INTEGRATED ENGINEERING

PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Project Acronym and

Group Number

Group 4

Project title

Municipal Solid Waste Possibilities of transfer

stations. Case study in Medellin, Colombia.

Name of Students

Restrepo, Juan Pablo

Dekker, Tobias
Rodrguez, Jess

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

1/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENT
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 2
2. INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, POSITION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT .............. 3
2.1.
2.1.1
2.1.2

2.2.
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3

2.3.

Nature and scope of the problem investigated ..................................................... 4

Actual Situation of MSW in Medellin-Colombia
Prospective to install a transfer station

4
6

Bibliography review ..................................................................................... 8

Social and Security Aspects
Environmental Aspects
Economic issues

9
10
11

Introduction to the methodology developed ........................................................13

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 13
Project management ...................................................................................13
Scientific methodology .................................................................................14
4. EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS ............................................................... 15
4.1.
Configurations of transfer stations ...................................................................15
4.2.
Design constraints for transfer stations. ............................................................17
3.1.
3.2.

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7

Access Requirements
Receiving Areas
Wind loading and Ventilation
Lighting
Expansion capacity
Surface Water Management and Control Program
Odor control systems

17
17
17
17
17
18
18

Configuration of the transfer station.

Selection of the best site location for the transfer station.

21
21

Economical outcomes .................................................................................18

Environmental outcomes ..............................................................................19
5. DISCUSSION................................................................................ 21
5.1.
Environmental Analysis ................................................................................21
4.3.
4.4.

5.1.1
5.1.2

5.2.

Economic analysis ...................................................................................22

9.1.

Economic datasheet .................................................................................25

6.
7.
8.
9.

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 22
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 23
REFERENCES ................................................................................ 23
APPENDIXES ................................................................................ 25

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The actual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management system of the city of Medellin relies
on using trucks MSW transportation to the landfill of La Pradera and it is under the
responsibility of the companies Empresas Publicas de Medellin (EPM) and Empresas Varias
de Medellin (EVM). These companies have been interested in searching for options to
improve MSW transportation, in order to have a more efficient collection system, and that
can reduce costs and pollution. Then, this report was conducted following the objectives of
comparing the different technical options available for transfer stations, performing an
environmental and economical analysis between the actual situation and the possible site
locations for the transfer station and stating the respective conclusions and
recommendations, after describing the actual situation with MSW management in Medellin.
The methodology used consisted in performing several meetings with EPM and EVM, with
regard to determine the possible site locations for the transfer stations and the costs related

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

2/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

to its investment and the operation of the actual system of transport; and also a
bibliographical researched was done by consulting several sources such as EPA and the
Pollution Division of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was decided that the best configuration
consists of an open-top type, where the MSW will be dumped directly into the trailers,
allowing the minimization of emissions and leachate production. However, this type
configuration will require an efficient operation system and it will not allow separating and
recycling MSW. Based on the available sites, it was also determined that the best location for
the transfer station is in Curva de Rodas, by comparing the emissions and costs produced
actually and with the use of trailers after implementing the transfer station. Implementing a
transfer station will result in a cost saving and a significant reduction of the emissions to the
air.

2. INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, POSITION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE

PROJECT
The main activities in the MSW management are located in three different steps: The
production and collection, the transportation of the waste and the disposal in different kind of
facilities.
This case-study aims to present a complete overview of the current situation of MSW
Management in Medellin - Colombia, focusing in the analysis of the implementation of a
transfer station for improving the transportation part, by showing the environmental
constraints and economical benefits for the actors that participate in this topic.
Medellin was chosen for the case-study because the information related to its MSW was
available and this country is also a good example for the purposes of the research. In
addition, this city actually is thinking in implementing a transfer station for many reasons that
will be explained in this report.
Medellin is the second-largest city in Colombia and capital of Antioquia Department. In 2013,
it had a population of 2.4 million. By counting its surrounding areas and its metropolitan area,
Medellin can be considered as the second largest urban agglomeration in Colombia in terms
of population and economy, with more than 3.5 million people.
Currently EVM (Empresas Varias de Medellin), a subsidiary of EPM (Empresas Publicas de
Medellin) needs to collect, transport and dispose the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) far from
the city (around 57 kilometers) until La Pradera Landfill (Disposal Place). The amount of
MSW that Medellin Produce is around 1800 Ton/day.
Transfer stations are facilities where MSW is unloaded from collection vehicles and briefly
held while it is reloaded onto larger long-distance transport vehicles for its correspondent
sh.ipment to landfills or other treatment and disposal facilities. By combining the loads of
several individual waste collection trucks into a single shipment, communities can save
money on the labor and operating costs of transporting the waste to a distant disposal site,
and improve MSW management. In addition the transfer stations provide environmental
benefits, which will be described in the study.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

3/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

The objectives appointed for this report are:

1. After studying the current situation of MSW Management in Medellin, Colombia,
identify and present the different technological options of Transfer Stations for MSW
that can be implemented in this City.
2. Perform a comparison of the current transportion activities without transfer station and
with transfer station, showing the environmental and economic benefits.
3. Determine which is the best location for implementing the transfer station, based on
the environmental and economical analysis.
2.1. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM INVESTIGATED
The objectives of this report has relation with the current situation of the MSW management
in Medellin, Colombia; but focuses in the part of the transportation, for studying some
different options of transfer Stations that can be implemented in this City.
2.1.1 ACTUAL SITUATION OF MSW IN MEDELLIN-COLOMBIA
Medellin, Colombia produces around 1800 Ton/day of MSW. This MSW was measured in the
La Pradera landfill in the year 2012, showing the next main composition:

Figure 1 MSW Composition in Medellin-Colombia Solid Domestic Waste in 2012 (D-Waste 2012)

The Company EVM (Empresas Varias de Medellin), a subsidiary of EPM (Empresas

Publicas de Medellin) provides collection, transportation and disposal activities of the MSW
in this City.
In relation with the disposal activities, the landfill that EVM (Empresas Varias de Medellin)
operates for the purpose of disposal the MSW is called La Pradera Landfill. The route used
by the trucks to transport the MSW from the zero point of the city to the mentioned landfill is
presented in figure 2.
This Landfill is located in the Municipal District of Don Matias and its surface has 354 ha
(EVM 2009). This landfill receives 2,787 Tons per day of solid domestic waste, and around

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

4/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

64.41% is produced by Medellin (SSPD 2008). The useful life of this landfill is about 27 years
from 2008 (EVM 2009).

Figure 2 Route between the zero point of Medellin and the La Pradera Landfill (Don Matias)
(Google Maps 2014)

In the figure 3 some pictures are presented of the landfill.

Figure 3 Coverage of the La Pradera Landfill (EVM 2009)

In relation with the transportation activities, EVM operates around 96 trucks per day with a
capacity of 12 ton each one. In figure 4, it is presented one picture of the actual trucks. It is
important to mention that each truck can go two times per day to the landfill, because the
time that each truck takes between the city center and the landfill is around 2 hours. The
trucks are normally not completely full and carry on average 9.4 ton in each trip.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

5/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Currently, EVM has the benefit that it can invoice the total cost of recollection and
transportation for 57 kilometers, which is the distance between the zero point of the City of
Medellin and the Pradera Landfill, to the final user. But, from the year 2013, according to
information reported by the Comision de Regulacion de Agua (CRA), it will be possible only
to charge to the end user the fee for 20 kilometers, which is the average distance for all big
landfills in all the country.

Figure 4 Collecting trucks for MSW collection and transport (EVM 2009)

In this case, for EVM to not build a transfer station would mean that the company must pay
the others 37 kilometers that are not included in the fee of the final user. This value is around
EUR 2.962.962/year. (Value of each ton of MSW for only transport is around 6.9 EUR/ton for
57 km).
In terms of regulatory aspects, it should be mentioned that in general terms the regulations
allow different schemes to provide the service, such as free competition, contracts with
municipalities with or without exclusivity. The service can also be provided directly by each
municipality or by public, private or mixed capital companies (Colombia 1991).
Rewards are collected directly by the supplier through tariff charges in the bill of other utilities
(electricity, water supply or gas), which are calculated according to methodologies
established by the CRA.
During the last 10 years, MSW management policies have been focused on eliminating
illegal dumping sites, promoting the use of regional landfills and enforcing the formalization of
small suppliers (D-Waste 2012).
2.1.2 PROSPECTIVE TO INSTALL A TRANSFER STATION
The usage of transfer stations has been spread a lot around the US and Canada due to the
possibilities to offer reduced cost of transport of MSW to the final disposal facilities. The
consolidation of smaller loads into larger transfer vehicles reduces the hauling cost, due to
the reduction of the time that vehicles will require to arrive at these sites (EPA 2002).
Other benefits deliver from the use of this type of facilities are:

Reduces the fuel consumption, maintenance costs, air emissions, traffic and road
wearing.
Gives an opportunity to screen waste prior its disposal.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

6/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Produces a higher flexibility for selecting waste disposal options.

MSW transfer stations play an important role in the communities where they are
implemented. These installations are the link between the MSW collection program and the
final disposal facilities. While each facility ownership, sizes, and services offered vary
significantly among transfer stations, they all serve the same basic purpose- consolidating
waste from multiple collection vehicles into larger, high volume transfer vehicles for more
economical shipment to distant disposal sites(EPA 2002). In its simplest form, a transfer
station is a facility with a designated receiving area where waste collection vehicles
discharge their loads. The waste is often compacted, then loaded into larger vehicles
(Usually transfers trailers but intermodal containers, railcars, and barges are also used) for
long haul shipment to a final disposal site. No long-term storage of MSW occurs at a transfer
station; waste is quickly consolidated and loaded into a larger vehicle and moved off site,
usually in a matter of hours.
In the case of Medellin, Colombia, la Pradera Landfill has a useful life around 27 years from
2008. Into the new considerations EVM and EPM are thinking that new landfill will not be
necessary due to several other options will be considered. Then, in the considerations for the
calculations of this transfer station project, it will be considered that it will have a useful life of
around 30 years.
Two places for evaluating the implementation will be considered in this report. The selection
of these places was recommended by EVM, due to economic, technical, environmental,
political and social reasons.
The places that the Company recommends are:
-

Place 1. Tasajera

Tasajera has a total area of 38.6 ha. This place is located from 30 kilometers of the zero
point of the City, and its respective route is presented in figure 5. This place has the
advantage that it is located in the same route to La Pradera Landfill.

Figure 5 Route to Tasajera Place (Google Maps 2014)

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

7/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Place 2. Curva de Rodas Closed Landfill

The Curva de Rodas landfill has a total area of 73 ha, from where 33 ha have been used as
disposal area. Approximately 8.5 million tons of solid waste has been disposed to the landfill
during its operation from the year 1984 up to year 2003, when it was closed. The route from
the zero point of the city to Curva de Rodas is presented in figure 6.

Figure 6 Route to Curvas de Rodas Closed Landfill (I-60 #1-2) (Google Maps 2014)

This place is very near to the zero point of the City (only 10 kilometers), however the main
problem is that this place is not located on the road that goes to the landfill directly. If this
place is selected, it would be necessary to bring the waste there with the trucks and then
increasing the distance for the trailers to the landfill, because they first have to ride back
towards to city to go onto the road towards the landfill.
2.2. BIBLIOGRAPHY REVIEW
By performing the bibliography research, it is possible to state the advantages and
disadvantages of the four principal sources used, which are shown in the Table 2-1.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

8/28

Project Group 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

2014 EDITION

Table 2-1 Comparison of the four principal bibliographical sources used.

Source
EPA
Guidelines(EPA
2002)

Advantages
- It provides very detailed
information
regarding
the
economical
and
technical
constraints related to Transfer
Stations.
- It describes the benefits of using
transfer stations and promotes the
usage of this type of facilities in
MSW management.
- It provides a guidance regarding
the emission factors related to the
vehicles that are expected to be
used for the transport of MSW.
- It provides detailed information
related to the surface water,
groundwater and soil information
should be determined previous
construction of transfer stations.
- It describes the considerations
related to the surroundings of
transfer stations.

Guidelines
of
the
Pollution
Prevention
Division of the
Government
Newfoundland
and
Labrador(Tucker
2008)
RW
BECK - It summarizes efficiently all the
Company(2010) concerns
regarding
the
implementation of transfer stations
(design and operation).
- It provides important information
in relation with the environmental
and social constraints related to the
use of transfer stations.
EVM(EVM
- It provides clear information
2009)
regarding the type of units
available for MSW transport, the
quantity of MSW that is managed
and the costs related to this
process.
-It has located the possible
locations where the transfer station
can be located.

Disadvantages
- It lacks of clear information
related to the method for choosing
the proper site for constructing
transfer stations

- It does not provide sufficient

information regarding the possible
pollution matrix that could be
generated by using transfer
stations.

- The information provided is not

very well detailed in some
important points such as the
surroundings of transfer stations
and the analysis of soil and water.
- The costs provided are not
updated, so they cannot be used
as reference for calculus.
- It lacks of reliable information
concerning the design of transfer
stations.
- It cannot provide accurately the
description of the soil and water
profiles of the available sites for
constructing and operating a
transfer station.

2.2.1 SOCIAL AND SECURITY ASPECTS

MSW management is divided into three basic activities that are production and collection,
transport and disposal. One of most common methods used for MSW disposal is landfills.
Nevertheless, communities are strongly against the presence of this type of installations
close to the cities due to several facts such as the generation of unpleasant odors, the
presence of rodents and vectors and the generation of leachate, which can put as a possible
threat to public health(Tucker 2008).

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

9/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

As it is not well received the use of landfill in areas nearby the cities, generally these
installations are constructed and operated in other areas. This situation creates an
inconvenience, due to the fact that the activities related to transporting MSW to the landfills
become less efficient due to the great distances that haulers have to travel to dispose it.
A possible solution for this issue is using transfer stations; nevertheless that might carry
some social concerns that should be taken into account. The first one is that is mandatory to
used proper operation practices in order to avoid or reduce some circumstances that
produce discomfort in communities, such as litter, noise, dust and odor generation and visual
impacts on the site (RW BECK Company, 2010).
The operation of transfer stations represents also a new source of employment for the
inhabitants of the region where it will operate. Nevertheless, there are other issues that are
necessary to consider, which are the health and safety of the workers inside of the transfer
stations. For avoiding the possible risks that can put a threat to the workers it is necessary to
create an appropriate work environment, and to accomplish these responsibilities:

Provide the proper training to the employees.

Provide the proper guidelines for the type of material that can be accepted in the
transfer station and the prohibited material.
Provide the proper protection equipment.
Provide a safe work environment,
Prepare the operations guidelines and protocols in case of emergencies.

2.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

The environmental effects of a waste transfer station are expected to be minimal due to the
fact that the waste is not disposed at the site, and that it is not expected to be stored there for
a long period of time. Transfer station may work also as centers for separating and sorting
waste, in order to determine the fractions that may be reused or recycled(Tucker 2008).
Nevertheless, incorrectly managed transfer stations can lead to the presence of problems
such as the emission of toxic gases and unpleasant odors, the production of leachate and
litter and the proliferation of vectors, rodents and other animals.
Volatile Organic Compounds and biohazards are produced inevitably during the compression
processes at the transfer stations. It is known that the inhalation and long time exposure to
polluted air (in presence of VOC) can produce chronic health effects to the workers and
population adjacent to the transfer stations. Furthermore, the inhalation or airborne biological
pollutants is very threatening due to their resistance against antibiotics (Li, Zhang et al.
2013). As a preventive action, there are some types of waste that are recommended to be
rejected in transfer stations, which are presented next(EPA 2002):

Hazardous waste.
Compressed gas cylinders.
Bulk liquids.
Refrigerators and air conditioners that contain Freon.
Biomedical waste and sharps

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

10/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Asbestos.

The site where the transfer station will be located should be properly described. The
information should include(Tucker 2008):

Aerial photos.
A legal survey.
Plans which show the proper boundaries, buildings, roads, utility corridors,
topographic contours, drainage channels, water bodies, drinking water supplies,
rights of way, easements, forested/vegetated areas, major excavations or regardingareas, possible site contamination, previous land usage and current land uses on the
site and close areas.
Minimal disruptions of the residential life by the activities performed in the transfer
station.

In order to determine if place can be used for constructing a transfer station, it is necessary
to search which are the initial conditions and the suitability of the site. For these reasons, it is
recommended to asset the following information related to the hydrogeology and the surface
water(Tucker 2008):

A description of the regional geology and hydrogeology within 5 km of the site,

focusing on the areas of unstable soils and including the groundwater conditions.
A description of the geology of the site and adjacent areas, including groundwater,
types of soils and characteristics, topography, groundwater flow direction, water
quality and other parameters related to this field.
The installation of a least four monitoring wells, with at least one installed upstream
the site and the rest should be installed downstream.
A description of the regional surface water features with a minimum ratio of 5 km of
the site. It should be included also the potential interactions between them. It should
include all the possible water sources and features such as wetlands, lakes, ponds,
streams, drainage paths and boundaries.
A description of the surface water in the adjacent areas to determine and assed the
water quantity and quality, the habitat and ecosystems types.

2.2.3 ECONOMIC ISSUES

The economical viability of a transfer station needs to be tested to determine whether if using
it will reduce costs and make the transport process cheaper than the current method. To
answer this dilemma, it is necessary to determine the following information:
-

Current costs of transport of MSW per year

o Distance (in this case 57 km)
o Trucking costs:
Depreciation of truck per km
Fuel cost of truck per km
Time spent bringing MSW to landfill
Costs of labor per hour for garbage collection personnel

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

11/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Average payload of collecting truck:

Capacity of trucks
Used capacity during a normal ride
(1)

Future costs of transport of MSW with a transport station per year

o Transfer station costs:
Depreciation of transport station building
Labor costs of transport station personnel
o Distance to transport station
o Distance from transport station to landfill
o Time spent bringing MSW to transport station
o Trailers needed
o Depreciation of trailers
o Fuel costs of trailers
o Reduction possibility of trucks (since they spent less time driving to landfill)
o Capacity of trailers

(2)
In U.S.A., there is already available information about this subject. It was developed by the
EPA and it is shown in figure 7.

Figure 7 Break-even point transfer station (EPA 2002)

In this case-study, the distance is around 57 km in one way, so a full trip will cover around
104 km (65 miles). According to the outcomes presented by the EPA, a transfer should be
economically beneficial for distances greater than 15-20 miles (EPA 2002). Eventhough,

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

12/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

There are several differences between USA and Colombia in terms fuel, labor costs and
other variables.
2.3. INTRODUCTION TO THE METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED
The principal aim of the report is to evaluate the technical options available for transfer
stations and performing a comparison between the actual transportation activities used in the
city of Medellin for MSW management, and the new expected ones after the implementation
of the transfer station, based on economical, technical and environmental aspects.
For achieving these objectives, the bibliographical research was conducted focus on
determining the situation with MSW in Colombia and the design guidelines for Transfer
Stations recommended by several institutions and companies such as EPA, The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, EPM, EVM and RW BECK; and also some
meetings were held with the companies EPM and EVM. These meetings were especially
important to determine how the transport of MSW in the city of Medellin to the final disposal
site (La Pradera Landfill) is performed, and to determine the possible options where the
transfer station could be located.
The guidelines presented by the EPA, The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
RW BECK were very important to determine which are the available possible configurations
for transfer stations and the constraints that are present when this types of installations are
used in MSW. Based on this information and the one supplied it was selected which is the
best configuration for this case-study.
The economic information used for performing this analysis was supplied also by EPM and
EVM, which includes the costs related to the transport of MSW until La Pradera Landfill, the
investment, operation and maintenance of the transfer station, and the quantity of waste that
is produced in Medellin.
Once all the information was gathered, it was possible to perform the expected analysis,
which includes the recommended configuration, the environmental considerations that need
to be account in the selected location for the transfer station, and the respective economic
analysis considering the quantity of trips that will be required to transport all the MSW and
the possible new configuration.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The project of the implementation of a transfer stations was included into the strategic
planning of the EPM and EVM. For developing this study, some meetings and information
were requested from the companies. Furthermore, the information available on internet was
used. Several team meetings were conducted every two weeks and there were in total 4
videoconferences with the companies to get more information and a better clarity about the
project.
The first and second meetings were almost entirely led by EPM and EVM, where they
presented the project idea of the transfer station and explained the justifications for doing it
also. During the third and fourth meeting, certain kinds of information necessary to develop
this case-study were requested.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

13/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

From the project management perspective, the activities were defined to achieve the
objectives of the report in the set time. These activities were also agreed with EPM and EVM.
These activities are presented in the Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Definition of activities: MSW Possibilities of transfer stations. Case study in Colombia

Activity A: Definition of the problem and objectives

Activity B: Search for documentation and cases of study (Transfer Stations in MSW)
Activity C: Gathering information and questions in relation of MSW in Medellin, Colombia
Activity D: Meetings and video conferences with the Companies EVM and EPM
Activity E: Determination of methodology, constraints and design guidelines
Activity F: Economic, Technical, environmental study with the information gathered and
references
Activity G: Results and recommendations
Activity H: Internal Meetings and definition of functions
Activity I: Preparing intermediate and final reports and other supports

3.2. SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY

For the information needed, research was conducted by using the keywords transfer station
municipal solid waste, transfer station design, economic aspects for transfer stations,
technical aspects for transfer station, environmental constraints for transfer station. This
was done on both website for scientific papers, such as sciencedirect.com, an on normal
search engines, such as google.com.
For presenting the scientific methodology, the Gantt chart is presented in the figure 8. This
chart is a very important tool that aims to shows the time for different tasks or activities along
a given total time.
For the purposes of determining the economical and environmental outcomes, where the
data was gathered some data from EPM, EVM and EPA, three different scenarios were
considered, where the same transfer type of transfer station was evaluated.
1. Actual situation: it represents the current situation, where the transport of MSW is
performed with trucks from the city to the landfill.
2. Option 1 (TS1 in datasheet, see appendix): having a transfer station on route towards
the landfill but further away from the city (location: Tasajera).
3. Option 2 (TS2 in datasheet, see appendix): having a transfer station close by to the
city but a bigger detour is needed considering the direct route from the city center to
the landfill (Curva de Rodas).

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

14/28

Project Group 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

2014 EDITION

Figure 8 Gantt chart: MSW Possibilities of transfer stations. Case study in Colombia

4. EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS
4.1. CONFIGURATIONS OF TRANSFER STATIONS
The available configurations for transfer stations are presented in the Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Classification of transfer stations(2010)

Type of Transfer
Station

Definition

In this type of transfer stations the MSW is loaded directly into

a trailer below (direct dump) or dumped onto a tipping floor
and pushed into a trailer below (push load).
This type represents a variation of the open-top transfer
station. The waste is unloaded into an area below the level of
Surge Pit
the unloading vehicle. Then the trash is pushed automatically
into a trailer.
In this transfer stations the waste is compacted into a trailer or
Compactor/Precompactor
compacted and then loaded into a trailer.
Open-top

In the Table 4-2 a comparison between the different types of transfer stations is made, by
showing their advantages and disadvantages.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

15/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Table 4-2 Comparison between transfer stations (2010)

Type of
Transfer
Station
Open-top
(push load)

Application

Advantages

Disadvantages

- The design can be

configured for both small
and larger transfer
stations.
- It allows for temporary
storage of waste typing
floor.

- Simple Technology.
- Lower capital costs.
- Some storage of MSW
is possible on the tipping
floor.
- Easier to inspect the
waste in the tipping floor.

Open-top
(direct pump)

- The design is typically

configured for smaller
MSW volumes.

- Short-term storage of
MSW.
- Lower capital costs.
- No additional
equipment needed for
putting the MSW into the
trailer.
- Reduces the handling
of MSW.

Surge Pit

- The design is most

suitable for large transfer
stations, with uneven
incoming flows of waste.

- Short term storage of

MSW.
- Bulky items can be
broken down, waste
compacted.
- Simple system.

- It needs a grade
separation process
for top-loading
trailers.
- The customers and
the floor equipment
operate in the same
area.
- The MSW is only
lightly compacted.
- Limited inspection
capacity
- Needs a grade
separation process
for top-loading
trailers.
- No temporary
storage of waste.
- Must always have a
trailer for unloading
customer waste.
- Waste is only lightly
compacted.
- Limited inspection
capability.
- High capital costs.
- Additional
equipment needed to
reload waste into
transfer trailer.
- Fall hazard for
people and vehicles.
- Larger floor area to
maintain.
- High Capital costs.
- Complex
technologies.
- Not suitable for all
types of waste.
- High energy
consumption

Compactor / - Ideal for transfer

Precompactor stations that need to
haul waste for long
distances.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

- Compacting produces
densely compacted
loads.
- Waste can store in
containers for shipment.

16/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

4.2.

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS FOR TRANSFER STATIONS.

4.2.1 ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

The design of the site of transfer stations should be in function to the type and volume of
vehicles that are expected to circulate around the site and the adjacent areas, such as heavy
equipment, trucks and public equipments that arrived to deliver MSW. The access roads
should have a maintenance program to prevent their rutting and excessive erosion. It is also
mandatory to have an entry and out control in order to monitor the type of waste that is
entering to the facility and the vehicle movement (Pollution Prevention Division , 2008).
4.2.2 RECEIVING AREAS
It is recommended that the receiving and the typing areas should be enclosed and that the
typing floor should be designed to prevent the contamination of the soil and the groundwater
and to contain and collect the run-off leachate. It should also have enough thickness and
strength to withstand the stresses imposed by the waste handling vehicles heavy,
equipments and the MSW. The recommended materials for its construction are sealed
concrete and asphalt (Pollution Prevention Division , 2008).
4.2.3 WIND LOADING AND VENTILATION
The use of open-air transfer stations generally carries a problem that makes difficult the
usage of preventive and treating systems for windblown litter, dust and odor. For this reason,
traditionally it has been recommended to use partially-enclosed transfer stations, which
configuration results more appropriate for controlling and managing these issues.
In the case of fully-enclosed transfer stations, there are some issues of concern related to
the internal dust control and ventilation, which are easier accomplished and manage by
partially-enclosed transfer stations also(2010).
4.2.4 LIGHTING
The lighting system should follow the next guidelines to be implemented(2010):
-

It should allow a safety operation of the equipment used for loading and unloading the
MSW.
Increase the operational efficiency in terms of proper distribution inside the transfer
station and reducing as possible the consumption of energy on it.

4.2.5 EXPANSION CAPACITY

The design of a transfer station should leave sufficient room for the developing some other
infrastructures such as storm water ponds, buffers between the site and the adjacent
properties, additional internal roads and additional scales(2010).
In order to allow the transfer stations the possibility to allow a possible expansion, due to the
increase of MSW, it is possible to use the next strategies:

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

17/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Expand the hauling operation by adding a transfer trailer, increasing the operating
hours and implementing drop and hook operations.
Expand the tipping floor by for having an additional storage capacity.

4.2.6 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAM

The surface water management program should include some control tools for avoiding the
erosion and flooding on the site. It should include also an adequate ditching for storm water
drainage. It is recommended to include the next features (Pollution Prevention Division ,
2008):

Appropriate diversion channels of surface water avoid from the working areas of the
site.
Vegetation covers for finished areas.
Appropriate ditching areas for managing storm water.
Appropriate siltation and erosion controls.

4.2.7 ODOR CONTROL SYSTEMS

The odor program management should provide the next information (Pollution Prevention
Division , 2008):

The sensitivity and location of users and occupants of adjacent and nearby
properties.
Population density in the immediate area.
Planned development in the immediate area.
Material collection and handling.
Specifications of the equipment used for odor control.
Protocols for odor control.
Climatic conditions and features.
Geographic features.

4.3. ECONOMICAL OUTCOMES

According to the calculations made a transfer station can be economically beneficial. As can
be seen in Figure 9 a total of almost 2.5 million per year can be saved on the operational
costs (total costs of transferring the waste from the city to the landfill per year) for case 2
compared to the actual situation. The trailers are 1.7 times as expensive per km as the
trucks, however, they can transport almost 3 times as much waste they are more efficient per
ton of waste per km as the trucks.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

18/28

Project Group 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

2014 EDITION

8.3

Million /year

10

6.8

5.9

0
Total costs [million euro]/year
Actual Situation

Option 1

Option 2

Figure 9. Total operational costs for the actual situation, option 1 and 2

The transfer station can be build with a budget of 10,058,112, for both option 1 and 2 since
the expected configuration will be the same. This amount was supply by EPM. The
economical analysis was conceived by considering an economical period of 20 years, and by
using a discount rate of 8%, it was determined that by taking the option 2, the payback time
of the transfer station is around 5 years and 9 months, with an internal rate of return (IRR) of
22% total savings of 12 millions.
4.4.

ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES

In order to quantify the expected emissions that are produced by the transportation activities
in the actual situation and in the options 1 and 2, it was used the guidelines from the EPA,
which states the following classification for heavy duty vehicles, in terms of gross
weight(2008):
-

IIb: 8,501-10,000 lb (examples: full-size pick-up trucks, very large passenger vans).
III: 10,001-14,000 lb (examples: panel trucks, small enclosed delivery trucks).
IV: 14,001-16,000 lb (examples: city delivery trucks, rental trucks).
V: 16,000-19,500 lb (examples: bucket utility trucks, large-walk in delivery trucks).
VI: 19,501-26,000 lb (examples: rack trucks, single axe vans).
VII: 26,001-33,000 lb (examples: tow trucks, garbage collection trucks).
VIIIa: 33,001-60,000 lb (example: long-haul semi-tractor trailer rigs).
VIIIb: > 60,001 lb (example: double long-haul semi-tractor trailer rigs).

For the purposes of this report, it was considered that the trucks are classified in the group
VII and the trailers in the group VIIIb, because of the weight they will carry. The factor
emissions of these vehicles are shown in Table 4-3.
In Table 4-4-4, Figure 10 and Figure 11 a comparison is presented between the actual
transport system called actual situation, and the two options studied for the location of the
transfer station. It is possible to see that the implementation of a transfer station will reduce
significantly the emissions that are actually released to the air, whether which option is used.
This outcome can be appointed to the fact that the emissions that are produced per ton in the
trailers are lower than in the trucks.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

19/28

Project Group 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

2014 EDITION

Table 4-3 Emission Factors for heavy duty vehicles (g/mile)(2008)

Pollutant Fuel
VOC
Gas
Diesel
CO
Gas
Diesel
NOx
Gas
Diesel
PM 2.5
Gas
Diesel
PM 10
Gas
Diesel

IIb
1.353
0.189
11.22
0.839
2.734
3.088
0.043
0.091
0.049
0.099

III
1.667
0.201
15.81
0.908
2.92
3.298
0.045
0.073
0.051
0.079

IV
4.234
0.262
33.86
1.163
4.133
4.352
0.058
0.089
0.074
0.096

V
VI
VII
VIIIa VIIIb
2.632 2.477 2.857 3.628
0.274 0.365 0.453 0.455 0.545
19.58 18.130 23.13 28.56
1.189 1.367 1.719 2.395 3.109
3.735 3.650 4.199 4.892
4.548 5.990 7.471 9.191 10.99
0.046 0.045 0.046 0.049
0.079 0.172 0.177 0.215 0.238
0.055 0.054 0.056 0.061
0.085 0.186 0.192 0.233 0.259

Table 4-4 Comparison of emissions produced on the actual transportation system and the two
options exploited

Actual
Percentage
Percentage
Option 1
Option 2
Pollutant situation
of reduction
of reduction
(TON/year)
(TON/year)
(TON/year)
for option 1
for option 2
NOx
CO
VOC
PM 2.5
PM 10

38.6
8.9
2.3
0.9
1.0

30.0
7.4
1.7
0.7
0.8

Figure 10 Comparison of emissions of NOx

and CO

22.3
16.5
26.9
24.4
24.4

24.6
6.5
1.3
0.6
0.6

36.2
26.4
44.0
39.9
39.8

Figure 11 Comparison of emissions of VOC,

PM 2.5 and PM10

Furthermore, by comparing both options it is possible to see that the option 2 produces lower
emissions than the option 1 in each parameter that was evaluated. This situation is caused
by the fact that option 2 promotes the usage of trailers for covering longer distances than in
the option 1.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

20/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

Project Group 4

2014 EDITION

FINAL REPORT

5. DISCUSSION
5.1. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5.1.1 CONFIGURATION OF THE TRANSFER STATION
Based on the information presented in the Table 4-2, it was decided that the best option for
the transfer station is the open-top with a direct dump configuration. It was chosen because it
requires a lower investment cost than the other configurations and it will produce the lowest
emissions and leachate due to the fact that the MSW is not stored on site. This type of
configuration will allow also more flexibility for preventing any expected increase in MSW
production, by relying in the usage of more trailers when needed. Nevertheless, it will not
allow performing a sorting and waste classification process, compacting waste, and it will
require an efficient operation where always a trailer should be present for receiving MSW.
The improvement of the operation of the transfer station can be reached by using a higher
extension to have a bigger receiving area, which will allow the reception, discharge and final
check of several trucks in parallel. This type of operation will avoid affecting negatively the
traffic in the surroundings of the transfer station.
As the possibility of sorting and compacting of waste is not available, then the reduction,
reuse and recycling of MSW cannot be applied in this site. For this reason, if it is desired to
reduce the quantity of MSW that is going to be sent to the landfill of La Pradera, it will be
necessary to classify waste properly during the collection part of MSW management.
As MSW will not be dumped in the transfer station, the extraction and ventilation system will
not be as restricted as in other type of configurations. Nevertheless, it will be mandatory to
create the proper procedures of operation and demand the use of Personal Protective
Equipment in every operation that will be performed.
Another important constraint that is should be considered consists in the generation of
leachate by compacting MSW in the trucks. This issue was originally solved by adding a
collection tank below the trucks, and discharging it in leachate treatment facility at the landfill
of La Pradrera. Then, for the purposes of the trailers, a similar system can be used for
collecting the leachate and treating it in the same place.
5.1.2

SELECTION OF THE BEST SITE LOCATION FOR THE TRANSFER STATION

By analyzing the environmental constraints that each site has, it is possible to determine
which is the most convenient for implementing a transfer station. In relation with the option 1,
which represents the area located in Tasajera, it is possible to have a transfer station closer
to the landfill of La Pradera. Nevertheless, this type of facility can put a risk to the
environment because it is located next to a water basin that is the Medellin river, and some
areas that are used for recreation. This issue is not present in the area of Curva de Rodas,
which is the option 2. However this site was previously used as a landfill and its location is
further away from the landfill of La Pradera, requiring that the trailers will have to get into the
city for collecting the MSW from the trucks.
As a constraint, the information regarding the presence of a possible pollution matrix in the
area of Curva de Rodas was not found. So the analysis can only be conducted based on the
possible emissions that will be produced by the implementation of transfer station.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

21/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

In the last section, it was explained that the emissions will not be significant in the transfer
station as an advantage of the chosen configuration of operation, so then it is necessary to
account the emissions that can be produced in the transport and compare them with the
actual case.
It resulted that the emissions of the option 2 will be lower than in the case of the option 1, as
shown in the Figure 10 and Figure 11. This implies that it is more effective performing longer
trips with the trailers than with the trucks, due to the fact that the quantity of emissions that
the first ones produce per ton are higher than the ones produced by the second ones, and
that the quantity of trips required form transported the MSW produced in Medellin.
Following the previous idea, it would be more environmentally efficient to construct the
transfer station in Curva de Rodas than in Tasajera, because the quantity of emissions will
be reduced in a higher percentage, respect to the ones that are produced in the actual
transportation system and to the expected ones in Tasajera.
5.2. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The EPA suggested that if the distance from the city to the landfill is bigger than 57 km a
transfer station is a better option in the USA (EPA 2002). With the found data for Colombia, it
was determined that both transfer stations are good options.
In general, it is possible to say that the best location for a transfer station is as closer to the
city center as possible, in an economical perspective. This situation can be explained by the
fact that trailers are more efficient due they can transport almost three times as much MSW
than a truck, providing a lower quantity of trips to the landfill of La Pradera, even though the
price per kilometer is higher.
According to the meetings performed with EPM and EVM, they considered that the payback
time obtained was very short (5 years and 9 months), and that the IRR obtained makes the
project very attractive for being implemented. Nevertheless, one assumption that was taken
for the calculations consisted that it was considered that the cost of transportation will not
change during the whole economical period. This assumption might lead to some differences
in the future profitability of the project due to the fact that it did not predict any possible
changes in the cost of transport in the future. Most probably these changes in the cost of
transport will lead to a bigger profit of the project (the implementation of a transfer station)
since the trailers are more efficient.
For example it is likely that the fuel prices will rise in the future, since the actual case uses
more fuel (because they use more trucks instead of the more efficient trailers) the cost
saving compared to the other options will increase.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The transportation of MSW management in Medellin Colombia has been traditionally
performed by trucks, which have to travel from the city to the Landfill of La Pradera, covering
a distance of 57 km in each trip. Each truck can contain only a maximum quantity of 9 ton per
trip and due to the distance they have to cover and the collection activities, the can only do a
maximum of two trips to the La Pradera landfill every day.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

22/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

The implementation for transfer station seemed to be an excellent opportunity for the city of
Medellin, where several benefits could be obtained, and it could give a better chance to EVM
and EPM to improve the management of MSW. It could provide the possibility to improve the
section of collection of MSW management significantly, by reducing costs and emissions to
the air.
The best configuration seemed to be an open-top with a direct dumping process, where the
emissions and leachate production are extensively reduced by avoiding dumping on the site
of the transfer station, and putting MSW into the trailers. Nevertheless, some operational
research should be performed in order to determine the best way to design the receiving
areas to avoid the creation of traffic jams and to customize a parallel process of discharging.
It will carry also the disadvantage that MSW cannot be recycled and reused properly in the
transfer station.
The use of trailers for taking MSW longer distances and so shorter distances for the trucks
will be more economically and environmentally convenient. To have a shorter distance for
the trucks, the transfer station should be located as close to the city center of Medellin as
possible, because this will reduce the emissions to the air and the cost related to the
transport because the trailers are more efficient. Based on the availability of places and the
possible negative environmental impacts Curva de Rodas seems to be the best option. The
return of investment can be reached a relative short period (5 years and 9 months) of time,
which is attractive for EPM and EVM.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results obtained in the report, it can be possible to state the following
recommendations:

Evaluate the possibility of applying a classification and separation system for the
collection of MSW, for reducing the quantity of MSW sent to the landfill, the costs of
transport of MSW and extending the useful life of the landfill.
Develop a research in order to determine which is the optimal operation and working
procedures to be applied in the transfer station, which will allow the optimal reception
and discharge of MSW.
Perform a research study, in order to determine any possible pollution matrix that can
be present in both sites and the possible historical usage of these sites. In case that it
exists, it will be necessary to remediate the soil before the construction of the transfer
station, and the budget will need to be reconsidered.
Evaluate other systems for transporting MSW such as ships or trains, in order to
determine if they are even more economically convenient and environmental friendly.

8. REFERENCES
- Congreso de Colombia. (1991). Ley de Servicios Publicos 142.
- D-Waste. (2012). Solid Management in Colombia. Colombia.
- EPA. (2008). Average In-Use Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks. Office of Transportation and
Air Quality.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

23/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

- EPA. (2002). Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making.

- EVM. (2009). Empresas Varias de Medellin. Medellin.
- Guiying, L., Zhengyong, Z., Hongwei, S., Jiangyao, C., Taicheng, A., & Bing, L. (2013).
Pollution profiles, health risks of VOCs and biohazards emitted from municipal solid waste
transfer station and elimination by an integrated biological-photocatalytic flow syste: A pilotscale-investigation. Journal of Hazardous Materials , 250-251, 147-154.
- Pollution Prevention Division. (2008). Environmental Standars for Municial Solid Waste
Transfer Stations. St John's, NL.: Department of Environment and Conservation. Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
- RW BECK Company . (04 de April de 2010). How To Plan, Design, and Finance Small Transfer
Stations and Citizens' Collection Stations. Arlington 76011, TX, US.
- SSPD. (2008). www.superservicios.gov.co.
- The World Bank. (2012). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers.

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

24/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

9. APPENDIXES
9.1. ECONOMIC DATASHEET
Table 9-1 Given amounts of waste per day and payload for
trucks

Total amount of waste

Truck
Trailer
Collection time

1800
9
25
4

ton/ day
ton/trip
ton/trip
Hours

Table 9-2 Distances

Distance city to
Landfill
Distance city to TS 1
Distance city to TS 2
Distance TS 1 to
landfill
Distance TS 2 to
landfill

57 Km

2 Hours

30 Km
12 Km
27 Km

1 Hour
0.5 Hour
1 Hour

46 Km

1.5 Hours

Table 9-3 No transfer station

Trucks
Total time per trip
Time per day
Trips per day
Tons per truck
Total trucks needed

8
16
2
18
100

Trailer
No trailer needed

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

25/28

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT
2014 EDITION

Project Group 4
FINAL REPORT

Table 9-4 Scenario Location 1 TS

Trucks
Total time per trip
Time per day
Trips per day
Tons per truck per
day
Total trucks
needed

6
16
2. 7
24
75

Trailer
Total time per trip
Time per day
Trips per day
Tons per trailer per
day
Total trailers
needed

2
16
8
200
9

Table 9-5 Location 2 TS

Trucks
Total time per trip
Time per day
Trips per day
Tons per truck per
day
Total trucks
needed
Trailer
Total time per trip
Time per day
Trips per day
Tons per trailer
per day
Total trailers
needed

5
16
3.2
28.8
62.5

3
16
5.3
133.3
13.5

Table 9-6 No Transfer station in

Truck
Total km per day
Total cost per day

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

1.00
22800
22,800.00

/ km
km

26/28

Project Group 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

2014 EDITION

Table 9-7 Cost in per day for TS 1

Truck
From City center to TS
Trailer
From TS to Landfill
Total

1.00
12000
1.70
3888
18,609.60

/ km
km
/ km
km

Table 9-8 Cost in per day for TS 2

Truck
From City center to
TS
Trailer
From TS to LF
Total cost per day
Total savings per
year compared to
no TS
Operating and
maintenance cost
of transfer station
Profit per year

1.00 / km
4800
1.70 / km
6624
16,060.80

2,459,808

200,000
2,259,808

Table 9-9 Investment cost of transfer station

Investment costs transfer station

Total cost of
10,058,112
investment
Table 9-10 Discounted profit/cost saving for option 2

Discount
Year
rate
8.0% Discounted
cash

2,092,415

Year
Discounted
cash

1,424,062

Year
Discounted
cash

1,937,421
6

11
969,193

Year
Discounted
cash

659,616

Total

12,129,016

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

16

1,793,908

1,318,576
12
897,401
17
610,756

1,661,026

1,220,904
13
830,927
18
565,515

1,537,987

10

1,046,728

14

15

1,130,467

769,377
19
523,625

712,386
20
484,838

27/28

Project Group 4

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING
PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

2014 EDITION

Table 9-11 Internal rate of return (IRR) of 22%

Discount
rate

Year
Discounted
22.0% cash
Year
Discounted
cash
Year
Discounted
cash

1,851,545

1,517,040

1,242,967

1,018,409

683,672

560,158

11
252,442

Year
Discounted
cash

93,213

Total

(0.00)

458,958

12

13

206,835

16

376,041

169,467

17
62,575

834,420
10
308,105

14
138,851

18

76,373

15
113,766

19
51,270

20
42,007

Table 9-12 Payback period (PB) of 5 years and 9 months

Payback time
Total cost of investment
Years needed to pay back
amount
Months needed

IEP 2014 Final report Group 4

Amount left
10,058,112.00
5
9

1,035,353
(32,692)

28/28