Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making

[Page 1] Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making [Page 2] Acknowledgments he Office of Solid Waste (OSW) would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the Solid Waste Association of North America Focus Group and the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Waste Transfer Station Working Group for Treviewing and providing comments on this draft document. We would also like to thank Keith Gordon of Weaver Boos & Gordon, Inc., for providing a technical review and donating several of the photographs included in this document. Acknowledgements i [Page 3] Contents Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 What Are Waste Transfer Stations?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Why Are Waste Transfer Stations Needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Why Use Waste Transfer Stations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Is a Transfer Station Right for Your Community? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Planning and Siting a Transfer Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Types of Waste Accepted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Unacceptable Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Public Versus Commercial Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Determining Transfer Station Size and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Number and Sizing of Transfer Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Future Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Environmental Justice Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Siting Process and Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Siting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Exclusionary Siting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Technical Siting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Developing Community-Specific Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Applying the Committee’s Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Host Community Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Transfer Station Design and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Transfer Station Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 How Will the Transfer Station Be Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Site Design Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Main Transfer Area Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Types of Vehicles That Use a Transfer Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Transfer Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Transfer Station Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Operations and Maintenance Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Facility Operating Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Interacting With the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Waste Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Emergency Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Recordkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Environmental Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Odors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Contents iii [Page 4] Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Storm Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Safety Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Exposure to Potentially Hazardous Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Personal Protective Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Exposure to Extreme Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Hazardous Wastes and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Ergonomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Facility Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Applicable Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Federal Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 State Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Local Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Common Regulatory Compliance Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Compliance Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 iv Contents [Page 5] Introduction his manual defines what a transfer In response in to this report, EPA has devel- station is and how it relates to oped this manual and its companion publica- municipal solid waste management tion Waste Transfer Stations: Involved Citizens Tin the context of a community’s Make the Difference (EPA530-K-01-003). total waste management plan. The The intent of this manual is to promote the manual identifies issues and factors to consid- use of best practices in transfer station siting, er when deciding to build a transfer station, design, and operation to maximize facilities’ planning and designing it, selecting a site, and effectiveness and efficiency, while minimizing involving the community. their impact on the community. It is designed In many communities, citizens have voiced to assist facility owners and operators; state, concerns about solid waste transfer stations local, and tribal environmental managers; and that are poorly sited, designed, or operated. In the public evaluate and choose protective addition, some citizens might feel that transfer practices for siting, designing, and operation stations are disproportionately concentrated in of municipal solid waste transfer stations. The or near their communities. Yet transfer sta- manual is divided into the following chapters: tions play an important role in a community’s Planning and Siting a Transfer Station waste management system. In 1993, the National Environmental Justice Transfer Station Design and Operations Advisory Council (NEJAC) was formed to Facility Oversight “provide independent advice, consultation, and recommendations to EPA on matters relat- What Are Waste Transfer Stations? ed to environmental justice.” The Waste and Waste transfer stations play an important role Facility Siting Subcommittee, one of NEJAC's in a community’s total waste management six subcommittees, received numerous com- system, serving as the link between a commu- ments from citizens of several major metropol- itan areas concerning the negative impacts of waste transfer stations and their dispropor- tionate siting in low-income communities and communities of color. The Subcommittee, with support from EPA, formed the Waste Transfer Station Working Group in 1998 to investigate these comments. The Working Group arranged two fact-finding sessions in New York City and Washington, DC, during November 1998 and February 1999 respective- ly. These sessions were each two-day events consisting of a day of tours of area waste transfer stations and a second day of public meetings. Based upon these two fact-finding sessions, the Working Group in March 2000 published the draft report, A Regulatory Strategy for Siting and Operating Waste Transfer Stations. This report made several recommendations to EPA concerning proper and equi- table siting and operation of transfer stations. Aerial view of a totally enclosed transfer station. Introduction 1 [Page 6] nity’s solid waste collection program and a ties have installed full-service operations that final waste disposal facility. While facility provide public waste and recyclables drop-off ownership, sizes, and services offered vary accommodations on the same site as their significantly among transfer stations, they all transfer stations. serve the same basic purpose—consolidating Source reduction and recycling also play an waste from multiple collection vehicles into integral role in a community’s total waste larger, high-volume transfer vehicles for more management system. These two activities can economical shipment to distant disposal sites. significantly reduce the weight and volume of In its simplest form, a transfer station is a waste materials requiring disposal, which facility with a designated receiving area where reduces transportation, landfill, and incinera- waste collection vehicles discharge their loads. tor costs. Source reduction consists of reduc- The waste is often compacted, then loaded ing waste at the source by changing product into larger vehicles (usually transfer trailers, design, manufacturing processes, and pur- but intermodal containers, railcars, and barges chasing and sales practices to reduce the are also used) for long-haul shipment to a quantity or toxicity of materials before they final disposal site—typically a landfill, waste- reach the waste stream. U.S. Environmental to-energy plant, or a composting facility. No Protection Agency (EPA) policy promotes long-term storage of waste occurs at a transfer source reduction as the waste management station; waste is quickly consolidated and technique of choice. loaded into a larger vehicle and moved off site, usually in a matter of hours. Recycling—the collection, processing, and For purposes of this manual, facilities serv- manufacture of new products—likewise ing only as citizen drop-off stations or com- diverts materials from the landfill or incinera- munity convenience centers are not tor. These recyclable materials are prepared for considered waste transfer stations. Only a shipment to markets in a special facility called facility that receives some portion of its waste a MRF, which stands for materials recovery directly from collection vehicles, then consoli- facility. A MRF is simply a special type of dates and reloads the waste onto larger vehi- transfer station that separates, processes, and cles for delivery to a final disposal facility, is consolidates recyclable materials for shipment considered a transfer station. A convenience to one or more recovery facilities rather than a center, on the other hand, is a designated area landfill or other disposal site. Consequently, where residents manually discard waste and the concepts and practices in this manual can recyclables into dumpsters or collection con- be applied to MRFs as well. tainers. These containers are periodically Aggressive community source reduction removed or emptied, and the waste is trans- and recycling programs can substantially ported to the appropriate disposal site (or pos- reduce the amount of waste destined for long sibly to a transfer station first). Convenience haul transfer and disposal. If these reductions centers are not suitable for use as transfer sta- are significant enough, a community may find tions because they cannot readily handle the that fewer or smaller transfer stations can large volume of waste that is discharged by a meet its needs. self-unloading collection truck. While these sites are not considered transfer stations with- Why Are Waste Transfer Stations in the context of this manual, it is important to Needed? note that heavily used convenience centers can The nationwide trend in solid waste disposal face similar concerns as transfer stations (e.g., has been toward construction of larger, more litter, road access, vehicle queuing, storm remote, regional landfills. Economic consid- water run on and run off). Consequently, it erations, heavily influenced by regulatory may be appropriate to consider implementing and social forces, are compelling factors some of the concepts and practices advocated leading to this result. The passage of federal in this manual at these sites. Many communi- criteria in 1991 established new design 2 Introduction [Page 7] requirements for municipal solid waste land- Figure 1. fills. These new standards include design, Sample Comparison of Hauling Costs With operating, and monitoring requirements that and Without a Transfer Station significantly add to construction, operating, $30 closure, and post-closure monitoring costs. As older landfills near urban centers reach capacity and begin closing, cities must $25 Haul cost without decide whether to construct new landfills or transfer station to seek other disposal options. Many communities find the cost of upgrading existing facilities or constructing new landfills to be $20 prohibitively high, and opt to close existing “Break even” point facilities. For these communities, transferring waste to a large regional landfill is an $15 appealing alternative. Haul cost with transfer station In addition to regulatory requirements, $10 public opposition frequently makes siting new landfills near population centers difficult. The Transfer station current atmosphere is such that gaining public capital, operating, and political approval for constructing new $5 and maintenance disposal capacity near population centers is cost challenging. Also, adequate land is often not available near densely populated or urban $0 areas. These social, political, and geographical 0102030405060 factors have further stimulated the rise in con- Round-trip Distance from Waste Source to Disposal, miles struction of large, remote, regional landfills. Economic considerations, especially The following assumptions were used to create this sample comparison: economies of scale, further promote develop- Cost to build, own, and operate transfer station—dollars per ton $10 Average payload of collection truck hauling directly to landfill—tons 7 ment of large regional facilities. To offset the Average payload of transfer truck hauling from transfer station high cost of constructing and maintaining a to landfill—tons 21 modern landfill, facility owners construct Average trucking cost (direct or transfer hauling)—dollars per mile $3 large facilities that attract high volumes of waste from a greater geographic area. By The comparison shows a break-even distance of about 35 miles (round-trip). maintaining a high volume of incoming waste, In other words, for this example, using a transfer station is cost-effective when landfill owners can keep the per-ton tipping the round-trip distance exceeds 35 miles. When the round-trip distance is less fees low, which subsequently attracts more than 35 miles, direct haul is more cost-effective. Although the same economic business. Rural and urban communities alike principles apply, break-even distances will vary in different situations based on are finding that the most economically viable the site-specific input data. solution to their waste disposal needs is ship- lection crews to spend less time traveling to ping their waste to these facilities. In these cir- and from distant disposal sites and more time cumstances, a transfer station serves as the collecting waste. This also reduces fuel con- critical consolidation link in making cost-effec- sumption and collection vehicle maintenance tive shipments to these distant facilities. costs, plus produces less overall traffic, air Why Use Waste Transfer Stations? emissions, and road wear. The primary reason for using a transfer station In addition, a transfer station also provides: is to reduce the cost of transporting waste to An opportunity to screen waste prior to dis- disposal facilities. Consolidating smaller loads posal. from collection vehicles into larger transfer vehicles reduces hauling costs by enabling col- Introduction 3 [Page 8] Flexibility in selecting waste disposal protective disposal sites, even if they are more options. distant. They can consider multiple disposal An opportunity to serve as a convenience facilities, secure competitive disposal fees, and center for public use. choose a desired method of disposal (e.g., landfilling or incineration). At many transfer stations, workers screen Finally, transfer stations often include con- incoming wastes on conveyor systems, tipping venience centers open to public use. These cen- floors, or in receiving pits. Waste screening has ters enable individual citizens to deliver waste two components: separating recyclables from directly to the transfer station facility for ulti- the waste stream and identifying any wastes mate disposal. Some convenience centers offer that might be inappropriate for disposal (e.g., programs to manage yard waste, bulky items, hazardous wastes or materials, white goods, household hazardous waste, and recyclables. whole tires, auto batteries, or infectious waste). These multipurpose convenience centers are Identifying and removing recyclables reduces assets to the community because they assist in the weight and volume of waste sent for final achieving recycling goals, increase the public’s disposal and, depending on local recycling knowledge of proper materials management, markets, might generate revenue. Screening for and divert materials that would otherwise bur- inappropriate wastes is more efficient at the den existing disposal capacity. transfer station than the landfill. Waste transfer stations also offer more flexi- Is a Transfer Station Right for bility in terms of disposal options. Decision- Your Community?