Elbert County commissioners will vote Monday, Feb. 1, on a waste-to-energy incinerator near the Madison-Elbert County line that could burn roughly one billion pounds of trash annually.
Many Madison County residents have spoken out in opposition to the proposed Plant Granite in recent weeks, saying it will pollute the air and lead to hundreds of trash trucks traveling through Madison County each week.
In fact, 13 Madison County residents helped Elbert County citizens collect signatures this past weekend in Elbert County, with hopes of forcing a referendum on the incinerator, which is planned on 220 acres off of Hwy. 72 at Ware Road just inside the Elbert County line.
Ed Gilmore, Carlton, helped gather signatures for a “Right to Vote” petition.
“I visited a neighborhood in the city of Elberton and of the 48 individuals that I found at home 34 were opposed to the incinerator and signed the petition,” said Gilmore. “Nine were in favor of the incinerator and would not sign the petition and three were undecided on the incinerator and would not sign the petition. One individual I ran into at a coffee shop said she was in favor of the incinerator but signed a petition because she doesn’t like the ‘way the Elbert commissioners are going about this.’”
Citizens for Public Awareness, the group spearheading the fight against the planned incinerator, had gathered approximately 1,900 signatures as of Sunday. Organizers say they need 2,505 valid signatures to force a referendum on the incinerator.
The group is also looking at Elbert County ordinances to see if more time is legally required before the BOC can actually approve the site for the facility. The commissioners must pass an amendment to their solid waste ordinance before they can approve the site for the incinerator Monday.
Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Citizens for Public Awareness, questioned GreenFirst’s attorney at a Monday forum held by GreenFirst at the Elberton Civic Center.
“Would you state the amendment represents a major modification to the solid waste management plan for the county?” Lewis asked attorney Bob Norman.
“Yeah, under the solid waste planning rules, it probably is a major modification,” said Norman.
Lewis said the Department of Community Affairs requires 30 days between a major modification hearing and subsequent hearings on solid waste issues.
“It’s not in the rules, sir,” responded Norman.
Several audience members shouted: “Yes it is!”
Emotions ran high at times Monday as three law officers stood in different corners of the room, while GreenFirst officials repeatedly assured a crowd of many incinerator opponents that the facility will be safe. GreenFirst CEO Ernest Kaufman said the company will hire the best people for the project, spending $6 million in engineering and designs to make sure the facility meets government regulations for incinerators.
“We’re not going to build something up here that’s going to kill people,” said Kaufman. “It’s just not going to happen. You got a lot of people running around saying a lot of things.”
The proposed site off Hwy. 72 about 1.25 miles from the Madison County line is very close to the CSX rail line. Kaufman said approximately 1,200 to 1,500 tons of trash will be transported to the facility daily, but none by rail.
“There’s no rail going to be built into this facility,” said Kaufman. “Everybody keeps saying they’re going to bring rail in from New York and Miami … B.S.”
He said the nearby Broad River will not be affected.
“There will be no discharge of any water or anything period into the Broad River, none, zero,” he said. “… We’re not taking water out of the Broad River.”
Kaufman said the project will meet all government requirements.
“My pledge to you is we’re always going to meet or exceed every permit limit, or every requirement,” said Kaufman. “We will be meeting it and in most cases exceeding it.”
But audience members, who were given 30 minutes to ask questions at the end of the two-hour GreenFirst forum, voiced skepticism about GreenFirst’s ability to live up to the pledge of keeping residents safe. Opponents of the plan have repeatedly questioned how a company that is simply obtaining permits for the project, with no plans to actually operate the facility, can make any guarantees on operational safety. Covanta Energy is the company expected to operate the facility after construction. And those opposed to the project point out that Google searches turn up some unflattering press about Covanta. Conversely, GreenFirst officials respond that information off the Internet is often suspect.
Citizens at the meeting Monday, some of whom shouted their disapproval at times, said they wanted to see what contractual agreements are being made between GreenFirst and the Elbert County BOC. GreenFirst officials said such information would have to come from the Elbert County BOC office.
“Do you have enough to pay our board of commissioners off?” asked Estelle Colquitt.
GreenFirst officials said they don’t foresee any negative impact on surrounding property values.
“Property values are typically not reduced at all,” said engineer Bill Hodges, who added that the company would have a property value protection plan for properties within one mile of the facility.
But some citizens scoffed at the notion that values wouldn’t decrease around the incinerator.
Al Reynolds noted that the projected tax revenues off the proposed $335 million incinerator are $350,000 annually. He said a normal bill on such a property would be much higher and he asked why that tax revenue projection is so low. GreenFirst officials said he’d need to check with the Elbert County assessors’ office. Meanwhile, Sweet City Landfill, a separate proposed solid waste development that had been proposed in Elbert County, would generate $933,000 in annual tax revenue for Elbert County, according to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) report from Northeast Regional Commisson.
Much of Monday’s forum focused on the permitting process for the facility. Hodges outlined in detail the multi-agency, multi-phase permitting protocol that takes one to two years to complete.
“We are now three to five percent through the permit process,” said Hodges.
He said permitting is an exhaustive process intended to ensure safety, adding that there is always the possibility that agencies could find a “fatal flaw” in the plans. He noted that citizens will have opportunities to comment on the incinerator plans throughout the process with various permitting agencies. Hodges added that there will be a point in the process in which citizens can petition for a Facilities in Negotiation (FIN) process, in which local officials, citizens and GreenFirst officials can meet to discuss all “non-environmental” aspects of the business operation, such as hours of operation, buffers and enhancements to the facility.
“Why are they non-environmental issues?” asked Hodges. “The EPD cannot allow citizens to negotiate environmental issues. The rules say you’re either in environmental compliance or you’re not.”
