Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
r- , } -- -~- -~ ~-~ ° _,,,~.~ ~~ _ r. ,, ~ <br />__ ~'! ~._ ~ ~ _: ~.~~ ~ ~~"~t , ~~ `~ far s ~e~,®®~"--~~ ~ I ~ : ® - <br />~ ~ ~ 7 _ r + <br />Table 2 provides estimates of air emissions that would result from primary collection vehicles of <br />the County and towns traveling off-route to each transfer station option. Emissions are in addition <br />to emissions traveling to the Eubanks Landfill. <br /> <br />® Both the option to utilize out-of-county transfer stations and the option to develop a new ~, <br />County transfer station are viable options. <br />® The least costly out-of-county transfer station (City of Durham's} is unlikely to be able to <br />provide capacity for more than a year or two unless the facility is expanded or relocated. <br />® If a long-term alternative to landfilling can be developed in Orange County before the <br />County could recoup the cost of building a transfer station (the "break-even point"), then <br />developing a new transfer station is not the best option. <br />® Based on the fmdings of the Investigation of Long-Term Waste Management Alternatives, <br />(see that report for details), it is not likely that along-term alternative to landfilling can be <br />developed before the break-even point of any transfer station option. See Table 3. <br />® The most promising long-term alternative to landfilling that does not require a new County <br />transfer station would be a regional waste-to-energy facility, located near the center of <br />Orange County, that would import 500 to 1000 tons per day of MSW from surrounding <br />communities, and that would be developed in partnership with the University of North <br />Carolina at Chapel Hill. <br />® Any long-term alternative to landfilling will have a significantly higher cost than <br />landfilling. <br /> <br />6 Apri116, 2009 <br />