Agenda - 04-21-2009 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1.® IBdVES'~'IGA7'!VE APPR®/~~ The investigation considered the following two primary courses of action: ^ Direct haul municipal solid waste (MSW) from collection routes to out-of-county transfer stations and to pay their tipping fees, which include facility operations, long-hauling to a landfill, and landfill disposal costs; ^ Build and operate a new transfer station at potential Site 056 (West 54 LLC property), haul the MSW to a regional landfill, and pay the landfill tipping fee. Within each course of action, there are options that have been analyzed. The analysis of each option includes the costs of getting MSW from the collection route to disposal in a regional landfill. 1.1 Option 1 -Direct Hauling to Out-of-County Transfer Stations ^ Costs were estimated for each jurisdiction based on: • Actual collection vehicle type; • Actual crew size and salaries; t' , • . Estimated vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules; • Estimated hauling mileage and speeds (sample routes were actually driven to test for accuracy); and • Actual frequency of trips to the transfer stations based on weekly averages. ^ Each jurisdiction (towns and the County) provided actual operating data and assumptions to use, and reviewed the resulting analyses for accuracy. ^ Out-of-county transfer stations evaluated are owned by the City of Durham and Waste Industries (WI), both located in Durham County. A transfer station owned by Waste Management ('WM), located in Wake County, was not included in the cost analyses because of its proximity to the WI facility (WM costs would be slightly higher). The WM facility was included in the interviews and site visits. ^ Owners/operators of the out-of-county transfer stations .were interviewed regarding five areas: • Facility capacity; • Times of operations; • Operational details (e.g. acceptable waste, environmental controls, etc.); • Local restrictions; and 1 April 16, 2009