Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-02-WSRRDPB-rpt.pdf { INTERIM REPORT WEST SUBURBAN REGIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL PLANNING BOARD PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES ARLINGTON BEDFORD CONCORD LEXINGTON LINCOLN WALTHAM WESTON FEBRUARY 1970 INTERIM REPORT OF WEST SUBURBAN REGIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL PLANNING BOARD THE WOEFUL WANT OF OUR NEED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF WILFUL WASTE Some of us have the joy of remembering with affection a grandmother whose frugal instincts filled her attic and shed with usable boxes,bowls, odd containers,lengths of string and bits of cloth. `Waste not,want not' the said. If the were with us today the attic and the shed and the garage and the spare bedroom couldn't hold a season's accumulation of real wealth in wonderful and colorful and usable and reusable items of every conceivable function. Somehow grandma would have to be persuaded otherwise before the filled the living room and the dining room and finally her own kitchen with the measure of our affluence:we want not and waste mightily It seems reasonable to blame our affluence and our technology for our waste and not, as grandmother said in another context, haste. Haste alone doesn't make our waste,but the obverse holds a lesson: we must hasten to solve our waste problem—and we must call on technology to help. In varying degree, the communities of the West Suburban Regional Refuse Disposal Planning Board have serious waste disposal problems at present—and all face serious problems in the future. It was the need to work in concert that drew us together and has held us together through a very long, informative and pleasant association. We wish,certainly that our efforts had been immediately productive. But the problem is stubborn and man, as if again proving his fallibility has not yet proved out a really satisfactory way to bring to heel the waste monster he has created. This report, then, represents work still in progress with an indication of hope that one particular waste disposal method will prove itself during 1970. With a satisfactory method at hand, we can employ the data and the suggestions for organizational procedures developed by our Board to see if our towns wish to band together in formal compact to solve for themselves their share of one of the principal problems of our age. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1 A simple economical long range solution to the problem has not been found. 2. High density compaction of refuse coupled with rail haul and sanitary landfill constitutes a sound technical approach which promises to provide perhaps the most practical method of refuse disposal for the region. 3. While sanitary landfill within the region would be economical, it is not a practical solution due to scarcity of suitable locations and due to local land use restrictions. 4. Incineration costs are becoming so high that this method appears totally unsuitable for our communities. 5 Other methods of refuse disposal may hold promise for the future,but are impractical at the present time. 6. The selection of a site for any refuse disposal facility is a difficult assignment;we have studied many and found none ideal. 1 7 Transportation of refuse from the various communities to the disposal facility no matter what it be,constitutes a significant contribution to the total costs involved. Based upon these findings and our expectation that compaction-rail haul method will prove to be workable, it is our recommendation that a regional district be formed,utilizing this method of disposal,if and when this expectation is confirmed. In the report which follows,we present in some detail an explanation of our conclusions and how we arrived at them,together with a proposed plan of action for the future. BACKGROUND FOR THIS REPORT In recognition of the growing seriousness of the problem of waste disposal in the Commonwealth and of the necessity of developing new approaches to its solution,the Massachusetts Legislature in 1965 authorized,by General Laws,Chapter 40,Sections 44A-44K, the formation of Regional Boards by two or more contiguous cities or towns to study the advisability of establishing a Regional Refuse Disposal District.Shortly after the enactment of this legislation,an informal committee made up of citizens from the Towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln and Weston, and the City of Waltham met to make a preliminary investigation to determine whether it would be worthwhile for these communities to proceed under the enabling legislation.This committee was of the unanimous opinion that such a course of action might prove fruitful and accordingly following a favorable report to the several communities,it was separately voted by each community to proceed under the statute. On May 18, 1967 the officially designated individuals from each of the six communities(see Appendix A)voted to establish the 'West Suburban Regional Refuse Disposal Planning Board' and this Board immediately began its investigation into the matter of the disposal on a regional basis of solid waste, — `solid waste' being taken to mean garbage, refuse and other discarded solid materials resulting from commerical, industrial, agricultural and individual and community activities but not including sewage or other pollutants in water resources. Initially it was hoped that federal funds would be available to supplement the $3,000.00 appropriated under the statute by each community to defray the expenses of the Board. However, due largely to the shortage of funds available to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for this purpose, the application of the Board for assistance in its investigations and study was rejected.As of February 1 1970,the Board has spent a total sum of$6,048.15 —all for consulting fees. During the year 1968, the Town of Arlington,where the problem of refuse disposal had become acute,voted to join the Board and was accepted to full membership. From its organizational meeting on May 18, 1967 the Board, through various subcommittees,has carried on investigations and studies into the various aspects of waste disposal. The Engineering Subcommittee concerned itself with a consideration of the various methods of waste disposal currently in use in the United States and elsewhere and of newly proposed methods either being tested or under development, using the best available information for projecting population growth and the increased generation of refuse in the region to the year 1990. The Site and Collection Subcommittee's area of responsibility was to determine the most readily available locations within the region for a refuse facility as well as the methods available to the various communities for the collection and transportation of their refuse to the regional facility The Finance Subcommittee's studies involved a consideration of the capital costs and operating expenses, including debt service charges, of the principal methods of waste disposal which by common consent appeared to be feasible.The Legal Subcommittee devoted its efforts in the main to the preparation of the draft of an agreement that might be submitted to the various communities, under the enabling legislation, in the event that the Board ultimately were to recommend to the participating communities that a regional district be formed. At its March 25 1969 meeting, the Board voted to retain the services of an independent firm of Consulting Engineers, Camp, Dresser &McKee,of Boston,Massachusetts,to make an independent study of the type and amount of refuse to be generated in the region through the year 1990, an evaluation of locations within the region where a facility might be located and, finally a preliminary lay-out and estimated costs of construction and operation for an incinerator to service the anticipated needs of the region through 1990. The reports of Camp,Dresser&McKee have been received and reviewedby the Board,and the ensuing portion of this report incorporates their findings and recommendations. REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGION In order for the Planning Board to propose any solution for the region it is, of course, necessary to define the magnitude of the refuse disposal problem. While some information was available at the outset from some of our communities, these data were far 2 from complete and were not derived by a common source. Accordingly our consultants were asked to assess the magnitude of the refuse disposal problem for the region as a whole. This work included actual audits of quantities of material brought to the refuse disposal facility of each community together with analyses of commercial and industrial refuse and domestic garbage. Total quantities of refuse were estimated for each municipality on the basis of current requirements and were projected as well for 1990. We may summarize by stating that the region has a present population of approximately 200,000 and generates about 700 tons of refuse per calendar day In 1990 population is expected to be 250,000 and refuse generated 1280 tons per day Appendix B contains a breakdown of these figures. It is certain that any audit of refuse quantities which must be carried out over a relatively short period of time (a week in this case) will show certain inconsistencies as a result of particular conditions during the test period. We feel, however, that such inconsistencies will balance out over the seven different communities and that as a result the totals are reasonable and as accurate as could be obtained under the restrictions of our limited budget.We have therefore based our report on these findings. REFUSE DISPOSAL METHODS Throughout the life of the Planning Board we have been exposed to a large number of proposed `solutions' to the problem of refuse disposal. It is obvious that the perfect solution which does not involve nuisance,politics or cost is unattainable.Nevertheless, it has been our prime objective to seek a method which would: 1 Be based upon sound technical principles which have been reduced to practice sufficiently to ensure long term practicality 2. Be available to the region at reasonable cost. 3. Involve minimum nuisance to the surrounding community 4. Take into consideration the ecological needs of the region. 5. Be non-controversial to the extent that political considerations are minimized. Out of the myriad of techniques or variations that have been discussed, four basic refuse disposal methods have been found to warrant study The advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed below COMPACTION—RAIL HAUL—LANDFILL During the latter part of 1968 and most of 1969 we gave a great deal of consideration to a refuse disposal technique then under study by the American Public Works Association,the Penn Central Railroad,and others.Basically the process under review involves the transportation of refuse by railroad from a central collection point or transfer station to a distant landfill area.The novelty of the system is that it involves the use of high capacity high pressure hydraulic presses to compact refuse into high density bales.The system produces cubes of compacted refuse weighing as much as 5000 pounds and having densities in the range of 50-80 pounds per cubic foot. Such bales have been found to be stable and essentially inert.They can be loaded on railroad cars and transported to a distant location with relative ease. Ultimate disposal in a landfill (which might be an abandoned quarry or an old strip mine) would require modern materials handling methods, but few of the problems of the normal sanitary landfill would be encountered. Although the Penn Central did not find itself in a position where it could make a firm proposal to us,we found much appeal in this concept. In part this was due to the prospect of ultimate removal of the refuse from the region entirely More impressive to us, however, was the fact that the process,though novel in its approach,involved basic technology which was straightforward and well proven. In 1969 a new corporation was formed in the Boston area called Reclamation Systems, Inc. (RSI). RSI has arranged with the Boston &Maine Railroad for rail haul of high density compacted refuse and has under construction a 2000 tons per day plant in the Lechmere section of Cambridge,which is expected to be in operation in the Spring of 1970. Since RSI is not yet in operation, it is, of course, impossible to make sure predictions now with respect to the future of the corporation, the costs involved or even of the disposal system itself. Furthermore, there is no indication that RSI has secured any firm long-term arrangements for a landfill site.Obviously without a site,the system would offer no solution. 3 Nevertheless, we are encouraged by the fact that the plant is under construction and that two hydraulic presses have been ordered. Arrangements with the railroad are apparently complete and satisfactory to all concerned. We favor the compaction rail haul method for this region for the following reasons: A. The process appears to be sound from a technical point of view While the system has novelty the operations involve proven techniques. B. Capital and operating costs associated with this system are projected to be reasonable.Capital costs,should the region build its own facility are estimated to be in the range of$1,000,000.(RSI estimates total charges of about $7 per ton if it were to build and operate a facility for the region.No firm quotation will be made until successful operation is demonstrated.) C. The aesthetics of this type of plant would be much more acceptable to a community than those of an incinerator. No stack is required and environmental pollution problems should not arise. SANITARY LANDFILL Sanitary landfill is a method of refuse disposal which is generally approved by government agencies and constitutes the least expensive means open to communities today This method involves deposition of refuse in a specified area,compaction in place by means of earthmoving or other special equipment, and daily covering of the compacted material with at least 6 inches of fill.As each area is filled to a height of 6-8 feet, it is further covered with an additional layer of clean fill,two feet in depth, thus sealing off the refuse area from insects and vermin. In order for sanitary landfill to be successful,it is necessary to follow a detailed engineering plan meticulously Frequently landfills are operated in a haphazard manner resulting in fires(with consequent air pollution)and general nuisance to the surrounding area. Further, under such conditions, the operation is far from a sanitary one,and in some instances the landfill area itself may produce pollution to water resources.At the present time in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts we have no uniform sanitary landfill code which might tend to improve and standardize landfill operation. Total costs of a landfill operation are estimated by our consultants to be in the range of $4 per ton. While this is obviously an attractive price compared to other methods,availability of sites remains a major stumbling block for regional refuse disposal. Based on the amount of refuse presently generated by the region, an area of 60 acres, 8 feet deep would be required annually It seems evident that any community within the region which had such a site would most assuredly wish to preserve it for its own needs rather than those of a regional district.Thus,sanitary landfill on a regional basis within the region does not appear feasible. The possibility does exist that a suitable site outside of the region might be found. Without high density compaction as discussed above,however,transportation costs would assume major significance. INCINERATION Incineration is today considered to be the conventional method of refuse disposal, especially for urban areas. The process of incineration involves combustion of refuse in specially designed furnaces. Modern incineration plants involve extensive materials handling systems to get refuse to the furnace and to move the burning materials through the combustion chambers until finally residual ash is all that remains. The incineration process, as exemplified by many recently built plants, differs very little from that of incineration of 40-50 years ago. Accordingly it is not uncommon to find partially burned,odoriferous residue,extensive air pollution,and general nuisance to the neighborhood. In order to improve upon this type of performance,the more modern incinerator designs have attempted to incorporate techniques for improving the efficiency of combustion and to provide for extensive air pollution controls. Thus we might expect a newly designed incinerator to operate in such a way that all putrescible material is thoroughly destroyed,no matter what the variations in feed material. Further we would expect that such a plant would provide for electrostatic precipitators to remove particulate air pollutants with high efficiency It is questionable,however,if even the most modern incineration plant could be operated in such a way that the surrounding neighborhood would not consider it a nuisance. 4 In the course of our investigations of refuse disposal methods, we asked our consultants to estimate costs of construction and operation of a modern incinerator capable of handling the needs of our region. It was estimated that a plant capable of handling 1280 tons per day would cost approximately $22,000,000 to construct.Costs per ton of refuse burned would vary between$9 and $16 depending upon whether the plant is operated at full capacity (1280 tons per day) or at present requirements (700 tons per day). If a plant of half the size were built,initial cost is estimated at$12,800,000,and operating costs would vary between$11 and $21 per ton. Thus, it is evident that modern incineration is at best a very expensive proposition.While it is true that a plant could be built and operated for less money it is extremely unlikely that its combustion efficiency and air pollution controls would be adequate. Further we must realize that even the best incineration process may leave 20% or more of the feed material as non-combustible residue. This in turn must be disposed of.While some incineration proponents argue that this material can be sold and used as fill or road ballast,to the best of our knowledge,this has never been demonstrated on a practical scale. It is for the reasons briefly outlined above that this Board has been, through most of its existence,somewhat `anti-incineration' We have come to consider incineration as constituting a last resort solution which could solve only a portion of the overall problem. While it is true that there are a number of research and pilot operations being investigated which incorporate basically new technology such as high temperature incineration processes,we feel that these processes are so new that practicality has not been adequately demonstrated. Until full scale plants have been in operation for a matter of years, it is impossible to predict performance or costs with any assurance or accuracy Thus it is our conclusion that incineration does not constitute a sound solution to the problem of refuse disposal for our region from either a technical or an economic point of view COMPOSTING Frequently in present day discussions of refuse disposal methods, composting is presented as a modern,scientific approach to the overall problem. Composting involves controlled biodegradation of refuse to yield a sanitary product which has certain nutrient value as fertilizer. It is argued that composting therefore can provide a simple process for solving the problems of refuse disposal while at the same time yielding a marketable by-product. In actual fact it does not appear to this Board that composting is a feasible solution.First,it should be understood that composting can be effectively used only with biodegradable materials.Thus,glass,tin cans,plastics and other such materials will be unaffected by the composting process. The quantity of such items entering the process must necessarily equal the quantity leaving. Further, the nutrient value of the ultimate product tends to be low and extremely variable and, as a consequence, farmers cannot depend upon specific analyses for their fertilizer needs.In addition the quantity of material required to provide adequate nutrients is large, thus creating severe materials handling problems. We know of no instance where composting plants have yielded a saleable end product; we know of no instance in the northern part of the country where composting has even been attempted due to the relatively low ambient temperature. We foresee in the future attempts to combine salvaging operations to remove for reuse non-biodegradable materials in combination with a composting operation on the balance of the refuse.Ultimately this may provide a feasible approach to the problem.At the present time it does not. LOCATION OF FACILITY Any method of refuse disposal which might be considered will have certain requirements with respect to the location for the facility While these requirements may vary somewhat depending upon the method selected, the differences should be relatively minor. Accordingly we set forth certain criteria for the preliminary evaluation of potential sites. Since Waltham is essentially the core city of the region, it was our intention to look to those sites which were located in or near Waltham. Further, since most of the originally participating towns were west of Waltham, it seemed reasonable to concentrate in the route 128 area. The entry of Arlington into the Regional Planning Board in 1968 altered the center of gravity of the proposed district somewhat,and led to consideration of some additional locations. 5 Among the features of a potential site which we considered important were the following: 1. Minimum area of six acres; 2. Accessability from major highways(with special emphasis on route 128)and avoidance of residential areas; 3. Costs involved in purchase and site preparation; 4. Availability of adequate utilities; 5 Suitable zoning considerations; 6. Provision for ultimate disposal of residue(i.e.on-site landfill,railroads,etc.). In spite of a considerable amount of effort on the part of our Site Committee and our consultants,no site has been found which we consider to be ideal. Four locations were studied in some detail by Camp Dresser and McKee: two in Waltham, one on the Waltham-Weston line,and one in Lexington. Each has certain advantages and also very real disadvantages. It is possible that any of these four sites could be adapted to the needs of a regional refuse disposal facility Until we are ready to make firm recommendations to the communities, however,it is not possible or practical to make a final selection. COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT An important factor involved in the consideration of potential sites concerns the need to transport refuse from the several communities to the disposal facility Because the area included in the region is large, costs associated with collection and transportation are appreciable. At the present time only Waltham, Arlington, and Bedford have curbside pickup of refuse. The other four towns rely upon the residents to get their own material to the disposal area. Garbage collection is provided by Waltham,Arlington,Bedford,Concord, and Lexington. It has been the feeling of this Board that the responsibility of any regional district would begin either at the disposal facility itself, or, at most, at a central location within each community In any case,house to house collection on a district basis is considered to be too expensive. Our consultants have estimated costs involved in transporting refuse via normal municipal-type packers from central locations in the communities to each of the four sites mentioned above.While costs to an individual town are obviously strongly influenced by the location of the particular site,we may summarize by saying that,on the average,such costs will run in the vicinity of$2.00 per ton of refuse. It is possible that transport costs might be significantly reduced by construction of transfer stations.Such facilities would provide a means for loading large trailers with compacted refuse.Thus it would be necessary only for a tractor to transfer the loaded trailer to the disposal facility for periodic dumping.For the more distant towns this would certainly be a more economical method of refuse transport in spite of the capital costs involved in construction of the transfer station($50,000 —$200,000 depending on size and type of facility). Both Bedford and Arlington have constructed such transfer stations recently Neither has been in operation long enough as yet, however,to determine operating costs and savings over conventional methods. GOING FORWARD This report has indicated that compaction and rail haul may prove to be a practical solution to the region's refuse disposal problems. This method could be implemented by forming a District and building and operating a facility or by having the District contract with a private firm providing this service.There is,however,a need for more concrete information as to efficiencies,costs, and ultimate disposal sites before a specific program can be developed for presentation to the several communities. 6 The creation of a District to carry out such a project is recommended for two basic reasons: First, the volume generated by the proposed District will give the District much greater leverage with potential contractors and vendors than an individual town would have. The volume will lower the unit cost of operation of the refuse disposal system,and it will spread the load of necessary capital expenditures over a larger base,thus lowering unit capital investment needs. Secondly the creation of such a District would prevent the enforced inclusion of these cities and towns in a greater Boston refuse disposal plan in which the individual cities and towns would have a relatively minor voice in policy or direction,or in the location of the facility We,therefore,propose that the West Suburban Regional Refuse Disposal Planning Board be maintained,that it continue to monitor the emerging refuse disposal technology and that it: A. Follow the progress of the compaction-rail haul method as it comes into use. B. Obtain detailed cost and performance data on this method based upon the experience of the American Public Works Association,the Penn Central Railroad,Reclamation Systems Inc.and other similar operations. C. Discuss with potential contractors and equipment manufacturers specific proposals for a compaction-rail haul operation for the District. D Develop a specific plan for consideration by the several communities. E. Submit to the communities promptly thereafter the form of agreement prescribed by Chapter 40, Sections 44A-44K for the formation of a regional refuse disposal district. 7 APPENDIX A MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CHARLES T PHEENEY Chairman PETER A.REIMAN, Vice Chairman MRS.MARIETTA ELLIS,Secretary JOSEPH L. HOUDE,Treasurer ARLINGTON LEXINGTON *WILLIAM H. BORGHESANI *WILLIAM R.WHALON CHARLES C. HUGHES ARNOLD B. BRIGGS EDWARD J MURRAY RICHARD H.SOULE BEDFORD LINCOLN *JOHN K.LITCHFIELD *ROBERT L. ALLEN MRS.MARIETTA ELLIS JAMES T.FOUST JEROME J.PICKETT JOHN B.NILES CONCORD WALTHAM *ROBERT B. LOWE *CHARLES T PHEENEY CHESTER M.HOWE JOSEPH L.HOUDE RAY F SUNSTROM,JR. JOSEPH P SHEA WESTON *PETER A. REIMAN fDAVID H. BRADLEY JACKSON W WRIGHT tWILLIAM J PECHILIS ALEXANDER JENKINS *Community Chairman tFormer Members APPENDIX B BREAKDOWN OF REFUSE QUANTITIES BY COMMUNITIES 1969 1990 Estimated Estimated Residential Estimated 1990 Residential Refuse Town 1969 Population Refuse—TPD Population TPD ARLINGTON 53,500 96 58,000 145 BEDFORD 16,000 29 22,000 55 CONCORD 15,000 27 25,500 64 LEXINGTON 34,300 62 45,000 108 LINCOLN 7,000 13 11,000 28 WALTHAM 59,500 107 72,000 185 WESTON 11,500 21 20,000 50 Total Residential 196,800 355 253,500 635 Estimated Industrial Refuse 345 645 TOTAL REFUSE 700 1280 (TPD=Tons Per Day)