Generation of Steam
from Solid Wastes
PB-214 166
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
prepared for
¦
Environmental Protection Agency
1972
Distributed By:
National Technical Information Service
II S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA '• Report No. 2-
SHEET EPA-SW-49D-72
PB 214 166
4. Title and Subtitle
<#
Generation of Steam from Solid Wastes
5. Report Date
1972
6.
7. Author(s)
Metcalf 5 Eddy, Inc., and City of Lynn, Massachusetts
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
City of Lynn,- Massachusetts
City Hall
Lynn, Massachusetts 01901
10. Pro)ect/Task/Worlt Unit No.
11. XXitt&KX/Grant No.
G06-EC-00195
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The economic feasibility of a refuse-fired waterwall incinerator that would supply
steam to an industrial firm is investigated for a community looking for an acceptable
solid waste disposal method.A Several different combinations of grate type, equipment
ownership, and equipment location are cost-compared in detail. Plant equipment
components and manpower requirements are described. Other solid waste disposal
alternatives are discussed. -The City of Lynn concludes that a waterwall incinerator
facility is the region's most feasible future solid waste disposal method. *"
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
*Refuse disposal, *Incinerators, Steam, *IIeat recovery, *Cost estimates, *Waste
heat boilers, Shredding
17b. Identif icrs/Open-Ended Terms
*Solid waste disposal, *Resource recovery, *Waterwall incinerators
17c. COSATI Field/Group 13B
18. Availability Statement
Release to public
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
139
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72) USCOMMv6c 14092-P72
r
-------
EPA-SVM9D-72
GENERATION OF STEAM FROM SOLID WASTES
This publication (SW-49d) reports on work performed
under Federal solid waste management demonstration grant
No. G06-EC-00195 to the City of Lynn3 Massachusettst
and is reproduced as received from the grantee.
Part I was written by METCALF § EDDY, INC.
Part II was written by the CITY OF LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
i *
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-49d) in the
solid waste management series.
iii
-------
FOREWORD
The concept of a solid waste waterwall incinerator generating
steam for the General Electric River Works plant, which was studied
in this report, is now being implemented in Saugus, Massachusetts,
by the Thermal Energy Systems Company, a joint venture of Combustion
Engineering, Inc., and the DeMatteo Construction Company. Construction
was scheduled to begin during the summer of 1972 on the 1200 TPD water-
wall incinerator. Due to problems encountered in organizing the North
Shore Solid Waste District among the cities in the Saugus area, an
operating agreement, as contemplated by the City of Lynn in this report,
was never reached between the District and the General Electric Company.
—ARSEN J. DARNA.Y
Director
Resource Recovery Division
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I Page
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
REPORT
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1
CHAPTER 2 - PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 2-1
CHAPTER 3 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3-1
Conclusions 3-1
Recommendations 3-3
CHAPTER 4 - BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA 4-1
General 4-1
Heating Value of Refuse 4-1
General Electric's Steam Requirements 4-2
Boiler Requirements 4-3
Backup Facilities 4-3
Available Utilities 4-3
Refuse Densities 4-4
CHAPTER 5 - REFUSE GENERATION 5-1
General 5-1
Population 5-1
Available Data 5-3
Refuse Projection in Lynn 5-3
Additional Communities 5-4
CHAPTER 6 - DESCRIPTION OF BASIC ALTERNATIVES 6-1
General 6-1
Alternative A-Ia 6-2
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Alternative A-1I 6-7
Alternative A-Tb 6-11
Alternative ll-I 6-12
Alternative It-II 6-16
Alternative CM 6-20
Alternative CMI 6-22
CI IA ITER 7 - UNITS OF REFUSE PROCESSING SYSTEM 7-1
Weighing Facilities 7-1
Dumping Floor 7-1
Storage Bin 7-2
Crane-s 7-3
Shredders 7-3
Dust Collector 7-4
Conveyors 7-4
Storage Silos 7-5
Bulky Refuse Handling 7-6
Residue Handling 7-7
CHAPTER ft - UNITS OF REFUSE-BURNING SYSTEM 8-1
Steam-Generating Unit 8-1
Reciprocating Grate Stoker 8-2
Spreader Stoker 8-2
Control System 8-3
Water-Softening System 8-4
Boiler Feed and Steam Systems 8-5
Fuel Oil Systems 8-6
Combustion-Air and Induced-Draft Systems 8-7
Air Pollution Control Systems and Stacks 8-7
CHAPTER 9 - RIVER CROSSING 9-1
General 9-1
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pane
CHAPTER 10 - SEPARATE STUDIES 10-1
CcneraJ 10-1
Reciprocating Orate Stoker versus Spreader Stoker 10-1
Dumping Floor versus Storage Bin 10-2
Shredding versus Handling Raw Refuse 10-Ti
Disposal During Two-Week Annual Outage 10-.'}
Value of Steam 10-4
CHAPTER 11 - PLANT STAFF REQUIREMENTS 11-1
(ienrral 11-1
City Staff 11-1
(>cncral Electric Staff 11-4
Salary Costs 11 -4
CHAPTER 12 - UNIFORM COLLECTION ORDINANCES 12-1
Certeral 12-1
Collection Practices 12-1
Collection Schedule 12-2
CHAITER 13 - OTHER METHODS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL 13-1
Cleneral 13-1
Sanitary Landfill 13-1
Conventional Incineration 13-2
High-Temperature Incineration 13-3
Compaction and Rail Haul 13-3
Composting 13-4
Ocean Disposal 13-4
CHAPTER 14 - COST ESTIMATE 14-1
(General 14-1
Buildings and Structures 14-2
Boiler Plant 14-2
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Superheater 14-3
Fccdwatcr System 14-3
Auxiliary Oil System 14-4
Ash-Handling System 14-4
Other Equipment 14-4
Process Piping 14-4
Instrumentation 14-5
Electrical 14-5
River Crossing Structure 14-5
Pipes Crossing River 14-5
Operation 14-5
Labor 14-5
Summary 14-6
CHAPTER 15 - ECONOMIC EVALUATION - COST
APPORTIONMENT 15-1
General 15-1
CHAPTER 16 - EXPANSION AND ADAPTABILITY
TO OTHER AREAS 16-1
Expanded Facilities at the Lynn-Suugus Location 16-1
Adaptability to Other Areas 16-1
CHAPTER 17-ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 17-1
APPENDIX A A-l
PAR-T II
Action Plan by the City of Lynn for Implementing the
Concept,.Proposed in Part I
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tal»le I'age
1 Presenting I lealing Values of Refuse 4-1
2 (Jeneral Eleelrie's Steam Re(|uireinenls 4-2
.1 Reluse Densities 4-4
4 Estimated Refuse Produelion in Lynn 5-4
5 Estimated 1970 Refuse Production in Matiant, 5-5
Saugus, and Swamps* oil
6 Summary of Alternatives 6-6
7 I'lant Slall Requirements and Salary Costs I 1-2
H (Comparison of Alternatives 15-4
A-l Estimated Cjpil.il Investment — Buildings A-l
and Slruelures ((lily oi Lynn)
A-2 Eslimaled Capital Investment — Equipment A-2
((lily of Lynn)
A-il Eslimaled Capilal Inveslment — Buildings A-.'l
and Slruelures (Oeneral Eleelrie)
A-4 Estimated Capital Inveslment — Equipment A-4
((General Eleelrie)
A-5 Eslimaled Operating Cosls ((lily of Lynn) A-5
A-6 Estimated Operating Costs (Ceneral Eleelrie) A-5
A-7 Summary — Eslimaled Annual Costs A-6
ix
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Location Plan 1-3
Refuse Processing Plant and Steam Generation Facility 3-2
Population (City of Lynn) 5-2
Schematic Flow Diagram — Alternative A-Ia 6-3
Alternative A-Ia — Site Plan & Plans 6-4
Alternative A-Ia — Sections and Elevations 6-5
Schematic Flow Diagram — Alternatives A-Ib & A-II 6-8
Alternative A-II — Site Plan, Plans & Sections 6-9
Alternative A-II — Plans & Elevations 6-10
Schematic Flow Diagram — Alternative B-I 6-13
Alternative B-I — Site Plan, Plans & Sections 6-14
Alternative B-I — Plans, Sections & Elevations 6-15
Schematic Flow Diagram — Alternative B-II 6-17
Alternative B-II - Site Plan, Plans & Sections 6-18
Alternative B-II — Plans, Sections & Elevations 6-19
Schematic Flow Diagram — Alternative C-I 6-21
Schematic Flow Diagram — Alternative C-II 6-23
Aerial View — Vicinity of Proposed Saugus River Crossing 9-2
Location of Proposed Saugus River Crossing 9-3
X
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
20 Subaqueous River Crossing 9-4
21 Typical Pier Support for River Crossing Structure 9-6
22 Typical Section — Conveyor Housing Across Saugus River 9-7
23 Cost Apportionment — Summary 15-2
24 Summary — Estimated Annual Revenue 15-6
xi
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
On October 9, 1967, the major dumping area of Greater Lynn, the
DeMatteo landfill, was closed as a result of action taken by a group of
citizens who were dissatisfied with the operation of the facility. Though a
"stay of execution" has been granted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, allowing selected communities to continue using the facility,
the problem of refuse disposal in this area has become critical. It is clear that
continued use of the DeMatteo area will not be tolerated much longer.
The City of Lynn, excluded from using the DeMatteo facility,
formulated an agreement with the New England Power Company whereby it
would establish a sanitary landfill on an area of land owned by that firm.
This is the only current source of land for refuse disposal in the City of
Lynn and it is rapidly being depleted. A plan to construct an adequate solid
wastes facility is absolutely necessary.
The General Electric Company's River Works Plant, located in Lynn,
has a need for additional steam. This need for steam at the industrial facility,
and the severe problem of disposal of solid wastes in the community, have
brought the General Electric Company and the City of Lynn together in this
joint venture.
There are facilities in operation, such as the United States Navy's
incinerator-boiler at Norfolk, Virginia, which utilize the heat frQm the
combustion of refuse for steam generation. It was therefore proposed that
the two parties combine in a joint venture for thejr mutual benefit. The
refuse will have a value as a fuel to the General Electric Company, and the
disposal service will have a value to the community.
Application was made to the Bureau of Solid Wastes Management of
the United States Public Health Service for a study and investigation grant to
help finance a study of the concept of utilizing refuse from the City of Lynn
as a low-grade fuel to generate steam for use by the General Electric
Company, thereby achieving a mutual economic savings. Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, and the Foster Wheeler Corporation, New York,
New York, were engaged by the City of Lynn and the General Electric
Company, respectively, as consultants.
1-1
-------
Authorization to begin work under Grant No. 1-D01-U1-00195-01A1
was received on June 24, 1969.
The study will investigate several alternative solutions with varying
degrees of involvement, in regard both to initial capital outlay, and to the
operation of the facility by the two parties. A site plan showing the
relationship of the proposed truck-unloading facility and the existing
General Electric Company boiler complex is shown on Figure 1.
The recommendations herein apply to a situation existing in the. City of
Lynn, Massachusetts, and is based on several conditions that apply only to
the study area. It is felt, however, that the basic concept is applicable to any
location in the United States where there is a market for steam. For the
recommendations to be applicable to other localities, it would be accessary
to obtain specific data for the situation and reanalyze.
1-2
-------
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
WEST LYNN
EXISTING BOILER COMPLEX
Itui page is reproduced again at the bock of
this report by a different reproduction method
•o as to furnish the best possible detail to the
FIG. t LOCATION PLAN
1-3
-------
BOSTON AND MAINE
¦railroad!
* PROPOSED SITE
GENERAL ELECTRIC S
¦TncineratorI
Tki» page is reproduced again at the back of
the report by a different reproduction method
so as to furnish the best possible detail to the
user.
FIG. I LOCATION PLAN
(cont'd)
1-3A
-------
CHAPTER 2
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The basic purpose of the project was to study and investigate the
feasibility of a governmental unit (the City of Lynn) and a large industrial
firm (River Works Plant, General Electric Company) operating as a joint
venture a solid waste disposal facility that would use municipal solid waste as
a low-grade fuel for steam generation.
The River Works of the General Electric Company, located in Lynn,
Massachusetts, owns and operates a multiboiler steam-generating plant which
carries the steam load of this large industrial complex. The firm is presently
planning to add a large new boiler to this plant. The General Electric
Company has proposed to use municipal solid waste as a supplementary fuel
for the new boiler. Though the concept of using solid waste as a low-grade
fuel to generate steam is being applied successfully in the United States, the
concept needs to be studied for financial feasibility under specific conditions
prior to implementation.
The report compares the economic feasibility of three alternatives for
the ownership and operation of the proposed steam-generating system:
A. Waste-preparation plant to be owned and operated by the City of
Lynn; the boiler and superheater to be owned and operated by the
General Electric Compuny. (There would be 800-foot long
conveyors connecting the two facilities.)
B. Waste-preparation plant and boiler to be owned and operated by
the City of Lynn; the superheater to be owned and operated by
the General Electric Company. (There would be an 800-foot long
steam main between the boiler and the superheater.)
C. Same ownership and operation as Alternative A, but the two
plants would be located adjacent to each other; therefore the
800-foot long conveyors would not be necessary.
The specific objectives of the study were as follows:
a. To determine the optimum refuse-burning method in the
steam-generating boiler.
2-1
-------
b. To determine refuse-preparation requirements associated with the
o|>timum burning method.
c. To determine the best method of conveying refuse from the
preparation plant to' the boiler.
d. To develop preliminary engineering details sufficiently to
determine site, equipment and building requirements for the
several alternatives.
e. To determine capital arid operating costs of alternative possible
preparation and burning methods, and to select and develop
details on the optimum overall system.
f. To demonstrate that the cost of refuse disposal and the cost of
steam generation can both be reduced by utilizing refuse as a fuel.
g. To demonstrate that a substantial reduction in the amount of
public capital funds and public operating costs can be achieved if
the facility is partially owned and operated by private enterprise.
h. To develop an overall plan in such a way as to demonstrate the
feasibility of an industry or utility engaging in a joint enterprise
with municipalities for refuse disposal purposes, at other locations
in the United States.
2-2
-------
CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1. There is a nerd for a new means of refuse disposal for I lie (lily of l.ynn,
jimI iii lad, most of llie communities 111 llie area just north of lioston.
2. The local government-private enterprise joint-venture concept of refuse
disposal and steam generation is feasible, and it offers mutual economic
iM'iicfits to tlx* City of l.ynn and the (General Electric Company. "
Alternative A-II, shown on Kigiirc 2, and Alternative 11-11 an1 more
attractive from an cconomn standpoint than the other .feasible
alternatives. Alternative li-ll offers greater flexibility in that, being
located in Saugub, then: is room for future expansion. In Alternative
A ll the boiler is located ill General Electric's plant, where expansion is
limited due to nonavailability of space.
4. The present heating value oi refuse in the Greater l.ynn area is
estimated to be 4,970 litu (Itritish thermal unit) per pound as fired. It is
expected to go to 6,000 lllu per pound as fired by the year 1990.
!>. When operating with refuse having an as-fired heating value of 4,^70 Btu
per pound the boiler wilt have the capacity to burn HU4 tpd (tons per
day) with a reciprocating grate stoker, and 612 tpd witli a spreader stoker.
6. The present residential refuse-generation rate in the City of Lynn is
estimated to be 160 tpd. This is expected to increase to 2!iR tpd by the
year 1990.
7. There is sufficient refuse iri the Greater Lynn area to satisfy the
requirements of the boiler with either a reciprocating grate or
spreader-type stoker.
H. Alternative. C, in which both the process plant and boiler are located in
the General Electric Yard near the existing boiler complex, is not
implcmcntablc due to the lack of available space, although it would be
suitable for some areas hi other parts of the country.
3 1
-------
aumu.0 axon
FIG. 2 REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT AND
STEAM GENERATION FACILITY
3-2
-------
FIG. 2 REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT AND
STEAM GENERATION FACILITY (cont'd)
3-PA
-------
9. All refuse must be shredded lo less than 4 inches when the spreader
stoker is used, whereas only bulky wastes must be shredded when the
reciprocating pule stoker is used.
10. Ilcfusc must he fed lo the boiler continuously, 24 hours per day, 350
days per year.
11. The boiler will be capable of producing up to 400,000 pounds of
saturated steam at approximately 750 psig when burning a combination
of No. 6 oil and refuse, and also when burning No. 6 oil alone.
12. The river crossing must have a horizontal clearance of at least 50 feel
and an unrestricted vertical clearance of at least 40 feel above.,mean
water level.
I .'J. A crossing under the Saugus River would be more cosily than an
overhead crossing.
14. Storing refuse in a storage bin and removing it with overhead bridge
cranes would be less costly than storing refuse on a slab at grade and
using front-end loaders to feed tlx; conveyors.
15. The boiler must he shut down annually for a two-week maintenance
period. During this time, an alternate method of refuse disposal will be
necessary.
16. The value of the steam produced by the proposed boiler and
superheater, based on General Rlectric's current production costs is
$0,877 per 1,000 pounds.
17. Conventional incineration and rail-haul lo a remote landfill are the only
feasible alternate methods of disposal currently available to the City of
Lynn.
IH. The annual cost for refuse disposal and sle.am generation would be in
the vicinity of $2,500,000.
19. Uased on a value of §0.877 per 1,000 pounds for steam and an average
General Electric demand of 200,000 pounds per hour, the steam would
have an annual value of $1,480,000.
.'J-3
-------
20. For comparison with oilier methods of rcfu.se disposal, the ncl cos! of
refuse disposal has bc.cn estimated lo he $4.fi7 and $4.48 |>er ton hi
Alternatives A-II and IMI respci lively.
21. This joint veiitnie eoneepl appears <|iiilc .sinlahle lo any region of the
lounlry where sizeable (|iianlilies of refuse are generated ami where
there is a need for steam.
Recommendations
1. 'Ihe (lily of l.ynn and the General Kleelrie Company .should form .1
join I venture lo eonslrnel and operate a solid wastes disposal-steam
generation facility which would use municipal solid wastes as a
low-grade fuel lor sleam generation.
2. A spreader stoker should be used rather than a reciprocating grate
stoker because it has a greater capacity and because it offers a lower
cosl per toil of refuse burned.
.'I. Questionnaires should be sent lo neighboring communities, industries,
ami private collectors to ascertain the amount of refuse that would be
available at the facility. If this (|iiaulity is sign 111< anlly greater than 612
Ions per day, the economics of an enlarged facility should he compared
with (hose of Alternative IMI before a final selection is made.
4. The existing fuel storage arid distribution system and the existing boiler
fccdwatcr treatment fa< ililics at Ihe General Kleelrie Company should
be used regardless of ihe allcrnative selected. Also, power should he
obtained Irom (he General Kleelrie Company.
5. The superheater should be separated from the incinerator, regardless of
the alternative selected, lo prevent impingement of refuse gases on the
high-lempcralurc lubes of I lit* superheater.
6. An overhead river crossing should lie used rather than an underwater
crossing. There should be a vertical clearance of al least f>(F feet above
mean water level and a horizontal clearance between abutments of al
least fit) feet also. Prior lo final design, the appropriate authorities
should he contacted regarding the river crossing.
7. A sel of rules and regulations should he established by the Cily Of Lynn
lo control the lypes ol rclnsc < oining mlo llic process plant.
:j-4
-------
8. The collection schedules of all of the communities and private haulers
using the facility should be coordinated by the City of Lynn to balance
the daily incoming refuse load.
9. Noncombustible bulky refuse should not be accepted at the process
plant.
10. The City of Lynn should investigate existing and proposed financial aid
programs of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the
United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to
ascertain if there are any governmental moneys available to finance all
or a portion of the design and construction of the facilities. In
particular, the proposed Resource Recovery Act (H.R. 11833), if
passed, would authorize the expenditure of moneys by the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare for solid wastes treatment.
3-5
-------
CHAPTER 4
BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA
General
The basic criteria used for the design and selection of the major
components of the refuse-processing and burning systems are presented
under the respective components in Chapters 7 and 8. Other basic design
criteria used in this report are presented below.
Heating Value of Refuse
The heating value of a substance is the number of Btu produced
by combustion for each pound of the original substance. Heating values
have been determined in laboratories for most combustible substances.
A summary of these values can be found in most mechanical engineering
handbooks.* The heating value of a mixture consisting of several separate
substances can be determined by using a weighted percentage based on
the weight of each separate substance. Because the composition of refuse
varies greatly, and because many different substances with differing heating
values are found in refuse, the heating value has been found to vary greatly.
For example, commercial refuse, because of the relatively high proportion
of garbage, would have a lower heating value than industrial refuse, which
has lilllc garbage in it. The heating values used in this report arc shown in
Tnlilc I.
Table 1. Present Heating Values of Refuse
Heating value,
Btu per pound
Source
as fired
Residential refuse
5,000
Commercial refuse
4,000
Industrial refuse
6,000
*Salisbury, J. K., ed. Kent's mechanical engineers'
handbook; power volume. Section 2. Combustion and fuels.
12th ed. New York, John Wiley S Sons, Inc., 1950.
p.2(01)-2(98).
4-1
-------
The composite heating value of refuse that would be expected at the
process plant was determined by multiplying the weight of residential,
commercial, and industrial refuse by the respective heating values shown
above, and then dividing by the combined weight of all the refuse. The
resulting heating value was found to be 4,970 Btu per pound as fired.
The trend in the past has been a steady rise in heating value due to the
decreased proportion of garbage and increased proportions of combustible
packaging materials in the total refuse. Based on this trend, a heating value
of 6,000 Btu per pound as Fired was assumed for the year 1990.
General Electric's Steam Requirements
The General Electric Company has requested that steam be provided at
boiler outlet conditions of 650 psig (pounds per square inch gage), and at a
temperature of R50 deg F.
The demand is not constant over a 24-hour period, but varies from a
minimum of 200,000 pounds per hour to a maximum of 400,000 pounds
per hour. Hourly rates, together with the percentage of time they are
required, as established by General Electric, are shown in Table 2.
Tabic 2. General Electric's Steam Requirements
Demand
Pounds per hour
Percent of time
400,000
5
350,000
10
300,000
50
200,000
35
Total
100
The steam requirements in Table 2 include an allowance for the steam
required to preheat the feedwater and to operate the deaerator. Accordingly,
4-2
-------
even if the boiler is to Im* operated by the City of Lynn, the total steam
production required from the boiler would remain as shown in the tabic.
Boiler Requirements
The boiler must be capable of handling over 300 tons of refuse per
24-hour day. Ability of the equipment to handle larger quantities of refuse is
a desirable feature. The physical size of the boiler is, however, limited by the
space available in the General Electric Company yard.
1'hc boiler will be capable of generating the full load (400,000 pounds
per hour) when firing a combination of oil and refuse and also when firing
oil alone. It will also be capable of firing over the full range indicated in
Tabic 2.
General Electric has established requirements that the boiler be entirely
above ground level and that the firing aisle be 20 feet above the present
ground-floor elevations.
Backup Facilities
The design of the processing plant will be such that the operating
capacity is obtainable, with any one piece of equipment out of service. This
backup may be provided with standby equipment, by operating other
equipment for additional hours during the day, or a combination.
Available Utilities
1'hc existing fuel storage and distribution system, and portions of the
existing boiler fccdwater treatment facilities, at the General Electric
Company would be used for the new boiler.
The General Electric Company generates its own power which will be
used to operate both the equipment associated with the boiler and the
refuse-processing equipment.
Water for drinking and fire protection can be obtained from a
Metropolitan District Commission water main located in Route 107, which is
about 1,000 feet from the proposed plant, or from the General Electric
Company distribution system.
4-3
-------
Sanitary sewage originating on ihc soulhwcsl side of the Saugus River
can lie collected and pumped across Route 107 to an existing sanitary
sewerage system.
Refuse Densities
The density of refuse varies depending upon the degree of compaction
and the particular constituents of the batch being investigated. For instance,
municipal refuse at the curb side has an average density between 5 and 10
pcf (pounds per cubic foot). When placed in a packer truck, the density
reaches about 20 pcf. Refuse compacted in huge compaction machines can
reach a density of over 60 pcf.
The densities used in this report arc presented in Tabic 3.
Table !l. Refuse Densities
Degree of preparation
Pounds per
cubic fool
Normal refuse
Pucker truck
IH.O
Storage bin
12.5
Shredded refuse
Conveyor
6.0
Storage silo
15.0
Residue
Dry
40.0
Wet
50.0
4-4
-------
CHAPTER 5
REFUSE GENERATION
General
The total quantity of refuse generated in a community is related to the
size and socioeconomic status of its population, and to the extent of its
commercial and industrial activity.
The quantity of residential refuse estimated to be generated in Lynn,
and the quantity of refuse generated by the General Electric Company,
during the economic life of the preparation plant and boiler equipment is
not sufficient to satisfy the capacity of the boilers recommended by the
Foster Wheeler Company. Therefore, additional refuse quantities could be
processed through the facilities and thereby reduce costs to the City of Lynn
and the General Electric Company.
The controversial DeMattco landfill, subject of repeated court actions
to close it down, is located less than one mile south on Route 107.
No attempt was made to gel a firm commitment from any community
or private collector to use the proposed Lynn facility, since at this time
Lynn cannot guarantee that the proposed plan will be implemented. Once
the construction of the Lynn disposal facility has been committed,
iirgilii>iip rlioiilil brgin with mlnrcnlril 1'iitmniiiilirp mill privulr,
t oilet lorn Due to the. ronlniviTby surrounding the landfill, wit fed
that there will be sufficient refuse available to enable complete utilization of
the proposed refuse-burning facilities.
Population
The United States Census and the Massachusetts Decennial Census
population figures for Lynn from 1930 to 1965, as well as population
projections through the year 1990, have been plotted on-Figure 3.
The population of Lynn has been decreasing since 1945,' and an
increase is not anticipated in the foreseeable future. Thus, we have projected
the population through the year 1990 using an average of 90,000 persons.
5 1
-------
150
100
to
o
CO
o
CJ1
I
ro
o
a.
50
1
1
»
1
1
PREDICTED FUTURE TREND |
'SOURCE; U,3. CENSUS DATA AND
MASS* DECENNIAL CENSUS
1 1 i
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
I960
1970
I960
1990
2C 0
YEAR
FIG. 3 POPULATION (CITY OF LYNN)
-------
Available Data
In 1967 the Director of Public Works reported thai then* were 127 tons
of residential rubbish per day generated in Lynn. This figure does not
include an allowance for garbage. The present quantity oT garbage is
estimated lo be 20 tpd. Projecting the rubbish figure on the basi.s of a
two percent yearly increase, and adding to it the garbage quantity, results
in an estimated generation rale of 160 tpd of residential refuse at the
present time. Hased oil a population of 1)0,000, this is equivalent lo a
residential refuse generation of 3.4f» pounds pei capita per day.
General Electric, in addilion to having a need for the steam generated
by this project, also has a sizable refuse disposal need. They estimate that an
average of 16.S Ipd of refuse is generated at the River Works complex.
Rased on the fact that General Electric employs over one-third of all
industrial workers in the City of Lynn,* and that because of the nature of its
operations it generates more refuse ori a pcr-capita basis than most of the
other classifications of industrial activities, we estimated thai General
Electric contributes one-half of the total industrial refuse generation in
Lynn. Therefore, the lolal industrial contribution is estimated to be 33 tpd.
(Commercial refuse is, in general, not collected by the cily, but by
private collectors. Several of these collectors were contacted in an attempt to
ascertain the commercial refuse generation rate in Lynn. From, these
collectors, making certain allowances for uncooperative and unreporting
i olln Inrp. h enmmeri inl rule of 4!» Ipd wim enlulihsfirrl,
The estimated residential, commercial and industrial refuse generation
rales are siimmarr/.cd in Table 4.
Refuse Projection in Lynn
Although the population of the City of Lynn is expected to remain in
the vicinity of 90,000 over the next 20 years, the pcr-capita refuse
generation rate will increase, and therefore the total refuse to be handled will
increase.
*City and town monograph--City of Lynn, Massachusetts.
Boston, Department of Commerce and Developnent, 1967.
[17 p.]
5-3
-------
Table 4. Estimated Refuse Production in Lynn
Refuse classification
Tons per
day(^)
1970
1990
Residential
160.0
238.0
General Electric
(industrial)
16.5
24.5
Subtotal
176.5
262.5
Commercial
45.0
67.0
Other industrial
16.5
24.5
Total
238.0
354.0
L Based on a 7-day week.
Predictions for the next 20 years vary from one-half percent to five
percent increase per year. We have assumed an average value of two percent
per year. The 1990 estimated residential, commercial, and industrial refuse
generation rates based on an average annual increase of two percent are
shown in Table 4.
Additional Communities
The residential refuse production in the City of Lynn, together with
General Electric's industrial contribution, is estimated to be 176.5 tpd in
1970 and 262.5 tpd in 1990. Two alternative refuse-burning systems were
proposed by Foster Wheeler. The first alternative incorporates a
reciprocating grate stoker; the second, a spreader stoker. The boiler using a
reciprocating grate stoker has a capacity of 384 tpd; the one using a spreader
stoker has a capacity of 612 tpd. The refuse-burning systems are explained in
detail in Chapter 8 and compared in Chapter 10.
The inclusion of additional refuse in both boiler concepts is possible.
The total of residential, commercial, and industrial refuse generated in the
5-4
-------
City of Lynn is estimated to be 238 tpd and 354 tpd in 1970 and 1990,
respectively. The estimated refuse generation rate for several neighboring
communities is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Estimated 1970 Refuse Production in
Nahant, Saugus and Swampscott
Community
Tons per day
Nahant
11
Saugus
65
Swampscott
30
Those communities listed in Table 5 could be included initially
regardless of the refuse-burning system selected. If the 384 tpd reciprocating
grate stoker is selected, however, one or more of these communities will have
to be phased out of the operation as the refuse load increases. If the 612 tpd
reciprocating grate stoker is selected other communities in addition to those
listed in Table 5 could be included in the system. As explained previously in
this chapter, we feel that there will be sufficient refuse available in the area
to enable the complete utilization of either refuse-burning system.
5-5
-------
CHAPTER 6
DESCRIPTION OF BASIC ALTERIN ATI VES
General
As shown on Figure I, a natural boundary, (lie Saugus River, separates
the proposed sile lor the refuse delivery area (referred lo as the process
plan I) from Ceucral Eleclrn's boiler complex. Ilecjii.se of this boundary and
as a result of correspondence with Llie Bureau of Solid Waste Management of
the U.S. Public Health Service, lliree major alllanl or the bulky wastes only are shredded and then conveyed
aeross the. Sanctis River, .1 distance of approximately H00 feet, lo
the (iencral Elcc trie holler complex on (lie north side of the
Suugus River. Mere the refuse is hurried in the steam-generating
holler.
It. In Alternative 15, I>01h the proeess plant and the holler are located
on the south side of the Saugus River. Saturated steam is eonveyed
to the General Electric Company, where it is superheated in a
.separately fired superheater owned and oper«ited hy the (General
Electric Company
In Alternative C, Iiolli the proeess plant and the holler are located
in the (General Kleetrie yard on the north side of the Suugus River.
There is not sufficient area available for tins alternative and,
because of security problems, General Electric does not desire lo
have reiusc vehicles entering its plant. However, an economic
IVasihilily study of combined boiler and preparation facilities
located at Itic existing boiler facility in General Elcclric's plant
was undertaken for comparison purposes.
Each of the above alternatives is studied using one of the
following-
I. Reciprocating grate stoker with a capacity of 16 tph
(tons per hour), iUI4 tpd.
6-1
-------
II. Spreader stoker with a rapacity of 25.5 tph, 612 t[»d.
The maximum sr/x of refuse that ran he fed onto the
spreader stoker is 4 inches iti the longest dimension.
In addition, umlcr Alternative A, using a reciprocating grale stoker,
which does not require that normal refuse he shredded, Ihe use of a shredder
jnd storage silo is investigated. Shredded rcfu»e docs not require, us wide a
conveyor as does nonshredded refuse. As il is possible to meter the refuse
discharging from a silo, the plant staff requirements i ould he reduced. This
study will determine if the additional investment necessary for shredders,
silos, jnd associated equipment will result in an overall economic benefit.
The several alternatives described above are hereinafter referred to by a
capital letter, a Roman numeral, arid where necessary, a small Idler is used
to distinguish between different minor concepts of the same basic
altcrnativc. For example, consider Alternative ii-ll. The letter I! means both
the process plant and the boiler are located ori the south side of the Saugus
River and that steair. is conveyed to the General Electric Company. The
Roman numeral II refers to the lype of stoker used, m this case, a spreader
stoker with a capacity of 612 tons of refuse per day. A summary of the
seven alternatives studied in this report is shown in Table 6.
The seven alternatives, A-la, A-lb, A-ll, H-l, ll-II, C-l and (Ml, an1
explained in detail in the following sections of this chapter. A schematic
flow diagram of each system is included in the respective sections. In
addition, a site plan, a preliminary building design, and an equipment
arrangement is included for alternatives A-Ia, A-II, U-I and B-II.
The background behind tlx- si/.c and rapa< ily of the units selected in
the following sections of this chapter is explained in Chapters 7 and B. The
personnel necessary to operate each alternative are discussed in Chapter 11.
Alternative A-la
Under Alternative A-la, the process plant is owned and operated by the
(jly of Lynn. It is located on ihe south side of the Saugus River. Refu.se is
conveyed across the Saugus Itivcr to a boiler located in the General Electric
plant. The boiler is owned and operated by the General Electric Company,
anil employs a reciprocating grate slokcr capable of handling 3H4 tons of
refuse per day. A schematic flow diagram is shown on 1'igurc 4. A site plan, a
preliminary building design, and an equipment layout arc shown on Figures
5 and (t.
6-2
-------
PACKER
TRUCK
(NORMAL REFUSE)
OPEN BODY
TRUCK
(BULKY REFUSE)
PLATFORM SCALE
STORAGE BIN
OUSTING
GENUAL
V
.ELECTRIC
'1
PLMT
BRIDGE
CRANE
BRIDGE
CRANE
APRON
CONVEYOR
APRON
CONVEYOR
1
1
CONVEYOR
ACROSS
SAUGUS RIVER.
CONVEYOR
ACROSS
SAUGUS RIVER
BOILER FEED WATER
FUEL OIL
SUPERHEATED
STEM
SUPERHEATER
60ILE8
SATURATED
STEM
FLUE GAS
WST
COLLECTOR
ASH
FLUE GAS
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
FLUE GAS
FLY ASH
FLUE GAS
STACK
APRON
CONVEYOR
SHREDDER
DUST
DUST
COLLECTOR
BULKY
DUMP
FLO
REFUSE
ING
OR
FRONT END
LOADER
APRON
CONVEYOR
CD
nn
LEGEND
OWED AND OPERATED BY
THE CITY OF LYNN
OWED AMD-OPERATED BY
GENERAL ELECTRIC
ASH
DISPOSAL
ASH ¦
TRUCK
ASH
CONTAINER
CONVENOR
ACROSS
SAUGUS RIVER
BUCKET
(LEVATOR
u
MET ASH
TROUffl -
TT
STACK
FIG- ^ SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - ALTERNATIVE A-1 a
6-3
-------
^—lllStliC
itauuna
~
tt-~txr <00
SITE PLAN
f-
LOtii c trnoi
\
mitreuta icon
ILICTMICM KB*
(0U(I MB
LOOM
sroua tit
aitr ttfKt
UlOtOIK **U
*tia offia
cm?tic noc*
1 0
10 RW © 14" •
ft
£
CfiOUNO FLOOR
FIG. 5 ALTERNATIVE A"'a
SITE PLAN AND PLANS
6-4
-------
l/PPEfi rLQOR
li
rwir cannon man
ornrMri c*MCI K
tm* mi or omtiK ncot
UMIMJL OF/ta
NCZZitfINi
FIG. 5 ALTERNATIVE A-1 a -
SITE PUN AND FLANS
(cont'd)
6-4A
-------
ami
CI
SEC VI DM A'A
at OFFiei
roan mo. locum won
SECTION 6-B
SECI10N C-C
{
:j> c""~\
¥
; autoK two* /—
*%£-
\vwim* *»*
lr
EASY CLE Vt TION
FIG. 6. ALTERNATIVE A-'a
SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
6-5
-------
SOUIH ELEVATION
I'll!1
i I
ill'
! i
'¦ l I
TIT
i (
l1
i_L
l I
i i
i I
NORTH ELEVATION
I
¦EST ELEVATION
FIG. 6 ALTERNATIVE A-la
SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
(cont'd)
6-5 A
-------
Tabic 6. Summary of Alternative^
Process location
Alternative
Preparation
plant
Boiler
Type of
stoker
Degree of
preparation
A-la
Sjugus
General
Electric
Reciprocating
grate
Bulky waste
shredding only
A-lb
Saugus
General
Electric
Reciprocating
grate
Complete
shredding
All
Saugus
General
Electric
Spreader
Complete
shredding
B-l
Saugus
Saugus
Reciprocating
grate
Bulky waste
shredding only
13-11
Saugus
Saugus
Spreader
Complete
shredding
C-I
General
Electric
General
Electric
Reciprocating
grate
Bulky waste
shredding only
C-1I
General
Electric
General
Electric
Spreader
Complete
shredding
Trucks carrying normal refuse will be weighed on the platform scale
prior to entering the process plant The trucks will then proceed across the
dumping floor and empty into the storage bin.
Trucks hauling bulky refti->c will also be weighed. These trucks will
dump directly on the dumping lloor in the area designated lor bulky wastes
shown on Figure f>. The bulky wastes will be loaded by means of a front-end
loader onto an apron conveyor where they are fed into a shredder. The
shredded refuse will be conveyed directly from the shredder into the storage
bin.
The process plant would be open for delivery of refuse 8 hours per day,
Monday through Friday. The intent is to provide a 40-hour normal shift
6-6
-------
work week for as many of Ihc employees us possible. Plant staff
requirements are discussed in a separate chapter of this report.
The refuse storage bin has a capacity for 2.M days" volume, based on the
stoker rate of 8H4 tpd.
The refuse will be removed from the storage bin by one of two 3-cubic
yard bridge cranes and plaeed on one of two apron conveyors. Each bridge
erane. will be capable of handling the design rule, of (lie boiler (16 tph). Only
one crane will be in operation; the other acts as a standby. The eratic will
continually load refuse onto the apron conveyors 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.
The apron (.onveyor discharges onto a 10-foot wide belt conveyor
which carries the refuse 800 feet across the Suugus River, to the boiler.
There an; two 10-foot wide bells, one acting as a standby. The boiler
produces saturated steam. The slt.um is superheated in a separately fired
superheater and pul into the General Electric distribution system.
Boiler feed water, fuel oil and power for the boiler and separately fired
superheater will be obtained irorn existing facilities at the General Electric
Company. In addition, the General Kle< trie Company will provide the power
necessary to run the process plant.
The residue from the boiler will be collected and quenched at the
General Electric plant and then conveyed back across the Saugus River to
ash containers. A complete description of the residue handling system is
given in Chapter 7.
Alternative A-II
Under Alternative A-II, Ihc process plant is owned and operated by the
City of Lynn. It is located on (he south side oi the Saugus River. The refuse
will be shredded and conveyed across Ihc Saugus River to a boiler located in
the General Electric plant. The boiler is owned and operated by the General
Electric Company, and employs a spreader-stoker capable of handling 612
tons of refuse per day A schema lie flow diagram is shown on Figure 7. A
site plan, a preliminary building design, and an equipment layout are shown
on Figures 8 and 9.
Trucks carrying all types oi refuse will be weighed on the platform scale
prior to entering the process plant. The trucks will then progress across the
dumping floor and empty into the storage bin.
6-7
-------
r «U(I
TWCK
(ROMAI. HWH)
TNJCK
(mtit icwu)
AIM
disposal
P1ATFMM I SCALE
MIC
CMl
K
112
f a
3
tm
MAT
IG. 7 SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - ALTERNATIVES A-lb AND A-ll
6-8
-------
~
t «pn» yw
SITE PLAN
| UMHAL OfFICt
[LKIHCiL tOOH
1
1
SCALl | UtlCt OFFta
1011(1 MO LOOIt* MM
1
1
| scut ni | |
SECTION A - A
ami -
OfAWrfC /too*
smuoom fitouc
section e-e
FIG. 8 ALTERNATIVE A~M " SITE PLAN,
PLANS AND SECTIONS
6-9/>
-------
¦f
•fia ottta
4mtutu atti
FIG. 8 ALTERNATIVE A-ll - SITE PUN,
PLANS AND SECTIONS (cont'd)
6-9A
-------
ummi runt mm
-Jf --/•
taamicJL mm
MEZZANINE
-r-r i
fct
'j i 1 N J
J T *.--^2.
1
i
T^
!
'
I
i
1
1
!
i
l
i
i
i
1
.....j
i
1
!
i
i
i
l
i
comra
H
»r
ll
1
1
"~T
1
^ i
—- ¦
i
- 4-
comma
PI
V
\
i
1
1
!
'I—
i
NOBTH ELEVATION
FIG. 9 ALTERNATIVE A-«' -
PLANS AND ELEVATIONS
6-10
-------
IC ST CltVATION
Ul J I
' r
-i—U-
I UlCt
UPPER FLOOR
ItIT ELEMTION
^_L
i i
I i
SOUTH ELEVATION
FIG. 9 ALTERNATIVE A-11 -
PLANS AND ELEVATIONS (cont'd)
6-10 A
-------
Again, as in Alternative A-Ia, the process plant would bo open to the
delivery of refuse 0 hours per day, Monday through Friday. The refuse
storage bin will have a capacity of 1.4 days' storage, based on the stoker rate
of 612 tpd.
The refuse will be removed from the storage bin by one of two 5-cubic
yard bridge cranes and placed on one of two apron conveyors. Each apron
conveyor feeds a shredder. Both cranes, the apron conveyors, and the
shredders will be operated for 16 hours a day, 5 days a week. The shredder
will have a capacity of up to 35 tph, and a product size output of 4 inches in
maximum dimension After shredding, the refuse will be discharged onto a
transfer conveyor, suitably designed to withstand the shock of the material
being processed through the shredder. From this conveyor, the refuse will be
conveyed by a series of reversible-belt conveyors into cither of two silos.
Each silo has a capacity of 910 tons of refuse. The silos shown wjll not only
be used for storage, but also as a metering device. Each silo will be capable of
discharging at a rate equal to 6 10 tpd (25.5 tph).
The silos discharge onto ronvcyors, which feed a bifurcated hopper.
The bifurcated hopper can feed either of two 36-inch belt conveyors for
transfer across the Saugus River (approximately 800 feet) to the boiler.
There will be two 36-inch wide belts, one acting as a standby. The boiler will
produce saturated steam. The steam will be superheated in a separately fired
superheater and put into the General Electric distribution system.
As in Alternative A-Ia, all utilities will be supplied by the General
Electric Company.
The residue from the boiler will be collected and quenched at the
General Electric plant, and then conveyed back across the Saugus River to
ash containers. The complete description of the residue handling is given in
Chapter 7.
Alternative A-Ib
Alternative A-Ib is similar to Alternative A-II with the follo"wing
exceptions:
a. A reciprocating grate stoker with a capacity of 384 tpd will be
used rather than a spreader stoker.
6-11
-------
b. The buildings and equipment will be sized based on a burning rate
of 384 tpd rather than 612 tpd.
c. The cranes, apron conveyors, and shredders will operate H hours
per day, 5 days per week rather than 16 hours per day.
d. Each silo will have a capacity of 650 tons rather than 910 tons and
will discharge 16 tons per hour rather than 25.5 tons per hour.
e. • The belt ronvcyor across the Sjugus River will be 30 inches wide
rather than 36 inches.
A schematic flow diagram is shown on Figure 7. The site plan,
preliminary building design, and equipment layout shown on Figures 8 and 9
for Alternative A-Il arc applicable, with the exceptions noted above, to
Alternative A-Ib.
The size of the process plant, the size of the river crossing structure, the
width of the major conveyors, and the labor requirements would be less than
in an alternative of the same size which does not employ shredding (i.e., as
Alternative A-Ia). A comparison of Alternatives A-Ia and A-Ib will show
whether shredding can be economically justified, if the stoker requirements
do not dictate it.
Alternative B-I
Under Alternative ll-l, the pro< c.ss plant and the boiler arc owned and
operated by the City of Lynn They arc located on the south side of the
Saugus Itivcr. Saturated steam will be conveyed to the General Electric
Company, where it will be superheated in a separately fired superheater,
owned and operated by the General Electric Company. The boiler employs a
reciprocating grate stoker, capable of handling 384 tons of refuse per day. A
schematic flow diagram is shown on Figure 10. A site plan, a preliminary
building design, and an equipment layout are shown on Figures 1 I and 12.
Trucks carrying normal refuse will be weighed on the platform scale
prior to entering the process plant. Trucks will then proceed across the
dumping floor and empty into the storage bin.
Rulky wastes will be handled in the same manner they were in
Alternative A-Ia. The plant would also be open for delivery of refuse the
same number of hours as in Alternative A-Ia. The refuse storage bin will have
6-12
-------
rtun
TRUCK
(mmm. refuse]
STORAGE UN
~1
MIME
CRANE
MID8E
CRANE
OILER FEED WTEI
FUEL OIL
T
•OILER
SATURATED
¦*
STEM
FLUE OAS
ASM
FLUE eu
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
FLUE US
OPER ROOT
TRUCK
(BULKY REFUSE)
PLATFORM SCALE
FLY ASH
FLUE «AS
STACK
' r 1
'* V
CONVEYOR
BULKY
MM
FU<
EFUSE
IRQ
»•
FRONT END
LOADER ,
APRON
CONVEYOR '
OUST
OUST
COLLECTOR
~
LEGEND
OWED AMD OPERATED BY
THE CITY OF LYNN
OHM ED AMD OPERATED IY
GENERAL ELECTRIC
ASM
DISPOSAL
TRUCK
I
CONTAINER
~~~r~
i
«ET ASM
FIG. 10 SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - ALTERNATIVE B-l
6-13
-------
1
CCfM WAD
rtoctts
QUI KM.
LUIS
sum tin is
(LICIKIC
was KM*
AL
SITE PLAN
[J
i» nuoiic
c U
toiLti mo
LOCtfM ttOff I
m
JUL
C&OUNO FLOOR
SECTION A - A
FIG. || ALTERNATIVE B~| - SITE PLAN,
PLAN AND SECTIONS
6-14'
-------
a
HAtlTtlMCf AttA
srauct
utrtst
9 F4Y* ® TO1-
FIG. II ALTERNATIVE B-l - SITE PLAN,
PLAN AND SECTIONS (CONT'D)
6-14A
-------
nasi
UPPFR FLOOP
1
- - T1
SECTION C-C
FIG. 12 ALTERNATIVE B~I - PLANS,
SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
6-15
-------
NORTH ELEVATION
11 HI CM
rotiu no uxtti won
-\
>-
~y=
usurm
SECTION 0-0 SEC TION E-E
FIG. 12 ALTERNATIVE B-l - PLANS,
SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
(cont'd)
6-15A
-------
a capacity lor 2.H days' storage, based on the stoker capacity of 384 tpd.
The refuse will be removed from the storage bin by one of two 3-cubic yard
bridge cranes and placed directly in the hopper of the boiler as shown on
Figure 11. Each bridge crane will be capable of handling the design rate of
16 tph. Only one crane will be in operation, the other acting as a standby.
The crane will continually load refuse into the boiler-hopper 24 hours a day,
7 days a week. The boiler will produce saturated steam; this steam will be
conveyed 800 feet across the Saugus River to the separately fired
superheater located in the General Electric plant. The saturated steam will be
superheated and put into the General Electric distribution system.
Boiler fecdwater, fuel oil, and power for the boiler and the process
plant will be brought across the Saugus River, from the General Electric
Company, to the process plant and boiler located on the Saugus side of the
river.
The residue from the boiler and the precipitator will be collected and
quenched in a trough underneath the boiler and conveyed up and into the
ash budding where it will be dumped into containers. A complete description
of the residue handling is given in Chapter 7.
Alternative B-Il
Under Alternative B-1I, the process plant and the boiler with
spreader-type stoker are owned and operated by the City of Lynn. They are
located on the south side of the Saugus River. Saturated steam will be
conveyed to the General Electric Company, where it will be superheated in a
separately fired superheater, owned and operated by the General Electric
Company. A schematic flow diagram is shown on Figure 13. A site plan, a
preliminary building design, and an equipment layout arc shown on Figures
14 and 15.
Trucks carrying all types of refuse will be weighed on the platform scale
prior to entering the process plant The trucks will then proceed across the
dumping floor and empty into the storage bin. The plant will be open for the
delivery of refuse during the same hours as Alternative A-Ia. The refuse
storage bin will have a capacity for 1.4 days' storage, based on a stoker rate
of 610 tpd.
The refuse will be removed from the storage bin, placed on conveyors,
shredded, conveyed into silos, and metered from the silos in the same
manner as in Alternative A-II. The silos will discharge onto a series of
6-16
-------
FACIEI
TBI CI
•erase)
open toov
TWCI
(¦HIT KratC)
fLATFOAM KALE
IRID6E
CRANE
FEED
CONVEYOR
DISCNARIE
CONVEYOR
REVERSIBLE
vn
I
IELT
CONVEYOR
STO
II
AflE
LO
01SCNAROE
CONVEYOR
1~—
NICER Wl MTU
¦01 Lit
V » ' ,
- •• .-r
ELECTRO
FKCIP
STATIC
TATOI
FLUE
STAC!
II
CR
DOE
ME
FEEO
CONVEYOR
SMREDDER
ii
if
REVEISIILE
CONVEYOR
¦1ST
COLLECTOR
STOIAOE
SILO
OISCNAROC
CONVEYOR
ASN TWCI
I
AW
i
NET I
TAN
CD
OWED *0 Of ERA TO IV
TNI CITY IF LYNN
OWIO AMI OPERATES IV
OENERAL ELECTRIC
FIG. 13 SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - ALTERNATIVE B-ll
6-17
-------
1
111 IJ
CUtUL
- -stotuu silos
mass Litts
uo sum HitB
niciiic
COMVtTQ
focus nui
[srmuna
suas tun*
r /\(] w
SITE PLAN
KUV 9WICC
fisouNo rioos
-
car nt
riau
-
SECTION A - A
section e-e
FIG. ALTERNATIVE B~II - SITE PLAN
PLANS AND SECTIONS
6-18
-------
M 6*Y*> *> 'lUt
<*
l/f
i-2"
CAME
FIG. m ALTERNATIVE B-11 - SITE PLAN
PLANS AND SECTIONS (CONT'D)
6-18A
-------
d:
:E
-'4;,
J 1^
I i,<
"tjj±
I
r
IEST ELEVATION
BASEMENT
A£fM/Ct
wot
tutu
MO
waii
an
=0f^
rC=
OMJKffC fLOOM
2r-
LT
.r
eucwcM
MOM
tntutt at
SECTION C-C
FIG. 15 ALTERNATIVE B~II - PLANS/
SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
6-19
-------
CMinn
I
NORTH ELCVATSQN
FIG. 15 ALTERNATIVE B-ll - PUNS,
SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
(CONT'DOf
6-19A
-------
conveyors which will convey the material up to the boiler. The boiler will
produce saturated steam. This saturated steam will be conveyed
approximately 800 feet across the Saugus River to the superheater located in
the General Electric yard. Here the steam will be superheated and put into
the General Electric distribution system. As in Alternative B-l, all of the
utilities (boiler fecdwater, fuel oil, and power) will be obtained from the
existing facilities at the General Electric Company.
The residue from the boiler and the precipitator will be collected and
quenched 111 a water-filled trough beneath the boiler and conveyed to
containers located in the ash building. A complete description of the residue
handling is given in Chapter 7.
Alternative C-I
Undci Alternative C-I, the process plant and the boiler are located on
the north side of the Saugus River adjacent to the existing boiler complex in
the General Electric Company yard. The City of Lynn will own and operate
the process plant. The General Electric Company will own and operate the
boiler and superheater. As previously mentioned, there is not sufficient area
available for this alternative, and because of security problems, General
Electric docs not desire to have refuse vehicles entering their plant. However,
an economic feasibility sludy of this alternative is presented in this report.
The boiler has a reciprocating grate stoker capable of handling 384 tons of
refuse per day. A schematic flow diagram is shown on Figure 16. The
preliminary Suilding design and equipment layout shown on Figures 11 and
12 lor Alternative IM arc iippliruhlc to Alternative C-I hIho.
The major difference between this alternative and Alternative B-I, in
which the process plant and boiler are also located at the same site, is that
the steam main, the fuel oil line, the power line, and the process water line
across the Saugus River arc not necessary since both the process plant and
the boiler will be located at the existing General Electric boiler complex. The
operation of the process plant and the boiler would be identical to
Alternative B-I. The boiler would produce saturated steam which would be
conveyed to a separately fired superheater where the steam would be
superheated and put into the General Electric distribution system.
Boiler feedwater, fuel oil, and power for the boiler, the separately fired
superheater and the process plant will be obtained from the existing facilities
at the General Electric Company. The residue would be collected beneath
the boiler as in Alternative B-I, and placed in containers for removal.
6-20
-------
Once again, this alternative is presented only for cost comparison
purposes. The amount of space necessary to implement this alternative is just
not available in the General Electric plant within the vicinity of the existing
boiler complex. Another locabon apart from the boiler complex would
present the same probiems as the location across the Saugus River, that is, a
long steam main, a long feedwater main, a long connection for power supply,
or, if the refuse processing plant were located within the General Electric
Company apart from the boiler complex, and the boiler were located
adjacent to the boiler complex, conveyors and a power supply line would be
necessary. These restrictions would make this alternative similar to either
Alternative B-I or A-Ia.
This alternative is being studied with the assumption that there is space
adjacent to the boiler, and all cost estimates will be based on that
assumption.
Alternative C-II
Under Alternative C-II, both the process plant and the boiler are
located adjacent to the existing boiler complex in the General Electric yard
on the north side of the Saugus River. The process plant is owned and
operated by the City of Lynn. The boiler and superheater are owned and
operated by the General Electric Company. Here again, there is not
sufficient room available to actually implement this alternative, but it is
presented herein as a comparison with both alternatives A-II and- B-II to
show the effect of the natural boundary, the Saugus River, on the overall
system. A schematic flow diagram is shown on Figure 17. The preliminary
building design and equipment layout shown on Figures 14 and 15 for
Alternative B-II are applicable to Alternative (MI also. The operation of the
process portion of this system and the boiler would be similar to the
operation under Alternative B-II. The boiler would produce saturated steam
which would be conveyed to a separately fired superheater, where it would
be superheated and placed in the General Electric distribution system.
The residue from the boiler and the electrostatic precipitator would be
collected in a water-filled trough beneath the boiler and conveyed up to ash
containers for storage and later disposal at a sanitary landfill site.
6-22
-------
FACIER
OPEN MOT
TRUCK
TRUCK
DISPOSAL
(NOMAL RE RISE)
(SULKY REFUSE)
MIT
COLLECTOR
STORAOE RIM
OR1 DOE
CRME
IIIME
CRME
FEED
CORVEVOt
FEED
CONVEYOR
MREC
DER
01 SCNAROE
CONVEYOR
OISCNAME
CONVEYOR
REVERSISLE
CONVEYOR
REVERSIOLE
CONVEYOR
~
*
~
~
oaT
CONVEYOR
rat
CONVEYOR
STORAOE
SILO
STORAOE
SILO
01SCNAROE
CONVEYOR
01 SCNAROE
CONVEYOR
OUST
COLLECTOR
OILER FECO WATER
1
1 . ' »
SATURATED
•
STEM
M.
J FLOE OAS
-
| FLOE MS
'¦?
1
AM TRUCK
T
AM
CMTAINEO
\
1
• \V
MO IHO Of EMTIO I
THE CITY OF LYNN
OWED MO Of ERATO I
MODAL ELECTRIC
FIG. 17 SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM - ALTERNATIVE C-ll
6-23
-------
CHAPTER 7
UNITS OF REFUSE PROCESSING SYSTEM
Weighing Facilities
Maintaining records of the amount of refuse entering an incinerator and
the amount of ash leaving the incinerator serve as an excellent source of
information for checking incinerator operation. At incineration plants that
serve more than one community, charges can be apportioned on the basis of
the weight of the incoming refuse.
Scales are available which will automatically record the weight of the
refuse vehicle on a card inserted into a recorder attached to the scale. Since
communities other than Lynn may be using the incinerator, the scale should
be long enough to accommodate the largest refuse collection vehicles
presently on the market. This appears to be ari 80-cubic yard transfer vehicle
which has an overall length of over 50 feet. The scale should also be of
sufficient capacity to handle the heaviest vehicles allowed on the highways.
Rased on these criteria, the scale should be 60 feet long, with a capacity of
40 tons.
Once a vehicle's tare weight has been established, this can be used each
time the vehicle returns to the incinerator with only an occasional check.
Therefore, only the gross weight need be recorded each time the truck
enters. Subtracting the tare weight from the gross weight gives the weight of
refuse on the vehicle.
The weighinaslcr is located so that he can easily sec both the truck
being weighed and the dumping floor. He can then direct the drivers to the
appropriate section of the dumping floor.
Dumping Floor
Due to the climate and for aesthetic reasons, most of the larger
incinerators constructed in New England have an enclosed floor where the
refuse vehicles maneuver prior to dumping their refuse.
The dumping floor should extend the full length of the refuse storage
area and should be of sufficient width to accommodate the largest refuse
7-1
-------
vehicle that could be expected to use the facility The length is also governed
by the number of vehicles expected to be dumping at one time.
We have estimated that then- should he dumping space for a minimum
of 10 and 15 vehicles, respectively, under the 384 tpd and 612 tpd
refuse-burning systems. A width ol 80 feet would provide sufficient
maneuvering space for the largest transfer vehicles in use today.
In the alternatives wheie only the bulky refuse is shredded, a space
approximately 50 feet wide by 75 feet long, as shown on Figure 5, has been
reserved on the dumping floor for the storage of bulky objects The handling
of bulky wastes is covered in a later section of this chapter.
Storage Bin
General Electric's steam requirements are such that the boiler must be
operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week Refuse would be delivered to
the plant Monday through Friday, during the day only. Therefore, some
means of refuse storage will be required. Refuse may be stored in silos only
if it is shredded.
In the alternatives that do not incorporate total shredding, all of the
required storage will be provided in the storage bin. A storage bin capacity
equal to the quantity of refuse required from tne time the last vehicle leaves
on Friday evening until the first truck arrives on Monday morning, plus a
backlog of several hour:; as a safety factor, would be necessary.
Since many of the legal holidays in Massachusetts will fall on a Monday
in the future, we compared the cost of providing an additional day's storage
in the bin versus the cost of burning just oil on those Mondays. An
important consideration in this analysis was that, because it is a holiday,
General Electric would require only a minimum amount of steam from the
system We concluded that it would be more economical to burn oil on the
Monday holidays than to add an additional day's capacity to the storage bin.
The volume of the storage bin is then calculated using a density of 333
pounds per cubic yard for refuse in the bin. The width of the bin has been
set at 28 feet. The depth of the bin is influenced by the condition of the
underlying soils. There is approximately 35 feet of silty material underlain
by several layers of clay. The clay appears as if it would support the bin
without piles, whereas piles would be required if the bin were placed in the
7-2
-------
silt layer. Therefore, the bin was made deep enough so that the base would
rest in the clay layer. With the depth and width established, the length was
calculated from the total required volume.
Under the alternatives where all material is shredded, it is assumed that
the entire volume of refuse is delivered to the storage bin in approximately
equal portions Monday through Friday, and that all of the refuse is shredded
and delivered to the storage silo during the same day that it is delivered. A
storage-bin capacity equal to the quantity to be delivered in one day was
selected. This capacity will provide time for maintenance without interfering
with the boiler operation, should some part of the processing system break
down. The bin capacity will be seven-fifths of the daily burning rate or 1.4
days' storage.
Cranes
Based on the size of the storage bins, and the quantities of refuse to be
handled, bridge cranes were deemed to be the best means to transfer the
refuse from the storage bin to the charging hopper. A comparison of cranes
with front end loaders is made in Chapter 10.
The crane sizes were selected based on the distances the crane would
have to travel, speeds recommended by the manufacturers, an effective
working time of between 40 and 50 minutes per hour, and the quantity of
refuse required by the downstream capacity of the system.
A minimum of two cranes have been provided in each alternative. In
some alternatives, one of the cranes is completely standby; in others,
standby is provided by working one crane additional hours.
Shredders
In the alternatives employing a spreader stoker, the refuse will be
shredded to a maximum of 4 inches in the longest dimension. In the
alternatives employing a reciprocating grate stoker, only the bulky refuse
would need to be shredded.
Several makes of shredders were investigated including both the
horizontal and vertical shaft models. The size of the shredder is somewhat
governed by the rate at which it can be fed. The preliminary building designs
have sufficient spacr for cither the vertical shaft or the horizontal shaft
shredders.
7-3
-------
Based on one crane feeding one shredder, the maximum practical
quantity that a crane could handle would be between 30 and 40 tph.
Therefore, shredders with a capacity in this range were selected. The number
of machines and hours of operation were then determined.
Because shredders arc a high maintenance item, backup was provided.
Two shredders have been provided where total shredding is employed, since
a major overhaul would otherwise shut down the system. Minor repairs and
routine maintenance could be performed during the hours that the shredder
is not operating.
Where only bulky refuse is shredded, the jize of the shredder is based
on the feed opening required to accept bulky material such as mattresses,
packing crates, furniture, etc. The bulky refuse shredders would discharge
onto a conveyor emptying directly into the storage bin.
Dust Collector
As the shredder operates, the speed of the rotor causes air to flow
through the machine. When material is being shredded, this exhausted air is
loaded with dust. Therefore, the air is passed through a scrubbing-type dust
collector before it is discharged to the atmosphere. The particulate material
collected in the dust collector is discharged onto the conveyor system
downstream of the shredder or into the storage bin.
Conveyors
Rubber-belt conveyors were selected in all cases except where cranes,
front-end loaders or shredders would discharge onto them. Under such
circumstances, belt conveyors would experience an excessive degree of wear,
therefore, metal-pan conveyors were selected instead Where refuse is to be
discharged from another belt, the rubber-belt type was selected for the
receiving lonveyor. The initial cost of metal-pan conveyors is about twice as
much as rubber-belt convey ors. however, the savings in belt replacement and
downtime more than offsets the initial cost differential.
Reliability is provided by using reversible belts and m other instances
parallel belts. The angle of incline of all conveyors transporting refuse is kept
to a maximum of 27 degrees.
Hie width of the conveyors is selected considering a variety of factors.
The width of the m-feed conveyors to the shredders, and the discharge
7-4
-------
conveyors from the shredders, was based on the physical dimensions of the
shredder. The width of the conveyors fed by the cranes, but not discharging
to shredders, was based on the physical dimensions of the crane bucket.
Conveyors carrying shredded material were sized by the volume of material,
the density of the material, and the speed of the conveyor. The width of the
conveyors carrying unshredded refuse across the Saugus River was set at 10
feet. The width is necessary, not for the volume of material, but because
large items which inadvertently bypass the shredder may become lodged and
cause a backup if a narrower width were selected.
The conveyor handling ash from the boiler will be a drag-type
conveyor. This type of conveyor has metal flights suspended from a traveling
chain operating in a water-filled trough. The residue will be discharged from
the boiler into the water-filled trough. As it settles to the bottom of the
trough, the metal flights drag the ash along the bottom of the trough and up
an incline where most of the water is drained from the ash. The water-filled
trough also serves as a seal on the boiler to prevent hot gases from escaping.
The residue-handling system is covered in more detail in a subsequent section
of this chapter.
Pneumatic conveyors were considered for conveying shredded refuse
but they were found to be much more expensive overall than mechanical
conveyors, and therefore arc not recommended.
Storage Silos
Storage silos can be discharged automatically; therefore, they provide a
much more economical means of storage than a bin which requires a bridge
crane and operator to empty. Silos, however, can only be used to store
shredded icfuse: therefore, they are only used in the alternatives where all of
the refuse is shredded.
With storage silos, it would be possible to shred the total weekly
volume of refuse during one or two 8-hour shifts per day under the 384- and
612-tpd alternatives, respectively. This would place the majority of the labor
required for the process operation on a 40-hour week and would reduce the
total number of personnel.
The silos would have a positive discharge, which is necessary because of
the unpredictable nature of the material. A typical silo is shown on Figure 8.
The bottom diameter of the silo is such that bridging will not occur.
7-5
-------
The refuse is nol expected to freeze in the silo. Some freezing may
occur near the outer edge of the silo, hut this should act as an insulation to
prevent further freezing. It would be possible to insulate and heat the silos at
a later date if freezing is found to be a problem.
The capacities of the silos were based on the amount of refuse heeded
in the boiler from the end of the last shift on Friday evening until the
beginning of the first shift on Monday morning, plus several hours' backlog.
Two silos would be used in all instances. Each silo would have a capacity of
one-half the total requirement. Each would be capable of discharging at a
rate equal to the capacity of the boiler so that, in the event one silo is down
for repairs, the overall operation is nol affected
Uascd on the above criteria, two silos, each with a capacity of 650 tons,
would be needed for the 384-tpd alternatives, and two silos, each with a
capacity of 910 tons, would be needed for the 612-tpd alternatives.
The rate of discharge from a silo can be varied over a wide range, and
the silos can therefore be used to "meter" the quantity of refuse fed into the
boiler.
Bulky Refuse Handling
Bulky refuse is composed of large items such as bureaus, upholstered
chairs, sofas, mattresses, tree trunks, washing machines, refrigerators, etc.,
discarded from the home, and pallets, packing crates, machinery parts, and
other large items discarded from industrial and commercial establishments.
Hulky refuse can be subdivided into two categories, combustible and
noncombustible. In this report, combustible refuse is material that will burn
at temperatures equal to or less than the normal furnace operating range of
1,600 (leg F to 2,000 deg F. Noncombustible bulky refuse will not be
accepted at the plant.
In the alternatives where refuse is fired on a spreader stoker, all of the
refuse will be shredded In these alternatives, combustible bulky refuse will
be deposited into the storage bin and follow the same flow pattern as the.
remainder of the refuse.
In the alternatives where refuse is fired on a reciprocating grate stoker,
the refuse will be fired as it is received, except that Foster Wheeler requires
that bulky items be reduced in size prior to firing. Therefore, a shredder is
provided in these alternatives for bulky refuse.
7-6
-------
The arrangement of the bulky refuse shredder is shown on Figures 5
and 6. Bulky items arc placed directly on the dumping floor in the area
shown. From here a front-end loader places the bulky items on an apron
conveyor feeding the shredder. A short apron conveyor underneath the
sliFedder discharges the shredded material directly into the storage bin.
Since the combustible bulky refuse is composed mainly of wood, which
has a relatively high heat value compared to average refuse, the bridge crane
will be used to mix the shredded bulky refuse with the remainder of the
refuse prior to charging, to avoid uneven Btu loading on the boiler.
Residue Handling
The residue from an incinerator can be divided into three general
categories:
Hollom ash — Bottom ash is the noncombustiblc and unburncd
material remaining on the grates. The bottom ash will be discharged
from the end of the grate directly into a water-filled trough as shown
011 Figures 1J and 14.
Fly ash — Fly ash is the small particulate matter collected in the
electrostatic precipitator. Where the electrostatic precipitator is
installed at ground level, the fly ash will be discharged onto a slider-belt
conveyor and conveyed to the water trough as shown on Figure 11.
This material is very fine in nature, ranging in diameter from 120 to less
than 5 microns; therefore, a steam spray will be installed to wet the
material down to prevent it from blowing about. Where the
electrostatic precipitator is installed on the roof of the building, the fly
ash will be conveyed by gravity in pipes down to the water trough.
Misi cllnnoou\ residue — The siftings collected under the grates, and
particulate matter collected "in miscellaneous hoppers throughout the
process, constitute the miscellaneous residue. This residue will also be
conveyed to the water trough as shown on Figures 11 and 14.
A drag conveyor in the bottom of the water-filled trough will move the
residue from the trough up an incline where most of the water will be
drained from the residue. In the alternatives where the process plant and
boiler are located adjacent to one another, the residue would go directly
from the drag conveyor into 30-cubic yard ash hoppers. In the alternative
where the boiler is located in the (lerteral Electric yard and the process plant
7-7
-------
in Saugus, residue will be convoyed by means of a bucket elevator up to a
belt conveyor which subsequently would transport it back across the Saugus
River and into 30-cubic yard containers. Details of the residue-handling
system under each of the alternatives are outlined in Chapter 6.
The quantity of ash, on a dry basis, is estimated to be 20 percent, by
weight, of the original quantity of refuse. The density of dry ash is
approximately 40 pounds per cubic foot and the density of wet ash is
approximately 50 pounds per cubic foot, and the average moisture content is
20 percent. Therefore, the average quantity of ash from the 384-tpd
reciprocating grate fired alternatives would be approximately 100 tpd, and
the quantity of ash from the 612-tpd spreader-stoker fired alternatives would
be approximately 150 tpd. These arc equivalent to an annual landfill volume
of about 30 acre-feet and 50 acre-feet, respectively
Incinerator residue has been used successfully as a landfill material to
reclaim unused tracts of land. Areas where groundwater would pass through
the residue should be avoided however, since soluble salts and alkalies would
be leached from the ash and earned along with the groundwater. The residue
anticipated from the boilers considered in this report should have a relatively
small percentage of volatile matter and therefore should be relatively stable.
The effective use of residue to reclaim land areas, thereby increasing the
city's tax base, can help to offset the cost of residue disposal.
Under the reciprocating grate fired alternatives, the fly ash would be
approximately 25 percent of the total residue, by weight. Under the
spreader-stoker fired alternatives, because of the small particle size and the
nature of the firing, the fly ash would be approximately 50 percent of the
total residue, by weight. However, since all of the residue would be
transported to the same water-filled trough, the method of refuse handling as
outlined above would be applicable to either type of firing.
The weight of all residue leaving the plant should be recorded. This can
easily be accomplished by weighing the residue trucks on the same platform
scale used to weigh the incoming refuse collection vehicles. This weight when
compared to the weight of refuse entering the plant can be used to check on
the efficiency of the operation.
7-8
-------
CHAPTER 8
UNITS OF REFUSE-BURNING SYSTEM
Steam-Generating Unit
The refuse-burning, steam-generating unit will be a natural circulation,
water-walled boiler with a stoker specifically designed for refuse burning.
When operating with refuse having an as-fired heating value of 4,970 Btu per
pound, the boiler will have the capacity to burn 384 tpd with a reciprocating
stoker, and 612 tpd with a spreader stoker. The refuse-burning capacity of
the boiler with 6,000 Btu per pound of refuse will remain at 384 tpd for the
boiler with the reciprocating grate stoker. The boiler capacity with 6,000
Btu per pound of refuse and a spreader stoker will decrease to 510 tpd, since
this grate is designed on the basis of 750,000 Btu per square foot regardless
of the refuse characteristics.
The boiler burning refuse and No. 6 oil simultaneously will produce
400,000 pounds of saturated stcain at approximately 750 psig, which will, in
turn, be delivered to a separately oil-fired superheater. The superheater is
designed to deliver 650 psig steam at 850 deg F into the General Electric
Company distribution system. Normally, the superheater is an integral part
of the boiler. Because of the corrosive nature of refuse gases containing
constituents such as chlorine, the superheater will be separated from the
incinerator and thus will prevent impingement of these gases on the
high-temperature tubes of the superheater. Although the separately fired
superheater is located on General Electric Company property in all
alternatives, it would be possible to locate the superheater adjacent to the
boiler on the Saugus side of the river if advantageous to do so. Location of
the superheater on General Electric Company property is desirable, however,
from a heat loss standpoint, since the thermal gradient or heat loss driving
force is about 1.5 times as great for the superheated steam as it is for the
saturated steam due to the higher temperature of the superheated steam.
At the full load design rating, the boiler will be designed for a range of
40 to 100 percent excess air for the refuse component of the fuel, and
approximately 15 percent excess air for the No. 6 oil component.
When using the spreader stoker and burning 612 tons of refuse per day
and sufficient oil to produce 400,000 pounds of steam per hour, the
calculated overall boiler efficiency will be 78.5 percent. When using the
8-1
-------
reciprocating grate stoker and burning 384 tons of refuse per day and
sufficient oil to achieve the same steaming rate, the boiler ovcraJl efficiency
will be 81.4 percent. On oil alone, for the same steaming rate, the boiler
overall efficiency will increase to 86.4 percent.
Reciprocating Grate Stoker
The reciprocating grate stoker is designed in lateral rows, each
overlapping its upstream neighbor in a shingle-like manner. Alternate rows
are linked to a hydraulic power cylinder which slowly reciprocates them
back and forth across the face of the alternate stationary rows. A section of
the rc< iprocating grate stoker is shown on Figure 11.
The proposed unit for this application will consist of four
independently driven and controlled stoker sections. The first section will be
a charging section and the three remaining sections will be designed for
combustion of the refuse.
A vertical drop-off is provided between grate sections to break up and
reorient the refuse to provide maximum surface exposure to the flame.
Pressure drop through the grate vcnturi air openings is relatively high to
ensure a more uniform air distribution and to minimize the effcqts from the
varying characteristics of the refuse bed. Not only does this provide more
uniform combustion, but it also ensures more uniform cooling of the grates.
Feed is uniform and continuous, and noncombustiblcs and ash are
discharged continuously from the grates. Siftings removal is automatic. The
removal devices arc tied to the stoker operating mechanism and thus
reciprocate in unison with the stoker. The siftings are conveyed to the
discharge end of the unit and discharged along with the bottom ash to the
ash conveyor.
Spreader Stoker
The spreader stoker system consists of a traveling grate, four air-swept
spouts and a swinging distributor assembly. The spreader stoker is shown on
Figure 14.
The grates are divided into rows longitudinally, one row for each
air-swept spout or feeder. Each row is carried on two chains which ride over
hardened-tooth sprockets. A hydraulic system drives the grate toward the
8-2
-------
front of the boiler, discharging the ash immediately helow the feed spout.
The grate design is specifically for suspension firing, and individual grate bars
open on the return run of the grate facilitating air admission to the fuel bed,
and the discharge of siftings to the chamber below the grate. The air-swept
spouts spread the shredded material evenly over the grate. The lighter
material burns in suspension and the heavier material falls to the relatively
fast-moving grate. The air to the spout is controlled by a motorized rotary
air damper, which alternately increases and decreases both quantity and
pressure of the air several cycles per minute. This assures even fuel
distribution from front to rear of the furnace.
Control System
The steam, condensate, and combustion control systems will be
pneumatic, or combination pneumatic and electric operated, and will
function generally as described below.
When the water-walled incinerator is in the General Electric yard and
the process plant is in Saugus, and only bulky refuse is shredded, the refuse
feed control will be performed by automatically varying the feed conveyor
speed in conjunction with the stoker. With the water-walled incinerator in
Saugus, feed control will be achieved by stoker speed variation only. In both
cases, a bridge crane will be utilized to move the material from the storage
pit to the conveyor or incinerator charging hopper.
With total shredding, feed control will be achieved by varying the silo
discharge and associated conveyor speeds in conjunction with the stoker
speed, regardless of the water-walled incinerator location.
It should be noted that the refuse feed control should be minimal since
the anticipated steam requirements as shown on Table 2 exceed that which
can be produced by the refuse alone.
In addition to the refuse feed control, the fuel oil system will have
modulating flow rate controls. This system will meter the fuel as the
required steam flow changes over the anticipated range. This, together with
automatic control of the separately fired superheater, will ensure that steam
characteristics are well maintained.
Regardless of the water-walled incinerator location, the feedwater
supply to the incinerator will be controlled by a three-element controller,
i.e., steam flow, feedwater flow, and drum level.
8-3
-------
The feedwater supply to the boiler will in all cases originate from the
General Electric Company property. Their softening, polishing, and storage
facibties must be expanded to accept the added load, however.
For the alternative in which the water-walled incinerator is located in
Saugus, a condensate tank will be required adjacent to the incinerator.
Softened water will be pumped from General Electric to this tank and from
this tank to the deaerator. The condensate storage tank will have at least 20
minutes' storage capacity in addition to the 10-minute storage in the
deaerator to ensure safe shutdown of the incinerator upon inadvertent loss
of water.
A steam-turbine drive will be provided on one of the condensate pumps
at the storage tank and on one of the boiler feed pumps to maintain
feedwater to the boiler in the event electric power is lost.
The fuel oil (No. 6) will be obtained from General Electric in all
alternatives. For the alternatives in which the water-walled incinerator is
located adjacent to the superheater on General Electric property, the system
will require only a means of heating and transporting the oil from General
Electric's storage tanks to the boiler and superheater.
When the boiler is in Saugus, however, a separate storage tank adjacent
to the boiler will be necessary as intermediate storage for No. 6 oil. The level
in this tank will be controlled by a float switch connected to an electrically
operated control valve. The valve will be located at the inlet to the tank.
The No. 6 oil tank will be large enough to hold approximately 20,000
gallons of oil to provide an alternate source of oil should the supply
originating from General Electric be interrupted.
The fuel oil system for the boiler will be controlled by steam pressure
and for the superheater by temperature. Both these systems would be
designed to meet local and state safety codes.
Water-Softening System
The watcr-boftcning system will have sufficient capacity to process all
raw water to the boiler assuming 100 percent makeup, and also a polishing
system to lemove primarily iron and copper from the recycled condensate.
8-4
-------
This condensate will be pumped in plastic-lined steel pipe either
directly to the deaerator or via the fiber glass condensate tank, as described
under instrumentation, to the deaerator, depending upon the location of the
water-walled incinerator.
A predetermined level will be maintained in the condensate storage
tank by a float-operated control valve. Sufficient heat will be supplied to the
tank to prevent freezing when the system is not in operation.
The pipe crossing the river will be on roller supports to allow for
expansion and will have expansion joints at both ends.
A minimum-flow bypass valve will be provided downstream of the
condensate pumps to allow the condensate to flow back to the tank under
low-flow conditions and prevent damage to the pump due to overheating.
Boiler Feed and Steam Systems
Downstream of the deaerator, the feed water will flow to two boiler
feed pumps, one motor driven and the other steam turbine driven. Both
pumps will be sized to- take the full boiler capacity.
A recirculating valve will be provided on the discharge of each pump.
At excessively low flow rates the feedwater will be bypassed to the deaerator
storage tank.
The boiler feed pump drive turbine is designed for 200 psig steam. Its
exhaust will be piped to the deaerator which operates at 5 psig. In order
to obtain the necessary feedwater temperature for the boiler studied, a
feedwater heater is provided between the boiler feed. pump and the
economizer. When the boiler is located in the General Electric yard, the
required steam for the feedwater heater will come from the General Electric
200-psig steam system. On the other hand, when the boiler is in Saugus,
steam from the main header will be reduced to approximately 175 psig and
piped to the feedwater heater. The condensate from the" feedwater heater
will then go directly to the deaerator. After having been heated to 365 deg F
in the feedwater heater, the feedwater will be pumped to the economizer
and then to the boiler itself.
The boiler pressure must be sufficient to overcome all losses between
the boiler drum and the superheater outlet. With the boiler in Saugus, the
drum pressure will have to run 20 to 30 psi (pounds per square inch) greater
8-5
-------
than with the boiler in the General Electric yard, since the steam flow losses
will include an additional 1,200 feet of pipe and two gate valves. Regardless
of boiler location, the saturated steam pressure must be high enough to
overcome the stop valve pressure drop, the superheater pressure drop, and all
valves in this circuit.
The steam pipe crossing the river in the alternatives where the boiler is
located in Saugus will rest on roller supports to provide a means of
expansion. The pipe will be suspended about 50 feet above the Saugus River
and the boiler and superheater connections will be about 50 feet above this
elevation. With this configuration four hinged expansion joints will be used
at each end of the pipe to provide sufficient flexibility to absorb the full
pipe expansion.
Two chemical feed systems and a blowdown tank have been included in
the plant to provide a means of maintaining a total suspended solids
concentration of less than 1,500 ppm (parts per million) as required by the
American Boilermakers Association.
Fuel Oil Systems
The fuel oil systems consist of the oil system for the water-walled
incinerator, and the oil system for the separately fired superheater.
In all alternatives, we have assumed the separately fired superheater to
be located on General Electric property. This will require pipeline heating
and a pump and heater set sized for approximately 15 gpm (gallons per
minute). General Electric has sufficient oil storage capacity available to
supply both this system and the system required for the water-walled
incinerator.
For the alternatives in which the boiler is located in Saugus, duplex
pumps will be used to transfer the oil from General Electric's tanks to a
20,000-gallon tank located in Saugus. A bypass valve is provided downstream
of these pumps to recirculate the oil back to General Electrie's tanks when
the day tank is full.
Pipeline heating is provided for the entire length of pipe, including the
portion crossing the river, to maintain an oil temperature of about 125 deg
F. Beyond the day tank, a suction heater, and a pump and heater set are
provided to supply up to 50 gpm of oil to the boiler. This is sufficient oil to
generate 400,000 pounds of steam per hour when burning oil alone.
8-6
-------
A No. 2 oil storage tank is provided in the alternatives which have
buildings in Saugus. The oil is used for the process building heating system
when it alone is in Saugus. When both the process building and boiler are
located in Saugus, the No. 2 oil tank would provide oil for the incinerator oil
burner pilots, and the building would be heated with low-pressure steam
from the low-pressure reducing station.
Combustion-Air and Induced-Draft Systems
The combustion-air system is designed with three combustion-air fans:
an underfire air fan, an overfire air fan, and an oil burner fan. In addition, an
induced-draft fan will transport the flue gas from the incinerator to the
atmosphere.
The overfire air fan will serve a dual function when associated with the
spreader stoker, i.e., it will supply air to the air-swept nozzles, and also
combustion air above the grates. In the reciprocating grate stoker
arrangement, it will supply overfire air only.
The oil burner air fan will be directly connected to the oil burner and
will modulate according to the burner's demands.
At this stage, we have assumed the underfire air fan to be automatically
modulated to maintain a predetermined excess air. Since this is often a point
of contention among manufacturers themselves, and between manufacturers
and engineers, this point should be finalized in the design stage of the plant.
The induced-draft fan will automatically maintain a slightly negative
pressure in the water-walled incinerator to minimize heat loss through
openings and doors.
Air Pollution Control Systems and Stacks
An electrostatic precipitator will be provided on the water-walled
incinerator to reduce particulate emission below the level required by local,
state, and federal air pollution control codes.
The electrostatic precipitator is a particularly desirable device since high
efficiencies are possible. There is only a small pressure drop through the unit,
and the particulate matter is collected dry.
8-7
-------
On the separately fired superheater, a mechanical cyclone will he. used.
Since particulate emission from oil burning is relatively small,, it has been
found tn the past that cyclone separators were sufficient to- meet air
pollution control codes. Due to the rapid changes in air pollution control
codes, it is advisable ihat this decision be reviewed carefully at the design
stage of this project to determine if a cyclone collector is adequate. If the
cyclone separator is not acceptable, an electrostatic precipitator specifically
designed for oil-fired boilers can be used. An electrostatic precipitator is
much more expensive than a cyclone separator, however.
A double-walled stack of corrosion-resistant steel will be provided
rather than an unlined stack. Because of the insulating effect brought about
by the double-wall construction, the temperature of the gas will not drop to
the dew point even at low load conditions. As a result, corrosion is
appreciably reduced, and the life of the stack is extended considerably.
8-8
-------
CHAPTER 9
RIVER CROSSING
General
As shown on Figure 18, the Saugus River separates the General Electric
Company from the area where the refuse will be deposited in two pi the
three basic alternatives. The river is approximately 800 feet wide at this
point.
Figure 19 is a section of Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 240,
showing the location of the existing bridges and the proposed river crossing,
as well as soundings in the Saugus River and surrounding waters. All three
bridges in the vicinity of the proposed river crossing are bascule-type bridges
which, when open, do not impose any height restriction on the water craft.
There are several governmental agencies from which approval nfust be
obtained for river crossings. A permit must be obtained from the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers before a structure can be constructed in a river. The U. S.
Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the height of fixed structures over rivers. A
letter requesting that a Public Notice be issued must accompany the request
to the Coast Guard. A license must be obtained from the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works for a crossing over or under a river .located in
Massachusetts.
Following discussions with these agencies, it was decided that a vertical
clearance of 50 feet would be used over the main channel of the river. As
shown on Figure 19, the Boston and Maine Railroad bascule bridge just
downstream of the proposed river crossing is 50 feet wide between
abutments. We have, therefore, based our preliminary design on a minimum
horizontal clearance of 50 feet.
An investigation was made into the use of a tunnel under the river bed.
A preliminary design was made using an 78-inch diameter subaqueous
precast concrete pipe. The 78-inch pipe would be sufficient to carry a
16-inch steam main, a 8-inch boiler feedwater main, a 6-inch fuel oil line, a
power cable, and also provide sufficient space for a person to walk the entire
length of the lines. A typical cross section of the proposed tunnel is shown
on Figure 20. We estimate that the tunnel will cost between 20 and 25
9-1
-------
LYNN HARBOR
GENERAL EDWARDS BASCULE I
ROUTE 1A
ASCULE
PROPOSED
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
FOXHILL BASCULE BRIDGE
SAUGUSI RIVER
FIG. 18 AERIAL VIEW - VICINITY OF
PROPOSED SAUGUS RIVER CROSSING
This page is reproduced again at the back of 0-2
this report by a different reproduction method
so as to furnish the best possible detail to th*
user.
-------
BROAD SOUND
BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD
RIVER CROSSING
ROUTE 107
FIGn 18 AERIAL VIEVf - VICINITY OF
This page b reproduced again a, the back of PROSED SAUGUS RIVER CROSSING
Ifrii report by a different reproduction method \CONT D/
¦o at to furnish the best possible detail to the
user.
-------
TACK
AR6CST)0
CAST 8AUGU8
a a r b an
v i**Jt / tw- j® <*> *•
8 vh / - x?n> } !n\
yr /; wvi. ^.
g^er If^As^,.
PROPOSED
RIVER CROSSING
'i
-¦ ¦*«.<•
e^f'1 r ff p/f ,/
2000
4000
SCALE IN FEET
COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY CHART NO- 240
(SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER)
FIG. 19 LOCATION OF PROPOSED SAUGUS RIVER CROSSING
9-3
-------
78-IN. PiESTRESSED CONCRETE
SUBAQUEOUS PIPE
16-IN. STEAM
MAIN-—_
FIG. 20 SUBAQUEOUS RIVER CROSSING
9-4
-------
percent more than the overhead structure. In addition, with-the tunnel
arrangement, entrance structures and ventilation equipment would be
required.
The tunnel shown on Figure 20 will be suitable only when steam is
being transported across the river. When refuse is transported across the
river, a much larger cast-in*place tunnel would be required to accommodate
the conveyors. Since the cost of the overhead river crossing structure to
support the conveyors was only slightly higher than the overhead river
crossing structure required to carry the steam, boiler feedwater and oil
pipelines alone, the overhead structure would be more economical than the
subaqueous river crossing structure to support the refuse and ash conveyors.
A typical pier supporting the river crossing structure is shown on Figure
21. A cross section of the shredded refuse conveyors, the residue conveyor,
and the conveyor housing is shown on Figure 22. There is sufficient room to
allow personnel to walk the entire length of the conveyors for inspection and
maintenance.
9-5
-------
7
MEAN HIGH WATER' g
<*
OC
uj
MEAN LOW WATEft^ ^
'W//AV
CONVEYOR HOUSING
,EL. 50
PIER SHAFT
I'-' "i 0,-,o v s> a '
.vii; • qv :Z°fo<^i
yQiyw^J<-'oe:
_ r > ^'c <
J. (.'W5.J .«
-GRANITE FACING
<* ° -
'• O o O
^
ZMZZt'S-Z b<>°
& * ^ n oo oo•ono
• C • o° O ~** A W Vl
- , 0 9 • Li ' 0 />' ,» /y T / ® + 0 + —1
?o£ ^vk>°Ocfca°9/d°Qol
-.£}
Q».0:
^_a|
,*.. - *£> ^or
-CONCRETE BASE
/MUD LINE
-STEEL H-PILES
FIG. 21 TYPICAL PIER SUPPORT FOR RIVER CROSSING STRUCTURE
9-6
-------
'CONVEYOR
HOUSING
RESIDUE
CONVEYOR
REFUSE
CONVEYORS
FIG. 22 TYPICAL SECTION - CONVEYOR HOUSING ACROSS SAUGUS RIVER
9-7
-------
CHAPTER 10
SEPARATE STUDIES
General
The discussion and evaluation of some features of the solid waste
disposal and steam generating systems are given in this chapter. This
information supplements that given in Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Reciprocating Grate Stoker versus Spreader Stoker
The reciprocating grate, as indicated in the opening paragraphs of
Chapter 8, is sized on the basis of loading in pounds of refuse per hour per
square foot of grate area. To avoid damage to the grate, a loading of 60 to 65
pounds per square fool per hour should be used when burning refuse. Foster
Wheeler used a loading of 62 pounds of refuse per square foot per hour
based on the horizontal projected area of the reciprocating grate stoker.
Therefore, the reciprocating grate stoker considered is rated to burn 384
tons of refuse per day at the design loading.
In the unit incorporating the spreader stoker, much of the heat is
released while the shredded material is in suspension. Therefore, more of the
heat is absorbed by the boiler walls, and the grate is exposed to less heat
than when a reciprocating grate stoker is used. As a result, the spreader
stoker is capable of burning more refuse per day than a reciprocating grate
stoker of the same physical size.
The spreader stoker is designed on a heat release of 750,000 Btu/hr-ft2
of grate area. Utilizing a standard size having 38 percent less horizontally
projected grate area, the proposed spreader stoker can burn considerably
more refuse than the reciprocating grate stoker. With present refuse having a
heating value of 4,970 Btu/lb, the spreader stoker can burn 612 tons per day
as compared to only 384 tons per day with the reciprocating stoker.
The spreader stoker is therefore evaluated for use in the proposed
incineration plant, even though the refuse must be shredded prior to firing,
since with relatively the same water-walled boiler, over 50 percent additional
refuse can be burned with the spreader stoker. In addition, this means that
less oil will be needed as supplementary fuel.
10-1
-------
Dumping Floor versus Storage Bin
The general ground elevation in the vicinity of the proposed process
plant is less than 10 feet above mean tide level. Therefore, any subsurface
construction would require expensive dewatering facilities. For this reason,
we considered storing the refuse on a flat slab rather than in a below-ground
storage bin. A typical storage bin is depicted on Figure 8.
With the refuse on a flat slab, front-end loaders could be used to place
the refuse onto the feed conveyors. Since front-end loaders are much less
expensive than bridge cranes, this alternative was explored in depth.
Building cost estimates were made from preliminary building designs;
equipment costs were acquired from manufacturers; and personnel
requirements were estimated based on equipment ratings and the required
feed rate. The background of the cost estimates is explained in Chapter 11.
Although expensive excavation could be eliminated by using the slab
construction, the size of the storage area would be much larger, since it
would not be practical to stockpile refuse higher than 10 feet with front-end
loaders. Consequently, the building cost for the flat slab alternative would be
only about $100,000 less than the building costs for the storage bin
alternative. The bridge cranes arc estimated to cost about $250,000 more
than the front-end loaders. However, because the density of refuse on the
floor will be less than in the pit, and because front-end loaders with a
capacity of 8 cubic yards can handle only about one-half the amount of
refuse a crane can handle in the same work period, the number of personnel
required for the flat slab alternative is greater than the number required for
the bin and crane alternative. The additional labor cost would amount to
about $50,000 per year. We estimate that the operation costs, other than
labor, for the front-end loader.-, would be about $20,000 greater than the
comparable operation costs for the cranes.
Based on an economic life of 80 years tor the buildings, 20 years for
the cranes, 5 years for the front-end loaders, and interest at 6 percent,
$20,000 could be saved annually by using the bin and crane method rather
than the flat slab and front-end loaders. From the viewpoints of public
health and sanitation, confining the refuse to a below-grade pit would be
much more desirable. For these reasons the bin and cranes will be used in all
alternatives.
10-2
-------
Shredding versus Handling Raw Refuse
The shredded refuse system has several advantages over the
nonshredded refuse system. When conveying the material, particularly over
long distances, narrower belts, which are much less expensive both initially
and from an operation and a maintenance standpoint, can be used with
shredded refuse. The belts used in the nonshredded systems are 10 fteet wide
while those for the shredded refuse system are only 3 feet wide. Conveyor
selections are explained in Chapter 7.
Shredded refuse can be stored in silos, and with a positive means of
discharge, it can be metered to the incinerator. As a result, the feed to the
incinerator is more uniform.
Because of the smaller particle sr/.cs, the burning process will be more
complete, thereby improving the efficiency of the incineration process.
A major factor in favor of shredding and utilizing a spreader stoker is
the added incinerator capacity as explained under the Reciprocating Grate
versus Spreader Stoker Section of this chapter.
The primary disadvantage with total shredding is the added cost of
owning and operating the shredders and the refuse storage silos. This cost is
partially offset by the fact that the crane is operated for a shorter period of
time per day, thereby reducing crane operation and labor costs.
When burning raw refuse, there are no shredding costs and storage silo
costs. Since, however, a spreader stoker cannot be used to burn unshredded
refuse, the 612 tpd burning capacity cannot be achieved, and the plant
would not be able to burn more than 384 tons of refuse per day with the
proposed boiler and a reciprocating grate stoker. In addition, as mentioned
above, very wide belts must be used to convey the raw refuse.
Disposal During Two-Week Annual Outage
It is common practice in the power industry to completely shut down
boilers for a two-week repair and maintenance period each year. During this
period, the inside of the boiler is cleaned; soot and slag that have
accumulated on the boiler tubes are removed; the stokers are repaired; worn
sections of the refractory liners throughout the system and the cast-iron
wear plate liners above the grates are repaired or replaced; and the fans,
10-3
-------
electrostatic precipitator, air heater and other pieces of equipment are
serviced.
Sufficient provisions have been made in the refuse process plant to
allow for equipment maintenance without interference with the operation;
therefore, a two-week shutdown period is not necessary at the process plant.
However, since the boiler will be out of service for this two-week period,
major equipment maintenance in the process plant should be scheduled at
that time.
During this two-week annual outage, the refuse will have to be disposed
of at an alternate location. With the 384 tpd system, there would be a total
of 5,400 tons of refuse, and with the 612 tpd system, a total of 8.600 tons
of refuse would require disposal.
We suggest that arrangements be made with the New England Power
Company to use the present sanitary landfill site for the disposal of refuse
during this annual two-week period. In addition, wherever possible,
contractual agreements with private collectors and other communities should
be limited to the 50-week operating period. This would lift some of the
burden from the City of Lynn.
Trucking the refuse to neighboring incinerators was investigated.
However, because there is such a large quantity, this method of disposal docs
not appear to be feasible at this time. The situation may exist in the future,
however, whereby a community near Lynn might have excess capacity.
Therefore, this possibility should not be overlooked when the'actual
two-week outage occurs.
It is anticipated that by the time this facility has been on line for a
year, the DeMatteo landfill in Saugus will have been closed. If, however, it is
still open, permission could be requested from the State Department of
Public Works to dispose of the refuse there during the two-week annual
outage.
Value of Steam
Based upon data provided by the General Electric Company regarding
their present operation, we estimate that steam at 650 psig and 850 deg F is
worth $0,877 per 1,000 pounds, when produced using oil as fuel.
10-4
-------
CHAPTER 11
PLANT STAFF REQUIREMENTS
General
A complete description of the method of operation under each of the
seven basic alternatives was outlined in Chapter 6. The personnel necessary
to operate the Lynn-owned and the General Electric-owned facilities are
discussed in this chapter. The General Electric Company provided the
estimate of the personnel necessary to operate their portion of each
alternative. Table 7 summarizes plant staff requirements.
City Staff
In all alternatives, the process plant would be open for the delivery of
refuse 8 hours per day, Monday through Friday. This would enable the
major portion of the employees to work a straight-shift 40-hour week.
There would be a plant manager under each alternative who would be
in charge of the city-owned facility. In Alternatives B-I and B-ll, where the
city operates the boiler also, the manager would be a graduate mechanical
engineer with a minimum of 20 years' experience in power plant operation.
There are five shift supervisors on the City of Lynn's payroll in each
alternative. This includes an allowance for vacation, sick leave, and other
absences, and provides for one shift supervisor at the facility at all times.
One weighmastcr would be employed by the City of Lynn on a 40-hour
per week basis, lie would record the weight and other pertinent data from
the incoming vehicles.
In Alternatives A-Ia, B-I, and C-1, a single crane would continually
remove refuse from the pit. Therefore, to meet this requirement and to allow
for sick leave, vacation, and other absences, there would be five crane
operators on the payroll. In Alternative A-Ib both cranes feed the shredders
8 hours a day, Monday through Friday. Should one of the crane operators be
absent, the other operator would work additional hours to meet the load
requirements; therefore, there will be two crane operators on the payroll. In
Alternatives A-II, B-II, and C-II, the two cranes feed the shredders for 16
hours a day, Monday through Friday. This would require four men; but to
11-1
-------
T ABLE 7
PUNT STAFF REGUIREMENTS AND SALARY COSTS
ntt»i>Tivi
ANNUAL
A-ls
A- i b
A- 11
B-
fi
-11
C
1
C-H
NUMBER TOTAL
NUMBER TOTAL
NUMBER TOTAL
NUHBER
TOTAL
NUMBER
TOTAL
number
TOTAL
NUMBER TOTAL
JOB CLASSIFICATION
SALARY
PEA WEEK SALARY
PER WEEK SALARY
PER WEEK SAURY
PER WEEK
SALARY
PER WEEK
SALARY
PER WEEK
SALARY
PER WEEK SALARY
CITY OF L1*n
PI IIIT iAJUGER (PROCESS PLAIT)
HI.000
1 t 13 000
1 t 12 000
I 1 12 000
-
-
-
-
t
$ 12 000
1 $ 12 000
PI ART NMACU (CWBIRED FACILITY)
IB 000
-
-
-
'
$18 000
1
1 (8 000
-
-
¦
shift supeiyisor
9 500
5 17 500
S *7 500
5 <7 500
5
47 500
5
47 600
S
47.500
5 47,600
mtPMASTCt
6 000
1 t 000
\ 6 000
1 6.000
6 000
1
6 000
1
8 000
1 6 000
CRANE OPERiTO
t 100
5 90 500
2 16 200
5 40 500
5
40 500
5
40 500
s
40 500
5 W 500
SHREOOER OPERATOR
a too
1 8 100
1 8 100
2 16.200
8.100
2
16 200
1
8.100
2 >6 200
*MBTOU«C( ftfSONREl
MOO
2 17 «M
3 26 700
3 25,700
4
» ft 00
4
35 600
2
>7,800
3 24 TOO
LABORER
6 000
7 42 000
7 42 000
8 40.000
8
48 000
9
54 000
7
42 000
8 48 OOO
ASM HAAOLERS
i ooo
2 12 000
2 12,000
9 IB 000
12 000
3
I* 000
2
•J OOO
3 18 000
fW»T UO IQA££R OPERATOR
a 400
I 8 100
-
-
8 100
-
-
1
8 100
-
FIRST a ASS BOILER OPERATOR
to 000
-
-
-
5
50 000
5
50 000
"
-
-
A35ISTMT B0ll£R OPERATOR
1 000
-
-
"
40 000
5
40 000
-
-
-
TOTAL
IS 119*000
22 $ 170 500
28 J 210,900
as $313 800
qo
$ 325 800
25
1 194 000
28 $214 900
TOTAL SALARY
1194 000
$170 000
$215 000
$314 000
$ $26 000
11»4 OOO
$215 000
FIIN6E BENEFITS (25 PERCI4T)
u ooo
13 000
54 000
78 000
8 2 000
48
000
54 000
¦
— ¦¦ i
¦
TOTAL
J 712 000
$213 000
$269 OOO
$392 000
$408 000
1242.000
$269 000
GEREIAL ElECTfTI C HWUl'1'
FIRST CLASS BOILER OPERATOR
!10 000
4 $ 40 OOO
4 i 40 000
q
t 40 OOO
4
$40 000
4 $40 OOO
4 | 40 000
4 1 40 OOC
STOKER OPERATOR
B 900
4 35 600
4 35 600
4
95 600
-
-
4 35 600
4 35 600
E0U1PMERT OPERATOR
6 100
4 32 400
4 32 400
4
3? 400
*
-
-
4 12 400
4 S3 400
SERVICE PERS0R4EL
6 000
2 12 000
2 12 000
1
6 000
-
-
-
2 12 000
1 6 000
MAim»WCE PEBSOMEl
B 900
2 (7 800
2 17 800
1
8 909
-
-
2 17 800
1 8.900
TOTAL
16 1 137 800
16 t 157 BOO
(4
$122,900
4
$40 000
4 140 000
16 $ 137 800
14 $ 122 900
TOTAL SALARY
1138 000
$138 000
• 4123
000
$40,000
too OOO
US 000
$123 000
FRINGE BENEFITS (25 PEKBU)
34 000
34 000
31
000
10 000
10 000
S4.0QO
SI 000
TOTAL
$172 000
$172 000
H54 000
$ 50 000
ISO 000
1172 000
1 154 000
EJTHiTtS Syprn EQ 6T THE GEXCMl aECTIIC twin
-------
allow for sick leave, vacations, arid oilier absences, there will be five crane
operators on the payroll.
Otir shredder operator would be required in Alternatives A-Ia, B-I. and
C-l to operate the bulky refuse shredder. A shredder operator would be
required in Alternative A-Ih, Monday through Friday, during the first slut 1.
in Alternatives A-11, B-fl, and C-ll. a shredder operator would be required
Monday through Friday during both the first and second shifts. Standby
operators would be provided by the available operators working longer hours
if necessary.
A maintenance crew would be employed in the Lynn-owned facility
Monday through Friday during the first shift. Since backup and standby
equipment has been provided 111 most eases for maintenance and repairs, the
crew should be able to accomplish their work during the first shift. The City
of Lynn will employ two men m Alternatives A-la and C-I; three men in
Alternatives A-lb, A-ll, and C-ll; and four men in Alternatives B-I and B-1I,
which includes both preparation plant and boiler. The crew would consist of
at least one mechanic and one electrician.
There would he four laborers employed during the first shift in
Alternatives A-la, A-lb, and C-l for routine work such as sweeping the
dumping floor, inspecting the conveyors, maintaining the grounds, shifting
ash containers, assisting the maintenance crew, and directing traffic. There
would also be one laborer at the plant at all other times, making a total of
seven laborers on the payroll.
In Alternatives A-ll and C-ll, where shredding is carried on for 16 hours
per day, Monday through Friday, one additional laborer would be employed
during the second shift, when the cranes and shredders are operating. In
Alternative B-I, an additional laborer would be employed to clean the boiler
area. In Alternative 13-11, Iwo additional laborers would be employed, one
during the second shift when the shredders arc running, and one to clean the
boiler area.
Two ash handlers would be employed by the city to take the ash from
the ash storage building to the disposal area and to operate the ash conveyors
in Alternatives A-la, A-lb, B-I, and C-l. In Alternatives A-ll, B-il, and C-ll,
where 612 tons of refuse are incinerated each day, as opposed to only 384
Ipd in the above alternatives, three ash handlers would be employed.
11-3
-------
One front-end loader operator is required to feed the oversized refuse
to the bulky refuse shredder in Alternatives A-Ia, B-I, and C-I.
The City of Lynn would need five licensed first-class boiler operators
and five assistant boiler operators on their payroll for Alternatives B-I and
B-II in which the boiler is operated by the city. The boiler would operate
continuously, and an allowance for sick leave, vacations, and other absence is
provided.
General Electric Staff
General Electric would not require any additional management
personnel.
The General Electric Company would have four licensed first-class
boiler operators, four stoker operators, and four equipment operators on
their payroll for Alternatives A-Ia, A-Ib, A-II, C-I, and C-II in which they
would operate the boiler.
General Electric would employ two service personnel and two
maintenance personnel in Alternatives A-la, A-lb, and C-I which utilize a
reciprocating grate stoker, and only one service and one maintenance person
in Alternatives A-II and B-II which utilize a spreader stoker.
Salary Costs
A summary of the City of Lynn's and General Electric's plant staff
requirements is shown together with salary costs in Table 7. Salary costs are
based on wages paid for similar work in the Greater Lynn area.
11-4
-------
CHAPTER 12
UNIFORM COLLECTION ORDINANCES
General
It was noted in Chapter 5 that the residential refuse production in the
City of Lynn, combined with General Electric's refuse production, would be
less than the capacity of the boder with either the reciprocating grate or
spreader-stoker alternative. The difference would be made up with refuse
from neighboring communities, private haulers, or commercial and industrial
firms. It is, therefore, important that Lynn adopt an ordinance to ensure
uniform collection practices, and that other communities involved should
have regulations to ensure this end.
Collection Practices
A collection ordinance is necessary to prevent unwanted and hazardous
materials from entering the plant, and to ensure that there will be proper
control over the vehicles entering the process plant, and their contents.
Dangerous materials such as explosives, gasoline, paints, solvents,
cleaning fluids, drugs, and poisons should not be disposed of at the process
plant.
Unburnable bulky refuse such as stoves, bed springs, water tanks,
refrigerators, dryers, washing machines, automobile parts, and lawn mowers
should not be disposed of at the process plant. Large quantities of ashes,
gravel, sand, stones, plaster, and demolition wastes should not be allowed
into the plant, cither. These materials have no heating value and would place
an additional burden on the equipment. The shredders that will be'used in
the process plant arc capable of handling these items, but it is this type of
material that causes excessive shredder wear. Such wear may result in
considerable downtime if maintenance is not routinely performed.
Large burnable bulky refuse such as bureaus, chairs, packing crates,
pallets, pieces of wood less than 6 feet long, desks, mattresses, and sofas
could be disposed of at the process plant. Where only bulky refuse is being
shredded, these objects should be brought in separately and placed on the
dumping floor as shown on Figure 5.
12-1
-------
Garbage should be accepted only if properly wrapped and mixed with
at least an equal weight of rubbish. The intent here is to prevent a truck
carrying only garbage from dumping at the process plant. Garbage, because
of its high moisture content, has a lower heating value than an average batch
of refuse. To avoid an uneven heating load on the stokers, the garbage must
be mixed with the remainder of the refuse. In short, communities intending
to dispose of their refuse at the plant should adopt regulations requiring
refuse to be mixed as placed in storage containers at points of origin.
Segregation of garbage, cans, bottles, and ashes from other refuse should not
be permitted.
A community without municipal refuse collection should not be
allowed in the plan since the dumping floor is not designed to handle a large
volume of private automobiles. It would also be very dangerous if private
citizens were allowed on the dumping floor or near the storage bin.
Collection Schedule
A coordinated collection schedule should be developed to balance the
daily load entering the plant. Once outside users have been selected, such a
collection schedule should be established so that the amount of refuse
delivered to the process plant will be relatively uniform Monday through
Friday.
12-2
-------
CHAPTER 13
OTHER METHODS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL
General
Refuse disposal is not a new problem - numerous methods have been
used since the beginning of time. As villages grew into towns, and towns into
large cities, the problem of refuse disposal became more apparent.
Governments were faced with the questions of where and how to dispose of
the growing quantities of refuse, and residents had no interest in the refuse
once it was out of their sight. Accordingly, the appropriate authority usually
disposed of the refuse by dumping it on the ground and burning it. As
population centers grew, various other methods of refuse disposal were tried.
Today, several acceptable methods of refuse disposal are available. The
final determination of the best method depends largely on public acceptance
of the method selected, and the total cost. In this chapter are presented
several of these methods, and discussions as to their feasibility as a solution
for the solid wastes disposal problem in the City of Lynn.
Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on land without
creating nuisances, or hazards to public health or safety. This method of
refuse disposal involves the placing and compaction of refuse, both
combustible and noncombustible, in layers; and the daily covering of this
refuse with a 6-inch compacted layer of suitable cover material. As areas of
the landfill site are filled to a desired final elevation, a 2-foot layer of
suitable cover material is placed and compacted. The layers of cover material
provide protection against possible underground fires, eliminate flies and
mosquitoes, and seal off organic wastes which would provide food for
rodents or other vermin. This cover also helps to control odors resulting
from the decomposition of the refuse.
Most types of refuse can be disposed of at a sanitary landfill; however,
hazardous or special wastes must be excluded. It is also desirable to separate
the oversize (bulky) wastes for disposal into selected areas within the
landfill.
13-1
-------
Sanitary landfill, although the moi>l widely used and usually tire most
economical method of refuse disposal, has some disadvantages. The land area
required to operate a sanitary landfill is many times that required for an
incinerator. A sufficient quantity of suitable cover material must be available
on the site. or it will have to be trucked at additional expense. Unless a
Ndnit.iry landfill is properly operated and maintained, it can take on tlir
undesirable features of an open dump and become a nuisance affecting
public health and safety.
Wc have estimated that 110 acre-feet per year would be required to
dispose of the residential refuse generated in the City of Lyna alone. An
additional 50 acre-feet would be required to dispose of the commercial and
industrial refuse. With the increase in per-capita refuse production discussed
in Chapter 5, a total of 6,000 acre-feet of landfill volume would be required
over the next 30 years. The city has informed us that there are no areas of
this magnitude, suitable for a sanitary landfill operation, within the city
limits.
Several communities throughout the country have attempted hauling
their refuse to a sanitary landfill in another community. This has not
generally met With favorable acceptance by the residents of the receiving
community, and in some instances court injunctions have been issued to
prevent refuse originating outside a community from being deposited within
the boundaries of the community. For these reasons, we cannot recommend
sanitary landfilling as the solution to the solid wastes disposal problem in
Lynn.
Conventional Incineration
The conventional incineration process is quite similar to incineration in
a boiler. The capital and operating costs would be relatively the same.
Therefore, the main difference would be in the sale of steam under the boiler
concept. In addition, utilities necessary to operate the boiler could be
obtained from the General Electric Company at a significant savings over the
price the city alone would pay.
Since there is a market for the steam, we do not recommend
conventional incineration for the City of Lynn.
13-2
-------
High-Temperature Incineration
High-tempcraturc incineration has been under development for several
years. The Mclt-Zit Destructor, designed by American Design and
Development Corporation, is the only equipment developed far enough to
warrant consideration.* They have a pilot plant in Whitman, Massachusetts,
and are proposing to construct a full-scale plant in New Jersey.
The basic concept of the high-temperature equipment is to incinerate
using a supplemental fuel at a high temperature, approximately 3,000 deg F,
and to produce a very dense and stable residue. Volume reduction is claimed
to be about 98 percent compared to approximately 90 percent attainable by
normal incineration.
We cannot recommend consideration ol this method until further test
program results are available, operating experience has been gained, and the
cost of this disposal method established.
Compaction and Rail Haul
Under this disposal process, refuse is compacted to a greatly reduced
volume to facilitate hauling by rail or other means to a distant point of
disposal, and for better utilization of landfill space. A compaction-transfer
station must be provided and a disposal site available at reasonable distance
for this method to be practical.
There is presently under construction in East Cambridge,
Massachusetts, a compaction-transfer station. It will be privately owned and
operated, and capable of handling up to 2,000 tons per day. The Boston
Globe on October 7, 1969, reported that the disposal cost at the plant will
be in the vicinity of $7.50 per ton. All that a user would be required to do is
to bring Ins refuse to the station. The remainder of the process would be
taken care of by the private company. We estimate that it would cost
between $2.00 and $4.00 per ton to haul the refuse from Lynn to the
compaction-transfer station. The haul cost is dependent upon the number of
persons making the trip to the station. In summary, it would cost the City of
Lynn between $9.50 and $1 1.50 per ton to dispose of its refuse in this
manner.
*Kaiser, E. R. Evaluation of the Melt-Zit high-
temperature incinerator; operation test report, August
1968. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1969. [116 p.]
13-3
-------
It was indicated to us by the City of Lynn Planning Department that
there is a possibility that a facility such as this one in East Cambridge could
be constructed in the Lynn area by the same company. If this facility were
construc ted and if sufficient quantities of refuse were made available, the
cost of disposal might possibly be the same as that charged in East
Cambridge.
Composting
A few composting plants have been placed in operation in the United
States in the past few years. Most of these are not in operation now.
Basically, the composting process involves biological degradation of
organic material by aerobic digestion for a period of time, resulting in a
stable and innocuous product
Thcic arc two major disadvantages to this method of solid waste
disposal tor the City of Lynn. The first is that the process is capable of
handling only the organic portion of the refuse. The waste must be
segregated and the nonorganic material disposed of separately. The second
objection is that the compost lias a very low value for use as a fertilizer. It
can be considered onlv as a soil conditioner similar to humus. To make the
process economically feasible, it is necessary to establish a market for the
compost. It is doubtful that even with an extensive sales effort, such a
market could be developed. If the processed humus-like material could not
be sold, it would have to be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. As previously
noted, there are no areas available in the city suitable for a landfill operation.
For these reasons, we do not recommend composting as a solution to the
solid wastes disposal problem in Lynn.
Ocean Disposal
Compacting refuse into bales having a density greater than that of sea
water and sinking them out in the ocean has been mentioned as a method of
solid wastes disposal.
In an informal meeting with a representative of the Corps of Engineers,
the possibility of sea disposal was discussed. The Corps' position seems to be
that this method of disposal would be acceptable only if it can be proved
that no nuisance would be created, and the ecology of the disposal area will
not be adversely affected.
13-4
-------
Approval of various State and Federal agencies such as the
Massachusetts Department of Health, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, etc.,
would also be necessary, both in conducting demonstrations and in issuance
of permits.
In view of the difficulties involved in obtaining these approvals and the
fact that any permits issued would be subject to cancellation on
comparatively short notice, at this time we do not recommend sea disposal
of baled refuse.
13-5
-------
CHAPTER CHAPTER 14
COST ESTIMATE
General
Building cost estimates were developed using a value of 1,000 for the
ENR {Engineering News-Record) Construction Cost Index. This index,
created in 1921, is based on a hypothetical block of construction material
and labor valued at $100 at 1913 prices.
Equipment cost estimates were obtained from manufacturers during the
course of the study. Hie average ENR Construction Cost Index during the
study period was 1,300.
liotli building and equipment costs have been adjusted to an ENR of
1,375, expected to be reached in mid-1970. The construction cost at any
time in the future can be estimated by the following method:
1. Divide the total building costs and the total equipment costs by
1,375.
2. Multiply these values by the ENR Construction Cost Index at the
time the costs are desired.
3. Add 10 percent for general conditions.
4. Add 25 percent for engineering and contingencies.
Annual capital costs were calculated using an interest rate of 6 percent
on capital investments made by the City of Lynn, and 10 percent on capital
investments made by the General Electric Company. Since the average uselul
life of the equipment is estimated to be 20 years, the capital-cost of the
equipment was amorlized over a period of 20 years. The average useful life
of the buildings and structures is estimated to be at least 30 years, and the
total costs of the buildings and structures were amortized over a period of 30
years.
The cost estimates are included as Appendix A of this report, and the
Economic Evaluation is presented in Chapter 15.
14-1
-------
Buildings and Structures
Costs for the process plants in Alternatives A-Ia and A-1I were
estimated from the preliminary building layouts shown on Figures 5 and ,6
and Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Costs for the process plant in Alternative
A-lh was estimated by proportioning the cost of the Alternative II process
plant on the basis of building volume.
Costs for the buildings in Alternatives B-I and B-1I were estimated from
the preliminary building layouts shown on Figures 11 and 12 and Figures 14
and 15, respectively.
Cost estimates for the buildings in Alternative C-I were based on the
preliminary building layouts shown on Figures 11 and 12 for Alternative B-I.
Cost estimates for the buildings in Alternative C-I were based on the
preliminary building layout shown on Figures 14 and 15 for Alternative B-II.
The estimate includes the cost of site development, substructure,
superstructure, electrical, plumbing, heating, and ventilation. It also includes
the cost of equipment foundations, support structures, outside utilities, and
the river crossing structure. The items included in the electrical and the river
crossing structure estimates arc explained in detail in a subsequent section of
this chapter.
Boiler Plant
Boiler costs are based on tentative proposal 0-2-83106 made by the
Foster Wheeler Corporation to the General Electric Company, Lynn,
Massachusetts, dated October 20, 1969, and supplemented by a letter dated
December 29, 1969, from Foster Wheeler to General Electric.
The boiler plant cost includes the cost of a steam generator, which will
produce 400.000 pounds of saturated steam per hour at approximately 650
psig when burning a combination of municipal refuse and No. 6 fuel oil, and
when firing No. 6 fuel oil alone.
All ol the accessories necessary for the steam generator, with the
exception of the instrumentation which is carried separately, arc included in
this price. The cost includes tlic welded wall furnace; the economizer, a
regenerative-type air heater, including the drive mechanism and cleaning
device; and the electrostatic precipitator, energized by two 70-kv (kilovolts),
14-2
-------
750-ma (milhampere) silicon rectifier sets. The price aJso includes all of the
flues, ducts, wind boxes and hoppers associated with the boiler, the
precipitator, and the stack; a stack and the soot blowers and their controls.
The cost also includes all of the insulation and refractory work on the inner
and outer surfaces of the incinerator, including the furnace, drums, flues,
and ducts. It also includes all of the structural steel necessary to support the
boiler, precipitator, and associated equipment, and the grating, platforms,
walkways, stairtreads, and handrails necessary for the operation and
inspection of the boiler. In addition, the cost includes the forced-draft oil
burner air supply fan and drive, the underfire air and overfire air supply fans
and drives, and the induced-draft fan and drive. It also includes the cost of
the stoker and all of its associated equipment.
A water-cooled refuse charging chute, the furnace residue discharge
chute, and the undergratc siftings removal hoppers and conduits are included
in the price of the boiler plant. The cost of the ash-handling equipment is
included separately. The price also includes the oil burners and associated
equipment.
The cost for the erection of the proposed equipment listed under the
boiler plant is also included in the total.
Superheater
This cost includes the price of the separately fired superheater,
mechanical dust collector, induced-draft fan, steam air heater, piping and
valves for the fuel system, and an oil pump and heater set. The cost of
installation of these items is also included in the total.
Feedwater System
This cost includes only the price of equipment necessary to supplement
the capacity of General Electric's existing system to meet the needs of the
new boiler.
The feedwater system for the alternatives in which the boiler is located
on the General Electric property includes the following items, two deaerator
booster pumps, two softeners, two condensate polishers, a deaerator, two
boiler feed pumps, a feedwater control valve and accessories, a feedwater
heater, two chemical feed systems, and three sample coolers.
14-3
-------
The feedwatcr system for the alternatives in which the boiler is located
across the Saugus River from the General Electric plant includes the
following: the deaerator, two boiler feed pumps, two condensate polishers,
two softeners, two condensate tank feed pumps, a condensate storage tank, a
condensate tank level control valve, two deaerator booster pumps, a
feedwatcr control valve and accessories, a feedwater heater, two chemical
feed systems, and three sample coolers.
The cost of installation is included in the price.
Auxiliary Oil System
For Alternatives A-Ia, A-Ib, and A-1I, the price includes a No. 6 oil
purnp and heater set, and a No. 2 oil tank and pumps. For Alternatives C-I
and C-IJ, the price includes only the pump and heater set; and for
Alternatives B-I and B-ll, it includes two pump and heater sets, a pipeline
heat system, a No. 6 oil day tank, a pump suction heater, a No. 2 oil tank,
and two No. 2 oil booster pumps. All costs include installation.
Ash-Handling System
The price for the ash-handling system includes purchase and installation
of the following items: bottom ash conveyor, two ash slurry pumps, grit
chamber, ash removal system for the electrostatic precipitator; also, a bucket
elevator for Alternatives A-Ia, A-Ib, and A-II.
Other Equipment
Costs of the other pieces of equipment are based on quotations from
manufacturers, or from data obtained in recent design projects in which
Metcalf & Eddy has been engaged.
Estimates include cost of equipment delivered to the job site and its
installation
Process Piping
The price for process piping includes the 650-psig superheated system
piping and valves; the 200-psig and 3-psig saturated steam piping and valves;
and the raw water, softened water, feedwater, steam line drips, brine,
chemical feed, fuel oil, gas or No. 2 oil, and the compressed-air piping and
valves. The price includes the cost of installation.
14-4
-------
Instrumentation
The price for instrumentation includes the cost of all instrumentation
associated with the boiler plant. It includes control equipment for the
combustion regulation system, steam temperature control, . fcedwater
control, draft control, boiler safety system, and the boiler control panel.
Electrical
The cost includes purchase and installation of transformers, high- and
low-voltage cable, motor starters, control equipment, circuit breakers,
panels, fixtures, the lighting system, and all of the associated conduits and
cables.
River Crossing Structure
The river crossing structure costs arc based on a preliminary design of
the structure. It includes the cost of the piles and piers shown on Figure 21,
the cost of the housing shown on Figure 22, and the cost of the structural
framing between piers.
Pipes Crossing River
A 16-inch steam main, an 8-inch boiler fcedwater supply main, and a
6-inch fuel oil supply main across the Saugus River in Alternatives B-I and
B-II arc proposed. The cost includes all of the material and labor necessary
to install these mains, including the valves and fittings.
Operation
Operation costs include the costs of boiler fcedwater, fuel oil, and
power, all of which will be supplied by the General Electric Company in all
alternatives. The prices were supplied by the General Electric Company for
th is study.
The cost also includes an allowance for process and drinking water,
heating, and materials for equipment and building maintenance.
Labor
Labor costs are based on job classifications and salaries paid for similar
work in the Greater Boston area adjusted to mid-1970.
14 -5
-------
Summary
The results of the cost estimates arc included in Appendix A and an
Economic Evaluation is presented in Chapter 15. The possible effect of the
state sales tax should be explored in greater depth when financial
arrangements arc finalized. There are no allowances for it in this report.
14-6
-------
CHAPTER 15
ECONOMIC EVALUATION - COST APPORTIONMENT
General
The lol.il annual costs thai would be incurred by both the General
Electric (.'om|Miiy and (In; Cily of Lynn under each alternative are presented
in Tables A-1 tlirough A-6 in Appendix A of tins report. Tliey are
summarized in Tabic A-7 and shown graphically on Figure 23. The total
annual < ost includes all of the costs incurred by both the City of Lynn and
the General Electric Company from the time a refuse vehicle enters the
access road until the 650 psig, 850 deg F steam leaves the superheater
including the cost of the supplemental fuel oil and the capital investments. It
is based on a total annual volume of refuse of 135,000 and 215,000 tons per
year in the alternatives utilizing a reciprocating grate stoker and a spreader
stoker respectively and an annual <|uanlity of 1,685 million pounds of steam
(average: 200,000 pounds per hour, 350 days per year) going into the
General Electric Company distribution system.
The annual cost varies Iroin a low oi $2,374,000 in Alternative (Ml to a
high of $2,761,000 in Alternative A-Ia, a range of only $3117,000.
The same amount of steam is produced with eaeh alternative, but
because the refuse is burned on a reciprocating grate stoker in Alternatives
A-la, A-lb, B-l and C-l, only 135,000 tons of refuse can be incinerated per
year, whereas in Alternatives A-II, B-l I, and C-II, which utilize a spreader
stoker, 215,000 tons of refuse per year can be incinerated.
General Klcctric's steam requirements arc discussed in Chapter 4 and
the value of the superheated steam that would be produced by the proposed
boiler is presented in Chapter 10. Bawd on the figures presented in Tdble 2,
the jvcrjgc load that will be produced by the boiler will be 275,000 pounds
of steam per hour. We estimate (lia( approximately 75,000 pounds ofstcum
per hour will be returned to the system for deacration, fecdwatcr heating
and other uses, leaving an average net quantity of 200,000 pounds of stcain
per hour available for the General Electric Company. Using the value of
$0,877 per 1,000 pounds of 650 psig, 850 deg F steam, this steam would be
worth $ 1,480,000 per y car.
15-1
-------
ALTERNATIVE A-Ia
ALTERNATIVE A-Ib
ALTERNATIVE A-H
ANNUAL CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL LABOR COST
-------
ALTERNATIVE C-n
ALTERNATIVE B-Z
rru li.M.at
ALTERNATIVE B-H
mu Ii.im.m
ALTERNATIVE C-X
TVTIl tl.IM.4O0
FIG. 23 COST APPORTIONMENT - SUMMARY
(cont'd)
15-2A
-------
The total annual cost and the value of the steam produced under each
alternative are shown on Table 8. The difference between these two totals
which represents the net cost of refuse disposal is also presented. Because the
quantity of refuse handled is not constant in each of the alternatives, all of
the .ihmc figures are also shown on the basis of the cost per ton of refuse
burn 1.
The total cost minus the value of the steam is $9.49, $8.32, $7.07, and
$7.04 per ton of refuse burned in Alternatives A-la, A-Ib, B-l and C-I
respectively, and $4.87, $4.48, and $4.16 per ton of refuse burned in
Alternatives A-H, B-l 1, and (Ml respectively. These figures represent the net
cost of refuse disposal. They arc less in the three latter alternatives than in
the four former alternatives, chiefly because approximately 50 percent more
refuse is burned in the three latter alternatives.
It was explained earlier in this report that the C alternatives were not
implementabic, but were presented only for comparison purposes.
Both Alternative A-1I and Alternative B-II arc attractive from the
standpoints of implementation and costs. The $4.87 and $4.48 is much
lower (hail the cost of conventional incineration, which we estimate is in the
range of $7 00 to $10.00 per ton and the $7.50 per toil quoted in Chapter
13 for rdil haul. These figures show, therefore, that the concept has definite
merit.
The above cost analysis is presented in order to demonstrate the overall
economic benefit of this concept. There arc several additional factors that
enter into the economic evaluation. Since this is a joint venture, a portion of
the economic benefit should be allocated to the General Electric Company.
Private haulers and other communities should he charged a competitive fee
for the use of the facilities. Based on data presented in Chapter 5, over
two-thirds of the rclusc would romc from sources other than the City of
Lynn or the General FJectru Company. For comparison purposes, we
divided the 215,000 tons of refuse per year into three categories according
to sourc: City of Lynn, 63,000 tons per year; General Electric, 7,000 tons
per year; and other users, 145,000 tons pei year.
It is not the intent in the feasibility report to decide oil the financial
arrangements between the two parties in this joint venture. Much of this
would be subject to negotiations between the two parties. We have, however,
prepared several case studies lor Alternatives A-Il and B-Il based on
15-3
-------
TA&LE 8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATI VE
ITEM A-1 a A-lb A-11 B-l B-ll C-1 C-ll
1. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $2,761,000 $2,603,000 $2,526,000 $2,434,000 $2,444,000 $2.430,000 $2,374,000
COSTS PER TON OF
REFUSE BURHED $ 20.45O $ 19.280 $ 11.75'2) $ I8.03<') $ ll.36(2) $ IB.OOO $ ll.04<2>
2. VALUE OF STEAM
(© $0,877/1000#) PER YEAR $1,480,000 *1.480,000 $1,480,000 $1,480,000 $1,480,000 $1,480,000 $1,480,000
VALUE PER TON OF
REFUSE BURNED $ I0.96O $ 10.960 $ 6.88<2> $ I0.96O $ 6.88t2' $ I0.96O $ 6.88<2)
3. TOTAL COST MINUS VALUE
OF STEAM $1,281,000. $1,123,000 $1,046,000 $ 954,000 $ 964,000 $ 950,000 $ 894,000
COST PER TON OF
REFUSE BURNED $ 9.490 $ 8.320 $ 4.87<2' $ 7.07O $ 4.48<2> $ 7.04O $ 4.I6O
1 BASED OH 135,000 TONS OF REFUSE PER YEAR.
2 BASED ON 215,000 TONS OF REFUSE PER YEAR.
-------
theoretical, but possible, economic arrangements. The revenue taken in in
the case studies is summarized in Figure 24.
in Case I, the total annual value of steam is based on $0,877 per 1,000
pounds. This value is subtracted irom the total annual costs incurred by both
parties and the resultant figure divided by the 215,000 tons of refuse burned
annually. The result is a cost of $4.87 and $4.48 per ton of refuse burned in
Alternatives A-ll and B-II respectively. These are the figures presented in
Table It and discussed earlier in this chapter.
In Case II, the value of steam was arbitrarily set 10 percent lower than
the actual value based on General Electric's present capabilities. In addition,
the charge to other users for refuse disposal was set at $6.00 per ton. These
values were subtracted from the total annual costs incurred by both parties
and the resultant figure divided by the 70,000 tons of refuse estimated to be
generated by the City of Lynn and the General Electric Company annually.
The result is a cost to the City of Lynn and the General Electric Company of
$4.66 and $3.49 per ton of refuse burned in Alternatives A-II and B-II
respectively.
In Case 111, the value of stejm was again arbitrarily set 10 percent lower
than the actual value based on General Electric's present capabilities. The
charge to other users for refuse disposal was set at $7.00 per ton. Following
the same procedure outlined in Case II, the result is a cost to the City of
Lynn and the General Electric Company of $2.59 and $1.4] per ton of
refuse burned in Alternatives A-ll and B-ll, respectively.
An analysis of Alternative A-II, Case 111, shows that all of the annual
costs ($2,526,000), shown on Table A-7, incurred by both the General
Electric Company and the City of Lynn, can be paid for by charging other
users S7.00 per ton to dispose of their refuse, by debiting the accounts of
the General Electric Company and the City of Lynn $2.49 per ton for the
refuse they deliver to the plant, and by debiting General Electric's account at
10 percent less than the actual value of steam based on General Electric's
present capabilities.
Each of the case studies can be analyzed in a similar manner. Again,
these case studies are presented only to show various possible ways of
balancing the annual expenses and do not necessarily represent our
recommended method of financing.
15-5
-------
CASE I
CASE II
CASE III
GEiEML ELECT1HC
ALTERNATIVE A-II
CJ1
i
ALTERNATIVE B-II
¦6£WERAL ElECTtlC
STU*: I .US ¦ to
• 10. *7/ 1000 LIS
$< .MO. 000/TEA I
aECTBIC
m* i.oh « to* LN/rt
StMCWM. ELECTRIC
6EMERAL ELECTRIC-
FIG.
21 SUMMARY
- ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE
-------
CHAPTER 16
EXPANSION AND ADAPTABILITY TO OTHER AREAS
Expanded Facilities at the Lynn-Saugus Location
There is need for a refuse disposal solution 111 many of the other
communities in northeast Massachusetts, particularly those communities and
private haulers who presently use the DcMatteo landfill in Saugus. Because
of the special need for an economical refuse disposal facility to service the
area just north of Boston, and because of the rising cost of steam production
using fossil fuels, it would be appropriate to investigate the installation of a
larger facility at this site.
Preliminary investigations would be necessary to determine the
quantity of refuse that would be available at the facility and to determine
the maximum amount of steam General Electric could utilize. Preliminary
investigations should also be made to ascertain if there are any existing or
planned industries in the immediate area that could also use some of the
steam.
The basic concept has been shown to be sound. The refuse disposal
needs of the City of Lynn can be solved economically; but, from a larger
viewpoint, there is a very good possibility that the refuse-disposal needs of a
major portion of the area north of Boston might also be solved by expanding
this concept.
Adaptability to Other Areas
The Joint Venture Concept. The joint venture concept of refuse
disposal and steam generation appears quite suitable to any region of the
country. There arc two major requirements, however, that must first be met.
The first is a sizeable quantity of refuse. The economic advantage that comes
with increased quantities of refuse is evident in Table B. The second
requirement is a user for the steam.
The steady depletion of the fo&sil-fuel reserves, the steady rise in
production and transportation costs of fuels and the more stringent air
pollution code requirements have and will continue to increase the cost of
steam production using fossil fuels.
16-1
-------
The scarcity of suitable sites for sanitary landfill operations, the recent
bans on open burning, and the steady increase in population have caused the
seventy and the cost of the refuse-disposal problem to increase at alarming
rates.
As the costs of refuse disposal and steam generation increase, the
concept presented herein becomes even more attractive.
Additional Considerations at Other Locations. The Lynn-General
Electric joint venture is unusual in the following ways:
1. Sufficient fuel oil storage capacity is already available at the
General Electric Company, therefore, the costs of fuel oil storage
tanks are not included in the estimate.
2. Sufficient land is available and is owned by the General Electric
Company, therefore, the cost of land is not included in the
estimate.
3. The General Electric Company generates its own power, which
will be used to run the refuse processing and burning equipment.
As a result, power is available at a slightly lower cost than from
the local utility.
4. Portions of the feedwater system are presently available at the
General Electric Company, therefore, the cost of that equipment
is not included in the estimate.
In other locations where the above are not available, the cost of
providing them should be included in the overall economic analysis.
16-2
-------
CHAPTER 17
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Wc wish to acknowledge our appreciation to Mr. William E. George,
Planning Director of the City of Lynn; Mr. Thomas J. Muckian, member of
the City of Lynn Planning Board; Mr. John F. Milo, Manager of the River
Works Utilities Services at the General Electric Company in Lynn; and Mr.
Alden H. Howard, Manager of Utilities Operation at the General Electric
Company in Lynn, for their cooperation and assistance in furnishing data,
information, and suggestions for this report.
Wc also wish to acknowledge the cooperation of Mr. Stephen Levy,
Solid Waste Management Representative of the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management.
Respectfully submitted,
'ANDREW
^ / r W
3TI \ —
gl paton It/
\ V ^ No. ?85 O/^
Andrew C. Paton
Senior V ice President
METCALF& EDDY, INC.
Registered Professional Engineer
Massachusetts License No. 285
17-1
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
TABLE A - I ESTIMATE!) CAPITAL INVESTHENT - BUILOINGS AND STRUCTURES
(CITY OF LYNN)
COST
ITEM
AITERNATI VE A- la
ALTERNATIVE A-lb
ALTERNATIVE A- 1 1
ALTERNATIVE B-1
ALTERNATIVE B- 1 1
ALTERNATIVE C- 1
ALTERNATIVE C-I 1
SITE *0RK
$ 210 000
% CO
$ 218 000
$ 235 000
% 208 000
$ 210.000
$ 218 000
EXCAVATION BAMFILL, 0E*AT£R1NG, ETC
ISO 000
CO
l«0 000
228 000
165 000
ISO 000
100 000
HOOD PILES
36 000
CO
53,000
68 000
120 000
36,000
53,000
CONCRETE
620.000
CO
536 000
702 000
760 000
620 000
536,000
structural steel
U 000
CO
80 000
190 000
290 000
80,000
00,000
EXTERIOR WALLS (MASONRY AND METAL PANEL)
65 000
CO
80,000
192 000
180 000
65,000
80.000
ROOFINO, FLASHING AND SHEET METAL
25.000
CO
23,000
26,000
29 000
25,000
23 000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS*11
245 000
CO
216 000
320 000
302,000
205 000
216 000
HEATING AND VENTILATING^
120 000
CO
108,000
170,000
168,000
120 000
108,000
plumbing'1'
08 000
CO
03 000
68 000
70 000
08 000
03 000
FIRE PROTECTION!**
27 000
CO
30 000
31 000
33 000
27 000
30,000
ELECTRICAL11)
207,000
225 000
228,000
306,000
005,000
201,000
230,000
M7ER 1*0 SEVER MAINS
35 000
35 000
35,000
35 000
35 000
-
RIVER CROSSING STRUCTURE
600 000
308 000
308,000
288 000
288 000
-
*
ASH HANDLINO BUILDING*31
109 000
109 000
109,000
109,000
109,000
109,000
109 000
TOTAL COST (CNR = 1000)
$2 615 000
SI 977 000
12,207 000
$3 052 000
$3 210 000
$1 977 000
)1 870 000
TOTAL COST (ENR • 1375)
3,600 000
2 720 000
3,000,000
0 200 000
0 020,000
2,720 000
2,570,000
GENERAL CONDITIONS 10*
360.000
272 000
300 OX
020 000
002.000
272,000
257 000
SUBTOTAL
3,960 000
2 992 000
3,304,000
0 620.000
0,862 000
2,992,000
2,827 000
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES 25*
990 000
717,000
835,000
l 155 000
1 215.000
707 000
707,000
TOTAL
$0 950 000
U 739 000
<0 179,000
)5 775,000
$6,077 000
$3 739,000
$3 530 000
ANNUAL CAPITAL COST (30 YRS * 6%)
i 360,000
% 272,000
$ 300 000
S 420,000
$ 002.000
| 272,000
t 258,000
1 INCLUDES ACOUSTICAL TREATMENT, TILE FLOOR FINISHES CARPENTRY DOORS HINDOOS. GLASS AND GLAZING, MISCELLANEOUS METALS, ETC
2 INCLUDES ALLOWANCE FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S MARKUP
3 INCLUDES HEATING VENTILATING. PLIMSIItG AND ELECTRICAL
D TOTAL COST BASED ON 85 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST OF THE RESPECTIVE ITEMS IN ALTERNATIVE A-11
-------
TABLE 4-2 ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT - EOUIPMENT
ICITI OF LYNN)
ITEM
ALTERNATIVE A-la
ALTERNATIVE A- ID
ALTERNATIVE A-11
ALTERNATIVE B~1
ALTERNATIVE B- \ 1
ALTERNATIVE C-1
ALTERNATIVE C-11
QUANTITY TOTAL COST
QUANTITY TOTAL COST
QUANTITY TOTAL COST
QUANTITY TOTAL COST
QUANTITY TOTAL COST
OUANTI TY TOTAL COST
QUANTITY
TOTAL COST
SCALE AND RECORDER
1
* It 500
1
* 14 500
1
t 19 500
1
$ 19 500
1
I 19 500
1 I 19 500
1 14 500
BRIDGE CRANE
2
260 000
2
320 000
2
320 000
2
260 OOO
2
320 000
2 260 000
2
320 OOO
SHREDDER
1
130 000
2
260 000
2
260 000
1
130 000
2
260 000
l ISO 000
2
260 000
SPARE Pit IS FOR SHREDDER
LS
20 000
LS
20 000
LS
20 000
LS
20 000
LS
20 000
LS 20 000
LS
20.000
DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM
1
22 000
2
99 000
2
111 000
1
22 000
2
99 000
1 22,000
2
99 000
LEVELING DEVICE
-
-
2
22 000
2
22 000
-
-
2
22 000
-
2
22 000
MISCELLANEOUS REFUSE CONVEYORS
4
no 200
10
19V 000
10
199,000
2
51 000
II
251 000
2 51 000
251 000
STORAGE 5 r LO
-
-
2
379 000
2
974 000
-
-
2
979 000
-
2
974 000
BIFURCATED CHUTE
-
-
1
15 000
1
15 000
-
-
LS
15 000
-
LS
15,000
800 M REFUSE CONVEYOR
2
1 360.000
2
222 000
2
252 000
-
-
-
-
-
-
600 F? ASH CONVEYOR
1
116 000
1
96 000
1
86 000
-
-
-
-
-
-
RESIDUE TRANSFER CONVEYOR
1
13 500
1
13 500
1
13 500
-
-
-
-
-
-
RESIDUE HOPPER
LS
6 000
LS
6 000
LS
6 000
LS
6 OOO
LS
6 000
LS 6 000
LS
6 000
RESIDUE CONTAINER
B
18 000
6
IB 000
B
18 000
6
18 000
6
18,000
6 18 000
6
18 000
RESIDUE HAULING VEHICLE
1
36 500
1
36 $00
1
36 500
1
36 500
r
36 500
1 36 500
36 500
SUMP PIMP
2
6 000
2
6 000
2
6 000
2
6 000
2
6 000
2 6 000
2
6,000
FRONT END LOADER
J
6 000
-
-
-
-
1
6 000
-
-
1 6 000
-
HEATING PLANT
LS
10 000
LS
10 000
LS
10 000
-
-
-
-
-
-
BOILER PLANT
-
-
-
-
-
-
LS
2 250 000
LS
2 190 000
-
-
FEEDMATER SYSTEM
-
-
-
-
-
-
LS
155 900
LS
155 900
-
-
AUXILIARY OIL SYSTEM
-
-
-
-
-
-
ts
33 000
LS
33 OOO
-
-
BOILER - ASH HANDLING SYSTEM
-
-
-
-
-
-
LS
170 700
LS
166 000
-
PROCESS PIPING
-
-
-
-
-
-
LS
190 000
LS
190 000
-
-
PIPES CROSSING RIVER
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
391 000
3
391 000
-
-
INSTRUMENTATION
-
-
-
-
-
-
LS
185 000
LS
185 000
-
"
CENTRAL VACUUM SYSTEM
ts
15 000
LS
15 000
LS
15 000
LS
18,000
LS
18 000
LS 15 000
LS
15 000
TOTAL INSTALLEO COST (ENR'« >300)
*2
143 700
II.WO 500
$1
806 500
S3 913 100
19 765 900
1585 000
II
502 000
TOTAL INSTALLED COST [ENI = 1375)
2
270 000
1,775 000
1
910 000
'
9.130 000
5 000 000
619 000
1
590 000
GENERAL CONDITIONS 10*
227 OOO
177 500
191 000
913 000
509 000
61 900
159.000
SUBTOTAL
2 997 000
1 952 500
2
101 000
9 593 000
5 594 000
680 900
1
799 000
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES 25*
62« 000
W.QOO
525,000
1,139,000
1 365 000
170 000
937 000
TOTAL
13
121 000
(2 940 500
J2 626 000
$5 677 000
$6 929 000
$050 900
12.186,000
ANNUAL CAPITAL COST (20 YRS • 61)
$
272 000
1 213.000
J
229 000
1 995 000
I 604 000
$ 74 000
1
191.000
-------
TABLE 4-3 ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT - BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
(GENERAL ELECTRIC t
COST
>
I
W
ITEM
ALTERNATIVE a- la
ALTERNATIVE A-lb
ALTERNATIVE A-11
ALTERNATIVE B-1
ALTERNATlVt E
1- 1 1 ' ALTERNATIVE C- 1
ALTERNATIVE C-U
BOILER BUILDING
EXCAVATION, BACKFILL. DENTERING, ETC
$ 37 000
$
37,000
$ 45 000
1 -
I -
1
37 000
1
45 000
MOD PILES
20 000
20 000
31.000
-
-
20 000
31.000
CONCRETE
til 000
141.000
162,000
-
-
141.000
162 000
STRUCTURAL STEEL
10 ooo
40 000
67.000
-
-
<10.000
67 000
EXTERIOR VAILS (MASONRY AND METAL PANEL) ^
121 OOO
121.000
118 000
-
-
121.000
116,000
COOF TNG, FLASHING AND SHEET *TAL
$ 500
5 500
5.000
-
-
5,500
5.000
MISCELLANEOUS 1TEMS'1>
69 500
68,500
104 000
-
-
68.500
104 000
HEATING AND VENTILATING'*>
42 000
92,000
51.000
-
-
*2 000
51,000
pujm&ing' 1'
17,000
17 000
21 000
-
-
17 000
21,000
FIRE PROTECTiOII(,)
7 000
7,000
7 000
-
-
7 000
7,000
ELECTRICAL^1
125,000
125,000
139,000
-
-
125.000
139,000
SUBTOTAL
J 632 OOO
t
632 000
$ 750,000
% o
1 o
$
632,000
1
750,000
SUPERHEATER BUILDING
EXCAVATION, BACKFILL, DEMTERING. ETC
t| 900
» 900
4 900
4 900
4,900
4 900
4.900
WOOD PILES
& 100
9 100
9 100
9 100
9 100
9 100
9,100
CONCRETE
B.800
0.600
0,800
6,BOO
8 BOO
6.600
6,600
STRUCTURAL STEEL
21 000
21 000
2),000
21 000
21.000
21.000
It 000
EXTERIOR MALLS (MASONRY AND METAL PANEL)
12 000
i)2 000
42,000
42 000
42.000
42.000
42 000
ROOFING. FLASHING AID SHEET METAL
1 600
1 600
1,600
1 600
1 600
1 600
1 600
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS1''
36 000
36 000
36 000
36,000
36,000
36 000
36 000
KEATING AND VENTILATING*
13 000
13.000
13,000
13.000
13 000
13 000
13 OOC
PLUMBING11'
4 700
4 700
4,700
* 700
4,700
4 7 DO
4.700
FIRE PROTECTION^7*
1 500
1 500
1 500
1 500
1 500
1.500
1,500
electrical'1)
12 000
12 000
12 000
12 000
12,000
12.000
12,000
SUBTOTAL
* 154 600
I
154.600
$ 15* 600
(154 600
|154 600
t
154.600
I
159 600
TOTAL BUILDING COST (ENR = 1000)
t 786 600
$
786 600
$ 904.600
$154 600
$154 600
1
766.600
t
904 600
TOTAL BUILDING COST (ENR = 1375)
1 080 000
1
080 000
1 240 000
212 000
212,000
1,060,000
1
.240 000
GENERAL CONDITIONS 10%
108 OOO
108 000
124,000
21.200
21,200
100 000
124 000
SUBTOTAL
1 IBB 000
1
186 000
1 364,000
233 200
233 200
I
1 168 000
1
364,000
ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES 25*
297 000
297 000
341 000
50 300
50.300
297 COO
3*1,000
TOTAL
11 <48 5 000
SI
*85 000
$1 705 000
$291 500
$291 500
$1
1 405.000
$1
705 000
ANNUAL CAPITAL COST (30 YRS • 10%1
$ 157 000
1
157 000
i 181 000
$ 31 000
$ 31 000
$
157 000
$
181 000
1 INCLUDES 4C0UJTICU. TREATMENT HIE FLOOR FINISHE5 CARPERrRr OOORS WINDOWS GLASS AND GLAZING, MISCELLANEOUS METALS ETC
2 INCLUDES ALLOWANCE FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR"S MARtUP
-------
TABLE 4-4 ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT - EOUIPMENT
(GENERAL ELECTRIC)
COST
ITEM
ALTERNATIVE A-ia
ALTERNATIVE A-lb
ALTERNATIVE A-l1
ALTERNATIVE 8-1
ALTERNATIVE B-11
ALTERNATIVE C-1
ALTERNATIVE C-l1
BOILER PLANT
17 2SO 000
$2 250 000
$2 190 000
-
-
$2 250 000
$2 190.000
SUPERHEATER
455 000
-------
TABLE A - 5 ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS
(CITY OF LVNNI
COST
ITEM
ALTERNATIVE A-la
ALTERNATIVE A-lb
ALTERNATIVE A-ll
ALTERNATIVE 8-1
ALTERNATIVE B-l1
ALTERNATIVE C-l
ALTERNATIVE C-11
PLUMBING HATER
t 3 OOO
I 3 000
$ 1 000
i m ooo
$ 16,000
S 3 000
M 000
HEATING
4 000
3 000
4 000
0
0
0
0
EQUIP*EAT MAINTENANCE
*5 000
35 000
38 000
83 000
101 000
12.000
32 000
BUILDING 1NTEHAMCC
18 000
m ooo
15.000
21 000
22 000
ID 000
13 000
TOTAL
$70 000
$55 000
$61 000
1MB 000
$1 39,000
)29 000
$H9 000
, TABLE A -6 ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS
Ui (GENERAL ELECTRIC)
COST
ALTERNATIVE A-la ALTERNATIVE A-lb ALTERNATIVE A-ll ALTERNATIVE B-I ALTERNATIVE B-M ALTERNATIVE C-l ALTERNATIVE C-lI
BOILER FEED WATER
$ (2.000
1 12.000
$ 12 000
$ 12 000
$ 12.000
$ 12,000
$ 12 000
FUEL OIL
568 OOO
568 000
339,000
568 000
339 000
560,000
339,000
POWER
210 OOO
242 000
290 000
231 000
302 000
210 000
2*2 000
EOOlPMENT MAINTENANCE
75 000
76,000 "
7*.000
13.000
13 000
75 000
73 000
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
5 000
5 000
6,000
1,000
1,000
5,000
6,000
plumbing hater
11 000
II 000
11 000
0
0
If OOO
II 000
TOTAL
$mi ooo
|9IH 000
$732 000
$825 000
$667 000
$681 000
$683 000
-------
TABLE A - 7
SUMMARY
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
ALTERNATIV
1 E
ITEM
A- 1 a
A-lb
A-l 1
8-1
B-l 1
C-l
C-l 1
CITY OF LYNN
EQUIPMENT
$ 272.000
$ 213.000
$ 229,000
$ 495 . 000
$ 604.000
$ 74,000
$ 191.000
BUILDING AND STRUCTURES
360 000
272.000
304.000
420.000
442.000
272,000
256.000
LABOR
212.000
21 J. 000
269.000
392.000
406,000
242,000
269.000
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
70 000
55.000
61 .000
118.000
I3y.000
29.000
49.000
SUBTOTAL
$ 944.000
$ 753.000
$ 663.000
$1.425.000
$1.593.000
$ 617.000
$ 765.000
GENERAL ELECTRIC
EQUIPMENT
$ 607.000
$ 607,000
$ 596.000
$ 103,000
$ 103,000
$ 603,000
* 591.000
BUILDING AND STRUCTURES
157.000
157,000
181.UOO
31.000
31.000
157.000
181.000
LABOR
172,000
172.000
154.000
50.000
50.000
172,000
154.000
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
881 000
914.000
732 000
825.000
667,000
881 000
683.000
SUBTOTAL
$1.817.000
$1 .850.000
$1,663,000
$1,009,000
$ 851.000
$1,813.000
$1,609,000
TOTAL
$2.761.000
$2 603.000
$2,526,000
$2,434,000
$2,444,000
$2,430,000
$2,374 000
-------
PART II
-------
PLAN
IENT
halu J';room/
MASBACHUf
~1901
Action Plan for Solid Waste Disposal Facility
For discussion purposes, alternative B-ll (See
Part I, Metcalf and Eddy's Generation of Steam From
Solid Wastes) is designated as the lung-range solid
waste disposal recommendations for the Lynn and North
2
Shore Area. This alternative has been selected because
of existing circumstances in the area:
1. a large industrial complex (Riverworks-General
Electric Company) requiring additional steam
2. an adequate supply of municipal solid waste
3. shortage of land for exclusive sanitary land-
fill
Alternative B-ll appears to provide the best mutual
economic savings to the various participants involved in
the Venture.
Lynn area consists of the communities of Lynn, Saugus,
Nahant, and Swampscott, as used in Part I of this report.
North Shore Area consists of the above four communities (Lynn,
Saugus, Nahant, and Swampscott) plus Revere, Lynnfield,
Marblehead, and Peabody.
-------
1. Formal Notification (January, 1971).
The City of Lynn will formally notify the General
Electric Company (Riverworks) that it desires to cooperate
in a joint venture that adheres to the recommendations of
the B-ll alternative. This is the alternative in which
the process plant and boiler with spreader-stoker are located
in Saugus. Official notice of participation to the General
Electric Company is deemed necessary at this time because
2b to 30 months must be allocated for design and construction
of the proposed facility. As the General Electric Company
has a schedule of boiler replacement, a firm commitment
at this time will enable future steam demands to be met
through this municipal solid waste process. Therefore,
City notification through the Mayor is appropriate and
necessary. Favorable action is anticipated within the
month.
2. Notification of Surrounding Communities (January. 1971).
Simultaneously to the above action, the Mayor and
Project Director will meet with representatives of the
surrounding cities and towns to discuss the study
recommendations and solicit their participation in
the joint venture project. Favorable action is anti-
cipated.
2
-------
3. North Shore Solid Waste Organization (January. 1971).
The Mayor of Lynn will propose to the representa-
tives of the communities that a North Shore Solid Waste
District be established. This will involve only dis-
posal services and will exclude collection. The exact
form of the organization in which the communities will
join for the special purpose of solid waste disposal
will be prepared and recommended by the selectmen and
legal counsels of the respective communities in concert
with the City of Lynn. After consensus has been achieved
on the form of the organization, the proposed agreement
or pact will be drafted for approval by the legislatures
of the participating municipalities. Existing public
works boards in each respective community will handle
the solid waste subject at the town or city meeting
in conjunction with the Chief Executives. No major
political nor legal obstacles are anticipated.
The bulk of the above negotiations in the solid
waste pact are expected to center around the financing
and administration of, the disposal facility.
Projected capital and operating costs of the B-ll
alternative will be cited and "thoroughly discussed
at a joint meeting of the participants. An agreement
will be reached on cost apportionment between the
3
-------
communities arid the General Electric Company. Although
operating costs of the latter for the superheater, feed-
water, fuel oil, and power have already been determined
by Metcalf and Eddy Engineers, the participants must
also agree to the capital value of each existing system
to the venture.
An application for a Federal grant under the pro-
visions of the National Recovery Act on behalf of the
communities involved will be made for capital assistance
within the next ninety days by the Project Director.
Administration of the Solid Waste disposal facility
will be the responsibility of a nine-member board composed
of one member from each of the participating communities"
and two members from the City of Lynn. Board members
from the participating towns will be Selectmen or their
i
designees. Board members from Lynn will be the Mayor
v «
or his designee and the D.P.W. Commissioner. Voting
and costs will be performed on a weighed basis. The
Board will be authorized to execute third party contracts
for the operation of the joint facility. Contracts
negotiated by the Board cannot exceed two years in length
and will have quarterly evaluation by an outside engineer-
ing firm hired at public: expense.
4
-------
Design of B-ll Alternative (March. 1971).
Although a 612 ton prototype facility (alterna-
tive B-ll) will be proposed for construction, in-
structions will be issued prior to design for malcirrg
ancillary provisions to expand the facility to 1800 to
2000 tons. In this manner, additional increments can
be added to the original facility at minimal cost
whenever other communities are admitted into the solid
waste pact.
5. Formal Designation of Site (February, 1971).
The involved North Shore communities, through
the Project Director, will initiate actions with the
Town of Saugus and the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health for formal designation of a site for
a solid waste dispdsal facility. Although preliminary
intentions have been made knowi and are well publicized,
official concurrence must be secured. No difficulties
are anticipated in this area. The Massachusetts
Department of Public Works will be concurrently notified
on the activities of the North Shore communities. A
request to use the DeMatteo Dump as a sanitary landfill
5
-------
site for the residue will be made.
6. City Department of Public Works (April, 1971).
A. The City of Lynn, through its D.P.W. Commissioner,
will notify the New England Power Company and the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health that
sanitary landfill operations will be continued
for an additional two years at the present loca-
tion until the new solid waste disposal facility
has been constructed. A request will be made
for reopening the present landfill site, as an
alternative site to the DeMatteo site, for
two weeks per year due to boiler shut-down for
maintenance.
B. Excluding landfill and open burning, the proposed
solid waste disposal method is the best feasible
system available to Lynn with a cost per ton of
$4.48. This is the cost which should be anti-
cipated in the City's operating budgets in the
future.
C. New regulations governing the collection of refuse
should be established by the City D.P.W. Arrange-
ments for curb pick-up of bulky items like stoves,
refrigerators, and washers should be mlade. Only
6
-------
ad hoc rules now exist. New regulations instructing,
residents on the revised procedures should be issued
and publicized.
D. Revisions of the existing collection routes should
be reviewed in view of the. new disposal site in
Saugus. This is considered to be minor, but important
for efficient collection and minimizing additional
cost.
7. Additional Uses of Fly-ash and Residue^
Without additional processing, it has been determined
that fly-ash can be used as a filler in roofing material,
cement, concrete, bituminous concrete, and as a filtering
medium.
Residue can be vised as a landfill, particularly to
improve vacant and depleted gravel pits.in the North
Shore area. It is proposed that residue be utilized, also,
as a sub-grade material for road construction. A demon-
stration road construction project using residue will be
launched as soon as the by-product is available. Research
will continue for additional uses.
UCT72423
7
-------
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE DUPLICATES OF
ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING ELSEWHERE IN THIS
REPORT. THEY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY
A DIFFERENT METHOD SO AS TO FURNISH THE
BEST. POSSIBLE DETAIL TO THE USER.
-------
GENERAL ELECTR COMPANY
WEST LYNN
EXISTING BOILER COMPLEX
•»AV»
Utij page is reproduced again at the back of pJqt | LOCATION PLAN
Hii» report by a different reproduction method
to as to furnish the best possible detail to the ^
user.
-------
BOSTON AND MAINE
L^HrailroadHT
m-.rf.
PROPOSED SITE
GENERAL ELECTRICS'
¦INCINERATOR
V- •••;* is reproduced again at the back of
t r. t by a different reproduction method
s.i . furnish the best possible detail to the
user.
FIG. I LOCATION PLAN
(cont'd)
1-3 A
-------
BAM R.R. BASCULE
GENERAL EDWARDS BASCULE I
ROUTE 1A
'PROPOSED
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
IFOXHILI BASCULE BRIDGE'
FIG. 18 AERIAL VIEW - VICINITY OF
PROPOSED SAUGUS RIVER CROSSING
This page is reproduced again at the back of g_2
this report by a different reproduction method
so as to furmrh the best possible detail to the
user.
-------
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BROAD SOUND
BOSTON A MAINE RAILROAD
RIVER CROSSING
ROUTE 1071
Th jage is reproduced again at the back of
sport by a different reproduction method
a? to furnish the best possible detail to the
user.
FIG 18 AERIAL VIEW - VICINITY OF
PORPOSED SAUGUG RIVER CROSSING
(cont'd)
9-2A
------- |