COLLECTION, REDUCTION, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID
WASTE IN HIGH-RISE MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS
National Research Council
Washington, D. C.
1971
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
Distributed ... 'to foster, serve
and promote the nation's
economic development
and technological
advancement.'
•
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
r--- p .-) f 1 ,-s ,
r~ \ t~
-s. . ._••',/" T - "7 /
'-', ..x. «* i ^ ' — ''
PB 197 623
BUILDING
RESEARCH
ADVISORY
BOARD
DATE DUE
INTERIM REPORT c
COLLECTION, REt"
SOLID WASTE IN _
.LINGS
The Library Store #47-0106
MR iruerim repun prepared by the
Special Advisory Committee on Solid Waste
No
Repraduevd by
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
Springfield, Va. 22151
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Washington, D. C.
1970
-------
BUILDING RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD
The Building Research Advisory Board, a unit of the NAS-NAE National Research Council, undertakes activities serving research in
building science and technology, and provides for dissemination of information resulting from (hose activities whenever doing so is
deemed to be in the public interest. In its work for and with private organizations or units of government, thr Board provides advice
on research or technical problems, monitors research studies undertaken by others, organizes conferences and symposia, acts to stimu-
late research and correlate information, and, in general, explores subjects in the building field where objective treatment is needed.
Voluntary association of research-interested individuals and organizations is provided by the Board through its Building Research
Institute.
The 38 members of the Board are recognized authorities in building-interested segments of industry, government, and academic
and research institutions, appointed on a rotating and overlapping basis by the Chairman of the NRC Division of Engineering with
approval of the President of the National Academy of Sciences. Each Board member serves as an individual, never as a representative
of any other organization or interest group. The Board, acting as a body, establishes special and standing advisory or study commit-
tees, panels, task groups, and similar working bodies as needed to carry out its various undertakings.
OFFICERS AND MEMBERS
1969-70
OFFICERS
John P. Gnaedinger, Chairman
William J. Bobisch, Vice Chairman Joseph H. Newman. Vice Chairman
Robert M. Dillon, Executive Director
MEMBERS
Stewart D. Barradale, Manager, Construction Research Depart- William J. McSorley, Jr., Assistant to the President, Building &
mem. Research Division, Weyerhaeuser Company, Seattle, Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
Washington 'Geishon MecUei, President, Building Dynamics, Inc., Atlanta,
Jack B. Blackburn, Professor and Head, Department of Civil Georgia
Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas Otto L. Nelson, Jr., Princeton, New Jersey
'William J. Bobisch, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, 'Joseph H. Newman, Vice President, Tishman Research Corpora-
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, D.C. tion, New York, N.Y.
Patrick Conley, Vice President, The Boston Consulting Group, 'John S. Parkinson, Research Director for Government Research
Inc., Boston, Massachusetts Liaison, Johns-Manville Research & Engineering Center,
Cameron L. Davis, President, Miller-Davis Company, Kalamazoo, Manville, New Jersey
Michigan Charles C. Powell, A dvisor to the President & Vice President,
•Robert H. Dietz, FAIA, Dean, College of Agriculture and Urban Turner Construction Company, New York, N.Y.
Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Walter H. Price, Vice President, American Cement Corporation,
Leander Economides, Economides & Goldberg, New York, N.Y. Los Angeles, California
Ernest G. Fritsche, President, Ernest G. Fritsche and Company, *J. Donald Rollins, President, USS Engineers and Consultants,
Columbus, Ohio Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
'John P. Gnaedinger, President, Soil Testing Services, Inc., Joseph A. Rorick, Director, Industrial Construction, Real Estate
Northbrook, Illinois and Construction Division, IBM Corporation, White Plains, N.Y.
Harofd B. Gores, President, Kducation.il Facilities Laboratories, William B. Ross, Deputy Under Secretary, Policy Analysis A
Inc., New York, N.Y. Program Evaluation, Department of Housing and Urban
Robert F. Hastings, FAIA, President. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Development. Washington. D.C.
Associates, Inc., Detroit, Michigan William A. Schmidt, Springfield, Maryland
Walter R. Hibbard. Jr.. Vice President-Research and Develop- Edward Schreiber, President, Construction Consultants, Inc.,
ment, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Granville, Ohio Detroit, Michigan
•Malcolm C. Hope, Associate Director for Environmental Health, James R. Simpson, Director of Building Technology, Office of
D.C. Department of Public Health, Washington, D.C. Urban Technology & Research, Department of Housing and
Edward A. Kaegi, Bloomfield, Michigan Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
•Thomas C. Kavanagh, Partner, Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Herbert H. Swinburne, FAIA, Nolen, Swinburne & Associates,
New York, N.Y. Architects, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
•W. E. Kemp, Director, Technical Planning, Development Depart- Emil Tessin H, Executive Vice President, Wm. Lyon Homes, Inc.,
ment, Koppers Company, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Newport Beach, California
William G. Kirkland, Kief President for Building Research, Paul F. Wendt, Professor, School of Business Administration,
American Iron & Steel Institute, New York, N.Y. University of California, Berkeley, California
Edward J. Losi, General Partner, Cosentini Associates, 'Thomas E. Werkema, Program Manager, Construction Materials,
New York, N.Y. Technical Services and Development, Dow Chemical Company,
Otis M. Mader, President, Alcoa Properties, Inc., Pittsburgh, Midland, Michigan
Pennsylvania 'Harry B. Zackrison, Sr., Chief, Engineerinn Division, Military
William L. McGrath, Executive Vice President, Carrier Air Construction, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department
Conditioning Company, Syracuse, N.Y. of the Army, Washington, D.C.
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Robinson Newcomb, Consulting Economist, Washington. D.C.
Albert G. H. Dietz, Professor of Building Engineering, ). Donald Rollins, President,
Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute USS Engineers and Consultants, Inc.
of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
Philip Handler, President. National Academy of Sciences Eric A. Walker, President, National Academy of Engineering
J. A. Hutcheson, Chairman, Division of Engineering, National Research Council
'Member of the Executive Committee
LIBRARY
Environmental ;"'rct~ ..•.'•:» -**#
5555 Ridge *vfe, .Cincinnati, & j
i
-------
STANDARD TITLE PAGE ! • Report No" r.XyyxtyfMyy./
FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS EPA-SW-27C . 1-71 //////////,
4. Title and Subtitle
Collection, Reduction, and Disposal of Solid Waste in High-
Rise Multifamily Dwellings.
">. Authpr(s)
Building Research Advisory Board
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
National Academy of Sciences — National Research Council
Washington, D. C.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste Management Office
Rockville, Maryland 20852
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
A research program is being conducted on three alternative methot
3.
5.
t).
8.
10.
TT.
13.
14.
Is
Recipient's Catalog No.
Report Date
1971
Performing Organization Code
Performing Organization Rept. No.
Project/Task/Work Unit No.
CoirrtractTSfinbSS
PH 86-67-167
Type of Report & Period Covered
Interim Report
Sponsoring Agency Code
of handling solid
waste in high-rise multifamily housing: incineration, compaction, and wet pulverization]
This interim report presents, in narrative form, the results of the first study period 1
of the three-study-period program. Conclusions and recommendations are yet to be form- j
ulated. The report covers: (1) the objectives and scope of the project, (2) the work ;
to be accomplished during each of the study periods, (3) the method of conducting the
project, and (4) the test structures used. In addition, the existing conditions at the
test structures are assessed, including the quantity and composition of the refuse, the
number and age of the tenants, the contribution to air pollution by incinerators, the
degree of vermin and insect infestation, the personnel and power requirements, the cost,
the effectiveness and limitations, and the acceptance by owners, tenants, and custodians.
The tentative data-collection program and refuse-handling equipment to be installed for
the second study period are discussed.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors
Refuse disposal, Apartment building, Incinerators, Compacting, Grinding
17b. Identiflers/OpeoEnded Terms
Incineration, Compaction, Wet pulverization, Solid waste, High-rise apartment buildings,
New Haven, Conn.
17c. COSATI Field/Group
1302
18. Distribution Statement
Release to public
19. Security Class (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class. (This Page)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
182
22. Price
FORM MM-M7<1-70)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NBS-867(l-70)(Standard Title Page for Technical Reports Based on COSATI Guide-
lines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government, PB-180 600):
1. Report Number. Each report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation. Select one of the following types: (a) alpha-
numeric designation provided by the sponsoring agency, e.g., FAA-RD-68-09; or, if none has been assigned, (b) alphanu-
meric designation established by the performing organization, e.g., FASEB-NS-87; or, if none has been established, (c) al-
phanumeric designation derived from contract or graht number, e.g., PH-43-64-932-4.
2. Government Accession Number. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Catalog Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date. Sponsoring agency may specify the basis for dating. If not, the author will
provide a date and indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation,
etc.)
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number, insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels
of an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes
such as USGRDR-I. .
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in ...
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Engineers Joint Council Thesaurus of Engineering
and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently spe-
cific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging. _ _
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specif-
ic discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with second-
ary Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote reusability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security. Cite any availa-
bility to the public, with address and price.
19 81 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the Clearinghouse.
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any.
22. Price. Insert the price set by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information or the Government Print-
ing Office, if known.
-------
BRAB SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTE
PATRICK CONLEY, Chairman
Vice President, Boston Consulting Group, Incorporated,
Boston, Massachusetts
CARL W. ANDERSEN, Assistant Professor of Social Science, New Haven College,
New Haven, Connecticut
JOHN S. BLOSSOM, Partner, Ziel-Blossom Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio
MAURICE M. FELDMAN, Commissioner, Department of Water Resources, New York,
New York
JAMES FITZPATRICK, President, Seversky Electronatom Company, Garden City,
New York
MARVIN E. GOODY, Marvin E. Goody, John M. Clancy and Associates, Inc.,
Boston, Massachusetts
RALPH E. HEAL, Executive Secretary, National Pest Control Association,
Elizabeth, New Jersey
WILLIAM T. INGRAM, Adjunct Professor Civil Engineering, New York University
School of Engineering and Science, Whitestone, New York
BENJAMIN LINSKY, Professor Sanitary Engineering, University of West Virginia,
Morgantown, West Virginia
WALTER R. LYNN, Professor and Director of Center for Environmental Quality
Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
JAMES H. McCALL, Vice President, Heizer Corporation, Chicago, Illinois
P. WALTER PURDOM, Director, Center for Study of the Environment, Drexel
Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
SAMUEL SCHALKOWSKY, Director, System Research, Exotech Incorporated,
Washington, D. C.
DEAN H. WILSON, Director, Industrial Systems, College of Engineering,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Public Health Service, Liaison
RALPH J. BLACK, Project Officer, Director, Office of Information, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, U. S. Public Health Service, Consumer
Protection and Environmental Health Service, Environmental Control
Administration, Washington, D. C.
Building Research Advisory Board Staff
WILLIAM A. COSBY, Program Manager--Special Projects
JAMES R. SMITH, Assistant Director—Technical Operations
JAMES R. KINGHAM, Staff Editor
ill
-------
FOREWORD
Directly related to increasing urban expansion is the problem of refuse
disposal. Considerable time and effort have been devoted to the problem
as a municipal or regional concern, but comparatively little attention
has been paid to what can be done at the point of origin, particularly
in high-rise multifamily housing. Recent efforts to abate air pollution
by limiting the incineration of refuse in apartment buildings accentuate
the point-of-origin aspect of refuse disposal. Although recycling of
waste into useful products is recognized as the most desirable goal, until
this goal can be realized, onsite problems of waste handling are a potentially
remunerative target in the attack on the general refuse problem. Moreover,
even if recycling can be achieved, waste handling at the point of origin
would still merit consideration, for it is at the site that separation
and storage can most easily be effected.
This interim report presents the results of the first study period in a
three-study-period research program concerning alternative methods of
handling refuse in high-rise multifamily dwellings. It is essentially a
narrative; conclusions and recommendations are yet to be formulated.
The research program was undertaken by the Building Research Advisory
Board, with support provided by the U. S. Public Health Service, and
involves the use of public housing authority high-rise buildings in
New Haven, Connecticut, as a field laboratory. The operational character
of the research program distinguishes it from the usual, strictly advisory
function of the Board. With the diversity of parties and organizations
necessarily involved in the program and the requirement for broad inter-
disciplinary competence, it was believed that an organization such as the
Board was needed to provide guidance and direction.
The research program is being planned and coordinated by the Special Advisory
Committee on Solid Waste, whose membership was appointed by the Building
Research Advisory Board with the approval of the Chairman of the Division of
Engineering and the President of the National Academy of Sciences. However,
the actual physical work of collecting data for the committee is performed
by subcontractors employed for that purpose, as required.
Numerous details are included in this interim report in the belief that
they will be helpful to others—for example, city administrations—who,
it is hoped, will initiate similar research programs. Comments on the
value of these details will be appreciated.
Many persons have contributed to this effort. Particularly noteworthy
are the contributions of members of the staff of the Housing Authority
of the City of New Haven—Mr. Robert Wolfe, former Executive Director,
Mr. Edward White, present Executive Director, Mr. Albert Libbey, and
-------
COLLECTION, REDUCTION, AND DISPOSAL OF
SOLID WASTE IN HIGH-RISE MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS
This interim report was prepared for the
Solid Waste Management Office by the
Special Advisory Committee on Solid Waste of the
Building Research Advisory Board
Division of Engineering-National Research Council
as part of Contract No. PH 86-67-167
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
Mrs. Geraldine Daniels. Mr. Edward DeLouise, Director of the New Haven
Bureau of Environmental Health, and Messrs. Dennis Rezendez and Everett
Shaw of the City Administration did much to make the program a reality.
Without the tolerance and cooperation of the tenants of the Housing
Authority, the program could not be conducted. The tenants serving as
liaison—Mrs. May Belle Green and Messrs. Thomas Bones, Frank Graham,
and Martin Texeira--have given valuable assistance.
The Board gratefully acknowledges the work to date of the Special
Advisory Committee on Solid Waste.
JOHN P. GNAEDINGER, Chairman
Building Research Advisory Board
-------
ABSTRACT
The Building Research Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences
is conducting a research program on alternative methods of handling refuse
in high-rise multifamily housing: incineration, compaction, and wet
pulverization. The program is funded under Contract No. PH 86-67-167
between the U. S. Public Health Service and the National Academy of
Sciences.
This interim report presents the results of the first study period of
the three-study-period program.
The report covers: (1) the objectives and scope of the project, C2) the
work to be accomplished during each of the study periods, (3) the method
of conducting the project, and (4) the test structures being used. In
addition, methods are described for assessing the existing conditions
at the test structures, including the quantity and composition of the
refuse, the contribution to air pollution by incinerators, the degree
of vermin and insect infestation, and others; results of the assessment
are presented. The tentative data-collection program and refuse-handling
equipment to be installed for the second study period are discussed.
A separate supplement gives the results of a preliminary investigation of
the feasibility of installing and evaluating an experimental pneumatic
transport system for the central collection of refuse from the complex
of high-rise structures serving as a field laboratory in the research
program.
VI
-------
SUMMARY
The Building Research Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences
is conducting a research program on alternative methods of handling refuse
in high-rise multifamily housing: incineration, compaction, and wet
pulverization. The program is funded under Contract No. PH 86-67-167
between the U. S. Public Health Service and the National Academy of Sciences.
The program involves the use of high-rise buildings belonging to the
Public Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, Connecticut, as a field
laboratory. The objective of the program is to develop recommendations
concerning alternative methods of handling solid waste from high-rise
dwellings, taking into consideration user needs and acceptance, public
health concerns, and performance and cost.
This interim report presents, in narrative form, the results of the first
study period of the three-study-period program. Conclusions and recom-
mendations are yet to be formulated.
This interim report covers: (1) the objectives and scope of the project,
(2) the work to be accomplished during each of the study periods, (3) the
method of conducting the project, and (4) the test structures used. In
addition, methods are described for assessing the existing conditions
at the test structures. The tentative data-collection program and refuse-
handling equipment to be installed for the second study period are dis-
cussed.
Considered in the assessment of existing conditions were: the quantity
and composition of the refuse generated, the number and age of the tenants,
the contribution of the buildings' incinerators to air pollution, and,
specifically with respect to the equipment now in use, the degree of vermin
and insect infestation, the personnel and power requirements, the cost,
the effectiveness and limitations, and the acceptance by owners, tenants,
and custodians.
Chute-generated waste, miscellaneous bulky items of refuse, and incinerator
residue were surveyed for 7 consecutive days. Disregarding the bulky refuse
items, a total of 10,947 Ib. of chute refuse, with a volume of 1,961 cu. ft.,
was generated during the 7-day period, resulting in an overall density of
5.6 Ib. per cu. ft. Per capita generation of chute refuse was 1.48 Ib.
per day per person (adults and children). For adults only, the amount
was 4.33 Ib. per day per person. Table I gives the percentage by weight
and volume of each category of chute refuse. Peak refuse generation,
by weight, occurred on Saturday, with Sunday a close second.
-------
TABLE I
REFUSE COMPOSITION
Category of Refuse
Paper and Paper Products
Wood and Wood Products
Plastic, Leather, and Rubber Products
Rags and Textile Products
Glass
Metallics
Stones, Sands, and other inerts
Garbage (organics)
% by Wt.
32.98
0.38
6.84
6.36
16.06
10.74
0.26
26.38
% by Vol.
62.61
0.15
9.06
5.10
5.31
9.12
0.07
8.58
To assess air pollution from incineration, 51 refuse samples were burned
under varying conditions. For the most part, particulate emissions were
determined by ASME-PTC stack monitoring techniques. But, during the burning
of six samples, particulate emissions were determined simultaneously by
the methods developed by NAPCA and ASME. From 23 samples of similar
composition burned in one incinerator, an average incinerator particulate
emission rate was determined to be 0.18 Ib. per hr. per 40 Ib. of refuse
burned using the ASME stack monitoring techniques; sample composition for
these tests was based on the findings of the refuse survey previously
conducted, and the incinerator was charged at design capacity (40 Ib.
per hr.). For three 40-lb. samples burned, during which simultaneous
stack monitoring was performed, the average particulate emission rate
using the ASME procedures was 0.38 Ib. per hr. per 40 Ib. of refuse, while
with the NAPCA procedures an average of 0.69 was obtained. During these
simultaneous tests, the weight of particulates picked up by both impinger
and thimble was used in determining particulate emission rates when the
ASME procedures were used. For other simultaneous tests, only the weight
of particulates picked up by the thimble was used in the determination of
particulate emission rates with the ASME procedures, and the variance
from results obtained with the NAPCA procedures was considerably greater.
All findings and data obtained through implementation of the program to
assess the existing conditions at the test structures are given in the interim
report.
In preparation for the second study period, specific refuse reduction
equipment to be installed—an incineration system in one structure, a com-
paction system in a second structure, and a wet-pulverization system in
a third structure--was selected and is described in this report; preliminary
plans for the installation of this equipment are also discussed. Since
results obtained on the specific equipment installed in the New Haven test
structures might be generic either to a particular concept for handling
refuse or only to equipment of the specific manufacturer involved, a national
field survey is to be conducted concurrently with the New Haven program to
-------
collect data on the operation, performance, and cost of refuse-handling
equipment of other manufacturers. The field survey questionnaire developed
for this purpose is presented in the interim report.
Additional preparations made for the second study period include establishment
of the tentative data-collection program to be implemented once the new
refuse-handling equipment is installed. Areas identified and discussed
include: refuse quantity and composition before and after processing by
the newly installed refuse-handling equipment; inhabitants; initial and
operational cost of new equipment; environmental conditions maintained
by the new equipment; and equipment effectiveness, requirements and limitations.
Since the third study period will involve the installation of garbage
grinders within individual apartments in the test structures, in order to
assess the effect of their use on the building sewer and on environmental
conditions maintained by the newly installed refuse-handling equipment, the
program to be implemented during the second study period for determining the
quantity and composition of waste presently flowing through the building
sewer line of one test structure is discussed.
IX
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF PHASE I 3
III. CONDUCT OF THE STUDY 7
IV. THE TEST STRUCTURES 9
A. Selection of the Structures . 9
B. Description of the Test Site and Test Structures 10
C. Description of Existing Method of Handling Refuse 13
D. Relation of the Test Structures to the Test Program 13
E. Tenant Liaison 16
V. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 17
A. Refuse Quantity and Composition 17
B. Inhabitants . 22
C. Contribution to Air Pollution from Existing Incinerators... 24
D. Vermin and Insect Infestation 28
1. Rodents 29
2. Roaches 29
3. Flies 31
E. Miscellany 31
1. Personnel Requirements 31
2. Power and Fuel Requirements 33
3. Costs 33
4. Owner, Tenant, and Custodian Acceptance 34
5. Effectiveness and Limitations 34
-------
VI. PREPARATION FOR STUDY PROJECTION 39
A. Selection and Description of Equipment Intended
for Investigation 39
1. Compactor.. .i 39
2. Pulverizer. 42
3. Incinerator 46
B. Preliminary Installation Plans 49
1. Compactor 50
2. Pulverizer.. 52
3. Incinerator 60
C. Supplemental Field Survey Program 60
D. Second Study Period Data-Collection Program 64
1. Refuse Quantity and Composition 64
2. Quantity and Composition of Waste Flowing
through Building Sewer 65
3. Inhabitants 66
4. Costs 67
5. Environmental Conditions Maintained 69
6. Equipment Effectiveness, Requirements, and
Limitations 71
TABLES
I. REFUSE COMPOSITION 21
II. PER CAPITA AND OTHER RATES OF REFUSE GENERATION 21
III. POPULATION DATA 24
FIGURES
1. Plot plan of test site 11
2. 180 Canal Street 12
3. Incinerator details..* 14, 15
4. Hourly and daily variation in rate of refuse generation 23
XI
-------
5. Effectiveness and limitations of existing refuse-handling
system 57
6. Compactor selected for installation 41
7. Pulverizer selected for installation 43
8. Compactor installation 50
9. Wiring diagram for compactor 51
10. Pulper installation 53
11. Dewatering press installation 54
12. Chute feed connection 55
13. Piping schematic 56
14. Wiring diagram 57
15. Schematic of control circuit 58
APPENDIXES
A. AGREEMENT FOR CONDUCT OF SOLID WASTE RESEARCH PROJECT
BETWEEN THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THE PUBLIC
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN, AND THE
CITY OF NEW HAVEN 75
B. REFUSE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION—PROTOCOL AND CONDUCT
OF THE FIELD PROGRAM 81
C. REFUSE QUANTITY AND COMPOS IT I ON--DAT A. . 91
D. AIR POLLUTION--PROTOCOL 115
E. AIR POLLUTION--INCINERATOR STACK-SAMPLING TEST DATA 119
F. BIBLIOGRAPHY 157
xi i
-------
I
INTRODUCTION
Disposal of the 4.6 Ib. of garbage and trash generated each day by the average
U. S. citizen is a major problem for every city. The problem is aggravated
by the increasing rate of per capita generation, by the increasing mass of the
refuse, and by the rising cost of collection, now ranging from $15 to $30
per ton.
One way to reduce the problem is to decrease the weight or volume of the
refuse at its source, and, in the past, the onsite incineration of refuse
from high-rise multifamily dwellings has contributed significantly to this
end. Recent legislation aimed at reducing air pollution within most
of the Nation's largest cities by limiting the onsite incineration of refuse,
either through prohibition or by performance criteria, plus the attention
being given to the solid-waste problem in general, has accelerated the
development of alternative methods for the onsite handling of waste and
hastened advancements in the state of the art of incineration and attendant
air pollution control equipment.
This turn of events led to repeated inquiries to both the U. S. Public Health
Service and the Building Research Advisory Board of the National Academy of
Sciences concerning the alternatives and improvements--their reliability and
efficiency, their capability to maintain aesthetically pleasing and healthful
environmental conditions at the site, and the impact of their use on ultimate
waste disposal plans of municipalities or regions. Basically, the questions
were: What is known about the alternative methods and techniques now coming
to the forefront? How do these compare with current methods of onsite
solid waste disposal? These questions can be extended to include concepts
that have not yet been applied but are on the drawing boards.
Because of the lack of data upon which to base answers to such inquiries,
the U. S. Public Health Service requested the National Academy of Sciences,
through its Building Research Advisory Board, to collect and evaluate infor-
mation on the alternatives and improvements to provide a basis for a response
to the technical inquiries. The intent of the endeavor would be to study
currently available as well as new concepts for the onsite handling of solid
wastes and thus provide basic information that would be useful to building
designers and owners, municipal and public health authorities, and city
planners, and which would stimulate the development of equipment and systems
by the private sector of the economy.
A three-phase effort was envisioned, in which the combined resources of
science, government, and industry would be applied. Each phase would cover
a period of about 3 years. Insofar as the first two phases were concerned,
each would be so organized that, if the study were terminated at the end of
either phase, results would have been obtained that would be of value. The
overall study was phased as follows:
-------
Phase I
Study currently available equipment and techniques for handling refuse and
other solid waste within individual high-rise multifamily structures--
due consideration being given to user needs and acceptance, public health
concerns, performance, and costs—with only secondary concern for the
interface between the onsite and offsite collection systems.
Phase II
Study currently available equipment and techniques (specifically techniques
employing pneumatic, hydraulic, rail-haul, and conveyor concepts) of onsite
handling of refuse and other solid waste within a complex of multifamily
buildings under single ownership (or management)--due consideration being
given to user needs and acceptance, public health concerns, performance,
and costs--with only secondary concern for the interface between the onsite
and offsite systems.
Phase III
In conjunction with a planned community, install and study the systems
found to be desirable in Phases I and II—using individual structures,
complexes, and groups of complexes of multifamily structures--to determine
the true economies and cost effectiveness of such disposal practices and
the policy requirements at the municipal level.
The National Academy of Sciences agreed to undertake Phase I, with the
understanding that it would play a quasi-operational role. Plans for
initiating Phase I were then prepared by the Building Research Advisory
Board, and a proposal was submitted to the Public Health Service. Subsequent
review of the proposal by the Public Health Service resulted in formal
action to proceed with the first of three study periods envisioned as
constituting Phase I.
This interim report sets forth the detailed objectives and scope of the
overall Phase I study, the work to be accomplished during each of the
three study periods of Phase I, and describes the manner in which the
study has been conducted to date.* In addition, the interim report relates
all activity, work performed, and data collected during the first study
period under the separate section headings The Test Structures, Assessment
of Existing Conditions (at the test structures), and Preparation for Study
Projection.
*Shqrtly after Phase I was initiated, the Public Health Service requested that
consideration be given to expanding the scope of the Phase I program to in-
clude the installation and subsequent evaluation of a pneumatic system for
centrally collecting refuse from a group of high-rise multifamily structures.
While this was previously intended to be part of Phase II of the overall study,
the Public Health Service request served to emphasize that fundamental data on
the operation of a refuse handling system employing this concept were needed
as soon as possible. The request was incorporated, therefore, in the Phase I
program, and the objectives and results are presented under separate cover as
Supplement A, Pneumatic Transport System for Solid Waste, to this interim report.
-------
II
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF PHASE I
Phase I of the overall study is an investigation of three concepts of
handling refuse: (1) incineration, (2) compaction, and (3) wet pulveri-
zation. Made in conjunction with central refuse-collection chutes, the
investigation is being carried out, first, without the use of sink garbage
grinders and then with garbage grinders. Existing high-rise multifamily
structures serve as a field laboratory.
Specifically, the effort is directed toward obtaining adequate information
to assess or establish:
1. Extent of contribution to air pollution of onsite incineration
using presently accepted incineration practices and pollution
control devices
2. Effectiveness and efficiency of onsite incineration, compaction,
and wet pulverization
3. Weight, volume, and composition of solid waste before and after
incineration, compaction, and wet pulverization
4. Environmental conditions maintained with onsite incineration,
compaction, and wet pulverization
5. Power requirements, costs, and owner, tenant, and custodian
acceptance of onsite incineration, compaction, and wet pulveri-
zation
6. Effects of separating putrescible wastes from rubbish with the
use of garbage grinders on environmental conditions maintained
by each of the different techniques for handling refuse
7. Extent of contribution to building sewer system associated with
incineration, compaction, and pulverization and the use of garbage
grinders
8. Acceptable refuse collection chute configurations, sizes, materials
and methods of cleaning
9. Applicability and effectiveness of different methods of waste
containerization (e.g., disposable paper and plastic sacks,
metallic and plastic cans, and wheeled containers)
10. Onsite storage requirements for incineration, compaction, and
wet pulverization, and the effect thereon of the different methods
of waste containerization
-------
11. Training requirements of janitorial and maintenance personnel
for onsite incineration, compaction, and wet pulverization
12. Guidelines for architects, engineers, and builders in providing
acceptable and convenient refuse collection, reduction, storage,
and removal facilities
13. Techniques by which a building owner might select from the
available alternatives for handling refuse on the site
Phase I was divided into three study periods, as follows:
First Study Period
1. Selection of the structures to serve as a field laboratory
2. Collection of data on existing conditions at the structures, including:
number and age of tenants; extent of contribution to air pollution by
existing equipment; weight, volume, and composition of generated refuse;
personnel and power requirements, costs, and effectiveness and limitations
of existing refuse-handling system; owner, tenant, and custodian-janitor
acceptance of existing system; and degree of vermin and insect infestation
associated with existing system
3. Selection of specific refuse reduction equipment intended for use in
the project
4. Preparation of preliminary plans (architectural, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing), as required for the installation of the refuse-reduction
equipment intended for investigation during subsequent periods of the
study, and for modification of city refuse-collection trucks to
accommodate containers having weights in excess of normal
5. Establishment of a data-collection program and methodology for subsequent
use in conjunction with refuse-handling equipment to be investigated
6. Selection of a technique for sampling building sewer lines and estab-
lishment of a data-collection program for subsequent use in determining
quantity and composition of waste flowing through the sewer line of
one test structure
7. Partial installation of refuse-collection chutes, if required
Second Study Period .
1. Removal of three existing incinerators from within the structures
intended for use in carrying out the research program
2. Purchase and installation--in accordance with architectural and engi-
neering design plans and specifications developed during the first
period of the study--of the incineration system in one structure, a
compaction system in a second structure, and a wet-pulverization system
in a third structure
-------
3. Collection of data on operation and performance of installed equipment--
in accordance with procedures and schedules established during the
first study period--handling all refuse
4. Installation—in accordance with architectural and engineering design
plans and specifications developed during the first study period—
of the building sewer-sampling station to be used in obtaining data on
composition and volume of wastes flowing through the drainage lines
of one structure to be used in the study
5. Collection of data—in accordance with procedures and schedules estab-
lished during the first study period—on composition and volume of
wastes flowing through the building sewer of one test structure
6. Modifications—in accordance with preliminary plans developed during
the first study period—of city refuse-collection trucks, as required,
to accommodate refuse containers used in the program having weights
in excess of those normally handled by the city
7. Determination of the degree of abatement of air pollution achieved by
modest, low-cost improvements to an existing incinerator
8. Preparation of preliminary plans (mechanical, plumbing, and electrical),
as required, for subsequent installation of garbage grinders
9. Initiation of a survey within the larger metropolitan areas of the nation
to establish an inventory of available equipment for onsite handling of
refuse and to obtain data on the performance and cost of such equipment
for purposes of comparison with data on refuse equipment installed in
the structures being used in the study
Third Study Period
1. Installation of sink garbage grinders in accordance with plans estab-
lished during the second study period
2. Collection of data on operation and performance of equipment installed
during the second study period handling only rubbish, i.e., with
putrescible waste separated out by the use of garbage grinders
3. Collection of data on the composition and volume of waste? flowing
through the building sewer of the test structure used in 5. of the
second study period, with garbage grinders in operation
4. Collection of data on the performance and operation of garbage grinders
installed during this period of the study
5. Continuation of the survey initiated during the second study period
6. Reduction and analysis of all data and information collected during
conduct of the study and preparation of comprehensive final report
with findings, conclusions, and recommendations
-------
Ill
CONDUCT OF THE STUDY
Because of the complexity of the task and the need for careful organiza-
tional planning and coordination, the Building Research Advisory Board
appointed four of its members as a Steering Committee to:
1. Select the structures to be used in the program
2. Provide guidance, oversee, and coordinate all preliminary
activities until such time as the Special Advisory Committee
on Solid Waste could be appointed for this purpose
After the structures had been selected and agreement for their use was
assured, the Special Advisory Committee on Solid Waste was appointed to
assume the technical responsibility of the study.
The following general guidelines were set forth as committee responsibilities:
1. Selection of equipment to be installed and investigated
2. Determination of kinds of data to be obtained
3. Establishment of an experimental program
4. Guidance to the committee staff
5. Review and analysis of data collected
6. Preparation and approval of all reports--complete with conclusions
and recommendations--emanating from the study, including interim
reports covering the efforts of each of the first two study
periods, and a final comprehensive report on the overall study
at conclusion of the third study period
The committee met periodically throughout the first study period to plan
and conduct the detailed operation of the study. Where appropriate,
various subcommittees of the full committee were established to plan specific
areas of, the study in sufficient depth to allow full committee consideration
and determination of the action to follow.
This interim report covering the first study period was then prepared.
-------
IV
THE TEST STRUCTURES
A. SELECTION OF THE STRUCTURES
Even before the official proposal for the research project was submitted to
the Public Health Service, there were discussions with officials of the
New York City Public, Housing Authority concerning the possible use of
their structures for the study. Because of the duration of the proposed
study, and because many aspects of the project would be of concern to the
city, the Steering Committee recognized the need for a formal agreement
with both the city and the Public Housing Authority. During preliminary
discussions with the city, certain aspects of the project appeared to be
potential avenues of concern; namely, the use of incinerators and garbage
grinders, and the attendant necessity for the city to waive existing ordi-
nances to enable the project to be carried out. Because of these potential
problems, it was deemed by the Steering Committee that the study might
best be held on schedule if conducted elsewhere. Consequently, a search
for an alternative site began.
Contacts were made with several other cities, including Chicago, Illinois;
St. Louis, Missouri; and New Haven, Connecticut; in search of structures
that would be typical of those in most of the Nation's major urban centers,
so that the results of the project would have wide applicability. Pursuant
to exploratory contact with New Haven, a formal meeting was held between
officials of the New Haven Public Housing Authority, officials of the City
of New Haven, and the Steering Committee. An inspection was made of the
actual structures to be involved in the study. The high level of interest
and enthusiasm expressed by officials of the City and the Housing Authority
of New Haven, plus the suitability of the structures for the intended
project, led to the decision to conduct the study in New Haven.
After an agreement was prepared that was satisfactory to the city and
Housing Authority officials and to the National Academy of Sciences, the
agreement was then submitted to the Board of Aldermen of the City of
New Haven. Approval of the agreement by the Board of Aldermen made it
possible for the city to enter into a contract. The agreement then had to
be approved by both the Public Health Service and the Housing Assistance
Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Delays in starting the actual testing project were experienced because
of the steps required to finalize the agreement. Initial contact with the
New Haven Housing Authority was made in September 1967, and final approval
by all parties involved was finally obtained in May 1968. The agreement
that resulted (a copy of which is included in this interim report: Appendix
A—Agreement for Conduct of Solid Waste Research Project) identified,
among other things, the purpose of the study, how the study was to be conducted,
-------
and obligations of the .Housing Authority, the City, and the National
Academy of Sciences. The agreement now serves as a recognition by all
concerned that participation in the project affords an opportunity to
acquire knowledge that could contribute significantly to the solution of
many problems associated with the handling of solid waste.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST SITE AND TEST STRUCTURES
The physical site is a publicly owned, low-income multifamily building complex
located in a semi-industrial area approximately 2 miles from the center of
the main business district of New Haven. The entire Housing Authority
complex consists of some three blocks of two-story duplex apartments and a
grouping of six multifamily high-rise brick-veneer structures, four of
which were authorized for use in the conduct of the solid waste research
project by the Housing Authority.
Figure 1 shows a plot plan of the high-rise portion of the Housing Authority
complex, on which addresses and designations of the structures are given,
and on which the location of structures relative to each other and the
total land area can be seen.
As shown in Figure 1, five of the high-rise structures are within an area
bounded on one side by Canal Street (approximate frontage 1,355 ft.), on
one side by Webster Street (approximate frontage 625 ft.), on one side by
Ashmun Street (approximate frontage 1,340 ft.), and on the remaining side
by privately owned houses (approximate frontage 220 ft.). The sixth
structure is across Ashmun Street (approximate frontage 345 ft.) and is
bounded, in addition to Ashmun, by Admiral Street (approximate frontage
120 ft.), by Gregory Street (approximate frontage 140 ft.) and by the grounds
of an elementary grade school. Entrances to all structures face Ashmun
Street. An administration building and a central boiler plant that supplies
hot water and heat for the entire complex—both shown on the plot plan--
plus parking facilities and playground areas, complete the site complex.
All the high-rise structures are identical in floor plan and general
layout, except that the two buildings on Canal Street are 10 stories high
while all others are 8 stories high. Length and width (including balcony
extension) dimensions of all structures are the same, 217 ft. by 43 ft.,
respectively. Laundry facilities are provided in each building, as is
elevator service (stops being made at ground and corridor floors only).
Total tenant population (adults and children) in the six high-rise apart-
ment buildings is approximately 1,600. Figure 2 is a picture of a typical
building, taken from atop the 225 Ashmun Street structure.
10
-------
I/I
V
c
ID
a.
4J
O
-------
Figure 2. 180 Canal Street.
Apartment unit distribution within the structures is as follows:
8-Story Structures
Ground Floors
Corridor Floors
Skip Floors (2nd
(4th,
, 3rd
7th)
, 5th, 6th, 8th*)
1 Br
Units
1
2
2 Br
Units
2
3 Br
Units
4
4
4
4 Br
Units
2
Total Number
of Units
5
12
40
Total Number of Units in Structures
57
*Those floors on which the elevator does not stop.
10-Story Structures
Ground Floors
Corridor Floors (4th, 7th, 10th)
Skip Floors
(2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th)
Total Number of Units in Structures
1 Br
Units
2
2 Br
Units
2
3 Br
Units
4
4
4
4 Br
Units
2
Total Number
of Units
4
18
48
70
12
-------
C. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING METHOD OF HANDLING REFUSE
Each of the high-rise structures on the site is equipped to handle refuse
disposal by incineration. Three automatically operated incinerators
(identical units—flue-fed, single-chamber, gas-fired, overfire air blower
with an estimated capacity of 40 Ib. per hr.) are located in the basement
of each building and are electrically programmed to fire at 2-hour intervals
between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. and twice between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Auxiliary
fuel is supplied for 15 consecutive minutes at the start of each firing.
Each corner chute and incinerator in each 8-story structure services
21 dwelling units (16 3-bedroom and 5 2-bedroom units), while the middle
chute serves 15 dwelling units (10 4-bedroom and 5 1-bedroom units).
In the 10-story structures, each corner chute and incinerator services
26 dwelling units (6 2-bedroom and 20 3-bedroom units), and the center
chute 18 dwelling units (12 4-bedroom and 6 1-bedroom units).
Each chute is 22.5 in. square and firebrick-lined up to and including the
fifth floor; above this point each chute is 24 in. square and lined with
terra cotta tile the remaining distance. The chute extends approximately
9 ft. above the base of the roof and is capped with a wire-mesh spark
arrester. Hopper doors, 14.5 in. square, are located on each floor of the
buildings for refuse charging by tenants throughout the day. The incin-
erator system does not have automatic locks on the hopper doors.
Ash and residue of burned refuse are supposedly removed from the incinerator
twice daily by custodians and placed in conventional metallic refuse
containers. The residue is stored in the basement of each building until
the next periodic pickup (twice weekly) by the city crews.
At the time of pickup, custodians hand-carry all loaded refuse containers
to the street curb. Two-wheel carts are used to bring the refuse containers
up stairwells to ground level. It should be noted here that a permanently
installed hoist at the stairwell to each basement was used at one time to
raise the refuse containers to ground level, but these hoists were abandoned
because of continued vandalism.
Incineration system details are shown in Figure 3.
D. RELATION OF THE TEST STRUCTURES TO THE TEST PROGRAM
In order to conduct concurrent investigations of three different methods
of handling solid waste, three of the six high-rise buildings at the
New Haven complex were designated for this purpose. The pulverizer and
compactor would replace the existing north incinerators in Buildings
6B and 5B, respectively, and the new incinerator would replace the existing
south incinerator in Building 1A (see Figure 1 for building designations).
To provide an indication as to whether any change in environmental or other
conditions which occured in the test structures during the course of the
investigation was attributable directly to the newly installed equipment,
Building 4A was designated as a control test structure. Comparative data
would then be available for assessment.
13
-------
T. C. Spark Arrester
•*-^lFifth Floor H
114.5" x Hf.5"
Refractory Cement
Hearth
Fifth Floor Hopper Door
Structural Tile
3A" Air Space
Brick
Groundfloor Level
Brick
22" x 17" Fire Door
16" x 12" Ash Door
Figure 3- Incinerator details
-------
* ••
-f......,..-,.,.1^1^
*•'*.'.••>:: I '.?-.»••*• •••»&!.- •••.-•*•• • •
. . . _ i /^ i ir • • • • * .
p. . . LA
2-12" x
Grates
Plan of Fire Box
' y1.. '•"*•;. • '• * • ' Front VI ew ; ] -.;".'..-^.' -.: *: y '• '•*-.'.
Figure 3. Incinerator details (Cont.)
LIBRARY
Environmental / r;:t^LO^Ky
5555 Ridge Av%, .Giotionatl 0.
-------
Since each building has three chutes, various options were available
for the installation of new equipment, including: (1) use of three
buildings, each having three compactors, three pulpers, or three incinera-
tors; (2) use of one building housing the compactor, the pulper, and the
incinerator; (3) use of the three buildings each having only one compactor,
one pulper, or one incinerator. Due to the prohibitive costs of the
first approach, it was agreed that the last method would be most practical
in achieving the goals of the program. Reasons supporting this position
were: (1) the probability of obtaining a better distribution of the
janitorial load, and (2) the possibility of making a better assessment
of changes in insect and vermin infestation and other environmental conditions
associated with each technique for handling the refuse.
It is intended to install garbage grinders during the third study period
in the apartments served by the north chutes of Buildings 5B and 6B and the
south chute of Building 1A. Building 6B will be used to determine the
composition and volume of wastes flowing through the building sewer before
and after installation of the garbage grinders.
E. TENANT LIAISON
In an effort to maintain good relations with tenants of the structures,
one resident from each of the four structures involved in the project
was engaged to serve as liaison between the tenants, Housing Authority
management, and the advisory committee. Services provided by these
individuals included personal contact with the families in their buildings,
informing them of the scope and goals of the research project, alerting
them to times when data collectors would be on the premises, soliciting
tenant cooperation, especially during periods of inconvenience, conveying
to the committee staff all tenant complaints and questions concerning
the project, and obtaining some data required by the program.
-------
V
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
As noted in Section II of this report, the first study period was to be
devoted principally to preparation for the second 12-nonth period and to
assessment of conditions related to the existing method for handling
refuse at the test site. Such conditions were defined to include the
quantity and composition of refuse generated, the age and number of
inhabitants, the contribution to air pollution from existing incinerators,
the degree of vermin and insect infestation, and, for the existing system,
the personnel and power requirements, costs, owner, tenant, and custodian-
janitor acceptance, and effectiveness and limitations. Such a survey
was deemed to be essential to establish a basis against which improvements
or changes effected by the new equipment could be assessed. It would also
provide necessary information for selecting (sizing) and programming
the operation of the new equipment.
A. REFUSE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION
Fundamental to the proper selection and programming of the operation of
equipment for onsite handling of solid waste, and basic to any program
of assessing capability and limitations of such equipment, is accurate
information concerning the nature and quantity of refuse that the equipment
is expected to process and when or over what period of time the processing
will be effected. Thus, in the normal conduct of this program, it was
necessary to collect data on quantity and composition of refuse generated
by the tenants of the test structures. But, because the usefulness of such
data extends beyond immediate application to this program, and because
of the few opportunities in the past to characterize refuse generated at
the actual source, especially in high-rise dwellings, particular care was
taken to develop a program of data collection which would provide input
in the national effort to establish: (1) the magnitude of the refuse
load in terms of per capita generation; (2) the variation of quantity and
composition of refuse generated with meteorological (seasonal) change,
income level of generators, and type of dwelling units (e.g., single vs.
multifamily); and (3) a definition of the physical characteristics of
refuse for use not only in the development of new equipment and techniques
for onsite handling but also for use in the development, designing, and
planning of collection, storage, and disposal facilities on a municipal
or regional scale. This resulted in a more extensive data-collection
program than would have been required solely for the onsite study.
Responsibility for development of the data-collection program—or protocol
(see Appendix B)--for determining the quantity and composition of refuse
generated at the test structures was assigned to a subcommittee of the
17
-------
advisory committee, After review and further development by the full
committee, the protocol served as the scope of work of a subcontract
with York Research Corporation, a commercial laboratory located in
Stamford, Connecticut, which was engaged to collect the data.
The protocol involves each of the three test structures, the control struc-
ture, and all the chutes within these buildings. It accounts separately
for chute refuse, yard refuse, and bulky miscellaneous solid waste that is
normally picked up on request from individual apartments by janitorial
services. The protocol has applicability to any seven consecutive days or
one complete calendar week and provides for collection of data on: (1) weight,
volume, and physical composition (including moisture content) of chute
refuse generated hourly, daily, and weekly; (2) weight and composition
of chute residue following daily incineration; (3) weight and composition
of bulky miscellaneous solid waste items generated weekly; and (4) weight
and composition of yard refuse generated weekly.
In establishing the various categories for sorting the refuse to determine
physical composition, and to make the data immediately comparable with
data collected elsewhere, previous classifications by the Public Health
Service were reviewed. As a result, the eight categories identified
in the protocol are practically identical with those normally used by the
Public Health Service, except that a category of leaves and grass was not
included—since the structures involved were multifamily apartments--
and that glass was assigned a specific category separate from ceramics.
A detailed account of the implementation of the protocol is given in
Appendix B, and the data collected are presented in Tables I through XXI
of Appendix C.
Conduct of the data-collection program proved to be more difficult than
anticipated, partly because of the number of sorting sites (12) and their
location in four different buildings somewhat removed from each other.
Communications between the project director and the two professionals
covering two buildings apiece, and between the professionals and laborers
working each of their two buildings, posed a problem. Any change in personnel
at the project director level, the professional level, or laborer level—
except in the one case where the new project director arrived at the site
already familiar with protocol procedure (Sunday)—resulted in a loss of
efficiency. Even recognizing that man-hour requirements for laborers and
professionals are at best difficult to estimate, it is important to note
that, for the approximate amount of $18,500 provided in the subcontract
for conduct of the field program, it was anticipated that 3 separate weeks
of data could be collected. At the end of the seventh day of the first
week of collecting data in accordance with the protocol, approximately
$300 remained in the subcontract for field services. While many factors
affected field costs,* the expenditure should be recognized as a conservative
*Any competent laborer was allowed to work as many hours a day (up to 16) as
he felt capable. Thus, such laborers were reimbursed in accordance with
Federal law at a rate of time and a half for all hours worked in excess of
8 in any given day. Such costs were not considered in the original estimate.
18
-------
testimonial to the cost for such services. Information on man-hours
provided each day by personnel at each level of responsibility" (project
director, professional, laborer) was not originally requested from the
subcontractor, and, consequently, was not available at the time of this
writing. This information has since been requested of the subcontractor
and will be included in subsequent reports of the committee.
During the conduct of the field program, little time could be devoted to
determination of the quantity and composition of yard waste; consequently,
no data on such are presented in Appendix C. From discussions with the
janitor responsible for yard waste, it was learned that he policed the
grounds each morning and filled from two to three 70-gal. galvanized iron
wicker baskets daily;* additional baskets are in the front and back of each
building for use by the tenants. Several full and empty baskets were
weighed by the subcontractor, and the averages were 70 Ib. and 36 Ib.,
respectively; visual inspections of the containers indicated that the
composition was predominantly paper, leaves, and glass in that order. This
is an area in which additional data must be collected during the second
study period of the program.
It is perhaps significant to report that two professionals and one or two
laborers became nauseated during the program in the field, while no one
on the janitorial staff was affected. Further, several professionals
suffered injuries; two slipped, one injuring his arm, the other his hip;
a third walked into a low-hanging cast-iron soil pipe, and the wound
received required six stitches to close.
During the 7-day data-collection period, several fires occurred in the
incinerators in Building lA--on two separate days in incinerator Ci
(three fires in one day), and on one day in both incinerators Cz and GS--
resulting in the loss of some refuse. Approximate time of occurrence
of the fires is identified on the appropriate tables in Appendix C, as
are the daily totals affected. On several occassions, the volume of refuse
by category was not recorded after sorting, and these are also identified
in the tables in Appendix C. The absence in a relatively few instances
of data on the volume of refuse after sorting is believed to be of no
particular significance in an analysis of the data.
At least one blockage of a chute (A3) occurred, probably sometime between
7 p.m. on 7 December and 7 a.m. on 8 December. Throughout 8 and 9 December,
enough waste fell into the incinerator so that the blockage was not im-
mediately detected. On the morning of 10 December the blockage was broken
and 235 Ib. of refuse with a volume of approximately 34.8 cu. ft. were
removed from the incinerator. This and another possible blockage are
indicated in the appropriate tables in Appendix C.
*A railway loading station is directly behind the Housing Authority complex
across Canal Street, and during the 7-day data-collection period, it was
noted that considerable paper waste was blown onto Housing Authority grounds
during the loading and unloading of freight.
19
-------
Bulky waste items collected during the week are listed in Table XIX of
Appendix C. To a reasonable degree, these items were centrally stored
within each building as collected by the janitorial staff; however,
many bulky waste items (e.g., mattresses and boxes) found on the grounds
of the Housing Authority complex could not be positively identified as
to point of origin. It was simply assumed that the items came from the
structure to which they were closest. Because the field personnel were
fully engaged in sorting chute refuse, neither time nor labor could be
devoted to determining the date of disposal of the bulky waste items.
This, too, is an area in which additional data are required and will be
collected during the second study period.
v
In fulfilling the requirements of the protocol (Appendix B), the sorting of
residue after burning within incinerators C^, DI, D2 and Da of the refuse
collected each previous day was necessarily performed in a hurried manner.
Consequently, in some instances, a disproportionately large amount of ash
was sorted out with the noneombustibles and recorded as such. This accounts
for those instances—evident on comparison of values given in Table XXI
in Appendix C with values reported in earlier tables of Appendix C--where
weights of noneombustibles following incineration exceed respective weights
before incineration. While additional data must be collected to verify
these percentages, the average reductions in weight and volume for all
refuse incinerated were approximately 51% and 81%, respectively. Data
obtained on the moisture content of refuse are reported in Table XVIII of
Appendix C. A review of the data failed to associate a distinguishable
trend with either of the two methods employed to obtain the moisture
samples.* Average moisture content (i.e., the percentage of the weight
lost through ovendrying) for samples of paper and paper products was
approximately 17.9%; for composite samples of woods, plastics, rags, and
all other combustibles except paper and organic garbage, approximately
12.8%; for metallic samples approximately 9.3%; and for samples of organic
garbage, approximately 31.4%.
A total of 10,947 Ib. of chute refuse with a volume of approximately
1960.9 cu. ft. was generated over the 7-day data-collection period by the
tenants within the four buildings. (This does not include bulky solid
waste items and yard waste.) Table I gives the percentage by weight and
volume of each category of chute refuse. Values given in the table ignore
the relatively small error imposed as a result of the occasional failure
in the field to record the volume of refuse by category after sorting.
*See Appendix B. One procedure was specified in the protocol for obtaining
moisture samples. In practice, however, in order to expedite the field
program, the subcontractor departed several times from the specified
procedure.
20
-------
TABLE I
REFUSE COMPOSITION
Category of Refuse
Paper and Paper Products
Wood and Wood Products
Plastic, Leather, and Rubber Products
Rags and Textile Products
Glass
Metallics
Stones^ Sands, and other inerts
Garbage (organics)
% by Wt.
32.98
0.38
6.84
6.36
16.06
10.74
0.26
26.38
% by Vol.
62.61
0.15
9.06
5.10
5 . 31
9.12
0.07
8.58
Considering the total population (adults and children*) of the four structures
and the total amount of chute refuse generated during the week, the per
capita rate for generation was 1.48 Ib. per day per person, a surprisingly
low value; considering adults only, a value of 4.33 Ib. per day per adult
is obtained. On the basis of the total number of dwelling units occupied,
a value of 6.23 Ib. per unit per day is obtained. Table II summarizes
this information on a per building basis.
TABLE II
PER CAPITA AND OTHER RATES OF REFUSE GENERATION
Per Capita (Ib/day)
Per Adult (Ib/day)
Per Dwelling Unit (Ib/wnif)
Bldg. 6B
1.69
4.45
6.06
Bldg. 5B
1.75
4.34
6.14
Bldg. 1A
1.30
4.58
6.46
Bldg. 4A
1.25
3.98
6.33
Totals
1.48
4.33
6.23
The refuse density values given in Table III of Appendix C are significant.
Considering the total weight and volume of refuse generated during the
entire week, a value of 5.6 Ib. per cu. ft. was obtained for density.
Weekly averages of refuse density on a chute-by-chute basis ranged from a
minimum of 4.7 Ib. per cu. ft. to a maximum of 6.7 Ib. per cu. ft., reflec-
ting a surprisingly small deviation from 5.6 Ib. per cu. ft. The small
variation in density was also evident in the values determined for the
total weight and volume of refuse generated at all chutes daily during
each of the different periods of the day, i.e., values ranging from a
minimum of 4.0 Ib. per cu. ft. to a maximum of 7.6 Ib. per cu. ft.
*See the following section for population data.
21
-------
Hourly and weekly refuse generation rates in terms of both weight and
volume are presented in Figure 4. On the hourly graph, four distinct
peaks can be identified on the weight curve, at 9 a.m., noon, 3 to 4 p.m.,
and 6 to 7 p.m., with the magnitude increasing during the day. The same
trend is also evident with volume, but the peaks are not as sharply defined,
and the greatest peak occurs at 3 p.m.
Saturday, Sunday, and Monday were clearly the days when most refuse was
discarded, the weight of refuse generated on each of these days being more
than 50% greater than that generated on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday.
It is also obvious that the peak generation occurred on Saturday, with" Sunday
a close second, the downward trend continuing through Wednesday, when
the minimum refuse was generated. It should be recognized, however, that
in the development of this curve, 200 Ib. of the refuse associated with
the chute blockage on Tuesday was added to the weight of refuse shown in
the tables of Appendix C for Monday's generation. Probably, some of the
refuse in the blockage was actually generated on Sunday, and this could
have been enough to establish Sunday as the peak refuse generation day.
The daily volume curve shows a broad, relatively flat peak from Friday
through Tuesday. This is significant, because volume rather than weight
of refuse determines the relative ease and speed of sorting. In this
curve, 24 cu. ft. of the refuse associated with the blockage freed on
Tuesday morning was added to the volume shown in the tables of Appendix C
for Monday's generation. Also, in both the volume and weight curve, the
percentage of volume and weight of refuse generated after 7 p.m. Thursday
at the incinerators, where sorting occurred hourly, was determined; a
comparable percentage of the total weight and volume generated Thursday
was then determined and added to the values recorded for Friday. In this
way, each day, except Thursday, is represented by the 24 hours between
7 p.m. of the previous day and 7 p.m. of the day in question.
For future onsite programs, it is recommended that the effort be initiated
on a Wednesday so that all personnel can become familiar with their duties
while the rate of refuse generation is at its lowest.
B. INHABITANTS
In order to establish the per capita rates of refuse generation just
reported, it was necessary to know the number of persons responsible
for the generation over the period of time involved. Because per capita
rates are in themselves insufficient, in that they tend to mask the
contributing effects of other factors--e.g., adults versus children--
a door-to-door census was taken by tenant liaison and the Housing Authority
Management in each of the four structures to determine the number of
adults and children using each chute. Further, because of suspected
and reported variations in the quantity and composition of refuse generated
by different individuals and their families, the Housing Authority adminis-
trative regulations were reviewed to determine the average income level,
the rate of tenant turnover, admission requirements, and any other such
possibly revealing factors. Once sufficient data of this type are collected
nationally on the physical characteristics of refuse generated by persons
22
-------
Vol. Wt.
20 100
18 90
80
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
---Vol.
Vol. Wt..
360 2000
340 1900
320 1800
300 1700
280 1600
260 1500
240 1400
220 1300
200 1200
7
am
1
pm
9 10 11 12
Hourly variation in rate of refuse generation,
_Wt.
-Vol.
10
Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue
Daily variation in rate of refuse generation.
Wed
Figure 4. Hourly and daily variation in rate of refuse generation—weight (Ib) and volume (cu. ft.)
-------
with differing or associated characteristics, suspected variations can then
be validated or disproved. The breakdown of the tenant population per
building per chute, as determined from the door-to-door census, is shown
in Table III.
TABLE III
POPULATION DATA
Building
6B -
5B -
1A -
4A -
Test Structure A
70 apartments
(1 vacancy)
Subtotals
Test Structure B
70 apartments
(no vacancy)
Subtotals
Test Structure C
57 apartments
(1 vacancy)
Subtotals
Control Structure D
57 apartments
(1 vacancy)
Subtotals
GRAND TOTALS
Chute*
A!
A2
A3
Bi
B2
B3
Ci
C2
C3
Di
D2
D3
No. Adults
38
17
39
94
37
24
38
99
33
16
30
79
34
16
39
89
361
No. Children Totals
45
73
36
154
38
69
40
147
71
65
63
199
67
59
69
195
695
83
90
75
248
75
93
78
246
104
81
93
278
101
75
108
284
1056
*Designations as established in the protocol on refuse (Appendix B).
A review of Housing Authority regulations established that qualification
for occupancy was dependent on income and family size, with the maximum
allowable income for admission ranging from $3,700 for a family of one to
$7,300 for a family of 14. Special income limits were in effect, and pro-
visions were made for increased income during continued occupancy, but all
reflected in general a low-income range. The rate of tenant turnover was
relatively insignificant.
C. CONTRIBUTION TO AIR POLLUTION FROM EXISTING INCINERATORS
Because of widespread concern with onsite incineration and the few oppor-
tunities in the past to monitor stack emissions from incinerators of the
size involved at the New Haven test site, particular care was taken to
develop a program of data collection that would yield information having
applicability beyond its immediate usefulness to the onsite program. As in
the case of refuse quantity and composition, responsibility for development
24
-------
of the specific data-collection program (JOT protocol) for assessing air
pollution from the existing incinerators was assigned to a subcommittee
of the advisory committee. After careful review and further development
by the full committee, the protocol served as the scope of work of another
subcontract with York Research Corporation for conducting the test program
in the field.
Because of the cost that would have been entailed, stack emissions from all
12 incinerators within the four test structures could not be monitored.
Therefore, the protocol involved only test structure lA--the structure
in which it is intended to install the new incinerator and, hopefully,
to upgrade an existing one—and incinerators Cj and €3 therein. (See
Appendix D.)
Most of the protocol deals with incinerator Ca, since it is intended to
replace this incinerator with the new one. Thus it was deemed desirable
to obtain data from the widest range of test conditions possible to provide
a broad basis for future comparisons. As developed, the protocol details
the specific tests to be conducted, the data to be obtained from each
test, and the test procedures to be used. It is important to note that
in two tests to be conducted, the protocol requires that particulate
emission rates be determined simultaneously using basically the test
procedures specified in the ASME Test Code PTC 27-1957 and the test pro-
cedures developed by the National Air Pollution Control Administration,
U. S. Public Health Service.
General testing was performed by the subcontractor during the last part of
December 1968 and during January and February 1969. Data from these tests
are given in Tables I through XI of Appendix E, along with a description
by the subcontractor of methods of testing and collecting and analyzing
samples and location of sampling ports on the stack.
For these tests, incinerator design capacity was calculated to be approxi-
mately 40 Ib. per hr., using the procedure recommended by the Incinerator
Institute of America. Thus, in the tests requiring charging of refuse
at design capacity (i.e., Tests 1, 4, S, 6, and 9), 40-lb. refuse samples
were used. As estimated from the data collected on 5 December 1968 on the
quantity of refuse generated hourly at incinerators AI, BI, C3, and Da,
it appeared that the actual tenant charging rate was very close to the
incinerator design capacity. Therefore, to obtain the desired variations
in charging rate for the test involved, to simulate incinerator overloading
and to reflect peak refuse generation periods manifested by the 58 Ib.
collected on 5 December during 1 hour at incinerator Ca, the tenant charging
rate was assumed to be 60 Ib. per hr. Thus, for Test 2, which requires
that charging of refuse be based on tenant charging rate, 60-lb. refuse
samples were used. The third variation in charging rate (20 Ib. per hr.)
also was selected after review of the data collected on the quantity of
refuse generated hourly on 5 December, to simulate underloading of the
incinerator but yet to be of sufficient size to provide meaningful information.
Thus, for Test 3, 20-lb. refuse samples were used. For Test 7, five refuse
samples of random composition, reflecting charging rates of 4, 16, 30, 40,
25
-------
and 60 Ib. per hr., were fed manually into the incinerator by the subcon-
tractor during the course of a day, and stack emissions were determined
for each sample. The period of time during which stack emissions were
monitored varied from 30 minutes for the 4-lb. sample to 45 minutes for the
60-lb. sample; duration of stack sampling period per sample is given
for this and other tests in the appropriate tables of Appendix E. The same
procedure was repeated on another day for Test 8. Charging rates used in
these tests also were selected to reflect the range of quantity of refuse
generated hourly on 5 December at incinerators Ai, BI, C$, and DS.
The composition of all samples burned was similar for all tests, except
for Tests 7 and 8. While it was desirable to base sample composition
on not less than one week's data on average composition of refuse generated
within all test structures, the schedule imposed on the subcontractor
precluded awaiting reduction of all data collected during the week of
5-11 December.* Therefore, sample composition was based only on that
data collected during the first two days of the seven-day data-collection
period. Following this procedure, sample composition (percentage by weight)
was established by the subcontractor to be:
Sample Composition**
Category of Refuse Percentage by Weight
Paper and Paper Products 34.2
Wood and Wood Products 0.8
Plastic, Leather, and Rubber Products 5.2
Rags and Textile Products 6.4
Glass 19.0
Metallics 10.8
Stones, sand, and other inerts 2.1
Garbage (organics) 21.5
It is revealing to compare these percentages with the percentages that
would have resulted if sample composition had been based on data collected
over the entire week, namely: 32.98, 0.38, 6.84, 6.36, 16.06, 10.74, 0.26,
and 26.38.
*As noted elsewhere, it was initially intended that data on refuse quantity
and composition would be collected during three separate 3-week periods.
As envisioned, the second week's data were to be collected throughout the
period during which incinerator stack sampling was performed and the data
immediately reduced to determine whether it would be desirable to vary the
composition of samples to be used in the stack sampling tests. The unex-
pected high cost for collection of data on refuse quantity and composition
for a period of one week precluded this possibility.
**In the computation of sample composition, a weight of 24 Ib. of organic
garbage was inadvertently taken as the weight of stones, sands, and other
inerts, resulting in the disproportionately high percentage shown for this
category. This error was not detected until after conduct of the field program.
26
-------
Although extremely cold weather caused the freezing of some solutions in
the sampling train and the loss of some data, conduct of the program at
the site was relatively routine. Prior to any test, all hopper doors
to the incinerator involved were taped shut and signs were placed by
each requesting tenants to refrain from charging refuse into the chute
during the test. For the most part, tenant cooperation was excellent;
however, during at least one test, tape was removed from a hopper door
and refuse was charged inside by a. tenant. This test and those affected
by the freezing weather are identified on the appropriate tables in
Appendix E.
Because carbon monoxide was not detected in stack emissions during Test 1
or Test 2, the subcontractor deleted monitoring of this gas in hallways
near hopper doors as required by the protocol. It is also important to
note, that in the conduct of Test 2, to determine particulate emission
rates (Ib. per hr.) during the period refuse samples were smoldering,
a thimble change was made halfway through the burning of each sample
(i.e., 15 minutes after ignition). Emission rates for each part of a
burn are, thus, reported separately on Table II of Appendix E. Further,
as indicated in the subcontractor's report contained in Appendix E,
sticky paper samples were taken at least once during the burning of each
refuse sample. In some instances, two sticky paper samples were taken
during a burn. Particles per sq. in. and particle size distribution as
determined from the sticky paper samples are given in Table X of Appendix
E with the period of the burn during which the samples were obtained
appropriately identified. Emission rates (number of particles per min.),
as determined from sticky paper samples, are given for each refuse sample
on Tables I through IX; as before, the period of the burn during which
the sticky paper samples were obtained is identified.
As with data collected on refuse quantity and composition, it is not the
intent at this time to analyze extensively the data collected on air
pollutants. However, it is significant to point out that from only 6 of
45 refuse samples burned in the general testing was carbon monoxide actually
detected, the maximum being 0.1% by volume in one sample. The average
particulate emission rate of all tests (23 samples) conducted on incinerator
Ca at design capacity using samples of known and similar composition
was 0.18 Ib. per hr. per 40 Ib. of refuse burned. This compares with an
average of 0.08 Ib. per hr. per 40 Ib. of refuse burned for Test 9
(3 samples) conducted on incinerator Ci using refuse samples of the same
composition. Maximum Ringelmann reading observed was 2.5, and this was
recorded during the burning of four different samples. Average Ringelmann
for the 23 40-lb. samples of similar composition burned in incinerator
Ca was 2.3 units as compared to an average of 1.5 units for the three
samples burned in incinerator Ci during Test 9. Carbon dioxide Content was low
in all tests, ranging predominantly between 0.5% and 1.0% by volume when
detected; maximum detected was 1.5% in two samples.
Simultaneous testing was performed on 11 and 12 March 1969. For these
tests, arrangements were made with the U. S. Public Health Service to
provide a stack sampling crew of its own thoroughly trained in the test
27
-------
procedures developed by the National Air Pollution Control Administration.
Using the 3-in. sampling ports previously prepared by the subcontractor
on one side of the incinerator stack, the particulate tests were run
simultaneously by the subcontractor with his train and by the Public
Health Service crew with the NAPCA train. Since the two smaller holes
located on a second face of the incinerator stack were available, the PHS
crew also took integrated bag samples and instantaneous grab samples for
C02 and QZ', the subcontractor also obtained data in addition to the data
on particulate emission rate as required by the protocol. Both the
Public Health Service and the subcontractor delivered the data collected
from these tests directly to the committee staff; results are given in
Tables XII, XIII, and XIV of Appendix E.
For Test 10, 20-lb. refuse samples were used; for Test 11, 40-lb. (incinerator
design capacity) refuse samples were used. It is important to note that
in Test 11 the subcontractor determined the weight of particulates picked
up in the impingers in addition to the weight of particulates picked up
in the thimbles. The weight of particulates picked up in the impingers
was surprisingly high, running some 30% of the total for two of the refuse
samples burned. As expected, the NAPCA method of test resulted in higher
particulate rates than those obtained using the ASME-PTC-27 method, but
only when the weight of particulates in the impinger was considered were
results comparable to what might have been anticipated.
D. VERMIN AND INSECT INFESTATION
Much has been written concerning the association of vector infestation—
rodents, roaches, flies, and similar pests—with the presence of solid
waste, especially about the waste serving as a source of food and harborage
for these potential carriers of disease. Obviously, solid waste can
contribute significantly to vector propagation in close proximity to man.
Thus the onsite refuse-handling equipment or system can also significantly
influence the degree of vector propagation and infestation. Therefore,
it is believed that particular attention should be paid to this influence,
and alternative methods of onsite handling of refuse should be rated
accordingly. To provide a basis for judging the influence of the equip-
ment on vector propagation, a program was developed to assess the degree
of vermin and insect infestation associated with the existing refuse
handling system. As with quantity and composition of refuse and air
pollution, responsibility for development of the assessment program was
assigned to a subcommittee of the full committee.
Discussions with the Housing Authority management revealed that the current
extermination program consisted of annual or biennial inspection and
treatment by the local exterminator of individual apartments and all public
and other areas. Thereafter, for roaches, extermination service is pro-
vided on a tenant-request or complaint basis; if a heavy infestation or
a bad sanitation condition conducive to infestation buildup is encountered
when providing the service on request, a second treatment is provided on
the exterminator's next visit to the premises. This, or a comparable
28
-------
uniform extermination service, is to be maintained in each of the four
buildings involved throughout the period for assessment of existing con-
ditions and during the second and third year of the program. The entire
assessment program was conducted by the subcommittee, assisted by the
staff of the National Pest Control Association.
1. Rodents
Discussions with the local exterminator and several inspections of the test
structures made by the subcommittee throughout the study period revealed
no evidence of a rat population. On 25 and 26 August 1969, a positive
check was made on rodent activity around incinerators in the basement
areas with the use of flow tracking powder. The incinerators checked
were those to be removed and replaced with the new refuse handling equipment
and the north incinerator of the control structure. Tracking powder was
put down in 8-in. bands on each basement floor about 10 ft. from the
incinerator and in such a manner that the incinerators were completely
encircled. The bands of tracking powder were put down at approximately
4 p.m., and observations were made between 8 and 9 a.m. No evidence
of rodent tracks was found in any of the tracking powder bands during
periods of observation. Nothing was seen in the basement areas that
appeared to be especially conducive to infestation of this vector. No
rat burrows existed in the rather extensive areas of exposed soil in the
basements around the incinerators.
During the formal observations, one mouse was seen in a pile of cans and
other noncombustible materials that had been removed from an incinerator.
It had not walked across the tracking powder band, but it could have
jumped from the incinerator across the band and remained in the trash
pile. Mouse holes in the exposed soil indicated that a significant mouse
population had existed, but there was also evidence of heavy dusting in
these areas with what looked like DDT dust. Tenants and the local exter-
minator reported that mice are a continuing problem. The exterminator
also reported that the mouse population is centered around the refuse
chutes feeding the incinerators. This would be the logical source for the
one mouse seen during the formal observations.
2. Roaches
To assess the cockroach infestation, inspections were made of individual
apartments and the basement areas of the test and control structures on
the same days observations were made of rodent activity. Eighty-seven
out of a possible 92 apartments were inspected, essentially all of those
served by the three refuse chutes that will be used in conjunction with the
new refuse-handling equipment and by the north chute of the control structure.
Apartment inspection involved use of an aerosol spray containing 0.5%
pyrethrins as a flushing agent. In each apartment checks were made in
five different locations— three in the kitchen area and two in the bathroom--
29
-------
as follows:
1. In the kitchen, above or behind the sink, by spraying in cracks
between shelving and wall or in cracks between the sink top and
wall, whichever presented an open crack
2. In the kitchen, inside a cabinet on one side of the sink choosing
when possible a cabinet where foodstuffs were stored, by spraying
the crack below a shelf where it contacted each side
3. In a storage closet adjacent to the kitchen, by spraying the ends
of the metal shelves where they contacted the wall
4. In the bathroom, behind and under the wash basin, by spraying
up under the fixture on each side at the point where it contacts
the wall
5. In the bathroom, behind wooden waist-high molding, by spraying
down or up into cracks that existed between the molding and the
wall or, when no cracks existed behind the molding, by spraying
the crack between the bathtub and the molding around its top
The sprayed areas were observed for approximately 1 minute after spraying
or until a positive response by the roach population occurred. Responses
were rated as follows:
No response 0
1-3 roaches seen 1
4-10 roaches seen 2
More than 10 roaches seen 3
The inspections confirmed the presence of a general cockroach infestation.
Of the 87 apartments inspected, only 26 were not infested; of 423 locations
sprayed, roach response was positive in 163 cases. Intensity of infestation
varied from building to building and from apartment to apartment within a
building. To reflect the findings, each apartment was assigned an infesta-
tion score--arbitrarily calculated for each apartment, considering all five
areas sprayed, by assuming 0 for each 0 rating, 2 for each 1 rating, 7 for
each 2 rating, and 25 for each 3 rating. The following frequency dis-
tribution resulted:
INFESTATION SCORE FREQUENCY*
0 26
1-3 14
4-10 14
11-20 13
21-30 4
31-40 6
41-50 2
51-60 4
61-70 0
71-80 2
81-90 2
*Frequency indicates the number of apartments in which
the cited range of infestation score was observed.
3Q
-------
No correlation of degree of infestation with the present method of handling
refuse could be established. Other factors obviously influenced the
infestation level more than the refuse-handling system, either for the
building as a whole or for individual apartments. The roach populations
were generally lower in cleaner apartments, in which waste food was disposed
of carefully and foods stored in closed containers. But in some apartments
even good housekeeping practices and proper waste disposal and food storage
did not result in freedom from infestation.
3. Flies
Fly activity also was observed during the period when roach inspections
were made and on several other occasions throughout the study period when
the subcommittee was at the test site. No fly problem was observed in any
of the apartments or in the basement areas at the time of the roach inspec-
tions. Observations in hallways were made in each of the test and control
structures without seeing more than an occasional fly. The greatest
concentrations of flies observed were groups of approximately 10, mostly
blowflies, on or around deposits of dog dung. Nothing was seen on the
premises that would be conducive to development of a large fly infestation.
E. MISCELLANY
All remaining factors deemed to constitute existing conditions associated
with the present refuse-handling system--personnel requirements, power and
fuel requirements, costs (operation and maintenance), owner, tenant, and
custodian acceptance, and effectiveness and limitations—were grouped
together and considered under the title "Miscellany." Although it was
desirable to have quantitative data on all parameters required to assess
each of the "Miscellany" factors, it was recognized that such data would
not be readily available and the proper collection would require an
excessive period of time. Consequently, the development of a program
for assessment of these factors was assigned to a subcommittee, to establish
a reasonable basis (subjective if necessary) against which the same factors
associated with the new refuse handling equipment could be viewed. The
assessment program and results of its implementation follow.
1. Personnel Requirements^
Parameters identified as important with respect to personnel requirements
for operation and maintenance of the existing refuse system include:
a. Number of personnel required at each level of responsibility
b. Skills required for personnel at each level of responsibility
(1) Education
(2) Experience
(3) Physical attributes
(4) On-job training
31
-------
c. Man-hour requirements for personnel at each level of responsibility
d. Salary
e. Personnel turnover rate
f. Union affiliation
Information on these parameters was obtained through discussions held
with the Housing Authority management and through review of existing files.
It was found that personnel requirements for the six high-rise structures
(18 incinerators) involve three levels of responsibility: foreman, maintenance
mechanic, and laborer (janitor-custodian). One foreman is used, and he
spends approximately 2 hours a day on all 18 incinerators. He works a
40-hour week, but he is on call at all times. No formal educational
requirements are mandatory. A job description for the position of foreman
follows:
FOREMAN: Supervises all maintenance within projects of
his responsibility. Makes up daily work schedules and
assigns jobs to maintenance personnel. Oversees all work
performed by outside contractors. Supervises and assists
in all emergency work where necessary. Processes all
emergency calls after working hours, and on holidays and
weekends. It is the duty of the foreman to perform main-
tenance work when he deems it necessary in the best
interests of the Housing Authority or its tenants to do
so. The foreman also handles all clerical duties invol-
ving his projects, such as receiving reports, time sheets,
inventory, etc.
One maintenance mechanic is involved, and he spends approximately 1 day
each month on all 18 incinerators. He works a 40-hour week, and no formal
educational requirements are mandatory. A job description for the main-
tenance mechanic follows:
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC: Makes all repairs to and keeps in
proper condition the building and structures located on
the project site, including the necessary painting, car-
pentry, and masonry work on the interiors and exteriors
of, and approaches to, dwelling and non-dwelling units;
adjusts and maintains in good working order operating
and household machinery and mechanical equipment, includ-
ing heating, plumbing, and electrical appliances and
apparatus. The maintenance mechanic shall perform any
duty relating to general maintenance when it is in the
best interests of the New Haven Housing Authority or its
tenants that he do so.
The Housing Authority uses one laborer per building 4 hours a day, 7 days
per week to service the present incinerators. One laborer spends 40 hours
per week collecting debris and litter on the grounds surrounding the
32
-------
six-building complex, and another spends approximately 24 hours per week
on grounds cleanup, using a mechanical sweeper. Approximately 232
laborers' hours are used per week for the handling of refuse. All laborers
must have a physical examination prior to reporting to work and must be
capable of doing ordinary manual labor. A job description for a laborer
follows:
LABORER; Does work necessary to the upkeep and operating
of project site and grounds and equipment by loading and
unloading trucks, lubricating and changing oil in trucks or
other automotive equipment, moving and hauling furniture
and supplies, digging and backfilling trenches and gutters,
removing trash and garbage, filling fuel tanks, watering
and mowing lawns, rolling, tamping, and laying sod, other
heavy manual labor, operating automotive equipment, and cleaning
buildings and equipment.
The laborers are union affiliated, and union and Housing Authority job
descriptions are compatible. The Housing Authority management indicated
no problem of personnel turnover at any level of responsibility.
2. Power and Fuel Requirements
Power requirements involve only the electrical power required for operation
of the automatic firing control panel and overfire air blower (fractional
horsepower). Consumption was not monitored because it was believed that
the cost involved for the amount of power used was negligible and could be
estimated if later desired. Consumption of the natural gas used to facilitate
the burning of refuse was monitored at incinerators Cj and Ca during the
air pollution testing. From the air pollution test, it was determined that
the average fuel consumption for each 15 minutes supplied was 108 cu. ft.
Assuming that an incinerator is fired as scheduled, 11 times during each
24 hours, this would yield an average consumption of 1188 cu. ft. per day
per incinerator.
3. Costs
The only items of cost considered to be useful for comparison with similar
information to be collected during operation of the new equipment were
determined to be those associated with normal operation and maintenance
of the existing refuse-handling system. It was hoped that most of the
desired information on costs could be taken directly from records of the
Housing Authority, but records had not been maintained. Unquestionably,
maintenance costs have been low, because little is required to maintain
the incinerators in operational condition. The foreman did indicate that
grate replacement is "frequent" and that all fireboxes had been rebuilt
at least once since their installation in 1955. Trouble apparently is had
with fuel supply, as many incinerators are being operated without gas—
i.e., they are set off by hand by the laborers; no records are available,
however, on any costs for repair of the gas supply. Operational costs
33
-------
include: (1) use of the laborers at $2.94 per hour, (2) use of maintenance
aid at $3.64 per hour, (3) use of foreman at $4.25 per hour, and (4) use
of natural gas at a rate of $0.149 per 100 cu. ft. Additional operational
costs are associated with electrical consumption (negligible), replacement
of refuse containers, incinerator cleanout equipment, and other miscel-
laneous items (e.g., clerical and insurance charges), but none of these
could be assessed. There also is a charge for collection of the refuse
by the city; however, this is masked in a charge to the Housing Authority
for all utility services provided, a. charge which depends upon the amount
of revenue received by the Housing Authority from the tenants.
4. Owner, Tenant, and Custodian Acceptance
Assessment of owner, tenant, and custodian acceptance of the existing
refuse-handling system was made entirely on the basis of interviews conducted
by the committee staff. The interviews were somewhat ineffective in that
none of the persons with whom discussions were held knew of alternative
methods for onsite handling of refuse.
The four persons serving as liaison indicated that tenants for the most
part are cognizant of the refuse system as seen from the hopper doors--
dirty, odorous, generally unattractive, and small. They know that inciner-
ators are used, but it was generally accepted that this is the way in which
refuse is handled. Tenants were not particularly concerned by either noise
or air pollution. Although odor was noticeable throughout the corridors
and was commented upon by tenants, the odor could not be attributed solely
or even principally to the refuse-handling system. In general, there was
an understandable feeling of apathy regarding the present refuse-handling
system.
Each janitor (laborer) with whom discussions were held expressed disenchant-
ment with the existing refuse-handling system, while having no knowledge
of alternative methods. Paramount among their comments were clumsiness
of the task of cleaning out incinerators, general dirtiness, heat, and the
carting up the stairwell of refuse containers, once filled.
The Housing Authority management was conscious of the existing system,
particularly the air pollution aspects, pointing out that smoke emissions
from incinerator stacks were often noted. Undeniably, a recently enacted
city ordinance establishing emission criteria on incinerators was responsible
for some of this awareness. The management was also cognizant of the large
volume of refuse removed from the complex after incineration, principally
because of 10 to 15 refuse containers placed before each structure twice
weekly for pickup by the city. In general, the management expressed
dissatisfaction with the present system of handling refuse but knew of no
alternative.
5. Effectiveness and Limitations
To assess the effectiveness and limitations of the existing refuse-handling
system, the items which follow were identified by the subcommittee as
34
-------
appropriate to be observed and assessed subjectively by the committee
staff during "walk throughs" of the structures:
1. Convenience to tenants
a. Requirement for storage of refuse in individual dwelling
units
b. Ability to handle all refuse
c. Availability for use
2. Environmental conditions maintained
a. Air pollution
b. Odor
c. Water pollution (sewer)
d. Vermin and insect infestation
e. Noise
f. Aesthetics
3. General
a. Degree of refuse volume reduction
b. Specialized equipment requirements
c. Serviceability (by janitors)
Weight and size of refuse containers
Accessibility for refuse removal
Disposability of refuse containers
Cleaning
Storage capacity
Complexity of operation
Several "walk throughs" were made between December 1968 and March 1969,
while data were collected on refuse quantity and composition and air
pollution. In addition, several "walk throughs" were made throughout
1968. The following summary is based on this series of "walk throughs."
The availability of the system for use by the tenants, especially in the
absence of hopper door locks, to prevent use during periods of burning,
is virtually at the tenants' discretion. Inherently, the system imposes
no storage time within individual dwelling units. Hopper doors are small
(14.5 sq. in.) but will accept most of the normal household refuse generated.
Special pickups of bulky items of waste are provided on request within a
reasonable time, but often such requests are not made, and the waste ends
up in the corridors or on the grounds of the complex. The three vertical
chutes within each structure provide considerable convenience to the
tenants, although use of the single flue for incineration does result in
the inconvenience of smoke back in the face of users and the attendant
odor and dust.
Environmental conditions maintained by the system are not particularly
favorable. An understanding of the degree of air pollution associated with
the refuse system can be gleaned from results of tests performed on incin-
erator Cj (Appendix E), which must be multiplied by a factor of 18 to
reflect the entire high-rise complex. Closely akin to air pollution is
35
-------
odor, which is particularly noticeable on the roofs and when charging
waste through hopper doors during periods of refuse burning. The noticeable
odor is due in part to the low temperatures maintained in the fire boxes
during burnings. No contribution is made to the building sewer line by
the incinerator system, since no cleaning with water is involved. The
degree of noise associated with the system is favorable; this is due to use
of the single flue and the attendant masonry walls which dampen noise to
a greater extent than would a metallic refuse chute. As indicated previously,
the presence of vermin and insects cannot be attributed directly to the
refuse system, but both cockroaches and mice are known to be present.
Specific quantitative data and additional investigation are required to
assess the degree of infestation and an association, if any, with the
refuse-handling system. Unquestionably, the presence of mice in the refuse
chutes indicates that harborage is being provided.
Aesthetically, the system leaves much to be desired, ranging from hopper
door appearance, particularly the inside which probably never receives
adequate, if any, cleaning, to the refuse storage containers, which must
be metallic since incineration is involved. The inability of the system
to receive all waste is responsible at least in part for the general
appearance of the grounds--litter breeding litter—and the piles of bulky
miscellaneous waste items which tend to collect within each basement area.
Despite the partial volume reduction effected by incineration, the number
of refuse containers--which become unsightly very quickly—set out before
each building twice weekly runs from 10 to 15. During different times of
the day, collections of unburned and partially burned paper and other
light refuse can always be seen within the wire mesh spark arresters
capping the incinerator stacks.
General effectiveness in terms of volume reduction also must be rated
unfavorably, reduction actually realized running approximately only 81%.
Standard 30-gal. metallic refuse containers are used, each weighing
approximately 70 Ib. when filled with incinerator residue. The containers
must be carried with the use of two-wheel carts up the stairwell to the
point of pickup by the city at the street curb twice weekly, and then
returned. At one time specialized equipment in the form of a hoist arrange-
ment was used at each building to lift the refuse containers to the ground
level, but, as mentioned earlier, the hoists were abandoned due to con-
tinued vandalism. Except for the stairwell situation, accessibility for
removal of refuse from the basement areas and storage capacity is excellent,
but this is attributable more to building design than to the refuse system
itself, the entire basement area of each building being devoted entirely
to service equipment, utility piping, and waste-handling equipment.
Operation is simple, the most complex aspect being removal of residue
from the ashpit and firebox. This effort is hampered by inability of the
incinerators to burn all refuse completely, the existence of wire grates,
general incinerator design, and the absence of tools especially designed
for this purpose.
Figure 5 illustrates photographically some of the points discussed.
36
-------
a. Limited hopper door
b. Inability to handle all refuse
c. Inability to handle all refuse
d. Yard litter
e. Yard waste
f. Condition of grates
g. Typical condition of incinerator h. Condition of refuse containers
Figure 5- Effectiveness and limitations of existing
refuse-handling system
37
-------
-------
VI
PREPARATION FOR STUDY PROJECTION
While assessments of existing conditions were being made, preparations
were also under way for the program to be carried out during the second
study period of the project. These preparations included selection of the
specific refuse-handling equipment to be installed in the test structures,
the development of preliminary installation plans, and, to the extent
possible, development of the data-collection program to be implemented.
A. SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR INVESTIGATION
As indicated earlier in this report, Phase I was intended to permit con-
current onsite investigation of three concepts for handling refuse,
compaction, wet pulverization, and incineration. To provide a basis for
selection of equipment to be installed, various manufacturers of refuse-
handling equipment utilizing any of the three concepts mentioned were
asked to provide information relative to type of equipment manufactured,
applicability of their equipment to the test structures (representatives
of the manufacturers made personal inspections of the Housing Authority
buildings), equipment capability, recommendations regarding installation,
options available with equipment, attendant costs and cost options, and
other pertinent data. Representatives of the manufacturers then met
individually with the committee to make their presentations and to furnish
pertinent literature on their equipment. Following committee consideration
of the information submitted, it was deemed that insufficient information
had been presented on which a selection could be based. Consequently,
three subcommittees were established, one each for development of recom-
mendations to the full committee on compactor, pulverizer, and incinerator
selection.
1. Compactor
Further investigations by the subcommittee appointed to select the compactor
led to the decision to purchase and install Wastepactor Model No. 157,
manufactured by the Compactor Corporation of New York, chiefly because a
comparatively large number of these units already were in operation in the
New York City area and their capability could be witnessed first hand.
At the time selection was made, available compactors applicable to the
test structures were limited in number. Over the last 6 to 12 months,
several new compactors have become available, some with automatic provisions
for replacing full refuse containers with empties. Although the new
compactors are applicable to the New Haven test structures, it is believed
that given the conditions at these particular structures, the Wastepactor
Model is still the most practical.
39
-------
The Wastepactor unit, a photograph of which is shown in Figure 6, is a
hydraulically operated machine employing a duplex horizontal ram mechanism
to force refuse through a restricted or necked-down compaction chamber
to effect volume reduction. The machine functions as follows:
1. Refuse is gravity fed through an extension from the vertical
chute into a hopper located in front of the horizontal ram.
2. As the refuse falls through the vertical chute extension, a
photoelectric cell initiates forward movement of the horizontal
ram which pushes the refuse through the compaction chamber
into a discharge tube. The top surface of the horizontal ram
is equipped with a toothed shear plate which forces any refuse
caught between the ram and hopper to be sheared.
3. When the horizontal ram will go no further, a second ram, or
piston, extends from the middle and travels through the center
of the compaction chamber to clear possible blockages and effect
passage of the refuse .
4. Compacted refuse is extruded from the discharge tube (approximately
16 in. in diameter) and automatically loads into a refuse container
that has been slipped over the tube .
5. As more refuse is extruded, the refuse container is pushed
toward the edge of the discharge tube until it reaches a point
approximately 10 in. from the edge, where a mechanical lever
switch--normally held closed by the refuse container—is released
to shut down the equipment and energize a light signal to advise service
personnel that the container is full. '
6. The filled refuse container is manually replaced with an empty
container, and the operation begins again.
The compactor has a height of 2 ft. 2 in., a length of 7 ft. 10 in., and a
width of 2 ft. which is equal to the size of the infeed opening; floor area
required for installation is a minimum of 6 ft. x 12 ft. Approximate
weight is 1,500 Ib. and manufacturer-rated capacity is 1,500 Ib. per hr.
The ram housing, the compaction chamber, and the discharge tube are in-
tegrally welded to form one continuous structural element of wear-resistant
3/8-in. steel. Feed opening, welded to ram housing, is made of 0.25-in.
wear-resistant steel, and the ram face of 0.75-in. wear-resistant steel.
Chute adaptor, made of 10 gauge wear-resistant steel, contains an access
door sized as required to fit. The equipment is operated by a 3-hp.
motor requiring 208/60/3 phase electrical power. The compactor lists for
$4,975.00, plus tax, f.o.b. Brooklyn, New York. This price includes the
automatic light signal that advises when a refuse container is full and an
automatic insecticide and deodorizing dispenser that is activated by movement
of the horizontal ram.
The compactor described is to be installed in Building SB in conjunction with
the north chute (Bi).
40
-------
Figure 6. Compactor selected for installation
41
-------
2. Pulverizer
Selection of the wet pulverizer was difficult, because only two manufacturers
were involved, both offered essentially the same equipment, and neither
could claim an installation in an apartment building. Since no clear
advantage could be associated with the equipment of either manufacturer,
it was the recommendation of Wascon Systems, Inc., that its unit could be
fed directly from the chute--i.e., without intermediate handling by
custodial staff or conveyor equipment--that led to the selection of the
equipment manufactured by this firm.
The pulverizer system, a schematic of which is shown in Figure 7, consists
fundamentally of two principal components, the pulper itself and a de-
watering press. Refuse from the vertical chute falls directly into the pulper
tank, which is partially filled with water (automatically maintained at the
proper level). At the bottom of the tank is a stainless steel impeller
plate randomly studded with teeth, which rotates to create a vortex in the
water. Refuse falling into the tank is drawn into the vortex and down
onto the impeller plate where pulpable materials are abraded and mixed
with water to form a slurry. Nonpulpables, such as pieces of metal and
metal cans are, to some extent, reduced in size and then confined in a
collection chamber at the bottom of the pulper where they can be removed
automatically or manually. The slurry then is passed through a sizing
ring which prevents oversized waste particles from leaving the tank and is
pumped through pipes to the dewatering press placed in the most advantageous
location possible. As the slurry enters the dewatering press, it is picked
up by a helical screw contained in perforated housing. The squeezing action
of the screw extracts water from the slurry and conveys the remaining
semidry pulp to the top of the press, where it is discharged directly into
a container. A number of different kinds of containers, ranging from
standard refuse cans to large wheeled carts, can be used. Water extracted
from the pulped waste is pumped back to the pulper tank for reuse and
conservation.
Pulper Model No. ENS-18 and the corresponding dewatering press Model No.
WPS-400, each having a manufacturer-rated capacity to reduce a minimum
of 400 Ib. of refuse per hr., was selected. The manufacturer quoted a
list price of $14,985 f.o.b. New Haven, Connecticut, for this equipment
and submitted the following system and equipment specifications:
Manufacturer Specifications
A. General
System shall be designed to reduce a minimum of 400 Ib. per hr.
of general building waste and transport this material in the
form of a slurry to a remote dewatering device for discharge
of semidry pulp into adjacent container and return excess water
to pulpers for reuse. Equipment is to be capable of tolerating,
without damage or jamming, small quantities of glass and light
gauge metal. Equipment is to include one pulping unit, one
dewatering unit, and all controls as described below.
42
-------
Schematic of Pulverizer System Operation
, r^— LJ J I
1 Bi ' y—41 ^f^^r ml
.'•.••;•• :•» * . 'i-.» ••.*•.•*.•••.•* -.4-4 • .*»••**
Curb*
E
E
7'-6"
Plan \i\&n
Dr i ve
Motor
2.5"
Slurry Line
Finished
Side View
Pulper Dimensions
Side View
Dewatering Press Dimensions
Figure 7. Pulverizer selected for installation
43
-------
1. Pulping Unit
Unit shall be designed to reduce at least 400 Ib. per hr.
of general building waste combined into a pulp and pass
resulting slurry to a remote extractor for discharge of
semidry pulp into adjacent container.
2. Dewatering Press
Unit shall be designed to receive 400 Ib. per hr. of
general building waste slurry from pulper, dewater and
discharge semidry pulp into adjacent container, and pump
water back to pulpers for reuse.
B. System Specifics
1. Pulper Construction
Pulper impeller to be exactly one-half the diameter of
pulping tank, rated capacity being directly proportional
to impeller area. Pulping shell is to be minimum of
3/16 in. heavy gauge welded stainless steel fabricated
with dished bottom head, slurry discharge and return
water connections, fresh water connection, and bottom
housing assembly. Pulper is to include horizontally
mounted flat stainless steel pulping impeller with
hardened pulsing vanes and C-10 blanking die grade
formed carbide cutting teeth of modified pyramidal
shape with backward sloped leading edge and a hardness
of Rockwell "A" 88 or greater. Unit is to include
stainless steel perforated waste sizing ring. Pulper
impeller is to be belt driven with impeller keyed to
shaft; shaft is to be sealed from leakage with mechanical
seal. Motor mounting plate is to be hinged for ease
of belt adjustment and maintenance. Base framing
members and legs are to be made of carbon steel, square
tubular construction with flanged feet. Base is to be
enclosed with removable stainless steel panels. Unit is
to include stainless steel feed hood with sliding access
door and connection for chute attachment. Unit is to
include stainless steel trash box and trash valve to
enable trash box to be emptied with unit in operation.
Unit is to include belt driven cast iron slurry pump
with stainless steel paddle wheel impeller, complete
with motor and pump stand having adjustable feet.
2. Pulper Drive
Pulper will be driven by belt, using open drip proof
ten horsepower, 208-220/440 volt, 3 phase 60 cycle
motor with encapsulated windings and poly-v cast
steel sheaves; belt is to be suitably guarded. Drive
shaft is to be mounted in antifriction bearings. Drive
belt sheave is to be mounted outboard of bearings for
ease of replacement.
44
-------
3. Slurry Pump Drive
Slurry pump will be driven by belt, using open drip proof
3-hp., 208-220/440 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle motor with en-
capsulated windings; belts and sheaves are to be suitably
guarded.
4. Dewatering Press Construction
Dewatering press is to include motor and foot mounted gear
reducer supported by structural steel base of square tubular
construction with flanged feet. Stainless steel components
include 6 in. diameter helix with stainless steel backed
nylon brush, matching diameter solids separator, bottom
guide and housing assembly, replaceable water jacket,
slurry and return water connections, removable cover plate,
and discharge chute. Unit includes cast iron return
water pump and motor set. Drain is to be located at lowest
point of water jacket, providing for complete drain down
through fine mesh water solids separator without dis-
turbing slurry or return water piping or drive assembly.
Unit includes 3 in. stainless steel emergency overflow
connection.
5. Dewatering Press Drive
Dewatering press is to be driven by belt connected to
foot mounted gear reducer, using open drip proof 1.5 hp.,
208-220/440 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle motor with encap-
sulated windings; belts and sheaves are to be suitably
guarded.
6. Return Pump Drive
Return pump is to be driven by belt, using an open drip
proof 3 hp., 208-220/440 volt, 3 phase, 60 cycle motor
with encapsulated windings; belts and sheaves are to be
suitably guarded.
7. Control Panel Construction
A surface mounted main control panel with NEMA 12-Enclosure
is to include: circuit breaker safety interlocked with
door handle, 110 volt control circuit transformer,
automatic reset fused magnetic starters for each motor,
and three leg protection for each starter. Panel is to
be shipped complete with separate field mounted controls
including one NEMA four-enclosure start-stop button
station at pulper, one safe run selector switch station
at waterpress, and one fresh water solenoid valve. A
separate water control panel with NEMA one-enclosure is
to include 1/70 horsepower air pump, pneumatic actuated
mercury switch, and 0.25 in. copper tube for connection
of air pump to pulper shell.
45
-------
8. Automatic Controls
System to be set up for completely automatic operation,
including automatic start and stop. Controls to consist
basically of a wall mounted control panel, in addition
to item 7 above, and ultrasonic sensor unit mounted in
the feed chute connection. Also included is a motorized
valve for installation at the dewatering press to effect
automatic drainage of the system.
9. Finish
Finish to be manufacturer-standard primer with enamel
finish coat.
Equipment to be manufactured in accordance with preceding
specifications as follows:
Item No. 1
Pulper with 36 in. diameter tank, 18 in. diameter impeller,
10 hp. drive motor, and 3 hp. slurry pump set.
Item No. 2
Dewatering unit with 6 in. diameter helix, 6 in. diameter
solids separator, 1.5 hp. drive motor and 3 hp. return
pump set.
Item No. 3
Main control panel NEMA 12; 42 x 36 x 8 in. Water level
control panel NEMA 1; 15 x 13 x 6 in. Automatic start
control panel NEMA 1; 83/4x5 3/8x4 3/8 in.
The pulper unit is to be installed in Building 6B in conjunction with the
north chute (Ai). As discussed more fully in the section of the report
which follows, the dewatering press will be located on ground floor level to
eliminate the necessity of carrying the pulped waste up the flight of
basement stairs.
3. Incinerator
Selection of the incinerator proved to be difficult. Fundamentally, it was
the desire of the committee to install equipment that would yield results
which would be representative of the state of the art of incinerators of
the design used for the cost involved. Neither selection of equipment
based on discussions with individual manufacturers nor the use of a con-
sulting engineering firm to design the incinerator and receive bids from
the various manufacturers appeared to fulfill this fundamental desire.
Consequently, it was decided to request the Incinerator Institute of
America to provide recommendations concerning the type of design and
specific equipment. The Incinerator Institute of America agreed not only
to prepare design drawings and specifications but also to submit a proposal
for equipment cost and its installation.
46
-------
General design and performance criteria were then developed for consideration
by the Institute. The design criteria were submitted principally as guide-
lines rather than as fixed standards from which deviation could not be made;
performance criteria also were submitted as guidelines against which per-
formance would be measured rather than as standards which had to be met.
A copy of the criteria follows:
General Design and Performance Criteria for New Incinerator
General Design Criteria
1. The unit should be a chute fed, multichamber type
having at least one charging gate, burner, overfire air
supply and gas scrubber with induced draft fan. System
should have provisions for controlled charging and--if
exhaust cannot be vented in corner of existing chute
(or elsewhere)--for locking of hopper doors during
periods of burning.
For consideration in its design, the incinerator is to
serve 21 dwelling units of which 16 are 3-bedroom and
5 are 2-bedroom units; 100 people will occupy the units,
of whom 32 will be adults and 68 will be children.
It is suggested that 5 Ib. of refuse (Type No. 2) per
person per day having a density of approximately 5 Ib.
per cu. ft. and a moisture content of 30% by weight be
considered as design parameters; however, the following
information—based on a week's survey of the quantity
and composition of waste generated by the 100 people
involved—is, in addition, forwarded for designer con-
sideration. If on review of this information the
designer desires to discuss variation from the above
identified parameters, this is encouraged.
Refuse Category
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastics/Leathers
Rags /Textiles
Glass
Metallics
Stones /Ceramics
Garbage (organics)
Total Wts. (Ib)
Sun
53
0
12
9
30
18
0
57
179
Mon
30
0
4
2
9
7
0
27
79
Tues
57
0
6
32
33
20
0
77
225
Wed
49
0
9
4
30
11
0
64
167
Thurs
37
12
3
5
45
10
14
16
142
Fri
27
1
2
6
15
7
0
13
71
Sat
36
0
9
9
44
14
0
36
148
For consideration by designer, the following data which
relate to programming operation of the new incinerator are
also provided.
47
-------
Hourly generation rate of refuse for the above Tuesday:
Time Ib. Time Ib.
0 3 p.m. 13
0 4 p.m. 14
0 5 p.m. 15
7 6 p.m. 55
8 7 p.m. 3
3 8 p.m. 16
2 9 p.m. 4
2
2. Gas scrubber should be located in basement area if
possible and should be of the type which forces the gases
to pass through a flooded water bed or impingement system;
corrosion resistant materials should be used in con-
struction of the scrubber.
3. Unit should be so designed as to act as a temporary
storage bin for refuse without attracting or serving
as a harborage for either vermin or insects.
4. Unit should be simple to maintain and operate with
all firing operations automatically controlled.
5. Burner should be natural gas type and located in the
primary chamber. It should be of such size and so in-
stalled to provide the necessary temperatures in the
primary chamber to consume smoke and maintain effective
combustion. For positive temperature control, burner
should be equipped with an intermittent electric pilot
and normal combustion controls, with temperature
actuating and sensing device preferably located in
flame port.
6. Overfire air supply should be installed so as to
provide moderate turbulence without impinging severly
on burning refuse or chamber walls; approximately 60%
to 80% of the combustion air should be overfire.
Fixed and automatic barometric draft-control dampers
should be provided; the throttling damper should be
placed ahead of the barometer damper in the hot ga3
flow, and should-be normally open when scrubber is:
inoperative.
Combustion air to the incinerator room should be
supplied through a fixed, dependable outside air
source.
7. System should include a programming electric clock
48
-------
with 24-hr, dial and with 15-min. adjustable contact pins.
8. All surfaces of the primary chanter should be of heat
resistant materials capable of withstanding temperatures
of 1800°F. without damage.
General Performance Criteria
1. Under all conditions of operation the incinerator
should not produce particulate emissions which exceed
0.2 Ib. per hr. of particulates for every 100 Ib. per hr.
of refuse burned; nor should the unit emit single visible
particles of observable sparkles at night.
2. Under all conditions of operation, the incinerator
should not emit smoke of an opacity denser than 20% or
No. 1 on the Ringelmann chart or equivalent.
3. Under all conditions of operation, the incinerator
should not emit exhaust gases containing a concentration
of more than 50 ppm (vol) of total hydrocarbons.
4. Under all conditions of operation, the incinerator
should not produce gases with objectionable odors.
5. The incinerator should not have more than 5% com-
bustible residue following incineration.
6. Repairs should not exceed two in number for any
given year and total costs for any one repair should
not exceed 10% of installation cost.
To date, the Institute has submitted tentative drawings of the incinerator
which convey probable dimensions only. In addition, the Institute has
tentatively recommended Model No. 20 Gas Scrubber as manufactured by
Pyro Industries, Inc.; Model No. 10/68 E Gas Burner as manufactured by
the Eclipse Company; and Model No. VP-57-69 Pre-fab Exhaust Stack as
manufactured by Van-Packer Products, the Flintkote Company. Because of
its tentative nature, material thus far submitted by the Institute is not
included in this interim report; a final proposal from the Institute is
anticipated in the near future.
The new incinerator is to be installed in Building 1A in conjunction with
the south chute (C3).
B. PRELIMINARY INSTALLATION PLANS
Preliminary plans completed to date for installation of new equipment are
summarized below. For all new equipment, it is intended to use, without
modification, the existing incinerator flues as refuse chutes, the committee
having decided that metallic liners--or liners of any other material--
would be an unnecessary expense. Further, manufacturers of the equipment
49
-------
selected (the Incinerator Institute of America in the case of the incin-
erator) have agreed to assume responsibility for installation of their
equipment so that no question as to liability will exist should the
equipment fail to perform as anticipated.
1. Compactor
The simplest to install of the new equipment is the compactor, the most
critical aspect being proper support of the structural angles which now
support the existing flue lining, and which are themselves now supported
by the existing incinerator walls. It is planned to accomplish this
with the use of structural pipe bolted to the concrete floor on which the
existing incinerator now rests. Thus, the basic modifications required
for installation of the compactor are: (1) removal of existing incinerator,
(2) support of existing flue, and (3) provisions for flue extension to
feed refuse into the compactor. A schematic for the installation is shown
in Figure 8. The manufacturer has indicated that details on structural
support cannot be provided until the existing incinerator walls are opened
up and it is determined exactly what is there. Figure 9 illustrates the
required wiring. For complete installation of the compactor, the manu-
facturer has quoted a price of $3,175.
Adjusting Angles
Telescoping Corners
Finished Floor
Access Shut Off Door
Chute Adapter
Min. Distance of Chute Adapter
»JMax.
Distance of Chute Adapter
Figure 8. Compactor installation
50
-------
p (|| |nc!nerator Room
Electric Eye on Chute
(2) #14 Wires Req'd
(3) #12 Wire Req'd
(2) #12 Wire Req'd
# 10 &
(2) #12 Wire Req'd
(2) #\k Wire Req'd
Switch & Outlet
#\k wire Req'd
Disconnect _
(10) #14 Wire Req'd
Junction Box on Wastepactor
Wastepactor Control Panel
Figure 9- Wiring diagram for compactor
-------
2. Pulverizer
Installation of the pulper beneath the existing flue will require, in
addition to removal of the existing incinerator, support of existing flue,
and provisions for flue extension, additional concrete slabbing and curbing
to provide adequate space for servicing. To take advantage of the trans-
portation feature inherent in the system, the dewatering press is to be
installed in a laundry room on the ground floor level. The nozzle of the
dewatering press is to extend through the exterior wall of the laundry
room, from which point the pulper waste will fall directly into refuse
containers located on the outside and housed within an aesthetically
acceptable shelter heated if necessary to maintain a temperature in excess
of 32°F.* The shelter to house refuse containers is to be located on the
north side of the test structure, the side where refuse is collected at
the street curb by the city.
Preliminary plans for installation of the pulverizer system are shown in
Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The following sequence of operation
was provided by the manufacturer (see Figure 15):
Sequence of Operation
To energize panel for operation, close circuit breaker
CB. With the closing of the circuit breaker, air pump
AP is energized.
With selector switch SS-3 in the "SAFE" position the
system cannot operate. By placing SS-3 in the "RUN"
position the system is ready to be started.
Now select the mode of operation. This is done by
placing SS-1 in the "HAND" position for manual opera-
tion or the "AUTO" position for automatic "START-STOP."
When SS-1 is in the "AUTO" position, SS-2 must be in
the "RUN" position or unit WILL NOT START.
*As mentioned in the Introduction and discussed in detail in Supplement A
of this report, it is possible that a pneumatic system for centrally
collecting refuse from a number of the Housing Authority structures will be
installed and evaluated as a part of the Phase I program. If the pneumatic
system is installed, a new central structure will have to be built on
Housing Authority grounds to house all air-moving equipment, system controls
and associated equipment, and a central compactor. Were such a structure
available, it would be desirable to locate therein the dewatering press
associated with the pulper. In view of the possibility that the structure
may be erected fairly soon, the committee elected to place the dewatering press
in the laundry room rather than in the shelter which is to,house the refuse
containers. In this manner, modifications to the test structure and attendant
costs will be held to a. minimum, the shelter to house refuse containers on
the outside of the building can be considerably less elaborate, and any effort
to relocate the dewatering press in the future greatly facilitated.
52
-------
Existing incinerator to be removed.
Provide new concrete slab if necessary
•Existing slab
Existing 20" square tf\ & curbing
trash chute
Ex i s t i ng
floor drain
Earth, floor. Both sides
of existing slab
•New curb £. concrete slab
Plan View
Sliding access door
20" square 45° transition
with hinged bottom. Interior
to be flush with existing chute
& pulper feed hood connection.
Electrical sequence
panel 42" H. x 36" W. x 8" D.
Removable trash box
(with valve)
Water control panel
13" H x 13" W x 6" D
Concrete slab
(basement level)
7
Auto-start control panel. Sensors
mounted in feed hood chute connection
Elevation "A-A"
Figure 10. Pulper installation
53
-------
Existing dryer to
remain
Wire enclosure
(cei1 ing to floorJ
4" floor drain
(recommended)
Safe-run selector
switch station
Sleeves thru floor for
2 1/2" slurry & return
Iines.
4" high curb
Enclosure &
pulp containers
Hot & cold water
hose bibs
Plan View
WPS-400 waterpres's
First floor
•14" H. x 12" W. cutout
thru wal1
Grade
Elevation
Figure II. Dewataring press installation
-------
—
1 * * f
20"
4-
/
1
-^
CM
5/16" dia
16 holes
Figure 12. Chute feed connection
55
-------
18'-0" Approx
3A" fresh water 1 ine
Fresh water line including solenoid
valve, shock stop, strainer, shut-off
valve & air gap. Pre-piped & mounted
on pulper by Wascon.
Throttling valve, backflush 1 ine •
& valve pre-piped by Wascon
2 1/2" return 1ine
2 1/2" slurry 1ine
I 1/2" pipe
to drain
GO
3" overflow connection pipe
to drain. Do not reduce 3" line.
Figure 13. Piping schematic
-------
Customer's power supply
220 volts, 3 phase, 60 cycles
Pressure fPsW-n , , Elect
switch Vjy ' ^ control Elcct
. ,-,.-_._ /vW seal!
Air pump (7p\ ,, pan
1/70 hp vcy
Water control
panel
4 control <>
2 spares /5
Automatic start
control
^—o o-^
Automatic start
control sensors. ^
Mounted on trash P ^
chute.
3A" fresh water ^
solenoid valve ., .'•
^^^ 13 control ;
Gv i
/r ^v 2 spares/
/ ENS-18 \
rical
ence
el
t.
<
^
^
4
f
I
f
I pulper y
MMj j; Y2M^
15 hp pulper JL 3 hp slurry
drive motor ® pump drive motor
O
_O
{
,6 power
>5 control
5 2 spares
Safe-run selector
switch station
7*#
-------
To 220 volt
power supply
J__TDjOff) [
Figure 1$. Schematic of control circuit
-------
With SS-1 in "HAND" position, the unit is ready for
manual operation. Depress the "START" pushbutton
PB-1. This energizes the pulper, slurry pump, and
return pump drives. The waterpress drive is energized
through TD-2 which receives a signal from 3M contact.
To shutdown the unit, depress the "STOP" pushbutton
PB-2. The waterpress drive will continue to run
through TD-2 for a predetermined amount of time, after
3 M is de-energized.
With SS-1 in "AUTO" position, the unit is ready for
automatic operation. This brings the ultra-sonic
switch 1USS, time delay relay TD-1 and timer TM-1
into the circuit. When the ultra-sonic switch beam
is broken, it sends a signal to TD-1. After a short
delay TD-1 energizes the clutch coil C in TM-1 pulper,
slurry pump, and return pump drives. This starts the
waterpress drive through TD-2. The unit will continue
to run for a predetermined time (from 4 to 40 minutes).
After the time has elapsed, motor coil M in TM-1 will
drop out, de-energizing the pulper, slurry pump, and
return pump drives. The waterpress drive will continue
to run through TD-2 for a predetermined time after 3M
is de-energized. The timer TM-1 will reset the time
back to start at any time during the cycle by breaking
the ultra-sonic beam.
For pumping down the unit, selector switch SS-1 must
be in the "HAND" position. Then place selector switch
SS-2 in the "PUMP DOWN" position. This opens the
motorized valve MV-1 for cleanout and de-energizes the
pressure switch PS preventing the addition of fresh
water to the pulper tank. Then depress the "START"
pushbutton PB-1. This energizes the pulper, slurry
pump, and return pump drives. The waterpress drive
starts through TD-2 which receives a signal from the
3M contact. The unit will continue to run until the
"STOP" pushbutton PB-2 is depressed. The waterpress
drive will continue to run through TD-2 for a predeter-
mined amount of time after 3M is de-energized.
NOTE: The motorized valve MV-1 is closed at all times
except when pumping down the unit.
The automatic and pump down cycles may be stopped at
any time by depressing the "STOP" pushbutton PB-2.
The proper water level in the pulping tank is main-
tained in the manual and automatic cycles through the
pressure switch PS-1. This is energized by 2M contact
and works in conjunction with the air pump AP.
59
-------
For complete installation of the pulverizer system, exclusive of the refuse
container shelter, the manufacturer has quoted a price of $9,000.
5. Incinerator
Because selection of the incinerator has not yet been made, plans for
its installation have not been detailed. Assuming, however, that the
recommendations of the Incinerator Institute of America concerning the
incinerator to be used are accepted by the committee, installation will
be handled entirely by the Institute.
C. SUPPLEMENTAL FIELD SURVEY PROGRAM
While the equipment was being selected, consideration was also given to
the evaluations to be made as a result of the study. There was concern
that the results obtained on the equipment installed in the New Haven
structures might be limited either to a particular concept for handling
the refuse (e.g., compaction) or to equipment of the specific manufacturer
involved. This point was repeatedly raised by various manufacturers,
in addition to their concern that others would interpret: (1) the equip-
ment selected for installation as the optimum available, and (2) the
specific data obtained on equipment operation as applicable to or
representative of all other equipment employing the same concept.
Consequently, the committee recommended that a national field survey be
conducted concurrently with the New Haven program to collect sufficient
information on the operation and cost of refuse handling equipment CPar~
ticularly compactors and pulverizers) of other manufacturers to provide
a basis for addressing these concerns. In addition, it was recognized
that implementation of such a survey for the duration of the New Haven
program would tend to ensure current awareness of any new equipment which
might become available, would establish an inventory of all equipment
and techniques for the onsite handling of refuse, and, in general, would
provide an invaluable supplement to the data collected in New Haven.
It is planned to request each manufacturer of onsite refuse handling equip-
ment to provide a general description of his equipment and its operation,
plus notification of all installations within high-rise structures as they
occur. Several installations of each manufacturer's equipment will be
inspected, and the following field survey questionnaire will be completed.
Arrangements will be made with the management of each building visited to
provide cost and other particularly pertinent information on a periodic
basis.
Field Survey Questionnaire
A. GENERAL
1. Type of reduction unit (pulper, compactor,
other) : .
a. If other, describe:
-------
2. Name and address of structure:
3. Type of occupancy (Multifamily low income;
Multifamily middle income; Multifamily
high income or luxury; Other—describe):
4. Number of floors and individual dwelling
units within structure:
5. Frequency of pickup by offsite refuse
collection agency (on a weekly basis):
6. Is refuse handling unit original or replace-
ment :
a. If replacement, what was removed:
B. CHUTE
1. Is central collection chute used (Yes or
If Yes :
a. Chute material:
b. Chute diameter:
c. Cleaning and sanitation provisions
provided:
d. Fire protection provisions provided
(describe also chute ventilation):
e. Are supplemental pickups of refuse
within corridors (or within dwelling
units) required (Yes or No):
If Yes, how often:
C. EQUIPMENT
1. Manufacturer:
2. Model & Model No:
3. Date of installation:
4. How is refuse fed into reduction unit
(directly from central chute; conveyed
from chute; manually):
5. Does unit process both garbage and dry
refuse (Yes or No) :
61
-------
Can unit process all bulky and heavy wastes
charged into chute (Yes or No):
a. If No, list troublesome items:
Auxiliary power and/or utility requirements
(electricity, air, water, etc.):
8. Number of containers and/or bales of pro-
cessed refuse produced daily:
Dimensions of individual refuse containers
and/or bales as processed:
10. Weight of individual refuse containers and/or
bales as processed:
a. Can weight be varied at the site (Yes
or No) :
11. Manufacturer-rated volume compaction ratio:
a. How rated:
12. Reliability (to be assessed with following
questions, if possible):
a. Number of failures per given unit of
time:
b. Major types of failures:
c. Average time unit is unavailable due to
failure:
13. Maintenance requirements (total weekly man-
hours) :
a. General description of procedure
followed:
14. Personnel requirements (total weekly man-
hours and number of personnel involved):
a. General description of procedure
followed:
15. Fire protection provisions provided:
a. Are these building code requirements
(Yes or No):
16. General description of unit operation con-
sidering: 1. Complexity of operation <
(degree of automation) and janitorial
skill requirements; 2. safety and/or warn-
ing devices and/or signals; method used to
get processed refuse to the curb; limita-
tions (especially adapted collection trucks,
ease of use by tenants, etc.):
-------
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS MAINTAINED BY REDUCTION
UNIT
(To be assessed by questioner using the relative
indicators given)
1. Noise level (not perceptible, slightly per-
ceptible, strongly perceptible, disturbing):
a. Within trash room:
b. Within corridor on first floor having
dwelling (or occupied) quarters:
Dust level (not perceptible, slightly per-
ceptible, strongly perceptible, disturbing):
a. Within trash room:
b. Within corridor on first floor having
dwelling (or occupied) quarters:
3. Odor (not perceptible, slightly perceptible,
strongly perceptible, disturbing):
a. Within trash room:
b. Within corridor on first floor having
dwelling (or occupied) quarters:
Vermin infestation within trash room (no
evidence of such; evidence of such, non-
assessable) :
a. Precautions recommended by manufac-
turer:
b. Precautions taken:
5. General cleanliness of trash room (bad,
acceptable, good):
COSTS
1. Initial cost of reduction unit (including
all accessories): $
Monthly operational costs for:
a. Power and/or utilities: $_
b. Personnel: $
c. Collection of refuse by offsite
agency: $
Total $
63
-------
3. Maintenance costs (average monthly since
installation exclusive of personnel costs
reported above) : $
4. Insurance costs per given unit of time:
5. Space utilized (general description of
height, width, and depth of reduction unit
and storage space requirements):
Respondent
Name:
Address:
D. SECOND STUDY PERIOD DATA-COLLECTION PROGRAM
Throughout the first study period, various discussions were held by the
committee to identify the factors and parameters on which data should be
collected during operation of the new refuse-handling equipment. It was
decided to divide the data-collection program to be implemented into the
following categories:
1. Refuse quantity and composition
2. Quantity and composition of waste flowing through building
sewer line
3. Inhabitants
4. Costs
5. Environmental conditions maintained
6. Equipment effectiveness, requirements, and limitations
1. Refuse Quantity and Composition
During the second study period, additional data on refuse quantity and
composition will be collected as part of the continuing effort to establish
per capita generation rates and seasonal variations as well as to identify
what the new refuse-handling equipment must process and when the processing
should be done. For data on chute refuse, only the control structure
(Building 4A) and the chutes therein will be used. The refuse quantity and
composition protocol developed for and used during the first study period
will be followed, but it will be reduced in detail to effect collection of
data on weight, volume, and composition (including moisture) over a longer
period of time for the same level of expenditure previously made for this
effort.
Because little attention was given to yard waste during the first study
period, when data are collected on chute refuse during the second study
-------
period, for at least one full week, data on yard waste will be collected
in accordance with the detailed procedures of the developed protocol.
A category including grass, leaves, and clippings, will, however, be added.
In addition, a count of refuse containers filled each day with yard
waste will be maintained throughout the second study period. Data on
bulky items of waste also will be collected in accordance with protocol
procedures during the period chute refuse is assessed. It is desired
ultimately to compare data on the quantity and composition of refuse
after processing by the new refuse-handling equipment with data on refuse
processed by the existing equipment. Because of the suspected data collected
during the first study period on quantity and composition of refuse follow-
ing incineration, additional data on this aspect will be obtained while chute
refuse is being assessed. As before, incinerator residue will be sorted
into the categories of ashes, unburned combustibles, and noncombustibles,
and weight and volume will be determined in accordance with protocol
procedures. Only two chutes within the control structure will be used
in this effort and data will be collected for no less than 5 days.
Development of the specific and detailed data-collection schedule to be used—
i.e., the hour-to-hour and day-to-day requirements—is within subcommittee.
As before, the data-collection effort is to be subcontracted, and the
detailed schedule developed will serve as the scope of work of the subcontract.
In addition to the data collected through subcontracting, the number and
size of refuse containers filled each day with yard waste will be logged
by the janitor responsible for cleanup of the Housing Authority grounds.
2. Quantity and Composition of Waste Flowing through Building Sewer
It is planned to install garbage grinders within the apartments served by
the refuse chutes feeding the new refuse-handling equipment after the
equipment has been in operation for a year. When they are installed,
it is intended to collect data on operation and performance of the new
equipment—particularly on the environmental conditions maintained—handling
principally rubbish--!.e., with most of the putrescible waste separated
out. In addition, the increased load on the building sewer line resulting
from use of garbage grinders will be assessed. For this assessment, it
is planned to determine quantity and composition of waste flowing through
the sewer line before garbage grinders are installed. Data collected
should be useful in determining whether existing building sewer lines are
capable of assuming the added load resulting from use of garbage grinders
and in estimating dimensions and layout of drainage lines within buildings
and should also be useful in the planning of requisite sewage treatment
plants and in the estimating of sewer lines throughout the community.
In planning this activity, manufacturers of garbage grinders were asked
for recommendations regarding the data to be collected, applicable sampling
procedures and, how long data would have to be collected to ensure truly
representative results. Excellent recommendations were received, but all
were considered to be more extensive and expensive than required. Con-
sequently, responsibility for developing the required data-collection program
and sampling procedures was assigned to a subcommittee.
65
-------
The subcommittee has established that it would be sufficient to monitor
only the sewer line of Building 6B. Building 6B was selected, because
it is intended to install the pulverizer in this building which may possibly
contribute significantly to the sewer line. As will be discussed later,
waste water for the pulverizer is to be analyzed for composition. In
anticipation that procedures used to sample the sewer line will be ap-
plicable, the effort would be facilitated if the sewer sampling equipment
were located nearby.
The following factors on which data are to be collected have been divided
into primary and secondary categories, the first category including those
factors deemed to be the most important and thus those on which data
collection should be more extensive.
Primary Secondary
pH (hydrogen-ion concentration) Phosphates (total)
Solids Phosphates (ortho)
Total Nitrogen (total)
Suspended Nitrogen (NHa)
Total volatile Acidity
BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) Alkalinity
COD (chemical oxygen demand) Color
Grease
Turbidity
In the effort to establish appropriate sampling techniques, attendant
equipment requirements, sampling frequency and duration to result in data
in which 90% to 95% confidence could be expected, contact was made with
the Industrial Waste Water Control Section of the New York City Department
of Water Resources, which has had extensive experience in these areas.
Officials of the Industrial Waste Water Control Section have indicated
an unqualified willingness to aid the committee, offering their services
and knowledge with respect to sampling station design, use of equipment
for the sampling station, the possible use of their laboratory for analysis
of collected samples, and the experience of their personnel in the develop-
ment of a data-collection program that would yield the desired 90% to 95%
confidence level. It is anticipated that development of the data-collection
program will soon be completed.
3. Inhabitants
During the initial study period, information on inhabitants was obtained
only during the time that the quantity and composition of refuse generated
were assessed. Since a count of containers filled with refuse following
processing by the new equipment will be made daily throughout the second
study period, a periodic determination is to be made of the number and age
of inhabitants using refuse chutes AI, Ba and C3, i.e., the chutes to be
-------
associaed with the new equipment. With this information and other data to
be collected on the processed refuse, it will probably be possible to
determine the variation in per capita generation rate (by weight) for this
entire study period. In addition, tenant population of the control structure,
by age, will be determined during the time that data are obtained on the
quantity and composition of refuse generated by its tenants.
4. Costs
Costs will be separated into the following categories:
1. Capital
2. Operating
3. Maintenance
4. General and administrative
Capital costs will include the specific initial cash outlay for the incin-
erator, pulverizer and compactor. Since responsibility for equipment
installation is to be assumed by manufacturers of the equipment involved
(the Incinerator Institute of America in the case of the incinerator)
through subcontracts, .each will be requested to provide a breakdown
of the costs involved in terms of the following items, or such information
will be obtained by audit.
1. Refuse-handling equipment, including all accessories and controls but
no optional features
2. Optional features
3. Taxes
4. Architectural drawings and plans, if required
5. Labor and materials required for structure renovations (e.g., removal
of existing incinerator)
6. Fire protection provisions
a. Suggested by manufacturer
b. Required by building codes
7. Labor and materials required for installation
8. Residue and refuse containers
Operating costs will include separate determination of the cost of operator
personnel, fuel and utility consumption or use, residue and refuse removal,
space utilization, depreciation, and miscellaneous expenditures.
Operator personnel costs will include wages, fringe benefits, and training
as required for the normal operation and servicing of equipment and for
routine maintenance. Information on operator salary and wages and fringe
benefits will be obtained directly from Housing Authority records. An
67
-------
operator log will be used for each new piece of refuse-handling equipment,
in which all work performed or services provided and the associated time
(man-hours) will be recorded continuously by the operator. A realistic
value can then be established for that part of the day spent by an
operator in the normal operation and servicing of the equipment. Costs of
training operators will be assessed on the basis of time spent by equipment
manufacturers with the Housing Authority operator staff for this purpose.
From all the information obtained, operator pfcrsonnel costs then will be
calculated, with appropriate consideration given to vacations and sick
leave.
Fuel consumption will have to be determined only in the case of the new
incinerator, which will be using gas. Consumption will be recorded on a
continuous basis with a gas meter which is to be installed. Meter readings
and time of readings will be logged daily by the operator'and from this
information fuel cost will be calculated. Utility charges will include
those for electricity and water consumption and sewer use. For all three
pieces of refuse-handling equipment, electricity consumption in kilowatt-
hours will be recorded continuously with a kilowatt-hour meter having a
cyclometer dial. Similarly, simple water meters will be used to record
water consumption associated with the incinerator scrubber and the pulper.
Meter readings and time of readings will be logged daily by the operator.
Since water consumption by the compactor and the dewatering press (i.e.,
for cleaning) will not be significant, this will be estimated by the
committee staff. Contribution to the building sewer line from the refuse-
handling equipment also will be estimated by staff observation. If, however,
such contributions are deemed to be sufficiently large, staff observation
will be supplemented with actual measurements of the volume of water involved.
Residue and refuse removal costs associated with onsite handling will be
recorded as normal operation charges reflected as operator personnel costs.
To associate a cost with removal of the residue and refuse from the curb,
observations of its collection by the city will be made by the committee
staff. Particular attention is to be given to speed (time) and efficiency
with which refuse containers associated with the new equipment can be
handled, specialized equipment required, and the number and size of con-
tainers involved (specific counts of filled refuse containers and their
weights will be obtained elsewhere and will be considered appropriately
in this cost estimate).
Space utilization cost assessments will be based on the actual area required
for equipment installation, for convenient servicing, and for refuse storage
following processing by the equipment. In the establishment of storage
space requirements, consideration will be given to possible interruption
of service by the offsite collection agency. Depreciation costs will be
assessed by dividing total initial or capital cost by the probable life
expectancy of the equipment.
Miscellaneous costs will include expenditures for tools and materials used
in the normal operation and servicing of the equipment and expenditures
for the replacement of tools and damaged or disposable refuse
containers, and other similar needs. All such goods and materials purchased
-------
by the Housing Authority are invoiced, and the invoices will be used as
a record of expenditures.
Maintenance costs will include expenditures for repair and preventive
maintenance work on the new refuse-handling equipment and related
assessories. Work performed by operator and maintenance personnel is to
be recorded in the operator log in terms of work performed, time required,
and materials used; materials will be purchased by the Housing Authority
and invoiced to provide a record. Work covered by equipment warranty
will be noted and appropriately considered in the cost analysis. Repairs
and preventive maintenance performed by outside personnel will be billed
to the Housing Authority thus providing a record.
General and administrative costs will include personnel administrative
costs for hiring and training and costs for clerical personnel, taxes,
insurance, general management and overhead, and similar miscellaneous
items. The Housing Authority management will be asked to provide input
for committee consideration regarding an equitable distribution of these
costs.
5. Environmental Conditions Maintained
Environmental conditions maintained by the new refuse-handling equipment
include air pollution, odor, noise, contribution to sewer, vermin and
insect infestation, and general aesthetic conditions, each of which will
be discussed separately.
Air pollution will entail principally monitoring of the stack effluent from
the new incinerator. It is recognized that an extensive program could be
developed solely around the air pollution aspects of the new incinerator,
but the data-collection program to be implemented is designed primarily
to provide adequate information for assessment of incineration as a concept
for handling refuse onsite. The program desired is one similar to that
implemented during the first study period but with more emphasis placed
upon assessing the effect of long-term equipment operation on emission
characteristics. To the extent funds are made available for this purpose,
the air pollution program previously developed will be used but will be
reduced in number of test variations in order to span measurement of
emissions throughout the study period. Measurements will be made when the
scrubber is both in operation and shut down, with the incinerator charged
at design, overdesign, and underdesign capacity. For each refuse sample
burned, data similar to the data collected during the first study period
again will be collected. To extend funds as far as possible, as the study
period progresses, the number of samples to be burned in each test will be
based on similarity of results with results of each previous test, so as
to limit the number of samples to be burned to a minimum.
Sample composition again will be based on results obtained during the first
study period but modified as appropriate in the light of additional data
collected. Test methods to be employed will be those used during the first
study period, since they are economical sdid thus will allow for collection
69
-------
of more data with specific application to the onsite refuse program. Al-
though the data available are limited, it is hoped that a method can be
established for correlating the data collected with the two test methods
previously described.
For the compactor and pulverizer, the degree of dust in the vicinity of
the processing equipment will be assessed subjectively.
Vermin and insect infestation will be assessed periodically throughout the
study period using the assessment program implemented during the first
study period.
Odor will be assessed subjectively by the committee staff within corridors,
on roofs in the vicinity of refuse stacks and the new incinerator flue and
sewer stacks, and in the basement areas near the refuse-handling equipment.
Tenant and custodian reaction to the odor level will also be assessed.
For tenant reaction, assessment will be based on interviews with tenants
using questions to be developed by the committee sociologist. For the three
test structures involved, only the tenants using the refuse chutes feeding
the new refuse-handling equipment will be interviewed; for the control
structure, tenants served by the north chute will be interviewed. (Con-
sideration is being given to replacement of tenant interviews with inter-
views with week-end guards and similar personnel who do not normally live
on the premises and thus perhaps would be better able to note a change in
odor level.) For custodian reaction, assessment will also be based on
interviews, using questions to be developed by the committee sociologist.
The interviews will be held in basement areas while the new equipment
is being serviced and while it is in operation.
In addition to this subjective information, data on odor will be available
from ASTM dilution samples, to be taken during incinerator stack emission
measurements, and from at least one sewer vent on the roof of one test
structure.
Noise will be assessed both subjectively and quantitatively, subjectively
in terms of tenant and custodian reaction and quantitatively in terms of
decibel levels and frequency of occurrence. Tenant reaction and decibel
level will be assessed during: (1) charging of chutes with samples con-
taining metallic cans, (2) normally programmed operation of refuse-handling
equipment, (3) cleaning of refuse-handling equipment, (4) transfer of refuse
from basement to curb, and (5) pickup at the curb by the offsite collection
agency. Assessment of custodian reaction will be made during each of
these operations except the last.
As with odor, custodian and tenant reactions will be determined from
interviews, but, in addition, subjective assessments will be made by the
committee staff. As with odor, only those tenants using the chutes asso-
ciated with the new refuse-handling equipment and the selected chute in the
control structure will be interviewed, and only custodiaas actually servicing
the new equipment will be interviewed.
For decibel level, data are to be recorded within individual apartments of
the tenants interviewed, in the basement area of each test structure and
70
-------
control in vicinity of equipment, and at the pickup point for the offsite
collection agency during each of the previously mentioned operations.
For frequency of occurrence, data will be obtained from schedules estab-
lished for each operation during which noise level is measured except
chute charging; this frequency will be estimated.
Contribution to sewer will involve assessment of the additional load placed
on the building sewer, the pulverizer since waste water will be involved
from the pulper operation and from equipment cleaning, the compactor from
equipment cleaning, and the incinerator from the scrubber and from equipment
cleaning. Additions resulting from equipment cleaning will be estimated
by the committee staff on the basis of observations. Contribution in terms
of water volume from the scrubber and pulper will be based on measurements
of the quantities involved. In addition, grab samples of the waste water
from these pieces of equipment will be taken for laboratory analysis.
Each sample will be analyzed for the following:
Carbonates Solid insolubles
Nitrites Oily insolubles
Nitrates BOD (biochemical oxygen demand)
NH3 COD (chemical oxygen demand)
Aldehydes
General aesthetic conditions will be assessed by the committee staff during
walkthroughs of the structures involved. Particular attention will be
paid to the basement areas and to refuse pickup points.
6. Equipment Effectiveness, Requirements, and Limitations
In addition to the foregoing factors on which data are to be collected,
there are others which must be assessed. These factors, considered below,
will be assessed by the committee staff through observations or interviews,
by information recorded on operator log sheets, or information otherwise
obtained.
Reliability and availability will be assessed from information recorded in
the operator log concerning time and date of failure, time down due to
failure, and cause of failure.
Ability to handle all refuse will be assessed from information recorded on
operator log concerning particularly troublesome items and through observa-
tions by the committee staff. This information will be supplemented with
specific data on bulky miscellaneous items of refuse.
Weight, volume, and composition of refuse following processing will be
assessed when data on refuse quantity and composition are obtained. For
the new incinerator, residue will be separated daily into the categories
of ashes, unburned combustibles, and noncombustibles. Weights and volumes
of each category will be determined; in addition, moisture samples will be
taken. For the pulverizer, daily weights and volumes will be determined
for both pulped and nonpulped waste, and moisture samples will be taken
71
-------
from both categories; composition will be assumed to be the same as that
prior to processing. For the compactor, daily weights and volumes will
be determined; composition of refuse will be assumed to be the same as
that prior to processing. Collection of data on moisture content and
weights and volumes of incinerated residue by category will be subcontracted
at the same time collection of data on refuse quantity and composition
is subcontracted.
In addition to the foregoing determinations, the number of filled containers
of processed refuse and their weights will be logged daily in the operator
log.
Utilities and fuel requirements will be assessed from data collected for
analysis of operating cost.
Operator personnel requirements will be assessed in terms of the following
factors:
1. Number of personnel required at each level of responsibility
2. Skills required for each level of responsibility
a. Education c. Physical attributes
b. Experience d. On-job training
3. Man-hour requirements for personnel at each level of responsibility
4. Personnel turnover rate
5. Salary and wages
6. Union affiliation
Factors on which data are not already obtained for use in cost analyses,
will be assessed through observations by the committee staff and consul-
tations with the Housing Authority management.
Environmental conditions maintained will be assessed from data collected
from previous effort.
Usable types of refuse containers will be assessed through investigations
of various types of refuse containers--paper and plastic bags, metallic
and plastic cans, and others as available and appropriate for the processed
waste—to evaluate the capability and advantages associated with each.
Leakages, ripping, and other types of damage to the containers will be
recorded by operator personnel in the operator log. Information will also
be obtained on lift and carry distances involved in transporting refuse
containers to the curb for pickup, accessibility requirements, acceptance
by the city of disposable containers, specialized equipment requirements,
and the effect on storage requirements of each type of container. The
effect on environmental conditions of the different types of containers,
particularly odor and vermin infestation, will also be assessed.
Reserve capacity will be assessed by charging samples of composition as
determined from refuse quantity and composition data, into each new piece
-------
of refuse equipment at its manufacturer-rated capacity. Reserve capacity
will be considered to be the differential between tenant charging rate
and the capacity of the equipment determined from these tests but not
exceeding the manufacturer-rated capacity. For these tests, refuse
samples will be fed into the equipment at a rate commensurate with demon-
strated capability.
Storage requirements will be assessed in terms of type of refuse container
used and floor space required for storage between pickups. Considerations
will also be given to the possibility of disrupted offsite collection
services, such as might result from labor strikes or bad weather conditions.
Fire protection requirements will be assessed in terms of manufacturer-
suggested provisions and the requirements of local building codes.
Serviceability will be assessed in terms of ease of servicing by the operator
staff and from information logged concerning troublesome areas.
Specialized equipment requirements will be assessed in terms of requirements
imposed by the existing design of the Housing Authority structures and the
equipment itself. Particular attention will be given to the manner in which
processed waste is taken from basement area to ground level, from ground
level to curb, and from curb to pickup truck.
Cleaning requirements will be assessed in terms of manufacturer-recommended
procedures, equipment and material requirements, suggestions and requirements
logged by operator staff, and environmental conditions (odor and vermin
infestation) maintained.
Complexity and safety of operation and degree of automation will be assessed
through observations by the committee staff of equipment operation, information
logged or otherwise relayed by equipment operators, and in terms of degree
of dependency on such factors as power and uninterrupted servicing.
Tenant, custodian, owner, and city acceptance will be assessed by interviewing
the personnel involved, with consideration given such factors as convenience,
degree of central collection, time refuse must be stored within individual
dwelling units, availability, ability to handle all refuse, environmental
conditions maintained, reliability, serviceability, and restrictions
imposed by municipality--e.g., weight, size, and disposability of refuse
containers, and air pollution standards.
73
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
AGREEMENT FOR CONDUCT OF
SOLID WASTE RESEARCH PROJECT
between the
National Academy of Sciences
The Public Housing Authority of the City of New Haven
and
The City of New Haven
75
-------
AGREEMENT FOR CONDUCT OF
SOLID WASTE RESEARCH PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION
Municipalities throughout the nation today are confronted with the need to
dispose of staggering amounts of solid waste refuse that is being generated
in increasing quantities. Many facets and elements of this critical pro-
blem are under study at present, but one fundamental area where little or
no effort is being made involves the collection and reduction of refuse at
the point of origin. One of the most readily available means of simplifying
the municipal (and regional) problems of handling and disposing of refuse
would be to decrease the weight and/or volume of the refuse at the source.
At the request of the U. S. Public Health Service (hereinafter referred to
as "Public Health Service") of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the
"Academy") through its Building Research Advisory Board (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "Board") agreed to undertake a study of onsite refuse
collection and reduction systems for high-rise multifamily residential
structures pursuant to Contract No. PH 86-67-167, dated May 23, 1967
(hereinafter referred to as the "prime contract"). It is the intent of
the Academy to implement this contract through this agreement with the
Housing Authority of the City of New Haven (hereinafter referred to as the
"Authority") and the City of New Haven (hereinafter referred to as the
"City").
II. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
The purpose of this agreement is to define the study contemplated by the
parties hereto; to establish a basis of cooperation by and among the parties;
to outline the terms and conditions under which the study shall be made;
and to set the obligations and responsibilities of the respective parties.
It is agreed that this study is for the mutual benefit and in the mutual
interest of all parties hereto.
III. INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTIES
Under this agreement, the four principal organizations having an interest
in the conduct of this study are the Academy, the Public Health.Service, the
Authority and the City. The parties to this agreement are: 1) the Academy,
2) the Authority and 3) the City; it is understood that this agreement shall
be subject to the approval of the Public Health Service and the Housing
Assistance Administration. It is recognized and agreed to by all parties
hereto that participation in this study is in the public interest and that
an opportunity is at hand to acquire knowledge that may contribute
-------
significantly to the solution of many refuse collection and disposal problems and
to the establishment of environmental improvements from the standpoint of
public health.
IV. STUDY GOALS
This study is designed and intended to permit onsite evaluation of currently
available refuse waste collection, reduction and disposal systems and/or
equipment applicable to the three structures designated in paragraph A of
Article VI. Specifically, it is the intent to evaluate, concurrently, an
incineration system in one structure; a system of the compactor type in a
second structure; and a wet pulper/presser and/or shredder system in a third
structure. In addition, sink garbage grinders will be evaluated as a vari-
able parameter with respect to these three different refuse reduction tech-
niques. The total effort is expected to cover three years and is divided
into three 12-month phases (See Article IX below).
V. STUDY FUNDS
Funds for the first phase of this study have been provided to the Academy by
the Public Health Service and it is contemplated that funding will be pro-
vided to implement each of the successive phases of the study as described
in Article IX below. It is understood that continuation of this study after
completion of the first phase is subject to the availability of funds.
In the operation of this agreement it is understood that there will be no
exchange of funds between and among the Academy, the City, and the Authority.
VI. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY
A. Use of Residences1 - The Authority agrees to grant to the Academy the
right to conduct this research project at three high-rise residences
hereinafter described for a period not to exceed four years from the date
of this agreement. These residences are located at:
1) 225 Ashmun Street
2) 120 Canal Street
3) 180 Canal Street
B. Modification of Residences - The Authority grants to the Academy the
right to modify or have modified solely at the expense of the Academy the
residences designated in the paragraph above as required to install and
make operable refuse collection and reduction equipment which is intended
to be evaluated and to install instrumentation as required to obtain the
desired data; it is understood that all such modifications shall include
provision for utilities and shall not reduce the number or size of dwelling
units. Prior to such modifications and installations the Academy shall
obtain all approvals, licenses and permits required by the State or local
law. All plans and specifications for any modifications and installations
shall be approved by the authority, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
*Agreement was subsequently modified to allow use of the four buildings: 185
Ashmun St., 250 Ashmun St., 120 Canal St., and 180 Canal St.
77
-------
C. Services - All contractors, subcontractors and materialmen selected
by the Academy shall be approved by the Authority, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld. .
The Authority agrees further to provide required custodial-janitorial per-
sonnel to operate and maintain the installed refuse collection and reduction
systems and/or equipment on a day-to-day basis, in accordance with manufac-
turer recommended procedures, it being understood that provision of such
services by the Authority is part of its normal effort to collect, reduce
and remove the solid waste refuse from the residences involved in this
study, provided, however, that the Authority shall not be required to increase
the number of custodial-janitorial personnel.
VII. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY
A. The City agrees to exempt the residences designated in Paragraph A of
Article VI of this agreement from restrictions that may be subsequently
imposed upon onsite incineration of refuse.
B. . The City agrees to exempt the residences designated in Paragraph A of
Article VI of this agreement from existing restrictions on the use of sink
garbage grinders.
C. The City agrees, if appropriate and based on consultations with the
Academy, to establish specific schedules and ensure their adherence for
the removal of collected and reduced refuse from the residences to be used
in this study.
D. The City agrees to process structural and utility modification plans
and drawings for the designated residences and to provide the required code
inspections in a timely fashion, when required, in order that the progress
of the study may continue as scheduled.
VIII. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Public Health Service is sponsor of the program under which this study is
being conducted and has title, pursuant to the prime contract, of refuse
waste collection, reduction and disposal equipment to be installed in the
residences designated in Paragraph A of Article VI.
IX. PHASING
This study will be conducted at the site of the residences designated in
Paragraph A of Article VI in accordance with the following phases:
A. The effort during the first 12-month period will entail collection
of data on "as is" conditions, including, but not necessarily limited to,
the extent of contribution to air pollution by existing equipment; per-
sonnel and power requirements, costs, efficiency and effectiveness, as
well as owner/tenant/custodian-janitor acceptance of existing systems;
weight, volume, and composition of generated refuse; composition and volume
-------
of waste flowing through structure drainage lines; and degree of vermin
infestation associated with existing systems.
In addition, preliminary plans (architectural/mechanical/electrical) will be
prepared as required for the installation of refuse reduction equipment
intended for evaluation and modification of the City's refuse collection
trucks to accommodate can weights in excess of normal. General preparation
also will be made as necessary for the second and third 12-month phases.
(Such preparations may, if required by existing conditions, include arrange-
ments for installation of collection chutes.)
B. The effort during the second 12-month period will entail installa-
tion of refuse collection and reduction equipment and as appropriate
modification of the City's refuse collection trucks to accommodate can weights
in excess of normal, in accordance with preparations made during the first
phase; and the subsequent collection, reduction, and analysis of data on
performance and operation of the equipment handling both wet (garbage) and
dry refuse.
C. The effort during the third 12-month period will entail installa-
tion of sink garbage grinders, and the subsequent collection, reduction,
and analysis of data on performance and operation of equipment installed
during phase two handling only dry waste. In addition, data will be collected
on the composition and volume of waste flowing through the drainage lines of
structures into which sink garbage grinders are installed.
Each of the three phases is designed to ensure that: (1) Useful results
will have been obtained if the study is terminated upon completion of either
the first or the first and second phase, and (2) in the event of such
termination, no modifications to the structures involved will have been
made that will require undoing subsequent to and in consequence of the
unanticipated termination of the study.
X. OBLIGATIONS OF THE ACADEMY
A. The Academy shall commence the study outlined herein as soon as con-
veniently possible after all parties have executed this agreement and
approval of the Public Health Service and the Housing Assistance Administration
have been obtained.
B. Responsibility for the Study - The Academy through its appointed Ad-
visory Committee of the Building Research Advisory Board, shall be solely
responsible for the development, conduct and evaluation of this study. The
Academy is obligated to provide to Public Health Service periodic reports
and a final report upon completion of the prime contract. Subject to Public
Health Service approval, copies of the final report will be provided the City
and Authority and in the event of a publication emanating from this study,
the City and Authority will receive a reasonable number of copies.
C. Use of Contractors -The Academy shall have the right to employ whatever
contractors or subcontractors it deems necessary in the conduct of the study,
subject to appropriate coordination with the Authority, and approval of the
Public Health Service pursuant to prime contract.
79
-------
D. Insurance - The Academy shall take out public liability insurance in
the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, and property
damage insurance in the amount of $100,000. All of the said policies shall
be taken out in the Academy's name and in addition thereto the City and the
Authority shall be named as insured and shall be protected by this insurance
from any and all liability expense that may arise in consequence of personal
injury or property damage to any person or organization (including employees
of the Academy) as a direct result of the work performed or undertaken under
this agreement by the Academy, its agents, employees, contractors, or sub-
contractors *
In addition, the Academy shall require that contractors or subcontractors
whose services shall have been arranged for directly by the Academy, procure
and maintain appropriate insurance in form and amounts as approved by the
Academy.
The Academy shall cause all general contractors engaged by it in connection
with this research project to provide payment and performance bonds in form
and amounts as approved by the Academy in consultation with the Authority.
E. Restoration of Structure Modifications - Whenever modification has been
made to one or more of the residences designated in paragraph A of Article
VI as a result of or in conjunction with this study, the Academy shall
restore the subject residences to substantially the condition which existed
at the time of inception of this study, except in cases where the modification
made is essential to operation of the refuse collection and reduction equip-
ment that is to remain in the residences. The Academy, with approval of the
Public Health Service, shall cause title to any equipment that is to remain
in the residences to be transferred to the Authority.
F. It is further agreed between the parties hereto, that the Academy shall
save the City and Authority harmless from any and all claims by any person
that may arise as a direct result of the work performed or undertaken by
the Academy or any of its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors
under this agreement.
Accepted and agreed to, this
day of , 1968.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
NEW HAVEN
Approved: By
HOUSING ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION Title
By , CITY OF NEW HAVEN
Title . By
Approved: Title
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
By : By
Title Title
By its approval of this Agreement, the Public Health Service agrees that the
study to be performed hereunder is consistent in accordance with the prime
contract.
-------
APPENDIX B
REFUSE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION--
PROTOCOL AND CONDUCT OF THE FIELD PROGRAM
81
-------
PROTOCOL
Refuse Quantity and Composition
Chute Refuse
General.—For purposes of identification and reference, the test structures
involved, buildings 6B, 5B and 1A, are designated A, B, and C, respectively;
and the control structure (building 4A) is designated D. Chutes (and/or
existing incinerators) within test structures A are designated AI, Aa, and
As; within test structure B as Bj, 62, and 63; within test structure C as
Ci, Ca, and Ca; and within control as DI, DZ, and Da. For chute designations,
subscript- 1 refers to north chutes, subscript 2 to center chutes, and sub-
script 3 to south chutes.
Categories of Re fuse.-Re fuse is to be sorted in accordance with the procedures
and schedules which follow into the following categories:
1. Paper and paper products
2. Wood and wood products
3. Plastic, leather and rubber products
4. Glass
5. Metallics
6. Stones, sand and other inert or ceramic materials
7. Rags and textile products
8. Garbage (organics)
Weight and Volume of Refuse as Generated.-On the first day of data collection,
all incinerators in the four buildings involved are to be cleaned of refuse,
including ash, as well as practical by 7 a.m. Thereafter, on the first day
of data collection—beginning at 8 a.m. and continuing through 9 p.m.--
weight and volume of refuse generated at chutes AI, BI, Ca, and Da are to be
recorded (per chute) hourly for each category of refuse. At all other chutes
within each of the structures involved, weight and volume ofi refuse generated
are to be recorded (per chute) twice daily—at noon and at 9 p.m.—for each
category of refuse.
For the second through the seventh days, weight and volume of refuse generated
at all chutes within each of the buildings involved are to be recorded (per
chute) thrice daily—at 7 a.m., at noon, and at 7 p.m.—for each category of
refuse.
Prior to each data recording period indicated above, and before sorting
into categories begins, refuse is to be shoveled from each incinerator
involved»into containers of known volume and weight. As each container is
-------
completely filled (hourly schedule requirements may prevent this from
occurring), weight is to be noted and volume recorded in cubic feet capacity
of the container. Containers are to be deemed full when lids fit after
refuse has been only lightly hand pressed. Volume of partially filled
containers is to be estimated in terms of percent of containers filled
and recorded in cubic feet.
After recording weight and volume data of full containers, refuse is
then to be sorted and weight and volume of each category recorded in
accordance with the times designated previously. In determining volume
of each refuse category, the cubic foot volume of full containers is to
be used, while for partially filled containers, volume is to be estimated
as described previously.
Moisture Content of Refuse as Generated.-At end of each data collection
day after all sorting has been completed and weight and volume of refuse
by category has been recorded, moisture samples for laboratory analysis
are to be taken from that refuse collected at chutes AI,.. Bj, Ca, and Da
as f ol lows '•
Three samples, five pounds each, are to be taken daily at each chute.
One sample is to be taken from refuse in the category, Paper and Paper
Products and one is to be taken from refuse in the category, Organic
Garbage. The third sample is to be a composite taken from the combined
refuse in the categories, Wood and Wood Products, Rags and Textiles,
and Plastic, Leather and Rubber Products. In addition to the above, a
5-lb. grab sample is to be taken daily from refuse generated at chute
DS in the category, Metallies.
To obtain the 5-lb. sample (excluding the grab sample of Metallics), the waste
generated daily--i.e., from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on the first day of data
collection, from 9 p.m. the previous day through 7 p.m. of the second day,
and from 7 p.m. the previous day to 7 p.m. of each successive day—in the
categories involved is to be placed on an appropriate surface, mixed and
spread evenly into a shape approximately that of a square. The square
is then to be quartered (using shears, if necessary, to cut rags and other
items of refuse which might have been parts in each quarter) and the 5-lb.
sample taken from one quarter. If the quarter does not contain 5 Ib. of
refuse, the entire quarter is to be used and additional refuse taken from
a second quarter to complete the 5 Ib. Moisture samples are then to be
placed in plastic bags and the bags taped shut for subsequent moisture
analysis in the laboratory.
Once within the laboratory, moisture samples are to be weighed while still
within the sealed bags to within an accuracy of not less then 0.1 Ib.
Bags containing the moisture sample are then to be ripped open, placed in
an oven and dried at a temperature of 105°C. until a constant weight is
obtained; constant weight is to be assumed following any two consecutive
weighings 1 hour apart which reflect no change in weight. The difference
between original and dried weight of a sample—minus the nominal weight of
the sealed plastic bag--is to be recorded as moisture contents and reported
in terms of percent of total weight.
83
-------
Weight and Volume of Refuee Following Incineration.-After weight and volume
data and moisture samples have been obtained as required on each data-
collection day, refuse collected daily at chutes AI, BI, Cs, and DS is to be
set aside for burning in the respective incinerators each following day to
obtain data on weight and volume of residue. (Refuse collected at all
other chutes is to be discarded at the end of each data-collection day).
This is to be accomplished as follows:
As soon as all refuse has been removed from within the incinerators fed by
chutes GS, DI, DZ, and DS as required for daily noon data recordings, all
hopper doors to these chutes are to be taped to prevent their use by tenants
during burning in these incinerators of the refuse collected on each previous
day. The refuse is then to be incinerated as rapidly as possible by in-
serting into each incinerator (per charge) two bags of previously sorted
refuse, one bag to be composed of Paper and Paper Products, the second to
be a composite of some refuse taken from each of the other categories.
Each charge of refuse is to be mixed and distributed within the incinerator
and then burned with auxiliary gas supply and blower on for a period of
15 rain., the period of time for which this equipment is normally operated.
Following the 15-min. period, refuse within the incinerator is to be allowed
to burn until flames die out, at which time the second batch of refuse is
to be charged, the gas supply and blower operated again for a period of
15 min., and the refuse again allowed to burn until flame dies out. This
procedure is to be repeated until all refuse is incinerated.
Following incineration, residue is to be removed from each incinerator as
promptly as possible and tape removed from hopper doors. As soon as tem-
perature permits, incineration residue is to be sorted in the following
categories:
1. Ash
2. Noncombustibles
3. Unburned Combustibles
Following sorting of the residue, weight and volume of each above category
are to be determined in accordance with previous practices and data recorded
daily on a per chute basis.
Bulky Refuse
All bulky waste and other refuse not charged directly into the chutes—i.e.,
miscellaneous waste items normally collected from individual dwelling units
or picked up in corridors by janitorial services—and any building construc-
tion waste generated during the 7-day data-collection period is to be
collected and assembled daily at a central point within each of the four
buildings involved. Weight, approximate size and general description of
each item so collected is to be recorded daily on a per structure basis.
Yard Refuse
Refuse found on the grounds of the Housing Authority Complex is to be collected
during the 7-day data-collection period, sorted into the previously identified
s/t
-------
eight categories, and weight and volume per category recorded on a weekly
basis.
Hourly Schedule for 7-Day Data-Collection Period1
The following schedule summarizes for each day of the 7-day data-collection
period the hourly data-recording requirements:
First Day
7 a.m. Remove and discard all refuse, including ash residue, from all
incinerators in each of the four structures involved.
8 a.m. Record weight and volume data by category of refuse collected
at chutes AI, BI, €3, and D3.
9 a.m. Repeat 8 a.m. procedure hourly
through
11 a.m.
Noon Repeat 8 a.m. procedure plus record weight and volume data by
category of refuse collected at all other chutes within each of the
four structures involved.
1 p.m. Repeat 8 a.m. procedure hourly
through
8 p.m.
9 p.m. Repeat Noon procedure plus prepare moisture samples from refuse
collected at chutes AI, BI, Ca, and Da for subsequent laboratory
analysis.
Record for each of the structures involved, the weight, approximate
size, and general description of all bulky miscellaneous waste
items and construction waste collected throughout the day from
within each of the structures involved.
Discard all refuse except that collected at chutes €3, DI, Da,
and D3, which is to be burned in the respective incinerators the
next day.
Second Through Sixth Day
7 a.m. Remove and separate by category, all refuse found at each chute
(i.e., each incinerator) within each of the structures involved;
record (per chute) weight and volume data on refuse by category.
'Yard refuse is to be collected, sorted, and required data obtained at the
time most convenient to data-collecting organization.
85
-------
Noon Record weight and volume data by category of refuse collected since
7 a.m. at each chute within each structure involved. Tape all
hopper doors to chutes Ca, DI, Dz, and Da, to prevent their use
during the hours required for incineration; initiate burning in
the respective incinerators of that refuse collected on the previous
day at chutes Ca, DI, Dj, and Da.
Continue incinerating until completed and remove thereafter, as soon
as possible, all residue from each incinerator and tapes on the
hopper doors. Sort residue and record weight and volume of ashes,
unburned combustibles and noncombustibles.
7 p.m. Record by category, weight and volume data on refuse collected since
noon at each chute within each structure involved. Prepare moisture
samples from refuse collected during the day at chutes AI, BI, Ca,
and Da.
Record—on a per structure basis—weight, approximate size, and
general description of all bulky miscellaneous waste items and
construction waste collected throughout the day from within each
structure involved.
Discard all refuse except that collected at chutes Ca, DI, DZ, and
D3, which is to be incinerated the next day.
Seventh Day
7 a.m. Remove and separate by category, all refuse found at each chute
within each structure involved; record weight and volume data
by category of refuse collected at each chute.
Noon Record weight and volume data by category of refuse collected
since 7 a.m. at each chute within each structure involved. Tape
all hopper doors to chutes Ca, DI, Da, and Da and initiate burning
in the respective incinerators of that refuse collected on the
previous day at these chutes.
Continue incinerating until completed and remove thereafter, as soon
as possible, all residue from each incinerator and tapes on the
hopper doors. Sort residues and record weight and volume of ashes,
unburned combustibles and noncombustibles.
7 p.m. Record by category, weight and volume data on refuse collected since
noon at each chute within each structure involved. Prepare moisture
samples from refuse collected during the day at chutes Ai, BI, Ca,
and Da.
Record—on per structure basis—weight, approximate size, and
general description of all bulky miscellaneous waste items and
construction waste collected throughout the day from within each
structure involved.
Discard all refuse.
86
-------
CONDUCT OF THE FIELD PROGRAM
Prior to initiation of the field program, a "dry run" of that part of
the protocol concerned with chute refuse was conducted by the subcontractor
on Monday, 2 December 1968 between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. Only chute D3 in
building 4A was used. Purpose of the dry run was to familiarize the sub-
contractor's personnel with the procedure, to determine more specifically
equipment needs, to determine adequacy of data log sheets, and generally
to get a "feel" for what was to be involved. All personnel participating
in the "dry run" were required to receive tetanus shots, as were all personnel
who were to handle refuse subsequently in the conduct of the field program.
Equipment needs for conduct of the program on the site were relatively
small, consisting of shovels (already available at the site) for use in
removal of refuse from incinerators; 20-gal. plastic refuse containers
(1 doz. at each of the 12 chutes involved--8 at each chute for use in sort-
ing and, thus, labeled to identify refuse categories, and 4 for use in
storing refuse as removed from incinerator); 12 scales, 1 at each chute for
weighing refuse; thin polyethylene plastic sheets (10 ft. x 10 ft.) onto
which refuse could be dumped for sorting or quartering to obtain moisture
samples; thin polyethylene plastic bags for insertion into the plastic refuse
containers prior to sorting, for storing refuse after sorting, and for
storing moisture samples after they were taken; platform scales for
measuring bulky waste items; and clipboards and data log sheets at each
chute.
To the extent possible—on their days off and before and after their regular
working hours—the Housing Authority's janitorial staff was used as project
labor. All labor used in the conduct of the program, including that provided
by the janitorial staff was obtained through Manpower, Incorporated, a New
Haven firm that provides temporary labor on an hourly basis. In addition,
arrangements were made with the Housing Authority management to have the
janitorial staff store in a central place within each of the four buildings
involved all bulky miscellaneous solid waste items collected during the
week of data collection.
The formal data-collection program began at 6:30 a.m. on Thursday, 5 December,
using three full-time laborers plus subcontractor personnel consisting of
three professionals (engineers and chemists). One professional served as
project director, one worked with one laborer in buildings 4A and SB, and
one worked with another laborer in buildings 1A and 6B; the third laborer
was to "float" between all four buildings as the need dictated. By 7 a.m.
all incinerators had been cleared of existing refuse and ashes, and, since
refuse generation was light during these early hours, time was available
to instruct the laborers, and the protocol schedule was readily met. At
5 p.m., while somewhat behind schedule already, the second or relief labor
crew replaced the original three laborers, and instruction had to begin
again--simultaneously with the increasing rate of daily refuse generation.
By 11 p.m. only in building 4A was all refuse pulled from the incinerators
at 9 p.m. in accordance with protocol schedule, completely sorted into
categories. But because all personnel were exhausted, it was decided to
87
-------
leave the balance of sorting and the taking of moisture samples until the
following day.
On Friday, 6 December, and daily thereafter, Housing Authority janitors,
pripr to reporting to their regular jobs, removed the refuse found within
each incinerator at 7 a.m. Thus, on arrival at the site on Friday, sorters
were faced with this refuse plus that remaining to be sorted from the previous
day. Two of the three laborers available at the beginning of this day were
new, as was the subcontractor professional working buildings 4A and SB.
Thus, instructions were again required. By noon, the program was so far
behind schedule that the decision had to be made to forego burning in
incinerators Di, Da, and Cs of the refuse generated on the day before.
At 7 p.m. all incinerators were cleaned of refuse in accordance with protocol
schedule, and sorting continued until about 10 p.m., at which time only
the refuse generated by noon of this day had been sorted. It was decided
to forego taking of moisture samples from the refuse generated on Thursday,
the sorting of which was not completed until late Friday. No moisture
samples could be taken of the refuse generated on Friday, since sorting
had not been accomplished. Late Friday it was evident that supervision
would be required continuously of all work to be performed by laborers.
On the morning of Saturday, 7 December, sorters were faced with virtually
all the refuse generated since noon Friday plus the refuse pulled from
the incinerators at 7 a.m. Saturday. In an effort to get the program back
on schedule, arrangements had been made to have additional labor present
on Saturday--four, between 7 a.m. and'5 p.m., and five between 5 p.m. and
9 p.m. Some of the labor did not arrive; at the expense of the schedule,
supervisory time had to be taken to make additional arrangements for more
men. A few laborers became inebriated while on the job, and some left
before the agreed quitting time. Also on Saturday the subcontractor changed
personnel at the project director level. Because of the time required to
familiarize the new laborers with what was to be done, because of the
unreliability of some of the laborers, and because of the loss in efficiency
due to change of project director, little progress was made on Saturday
toward getting the program back on schedule.
However, on Saturday it was possible to obtain moisture samples from the
refuse generated on Friday and to burn on schedule at incinerators C3, DI,
and Da the refuse collected from these incinerators on Friday. When burning
was accomplished, hopper doors of incinerators in which refuse was to be
burned were taped shut and signs were hung by each requesting tenants to
refrain from charging refuse during the period of burn, usually 1 to 2 hours.
After taping hopper doors, refuse was charged into the incinerator and
generally burned in accordance with the procedure outlined in the protocol.
However, the fuel supply system in two of the-incinerators was not in working
order, and refuse charges had to be lit by hand. In such instances, each
charge was allowed to burn out before the second was added. After all
refuse had been burned, the residue was removed from the incinerators,
placed in metallic trash cans, and allowed to cool. After cooling, sorting
of the residue into the categories of ash, unburned combustibles, and non-
combustibles had to be accomplished hastily, so that the field personnel
could devote as much time as possible to chute refuse. Consequently, ash
-------
was often left adhered to, within, or picked up with metallic cans and
glass bottles during the sorting of the residue.
By quitting time, 10 p.m., virtually no sorting of any refuse generated
since noon had been accomplished; again it was necessary to delay the
taking of moisture samples from refuse generated on this day until the
next day. To this point, neither time nor labor had been available for
implementing previously prepared plans for removing refuse already sorted
from the premises. Consequently, this refuse plus that still to be sorted
was stacked in every corner. By evening, the basements were infested with
mice that unhesitatingly approached refuse sorters in search of food.
Evidence of rats was also manifest, particularly in the form of widely
scattered refuse that heretofore had been sealed inside plastic bags.
On Sunday, 8 December, despite being faced at the onset with all the refuse
generated since noon the previous day and the refuse removed from the
incinerators at 7 a.m. on this morning, significant strides were made in
moving the program back on schedule. By quitting time, approximately
11 p.m., at more than half of the chutes involved, even that refuse generated
by 7 p.m. had been completely sorted, most scheduled burning had been
accomplished, and all required moisture samples had been taken. It is
significant to note that on this day—and although the largest sorting
crew yet was used, five men—no new laborers were involved, that only
the most capable and efficient of all laborers used previously were
present, and that most of them put in a 16-hr, day. It is significant
also to note that there was a change on this day at the project director
level. The new project director knew the protocol procedure before arrival
at the site, used the labor more efficiently than had been done on any
previous day, and knew, apparently, how to manage the labor. However,
in the effort to get back on schedule, deviation was made from the procedure
.in the protocol for obtaining moisture samples. The deviation was effected
on 8, 9, and 10 December and consisted of taking three times daily, a 5-lb.
sample from each category (or composite) of refuse for which moisture
content was to be determined from each of the four chutes involved, (i.e.,
a total of 45 Ib. of refuse was taken daily from each of the four incinera-
tors) . The first samples were taken (after sorting was completed) from
the refuse removed from the incinerators at 7 a.m., the second samples
were taken from the refuse removed from the incinerators at noon, and the
third samples were taken from the refuse removed from the incinerators
at 7 p.m. As before, these samples were sealed in plastic bags, taken to
the laboratory, and immediately quartered in accordance with the procedure
to obtain 5-lb. samples required for the determination of moisture content.
Once in the laboratory, the 5-lb. moisture samples were supported on a chicken
wire/wood platform enclosed within a walk-in stainless steel heating chamber.
The samples were dried overnight at 105°C. as the chamber was purged con-
tinuously with dry air. After weighing the following morning, the samples
were again placed within the chamber, heated an additional two hours, and
required to ascertain whether a constant weight had been attained overnight.
Samples showing a weight change after the additional 2-hr, heating period
were placed in the chamber for an additional 2-hr, period, removed and then
weighed. This procedure was followed until a constant weight was attained.
89
-------
On Monday, 9 December, the situation had improved to the point that it was
possible to hold the first coffee break at 10 a.m. No new personnel was now
or hereinafter to be involved. The fact that the program was virtually
back on schedule was undoubtedly due to the experience gained over the
previous four days. On this morning, however, since no refuse had been
removed from the buildings since Wednesday of the previous week (4 December),
the odor was obnoxious. Consequently, considerable labor and time were
spent on this day removing old refuse from the buildings and transporting
it to the city incinerator, using a large side panel truck supplied by the
Housing Authority.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, 10 and 11 December, the chute refuse schedule was
maintained in an almost routine manner, reflecting again the experience
gained over the previous days. On Wednesday night, approximate size and weight
of all bulky solid waste items collected during the week were recorded,
all chute refuse was returned to the incinerators and burned, the basement
areas were cleaned up, and the first week of data collection on refuse
quantity and composition ended at 10 p.m.
-------
APPENDIX C
REFUSE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION-
DATA
91
-------
TABLE I. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3 ) OF REFUSE AS REMOVED FROM INCINERATORS DAILY—BEFORE SORTING
Bui Idinq 6B
TIME PERIOD A!
*e
AS
Bui
B1
Idinq 5B
83
Building 1A
83
ci
CB
Ca
Bui
Di
Idinq 4A
DE
V
Total
7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. 12/5/68
7^00 a.m. - Noon 4.8
Noon - 9:00 p.m. 33.5
Daily Totals 38.3
9:00 p.m. 12/5/68 through 7:00
9:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 2.7
7:00 a.m. - Noon 5.4
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 5.4
Daily Totals 13.5
7:00 p.m. 12/6/68 through 7:00
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 13.4
7:00 a.m. - Noon 10.7
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 8.1
Daily Totals 32.2
7:00 p.m. 12/7/68 through 7:00
TiOO J>.m. - 7:00 a.m. 10.7
7:00 a.m. - Noon 10.7
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 10.7
Daily Totals 32.1
8.1
16.1
24.2
2.7
8.1
10.8
8.7
29.5
38.2
6-7
17.4
24.1
10.7
18.8
29.5
2.7
20.8
23.5
2.7
14.1
16.8
2.1
19.4
21.5
6.7
14.7
21.4
2-7
21.4
24.1
6.7
22.2
28.9
65.3
236.0
301.3
p.m. 12/6/68
2.7
5.4
8.1
16.2
5.4
8.1
8.1
21.6
__
8.1
10.7
23.6
—
5.4
13.4
18.8
—
8.1
13.4
21.5
2.7
10.7
10.7
24.1
2.7
2.7
10.7
16.1
2-7
5.4
5.4
13.5
--
4.1
13.4
17.5
—
5.4
5.4
10.8
6.7
5.k
8.1
20.2
25.6
74.2
112.8
212.6
p.m. 12/7/68
5.4
5.4
10.7
21.5
10.7
10.7
8.1
29.5
8.1
8.1
16.1
32.3
5.4
10.7
10.7
26.8
5.4
9.5
10.0
24.9
10.7
8.1
10.7
29.5
8.1
8.1
10.7
26.9
-v
8.1
5.4
13.5*
10.7
5.4
6.7
22.8
5.4
5.4
9.5
20.3
10.7
8.1
13.4
32.2
94.0
98.3
120.1
312.4
p.m. 12/8/68
9.5
5.4
5.4
20.3
**
—
2.7
2.7
5.4
5.4
8. 1
18.9
16.1
10.7
8.1
34.9
10.0
8.1
4.1
22.2
10.7*
*
8. 1*
18.3*
5.4
8.1
10.7
24.2
8.1
9.5
10.7
28.3
10.7
8.1
8.1
26.9
8.1
8.1
10.7
26.9
10.7
8.1
8.1
26.9
105.4
82.2
95.5
283.1
--Denotes no refuse.
*Fire occurred in incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
**Blockage of chute began.
-------
TABLE I. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) OF REFUSE AS REMOVED FROM INCINERATORS DAILY—BEFORE SORTING (Cont'd.)
tc
Building 6B
TIME PERIOD
7:00 p.m. 12/8/68
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Daily Totals
7:00 p.m. 12/9/68
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
iOO a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Daily Totals
7:00 p.m. 12/10/68
2:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Dai ly Totals
Weekly Totals
A,
through 7:00 p
.m. 10.7
8.1
10.7
29.5
through 7:00 p
.m. 10.7
5.4
8.1
24.2
through 7:00
.m. 5.4
5.4
13.4
24.2
194.0
AB Ag
.m. 12/9/68
13.4 8.1
2.7 6.7
13.4
29-5 14.8
.m. 12/10/68
5.4 34.8
5.4 10.7
13.4 17.4
24.2 62.9
p.m. 12/11/68
5.4 8.1
2.7 2.7
5.4 10.7
13.5 2?. 5
149.4 163.8
Bui
BI
5.4
5.4
13.4
24.2
2-7
5.4
8.1
16.2
2.7
2.7
2.7
8.1
161.5
Iding 5B
%
8.1
10.7
8.1
26.9
8.1
8.1
6.7
22.9
5.4
10.7
10.7
26.8
181.2
Building 1A
B3
8.1
5.4
13.4
26.9
8.1
12.1
8.7
28.9
8.1
5.4
10.7
24.2
178.1
Ci
8.1
2.7
10.7
21.5
5.4
5.4
13.4
24.2
5.4
5.4
*
10.8*
152.4*
C8
5.4
6.7
13.4
25.5
5.4
2.7
13.4
21.5
2.7
8.1
*
10.8*
141.8*
C3
***
16.1
—
16.1
13.4
8.1
16.1
37.6
5.4
5.4
5.4
16.2
152.1*
Bui
DI
6.7
10.7
8.1
25.5
13.4
5.4
9.5
28.3
5.4
2.7
10.7
18.8
161.2
Iding 4A
Da
8.1
—
8.1
16.2
2.7
10.7
8.1
21.5
2.7
13.4
1.4
17.5
137.3
D3
13.4
13.4
8.1
34.9
8.1
5.4
13.4
26.9
10.7
1\
6.8
22.9
192.9
Total
95-5
88.6
107.4
291.5
118.2
84.8
136.3
339-3
67.4
70.0
77.9
215.3
1960.9
***Cnute possibly blocked.
-------
TABLE II. WEIGHT (LB) OF REFUSE CORRESPONDING TO ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF TABLE I.—BEFORE SORTING
TIME PERIOD
7:00 a.m. throuqh
7:00 a.m. - Moon
Noon - 9:00 p.m.
Da i ly Totals
9:00 p.m. 12/5/68
9:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Daily Totals
7:00 p.m. 12/6/68
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Dai ly Totals
7:00 p.m. 12/7/68
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Daily Totals
A,
9:00 p.m.
36
191
227
through 7:
.m. 18
29
33
80
throuqh 7:
.m. 51
36
73
160
through 7:
.m. 34
51
91
176
Bui Idinq
*2
12/5/68
69
106
175
00 p.m.
15
26
54
95
00 p.m.
32
42
105
179
00 p.m.
32
76
54
162
6B
AS
28
31
59
12/6/68
31
39
56
126
12/7/68
45
61
31
137
12/8/68
**
—
15
15
Bui
B,
18
96
114
--
46
29
75
38
30
114
182
65
44
76
185
Idinq 5B
BE
16
42
58
—
58
46
104
33
78
86
197
too
61
, 68
229
B3
52
118
170
—
44
36
80
41
65
71
177
99
kk
64
207
Bui
Ci
17
93
110
12
53
23
88
61
57
65
183
67*
*
46*
113*
Iding 1A
C2
6
71
77
25
7
18
50
30
29
50
109
38
33
92
163
C3
15
127
142
10
28
33
71
-V
101
47
148*
63
75
41
179
Bui
DI
43
74
117
—
19
44
63
55
37
42
134
61
34
78
173
Idinq 4A
02
10
85
95
--
17
29
46
23
30
74
127
39
37
67
143
03
14
77
91
30
24
54
108
56
45
102
203
63
46
36
145
Total
324
1111
1435
141
390
455
986
465
611
860
1936
661
501
728
1890
—Denotes no refuse.
-'-Fire occurred within incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
of chute began.
-------
TABLE II. WEIGHT (LB) OF REFUSE CORRESPONDING TO ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF TABLE I.—BEFORE SORTING (Cont'd.)
Cn
TIME PERIOD
7:00 p.m. 12/8/68
7:00 p.m. - 2:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Daily Totals
7:00 p.m. 12/9/68
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Dai ly Totals
7:00 p.m. 12/10/68
llOO £.m. - 7:00 a
7:00 a.m. - Noon
Noon - 7:00 p.m.
Daily Totals
Weekly Totals
Bui
A,
through 7:00
.m. 60
39
114
213
through 7:00
.m. 54
29
62
145
through 7: 00
.m. 38
14
51
103
1104
Idinq
AS
p.m.
42
19
60
121
p.m.
29
32
77
138
p.m.
26
n
43
82
9J2
68
A3
12/9/68
26
37
—
63
12/10/68
235
70
50
355
12/11/68
45
32
39
116
871
Bui
B!
69
43
53
165
17
34
66
117
9
9
13
31
869
Id ing 58
83
94
43
32
169
52
40
38
130
32
48
67
147
1034
B3
40
43
56
139
60
65
47
172
43
33
83
159,
1104
Bui
Ci
47
21
74
142
20
15
48
83
28
11
»v
39*
758*
Iding 1A
Cs
46
53
106
205
39
22
70
131
3
24
*
27*
762*
C3
***
79
--
79
82
43
100
225
51
42
74
167
1011*
Bui
DI
35
68
47
150
65
8
55
128
41
13
49
103
868
Idina 4A
Ds
37
--
33
70
14
30
46
90
8
60
12
80
651
°3
42
62
36
140
64
30
54
148
54
20
54
128
963
Total
538
507
611
1656
731
418
713
1862
378
319
485
1182
10947
-'-'"-Chute possibly blocked.
-------
TABLE III. ESTI MATED DENSITY (LB/FT3) OF REFUSE CORRESPOND ING TO VALUES OF TABLES I AND I I—BEFORE SORTING
<£>
Bu i 1 d i nq 68
TIME PERIOD A,
AS
As
Bui
Bi
Idinq 58
Bb
Bui Idinq 1A
Bs
ci
C2
C3
Bu i 1 d i nq 4A
Di
Ds
D3
Avg.
7:00 a.m. throuqh 9:00 p.m. 12/5/68
7:00 a.m. - Noon 7.5
Noon - 9:00 p.m. 5.7
Daily Avg. 6,0
9:00 p.m. 12/5/68 throuqh 7:00
9:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 6.7
2+00 a.m. - Noon _5.4
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 6. 1
Dai ly Avg. 5.9
7:00 p.m. 12/6/68 throuqh 7:00
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3.8
7:00 a.m. - Noon 3.4
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 9.0
Daily Avg. 5.0
7:00 p.m. 12/7/68 throuqh 7:00
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3.2
7:00 a.m. - Noon 4.8
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 8.5
Daily Avg. 5-7
8.5
6.6
7-3
10.4
3.8
5.5
2.1
3.3
3.0
2.4
2.4
2.4
4.9
6.3
5.8
6.3
4.5
4.7
2.2
5.0
4.6
7.2
6.6
6.6
6.4
5.0
5.5
3.7
4.0
3.9
2.1
3.5
3.2
5.0
4.7
4.8
p.m. 12/6/68
5.6
4.8
6.7
5.9
?'7
4.8
6.9
5.8
—
5.7
2.7
3.2
—
10.8
3.4
5.5
--
5.4
2.7
3.7
4.4
5.0
2.2
3.7
9.4
2.6
1.7
3.1
3.7
5.2
6.1
5.3
—
4.6
3.3
3.7
--
3.1
5.4
4.3
4.5
4.4
6.7
5.4
5.5
5-3
4. 0
4.6
p.m. 12/7/68
5.9
7.8
9.7
8.3
4.2
5.7
3.8
4.7
4.7
3.7
7.1
5.6
6.1
7.3
8.0
7.4
7.6
6.9
7.1
7.1
5.7
7.0
6.0
6.2
3.7
3-6
4.7
4.1
"V
12.5
5.7
10.0*
5.1
6.7
6.3
5.9
4.3
5.6
7.8
6.3
5.2
5.6
7.6
6.3
*t.9
6.2
7-2
6.2
p.m. 12/8/68
3.4
14.1
10.0
8.0
v\~v
—
5.6
5.6
12.0
8. 1
9.4
9.8
6.2
5.7
8.4
6.6
9.9
5.4
15.6
9.3
6.3*
*
5.7*
6.0*'
7-°
4.1
8.6
6.7
7.8
7.9
3.8
6.3
5.7
4.2
9.7
6.4
k.8
4.6
6.3
5.3
5.9
5.7
4.5
5.4
6.3
6. 1
7-<>
6.7
—Denotes no refuse.
--'--Fire within incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
"-'•Blockage of chute began.
-------
TABLE III. ESTIMATED DENSITY (IB/FT3) OF REFUSE CORRESPONDING TO VALUES OF TABLES I AND II—BEFORE SORTING (Cont'd.)
to
Bui ldin^6B
TIME PERIOD Aj
7:00 p.m. 12/8/68 throuqh 7:00 p
TjOO p.m. - 7:00 a.m. _5.6
7:00 a.m. - Noon 4.8
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 10.7
Da i ly Avg. 7.2
7:00 p.m. 12/9/68 throuqh 7:00^
7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 5.0
7:00 a.m. - Noon 5.4
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 7.7
Dai ly Avg. 6.0
7:00 p.m. 12/10/68 throuqh 7:00
IlOO jj.m. - 7:00 a.m. 7.1
7:00 a.m. - Noon 2.6
Noon - 7:00 p.m. 3.8
Dai ly Avg. 4.3
Weekly Avg. 5.7
AS
AS
Bui
B,
Idinq 58
82
Bui Id! nq 1A
63
ci
C2
C3
Bui Id ing 4A
Di
Ds
D3
Avg.
.m. 12/9/68
3.4
7.0
4.5
4.)
3.2
5.5
._
4.3
12.8
8.0
4.0
6.8
11.6
4.0
4.0
6.3
4.9
8.0
4.2
5-2
5.8
7.8
6.9
6.6
8.5
7.9
7.9
8.1
***
4.9
--
4.9
5.2
6.4
5.8
5.9
4.6
--
4. 1
4.3
3.1
4.6
4.4
4.0
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.7
.m. 12/10/68
5.4
5.9
5.7
5.7
p.m. 12/1
4.8
4.8
8.0
6.1
6.4
6.8
6.5
2.9
5.7
1/68
5.6
11.8
3.6
5.4
5.3
6.3
6.3
8.2
7.2
3.3
3.3
4.8
3.8
5.4
6.4
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.9
4.5
6.3
5.5
5.7
7.4
5.4
5.4
6.0
5.3
6.1
7.8
6.6
6.2
3.7
2.8
3.6
3.4
5.2
2.4
*
3.6*
5.0*
7.2
8.2
5.2
6.1
1. \
3.0
•*V
2.5*
5.3*
6.1
5.3
6.2
6.0
9.5
7.8
13.7
10.3
6.7*
4.9
1.5
5.7
4.5
7-6
4.8
4.6
5.5
5.4
5.2
2.7
5.7
4.2
3.0
4.5
8.6
4.6
4.7
7.9
5.6
4.0
5.5
5.0
3.7
7.9
5-6
5.0
6.2
4.9
5-2
5.5
5-6
4.6
6.2
5.5
5-6
•-"'•Chute possibly blocked.
-------
TABLE IV. WEIGHT (IB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DA[LY--AFTER SORTING (7:00 A.M. THROUGH 9:00 P.M. 12/5/68)
Building 6B Building 5B _Building 1A Building 4A
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 a.m. through Noon
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags /Text! les
Glass
Metal lies
S t ones /Ce ram i cs/e tc .
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Noon through 9:00 p.m.
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Texti les
Glass
Me tallies
Stones /Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals
A!
12/5/68
15
—
1
--
11
3
..
6
36
12/5/68
61
--
15
9
38
17
11
40
191
227
AS
32
—
6
4
9
6
--
12
69
29
3
12
14
19
9
—
20
106
175
Ag
12
—
—
5
5
3
3
--
28
11
—
1
1
7
5
—
6
31
59
B,
7
—
1
1
4
3
• --
2
18
36
--
3
7
15
9
—
26
96
1,4
BS
7
—
1
I
1
1
--
5
16
•
16
—
4
3
k
7
—
8
42
58
83
19
1
3
1
10
4
--
14
52
38
—
4
6
24
13
—
33
118
170
ci
13
—
—
—
2
1
--
1
17
23
—
4
5
23
11
—
27
93
110
c.,
5
—
--
--
--
1
--
.-
6
29
--
1
6
9
6
—
20
71
77
C3
3
12
—
--
—
—
--
—
15
34
—
3
5
45
10
14
16
127
142
°i
9
1
1
—
8
6
--
18
43
32
—
4
3
11
7
—
17
74
117
Da
4
—
1
—
—
2
--
3
10
37
2
2
1
15
11
17
85
95
&3
5
—
—
—
1
3
--
5
14
29
—
2
4
13
10
—
19
77
91
Total
131
14
i4
12
51
33
3
66
324
375
5
55
64
223
115
25
249
1111
1435
—Denotes no refuse.
-------
TABLE V. WEIGHT (IB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (9:00 P.M. 12/5/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/6/68)
Building 6B
REFUSE CATEGORY
9^00 p.m. 12/5/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
AI
7;QO
8
Aa
A3
Building SB
BI
63
83
Building 1A
Ci
C2
Ca
Bui
DI
Iding 4A
Pa
°3
Total
a.m. 12/6/68
5
12
—
--
—
4
4
3
—
—
9
45
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/teather/Rubber
Rags/Textiles
Glass
Metal lies
__
__
5
__
-.
2
2
2
3
__
4
3
--
__
—
..
__
_.
__
__
--
—
—
--
1
__
2
1
2
__
5
6
—
-.
3
2
—
--
--
—
—
--
--
--
1
6
3
5
7
8
24
19
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Orqanic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/6/68 through
Pa per/ Pa per Products
Wood /Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags /Text i les
Glass
Me tallies
5
18
Noon
5
_.
2
2
8
4
4
15
12/6/68
6
--,
1
6
2
2
9
31
11
--
4
2
7
4
—
--
17
--
1
5
8
6
—
--
19
_-
2
1
12
6
—
--
13
--
--
3
\k
4
4
12
12
--
2
3
20
8
8
25
4
—
—
2
—
1
2
10
6
1
1
6
7
2
—
--
5
—
1
—
3
2
—
~
8
—
1
—
4
4
6
30
10
—
1
3
4
2
38
141
116
1
16
33
89
45
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Orqanic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/6/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
8
29
D.m.
10
9
26
12/6/68
18
11
39
19
9
46
10
18
58
13
10
44
5
. 8
53
11
—
7 .
8
5
28
18
8
19
14
—
17
12
4
24
23
90
390
161
Wood/Wood Products
Plast i c/Leat her /Rubber
Raqs/Text i les
Glass
Metal 1 ics
_.
2
6
2
2
5
12
8
_-
4
' 8
7
3
5
2
5
6
3
9
I
5
7
5
5
--
—
4
2
1
--
3
3
1
—
5
3
1
7
11
1
4
1
5
1
10
3
6
6
33
37
76
49
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Orqanic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals
13
33
80
9
54
95
18
56
126
4
29
75
9
46
104
9
36
80
6
23
88
3
18
50
6
33
71
10
44
63
6
29
46
6
54
108
99
455
986
—Denotes no refuse.
-------
TABLE VI. WEIGHT (IB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/6/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/7/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 p.m. 12/6/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
RagsAextiles
Glass
He tallies
Bui
A»
Id ing 68
AS
Ag B,
Building SB
Ba
83
Bui
Ci
Iding 1A
Ca
Cg
Bui
Pi
Idinq 4A
Pa
Da
Total
7:00 a.m. 12/7/68
18
—
1
1
14
3
7
—
1
2
6
5
7 10
7 4
2 5
1 4
12 6
6 5
9
—
2
—
6
3
11
—
2
2
8
6
20
—
2
6
13
7
13
—
1
1
2
7
28
—
5
—
8
5
6
—
—
1
6
5
18
3
2
12
3
147
11
24
20
93
55
Stones/Ce ramies/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/7/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
14
51
Noon
9
11
32
12/7/68
9
10 4
45 38
19 12
13
33
36
12
41
33
13
61
14
6
30
11
*
20
3
55
12
5
23
q
18
56
16
m
465
200
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags /Text i les
Glass
He tallies
__
4
8
4
2
8
4
7
3 1
2 2
8 3
4 2
6
6
7
10
__
__
1)
5
3
1
14
14
4
1
7
3
5
<;
37
7
3
4
6
5
1
__
1
4
2
7
6
5
3D
40
112
70
Stones/Ce ramies/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Noon 12/7/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather /Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Me tall ics
11
36
p.m.
17
__
5
3
21
4
12
42
12/7/68
12
6
7
16
23
13
25 10
61 30
11 57
__
5 6
1 2
8 14
3 13
13
78
39
-_
6
6
12
10
16
65
24
__
10
9
6
11
11
57
28
-_
7
7
7
4
3
29
23
__
4
1
3
6
27
101
16
—
4
4
7
7
7
37
22
__
3
—
q
8
15
30
37
__
8
5
__
6
9
45
47
__
8
5
10
12
159
611
333
6
73
59
120
97
Stones /Ce ram i cs /etc .
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Daily Totals
23
73
160
28
105
179
3 22
31 114
137 182
13
86
197
11
71
177
12
65
183
13
50
109
q
47
148*
_-
42
134
18
74
127
20
102
203
172
860
1936
*FIre occurred within incinerator, part of sample lost.
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
TABLE VII. WEIGHT (LB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/7/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/8/68)
Building 6B
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 p.m. 12/7/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
A!
7:00
17
AB
AS
Building 5B
BI
Bj,
83
Building 1A
Ci
Ca
C3
Bui
DI
Iding 4A
Da
D3
Total
a.m. 12/8/68
13
—
26
35
41
24
7
15
20
5
21
224
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text iles
Glass
Me tallies
2
2
3
5
2
2
8
4
—
—
—
._
7
—
12
8
13
6
13
13
7
11
15
10
4
4
14
8
4
2
6
6
4
—
18
q
6
8
i*
10
5
10
7
5
9
6
6
9
63
51
106
87
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/8/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
5
34
Noon
22
3
32
12/8/68
23
__
~
--
12
65
14
20
100
22
15
99
13
13
67*
13
38
9
17
63
26
13
61
15
7
39
12
12
63
21
130
661
177
Wood/Wood Products
Plast ic/Leather /Rubber
Rags /Tex tiles
Glass
Me tallies
1
2
11
4
9
9
9
7
--
—
—
—
3
3
3
7
9
2
9
6
3
--
12
3
5
6
6
2
5
6
8
7
2
2
4
5
7
2
6
7
2
3
6
4
46
35
7&
£2
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Noon 12/8/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
11
51
J).m.
25
19
76
12/8/68
28
—
--
5
14
44
27
13
61
30
13
44
23
*
11
5
33
22
23
75
12
6
34
30
3
37
9
10
46
12
117
501
234
Wood/Wood Products
P last i c/Lea t he r /Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Me tallies
it
7
16
15
4
5
4
4
4
—
--
—
11
8
12
8
7
--
9
8
4
4
12
7
3
1
10
9
12
20
5
3
3
3
4
2
6
__
20
7
9
6
16
12
2
-.
3
4
69
54
111
79
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals 1
24
91
76
9
54
162
6
15
15
10
76
185
14
68
229
14
64
207
12
46*
113*
30
92
163
17
41
179
]q
78
173
jq
67
143
m
36
145
181
728
1890
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
•-'-Fire occurred in the incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
-------
TABLE VIM. WEIGHT (IB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/8/68 -7:00 P.M. 12/9/68)
o
N)
Building 6B
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 p.m. 12/8/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Ai
7:00
25
Aa
Ag
Building SB
BI
Ba
83
Building 1A
Ci
Ca
C3
Bui
DI
Iding 4A
Da
D3
Total
a.m. 12/9/68
9
12
14
21
6
17
9
--
11
13
16
153
Wood/Wood Products -- -- -- -- — f-
P las tic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Textiles
Glass
Me tallies
1
1
|4
4
3
3
7
6
.-
1
3
2
4
__
13
9
5
2
16
8
1
1
u
3
2
3
6
7
7
6
9
6
__
__
__
__
3
__
6
3
2
1
5
2
3
__
7
7
31
18
97
57
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/9/68 through
Pa per /Pa per Products
15
60
Noon
9
14
42
12/9/68
6
8
26
11
29
69
13
42
94
16
18
40
11
12
47
4
9
46
18
__
— **
30
12
35
24
14
37
--
9
42
21
182
538
163
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Textiles
Glass
Me tallies
2
2
7
4
2
--
5
2
2
1
6
7
3
--
9
5
7
—
4
3
5
4
5
6
2
2
3
4
5
1
4
15
4
2
9
7
3
—
13
7
—
—
—
—
6
2
11
10
41
14
76
70
Stooes/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/9/68 through 7:00
Pa per /Pa per Products
15
39
p.m.
23
4
19
12/9/68
17
10
37
—
13
43
20
13
43
17
12
43
37
6
21
22
10
53
21
27
79
21
68
12
—
--
10
12
62
11
143
507
190
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Me tallies
4
4
17
5
13
10
12
5
—
—
—
--
4
1
10
6
2
—
3
3
)
7
—
4
3
2
17
8
5
2k
11
5
—
—
—
--
2
1
9
6
3
—
9
5
2
1
3
6
19
50
91
53
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals
6)
114
213
3
60
121
—
--
63
12
53
165
7
32
169
7
56
139
22
74
142
40
106
205
--
--
79
17
47
150
6
33
70
13
36
140
188
611
1656
—Denotes no refuse.
**Chute possibly blocked.
-------
TABLE IX. WEIGHT (IB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/9/68 - 7tOO P.M. 12/10/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 p.m. 12/9/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Wood /Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Textiles
Glass
Metallics
Bui
Ai
7:00 a
15
1
2
1
5
4
Iding 6B
** ^
.m. 12/10/68
7 88
—
2 11
3 8
4 41
3 9
Bi
5
—
1
—
2
2
Building SB
Ba
15
—
2
2
4
6
a,
15
—
2
2
--
3
Bui
Ci
7
—
1
1
4
3
Iding 1A
Ca
16
—
4
4
4
4
ca
13
«
2
16
14
6
Bui
Di
27
—
1
3
9
6
Iding 4A
Da
3
--
1
—
4
2
D3 Total
14 225
1
2 33
40
7 98
8 56
Stones/Ceram ics/e tc .
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/10/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
26
54
Noon
5
10 78
29 235
12/10/68
10 15
7
17
9
23
52
13
38
60
32
4
20
6
7
39
5
31
82
10
17
65
3
4
14
18
33 278
64 731
8 134
Wood/Wood Products
Plast ic/leather/Rubber
Rags /Text! les
Glass
Metallics
3
3
2
6
2 6
2 3
3 18
3 9
2
—
9
2
3
2
5
£
2
—
2
5
2
--
—
3
6
1
3
2
—
—
6
8
—
—
—
2
—
—
4
3
2 28
2 13
4 56
5 52
Stones /Ceramics /etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/10/68 through J7: 00
Paper/Paper Products
10
29
p.m.
28
12 19
32 70
12/10/68
18 31
12
34
22
13
40
12
24
65
19
4
15
15
5
22
23
19
43
34
3
8
15
5
30
9
9 H5
30 418
15 241
Wood/Wood Products
P 1 as t i c/Lea t he r/Rubbe r
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metallics
5
5
6
k
13 4
12 1
7 2
6 4
4
4
8
6
1
1
3
q
1
3
4
2
2
4
8
5
6
2
7
7
4
16
13
6
5
6
14
7
19
--
9
3
5 69
7 61
5 86
6 61
Stones/Ceram i cs/etc .
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
14
62
Daily Totals 145
21 8
77 50
138 355
22
66
117
16
38
130
18
47
172
14
48
83
25
70
131
27
100
225
8
55
128
6
46
90
16 195
54 713
148 1862
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
TABLE X. WEIGHT (LB) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/10/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/11/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
Bui
Aj
7:00 p.m. 12/10/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
Wood /Wood Products
P las t i c/Lea the r/Rubbe r
Raqs/Text i les
Glass
Metal lies
8
3
-_
3
6
5
Idinq 6B
AB
Bui Idinq 5B
Aa
BI
BE
83
Bui
Ci
Idinq 1A
Ca
C3
Bui Idinq 4A
DI
Ps
D3
Total
a.m. 12/11/68
9
—
1
__
4
4
L7
--
10
2
2
7
1
--
1
1
2
2
6
--
1
3
7
2
11
--
2
3
5
5
5
--
2
1
4
4
3
—
__
._
H_
__
1^
--
3
4
7
6
12
—
2
1
9
5
2
—
__
»_
1
2
16
—
4
__
8
7
103
3
26
18
ijq
4q
Stones/Ce ramies /etc.
Orqanic Garbage
Sub- totals
13
38
7:00 a.m. 12/11/68 through Noon
Paj>er/Paper Products
8
8
26
12/11/68
3
7
45
10
2
9
4
13
32
16
17
43
8
12
28
4
-_
3
5
18
51
22
12
41
__
3
8
31
19
54
5
124
378
116
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Me tallies
1
—
3
—
2
—
3
1
4
2
8
3
1
2
2
—
3
10
—
7
2
3
7
3
1
.-
—
2
1
.-
3
2
2
--
9
2
2
_.
2
1
4
4
4
6
3
5
1
2
26
26
42
29
Stones/Ce ramies/etc.
Orqanic Garbage
Sub-totals
Noon 12/11/68 through 7:
Paper/Paper Products
2
14
00 p.m.
19
4
13
12/11/68
14
5
32
9
--
9
6
12
48
16
10
33
21
4
n
13
24
7
42
14
8
13
15
11
60
._
4
20
30
80
319
144
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Raqs/Text i les
Glass
Metal 1 ics
3
6
9
3
5
_.
-_
5
4
3
4
8
_-
__
5
2
5
5
10
7
3
28
12
8
4
__
14
3
2
1
5
3
__
__
10
2
__
__
9
6
26
43
78
47
Stones/Ce ramies /etc.
Orqanic Garbage
Sub-totals
Dai ly Totals
Weekly Totals
11
51
103
1104
15
43
82
952
1)
39
116
871
..
13
31
869
24
67
147
1034
11
83
159
1104
V*
39-;,
758
-V
27*
762
39
74
167
1011
23
49
103
868
__
12
80
651
9
54
128
963
147
485
1182
10947
—Denotes no refuse. *Fire occurred within incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
TABLE XI. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 A.M. THROUGH 9:00 P.M. 12/5/68)
o
en
Bui Idinq 68
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 a.m. through Noon
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Raqs/Text i les
Glass
Metallics
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Noon through 9:00 p.m.
Paper/Paper Products
Wood /Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metallics
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Da! ly Totals
A!
12/5/68
3.2
—
0.1
—
1.3
0.2
—
0.1
4.9
12/5/68
19.0
_.
1.9
0.5
2.3
1.3
0.8
2.6
28.4
33.3
Ae
5.6
—
0.5
0.4
0.5
o.4
—
0.5
7.9
5.4
0. 1
2.7
1.3
0.7
1.3
--
2.0
13.5
21.4
AS
1.3
—
—
0.3
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
--
2.2
5.4
0. 1
0. I
0.8
0.8
0.8
8.0
10.2
Bu!
B,
2.4
—
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.5
—
0.1
3.8
10.3
1.5
1.3
0.7
1.5
—
1.1
16.4
20.2
Idinq 5B
Bs
2.7
—
0. 1
0.2
0.1
0.1
—
0.2
3.4
5.4
-_
1.4
0.5
0.1
0.4
--
0.7
8.5
H.9
Building 1A
B3
4.9
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.4
--
0.4
6.5
9.8
--
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.9
--
0.9
12.6
19.1
Ci
2.3
—
--
--
0.1
0.1
—
O.I
2.6
10.7
0.3
0. 1
0.8
0.7
—
1. 1
13.7
16.3
C2
2.7
—
--
—
—
0. 1
—
--
2.8
12.2
0. 1
0.5
0.5
0.5
—
0.7
14.5
17.3
C3
0.4
0.7
—
--
--
--
--
__
t.l
15.0
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.5
18.0
19.1
Bui
D!
2.7
0.1
0.4
--
0.4
1.4
—
1.1
6.1
8.1
--
2. 1
1.3
1.0
1.4
—
1.0
14.9
21.0
(ding 4A
Da
1.4
—
0.1
--
--
0.2
--
0.1
1.8
10.7
0. 1
0.9
0. 1
0.9
1.8
—
1.8
16.3
18.1
D3
2.7
--
—
0.2
0.3
—
0.7
3.9
10.8
—
2.1
0.7
2.7
--
0.9
17.2
21.1
Total
32.3
0.9
2. 1
1. 1
3. 1
4.1
0. 1
3.3
47.0
122.8
0.2
13. /
6.1
9.8
14.1
1.2
14. 1
182.0
229.0
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
IAELE XIL ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT5) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (9:00 P.M. 12/5/69 - 7:00 P.M. 12/6/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
9:00 p.m. 12/5/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Building 6B
AI fi^
AS
Bui
BI
Iding SB
Ba
83
Bui
Ci
7:00 a.m. 12/6/68
2.4 2.1
4.8
—
—
—
2.4
Iding 1A
Ca
*
2.1
Ca
2.3
Bui
DI
—
Iding 4A
Da
—
D3
2.7
Total
18.8
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metallics
—
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1
0.1
--
0.1
0.1
—
—
_-
-.
—
__
__
__
—
—
__
__
0.1
__
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
_-
0. I
0.1
—
-_
0. 1
0.1
—
—
__
—
—
-.
__
__
0.2
2.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
2. 1
0:8
0.8
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
7:00 a.m. 12/6/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Textiles
Glass
Metallics
0.1 0.2
2.6 2.6
Noon 12/6/68
3.8 4.0
—
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.6 o.l
0.3 0.1
0.1
5.2
5.4
—
1.1
0.8
0.1
0.1
-- -
--
4.0
—
0.3
1.3
0.3
1.3
-_
--
6.7
—
1.3
0.3
0.3
1.3
—
--
5.4
--
—
0.7
0.7
0.7
0. 1
2.8
4.6
—
0. 1
2.5
2.4
--
--
1.9
-.
0. 1
0.1
2.6
2.7
0. 1
0. 1
0.8
0.8
0. 1
--
--
2.7
--
0.3
—
0.3
0.3
—
--
2.7
--
0.3
—
0.2
0.7
0.3
5.7
4.0
--
0.7
2.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
24.0
48.4
0. 1
4.3
8.0
3.7
5^3
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/6/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
0.6 0.5
5.5 4.9
p.m. 12/6/68
6.7
0.5
8.0
6.6
0.7
7.9
4.0
0.7
10.6
6.7
0.7
8.2
8.0
4.6
4.6
—
4.4
4.8
0.8
5.4
4.6
0.7
4.3
10.7
—
3-9
5.4
0.7
8.0
10.7
5.9
75.7
72.8
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metallics
--
0.1
0.8
0.3
.-
0.1
0. 1
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.7
2.0
0.7
-_
--
0.3
0.1
0.1
_-
0.1
0.1
0.1
--
0.3
0.1
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
2.7
0.7
0.7
2.7
6.7
6.0
3.9
6.9
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals
0.7
8.6
16.7 7.5
0.3
7.2
20.4
0.1
6.5
14.4
0.3
10.0
20.6
0.7
12.1
20.3
0.4
5.4
12.8
0. 1
5.2
12.1
0.3
5.4
13.4
0.7
14.8
19.1
0.3
7.5
11.4
0.3
17.8
31.5
4.2
100.5
200.2
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
TABLE XIII. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/6/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/7/68)
Bui Id ing 68
REFUSE CATEGORY Aj Ag Ag
Bui
BI
Id ing 5B
%
83
Building 1A
Ci Cs C3
Bui
Di
Id ing 4A
Da
»3
Total
7:00 p.m. 12/6/68 through 7:00 a.m. 12/7/68
Paper/Paper Products
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Raqs/Text i les
Glass
Metal lies
2.7
0.7
1.3
1.3
0.3
1.3
2.7
—
0.7
-«
0.3
0.7
2.7
—
0.7
0.3
OJ
1.3
5.4 5.4
—
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0.9
8.0
—
1.3
...
0.7
0.7
2.4
—
--
0. 1
0.3
0.7
8.0
—
0.7
0.7
0.3
2.0
37.3
0.7
4.8
2.5
2.3
7.6
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
0.3
7.9
0.7
5.1
0.7
6.0
1.3
5.4 7.9 *
5.7
11.4
0.3
3.8
0.7
12.4
4.7
59.9
7:00 a.m. 12/7/68 through Noon 12/7/68
Paper/Paper Products
5.3
6.0
8.0
5.4
5.4
2.4
5.4
37.9
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
RagA/Tex tiles
Glass
Me tallies
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0,7
0,7
°, '
1.3
__
__
0. 1
0.1
2.0
0. 1
0 3
0. 1
0.7
0.7
J).3
0.7
0.7
__
0. 1
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.3
0.7
£- '
3.L
1.5
3.9
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
0.7
7.2
0.7
9.5
0.7
8.9
0.1
8.0
0.3
8.1
0.7
4.6
0.3
8.7
3.5
55.0
Noon 12/7/68 through 7:00 p.m. 12/7/68
Paper/Paper Products
13.4
8.1
4.0
9.1 8.0
5.4
8.0
10.7
66.7
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metal lies
0.7
0 1
0.7
1.3
1.3
0 7
1.3
0.7
1.3
1.3
Q, 7
2.7
05 13
0 1
0.3 0.1
0.3 01
0 7
__
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
__
07
0.7
0.7
0.7
1^3
7.2
3.6
4.5
78
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Daily Totals
0 7
16.9
32.0
0 7
12.8
27.4
Q 3
10.3
25.2
05 09
10.7 10.5
16.1 26.4 *
— —
7.5
27.0
0 7
10.8
19.2
1 3
15.4
36.5
q i
94.9
209.8
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
*Fire occurred within incinerator, part of sample lost.
-------
TABLE XIV. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/7/68 - 7:00 PJM. 12/8/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 p.m. 12/7/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Bu
Ai
7:00
5-^
i Iding 68
Aa Ag
a.m. 12/8/68
1.5
Bui
BI
5.4
Iding 5B
BB
8.1
a,
9.4
Bui
ct
10.7
Iding 1A
C2
2.7
C3
5.4
Bui
0,
5.4
Iding 4A
Pa
Da
5.4
Total
59.4
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text iles
Glass
He tallies
1.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
__
0.3
0.7
2.7
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.7
1. 3
1,3
0.7
2.0
0 3
1.0
2.4
0.7
0 3
0.3
0.7
0.7
• _
0. 1
0.7
0.7
0. 7
0.7
1.3
2.7
0 7
0. 1
0.7
12.1
«;.3
5.7
10. 1
Stones/Ceramics/ctc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/8/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
0.3
8.7
Noon
8.1
0.4
3.3
12/8/68
5.4
0.7
7.4
2.7
J.3
16.1
5.4
1.3
14.7
3.0
1.0
17.4*
1.3
6.0
5.4
r.3
8.2
5.4
0.7
9.5
2.7
2.7
0.7
10.3
5.4
9-0
101.6
46.2
Wood/Wood Products
Plast ic/Leather /Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metal lies
0-5
0,3
0.4
o,4
1.3
1.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.5
—
0.4
2.3
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
0. 1
2.0
0.3
0. I
0.4
0.7
6.8
4.8
4.5
9.8
S tones /Ce ram i c s /e tc .
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/8/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
°-?
10.2
p.m.
5.**
1.3
10.3
12/8/68
0.7
5.0
5.4
1.1
10.5
5.4
0.3
6.5
0.5
V*
5.4
0.7
9.5
5-4
1.3
9-5
8.1
1.1
5.7
5.4
0.1
5- 1
8.1
0.3
7.2
5.4
7.4
79.5
54.5
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Me tallies
OJ
0.7
0-7
2,4
—
—
—
.-
0.7
1.3
0.3
0.7
1.3
—
0.3
0.3
2.0
0.7
0.7
1.3
1. 1
0.1
0.3
2.7
2.0
2.7
0. 1
1.3
I. 1
0.3
0.1
0. 1
0.7
—
1.3
0.7
2.7
—
0.7
2.0
0.7
—
0. 1
0.3
13.0
5.8
4.6
11.8
Stones /Ceramics /etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Daily Totals
)r?
11.2
30.1
13.6
1.3
9.7
22.1
0.7
8.0
34.6
0.7
5.9
27. 1
1.0
10.6*
28. 0*
2.0
13.5
29.0
1.1
10.8
28.5
0.7
8.8
24.0
2.0
15.5
20.6
0.3
6.8
24.3
11. 1
100.8
281.9
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
«-pire occurred in the incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
-------
TABLE XV. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAJLY—AFTER SORTING (7:00 P.M. 12/8/68 -7:00 P^M. 12/9/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
7:00 pjn. 12/8/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
Bui Iding 66
AI Ag
A3
Bui
BI
Iding 5B
Ba
83
Bui
ct
Iding 1A
Ca
Cs
Bui
D.
Iding 4A
Da
°3
Total
7:00 a.m. 12/9/68 *
6.7 5.4
5.4
5.4
8.1
5.4
2.0
2.7
—
5.4
5.4
7.8
59.7
Wood/Wood Products -- -- -- — « -- « — — ^-
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags /Text i les
Glass
He tallies
1.3 1.3
0.3 0.7
0.7 0.7
1.1 0.7
0.7
0. 1
0.1
0.7
1,3
__
1.3
1.3
1.3
0,7
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.3
1.3
0.3
0.7
0.1
--
__
__
__
--
l.Q
__
0.4
0.3
1.1
0. 1
0.3
0.4
1.8
__
0.3
2.2
12. 1
3.7
5.3
10.1
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
7:00 a.m. 12/9/68 through
Paper/Paper Products
1.1 1.1
11.2 9.9
Noon 12/9/68
4.0 2.7
0.7
7.7
4.0
1.3
10.6
2.7
2.0
14.1
5.4
1.0
9.0
2.7
0.7
6.0
2.7
0.7
4.5
5.4
--
..**
10.7
0.7
7.8
8.1
1.0
8.3
--
0.5
12.6
8.1
10.8
101.7
56.5
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags /Text i les
Glass
Me tallies
0.7 0.3
0.7
0.7 0.3
0.7 0.3
1.3
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.7
--
0.7
0.7
1.3
—
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
O.I
0.1
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
2.0
1.3
—
0.7
1.3
--
—
—
—
0.7
0. 1
0.7
2.0
J.J
2.3
5.9
11.1
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/9/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
0.7 0.3
7.5 3.9
p.m. 12/9/68
4.0 5.4
0.7
7-7
—
0.7
5-5
7.5
1.3
9.4
8.1
O.-S
5.2
10.7
0-?
5.0
7.4
0.7
7.7
5.4
1 3
16.7
--
0.7
12.1
5.4
__
--
5.4
ftr7
12.3
5.4
7.9
93.0
64.7
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
He tallies
1.3 2.7
1.3 2.0
1.0 0.7
1.3 1.3
—
--
--
--
1.3
0.1
0.4
1.5
1.3
--
0.7
0.7
0.1
0-7
—
0.1
1.6
0.1
1.0
2.1
2.0
1.3
0.7
0.7
—
-.
...
--
0.7
0. 1
0.7
0.7
0.3
--
0.7
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
1.3
12.3
5.7
6.0
11.0
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals
5.4 0.7
14.3 12.8
33.0 26.6
—
—
15.4
0.5
11.3
27.4
0.7
11.5
35.0
O.I
11.7
25.9
1.1
13.3
24.3
1.3
11.4
23.6
—
~
16.7
1.3
8.9
28.8
0.7
8.4
16.7
0.5
8.4
33.3
12.3
112.0
306.7
—Denotes no refuse.
---•Chute probably blocked
-------
TABLE XVI. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORTfNG (7:00 P.M. 12/9/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/10/68)
Bui
REFUSE CATEGORY Ai
Idinq 68
Aa
A3
Bui
Bi
Idinq 58
Ba
83
Bui
Ci
Iding 1A
Qa
Ca
Building 4A
Di
Da
Da
Total
7:00 p.m. 12/9/68 through 7:00 a.m. 12/10/68
Paper/Paper Products 5.4
Wood/Wood Products 0. 1
Plastic/Leather/Rubber 0.9
Rags/Textiles 0.1
Glass 0.3
Metallics 0.5
5.4
—
1. 1
0.4
0.1
0.7
29.5
—
2.7
2.0
2-7
5.£
2.3
—
0.3
__
0.3
0.5
6.7
—
0.7
0. 1
0.3
0.7
5.4
—
0.7
0.7
._
0.7
2.7
—
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.7
8.1
—
0.1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
5.4
—
0.7
2.7
1.0
0.4
8.1
—
1.3
0.7
1.3
1.3
2.7
--
0.1
«. —
0.1
0.1
5.4
--
0.1
__
0.7
1.3
87.1
0.1
8.8
7. 1
7-2
12.4
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage 1.3
Sub-totals 8.6
7:00 a.m. 12/10/68 through Noon
Paper/Paper Products 2.7
0.5
8.2
12/10/68
5.4
4.0
46.3
5.4
0.4
3.8
2.7
0.7
9.2
4.0
2.0
9.5
10.7
0.3
4.4
2.7
0. 1
8.6
1.9
1.3
H.5
2.7
1.3
14.0
1.3
0. 1
3.1
5.4
1.3
8.8
2.7
13.3
136.0
47.6
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber 0.7
Rags/Textiles 0.7
Glass 0.7
Metallics 0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.1
0.7
2.0
0.7
—
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
—
-_
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0. 1
-_
—
0.7
0.8
_-
—
--
0.7
_-
—
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
7.1
2.2
5.6
8.9
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage 0.7
Sub-totals 6.2
Noon 12/10/68 through 7:00 a.m.
Paper/Paper Products 8. 1
0.7
8.9
12/10/68
2.0
0.7
10.2
9.3
0.7
5.5
8.1
0.7
6.7
4.9
2.7
15.5
6.7
0.7
4.5
6.7
0.1
2.6
10.7
1.1
5.3
10.1
0.3
2.3
5.4
0.7
7.5
5.4
0.7
6.0
5.4
9-8
81.2
82.8
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber 1.3
Rags/Textiles 0.7
Glass 0.7
Metallics 0.7
2.0
2.0
0.3
1.3
2.7
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0. 1
1.2
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.4
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.7
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.3
__
0.1
0.7
1.6
2.0
1. 1
16.5
10.7
5.0
10.0
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage 0.7
Sub-totals 12.2
Daily Totals 27.0
0.7
8.3
25.4
1.1
14.0
70.5
0.7
11.6
20.9
0.8
7.5
23.4
1.1
9.6
34.6
0.7
10.8
19.7
1.3
16.8
28.0
1.3
16.8
33.6
0.7
8.9
25.2
0.1
7.6
18.2
0.7
10.8
25.6
9.9
134.9
352.1
—Denotes no refuse.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
TABLE XVII. ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) BY CATEGORY OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY—AFTER SORT ING (7:00P.M. 12/10/68 - 7:00 P.M. 12/11/68)
REFUSE CATEGORY
Bui
AI
7:00 p.m. 12/10/68 through 7:00
Paper/Paper Products
Wood /Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metallics
2.7
0.7
-.
0.7
1.3
1.0
Iding 6B
AS
A3
Bui
Bi
Iding 58
83
83
Building 1A
Ct Cs
C3
Bui
Di
Iding 4A
Da
D3 Total
a.m. 12/11/68
2.7
-.
0.7
-.
0.7
0.7
8.1
--
2.0
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.3
-_
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.3
._
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.4
2.7
—
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
2.0 2.0
-.
1 .-3
0.7
0.7
0.7
5.4
—
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
2.0
--
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
--
__
__
0.3
0.7
5.4 36.3
0.7
2.0 8.2
4.0
0.7 5.9
0.7 7.8
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
0.7
7.1
7:00 a.m. 12/11/68 through Noon
Paper/Paper Products
1.3
0.7
5.5
12/11/68
1.3
0.7
12.3
5.4
0.1
1.8
2.3
0.7
4.1
4.0
0.7
6.5
4.2
1.3
6.7 2.0
1.3 2.7
1.0
8.8
4.8
0.7
4.2
--
0.3
2.0
6.8
0.7 7.6
9.5 70.5
2.7 36.8
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags /Text i les
Glass
Metallics
0.3
—
0.4
—
2.0
—
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
—
0.1
1.2
__
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0. 1
0.1 0.7
-_
03
0.3 0.1
0.1
._
0 4
0. 1
0.3
._
1 *
O.I
0.7
0.1
0 3
0.7
1.3 6.1
0.3 2.5
n l 2.8
0.3 4.0
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub- totals
Noon 12/11/68 through 7:
Paper/Paper Products
0.3
2.3
00 p.m.
1.3
0.7
4.6
12/11/68
5.4
0.7
8.1
4.0
—
2.6
0.7
0.7
7.3
4.0
0.5
5.3
5.4
0.3 0.4
2.0 4.2
0.4
5.8
4.7
0.7
1.4
6.8
0.7
9.3
__
0.1 5.5
4.8 57.7
8.1 40.4
Wood/Wood Products
Plastic/Leather/Rubber
Rags/Text i les
Glass
Metal! ics
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.3
—
--
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
—
—
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.3
--
0.7
--
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
--
--
1.3
0.3
3.7
3.7
0.7 5.9
0.7 4.1
Stones/Ceramics/etc.
Organic Garbage
Sub-totals
Daily Totals
Weekly Totals
0.7
5.4
14.8
154.9
0.7
6.7
16.8
111.3
0.3
5.5
25.9
142.4
_.
1.1
5.5
142.5
0.7
7.1
18.5
171.4
0.7
10.1
21.9
174.1
• * *
8.7* 6.2*
125.9 142.6
1 3
7.0
21.6
132.9
0.7
8.9
14.5
159.6
*••
1.6
12.9
117.1
J1.5 5.6
10.0 63.4
24.3 191.6
196.6 1771.3
-Denotes no refuse. *Fire occurred within incinerator, part or all of sample lost.
Blank space denotes that estimates of volume of refuse were not recorded.
-------
TABLE XVI>I. MOISTURE CONTENT (% - WT) OF SELECTIVE CATEGORIES OF REFUSE GENERATED DAILY.
REFUSE CATEGORY
Paper and Paper Products
Composite (Woods, Plastics^
Me tallies
Organic Garbage
Paper and Paper Products
Composite (Woods, Plastics,
Me tallies
Organic Garbage
Blank space denotes that no
TABLE XIX. WEIGHT JLBLAND
Bu i Id ing
1A
1A
1A
IA
IA
4A
SB
5B
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
\ B, C3 D3
12/6/68
14.7 15.4 27.9 22.2
Rags) 15.4 13.3 6.7 10.7
49.2 29.0 20.5
12/9/68
16.0 10.0 12.8 9.0
Rags) 3.9 4.2 0 16.7
4.0 0
36.3 32.5 35.6 20.6
sample was taken.
SIZE (FT) OF BULKY SOLID WASTE ITEMS
Item
Mattress'
Mattress
Mattress
Dresser (Wood)
Rug
Dresser (Wood!
Table (Wood)
Chairs (Metal)
Boxes (Cardboard)
Furniture (Aluminum)
Mirror (Glass)
Boxes (Wood)
Table Top (Metal)
Flooring (Linoleum)
A, B,
20.5 15
38.6
28.6 39
10.8 11
15.8 9
25.8 20
COLLECTED.3
Weight (~
50
45
60
65
50
50
10
20
26
25
25
18
25
38
CHUTE
C3 D3
12/7/68
.8 48.5 12.3
0 24.2 16.1
31.3
.5 37.3 37.3
12/10/68
.3 15.6 14.7
.2 10.5 6.3
4.0 3.7
.0 30.3 30.0
Ib)
A, B, C-,
12/8/68
17.7 17.7 18.8
14.3 19.0 10.0
31.7 44.5 24.7
12/11/68
12.3 16.7 22.2
11.3 3.9 5.6
21.4 53.0 19-8
Size (~f t)
6x4
5x4
7x5
4.5 x 2.5 x 2
12 x 8
4x2x2
3x4
3.5 x 2
Va r i ous
Various
3 x 2.5
Various
3x4
10 x 10
°b
15.6
25.0
15.4
29.7
12.8
25.0
6.7
22.8
aI terns were collected during the seven consecutive days between 12/5/68 and 12/11/68; specific day of disposal of each
item could not be determined.
-------
TABLE XX. WEIGHT (LB) AND ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) OF REFUSE GENERATED HOURLY ON I2/5/68--AFTER SORTING
CHUTE
HOUR
7:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
12:00 Noon
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
TOTALS
AI BI C3 D3
Ib.
_.
—
24
—
12
36
-.
17
9
9
—
22
39
38
21
227
ft3
__
—
2.7
—
2.1
3.3
--
2.0
2.7
2.7
—
4.3
4.9
5.6
2.0
32.3
Ib.
__
—
9
--
9
7
5
--
14
25
8
3
20
12
2
114
ft3
__
—
2.3
--
2.7
2.3
2.3
6.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
32.1
Ib.
__
--
—
7
8
3
2
2
13
14
15
55
3
16
4
142
ft3
__
—
—
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.3
1.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.3
1.3
2.7
2.7
21.2
Ib.
__
—
5
5
4
5
4
--
14
2
3
12
26
2
9
91
ft3
•.
—
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.7
2.7
--
2.7
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.7
1.3
2.7
26.4
TOTALS
Ib.
__
—
38
12
33
51
11
19
50
50
26
92
88
68
36
574
ft3
_.
—
6.3
• 1.6
6.9
8.7
5.3
3.3
14.4
10.8
7.7
13-0
11.6
12.3
10. 1
112.0
--Denotes no refuse.
-------
TABLE XXI. WEIGHT (LB) AND ESTIMATED VOLUME (FT3) OF REFUSE FOLLOWING INC INERATION
INCINERATOR DATE
D3 12/5/68
C3 12/6/68
DJ - 12/6/68
D3 12/6/68
D, 12/7/68
Ds 12/7/68
D3 12/7/68
C3 12/8/68
Dj 12/8/68
D2 12/8/68
D3 12/8/68
D, 12/9/68
D,, 12/9/68
D3 12/9/68
C3 12/10/68
DI 12/10/68
Dg 12/10/68
D3 12/10/68
TOTALS
UNBURNED
REFUSE
lb.a
91
56
63
93
134
127
188
134
173
143
95
150
70
90
175
128
90
103
2103
ft3b
21.1
13.4
19.1
31.5
27.0
19.2
36.5
28.5
24.0
20.6
24.3
28.8
16.7
33.3
33.6
25.2
18.2
25.6
446.6
RESIDUE
ASH
Ib.
11
15
2
8
16
11
12
21
7
3
2
21
4
23
18
8
15
9
206
ft3
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
2. 1
0. 1
0.7
0-7
0.3
13. 1
UNBURNED COMBUSTIBLES
Ib.
12
3
4
9
15
11
7
18
10
24
8
39
11
13
40
14
5
7
250
ft3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2. 1
2. 1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
14.2
NONCOMBUSTIBLES
Ib.
24
13
10
21
52
31
39
72
15
52
21
48
10
29
72
7
24
8
548
ft3
2.8
0.5
0.7
2.8
4.2
3-0
4.9
4.2
2.8
5.6
2.8
4.9
2. 1
4.9
5.6
0.7
1.4
1 .4
55.3
aValues reported are weights of refuse after taking moisture samples.
Values reported are those obtained after sorting and prior to taking moisture samples.
-------
APPENDIX D
AIR POLLUTION-
PROTOCOL
115
-------
PROTOCOL
Air Pollution
General Testing
Incinerator €3. —The eight tests which follow are to be conducted on this
incinerator:
Test No. l--is to be conducted with five (5) separate samples of refuse
of similar composition charged into the incinerator at its design capacity
with the incinerator operated as normal (i.e., with overfire air blower
and auxiliary gas supply on for 15 min. at the beginning of each burn).
Test No. 2--is to be conducted with three (3) separate samples of refuse
of similar composition charged into the incinerator on the basis of tenant
charging rate with the incinerator operated as normal.
Test No. 3--is to be conducted with three (3) separate samples of refuse
of similar composition charged into the incinerator at a rate different
from that used in either Test No.'s 1 and 2 above and the incinerator
operated as normal.
Test No. 4--is to be conducted with three (3) variations of overfire air
supply with refuse charged into the incinerator at its design capacity
and with auxiliary fuel supplied for the normal 15-min. period; three
(3) samples of similar composition will be tested for each variation of over-
fire air.
Test No. 5--is to be conducted with three (3) variations in the amount of
auxiliary fuel used with refuse charged into the incinerator at its design
capacity and with the overfire air blower operated for the normal 15-min.
period; three (3) separate samples of similar composition will be tested
for each variation of auxiliary fuel.
Test No. 6—is to be conducted with the flame from the auxiliary fuel port
deflected upwards to simulate a blockage that might occur under normal
operating conditions; only one (1) angle of deflection is to be used and
three (3) separate samples of similar composition will be tested under
this condition.
Test No. 7--is to be conducted with stack emissions taken throughout a
day during the normal operation of the incinerator with refuse randomly
charged into the incinerator by the tenants.
Test No. 8--is to be a repeat of Test No. 7 above.
-------
Incinerator C\.—The test detailed below is to be conducted on this in-
cinerator.
Test No. 9—will be conducted with three (3) separate samples of refuse
of similar composition charged into the incinerator at its design capacity
and the incinerator operated as normal.
Sample Composition.-With the exception of Test No.'s 7 and 8, to the extent
possible composition of samples to be used in all tests is to be based on
results obtained during the first week of data collection on quantity and
composition of refuse generated at all test structures involved.
Charging Rates.-Design capacity of the incinerators is to be calculated
in accordance with normally accepted procedures, and the determined value
used for sizing refuse samples in those tests requiring a charging rate
equal to that of incinerator design capacity. Tenant charging rate is to
be based on results of data collected previously on quantity of refuse
generated. In the burning of individual samples, the total sample is to
be charged into the incinerator at the onset of the burn.
Data Collection.-for each of the tests and samples enumerated above, the
following data are to be collected:
1. Particulate emission rate in pounds per hour per pound of
refuse charged
2. Percent burn-out of refuse sample
3. Fuel consumption
4. Fire box temperature
5. Stack gas temperature and velocity
6. Gaseous emissions for
Oa (%) SOX (ppm)
C02 (%) NOx (ppm)
N2 (%) Hydrocarbons (ppm)
H20 (%) Carbonyls (ppm)
CO (%) Aldehydes (ppm)
7. Particulate loading and size distribution
8. Odor
9. Ringelmann readings for density and color.
In addition to the above, data also are to be obtained on the following:
1. during Test No. 1, NHs stack emissions in ppm and CO content at
the hopper doors in the hall on the first and on the top floors;
2. during Test No. 2, particulate emission rate during the period
when the refuse is smoldering after burning.
117
-------
Teat Methods.—In the conduct of the above tests, particulate emission
rates (pounds per hour per pound of refuse burned) are to be determined
using the basic test procedures as outlined in the ASME Test Code for Dust
Separating Apparatus PTC 21-1941 and the ASME Test Code for Determining
Dust Concentrations in Gas Stream PTC 27-1957 using isokinetic sampling and
sampling nozzles having an inside diameter no less than 0.75 inches.
Particulate loading and size distribution are to be determined using the
sticky paper method described by Gruber and Shumann in their presentation
at the 55th annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
20-24 May 1962.
Gaseous emissions are to be sampled and analyzed in accordance with the
appropriate procedures as outlined in the Los" Angeles County Testing
Manual and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
Source Test Methods. Odor is to be determined using ASTM: D 1391-57,
Standard Method for Measurement of Odor in Atmospheres (Dilution Method).
Simultaneous Testing
Incinerator 0$.—The two tests which follow below will be conducted on this
incinerator and particulate emission rate determined simultaneously using
the ASME test procedures and the test procedure described by the National
Air Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Public Health Service, in their
publication "Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities."
Test No. 10^-is to be conducted with three (3) samples of refuse as generated
randomly by the tenants and charged into the incinerator at one of the
rates used previously in either Test No. 2 or Test No. 3 and the incinerator
otherwise operated under normal conditions.
Test No. ll--is to be a duplicate of Test No. 10 above except that charging
rate is to be based on design capacity.
-------
APPENDIX E
AIR POLLUTION--
INCINERATOR STACK-SAMPLING TEST DATA
119
-------
INCINERATOR STACK-SAMPLING TEST DATA
Presented in this appendix are the results obtained from conducting the
incinerator stack-sampling program as specified in the air pollution protocol
in Appendix D. Results of general testing (i.e., protocol tests 1 through
9) are given in Tables I through XI and results of simultaneous testing
(i.e., protocol tests 10 and 11) are given in Tables XII (NAPCA method)
and XIII and XIV (ASME-PTC-27 method). In addition, a summary, as prepared
by the subcontractor, is presented of the test methods used in the collection
and analysis of incinerator stack samples.
Summary of Methods of Testing (Subcontractor Report)
1. Location of Incinerator Stack-Sampling Ports
Figure 1 [of this appendix] is a representation of an incinerator
stack showing the relative positions of the sampling ports used in
the collection of the required data. Sampling ports were located
approximately five feet above the roof line, were approximately
three stack diameters from the top of the stack, and more than 10
diameters upstream from any bends or constrictions. The two three
inch ports shown on Figure 1 were used to sample particulate emis-
sion rates, particulate size and loading distributions, sulphur
oxides, velocities, and temperatures. The two side ports [approxi-
mately 1.5 inches in diameter] were used to sample aldehydes,
carbonyls, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and odor.
2. Particulate Emission Rates
Particulates were sampled using the Null Balance Tube Method and
a large diameter (0.82) inch nozzle following the basic procedures
as outlined in ASME-PTC-27. The sampling train is shown in Figure
2. Isokinetic conditions were obtained by equalizing static
pressure inside the nozzle and the static pressure just outside
the nozzle. Differential pressure was measured on an inclined
manometer and the pumping rate was varied in order to maintain a
balance. The particulate material was trapped in an alundum thimble
which was placed ahead of the impingers in the sampling train. The
thimble was sealed and returned to the laboratory for analysis. In
the laboratory, the thimble containing the sample and a blank one
were dried at 105°C, cooled in a dessicator, and weighed. The
weight change (if any) in the blank was calculated for the weight
of the sample thimble.
-------
Spark arrester
Extended stainless
steel pipes
3-in. diameter ports
Figure I. Location of sampling ports.
121
-------
Thimble & holder
K>
K)
Nult draft gauge
Impingers
Air pump
For Particulates and SO Emissions
Impingers
Air pump
For Aldehydes and CarbonyIs
Temperature
Dry gas meter
Temperature
Dry gas meter
Figure 2. Sampling trains
-------
3. Particulate Loading and Size Distribution
Particulate loading distribution was determined using the method of
Gruber and Shumann as presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of APCA,
May 20-24, 1962. The adhesive paper was obtained from Fasson Pro-
ducts, Division of Avery Adhesive Products, Inc. R-135 on Pli-aprint,
the type used, has a removable backing and is available in sheets
25.5 x 20 inches. The tackiness of the adhesive surfaces of different
sheets varies significantly and the same paper sheet was used through-
out the testing to obtain the greatest degree of correlation.
The sampling jars were prepared as follows: Strips of adhesive paper
were cut into 2 x 10 inch sizes and wrapped around the outside of the
jars with the sticky sides out. The backing was kept in place on
the adhesive paper until the time of test.
At least one sticky paper sample was taken during the burning of each
refuse sample, either at the beginning of each burn (between approxi-
mately two to five minutes after ignition) or at the ending of each
burn (between approximately 20 to 25 minutes after ignition). Pre-
dominantly, sticky paper samples were obtained at the beginning of
each burn and on occasion it was possible to obtain a sample at both
the beginning and ending of a burn. All sticky paper samples were
obtained through the 3 inch ports in the stack, extreme care taken
to avoid touching the adhesive on the stack surface. The jar was
held in horizontal position by means of a jar cap mounted on a suit-
able length of stainless steel pipe. Exposure time was usually 30
seconds but under heavy loading conditions this was varied since
particle counting is difficult and sometimes impossible under such
conditions. Immediately after the samples was collected, it was
placed in a closed container for transport to the laboratory.
The microscopic particle counting of the exposed area of the adhesive
surface was made at a magnification of 15X. At this magnification
particles of 20 microns were easily distinguished. The number of
particles per square inch was obtained by comparison with the
Cincinnati Visual Standards, A-3. The number of particles per minute
was calculated from the following equation:
Particles per/in.2 x 60 x flue area (in.2)
Exposure time in seconds
Particulate size distribution was determined by micro and macroscopic
observation on adhesive coated paper. For each sticky paper sample,
the exposed area was examined and measured, and the percent of the
total exposed area occupied by particles 2.5mm or greater, 0.5 to
2.5mm, 0.1 to 0.5mm, and less than O.lmm were recorded separately.
4. Velocity and Temperature of Gas Stream
Velocity was determined by Pitot tube in accordance with Western
Precipitation Co. "Bulletin WP-50".
123
-------
It was necessary to determine the velocity and temperature of the gas
stream in order to determine the volume carried by the flue. Since
the volume of gas passing any given cross-section of a flue is the
product of the average velocity of that gas and the area of the cross-
section, determination of the gas volume involved measuring the area
of the cross-section and determining the average velocity of the gas.
The velocity of the gas was determined by means of a Pitot tube and
a differential pressure gauge. The velocity determination was made at
a point where the gas flow was as uniform as possible and it was con-
venient to set up the equipment. To insure a uniform gas flow, the
place for the test was chosen in a straight section of the flue, away
from bends and other points of disturbance of gas flow. The cross-
section of the flue was laid out in a number of equal areas, the
center of each area being the point where the measurement was to be
taken. The number of areas was large enough to insure a reasonably
accurate measurement of the average velocity over the entire cross-
section. After selecting the test location, openings.-we re made in
the flue large enough to permit ins-ertion of the Pitot tube and
sampling tube.
The draft gauge was set up as follows: Two adapters were screwed
in tightly and a suitable length of rubber tubing was connected to
one terminal of each. A clamp was placed on this tubing in order
to close it off. The gauge was firmly fastened and leveled. The
gauge liquid was poured in until the meniscus read zero. The Pitot
tube was connected with the bypass tube open and the other tubes
clamped closed. The gauge was adjusted to zero. The Pitot tube
was inserted in the flue and the bypass clamp closed. The tube
pointed directly into the flow of gas when readings were taken.
At each point of measurement the draft gauge was read and the
difference from the zero point was a measure of the velocity pressure.
The temperature of the flue was taken with a thermocouple and a pyro-
meter. After the measurements were completed, the average velocity
was calculated. Because the stack gases were nearly saturated with
condensable constituents and carried heavy dust loads, the Pitot tube
tended to stop up and the Special Pitot Tube (Type S) was used.
Stack temperatures were determined by thermocouple and pyrometer
as the velocity was being measured.
5. Sulphur Oxides
Sulphur oxides were determined using method 5.4.7 as described in
the Los Angeles Source Testing Manual.
Sulphur dioxide was collected by continuous sampling with an impinger
absorption train containing a caustic solution (See Figure 2). An
alundum thimble immediately preceded the impingers in order to collect
particulate matter. The impinger solution was analyzed for sulfate by
the gravimetric barium-sulfate method. The lower measurement limit of
the method, when analyzing a total collected sample equal to 30 cubic
feet of gas, is about 1 ppm each of sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide.
-------
This method has been found suitable for use in determining compliance
with APCD Rules and Regulations.
The first two impingers each contained 100 ml of a 5% sodium hydroxide
solution (prepared by dissolving 50 g of reagent grade sodium hydroxide
in water and diluting to one liter). The third impinger was operated
dry to catch any carry-over spray and to protect the gas meter. An
ice bath was used to cool the impingers. A stainless steel sampling
probe was used. All equipment was tested for proper operation and
freedom from leaks. The sampling rate did not exceed one cubic foot
per minute. The thimble temperature was regulated to remain above the
dew point temperature (i.e., above the condensation temperature'corres-
ponding to the water vapor concentration) by insulating the thimble
with heating tape. The data recorded during sampling included:
a. Time (clock) of test and data recordings
b. Gas meter reading, ft3 (initial)
c. Gas meter vacuum, in. Hg below atmospheric
d. Gas meter temperature, °F
At the completion of sampling, the pump was shut off and the train
was allowed to come to atmospheric pressure before disconnecting the
vacuum line. The final gas meter reading was recorded. The sample
probe, thimble, impingers, and associated tubing were suitably sealed
for transfer to the laboratory.
The reagents prepared for the laboratory analysis were 10% barium
chloride solution, 1% silver nitrate solution, and saturated bromine
water. To prepare the latter, 100 ml of water was added to a reagent
bottle and chilled. After the water was thoroughly chilled, approxi-
mately 4 ml of chilled liquid bromine was added.
The analysis for sulphur dioxide was performed as follows: The two
impinger solutions were combined and the volume was carefully measured.
The combined solutions were transferred to a 250 ml volumetric flask
and diluted to volume with water. A suitable aliquot was taken arid
checked for alkalinity with litmus paper. Saturated bromine water
was added in excess and the solution was boiled for 5 minutes. Then
the solution was neutralized with concentrated hydrochloric acid and
about 2 ml excess was added. The boiling was continued until all
the free bromine was expelled. Water was added to maintain the volume.
The solution was free of bromine when a drop of methyl red indicator
did not decolorize on the addition of water to the solution. The
solution was filtered and heated to boiling temperature. Hot 10%
barium chloride was added until no more precipitate was formed and
the precipitate was digested at 60°C for several hours. The pre-
cipitate was collected by filtration using ashless filter paper and
washed with distilled water until the filtrate was free of chloride
ion. This was determined when the addition of a few drops of 1%
silver nitrate produced no turbidity in the filtrate. The filter
paper was placed in a tared crucible, ignited at 800°C, cooled in
125
-------
a dessicator and weighed. The difference in weight of the crucible
from the tare weight was recorded as the weight of barium sulfate
equivalent to the sulphur dioxide in the sample.
6. Aldehydes
Aldehydes were collected using the impinger train as shown in Figure
2 and determined using a slight modification of the method in Regula-
tion 3, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, page 40. The follow-
ing reagents were required for the laboratory analysis:
a. ChronwtTopic acid (r,5-dihydroxy -2,7-napthalene-disulfonic
acid, disodium salt), 0.5% solution in distilled water.
This solution was kept refrigerated and prepared fresh
every week.
b. Concentrated sulfuric acid.
The volume of liquid in the impingers was measured and recorded. The
liquid and washings were transferred to a 250 ml volumetric flask and
diluted to volume with distilled water. When the liquid was cloudy,
it was filtered before an aliquot was taken. A suitable aliquot was
transferred to a 25 ml graduated cylinder. 0.2 ml of chromotropic
acid solution was added and the solution was mixed well. Then, 5 ml
of concentrated sulfuric acid was carefully added to the cylinder and
the solution was mixed again. The mixture developed a violet color
when aldehydes were present. The cylinder was placed in a hot water
bath for 15 minutes to fully develop the color. It was cooled, diluted
to 10 ml with water, and cooled again. The absorbance of the solution
was read on a spectrophotometer at 580 my against a blank which was
prepared in the same manner as the sample using 0.5% sodium bisulfite
solution. The aldehyde content was determined from a. standard curve.
7. Carbonyls
Carbonyls were collected using the impinger train shown in Figure 2
and determined using a slight modification of the method in Regula-
tion 3, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, page 30.
Each of the first two impingers in the sampling train contained 100 ml
of 0.5% sodium bisulfite, while the third was operated dry to catch any
carry-over spray and to protect the gas meter. An ice bath was used to
cool the impingers. A stainless steel sampling probe of a suitable size
was used. All equipment was tested for proper operation and freedom
from leaks.
The sampling rate did not exceed one cubic foot per minute. The data
recorded during sampling included:
a. Time (clock) of test and data recordings
b. Gas meter reading, ft3 (initial)
c. Gas meter vacuum, in. Hg.
d. Gas meter temperature, °F
-------
At the completion of sampling, the pump was shut off and the train
allowed to come to atmospheric pressure before disconnecting the
vacuum line. The final gas meter reading was recorded. The impingers
and associated tubing were suitably sealed for transfer to the labora-
tory. The condensate in the probe and inlet tubing was allowed to flow
into the first impinger.
The total volume of liquid contained in the impinger was carefully
measured. The difference from the initial volume was recorded as the
condensate volume. The impingers and associated tubing were carefully
rinsed with small portions of distilled water, the liquid and washings
being kept in a flask. Since aliquots were to be taken for analysis,
the combined liquid and washings were made up to an exact volume. The
size of the aliquot depended on the expected carbonyl content. The
following reagents were needed:
a. 0.1 N iodine solution (does not need to be standardized).
b. 0.005 N iodine solution. This solution was prepared by
diluting 50 ml of 0.1 N iodine solution to one liter and
was standardized with 0.05 N Na2S203.
c. 0.05 N Na2S2C>3. This solution was prepared with freshly
boiled and cooled distilled water and standardized against
potassium dichromate (primary standard).
d. 1% starch solution.
e. Buffer solution, pH 9.6. Dissolved 80 g of sodium carbonate
in 500 ml of distilled water; added 20 ml of glacial acetic
acid and dilute to 1 liter; adjusted the pH to 9.6 (±0.1)
with sodium carbonate (or acetic acid) using a pH meter.
A suitable aliquot of the sample was pipetted into a 250 ml Erlenmeyer
flask. When the liquid was cloudy, it was filtered before the aliquot
was taken. A milliliter of starch solution was added slowly from a
burette until a blue color was produced. The solution was decolorized
with 0.05 N Na2S203 and 0.005 N I2 was added until a faint blue color
was obtained. 50 ml of buffer solution was added to the solution. It
was mixed well and allowed to stand for 15 minutes, then the solution
was titrated with 0.005 N I2 using the starch indicator until" the blue
endpoint was reached. A blank of 0.5% sodium bisulfite solution was
made up and run in parallel with the sample.
8. Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons were determined using the Infrared Absorption method
5.4.8.1 in the Los Angeles Source Testing Manual.
The absorption of infrared radiation by a gas furnished a means of
determining the concentration of various components in the sample.
In the case of hydrocarbons, the APCD method was used based on the
analysis of total hydrocarbons to the point of maximum absorption
127
-------
in the range of 3 to 4y, usually close to 3.45y. Normal hexane was
selected as the calibration standard for the infrared spectrophoto-
meters used by the APCD; hence, the analyses of unknown samples are
reported in terms of parts per million by volume, as n-hexane,
Hexane was selected because it is the standard comparison for organic
vapors as commonly used in air pollution studies for auto exhausts
and ambient air monitoring. Hydrocarbons, together with aldehydes
and carbonyls gives a cross-section of organic vapors present.
The lower limit of the method, using one-meter absorption cells and
pressures near atmospheric is about 10 parts per million by volume
of hydrocarbons, expressed as hexane.
This method also has been routinely used for many years for the
analysis of gas samples from various industrial sources, hydro-
carbons differing greatly in structure from hexane (methane, ech;;..«,,
propane, the corresponding olefins, acetylene, and aromatic hydro-
carbons) are not effectively measured.
Grab samples of stack gas were collected with evacuated dry flasks.
The total hydrocarbons were determined by absorption at the 3.45u
wavelength, using an infrared spectrophotometer calibrated for
n-hexane, the absorbance readings calculated to parts per million
by volume of hexane.
One-lier round bottom flasks, were used for sampling. Prior to
sampling, the clean dry flasks were evacuated to 1 mm Hg (or less)
absolute pressure, the screw clamp closed, and the solid glass plus
inserted into the open end of the tubing until ready for use.
Sampling itself was performed in the same manner as described for
oxides of nitrogen. However, stainless steel tubing was used for
sample line, to eliminate the rubber tubing.
Standards were calibrated by plotting known concentrations of hexane
(in nitrogen) vs absorbance at 3.45y. Concentrations of 25, 75, and
150 ppm hexane were seen in a 10 cm gas cell on a 20x scale expansion
using the Perkin-Elmer, Model 21, Infra-Red Spectrophotometer. To
remove water and carbon dioxide from the gases, the one liter flask
was connected to the gas cell through a small tube containing Ascarite.
The cell was evacuated before opening the stopcock to the sample flask.
The final pressure of the system and the transmission values at the
selected wavelengths were recorded. The hdyrocarbon concentration,
in ppm by volume, was calculated from the calibration curve.
9. Nitrogen Oxides
Oxides of nitrogen were determined by method 5.4.5 in the Los Angeles
Source Testing Manual.
Samples were collected by grab sampling, using evacuated flasks con-
taining a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid.
-------
The hydrogen peroxide oxidized the lower oxides of nitrogen (with the
exception of nitrous oxide) to nitric acid. The resultant solution
was evaporated to dryness and treated with phenoldisulfonic acid
reagent and ammonium hydroxide. The yellow trialkali salt of 6-nitro-
l-phenol-2,4-disulfonic acid which formed, was measured colorimetrically.
The procedure is effective for the determination of total oxides of
nitrogen in industrial effluents where the concentration range is five
to several thousand parts per million. Results were expressed as
nitrogen dioxide.
One-lier round bottom flasks, were used for sampling. Twenty five
ml of 0.1 N sulfuric acid, containing 0.5 ml of 3% hydrogen peroxide,
were added to each flask. The hydrogen peroxide was freshly prepared
daily from acetanilide free, 30% hydrogen peroxide, which was stored
under refrigeration. The flask was evacuated to the vapor pressure of
the solution, the screw clamp closed, and the solid glass plug inserted
into the open end of the tubing until ready for sampling.
The inlet tube of the flask was connected to a three-way stopcock
attached to the sampling line. A glass wool filter plug was placed
in the sampling line, and an aspirator bulb was used for flushing the
sample probe and tubing with stack gas just prior to sampling. Suffi-
cient flushing was employed to raise the temperature of the sampling
line above the dew point of the stack gases. The screw clamp was
opened to admit gas to the evacuated flask and when the flow of gas
ceased, the screw clamp was closed and the glass plug reinserted into
the short rubber tube of the flask.
The sealed collection flasks were shaken thoroughly with frequent
rotation to provide a thorough scrubbing action to ensure complete
oxidation and absorption of the oxides of nitrogen by the solution.
When absorption was complete, the oxides of nitrogen (except nitrous
oxide) were converted to nitric acid.
The special reagents required for analysis of the absorbing solutions
were sodium hydroxide solution (approximately 1.0 N), phenoldisulfonic
acid solution, and standard potassium nitrate solutions. The reagents
were prepared as follows:
a. 1.0 N sodium hydroxide solution: Dissolved 40 g of sodium
hydroxide pellets in water, and diluted to one.
b. Phenoldisulfonic acid solution: Dissolved 25 g of pure
white phenol in 150 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid
(sp. gr. 1.84) on a steam bath; cooled and 75 ml of fuming
sulfuric acid (15 - 18% by weight of free sulfuric anhydride)
added. Heated at 100°C for two hours and stored in a brown
glass stoppered bottle. (Phenoldisulfonic acid solution
may also be prepared by adding 40 ml of phenoldisulfonic
acid to 222 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid.)
The temperature and absolute gas pressure in each flask were recorded
and the contents were rinsed into a 200 ml beaker using three 15 ml
portions of water. A blank was prepared using the same amount of
129
-------
absorbing solution and wash water as used for each sampling flask.
1 N sodium hydroxide was added to the sample and the blank until each
solution was just alkaline to litmus paper. Each solution was evapo-
rated to dryness and cooled. 2 ml of phenoldisulfonic acid solution
were added to the residue which was triturated thoroughly using a glass
rod to make sure all of it came into contact with the acid. 1 ml of
water and 4 drops of sulfuric acid were added and the solution was
heated and cooled. Then, 20 ml of water were added to it. 10 ml of
ammonium hydroxide were added with constant stirring. The solution
and washings were transferred to a 50 ml volumetric flask and diluted
to volume with water. The absorptions of the solution and the blank
were read on a spectrophotometer at 420 my. The weight of nitrogen
dioxide (milligrams) was determined from a standpoint calibration curve
which was prepared from standard solutions treated in the same manner
as the samples.
10. Odor
Odor was determined using method 6.1 as described in the Los Angeles
Source Testing Manual.
Because no comparable mechanical or chemical detector has yet been
developed, methods of odor detection and comparison must rely on
the sense of smell. In view of the fact that the response of the
human olfactory system does not allow an absolute or quantitative
measurement of odor intensity, only relative intensities of odors
were compared. Relative levels were determined by comparing the
dilutions to which each of two or more odorous gases must be sub-
jected in order that equal odor intensities result. As individuals
vary widely in their relative sensitivity to odors, test panels
were used, and the comparisons of relative odor intensities were
made by diluting each odor to its limit of detectability, called
the odor threshold.
The method used was based upon the ASTM Standard Method D 1391-57,
termed Standard Method for Measurement of Odor in Atmospheres
(Dilution Method). The technique disregards the character, causes,
or absolute concentration of the odor-producing constituents in a
sample. However, since the odor measurement is relative, the
method can be used for determining the odor removal efficiency of
odor control equipment by measuring the relative odor intensities
of the inlet and exit gases.
A sample of the odorous gas was diluted with odor free air to the
point where an odor could be detected by only 50 per cent of a
selected test panel. The ratio of the total volume of diluted
sample available to the panelist for test to the volume of the
original sample represented in this diluted sample was a measure
of the concentration of odor in the original sample.
The sample was collected in an evacuated 250 ml gas collection
tube. The sample probe was flushed with a pump before the sample
-------
was taken. The tube was connected to the probe and opened to
allow the gas to enter. Then the tube was sealed for delivery to
the laboratory.
A portion of the contaminated air sample (50 ml or more) was trans-
ferred from the 250-ml gas collection tube to a 100-ml syringe
equipped with an 18-gauge hypodermic needle. Mercury from a reser-
voir displaced the sample in the tube. The 18-gauge needle was held
in the ball joint with a cork stopper. Transfer was as rapid as
possible to minimize any possible chemical reaction with the mercury.
A 10 ml portion of the undiluted odor sample in the syringe was next
transferred to a second 100-ml syringe using another 18-jjauge needle.
The seal between these two syringes was made by a cork stopper. The
10 ml sample in the second syringe was then diluted with fresh air
to 100 ml, yielding an odor dilution factor of 10. Additional dilu-
tions using 10 ml or more of the last diluted sample were then simi-
larly made to desired concentrations. The final dilution was made
in the individual 100-ml syringe assigned to each panel member.
While the panel member drew back the plunger, 10 ml of the diluted
sample was injected into his syringe through an 18-gauge hypodermic
needle. The panelist then drew back the plunger to the 100-ml mark
and waited approximately 10 seconds for diffusion to be complete.
The sample was then expelled into the nostril, with breathing sus-
pended, over a period of two to three seconds. A record (yes or no)
was made as to whether an odor was perceived in the diluted sample.
As indicated by the ASTM method, successive dilutions of the original
odor were presented to the panel in a random order. The dilution at
which only 50 per cent of the panel could detect an odor corresponded
to the odor threshold concentration. Precautions were taken not to
destroy the odor sensitivity of the panelist by needlessly subject-
ing them to high odor concentrations or without allowing for adequate
rest periods.
11. Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Carbon Monoxide
Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide were determined by an
Orsat type analysis. Samples were taken in the field with the Fyrite
Gas Analyzer manufactured by Bacharach Instrument Company. Oxygen
and carbon dioxide were determined by absorbing the flue gases into
the Fyrite solution in the analyzer. Before sampling, the probe was
thoroughly flushed with flue gas by vacuum pumping. The analyzer was
used in accordance with the manufacturer's directions. Carbon monoxide
was determined with the Bacharach "Monoxor", a carbon monoxide indi-
cator tube.
12. Water Content
The water content of the stack gas was determined from condensate
in the impinger train since the ambient air temperature was too low
to allow moisture determinations by the wet and dry bulb method.
131
-------
13. Ringelmann Readings, Fuel Consumption, Fire Box Temperature, Percent
Burn-Out
Ringelmann readings were obtained by visual comparison with a Micro
Ringelmann Chart by trained observers. The readings shown in the
report are the maximum observed during the testing.
Fuel consumption was determined by gas meter reading on the auxiliary
fuel burner.
Fire box temperatures were determined by thermocouple and pyrometer
with the thermocouple inserted 18 inches into the incinerator through
the fire box door.
Percent burn-out was done by visual estimate of the total refuse left
at the conclusion of each test.
-------
TABLE I. TEST NO. 1--INCINERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated as normal; five samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft8)
Elapsed Sampling Time (tnin.)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
COb (%)
0B (%)
CO (%)
N8 (%)
HgO (%)
SOX (ppm)
NO* (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm;
NH3 (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft9
Total -Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3]
1 2
12/27/68 12/27/68
40 40
30.2k 30.24
5 . 06 5 - 06
30 30
9-34 13.07
298 277
2836 3968
28.81 28.65
0. 1 0
20 21
0 0
79 79
1.30 1.82
1.49 1.22
41.7 19.7
2.60 1.80
8.21 6.22
210 200
<10 35
120 10
5, 7
0.22 0.30
28.28 24.40
28.50 24.70
44.09 37.00
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3) 30.59 26.62
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles <(grams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
0.0257 0.0269
0.16 0.17
3
12/27/68
40
30.24
5.06
30
275
28.83
0.5
21
0
78.5
0.79
0
5-7
0.09
0.58
150
75
33
1
.0.04
14.47
14.51
21.85
15.64
O.OQ50
0.03
Particulate Loading (No. particles x Kf/min)
Beginning of test 14.58 51.03
Ending of test
Ringelmann (units)
<7-29 <7-29
1.5 1.0
<7.29
2.0
133
-------
TABLE I. TEST NO. 1 — INC INERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (Cont'd)
(incinerator charged at design capacity and operated as normal; five samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft3)
Elapsed Sampling Time fmin)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CO, (%)
Ob (%)
CO (%)
Hs (%)
W (%)
SOx (ppm)
NOx (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
NH3 (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICIPATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3!
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (fta!
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft*]
4 5
12/27/68 1/2/69
40 40
30.24 29.93
5.06 5.06
30 30
13.35
275 152
4053
28.65 28.77
0 0.5
21 21
00
79 78.5
1.72 1.35
0 0.67
28.3
2.48 0.87
6.86 2.75
190
<10 <10
2000 50
3 5
0.13 0.22
10.00 27.07
10.13 27.29
1 15.32 34.08
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3) 10.96 28.99
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
0.0062 0.0063
0.04 0.04
Particulate Loading (No. particles x ICf/min)
Beginning of test 29.16
Ending of test
Ringelmann (units)
<7.29 7.29
2.5 0.5
Denotes no sample.
-------
TABLE II. TEST NO. 2—INC INERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at tenant charging rate and operated as normal;
three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (lF)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack Area (ft2)
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (° F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
C02 (%)
02 (%)
CO (%)
NB (%)
HsO (%)
SOx (ppm)
NOX (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
1 2
1/2/69 1/2/69
60 60
29.90 29.90
5.06 5.06
30 30
12.80 15.63
103 133
3886 4745
28.90 28.50
1 1
20 17
0 0
79 82
0.55 3.17
0 2.08
25.9 27.5
1.68 0.89
5.64 3.10
3
1/2/69
60
29.90
^06
30
150
28.53
0.5
20.5
0
79
3.36
1.98
23.8
1.57
6.02
Hydrocarbons (ppm) <10 <10 <10
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3^
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3!
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3!
100 100
0 12
0 0.53
24.05 20.35
24.05 20.88
27.63 25.06
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3) 25.52 21.98
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
f i rst 15 mins of test
last 15 mins of test
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
first 15 mins of test
last 15 mins of test
0.0074 0.0115
—a 0.0153
0.05 0.07
— a 0.10
Particulate Loading (No. particles x ICP/min)
Beginning of test 72.9 25.52
Ending of test
Ringelmann (units)
<7.29
2.5 1.5
300
12
0.53
18.07
18.60
23.16
19.74
0.0151
0.0113
0.09
0.07
<7.29
<7.29
0.5
a
Thimble chipped during testing of sample number 1.
135
-------
TABLE III. TEST NO. 3" INC INERATOR Ca STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at underload rate and operated as normal; three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (lb)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack Area (ft? )
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (° F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
C02 (%)
^ (%)
CO. (%)
Na (%)
h^O (%)
SOx (ppm)
1
1/24/69
20
30.04
5.06
30
10.09
117
3063
28.39
0
21
0
79
4.13
2.1
2
1/24/69
20
30.03
5.06
31
8.50
237
2581
28.58
0.5
20
0
79.5
2.81
0.5
3
1/24/69
20
30.03
5.06
30
10.02
225
3042
28.54
0.5
21
0
78.5
3.48
0.5
NOx (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft?)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Conditions (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3)
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x IGP/min)
Beginning of test
End! ng of test
Ringelmann (in its)
1. 1
1.9
<10
20
13
0.58
17.18
17.76
20.41
18.47
0.1588
0.99
<7.29
0.5
0.98
1.4
<10
50
10
0.45
23.04
23.49
32.55
24.37
0.0073
0.04
14.58
0.5
0.11
0.64
<10
20
15
0.67
26.24
26.91
36.50
27.81
0.0299
0.19
7.29
0.5
-------
TABLE IV. TEST NO. 4-- INC I NERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated with no overfire ai
three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weiqht (ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft2)
Elapsed Samplinq Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (° F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (ib/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CCL, (%)
Oa (%)
CO (%)
t (%)
H20 (%)
SOx (ppm)
N0,c (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppml
Carbonyls (ppm)
1
1/4/69
40
30.09
5.06
30
6.48
271
1967
28.93
0.5
20.5
0
79
0.60
0
19.7
0.81
5.06
2
1/4/69
40
30.09
5.06
30
6.37
283
1934
3.51
3.06
29.9
0.90
6.00
r3;
3
1/4/69
40
30.07
5.06
20.5
9.62
231
2921
28.68
0
20.5
0
79.5
1.33
3.04
26.8
2.80
9.20
Hydrocarbons (ppm) <10 <10 "^lO
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft8)
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled. Standard Conditions (ft3)
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x lOymin)
Beqinninq of test
End i ng of test
Rinqelmann (units)
20
0
0
22.54
22.54
33.49
23.97
0.0251
0. 16
14.58
<7.29
1.5
20
15
0.65
21.27
21.92
33.24
23.41
0.0188
0. 12
14.58
<7.29
1.0
100
5
0.22
27.46
27.68
39.03
29.54
0.0334
0.21
14.58
<72.9b
2.0
Fan off, damper closed. Hopper door to chute opened by tenant.
137
-------
TABLE IV. TEST NO. 4— I NCI NERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (Cont'd)
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated with 50% overfire air8;
three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
1
1/4/69
Sample Weight (Ib) 40
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.) 30.08
Stack Area (fts) 5.06
Elapsed Sampling Time (min) 30
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 12.67
Av. Gas Temp (° F) 231
Gas Flow Rate (cfm) 3847
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/ft3) 28.77
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
C03 (%) 1
°2 fifl
CO (%)
It. (%)
HgO (%)
SOx (ppm'
NOj^ Jjjgm
20
0.05
78. 95
1.81
1.20
15.0
Aldehydes (ppm) 3.2
Car bony Is (ppm) 11.15
2
1/7/69
40
29.41
5.06
30
9.11
239
2766
28.73
1
20
0
79
2.07
2.33
35.0
2.0
1.0
3
1/7/69
40
29.39
5.06
30
14.74
245
4475
28.52
1
20.5
0
78.5
Z.Ik
2.5
29.3
1.65
6.27
Hydrocarbons (ppm) <10 <10 <10
Odor (un
ts/ft3) 50
20
33
PART ICULATE EMISSION DATA;
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Total Vol. Sampled. Meter Condition (ft?)
26.22
25.69
10
Vol.
Vol.
of Water Vapor,
of Gas
Sampled .
Meter
Meter
Cond
Cond
i tion
it ion
(ft3)
(ft^
0.22
26.00
0.
25.
32
37
0.
28.
46
13
28.55
Vol. of Gas Sampled. Stack Condition (ft3)
35.95
35.91
39.6E
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3)
27.22
26.28
28.77
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
0.0192
0.0337 0.0085
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
0.12
0.21
0.05
Particulate Loading(No.
Beg i nn i nq of tes t
part ic 1 es x 1CP /minj
Erid ing of test
<7.29
RjngeImann (units)
1.5
25.52
1.1
14.58
1.5
Damper half closed
-------
TABLE IV. TEST NO. 4—INCINERATOR Ca STACK EMISSION DATA (Cont'd)
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated with full overfire aira;
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
1
1 /7/69
Sample Weight (Ib) 40
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.J 29.37
Stack Area (ft3)
Elapsed Sampling
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity
5.06
Time (min) 30
(ft/sec) 9.22
Av. Gas Temp (° F) 254
Gas Flow Rate (cfm) 2799
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft3) 28.71
2
1/7/69
40
29.35
5.06
12
6.53
259
1983
28.78
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
COjg pO 0.5 1
Ob (%)
CO (%)
NB (%)
HaO (%)
SOx (ppm)
NO* (ppm)
Aldehydes
Carbony Is
20.5
0
79
1.77
1.94
31.7
|ppm) 2 . 1
'ppm) 9.46
21
0
78
2.04
5.8
26.4
3.5
13.0
3
1/7/69
40
29.34
5.06
30
6.49
246
1970
28.69
1
20
0
79
2.44
1.5
35.7
3.1
12.2
Hydrocarbons (ppm) <10 <10 <10
Odor (units/ft3) 50
50
16
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Particulate Emission rate (ib/hr)
0.23
0.68
10
Vol. of
Vol. of
Water Vapor,
Gas
Total Vol.
Vol. of
Vol. of
Net Wt.
Gas
Gas
Gai
Sampled
Sampled ,
Sampled
Sampled
|
•
Meter
Meter
Meter
Stack
Condition (ft3
Condition (ft3
Condition (ft3)
Condition (ft3'
0
26
26
37
, Standard Conditions (ft3) 26
n from Th
imbles
(grams)
0
.23
.17
.40
.55
.86
.0365
0.
26.
26.
38.
27-
0.
32
16
48
08
°?
0436
0,
27-
28.
39.
28.
0.
46
77
23
86
81
0424
0.26
Particulate Loading (No.
Beginning of test
particles x 10°/min)
7.29
Ending of test
Ringelmann (units)
3
2.0
14.58
1.0
14.58
1.5
Damper completely opened.
139
-------
TABLE V. TEST NO. 5"INC INERATOR Ca STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated with no auxiliary fuel;
three samples.)
GENERAL DATA;
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft2)
Elapsed Sampl inq Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (° F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CCfe (%)
o8 (%)
CO («)
HZ (%)
HgO (%)
soi< (PP™)
N0« (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm'
Carbonyls (ppm;
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft"3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3)
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x ICP/mln)
Beqinninq of test
End inq of test
Rinqelmann (units)
1
1/15/69
40
30.27
5.06
30
B. 12
114
2465
28.91
1
19-5
0.1
79.4
0.60
9.4
7.6
1.8
8.7
<10
100
0
0
23.95
23.95
27.94
25.61
0.0452
0.28
<7.29
2.5
2
1/15/69
40
30.27
5.06
30
5.67
104
1721
0.76
0.8
22.4
1.9
8.2
<10
25
0
0
23.42
23.42
26.52
24.74
0.0237
0.15
14.58
1.5
3
1/15/69
40
30.25
5.06
30
5.80
126
1761
29.25
1
20
0
79
1.61
2.7
30.7
2.1
8.6
<10
25
5
0.22
25.39
25.61
30. 14
27.04
0.0295
0.18
7.29
2.0
-------
TABLE V. TEST NO. 5—INC INERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (Cont'd.)
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and auxiliary fuel supplied for
10 minutes; three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq. )
Stack Area (ft2 )
Elapsed Sam pi inq Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp C°f)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CO, (%)
0, (%)
CO (%)
It (%)
HBO (%)
SO, (ppm)
NO, (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
Hydrocarbons fppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PART ICU LATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled. Meter Condition (ft3)
Total Vo
-------
TABLE V. TEST NO. 5--INCINERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (Cont'd.)
(incinerator charged at design capacity and operated with auxiliary fuel supplied for
30 minutes; three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft8)
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (oF)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/fts)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CCX, (%)
02 (%)
CO (%)
Ng (%)
h^O (%)
1
1/17/69
40
30.53
5.06
30
8.91
233
2705
28.67
1
20
0
79
2.62
2
1/17/69
40
30.52
5.06
30
7.85
254
2383
28.55
0.5
20
0.1
79.4
3.06
3
1/17/69
40
30.48
5.06
30
6.45
264
1958
28.61
0.5
20
0. 1
79.4
2.46
SOx (ppm!
NO,, (ppm!
1.1
10.4
Aldehydes (ppm
Car bony Is (ppm!
0.89
2.8
28.6
43.7
3.0
12.7
0.9
26.6
3.1
17.9
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vo-K of Water Condensed (ccj
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3^
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3T
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3)
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (lb/nr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x 10s /min)
Beginning of test
<10
100
10
0.44
26.91
27.35
37.46
28.68
0.0090
0.06
14.58
<10
133
10
0.45
24.40
24.85
34.65
25.74
0.0210
0.13
7,29
<10
200
7
0.31
26.05
26.36
37.27
27.27
0.0207
0.13
7.29
Ending of test
Rinqelmann (units)
1.0
0.5
1.5
142
-------
TABLE VI. TEST NO. 6—INC INERATOR C, STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated as normal but with
fuel flame defected at 45« angle; three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack -Area (f & )
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp («F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/ft?)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
C02 (%)
02 (%)
CO (%)
rfe (%)
HaO (%)
SOx (ppm)
NOx (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PART ICU LATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition i
1
1/24/69
40
29.99
5.06
30
7.41
226
2250
28.63
0.5
21
0
78.5
2.70
1.0
2.0
6.6
<10
500
11
ff^) 0.49
ft0) 27.62
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3) 28.11
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3) 38.26
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft?) 29.07
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles
Beginning of test
Ending of test
Rinqelmann (units)
0.0256
0. 16
x ICP/min)
25.52
2.0
2
1/24/69
40
29.95
5.06
30
8.48
155
2575
28.72
1
20.5
0
78.5
2.37
0.8
1.1
3.3
<10
50
8
0.36
25.05
25.41
31.01
26.24
0.0171
0.11
<7.29
2.5
aux! 1 iary
3
1/24/69
40
29.96
5.06
30
7.63
275
2316
28.76
1.5
20.5
0. 1
77.9
2.71
1.7
2.8
0.77
2.6
<10
100
10
0.45
27.44
27.89
40.67
28.81
0.0238
0.15
7.29
t.5
143
-------
TABLE VII. TEST NO. 7--INCINERATOR C« STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at various rates with refuse of random composition
operated as normal; five samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft8)
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (oF)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (1b/fta)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
COL, (%)
Ob (%)
CO (%)
HZ (%)
HaO (%)
SO* (ppm)
NOx (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PART ICU LATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft8)'
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Conditions (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3)
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x ICP/min)
Beginning of test
Endinq of test
Rinqelmann (units)
1
2/V69
4
29.64
5.06
30
6.83
217
20J4
28.79
0.5
19
0
80.5
0.53
0
4.5a
0
0.4
<10
20
0
0
20.80
20.80
28.80
21.91
~D
_.b
<7.29
0
2
2/4/69
16
29.63
5.06
30
7.32
161
2222
28.60
0.5
19
0
80.5
2.25
0
10.5
0.6
0.9
<10
100
7
0.31
18.80
19.11
24.02
19.92
0.0023
0.01
<7.29
0.5
and
3
2/4/69
30
29.63
5.06
30
8.31
252
2523
28.57
0.5
19
0
80.5
2.54
1.1
27.4
2.2
8.0
<10
100
10
0.45
23.18
23.63
34.06
24.63
0.0146
0.09
<7.29
1.0
Absorbing solution froze during testing of sample number 1
'Refuse sample did not ignite.
-------
TABLE VU. TEST NO. 7"INC INERATOR C, STACK EMISSION DATA (Cont'd.)
(incinerator charged at various rates with r
operated as normal; five samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft3)
Elapsed Sampl inq Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate icfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (Ib/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CO, (%)
Os (%)
CO (%)
"z (%)
HaO (%)
SO* (ppm)
N0» l.ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft*)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3 ^
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3}
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Conditions (ft3
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (qrams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x 1(
Beq inn inq of test
End inq of test
Rinqelmann (units)
•efuse of random composition and
4 5
2/4/69 2/4/69
40 60
29.64 29.65
5.06 5.06
45 45
10.41 9.48
268 251
3160 2878
28.53 28.66
0.5 1.5
18.5 18.5
0 0
81 80
2.70 2.86
2.0 0.2
9.8 32.2
3.7 1.9
22.14 l*f. 14
<10 <10
333 200
10 10
0.45 O.kk
21.81 1Q.15
2? 26 1Q S9
) 12.74 28. 31
(ft3) 23.17 20.51
0.0511 0.0446
0.21 0.19
f /min)
25.52 14.58
1.0 2.0
145
-------
TABLE VIII. TEST NO. 8— I NC I NERATOR Ca STACK EMISSION DATA
(Incinerator charged at various rates with refuse of random composition and
operated as normal ; f lye samples, )
GENERAL DATA
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack Area (ft8)
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/fta)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
COa (%)
02 (%)
CO (%)
It (%)
^0 (%)
1
2/6/69
4
29.99
5.06
30
13.96
163
4238
28.79
0.5
20
0
79.5
0.84
2
2/6/69
16
29.98
5.06
30
8.36
216
2538
28.69
0.5
19
0
80.5
1.37
3
2/6/69
30
29.97
5.06
30
9.79
240
2972
28.69
0.5
20
0
79.5
1.68
SO,
NO* 1
'ppm.
PP"
0.
5.
Aldehydes (ppm
Carbonyls (ppm
0
0.
I
5
4
1.
24.
0
0.
1
1
8
0.
21.
2.
6,
6
6
1
4
Hydrocarbons (pm)
Odor {units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft*]
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3.
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3!
5
0
0
15.43
15.43
19.23
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3) 16.08
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
--a
__a
Particulate Loading (No. particles x ICf/min)
Beginning of test <7.29
Ending of test
Ringelmann (units)
0
200
4
0.18
26.73
26.91
36.68
28.27
0.0109
0.07
<7.29
0.5
100
6
0.26
25.30
25.56
36.22
26.95
0.0077
0.05
<7.29
1.0
Refuse sampled did not ignite.
-------
TABLE VIM. TEST NO. 8—INCINERATOR Ca STACK EMISSION DATA (cont'd)
(Incinerator charged at various rates with refuse of random composition and
operated as normal; five samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack Area (ft2)
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
COL, (%)
QS (%)
CO (%)
MS (%)
HaO (%)
SOx (ppm)
N0« (ppm)
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
4
2/6/69
40
29.94
5.06
45
6. 70
196
2034
28.72
0.5
19.5
0
80
1.27
1.7
25.1
2.0
7.4
5
2/6/69
60
29.92
5.06
^l>
6.72
150
2040
28.56
O.i
20.5
0
79
3.20
0.4
19.0
3.0
28.5
Hydrocarbons (ppm) <10 <10
Odor (units/fr)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft8)
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft8)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft3)
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles x ICT/min)
Beginning of test
200
7
0.31
50.16
50.47
67.02
53.16
0.0336
0. 14
36.45
iOO
11
0.49
19.53
20.02
24.52
20.90
0.0418
0. 17
36.45
Ending of test
Rinqelmann (units)
2.0
2«
. u
147
-------
TABLE IX. TEST NO. 9— INCINERATOR Ct STACK EMISSION DATA
(incinerator charged at design capacity and operated as normal; three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hq.)
Stack Area (ft8)
Elapsed Sampling Time (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft8)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
CO, (%)
OB (%)
CO (%)
Ng (%)
HaO (%)
SOx (ppm'
NO, (ppm,a
Aldehydes (ppm(
Car bony Is (ppm,
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units ft2)
PARTICULATE EMMfSStON DATA
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition
1
1/28/69
40
30.7**
5.06
30
10.49
238
5'55
28.86
1
19
0
80
0.54
0.5
3.2
0.3
1.4
10
3
0
ft*) 0
'fta) 23.94
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft8) 23.9**
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft5) 31.10
Vol. of Gas Sampled. Standard Conditions (ft3) 26.10
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Particulate Loading (No. particles
Beqinninq of test
Ending of test
Ringelmann (units)
— D
— b
x 10° /min)
7.29
1.5
2
1/28/69
40
30.73
5.06
30
8.82
252
2678
28.72
0.5
19.5
0
80
1.29
0.4
3.0
1.3
5.7
<10
4
4
0.17
23. y*
24.11
34.89
26.17
0.0116
0.07
14.58
1.0
3
1/28/69
40
30.71
5.06
30
9.40
179
2854
28.72
0.5
20
0
79.5
1.45
0.6
2.8
1.2
6.0
10
50
5
0.21
23.94
24.15
31.37
26.20
0.0131
0.08
14.58
2.0
Freezing of absorbing solution resulted in low values reported.
Refuse sample did not ignite.
148
-------
TABLE NO. X. PARTICULATE LOADING AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION (TESTS NO.'s 1 through 9)
Test Sample Exposed
No.
1
2
3
4C
4d
4e
5f
59
5h
bBe«
No.
if
1°
2a
2^
3
^iw
h
I3
2f
2b
3d
3b
,b
2a
3d
la
r
2.
2b
3a
3b
lb
2a
3a
la
2a
3d
,b
2"
3b
,b
2a
3a
la
2a
3a
jinn ing
Ending of
Area (\n.s)
7
6
6
8
7
8
7
7
6
7
5
6
6
4
4
4
6
7
7
5
5
7
6
6
5
6
6
6
4
4
5
4
4
4
7
7
6
of test.
test.
Particles/in.3 Percent Exposed Area
(<20 M-)
10,000
5,000
3,500
2,500
5,000
7,500
2,500
5,000
10,000
7,500
12,500
10,000
10,000
1 ,000
3,000
2,000
7,500
10,000
10,000
12,500
12,500
10,000
1,500
3,500
5,500
2,000
2,000
2,000
3,000
2,000
1 ,000
5,000
4,000
6,000
1 ,000
3,000
2,000
^2. 5mm
8
6
10
5
8
10
7
8
10
20
15
iO
15
1
f*
0
10
10
10
5
10
10
20
10
15
40
35
45
5
5
5
10
15
5
10
1
5
®Full
2.5 to 0.5mm
7
9
5
5
7
10
8
5
10
2
£
5
5
2
I
3
2
3
3
5
3
3
0
5
3
10
10
10
2
3
4
3
0
7
0
5
3
overfire air.
Covered by Particles
1.5 to 0. 1mm
5
5
5
10
0
5
5
7
5
0
2
5
2
1
o
2
3
5
2
5
2
2
i
1
I
5
10
0
3
2
2
2
H
3
0
4
2
<0. 1mm
80
80
80
80
85
75
80
80
75
78
78
80
78
96
97
95
85
82
85
85
85
85
79
84
8!
45
45
45
90
90
89
85
84
85
90
90
'No auxi 1 iary fiuel.
.No overfire air.
50
% overf
ire air.
£Auxi
Auxi
1 iary fuel on
1 iary fuel on
for 10 minutes.
for 30 minutes.
149
-------
TABLE NO. X. PARTICULATE LOADING AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION (TESTS NO.'s 1 through 9) Cont'd.
Test
No.
6
7
8
91
Sample
No.
la
2b
3a
la
2a
3a
ka
5a
la
2a
3a
k
5a:
la
2a
3a
Exposed
Area (in.8)
6
6
7
6
5
7
7
6
6
8
9
8
8
7
8
8
Particles/in.8
(<20 n)
3,500
3,500
3,500
<1 ,000
1,500
5,000
7,500
10.000
<1 ,000
2,000
5,000
7,500
10.000
2,000
2,000
2.000
Percent
s2.5mm
15
15
15
0
1
10
15
20
0
1
5
10
5
30
25
20
Exposed Area
2.5 to 0.5mm
5
10
8
0
5
10
10
15
0
5
10
20
20
5
10
15
Covered
1.5 to
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
10
10
10
12
5
5
5
by Particles
0. 1mm <0. 1mm
75
70
72
0
89
75
70
60
0
84
75
60
63
60
60
60
This test conducted on incinerator Cj ; all others on incinerator C3.
-------
TABLE XI . FUEL CONSUMPTION. FIRE BOX TEMPERATURE. AND PERCENT BURN-OUT REFUSE
Test
No.
1
2
3
4b
4C
4d
5e
5f
59
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Fuel Consumption
(ft.3)
100
110
80
90
120
50
90
80
80
100
120
110
110
100
130
130
100
120
130
130
0
0
0
65
75
4o
160
190
210
Fire Box Temp.
(Max. °F)
950
980
850
950
550
550
1280
500
950
350
1100
1200
750
750
830
700
750
920
1200
1100
500
520
540
550
950
1220
600
800
1400
Refuse Burn-out
(%)
>60
>60
>30
>60
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>5C
>40
>50
^60
>70
>70
>65
>60
>70
>65
>50
>5Q
>50
>40
>85
>65
>65
>65
>65
It should be noted that variations occurred in gas supply from one sample to
another during the 15 minutes period it was supplied.
No overf ire a i r.
50% overf ire air.
Ful1 overfire air.
No auxi 1 iary fuel .
Auxiliary fuel on for 10 minutes.
Auxiliary fuel on for 30 minutes .
151
-------
TABLE XI. FUEL CONSUMPTION^ FIRE BOX TEMPERATURE. AND PERCENT BURN-OUT REFUSE (Cont'd.)
Test
No.
6
7
8
9h
Sample
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Fuel Consumption
(ft.3)
120
110
115
120
120
130
100
80
110
70
120
70
120
90
160
140
Fire Box Temp.
(Max. °F)
980
900
850
290
925
360
1210
1000
420
500
620
780
1100
580
1500
920
Refuse Burn-out
(%)
>65
>50
>50
> 0
>80
>6o
>70
>60
> 0
>80
>80
>65
^"65
>65
O j
Oj
This test conducted on incinerator Cj , all others on incinerator C3
152
-------
TABLE XII. TEST NO.'s 10 and 11 —INC INERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (NAPCA METHOD8)
(Incinerator charged at underload rate for Test No. 10, at design capacity for
Test No. 11 and otherwise operated as normal. Refuse of random composition,
three samples each test.)
Emission 15/1000 Ib
Sample Duration Emission Rate Dry Flue
Test Sample Weight of Test gr/ gr/scf* Rate (Ib/ton Gas at 50%
No. No. Date (Ib) (min) scf* at 12% COo (Ib/hr) Charged) Excess Air
10
11
1
2
3
1
2
3
3/11/69
3/11/69
3/11/69
3/12/69
3/12/69
3/12/69
20
20
20
40
4o
40
30
30
30
60
60
60
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
1.31
1.05
1.46
1.14
0.97
0.92
0.77
0.61
0.83
0.80
0.66
0.62
38.51
30.72
41.39
39.87
33.24
30.86
2.50
2,00
2.79
2.17
1.85
1.75
* Standard Conditions:
Temperature = 70° F.
Pressure = 29.92 in. Hg.
The COs reading ranged between 0.60 and 0.75 percent by volume, thus greatly increas-
ing the loadings when corrected to 12 percent COig . These readings were taken after
the auxiliary burner was turned off. The reason for the low COfe and high 02 [not
shown] readings was because of the large amount of excess air (over 2000 percent)
be ing used. _ _ _ _
Data is reported as presented by U.S. Public Health Service.
153
-------
TABLE XIII. TEST NO. 10—INCINERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (ASME-PTC-27 METHOD)
(Incinerator charged at underload rate and operated as normal; three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack Area (ft8)
Elapsed Sampling (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp fF)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft§)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
C03 (%)
Ob (%)
CO (%)
^ (%)
HgO (%)
SOx (ppm)
NOX l.ppmj
Aldehydes (ppm)
Carbonyls (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA;
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Stack Condition (ft3)
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions (ft")
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
I
3/11/69
20
29.40
1.06
10
V
143
2219
28.93
1.0
21.0
0
78.0
0.62
0.45
2.24
1.87
9.52
<10
7
0
0
22.40
22.40
27.45
21.26
0.0209
0.13
2
3/11/69
20
29.39
1.06
10
7;16
148
2234
28.79
1.0
21.0
0
78.0
1.86
0.23
13.97
1.82
8.44
<10
3
6
0.27
21.20
21.47
26.11
22.29
0.0032
0.02
3
3/11/69
20
29.19
1.06
10
7rl2
146
2222
29.05
3.5
17.0
0.05
79.45
1.68
2.05
8.90
2.39
11.81
<10
50
5
0.22
19.11
1^.51
24.21
20.14
0.0179
0.11
-------
TABLE XIV. TEST NO. 11 —INCINERATOR C3 STACK EMISSION DATA (ASME-PTC-27 METHOD)
(Incinerator charged at design capacity and operated as normal: three samples.)
GENERAL DATA:
Sample Number
Date of Test
Sample Weight (Ib)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg.)
Stack Area (ft8 )
Elapsed Sampling (min)
GAS DATA:
Av. Gas Velocity (ft/sec)
Av. Gas Temp (°F)
Gas Flow Rate (cfm)
Apparent Molecular Wt. (lb/ft3)
Gas Analysis, Dry Basis
C02 (%)
08 (%)
CO (%)
Na (%)
H20 (%)
NOX (ppm)
Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Odor (units/ft3)
PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA:
Vol. of Water Condensed (cc)
Vol. of Water Vapor, Meter Condition (ft8!
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Meter Condition (ft3.
Total Vol. Sampled, Meter Condition (ftal
Vol. of Gas Sampled. Stack Condition (ft3
Vol. of Gas Sampled, Standard Conditions
Net Wt. Gain from Thimbles (grams)
from Impinqers (grams)
Total
Particulate Emission rate (Ib/hr)
1 2
3/12/69 3/12/69
40 40
29.55 29.56
5.06 5.06
60 60
7.52 7.79
180 225
2283 2365
28.83 28.78
1.0 1.0
20.0 19.5
0.05 0.05
78.95 79.45
1.17 1.^5
16.82 37.20
<10 <10
33.3 5.0
2 7
0.09 0.31
15.23 36.10
15.32 36.41
1 19.97 50.69
(ft3) 16.02 38.02
0.1825 0.0540
0.0404 0.0252
0.2229 0.0792
0.68 0.24
3
3/12/69
40
29.56
5.06
60
7.78
225
2362
28.82
1.5
19.0
0.4
79.10
1.67
<10
9
0.40
40. 11
40.51
56.06
42.04
0.0518
0.0241
0.0759
0.23
155
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
157
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A continuous literature search for papers, reports, and articles on
solid waste is being-conducted during the study, with particular emphasis
on references pertaining to the onsite handling of refuse but with some
attention to references dealing with solid waste in general. Some 226
references have been collected, of which 168 are related to onsite refuse
handling and are listed in this bibliography. Numbers in parentheses on
the right of entries are for internal identification.
1. Abrahams, John H. Jr. Summaries of Research and Training Grants in
Solid Waste Disposal. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service. Publication No. 1596. 1967. (061)
2. Adelson, Alan M. "The Garbage Glut: Desperate Cities Seek New
Methods to Solve Growing Waste Program." WallStreet Journal,
February 16, 1968. (127)
3. Adequacy of Technology for Pollution Abatement, The. Report to the
Committee on Science and Astronautics, U. S. House of Representatives,
Eighty-Ninth Congress, Second Session. Serial Q. U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1966. (055)
4. AjLr_ Pollution Control Code of the City of New Haven. Effective
date, January 2, 1969. (195)
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Public Health Service, Bureau
of Disease Prevention Environmental Control, National Center for
Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967. (148)
6. Air Pollution Studies for New York City Housing Authority. Tests
made on December 13, 14 and 15, 1965 by Wisconsin Chemical and
Testing Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (050)
7. Applying Technology to Unmet Needs. Appendix Volume V. Technology
and the American Economy, The Report of the Commission. Report on
the Solid Waste Problem, prepared for the Commission by the Office
of Solid Wastes, Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. February 1966. (149)
8. Barttelbort, Richard A. "Characteristics of Wastes from Apartment
Buildings." Public Works. 97: 88-90. August 1966. (068)
9. Bay Area Air Pollution Control Board Regulation 2, Outline. Bay Area
Air Pollution Control Board, San Francisco, California. Adopted May
4, 1960, Revised January 1, 1962. (116)
158
-------
10. Bay Area Pollution Control District (Regulation 3). Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District, San Francisco, California. January
4, 1967. (196)
11. Bell, John M. Development of Methods of Sampling and Analyzing
Municipal Refuse. Purdue University, 1957-1962. (057)
12. "Bibliography on Incineration of Refuse." Prepared for the TA-3
Incinerator Committee of the Air Pollution Control Association.
July 1961. (192)
13. Bogue, M. DeVon. Municipal Incineration. Presented at the New York
State Health Department In-Service Training Course "Refuse Disposal
by Sanitary Landfill and Incineration", December 1, 1965, Albany,
New York. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service. C169)
14. Bugher, R. D. Solid Wastes Research Needs. A Special Report pre-
pared for Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare by the American Public Works Association, Chicago,
Illinois. (APWA Research Foundation Project 113). May, 1962. (019)
15. Bylin, James E. "More Cities Discover Savings in Converting Gar-
bage to Fertilizer." Wall Street Journal, August 24, 1965. (045)
16. "Cities vs. Garbage - Who will Win?" U. S. News § World Report,
63:116, October 23, 1967. (001)
17. Clark, C. M.., et al. "Garbgae Grinders Add Only 30%." The
American City. June 1962. (043)
18. Clark, C. M., et al. "Home Disposers Versus Surface Collection,
A Comparative Cost Analysis." Water and Wastes Engineering.
3: 78-80, September, 1966. (069)
19. "Complete Solution of Waste Disposal Problem in Uzwil-Wil Region,
Switzerland." Published in Plan, HUD #711 - Sept./Oct. 1967. (160)
20. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Wastes Management. First Annual
Report. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, College of
Engineering and School of Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley, California. May 1967. (201)
21. Connolly, John A. Abstracts: Selected Patents on Refuse Handling
Facilities for Buildings. U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. U. S.
Publication No. 1793. 1968. (102)
22. Connor, W. D. et al. Optical Properties and Visual Effects of
Smoke-Stack Plumes. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967. (215)
159
-------
23. "Copolymer Plastic Refuse-Can Liners." The American City, pp.
100-101, June 1966. (070)
24. "Cracking Down on Air Pollution." Architectural § Engineering
News, pp. 26-31, January 1969. (162)
25. Criteria Used for Upgrading Existing Apartment House Incinerators
in the City of New York. Department of Air Pollution Control,
City of New York. Published by Eureau of Engineering, January
1967. (207)
26. Darnay, A., et al. The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Manage-
ment 1966 to 1976. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland. 1969. (208)
27. Davis, Peter L., et al. "Effects of Garbage Grinding on Sewage
Systems and Environmental Sanitation." APWA Reporter, December
1962. American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois. (142)
28. "Dealing with Domestic Refuse." Engineering, pp. 499-508.
March 31, 1967. (118)
29. Demonstration Project Abstracts - Solid Wastes Program. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1967. (054)
30. Demonstration Project Abstracts - Solid Wastes Program. (Supple-
ment A) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 1967. (54a)
31. "Determining Dust Concentration in a Gas Stream." Power Test
Codes PTC 27-1957. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, N. Y. May 1957. (220)
32. Devorkin, Howard, 37 al. Source Testing Manual. Air Pollution
Control District, County of Los Angeles, California. November,
1965. (202)
33. "Don't Sell Incinerators Short." American City. 82:8 March
1967.
34. "Dust Separating Apparatus." Power Test Codes. PTC 21-1941, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N. Y. December
1941. (216)
35. "Electric Waste Disposers." House & Garden. 130:38, September
1966. C005)
36. Eliot, George Fielding. "Garbage is a, Nasty Word, But." Surbutbta
Today. May 1961.
-------
37. "Everything Goes Down the Drain." Engineering News-Record, pp. 107-
108. November 18, 1965. (138)
38. "Extraction of Metal and Mineral Values from Municipal Incinerator
Residues." Bureau of Mines Solid Waste Research Program - April
18-19, 1968. (183)
39. "Federal Solid Wastes Program, The." (A Status Report) Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association. 17:491+, July 1967. (072)
40. Feldstein, Milton. "Studies on the Analysis of Hydrocarbons from
Incinerator Effluents with a Flame lonization Detector." APCA
Journal. Vol. 12, No. 3. March, 1962. (088)
41. Fife, J. A. "European Refuse-Disposal." American City. 81:125-8.
September, 1966. (073)
42. Fleming, Rodney R. "Solid-Waste Disposal - Part I - Sanitary Land-
fills." The American City. January, 1966. (074)
43. Fleming, Rodney R. "Solid-Waste Disposal - Part II - Incineration
and Composting." The American City. February 1966. (075)
44. Flintoff, Frank. "Problem of the City Centre, The." Public
Cleansing. Vol. 57, No. 6. pp. 297-298, June 1967. (154)
45. "Flow of Solid Wastes in Pipelines, The." Compost Science. Vol.
8, No. 2., Autumn 67/Winter 68. (151)
46. "Food Waste Disposers." Consumer Reports. 31: 117-123, March 1966. (006)
47. "Four Stationary Packers Save $320 a Week." The American City.
August 1968. (152)
48. "From Kitchen Sink to Refuse Tip." The Surveyor and Municipal
Engineer, August 8, 1964. Temple Press Ltd., Bowling Green Lane,
London EC-1, England. (143)
49. "Fuel of the Future." Newsweek. 69:59, February 20, 1967. (003)
50. "Garbage Down the Hatch." Sunset Magazine. 130:147. May 1963. (109)
51. "Garbage Explosion, The." Time Magazine. 89:53, May 26, 1967. (002)
52. "Garbage for Health and Power." Business Week, p. 82. July 1,
1967. (004)
53. Gelber, Paul. "Increase Efficiency of Handling Returned Milk
Cartons." Management's Food - Processing/Marketing. October,
1965. (024)
54. Gilcreas, F. W. "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Waste Water." (An editorial). American Journal of Public
Health and the Nation's Health. 56: 387-388. March 1966. (076)
161
-------
55. Coder, P. E. "Incinerators for High Rises." Actual Specify-
ing Engineers. Vol. II, Xo. 6., Medalist Publications, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois. 1964. (219)
56. "Good Riddance." McCalls Magazine. 93: p. 52+. March 1966. (007)
57. Govan, Francis A. "high-Rise Disposal Problems." Refuse Removal
Journal, pp. 6-7, March 1967. (110)
58. "Grants for Solid waste Disposal Projects." Federal Register,
Vol. 31, No. 61, March 30, 1966. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, Public Health Service. (053)
59. Hart, Samuel A. PhD. University of California. Solid Wastes
Management in Germany - Report ofthe U. S. Solid Wastes Study
Team Visit, June 25 - July 8, 1967. U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1968. (117)
60. Heckinger, Sidney. "Pulping Machine Cuts Bulk of Disposal of
85 Per Cent." The Modern Hospital. May 1965. (133)
61. Hickman, H. Lanier, Jr. "The Physical and Chemical Character-
istics of Municipal Solid Wastes." Presented at Solid Waste
Engineering Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
January 8-9, 1968. (135)
62. Hoffman, D. A. "Burns Refuse Without a Flame." American City.
82:102-104. February 1967. (077)
63. Hoffman, D. A. Pyrolysis of Solid Municipal Wastes. Presented
at Engineering Foundation Research Conference, Solid Waste
Research § Development, University School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
July 23-28, 1967. (044)
64. Houry, E., et al. "Principles of Design of Smokeless-Odorless
Incinerators for Maximum Performance." American Gas Association
Laboratories. Cleveland, Ohio. December 1962. (140)
65. "How to Dispose of Refuse for 3,000 Students." College § Univer-
sity Business. McGraw-Hill Publication, July 1967. (042)
66. "How to Select Sampling Location for Stack and Duct Sampling for
Gases and Particulates." Dust Topics Newsletter. Gelman Instru-
ment Co., Michigan, p. 1, March 1967. (132)
67. Hugill, H. S., et al. Trash May Become an Asset. A report from
the University of Massachusetts. February 1968. (038)
68. Hummell, John D. "Incineration of Refuse." Current Municipal
Problems. Vol. IX, No. 4, May 1968. (157)
-------
69. "Incineration—An Engineering Approach to the Waste Disposal Crisis."
Part I. Technical Letter, Vol. 18, No. 2, April 1968. Syska §
Hennessy, Inc., Engineers, Washington, D. C. (139)
70. "Incineration—An Engineering Approach to the Waste Disposal Crisis."
Part II. Technical Letter, Vol. 18, No. 4, July 1968. Syska §
Hennessy, Inc., Engineers. Washington, D. C. (139a)
71. Incineration of Solid Wastes. Paper presented at: MECAR Symposium,
New York, N. Y. March 21, 1967. Library of Congress Catalogue Card
No. 67-25957. (158)
72. Incinerator Testing - Bulletin T-6. Incinerator Institute of
America. August 1968. (218)
73. Incinerator Institute of America - Incinerator Standards. Incin-
erator Institute of America, New York, N. Y. May 1966. (101)
74. Jacobs, Morris B. Health Aspects of Air Pollution From Incinerators.
School of Public Health and Administrative Medicine, Columbia
University, November 1963. (037)
75. Jens, W., et al. "Municipal Incineration and Air Pollution Control."
Proceedings, 1966 ASME National Incinerator Conference. May 1966. (049)
76. Kaiser, E. R., et al. Modifications to Reduce Emissions from a
Flue-Fed Incinerator. Technical Report 552.2. New York University;
College of Engineering, Research Division. June 1959. (016)
77. Kaiser, E. R. "Performance of a Flue-Fed Incinerator." APCA
Journal. Vol. 9, No. 2., pp. 85-91, August 1959. (017)
78. Kaiser, E. R. "Prospects for Reducing Particulate Emissions
from Large Incinerators." Combustion, pp. 27-29, August 1966. (035)
79. Kaiser, E. R. "Unsolved Problems with Flue-Fed Incinerators."
APCA Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 254-257. May 1961. (018)
80. Kavaler, Lucy. "And Not a Drop to Drink." Redbook. pp. 80+.
April 1966. (010)
81. Kerr, F. H. "Two Unusual Solid-Waste Solutions." American City.
82:114-115. April 1967. (078)
82. LemMon, Jean. "Disposers and Hoods." Successful Farming.
(Eastern Edition). Vol. 65, pp. 102-103. January 1967. (145)
83. "Let's Look Into Waste Recycling." American City. 82:6.
July 1967. (079)
84. Levaggi, D. A., et al. "The Colorimetric Determination of Low
Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide." American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal. Vol. 25, pp. 64-66.January/February 1964. 0-76)
163
-------
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
Lewis, John. "Change the Landscape to Sell the Incinerator."
American City. Vol. 81, p. 26, July 1966.
Lockwood, Robert. "Solid Wastes Institute Completes First Year."
Public Works. 97:101. November 1966.
"Low Cost Refuse Compaction by Wet Drum." Engineering. 200:79.
December 1965.
McCall, James H. "Composting Points the Way Toward Solution of
Solid Waste Disposal Problems." Investment Dealers Digest.
June 3, 1968.
"Man and His Garbage - A Special Report on a Growing Crisis." The
Globe Magazine. (The Globe and Mail). November 11, 1967.
Mandelbaum, P. E. "Incinerators can Meet Tougher Standards."
American City. 82:97-8. August, 1967.
Marble, George E. "Gas Burners for Flue Fed Apartment House
Incinerators." Information Letter No. 74. Issued by Commercial
Processing Committee, American Gas Association, July 1955.
Marsden, A. "Pulverized Wastes as Landfill." Municipal Journal.
Vol. 76, No. 2. January 12, 1968.
Meyer, A. F. "Grinding, An Aid in Refuse Disposal." Public Works.
97:156. May 1966.
Michaels, Abraham. "National Conference on Air Pollution; Solid
Waste Disposal; Panel Discussion." Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association. 17:78-79. February 1967.
Mix, S. A. "Solid Wastes: Every Day, Another 800 Million Pounds."
Today's Health. 44:46-9. March 1966.
Municipal Refuse Disposal. APWA Research Foundation Project 104.
Public Administration Service, Chicago, Illinois. 1961.
National Conference on Air Pollution. December 12-14, 1966.
Washington, D. C. U. S. Government Printing Office: 1966-0-238-668.
National Incinerator Conference, 1968. The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. New York, N. Y. May 5-8, 1968.
"New Solid Waste System." Science News. 91:150. February 1967.
Nilsen, Joan. "Solid Wastes Challenge the Disposal Experts."
Chemical Engineering. 73:60+. December 19, 1966.
"Nor Any Drop to Drink." P/A Observer, pp. 168-171. January1
1966.
(147)
(080)
(112)
(119)
(025)
(081)
(190)
(156)
(082)
(083)
(137)
(009)
(198)
(084)
C113)
C034)
-------
102. Official Guide to On-Site Refuse Disposal. Department of Air
Pollution Control, City of New York, April 20, 1968. (206)
103. Olsson, Eskil, et al. Household Waste Water. The National Swedish
Institute for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden. Report 24:1968. (226)
104. "Packaged Waste; Compression is One Solution to Handling Solid
Wastes." Compressed Air Magazine. 71:21-23. July 1966. (086)
105. "Per Capita Figure of 5.1 Pounds of Matter Daily Indicated by
National Survey." Solid Wastes Management Journal, pp. 22,
46. March 1968. (125)
106. "Plastics and Air Pollution." Adhesive Age. April 1968. p. 58. (114)
107. Porter, Sylvia. "Garbage Disposal Costly." The Evening Star.
(Washington, D. C.) Tuesday, May 14, 1968. (134)
108. "Preliminary Systems Analysis of Rat Control Measures." A report
prepared under contract with Connecticut Research Commission,
State of Connecticut, for the Use of Governor's Vermin Control
Committee, February 1968. By: Systems Research Division of
Meyers Electro/Cooling Products, Inc. (155)
109. Proceedings of 1964 National Incinerator Conference. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N. Y. 1964. (063)
110. Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N. Y. May 5-8, 1968. (199)
111. Proceedings of the Institute for Solid Wastes, 1966. American
Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois. September 1966. (103)
112. Proceedings of the National Conference on Solid Wastes Management.
University of California, Davis Campus - Freeborn Hall, April 4-5,
1966. (062)
113. Proceedings--National Conference on Solid Waste Research. American
Public Works Association. University of Chicago Center for Con-
tinuing Education, Chicago, Illinois. December 1963. (064)
114. Proceedings: The Third National Conference on Air Pollution.
Washington, D. C. December 12-14, 1966. U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service. (056)
115. Public Health Engineering Abstracts. Abstracts 2704-2938, Vol.
XLVII, No. 11, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C. November 1967. (020)
116. Public Health Engineering Abstracts. Index Vol. XLVII, 1967. U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service.
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1968. (20a)
165
-------
1.17. QUAD - City Solid Wastes Project - First Annual Report. June 1,
1966 to May 31, 1967. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, U. S. Public Health Service. (066)
118. QUAD - City Solid Wastes Project - An Interim Report. June 1,
1966 to May 31, 1967. U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, U. S. Public Health Service. (66a)
119. Quon, J. E., et al. "Simulation and Analysis of a Refuse
Collection System." Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. pp. 17-36. October 1965. (136)
120. Recommended State Legislation and Regulations. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division
of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection, Washington, D. C.
July 1965. (051)
121. Refuse Collection and Disposal. An Annotated Bibliography,
Public Health Service, Series No. 4, Supplement F. U. S.
Government Printing Office. (021)
122. "Refuse Compressor for Efficient Garbage Disposal,A." Mecman
Techniques. 1966. (210)
123. "Refuse is the Sweetest Fuel." American City. 82:116-118.
May 1967. (089)
124. "Refuse Sacks Perform Indoors." American City. Vol. 82. p. 39.
November 1967. (Ill)
125. "Refuse Storage and Collection." Ministry of Housing and Local
Government. Published by Her Majesty's Station Office. London,
1967. (205)
126. Rehm, F. R. "Incinerator Testing and Test Results." Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association. Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 199-
204. February 1957. (015)
127. Rehm, F. R. "Prepared Discussion: Control of Air Pollution
From Municipal Incinerators." Paper prepared for 1966 National
Air Pollution Conference, Washington, D. C. December 12-14 1966. (014)
128. Rehm, F. R. "Test Methods for Determining Emission Characteristics
of Incinerators." APCA TA-3 Incinerator Committee Informative Report
No. 2. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Administration. Vol. 15,
No. 3, March 1965, pp. 127-134. (013)
129. Rogus, Casimir A. "European Developments in Refuse Incineration."
Public Works Magazine. May 1966. (032)
130. Rogus, Casimir A. "Refuse Collection and Refuse Characteristics."
Public Works Magazine, pp. 96-99. March 1966. (008)
-------
131. Root, E. M. "The Hydrapulper Story." The Black Clawson Company,
Middletown, Ohio. (211)
132. Rose, Andrew H., Jr., et al. "Incinerator Design Standards:
Research Findings." Air Pollution Control District, County of
Los Angeles, California, Publication No. 60. (191)
133. Sashsel, George E. "The Management of Solid Wastes." Battelle
Technical Review. 16:2, June 1967. (115)
134. "Savings Claimed for Trash Compaction System." NAHB Journal of
Hornet)uilding. p. 83, March 1969. (165)
135. Seely, Richard J., et al. Solid Waste Report for the City of
Chicago. Department of Air Pollution Control, Chicago, Illinois,
1966. (065)
136. Solid Wastes Demonstration Grant Abstracts - (Grants Awarded
January 1—June 30, 1968). U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service,
Solid Wastes Program, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1968. (197)
137. Solid Waste Control - Regulations and Standards. Published by:
Idaho Department of Health, Engineering and Sanitation Division.
September 4, 1968. (159)
138. Solid Waste Disposal Act, The. Title II of Public Law 89-272,
89th Congress, S. 306, October 20, 1965. Office of Solid Waste
Information Series--SW 1. U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service. (026)
139. Solid Waste Disposal Study, for the Washington Metropolitan
Region. Prepared by Black § Veatch, Consulting Engineers, October
1, 1967. (200)
140. Solid Waste Explosion. Published by Department of Health, State
of Idaho. July, 1967. (161)
141. "Solid Waste Pile Up While Laws Crack Down and Engineers Gear Up."
Engineering News-Record. June 12, 1969. (209)
142. Solid Waste Research and Development. Engineering Foundation
Research Conference. July 24-28, 1967. University School,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (067)
143. "Solid-Waste Research Projects." American City. 82:63. June 1967. (092)
144. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities. U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Control. National
Center for Air Pollution Control, Durham, North Carolina. October
1967. (012)
167
-------
145. Spitzer, E. F. "European Incinerators." American City. 79:85-7.
November 1964. (094)
146. "Squeezing Heat from Garbage with Modern Municipal Incinerators."
Power, March 1964. (141)
147. Stenburg, Robert L., et al. "Effects of High Volatile Fuel on
Incinerator Effluents." Journal of Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion. 11:376-83, August 1961. (187)
148. Sternitzke, Robert F. "Incineration in High-Rise Buildings: A
Review of Systems and Trends." Architectural and Engineering News
Digest, October 1964. (031)
149. Stanley, Richard H. "How to Analyze Combined Sewage - Stormwater
Collection Systems." Water and Wastes Engineering. 3:58-61.
March 1966. (095)
150. State/Interstate Solid Waste Planning Grants and Agencies. U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, January 1969. (203)
151. Stenburg, Robert L., et al. "Field Evaluation of Combustion Air
Effects on Atmospheric Emissions from Municipal Incinerators."
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. Vol. 12,
February 1962, pp. 83-89. (Oil)
152. Stone, Ralph. "Types and Costs of Grinding Equipment for Solid
Waste Water Carriage." Ralph Stone and Co., Inc. - Engineers.
Los Angeles, California. March 1968. (100)
153. Taggart, R. S. "Dry Waste Disposal." Food Engineer. 39:98.
July 1967. (096)
154. Townsend, P. E. "Three Steps to Pollution Control." Actual
Specifying Engineer. Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1968. (048)
155. "Two Years of Continuous Performance Proves Merits of Unusual
Waste Compacting System." Real Estate News. December 1968.
pp. 396-7. (204)
156. Uzzle, A. B., Jr., et al. "Garbage Goes Underground to Beam Costs."
The American City. 79:34. March 1964. (097)
157. Voelker, Edward M. "Incinerator Standards." Presented at the
55th Annual Meeting of APCA, Sheraton-Chicago Hotel, May 20-24,
1962. (188)
158. "Waste Disposal Frustrations." An Editorial, The American City.
Page 8, September 1966. (098)
159. Waste Disposers. Standards for Safety. Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois, May 1966. (213)
-------
160. Watson, K. S., et al. "The Contribution from the Individual Home
of the Sewer System." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.
Washington, D. C. December 1967. (126)
161. Watson, K. S. "Water Requirements of Dishwaters and Food Waste
Disposers." Journal American Water Works Association. Vol. 55, '
No. 5, May 1963. (029) '
162. Wegman, Leonard S. "The Cleanest Incinerator Stack Gases." The
American City, p. 89+. May 1967. (099)
163. Weston, Joseph H. "Disposers are Gaining Status as 'Necessity'".
Washington Post. Saturday, September 2, 1967. (028)
164. Williamson, John E., et al. Multiple-Chamber Incinerator Design
Standards for Los Angeles County. Air Pollution Control District-
County of Los Angeles, California. October 1960. (194)
165. Wolfe, Edward A. Source Test Methods as Used by the Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District, San Francisco, California.
August 1, 1961. (225)
166. Wolfe, H. B., et al. "Systems Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
Problems." Public Works. 98:99-102. September 1967. (105)
167. Yagome, Kentaro. "Garbage Disposal with the Garbage Grinder." i
Society Heating, Air Conditioning and Sanitary Engineers. Japan. (108)
168. Zandi, Iraj, et al. "Collection of Municipal Solid Wastes in
Pipelines." American Society of Civil Engineers. February 19-23,
1968. (130)
169
-------
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES is a private, honorary organization of more
than 800 scientists and engineers elected on the basis of outstanding contributions to
knowledge. Established by a Congressional Act of Incorporation signed by Abraham
/Lincoln on 3 March 1863, and supported by private and public funds, the Academy
works to further science and its use for the general welfare by bringing together the
fc most qualified individuals to deal with scientific and technological problems of broad
T significance.
Under the terms of its Congressional charter, the Academy is also called upon to
act as an official—yet independent—adviser to the Federal Government in any matter
of science and technology. This provision accounts for the close ties that have always
existed between the Academy and the Government, although the Academy is not a
governmental agency and its activities are not limited to those on behalf of the
Government.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING was established on 5 December 1964.
On that date the Council of the National Academy of Sciences, under the authority of
its Act of Incorporation, adopted Articles of Organization bringing the National
Academy of Engineering into being, independent and autonomous in its organization
and the election of its members, and closely coordinated with the National Academy
of Sciences in its advisory activities. The two Academies join in the furtherance of
science and engineering and share the responsibility of advising the Federal
Government, upon request, on any subject of science or technology.
THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL was organized as an agency of the National
Academy of Sciences in 1916, at the request of President Wilson, to enable the broad
community of U. S. scientists and engineers to associate their efforts with the limited
membership of the Academy in service to science and the nation. Its members, who
p receive their appointments from the President of the National Academy of Sciences,
^ are drawn from academic, industrial and government organizations throughout the
" country. The National Research Council serves both Academies in the discharge of
their responsibilities.
Supported by private and public contributions, grants, and contracts, and voluntary
contributions of time and effort by several thousand of the nation's leading scientists
and engineers, the Academies and their Research Council thus work to serve the
national interest, to foster the sound development of science and engineering, and
to promote their effective application for the benefit of society.
THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING is one of the eight major Divisions into which the
National Research Council is organized for the conduct of its work. Its membership
includes representatives of the nation's leading technical societies as well as a number
of members-at-large. Its Chairman is appointed by the Council of the Academy of
Sciences upon nomination by the Council of the Academy of Engineering.
THE BUILDING RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD, a unit of the NAS-NAE National
Research Council, undertakes activities serving research in building science and tech-
nology, and provides for dissemination of information resulting from those activities
whenever doing so is deemed to be in the public interest. In its work for and with
private organizations or units of government, the Board provides advice on research
or technical problems, monitors research studies undertaken by others, organizes
conferences and symposia, acts to stimulate research and correlate information, and,
in general, explores subjects in the building field where objective treatment is needed.
Voluntary association of research-interested individuals and organizations is provided
by the Board through its Building Research Institute.
The 36 members of the Board are recognized authorities in building-interested
segments of industry, government, and academic and research institutions, appointed
m on a rotating and overlapping basis by the Chairman of the NRC Division of
Engineering with approval of the President of the National Academy of Sciences.
4 Each Board member serves as an individual, never as a representative of any other
organization or interest group. The Board, acting as a body, establishes special and
standing advisory or study committees, panels, task groups, and similar working
bodies as needed to carry out its various undertakings.
LIBRARY
Environmental Protection
1555 Kidgs Av&. Cincinnati 0.
------- |