Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> significant odor problems. The potential for groundwater contamination <br /> from a landfill or ash monofill should be minimized through use of <br /> state-of-the-art liners and leachate collection systems. In the event of <br /> liner failure, the ash monofill would release less leachate to the <br /> environment than a conventional solid waste landfill, due to the lower <br /> volume of waste involved. Available data are not sufficient to determine a <br /> clear-cut difference between the heavy metal content of solid waste <br /> leachate and ash leachate. <br /> The primary differences in the environmental impacts of landfills and <br /> waste-to-energy facilities are in the areas of air quality and public <br /> hpaith. Air pollutant emissions of criteria pollutants are much greater <br /> for waste-to-energy facilities. Egission of gases fi.tAti a solid waste <br /> landfill will produce considerably greater amounts of volatile and toxic <br /> organics than the combustion of a similar amount of waste in a <br /> waste-to-energy facility. It is not possible to conclusively state whether <br /> . landfills or waste-to-energy facilities have significantly different health <br /> risks. The risks associated with the combustion of wastes have been better <br /> characterized than those of landfills, due to the greater attention that <br /> ,hasbeerogiven,.to:the health risks.,of-waste-to-energy facilities. The <br /> risks of both alternatives appear to be low for nctlexn, well-designed and <br /> operated facilities. In Mrs opinion, the risks of wast&tO-energy <br /> facilities are more manageable, due to a greater ability to monitor the <br /> environmental performance of this alternative. <br /> It can be concluded that any strategy for the disposal of wastes in the <br /> Orange/Durham regional area will result in environmental impacts, and that <br /> ES - 8 <br />