five miles of industrial functions around it including recyclers for ash, concrete <br /> and other things . Organizations like Energy Answers are doing close to zero residual <br /> processing . It would be incorrect for this group to think that you would need a <br /> landfill to dump the ash because a well planned WtE facility could be managed [so <br /> that] the ash could be recycled right at the location where the burn is happening . <br /> Bowerman states that I know people keep bringing up Greensboro and it is beautiful . <br /> One thing they did was bought [out] anyone who didn t want to be around there and <br /> there are no homes there because they [the City of Greensboro] bought them . , If we <br /> are going to set up something as wonderful as that, is that something people want to <br /> consider also or are they just going to say ' Here is the section of town where we put <br /> all the crap we don t want and you guys live with it. ? ' <br /> Pollock states that this is for the consultants that speaks to something that Bonnie <br /> raised about comparative costs . To paraphrase, she raised the point regarding the net <br /> cost of landfilling versus the net cost of a WtE facility and we are seeing numbers in <br /> the report ranging from the $102 ton in the study [August 2008 re GBB] to $120 - $130 <br /> ton cited by Peter Haviland of Wheelabrator . <br /> EDITOR 'S NOTE : Following this point, there is no ficrther audio recording of the meeting <br /> available, due to technical problems with the recording equipment . What follows is a <br /> reconstruction of key points made at the meeting using a set of basic notes, staff recollections <br /> and documents ficrnished at the meeting . <br /> Vickers asks what was taken out of the plan for the transfer station to reduce the cost <br /> [to about $5 million from the originally estimated $ 7 million to $10 million, including <br /> land costs? ] <br /> Sallach replies that the transfer station was reduced in size and from two bays to one <br /> bay . Land acquisition was reduced from the proposal to buy the whole 143 acre parcel <br /> offered to only 25 acres that were needed at an expected market value of $15, 000 per <br /> acre . <br /> Yuhasz asks how the proposed reduction would affect operations . <br /> Sallach replies that it could limit the transfer station to handling only MSW and not <br /> any other materials (transferring recyclables had been considered for this site, but not <br /> officially endorsed or made part of the charge) . The second bay would also have <br /> accommodated future growth in the size of the waste stream and enabled continuous <br /> operation of the transfer station if part of it had to be repaired, for example a floor <br /> replacement. <br /> 14 <br />