Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jack inquired about the anticipated customer base and their presentation identifying "the <br /> local market." Mr. Mowbray responded that Phase I would target commercial C&D and MSW <br /> since municipalities already had contracts. Mr. Mowbray added that they had discussions with <br /> Nauset Disposal regarding the local market. Mr. Mowbray noted that the site may be more <br /> suitable for C&D waste. <br /> Mr. Tilton inquired whether Recycling Solutions was proposing to not accept MSW. Mr. <br /> Mowbray responded with their preference to offer full service to commercial haulers, including <br /> MSW, though it would be easiest to offer either C&D or MSW in the small building. It would <br /> be difficult to find 285 tons of MSW per day. Mr. Mowbray added that MSW was needed to <br /> make the numbers and proposed a 40%MSW and 60% C&D ratio. <br /> Chairman Laurent inquired whether the waste would come in and go out daily or would it be <br /> stored. Mr. Mowbray responded that the goal was to remove MSW daily and occasionally store <br /> small quantities of C&D waste or load it into one of their trailers while topping it off. <br /> Mr. Tilton referenced the Covanta letter regarding the rail and inquired whether Recycling <br /> Solutions would consider use of rail. Mr. Mowbray responded that it would be the ideal situation <br /> to utilize the rail and reduce the amount of truck trips on site. Mr. Podgurski stated that <br /> MassCoastal was fully prepared to serve the site as it used to if MSW became available. Mr. <br /> Podgurski added that their goal was to move as many cars as possible. <br /> Mr. Jack inquired about the transportation of propane and Mr. Mowbray responded that 30,000 <br /> gallons could be transported per rail car or four trucks at 8,000 gallons each. Mr. Podgurski <br /> indicated that he had been in conversation with one of the larges propane distributors in New <br /> England who handles 12 million gallons per year in Massachusetts, trucking much of it from <br /> Westfield. W. Podgurski reported that a transload operation did not require an onsite tank, but <br /> instead, a fixed jockey pump. Mr. Podgurski stated that domestic propane was in the market and <br /> was ripe for rail service. Mr. Mowbray added that the propane coming from Canada in years <br /> past was restricted due to snowfall and that the propane pipeline was located in New Jersey. The <br /> peak season was winter, when volume would be decreased on the Cape. Trucking propane from <br /> New Jersey was expensive, making rail a better option, though no concrete numbers were <br /> currently available. Mr. Jack further inquired whether the company would consider a contract <br /> for C&D only. Mr. Mowbray responded that there was some MSW to be collected and wished <br /> to maximize the use of the facility and vehicle loads. Mr. Jack stated that the proposal was <br /> unclear regarding MSW, C&D and residuals. Mr. Mowbray responded that the facility could be <br /> operated today offering both C&D by truck and MSW by rail, from the Cape, today. <br /> Additionally, Mr. Mowbray stated that residual waste would not serve the Cape, but it would <br /> make the site operational, depending upon the rail's requirements. Mr. Podgurski added that it <br /> did not matter what the rail was transporting since they were moving the train anyway. <br /> The Chair summarized what Recycling Solutions was proposing. Mr. Mowbray clarified by <br /> stating that Phase I would be either C&D waste and MSW or residual waste only, due to the size <br /> of the building. The Chair inquired whether the residuals made the project financially viable and <br /> whether they would do that first, Mr. Mowbray responded that timing was the issue and the <br /> 4 <br />