IW

/Q.&S3

1J
-IV

COO-4211-3/2

GRID CONNECTED INTEGRATED COMMUNITY

ENERGY SYSTEM

Final Report and Appendices, Volumes 1 and 2, Phase II

August 9, 1977-March 22, 1978

MASTER

Work Performed Under Contract No. EC-77-C-02-4211

Clark University
Worcester, Massachusetts

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Division of Buildings and Community Systems
-TjacncworTHisDoct

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegible in
electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.

NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States
Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor
any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

This report has been printed directly from copy supplied by the originating organization.
Although the copy supplied may not in part or whole meet the standards for acceptable
reproducible copy, it has been used for reproduction to expedite distribution and
availability of the information being reported.

Available from the National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of

Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Price: Paper Copy $9.25

Microfiche $3.00

COO-4211-3/2
Distribution Category UC-97d

GRID CONNECTED INTEGRATED

COMMUNITY ENERGY SYSTEM
FINAL REPORT AND APPENDICES,
VOLUMES I AND I I
PHASE I I
FOR PERIOD
AUGUST 9 , 1977 TO MARCH 2 2 ,

1978

CLARK UNIVERSITY
950 MAIN STREET
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS

01610

- NOTICEThis report was prepared as an account of work

sponsored by the United States Government Neither the
United States nor the United States Department of
Energy nor any of their employees nor any of their
contractors subcontractors or their employees makes
any warranty express or implied or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy completeness
or usefulness of any information apparatus product or
process disclosed or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights

PREPARED FOR
THE U . S . DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
UNDER CONTRACT NO. E C - 7 7 - C - 0 2 - 4 2 1 1 . A 0 0 1

PREPARED BY
CLARK UNIVERSITY
THERMO ELECTRON CORP.
FITZEMEYER AND TOCCI, INC.
BOZENHARD COMPANY
SHEPHERD ENGINEERING
NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM
L. G. COPLEY ASSOCIATES

V*

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT 13 L~" ::iTF?8'

CONTENTS

Volume I;
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

Final Report

Introduction
Institutional Documentation
2.0 Introduction

1
5
5

2.1
2.2
2.3

5
5
6
8

2.4

Corporate Power
Interchange Terms
Financing
Air Pollution Impact

2.5

Other Environmental Issues

11

2.6

Building Code, Zoning, and Fire

12

2.7

Labor Relations

12

Preliminary Design Analysis

13

3.0

Introduction

13

3.1

Energy Load Profiles

13

3.2 Design Options and Final Choice of Engine

3.3 Update of Conceptual Design
Design Package

14
20
22

4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3

22
22
22
22

Introduction
Mechanical
Electrical and Grid-Connection
Architectural

4.4

Utility Tie-in

24

4.5

Noise and Vibration

24

4.6 Monitoring
Financial Analysis

25
27

5.0

Introduction

27

5.1

Capital Costs

27

5.2

Fuel and Maintenance Costs

28

5.3

Comparison with the Conventional System

29

5 .4
5.5

Evaluation of Investment
Generalization to Other Sites

34
36

Volume II:

Appendices

2A Letters on Financing and Utility Tie-in

39

2B

46

Utility Contract

2C

Draft Environmental Impact Assessment

2D

Letters on Environment and Codes

109

3A
3B
3C
4A

Engine Operating Experience and Guarantees

Plant Descriptions
Performance of the Candidate Systems
Design Descriptions for Steam, Fuel, and Fuel

116
119
123

Treatment Systems

74

132

4B Equipment and Instrument List

4C Outline Specifications
4D Electrical Specifications

147
152
160

4E Architectural Design
4F Utility Tie-in Specifications
4G Noise and Vibration Analysis
5A Project Effort and Capital Cost Analysis for

170
180
186

5B

Phases III-V Inclusive

193

Operation and Maintenance Costs

205

TABLES
Volume I:
2.4-1
2.4-2
3.3-1
4.6-1
5.1-1
5.2-1
5.2-2
5.3-1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.3-4

Final

Annual Air Pollution

Peak Air Pollution Rates
Performance Characteristics of Diesel Engines
Monitoring Equipment
Capital Cost Summary
Fuel Cost and Heat Credit
Maintenance Costs
Base Case Assumptions
Electricity and Thermal Outputs
First Year (1980) Base Case Calculation
Sensitivity Analysis

9
9
.21
26
28
28
29
30
31
32
34

Volume II: Appendices

2C-1
2C-2
2C-3
2C-4
2C-5
2C-6
4G-1
4G-2
5A-1
5A-2
5A-3
5A-4
5A-5
5B-1
5B-2
5B-3
5B-4

Rate of Pollutants Produced by Diesel

Worcester Air Pollution Measurements
Noise Levels at Clark
Baseline Sound Data at Clark
Estimated Air Pollution Impact
Estimated Peak Rates of Air Pollutants
AcousticsDesign Criteria
Noise Source Contributions
Project Effort and Cost Analysis
Capital Cost Summary
Mechanical Capital Costs
Cost Summary for Phases I-V
Clark Base Cost and Replication Cost
Lifetime of Engine Components
Fuel ImpuritiesLimits and Treatment Costs
Diesel Engine Operation and Maintenance Costs
System Operation and Maintenance Costs
'

82
90
91
92
99
100
190
191
196
200
201
203
204
207
209
210
211

FIGURES
Volume I:
3.1-1
3.1-2
3.1-3
3.1-4
4.3-1
5.3-1
5.3-2

Final Report

Electrical and Thermal Outputs of Sulzer Engine....15

Yearly Energy Balance
16
Fuel Savings with Respect to the Displaced System..17
Fuel Use at Clark
.'.'
18
Equipment Layout
v.
23
Base Case Net Savings
33
Sensitivity of Savings, Sulzer Engine, #6 Oil
35
Volume II: Appendices

2C-1
2C-2
2C-3
2C-4
2C-5

Clark Campus Showing Location of Proposed ICES

77
Exhaust Gas Emissions
78
Soot Emissions
79
Steam Distribution System at Clark.
84
Energy Consumption at Clark
86
(continued)

iii

FIGURES
Volume II;
(continued)
3C-1
3C-2
3C-3
3C-4
3C-5
4A-1
4A-2
4A-3
4A-4
4A-5
4D-1
4D-2
4D-3
4D-4
4E-1

4E-2
4E-3
4E-4
4E-5
4E-6
4E-7
4F-1
4F-2
4F-3
4G-1
5A-1
5A-2

Schematic for Diesel Heat Balance

125
Heat Balance: Sulzer, 100% Load
128
Heat Balance: Sulzer, 50% Load
129
Heat Balance: Superior, 100% Load
130
Heat Balance: Superior, 50% Load
131
Equipment Layout
134
Jacket Ebullient Cooling System
135
Fuel Oil System
138
Residual Fuel Oil Treatment SystemFlow Diagram...142
Key to Flow Diagram Symbols
143
Site PlanElectrical
162
Floor PlanLighting
164
Floor PlanPower
165
Power Distribution and Control
166
Site Plan
172

Floor PlanLower Level

Floor PlanUpper Level
East Elevation
North and South Elevations..
Building Cross-Sections, East-West
Building Cross-Sections, North-South
Site PlanEngineering
Floor PlanEngineering
Elevations
Measured Ambient Noise Levels
Organizational Chart
Fuel Treatment Cost vs. Capacity

TV

173
174
175
176
177
178
182
183
184
189
195
202

-1-

1.

INTRODUCTION

Clark University represents an attractive site for demonstration of

cogeneration.

The principal features of the site are as follows.

(1) Clark is located in New England, a region that depends on imported

oil for most of its electric generation, and has some of the highest electric
prices in the nation.
(2) Clark, with a 1.5 MW peak electrical demand, offers a variety of
demand patterns in its 20+ major buildings.
(3) Clark already has an operating steam distribution system which
serves its 12-acre campus.
(4) Clark is serviced by the Massachusetts Electric Company,
an organization that has taken an active and creative interest in cogeneration.
In Phase I of the ERDA Demonstration ICES Program, the team from Clark
University, consisting of representatives from the University, ThermoElectron Corporation, Fitzemeyer and Tocci, and Massachusetts Electric,
reported the following results:
(1) The system of choice for ICES demonstration at Clark is a diesel
generator sized at about Clark's peak electric demand.
(2) In order to avoid placing additional demand on scarce light-oil
sources, such a generator should burn #6 oil if at all possible.
(3) Through Massachusetts Electric's agreement to purchase excess
power at about the cost of displaced fuel, the system can run at nearly
full capacity the year round, sell 40% of its output to the utility, and
receive backup as needed from the utility.
(4) Under a variety of possible financing plans
tions of fuel costs

and reasonable projec-

the system will deliver for Clark an internal rate of

return of 15-20%.
(5) There appear to be no institutional or environmental problems that
would prevent operation of the system as planned.
In this report we provide an update on a number of issues that were
incompletely resolved in the Phase I report.
In Section 2 we provide additional documentation on institutional

-2issues involved in the proposed demonstration at Clark, particularly as follows.

(1) We are assured through inquiries at the State Attorney General's Office
that Clark, a non-profit institution, will be able to sell power to the utility
without affecting its tax-exempt status. The principal reason for this finding
is that the sale of power is considered "incidental" to the production of heat.
(2) We now have an agreement with Massachusetts Electric that both we
and the utility can support.

The agreement provides for power on a standby

basis to Clark when the ICES is not generating; it also describes terms for
sale of power by Clark to the utility.
(3) We are assured that we can obtain adequate financing through a 6-7%
interest HEFA tax-exempt bond issue. This makes the proposed ICES financially
viable for the University.

In addition we are eligible for federal loan pro-

grams at 3% interest rate, and are currently exploring these with help of
Worcester's Congressman Early.
(4) We have had new worries about air pollution because of the introduction of short-term standards for nitrogen oxide concentrations; however,
it now appears that the plant will not violate either new or existing federal
and state regulations.
(5) There are no other serious environmental problems.
(6) There are, in addition, no problems with building codes, zoning and
fire ordinances.
In Section 3 we provide a preliminary design analysis that clearly
defines our choice of engine and provides revised operating data in light
of additional load profile studies.

In particular we now find:

(1) A Sulzer #6 oil burning 1405 KW diesel with ebullient cooling and
exhaust gas heat recovery is the system of choice.
(2) The engine and heat recovery system should be housed in a separate
building in close proximity to the existing boiler and steam distribution center.
(3) As a result of summer load studies we have determined that the engine
as specified can be operated with a capacity factor of 90%, instead of the
Phase I estimate of 85%.
In Section 4 we present a summary of our preliminary design package.
This includes sufficient detail to make a much more reliable estimate of capital
and construction costs. Major items included here, but not previously, are
a fuel treatment facility, preliminary design of a building, preliminary layouts
of equipment, including a cooling tower on the roof of an existing building.

-3-

In Section 5 we provide a financial analysis based on our design package.

In comparison to Phase I , c a p i t a l costs have increased considerably due to the
addition of a separate building, fuel treatment, and the use of a more expensive
#6-oil-burning engine. These costs are in part cancelled by lower cost of #6
o i l , and by the more favorable summer heat load picture that has emerged since
Phase I . As a r e s u l t we find that the project continues t o be financially
viable. Specifically, we project a 9.4 year payback period, on a t o t a l Clark
investment of $1.5 million. Total cost, including DOE-financed f e a s i b i l i t y
studies and demonstration aspects, i s projected at $2.2 million. Replication
cost for a f a c i l i t y like C l a r k ' s , but without f e a s i b i l i t y and demonstration
aspects, i s projected at close to Clark's cost of $1.5 million.
Thus we find, as before, that the Clark ICES system i s a generally a t t r a c t i v e project. From a national point of view i t clearly demonstrates grid connected cogeneration through the sale of 40% of Clark's output and a net fuel
saving of 30%. From Clark's point of view i t serves as a sound investment and
a useful hedge against i n f l a t i o n and future changes in u t i l i t y r a t e s t r u c t u r e .
The resolution of the Clark Trustees on project continuation, as voted at
a meeting of the Executive Committee on March 15, 1978, reads as follows.
The Trustees have examined the results of the ICES study and are encouraged
by its findings.
In order to continue progress and to protect the interest
of
DOE and the University in this project,
the Trustees take the following
actions:
VOTE #1; To authorize the Treasurer 1) to seek preliminary approval from HEFA
to borrow up to $1,750,000 (includes reserve requirements and expenses
of $250,000) in order to construct ICES servicing the Clark Campus,
P) to make appropriate applications
to the federal government for
subsidized loans or grants, and 3) to negotiate with DOE for
selection
of the University as a demonstration site, for an ICES.
VOTE #2:

To authorize from unrestricted

capital gift income $15,000 to be used
as up-front planning money during the early stages of Phase III,
until
all pending issues are fully resolved.
Expenditures shall'be
approved
by the President upon the recommendation of a special
subcommittee
which will include &ie co-chairmen of the Board of Trustees, Chairman
of the Finance Committee, the University's
Counsel, the Treasurer,
and the Dean of Academic
Affairs.

-4To prepare for a final decision to go ahead with the project Ce-xpected
late August, 1978), the University will apply this summer for financing under
two federal energy conservation loan programs. Clark will also seek the
necessary permits from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, and will begin those aspects of final design necessary to ensure
that construction can begin June, 1979.

2.

-5INSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTATION
2.0

Introduction

In Phase I we identified several institutional issues which had to be

resolved.

These critical issues were (1) whether the University has the

power to sell electricity, (2) whether we could make suitable arrangements

for interchange with Massachusetts Electric that would be approved by the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU), (3) whether we could
find a suitable mode of financing the system, and (4) whether the plant would
meet environmental and zoning requirements. These issues are resolved (or
nearly resolved).
2.1

Corporate Power

We had initially hoped to obtain a formal ruling from the Attorney

General on whether the* University as a charitable institution has the
power to sell electricity. However, since we are not a government agency,
we are not entitled to a formal ruling.

We have instead been given an informal

opinion by the division in the Attorney General's office responsible for

overseeing charitable institutions.

In the opinion of Assistant Attorney

General Reedy (letter in Appendix 2A), "the distribution of excess energy

to a public utility would be incidental to the primary purposes [of the
project], and would not affect the charitable status of the University."
According to the University Counsel, Richard Mirick, since this is from the
division of the state government charged with supervising the conduct of
charitable institutions, it is sufficient assurance that the University's
power to sell electricity will not be challenged (see Mirick's letter in
Appendix 2A) .
2.2

Interchange Terms

Clark and the Massachusetts Electric Company have agreed on terms for
interchange along the lines described in our Phase I report.

Letters from

William Cadigan, President of Massachusetts Electric, and Richard Mirick,

University Counsel, appear in Appendix 2A. The agreement is given in Appendix
2B.

We plan to submit the proposed contract to the DPU this summer. As

the contract is acceptable to both Clark and Massachusetts Electric, we expect

DPU approval within 30 days of our submission.
Key features of the contract are as follows. The contract will be in
effect for 20 years, the nominal life of the plant; Clark will have the
option of switching to a future cogeneration rate if the terms seem prefer-

-6able. The agreement empowers Clark to use directly as much of the ICES
electricity output as Clark needs. Only when the ICES output is insufficient
for the Clark demand will Clark purchase electricity from Massachusetts
Electric.

Clark has two options for purchases, but must choose one for

the duration of the contract.

One option is simply to use whatever auxil-

iary service rate is in effect at the time. At present Clark would guarantee
a minimum monthly payment based on its contracted demand and would make all
purchases under one of the regular retail rates. Because Massachusetts
Electric has informed us that they expect this auxiliary rate to change in
the near future and because Clark wished for terms which would be defined
over the twenty year life of the contract, Massachusetts Electric has
offered Clark a second option. This option would require that Clark pay a
monthly charge for distribution capacity based on contracted demand, and
pay for all purchases under a retail energy rate, C-22, or the equivalent.
The monthly charge would go from $1.00/kw to $2.00/kw in five years, then
remain fixed at $2.00/kw.
When Clark makes more electricity than it can use, the excess will be
sold to the utility for a price closely approximating the cost of displaced
fuel.

This price depends on time of day; thus there will be two prices, one

for weekdays from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., the other for the remaining times.
For convenience, the price will be factored into two pieces, a multiplier
times the average wholesale fuel cost. There will be two multipliers, one
for peak and the other for off-peak sales.

For 1978 Massachusetts Electric

has estimated the peak multiplier to be 1.45, and the off-peak multiplier to
be 1.25.

The multipliers will be reevaluated yearly to take account of changes

in the mix of generating costs.

2.3

Financing

In Phase I we identified four alternative modes of financing the ICES.

These were borrowing from the endowment, a commercial loan, a Health and
Education Facilities Authority (HEFA) tax-exempt bond issue, and federal
loan programs. We found that the last two possibilities were distinctly
preferable, but we were not able to definitely determine their feasibility.
At present we can report that we would have been eligible under last year's
HUD loan program had we been ready to begin construction soon enough. The
HUD program provides loans for investments for the purpose of conserving
energy in dormitories and dining facilities. Since about half of Clark's
heat and electricity go to dormitories and dining (see Phase I Report,

-7Tables 1.2.4-2 and 1.2.4-3), this program could provide financing at 3% for
half the project cost. The program has been funded again this year and final
regulations should be published very soon. Another program covering all
university buildings is administered by the Office of Education; it was not
funded last year, but funds have been released for it this year. This program
will also make some matching grants. We are prepared to submit applications
for either program the moment final regulations are published, early this
summer.
Because federal financing is not certain, we have spent considerable
effort in seeking approval for a HEFA bond issue. We have retained an
investment broker, Marsom Pratt of Adams, Harkness and Hill, to handle
the bond issue. Mr. Pratt is investment counsel to HEFA.

In 1976

he developed the successful bond issue for Clark's new Student Activities
Center and he is confident that a HEFA bond issue can be developed for the
ICES and that it will be approved by HEFA.

He recommends that we place the

bonds privately, instead of having a public issue. For a private issue,

Clark will not need to tie up resources in securing the bonds, and approval
and placement will be easier to obtain.

We will, however, have to pay a

higher interest rate than the 5% we paid on the public issue for the Student
Activities Center. The interest charges will not exceed 7% in any event.
HEFA approval for the bond issue must come in two stages. We have obtained
preliminary approval for the bond issue.

Preliminary approval authorizes

the preparation of a prospectus for the bond issue. We expect to obtain

final approval for the bond issue after a review of the proposed prospectus.
The prospectus can, however, be completed only with the preliminary design
results of Phase II; consequently, final approval of the bond issue can only
be obtained after the completion of Phase II. At the same time Pratt assures
us that, with the cost analysis presented in section 5 of this report, there
will be no difficulty in obtaining final approval.

(See letter from Marsom

Pratt in Appendix 2A.)

Pratt has also suggested the use of the leveraged lease as another mode
of financing.

This may offer even better terms than the HEFA bond issue.

Under this plan an investor would own the facility and lease it to Clark. He
would be able to offer good terms because he could take advantage of
tax benefits, investment tax credit, accelerated depreciation, etc., which
do not apply to the University.

This mode of financing was used for the

Harvard Hospitals' total energy plant.

-8-

To summarize, we feel confident that we can obtain financing through a

HEFA bond issue, and are taking the necessary steps to achieve this.

We are

continuing to pursue two alternative possibilities which might offer even

better terms, namely federal loan programs and a leveraged lease. While we
do not regard borrowing from the endowment as a satisfactory method of longterm financing, it is technically possible for us to borrow for this purpose, and this provides us with enough flexibility to meet unforeseen shortfalls.

2.4

Air pollution impact

The net effect of the proposed Clark ICES is to increase air pollutant
emission in the immediate neighborhood of the University, and to decrease
emission at more distant utility power plants.

Details are discussed

in Appendix 2C, A summary of effects may be read from Tables 2.4-1 and
2.4-2 indicating annual and peak emission rates.
With respect to published federal standards Worcester is currently a
non-attainment area in three pollutants: particulates, CO, and oxidants.
Worcester is an attainment area for two other pollutants: SO- and N0 2 .
(There are no standards for HC.)

For a non-attainment area the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1977 require a permit from local authorities for new sources
emitting over 100 tons per year of the non-attainment pollutant.
under 100 tons are unregulated.

Sources

For an attainment area, federal legislation

requires that new sources emitting over 250 tons of a given pollutant not
affect ambient levels beyond a certain "significant increment of deterioration." Sources under 250 tons are unregulated.
A glance at Table 2.4-1 shows that under the present definition, all
non-attainment pollutants emitted by the ICES are under 100 tons annually,
and all attainment pollutants are under 250 tons annually.

It is for this

reason that we concluded in earlier reports that there is no problem in

meeting air pollution standards.
Very recently, however, it has become clear that the EPA is moving toward
setting hourly maximum standards for N0_.

It is possible that these could

make Worcester non-attainment in N0 2 . At that point our emission of 179 tons

of N0_ per year would require us to show that ambient levels produced by the
local plant do not materially aggravate N0 2 levels, especially at "sensitive
targets" in the local neighborhood.

Demonstration of this would require use

-9-

System

Table 2.4-1: Annual Air Polluti on

Annual emission> in tons

so 2

CO

HC

Particulates

25
54
79

0.5
1.0
1.5

l.S

155
39
-15
179

24

11.2

0.7

0.5
2.3

-0.3

-0.9

3A

11.6

1.9

N0

Present system
Utility boiler
Clark boiler
System impact

36
78
114

3.2
4.7

ICES System

Utility boiler

57
56
-22

System impact

ii

Clark diesel
Clark boiler

*may be overestimate
System

Tabl e 2.4-2:

Peak Air PolLlution Rates

Peak emission rate in grams/second

so2

N0 2

CO

HC

Particulates
'

Present system
Clark boiler

4^0

3.7*

0.02

3.5
1.8
5.3

3.2*

0.02

5.0

0.8

0.4

8.2

0.8

0.4

0.02

ICES System
Clark boiler
Clark diesel
Total
'may be overestimate

-10of certain EPA designated computer .modeIs, and interpretation of results obtained from these in light of existing hourly maxima.
In anticipation of the forthcoming EPA hourly maximum standards we have
been working with Ed Benoit, Chief of the Central Massachusetts Air Quality
District.

Benoit has in fact obtained preliminary computer results using the

peak emission rates indicated in Table 2.4-2.

From these he observed that our

boiler plant has nearly as large an impact as the proposed ICES.

We have

subsequently measured NO emissions from our boilers and obtained values less
than 1/4 those in Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2; however, these measurements were
made while the boiler was burning gas and do not include NO production from
bound nitrogen in residual oil. Maximum hourly effects of the combined Clark
system on six sensitive targets in the near neighborhood ranged from 50 to 300
3
3
/igms/m . The peak concentration from the diesel plume is nearly 200 /ug/m .

3
If the forthcoming EPA standard i s set at 200 jug/ra the project appears t o be
in trouble. According to Benoit, who has considerable modelling experience,
3
200 Aigm/m would place in jeopardy nearly every new NO- source of 100+ tons in
urban Massachusetts. Benoit has, however, assured us that we have no d i f f i c u l t y
with other a i r quality regulations (see l e t t e r dated April 5, 1978, in Appendix
2D).
Further complicating the picture is the fact that recently, under intense
community pressure, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) has issued an order halting construction of a 22 MWe,
six-diesel, total energy plant being built by Harvard University in downtown
Boston.

The impact of this project, which has total NO- emissions about

16 times our annual amounts, was estimated at 230jug/m

hourly maximum for

certain "sensitive" targets such as homes for the aged, and hospitals.
3
Added to ambient hourly maxima of 300 to 400jug/m , the Harvard project
was believed to be capable of producing hourly maxima in the range of 5003
600 iUg/m at certain downtown Boston locations. The principal finding of
DEQE Regional Environmental Quality Engineer McLoughlin in the Harvard
University case is that existing federal NO- regulations are tqo lax, and
allow the possibility of serious health effects. A proper interim safety level,
3
according to McLoughlin, is 200jug/m hourly maximum. It is for this reason
that Harvard's project was disallowed.

3
At present the Massachusetts DEQE interim standard 200 jugm/m will not

apply to sources of less than 250 tons annually (see E. Benoit letter dated
May 2, 1978, Appendix 2D) and hence the Clark project will not be affected by

-lithe interim standard.

If Worcester is not in compliance with the forthcoming

EPA standard (which will supercede the interim Massachusetts Standard), the
Clark project will require review.

Benoit believes (April 5, 1978 letter,

Appendix 2D) that there will be no difficulty if the EPA standard falls in the
3
range 470 - 940 jugm/m , now under consideration (March 27, 1978, Federal
Register).
A further change in air pollution regulations is the forthcoming EPA
emission standards for diesel engines. These are the responsibility of the
diesel manufacturer and so will not affect Clark except insofar as they limit
the availability or performance of engines. The EPA draft proposed standard
calls for a limit on NO

emissions of 6 gms/bhp-hr, to go into effect 15 months

after promulgation (Draft Summary of the Recommended Standard of Performance

for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, EPA, March 23, 1978).
This can be compared with the emission of 8-9 gms/bhp-hr of the Superior and
Sulzer engines and up to 18 gms/bhp-hr of certain diesels. The proposal has
generated considerable controversy as very few present-day diesels can meet it
without major impairment of performance that, together with the 15-month waiting
period, makes it extremely unlikely that emissions standards will cause Clark
any difficulty.

Sulzer has stated that they could reduce emissions to 7 or 7.5

gms/bhp-hr with only a modest deterioration in engine performance.

To summarize then, the most sensitive air pollution produced by the proposed
ICES is NO . We have good indications that the ICES will comply with all
applicable present and future air quality regulations, but we are continuing to
watch closely as EPA develops standards for short term NO

concentrations and

standards for diesel emissions.

2.5

Other Environmental Issues

Other potentially deleterious environmental impacts of the ICES are

water pollution from the fuel treatment, increased traffic due to increased
oil deliveries, noise from the plant, traffic, noise, and air pollution
during construction, and changes in the aesthetic character of the campus.
It is our judgement that all of these problems are small or negligible.
Water pollution.
hour.

Oil treatment effluent will not exceed 18 gallons/

This effluent will contain less than 80 ppm oil, 600 ppm sodium

chloride, 70 ppm lead, 50 ppm calcium chloride, 5 ppm potassium, and 50100 ppm magnesium.

This is too small an effluent to affect the operation

of the Blackstone Pollution Abatement District or water quality generally. (See

letter from Michael Burke, Appendix 2D.)

-12Noise. Noise from the plant will not change ambient levels as described
in section 4.5 and Appendix 4G.
Increased oil deliveries. The number of oil deliveries will be increased
about 50% from the present 120/year.

This will be noticeable on the Clark

campus, but not in the adjacent heavily commercial Main Street area.
Construction.

We expect most construction to be concluded while the

campus is largely unoccupied during the summer, so that adverse effects

will be comparatively minor.
Aesthetics.

As discussed in section 4.3, there has been considerable

University concern about the aesthetic impact of adding a large structure to

the center of the Clark campus. This concern has recently been resolved by
the discovery that we can reduce the building volume by at least 40%; the
Clark Trustees now believe that the building can be made to fit in well with
the surrounding campus.
2.6

Building Code, Zoning, and Fire

We have been assured that the proposed ICES design can meet all
building code, zoning, and fire regulations.

Final permits can be issued

only after submission of final working drawings.

2.7

(See Appendix 2D.)

Labor Relations

Clark physical plant staff will operate the ICES.

The staff have been

closely involved in the planning for the ICES and we anticipate no laborrelated difficulties in plant operation.
For the construction of the plant, Bozenhard said that he foresees no
problems with local unions. The job has been budgeted for union labor and
would be bid by union-affiliated contractors.
relations are good.

Present construction labor

-13-

3. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ANALYSIS

3.0

Introduction

Our preliminary design analysis incorporates a number of changes from

Phase I. We have found that our summer thermal demand is not quite what
we had estimated, and the correction will enable the ICES to generate somewhat more heat and electricity.

We have decided to locate the generating

system in a new building outside Jonas Clark hall.

Most important, we have

found a diesel system which meets essentially all of the requirements we

defined in the Phase I analysis.

It is a Sulzer engine, Model 8 ASL 25/30;

it is ebulliently cooled, burns //6 oil, and produces about 1400 KW of electricity. With the #6-burning engine, we need one more subsystem for
the conceptual design, a fuel treatment system.
In the next section, 3.1, we present our new results on thermal demand,
and describe the electrical and thermal outputs of the new diesel.

In sec-

tion 3.2 we review the Phase I choice of system and then give our reasons
for selecting the Sulzer engine and the new location.

In section 3.3 we

describe the changes needed in the conceptual design to accomodate the new
engine and location.
3.1

Energy Load Profiles

The electricity load profile presented in our Phase I report was based
on several years of recorded data.

Since our recent data is consistent

with the previous records, we have not altered our estimated electricity
load profile. The profile contains an estimated contribution from the new
gym; the estimate is consistent with preliminary data from the first month
the gym has been in use.
The thermal load profile presented in the Phase I report used estimated
summer thermal demands. We now have data on thermal demand for this summer
and this changes somewhat our previous estimate. We have found that at
present summer thermal demand is considerably more uniform than we had
estimated.

As with the electrical profile, we have estimated the contribution

of the new gym and our estimate is consistent with preliminary data. The
added demand in summer nights means that we will be able to operate the ICES,
at part load, for many summer nights, and the overall output of the system
will be somewhat greater than our previous estimate.

-14We repeat the electric load profile and present our new thermal load
profile in Fig. 3.1-1.

Shown on these profiles are the electric and thermal

outputs of the Sulzer 1405 kw engine. Except for summer nights and brief
periods for maintenance, the engine operates at full load continuously.

The

overall fuel saving we expect is about 300,000 gals/yr oil saved by Clark and
the electric utility.

Notice that the grid-connection, in addition to its

other benefits, gives rise to about 40% of those savings.

We show fuel consumption and savings on an annual basis in Figs. 3.1-2,
3.1-3, and 3.1-4.

Fig. 3.1-2 compares Clark's annual heat and electricity

demands with the ICES output. Fig. 3.1-3 shows the total annual fuel savings
produced by the ICES (approximately 8000 barrels/year).

Fig. 3.1-4 shows the

increase in fuel use at Clark (approximately 10,000 barrels/yr) illustrating

why there is a local increase in air pollution, but a system-wide reduction in
particulate and SO- emissions.
3.2

Design Options and Final Choice of Engine

We have decided to put the generating plant in a new building adjacent

to the boiler room in the basement of Jonas Clark hall.

This location is

preferable to a location inside Jonas .Clark, because (1) it avoids major

problems with noise and vibration insulation; (2) it does not eliminate
classroom space; (3) it will be much easier to make the demonstration system
accessible and attractive for public viewing.

The disadvantage of the

choice is that it adds significantly to the capital cost of the project (see
section 5.1 and Appendix 5A).

We believe that the advantages more than make

up for the extra cost.

In Phase I we concluded that the optimum ICES for Clark would use a
single diesel engine, ebulliently cooled, burning residual oil, with a maximum electricity output of about 1500 KW and a maximum recoverable heat output of about 4 million Btu/hr. We reached this conclusion after examining
a variety of diesel engines in various configurations along with representative steam turbine systems and gas turbine systems. We have reviewed that
analysis for this report and found it still correct.

Steam turbines small

enough for Clark's heat demand simply do not make enough electricity to
finance them.

Gas turbines suited to our size burn distillate oil and have

slightly poorer performance characteristics than comparable light-oilburning diesels.

Ebullient cooling is necessary because the University has

-15-

Fig. 3.1-1:

Electric and Thermal Output* of Sulzer Engine

T

. 1500

1000T

500 -

2000

Sfl 10

4000
6000
8000
Annual Hours at Power Level P or Greater

Heat Output of Boiler

'f / / / / / /
/

2000

// // // A / y iesel/

/Heat Output of p
4000

6000

8000

Annual Hours at Thermal Level H or Greater

-16-

ELECrRICtTy

(Million

Ku)h)

SO

100

(SO

ZOO

ZfO

ClourK electric

300

dema.nd

HEAT = \\o B B+u

ELecrRrciry = 6.9 MKU/K

I
1

K&f&tt

I HEAr = 77 B&tu
-i
^

2 ^4
4.5

6.5*

Q.H

eiecrfticfTy = //.4 Mkuk

20

Clark Heat demand

\

*ID
HEAT

60
So
(Billion Biro)

CoVvENVOhJM
Fig. 3.1-2. Yearly Energy Balance

100

ICES

17-

(THouSAMPS of BARRELS)

FUEL

$*

ts

10

Ar

Ar aARK

7/7 h

: . . s.
*

ZO
i

2f
r

uriury

77/7
31% FoL
SAVING.

ko

8o

Ho

ItO

FUBL
Fig. 3.1-3.

(BBtu)

Fuel Savings with Respect to the Displaced System

FUBL

T~

(IOOO'<S Of

/r

10

BARRELS)

ZO
~~T"

T"

zr

30

-I

35"
T

BOILER

r.c */%

...;...BOILER ;.

43% INCREASE
CoNVEMtloNfM

1
Qo

VEMAtJp-

1
9>o

1
l(>o

no

FUEL

(BBto)

CoU^EMriDA)A^
SYSTEM
Fig. 3.1-4.

1M lUl BUfWED

yM

Fuel Use at Clark

loo

Z.C.E.S. RUS
BOILER.

-19a steam heating system and it would be prohibitively expensive to make the
modifications needed for heating some buildings with hot water. There are
two advantages to burning residual oil; it is significantly cheaper, and
it is in the national and regional interest not to add to the pressure on
the demand for light oil and gas. Grid-connection obviates the need for
multiple engines,as we don't have to follow Clark's electrical demand and
as we are not considering engines large enough to require extensive variation of heat output.

Finally, the size of the generating system is fixed

by economic considerations. While it is profitable to sell excess electricity

to the utility, it is not sufficiently profitable under the present terms to
finance capacity which is solely for exports. Thus the optimum generator
will produce approximately as much electricity as will meet Clark's peak
electrical demand.
In Phase I we made our analysis using a diesel generating system which
met all of the above requirements except for one; the engine burned only
distillate oil, not residual oil. Since then we have identified two candidate diesels of the right size which can burn residual oil and be cooled
ebulliently.

These are a 1400 KW engine made by Sulzer, model 8 ASL 25/30,

and a 1500 KW engine made by Cooper Bessimer, Superior model 40-X-16. The
Sulzer engine is normally water cooled, not ebulliently cooled; however,
the Sulzer Company assures us that the alterations are minor ones and that
they are happy to maintain their standard one-year guarantee. The Superior
engine normally burns distillate oil; the manufacturer, Cooper Energy Systems,
is willing to modify the engine to burn residual oil. They too will maintain
their one-year guarantee, with the proviso that the fuel entering the engine
be carefully monitored to ensure strict limits on sodium and vanadium in
the fuel.
Since both manufacturers are confident that the modifications will not
impair the performance of the engines and since they will guarantee the
engines, we feel that both engines are viable options. Since they offer a
significant economic advantage over the distillate-fired engine, we would
prefer one of them as the generator for the grid-connected ICES.

It is

worth noting that, according to Thermo-Electron, both manufacturers have

thoroughly competent field service representatives.
is performed byGolten Marine, Brooklyn, New York,

Sulzer'^ U.S. service

who have worked many

years on residual-burning marine diesels. Superior has its own field

service team which also has much experience.

-20We chose the Sulzer engine in preference to the Superior for the following reasons. (1) We believe that the burning of residual oil is a more sensitive modification than the change to ebullient cooling.

Sulzer has both

laboratory and field experience with burning #6 oil in that engine. That
experience is summarized in Appendix 3A. (2) Sulzer places slightly less
stringent limits on vanadium and sodium than Superior. (3) The Sulzer engine
gives a slightly better return on investment (see section 5.3). (4) The
Sulzer engine is smaller and will be easier to install.
Each of these is a small consideration, but taken together they lead
to a preference for the Sulzer engine. This preference could be reversed
by a continuing decline of the dollar relative to the Swiss franc, which would
make the Sulzer still more expensive than the Superior engine.
3.3

Update of Conceptual Design

The conceptual design section of the Phase I report has to be modified

to take account of (1) the new choice of diesel engine, (2) the need for a
fuel treatment system for //6 oil, and (3) the decision to place the system
in a new location.
In Appendix 3B we give a detailed description of the two candidate 116burning engines, Sulzer and Superior.

The #6 oil engines differ from the //2-

burning engine described in Phase I in requiring a #6 fuel treatment system

and a separate set of ill oil storage and day tanks for starting and stopping.
The steam and electrical systems are the same for all engines.

In Appendix

3C we present details of their performance, including heat balances at

100% and 50% loads. Engine performance deteriorates only slightly down to
50% load; it falls off rapidly for lower loads. Performance characteristics
at 100% load are summarized in Table 3.3-1.
of both engines are similar.

Heat and electric outputs

Because #6 oil is cheaper and is the fuel now

used in the boiler system, the //6-burning engines have appreciably lower
fuel costs, about 5.5 mills/kwh less than the //2-burning engine described
in Phase I.

-21-

Table 3.3-1:

Performance Characteristics of Diesel Engines

Fuel

Sulzer

Superior

#6

#6

Maximum Electrical Output

1405 kw

1500 kw

Thermal Output

4.0xl06 Btu/hr

5.3xl06 Btu/hr

Low pressure steam

1.3xl06 Btu/hr

2.5xl06 Btu/hr

High pressure steam

2.7xl06 Btu/hr

2.8xl06 Btu/hr

Electrical Efficiencies

34%

31%

Thermal Efficiencies

39%

43%

Heat Pate

10,010

Btu/kw

11,060

Btu/kw

6,110

Btu/kw

6,260

Btu/kw

Incremental Heat Rate with

Heat Credit

-224.

DESIGN PACKAGE

4.0

Introduction

The ICES has the following basic components:

mechanical, including

engine, generator, heat recovery, and fuel supply; electrical, including

lights, motors, and grid connection; architectural; tie-in with utility
system; noise and vibration control; and monitoring.

We describe our

preliminary design for each component briefly and refer to the appendices
for more detail.
4,1

Mechanical

The major mechanical items are the diesel engine and generator, jacket
heat recovery system, exhaust heat recovery system, fuel supply system, and
fuel treatment system.

Engine performance is described in Appendix

3C

The design, control and operation of the other mechanical systems are described
in detail in Appendix 4A.

Appendix 4A also gives key pressure drops showing

that the system design is comfortably within manufacturers' tolerances.

Equipment lists including design criteria form Appendix 4B.

Appendix

4C gives outline specifications for all major mechanical equipment.

4.2

Flectrical and Grid-Connection

The electrical design has

to meet the following demands:

provision

of adequate lighting to the new building under normal and emergency conditions,
operation of motors for a large number of mechanical components, and compliance with Mass. Electric requirements for the grid-connection.

The equip-

ment needed to meet each of these demands is described, with outline specifications, in Appendix 4D.
4.3

Architectural

The architectural design has been constrained in two ways.

all, it has to provide adequate space for all ICES equipment.
layout is shown in Fig. 4.3-1.

Second,

First of
Our equipment

since the building must be located

near the focal point of the campus, it must not intrude too much on the open
space that is available, and its design must be compatible with the neighboring structures, including Jonas Clark Hall, the Goddard Library, and the new
Goddard Memorial.

We show a preliminary building design in Appendix 4E.

number of the Clark Trustees and other members of the Clark community felt
that this building would not be satisfactory because of its mass, particularly

-23-its'.

v-?

o p

O'

ra
I

tl

I noun

tjr^romMF M M

My*ra*n, -

4>

FT
S ^
CBKMTM C I * T d X ( * t * U .

M3TOA

7 \
1

COMT
A OL PRMEL.

-+K-

L33 7
JUCfttT VjtR IftU l 5 / l
HEAT ElCHMUD- I

EkKAU5T SHEKEL

-t^

SI

-ff

-ET

r - i ~-

I JLCKE7 WTt

/ / REKHmT M O U R E .

- >

OKtl*

^?

^ vaju=ti

I CL-x^OLJtc

t-a.

",.

_Lt-

-JACKET '

y
1

T
/

e c u s re
IJUST P-_*MTS

t^TtT"

3 'I3"s~

M>aiMMU<TYP>

ft=i-

0 > INLET OJR QOCT

=E*
^

ET

rrr
llm

ZJf

k-

at

A-A

wSSBTcTJJSricTrTCBJf

Figure 4.3-1

Equipment Layout

C LARK UNKERSfTY. WOROCSTER.

EQUMCHT ARRANGEMENT

h r r- hsrf ri-

-24its height. The height of the building had been determined by the need to
provide adequate clearance over the exhaust gas run shown in Fig. 4.3-1.
We have recently ascertained that a straight exhaust run would be possible
from either the Sulzer or the Superior engine at little or no additional
cost.

By lowering the waste heat boiler a corresponding amount we can save

about 10 feet in the height of the building.

The new height would then be

approximately 10' above grade on. the west side of the building and 20'
above grade on the east side, an overall reduction in building volume of
about 40%.
Since the new height is at the top of the indentation shown in Figures
4E-.4 through 4E-7 in Appendix 4E, a new design for the building envelope
is necessary.

The Trustees feel, however, that a threshold has been

crossed with the new dimension, and that it will be possible to make.a new
design that fits well into that part of the campus.
4.4

Utility Tie-In

Since the proposed Clark ICES is a retrofit onto an existing heating

plant we have to take account of the existing heating, fuel, and water
lines, and, in some cases, alter routings for these. The basic requirements
are the following:

steam from the jacket cooler must be tied to.the existing

15 psig steam lines; steam from the waste heat boiler must be tied to the
existing 125 psig lines; residual oil must be supplied to the diesel from
the existing oil tanks. A new light oil fuel tank and distribution system
must be supplied for starting and stopping the diesels.

Details of the

tie-ins are given.in Appendix 4F.

4.5

Noise and Vibration

Noise and vibration are critical issues for the Clark ICES since the
facility is to be located in the center of the Clark campus and since it
will be in a building attached to Jonas Clark Hall, a major four-story
classroom building.

There are some helpful circumstances. Jonas Clark

is a 90-year-old building with 18" thick brick walls, and the existing
heating plant in the basement has had adequate noise and vibration isolation.

Appendix 4G gives an outline of our considerations on noise and

vibration. The present ICES design will meet our design objective of
making no significant increase in ambient noise levels anywhere the campus
is used.

-254.6

Monitoring

We have made a preliminary determination of the type of monitoring that

would be desirable in Phase VI.

Subject to the recommendation and consent of

DOE, our objectives are as follows.

(1) Monitor air pollution impact,

Both the source emission of

the boiler and ICES and ambient levels at Clark University are of interest.

The

Massachusetts DEQE currently samples

ambient particulate

and SO- levels at Clark.

Complete information would

require the addition of ambient CO and N 0 2 sampling, as well as source measurements of particulates, S0_, CO, and NO-.

(Though 0_ is an air pollution

problem, it cannot be simply related to sources

and is thus not proposed

for monitoring.)
(2) Monitor the heat of combustion of residual oil.
of residual oil varies widely.

The heat of combustion

Accurate heat balance calculations require

knowledge of this variation.

(3) Monitor chemical impurities in residual oil.

Diesel engines are ad-

versely affected by sodium and vanadium impurities in oil.

To check whether

our fuel treatment plant is working properly and to obtain accurate information
on residual oil operating costs, it is important to measure these impurities
on a routine basis before and after fuel treatment.
(4) Monitor performance of diesel engine.

Long term system evaluation

requires a continous record of useful heat and electrical output of the ICES.
This may be done by metering fuel and water feed lines.
(5) Monitor sector heat loads.

Optimum load balancing between electric

and heat loads requires knowledge of sector heat demand within the university.
Sector heat demand may be measured by metering condensate return for six
divisions of the University.
The preliminary cost estimate is given in Jable 4.6-1.

-26Table 4.6-1:
Monitored variable

Monitoring equipment

Method

Equipment
Cost

Annual operating cost*

Air pollution, ambient

particulates

periodic sampling by State

so 2

periodic sampling by State

NO2

periodic sampling by Clark

$11,000

$500

CO

periodic sampling by Clark

$2,000

$500

particulates

periodic sampling by Clark

$3,000

$500

so 2

periodic measurement on
fuel by Clark

N0 2

periodic sampling by Clark

CO

periodic sampling by Clark

Air pollution, source

Heat of combustion

$500
$ 8,000

$500
$500

periodic measurement by
Clark

$500

'10,000

$500

Engine performance
fuel use
heat rate

Sector heat load

Fuel contaminants

Sulfur content of fuel

Continuous metering of fuel

Continuous metering of water|
feed line.
Continuous metering of
condensate return from six
heating sectors
Monitoring: vanadium and
sodium content in oil,.
plus other heavy metals

$17,000

$500

2,000

500

Monitor percent sulfur

Totals

500
$53,000

$5,500

Operating cost is based on hiring students of analytical chemistry and physics

to work under faculty direction. .'.

-27-

5. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
5.0 Introduction
In their November evaluation of the proposed ICES, the Clark Trustees
agreed to the following investment criteria:
(1) The ICES should be 100% financed from savings, using an external
source of capital.
(2) The expected payback period, including principal and interest
should be 10 years or less.
(3) There should not be large risks associated with uncertainties in
future economic conditions.
In November 1977 we showed that the proposed ICES met these requirements.
At this writing, after a considerably more detailed analysis, and despite
significant changes in some economic parameters, we confirm this conclusion.
We discuss capital and operating costs in the next two sections. In
Section 5.3 we compare the ICES with the conventional system and show that
the

payback period is 9.4 years and the internal rate of return is between

14 and 15%. We also discuss the sensitivity of our model to various assumptions
about key parameters, and conclude that the

expected variations are acceptable:

e.g. the extreme bounds of the payback period are 15 and 5 years, respectively.
In Section 5.4 we discuss other features of the ICES which make it an attractive
investment for Clark.

In Section 5.5 we discuss the generalization of our

results to other sites.

5.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs for two systems, the Sulzer 1405 KWg engine and
the Superior 1500 KWe engine are summarized in Table 5.1-1.

Detailed cost

breakdowns are given in Appendix 5A. The total capital cost to Clark, beginning
with phase III is $1,460,000 for the Sulzer based system.

In addition we

expect to request DOE to fund the following demonstration capital cost items.
(1) Grid-connection at about $41,000, as per the original RFP.
(2) Monitoring equipment at about $53,000, as per the original RFP.
(3) Demonstration-related aspects of the power plant building, providing
accessibility to the public, at about $28,000.
(4) Fuel treatment system, at about $95,000.

-28Table 5.1-1: Capital Cost Summary ($1000s)

Item

Sulzer Engine

Equipment and mechanical work

Civil Work
Electrical work without grid connection
Engineering costs
Total cost to Clark (proposed)
Grid Connection equipment
Monitoring equipment
Demonstration civil costs
Fuel treatment
Cost to DOE (proposed)

895
287
60
223
1,465
41
53
28
95
217

Superior Engine
823
287
60
223
1,393
41
53
28
95
217

The first three are straightforward outgrowths of the present demonstration program. The fourth is discussed in more detail in Appendix 5A. We
believe that fuel treatment should be considered a demonstration cost, at
least in part, because sodium (accounting for most of the capital cost) is a
regional problem only, and because there will be major economics of scale when
use of heavy oils in engines becomes widespread. For example, a fuel treatment
facility of ten times the capacity would only cost about twice as much.
5.2 Fuel and Maintenance Costs
Fuel costs with heat credit for the two candidate engines are evaluated
in Table 3.3-1 and Appendix 3C. They are summarized in Table 5.2-1:
Table 5.2-1: Fuel cost and heat credit (mills/kwh)
Engine
Fuel cost
Sulzer 1405 KW
257o
Superior 1500 KW
27.7

Heat credit
9~77
12.0

net fuel cost

TO
15.7

We constructed Table 5.2-1 assuming that the price of #6 oil to Clark

80 would be $2.50/10 6 Btu.
Maintenance costs for the three engines are summarized in Table 5.2-2,

-29Table 5.2-2: Maintenance Costs

Item

Yearly Cost
Sulzer

Diesel engine

Superior

$42,500

$41,400

Fuel treatment

3,800

7,100

Miscellaneous
TOTAL

9,000

9,000

$55,300

$57,500

Cost per kilowatthour

5.6 mills

5.5 mills

The derivation of these cost estimates is given in Appendix SB. The

estimates include diesel manufacturer's recommended maintenance and cost
experience, chemicals for fuel treatment, and safety margins. The miscellaneous items include the generator, waste heat boiler,

fuel treatment system,

pumps, etc. A detailed discussion of fouling of the waste boiler is given

in Appendix 5B.
5. 3 Comparison with the Conventional System
In Table 5.3-1 we list the base case assumptions we have made about costs
which are used to compare the grid-connected ICES with the conventional system.
We assume that the ICES is completed at the beginning of 1980, and that all
costs including capital costs excalate at 6% per year from their values today.
Because we assume a base cost of money of 6%, it does not matter when individual
capital cost items are purchased.
In Table 5.3-2 we list the energy output of the ICES, appropriately divided
into Clark usage and Clark sales. These numbers are taken from the energy outputs
described in Section 3.1. With this we may compare the costs of the ICES with
conventional system costs, as shown in Table 5.3-3.

It is seen that the Sulzer

system has a first year operating savings of $162,000, and a net savings after
payment of financing costs of $20,000. By the tenth year these savings project
to approximately $240,000 and $100,000 respectively in constant 1980 dollars.
The present estimates are little different from those obtained in November, as
shown in Fig. 5.3-1.
We have examined the sensitivity of the projected savings to the values of
our base case parameters. In Table ; 5.3-4 we list the key parameters and the
sample variations we have used to test the sensitivity of the savings. Figure

-30-

Table 5 . 3 - 1 :

Base case assumptions (1980 s t a r t - u p )

Value

Variable
Rate of inflation

6%/VT

Price of fuel (anticipated)

#2 oil

$3.00/MBtu

#6 oil

$2.50/MBtu

Prices of electricity (anticipated)

Purchased by Clark

4.7*/kwh

Sold by Clark, weekdays 7 A.M. - 11 P.M.

2.7*/kwh

Sold by Clark, other

2.4*/kwh

Distribution capacity charge:

Retail rate structure multiplier

first year:

$18,000

after 5 years:

$36,000
1.2

Plant lifetime

20 years

Clark electric demand .

6.9xl06 kwh/yr

Conventional boiler efficiency

75%

-31Table 5.3-2: Electricity and Thermal Outputs

ELECTRICITY
1.

Clark total demand

6.9xl06 kwh

2._ Clark demand supplied by diesel

6.5xl06 kwh

3. Clark demand supplied by purchases

0.4xl06 kwh

4.

4.6xl06 kwh

Diesel-produced energy sold to utility

5. Total production by diesel

U.lxlO 6 kwh

6.

Maximum possible production by diesel

12.5X106 kwh

7.

Capacity factor

90%

8.

Outages for maintenance and certain

summer nights

6%

9.

Operation at de-rated power level

(average 65% full load)

8%

HEAT
10
10.
11.

Clark total demand

Clark demand supplied by diesel

11x10
3xl0

Btu
10

Btu

FUEL SAVINGS
12.

Savings at Clark plus savings at utility

due to reduced generation

10 Btu

4x10

-32Table 5.3-3
FIRST YEAR (1980) BASE CASE CALCULATION
Sulzer Engine

A. Capital Cost
B. Interest Rate
C. Annual Capital Cost ($K)
D. Annual Fuel Cost
E. Annual 0 M
F. Annual Heat Credit

$1,650,000

6%
141,000
278,000
70,000
108,000

G. Operating Cost (D + E - F)
H. Conventional Electricity Cost

326,000

I. Clark Sales

114,000

J. Purchases
K. Total Credits (H + I - J)
L. Net Operating Savings (K - G)
M. Net Savings (L - C)
N. Payback (years)
0. Internal Rate of Return

240,000

38,000
402,000
162,000
21,000

9.4
14.5%

.-33-

1988
VeAfl
Fig. 5.3-1:Base case net savings expressed in constant and
current dollars.

MO

-345.3-2 shows the variation of the Sulzer engine savings with each of the changes.
The total variation is taken to be the square root of the sum of the squares of
each individual variation. The savings are always positive, even the total
variation; hence the risk inherent in the ICES investment appears acceptable.
Table 5.3-4: Sensitivity Analysis
Key parameter

Base value

Efficiency of Clark Boiler

0.75

Interest rate on loan

0.06/yr

Retail rate structure multiplier

1.2

rate of fuel price escalation

0.06/yr

Additional credit for import

Mis-estimate of capital costs

Inflation rate

Variation tested
0.85
0.03 - 0.07/yr
1.35
0.0 - 0.12/yr
0.3 $/kwh
$200,000

0.06/yr

5.4

0.03 - 0.09/yr

Evaluation of Investment

The anticipated 15% internal rate of return with the reasonable assurance
of positive net savings is enough to make the grid-connected ICES an attractive investment for Clark.

In addition, as pointed out by the University

busines? officer, L. Landry, the investment in the ICES is a hedge against

the inflation of energy costs. If about half
of the electricity generation costs are fixed

as

capital costs, only the

remaining half are subject to inflation. Thus the costs using the ICES
will rise much more slowly than costs for the conventional system as oil
prices go up. Of course, costs would decline less rapidly if oil prices
dropped, but we consider that much less likely.

Furthermore, by generating

most of its electricity, the University would be almost completely insulated

from unfavorable changes in electricity rates.

It is certain that electricity

rates will change in the next year, as the DPU has required utilities to
introduce time-of-day rates.

It is not certain that the changes will be

unfavorable to Clark, but it is likely. The University now benefits from

sharply declining block rates and there is both state
and federal pressure for flattening rate structures.

Furthermore, the

University does not have much flexibility for shifting more electric use to
the nighttime and so it could be hurt by very high peak rates.

-35-

200
interest
rate

boiler
efficiency

to

u
id

rate struct,
multiplier

oil price
escalation
per year

inflation
rate

total varia
tion (r.r>.s)
(excludes
.
rate struct*

loo

O
O
oo
C71

G
at

J
(A

o
o

increased
credit for
export of
power

10

bo

capital cost

Cd
CO

0>

too0.3*/kW]

$200,000 ,'
under ,'^/'/.
run " ~ * 0 / /

overrun

80

90/80

90/80

90/80

YEAR
Fig. 5.32: Sensitivity of savings for the Sulzer engine
burning #6 oil.

Base case is shown as solid

line, variation by dotted line. The variation

used is defined in Table 5.34.

90

-36Thus we consider the ICES an attractive investment on two grounds. It

offers a decent rate of return with only modest risk, and it helps protect
the University from potential unfavorable changes in energy prices. Along
with these benefits Clark would benefit significantly from being a demonstration site. The demonstration would give Clark national visibility and
would give a major boost to our research and teaching in energy studies.

5.5

Generalization to other sites

The analysis of the previous two sections shows that the proposed ICES
is a reasonable investment for Clark University at this point. It is interesting
to consider how important the DOE contribution is to this conclusion. There
are

two aspects to this question.

(1) How big an effect d o e s

bution have on the economic evaluation of the proposed plant?

the DOE contri(2) How

significant has DOE sponsorship been in attacking and removing institutional

barriers, and other first-of-kind costs?
Our estimate, given in Appendix 5A, is that Clark's base capital cost is
only $30,000 to $125,000 lower than the cost to a similar facility planning to
duplicate the Clark system.

Because of Clark's unusual architectural needs

Clark's base capital cost is $100,000 to $200,000 less than it would cost Clark
to design and build the plant without DOE participation.

All of these numbers

are within the range of uncertainty of capital costs considered in our sensitivity analysis.
The answer to the second question is that DOE participation has been
essential to Clark's resolution of most institutional issues, and hence Clark's
willingness to continue the project. We have repeatedly found in dealing
with Massachusetts Electric, with the Department of Public Utilities, with
the Attorney General, and most recently with the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering that Clark's case represented a first-of-a-kind test
case.

It is quite clear that under these conditions the Clark trustees would

soon have lost heart had it not been for the support of DOE.

In addition it is

unlikely that Clark would have been prepared to make extensive engineering
comparisons of alternative systems before knowing that the project was feasible,
yet these comparisons were essential in finding the most suitable configuration
for a facility like Clark.
Assuming, then, that the Clark ICES is built, we believe that a number of
important precedents will have been established which will make the installation
of subsequent facilities considerably easier. The technical comparison of

-37system alternatives can be applied with, minor alterations to a large number of

facilities resembling Clark, and Clark's experience in negotiating a contract with
our electric utility, and coping with environmental and legal obstacles, will at
least suggest a number of short cuts.

We hope to make the Clark ICES even more

useful by carefully documenting its performance, its impact on the utility and
its environmental effects.

/
-38-

VOLUME I I

APPENDICES

-39-

Appendix 2A
Letter

on Financing
from

Marsom B. Pratt
Senior Vice President
Adams, Harkness and Hill, Inc.
and
Letters on Utility Tie - In
from
Mary Joann Woods Reedy
Assistent Attorney General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Richard W. Mirick
University Counsel
(two letters)
and
William Cadigan
President
Massachusetts Electric Company

-40-

sldfiins. Jlcirknoss 6Hill. inc.

M E M B E R NEW YORK R O s r C ' N t a n ASH mCA-4 ' A S S O C

5 5 COURT

STOCK

rxCHANC.lS

STREET

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

OaiOS
'617!

227-5500

T c i t x 3 4 0 S I S ADAMS BSN

April 6, 1978

Mr. Lawrence L. Landry

Vice President for Business & Finance
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Dear Mr. Landry,
At its meeting on April 4, 1978 the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities
Authority gave preliminary approval to an approximately $1,750,000 Clark University
Issue, Series B Revenue Bonds.
The proceeds from the bond issue would be used to finance the co-generation plant
for Clark University and related expenses including funding of a debt service reserve
fund.
The preliminary approval of the Authority is based on the condition that the bonds
be privately placed with investors acceptable to the Authority. All terms of the bond issue
are, of course, subject to final approval of (he Authority.
Adams, Harkness & Hill, Inc. acting as financial consultants to the Authority has
been authorized by Samuel C. Brown, Executive Director to issue this letter.
Very truly yours,

Marsom B. Pratt
ypnior Vice President

JUrv^ivnk
c.': i\ip.s<;/b. B>-(>-'n, "ri'-.xl and Winter

ii

41-

THE

COMMONWEALTH

OF

MASSACHUSETTS

DEPARTMENT OF T H E ATTORNEY GENERAL

J O H N W. MO OORMAOK STATE O F r i O I
ONE ABHBURTON PLACE. BOSTON

BUILDINQ
0210B

rRAN cm x. a t L L o m
ATTORNEY

1INIML

October 21, 1977

Richard W. Merick
Merick, O'Connell, DeMallie and Lougee
1700 Mechanics National Tower
Worcester, MA 01608
Dear Mr. Merick:
You have requested the opinion of this office on the legal
power of Clark University to engage in the construction and operation
of an integrated community energy system (ICES).
Upon review of your letter and the attached charter and
feasibility study it is my conclusion that the primary purposes
of the project will advance the charitable purposes of the
University. The distribution of excess energy to a public utility
would be incidental to the primary purposes, and would not affect
the charitable status of the University. Conk1in v. John Howard
Industrial Home, 224 Mass., 222 (1916): McKay v. Morgan Memorial
Goodwill Industries, 272 Mass. 121 (1930).

Sincerely,

7uln %^-Aj^

MJWR/kah

Mary Joann Woods Reedy

Assistant Attorney General
Division of Public Charities

-42-

MlRICK, 0 CONNELL, D E M A L L I E 6C LOUGEE

C O U N S E L O R S AT LAW
1700 MECHANICS NATIONAL TOWER
WORCESTER CENTER

W O R C E S T E R , M A S S . OiGOS
GI7

799-0541

November A, 1977

Lawrence L. Landry, Vice President for

Business and Finance
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Dear Mr. Landry:
I suggested to you some time ago that if the University proceded
with construction and operation of a grid-connected integrated community
energy system, and sold any excess electricity to the local public utility,
it might be argued that the University as an eleeymosynary institution did
not have the legal power to manufacture and sell electricity.
I am happy to report that discussion and correspondence with the
Division of Public Charities of the Department of the Attorney General of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has resulted in a response indicating
that the project would not affect the charitable status of the University.
I am attaching a copy of the letter from Assistant Attorney General Reedy.
The Division of Public Charities is the agency which represents .
the public interest in matters involving the charitable status of eleemosynary
institutions. In view of her letter I do not anticipate any questions from any
other state or local government source as to the University's legal power to
proceed with the project as planned.
Very truly yours,

Richard W. Mirick
RWM/pjb
Enc.

-43-

Massachusetts Electric Company

839 Southbridge Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Tel. (017) 701 -8511

Massachusetts Bedric
William J. Cadigan
Prttktonl

February 16, 1978

Dr. Frank W. Puffer

Dean of Academic Affairs
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Dear Dr. Puffer:
Clark-DOE Demonstration Program of a
Grid-Connected Integrated Community
Energy (Cogeneration) System
I Have been advised of your recent meeting with Clark's Board of Trustees
concerning the status of the subject program. Apparently, some of the
members of the Board are unsure of Massachusetts Electric Company's position relative to its support of Clark's proposed Cogeneration project.
Let me assure you that my Company's position toward this project has not
changed since we agreed to become an active participant in your proposed
program to DOE back in November of 1976. We have expended much time and
effort in the development of the Phase I Report, as well as the soon to
be completed Phase II Report; and, offer the same continued effort through
the remaining Phases of work toward a successful completion of the demonstration facility.
It is important to note that our parent company, New England Electric System,
has committed itself to the national energy conservation program. This has
been demonstrated by undertaking various studies to evaluate the long range
benefits of energy conservation programs. One such effort is our Solar Water
Heating Experiment. This demonstration program was designed to test the suitability of solar water heater systems to help meet the energy needs of New
England and their possible future integration with utility operations. Cogeneration of heat and electricity at an industrial or institutional site
offers a great potential for energy conservation through improved overall
efficiency.
However, many economic, technical and institutional factors will impact the
future of cogeneration. These factors must be studied and carefully evaluated before the cost/benefit ratio of the cogeneration potential can be
determined.
A New England Electric System company

-44-

Dr. Frank W. Puffer, Clark University

February 16, 1978

In order to properly evaluate these factors, it is essential that my Company

have some experimental installations in our service area to accumulate valuable operating information. We have recently completed a survey, designed
to assess the potential of cogeneration with a further attempt to identify
a class of cogeneration customers.
As a member of the Task Force, we have benefited greatly from the input of
the other members. We have used this input in our work to develop a policy
and cogeneration rate. The information gained in the following phases of
work would be most valuable in assessing the cogeneration potential.
We are now studying the long range potential economic benefits of the Cogeneration capacity. The value of this cogeneration capacity will be greatly
affected by its availability, its fuel economics, and the manner in which it
is dispatched. The Clark Project will be valuable in terms of the information
provided by the operating experience of the facility.
We are hopeful that the Clark Cogeneration Demonstration Program will proceed
on schedule; and, we continue to support its successful completion.
Very truly yours,

-45-

MIRICK. OCONNELL, DEMALLIE 6C LOUGEE

C O U N S E L O R S AT L A W
1700 MECHANICS BANK TOWER
PAUL.REVERE O C O N N E L L
G A R D E N E R G. D t M A L L I E
L A U R E N C E H. L O U G E E
R I C H A R D W. M I R I C K
ROBERT J MARTIN
BAYARD T D t M A L L I E
DAVID L LOUGEE
P A U L R. O ' C O N N E L L . J R .
R O B E R T V. D E I A N A
MICHAEL J. MICHAELES

WORCESTER CENTER

WORCESTER, MASS.
BI7

016O8

799-0541

G E O R G E H. M I R I C K ( I 9 I O - I 9 S 3 )
J O H N M. R I E D L
J O H N O. MIRICK
R I C H A R D G. S M A L L

M a r c h 2 0 , 1978

Dr. Robert Goble

Clark University
950 Main Street
W o r c e s t e r , M a s s a c h u s e t t s 01610
. Re: ERDA matter
Dear Dr. Goble:
I have reviewed the l a t e s t draft of t h e proposed agreement
between t h e University and M a s s a c h u s e t t s Electric Company covering
the s a l e and purchase of electricity by t h e University t o and from t h e
u t i l i t y . Assuming that the s a l e and purchase rates produce a s a t i s factory financial result for t h e University based on your c a l c u l a t i o n s ,
the overall content of t h e agreement appears to be r e a s o n a b l e .
I suggest that consideration be given to t h e inclusion of
language which would allow t h e University to terminate t h e arrangement on reasonable n o t i c e , if a major change should occur In t h e
University's c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
I am still evaluating t h e question of whether and to what
extent the University will be subject to the jurisdiction of t h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s Department of Public U t i l i t i e s .
Very truly y o u r s ,

RWM/abm

Richard W . Mirick

-47AGREEMENT dated as of

by and between Clark

University, a Massachusetts university of higher education, hereinafter called "Clark", and Massachusetts Electric Company, a Massachusetts corporation, hereinafter called the "Company".
ARTICLE I.

BASIC UNDERSTANDINGS.

The Company is currently in the process of formulating a

Co-generation Policy and Rate for application to customers engaged
in co-generation projects. The development of an appropriate cogeneration policy and rate would be materially enhanced by information derived from the on-line experience of a co-generation
project.

Clark intends to construct, a co-generation plant (herein-

after called the "Plant") with an electrical output which will at

times exceed Clark's electric energy requirements. Since the
operation of the Plant will provide the Company with valuable input
to the development of its Co-generation Policy and Rate, the
Company is willing, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth, to purchase all electric energy generated at the Plant in
excess of Clark's requirements and provide Clark with electric
service (hereinafter referred to as "Back-up Service"), up to an
amount hereinafter set forth, whenever Clark's energy requirements
cannot be fully satisfied by Plant generation.
In accordance with the above, it is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide terms and conditions on which Clark will sell and the Company
will purchase electric energy generated at the Plant in excess of Clark's
requirements and on w M c h the Comapny will provide Back-up Service to Clark.

-48-

Where not inconsistent with this Agreement, the Company's Terms and
Conditions as on file and in effect from time to time shall apply.

copy of the Terms and Conditions in effect and on file with the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities at the date of the execution
of this Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
ARTICLE II. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall commence as of 12:01 A.M. on the
earlier to occur of (1) the commercial operation date of the Plant, as
mutually agreed upon by the parties, or (2) sixty days following the date
on which Clark shall first make delivery of electricity through the
Interconnection Point, as hereinafter defined, (the "Commencement Date"),
and shall extend, until terminated by either party giving the other six
(6) months' written notice specifying the date of termination; provided,
however, such date of termination shall not be earlier than twenty (20)
years after the aforesaid Cjcmmencement Date.
Notwitlistanding the foregoing, however, if at any time during the tenr. of
this Agreement the Plant fails to operate for a period of more than ninety
(90) days due to causes beyond Clark's immediate control and Clark determines that it will no longer operate the Plant in the future to meet its
electric energy requirements, then upon thirty (30) days written notice
to the Company this Agreement shall terminate and Clark shall commence to
take service from the Company under the Company's then effective Large
Power Rate as on file with the Department of Public Utilities or such
other rate as may then be most applicable.

-49-

ARTICLE III. TERMS OF SALE.

During the term of this Agreement Clark shall:
(1) -Provide the Company prior to the first day of July
of each year its best estimate of the generation of
electricity at the Plant for the twelve (12) months
next following such July 1st;
(2) Provide the Company prior to the first day of each
month its best estimate of the generation of electricity
at the Plant for such month; and
(3) Arrange its maintenance program so as to nunimize
the possibilty of the Plant being out of service
during the months of January, February, June, July,
August and December of any calendar year.
Clark shall sell and the Company shall buy all electricity generated
at the Plant in excess of Clark's electric energy requirements. Electricity
shall be delivered to the Company at the interconnection point between the
Clark and Company systems, located two feet inside Clark's property line
in the underground feeder off Downing Street in Worcester, Massachusetts
(the "Interconnection Point"),in the form of three phase sixty-hertz
alternating current at approximately 13,800 volts. The voltage shall
not vary more than ten percent (10%) from said voltage momentary
fluctuations excepted.
Clark shall operate its electrical generating equipment at the
Plant in parallel with the Company's system, and at such voltage as the
Company may reasonably request.

-50-

Whenever Clark's total electric energy requirements cannot be

met by actual Plant generation, the Company agrees to supply Back-up
Service in an amount not to excede fifteen hundred kilovolt amperes
(1500 kVA); provided, however, that upon Clark's written application
and the Company's written consent, the amount of Back-up Service may
be increased to an amount not to excede sixteen hundred kilovolt amperes
(1600 kVA).

Such application shall be made not less than three months

prior to the date on which the Company is requested to supply such

increased level of Back-up Service.

Clark's purchases from the Company

shall not be at a Power Factor less than eighty percent (80%).

ARTICLE IV.

PRICE AND BTT.LTNG.

(A) Commencing as of the effective date of this Agreement, the

Company shall monthly pay Clark for electricity delivered by Clark
hereunder, as determined in accordance with ARTICLE VT hereof, the
sum of the following:
(1) For all electricity delivered during the hours
from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. of each day Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays in the
Conironwealth of Massachusetts, a price in mills
per kilowatthour equal to the Company's estimate
of the incremental cost of fuel for these hours,

-51-

PLUS
(2) For all electricity delivered during hours other
than those specified in (JL) above, a price in nulls
per kilowatthour equal to the Company's estimate
of the incremental cost of fuel for such other hours.

For the purpose of (1) and (2) above the Company's incremental
cost of fuel for the specified hours shall be determined by multiplying
the average cost of fuel during the preceding month of the Company's
wholesale supplier, New England Power Company (NEP), determined in
accordance with NEP's FERC Electric Tariff as on file and as effective
from time to time, times a multiplier reflecting the estimated relationship
between NEP's average and incremental cost of fuel for the specified "
hours during the current year as determined from incremental cost
studies performed annually by New England Power Service Company, NEP's
and the Company's service company affiliate. The Company shall make
available for Clark's inspection records relating to the incremental
cost studies utilized in determining the above referenced multiplier.

(B) Commencing as of the effective date of this Agreement, Clark

shall monthly pay the Company for electricity delivered by the Company
hereunder, as determined in accordance with ARTICLE VT hereof,
a price determined , at Clark's option, in accordance with:

-52-

(1)

The sum of a Distribution Capacity Charge

plus an Energy Charge determined as follows:

During the first year of the term of this
Agreement, the Distribution Capacity Charge shall be
one dollar ($1.00) per month per kVA of Distribution
Capacity contracted for as a maximum service taking.
During the second, third, fourth, and fifth and
successive years of the term of this Agreement
the distribution Capacity Charge shall be respectively,
one dollar and twenty-five cents ($1.25); one
dollar and fifty cents ($1.50); one dollar

and

seventy-five cents ($1.75);and two dollars ($2.00)

per month per kVA of Distribution Capacity contracted
for as maximum service taking. For the purposes of
the above, the Distribution Capacity contracted for
as maximum service taking shall be deemed to be
fifteen hundred kilovolt amperes (1500 kVA); provided,
however, that if at any time during the term of this
Agreement Clark takes electricity from the Company
at a rate exceeding fifteen hundred kilovolt amperes (1500 kVA)
then the higher rate of taking sliall thenceforth be
deemed to be the Distribution Capacity contracted
for as a maximum service taking.

-53-

The Energy Charge shall be determined in accordance

with the Company's General Rate C-22 as on file and in

effect from time to time; provided, however, that the
minimum charge provision contained in said rate shall not
apply.
If the Back-up Service provided to Clark is metered
at the Company's supply line voltage, then the Company
shall, prior to determining the Energy Charge as set forth
above, deduct one percent (1%) from the meter registrations
of kilowatthours.

In addition, if Clark's highest rate

of taking of electricity from the Company exceeds fifteen

hundred kilovolt amperes (1500 kVA), then for the purposes
of detentdning the Distribution Capacity contracted fcr as
a maximum service taking for use in calculating the Distribution
Capacity Charge as set forth above, the Company shall deduct one
percent (1%) of the amount by which the kilovolt amperes
meter registrations exceeds fifteen hundred kilovolt amperes.
OR
(2)

A price determined in accordance with the Company's

Auxilliary Service Provisions as on file and in effect from

time to time.

For purposes of the above, the Company's

General Rate C-22, as on file and in effect from time to

time, shall be the rate under which service is deemed to
be supplied and contracted for.

-54-

Simultaneously with execution of this Agreement, Clark

shall specify, by circling the appropriate option on the execution
page of this Agreement, which of the two pricing options set forth
above it elects. The selected option shall apply throughout the term of
this Agreement; provided, however, that if during the term of this
Agreement the Company files a Co-generation Rate with the Massachusetts
Department of Public Utilities, and if such rate is allowed to become
effective, Clark shall have the right at any time thereafter to elect
to pay a price determined in accordance with said Co-generation Rate
as on file and in effect from time to time for electricity delivered by
the Company hereunder.

If Clark makes such an election, the Co-generation

Rate as on file and in effect from time to time shall apply throughout the
remainder of the term of this Agreement.

(C) Bills for amounts due under this ARTICLE IV shall be rendered
monthly to the respective parties and shall be due and payable upon
receipt thereof. When all or any part of the bill shall remain
unpaid for more than twenty-five days after the receipt thereof,
interest at the simple rate of one and one half percent (1 1/2%)
per month shall accrue from the date of receipt until the date
of payment on either (1) such unpaid amount or (2) in the event
the amount of the bill is disputed, the amount finally determined
to be due and payable. For purposes of this paragraph the date of
receipt of a bill shall be presumed to be three days following the
date of mailing, unless the bill is delivered rather than mailed,
in which case the date of receipt shall be the same as the date of

55

ARTICLE V.

I^m!aO3NNECTI0N RESPONSIBILITIES.

The interconnection facilities necessary to interconnect the

Company's and Clark's system shall be constructed at Clark's expense.
Clark will install necessary protective devices in Clark's substation in
accordance with Clark's design drawing No.

and in conformance with the

Company's standards. The Company will provide whatever inspection

and checking of the work in progress which it deems necessary and
appropriate to insure that specifications are met, at no cost to
Clark.
Clark shall be responsible for the synchronizing of its electric
generator.
The Company reserves to itself the construction and ownership
of all modifications to its substation necessary to insure the inter
change of electric energy.

Such modifications will be made at Clark's

expense and in accordance with Clark's design drawing No.

The Company shall install at Clark's expense all necessary metering

equipment in Clark's substation for measuring the electricity delivered
to the Company hereunder and the electricity taken from the Company
hereunder in accordance with Clark's design drawing No.

. Without'limiting

the foregoing, said metering equipment shall include two digital pulse
recorders.

Clark will provide appropriate space for said metering

equipnent at its substation at no expense to the Company.

-56-

The Company reserves the right to determine the settings for

relays associated with the tripping of protective devices. The
Company shall have the right at Clark's expense, to either (1) install,
test and calibrate the relays or (2) witness the installation, testing
and calibration of said relays by Clark. Responsibility for making the
final connection to its system is reserved exclusively to the Company
and such connection shall not be made until the Company is satisfied
that the protective circuits perform as intended.
ARTICLE VT. MEASUREMENT OF ELECTRICITy.
The delivery of electricity hereunder shall be measured in the
form of three-phase sixty-hertz alternating current at a voltage of
approximately thirteen thousand eight hundred (13,800) volts.
The metering equipment shall be tested whenever desired by either
party. The tests shall be made in such manner as may be agreed upon.

Both parties shall comply with any reasonable request of the other with
regard to sealing of meters, the presence of a representative of the other
party when the seals are broken and tests made, and other matters affecting
the accuracy of measurement of electricity delivered.
If at any time the metering equipment is found to be inaccurate
by more than two percent (2%) up or down, the Company shall cause it
to be made accurate and the meter readings for the period of inaccuracy
shall be adjusted to correct such inaccuracy so far as the same can
be reasonably ascertained.

The meters measuring the electricity

delivered to the Company hereunder shall be read on the first day of

each calendar month. The meters measuring the electricity taken from
the Company sliall be read monthly in accordance with the Company's
applicable meter reading cycle.

-57-

ARTICLE VII.

ACCESS TO PLANT.

Tiie properly accredited representatives of the Company shall

at all times have access to the Plant and the daily/monthly information sheets of Clark for the purpose of making inspections and obtaining information reasonably required in connection with this Agreement.
ARTICLE VIII.

MODERN APPARATUS AND PRACTICE.

Clark and the Company shall use modern standard commercial

apparatus and shall exercise the necessary skill and diligence required
to secure satisfactory operation in accordance with the best modern
practice, in order that! the best service practicable can be maintained.
ARTICLE IX.

REGULATION AND FRANCHISES.

This Agreement and all rights, obligations and performance of

the parties hereunder, are subject to (1) all applicable state and
federal laws and to all duly promulgated orders and other duly authorized action of governmental authority having jurisdiction in the
premises; and (2) the retention by the parties of the rights-of-way,
franchises, locations, permits, and all other rights necessary for
the performance of this Agreement.
ARTICLE X.

APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.

Prices to be paid for electricity taken hereunder shall be

subject to review and determination by the Department of Public
Utilities of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in any proceeding
brought under Section 93 or 94 of Chapter 164 of the General Laws,
as amended, to the extent provided for and in accordance with the
terms of Section 94A of said Chapter.

-58-

ARTICLE XI. ASSIGNMENT.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of, and may be performed by, the successors and assignees
of the parties, except that no assignment, pledge or other transfer
of this Agreement by either party shall operate to release the
assignor, pledgor or transferor of any of its obligations under this
Agreement unless consent to the release is given in writing by the
other party, or, if the other party has theretofore assigned, pledged
or otherwise transferred its interest in this Agreement, by such other
party's assignee, pledgee, or transferee.
ARTICLE XII. INTERPRETATION.
The interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be
in accordance with and controlled by the law of The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
)

ARTICLE XIII. INTEGRATION.

This Agreement and,where not inconsistent therewith, the Company's
Terms and Conditions as in effect and on file from time to time with
the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof
and all previous agreements, discussions, communications and correspondence
with respect to the subject matter hereof are superseded by the execution
of this Agreement. Neither this Agreement nor any term or condition
hereof, may be changed, modified, amended, waived, discharged or
terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing signed by an
officer of the party against which the enforcement of the change,
amendment, waiver or discharge, or termination is sought.

-59-

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as

of the date first above written.

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY

CLARK UNIVERSITY

By_

By.

ELECTION OF PRICING OPTION

(Circle Elected Option)

CLARK UNIVERSITY

Vice President

ARTICLE IV (B) (1)

OR
ARTICLE IV (B) (2)

Title

By_

Title

By_

Title

'-60-

Cancelling M. D. P. U. No. 120

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY

AUXILIARY SERVICE PROVISIONS

AVAILABILITY
Service is available under any applicable filed rate of this Company
for Auxiliary Service, sometimes referred to as Standby or Breakdown Service,
and more fully defined as service available at all times to a Customer having
another source of power, electrical or mechanical, from which to supply his
requirements of light, heat or power, or a portion thereof. Where such other
source is used only in case of failure of the Company's service, the Company's
service shall not be considered as Auxiliary Service.

RATE
The charge for electricity shall be computed under the Rate applied
with this Provision, but not less than $1.75 per month per KVA of contractual
transformer capacity.

TERM OF AGREEMENT
The agreement for service under this rate will continue for an initial
term of one year if electricity can be supplied to a Customer without an
uneconomic expenditure by the Company. The agreement may be terminated at
any time on or after the expiration date of the initial term by twelve months'
prior written notice; provided, however, the Customer by written notice to the
Company may terminate Auxiliary Service at any time should the Customer permanently abandon the operation of his own source of power.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Company's Terms and Conditions in effect from time to time, where
not inconsistent with any specific provisions hereof, are a part of this rate.

Effective

December 1, 1971.

-61-

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY

General Rate C-22
M.D.P.U. No. 374
Purchased Power Cost Adjustment No. 6
Effective February 1, 1977

Monthly Charge as Adjusted

$2.00
6.672C
6.072C
4.962C
3.772C

per
per
per
per

KWH
KWH
KWH
KWH

First
Next
Next
Next
Xcs of

20 KWH or less per month

80 KWH per month
200
"
"
"
1700
"
"
2000
"
"
"

Minimum Charge
Zero Use

Use 1-20 KWH

$1.87
=

$2.00

However, if the KVA transformer capacity needed to serve a customer exceeds

25 KVA, the minimum charge will be increased by $1.75 for each KVA in excess of
25 KVA.

Other Rate Clauses apply as usual.

-62M. D. P. U. No. 374

Sheet 1
Cancelling M. D. P. U. No. 343

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
GENERAL RATE C-22

AVAILABILITY
Service under this rate is available for all purposes.
No service will be furnished hereunder to a Customer for resale in whole
or in part within the territory of the Company, except to a Customer who was
engaged in reselling electricity furnished by the Company on April 21, 1958 who
may continue to resell, but only under the same circumstances or conditions, in
the same location and to the same extent as such Customer was reselling on said
date.
MONTHLY CHARGE
$1.87

for the first 20 kilowatt-hours or less of electricity

delivered each month,

6.016

cents per kilowatt-hour for the next 80 kilowatt-hours,

5.416

cents per kilowatt-hour for the next 200 kilowatt-hours,

4.306

cents per kilowatt-hour for the next 1700 kilowatt-hours,

3.116

cents per kilowatt-hour for the excess over 2000 kilowatt-hours.

PURCHASED POWER COST ADJUSTMENT

The prices under this rate as set forth under "Monthly Charge"
may be adjusted from time to time in the manner provided in the Company's
Purchased Power Cost Adjustment Provisions to reflect changes occurring on or after
January 1, 1971 in the Primary Service for Resale Rate of the Company's supplier,
New England Power Company.
ADJUSTMENT FOR COST OF FUEL
The amount determined under the preceding provisions shall be adjusted
in accordance with the Company's Standard Fuel Clause as from time to time
effective in accordance with law.

M. D. P. U. No. 374
Sheet 2

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
GENERAL RATE C-22

MINIMUM CHARGE
$1.87 per month.
However, If the KVA transformer capacity needed to serve a customer
exceeds 25 KVA, the minimum charge will be increased by $1.75 for each KVA
in excess of 25 KVA.
BIMONTHLY BILLING
The Company reserves the right to read meters and render bills on a
bimonthly basis. When bills are rendered bimonthly, the charge for the initial
block, the kilowatt-hours stated in each block and the Minimum Charge shall be
multiplied by two.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Company's Terms and Conditions in effect from time to time, where
not inconsistent with any specific provisions hereof, are a part of this rate.

Effective December 8, 1976.

-64-

M. D. P. U. No. 266
Sheet 1

I lASSACliHSETTS ELECTRIC
COMJ'ANY
PURCHASED POWER COST ADJUSTMENT
PROVISIONS

The Purchased Power Cost Adjustment applicable to any change in the

wholesale price shall be an amount (computed to the nearest thousandth of
a cent) based on the proportion that the increase or decrease in the cost of
purchased power bears to the sales under applicable rates, all in the calendar
year preceding the date of such change.

The wholesale price referred to

herein is the Primary Service for Resale Rate of the New England Power Company
as from time to time on file and effective with the Federal Power Commission,
exclusive of any adjustment for cost of fuel applicable thereto.
Upon any increase in the wholesale price the Company may at its option
Increase any one or more of the prices In applicable rates of the Company by
an amount not exceeding the applicable Purchased Power Cost Adjustment.
Upon any decrease in the wholesale price the Company will decrease the
prices under its applicable rates by an amount equal to the Purchased Power
Cost Adjustment.
Any adjustment of the prices under the Company's applicable rates shall
be In accordance with a notice filed with the Department of Public Utilities
setting forth the amount of the applicable Purchased Power Cost Adjustment,
the amount of the increase or decrease, if any, to be made in each of the
prices under these r.itcs, and the effective prices under the rates as so adjusted.
The notice shall further specify the effective date of such adjustment, which

-65-

M. D. P. U. No. 266
Sheet 2

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
PURCHASED POWER COST ADJUSTMENT
PROVISIONS

shall be not earlier than thirty days after the filing of the notice, or
such other date as the Department may authorize.
The Company may file such notice with the Department with respect to
any increase in the wholesale price at any time, but the effective date of
the adjustment of prices under its applicable rates shall not be earlier than
the effective date of such wholesale increase. The Company will file such
notice with the Department with respect to any decrease in the wholesale price
not more than seven days after the effective date of such decrease or the date
on which the Company shall have received notice of such decrease, whichever
is the later.
If the Company receives any refunds from New England Power Company
representing excess amounts collected over the rates subsequently allowed by
the Federal Power Commission, the Company will make an equitable adjustment of
such refunds with its customers whose rates are affected by the Company's
Purchased Power Cost Adjustments in such a manner consistent with the applicable
provisions of Chapter 164 as may be approved by the Department.

The amount of

any such refund by the Company shall not be greater than any applicable excess
amount collected by Massachusetts Electric from its customers.
The operation of this Purchased Power Cost Adjustment clause is subject
to all powers of suspension and investigation given to the Department by
Chapter 164 of the General Laws.

Effective

<

July 24, 1972

M. D. P. U. No. 379
Cancelling M. D. P. U. No. 360
Sheet 1
MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY
STANDARD FUEL CLAUSE

The amount of the charge made by the Company for each kilowatt-hour
of electric energy consumed by the customer, as determined under the Monthly
Charge section of each rate or the equivalent rate section of Street, Private
and Traffic Signal Lighting rates, will be adjusted, for each successive
period of three successive billing months, by the applicable Average Fuel
Adjustment Rate per kilowatt-hour for such period.
The Average Fuel Adjustment Rate per kilowatt-hour applicable to any
period will be equal to the^ amount, either positive or negative and
expressed in mills and fractions thereof, which is the quotient of:
I.

the estimated Total Fuel Charge of New England Power Company (NEP)
for such period plus (or minus) the Adjustment for Past Differentials between fuel costs incurred and fuel revenues collected by
the Company,
divided by

II.

the estimated total number of kilowatt-hours to be sold by the

Company over the same period.

The Average Fuel Adjustment Rate, as so determined for any such period
consisting of three successive billing months, shall be applied to increase or
decrease the price of each kilowatt-hour of electricity billed in the same
period.
As used above, the "Total Fuel Charge" of NEP means the sum of the
estimated aggregate amount of fuel charge (or credit) which will be applied
to the power purchased by the Company from NEP over a period of three successive
billing months, and an amount equal to the product of $.01400 per kilowatt-hour
(representing that portion of the cost of fuel to NEP which is included in
the energy charge per kilowatt-hour set forth in NEP's Primary Service for
Resale Rate) times the estimated kilowatt-hours to be purchased by the Company
from NEP over the same period, and
the "Adjustment for Past Differentials" means the aggregate difference
in amount (whether positive or negative) derived by subtracting from the total
charges on account of cost of fuel incurred by the Company (plus or minus any
prior period reconciling adjustments) over the four billing months prior to
the three successive billing months in which an Average Fuel Adjustment Rate
will be in effect, the total revenues derived by the Company from the application
of the Average Fuel Adjustment Rate in effect during each of said four prior
months. The total charges for cost of fuel and the total fuel adjustment
revenues so derived shall consist of actual charges and revenues for the first
three of said four prior months and estimated charges and revenues for the fourth.

M. D. P. U. No. 379

-67-

Sheet 2

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY

STANDARD FUEL CLAUSE

In the event that conditions affecting the price and/or supply of fuel,
which are actually experienced or reasonably to be anticipated during the
period when an Average Fuel Adjustment Rate is in effect,, indicate that the .
total charges on account of cost of fuel incurred and to be incurred by the
Company during said period will vary by ten percent (1.0%). or more above or
below fuel revenues collected and to be collected under such Average Fuel
Adjustment Rate, the Company may apply to the Department of Public Utilities
for approval and authorization of an appropriate interim increase or decrease
in such Average Fuel Adjustment Rate, to be applicable during the remainder
of said period.
If at any time changes or revisions in the fuel adjustment clause
applicable to NEP's Primary Service for Resale Rate become effective in
accordance with law, the Company will propose appropriate changes or revisions
in this Standard Fuel Clause, to the extent they may be necessary, and submit
them to the Department for approval.

Effective

July 1, 1977

-68M. D. P. U. No. 338

Sheet 1
Cancelling M. D. P. U. No. 309

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The following Terms and Conditions where not inconsistent therewith

are a part of all rates, and the observance thereof by the Customer is a
condition precedent to the initial and continuing supply of electricity by
the Company:
1. The Customer shall wire to the point designated by the Company,
at which point the Company will connect its service.
2. Whenever it is necessary, in order to supply electric service
to a single customer, to locate any pole or poles on private
property, the Company will furnish up to two poles and the
necessary equipment and wires attached to such poles, and such
poles, equipment and wires shall be and remain the property of
the Company. If more than two poles are required, the excess
poles, equipment and wires up to the point of delivery shall be
paid for by the Customer, shall become the property of the Company
and shall thereafter be maintained by it. Poles, equipment and
wires on private property which serve more than one Customer will
be furnished by the Company subject to the provisions of Paragraph 14 hereof. In all cases permanent easements acceptable
to the Company shall be furnished without cost to the Company.
3. A Customer's premises may be connected to the Company's aerial
distribution wires through an underground connection where the
Customer installs, owns and maintains all of the underground
service including the necessary riser.
4. All underground service connected to the Company's underground
distribution cables beyond two feet inside the property line
shall be installed by the Customer and shall be and remain the
property of the Customer.
5. Where the Customer is a developer proposing to construct a
qualifying residential development consisting of dwelling
facilities and facilities accessory thereto, the installation
of underground distribution facilities and associated service
connections shall be governed by the provisions of the Company's
published policy with respect to "Installation of Underground
Distribution Equipment for Residential Developments," as from
time to time issued and furnished to the Massachusetts Department
of Public Utilities and which is hereby incorporated by reference
herein.

M. D. P. U. No. 338
Sheet 2

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
6.

The customer shall furnish and install upon its premises such
service conductors, service equipment, including oil circuit
breaker if used, and meter mounting device as shall conform with
specifications issued from time to time by the Company, and the
Company may seal such service equipment and meter mounting device,
. and adjust, set and seal such oil circuit breaker and such seals
shall not be broken and such adjustments or settings shall not be
changed or in any way interfered with by the customer.

7. The Company shall make, or cause to be made, application for any

necessary street permits, and shall not be required to supply
service until a reasonable time after such permits are granted.
The Customer shall obtain or cause to be obtained all permits
or certificates, except street permits, necessary to give the
Company or its agents access to the Customer's equipment and to
enable its conductors to be connected therewith.
8. The Customer's wiring, piping, apparatus and equipment shall, at
all times, conform to the requirements of any legally constituted
authorities and to those of the Company, and the Customer shall
keep such wiring, piping, apparatus and equipment in proper repair.
9. The Company shall not be required to install a service or meter
for a garage, barn or other out-building, so located that it may be
supplied with electricity through a service and meter in the main
building.
10.

The Customer shall furnish, at no cost to the Company, the necessary

space, housing, fencing and foundations for such equipment as will
be installed upon its premises, in order to supply it with electricity, whether such equipment be furnished by the Customer or
the Company. Such space, housing, fencing and foundations shall
be in conformity with the Company's specifications and subject
to its approval.

11.

For the purpose of determining the amount of electricity delivered,

meters of either the indoor or outdoor type shall be installed by
the Company at locations to be designated by the Company. The
Company may at any time change any meter installed by it. The
Company may also change the location of any meter or change from
an indoor type to an outdoor type, provided that all expense of
so doing is borne by the Company. Upon the reading of the Company's
meter all bills shall be computed. If more than one meter is
installed, except at the Company's option, the Monthly Charge for
Service delivered through each meter shall be computed separately
under the applicable rate.

-70MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY

M. D. P. U. No. 338
Sheet 3

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Whenever reference is made to "month" in connection with
electricity delivered, service furnished, or payments to be
made, it shall mean the period between two successive regular
monthly meter readings, the second of which occurs in the
month to which reference is made.
All bills shall be due and payable upon receipt thereof. Bills
rendered to non-residential customers on a monthly basis which
are not paid within 25 days after the date of receipt shall
bear simple interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per month on any
unpaid balance from the date of receipt until the date of payment. Bills rendered to non-residential customers on a bimonthly basis which are not paid within 55 days after the date
of receipt shall bear simple interest at the rate of 1 1/2%
per month on any unpaid balance from the date of receipt until
the. date of payment. For purposes of this paragraph the date
of receipt of a bill by a customer shall be presumed to be
three days following the date of mailing, unless the bill is
delivered rather than mailed, in which case the date of
receipt shall be the same as the date of delivery.
Whenever the estimated expenditures for the equipment necessary
to properly supply electricity to a Customer's premises shall
be of such an amount that the income to be derived therefrom
at the applicable rates will, in the opinion of the Company,
be insufficient to warrant such expenditures, the Company may
require a Customer to guarantee a minimum annual payment for
a term of years or to pay the whole or a part of the cost of
extending its lines to a Customer's premises or other reasonable
payments in addition to the payments for electricity at the
applicable rates.
The Company may require a cash deposit or other collateral satisfactory to it as security for prompt payment of any indebtedness
of a non-residential Customer to the Company. The Company will
pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum upon any such
cash deposit.
The Demand is the maximum rate of taking electricity. Under
ordinary load conditions it will be based upon one or more
fifteen-minute peaks as herein defined. In the case, of extremely fluctuating loads, however, or under other special
conditions, where the Demand based as herein indicated would
not equitably represent the Company's responsibilities, the
Demand will be based upon the instantaneous peak or the peak
for a shorter period than fifteen minutes, or in accordance
with the Fluctuating Load Policy of the Company. A fifteenminute peak is the average rate of delivery of electricity
during any fifteen-minute period as determined by any suitable
instrument.

_ 71 _

M. D. P. U. No. 338
Sheet 4

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS

17.

The Customer may change from the rate, under which he is purchasing electricity to any other rate applicable to a class
of service which he is receiving, provided that the change
shall not be retroactive, nor reduce, eliminate or modify
any contract period, provision or guarantee made in respect
to any line extension or other special condition; nor, except
during the first year of electric service to any Customer,
cause such service to be billed at any rate for a period less
than that specified in such rate. A Customer having changed
from one rate to another may not again'>change within twelve
months or any longer contract period specified in the rate
under which he is receiving electric service.

18.

The Company shall have the right to discontinue its service on

due notice and to remove its property from the premises in case
the Customer fails to pay any bill due the Company for such service, or fails to perform any of its obligations to the Company.
For restoration of.service after such discontinuance a reconnection
charge of Five Dollars will be made.

19.

The Company shall have the right of access at all reasonable times
to the premises on which its meters, other applicances and equipment are located for the purpose of examining or removing the same.

20.

The Customer shall not permit access for any purpose whatsoever,
except by authorized employees of the Company, to the meter or
other appliances and equipment of the Company, or interfere with
the same, and shall provide for their safekeeping. In case of
loss or damage to the Company's property the Customer shall pay
to the Company the value of such property or the cost of making
good the same.

21.

Temporary service is service which will not continue for a sufficient period to yield the Company adequate revenue at its regular
rates to Justify the expenditures necessary to provide such service. Temporary service will be supplied if the Customer shall
make such payment or payments, in addition to the payments for
electricity at the regular rates, as may be reasonable and Just
in each case.

22.

The Company shall not be liable for, or in any way in respect

of, any interruption, abnormal voltage, discontinuance or reversal of its service, due to causes beyond its immediate control
whether accident, labor difficulties, condition of fuel supply,
the attitude of any public authority, or failure to receive any
electricity for which in any manner it has contracted, or due to
the operation in accordance with good utility practice of an
emergency load reduction program by the Company or one with
whom it has contracted for a supply of electricity, or inability

-72-

M. D. P. U. No. 338
Sheet 5

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
for any other reason to maintain uninterrupted and continuous
service; provided, however, that if the Company is unable for
any of the causes enumerated above to supply electricity for a
continuous period of two days or more, then upon request of
the Customer, the Demand Charge, if any, shall be suspended
for the duration of such inability.
The Company shall not be liable for damage to the person or
property of the Customer or any other persons resulting from
the use of electricity or the presence of the Company's appliances and equipment on the Customer's premises.
The Company may, provided it has spare generating and transmission capacity, supply electricity for trial purposes at
other than its regular rates. The period for the trial must
be not longer than is necessary for the demonstration and must
be specified in the agreement.
Service supplied by the Company shall not be used to supplement or relay, or as a standby to any other service except
under the terms of the Auxiliary Service Provisions or unless
the Customer shall make such guarantees in respect to the payment for such service as shall be just and reasonable in each
case. Where such service is supplied, the Customer shall not
operate its plant in parallel with the Company's system without the consent of the Company, and then only under such conditions as the Company may specify from time to time.
At any location where electricity was being furnished under any
rate of the Company for resale in whole or in part on April 21,
1958, and where, since that date, (1) there has been a change
in the identity of the Customer being served at such location,
or (2) if the same Customer is still being served at such location, resale in any respect is no longer being carried on under
the same circumstances or conditions or to the same extent as
on the above date , electricity shall no longer be available for
resale under any rate of the Company to the Customer being served
at such location; provided, however, that if, after notice to any
such Customer that electricity is no longer available for resale,
such Customer has failed or refused to rewire the building or
buildings within which resale is being carried on, or to apply
to the Company for the installation of separate metering equipment
for each tenant therein, or to make any other necessary changes
or otherwise refused to allow the Company to serve each tenant
at such location as an individual customer of the Company, the
Company may proceed as hereinafter provided:

-73-

M. D. P. U. No. 338
Sheet 6

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Six months after the date of such notice to such Customer, and
thereafter until satisfactory arrangements are made as set forth
above for such changes as are necessary to enable resale at such
locations to be discontinued, the Company may charge for all
electricity sold at such location under its then filed block
type General Rates as though there were as many individual
meters installed as there are tenants in the building or buildings involved, plus one additional meter for each building to
cover electricity for building use, and as though each of
such meters showed the same energy use, the totals of which
would be equal to the registration shown on the master meter.
If such Customer fails or refuses to furnish to the Company
the exact number of tenants to whom electricity is being
resold at such location, the Company may substitute, for such
number, its best estimate of the number of such tenants.
Where a municipality under sec. 22C of G.L. c. 166 votes to
adopt a bylaw or ordinance forbidding new installation of
overhead facilities, the differential in rates charged to
customers in such municipality shall be determined in accordance with the Company's "Underground Rate Differential Provisions Pursuant to G.L. c. 166, sec. 22L for Municipalities
Adopting G.L. c. 166, sec. 22c" as from time to time filed by
the Company and approved or permitted to become effective by
the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, which
provisions are hereby incorporated by reference herein.

Effective

October 9, 1974.

-74-

APPENDLX 2C
Draft Environmental Impact Assessment
May, 1978

-75DRAFT
Environmental Impact Assessment
May, 1978
Environmental Impact Assessment (E.I.A.) of the proposed contract
EC-77-C-4211, "Demonstation of a Grid-Connected Integrated Community
Energy System" at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Submitted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and according to the guidelines promulgated by ERDA on December 8, 1976,
and published in the Federal Register, Volume 42, Number 17,
January 26, 1977, pp. 4826-4833.
Submitted to: Department of Energy
Chicago Operations Office
9800 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.

V.
VI.
VII.

Introduction

76

Description of Proposed Action

76

Description of Existing Environment

81

Potential Environmental Impacts

93

A.
B.

93
96
97
98

Positive
Negative
1. Construction short term
2 . Operation long term

Coordination with federal, state, regional and local plans

102

Description of Alternatives

.105

Conclusion

.106

Submitted by: The Environmental Impact Assessment Group

Professor Harry Schwarz, Coordinator
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01610

-76-

I. Introduction
The more efficient use of energy is an urgent national challenge. Nowhere is this need greater than in New England, where the energy prices and
reliance on imported energy supplies are the highest in the country.

In

response to this situation, Clark University is proposing that it decrease

its energy use through the installation of a grid-connected integrated community energy system (ICES).

This system will generate electricity with

a diesel generator and make use of the engine's waste heat in the University's
steam heating system.

The proposed system will reduce energy use about 20%.

Grid-connection adds flexibility by permitting Clark to buy and sell electricity, and thereby makes possible about 40% of the energy savings.
Similar systems have a proven record of safety, technologic success,
energy conservation, and economic savings in many European countries.
II. Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed ICES consists of a diesel generator with waste heat recovery
and auxiliary equipment, to be installed in a building attached to Jonas Clark
Hall.

Figure 2C-1 shows the campus and the location of the proposed plant

at Jonas Clark.

Specifically, the proposed energy system would consist of the

following elements:
(a) Engine-Generator. A Sulzer engine Model 8 ASL 25/30 driving a 1405
kw three-phase generator will be installed.

This 900 rpm, eight cylinder in-

line engine is rated 1984 bhp at full load.

It is ebulliently cooled, burns

residual oil, and produces exhaust gas at full load at a rate of 24,272 lbs/hr
at 767 F.

Exhaust gas emissions as a function of load data are shown in Figures

2C-2 and 2C-3.

(b) Steam Systems. A waste heat boiler rated at approximately 2500 lb/hr
at 125 psig saturated steam will be installed.

It will be equipped with a gas

77-

Tenuis
Courta
A nd

..

Athletic Field

1 Downing Administration
Center
2 A twood Hall
3 A cademic Center
4 Geography Building
5 Jefferson Hall
6 A lumni Gymnasium
7 Science (Bio-Physics)
Building
8 Jeppson Laboratory
9 Jonas Clark Hall
10 Robert Hutchings Goddard
Library
11 Bullock Hall
12 Potter Laboratory
13 Dana Commons
14 Dana Dormitory
15 Hughes Hall
16 Florence Residence
17 Student Activities Center

Fig. 2C -1. C ampus of C lark U n i v e r s i t y .

at Jonas C lark H a l l .

18 General Store/Birth Control

Center
19 Wright Hall
20 Little Center for the Visual and
Performing Arts
21 Dodd Hall
22 Johnson Hall
23 Sanford Hall
24 Estabrook Hall
25 Physical Plant
26 Alumni House
27 English House
28 Carriage House
29 Department of Management
30 Nuisery School/Commuter
Lounge
31 Downing Residence
Restrooms and Public
Telephone
P Parking Area

Location of proposed p l a n t

-78SULZER ENGINE
8 ASL 2 5 / 3 0
Fig.

2C-2

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NO

gr/HPH Cas N0 2 )

T*
IS

N
(3
/%
/

<?
8-

CO gr/HPH

HC gr/HPH

05

5*

LOAD

75-

EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS

/oo^

-79Fig. 2C-3
SULZER ENGINE
SOOT

8 ASL 25/30

mg/HPH

4/0-

35*-

\
/

7-

\
\

fiS-

X
\

AS

jro

LOAD

SOOT EMISSIONS

-80bypass valve to control steam pressure, level controls, and high and low water
alarms.

Exhaust gases leave the boiler at a temperature of 325 F. An ebullient

jacket cooling system will release steam to the 15 psig heating lines. Any
steam not required by the 15 psig University system will be condensed in a
radiator condenser.

The total full load heating output to the university will

be 3.97 x 106 Btu/hr.

(c) Fuel System.
basic fuel.
engine.

Two fuels are required.

No. 6, residual oil, is the

No. 2, distillate oil, is used for starting and shutting down the

The oil storage system will consist of an existing 20,000 gallon

No. 6 oil storage tank and a buried 2000 gallon No. 2 oil storage tank. Two
fuel oil transfer pumps will be required, one for No. 2 oil and
one for No. 6 oil. These pumps will be located in the diesel plant building.
The No. 2 pump will take oil from the No. 2 tank and pump to a 300 gallon
day tank in the diesel plant. The No. 6 oil transfer pump will pump the
No. 6 oil from the buried tank to an elevated 600 gallon oil storage system.
From this point an engine driven pump will pump the oil to the engine.
The 120 GPH integrated heavy fuel treatment system will perform the
following operations:
1. Heating the raw fuel.
2. Injection of demulsification agent.
3. Centrifugal desalting and sludge removal reducing water-soluble
metallic salts such as sodium, potassium, lead, calcium, etc.
4. Neutralizing vanadium via magnesium sulfonate.
5. Filtering, pumping, and transferring from residual to distillate
oil use.
The purpose of the system is to reduce the sodium and vanadium content
of the residual fuel prior to combustion to <5 and <30 PPM, respectively.
The effluent from this treatment system is 99% water and 1% oil, and contains
a concentration of metal salts. The oil will be recovered in a skimming tank.

-81The effluent to the sewer will not exceed 18 gallons/hr and will contain less
than 80 ppm oil, approximately 600 ppm sodium chloride, 20 ppm lead, 50 ppm
calcium chloride, 5 ppm potassium, and 50-100 ppm magnesium.
(d) Exhaust System.

Exhaust gases, after passing through the waste heat

boiler, will be discharged through a silencer into a 20" steel exhaust stack.
This stack brick load will rise 95 feet from the plant floor, topping Jonas
Clark Hall by about 30 feet. At full load gases will be expelled into the
atmosphere at 325 F at a velocity of approximately 63 ft/sec. Pollutants will
leave the flue at the rates shown in Table 2C-1.
(e) Cooling System.

A mechanical fan-cooled cooling unit will be located

on the roof of Jonas Clark Hall to dissipate the heat from the oil and air
coolers on the engine and also to serve as an emergency cooling system for the
engine jacket if steam cannot be used by the Clark heating system.

This cooling

tower is dry and therefore will have no emissions. Noise rating of the fans
is 85 db or less within 3 ft. of the fans.
(f) Powerhouse. The engine, generator, auxiliary and control equipment
are housed in a concrete and brick annex to Jonas Clark Hall.

The building,

which is approximately 42 by 61 feet, is almost 10 feet above grade on Woodland

Street and extends almost 20 feet onto the greensward.
deliveries and maintenance is from the greensward.

Entrance for equipment

There are observation

windows on the two sides away from the entrance. The building is connected
to the boiler room in Jonas Clark Hall by a fire resistant door.
III. Description of the Existing Environment
For the purpose of evaluating the proposed system's environmental impact,
the existing environment is described below.
(a) The Present Energy System.

The central heating plant is located in

the northwest quadrant of the basement of Jonas Clark Hall (Fig. 2C-2).

It

-82-

TABLE 2C-1 .
Rate of pollutants produced by Diesel

Pollutant

Rate gr/sec

NOx

4.96

CO

0.77

HC+

0.36

Particulates

0.02

S0

1.82

-83consists of three boilers, two rated at 21 x 10 Btu/hr and one rated at 29

x 10 Btu/hr. The peak thermal demand of the University can be met by one
of the small boilers and the larger one. Total fuel consumption is approximately 10

Btu/yr. The steam and hot water are piped through a network of

underground tunnels to the other buildings on campus (Fig. 2C-4).

The boilers

can be adapted to burn either residual (#6) or distillate (#2) oil, or natural
gas.

Exhaust from the boilers is vented through a stack mounted on the north

side of the building and rising 36 feet above the roof of Jonas Clark Hall.
Emission of critical pollutants at peak loading is 3.7 gr/sec of NO

and 4.0

gr/sec of SO-. Oil is delivered on campus by tanker truck and stored underground in two 20,000 gallon tanks. The boiler operations are inspected periodically and meet all local, state, and federal regulations. They are operated
by specially licensed personnel.
Electric power is supplied by Massachusetts Electric Company, a member
of the New England Electric System.
13,800 volt utility line.

The electricity is provided by a single

It is connected to University-owned transformers

located on the north side of Jonas Clark Hall near the heating plant. Electricity is distributed from this point throughout the campus. Peak electrical
demand is approximately 1500 kw, and total use is about 6 x 10 kwh/yr. Most
of this electricity has been generated in utility boilers burning imported
residual oil.
(b) Jonas Clark Hall.
campus (Fig. 2C-1).

Jonas Clark Hall is located in the center of

It was built in 1887, and is a four-story brick building

of 84,289 gross square feet.

In addition to the present boiler system in the

northwest corner, the basement also houses a gym, craftshop, gameroom, three
small laboratories, and lavatory.

The three upper floors are devoted to

classrooms, faculty offices, and the offices of the College of Professional

and Continuing Education.

-84-

Maui St w

125 psig steam lines

40 psig steam lines
i 15 psig steam lines

mmm

1 Downing Administration
Center
2 Atwood Hall
3 Academic Center
4 Geography Building
5 Jefferson Hall
6 Alumni Gymnasium
7 Science (Bio-Physics)
Building
8 Jeppson Laboratory
9 Jonas Clark Hall
10 Robert Hutchings Goddard
Library
11 Bullock Hall
12 Potter Laboratory
13 Dana Commons
14 Dana Dormitory
15 Hughes Hall
16 Florence Residence
17 Student Activities Center

18 General Store/Birth Control

Center
19 Wright Hall
20 Little Center for the Visual and
Performing Arts
21 Dodd Hall
22 Johnson Hall
23 Sanford Hall
24 Estabrook Hall
25 Physical Plant
26 Alumni House
27 English House
28 Carriage House
29 Department of Management
30 Nursery School/Commuter
Lounge
31 Downing Residence
Restrooms and Public
Telephone
P Parking Area

Fig. 2C-4. Steam distribution system at Clark University, Steam

lines in all cases include both steam supply and
and condensate return. Ambient sound levels measured
at numbered locations.

-85-

Although the sound levels inside the b o i l e r room are high (85-95 d e c i b e l s ) ,
the b u i l d i n g ' s thick brick walls, the b o i l e r room's brick c e i l i n g , and soundproofing reduce the sound levels immediately outside the b o i l e r room to the
ambient level.

The sound reduction i s important since the building i s in the

center of the campus.

(c) Clark University.

Clark owns 35 acres of land.

The area covered

by the main buildings and served by the central steam d i s t r i b u t i o n system i s

15 acres.

The university owns 46 buildings, of which 21 are considered

major.

There are approximately 1,000,000 gross square feet of building space.

The architecture of the buildings varies considerably, reflecting the
changing perceptions of the "academic s t y l e " held by a r c h i t e c t s and adminisrators.

The r e s u l t i s a combination of modified gothic, New England m i l l , high

efficiency barracks, and modern i r r e g u l a r .

A 12-person aesthetics committee

advises on a r c h i t e c t u r a l changes that might detract from or intrude upon t h i s

a r c h i t e c t u r a l melange.
Clark is a small university with about 2,000 undergraduates, 250 graduate
students, 280 staff members and 140 full-time faculty members.

This r e s u l t s

in a campus week-day population of 2,600 and an evening/weekend population

of 1,200 when the University i s in session.

Clark has not escaped the recent

economic pressures familiar t o private u n i v e r s i t i e s .

Tuition raises have been

a regular, unavoidable feature, as have staff reductions and very modest

salary increases for the remaining staff and faculty.

In the ten-year period

from 1965 to 1975, the University's t o t a l energy costs rose from $81,000 t o
$560,000.

In 1976, the University's energy costs were $389,938, and in 1977,

$444,000, showing that Clark's efforts to respond t o these pressures have been
determined and effective.

Since 1970, the University has managed t o reduce

both i t s thermal energy demand and i t s e l e c t r i c a l demand by about 40% (Fig.

2C-5).

These savings have been achieved through the efforts of students,

-86-

zo

is a.
s

10 g

i
4 \

Xs

'75

'70

B0

yfAR

Figure 2C-5.

Illustration of energy consumption at Clark

since 1970.

-87-

staff, and faculty, energy use s t u d i e s , the improved efficiency of end-use

equipment, an IBM System load-dropping computer and improved thermostatic and
e l e c t r i c a l controls.

Imaginative programs have been i n s t i t u t e d both to a t t r a c t

superior students and t o insure the financial s t a b i l i t y of the University.

The proposed cogeneration system i s , of course, one such project.
(d) The Community.

Clark's campus i s situated in a r e s i d e n t i a l neighbor-

hood 1.2 miles south of the c i t y center, in a high-density landscape typical

of urban New England.

On three sides the neighborhood consists of two and

three story houses ( t r i p l e deckers) located on small, narrow l o t s .

Some of

these structures are single family residences, but most contain several r e n t a l
units.

The median family income of the area was $8,819 in 1975.

a major artery and truck route, l i e s t o the east of the campus.

Main S t r e e t ,
On i t are

located a number of small service-oriented businesses, churches, and public

service organizations.

The r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhood resumes to the east of

the a r t e r y .
Clark's r e l a t i o n s with the surrounding community are generally p o s i t i v e .
The primary issues of community-University conflict are a l l related t o University
expansion.

(1) There has been a serious lack of student parking on campus.

Although the University added 140 new parking spaces in 1976 and 200 spaces in
1977, the problem i s s t i l l not e n t i r e l y resolved.
the apartments in the area surrounding the campus.

(2) Students rent many of

Some residents in the com-

munity feel that this.movement has decreased the community's v i a b i l i t y .

(3) The issue that has caused the most s t r e s s i s the University's purchase of
adjacent, r e s i d e n t i a l property for expansion.

The same residents feel that

t h i s decreases the number of school-age children in the community and jeopardizes

the continued operation of the community elementary school on Downing S t r e e t .
Since the University plans no major future expansion, t h i s dispute should not

88
be an issue in the future. Significantly, the proposed ICES installation will
not affect any of these areas of Universitycommunity conflict.
(e) Metropolitan Worcester. The city of Worcester, the secondlargest city
in New England, has a population of approximately 170,000 and more than 6 million
people live within 50 miles of the city.

It is an old, mediumsized, industrial

city, similar to many in the Northeast. The changes of the postWorldWarII

era put stress on the economic and social fabric of Worcester.

The population

has declined as the more affluent have moved to the suburbs, textile and related
industries have closed, the tax rate has continuously increased, urban renewal
programs have met with only partial success, abandoned buildings degrade older
.neighborhoods, etc.

Recently the city's response to these problems has been

more effective and actually reversed many of the negative trends. The city
center is being revitalized, and the exodus of people and industry has slowed;
newer service industries are expanding.
Clark is one of eleven colleges and universities of the Worcester Consor
tium for Higher Education.
employers in the city.

These institutions combined are one of the largest

The wellbeing of the region's colleges and universities

is critically important to the resurgence mentioned above.

Worcester, like the rest of the Northeast, suffers from extremely
high energy casts. These costs exceed those in any other part of the
country.

Most industries and many individuals have institutedconservation

measures and reduced their energy consumption significantly.

But further

conservation measures, such as Clark's ICES proposal, will be necessary

if the city and region are to remain economically competitive in the future.
(f) Ambient Air Quality.

The most persistent, specific environmental

problem in Worcester is the high particulate content of its air. Worcester

-89is presently a non-attainment area for particulate matter oxidants and carbon
monoxide.

Other air pollutants are not as critical; however, air pollution must

be considered as a serious problem in any metropolitan area.

There are six air pollution measuring stations in Worcester.

One measuring

S0 2 and particulates is located on the Clark campus. A complete, continuously

operating monitoring station located near downtown, about 2 km ENE of Clark, is
the only one presently measuring NO-.

Under the prevailing westerly winds air

quality at Clark is usually somewhat better than at the downtown (New Salem
Street) station. Table 2C-2 summarizes some of the available information on
ambient air-quality.

(g) Ambient Noise. Noise levels on the campus and in its vicinity vary
greatly.

Spot measurements made by students are shown in Table 2C-3. These

measurements, taken mostly in the daytime, range from 52 dbA in the dormitory
quadrangle to 95 dbA in the boiler room and on Main Street when heavy trucks
pass.
The sound level on the campus varies considerably with time of day as
well as location.

Fig. 2C-4 shows locations on the campus at which sound

measurements were made to establish baseline data. Table 2C-4 presents

average readings taken over several days.

The 2 A.M. readings are consistently

the lowest ones and are used as the base ambient sound level.

-90Tablie 2C-2

Quarterly Air Pollution Measured at Clark

so 2

Total Suspended Particulates

Year

ppb

.Aigm/m
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977

Quarter

76
76
68
63
57
-43

4
3
62 -68
46
62
50
55
44
43
51
62
40
40
58
32
43
61
39
45 - 42 - 35
2

13
15
12
16
11
- 8

6
3
2
4
3
8

3
9
4
1
1
4
2
3

4
14
14
6
13
12
8
1

Monthly Average N0 2 Concentration at New Salem Street in ppb.

Monthly Avg.

Month
June
July
Aug.
Sept.

77
77
77
77

Max. hour

Max. day
75
110
72
48

49
44
46
32

105
170
100
70

Total Suspended Particularas at Various Loc:ations in Worcester, 1976.

Site
.

Marcus Department Store

Clark University
Parker Building
Quinsigamond Community
College
New Salem Street
Health Department

Annual Mean

Max . 24 hours
2

. -"jm/m
f

No. of Times 24 hour Std.

Exceeded
Secondary
Primary

60
49
44

300
151
176

19
1
3

2
0
0

50
94
55

176
485
273

3
50
8

0
18
1

Source:

Central Massachusetts
Air Pollution District.

-91-

Table 2C-3

Noise levels at Clark University

Location

Noise level (dB)

Main Street, heavy trucks

95

Inside present boiler plant

95

Main Street, normal traffic

75

Outside window of present boiler room

70

Residential street at back of campus

70

Inside Clark computer center

68

Inside room with people talking

65

Street enclosed by campus, no cars

55

Park across Main Street, opposite Clark

55

Dormitory quadrangle

52

a.

Data measured by students in the Program on Science, Technology

and Society with a portable dB meter.

-92Table 2C-4
Baseline Sound Data
Average Sound Levels
*

Location

Time

dBA

8am

11am

5pm

2am

65

67

65

60

60

54

54

42

62

60

58

46

58

" 60

58

51

53

52

50

44

68

70

70

49

55

55

50

46

57

56

56

50

Locat ions shown in Fig. 2C-4.

-93IV. Potential Environmental Impacts

A. Positive.

The positive impacts of the proposed ICES plant will be dis-

cussed in detail in this section.

The conservation of scarce resources. Measures that result in substantial
reductions in national oil consumption without serious economic or environmental
disruption must be viewed as positive contributions to the human and physical
environment. They are especially significant for regions which have no indigenous sources of fossil fuels. The ICES will reduce Clark University's total
9
energy consumption from 216.0 x 10

9
Btu to 170.2 x 10

Btu per year, approximately

21%--a reduction of 309,000 gallons of oil. Net energy savings are even greater
since that much oil need not be extracted, transported, and refined.
The maintenance of the financial strength of the University.

The cost of

fulfilling the energy requirements at Clark in 1977 was $450,000. This amounts
to approximately 20% of the amount spent on faculty salaries at the University.
Reducing these figures by 21% would be a very positive economic impact.
Clark is a private university and tuition costs have increased dramatically
over the last decade. Already many people can't attend for financial reasons.
The savings from the ICES will help to reduce further tuition increases, maintain
the University's ability to compete for the most qualified students, and, hopefully, renew opportunities that were previously closed due to high tuition rates.
Clark now benefits from a declining block rate pricing structure for electricity.
The savings of the ICES will be larger if proposals for a more uniform rate
structure go into effect.
The creation of an energy conservation demonstration facility in Massachusetts.
Establishment of a grid-connected

cogeneration demonstration plant, of a size

appropriate to many industrial, commercial, institutional, and public facilities,

would be an important asset to the region. The Governor and Energy Policy Office
support the ICES as a demonstration site, expecting that it will encourage

-94similar conservation efforts by others.

Three factors increase the likelihood that the ICES installation will provide
an effective demonstration facility.
to the rest of New England.

First, Worcester is unusually accessible

Its motto is "The Heart of New England."

It is

located on 1-90 and 1-290 and has a functioning train station and airport. Over
50% of the region's population lives within 50 miles of the Clark campus. Second,
the University has established an impressive record in monitoring and recording
its energy use patterns. The Science, Technology, and Society Program at Clark
has devoted three issues of its journal to energy use at the University.

Finally,

the demonstration facility would include information on the University's other

conservation efforts which, as noted above, have been extremely effective.
The educational impact of a demonstration facility on campus. With the construction of an observation platform within the engine rooms, students and visitors
will be able to observe the operations of the plant.. There will also be

oppor-

tunity for students to obtain data relevant to many research projects from the
monitoring systems. The operation of the plant will most likely spur much new
student interest in energy conservation, pollution control, and the viability of
ICES.

The creation of an informed citizenry will aid in the creation and effec-

tiveness of future conservation measures.

The enhancing of Clark University's programs and reputation in energy
management. Clark has become a center for considerable research in the energy
field, ranging from projects in methane gas digestion, solar energy, wind
energy, and conservation technologies to funded research in the societal risk
of nuclear power, the electric, utility-solar energy interface, and methane gas
generation from waste treatment plants. Students and faculty in two departments,
Geography and Physics, and two programs, Environmental Affairs and Science,
Technology, and Society, have been particularly active in the field of energy
research. A cogeneration facility on campus would provide numerous new

-95research opportunities.

Installation of an ICES system at the University Would

enhance the University's position in the energy management field.

Experience in the utility interface. Although grid-connected cogeneration
has been understood for years and many such facilities exist in Europe, there
is very little practical experience with"grid-connection in the U.S., and U.S.
electric utilities have traditionally been quite suspicious of the concept.
With rapidly escalating capital costs for new generating facilities along with
the enormous increases in fuel costs, many utilities are rethinking their position
on cogeneration.

Detailed information on the performance of the Clark facility

and its impact on the utility would be very useful to utility planners.
The expenditure of approximately one million dollars in one of the most
economically depressed regions of the country.

The ICES installation will

involve the dispersal of a million dollars in the national economy. The money
will help to generate jobs in a region where unemployment has been most persistent
and severe.

In New England many of the jobs will be in the construction fields,

where unemployment levels have been especially high.

If the Clark University

ICES acts as a stimulus for other installations (as is expected); the positive
effect on regional employment levels would be even more significant.
A reduction in the emission of some air pollutants. The ICES will reduce
total oil consumption by 309,000 gallons. This savings will be in reduced burning
of residual oil by Massachusetts Electric generating stations, and will lead to
a reduction in particulate emissions by 3.3 tons/year and S0 2 emissions by 24.1
tons/year.
Reduction in the negative environmental impacts of the extraction, processing,
and transport of fuels. The 309,000 gallons of oil conserved reduces the negative
effects of drilling, refining and transporting oil. This positive impact is not
very significant, but it is a factor that should be considered when evaluating the
decisions that may encourage or discourage the wide use of ICES.

-96Decreasing the negative economic impacts of New England's dependency on

expensive oil. New England's dependency on more expensive, foreign oil supplies
contributes to the region's high cost of living and higher operating costs for
business establishments.

Electricity rates are particularly high and discourage

the growth of electricity-dependent industries.

particularly vulnerable to oil shortages.

In addition, the region is

Installation of the ICES, particularly

if it is emulated by other systems, would reduce the region's dependence on

foreign supplies and vulnerability to another embargo. As such, it would improve
the economic potential of the region significantly.
Assisting in a more favorable balance of trade. Since the rapid rise in
oil prices in 1973, oil imports have been the largest debits in the U.S. foreign
exchange. Now that oil imports exceed domestic production, the ability of the
nation to maintain a surplus balance of trade is severely tested.
of the ICES system will decrease the outflow of money.

Installation

Presently, approximately

75% of New England's residual oil is from foreign sources charging $13.50 a
barrel.

At this rate, the ICES would save nearly $100,000 per year, a small

amount when compared to the billion dollar trade figures, but still a savings,
and one which could be generalized.
A reduction in political vulnerability.

As stated in the proposed National

Energy Plan, complete energy independence is an unrealistic goal. Nevertheless,

programs that reduce the nation's need to import foreign supplies of oil and
gas do reduce the influence that fossil fuels have on the political decisionmaking process.

The fuel conservation of the ICES installation will contribute

positively to the nation's political environment.

B. The Negative Environmental Impacts
The potential negative environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the ICES are discussed below.

-971. Construction Phase. Construction will take about 6 months.

begin about June 1, 1979, shortly after commencement.

It will

Thus, the major disrup-

tions will occur when relatively few students will be on campus, and the inconvenience will affect a reduced number of individuals. There is no direct contact between the construction site and neighboring private residences, and it
is not anticipated that Clark's neighbors will be inconvenienced.
Noise. None will be generally confined to the site itself. Scheduling
of noisy activities so as to reduce their effects, the use of heavy duty mufflers
on construction equipment, and the screening effect of the surrounding buildings
will keep the noise at a minimum.
Additional traffic. Along Downing Street and at the site on the north side
of Jonas Clark Hall, increased traffic will have some disruptive effect since
Jonas Clark Hall is the center of the campus and trucks and equipment will
approach through Downing Street. The inconvenience of heavy machinery on the
compact campus will be greatest in the early stages, when the excavation equipment,
dump trucks, and cement trucks are on campus.
Aesthetic impacts. Unavoidable noise and unsightliness will persist throughout construction.

The project is small, but it is located in the center of campus.

Every effort is being made to schedule the most disruptive construction maneuvers
when the university is not in session.
Particulate emissions. Dust and other particles will be generated during
construction. Although these emissions will not be significant, they are mentioned here because of Worcester's particulate problem.
In summary, the negative environmental impacts of the construction phase
are mainly inconveniences.

To keep them to a^minimum, it is important that the

construction be undertaken during the summer months when the University is not
in session.

-982. Operations Phase. The negative environmental impacts of the operations

phase are more important than those of the construction phase because operations
will be continuous, and of long duration.
Air Pollution. The rate of production of air pollutants by the diesel
plant operation is shown in Table 2C-1. Annual output of pollutants under the
present and proposed systems and the comparison of these outputs at Clark and
in New England as a whole are summarized in Table 2C-5. Similarly, peak pollutant
outputs and their comparisons are shown in Table 2C-6.
Particulate and S0 2 emission will show an overall decrease in the region.
There will be a local increase in NO , S0 2 , CO and HC+. The increase in NO
is most significant. N0 x and S0 2 emissions were analyzed in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the Environmental Protection Administration publication
EPA-450/4-77-001 and with EPA use of mathematical computer models. The analyses
indicated that the installation of the ICES plant at Clark University would not
violate any existing standards which limit annual concentration for NO

as well

as annual and short-term S0 2 concentrations. However, they showed that there can be
significant short-duration concentrations approaching 200 /ig of NO

per cubic

meter from the diesel plume at critical points in the Worcester area. Because
of the small size of the Clark facility (less than 250 tons of NO

emitted per

year) Clark will not be subject to the Massachusetts DEQE limit of hourly concentrations of 200 ug per cubic meter; however, Clark is likely to be subject to
new EPA short-term NO

regulations. Present indications are that the facility

will comply easily (see letters from E. Benoit, Appendix 2D).

Noise and Vibrations. The Massachusetts noise standard, for areas that
should be tranquil is 60 dBA and the increase of noise level from new stationary
installations should normally not exceed 10 dBA. The design of the Clark ICES
has been such that expected noise levels outside the plant will be 50 dBA or the
present ambient noise level, whichever is greater, and so will more than meet

99
Table 2C5
Estimated Air Pollution ImpactPresent System and Proposed GridConnected
ICES .
Annual Emission (in tons/year)
System

SO,

NO
x

CO

HC^
+

Particulates

Present System
Utility boiler"
Clark boiler
Totalc

36.7
77.6
114.3

25.5
54.0
79.5

0.5
1.0
1.5

1.5
3.2
4.7

ICES System
,
Clark diesel
Clark boiler
Utility boilere
Totale

56.9
55.5
22.3
90.1

155.2
38.6
15.5
178.3

11.2

0.5
2.3
.9
1.9

Net Change
At Clark
% Changef
Auto equivalents^
Clark + Utility11
% Change
Auto equivalents

34.8
45.0%

24.1
21.0%

139.8
259.0%
2796.0
98.8
124.0%
1976.0

24.1
24.1

0.7
.3
11.6 '

24.1

10.9
1090.0%
45.0 155.0
24.1
10.1
673.0%
NA
45.0 144.0

NA

.4
12.0%

2.8
60.0%

a. Based on generalized data for utility boilers burning residual oil with an ash
content of 0.04% (by weight), sulfer content of 1.0% (by weight), weight of 7.83
lbs. per gallon, 148,000 Btu per gallon and a Btu to kwh ratio of 10,050 to 1.
Assumes the consumption of 6.9 x 10 kwh per year.
b. Based on the use of residual oil with the same characteristics as specified
in note a and a boiler efficiency of 75%. A ssumes a thermal load of 110 x 10*
Btu per year. Preliminary measurements indicate that NO figures may be too
high by as much as a factor of four.
c. Carbon monoxide levels (less than 0.1 tons) are considered negligible here.
d. Based on the manufacturer's specifications and the use of #6 residual oil with
an ash content of 0.04% (by weight), sulfur of 1% (by weight), a weight of 7.83
lbs per gallon, and an energy value of 148,000 Btu per gallon. A ssumes operation
at full capacity for 7884 hours per year (90% capacity factor).
e. Assumes reduction in utility generation of 11 x lQr kwh/year; other assumptions
as in note a.
f. The percent change for carbon monoxide is meaningless since basically none
was emitted previously.
g. Auto equivalents (in numbers of auto?) are included to provide a means of eval
uating the relative significance of the net changes. They are based on EPA's
estimates for the average emissions of motor vehicles operating in the U.S. in
1976.
h. The Clark + Utility figures represent the net additional emissions of the Clark
ICES and net reduction in the emissions at New England Electric System's residual
oilfired generators. A ssumes a net reduction in NEES' oil consumption by
740,000 gallons per year.

-100Table 2C-6
Estimated Peak Rates of Air Pollutants Output
at Clark

Peak Emissions(in gr/sec)

System
SO,

NO

Present System
Clark boiler

4.0

3.7

ICES System
Clark boiler
Clark diesel
Total

3.47
1.82
5.29

3.2
4.96
8.16

Net Change
in gr/sec
in %

41.3

32

CO

*
*

+4.5

121

HC+

Particulates

0.0001

0.007

0.021

0.0001
0.77
0.77

0.006
0.36
0.366

0.019
0.02
0.039

0.8
NA

0.4
NA

0.018

85

may be s e r i o u s l y o v e r e s t i m a t e d

-101these standards. Noise inside the plant will require the use of ear-protectors
for those working there. To insure that vibration is kept to a minimum the foiuw
dation of the diesel engine and generator will be independent of the buildings
and equipped with vibration dampers.
Liquid effluent. Oil treatment equipment will produce an effluent not exceeding 18 gallons/hr.

This effluent is water containing, as previously described,

less than 80 ppm oil and approximately 600 ppm sodium chloride, 70 ppm lead,
50 ppm calcium chloride, 5 ppm potassium and 50-100 ppm magnesium.

This effluent

will not adversely affect water pollution or the operation of the Blackstone
Pollution Abatement District Sewer Plant.
Increased presence of oil delivery trucks. At present there are approximately
123 deliveries per year.

The ICES installation will require about 56 additional

deliveries per year, an increase of 445,000 gallons of fuel, nearly 50%. Aside
from their visual and olfactory impact, the increased presence of 8000-gallon
fuel trucks carries with it an element of risk. The increased presence of
these trucks is, however, significant only on the Clark campus and Downing
Street. Other streets, including Main Street, are major truck arteries and
56 more trucks per year will not be noticeable.
Visual and physical impact of the ICES building.

The addition of the brick

and concrete ICES building, the 95 foot brick stack and the cooling unit will
affect the appearance of Jonas Clark Hall and the campus. It will be most
noticeable in the area between Jonas Clark, Atwood Hall, and the Goddard
Library.

This area, however, will be changed greatly by the Goddard Memorial,

which will soon be under construction. The strong architectural statement made
by the memorial will be the focal point of the area and thus the plant will be
in the background.

Furthermore, careful design, with the advice of the

University's aesthetics committee, will assure minimum adverse visual impact.

The cooling unit located on the roof of Jonas Clark Hall will not affect the

-102outline of the building.

The exhaust stack will not be significantly different

from those already part of Jonas Clark Hall.

Unknown risks. These accompany any alteration of an existing system. The
ICES will use only proven equipment and engineering techniques, though in a new
configuration. The experience of the technical partners in cogeneration should
reduce this threat still further.
In summary, the known negative impacts from the ICES are not deemed significant.

It should be noted that the ICES' negative impacts are mostly con-

tained within the Clark University campus. As a result, almost all of the
negative impacts are experienced by the same people who benefit from the more
significant positive impacts. Negative impacts on third parties, such as the
local community, except for NO

emission, are minimal.

V. Coordination with Federal, State, Regional, and Local Plans

The ICES installation is only feasible if it can comply with all of the
appropriate statutes, codes and regulations. The importance of complying with
these legal and institutional factors has been recognized throughout the planning
process.

Aside from these specific factors, it is also important that the ICES

not conflict with any policies and programs of federal, state, and local governments.

The relevant items and the steps that have been undertaken in response

to them are discussed below.

Environmental Impact Analysis.

Regulations regarding overall environmental

impact analysis are presented in Chapter III, U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, Part 711 - Guidelines for Environmental Review published in the
Federal Register, 26 January 1977, pp. 4826-4833. These regulations require
that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be written as specified in Part
711 - 25 of the regulations. This document is a preliminary draft of an EIA
based on the present state of knowledge of the Clark ICES installation. This

-103report will be updated and expanded as the planning process continues.

Air quality standards. The exhaust emissions of the ICES installation are
subject to state and federal air quality standards. The main applicable regulations are the federal and Massachusetts Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50),
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation plans
(40 CFR 51), Interpretive Ruling for Implementation of the Requirements of 40
CFR 51.18, and Regulations as Amended for the Control of Air Pollution, Dept. of
Environmental Quality Engineering, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as amended
through 13 June 1975.
Emissions figures have been reviewed by Mr. Edmond G. Benoit, Chief,
Central Massachusetts Air Quality Control District.

Mr. Benoit has stated

that, based on presently available data and pending more detailed analysis,
the project would not be in -violation of present air pollution regulations
(see letter in Appendix 2D).

Continuing coordination with the Central

Massachusetts Air Quality Control District will be maintained and further

studies accomplished.

The staff of the Central Massachusetts Air Quality

Control District will be asked to recommend the most appropriate monitoring

equipment to gather this data.
Further discussions have been held with air quality specialists at EPA's
Region I, Boston, office. They confirmed that compliance with all state
standards will also guarantee compliance with federal regulations.
Noise regulations. The Director of the Central Massachusetts Air Quality
Board has jurisdiction over noise pollution under the Regulations as Amended
for the Control of Air Pollution, Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, adopted 26 Jan. 1972 and amended through 13 June
1975. He foresees no difficulty in meeting these standards.

Representatives

of the EPA noise pollution branch in Boston also have been contacted. They
stated that the Commonwealth's standards either meet or exceed theirs and would

I-

-104be acceptable.
Building Codes. The applicable building codes are contained in Article
II, "Heating Equipment and Appliance Mounting, Clearances and Connections,"
of the State Building Code.

In addition, boilers and unfired pressure vessels

are subject to the provisions of Chapter 146 of the Massachusetts General Laws
and Acts as amended.

These issues have been reviewed with Mr. Norton Remmer,

Commissioner, Department of Building Code Inspection of the City of Worcester.

Commissioner Remmer states that compliance with all requirements of the building
code can be achieved by applications of standard designs and construction
techniques.

(See letter in Appendix 2D.) The provisions of Chapter 146

require the approval of.certain boilers and pressure vessels by the Board of
Boiler Rules of the State Department of Public Safety.

Such approval will be

obtained once detailed designs and specifications are known.

Zoning. The City of Worcester Zoning Ordinance applies to the University
and the ICES installation.

Clark is located in a residential district which

is permissible under Section 15A (6) of the code. The ICES installation was
discussed with Mr. Remmer, Commissioner, Dept. of Building Code Inspection,
City of Worcester. He stated that the project would not violate existing
zoning regulations (see letter in Appendix 2D).

The Office of Community

Planning and Development was also contacted to insure that the installation did
not interfere with the plans and programs of that agency.

They indicated that

the project would not affect their plans. The Worcester Redevelopment Authority,
an agency that operates in the vicinity of the Clark campus, has also indicated
that they have no objection to the ICES installation (see letter in Appendix 2D).
To conclude, the Clark ICES proposal does not conflict in a significant
manner with any specific legal and institutional requirements or the plans and
policies of related governmental agencies. On the contrary, these entities all
support the ICES proposal on the basis of the positive impacts such a system

-105would have on energy conservation and the economic welfare of the community.
The advice of the regulatory personnel has been of great assistance to the
Environmental Impact Assessment Group. The Group will continue to seek their
advice and opinions in the future.
VI. Description of Alternatives
There are four sets of alternatives open to Clark University:

(1) to

continue with present practices; (2) to institute additional strong conservation measures to reduce energy demand; (3) to install a totally independent
integrated energy system; or (4) to select a different grid-connected ICES
system.
Continue with present practices. This alternative would have no environmental impacts at Clark University; it would, however, continue unabated the
use of oil within the New England area. This would, therefore, be contrary to
the national and regional objective of fuel conservation.

Furthermore, it

would continue Clark's vulnerability to cost increases in fuel and electricity

with the inherent danger to its financial stability and the indirect effect of
financial instability on the student body, the faculty and the community.
Institute additional conservation measures. The University has already
instituted strong conservation measures, the principal one being an IBM System
7 load-dropping computer which has 26 electric controls and 13 steam controls.
The computer is programmed to balance loads, essentially reducing peak demand.
The introduction of this conservation device in conjunction with simpler conservation rules has already resulted in a reduction of about 40% each for the
thermal and electric loads.

Investigation of further conservation measures

indicates that such measures are increasingly marginal.

Independent integrated energy system.

Total energy plants for the Clark

campus not connected with the existing electric grid have been investigated in

-106several studies. Such systems have generally the same advantages as a gridconnected ICES. Costs, however, are higher, as system reliability must be
achieved by the installation of standby units. Our Phase I study shows that
the costs of interconnection, including standby charges for electricity, are,
lower than those of standby units.

Furthermore, grid interconnection produces

an additional 60% oil savings resulting from electricity sales to the utility.
Different grid-connected ICES." A large number of alternative ICES installations, including differently sized diesel units, steam turbines and gas
turbines, were investigated in Phase I.
efficiency and technologic risk.

Diesels showed the best balance between

Generally, larger units produced increased

efficiency and rate of return but also higher initial cost. On environmental
grounds few differences can be ascertained except that larger units are likely
to increase aesthetic problems and air pollution but reduce oil consumption.
On economic grounds, larger units, in addition to increasing initial cost,
represent higher opportunity cost and larger risks.
VII.

Conclusion
Based on the previous section of

this environmental assessment, the

following conclusions can be derived.

(1) There will be no significant negative or positive environmental
impacts at the project site, i.e. the Clark campus. Physical changes will
be minimal and do not affect ecologically sensitive areas. Aesthetic
effects and noise effects will be mitigated by proper facilities design.
Air pollution effects at site will be minimal as the increase in pollutants
that have localized effects, such as CO, S0 2 and particulates, is small.
(2) Socio-economic effects at the project site are beneficial.

Significant

financial savings accrue to Clark University and the presence of the

demonstration project will enhance the reputation and academic programs
of the University.

-107(3) Most community environmental effects of the project are negative, but small.
The output of NO

will significantly increase the NO

Worcester. The present ambient NO

level in parts of

level is well below ambient annual standards

now in force. Establishment of a 1-hour standard will require reconsideration

of the NO problem; however, we expect the ICES to be in compliance with all
forthcoming regulations. Traffic in the area surrounding Clark will be increased slightly by the increased frequency of oil delivery trucks and there
may be some temporary nuisance conditions during construction.
(4) Socio-economic effects on the community are expected to be small but
positive.

The increased local expenditure for construction, operation and

maintenance should to some degree enhance the community.

(5) Regional environmental impacts of the project are small on a national
scale but they are positive and, in a demonstration project, this is highly
significant. Oil savings of more than 7000 barrels per year may not be large
when compared with the present national consumption of that fuel, but as 21%
of the fuel consumed by Clark, they are a significant indication of the contribution that grid-connected ICES can make towards oil conservation nationwide.
(6) Regional and national socio-economic impacts, while insignificant by themselves, are important as indicators of the opportunities that exist, through
cooperation of individual institutions, utilities and government, for the
achievement of socio-economic goals.
(7) The overall increase in the emission of nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon indicate that the increased efficiencies of cogeneration systems are not without environmental cost. The increases
from a single ICES at Clark are not considered significant except for NO .
However, it is important to project the impact of many such installations
to gain a more thorough understanding of the total environmental impact.
As a demonstration project, the Clark ICES will provide more precise

-108-

data to anticipate these impacts. At present, the figures suggest that

large numbers of diesel-powered ICES should not be installed in regions
with high NO

concentrations or high incidence of photochemical smog

without careful evaluation of their impact.

-109-

APPENDIX 2D
Letters on Environment and Codes
from
Edmund G. Benoit
Chief, Air Quality Control Section
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(2 Letters)
Michael J. Burke
Assistant Commissioner of Public Works Engineering
City of Worcester
George P. Beringer
District Chief, Fire Prevention Division
City of Worcester
and
Norton S. Remmer, P.E
Commissioner, Department of Code Inspection
City of Worcester
(2 Letters)

-110-

TEL

(6171 7 9 1 - 3 6 7 2

nhceiier, t sntU6ac&tSeU&- 0/6GJ

April 5, 1978

Clark Universlty
950 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts
Attn:

01610

Harry Schwartz. Professor. Environmental Affairs

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

The Central Massachusetts Air Pollution Control District has reviewed the
emission potential from the proposed co-generation facility at Clark University.
Based on the evaluations performed to date, utilizing the emission data
provided by Clark University, the following conclusions can be, reached:
1.

No conflicts with present criteria for the projected

CO, HC, SO,, and particulate emissions.

2.

No conflict with the annual NO- standard.

3.

The projected NO, levels, using recently revised data

from Clark University, appear to fall below the range
of projected 1 hour standard consideration by EPA
(hlQ-SkS ug/M 3 ) as indicated in the March 27, 1978
Federal Register.

h.

The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering in

a recent decision, has determined that N0 2 levels as
low as 200 ug/M3 for 1 hour are not desireable, if
certain conditions are existent.

The Department is in the process of determining what criterion will be

applied in other areas of the Commonwealth to address this concern. It Is
anticipated that a policy in this area will be forthcoming shortly. The potential
exists that this project could be affected by this policy.
I hope the above will be of assistance to you.
Yours truly,

EGB:mlk
cc: DAHM-R.Donovan

Edmond G. Benoit
Chief, Air Quality Control Section

Ill

U7~ " "

Hy 1 , 1978

"HboO**.

*j4Hauac4iaet&> CMOS

Clork unlvorttty
950 Miln Stroot
Worcester, MttMchuMttt 01*10
Attnt Horry Schwartz, professor, Invlronmntol Affairs

Boor Mr. Schwartz:

At I advised you In lottor of April *, 1978 tho Depertaont was pro
coodlng to develop on Inter la policy on MO. until E.P.A. edopts o short
tora oablont olr standard for this contaallant.
At this tlao tho Doportaont will Halt Its review to only now or
aodtflod aojor sources which will result In Increased ealsslons of
250 or aore tons per year of MOg.
Your proposed facility Is of o slse thot will be loss than ISO tons
per year, and therefore will not bo reviewed for NO under this
Interla policy. However, should I.P.A. standards bj adopted prior to
your construction of this facility, you aoy be required to deaonstrete
that this facility will not cause or contribute to violations of such
a standard.
If you hove any questions, please give ae o call.
Yours truly,
Edaond 6. Benoit
Chief, Air Quality Control Section
EQB:a1k
cc: Robert Donovan
OAHM
Robert GobM
Clark University

-112-

CITY OF WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS

F. WORTH LANDERS. P. E.
COMMISSIONER

VlM SJBJ Tkg\

vSLTWjWill

TELEPHONE
(617) 798-8151
EXT8. 2S5. 292. 2 8 5

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

20 EAST WORCESTER STREET 01604

March 22, 1978

Mr. Harry Schwarz

Clark University
Environmental Affairs Department
Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Dear Mr. Schwarz:
Your proposed discharge of various
chemicals resulting from a washing operation of #6 Oil,as
stated in a letter dated March 15, 1978, complies with
Worcester Sewer Regulations. It is assumed that the
necessary precautions will be taken to prevent the ,f6 Oil
from being discharged directly into the City's Sewer System.
A letter requestinc that the Upper Blackstone Water
Pollution Abatement Uivt"ict review this proposed discharge
has been sent by this office. I do not expect that the
discharge will cause any problems with the operation of the
District's Treatment Plant. I will notify you if the District
has any objections to the proposed discharge when I receive
thedr response.
The District and the Ci ty retain the right to inspect
such discharge when and if it becomes a reality and to ban
the dischirge if problems arise in the operation of the
treatment r>l?'nt.
Very truly you?'3,

JZ./MJB/EH

MICHAEL J. BURKE
Asr'r. Commissioner of Public Works
Engineering

Cony to Asii't. Com.-nicoioner Bui

ii

"
"

Mr. " I n g a r e l l i
Engineering

-113CITY OF WORCESTER. M A S S A C H U S E T T S 0 1 6 0 5

FIRE D E P A R T M E N T
141 G R O V E S T R E E T

SAVE YOUR

ETT

AND

HOME

BUSINESS

PREVENT

FIRES

Nov 1, 1977
Mr. Basil Kimball
Chief Engineer
Clark University
950 Main St.
Worcester, Mass 01610
Dear Mr. Kimball:
State law requires that any additional flammable
fluid to be stored at your installation, requires
that your present license for storage of fuel oil
be ammended to include the additional deisel fuel
oil, you intend to store and use. This can be
accomplished by notifying the City Clerk at City
Hall.
I can foresee no problem in this area, and I
would suggest you ammend your license at your
convience.

Respectfully yours,
ree P. Berineer
George
Beringer
Dist Chief, Fire Prevention Division

-114-

DEPARTMENT OF CODE INSPECTION

CITY OF WORCESTER
MASSACHUSETTS 01604
NORTON S REMMER, PE

419 BELMONT STREET

TEL 617 798-8111

COMMISSIONER

November 3, 1977

Mr. Lawrence Landry

Vice President of Finance
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610
Dear Mr. Landry:
This Department previously submitted a letter (copy
attached) relative to the installation of mechanical facilitiee
for generating power at Clark University.
A review of the current proposed specifications has
not altered the decisions reached previously.

Within those

areas for which this Department has primary legal responsibility

relating to the project, i.e., Building Code and Zoning
Ordinance, I can see no reason to expect that the project
as proposed would not meet zoning ordinance requirements
or could not be constructed in accordance with the Building
Code or its reference standards, using standard design and
construction techniques.

Norton S. Remmer, P.E.

Commissioner
NSR/cv
c.c. Mr. Harry Shwarz
Environmental Affairs Program

-115-

City of Worcester, Massachusetts

DEPARTMENT OF CODE INSPECTION
4 1 9 BELMONT STREET
NORTON R K M M I R

01904

> t

TELEPHONE 617 7 9 8 4 1 1 1

COMMISSION!*

Mr. Lawrence Landry

Vice President of Finance
Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, Mass. 01610
Dear Mr. Landry,
This letter will serve to confirm the conclusions reached
at a meeting on Monday, April 11, 1977 relative to regulations
controlling the proposed installation of mechanical facilities
at Clark University in conjunction with an EftDA demonstration
project.
1.

Zoning.

In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of Wore*

ester and the Official Map the proposed use Would
tiofc" be in Violation of zoning and could proceed
routinely for approval.

2.

Building Code, There are no requirements of the Building

Code relative to the proposed locations.which
were reviewed for which compliance could not be
achieved by standard design and construction
techniques.

3.

A ll other requirements of the City relative to construction

based upon the proposed preliminary concepts, would be
subject to routine procedures.

4.

This office cannot take responsibility for State mandated

and administered requirements relative to environmental im
pact, and pollution controls. These items, woulcj have to
be reviewed by the appropriate authorities.

5.

Certain Boilers and Unified Pressure Vessels require

approval by the Board of Boiler Rules 6f the<State, Depart
ment of Public Safety as indicated in Sections j.lQ0iJu
and 1103.1 of the State Building Code, and this, t?lce
would have no jurisdiction over thosevappr.oy(al.si

-116-

APPENDIX 3A
Engine Operating Experience and Guarantees

-117APPENDIX 3A
Engine Operating Experience and Guarantees
Operating Temperature
The Sulzer candidate is standardly equipped with a low-temperature (less than
200 F) water-jacket cooling system.

The manufacturer feels that the change to

ebullient cooling is quite straightforward.

The Superior candidate is usually

ebulliently cooled.
Fuel
Both manufacturers have had extensive experience burning distillate oil in
their candidate engines. We believe that the issue of residual-oil experience
is most important.
Sulzer's experience with heavy-oil-burning engines is considerable,
since they have about 50% of the market for large marine engines. They also
have heavy-oil experience with engines of the same design as the one
proposed for Clark. They have run a 6-cylinder ASL 25/30 engine in the
laboratory from 1969-1972. They accumulated 1130 hours of operation, 880
on heavy fuel and 250 on distillate oil during break-in, starting and stopping.
The sodium/vanadium content of the fuel varied between 13ppm/76ppm and 27ppm/
173ppm.

Measurements of wear were made after 300 hours of operation with the

27/173 Na/V fuel. The chromium-plated top piston ring had wear of about
.00l5inch/1000 hours. Liner wear was .0004 to .0008inch/1000 hours. No wear
could be measured on valves or the piston ring grooves. According to Sulzer,
rate of wear on piston ring, and liner drops to about'1/3 of the initial rate
after about 5000 hours. Assuming this change is linear for the first 5000
hours and remains constant thereafter, the wear on the top piston ring would
be .005 inch after 5000 hours and .0075 inch after 10,000 hours. The liner
wear would be .00133 to .0027 inch after 5000 hours and .0019 to .0038 inch
after 10,000 hours. From these values, Sulzer has predicted the lifetimes
of^various components. These predicted lifetimes are presented in Appendix
5B, Table 5B-1, where they are used to estimate maintenance costs for the engine.

In addition to the test engine, two ASL 25/30 engines have accumulated

more than 10,000 hours burning residual in regular service.

Superior had 10 installations of their older in-line version of models
40, 60, and 80, engines designed for crude or residual oil. However, they
do not know what the experience of these sites has been. We obtained useful
information from one of these sites, an eight-cylinder engine rated at lOOOkw
that has run about 107,000 hours for the Florida Keys Electric Corporation in
Marathon, Florida. About 75% of those hours were for operation between 1954

-118and 1964, using residual fuel.

In 1964 the plant changed to #2 oil as the

price difference between #2 and #6 oils disappeared.

A further consideration

was that the vanadium content in the available fuel had increased, and they
were not set up to treat vanadium.

A spokesman for Florida Keys stated that

wear on valves and other engine parts was not appreciably different for #2
and #6 oils, except when there were high vanadium levels in the oil (unfortunately the spokesman could not say definitely what a high vanadium level was).
There was an increase in maintenance costs for such components as injectors,
fuel pumps, and other fuel handling equipment.
To summarize, Sulzer has experience operating their candidate engine with
residual fuels; Superior does not. Sulzer does not have experience with the
ebullient cooling of their engine while Superior does.

Both manufacturers

have considerable experience burning heavy fuels in other engines, but Sulzer's
experience is probably more extensive as they are the larger company.
Guarantee Terms
Both companies offer us their standard guarantee.

Sulzer will guarantee

the engine for 12 months from the commissioning of the power plant. The
guarantee applies to an ebulliently cooled, residual-oil-burning engine, but
the engine must maintain limits of sodium/vanadium of 15ppm/50 ppm. The
guarantee covers repair or replacement of defective parts; the details of the
guarantee can be negotiated at the time of purchase. The guarantee will not
cover normal wear, improper maintenance, incorrect operation, etc.
Superior's guarantee is similar.

It is also for one year and covers re-

pair or replacement of defective parts. Their guarantee requires regular

monitoring of the fuel input to the engine to ensure that limits of sodium/
vanadium of 5ppm/30ppm are not exceeded.

-119-

APPENDIX 3B
Plant Descriptions

-120APPENDIX 3B
Plant Descriptions
I. ENGINES
A. Sulzer Engine
The Sulzer engine i s Model 8 ASL 25/30 ( i n - l i n e c y l i n d e r s ) .
eight cylinders, 900 RPM, and i s rated at 1984 bhp at 100% load.
generator output at 100% load i s 1405 kw.
available as a residual o i l engine.

The

The engine i s currently

I t has a brake mean effective

pressure of 242.7 p s i at 100% load and i s turbocharged.

A 25/30 engines burning #6 o i l .

I t has

There are two

They have accumulated over 10,000 hours

of s e r v i c e .
Both the Superior and Sulzer jacket and a i r cooler w i l l be cooled
by g l y c o l - t o - a i r r a d i a t o r s .
B. Superior Engine
The Superior engine is Model 40-X-16 (V type).
900 RPM, and is rated at 2120 bhp at 100% load.

It has 16 cylinders,

The generator output at

100% load is 1500 kw. The engine has a brake mean effective pressure of
141.4 psi at 100% load and is turbocharged. As currently available it does
not use heavy oil. Cooper Energy Systems has advised that with modifications
the engine will be suitable for residual oil.
The following design changes would be necessary to make it capable of
burning residual oil as fuel:
1. Injection pumps would require special clearanced plungers and barrels
and a bypass to allow an adequate flow of oil through the pump for cooling.
2. The injection nozzles would require special clearances in the area of
tho valve and seat.
3. The injection nozzle tips would require low sac volume and an orifice
size selected for the particular fuel used.
4. The fuel would require pre-treatment including, as a minimum, water
washing and centrifuging, as well as preheating to reduce its viscosity
and make it easier to treat. We would select one of the commercially
available fuel treating systems. The treated fuel would require additional filtration at the engine and possibly further heating before and
after filtration, depending upon viscosity.

-1215. The fuel system would allow the engine to start and stop on No. 2 diesel
fuel and transfer to residual operation after the engine is running.
This would ensure that there was no #6 oil in the engine when the block
was cool.
6. Corrosive metallic alloys in the fuel might need to be reduced. Many
residuals contain extremely high sulphur and water content which, under
the right conditions, can form corrosive acids.
7. The crankcase would need a high total base number (TBN) lubricating oil
and more frequent oil changes. The high TBN oil has high alkaline
reserve, preventing acid build-up and minimizing corrosion in the crankcase.
The manufacturer would like to have a minimum of one month available for
testing an engine with the residual fuel selected.
II.

STEAM SYSTEM (common to Superior and Sulzer engines)

A. The new diesel plant will utilize the existing deaerator, condensate
system and feedwater pump of the University boiler plant.
B. A new waste heat boiler rated at approximately 2500 lb/hr at 125 psig
saturated steam will be installed.

It will have a gas bypass valve to

control steam pressure, level controls, and high and low water alarms.
C. The ebullient jacket cooling system consists of supply and return piping
to a steam reservoir separator. The reservoir/separator will have level
controls and high- and low-level alarms. Make-up water will reach the
system via a water softener.

Pressure in the system will be maintained

by a modulating steam valve which will release the steam to the 15 psig
system.

Any steam not required by the 15 psig University system will be

condensed in a radiator condenser.

III. FUEL SYSTEM
Two fuels are required.

No. 6, residual oil, is the basic fuel. No.

2, distillate oil, is used for starting and shutting down the engine. The
oil storage system will consist of an existing 20,000 gallon No. 6 oil
storage tank. Two fuel oil transfer pumps will be required, one for No. 2 oil
and one for No. 6 oil. These pumps will be located in the diesel plant
building.

The No. 2 pump will take oil from the No. 2 tank and pump to

a 300 gallon day tank in the diesel plant.

The No. 6 oil transfer pump

-122will pump the No. 6 oil from the buried tank, to the oil treatment system.
After treatment, the oil will be pumped to an elevated 600 gallon oil
storage system.

From this point an engine driven pump will pump the oil

to the engine.
FUEL TREATMENT SYSTEM
A 120-gallon-per-hour fuel treatment system will be necessary to
ensure that sodium and vanadium content of fuel does not exceed the limits
required to maintain the engine guarantee described in Appendix 3A. The
system will remove sodium by washing the fuel and will neutralize the
corrosive effects of vanadium by forming non-corrosive orthcr-magnesium
vanadate.

The fuel treatment system is described in Appendix 4A of

this report.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The diesel generator will generate power at 13,800 volts. It
will operate continuously, in parallel with the Massachusetts Electric
Power System.

The existing Jonas Clark 208V electrical system will be

tied into a new switchboard located in the diesel plant. The 13,800V
power will be fed (via the new switchboard) to the Goddard Library via
two buried conduits. At the distribution system in Goddard, the power,
which can flow into or out of Clark, will be metered in each direction.

-123-

APPENDTX 3C
Performance of the Candidate Systems

-124-

APPENDIX 3C
Performance of the Candidate Systems
For each diesel generator considered, heat balance data were obtained
from the engine manufacturer in terms of Btu per bhp-hr. The heat balance
parameters given by the manufacturer were:
Work Output
Jacket Water
Lubricating Oil Cooling
Exhaust Gases, Flows and Temperatures
Exhaust Latent Heat
Radiation and Unaccounted
This data was then used to obtain system heat balances, showing the amount of
125 psig and 15 psig steam flows.
A characteristic of diesel engines is that performance (i.e. heat
balance in terms of Btu/kwh) is fairly constant down to about 50% of design
load and then drops off substantially.
at 50%

We show this by showing heat balances

load.

For each candidate system, the following assumptions were used to

determine the best balances:
1. The deaerator in the existing heating plant was used.
2. The boiler blowdown was taken to be 5%.
3. 95% of the steam was returned. The return temperature was 160 F.
The makeup water temperature was 47F.
4. The final feedwater temperature was 225F.
5. The boiler exit gas temperature for fired and heat recovery boilers
was fixed at 325 F. The diesels were evaluated with ebulliently
cooled jackets. An analysis of the campus heating system showed
that the average amount of low pressure steam which could be utilized
by the heating system was 2.4 x 10 Btu/hr.
6. Heat balances were evaluated taking the thermal efficiency of the
conventional boilers as either 75% or 85%. The actual figure is
near 75%.
Figure 3C-1 is a schematic for the heat balance calculation for a diesel.
The heat rate for the engine was calculated by comparing the fuel requirements for the proposed demonstration system with those for the conventional system.

The fuel to the engine per Kwh is:

-125-

FICURE 3C-1
Schematic for Diesel
Heat Balance

Input
v

y'
Diesel Engine

Hi
H

a+ %

>
y'

Input
)

Supplemental
Boiler

To Heating

System

PROPOSED SYSTEM

Input
*

Boiler

+ H

CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM

_^
"7

To Heating
System

-126-

EHR

" bTp^F" x .746 L/fahp * h e a t i n *

value

(Btu'lb

fuel

>

CD

where

EHR = engine heat rate (Btu/kwh) = fuel input per electrical output
The total fuel per kwh used by the proposed system is then obtained by
adding boiler fuel used to supplement the engine thermal output:

where
F,
H.
E
n,

=
=
=
=

total fuel used by demonstration system (Btu/hr)

thermal output of supplemental boiler (Btu/hr)
electricity produced by engine (kw)
thermal efficiency of the boiler.

The total fuel used by the conventional system is just the boiler fuel required
to obtain the required thermal output.
"h

=
CS)
cs
%
Subtracting equation 3 from equation 2 results in the desired incremental
heat rate (HR):
H,
F
HR = EHR + - 2 - - -(4)
nbE
E
= EHR - - 2 nbE
We see-from equation 4 that the term H./n. is the useful thermal output
(from the exhaust and cooling jacket) generated by the diesel. It replaces boiler fuel which would have had to be utilized in a conventional
boiler. This fuel is therefore credited to the diesel.
Another key parameter is the cost of fuel attributable to generation
of electricity. This is the cost of fuel for running the system less the
cost of fuel that would be used in the existing boiler to make up the heat
output of the candidate system. This can be expressed

-127-

f = f

x EHR - - 2 - B 2 .

(5)

where
f

= price of fuel attributable to generation of electricity ($/kwh)

= price of fuel used in engine (f/10

Btu)

EHR = fuel input to engine (or high pressure boiler for a steam
turbine) (Btu/kwh)
f,

= price of fuel that would be used in a conventional boiler

(*/106 Btu)

H,

= useful thermal output of system (Btu/hr)

n.

= efficiency of conventional boiler.

The derivation of equation 5 is similar to that for the heat rate, equation
4.

When the same type of fuel is used for both the engine and the boiler,

or when the costs for these fuels are equal, f is simply the fuel cost
multiplied by the heat rate.
The performance data for the two engines, the Sulzer 1405 kw and the
Superior 1500 kw, at full and half-load, are shown in Figures 3C-2 to 3C-5.

afc23.LBS

I3I.LBS
314.8 h

115 PSIG 25I6.LBS

ll<3.0h

TO HEA TING SYSTEM

^90LBJ_|38h

108. LBS
2.k82*IO fe BTU/HR
HEAT ABSORBED

El7.LB3
I27.2F <
H-X

DEAERATOR

2W7.LBS
I3fc.7b
Z754 LBS
178.0 h
ZIO.OF
242721BS
7G7F

ifih

RETURNS

RETURN
TANKS

325 F

-t

131.LBS
137.0b-1 fc9.0F

. BOILER
BLOWDOWK
13ILBS

324.8 h

15.0PSIG STEA M
WloA.Oh

1322 LBS
M P

178.0 b
BASED QN 857. EFFICIENCY BOllEfi
I983.9*.344*ia900 - *5IG II93-2M7 tt7f2+l.30,O*
H E A T R A T E

FUEL COST
HEAT RATE
FUEL COST

1405.-gr.0
4,565 * ' 2 . 5 0 / 1 0 * - ' . 0 1 6 4 / K W H

BASED ON 7 5 % EFFICIENCY BOILER

- fel09 BTU/KWH
- G I 0 9 * ' 2 . 5 0 / I 0 4 - ' . 01527/KWM

^ "

G5G5-rrm

F i g . 5C -2
Heat Balance:
S u l z e r , 100% Load

*I65SZ5D

ao
i

.5I.LBS

I0I3.LBS

125 PSIG 97a LBS

1193.0b

TO HEATING SYSTEM
923.LBS

42.LBS

J00.LB5

127.2 F

.03fexlOfe BTU/HR
HEAT ABSORBED

DEAERATOR

064. LBS
780h
210.0 F

H-X

RETURN
TANKS

I3764.L65
G26F

BOILER
BLOW DOWN
51. LBS
324.8h

51.LBS
137.0 h-169.0 F

15.0 PSIG STEAM @

1164.Oh

28b

RETURNS

I022.LBS
I36.7h
325 F

138 h

915.LBS
I78.0h

15* Thermo

BASED ON 85% EFFICIENCY BOILER

HEAT RATE
FUEL COST

992 x 378 * 18 900 =-

97

WMS Bectron
coi.po.t.oN

2 *H93- 1022 > 127.2 + .903x10*

0.85

687-18.0
= 7195 * *2.50/lO f e = '.OI799/KWH

BASED QN 7 5 7 , EFFICIENCY BOH ER

HEAT RATE =6741. BTU/KWH
FUEL COST = 6741 x *Z.50/lO f e = ' . 0 1 6 8 5 / K W H

.=7195^Fig. 3C-3
Heat Balance:
Sulzer, 50% Load

DRAWN
J WALKER

101

sl Avenue

Wallham Massachusetts 02154

CHICKED

EMIMEER

507.LOAD 47TAMB.
SULZER 8CYL.MOD.ASL25/30
' 992BHP-900RPM
.
EKW = C>87
TITLC:

i J 4. LBS

-:-"sO. LBS

I25.0P3IG

2570.LBS
1193.Oh

\;.'8h

- * - TO HEATING SYSTEM
2442.LB5

133 h

110. LBS
262. LBS
2.74xlO t BTU/UR
HEAT A BSORBED

127.2 F
DEAFIRATOR

Ri4.LBS
173.0 h

Q)

210. OF
24.I92.L&:
708 F

-^t

I78.0h

1500-35
= ^.01706/KWH

BASED ON 757 EFFICIECY 80ILER

HEAT RA TE = 6 , 2 6 0 BTU/KWH
FUEL COST = x . 01565/KWM

BOILL'R
BLCV DOWN
Is-;. LBS
3i;.3h

2576. LBS

^ Thermo
fc Electron

101 First Averu

"

I.OO.:IOIICN Waltham, MacnchusettsO

2 . 2 O x . 4 O 4 x , 8 / 9 0 O - 2570 x , , 9 3 . 0 ^ 7 0 4 x , 2 7 . 2 , 2.54x,0^
FUEL COST = 6824 * ^ . S O / l O 6

15.0 PSIG STEA M P

1164.0b

BASED ON B570 EFFICIENCY BOILER

H E A T R A T E =

RETURN
TANKS

134. LBS
137.0b-169.0 F

RETURNS
H-X

2704. LBS
136.6 F

325 F

23 h

=6824
Fig. 3C4
Heat Balance:
Superior, 100% Load

DRAWN

CHECKED

EMGIf

J.WALKER
TITLE: A
C SE H
l007oLCAD-/l-"AMa
SUPERIOR I6CYL. M ' X 4 0 *
2120 BIsP - 9 C ?PM
SIZE1 DRA WING NUME^

f~T

125.0 PSIG

1126 LBS --TO HEATING SYSTEM

1193.0b
1070. L E :

48.LBS
.20 xio fe BTU/HR
MEAT ABSORBED

14 LBS
127.3F

DEAEPATOR

"

I33h
28 ^

RETURNS
H-X

1184. LBS
136.3F

RETURtIS
TAtlKS"
;l
w

^^7

I 17.56SLBS

BOIL'.R
BLCV. DWM

58.0 LBS
I37 0h-I69.0F

600 F

. 5 s ; .as (
* 32'i J h

15.0 PSIG STEAM@>

1164.Oh

*i

1517. LBS
178.Oh

BASF-f) ON 6 5 7 EFFICIENCY BOILFR

1(26*1)93 -IIS4 x-lZ7.3-H.496 ^10*
(063 x. 437 *!?,X)00.55
'^EAT RATE =
750-18
F--ELC03T- 7399 * * 2 I C / ,0' = / 01974/kvVH
5ASF">

J 757. EFFICIE'-JCY BOILER

. 7 3 z , jgntfpjw
FUEL **r*tJOiUaJwH

&AT$STE

mem Thermo 101 First

fZ Electron
t"'"

- 78c KWH
M
Fig. 3C-5
Heat Balance:
Superior, 50% Load

Avenue

>~ Waltham Mas";-"-! usetts 0215

DRAWN
J ' M.-XR

CHECKED] ZHQIHEE

TITLE:
CALZ H
507.LCAD-^7'F
SJ~ERICR ",-CfL M : :
iC53\Br^' re

x|$>

I.

SHE |

DRAWING

:7|Wr

NUMbwH

-132^

APPENDIX 4A
Design Descriptions for the
Steam, Fuel,and Fuel Treatment Systems

-133-

4A.0

Introduction

In Appendix 3B we briefly described the basic ICES components: Engine,

Steam System, Fuel System, Fuel Treatment System and Electrical System.
Engine performance with heat balance* was detailed in Appendix 3C.

In this

appendix we give the design descriptions for the Steam, Fuel and Fuel treatment systems.

Equipment lists and outline specifications are given in Appendices

4B and 4C, and the electrical design and specifications are given in 'Appendix
4D.

-'
The basic equipment layout is shown in Fig. 4A-1.
4A.1

Steam System

Jacket Ebullient Cooling System

up the system are:

The fundamental components making

1) the jacket water heat exchanger or steam generator;

2) back-up jacket water-to-glycol heat exchanger; 3) jacket back-up

glycol-to-air heat exchanger (unit located outside)J and 4) jacket water
expansion system.

These components are-shown in Fig. 4A-2 together with

the following controls: 1) -TVC-1 and TC-1 - Engine jacket fresh water
temperature control valve and temperature controller; 2) PCV-1 - Fifteen
pound (15 psig) steam pressure control valve; 3) PS-1 - Fifteen pound
(15 psig) ebullient steam pressure switch which both activates the jacket
water back-up heat-exchanger glycol circulating pumps and operates the solenoid
valve S-l, sending a signal to PCV-2; 4) S-l - Solenoid valve; 5) PCV-2 Pressure control valve permitting jacket fresh water to flow through the jacket
back-up heat exchanger, thereby controlling the steam pressure from the steam
generator; 6) TS-1 - A temperature switch which on high jacket temperature
puts PCV-2 on temperature control using a solenoid valve SV-2 and TC-U 7)
SV-2 - solenoid valve; and 8) TCV-2 and TC-2 - Glycol temperature control valve
and controller which will have a set point just below the lowest jacket
fresh water return temperature, preventing the return of very cold water to
the jacket.
The fresh water loop is kept pressurized by means of the jacket water
expansion system.

This will enable the system to maintain a pressure in the

jacket loop 50-100 psi above the saturation temperature of the fresh water.
At 100% load, the fresh water temperature leaving the engine will be controlled
at 266 F and the return temperature will be. 257F.
Assuming the normal pressure in the 15 psig header, the set point of

\-a~

(Oil

\oW
Mt-MOGM.

134-

T
u-dPH

I I*""

S
MUTMK--^/'T\

*'C**^

rfT^y

MOTO cormoL m a

UMNjaTSUIKH

it.

ro^M

tor/ t U T MB DUCT

*-

-tee

-i
/
/

Ptgure 4A4

JUL

I*, i ' *

Basic Equipment Layout

A-A

NOIfOMBMlTICB

an aapaiiai awrrv
5 o a I'M a"

,TJ

-136PCV-1 will be 16-17 psig.

With a demand from this header greater than 1322 lbs/hr,

PCV-1 will hold set pressure and TCV-1 will hold 266F at the engine fresh
water outlet. When the header pressure upstream from-PCV-1 rises to 18 psig,
PS-1 will operate SV-1, allowing the header pressure to pass to PC-2 opening and
modulating PCV-2 and simultaneously starting a jacket water back-up glycol
circulating pump.

In opening PCV-2, fresh water passes to the back-up jacket

water-to-glycol heat exchanger.

The fresh water is now pumped via the jacket

fresh water pump through two parallel loops, the tube side of the 9team
generator and the back-up heat exchanger.

TCV-1 still maintains the fresh

water temperature out of the engine at 266F.

If the engine fresh water outlet temperature exceeds 266F (as when
steam generator tubes are fouled) without a corresponding rise in shell or
header pressure at a set point temperature of 270F, TS-1 will operate S-2,
putting PCV-2 on temperature control, and TS-2 will actuate the temperature
alarm TAH-1.

The back-up jacket water-to-glycol heat, exchanger will then

pick up as much of the heat load as necessary to maintain the jacket fresh
water temperature at 266 F.

The control system is arranged so that once

PCV-2 goes on temperature control, it will not revert back to pressure

control without operator action.
When PCV-2 is on pressure control, the system can revert back to PCV-1
control only when the 15 psig header pressure'falls below 18 psig.

The jacket

water back-up heat exchanger glycol pump will then shut down and PCV-2
will go to the closed position.
The purpose of TCV-2 is to. prevent the return jacket fresh water from
falling below approximately 245F.

This prevents putting a thermal shock

on the jacket when the back-up jacket water-to-glycol heat exchanger is in service.
Waste Heat Boiler

Steam.pressure will be controlled at approximately

125 psig by means of a gas bypass valve installed between the gas pass division
partition on the inlet end (top) of the boiler.

The valve will be operated

via a steam pressure controller sensing main steam pressure.

The boiler gas bypass system is arranged so that if it becomes necessary
to work on the boiler the diesel generator will have to be shut down.
The consideration for setting up the system in this way was a compromise
between reliability and capital cost. We believe the boiler will be more
reliable than the diesel generator and therefore will rarely force
the diesel generator out of service.

This arrangement will effect a saving

-138-

-137-

of $20,000.

' ,. ..
4A.2

Fuel Oil System;..

The fuel oil system is shown in Fig.4AT3.

It consists of the following'

components:. 1. residual oil storage- tanks (these are existing); 2. fuel

oil treatment system with day tank; 3. residual/distillate transfer valve;
4. mixing tank; 5. engine fired oil pump; 6. end. heater; 7. viscositneter;
8. 2000 gallon diesel storage tank; 9^. diesel oil transfer pump; 10. diesel oil
day tank; and 11. diesel oil day tank pump.
The engine will be started'and shut down on diesel oil. Normal operation
will be on residual. Assuming a residual oil viscosity of 230 ssu at 100F,
the oil will have to be heated to approximately 115F in the existing fuel
oil storage tanks to obtain 150 ssu, making the oil suitable for pumping (i.e.
friction will be held to a low enough value so that the residual oil transfer pump
will not cavitate).

Oil is delivered to the fuel oil treatment system and treated

as described in Section 4A-3 below.

Treated oil is pumped from the residual oil day tank at approximately
115F (assuming the above viscosity at 100 F) through the control valve "A"
to the mixing tank.

T he mixing tank serves as a heat ..reservoir for the return

oil from the engine fuel oil pumps and, secondarily, as a reservoir for the
booster pumps.
The booster pumps pump the oil via the end heater and viscosimeter to the
engine fuel-oil and metering pumps to the combustion chamber.
senses viscosity

T he viscosimeter

and controls the oil temperature leaving the end heater.

Assuming the oil viscosity at 100F as above, the oil' viscosity entering
the engine fuel oil pumps would be above 60 ssu, which will correspond to a
temperature of 180 F leaving the end heater.
the mixing tank will not be in

Normally the outflow heater in

service because the 180F oil recirculated from

the engine pump can maintain the 115F temperature in this vessel.
The unit will be started on diesel oil by operating valve "A" to the
diesel oil position.

T he temperature of the oil leaving the end heater will

be that corresponding to approximately 30-45 ssu at 100 F.

be achieved without end-heater heating.

T his can usually

..-..

To effect the transfer from diesel oil to residual oil, valve "A"
should be gradually transferred to residual oil and the temperature leaving
the end heater gradually increased.

T oo rapid an increase will cause the

engine fuel-oil pumps to bind "and seize, damaging pumps and cam shaft components-

-139-

After complete transfer to residual, the diesel oil fuel system may be shut down.
To shut down after having operated on residual oil, the heat tracing system
shown in Fig. 4A-3 should be turned on. Valve "A"-should gradually be transferred
to diesel oil, avoiding any sharp changes of end-heater temperature and thereby
avoiding engine pump damage.

The entire fuel-oil pumping and piping system

should be flushed out prior to shut-down, after which the heat tracing system
may be shut down.

-140-

4A.3

H eavy Oil Fuel Treatment System

The 120 GPH integrated heavy fuel 'treatment system can perform the
following operations:
1. Heating the raw fuel.
2. Injection of demulsification agent.
3. Centrifugal desalting and sludge removal resulting in reductions of
water-soluble metallic salts such as sodium, potassium, lead, calcium,
etc.
4. Neutralizing corrosive vanadium via magnesium sulfonate.
5. Filtering, pumping, and transferring between residual and distillate oil.

The system will reduce the sodium and vanadium content of the fuel as
follows:
Influent Oil (representative values)
Sodium
Vanadium

200 PPM
200 PPM

Part of the sodium is water-soluble.

Effluent Oil
< 5 PPM
<30 PPM

Therefore, water (about 18 GPM)

is first mixed with the fuel in a mixer. The fuel is then centrifuged. The
single-stage centrifuge separates and removes water-soluble and nonsoluble
sodium, potassium, lead, calcium and magnesium.

The purifying effect of the

centrifuge is dependent on the product of flow rate and the

viscosity of the oil at the centrifuging
small.

(kinematic)

temperature. This product must be

The effluent is 99% water with the above metallic soluble plus

approximately 1% oil. This oil is removed in a skimming tank where the oil
content is reduced to less than 80 PPM.
After the centrifuging, the vanadium is treated. Organic vanadium is
extremely corrosive in high-temperature areas of an engine.
very soluble in water, it is difficult to remove.

Because it is not

Instead, it is made non-

corrosive by combining it with magnesium prior to combustion in a ratio of a

minimum of three parts of magnesium (by weight) to each part of vanadium (by
weight).

We will.treat the vanadium with oil-soluble magnesium sulfonate.

This chemical is available in the commercial product tretolite (KI-16) which

is widely used in industry.

Tretolite has 8% magnesium sulfonate and a

-141-

density of 9.25 lb/gal. See Appendix 5B for cost analysis.

The following equipment modules will be required:
Centrifugal Desalting Skid consisting of:
One solids ejecting centrifuge, capable of processing 120 GPH
of the specified fuel.
One (1) Mixer for blending fuel and water.
One (1) Water system with pumping, heating and flow control.
One (1) Heat exchanger for heating fuel complete with appropriate
temperature controls.
Above skid will also include:
Demulsifier system consisting of metering pump, level switch,
gauge glass,and calibrated metering glass.
Inhibition.system for appropriate addition of oil-soluble
magnesium additive. Basis for design: 360 PPM vanadium,
3/1 Mg t o V ratio.
Controls consisting of starring circuits for all motors with
"appropriate termination points for easy interconnection to field
terminals. *
Fuel management skid consisting of a 100 gallon receiving tank fortreated fuel, high-low controls and agitator.
The building must be properly ventilated and be equipped with an overhead crane providing access to all equipment.
.The system flow diagram is shown on Figure 4A-4

Figure 4A-5 is a key

drawing giving instrumentation symbols.

Utility Requirements:
1. Electrical power -- 208/3/60 - 13 KW
2
2. Air (instrument quality) -- .100 psig - 5 kg/cm
3. Water.(potable and less than 25 PPM. Na+)
40 psig, 60F with nominal flow capability of 18 GPM
4. Steam -- saturated 15 psig, approximately 60 lbs. per hour
Process Additives:
1. Demulsification agent:
Dosage
Source
Identification

Nalco Chemical Company or Tretolite

Nalco 9-537DA or Tretolite RI-35

2. Inhibition of Vanadium:
Dosage
Source
Identification

3.2/1 mg/Va
Tretolite
Tretolite KI-16

*Hfrl

trTl*TTNT

n*o~i
*-

auppcy

-142-

QMTlMUOvS

rrpi

STM
So P^*/

4 ^

^ ^ = - ^ - 1 - D O

3f

<fl3
I

*4eo

V*

HX
TOSUJM6

M/C
Vp/

ft

-"too

T *.

nNMlttlTlOM
tEEAGENT 0eOM|
l(8 CWSTOr*t^ J

n>sLuoe
TAMtC#l300
\WTGW\rrTEKT OOMTipVOOS

-_

Igoo I

^^p^^3=^-/fc^Nl

SlUBfrC TRC SK

I goo I

*l3O0

rtKr*>-JH]ftJ
#sio

Figure 4A4

Residual Fuel Oil Treatment System Flow Diagram

3D1

-143-

PROCESS LINE

Ek^ 1:1 EPTTCVt TA NK VA LVE

A-KmAftf I ' N E

-**-

~f

INSTRUMENT >IP LINE

L>*
"*!

2-W
A Y SA N'T^.RV VA uVE
A
W/ IR A CTUA TOR

INSTRUMENT CA PILLA RY LINE

3-WAY SA NITA RY DIVERT VA LVE.

MANUAL OPERA TED

1 STEAM TRA CED LINE

JACKETED PIPE LINE

T
>-CH

_ jffi
i
~~h\

3-WA Y SA NITA RY DIVERT VA LVE

A
W/ IR A CTUA TOR

ill i

SANITARY TEE VA LVE

MANUAL OPERA TED

LINE STRA INER

) Hi

BASKET STRA INER

MANUAL CLEA N LINE
FIL~ER

, *?

MOTORIZED LINE R L T E R

>-W-i

GATE VA LVE

-tg9-

PNEUMATIC BA LL VA LVE
GLOBE VWtVE
2 - W A Y PLUG VA LVE

1CJPLIN3

>

PUSHBUTTON

FUNNEL

5PRAY NOZZLE

|S]

PRESSURE SWITCH

IDPSI

DIFFERENTI
A L PRESSURE SWITCH

01

LIMIT SWITCH

T H E RA
M L SWITCH

El

FLOW SWITCH

IS)

FLO
A T SWITCH

HAND INDICA TING CONTROLLER

RED LIGHT
GREEN LIGHT

TEMPERATURE
CONTROLLER

3-WW TRA NSRjQ VA LVE

INLINE RUPTURE DISC

_^_J

LINE BLIND

INLINE MIXING TEE OR STEAM

JET HEA TER

DIA PHRA GM VA LVE

*****

j - 5 L * PRESSURE REDUCING VA LVE

CONDENSATE SEPA RA TOR

y ^ l t

NEEDLE VELVE

DAMPER VA LVE

KATES FLOW REGULA TOR

J 4 l w BA CK PRESSURE VA LVE

DIA PHRA GM PUMP

^"T"*

TURBINE PUMP

4-WAT SOLENOID VA LVE

HEATER OR COOLER
SIPHON OR PIGTAIL
TRANSDUCER

HAND VALVE W/LIMIT SWITCH

A,

QUICK OPENING VA LVE

TEMPERATURE CONTROLLER
CONDUCTIVITY CONTROLLER
LEVEL CONTROLLER

INDICA TING

CURRENT INDICA TING CONTROLLER

HAND INDICA TING CONTROLLER

POSITIVE PUMP W/VA RIDRIVE

CONDUCTIVITY RECORDING CONTROLLB

j U K ^ f a f a n PROPORTIONING PUMP
/
CT

,. .
^
a
'

DESIGNED LINE TEMPERA TURE

SJ STEA M JA CKETED
ST -- STEAM TRA CED

S
X

>

FLOW RECORDER
FLOW INDICA TING CONTROLLER
FLOW RECORDING CONTROLLER

LEVEL RECORDING CONTROLLER

STANDARD CUBIC F T

TEMPERATURE
CONTROLLER

PSIG MA X

PRESSURE RECORDING
CONTROLLER

> - > PER M I N U T E

*F MA X
FLCW GPM- RATED CA PA CITIES
FLOW/HR : RATED CA PA CITIES

RECORDING

PRESSURE T R A N S M I T T E R
TEMPERATURE

T RA N S M i T T E R

VENT

FLOW T R A N S M I T T E R

ITEM SUPPLIED BY DE LAVAL

ITEM SUPPLIED BY CUSTOMER

COMBINATION INSTRUMENT
W / T W O SERVICES

FLAME A RRESTER

ITEM NUMBER
DRAIN

Ul)

LOW LEVEL INDICA TOR

HIGH LEVEL INDICA TOR

LOW L E V E L A L A R M

*-m-<

HIGH L E V E L A L A R M

Figure 4A5

CONTROLLER

>~Qi

DIAPHRAGM CONTROL BUTTERFLY

VALVE W/POSITIQNER
DIAPHRAGM CONTROL
VALVE W/POSITIONER

PRESSURE

H RECORDING CONTROLLER

DR

HthT

FLOW INDICA TOR

POSITIVE PUMP

BUTTERFLY VA LVE. MANUAL

BUTTERFLY VA LVE
W/AIR CYLINDER

L E V E L INDICA TOR

>~~-Cy~i

STEAM JET EJECTOR

PRESSURE REGULA TOR

INDICA TOR

FLOW RA TIO RECORDING

CONTROLLER

ALARM BELL

3-W
A Y SOLENOID VA LVE

I
!

TEMPERATURE

CENTRIFUGAL PUMP

ALARM HORN

2-W
A Y SOLENOID VA LVE

DUPLEX S T R A I N E R
VALVE INTEGRA L

ANGLE VA LVE

HH

J(J)~*

REVERSIBLE ELBOW - FLANGED

REVERSIBLE ELBOW-CLA MPED

tSo^t

RELIEF VA LVE W/HA NDWHEEL

OR HERMETIC CENTRIFUGE
BACK PRESSURE VA LVE

)(
)&

J-K5-J SA UNDERS VA LVE W/HA NDWHEEL

CHECK VA LVE

RELIEF V*LVE

A IR SWITCH

FIGURE 6 TYPE BLIND

>

PRESSURE INDICA TOR

ACCUMULATOR

A IR OPERATED KNIFE VttLVE (GATE)

SIGHT GLASS

TANK VENT

DIVERSION BA LL VA LVE

VACJUV, INDICA TOR

RUPTURE DISC ON LINE OR NOZ2UE

SELF DRA INING VA CUUM VA LVE

(7.

!/PUNTED 'NSTSLVENT

SlSN
A L CONVERTER

ORlFiCE

SAN'TARY TEE VALVE

W/AIR A CTUA TOR

^\E_

(5g

THERMOSTATIC A IR VENT

^0i

^A?K3AGM SEA L

frJEm FLOA T VALVE

l_^_i

' F Q M RA T Q P .

T5C--CONDENS
A TE

3-WAY PLUG N4A LVE

4-WAY PLUG VA LVE

A
M VlETIC

H)

THERMOMETER W/WELL

SAMPLE VA LVE.6A TE
BALL VA LVE

-f5-

(Mj

THE3MOWE LI-

PLOW DIRECTION A RROW

FLEXIBLE HOSE

PEDi^ER
REV^TOFLEy

2-WAY SA NITA Y VA LVE.

MANUAL OPERA TED

ELECTRICAL .INE

* i CLEAH IN PLACE '-INE

H>-5

Key to Flow Diagram Symbols

FLOW METER

-1444A.4

Gas and Air Pressure Drops on Diesel Engine

Gas System Pressure Drop.

The engine manufacturer's guarantee is

based on having not more than a 10" H-0 pressure drop between the ambient
and engine exhaust flange. The engine connection is 18". Therefore, we
will utilize 18" pipe and fitting between engine and boiler and between
boiler and exhaust silencer.
1.

Resistance of 18" Pipe and Fittings

a.

Transition piece between engine and 18" pipe

0.75

b.

1-18" 90

.23

c.

Expansion joints

.23

d.

13 straight 18" pipes

.11

Total K

Pressure drop in inches H_0:

AP =

2
W v

A 2 x 2.093 x 105

K = 1.32
W = 24,272
v = 30.9 ft3 at 767F
A = 224 in2
AP1
2.

1.10" H 2 0 (W.G.)

Pressure drop through boiler with bypass valve closed

Manufacturer's quotation based on gas flow of 24,480 lbs/hr at 780 F:
AP2 = 6.0" H 2 0 (W.G.)

3.

Pressure drop through Maxim M.41-20" silencer.

Manufacturer's quotation based on 24,000 lbs of gas per hr and 350 F is:
AP 3 = 1.25" H 2 0 (W.G.)

4.

Pressure drop through 20" pipe downstream from boiler just before stack:
4' of 20" pipe
1 expansion joint
1 sudden enlargement
Total
K = 1.13

W = 24,272 l b s / h r
v = 19.77 f .3
t3/lb
A = 291.0 in

0.03
.10
1.00
1.13

-145Using same formula as in (1) above:

AP4 = .660" H20 (W.G.)
Stack Pressure Drop
Assume 95' stack height above exhaust inlet = 9 5 - 16 = 79'
IC for straight pipe
K for exit loss
Total

.60
1.00
1.60

Using same formula as in (1) above:

AP5 = 0.93" H 2 0 (W.G.)
Total Exhaust Pressure Drop
APT = AP1 + AP2 + AP 3 + AP4 + AP5
= 1.10 + 6.0 + 1.25 + .66 + 0.93
= 9.01" H 2 0 W.G. at 325F
With the waste heat boiler bypassed and gas through system at 767 F,
the pressure drop through the exhaust system minus the boiler pressure
drop at 325 F is:
9.01 = 6.0 = 3.01
At 767F the pressure drop is:
T
2
AP = (3.01)1

T 2 = 767 + 460 = 1227

Tl

= 325 + 460 = 785

1227
AP = (3.01)^g = 4.57
The pressure drop through the boiler with the internal gas bypass
open (used to control steam pressure) as quoted by the manufacturer
is 2" H20 (W.G.).
The total pressure drop through the exhaust system is
4.57 + 2 + 6.57
At both temperatures the total exhaust system pressure drop is
less than the maximum allowable.
Inlet Air System Pressure Prop
The engine manufacturer has stated that the maximum allowable pressure
drop between ambient and the diesel inlet flange connection shall not
exceed 4" H 2 0 (W.G.).

146
The major components making up the inlet air system are as follows:
1) oil bath type air filter; 2) inlet air silencer; and 3) 20" O.D. pipe
between air filter and engine.
Oil bath type of air filter. A ir mass flow rate into engine at
100% load is 24,272 lbs/hr. A t 90 F this corresponds to an air volume
of 5603 CFM. The manufacturer's performance curve gives a AP of:
APj = 1.06" H 2 0 (W.G.)
Inlet air silencer. This is a 20" American air filter unit.
Face velocity is 2773 ft/min at 90 F pressure drop:
AP 2 = 0.6
20" O.D. pipe between roof and engine.
590 Elbows
108 feet of 20" O.D. pipe
Sudden contraction at engine
Sudden contraction of filter
Expansion joints

K = 0, ,74
K = 0. ,96
K = 0. ,5
0. ,5
0. 3 _
3, ,0

AP = *'
A2

W 2 vv
x 2.093 x 10 5

v at 90F 13.85 ft3/lbm

2
._ = 3.00 x ^__
(24,272)
1 x 13.85

Ap

(291) x 2.093 x 10 D
= 1.38" H 2 0 (W.G.)
Total System Pressure Drop
AP
aK

= p

+ p

1 2

+ p

*3

AP,T = 1.06 + .6 + 1.38 = 3.04" H 2 0 (W.G.)

-147-

APPENDIX 4B
Equipment and Instrument List

-148APPENDIX 4B
EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENT LIST
4B.1

Instruments (refer to Figure 4A-1)

Pressure Control Valve and Controller - PCV-1 and PC-1. The valve

will be used to control the steam pressure in the ebullient cooling system.
The control valve will be a Fisher Controls Design ED 3" equal percentage
valve ANSI Class 125 lb. The valve will be equipped with a Fisher Controls
657 type actuator and a Type 4160 Controller mounted on the valve. The
valve is selected to pass 2600 lbs/hr of 15 psig steam with a 2 psi
pressure drop.

>

Temperature Control Valve and Temperature Controller - TCV-1 and

TC-1

The valve will be used to maintain the primary loop jacket water

temperature at 266 F.

The temperature control valve will be sized to

pass 370 GPM with a 15 psi pressure drop.

The valve will be a Fisher

Controls Design ED 3" equal percentage 300 lb. design. The valve will be
equipped with a 657 type actuator and a type 2560 controller for mounting
on the valve.
Pressure Control Valve and Pressure Controllers - PCV-2 and PC-2.
The valve will be used as a backup to PCV-1 to control the ebullient steam
pressure.

The pressure control valve will be a Fisher Controls Design ED

3" equal percentage 300 lb. design and a Type 4160 Receiver Controller for
mounting on the valve.
Glycol Temperature Control Valve and Controller - TCV-2 and TC-2. The
purpose of this valve and controller is to hold the glycol temperature to a min
imum of 245F while the backup heat exchanger is in service. The pressure
control valve will be a Fisher Controls Design ED 3" equal percentage 300
lb. design with a Type 4160 Receiver Controller for mounting on the valve.
Level Control Valve and Level Controller on the Jacket Steam Generator
- LCV-1 and LC-1. This will be a Fisher Controls Design ED 1" restricted
trim equal percentage valve and Fisher 2502-249 pneumatic level controller.
Level Control Valve and Level Controller on the Jacket Water Steam
Generator - LCV-2 and LC-2. This will be a Fisher Controls Design ED 1"
restricted trim equal percentage valve and a Fisher 2502-249 pneumatic
level controller.

-149EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENT LIST Continued)

4B.2

Equipment (shown in Figure 4A-1)

Sulzer ASL 25/30 Diesel Engine.

are as follows: power rating:

The specifications for this engine

1405 kw, 1983.9 BHP; 900 RPM; eight

cylinders; 250 mm (9.84 inches) bore; 300 mm (11.81 inches) stroke;

residual oil fuel; engine suitable for generating steam from jacket heat
at 15 psig.
Engine selection is described in section 3.2 of this report.
Alternative Engine: Superior Model 40-X-16 Diesel Engine. The
specifications for this engine are as follows: power rating:

1500 kw,

2120 BHP; 900 RPM; 16 cylinders; 10 inch bore; 10.5 inch stroke; residual
oil fuel; engine suitable for generating steam from jacket heat at 15 psig.
Electric Generator.

This electric generator is rated as 1875 KVA,

1500 kw, 80% power factor, 900 RPM, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 13,800 V.

The generator

rotative speed is fixed by the diesel generator rotative speed. The

generator voltage is fixed by the voltage of the power company and the
Clark distribution system.
Exhaust Waste Boiler.
follows:

gas flow:

The specifications for this boiler are as

24,272 lbs/hr; 767 F inlet temperature; 325 F outlet

temperature; 2516 lbs/hr steam flow; 150 psig design pressure; 125 psig
working pressure; designed and stamped in accordance with ASME Code Section VIII.
Choice of boiler based on the above performance requirements and the
existing operating pressure of Clark steam distribution system.

A further con-

sideration leading to selection of a vapor phase boiler was that this design
takes a minimum amount of floor space.
Diesel Jacket Unfired Steam Generator.
erator are as follows:

The specifications for this gen-

50 psig design pressure, primary; input:

266F, secondary; output:

308 GPM at

1322 lbs/hr 15 psig steam (250F).

A primary loop (diesel jacket fresh water) and secondary loop (15 psig
steam system) were selected because the engine manufacturer required that the
jacket cooling water system be maintained under a positive pressure to prevent
water from flashing into steam in the jacket of the engine.

The size of the

unfired steam generator is taken from the engine heat balance, Appendix 3c.
Air Cooled Glycol Radiator and Surge Tank.

This unit will consist of

two separate horizontal sections, the diesel air cooler and lube oil cooler

-150EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENT LIST (^continued)

section and the diesel jacket back-up cooling section.

Performance

requirements for the air and lube oil cooler section are: 390 GPM glycol
flow; glycol temperature in: 118.9 F; glycol temperature out: 107.6F;
air temperature to unit:

93 F.

Performance requirements for the jacket

back-up glycol to air heat exchanger are: 370 GPM glycol flow; glycol
temperature in: 246 F; glycol temperature out: 237F; air temperature
to unit: 93F.
Both sections will be designed for 50 psig. The size of the units
is taken from the engine heat balance, Appendix 3C. We decided to use
glycol in both systems to eliminate the potential for freezing.

An air

heat exchanger could ultimately cause freezing problems requiring

replacement of capital equipment.

The noise level of 80 dBA 3 feet from

the fans is necessary to satisfy the noise criteria at the perimeter of

Jonas Clark and adjacent buildings.
Two Jacket Fresh Water Pumps, 370 GPM; Two Jacket Water Back-up
Heat Exchanger Glycol Circulating Pumps, 375 GPM; Two Lube Oil Cooler
and Diesel Air Cooler Glycol Circulating Pumps, 390 GPM. These six pumps
will all be of the same general type. They will be by Gould Pump Company,
Model 3196, or approved equal. Each of these pumps has been selected to
have 20% flow margin to handle transient manufacturing tolerances and pump
wear.
Fuel Oil Treatment System.

The residual fuel oil treatment system

shall be a skid mounted unit completely piped and wired, and automated.
The capacity of the unit is 120 GPH. The unit shall have the capability
of reducing the sodium level from 200 ppm to <5 ppm and the free vanadium
level from 200 ppm to <30 ppm.
Fuel Oil Pumps: Two Heavy Oil Transfer Pumps; Two Heavy Oil Engine
Pumps; One Distillate Oil Transfer Pump; One Distillate Oil Day Tank Pump;
One Leak-off Tank Pump. These seven pumps will be duplicates. They will
be IMO DeLaval Fuel Oil Pump Series 3EB, 2 to 9 GPM, 150 psig.
One Air Compressor and Two Air Compressor Receivers.

Compressor

capacity is 25 CFM (free air), 250 psig discharge pressure, 900 RPM,
7-1/2 BHP. The unit will have a belt-driven compressor drive motor and
belt guard.

Receiver design pressure is 275 psig; each has a capacity of

240 gallons. The air receivers have been sized for six consecutive starts.

-151EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENT LIST (continued)

One Diesel Air Intake Filter. This is an American Air Filter Type
POl, Size 47 oil bath air cleaner. The maximum pressure drop through the
unit at 25,500 lbs/hr, 95F air (5937 CFM) is 1.2 inches of water.
One Air Intake Silencer.
shall be TDM-18" 2R.

An American Air Filter Inlet Silencerthis

The maximum allowable pressure drop at 25,500 lbs/hr

of air at 95F is .36 psi. The sound attenuation shall be not less than
the following:
Octave Band Center
Frequency - Herti
Attenuation dB at
4000' FPM
Exhaust Silencer.

125
8

250
15

500
21

1000
27

2000
27

4000
23

5000
17

A Model M41, size 20", Maxim Exhaust Silencer or

approved equal shall be furnished.

The sound attenuation

provided by this

unit shall not be less than the following:

Band Center
Frequency Hz

31.5

63

125

250

500

IK

2K

4K

8K

Attenuation dB

12

30

35

32

26

22

23

25

28

-153APPENDIX 4C
OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS
One (1) Sulzer ASL 25/30 Diesel Engine
1. Power Rating - 1405 kw, 1983.9 BHP
2.

Speed - 900 RPM

3. Number of Cylinders - 8
4.

Bore - 250 mm (9.84 inches)

5.

Stroke - 300 mm (11.81 inches)

6.

Type of Fuel - residual oil

7.

a.

Maximum vanadium in oil to engine - 50 PPM

b.

Maximum sodium in oil to engine - 15 PPM

8.

Brake mean effective pressure - 242.7 psi

9.

Specific fuel consumption not more than .364 lbs/BHP-hr at an

ambient temperature of 47 F

10.

Engine to be suitable for generating steam from jacket heat at

15 psig

11.

Engine shall be tested at manufacturer's factory before shipment

12.

Engine to be equipped with the following accessories:

a.

Flywheel

b.

Speed governor

c.

Safety governor

d.

Lube oil pump

e.

Lube oil cooler and connecting piping to engine and temperature

regulating valve

f.

Prelubricating oil pump with electric motor

g.

Double fuel oil filter

h.

Piping on engine

i.

Pressure gauges for lube oil and charging air

j.

Thermometers for water, oil and exhaust gas

k.

Exhaust gas turbocharged

1.

Set of spanners and tools

Alternative Engine:

One (1) Superior Model 40-X-16 Diesel Engine

1. Power Rating - 1500 kw, 2120 BHP

2.

Speed - 900 RPM

3. Number of Cylinders - 16

-154One (1) Superior Model 40-X-16 Diesel Engine (continued)

4.

Bore - 10 inches

5.

Stroke - 10.5 inches

6.

Type of Fuel - residual oil

7.

a.

Maximum vanadium in oil to engine - 30 PPM

b.

Maximum sodium in oil to engine - 5 PPM

8.

Brake mean effective pressure - 141.4 psi

9.

Specific fuel consumption not more than 0.404 lbs/BHP-hr at an

ambient temperature of 47 F

10.

Engine to be suitable for generating steam from jacket heat at 15

psig

11.

Engine shall be tested at manufacturer's factory before shipment.

Engine to be equipped with the following accessories:
a.

Flywheel

b.

Speed governor

c.

Safety governor

d.

Lube oil pump

e.

Lube oil cooler and connecting piping to engine and temperature

regulating valve

f.

Prelubricating oil pump with electric motor

g.

Double fuel oil filter

h.

Piping on engine

i.

Pressure gauges for lube oil and charging air

j.

Thermometers for water, oil and exhaust gas

k.

Exhaust gas turbocharged

1.

Set of spanners and tools

m.

Skid

One (1) Electric Generator

1.

Rating - 1875 KVA, 1500 kw, 80% P.F., 900 RPM, 3 phase, 60 Hz, 13,800 V

2.

Insulation - Class F, 105F rise by resistance, continuous duty over

a 40 F ambient

3.

Type of enclosure - open drip-proof

4.

Bearing arrangement - single bearing engine type generator

5.

Excitation system - brushless exciter

6.

Overload - DEMA overload, 10% for 2 hours in 24 hours

7.

Temperature detectors - Stator shall be equipped with stator

temperature detectors

8.

Space heaters - unit shall be equipped with space heaters

-155One (1) Electric Generator (continued)

9.

Static voltage regulator - the static voltage regulator shall include

the following:
a.

Static voltage regulator

b.

Voltage adjusting rheostat

c.

Three phase sensing circuitry

d.

Isolation power transformer

One (1) Exhaust Waste Boiler

1.

2.

Performance
a.

Gas flow - 24,272 lbs/hr

b.

Gas inlet temperature - 767 F

c.

Gas outlet temperature - 325 F

d.

Steam flow from unit - 2516 lbs/hr

e.

Maximum gas drop through unit - 6.0 inches H-0 at 24,272 lbs/hr

Type of unit - two gas passes.

flow inside the tubes.

3.

Gas in at top and out at top. Gas

Unit to be equipped with an economizer.

Design pressure - 150 psig

Working pressure - 125 psig
Designed and stamped in accordance with ASME Code Section VIII

4.

Controls and Accessories

The unit shall be equipped with the following controls:
a.

Gas bypass for the control of steam temperature

b.

For feedwater level control

1 - Fisher leveltrol and pneumatic feedwater regulator

c.

1 - high water level alarm switch

d.

1 - low water level alarm switch

e.

1 - pressure gauge - 4-1/2 dial, 0-150 psi range

f.

2 - safety valves set at 150 psig

g.

1 - air vent and vacuum breaker

h.

1 - gauge glass with shutoff valves

One (1) Diesel Jacket Unfired Steam Generator

1.

General Description
The tube bundle will be multipass "U" tube construction. The
tube bundle will be immersed in water from the building heating
system.
tubes.

The jacket cooling water will be pumped through the

The steam will be evaporated in the shell and water

separated from the steam in a steam separator in the shell. The

-156One Q ) Diesel Jacket Unfired Steam Generator (continued)

shell will be approximately 42" In diameter and 120" long.
will be generated at 15 psig.
2.

Steam

The unit will be skid mounted.

Unit shall be designed for a working pressure of 50 psig. Unit

shall be designed in accordance with the ASME Code Section VIII
for unfired pressure vessels, and will bear an ASME stamp for
50 psig.

3.

Performance (100% diesel load)

The unit will be supplied with 308 GPM of jacket water to the tubes
at 266 F.

The return water temperature from the tubes will be 257 F.

Steam will be generated at 15 psig 250 F at the rate of 1322 pounds

per hour.
4.

Standard fittings and controls shall be supplied as follows:

a.

The liquid level will be controlled by a pneumatic level control

and a control valve.

b.

ASA flanged steam outlet and feedwater inlet.

c.

Safety valves in accordance with ASME Section 1 Boiler Code.

d.

Tandem blow-off valves.

e.

ASME gauge glass to permit visual inspection of the water level.

One (1) Air Cooled Glycol Radiator and Surge Tank

General:

This unit will consist of two separate horizontal sections.

The diesel air cooler and lube oil cooler section and the diesel jacket
back-up cooling section.

The fluid cooled by the air will be glycol.

The air handling units will be located beneath the units forcing air
vertically upward across the coils.
1.

Performance
a.

Air and lube oil cooler section:

Glycol flow - 390 GPM
Glycol temperature in - 118.9 F
Glycol temperature out - 107.6 F
Air temperature to unit - 93 F

b.

Jacket back-up glycol to air heat exchanger:

Glycol flow - 370 GPM
Glycol temperature in -246 F
Glycol temperature out - 237 F
Air temperature to unit - 93 F

-157One (1) Air Cooled Glycol Radiator and Surge Tank (continued)
2.

Design
Both sections will be designed for 50 psig.

The units shall be

designed in accordance with the ASME Code Section VIII.

3. Noise Level
The maximum noise level measured 3 feet from the fans around the
periphery.of the unit shall not exceed 80 dBA.
Two (2) Jacket Fresh Water Pumps
Two (2) Jacket Water Back-up Heat Exchanger Glycol Circulating Pumps
Two (2) Lube Oil Cooler and Diesel Air Cooler Glycol Circulating Pumps
The above six pumps will all be of the same general type. They
will be by Gould Pump Company.

Model 3196 or approved equal.

The description of these pumps is as follows:

a.

The motor and pump will be mounted on a common base plate.

b.

This is an end suction pump with vertical discharge - casing

material cast iron.

c.

Open impeller - cast iron.

d.

The bearing frame contains one ball bearing inboard and two ball
bearings outboard.

e.

The stuffing contains five rings of soft pacing.

f.

The shaft shall be 316 S.S.

The pump capacities are as follows:

Item 6A - 370 GPM
Item 6B - 375 GPM
Item 6C - 390 GPM
Fuel Oil Treatment System
General:

The residual fuel oil treatment system shall be a skid mounted

unit completely piped and wired.

This will be an automated system with

a skid mounted control panel.

1. The capacity of the unit is 120 GPH.
2.

The unit shall perform the following operations:

a. Heat the untreated incoming fuel.
b.

Inject chemical automatically to the demulsifying system.

c.

Centrifugally desalt and remove sludge, reducing water soluble

metallic salts such as sodium, potassium, lead and calcium.

d.

Neutralize corrosive vanadium via magnesium sulfonate.

-158Fuel Oil Treatment System (continued)

3. The unit shall have the capability of reducing the sodium level
from 200 ppm to <5 ppm and the free vanadium level from 200 ppm to
<30 ppm.
Fuel Oil Pumps
Two (2) Heavy Oil Transfer Pumps
Two (2) Heavy Oil Engine Pumps
One (1) Distillate Oil Transfer Pump
One (1) Distillate Oil Day Tank Pump
One (1) Leak-off Tank Pump
The above seven pumps will be duplicates.
The pumps will be IMO DeLaval Fuel Oil Pump Series 3EB, 2 to 9 GPM,
150 psig.
The material specification is as follows:
Rotor Housing - close grained cast iron
Power Rotor - alloy steel
Idler Rotor - Pearlitic gray iron
Shaft Seal - Buna N bellows mechanical face type
Bearing - Permanently grease packed ball bearing
Speed - 1750 RPM
Oil Viscosity - 33-5000 SSU
Oil Temperature - 0 - 160F
The inlet connection will be 1" NPT
The outlet will be 3/4" NPT
Drive - direct drive
Pumps will be furnished mounted with a motor, coupling, coupling
guard, and common base plate
One (1) Air Compressor
25 CFM (free air), 250 psig discharge pressure, 900 RPM, 7-1/2 BHP
Belt driven compressor drive motor and belt guard.

The unit will

be equipped with an inlet air filter and have a dual control system.
The compresor will be Quincy Model D-340 or approved equal.
Two (2) Air Compressor Receivers
Design pressure - 275 psig
Each receiver will have a capacity of 240 gallons each.

Each unit

will be equipped with a base ring, inlet and outlet connections, gauge
connections, and drain connections.

-159One (1) Diesel Air Intake Filter

American Air Filter Type POl, Size 47 oil bath air cleaner
The maximum pressure drop through the unit at 25,500 lbs/hr, 95F
air (5937 CFM) is 1.2 inches of water.
One (1) Air Intake Silencer
American Air Filter Inlet Silencer.

This shall be TDM-18" 2R.

The maximum allowable pressure drop at 25,500 lbs/hr of air at 95F is

.36 psi. The sound attenuation shall be not less than the following:
Octave Band Center
Frequency - Hertz
Attenuation dB
at 4000' FPM

125

250

500

1000

2000

4000

5000

15

21

27

27

23

17

Exhaust Silencer
A Model M41, size 20", Maxim Exhaust Silencer or approved equal
shall be furnished.

The inlet and outlet flanges shall have a common

bore axis, i.e. the flow shall be straight through the unit. The maximum
allowable pressure drop through the unit shall not exceed 1.25" H 2 0 (W.G.)
at a flow of 24,000 lbs/hr, at a gas temperature of 350F.

Also, the

pressure drop shall not exceed 2.0" H 2 0 (W.G.) at 24,000 lbs/hr at a

gas temperature of 740F.

The unit shall be equipped with saddles for

providing horizontal support.

The silencer shall be designed for a gas

temperature of 850F and a gas pressure of 30" H 2 0 (W.G.).

The sound

attenuation provided by this unit shall not be less than the following:
Band Center
Frequency Hz

31.5

63

125

250

500

IK

2K

4K

8K

Attenuation dB

12

30

35

32

26

22

23

25

28

-160-

APPENDIX 4D
Electrical Specifications, Including Grid Connection

-161i

APPENDIX 4D
ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING GRID CONNECTION
4D.1

Scope of Work
The work covered by this specification shall include all labor,
material, equipment and services to construct and install the
complete electrical systems in accordance with the National
Electric Code and State and Local Requirements, and as shown on
the plans and specified herein.
This work shall include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

4D.2

Temporary Light and Power

Primary Service Feeders
Secondary Distribution System and Motor Control Centers
Lighting
Power Wiring
Wiring
Lighting
Fire Alarm
Raceways
HVAC Wiring

Specifications
Primary Service
The primary service will be 13.8 KV Delta, 60 cycles, ungrounded
system, starting from the Goddard Library existing service board and
extending to the new building 13.8 KV generator set. This is shown
on the site plan, Fig. 4D-1.
Primary duct system shall consist of two 4" I.D. Type II, direct
burial plastic conduits encased in concrete with rigid conduit
adapters and fittings at the manholes and existing padmount substation.
All terminations, splices and Kenetron Test are to be made only by
Technicians experienced in this work and by a company approved by
the Engineers, such as Hub Cable Company, Medford, Massachusetts.
Existing Substation Padmount
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install a 400 ampere, 3
pole, fused Square "D" switch in section two to feed the new motor
control center.
The feeder from the existing substation shall be four (4) #500 MCM4" C and one (1) 4" C spare, encased in concrete.
System of Light and Power
Primary distribution system shall be 13,800 volts, three phase, three
wire, 60 cycles, A.C.
Secondary distribution system shall be 120/208 volts, three phase,
4 wire, 60 cycles, A.C.

-162-

, TRANSFORMER

T^TT^
NEW METERING
t RELAY
METERING AND
RELAY CONTI
WIRING

BATTERY CHARGER
BATTERIES
2-4'SPARE
CONDUITS TO
UANHOL-C

-SHELVING

EW is>" FEEDERS TO MANHOLE

ELECTRIC RM. GODDARD LIBRARY

4'PVC - TYPE 40
PLASTIC CONDUIT

FEEDER A
PRIMARY CABLE-

SE
FEEDER Tt
-PRIMARY
CABLE

txwfflur
3aMANHOLE COVER
COVER JO BE
INSCRIBED ELECTRIC
(MADE
-/

BRICK HEIGHT
TO SUIT GRADE
CONDITIONS

PULLING
IRONS
INSTALLED^
IN MANHOLES
ON ALL WALLS

V'

""Wi~

RIGID
STEELCONDUIT

^INSTALL
INSULATEO 01
GND BUSHINGS
AND GND TO
ROD

BARE COPPER

H*
10 LONG COPPER
GROUND ROD

JERICA N
PRECAST
MANHOLE'A-10

CABLE RACKS
TYPICAL FOR ALL
(<)WALLS

EXISTING TELEPHONE
CONDUITS TO BE
REPLACED

Ot^

SITE PLAN
SCALE i

.sco-

CABLE RACK

MANHOLE DETAILS

30"MANHOLE

ic

\4

COVER

y\.

SITE PLAN
PROPOSED ICS.
PLANT
DOE CONTRACT NO. ECTT-C-02-42H
CLARK
UNIVERSITY
9 5 0 MAIN STREET WORCESTER, MASS

OI&JO

HANDHOLE

Figure 4D-1

Site PlanElectrical Specifications

SCALE
r-50.0"

,-.i

SHEPHERD
ENGINEERING
4 9 6 PARK
A\ENUE
WORCESTER,MASS
0IGI0

INC

DRWt

E-l

NO

-163System of Light and Power, continued

Lighting and panel outlets shall feed from three phases and neutral of the
four wire system. A solid neutral system shall be used. The lighting plan
is shown in Fig. 4D-2.
Motors 1/2 H.P. and larger shall be 208 volts, three phase. Motors under
1/2 H.P. shall be 120 volts, single phase. The motor plan is shown in
Fig. 4D-3.
Temporary Light and Power
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install a 100 ampere, single
phase service. Sufficient lighting shall be installed to insure proper
safety throughout the building, as shown in Fig. 4D-2.
Convenience outlets shall be installed so that extension cords of not over
50 feet will reach all areas. Temporary power for motors up to 1/2 H.P.,
120 volts, single phase, is to be provided, as shown in Fig- 4D-3.
The temporary power shall feed from Jonas Clark building.
The Owner shall pay for all energy consumed by all Trades.
Secondary Distribution System
Secondary distribution is to include all motor control panels, panelboards,
and complete feeder system.
Primary Distribution Board in Goddard Library
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install all necessary lugs to
receive the primary cables, metering, relays, relay control cubical, C.T.,
P.T. and interlock wiring, as shown in Fig. 4D-4.
Materials
Rigid metal conduit shall be used in the concrete slab, main distribution
feeds and where conduit is subject to mechanical damage or exposed.
Thin wall conduit (EMT) shall be used elsewhere, unless otherwise specified.
Wire and Cable:
1. Type THW shall be used, generally, for all power, branch circuits and
control wiring.
2.

Type RHW or THW shall be used for all distribution wiring, as indicated
on the drawings.

3. Type RHH shall be used for wiring all lighting fixtures.

4.

High voltage cable to generator control panel and 13.8 KV generator

through the new service manholes shall be three single conductors, 4/0,
15 KV, General Electric (Vulkene) with a ground conductor as specified.
The ground conductor shall not be connected at this time.
Outlet Boxes--for installation of wall switches and receptacles shall
be standard 4" square boxes with plaster rings of required depth.

164-

FIXTURES AND LAMPS

A
g
C
D
E
F

HOLOPHANE
HOLOPHAME
HOLOPHANE
HOLOPHANE
HOLOPHANE
HOLOPHANE
DEVINE

I9II-P0-I20V.C-2-C6-IT5W-METAL
HALIOE
l*l-PD-l20V-C~l-Ct-l30WJHC
(LESS BALLAST)
C*-TP-PX-2/T9W-INC
4IT-420VB2S-IT3W-METAL HALIOE
IHI-WL-l20V<-2-C6-IOOW-METAL
HALIOE
7200-4 -2/kOW-TI2
FGia-VIS-MV-IT}W-E2-MV

tt

ELECTRIC EYE CONTROL MOUNTED OH CHIMNEY

ABOVE THE ROOr LINE OF NEW ADDITION
TO EXTERIOR WALL
BRACKETS AND
STEP LIG HTS

''

TWO POLE TIME

CONTACTOR WITH
MAW CONTROL MOUNTED
IN THE COVER

I2

3Ek

LIGHTING FLOOR PLAN

PROPOSED ICES
PLANT
DOE CONTRACT NO ECTT< -02-4211
CLARK
UNIVERSITY
9 5 0 A / V STREET- WOtCESTER.MASS,

LIGHTING FLOOR PLAN

Figure 4D-2

Floor PlanLighting

SCALE'/4-l

SCALE

it

ipf'

HelO
DATE

SHEPHERD
EN
G INElRINt
INC
)9S PARK AVENUE
WORZCSTlR,\l*SS
OHIO

OHIO
OWS NO

E-3

-165SIAINLESS
STEEL
WATERPROOF
NEMA4
DISCONNECT
SWITCHES

SMOKE OCTCCTORS

TO EXISTING

HPtyUpjO

PANEL
ONTROL MOUNTED
HE COVER

FA

**

0ETICT7RS

LIGHTING
AND
RECEPTACLE PANEL
100A MAIN CIRC BR
12 20A IP CIRC BR
120/20
V

tojt

GLY COL AIR FANS

ON ROOF OF JONAS
CLARK BLDG
BOILER FEED PUMPS
IN THE EXISTING
BOILER RM

EXISTING FAN MOTOR

^WIRING TO BE REMOVED
TO TV

MAIN CIRC BR
SO 0 TYPE LA
400
AMPERES.
3 PHASE, 3 POLE

FIRE ALARM

TYPICAL FA STA
HORN4 A 0 LAMP

SYSTEM

MdTQR CONTROL CENTER

TV JUNC

U0NIT0R
SOX

STORM

SOCAGE EJECTOR

MOTOR CONTROL CENTER

HP

GLYCOL AIR FAN

JACKET W7 CIRC PUMP

4
SPARE

<

SPARE

SUE

9/

1.

ai

2
2

12

12

JACKETGLY COLOR PUS 12

12

)
3

10

It

LO PRE LUBE PUMP

LEAK OFF. TANK PUMP

f TRAHSF PUMP

'4

It
M

o
a

2
2

19

2 TRAHSF PUMP

M
IT

1 DAY TANK PUMP

__s

< ENG INE PUMP

2
2

>4

0
0

It

( EHUNf
HUPP*

20

PUMPPfA

21
22

PUMP

<fi
V}

PUMP Pi

PUMPP4
PUMP PI

'/!
>>>

''1

PUMP Pi
CENTRIFUGE

2*-

AIR COMPRESSOR

"/?

23
24

27

SPARE

21
2t

ROOF EXH FAN 1

ROOF EXH FAN

30
31

SEWACE EJECTOR
STORM PUMP

32

>l2

SPARE

31

TYPE COR. 'USING HP

t-UHl I20V

6
2
1

NO

,,

,
,.
"

30

GO
GO
11

it

LO+AC G LYCOL OR PUMP 12

12

7 SECTION

STARTER

PURPOSE
i

EXISTING eAN
W / f l / W TO BE

,
,.

,
"
i,

GO
60
60
60

,
'
I,

"
,,

n
13

'

ra

n
n

,1

11
IS
ii

ii
40

'
,

l_

ra

,,
"
,1

,i

>

,|

40
11

>'
"

70

'
"

,,

20
IS

1,

"
"

i,

li

ACCESSORIES
HOA H.0T CONTTRAN AUX
YES

Jl._

YES

COW

1,

1,

,,
,,

LOCA'ION OF
TELfPHONE

ll
II
7

TYPICAL
SMOKl
0ETICHIR-,

I,

,1

1L.

JTAPPROX
Tl
EXISTIN
G
ll
LINES

,.

SK,3 MOUNTED
PUMPS P6.P6-A
P3I.P4J Pi PT
AND P6 1/2HP
EACH
CNTRIFUGF 6HP

jr

,.
,
II

-H-

i,

,
,,

3 SETS

NO

0TUR
PLM0VE07

1,

- if-,

&

ll

j.y^&m

MCC

,i

,,

II

"

L , v

T~f\

CAMERA

II

T'/,

,1

'.
,

,1

II

"
'
,

,1

I,

II

1,

, .

//

I _

'J

JACKET WATER
CIRC PUMPS

JACKET MM I ER
BACK-UP HJ EXCHR
GLYCOL CIRC PUMPS

LEAK OFF
NOTE

TANK PUMP

SECTION
MO 1

()

ALL MOSTORS IN 1 HIS AREA

SHALL BE FURNISHED
WIT"
DISCONNECT SWITCH

l'/2 HP

SECTION

r<

NO 2

TV

CAMERAS

10 MANHOLE
SEE SITE PLAN

TRANS

TV MONITOR
IN 3011 LR RM

POWER FLOOR

~L
TV JUNC
EXISTING lOOOKVA

EXHAUST

BOX

FAN

Ef <^

EXHAUST FAN If

POWER FLOOR

Floor PlanPower

PLAN

PROPOSED ICES PLANT

i l C0NIRAC7
VO ECFT C 02 4211
CL ARK U . ERSIT/
9 3 0 MAIN Si RU.T WORCESTER MAS*

TV CAMERA SYSTEM
EXISTING

BOILER

eOlLlf

OIG PO

ROOM

SPARE-rc

Figure 4D-3

PLAN

^4-10

TRANSFORMER 4 SWITCH BOARD

Tm ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND

INSTALL A 400 AMPS FUSED SWITCH IN SECT ON 2
OF TMf SmTCHROARD TO FEED THE MOTOR CONTROL
ClMrtR
FEEDER TO MOTOR CONTAOL
4 - ^ 0 0 MCM-4'C

ONI

SCALl

sz./L

CONNECT TO f X / S - ' V G MOTOR

CONTROL CNTf\ AND ADO
COMB STAPTi*
AND 0 SC SN
VrlFH HOAP IN COVff

JO EXISTING MOTOR
CONTROL
CENIIR
BOILIR "!

~ ' \ :~ )

SCALE

,\k*r

l/t

10

DATE
"-W:H/9"B

SHEPHLRD
EN
G INEERIN
G
496 PARK AVENUE
WORCLSTER,MAiS
OHIO

INC

E-2

166

MASS.ELEC CO
FEEDER 41

EXISTING crs
600fi
ELEC
CONTRACTOR SHALL
FURNISH
AND INSTALL
AUX CTS TO
CHANGE SETTING
TO
400/5.

I FE
EXISTING

4/b COPPER

(i*

NEW PILOT LINE

MASS ELEC CO
MANHOLE I OR
GROUND FAULT
PILOT

OUT
RELAYS
UN

it

RELAYS
11

G TS

L_.

LINE,

SIN

PILOTLINE
RELAY

TRANSFORMER
TRIP CONDUIT
FOR 12-41

METIRim

TRIP CIRCUIT

FOR

52-20

\RMJ IflHCJ VARHJ WNCJ ( r o }

i.-, . J

r-J

r~"

TRIP
CONOUITS
FOR 12-41
AND 52
20

Jml l&6--EI]

.J L.

RECORDING
MAG NETIC
TAPE UNIT

\JSA->

rrrn

.;<

FEEDER
}'4/>-l5kv
CABLE

IOOKVA

TRAHSF

NEW 40OA 3 POLE FUSED SWI TCH

MOUNTED IN SECTION TWO OF THE
EXISTING
SUB-STATION

r /i

X
COPPER
4'CONOUIT

Hi

--i

4 SPARE CONDUIT TO BE CAPPED

IN SUBSTATION
AND MOTOR
CONTROL
CENTER

rxi
r-'

I
I
I

I
I
I

L J
~l
i
I300KW
I3BKV
GENERATOR

GENERATOR
CONTROL
PANEL

GODDARD LIBRARY
EXISTING SUBSTATION
AND NEW METERING
CONTROL FOR NEW
ICES PLANT

Figure 4D4

Power Distribution and Control

FEEDER
FEEDER

X
V

i
i

rxn
MOTOR
CONTROL
CENTER

LJ
4 SOOMCM

4'C

T SECTION MOTOR CONTROL

CENTER
WITH 40OA .3POLE, 120 20
VOLT
MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER AND IOOA
LIGHTING
PANEL.BUILT
IN THE BOARD

JONAS CLARK
EXISTING SUB-STATION
AND NEW MOTOR CONTROL
CENTER IN ICES PLANT

NEW ICES PLANT

15*v GENERATOR
AND CONTROL
BOARD

DISTRIBUTION CENTER
PROPOSED ICES
PLANT
DOE CONTRACT NO ECTT-C
02-4211
CLARK
UNIVERSITY
9 3 0 MAIN
STREET-WORCESTEHMASS

Ji-i

SCALE

fi'l

DATE
MARCH '9TB

SHEPHERD
G
EN INEERIN
G
4 9 6 PARK AVE
WORCESTER MASS OIG IO

E-4

-167Panels for lighting and small power shall be NQOB with thermal magnetic, bolt-on circuit breakers and NEMA interrupting capacity as
required and mounted in the motor control center.
Safety switches shall be Square "D" heavy duty type, fused or unfused,
as required.
Receptacles shall be duplex grounded type, 20 ampere capacity.
Switches for general lighting shall be the quiet type, 20 ampere.
Device plates shall be brushed stainless steel.
Emergency Lighting
Emergency lighting shall be provided in the new addition, as shown in
Fig. 4D-2. The feed shall be extended from 20 ampere circuit breaker in
the Boiler Room emergency panel.
Fire Alarm System'
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install a complete supervised,
closed-circuit, double-supervised, zone-indicating, manual and automatic
fire alarm system with standby batteries, as shown in Fig. 4D-3.
Telephone System
Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install new empty conduit for the
existing New England Telephone manhole, all as designated on the electrical
site drawing.
The existing service conduit shall be removed. Existing raceways may be
cut and re-routed under the floor slab to the existing junction box.
Power
All motors will be furnished and installed by others, wired and connected
by the Electrical Contractor, as shown in Fig. 4D-3.
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install all starters, contactors,
safety disconnects, thermal switches, remote and local control switches,
relays, timers, toggle switches and pilots, unless otherwise shown.
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install all interlock wiring
required for all motors, controls and alarm circuits.
Motor Control Center
The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install a Square "D" model
four, or equal, motor control center, complete with all fusible disconnect
switches, starters, selectors and switch controls for operating motors and
auxiliary contacts for interlocking of motors and remote controls. This
is shown in Fig. 4D-4.
Metering and Relay Control to Monitor the Parallel Feeder Load Between
Clark University and Massachusetts Electric Company
A pilot wire terminal at the University shall be connected to the existing
pilot line control cable, making a three-terminal line, as shown on the
site plan, Fig. 4D-1, and the Distribution Center Plan, Fig. 4D-4.

-168Massachusetts Electric Company will prohibit the parallel operation of the

generator when Clark is connected to cable 20.
The generator will operate ungrounded,as single ground source exists at
Webster Street, with reactors in the neutral. Massachusetts Electric
Company will retain the existing non-directional ground relays with a pickup of 240 amperes at Webster Street and 120 amperes at Clark University on
cable 41.
The existing non-directional overcurrent relays will continue to protect
for Clark's phase faults. The pickup is 240 amperes, which limits the
load to about 5700 KVA in either direction on either 41 or 20.
A set of directional overcurrent relays shall be installed to trip the
41 circuit breaker or the 20 circuit breaker for phase faults on these
circuits. These shall be set on 96 amperes maximum in order to assure
the capability of the generator to trip the breaker. This limits the
generation output to Massachusetts Electric Company at 2300 KVA, which is
above its rating. The 0.8 tap with 120 CT ratio will carry over 3 amperes
secondary or 360 amperes primary in the non-trip direction. The directional overcurrent relays require 120 volts phase to phase.
For ground faults with an ungrounded source, Massachusetts Electric Company
prefers the installation of an overvoltage relay supplied from a set of
auxiliary potential transformers with a broken corner delta connection
which produces triple zero sequence voltage during a ground fault. The
sides of the delta can be either 69 volts (producing 270 volt maximum) or
120 volts (producing 360 volt maximum).
Two under and overvoltage relays plus two under and overfrequency relays
shall be installed to protect cable 41 or 20 from having the wrong voltage
or frequency when isolated from Webster Street or Faraday Street.
The bus potential transformers must be connected wye grounded wye for the
ground detection overvoltage relay; there is thus a possibility of ferroresonance if the bus is operated or becomes ungrounded. The probability
of this is, however, remote if the potential transformers are loaded with
at least 100 watts per phase.
The above relay settings would be supplied by Massachusetts Electric
Company. Massachusetts Electric Company must either set and test the
relays or witness the setting and testing, at the expense of the Contractor.
The Contractor would be required to furnish the Massachusetts Electric
Company the drawings and data necessary to check the protection and calculate the settings. A battery shall be furnished for tripping the circuit
breakers. The generator shall be equipped with an automatic voltage
regulator.
The following relay list supplements the information presented above, as
indicated. The relays are Westinghouse Electric Corporation, but equivalent
types may be used, except for the pilot wire relay which must match that
which is used by Massachusetts Electric Company. The directional overcurrent relay must have an 0.8 ampere tap or lower.

-169!&

1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
6
3

Device

Function

Type

Range

Style #

87PW

Pilot Wire

HCB

4-15

67-51

Dir. Over
current

0.5-2.5

292B930A10
1575394
508A468G01
291B318A09
288B571A12

55-140
55-140
55-59.5
55-65
55-140

1875508
1875512
671B287A15
291B995A12
1875512

27
59

81-U
81-0

59N

CV-5

Transformer
W2 Switch
RC Milliammeter
CR-7
CB-2
CV-5

KF

CF-1
CV-5

4/1

Auxiliary transformers 120/69 volts at least 50VA

LoadintI resistors, adljustable, set <appiroximately 150 ohms, rated
200W, if generator is not grounded

All set-back charges made by Massachusetts Electric Company shall be

carried as a part of the Electrical Contractor's bid price.
Generator
The 15KV Diesel Driven Generator and control panel shall be furnished and
installed by others. The Electrical Contractor shall furnish and install
dual primary feeders to the generator control panel and generator and all
related wiring for control circuits.

-170-

APPENDIX 4E
Architectural Design*

* As indicated in the text, section

4.3,

a revised design is in process,

The new specifications and drawings were not available at press time.

-171APPENDIX 4E
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
4E.0

Introduction
There were two primary requirements of this architectural design:

1) proper and efficient function of the ICES plant, and 2) compatibility

with the Jonas Clark building, Clark's most venerable structure, as well
as suitability to the campus and the Goddard Memorial.

It was our

further desire to give a feeling of strength and power to the building in

keeping with its function, and at the same time to avoid the appearance
of an industrial structure with all the usual utilitarian elements.
4E.1

Architectural Design Drawings

The demonstration project required observation facilities and the

noise suppression requirement favored masonry construction with a minimum

of glass. Thus the building is of concrete and brick, with a band of
louvers separating the brick element above from the foundation below.
The intent is to lighten the structure and make the upper section float
over the band of louvers.

The louvers will be functional wherever re-

quired by mechanical equipment, and false where they pass structural

elements or blank wall sections.
walls for viewing from outside.

Glass is provided on the north and east

At the south wall, entrance is at grade

for convenient access to the generator and equipment.

The building is located on the east side of Jonas Clark, with its
floor level with the present boiler room floor and with a clear height
within the building of approximately 24'. At the north end is an underground room extension, wholly below grade and reaching almost to Woodland
Street.

This room provides needed machinery space without adding to the

mass of the building above grade, where it would tend to overpower the
structure in its relation to other buildings on the campus. The site
plan is shown in Fig. 4E-1. The main floor plan is shown in Fig. 4E-2.
The upper part of the generator room will contain an observation deck
along the north wall and a recessed, sheltered observation window along the
east wall.

There will be a travelling crane to service the generator and

other equipment and a large removable panel in the south wall to provide
access to machinery.

The upper floor plan is shown in Fig. 4E-3. Eleva-

tion and cross sections of the proposed building are shown in Fig. 4E-4 - 4E-7.

-172-

SITE

PLAN

Figure 4E-1

S i t e Plan

-173-

:_i

rr:

l-

an c-

FLOOR
LOWER

Figure 4E-2

Floor PlanLower Level

LEVEL

PLAN

-=_

II

i . . .._o- ^ po ^OPCSL'^
i.~)on-''
. iiICES
J,.

P-^S -1

CL_A'j!< U V E R I T Y

^x:.'/'

t.- BOZFNHARD COMPANY i

174-

/ /

7 /

V/ .

rs;. A . s

/ / /
\>' 7 7 li

FLOOR
UPPER
LEVEL
Figure 4E-3

Floor PlanUpper Level

PLAN

Jti

paopc&zD
CLA:^

\cz PLANT"

u\.vE3f--:7Y-

THr BOZENHARD COMPANY INC.

175-

j
1

'

7 i
i

tir-

r_

L,

f 4

i"

-r

L. _ J

,1
IF

'

nj^ DA S^ST AX-TEt . * * ? ' EAS"1"

EAST
H

Figure 4E-4

East Elevation

'

ELEVA TION

ITS GTZKT rr vonce"BiuaA.r

-r

E-CVA TO^

(4 . i - PROPOSED

ft-ASK

VOf5C6TtQ

!CCS

P-A VT

UNVC-25""Y
Miee

i BOZENH^Kr COKPA ilY s

~^-

176-

I
:TCCT
HX-DOMr-AXf!
1 - . , \ :. t - 9 1 - T &
i anon
ST,uonasni.

IwesF-

SOUTH
- = . <=

Figure 4E-5

NORTH
South and North Elevations

., ,

V ><>'

7TI7fc

^vfcito c ^ . n c

MCf-^-f'

.
"KOQTM ...^ ..SOUTH l_evA T:N
PROPOSED ices PLA ST_
'CL.A.Q^ USJTVE.,2S:TY : "
wonoeren

M i n .

THI BOZENHARD COMPANY

-177-

c_n

EJ
3S2~0\.

Figure 4E-6

A A

Building Cross-Sections, East-West

CnOSS

QSC-QV.

BB

n^TDAQ^TrAX^^-KT3

ns anc/eci; woocctr. Mist,

. l<mt> ! &UI_D'NG
|_ - C * - L '

I
-J

CAJKI^L.

CQOS5

3CCOSS

uisi":v:Q5.,"rY

H I 80ZENHAPD f O A " > ^ /

1781

ct

"-fl

-_l

[ i_..

c=n

-,

m
T
MeriikMl!

^ruDt

T_>^,rJtfBrrr
crayy* a e e r p s i

^T^3~3

cc

: JDJ -D SG cocee ^ s c - ' o ^

._ P R O P O S E S

'
Figure 4E~7

Building C ross-Sections, North-South

C~A?PC

ICES

PL.A S.T

uwr^TY

- i " BOZENHARD C OMPAQ

-1794E.2

Architectural Specifications
The following outline specifications describe the construction as

presently planned;

reinforced concrete foundations; wire-mesh reinforced-

concrete 5"-thick floors on grade; reinforced-concrete 6"-thick elevated

slabs; reinforced concrete walls to roof, faced with brick above louvers;
structure of reinforced concrete columns and beams, including crane
columns, beams and rails; roof structure of clear span Flexicore plank
8" thick; reinforced-concrete engine foundation and miscellaneous machine
and motor foundations; waterproofing consisting of foundation coating
below grade plus mopped membrane over underground oil storage room

and

over east observation deck; standard asbestos felt or asphalt felt and
gravel roofing; windows framed with aluminum tube and multiple glazed for
acoustical attenuation; steel or aluminum doors and removable panel,
gasketed and double glazed; strip aluminum louvers permitting random locations for inlet or outlet air; an internal envelope of acoustical material
on the underside of the roof and on walls wherever suitable space is
available; painting of piping, steel doors and miscellaneous iron only
no painting of concrete is included; bridge-type, double-beam crane for
minimum vertical clearance, with hook and bridge manually controlled by
continuous chain; tin-clad, four-hour fire door between generator room and
old boiler room is included.
The chimney plan includes a foundation at the boiler room floor
level, tied to the Jonas Clark building and rising to a height of 95',
approximately 30' above the cornice of the Jonas Clark building.
is

to be lined with double-walled steel.

The flue

Landscaping will consist of

replacing appropriate planting in the immediate proximity of the building

only.

Work in Jonas Clark includes installation of curbs and flashing for

a new 30,000 pound cooling tower; this work will require the removal of
the third floor ceiling and extensive strengthening of the structure of
Jonas Clark.

An exit is planned at the first floor level of the stair

tower at the present east end of Jonas Clark (this design not fully
developed); also, structural steel will be provided to frame up the side
of Jonas Clark to support condenser water lines.

-180-

APPENDIX 4F

Utility Tie-In Specifications

-181. APPENDIX 4F
UTILITY TIE-IN SPECIFICATIONS
4F.0

Introduction
We show in Fig. 4F-1 a si,te plan including all existing utilities.

The floor plan in Fig. 4F-2 shows the necessary utility tie-in described
in this Appendix, and Fig. 4F-3 gives elevation's for major tie-ins. All
work can be done in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.
4F.1 Heating System
Steam lines (existing).

Existing steam and^ condensate return lines

now leaving the existing boiler plant and serving the campus must be
rerouted through the proposed new plant and reconnected to the existing
steam and condensate return lines outside proposed new plant foundation
walls.
Steam lines (new).

Provide connections to high and low pressure

steam producing equipment furnished by Thermo Electron and extend to

existing steam pressure reducing station in existing boiler room for
use throughout the campus.
New low pressure steam supply and condensate return lines shall be
extended from existing lines to two new steam coils, located in make-up
air systems.
Heating hot water lines (existing).

Existing heating hot water lines

now leaving the existing boiler plant and serving two buildings on campus
must be rerouted as shown on the drawings and reconnected outside the new
plant.
Feedwater piping.

Provide new feedwater piping from existing dearea-

tion tank manifold to new feed water tank in proposed new plant complete
with all necessary controls, valves and other accessories.
4F.2

Fuel System
Fuel oil piping systems (existing); The existing fuel oil supply

and return lines and fuel oil gauge lines serving the existing boilers are
presently located in the area of the proposed new plant.

These lines will

be relocated and run through the new plant and reconnected to the existing
lines outside, the proposed new plant foundation walls.
Fuel oil piping systems (new).

New fuel oil supply and return lines

shall be tied.in-between the relocated existing lines mentioned above and

new fuel oil pumps furnished by Thermo Electron.

-182-

LEGEND
(HEA T I N G")
-HKS.
-HW.R.
-F.W.
-F.O.S.
-F.OR.
F
GA
V

_f
t

/REM.,.

POINT OF EXISTING PIPE

TO

BE REMOVEO.

NOTE:
REFER TO FLOOR PLAN 'j>W6 VIZ)
FOR NEW PIPE CONN TO EXIST'G

S T E A M SUPPLY
STEAM RETURN
HOT WATER SUPPLY
HOT WATER RETURN
FEEDWATER
FUEL OIL SUPPLY
FUEL OIL RETURN
FILL
GAUGE
VENT
PIPE UP
PIPE DN
NEW PIPING
EXISTING PIPING
GATE VALVE
CONTROL VALVE
G L O B E VALVE
CONN. NEW PIPE TO EXIST'G
FRESH AIR SYMBOL
EXHAUST AIR SYMBOL
EXHAUST FAN
ROOF FAN
SOUND TRAP
AUTOMATIC CONTROL DAMPER
FRESH AIR
FUEL OIL
FEEDWATER
VOLUME DAMPER

(PLUMBING)
GAS
-SANSANITARY
SANITARY (BURIED)
RAIN CONDUCTOR'
RAIN CONDUCTOR (BURIED)
VENT
VENT ( J U R I E D )
P I P E UP
P I P E DN
GATE VALVE
CHECK VALVE
CONN. NEW P I P E TO E X I S T ' G
NEW P I P I N G
EXISTING PIPING
F.C.O.
FLOOR CLEAN OUT
V.T.R.
VENT THRU ROOF
W.tT.
WASTE t TRAP
CO.
CLEAN O U T
F.D.
FLOOR DRAIN
RXJl
ROOF DRAIN
V.
VENT

Site Plan--Engineering

SITE PLAN AND LEGEND

PROPOSED ICES PLANT

CLARK UNIVERSITY
WORCESTER,

FITZEMEYER t

MASS.

TOCCI INC

Ml(

183-

UNDERCROUNO FUEL OIL TANK

CONN NEW
["TO EXIST'S

PART- FLOOR PLAN (ABOVE)

(EXIST C JONAS CLARK

Figure 4F-2

HALL)

Floor PlanEngineering

FLOOR PLAN (AT RIGHT)

(PROPOSED ICES

PLANT)

FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED ICES PLANT
CLARK UNIVERSITY
WORCESTER,

MASS.

FITZEMEYER 1 TOCCI INC. [ r ^ f

184-

FOR CONT. REFER

TO EQUIP. OWGS.

J1

6AUGE
3* F O S
2 V FOR.

QJ

n^v

Jfc=Jr-4=*A

3 ' S ' M . (125 PSI)

3"S7M. (15 PSI)
2" FW.

6 0 X 54

h
i

I. L

1-

^TNT

DATE
J-IJ-Tt

r"-i

KALC

ijif. i'-o*

sunn

F i g u r e 4F-3

AMO pr
fLF

Elevations
|!(..ll\V

ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED ICES PLA NT

CLARK UNIVERSITY
WORCESTER,

A
M SS.

FITZEMEYER t TOCCI INC. mar

MELROSE,

A
M tS.

M3

-185A new No. 2 fuel oil tank, supply and return lines, tank tappings,
gauge, vent, fill connections and all necessary accessories shall be installed.

The new fuel oil supply and return lines shall extend from the

new fuel tank into the proposed plant and tie into the fuel pump furnished
by Thermo Electron.
Gas system.

The existing gas service now serving the existing boilers

is presently located in the area of the proposed new plant. This gas
main shall be relocated as shown on the drawings, including all gas meters
and valving.
4F.3

Air and Exhaust System

Plant air intake system.

Provide new ductwork systems tying into

architectural louvers in building walls and extending to new sound traps

and to new discharge louvers. Two new non-freeze steam distributing coils
shall be installed between sound traps and discharge louvers and they shall
be controlled by thermostats located in discharge ducts.
Exhaust fan (existing).

The existing exhaust fan now serving the

existing boiler plant must be removed and replaced with two new exhaust
fans as indicated on the drawings, on Fig. 4D-3. These fans are to be operated
from reverse acting thermostats with switches for manual operation.
4F.4 Water and Drainage
Domestic water.

Domestic cold and hot water shall be extended from

the existing mains in the existing boiler plant for use in new plant.
Floor drainage systems. New heavy-duty floor drains with large
sumps and bucket strainers shall be installed with cast-iron pipes extending from each drain to a new duplex sewage ejector.

The discharge from

the ejector shall be extended into the existing boiler plant and connected
to the nearest sanitary main.

Vents shall be extended through the new

roof.
Storm drainage system.

Two new extra heavy ramp-type drains shall

be installed across the new ramp down to the new plant. New cast-iron
piping shall be extended to a new duplex sewage ejector.

The discharge

from the ejector shall be extended into the existing boiler plant and
connected to the nearest sanitary main.

-186-

APPENDIX 4G

Noise and Vibration Analysis

-187Appendix 4G
Noise and Vibration Analysis
4G.1.

Noise and Vibration Sources

Noise and vibration are key design issues. This Appendix presents the
results of the acoustical engineering preliminary design analysis. The outline
specifications for mechanical (Appendix 4C) and ventilation systems (Appendices
4D,4F) and for the building (Appendix 4E) all include items pertaining to noise
and vibration control.
The following noise sources were considered in the acoustical design analysis.
The diesel engine emits noise from its casing and from the air inlet on the roof
of Jonas Clark and also from the exhaust stack.

The exhaust system includes a

silencer and also a heat recovery boiler which attenuates engine noise. The
engine air inlet is equipped with a silencer.

The building ventilation system

is a potential leak for in-plant noise such as from the diesel engine casing.
This system will have inlet and exhaust silencers to reduce plant noise and ventilating fan noise reaching the outdoors. The building will be designed to prevent excessive noise escape,

especially through windows and doors. There will

be a special wall construction on the Jonas Clark side to protect classrooms from
excessive noise.

The air-cooled heat exchanger on the roof of Jonas Clark is

potentially a major sound source.

This will be controlled either by purchasing

a quiet option unit with slower fan tip speed, or by constructing a noise barrier
around the heat exchanger to take advantagf of its high elevation relative to
critical receptors.
Diesel engine vibration will be controlled by means of an inertia block
foundation isolated from the rest of the building.

Vibration isolators will also

be used on auxiliary equipment and piping as needed to control vibration and

structure-borne noise.
4G.2.

Design Criteria

Critical receptors of noise considered in establishing the acoustical design

criteria include:

plant operating staff; plant visitors (observation deck); class-

rooms and offices in Jonas Clark Hall; adjacent open space including the proposed
Goddard Memorial, Goddard Library, and Bullock Hall dormitory.
With existing and foreseeable technology for diesel engines it can be expected
that noise levels inside the plant will be in the range 100 - 110 dBA. This

-188assumes extensive sound absorbing surfaces inside the plant on the roof and walls.
There is no known way to reduce these noise levels below 100 - 110 dBA.
These expected noise levels inside the plant are well above the 90 dBA
permitted by OSHA for 8 hours per day employee exposure.

Thus it will be neces-

sary to locate the operator's desk and control station outside of the high noise
area.

This can either be in a special sound-insulated room inside the plant or

in the adjacent existing boiler room.

It will be necessary to require employees

to wear hearing protectors while inside the diesel plant.

The acoustical design approach for this plant has been to enclose the plant
inside a structure with suitable sound insulating or retardant features. The
objective is to assure that various receptors outside the plant will not be exposed to noise levels that would be objectionable or interfere with human activities.
Figure 4G-1 shows the plant site and environs.
adjacent.

Jonas Clark Hall is immediately

It is our recommendation that noise levels produced by the ICES Plant

in the existing Boiler Room should not exceed 70 dBA.

This is comparable to

the existing noise levels and will permit conversation with a loud voice at a
distance of 3 ft. Telephone use will also be possible. There is no known risk
of hearing damage at 70 dBA.
The most critical receptors in Jonas Clark Hall are the offices, classrooms
and other teaching spaces. Typical acceptable background noise levels in such
spaces are in the range 35 - 50 dBA.

It is our recommendation that noise levels

produced by the ICES plant should not exceed 40 dBA in any offices or teaching
space in Jonas Clark Hall.

With this criterion the plant may be just audible in

some rooms at the east end of the building, but not audible in most of the rooms.
Figure 4G-1 shows some of the existing noise levels measured during the
Environmental Impact Assessment investigations.

(See Appendix 2C.) The noise

levels shown in Fig. 4G-1 are the lowest ambient noise levels measured, i.e. at
night (2:00 a.m.).

The quietest location (42 dBA) was east of Goddard Library.

Most other locations in the vicinity of the proposed ICES Plant were measured at
about 50 dBA. The only exception to this was close to Jonas Clark Hall where the
boiler room emits 60 dBA.

(See Fig. 4G-1.)

Our interpretation of these data is that the true night-time ambient noise
level for the Clark University campus is about 42 dBA.

The boiler plant is audible

at night outside such nearby buildings as Bullock and Atwood, where it produces
noise levels at about 50 dBA. The existing ambient noise levels are apparently
compatible with campus activities. The Massachusetts DEQEstandards would permit
an increase of 10 dBA over the existing ambient levels.

In other words 60 dBA

-189-

y, . - 'J

0 20 40 Go*
Approx. Scale:

1 inch = 50 ft

AMBIENT NOISE
LEVEL - dBA
(Source: Appendix 2C)

CLARK UNIVERSITY: PROPOSED

ICES SITE AND ENVIRONS
F i g . 4G-1. Measured Ambient Noise Levels (dBA)
(See F i g . 2C-4 and Table 2C-4)

LGC

ansa's

-190would be permissible at Bullock Hall.

It is our opinion that this would be

excessive noise for the exterior of a dormitory and would greatly detract from
the present tranquil ambience of Clark University.
The Cities of Boston and Cambridge in Massachusetts have established 50 dBA
as the night-time noise limit for residential land uses.

It is our recommendation

that the ICES Plant should not produce noise levels above 50 dBA at a distance of
200 ft., i.e. including the Bullock Hall dormitory exterior.
If the Plant produces noise levels of 50 dBA at 200 ft. then higher noise
levels can be expected closer in.

Existing daytime ambient noise levels reported

in Appendix 2C are in the range 50 - 70 dBA, with 55 - 60 dBA being rather typical.
It is our recommendation that the ICES plant should not produce noise levels in
excess of 55 dBA at ground level at a distance of 100 ft. from the plant. This
would protect most of the open space, including the Goddard Memorial. For
accessible locations right next to the Plant we recommend a design noise level
not to exceed 65 dBA.

This would include the exterior observation deck. A noise

level of 65 dBA permits easy conversation at a distance of 3 feet and raised voice
conversation at 6 feet.
The preceding recommended acoustical design criteria are summarized in
Table 4G-1.
Table 4G-1. AcousticsDesign Criteria
Location

Plant Noise Contribution

(1) Existing Boiler Room

70 dBA

(2) Plant Operator's Desk

70 dBA

(3) Teaching or Office Spaces in

Jonas Clark Hall
(4) Outdoors at Generally Accessible
Locations Next to Plant

65 dBA

(5) Outdoors at Ground Level

100 ft. from Plant

55 dBA

(6) Outdoors at 200 ft. from Plant

up to 30 ft. above ground, including
all windows of Bullock Hall Dormitory

40 dBA

50 dBA

Vibration produced by the Plant shall not be perceptible directly by human beings
in any teaching or office space in Jonas Clark Hall.
be as developed by Reiher and Meister.

Perception criteria shall

(Ref. F. C. Nelson, "Subjective Rating of

Building Floor Vibration," Sound and Vibration, October, 1974, pp. 34-37.)

-1914G.3.

Preliminary Design Analysis

The ICES Plant is presently at a preliminary stage of design as documented

i

'

in the other Appendices. Noise calculations have been performed based on this
preliminary design.

>

The results of these preliminary calculations are summarized

in Table 4G-2. These calculations are based on the design assumptions incorporated in the other Appendices .describing the building and the Mechanical, Electrical
and Ventilation systems.
As shown in Table 4G-2, the plant is expected to meet the outdoors acoustical
design criteria presented in Table 4G-1. These criteria will assure a plant that
does not interfere with the quiet of the Clark University campus. Note in Table
4G-2 that the two most noisy sources are the diesel exhaust stack and the sircooled heat exchanger. However, three of the other sources listed are also significant.

With proper silencing, the plant ventilation openings are not signifi-

cant noise sources.

Table 4G-2. Calculated Noise Source Contributions Outdoors
Source

Noise Level (dBA)

Ground Level at
100 ft from pi ant

0-30 ft above Ground

at 200 ft from plant
40 dBA

(2) Plant Ventilation Openings

46 dBA
38

(3) Windows, Doors and Removable

Panels

45

39

(4) Diesel Air Intake

39

(5) Diesel Exhaust Stack

47

39
44

(6) Air Cooled Heat Exchanger

48

46

53 dBA

50 dBA

(1) Plant Roof and Walls

PLANT TOTAL

32

The interior acoustical design criteria presented in Table 4G-1 for Jonas Clark
Hall can be met without unusual construction techniques. This is due to the
massive construction of Jonas Clark Hall.
4G-4.

Preliminary Design Specifications

(a) Building roof and exterior walls should be of masonry at least 80 lb/square

foot area density.

Curtain wall between the diesel room and the exterior of Jonas

Clark Hall should be rated at STC 50 or greater.

-192Cb) Plant v e n t i l a t i o n ducts ( i n l e t and exhaust) should be equipped with

s i l e n c e r s with insertion loss of at least 23 dBA at 125 Hz. All e x t e r i o r fans
should emit less than 70 dBA at 3 f t . from the i n l e t or discharge opening.
(c)
rated at
(d)
equipped
250 Hz.

All windows, doors and removable access panels should be sound-retardant

STC 50 or g r e a t e r .
The diesel a i r intake should be at the roof of Jonas Clark Hall and be
with an i n - l i n e s i l e n c e r providing at least 15 dB insertion loss at

(e) The diesel exhaust stack should be above the roof of Jonas Clark Hall
and be equipped with an i n - l i n e s i l e n c e r inside the plant providing at least
35 dB insertion loss at 125 Hz. The exhaust gases must also be passed through a
completely separate heat recovery b o i l e r before entering the exhaust s i l e n c e r .
The diesel engine must be turbocharged.
(f) The air-cooled heat exchanger must be located on the roof of Jonas Clark
Hall and must not emit noise in excess of 80 dBA as measured at any point within
3 f t . of the unit as delivered t o the s i t e . I t may be necessary to surround the
heat exchanger with a noise b a r r i e r .

-193-

APPENDIX 5A

P r o j e c t E f f o r t and C a p i t a l Cost A n a l y s i s
f o r Phases I I I - V I n c l u s i v e

-194-

Appendix 5A
Project Effort and Capital Cost Analysis for Phases III-V Inclusive

In this appendix we present our projections of effort and capital costs

for the remaining phase of the project.

We have enumerated separately the base

costs to Clark for the project and our proposal for DOE-funded demonstration
costs according to the terms of the original RFP. We have also made an estimate
of the costs to another comparable facility which might wish to duplicate the
Clark project, taking advantage of Clark's experience.
Starting with Phase III we will use a revised organizational structure for
the project, as shown in Fig. 5A-1. The revision will help in maintaining the
construction schedule and segregating demonstration activities. Task assignments
with levels of effort and estimated costs are presented in Table 5A-1.
Our projections for capital costs are summarized in Table 5A-2.
Details of the mechanical costs are given in Table 5A-3. As with the
labor costs, we distinguish between base costs to Clark and proposed demonstration costs to the Department of Energy.

There are four items in the proposed

demonstration costs: grid-connection, monitoring equipment, demonstration civil

costs (the cost of providing public viewing areas), and fuel treatment. The
first three are straightforward outgrowths of the demonstration program, described in the original RFP.

The fourth requires some elaboration.

There are

two reasons why we feel that fuel treatment should be, at least in part, a
demonstration cost.

First, the major portion of the capital cost for the fuel

treatment system is for removal of sodium; sodium is a regional problem affecting

only those areas of the country whose oil comes primarily from ocean-going
tankers.

Second, the costs of fuel treatment are much higher now than they will

be when there are more heavy oil diesel and gas turbine facilities. The economics of scale in fuel treatment facilities are illustrated in Fig. 5A-2, which
shows, for example, that the capital cost of a facility ten times as large as
Clark's is only about twice as much.
In Table 5A-4, we summarize labor and capital costs by phase, with Clark's
base costs and DOE demonstration costs.
We have estimated costs for duplicating the Clark project under the following assumptions:

(1) Clark's results can be used directly to determine the

system configuration, avoiding a large fraction of the Phase I and II engineering

costs; (2) because of the Clark precedent only a modest effort would be required

Clark Trustees
Figure

New England Electric

5A-1

Program Administrator

Organizational Chart

Representative
R. Plutnicki

F. Puffer
Coordinating Committee
F. Puffer, L. Iandry, R.
Goble, C. Hohenemser, B.
Kimball, E. Fitzemeyer

Coordinator of design, installation

and finance

Coordinator of institutional issues

and demonstration
R. Goble

Lo Landry

1
Environmental

Monitoring

Demonstration

Schwarz
Jiohenemser

Gottlieb

Goble
-Hohenemser

Management of design and installation

Clerk of
works

Thermo-electron, Inc.

3 Kimball

Eng^Lneerinf
engnm e
>

TECO

Engineering,
interfac i

Archi-

Fitaemey
.er &
Tocci

Bozen-hard

tect

Electrical
Shep- herd

Sub-contractors
.

-196Table 5A-1
Project Effort and Cost Analysis
Phase/Task

Work
done
by

Base Effort (Clark)

man-months
Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n.

Demonstration Effort (DOE)

man-months
Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n.

Phase III: Final Design

1. Basic system design
A. Overall management
B.
C.
D.
E.

Engine system
Distribution system
Electrical/non-grid
Architectural

TECO
Clark
TECO
F T
Shep.
Boz.

20.2
11.5

1.4
0.5
6.8

8.7
-

7.0
1.3
0.2
-

1.5
0.5
1.0
-

2. Engineering of monitoring'
system
A. Design specifications
B. Interface engine
C. Interface boilers
D. Air pollution

Clark
TECO
F T
TECO

1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3

3. Operations and maintenance

procedures

TECO

2.0

0.7

4. Institutional problems
A. Legal issues
B. Code compliance
C. Air pollution
D. Financing

Clark
Clark
Clark
Clark

5. Grid connection
A. Electrical design
B. Electrical interface

Shep
NEES

0.1
0.1
0.1

2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.2

0.5
0.5

6. Energy conserving equipment

required by DOE
7. Detailed work plan update
and revised cost estimates

Demonstration information
program
A. Draft summary of planning experience

.9
Clark
TECO
F T
Boz.
Shep.

0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1

Clark
TECO

1.5
1.0
0.5

-197-

Project Effort and Cost Analysis-2

Phase/Task

Work
done

by

9. Report to DOE on Phase III

EFFORT TOTALS PHASE III:

3.0
2.0
1.0

Clark
TECO
Clark
TECO
F T

11.5

7.0
1.3

Boz

1.4
6.8
0.5

All

20.2

8-5

Shep
NEES
ESTIMATED EFFORT COST
($1000s)

Base Effort (Clark) Demonstration Effort

man-months
man-months
Eng'g . Des'n. Sup'n. Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n.

.2

Clark
$71.3 $28.7
TECO
F 5T
9.0
4.2
32.6
Boz.
2.4
.9
Shep.
NEES
115.3
33.8
All

1.0
0.8
-

1.8 .
$6.0
$3.3
-

9^3

1.0
0.2
4.3
$3.0
$14.9

1.3
-

4.8
0.6

24.6

0.5

5.2
1.9
0.1
0.1
0.1

1.5

IA.

0.9
0.1
-

$31.2
$3.7 $11.7

0.3

2.4

0.6
0.5
0.5

6.4

44.5

$75.5

$158.4

Totals

0.5
2.4
0.2

Phase IV: Construction

1. Project coordination and
management

TECO
F T
Clark

2.2
T75
0.7

1.0

3.9
1.8

0.2

1.7
0.4

0.2

1.0

2. Engine system construction

A. Engine installation
B. Thermal distribution
C. Architectural
D. Electrical/non-grid

TECO
F T
Boz
Shep

3. Monitoring system installation

A. Engine system
B. Boiler system
C. Electronics

TECO
F T
Clark

1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

4. Grid connection install.

Shep

0.5

0.8
0.2
0.6

0.4
0.4

Project Effort and Cost Analysis -3

Phase/Task

Work
done
by

Base Effort (Clark)

man-months '
Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n.

5. Construction Reports
Clark
A. Reports of deliveries
B. Reports of installations
C. Daily construction log
6. Demonstration Information
Program
A. Educate local community
B. Prepare report on implications of final design
C. Final draft, planning
workbook

Demonstration Effort (DOE)

man-months
Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n.

3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Clark
Clark
TECO
Clark
TECO

2.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

Clark
TECO

0.4
0.2
0.2

TECO
Clark

3.0
1.0
2.0,

7. Detailed work plan and update of costs

Report to DOE on Phase IV

EFFORT TOTALS PHASE IV

Clark
TECO
F t, T

0.4

3.0
3.3
0.7
1.7
0.4

4.9
2.7
0.5
0.2
0.5

Shep
NEES

All

0.8

0.4

9.1

8.8

Clark
TECO
F5T

1.2
3.9

1.6

18.0
20.5

4.5
8.2
1.9

29.4
16.8
3.2
0.7
2.9

53.1

53.0

Shep
NEES

All

5.1

1.6

Boz

Totals

0.2
0.6
-

Boz

EFFORT COST PHASE IV

($1000s)

$59.8

$53.0

199

Project Effort and Cost Analysis4

Work
done

Phase/Task

by

Base Effort (Clark)

manmonths
Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n

Demonstration Effort (DOE)

manmonths
Eng'g. Des'n. Sup'n.

Phase V: Startup Testing

1. Installation and startup
testing
A. Engine
B. Heat recovery
C. Electrical
D. Monitoring
E. Report to DOE

TECO
F5T
Shep
TECO
Clark

0.4
0.2

0.6

0.5
0.2

0.2
0.2

0.1
0.2
0.4
3.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0

2. Performance tests
A. Engine monitoring system TECO
Clark
B. Grid connection
Shep
C. Report to DOE
Clark
3. Demonstration information
program
A. Provide display facility
for demonstration site
visits
Clark
B. Prepare educational ma
terial on system
Clark
EFFORT TOTALS PHASE V:

Clark
TECO
F6T
Shep

All
ESTIMATED EFFORT COST
($1000s)

2.0
1.9

0.2

0.2
0.4

'

0.1
0.5

1.2
1.3
0.5
3.0

.1

0.2

5.4

0.2

0.5
6.6

Clark
TECO
F 5 T
Shep

All
TOTALS

3.0

1.2

1.0
2.2

.1^

$32.4

4.3
2.4
39.1
39.1

Conversion of manmonths to dollars were made using the following estimates:

Clark: $6,000/manmonth; TECO: $6,200/manmonth for engineering and supervision,
$4,100/manmon'th for design; Fitzmeyer and Tocci: $6,400/manmonth for engineering
and supervision, $3,200 for design; Shepard and Bozenhard: $4,800/manmonth;
NEES: $3,000/manmonth.

-200-

Table 5A-2: Capital i st Summary ( $1000s)

Item
Equipment and mechanical work
Civil Work

Sulzer Engine

895
287

Superior Engine

823
' '

287

60
223

60
223

1,465

1,393

Grid Connection equipment

41

41

Monitoring equipment
Demonstration civil costs

53
28

53
28

Fuel treatment

95

95

217

217

Electrical work without grid connection

Engineering costs
Total cost to Clark (proposed)

Cost to DOE (proposed)

-201Table 5A -3
TOTAL MECHANICAL CAPITAL COST
Item

Sulzer 1405 kw
Residual Oil
Model ASL 25/30

Superior 1500 kw Diesel

Residual Oil
Model 40-X-16

Mechanical Costs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25.
"26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Engine and generator

$444,704
Vibration isolation
3,375
No. 6 oil engine development
Switchgear
37,878
Skid and piping for engine
30,000
Service platforms and rails
6,000
Control panel
8,000
Engine frieght
2,500
Exhaust waste heat boiler
54,766
Jacket boiler and controls
24,925
Air cooled radiator and surge
tank
36,000
6,900
Jacket fresh water pumps
6,900
Jacket glycol pumps
6,900
L.O. and A.C. glycol pumps
2,000
Engine jacket preheater H-X
4,000
Water softener
Fuel oil treatment system
94,500
Fuel oil pumps
6,900
2000 gallon diesel storage
4,500
tank
F.O. end heater
2,300
F.O. mix tank
2,300
F.O. leakoff tank
1,500
One air compressor, two
receivers, air cooler, dryer
oil separator
7,500
Miscellaneous instrumentation
2,300
Fire protection
10,000
Heating and ventilating including sound attenuation
at fan penetrations. Floor
25,000
and roof drains.
Piping and hangers
50,000
Valves
25,000
Insulation
12,000
Intake filter
5,500
Intake silencer
4,000
Exhaust silencer
5,700
Air inlet duct
7,000
Exhaust gas duct
5,000
No. 2 F.O. day tank
2',500
Two 500 gallon skimming tanks
6,000
Stack
35,000
TOTAL MECHANICAL
989,348

$385,411
3,375
27,172
40,000
incl. base price
incl. base price
incl. base price
5,000
63,900
24,925
36,000
incl. base price
6,900
6,900
2,000
4,000
94,500
6,900
4,500
2,300
2,300
1,500
3,000
2,300
10,000

25,000
57,000
25,000
12,000
5,500
4,000
5,700
7,000
5,000
2,500
6,000
35,000
922,583

4-478

ELECTROSTATIC DESALTER
CAPITAL COST vt. CAPACITY
1ppm SODIUM)

100

ii

i i i im

COST OF CLARK'S
RESIDUAL FUEL
TREATMENT SYSTEM

UTILITY COSTS ~ 0.003$/kWhr

o
a.
<

1.0
3000

11

10,000

Fig. 5A-2

1,000,000

100,000
kW

600

EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF CLARK

RESIDUAL OIL TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Fuel treatment capital cost vs. capacity, showing

economies of scale.

6000

-203-

Table 5A-4
Cost Summary ($1000s) for Phases I-V
Phase

Base Cost (Clark)

Labor
Capital

I
II
III
IV
V

158.4

All

223.0

TOTALS

59.4

Capital

147.0

207.0

207

75.5

233.9

1242.0

$1465.0

Labor

TOTAL

1242.0

5.2

Demonstration cost (DOE)

51.5
39.1
520-1
$737M

147

217.0

217.0

1569.9
44.3
2202.1

-204-

to overcome institutional and legal barriers; (3) an attractive building with

noise and vibration isolation would be required to house the system;
however, there would not need to be the special architectural treatment caused
by the location of Clark's heating plant in the center of campus, adjacent to
the new Goddard Memorial; (4) because the need for fuel treatment system and its
cost will depend on the location of the facility and the proximity of other
heavy oil users, we have calculated duplication costs with and without a fuel
treatment system like Clark's.

The results are shown in Table 5A-5.

Starting

from Clark's base cost we add costs for engineering from Phases I and II, which
will be used directly in final design.

We also add estimated costs for over-

coming legal and institutional problems and the costs of the grid-connection.
We then subtract net costs for the special facing for the new building and for
structural modification to Jonas Clark Hall, to give our estimate for duplication
costs when there is no need for extensive fuel treatment.
about $40,000 more than the Clark base cost.
Table 5A-5
CLARK BASE COST & REPLICATION COST

Clark Base Cost

Mechanical
Replication Civil

$895 I

212

Special Civil

75

Electrical
(without grid connection)

60

223

Labor

$1,465
Replication Cost
Clark Base Cost

$1,465

DOE Contribution
Engineering
(from phases I&II)
Legal and Environmental
Grid Connection

48
41

-75
$1,494

Replication with Fuel Treatment System

$ 1,589

These costs are only

-205-

APPENDIX 5B
Operation and Maintenance Costs

-206-

APPENDIX 5B
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs were estimated for the diesel engine,
generator, boiler and accessory equipment.

The estimates for the diesel

engine were arrived at in consultation with representatives for Sulzer

and Superior.

Operation and maintenance costs for other equipment were

estimated by Thermo

Electron staff.

Sulzer reported that injectors should be removed and checked every

2000 hours and that this is an operation requiring 2 man hours.
estimated lifetime is

4000-6000 hours.

Their

Annual checkups consisting of

lifting the engine covers, checking valves, and pulling the pistons should
be performed every 6000-8000 hours of operation.
checkups, including labor and replacement parts

Cost for these annual

(valves, lines, bearings,

etc.) when required, amounts to about $10-12/hp over the life of the engine.
Expected lifetime of engine components is given in Table 5B-1, with estimated
differences between distillate and residual oil use.
commended every

3-4,000

hours of operation.

Oil changes are re-

Sulzer recommended increasing

the resultant costs by 25% to obtain a conservative estimate for operation

on residual fuel.
Superior recommended checking the injector tips and changing the
engine oil every 1000 hours, but claims that the injectors last 20,000 hours.
They recommend periodic maintenance inspection periods consisting of engine
observation and checks by field service mechanics every 2000 hours.
anticipate major overhaul periods every 20,000 hours.

They

The major overhauls

would include replacement of bearings, pistons, rings, and valves if required.

Superior experience has been that the cost of the major overhauls

for the worst case gas engines is about $14-21/kwyr.

Both engines, Sulzer and Superior, require extensive fuel treatment
of the residual oil.

As explained in Appendix 4A, the two primary harmful

impurities in the residual oil are vanadium and sodium.

Both must be re-

duced to tolerable levels to insure proper engine operation and minimum

maintenance costs.

The sodium is removed by washing and centrifuging.

The

vanadium is treated with a magnesium-based compound to form magnesium

ortho-vanadate

which has a higher melting point than organic vanadium.

G.E. Krolls, Liquid Fuel Treatment Systems, General Electric Gas Turbine
Reference Library, GER-2484, 1973.

-207-

TABLE 5B-1

TV

i I' Tf.i. 4

AL 25/30 and AV 25/30

Expected lifetime of engine
components due t o wear
(load factor <0.9)
[hrs]
(Heavy] Diesel
\ fuel, j
fuel
- Injection nozzle: (4000-6000) above 6000
(5000-8000) above 30000
piston ring: (sooo-sooo) 10000-15000
Piston:
above 100000
Piston ring groove: (20,000- | J | i | 50000

26 4 70
SULZPR
07760032

2cks

(30,00048,000)

above 60000

Connecting rod bearings:

24000-48000

Main bearings:

32000-64000

Values depending on environment

conditions and taking reconditioning
possibilities into account

-208This prevents deposition on the valves and cylinder walls. The amount of additive
required depends on the content of the fuel and the amount that must be removed
prior to use in the engine, amounting to about 3.2 parts of magnesium per part
of vanadium (by weight) removed.

Fuels available in New England have a wide

range of vanadium content, from 40-250 PPM.

Data available on deliveries of

residual oil to a New England installation show an average vanadium content of

about 80-90 PPM.

Manufacturers' recommended limits on vanadium content going

into the engine are listed in Table 5B-2. We see from this table that, according
to manufacturer's experience, the Sulzer engine can tolerate greater limits on
sodium and vanadium.

Costs for neutralizing the vanadium are calculated in

Table 5B-2, which shows that the cost of Tretolite KI-16 for the Superior engine
is slightly greater than for the Sulzer engine.
Table 5B-3 summarizes the operation and maintenance costs for both the
Sulzer and Superior engines based on the above discussion.

Estimates for other

system operation and maintenance expenses are given in Table 5B-4.

paragraph for a discussion of the waste heat boiler.)

(See next

From this table we see

that the operation and maintenance costs are 5.6 mils/kwh for the Sulzer engine
and 5.5 mils/kwh for the Superior engine.

This can be compared to an expected

cost of about 4 mils/kwh for the distillate-fired 1531 kw Fairbanks Morse with
opposed piston described in the Phase I report.
Fouling of the heat recovery boiler for this plant was raised as a potential
problem during our preliminary presentation to DOE at Washington on April 17,
1978, by a representative of the Bureau of Standards. The Bureau of Standards
has monitored the performance of heat recovery from Caterpillar diesels at the
Summit Plaza, Jersey City, New Jersey, plant.
This is a HUD plant having five 675 kw Caterpillar diesel generators. They
are equipped with Vapor Phase Company waste heat hot water boilers.

Operators

have had to remove the five units approximately every two months for mechanical
cleaning of the fire side.

Mr. Warren Hurley of the Bureau of Standards has

advised that typically the gas temperature from the heat recovery boilers rises
50-75

over a two week period.

This occurs with the unit of an average of 31%

load and with the hot water temperature in the order of 180-230F.

We believe

that this rapid fouling can be attributed to the following causes:

(1) low

load (i.e. low gas velocity); (2) low exhaust temperature; (3) poorer combustion
at part load operation; and (4) relatively cold tube surface. None of these
hold for the proposed Clark ICES.
analysis.

The Vapor Phase Company agrees with this

-209TABLE 5B-2
MANUFACTURERS' RECOMMENDED LIMITS
FOR VANADIUM AND SODIUM GOING INTO ENGINE
Superior
30 PPM

Vanadium
Sodium

Sulzer
50 PPM

5 PPM

<l/3 Va content

Cost of Tretolite for Removal of Vanadium

from 85 PPM to Limits Imposed by Manufacturers
Sulzer ( 85 PPM to
35 lb V
10 lb fuel
x

50 PPM)
3.2 lb Mg
lb V

0-504 lb fuel
kwhr

100 lb tretolite
8 lb Mg

$5.00
gal tretolite

gal tretolite
9.25 lb tretolite

= $0.000382/kwhr

Superior ( 85 PPM to 30 PPM)

55 lb V
6
.. r .
1n
10 lb fuel

> x 0.565 lb fuel

kwhr

3.2 lb Mg
lb V

100 lb tretolite
8 lb Mg
6

gal tretolite
9~25 lb tretolite

$5.00
= $0.000672/kwhr
gal tretolite

210
TABLE 5B3
SUMMARY OF DIF.SEL FNCINE OPFRATION AND MATNTENANCF COSTS

Sulzer
Type 8 ASL 25/30
1368 kwe
Injector Inspection and Repl.icement
Annual Maintenance and Overhaul
(every 68000 hours)*
Periodic Maintenance/Inspect ion**

$ 1,300/yr

Sub Total
Sub Total x 1.25
Tretolite***

$ 1,300/yr

22,000
2,200

Major Overhaul (every 20,000 hours)*

Oil

Superior
Model 40X16
1460 kwe

2,200
26,500

8,500

3,100

$34,000/yr

$33,100/yr

42,500/yr

4l,400/yr

3,800

7,100/yr

Total Engine

$4 6,300/yr

$48,500/yr

Total Engine/kwhr

$0.00470 kwhr

$.00462 /kwhr

Includes major overhaul and replacement of all parts over 20 year life of engine.
**Includes oil analysis, replace filters, check fuel pumps, valves, crankcase,
balance cylinder temperatures, etc.
***Based on vanadium content in oil of 85 PPM and treatment with tretolite (8% Mg)
at 3.2 parts Mg/partV and $5.00/gal tretolite.

-211-

TABLE 5B-4
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Sulzer
Type 8 ASL 25/30
1368 kwe

Superior
Model 40-X-16
1460 kwe

$ 46,300/yr

$ 48,50Q/yr

Generator

2,000

2,000

Boilers

1,600

1,600

Pumps

1,500

1,500

Fuel Treatment System

2,000

2,000

Miscellaneous

2,000

2,000

Total System

$ 55,400/yr

$ 57,600/yr

Total System/kwhr

$0.00563/kwhr

$0.00549/kwhr

Diesel Engine (see Table 5B-3)

-212We obtained additional information on Vapor Phase boilers from Witt

Armstrong Company.

They have installed 40 Caterpillar units with Vapor Phase

heat recovery steam generating units and have advised that these units are
cleaned generally once per year and never more than twice per year. They say
that they would only use Vapor Phase heat recovery units because of their
ease of cleaning (no finned tubes) and general high quality.

They do not use

finned tube heat recovery equipment because of the likelihood of plugging and
difficulty, once"fouled, to clean.
We also talked with Cummins-Northeast about the Babson Institute diesel
waste heat recovery plant. This is a Vapor Phase Company waste heat recovery
hot water boiler. The full load gas temperature to the boiler is 875F. The
boiler has been selected so that at maximum hot water duty, the gas bypass
valve is still open, meaning that the boiler is somewhat oversized.

The boiler

operates as low as 40% of design capacity and as high as 80%. The hot water
temperature is maintained at 195-200 F.

The boiler has been in service for

twenty months and has not yet fouled sufficiently to require cleaning.
Since the Clark plant is expected to be a base-loaded unit, we would
expect that the availability of the Vapor Phase boiler will be at least as
high as the Witt-Armstrong units discussed above. We anticipate costs associated
with cleaning the fire side of the Clark boiler of no more than $1600/year.

* I I S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 9 7 8 -7 k 0 - 3 0 6 / 4 3 5 1 REGION NO. 4