United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA 600 2 80 007b
Laboratory Juiv 1980
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Processing
Equipment for
Resource Recovery
Systems
Volume II.
Magnetic Separators,
Air Classifier and
Ambient Air
Emissions Tests
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-007b
July 1980
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Volume II. Magnetic Separators, Air Classifier and
Ambient Air Emissions Tests
by
B. W. Simister
David Bendersky
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-03-2387
Project Officer
Donald A. Oberacker
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men-
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendations for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are
tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The com-
plexity of that environment and the interplay between its components require a
concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is a necessary first step in problem solution,
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved systems technology to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that r-esearch.
This report presents the results of a study of equipment and systems for
processing municipal solid wastes into energy related products. The study was
divided into three phases. The first phase,reported in Volume I, was devoted
to a study of the state of the art and formulation of the research needs.
This Volume II report discusses the second phase, which was devoted to field
s.
tests of magnetic separators, air classifier and air emissions, and describes
the procedures and results of tests performed at the Outagamie County, Wis-
consin, and Baltimore County, Maryland, municipal solid waste (MSW) processing
facilities. The third phase was involved with field tests of shredders and is
is presented in Volume III.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of tests conducted to determine the per-
formance of the magnetic separators and the nature of the in-plant air emis-
sions at the Outagamie County waste processing plant, located in Appleton,
Wisconsin, and at the Baltimore County plant, located at Cockeysville,
Maryland. The air classifier at the Baltimore County plant was also tested.
Various parameters were changed in a systematic fashion to determine their ef-
fect on the equipment performance.
The data from the magnetic separator system tests indicate that the pre-
sent ferrous metal recovery efficiency at Outagamie County is about 81% and at
Baltimore County about 79%.
The emissions tests showed that all trace metals were well below their
threshold limit values (TLVs) and the highest emission concentration was below
the nuisance dust TLV. In all cases more than 30% of the particulates were
below 2 jum. No trace of asbestos was found at Outagamie County, the only site
tested for this material.
The air classifier at Baltimore County was tested by changing the input
material feed rate with a constant air flow rate through the unit. *Et was
found that there is a critical point for the air-to-solids ratio. At or above
the critical point, the amount of fuel fraction recovered is maximized and is
relatively stable. Below the critical point,the amount of fuel fraction re-
covered is significantly reduced. The critical point for the Baltimore County
air classifier air-to-solids ratio (by weight) was found to be about 20.
This report is of interest to those involved in designing and operating
resource recovery plants and also is of interest to decision makers involved
in equipment selection.
This report was submitted as part of Contract No. 68-03-2387, by Midwest
Research Institute under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and covers work done during the period August 1977 through March 1978.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables viil
Acknowledgements ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 3
General 3
Magnetic Separator Tests 3
Air Classifier Tests 4
Emissions Tests 5
Economics 5
3. Descriptions of Test Facilities 6
Outagamie County (Appleton), Wisconsin, Processing
Plant 6
Baltimore County (Cockeysville) Maryland Processing
Plant 7
4. Magnetic Separator Systems Tests 36
System Descriptions 36
Test Procedures 39
Results 40
Discussion 47
5. Air Classifier System Test 62
System Description 62
Test Procedure 63
Test Results 64
Discussion . 66
6. Ambient Air Emissions Tests 78
Introduction 78
Sample and Analysis Procedure 78
Test Results * . . . . 91
Discussion 107
Appendices
A. Magnetic Separator Data 109
B. Air Classifier Data 119
C. Emission Data 125
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 General View of Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Solid Waste
Processing Plant 10
2 Plot Plan - Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Solid Waste Pro-
cessing Plant 11
3 Pictorial Flow Diagram - Outagamie County, Wisconsin 12
4 Schematic Flow Diagram of Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Solid
Waste Processing Facility 13
5 Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Receiving Pit and Entrance to
Tipping Floor 14
6 Inclined Drag Conveyor Into Shredder, Outagamie County,
Wisconsin 15
7 Shredder - Rotor Section, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
(Photo Courtesy of Allis Chalmers) 16
8 Overall View of Shredder (Photo Courtesy of Allis Chalmers)
Outagamie County, Wisconsin 17
9 Section Through the Shredder, Outagamie County, Wisconsin. . . 18
10 Transfer Point, Belt Conveyors 1 and 2, Outagamie County,
Wisconsin 19
11 General View - Belt Conveyors 2 and 3, Magnetic Separator
Building and Compactors, Outagamie County, Wisconsin .... 20
12 Ferrous Metal Chute and Trailer, Outagamie County, Wisconsin . 21
13 General View - Baltimore County, Cockeysville, Maryland,
Solid Waste Processing Plant .... 22
14 Plot Plan - Baltimore County Solid Waste Processing Plant. . . 23
15 Flow Diagram From Receiving Through Ferrous Recovery -
Baltimore County, Maryland 24
16 Flow Diagram, From Ferrous Recovery - Baltimore County,
Maryland 25
17 Schematic Flow Diagram - Baltimore County, Maryland 26
18 Background: Shredder and Inclined Drag Conveyor to Shredder,
Foreground: Grate Bars and Hammers, Baltimore County,
Maryland 27
19 Magnetic Separator System, Baltimore County, Maryland 28
20 Magnetic Separator System Output, Baltimore Coutny, Maryland . 29
21 Output Belt, Magnetic Separator, Baltimore County, Maryland. . 30
22 Output Chute for Rejects, Baltimore County, Maryland 31
vi
-------
Number Page
*
23 Belt Conveyor 15 and Diverter Housing, Baltimore County,
Maryland 32
24 RDF Processing Line Control Panel, Baltimore County, Maryland. 33
25 Cyclones and Airlock for Light Material, Baltimore County,
Maryland 34
26 Belt Conveyor 19 - Trommel in Background, Baltimore County,
Maryland 35
27 Magnetic Separator System, Outagamie County, Wisconsin .... 47
28 Eriez Magnetic Separator, Model V, Outagamie County, Wisconsin 48
29 Cleated Belt - Magnetic Separator, Outagamie County, Wisconsin 49
30 Hopper, Magnetic Separator System - Showing End Pulley and
Splitter Blade, Outagamie County, Wisconsin 50
31 Magnetic Separator System, Baltimore County, Maryland 51
32 Magnetic Separator System, Baltimore County, Maryland 52
33 Dings "Hockey Stick" Solid Waste Magnetic System, Baltimore
County, Maryland 53
34 Magnetic Separator Output, Baltimore County, Maryland 54
35 Test Variables, Outagamie County, Wisconsin Magnetic
Separator System " 55
36 Test Variables, Baltimore County, Maryland, Magnetic
Separator System 56
37 Percent Ferrous in Input Versus Percent Nonferrous in
Recovered Ferrous 57
38 Magnetic Separator Height Above Incoming Belt Versus Percent
Ferrous Recovered 58
39 Splitter Blade Length and Position Versus Ferrous Recovery
Efficiency, Outagamie County, Wisconsin 59
40 Approximate Rebound Zone of Ferrous Metal in Hopper, Outagamie
County, Wisconsin 60
41 Magnetic Separator Height Versus Percent Tramp, Baltimore
County, Maryland 61
42 Diverter Blade System, Baltimore County, Maryland 68
43 Air Classifier System, Baltimore County, Maryland 69
44 Air Lock Attached to Cyclone Output,- Baltimore County 70
45 Cyclone Separator Outlet Chute from Air Lock, Baltimore County 71
46 Air Classifier Control Console, Baltimore County 72
47 Sample Being Hand Sorted, Baltimore County 73
48 Split to Light Fraction, Baltimore County 74
49 Split to Heavy Fraction, Baltimore County 75
50 Light Fraction Analysis, Baltimore County 76
51 Heavy Fraction Analysis, Baltimore County 77
52 Emission Samplers at Conveyor Belt Intersection (Location E2). 86
53 Emission Sampler on Tipping Floor (Location E4) 87
54 Emission Sampler Location El, Baltimore County 88
vii
-------
Number
55 Emission Sampler Located E2, Baltimore County 89
56 Emission Samplers Location E3, Baltimore County 90
57 Emission Sampler Location E4, Baltimore County 91
58 Duct Work for Dust Collection System, Baltimore County .... 92
59 Dust Collection Duct Connected to Shredder Input Chute,
Baltimore County 93
60 Particle Concentration Versus Day by Location 94
61 Particulate Concentration Versus Day by Location, Baltimore
County 95
62 Particle Size Distribution, Day 1, Outagamie County 96
63 Particle Size Distribution, Day 2, Outagamie County 97
64 Particle Size Distribution, Day 3, Outagamie County 98
65 Particle Size Distribution, Day 4, Outagamie County 99
66 Particle Size Distribution, Day 5, Outagamie County 100
67 Particle Size Distribution, Day 6, Outagamie County 101
68 Particle Size Distribution, Day 7, Outagamie County 102
69 Particle Size Distribution, Day 1, Baltimore County 103
70 Particle Size Distribution, Day 2, Baltimore County 104
71 Particle Size Distribution, Day 3, Baltimore County 105
72 Particle Size Distribution, Day 4, Baltimore County 106
73 Percent Particulate in Alveolar Deposition Zone Versus Test
Day and Location, Outagamie County *-®'
74 Percent Particulate in Alveolar Deposition Zone Versus Test
Day and Location, Baltimore County 108
TABLES
Number Page
1 System Configuration for Test Day 33
2 System Configuration for Test Day 39
3 System Comparison 40
4 Effects of Variable Changes 42
5 Recovery Efficiency, Outagamie County 43
6 Recovery Efficiency, Baltimore County 44
7 Energy Requirements 46
8 Air Classifier Performance Characteristics 66
9 TLV of Metals Analyzed Versus Concentration 85
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute for the Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, under EPA Contract No. 68-03-2387. The project officer for
the Environmental Protection Agency was Donald A. Oberacker.
This report was prepared by Messrs. B. W. Simister and David Bendersky.
However, many of Midwest Research Institute's personnel contributed to the ac-
tivities which resulted in this publication. Foremost among the contributors
are Emile Baladi, Calvin Bolze, Charles Brown, Carl Clark, Chris Cole, Douglas
Fiscus, Carol Green, John LaShelle, and Ted Sutikno.
We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of officials at Outagamie
County, Baltimore County, Maryland Environmental Services, and Teledyne
National in furnishing their facilities for tests. Valuable assistance was
provided by Edward Maloney, Outagamie County MSW facility manager, Ken Cramer,
Baltimore County MSW facility manager, and their staffs.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The combined need for new energy sources and better waste disposal tech-
niques in the U.S. has stimulated considerable interest and activity in the
recovery of energy and other resources from municipal solid waste (MSW). A
variety of energy recovery systems have been designed which produce waste-
derived fuels in solid, liquid, or gaseous forms. The raw waste is processed
through various combinations of equipment which usually include one or more
of the following unit operations: shredding, magnetic separation, air class-
ification, screening, drying, and densification. In addition to these unit
operations, these systems usually also include receiving facilities, convey-
ors, dust collectors, cyclone separators, electrical controls, storage and
retrieval bins, and other ancillary equipment.
The processing of MSW into fuels and fuel feedstocks is a relatively new
industry, the first full scale plant having been demonstrated in St. Louis in
1974. Thus far, operating experience, tests, and evaluations of waste-to-
fuel systems have been insufficient to provide a firm basis for optimum de-
sign, selection, and operation of processing equipment for these systems.
In light of the situation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency con-
tracted with Midwest Research Institute to conduct research, tests, and eval-
uations of alternative processing equipment and systems for converting muni-
cipal solid waste into a solid fuel or feedstock for liquid/gaseous fuel con-
version systems. The project was intended to stimulate and advance the tech-
nology of waste-to-fuel systems by providing information useful to equipment
manufacturers, system designers, and system operators.
Phase I of the study, reported in Volume I, was concerned with (1) a
study of the present state of the art of equipment used to process MSW into
energy related products,* and (2) the identification of areas which require
additional research to improve the state of the art. Phases II and III were
* Only equipment which affects the energy-related product streams were inclu-
ded in this study; equipment used to process only the nonenergy streams,
such as metals and glass recovery, was not included in this study.
-------
devoted to in-plant tests and evaluations of processing equipment aimed at
satisfying some of the research needs.
This report presents the results of tests performed under Phase II at the
Outagamie County, Wisconsin, in August 1977, and Baltimore County, Maryland,
in March 1978, waste processing plants. An air classifier and two magnetic
separator systems were tested along with the air emissions within the facili-
ties.*
The first section of this report describes the facilities tested. The
subsequent sections deal with each piece of equipment tested, giving a de-
scription, the test procedure, and results. Each of these sections includes a
discussion of the results and general observations noted about the equipment
during the tests.
The scope of this study was limited by the small number of operating
waste processing plants that were available for tests during this contract
period. A considerable number of plants have recently been put into opera-
tion, so that consideration should be given to conducting additional tests on
similar and other types of waste processing equipment.
* Field tests of shredders are being conducted under Phase III and will be re-
ported under EPA Contract No. 68-03-2589.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
The thrust of this contract was to test equipment as part of resource re-
covery systems under normal operating conditions. The normal adjustment ran-
ges of the equipment and the normal mix of incoming material yielded valuable
information about a specific piece of equipment at a specific site, but it did
not provide for testing the equipment to their limits. Additional research
and development work is needed to provide more complete information about the
equipment, as independently as possible of the system.
MAGNETIC SEPARATOR TESTS
The magnetic separator tests conducted at the Outagamie County and Balti-
more County plants show that both systems recovered approximately 80 percent
of the available ferrous metal out of the input stream, but the recovered ma-
terial at Outagamie County contained more impurities than at Baltimore County.
The cleaner material at Baltimore County does not appear to be as much a re-
sult of the magnetic separator system as the condition of the input material.
The particle size after shredding is smaller at Baltimore County and the ma-
terial contains about twice as much ferrous.
There is no information available describing the distribution of the
ferrous in the material on the conveyor. A study to determine the distribu-
tion of the ferrous in the shredded material, both along the conveyor and a-
cross the conveyor, would yield valuable information for establishing sample
size for statistically sound results. Also, the information could be used to
adjust the position of the magnetic separator.
At both plants, observations indicated that the impurities controls were
not effective. At Outagamie County, light paper and plastic floated across
the splitter blade on air currents, being completely detached from any ferrous
material. At Baltimore County, very little material was freed at the air gap;
the return belt ran virtually empty. A test program which provided for modi-
fications to the equipment should allow a change in the air flow in the hopper
to determine how much of the nonferrous is being carried over by the air.
-------
At Baltimore County, the lowest position of the magnetic separator was
controlled by the system design. It is suspected that at higher recovery
rates more nonferrous material would have been pulled out of the incoming ma-
terial, which may have been removed by the air gap feature. At the available
height setting, the air gap settings did not effect the performance of the
system.
At both sites, there was a linear correlation between the height of the
separator and the percent ferrous recovered. The splitter blade tests at
Outagamie County indicated the closer to the vertical the blade was posi-
tioned, the higher the rate of recovery. This is explained by observing the
recovered ferrous bouncing off of the hopper back plate when it was released
from the magnetic field. With the blade in the vertical position, the least
amount of recovered ferrous could fly back into the light fraction chute.
AIR CLASSIFIER TESTS
The air classifier system at Baltimore County was tested at a fixed velo-
city with various input feed rates.
Because the air velocity was held constant, the larger air/solids ratios
were obtained by reducing the input feed rates. An operating plant producing
RDF will operate as close to the left on the curve of Figure 50 as possible
without leaving the horizontal portion.
One important relationship cannot be found from the available Baltimore
County data; i.e., changes in air velocity. Some unpublished test results in-
dicate that an increase in velocity increases the air-to-solids ratio and the
critical point.
The effect of the changes in mg on the amount of material reporting to
the light fraction in the air classifier operation was apparent at Baltimore
County. This points up the need for either a flow control device or a belt
weighing system with a minicomputer connected to the fan. If the air velocity
in the classifier could be changed in response to the variations in ms, the
split could be controlled closer to the critical point.
The handpick method of determining the percent combustibles is inade-
quate. The time required for this operation limits the sample size. A test
plan designed to establish a standard burning method for a large quantity of
sample is needed. This would result in both percent combustibles and percent
ash in the sample.
-------
EMISSIONS TESTS
Emissions tests were conducted at the Outagamie County and Baltimore
County plants to determine the nature of the air emissions produced by pro-
cessing and handling MSW. The emissions of. specific interest were particle
concentration, particle size, trace metal concentration, and asbestos concen-
tration. Hi-Vol and Acu-Vol samplers were placed near specific pieces of
equipment to determine the emissions from that unit.
No asbestos was found at Outagamie County, and based on the St. Louis and
Houston tests which also showed no asbestos^l/ it was decided not to test for
asbestos at Baltimore County.
The highest particulate concentration reading was at the tipping floor at
Outagamie County with a reading of 6.617 mg/Nnr* which is approximately 66 per-
cent of the nuisance dust TLV of 10 mg/NmS-JL/ This location is not an 8-hour
worker station.
The data from the trace metal analysis, of the particulate collected, in-
dicates that the amounts of toxic metals were well below their respective
TLV's. The sample closest to TLV contained a lead content of 0.018 mg/Nm3
compared to a TLV of 0.150 mg/Nm^ or approximately a factor of 10 below the
TLV.
The tests of the dust control system at each facility were inconclusive.
Further research and possibly development is needed in this area.
Material spillage is a major housekeeping problem at resource recovery
facilities. The source of the spillage is not obvious, but appears mainly at
conveyor transfer points. More information is needed to pinpoint these sour-
ces. Once known, modifications could be made as part of a program to develop
effective solutions.
ECONOMICS
Attempts to gather long-term economic data on individual pieces of equip-
ment were generally unsuccessful because most plants do not maintain such re-
cords. For example, labor maintenance costs are generally spread over a vari-
ety of equipment. It is recommended that detailed cost records on individual
equipment be instigated.
I/ St. Louis Demonstration Final Report, MRI Project No. 4033-L, page 64.
Evaluation of Fabric Filter Performance at Browning Ferris Industries/
Raytheon Service Company Resource Recovery Plant, Houston, Texas, MRI
Project No. 4290-L(13), page 44.
2j TLV (threshold limit value) from American Conference of Governmental and
Industrial Hygienists.
-------
SECTION 3
DESCRIPTIONS OF TEST FACILITIES
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY (APPLETON), WISCONSIN, PROCESSING PLANT
The Outagamie County facility processes MSW to produce shredded material
for landfill and for the recovery of ferrous metal. Shredding of MSW reduces
the volume requirements and the rodent, bird, and odor problems at a landfill.
Furthermore, MSW which has been shredded does not require daily cover, thus
reducing operating costs. Figure 1 is a general view of the facility from the
southeast. Figure 2 is the floor plan of the main building. The incoming
truck dumping area occupies the entire north part of the building on the upper
level with the shredders located in the building extension on the south side.
The elevated building at the left of Figure 1 houses the magnetic separator
system for ferrous recovery. The tall pipe in Figure 1 is part of an air-
classifier prototype unit belonging" to the Allis Chalmers Company and is not
part of the normal processing line. The operating part of the facility covers
4700 m^. Figure 3 is the pictorial flow diagram and Figure 4 is the schematic
flow diagram of the facility.
The incoming packer trucks dump an average of 180 metric tons of MSW per
day into the steel receiving pits (Figure 5) which have capacity of 36 metric
tons each. The floor of each pit is equipped with a drag conveyor. The flow
of material to the next drag conveyor, 3 or 4, is controlled by the operator
who starts and stops the pit conveyor. Drag conveyors 3 and 4 feed directly
into the shredders (Figure 6). At each of these conveyors, a plant employee
picks out by hand the items which are difficult to shred and arranges material
on the conveyor to smooth the shredder load.
The shredders are Allis Chalmers 18 metric tons/hr, Model No. KH 12-18
(Figures 7, 8). The power requirement is 24 kw-hr/0.9 metric tons using a
300-hp electric motor connected to the hammer shaft through a belt set.
Each shredder has four rows of free swinging hammers. The input opening
of each shredder is covered with a rubber curtain to help control dust and re-
tain projectiles. Each shredder is equipped with a water spray system which
injects water intovthe MSW inside the shredder just above the hammers. This
is to reduce the energy required for shredding, and the wet shredded MSW
-------
produces less dust. The unshreddables that get into the shredders are ejected
through a spring loaded door mounted on the back of the shredder above the de-
flector grating (Figure 9). The shredded material falls out at the bottom of
the shredders on to belt conveyor No. 1, which transfers the shredded MSW to
belt conveyor No. 2 (Figures 8, 10).
Belt conveyor No. 2 carries the shredded MSW up to the magnetic separator
system (Figure 11).
The recovered ferrous metal falls directly into an open trailer for ship-
ment to a local scrap dealer (Figure 12).
The rejects fall onto belt conveyor No. 3, which is reversible and feeds
one of two compactors (Figure 11) that compact the remaining MSW into trailer
trucks for hauling to the landfill.
The conveyor specifications are listed in Table A-l of Appendix A.
BALTIMORE COUNTY (COCKEYSVILLE) MARYLAND PROCESSING PLANT
The Baltimore County facility, located in Cockeysville, Maryland, pro-
cesses household and selected industrial solid waste for the county. This
processing plant is operated by Teledyne National for Baltimore County in con-
junction with the Maryland Environmental Service. The facility is also used
for research and development by Teledyne National. As part of this work, the
facility has produced RDF by air classification, trommelling, and secondary
shredding. The RDF has been test burned as produced and as pellets.
Figure 13 is a general view of the facility as seen from the west. The
overhead doors are the access to the storage pits. The rectangular structure
at the north end of the building, with the piping connected to it, is the bag-
house for the dust collection system. The open structure on the east side of
the building is the magnetic separator system. The first building south of
the main building houses the extensive maintenance and parts area.
The plot plan for the proposed complete facility is shown in Figure 14.
The existing site has two shredders, not three as shown, and the secondary
separation and recovery portion does not exist. The operating part of the fa-
cility utilizes 7580 m2. Figures 15 and 16 are pictorial flow diagrams and
Figure 17 is a schematic flow diagram of the facility.
Citizens bringing in small quantities of waste deposit it in open-topped
trailers at the facility entrance. When the trailers are full, they are
weighed at the scales (Item 2)* before dumping into the holding pit (Item 5)
or push pits (Item 4).
* Item numbers refer to the plot plan, Figures 14 and 15.
7
-------
Commercial loads are also weighed before going to the pit area.
The average daily weight of incoming MSW for 37 days from February 22,
1978, through April 5, 1978, was 442.25 metric tons.
The pit area is made up of a holding pit with two movable bridges
(Item 3) giving access to the four push pits. The material dumped into the
holding pit is later transferred into the push pits using a grappling crane
which can travel over the entire pit area.
Each line operator sits in an enclosure built into the wall that divides
the storage area and the shredder room. From this vantage point the operator
can control the flow of material into each shredder. Small grapples are used
to mix the material in the push pits before feeding it into the shredder.
Lines 1 and 2 are identical through the magnetic separator system; there-
fore, the following description will use the conveyor numbers of Line 1
(Figure 15).
The material is transported from the push pits to the shredder input by
drag conveyor 2. The shredders are Tracor Marksman Model 860, 50 metric ton/
hr units driven by 1,000 horsepower, Toshiba reversible electric motors di-
rectly coupled to the rotor shaft. The three spherical objects in Figure 18
are part of the Fenwal explosion supression system.
The shredded MSW is carried to the elevated magnetic separation system
(Figure 19) on belt conveyor 7. The nonmagnetic material drops onto belt con-
veyor 8 and eventually into the RDF processing building.
The recovered magnetic material is transported to the output chute by
belt conveyor 9. This chute collects the material from both magnetic separa-
tors and empties into an open-topped trailer (Figure 20). Figure 21 is a view
down belt conveyor 4 carrying a typical load of ferrous metal. Belt conveyor
10 carries the rejected material to belt conveyor 11, which combines the ma-
terial from both streams for further processing. Belt conveyor 11 is reversi-
ble to allow bypassing the processing building by feeding into the open-topped
trailer shown in Figure 22. Belt conveyor 11 normally feeds the short hori-
zontal belt conveyor 12. The material is then transported via belt conveyors
13 and 14 into the processing building.
At the intersection of belt conveyors 14 aridHtS, there is a power-operated
diverter blade which directs the flow onto bel^JLS^orx into the compactor hop-
per. Figure 23 shows the beginning of belt conveyor 15 and the diverter blade
housing.
-------
The RDF processing is monitored and controlled at the panel in Figure 24.
The T.V. screens used to monitor six critical locations provide the informa-
tion to set the material infeed rate, through the diverter blade, for optimum
recovery of combustible product.
Belt conveyor 15 empties into the air classifier which uses two fans to
pull off the lighter (mostly combustible) part of the shredded MSW. The light
material is then collected in two cyclone separators and fed through air locks
(Figure 25) onto belt conveyor 19 (Figure 26). Belt conveyor 20 carries this
material into the trommel where the fine material (mostly glass and dirt) is
removed.
The heavier part of the infeed to the air classifier drops out of the
bottom onto belt conveyor 16 then to 17 and 18 into a truck for hauling to the
landfill.
-------
'igure 1. General View of Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Solid Waste Processing Plant
-------
N-
191'
58.2 m
Tipping
Floor
Room
-265'-
80.8 m
ol--^.
^
*
-
— Receiving
— — Drag Conv
x- Drag C
/ -^
-+-\ \ -
frm A '
I I
I I
• East Shredder
- Belt Conveyor 1
-West Shredder
• Drag Conveyor 4
Belt Conveyor 2
—- Drag Conveyor 2
— Receiving Pit
Compactor
Belt Conveyor 3
Magnetic Separator
Compactor
Figure 2. Plot Plan - Outagamie County, Wisconsin,
Solid Waste Processing Plant
-------
N>
Wafer Line from
City Water Supply
x\
E4JTipping Floor at Office
Shredded MSW
Shredded MSW
CL
Belt Conveyor No. 1
Qn)(S2) Indicates Material Sampling Locations
[El]-|E4) Indicates Air Emission Sampling Locations
a/ Flow Meters Installed for Test Program
l_ —^ __ __•
Magnetic) ..
, . I Magnetic r •>
Separator, c a |E3
B Id" Separator l '
mg I QT TT\
/() C>\
I Belt Conveyor No. 3 I
Shredded MSW c \ t .
i c IA t i re-Metal
Less Fe-Metal \
'"* """" " "'"" " /"^^
-^1 II B—
~~&Cf tir~Cn
Trailer Trucks to Landfill
(gr~~]
'C'CrO CrcJ
B
\JU OO ?
Trailer Truck
to Fe-Metal
Scrap Dealer
TJ
Figure 3. Pictorial Flow Diagram - Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
MSW
I
Pit
CJ~Hand Pick
Shredder
Ferrous Recovery System
MSW
i
Pit
(J~ Hand Pick
Shredder
•Recovered Ferrous
Compactor
f
Landfill
Material
Compactor
Landfill
Material
Figure 4. Schematic Flow Diagram of Outagamie County, Wisconsin,
Solid Waste Processing Facility
13
-------
Figure 5.
Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Receiving Pit and Entrance
to Tipping Floor
-------
Figure 6. Inclined Drag Conveyor Into Shredder
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
'
Figure 7. Shredder -- Rotor Section, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
(Photo Courtesy of Allis Chalmers)
16
-------
Figure 8. Overall View of Shredder (Photo Courtesy of Allis
Chalmers) Outagamie County, Wisconsin
17
-------
Input
I
-Grate Bar
- Rotor
-Hammer
\Deflector
Grating
rSpring-Loaded Flap
(Scrap Discharge)
oo
Output
Figure 9. Section Through the Shredder
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
Figure 10. Transfer Point, Belt Conveyors 1 and 2
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
Figure 11. General View - Belt Conveyors 2 and 3, Magnetic Separator
Building and Compactors, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
Figure 12. Ferrous Metal Chute and Trailer, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
f^&
fcfe?S
Figure 13. General View - Baltimore County,
Cockeysville, Maryland, Solid Waste
Processing Plant
-------
SECONDARY
SEWRATION £ RECOVERY
o
1 liilf1 1 111
=^_ ™a
flp^spirTl
(_va. ® do
til PiMO 1
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
AND RECLAMATION PROJECT
Figure 14. Plot Plan - Baltimore County Solid Waste
Processing Plant
-------
Magnetic Separator
ho
-P-
Belt Conv. 3
Ferrous
Metal
Shoot/Hopper
Holding Push Drag
Pit Pit Conv.
1
O CT
Trailer Truck
tro—00=0
Trailer Truck
Figure 15. Flow Diagram From Receiving Through Ferrous Recovery -
Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
ho
Oi
From
Ferrous Recovery
Landfill Compactor Trailer Truck
tro
Trailer Truck
atr
Trailer Truck
-------
South
MSW
North
Push Pit
Weighting
Storage Pit
Push Pit
Shredder
Ferrous
Recovery System
Ferrous
Metal **"
Shredder
Ferrous
Recovery System
Optional Loose
Optional Compacted
• Rejects
•Rejects
Air Classifier
(S5) »
Heavies
Cyclone
Separator
Lights
Cyclone
Separator
Trommel
• Fines; Glass, Sand, etc.
Optional Pelletizer
RDF
RDF Pellets
Figure 17. Schematic Flow Diagram - Baltimore County, Maryland
26
-------
;
Figure 18. Background:
Foreground:
Shredder and Inclined Drag Conveyor to Shredder,
Grate Bars and Hammers, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
-
Figure 19. Magnetic Separator System, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
:
•
Figure 20. Magnetic Separator System Output, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
•
Figure 21. Output Belt, Magnetic Separator, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
Figure 22. Output Chute for Rejects, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
uJ
! 1
Figure 23. Belt Conveyor 15 and Diverter Housing, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
•
ft ft" ft ft'
Figure 24. RDF Processing Line Control Panel, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
Figure 25. Cyclones and Airlock for Light Material, Baltimore County,
Maryland
I
-------
Figure 26. Belt Conveyor 19 - Trommel in Background, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
SECTION 4
MAGNETIC SEPARATOR SYSTEMS TESTS
SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
The Outagamie and Baltimore counties plants both use a belt-style magne-
tic separator for ferrous recovery which is suspended above the shredded MSW
input belt conveyor. Both systems are fed approximately 27 metric tons/hr of
shredded MSW with approximately the same input conveyor speed of 70 m/min;
therefore, the depth of material on the conveyor is similar. The separator
systems are located in elevated structures to allow top-filling of the open-
topped scrap trailers.
Outagamie County
The magnetic separator system at Outagamie County (Figure 27) consists of
an Eriez Model V separator (Figure 28 suspended at a 21-degree declination
over the input conveyor and hopper, which is split into two chutes.
The Eriez Model V separator utilizes a box electromagnet for extraction
and an electromagnetic head pulley for transferring the recovered ferrous ma-
terial to the proper chute. The cleated belt, used to carry the recovered
material, travels at 95 m/min. This belt is 91 cm wide with 8.9 cm tall
cleats at 29.2 cm spacing. Urethane strips are used between the cleats
(Figure 29) to help reduce belt wear.
The steel plate hopper of Allis Chalmers design has two output chutes and
an adjustable splitter blade. The splitter blade allows fine tuning of the
system. The output chute for the nonferrous material becomes part of the
housing for the reversible conveyor to the compactors (Figure 11). The fer-
rous metal chute opens to the. atmosphere and empties into an open-topped
trailer.
The splitter blade pivots at the junction of the two chutes and is ad-
justable from 24.5 to 49.5 degrees from the vertical. The original 50.8 cm
steel blade was not far enough into the magnet field to be magnetized, but
the 22.9 cm bolt-on extension was and had to be made from nonmagnetic stain-
less steel. Figure 30 shows the extended splitter blade in the 49.5 degree
position with typical nonferrous material collecting on it.
36
-------
Baltimore County
The magnetic separator system at Baltimore County (Figures 31 and 32) is
part of the Tracer Marksman front-end package which has been modified by
Teledyne National. The magnetic separator is a Dings Model "Solid Waste Mag-
netic System" suspended horizontally above the input and return conveyors.
The ferrous metal is carried past the return conveyor and dropped onto belt
conveyor 9.
The Dings Model "Solid Waste Magnetic System" (called "Hockey Stick" in
the trade) (Figure 33) contains three box electromagnets. Magnet 3 is mova-
ble to allow adjustment of the air gap between it and magnet 2. The principle
of the air gap is to allow the ferrous metal picked up by magnet 1 and trans-
ferred to magnet 2 to momentarily fall away from the belt. When the ferrous
metal falls away, any nonferrous material held between the ferrous metal and
the belt should also fall away and only the ferrous metal will be picked up
and carried along by magnet 3. Figure 34 shows the Dings belt moving toward
the viewer and return belt conveyor 8 moving away. Teledyne National in-
stalled the return conveyor to carry the nonferrous material back to the re-
jects stream. The bottom of the front half of the separator is inclined to
allow a more effective approach to the shredded MSW falling over the head pul-
ley of input conveyor 7.
TEST PROCEDURES
The tests were conducted to gain data necessary to compare the two sys-
tems. A magnetic separator system is set up to extract the ferrous metal for
a particular market. Since an optimum set-up at one site may not be optimum
for the other, it was necessary to change the critical system variables in a
step-like fashion to find their effect on the recovered ferrous metal stream.
This contract did not allow for equipment modifications; therefore, the
changes in the variables had to be within the present adjustment range of the
system. At Outagamie County, the minimum height of the separator above the
input conveyor was limited by the depth of material on the conveyor, allowing
for surges. At Baltimore County, the same variable was controlled by the ad-
justment available.
The two output streams were sampled where the material was in free fall.
The samples were analyzed for the weight percent of ferrous metal versus non-
attached (extractable, pickable) nonferrous material. Each sample was hand-
sorted with a magnet to remove all magnetic material and anything attached to
it. The magnetic and non-magnetic parts of each sample were weighed (Tables
A-3 and A-4 in Appendix A). The heavy segments were weighed with a Chatillion
Model 7200 hanging scale which has a range of 68 kg graduated in 0.11 kg in-
crements. The lighter segments were weighed on an Ohaus Model 700 beam
balance with a capacity of 2,610 g and a sensitivity of 0.1 g.
37
-------
The energy used to operate the magnetic separator system was measured.
An operating magnetic separator system is a steady state device; therefore,
the energy could be calculated from instantaneous reading of current, voltage,
and the power factor.
Outagamie County
The Outagamie County system has three variables which were thought to
control the amount and cleanliness of the ferrous metal recovered. These
three variables, shown in Figure 35, are: the height of the separator above
the input conveyor (A), the splitter blade length (B), and splitter blade
angle (0).
The systematic changes made in these variables are shown in Table I.
TABLE 1. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION FOR TEST DAY
System configuration
Test day A (cm) B (cm) 6 (degrees)
1 33 50.8 49.5
2 35.6 50.8 49.5
3 48.3 50.8 49.5
4 33 50.8 24.5
5 33 73.7 24.5
6 33 73.7 37.0
7 33 73.7 49.5
On each test day, four 11-liter samples were taken from a free-falling
part of the two output streams. The ferrous stream was sampled at location S2
(Figure 3) where the material fell into the open trailer. The nonferrous
(landfill) stream was sampled at location SI (Figure 3) where the material
fell from belt conveyor 3 into the landfill trucks. These samples could not
be taken simultaneously; therefore, the four component weights did not add to
the input. The sample analysis provided weight percents of ferrous and non-
ferrous in both streams. The weights of both components of each stream for
that test day were determined by multiplying these percentages by the total
stream weight for that day. The total stream weight was the total of trucks
weighted from that stream.
38
-------
As part of the facility's normal operation, all incoming trucks and land-
fill trucks are weighed. During the test period, the truck used to collect
the ferrous metal was weighed each morning. The oversized bulky material that
was picked out by hand before shredding was put into two trailers, one for
metal and the other for nonmetal items. These two trailers were weighed at
the beginning and end of the test period. The basic truck weights are given
in Table A-5 of Appendix A. The daily weights of the trailers for the bulky
items were arrived at by dividing the total weight by the number of test days
for an average., these averages were then weighed based on the total input for
that day.
Baltimore County
The Baltimore County system allowed for simultaneous sampling of the fer-
rous and nonferrous streams; therefore, the results of the sampling method
added to the input. At each test setting, four 5-sec simultaneous samples
were taken.
The variables tested, shown in Figure 36, were the height of the magnetic
separator above the input conveyor 7 (A) and the width of the air gap between
the second and third magnets (B). The changes made in the variables are shown
in Table 2.
TABLE 2. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION FOR TEST DAY
System configuration
Test day
1
2
3
4
5
6
A (cm)
51
56
64
46
46
46
B (cm)
18
18
18
18
36 (max)
6 (min)
The magnetic stream was sampled at location SI (Figure 15) where the out-
put conveyors from the two lines meet at the chute to the ferrous scrap trail-
er. A special container was built to fit between the two conveyors. The non-
magnetic stream was sampled at S2 (Figure 15) at the output of the chute to
the landfill trailer. A special container was built to fit over the bottom of
this chute and catch all the material for 5 sec. Line 2 was shut down during
the sampling.
39
-------
Two indicators were used to ensure that the two samples were taken simul-
taneously. A 45 x 45 cm piece of cardboard and a metal can were painted red.
The metal can was placed on the cardboard; then these were placed on the burden
on the input conveyor midway between the shredder and the magnetic separator.
When the red cardboard went over the head pulley of conveyor 10, conveyor 11
was reversed, which fed the nonmagnetic material down the chute into the spe-
cial container. The red can was obvious in the ferrous stream, and when it
went over the head pulley of conveyor 9, all the stream material was collected
for 5 sec.
RESULTS
Summary
The Outagamie County and Baltimore County systems have many characteris-
tics in common relative to magnetic separation, as shown in Table 3. The main
differences in the two systems are the quantity of ferrous in the input stream
(5.16 vs. 10.8%) and the impurities (amount of pickable tramp) in the recov-
ered ferrous (1.8 vs. 0.2%).
TABLE 3. SYSTEM COMPARISON
Item
Input rate
Belt speed
* T7 k
x V,
t
Outagamie
County
26 tons/hr
65.5 m/min
110 cm
30°
Baltimore
County
>
28 tons/hr
79 m/min
117 cm
/
30°
Notes
! Results in^i
the same bur-
den depth
Ferrous in input
Ferrous recovered
Impurities (pickable)
Ferrous in rejects
Energy
Cost
Belt speed
Belt width
5.16%
81%
1.8%
0.9%
8.3 kw
$30,000
95 m/min
91 cm
10.8%
79%
0.2%
2.6%
18.8 kw
$30,000
117 m/min
122 cm
Best setting
for recovery
for their
market
Approximate
only
Magnetic
separator
40
-------
Table 4 gives an overview of the effects of the changes in the test var-
iables on the percent ferrous recovered (recovery efficiency), percent non-
ferrous in the recovered ferrous (impurities), and the percent ferrous in the
reject stream. This information is discussed fully in the following text.
The original evaluation parameters were recovery efficiency, purity,
energy, capital cost, and maintenance cost. The data analysis indicated that
the percent of incoming material which is magnetic and therefore available for
recovery, is also an important parameter.
Quantity of Ferrous Metal in MSW
Two methods were used to determine the quantity of ferrous metal in the
shredded MSW conveyed to the separator system at Outagamie County.
The first method was based on 30-liter samples taken from the material on
the input conveyor to the magnetic separator system. These samples were hand-
sorted with a magnet. The data are given in Table A-6 of Appendix A. For the
five test days when multiple samples were taken, the average weight percent of
magnetic material was 2.55% with an individual sample range from 0 to 6.50%.
The second method applied the percentages from the output stream samples
to the total daily weights of the streams. Table A-7 in Appendix A lists the
results. The average for the seven test days was 5.16% magnetic material in
the shredded input stream to the magnetic separator system. The range of val-
ues was 3.52 to 7.45%.
The data based on the second method approximates the national average of
7.3% ferrous material in MSW. Also, this method includes the weight of the
bulky metal items pulled out of the stream before shredding. These results
will be used as more representative of the Outagamie County MSW. The discre-
pancy between these two methods can be explained, in part, by the fact that
the second method involved more samples which produced improved results.
With the sampling method used at Baltimore County, the weight percent of
magnetic material in the input stream can be derived from the sum of the out-
put samples. Table A-8 in Appendix A contains this information. The average
is 11.12% with a range from 3.7 to 22.7%.
Figure 37 is a graph of the percent magnetic material in the input to the
magnetic separator versus the percent pickable (extractable) nonmagnetics in
the recovered ferrous metal (impurities). This graph indicates that as the
percent of available magnetic material increases the purity of the recovered
ferrous improves. This can be explained in terms of the density of ferrous
metal in the shredded MSW. If it is assumed that the distribution of ferrous
metal in the two streams of shredded MSW are similar, then the stream with the
41
-------
^^*^^»*>^B"^^^^^^K^^— ^B^^^^^^^^i^*-^^^^— ^^^^— ^^^^^
Height (cm)
33
35.6
38.3
Short blade
angle (degrees)
24.5
49.5
Long blade
angle (degrees)
24.5
37.0
49.5
Blade length
at 24.5° (cm)
50.8
73.7
Blade length
at 49.5° (cm)
50.8
73.7
Height (cm)
46
51
56
64
Air gap (cm)
36
18
6
OUTAGAMIE
Recovery
efficiency
(%)
81
76
39
71
81
80
72
61
71
80
81
61
BALTIMORE
78
73
50
32
79
78
79
COUNTY
Impurities
(%)
1.79
1.50
1.69
1.80
1.79
, 1.95
2.40
2.41
1.80
1.95
1.79
2.41
COUNTY
0.36
0.28*
0.22
0.16
0.42
0.36
0.18
Ferrous
in rejects
(%)
0.92
1.24
4.73
1.50
0.92
0-73
1.70
—
1.50
0.73
0.92
1.70
2.15
4.38
4.80
8.98
2.19
2.15
2.64
— _^_
* See discussion of purity
42
-------
higher density will have more recoverable material and less nonferrous per cu-
bic meter in the load on the conveyor. With the higher density in the Balti-
more County MSW, reflected by the 10.8% ferrous, the recovered ferrous dis-
turbed less nonferrous while being extracted; therefore, the magnetic separa-
tor did not have to deal with as much nonferrous. The smaller quantity of
nonferrous disturbed during ferrous extraction results in less nonferrous to
be cleaned out of the ferrous during recovery.
Recovery Efficiency
For this study, recovery efficiency of ferrous metal is defined as the
amount of ferrous metal extracted from the available ferrous metal in the in-
put stream.
w.
x 100
Where: Kg = Recovery efficiency
W^ = Weight of ferrous metal recovered
W2 = Weights of ferrous metal in rejects"
Table 5 lists data used to arrive at the recovery efficiency at the Outa-
gamie County plant indicating the method of applying the sample percentages
to the truck weights.
TABLE 5. RECOVERY EFFICIENCY, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Ferrous
Non-Ferrous
Test
Day
Total
Truck
Weight
(kg)
Sample
Weight
Percent
Magnetic
"l
(kg)
Total
Truck
Weight
(kg)
Sample
Weight
Percent
Magnetic
W2
(kg)
Recovery
Efficiency
(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7,675
5,625
6,241
6,441
5,842
7,793
5,969
98.26
98.54
98.35
98.22
98.09
97.68
97.58
7,541
5,543
6,138
6,326
5,731
7,612
5,825
196,977
146,972
212,490
174,751
201,948
182,217
192,577
0.91
1.20
4.46
1.48
0.72
1.59
1.93
1,793
1,764
9,477
2,586
1,454
2,897
3,717
81
76
39
71
80
72
61
43
-------
On test day 1, the total weight of material collected in the ferrous
scrap trailer was 7,675 kg. From the samples analyzed it was determined that
98.26% of the material that went into the trailer was ferrous metal; therefore
7,541 kg of ferrous metal was recovered on test day 1. The same procedure re-
sulted in 1,793 kg of ferrous metal being lost to the landfill. The total ma-
terial going into the shredder on each test day came out of the system either
in the ferrous scrap trailer or the landfill trailers; therefore, the total of
the two ferrous weights calculated above add to the ferrous in the input
stream.
Table 6 lists the recovery efficiency at Baltimore County, which is de-
rived directly from the sample weights.
TABLE 6. RECOVERY EFFICIENCY, BALTIMORE COUNTY
Ferrous Non-Ferrous
Test day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Wi
Sample Weight
Magnetics (g)
2,147
1,764
1,318
2,164
2,437
3,157
W2
Sample Weight
Non-magnetics (g)
813
1,746
2,795
694
638
816
Recovery
Efficiency
(%)
73
50
32
78
79
79
At both Outagamie County and Baltimore County the main system variable
influencing recovery efficiency is the height of the magnetic separator above
the input conveyor. This is shown in Table 4 and graphically in Figure 38.
There is a linear correlation between the height of the magnetic separator
above the input conveyor and the recovery efficiency. Four heights were used
at Baltimore County with the air gap between the magnets constant at the mid-
point. Table 4 indicates there is no correlation between the air gap (Figure
31) setting and recovery efficiency. The data from Outagamie County indicate
there is a correlation between the position of the long splitter blade and re-
covery efficiency. This is shown in Figure 39. The recovery efficiency as a
function of the short splitter blade position is inconclusive with only two
data points. Observing the system in operation turned up two points. First,
with the magnetic separation belt moving at 95 m/min, the recovered ferrous
metal has a large amount of kinetic energy when it leaves the magnetic field
of the head pulley. The recovered material bounces off the back plate of the
hopper and sometimes rebounds over the splitter blade. This rebound zone is
shown in Figure 40. The rebound explains the high recovery efficiency values
for the long blade.
44
-------
Second, the output chute for the landfill is part of the reversible con-
veyor housing, and it is relatively airtight; but the output chute to the fer-
rous trailer is open to the atmosphere. This produces an air flow from the
input conveyor 2 area out the ferrous chute, which is aggravated by the fan ef-
fect of the cleats on the fast-moving separation belt. The nonferrous mater-
ial floats out of the landfill chute over the splitter blade into the ferrous
chute. The amount being transferred was not measured, but it appears to be
considerable.
Observation of the Baltimore County system showed that very little ma-
terial travels back on return conveyor 8. This indicates the air gap feature
is not functioning, which is supported by the recovery and impurity data shown
in Table 4, under "Air Gap." One would expect some decrease in the recovery
rate as the air gap is widened due to the dropping of low inertia ferrous. The
impurity figures seem to be reversed. As the gap is increased one would ex-
pect an improved cleaning effect. It was observed that the material falling
away from magnet 2 traveled down to the return conveyor, then back up to magnet
3 at all air gap settings. The small amount of nonferrous seen at the air gap
at Baltimore County accounts for this reversed purity data. Figure 39 indi-
cates there may be a critical low limit to the percent ferrous in the input
stream. Baltimore County was operating above this limit; therefore, the test
conditions were not right for evaluating the air gap function.
Both systems lose about 20% of the available ferrous metal; at Outagamie
County this is approximately 1,700 kg/day, but at Baltimore County it is 4,400
kg/day. The difference is due to the amount of available ferrous at the two
sites in terms of actual weight rather than percents.
Purity
The following discussion of purity is concerned with the amount of extrac-
table nonmagnetic material in the recovered ferrous metal. In addition to the
extractable nonmagnetic material, there is approximately 5%* nonmagnetics at-
tached to the ferrous metal. This consists of glued-on labels, material
crimped into the ferrous metal during shredding, organics in the cans, coating,
etc. A magnetic separator system is designed to remove the pickable (loose)
material only; therefore, the analysis of the samples for magnetic material
content was done with a hand magnet that left any attached material attached.
The effect of the test variable changes on impurity is shown in Table 4.
The 0.28% figure in brackets in the Baltimore County data was derived from
Figure 41, which is a plot of height versus impurity. Three of the four data
points fall along a straight line; therefore, it was assumed that the 0.63%
figure was in error.
* Outagamie County, Wisconsin, facility study.
45
-------
At Baltimore County there was a linear relationship between both height
(Figure 41) and air gap setting and purity. It can be concluded that as the
height of the magnetic separator above the conveyor is reduced, the recovery
efficiency increases, and the amount of nonmagnetic material (impurities) in
the ferrous stream also increases. As the air gap is increased, the purity
decreases while the recovery efficiency stays constant. Background data are
given in Table A-9 and A-10 of Appendix A.
As the data indicates, at Outagamie County there is no plottable rela-
tionship between the test variables and the purity.
Energy
The energy to operate a magnetic separator system is considered as part
of the equipment evaluation. The rising cost of energy has a direct influence
on the economics of the system. Table 7 lists the energy data from the two
sites.
TABLE 7. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Consumer
Magnets \
Belt Drive (
E
(Volts)
480
I
(Amps)
10
Power
Factor
1
Power
(kw)
8.3
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Conveyors 480 2.75 0.55 1.2
Magnets 480 17.50 0.99 14.3
Belt Drive ^ 480 5.20 0.55 2.3
TOTAL 18.8
The system at Outagamie County has a single circuit for both magnets and
drive motor and draws 8.30 kw of power compared to Baltimore County which has
three circuits and a system requirement of 18.8 kw. Both systems were fed the
same amount of incoming shredded material with the same recovery rate (Table
3); therefore, the Baltimore County system uses about twice as much energy to
do the same job at the Outagamie system.
46
-------
Costs
The cost of either the Eriez magnetic separator at Outagamie County or
the Dings unit at Baltimore County is approximately $30,000. The complete
system cost could only be estimated because the actual cost is part of the
total facility cost.
Both systems require minimum maintenance, amounting to lubrication and
belt adjustment. Neither facility kept records on the maintenance labor or
materials by specific unit operation.
DISCUSSION
The constraints of this contract did not allow testing the magnetic sep-
arators to their limits or independent of their system. A test program is
needed which is designed to determine the effect of burden depth and system
design characteristics such as the air flow problem at Outagamie County.
Another question to be answered by field testing is, is the magnetic
field strong enough at the bottom -of the burden to remove the ferrous which
is located close to the belt, or is the material being recovered coming from
the upper portion of the burden?
Path of Attracted Magnetics
Path of Loose Nonmagnetic;
Magnetic Separator (Eriez, Model V)
Electromagnet
Electro magnet
Pulley
Nonmagnetic
Material
Magnetic
Material
Figure 27. Magnetic Separator System,
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
47
-------
Figure 28. Eriez Magnetic Separator, Model V,
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
I
.
Figure 29. Cleated Belt - Magnetic Separator, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
; n
.-i
Figure 30. Hopper, Magnetic Separator System - Showing End Pulley and
Splitter Blade, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
-------
Path of Attracted Magnetics
Path of Loose Nonmagnetics
Dings "Hockey Stick"
Electromagnets
Air Gap (Adjustable)
Nonmagnetics to
Belt Conv. 10
Belt Conv. 8
Magnetics
Belt Conv. 9
Figure 31. Magnetic Separator System,
Baltimore County, Maryland
51
-------
Figtire-32. Magnetic Separator-System, Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
BELT TYPE MAGNET
(SOLID WASTE MAGNETIC SYSTEM)
Figure 33. Dings "Hockey Stick" Solid Waste Magnetic System, Baltimore
County, Maryland
-------
Figure 34. Magnetic Separator Output, Baltimore County, Maryland,
-------
Path of Attracted Magnetics
Path of Loose Nonmagnetics
Magnetic Separator
Electromagnet
Nonmagnetics
Material
Magnetic
Material
Electromagnet
Pulley
Figure 35. Test Variables, Outagamie County,
Wisconsin Magnetic Separator
System
55
-------
Path of Attracted Magnetics
Path of Loose Nonmagnetics
Dings "Hockey Stick"
Electromagnets
Air Gap (Adjustable)
Nonmagnetics to
Belt Conv. 10
^
N
• • « * •
3 0
X-J ^1 ^"^
:) ^- o \
Belt Conv. 8 \
\ Magnetics
o -*
Belt Conv. 9
Figure 36. Test Variables, Baltimore County,
Maryland, Magnetic Separator
Sys tern
56
-------
u
s.
c
3.5r
3.0
2.5
,
2.0-
I ..,1-
o
1.0
0.5
D
on
DDL
8
O
00
I
I
O Outagamie Co.
O Baltimore Co.
Q
I
I
J
10 11 12 13 14
Percent Ferrous Input
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Figure 37. Percent Ferrous in Input Versus
Percent Nonferrous in Recovered
-------
00
100
90
80
-o
£
0)
§
I 70
tf»
2
if
£ 60
Q)
U
50
40
30
\
25
10
\
\
NO
O Outagamle Co.
A Baltimore Co.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
12.5
15 17.5 20
Height Above Incoming Belt
22.5
65 (cm)
25 (in)
Figure 38. Magnetic Separator Height Above Incoming Belt Versus Percent Ferrous Recovered
-------
Path of Attracted Magnetics
Path of Loose Nonmagnetics
Magnetic Separator
Electromagnet
Electromagnet
Pulley
Nonmagnetics
Material
Magnetic
Material
Figure 39. Splitter Blade Length and Position Versus Ferrous
Recovery Efficiency, Outagamie County, Wisconsin
59
-------
Path of Attracted Magnetics
Path of Loose Nonmagnetics
Magnetic Separator
Electromagnet
Electromagnet
Pulley
Nonmagnetics
Material
Magnetic
Material
Figure 40. Approximate Rebound Zone of Ferrous Metal in Hopper,
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
60
-------
.70
.60 -
.50
i-
o
£
t .40
8
0)
.30
.20
.10
25
L_
10
30
12.5
35
40
45
I
50
I
15 17.5 20
Height Above Input Belt
55
60
22.5
65
I
25
(In)
Figure 41. Magnetic Separator Height Versus Percent Tramp,
Baltimore County, Maryland
-------
SECTION 5
AIR CLASSIFIER SYSTEM TEST
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The air classifier system at Baltimore County consists of an input ma-
terial flow control device (diverter blade); vertical cylinder classifier, two
fans, two cyclone separators, airlocks in series, control console, and associ-
ated conveyors.
The shredded MSW with most of the ferrous metal removed is carried on
conveyor 14 to the hopper for the landfill compactor (Figure 16) . Inside the
hopper, there is a rectangular opening covered with a sliding plate called the
"diverter blade" (Figure 42). If the diverter blade is covering the opening,
the material falls into the compactor. The diverter blade, which is operated
from the control console, is opened to allow the material to pass out of the
hopper onto conveyor 15. Conveyor 15 transports the material to the air clas-
sifier inlet.
The air classifier is a vertical column 213 cm in diameter with the lower
section tapered to 122 cm (Figure 43). Slightly above the beginning of the
straight section, there is a double cone. The cone is suspended in the center
of the column to help break up clumps of incoming material.
The material enters the column through an opening in the side just below
the air outlet ducts. The opening has a flexible curtain which helps to seal
the air classifier and get maximum air flow from the bottom.
The air flow is induced by two fans, one on each side of the classifier.
The material entrained in the air stream, called "lights," also passes through
the fans into two cyclone separators. The entrained material drops out of the
air stream in the cyclones and passes through airlocks onto conveyor 19
(Figures 44, 45).
The material which falls through the air classifier onto conveyor 16 is
called "heavies."
The amount of material which travels either path is determined by the air
classifier design, the feed rate of input material, and the air flow rate.
62
-------
At Baltimore County, the speed of each fan is fixed; therefore, the per-
cent of material going in each direction, called "split," is controlled by the
material input rate.
The air classification system is monitored and controlled at the console
by one person. Closed-circuit T.V. (Figure 46) is used to monitor the diverter
blade. The vantage points are from conveyor 15 looking toward the air classi-
fier, and from the junction of conveyors 16 and 17 and conveyor 20.
TEST PROCEDURE
The input feed rate was adjusted with the diverter blade to a steady bur-
den depth by viewing the T.V. monitor for input conveyor 15. When the system
was stabilized the input and output conveyors were stopped. The MRI test crew
then took a measured length of material from each of the three belts and put
them in plastic bags. Each sample was weighed. Having the length of belt,
belt speed and weight of sample, the material flow rate was calculated. The
sample was then poured into a measured container and weighed to determine its
bulk density.
The bulk density sample was used for the handpicking procedure (Figure
47) , that was utilized to determine the weight percent of combustible (paper
and plastic) and "other." The "other" part consisted of everything that could
not be identified as paper or plastic. The ferrous metal was sorted out of the
"other" part, with a hand magnet, and weighed separately.
The section of the sample not used for bulk density determination was col-
lected and shipped to Raltech in St. Louis, Missouri, for analysis of percent
ash, percent moisture, and heat value. A sample from each stream was shipped
to Raltech each test day. Each sample was a composite of that day's stream
samples.
Data were found for each of the following variables:
ms = Input stream flow rate;
mlf = Light fraction flow rate;
m^f = Heavy fraction flow rate:
Weight percent combustible material;
Weight percent other (noncombustible);
Weight percent ferrous metal:
P= Bulk density.
Each of the foui test days was used for a different input flow rate.
63
-------
The air stream velocity, in the air classifier was determined with two
traverses at 90 degrees, midway up the air classifier column. When the tra-
verses were made, there was no material being fed into the unit. From the
traverses, the average column velocity (Vo) was determined. Having the tem-
perature and relative humidity, the air mass flow rate (mo) was determined.
The pressure drop across the system was determined by taking pressure
readings in the air classifier column and in the duct after each fan.
The fan energy consumption was calculated from readings of the voltage,
current and power factor. The current draw for each fan was read from the
panel meter on the control console.
TEST RESULTS
The objective of this test was to gather the data necessary to evaluate
the performance of the air classifier and to determine the relationships be-
tween the variables. The first set of variables determined was the three mass
flow rates: ms - input; mif - light fraction (entrained in airstream) ; and mhf
- heavy fraction (dropped out of the bottom of the classifier) . In a steady
state system, the mass flow rates should balance.
At an MSW processing plant, the material input to the shredder is not con-
stant; therefore, mg is not constant. The error in the average mass balance
was 15% of m and 13% of (m^f + mhf ) • This report is based on the assumption
that at any instant the sum of the outputs equaled the input when those two
fractions entered the air classifier. The value of m used in this report is
the sum of m^f + mjjf , and not the mg calculated from the samples taken from
the input belt. Having m and mass flow rate of air (mo) , the air-to-solids
ratio (a) was calculated.
All the sample data are listed in Tables B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 in
Appendix B.
In Figure 48, a is plotted against the weight percent of the input that
reported to the lights. Figure 49 is the plot of the heavy fraction.
The weight percent of material recovered as potential fuel increases with
an increase in a. up to an a of about 20. At 20 the light fraction stabili-
zes at about 83 percent of the input. With a constant mo, a decrease in mg
will result in an increase in a . Any decrease in m above where the value
of Oi = 20, at Baltimore County, would unnecessarily reduce the throuthput of
the air classifier. The mg to the air classifier is not constant in an RDF
plant; therefore, if the air flow is fixed, the actual set point for m must
s
64
-------
be small enough that a does not fall much below 20, which would result in a
deterioration of the recovered light fraction.
The test data did not indicate a correlation between the density of the
input material and the amount or quality of the material reporting to the
light fraction.
The quality of the fuel is based on its heating value and weight percent
of ash after combustion.
i
Figure 50 .graphically indicates the changes in the quality of the lights
as a. increases. These data show a significant increase in the light quality
up to a = 20, but not beyond. Therefore, mg should be set as close as possi-
ble to Oi = 20. Increasing a above 20 increased only slightly the heat value
of the recovered material and decreased the ash slightly. At the critical
point of, the air classifier (a= 20), the heating value is about 14.9 x 106
J/kg.
The curve for moisture in Figure 50 indicates that, within the range
shown, it does not affect the other parameters.
As should be expected, there is correlation between the weight percent
combustibles in the light fraction and the heat value.
The heavy fraction data plotted in Figure 51 also show a = 20 as the
critical point. There is a more definite correlation between heat value and
weight percent ash, and the loss of combustibles to the lights as a increases
is indicated. The data point for heat value and ash at
-------
DISCUSSION
The recovered light fraction passes through the fans before going to the
cyclone separator. The air classifier system fans at Baltimore County were
worn out. They are in the process of rebuilding the fans and relocating them
to the air output side of the cyclones to minimize the wear problem.
Table 8 lists performance characteristics of the air classifiers at St.
Louis, Missouri; Ames, Iowa; and Baltimore County (as tested, and estimated
values with the fans rebuilt).
TABLE 8. AIR CLASSIFIER PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Baltimore County
St. LouisS/ AmesW As tested Rebuilt(est)
Throat width (m)
Throat length (m)
Throat area
Split to lights (%)
Velocity (m/s)
0.51
2.49
1.27
81.7
10.6
0.51
2.49
1.27
84.1
16.6
2.13 dia. 2.13 dia.
3.56
47.0
5.3
3.56
50.0
6.1
Input flow rate (metric tons) 31.4
hr
29.5
30.0
30.0
Air-to-solids ratio
*m2)
hr
1.9
Column loading (metric tons) 24.8
2.6
28.1
2.7
8.4
3.13
8.4
The data listed for Baltimore County, rebuilt, are based on the assump-
tion that the new fans will each pull 23,000 SCFM of air.
_a/ St. Louis demonstration final report: Refuse Processing Plant Equipment,
Facilities and Environmental Evaluation, EPA 600/2-77-155a.
b_/ Test and Evaluation of Ames, Iowa, Refuse Fuel Project, Grant No. R-803903-
01.
66
-------
The base item for this table is the input material flow rate of approxi-
mately 30 metric tons per hour. The value of 50% for the light fraction when
the fans are rebuilt at Baltimore County was taken from Figure 50. The expec-
ted 20 percent velocity increase will decrease Of to about 3.13, which cor-
responds to 50% in Figure 50.
Using the split as the common base for Table 8, at Baltimore County the
input feed rate would have to be reduced to 4 mg/hr, which would yield a
column loading of 1.23 mg/hr - m .
One important relationship cannot be found from the available Baltimore
County data; i.e., changes in air velocity. Some unpublished test results in-
dicate that an increase in velocity increases the air-to-solids ratio and the
critical point.
The effect of the ^changes in mg on the amount of material reporting to
the light fraction in the air classifier operation was apparent at Baltimore
County. This points up the need for either a flow control device or a belt
weighing system with a minicomputer connected to the fan. If the air velocity
in the classifier could be changed in response to the variations in mg, the
split could be controlled closer to the critical point.
The handpick method of determining the percent combustibles is inadequate.
The time required for this operation limits the sample size. A test plan de-
signed to establish a standard burning method for a large quantity of sample
is in order. This method would result in both percent combustibles and per-
cent ash in the sample.
The air classifier test data, when compared to similar data from Ames,
Iowa, and St. Louis, Missouri, indicates that the throughput at Baltimore
County, with 80 percent flying to the fuel fraction, is very low relative to
the cross sectional area of the unit. The air velocity in the air classifier
at Baltimore County is half that at St. Louis and a third that at Ames. Sys-
tem constraints did not allow changes in the air velocity. It is recommended
that a series of air classifier tests be done on a unit with air velocity
change capabilities.
67
-------
Compactor
Hopper
Sliding
Diverter Blade
Figure 42. Diverter Blade System, Baltimore County Maryland
68
-------
Cyclone
Separator
Lights
Heavies
Air
Air Input
/
^. Heavies Output
Conveyor 16
Figure 43. Air Classifier System, Baltimore County, Maryland
69
-------
I
•
Figure 44. Air Lock Attached to Cyclone Output, Baltimore County
-------
Figure 45. Cyclone Separator Outlet Chute from Air Lock, Baltimore County
-------
I
I
Figure 46. Air Classifier Control Console, Baltimore County
-------
Figure 47. Sample Being Hand Sorted, Baltimore County
-------
90
80
70
60
50
"™ 40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40 50
a - Air/Sol ids Ratio
60
70
80
90
Figure 48. Split to Light Fraction, Baltimore County
-------
90 r
10
20
30
40 50
a - Air/Solids Ratio
60
70
80
90
Figure 49. Split to Heavy Fraction, Baltimore County
-------
-|16
i
90 r
80
70
60
50
14 -
—i
13 J
12 1
x
11
90
-------
12
\
90 r
• Split
o % Comb.
D Ash
A Moisture
• Heat Value
11 ^
2
10 x
9 C-
J
8 >
15
0)
7 I
6
30 40 50
a - Air/Solids Ratio
60
70
80
90
Figure 51. Heavy Fraction Analysis, Baltimore County
-------
SECTION 6
AMBIENT AIR EMISSIONS TESTS
INTRODUCTION
The emissions tests at the Outagamie County and Baltimore County plants
were conducted to determine the nature of the air emissions from MSW produced
by the processing and handling equipment. The emissions of specific interest
were particle concentration, particle size, trace metal concentration, and as-
bestos concentration.
Hi-Vol and Acu-Vol samplers were used for all sampling. The Sierra heads
on the Acu-Vols sorted the particulate emissions by size. At each site, four
locations were chosen for the Hi-Vol samplers and three locations for the Acu-
Vols. These locations were not necessarily worker exposure areas.
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The four Hi-Vol samplers were calibrated to a flow rate of =4 m^/min,
then monitored hourly to ensure the filters were not over-loading which would
decrease the flow rate. The Acu-Vol samplers have an internal control system
which maintains the calibrated flow rate of =4 m^/min as the filters become
loaded.
The Hi-Vols used 8 in. x 10 in. fiberglass matrix filters. Five slotted
(4 in. x 5 in.) filters and a backup (8 in. x 10 in.) fiberglass matrix filter
were used in the Acu-Vols for particle sizing.
Before going to the field, each filter was conditioned for 2 days in a 40%
constant humidity room and weighed. After sampling, the filters were again
conditioned and weighed by the same person and under the same conditions to
maintain accuracy.
i
The filters used for trace metal anlaysis were then cut into 10 x 10 cm
(4 in. x 4 in.) sections, and each section was weighed. The tare weight of
each section was calculated from the original tare weight of the entire filter
and subtracted from the weighted portion to yield a particulate weight. The
78
-------
weights used for calculating metal concentrations are listed in Tables C-l
through C-20 in Appendix C. Samples were digested in two different mixtures:
(1) HN03-HC104H2S04 (30:20:5, v/v) for the analyses of Cd, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ag, and
Ti; and (2) HC1-HN03 (7:3, v/v) for the analyses of As, Sb, Be, Hg, Se, V, Ba,
and Pb. All metals were analyzed using atomic absorption techniques.
Approximately 50% of the samples were analyzed in duplicate to determine
the homogeneity of the samples and to give a measure of the precision of the
methods.
To determine the accuracy of the methods, standard reference materials
(Bureau of Mines 107A Refuse and NBS 1571 Orchard Leaves) were analyzed and
compared to certified values; reagent blanks, filters, and approximately 50%
of the samples were fortified with the metals prior to digestion and analyzed
for recovery efficiency. Reagent blanks and filter blanks were analyzed for
contamination levels; and determined levels were subtracted before final cal-
culation of the metal concentrations.
The results from the quality assurance analyses are attached in Tables C-21
through C-23 of Appendix C. A discussion of the precision, accuracy, and pos-
sible sources of error in the results is given in the following paragraphs.
The difference between concentrations of duplicate analysis is a measure
of the precision. The differences are listed in Tables C-l through C-20 in
Appendix C. Differences ranging from 0% (copper) to 57% (barium) were not
dependent on sample weight, indicating great variations in homogeneity of the
samples.
The accuracy of the methods was determined via analysis of standard refer-
ence materials, and fortified reagents, filters, and samples. Standard refer-
ence materials (Bureau of Mines 107A Refuse and NBS 1571 Orchard Leaves) were
analyzed and compared to certified ranges or values. Metal concentrations for
BOM Refuse fell within the ranges for all elements. Metal concentrations de-
termined for NBS Orchard Leaves were close to the certified values except for
high Cr and Cu, which indicates possible contamination; however, Cr and Cu con-
centrations observed in the samples were much higher than the Orchard Leaves
samples. The possible low contamination level indicated does not greatly af-
fect the sample concentration value.
Reagent recoveries were very good; the metals were not lost with the diges-
tion methods used. Filter recoveries were somewhat lower than reagent recover-
ies for Cd, Cu, and Zn. This may indicate a problem with metal removal from
a filter during digestion.
79
-------
Recoveries of fortified reagents and filters were calculated by:
% Recovery = **§* " ^gb x 100
ygf
Where yg* = Total weight (yg) determined in a fortified sample.
ygb = Weight (yg) determined in an unfortified sample.
ygf = Weight (yg) added to the sample (fortification level) .
Sample recoveries ranged from 31% (copper) to 137% (zinc) . The recoveries
were calculated based on the assumption that the samples were homogeneous .
Since duplicate samples varied by as much as 57%, the recoveries must reflect
this variation. The recovery was calculated by:
% Recovery = Ug " V% x 100
ygf
Where yg* = Total weight (yg) determined in a fortified sample.
ygc = Weight (yg) calculated for an unspiked sample of equivalent
weight .
ygf = Weight (yg) added to the sample (fortification level) .
Variations in precision and accuracy may be due in part to errors in in-
itial and final conditioning and weighing of filters, imperfect filter sec-
tioning, variations in the weight of a sectr'oned filter, sample inhomogeneity,
difficulty in removing the dissolved metal from the filter, and the precision
of the analytical methods.
Because tare and final weights are used to calculate metal concentra-
tions, errors in weights, especially for low filter loadings, contribute to
errors in metal concentrations.
To determine the combined error in sectioning and taring filters, filter
blanks were sectioned and weighed; the section weights varies by <0.040 g.
Any weight less than this weighing error cannot be used to calculate metal
concentrations. No weights less than twice the weighting error were used to
calculate concentrations.
Outagamie County
At Outagamie County the suspected sources of emissions were the shredder's,
conveyor transfer point, magnetic separator, and the transfer from drag con-
veyor 1 to 3. These locations are shown in Figures 2 and 3, as El, E2, E3,
and E4, respectively.
80
-------
El was next to belt conveyor 1 midway between the discharge of the two
shredders for the purpose of sampling the emissions produced when the shredded
MSW fell onto the conveyor. The output chutes of the shredders are skirted all
the way to the conveyor side plates.
E2 was chosen as close as possible to the intersection of belt conveyors
1 and 2 (Figure 52), since observation indicated the transfer of the shredded
MSW from one conveyor to the next produced emissions.
E3, inside the magnetic separator system house, was as close as possible
to the point where belt conveyor 2 dumped into the hopper.
E4 was located next to the control room on the tipping floor (Figure 53) ,
on test day 2, after the dust produced by the transfer of material from drag
conveyor 1 to conveyor 3 was observed.
The four locations were sampled using Hi-Vol samplers in order to deter-
mine particle concentration and to provide samples for trace metal analysis.
The samples for the first four test days were collected on fiberglass matrix
(8 in. x 10 in.) filter blanks. The last three test days' samples were col-
lected on (8 in. x 10 in.) milipore membrane filters to facilitate analysis
for asbestos.
Locations El, E2 and E3 were sampled using an Acu-Vol sampler with a five-
stage Sierra head for particle size distribution. The flow rate through the
heads was controlled at -4 m3/min (-50 ft^/min).
On alternate test days, the water spray in the shredders was off during
sampling in order to determine its effects on the emissions.
The filters from the Hi-Vols were weighed to determine yg/m3 of particle
concentration. The amount of trace metals As, Sb, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb,
Hg, Se,-Ag, Ti, V and Zn were found by analysis. The millipore filters were
also analyzed for asbestos by a physicochemical morphology electron microscope
method by Illinois Institute of Technology (IITRI).*
The material on the Sierra filters was assumed to have a density of 1;
therefore, based on the measured flow rate, the cutoff diameter of the col-
lected particulate at locations El and E2 were 6.9, 2.7, 1.3, 0.85, 9.44ym,
and at E3, 6.2, 2.6, 1.3, 0.81, 0.42ym.
* Illinois Institute of Technology, Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois.
81
-------
Baltimore County
The sample locations used at Baltimore County are shown in Figures 14 and
15 as El, E2, E3 and E4.
El was on the ground at the south edge of the magnetic separator system
structure (Figure 54) to capture the fallout from the system.
E2 was inside the processing building next to the landfill compactor
(Figure 55). This location was exposed to the material falling from the trans-
fer point of belt conveyor 14 to 15, where the diverter blade is located. The
equipment in the processing building was not operating; therefore, the sampler
was not moved further inside.
E3 was on the tipping floor at the north end of the holding pit '(Figure
56) . These samplers sampled the emissions produced by the dumping of the
packer trucks and the overhead grappling crane operations .
E4 was on top of the motor control room for shredder 1 (Figure 57) . This
location is between shredders 1 and 2 just below the input to the shredders.
The four locations were sampled using Hi-Vol samplers in order to deter-
mine the particle concentration and to provide samples for trace metal analysis.
Fiberglass matrix (8 in. x 10 in.) filters were used for this sampling.
Locations El, E3 and E4 were sampled using Acu-Vol samplers with five
stage Sierra heads for particle size distribution data. The flow rate through
the heads was -4 m-Vmin (-50
The third Hi-Vol sampler, shown in Figure 56, contained a (8 in. x 10 in.)
fiberglass filter but was not operated. This filter was used to determine
background emissions for correction of the sample weights. The same filter
was used at all four locations and the resulting weight of collected material
was averaged among them.
The Baltimore County facility has a dust collection system connected to
the shredders. Figure 58 shows the duct work for this system. Figure 59 is
a view of line 2 shredder, showing the duct connected to the input chute op-
posite the input opening. The baghouse for collecting the particles is located
on the west side of the facility and is labeled "Dust Collection" in Figure 14.
To test for the effect of the dust collection system, the first 2 days
were sampled with the system off; then the system was on for the last 2 days.
The filters from the Hi-Vols were weighed to determine ng/m^ of particu-
late concentration. The analytical laboratory used these filters to determine
the concentration of the trace metals Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn.
82
-------
The material on the Sierra filters was assumed to have a density of 1;
therefore, based on the measured flow rate, the cutoff diameters of the col-
lected particles were 6.9, 2.7, 1.3, 0.85, and 0.44pm.
TEST RESULTS
The emissions data of interest from a health and safety standpoint are
particle concentration, particle size distribution, trace metals, and asbes-
tos present in the in-plant ambient air (worker exposure). This study is
centered around equipment evaluation; therefore, the samplers were located to
test for the emissions due to equipment.
Particle Concentration
The data indicate that particle concentration is not a danger at either
the Outagamie County or Baltimore County plants, based on current TLV's.*
Figures 60 and 61 show graphically the dust levels at the four test locations
at Outagamie and Baltimore counties, respectively. The highest level of par-
ticle concentration was at location 4 at Outagamie County on day 2 with 6.617
mg/Nm3. As explained below, the level of trace metal concentration was low
enough that the only consideration is nuisance dust, which has a TLV* of 10
mg/m3. The highest average for the 4 days is 5.546 mg/m^, again at location 4,
at Outagamie County. Detailed data are given in Tables C-24 and C-25 in Ap-
pendix C for Outagamie County and Baltimore County, respectively.
Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distribution for the three sites tested at Outagamie
County, El, E2 and E3, are plotted in Figures 62 to 68, and the background
data are in Tables C-26 to C-32 in Appendix C. This same information for
Baltimore County is plotted in Figures 69 to 72, with background data in Tables
C-33 to C-36 in Appendix C.
The alveolar (lung's air sacks) deposition range or particle sizes are of
interest from a health standpoint. The quantity of particles in mg/Nm3 is
calculated by multiplying the percent of particles in the alveolar deposition
zone (Figures 62 to 72) by the corresponding particle concentration from
Tables C-24 and C-25 in Appendix C. The results are plotted in Figure 73 for
Outagamie County and Figure 74 for Baltimore County. The background data for
these graphs are in Table C-37 of Appendix C. On these graphs, the cross-
hatched bars indicate the days the dust control system was on.
* TLV (threshold limit value) from American Conference of Governmental and
Industrial Hygienists.
83
-------
With the exception of the dust collected at the magnetic separator system at
Outagamie County, there is no clear indication that the particles in the alveo-
lar deposition zone are controlled with the existing systems. As was pointed
out in the section on particle concentration, these levels are not a health
hazard.
Trace Metals
The data from the trace metal analysis (Tables C-l to C-20) are tabulated
by test day and location in Tables C-38, 39 and 40 in Appendix C. In all cases,
the amount of toxic metals was well below their respective TLVs. Table 9 lists
the metals that the samples were analyzed for, for each location, with the
published TLV and the highest concentration found. The sample with concentra-
tion closest to its TLV was lead, at Outagamie County, with 0.018 mg/Nm3 and
a TLV of 0.150 mg/Nm3.
DISCUSSION
The results of inplant air emissions tests indicate that nuisance dust,
trace metals and asbestos are not health hazards. Two previous EPA sponsored
test programs reached the same conclusions;* therefore, it is recommended that
no further testing, of this type, be done until there is some indication of a
problem area.
St. Louis Demonstration Final Report: Refuse Processing Plant Equipment,
Facilities, and Environmental Evaluations. EPA-600/2-77-155a.
Evaluation of Fabric Filter Performance at Browning Ferris Industries/
Raythean Service Company Resource Recovery Plant, Houston, Texas. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-2166.
84
-------
TABLE 9.
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos*
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
TLV OF
TLV
mg/Nm3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.002
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.15
0.05
0.2
0.01
0.01
5.0
METALS ANALYZED VERSUS
CONCENTRATION
Highest Concentration mg/Nm3
Baltimore County
0.0018
0
0.0001
0.0134
0.0019
0.0052
0.0037
Outagamie County
0.002
0.00007
0.003
0.000013
0.00014
0.00648
0.00158
0.018
0.000037
0.000007
0.000036
0.00134
0.000296
0.00788
* Asbestos: The 12 millipore filters from Outagamie County were
sectioned in MRl's laboratory and shipped to an independent
laboratory for physicochemical morphology electron micro-
scope analysis for asbestos. The three filters with the most
sample were analyzed and no asbestos was found. Based on two
previous similar investigations for asbestos, which found
only 0.46% and 0.0% by weight of sample,!^/ the decision
was made not to analyze the remaining nine filters or test
for asbestos at Baltimore County.
I/ St. Louis Demonstration Final Report, MRI Project No. 4033-L,
page 64.
2J Evaluation of Fabric Filter Performance at Browning Ferris
Industries/Raytheon Service Company Resource Recovery Plant,
Houston, Texas, MRI Project No. 4290-L(13), page 44.
85
-------
•
Figure 52. Emission Sampler at Conveyor Belt Intersection (Location E2)
-------
Figure 53. Emission Sampler on Tipping Floor (Location EA)
-------
"
Figure 54. Emission Sampler Location El, Baltimore County
-------
Figure 55. Emission Sampler Located E2, Baltimore County
-------
Figure 56. Emission Samplers Location E3, Baltimore County
-------
Figure 57. Emission Sampler Location E4, Baltimore County
-------
Figure 58. Duct Work for Dust Collection System, Baltimore County
-------
.
"1
H.
0 ,
r:
D
M C
3 CO
T) rr
C
n- n
o
n M
p.
O
tfl
03
H- O
3 n-
O
i-! n
fD O
3
n 3
O ft)
c o
3 rr
.
-------
~ 6
'"I
\ 5
c
o
o
o
U
J£
u
t>
£
2
o
Shredder Output
Conveyors 1 to 2
Magnetic Separator
Shredder Input & Drag Conveyor 1 to 3
1234 1234 1234
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Location
Test Day
234
Day 4
Figure 60 - Particle Concentration Versus Day by Location
94
-------
0
Mag. Sep.
Process Build
Tipping Floor
Shredder
Location
Test Day
Figure 61 - Particulate Concentration Versus Day by Location,
Baltimore County
95
-------
10.0
VD
CTi
3.0
Z
o
0£
U
y
1
1.0
0.5
0.1
I
I—i—i—i—i 1 1 1—r
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
o Location (El)
A Location\E2)
o Location
-------
10.0
3.0
Z
o
ee.
1.0
Q
uj
0.5
1 T
,—,—,—,
T—r
,A O
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
0.1
0.01
II I
JL
JL
I I I I I
JL
_L
D Location (El,
A Location\E2,
O Location vE3>
J L
0.1
0.5 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
95
98 99
99.9
99.99
Figure 63 - Particle Size Distribution, Day 2, Outagamie County
-------
oo
10.0
3.0
z
o
y
5
fc
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.1
T 1 T
T 1 1 1 1 T
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
A D
D Location (Ell
A Location (E2,
o Location \E3y
J I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
0.5 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
95
98 99
99.9
99.99
Figure 64. Particle Size Distribution, Day 3,
Outagamie County
-------
10.0
vo
3.0
z
o
o:
y
5
1.0
U
a: 0.5
0.1
0.01
1 T
1 T
T T
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
A a
J I I
J_
till
_L
_L
"T T
O Location U: 1,
A Location \E2,
O Location \E3y
J L
0.1 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 65. Particle Size Distribution, Day 4,
Outagamie County
99.9
99.99
-------
o
o
10.0
3.0
O
KL
u
UJ
5 1.0
O
3
0.5
0.1
0.01
I—r
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
J I
I
J_
I
I
J I
I
I
O Location
A Location
o Location (E3;
I
I
0.1
0.5 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
95
98 99
99.9 99.99
Figure 66. Particle Size Distribution, Day 5,
Outagamie County
-------
10.0
3.0
i—i—i—i—i \ r
z
o
u
S
DC
lu
1.0
y
h-
£ 0.5
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
0.1
0.01
I
I
Q Location (ET,
A Location \E2,
o Location \E3,
I
I
0.1 0.5 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
95 98 99
Figure 67. Particle Size Distribution, Day 6,
Outagamie County
99.9 99.99
-------
o
N>
10.0,
3.0
O
Q£
U
1.0
Q
3
0.5
0.1
0.01
I I I
I I I I
Alveolar
DeposiHon
Zone
D Location (El)
A Location \E2y
o Location (E3y
I I I
I
I
III I I
I
I
I
I I
I
0.1
0.5 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
95 98 99
99.9 99.99
Figure 68. Particle Size Distribution, Day 7,
County
-------
10.0
o
GJ
3.0
O
of
(J
a:
IU
&
y
1
1.0
0.5
0.1
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
J I
O O A
tion \ 1 /
I I I I I
A Location
a Location < 3
O Location
March 7, 1978
I I I
0.01 0.1 0.5 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
95 98 99
99.9 99.99
Figure 69. Particle Size Distribution, Day 1,
Baltimore County
-------
10.0
3.0
ISl
o
oe
1.0
a
u
0.5
T—I T
T 1—I 1 T
T T
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
0.1
0.01
A LocaHon (\ y
D Location \3y
O Location \ 4 y
March 8, 1978
J J_
_L
1
I
I
I
I
I
J I
I
0.1
0.5 1
95 98 99
5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 70. Particle Size Distribution, Day 2, Baltimore County
99.9 99.99
-------
10.0
to
1
V
<
5
A Location ( 1 /
D Location 3
O Location
April 5, 1978
99.9
99.99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 71. Particle Size Distribution, Day 3, Baltimore County
-------
o
ON
10.0
3.0
in
O
1.0
o
UJ
0.5
0.1
0.01
T 1 T
1 1 1 1
Alveolar
Deposition
Zone
1 1
tion (l y
111
1
1 1 1
I 1
1
A Location
O Location \ 3
O Location \4y
April 6, 1978
I 1 1
0.1
0.5 1 2
5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 72. Particle Size Distribution, Day 4, Baltimore County
1
99.9 99.99
-------
0.9
0 8
V « U
0.7
JO,
1
0
J
1
i 0.4
1
a
£ 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
••••
1
^i^HI
1
1
[
I
;&
vc
§5
«
x$
^
Shredder Spray System
KLU
UDr
y
I
1234 1234 1234 Test Day
El E 2 E 3 Location
Shredder Conveyor Magnetic
Transfer Separator
Figure 73. Percent Particulate in Alveolar
Deposition Zone Versus Test
Day and Location, Outagamie
County
107
-------
o.9r
0.8-
Dust Collection System
Moff
0.7
8 0.6
o
N
c
_o
1 0.5
0)
Q
O
o
4 0.4
c
c
0)
I 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-
_
-
-
«•
1
sS\
•Xs
^s
jsSS
1
1
>JJ3
mam.
~i
1234 1234
El E2
Magnetic Tipping
Separator Floor
1
MB
KS
i
234 Test Day
E 3 Location
Shredder
Figure 74. Percent Particulate in Alveolar
Deposition Zone Versus Test
Day and Location, Baltimore
County
108
-------
APPENDIX A - MAGNETIC SEPARATOR DATA
TABLE A-l. CONVEYOR SPECIFICATIONS - OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Conveyor
DRAG 1 + 2
DRAG 3+4
Belt 1
Belt 2
Belt 3
Incline
Type Degrees
Steel Piano Hinge 0
Steel Piano Hinge 35
B. F. Goodrich
Nyloc 250 Korseal 0
B. F. Goodrich
Nyloc 250 Korseal 21
B. F. Goodrich
Nyloc 250 Korseal 0
Velocity
m/min
3.0
0 to 6.1
65.5
65.5 \
Reversible
65.5
Width
cm
274
182
122
:— 110 -I
/\
122
Magnetic
Separator
Special
21
95
91
109
-------
TABLE A-2. CONVEYOR SPECIFICATIONS - BALTIMORE COUNTY
Conveyor
DRAG 1+2
Belt 1+6
Belt 2
Belt 3+8
Belt 4+9
Belt 5+10
Belt 7
Belt 11
Belt 12
Belt 13
Belt 15
Belt 16
Belt 17
Belt 18
Belt 19
Belt 20
Belt 21
Magnetic
Separator
Incline
Type Degrees
Steel Piano Hinge 34
B.F. Goodrich
Flexseal Nylon
Polyester 0
Polyester
22
0
9.5
17
22
0
0
20
12
15.5
12.5
24
8
0
12.5
Special 0
Velocity
m/tnin
0 to 7.3
93
128
44
50
87
79
Reversible
87
91
134
84
46
41
41
84
82
83
117
Width
cm
183
213
\ A
152
I 1
I °-t I bb
\ A*
\ A3°
See Belt 2
152
152
152
See Belt 2
See Belt 2
1— 76-^3Qo
122
152
152
See Belt 17
152
110
-------
TABLE A-3. WEIGHTS OF SAMPLE COMPONENTS IN GRAMS
Test
Day
1
2
3
4
Ferrous Stream S2
Sample
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Ferrous
6,409
7,611
6,827
9,244
8,210
7,484
5,615
9,412
13*553
8,868
5,375
6,804
5,216
8,346
Nonferrous
85.90
75.30
85.00
326.70
122.50
142.20
60.30
78.80
338.30
207.70
55.90
106.70
69.20
212.60
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Reject Stream SI Test
Ferrous
7.05
37.80
7.40
41.50
8.95
1.75
6.25
68.00
59.20
154.60
109.10
30.40
15.60
11.80
Nonferrous
2,018
2,858
4,286
2,268
4,060
794
2,835
1,973
2,381
2,404
1,701
1,814
680
2,087
Day Sample
1
5 , 2
3
4
1
6 2
3
4
1
7 2
3
4
Ferrous Stream S2
Ferrous
7,303
6,532
7,099
8,278
3,152
6,963
10,251
5,897
7,711
6,917
6,305
4,695
Nonferrous
219.10
91.60
177.50
75.60
73.90
180.00
329.50
81.60
235.20
45.50
172.50
165.00
Reject Stream SI
Ferrous
15.20
21.40
21.80
15.30
0.90
1.80
64.40
76.40
127.30
18.00
12.40
18.90
Nonferrous
1,814
2,948
2,835
2,767
635
816
1,996
2,608
2,381
1,905
1,633
1,928
-------
TABLE A-4. WEIGHTS OF SAMPLE COMPONENTS IN GRAMS
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Test
Day Sample
1
2
1 3
4
1
2
2 3
4
1
2
3 3
4
Ferrous
Ferrous
454
4083
1905
544
2540
2225
1747
966
2051
1109
1148
Stream S2
Nonferrous
7.6
9.4
0.4
3.0
0.3
2.2
3.6
0.3
4.2
3.2
1.4
Reject Stream SI
Ferrous
326.7
1271.7
840.9
1012.1
3799.2
996.4
1175.6
565.5
3051.5
4745.6
2818.9
Nonferrous
20334
18222
14953
37415.9
31204.8
41809.6
33488.4
5678.5
49002.5
34136.4
29304.1
Test
Day Sample
1
2
4 3
4
1
2
5 3
4
1
2
6 3
4
Ferrous
Ferrous
1260
1590
3630
2174
3445
3531
1864
909
2540
2994
2043
5027
Stream S2
Nonferrous
4.3
1.4
25.3
6.5
7.3
12.8
3.8
8.2
4.6
3.5
3.1
12.5
Reject
Ferrous
671.7
393.3
1206.7
503.3
546.1
1107.2
458.4
439
584.4
624.9
452.2
1601.6
Stream SI
Nonferrous
25600
36493
32753
34886
39810
33647
24040
18349
37209
25647
20014
34672
-------
TABLE A-5. MASS BALANCE DATA
Test
Oav Dnte
I Monday
2 Tuesday
3 Wednesday
4 Thursday
5 Friday
6 Monday
7 Tuesday
a/ Dally bulk weight
W Total shredded =
c/ Total outgoing -
Weighted n
ulki' Bulki'
Incoming Ferrous Landfill
(kE)
179,446
147.254
194,491
160,408
189. 53S
189,738
173,853
s calculated
incoming - bt
bulk ferrous
(kg) (kR)
557 902
457 7'.0
603 977
498 806
588 952
588 953
539 874
Shredder
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Total- Shredders Shredder
Water Sprny Shredded Run Time
(kR)
25,145
12 ,629
22,399
10,874
27,694
28
26,051
(kg)
203,132
158,686
215,310
169,978
215,692
188,225
198,491
(hours)
13.30
10.80
15.00
10.20
14.10
14.00
13.70
thru-put
(MR/hr)
15.27
14.69
14.35
16.66
15.30
13.44
14.49
Ferrous
Recovered
(kR)
7,675
5,625
6,241
6,441
5,842
7,793
5,969
Landfill
Material
(kit)
196.977
146,972
212,490
174,751
201,948
182,217
192,577
TofalE/
Outgoing
,,,_„(*«) ....
206,111
153,794
220,311
182 ,496
209,330
191,551
199,959
Balance
+• « more out
-------
TABLE A-6. MAGNETIC SEPARATOR INPUT PERCENT FERROUS METAL
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Test Sample Ferrous Ferrous
Day Weight (kg) Weight (kg) Weight %
1
2
3 a
b
c
d
Average
4 a
b
c
Average
5 a
b
c
d
Average
6 a
b
c
d
Average
7 a
b
c
d
Average
NO
1.41
11.23
9.15
6.34
6.77
2.63
4.46
7.51
10.70
9.88
4.42
10.04
2.37
7.60
10.69
2.93
8.50
7.16
5.38
7.81
SAMPLES TAKEN
0.00
0.34
0.14
0.17
0.44
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.59
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.23
0.23
0.03
0.04
0.24
0.21
0.33
0.00
3.03
1.53
2.68
6.50
0.76
3.36
2.66
5.52
0.91
2.49
1.10
0.00
3.03
2.15
1.02 ,
0.47
3.35
3.90
4.22
Ferrous
Weight %
Average
3.44
2.26
2.51
1.55
2.99
Overall - 2.55
114
-------
TABLE A-7. MAGNETIC SEPARATOR INPUT PERCENT FERROUS METAL
Test Recovered
Day Magnetics (kg)
1 3481
2 2551
3 2831
4 2922
5 2650
6 3535
7 2707
Landfill (kg)
89347
66665
96384
79266
91602
82652
87351
OUTAGAMIE
Ferrous In
Landfill (Z)
0.92
1.24
4.73
1.50
0.73
1.70
1.93
COUNTY
Ferrous In
Landfill (kg)
822
827
4559
1189
669
1405
1686
Material to
System (kg)
92828
69216
99215
82188
94252
86187
90058
Ferrous In
Input (kg)
4303
3378
7390
4111
3319
4940
4393
AVERAGE =
Ferrous In
Input (%)
4.64
4.88
7.45
5.00
3.52
5.73
4.88
5.16
-------
TABLE A-8. PERCENT FERROUS METAL IN INPUT STREAM
Test Sample
Day Weight (kg)
1 a
b
c
Average
2 a
b
c
d
Average
3 a
b
c
d
Average
4 a
b
c
d
Average
5 a
b
c
d
Average
6 a
b
c
d
Average
21.
23.
17.
38.
37.
45.
36.
7.
54.
39.
33.
27.
38.
37.
37.
43.
38.
26.
19.
40.
29.
22.
38.
12
59
70
98
54
03
41
21
11
99
27
54
48
62
57
81
30
37
71
34
27
51
27
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Recovered Last Total
Ferrous Ferrous Ferrous Total
Weight (kg) Weight (kg) Weight (kg) Ferrous (%)
0.
4.
1
0.
2.
2.
1.
0.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
2.
3.
3.
1.
0.
2.
2.
2.
5.
45
08
.91
54
54
22
75
97
05
11
15
26
59
63
17
45
53
86
91
54
99
04
03
0
1
0
1
3
1
1
0
3
4
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
.33
.27
.84
.01
.80
.00
.18
.57
.05
.75
.82
.67
.39
.21
.50
.55
.11
.46
.44
.58
.62
.45
.60
0.
5.
2.
1.
6.
3.
2.
1.
5.
5.
3.
1.
1.
4.
2.
4.
4.
2.
1.
3.
3.
2.
6.
78
35
75
55
34
22
93
54
10
86
97
93
98
84
67
00
64
32
35
12
61
49
63
3.
22.
15.
4.
16.
7.
8.
21.
9.
14.
11.
7.
5.
12.
7.
9.
12.
8.
6.
7.
12.
11.
17.
7
7
5
0
9
2
0
2
4
6
9
0
2
9
1
1
1
8
8
7
4
1
3
Overall -
Average
14.00
9.03
14.28
8.05
9.20
12.13
11.12
116
-------
TABLE A-9. PERCENT NON-MAGNETIC MATERIAL IN MAGNETIC STREAM
Test
Day
1
Average
2
Average
4
Average
5
Average
6
Sample No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
OUTAG/
Sample
Weight (kg)
6.49
7.69
6.91
9.57
NO SAMPLE
8.33
7.63
5.68
NO SAMPLE
6.91
5.29
8.56
7.52
6.62
7.28
8.35
3.23
7.14
10.58
5.98
MIE COUNTY
Weight (kg)
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.33
0.12
0.14
0.06
0.11
0.07
0.21
0.22
0.09
0.18
0.08
0.07
0.18
0.33
0.08
Non-Magnetics
Weight %
1.39
1.04
1.30
3.44
1.44
1.83
1.06
1.59
1.32
2.45
2.93
1.36
2.47
0.96
2.17
2.52
3.12
1.33
Average %
1.79
1.44
1.79
1.93
Average
2.29
117
-------
TABLE A-10. PERCENT NON-MAGNETIC MATERIAL IN MAGNETIC STREAM
Test
Day
1
Average
4
Average
5
Average
6
Sample No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
BALT:
Sample
Weight (g)
461.6
4092.4
1905.4
NO SAMPLE
1264.3
1591.4
3655.3
2180.5
3452.3
3543.8
1867.8
917.2
2544.6
2997.5
2046.1
5039.5
[MORE COUNTY
Weight (g)
7.6
9.4
0.4
4.3
1.4
25.3
6.5
7.3
12.8
3.8
8.2
4.6
3.5
3.1
12.5
Non-Magnetics
Weight %
1.65
0.23
0.02
0.34
0.09
0.69
0.30
0.21
0.36
0.20
0.89
0.18
0.12
0.15
0.25
Average %
0.63
0.36
, ^
0.42
t
Average
0.18
118
-------
APPENDIX B - AIR CLASSIFIER DATA
TABLE B-l. PRELIMINARY VELOCITY TRAVERSES
PLANT Tft-e*
DATE duA/e 20 /9/f"
LOCATION Ctlktff "'/ft , **'/¥
0,/J
ot /^
ffi /6
e.c>*
O.I/
a
ff
EPA (Our) 233
472
119
1& P^
I o P /4
\r
SCHEMATIC UF TRAVERSE POINT LAYOUT
B
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
VELOCITY I STACK
HEAD TEMPERATURE
(Aps*in.H20 (T,).-*F
__^____ . ^ — 1M , I, ,., ,„,,„,.,. .
/ \ e./e pf*
-- — i •• - -- — -^
^ [ o,/?
?• 6,/t
l0/
(, o,0l*
C, /Ac* t./3
7 ff, //•->"
7 tfit.'^ O.-ti-O
^.y ~ f. ix i*
f A 0 / $o^
7* //MS*
0,1/0
... -
• • .,
± in
!
— \
J
1
„ . L i - - J
)
I
1
* I
AVERAGE
i
0, 0 f
!
1
~~!
-------
TABLE. B-2. AIR CLASSIFIER MATERIALS STREAMS DATA, TEST DAY 1
N3
o
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Sample No.
01
04
07
in
00
03
06
09
02
05
08
11
Fraction
Input
Average
Lights
Average
Heavies
Average
Output
(Lights and He
Average
Total
Weight
M
339.3
6,142
1,134
784.7
2,100
249.0
2,200
2,540
1.624
1,653
141.1
1,052
684.9
716.7
648.7
390.1
avies) 3,252
3,225
2,341
2,302
Paper and Plastic
Height
(g)
131.9
2,746
561.4
255.2
923.6
138.8
1,068
1,105
1,029
835.2
0
73.3
61.0
36.4
42.68
212.1
1,141
1,166
1,065
896.0
Weight
m
38.87
44.71
49.51
32.52
43.98
55.74
48.56
43.50
63.36
50.53
0
6.97
8.91
5.08
6.58
54.37
35.09
36.16
45.49
38.92
Other
•Jeight
207.4
3,401
572.4
530.0
1,178
110.1
1,132
1,435
594
817.8
140.9
979.5
623.8
681.3
606.4
251.0
2,112
2,059
1,275
1,424
Length of
Sample
(m)
3.048
1.524
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
3.048
Belt Flow
Speed Rate &s a
(m/sec) (Mg/hr) *o/*s
1.40 0.56
20.27
1.87
1.29
6.00
1.37 0.40
3.56
4.12
2.63
2.68
0.69 0.11
0.85
0.55
0.58
0.52
0.51 155.0
4.41 18.1
4.67 17.1
3.21 24.9
3.20 20.0
Split Ash Moisture
Weight Weight Weight
m gj (%)
24.26 1.03
77.19
80.70
88.16
81.92
82.00 20.14 8.74
22.81
19.30
11.84
18.02
18.00 69.21 0.81
Heating Bulk
Value Density
(J/ke) * 1C3 (kg/a3) _
116.6
92.1
73.7
15,607 94.1
61.67
91.95
55.74
14,860 69.8
6,966
Ferrous
Height
0.9
402.7
11.0
64.3
119.7
0
1.1
0
0
1.1
67.5
93.6
91.3
5.. 4
64.45
67.5
94.7
91.3
5.4
64.7
Weight
flO
0.27
6.56
0.97
8.19
5.7
0
0.05
0
0
0.07
47.84
8.90
13.33
0.75
9.94
17.30
2.91
2.83
0.23
5.81
-------
TABLE B-3. AIR CLASSIFIER MATERIAL STREAMS DATA, TEST DAY 2
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Sample No.
21
24
27
20
23
26
22
25
28
Fraction
Input
Average
Lights
Average
Heavies
Average
Output
(Lights and Heavies)
Average
Total
Weight
6,577
4,990
8,051
6,539
3,969
2,381
2,722
3,024
10,550
8,732
5,783
8,355
14,520
11,110
8,505
11,380
Paper and
Weight
1,946
1,569
4.050
2,522
1,447
948.0
1,982
1,459
3,529
2,477
2,155
2,720
4,976
3.425
4,137
4,179
Plastii-
Ueipht
29.59
31.44
50.30
38.56
36.46
39.82
72.82
48.25
33.45
28.36
37.26
32.56
34.27
30.83
48.64
37.91
Other
Weight
4,627
3,583
4,001
4,070
2,522
1,433
734.8
1,563
7,017
6,260
3,624
5,634
9,539
7,691
4,359
7,197
Length Belt
of Sample Speed
(n) (m/sec)
0.92 1.40
0.61
0.92
0.92 1.37
0.92
0.92
0.61 0.69
0.92
0.61
Flow
"""' *• ."/*
(Mg/hr) Vs
35.95
41.14
44.01
40.37
21.30
12.78
14.61
16.23
42.70
23.43
23.41
29.85
64.00 1.25
36.21 2.20
38.02 2.10
46.08 1.85
Split Ash
Weight Weight
(Z) m
26.57
33.42
35.30
38.55
35.76 30.42
66.58
64.70
61.45
64.24 28.47
Moisture Heating Bulk
Weight Value Density
«) (J/kg) x 103 dus/n.3)
132.8
140.2
79.0
20.50 10,260 117.4
90.8
52.2
55.1
18.90 11,670 66.0
159.1
182.4
132.6
19.80 11,480 158.0
Ferrous
Weight
(el
934.4
27.22
49.90
337.2
0
0
0
0
31.75
158.8
444.5
211.7
31.75
158.8
444.5
211.7
Weight
m
14.21
0.55
0.62
5.16
0
0
0
0
0.30
1.82
7.69
2.54
0.22
1.43
5.23
2.29
-------
TABLE B-4. AIR CLASSIFIER MATERIAL STREAMS DATA, TEST DAY 3
to
Sample No.
41
44
47
40
43
46
42
45
48
Fraction
Input
Average
Lights
Average
Heavies
Average
Output
(Light and Heavies)
Average
Total
Weight
(g)
428.2
580.6
639.6
549.5
452.7
553.4
598.7
534.9
244.9
712.1
213.2
390.1
697.6
1,266
811.9
925.2
Paper and Plastic
Weight
(K)
280.8
290.3
381.0
317.4
336.1
430.9
435.4
400.8
99.8
263.1
27.2
130.0
435.9
694.0
462.6
530.8
Weight
m
65.57
50.00
59.57
57.76
74.25
77.87
72.73
74.93
40.75
36.94
12.77
33.33
62.49
54.82
56.98
58.10
Other
Weight
147.4
294.8
254.0
232.1
116.6
122.5
163.3
134.1
145.1
449.1
186.0
260.1
261.7
571.6
349.3
394.2
BALTIMORE
Length Belt
of Sample Speed
(m) (m/sec)
3.048 1.40
3.048
2.438
3.048 1.37
1.524
2.438
3.048 0.69
3.048
3.048
COUNTY
Flow
Rate As <*
(Mg/hr) *oK
0.71
0.96
1.32
1.00
0.73
1.79
1.21
1.24
0.20
0.58
0.17
0.32
0.93 85.6
2.37 33.7
1.38 57.6
1.56 59.0
Split „ Ash
Weight Weight
(%) (%)
78.60
75.57
87.60
80.60 16.71
21.40
24.43
12.40
19.40 50.88
Moisture Heating Bulk
Weight Value Density
(J/ke) x 103 fkeAn3)
62.3
78.5
70.4
40.4
49.6
48.7
6.40 15,642 46.2
1.31 10,497
Ferrous
Weight
(g)
0
58.97
0
19.66
0
0
0
0
0
58.97
9.07
22.68
0
58.97
9.07
22.68
Weight
(5;)
0
10.16
0
3.58
0
0
0
0
0
8.28
4.26
5.81
0
4.66
1.12
2.89
-------
TABLE B-5. AIR CLASSIFIER MATERIAL STREAMS DATA, TEST DAY 4
to
u>
Sample No.
61
64
67
70
60
63
66
69
62
65
68
71
Fraction
Input
Average
Lights
Average
Heavies
Average
Output
(Lights and Heavies)
Average
Total
Weight
(B>
4,853
4,491
5,670
2,540
4,389
3,970
1,633
2,658
2,889
2,788
5,965
2,449
9,004
6,827
6,061
9,935
4.082
11,660
9,716
8,848
Paper and Plastic
Height
(e)
1,315
1,579
2,767
1,057
1,680
1,179
771.1
1,225
1,025
1,050
1,270
757.5
2,676
2,114
2,449
1,529
3,901
3,139
2,755
Height
m
27.11
35.15
48.80
41.61
38.27
29.71
47.22
46.08
35.48
39.62
21.29
30.93
29.72
30.96
28.23
24.65
37.46
33.46
32.31
31.97
Other
Weight
(a\
3,538
2,898
2,892
1.48)
2,703
2,767
861.8
1,451
1,864
1,736
4,686
1,696
6,350
4,695
4,357
7,453
2,558
7,801
6,559
6,093
BALTIMORE
Length Bel t
of Sample Speed
(m) Cm/sec)
1.22 1.40
1.52
1.22
1.52
1.22 1.37
1.52
1.22
0.91
1.22 0.69
1.52
1.52
1.52
COUNTY
Flov
Rate *s . a
(HK/hr) »' s
20.00
14.86
23.37
8.40
16.07
5.31
10.76
15.68
11.96
12.07
3.98
14.63
11.09
28.14 2.84
9.20 8.60
25.39 3.15
26.77 3.00
22.38 4.40
Split Ash
Weight Weight
(Zl (2)
13.12
57.10
56.86
42.50
58.50
53.74 19.40
42.90
43.14
57.50
41.50
46.26 41.29
Moisture Heating Bulk
Weight Value Density
(» (J/k«> * 103 (kg/»3)
99.0
106.7
92.1
79.8
61.30 5,478 94.4
8*8.1
62.8
78.3
77.0
19.00 12,914 76.6
155.4
54.3
217.8
161.8
18.10 8,748 147.3
Ferrous
Weight
(B)
0
0
79.38
0
19.85
0
0
0
0
0
285.8
158.8
181.4
. 113.4
184.9
285.8
158.8
181.4
113.4
184.9
Weight
(I)
0
0
1.40
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
4.79
6.48
2.02
1.66
3.05
2.88
3.89
1.56
1.17
2.38
-------
TABLE B-6. SAMPLE DATA FROM RALTECH
N3
•P-
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Test
Day
1
2
3
4
Sample No.
13
14
12
31
32
33
34
49
51
72
73
76
77
Fraction
Light
Light
Heavy
Light
Light
Heavy
Heavy
Light
Heavy
Light
Light
Heavy
Heavy
Asli
(%)
20.14
19.76
69.21
30.42
20.72
28.47
27.37
16.71
50.88
19.40
18.53
41.29
30.70
As Received
Moisture
(%)
8.74
3.24
0.81
18.90
18.90
1.9.80
12.60
6.40
1.31
19.00
28.80
18.10
18.90
Moisture Free Basis
Heat Value
(J/kg) x 103
14,860
16,000
6,966
11,670
12,930
1.1,480
12,510
15,640
10,500
12,910
11,390
8,748
10,510
Ash
(%)
22.07
20.43
69.78
37.51
25.54
35.49
31.31
17.85
51.55
23.95
26.03
50.41
37.86
Heat Value
(J/kg) x 103
16,280
16,540
7,025
14,390
15,940
14,310
14,310
16,710
10,640
15,940
15,990
10,680
12,950
Sample
Weight
(R)
1,086
833
2,227
1,476
775
2,178
1,758
703
987
1,110
1,071
2,878
2,839
-------
APPENDIX C - EMISSION DATA
TABLE C-l. ANTIMONY
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
0
0
0
0
w 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
« 0
« 0
« 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
C , D
.455,
.157,
.623,
.216,
.025,
.109,
.031,
.461,
.090,
.498,
.148,
.066,
.091,
.034,
.076,
.221,
.093,
.171,
.003,
.014,
.004,
.576,
.983,
.408,
.205,
.082,
.056,
0.
0.
0.
0.
_
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(g) Concentration in Duplicate
or r£/ (ppm) Analysis (pptn)
519
146
738
171
0.025
016
167
098
500
177
075
127
041
074
148
089
134
0.002
0.014
0.004
404
786
358
190
057
070
15.6
21.6
423
54.7
13. 8k'
6.7
3.6k/
16.0
38.8
219
42
15
4.2
7.7k/
25
7.1
55
26
b/
b/
b/
45
340
108
40
2.4
<5
2.1
-
10
3.8
_
-
1.3
-
15
-
6
_
-
-
1.7
-
5
-
-
-
4
35
-
-
-
-
Fortification Rec
Level ( g) (%)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
43
-
_
71
_
_
-
140
-
167
-
72
70
-
-
89
-
71
-
-
-
-
104
19
49
-
Pooled relative standard deviation of duplicate
analyses
12.6%
&l Fortified sample.
b/ Weights <50 mg.
125
-------
TABLE C-2. ARSENIC
Sample
Site Ho .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
365
368
0001
15
9001 «
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003 «
9009 «
9019 »
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Pooled relative
analyses
i
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate Fortification
C , D or 0-
0.455, 0.519
0.157, 0.146
0.623, 0.738
0.216, 0.171
0.025, « 0.025
0.109,
0.031, 0.016
0.461, 0.167
0.090, 0.098
0.498, 0.500
0.148, 0.177
0.066, 0.075
0.091, 0.127
0.034, 0.041
0.076, 0.074
0.221, 0.148
0.093, 0.089
0.171, 0.134
0.003, « 0.002
0.014, a 0.014
0.004, « 0.004
0.576, 0.404
0.983, 0.786
0.408, 0.358
0.205, 0.190
0.082, 0.057
0.056, 0.070
standard deviation
(ppm)
12.8
12.5
10.1
9.1
< !Ob-/
< 2
< &£•'
10.8
17.0
11.5
8.8
20.1
< 7
< 19i/
18.4
3.2
11.8
25.7
b/
b/
b/
13.3
11.0
10.0
98.0
< 3
< 4
of duplicate
Analysis (ppm) Level (ug)
0.7
0.3
40
0.3
40
-
-
-
0.7
0.6
40
2.7
40
40
40
-
40
.
40
.
-
4.4
40
40
40
40
-
9.8%
Recovery
(7.)
.
47
-
69
-
-
-
-
-
67
-
94
80
65
-
63
.
85
-
-
.
57
75
44
97
-
a/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 rag.
126
-------
TABLE C-3. BARIUM
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Sample
Site No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
365
368
0001
15
9001 P
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003 «
9009 «
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Pooled relative
analyses
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate
C , D or D- (ppra) Analysis (ppra)
0.455, 0.519
0.157, 0.146
0.623, 0.738
0.216, 0.171
a 0.025, » 0.025
0.109, -
0.031, 0.016
0.461, 0.167
0.090, 0.098
0.498, 0.500
0.148, 0.177
0.066, 0.075
0.091, 0.127
0.034, 0.041
0.076, 0.074
0.221, 0.148
0.093, 0.089
0.171, 0.134
=. 0.003, » 0.003
» 0.014, « 0.014
=> 0.004, » 0.004
0.576, 0.404
0.983, 0.786
0.408, 0.358
0.205, 0.190
0.082, 0.057
0.056, 0.070
standard deviation
502
247
591
364
907—
549
738k/
292
374
540
388
879
549
670b_/
553
328
242
26}
b/
b/
k'
570
481
624
1,310
669
579
of duplicate
98
8
.
42
.
.
-
22
69
19
-
147
.
.
258
57
-
25
_
-
-
18
-
-
-
-
-
13.1%
Fortification Recovery
Level (MR) (%)
„
100 97
.
100 50
.
.
.
-
.
1,000 64
.
100 50
100 72
-
-
100 39
-
100 83
-
-
-
1,000 32
1,000 99
-
100 67
•
a/ Fortified sample.
k/ Weights < 50 mg.
127
-------
TABLE C-4. BERYLLIUM
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pooled
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
relative
Weifiht (g)
C , D or D— '
0.455, 0.519
0.157, 0.146
0.623, 0.738
0.216, 0.171
w 0.025, » 0.025
0.109, -
0.031, 0.016
0.461, 0.167
0.090, 0.098
0.498, 0.500
0.148, 0.177
0.066, 0.075
0.091, 0.127
0.034, 0.041
0.076, 0.074
0.221, 0.148
0.093, 0.089
0.171, 0.134
«> 0.003, «» 0.002
« 0.014, » 0.014
« 0.004, » 0.004
0.576, 0.404
0.983, 0.786
0.408, 0.358
0.205, 0.190
0.082, 0.057
0.056, 0.070
standard deviation
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Concentration in Duplicate
(ppm) Analysis (ppm)
1.6
0.2
2.4
0.5
1.0-/
0.9
i.sk/
0.31
0.5
1.2
0.5
1.4
0.9
1. 1—/
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.14
b/
b/
k/
2.5
1.4
0.9
2.2
0.9
0.45
of duplicate
0.1
-
-
0.2
-
-
0.3
0.04
-
0.2
-
0.2
-
-'
-
-
-
0.04
-
.
.
1.3
0
-
-
-
0.01
IT. 7%
Fortification
Level (|ig)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Recovery
_
-
95
-
69
-
-
-
-
-
89
-
95
56
59
-
62
-
37
—
-
-
-
86
101
92
-
analyses
a_/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 mg.
128
-------
TABLE C-5. CADMIUM
Sample
Site No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
365
368
0001
15
9001 *.
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003 «
9009 »
9019 «
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Pooled relative
analyses
0
0
0
! 0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
• 0
i 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Weight (g)
A , B Or B-
.
.204,
.587,
.185,
.025,
.091,
.044,
.096,
.149,
.497,
.246,
.079,
.080,
.052,
.097,
.243,
.040,
.073,
.003,
.014,
.004,
.575,
.233,
.553,
.270,
.090,
.028,
0.
0.
0.
0.
«
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ss
«
m
0.
0.
0.
527
112
609
157
0.025
068
010
179
176
402
433
072
090
036
068
120
043
064
0.003
0.014
0.004
379
916
323
0,245
0.
0.
deviation
047
014
of dupl
OUTGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Concentration in Duplicate
(ppm) Analysis (ppm)
8
14
18
34
.9
.7
.1
.7 2.2
114k/
22
6
19
27
25
48
21
49
19
7
42
37
16
18
38
39
21
.8 5.2
32
.5 3
.1 0.4
.6 1.4
.7
.6 7
.3
.6
.6
.1 2.2
.6
.3 1.3
b/
b/
b/
.9 0.5
.2
.7
.9
/
49.3k/
icate
14.87.
Fortification Recovery
Level (us) (%)
2.5
25
2.5
25
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
25
25
25
2.5
2.5
120
73
_
80
-
-
-
-
-
34
-
84
105
67
-
30
-
128
-
-
-
42
66
76
136
148
£/ Fortified sample.
k/ Weights < 50 mg.
129
-------
TABLE C-6. CHROMIUM
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pooled
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
relative
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate Fortification
A , B or B-/
- , 0.527
0.204, 0.112
0.587, 0.609
0.185, 0.157
M 0.025, « 0.025
0.091, 0.068
0.044, 0.010
1.096, 0.179
0.149, 0.176
0.497, 0.402
0.246, 0.433
0.079, 0.072
0.080, 0.090
0.052, 0.036
0.097, 0.068
0.243, 0.120
0.040, 0.043
0.073, 0.064
« 0.003, «. 0.003
«• 0.014, * 0.014
m 0.004, « 0.004
0.575, 0.379
1.233, 0.916
0.553, 0.323
0.270, 0.245
0.090, 0.047
0.028, 0.014
deviation of duplicate
(ppm)
848
113
1,190
2,600
l,79oi/
1,250
1,580
1,320
174
1,640
2,400
914
1,490
1,700
2,860
1,250
10,500
4.20Q
b/
b_/
k/
116
671
773
366
988
2,430^
analyses
Analysis (ppm) Level (UK)
.
30
53
178
30
491
-
790
30
73
560
43
30
-
300
395
30
150
30
.
-
18
300
300
300
_
-
18.7%
Recovery
•»
123
-
-
50
-
-
-
87
-
-
-
83
-
71
-
110
-
127
.
_
57
106
63
_
-
a./ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 rag.
130
-------
TABLE C-7. COPPER
.
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Fooled
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
relative
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate Fortifientin
A , B or B— /
- , 0.527
0.204, 0.112
0.587, 0.609
0.185, 0.157
» 0.025, « 0.025
0.091, 0.068
0.044, 0.010
1.096, 0.179
0.149, 0.176
0.497, 0.402
0.246, 0.433
0.079, 0.072
0.080, 0.090
0.052, 0.036
0.097, 0.068
0.243, 0.120
0.040, 0.043
0.073, 0.064
« 0.003, •» 0.003
«. 0.014, « 0.014
K> 0.004, « 0.004
0.575, 0.379
1.233, 0.916
0.553, 0.323
0.270, 0.245
0.090, 0.047
0.028, 0.014
(ppm) Analysis (ppm) Level (UK)
185
224
304
359
13.300S/
16,000
24,600
227
366
365
373
3,380
5,570
7,560
955
316
2,720
1,020
b_7
/
—
163
275
377
1,390
3,290
4,800k/
_
50
500
20
2,800
-
45
50
5
500
106
11
500
50
107
50
11
50
-
-
8
500
500
500
500
-
n Recovery
(7.)
133
53
_
.
-
-
.
68
-
53
-
-
31
127
_
41
-
100
-
-
-
39
69
65
30
-
deviation of duplicate analyses 10.3%
a/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 mg.
131
-------
TABLE C-8, LEAD
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003 »
9009 «*»
9019 «
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Fooled relative
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate
C , D or v!L'
0.455, 0.519
0.157, 0.146
0.623, 0.738
0.216, 0.171
0.025, » 0.025
0.109, -
0.031, 0.016
0.461, 0.167
0.090, 0.098
0.498 0.500
0.148, 0.177
0.066, 0.075
0.091, 0.127
0.034, 0.041
0.076, 0.074
0.221, 0.148
0.093, 0.089
0.171, 0.134
0.003, « 0.003
0.014, « 0.014
0.004, « 0.004
0.576, 0.404
0.983, 0.786
0.408, 0.358
0.205, 0.190
0.082, 0.057
0.056, 0.070
(ppm) Analysis (ppm)
794
430
1,500
3,390
2,3005/
998
i,sy&
602
613
1,500
6,650
1,740
2,000
2 , 050y
3,080
209
2,740
1,230
b/
y
y
709
1,330
3,020
1,900
1,420
805
deviation of duplicate analyses
52
48
-
328
_
.
16
52
29
-
292
84
-
.
1-21
-
87
_
.
-
3
-
-
-
-
68
13.1%
Fortification Recovery
Level (PR) (%)
2,000
200
2,000
200
200
200
200
2,000
2,000
2,000
200
_
-
54
»
73
,.
.
-
-
-
52
-
.
60
54
.
59
_
80
.
.
72
65
74
92
-
a/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 mg.
132
-------
TABLE C-9. MERCURY
Sample
Site Ho.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
365
368
0001
15
9001 *
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003 *
9009 *
9019 R
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Pooled relative
analyses
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Weight
C . D
455,
157,
623,
216,
025,
109
031,
461,
090,
498,
148,
066,
091,
034,
076,
221,
093,
171,
0.
0.
0.
0.
ft*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
' 0.003, "•
'0.
' 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
014,
004,
576,
983,
408,
205,
082,
056,
R3
«
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
(g) Concentration in Duplicate
or D— (ppm) Analysis (ppm)
519
146
738
171
0.025
016
167
098
500
177
075
127
041
074
148
089
134
0.002
0.014
0.004
404
786
358
190
057
070
standard deviation
2
2
2
4
10
6
18!
2
3
4
5
7
< 4
18
4
2
2
2
.
.
.
b
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1 0.1
4 0.3
9
5 0.1
2b/
9
/ 3
1 0.1
6 0.2
5 0.5
6
1 1.1
-
St/
3
2 0.7
7
4 0.5
b/
Fortification Recovery
Level (ug) (%)
_
-
10 69
„
10 85
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10 84
10 71
10 52
-
10 60
—
10 70
b/
b/ -
4
2
10
6
1
4
.
6 0.3
9
6
1
6
7 2.5
—
10 58
10 56
10 46
10 78
of .duplicate 14.3%
£/ Fortified sample.
£/ Weights <50 mg.
133
-------
TABLE C-10. SELENIUM
. Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001 *=
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003 »
9009 »
9019 M
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Pooled relative
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (R) Concentration in Duplicate
C , D or D— '
0.455, 0.519
0.157, 0.146
0.623, 0.738
0.216, 0.171
. 0.025, * 0.025
0.109, -
0.031, 0.016
0.461, 0.167
0.090, 0.098
0.498, 0.500
0.148, 0.177
0.066, 0.075
0.091, 0.127
0.034, 0.041
0.076, 0.074
0.221, 0.148
0.093, 0.089
0.171, 0.134
0.003, <=> 0.002
0.014, « 0.014
0.004, « 0.004
0.576, 0.404
0.983, 0.786
0.408, 0.358
0.205, 0.190
0.082, 0.057
(ppm) Analysis (ppm)
1.1 0.2
< 3
1.0
2.6 0.6
!&£•'
< 8
3.9l/
1.0
< 4
1.8 0.2
< 2
5.1
< 8
< 25^/
< 5
< 2
< 4
< 2
< £.'
k/
£/
1.1 0.1
0.7
1.2
< 4
< 4
Fortification
Level (UR)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Recovery
—
-
68
-
55
-
-
-
-
.
65
.
83
58
58
.
50
_
68
_
.
_
75
53
76
90
0.056, 0.070 < 10 -
deviation of duplicate
analyses 11.5%
a/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 mg.
134
-------
TABLE C-ll. SILVER
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pooled
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
relative
OUTAGAMIE COlft
Weight (g) Concentration
A , B or BS/
- , 0.527
0.204, 0.112
0.587, 0.609
0.185, 0.157
« 0.025, « 0.025
0.091, 0.068
0.044, 0.010
1.096, 0.179
0.149, 0.176
0.497, 0.402
0.246, 0.433
0.079, 0.072
0.080, 0.090
0.052, 0.036
0.097, 0.068
0.243, 0.120
0.040, 0.043
0.073, 0.064
» 0.003, « 0.003
» 0.014, «- 0.014
» 0.004, = 0.004
0.575, 0.379
1.233, 0.916
0.553, 0.323
0.270, 0.245
0.090, 0.047
0.028, 0.014
deviation of duplicate
(ppm)
3.2
4.1
3.0
3.6
8.9k/
32
18
1.9
0.8
3.5
4.7
3.3
25
11.5
1.0
1.6
1.8
4.1,
k/
k/
k/
7.1
2.1
2.4
2.8
50
14-
analyses
ITY
Difference
in Duplicate
Analysis (ppm)
1.2
0.4
0.3
10
-
0.4
0.1
1.0
-
-
-
1.0
0
.
_
_
-
0.1
0.3
-
0.6
14
"
17.9%
Fortification Recovery
Level (UR) (%>
_
.
_
.
-
-
100
4
-
108
4 125
4 88
4 , -
-
102
4
-
-
-
4 75
-
-
a/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 rag.
135
-------
TABLE C-12. TITANIUM
.Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pooled
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
S371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
relative
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate Fortification
A , B or B3/
- , 0.527
0.204, 0.112
0.587, 0.609
0.185, 0.157
» 0.025, M 0.025 2
0.091, 0.068
0.044, 0.010 1
1.096, 0.179
0.149, 0.176
0.497, 0.402
0.246, 0.433
0.079, 0.072 1
0.080, 0.090 1
0.052, 0.036 1
0.097, 0.068
0.243, 0.120
0.040, 0.043
0.073, 0.064
« 0.003, « 0.003
w 0.014, w 0.014
« 0.004, w 0.004
0.575, 0.379
1.233, 0.916
0.553, 0.323
0.270, 0.245
0.090, 0.047
(ppm)
319
108
196
100
,$«&
423
,740
160
333
215
305
,670
,440
,990
262
168
952
526
b/
£/
b/
169
30
272
263
200
0.028, 0.014 2.150&-'
deviation of duplicate
analyses
Analysis (ppm) Level (UB)
.
500
500
8
500
225
-
103
64
53
500
290
702
59
180
57
500
132
_
.
.
35
8
69
500
500
500
26.0%
Recovery
.
68
126
_
91
-
-
.
-
-
90
-
-
_
.
.
75
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
63
85
121
aj Fortified sample.
b./ Weights < 50 nag.
136
-------
TABLE C-13. VANADIUM
Samp] e
Site No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
365
368
0001
15
9001 »
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9.018
372
366
0003
17
9003 »
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Weight (g) Concentration in Duplicate Fortification Recovery
C , D or D- (ppm) Analysis (ppm) Level (/ui>) (%)
0.455,
0.157,
0.623,
0.216,
0.025,
0.109,
0.031,
0.461,
0.090,
0.498,
0.148,
0.066,
0.091,
0.034,
0.076,
0.221,
0.093,
0.171,
0.519
0.146
0.738
0.171
ra 0.025
-
0.016
0.167
0.098
0.500
0.177
0.075
0.127
0.041
0.074
0.148
0.089
0.134
0.003, "" 0.002
, 9009 » 0.014,
9019 M
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Pooled relative
analyses.
0.004,
0.576,
0.983,
0.408,
0.205,
0.082,
0.056,
standard
"'0.014
" 0.004
0.404
0.786
0.358
0.190
0.057
0.070
deviation
40
15
57
35.6
57*L/
32
48k/
20
14.4
28
12
32
30
56b/
17
7.3
25
12
b/
k/
b./
31
38
30
59
34
24
of duplicate
5
4
-
0.3
-
_
-
2
0.4
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
4
9.37.
_
600 87
_
600 105
_
-
-
-
-
600 75
-
600 106
600 101
600 64
-
600 68
-
-
-
~
-
600 75
600 70
600 86
600 85
-
a/ Fortified sample.
b/ Weights < 50 mg.
137
-------
TABLE C-14. ZINC
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Difference
Site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sample
No.
365
368
0001
15
9001
9007
9017
371
367
0002
16
9002
9008
9018
372
366
0003
17
9003
9009
9019
2136
14
21
9005
9010
9020
Weight (K) Concentration
0
0
0
w 0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
« 0
« 0
w 0
0
1
0
0
0
A ,
~ J
.204,
.587,
.185,
.025,
.091,
.044,
.096,
.149,
.497,
.246,
.079,
.080,
.052,
.097,
.243,
.040,
.073,
.003,
.014,
.004,
.575,
.233,
.553,
.270,
.090,
0.028,
B or Ba'
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE C-15. BARIUM
OJ
10
Site
Process Building
Shredder
Tipping Floor
Magnetic Separator
Field Blank
Filter Blank
Reagent Blank
Sample
4
18
11
8
5
17
27
31
6
15
13
29
7
19
26
32
12
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Weight (g) Concentration (ppm) Fortification (ppm) Recovery (%)
0.3530,
0.1296,
0.6862,
0.3533,
0.3240,
a/
0.6438,
0.3762,
0.1003,
0.2029,
0.1028,
0.1078,
0.4299,
a/
0.4408,
a/
a/
0.2514
0.2110
0.6689
0.1498
0.2828
0.3448
0.2646
0.1025
0.1441
0.1289
0.0972
0.2746
0.5170
310 '800 79
70 + 40
300 + 10
160 670 88
800 + 200
200 + 60
240 760 86
690 980 68
1,200 + 600
360 + 40
260 1,030 65
130 730 114
190 580 65
^
690 56
y I 112
y 1, 12 56, 93
aj Weight less than twice the variation of filter blank sections.
b/ All measurements of metal concentration were corrected where necessary for reagent blank.
-------
TABLE C-16. CADMIUM
Site
Process Building
Shredder
Tipping Floor
Magnetic Separator
Field Blank
Filter Blank
Reagent Blank
Sample
4
18
11
8
5
17
27
31
6
15
13
29
7
19
26
32
12
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Weight (H) Concentration (pom) Fortification (ppm)
0.3993,
0.1341
0.8640,
0.3061,
0.3298.
sJ
0.8479,
0.3411,
0.1360
0.1395,
0.1315,
0.1156,
0.3723,
a/
0.2995,
£/
3.1
•
0.2652
0.4391
0.2995
0.2456
0.4668
0.2787
0.1544
0.0893
0.0842
0.3715
0.5260
13 19
< 10
7.4 + 0.3
3 17
26 20
4.2 + 0,3
8.2 18
7.4
10 + 2
24 + 2
81 59
3.5 13
5.3 19
b/ 1
^
Recovery (%)
68
96
54
54
90
78
66
66
88
aj Weight less than twice the variation of filter blank sections.
l>/ All measurements of metal concentration were corrected where necessary for reagent blank.
-------
TABLE C-17. CHROMIUM
Site
Process Building
Shredder
Tipping Floor
Magnetic Separator
Field Blank
Filter Blank
Reagent Blank
Sample
4
18
11
8
5
17
27
31
6
15
13
29
7
19
26
32
12
WeiRht
0.3993,
0.1341
0.8640,
0.3061,
0.3298,
a/
0.8479,
0.3411,
0.0828,
0.1395,
0.1315,
0.1156,
0.3723,
if
0.2995,
a/
a/
BALTIMORE COUNTY
(e) Concentration (nom)— '
0.2652
0.4391
0.2995
0.2456
0.4668
0.2787
0.1360
0.1544
0.0893
0.0842
0.3715
0.5260
820
490
2300 + 1300
59
600
140 + 20
810
290
320 ± 10
230 + 20
920
190
170'
£/
£/
Fortification (ppm)
1,130
1,000
1,220
1,080
740
1,190
1,350
•>
950
860
2, 50
2, 50
Recovery (%)
115
82
86
108
79
79
68
75
109
110, 99
120, 104
a/ Weight less than
b/ Filter blank and
c/ All measurements
twice the variation of filter blank sections.
reagent blanks subtracted.
of metal concentration were corrected where necessary for reagent blank.
-------
TABLE C-18. COPPER
IS3
Site
Process Building
Shredder
Tipping Floor
Magnetic Separator
Field Blank
Filter Blank
Reagent Blank
Sample
4
18
11
8
5
17
27
31
6
15
13
29
7
19
26
32
12
BALTIMORE
Weight (E)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a/
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a/
0.
£/
£/
3993,
1341
8640,
3061,
3298,
8479,
3411,
0828,
1395,
1315,
1156,
3723,
2995,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2652
.4391
.2995
.2456
.4668
.2787
.1360
.1544
.0893
.0842
.3715
.5260
COUNTY
Concentration Fortification
(ppra) (ppm) Recovery (%)
340 380 88
320
220 + 40
59 330 102
840 410 124
180 + 0
160 360 31
620 + 10
390 + 40
510 ± 40
1,280 sJ C-f
150 270 107
170 190 54
- 1, 10 80, 69
- 1, 10 120, 90
a/ Weight less than twice the variation of filter blank sections.
b/ All measurements of metal concentration were corrected where necessary for reagent blank.
c/ Fortification level too low for recovery calculation.
-------
TABLE C-19. LEAD
Site
Process Building
Shredder
Tipping Floor
Magnetic Separator
Field Blank
Filter Blank
Reagent Blank
Sample
4
18
11
8
5
17
27
31
6
15
13
29
7
19
26
32
12
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Concentration Fortification
Weight (g) (ppra) (ppm) Recovery (%)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a/
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
£/
0.
at
a/
3530,
1296,
6862,
3533,
3240,
6438,
3762,
1003,
2029,
1028,
1078,
4299,
r
,4408,
r
f
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
2514
2110
6689
1498
2828
3448
2646
1025
1441
1289
0972
2746
5170
640 1,590 67
600 + 200
900 + 100
690 1,340 84
1,400 ± 100
740 + 30
740 1,510 91
830 1,950 , 55
2,200 + 1,100
890 + 40
1,140 2,060 64
570 1,460 100
890 1,550 55
2,360 74
bf 4, 32 83, 81
b/ 4, 32 88, 96
a/ Weight less than twice the variation of filter blank sections.
b/ All measurements of metal concentration were corrected where necessary for reagent blank.
-------
TABLE C-20. ZINC
Site
Process Building
Shredder
Tipping Floor
Magnetic Separator
Field Blank
Filter Blank
Reagent Blank
Sample
4
18
11
8
5
17
27
31
6
15
13
29
7
19
26
32
12
Weight
0.3993,
0.1341
0.8640,
0.3061,
0.3298,
a/
0.8479,
0.3411,
0.0828,
0.1395,
0.1315,
0.1156,
0.3723,
sJ
0.2995,
a/
?./
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Concentration
(g) (ppm)
0.2652
0.4391
0.2995
0.2456
0.4668
0.2787
0.1360
0.1544
0.0893
0.0842
0.3715
0.5260
890
730
590 + 40
350
1,330
700 + 200
840
1,300
870 + 30
1,200 + 200
1,480
700
890 + 20
b/
D/
Fortification
(ppra) Recovery (%)
1,130 93
1,000 137
1,220 74
1,080 103
1,190 88
1,350 78
860 110
2 80
2 105
a/ Weight less than twice the variation of filter blank sections.
b/ All measurements of metal concentration were corrected where necessary for reagent blank.
-------
TABLE C-21. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS
Ul
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bureau of
Concentration
(ppm)
6.9 + 0.6
1.1
188 + 45
0.03
3 + 1
120 + 20
81 + 1
183 + 5
0.9 + 0.2
< 2
2.9 + 0.1
630 + 170
9.4 + 3.9
350 + 30
Mines Refuse
Certified Ranges^-'
(ppm)
_
_
< 3(£7
< 0.5-< 10
1.0-1.6
60-160
59-65
130-180
-
-
3-6
1,800-3,300
-
220-270
NBS Orchard Leaves
Concentration
(ppm)
3.4 + 0.1
7.5 + 0.6
112 + 5
< 0.04
< 2
13 + 5
15.2 + 0.2
65.7 + 1.6
< 0.3
< 2
0.58
8.7
< 0.6
51 + 4
Certified Values
(ppm)
2.9 + 0.3
10 + 2
(44)£/
0.027 + 0.010
0.11 + 0.02
2.6 + 0.3
12 + 1
45 + 3
0.155 + 0.015
0.08 + 0.01
-
-
-
25 + 3
a/ Law, S. L., Private Communication, Analytical results of three Bureau of
Mines laboratories.
b/ Results of one Bureau of Mines laboratory.
c/ Value noncertified.
-------
TABLE C-22. QUALITY ASSURANCE FORTIFIED BLANKS
Acid Blank
Antimony
• Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
HR
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 45
< 0.01
< 0.8
12+1
0.15 + 0.05
< 10
< 0.08
< 0.5
< 0.01
< 3
< 0.1
0.8
7o Recovery
-
-
-
-
92, 116, 103,
120, 103, 86,
104, 110, 94,
110, 123
-
-
110, 123
120, 92
67
100, 95, 109,
OUTAGAMIE
Fiberglas Blank
0
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 45
< 0.01
105 < 0.8
86 13
104 1.4
< 10
< 0.1
< 0.5
< 0.01
' < 3
< 35
96 12
f. Recovery
84
78
64
70
114, 80
97, 83
78, 78
70
78
40
73
75
81
65, 60
COUNTY
Fiberglas No. 10 Millipore Blank Millipore
UR 7, Recovery u.R
3+1
< 0.3
< 45 - -
< 0.01
< 0.8
9 + 5
0.75 + 0.25
15 + 5
< 0.4
< 0.4
< 0.01
< 3 - -
< 0.1
6.5 +0.5
7, Recovery ug 7,
_
-
-
-
120
107
113
-
-
-
-
125
125
98
< 0.3
< 0.6
< 45
< 0.01
< 0.8
21
3.7
11.3
< 0.4
< 0.4
0.02
4 + 1
< 13
8
Ho. 9006
Recovery
86
72
60
77
148
113
117
76
85
68
120
-
100
91
-------
TABLE C-23. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Bureau of
Concentration
(ppm)
35 + 2
< 7
260 + 40
73 + 1
153 + 8
224 + 7
Mines Refuse
Certified Ranges^/
(ppm)
< 30
1.0-1.6
60-160
59-65
130-180
220-270
NBS Orchard Leaves
Concentration
(ppm)
< 70
< 7
81
25 + 5
50
19.5 + 0.7
Certified Values
(ppm)
(44)^
0.11 + 0.02
2.6 + 0.3
12 + 1
45 + 3
25 + 3
a/ Law, S. L., Private Communication, Analytical results of three Bureau of
Mines laboratories.
b/ Value noncertified.
-------
TABLE C-24. PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS
00
Test Hare
1 8/2
2 8/3
3 8/4
4 8/5
5 8/8
6 8/9
7 8/10
Time
(nln)
34n
135
310
167
If7
167
175
353
"6
364
3?5
265
268
271
285
383
380
380
395
330
333
335
355
255
256
J56
255
tor .it Ion
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
,
2
3
4
Hllllpore
Sampler
8.504
11.595
8.501
8.504
8,595
8,503
8.596
8,504
8,595
8,5113
8,594
8,504
8.595
8,503
8.594
8,504
8,595
8,503
8,594
8,504
8.595
8,503
8,594
8,504
8,595
8,503
8,594
Ha.
165
371
172
X.8
367
166
71 «,
0001
0002
0003
0014
0015
OH 16
0017
0021
9001
9002
9003
9005
9no?
"008
9009
9010
9017
9018
9019
9020
OUTAGAMIE
(R)
6.11454
6.30790
4.11799
4.55017
4.47525
4.67910
5 . 89020
6.43755
5.70912
4 . 05024
7.85099
4.56766
4 . 88001
4.28175
5.50420
3.11200
1.04565
2. (.7001
4.11601
3.16915
1.29440
2.92440
1.24240
1.02825
2.93209
2.84702
5.06755
(8)
3.98677
3 . 96869
1.99284
1.91641
1.94880
1.92244
3.91610
3.78885
1.77500
3.76446
3.80595
1.81584
1.82454
3.81367
1.82241
2.92744
7.70702
2.65696
2.97576
2.85750
2.87010
2.85644
2.91441
2.87411
2.75699
2.82671
2.81098
(R)
2.14777
2.13921
0.12515
0.63196
0.526'.5
0.75686
1.97190
2.64870
1.93412
0.28578
4. O4 504
0.74682
1.05549
0.47008
1.68179
0.18456
0.13863
0.01 J05
1.14025
0.51165
0.42430
0.06796
0. 12797
0.15414
0.17510
0.02011
0.25657
COUNTY
Ft 1 ante
(K>
NOHP
Hl|1*!
Nor.p
How
Hnnp
None
None
+O.OO276
+0.00226
+0.00726
+0.00276
-0.00035
-0.005
1.14225
0.51165
0.42'i)0
0.067"6
0.327')7
0.15414
0.17510
0.02031
0.25657
ftov
(ac frol
52.0
51. -1
"•»
52.11
51.0
49.8
'.9.8
52.0
51.0
49.8
59.8
52.0
51. '1
49. f.
59.8
5.20
5.1(1
4.08
5.98
5.711
5.10
4,98
5.98
5.20
5.10
4.98
5.98
5.20
't . Ml
>•).»
(ft')
17,900
1 '. Mm
II,. 4(10
8.7IIO
8.5011
8.100
10.500
18.400
I8.7IIII
18. ion
P7.400
11.800
1 1.700
11.1011
17. (Wlfl
1.9VO
1,9811
I.S'in
7. 1411
1.77(1
1.7WI
1.670
2, 170
1,110
1,1111
1,270
1.520
("R)
534.2
534 . 2
534.2
527.7
527.7
527.7
527.7
514.4
514.4
534.4
514.4
534.7
534.7
534.7
534.7
541.7
541.7
541.7
541.7
530.0
530.0
530.0
530.0
531.5
531.5
531.5
531.5
H20
29.98
29.911
29.98
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.54
29.54
29.54
29.54
29.79
79.79
29.79
2».. '9
10.14
10.14
10.14
30.14
29.99
29.99
29.99
29.99
29 92
29-92
29.92
29.92
Stnndard
(Hm3)
498
481
46)
2'.8
741
2J7
298
5'W
SOI
51Mt
672
185
ia:
177
476
556
540
57.8
(.59
487
482
474
601
174
169
160
411
IM/lta')
4.12
It. (If.
(i. ;ni
?..«•
2.178
1.19
'••<•'
5.21
1.P5
D.-17
fi.'O
1.9?
2. 7'.
1.72
l.M
'i. I!*!
II. MO
H.07R'.
1. M
1.05
().8ao
0. |4u
0. S'i i
0. '.12
0.475
0.0564
O. S96
-------
TABLE C-25. PARTICLE CONCENTRATION
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Tin-.'
Test Ualfe trnn)
I 3/7 420
-20
420
i?"
2 3'8 420
420
-20
42Ct
3 4/5 360
364
3fc2
36:
4 4/6 ?65
266
282
286
Millipnre
1 8,597
2 8,59i
3 8,504
4 8,505
1 8,597
2 8,594
3 8,504
i 8,W>
1 8.501
2 8.591
1 8 . 504
1 8,505
I 8,501
2 8,594
3 8,504
4 8,505
Filter
Number
H-7
K-4
H-h
H-5
H-19
.4-16,18
H-15
H-17
11-26
H-ll
H-13
H-27
H-32
H-S
H-29
H-31
Fin;,;
5.85419
5.7832!
4.85873
5.80048
4.13560
8.48612
4.71752
4.0212S
3.95081
6.99636
4. 56235
6.73349
4.04023
5.64185
4.49021
5.53367
Tart Blank Nor
U)
4.31260
-.H5C'd
4. 36708
i.WSO'T
). 93162
7.92125
3.98272
3.89234
3.99387
1.021(1
4.02031
4.0UOI
4.02018
-.32954
4.01410
4.01642
(<) (e) (e)
1,54159 -0.00106 1.54053
1.43817
•1.49075
!. 41248
0.20498 -0.0
0.56487
0.7448"
C). 12891
1.43711
0.48969
1.43142
J106 0.20392
0.56381
0.74374
0.12785
1.95696 -0.00106 1.95590
2.97475
0.54204
2.71748
2.97369
0. 54093
2.71642
0.02005 -0.00106 0.01899
1.1:231
0.47613
1.51725
1.31125
0.47507
1.51619
Flow
Rate
(acfm)
48.5
46.5
48.5
49,0
48.5
48.5
48.5
49.0
48.8
48.8
48.5
49.0
48.8
48.5
48.5
49.0
Total Standard
Flow Temperature Pressure Flou
(ft3, («R) (In H,0) Ota3)
20,400 497 30.41 625
20,4,00
20,400
20,600
625
625
632
20,400 492 30.33 630
20,400
20,400
20,600
630
630
636
17,600 525 30 07 505
17,800
17,600
17,800
510
504
51D
12,900 513 30.23 382
12,900
13,700
14,000
381
404
414
Concentration
(mg/fta3)
2.47
2.30
0.78
2.27
0.324
0.895
1.18
0.201
3.88
5.83
1.07
5.33
0.050
3.44
1.18
3,66
-------
TABLE C-26. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 1
ui
o
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Sierra
Uate Nu. Locution Slopi'
8/2 8421 1 1
2
1
A
5
Back-up
8/2. 8471 2 1
2
3
&
5
Back-up
8/2 8372 3 I
2
3
4
5
Back-up
— >^ ™™™^ •^MMHBBKHHK^M^___Hn_HHMHB^_
TABLE
Filler
No.
1002
3001
3004
3095
3096
3(52
0412
04 13
0414
0415
0416
163
0417
0418
0410
0420
0421
Wi
•M^^^^MAM
C-27
Final wt
IE)
2 .36978
1 . "1 842
1.80273
1 .76341
1.70929
4.28708
2. 1534J
1 .83666
1.81235
1.75156
1.67077
4.39299
1.60243
1 .631511
1.70116
1. 71918
1.68918
4.04399
T«ro wt
(R)
1 .62n-)5
1 .59270
I .68635
1.67525
1 .70290
3.95473
1 .65942
1 .62194
1.71924
1 .67071
1.61033
l.of.1 Q)
1 .65727
1 .60'"R1
1.68758
1 .70564
1.67830
3.98684
••••••••••^•••••••••••••H^l
(lirferfiicr
(R)
0.74083
0.38572
O.I163B
0.1188 16
0.00639
0.33235
0.40405
0.21472
0.09311
0.03085
0. 06044
0.41106
0.03566
0.02169
0.01358
0.01354
0.01079
0.05715
^^f^^^m^^m^v*^^*—**
fllnnk
Horrect I'm
(R)
- 0.0(1336
- o.oinifi
- 11.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.00316
i- o. on mo
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.0033d
1 0.0(1100
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
- 0.00336
f o.ooino
. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION.
NPI- ul
06
1.18035
4.06604
1.25810
1.23884
1.19145
1.27420
1 . 24889
4.06604
1 . 70750
1.70432
1.71763
1.73082
1.16344
4.04055
Tare Wt
(el
1.23315
1.16219
1.15934
1.16364
1.16064
3.95465
1.15658
1.15006
1. 14727
1.24428
1.23280
1.97845
1 .60900
1 .65984
1.69596
1.71048
1.15458
3.91615
IM f ferenrc
(X)
0.10144
0.13481
0.05983
0.01542
0.01971
0.11139
0.10152
0.08878
0.04418
0.02992
0.01609
0.08759
0.09850
0.04448
0.02167
0.02034
0.00886
0.12440
Blank
Correc t 1 nn
(K)
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
1 .00100
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
+.00100
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
+.00100
tfet Wt
0.09808
0.13145
0.05647
0.03206
0.01635
OJJJl?
0.44680
0.09816
0.08542
0.04082
o.o:'656
0.01273
0.0.88,53
0.35228
0.09514
n.lM4!2
0.01831
0.01698
0.00550
0_,JU«4P
0.30245
srap.cs
Wt
7.
21.95
29.42
12.64
J.1B
3.66
25.15
27.86
24.25
11.59
7.54
3.61
25.15
31.46
13.60
6.05
5.61
1.82
41.46
1-5 + Filter
Cum Wt
}.
78.05
A8.63
35.99
28.81
25.15
-
72. 1A
47.89
36.30
28.76
25.15
-
68.54
54.95
48.89
43.28
41.46
-
Ijm
6.4
2.7
1.3
85
44
6.4
7.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.2
2.6
1.3
.81
.42
-------
TABLE C-28. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 3
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
1-5 + Filter
(Jl
Sierra
8/6 842! 1 I
2
3
4
5
Hack-up
8/4 8473 2 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
B/4 8372 1 I
2
3
4
5
Back-up
Filter
No.
0447
0448
0449
0450
0451
000'
0442
0443
0444
0445
0446
0008
0437
0438
0439
0440
0441
0009
Final Wt
(B)
2.04545
1.52400
1.31786
1.29386
1.28610
4.25634
1 . 72440
1.59072
1.33B55
1.29683
1.28155
4.01879
1.22852
1.22780
1.22761
1.25195
1 . 24644
3.78100
Tare Wt
(g)
1.20126
1. IW.8
1.1 9840
1.20100
1.20195
3.76530
1.25121
1. 24294
1.20875
1.20252
1.20618
3.75122
1.20640
1.20508
1.21580
1.24223
1.23838
3.73070
Difference
(g>
0.84419
0.32452
0.11946
0.09286
0.08415
0.49104
0.47319
0.34778
0.12980
0.09431
0.07537
0.26757
0.02212
0.02272
0.01181
0.00972
0.00806
0.05030
Correction
u>
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
1.00100
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
+.00100
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
0.00336
+.00100
Net Wt
(g>
II.B4053
0. 1208S
0.11580
I). 08970
O.OB 049
0.49204
1 . 91862
0.46981
0.14443
0.17644
0.09095
0.0/201
0.26875
f. 17222
0.01846
0.01906
0.0081S
0.(lOr.06
0.00440
0.05110
0. 10741
Stage* Wt
I
43.36
16.55
5.97
4.60
4.15
25.38
34.24
25.10
9.21
6.63
5.25
19.59
17.23
17.79
7.61
5.66
4.11
47.89
Cum Kt
*
56.64
40.09
34.12
29.52
25.37
-
65.76
40.66
31.45
24.82
19.59
-
82.77
64.98
57.37
51.71
47.61
.
,,ra
6.4
2.7
!.}
.85
.44
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.2
2.6
1.3
.81
.42
TABLE C-29. PARTICLE
SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY
4
Sierra
Date No. Location :U.ni:c
8/8 8372 1 I
2
3
4
5
Rack-tip
a/a 8473 2 1
2
3
1,
5
Rack -«ip
R/8 B42I ' 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
Filter
No.
("if>2
11463
0/ifi/j
0465
11466
ni)(«
0452
0413
0454
0455
0456
0019
0457
0458
0459
0460
1)4 r>l
11020
Final wt
te)
.45467
.3'i388
.27116
.26939
.26754
3. 99185
1.41550
1.31850
1 .24721)
1.25222
1.2531)0
1.978 SO
1.23680
1.22237
1.21318
1.23322
1 .24367
3.94103
Tare wi-
fe)
I .23290
1.23602
1.22865
1 .23096
1.2171*
3.80442
1.20707
1.19994
1 .20246
1 .20731
1.20839
1.81714
1.21672
1.21015
1 .20539
1 .22285
1. 23580
3.814Vi
f>lf fcrenco
to
0.22177
0.10786
0.04271
0.03843
0.03020
O.I8W43
0.20843
0.118',6
n. 04474
0.04483
0.04461
O.I4d16
0.02008
0.01222
0.00779
0.01017
0.01057
0.10649
HI .ink
Correction
(E)
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
1 .noMHI
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
+ .(VllOf)
- .00336
- .00336
- .00136
- .00336
- .00336
^ ,00100
Net ut
(El
.21841
. 1 0450
.03915
.03507
.02 684
slfflWJ
.61457
.20507
. 11520
.04138
.04147
.04125
.14716
.59150
.01672
.00886
.00443
.00701
.00721
.10749
.15169
stages
wt
(7.)
35.54
17 .00
6.40
5.71
4.37
3»."9
34.67
19.48
7.00
7.01
6.97
24.88
11.02
5.84
2.92
4.62
4.75
70.85
l-i » illte.r
Cum wt
(X)
64.46
47 .'.6
41.05
35.35
30.98
-
65.33
45. 8S
38.86
31.85
24.87
-
88.98
83.14
80.22
75.59
7n.«/,
-
Cut -off
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.2
2.6
1.3
.81
.42
-------
TABLE c-30. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 5
Ul
N3
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Date
R/5
R/5
R/5
Sierra
8372 1 l
2
3
4
5
Rack -up
R'iZI 2 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
8473 3 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
Filler
No.
0467
0468
0469
0470
0471
(1022
0472
0473
0474
0475
0476
0023
0477
(1478
0479
04RO
0481
0024
Final Ml
(e)
1.77361
1 .48822
1.31677
1.27710
1 .26860
4.31825
1.B7Z09
1.56393
1.35940
1.31715
1.29073
4.10441
1.27070
1.25955
1.24121
1.23936
7.24559
3.96155
Tare Wt
1 .24100
1.2233S
1 .22065
1 .20565
1.20723
3.7R5IK)
1.2453R
1.23850
1.22961
1.22661
1.22904
3.76428
1.22981
1.23966
1.22900
1.22642
1.23966
3.76100
D( fferonce
0.53261
0.2«,fl4
0.09612
0.07145
0.06137
0.53325
0.62671
0.32543
0.12979
0. 09054
0.06169
0.34013
0.04089
0.01989
0.01221
0.01294
0.00593
0.20055
Monk
Correction
-o. on U6
-0.00116
-O.OOIJ6
-0.00116
-0.0031(1
40.00100
-0.00116
-n. 001)6
-0.00116
-0.00116
-0.00116
«>.«nioo
-I). 003)6
-0.00336
-0.00)16
-0.00316
-0.00316
< o.oni no
n.vt;-,
0.26I4R
0.09Z7h
0.06R09
Q.O5801
0.51'422
•TMm
0.37207
o.iwi
O.OHMR
0.0381)
0.3.4m
"j. 55849
0.0)751
0.0165)
0.008Rr>
0.00958
0.00257
0.2015.5
0. 2766!
Stages
Wt
34.28
16.94
6.01
4.41
3.76
34.60
40 .00
20.67
8.11
5.59
3.74
21.89
13.57
5.98
3.20
3.46
.93
72.86
1-5 1 Filter
Ctiin Wt
(7.)
65.72
48.78
42.77
38.36
34.60
-
60.00
39.34
31.22
25.63
21.8R
-
86.43
80.46
77.26
73.79
72.86
-
•
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.2
2.6
1.3
.81
.42
TABLE C-31
. PARTICLE
SIZE DISTRIBUTION,
DAY 6
Date
8/9
8/9
8/9
Sierra
No. l.ocatl on Stane
8473 1 1
2
3
4
5
Rock-up
8372 2 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
8421 3 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
Filter
No.
0492
0493
0494
0495
0496
0011
0487
0488
0489
0490
0491
0012
0482
0483
0484
0485
0486
0013
Final Wt
(R)
.36287
.74093
.41980
.15046
.33082
4.28375
2.01158
1.63605
1.38976
1.33699
1.30699
4.36141
1.36600
1.28307
1.26085
1.26252
1.25135
3.91925
Tare Wt
(B)
1 . 23934
1.23809
1.23801
1.23161
1.24850
3.78000
1 . 23906
1 . 24026
1.23626
1.23656
1.73930
3.81405
1.23966
1.23647
1.24004
1.24365
1.23875
3.79781
Difference
(E)
1.12353
0.50284
0.18179
0.11885
0.08232
0.50375
0.77252
0.39579
0.15350
0.10043
0.06769
0.54736
0.12634
0.04660
0.02081
0.01887
0.01260
0.12144
Correction
(E)
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
- .00336
+.00100
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
+.00100
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
-.00336
+.00100
Net Ut
(E)
1.12017
.49948
. 1 7843
.11519
.07896
.50475
2.49698
.76916
.39243
.15014
.09707
.06433
.jt54.8.36
2.02149
.12298
.04324
.01745
.01551
.00924
.12244
Stage Ut
^
44.86
20.00
7.15
4.61
3.16
20.21
38.05
19.41
7.43
4.80
3.18
27.13
37.17
13.07
5.27
4.69
2.79
37.01
1-5 + Filter
Cum Ut
(e)
55.14
35.14
27.99
23.38
20.21
-
61.95
42.54
35.11
30.31
27.13
-
62.83
49.96
44.49
39.80
37.01
-
um
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.2
2.6
1.3
.81
.42
.33086
-------
TABLE C-32. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 7
Sierra
8/10 8473 1 1
2
3
1,
5
Back-up
8/10 8372 2 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
8/10 8421 3 1
2
3
4
5
Back-up
Filter
0507
0508
0509
0510
0511
0026
Or,02
0503
0504
0505
0506
0027
0497
0498
0499
0500
0501
0028
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Final Wt Tare Wt 111 f ferptic."
fo\ (e) (R)
1.54739
1 .39642
1 .28810
1.26870
1.26835
3.88874
1.52618
1 .37113
I .29095
1.26977
1.26689
3.82422
1.25305
1.25719
1.24917
1.23960
1.22605
3.73563
1 .23630
1 .24648
1.23279
1.22990
1.23570
3.67850
1 .23264
1.23414
1.23829
1.23470
1.23793
3.65748
1.23375
1.24528
1.24165
1.23422
1 .22303
3.69131
0.31109
0.1*99*
0.05531
0 .03880
0.03265
0.21024
0.29354
0.1 1699
0.05266
0.03507
0.02896
0.16674
0.01930
O.OH91
0.00752
0.00538
0.00102
0.04432
Blank
Correct Inn
(E)
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
» .00100
- .00336
- .00316
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
A .1)0100
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
- .00336
+ .00100
Nut Wt
m
.30773
.1465"
.05195
.03544
.02929
-.211 24
.78223
.29018
.13363
.04930
.03171
.02560
...16724
.69816
.01594
.00855
.00416
.00202
- .00304
.0^532
.07295
Stages
Wt
39.34
18.74
6.64
4.53
3.74
27.00
41.56
19.14
7.06
4.54
3.67
24.03
21.85
11.72
5.70
2.77
- 4.17
62.12
1-5 + Filter
Cum ft
a>
60.66
41.92
35.28
30.75
27.00
-
58.44
39.30
32.23
27.69
24.03
-
78.15
66.43
60.73
57.96
62.12
-
Cul -off
size
(urn)
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.4
2.7
1.3
.85
.44
6.2
2.6
1 .3
.81
.42
U)
-------
TABLE C-33. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 1
BALTIMORE COUNTY
D.ile Hf-Vol No. Location Sierra NV». Sl.if-f Kilter
1/4 8501 1 8471 1 s-l
7 S-2
1 1-1
•\ S- 4
S-5
n.u-k "p 11- 1
1/7 85'lr. 1 B17? 1 S-11
3 S-l I
1 S- 1 .1
'• F-\',
S S-15
R.-ii-V Up II-?
1/7 0009 4 8471 1 S-6
2 S-7
3 SB
4 S-1
5 S-ltl
Brtrk up H-1
rin.il
Wi-lp.ht
No. (p,)
1 .219H
1 .11 l«5
1. 11015
1 . IH
O.H'66I 40.00117 O.D2771
0. (171 75
0. (II 221
ll.llll/h
0.001R5
0.07287
0.01115
0.0151B
II.U0497
0. 111804 .(Million 0.10618
.,,;„„ m.,,,,,17 ?""!/MS4
0.01644
0.0,'?50
ii.orws
O.O.'71'I
0.01756
M.07162
0.0780(1
0.07811
0.7'I'H2 -0.0(1106 0.7087.6
.-1.04128
0.40771 40. IHIII 7 0. 40885
0. HUM
0.0''. 58 4
0.0'.R61
0.05511
0.10271
0.04616
0.04981
0.05645
1.08614 0.00106 I.OR57R
?'. 1 . 7 5008
<«t 7.1
7.01
5.84
1.41
l.°1
1. 27
78.46
74. 'ft
1.5B
2.25
2.67
7.70
6/.50
71.16
5.87
2.68
2.85
1.2)
67.01
Cilimilat Ivf
(ut 7.1
97.11
87.07
81.66
79.71
78.46
/R.7I)
75. 12
72.87
70.20
67.50
76.64
70.77
68.09
65.74
62.01
Cut-off
r..9
2.7
1.1
O.P.5
0. 44
6."
7.7
1.1
0.85
0.44
6.1
2.7
1.3
0.85
0.44
TABLE C-34. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 2
1 ln.il
IVlle Hj-Vol Ho. location Slrrr.i No. St.ifjr FlltPr No. (R)
1/8 8501 1 8471 1 S-2B
7 S-27
1 S- 28
4 S-29
5 S- 10
Back, lip II- 21
I/a 8595 1 8'i2l 1 B-16
2 S-l 7
1 S-18
4 S-19
5 S-20
n.ick Up 11-22
3/8 11001 4 8172 1 S-21
2 S-22
1 S-23
4 S-24
5 S-25
n.i.-i. OP N- 21
I.494O5
I. 12797
1.17164
1. 11619
1 . 16859
4.IW617
I . 16941
1.12721
1.31612
1.11104
1.12783
4.11175
1.10175
1.10197
1 . 1U620
1.32151!
1.12H14
4.17112
T.ii i-
(R)
1.21716
1 . 11)049
1 . 101 1 2
1.29708
1.150-15
1.97179
1.29074
1.29881
1.29471
1.78852
1.29711
1.9R322
1.29712
1.297RR
1.10408
1.12047
1.12711
1.97776
Blank td-t
IHf forf-iirc" Cnrr'-rl ifill UclRlit
(K) (r) (El
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
11I.H9 10.00112 O.I97B1
02/48
01857
01111
(11 764
0.02R60
0. Ill '164
0.02'tn
0.01876
II'.IB -0.00106 0.11517
0.07.117 10.00117 U. 08029
0.
0.
II2H40
07 161
0.02 '.5 7
0.
0.
(1.
01'I64
0.02957
0.07771
0.02564
0.0)176
11652 -0.00106 0.11546
00.-.43 40.0
0.00409
0.
0.
0.
007.18
001 11
00101
j; 0.52540
Dll? 0.00555
0.00521
0.00110
0.00721
0.00215
0.11'IOfi -0. 00106 0.19800
SO. 21644
(w
49
7
4
5
4
71
.41
.14
.11
.05
.61
Ctiiiinl.it IVP
(wl. '.)
50. 5't
41
18
11
78
.45
.54
.*»
.80
cm -off
(un>>
6.
7.
1.
0.
11,
,,
T
1
85
44
7B.RO
15
"i
4
4
6
61
2
2
1
.28
.67
.11
.88
.04
.85
.56
.41
.52
1.01
0.19
11
.48
R4
79
74
69
63
97
95
93
.72
.10
.77
.89
.85
.43
.02
.50
92.47
91
.48
6.
2.
1.
1
7
1
0.85
f|.
6.
2.
1.
0.
44
9
7
1
85
0.44
-------
TABLE C-35. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 3
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Rate
4/5
4/5
4/5
lU-Vol No. location Sierra No. St.tRe
8597 1 8471 I
2
1
4
5
Back Dp
8595 1 8421 1
2
J
li
5
Back Up
0009 4 8372 1
2
J
4
5
Bark Up
Fitter No
S-41
S-42
S-41
S-44
S-45
H-24
S-31
S-32
S 33
S-34
SOS
II- 28
S-36
S-J7
S-38
S-19
S-40
H-25
Final Tare
Weight Welf-nt
(c) (c)
1.34016 1.26216
1.36100 1.27250
1.38938 1.35095
1.47442 1.3.3766
1.54055 1.35171
4.5844H 3.99377
1.27751
1.27836
1.28377
1.34957
1.35126
4.51137
1.52663
1.44319
1.31398
1.33121
1 . 32381
.27168
.27401
.2772R
.33920
.34356
.98107
.33600
.34309
.27378
.28192
.27440
5.5S731 4.00461
Blank Nee
Difference Correction Weight
(s) (») (e)
o.078oo +o.n
0.08850
0.n38'.3
0.13676
0.1888?
0112 0.07912
0.08962
0.03955
0.13788
0.18994
0.59071 -0.0(1106 0.58965
0.00583 +0.0
0.00435
o.f:flf,49
0.01037
0.00770
£1.12576
1112 0.00695
0.00547
0.00761
0.01149
0.88200
0.53030 -0.00106 0.52924
0. L9063 +o.r
0. 10010
0.04020
0.04929
0.04941
£1.44276
1112 0.19175
0.10122
0.04132
0.05041
0.05053
1.55270 -0.00106 1.55164
r 1.98687
Stages
(wt .")
?'.03
7.96
3.51
12.25
16. fl/
52.38
0.48
0.38
0.53
0.80
61.13
36.68
«.65
5.09
2.08
2.54
2.54
7B.09
Cumul at Ive
6.9
2.7
1.3
0.85
0.44
6.9
2.7
1.3
0.85
0.44
6.9
2.7
1.3
0.85
0.44
TABLE C-36. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DAY 4
l>.ltP
4/6
4/r,
4/6
Ill-Vol No. Lncntlun Sierra No. St.ir.v
8597 1 8473 1
2
3
tt
',
Back 1T|>
8595 ) 8421 1
I
1
4
5
B.ick Up
0009 4 8172 1
2
3
4-
5
Back lip
Fitter No.
S-51
S-46
S-47
S-49
S-.50
II II)
S -62
S-51
S-54
s-55
S-56
II 20
S-57
S-58
S-59
S-60
S-61
II- TO
Final
Height
(R)
.278711
.35358
.41407
.27720
.40861
.12216 1
.385 J8
. 34969
. 36459
.42555
. 28154
.23112
. 50082
.34168
.33730
.37683
.35651
J. 77758
Tare
Del p.lil
(r.)
.7740'.
. 34848
.41147
.77456
. 40646
1.07795
.32132
.33--16
. 15J87
.41151
.27129
.95157
.27107
.27621
. 10266
.33302
.11894
.07142
|t|f Ferenc.*'
(B)
O.OO4I6
0.00510
0.002M)
O.O02I.4
O.R02I5
0.09421
0.06406
0.0143)
D.OII.-2
O.OI4C2
0.012^5
"1.7775'i
0.22975
O. 06547
0.03464
0.04381
0.03757
O. 7491 4
BU.ik
Torrert lo"
(E)
-------
TABLE C-37. CONCENTRATION WITHIN ALVEOLAR DEPOSITION RANGE
tn
ON
Test
Day
1
2
3
4
II it'll Level
Location
El t
K2 Wet '
F3 1
K' 1
E2 Dry
K3 '
El t
E2 Wot {
E3 I
Kl 1
E2 Ory {
E3 1
of I
36
48
66
52
51
58
41
44
68
55
55
87
OUTAGAMIE
IKJW Level Total
of 7.
20
32
43
25
25
41
26
21
49
31
27
72
(/„>
16
16
23
27
26
17
15
23
18
24
28
15
COUNTY
Concentration
mg/Nn
4.315
4.863
0.703
2.36!!
2.168
3.192
5.208
3.b4/
0.537
1.916
2.739
1.221
Conrenl r.it Ion
Wltliin liaiip."
mp/Nm'
.6904
.7781
.1617
.6912
.5617
.5476
.7RI2
.P848
.0967
.4598
.7669
.1832
Location
Kl
El
E4
F.i
ri
F/4
E!
K3
E4
El
E3
E4
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Cone-en! r.ii ltSvnt™
. 2040 )
.0324 \
. 1299 | System
.0683 1
.3876 1
.0858 [system
.4799 )
.0075 I
. 1880 > System
. 1098 )
orr
otr
On
On
-------
TABLE C-38. EMISSION CONCENTRATION OF TRACE METALS
Qxg/Nm3)
. Test
1
2
3
4
Filter
Date No.
8/2 165
371
372
8/3 368
367
366
2136
8/4 0001
0002
0003
0014
8/5 0015
0016
0017
0021
Location
El
E2
E3
El
E2
E3
E4
El
E2
E3
E4
El
E2
E3
E4
Antimony
TLV"500
0.066
0.077
0.016
0.053
0.080
0.024
0.302
2.244
0.827
0.033
2.187
0.099
0.110
0.034
0.385
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
Arsenic Barium
TLV 500 TLV 500
0.054
0.053
0.013
0.033
0.037
0.010
0.068
0.053
0.044
0.007
0.072
0.017
0.024
0.031
0.035
2.108
1.431
0.387
0.642
0.823
1.050
2.907
3.073
2.052
0.145 <
3.127
0.692
1.048
0.320
2.184
Berylium
TLV 2.00
0 . 007
0.0015
0.00007
0.0005
0.0011
0.00032
0.01275
0.01248
0.00456
0.00006
0.0091
0.00095
0.00135
0.00017
0.00315
Cadmium
100
TLV 40
0.03738
0.03185
0.01372
0.0382&
0.04202
0.02272
0.08619
0.094U
0.10488
0. 02556
0.1 18^
0.06593
0.06939
0.04476
0.13545
Chromium
TLV 500
3.5616
6.468
2.002
0.293S
0.3828
4.000
0.5916
6.188
6.232
6.300
4.3615
4.94
6.48
5.04
2.7056
Copper
TLV 1000
0.777
1.1123
0.6685
0.5824
0.8052
1.0112
0.8313
1.5808
1.3870
1 .6320
1.7875
0.6821
1.0071
1.224
1.3195
Lead
TLV 150.
3.3348
2.9498
2.156
1.118
1.3486
0.6688
3.6159
7.8
5.7
1.644
8.645
6.441
17.995
1.476
10.570
Note: TLV from American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists.
-------
TABLE C-39. EMISSION CONCENTRATION OF TRACE METALS
(fig/Nm3)
Ul
oo
Test
1
2
3
4
Filter
Date No.
8/2 365
371
372
8/3 368
367
366
2136
8/4 0001
0002
0003
0004
8/5 0015
0016
0017
0021
S amp ling
Site Location
Shredder
Conveyors
Magnetic Separator
Shredder
Conveyors
Magnetic Separator
Tipping Floor
Shredder
Conveyors
Magnetic Separator
Tipping Floor
Shredder
Conveyors
Magnetic Separator
Tipping Floor
Ei
E2
E3
El
E2
E3
E4
El
E2
E3
E4
Kl
E2
E3
E4
OUTAGAMIE
Mercury Selenium
TLV"50.0 TLV 200.0
0.009
0.0)0
0.003
0.006
0.008
0.007
0.023
0.015
0.017
0.002
0.019
0.009
0.015
0.003
0.037
0.005
0.005
.' 0.004
< 0.008
< 0.009
<• 0.006
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.005
< 0.005
s. 0.002
0.004
COUNTY
Silver
TLV 10.0
0.013
0.009
0.001
0.011
0.002
0.005
0.036
0.016
0.013
0.001
0.014
0.007
0.013
0.005
0.008
Titanium
1.340
0.784
0.183
0.281
0.733
0.538
0.862
1.019
0.817
0.571
0.196
0.190
0.824
0.631
0.952
Vanadium
TLV 100
0.168
0.098
0.012
0.039
0.032
0.023
0.158
0.296
0.106
0.015
0.247
0.068
0.032
0.014
0.105
Zinc
TLV 5000.0
5.712
4.743
1.715
2.270
3.212
6.720
5.508
7.228
5.624
2.226
7.670
4.256
7.884
3.384
5.810
Note: TLV from American Conference of Governmental mid Industrial Hygienists.
-------
TABLE C-40.
EMISSION CONCENTRATION OF TRACE METALS
(Mg/Nm3)
Ui
VD
Test
1
2
3
4
Date Sampling Site
3/7 Magnetic Separator
Process Bui Id ing
Tipping Floor
Shredder
3/8 Magnetic Separator
Process Building
Tipping Floor
Shredder
4/5 Magnetic Separator
Process Building
Tipping Floor
Shredder
4/6 Magnetic Separator
Process Building
Tipping Floor
Shredder
Location
F.I
F.2
E3
E4
El
E2
E3
E4
El
E2
E3
E4
El
E2
E3
E4
BALTIMORE COUNTY
Filter Barium Cadmium
No. 500 100
11-7
H-4
H-6
H-5
H-19
H-18
11-15
H-17
H-26
tl-11
H-13
H-27
H-32
H-8
H-29
H-31
0.320
0.713
0.541
1.813
*
0.063
1.417
*
0.736
1.749
0.386
1.066
*
0.550
0.306
0.879
0.009
0.030
0.006
0.059
*
<0.009
0.012
*
0.021
0.043
0.026
0.022
*
0.010
0.095
0.030
Chromium
500
0.468
t.885
0.227
1.360
*
0.439
0.378
*
0.659
13.404
0.246
0.746
*
0.203
1.081
2.966
Copper
1,000
0.370
0.782
0.486
1.903
*
0.287
0.461
*
0.659
1.282
0.546
0.960
*
0.203
1.504
0.586
Lead
150
1.405
1.472
0.650
3.173
*
0.537
2.598
*
3.450
5.245
0.952
3.946
*
2.373
1.340
2.709
Zinc
5,000
1.726
2.046
1.019
3.015
*
0.654
1.027
*
3.450
3.439
1.284
, 3.732
*
1.204
1.739
3.076
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-007b
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Volume II. Magnetic Separators, Air Classifier and
Ambient Air Emissions Tests
7. AUTHORiS)
B. W. Sinister and David Bendersky
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
4213D
'8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
423 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5 REPORT DATS
July 1980 (Issuing Date)
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO] NE624E624DW
COS Wastes as Fuels Task 5.1
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2387
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-Gin., OH.
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati^ Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - Vnl TT nf TTT
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also Volume I (EPA-600/2-80-007a) and Volume III (EPA-600/2-80-007c)
Project Officer: Donald A. Oberacker 513/684-7881
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a study of equipment and sytems for
processing municipal solid wastes into energy related products. The study was
divided into three phases. The first phase was devoted to a study of the state
of the art and formulation of the research needs. The second phase was devoted
to field tests of magnetic separators, air classifier and air emissions. The
third phase is involved with field tests of shredders.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Materials recovery
Refuse
Refuse disposal
Processing
Shredders
Solid Waste
Magnetic separators
Air classifiers
Particulates
Air emissions
Waste as energy
13B
68
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
170
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
160
• U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1980--657-165/0100
------- |