USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Arlington > Town of Arlington annual report 1940 > Part 19
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39
A formal vote will be presented at Town Meeting cover- ing above.
This report completes the instructions under which this Committee was authorized.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Peterson
James R. Powers F. H. Barnhill
Harold C. Knight
Loren W. Marsh
H. M. Dutcher Alfred W. Lombard
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Municipalities :
Northampton, Mass. Winthrop, Mass. Waltham, Mass.
Weymouth, Mass.
Taunton, Mass. Salem, Mass.
Milford, Mass.
Gloucester, Mass.
Gardner, Mass. Belmont, Mass.
Attleboro, Mass. Cambridge, Mass. Springfield, Mass. Los Angeles, Cal. Pasadena, Cal. Racine, Wis. Winchester, Mass Brookline, Mass.
Lexington, Mass. Newton, Mass. Syracuse, N. Y. Rochester, N. Y.
Philadelphia, Pa. Washington, D. C. Manchester, N. H Providence, R. I. Columbus, Ohio Lockport, N. Y.
Reports :
Chamber of Commerce of the United States-Report on disposal methods in one hundred fifty-four cities and towns and costs on six hundred incineration plants. Toledo, Ohio-Report on collections.
Westfield, Mass. Watertown, Mass. Pittsfield, Mass.
Framingham, Mass. Beverly, Mass.
310
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
New York State Conference of Mayors-Report covering collection and disposal of refuse in eighty-nine municipali- ties.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
Incinerator Companies :
Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co.
C. O. Bartlett & Snow Co.
Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation
Morse Boulger Destructor Co.
Disposal Companies :
1 Coleman Disposal Co.
Magazines, Articles, etc.
American City 1931 to 1939
Public Works 1930 to 1939
Municipal Sanitation 1928 to 1931
Boston Society of Civil Engineers, New Bedford Plant, July 1939
Plants Visited by Members of Committee :
Newport, R. I.
Newton, Massachusetts
Washington, D. C. Springfield, Massachusetts
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Wellesley, Massachusetts Manchester, N. H.
Miscellaneous :
National Association of Waste Material Dealers, Inc. Town of Arlington, Mass. Committee on Methods of Disposal of Ashes, Rubbish and Offal
311
TOWN RECORDS
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT UPON THE PROBLEM OF REFUSE DISPOSAL
February 1940
Samuel M. Ellsworth Consulting Engineer Boston, Mass.
February 13, 1940
Committee on Methods of Disposal of
Ashes, Rubbish and Offal
Town of Arlington, Mass.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the instructions given at a meeting of your Committee on December 7, 1939 additional studies relative to the disposal of rubbish at Arlington have been made, the results of which are contained in the Supplement- ary Report transmitted herewith.
At the Town Meeting in March, 1939 several questions were raised concerning the conclusions and recommendations of the report which we made to your Committee last year. At the meeting of the Committee in December I was ap- praised of the activities of your members following the Town Meeting in April. Considerable additional data had been collected relative to refuse handling and disposal. Sev- eral members had inspected recently constructed disposal plants in other communities in this and other states for the purpose of securing additional first-hand information re- garding methods of operation, and construction and operat- ing costs. Arrangements had also been made with the Board of Public Works to verify previous estimates of rubbish pro- duction in Arlington.
Since last March a change has occurred which places the subject of rubbish disposal at Arlington on quite a different basis from that of a year ago. The fears expressed in our
4
q
Q
STOKING PLOOA
------
.. .
TRUCKING
...... ....
CHARGING FLOOR
TOWN OF ARLINGTON . MAIL COMMITTEE ON ALFUSA DISPOSAL PROPOSED RUBBISH INCINERATOR FLOOR PLANS SAMUEL M. ELLSWORTH CONSULTING ENSINA4
Fiş4
-----
312
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
313
.....
........... ...... ....... SAMUEL M FLLAWORTH
........... ... JANUARY 1940
PLOT PLAN
PROPOSED RUBBISH INCINERATOR
LLYN ' HOLDNHIỆT 10 NMƯA
TOWN RECORDS
..
:
......
=
.... .....
....
.....
.......
......
...
......... ..
.....
..
--
-
..
314
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
original report, that the time was not far distant when dis- posal by dumping within the Town limits would have to be abandoned, have actually materialized. The Wright St. and Appleton St. dumps have been closed and rubbish is now being transported to a dumping area in the Town of Burl- ington. This new dump is about 4 miles from the Town Yard, or 5 miles from the center of population as estimated in our report of last year.
With these new conditions in mind further considera- tion has been given to the financial aspects of the problem. The estimates of rubbish production have been reviewed in the light of the additional records furnished by the Board of Public Works. The preliminary plans of the incinerator submitted with the report of February, 1939 have been re- viewed and certain changes have been made. While these changes have added somewhat to the cost of the plant they appear to be justifiable.
The following conclusions and recommendations sum- marize the results of the studies which have been made in recent months.
1. The measurements of the production of rubbish made in December, 1939 and January, 1940 indicate that the allowances adopted as a basis of design in the report of Feb- ruary 23, 1939 are reasonable and need not be revised.
2. If an incinerator is to be built the general type, lay- out and location of the plant recommended in 1939 appears to be the most favorable for the Town from the standpoint of public sanitation and economy.
3. As a result of revisions to the original plans and in- creased prices for construction materials during the past year, the cost of the plant is now estimaetd at $125,000.
4. The estimated cost of operation and maintenance is $11,250 per year.
315
TOWN RECORDS
5. Assuming a useful life of the plant at only 20 years and interest on the cost of construction at a conservative rate of 13/4 per cent, the average fixed charges-that is, interest and annual payments on the principal-will amount to $7,400 per year. This amount added to the estimated an- nual cost of operation and maintenance gives a total cost of $18,650 per year.
6. The cost of hauling the present production of rub- bish to Burlington over that of hauling to the Town Yard is estimated at $17,240 per year. This estimated difference in cost includes rental and care of the Burlington dump, an allowance for the time of travel between the Town Yard and Burlington, involving a round trip of 8 miles, and the extra. cost of truck operation including gasoline, oil, repairs and depreciation.
7. By the present method of rubbish disposal the Town has not only eliminated a source of troublesome local litigation, but more important, the Burlington dump is so far removed from Arlington that it has no harmful effect on the public health and civic pride of the residents of Arl- ington.
8. The present method of disposal is estimated to cost on an average of $1,410 per year less than the estimated cost of disposal by incineration at the Town Yard.
9. If there is reasonable assurance that the dumping privilege at Burlington can be continued for the next few years without interruption, the construction of an inciner- ator at the Town Yard is not justified at this time.
10. Should the prospects for dumping at Burlington in the near future be at all doubtful it is possible that the Town may avoid considerable trouble and expense by pro- ceeding this year with the construction of an incinerator. In considering the pros and cons of this question it should be realized that it will take upwards of eight months from the time the construction of an incinerator plant is author- ized to complete such a plant and place it in operation.
316
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
What are the prospects for the continued use of the Burlington dump? This question is the essence of the pres- ent problem of rubbish disposal. If the prospects are good, the Town should, in my opinion, continue with the present method of disposal. If, however, they are doubtful, then the construction of a rubbish incinerator would be consistent with a sound and constructive municipal policy.
Respectfully submitted,
SAMUEL M. ELLSWORTH.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
This report is intended to supplement our original re- port of February 23, 1939, entitled "The Problem of Refuse Disposal." It discusses certain questions which were raised at the Annual Town Meeting in March, 1939 and considers a number of changes which have taken place relative to the disposal of rubbish at Arlington during the past year.
Quantity of Rubbish
Under the direction of the Board of Public Works ad- ditional surveys have been made for the primary purpose of obtaining more reliable data on the quantity of rubbish pro- duced by the Town. Beginning in the fall of 1939, rubbish and household ashes were collected separately, which made it possible to determine accurately the amount of rubbish produced. In previous surveys of rubbish production the quantity of ashes had been approximated without making an actual separation of the ashes from the other rubbish. From December 15, 1939 to January 15, 1940 all rubbish was weighed. The results of this survey together with the daily records of deliveries of rubbish to the dumping area from October 19 to November 24, 1939 have been made available to us.
317
TOWN RECORDS
For the period from December 21, 1939 to January 13, 1940 the average quantity of rubbish collections amounted to 37 tons per day. During this period there were two holi- days, Christmas and New Years, so that the quantities collected were naturally high. The unit weight of rubbish amounted to 228 lb. per cu. yd. or somewhat less than that estimated in our 1939 report which was based on less re- liable information. During the six-weeks period preceding the Christmas holidays it is estimated that the rubbish collections amounted to 30 tons per day.
As a basis of design of the incinerator proposed in 1939 the average annual collections of rubbish were es- timated at 27.5 tons per day. The recent quantity survey indicates that the original allowance of 27.5 tons for the present average daily production is reasonable. There seems to be no justification for changing the basic production fig- ures given on page 20 of our report of February 23, 1939.
New Dump in the Town of Burlington
When our original studies were made, rubbish was be- ing disposed of at two dumps in the Town of Arlington, one at Wright Street and the other at Appleton Street. It was pointed out in our report that the continued use of these dumps was threatened and that their capacities were limited. It was also stated that with the closing of these dumps it would be necessary either to find new dumping areas outside of the Town or to build a rubbish disposal plant.
During the past year the two dumps mentioned were closed but fortunately the Town obtained the use of a dumping area in the town of Burlington. This dump is sit- uated in the extreme southwesterly corner of Burlington. The measured distance from the Arlington Town Yard to the Burlington dump is 4.1 miles. From the estimated cen- ter of population as shown on Fig. 1 of our 1939 report the distance to the Burlington dump is approximately 5 miles.
318
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
It is understood that the dumping privilege at Burl- ington was secured at an annual cost of $3500. An agree- ment between the Town of Arlington and the owner of the dumping area provides that the dumping privilege may be cancelled by either party to the agreement on thirty days' notice. It should be said that the direct route from Arling- ton to the Burlington dump passes through the town of Lexington for a distance of about 3 miles, requiring that extreme care be used to prevent the scattering of rubbish within the limits of the latter community.
The Burlington dump is well adapted to the handling and dumping of rubbish trucks. The material brought to the dumping area is being used to fill in a large gravel pit, of such depth from the dumping level that comparatively little handling or leveling of the rubbish is required. As much as possible of the combustible material is burned. Oc- casionally a bulldozer is employed for leveling the area and to facilitate dumping .* A laborer is employed by the Town of Arlington at a salary of $1380 per year to remove can- vas coverings from trucks and to let down tail-boards.
Cost of Disposal at the Burlington Dump
In order to determine whether or not the construction of an incinerator is justifiable at this time, consideration has been given to the cost of disposal at the Burlington dump. There are several cost factors involved, including the rental of the dump, the cost of haul and the time lost by the pick-up crews along the collection routes. In consider- ing the extra cost of haul, an allowance must be made, not only for the extra day-to-day operating costs, but also for the more rapid depreciation of rubbish trucks resulting from the increased mileage each day.
It has been estimated that the cost of an additional haul of one mile, equivalent to a round trip travel of two
*The cost of this operation is included in the rental cost of the dump.
319
TOWN RECORDS
miles, amounts to 52 cents for each truck. Of this amount 30 cents is for truck operation, maintenance and deprecia- tion, taken at 15c per mile, leaving 22 cents for the cost of the truck driver's time and the time lost by the pick-up crew. In estimating these costs it has been assumed that a truck will make one round trip of two miles in 8 minutes. At $5.00 per day the value of the truck driver's time for a round trip of 2 miles is 8.3 cents. The value of the lost time of the pick-up men, assuming two men at 50c per hour, amounts to 13.3 cents. Actually there are three men on each truck, in addition to the driver. This figure, therefore, im- plies that while a loaded truck is on its way to the dump the loading crew will be usefully employed, on the average, only one third of the time until that particular truck returns. With perfect coordination as soon as a truck is loaded an empty truck will have just returned from the dump for re- loading. As the length of travel to the dump increases it becomes more and more difficult to obtain such coordina- tion. The result is either an idle loading crew or an idle truck for a greater amount of time.
The figures mentioned in the previous paragraph are summarized as follows :
Additional cost of operation, maintenance and depreciation 2 miles at 15c per mile $ .30
Additional cost of labor .22
Total cost per additional mile of haul per - truck* $ .52
The allowance for the cost of operation of 15c per mile is based upon information obtained from trucking companies and is deemed to be conservative for trucks of the size used in Arlington. While costs of materials, supplies and repairs are available for the Town rubbish trucks, it has been im- practicable to estimate the depreciation from the records
*An additional mile of haul is equal to a round trip of two miles.
320
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
which have been kept at Arlington in the past. Lacking such information it is impossible to verify the assumed al- lowance of 15c per mile.
In estimating the cost of labor resulting from each additional mile of haul it should be stated that the figures are affected by the use and efficiency of the men. For pur- poses of comparison it is necessary to assume that the efficiency of labor and its effective use will be the same for one set of conditions as for the other.
As previously stated the distance from the proposed incinerator site at the Town Yard to the Burlington dump is 4.1 miles. The average number of trips to the dump, based on last year's records, will amount to 21 per day. With 276 full working days per year the total additional mileage will amount to 47,530 miles. At 52c per additional mile of haul, equivalent to 26c per mile of truck travel, the extra cost of labor and truck operation amounts to $12,357.80 per year. In comparing the cost of disposal at Burlington and the cost of disposal by incineration at the Town Yard there must be added to the additional cost of haul, $3500 per year for the rental of the dump and $1380 for the salary of the laborer. Including these two items the total cost will be as follows :
Additional cost of haul
$12,357.80
Dump rental
3,500.00
Salary of laborer at dump
1,380.00
Total annual cost
$17,237.80
Say
$17,240.00
It is true that this estimated cost is not consistent with the actual expenditures of funds which have been made since the Town started to use the Burlington dump. There appear to be two reasons for this discrepancy. First, it seems quite evident that more efficient use of the rubbish collection employees and equipment is being made under
321
TOWN RECORDS
present conditions than was the case last year when the dumps at Wright Street and Appleton Street were being used. The second reason, which is probably as important as the first, is that no allowance is being made for the more rapid depreciation of the rubbish trucks due to the addition- al length of travel each day. These trucks must be replaced at more frequent intervals in the future than in the past and the cost of these replacements will eventually show up in the operating costs of the rubbish collection and disposal service. With five trucks in service each must travel nearly 10,000 miles a year more in going to Burlington than if they hauled only to the Town Yard.
Revisions to Plans of Incinerator Plant
Certain revisions have been made to the preliminary plans which accompanied the report of February 23, 1939. The revised plans, consisting of four sheets, are appended hereto.
In general the changes do not affect the basic design and fundamental elements of the plant. The size and general arrangement of the incinerator furnaces and the method of charging furnaces and disposing of ashes is the same as proposed last year. Further studies were made to determine whether or not the incinerator building could be placed more advantageously at the Town Yard site. As a result of these studies we are convinced that the site is used to the best advantage under the general layout suggested in 1939. It is proposed, however, to place the building about 25 ft. further east of Hobbs Court than originally proposed. By this change the gradient of the ramp from Hobbs Court to the dumping floor of the incinerator can be reduced to 10 per cent which is not excessive for ramps of this length.
One of the most important changes concerns the ar- rangements for transferring garbage. Originally, garbage trucks coming to the plant were to run up the ramp to the turning platform at Elev. 117.5. The transfer of garbage was to be made by dumping through an opening in the
322
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
floor of the turning platform to the transfer truck on the level below. There was considerable objection raised to this plan partly because garbage and rubbish trucks would be using the same turning platform, causing undue congestion, and also it seemed undesirable to have the dumping of gar- bage carried on in such a conspicuous manner.
The present plans provide an enclosure for the trans- fer of garbage on the south end of the incinerator building. Garbage trucks will come in at the level of the incinerator stoking floor. The garbage will then be taken away by the transfer trucks coming in at the level of the ash floor. The plant foreman's headquarters, the locker room and stair- well are now under the same roof with the garbage transfer section of the plant. This change gives a clearer view for trucks from the turning platform to the lower end of the ramp.
Other changes include the widening and lengthening of the turning platform. The four truck entrances to the charging floor have been reduced to two entrances of gen- erous width and the height of the doors has been increased. A canopy has been added above the doors to aid in keeping out rain and snow when the doors are standing open.
The use of the electric hoist has been reconsidered but no change seemed advisable. One man can operate the hoist for moving bulk material from storage to the furnace which is being charged. No other simple mechanical means can be found which will serve the same purpose as well, and over a period of time the hoist should more than pay for itself by the labor saved. Under normal operations the hoist would not be required but if one furnace is out of operation, use of the hoist will permit one man to charge the furnaces; otherwise, two would be required.
Reducing the height of the windows as shown on the revised plans should improve the appearance of the build- ing without seriously impairing the amount of light. Hori- zontal lines will be accentuated on the exterior of the build-
323
TOWN RECORDS
ing by using two shades of brick, by projecting courses of brick or by other means, which will not add appreciably to the cost of the building.
Revised Estimate of Cost of Construction
On the basis of the revised plans and taking into con- sideration current building prices, the cost of the incinera- tor has been re-computed. According to recent construction cost indices, average building costs are about 3 per cent higher now than a year ago and the trend in costs appears to be rising. Considering this trend the unit prices used in the 1939 estimate have been increased by 5 per cent. The revised cost of the plant including all appurtenances, such as grading, landscaping, paving, water supply, drainage and sewerage, is estimated in round numbers at $125,000. A breakdown of this figure is shown as follows :
Building $ 36,000.00
Incinerator Furnaces 42,000.00
Outside Flue to Chimney, including Foundations 2,800.00
Chimney and Foundation
10,000.00
Concrete Ramp and Platform
6,600.00
Plumbing, Heating and Electrical Services
3,300.00
Water Drainage and Sewer Services
1,800.00
Electric Hoist
2,500.00
Platform Scale and Scale Pit 1,200.00
Grading, Paving and Miscellaneous
1,675.00
Contingencies and Engineering @ 15% 16,182.00
Total $124,057.00
Say $125,000.00
Your Committee during the past year received es- timates from several companies engaged in the construction of incinerator furnaces. While in some cases there was con- siderable variation in the basis upon which the estimates were made, in general they tend to support our estimates of the cost of the incinerator furnaces, chimney and ap-
324
ARLINGTON TOWN REPORT
purtenances. The estimated cost of the entire plant of $125,- 000 is considered to be liberal for a plant of this kind.
Operating Costs
In the report of February 23, 1939, the estimated an- nual cost of operation was shown as $11,000, this amount being made up of three items: namely, labor, power and light, and maintenance, repairs and supplies. A revised estimate of the operating cost is shown as follows :
Foreman and Weight Clerk $ 2,100.00
Labor-4 Men at $33.00 per week 6,864.00
Extra Labor for Vacations, etc. 500.00
Power and Light at $20.00 per month 240.00
Truck Operation for Ash Removal 420.00
Maintenance, Repairs and Supplies
1,126.00
Total $11,250.00
Annual Fixed Charges
The fixed charges include interest on the investment and retirement of bonds. While it is possible that the Town might wish to retire the bonds in a period as short as ten years, for purposes of comparison with the present method of rubbish disposal it is desirable that the period of retire- ment of bonds shall conform to the estimated life of the plant. If the plant is adequately maintained and kept in good operating condition, its life should be indefinite. How- ever, with possible future developments in the field of in- cineration, it is reasonable to expect that the plant may be- come obsolete in 25 to 30 years. To be conservative, we have assumed that the bonds will be paid off in 20 years and that the plant will have no value at the end of this period.
Assurances have been given us that interest on a 20- year bond issue under present conditions would not exceed 13/4 per cent. With a 10-year bond issue, the interest would not exceed 1 per cent. Assuming a rate of interest of 13/4
325
TOWN RECORDS
per cent and retirement of the bonds in 20 years, the aver- age fixed charges will amount to $7,400 per year.
Cost of Incineration Versus Present Method of Disposal
The estimated cost of incineration as compared to the continuation of rubbish disposal at Burlington is shown as follows :
Annual Cost of Incineration
Operation, Maintenance and Supplies .... $11,250.00
Interest at 13/4% and Retirement of
Bonds in 20 Years 7,400.00
Total Annual Charges $18,650.00
Cost of Disposal at Burlington
Additional Cost of Haul $12,357.80
Rental of Dump 3,500.00
Salary of Laborer at Dump 1,380.00
Total Annual Cost $17,237.80
Say $17,240.00
The figures for the cost of disposal at Burlington have been discussed in a previous section of this report. It will be recalled that the additional cost of haul is based upon the additional mileage from the incinerator site at Hobbs Court to the Burlington dump. The distance between these points was shown to be 4.1 miles.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.