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.

-------