As Seen In
www.wasteadvantagmag.com
Transfer Stations
WasteAdvantage
The Advantage in the Waste Industry
arrivals tend to cluster in the middle of the day, with typical peaks just before and after lunchtime. Peak hourly arrivals tend to dictate a facilitys design more than average daily arrivals. The availability of transfer trailers, intermodal containers, barges or railcars, and how fast these can be loaded. Expected increases in tonnage delivered during the life of the facility. For example, in a region with annual population growth of 3 to 4 percent, a facility anticipating a 20-year operating life would typically be designed for about twice the capacity that it uses in its first year of operation. The relationship to other existing and proposed solid waste management facilities such as landfills, recycling facilities and waste-to-energy facilities. The same factors are used to determine the size of the following transfer station features: The amount of off-street vehicle queuing (waiting) space. At peak times, vehicles must often wait to check in at a facilitys gatehouse or scale
55
www.wasteadvantagmag.com
station(s) will have on the surrounding area, siting complications, and the cost to build and operate the transfer station(s). Each approach offers advantages and disadvantages that must be reconciled with local needs. The biggest advantage of constructing large transfer stations is the economies of scale that can significantly reduce capital and operational costs. Centralizing waste transfer operations allows communities to reduce equipment, construction, waste handling and transportation costs. The siting of a single facility may often prove easier than siting multiple facilities. Large facilities are also conducive to barge or rail operations that can further decrease traffic-related impacts on the community. However, along related lines, a major drawback to building a single large facility is locating a tract of land that adequately meets facility requirements. Large facilities also tend to concentrate impacts to a single area, which can create the perception of inequity, especially when one neighborhood is shouldering the burden for the entire city. A single facility can result in longer travel times, which leads to increased downtime for the collection crew and increased wear and tear on collection vehicles. Another consideration is that a single facility cannot divert waste to a backup facility if a need arises. The single facility must have additional equipment in case of equipment failure or other emergencies. In other situations, multiple smaller sites might better address a communitys waste management needs. Decentralizing waste transfer operations spreads lesser impacts over a wider area, which helps address equity issues. Although it is generally more expensive to build and operate several small transfer stations rather than one large station with the same total capacity, savings from reduced travel times might offset these capital costs and result in lower overall system costs. Multiple facilities also are better able to serve as backups for one another in case of scheduled or emergency shutdowns of facilities. The major disadvantage to building multiple facilities is that the difficulties encountered in siting a single facility can become multiplied.
Future Expansion
Transfer stations are frequently designed to accommodate future expansion. Often, this is accomplished by siting the facility on a larger parcel of land than would otherwise be necessary and preplanning the site and buildings so expansion can occur without negatively affecting other functions on the site or the surrounding community. Although expansion of effective capacity can sometimes be accomplished simply by expanding the hours of operation, this approach is not always effective because the transfer station must accommodate the collection schedules of vehicles delivering waste to the facility. In addition, increased operating hours might not be compatible with the surrounding community. | WA www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/r02002.pdf
Note 1. Solid Waste Association of North America. 2001. Transfer Systems Management Training Course. SWANA. Washington, DC.
As of December 2009, approximately 509 landfill-gas-to-energy projects delivered 304 million standard cubic meters per day (mmscfd) of landfill gas and 1,563 megawatts of electricity to corporate and government usersenough
million homes. The environmental benefits are equivalent to cutting our oil consumption
by 179 million barrels a year or not burning 400,000 railcars of coal [U.S. EPA, Landfill Methane
Outreach Program (LMOP), December 2009]. 2012 Waste Advantage Magazine, All Rights Reserved. Reprinted from Waste Advantage Magazine. Contents cannot be reprinted without permission from the publisher.
56