PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

SECTION II TRANSFER STATION CONCEPTUAL PLAN

General requirements for a transfer station and conceptual designs that meet these requirements are included in this section. Two alternatives are presented:

• One transfer station with capacity to serve the entire County, and

• Two smaller transfer stations, one to be located in the southern and one in the northern portion of the County.

A transfer station is a critical service facility. The station must be operable each and every specified day that waste deliveries are scheduled. Prince George's County provides full commercial and residential contract disposal services five days per week. Although the Brown Station Road Landfill (BSRL) is open on Saturdays for commercial and residential disposal, usage is diminished, since County residential collection almost exclusively occurs Monday through Friday. In contrast, use of the BSRL by residents delivering waste in private vehicles increases on Saturday and Sunday. Waste deliveries to a proposed transfer station similar to those currently allowed at the BSRL by commercial and private vehicles dictates the transfer station would operate seven days per week. Transfer station designs presented in this section reflect this operational need.

Maryland regulations prevent the unloading floor of the transfer station from being used for storage overnight for even one day's deliveries of waste. The design of the station must therefore have adequate capacity to transfer peak volumes and have the ability to meet regulatory operational requirements. In addition, the facility will have to be reliable and durable. To ensure the facility will meet these objectives, the station should be simple in its process and use equipment that will be easily maintained over the life of the station.

1. Transfer Process

Two general types of processes, compaction and non-compaction (open top), for transferring waste from route collection trucks to transfer trailers, are available. Each type is discussed in this section, including variations on the two general types.

1.1 Compaction Process

Transfer station processes have evolved with station and trailer technology. Smaller trailers gave way in the 1970s and 1980s to compactor technology as a way to increase loads.

1.1.1 Compactors

Original compaction technology consisted of one or more compaction units, each with a receiving hopper, all located one level below the station floor. For loading with this technology, a specially outfitted semi-trailer is backed and latched to the open end of the receiving hopper. The compactor consists of a hydraulically operated blade located at the opposite end of the hopper.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-1 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

An end lo~der equipped with a bucket pushes waste into the receiving hopper. The compactor blade is extended to push waste into the trailer, compacting it against the front end of the trailer. Cycles continue until the trailer is full. The front of the trailer actually contains a blade, called a "push-out" blade, also hydraulically operated, to unload the trailer at the landfill.

As compaction-style trailers increased in size to target loads approaching the legal load limit of 80,000 pounds, they also increased their tendency to load waste more densely near the rear of the trailer. This effect also can cause the trailer to exceed the per-axle load limit in the rear axles even though the BO,OOO-pound limit is not exceeded. The effect increases the potential to incur fines by Maryland police, as Maryland also enforces the per-axle weight limit. This would also be a consideration for deliveries to landfills in Virginia, since the same restriction applies.

As larger trailers are filled with more waste, resistance to the compactor blade translates into forces on the side walls of the trailer, causing stress, damage, and shortened trailer life. Also, even with larger volume trailers, reinforced walls and the telescoping hydraulic cylinder and the push-out blade increase the weight of the trailer, limiting waste loads to the 18- to 19-ton range.

Compaction-style loading also experiences a significant amount of litter that must be collected manually several times each day. Utter occurs at the clearance between the compaction blade and the trailer opening, an unavoidable problem.

Stations with extensive compaction and loading equipment needed to handle daily volumes are hard pressed to take a unit out of service for needed overhauling. Budget needs for overhaul and more routine maintenance and repair of compaction dramatically rise after a few years of service, a need that is difficult for local governments to meet.

Compaction units have significant capital costs, and significant ongoing maintenance and repair are required of the stationary compactor as well as the push-out blade unit mounted in the trailer. This factor, in combination with limited loads and potential axle overloading, has caused this technology to be avoided in recent years.

1.1.2 Baling and Balefills

Another form of compaction technology uses a large horizontal baler. Waste is pushed into the receiving baling chamber, and then the unit produces a bale tied with steel wire. Bales are loaded into trailers with forklifts.

Higher loads, in the range of 22 to 23 tons, can be achieved with aluminum-bodied trailers; however, two accommodations are needed at the destination landfill. First, a forklift must be available to unload trailers and place bales on trucks. Second, it is impractical, and often a personal safety hazard, to open bales at the fill area so the waste may be moved with conventional track or wheeled landfill equipment. Thus, bales must be filled in dedicated fill areas, and a forklift is needed to place them in rows for land filling.

The additional equipment needed for baling waste and handling it at the landfill includes two or more balers, having a cost exceeding $500,000 each, more than double that of the compactor unit, plus the cost of forklifts at the station and the

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-2 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

landfill. 1 Few landfills in the U.S. are operated as balefills, causing this technology to be ra rely used.

1.1.3 Pre-Compaction

Pre-compaction technology has experienced more acceptance in recent years. pre­compaction units add a chamber of significant length to the earlier compaction technology, much like the chamber inside a large horizontal bater. Waste is pushed into a receiving hopper, and a hydraulically powered compaction blade pushes the waste and compacts it inside the chamber. The result is a long "log" or "loaf" of compacted solid waste that is not tied with wire, The units offered commercially can meter a precise weight of material to meet load requirements. When the log is complete, a trailer is backed up to the unit and the log is pushed in. Generally, the log is not in contact with the trailer sides.

A trailer with a moving floor can be used to unload the waste log at the landfill. Using this technology, loads can be placed in 50 to 53 feet long, aluminum-bodied trailers, for loads of 22 to 23 tons, without overloading rear trailer axles. Moving floor trailers are self-unloading, requiring the landfill to have no special equipment.

Like the other variations of compaction equipment, pre-compaction technology has capital costs in excess of $250,000 per unit, and maintenance and repair needs are significant. Unscheduled outages due to mechanical problems will negatively affect the transfer station's ability to complete the daily transfer of waste as planned and as needed to meet regulatory requirements on days when peak volumes occur. For a three- or four-unit facility, daily capacity can be reduced 33 and 25 percent, respectively, a factor that may not be tolerable. Thus, pre-compaction technology, although it has the best overall combination of features among all of the compaction technologies, has been selected in few transfer stations in the United States due to the additional capital and operational costs.

1.2 Open-top Trailers

Open-top trailers refer to both trailer configuration and the loading approach. The roof of the trailer consists of either two hinged pieces or a tarp-style cover extended and retracted, either by a crank mechanism or in some cases, by hand. The roof is opened prior to moving the trailer into position in the station. These trailers also are known as self-unloading trailers, referring to the reciprocating floor plates (walking floor) used to remove waste from the trailer. Open-top trailers began to overtake compaction technology in the 1980s. The open-top trailer technology uses less equipment that can break, can achieve maximum loads, and produces less litter. It is the preferred technology for truck transfer hauling and was used for the conceptual design in this siting study.

The most efficient design for this process requires a two-level facility with a hole in the floor of the transfer station for loading, constituting the loading bay. In this case, the hole would be smaller by only inches ofthe entire length and width of the trailer top. The floor would be designed such that when a trailer is situated under the hole, the vertical clearance between the underside of the floor and the top of the

1 US EPA, Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making, April 2001.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-3 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

trailer would be approximately 12 inches. A wheeled loader equipped with a bucket would push a pile of waste along the floor to the hole, and the waste would fall into the trailer.

Because the operator does not have to wait while a compactor blade cycles the loads into the trailer, with open-top trailers the loader operator can push the next pile of waste into the trailer as quickly as the loader can reverse itself behind the pile on the floor. When large-end loaders are used, such as a Caterpillar 950 or 966, or their equivalent by other manufacturers, 3,000 to 4,000 pounds or more of waste would be routinely pushed through the hole in the floor and into the trailer with each cycle of the loader on the floor, a cycle that may require not more than one minute. The transfer station would have a minimum of two bucket loaders. In addition, if one is out of service for extended maintenance or repair, a replacement can be rented so that capacity will not be restricted.

A target trailer load of 22 to 23 tons will quickly bring the transFer tractor and trailer to an BO,OOO-pound gross vehicle weight (GVW). A trailer can be filted to this legal limit in as little as five minutes, with typical fill times not exceeding 15 minutes for loads from collection route trucks, commonly referred to as "packerN trucks, from their ability to compact solid waste as it is collected.

Waste from small quantity generators, such as private vehicles, is not compacted and would require more time, typically 15 to 20 minutes, to fill a transfer trailer. Longer loading time of waste from this type of generator will have a small impact on transfer station operation, since it comprises less than 10 percent of the total waste annually received at County facilities.

To ensure loads would be evenly distributed, and that loads would not extend beyond the top of the trailer wails, a hydraulically operated crane with an articulating arm and clamp style-bucket would be mounted behind the hole in the floor to tamp the load down and move material as needed during loading, especially at the end of the load. This crane would be mounted near the middle of the trailers and will have a reach extending the length of the trailer, including into the interior space of the trailer. This extended reach is needed to remove inappropriate items, such as heavy metal, that are inadvertently pushed into the trailer. These cranes have been adapted From the forest harvesting industry.

Because the hole in the floor would be smaller than the trailer opening, little waste would fly between the whole underside and the trailer top, minimizing litter. Litter becomes a smaller and more manageable problem with this technology. However, periodic cleaning of the transfer trailer tunnel would be required, and a sweeper or small skid steer loader would be needed.

Loader operator training is key to efficient transfer station functioning and would help to minimize the effort needed from the hydraulic crane to finish off the load, thereby extending intervals between crane outage for repair and maintenance. Also, skilled loader operators can adequately load trailers without the aid of the crane, a situation needed when the crane is being serviced. The load may be ten percent or so less compared to operations when the crane is operating, but the transfer station will be able to complete its daily work load.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. II-4 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

Open-top trailers have historically been used by the forest products industry to transport size-reduced wood products and other by-products, such as sawdust. The receiving facility operates a hydraulically operated tilting floor or platform (a "tipper") that the entire tractor and trailer combination is mounted on to cause graVity to force the trailer's contents out of the rear doors. Some tippers require disconnection of the tractor prior to tipping, Truck tippers are being utilized at some, but not all, landfills and have the drawback that they must be moved numerous times during the landfill's life as cells are filled.

Self-unloading trailers are equipped with walking floors of a series of parallel plates approximately five inches wide, running the entire length of the trailer. Hydraulic equipment moves all floor plates rearward simultaneously approximately one foot to unload the waste. The reverse cycle is every third plate at a time, preventing the waste from moving back into the trailer. Floor plate cycling occurs until all of the waste falls out of the trailer. Unloading requires the tractor/trailer combination to move forward several feet during unloading.

2. Station Capacity

Sizing a transfer station that considers current solid waste management system elements and projects them to a future year provides a reasonable estimate of needs through the expected life of the station. In this Section, an analysis of quantities received in the last four years at landfills operated by the County, as well as a basis for projection of needs in the future, are presented.

2.1 Time Period Horizon for Station Sizing

A transfer station, when appropriately sized and designed for the service intended, will have the potential ability to serve the specified set of users for approximately 20 years, A result is that the capital cost can be funded with borrowings that can be repaid over a 20-year period, as a matter of matching borrowing amortization with facility expected life. Because quantities of waste handled by the station can be expected to grow over the 20-year life, this methodology results in a facility with spare capacity during the early years and operating essentially at capacity in the 20 th

year of operation.

Another sizing factor is hours of operation. This siting study projects that the transfer station will receive and transfer waste for eight hours per day. Waste loaded into transfer trailers will be dispatched to the receiving landfill for as many hours as they can be received. A combination of the distance to the receiving landfill and the receiving hours at the landfill will dictate the latest dispatch time during each operational day.

The receiving landfill for the Prince George's County transfer station has not yet been selected, In fact, the receiving landfill may change one or more times during the 20­year life of the station. As a simplifying assumption, transfer station sizing has been based on transferring waste to open-top trailers for the entire eight-hour day. Those trailers loaded too late in the day to be dispatched to the receiving landfill are anticipated to be stored overnight at the station in a portion of the station so designated. The storage area will be sized to allow for as much as 25 percent of the daily volume of waste transferred.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-5 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

The station has been sized to handle peak daily quantities. Waste volumes are highest on Mondays, Tuesdays, and on days immediately after major holidays, especially Christmas Day. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MOE) requires that the station floor be completely cleaned at least once every 24 hours of operation.2- Thus, it was important for the station to be sized to handle quantities that are delivered on peak days.

For continued growth beyond the 20 years, or should quantities received exceed projections during the 20-year period, a transfer station can be operated beyond the standard eight-hour operating shift. Overtime operation will allow daily capacity to expand by approximately 12 percent for each additional hour the station is operated.

Waste quantities received in excess of the capacity can also be accommodated by constructing an addition to the station. An addition to the station might be needed if the station accepts waste from commercial sources not contemplated in the sizing or for growth beyond 20 years. The proposed transfer station layouts have considered provisions for enlarging the facility. This consideration primarily addresses the internal roadway system, either through initial construction, or land availability on the station site to move certain roadways to accommodate a larger station building.

2.2 Sizing Parameters

BSRL receives all post-recycling waste generated by households receiving County collection, typically including dwellings having up to and including four dwelling units (single-family-detached to four-plexes). Municipalities, either through the use of their own collection vehicles or those of contractors, also deliver residential waste to BSRL. Residential waste is typically collected by rear-load and side-load collection trucks. BSRL also receives commercial waste collected by private collectors using a variety of trucks, including front and rear loaders, roll-off boxes and compactor units. Total receipts for 2000 to 2004 are tabulated in Table 11-1.

One reason for the decrease in waste quantities in FY2003 was that the County commenced enforcing its ban on loads of construction and demolition waste from commercial trucks. The County continued to accept such materials from private vehicles. Another reason was that the County commenced reqUiring that yard waste be separated from other materials and delivered to the yard waste area for composting. This enforcement began mid-year during FY2002 and, thus, had a greater effect in FY2003.

Prince George's County projects that, due to anticipated closure of the Brown Station Road Landfill, a transfer station capable of handling the County's current waste stream will be needed not later than 2013 and could be needed as early as 2011. For a conservative approach, the transfer station has been sized to open in 2011. Waste quantities have been projected for 20 years beyond the opening year for all generating sectors. Quantities are presented in Table 11-2.

Because a nearby active landfill can provide beneficial operating flexibility for a transfer station, an earlier implementation of either alternative would be desirable,

2 Personal communication between John Roderique, GBB, and Edward Dexter, Solid Waste Facilities Chief, Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD, January 28, 2005.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-6 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

so that BSRL could continue to operate in a more limited manner and serve as back­up to the transfer station in emergency situations. In addition, other interim measures, such as temporary transfer station operations, may be worthy of consideration during the development and construction of permanent transfer facilities.

TABLE 11-1

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY LANDFILL RECEIPTS'

Annual ReceiDt Tons Year' 2000 2001 2002 2003' 2004

Brown Station Road IF 308,383 446,706 536,042 499,700 455,142

Sandy HIli LF' 337,343 0 0 0 0

Total 645726 446706 536042 499700 455142 Notes. 1. Source for data: 2000-2002 - Prince George's County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan FY 2002-2011. 2003-2004 - Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources, January 10, 2005. 2. Fiscal year data. 3. Closed June 23, 2000.

Quantities presented in Table 11-2 are based on unit generation factors. Residential generation factors are approximately ten percent less than that experienced in the 1990s by the collection system in Howard County, Maryland.] The collection program in Howard County served single-family homes and multi-family units up to four-plexes. Apartment buildings and similar multi-family bUildings that do not receive collection from a municipal collection service are estimated to generate a lower average quantity of waste than single- through four-family homes. Thus, the overall waste generation rate is assumed to be approximately 0.5 tons per person per year, or an average generation of 2.74 pounds per person per day, based on seven days per week.

In 2004, the County received waste quantities that were approximately 13 percent greater than residential waste quantities projected in Table 11-2 at BSRL. The primary assumption for transfer station sizing is that quantities the County receives have stabilized in recent years, and that current sources will continue to bring waste to County facilities in the future.

3 Residential generation rate for Howard County with a population of 272,100 was estimated to be 0.56 ton per capita per year (3.07 pounds per capita per day).

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. II-7 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

TABLE 11-2 PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION

F.CIII

eo, Pop.

w_ • •

Gen.-RESIDENTIAL

To1O' ,• Recycling ,

W.... A... A.......

=~) :'C::11 ('At) (tone)

01_ (tone)

, Employees

COMMERCIAL WASTE STREAM W... Total •• Recycling Go•. W.... - Recycled- C:~l tt<;:':: I (%) (tone'

om ,

•DI_ (tona)

•G........

(toM)

TOTALMSW

". " A""",1ed DIe_

(toNi) (%) (f(jna)

2000 2001

807,946 817,442

0.50 O.SO

404,000 408.700

0.025 0.025

5 5

20,200 20,400

383,800 388,300

325,336 328,589

0.95 0.95

309,100 312,200

0.40 0.41

42.. 130,100 134,700

179.000 1n,500

713,100 720,000

150,300 155,100

21 22

562.600 565,800

2002 827,050 0.50 413,500 0.025 5 20,700 392,800 331,875 0.95 315.300 0,42 44 139.400 175.900 728.800 160,100 22 568,700 2003 836,n1 O.SO 416,400 0.025 5 20,900 397,500 335,194 0.95 316,400 0,42 44 140,800 1n,600 736,800 161,700 22 575,100 2004 646,606 0.50 423,300 0.025 5 21,200 402,100 338,546 0.95 321,600 0.42 44 142.200 179,400 744,900 163,400 22 581,500 2005 856,557 O,SO 428,300 0.025 5 21,400 406,000 357,273 0.95 339,400 042 44 150,100 189,300 767,700 171,500 22 596.200 2006 B61,415 0,50 430,700 0.025 5 21,500 409,200 360,646 0.95 342,600 0.42 44 151.600 191.200 773.500 173,100 22 600,400 2007 866,301 O.SO 433,200 0.025 5 21,700 411,500 364,454 0.95 346,200 0,42 44 153,100 193,100 77'9,400 174,600 22 604.600 2006 B67,116 0.50 443,600 0.025 5 22,200 421,400 368,099 0.95 349,700 0.42 44 154,600 195,100 793,300 176,600 22 616,500 2009 876,156 O.SO 438,100 0.025 5 21,900 416,200 371,760 0,95 353~00 0,42 44 156,100 11J7,1oo 791,300 178,000 22 613,300 2010 B81,125 0.50 440,600 0.025 5 22.000 41B,600 322.583 0.95 306,500 0,42 44 135.500 171.000 747,100 157,500 21 589.600 2011 866,374 O.SO 443.200 0.025 5 22.200 421,000 338._ 0,95 321,500 0,42 44 142,200 179,300 764,700 164,400 21 6OO~00

2012 B91,654 0,50 445,600 0.025 5 22.300 423,500 355,116 0.95 337,400 0.42 44 149,100 1BB,300 783,200 171,400 22 611.600 2013 896.... O.SO 448.500 0.025 5 22.400 426,100 372,595 0,95 354,000 0,42 44 156,500 197.500 802.500 178,900 22 823,800 2014 902,309 0.50 451,200 0.025 5 22,800 42B,600 390,933 0.95 371,400 0.42 44 164,200 207,200 822,600 166.800 23 635,600 2015 907,684 O.SO 453,600 0.025 5 22.700 431,100 410,174 0,95 389,700 0.42 44 172,300 217,400 843,500 195,000 2.'l 648,500 2020 2025

932,256952._ 0.50 O.SO

466,100 478,000

0.025 0.025

5 5

23,300 23.600

442,BOO 452,200

449.140 491,808

0.95 0,95

426,700 467,200

0.42 0.42

44

44 lB8,800 208,600

236,100 280,600

B92,800 ....200

211,900 230.400

24 24

680,900 712,800

2030 967,77B 0.50 483,900 0.025 5 24,200 459,700 538.529 0.95 511,600 0.42 44 226,200 2B5,400 995,500 250,400 25 745,100 2031 970,951 O.SO 485.500 0.025 5 24,300 461,200 548,393 0.95 521,000 0.42 44 230,300 290.700 1,006,500 254,800 2S 751,900

Notes: 1. Includes non-hazardous induslrial and insblututional waste. 2 Source: MWCOG Round 6.3 Projec~ons.

3 Waste Generabon Rate projection is based on historical data, in units of tons per year per person or employee. 4 Total Waste Generation equals disposed plus recycled quantities. 5 Annual recycling rates are based on historical deta, 0.16 tons per capita residential recycling in 199B and increasing each year until a rale 01 0.2 tons per capita is reached

in 2001, and stable thereafter. 6. Total annual recycling quantities are popUlation projections limes tons per capita. 7. Source: MWCOG Round 6.3 Projec~ons.

8. Annual recycling quantities are based on 0.38 tons per employee in 1996 and increasing each year until 0,42 tons per employee is reached in 2002, and stable therealter. 9. Sum of residential end commercial quantities. 10. Total recycling quantity divided by total weste generation, in percent. 11. Difference of generation and recycled quantities.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-8 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

Current quantities received were projected to grow commensurate with growth in population as a means to develop projections of waste quantities the County would receive in future years. These projections are presented in Table 111-3. This methodology suggests that the transfer station should be sized to accommodate 2,700 tons per day.

TABLE 11-3 ESTIMATED WASTE QUANTITIES FOR TRANSFER STATION SIZING

Year 2004 2005 2011 2031

Annual Residential Quantity Disposed, tons

Non Residential Quantity Disposed, tons2

Total Quantity Disposed3

Average Daily Quantity" Peak Daily Quantitl

402,100

53,04.2 455,142

1,459 2,334

406,900 53,675

460,575 1,476 2,362

421,000 55,535

476,535 1,527 2,444

461,200

60,638 522,036

1,673 2,677

Notes: 1. Source: Table 11-2. All quantities based on estimated generation rates.

Includes wasle from multi-family housing units. 2. Source: Quantity estimated based on proportion of total experienced in CV 2004.

Non-residential quantily includes non-residential waste from commercial, institutional, and industrial sources.

3. Sum of residential and non-residential waste quantities disposed. 4. Based on average quantities received six days per week, 312 days per year. 5. Based on peak daily quantity 60 percent higher than average quantities.

Conceptual design of a top loading transfer station would include the capacity to load approximately four trailers per operating hour, or about 650 to 700 tons in an eight­hour shift. A transfer station sized with four loading bays could transfer approximately 2,600 to 2,800 tons in an eight-hour shift. This operation assumes that station staff would report 30 to 60 minutes prior to commencing receiving waste deliveries and would remain approximately 60 minutes after receiving the last waste delivery. Operations after the last delivery would include loading trailers with waste remaining on the station floor and station cleanup.

To handle volumes greater than 2,800 tons per day, the transfer station would load waste during varying amounts of overtime service. During days that more than 2,800 tons were received at the station, deliveries would cease at the normal time, but greater quantities would remain on the station floor. Station staff would load trailers until all of the waste is loaded, thereby requiring more than the 30 to 60 minutes previously mentioned.

Operating transfer stations beyond the standard eight-hour day is common. Fairfax County, Virginia, opens its transfer station on West Ox Road at 4:30 am and receives waste until 6:00 pm, resulting in the transfer station operating until 7:00 to 7:30 pm each day, as this station receives as much as 3,000 tons per day.4

4 Nestor, Steve, Asst. Superintendent, Fairfax County Department of Public Works, Division of Solid waste, February 13, 2005.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. II-9 June 2, 2005

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Conceptual Plan TRANSFER STATION SITING STUDY

2.3 Transfer Station Conceptual Designs

Two alternative transfer station conceptual designs to meet the 2,700 ton-per-day capacity are presented in this section. The first alternative is a transfer station with capacity to serve the entire County (One-site Option). A conceptual layout drawing for this alternative is presented in Figure 11-1. The second alternative is for two transfer stations (Two-site Option), each approximately half of the size of the single facility. One transfer station of the Two-site Option would be located in the southern half of the County, and one would be located in the northern half. A conceptual layout drawing for this alternative is presented in Figure 11-2.

Each of the transfer station conceptual design options has a number of elements, including: site, building, utilities, scales, internal roadways, buffer area, and citizen convenience center. Each of these elements is discussed in the following sections.

3. Site

The transfer station sites will be accessible from a major highway from one side. One access road tied into the highway would lead traffic along three inbound lanes to the transfer station building. Two lanes leading to two scales adjacent to the scale house would be used for weighing trucks delivering waste at the transfer station. One additional lane will be used as a scale by-pass. One outbound lane will be used for traffic leaving the site and by-passing the scale house, while the other outbound lane will be used by tractor trailers and other trash trucks for final weighing to establish empty (tare) weight.

The transfer station site presented in Figure 11-1 for the single facility would require land in a rectangular shape of approximately 500 feet by 800 feet. This approximately 12-acre site would include the station building, tractor trailer parking, a citizen convenience center, access roadways and buffering.

The convenience center would have a ramp that leads up to the elevated center where roll-off containers, located on the lower level, can be loaded. Also, tractor trailers would be accessible from the elevated area for bulky materials, including tires, mattresses and construction materials. Separate containers would be located for recyclables, such as newspaper, corrugated & mixed paper, and mixed containers. A four-bay storage area located on the lower level of the convenience center would be used for the drop-off and storage of metals, yard waste, logs, and soil and rock.

Parking is prOVided for tractor trailer rigs in a designated parking area that can hold up to 15 tractor trailers parked at a 45-degree angle to the bUilding.

The transfer station presented in Figure 11-2 for the Two-site Option concept also would require land in a rectangular shape of approximately 500 feet by 800 feet, apprOXimately nine acres for a similar transfer station, tractor trailer parking, a convenience center, and access roads.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 11-10 June 2, 2005

Conceptual Plan PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY TRANSFER STA TION SITING STUDY

,- -, ­I --- ----- ­1I ,di -~"ill sc fF: \" 1111 .. ,- . ­"I I"" ~\ (:7':::::::<"" f [<::::,it "" ~ 4::";<' I ! ~~~. ilr I ::/I~. 1'- I ~l J .::.:.

"I. ~ P ~I' Ii',"" ~ ~I Un I ; ~. " --"-c7:"n~l: -.~. _ '·.·.·1 , ...jill :.: 1:.:.:«.:

'::::;::::::';) ..:"··1"- . :;:

11&9 \~ :::::_ .c). ,,-=---~--~----::::::::::::-----' ))\. . - ~;;----.--...- ._- -----,--._-=- ....___.- - I /,I -' -~"'"-- ­

FIGURE 11·1 SINGLE SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION

ONE·SITE OPTION

1-=1., 100 0 So '00 000

~' I June 2,2005II-ll;ershman, Brickner &. Bratton, Inc.

rn " o , , •3

I I

I I

I ii', I

i i-l

a i!C

OZ~'11

0

rilU

lUlS

• •::

::jil

oc

.~ i"

1

II:1

1t:

:II

~ ,

OU

la ll

l rn

8

!"'

~-l

=

N

0

_=!N

0 " 0

00

",,

Zz

II

i -~-

I,I

II

II

II

I !I

I I

I -= ~

=:

::::::

::-_

II

II

~c=~

--'

­

: "

: I

CtiT

irri}

)I

I ',

I -=

c: ·:::1

'I::

: ~

\{s.....

-·~-I

\ Qt

"CHH

,H~m

~~>ili&t:

:/:

:@ _

•~

~ , ~ .. " • 0