Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Letters 11/20/08

Posted on November 19, 2008 by Staff

Better answer

Orange County is on the verge of a hasty, shortsighted decision to construct a waste transfer station in Southwest Orange County, because the Eubanks Road landfill will reach capacity by 2011. A fleet of large dump trucks will haul upwards of 200 tons of garbage daily from UNC, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough to a collection point for transfer to even bigger semi-trailer haulers that will in turn take solid wastes to a Virginia landfill. So, narrow rural roads will be subject to endless pounding by trucks bearing tons of garbage. School buses, farm equipment, pedestrians and bicyclists will be menaced by heavy vehicles on shoulderless highways and enormous amounts of diesel fuel will be consumed transporting garbage hundreds of miles every day just to put the refuse in yet another landfill.

A better answer to solid-waste disposal is thermal decomposition in a state-of-the-art Waste To Energy (WTE) facility. WTE technology is a proven way to dispose of solid municipal waste and generate power by converting the heat of its combustion into electrical energy. WTE plants are in operation all over the world; they safely sequester heavy metal and other toxins captured in fly ash and generate far less pollution than 19th century-style landfills. Power generated by WTE technology is renewable energy not dependent on fossil fuels. WTE is a win-win solution that the county commissioners should consider before saddling rural Orange County with dirty and dangerous mass transit for garbage.

Richard Eckberg
Hillsborough

Criteria questioned

When ranking sites for a new waste transfer station, Olver Consulting weighed “technical, exclusionary and community specific” criteria.

Their recommendation to locate the facility in the extreme southwest corner of the county makes me question their consideration of cost to the towns and taxpayers who pay to have their waste removed.

The cost of hauling waste is directly related to distance traveled from waste generation to the transfer site and from there to processing locations. The three remaining sites are all in Bingham Township, 11 miles from the center of waste generation (Chapel Hill) with challenging distribution routes in all directions. Distribution relies on interstate highways as waste is hauled in semi trucks that do not operate efficiently at low speeds. Highway 54 and Orange Grove are two-lane roads, 14 miles from the nearest south- and westbound interstate, 10 miles from the nearest northeast-bound interstate and 16 miles to the nearest southeast-bound interstate route. Yet these sites were recommended over sites in the Hillsborough area where distance from the interstate can be measured in feet.

The cost of internal distribution between the existing Eubanks site and the new transfer station must also be considered, as some operations such as shredding lumber or hazardous collections will remain at one site or the other and material will be shuttled back and forth. The Hillsborough sites along the 85/40 corridor are 10 minutes from the existing landfill. The Bingham sites are 25 minutes each way by car, surely longer by garbage truck.

Every mile traveled by a gas-guzzling truck means more of our money spent on fuel, vehicle maintenance and employee time. The residents of Hillsborough may have won a victory when their sites were removed from the list, but it will come at a high price on their tax bill. The assistant town manager of Hillsborough told me that they had not yet calculated the cost associated with transporting their waste to Bingham. Likewise, the town of Chapel Hill has not made their numbers public; but given the fact that travel distances will more than double for both towns if a Bingham site is chosen, one can assume that costs will follow suit.

Our towns are struggling financially as it is. We should be clear about the cost associated with choosing a remote site over sites more centrally located. The commissioners may choose a Bingham site because there is a willing seller, so [that] it appears to impact the fewest people, ruffle the fewest feathers and is therefore an expedient choice. In truth, every taxpayer in Orange County is adversely impacted by this decision.

Bryna Rapp
Chapel Hill

1 thought on “Letters 11/20/08”

  1. Terri Buckner says:
    November 21, 2008 at 9:22 am

    There were a number of residents supporting the waste-to-energy concept at the public hearing on the transfer station. It’s a hard concept not to embrace given the high cost of energy and the pollutants involved in burning coal. However, it’s not something that can be undertaken without in depth study. For instance, what impact would using trash for fuel have on our recycling efforts?

    I also wonder if those residents who are opposed to the transfer station are saying that they would accept a WTE facility being located in their section of the county. Are they willing to live under the ash from these incinerators? What are the water demands to operate such a facility, and especially how will the hot water be disposed of? How can we arrive at an informed decision about the environmental trade offs of a WTE facility and a transfer station before our landfill is forced to close?

    Lots of questions. And I think we should investigate them for the future. But I don’t think we should create a false dichotomy of WTE or transfer station. The timing just isn’t right for making that choice.

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme