Environmental Protection Technology Series
ST.  LOUIS  DEMONSTRATION  FINAL  REPORT:
                REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
                EQUIPMENT,  FACILITIES, AND
              ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
                       Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                           Office of Research and Development
                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                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-600/2-77-155a
                                                   September 1977
ST. LOUIS DEMONSTRATION FINAL REPORT:  REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
     EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
                              by

                         D. E. Fiscus
                         P. G. Gorman
                         M. P. Schrag
                         L. J. Shannon
                Environmental Systems Section
                  Midwest Research Institute
                 Kansas City, Missouri  64110
            Contract No. 68-02-1324 and 68-02-1871
                       Project Officers

                        Carlton Wiles
         Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
         Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                   Cincinnati, Ohio  45268

                        James Kilgroe
         Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
         Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

                       Robert Holloway
          Office of Solid  Waste Management Programs
                   Washington, D.C.   20460
        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 publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendations for use.
                                    ii

-------
                                 FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing 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 complexity of that environment and the interplay bet-
ween its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the
problem.

     Research and development is that 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 technology and systems for the
preservation and treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution.  This publication is one of the products of that research; a
most vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community.

     The St. Louis-Union Electric-EPA refuse fuel project was the
first demonstration of the use of solid waste as a supplementary fuel
in power plant boilers for generating electricity.  In addition to the
demonstrations, research tasks were conducted to evaluate the processing
plant and the power plant operations.  This report presents the results
of the processing plant evaluations.  It provides data on plant material
flows and operating parameters, plant operating costs, characteristics
of plant material flows, and emissions from various processing operations,
A separate report will provide similar information on the evaluations
conducted at the power plant which burned the refuse derived fuel.
                                        Francis T. Mayo, Director
                                        Municipal Environmental Research
                                        Laboratory
                                   iii

-------
                              ABSTRACT
     This report presents the results of processing plant evaluations
of the St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel Project, including equipment
and facilities as well as assessment of environmental emissions at both
the processing and the power plants.  Data on plant material flows and
operating parameters, plant operating costs, characteristics of plant
material flows, and emisssions from various processing operations were
obtained during a testing program encompassing 53 calendar weeks.

     Refuse derived fuel (RDF) is the major product (80.6% by weight)
of the refuse processing plant, the other being ferrous metal scrap, a
marketable by-product.  Average operating costs for the entire evalua-
tion period were $8.26/Mg ($7.49/ton).  The average overall processing
rate for the period was 168 Mg/8-hr day (185.5 tons/8-hr day) at 31.0
Mg/hr (34.2 tons/hr).

     Future plants using an air classification system of the type used
at the St. Louis demonstration plant will need an emissions control
device for particulates from the large de-entrainment cyclone.  Also
in the air exhaust from the cyclone were total counts of bacteria and
viruses several times higher than those of suburban ambient air.  No water
effluent or noise exposure problems were encountered, although landfill
leachate mixed with ground water could result in contamination, given
low dilution rates.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1324
and Contract No. 68-02-1871 by Midwest Research Institute under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  This report
covers the period September 23, 1974, to September 30, 1975.
                                     iv

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Foreword	   iii
Abstract	    iv
Figures	    vi
Tables   	viii
Acknowledgment 	   xvi

     Introduction  	     1
     Conclusions and Recommendations 	     2
     Approach  	     4
     Evaluation of Facilities  	    12
          Plant operations	    12
          Plant costs	    15
          Electric power consumption 	    23
          Equipment downtime and maintenance 	
          Characterization of plant equipment  	    30
     Plant Material Flow and Characterization	    35
          Characteristics of all flow streams	    35
          RDF variability	    53
          Evaluation of data on double grind tests 	    54
          Evaluation of data on fine grind test	    59
          Plant material balance 	    64
     Evaluation of Environmental Impacts  	    71
          Air emissions: particulate air  emissions from
            air density separator and hammermill cyclones  .  .    71
          Water effluents	    89
          Assessment of leachability of products from
            the refuse processing plant   	    91
          Sound survey	   101

References	   109
Appendices
     A. Tabulations of data on plant equipment, operations
        and costs	   Ill
     B. Tabulations of data on analysis of refuse samples  .  .   147
     C. Environmental test procedures and data	   318
     D. Statistical evaluation of process stream samples . .  .   323
                                  v

-------
                                  FIGURES

Number                                                                 Page

   1  Flow diagram of processing facility and material sampling
        locations ..........................    7
   2  Flow diagram of refuse fuel-receiving facility at Union
        Electric Company's Meramec Power Plant   .......
   3  Daily variations  in midday ambient temperature and relative
        humidity   ....  	  .................   14

   4  Variations in weekly  average of daily  amount and rates  of  raw
        refuse processed   • 	 ••••••••••••••••   16

   5  Total cost per megagram versus monthly total amount  of  raw
        refuse processed   ......................   „.

   6  Operating costs per megagram versus monthly total amount of  raw
        refuse processed   .........•••••••••••••   22
   7  Daily variations  in  electric  power  consumption
    9   Daily variations in motor current
   13   Weekly variations in ferrous metal recovery efficiency
24
   8   Electric power  consumption  versus  total monthly  amount  of  raw
         refuse processed  ••...»••••••••••••••••
   10   Daily  variations  in increase  of hammermill  bearing skin temper-
         atures  above  ambient  temperature   ..............   33

   11   Daily  variations  in ADS cyclone exhaust  in  air flow rate,  rela-
         tive humidity,  and ambient  relative humidity  ........

   12   Weekly variations in refuse derived fuel and  ferrous
         metal recovery .......................
43
                                    vi

-------
                            FIGURES (concluded)

Number                                                               Page

  14   Heating value of refuse fuel versus moisture content for
         daily samples	    55

  15   Corrected plant input-output weights 	    68

  16   Particle size distribution for ADS cyclone discharge ....    74

  17   Particle size distribution for hammermill cyclone
         discharge	    75

  18   Sampling flow chart for hazardous emission tests 	    79

  19   Sound survey measurement locations 	   105

 A-l   Configuration of ADS separation chamber  ..........   113

 A-2   Dimensions of ADS  screen house	•••«•   n^

 C-l   Diagram of ADS  cyclone  discharge  sampling locations  «...   319

 C-2   Diagram of particulate  mass  sampling equipment   ......   320

 C-3   Diagram of particle  size  sampling equipment  ........   322
                                   vii

-------
                                  TABLES

Number                                                                 Page

   1  Processing Plant—Specific Equipment,  Facilities,  and  Environ-
        mental Evaluations   .....................     5

   2  Sampling and Analyses  Performed  (Intensive)  ..........     9

   3  Sampling and Analyses  Performed  (Baseline  I)   .........
                                                                         10
   4  Sampling and Analyses  Performed  (Baseline  II).  	  ...

   5  Processing Plant Weekly  Activity   .  	  ••...    ^3

   6  Monthly Summary of  Processing Plant  Operations and Costs   ...    17

   7  Summary of Electric Energy Used  at the Refuse  Processing
        Facility	    25
   8  Plant Flow Stream Description
                                                                         36
   9  Average Characteristics  of Processing Plant  Flow  Streams  over
        Duration of  Sampling   ....................    37

  10  Average Proximate  and Ultimate Analysis of RDF  (Stream S2)
        over Duration  of Sampling;  September 23, 1974,  through
        September 5, 1975	    39

  11  Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics  of Stream  Si  -
        Hammermill Discharge   ....................    45

  12  Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics  of Stream  S2  -
        Cyclone Discharge (RDF)  	  .....  	    46

  13   Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics  of
        Stream S3 -  Storage Bin Discharge	    47

  14   Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics  of
        Stream S4 - ADS  Heavies	    48
                                    viii

-------
                            TABLES (continued)

Number                                                              Page
  15   Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics of
         Stream S5 - Magnetic Belt Rejects	   49

  16   Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics of
         Stream S6 - Neggetizer Feed	   50

  17   Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics of
         Stream S7 - Magentic Drum Rejects	   51

  18   Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics of
         Stream S8 - Ferrous Metal By-Product  	   52

  19   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
         Characteristics for Double-Grind Test on February 19,
         1975	   56

  20   Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Double-Grind RDF ....   57

  21   Summary for Processing Plant Material Flows and
         Characteristics for Fine Grind Test	   60

  22   Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Fine-Grind RDF	   61

  23   Sample Variability  of Milled Refuse . 	   62

  24   Results of Emission Tests  at Processing Plant 	   73

  25   Test Data on  Particles Captured by 6.4 by 6.4 mm Square
         Opening Net Placed over  ADS Fan Discharge and
         Comparison  to  Refuse Fuel Collected by Cyclone
          (Stream S2)	   76

  26   Summary of Tests on Hazardous Emissions from Air Density
         Separator and  Hammermill Cyclones 	   81

  27   Summary of Tests on Emissions in Storage Bin	   82

  28   Summary of Tests of Ambient Air	 .   83

  29   Tabulation of Data on Washdown Activity	90

  30   Analysis of Laboratory Produced Leachate  	. . 93

  31   Comparison of Laboratory Produced Leachate to Drinking
         Water Standards	95

  32   Material Removed by Leaching  	 97
                                    ix

-------
                            TABLES (continued)

Number                                                                  Vag£
  33   Amount of Dilution Water Needed for Leachate to Meet
         Drinking Water Standards  ...................   99

  34   Ranking of Leachate Constituents - Dilution Required to
         Meet Drinking Water Standards .................   98

  35   Ranking of Leachate Samples Based on Dilution Required
         to Meet Drinking Water Standards  ...............  100

  36   Sound Survey Measurement Locations  ...............  103

  37   Sound Survey - City of St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
         (Plant in operation - January 20, 1974) ............  106

  38   Sound Survey - City of St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
         (Background sound - plant not in operation - January
         21, 1974) ...........................  107

  39   Location of Sound LEvels above 90 dBA and Allowable
         Exposure  ...........................  108
 A-l   Major  Items  of  Equipment  -  Refuse  Processing Facility .....

 A-2   Major  Motors -  Refuse Processing Facility .....  ......   112

 A-3   Vehicle  Specifications -  Refuse Processing Facility  . .....   H5

 A-4   Major  Items  of  Equipment  -  Receiving Facility .........
 A-5   Major Motors  - Receiving Facility
 A-6    Summary of  Operating Expenses,  Processing Facility for Months
          October 1974 through September 1974 .............  118

 A-7    Summary of  Operating Expenses,  Receiving Facility for Months
          October 1974 through September 1975 .............

 A-8    Capital Expenditures-Refuse Processing Facility ........  121

 A-9    Processing  Plant Daily Activity ............. ...  123

 A- 10  Weekly Summary of Plant Downtime during Processing Days ....  132

 A-ll  Weekly Summary of Major Plant Maintenance Not Counted as
          Downtime   •••.•••••••••••»••••••••••

-------
                             TABLES (continued)

Number                                                                    Page
 A-12   Daily Recorded Values  of  Plant  Operating  Conditions  ......
 A-13  Temperature and Relative  Humidity  of  Hamme rmi 1 1  Dust  Collection
         System Cyclone Exhaust   ...................   146

 B-la  Summary of Processing  Plant Material  Flows  and Characteristics
         for Week of September 23, 1974   ...............   148

 B-lb  Summary of Processing  Plant Material   Flows and
         Characteristics  for  Week of  September  30, 1974 ........   149

 B-lc  Summary of  Processing Plant Material  Flows and
         Characteristics  for  Week of  October 7,  1974   .........   150

 B-ld  Summary of  Processing Plant Material  Flows  and
         Characteristics  for Week of  October 14, 1974  .........   151

 B-le  Summary of  Processing Plant Material  Flows and
         Characteristics  for Week of  October 21, 1974  .........   152

 B-lf   Summary of  Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  November 18, 1974   ........   153

 B-lg   Summary of  Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  November 25, 1974   ........   154

 B-lh   Summary of Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  December 2, 1974  .........   155

 B-li   Summary of Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  December 9, 1974  .........   156

 B-lj   Summary of Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  December 30, 1974   ........   157

 B-lk   Summary of Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  January 6, 1974   .........   158

 B-L£   Summary of Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  January 13, 1975  .........   159

 B-lm   Summary of Processing Plant Material  Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  January 20, 1975  .........    I60

 B-ln   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of  January 27, 1975  .........
 B-lo   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of February 3, 1975 .........   162
                                      x

-------
                                  TABLES  (continued)
 Number                                                           Page

 B-lp   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of February 10, 1975 ....     163

 B-lq   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of February 17, 1975 ....     164

 B-lr   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of March 3, 1975	     165

 B-ls   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of March 10,  1975	     166

 B-lt   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of March 17,  1975	     167

 B-lu   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of March 24,  1975	     168

 B-lv   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of March 31,  1975	     169

 B-lw   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of April 7, 1975	     170

 B-lx   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of April 14-16,  1975 ....     171

 B-ly   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of April 18-23,  1975 ....     172

 B-lz   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of April 28,  1975	     173

 B-laa   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of May  5,  1975	     174

 B-lbb   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of May  12,  1975	     175

 B-lcc   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows  and
          Characteristics for Week of May  19,  1975	     176
B-ldd   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of June 30,  1975	177

B-lee   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of July 7,  1975	178

B-lff   Summary of Processing Plant  Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of July 14, 1975	179
                                  xii

-------
                                  TABLES (continued)

Number                                                               Page

B-lgg   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of July 28, 1975	    180

B-lhh   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of August 4, 1975	    181

B-lii   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of August 11, 1975	    182

B-ljj   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of August 18, 1975	    183

B-lkk   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of August 25, 1975	    184

B-L££   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and
          Characteristics for Week of September 1, 1975  	    185

B-lmm   Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows during
          Periods when Refuse Samples Not Taken    	    186

B-2     Weekly Summary of Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of
          Refuse Fuel Produced	    187

B-3a   Heating Value of Milled  Refuse  Streams, kJ/kg 	    188

B-3b   Bulk Density of Milled Refuse Streams, kg/m3  	    192

B-3c   Moisture Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, wt.  % .  .  .  .    196

B-3d   Analysis of  Milled  Refuse Streams Paper by Visual
          Analysis,  wt. %	    200
 B-3e   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Plastic by Visual
          Analysis, wt. %	   204

 B-3f   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Wood by Visual
          Analysis, wt. %	   208

 B-3g   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Glass by Visual
          Analysis, wt. %	   212

 B-3h   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Magnetic Metal by
          Visual Analysis, wt.  %	   216

 B-3i   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Nonmagnetic Metal
          by Visual Analysis,  wt. %	   220

 B-3j   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Organics by Visual
          Analysis, wt. %	   224
                                  xiii

-------
                                   TABLES  (continued)

 Number                                                             Page

 B-3k   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Miscellaneous Material
         by Visual Analysis  (Not Otherwise Classified as Paper,
         Plastic, Wood, Glass, Metal, or Organics), wt. %   ....    228

 B-3£   Ash Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, wt. %	    232

 B-3m   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Ferrous by Chemical
         Analysis (Fe20o) Aluminum by Chemical Analysis (A^O,) ,
         wt. %	7 .  .    237

 B-3n   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Copper by Chemical
         Analysis (CuO) Lead by Chemical Analysis  (PbO), wt. % .  .    240

 B-3o   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Nickel by Chemical
         Analysis (NiO) Zinc by Chemical Analysis  (ZnO), wt. % .  .    243

 B-3p   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Ferrous Metal by Visual
         Analysis, wt. %	    246

 B-3q   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Tin Cans by Visual
         Analysis, wt. % .  .	    251

 B-3r   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Aluminum by Visual
         Analysis, wt. %	    256

B-3s   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Copper by Visual
         Analysis, wt. %	    261

B-3t   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Square Screen Size,
         wt. %	    266

B-3u   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Particle Size Geometric
         Mean Diameter - mm, wt. %	    294

B-3v   Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams Particle Size -
         Geometric Standard Deviation  	    298

B-3w   Daily Results - Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Refuse
         Fuel, wt. %	    302

B-3x   Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Refuse Fuel Produced
         Regrind Test - February 19, 1975	    306

B-4a   Weekly Summary Plant Energy Balance, kJ x 106 	    307

B-4b   Weekly Summary of Plant Energy Balance (Expressed as
         percent of hammermill discharge)  	    308

B-5    Weekly Summary of Plant Ferrous Metal Recovery  	    309
                                   xiv

-------
                                  TABLES (concluded)

Number                                                              Page

B-6    Daily Samples of Refuse Derived Fuel (Stream S2)  	   310

B-7a   Weekly Material Balance, Mg 	   312

B-7b   Weekly Material Balance (Expressed as percent of raw
         refuse received)  	   313

B-8    Sample Variability of Milled Refuse—Results by Weight  .  .   314

C-l    Mass Emission Test Data	   324
                                   xv

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contracts Nos. 68-02-1324 and 68-02-1871. It describes the work carried out
by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) at the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
for the period of September 23, 1974, through September 30, 1975.

     Mr. Doug Fiscus, Mr. Paul Gorman, Mr. M. P. Schrag, and Dr. L. J. Shannon
were the principal authors of this report. Many other MRI personnel assisted in
compilation and analysis of the data. Actual equipment tests and refuse sampling
were carried out at the processing plant by Mr. Steve Howard, Mr. Lynn Cook, and
Mr. Edward Gonzalez, under the direction of Mr. Doug Fiscus (MRI Field Manager).
Most of the laboratory analyses of the refuse samples were done by the Research
900 Laboratories of the Ralston Purina Company in St. Louis, Missouri. The con-
duct of this test and evaluation program at the processing plant would not have
been possible without the excellent cooperation and assistance provided by
Mr. Wayne Sutterfield (formerly Refuse Commissioner, now Traffic and Transpor-
tation Administrator, City of St. Louis), Mr. Jim Shea (Refuse Commissioner,
City of St. Louis), and the Refuse Processing Plant staff, especially Mr.  John
Molitor, Mr. Nick Yung, and Mr. Roger Chadwick.
Approved for:

MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
L. J. Shannon, Director
Environmental and Materials
  Sciences Division
April 15, 1977
                                      xvi

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION
     The St. Louis Union Electric System is the first demonstration plant in
the U,S, to process raw municipal waste for use as a supplementary fuel in power
plant boilers. In addition to producing a fuel, ferrous metals are recovered
from the waste for use as a scrap charge in steel production. Two separate fa-
cilities comprise the system—a processing plant operated by the City of St.
Louis and two identical boilers (Combustion Engineering, 125 Mw, tangentially
fired), which were modified to fire shredded,  air classified refuse along with
pulverized coal at the Union Electric Company's Meramec Plant near St. Louis.

     This demonstration facility had been in operation for over 2 years and had
shown that such a system is a workable method for utilizing processed municipal
refuse as a supplementary fuel, and that a saleable by-product (ferrous metal
scrap) can also be recovered. Since the St. Louis facility has been in operation,
several similar facilities have been placed under construction, or are being
planned in other cities. Because of that and the growing interest in this resource
recovery method, EPA expanded their demonstration program at St. Louis to permit a
more detailed study of the performance and characteristics of the operation includ-
ing environmental aspects.

     EPA contracted with MRI  to conduct a test and evaluation program at the St.
Louis demonstration facility. This program included equipment and facilities
evaluations and environmental assessments at both the refuse processing plant
operated by the City of St. Louis and the refuse firing facility operated by
Union Electric Company's Meramec Plant.

     This report presents the results of test and evaluation activity at the
processing plant during the 1-year (53-week) period of September 23, 1974,
through September 30, 1975. In order, the report presents (a) approach, (b)
evaluation of facilities, (c) plant, material flow and characterization, and
(d) environmental evaluation.

-------
                     CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


     RDF has approximately 42% the heating value and 2.7 times the ash
content of Illinois Orient 6 coal.  However, the refuse fuel has only
approximately  12%  the  sulfur content and 35% the nitrogen content of the
coal.  The ferrous metal recovered by the processing plant  is a market-
able by-product  that was utilized as part of the scrap charge at a near-
by  steel mill.   On the average by weight, RDF represents 80.6% and re-
covered ferrous  metal  4.5% of the processed raw refuse.  The plant reject
material which was landfilled had very low energy content.  There is
little value in  trying to recycle the rejects to recover energy.

     As would  be expected, operating costs per megagram (Mg) of RDF
produced increase  rapidly when the plant is operated below  its design
capacity.  Total monthly operating costs for the refuse processing plant
plus the receiving facility ranged from $4.45 to $57.99/Mg  ($4.04 to
$52.6/ton) represented that month when the plant was operated near
design capacity  and no unscheduled shutdowns occurred.  Average total
operating costs  for the entire 1-year evaluation period were $8.26/Mg
($7.49/ton).

ASSESSMENT OF  ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

     Future plants using an air classification system of the type used
at  the St. Louis demonstration plant will need an air emission control
device to control  particulate emissions from the large de-entrainment c
cyclone.  Particulate  concentration in the air exhaust to atomosphere
from this cyclone  averaged 0.57 g/Nm3 (0.25 grains/ft3).  Also total
counts of bacteria and viruses at levels several times higher than that
found in suburban  ambient air were found in this air exhaust.

     The quantity  of water effluent from washdown of the plant is small,
and no water pollution problem exists.

     A sound survey of the plant revealed several locations above 90 dBA,
the maximum allowable  level for continuous 8-hr exposure.  However, no
worker is present  at these locations for 8 hr or more.   Therefore, no
worker noise exposure  problems presently exist.

     An analysis of laboratory-produced leachate from the processing plant
products that might be landfilled (RDF and magentic belt rejects) was
performed .  The results of this analysis indicated that if leachate from a
landfill were to be mixed with groundwater,  contamination could result
if the dilution rate of leachate to groundwater were not high enough.

-------
PROCESSING PLANT OPERATIONS

     The overall processing rate average for the entire test period
was 168 Mg/8-hr day (185.5 tons/8-hr day) at 31.0 Mg/hr (34.2 tons/hr).

     In the first 2 weeks of the test period, the plant was operated at
maximum capacity of 272 Mg/8-hr day (300 tons/8-hr day), demonstrating
that the plant was capable of sustaining this rate at least over a 2-
week period.  The maximum processing rate achieved for a 1-day average
was 45.8 Mg/hr (50 tons/hr).

     Two major equipment breakdowns occurred at the processing plant,
breakage of a drag chain conveyor to the air classifier, and failure
of the hammermill electrical system.  Several plant shutdowns occurred
due to equipment maintenance outages at the Union Electric power plant,
and once for repair of an electrical substation serving the refuse
processing plant.  As is the case with any facility having mechanical equip-
ment, planned shutdowns also occurred to perform normal maintenance.

     The plant material balance by weight showed that plant output aver-
aged 7.6% less than the plant input.  Scale error and moisture and par-
ticulate loss from the air classifier and dust collection system were
identified to account for 1.6% loss, leaving a 6% unaccounted error.  It
is theorized that moisture loss from the hammermill is the major cause
of this material loss.

-------
                                   APPROACH


     The test and evaluation program conducted by MRI at the processing plant
included three primary areas o£ investigation:

     1.  Equipment and facilities evaluation;

     2.  Characterization of plant flow streams;  and

     3.  Environmental evaluations.

     The specific items included in the program are detailed in Table 1 and
served as the basis for development of the test schedules and procedures.  The
program consisted of sampling and analysis and equipment and facilities evalu-
ation for the 53-week test period according to the test program shown below.
     Production
     week No.—

        1,2
        3-5

        6
        7
        9-11,
        13-23
        24-26
        27
        28-32
        36

        37-38,
        40-45
     Specified daily-
       raw  refuse
 processed, M^  (tons)

      272  (300)
       136+ (150+)

     Nonspecified
     Nonspecified

As required for normal
  Mg/hr rate

     Nonspecified

     Nonspecified
     Nonspecified
     Nonspecified
As required for normal
  Mg/hr rate
     Nonspecified
      Refuse sampling schedule

Daily (8 streams sampled)
Daily (4 input/output streams
  sampled)
None - environmental testing at U.E.
None - prepare for environmental
  testing at processing plant
Daily - environmental tests at
  processing plant (5 input/output
  streams sampled)
Weekly composite for 5 input/output
  streams
Daily (5 input/output streams sampled)
Daily (Fine Grind Emission Tests)
Daily (5 input/output streams sampled)
Daily (hazardous emission testing)

Daily (5 input/output streams sampled)
a/  Number of weeks less than 53 because of 8 weeks with no production.

-------
        Table 1.  PROCESSING PLANT--SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES,
                       AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
1.  Material balance to determine amount (by weight) of material entering
      plant versus amounts of refuse fuel and by-products produced,

2.  Determine heating value of material entering plant versus heating value
      of refuse fuel produced (i.e., determine how much of potential heat-
      ing value may be lost in by-product streams).

3.  Characterization of various material flows as to:

      Moisture content
      Ash content
      Bulk density
      Size analysis
      Heating value
      Composition (percent-paper, plastici wood, glass, magnetic metal,
        other metals, other organics, miscellaneous)
      Chemical analyses (Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn)

4.  Characterization  of equipment as to:

      Amperage  (nameplate  and actual)
      RIM
      Air flow  (blowers)
      Belt  width  and  speed (conveyors)
      Grate size  (hammennill)
      Downtime  and  maintenance  requirements  or modifications
      Physical  size of equipment, etc.

 5.   Use the above information to evaluate  the system and its  components.
      This  evaluation will identify operability as well  as  capability  in
      terms of:

      Shredding size
      Separation efficiency (energy recoveryl
      Ferrous netal recovery efficiency
      Operating hours and downtime
       Plant operating costs
       Electric  power required per ton  of refuse processed
      Total costs per ton of refuse processed

 6.   Quantify and characterize air,  liquid  and solid waste effluents from  the
       processing plant to include:

      Air emissions frora ADS cyclone
      Air emissions from HM cyclone
      Effluent from area washdown activities
       Reject material hauled to landfill

-------
     Even though refuse samples were not taken during weeks 6, 7, 12,  33,  34,
35, and 39, plant material flows, man-hours, and costs were recorded.

     Recording of plant downtime, maintenance requirements, operating  costs,
etc*, was performed and compiled on a monthly basis for the full year,

     A flow diagram of the refuse processing plant and the material sampling
locations are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the RDF-receiving facility lo-
cated 31 km (19 miles) away at the power plant. No samples were taken  at the
receiving facility, because only RDF was handled at this facility and  RDF had
been previously sampled at the processing plant. However, its equipment descrip-
tion was recorded, and the cost of its operation is included in the cost analy-
sis of the refuse plant.

     The material sampling and analyses performed during the test period are
shown in Tables 2 through 4. Samples of the material flow streams were taken
using a 9.5-liter (10-qt) container. This container was manually passed through
the material flow streams in free fall as they were being discharged from a con-
veyor belt. By sampling the material in free fall, a representative sample was
obtained. Either two or four daily samples were taken to form a daily  or weekly
composite sample as shown in Tables 2 through 4. The daily samples were equally
spaced throughout the day. For example, if the plant operated 4 hr, and the sam-
pling program specified four samples per day, then a sample was taken  once per
hour.

     The daily samples were stored in a 75-liter (20-gal.) sealed container.
Samples for analysis were prepared by first manually well mixing the composite
samples using a small spade, and then extracting two portions, A 9-liter (0.3-
ft ) portion was sent to a laboratory for determination of all items except
bulk density and hand pick composition, A 20-liter (0.7-ft3) portion was used
for bulk density. The material was poured into a 17,56-liter (0.62-ft^) round
container in a careful manner so as to avoid packing, and then struck  off to
insure a level fill. The net weight of this container was determined and the
bulk density calculated. A small portion of this material was then utilized
for the hand picked composition.

     Composition analysis was performed using only a hand-held magnet  to ex-
tract ferrous metal, several tongs, and a 6-ram (0.25-in.) square mesh  screen
to aid in separation of the sample into its various components.

-------
                                            AIR CLASSIFIER

                                           Cyclone Separator
RECEIVING
BUILDING
                                                                 STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION

                                                            Storage Bin
                                                                           Stationary  Packer
Separation Chute


  Magnetic Belt
RAW REFUSE DELIVERY
                                                                                          Trailer Truck
                                                                                         ULT
              Ferrous Metals Hauled to Steel  Mill
                                                            Nonmagnetic Metals, Glass, and
                                                            Waste to Landfill
To
Power
plant
                                                                         —(S8)  Indicates  Refuse Sampling Locations
             Figure 1.   Flow diagram of processing facility and material  sampling locations

-------
Trailer Truck from
Processing Facility
                     Receiving Bin
                                                 Cyclone
                                                 Separator

                                              To Firing Facility
                                              Surge Bin
                                           \
                                         Pneumatic
                                         Transport Line
Figure 2.   Flow diagram of  refuse fuel-receiving facility
      at Union Electric Company's Meramec Power Plant

-------
                                       Table. 2.  SAMPLING AMD ANALYSIS PERFORMED
                                                      (Intensive)
                                      September 2't, 1474, through October 4,  1974
                               (four Daily Samples Taken to Form Daily Composite Sample)


SI
S2
S3
34
S5
S6

S7
S8
Stream
I done i f ication
- Hcinmmrmill discharge
- Cyclone separator bottoms
- Storage bin discliarge
- Air classifier bottoms
- Magnetic by It rejects
- Nugget izer feed

- /Uigru'fic drum rejects
- Ferrous metal by-products

Moisture
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
Bulk
Ash density
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X

X
X

Si^e
X
X

X
X
X


X
Heating Proximate
value analysis
X
X X
X X
X
X


X
X
Ultimate Compo-
unalysis sition.2'
X
X X
X X
X
X
X

X
X
Metals
analys is
bi
^__/
v_b/
„_'
X.£/
Xi'
Xi

Xh-

_a/  Composition (wt 7. - paper, plastic, wood, glass, magnetic metal, other metal, 01
_b/  Chemical analyses to determine percent Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Ni, and 2n.
cl  Visual analysis for metallic components  (wt 7. - tin cans, ferrous metal, Al, and Cu).
X — Analysis performed on dally composite sample.
,  miscellaneous).

-------
                                      Table  J.  SAMPLING  AND  ANALYSES  PtlUFOkHED
                                                       (Baseline  I)
               October /, 1974, through October 
-------
                                        Table  4.   SAMPLING  AND  ANALYSES  PERFORMED
                                                        (Baseline  II)
                                       November  18,  1974, through March  21,  1975
                              (Two Dally  Samples Taken  to Form  a  Weekly  Composite.Sample)


SI -
S2 -
S5 -

S/ -

S8 -
Stream
identification
llammermill discharge
Cyclone separator bottoms
Magnetic belt, rejects

Magnetic drum rejects

Ferrous metal by-products

Moisture
XX
XX
XX

XX

XX
Bulk Heating Proximate
Ash density Size value analysis
xx xx xx x>:
XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX

XX XX

XX XX XX
Ultimate Compo-
analysis sitioir-
XX
XX XX
XX

XX

XX
Metals
analysis
*£'
XJfk'
x.^;
c/
XXs
c/
xx-
_a/  Composition (wt 7. - paper, plastic, wood, glass, magnetic inet.als, other metals,  organics,  miscellaneous).
t./  Chemical analyses to determine percent Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Ni,  and  Zn.
c/  Visual analysis for metallic components  (wt "I. -  tin cans,  ferrous metal,  Al,  and Cu).
XX = Analysis performed on weekly composite  sample.

-------
                           EVALUATION OF FACILITIES


     All the refuse sample analyses and plant operating data collected were
compiled and analyzed with the aim of meeting the objectives of the equipment
and facilities evaluation as listed previously in Table 1. The results have
been summarized and are presented in the following sections of this report.
Tabulations of associated data are presented in the four appendices as follows:

     *  Appendix A - Description of Plant Equipment and Plant Costs;

     *  Appendix B - Characterization of Plant Input/Output Streams;

     *  Appendix C - Environmental Test Procedures and Data; and

     *  Appendix D - Statistical Evaluation of Process Stream Samples.


PLANT OPERATIONS

     A daily log of plant production rates and plant activity during the test
period is presented in Appendix Table A-9. A weekly summary of the daily plant
activity is contained in the following Table 5. Because the bulk of the plant
equipment is located outside, ambient temperature and humidity were recorded
(Figure 3) for each test day to show the environment in which the equipment
was operating.

     Of the 53 weeks comprising the test period, plant production of refuse
derived fuel (RDF) occurred during 45 weeks, leaving a balance of 8 weeks with
no production because of the following reasons.
                                       12

-------
                          Table 5.   PROCESSING PLANT HFf.KLY ACTIVITY
                    (Average Raw Refuse Processed Is Average for Days Plant
                            Is Processing,  Not Work Days Per Week)
Week of
production Date 1974
(Mo.)
1
2
3
it
5
h
-
7
8
9
1U
11
-
12
1J

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-
21
22
23
24
25
26
2 7
28
29
30
•jl

12
-
-
31
14
35
16
>7

18
<9
40
41
42
43
44
45

-
-
-



Total
45
Mo n tli
9
a
10
10
10
10
n
11
!1
11
1?.
12
12
12
12
1975
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
;
T
!
J
7.
I
4
4
4
4
5
5

5
5 .
6
fi
6
b
6
7

7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
Q
9
9
4



average for
weeks o(
Day
23
30
7
14
21
28
4
11
18
25
2
a
16
23
]0

6
11
20
27
J
10
21
24
3
10
17
24
31
7
14
21
28
5
12

19
2b
2
9
16
7 1
Z J
30
7

14
21
28
4
H
18
25
1
8
15
22
2'i





production
Maximum
Minimum
value
value


Weekly average
raw refuse
processed
Mg/day
277.4
280.1
K-3.9
176.3
140.9
121.4
M
1U5.4
1"3.1
210.0
158.9
126,1
0
110.8
176.2

151.3
154.6
126.4
H'5.5
161.1
94.5
1 10.8
0
127.7
129.2
lr:2.4
204.1
230.3
222.2
229,2
187.3
216.8
54.8
241. 7

234.7
0
0
43.5
85.1
Of. Q
OO« 7
112.7
158.5

208.5
53.4
173.5
256.9
253.5
201.6
244.0
237.2
0
0
0
0





168. 1
'. ;I.H
)0.l
Mg/hr
35.2
37.1
33.5
34.4
32.8
27.8
0
27.6
29.3
26.9
29.8
26.3
•1
•W.3
12.0

11.6
22.2
29.1
11.2
10.6
ill. 8
U.7
0
28.5
I'J.6
33.3
33.4
34.7
14.7
29, '
23.7
28,8
42.2
J6.5

12.6
0
0
J5.6
26.9
9 A O
t-t+m V
24.6
27.9

33.7
18.9
29.7
36.7
31.8
29.5
!3.1
31.8
0
0
0
0





il.O
45.8
18.4
No,



1

2
5
1

!
2
1
5
4
1

1
2

1
1
1
2
5
1
1
4


I
2

4
2

•\
5
5
3
4
A
1

a/
i-
4
l
1
2
1
3
I
5
5
5
2








Days plant not processing
(5 days/week minus processinR 
-------
Figure 3.  Daily variations in midday ambient temperature and relative humidity

-------
No* of weeks              Reason for no plant production of RDF

     !5            Strike at Union Electric Power Plant
     2            Hammertnill electrical failure
     1            Hydraulic system failure - storage bin (Atlas bin) at
                    power plant
     1            Failure of ADS drag conveyor
     1            Planned maintenance outage at power plant
     Production did not occur on every day of every week of production.  During
the total test period there were 259 days available for processing.  Processing
operations were actually conducted for 158 days, yielding a 6170 use  factor for
the processing plant. The reasons for no processing operations for individual
days are shown in Appendix Table A-9.

     The average weekly plant processing rates summarized in Table 5 have been
plotted on Figure 4 to depict fluctuations. The processing rates are based on
actual time the plant operated (i.e., not including downtime).

     Processing rate appears to decrease with a decrease in daily tonnage, al-
though statistical analysis of the data yielded only a 43% correlation between
megagrams per hour and megagrams per day. Processing rate is controlled  by an
operator's visual observation of the hammermill motor current via an ammeter.
The operator's objective is to keep the hammermill operating as close as possi-
ble to the maximum motor current. Feed rate to the hammermill is controlled by
a variable speed drive on the raw refuse receiving belt conveyor. The hammermill
has a nominal capacity of 41 Mg/hr (45 tons/hr). The daily rates varied  from 44
to 112% of this design rate, with the average being 76%. Any individual  day may
have a high processing rate; however, due to the variabilities of incoming raw
refuse and the human operator's alertness, it would be difficult to  greatly im-
prove the average processing rate over a long time span. Therefore the tons of
refuse processed are primarily a function of the number of hours the plant op-
erates.
PLANT COSTS

     Cost data for the 12 months of October 1974 through September 1975 and capi-
tal costs have been collected and summarized in Table 6. A detailed breakdown of
this cost summary is shown in Appendix Tables A-6 through A-8. For evaluation
purposes, the total refuse processing plant was categorized into two separate
cost centers:  the processing facility and the receiving facility.
                                        15

-------
50 r-
                                                                       Processing Rate
                                                                       (Mg/Hr)
                                                                                                  -i 400
                                                      Daily Amount
                                                      Processed (Mg)
                                              20         25

                                          WEEK OF PRODUCTION
   Figure 4.   Variations in weekly average  of  daily amount  and  rates of raw  refuse processed

-------
Table 6.  MONTHLY SUMMARY OF  PROCESSING  PLANT OPERATIONS AND COSTs2j£/


Days process Ing performed
Possible working days
Plant utilization (?„)
Actual processing t ime (hr )
Downtime during processing (hr)
f
RDF produced (Mg)
Fe metal recovered (Mg)
Processing facility cost
center :
Operating cost - gross
Operating cost - net
Capital cost!'
Total net cost processing
Receiving facility cost center :
Operating coat - net
Capital cost^/

Total plant (processing plus
receiving) :
Operating cost - net
Capital costi/
Total cost
19 1L
Septembers/ October
6 20
6 22
100 90.9
46.8 107.2
6.4 12.7

1.253.1 2,845.5
77.1 205.?


19,217
7L995
11,222
17,140
28,362

4,703
3,515



15,925
20,655
36,580
^
November
12
18
66.7
68.9
12.5

1,521.3
100.4


15,000
4,158
10,842
17,140
27,982

4,714
3,515



15,556
20,655
!6,211

December
8
21
30,1
42.0
2.0

1,014.6
61. 8


13,357
1,794
11,563
17,140
28,703

4,471
3,515



16,034
20,655
36,689

January
18
21
85.7
92.9
6.8

2,165.2
136.8


15,662
3,030
12,632
17,140
29,772

5,048
3,515



17,680
20.655
18,335

February
11
17
61.1
43. 3
3.1
1 1175
883.4
65.6

(S
16,122
1,567
14,555
17,140
31,695

4,835
3,515



19,381
20,655
40,036

March
16
22
72.7
ST. 2
1.8
i 707 4
2,166.7
135.0

Coats)
16,907
3,521
13,386
17,140
30,526

5,744
3,515



19, 1 )0
20,655
39, 785

April
22
26
84.6
155.6
7.3
4 854 1
3,755.7
192.1


20,717
6,404
14,313
17,140
31,453

7,343
3_,515



21,556
20,655
42,211
1<
Mav
8
20
40.0
50.4
7.9
1 600 4
1,315.2
56.9


16,221
1,561
14,660
17,140
31,800

6,338
3,515



20,998
20,655
41,653
175
June
5
21
23.8
12.9
0
327.0
262.2
20.1


14,647
446
14,201
17,140
31,341

4,759
3,515



18,960
20,655
39,615

July
14
22
63.6
76.5
4.3
2 ,218.0
1,882.0
76.7


15,736
1,511
14.225
17,140
31,365

5,479
3,515



19 , 704
20,655
40,359

August
14
21
66.7
100.5
7.1
3 282 0
2,721.8
76.7


14,950
2,107
12,843
17,140
29,983

3,072
3,515



15,915
20,655
36,570

September
4
21
19.0
34.1
4.6

822.1
33.0


15,382
1,492
13,890
17,140
31,030

3,043
3.515



16 ,933
20.655
37,588

Totalc/
158
259
61.0
914.3
76.5

22,610.9
1,268.2


193,918
35 586
158,332
205,680
364,012

59,549
42 180

101, 729

217,772
247 860
465,632

-------
                                                                               Table 6.  (Concluded)
                                      September^.'
                                                         197-i
                                                                                                                               1975
                                                                                                                          fey.
                                                                                                                                          July
                                                                                                                                                  Augu» t
                                                                                                                                                                       Total!/
    Processing facility cost
      center:

      Operating cost - gross
      Ltss ft metal recovered
      Operaglng cost - net
      Capital costJ'
        Total net coat processing

    Receiving facility cost center:

      Operating rest - net
      Capital cost.4/
                                                                                        (Costs  $/Mg of raw refuse processed)
00
    Total  cost  receiving

rorai  plant  iprnre*»ing
  plus receiving)

  Operating  cost  -  net
  Capital  costl/	
    Total
5.53
2.29
3.24
4.-J4
8.18
7.70
2.14
5.56
8.78
14.34
10.78
1.44
9.34
13.85
23.19
5.87
1.14
4.73
6..J
11.16
14.42
1.41
13.01
15.35
28.36
6.25
1.31
4.94
6.33
11.27
4.27
1.32
2.95
J.53
6.48
10.13
0.98
9.15
10.72
19.87
44.79
1.38
43.41
52.41
95.82
7.10
0.68
6.42
7.72
14.14
4.55
0.64
3.91
5.22
9.13
16.22
1.59
14.63
18.07
32.70
7.36
1.36
6.00
7.79
13.79
                                                  1.01
                                                  2.36
 4.SO
 5.95
10.54
            2.42
            1.81
            4.21
 7.98
10.59
18.57
            3.61
            2.84
            6.45
 1.99
 1.31
 3.20
 6.62
 7.74
14.36
                                                                                                 17.14
                                                                                                 18.49
                                                                                                 35.83
                                                                                                                   2.23
                                                                                                                  8.70
                                                                                                                          6.15
13.12
12.91
26.03
        14.55
        10.75
        25.30
 57.99
 63.16
121.15
          2.47
          1.39
          4.06
 8.89
 9.31
18.20
          0.94
          1.07
          2.01
 4.85
 6.29
11.14
           3.21
           3.70
           6.91
17.84
21.77
39.61
            2.26
            1.60
            3.86
 8.26
 9.39
17.65
    a/  Dollar value) from Appendix A tables.
    b/  No costs  for  landfill of refuse fuel are  included because these were Incurred only for purposes of maintained desired production  rates  for  test  purposes.
    £/  September  1974 data not included  in costs because test period not for complete month. Total dollars  per  Mg  values  based  on total  Mg less September 1974 Mg.
    d/  Capital  Investment, 67. interest,  20 year* recovery  fixed equipment, 5 years recovery rolling stock and plant startup expenses.

-------
     The processing plant cost center includes all operations necessary to pro-
duce and store RDF. It includes as vehicles the front end loader used to push
the raw refuse onto the receiving belt, dump trucks to haul away the Fe metal
by-product and reject material, and the plant automobile and pickup truck.
Also, it includes the storage bin and packer load-out station. Not included
are the trucks used to transport RDF to the power plant.

     The receiving facility cost center includes the transport trucks used to
deliver RDF to the power plant and the receiving equipment necessary to unload
the trucks and place RDF in Union Electric Company's storage bin.

     The required cost information was obtained with the help of the City of
St. Louis and was used to determine operating and capital expenses for the ap-
propriate cost centers. All expenses incurred by the project were classified
as labor, materials, or plant overhead and allocated to the Processing Facility
or Receiving Facility.

     Six days in September 1974, at the vory start of the project, were not in-
cluded because of inaccuracies in determining costs for less than a 1-month pe-
riod, since all city records are kept on a monthly basis.

     For comparison purposes, monthly costs were converted to dollars per megay
gram values. The preliminary report concerning the St. Louis processing plant"
reported costs based on the quantity of refuse fuel (RDF) produced. However,
other processing plants in the future undoubtedly will have RDF recovery rates
different from the 81% found in the present study. All calculations presented
here are based on the quantity of raw refuse received, resulting in values of
dollars per megagram of raw refuse.

     Monthly operating costs for the total processing plant on a basis of dol-
lars per megagram of raw refuse received ranged from $4.45/Mg ($4.04/ton) to
$57.99/Mg ($52.61/ton) with an average for the 12-month period of $8.26/Mg
($7.49/ton). This overall cost figure reflects several months of operation
when the plant performed at considerably less than design capacity. Excessive
downtime and maintenance, characteristic of any first generation project, oc-
curred frequently during this period. The wide variability in unit cost is
due largely to fluctuations in the volume of activity. For example, the month
of June with the lowest volume of 327 Mg (1,200 tons) has the highest unit
cost at $57.99/Mg ($52.61/ton) compared to April which has the highest volume
of 4,854 Mg (2,470 tons) and the lowest unit cost at $4.45/Mg ($4.04/ton).

     Labor expense comprises over one-half of the total operating costs and is
in most instances fixed. These expenditures are incurred despite a large amount
of idle time and uneven production schedules when employee services are not
fully utilized. Relatively high maintenance labor costs and maintenance parts
and supplies costs can be attributed to the newness of waste recovery technol-


                                       19

-------
 ogy.  No breakdown  of  plant  overhead  into  fixed  and variable overhead components
 has  been attempted; however,  on  a per-unit basis, these costs should be expected
 to vary inversely  with  volume changes.

      The market value of  ferrous metal recovered was $35,586, an average $28/
 Mg ($25/ton). This resulted in the lowering of  the cost of operation. The fer-
 rous  metal  sales have been  included  in the cost tables, producing a net oper-
 ating cost.

      Total  dollar  per megagram costs (total costs divided by total megagrams)
 for  the 12-month test period  are as  follows:
                                         $/Mg ($/ton) of raw refuse received
                Item                         Total              Lowest value

  Plant utilization (%)                  M.8                   84.6
  Operating costs
    Processing facility                   6.00  (5.44)           2.95 (2.67)
    Receiving facility                    2.26  (2.05)           1.50 (1.36)

  Total operating costs                   8.26  (7.49)           4.45 (4.04)

  Capital costs
    Processing facility                   7.79  (7.07)           3.53 (3.21)
    Receiving facility                    1.60  (1.45)           0.72 (0.65)

  Total capital costs                     9.39  (8.52)           4.25 (3.86)

  Total net processing plant costs       17.65 (16.01)           8.70 (7.89)
     Figures 5 and 6 show the relationship between dollars per megagram and
monthly weight received.

     An analysis of Table 6 reveals capital costs that are fixed per month and
therefore dollar per megagram capital costs are a direct function of monthly
processing rates. In other words, the correlation is 100% as shown in Figure
5. The variable value is operating costs. Figure 6 shows the total dollar per
megagram operating cost proportioned between the processing and receiving fa-
cility. The processing portion of the plant accounts for the major share of
operating costs.

     Statistical analysis of the data showed good correlation between costs and
processing rate. Correlation coefficients ranged from 98 to 99%. These results
                                       20

-------
   40
   35
   30
u
o
V
3  25
I
   20
o>
3-15
   10
                          Total Cost (Captial Cost + Operating Cost)
                          99% Correlation
                          $/Mg =(39,622/Mg)-0.52
•Capital Costs
 100% Correlation
 $/Mg -20.657Mg
           Operating Costs
           99% Correlation
           S/Mg = (18,965/Mg) -0.52
                                                                 A =
                                                                 • = Total costs
                                                                   — Operating  costs
                   I
I
                 1000         2000        3000         4000

                     Monthly Total - Mg of Raw Refuse Processed
                                    5000
       Figure 5.   Total cost  per megagram versus monthly total
                     amount of raw refuse  processed
                                          21

-------
 4>
 •A
 V)
 W
 o
 o
Q.

 4)
 V
oe


I
 o>
 s
u
 O)

 S
 V
 o.
o
    19

    18

    17

    16

    15

    14
 £  13
£  12
    11
    10
^_   9
    8
      0
                            Total Operating Costs (Processing & Receiving)
                            99% Correlation
                            $/Mg  =(18.965/Mg)-0.52
  Processing Facility Operating Costs
  99% Correlation
  $/Mg  =(14,358/Mg)-0.60
             Receiving Facility
             Operating Costs
             98% Correlation
             $/Mg =(4,607/Mg)
                  1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
                      Monthly Total - Mg of Raw Refuse Processed
      Figure  6.  Operating costs per megagram  versus monthly total
                      amount of raw refuse processed
                                   22

-------
and the best fit curve equations corresponding to  the  correlation coefficients
are shown in Figures 5 and 6.  The curves are of the  form:

                                       hi  + ho
                                rate -  1    2
                                       Mg

          where  h   and  h   are constants.

       The curves  should not be  used  to  predict results beyond the range of
 monthly processing rates  shown. For example,  a significant increase in amount
 processed may  require more employees which would change the cost-curve equa-
 tion.

       The important conclusion  is that  the dollar per megagram rate of total
 costs is a  function  of amount  processed. Lowest rates occur at the highest
 monthly processing rate.  Therefore, a  commercial plant operating at high plant-
 utilization percentages  could  be expected  to  have  costs close to the lowest
 monthly value  occurring  at St.  Louis when plant utilization was 84»67o.
  ELECTRIC POWER  CONSUMPTION

       Figure  7 shows  the  daily variations  in  electric power consumption expressed
  as kilowatt-hour per megagram of  raw refuse  processed. The daily results were
  quite variable  because of the high variability in  the daily amperage of the ma-
  jor motors.  Comparison of the daily  kW-hr/Mg for the haramermill versus Mg/hr
  processing rate yielded  only a  52% statistical correlation which is too low a
  correlation  to  allow any reliable conclusions to be made. Any trends that might
  possibly exist  are  lost  in  the  daily variation. As shown in Table 7, electric
  power used per  month did not show the wide variability of the daily usage. Fig-
  ure 8 is a graphical presentation of these data, showing that there is no trend
  of varying kilowatt-hour per megagram with monthly amount processed. Electric
  power consumption per megagram  is a  relative constant value as demonstrated by
  the statistical confidence  interval  or variability about the mean expressed in
  Table 7.

       The hammermill  is  the  single largest user of  electric power, accounting
  for 617o of the  total processing facility  power consumption.

       Electric power  consumption at the receiving facility was not recorded.
  However the  receiving  facility  has only 146  connected kilowatts compared to
  1,748 connected kilowatts at the  processing  facility. Also, since the receiv-
  ing facility operated  on the average only 45 min/18-Mg (45 min/20 ton) truck-
  load  of RDF, it would  not have  a  major effect on total power consumption.
                                        23

-------
         7n_
                                                                                        (Only 54.8 Mg Procewed \
NJ
                                                                                                              140  144
                          Figure  7.   Daily  variations  in electric  power consumption

-------
           Table 7.   SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC ENERGY USED AT THE
                      REFUSE PROCESSING FACILITY

Electric power used
Total plant
Month
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Total
Variability
confidence
M£
1,668.0
3,471.6
1,950.4
1,237.6
2,669.8
1,117.5
2,707.4
4,854.1
1,600.4
327.0
2,217.9
3,282.0
948.9
28,052.6
at 957.
coefficient
kW-hr
40,320
89,760
34,320
34,560
90,480
50,640
83,280
138,960
48,480
3,840
69,600
97,680
26,160
808,080


kW-hr/Mg
24.2
25.9
16.6
27.9
33.9
45.3
30.8
28.6
29.2
11.7
31.4
29.8
27.6
28. 8£/

+ 4.9
Hammermill
kW-hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21,630
41,790
84,840
30,240
2,310
38,220
61,950
17,010
297,990


kW-hr/Mg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.4
15.4
17.5
18.9
7.1
17.2
18.9
17.9
17. 52/

± 3-4
a/  Total kW-hr divided by total Mg.
NA:  data not collected.
                                   25

-------
      501—
   — 
-------
EQUIPMENT DOWNTIME AND MAINTENANCE

     Table A-10 of Appendix A lists the plant downtime during processing  days.
Downtime represents incidents that caused the plant to cease operations at  time
periods when it would otherwise not be required.  Therefore,  the  total weekly
time required to handle a given amount of refuse  is the sum of the  actual pro-
cessing time and the downtime.
     Table A-11 of Appendix A  lists the major  items of maintenance performed
 that were not counted as downtime. Maintenance occurred either during the
 plant operating time, before or after the plant was actually processing ref-
 use, or on the days when the plant was not processing refuse.

     Two major plant breakdowns occurred during the test period. Ten days of
 downtime occurred in December  1974 because of a broken chain on the drag chain
 conveyor for the ADS system. Spare sections of this chain were not stocked at
 the processing plant, and  this length of time was necessary to acquire new
 chain sections from the manufacturer and replace the old chain. Since St. Louis
 is a demonstration plant,  this was not a serious problem. However, at a commer-
 cial refuse processing plant,  an inventory of spare parts such as this ADS drag
 chain would be advisable.

     The second major breakdown occurred in May 1975. The electrical lead wires
 to the hammermill motor came loose, burning out the lighting arresters and oxi-
 dizing the first 3 m (10 ft;) of lead wire. Thirteen days of downtime resulted
 while new lead wire and lighting arresters were acquired and installed.

     Another category which caused stoppage of refuse processing operations but
 cannot be counted against  the processing plant is maintenance downtime and a
 lengthy strike at the Union Electric power plant. During the test period power
 plant maintenance accounted for 21 days and the strike 28 days of no operations
 at the processing plant.

     Maintenance of the hammers in the hammermill was the single most important
 maintenance item at the processing plant. The  St. Louid experience was that ham-
 mer wear due to refuse shredding is mainly an abrasion problem, but occasionally
 there is moderate impacting. A second shift welding crew was used to hardface
 the hammers on an as-needed basis. Two different types of hammers, both made
 of Hatfield manganese, were used. The original hammers were double faced and
 weighed approximately 95 kg (210 Ib) each. The second type of hammer was single
 faced with a replaceable tip that is bolted onto a shank. This type weighs
 roughly 82 kg (180 Ib) each.

     Experience showed that the hammers could not be entirely maintained by the
 second shift crew. Buildup of the hammers in place in the hammermill was ini-
 tially tried but this practice was discontinued for two reasons.

                                       27

-------
      1.  Significant buildup (i.e., welding material on the hammers) could not
be done on all 30 hammers in one shift.

      2.  The balance of  the hammermill rotor is lost when large amounts of
buildup material are welded on individual hammers. Therefore, the only main-
tenance done on the hammers in the mill was hardfacing with 4.8- or 6.4-mm
(3/16- or 1/4-in.) welding rod. A semiautomatic wire machine was tried, but
the results were less satisfactory.

      At 272 Mg/day (300  tons/day), a set of double-faced hammers must be hard-
faced every day. One face will last at least 4,500 Mg (5,000 tons) and then can
be turned around and the opposite face will last approximately the same amount
of refuse processed. After 9,000 Mg (10,000 tons), the hammers were removed and
sent  to a welding shop where 9 to 14 kg (20 to 30 Ib) of buildup welding wire
was added to each hammer depending on the vear. Experience showed that this can
be done at least four to five times without any appreciable change in the base
metal of the double-faced hammers* The cose of rebuilding the hammers is roughly
60 to 70% of the cost of a new manganese hammer. A new hammer will last longer
than  a rebuilt hammer due to better wearing properties; however, new castings
are sometimes difficult  to obtain.

      The replaceable tip hammers were also hardfaced every 272 Mg (300 tons).
However, their life is much less than thosr?. of the double-faced hammers. This
difference could be due  to the fact that they are 14 kg (30 Ib) lighter per ham-
mer.  Buildup of the replaceable tip hammers was done with a semiautomatic weld-
ing wire machine by the plant/maintenance personnel.

      In order to use the welding wire on the replaceable tips, it was found nec-
essary to form a mold by placing 25-mm (1-Ln.) carbon plates around the tips to
keep  the welding wire from flowing off the sides of the tips. After the tips
have  been built up, the carbon plates are removed and the sides filled to seal
any gaps between layers. It was necessary to set up at least two tips and alter-
nately weld between hammer tips to minimize heat buildup. A maximum of two tips
per 8-hr day is the most that one man can be expected to rebuild because of set
up time of the jigs and  the cooling time required to avoid overheating of base
metal.

      The configuration of the replaceable tips caused various problems. If the
end of the retaining bolt was exposed to impact, they were difficult to remove.
This  bolt must be tightened regularly even though it has a lock-washer. The tip
itself wears more rapidly than a comparable two-sided hammer. In addition, ex-
cessive wear can expose  the head of the belt that secures the tip, allowing it
to fly off during operation.

      Various buildup and hardfacing materials were tried. A summary of these
materials and their properties is shown below. Basically the plant experience
has been that for building up hammers, Stoody Dynamang rod and McKay 218-0 weld-

                                       28

-------
ing wire,  2.8-mm (7/64-in.)  diameter,  have worked well.   They are  both well
suited for use on manganese.  When set at its higher amperage rating,  the McKay
alloy gives good penetration and very little slag.  For hardfacing,  either Amsco
X-53 or McKay 55 TIC were used. They both have very similar wearing  properties.
The Amsco is more difficult to weld but is less expensive.   Generally,  only  one
welding pass was used due to the time involved.

      The four products mentioned above are  those that were  selected from the
 various materials tried at the St. Louis plant  and should not be interpreted
 as being recommended for use over other products which may  be available.

      The various alloys tried are as follows:

      Buildup Alloys

           McKay 218-0 Wire

           Low phosphorus austenitic manganese,  19.5% alloy  steel, work hardens
           to 50-55 Re—as deposited 17 Re, nonmagnetic,

           Stoody Dynatnang Rod

           Hobart 375 Tufanhard Rod

           Deposit hardness 29-40 Re, abrasion resistance in medium impact con-
           ditions, deposit analysis--0.23 C, 0.69 Mn, 0.23  Si, 2.32 Cr, and 0,18
           Mo,

      Hardfacing Alloys

           Amsco X-53 Rod

           Micro structure--chromium carbides and austenite  nominal deposit
           analysis—3.5 C, 16% Cr, 1.0% Mo; deposit hardness—50-54 Re, magnetic
           for abrasion and impact.

           McKay 55-TIC Rod

           387o alloy of high chromium cast iron,  11% titanium carbides, deposit
           hardness—40-50 Re  for severe  abrasion and moderate impact.

           Amsco Superchrome Rod

           Large volume of chromium carbides and austenite nominal deposit anal-
           ysis—4,5% C, 2,0% Si, 30.0% Cr;  deposit hardness—56-61 Re for sliding
           abrasion and moderate impact.
                                        29

-------
          Large volume of complex carbide and martensite, nominal deposit  anal-
          ysis—6.0% C, 22% Cr, 7% Mo, 5% W; deposit hardness—60-65 Re for  se-
          vere abrasion.

          McKay 258 TIC-0 Wire

          Moderate carbon-chromium 17% alloy steel with  1170 titanium carbides,
          deposit hardness—36-58 Re, strongly magnetic.

     Other alloys that were used but no specifications were available.

          Stoody Borod Rod

          X-Ergon

          Vulcanalloy 237

          Fleet Rod


CHARACTERIZATION OF PLANT EQUIPMENT

     The refuse processing facility is made up of several major pieces of equip-
ment as well as many conveyors, etc. In order to characterize these items, their
physical characteristics are described in Appendix A (Table A-l). Since most of
the items of equipment are electrically driven, the electrical characteristics
of each have also been tabulated in Appendix A (Table A-2). By far, the largest
power users are the 933-kW (1,250-hp) hammermill, the 149-kW (200-hp) ADS fan,
a 112-kW (150-hp) storage bin discharge screw conveyor, and the 75-kW (100-hp)
nuggetizer. The nuggetizer is a rotary mill used to increase the bulk density
of the ferrous metal scrap by-product. As discussed in the preceding section
on electric power consumption, the hammermill accounted  Cor 61% of total elec-
tric power consumption.

     Corresponding data for the refuse receiving facility at the power plant
are shown in Appendix A (Tables A-4 and A-5). All motors, except the hamraermi11,
and the blower for the pneumatic-conveying line at the receiving facility op-
erated at less than their full load current rating. The hammermill, storage  bin
discharge screw conveyor, nuggetizer, and air density separator (ADS) fan motor
currents were measured daily because of their large size and possible varying
load. Figure 9 depicts these daily readings.

     Daily amperage recordings were not made at the receiving facility because
this equipment did not operate on a continuous basis. When a truckload of RDF
was discharged into the receiving hopper, a timed control circuit was manually
energized to operate the equipment for 45 min,  which was sufficient time to  con-


                                       30

-------
u>
                  I 50
                                                                                        130    '40 14
                           Figure 9.   Daily variations in motor current

-------
vey the RDF to the power plant storage bin. The actual conveying time required
was approximately 30 min, allowing 15 min for cleanout of the conveying equip-
ment before shutdown.

     Hammermill current oscillated rapidly because of the varying composition
of the incoming raw refuse. Also, the large m.ass of the mill rotor acts as a
flywheel. Large pieces of metal or other hard-to-niill refuse in the stream tend
to slow the rotor speed, causing a rapid increase in motor current. By the time
the motor current peaks, the hard-to-mill refuse has passed the mill, but the
rotor coasts because of its flywheel effect, which in turn causes a quick de-
crease in motor current. The motor electric pcwer circuit is fitted with a dial
ammeter. It is possible to read the high and low points of the fluctuating meter
dial. However, it was impossible to determine average current draw from this
meter. Therefore, the maximum amperage was recorded and is shown in Figure 9.
The minimum amperage was always 50 amps. Rated motor current is 155 amps, while
the actual current varied between 50 and 300 amps. At no time did the current
stay above 155 amps long enough to trip the motor overload protection circuit.
To determine hammer-mill power consumption, the kilowatt-hours used each day
were recorded since January 22, 1975.

     The hammermill bearings are of prime interest since a major plant shutdown
had occurred before the start of the test period due to a bearing failure. Bear-
ing skin temperature is an indication of upcoiring bearing failure. Therefore,
daily skin temperatures were recorded and are reported in Figure 10. The bearing
manufacturer considers 79°C (175°F) as the maximum safe skin temperature. The
highest temperature reached during the test period was 72 C (162 F). The trend
is for the outboard bearing away from the motor to run a few degrees hotter,
perhaps because it is the newest bearing, having been replaced after the previ-
ous bearing failure, and therefore it had not worn in as much as the older bear-
ing. However, because the mill rotor is directly coupled to the motor shaft,
the motor bearings may be supporting a small amount of the inboard bearing load,
causing cooler inboard bearing temperatures.

     ADS air flow rates were monitored daily by measuring the pressure drop
across a fixed orifice plate which was calibrated during the plant environmental
tests. Wet and dry bulb temperature readings were taken to determine ambient and
ADS air discharge relative humidity. This information is reported in Figure  11.
Relative humidity was always above ambient in the fan discharge, showing that
the ADS system picks up moisture from the refuse as it passes through the air
stream.

     The relative humidity of the hammermill dust collection cyclone exhaust
was also recorded on 12 different days and foi.nd to be 100% at all times.
Therefore, there is also a moisture loss from the refuse as it passes through
the hammermill, adding to the material weight loss. A complete listing of all
daily recordings of kilowatt-hours, amps, temperatures, and air flow is con-
tained in Appendix A (Tables A-12 and A-13).

                                       32

-------
   40 -
   30
|*   0
LU
   -10
                         • Inboard Bearing (Next to Motor
                         • Oarboard Bearing
      Ul I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I 1 II I I I I II 11 I II I I I II I
            10
                    20      30
                                   40
                                          50       60
                                                         70
                                                                 30
                                                                        90      100      110      120
                                                                                                       130
                                                                                                              140  144
                                                           res: DAY
            Figure 10.   Daily  variations in  increase of  hammermill bearing  skin temperatures
                                           above ambient temperature

-------
                                                  TEST DAY
          14.0 |-
                                                                 100    110    120    130
Figure 11.  Daily variations in ADS  cyclone exhaust in air flow rate, relative  humidity,
                               and ambient relative humidity

-------
                   PLANT MATERIAL FLOW AND CHARACTERIZATION
     Material flow through the plant is defined by eight different flow streams.
Each stream was given a number to aid in sample identification. Table 8 presents
a description of the eight material streams and the point at which they were
sampled (also see Figure 1).

     A daily record was kept of the quantity of all input/output streams for
the purposes of making plant material balances. Also, as previously mentioned,
samples of each stream were obtained for the purpose of characterizing these
streams,*
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL FLOW STREAMS

     Results of this work are recorded in the form of weekly summaries of tonnage
and stream characteristics in Appendix B (Tables B-la through B-ljW. Weekly sum-
maries of the proximate and ultimate analyses of RDF are presented in Table B-2.
The total material amounts and overall average values for the test period are
presented in the following Tables 9 and 10.

     The actual weight of the storage bin discharge (S3), magnetic belt rejects
(S5), magnetic drum rejects (S7), and ferrous metal by-products (S8) was deter-
mined. The amount of RDF produced each day (S2) was calculated from the S3 ship-
ments and the storage and packer bins daily beginning and ending inventories.

     Tables B-la through Z-lM list quantities for the mill discharge (SI). How-
ever, this is actually the total of the raw refuse truck weights delivered to
the processing plant. As discussed previously, the samples of raw refuse were
taken after it had passed through the hammermill. Therefore, the SI quantities
are for raw refuse, while the sample analysis results are for milled raw refuse.
   For additional discussion of certain process stream samplings, see Appendix
     D, "Statistical Process Evaluation of Process Stream Samples."
                                       35

-------
                 Table 8.  PLANT FLOW STREAM DESCRIPTION
     Stream

       SI
 Mill discharge


       S2
Cyclone discharge
     (RDF)
       S3
  Storage bin
   discharge

       S4
  ADS heavies
       S5
 Magnetic belt
    rejects
        Description

Milled refuse discharge
from hammermill.
Refuse derived fuel
(RDF) produced. ADS
system lights or air
flow supported portion
of the air classified
milled refuse.

Refuse fuel discharged
from storage bin and
conveyed to truck packer.

That portion of the
milled refuse not sup-
ported by air flow in
the air density separ-
ation system.

That portion of S4 not
removed by the magnetic
belt and is taken to
the city landfill.
       Sampling point

Discharge of milled refuse
belt conveyor into ADS,
surge bin.

Discharge of refuse fuel
belt conveyor into storage
bin.
Discharge of storage bin
load out belt conveyor into
packer bin.

Discharge of ADS air column
onto belt conveyor
Discharge of material from
reject hopper into receiv-
ing truck.
       S6
   Nuggetizer
      feed

       S7
  Magnetic drum
     rejects

       S8
  Ferrous metal
That portion of S4 that
can be magnetized.
Product coming from the
nuggetizer not removed
by the magnetic drum.

Steel scrap by-product
sold to steel mill.
Discharge of magnetic belt
conveyor into nuggetizer
receiving chute.

Material in reject pile on
concrete slab below magnetic
drum.

Discharge of Fe metal belt
conveyor into receiving
truck.
                                    36

-------
Table 9.   AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF  PROCESSING PUNT FLOW STREAMS OVER DURATION OF  SAMPLING
                 (Arithmetic  mean of  all  sample analysis over teat period)
September 23, 1974, through September 5, 197S




Quantity (Mg)2/
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
toisture (wt. *'.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. ')
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (Al,03)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis («t. ".)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size Iran)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter Cram)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
28,052.6
10,656
122
24.43


54.1
4.5
3.2
4.2
6.2
0.6
5.8
21.4

23.19
1.55
1.62
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.08






1.1
98.9
96.2
73.3
47.7
29.3
18.5

8.9
2.70

S2
Cyclone
discharge
22,611.1
11,167
99
25.25


62.8
4.3
2.7
2.9
0.2
J.39
3.8
22.2

20.85
0.39
1.64
C.04
C.05
0.02
0.07






1.1
i?8.9
55. 0
73.5
;.7.7
.-'.0.8
JO. 6

«.9
2.75

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
2,019.8
6,080
637
13.75


2.5
1.6
4.6
27.4
19.9
5.7
20.3
18.0









4.45
16.08
4.17
0.66

1.7
98.3
91.9
61.5
30.0
9.7
3.9

14.2
2.17

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
29.7
6,486
1,033
0.33


0.01
0.4
0.1
0.1
88.9
9.4
0.04
1.05









17.74
69.71
9.83
0.43











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
1,268.2
5,239
980
0.53


tr
0.01
0
0
99.7
0.1
0.01
0.18









14.23
35.20
0.14
0.01

0
100. 0
99.4
57.4
9.9
1.0
0.2

16.5
1.59
                                              37

-------
                                 Table 9.   (Concluded)
Quantity
Heating value  (kj/kg)
Bulk  density (kg/m3)
Ibisture  (vt.  7.)
                                        September 23, 1974, through October 4. 1974
                                        S3
                                    Storage bin
                                     discharge
2.K7.5
 11.3C9
    UO
  27.35
    S4
ADS heavies

   387.1
   3,231
     618
    4.84
      S6
Nuggetizer feed

     157.2

       622
      0.31
 Composition >t.  ")
    (tr  "  trace)
 Paper
 Plastic
 Wood
 Class
 Magnetic  metal
 Other metals
 Organlcs
 Miscellaneous
                     1.5
                     0.9
                     2.8
                     6.6
                    69.5
                     3.8
                     7.5
                     7.4
                        0.1
                        0.1
                        0
                        0
                       99.6
                        tr
                        0
                        0.2
Chemical analysis  (wt.
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
;:n (ZaO)
  H.19
   1.14
   1.53
   l'.(-5
   U.l.5
   fi.CZ
   O.C-9
Visual analysis  (ut. ">
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
                     9.35
                    50.01
                     2.30
                     0.30
                       12.22
                       85.18
                        0.05
                        0.001
Size (am)
Percent larger than 63.
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less Chan 38.1
Percent less chan 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
                     1.5
                    98.4
                    91.0
                    25.1
                     9.4
                     3.0
                     1.4
                        1.0
                       99.0
                       80.6
                       11.0
                        1.0
                        0.4
                        0.2
Particle size
geometric mean diameter  (cm)
Geometric standard deviation
                    22.1
                     1.82
                       28.2
                        1.46
i/  Total megctgraras  for entire sampling period  (September 23,  1974,  through September 5, 197:,).
J>/  Total 
-------
       table 10.  AVERAGE PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF RDF (STREAM S2) OVER DURATION OF SAMPLING;
                                SEPTEMBER 23, 1974, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5, 1975
                                    (All results received moisture basis)
u>
                                        RDF Stream S2
                                      cyclone discharge
                                                     Orient 6 coal average of 21
                                                          samples collected
                                                          October 31 through
                                                           November 7, 1974
Heating value (kj/kg)
Moisture (%)£/
Ash (%)
Volatile matter (%)
Fixed carbon (%)
Carbon (70)
Hydrogen (%)£/
Oxygen (by difference) (%)—'
Sulfur (%)
Nitrogen
RDF as percent
   of coal
11,167
25.25
20.85
44.75
9.15
27.06
4.03
22.12
0.18
0.51
26,910
12.50
7.61
33'. 11
46.78
66.06
5.20
5.61
1.57
1.45
41.5
202
274.0
135.2
19.6
41.0
77.5
394.3
11.5
35.2
      al  Reported hydrogen and oxygen does not include hydrogen and oxygen contained in the moisture.
                   Proximate analysis:
                     Moisture
                     Ash
                     Volatile matter
                     Fixed carbon
                          100
      b/  All percents indicated by weight,
                                             Ultimate analysis;
                                               Moisture
                                               Ash
                                               Carbon
                                               Hydrogen
                                               Oxygen
                                               Sulfur
                                               Nitrogen
                                                 100

-------
     For comparison purposes in Tables B-la through E-lH, the nugg'etizer feed
(S6) was calculated as the sum of S7 + S8. ADS heavies (S4) was calculated as
the sum of S6 + S5.

     Besides quantifying each process stream, Tables B-la through B-lWalso in-
clude weekly averages of the analysis results in order to characterize the
streams. These averages were computed from the daily sample analysis results
tabulated in Appendix B (Tables B-3a through B-3w), except for the following:

     1.  Chemical analysis of metals was done on a daily basis only for weeks
September 23 and 30, 1974. Thereafter, this analysis was performed only on a
weekly composite sample to reduce analysis cost.

     2.  All analyses for the weeks of November 25, 1974, through March 17,
1975, were performed on a weekly composite sample.

     The ADS heavies (S4) and the various metal streams (S4, S6, S7, and S8)
contained too high a metal content to make chemical analysis practical. There-
fore, these samples were analyzed visually for metal content. The magnetic por-
tion was separated into tin cans and ferrous metal. Tin cans are magnetic but
contain metals other than ferrous.

     The screen size distribution is reported in full. However,  to make compari-
sons easier, the geometric mean diameter and the geometric standard deviation
were calculated and reported. These two parameters are a  standard method adopted
by  the American Society of Agriculture Engineers, Standard ASAE  S319,  for ex-
pressing the fineness of ground materials. This method assumes a straight line
logarithmic distribution of particle size. The geometric mean diameter is the
size at which half the particles are larger  than, and half the particles are
smaller than, the mean. The geometric standard deviation  is the  dispersion about
the mean. A value close to one means a small dispersion,  while a large value in-
dicates that particles are widely distributed over a  large size  range.

     An analysis of the geometric mean diameter data  shows that  the refuse fuel
(S2) has a slightly smaller mean diameter  than the mill discharge  (SI). The ADS
heavies (S4) contain the larger particles  in the material being  fed to the ADS
system. Also, as would be expected, the nuggetizer feed  (S6) has a  larger mean
diameter than the  ferrous metal  (S8). An  analysis of  the  geometric  standard
deviation data shows that the metal streams  have a smaller dispersion  about  the
mean than the milled raw refuse  or the refuse fuel.

     Daily plant material flows  and heating  value results were used to calculate
total weekly energy content of all flow streams. This method of  calculating  en-
ergy content of the various streams was used instead  of utilizing  the  straight
arithmetic averages of heating value in Tables B-la through B-LW  to take into
                                        40

-------
account the daily material weight variations. This was done so that the energy
balance would be as accurate as possible. Table B-4a lists the weekly summary
of kilojoules (Btu's) heat energy content for each flow stream, and Table B-4b
presents the energy content in terms of a percent of the energy content in the
hammermill discharge.

     Figure 12 shows the weekly amounts of the weight of RDF and Fe metal re-
covered and the energy content of the PDF, all as a percent of the incoming
raw refuse.

     Figure 12 reflects the fact that the RDF kj/kg (Btu/lb) heating value is
higher than the raw refuse, and therefore, the RDF averages a higher percent
recovery from the raw refuse on an energy basis than on a weight basis.

     As Table B-4b shows, there was an energy loss which was due primarily to
the weight of material loss through the system. The plant material loss is dis-
cussed more fully in the following section on material balance.

     The important conclusions here are that over the total test period, the
plant recovered 80.6% of the raw refuse as RDF and 4.57o of the raw refuse as
ferrous metal by-product. Of the total energy in the incoming raw refuse, 83.0%
was recovered as RDF. The magnetic belt rejects plus magnetic drum rejects con-
tained only 4.0%, of the energy. On an energy recovery basis, there is little
value in trying to recycle the reject material to recover energy.

     The nuggetizer was operating at near its maximum motor current. While it
was possible to decrease the magnetic belt spacing and increase the amount of
magnetic metal recovered, to do so would exceed the capacity of the nuggetizer.
All recovered magnetic metal from the magnetic belt is discharged directly into
the nuggetizer. Therefore, in order to determine plant ferrous metal recovery
efficiency, the daily plant material flows and percent magnetic metal of each
stream were used to calculate the weekly total of ferrous metal for each flow
stream and thus the recovery efficiency. As was the case with heating value,
this method was used instead of utilizing the straight arithmetic averages of
percent magnetic metal in Tables B-la through E-ld to take into account vari-
ations in daily quantities.

     Table B-5 records the total weekly quantities of ferrous metal and Figure
13 shows the recovery efficiency. The total recovery efficiency over the test
period was only 7270. In future plants, there is room for improvement in ferrous
metal recovery efficiency, either through larger sized nuggetizers or different
recovery systems.

     The refuse fuel stream samples were also used to determine proximate and
ultimate analyses of RDF. Weekly summaries of these analyses results were com-
puted, as shown in Table B-2, based on data from Table B-3w. Table 10 shows the
                                      41

-------
   100
    90
    80
    70
    60
U   50
CXL
UJ
Q-
   40
    30
                                                                            Material and Energy
                                                                            in Refine Fuel as % of
                                                                            Incoming Raw Refuse
    20
    10
                                                                           Ferrous Metal as % of
                                                                           Incoming Raw Refuse
                                       I  I   I I   I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  I  I  I  I  I
                         10
15         20         25

      WEEK OF PRODUCTION
30
35
40
                              45
                Figure 12.  Weekly variations Ln  refuse derived  fuel
                                 and ferrous metal recovery
                                              42

-------
    100 r
u
z
UJ
11 I

Of.
90 -



80 -



70 -



60 -



50 -



40-



30-



20-



10-


  ol_j	i  i  i   I  i  i  i  i   I  i
                             10
                                   15          20          25

                                         WEEK OF PRODUCTION
30
35
40
45
                   Figure 13.  Weekly variations in  ferrous metal  recovery  efficiency

-------
average proximate and ultimate analyses characteristics for the test period  and
includes similar data for comparison purposes on Orient 6 coal used at the Union
Electric power plant. This comparison shows that the refuse fuel is lower or
higher than the coal as follows:  lower--heating value, fixed carbon, carbon,
hydrogen, sulfur, and nitrogen; and higher—moisture, ash, volatile matter, and
oxygen.

     The largest difference is sulfur* The refuse fuel contains only slightly
more than one-tenth the sulfur content of Orient 6 coal during the test period
shown in Table 10. The heating value of refuse fuel is 42% of the coal heating
value.

     Tables 9 and 10 have presented the average characteristics of the various
plant flow streams over the total test period. It was observed that considerable
variability occurred from day to day in some of the characteristics. Tables 11
through 18 are a tabulation for each flow stream and characteristic, the range
of data (maximum and minimum values) encountered, as well as the mean or average
value.

     Also listed is the total number of samples in the mean and the standard
deviation. The coefficient of variation was also calculated and reported in
Tables 11 through 18. Coefficient of variation (C.V.) is a measure of variabil-
ity because it expresses the standard deviation as a percent of the mean. As
the absolute value of one characteristic increases over that of a different
characteristic, the standard deviation may also increase.

     A larger standard deviation does not necessarily mean larger variability,
and thus C.V. is a method of accommodating this restriction. The formula for
C.V. is as follows:
                             C.V. (%) = S  (100)
                                         X.
          where       X = mean; and
                     S  — standard deviation.
                      x

     Finally the confidence interval above the mean at 95% confidence coeffi-
cient was calculated to show what range of values could normally be expected
when taking a single day's sample.

     This analysis was performed only on the daily samples, with one exception
discussed below. The weeks of testing from November 25, 1974, through March 17,
1975, were not included because samples taken during those weeks formed weekly
composite samples instead of daily samples. The difference in sampling methods

                                       44

-------
Table 11.
           VARIABILITY  OF UAI1.Y VALUES OK CIIAKAOTERm'J CS OF STKliAM SI  -  HAMHERMU.i. DISCHARGE
                          (All results buaud on  uu 1 s £ U u! an received)

standard
error
[ tem
Moating value (k.J/k^)
Bulk density (ky,/ui>)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Compos! I. iun (wt;. I.)
i\U>or
I'.'astie
Wood
Glaus
It.ii.l.-tli. .ih.Lol
Other metals
organic s
Mi seel Unoous
Chemical analysis (ut . /.)
Ash
Fc (Fe-H'i)
Al. (Al.,03)
Cvl (CuO)
I'b (1'lxj)
;u (Nioj
2n (2m; )
Particle 3l^e
Geometric mean diameter (cun)
Sx/'
153
2,
0

1
0
0
0
(1
0
0
M

I)
0
0
0
0
o
0

0
Vn
.3
. y«
.691

. 15
.28!
. J82
.273
•»«*!
.0392
.623
.840

. r'H
.301
. 102
.009
.008
.002
.008

..'6i
RaiiRe
Maximum
value
14,723
250
40.

73.
13.
22.
13.
I/.
2,
43.
51.

38.
9.
4.
0.
0.
(1,



1

7
8
4
i
5
0
4
8

,90
,35
Jo
,28
23
.Oh
0.27

20,

.3
Minimum
va lue
0,429
64
7.7

I7./
i.:'
o
0
• ."
0
0
4 . 6

13. Etti
0 . 30
1.02
0.01
0.02
0 . (J 1
O.OJ

4.3
X
Moan
10,425
131.3
25. J

51.0
4.5
3.8
3.2
i.i)
0.6
b.J
25.0

24.2
1.55
l.(>2
0.05
0 . 06
0.02
o.oa

8.3
n
Numbo r
of
samples
97
97
97

97
97
97
97
1-4
94
97
9/

97
35
35
35
35
35
35

97
Sx
ii Land a rd
deviatiim
1 ,510
29.3
6.80

. 11.3
L.ll
3./2
2.t.9
^ .ail
0.38
6.14
a. 36

5.24
1.78
O.oO
0.053
0.048
0.012
0.049

2.59
Variability
about the
mean
t±]
at 957.
cunt'l Jence
coef r
304
5
1

2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

1
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
iclont

.9
.4

.3
.b
.3
.5
...
.1
.2
.7

.116
.61
.21
.02
.02
.004
.02

.5
C.V.
coetticient
of variation
CW
14.5
22.3
26.9

22.2
61.6
97.9
84.1
:a.j
63.3
97.5
33.'.

21.7
1 14. H
! '.0
IOn.0
»'.J
h'.I.O
01.3

il.2

-------
Table I.'.   VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CilAAACTEKISIlCS OF STREAM  S2  -  CYCLOME DiSCHAKG£ (K0FJ
                           (All results baaed on moisture a* received)



Item
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis fwt. '/.)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (A1^03)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Hi (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen (by difference)
Sulfur
Nitrogen

Standard
error
Sx/Vn"
139.1
Z.44
0.739

1.04
0.357
0.248
0.186
0.108
0.106
0.519
0.720

0.469
0.094
0.132
0.011
0.005
0.003
0.005

0.190
0.51
0.42
0.28
0.046
0.37
O.CCo
0.008

Range
Maximum
value
13,613
168
42.2

87.8
26.7
10.7
9.6
7.2
6.9
36.5
44.6

34.51
I 96
5.76
0.37
0.16
0.11
0.19

11.9
60.36
21.60
32.56
6.13
32.57
0.41
0.72


Minimum
value
6,932
b4
2.3

28.9
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
3.5

10.82
0.32
0.88
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04

3.8
34.91
0
21.11
2.64
15.44
0.07
0.35


X
Mean
10,636
ioy, i
26.6

58.2
4.9
3.4
2.6
0.3
0.5
4.7
25.4

21.7
0.89
1.64
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.07

7.4
43.6
s.n
26.0
3.79
21.21
0.18
0.53
n
Number
of
samples
97
97
97

97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97

97
35
35
35
35
35
35

97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97

Sx
Standard
deviation
1,370.3
24. (J
7.28

10.3
3.51
2.42
1.83
1.06
1.05
5.11
7.09

4.61
0.56
0.78
0.065
0.027
0.020
0.029

1.87
5.07
4.U
2.75
0.46
3.68
C.CS
0.075
Variabi llty
about the
mean
C±]
at 95%
confidence
coefficient
276
4.8
1.5

2.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.0
1.4

0.9
0.19
0.27
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.4
1.01
0.83
0.56
0.09
0.73
C.01
0.02
C.V.
coefficient
of variation
at
12.9
22.0
27.4

17.7
71.6
71.2
70.4
353.3
210.0
108.7
27.9

21.2
62.9
47.6
162.5
54.0
100. 0
41.4

25.3
11.6
50.6
10.6
12.1
17.4
33.3
14.2

-------
Table 13.  VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM S3 - STORAGE BIN DISCHARGE
                          (All results based on moisture as received)



Item
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic s
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. %)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Proximate and ultimate analysis
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen (by difference)
Sulfur
Nitrogen

Standard
error
Sx/'V n
233.7
4.09
1.13

2.07
1.54
0.46
0.21
0.12
0.45
U.23
1.90

0- 31
-0.17
0.11
0.013
0.005
0.002
0.009

0.43
1.22
0.63
0.11
0.59
0.013
0.016

Range
Maximum
value
12,390
149
33.0

73.5
16.5
4.3
1.9
1.2
4.6
2.3
34.3

20.85
2.42
2.32
0.15
0.06
0.03
0.16

48.41
12.37
29.84
4.24
25.26
0.24
0.66


Minimum
value
10,187
109
22.4

50.5
1.8
0.3
0
0
0
- o
16.7

17.67
0.65
1.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06

43.73
0
23.64
3.22
19.10
0.10
0.51


X
Mean
11,309
130.1
27.4

63.3
6.5
2.3
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.6
25.6

19.2
1.14
1.53
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.08

46.5
6.95
27.0
3.75
21.9
0.18
0.58
n
Number
of
samples
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Sx
Standard
deviation
738.9
12.9
3.59

6.53
4.88
1.45
0.67
0.38
1.44
0.74
6.0

1.0
0.53
0.35
0.042
0.015
0.007
0.028

1.36
3.84
2.01
0.35
1.86
0.04
0.05
Variability
about the
mean
[±]
at 957.
confidence
coefficient
529
9.3
2.6

4.7
3.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.5
4.3

0.7
0.4
0.2
0.03
0.01
0.005
0.02

0.97
2.76
1.43
0.25
1.33
0.03
0.04
C.V.
coefficient
of variation
(%)
6.5
9.9
13.1

10.3
75.1
63.0
67.0
380.0
240.0
123.3
23.4

5.2
46.5
22.9
84.0
37.5
35.0
35.0

2.9
55.3
7.4
9.3
8.5
22.2
8.6

-------
CD
                                   Table 14.   VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM S4 - ADS HEAVIES
                                                        (All results based on moisture as received)




Item
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. %)
Composition (wt. ?.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic s
Miscellaneous
Visual analysis (vt . °O
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Particle size

Standard
error
Sx/YlT
103.2
1.0
0.92

0.34
0.37
0.74
1.91
5.67
0.74
1.62
1.83

1.49
3.2
0.25
0.14




Range
Maximum
value
6,441
678
8.00

3.4
3.5
6.0
19.4
84.5
8.2
18.5
19.9

. 21.5
75.2
3.4
1.5

Minimum
value
5,521
569
0.3

0.4
0
0
0.9
24.7
0
1.6
0,9

4-0
37.9
1.0
0

X
Mean
5,990
617.8
4.8

1.5
0.9
2.6
6.6
69.5
3.6
7.5
7.6

9.3
50.0
2.3
0.3

n
Number
of
samples
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10


Sx
Standard
deviation
326.3
31.6
2.92

1.08
1.17
2.35
6.05
17.9
2.35
5.12
5.78

4.7
10.1
0.78
0.45

Variability
about the
mean
at "9 57.
confidence
coefficient
233
2.3
2.1

0.8
0.8
1.7
4.3
12.8
1.7
3.7
4.1

3.4
7.2
0.6
0.3

c.v.
coefficient
of variation
<%)
5.5
5.1
60.8

72.0
130
90.4
91.7
25.8
61.8
63.3
76.1

50.5
20.2
33.9
150.0

         Geometric mean diameter  (ram)
1.03
                                                                28.5
                                                                            17.0
                                                                                       22
                                                10
                                                              3.24
                                                                             2.3
14.7

-------
                      Table 15.  VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM S5 - MAGNETIC BELT REJECTS
                                                 (All results bused on moisture as received)




Item
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/ni3)
Moisture (wt. f.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Class
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic s
Miscellaneous
Visual analysis (wt . 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Particle size

Standard
error
Sx/V~n~
118.7
10.3
0.53

0.38
0.28
0.49
1.0
1.28
0.55
0.96
0.87

0.39
0.71
0.21
0.01




Range
Maximum
value
8,957
846
32.8

22.0
13.7
24.9
47.0
55.4
31.4
50.6
60.4

20.3
36.5
11.4
8.4

Minimum
value
2,805
349
3.1

0
0
0.1
1.4
0
0
0
5.1

0.02
1.1
0.7
0

X
Mean
5,942
633
14.7

2.6
2.2
5.7
25.4
16.1
5.8
19.7
22.5

4.6
12.7
3.9
0.7

n
Numbe r
of
samp lea
97
97
97

97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97

97
97
97
97


Sx
Standard
deviation
1,169.0
101.5
5.19

3.73
2.73
4.79
9.81
12.6
5.46
88.5
8.6

3.81
7.01
2.03
0.95

Variability
about the
mean
at !>5%
confidence
coefficient
236
20.4
1.1

0.8
0.6
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.1
1.9
1.7

0.6
1.4
0.4
0.02

C.V.
coefficient
of variation
(7.)
19.7
16.0
35.3

143.5
124.1
84.0
38.6
78.3
94.1
449.2
38.2

82.8
55.2
52.1
135.7

Geometric mean diameter (nun)
                                         0.27
                                                       21.1
6.6
                                                                              12.8
                     97
                                                                                                       2.69
                                                                                                                     0.5
                                                                                                                                     21.0

-------
                                   Table  16.  VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM S6  -  NUCGETIZER FEED

                                                            (All results based on moisture as received)
U1
o



Item
Heating value!'
Bulk density (kg/ra^)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic s
Miscellaneous
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)

Standard
error
sx/yir

11.7
0.05

0.06
0.02
0
0
0.13
0.02
0
0.11

1.54
2.05
0.002
0.001

1.06



Ratine
Maximum
value

. 684


0.6
0.2
0
0
100
0.2
0
1.1

20.5
94.3
0.02
0.01

32.8
Minimum
value

569


0.07
0
0
0
98.7
0
0
0

4.2
71.7
0
0

24.1
X
Mean

621
0.3

0.07
0.03
0
0
99.7
0.02
0
0.18

12.1
85.2
0.002
0.001

28
n
Number
of
samples

10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10

10

Sx
Standard
deviation

36.9
0.17

0.19
0.07
0
0
0.41
0.06
0
0.34

4.88
6.48
0.006
0.003

3.35
Variability
about the
mean
C±]
at 95Z
confidence
coefficient

26.5
0.1

0.14
0.05
0
0
0.29
0.05
0
0.25

3.5
4.6
0.005
0.002

2.4
C.V.
coefficient
of variation
(7.)

5.9
56.7

271.4
233.3
0
0
4,087.7
300.0
0
188.9

40.3
7.6
300.0
300.0

12.0
         j»/   Heating value  teats  not  conducted  on  Stream S6.

-------
                                Table 17.  VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM S7 - MAGNETIC DRUM REJECTS
                                                           (All results based on moisture as received)
Ui




Item
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt . "/.)
Paper
Plaatic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic s
Miscellaneous
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu

Standard
error
Sx/V~n~
76.8
12.4
0.14

0.007
0.05
0.06
0.014
0.80
0.67
0.02
0.17

0.58
0.84
0.61
0.05



Range
Maximum
value
7,784
1,434
10.6

0.4
3.3
4.6
0.7
98.7
25.3
1.1
9.2

30.6
84.7
21.1
2.7
Minimum
value
5,089
884
0

0
0
0
0
65.4
0.6
0
0

9.0
48.1
0.3
0
X
Mean
6,333
1,036
0.4

0.02
0.4
0.2
0.1
88.0
9.7
0.1
1.5

18.2
69.3
9.9
0.4
a/
Number
of
samples
81
81
81

81 '
81
81
81
81
81
81
81

81
81
81
81

Sx
Standard
deviation
691
111.5
1.24

0.06
0.48
0.57
0.13
7,2
6.03
0.17
1.55

5.24
7.6
5.52
0.43
Variability
about the
mean
C±]
at 95%
confidence
coefficient
153
24.7
0.3

0.01
0.10
0.12
0.03
1.59
1.33
0.04
0.34

1.2
1.7
1.2
0.1
C.V.
coefficient
of variation
(%)
10.9
10.8
310.0

300.0
120.0
285.0
130.0
8.2
62.2
170.0
103.3

28.8
11.0
55.8
107.5
          a/  Nuggetizer not operating for 2  days  and samples  not  collected  for  14  days  (97  -  16  =  81).

-------
                               Table 18.  VARIABILITY OF 1JA1LY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM S8 - FERROUS METAL BY-PRODUCT
                                                          (All results based on moisture as received)
Ui



Item
•••••VM
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/in3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organ ics
Miscellaneous
Visual analysis (wt . X)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)

Standard
error
Sx/'VTT"
14.2
9.2
0.03

0.0015
0.004
0
0
0.11
0.01
0.006
0.03
0.42
0.98
0.03
0.004
0.20



Range
Maximum
valuo
6,092
1,557
3.00

0.1
0.3
0
0
100
0.5
0.6
3.8
30.9
91.6
2.6
0.3
20.6
Minimum
value
4,837
878
0.01

0
0
0
0
90.8
0
0
0
8.0
0.2
0
0
9.9
X
Mean
5,161
980
0.2

0.002
0.005
0
0
99.6
0.08
0.006
0.3
15.0
83.1
0.15
0.01
16.9
a/
Number
of
samples
95
95
95

95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95

Sx
Standard
deviation
138.7
89.7
0.33

0.014
0.04
0
0
1.05
0.11
0.06
0.53
4.1
9.53
0.28
0.04
1.96
Variability
about the
mean
[£)
at 95Z
confidence
coefficient
28
18.3
0.06

0.003
0.008
0
0
0.2
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.8
1.9
0.06
0.008
0.4
c.v.
coefficient
of variation
(%)
2.7
91.5
165.0

700.0
800.0
0
0
1.1
137.5
1,000.0
176.7
27.3
11.5
186.7
400.0
11.6
         a/  Nuggetizer not operating for 2 days and therefore no Fe metal stream (97 - 2 = 95).

-------
Between Daily and  weekly  composite  samples could possibly contribute to vari-
ability; therefore,  results  from  the two methods should not be combined in  a
variability analysis.

     The one exception is  the chemical  analysis  of metals in SI  and S2. Even
 during  weeks of daily sampling,  this  analysis  was conducted  on only a weekly
 composite  basis,  except  for the  first 2 weeks  of sampling. Therefore, the
 weekly  composite  sample  results  of metals  by chemical analysis were analyzed
 for variability,  yielding  35 samples  instead of  97 for the other characteristics.

     The mean values shown  in Tables  11 through  18 differ slightly from the av-
 erage characteristic values shown  in  Tables  9  and 10. Tables 9 and 10 are the
 average of all weeks, including  the  13  weeks of  weekly composite data. However,
 an analysis  of the  weekly composite values revealed that they fell within the
 range of maximum  and minimum values  found  for  the daily samples.

     An analysis  of Tables  11 through 18 show  that the variability expressed
 as C.V. often becomes quite high when the  mean values are very low, such  as com-
 positional items  other than metal  in  S8 (Fe  metal by-product).

     For all streams, the categories  of heating  value, moisture, ash, bulk den-
 sity, particle size, and proximate and  ultimate  analyses generally had lower
 variability  than  the categories  of composition and metal analysis. This leads
 to the  conclusion that comparisons between heating values and moisture and ash
 could yield  reliable results because  of the  lower variability of these charac-
 teristics.
 RDF VARIABILITY

     Table  12  shows  the variability of RDF (S2)  heating  value on a moisture  as
 received basis. Data on moisture,  ash, and heating value of RDF were  statisti-
 cally  analyzed, showing an  expected,  but important,  relationship of increasing
 heating value  with decreasing moisture and ash content.  Therefore, heating value
 of RDF was  calculated on both a  moisture free and a moisture and ash  free basis.

     The statistical standard deviation Sx and the coefficient of variation
 C.V. (standard deviation as a percent of the mean) were  calculated for  the daily
 sample data to determine if variability of RDF heating value changes  when ex-
 pressed on  a moisture free  or moisture and ash free basis.

     Table  B-6 shows the results of these calculations which are summarized
 below:
                                        53

-------
              Characteristic                        X         C.V. (%)

Moisture (wt. %)                                    26.55      27.40
Ash as received (wt. %)                             21.71      21.23
Ash moisture free (wt. %)                           29.54      18.10
Heating value as received (kj/kg)               10,636         12.88
Heating value moisture free (kJ/kg)             14,494          9.98
Heating value moisture and ash free (kj/kg)     20,570          6.15
     Variability as expressed by C.V. is highest for moisture and lowest for
heating value. The heating value C.V. on a moisture free basis is approximately
three-fourths of that for the moisture as received basis. Heating value C.V. on
a moisture and ash free basis is slightly less than one-half of that for the
moisture as received basis.

     Therefore, the heating value of the combustible fraction of RDF is higher
and a less variable value than what would be predicted from the moisture as re-
ceived heating value.

     Statistical analysis of the data showed 67% correlation between heating
value and moisture and 77% correlation between heating value and ash. The plot
of the data and the best fit curve equations are shown in Figure 14.
EVALUATION OF DATA ON DOUBLE GRIND TESTS

     Tests were conducted during the week of February 17, 1975, to define the
characteristics of double grind refuse. The procedure used in the tests was to
collect the ADS light and heavy fractions produced on February 18, and truck
them back to the raw refuse receiving floor for regrinding on February 19. Sam-
ples of the main process streams were collected by the usual procedures during
the regrind tests, and the collected samples were then subjected to the usual
analysis.

     Characteristics of the double grind refuse are shown in Table 19. Table
20 shows the proximate and ultimate analyses of double grind refuse derived
fuel (RDF) compared to the average of single grind RDF.

     Double grind RDF produced in the test amounted to 76.8% by weight of the
incoming raw refuse. The ferrous metal recovery efficiency was 75.8%. Neither
of these values represents a significant improvement over single grind condi-
tions, as they fall within the range of values for single grind RDF. However,
there may have been some material loss due to spillage because of the procedures
involved in returning the single grind material to the receiving floor. The ma-
terial weight loss error for the double grind material balance was 14.9% which
is higher than the total test period material loss of 7.6%.
                                       54

-------
      22,000r
      20,000
 O)
<•
£,    18,000
i s
u."-
O 2
uj =  16,000
o
?    14,000
     10,000
                           Average of Moisture &
                           Ash  Free Heating Values
                       l           77% Correlation
                       N      kj/kg =20,478-202.6 (% Moisture Fr«e A$h)
                          ^             •
                 J	L
                                              J	L
~    14,000
9
   «
  «
   (A
0<
z
LLJ
X
      12,000
     10,000
       8000
                       10          20    .      30
                              % ASH  (Moisture Free)

                 -Average of Moisture Free Heating Values
                                                         40
                                                              J	I
                                                                    50
                                           67% Correlation
                                           kJ/kg = 13,949-124.4(% Moisture)
                      10
                                                         40
                                 20          30
                                  %  MOISTURE
Figure  14.   Heating value  of refuse  fuel  versus moisture
                   content for daily samples
                                                                    50
                                   55

-------
                     Table  19.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOUS AND CHARACTERISTICS
                                   FOR DOUBLE-GRIND TEST ON FEBRUARY 19, 1975
                                         (Regcind of refuse ground 2-18}


Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Sulk density (kg/a3)
Moisture (wt. ".)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
y.agnetie Mtal
Other metals
Cr^anics
Miscellaneous
Chemi:al analysis (wt. 7,)
Ash
Fa (Fe203)
Al (A1202)
Cu (CuO)
?b (PbO)
Si (NiO)
Zn (InO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
?e
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (on)
Percent larger than 53.5
Percent leas than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent lass than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean dianeter (na)
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
152.8
12,251
103
21.40

67.5
2.9
0.5
2.9
3.8
0.7
0.5
16.2
17.76
0.60
1.20
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.06





0
100.0
100.0
98.5
58.0
34.0
21.5

6.1
2.29
SZS'
Cyc lone
discharge
117.4
14,132
93
24.90

77.7
2.2
0.3
7.7
0
tr
0
12.1
17.95
0.56
1.34
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.03





0
100.0
100.0
79.8
44.7
26.6
17.0

8.4
2.56
S3
Magnetic belt
rejects
7.8
9,578
601
10.4

1.6
4.S
4.9
48.2
13.3
6.9
13.1
2.2






2.06
12.81
7.35
0.13

4.0
96.0
94.5
75.9
48.2
17.9
2.7

10.4
2.32
57
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.1
6,239
846
0.13

0
0.2
0
0.8
87.5
9.6
0.8
1.1






7.19
32.29
8.79
0.05











38
Ferrous metal
by-products
4.7
5,221
814
0.15

0
0
0
0
99.9
0.1
0
0






7. IS
91.76
0.10
0

0
100.0
100.0
82.3
15.2
1.1
0.1

13.7
1.52
a/  Stream S3 storage bin discharge  quantity (Mg)  is the  sa
      a separate lot.
a* 32. All double-grind material produced was  kept  as
                                                       56

-------
    Table 20.  PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS  OF  DOUBLE-GRIND RDF
                      (Stream S2  -  cyclone  discharge)
                                                        Average  single-
                                                           grind RDF
                                                      (September 23, 1974,
                                 Double-grind RDF           through
  Received moisture, j) a sis       (February 19, 1975)     September 5, 1975)

Heating value  (kj/kg)                14,132                11,117
Moisture (wt. %)                         24.90                 25.25
Ash (wt. %)                              17.95                 20.85
Volatile matter  (wt. 7.)                  48.44                 44.75
Fixed carbon  (wt. 70)                      8.71                  9.15
Carbon  (wt. %)                           29.82                 27.06
Hydrogen (wt. %)                          4.51                  4.03
Oxygen  (wt. % by difference)             22.21                 22.12
Sulfur  (wt. %)                            0.17                  0.18
Nitrogen (wt. 7,)                          0.44                  0.51
                                    57

-------
     Energy content of the double grind RDF was 88,6% of the energy content of
the incoming raw refuse. This value compares favorably with the total test pe-
riod average value of 83,0% for single grind EDF.

     The high energy recovery for double grind RDF is a result of the high heat-
ing value of 14,132 kJ/kg (6,075.7 Btu/lb) at 24.9% moisture. This heating value
is higher than would be predicted from the data previously obtained for single
grind RDF. The data for single grind RDF summarized in Figure 14 indicate that
a heating value of 10,851 kJ/kg (5,065 Btu/lb) would be expected for single
grind RDF at a moisture content of 24.9%. The highest heating value for a single
grind RDF near this moisture level was 13,614 kJ/kg (5,853 Btu/lb) at 23.9%
moisture.

     The oxygen and volatile matter content of the double grind RDF was higher
than the average for single grind RDF but not outside the maximum and minimum
values for single grind RDF.

     The high heating value 14,132 kJ/kg (6,075.7 Btu/lb) for the double grind
RDF appears to be due to the higher percentage of paper in the fuel. Double
grind RDF contained 77.7% paper compared to the highest daily value of 71.8%
paper for single grind RDF. The percent paper in the hammermill discharge (SI)
was relatively high (67.5%), but higher values were previously found on 3 days
for single grind material. Therefore, the high percent paper in the double grind
RDF is not fully attributable to a correspondingly high percent paper in SI.

     Mean particle size of double grind RDF was not significantly different
from the average for single grind RDF. Geometric mean diameters are 8.4 mm ver-
sus 8.6 mm (0.33 in. versus 0.34 in.). However, the geometric standard deviation
of 2,56 for double grind RDF was less than the lowest daily value of 2.62 for
single grind RDF. Thus, there is a smaller particle size dispersion about the
mean for double grind RDF.

     The particle size geometric mean diameter of 6.1 mm (0.24 in.) of the ham-
mermill discharge for the double grind material was only slightly smaller than
the daily value of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) for single grind material. The dispersion
about the mean for double grind material fell within the range found for single
grind material.

     The particle size and dispersion of the double grind magnetic belt rejects
and ferrous metal by-products was within the range for single grind material.

     Processing rate for the double grind material was 30.6 Mg/hr (33.7 tons/hr)
which is within the range found for single grind.
                                       58

-------
     In summary, there is a trend of improved RDF quality due to double grinding,
However, this conclusion was made with only 1 day's test data and further test-
ing is needed to verify this trend. Logistics of material handling at the St.
Louis facility make it very difficult to conduct a double grind test, and there-
fore, additional tests were not conducted.
EVALUATION OF DATA ON FINE GRIND TESTS

     A series of tests to determine the characteristics of fine grind PDF was
conducted during the period of April 18 to 23, 1975. In order to conduct these
tests, the normal grates with 76-mm (3-in.) square openings were replaced with
grates having 32-mm (1-1/4 in.) diameter openings. Samples of the main process
streams were collected by the usual procedures, and the collected samples were
then subjected to the usual analysis.

     Table 21 shows the average characteristics of the fine grind refuse for
the 5-day test period. Table 22 presents a comparison of the proximate and ulti-
mate analyses of fine and the regular grind RDF, while Table 23 shows sample
variability of milled refuse.

     Fine grind RDF represented 73.8% by weight of the incoming raw refuse. On
the basis of weighted average values, fine grind RDF energy recovery was 74.5%
and ferrous metal recovery was 64.3%.

     Ferrous metal recovery is within the range of values found for regular
grind material. However, the weight recovery of RDF at 73.8% is slightly lower
than the lowest value of 74.07» for regular grind material.

     One contribution to the decreased material recovery is the increase in air
emissions from the ADS cyclone which are discussed in detail in a later section
of this report. A marked increase in kilograms per hour (pounds per hour) emis-
sions from the ADS systems occurred for fine grind material as compared to emis-
sions from normal grind material. Emissions from the ADS increased from an aver-
age of 22 kg/hr (50 Ib/hr) for normal grind to 57 kg/hr (125 Ib/hr) for fine
grind. This increase is significant considering that the normal grind processing
rate of 36 Mg/hr (40 tons/hr) was reduced to 23 Mg/hr (25 tons/hr) during fine
grind, which means that the emission factor increased from 0.95 kg/Mg (1.90 lb/
ton) for normal grind to 2.73 kg/Mg (5.46 Ib/ton) for fine grind. It should be
noted, however, that the reduced processing rate for fine grind also necessi-
tated reduced air flow in the ADS system, which may have impaired removal ef-
ficiency in the ADS cyclone.

     Hammermill dust collection system particulate emissions in terms of kilo-
grams per megagram (Ib/ton) are quite small compared to the ADS emissions,  and
therefore, would not contribute significantly to decreased material recovery.

                                      59

-------
         Table  21.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR FINE GRIND TEST
                     (Week of April  18-23, 1975, 32 mm diameter hanmarmill grace openings)


Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. %)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe203>^
Al (Al^j)*-'
Cu (CuO)!'
?b (PbO)»/
Mi (NiO)i/
Zn (ZnO)a/
Visual analysis (wt, 1)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Ceooetric mean dimeter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
Si
Mill
discharge
869.2
9,477
147
24.60

53.5
3.7
3.0
2.2
7.1
0.6
6.5
23.8

25.71
0.85
1.72
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.07




0.0
100.0
99.8
93.3
65.2
41.3
27.7
5.3
2.33
S2
Cyclone
discharge
641.6
9,631
135
25.08

58.0
3.8
2.9
1.8
0
0.1
3.4
29.8

26.15
0.96
1.82
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.07




0.0
100.0
100.0
87.9
74.0
51.1
36.3
4.6
2.33
S3
Magnetic belt
rejects
64.8
4,465
796
7.17

'0.5
1.6
5.6
32.2
31.1
5.7
7.6
26.6






4.47
23.57
3.10
0.54
0.0
100.0
100.0
91.7
50.9
16.6
6.0
3.6
1.94
S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.6
8,258
1,376
1.08

0
tr
0.1
0.1
98.1
1.3
tr
0.4






16.60
79.72
1.01
0.01









S8
Ferrous metal
by-products
38.9
8,368
1,286
0.10

0
0
0
0
99.9
tr
0
0.1






16.08
83.39
0.11
0.01
0.0
100.0
100.0
93.4
39.6
3.7
0.3
10.4
1.59
a/  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                      60

-------
      Table 22.  PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF  FINE-GRIND  RDF
                     (Stream S2 -  cyclone  discharge)
                                                           Average
                                                        regular  grindk'
                                  5-Day  average        (September 23,  1974,
                                   fine  grind£'             through
  Received moisture basis       (April 18-23,  1975)     September 5.  1975)

Heating value (kj/kg)                9,631                 11,117
Moisture (wt. 7.)                        25.08                    25.25
Ash (wt. %)                             26.15                    20.35
Volatile matter  (wt. 7.)                 41.27                    44.75
Fixed carbon  (wt. 7,)                     7.50                     9.15
Carbon  (wt. 7o)           "               23.92                    27.06
Hydrogen (wt. 7.)                         3.56                     4.03
Oxygen  (wt. 7. by difference)            20.52                    22.12
Sulfur  (wt. %)                           0.23                     0.18
Nitrogen (wt. 7.)                         0.54                     0.51
a/  32 mm diameter grates  in hanmermill.
b_/  76 mm square grates  in hammermill.
                                    61

-------
             Table 23.  SAMPLE VARIABILITY OF MILLED REFUSE
                                    Variability about the mean (+)*  (at
                                       957. confidence coefficient and
           Spectrum                 	sample size = 4)	

 Moisture (wt.  7.)                                  3.89
 Heating value  (kj/kg)                            1,121
 Ash (wt. 7.)                                        3.66
 Bulk density (kg/m3)                             17.30

 Metal content  by chemical analysis (wt.  %)
 Fe  (Fe203>                                         0.68
 Al  (A1203)                                         0.55
 Cu  (CuO)                                          0.037
 Pb  (PbO)                                          0.040
 Ni  (NiO)                                          0.0091
 Zn  (ZnO)                                          0.037

 Proximate and  ultimate  analysis  (wt.  7.)
 Volatile matter                                    3.12
 Fixed carbon                                      4.22
 Carbon                                            1.99
 Hydrogen                                          0.36
 Oxygen (by difference)                             2.39
 Sulfur                                            0.083
 Nitrogen                                          0.072

 Composition  by visual analysis  (wt. 7»)
 Paper                                             9.4
 Plastic                                            6.73
Wood                                               2.75
 Glass                                              0.90
 Magnetic  metal                                    J>/
Other  metals                                     Jj/
Organics                                           b/
 Miscellaneous  (tr =  trace)                        10.09

Square screen size (mm)  (wt. 7.)
 Larger than  63.5 mm                             No variance
Less  than 63.5 mm                               No variance
Less  than 38.1 mm                                  8.26
Less than 19.1 mm                                 12.04
Less than 9.5 mm                                  10.66
Less than 4.7 mm                                   8.08
Less than 2.4 mm                                   6.00
a/  Variability based on sample data reported in Appendix B  (Table B-8).
b/  Variance not calculated because of large number of trace or zero
      responses.

                                   62

-------
     In addition to accounting for a portion of the decreased material recovery,
the increases in air emissions from the ADS and HM systems indicate a more dif-
ficult materials handling problem with fine grind EDF (e.g., windborne losses
are likely to increase, etc.).

     Heating value of the fine grind RDF was low, being only 9,630 kJ/kg (4,140
Btu/lb) at 25,087a moisture. As shown in Figure 14, a heating value of 10,828
kJ/kg (5,055 Btu/lb) would be expected for regular grind RDF at this moisture
content. This low RDF heating value was due to the low heating value of the in-
coming raw refuse. Heating value of SI (mill discharge) for fine grind tests
was 9,476 kJ/kg (4,074 Btu/lb) at 24.6% moisture compared to the lowest weekly
average for regular grind of 10,697 kJ/kg (4,599 Btu/lb) at 28% moisture. The
reason for the lower heating value of SI is not apparent from the compositional
analysis.

     The majority of regular-grind refuse streams will pass a 38.1-mm (1.5-in.)
square screen while the majority of fine grind refuse streams will pass a 19.1-
mm (0.75-in.) square screen (see Table 21). For the first four daily samples,
100% of the sample from SI passed a 38.1-mm (1.5-in.) screen. On the fifth day,
the hammermill screen was torn badly enough that only 99.1% of the SI sample
passed a 38.1-mm (1.5-in.) screen. Therefore, for the 5-day average, 99.8% of
the fine grind material passed a 38.1-mm (1.5-in.) screen.

     The following comparison shows that the reduction in mean particle size
was approximately equivalent for all streams except the ferrous metal (S8),
which had a larger size reduction.
                                    Geometric mean diameter-mm
                                     -SI     32     _S5      S3

         Regular grind (Table 9)    8.9    8.9
         Fine grind (Table 21)      5.3    4.6

           Change (decrease         3.6    4.3     5.6     6.1
             in size)
     The nuggetizer produced a much smaller size of ferrous metal by-product
during fine grind because it has a smaller input particle size material to han-
dle.

     The dispersion about the mean (geometric standard deviation) was smaller
for fine grind except for the ferrous metal by-product which exhibited no change.
                                       63

-------
     Using  the fine grind grates reduced the hammermill capacity to an average
of 22.6 Mg/hr (25 tons/hr), with a range of 20.8 to 27.0 Mg/hr (23 to 30 tons/
hr). Regular grind processing rate during the period September 23, 1974, through
September 5, 1975, averaged 31.0 Mg/hr (34.2 tons/hr).

     After  each day's operation, the hammermill was opened and the fine grind
grate inspected. By the end of the second day, structural failure of the grate
had commenced. The grate was torn in several places and these tears became larger
and more numerous with each successive day's operation. Several irregular splits
approximately 152 mm (6 in.) long had occurred in the grate. Continued operation
would have  caused these to open up, allowing large refuse particles to pass into
the system  which may have clogged the materials handling equipment.

     In summary, the processing plant is capable of processing refuse using 32-
mm (1-1/4 in.) diameter opening hammermill grates with a 28% reduction in average
processing  rate as compared to the normally used grates with 76-mm (3-in.) square
openings. However, because grate life was only 869 Mg (958 tons), fine grinding
of raw refuse does not appear attractive. Also, associated testing of fine grind
refuse at the power plant did not indicate any significant increase in combustion
efficiency.
PLANT MATERIAL BALANCE

     The total material balance for the entire 1-year test period of September
23, 1974, through September 30, 1975, is shown in Appendix B (Tables B-7a and
B-7b). Table B-7a shows the actual weights of the material balance while Table
B-7b shows the material balance in percent form.

     During this 1-year period of 53 weeks, plant production occurred during
45 weeks with 8 weeks during which the plant did not operate. Following is a
summary of the yearly total.
                                       64

-------
              PLANT MATERIAL BALANCE--TOTAL FOR THE YEAR

                                   Stream      Mg        %

         Plant input
           Raw refuse received       Si     28,052.6   100

         Plant output
           RDF                       S2     22,610.9
           Fe metal by-product       S8      1,268.2
           Magnetic belt rejects     S5      2,019.8
           Magnetic drum rejects     37         29.7

             Total                          25,928.5    92.43

         Material balance weight
           loss                              2,124.1     7.57


     The data in Tables B-7a and B-7b and the summary show that there was  always
a material loss. That is, the amount of plant output (32, 35, 37,  and 38)  never
equaled the amount of incoming raw refuse (SI). There are five possible sources
of this loss,

     1.  Particulate and moisture loss from the hammermill dust collection sys-
tem.

     2.  Particulate and moisture loss from the ADS system air flow.

     3.  Spillage from equipment.

     4.  Possible scale errors in weighing magnetic drum rejects (S7).

     5.  Possible scale errors in weighing trucks.

     Emission test data have shown that the maximum particulates and  moisture
losses from the hammermill and ADS system could account for about 1.5% of  the
losses. Unfortunately, no method was available to accurately measure  equipment
spillage. However, this spillage is estimated to be considerably less than 1%
basis visual observations, and therefore, would not account for much  of the
overall material loss.

     Magnetic drum rejects were weighed each day by MRI field personnel. The
rejects were, collected in a small enclosure underneath the magnetic drum.  At
the end of each day, this material was manually scooped into a 0.02 m  (0.7
ft^) container and weighed using a portable spring scale. The accuracy of  this

                                       65

-------
scale was verified by weight  comparisons to the large dial scale located in the
field trailer and used to make bulk density measurements. Also, magnetic  drum
rejects account for only 0,1170 of the total plant input, so that even if  scale
errors existed, they would not have a major effect on the total plant material
balance.

     Because the above four items of particulate loss, moisture loss, spillage,
and magnetic drum reject scale error could not account for all of the plant  ma-
terial loss, scale operations in weighing trucks were investigated as a possible
cause of the material imbalances.

     The scale at the refuse processing plant is not used for buying or selling,
and therefore is not a certified scale. That is, it is not a scale whose  accuracy
is periodically checked and certified as being correct by the City of St. Louis,
Division of Weights and Measures, the governmental agency responsible for licens-
ing weighing devices used in commercial transactions in the St. Louis area.

     Therefore, a test was conducted whereby refuse processing plant trucks,
selected at random, were weighed both on the refuse processing plant scale and
official scales, inspected and licensed by the St. Louis Division of Weights
and Measures. The number of trucks involved in this study and the scale error
is as follows:
     Truck
    category

Raw refuse

Fe metal and
  magnetic belt
  rejects

RDF
  No.
  of
trucks

  10

   3
    Official
     scale

Industrial Sugar

Industrial Sugar
          Union Electric
 Average processing
plant scale error (%)

     0.92 heavy

     3.62 light
                         1.56 heavy
     The Industrial Sugar Company scale is located at 3600 South First Street,
only 5 blocks away from the refuse processing plant at 4100 South First Street.
The Union Electric scale used was the truck scale at the Union Electric Meramec
plant.

     The result of this test is that the plant weight records show more raw ref-
use received and less Fe metal and magnetic belt rejects shipped than is actually
true. These two scale errors account for a material loss in the plant weight rec-
ords. However, this is offset by the fact that the plant weight records show more
                                       66

-------
RDF shipped than was actually true, making up in part for the material loss  due
to scale error in weighing the raw refuse and Fe metal and rejects trucks.

     Also, these scale errors cannot be summed directly because they do not  all
apply to the same tonnages. Table B-7b shows the total recorded tonnage for  the
year. Applying these known scale errors and the 1.57» moisture and particulate
loss results in a net 6% material loss as shown in Figure 15.

     This test shows that the individual categories of truck errors partially
cancel one another and do not yield any scale error significant to the total
material balance weight loss.

     The RDF produced was calculated by taking the storage bin shipments for
the week and applying the storage bin differential between the start and end
of the week. The amount of RDF in the storage bin was estimated from visual  ob-
servations. Thus, it is possible that a material balance error could result  from
errors in calculating the storage bin differential. An analysis of the storage
bin shipments was made by totaling the storage bin shipments over the year's
test period taking into account that the storage bin was empty at the end of
the test period and contained an estimated 11.8 Mg (13 tons) at the beginning
of the test period. The total storage bin discharge agreed within 1% of the  cal-
culated total RDF produced. Therefore, while storage bin inventory differential
could possibly produce a material balance error during an individual week,  the
storage bin inventory differentials cancel out over the total test period and
the 6% unaccounted material loss cannot be explained from the method used to
calculate RDF produced.

     The RDF trucks were all weighed. When RDF trucks are loaded at the packer
station, a log sheet is prepared showing the trucks loaded per day. Also, at
the power plant receiving building, a similar log sheet is prepared, showing
the trucks unloaded per day. These two log sheets and the scale records all
agreed. Therefore, to have an RDF truck not weighed, all three records (load,
scale and unload log) would have to be in error, and this is highly unlikely.

     Three possibilities exist which could explain part of the remaining ma-
terial balance error.

     1.  Unweighed raw refuse trucks;  When incoming raw refuse trucks enter
the plant, they first pass over the city scale. After weighing, the truck driver
is then told to proceed either to the incinerator or the refuse processing plant
and his truck weight recorded accordingly by the scale operator on a log sheet.
While it was never observed to have happened, it is possible that the raw refuse
truck driver could have made a mistake and discharged his truckload at the  in-
cinerator when he was intended to discharge at the processing plant.
                                       67

-------
28,052.6
   Mg
•Raw Refuse-
                             420.8 Mg

                             Moisture*
                             and
                             Particulate
                             +1.5%
PROCESSING
PLANT

RECORDED
WEIGHTS
                               RDF
                           22,610.9 Mg
•Mag Belt Rejects	- 2,019.8 Mg

-Mag Drum Rejects    *    29.7 Mg

•Fe Metal By-Product -» 1,268.2 Mg
                                   Total Input   28,052.6 Mg
                                   Total Output 26.349.3 Mg
                                   Material Loss  1,703.3 Mg
                                                6.07%
27,794.5 —Raw Refuse-
   Ma       -0.92%
                            420.8 Mg

                                t
                            Moisture*
                            and
                            Particulate
                PROCESSING
                PLANT

                CORRECTED
                WEIGHTS
                                I
                               RDF
                             -1.56%


                           22,258.1 Mg
                 -Mag Belt Rejects	
                    +3.62%
                 -Mag Drum Rejects —
                    +0%
                 -Fe Metal By-Product
                    +3.62%
                                  Total! nput   27,794.5
                                  Total Output 26,115.6 Mg
                                  Material Loss  1,678.9 Mg
                                                6.04%
                     2,092.9Mg

                        29.7 Mg

                     1,314.1 Mg
  Moisture and particulate loss estimated from environmental tests.
        Figure  15.  Corrected plant input-output weights

                                    68

-------
     2.  Unweighed Fe metal and  rejects  trucks:  When  the magnetic belt reject
and Fe metal trucks are  full,  they are weighed on  the  city scale before they
discharge their  loads on the city property. While  it was never observed to have

happened, it is possible  that  a plant workman could have mistakenly discharged
a truckload of material  either at the Fe metal stockpile or the city landfill
without weighing his truck.

     3.  Hammermi11;  The weight of the  raw refuse received is the weight of
material before it enters the  hammermill. Samples were  taken after the mate-
rial left the hammermill  (SI). Therefore, comparison of samples before and af-
ter the hammermill was not possible. There could have been moisture and other
volatile material loss during  the shredding operation  in the hammermill. It is
known that there was moisture  loss through the hammermill dust collection sys-
tem and this has been accounted  for. However, there could have been additional
loss through the inlet throat  and discharge opening of  the hammermill. It was
observed that outward flowing  air currents or blowback  from the hammermill in-
let throat did occur. There was  no way to measure  this  air flow, but it con-
ceivably could carry away moisture and other vapors from the refuse as it is
being shredded.

     Between 1966 and 1972, studies of shredding municipal refuse were conducted
at Madison, Wisconsin.—  The process involved in this  study was shredding only;
no air separation, metal  recovery, or other process operations were involved.
Recent conversations with personnel in the Engineering  Division, City of Madison,
revealed that they had experienced material loss ranging from 2 to 5%. Since only
a shredder was involved,  this  loss is entirely the loss attributable to the shred-
der. Like the St. Louis project, they could not account for this loss through doc-
umentation. They theorize that the loss  is due to moisture loss, spillage, and
trucks sometimes not being weighed.

                     3/
     In 1970, Sanders—   reported results of the Bureau  of Solid Waste's experi-
ments shredding municipal refuse. In one set of experiments, measured moisture
loss across the shredder  ranged  from an  average 4  to 77<>. In a second experiment,
actual measured weight loss across the shredder was 5.987..

     While the St. Louis project unaccounted error of 6.047=, is slightly higher
than the Madison project  error range of  2 to 57<>, it is  within the 4 to 7% mois-
ture loss range and practically  identical to the 5.98?0  weight loss reported in
the Bureau of Solid Waste study. While it has not been possible to document the
precise reason for the St. Louis weight  loss, it is important to note that others
have had the same experience.
                                       69

-------
     The St. Louis plant was not constructed to allow material weight checks  di-
rectly across the hanmermill or any of the other pieces of processing equipment.
In any future projects, the initial plant design should consider need for  or  use
of weighing equipment. Such items as optional by-pass chutes and/or conveyors
and space allowed for installation of automatic in-plant bulk weighing scales
should be considered. Availability of such equipment would permit detailed weight
checks across individual items of equipment.
                                        70

-------
                      EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
     Studies conducted at the processing plant to evaluate environmental impacts
were directed to quantifying emissions and evaluating other environmental aspects
of the facility and its operations. The objectives of the tests follow:

     1.  Determine mass emission rates and particle size for particulate matter
discharged from the Air Density Separator (ADS) and from the hammermill (HM) cy-
clone for both regular grind and fine grind refuse.

     2.  Conduct analysis of particulate matter emissions in an effort to iden-
tify potential hazards that may exist due to bacteria and virus.

     3.  Quantify water effluents and pollutant levels therein.

     4.  Make preliminary assessment of the leachability of all solid waste ef-
fluents that do or can occur from this facility.

     5.  Carry out a noise survey in and around the processing plant for compari-
son with existing O.S.H.A. standards.

     Results of the environmental test activities are presented and discussed
in the following subsections of this report. In some cases, details of test pro-
cedures and tabulations of data are contained in the appendices as noted.
AIR EMISSIONS:  PANICULATE AIR EMISSIONS FROM AIR DENSITY SEPARATOR AND HAMMER-
  MILL CYCLONES

     Tests were performed  to determine conventional particulate emissions as
well as bacteria and virus levels in the exhaust  streams  from the ADS and HM
systems. Results of the  tests are discussed next.

Conventional Particulate Emissions

     Primary sources of  air emissions are the discharges  from the Air Density
Separator (ADS) cyclone  and the hammermill dust collection system (HM) cyclone.

 Both of these sources were tested on three  separate periods, twice during periods
 when regular grind RDF was being produced,  and  one other  period during which fine

                                        71

-------
grind RDF was being produced for Union Electric via substitution of 32-nm (1-1/4
in.) diameter round hole grates in the hammermill rather than the normal 76 by 76-
mm (3 by 3-in.) opening grates.

     Analysis of the processing plant refuse streams during the test periods is
included in the data tabulated in preceding sections of this report. A descrip-
tion of the air emission test procedures and tabulations of the test data are
presented in Appendix C.

     A summary of the mass emissions from the ADS and HM for all three test pe-
riods is shown in Table 24. The particle size distribution tests that were car-
ried out during two of those periods are presented in Figures 16 and 17.

ADS Emissions—
     Mass emissions from the ADS cyclone for the eight regular grind tests ranged
from 9.0 to 33.5 kg/hr (19.9 to 79.9 Ib/hr) with an average of 27.2 kg/hr (60 lb/
hr) with corresponding emission rates from 0.28 to 1.99 kg/Mg (0.56 to 3.97 lb/
ton) with an average of 0.95 kg/Mg (1.89 Ib/ton). This emission rate indicates
the need for controlling or reducing the emissions in future plants of this type.

     Particle size tests on the ADS cyclone discharge during regular grind opera-
tions (Figure 16) showed that at least 80% of the particulate emissions were
larger than 10 p,m. Based on visual observations, it was suspected that a consid-
erable number of the emissions were probably much larger than 10 pin.

     It was thought worthwhile to try to quantify the emission of these particles
for comparison with the overall average emission rate of 27.2 kg/hr. Therefore,
a net arrangement was constructed of nylon mesh with" openings of 6.4 by 6.4 mm
(1/4 by 1/4 in.). During 4 days in December 1974 and January 1975, this net was
placed over the outlet of the ADS fan for approximately 1/2 hr each day in an
attempt to capture and weigh all of the larger particles. These tests (Table 25)
showed that the emission rate of large particles greater than 6.4 mm (1/4 in.)
ranged from 2.0 to 3.6 kg/hr (4.3 to 8.0 Ib/hr) with an average of 2.5 kg/hr
(5.6 Ib/hr). The composition of this effluent was also scrutinized. Much of it
was found to be pieces of paper and plastic, as well as miscellaneous fibrous
materials. Most importantly, the heating value of these emissions was 17,617
kj/kg (7,574 Btu/lb) higher than the RDF produced on the same day.

     Because the emission of the larger particles was a nuisance problem in the
near plant vicinity, the ADS discharge ducting was changed to direct the discharge
into a settling chamber area underneath the RDF storage bin. This settling chamber
was an area approximately 11.6 by 5.2 m (38 by 17 ft) and 3.0 m (10 ft) in height
which was enclosed with 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) square opening nylon mesh. No tests
were conducted to determine efficiency of particulate removal of this arrangement,
but it did remove most of the larger particles and abated the associated nuisance
problem. However, more effective control methods such as use of fabric filters is
recommended in future plants.

                                        72

-------
Table 24.   RESULTS OF EMISSION TESTS AT PROCESSING PLANT
ADS cyclone discharge (regular
ADS cyclone discharge (regular grind)



Gas flov (air)
(NmVs)
Particulate concentration
(g/Nm3)
Particulate emissions
(kg/hr)
Refuse processing rate
(Mg/hr)
Emission rate
(kg/Mg)





Gas flov (air)
(Nm/3s)
Particulate concentration
(8/Nn3)
(kg/hr)
Refuse processing rate
(Mg/hr)
Emission rate
(kg/Mg)
Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3
November 19, November 20, November 20
1974 1974 1974

12.06 11.00 14.16

0.204 0.641 0.387

9.03 25.08 19.50

32.1 29.8 29.8

0.28 0,84 0.66

Hammermill cyclone discharge
Test No. 6
November 21,
1974

0.89

0.019
0.058

31.1

0.002
Test No. 4
, November 20,
1974

14.59

0.556

28.85

29.8

0.97

(regular gjind)
Test No. 7
November 21,
1974

0.87

0.003
0.008

31.1

< 0.0005
ADS cyclone
Test No. 5 Test No. 20
November 20, April 18,
1974 1975

14.47 9.77

0.602 1.497

30.94 51.53

29,8 20.8

1.04 2.48

HM cyclone
Teat No. 23
April 19,
1975

0.69

1.236
2.77

20.9

0.133
discharge Jfine grind)
Test No. 21
April 19,
1975

10.85

1.330

51.39

20.9

2.47

discharge
Test No. 24
April 21,
1975

0.68

1.197
2.74

20.9

0.132
Test No. 22
April 19,
1975

10.95

1.755

67.99

20.9

3.26

Ifine grind)
Test No. 25
April 21,
1975

0.68

1.371
3.01

20.9

0.144
grind)
Test No. 1
June 30,
1975

13.64

0.252

U.93

18.1

0.66
HM cyclone
grind) -
Test No. 1
July 1,
1975

0.78

1.167
3.27

29.8

0.110
- oazardoui
Test No. 2
July 1,
1975

13.40

0.687

33.48

29.8

1.13
discharge

Test No. 2
July 2,
1975

0.78

1.098
3.08

25.7

0.120
> tests
Test No. 3
July 1,
1975

13.40

1.236

14.88

29.8

1.99
(regular

Test No. 3
July 2,
1975

0.78

1.396
3.90

25.7

0.152

-------
   100.0
 c
 B
 o
    10.0
o
LLJ
u
Of
a.
    1.0
    0.1
                         i—i—i   i  i  i  i  i   i—i—i—TT
                                                      T	=1
                                               REGULAR  GRIND
                                                  Run
                                               O  8
                                               A  9
                                               Date
                                           21  Nov  1974
                                           22 Nov  1974
                                   FINE GRIND
                                   •  26   21  April 1975
                                   A  27   21  April 1975
                                   •  29   22  April 1975
J_
II   1   I    I  I   I  I  I  I
I   I    I  1
      0.01  0.1      1  2  5  10  20    40   60   80  90 95  98 99   99.9 99.99

                       WEIGHT %  LESS THAN  STATED SIZE

   Figure 16.  Particle size distribution for ADS cyclone discharge
                                   74

-------
1 W. V

, MICRONS
p
o
LU
h-
LU
5
PARTICLE
o _•
— • o
- 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'T '1 — 1— 1 	 1 	 1
_ Regular Grind
Run Date ~
o 10 21 Nov 74
A 1 1 22 Nov 74
— .„• " AO Fine Grind
- ^S^ If Run Date ~
Iff? ' 28 22 Apr 75
~ / 1 1 ~~
: / J] :
— B AO
• AO
i i i i i i i i i 	 iii i
0.01   0.1      125  10  20   40   60   80  90 95  9899   99.9 99.99
                 WEIGHT  % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure  17.  Particle size distribution for hammermill cyclone discharge
                                75

-------
          Table 25.  TEST DATA ON PARTICLES CAPTURED BY 6.4 BY 6.4 mm SQUARE OPENING NET PLACED OVER ADS FAN
                       DISCHARGE AND COMPARISON TO REFUSE FUEL COLLECTED BY CYCLONE (STREAM S2)
(All




Test time (mlnisec)
Era! ss tons (kg/hr)
Fan air flow (actual m3/s)
Sample composition
Density (kg/m3)*/
Paper (X)
Plastic (X)
Wood (X)
Glass (X)
Magnetic metal (X)
Other metals 01)
Organic* (X)
Miscellaneous (l)W
Proximate and ultimate analysis
Heating value flsj/kg)
Moisture (X)
Ash (X)
Volatile matter (X)
Fixed carbon (X)
Carbon (X)
Hydrogen (X)
Oxygen (by difference) (X)
Sulfur (X)
Nitrogen (X)
Chemical analysis (vt. ",)
Fe (Fe203)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Si (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (cm)
Geometric standard deviation
percent by weight. All results on sample of received
ACS fan discharge
Monday Tuesday Thursday Monday
December 30, December 31, January 2, January
1974 1974 1975 1975
13:27 30:00 30:00 31:15
3.6 2.5 2.0 2.0
12.94 14.78 14.72 14.23

28.8 33.6 36.8 25.6
33.2 49.0 21.2 15.0
13.2 30.5 8.2 15.0
0 000
0 000
0 000
0 0.3£/ 0 0
0 000
53.6 20.2 70.6 70.0

17,617
7.17
11.77
69.38
11.68
40.03
5.84
34.40
0.24
0.55

0.51
1.07
0.01
0.02
0.003
0.04

0
100.0
93.2
16.9
5.0
3.3
1.6

23.4
1.71
basis.)
RDF (Stream S2) material
collected by cyclone
6, Monday
January 6, 1975
Composite of four subsamples
taken during same 31:15 rain
time span as ADS discharge.

75.3
68.7
4.0
3.0
3.8
0
0.2
7.8
12.5

12,452
25.20
18.22
47.43
9.16
28.45
3.94
23.53
0.12
0.54

0.49
1.34
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03

0
100.0
95.9
63.6
38.2
23.0
16.5

10.2
2.75
£/  Uncoopacted density material very fluffy.
J>/  Miscellaneous consists of the following:  grass, paper fibers, threads, rug fibers, cloth fibers, small
      pieces of tissue, dust particles, feathers, and styrofoam.
c/  Aluminum foil.
                                                          76

-------
     As mentioned earlier, another series of mass emission (and particle size)
tests was conducted on the ADS system when fine grind EDF was being produced.
Data from these tests (Table 24) showed that emissions averaged 57.0 kg/hr
(125.6 Ib/hr), which is about twice as high as the average for the regular
grind tests. Perhaps more importantly, the average emission rate was 2.74 kg/
Mg (5.47 Ib/ton), about three times higher than that for regular grind refuse.
The reduced processing rate for fine grind necessitated reduced air flow in
the ADS system, which may have impaired removal efficiency in the ADS cyclone.
The particle size distribution of the ADS emissions during the fine grind tests
was similar to those during regular grind tests (Figure 16) and certainly did
not indicate any increase in the percent of particles smaller than 10 pm. On
this basis, it can be concluded that decreasing the grind size does not increase
the percentage of fine particles greater than 10 pm in the ADS emissions.

HM Emissions--
     During the same three periods when the ADS emissions were measured, similar
tests were also carried out on the discharge from the hammermill (HM) cyclone.
As expected, the emissions from the HM are less than from the ADS system, but
the data for regular grind RDF cover a wide range of 0.008 to 3.9 kg/hr (0.02
to 8.6 Ib/hr). Emissions measured in the first two tests (November 1974) are
much lower than those measured in the three tests later in July 1975. Reasons
for this variation are not known, but confidence in the July 1975 tests is bet-
ter because the HM cyclone had been cleaned out and inspected on the day preced-
ing the July 1975 tests.

     If it is assumed that the July 1975 regular grind tests are most represen-
tative, then comparisons with the fine grind tests in April 1975 lead to the con-
clusions that HM fine grind emissions on an hourly basis are somewhat lower, av-
eraging 2.8 kg/hr (6.3 Ib/hr) versus 3.4 kg/hr (7.5 Ib/hr), but that the emission
factors are about the same, approximately 0.13 kg/Mg (0.26 Ib/ton). In any case,
it is evident from the data that the emission rate from the HM is considerably
less than that from the ADS system.

     The emission test data from the HM cyclone (Appendix C) show that the efflu-
ent gas temperature was about 14 C (25 F) above ambient and that it contained a
relatively high moisture content (~ 47» moisture by volume) being near saturation.
This result verifies the expectation that the HM causes a temperature increase
and removes some moisture from the refuse stream.

     Particle size distribution tests were also conducted on the effluent from
the HM cyclone as shown in Figure 17. As was the case for the ADS cyclone efflu-
ent, the tests showed that most of the particulate matter (> 807=) was greater
than 10 fim in size.
                                       77

-------
     Comparison of the particle size distribution for regular grind and fine
grind RDF (Figure 17) seems to indicate that a greater portion of the emissions
were smaller than 10 pja for regular grind RDF than for fine grind RDF. However,
this is probably a result of the fact that the regular grind particle size tests
were done at the same time as the November 1974 mass emission tests, which were
much lower than in succeeding tests. No particle size tests were carried out
during the later tests in June 1975.

Potentially Hazardous Air Emissions (Bacteria and Virus Emissions)

     Processing of municipal solid wastes, as is done in preparing the RDF at
the St. Louis operation, does involve materials that undoubtedly contain some
pathogens. Part of the environmental evaluations included some preliminary tests
to quantify bacteria and virus levels in the air streams emitted from the ADS
cyclone, HM cyclone, and the RDF storage bin. Levels in suburban ambient air
were also determined to provide some basis for comparison. Samples were taken
at the following locations:

     *  Air exhaust duct leading from the ADS and HM cyclones.

     '*  Inside walkway at top of storage bin where RDF is discharged from a
        conveyor belt.

     *  Backyard of a single family suburban residence located 32 km (20 miles)
        west of the refuse processing plant.

     The methods of collecting samples for the ADS and HM emissions for bac-
terial and virus analysis were the same as those described in Appendix A for
the particulate mass emission tests. The method is basically a high volume air
sampling technique in which the particulate matter is collected on filter pa-
per. Since the amount of particulate matter collected on the filter is quite
high within the 1 to 10 g (15.4 to 154 grain) range, it was possible to remove
most of the particulate catch from the filter, and split it into two parts,
which were weighed and transferred into sterile bottles. A diagram depicting
handling, disposition, and analysis requirements for the samples is shown in
Figure 18.

     Air samples from the top of the RDF storage bin and ambient air samples
were also handled as shown in Figure 18 with the samples being obtained by use
of ordinary ambient high volume particulate samplers. However, in the case of
the suburban ambient air samples, the amount of collected particulate was so
small that it could not be removed from the filter and analyzed separately, as
was the case for the other samples (ADS, HM, and storage bin). The storage bin
samples were not analyzed for virus content, and it was not possible to deter-
mine the particulate emission rate from the top of the storage bin (but it is
probably much lower than that from the ADS cyclone).
                                        78

-------
                       SAMPLING  AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
                    FOR HAZARDOUS TESTS AT  PROCESSING PLANT
                                         RALSTON-PURINA
                                                                             MRI
  ADS  CYCLONE
  (3 Tests)
  Hi Vol Mass Train
             RP Sterile
             Bottles
       Field Weigh
       2 Portions of
       Collected Matl
      , (1 -10 Grams)
                                         Bacterial Count
                                         Fecal Coliform
                                         Salmonella
                                                                             Virus
                                  MR!
                                  Sterile
                                  Bottles
                                                                        •*•{ l)Moss
  HM CYCLONE
  (3 Tests)
  Hi-Vol Mass Train

            RP Sterile
            Bottles
   A   Field Weigh
    \  2 Portions of
     \ Collected Matl.
     \(1 -10 Grams)
                                         Bacterial Count
                                         Fecal Coiiform
                                         Salmonella
                                                                             Virus
                                  MRI
                                  Sterile
                                  Bottles
                                                                              I Mass
  AMBIENT  HI VOL
  4 Test Days.  6 Mrs.  Each
  (Preweighed  Filters)
Sample
and (T
Blank ^
RP Sterile
Bottles \
Field Cut
^ in Half ^x*
(No Need Is*
to Weigh)
                               MRI
                              'Sterile
                         21    Bottles
                                         Bacterial Count
                                         Fecal Coliform
                                         Salmonella
                                                                               Virus
  STORAGE BIN HI VOL
  -4 Test Days, 6 Hrs. Each
   or  Plant  Operating Time
    (Preweighed Filters)
           Cut or Fold as
           Necessary and
           Field Weigh
           (Without
            Desiccation)
          )	•*
Sample
and  (T
Blanlc
                                         Bacterial Count
                                         Fecal Coliform
                                         So I mone I la
Figure  18.   Sampling flow  chart  for hazardous  emission tests
                                         79

-------
     Results of the bacteria and virus tests are presented in Tables 26 through
28. Interpretation and evaluations of these results are provided in the follow-
ing two sections:  the first pertaining to the bacteria results, and the second
pertaining to the methodology and results for the virus tests.

Bacteria Emissions--
     Results of the bacteria tests indicate bacteria levels that are several
orders of magnitude higher than in the suburban ambient air samples (Table 28).
Also, several of the samples showed the presence of salmonella, which are the
agents responsible for some forms of food poisoning.

     It was expected that fecal coliforra and other bacteria would be present
in the emissions from the plant because of the nature of the material processed.
However, the seemingly large numbers make it imperative that they be evaluated
on some rational basis. Because of the possible significance of the results, a
search of the literature was made in an effort to obtain additional information,
especially that pertaining to bacteria (and virus) levels in air. This litera-
ture search did provide some useful input for evaluating and comparing the
St. Louis results as discussed below.
                     4/
     Work by Peterson-  indicated that samples of raw refuse contained total
bacteria ranging from 7.6 x 10' to 4.1 x 10° counts per gram (3.5 x 10   to
1.9 x lO^-1 counts per pound) and fecal coliform of 2.3 x 10  to 4.0 x 10  counts
per gram (1.0 x 10^ to 1.8 x 10° counts per pound). These values are quite close
to those found in the particulate matter discharged from the ADS and HM cyclones,
In summary, as expected, particulate matter discharged from the ADS and HM cy-
clones contains about the same level of bacterial contamination as does the raw
refuse.

     Bacterial levels in air have been studied to a limited extent for some op-
erations where airborne pathogens might present a potential hazard (i.e., ref-
use handling operations and sewage treatment plants).

     Glysson—  conducted tests on bacteria in air samples taken inside and out-
side of an enclosed refuse handling facility.* In general, it was found that
the air inside the facility contained bacteria levels of 530 to 78,000 counts
per cubic meter (15 to 2,210 counts per cubic foot). Bacteria concentration in
the air samples taken 30 m (100 ft) outside of the enclosed facility ranged
from 134 to 629 counts per cubic meter (3.8 to 17.8 counts per cubic foot)
which compares well with the ambient samples taken in St. Louis. Preliminary
reports of work by Trezek".'  at the Richmond Field Station Resource Recovery
System showed initial bacteria levels of 600 to 1,770 counts per cubic meter
(17 to 50 counts per cubic foot) within the facility which increased to 4,730
to 12,700 counts per cubic meter (134 to 360 counts per cubic foot) during
operating periods.
*  Manual and mechanical refuse handling operations not involving air classifi-
     cation.
                                       80

-------
                                     Table 26.  SUMMARY OF TESTS ON HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS FROM AIR DENSITY SEPARATOR AND HAMMERM1LL CYCLONES

Bacteria concentrations
Raw refuse
processing Mass
Test No. and rate Air flow emissions
date (Mg/hr) (dNm3/s) g/ni3 kg/hr
a. ADS cyclone
1
(June 30,
1975) 18.1 13.64 0.25 11.9
2
(July 1,
1975) 29.8 13.40 0.69 33.5
3
(July 1,
1975) 29,8 13.40 1.24 14.9
b. HM cyclone0-/
1
(July 1,
1975) 29.8 0.78 1.17 3.3
2
(July 2,
1975) 25.7 0.78 1.10 3.1
3
(July 2,
1975) 25.7 0.78 1.40 3.9
Emission Bacteria
factor counts/gram^/
(kg/Mg) (counts/dNm3)

27,000
0.66 (6,700)

370,000,000
1.13 (256,000,000)

260,000,000
1.99 (318,000,000)

730,000,000
0.11 (848,000,000)

160,000,000
0.12 (177,000,000)

130,000,000
0.15 (180,000,000)
Fecal Salmonella
coliform present (pos.)
MPN/gram-' absent (neg.)
(MPN/dtta3) and group

2,100
(530) Neg.

29,000
(20,000) Pos, E 1

> 110,000
(> 134,000) Pos. E 2

2,900
(3,390) Pos. C 1

A3 , 000
(45,900) Neg.

9,300
(13,100) Neg.
Enterovlrus concentrations
Tests in LLC-MK2 Tests in KB Bacteriophage for
cells cells E. coli
PFU/g PFU/m3 PFU/g PFU/m3 Phage/g Phage/ro^
?-' ?4/ 218 6 640,000 166,000


2 24,700 2 17,410 2 24,700 ;> 17,410 110,000 71,000

685-68,500 872-87,000 I-1 I-1 86,000 109,000

T.-1 1&.I 7.35 9 90,000 109,000


~ 171,232 ~ 193,524 ?-' i~t 27,000 28,000

~ 100 ~ 145 1-1 I-1 900,000 2.119.00C
a/  Total plate count per gram of participate matter or per cubic meter of air emitted.
W  Most probable number (MPN).
£/  Particulate concentration and emissions from HM were much higher than in previous tests.   Reason for this is not known.   However, cyclone had plugged up and had been washed
      out on day before tests.
d/  Results not definitive.

-------
Table 27.  SUMMARY OF TESTS ON EMISSIONS IN STORAGE BIN

Bacteria concentration
Test No. and
date
1
(June 30, 1975)
2
g (July 1, 1975)
3
(July 2, 1975)
4
(July 3, 1975)
a/ Higher weight
Gas sampled at
1.7 nP/min rate
(m3)

306
296

311
442
collected, probably
conveyor was on, which was not
b/ Calculated value: /count s\ j
Fecal Salmonella
Particulate Bacteria coliform present (pos.)
collected counts/gram MPN/gram absent (neg.)
(g) (counts An3 ).£/ ^MPN/m3)]*/ and group
248,000,000
6.01 (4,873,000)
600,000,000
8.71 (17,657,000)
145,000,000
1.08 (494,000)
213,000,000
52.532' (25,073,000)
due to fact that storage bin exhaust
the case in Tests 1 through 3.
'grams of particulate\
1,400
(28) Neg.
29,000
(862) Neg.
512,000
(1,783) Pos. 0
1,600
(191) Neg.
fan was on and distributing

   gram
of gas sampled

-------
                                               Table 28.  SUMMARY OF TESTS OF AMBIENT AIR (~ '32 km west of plant, hl-vol technique)
oo
Bacteria concentration
Gas
Test No. and sampled
date (m3)
1
(June 30, 1975) 821
2
(July 1, 1975) 886
3
(July 2, 1975) 1,017
4 643
(July 3, 1975)
Tare weight
of filterS/
(fi)

3.42

3.50

3.51
3.52

Salmonella
Fecal present (pos.) Enterovirus concentration
Bacteria coliform absent (neg.) Plaques per
(counts/m3) (MPN/m3)

(473) (< 0. 141)

(17) (< 0.141)

(28) (< 0.141)
(247) (< 0.212)

Bacteriological contamination level as:

Blank filters
a None
b None
c None
d None
e None


3.50
3.31
3.48
3.56
3.53
passed through

7
254
< 0.035
0.035
< 0.035
and group 1/2 filter pad PFU/m3

Neg. 0 < 0.0198

Neg. 0 < 0.0184

Neg. 0 < 0.0156
Neg. 0 <- 0.0247

juming that 850 m3 of sterile air had
blank filterV

Neg. 0
Neg. 0
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Bacteriophage for E. coli
Phage per
1/2 filter pad Phage/m3

0 < 0.0035

0 < 0.0035

0 < 0.0035
0 < 0.0035




Not run
Not run



              a/  Final weight of filter not determined because purpose  of test  was  to  determine  biological contaminant concentrations on the basis of quantity
                    of air sampled (m3).
              b_/  Assumption made in order to compare blanks with actual samples.

-------
Other work by Peterson"  at several incinerator plants was directed to determina-
tion of bacterial counts in refuse handling areas such as dumping floor,  charging
floor, and residue area, showed bacterial levels of 141 to 14,130 counts  per cu-
bic meter (4 to 400 counts per cubic foot).

            8/
     Pereira~  reported on bacterial sampling work done in and around the aera-
tion building of a NYC sewage treatment plant, providing the following results.

                                                Bacterial     Bacterial
                                                        T              *^
                    Location                    counts/nr     counts/ft

     300 m (984 ft) upwind                           17           0.48
     Inside aeration building                    21,809         617.56
     Inside aeration building exhaust stack         890          25.21
     300 m (984 ft) downwind                         48           1.36
In Pereira's work,  several  specific pathogens were  identified in the air samples,
It was  concluded  that  a possible health hazard  existed  for  the sewage plant work-
ers  and others  who  reside in  areas where  the atmosphere is  contaminated by the
gaseous effluent  from  the sewage treatment plant.

            9/
      Sorbet—  conducted tests of bacterial aerosol  associated with wastewater
spray irrigation, and  found levels that were significantly  above background at
distances  200 m (656 ft)  from the sprayer (the  greatest distance tested). This
work did show that  a disproportionate  share of  bacteriological decay occurred
within  the first  6  sec of exposure, and that atmospheric conditions did exert
an important influence on the aerosol  levels.

      Thus, bacterial concentrations associated  with normal  refuse handling op-
erations may range  from 530 to 14,130  counts per  cubic meter  (15 to 400 counts
per  cubic  foot) up  to  a maximum of about  70,630 counts per  cubic meter (2,000
counts  per cubic  foot). If  these aerosols were  not  contained, they might affect
ambient levels  at a distance  of at least  200 to 300 m (656  to 984 ft).

      Exposure of  refuse workers to the increased  bacterial  levels could cause
increases  in respiratory  diseases and  dermatitis, but except  for one report,
no  statistical  data were  available. The exception was a study by Cimino—  on
workers in the  NYC  department of sanitation, primarily  the  refuse collection
personnel. This study  found no evidence of  increased amounts  of respiratory
disease in uniformed sanitation men as compared with other  departmental titles.
However, it did find that stationary  firemen employed at  the  incinerators had
more episodes  of  respiratory  disease  and  tended to  have longer periods of dis-
ability there.  Cimino  noted that  this  difference  might  have been due to the
older average  age of the  firemen, but  that  the  smoke and  contaminants  to which
 they were  exposed may  also  have been  a factor.

                                       84

-------
     Even though the data previously cited indicate increased bacterial levels
associated with refuse handling operations, there are no known standards of
bacterial concentration limits for workers or the general populace.  Such stan-
dards, if they existed, would more correctly be directed to specific bacteria
rather than total bacteria levels. However, the work by Glysson^'  discussed
the fact that tentative standards for hospital air prescribed 3.5  colonies  per
cubic meter (0.1 colonies per cubic foot) in very critical areas,  up to an  al-
lowable concentration of 1,766 colonies per cubic meter (50 colonies per cubic
foot) in working spaces. Such a standard hardly seems appropriate  for refuse
handling operation, or the general public, on the basis of values  mentioned by
Peterson—  which shows that bacterial levels in country air may be 1,978 counts
per cubic meter (56 counts per cubic foot) and 2,543 to 3,990 counts per cubic
meter (72 to 113 counts per cubic foot) in offices, schools, and factories.

     On the basis of current information, it would seem prudent to limit the
exposure of processing plant personnel to bacteria levels which do not exceed
levels found in offices, schools, and factories. That is, bacterial  counts  prob-
ably should be less than 35,000 counts per cubic meter (1,000 counts per cubic
foot) for in-plant air and 3,500 counts per cubic meter (100 counts  per cubic
foot) in ambient air. If these limits are assumed, it does appear  that the  bac-
terial levels measured at St. Louis may present a problem. Bacterial concentra-
tion in the ADS exhaust which is the largest emission source and is  exhausted
near ground level contained bacterial concentrations as high as 318 by 10
counts per cubic meter (9 by 10^ counts per cubic foot). Even if one assumes
that 90% of the particles would settle rapidly (based on previously discussed
particle size data), the levels could still be about 32 by 10  counts per cu-
bic meter (9 by 10^ counts per cubic foot). If it were further assumed that
the emissions are diluted by a factor of 1,000 before reaching the plant bound-
aries, the bacterial level could still be as high as 32,000 counts per cubic
meter (900 counts per cubic foot).

     Levels such as those discussed above may constitute a potential hazard,
but the calculated values do not take into account possible rapid  die-off ex-
pected for many bacteria. It is evident that there is a need for further test-
ing at the St. Louis facility to measure bacterial levels for the  air in and
around the plant boundaries before it can be said that any hazard  does exist.
At this point it can only be concluded that a potential hazard may exist. More
definitively, the results to date certainly do not support a conclusion that
there is no potential bacterial hazard.

     As a last point, it should be remembered that the mass emission data for
the ADS system indicated the need for control. If efficient particulate control
devices were employed on plants of this type, it is probable that  they would
also provide about the same efficiency of removal for bacteria. Similarly it
is recommended that future plants of this type pay particular attention to  con-
trol of particulate emissions and design the plant so as to minimize worker ex-
posure.

                                       85

-------
Virus Emissions-
     Many of the samples that were tested for total bacterial counts, fecal co-
liform levels, and for salmonella were also tested for their viral contents.
These tests were performed in the Virus Laboratories of MRI. When the tests
were initiated only tests for enteroviruses were planned. However, we later
elected to test also for the bacterial viruses that are found in association
with Escherichia coli« For the virus tests, samples were obtained from the fol-
lowing sources*

     1.  Particulate matter from air density separator cyclone;

     2.  Hammermill cyclone; and

     3.  Suburban ambient air.

     Since low levels of viruses had been anticipated and the viruses had to
be eluted from the particulate matter, preliminary processing was needed. Each
air particulate sample was suspended in distilled water by a 30-sec homogeniza-
tion in a Waring Blender or an Omni-mixer. The homogenate was precipitated at
pH 7.0 with 0.5 M GaCl2 and 0.5 M Na2HPO^. (Calcium hydroxyappatite is the prin-
cipal product formed.) This precipitate was recovered by Buchner filtration us-
ing Whatman No. 1 paper. The precipitated material was then dissolved by chela-
tion using 0.3 M disodium EDTA (pH 7.0). The EDTA solution (containing the vi-
ruses) was then dialyzed against distilled water to remove the EDTA. A second
calcium phosphate precipitation step was performed to further concentrate and
purify the sample. Following the second dialysis, part of each sample was used
for viral assay, and the remainder frozen for any necessary reassays. The final
samples from the concentration and purification steps were 20.0 ml each. The
weight of the original particulate matter and the volume of air from which the
sample was obtained were known; therefore, viral assays could be reported per
gram of sample or cubic meter of air sampled.

     Enteroviruses were assayed by means of standard plaque technique using the
LLC-MK2 cell line from monkey kidney and the KB cell line derived from an epi-
dermoid carcinoma. Medium 199 supplemented with sterile newborn calf serum was
the nutrient for the LLC-M^ cells. It was also used in the agar overlay medium
for the plaque counts. The KB cells were grown in Basal Eagle's Medium supple-
mented with nonessential amino acids and newborn calf serum. Antibiotics (peni-
cillin, streptomycin, and on occasions fungizone) were added to the media to
suppress any bacterial contamination. Plaques were counted from 4 to 10 days
after the cultures were overlayed. Neutral red (1 to 6,000) was added on the
day the plaques were read and the cells were stained for approximately 4 hr at
37°C (99°F) before counting. When discrete plaques were observed, these were
counted and each plaque considered as one virus. Plaque estimates (PFU = plaque
forming unit) were made for some cultures which showed lysis but without dis-
crete plaque formation. A known standard poliovirus (Type 1) was always assayed
at the same time as each unknown sample so that the tissue culture sensitivity
of the cultures was known for each day's testing.
                                      86

-------
     Test for J2. coll bacteriophages were made with the purified and concen-
trated sampled using standard phage techniques.il' The host cells were fecal
coliform strains isolated from sewage samples previously studied on another
MRI program. Serial dilutions of the test samples were added to 4 ml volumes
of melted and cooled to 42°C (108°F) agar to which an appropriate number of
rapidly growing E. coli cells was added and the mixture immediately poured
on the top of a prepoured layer of nutrient agar. These "sandwich" type cul-
tures were incubated overnight after which each discrete plaque was counted
and recorded. Bacteriophage titers in the samples are reported as PFU per gram
or per cubic foot.

     Table 26 includes the results for enteroviruses and _E. coli bacterio-
phages for the particulates in the ADS and HM cyclone tests. Table 28 summa-
rizes the viral and microbial data for ambient air samples taken 32 km from
the processing plant.

     The data obtained on the viral content of these samples are not as "clean-
cut" as we would like, and the titers for the ADS and HM samples are all much
higher than we had expected.

     As expected, we observed no viruses in any of the ambient air samples (see
Table 28). In fact, the ambient air samples were as free of viruses as the blank
filter papers assayed by the same techniques. The absence of viruses in the am-
bient air samples was to be expected since the total bacteria in the particulates
ranged from 25 to 473/m3 (0.7 to 1.4 ft3).

     Based upon the high levels of fecal coliforms in the tests of the ADS and
HM cyclone samples, it is not surprising that our enterovirus data are hard to
interpret. Our general impression is that the samples contained appreciable lev-
els of enteroviruses and probably many other agents capable of destroying tissue
culture cells.

     The plaques observed in many cases were typical of enteroviruses including
poliomyelitis, but we made no attempts to classify the agents. The data in Table
26 for enteroviruses (based upon tissue culture destruction) clearly prove that
the air samples collected from above the ADS and HM operations contained animal
viruses at least partly of fecal origin. The levels of these agents are quite
high, especially in comparison with data reported by Petersoni=' which showed
enteric virus density in municipal solid waste of 0.32 PFU/g (1.45 PFU/lb).
Peterson's—report also mentions that sewage may contain enteric virus densi-
ties of 0.2 to 4.0 PFU/ml (5.3 x 10"5 to 1.1 x 10~3 PFU/gal.).

     The E. coli bacteriophage levels in the ADS and HM samples were nearly
equal to, or higher than, the number of _E. coli determined by fecal coliform
test procedures* These E. coli bacteriophage data confirm the high degree of
fecal contamination reported. The higher bacteriophage counts compared to the
                                       87

-------
coliform counts can be explained by several means, and we cannot be certain which
is the correct reason. Bacteriophage of _E. coli are generally more difficult to
kill than _E. coli; therefore, the higher phage counts can be due to longer or
greater survival of the bacterial virus than the bacteria. Each _E. coli can give
rise to multiple phage if the lytic cycle is completed. Therefore, the higher
phage titers in Table 26 may be a reflection of some phage virus reproduction
on the bacteria found in the waste materials. The action of the phage on the
JE. coli may also reduce the _E. coli counts. The high levels of bacteriophage
for E* coli are also not surprising in the light of positive salmonella tests*
JE. coli and _E. coli bacteriophages are generally present in feces in much higher
levels than salmonella.

     Again, as was previously discussed with regard to bacteria, it is difficult
to judge the significance of the virus levels reported in Table 26 because there
are no standards for virus levels in air, and in fact, very little work has been
done in measuring virus levels in air. The previously cited work by Petersonir'
was directed to problems associated with virus levels in disposable diapers
which, contained in municipal solid waste, showed that disposable diapers may
constitute 0.6 to 2.5% by weight of the municipal solid waste. Peterson identi-
fied poliovirus 3 and echovirus 2 in the waste matter contained in some of the
diapers and concluded that these virus-laden materials will present a potential
threat to the health of those who handle the municipal solid waste.

     Since most municipal solid waste will contain some disposable diapers and
other fecal animal wastes, it would be expected that associated emissions, such
as the ADS and HM, would contain some virus and might therefore present a poten-
tial hazard.

     Although it can be concluded that a potential hazard (due to virus emis-
sions) may exist, it is evident that additional testing of the ambient air in
and around the plant will be necessary in order to evaluate the potential hazard
in terms of increased virus (and bacteria) levels in the ambient air caused by
processing plant operations.

     Future plants of this type will need to control ADS particulate emissions,
and every effort should be made to minimize worker exposure to the bacterial-
and viral-contaminated emissions.

Cost of Environmental Control for Particulate Emissions

     Particulate emission measurements and other considerations have indicated
a need for control of ADS emissions. Control of these emissions has been con-
sidered at other facilities, and fabric filters appear to be a feasible control
technique which should provide very high removal efficiency. In fact, a small
filter system was installed at the U«E« power plant for control of emissions
from the Atlas bin when RDF is transferred into the bin from the receiving
building.

                                       88

-------
     The ADS system at the St. Louis processing plant is not equipped with any
control device other than a settling chamber, but personal contact with one manu-
facturer has indicated that the FOB cost of a suitable filter, handling 14.2 m-Vs
(30,000 cfm),  would be about $60,000, and total installed cost would be about
$100,000.

     Use of a fabric filter for control of emissions from the ADS cyclone would
require materials to resist internal condensation problems (galvanized metal or
coated surfaces), and the bags would have to be resistant to rot and mildew.
The filter system would also probably be of modular design for shaker type auto-
matic cleaning with special attention to design of inlet manifolds, and to hopper
angles and removal techniques, etc., in order to avoid bridging problems. Simple
equipment that is as maintenance free as possible would be recommended. Fabric
filters generally require about 1 kPa (4-in. W,C«) pressure drop, which must be
taken into account in specifying the ADS fan.
WATER EFFLUENTS

     The only liquid effluent from the processing plant occurs from periodic
washdown of the asphalted processing area of the plant (not including the floor
of the raw refuse receiving building). This cleanup effort removes dust and set-
tled particles, much of which occurs due to blowoff from conveyor belts and ADS
cyclone emissions. It was of interest to determine the quantity and character of
runoff from this washdown activity.

     During the first period of air emission tests (November 18 to 22, 1974),
two washdowns took place—one on November 20,  1974, and another 2 days later
on November 22, 1974. The test procedure used  during  these periods was to de-
termine the quantity of water being used over  the length of the washdown pe-
riod (~ 1 hr) and to collect samples of the runoff at various points around
the washdown area. These samples were composited in one container and a por-
tion of this composite sample, as well as a sample of the raw water, was an-
alyzed.

     A tabulation of the data obtained for the two washdown periods is pre-
sented in Table 29. These data show that the washdown rate was about 2.2 liters/s
(35 gal/min), and total runoff was about 6,000 liters (2,000 gal.). Comparison
of analysis data for the raw water and the runoff indicates a large increase in
TSS as expected. There was also a significant  increase in BOD and COD. However,
the effluent quantity of approximately 6,000 liters (2,000 gal.) seems relatively
small, considering the fact that it occurs only one or two times per week.
                                       89

-------
                                                             Table 29.  TABULATION OF UATA ON WASHDOWN ACTIVITY
VC
O

Date
Time of washdown
Haw water flow rate
Total water used
Volume of runoff collected


Test
No. 1
November 20, 1974

1:50-2
:40 p.m.
2.21 lit



6,606
37 I

Tap water
Water analysis
Total suspended solids (ppra)
Total dissolved solids (ppir.)
Biochemical oxygen demand (ppm)
Chemical oxygen demand (ppm)
PH
Total alkalinity (ppm)
Total organic carbon (ppm)
Oil and grease (ppm)
Bacterial analysis
Total bacteria (counts /ml)
Fecal coliform (MPN/100 ml).£/
Salmonella [present (pos.) or absent (neg. )]

8,
248,

.00
,00
troS/
52,
9,
62
4
,90
.7
.00
.50
NA








i

Composite
runoff sample

6,024.00
444 . 00
374.0
2,137.30
6.5
80.00
1,760.00
NA




Test
November
No. 2
22, 1974
1:09-2:10 p.m.
2.21 lla
7,991 I
49 i.

Tap water

8.00
252.00
ND
33.40
9.5
32.00
6.50
NA







Composite
runoff sample

9,292.00
564.00
765.00
1,532.00
6.3
38.00
1,150.00
NA




Test
July 1,
1:48-2:
2.08 i./
5,247 I
14 i
No. 3
1975
30 p.m.
8








Test
July 3,
8:20-8:
2.08 Ll
4,622 i
12 I
Composite
Tap water

56.0
492.0
< 1
529.0
9.4
18h9
W±'
20.0

80
< 3
Neg.
runoff sample

1,844
788
160
1,497
7
36
NA
92

940,000
12,000
Nag.

.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0

.0




Tap water

8.0
200.0
< 1
2.48
9.5
21.60
NA
28.0

56
< 3
Neg.
No. 4
1975
57 p.m.
s


Composite







runoff sample

2,024,
452,
242.
1,388.
7.
22.
NA
60.

1,900,000
36,000

.0
,0
0
,0
,5
0

0



Pos. (Group Cl)
       a/  ND - none detected .
       t)/  NA - not analyzed.
       c/  MPN - moat probable number.

-------
     A second pair of washdown tests were also carried out in July 1975,  and
results are included in Table 29. The primary purpose of this second pair of
tests was to determine bacterial levels in the runoff samples. It is evident,
from the data in Table 29, that there were large increases in the total bac-
teria and fecal coliform levels in the washdown effluent. However, analysis
of raw river water samples (which were obtained in conjunction with tests at
the power plant) showed that the bacteria levels in the river itself may range
as high as 840,000 counts per milliliter with fecal coliform levels up to
110,000 MPN/100 ml. It would appear that although the bacteria levels in the
washdown effluent are quite high, they may not be especially significant since
they are on about the same order as levels that may occur in the nearby river
water at this location.
ASSESSMENT OF LEACHABILITY OF PRODUCTS FROM THE REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT

     Operation of the City of St. Louis refuse processing plant in conjunction
with combined firing of coal + refuse in a Union Electric Company utility
boiler results in four materials that could be landfilled:  fly ash, bottom
ash, magnetic belt rejects, and RDF. Boiler fly ash is normally sold, but oc-
casionally it may be landfilled when markets are not available. Boiler bottom
ash (sluice solids) is always removed hydraulically from the boiler and de-
posited in an impoundment area where the solids settle out and the overflow
effluent is discharged into the Meramec River. Refuse derived fuel (RDF) is
normally combined with coal as fuel input to the boiler. However, in the event
of boiler maintenance downtime, RDF may be landfilled. The magnetic belt re-
jects, which are the air density separator (ADS) heavy fraction less the mag-
netic metal, are always landfilled at the City of St. Louis operated landfill
adjacent to the processing plant.

     It is important to know what constituents might be leached from these ma-
terials which could contaminate surface water or groundwater. For this reason,
samples of the four landfill materials were subjected to a series of tests to
identify potential leachate problems. Details of the tests and the results are
presented next.

Sample Preparation

     Procedures for assessing leachability of materials are only in the devel-
opmental stage and methods utilized were based on techniques suggested by knowl-
edgeable personnel at EPA laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio. Samples of the fol-
lowing four materials were obtained.
                                       91

-------
     From Union Electric Meramec Power Plant Unit 1:

          Fly ash:  coal + refuse
          Sluice solids (bottom ash):  coal + refuse

     From City of St. Louis Processing Plant:

          52 - cyclone discharge:  (RDF)
          S5 - magnetic belt rejects

     These four samples were delivered to the Ralston Purina Company Research
900 Laboratory. Standard sample preparation procedures for refuse samples were
used, which means that each sample was dried and then ground to a fine powder
using a laboratory mill. The sample powder was then immersed in distilled wa-
ter for 2 days (48 hr). The samples were continuously agitated during that pe-
riod by means of a laboratory shaker table. At the end of the 2-day period, the
amount of material leached away was determined by drying and reweighing the
solids, and the liquid (leachate) was chemically analyzed. The fact that ground
samples were used should allow maximum leaching to occur within the 2-day test
period because of increased sample surface area.

     The S5 sample contained 37.1% metal, which was too high an amount to be
ground by the laboratory grinder; therefore, the metal fraction was hand sep-
arated, not ground, and processed as a separate sample. Metal content of 37.1%
for S5 is higher than average (25.6%) but well within the range of daily values
reported for the 1-year test period.

     All of the sample material was completely saturated with distilled water
to the point where excess water existed. The distilled water to sample material
ratio used was 2:1 except for RDF. Due to its light, fluffy nature, RDF com-
pletely absorbed twice its weight in distilled water. Therefore, a distilled
water to sample material ratio of 6.67:1 was used to completely saturate the
sample and result in excess water.

     The main concern regarding landfill leachate is contamination of ground-
water that may find its way into the drinking water supply. Therefore, the
leachate was analyzed for materials for which national drinking water standards
have been set plus BOD and COD. Also, nitrite levels were determined because
nitrite could be oxidized into nitrate if the correct conditions are present.

Laboratory Results

     The laboratory results obtained are presented in Table 30. Analysis of a
blank sample of distilled water yielded no constituents found within the low
level detection ability of the laboratory methods.
                                      92

-------
                                      Table  30.  ANALYSIS OF LABORATORY PRODUCED LEACHATE
OJ

Constituent
Moisture (%)£/
Leachables (7«)-
Level (mg/£)
BOD
COD
Nitrites (as N)
Nitrates (as N)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver


Blank
N.D.^
N.D.
N.D.
< 0.015
< 0.002
< 0.10
< 0.10
N.D.
< 0.50
< 0.05
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.


Coal +
Fly
ash
0.10
0.4232
20.9
116.3 1
0.021
0.090
0.93
16.8
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.20
< 0.05
1.53
N.D.


refuse
Sluice
solids
11.1
0.1824
393.5
,488
< 0.015
< 0.022
< 0.10
< 1.0
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.40
< 0.05
N.D.
N.D.


S2
Cyclone
discharge (RDF)
33.1
0.6396
502.1
7,016
0.018
< 0.022
0.48
< 1.0
< 0.10
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 1.0
< 0.05
0.90
N.D.
Extraction

S5

Magnetic belt rejects
Nonmetallic
fraction^
0.7348
504.5
5,962
< 0.015
13.12
0.98
10.6
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.20
< 0.05
1.62
N.D.
Metals-
0.1336
378.1
696.5
< 0.015
< 0.022
< 0.10
< 1.0
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.20
< 0.05
0
0
Total-7
16.0
0.5116
457.6
4,007
< 0.015
8.258
0.65
7.04
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.20
< 0.05
1.02
0
dilution (solid/ liquid)
a/ Moisture on original sample.
b/ Percent of sample
weight loss due to leaching.
cj N.D. signifies none detected.
d_/ S3 sample separated into 62,
887, by weight

Blank -
Fly ash -
Sluice solids -
200 ml distilled water
100 g sample +
100 g sample +
200 ml distilled water
200 ml distilled water
             nonmetallic  fraction;  37.12% by weight
             metals  fraction.
       £./   Mathematically combined  total  of
             nonmetallic  and metal  fraction.
S2 (RDF) -             30 g sample + 200 ml distilled water
S5 (nonmetallic
      fraction) -      60 g sample + 120 ml distilled water
S5 (metal fraction) - 100 g sample + 200 ml distilled water

-------
     As expected, the metal fraction of the magnetic belt reject sample added
little to the leachate except for BOD. Leachate from RDF had the highest COD
and BOD.

     Comparisons to drinking water standards for the leachate produced by the
particular extraction dilutions used in the laboratory procedure are shown in
Table 31. Unfortunately, the drinking water standard limits are below the de-
tection ability of the laboratory procedures for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
lead, and mercury. In analyzing these data, it was assumed that the "less than"
values reported (Tables 30 and 31) are the maximum values that could exist. All
comparisons are made utilizing this maximum value assumption.

     The drinking water standards were exceeded in the laboratory produced
leachate solutions for all elements except nitrate, cyanide, and silver in all
samples; and barium in sluice solids and KDF.

     Nitrites were at low levels. Therefore, even if they were all converted
to nitrate, it would not significantly change the reported nitrate levels.

     The nonmetallic fraction of S5 does exceed the nitrate standard. However,
when it is combined with the metallic fraction, the nitrate concentration is
below the standard.

Comparisons and Evaluation of Results

     The statement that drinking water standards were or were not exceeded per-
tains specifically to leachate from the extraction dilutions used. Also, the
RDF dilution was much higher than the others. The various constituent levels
of RDF leachate cannot be converted to the lower dilution ratios used for the
other samples. At lower dilution levels, RDF simply absorbs the water, and it
is doubtful how much leachate would result.

     Any of the constituents in any of the samples could be lowered to the
drinking water standards if a high enough dilution ratio were used. To obtain
a better comparison, each leachate constituent level was converted to grams
per megagram (Ib/ton) of material by the following formula.
     Grams of a constituent removed by leaching per megagram of material —

          (mg/liter constituent level) (ml distilled water/g of sample)
                  (1,000 mg/g) (1,000 ml/liter) (Mg/1 x 10° g)
                                      94

-------
    Table 31.  COMPARISON OF LABORATORY PRODUCED LEACHATE TO DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Constituent
Extraction dilution
Drinking
water
standards^/

Coal +
Fly ash
2.00
refuse
Sluice
solids
2.00
S2
Cyclone
discharge
(RDF)
6.67
S5
Magnetic
belt
reiects
2.00
  (ml distilled water/g
  of sample)
Level
BOD
COD
Nitrites (as N)
Nitrates (as N)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
10.0
 0.05
 1.0
 0.010
 0.05
 0.2
 0.05
 0.002
 0.01
 0.05
20.9
116.3
0.021
0.090
0.93
16.8
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.20
< 0.05
1.53
0
393.5
1,488
< 0.015
< 0.022
< 0.10
< 1.0
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.40
< 0.05
0
0
502.1
7,016
0.018
< 0.022
0.48
< 1.0
<0.10
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 1.0
< 0.05
0.90
0
457.6
4,007
< 0.015
8.258
0.65
7.04
< 0.05
< 0.50
< 0.05
< 0.20
< 0.05
1.02
0
£/  Environmental Protection Agency,  "National Interim Primary Drinking
      Water Standards," Part 141, Federal Register,  Vol.  40,  No.  51,
      Washington, D.C., March 14, 1975.

-------
     (Pounds of a constituent removed by leaching  per ton of material =)


       C(lb/gal. constituent level)  (gal, distilled water/lb of  sample)!
                               (ton/2,000 Ib)                         J
     The above equation was used to calculate the results shown in Table 32,
These results represent the amount of each constituent which is removed by
leaching, regardless of the extraction dilution ratio used. The next step in
evaluating  the data was to make a ranking of each constituent level according
to the drinking water standards. This was accomplished by calculating the
liters of water per megagram  (gallons per ton) that would be necessary to di-
lute a constituent to drinking water standards by the following formula.
                 Liters per megagram of dilution water needed —

                   g/Mg constituent level removed by leaching
                  rag/liter drinking water standard (g/1,000 mg)


                   (Gallons per ton of dilution water needed =)


                 Rib/ton constituent level removed by leaching)]
                 L      (Ib/gal. drinking water standard)      J


     Results of this calculation are shown in Table 33, Interpretation of the
relative magnitude of these results was done in two ways. First, by comparing
the amount of dilution required first between elements within a sample, and
second, by comparing the amount of dilution required between samples for a
given constituent. Table 34 depicts the ranking from highest to lowest dilu-
tion required to meet the drinking water standards for each constituent within
a given sample. Nitrates and cyanide consistently ranked as the two lowest con-
stituents. Selenium ranked highest with mercury second highest for all samples
except sluice solids which contained no selenium and had mercury ranking highest.

     The most important conclusion is as shown in Table 33. Selenium in all the
samples except sluice solids had much higher dilution requirements than any of
the other constituents. Also, as shown in Table 30, the levels of selenium found
in the laboratory dilutions were above the detection ability of the laboratory
methods. Therefore, the dilution required for selenium to meet the drinking water
standards is not prejudiced by the necessity of assuming the actual level to be
that of the laboratory procedure detection level (as was done for many of the
other constituents).
                                        96

-------
             Table 32.  MATERIAL REMOVED BY LEACHING



Constituent
BOD
COD
Nitrites (as N)
Nitrates (as N)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver


Coal
Fly ash
41.8
232.6
0.042
0.180
1.86
33.6
0.10
1.00
0.10
0.40
0.10
3.06
0


+ refuse
Sluice solids
787.0
2,976
0.030
0.044
0.20
2.0
0.10
1.00
0.10
0.80
0.10
0
0
S2
Cyclone
discharge
(RDF)
3,347
46,773
0.120
0.147
3.20
6.67
0.67
3.33
0.33
6.67
0.33
6.00
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
915.2
8,154
0.03
16.516
0.13
14.08
0.10
1.00
0.10
0.40
0.10
2.04
0
a/  Less than (<) values listed in Tables 30 and 31 were assumed  to be
      the actual value for comparison purposes.
Table 33.
                AMOUNT OF DILUTION WATER NEEDED FOR LEACHATE
                TO MEET DRINKING WATER STANDARDS




Constituent
Nitrates (as N)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver


Coal
Fly ash
18.0
37,200
33,600
10,000
20,000
500
8,000
50,000
306,000
0


+ refuse
Sluice solids
4.4
4,000
2,000
10,000
20,000
500
16,000
50,000
0
0
S2
Cyclone
discharge
(RDF)
14.7
64,000
6,670
66,700
66,600
1,650
133 ,400
165,000
600,000
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
1,652
2,600
14,080
10,000
20,000
500
8,000
50,000
204,000
0
                                 97

-------
       Table 34.  RANKING OF LEACHATE CONSTITUENTS - DILUTION
              REQUIRED TO MEET DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
           (Ranking:  highest to lowest dilution required)


Coal +
Fly ash
Selenium
Mercury
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cadmium
Lead
Cyanide
Nitrates


refuse
Sluice solids
Mercury
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Barium
Cyanide
Nitrates

52
Cyclone
discharge
(RDF)
Selenium
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Arsenic
Barium
Cyanide
Nitrates
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
Selenium
Mercury
Chromium
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Arsenic
Nitrates
Cyanide
Note:  No silver found in any sample.
       No selenium found in sluice solids.
                                   98

-------
     Ranking of the four samples for dilution required per constituent is shown
in Table 35. RDF had the higher ranking except that magnetic belt rejects ranked
highest for nitrates and fly ash ranked highest for barium. The other samples
were mixed in ranking or no clear trends were present.

Suggestions, for Future Work

     The leachate produced for these tests was the result of only a single set
of laboratory test conditions. Therefore, it might be well to investigate the
effects of immersion time, agitation, and amount of extraction dilution. Also,
distilled water was used for these tests, but some literature sources report
acid or basic pH in landfilled leachate. Therefore, more work may be needed to
determine the effects of pH on leachate production. Further work is also needed
to compare leachate produced in the laboratory with leachate from a landfill,
and to compare coal-only fly ash and sluice solids leachate with coal + refuse
leachate.

     Another area of study is related to the fact  that in St. Louis the raw mu-
nicipal refuse is a raw material which may be landfilled following various pre-
treatment methods. First, raw refuse may be landfilled, producing raw refuse
leachate, which is the case for many of the suburban areas adjacent to the City
of St. Louis. Second, raw refuse may be incinerated and the incinerator bottom
ash landfilled, producing incinerator ash leachate. This is currently the pro-
cedure used by the City of St. Louis except for that portion of the collected
refuse routed to the processing plant. Thirdly, raw refuse may be processed at
the City of St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant. Here two situations may be pres-
ent. Normally, when the Union Electric boiler is in operation, leachate would
be from magnetic belt rejects, boiler sluice solids, and possibly fly ash. If
the boiler is not in operation, then leachate would be from magnetic belt re-
jects and RDF. Therefore, additional work is needed so that comparisons can be
made between leachate from raw refuse, incinerator bottom ash, and the process-
ing plant and utility boiler landfilled materials. Such information would greatly
aid in the total environmental assessment of each  of the three methods of munici-
pal refuse disposal.

     Following is a summary of areas recommended for further study.

     1.  Effect of laboratory extraction dilution  - ml liquid/g of sample (gal.
liquid/lb of sample).

     2.  Effect of laboratory extraction liquid pH.

     3.  Effect of laboratory immersion  time (number of days in extraction
liquid).

     4.  Effect of laboratory agitation  (shaker table versus none).
                                        99

-------
    Table 35.   RANKING OF LEACHATE SAMPLES BASED ON DILUTION
            REQUIRED TO MEET DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
                                   Ranking
Constituent
Nitrate (as N)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Highest
MBR
RDF
Fly ash
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF

Next highest
Fly ash
Fly ash
MBR
SS
MBR
MBR
SS
MBR
Fly ash

Next lowest
RDF
SS
RDF
Fly ash
Fly ash
Fly ash
Fly ash
Fly ash
MBR

Lowest
SS
MBR
SS
MBR
SS
SS
MBR
SS
-

Legend:  RDF - Refuse derived fuel.
         MBR - Magnetic belt rejects,
         SS  - Sluice solids.
                              100

-------
     5»  Comparison of coal-only versus coal + refuse leachate for fly ash and
sluice solids.

     6.  Comparison of laboratory versus landfill-produced leachate.

     7.  Comparison of leachate from raw municipal refuse, incinerator bottom
ash, and the landfilled materials from the refuse processing plant and utility
boiler.
SOUND SURVEY

     Another environmental consideration for operations at the processing plant
was noise levels, especially that associated with the 932.5 kW (1,250 hp) grinder.
Since noise levels were of concern, a sound survey was carried out that included
analysis of noise levels at several locations in and around the plant. The test
procedures for this sound survey and evaluation of the results are discussed next.

Test Procedure

     The following General-Radio test equipment was used for the sound survey.

     Model 1558 DP Portable Octave Band Noise Analyzer;

     Model 1560 Pb One Inch Ceramic Microphone; and

     Model 1562 A Calibrator.

     The noise analyzer with microphone was calibrated each day of the sound
survey. Meter response range was 44 to 150 decibels (dB). A zero meter response
was listed as < 44 dB. The portable analyzer was hand-held, and the microphone
was placed 1.4 m (4.5 ft) above grade at each measurement location.

     Sound levels in decibels at slow meter response were measured at 10 octave
bands plus the A scale (dBA). The octave band measurements show the overall
sound spectrum in terms of decibels versus frequency. This information will be
useful for acoustical engineering, land use zoning, and other activities related
to the total sound spectrum produced. Octave bands used are as follows:
                                        101

-------
                            OCTAVE BANDS USED
                                      Frequency (Hz)
      Octave band No»   Band center   Lower cutoff   Upper cutoff

             1               31.5           22.3           44.6
             2               63             44.6           89.2
             3              125             88.4          177
             4              250            177            354
             5              500            354            707
             6            1,000            707          1,414
             7            2,000          1,414          2,820
             8            4,000          2,828          5,656
             9            8,000          5,656         11,310
            10           16,000         11,310         22,620
     The A scale sound levels will be useful to those interested in O.S.H.A.
applications. (O.S.H.A. regulations are defined in terras of dBA measurements.)

     Measurements were made (a) when the plant was conducting normal prepara-
tions, and (b) when the plant was not operating, to identify the levels of usual
background noise. Any sound measurements of operating equipment will be the com-
bination of the sound produced by the equipment plus the background sound. For
the City of St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant, the background sound sources con-
sist of the following.
Location of Background Sources

                Background source         Direction from plant

          Interstate Highway 55                   West
          Mississippi River                       East
          City Incinerator                        North
          City Truck Maintenance Garage         Southwest


     Table 36 lists the measurement locations. Sixteen locations were used to
monitor noise levels in the following three general areas.

     1.  Employee work areas (Locations 1 through 8).

     2.  Light sound level equipment areas (Locations 9 through 11).

     3.  Sound levels along processing plant perimeter (Locations 12 through 16),
                                        102

-------
                             Table 36.   SOUND SURVEY MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Mo.        Description

  1         Control  room

  2         Shop


  3         Packer control


  4         Receiving building


4.1


4.2

  5         Front-end loader



  6        ADS heavies  discharge

  7        Magnetic belt discharge



  8         Fe metal discharge



  9        Hammermill


10        Nuggetizer


11        ADS fan exhuast
There is a truck driveway on the east
  tlons are along the outside edge of
12
13
14
15
16
          East drive
          East drive
          West drive
          West drive
          South drive
                         Location

   Inside operator's control room. Approximately center of room.

   Inside maintenance shop and storage room located  next  to haimner-
   mlll.   Approximately center of room.

   0.6 m west of packer control panel east-west  center line.  Loca-
   tion where operator would stand to operate controls.

   0.9 m south of raw refuse receiving building  north wall on
   building north-south center line.

   Front-end loader operating at maximum load.   No refuse trucks
   dump ing.

   Refuse trucks dumping.   Front-end  loader at engine idle.

   Inside operator's cab of front-end loader used inside receiving
   building to push raw refuse onto the  raw refuse receiving belt
   conveyor.   Cab doors closed.

   0.9 m east of edge of ADS heavies  belt  conveyor tall pulley.

   1.5 m northwest from edge of nuggetizer frame.  Location just out-
   side door to drivers compartment in magnetic  belt reject truck.
   Location when truck is positioned  to  fill front 1/3 of truck body.

   0.9 m south of edge of ferrous metal  belt conveyor.  Location just
   outside door to drivers compartment of  ferrous metal truck.  Loca-
   tion when truck Is positioned to fill front 1/3 of truck body.

   1.5 m east of edge of hammermill frame  on mill east-west center
   line.   Location on top  of concrete base for hammermi11.

   1.5 m  east from edge of nuggetizer frame  on nuggetizer east-west
   center line.

   12.2 m south of edge of fan exhaust duct  on duct north-south center
   line.

,  south,  and  west sides of the processing  area.  The following loca-
thls  driveway.

   £ mill -  19.8 m east of edge  of  hammermill frame on mill east-west
   center line.

   £ storage  bin - 18.3 m  east of edge of  storage bin on bin east-west
   center line.

   £ ADS  - 22.9  m west  of  edge of ADS  air  separation chamber on
   chamber east-west  center line.

   £ storage  bin - 21.3 m  west of edge of  storage bin on bin
   east-west  center line.

   £ storage  bin - 12.2 m  south  of  edge  of storage bin on bin
   north-south center line.
                                                    103

-------
     Figure 19 is a plot plan showing the measurement locations,

Sound Survey Results

     Tables 37 and 38 list the sound measurement results. The background sound
is relatively low, being less than 60 dB above 250 Hz center band frequency.
The major background is low frequency sound from adjacent Interstate Highway
55. The major sound from the processing plant is in the lower frequencies;  the
hamraerraill, nuggetizer, ADS fan exhaust, front-end loader, and raw refuse trucks
are the principal contributors.

     Location 7 had the highest sound level in the upper frequencies. This  loca-
tion was closest to the working mechanisms of the nuggetizer, and also underneath
the metal nuggetizer feed chute. This feed chute receives the magnetic metal from
the magnetic separator belt, and its sound production is primarily due to the
metal particles striking the metal chute. Both the nuggetizer and the magnetic
belt are acting together to produce higher sound levels in the 1,000 to 8,000 Hz
center band frequencies.

     Location 4.1 is with the front-end loader working at maximum load. Location
5 shows that, with the operator's cab doors closed, the cab is reducing the en-
gine sound except for center band frequencies 31.5 and 250 Hz, Fortunately, these
frequencies do not have a full effect on the A scale, and the dBA is below the
O.S.H.A. limit of 90 dBA.

     Location 4.2 is inside the receiving building at the same physical point
as 4.1. These measurements are highest when the raw refuse trucks discharge ref-
use onto the building floor. These refuse trucks are not dump trucks with a tilt-
ing truck box. Instead, the trucks utilize a mechanism which rapidly shakes the
cargo compartment to discharge the raw refuse. Measurements were taken during
the shaking action. However, this action lasts for only a few seconds per truck.

     The current—  O.S.H.A. regulations specify a maximum of 90 dBA for continu-
ous 8-hr exposure, with shorter allowable time limits at levels above 90 dBA.
No operator must spend a full work day at any location above 90 dBA* Locations
above 90 dBA are shown in Table 39.

     The time that an individual employee may spend in these locations when the
equipment is operating is estimated to be less than the allowable time exposure.
Also, at Locations 4.1 and 4.2, the front-end loader is at maximum load only a
portion of the total operating time.
                                       104

-------
          o
          Ln
                                                                                    Stationary

                                                                                    Packer
                                                                      Cyclor
                                                                      Separator    X 3 )

                                                                              \ nr
O
                                                                        Sound Survey

                                                                        Measurement Locations
                                                                                                            Storage Bin
                                                      Figure 19.  Sound  survey measurement  locations

-------
Table 37.  SOUND SURVEY - CITY OF ST. LOUIS REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
              (Plant in operation - January 20, 1974)
Measurement location
No.
1
2
3
4.1
4.2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Description
Control room
Shop
Packer control
Receiving building
Receiving building
Front-end loader
ADS heavies discharge
Magnetic belt discharge
Fe metal discharge
Hammer mi 11
Nuggetizer
ADS fan exhaust
East drive - £ mill
East drive - E storage bin
West drive - £ ADS
West drive - £ storage bin
South drive - E storage bin
31.5
82
83
91
92
100
106
93
91
88
96
94
100
90
85
84
90
85
Decibels (dB)
63
82
89
96
106
110
100
96
92
88
99
94
97
92
85
90
84
85
125
76
89
88
94
100
93
92
92
86
98
91
93
84
80
84
83
80
250
64
80
86
88
96
92
88
93
87
92
90
97
78
76
78
80
82
at center band frequency - Hz
500
65
78
83
88
90
87
86
96
87
89
93
93
76
72
74
77
75
IK
60
76
81
89
94
82
86
100
88
88
95
89
72
71
78
79
76
2K
58
73
78
88
90
78
86
102
87
88
96
86
69
59
78
79
76
4K
56
69
75
84
86
78
88
103
86
86
93
82
65
56
74
78
72
8K
< 44
52
70
72
80
78
84
98
82
80
89
75
56
57
69
72
64
and dBA
16K
< 44
50
58
56
74
66
72
88
70
68
79
68
45
46
56
58
50
dBA
68
83
86
94
100
89
94
108
94
95
101
95
80
76
84
85
82

-------
o
•vj
                       Table 38.  SOUND SURVEY - CITY OF ST. LOUIS REFUSE  PROCESSING  PLANT

                         (Background sound - plant not in operation  - January  21,  1974)
Measurement location
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Description
Control room
Shop
Packer control
Receiving building
Front-end loader^/
ADS heavies discharge
Magnetic belt discharge
Fe metal discharge
Hammermill
Nuggetizer
ADS fan exhuast
East drive - £ mill
East drive - £ storage bin
West drive - £ ADS
West drive - £ storage bin
South drive - £ storage bin
31.5
51
60
62
62
64
65
64
66
60
63
66
62
60
62
62
63
Decibels (dB)
63
53
58
64
60
62
64
66
66
71
65
62
65
66
64
66
63
125
50
63
58
62
56
67
63
64
61
66
62
54
64
66
65
63
250
< 44
55
56
57
49
69
61
61
58
65
55
55
56
60
62
62
at center band frequency - Hz and dBA
500
< 44
50
53
54
46
56
53
55
51
56
51
50
50
54
54
52
IK
< 44
'45
50
52
<44
54
53
54
49
54
49
50
52
52
54
54
2K
< 44
< 44
< 44
46
< 44
50
48
48
< 44
< 44
< 44
< 44
45
47
47
45
4K 8K 16K dBA
All readings at < 44
4K, 8K and 16K 53
Hz frequency is 54
less than 44 dB 56
at all locations 47
61
59
59
56
59
55
52
57
59
56
58
      _§_/  Motor off - loader inside building.

-------
              Table 39.  LOCATION OF SOUND LEVELS ABOVE
                    90 dBA AND ALLOWABLE EXPOSURE
                                                   OSHA allowable time
Locations          Description            dBA        exposure - hr^-3/

   4.1         Receiving building          94              4
   4.2         Receiving building         100              2
   6           ADS heavies discharge       94              4
   7           Magnetic belt rejects      108              1/2
   8           Fe metal discharge          94              4
   9           Hammermill                  95              4
  10           Nuggetizer                 101              1-1/2
  11           ADS fan exhaust             95              4
                                 108

-------
                            REFERENCES

1.  Shannon, L. J., D. E. Fiscus, and P. G. Gorman, "St. Louis Refuse
      Processing Plant:  Equipment, Facility and Environmental Evalua-
      tions," EPA Publication No. EPA-650/2-75-044, May 1975.

2.  Reinhardt, J. J., and R. K. Ham, "Final Report on a Milling Proj-
      ect at Madison, Wisconsin," Vol. 1, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Washington,
      D.C., The Heil Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, March 1973.

3.  Sanders, T. G., "Grinder Evaluation and Development," Progress Re-
      port No. WP-02-69-26, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Environ-
      mental Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
      Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio (1970).

4.  Peterson, M. L., and F. J. Stutzenberger, "Microbiological Evalua-
      tions of Incinerator Operations," Appl. Microbiol., July 1969.

5»  Glysson, E. A., C. A. Schleyer, and D. Leonard, "The Microbiologi-
      cal Quality of the Air in an Incinerator Environment," Proceed-
      ings of the 1974 National Incinerator Conference (ASME), May 1974.

6.  Trezek (Draft of a report of work by the University of California)
      on "Health Aspects of the Richmond Field Station Resource Recov-
      ery System."

7,  Peterson, M. L., "Pathogens Associated with Solid Waste Process—A
      Progress Report," SW-49, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      (1971).

8.  Pereira, M. R., and M. A, Benjaminson, "Broadcast of Microbial Aero-
      sols by Stacks of Sewage Treatment Plants and Effects of Ozonation
      on Bacteria in the Gaseous Effluent," Public Health Report,  90j3,
      May to June 1975.
                                   109

-------
 9.   Sorber,  C.  A., et al.,  "A Study of Bacterial Aerosols at a Waste-
       water  Irrigation Site," U.S,  Army Medical Bioengineering Research
       and Development Laboratory,  Ft. Detrick Maryland, Paper presented
       at the 48th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Fed-
       eration,  October 6, 1975.

10.   Cimino,  J.  A., "Health  and Safety in the Solid Waste Industry,"
       Amer.  J.  Public Health. 65.:1» January 1975.

11.   Adams, M. A,, "Bacteriophages," Wiley (Interscience), New York
       (1969).

12.   Peterson, M. L., "Soiled Disposable Diapers:  A Potential Source
       of Viruses," Amer. J. Public Health, 64^9, September 1974.

13.   O.S.H.A. Regulations as of June 27, 1974.
                                   110

-------
                                   APPENDIX A


TABULATIONS  OF  DATA ON PLANT  EQUIPMENT,  OPERATIONS,  AND COSTS

                        Table A-l.  MAJOR ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT - REFUSE PROCESSING FACILITY




Equipment description
Belt conveyors
Raw refuse receivings/
Raw refuse to hammer mill
Hilled refuse to ADSk/
Refuse fuel to storage bint'
Storage bin feeding cross belt
Storage bin discharge
Load out to packer
ADS heavies
Ferrous metal
Magnetic belt (Indiana
General-Model 54-A)


Vibrating conveyors
Hamaennill feeder

Hammennill discharge

ADS feeder^/

Other conveyors
ADS drag conveyor

ADS drag conveyor
scalping roll

Other equipment
Hammennlll

ADS fan

Nuggetizer
Magnetic drum


Bins
Storage bin

Packer bin


Length Width
(m) (n)

"7.3 2.5
28.0 1.5
23.1 1.4
29.9 1.4
8.2 1.5
22.2 1.2
30.5 1.2
15.5 0.8
11.9 0.8

1.9 0.8

Length Width
(m) (m)
3.9 2.1

4.9 2.3

3.0 2.4

Speed
Physical parameters
Angle of
incline Speed Belt
(degrees) (m/s) type

0 0.029 Smooth
20 1.45 Smooth
18 1.19 Smooth
18 1.17 Smooth
0 1.09 Smooth
0 1.09 Smooth
15 1.10 Smooth
17 1.02 Rough top
15 0.30 Rough top

14 1.78 Metal bar
Angle of
incline Stroke
(degrees) (m) RFM
0 0.035 454

0 0.035 460

0 — 902

Model

Trough IIIK idlera
Nomina 1
Decrees spacing (m)

None
35 1.5
35 1.5
35 1.5
20 0.9
35 1.0
35 1.4
20 1.5
20 1.5

None


Model
Stephens Adamson natural
frequency conveyor
Stephens Adamson natural
frequency conveyor
FMC straight line
vibrator No. 62810

0.21 m/s Rader Pneumatic's 2.3 m wide


82 rpm 2.
Shaft speed
(rwrt
894

1,570

419
42

Material
heleht (m)
10.7

6.0
feed from 2.4 m x 3,7 m hopper

3 o vide by 0.5 n diameter

Model
Gruendler 18.3 n x 25.6 m with 76.2
square grate
New York blower size 44, Design 22.
at 3.4 kPa and 1,449 rpm
Eldal mill model 100B
Sterns magnetic drum with permanent
0.56 m wide, 0.66 m diameter
Length Width Capacity
(m) M _I°3?. .
18.4 t.3 top 992
5.8 bottom
3.4 1.8 37





nm

7 m3/s, 100 kW,


magnetic;






 a/  Raw refuse receiving conveyor variable speed 0 to 0.12 m/s maximum (0.029 m/s normal).
 b_/  Both conveyors driven by one 7.5 kW motor.
 c/  Feeder has round hole flat aetal perforated screen 0.6 m long to remove fin* particles from feed to ADS.
                                                Ill

-------
                          Table A-2.  MAJOR MOTORS - REFUSE PROCESSING FACILITY
                                                                                    Amperage
       Equipment served

3 Phase 4,160 V motors
  Hanraennill

3 Phase 460 V motors
Raw refuse receiving belt conveyor
Raw refuse belt conveyor to hamnemill
Hanmerreill feeder vibrating conveyor
Hammerail1 dust collection fan
Hammermill discharge vibrating conveyor
Milled refuse belt conveyor
ADS drag conveyor
ADS drag conveyor scalper roll
ADS feeder vibrating conveyor
ADS feed rotary airlock
ADS cyclone discharge rotary airlock
ADS fan
Storage bin feeding cross belt conveyor
Storage bin discharge screw conveyor
Storage bin discharge belt conveyor
Load out belt conveyor to packer
Packer hydraulic unit
ADS heavies belt conveyor
Magnetic separator belt
Nuggetizer
Magnetic druo
Nuggetizer dust collection fan
Ferrous netal belt conveyor
Air compressor
Storage bin cross belt carriage drive

3 Phase 208 V motor
Fire protection line air compressor

Direct current 100 V motor

Storage bin discharge screv conveyor
  carriage drive (variable speed,
  aax 1,750 RPM)

Pover supplies - 3 phase 460 V
Magnetic belt power supply
          Total connected kW
1,250
    1.5
    0.5
          932.5
            1.1
                    rpm
                     894
                   1,740
            0.4    1,750
           10
                                                                         Name
                                                                         Plate
                              155
5
15
20
7.5
18.7
10
15
3
10
25
25
200
5
150
10
7.5
60
3
5
100
1
7.5
3
3
0.5
3.7
11.2
14.9
5.6
18.7
7.5
11.2
2.2
7.5
18.7
18.7
149.2
3.7
111.9
7.5
5.6
44.8
2.2
3.7
74.6
0.7
5.6
2.2
2.2
0.4
1,750
1,755
1,200
1,740
1,200
1,755
1,750
1,740
1,750
1,750
1,760
1,780
1,730
1,780
1,755
1,740
1,750
1,755
1,745
1.780
1,740
1,750
1,755
1,755
1,750
9
19.5
27
10
33
13.5
19.2
4.5
12.9
34
30.5
230
7
165
13.5
10
69
4.2
6.8
117
1.9
10.3
4.6
4.6
1
                               5.5
                              15
                                           Actual
                                           50-300
                                                        7. of
                                                        Name
                                                        Plate
                                                        32-194
                                            0.5
                                           10.0
                                           11
                                            6.5
                                           14
                                            8.5
                                           10.8
                                            1.5
                                            6.2
                                           11
                                           13
                                          140-220
                                            3.3
                                           25-130
                                            6.0
                                            5.0
                                           18
                                            2.5
                                            4.2
                                           20-100
                                            1.7
                                            5.9
                                            2.6
                                            4.0
                                               not used
                                            4.8
                                            4.2
  6
 51
 41
 65
 42
 63
 56
 33
 48
 32
 43
61-96
 47
15-79
 44
 50
 26
 60
 62
17-86
 89
 57
 57
 87
                                                         87
                                                         84
                                                         53
                                                   1,478.2
     S.I. units - 0.746 kW/hp
     A5TM standard E 330-74:  Metric Practice Guide
                                                   112

-------
Vibrator
Feed Not  ,
Shown
This View
       0.66m
                                                              Light Fraction
                                                              To ADS Cyclone
                                                                      0,   Adjustable
                                                                       .   Panels
                                                                 Heavy Fraction
                                                                 To Magnetic
                                                                 Separation
                    SIDE  VIEW
END VIEW
        .Figure A-l.   Configuration of ADS separation chamber
                                        113

-------
         ADS SCREEN  HOUSE -TOP VIEW
      ADS SCREEN  HOUSE - NORTH (SIDE) VIEW
      Metal Duct
Fan Base
                                   Storage Bin
                Plywood

                  Duct
                            1J
                                                                 Bin Floor
                      'T

                        s
                        ro
              (•—2.44m—>\


             	5.64m-
-5.64m-
Screen Area:     100.4m'



Face Velocity:     0.14m/s

(Screen House)



Face Velocity:     2.38m/s

(Plywood Duct)



Screen Description: Plastic, 472 mesh/meter, 1,6mm sq. openings





             Figure  A-2.   Dimensions  of ADS  screen house




                                           114

-------
                               Table A-3.  VEHICLE  SPECIFICATIONS  -  REFUSE PROCESSING FACILITY


Manufacturer
International
International

International

Internat ional

Case

International

International
Harvester
Harvester

Harvester

Harvester



Harvester

Harvester
Heil Compactor trailer

International

Harvester
Heil Compactor Trailer

International

Harvester
Hobbs Compactor Trailer



Model
1110
F-1800

K-1800

F-1800

W-14

3850


COF4070A


COF4070A


COF4070A


Vehicle No.
43-509
607-509

608-509

609-509

50-509

51-509


52-509


53-509


54-509


Description
Pick-up
Dump truck

Dump truck

Dump truck

Front -end
loader
Front -end
loader

Packer truck


Packer truck


Packer truck




Capaci ty
1/2
9.9
(11
9.9
(13
9.9
(13
1,3
(1.
1.3
(1.

57.
(75

57.
(75

57.
(75
Mg
m3
yd
m3
yd
m3
yd
m3
^ y
n,3


3)

J)

3)

d3)

Engine
ty pe
Gasol ine
Gasoline

Gasoline

Gasoline

Diesel

Diesel
Engine
displace-
ment (i)
4.24
6.26

6.42

6.42

5.51

4.62
Net
Cylinders ku3'
6 104.4
8 176.1

8 176.1

8 176.1

4 61.2

6 58.9
Net
hp
140
236

236

236

82

79
7 yd')

3 m
yd

3 m
yd

3 in
yd

3
3)

3
3)

3
3)

Diesel


Diesel


Diesel


14.01


14.01


14.01


6 201.4


6 201.4


6 201.4


2 70


270


270

.a/  S.I. units - 0.746 kW/lip
    ASTM standard E 380-74:  Metric Practice Guide

-------
        Table A-4.  MAJOR ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT - RECEIVING FACILITY
Equipment description

Belt conveyor
  (RDF from receiving hopper
  to airlock)
Airlock feeding pneumatic conveyor
Length:  10.5 m
Width:  1.2 m
m/s:  1.1
Belt type:  smooth
Angle of incline:  flat
Troughing idlers:  20 degrees,
                   0.99-m spacing

Diameter:  2.74 m
Width:  1.49 m
Blower for pneumatic conveying
Sutorbilt model  12 x 36 - 3100
RPM:  885
                       o
Airflow:  1.36 actual m/s at
            21 kPa
Pneumatic conveying line
Mild steel
Diameter:  6.305 m
Receiving hopper
Width:  4.22 m
Length:  6.17 m
Height:  3.66 m
Capacity:  95 nr
                                   116

-------
                  Table A-5.  MAJOR MOTORS - RECEIVING FACILITY
            Equipment served               hp

3 Phase 460 V motors

Receiving hopper discharge screw conveyor   75
Belt conveyor                                5
Rotary airlock feeder for pneumatic line    15
Blower for pneumatic conveyor line—'        100

Direct current 100 V motor

Receiving hopper discharge screw conveyor
  carriage drive (variable speed, maximum
  1,780 RPM)                               0.5

  Total connected kW
                                                                    Amperage
                                                        RPM
             Name
             plate  Actual
        % of
        Name
        plate
56.0  1,775   92
 3.7  1,740    6.5
11.2  1,765   20
74.6  1,770  116
                                                  0.4  1,780

                                                145.9
               5.8
                                                                      40.0      43
                                                                       5.2      80
                                                                      11.5      58
                                                                     100-120  86-103
5.8
100
a./  S.I. units - 0.746 kW/hp
    ASTM standard E 380-74:   Metric Practice Guide
b/  Amperage and blower pressure fluctuates; 120 amp at 21 kPa blower outlet
      pressure.

-------
                                                             Tdble A-f>.  SUMMARY OF  OPKK/lTINC;  EXPENSES,  iKOCESSINC  FACILITY
                                                                     FOR MONTHS OCTOBER  H/4  IHKUllOH  SFP,KM8ER  1975
                 Labor
                   Direct operating labor
                   Operating supervision
                   Maintenance labor
                   Maintenance supervision

                      Total labor expense

                 Mater lain
                   Operating supplies
                   Plant maintenance mate-
                     rials and supplies!./
                 fuel and oil
                 Electric

                      Total mateiial expense

                 Plant overhead
                   Administration
,_,                   Salary
00                   Travc 1

                      Total

                   Rolling stock
                     Maintenance labor
                     Maintenance parts
                     Depreciation

                      Total

                   Office furniture depreciation
                   Clerical salary
                   Office supplies
                   ConDunlcatlon
                   Plant custodial and security
                   Inspection, safety, and
                     fire protection
                   Payroll benefits
                   Other  labor
                   Other  expense

                      Total  plant  ovfiuead

                 Tot^l  opera* 'DI. oxpi.'ii3''
Oct.
1974
3,48}
974
2.762
1,475
8,694
2,144
1,984
558
940
5,626
560
310
870
57
51
1.157
1,265
on 0
609
200
28
y o
0
1,761
164
0
-'. ,W7
59,217
Nov.
1974
2,658
969
2,421
1,397
7,445
204
1,621
519
532
2,876
400
96
496
215
127
1.157
1,4|9
0
556
19
20
0
0
1,761
328
0
4,679
15,000
Dec.
1974
2.634
932
2,483
1.23M
7,288
19
723
473
689
1,904
400
0
400
82
94
1.157
1,333
0
583
55
33
0
0
1,761
0
0
4,16'.
13,357
Jan.
1975
3,219
995
1,690
1,313
7,217
98
1,875
809
595
3,377
780
0
780
303
339
1.157
1,799
5
610
46
30
0
21
1,777
0
0
5,068
l=.,6f>2
fi'b.
1975
3,134
840
2,223
1,243
7,440
182
2.04B
740
810
3,780
996
0
996
2i:6
94
1.157
1,477
5
530
113
24
0
19
1,698
0
0
4,862
16,122
March
1975
3,643
1.076
2,635
1,321
8,675
110
2,070
70
529
2,779
650
463
1,113
102
325
1,157
1,584
7
556
52
24
0
19
2,053
0
45
5,453
16,907
April
1975
4,636
1,480
3,607
1,806
11,529
173
2,297
157
1,161
3,788
48
0
48
231
284
1.157
1,672
15
583
0
46
19
53
2,629
205
130
5,400
20,717
May
1975
3.585
1,061
2,803
1,274
8,723
49
1,965
60
530
2,604
407
0
407
148
523
1.157
1,628
15
583
51
33
0
0
2,177
0
0
4,894
16,221
June
1975
3,327
93i
2,223
1,138
7,62)
)31
2,016
*7
246
2,640
264
.
264
172
20i
1.157
1,533
15
556
12
33
0
0
1,921
0
50
4.J84
14,647
July
B75
3,609
1,024
2,547
1,007
8,187
8
2,435
65
594
3,003
480
-
480
61
72
1.157
1,290
15
609
0
36
0
0
2,116
0
0
4,546
l^,73fc
Aug.
1975
3,552
972
2,481
920
7,925
68
1 ,909
103
571
2,651
480
.
480
97
280
1.157
1,534
15
556
0
24
0
0
1,745
0
20
4,374
14,950
Sept.
1975
3,516
1,012
2,242
963
7,733
319
2,398
41
724
3,482
480
.
480
83
95
1^157
1,335
17
583
60
24
0
0
1,668
0
0
4,167
15,382

Total
40,996
12,270
30,117
15,096
98,479
3,705
23,341
3,642
7,822
38,510
5,945
869
6,814
1,777
2,288
13,884
17,949
109
6,914
608
355
19
112
23,067
697
245
56,889
193,918

-------
                                                                Table A-6 (Concluded)

Capital co«ts-
Amor clzed Investment^
Fixed investment-'
Total capital cost
Total cost of operation
Value of recovered Fe metal
Net cost of operation
a/ Parts and supplies above
Oct.
19 74
3.7J9
13.401
17,140
36,357
7.995
28,362
$200/item
b/ Municipal ownership, interest costs
Nov.
1974
3,739
13.401
17,140
32 , 140
4.158
27,982
amortized
at 6.07..
Dec.
1974
3,739
13.401
17,140
30,497
1^794
28,703
over 12

Jan .
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
32,802
3.030
29,772
months .
expenses .
Feb.
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
33,262
1.567
31,695

March
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
34,047
_3.521
30,526

April
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
37,857
6^404
31,453

May
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
33,361
_1.561
31,800

June
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
31,787
446
31,341

July
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
32,876
1.511
31,365

Aug.
1975
3,739
13 .401
17,140
32,090
2.107
29,983

Sept.
1975
3,739
13.401
17,140
32,522
1.492
31,030


Total
44,668
160^812
205,680
399,598
35.586
364,012

d/  Capital recovery 20 years,  fixed  equipment.

-------
                                                 A-/.  SWfflAKY OF OPERATING  EXPENSES,  RF.CF.IV1NC FACILITY
                                                   Kim MONTHS OCTOBER  1974  riiiu>i><;n  SEPTEMBER 1975


Labor
Vehicle labor
Materials
Fuel and oil
Electric
Total materials
Plant overhead
Building maintenance
Labor
P,irts2/
Tot.il building mnint.
Rolling stock
H- ' J-Uint. labor
g Parts
Depreciation
Total rolling stock
Insurance
Total plant overhead
Total operating expense
Capital costs-
Amortized Investment—'
Fixed investment-
Total capital cost
Total cost of operation
Oct.
1974

3,224

NA
KM)
ion


0
0
0

25
0
1,347
1,372
7
1,379
4,711!

687
2,828
3,515
8,218
Nov.
1974

3,165

NA
5"
50


127
0
127

15
3
1,347
1,365
7
1,499
4,714

687
2.828
3,515
8,229
Dec.
1974

2,964

NA
41
40


43
30
76

18
19
1,347
1,384
7
1,467
4,471

6B7
2.828
3,515
7,986
Jan .
1975

3,323

NA
90
f>0


u
104
115

70
96
1,347
1,513
7
1,635
5,048

687
2.828
3,515
8,563
Feb.
1975

2,882

NA
40
411


184
104
288

65
206
1.347
1,618
7
1,913
4,835

687
2,828
3,515
8,330
March
l'J75

3,443

401
90
4<>
I9|


426
293
719

170
256
1,347
1,773
7
2,499
6,318

687
2.828
3,515
9,851
June
1975

3,098

0
10
10


28
209
237

53
7
1.347
1,409
7
1,651
4,759

687
2.828
3,515
8,274
July
1975

3,313

150
0
150


0
209
209

III,
229
1.347
1,800
7
2,016
5,479

687
2^828
3,515
8,994
Aug.
1975

1,155

207
0
207


0
209
209

147
0
1.347
1.494
7
1,710
3,072

687
2.8Z8
3,515
6,587
Sept .
1975

779

100
0
100


0
209
209

406
195
1,347
1,948
7
2,164
3,043

687
2.82B
3,515
6,558

Total

35,336

1,715
d 10
2 , 145


901
1J21
2,672

1,609
1,339
16,164
19,112
84
21,868
59,549

8,244
33.936
42,180
101,729
a/  Parts and supplies over  $200/item  amortized  over 12 months,
b_/  Municipal ownership,  interest  costs  at  6.0%.
£/  Capital recovery 5 years,  rolling  stock.
d/  Capital recovery 20 years,  fixed equipment.
NA ~ cost data not available.

-------
                Table A-8.  CAPITAL EXPENDITURES-REFUSE PROCESSING FACILITY
 The capital expenditures  for  the  project  are  summarized as  follows:

 Processing plant

   Equipment:

    Hammer-mill and motor                                                        $   92 350
    Vibratory conveyors                                                             44,729
    Belt conveyors                                                                 110,441
    Storage bin and unloader                                                        74 549
    Belt scales                                                                     ^ 320
    Shuttle belt conveyor                                                            7 g50
    Magnetic separator                                                              IQ 939
    Stationary packer                                                               24 295
    Power transformer                                                               ^g 724
    Air density separator  system                                                   ^4 934
    Metal densification unit                                                        30 430
    Air compressor, vent  fan  and  motor                                               1 ggj^
    Perment magnet drum                                                              2 520
    Miscellaneous equipment (office,  testing,  shop, communication)                  H ^7g

      Total equipment                                                           $  555,730

  Construction:

    Excavation, grading and offsite borrow                                      $   44,140
    Piling                                                                          85,575
    Concrete                                                                       151,411
    Structural steel                                                               106,715
    Prefabricated building                                                          77,380
    Interior enclosures                                                             12 5 205
    Bin superstructure, canopies  and  platforms                                      48,999
    Sewers                                                                          16,697
    Piping                                                                           6,600
    Sprinkler system                                                                17,760
    Ventilation                                                                     12,350
    Installation of equipment                                                      122,393
    Electrical                                                                     276,199
    Painting                                                                        20,602
    Asphaltic concrete                                                              16,459

      Total construction                                                        $1,015,485

    Engineering                                                                    181,200

      Total c.-ipital  cost processing plant (not including rolling stock)         $1,752,415

Receiving facility

  Equipment:

    Receiving bin  unloader                                                      $   26,840
    Belt  conv.-ycr                                                                    9,000
    Pneumatic  transfer system                                                       24,644

      Total  equipment                                                            $   60,484
                                            121

-------
                                  Table A-8.  (Concluded)
The capital expenditures for the project are summarized as follows:

Receiving facility

  Construction:

    Excavation and grading                                                      $   68,185
    Piling                                                                          26,000
    Concrete                                                                        64,715
    Structure steel                                                                  6,945
    Building and superstructure                                                     16,931
    Receiving bin                                                                   11,815
    Sewers                                                                           3,000
    Piping                                                                           1,600
    Ventilation                                                                      2,200
    Installation of equipment                                                       11,745
    Electrical                                                                      56,573
    Painting                                                                         2.550

      Total construction                                                        $  272,259

    Engineering                                                                     34.800

      Total capital cost receiving facility                                     S  367,543

Rolling stock

  Processing plant:

    Two front-end loaders, three dump trucks, one pick-up truck,
      one automobile                                                            S   76,899

  Receiving facility:

    Three tractor-trailer trucks                                                    74.287

      Total capital cost rolling stock                                          $  151,186

Plant start-up expense

  Processing plant:                                                             $    8.122

Summary

  Total processing plant                                                        $1,752,415
  Total receiving facility                                                         367,543
  Total rolling stock                                                              151,186
  Total plant startup                                                           	8,122

    Total capital costs refuse processing facility                              $2,279,266
                                            122

-------
           Table  A-?.   PROCESSING  PLANT DAILY ACTIVITY
(Averages  are  for days  plant  is  processing,  not work days per week)
             (Test days are days refuse samples taken)
Raw refuse
Week of
production
Week 1
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Meek 2
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 3
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Veek 4
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 5
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Date 1974
Month

9
9
9
9
9


9
10
10
10
10


10
10
10
10
10


10
10
10
10
10


10
10
10
10
10

Week & (refuse samples
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
10
10
10
10
11

Day

23
24
25
26
27


30
1
2
3
4


7
3
9
10
11


14
15
16
17
18


21
22
23
24
25

not
28
29
30
31
1

Weather

Clear
Clear
Clear
Fog
Cloudy


Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear


Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear


Rain
Clear
Clear
Clear
C loudy


Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Cloudy
Cloudy

taken)






Test
dav

1
2
3
4
5


6
7
8
9
10


11
12
13
14
15


-
16
17
18
19


20
21
22
23
24


-
-
-
-
.

processed
Mg/day

258.1
274.9
283.3
280.5
290.2
277.4

281.0
294.9
283.0
269.9
.272.0
280.1

159.7
160.8
165.9
167.4
165.7
163.9

-
186.8
182.0
174.1
162.2
176.3

161.2
73.6
162.9
159.8
146.8
140.9

0
100.0
23.0*
0
142.8
121.4
MR/hr Comments

28.1
36.7
37.4
36.2
37.5
35.2

40.1
36.3
35.0
36.8
37.6
37.3

25.9
26.0
33.7
38.6
43.3
33.5

Holiday - Columbus Day
36.1
30.3
38.6
32.5
34.4

26.9
29.4
32.6
33.7
41.9
32.8

0 Holiday for U.E. - Veterans Day for U.E.
28.6
20.0* Regrlnd experiment* (not included in averages)
0 Not In operation — change mill grates, cleanup
26.9
27.8
                               123

-------
Table  A-9.  (Continued)
Week of
production
No production
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Ave rage
Week 7 (refuse
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 8
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Ave rage
<.«'eek 9
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 10
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 11
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
No production
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Date 1974
Month
Day Weather
this week
11 4
11 5
11 6
11 7
11 3
samples not taken}
11 11
11 12
11 13
11 14
11 15
11 18 Clear
11 19 Cloudy
11 20 Clear
11 21 Clear
11 22 Clear
11 25 Clear
11 26
11 27 Clear
11 28
11 29
12 2 Clear
12 3 Clear
12 4 Clear
12 5
12 6
12 9
12 10 Clear
12 11 Rain
12 12
12 13
this week
12
12
12
12
12
16
17
18
19
20
Raw refuse
Test processed
day Mg/day
0
0
0
0
0
111.7
105.1
103.9
100.9
105.4
25 80.0
26 254.5
27 260.9
28 212.8
29 157.8
193.1
30 240.5
0
31 179.5
0
210.0
32 186.3
33 99.2
34 191.3
0
0
158.9
0
35 151.6
36 100.6
0
0
126.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mg/hr
0
0
0
0
0
29.8
24.4
34.7
21.4
27.6
25.3
32.1
29.8
31.1
28.3
29.3
30.8
0
23.1
0
26.9
33.4
27.7
28.3
0
0
29.8
0
21.7
30.9
0
0
26.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
C ornme nt s
Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
Holiday - Election Day
Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
Planned oaintenance outage for U.E.
Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
Holiday - Veterans Day for city employees
Environmental testing at processing plant
Environmental testing at processing plant
Environmental testing at processing plant
Environmental testing at processing plant
Hot bearing on ADS fan
Replaced ADS fan bearing
Holiday - Thanksgiving
Not In operation - general maintenance
U.E. maintenance outage — bearing failure Atlas bin
L'.E. maintenance outage--bearlng failure Atlas bin
U.E. maintenance outage--bearlng failure Atlas bin
ADS drag chain broke at 12:30 p.m.
Halting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
         124

-------
Table  A-9.  (Continued)
Raw refuse
Week of
production
Week 12
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 13
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
(1975)
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 14
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 15
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 16
Monday
Tuesday

Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 17
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 18
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Date
Month

12
12
12
12
12


12
12

1
1
1


1
1
1
1
1


1
1
1
1
1


1
1

1
1
1


1
1
1
1
1


2
2
•^
4.
2
2

1974
Dav

23
24
25
26
27


30
31

1
2
3


6
7
8
9
10


13
14
15
16
17


20
21

22
23
24


27
28
29
30
31


3
4
5
6
7


Weather





Cloudy


Cloudy
Rain


Cloudy
Cloudy


Cloudy
Cloudy
Rain
Clear



Clear
Cloudy


Cloudy


Clear
Clear

Cloudy
Cloudy
Cloudy


Cloudy
Cloudy
Clear

Rain


Cloudy
Rain

Cloudy
Clear

Test
day

-
-
-
-
.


37
38

-
39
40


41
42
43
44
-


45
46
-
-
47


48
. 49

50
51
52


53
54
55
-
56


57
58
-
59
60

processed
Mg/day

0
0
-
0
110.8
110.8

197.7
200.1

-
200.9
106 .0
176.2

193.3
134.5
128.5
148.9
0
151.3

110.8
196.6
-
0
156.5
154.6

93.5
136.8

133.6
130.8
137.3
126.4

125.0
112.1
209.8
0
214.8
165.5

253.3
174.5
0
106.5
118.3
163.1
Mg/hr

0
0
-
0
40.3
40.3

29.3
31.6

-
31.8
35.3
32.0

43.0
25.9
23.4
33.8
0
31.6

21.1
27.1
-
0
18.4
22.2

33.0
30.4

24.3
29.0
28.9
29.1

30.0
28.0
33.6
0
33.0
31.2

42.2
25.9
0
26.6
27.5
30.6
Comments



Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Waiting for replacement drag chain from manufacture
Holiday - Christmas
ADS drag chain replaced by end of day
Sugar cane test a.m. Refuse processed p.m. No
samples taken




Holiday - New Years





Nugget izer shutdown-* sheared bolts on breaker
Nuggetizer shutdown--sheared bolts on breaker
Nuggetlzer shutdown— sheared bolts on breaker
Storage bin full--U.E. burning at slow rate


Frozen pneumatic control line on ADS fan

Holiday - Martin Luther King Day














bar
bar
bar






Ducted ADS exhaust to plenum area under storage bin








Reliance Electric Company performed hamnermill
motor test







Nuggetizer shutdown to balance rotor
Storage bin full-U.E. burning at slow rate





Storage bin full--U.E. burning at slow rate






















          125

-------
Table A-9.   (Continued)
Raw refuse
Week of
production
Week 19
Monday

Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 20
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
No production
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 21
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday '
Friday
Average
Week 22
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 23
Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday
Friday
Average
Date 1975
Month

2

2
2
2
2


2
2
2
2
2

this
2
2
2
2
2


3
3
3
3
3


3
3
3
3
3


3

3

3

3
3

Day

10

11
12
13
14


17
18
19
20
21

week
24
25
26
27
28


3
4
5
6
7


10
11
12
13
14


17

18

19

20
21

Test
Weather dav

Clear 61

Cloudy 62
-
Cloudy 63
Rain 64


-
Cloudy 65
Clear 66
Clear 67
-


-
-
-
-
.


Clear 66
Clear 69
Cloudy 70
-
Cloudy 71


Cloudy 72
Cloudy 73
-
Cloudy 74
Clear 75


-

-

.

Clear 76
-

processed
Mg/day

90.7

74.5
-
165.9
46.9
94.5

-
152.8
152.8
86.9
0
130.8

0
0
0
0
0
0

132.0
121.4
94.3
0
163.1
127.7

115.1
150.3
0
146.1
105.3
129.2

0

0

0

152.4
0
152.4
Mg/hr

21.1

33.1
-
24.0
45.J)
30.8

-
43.6
30.6
26.8
0
33.7

0
0
0
0
0
0

24.0
31.1
29.0
0
29.7
28.5

35.4
33.4
0
23.4
30.1
30.6

0

0

0

33.3
J3 	
33.3
Comments



Hammermlll motor starter malfunction. Corrected by
end of day

Holiday - Lincoln's Birthday




Holiday - Washington1 s Birthday
All processed material collected for 2/19
Double grind test; reground refuse from 2/18

U.E. maintenance outage- -ma If unction of Atlas
hydraulic system

U.E. maintenance outage — Atlas bin hydraulic
U.E. maintenance outage--Atlas bin hydraulic
L'.E. maintenance .outage--Atlas bin hydraulic
U.E. maintenance outage--Atlas bin hydraulic
U.E. maintenance outage--Atlas bin hydraulic





U.E. general maintenance outage



Kuggetizer shut down for maintenance

U.E. general maintenance outage




General maintenance outage in preparation for
environmental tests at U.E.
General maintenance outage in preparation for
environmental tests at U.E.
General maintenance outage in preparation for
environmental tests at U.E.

General maintenance outage in preparation for
environmental tests at U.E.











bin


system
system
system
system
system

























         126

-------
Table  A-9.  (Continued)
Raw refuse
Week of
production
Week 24
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Average
Week 25
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Average


Week 26
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Average
Week 27
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday

Saturday
Average
Week 28
Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Average
Date
Month

3
3
3
3
3
3


3
4
4
4
4
4




4
4
4
4
4
4


4
4
4
4
4

4


4

4

4

^
4
4

1975
Day

24
25
26
27
28
29


31
1
2
3
4
5




7
8
9
10
11
12


14
15
16
17
18

19


21

22

23

24
25
26


Weather

Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Rain
Rain
Clear


Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear
-



Clear
Rain
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Clear


Clear
Clear
Clear

Cloudy

Clear


Clear

Clear

Rain





Test
day

77
78
79
80
81
82


83
84
85
86
87
*




88
89
90
91
92
93


94
95
96
-
97

98


99

100

101

-
-
.

processed
Mg/day

227.4
130.7
175.5
314.4
286.3
90.4
204.1

302.5
298.6
338.4
146.5
165.5
130.5
230.3



288.3
287.0
84.2
132.4
318.5
222.8
222.2

261.9
373.8
203.5
0
107.5

199.7
229.2

162.7

174.5

224.8

0
0
0
187.3
Mg/hr

30.3
28.4
30.3
42.5
36.1
32.8
33.4

34.6
40.7
34.7
27.9
34.8
34.8
34.7



34.9
36.2
33.7
29.4
37.1
37.1
34.7

35.3
43.9
25.7
0
20.8

20.9
29.3

20.9

23.2

27.0

0
0
0
23.7
Comments

Start of coal and refuse cure on U.E. ESP







U.E. commenced environmental testing at power plant



Bearing failure on ADS drag chain
* Material processed on Saturday would have been
processed on Friday had bearing failure not
occurred. Samples collected Included in com-
posite for Friday












Repaired holes In ADS cyclone separator
Fine grind 1-1/4 in. diameter opening grates!/ in
hammermill
Fine grind 1-1/4 in. diameter opening grates!/ In
hammermill

Fine grind 1-1/4 in. diameter opening grates*' In
haomermill
Fine grind 1-1/4 In. diameter opening grates!' in
haranerini 1 1
Fine grind 1-1/4 in. diameter opening grates!/ in
hammermill
U.E. maintenance outage- -broken boiler tube
U.E. maintenance outage --broken boiler tube
U.E. burning balance of accumulated fine grind refuse
fuel. Last day of U.E. conducted environmental tests
         127

-------
Table  A-9.  (Continued)
Raw refuse
Week of
production
Week 29
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 30
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Veek 31
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Average
Week 32
Monday
Tuesday


Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Average
No production
Monday
Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Average
Date 1975
Month

6.
4
i
5
5


5
5
5
5
5


5
5
5

5

5


5
5


5

5

5

this
5
5

5

5

5

Dav Weather

28 Clear
29 Clear
30 Rain
1 Cloudy
2 Cloudy


5
6
7
8
9


12 Cloudy
13 Cloudy
14

15

16 Clear


19 Clear
20 Cloudy


21

22

23

week
26
27

28

29

30

Test
dav

102
103
104
105
106


-
-
-
-
107


108
109
-

-

110


111
112


-

-

.


-
-

-

-

.

processed
Mg/day

164.7
296.6
271.8
116.0
235.1
216.8

0
0
0
-
54.3
54.8

331.4
173.5
0

0

220.1
241.7

243.6
225.8


0

0

0
234.7

.
0

0

0

0
0
Mg/hr

27.9
31.5
33.7
22.1
29.1
28.8

0
0
0
-
42.2
42.2

35.8
41.3
0

0

32.4
36.5

26.3
38.3


0

0

0
32.6

-
0

0

0

0
0
Comments

Normal 3-ln. square opening grates in haircnermill

Start of environmental tests at U.E.




I'.E. maintenance outage — broken boiler tube
U.E. maintenance outage --broken boiler tube
U.E. maintenance outage — broken boiler tube
Holiday - Truman's Birthday
Demonstration run for tour group


Nuggetizer shutdown at 1:00 p.m. Rotor jammed
Nugget izer not operated. Rotor jammed
Repair of failed bearings on receiving building
screw conveyor at power plant
Repair of failed bearings on receiving building
screw conveyor ac power plant




Lead wire on nammermill motor came loose at 4:00
p.m. burning out lighting arrester and oxidizing
first 10 ft of lead wire
Waiting for spare parts - hammermill electrical
connection
Waiting for spare parts - hanmermlll electrical
connection
Waiting for spare parts - hanmermlll electrical
connection

Holiday - Memorial Day
Waiting for spare parts - hammermill electrical
connection
Waiting for spare parts - hammermill electrical
connection
Waiting for spare parts - hammermill electrical
connection
Waiting for spare parts - hammermill electrical
connection
          128

-------
Table A-°.  (Continued)
Raw refuse
Week of
production
No production
Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 33
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday

Friday
Average
Week 34
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 35
Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday
Average
Week 36
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average

Week 37
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Date 1975 Test
Month
this week
6

6

6

6
6


6
6
6
6

6


6
6
6
6
6


6

6

6

6

6


6
7
7
7
7



7
7
7
7
7

Dav Weather dav

2

3

4

5
6


9
10
11 Clear
12 Clear

13


16
17
18
19
20


23

24

25

26

27


30 Clear 113
1 Clear 114
2 Clear 115
3 Clear 116
4



7 Clear 117
8 Clear 118
9 Clear 119
10 Clear 120
11 Clear 121

processed
Mg/day

0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0
39.1
47.9

0
43.5

0
0
0
0
85.1
85.1

0

0

0

0

86.9
86.9

68.0
126.6
i fin 7
ivu • /
155.4
.
112.7


127.5
84.5
167.6
158.5
254.2
158.5
Mg/hr

0

0

0

0
0
0

0
0^
39. 9^''
3 1 . 9^y

oi/
35.6

0
0
0
0
26.9
26.9

0

0

0

0

24.9
24.9

18.1
29.8
'y c 7
£j * '
24.9
-
24.6


23.1
33.7
27.9
21.1
33.9
27.9
Comments

Waiting for spare parts - hammermill electrical
connection
Waiting for spare parts - haomermlll electrical
connection
Aluminum lead wire and lighting arrester received.
Electrician started hammermill electrical repair
Hammermill electrical repair
Hammermill electrical repair


Hammermill electrical repair finished
Replaced broken chain link on ADS drag chain conveyor
Demonstration run for tour group. No samples taken
Run to produce ADS heavies for U.E. test. So samplas
taken



b/
b/
b/
b/ Hauled refuse fuel from 6-11 and 6-12 to U.E.
b/ Run to produced ADS heavies for U.E. test. No
samples taken

Electrical power off to repair electric power dis-
tribution substation
Electrical power off to repair electric power dis-
tribution substation
Electrical power off to repair electric power dis-
tribution substation
Electrical power off to repair electric power dis-
tribution substation
b/ Produced ADS heavies for U.E. test. No samples
taken

Environmental tests at processing plant
Environmental tests at processing plant
Environmental tests at processing plant
Holiday - Independence Day
(All RDF landfilled during week 36 due to maintenance
outage at power plant)







          129

-------
Table  A-9.  (Continued)

Raw refuse
Week of
production
Week 38
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 39
Monday
Tuesday

Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 40
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Ave rage
Week 41
Monday
Tuesday

Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Week «2
Monday
Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday
Friday
Average
Week 43
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Average
Dace
Month

7
7
7
7
7


7
7

7
7
7


/
7
7
7
3


8
A

3
3
8


a
a

8

3
3


3
8
8
3
8

1975
Dav

14
15
16
17
18


21
22

23
24
25


28
29
30
31
1


4
5

6
7
8


11
12

13

14
15


18
19
20
21
22


Weather

Clear

Clear
Cloudy
Clear












Cloudy

Rain



Clear

Cloudy
Clear
Clear


Clear




Cloudy
Cloudy



Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear

Test
dav

122
-
123
124
125


-
-

-
-
-




126

127



128

129
130
131


IJ2
-

-

133
134


-
135
136
137
138

process
Mg/day

211.0
0
211.9
198.1
212.9
208.5

0
53.4

0
0
0
53.4

0
0
155.6
0
191.5
173.5

0
177.6

231.2
309.5
309.3
256.9

234.9
0

0

269.5
255.9
253.5

0
170.3
163.6
254.4
226.2
203.6
sed
Mg/hr

35.2
0
32.6
32.6
34.1
33.7

0
18.9

0
0
0
18.9

0
0
28.7
0
30.7
29.7

0
29.2

33.0
38.7
45.8
36.7

34.8
0

0

31.3
28.9
31.8

0
22.7
22.3
37.6
35.2
29.5

Comments

£/
A_l General maintenance at processing plant
c_/ Oil leak developed in ADS feed vibrating conveyor
£/
c/


Ai
£/ Run to produce ADS heavies for U.E. test. No
samples taken
Al
a
Al


i/
d/
c/
dV
±/


Al
c/ Hammermill dust collection systen discontinued
from service
£/
£_/
c/ ADS drag conveyor janraed due to broken chain fligh



d/ Replaced blown 60,000 amp buss fuse for hanner-
raill motor
d/ Replaced blown 60,000 amp buss fuse for haraner-
oill motor




AJ General plant maintenance
T/
£/
c/
c/

         130

-------
                                                Table A-9.  (Concluded)
Raw refuse
Week of Date 1975 Test
production Month Day Weather day
Week 44
Monday 8
Tuesday 8
Wednesday 8
Thursday 8
Friday 8
Average
Week 45
Monday 9
Tuesday 9
Wednesday 9
Thursday 9
Friday 9
Average
No production this
Monday 9
Tuesday 9
Wednesday 9
Thursday 9
Friday 9
Average
No production this
Monday 9
Tuesday 9
Wednesday 9
Thursday 9
Friday 9
Average
No production this
Monday 9
Tuesday 9
Wednesday 9
Thursday 9
Friday 9
Average
No production this
Monday 9
Tuesday 9
Average


25
26
27
28 Cloudy 139
29 Cloudy 140


1
2 Clear 141
3 Clear 142
4 Clear 143
5 Cloudy 144

week
8 - -
9
10
11
12

week
15
16
17
18
19

week
22
23
24
25
26

week
29
30


Total average for 45 weeks of production
processed
MB /day

0
0
0
248.2
239.9
244.0

-
214.6
268.4
228.9
237.0
237.2

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

168.3
Mg/hr

0
0
0
34.2
32.0
33.1

-
31.8
32.8
33.1
29.7
31.8

0
0
0
0
_o 	
0

0
0
0
0
0
0 ,

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

31.0
Comments

Repair of baffle plates in hamraemlll
Repair of baffle plates in hammermlll
Repair of baffle plates in hammermill
c/
c/


Holiday - Labor Day
c/
c/
c./
£/


d/
d/
d/
d/
d/


d/
d_/
d/
d/
I/


d/
d/
d/
il
d/


d/
Test run for Vulcan Materials Company. Sample of
tin cans passed through system to test Fe metal
recovery.
End of 12-month test and evaluation program
Maximum value
                                                 373.8
                                                           45.8
Minimum value
                                                  39.1
                                                           18.4
a/  Used to simulate double ground refuse.  Normal grates are 76 mm square openings.
b/  Decision not to run to allow highest possible probability of completing environmental tests without  further
      mechanical breakdown.  Although not a required maintenance outage, U.E.  taking advantage of downtime to repair
      pneumatic conveying lines from Atlas bin to boiler.
c/  Strike at U.E. power plant.  City landfilling refuse fuel produced.
d/  Strike at U.E. power plant.  Refuse processing plant not in operation due  to this strike.
                                                          131

-------
Table A-10.  WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PLANT DOWNTIME DURING PROCESSING DAYS
Week of 1974
Month Day
9 23
9 30


10 7
10 14





10 21



10 28



11 H



11 18



11 25


Downtime
hours
1.1
4.3
1.0
5.3
1.0
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
7.7
2.0
1.2
1.0
4.2
0.8
0.4
4.5
5.7
0.8
0.2
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.3
1.3
1.9
1.0
1.9
2.9

Equipment

Nuggetizer
Storage bin
Total
Trucks
Trucks
Mag. belt
Vibrating conv.
-
ADS
Total
Hammermill
Storage bin
Vibrating conv.
Total
ADS drag conv.
ADS fan
Vib ra t Ing conv .
Total
Trucks
Vibrating conv.
ADS
Total
ADS fan
ADS
Hammermill
Total
ADS drag conv.
ADS
Total

Description
Plant shut down to await tour group from Suva, Japan
Sheared bolts on breaker bars
Discharge screw conveyor plugged

Shut down to change mag. belt reject trucks
Shut down to change mag. belt reject trucks
Reject hopper plugged
Replace bearing on mill discharge conv.
General maintenance
Surge bin plugged due to drive motor mount breaking loose

Replace oil pump coupling
Overfilled one end - cross belt was not reversed
Replace broken spring clamp on mill discharge conv.

Remount and tighten loose drive chain
Tighten loose mounting bolts
Clean out and re-start plugged mill discharge conv.

Shut down to change mag. belt reject trucks
Tighten loose mounting bolts on mill discharge conv.
Surge bin plugged

Clean fan - heavy vibration noticed
Surge bin plugged
Fire in mill - assume due to hot metal

Clean out and re-start plugged conv.
Surge bin plugged


-------
                                           Table  A-10.   (Continued)
OJ
Week of
Month
12
12
12
12
Week of
Month
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1974
Day
2
9
23
30
1975
Day
6
13
20
27
3
10
17
Downtime
hours
0.4
0.3
7.0
4.0
11.7
0.3
3.5
3.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.5
2.9
0.3
0.8
1.5
1.1
2.6
1.0
0.5
1.5
0.2
0.2
Equipment
Truck
ADS
Hammermill feed conv.
Processing plant
Total
Truck
Processing plant
Total
Classifier cyclone
ADS
Storage bin
ADS
Total
Hammermill
Vibrating conv.
Hammermill feed conv.
Hammermill feed conv.
Total
Hammermill
Truck
Total
Conveyor belt
Total
Description
Tire change
ADS flight caught in feeder air lock
Electrical circuit outage
General maintenance
Change mag. belt reject truck
General maintenance
Pneumatic lines frozen
Surge bin plugged
Overfilled
Surge bin paddle wheel malfunction
Low lubrication pressure
Check unusual vibration
Jammed belt
Fuse blown
Delay due to severe cold and malfunction of relays
Change mag. belt reject trucks
Malfunction of ADS heavies conveyor belt

-------
Table A-10.  (Continued)
Week of 1975 Downtime
Month Day hours
3 24 0.2
0.3
0.5
1.6
2.8
3 31 0.3
1.0
1.0
2.3
4 7 0.3
1.0
0.3
1.6
4 14 1.0
1.8
0.4
0.3
0.3
3.8
4 21 0.9
4 28 0.4
0.3
0.3
1.0
5 12 0.3
5.5
5.8
5 19 0.8
0.5
0.8
2.1
Equipment
Hamraermill feed conv.
Conveyor belt
ADS
ADS
Total
ADS
Hammermill
ADS
Total
ADS
Magnetic belt
Truck
Total
ADS
ADS
Hararaerraill
ADS
Hammermill
Total
ADS
ADS
Hammermill
Magnetic belt
Total
Nugget izer
ADS
Total
ADS
Hammermill
Hammermill
Total
Description
Belt jammed due to overload
Chain off sprocket of ADS heavies conveyor belt
Scalper roll bearing breakage
Vibrator feeder bolts loose
Clean fan
Electrical relay outage
Surge bin bearing breakage
Reducer on scalping roll loose
Excessive shaft play
Change mag. belt reject truck
Hole in cyclone caused refuse build-up resulting in fan
misalignment creating sparks in screen house
Clean ADS fan
Broken bolt on discharge vibrating conveyor
Clean ADS fan
Loose bearing on discharge vibrating conveyor
Clean ADS fan
Clean ADS fan
Safety circuit tripped due to high bearing temp.
Loose belt
Fe metal Jammed nuggetlzer
Drag chain bearing failure
Fe metal collected between shaft of surge bin flight and
vibrating conveyor
Safety circuit tripped due to high bearing temp.
Cable in hammermill motor vibrated loose and shorted out

-------
Table A-10.  (Concluded)
Week of
Month
6
7
7
7


8



9



1975
Day
30
7
14
28


4



1



Downt ime
hours
2.7
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.4
0.5
5.3
6.2
3.4
0.6
0.6
4.6

Equipment
Haramermill

ADS
ADS
-
Total
ADS
-
ADS
Total
Hammermill
ADS
Truck
Total

Description
Refuse overload
Shortage of labor necessitated shutdown for lunch
Vibrating conveyor oil leak, scalping roll malfunction
Defective surge bin relay
Shortage of labor necessitated shutdown for lunch

Clean ADS fan
Shortage of labor necessitated shutdown for lunch
Drag chain flight broke and jammed against side of surge bin

Repair seal
Repair drag chain in surge bin
Class truck overfilled


-------
Table  A-11.   WEEKLY  SUMMARY  OF MAJOR PLANT MAINTENANCE  NOT COUNTED  AS  DOWNTIME
         Week of 1974
         Month    Day

          9       23
          9

         10

         10


         10

         10
         11
         11
         11
         11
30

 7

U


21

28
                  11
                  18
                  25
    Equipment

Hammermlll
Stationary packer
ADS
Nuggetizer
Magnetic belt

Hammermlll

Hammermlll

Hammermlll
Magnetic drum

Hammermlll

Hammermlll
Hammermlll feed eonv.
Nuggetiter
Conveyor belts
Storage bin
Magnetic belt
ADS

Hammermlll
ADS
Storage bin
Nuggetizer
Union Electric
Receiving facility
Fayloader

Hammermlll
Hammermlll feed conv.
ADS
Nuggetizer
Storage bin
Conveyor belts

Hammermlll
ADS
Nuggetizer
Conveyor belts
Surge bin
Packer truck

Hammermlll
Hammermill feed conv.
ADS

Stationary packer
Nuggetizer
                  Description

Hammer retipplng,  replacement of 18 hammers
Welded plate on packer
Clean fan
Clean fan,  turn wear plate around, Inspection
Miatracked  and jammed, realigned and reject  hopper  cleared

Hammer retipplng

Hammer retipplng,  replacement of 14 hammers

Hammer retipplng,  hammer replacement
Repair hole In feed chute

Fire In refuse collected behind discharge, hammer retipplng

Replace oil lines, change oil
Replace bolt, replace seal
Lubricate,  tighten bolts, clean fan
Clean
Install new lugs on auger
Lubricate
Clean fan

Hammer retipping,  change air filter on oil cooler
Clean, parts fabrication
Lubricate auger machinery
Lubricate,  clean fan, tighten bolts
Replace conveyor coupling, feeder inspection
General maintenance
Maintenance and motor repair

Drain water from oil cooler, hammer retipping
Adjustments
Clean fan,  replace inspection door seals
Tighten bolts, clean fan
Clean auger traversing tracks
Replace seals

Fire in refuse collected behind discharge, hammer retipplng
Clean fan,  clean pneumatic control system
Replace anchor bolt, lubricate
Replace coverings
Remove plastic lining
Repair broken oil  lines

Hammer retipplng
Bolt tightening on vibrator, seal fabrication
Air compressor maintenance (pneumatic control system) ,
repair scalping roll on surge bin, fan bearing replacement
Change oil, repair hook-up
Repair Inspection  door
                                                         136

-------
                                 Table  A-11,    (Continued)
Weak of 1974
Month    Day

  12      2
  12
  12     16
  12     23
  12     30

Week of 1975
Month    Day
         13
         20
         27
     Equipment

Hamermill
ADS
NuggetIzer
UE receiving facility

Drive belts
ADS
Hamnermlll
Magnetic belt
Hamermill feed conveyors
Drive belts
ADS vibrating feeder

Hamermill
ADS
Magnetic belt conv.
Storage bin

ADS
Hammermlll

Hanmermill
Nuggetizer

ADS
UE receiving facility

ADS

Nuggetizer
Hammermill

Hammermill
Nuggetizer

ADS

Storage bin
Conveyor belts

Hammermill
Nuggetizer
                                              Deacription

                            Oil pump failure,  retlpping, new baffles
                            Clean fan
                            Tighten, grease, and clean fans
                            Fire in Atlas  bin  due  to bearing failure on bin
                            sweep
                            Hammermill receiving vibrating conv., repair bushing
                            In drive sheave

                            ADS flight chain broke, waiting for replacement
                            Retipplng, new curtain
                            Repair belt, install ribs on magnetic belts
                            Clear jam and  new  seal
                            Tighten
                            Clear material jam

                            Retipplng
                            Repair flights, scalping roll
                            Repair reducer
                            Repair screw conveyor, change lugs

                            ADS drag chain replaced
                            Retipplng

                            Retipping
                            Vibrations  sheared bolts on breaker bar, tighten and
                            grease,  clean  fans
                            Clear  jam,  weld  flights, clean pneumatic fan
                            Maintenance outage

                            Airflow  control  circuit malfunction, frozen pneumatic
                            lines, alter blower configuration on ADS
                            Excessive vibrations
                            Retipping

                            Hammermill  performance tests, retlpping
                            Excessive vibrations, tighten bolts and grease,  clean
                            fans
                            Change flaps on  feeder, weld air separator elbow,
                            clean  fan
                            Tighten  set screen on auger chain drive
                            Clean motor on ADS heavies belt conveyor

                            Retipping,  repair seal
                            Bolts holding circular rotating mechanism sheared
                                                  137

-------
                                  Table A-11.   (Continued)
Week of 1975
Month    Day

   2      3
   2     10
   2     17
   2     24
   3      3
   3     10
   3     17
   3     24
   3     31
     Equipment

Hammernill
ADS
Nuggetizer

Hamraerralll
ADS
NuggetIzer

UE receiving facility
Hanmerraill
ADS
Packer
NuggetIzer
Conveyor belts

UE receiving facility
Hamennill
Hamnernlll feed conv.
Packer
Classifier cyclone
Vibrating conveyors

UE receiving facility
Hammer-mill
Packer
Hammer-mill feed conv.
ADS
Storage bin
NuggetIzer

Nuggetizer
UE receiving facility
Hamnermlll
Vibrating conveyors
ADS
Nugget izer
Classifier cyclone

Nuggetizer

Hamnermill
Vibrating conveyor

Hanmernill
ADS

Vibrating conveyor
Storage bin
NuggetIzer

Hammermill
Storage bin
Nuggetizer
               Description

Ret ipping
Clean fan, repair air compressor
Clean fans, tighten bolts and grease

Retipping
Clean fan, repair bin level indicator
Tighten hammers and bolts, clean fans

Atlas bin hydraulic system outage
RetIpping, oil
Repair scalper roll, clean fan
Repair clamp
Clean fan
Clean screens on ADS vibrating feeder

Repairs continued on Atlas bin
Retlpplng
Repair guard
Repair hose, oil
Wash out pneumatic pipe and patch hole
Clean motor 1, tighten bolts

Maintenance outage
Retlpplng
Grease
Grease
Thaw rotary airlock feeder, clean fan
Grease screw conveyors
Grease, clean fans, tighten bolts

Tighten bolts
Maintenance outage
Ret ipping
Grease ADS feeder
Clean fan
Clean fans, tighten bolts and grease
Repair elbow on pneumatic pipe
                                                                                    tighten bolts,  tighten
Balance, clean, and grease fan,
U-belts
Retipping, Install seal
Tighten bolts on ADS feeder
                                                    Retipping
                                                    Clean fan, weld duct, Install coupling,  replace screen
                                                    on discharge collection house
                                                    Raise ADS feeder 1-1/2 in., clean screens
                                                    Change lugs on screw conveyor
                                                    Tighten bolts
                                                    Retipping
                                                    Clean screw conveyor
                                                    Tighten and clean fan,
                       grease,  tighten  drive belt
                                                  138

-------
                                 Table  A-11.    (Continued)
Week of 1975
Month    Day

   4      7
   4     14
   4     21
   4     28
   5      5
   5      12
   5      19
    5     26
     Equipment

UE receiving facility

Hammermill
ADS
Nuggetizer
Packer

Storage bin
Magnetic belt
Nuggetizer

Hasmeraill
ADS
Hammermill feed conv.
Vibrating- conveyor
ADS cyclone

Storage bin
Hammermill
Nugget izer

UE receiving facility
Hammermill
ADS
Nuggetizer
Conveyor belts

Hammermill
Vibrating conveyor
Nuggetizer
ADS

Nuggetizer
ADS
Hammermill
UE receiving facility

Hamnermlll
Packer
Nuggetizer
Vibrating conveyor
Storage bin
Hammermill
UE receiving facility
Hammermill feed conv.
Packer
ADS

ADS  cyclone
                 Peaeription

Bracket of conveyor drive motor breakage, Atlas bin
sweep drive failure
Retipping
Clean fan
Grease and clean fan,  tighten bolts
Repair backstop and bin

Electrical failure
Mistrack
Heavy vibrations result In motor off balance, clean
and grease fan
Retipping, Install seal, change grates
Grease, adjust blades  on rotary airlock feeder
Adjust belt
Grease
Repair hole in pneumatic pipe

Shuttle belt conveyor  fuses blown
Retipping, oil, change grates
Clean and grease fan

Screw conveyor bearing repair
Retipping, change grates
Install fan guard, balance rotor
Clean and grease fan
Install wiper on hammermill discharge conveyor

Hammers reversed, install seals
New bushing on hammermill feeder
Clean and grease fan
Weld pneumatic pipe elbow

Nuggetizer motor jammed, clean and grease fan
Repairs of broken bearings on drag chain
Retipping, paint bearings
Screw conveyor bearing failure, motor off track

Hammermill motor repair, retipping
Repair backstop
Clean and grease fan
Grease ADS feeder
Repair hole in oil case of screw conveyer drive,
change lugs on screw conveyor

Retipping, waiting for hammermill electrical parts
Repair pneumatic conveying lines
Clean
Oil
Weld crack, replace worn drive belts on conveyors and
feeders
Seal pipe
                                                   139

-------
                                  Table  A-11.    (Continued)
Week of 1975
Month    Day

   6      2
   6      9
   6     16
   6     23
   6     30
   7      7
   7     14
   7     21
   7     28
   8      4
   8     11
   8     18
   8     25
    Equipment

HannernlU
ADS
ADS vibrating feeder

Hammermill
ADS
UE receiving facility
Conveyor belts

ADS
Vibrating conveyor

Processing plant
Rammermlll

Hanmennlll
ADS
Packer

Hammermill
Vibratory conveyor
ADS

ADS
Packer
Hanmermill
Nuggetirer

Hanmermill
NuggetIzer
Vibrating conveyor

Hannemill
Magnetic drum
Nuggetirer

Hammermill
Vibrating conveyor
ADS cyclone
NuggetIzer

Hanmernill
ADS

Haramennill
ADS
NuggetIrer

Hanmermill
             Description

Repair air filters, motor repair
Repair chain on drag conveyor, weld  elbow  pipe
Clean screen

Hamenalll electrical repairs completed
Replaced broken chain link
Repair pneumatic conveying lines
Make new motor guard for belt conveyor

Turn blades around in rotary airlock feeder
Put in bushings in hanraernill feeder drive

Electric power off to repair distribution  substation
Retipping, seals

Clean fan, add oil
Clean fan
Weld back stop

Change oil, retipping
Grease ADS feeder
Repair track on drag chain conveyor

Drag chain had worn holes in bottom  of surge bin
Malfunctioning electrical connector
Retipping
Grease and tighten fan

Retipping, change grates
Tighten bolts, hardface hammers
Repair oil leak on ADS feeder drive

Retipping
Patch shield hole
Grease and tighten fan

Retipping, weld crack, seal weld disks
clear chute on ADS feeder, repair seal
Inspect pneumatic pipe
Grease and tighten fan

Hanmermill fuse blown, change hammers
Clear airline

Retipping
Repair flights on drag chain conveyor, clean fan
Grease and tighten fan

Replace interior baffles
                                                 140

-------
                                 Table  A-11.   (Concluded)
Week of 1975
Month    Day                  Equipment                           Description

   9      1             Hanmernlll                 Hanntermlll retlpplng
                        ADS                        Replace  surge bin drag chain, clean pneumatic fan
                        Nuggetizer                 Tighten  bolt* and grease

   9      0             Hammermlll                 Repair aeal
                        ADS                        Clean pneumatic fan
                        Nuggetizer                 Tighten  bolts and grease

   9     15             Magnetic drum               Install  new end plates and  rubber seals
                        ADS                        Paint surge bin, Install belts on fan

   9     22             Haranermill                 Retlpplng, lubricate
                                                  141

-------
Table A-12.  DAILY RECORDED VALUES OF PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS
Electric power Equipment ampa daily readings


Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Pay
23
24
25
26
27
30
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
IS
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
18
19
20
21
22
25
27
2
3
4
10
11
30
31

Test
day_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
used (kw-hr)
Total
plant Hamnermill Hamaennill
7,200 Data 250
6,720 not 150
6,480 recorded 210
6,480
6,720
6,720
7,200
6,960
6,720
6,480
5,520
4,320
4,560
4,320
4,320
4,560
4,800
3,840
5,760
4,800
2,880
4,560
3,840
4,320
1,920
6,480
6,960
6,240
5,520
4,800
2,400
5,280
3,600
5,520
5,040
3,120
5,520
6,480 N
200
230
250
100
125
150
150
75
250
200
300
200
250
150
250
250
175
175
125
300
200
125
250
225
300
150
175
100
75
150
100
200
100
300
/ 200

ADS
fan
145
160
152
150
150
158
150
150
150
150
149
148
150
150
149
149
145
145
150
152
140
140
140
149
149
150
150
160
150
150
170
175
170
175
170
165
170
178
Storage
bin screw
conveyor
52
52
100
100
100
90
90
120
75
75
75
70
70
50
70
80
80
90
55
90
90
90
90
75

90
50
60
50
90
90
90
SO
SO
40
40
55
110
Midday
ambient

Nuggetizer
32
45
90
65
70
60
60
42
60
60
65
65
61
90
59
50
45
75
75
70
35
49
60
55
55
90
65
70
75
100
65
90
60
60
70
60
62
75
Temp.
CO
19
22
21
29
24
23
21
11
16
22
13
15
18
19
21
15
14
14
17
9
14
16
18
18
14
15
12
11
16
6
9
3
3
2
11
7
5
6
Hannrmlll bearing
tkin temp. CO
J_RH
38
32
64
40
66
36
28
46
50
52
60
58
69
62
59
84
56
78
56
56
52
68
70
75
62
89
52
44
59
77
55
91
73
70
88
85
84
100
Inboard
57
58
64
62
69
62
61
48
63
63
56
62
62
62
58
41
51
49
50
46
50
47
53
49
41
46
47
51
53
47
46
35
44
44
49
44
42
43
Outboard
57
61
64
67
63
66
62
59
68
68
63
61
66
67
60
50
51
54
51
52
51
54
54
53
42
52
56
54
48
52
48
49
52
51
50
44
43
43
ADS fan
Air flow
(actual
n>3/»)
13.76
14.05
14.16
14.54
14.51
15.05
13.86
13.56
13.97
14.16
13.66
14.01
13.81
13.89
13.86
13.41
13.23
13.77
13.77
13.63
12.54
12.02
11.75
14.07
13.11
14.12
13.10
13.58
12.73
12.57
13.02
14.06
13.04
13.29
13.25
13.24
12.84
14.67

Temp.
CO
17
17
21
24
24
16
21
10
14
21
12
16
19
20
22
16
13
17
17
12
14
17
20
21
13
IS
12
9
12
6
8
2
3
2
11
8
6
6


Z_RH
83
78
90
74
90
77
37
80
76
76
88
95
90
86
85
95
71
100
94
94
56
95
96
95
100
100
65
93
88
100
79
100
100
100
88
100
100
100

-------
Table A-12.  (Continued)
Electric power
Equipment amps dailv readings
used (kw-hr)
Date 1975 .
Month
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Day
2
3
6
7
8
9
13
14
17
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
29
31
3
4
6
7
10
11
13
14
18
19
20
3
4
5
7
Test
day
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Total
plant
5,760
5,280
5,280
3,600
4,080
4,080
4,560
6,480
7,440
3,840
4,800
5,280
4,080
5,520
4,080
3,360
6,000
6,960
6,480
5,520
5,040
4,800
3,840
2,880
5,760
4,800
4,800
3,600
3,120
4,800
4,800
3,360
3,600


Hanmermill
Data
not
recorded







\







1
1,680
2,310

1
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
1

1

2

1
2
2
1
2
630
,050
,360
,890
,520
,410
,940
,470
,520
,680
840
,890
630
,730
840
,680
,730
,100
,470
,100

Hammermill
250
300
275
300
300
250
250
250
200
250
200
175
175
175
200
250
200
250
225
175
150
150
150
225
150
225
225
75
200
225
225
225
200
ADS
fan
180
170
175
180
165
180
185
175
165
175
175
175
180
175
175
175
175
175
180
180
180
170
175
175
180
170
220
170
165
165
165
165
170
Storage
bin screw
conveyor
95
85
70
60
75
120
105
100
60
50
90
85
50
90
55
55
100
55
60
a/
70
70
75
75
70
65
30
30
30
35
70
70
75
Midday
ambient

Nuggetizer
76
60
85
a/
a/
I/
a/
*/
55
50
55
58
65
70
65
a/
if
55
90
65
80
45
55
85
60
65
a/
38
75
55
55
55
a/
Temp.
CO
1
3
4
9
9
7
-9
-3
0
0
7
-2
2
8
5
6
8
4
3
5
-4
1
4
5
-1
2
3
6
11
3
2
2
3
Hammermill bearing
skin temp. CO
7. RH
80
73
74
72
72
85
y
b/
58
78
52
88
90
70
66
85
60
83
72
92
b/
62
58
100
81
100
82
68
45
55
63
67
81
Inboard
42
44
54
47
47
43
24
38
37
26
41
46
46
54
44
43
54
38
41
38
32
33
30
43
36
38
40
38
49
38
41
38
41
Outboard
49
46
41
43
38
47
36
36
32
43
58
54
59
56
59
54
59
43
59
59
36
43
32
49
51
42
49
54
43
51
49
46
41
ADS fan
Air flow
(actual
m3/s)
14.60
13.39
14.22
14.02
13.48
13.67
13.78
13.16
12.47
14.31
14.70
13.21
14.11
14.48
14.15
15.17
13.46
13.33
13.88
14.15
13.39
12.75
13.64
14.26
13.24
13.09
13.36
12.54
13.24
11.92
11.92
12.47
13.32

Temp.
CO
2
6
7
10
9
7
-3
-3
1
0
7
2
3
9
7
8
9
5
5
7
-4
-1
3
7
1
4
5
6
11
3
3
9
4


Z RH
100
100
100
88
93
85
y
]>/
80
100
100
100
100
94
100
100
100
100
100
100
b/
100
82
100
100
100
84
92
81
100
100
100
100

-------
Table A-12.  (Continued)
Electric power


Date 1975
Month
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
Day
10
11
13
14
20
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
19
21
22
23
28
29
30
1
2

Teat
day
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
used
Total
plant
4,800
2,880
5,280
5,040
4,080
6,720
4,560
5,760
6,480
8,880
4,320
7,920
7,920
8,640
5,520
10,080
7,680
6,720
2,640
4,080 •
7,440
6,000
6,720
7,440
6,000
5,280
6,960
6,720
6,960
6,960
5,760
6,720
6,720
4,080
7,920
(kw-hr)

Hanmermill
1,680
1,890
1,680
1,050
3,780
3,570
2,520
3,150
3,150
5,250
1,470
4,200
5,040
5,040
2,520
4,410
4,620
4,410
1,260
1,890
3,990
2,730
3,780
4,410
3,990
3,570
5,460
4,830
5,040
5.460
3,150
4,830
4,410
2,520
4,410
Equipment amps daily readings


Haupermlll
200
175
200
200
300
250
200
200
200
225
250
200
250
200
200
200
225
175
225
200
200
250
200
200
175
200
300
225
200
225
225
200
200
300
300

ADS
Ian
165
165
170
170
160
165
160
160
170
170
170
170
170
160
170
175
170
170
165
165
170
170
165
170
165
150
150
150
150
150
165
175
175
175
175
Storage
bin screw
conveyor
a/
55
35
100
a/
~85
110
a/
IlS
95
80
95
100
110
90
45
50
75
25
65
80
70
50
85
80
35
50
55
35
a/
25
130
80
A/
75
Midday
ambient

Nugge tlaer
./
68
55
75
80
90
55
45
85
60
70
70
70
55
70
55
65
70
73
70
75
90
65
65
a/
a/
30
25
20
25
50
38
55
35
55
Temp.
CO
c/
~3
-2
1
19
8
0
6
3
9
3
16
11
10
c/
~7
11
9
14
14
9
11
9
14
15
23
13
21
22
17
26
26
18
16
17
Hammennill bearing
skin temp. (°C)
I RH
c/
ll
b/
51
48
38
58
45
100
100
62
30
75
92
c/
M»
56
80
72
62
48
63
80
51
63
65
70
51
42
89
31
46
100
50
56
Inboard
c/
36
41
40
60
49
43
44
43
49
28
51
50
49
£/
II
52
43
51
52
51
50
50
51
50
46
38
49
51
46
50
47
41
56
57
Outboard
e/
38
46
48
66
54
43
54
49
51
27
52
53
52
c/
54
54
46
55
56
54
54
52
57
56
35
38
51
53
50
46
50
44
60
49
ADS fan
Air flow
(actual
mVa)
13.22
11.92
12.67
12.71
12.56
12.61
11.86
11.96
12.51
12.93
11.33
12.17
12.10
12.37
12.37
12.58
11.77
11.43
11.54
11.21
12.05
11.79
11.11
10.52
11.55
9.98
9.78
9.53
10.68
11.29
10.75
12.43
13.98
13.63
13.92

Temp.
CO
S.I
5
-1
3
18
9
1
7
5
11
5
14
14
14
£/
~7
11
12
10
14
11
12
12
14
17
22
15
19
20
21
20
23
20
13
18


I RH
c/
Too
100
100
70
100
100
100
100
100
92
88
95
93
c/
93
94
100
100
89
100
81
100
94
90
95
78
80
80
90
100
81
100
95
89

-------
                                                             Table A-12.   (Concluded)
Oi
Electric power
Equipment amps daily readings
used (kw-hr)
Date 1975 .
Month
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
9
9
9
9
Day
9
12
13
16
19
20
30
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
14
16
17
18
30
1
5
6
7
8
11
14
15
19
20
21
22
28
29
2
3
4
5
Test
day
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Total
plant
3,840
8,880
4,080
6,480
8, -160
5,040
3,840
3,600
5,520
5,280
5,280
2,400
6,720
3,360
8,160
6,480
5,520
5,520
6,720
5,040
6,480
5,280
7,200
7,200
7,920
6,480
7,680
7,680
6,720
6,480
7,200
6,960
6,240
8,160
6,000
6,480
6,240
7,440

HamnenaJ.ll
1,260
6,300
2,310
4,200
5,670
3,570
2,310
2,310
2,520
3,150
3,360
1,050
3,150
2,940
3,360
3,990
4,200
3,360
2,520
2,310
3,990
3,780
4,620
4,620
5,250
3,990
5,040
5,250
3,780
4,620
5,040
3,360
4,200
4,410
3,990
4,830
3,570
4,620

Hammermill
200
300
250
225
225
250
225
225
250
250
225
225
200
250
225
225
200
250
250
250
250
225
225
250
300
225
250
225
250
200
250
250
225
200
225
225
250
225
ADS
fan
170
175
175
160
160
170
160
170
165
155
165
170
170
170
170
175
170
165
170
165
165
170
170
175
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
165
Storage
bin screw
conveyor
55
50
55
a/
60
a/
~90
60
65
75
70
85
55
90
55
60
70
90
50
60
75
105
90
50
75
70
50
85
110
90
50
55
50
75
75
60
90
55
Midday
ambient Hamoermill bearing

Nujjgetizer
25
50
45
45
55
50
50
50
51
50
50
50
55
55
40
40
45
50
55
50
x 50
50
50
45
55
60
45
50
45
45
50
50
40
40
45
45
40
45
Temp.
CO
19
17
18
22
33
28
33
31
32
28
29
31
30
29
26
24
28
28
32
32
24
28
23
27
d/
26
27
24
26
28
32
34
31
33
34
34
27
26
skin temp. ("O
7. RH Inboard
80
79
74
52
61
65
37
50
49
62
73 '
70
50
49
52
62
45
79
74
61
95
62
73
45
d/
78
79
91
74
69
71
73
64
59
54
60
57
74
49
48
49
48
53
66
51
56
54
c/
c/
c/
c/
c/
£/
~/
57
52
56
53
49
61
58
63
d/
66
57
53
63
64
59
66
56
52
57
66
63
60
Outboard
54
43
51
49
56
56
58
66
62
c/
c/
c/
c/
c/
c/
c/
60
56
59
58
57
61
68
67
d/
61
60
57
63
72
72
66
71
68
71
70
69
56
ADS fan
Air flow
(actual
m^/s)
13.73
13.97
13.71
12.03
12.60
13.95
12.59
12.22
12.56
12.49
12.21
13.48
13.43
13.10
13.31
13.00
13.37
11.86
12.91
12.88
13.01
13.10
13.54
13.34
13.05
14.18
12.77
12.39
13.32
13.69
13.50
13.27
14.03
14.11
13.84
14.14
13.64
13.05

Temp.
('C)
22
18
19
17
28
27
31
32
32
27
28
32
31
30
25
26
29
28
31
33
24
32
23
28
c/
I?
27
26
29
29
33
35
32
34
36
36
29
26


1 RH
95
100
100
100
79
100
84
89
96
60
87
93
85
87
91
96
91
96
88
96
100
81
100
62
S.I
87
87
91
92
92
93
93
93
89
96
85
92
91
     a_/  Equipment not in operation.
     b/  Wet bulb frozen on psychrometer. % RH calculation not possible.
     c_/  Thermometers broken.
     d/  Plant shut down at 11:30 a.m. before readings taken.

-------
   Table A-13.   TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF HAMMERMILL
              DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM CYCLONE EXHAUST

Date
Month
(1974)
11
11
(1975)
4
4
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8

Day

21
22

19
21
30
1
2
16
17
18
30
1

Test day

28
29

98
99
113
114
115
123
124
125
126
127
Cyclone
Temp. (°C)

29
33

46
42
49
49
49
47
50
46
43
43
exhaust
% RH

100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Note:  Dust collection system discontinued from srevice after
         August 1, 1975.
                                146

-------
                    APPENDIX B
TABULATIONS OF DATA ON ANALYSIS OF  REFUSE  SAMPLES
                        147

-------
                                Table 0-la.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING  PLANT  MATERIAL FLOWS  AND  CHARACTERISTICS  FOR WEEK OF  SEPTEMBER  23,  1974
                                                                            (Production  week 1)
00




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. T.)
Composition (wt. %)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organ ica
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe^)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (NtO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent lesa than 38.1
Percent leas than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
1,387.0
10,697
120
27.96


52.0
8.0
1.5
1.3
1.6
0.6
2.5
33.9

25.97
5.92
1.58
0.28
0.06
0.03
0.27






7.4
92.6
82.4
59.2
38.7
24.2
16.6

12.7
3.03

52
Cyclone
discharge
1,075.6
11,444
103
27.86


58.9
3.9
2.1
1.5
0.2
O.I
3.8
29.6

18.90
1.23
1.34
0.37
0.04
0.01
0.07






3.0
97.0
92.0
71.2
47.6
31.3
20.0

9.0
3.00

S3
Storage bin
discharge
1,052.4
11,350
119
27.76


62.0
6.8
2.1
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.5
26.7

19.06
1.13
1.41
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.09

















Sit
ADS
heavies
175.5

626
5.57


1.0
0.6
2.6
4.1
76.8
3.2
4.1
7.5









10.82
51.71
2.31
0.16

3.2
96.8
86.0
19.5
6.6
2.1
1.1

24.4
1.77

S5
Magnetic belt
relecta
104.5
5,971

19.56


4.9
3.8
4.3
17.6
32.2
3.2
11.5
22.5









4.12
10.37
3.01
0.42

1.6
98.4
94.1
64.9
35.7
12.1
5.0

12.4
2.31

S6
Nuggotlzer
feed
71.0

612
0.29


tr
0.1
0
0
99.6
0.04
0
0.3









10.14
86.46
0.10
0.002

1.5
98.5
78.8
8.6
0.7
0.4
0.1

29.0
1.43

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
1.1
6,986
905
2.75


0.1
0.4
1.0
0
80.3
15.6
0.1
2.5









15.58
59.27
16.40
0.83











SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
69.9
5,189
937
0.26


0
0
0
0
99.3
0.02
0
0.7









15.04
83.62
0.08
0.002

0
100.0
99.5
63.2
9.4
1.0
0.2

16.3
1.56

-------
                                 Table  B-lb.
                                              SUMMARY OF  PROCESSING  PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 30,  1974
                                                                             (Production week  2)
VO




Quantity (Ms)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m^)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt..7.)
{tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (AljOj)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2,4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
1,400.8
10,809
135
26.68


67.4
4.2
2.7
3.2
2.2
0.4
1.7
18.6

22.91
4.66
1.83
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.15






0
100.0
97.0
72.1
45.1
23.7
11.6

9.9
2.49

S2
Cyclone
discharge
1,084.4
11,368
112
26.30


59.5
5.9
2.0
1.1
0.3
0.5
1.8
29.1

19.87
1,22
1.70
0.03
0.09
0.06
0.12






0
100. 0
98.7
83.2
58.6
38.3
24.5

6.7
2.69

S3
Storage bin
discharge
1,055.1
11,269
141
26.94


64.6
6.1
2.6
1.2
0.04
0.3
0.6
24.1

19.32
1.15
1.65
0.04
0,05
0.02
0.08

















S4
ADS
heavies
211.6
592
609
4.10


2.0
1.2
2.9
9.0
62.1
4.4
10.9
8.3









7.87
48.30
2.29
0.43

0
100.0
96.0
30.7
12.2
3.9
1.7

19.6
1.86

S5
Magnetic belt
relects
125.4
6,398
596
13.84


4.6
2.3
11.2
14.5
28.2
10.2
16.2
17.8









3.02
19.03
4.18
0.60

0.6
99.4
90.6
58.1
29.2
10.2
4.0

14.2
2.27

S6
Nugget Izer
feed
86.2

622
0.33


0.1
tr
0
0
99.9
0
0
tr









14.01
83.89
0.004
0

0.5
99.5
82.3
13,4
1.3
0.4
0,2

27.2
1.48

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
l.l
7,390
916
0.34


tr
0.2
0.3
0
86.5
12.7
0.2
0.04









13.58
66.31
15.90
0.66











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
85.1
5,171
947
0.12


0
0
0
0
98.8
0.1
0
1.1









14.60
84.59
0.07
0.06

0.1
99.9
99.7
54.6
7.7
0.5
0.2

17.5
1.57

-------
Table B-lc.   SWMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS  FOR WEEK OF OCTOBER 7, 1974
                                         (Production week 3)



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. I)
Ash
Fe (Ffi2°3)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
?b (PbO)
Si (H10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (cm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38. 1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
819.5
12,609
112
17.34

49.9
7.4
2.1
4.2
3.9
0.3
3.2
29.1
21.94
1.60
1.41
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.08




0.6
99.4
96.4
71.6
45.8
28.2
18.1

9.1
2.77

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
652.4 691.0
12,926
90
18.70

57.6
5.7
3.3
2.5
0.8
1.1
1.2
27.9
20.64
0.88
1.78
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.09




0.2
99.8
96.7
78.0
53.3
34.2
23.4

7.5
2.84

S5
Magnetic belt
relects
65.8
5,562
577
12.00

6.6
6.5
8.2
18.5
15.9
7.5
16.7
20.2






4.35
10.85
1.97
2.32
2.2
97.8
97.8
71.3
41.7
16.2
6.9

10.7
2.34
58
S7 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
relects bv-oroducts
1.0 52.7
5.291
993
0.09

tr
0.04
0
0
99.7
0.1
0
0.02






12.33
87.94
0.08
0.03
0
100.0
98.9
50.8
8.8
0.8
0.2

18.0
1.60
                                              150

-------
Table B-ld.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT  MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF OCTOBER 14, 1974
                                           (Production week 4)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (U/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m^)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe^j)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Hi (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (am)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent leas than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
705.1
10,728
139
25.80

51.6
2.3
5.4
2.9
7.1
0.2
3.1 •
26.1

22.19
0.73
1.53
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.05






0
100.0
98.1
78.0
54.2
33.1
20.0

7.6
2.70

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
531.8 519.0
11,253
107
28.98

53.5
5.5
3.4
1.2
0
0.6
6.6
29.1

16.25
0.59
1.21
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.05






0
100.0
98.5
81.9
57.6
36.9
23.0

6.8
2.71

S5
Magnetic belt
re1 ects
55.1
5,834
500
16.78

12.5
3.2
14.4
12.3
21.5
2.1
12.2
23.0









1.66
9.54
2.52
0.85

0
100.0
98.0
79.9
38.4
13.6
5.5

10.7
2.06
58
S7 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
relects by-products
0.9 34.7
5,199
982
0.14

0
0
0
0
99.7
0.1
0
0.2









10.49
87.88
0.08
0

0
100.0
100.0
49.8
7.8
0.5
0.2

18.0
1.56
                                                 151

-------
Table B-le.
             SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS  FOR WEEK OF OCTOBER 21, 1974
                                          (Production week 5)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. I)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organ ics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. *)
Ash
Fe (FejOj)
Al (Al^j)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. %)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ram)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (ma)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
704.3
11,535
107
18.96

48.1
6.6
2.2
3.7
3.2
0.4
4.3
31.6

23.90
0.49
1.36
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.05






0
100.0
97.4
72.8
47.1
30.3
16.1

8.4
2.81

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
567.0 580.1
12,356
95
20.60

57.8
4.0
3.1
1.4
0.4
0.7
3.8
28.7

18.70
0.52
1.42
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.06






0
100.0
96.6
73.3
47.2
30.7
21.8

8.4
2.87

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
61.4
7,384
506
13.02

7.9
4.5
4.8
15.2
13.0
6.5
27.2
20.8









5.36
11.91
18.07
3.23

5*9
94.1
93.4
61.2
32.0
12.2
5.3

13.5
2.38
S3
57 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
relects by-products
l.l 33.7
5,192
1,009
0.71

0
0.1
0
0
99.6
0.04
0
0.3









13.66
85.04
0.08
0.006

0
100.0
99.4
57.1
7.9
0.8
0.1

17.3
1.57
                                                152

-------
Table B-lf.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF  NOVEMBER 18, 1974
                                            (Production week 8)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. T.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr » trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe^)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Hi (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (at. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ram)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
966.0
12,134
98
18.24


55.9
5.0
5.8
1.8
5.2
0.4 .
1.3
24.6

22.40
2.03
1.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.04






0
100.0
97.2
70.0
42.3
24.3
17.0

9.7
2.69

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
815.3 836.5
12,071
75
21.84


65.2
7.2
2.1
0.5
0
0.4
2.6
22.1

17.46
0.53
1.46
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.07






1.9
98.1
92.4
65.6
39.7
24.0
16.3

10.3
2.87

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
75.7
4,990
630
14.84


4.0
3.8
6.4
23.3
3.9
3.5
31.8
23.3









2.00
6.87
4.06
0.18

0.9
99.1
94.9
67.7
34.9
11.9
4.5

12.4
2.23

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
1.1
6,504
1,008
0.21


0
0.7
0.4
0
89.8
9.0
0
0.1









12.89
72.96
11.59
0.36











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
49.8
5,201
976
0.09


tr
tr
0
0
99.8
0.1
0
0.1









60.74
68.64
0.60
0.04

0
100.0
97.3
48.5
5.8
0.5
0.2

18.8
1.58
                                                 153

-------
Table B-lg.
SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS  FOR WEEK OF NOVEMBER 25, 1974
                              (Production week 9)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 1)
Composition (wt. I)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. I)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (AljO.)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. It)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size {m)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
420.0
11,778
96
20.20

74.5
10.6
2.7
2.7
3.2
0.9
0.3
5.1

19.31
0.91
1.20
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.06






8.2
91.8
90.7
75.6
44.2
24.4
16.3

9.7
2.93

S2
Cyc lone
discharge
315.6
12,890
83
17.40

59.8
4.7
2.2
3.2
0
0.5
0.2
16.8

22.30
1.12
1.40
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.06






12.5
87.5
83.3
61.1
38.9
27.8
19.4

11.2
3.45

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
302.7 31.8
8,050
556
14.90

7.0
2.7
10.3
27.8
19.6
0.5
27.0
5.1









0.68
5.28
2.89
0.17

6.8
93.2
87.3
63.7
37.2
14.0
5.3

13.0
2.58

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.5
6,454
995
0.26

0
0.5
0
0
91.7
7.8
0
0









8.98
77.80
10.97
0.50











SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
20.8
5,200
988
0.08

0
0
0
0
99.9
0.1
0
0









9.99
88.93
0.20
0

0
100.0
96.9
59.9
11.4
1.0
0.2

16.5
1.67
                                                 154

-------
Table B-lh.
             SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF DECEMBER 2,  1974
                                           (Production week 10)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. %)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr « trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Ash
Fe (Fe20j)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1

Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4. 8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (ant)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
476.8
10,177
123
21.50


67.6
2.8
0.6
6.0
7.6
0.2
tr
15.2
28.10
1.25
2.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.07






0
100.0
96.6
69.3
37.5
22.7
14.8

10.2
2.68

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
417.8 380.5
11,983
70
24.50


88.0
3.0
tr
1.3
0
0
0
7.7
18.60
0.52
1.14
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.11






4.2
95.8
95.8
65.3
38.9
22.2
15.3

10.4
2.82

S5
Magnetic belt
reject*
32.3
6,908
465
19.60


5.0
0
0
6.4
23.1
0
36.4
29.1







5.86
9.89
2.01
0.06

0
100.0
100.0
53.1
19.7
6.2
3.2

15.2
1.98

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.9
6,273
950
0.14


0
0.1
0
0
93.8
6.1
0
0







6.99
79.89
9.99
0.30











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
25.8
5,162
916
0.06


0
0.1
0
0
99.6
0.3
0
0







7.00
91.95
0.10
0

0
100.0
100.0
44.0
4.9
0.3
0.1

19.1
1.52
                                                  155

-------
Table B-ll.
             SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLAtTT MATERIAL FLOWS  AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF DECEMBER 9,
                                          (Production week 11)



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. Z)
Composition (wt. X)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnet ic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Clieralcal analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe*03>
Al (Al-,0-,1
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Hi (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (m)
Percent larger than 63. 5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (an)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
252.2
12,404
64
22.90

85.0
2.4
0
5.9
0.3
tr
1.2
5.2
16.00
0.45
1.33
0.01
0.03
J.02
0.03





3.9
96.1
92.1
68.6
31.4
15.7
11.8

11.9
2.62

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
232.9 362.1
14,049
58
11.90

84.1
5.0
0.4
1.3
0
0
0
9.2
17.37
0.45
1.44
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.04





0
100.0
95.2
62.9
30.6
19.3
14.5

11.4
J.70

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
10.0
5,600
646
14.50

12.8
0.4
0.1
33.6
2.5
3.9
45.3
1.4






1.28
7.87
2.99
l!ll

0
100.0
90.5
68.7
31.5
11.3
5.1

11.1
2.:n

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.5
b,639
937
0.23

0
1.3
0.1
0
86.5
12.0
0
0.1






10.68
71.93
13.67
0.30











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
8.9
5,210
905
0.22

tr
0.2
0
0
99.8
0
0
tr






8.48
90.20
0.20
0.01

0
100.0
100.0
52.7
6.0
0.1
0

18.0
1.52
                                                 156

-------
Table B-1J.
SUttURY OF PROCESSING PLANT  MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF DECEMBER 30. 1974
                             (Production week 13)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. %)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other aetals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe*0..)
Al (Al^j)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. I)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (ma)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
704.7
10,799
99
31.20


42.0
2.2
2.4
0
4.5
0.4
22.2
26.3

15.87
0.43
1.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03





0
100.0
91.7
59.2
35.0
19.2
13.4

11.7
2.78

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
531.1 486.1
11.459
80
28.70


86.5
4.2
2.5
0
0
0
0
6.8

14.79
0.45
1.25
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.04





0.5
99.5
95.2
61.9
35.8
21.7
14.5

10.9
2.76

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
53.6
5,898
16
17.00


10.6
1.8
13.8
25.8
6.2
4.4
27.6
9.8









0.42
7.22
2.32
0.42
0
100.0
93.9
70.9
34.3
7.0
1.7

12.7
2.05

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
1.1
6,111
1,014
0.26


0
0.7
0
0
90.2
8.4
0.2
0.5









15.06
74.90
7.68
0.39










S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
66.6
5,239
899
0.16


0
0
0
0
99.9
tr
0
0.1









11.18
87.66
0.04
0
0
100.0
100.0
63.5
3.5
0.1
0

17.0
1.46
                                                157

-------
          Table B-lk.   SUMMARY  OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JANUARY 6, 1974
                                                  (Production week 14)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. i)
Composition (wt. 1)
(tr » trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analvsis (wt. 11
Ash
Fe (FejOj)
Al (A12O3)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. %)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ran)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
605.3
6,478
104
20.90


44.3
3.0
3.7
12.5
9.9
1.0
4.8
20.8

24.28
1.48
1.74
0.16
0.06
0.02
0.05






0
100.0
100.0
76.5
44.9
26.4
15.2

8.6
2.56

S2
Cyclone
discharge
442.9
13,717
96
23.40


64.3
14.1
1.0
0.4
0
0.8
0
19.4

21.26
1.39
1.37
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.05






0
100.0
98.9
64.5
37.8
22.2
15.5

10.4
2.70

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
455.8 33.3
3,768
633
6.90


1.0
1.0
2.3
13.3
67.2-'
2.5
8.4
4.3









6.89
52.60
1.21
0.47

12.8
87.2
30.7
8.3
2.7
1.8
0.9

38.9
1.79

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.7
6,211
1,019
0.07


tr
0.2
0.4
tr
87.3
11.8
0
0.3









12.09
75.35
9.69
0.80











S3
Ferrous
metal
by-products
23.6
5,206
924
0.08


0
0
0
0
100^'
0
0
tr









12.69
86.43
0.05
0.002

0
100.0
99.1
60.3
13.0
1.6
0.1

16.0
1.66
£/  Nuggetlzer down for 3 days.  During these 3 days (Tuesday through Thursday)  all  S5  was  stockpiled and rerun
      through plant when nuggetizer was back In operation on Friday.
                                                        158

-------
Table B-U.
             SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JANUARY 13,
                                        (Production week IS)
                                                                                                 1975




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. T)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic*
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. I)
Ash
Fe (FejOj)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (N1O)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. I)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (cm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (an)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
463.8
12,757
70
21.20


56.0
6.6
0.3
1.6
12.9
1.1
4.1
17.4.

16.52
0.61
1.22
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.05






2.5
97.5
88.6
55.7
25.3
13.9
8.8

14.2
2.59

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
394.6 450.6
11,915
83
22.50


86.9
2.1
0.7
0.2
0
0
0.5
9.6

19.81
0.54
1.42
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.05






0
100.0
98.8
69.9
35.0
18.1
13.3

10.7
2.51

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
41.1
5,706
711
10.60


0.1
0.8
1.1
17.3
56.4
0.6
18.6
5.1









6.62
42.82
2.33
0.05

0
100.0
94.2
44.1
15.9
4.5
1.8

17.5
1.96

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.1
6,347
1,001
0.23


0
0.5
0.3
tr
71.9
23.3
0
4.0









9.98
70.84
12.47
1.50











S8
Ferrous
ostal
bv-oroducts
28.0
5,244
1,033
0.11


0.1
tr
0
tr
99.7
0.1
0
0.1









11.79
86.80
0.07
0

0
100.0
100.0
62.8
14.2
0.4
0.1

15.7
1.62
                                                159

-------
Table B-lm.
             SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JANUARY  20,
                                        (Production week  16)
                                                                                                 1975



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/a3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. X)
(tr - trsce)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic*
Miscellaneous
Chenlcal analysis (wt. t)
Ash
Fe (FejOj)
Al (Al-0 )
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ml (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. tt
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Slff (m)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle site
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
632.0
14,573
77
9.25

57.1
3.2
3.2
5.9
7.3
0.9
1.1
21.3
18.70
0.77
1.47
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.05




2.5
97.5
96.3
67.9
33.3
18.5
11.1

11.2
2.56

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge dlscturi*
533.9 508.1
14.260
83
7.92

64.4
1.9
1.7
4.4
0
0
4.2
23.4
22.65
0.67
1.58
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.10




0
100.0
96.2
66.2
33.7
18.7
12.4

11.2
2.58

S5
Magnetic belt
relects
48.8
6,065
703
7.44

0.4
0.9
1.9
20.8
44.6
7.7
9.2
14.5





2.68
28.51
7.68
0.19

0
100.0
100.0
59.1
28.6
8.4
3.4

13.5
2.08

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.9
6,742
1,020
0.05

0
0.3
0
tr
90.7
8.2
tr
0.8





9.90
75.26
10.60
0.90











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
24.7
5,213
995
0.03

0
0
0
0
99.8
0.2
0
tr





12.20
86.57
0.10
0.001

0
100.0
98.7
57.5
8.0
0.3
0

17.3
1.57
                                               160

-------
Table B-ln.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JANUARY 27, 1975
                                        (Production week 17)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. X)
Composition (wt. £)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe20j)
Al (Al20j)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 70
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
661.8
10,232
130
29.90


55.9
3.5
0.2
8.2
8.9
0.5 .
0.2
22.6

20.22
0.30
1.61
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.04






2.9
97.1
97.1
71.4
52.8
34.2
18.5

8.1
2.91

52
Cyclone
discharge
541.1
10,339
104
27.80


62.0
2.5
1.2
3.1
0
0.3
3.1
27.8

22.81
0.48
1.67
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.07






0
100.0
92.0
50.0
36.4
20.5
12.5

12.5
2.85

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge relecta
547.6 62.2
5,942
607
6.93


0.8
1.3
0.9
5.9
69.2
8.5
9.7
3.7









4.00
54.91
1.77
0.65

6.9
93.1
67.9
37.0
14.4
2.0
0.7

23.1
2.15

S7
Magnetic drum
relecta
0.5
7,472
982
0.58


tr
0
0
tr
94.3
4.9
0
O.g









8.65
68.60
18.39
0.60











S3
Ferrous
metal
by-products
15.5
5,203
956
0.13


0
0
0
0
99.8
tr
0
0.2









8.39
89.98
0.04
0.002

0
100.0
100.0
62.0
7.2
0.4
0

16.8
1.53
                                               161

-------
Table B-lo.
             SUMMARY OF  PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS  AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR KEEK OF FEBRUARY 3. 1975
                                         (Production week 18)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (U/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. 1)
(tr = trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. I)
Ash
Fe (Fe^-)
Al (A120 )
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (NIO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. I)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4. 8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle alie
Geometric mean diameter (ran)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
652.5
11.962
111
21.70


69.4
2.4
2.3
4.0
9.7
0.8
0.7
10.7

21.53
1.03
1.34
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.06






0.7
99.3
97.4
36.6
21.4
11.6
7.7

16.0
2.40

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
492.7 482.5
11,822
64
24.40


75.2
3.2
0.4
1.1
0
0.1
1.1
18.9

17.69
0.35
1.37
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.08






3.2
96.8
88.9
63.5
36.5
15.9
9.6

12.2
2.67

S5
Magnetic belt
relects
42.9
5,048
626
17.10


1.1
tr
0
45.2
5.6
7.5
30.8
9.8









2.16
5.72
1.66
0.17

0
100.0
100.0
80.0
41.9
10.4
2.2

10.7
1.95

57
Magnetic drum
relects
0.7
6,468
1,033
0.22


0
0.7
0
0.1
88.0
10.2
0
1.0









11.18
74.74
10.68
0.50











se
Ferrous
metal
by-products
33.7
5,343
988
0.18


0
0
0
0
98.5
1.3
0
0.2









7.19
90.44
0.60
0.10

0
100.0
100.0
55.2
14.1
1.8
0.2

16.5
1.69
                                               162

-------
Table B-lp.
SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLAJfT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF FEBRUARY 10, 1975
                            (Production week 19)




Quantity (Hg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. T.)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (FejOj)
Al (AljOj)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis {wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mn)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent leas than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mn)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
378.0
10,277
123
19.20


70.9
1.8
0.7
0.4
2.1
0.4
4.4
19. 3~

22.62
1.37
1.11
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.08






3.0
97.0
91.0
72.0
43.0
25.0
16.0

9.7
2.88

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
320.1 372.5
11,775
77
17.80


67.6
6.6
0.4
7.7
0
0.4
0
17.3

23.30
1.06
1.42
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.12






0
100.0
92.9
74.3
13.4
8.4
6.1

14.0
2.09

85
Magnetic belt
rejects
31.0
6,456
711
14.10


0.1
0.2
2.3
38.3
22.0
5.1
27.3
4.7









2.49
9.02
5.24
0.04

0
100.0
94.6
56.0
24.6
4.9
2.0

15.2
2.03

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.6
6,033
1,001
0.16


tr
0.1
0
tr
93.9
5.3
0
0.7









13.58
76.98
5.89
0.30











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
26.3
5.195
916
0.03


tr
tr
0
0
100.0
tr
0
tr









9.00
89.37
0.07
0

0
100.0
97.8
52.1
8.0
0.5
0.1

18.0
1.60
                                                163

-------
Table B-lq.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF FEBRUARY 17. 1975
                                    (1 day only—February 20, 1975)
                                        (Production week 20)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/or3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr = trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other nets Is
Organ ics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 1)
Ash
Fe (Fe^,)
Al (AljOj)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (N1O)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. ")
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Ceo™ trie oean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
86.9
11,558
90
21.50


57.4
5.3
0.4
7.6
10.0
0.6
3.1
15.6

24.81
0.72
1.20
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.06





0
100.0
94.4
39.9
24.3
14.3

10.9
2.89

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
70.7 70.7
13.121
59
18.50


70.8
4.0
0.4
7.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
16.0

16.63
1.33
2.39
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.07





0
100.0
78.3
27.7
15.7
9.7

16,5
2.87

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
4.6
5.866
879
12.00


0
tr
0
56.5
2.4
9.9
12.0
19.2









7.13
20.68
1.14
1.06
6.0
94.0
81.2
52 1
24.7
7.4
3.0

16.8
2.40

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.2
7.430
1,067
0.08


0
0.2
0
0.1
87.7
11.2
0
0.8









12.09
72.64
12.99
0.30









68
Ferrous
metal
by-products
5.5
5,109
1,149
0.07


0
0
0
0
99.7
0.2
0
0.1









3.30
95.63
0.20
0
0
100.0
95.4
31.6
4.8
0.5
0.3

21.3
1.58
                                               164

-------
Table B-lr.
             SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MARCH 3, 1975
                                        (Production week 21)




Quantity 
-------
Table B-ls.
             SUMMARY  OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL PLOWS AMD CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MARCH  10,
                                       (Production wetk  22)
                                                                                               1975




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. X)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glasa
Magnetic metal
Other awtals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analyst, (wt. V
Ash
Fe (Fe-0«)
Al (Al^)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. TL)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle site
Ceoaetrlc scan diameter (am)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
516.8
12,288
109
20.50


65.4
3.5
0.8
12.1
11. 1
1.3
0
5.8

24.41
9.35
1.71
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.16






0
100.0
97.4
77.4
49.6
29.6
18.3

8.1
2.71

S2
Cyc lone
discharge
382.4
12.241
77
26.00


76.7
2.6
0.6
3.8
0
0
0
16.3

18.65
2.65
1.79
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.06






11.3
88.7
76.7
42.0
29.3
18.0
12.0

16.0
3.17

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge reiacts
330.7 38.4
4,354
646
13.90


1.3
1.2
0.4
44.2
10.0
5.5
21.4
16.0









7.32
10.76
3.87
1.29

0
100.0
93.1
66.9
31.5
8.6
3.5

13.0
2.17

SI
Magnetic drum
relccts
0.5
6,849
1,014
0.07


0
0.3
0
tr
89.0
10.1
tr
0.6









21.19
63.96
12.49
0.10











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
22.8
5.281
982
0.16


0
0
0
0
99.9
0.1
0
tr









8.89
90.16
0.10
0

0
100.0
99.0
59.3
8.5
0.2
0.1

17.0
1.57
                                             166

-------
Table B-lt.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MARCH 17, 1975
                                    <1  day  only—March 20, 1975)
                                        (Production week  23)




Quantity (Kg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/n3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. Z)
Aah
Fe (FejOj)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ml (NIC)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (car)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
152.4
11,251
117
20.80


53.1
12.5
5.2
1.1
3.9
0.2
2.6-
21.4

26.29
1.39
1.77
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.11






0
100.0
99.5
71.3
49.3
35.4
25.4

7.6
2.97

52
Cyclone
discharge
114.7
10, 268
63
27.10


70.3
5.1
3.1
tr
0
0
tr
21.5

24.13
0.83
1.70
0.02
0.05
0.02
O.OS






1.7
98.3
96.6
84.7
59.3
39.8
27.1

6.4
2.84

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge relects
107.9 12.4
10.830
686
0.11


0
0.7
4.2
34.0
14.8
6.5
24.5
15.3









1.50
10.69
10.49
1.10

0
100.0
93.8
59.2
26.6
7.1
3.0

14.5
2.13

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
0.2
6,271
1,044
1.18


0
0.8
0.1
0.3
79.6
16.1
0.1
3.0









69.37
17.99
9.19
0.41











SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
8.6
4.453
1,008
14.40


0
0
0
0
99.8
0.2
0
tr









8.52
76.18
0.15
0

0
100.0
100.0
62.8
12.8
1.7
0.4

15.7
1.65
                                              167

-------
         Table  B-lu.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MARCH 24,
                                                 (Production week 24)
                                                                                                          1975




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. *)
Composition (wt. *.)
(tr » trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Class
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analvsis (wt. ",\
Ash
Fe iFe?0.,)i''
Al (AljOj)i'
Cu (CuO)i/
Pb (PbO)i'
Nt (SiO)i'
Zn (ZaO)i'
Visual analysis (wt. ?,)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ran)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particles size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
1,224.8
11,062
128
22.47


58.5
4.1
2.3
1.8
7.9
0.5
2.1
22.7

:6.16
0.58
1.70
0.11
0.05
0.01
0.09






0.0
100.0
94.9
70.1
44.5
29.6
18.5

9.1
2.86

S2
Cyclone
discharge
983.6
10,787
91
25.22


57.2
7.4
3.2
2.9
1.4
tr
1.8
26.1

23.35
0.48
1.35
0.18
0.04
0.01
0.06






0.4
99.6
92.5
70.5
48.0
31.8
22.7

8.6
3.06

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge relects
1,119.6 70.8
5,932
727
15.29


1.2
1.5
3.1
31.0
15.5
6.4
20.2
21.0









3.51
7.23
3.52
0.73

2.1
97.9
93.3
66.7
33.8
11.7
5.4

12.5
2.32

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
1.3
6,946
1,041
0.44


0
0.8
0.4
0.1
86.8
10.6
0.1
1.2









17.58
62.33
14.79
0.47











SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
64.4
5,259
1,000
0.15


0
0.
0
0
99.8
0.1
0
0.1









16.84
83.22
0.21
0

0.0
100.0
99.4
59.7
13.3
1.4
0.2

16.2
1.64
«_/  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                        168

-------
        Table B-lv.   SUMMARY OF  PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MARCH 31,  1975
                                                 (Production week  25)




quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. Z)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. I)
Ash
Fe (FejOj)-/
Al (Al^)-^
Cu (CuO)l/
Pb (PbO)i/
Nl (NiO)£/
Zn (ZnO)V
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (am)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric atean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
1,382.0
11,265
102
19.64


60.1
3.9
1.7
3.7
6.4
0.5 .
4.2
19.6

25.10
1.82
2.49
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.06






0.9
99.1
94.1
63.8
41.3
23.6
15.8

10.5
2.81

52 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
1,130.9 1,130.9
11,096
94.5
24.15


68.4
5.9
3.5
2.4
1.1
0.1
2.3
16.3

26.55
1.12
1.72
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.06






0.3
99.7
95,7
69.3
50.4
26.2
18.4

8.9
2.82

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
54.2
5,438
755
12.21


0.3
2.5
1.8
29.8
15.1
6.3
27.4
16.8









5.83
9.99
3.87
0.83

0.5
99.5
90.6
63.5
35.6
12.9
6.3

12.8
2.39

S7
Magnetic drum
reiects
1.5
6,301
1,052
0.11


0
0.2
0.1
tr
89.7
8.9
tr
1.0









19.81
67.65
10.05
0.88











38
Ferrous
metal
by-products
51.7
5,171
1,001
0.18


0
0
0
0
99.9
0.1
0
tr









15.11
84.40
0.11
0.03

0.0
100.0
99.2
55.1
9.7
0.6
0.1

17*3
1.60
a/  Data taken from weekly  composite.
                                                        169

-------
          Table B-lv.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT  MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF APRIL 7, 1973
                                                  (Production week  26)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/a3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. Z)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. X)
Ash
Fe (Fe20j)i/
Al (AljOj)*/
Cu (CuO)I/
Pb (PbO)i/
Si (SiO).2/
Zn (ZnO)i/
Visual analysis (wt. Z)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (on)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (nm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
1,333.2
10,576
111
17.67


56.4
4.5
3.2
2.9
5.0
0.7
6.1
21.4

31.15
1.21
1.86
0.02
0.22
0.02
0.10






0.7
99.3
96.3
67.1
47.8
29.7
21.3

8.9
2.94

S2
Cyclone
discharge
1,002.7
11,492
86.5
15.36


68.8
3.6
4.0
3.4
0.2
0.3
2.1
17.6

27.67
0.99
1.83
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.06






0.2
99.8
95.9
68.0
43.8
27.3
19.8

9.3
2.87

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
1,016.3 88.9
5,535
708
13.02


0.1
1.2
5.2
25.1
14.1
4.7
28.1
22.5









7.62
12.72
3.28
0.71

1.8
98.2
97.0
68.2
33.1
10.5
4.9

12.5
2.18

37
Magnetic drum
rejects
1.3
6,516
1,064
0.08


0
0.5
0.3
0.1
83.3
14.4
0.1
1.2









19.49
68.33
11.16
0.43











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
66.8
5.147
979
0.23


0
0
0
0
99.9
0.1
tr
tr









16.05
82.79
0.28
0

0.0
100.0
98.9
50.0
8.5
6.7
0.1

18.0
1.60
a_/  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                        170

-------
       Table B-lx.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS  AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF APRIL 14-16,  1975
                                                 (Production week 27)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (FejO.,)— '
Al (AljO,)!/
Cu (CuO)— '
Pb (PbO)^/
Hi (NiO)l/
Zn (ZnO)— '
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
839.1
9,854
115
22.73


56.7
5.9
6.2
4.6
3.9
0.3
4.4
18.0

29.08
3.36
4.46
0.06
0.23
0.05
0.16






0.0
100.0
95.7
76.7
52.6
32.2
22.5

7.7
2.87

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
688.1 688.1
11,274
91
22.67


62.7
3.6
4.3
2.3
0
0.5
3.1
23.6

22.99
2.96
5.76
0.05
0.16
0.05
0.19






0.0
100.0
95.5
76.0
49.8
29.8
20.6

8.1
2.82

S5
Magnetic belt
relects
56.0
5,630
634
14.97


0.4
1.0
3.4
19.6
5.6
6.3
26.4
37.3









4.60
12.20
2.57
0.64

0.0
100.0
92.9
59.7
29.7
11.3
6.0

14.0
2.22

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
0.6
6,423
1,100
0.09


0
0.5
tr
tr
91.9
6.5
0
1.1









14.35
73.27
10.39
0.62











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
28.7
5,170
948
0.11


tr
0
0
0
99.8
0.1
0
0.1









10.82
88.27
0.13
0

0.0
100.0
98.6
52.0
10.2
0.8
0.2

17.6
1.63
£/  Data taken from weekly  composite.
                                                         171

-------
        Table B-ly.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF APRIL 18-23, 1975
                                   FINE GRIND 32 MM DIAMETER HAWERMILL GRATE OPENINGS
                                                  (Production week 28)



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk denalty (kg/a3)
Moisture (vt. X)
Composition (vt. Z)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glaaa
Magnetic natal
Other Mtala
Organlca
Miscellaneous
Chemical analvals (vt. I)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)t/
Al (AljOOW
Cu (CuO)£/
Pb (PbO)b/
HI (N10)£/
Zn (ZnO)f
Visual analvala (vt. V>
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (on)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent lesa than 63.5
Percent leaa than 38.1
Percent leaa than 19.1
Percent leaa than 9.5
Percent leaa than 4.8
Percent leaa than 2.4
Partlcl^jlte
Geometric mean dlanecer (an)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
dlacharge
869.2
9,477
147
24.60


53.5
3.7
3.0
2.2
7.1
0.6
6.5
23.8

25.71
0.85
1.72
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.07






0.0
100.0
99.8
93.3
65.2
41.8
27.7

5.3
2.33

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
dlacharge discharge^
641.6 641.6
9,631
135
25.08


58.0
3.8
2.9
1.8
0
0.1
3.4
29.8

26.15
0.96
1.82
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.07






0.0
100.0
100.0
87.9
74.0
51.1
36.3

4.4
2.33

S5
Magnetic belt
relects
64.8
4,465
796
7.17


0.5
1.6
5.6
32.2
31.1
5.7
7.6
26.6









4.47
23.57
3.10
0.54

0.0
100.0
100.0
91.7
50.9
16.6
6.0

8.6
1.94

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
0.6
8,258
1,376
1.08


0
tr
0.1
0.1
98.1
1.3
tr
0.4









16.60
79.72
1.01
0.01











S8
Ferrous
metal
bv-preducts
38.9
8,368
1,286
0.10


0
0
0
0
99.9
tr
0
0.1









16.08
83.39
0.11
0.01

0.0
100.0
100.0
93.4
39.6
3.7
0.3

10.4
1.59
ay  Storage bin completely eopty at start and finish  of  fine grind  test.
      cyclone discharge S2.
b/  Data taken from veekly coBioslte.
Storage bin discharge S3 equals
                                                        172

-------
      Table B-lz.  SUMMARY OF PFOCESSIHG PLANT MATERIALS FUOWS USD CHARACTERISTICS FOR MEEK OF APRIL 28,  1975
                                              • (Production week 29)



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. Z)
Composition (wt. X)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Hood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. Z)
Ash
Fe (Pe^Oj)S.'
Al (AljOjW
Cu (CuO)-'
Pb (PbO)-^
HI (N10)l/
Zn (ZnO)i'
Visual analysis (wt. Z)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ma)
Percent larger than 63,5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
1,084.3
8,018
178
31.94


40.6
3.1
5.0
3.1
5.5
0.7
8.0
34.0

29.21
1.10
1.72
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.13






0.4
99.6
99.4
87.8
61.1
37.4
23.8

6.4
2.56

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge dlscharRe
859.7 669.2
9,210
120
31.48


54.2
2.7
3.7
3.6
0
0.1
9.3
26.5

23.10
1.00
1.75
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.08






0.0
100.0
96.0
83.1
57.9
36.9
24.7

6.9
2.77

S5
Magnetic belt
refects
75.1
4,670
681
14.24


0.6
1.4
4.9
28.2
14.6
4.6
19.7
26.1








7.13
3.19
0.51


0.0
100.0
95.1
65.7
35.6
11 7
4 4

12.3
2.24
S8
S7 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
retects bv-nroducts
0.9 40.3
6,484 5,127
1,048 910
0.35 0.09

On
V
0.4 0
0.1 tr
0.2 0
83.9 99.6
13.9 0.1
tr 0
1.5 0.3







22,16 13.99
64.23 85.32
10.23 0.19
0.42 0

0.0
100.0
99.4
49.3
6.7
0.7
0.1

18.3
1.56
a/  Data  taken from weekly composite.
                                                         173

-------
          Table B-laa.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLAKT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MAY  5,
                                                  (Production ueek 30)
                                                                                                          1975




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (Icg/m3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. %)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic*
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. X)

SI
Mill
discharge
54.8
8,789
149
36.90


50.3
3.1
0.5
4.4
5.5
0.5
14.1
21.6


52
Cyclone
discharge
44.2
9,815
123
30.40


44.2
5.2
6.9
5.2
0
0
8.7
29.8


S3 55
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
275.5 4.4
5,368
620
11.70


0.5
0.7
3.3
22.2
21.2
12.2
10.9
29.0


S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.2
5,106
1.240
0.12


0
0.1
0
tr
98.1
1.4
0
0.4

38
Ferrous
metal
by-products
2.1
5,020
1,136
0.18


0
0
0
0
99.8
0.1
0
0.1

Ash
Fe
Al
Cu (CuO)!'
Pb (PbO)i/
Hi (HIO)*/
Zn (ZnQ)i/
Visual analysis (wt.
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
                                    19.56
                                                19.91
6.18
10.51
4.77
0.88
29.96
64.82
1.30
0.08
18.97
78.66
0.09
0
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
  0.0
100.0
100.0
 92.3
 69.6
 40.7
 24.2
                                                 0.0
                                               100.0
                                               100.0
                                                96.5
                                                68.1
                                                48.2
                                                33.3
 5.0
95.0
88.2
56.6
23.5
 5.7
 2.0
  0.0
100.0
100.0
 75.8
 14.1
  1.5
  0.0
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (on)
Geometric standard deviation
  5.0
  2.20
                                                 4.8
                                                 2.46
16.0
 2.19
 14.3
  1.57
±/  No composite due to small sample (54.8 Mg processed).
                                                        174

-------
         Table B-lbb.   SUMMARY  OF  PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MAY 12,  1975
                                                 (Production week 31)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (W/fcg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (vC. 7.)
Composition (vt. 7.)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic s
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (fe^^S-f
Al (Al203)3y
Cu (CuO)S-f
n (PbO)J/
Hi (NiO)^/
Zn (ZnO)—
Visual analysis (wt. 7,)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
725.0
8,428
173
31.23


33.1
3.9
8.0
2.3
5.7
0.5
24.0
22.5

26.74
1.01
1.64
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.07






0.7
99.3
99.1
89.8
63.7
40.3
25.0

6.0
2.54

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
566.8 539.6
9,236
144
33.43


41.3
4.0
4.1
4.8
0
1.1
-15.8
28.9

22.25
0.91
1.48
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.05






0.0
100.0
100.0
92.3
73.8
51.8
33.9

4.7
2.50

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
50.3
5,903
602
17.30


2.3
0.7
3.5
23.5
25.1
8.9
15.3
20.6









3.23
15.76
3.06
0.47

1.4
98.6
97.6
68.1
35.5
13.8
5.5

12.4
2.22

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.5
6,576
1,040
0.32


tr
0.3
0.1
tr
86.8
10.9
0.1
1.1









18.84
67.09
11.96
0.31











38
Ferrous
metal
by-products
15.9
5,129
985
0.22


0
0
0
0
99.9
tr
tr
0.1









16.17
82.91
0.14
0

0.0
100.0
100.0
62.3
11.9
1.0
0.2

16.0
1.61
£/  Data  taken  from weekly composite.
                                                        175

-------
          Table B-lcc.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF MAY 19,  1975
                                                  (Production week 32)



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/t.3)
Moisture (wt. J)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr » trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Class
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. ?.)
Ash
Fe (FejO-j)^
Al (A1203)A/
Cu (CuO)i/
Pb (PbO)^
SI (NiO)S/
Zn ( ZnO)— /
Visual analysis (wt. %)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (m)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
466.7
9.898
139
20.40

44.3
2.9
2.0
8.6
5.2
0.5
8.5
27.8
28.33










0.0
100.0
98.5
93.1
67.5
43.8
28.6

5.4
2.52

52
Cyclone
discharge
389.5
10,404
123
22.40

48.3
7.9
3.3
3.1
0.9
3.6
4.5
28.4
26.55










0.0
100.0
98.3
91.9
57.1
41.1
28.3

6.1
2.66

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge relects
389.5 23.4
6,756
638
10.15

0.5
1.6
3.1
24.1
16.5
10.6
14.6
27.9







4.09
13.07
3.28
0,25
2.5
97.5
87.2
57.0
24.7
8.7
3.1

16.2
2.15

S7
Magnetic drum
refects
0.5
5,618
1,137
0.04

0
0.3
tr
tr
95.9
3.4
tr
0.4







21.89
73.13
4.3
0.21










S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
17.8
5,139
988
0.02

0
0
0
0
99.9
tr
0
0.1







16.65
82.73
0.15
0
0.0
100.0
100.0
63.5
7.7
0.7
0.2

16.4
1.55
a/  Ho composite due to hammermill breakdown.
                                                        176

-------
         Table  B-ldd.
                       SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS  FOR WEEK OF JUNE 30, 1975
                                                 (Production week 36)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. *)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe^j)^'
Al (Al203)£/
Cu (CuO)l/
Pb (PbO)l/
Ni (NiO)^
Zn (ZnO)l/
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Slze (nm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (on)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Hill
discharge
450.7^
10,154
131
20.88


47.8
4.1
3.3
3.6
7.2
1.0
5.8
27.2

27.32
1.14
2.32
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.12






0
100.0
95.2
80.2
53.5
34.9
23.5

7.6
2.80

S2
Cyclone
discharge
362.8
10,303
107
23.73


68.8
3.5
2.5
1.9
0
0
1.8
21.3

24.43
0.76
2.53
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.08






0
100.0
98.0
87.8
61.9
44.0
30.7

5.8
2.75

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
390.0 40.8
6,730
623
13.82


2.4
2.4
3.7
30.1
13.8
4.3
25.6
18.1









4.04
14.99
5.87
0.84

3.3
96.8
93.3
61.8
29.6
11.8
5.1

14.0
2.27

S7
Magnetic drum
relecta
0.6
5,889
1,059
0.30


0
0.2
tr
tr
91.7
7.6
0
0.5









14.06
78.01
6.41
0.25











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
28.1
5,138
958
0.18


0
0
0
0
99.9
tr
0
0.3









16.82
82.43
0.16
0

0
100.0
99.7
60.8
9.7
1.2
0.2

16.5
1.59
£/  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                        177

-------
          Table B-lee.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT  MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JULY 7, 1975
                                                  (Production week 37)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (ut. X)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr • trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic oetal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe^)^/
AI (AI^B)!'
Cu (CuO)a/
Pb (PbO)Jl/
Si (HiO)2/
Zn (ZnO)l/
Visual analysis (wt. ">.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38. 1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (on)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
792.2
9,430
142
31.82


47.1
2.5
5.0
1.6
5.8
0.7
9.0
28.3

21.50
1.36
1.51
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.11






2.0
98.0
97.7
86.9
63.1
41.5
27.4

6.1
2.76

S2
Cyclone
discharge
650.7
8,979
132
32.58


62.0
2.1
3.4
1.8
0
0
5.1
25.6

22.02
0.77
1.29
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.05






0
100.0
99.0
88.0
62.4
44.3
29.1

5.8
2.66

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
705.2 43.1
4,956
599
15.90


0.4
1.2
7.4
27.0
11.3
5.1
25.3
22.2









2.59
16.05
6.94
0.35

0.8
99.2
95.8
61.9
25.3
9.7
4.2

13.8
2.16

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
0.9
5,925
989
0,21


0
0.2
tr
0
91.5
7.4
0
0.9









17.64
76.12
6.29
0.20











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
15.9
5,132
938
0.18


0
0
0
0
99.7
tr
0
0.2









15.45
84.19
0.12
0

0
100.0
99.7
56.6
6.7
1.0
0.2

17.3
1.57
a_/  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                       178

-------
        Table B-lff.
                      SUMMARY  OF  PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JULY  14,  1975
                                                (Production week 38)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr = trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other aetals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe20j)— '
Al (AlTOi)-/
Cu (CuO)£/
Pb (PbO)J./
Hi (NiO)S/
Zn (ZnO)i/
Visual analysis (wt. ",)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ran)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
834.0
9,958
141
27.85


46.6
2.1
7.2
4.5
4.7
0.8
13.1
20.9

25.48
0.87
1.15
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.10






0
100.0
99.3
84.9
56.7
35.4
21.4

6.9
2.58

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
739.9 603.8
10,120
109
25.58


52.5
7.8
3.8
4.6
0
0.4
3.8
27.2

16.04
0.69
1.37
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.06






1.0
99.0
97.0
72.9
47.8
32.8
21.3

3.5
2.85

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
61.1
5,150
660
11.42


0.7
1.0
5.4
38.4
12.5
4.6
8.1
29.4









7.86
14.82
4.51
0.58

0
100.0
97.5
65.8
32.5
8.5
2.7

13.2
2.02

S7
Magnetic drum
reiects
1.0
6,462
1,008
0.29


0.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
87.3
10.6
0.1
1.1









21.52
68.03
9.64
0.37











38
Ferrous
metal
by-products
28.6
5,057
956
0.19


tr
0
0
0
99.5
0.2
0
0.5









12.55
85.34
0.06
0.02

0
100.0
100.0
55.9
8.0
0.6
0.2

17.3
1.56
aj  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                        179

-------
         Table B-lgg.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF JULY 28,  1975
                                                  (Production week 40)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (U/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. I)
Composition (wt. I)
(tr » trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organic!
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. X)

SI
Hill
discharge
347.1
10.709
120
29.40


48.9
2.6
3.2
2.8
5.0
0.9
15.3
21.4


52
Cyclone
discharge
308.3
9,938
111
30.63


48.6
7.1
3.5
4.9
0
0.7
12.5
22.8


S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
dlacharae refects
226.6 24.3
6.403
633
15.75


2.1
3.0
7.4
37.2
18.4
3.2
9.0
19.7


S7
Magnetic drum
relects
0.4
6.876
988
0.28


0.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
81.3
15.7
0.1
1.8

S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
14.2
5,121
918
0.10


0
0
0
0
99.8
tr
0.3
0.1

Ash
Fe
Al
Cu (CuO)A/
Pb (PbO)i/
Nl (NiO)i''
Zn
                                    20.01
                                                 22.32
Visual analysis (wt.
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
  4.46
 18.23
  7.51
  0.10
15.27
68.27
14.30
 0.40
18.63
81.07
 0.25
 0
Percent larger than 63.5             0            0.4
Percent less than 63.5             100.0         99.6
Percent less than 38.1              97.5         98.7
Percent less than 19.1              84.5         77.3
Percent less than 9.5               53.8         52.3
Percent less than 4.8               34.5         35.9
Percent less than 2.4               21.1         24.9

Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)         7.4          7.4
Geometric standard deviation         2.67         2.86
  0
100.0
100.0
 60.2
 25.3
  7.2
  2.2
 14.0
  1.99
                 0
               100.0
               100.0
                56.5
                 9.2
                 0.8
                 0.3
                17.0
                 1.59
£/  No composite due to haonermlll breakdown.
                                                         180

-------
        Table B-lhh.
                      SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF AUGUST  4,
                                                (Production week 41)
                                                                                                          1975



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/in?)
Moisture (wt. X)
Composition (wt, X)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. X)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)«/
Al (Al 203)4.'
Cu (CuO)£/
Pb (PbO)S/
Nl (N10)S/
Zn (ZnO)£/
Visual analysis (wt. I)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent lesa than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (ran)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
1.027.7
10,468
139
29.33

47.4
3.4
5.4
3.4
7.3
1.1
7.5
24.6
22.94
0.99
1.39
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05





5.8
94.2
93.1
68.0
43.8
26.5
15.3

10.2
2.88

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
860.2 724.1
9,262
122
36.10

55.6
5.0
2.9
3.4
0
0.6
6.9
25.8
21.11
0.92
1.39
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05





0
100.0
98.4
73.6
51.3
34.3
21.2

7.9
2.84

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
66.4
6,682
601
20.43

1.1
1.0
5.1
29.7
12.5
11.0
19.1
20.5






3.01
11.16
4.53
0.24

0
100.0
96.6
69.3
36.6
11.6
4.4

12.2
2.18

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.9
5,798
1,033
0.16

0
0.3
0.1
0
92.8
5.4
0
1.4






16.40
77.45
5.14
0.07











58
Ferrous
metal
by-products
25.3
5,132
956
0.14

0
0
0
0
99.7
0.1
0
0.3






17.13
82.24
0.08
0

0
100.0
100.0
63.2
11.5
1.0
0.3

16.0
1.61
£/  Data taken  from weekly composite.
                                                       181

-------
        Table  B-lli.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS  FOR WEEK OF AUGUST  II. 1975
                                                 (Production week 42)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m?)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr = traced
Paper
Plastic
Hood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe^,)— '
Al (AlJ)-.)£/
Cu (CuO)i/
Pb (PbO)i/
Si (NiO)i/
Zn (ZnO)!/
Visual analysis (wt. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (on)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mo)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
760.3
9,419
155
30.97


42.5
6.1
4.7
3.0
6.5
0.8
7.5
28.9

23.13
0.70
1.41
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.11






0
100.0
97.8
78.5
51.4
30.7
18.3

8.1
2.66

52 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
567.6 563.0
9,078
141
29.70


53.8
4.9
4.0
5.3
0
0.4
6.8
24.9

25.33
0.61
1.39
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.05






0
100.0
99.4
75.9
53.4
34.5
22.4

7.5
2.78

S5
Magnetic belt
reflects
72.0
7,658
625
20.17


0.2
0.9
7.6
26.5
9.3
6.3
28.5
20.5









5.64
10.11
4.51
1.09

4.2
95.8
94.2
67.0
31.4
11.3
4.4

13.0
2.25

S7
Magnetic drum
reflects
0.6
5.903
1,027
0.24


0
0.3
tr
0.2
88.3
7.4
0
3.8









26.90
65.41
6.92
0.15











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
29.7
5,130
942
0.20


0
0
0
0
99.4
0.3
0
0.3









17.83
81.64
0.07
0

0
100,0
100.0
52.0
7.3
0.8
0.3

17.8
1.58
aj  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                       182

-------
       Table B-ljj.  SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOE. WEEK OF AUGUST 18,  1975
                                                 (Production week 43)




Quantity (Mg)
Beating value (kJ/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
(tr » trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (₯e£3)£.f
Al (AljJo3)£/
Cu (CuO)!/
Pb (PbO)3/
Si (NiO)S/
Zn (ZnO)— /
Visual analysis (we. 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (am)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
814.4
9,718
146
34.43


42.7
6.7
4.1
5.2
6.8
1.0
9.3
24.3

16.69
0.99
1.13
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06






0
100.0
96.3
74.9
50.9
32.7
19.8

8.4
2.73

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
716.3 716.3
9,624
120
35.33


52.1
4.1
6.2
2.7
0.9
0.2
7.2 -
26.8

18.18
0.81
1.44
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.07






0
100.0
98.5
85.4
58.6
39.4
24.0

6.6
2.64

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
66.0
6,874
602
18.98


0.6
1.2
4.9
34.5
9.3
4.9
21.7
23.1









7.62
9.85
2.90
0.52

0
100.0
94.7
68.8
36.6
12.3
4.0

12.2
2.20

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
1.0
6.024
1,016
0.22


tr
0.2
0.1
0,2
91.1
7.1
tr
1.4









22.00
68.98
7.56
0.46











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
27.6
5,123
945
0.30


0
0
0
0
99.8
0.1
0
0.2









17.28
81.88
0.08
0

0
100.0
100.0
58.2
8.7
1.1
0.4

16.8
1.59
a_/ Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                        183

-------
        Table B-lkk.   SUMMARY  OF  PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF AUGUST 25,  1975
                                                 (Production week 44)



Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/in3)
Moisture (wt. V)
Composition (vt. I)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (vt. I)
Ash
Fe (Fe^j)^/
Al (A Ifj)-'
Cu (CuO)i/
Pb (PbO)-'
Ni (NtO)i'
Zn (ZnO)i/
Visual analysis (wt. 1)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (mm)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less Chan 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less Chan 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (m)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
488.1
10,249
152
33.65
49.4
6.0
7.9
2.1
6.1
0.8
5.7
22.1
17.52
0.68
1.18
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.04




0
100.0
100.0
82.7
60.2
38.0
21.9

6.9
2.59

S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
413.2 270.8
9,838
130
39.70
48.9
4.0
6.2
2.9
0
0.4
9.8
27.9
13.44
0.32
0.88
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04




0
100.0
99.6
89.6
65.0
44.3
26.8

5.9
2.51

S5
Magnetic belt
refects
31.6
7,310
498
20.80
0.2
1.1
6.3
31.5
13.3
3.4
24.5
19.8





1.60
14.14
4.31
0.29
0
100.0
97.2
65.6
28.3
11.3
4.7

13.0
2.17

S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
0.5
6,469
1,014
0.24
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
93.8
5.0
0.1
0.9





24.05
62.76
11.06
0.51










58
Ferrous
metal
by-products
18.1
5,135
985
0.16
0
0
0
0
99.6
0.3
0
0.2





16.18
83.02
0.08
0
0
100.0
100.0
55.4
7.0
0.7
0.2

17.5
1.56
£/  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                        184

-------
      Table B-Ui.
                    SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS  AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1975
                                                 (Production week  45)




Quantity (Mg)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)
Composition (wt. 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Hood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)2/
Al (Al203)2/
Cu (CuO)i/
Pb (PbO)£/
Hi (HiO)^
Zq (ZnO)l/
Visual analysis (wt. 7,)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (ma)
Percent larger than 63.5
Percent less than 63.5
Percent less than 38.1
Percent less than 19.1
Percent less than 9.5
Percent less than 4.8
Percent less than 2.4
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (ran)
Geometric standard deviation

SI
Mill
discharge
948.9
11,131
127
28.83

51.7
4.6
1.9
4.8
7.4
0.8
6.7
22.1

17.14
0.86
1.40
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.10






0
100.0
98.4
72.4
48.3
32.5
20.9

8.4
2.77

32
Cyclone
discharge
822.1
10,362
122
34.13

59.0
5.6
3.4
2.8
0
0.3
6.4
22.5

18.23
0.58
1.41
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.06






0.5
99.5
98.2
82.2
62.7
44.6
28.2

6.2
2.81

S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge relects
822.1 61.2
6,695
581
14.40

1.5
1.8
4.1
38.4
9.9
5.5
16.2
22.7









5.01
20.94
5.45
0.58

0
100.0
88.9
53.1
26.2
7.5
2.3

15.8
2.18

S7
Magnetic drum
relects
1.0
6,231
1,000
0.22

0
0.4
0.1
0.2
81,5
14.0
0.1
3.8









17.82
71.35
9.25
0.35











S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
33.0
5,113
969
0.25

0
0
0
0
99.5
0
0
0.5









16.04
83.41
0.08
0

0
100.0
99.6
56.4
11.0
1.2
0.3

16.8
1.64
*l  Data taken from weekly composite.
                                                       185

-------
00
                      Table B-lmm.   SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS DURING PERIODS
                                           WHEN REFUSE SAMPLES  NOT TAKEN
                                          (Weekly summary -  quantity Mg)
Week of
production
6
7
12
Week
1974
Month
10
11
12
of
Day
28
11
23
SI
Raw refuse
to mill
265.7
421.6
110.8
S2
Cyc lone
separator
bottoms
222.6
357.2
85.5
S3
Storage
bin
discharge
261.2
284.6
72.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
19.3
34.7
4.4
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.32/
0.5a/
0.2
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
13.6
22.8
5.5
(1975)
33
34
35
39
6
6
6
7
9
16
23
21
87.0
85.1
86.9
53.4
72.6
67.1
67.1
40.3
0
62.6
62.6
121.9
8.4
5.9
11.5
4.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.3
5.0
5.4
1.8
         &/   Estimated value  - material  not weighed.

-------
                                                        Table B-2.  WKBCLV StnMAK OF PKDHMATI AND UtTIMAIE ANALYSIS OF MOUSE TOIL PRODUCED
00

Date 1
Week
Month
9
9

9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12

974
of
Dai
23
30

23
30
7
14
21
18
25
2
9
30


Heating value
/i. T/ke)
IKJ/ KK 1
11,350
11,268

11,444
11,368
12,926
11,253
12,357
12,071
12,890
11,983
14,049
11,459




27.76
26.94

27.86
26.30
18.70
28.98
20.60
21.84
17.40
24.50
11.90
28.70


Ash

19.06
19.32

18.90
19.87
20.64
16.25
17.66
17.46
22.30
18.60
17.37
14.80


Volatile
matt-Mr


Fi»d
carbon

tl* average



Percent by wight 	 _____
Carbon
Hvdroaenfi'
Oxygen (by
difference^'
Sulfur
	 Stream S3 - gtarate bin discharge 	
46.01
47.01

46.76
45.99
44.69
45.13
45.07
51.54
50.76
48.25
60.48
47.87
7.17
6.73
Stream S2 -
6.48
7.84
15.97
9.64
15.67
9.11
9.54
8.65
10.25
8.63
27.74
26.35
3.79
3.72

22.97
0.20
0.15
Hitrogen

0.61
0.55
CTClone dischar.s
27.01
26.58
28.88
26.62
29.58
30.17
30.65
28.18
34.12
27.04
3.66
3.76
4.05
3.59
3.99
4.62
6.72
4.19
4.92
3.93
21.75
22.77
26.93
23.88
26.43
25.23
22.17
23.83
31.26
25.00
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.09
0.59
0.53
0.63
0.54
0.60
0.51
0.59
0.53
0.31
0.44
(19751
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4

5
5
5
6
7
7
7
8
G
8
8
9
Average
6
13
20
27
3
10
17
3
10
17
24
31
7
14 .
18—
28
5
12
19
30
7
14
28
4
11
18
25
1
Stream
13,717
11,915
14,260
10,339
11,822
11,775
13,121
12,634
12,241
10,268
10,786
11,097
11,492
11,273
9,631
9,210
9,815
9,236
10,404
10,303
8,979
10 , 120
9,938
9,262
9,078
9,623
9,838
10,362
S2 11,167
23.40
22.50
7.92
27.80
24.40
17.80
18.50
23.50
26.00
27.10
25.22
20.22
15.36
22.67
25.10
31.48
30.40
33.43
22.40
23.73
32.58
25.58
30.65
36.10
29.70
35.33
39.70
34.13
25.25
21.26
19.81
22.65
22.81
17.69
23.30
16.63
15.84
18.65
24.13
23.35
26.55
27.67
22.99
26.15
23.10
19.91
22.25
26.55
24.43
22.02
21.04
22.31
21.11
25.33
18.18
13.44
18.23
20.85
46.06
28.36
59.12
43.22
48.93
50.43
54,85
36.86
47.06
40.75
44.31
45,44
47.79
46.73
41.25
38.76
42.62
37.61
44.79
45.09
40.08
47.14
40,10
34.61
35.33
41.31
41.29
41.91
44.75
9.28
29.33
10.31
6.17
8.98
8.47
10.02
21.80
8.29
8.02
7.12
7.79
9.18
7.61
7.50
6.66
7.07
6.71
6.26
6.75
5.32
6.24
6.94
8.18
9.64
5.18
5.57
5.73
9.15
27.71
29.22
33.98
24.55
28.20
28.97
32.22
30.98
28.54
24.35
24.70
26.48
28.50
27.84
23.92
23.47
% 25.40
23.59
25.63
26.71
23.39
26.72
24.66
22.50
23.85
24.13
24.09
25.29
27.06
3.93
4.45
4.90
3.90
3.83
4.46
4.69
4.79
4.37
3.65
3.63
3.74
4.25
4.01
3.56
3.53
4.04
3.26
3.89
4.12
3.55
4.06
3.69
3.28
3.38
3.71
3.34
3.74
4.03
22.91
23.37
29.73
20.28
25.24
24.71
27.38
24.18
21.89
20.21
22.41
22.25
23.48
21.97
20.50
17.72
19.65
16.83
20.70
20.36
17.85
21.83
17.90
16.29
17.06
17.98
18.80
1LM
22.12
0.17
0.14
0.26
0.20
0.16
0.23
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.11
0.19
0.26
0,25
0.18
0.23
0.17
0.13
0.17
0.24
0.15
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.62
0.51
0.56
0.46
0.48
0.53
0.41
0.53
0.41
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.34
0.54
0.53
0.47
0,47
0.59
0.50
0.48
0.57
0.53
0.56
0.51
0.49
0.50
0.58
0.51
                          Nate:  Results  (veek of September 23 through November 18 and March 24 through September 1) are arithmetic average of  daily  sample  analyses.
                                 Results  (week, of November 25 through March 17) are analyses of weekly composite samples.
                          a/  Reported hydrogen and oxygen does not include hydrogen and oxygen in the moisture.
                          W  Fine grind

-------
Table B-3a.  HEATING VALUE OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS,  kj/kg
                (Received moisture basis)

Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
SI
Mill
discharge
11
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
11
11
_10
10
11
12
13
13
12
12
10
10
9
11
10
10
10
12
13
_10
11
9
11
12
11
JL4
12
,765
,640
,345
,970
.766
,697
,243
,790
,769
,255
.987
,809
,844
,085
,153
,543
.420
,609
,398
,738
,886
.889
,728
,766
.672
,925
,055
.258
,535
,981
,333
,748
,885
.723
,134
S2
Cyclone
discharge
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
10
10
11
JL2
11
12
12
13
13
12
12
10
10
12
JU
11
11
12
12
13
I2.
12
11
11
12
11
JL3
12
,588
,460
,789
,587
.798
,444
,590
,097
,766
,683
.702
,368
,594
,155
,613
,339
.928
,926
,670
,615
,117
.611
,253
,040
,249
,608
,192
.693
,356
,247
,937
,249
,722
,198
,071
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies rejects
11,317 6,144 5
11,028 5,867 6
10,187 5,881 5
11,829 5,521 7
12.390 6.441 4.
11,350 5.971 5
11,774 5,810 6
10,468 5,795 6
12.236 5,888 6
10,744 6,623 6
11.121 5.938 5
11,269 6,011 6
5
5
6
4
6.
5
7
5
3
6
5
8
6
8
7
5
7
5
5
3
4
5
5
,291
,160
,947
,378
.983
,952
,775
,193
,917
,895
.208
,398
,354
,108
,134
,292
.923
,5'62
,930
,308
,995
.103
,841
,857
,655
,461
,635
.428
,407
,326
,979
,901
,941
.385
,106
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
6
7
7
7
£
6
6
6
7
7
7
7

















6
7
6
6
6
6
,022
,615
,031
,784
.476
,986
,903
,776
,490
,161
.460
,158

















,661
,153
,324
,310
.074
,504
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
5
5
5
5
5.
5
5
5
5
5
5_
5
6
5
5
5
5_
I
5
5
5
5_
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
,135
,177
,174
,262
.195
,189
,152
,187
,152
,199
.163
,171
,092
,071
,088
,194
,012
,291
,222
,234
,190
.148
,199
,115
,128
,081
,511
.124
,192
,129
,123
,154
,172
.425
,201
                           188

-------
Table B-3a.   (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
11,778
10,177
12,404
10,799

6,478
12,757
14,573
10,232
11,962
10,277
11,558
11,300
12,288
11,251



11,525
10,973
10,874
13,408
9,835
9,759
11,062
11,129
11,674
10,944
10,805
11,773
11,265
9,762
10,723
11,737
11,121
10,384
9.730
10,576

S2
Cyclone
discharge
12,890
11,983
14,049
11,459

13,717
11,915
14,260
10,339
11,822
11,775
13 , 121
12,634
12,241
10,268



10,567
10,994
11,633
10,843
9,786
10.897
. 10,787
11,357
10,971
12,563
9,124
11,467
11,096
11,712
11,771
10,649
11,489
12,746
10.581
11,492
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
8,050
6,908
5,600
5,898

3,768
5,706
6,065
5,943
5,048
6,456
5,866
5,098
4,354
10,830



7,345
5,582
6,465
4,377
6,160
5.662
5,932
5,771
5,340
5,082
5,102
5.896
5,438
6,605
5,772
5,641
4,978
4,776
5.437
5,535
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
6,454
6,273
6,639
6,111

6,211
6,347
6,742
7,472
6,468
6,033
7,430
5,532
6,849
6,271



6,407
6,925
6,892
7,510
6,883
7.060
6,946
5,658
6,894
6,706
5,772
6,474
6,301
7,003
6,410
6,385
6,833
6,966
5.495
6,515
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
5,200
5,162
5,211
5,239

5,206
5,244
5,213
5,204
5,343
5,195
5,109
5,158
5,281
4,453



4,994
5,272
5,763
5,054
5,236
5.233
5,259
5,160
5,143
5,110
5,301
5.140
5,171
5,070
5,180
5,194
5,200
5,066.
5.174
5,147
          189

-------
Table B-3a.   (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week 'avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Dav
14
15
16

185/
19S/
21§/
22S/
23*-' v

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
10,620
8,766
10.175
9,854
8,354
9,512
13,227
9,862
6.429
9,477
6,894
7,319
7,856
8,929
9.093
8,018
8.789
8,789
9,540
7,308
8.435
8,428
10,207
9.588
9,898
9,580
9,204
11,498
10.333
10.154
8,235
10,076
10,094
10,635
8.108
9,430

S2
Cyclone
discharge
11,520
11,283
11.018
11,274
10,201
10,753
10,592
9,248
7.361
9,631
7,970
9,966
9,314
9,546
9.254
9,210
9.815
9,815
9,081
8,722
9.904
9,236
9,836
10.971
10,404
10,685
11,294
8,813
10.421
10,303
8,800
6,932
9,689
10,657
8.815
8,979
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
6,127
6,040
4.724
5,630
4,252
4,455
6,347
4,834
4.596
4,897
5,202
5,878
4,545
2,805
4.859
4,658
5.368
5,368
4,873
5,626
7.209
5.903
7,786
5.727
6,757
6,153
6,003
8,010
6.753
6,730
3,741
4,902
5,245
5,582
5.311
4,956
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
6,030
6,042
7,196
6,423
b/
5,089
5,286
5,127
5.162
5,166
7,138
5,837
5,973
6,362
7.113
6,477
5L106
5,106
5,675
b/
7.477
6,576
5,542
5.695
5,619
5,453
5,684
6,393
6.029
5,890
6,140
6,021
5,730
5,805
5,930
5,925
S3
Ferrous
metal
by-products
5,222
5,152
5.135
5,170
b/
5,213
5,125
5,057
5.113
5,127
5,164
5,133
5,161
5,125
5.054
5,127
5.020
5,020
5,137
b/
5.121
5,129
5,157
5.122
5,140
5,124
5,127
5,151
5.148
5,138
5,134
5,121
5,118
5,149
5 .138
5,132
        190

-------
                                     Table B-3a.  (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


SI
Mill
discharge
10,442
9,278
10,225
9.886
9,958
10,432
10.986
10,709
10,867
8,934
12,896
8.479
10,294
10,608
9,052
8,595
9,418
9,621
9,001
9,963
10,286
9,718
9,354
11.144
10,249
10,818
10,528
11,186
11,992
11,131

S2
Cyclone
discharge
10.402
10.784
9,383
9.911
10.120
9.700
10.176
9,938
- 9,757
8,050
9.252
9.988
9.262
8,170
8.985
10.078
9,078
10,010
8,309
10,323
9,853
9,624
9,758
9.917
9,838
9,826
11,553
10,488
9,581
10,362
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
6,662
4,394
4,954
4,592
5,151
6,702
6.104
6,403
6,357
6,995
7,769
5.607
6,682
8,957
7,491
6,526
7,658
6,123
7,754
6,627
6.991
6,874
6,697
7,922
7,310
6,924
5,945
6,575
7.334
6,695
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
6,167
7,484
5,913
6.282
6,462
7,649
6.103
6,876
6,328
5,640
5,721
5.504
5,798
6,431
5,586
5,691
5,903
5,735
5,689
6,709
5.963
6,024
7,214
5.724
6,469
5,779
6,153
6,871
6.121
6,231
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
5,141
5,126
4,837
5.124
5,057
5,123
5.118
5,121
5,118
5,126
5,166
5.117
5,132
5,147
5,136
5,105
5,129
5,121
5,092
5,118
5.160
5,123
5,128
5.142
5,135
5,114
5,113
5,102
5.125
5,114
Total average-
10,656
11,167
6,080
6,486
5,239
a/  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer down.
_c/  Average includes weekly composites November 25, 1974, through March 17, 1975.
                                           191

-------
Table B-3b.   BULK DENSITY OF MIXED REFUSE STREAMS, kg/n3
                (Received moisture basis)
Dally
samples
Date 1974
Month Pay
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Week avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
10 21
10 22
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
117
111
130
136
104
120
143
122
135
136
136
134
130
117
83
117
112
112
143
123
155
136
139
123
109
90
109
102
107
123
111
90
102
64
98

S2
Cyclone
discharge
95
104
111
98
104
82
136
111
102
109
102
112
102
90
90
90
77
90
123
102
93
109
107
90
83
71
83
90
83
83
77
77
77
64
76
S3
Storage
bin
discharge
123
117
109
123
123
119
136
143
142
136
149
141























S4
ADS
heavies
615
641
582
615
678
626
639
633
607
599
569
609






















S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
602
599
564
666
631
612
588
556
524
595
718
596
594
626
471
594
594
576
349
530
537
586
501
439
620
433
413
626
506
684
543
646
626
646
629

S6
Nuggetizer
feed
620
657
599
614
612
620
569
607
582
665
684
621






















S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
918
884
891
891
94A
906
950
912
897
915
910
917
















937
937
1,046
1.059
1059
U008
58
Ferrous
metal
by-products
931
964
944
918
937
939
990
950
894
944
956
947
945
984
995
1,008
1,036
994
950
932
1,024
1.024
983
1,091
1,001
953
1,001
1,001
1,009
988
924
976
969
1fl?n
~^-ZS-i
975
                       192

-------
Table B-3b.  (Continued)



Weakly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Dally samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
96
123
64
99

104
71
77
130
111
123
90
130
109
117



136
119
90
130
155
143
129
104
117
98
99
91
102
102
143
111
98
102
111
111

52
Cyclone
discharge
83
71
58
80

96
83
83
104
64
77
59
77
77
83



90
77
83
111
96
96
92
90
83
90
119
91
95
90
90
98
71
90
_83
87
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
556
465
646
594

633
711
703
607
626
711
879
775
646
686



684
678
763
823
678
743.
728
815
646
743
766
807
755
652
743
737
690
708
718
708
SI
Magnetic
drum
rejects
995
950
937
1,014

1,019
1,001
1,020
982
1,033
1,001
1,067
1,036
1,014
1,044



1,033
1,059
944
944
1,065
1.208
1,042
1,040
944
1,052
1,027
1.195
1,052
1,014
1,027
1,001
1,163
1,067
1.112
1,064
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
988
916
905
899

924
1,033
995
956
988
918
1,149
960
982
1,008



905
982
1,020
956
1,059
1.078
1,000
1,008
956
976
913
1.150
1,001
905
1,027
939
1,008
977
1.020
979
        193

-------
Table B-3b.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

IBS'
192/
2l£/
22S/
23i/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
117
117
111
115
149
111
104
162
213
148
258
162
175
136
162
179
149
149
175
181
162
173
104
175
140
143
143
96
141
131
143
141
143
143
141
142

52
Cyclone
discharge
90
90
96
92
130
104
149
123
168
135
143
123
111
104
117
120
123
123
149
168
117
145
111
136
124
130
104
96
96
107
136
162
149
102
111
132
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
633
582
690
635
814
905
601
814
846
796
724
569
724
639
750
681
620
620
671
750
388
603
660
614
637
503
690
671
626
623
633
490
671
594
607
599
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
1,125
1,125
1.052
1,101
b/
1,434
1,408
1,395
1.266
1,376
1,008
1,084
1,033
1,084
1.027
1,047
1.240
1,240
995
y
1.086
1,044
1,163
1.112
1,138
1,059
1,104
1,001
1.072
1,059
1,101
918
1,014
903
1.008
989
58
Ferrous
metal
by-products
937
944
963
948
b/
1,557
1,169
1,253
1.163
1,286
912
878
891
891
982
911
1.136
1,136
963
y
1.008
986
944
1.033
989
969
937
944
982
958
905
995
891
937
963
938
        194

-------
                                       Table B-3b.  (Concluded)


Dally samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
lit
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average£'

SI
Mill
discharge
142
123
123
175
141
123
117
120
123
168
123
141
139
155
194
117
155
149
162
123
149
146
168
136
152
155
143
117
90
126
122

S2
Cyclone
discharge
102
96
77
162
109
102
117
110
136
136
143
122
134
123
168
130
140
130
123
123
104
120
149
111
130
130
102
117
136
121
99
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
569
775
711
582
659
678
588
633
556
665
562
601
596
582
582
711
625
614
607
607
582
603
452
543
498
517
614
652
543
582
638
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
1,001
1,001
1,059
969
1,008
903
1,072
988
891
963
1,001
1.033
972
976
1,059
1.046
1,027
1,020
982
1,020
1.040
1,016
931
1.097
1,014
1,078
1,008
918
995
1,060
1,033
S3
Ferrous
metal
by-products
903
931
1,084
905
956
931
905
918
912
884
918
956
918
918
944
963
942
905
918
1,001
956
945
944
1.027
986
995
956
931
995
969
980
a_/  Fine grind.
b/  NuggetIzer down.
c/  Average Inclines  weekly composites  November 25, 1974, through March 17, 1975.
                                                 195

-------
Table B-3c.  MOISTURE ANALYSTS OF MILtED REFUSE STREAMS, wt. 7.
Dally
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Week avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
11 21
11 22
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
20.60
31.00
31.90
27.50
28.80
27.96
32.30
32.00
23.90
18.00
27.20
26.68
15.60
18.70
19.50
17.60
15.30
17.34
29.20
27.60
26.50
19.90
25.80
23.90
23.70
17.50
10.10
19.60
18.96
25.50
19.20
20.50
18.30
7.70
18.24

S2
Cyclone
discharge
27.10
26.30
32.80
27.80
25.30
27.86
28.80
31.00
29.40
24.50
17.80
26.30
17.00
20.10
23.90
18.20
14.30
18.70
31.80
32.30
24.10
27.70
28.98
23.20
23.10
22.50
15.10
19.10
20.60
27.40
22.10
24.40
23.60
11.70
21.84
S3
Storage
bin
discharge
28.80
31.10
31.60
24.90
22.40
27.76
25.20
33.00
25.40
27.00
24.10
26.94
























S4
ADS
heavies
8.00
7.40
6.70
4.67
1.10
5.57
0.32
7.00
4.80
1.30
7.10
4.10























S5
Magnetic
belt
relects
32.80
12.20
26.10
12.60
14.10
19.56
12.00
17.90
17.00
14.70
7.59
13.84
8.30
13.10
16.70
12.00
9.92
12.00
23.20
14.50
15.40
14.00
16.78
7.80
13.30
15.50
17.40
11.10
13.02
15.20
16.70
14.00
15.50
12.80
14.84

S6
Nuggetlzer
feed
0.10
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.07
0.29
0.14
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.33























S7
Magnetic
drum
relects
10.60
0.40
0.30
0.16
2.28
2.75
0.11
0.20
0.50
0.51
0.40
0.34

















0.31
0.29
0.26
0.19
0.02
0.21
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.10
0.60
0.20
0.26
0.12
0.26
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.10
0.20
3.00
0.15
0.10
0.71
0.06
0.13
0.13
0.07
0.08
0.09
                           196

-------
Table B-3c.   (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10

3-17
Daily sanroles
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg
4 14
4 15
4 16
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
20.20
21.50
22.90
31.20

20.90
21.20
9.3
29.90
21.70
19.20
21.50
17.90
20.50

20.80



19.20
13.80
18.80
24.80
27.40
30.80
22.47
22.90
23.70
19.00
19.50
13.10
19.64
18.50
11.80
18.60
18.00
19.70
19.40
17.67
21.30
23.30
23.60
22.73

S2
Cyclone
discharge
17.40
24.50
11.90
28.70

23.40
22.50
7.92
27.80
24.40
17.80
18.50
23.50
26.00

27.10



20.80
18.40
18.70
33.00
28.90
31.50
25.22
25.50
21.00
19.50
19.40
15.70
20.22
18.20
17.50
18.50
17.40
2.25
18.30
15.36
20.30
24.40
23.30
22.67
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
14.90
19.60
14.50
17.00

6.90
10.60
7.44
6.93
17.10
14.10
12.00
9.50
13.90 ,
_ /
0.11-3'



14.50
9.54
17.60
14.20
25.10
10.80
15.29
18.70
11.10
13.00
8.17
10.10
12.21
17.50
10.80
17.70
13.70
9.59
8.90
13.02
16.00
17.20
11,70
14.97
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.26
0.14
0.23
0.26

0.07
0.23
0.05
0.58
0.22
0.16
0.08
0.03
0.07

1.18



0.05
0.10
0.13
1.84
0.28
0.26
0.44
0.01
0.04
0.17
0.21
0.12
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.09
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.08
0.06
0.22
0.16

0.08
0.11
0.03
0.13
0.18
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.16 ,
a/
14.402'



0.05
0.04
0.65
0.09
0.07
0.02
0.15
0.11
0.18
0.49
0.04
0.08
0.18
1.02
0.18
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.23
0.08
0.15
0.10
0.11
         197

-------
Table B-3c.   (Continued)



Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
is!/
19*/
21*'
22*'
23*'

26
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18


SI
Mill
discharge
29.05
29.05
14.90
18.40
31.60
24.60
29.10
32.20
35.30
31.10
32.00
31.94
36.90
36.90
28.20
33.70
31.80
31.23
18.60
22.20
20.40
20.20
19.90
20.80
22.60
20.88
34.80
31.30
32.90
25.90
34.20
31.82
26.70
28.90
22.20
33.60
27.85

52
Cyclone
discharge
22.50
22.50
24.30
19.50
36.70
25.10
30.20
28.70
35.90
29.10
33.50
31.48
30.40
30.40
31.10
34.50
34.70
33.43
25.40
19.40
22.40
29.60
18.80
25.90
20.60
23.73
36.20
34.00
32.20
25.40
35.10
32.58
27.40
25.10
16.50
33.30
25.58
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
3.07
7.61
11.20
5.44
8.53
7.17
12.70
13.40
17.50
16.30
11.30
14.24
11.70
11.70
17.20
13.50
21.20
17.30
10.20
10.10
10.15
23.80
7.57
11.00
12.90
13.82
16.10
22.80
11.60
16.90
12.10
15.90
19.50
9.04
4.83
12.30
11.42
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
c/
0.00
0.04
1.04
3.22
1.08
0.14
0.11
0.47
0.13
0.91
0.35
0.12
0.12
0.25
c/
0.38
0.32
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.16
0.09
0.16
0.78
0.30
0.39
0.17
0.13
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.16
0.66
0.08
0.26
0.29
SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
c/
0.13
0.02
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.13
0.19
0.02
0.09
0.18
0.18
0.39
c/
0.05
0.22
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.18
0.12
0.25
0.17
0.18
0.26
0.30
0.08
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.16
0.25
0.21
0.15
0.19
        198

-------
                                         Table B-3c.  (Concluded)



Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average.^/

SI
Mill
discharge
27.60
31.20
29.40
29.70
34.10
20.50
33.00
29.33
28.40
33.70
30.80
30.97
30.60
40.10
34.00
33.00
34.43
34.40
32.90
33.65
32.30
26.40
31.10
25.50
28.83
24.43

52
Cyclone
discharge
31.40
29.90
30.65
37.10
39.90
33.90
33.50
36.10
27.80
30.40
30,90
29.70
36.90
42.20
31.30
30.90
35.33
39.20
40.20
39.70
35.60
31.30
35.40
34.20
34.13
25.25
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
14.60
16.90
15.75
22.90
27.20
17.00
14.60
20.43
23.10
20.70
16.70
20.17
20.40
25.80
15.80
13.90
18.98
23.00
18. ,60
20.80
16.80
14.10
14.70
12.00
14.40
13.75
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.43
0.12
0.28
0.19
0.17
0.09
0.20
0.16
0.18
0.29
0.25
0.24
0.12
0.33
0.35
0.08
0.22
0.42
0.05
0.24
0.08
0.25
0.44
0.09
0.22
0.33
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.18
0.09
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.26
0.12
0.23
0.20
0.25
0.63
0.20
0.10
0.30
0.27
0.04
0.16
0.12
0.31
0.35
0.23
0.25
0.53
b/
I/
No reason found for unusually low S5 moisture content and unusually high S8 moisture content.  Plant
  operated only 1 day during week of March 17 after several days of maintenance.  Maintenance may
  have left debris in process line which appeared in 58 and S5 samples.
Fine grind.
Nuggetizer down*
j/  Average includes weekly composites November 25, 1974, through March 17,  1975*
                                                  199

-------
Table B-3d.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE  STREAMS PAPER BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt.
                         (Received moisture basis)
Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
in
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
SI

Mill
discharge
47
54
43
52
61
52
62
64
63
73
72
67
47
46
68
20
66
49
38
53
50
63
51
63
41
23
52
59
48
.0
.9
.7
.6
.6
.0
.0
.9
.4
.7
.0
.4
.5
.8
.2
.7
.4
.9
.9
.4
.9
.4
.6
.4
.7
.6
.8
.0
.1
58.3
54
27
73
65
55
.5
.5
.3
.8
.9
S2
S3 35
Storage S4 Magnetic S6
Cyclone
discharge
64.
55.
39.
69.
69.
58.
53.
65.
55.
56.
66.
59.
42.
65.
70.
60.
48.
57.
52.
45.
67.
48.
53.
56.
52.
63.
55.
61.
57.
70.
.71.
6
2
7
9
9
9
9
6
3
6
3
5
4
9
6
8
3
6
5
6
2
8
5
2
6
3
7
4
8
1
8
68.5
46.
7
68.8
65.2
bin ADS belt Nuggetizer
discharge heavies re lee
59.3 1.7 2.
57.9 0.6 8.
50.5 0.5 4.
68.8 0.4 4.
73.5 2.0 5.
62.0 1.0 4.
69.0 3.0 0.
64.5 1.6 6.
63.5 0.5 3.
65.0 3.4 9.
61.3 1.0 3.
64.6 2.0 4.
9.
9.
9.
3.
1.
6.
9.
9.
22.
9.
12.
5.
10.
5.
10.
7.
7.
1.
6.
1.
4.
5.
4.
ta feed
5 0
3 tr
2 0
0 0
6 0
9 tr
8 0.6
1 tr
6 0
6 0.1
0 tr
6 0.1
6
3
4
2
5
6
7
0
0
4
5
4
8
2
3
8
9
3
6
7
7
7
0
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.1
tr
tr
0
0
tr
tr

















0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0
0
tr
0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0
tr
                                   200

-------
Table B-3d.  (Continued)



Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

Si
Mill
discharge
74.5
67.6
85.0
42.0

44.3
56.0
57.1
55.9
69.4
70.9
57.4
54,2
65.4
53.1



50.8
59.6
61.0
63.5
61.3
54.6
58.5
68.5
66.1
52.1
54.1
59.6
60.1
51.6
51.9
46.9
64.5
65.0
58.2
56.4

S2
Cyclone
discharge
59.8
88.0
84.1
86.5

64.3
86.9
64.4
62.0
75.2
67.6
70.8
71.2
76.7
70.3



58.5
57.9
38.9
63.7
62.4
61.6
57.2
68.8
61.4
63.6
60.4
87.8
68.4
62.7
75.2
69.1
60.5
68.3
77.1
68.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
7.0
5.0
12.8
10.6

1.0
0.1
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.1
0
tr
1.3
0



0
1.7
0.05
0.3
5.4
0
1.2
0.5
1.2
0
0
0
0.3
0
0.1
0
0.3
0
0
0.1
57
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0

tr
0
0
tr
0
tr
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
tr
0

0
O.I
0
0
0
tr
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
      201

-------
Table B-3d.   (Continued)



Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18-7
19-.
21*
22*;
23*'

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
52.8
58.0
59.2
56.7
54.1
68.6
63.2
52.7
29.0
53.5
36.6
39.5
36.0
53.6
37.3
40.6
50.3
50.3
38.7
42.9
17.7
33.1
54.2
34.5
44.3
43.5
57.7
49.8
40.3
47.8
45.9
37.9
56.3
53.9
41.7
47.1

S2
Cyclone
discharge
50.5
63.8
73.8
62.7
63.4
68.0
63.7
49.7
45.1
58.0
34.9
59.9
46.4
69.2
60.5
54.2
44.2
44.2
38.7
56.4
28.9
41.3
47.9
48.8
48.3
58.1
65.3
76.7
75.2
68.8
63.2
61.8
56.2
64.9
64.0
62.0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0
1.2
0.1
0.4
0.8
0
1.4
0.4
0
0.5
0.2
1.7
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.4
0.3
5.3
2.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
8.9
0.2
0.3
0
2.4
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
b/
tr
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
     202

-------
                                          Table B-3d.  (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1974
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total averag

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

e£/

SI
Mill
discharge
48.8
48.3
49.5
39.9
46.6
50.7
47.0
48.9
43.1
57.8
42.8
45.7
47.4
46.6
42.0
39.0
42.5
38.9
44.3
38.0
49.5
42.7
50.4
48.4
49.4
57.2
50.0
54.1
45.5
51.7
54.1

S2
Cyclone
discharge
47.1
56.5
58.5
47.7
52.5
48.5
48.7
48.6
53.4
46.0
58.8
64.3
55.6
58.6
52.9
49.8
53.8
49.5
47.0
54.3
57.4
52.1
46.2
51.5
48.9
62.7
50.9
65.8
56.5
59.0
62.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
reiects
2.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
3.8
2.1
0.2
3.4
0.6
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
1.8
0.3
0.2
0.6
Oi2
0.1
0.2
1.1
3.4
0.7
0.8
1.5
2.5
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
tr
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
tr
tr
tr
0
0
0.1
tr
0
0
0
0.01
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
tr
0
0.1
0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
tr
a/  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer dovn.
£/  Average includes  weekly composites November 25,
1974, through March  17,  1975.
                                                203

-------
Table B-3e.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED  REFUSE  STREAMS  PLASTIC BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt.
                            (Received moisture  basis)

Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
Si
Mill
discharge
7.8
6.4
12.5
9.
,5
3.7
8.
3.
2.
2.
7.
5.
4.
5.
13.
1.
9.
6.
7.
3.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
11.
10.
5.
4.
6.
6.
6.
8.
2.
2.
5.
0
9
2
1
0
8
2
4
8
2
9
5
4
6
2
1
3
3
2
5
6
7
2
6
1
0
2
2
3
0
S2
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic S6
Cyclone
discharge
2.
4.
4.
5.
3.
3.
7.
3.
4.
3.
4
2
8
1
0
9
5
4
5
5
10.6
5.
12.
3.
2.
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
8.
3.
5.
4.
5.
3.
3.
3.
4.
8.
9
1
1
4
0
7
7
7
9
1
3
5
2
5
1
7
7
0
7
4.8
6.
10.
0
3
6.0
7.
2
bin ADS belt Nuggetizer
discharge heavies rejects feed
1.8 0 1.
4.0 0.7 4.
16.5 1.5 1.
9.9 1.0 5.
1.9 0 7.
6.8 0.6 3.
3.8 0.5 1.
7.7 3.5 0.
11.7 0 4.
2.8 2.2 1.
4.5 tr 3.
6.1 1.2 2.
9.
1.
8.
10.
3.
6.
2.
7.
1.
1.
3.
0.
0
9.
12.
0 0.2
9 0.1
1 0
1 0
1 0
8 0.1
5 tr
9 0
0 0
8 0
4 tr
3 tr
0
2
0
8
3
5
7
4
2
0
2
6

0
6
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0
0
0

.7
.5
.2
.7
.4
tr
0
0
0
0
0

















.6
.6
.2















0.4
4.
3.
13.
1.
0.
0.
3.
5
3
7
0
6
3
8

0
0
3
0
0
0



.3
.2
.1
.7
SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0















.2

.04





.3




.1



tr
0

tr
                                     204

-------
Table B-3e.  (Continued)



Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
10.6
2.8
2.4
2.2

3.0
6.6
3.2
3.5
2.4
1.8
5.3
4.1
3.5
12.5



2.5
2.3
2.4
5.7
8.2
3.6
4.1
5.9
3.5
2.5
3.2
4.3
3.9
4.0
4.3
5.1
5.5
4.2
4.2
4.5

S2
Cyclone
discharge
4.7
3.0
5.0
4.2

14.1
2.1
1.9
2.5
3.2
6.6
4.0
4.2
2.6
5.1



2.6
3.6
26.7
5.9
3.5
2.3
7.4
5.0
3.2
2.7
14.4
4.0
5.9
4.4
4.2
5.0
2.4
3.1
2.8
3.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.7
0
0.4
1.8

1.0
0.8
0.9
1.3
tr
0.2
tr
0.6
1.2
0.7



0
1.5
0.15
3.2
3.7
0.3
1.5,
2.7
0.8
2.1
7.0
0.1
2.5
0.7
0.8
0.3
2.5
1.9
1.2
1.2
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.5
0.1
1.3
0.7

0.2
0.5
0.3
0
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.8



1.0
0.1
1.5
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.8
0.4
0
0.2
0
0.7
0.5
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0.1
0.2
0

0
tr
0
0
0
tr
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
      205

-------
Table B-3e.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month .
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18£/
19»/
2l£/
2Za/
_2£/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
12.1
3.3
2.5
5.9
2.4
2.5
6.6
5.1
1.9
3.7
3.4
2.0
2.4
4.7
2.8
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.2
5.3
4.2
3.9
3.8
1.9
2.9
4.3
3.7
3.4
4.8
4.1
1.4
2.8
3.5
3.2
1.6
2.5

S2
Cyclone
discharge
5.7
2.9
2.3
3.6
2.4
4.5
2.2
6.3
3.6
3.8
1.3
3.0
2.9
4.0
2.2
2.7
5.2
5.2
5.3
3.1
3.6
4.0
9.8
5.9
7.9
5.2
2.8
2.7
3.3
3.5
1.4
2.0
1.6
2.6
2.9
2.1
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
1.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.5
5.5
0.6
0.2
1.6
2.6
1.5
1.5
1.1
0.2
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.2
1.4
0.4
0.7
1.4
1.8
1.6
7.4
1.3
0.3
0.7
2.4
1.9
0.1
0.4
3.0
0.7
1.2
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.5
b/
0.1
tr
0
tr
tr
1.0
0.2
0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
y
0.7
0.3
tr
0.6
0.3
0.1
tr
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0,2
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-prod uc.ts_
0
tr
0
tr
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
      206

-------
                                          Table B-3e.  (Concluded)



Dally samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average^/

SI
Mill
discharge
1.8
1.7
2.3
2.7
2.1
3.2
2.0
2.6
1.3
3.1
3.5
5.8
3.4
4.5
6.1
7.6
6.1
11.7
6.2
5.1
^2
6.7
8.5
3.5
6.0
2.9
2.6
8.6
4.3
4.6
4.5

S2
Cyclone
discharge
7.9
3.5
4.2
15.6
7.8
7.3
6.9
7.1
2.9
9.6
3.1
4.2
5.0
5.3
3.2
6.1
4.9
3.7
4.8
4.0
3,7
4.1
5.5
2.5
4.0
3.0
12.7
5.3
1.4
5.6
4.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.6
1.9
tr
1.4
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.1
0.1
0.3
1.6
1.0
1.6
0.1
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.7
0.7
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.1
2.8
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.6
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.2
tr
0.3
0.4
0.1
tr
0.3
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.37
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
a/ Pine grind.
b_/ Nuggetizer down.
cf Average includes  weekly composites November 25, 1974, through March 17,  1975.
                                                 207

-------
Table B-3f.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS WOOD BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt.
                           (Received moisture basis)
Dally
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Week avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
11 21
11 22
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
0.9
0.9
3.0
trace
2.6
1.5
2.9
3.2
1.7
4.6
1.3
2.7
0.9
2.7
1.4
2.7
2.7
2.1
15.1
3.8
0.8
2.0
5.4
3.0
2.2
3.2
0
2.6
2.2
0
0.9
22.4
2.2
3.3
5.8

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.9
1.6
5.3
1.9
0.6
2.1
1.1
0
1.3
2.9
2.8
2.0
1.1
1.8
2.4
4.1
7.2
3.3
7.5
1.2
3.0
2.1
3.4
tr
2.1
2.3
1.4
9.5
3.1
0
0
1.8
6.7
1.8
2.1
S3
Storage
bin
discharge
3.4
3.5
1.4
1.8
0.4
2.1
3.1
0.3
1.4
4.3
3.8
2.6























S5
S4 Magnetic
ADS belt
heavies rejects
2.6 2.4
0.3 6.9
6.0 5.0
4.3 2.1
0 5.0
2.6 4.3
5.8 2.9
5.0 16.1
2.3 14.0
0.4 5.5
1.0 17.3
2.9 11.2
1.3
15.1
3.5
16.2
5.0
8.2
3.2
6.4
23.0
24.9
14.4
3.0
4.5
6.1
2.4
8.2
4.8
0.2
2.0
4.0
20.2
5.7
6.4

S6
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0























S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0.1
4.6
0
0.1
1.0
tr
0
1.2
0.4
0
0.3

















0.6
0
0
0
1.3
0.4
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                  208

-------
Table B-3f.  (Continued)



Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Kill
discharge
2.7
0.6
0
2.4

3.7
0.3
3.2
0.2
2.3
0.7
0.4
4.1
0.8
5.2



3.1
4.6
1.8
2.3
0
2.1
2.3
0.3
2.9
4.0
0.8
0.6
1.7
4.2
2.4
2.4
4.0
3.5
2.8
3.2

S2
Cyc lone
discharge
2.2
tr
0.4
2.5

1.0
0.7
1.7
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.6
- 3.1



3.7
2.4
2.2
1.2
2.9
6.9
3.2
0
1.0
6.6
6.2
3.5
3.5
1.8
6.9
0.7
6.5
4.6
3.3
4.0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
10.3
0
0.1
13.8

2.3
1.1
1.9
0.9
0
2.3
0
1.0
0.4
4.2



5.8
2.5
3.5
1.4
4.4
1.1
3.1
0.5
3.5
1.2
1.5
2.1
1.8
10.9
2.8
6.5
1.7
5.8
3.5
5.2
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0.1
0

0.4
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0
0.1



0.1
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.7
tr
0.4
0
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.3
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
     209

-------
Table B-3f.   (Continued)



Dailv samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

Itt/
22a/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
2.9
1.0
14.6
6.2
2.4
1.6
1.2
1.8
5.9
2.6
4.0
3.3
4.3
2.9
10.6
5.0
0.5
0.5
4.2
3.7
16.1
8.0
2.4
1.7
2.0
3.2
2.6
5.2
2.2
3.3
5.9
10.8
1.2
2.7
4.2
5.0

S2
Cyclone
discharge
8.1
0.7
4.0
4.3
2.4
3.1
1.8
3.5
3.3
2.6
1.7
2.3
1.7
4.7
8.0
3.7
6.9
6.9
8.1
1.0
3.1
4.1
2.1
4.5
3.3
1.8
4.7
2.7
0.9
2.5
3.3
7.8
1.9
3.2
0.6
3.4
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
3.0
6.4
0.9
3.4
3.8
2.6
9.8
1.7
5.3
5.6
5.8
0.9
4.1
3.6
10.2
4.9
3.3
3.3
0.1
3.2
7.2
3.5
4.1
4.2
3.1
3.9
3.0
1.9
6.1
. 3.7
2.6
8.9
10.8
7.8
7.1
7.4
57
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
tr
tr
b/
0.2
0.2
0
tr
0.1
0.1
tr
tr
tr
0.4
0.1
0
0
0
y
0.2
0.1
0
tr
tr
0
tr
tr
0
tr
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
tr
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_tr
tr
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
      210

-------
                                          Table B-3f.   (Concluded)


Dally samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average^

SI
Mill
discharge
3.2
11.5
7.1
7.0
7.2
2.0
4.4
3.2
5.4
7.2
7.4
1.6
5.4
1.6
6.8
5.7
4.7
2.0
3.3
6.0
4.9
4.1
11.4
4.4
7.9
1.8
1.2
0.6
4.0
1.9
3.2

52
Cyclone
discharge
1.2
6.3
4.6
3.0
3.8
1.6
5.4
3.5
3.4
1.6
2.2
4.2
2.9
2.7
4.9
4.4
4.0
10.7
6.0
4.9
3.0
6.2
8.4
4.1
6.2
5.7
3.8
1.3
2.6
3.4
2.7
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.2
7.1
4.6
7.5
5.4
3.7
11.1
7.4
4.2
5.4
8.7
2.0
5.1
5.3
4.6
12.9
7.6
4.4
7.9
4.8
2.5
4.9
^.8
2.9
6.3
2.3
5.2
2.4
6.3
4.1
4.6
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0
tr
tr
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.03
tr
0
0
0.4
0.1
0.2
tr
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.13
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
af  Fine grind.
W  Nuggetizer down.
c/  Average includes  weekly composites November 25, 1974,  through March  17, 1975.
                                                211

-------
Table B-3g.   ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS GLASS BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, vt. 7.
                           (Received moisture basis)

Dally
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
SI
Mill
discharge
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.8
0.8
1.3
5.1
3.2
4.2
3.3
tr
3.2
11.8
3.8
0.4
2.0
3.0
4.2
0.5
2.7
2.5
6.0
2.9
1.2
9.8
3.2
0
4.1
3.7
1.7
6.9
0
0.4
0
1.8
S2
Cyclone
discharge
1.
1.
0.
0.
3.
1.
0.
0
0.
4.
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
0.
5.
2.
2.
0
1.
1.
1.
5.
0.
0
0
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
0.
0
0.
1
3
8
9
3
5
4

6
0
6
1
6
9
6
9
3
5
5

0
2
2
0
8


•j
4

0
2
5

5
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies rejects
1.0 5.1 18.
tr 5.8 7.
0.8 3.0 24.
0.7 0.9 21.
1.0 5.6 17.
0.7 4.1 17.
0.3 19.4 5.
0.3 5.0 16.
1.8 3.4 4.
1.9 15.6 29.
1.7 1.9 17.
1.2 9.0 14.
19.
22.
18.
15.
16.
18.
3.
13.
17.
15.
12.
19.
13.
14.
8.
20.
15.
36.
18.
23.
11.
26.
23.
2
0
1
1
8
6
5
1
3
5
3
5
5
2
4
6
6
5
0
1
1
9
3
1
5
5
7
0
2
9
4
7
4
2
3
S6
Nuggetlzer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0























S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

















0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
„
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                    212

-------
Table B-3g.   (Continued)



Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
.3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
2.7
6.0
5.9
0

12.5
1.6
5.9
8.2
4.0
0.4
7.6
11.7
12.1
1.1



0.4
1.4
4.1
0
tr
5.0
1.8
6.9
2.9
1.8
3.2
3.5
3.7
5.6
1.9
3.0
1.7
3.6
1.4
2.9

S2
Cyclone
discharge
3.2
1.3
1.3
0

0.4
0.2
4.4
3.1
1.1
7.7
- 7.2
8.9
3.8
tr



1.9
1.6
1.8
5.9
2.3
3.7
2.9
2.0
5.4
2.3
2.1
0.4
2.4
4.4
4.9
2.1
1.6
4.1
3.1
3.4
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
27.8
6.4
33.6
25.8

13.3
17.3
20.8
5.9
45.2
38.3
56.5
40.5
44.2
34.0



22.0
33.7
37.5
36.5
30.6
25.8
31.0
21.6
25.0
39.3
27.6
35.4
29.8
13.6
36.0
13.7
30.3
29.4
27.5
25.1
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0

tr
tr
tr
tr
0.1
tr
0.1
tr
tr
0.3



tr
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
tr
0.1
0
tr
0
0
0.1
tr
0.1
0.3
0
0.2
0.2
0
0.1
S8
Ferrous
metal
bv-products
0
0
0
0

0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
     213

-------
Table B-3g.  (Continued)



Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4

4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

lga/
a/
21-'

22~nf
23-

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharg
2.1
9.9
1.8
4.6
1.2
0.8
0.8

3.2
4.8
2.2
2.5
1.3
2.9
2.0
6.6
3.1
4.4
4.4
2.7
1.9
2.4
2.3
3.8
13.4
8.6
5.7
1.7
1.0
6.1
3.6
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.9
2.8
1.6

S2
Cyclone
discharge
3.4
2.9
0.6
2.3
1.3
1.8
1.4

2.4
1.9
1.8
7.7
1.9
3.5
2.9
2.0
3.6
5.2
5.2
5.5
5.2
3.6
4.8
4.1
2.1
3.1
1.4
2.6
1.2
2.4
1.9
1.4
2.2
1.3
2.6
1.7
1.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
24.0
33.4
1.4
19.6
12.4
30.5
16.0

27.7
24.2
22.2
31.5
22.5
26.4
27.3
33.2
28.2
22.2
22.2
26.6
16.5
27.5
23.5
22.9
25.3
24.1
27.4
27.5
31.7
33.8
30.1
34.6
31.7
25.2
12.5
31.1
27.0
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
tr
tr
V
tr
0.1

0.05
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
tr
tr
tr
b/
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
0.1
0
0.025
tr
tr
0
0
tr
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
     214

-------
                                           Table  B-3g.   (Concluded)


Dally samples
Dace
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
1975
Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average^'

SI
Mill
discharge
5.0
7.8
1.3
4.0
4.5
2.0
M
2.8
, 2.6
2.5
2.8
5.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
3.0
13.5
2.3
3.0
1.8
5.2
1.4
2.8
2.1
5.7
5.4
5.4
2.5
4.8
4.2

S2
Cyclone
discharge
9.6
4.5
1.3
3.0
4.6
5.7
4.0
4.9
2.4
5.6
2.6
2.8
3.4
5.9
3.2
6.7
5.3
3.4
2.4
2.1
3.0
2.7
3.6
2.1
2.9
3.0
2.0
4.4
1.9
2.8
2.9
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
41.0
43.1
37.1
32.5
38.4
41.4
33.0
37.2
14.2
41.6
24.1
39.0
29.7
20.7
34.7
24.2
26.5
35.1
36.1
32.0
34.6
34.5
32.'4
30.6
31.5
41.7
47.0
30.9
34.0
38.4
27.4
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
tr
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.7
0
0.4
0.1
tr
0
0
0.05
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.07
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a/  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer down.
c/  Average includes weekly composites November 25,  1974,  through March 17, 1975.
                                                215

-------
Table B-3h.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED  REFUSE  STREAMS MAGNETIC METAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS,  wt.
                               (Received moisture basis)
Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Dav
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 36
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 It
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Ueek avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
11 21
11 22 •
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
a/
a/
a/
1.4
1.8
1.6
2.9
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.1
6.6
2.1
1.8
6.3
2.7
3.9
3.5
3.3
17.5
4.1
7.1
1.6
1.0
2.5
5.0
5.8
3.2
2.5
5.3
3.0
5.4
9.9
5.2
S3
S2 Storage
Cyclone bin
discharge discharge
0 0
0.8 0
0 0
0 1.2
0.3 0
0.2 0.2
1.3 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 tr
0 tr
0.3 0.04
4.0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0

S4
ADS
heavies
71.2
73.7
74.7
83.1
81.5
76.8
24.7
77.3
69.7
54.5
84.5
62.1























S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
20.3
40.2
38.4
36.9
25.0
32.2
40.1
55.4
4.6
16.7
24.4
28.2
38.0
11.2
0
7.0
23.4
15.9
14.9
43.5
0
27.6
21.5
26.8
10.1
6.6
0
21.6
13.0
2.3
13.5
0
3.7
0.1
3.9

S6
Nuggetirer
feed
98.7
99.7
99.9
99.6
100
99.6
99.4
100
100
99.9
100
99.9























S7
Magnetic
druoi
relects
85.0
79.4
74.2
80.3
82.7
80.3
91.9
87.6
82.7
80.9
89.2
86.5

















87.5
85.7
89.8
94.4
91.6
89.8
SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
99.8
99.9
99.9
97.0
99.7
99.3
99.9
96.2
99.4
98.6
99.9
98.8
100
99.9
99.1
99.7
99.9
99.7
99.7
99.8
99.8
99^6
99.7
99.7
99.1
99.5
90.8
99.9
99.6
100
100
99.8
99.8
99.4
99.8
                                        216

-------
Table B-3h.  (Continued)



Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg
4 14
4 15
4 16
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
3.2
7.6
0.3
4.5

9.9
12.9
7.3
8.9
9.7
2.1
10.0
12.1
11.1
3.9
-


7.0
11.0
3.3
13.1
9.0
4.3
7.9
5.3
7.4
4.2
5.7
9.4
6.4
4.6
7.7
5.6
3.4
6.2
2.5
5.0
4.5
1.6
5.5
3.9

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0
0



0
0
0
1.0
7.2
0
1.4
0.3
5.1
0
0
0
1.1
0
0
0.3
0
0
0.7
0.2
0
0
0
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
19.6
23.1
2.5
6.2

67. ±1
56.4
44.6
69.2
5.6
22.0
2.4
28.0
10.0
14.8



23.5
6.2
11.1
9.5
5.1
37.6
15.5
28.0
4.3
19.5
17.5
6.4
15.1
37.6
13.2
1.6
15.9
12.8
3.6
14.1
11.8
1.9
3.2
5.6
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
91.7
93.8
86.5
90.2

87.3
71.9
90.7
94.3
88.0
93.9
87.7
94.7
89.0
79.6



86.2
97.0
78.6
72.2
89.3
97.8
86.8
96.9
85.8
90.1
89.5
86.4
89.7
81.9
80.0
81.9
85.1
83.4
87.7
83.3
91.7
97.6
86.4
91.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
99.9
99.6
99.8
9". 9

100^
99.7
99.8
99.8
98.3
100
99.7
99.9
99.9
99.8



100
99.5
99.8
99.8
100
100
99.8
99.9
99.7
99.9
100
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.7
100
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.6
100
99.8
     217

-------
Table B-3h.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
18k/
19W
2lV
22b/
23b/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18


SI
Mill
discharge
3.6
4.8
10.9
10.6
5.4
7.1
3.9
5.6
3.0
8.4
6.8
5.5
5.5
5.5
7.1
4.8
5.2
5.7
5.8
4.6
5.2
8.9
7.6
4.7
7.5
7.2
5.6
5.6
6.3
3.6
8.0
5.8
9.1
2.6
2.8
4.4
4.7

S2
Cyclone
dlgchante
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
48.1
24.7
33.9
26.4
22.6
31.1
7.6
29.8
19.3
10.5
6.0
14.6
21.2
21.2
28.1
45.5
1.6
25.1
9.7
23.2
16.5
4.0
32.5
7.9
8.9
13.8
5.7
5.8
32.3
5.9
6.9
11.3
11.6
16.3
14.8
7.2
12.5
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
c/
98.5
97.7
98.7
97.6
98.1
74.9
92.2
90.9
82.7
78.9
83.9
98.1
98.1
92.0
c/
81.5
86.8
96.8
94.9
95.9
96.7
95.0
86.0
89.1
91.7
90.2
82.5
95.9
93.6
95.3
91.5
90.6
91.4
76.7
90.6
87.3
SB
Ferrous
metal
by-products
c/
100
100
99.8
99.8
99.8
99.7
99.3
99.6
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.8
99.8
99.9
c/
99.9
99.9
99.8
99.9
99.9
99.8
99.8
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.7
99.4
99.7
99.9
99.8
99.7
99.8
99.*
99.5
99.8
99.5
      218

-------
                                           Table B-3h.  (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
8
Week avg '
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Keek avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total average

Day
30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
It
5

si/

si
Mill
discharge
6.1
4.0
5.0
8.6
6.5
7.2
6.9
7.3
7.7
6.7
5.1
6.5
7.6
6.7
8.5
4.4
6.8
6.2
6.0
6.1
6.6
9.3
7.4
6.4
7.4
6.2

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.4
0
0
0
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.17
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
20.3
16.5
18.4
24.0
4.4
11.3
10.2
12.5
12.9
10.0
5.1
9.3
11.0
8.2
7.0
11.0
9.3
9.4
17.1
13.3
2.5
11.3
17.7
. 8.1
9.9
19.9
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
69.2
93.3
81.3
88.0
94.0
96.4
92.9
92.8
85.1
87.2
92.6
88.3
93.7
91.4
91.9
87.3
91.1
97.2
90.4
93.8
65.4
78.8
88.8
92.9
81.5
88.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
99.7
99.4
99.8
99.7
99.4
99.8
99.7
99.7
99.6
99.4
99.2
99.4
99.7
99.8
99.8
99.6
99.8
99.6
99.5
99.6
98.7
99.9
99.6
99.6
99.5
99.7
a/  Changed inspection method to pick up metal  in  SI  average  for 2 days only.
b/  Fine grind.
cl  Nuggetizer down.
if  Average includes weekly composites November 25, 1974, through March 17, 1975.
                                                219

-------
Table B-3i.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED  REFUSE STREAMS NONMAGNETIC METAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, vt.
                                 (Received moisture basis)

Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
SI
Mill
discharge



0
0
0
0
0
0
a/
a/
a/
.9
.3
.6
.4
.2
.9
0.3
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
.7
.1
.4

.1
.3
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.2
.4
.2
.2
.3

.2
.0
.4
.4
.3
.3

.1
.4
.4
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0
0.5
0
0
tr
0.1
2.4
0
0
0
0.2
0.5
0
0
0
0
5.7
1.1
0.9
1.6
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
3.7
0
0.7
0
0
1.8
0
0
0.4
S3 S5
Storage 34 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies rejects
0 2.5 3
0 6.3 2
0 3.9 6
0 3.4 1
4.6 0 3
0.9 3.2 3
0.8 8.2 9
0.5 2.8 2
0 5.6 24
0 2.0 0
0 3.4 14
0.3 4.4 10
0
3
18
2
12
7
7
.0
.7
.0
.2
.0
.2
.4
.9
.2

.6
.2

.8
.7
.8
.3
.5
.9
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0.2
0
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0







S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
14
18
15
19
10
15
7
12
15
18
10
12







.3
.8
.8
.0
.1
.6
.9
. 4
.0
.1
.2
.7







0.5
0
0








2.1
3
1
14
1
11
6
0
4
6
3
3
3
.8
.5
.7
.3
.4
.5

.2
.1
.5
.5
.5
















11
14
6
5






.7
.3
.7
.4
7.0

9
.0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
tr
0.
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
tr
0.
0.


1


02
]

1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1


2


04


2

5
1
                                          220

-------
Table B-3i.  (Continued)


Heeklv conposlte
"(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Dailv samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
0.9
0.2
tr
0.4

1.0
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.3
0.2



0.9
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.8
tr
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.7

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.5
0
0
0

0.8
0
0
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.4
0
0
0



0
0
0.2
0
0
0
tr
0.3
0
0
0
0.4
0.1
0.4
0
tr
0.8
0.4
0
0.3
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.5
0
3.9
4.4

2.5
0.6
7.7
8,5
7.5
5.1
9.9
7.3
5.5
6.5



5.5
4.0
8.5
11.6
5.9
3.0
6.4
"4.5
6.9
2.2
9.7
8.1
6.3
1.9
2.7
2.3
6.0
4.3
5.4
4.7
S7
Hagne tic
drum
rejects
7.8
6.1
12.0
8.4

11.8
23.3
8.2
4,9
10.2
5.3
11.2
4.4
10.1
16.1



11.7
0.6
17.6
24.3
9.4
tr
10.6
2.8
12.9
9.0
8.3
11.7
8.9
14.5
17.9
15.9
13.2
14.6
10.1
14,4
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.1
0.3
0
tr

0
0.1
0.2
tr
1.3
tr
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2



0
0.4
0.2
0.1
0
tr
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.2
0
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
      221

-------
Table B-31.  (Continued)



Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
A
A
Week avg
4
4
A
A
A
Week avg
A
A
A
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

isl/
wt'
2 It/
22t>/
23k/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
S
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.5
1.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.7

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.8
0
0.6
0.5
0
1.4
0
0.7
0
0.1
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
1.8
0
1.5
1.1
0.3
6.9
3.6
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
3.9
3.0
11.9
6.3
2.4
11.8
2.9
9.5
1.8
5.7
5.1
0.7
2.6
3.6
10.9
4.6
12.2
12.2
1.9
1.1
23.9
8.9
16.6
4.6
10.6
1.0
5.9
5.6
4.8
4.3
1.1
11.7
0
7.2
5.3
5.1
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
7.5
2.1
10.0
6.5
£/
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.3
22.0
6.7
8.0
15.5
17.5
13.9
1.4
l.A
7.6
c/
1A.2
10,9
2.7
4.2
3. A
3.1
4.6
12.2
10.3
7.6
8.5
15.1
3.7
5.5
A.I
7. A
58
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0.2
tr
0.1
£/
0
f-r
0
tr
tr
0.1
tr
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
tr
c/
tr
tr
tr
0
tr
tr
0.1
0.03
tr
tr
tr
0.3
tr
tr
0
tr
    222

-------
                                           Table B-31.   (Concluded)

Daily s
Date
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
i
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

amples
1975
Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average^'

Si
Mill
discharge
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
2.0
0.5
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.63

S2
Cvclone
discharge
0.4
1.0
0
0
0.4
1.3
0
0.7
1.0
0.8
0
0.4
0.6
0.6
0
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.6
0
0
0.2
0.8
0
0.4
0
0.5
0
0.7
0.3
0.39
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
3.0
7.8
4.4
3.1
4.6
5.2
1.2
3.2
5.5
2.2
31.4
4.9
11.0
6.6
2.5
9.9
6.3
2,6
3.4
6.4
7.0
4.9
3.8
' 3.1
3.5
1.2
3.1
10.3
7.5
5.5
5.7
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
7.8
7.3
19. 'J
7.9
10.6
25.3
ft.l
15.7
8.5
5.5
3.3
4.4
5.4
9.5
7.0
5.8
7.4
3.9
6.9
7.5
10.0
7.1
2.1
7.8
5.0
24.4
16.5
9.2
6.0
14.0
9.4
S8
Fe rr ou s
metal
by-products
tr
0.4
o.:>
tr
0.2
0.1
IT
tr
0.2
0.2
tr
tr
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0
tr
0
0.1
0
0.13
a/  Changed inspection method to pick up metal in SI. Average for 2 days only.
b/  Fine grind.
£/  Nuggetizer down.
d/  Average includes  weekly composites  November 25, 1974, through March 17, 1975.
                                                223

-------
Table B-3J.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS ORGANICS BY  VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt. 7.
                          (Received moisture basis)
Dally
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Week avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
11 21
11 22
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
1.4
3.8
0.3
7.0
0
2.5
0
0
4.2
4.4
0
1.7
1.5
2.4
4.6
7.3
0 	
3.2
0.8
5.0
4.6
2.0
3.1
2.5
10.9
4.9
0
3.1
4.3
0
0
2.0
0.4
4.2
1.3
S3
S2 Storage S4
Cyclone bin ADS
discharge discharge heavies
0.2 0 4.8
5.5 0.8 1.6
12.0 0.6 2.6
0.5 0.9 5.0
0.6 0 6.3
3.8 0.5 4.1
4.0 0 18.5
1.4 0 5.8
2.3 0 13.1
0 2.3 10.0
1.5 0.9 7.0
1.8 0.6 10.9
0
2.1
trace
0.7
3.0
1.2
2.0
21.5
3.0
0
6.6
2.1
9.3
4.7
1.4
1.6
3.8
1.2
2.4
1.8
5.6
1.8
2.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
6.0
8.1
7.8
12.8
22.8
11.5
26.8
4.1
20.1
16.3
13.7
16.2
12.5
25.2
14.8
18.5
7.3
16.7
10.0
14.4
14.3
9.5
12.2
28.0
34.4
19.4
40.0
14.4
27.2
29.0
29.7
35.8
31.0
33.7
31.8

S6
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0























S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.1
0
0
1.1
0
0
0.2

















0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                     224

-------
Table B-3J.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg
4 14
4 15
4 16
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
0.3
tr
1.2
22.2

4.8
4.1
1.1
0.2
0.7
4.4
3.1
0.9
0
2.6
-


0.2
0
0
1.7
tr
10.8
2.1
3.0
3.2
9.3
4.7
0.6
4.2
3.8
6.7
3.9
7.9
5.0
9.2
6.1
4.7
4.4
4.1
4.4

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.2
0
0
0

0
0.5
4.2
3.1
1.1
0
0.8
1.6
0
tr



0
0.9
3.1
4.0
tr
2.7
1.8
1.4
2.9
2.1
4.6
0.4
2.3
2.9
2.3
1.4
0.4
0.9
5.0
2.1
4.3
1.2
3.7
3.1
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
27.0
36.4
45.3
27.6

8.4
18.6
9.2
9.7
30.8
27.3
12.0
7.7
21.4
24.5



21.5
23.3
21.0
12.8
19.5
23.1
20.2
, 29.3
36.7
17.5
27.3
26.1
27,4
22.1
22.5
50.6
26.4
28.9
17.9
28.1
30.7
27.2
21.3
26.4
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0
0.2

0
0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0.1



0
0.3
0.4
0.1
0
tr
0.1
0
tr
0
0
0
tr
0
0
0.8
0
0
0 	
0.1
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0
0
0
0
tr
0
0
0
0
      225

-------
Table B-3j.  (Continued)


Dally samples
Date '1975
Month :..-•
4
4
*4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg'
5
WeeV avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
18
19
21
22
23

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
S
9
10
11

14
16
17
18


SI
Mill
discharge
4.2
2.5
2.1
0.9
23.0
6.5
3.1
8.1
12.4
6.2
10.3
8.0
14.1
14.1
17.4
11.2
43.4
24.0
3.0
14.0
8.5
6.7
3.1
8.4
5.0
5.8
9.3
9.4
5.9
8.4
12.1
9.0
21.6
.10.2
10.7
10.0
13.1

S2
Cyclone
discharge
4.0
2.7
4.0
2.4
4'.0
3.4
18.8
6.8
9.0
1.4
10.3
9.3
8.7
8.7
6.5
4.5
36.5
15.8
3.8
5.2
4.5
4.0
2.3
0.9
0
1.8
5.6
9.0
4.8
3.5
2.6
5.1
1.7
4.9
5.1
3.5
3.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
6.5
4.6
13.7
4.5
8.7
7.6
10.7
20.8
13.4
32.5
20.9
19.7
10.9
10.9
24.4
10.0
11.6
15.3
18.2
11.1
14.6
31.0
24.5
24.7
22.3
25.6
27.1
16.8
18.5
26.5
27.6
25.3
7.0
0
3.8
21.7
8.1
S7
Magnetic
drum
re jects
• b/
0
tr
tr
0
tr
(i
tr
0
tr
tr
tr
0
0
tr
b/
0.3
0.1
tr
tr
tr
0
0
0
0
0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
tr
0.1
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
;•,/
0
0
0
0
0
(I
0
ij
0
0
0
0
0
tr
b/
0
tr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
      226

-------
                                          Table B-3j.  (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average*-/

SI
Mill
discharge
17.0
13.5
15.3
11.9
2.8
8.1
7.0
7.5
3.2
10.5
8.8
7.5
7.1
8.8
10.9
10.5
9.3
5.0
6.3
5.7
4.0
6.8
7.2
8.8
6.7
5.8

S2
Cyclone
discharge
16.4
8.7
12.5
8.6
7.6
7.4
3.9
6.9
4.9
7.6
7.9
6.8
4.5
5.1
9.5
9.6
7.2
8.4
11.2
9.8
7.8
5.4
5.2
7.4
6.4
3.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
b.4
12.6
9.0
32.6
14. a
12.6
16.3
19.1
28.9
29.5
27.1
28.5
21.7
18.4
22.0
24.5
21.7
18.5
30.4
24.5
14.4
13.6
17.9
18.8
16.2
20.3
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.1
0
0.3
/*
o
1 1
u
0_
0
0
0
0
0
rr
0
tr
tjC
tr
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
tr
0.1
0.04
S8
Ferrous
me ta 1
by-prod nets
0
ii.b
0.3
0
1 :
(.
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O.Ol
a/  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer down.
c/  Average includes weekly  composites November 25, 1974,  through  March  17,
1975
                                               227

-------
Table B-3k.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED  REFUSE  STREAMS MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
  (NOT OTHERWISE CLASSIFIED AS PAPER, PLASTIC, WOOD, GLASS, METAL, OR ORGANICS), wt. %
                              (Received moisture basis)
Dally
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
Si

Mill
discharge
41.
32.
39.
26.
29.
33.
22.
26.
22.
4.
18.
18.
25.
28.
22.
51.
18.
29.
32.
30.
21.
20.
26.
26.
22.
51.
35.
20.
31.
31.
26.
36.
15.
14.
24.
2
8
4
e
T
9
0
6
0
6
0
6
6
3
0
1
6
1
0
4
2
1
1
8
9
8
5
8
6
1
1
9
0
1
6
S2
S3 S3
Storage S4 Magnetic S6
Cyc lone
discharge
30.
30.
37.
21.
27.
29.
29.
29.
36.
33.
a
9
4
7
3
b
4
0
0
0
18.0
29.
38.
24.
23.
28.
24.
27.
28.
25.
17.
44.
29.
32.
29.
26.
34.
20.
28.
20.
20.
18.
30.
21.
22.
1
8
2
0
5
8
9
9
2
7
6
1
5
7
6
1
6
7
0
0
9
2
6
1
bin ADS belt Nueigetizer
discharge heavies rejects feed
34.3 12.1 46.
33.8 11. G 21.
30.2 7. a 13.
16.7 1.9 16.
18.6 4.6 13.
26.7 7.5 22.
23.0 19.9 14.
24.5 4.0 10.
21.6 5.4 25.
23.7 11.4 20.
27.8 0.9 18.
24.1 8.3 17.
10.
12.
22.
25.
6 1.1
9 0.2
4 0.1
8 0.2
7 0
5 0.3
0 0
6 0
1 tr
6 0
7 0
8 tr
1
0
2
9
37
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.7
1.0
4.9
0
6.0
2.5
0.2
0
0
0
tr
0.04


38
Ferrous
ntPtal
by -prodi.icLs
0
0
0
•;
I)
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
.2
.1

. 0
. 'J
.7

.8
.5
.4

.1


tr

30.6
20.2
47.
9

10.2
22.4
11.
23.
13.
25.
24.
24.
16.
20.
27.
11.
27.
24.
24.
23.
7
1
3
2
5
7
2
8
0
9
7
9
8
3








0.2
0
0.2
0
tr
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1

.02
.2
.1
.2
.3
.2

.9
.3
.2
.1
.3




.1
.02
                                         228

-------
Table  B-3k.  (Continued)
Weekly composite
(1974)












11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17












SI
Mill
discharge
5.1
15.2
5.2
26.3

20.8
17.4
21.3
22.6
10.7
19.3
15.6
11.9
5.8
21.4
S2
Cyclone
discharge
16.8
7.7
9.2
6.8

19.4
9.6
23.4
27.8
18.9
17.3
16.0
13.2
16.3
21.5
S5
Magnetic
belt
re lects
5.1
29.1
1.4
9.8

4.3
5.1
14.5
3.7
9.8
4.7
19.2
14.9
16.0
15.3
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0
0
0.1
0.5

0.3
4.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
3.0
38
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
tr
0.1

tr
0.1
tr
0.2
0.2
tr
0.1
tr
tr
tr
Dally samples
Date 1975
Month
3
3
3
3
3
3
Week
3
4
4
4
4
Week
4
4
4
4
4
4
Week







avg





avg






avg
Day
24
25
26
27
28
29

31
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11
12


35.1
20.1
27.3
13.4
20.7
19.6
22.7
9.3
13.8
26.0
28.1
20.6
19.6
25.2
24.4
32.9
12.5
12.2
21.3
21.4

33.3
33.6
27.1
18.3
21.7
22.8
26.1
22.2
21.0
22.7
12.3
3.5
16.3
23.4
6.5
21.4
27.8
18.6
8.0
17.6

21.7
27.1
18.2
24.7
25.4
9.1
21.0
12.9
21.6
18.2
9.4
21.8
16.8
13.2
21.9
25.3
16.9
16.9
40.9
22.5

1.0
1.6
0.8
1.9
0
1.7
1.2
0.2
0.9
0.6
1.9
1.6
1.0
0.8
1-4
1.1
1.5
1.8
0.7
1.2

0
0.1
0
0.1
tr
0
0.1
tr
tr
0
0
0
tr
0.05
0.05
0
0
0.1
0
tr
      229

-------
Table B-3k.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18^''
19S/
212/
2TSJ
23£/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
20.6
21.4
12.1
18.0
31.5
18.8
14.2
25.0
29.5
23.8
46.1
39.3
38.6
21.4
24.7
34.0
21.6
21.6
27.0
29.6
10.8
22.5
26.8
28.9
27.8
26.1
22.9
26.6
33.3
27.2
30.2
31.7
23.9
26.9
28.7
28.3

S2
Cyclone
discharge
27.2
28.5
15.0
23.6
26.5
18.5
26.9
35.0
42.1
29.8
35.3
26.1
36.5
17.8
17.0
26.5
29.8
29.8
34.1
29.8
22.8
28.9
32.0
24.9
28.4
29.5
22.3
15.8
17.6
21.3
25.1
17.2
34.2
23.2
28.2
25.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
25.2
26.3
60. 4
37.3
24.9
25.3
16.8
29.2
37.2
26.6
36.5
22.1
32.0
21.3
18.5
26.1
29.0
29.0
17.3
22.0
22.5
20.6
26.7
29.2
27.9
16.4
5.1
27.6
23.4
18.1
26.2
24.3
12.7
26.8
21.2
22.2
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.4
0.1
2.8
1.1
h/
0.3
0.4
0.15
0.8
0.4
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.4
2.6
1.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
b/
3.1
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-product:5
0
0.2
0 	
0.1
h/
tr
0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.3
tr
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
b/
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.07
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
      230

-------
                                          Table B-3k.  (Concluded)


Dally samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average^'

SI
Mill
discharge
9.7
16.9
25.7
31.2
20.9
18,3
24.5
21.4
25.1
19.6
27.3
26.3
24.6
32.2
24.0
30.4
28.9
18.1
27.5
27.4
24.2
24.3
16.3
27.8
22.1
21.0
23.9
15.8
27.7
22.1
21.4

S2
Cyclone
discharge
32.1
22.3
26.3
27.2
27.2
19.2
26.3
22.8
28.3
28.8
25.9
20.2
25.8
22.0
28.2
24.5
24.9
24.5
34.1
25.2
23.2
26.8
27.1
28.6
27.9
17.8
24.7
18.0
29.5
22.5
22.2
35
Magnetic
belt
rejects
32.4
23.7
35.1
26.4
29.4
20.6
18.8
19.7
17.2
28.1
11.0
25.7
20.5
23.8
18.3
19.5
20.5
23.9
23.2
25.8
19.5
23.1
24.6
14.9
'19.8
34.0
15.1
19.0
22.7
22.7
18.5
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.9
0.6
2.4
0.0
1.1
3.3
0.3
1.8
2.7
0.4
0.2
2.4
1.4
4.4
5.4
1.5
3.8
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.4
0.2
1.5
0.9
9.2
3.5
1.6
0.9
3.8
1.1
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.9
0.6
0.2
o.;
0.5
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.18
a/  Fine grind.
b/  NuggetIzer down.
£/  Average Includes weekly composites November 25, 1974, through March  17,  1975.
                                                231

-------
Table B-3^.  ASH ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS, wt. 7,
                (Received moisture basis)
Daily samples
Date
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
1974
Day
23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22

SI
Mill
discharge
33.44
26.55
21.12
27.18
21.57
25.97
25.12
20.94
19.48
29.00
19.99
22.91
23.75
23.49
16.57
22.35
23.53
21.94
20.36
20.08
26.73
21.64
22.19
24.45
26.69
20.30
30.03
18.01
23.90
24.56
24.85
18.60
24.76
19.21
22.40
S2
Cyclone
discharge
21.14
20.43
15.88
17.54
19.51
18.90
19.92
22.76
16.01
21.80
18.87
19.87
23.41
20.70
18.96
19.23
20.90
20.64
16.40
15.96
17.61
15.04
16.25
21.93
17.29
15.55
20.23
18.30
18.66
17.05
18.56
15.54
19.25
16.89
17.46
S3
Storage bin
discharge
18.96
17.67
18.19
20.14
20.32
19.06
20.85
18.59
18.93
18.90
19.35
19.32























                         232

-------
Table B-3A.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
















SI
Mill
discharge
19.31
28.10
16.00
15.87

24.28
16.52
18.70
20.22
21.53
22.62
24.81
30.71
24.41
26.29
S2
Cyclone
discharge
22.30
18.60
17.37
14.80

21.26
19.81
22.65
22.81
17.69
23.30
16.63
15.84
18.65
24.13
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
3
3
3
3
3
3
Week avg
3
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg

Day
24
25
26
27
28
29

31
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11
12


s
27.63
34.65
30.04
18.80
26.06
19.79
26.16
27.37
18.16
27.62
24.55
27.81
25.10
33.99
33.90
26.62
21.73
33.89
31.76
31.15


28.12
28.81
28.37
14.20
24.96
15.62
23.35
19.82
27.65
19.24
33.65
32.37
26.55
26.42
25.00
27.55
23.95
34.51
28.60
27.67
         233

-------
Table B-3A.  (Continued)
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18S/
19£/
22a/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

SI
Mill
discharge
26.76
33.52
26.97
29.08
29.44
18.52
19.06
33.05
28.45
25.71
35.73
31.26
26.27
26.73
26.07
29.73
19.56
19.56
29.80
28.18
22.23
26.74
26.78
29.88
28.33
36.27
27.80
24.08
21.13
27.32
S2
Cyclone
discharge
23.67
22.38
22.93
22.99
27.75
27.13
22.86
31.64
21.40
26.15
27.57
23.89
18.73
24.74
20.56
23.10
19.91
19.91
26.04
23.44
17.28
22.25
24.17
28.94
26.55
21.68
27.04
22.01
27.00
24.43
          234

-------
Table B-34.  (Continued)
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg

Day
7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

SI
Mill
discharge
22.49
17.86
17.58
26.68
22.90
21.50
25.88
25.31
26.76
23.96
25.48
21.50
18.51
20.01
18.00
23.72
21.54
28.48
22.94
21.84
26.52
21.04
23.13
16.03
16.89
17.36
16.48
16.69
20.80
14.23
17.52
S2
Cyclone
discharge
18.95
24.75
19.93
22.98
23.49
22.02
20.91
23.44
21.54
18.28
21.04
23.53
21.10
22.31
17.17
20.73
23.00
23.54
21.11
25.63
28.12
22.25
25.33
16.09
14.86
21.78
19.97
18.18
16.05
10.82
13.44
          235

-------
                     Table B-34.  (Concluded)
 Daily samples                    Si                      S2
   Date 1975                     Mill                   Cyclone
Month        Day               discharge               discharge

  9           2
  9           3
  9           4
  9           5
Week avg

Total avg^                      23.19                   20.85
£/  Fine grind.
b/  Average includes weekly composites November 25, 1974, through
      March 17, 1975.
                              236

-------
             Table B-3m.
N)
U>
ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS FERROUS BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
      ALUMINUM BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS  (A1203), wt. %

                (Received moisture basis)
(Fe203)

Ferrous (Fe£03)
Daily
s amp 1 es
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
Day
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
SI
Mill
discharge
10.30
5.84
3.74
5.33
4.40
5.92
4.82
6.62
2.50
8.27
1.08
4.66
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.85
1.42
0.77
1.75
1.37
1.23
1.00
2.75
0.67
0.91
0.78
1.22
S3
Storage bin
discharge
0.77
0.65
0.66
1.14
2.42
1.13
1.11
1.45
,1.36
0.92
0.90
1.15
Aluminum (AloOo)
SI
Mill
discharge
1.69
1.37
1.50
1.29
2.04
1.58
1.72
2.66
1.42
1.71
1.63
1.83
S2
Cyclone
discharge
1.41
1.43
1.16
0.90
1.79
1.34
1.55
2.71
1.17
1.61
1.47
1.70
S3
Storage bin
discharge
1.76
1.36
1.20
1.07
1.68
1.41
2.32
1.63
1.37
1.37
1.57
1.65

-------
                                           Table B-3m.   (Continued)
OJ
oo

Weekly composite
(1974)
10-7
10-15
10-21
11-18
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
3-24
3-31
4-7
4-14 to 4-16
4-18 to 4-235-/
4-28
Ferrous (F
SI
Mill
discharge
1.60
0.73
0.49
2.03
0.91
1.25
0.45
0.43

1.48
0.61
0.77
0.30
1.03
1.37
0.72
1.17
9.35
1.39
0.58
1.82
1.21
3.36
0.85
1.10
e203)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.88
0.59
0.52
0.53
1.12
0.52
0.45
0.45

1.39
0.54
0.67
0.48
0.35
1.06
1.33
0.50
2.65
0.83
0.48
1.12
0.99
2.96
0.96
1.00
Aluminum
SI
Mill
discharge
1.41
1.53
1.36
1.05
1.20
2.03
1.33
1.02

1.74
1.22
1.47
1.61
1.34
1.11
1.20
2.04
1.71
1.77
1.70
2.49
1.86
4.46
1.72
1.72
(A1203)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
1.78
1.21
1.42
1.46
1.40
1.14
1.44
1.25

1.37
1.42
1.58
1.67
1.37
1.42
2.39
1.21
1.79
1.70
1.35
1.72
1.83
5.76
1.82
1.75

-------
VO
                                           Table B-3m.  (Concluded)


Weekly composite
(1975)
5-5
5-12
5-19
6-30
7-7
7-14
7-28
8-4
8-11
8-18
8-25
9-1
Ferrous
SI
Mill
discharge
NA*/
1.01
NA
1.14
1.36
0.87
NA
0.99
0.70
0.99
0.68
0.86
(Fe203)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
NA
0.91
NA
0.76
0.77
0.69
NA
0.92
0.61
0.81
0.32
0.58
Aluminum
SI
Mill
discharge
NA
1.64
NA
2.32
1.51
1.15
NA
1.39
1.41
1.13
1.18
1.40
(A1203)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
NA
1.48
NA
2.53
1.29
1.37
NA
1.39
1.39
1.44
0.88
1.41
      Total
1.55
0.89
1.62
1.64
      a/  Fine grind.
      b/  NA = Data not available.
      c/  Average includes weekly composites October 7, 1974,  through September 1, 1975, except those
            weeks where data was not available.

-------
              Table B-3n.
to
*-
o
ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS COPPER BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

        LEAD BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (PbO), wt. %

               (Received moisture basis)
(CuO)

Daily

samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
Day
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg

SI
Mill
discharge
0.17
0.03
0.46
0.07
0.68
0.28
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
Copper (CuO)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.03
0.07
1.67
0.03
0.04
0.37
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
Lead (PbO)
S3
Storage bin
discharge
0.04
0.02
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.04
SI
Mill
discharge
0.06
0.03
0.14
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.05
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.24
0.09
S3
Storage bin
discharge
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05

-------
                                           Table B-3n.   (Continued)
ro


Weekly composite
(1974)
10-7
10-15
10-21
11-18
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
3-24
3-31
4-7
4-14 to 4-16
4-18 to 4-23S-/
4-28
Copper (CuO)
SI
Mill
discharge
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.02

0.16
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.12
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.09

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.03

0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.18
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.03
Lead (PbO)
SI
Mill
discharge
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02

0.06
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.14
0.05
0.05
0.11
0.22
0.23
0.03
0.04

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.04

0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.16
0.05
0.06

-------
                                           Table B-3n.   (Concluded)
to
•o


Weekly composite
(1975)
5-5
5-12
5-19
6-30
7-7
7-14
7-28
8-4
8-11
8-18
8-25
9-1
Copper
SI
Mill
discharge
NA>-/
0.03
NA
0.02
0.03
0.04
NA
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.03
(CuO)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
NA
0.03
NA
0.02
0.01
0.01
NA
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
Lead (PbO)
SI
Mill
discharge
NA
0.05
NA
0.05
0.04
0.07
NA
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.06

S2
Cyclone
discharge
NA
0.06
NA
0.04
0.04
0.05
NA
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.05
      Total  avg-/
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
      a/   Fine grind.
      b_/   NA = data  not available.
      £/   Average includes  weekly composites October 7,  1974, through September 1, 1975 except those
            weeks where data are not  available.

-------
         Table B-3o.
            ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS NICKEL BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
                    ZINC BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ZnO), wt. %
                           (Received moisture basis)
(NiO)
Daily samples
  Date 1974
Month

  9
  9
  9
  9
  9
Week avg

  9
 10
 10
 10
 10
Week avg
Day

23
24
25
26
27
30
 1
 2
 3
 4
Nickel (NiO)
SI
Mill
discharge
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.05
0. 02
0.06
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.17
0.07
0.06
S3
Storage bin
discharge
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
Zinc (ZnO)
SI
Mill
discharge
0.13
0.'04
0.60
0.11
0.46
0.27
0.24
0.09
0.08
0.25
0.10
0.15
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.14
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.29
0.12
S3
Storage bin
discharge
0.06
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08

-------
Table B-3o.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
10-7
10-15
10-21
11-18
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
3-24
3-31
4-7
4-14 to 4-16
4-18 to 4-23^
4-28
Nickel
SI
Mill
discharge
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01

0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.01
(NiO)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.01

0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
Zinc (ZnO)
SI
Mill
discharge
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.03

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.16
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.16
0.07
0.13

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.04
0.04

0.05
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.19
0.07
0.08

-------
                                           Table  B-3o.   (Concluded)
to

Weekly composite
(1975)
5-5
5-12
5-19
6-30
7-7
7-14
7-28
8-4
8-11
8-18
8-25
9-1
Nickel
SI
Mill
discharge
NA*/
0.04
NA
0.03
0.03
0.02
NA
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
(NiO)
S2
Cyclone
discharge
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
0.02
0.03
NA
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.01
Zinc (ZnO)
SI
Mill
discharge
NA
0.07
NA
0.12
0.11
0.10
NA
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.10

S2
Cyclone
discharge
NA
0.05
NA
0.08
0.05
0.06
NA
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.06
     Total  avg-/
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.07
      a/   Fine  grind.
      b/   NA  =  Data  not  available.
      £/   Average  includes weekly  composites  October  7,  1974,  through September 1,  1975,  except  those
           weeks  where  data  are not  available.

-------
Table B-3p.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS FERROUS METAL
    BY VISUAL ANALYSIS,  wt.  %  (Received moisture basis)


Daily samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day
23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22


S4
ADS
heavies
21.53
10.19
8.02
10.39
3.96
10.82
5.98
8.93
9.23
7.50
7.71
7.87























S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
3.43
9.04
4.21
1.01
2.92
4.12
3.87
5.01
2.08
2.39
1.76
3.02
6.88
8.69
1.08
2.56
2.52
4.35
0.02
2.85
1.61
2.15
1.66
18.81
0.87
2.79
1.67
2.67
5.36
2.37
1.08
0.77
2.28
3.49
2.00

S6
Nuggetizer
feed
16.98
4.17
11.16
9.90
8.49
10.14
11.08
20.54
8.67
17.03
12.75
14.01























S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
17.88
11.95
14.96
22.86
10.26
15.58
13.59
17.07
14.93
9.95
12.35
13.58

















8.97
15.36
11.97
14.07
14.10
12.89
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
18.08
13.22
18.56
11.17
14.18
15.04
15.78
13.99
12.49
13.77
16.69
14.60
12.99
11.89
10.00
16.78
9.99
12.33
11.98
9.98
8.99
10.99
10.49
12.99
12.23
11.07
18.67
13.29
13.66
10.99
11.98
7.99
15.99
13.79
12.15
                            246

-------
Table B-3p.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.68
5.86
1.28
0.42

6.89
6.62
2.68
4.00
2.16
2.49
7.13
9.77
7.32
1.50



2.83
3.49
4.03
7.14
0.98
2.57
3.51
5.45
5.61
8.29
5.03
4.77
5.83
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
8.98
6.99
10.68
15.06

12.09
9.98
9.90
8.65
11.18
13.58
12.09
12.60
21.19
69.37



22.59
21.68
16.58
10.21
18.35
16.06
17.58
10.40
17.09
21.36
27.24
22.97
19.81
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
9.99
7.00
8.48
11.18

12.69
11.79
12.20
8.39
7.19
9.00
3.30
6.69
8.89
8.52



19.69
10.20
21.66
14.29
18.19
17.00
16.84
9.85
11.48
9.35
13.99
30.88
15.11
           247

-------
Table B-3p.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg

Day
7
8
9
10
11
12

14
15
16

18a/
19a/
21-/
ll^J
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.56
3.48
1.89
11.91
7.96
17.95
7.62
4.96
7.62
1.24
4.60
6.69
4.62
2.31
3.69
5.03
4.47
11.70
12.82
9.57
1.17
7.72
8.60
6.18
6.18
1.57
6.92
1.18
3.23
3.86
4.32
4.09
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
16.47
16.88
16.20
22.80
18.89
25.69
19.49
15.09
12.69
15.29
14.35
b/
14.60
16.79
16.63
18.39
16.60
20.47
20.68
22.39
22.07
25.17
22.16
29.96
29.96
18.45
b/
19.23
18.84
23.09
20.70
21.89
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
13.96
20.36
14.40
12.60
11.90
23.08
16.05
10.09
11.38
10.99
10.82
b/
21.97
8.60
16.39
17.37
16.08
8.40
12.39
11.98
18.57
18.60
13.99
18.97
18.97
13.65
y
18.69
16.17
17.00
16.30
16.65
           248

-------
Table B-3p.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg

Day
30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

55
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.91
3.42
7.21
4.62
4.04
2.60
1.24
2.65
2.83
3.52
2.59
2.58
6.73
20.27
1.84
7.86
4.44
4.49
4.46
1.39
4.73
1.66
4.27
3.01
4.46
5.71
6.75
5.64
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
15.78
13.99
15.88
10.62
14.06
19.52
11.58
14.28
18.26
24.56
17.64
22.66
17.58
20.28
25.53
21.52
10.65
19.88
15.27
11.78
11.18
16.99
25.65
16.40
29.85
24.73
26.13
26.90
88
Ferrous
metal
by-products
21.86
13.68
15.26
16.47
16.82
21.74
12.46
11.39
15.08
16.58
15.45
10.68
15.96
14.87
8.69
12.55
22.08
15.18
18.63
15.47
16.69
14.28
22.07
17.13
14.46
16.68
22.35
17.83
           249

-------
                        Table B-3p.   (Concluded)

Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
8 19
8 20
8 21
8 22
Week avg
8 28
8 29
Week avg
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
Week avg
Total avg-'
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
5.49
3.41
12.88
8.70
7.62
1.08
2.12
1.60
4.16
0.69
3.16
2.02
5.01
4.45
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
16.48
30.60
15.15
25.78
22.00
21.71
26.39
24.05
16.49
18.25
13.44
23.08
17.82
17.74
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
14.46
15.50
18.06
21.08
17.28
13.66
18.69
16.18
17.48
12.86
13.75
20.05
16.04
14.23
a/  Fine grind.
t>/  Nuggetizer down.
c/  Average includes weekly composites November  25,  1974, through
      March 17, 1975.
                                   250

-------
Table B-3q.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS TIN CANS
 BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt. 7o   (Received moisture basis)


Daily samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day
23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22


S4
ADS
heavies
37.90
42.60
51.04
51.86
75.16
51.71
45.85
48.08
53.50
51.13
42.92
48.30























S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
7.39
12.73
12.93
5.99
12.80
10.37
30.45
23.97
14.86
9.13
16.73
19.03
10.91
7.65
7.41
11.34
16.94
10.85
3.67
16.87
1.10
16.50
9.54
12.08
12.48
7.69
5.95
10.67
11.91
5.60
5.58
4.30
7.01
11.86
6.87

S6
Nugget izer
feed
71.73
94.33
87.25
88.47
90.54
88.46
86.88
78.07
87.05
81.67
85.76
83.89























S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
52.75
62.75
67.80
59.01
54.04
59.27
67.13
62.38
65.17
70.64
66.23
66.31

















73.77
65,61
75.40
73.76
76.28
72.96
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
80.02
85.38
80.54
87.45
84.70
83.62
83.18
85.01
86.81
85.33
82.64
84.59
36.04
85.91
87.96
82.92
86.88
87.94
85.89
88.86
89.86
86.90
87.88
85.91
87.13
84.97
80.77
86.41
85.04
86.95
0.20
90.88
83.44
81.73
68.64
                          251

-------
Table B-3q.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974}
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1974
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
5.28
9.89
7.87
7.22

52.60
42.82
28.51
54.91
5.72
9.02
20.68
34.03
10.76
10.69



7.67
11.13
6.41
5.01
6.54
6.64
7.23
5.37
7.06
11.40
6.72
19.42
9.99
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
77.80
79.89
71.93
74.90

75.35
70.84
75.26
68.60
74.74
76.98
72.64
83.38
63.96
17.99



67.37
62.24
48.14
63.31
66.71
66.23
62.33
84.69
59.78
65.89
65.46
62.43
67.65
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
88.93
91.95
90.20
87.66

86.43
86.80
86.57
89.98
90.44
89.37
95.63
92.79
90.16
76.18



75.46
89.86
88.52
82.53
80.74
82.18
83.22
89.50
88.04
89.76
85.77
68.95
84.40
           252

-------
Table B-3q.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1974
Month
4
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg

Day
7
8
9
10
11
12

14
15
16

l&J
19^/
22a/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

S5
Magnetic
belt
re jects
7.76
6.96
7.90
33.31
11.12
9.29
12.72
8.65
4.54
23.40
12.20
36.45
21.62
15.81
22.41
21.59
23.57
12.57
10.83
3.30
4.86
4.08
7.13
10.51
10.51
13.08
30.19
4.02
15.76
20.03
6.11
13.07
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
66.08
70.52
72.08
61.79
69.06
70.46
68.33
76.13
77.95
65.73
73.27
b/
79.40
81.57
81.64
76.26
79.72
60.22
72.12
68.78
65.42
54.60
64.23
64.82
64.82
75.81
b/
58.38
67.09
72.86
73.39
73.13
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
84.83
77.46
84.68
86.89
86.37
76.52
82.79
88.13
88.07
88.61
88.27
b/
76.70
91.28
83.32
82.28
83.39
91.55
87.45
87.29
81.05
79.28
85.32
78.66
78.66
85.57
b/
80.26
82.91
82.48
82.99
82.73
            253

-------
Table B-3q.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1974
Month
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg

Day
30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
10.94
20.06
13.88
15.07
14.99
19.30
15.59
18.48
13.63
13.27
16.05
5.07
16.65
18.18
19.38
14.82
23.66
12.80
18.23
9.87
6.99
12.20
15.88
11.16
6.08
11.10
13.16
10.11
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
80.27
80.23
71.59
79.97
78.01
79.99
78.47
79.80
75.35
66.98
76.12
67.29
69.14
72.14
63.53
68.03
65.32
71.21
68.27
77.85
84.56
77.13
70.26
77.45
57.80
70.69
67.73
65.41
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
77.56
85.80
83.79
82.56
82.43
77.60
86.74
88.13
85.70
82.78
84.19
88.56
83.29
78.73
90.76
85.34
77.54
84.61
81.07
84.05
82.73
84.79
77.38
82.24
85.18
82.80
76.92
81.64
            254

-------
                         Table B-3q.   (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1974
Month
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total avg—'

Day
19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
9.31
5.27
12.13
12.66
9.85
12.24
16.04
14.14
14.23
23.19
25.93
20.42
20.94
16.08
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
77.01
63.59
70.05
65.25
68.98
57.86
67.67
62.76
77.24
71.22
69.59
67.34
71.35
69.71
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
84.69
83.27
81.34
78.22
81.88
85.37
80.67
83.02
82.00
86.63
85.60
79.42
83.41
85.20
a_l  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer down.
£/  Average includes weekly  composite November  25,  1974,  through
      March 17, 1975.
                                   255

-------
Table B-3r.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS ALUMINUM
  BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt. 7.  (Received moisture  basis)


Daily samples S4
Date 1974 ADS
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg •
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day heavies
23 1.84
24 2.78
25 3.36
26 2.57
27 0.99
2.31
30 1.99
1 2.51
2 1.71
3 1.78
4 3.44
2.99
7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.49
2.81
2.36
4.63
2.75
3.01
6.86
2.46
3.57
3.50
4.53
4.18
1.47
2.09
1.50
1.30
3.51
1.97
1.69
1.72
2.79
3.87
2.52
2.67
3.38
2.28
3.96
5.78
3.61
4.49
5.16
3.44
1.69
4.53
4.06
S7
S6 Magnetic
Nuggetizer drum
feed rejects
0 13.41
0 20.92
0 15.95
0 17.27
0 14.46
0 16.40
0 13.90
0 14.97
0 17.31
0 15.92
0.02 17.33
0.004 15.90

















13.96
16.35
9.67
9.58
7.90
11.59
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.08
0.004
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.001
0.10
0.08
0.20
r\
v
0.08
0.10
2.60
0.60
                         256

-------
Table B-3r.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.89
2.01
2.99
2.32

1.21
2.33
7.68
1.77
1.66
5.24
1.14
1.81
3.87
10.49
^


3.90
4.25
4.03
2.19
4.54
2.22
3.52
4.36
0.81
3.55
6.77
3.87
3.87
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
10.97
9.99
13.67
7.68

9.69
12.47
10.60
18.39
10.68
5.89
12.99
3.60
12.49
9.19



8.90
12.49
21.07
19.04
12.27
14.96
14.79
4.30
15.39
12.48
5.68
12.39
10.05
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.04

0.05
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.60
0.07
0.20
0
0.10
0.15



0.17
0.30
0.20
0.19
0.35
0.07
0.21
0.16
0.06
0.11
0.09
0.14
0.11
           257

-------
Table B-3r.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg

Day
7
8
9
10
11
12

14
15
16

183-/
19 a./
22a/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
3.80
3.66
4.69
3.52
3.35
0.69
3.28
1.51
3.73
2.47
2.57
1.16
3.60
3.73
3.97
3.02
3.10
2.62
2.86
2.81
1.93
5.77
3.19
4.77
4.77
4.72
1.47
2.99
3.06
3.95
2.61
3.28
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
15.87
10.89
10.30
13.20
13.39
3.30
11.16
7.59
7.60
15.98
10.39
b/
0.80
1.00
0.59
1.65
1.01
17.28
6.49
0.27
10.29
16.85
10.23
1.30
1.30
4.59
b/
19.33
11.96
3.60
5.00
4.30
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0.15
0.68
0.42
0.07
0.34
0.28
0.08
0.20
0.10
0.13
b/
0.39
0
0.02
0.03
0.11
0.20
0.09
0.40
0.13
0.12
0.19
0.09
0.09
0.12
b/
0.15
0.14
0.20
0.10 .
0.15
           258

-------
Table B-3r.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg

Day
30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18

30
1

5
•
7
8

11
14
15

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.82
9.15
8.46
3.05
5.87
10.66
4.71
5.83
3.66
9.85
6.94
6.04
6.64
2.47
2.89 '
4.51
11.44
3.57
7.51
4.01
3.06
7.30
3.76
4.53
4.04
6.74
2.75
4.51
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
2.80
4.80
10.88
7.14
6.41
6.18
7.49
5.19
5.39
7.19
6.29
8.39
15.60
6.10
8.48
9.64
20.81
7.79
14.30
8.78
3.69
4.90
3.19
5.14
11.08
4.19
5.49
6.92
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.04
0.10 .
0.30
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.20
0.12
0.08
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.50
0
0.25
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.07
0
0.07
0.07
           259

-------
                         Table B-3r.   (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total avg—'

Day
19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
2.07
1.93
3.03
4.56
2.90
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.99
5.07
4.69
7.04
5.45
4.17
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
5.49
5.18
12.46
7.09
7.56
16.83
5.30
11.06
5.10
8.68
14.93
8.29
9.25
9.83.
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.03
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.14
£/  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer down.
cj  Average includes weekly composites November  25,  1974,  through
      March 17, 1975.
                                  260

-------
Table B-3s.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS COPPER
 BY VISUAL ANALYSIS, wt. %  (Received  moisture basis)

Daily

samples S4
Date 1974 ADS
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
Day heavies
23 0.46
24 0.19
25 0
26 0.10
2.7 0.04
avg 0.16
30 0.40
1 1.49
2 0.10
3 0.05
4 0.09
avg 0.43
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
S5
Magnetic
belt
rei ects
0.20
1.23
0.30
0.29
0.09
0.42
0.79
0.08
1.08
0.60
0.46
0.60
0.92
0.09
8.41
1.08
1.08
2.32
0.69
0.57
0.17
1.98
0.85
0.18
1.13
0.51
0.08
1.33
3.23
0.25
0.25
0.17
0.08
0.17
0.18
S7
S6 Magnetic
Nuggetizer drum
feed reiects
0 2.68
0 0.20
0 0.50
0.01 0.20
0 0.58
0.002 0.83
0 1.00
0 0.70
0 0.40
0 0.30
0 0.90
0 0.66

















0.40
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.36
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.002
0.30
0
0.005
0
0
0.06
0
0
0
0.15
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.006
0
0
0
0
0.20
0.04
                        261

-------
Table B-3s.  (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
Week avg
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.17
0.06
1.11
0.42

0.47
0.05
0.19
0.65
0.17
0.04
1.06
0.09
1.29
1.10



0.75
0.35
0.40
1.08
0.85
0.97
0.73
0.59
0.58
1.48
0.82
0.68
-
0.83
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.39

0.80
1.50
0.90
0.60
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.06
0.10
0.41



0.37
0.89
0.22
0.54
0.21
0.59
0.47
0.04
2.12
0.63
0.78
0.86
-
0.88
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0.01
0

0.002
0
0.001
0.002
0.10
0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.16
0
0
0
0
-
0.03
           262

-------
Table B-3s.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg

Day
7
8
9
10
11
12

14
15
16

18S/
19-/
21— /
22£/
23S/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.99
1.43
0.72
0.86
0
0.26
0.07
0.92
0.25
0.75
0.64
0.27
0.17
0.12
0.95
1.19
0.54
0.46
0.69
0
0.44
0.98
0.51
0.88
0.88
1.41
0
0
0.47
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.58
0.77
0.40
0.43
0.26
0.13
0.43
0.32
1.00
0.54
0.62
b/
0
0
0
0.02
0.01
0.43
0.09
0.27
0.60
0.69
0.42
0.08
0.08
0
k/
0.63
0.31
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0.03
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
           263

-------
Table B-3s.  (Continued)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg

Day
19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11

14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0
0.49
0.25
0.31
0.46
2.58
0
0.84
0
0.62
0.04
0.58
0.53
0.35
0.81
0.73
0.19
0.61
0.58
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.15
0
0.07
0.73
0.24
2.23
0.14
0.92
1.09
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.09
0.33
0.21
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.25
0.08
0.30
0.07
0.04
0.50
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.20
0.37
0.78
0.02
0.40
0.03
0.07
0.14
0.05
0.07
0.25
0.12
0.09
0.15
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
           264

-------
                        Table B-3s.   (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total avg—'

Day
19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


S5
Magnetic
belt
re-jects
1.04
0.50
0.32
0.23
0.52
0.12
0.46
0.29
0.13
1.80
0.25
0.12
0.58
0.66
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.42
0.07
0.27
1.10
0.46
0.84
0.18
0.51
0.21
0.79
0.26
0.15
0.35
0.43
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
£/  Fine grind.
b_/  Nuggetizer down.
c_/  Average includes weekly  composites  November 25,  1974,  through
      March 17,  1975.
                                    265

-------
Table B-3t.  ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE  STREAMS  SQUARE  SCREEN SIZE, wt.
                       (Received moisture  basis)
Larger than 63.5 ran
Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Week avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
11 21
11 22
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
0
0
10.9
0
26.0
7.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

S2 S4
Cyclone ADS
discharge heavies
0 0
0 0
8.7 15.9
6.3 0
0 0
3.0 3.2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1.0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
1.3
0
5.8
1.9
S5
Magnetic S6
belt Nuggetizer
rejects feed
0 7.4
0 0
0 0
0 0
8.1 0
1.6 1.5
0 2.3
0 0
3.1 0
0 0
0 0
0.6 0.5
11.0
0
0
0
0
2.2
0
0
0
0
0
5.4
0
24.2
0
0
5.9
4.7
0
0
0
0
0.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
                                  266

-------
Table B-3t.  (Continued)

Larger than 63.5 mm


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
8.2
0
3.9
0

0
2.5
2.5
2.9
0.7
3.0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
0
2.2
0
0.9
0
0
0
2.6
0
1.4
0.7

S2
Cyclone
discharge
12.5
4.2
0
0.5

0
0
0
0
3.2
0
0
2.0
11.3
1.7



0
1.5
0
0
1.1
0
0.4
0
0.6
0.9
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
1.3
0
0
0.2
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
6.8
0
0
0

12.8
0
0
6.9
0
0
6.0
0
0
0



2.3
5.5
0
3.0
0
1.9
2.1
0
0
0
2.3
0
0.5
0
1.2
3.0
0
3.6
3.0
1.8
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
           267

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Larger than 63.5 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18§/
19a/
21§/
22a/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
2.2
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.1
2.0

S2
Cyclone
discharge
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
5.0
4.3
0
0
1.4
5.0
0
2.5
0
0
13.0
0
3.3
1.1
0
0
0
2.8
0.8
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
           268

-------
                              Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Larger than 63.5 ran


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


SI
Mill
discharge
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.0
0
0
0
5.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

32
Cyclone
discharge
0
0
3.1
0.9
1.0
0
0.8
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
0.5
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.5
0
0
4.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total average—'
1.1
                                              1.1
                                    1.7
                                          269

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 63.5 ran
Daily

samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day
23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22


SI
Mill
discharge
100
100
89.1
100
74.0
92.6
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97.1
100
99.4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

S2
Cyclone
discharge
100
100
91.3
93.7
100
97.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99.0
100
100
100
99.8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97.4
98.7
100
94.2
98.1

S4
ADS
heavies
100
100
84.1
100
100
96.8
100
100
100
100
100
100























S5
Magnetic S6
belt Nuggetizer
rejects feed
100 92.6
100 100
100 100
100 100
91.9 100
98.4 98.5
100 97 . 7
100 100
96.9 100
100 100
100 100
99.4 99.5
89.0
100
100
100
100
97.8
100
100
100
100
100
94.6
100
75.8
100
100
94.1
95.3
100
100
100
100
99.1
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
100
100
100
100
100
100
99.3
100
100
100
100
99.9
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
           270

-------
Table B-3t.  (Continued)
Smaller than 63.5 mm


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week ave

Si
Mill
discharge
91.8
100.0
96.1
100.0

100.0
97.5
97.5
97.1
99.3
97.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0



100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97.8
100
97.8
100
99.1
100
100
100
97.4
100
98.6
99.3

S2
Cyclone
discharge
87.5
95.8
100.0
95.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.8
100.0
100.0
98.0
88.7
98.3



100
98.5
100
100
98.9
100
99.6
100
99.4
99.1
100
100
99.7
100
100
100
98.7
100
100
99.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects^
93.2
100.0
100.0
100.0

87.2
100.0
100.0
93.1
100.0
100.0
94.0
100.0
100.0
100.0



97.7
94.5
100
97.0
100
98.1
97.9
100
100
100
97.7
100
99.5
100
98.8
97.0
100
96.4
97.0
98.2
S3
Ferrous
metal
by-products
100.0
100.0

100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0



100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
            271

-------
Table B-3t.  (Continued)

Smaller than 63.5 ma


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

185/
19«/
2ia/
22£/
23£/

28
29
31
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


Si
Mill
discharge
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97.9
100
100
99.6
100
100
100
97.8
100
99.3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
89.9
98.0

S2
Cyclone
discharge
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95.0
95.0
95.7
100
100
98.6
95.0
100
97.5
100
100
87.0
100
96.8
98.9
100
100
100
97.2
99.2
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
100
100
100
100
y
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
y
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
            272

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 63.5 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total averae

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

;e£/

SI
Mill
discharge
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
77.0
100
100
100
94.3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98.9

S2
Cyclone
discharge
100
100
96.9
99.1
99.0
100
99.2
99.6
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98.0
99.5
98.9
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
87.5
100
100
95.8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98.3
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
            273

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 38.1 mm
Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month Day
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
10 7
10 8
10 9
10 10
10 11
Week avg
10 15
10 16
10 17
10 18
Week avg
10 21
10 22
10 23
10 24
10 25
Week avg
11 18
11 19
11 20
11 21
11 22
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
100
89.2
61.0
89.9
71.9
82.4
100
95.4
100
97.3
92.4
97.0
100
96.7
96.4
92.1
96.9
96.4
96.1
98.9
97.2
100
98.1
99.1
100
93.2
96.0
98.8
97.4
98.0
97.6
95.5
98.8
96.1
97.2

S2 S4
Cyclone ADS
discharge heavies
97.1 100
100 87.7
83.5 72.7
86.3 82.2
93.2 87.2
92.0 86.0
100 92.7
99.2 98.0
100 94.7
99.1 100
95.3 94.6
98.7 96.0
99.0
99.0
95.7
100
89.7
96.7
100
100
97.2
96.7
98.5
93.5
96.6
98.7
97.5
96.5
96.6
93.7
93.6
92.6
93.4
91.2
92.4
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
88.9
100
100
89.9
91.9
94.1
100
86.4
88.8
84.8
93.2
90.6
89.0
100
100
100
100
97.8
99.0
98.6
99.6
94.6
98.0
94.5
100
75.8
99.1
97.5
93.4
93.8
97.5
97.8
93.1
92.2
94.9
S8
S6 Ferrous
Nuggetizer metal
feed by-products
74,5 100
100 97.7
91.8 100
71.2 100
56.7 100
78.8 99.5
94.3 99.3
69.9 100.0
67.6 100.0
85.1 99.2
94.4 100.0
82.3 99.7
98.4
100
96.2
100
100
98.9
100
100
100
100
100
100
97.0
100
100.0
100.0
99.4
100.0
98.0
95.4
97.5
95.6
97.3
           274

-------
Table B-3t. (Continued)
Smaller than 38.1 mm


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
90.7
96.6
92.1
91.7

100.0
88.6
96.3
97.1
97.4
91.0
94.4
99.2
97.4
99.5



98.1
100
99.4
94.0
78.2
100
94.9
84.2
95.6
100
95.6
°5.2
94.1
95.6
100
96.0
94.1
93.3
98.6
96.3

S2
Cyclone
discharge
83.3
95.8
95.2
95.2

98.9
98.8
96.2
92.0
88.9
92.9
78.3
79.0
76.7
96.6



93.8
89.3
91.8
95.3
86.1
98.8
92.5
94.8
91.8
96.1
97.5
98.3
95.7
98.5
96.0
87.7
95.2
98.7
99.3
95.9
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
87.3
100.0
90.5
93.9

30.7
94.2
100.0
67.9
100.0
94.6
81.2
96.1
93.1
93.8



92.5
87.5
96.6
93.3
95.7
94.4
93.3
84.2
98.6
91.2
95.8
83.2
90.6
100
96.3
97.0
96.7
96.4
95.6
97.0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
96.9
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.1
100.0
98.7
100.0
100.0
97.8
95.4
99.0
99.0
100.0



100
97.6
100
x99.2
'99.3
100
99.4
100
98.5
98.5
99.2
100.0
99.2
99.0
100
100
100
98.1
96.4
98.9
           275

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 38.1 ran


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18£/
19a/
213./
22a/
23§/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
98.4
91.9
96.8
95.7
100
100
100
100
99.1
99.8
100
100
97.9
99.1
100
99.4
100
100
99.4
97.8
100
99.1
97.8
99.2
98.5
80.7
100
100
100
95.2
100
100
100
98.5
89.9
97.7

S2
Cyclone
discharge
97.1
93.0
96.4
95.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
92.3
87.9
100
96.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
96.5
98.3
100
98.3
93.7
100
98.0
97.8
99.1
98.8
99.2
100
99.0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
100
80.4
98.3
92.9
100
100
100
100
100
100
99.3
99.4
99.2
77.7
100
95.1
88.2
88.2
95.1
97.8
100
97.6
80.5
93.8
87.2
98.0
97.9
82.0
95.1
93.3
98.9
99.6
100
92.9
87.7
95.8
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
100
100
95.9
98.6
b/
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98.9
100
98.1
99.4
100
100
100
b/
100
100
100
100
100
98.7
100
100
100
99.7
100
98.3
100
100
100
99.7
           276

-------
Table B-3t.  (Continued)

Smaller than 38.1 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total averag

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

e£/

SI
Mill
discharge
98.0
99.2
100
100
99.3
100
95.0
97.5
76.3
98.7
99.2
98.2
93.1
94.9
98.4
100
97.8
99.0
86.6
99.4
100
96.3
100
100
100
97.2
100
99.7
96.5
98.4
96.2

S2
Cyclone
discharge
100
95.0
93.8
99.1
97.0
99.0
98.4
98.7
98.3
96.1
99.2
100
98.4
98.2
100
100
99.4
94.5
99.3
100
100
98.5
100
99.2
99.6
96.9
98.6
99.1
98.0
98.2
95.0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
93.4
96.7
100
100
97.5
100
100
100
100
93.7
92.5
100
96.6
86.8
95.8
100
94.2
86.4
100
100
92.5
94.7
97.3
97.0
97.2
86.7
79.5
95.5
93.8
88.9
91.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98.5
100
100
99.6
99.4
            277

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)
Smaller than 19.1 ran
Daily
samples
Date
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
1974
Day
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
SI
Mill
discharge
77.9
71.4
37.0
63.1
46.5
59.2
77.2
65.9
84.7
61.3
71.4
72.1
57.5
84.6
83.3
50.0
82.6
71.6
83.1
87.6
72.6
68.7
78.0
76.8
60.2
75.7
67.3
84.1
72.8
84.0
61.7
65.8
82.7
55.9
70.0
S2 S4
Cyclone ADS
discharge heavies
71.4 14.8
82.3 20.7
60.2 16.4
68.4 17.4
73.5 28.1
71.2 19.5
86.5 17.4
84.7 26.7
81.4 39.0
84.5 21.7
79.1 48.6
83.2 30.7
74.7
82.8
83.9
78.3
70.5
78.0
86.9
81.2
78.9
80.4
81.9
68.5
69.5
84.8
69.1
74.7
73.3
75.2
55.1
67.0
64.1
66.6
65.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
59.9
71.3
60.0
65.4
67.9
64.9
55.6
47.8
59.7
50.0
77.3
58.1
65.4
71.9
80.0
77.1
62.2
71.3
82.9
95.0
75.2
66.4
79.9
41.3
66.1
62.1
72.4
64.2
61.2
59.6
86.2
66.4
65.7
60.0
67.7

36
Nugget izer
feed
1.9
11.8
18.4
2.5
8.3
8.6
12.3
11.1
10.7
26.0
6.9
13.4























S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
85.6
46.9
58.6
65.5
59.6
63.2
61.0
60.4
47.7
53.2
50.5
54.6
56.4
63.2
39.6
45.0
49.0
50.8
46.0
50.1
39.0
64.0
49.8
53.7
60.4
63.2
58.5
49.8
57.1
50.0
45.2
55.9
42.2
49.2
48.5
             278

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)
Smaller than 19.1 mm


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
75.6
69.3
68.6
59.2

76.5
55.7
67.9
71.4
36.6
72.0
55.5
58.5
77.4
71.3



72.9
71.1
66.8
72.6
66.5
70.7
70.1
50.3
74.3
66.2
74.3
54.1
63.8
70.5
60.8
57.0
63.6
84.8
65.9
67.1

S2
Cyclone
discharge
61.1
65.3
62.9
61.9

64.5
69.9
66.2
50.0
63.5
74.3
37.3
67.0
42.0
84.7



77.8
54.7
62.3
78.7
69.9
79.9
70.5
63.6
59.7
82.9
63.2
77.3
69.3
61.7
76.8
52.5
76.6
66.5
73.7
68.0
35
Magnetic
belt
rejects
63.7
53.1
68.7
70.9

8.3
44.1
59.1
37.0
80.0
56.0
52.1
45.1
66.9
59.2



67.3
54.0
63.8
71.9
71.3
72.1
66.7
50.3
73.6
72.8
76.3
44.7
63.5
83.9
74.6
69.2
60.8
60.3
60.5
68.2
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
59.9
44.0
52.7
63.5

60.3
62.8
57.5
62.0
55.2
52.1
31.6
55.4
59.3
62.8



45.4
58.6
52.7
67.6
73.9
59.8
59.7
59.9
57.7
57.7
57.5
42.6
55.1
48.6
52.3
53.6
58.2
39.1
50.0
50.0
          279

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)
Smaller than 19.1 mn


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

182/
19*/
2 IS/
22§/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


Si
Mill
discharge
77.9
73.1
79.2
76.7
74.1
98.4
96.0
98.7
99.1
93.3
84.1
91.0
90.1
78.3
95.6
87.8
92.3
92.3
90.2
92.0
87.2
89.8
92.6
93.6
93.1
64.4
91.6
85.8
78.8
80.2
90.3
90.8
88.5
82.5
82.2
86.9

S2
Cyc lone
discharge
73.1
73.9
80.9
76.0
72.8
68.8
100.0
98.2
99.5
87.9
88.7
89.7
75.9
77.4
83.6
83.1
96.5
96.5
89.3
92.7
94.9
92.3
96.5
87.2
91.9
92.2
87.4
85.3
86.2
87.8
88.3
94.7
81.4
81.6
93.8
88.0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
92.3
47.2
39.7
59.7
87.6
91.3
96.1
95.1
88.5
91.7
62.6
73.3
68.8
63.7
60.0
65.7
56.6
56.6
73.9
53.4
76.9
68.1
40.4
73.6
57.0
72.5
60.7
41.4
72.6
61.8
59.9
62.3
63.4
69.0
55.1
61.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
56.5
54.2
45.3
52.0
b/
95.1
99.2
91.3
88.1
93.4
58.6
47.0
38.3
43.3
59.1
49.3
75.8
75.8
64.5
b/
60.1
62.3
68.0
58.9
63.5
52.0
63.5
67.7
59.8
60.8
58.5
51.3
57.2
62.5
53.5
56.6
           280

-------
                               Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 19.1 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


SI
Mill
discharge
82.2
85.0
77.0
95.4
84.9
83.2
85.8
84.5
57.2
69.6
66.4
78.6
68.0
73.2
89.0
73.3
78.5
67.9
63.2
75.2
93.3
74.9
90.3
75.0
82.7
91.2
77.7
67.5
53.2
72.4

S2
Cyclone
discharge
86.2
71.0
52.3
81.9
72.9
84.1
70.4
77.3
67.3
72.1
80.3
74.5
73.6
77.3
61.3
89.1
75.9
84.8
82.0
93.2
81.5
85.4
95.1
84.0
89.6
88.9
85.3
65.2
89.3
82.2
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
83.3
69.6
41.0
69.4
65.8
62.2
58.2
60.2
81.4
70.3
61.8
63.8
69.3
58.6
65.7
76.7
67.0
74.4
76.7
72.2
51.7
68.8
54.0
77.1
65.6
61.5
41.0
59.8
50.2
53.1
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
51.4
59.9
67.1
45.0
55.9
61.6
51.4
56.5
65.0
56.8
64.9
66.1
63.2
48.2
54.8
53.0
52.0
46.2
69.8
53.6
63.0
58.2
55.8
55.0
55.4
58.6
50.9
60.0
56.2
56.4
Total average£'
             c/
73.3
73.5
61.5
57.4
                                          281

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Daily


samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day
23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22



SI
Mill
discharge
53.3
50.5
22.4
39.9
27.6
38.7
52.2
46.6
52.5
30.6
43.8
45.1
35.9
51.6
51.2
35.0
55.1
45.8
58.4
61.8
50.0
46.5
54.2
55.3
37.3
47.3
39.6
56.1
47.1
53.2
39.6
38.2
49.4
31.2
42.3


S2
Cyclone
discharge
50.0
58.3
38.8
45.3
45.4
47.6
64.7
62.1
55.8
62.7
47.7
58.6
50.5
60.0
58.1
51.8
46.1
53.3
66.3
54.7
55.0
54.3
57.6
43.5
44.1
55.7
45.7
47.1
47.2
49.3
34.6
37.7
38.0
39.1
39.7
Smaller

S4
ADS
heavies
5.5
7.0
4.6
4.7
11,0
6.6
17.1
11.5
11.3
6.6
14.7
12.2
52.2
40.1
45.1
42.6
28.6
41.7

















than 9.5 mm
S5
Magnetic
belt
relects
29.9
34.3
26.8
49.2
38.3
35.7
22.5
21.6
36.0
22.6
43.3
29.2
52.2
40.1
45.1
42.6
28.6
41.7
45.7
50.4
39.0
18.3
38.4
29.4
40.3
29.1
34.4
35.7
32.0
33.3
48.5
35.1
28.2
29.5
34.4

S8
S6 Ferrous
Nuggetizer metal
feed by-products
0.7 14.4
0.9 4.5
0.8 5.7
0.5 9.4
0.4 13.0
0.7 9.4
2.2 9.9
1.3 6.4
0.6 6.6
1.6 7.7
1.0 7.9
1.3 7.1
13.1
18.8
2.9
4.3
5.1
8.8
10.7
2.1
6.8
11.4
7.8
11.2
12.6
4.3
6.4
4.9
7.9
7.3
11.0
5.8
2.0
3.0
5.8
            282

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)
Smaller than 9.5 mm


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

Si
Mill
discharge
44.2
37.5
31.4
35.0

44.9
25.3
33.3
52.8
21.4
43.0
39.9
36.9
49.6
49.3



50.3
33.6
46.9
47.0
44.7
44.4
44.5
34.5
46.9
46.1
46.9
32.2
41.3
50.3
42.6
39.5
42.4
59.5
52.4
47.8

S2
Cyclone
discharge
38.9
38.9
30.6
35.8

37.8
35.0
33.7
36.4
36.5
13.4
27.7
18.0
29.3
59.3



53.7
41.6
47.9
48.1
48.1
48.8
48.0
46.1
39.6
64.2
50.6
51.3
50.4
45.2
49.6
42.0
23.4
47.4
55.3
43.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
37.2
19.7
35.5
34.3

2.7
15.9
28.6
14.4
41.9
24.6
24.7
15.6
31.5
26.6



31.1
28.6
28.2
37.1
33.6
44.1
33.8
34.5
43.6
40.2
40.9
18.9
35.6
44.0
35.0
37.5
31.8
24.1
25.9
33.1
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
11.4
4.9
6.0
3.5

13.0
14.2
8.0
7.2
14.1
8.0
4.8
10.0
8.5
12.8



7.0
18.4
5.7
16.2
18.4
13.8
13.3
8.5
11.8
11.8
12.6
3.8
9.7
10.2
10.6
11.3
6.3
4.8
7.8
8.5
           283

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)
Smaller than 9.5 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

18*'
19£/
21§/
22a/
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
54.9
51.6
51.2
52.6
74.1
59.7
50.0
62.7
79.4
65.2
60.3
63.0
65.5
50.9
65.9
61.1
69.6
69.6
60.1
67.4
63.5
63.7
61.3
73.6
67.5
41.3
63.5
57.4
51.7
53.5
63.9
70.0
59.8
52.7
69.3
63.1

S2
Cyclone
discharge
49.8
46.1
53.6
49.8
72.3
68.3
72.3
70.3
86.9
74.0
64.1
64.5
54.3
50.8
56.0
57.9
68.1
68.1
71.2
74.4
75.9
73.8
50.5
63.6
57.1
61.0
67.2
55.2
64.2
61.9
66.4
50.7
62.8
57.6
74.4
62.4
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
43.4
23.1
22.5
29.7
56.0
49.5
64.8
41.7
42.3
50.9
27.3
40.7
37.6
38.8
33.4
35.6
23.5
23.5
39.0
20.9
46.6
35.5
9.0
40.4
24.7
37.8
30.2
14.0
36.2
29.6
22.8
23.7
21.8
34.7
23.5
25.3
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
16.6
5.9
8.2
10.2
b/
34.3
41.9
42.7
39.5
39.6
8.8
6.2
3.4
5.5
9.6
6.7
14.1
14.1
12.9
b/
10.8
11.9
7.0
8.4
7.7
7.9
12.4
15.8
2.6
9.7
6.4
4.1
3.6
9.0
10.3
6.7
          284

-------
Table B-3t.  (Continued)

Smaller than 9.5 mm


Dally samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average^/

SI
Mill
discharge
51.9
58.2
52.2
64.6
56.7
52.2
55.3
53.8
34.8
48.7
39.1
52.7
43.8
46.4
61.8
45.9
51.4
36.8
43.7
49.7
73.3
50.9
68.4
51.9
60.2
64.3
54.7
33.4
40.6
48.3
47.7

S2
Cyclone
discharge
57.9
48.0
35.4
50.0
47.8
54.4
50.1
52.3
44.0
53.5
54.5
53.3
51.3
50.0
44.6
65.7
,53.4
63.0
58.3
72.9
40.3
58.6
76.3
53.6
65.0
66.8
60.9
53.8
69.3
62.7
47.7
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
45.1
29.1
18.0
37.7
32.5
24.4
26.2
25.3
41.8
40.4
37.9
26.3
36.6
22.9
35.0
36.4
31.4
40.4
50.0
32.5
23.6
36.6
27.0
29.5
28.3
28.9
16.2
30.0
29.5
26.2
30.0
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
7.4
15.7
6.2
2.7
8.0
10.0
8.4
9.2
13.3
10.5
10.4
11.8
11.5
5.3
6.6
10.0
7.3
5.2
12.4
9.2
8.0
8.7
7.6
6.3
7.0
13.3
6.8
14.4
9.3
11.0
9.9
           285

-------
Table B-3C.   (Continued)

Smaller than 4.8 mm
Dally

samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day
23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22


SI
Mill
discharge
35.3
33.5
12.5
23.8
15.7
24.2
31.6
28.4
32.3
11.7
14.3
23.7
22.2
33.0
29.8
26.4
29.7
28.2
37.7
37.1
29.2
28.3
33.1
37.5
21.7
32.4
25.7
34.1
30.3
30.8
23.6
22.3
26.4
18.2
24.3

S2 S4
Cyclone ADS
discharge heavies
34.3 1.9
40.6 1.9
23.3 2.1
29.5 1.1
28.8 3.5
31.3 2.1
47.4 5.4
40.3 2.8
36.0 3.2
40.0 3.4
27.9 4.9
38.3 3.9
34.3
39.0
33.3
34.9
29.5
34.2
44.6
34.4
35.8
32.6
36.9
27.2
28.8
35.4
30.9
31.0
30.7
30.8
21.8
21.9
23.9
21.7
24.0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
10.0
12.1
6.9
17.1
14.2
12.1
7.9
7.6
14.8
7.6
13.1
10.2
23.6
13.9
17.8
16.1
9.5
16.2
21.5
14.9
12.7
5.4
13.6
8.0
14.3
13.4
12.9
12.4
12.2
13.4
16.8
11.4
8.0
10.0
11.9
S8
S6 Ferrous
Nugget izer metal
feed by-products
0.6 0.9
0.3 0.3
0.4 1.1
0.3 0.9
0.3 1.9
0.4 1.0
0.5 0.7
0.3 0.4
0.3 0.6
0.4 0.3
0.3 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.9
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
O.t>
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.3
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
            286

-------
Table  B-3t.  (Continued)
Smaller than 4.8 mm


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Dailv samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 U
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg
4 14
4 15
4 16
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
24.4
22.7
15.7
19.2

26.4
13.9
18.5
34.2
11.6
25.0
24.3
22.5
. 29.6
35.4



32.9
29.3
31.4
22.0
27.1
25.0
29.6
18.1
28.4
26.0
28.4
17.1
23.6
31.6
25.6
24.2
24.5
38.3
34.0
29.7
33.6
33.5
29.6
32.2

S2
Cyclone
discharge
27.8
22.2
19.3
21.7

22.2
18.1
18.7
20.5
15.9
8.4
15.7
10.0
18.0
39.8



33.8
30.8
35.6
28.4
30.8
29,3
31.8
24.7
26.4
13.2
35.4
31.1
26.2
27.1
28.8
27.8
14.3
30.9
34.9
27.3
30.5
27.0
31.8
29.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
14.0
6.:
11.3
7.0

1.8
4.5
8.4
2.0
10.4
4.9
7.4
4.8
8.6
7.1



10.4
13.5
9.0
12.2
11.4
13.7
11.7
18.1
13.8
14.1
12.5
6.2
12.9
16.7
10.5
11.6
9.2
6.5
8.4
10.5
17.2
10.1
6.5
11.3
se
Ferrous
metal
by-products
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.1

i.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.8
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.2
1.7



0.7
2.5
0.6
1.1
2.2
1.0
1.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
            287

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)
Smaller than 4.8 mm


Daily samples
Date
Month
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg
1975
Day
18£/
195./
2 IS./
22a/
23£/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
47.8
38.7
30.7
40.3
51.4
41.8
38.7
40.2
38.7
27.3
42.0
37.4
40.7
40.7
36.4
42.0
42.5
40.3
39.6
48.0
43.8
29.9
40.7
37.5
31.4
34.9
43.3
45.8
37.7
35.1
45.8
41.5

S2
Cyclone
discharge
51.2
46.2
48.2
49.7
59.5
51.1
41.3
43.0
33.6
32.3
34.3
36.9
48.2
48.2
49.7
51.8
54.0
51.8
36.4
45.7
41.1
43.3
47.9
39.1
45.5
44.0
47.4
35.1
44.8
39.2
55.0
44.3
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
22.3
17.3
29.5
5.1
8.8
16.6
6.3
14.8
12.3
16.1
9.1
11.7
5.7
5.7
13.3
6.4
21.8
13.8
3.6
13.7
8.7
18.4
10.4
5.1
13.2
11.8
14.1
8.2
6.3
13.3
6.4
9.7 ,
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
b/
2.7
3.3
3.7
5.1
3.7
1.5
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.7
1.5
1.5
0.9
b/
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.3
0.9
1.2
2.0
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.9
1.0
           288

-------
                               Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 4.8 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5


SI
Mill
discharge
29.5
38.5
32.7
40.8
35.4
33.6
35.4
34.5
"21.6
30.3
25.8
28.2
26.5
22.3
38.8
31.1
30.7
25.6
26.4
31.2
47.4
32.7
44.5
31.4
38.0
42.8
36.7
21.8
28.7
32.5

S2
Cyclone
discharge
41.2
34.0
23.9
31.9
32.8
38.6
33.2
35.9
28.5
38.8
34.8
35.1
34.3
32.7
33.3
37.6
34.5
41.2
38.2
49.2
28.9
39.4
53.4
35.2
44.3
46.6
42.7
39.7
49.3
44.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
reiects
14.9
4.3
3.6
11.3
8.5
6.3
8.0
7.2
14.4
18.5
7.8
5.6
11.6
6.1
14.6
13.1
11.3
13.9
16.0
12.6
6.7
12.3
11.6
11.0
11.3
9.2
4.5
7.1
9.0
7.5
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.5
1.7
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.5
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.8
0.5
1.9
0.6
1.2
Total average£'
             c/
29.3
30.8
9.7
1.0
                                           289

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)



Daily
samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week avp
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day
23
24
25
26
7.1

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22


Si
Mill
discharge
24.6
23.4
8.3
15.5
11.4
16.6
18.4
18.2
19.6
0.9
1.0
11.6
14.4
20.9
17.9
18.6
18.7
18.1
23.4
2° . 5
17.0
17.2
20.0
24.1
15.7
23.0
18.8
23.2
21.0
19.6
16.0
18.1
18.4
13.0
17.0

S2
Cyclone
discharge
22.2
24.1
14.6
21.1
IS. 2
20.0
29.5
25.0
22.1
27.3
18.6
24.5
23.2
26.7
21.5
25.3
20.5
23.4
27.2
20.3
22.9
21.7
23.0
19.6
20.3
25.3
22.2
21.8
21.8
22.2
14.1
15.8
16.3
13.0
16.3
Smaller than 2.4 mm
S5
S4 Magnetic S6
ADS belt Nuggetizer
heavies rejects feed
1.3 4.8 0.2
1.0 5.4 0.1
1.2 1.1 0.2
0.6 6.6 0.1
1.5 6.° 0.1
1.1 5.0 0.1
2.0 2.3 0.2
1.0 3.6 0.1
1.5 6.1 0.2
2.1 3.5 0.2
2.0 4.3 0.2
1.7 4.0 0.2
12.0
4.9
7..J
5.4
5.1
6.9
9.6
5.2
4.4
2.7
5.5
3.5
5.4
7.3
5.7
4.6
5.3
5.7
6.2
3.8
3.0
3.4
4.5

S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
C' . H-
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0. 2
0.2
O...1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
            290

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 2.4 ram


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
1 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
dj-scjiarge
16.3
14.8
11.8
13.4

15.2
8.8
11.1
18.5
7.7
16.0
14.3
14.4
18.3
25.4



23.2
20.1
22.0
13.1
18.1
14.2
18.5
11.7
18.5
18.2
18.5
12.3
15.8
23.2
18.8
16.2
17.2
26.7
25.5
21.3

S2
Cyclone
discharge
19.4
15.3
14.5
14.5

15.5
13.3
12.4
12.5
9.6
6.1
9.7
7.0
12.0
27.1



'30.4
23.9
26.0
16.0
20.7
18.9
22.7
17.5
18.2
9.4
25.8
21.0
18.4
19.6
19.2
21.0
10.8
23.0
25.0
19.8
S5
Magnetic
belt
re jec t s
5.3
3.2
5.1
1.7

0.9
1.8
3.4
0.7
2.2
2.0
3.0
2.3
3.5
3.0



4.6
7.3
4.8
5.4
4.8
5.4
5.4
11.7
5.7
6.0
4.9
3.4
6.3
8.1
4.5
4.9
4.4
3.2
4.0
4.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.2
0.1
0
0

0.1
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4



0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
            291

-------
Table B-3t.   (Continued)

Smaller than 2.4 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
5
Week avg
6
7 ,
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

19£/
2ia/
231/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
2
3

7
8
9
10
11


Si
Mill
discharge
24.6
22.8
20.0
22.5
31.7
27.4
20.7
26.7
32.1
27.7
25.0
25.9
23.9
16.9
27.5
23.8
24.2
24.2
22.0
26.1
27.0
25.0
27.6
29.6
28.6
21.6
26.3
24.8
21.2
23.5
29.7
27.5
24.6
23.7
31.5
27.4

S2
Cyclone
discharge
20.0
20.0
21.8
20.6
39.8
31.7
36.7
37.0
36.3
36.3
26.3
30.4
22.4
22.6
21.6
24.7
33.3
33.3
31.1
33.5
37.2
33.9
25.8
30.7
28.3
28.9
32.8
27.9
33.3
30.7
29.9
21.8
29.3
26.4
38.0
29.1
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
9.0
5.4
3.5
6.0
7.0
4.9
11.7
4.2
2.1
6.0
2.4
6.6
4.9
4.8
3.3
4.4
2.0
2.0
4.3
2.9
9.3
5.5
1.8
4.3
3.1
8.6
4.3
2.9
4.6
5.1
4.6
3.5
3.0
6.6
3.2
4.2
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
b/
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
b/
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
            292

-------
                               Table B-3t.   (Concluded)

Smaller than 2.4 mm


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
S
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5

Total average£'

SI
Mill
discharge
17.0
25.1
19.4
23.9
21.4
20.3
21.9
21.1
" 14.4
17.0
15.6
14.1
15.3
12.1
22.0
20.7
18.3
18.5
15.1
19.7
25.9
19.8
25.8
17.9
21.9
26.9
22.3
14.1
20.3
20.9
18.5

S2
Cyclone
discharge
26.0
23.0
16.2
19.8
21.3
26.7
23.0
24.9
19.0
24.8
19.6
21.2
21.2
22.7
22.6
22.0
22.4
23.6
22.4
30.5
19.4
24.0
31.9
21.6
26.8
28.8
27.3
26.0
30.6
28.2
20.6
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
4.6
1.1
1.3
3.9
2.7
2.0
2.4
2.2
4.7
8.2
2.5
2.1
4.4
2.3
6.4
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.7
5.1
2.1
4.0
4.7
4.6
4.7
3.2
1.9
1.7
2.2
2.3
3.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
a./  Fine grind.
b_/  Nuggetizer down.
c_/  Average includes weekly composites November 25, 1974, through March 17, 1975.
                                          293

-------
Table B-3u.   ANALYSIS OF  MILLED  REFUSE STREAMS PARTICLE SIZE
             GEOMETRIC MEAN  DIAMETER  - mm, wt. I
                  (Received  moisture  basis)

Dallv

samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Reek
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
Day
23
24
25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
U
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
IB
19
20
21
22
avg

SI
Kill
discharge
7.1
B.It
20.3
10.7
17.3
12.8
7.9
9.1
7.4
13.2
11.4
9.8
10.9
7.4
7.9
11.7
7.6
9.1
6.9
6.4
8.6
8.9
7.7
7.1
10.7
8.1
9.7
6.9
8.5
7.4
10.2
10.2
7.9
12.2
9.6

S2
Cyclone
discharge
7.9
6.6
11.9
9.7
8.9
9.0
5.6
6.4
6.9
6.1
8.4
6.7
7.6
6.4
7.1
7.1
9.1
7.5
5.6
7.1
7.1
7.4
6.8
9.4
8.9
6.9
8.6
8.1
8.4
8.1
11.9
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.3

S4
ADS
heavies
22.9
23.4
28.5
25.4
21.3
24.3
21.1
20.3
19.1
21.3
17.0
20.0
























S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
14.0
11.4
14.0
10.9
11.9
12.4
14.7
16.8
13.0
16.5
10.7
14.3
10.4
10.9
9.4
10.2
13.0
10.8
8.9
8.6
10.9
14.7
10.8
17.0
11.2
15.5
11.4
12.2
13.5
13.0
9.1
12.2
13.5
13.7
12.3

S6
Nuggetizer
feed
31.5
24.6
24.6
31.2
32.8
28.9
25.4
29.5
30.2
24.1
26.2
27.1























S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
13.5
19.1
17.0
16.0
16.0
16.3
16.5
16.8
18.3
17.8
18.0
17.5
16.8
15.0
20.6
19.1
±8.5.
18.0
18.0
18.8
19.6
16.0
16.1
17.0
16.5
16.8
17.0
18.3
17.1
18.0
18.3
18.0
20.1
19.3
18.7
                           294

-------
Table B-3u.   (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
' 1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
9.7
10.2
11.9
11.7

8.6
14.2
11.2
8.1
16.0
9.7
10.9
10.9
•8.1
7.6



7.9
9.1
8.4
9.7
10.4
9.1
9.1
13.5
8.6
9.1
8.6
12.5
10.5
8.1
9.7
10.7
10.2
6.6
7.9
8.9

S2
Cyclone
discharge
11.2
10.4
11.4
10.9

10.4
10.7
11.2
12.5
12.2
14.0
16.5
15.2
16.0
6.4



7.1
10.2
8.6
8.4
» .>
8.4
8.6
9.7
10.4
8.4
8.1
7.9
8.9
9.4
8.1
10.7
11.7
8.4
7.4
9.3

S5
Magnetic belt
reieccs
13.0
15.2
11.2
12.7

38.9
17.5
13.5
23.1
10.7
15.2
16.8
17.3
13.0
14.5



13.0
14.5
13.2
11.7
11.9
10.9
12.5
13.5
10.7
11.2
10.9
18.0
12.9
9.4
11.7
11.7
13.2
14.5
14.5
12.5
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
16.5
19.1
18.0
17.0

16,0
15.8
17.3
16.8
16.5
18.0
21.3
17.0
17.0
15.8



18.5
15.8
18.0
15.0
14.0
16.0
16.2
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.5
19.6
17.3
18.0
17.3
17.0
17.3
20.1
18.3
18.0
          295

-------
Table B-3u.  (Continued)


U^ily samples
Date 1975
Month
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
4
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Week avg
5
•i
Week avg
b
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

isa/
19-'
22?'
23a/

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
1
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
7.4
8.1
7.9
7.8
4.6
5.6
6.9
5.6
4.3
5.4
6.4
5.3
6.1
8.1
5.3
6.3
5.1
5.1
6.4
5.6
6.1
6.0
5,8
5.1
5.5
10.?
5.8
6.6
7.6
7.6
5.6
5.3
6.4
7.1
6.1
6.1

S2
Cyclone
discharge
8.1
8.9
7.4
8.1
4.3
4.8
4.6
4.6
3.8
4.4
5.8
5.6
7.9
8.1
6.9
6.9
4.8
4.8
5.1
4.6
4.3
4.7
6.4
5.8
6.1
5.6
5.3
6.6
5.6
5.8
5.6
6.6
6.1
6.6
4.3
5.8

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
8.9
16.8
16.5
14.1
8. 1
8.6
6.6
9.9
10.2
8.7
13.7
10.7
11.4
13.2
13.0
12.4
16,0
16.0
12.7
15.2
9.1
12.3
21.1
11.2
16.2
10.4
13.2
20.3
11.4
13.8
13.5
13.7
14.0
11.9
16.0
13.8
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
16.0
17.8
19.1
17.6
b/
10.7
9.9
10.4
l'i.7
10.4
16. b
i8.5
20.3
19.3
16.8
18.3
14.?
14.2
15.8
b/
16.3
16.1
16.0
!b.H
16.4
17.8
15.8
15. 0
17.3
16.5
17.0
18.5
17.5
16.3
17.3
17.3
          296

-------
                                      Table B-3u.   (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
1
7
7
Week avg
7
8
Week avg
8
8
3
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total avg—'

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8
10
11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5



Si
Mill
discharge
7.9
6.4
7.6
5,6
6.9
7.4
7.1
7.3
14.0
8.6
9.9
-8.1
10.2
9.7
6.4
8.1
8.1
9.7
10.4
8.1
5.1
8.3
5.6
7.9
6.8
5.8
7.1
10.4
10.2
8.4
8.9

S2
Cyclone
discharge
6.4
8.1
11.7
7.6
8.5
6.6
8.1
7.4
9.1
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.9
7.6
8.9
6.1
7.5
6.4
6.9
4.8
8, A
6.6
4.6
7.1
5.9
5.6
6.1
7.6
5.3
6.2
8.9

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
10.2
13.5
17.3
11.4
13.1
14.0
14.0
14.0
10.2
10.9
14.2
13.7
12.3
16.3
11.9
10.9
13.0
11.7
9.7
11.4
15.8
12.2
14.0
11.7
12. 9
14.2
19.6
14.0
15.0
15.7
14.2
S8
ferrous
metal
by-products
17.8
15.8
16.3
19.3
17.3
In. i
i 7 . •)
16.9
15. j
1 0 . t
15.8
15.5
15.9
18.5
17.5
17.3
17.8
IS. 8
15.0
17.3
1 h . 3
16.9
17. J
17.5
17.4
1 (• . 3
18.fi
15. (3
17.0
16.8
It). 5
a!  Fine grind.
b/  Nuggetizer down.
£/  Average included weekly average November 25,  1974,  through  March  17,  1975.
                                                297

-------
Table B-3v.  ANALYSIS  OF  MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
 PARTICLE SIZE - GEOMETRIC  STANDARD DEVIATION

Daily

samples
Date 1974
Month
9
9
9
9
9
Week
9
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
Week
10
10
10
10
10
Week
11
11
11
11
11
Week
Day
23
24
"25
26
27
avg
30
1
2
3
4
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg

SI
Mill
discharge
2.80
3.16
2.99
2.92
3.30
3.03
2.66
2.91
2.55
2.11
2.23
2.49
2.72
2.68
2.62
3.18
2.63
2.77
2.77
2.56
2.75
2.74
2.70
2.84
2.72
2.98
2.86
2.67
2.81
2.60
2.79
2.82
2.55
2.68
2.69

S2
Cyclone
discharge
2.95
2.71
3.18
3.28
2.86
3.00
2.69
2.67
2.68
2.71
2.72
2.69
2.86
2.78
2.70
2.82
3.05
2.84
2.62
2.64
2.82
2.76
2.71
2.94
2.90
2.71
2.95
2.87
2.87
2.93
2.88
2.82
2.86
2.85
2.87

S4
ADS
heavies
1.59
1.74
1.91
1.67
1.92
1.77
2.02
1.77
1.85
1.72
1.95
1.86
























S5
Magnetic belt
relects
2.35
2.14
1.95
2.56
2.55
2.31
2.01
2.26
2.57
2.29
2.23
2.27
3.02
2.17
2.20
2.16
2.14
2.34
2.29
1.92
2.10
1.95
2.06
2.23
2.25
3.00
2.17
2.24
2.38
2.45
2.14
2.17
2.13
2.26
2.23

S6
Nuggetizer
feed
1.47
1.31
1.45
1.40
1.52
1.43
1.45
1.54
1.52
1.57
1.33
1.48























S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
1.49
1.55
1.54
1.56
1.67
1.56
1.60
1.53
1.56
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.68
1.70
1.54
1.52
1.54
1.60
1.63
1.48
1.56
1.59
1.56
1.63
1.67
1.49
1.55
1.52
1.57
1.57
1.67
1.60
1.50
1.55
1.58
                     298

-------
Table B-3v.   (Continued)


Weekly composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily samples
0ate 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg

SI
Mill
discharge
2.93
2.68
2.62
2.78

2.56
2.59
2.56
2.91
2.40
2.88
2.89
2.73
"2.71
2.97



2.90
2.81
2.94
2.64
3.26
2.60
2.86
2.90
2.84
2.78
2.84
2.68
2.81
2.99
2.86
2.89
2.94
2.88
3.09
2.94

S2
Cyclone
discharge
3.45
2.82
2.70
2.76

2.70
2.51
2.58
2.85
2.67
2.09
2.87
2.47
3.17
2.84



3.09
3.40
3.33
2.67
3.48
2.66
3.06
2.89
3.05
2.24
3.16
2.76
2.82
. 2.93
2.76
3.31
2.37
2.98
2.89
2.87

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
2.58
1.98
2.33
2.05

1.79
1.96
2.08
2.15
1.95
2.03
2.40
1.96
2.17
2.13



2.28
2.62
2.16
2.33
2.19
2.33
2.32
2.90
2.21
2.37
2,23
2.24
2.39
2.16
2.15
2.26
2.20
2.10
2.21
2.18
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
1.67
1.52
1.52
1.46

1.66
1.62
1.57
1.53
1.69
1.60
1.58
1.63
1.57
1.65



1.58
1.78
1.53
1.65
1.66
1.65
1.64
1.56
1.64
1.64
1.65
1.50
1.60
1.63
1.61
1.63
1.53
1.56
1.65
1.60
          299

-------
Table B-3v.   (Continued)


Ua i ly samples
Date 1975
Month
-*
•4
4
Week avg
4
-t
ft

*
Week avg
4
4
4
5
5
Week avg
5
Week avg
5
5
5
Heck avg
5
.
t.cr-s avg
h
7
7
7
Week avg
7
7
7
7
7
Week avg

Day
14
15
16

lga/
19^
21-'
22a/
23*'

28
29
30
1
2

9

12
13
16

19
20

30
1
7
3

7
8
9
10
11


SI
Mill
discharge
2.83
3.05
2.71
2.87
2. '7
2.40
2.37
2. In
2.?i
2.13
2.67
2.52
2.58
2.59
2.42
2.56
2. 20
2.20
2.49
2.58
-
2.54
2. 59
2.44
2.52
3.36
2.51
2.64
2.68
2.80
2.60
2J 50
2.57
2.74
3.40
2.76

32
Cyclone
discharge
2.83
2.88
2.76
2.82
2.40
2.36
2.36
2.44
2.11
2.33
2.57
2.62
2.97
3.06
2.61
2.77
2.46
2.46
2.58
2.48
2.45
2.50
2.49
2.81
2.66
2.57
2.75
2.92
2.76
2.75
2.70
2.47
2.85
2.79
2.51
2.66

S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
2.07
2.48
2. 11
2. 22
2. 12
1.97
2.08
1.72
1.S1
1.94
1.98
2.23
2.18
2.68
2.12
2.24
2.19
2.19
2.29
2.0?
2.35
2.22
2.04
2.26
2.15
2.38
2.19
2.27
2.23
2.27
2.23
2.03
1.95
2.36
2.24
2.16
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-product s
i.71
1.53
1 . 64
1.63

1.54
l.^O
3 . 6 -
* • -J •
1.5')
1.60
l.JU
1.50
1.53
1.61
1.56
1.57
1.57
1 . tj 1
-
1.61
1 .61
l.rsl
I . 5 -i
1 55
1.62
i.t:
1.64
1.49
1.59
1.59
1 . 5 '•>
1.4''
1.5*
1.61'
i.r;
            300

-------
                                      Table B-3v.   (Concluded)


Daily samples
Date 1975
Month
7
7
7
7
UVfk avg
7
8
Week avg
fi
s
8
8
Week avg
8
8
8
Week avg
3
8
8
8
Week avg
8
S
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Total av£-f

Day
14
16
17
18

30
1

5
6
7
8

11
14
15

19
20
21
22

28
29

2
3
4
5



SI
Mill
discharge
2.57
2.69
2.69
2.37
2.58
2.61
2.73
2.67
3.47
2.77
2.72
2.55
2.88
2.65
2.55
2.79
2.66
2.78
3.03
2.74
2.38
2.73
2.. SO
2.68
2.59
2.61
2.76
2.59
3.11
2.77
2.73

S2
Cyclone
discharge
2.67
3.03
3.02
2.66
2.85
2.77
2.95
2.86
2.85
3.04
2.67
2.79
2.84
2.82
3.05
2.46
2.78
2.78
2.69
2.45
2.62
2.64
2.37'
2.65
2.51
2.69
2.74
3.12
2.70
2.81
2.75

S5
Magnetic belt
reiects
2.19
1.90
1 .87
2.12
2.02
1.94
2.03
1.99
2.06
2.48
2.23
1.93
2.18
2.31
2.35
2.08
2.25
2.39
2.15
2.13
2.11
2.20
2.26
2.08
2.17
2.29
2.14
2.08
2.21
2.18
2.11
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
1.57
1.66
1.51
1.48
1.56
1.57
1.C1
1.59
!.n"
i .61
1.61
1.59
1.61
1.54
1.57
1.63
1.58
1.55
1.61
1.61
1.57
1.59
].:->
1.55
1.5o
1 .68
1.58
1.69
1 . 54
1.64
1.59
a/  Fine grind.
!>/  Average includes weekly composites  November  25,  1974,  through March  17, 1975.
                                                301

-------
Table B-3v.  DAILY RESULTS -  PROXIMATE AND  ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE FUEL, wt. 7.
                             (Received Moisture  Basis)
Date 1974
Month

9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
-10
10
10
10
Week avg

9
9
9
9
9
Week avg
9
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
Week avg
10
10
10
10
10
Week avg
11
11
11
11
11
Week avg
Day

23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4


23
24
25
26
27

30
1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10
11

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

18
19
20
21
22

Volatile
matter
Fixed
carbon
Oxygen (by
Carbon Hydrogen difference)
Stream S3 - Storage
47.39
46.77
47.28
43.73
44.91
46.01
45.97
48.41
47.23
46.30
47.12
47.01

48.53
48.11
45.55
45.73
45.88
46.76
47.53
46.24
45.10
47.84
43.22
45.99
46.73
44.65
46.13
42.76
43.20
44.69
46.46
45.56
45.25
43.26
45.13
49.57
44.26
43.13
45.15
43.22
45.07
47.31
50.85
51.34
48.11
60.36
51.59
4.85
4.46
2.93
11.23
12.37
7.17
7.98
0.00
8.44
7.80
9.43
6.73
Stream
3.23
5.16
5.77
8.93
9.31
6.48
3.75
0.00
9.49
5.86
20.11
7.84
12.86
14.55
11.01
19.81
21.60
15.97
5.34
6.18
13.04
14.00
9.64
5.30
15.35
18.82
19.52
19.38
15.67
8.24
8.49
8.72
9.04
11.05
9.11
28.64
26.71
24.25
29.84
29.27
27.74
26.46
23.64
28.04
26.76
26.83
26.35
S2- Cyclone
26.81
27.19
25.94
27.83
27.58
27.01
26.34
21.98
26.45
27.47
30.64
26.58
29.93
29.30
27.32
30.37
27.48
28.88
25.53
26.29
27.32
27.35
26.62
26.33
29.19
29.92
30.84
31.62
29.58
28.66
30.86 ,
29.93
28.84
32.56
30.17
Sulfur
Nitrogen
bin discharge
3.66
3.64
3.26
4.24
4.13
3.79
3.99
3.22
4.07
3.66
3.65
3.72
discharge
3.68
3.54
3.63
3.62
3.82
3.66
3.66
3.24
3.85
3.77
4.30
3.76
4.08
4.09
3.85
4.31
3.93
4.05
3.51
3.34
3.87
3.64
3.59
3.65
3.75
3.96
4.11
4.48
3.99
4.00
4.74
4.51
3.74
6.13
4.62
19.10
20.09
21.88
20.10
23.07
20.85
22.74
20.89
22.94
23.01
25.26
22.97

20.44
21.74
21.30
22.48
22.78
21.75
20.50
20.36
23.69
21.77
27.49
22.76
24.63
25.14
25.23
27.08
32.57
26.93
22.13
21.46
26.38
25.55
23.88
24.22
25.97
27.39
28.89
25.67
26.43
22.28
22.96
25.01
23.88
32.02
25.23
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.15

0.20
0.18
0.15
0.22
0.40
0.23
0.18
0.21
0.11
0.16
0.30
0.19
0.23
0.11
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.15
0.08
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.18
0.17
0.63
0.61
0.66
0.57
0.57
0.61
0.59
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.61
0.55

0.63
0.62
0.60
0.51
0.61
0.59
0.60
0.45
0.49
0.53
0.60
0.53
0.72
0.56
0.60
0.61
0.66
0.63
0.47
0.49
0.62
0.59
0.54
0.55
0.55
0.60
0.66
0.65
0.60
0.46
0.59
0.44
0.55
0.52
0.51
                                      302

-------
T.ible B-3w.   (Continued)
Weekly
composite
(1974)
11-25
12-2
12-9
12-30
(1975)
1-6
1-13
1-20
1-27
2-3
2-10
2-17
3-3
3-10
3-17
Daily
samples
Date 1975
Month Day
3 24
3 25
3 26
3 27
3 28
3 29
Week avg
3 31
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Week avg
4 7
4 8
4 9
4 10
4 11
4 12
Week avg
4 14
4 15
4 16
Week avg
4 18S/
4 192./
4 215^
4 22*/
4 23^
Week avg

Volatile
matter
50.76
48.25
60.48
47.87

46.06
28.36
59.12
43.22
48.93
50.43
54.85
38.86
47.06
40.75




43.94
46.35
45.40
44.93
39.80
45.50
44.31
43.77
42.09
53.85
40.72
46.82
45.44
39.69
50.17
46.31
51.25
53.85
45.44
47.79
48.10
45.75
46.35
46.73
41.84
43.53
43.99
40.33
36.51
41.25

Fixed
carbon
9.54
8.65
10.25
8.63

9.28
29.33
10.31
6.17
8.98
8.47
10.02
21.80
8.29
8.02
•



7.14
6.44
7.53
7.87
6.34
7.38
7.12
10.91
9.28
7.41
6.23
5.11
7.79
15.69
7.33
7.64
7.40
9.39
7.66
9.18
7.93
7.47
7.42
7.61
7.91
6.84
8.85
8.53
5.39
7.50


Carbon
30.65
28.18
34.12
27.04

27.71
29.22
33.98
24.55
28.20
28.97
32.22
30.98
28.54
24.35




25.00
23.48
27.82
24.05
22.97
24.90
24.70
26.14
26.91
29.95
23.35
26.07
26.48
28.19
29.86
26.61
27.90
32.12
26.25
28.50
29.31
27.38
26.83
27.84
24.41
22.01
27.31
24.74
21.11
23.92


Hydrogen
6.72
4.19
4.92
3.93

3.93
4.45
4.90
3.90
3.83
4.46
4.69
4.79
4.37
3.65




3.64
3.54
4.01
3.50
3.70
3.38
- 3.63
3.79
3.67
4.14
3.32
3.77
3.74
4.31
4.22
3.81
4.18
4.74
4.22
4.25
4.35
3.81
3.86
4.01
3.38
3.51
4.01
3.90
3.02
3.56

Oxygen (by
difference)
22.17
23.83
31.26
25.00

22.91
23.37
29.37
20.28
25.24
24.71
27.38
24.18
21.89
20.21




21.66
24.91
20.41
24.69
18.81
24.04
22.42
24.03
20.12
26.33
19.41
21.36
22.25
22.19
22.67
22.75
25.68
25.69
21.98
23.48
21.80
21.58
22.54
21.97
21.09
24.08
20.74
19.44
17.08
20.50


Sulfur
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.09

0.17
0.14
0.26
0.20
0.16
0.23
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.11




0.15
0.26
0.14
0.15
0.24
0.19
0.19
0.28
0.17
0.35
0.28
0.24
0.26
0.20
0.24
0.23
0.41
0.24
0.20
0.25
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.26
0.19
0.24
0.22
0.26
0.23


Nitrogen
0.59
0.53
0.31
0.44

0.62
0.51
0.56
0.46
0.48
0.53
0.41
0.53
0.41
0.45




0.63
0.60
0.55
0.41
0.42
0.37
0.50
0.44
0.48
0.49
0.59
0.49
0.50
0.49
0.51
0.55
0.48
0.45
0.45
0.49
0.39
0.28
0.35
0.34
0.61
0.58
0.54
0.55
0.43
0.54
             303

-------
1'ubXe i$-3w.   (Continued)
Daily
samples
Date
Month
4
4
4
5
5
Week
5
Week
5
5
5
Week
5
5
Week
6
7
7
7
Week
7
-»
7
7
7
W.-:ek
/
7
7
7
Week
7
A
Week
3
8
8
8
Week
8
8
8
Week
1975
Day
28
29
30
1
2
avg
9
avg
12
n
16
avg
19
20
avg
30
1
2
3
avg
7
8
9
10
11
avg
14
16
17
18
avg
30
1
avg
5
6
7
8
avg
11
14
15
avg
Volatile
matter
36 . 59
40.62
38.27
39.76
38.58
38.76
42.ft2
42. 6?
35.94
35.42
41.44
37.61
44.49
45.08
44.79
42.66
47.50
45.05
45.18
45.09
38.85
34.91
43.05
46.25
37.25
40.08
45. 3K
45.61
54.28
43.29
47.14
38.07
42.13
40.10
39.75
3 't.02
37.35
27.33
34.61
28.89
37. 36
3'*. 2 5
35.33
Fixed
carbon
5.64
6.79
7.10
6.40
7.36
h.ftf,
7.07
7.07
(,.9^
6.64
6.58
6.71
5.94
6.5S
6.26
6.06
6.66
7.04
7.23
6.75
6.00
6.34
4.81
5. ',7
4.15
5.:;;:
6.32
5.84
7.68
5.14
6.24
7.00
6.87
6.94
5.98
5.35
5.75
15.63
8.18
17.69
3.62
7.60
9.64

Carbon
21.29
27.02
22.31
23.65
23.08
23.47
25.40
25.40
22.45
22.99
25.34
23.59
24.99
26.28
25.63
25.98
28.34
25.25
27.28
26.71
22.38
21.43
24.33
26.71
22.11
23.39
25.44
25.64
30.50
25.31
26.72
23.80
25.52
24.66
23.65
20.61
22.28
23.47
22.50
24.56
21.16
25.84
23.85

Hydrogen
3.06
3.92
3.54
3.54
3.60
3.53
4.04
4.04
3.54
2.64
3.61
3.26
3.69
4.09
3.89
3.99
4.16
4.08
4.24
4.12
3.29
3.18
3.95
4.03
3.30
3.55
3.83
3.98
4.48
3.96
4.06
3.53
3.86
3.69
3.42
3.10
3.27
3.35
3.28
3.58
3.16
3.39
3.38
Oxygen (by
difference)
17.20
15.76
18.82
18.26
18.55
17.72
19.65
19.65
15.20
15. 7h
18.51
16.83
20.98
20.40
20.70
16.07
21.01
22.10
20.27
20.36
18.60
16.03
19.01
20.16
15.44
17.65
21.66
21.07
26.18
18.40
21.83
17.01
18.79
17.90
18.07
14.98
16.79
15.32
16.29
17.77
16.45
16.95
17.06

Sulfur
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.13
0.23
0.1 'i
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.30
0.24
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.25
0.20
0.19
0.32
0.26
0.13
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17

Nitrogen
0.50
0.54
0.55
0.53
0.54
0.53
0.47
0.47
0.4/4
o.:-4
n././
0.47
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.51
0.50
0.53
0.47
0.50
0.43
O.M
0.43
0.52
0.47
0.43
0.50
0.59
0.59
O. 10
0.57
0.54
0.51
0.53
0.
-------
                               Table B-3w.   (Concluded)
Daily
sample<
9
Date 1975
Month
8
8
8
8
Week avg
8
8
Week avg
9
9
9
9
Week avg
Day
19
20
21
22

28
29

•t
3
4
5


Volatile
matter
43.51
37.28
41.29
43.19
41.32
39.70
42.88
41.29
40.90
47.61
40.44
38.69
41.91

Fixed
carbon
3.50
5.66
5.66
5.94
5.18
5.05
6.10
5.57
5.90
4.26
6.46
6.38
5.73


Carbon
74.92
21.79
24.53
25.29
24.13
23.83
24.34
24.09
23.83
27.34
25.65
24.35
25.29


Hydrogen
3.72
3.21
4.09
3.81
3.71
3.06
3.61
3.34
3.54
3.99
3.93
3.51
3.74

Oxygen {by
difference)
17.77
17.31
17,65
10.24
17.98
37.25
20.38
18.80
18. (.7
19.79
16.60
16.48
17.88


Sulfur
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.25
0.18
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.07
0.16
0.15


Nitrogen
0.45
0.49
0.49
0.54
0.49
0.44
0.55
0.50
0.5'.
0.57
0.65
0.57
0.58
a/  Fine grind.
                                           305

-------
       Table B-3x.  PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF
                    REFUSE  FUEL PRODUCED
              REGRIND TEST  - FEBRUARY 19,  1975
       (Material reground  through same 3-in.  sq.  grate as
                     used on first grind)
Received moisture basis

Heating value (Btu/lb)                                6,075.7

Moisture (wt. 7.)                                         24.90

Ash (wt. 7.)                                              17.95

Volatile matter  (wt. 7.)                                  48.44

Fixed carbon (wt. 7.)                                      8.71

Carbon (wt. 7.)                                           29.82

Hydrogen (wt. 70)                                          4.51

Oxygen (wt. 7, by difference)                             22.20

Sulfur (wt. 7.)                                            0.17

Nitrogen (wt. 7.)                                          0.45.
                              306

-------
                 Table B-4a.  WEEKLY SUMMARY PIANT ENERGY BALANCE,  kj x
                                 (Total beat energy kj x 106)
                                                                           a/



Week of
production
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Total
Plant
input
SI
Mill
discharge
14,819
15,136
10,342
7,546
8,219
c/
£/
11,861
4,942
4,853
3,128
S.I
7,610
3,921'
5,917
9,211
6,771
7,805
3,885
1,004
5,772
6,350
1,714
16,838
15,623
12,502
8,128
8,115
8,616
481
. 6,286
4,652
c/
c/
£/
4,580
7,339
8,300
c/
3,726
10,611
7,131
7,971
4,995
10.550
287,251
Plant output

S2
RDF
produced
12,292
12,339
8,390
5,951
7,049


9,882
4,068
5,007
3,772

6,086
6,075
4,701
7,613
5,595
5,825
3,769
927
5,478
4,680
1,177
10,643
12,752
11,618
6,594
6,011
7,964
434
5,362
4,041



3,751
5,970
7,487

3,077
8,042
5,139
6,846
4,054
8.476
238,444
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
575
797
356
322
474

\
382
256
223
56

317
126
234
296
370
216
200
27
234
167
135
432
29,4
494
321
310
368
23
291
15fc



277
212
313

153
457
555
456
233
409
11,520
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
7
7
b/
b/
£/


8
3
5
3

6
4
1
6
3
4
4
1
3
3
1
8
9
8
4
3
6
0
3
2



4
5
6

2
5
4
6
3
6
153
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
363
440
281
180
176


258
108
133
46

349
122
147
129
81
180
137
28
135
120
38
339
267
343
149
113
207
U
31
92



145
135
142

73
130
152
188
93
169
6,441



Total
13.238
13,582
9,034
6,453
7,699


10,531
4,435
5,368
3,377

6,758
6,327
5,083
8,045
6,050
6,226
4,110
984
5,850
4,970
1,352
11,422
13,323
12,463
7,068
6,437
8,545
467
5,737
4,293



4,177
6,322
7,949

3,304
8,634
5,850
7,496
4,383
9.061
256,405


Energy
loss
1,582
1,553
1,307
1,093
520


1,330
506
+ 515
4 249

852
+ 2,407
833
1,166
722
1,579
+ 226
20
+ 78
1,380
363
5,416
2,300
39
1,060
1,679
71
14
549
359



403
1,017
351

422
1,977
1,281
475
612
1.489
37,794
    Heat energy (kj x 106) calculated from daily heating value (kj/kg) times  daily weight  (kg)
      for test days when daily samples taken.   During test period when only veekly composite
      samples were taken (weeks 9 through 23)  heat energy calculated  from weekly composite heat-
      ing value and weekly total weight.
b/  Heating value of magnetic drum rejects not determined.  Calculated energy loss therefore
      includes magnetic drum rejects.
c/  Samples not taken. Therefore, no heating value data available.
                                             307

-------
Table B-4b.   WEEKLY  SUMMARY OF PLANT ENERGY BALANCE8/
   (Expressed as  percent of hammermlll discharge)

Plant
input
SI
Week Oi' Mill
production discharge
1 100
2 100
3 100
4 100
5 100
b c/
-f cf
8 100
9 100
10 100
11 100
12 cf
13 100
14 100
IS 100
16 100
17 100
18 100
19 100
20 100
21 100
22 100
23 100
24 100
25 100
26 100
27 100
28 100
29 100
3(J 100
31 100
32 100
33 c'
34 £•
35 c/
36 100
37 100
38 100
3^ cf
40 100
-'.1 100
42 100
43 100
44 100
45 100
Average based 100
on total weights
(Table B-4a)


S2
RDF
produced
82.95
81.52
81.21
78.85
85.76


83.31
82.32
103. iai/
104. 59i/

79.97
154. 95i/
79.45
82.65
82.62
74.63
97.01
92.32
94.90
73.70
68.67
63.22
81.62
92. 93
81.11
74.0ft
92.43
90.0?
85.29
86.87



81.90
81.34
90.20

82.54
75.79
72.07
85.88
81.15
80.34
83.01



S5
Plant output
S7
Magnetic Magnetic
belt
rejects
4.24
5.27
3.44
4.26
5.77


i.22
5.19
',.58
1.79

4.16
3.20
3.96
3.22
5.47
2.77
5.16
2.73
4.06
2.63
7.88
2.56
1.90
"4.0O
3.95
J.82
4.28
4.85
4.64
3.40



6.06
2.89
3.78

4.11
4.31
7.79
5.72
4.66
3.88
4.01


a/ Based on data presented in Table B-4a.
i>/ Heating valve of magnetic drum rejects was
Includes magnetic
tj Samples not taken.
drum rejects
.
drum
rejects
0.05
0.05
y
b,'
b/


0.07
0.06
0.11
0.10

0.08
0.11
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.07
G.02
0.05
0.05



0.08
0.07
0.08

0.07
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06


not determined.


S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
2.45
2.91
2.71
2.40
2.14


2.18
2.18
2. '4
1,48

4.59
3.12
2.48
1.40
1.20
2.31
3.53
2.84
2.34
1.89
2.22
2.01
1.71
2.74
1.83
1.39
2.40
2.18
1.30
1.97'



3.16
1.85
1.71

1.94
1.22
2.13
2.36
1.86
1.60
2.24






Total
89.69
89.75
87.36
85.51
93.67


83.73
89.75
110. fc]
107.96

88.80
161.38
85.91
87.34
89.34
79.76
105.81
98.00
101.35
78.27
78.83
67.84
85.29
99.74
86. S4
79.31
99.18
«7.10
91. ?8
92.29



91.20
86.15
95.77

88.66
81.37
82.04
94.04
87.73
85.88
89.26





Energy
loss
10.31
10.25
12.64
Ii.49
;>. JJ


11.22
1 •;.?.?
-< 10. hi
i- 7.30

11.20
•+ 61.38
14.09
12.66
10.66
20.24
+• 5.81
2.00
4 1.35
21.73
21.17
32.16
14.71
0.26
U.Ofi
.-f..69
C.82
.! . ^o
si. 11
7.71



y.ao
13.85
4.23

11.34
1?.63
17.%
5.96
12.27
14.12
13.16


Calculated energy loss thereior**



Therefore, no heating value data available.
d/ Values about 1001 due to larger
than normal
difference between SI and S2
heading
values.
                        308

-------
                     Table B-5.  WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PLANT FERROUS METAL RECOVERY-'
                                                                               a/
Magnetic metal (Mg)


Week of
production
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Total

SI
RDF
produced
3.23
2.17
6.52
0
2.27
£/
£/
0
0
0
0
£/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.28
0
0
0
2.76
13.14
1.52
0
0
0
0
0
3.14
c/
£/
c/
0
0
0
£/
0
0
0
6.31
0
0
41.34
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
34.43
38.09
12.08
11.52
7.93


3.63
5.44
7.46
0.25

3.32
22.38
23.18
21.76
43.06
2.40
6.82
0.10
13.03
3.84
1.84
9.74
8.75
14.70
2.85
20.98
13.11
0.93
12.36
3.84



6.27
4.94
7.55

4.31
7.91
6.85
6.03
4.33
6.60
404.63
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.84
0.94
0.83^
0.82^
0.92^


0.94
0.48
0.85
0.39

0.98
0.64
0.06
0.83
0.43
0.64
0.60
0.16
0.52
0.41
0.15
1.17
1.36
l".0b
0.51
0.64
0.77
0.02
0.40
0.44



0.59
0.84
0.86

0.30
0.84
0.56
0.91
0.43
0.83
24.94
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-products
69.17
84.07
52.50
34.64
32.91


49.70
20.76
25.66
8.87

66.52
23.59
27.95
24.63
15.49
33.24
26.31
5.52
26.10
22.74
8.60
64.32
51.68
66.71
28.71
21.94
40.10
2.17
15.87
17.77



28.09
26.33
28.15

14.09
25.23
29.49
35.82
17.97
32.82
1,206.22



Total
107.67
125.27
71.93
46.96
44.03


54.29
26.68
33.97
9.52

70.82
46.60
51.19
47.22
47.32
36.28
33.73
6.07
39.64
26.99
10.59
77.99
74.93
84.00
32.07
43.55
53.98
3.11
28.63
25.18



34.94
32.11
36.56

18.70
33.98
36.90
49.08
22.72
40.25
1,665.4
Recovery
ferrous
metal
(%)
64.2
67.7
73.0
73.7
74.7


91.6
77.8
75.5
93.2

93.9
50.6
54.6
52.2
32.7
91.6
78.0
90.9
65.8
84.3
81.2
82.5
69.0
79.4
89.5
50.4
74.3
69.7
55.4
70.6



80.4
82.0
77.0

75.4
74.2
79.9
73.0
79.1
81.5
72.4
a/  Megagrams of magnetic metal calculated from weekly sum of dally percent ferrous metal times
      dally weight (Mg) for test days when daily samples were taken.  During test period when
      only weekly composite samples were taken (weeks 9-23) recovery calculated from weekly
      composite percent ferrous metal and weekly total weight.  Weighted average percent fer-
      rous metal would be weekly megagrams ferrous metal divided by total weekly megagraros.
b/  Assumes 86.37. magnetic material.  Samples not taken of stream S7.
cj  -Samples not taken.  Therefore no percent magnetic metal available.
                                                309

-------
     Table  B-6.   DAILY  SAMPLES OF REFUSE DERIVED FUEL  (STREAM S2)
(Daily  composite  of  four  subsamples  equally  spaced throughout the day)
Daily samples
Date
Month
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
1974
Day
23
24
25
26
27
30
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
18
19
20
21
22
Moisture
% as
received
27.10
26.30
32.80
27.80
25.30
28.80
31.00
29.40
24.50
17.80
17.00
20.10
23.90
18.20
14.30
31.80
32.30
24.10
27.70
23.20
23.10
22.50
15.10
19.10
27.40
22.10
24.40
23.60
11.70
Ash
As
received
21.14
20.43
15.88
17.54
19.51
19.92
22.76
16.01
21.80
18.87
23.41
20.70
18.96
19.23
20.90
16.40
15.96
17.61
15.04
21.93
17.29
15.55
20.23
18.30
17.05
18.56
15.54
19.25
16.89
Z
Moisture
free
29.00
27.72
23.63
24.30
26.12
27.98
32.98
22.67
28.87
22.96
28.20
25.91
24.91
23.51
24.39
24.05
23.57
23.20
20.80
28.56
22.48
20.06
23.83
22.62
23.48
23.82
20.55
25.20
19.13
Heating value (kJ/kg)
As
received
11,588
11,460
10,789
11,587
11,798
11,590
10,097
10,766
11,683
12,702
12,594
12,155
13,613
13,339
12,928
10,670
10,615
12,117
11,611
11,040
12,249
12,608
13,192
12,693
11,247
11,937
12,249
11,722
13,198
Moisture
free
15,895
15,549
16,054
16,049
15,794
16,278
14,632
15,250
15,474
15,453
15,173
15,212
17,888
16,307
15,086
15,646
15,680
15,871
16,059
14,207
15,929
16,268
15,538
15,690
15,491
15,324
16,203
15,344
14,947
Moisture and
ash free
22,388
21,507
21,014
21,201
21,378
22,602
21,833
19,720
21,754
20,058
21,132
20,532
23,822
21,319
19,952
20,600
20,516
20,666
20,277
19,887
20,548
20,351
20,400
20,276
20,245
20,115
20,394
20,513
18,483
<1975)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
It
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
20.80
18.40
18.70
33.00
28.90
31.50
25.50
21.00
19.50
19.40
15.70
18.20
17.50
18.50
17.40
2.25
18.30
20.30
24,40
23.30
22.50
28.12
28.80
28.37
14.20
24.96
15.62
19.82
27.25
19.24
33.65
32.37
26.42
24.99
27.55
23.95
34.51
28.59
23.67
22.38
22.93
27.75
35.50
35.30
34.90
21.20
35.10
22.80
26.60
35.00
23.90
41.75
38.40
32.30
30.30
33.80
29.00
35.30
35.00
29.70
29.60
29.90
35.80
10,567
10,994
11,633
10,843
9,786
10,897
11,357
10,971
12,563
9,124
11,467
11,712
11,771
10,649
11,489
12,746
10,581
11,520
11,283
11,018
10,201
13,342
13,473
14,309
16,183
13,764
15,908
15,244
13.888
15,607
11,320
13,603
14,318
14,268
13,067
13,910
13,039
12,951
14,454
14,924
14,365
13,163
20,685
20,823
21,980
20,537
21,208
20,606
20,769
21,366
20,508
19,433
22,083
21,150
20,470
19,738
19.591
20.154
19,925
20.560
21,199
20,492
20,503
                                 310

-------
Table B-6.  (Concluded)
Dally samples
Date
Month
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
n
X
Sx
c.v.
1975
Day
19
21
22
23
28
29
30
1
2
9
12
13
16
19
20
30
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
14
16
17
18
30
1
5
6
7
8
11
14
15
19
20
21
22
28
29
2
3
4
5



X
Moisture
Z aa
received
22.50
24.30
19.50
36.70
30.20
28.70
35.90
29.10
33.50
30.40
31.10
34.50
34.70
25.40
19.40
29.60
18.80
25.90
20.60
36.20
34.00
32.20
25.40
35.10
27.40
25.10
16.50
33.30
31.40
29.90
37.10
39.90
33.90
33.50
27.80
30.40
30.90
36.90
42.20
31.30
30.90
39.20
40.20
35.60
31.30
35.40
34.20
97
26.55
7.275
27.40
Ash I
As
received
27.13
22.86
31.64
21.39
27.57
23.88
18.73
24.74
20.55
19.91
26.04
23.45
17.28
24.17
28.93
21.68
27.04
22.01
27.00
18.95
24.75
19.93
22.98
23.49
20.91
23.44
21.54
18.28
23.53
21.10
17.17
20.73
23.00
23.54
25.63
28.12
22.25
16.09
14,86
21.78
19.97
16.05
10.82
17.65
16.83
17.70
20.73
97
21.71
4,610
21.23
Moisture
free
35.00
30.20
39.30
33.80
39.50
33.50
29.22
34.90
30.91
28.61
37.80
35.78
26.46
32.40
35.90
30.80
33.30
29.70
34.00
29.70
37.50
29.40
30.80
36.20
28.80
31.30
25.80
27.40
34.30
30.10
, 27.30
34.50
34.80
35.40
35.50
40.40
32.20
25.50
25.70
31.70
28.90
26.40
18.10
27.40
24.50
27.40
31.50
97
29.54
5.348
18.10
Heating value (kJ/kg)
As
received
10,753
10,592
9,248
7,361
7,970
9,966
9,314
9,546
9,254
9,815
9,081
8,722
9.904
9,836
10,971
10,685
11,294
8,813
10,421
8,800
6,932
9,689
10,657
8,815
10,402
10,784
9,383
9,911
9.700
10,176
9.757
8,050
9,252
9.988
8,170
8,985
10,078
10,010
8,309
10,323
9,853
9,758
9.917
9,826
11.553
10,488
9,581
97
10,636
1,370.3
12.88
Moisture
free
13,875
13,992
11,488
11,628
11,418
13,978
14,531
13,464
13,915
14,103
13,179
13,317
15,166
13,185
13,612
15,178
13,909
11,894
13,125
13,793
10,503
14,291
14,285
13,582
14,328
14,398
11,237
14,859
14,140
14,516
15,512
13,394
13,997
15,020
11,316
12,793
14,584
15,863
14,375
15,026
14,258
16,049
16,584
15,259
16,816
16,236
14,561
97
14,494
1,400.5
9.98
Moisture and
ash free
21,346
20,046
18,926
17,566
18,873
21,020
20,530
20,683
20,141
19,754
21,188
20,736
20,623
19,505
21 , 235
21,934
20,853
16,919
19,886
19,620
16,805
20,242
20,644
21,288
20,124
20,957
15,145
20,467
21,522
20,7b6
21,337
20,445
21,467
23, 250
17,544
21,465
21,510
21,293
19,347
22,000
20,054
21,806
20, 250
21,017
22,274
22,363
21,257
97
20,570
1,264.2
6.15
         311

-------
                            Table B-7a.  WEEKLY MATERIAL BALANCE, Mg
Plant out out

Week of
production
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
38
19
20
21
i*.
23
24
25
26
27
2fc
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Total
Total
corrected
weight
basis known
scale error


Plant input
raw refuse
received
1,387.0
1,400.8
819.5
705.1
704.3
265.7
421.6
966.0
420.0
476.8
252.2
110.8
704.7
605.3
4.63.8
632.0
661.8
652.5
378.0
86.9
S10.8
516.8
152.4
1,224.8
1,382.0
1,333.2
839.1
869.2
1,084.3
54.8
725.0
466.7
87.0
85.1
86.9
450.7
792.2
834.0
53.4
347.1
1,027.7
760.3
814.4
488.1
948.9
28,052.6


(27,794.5)





RDF
produced
1,075.6
1,084.4
652.4
531.8
567.0
222.6
357.2
815.2
315.6
417.8
232.9
85.5
531.1
442.9
394.6
533.9
541.1
492.7
320.1
70.7
433.5
382.4
114.7
983.6
1,130.9
1,002.7
688.1
641.6
859.7
44.2
566.8
389.5
72.6
67.1
67.1
362.8
65C.7
739.9
40.3
308.3
860.2
567.6
716.3
413.2
822.1
22,611.1


(22,258.1)




Magnetic
belt
relects
104.5
125.4
65.8
55.1
61.4
19.3
34.7
75.7
31.8
32.3
10.0
4.4
53.6
33.3
41.1
48.8
62.2
42.9
31.0
4.6
46.5
38.4
12.4
70.8
54.2
88.9
56.0
64.8
75.1
4.4
50.3
23.4
8.4
5.9
11.5
40.8
43.1
61.1
4.3
24.3
66.4
72.0
66.0
31.6
61.2
2,019.8


(2,092.9)




Magnetic
drum
relects
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.2
1.1
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
1.3
1.5
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.5
1.0
29.7


(29.7)




Ferrous
metal
by-products
69.9
85.1
52.7
34.7
33.7
13.6
22.8
49.8
20.8
25.8
8.9
5.5
66.6
23.6
28.0
24.7
15.5
33.7
26.3
5.5
26.1
22.8
8.6
64.4
51.7
66.8
28.7
38.9
40.3
2.1
15.9
17.8
4.3
5.0
5.4
28.1
15.9
28.6
1.8
14.2
25.3
29.7
27.6
18.1
33.0
1,268.2


(1.314.1)






Total
1,251.1
1,296.0
771.8
622.5
663.2
255.8
415.1
941.9
368.8
476.8
252.2
95.5
652.4
500.5
463.8
608.3
619.3
570.1
378.0
81.0
506.8
444.0
135.9
1,120.0
1,238.3
1,159.7
773.4
745.9
976.0
50.7
633.4
431.1
85.5
78.1
84.2
432.4
710.6
830.6
46.4
347.1
952.8
669.9
810.9
463.3
917.3
25,928.5


(25,694.8)





Material
loss
136.0
104.8
47.6
82.6
41.1
9.9
6.4
24.0
51.3
0
0
15.:
52.3
104.8
0
23.8
42.5
82.5
0
5.9
4.1
72.8
16.5
104.8
143.7
173.5
65.8
123.3
108.2
4.1
91.6
3S.3
1.5
7.0
2.7
18.3
81.6
3.4
7.0
0
74.9
90.4
3.4
24.8
31.6
2,124.1


(2,099.7)
- 420.8 less
(l,678.9)and
loss
rial




















































moisture
particulate
net mate-
loss
a/  Estimated  value  - material not veighed.
                                                      312

-------
Table B-7b.  WEEKLY MATERIAL  BALANCE  (Expressed as percent of raw refuse received)
Plant output
Week
of
production
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Average based
on total weight
(Table A-l)
Average based
on corrected
weight (Table
A-l)
Plant input
raw refuse
received _
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100


(100)




RDF
produced
77.54
77.42
79.61
75.42
80.50
83.78
84.74
84.40
75.14
87.63
92.34
77.15
75.36
73.17
85.08
84.47
81.77
75.50
84.67
81.32
84.87
73.99
75.24
80.31
81.83
75.21
82.00
73.81
79.29
80.63
78.18
82.97
83.42
78.89
77.24
80.50
82.14
88.72
75.38
88.81
83.70
74.65
87.96
84.67
86.63
80.60


(80.08)



Magnetic
belt
rejects
7.53
8.95
8.03
7.81
8.72
7.27
8.22
7.84
7.58
6.77
3.96
3.93
7.61
5.50
8.86
7.72
9.40
6.58
8.21
5.32
9.11
7.42
8.15
5.78
3.92
6.67
6.67
7.45
6.93
7.95
6.93
4.99
9.70
6.93
13.26
9.06
5.44
7.33
7.98
7.00
6.46
9.47
8.11
6.47
6.45
7.20


(7.53)



Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.12
0.02
0.14
0.07
0.11
0.16
0.21
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
, 0.08
0.16
0.06
0.10
0.21
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.11


(0.11)



Ferrous
metal
by-product
5.04
6.07
6.43
4.93
4.79
5.12
5.40
5.16
4.95
5.41
3.53
5.00
9.45
3.90
6.04
3.90
2.34
5.17
6.96
6.37
5.11
4.41
5.65
5.26
3.74
5.01
3.42
4.48
3.71
3.81
2.19
3.79
4.90
5.86
6.26
6.24
2.00
3.43
3.40
4.08
2.46
3.90
3.39
3.70
3.48
4.52


(4.73)





Total
90.19
92.52
94.19
88.29
94.16
96.27
98.47
97.51
87.80
100.00
100.00
86.24
92.57
82.69
100.00
96.23
93.58
87.36
100.00
93.22
99.20
85.91
89.16
91.45
89.60
86.69
92.17
85.81
90.01
92.55
87.36
91.85
98.23
91.79
96.86
95.94
89.69
99.60
86.93
100.00
92.71
88.10
99.58
94.93
96.67
92.43


(92.45)




Material
loss
9.81
7.48
5.81
11.71
5.84
3.73
1.53
2.49
12.20
0
0
13.76
7.43
17.31
0
3.77
6.42
12.64
0
6.78
0.80
14.09
10.84
8.55
10.40
13.01
7.83
14.19
9.99
7.45
12.64
8.15
1.77
8.21
3.14
4.06
10.31
0.40
13.07
0
7.29
11.90
0.42
5.07
3.33
7.57


(7.55)
~ 1.51 1
P
6.04 a
                                                                                   less moisture and
                                                                                   particulate less
                                                                                        aterial loss
                                              313

-------
                                                                T«blo B-8.  SAMPLE VARIABILITY OF MILLED  REFUSE--RESULTS  BY WEIGHT  (Received  moisture  basils)
CO

Spectrum
Moisture
«)


Heating value
(kJ/kg)


Ash
(*>


Metal content
by chemical
analysis (7.)
F« 
-------
                                                                                                  Table B-8.  (Continued)
UJ
I—I
Ln

Spectrum
Zn (ZnO)



Proximate and
ultimate
analysia (7.)
Volatile
matter

Fixed
ca rbon

Carbon


Hydrogeni/


OxygenS/ (by
di fference)

Sulfur


Nitrogen


Bulk density
(kg/"3)


Date
Month
10

9




10
9

10
9

10
9

10
9

10
9

10
9

10
9

10
9


Daj-
1

26




1
26

1
26

1
26

1
26

1
26

1
26

1
26

I
26

Time
for
eight
sub-
sampleB
(hr?
2

1




2
1

2
1

2
1

2
1

2
I

2
1

2
1

2
1


Stream
SI
52
S2
S3



52
52
S3
52
52
S3
52
52
S3
S2
S2
S3
52
S2
S3
S2
52
S3
S2
52
S3
51
S2
S2
S3

Mean
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.07



47.20
46.58
46.31
2.26
5.95
5.86
23.57
26,16
25.91
3.39
3.77
3.73
21.86
21.84
21.79
0.16
0.23
0.15
0.48
0.53
0.59
146
114
109
122

1
0.10
0.18
0.08
0.07



48.79
46.99
47.46
1.62
6.07
3.43
23.40
28.22
26.20
3.40
3.89
3.53
22.89
20.18
20.44
0.13
0.20
0.19
0.59
0.57
0.53
117
104
104
111

-L.
0.20
0.08
0.10
0.06



49.68
45.31
45.40
3.48
7.50
6.52
26.51
27.40
26.86
3.96
3.84
3.94
22.01
20.80
20.32
0,22
0.13
0.19
0.46
0.64
0.61
130
104
114
117

J_
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.06



42.78
46.22
41.20
0.00
6.07
17.49
20.26
26.43
27.94
2.82
4.32
4.10
18.89
20.86
25.92
0.30
0.22
0.11
0.51
0.46
0.62
194
141
104
104
Indlvidua
4
0.05
0,05
0.12
0.06



45.55
46.53
47.56
4.51
5.27
3.45
23.69
25.28
25.49
3.26
3.56
3.70
22.44
22.06
21.06
0.14
0.42
0.13
0.53
0.48
0.63
136
109
98
117
1 subsamples
-!_
0.04
0,04
0.07
0.07



50.08
46,48
49.24
0.00
4.07
0.45
24.50
24.75
25.08
3,58
3.55
3.52
21.47
21.62
20.35
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.43
0.49
0.62
157
109
117
136

6
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.08



45.70
47.98
47.95
3.97
9.10
0.86
23,59
26.08
24.34
3,37
3.10
3.64
22.18
27.11
20.02
0.11
0.21
0.23
0.42
0.58
0.58
130
111
104
136

7
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.08



48.42
46.82
44.35
0.00
0.00
11.44
22.04
24.11
26.21
3.12
3.92
3.82
22.68
17.90
25.06
0.13
0.33
0.12
0.45
0.56
0.58
165
104
136
117

8
0.14
0.06
0.07
0.10


1
46.60
46,36
47.31
4.51
9.50
3.25
24.60
27.03
25.16
3.55
3.92
3.62
22.35
24.21
21.15
0.13
0.21
0.10
0.48
0.49
0.53
143
123
96
136

-------
                                                                                                T«bl« B-8.  (Continued)
U)

Spectrum
Composition by
visual analysis
(7.)
Paper



Plastic



Wood



Claas



Pe oetal



Other metals



Organic*



Hlsccllan«otia



Data
Month

10

9

10

9

10

9

10

9

10

9

10

9

10

9

10

9

TIM
(or

-------
                                                       Table S-8.  (Cent lud= 1
10 1 2

9 2'j i
10 1 2

9 26 1
10 1 2

9 26 1
10 1 ?

1 26 1
10 1 2

9 26 1
10 1 2

9 26 1
ydrogen and oxygen dees not
Moisture
Ash
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Individual subiamples
o^ream

SI
S2
S2
SI
s:
s:
51
•;2
"
SI
52
32
SI
52
S2
31
32
s:
n
i2
S2
31
S2
S2
SI
s:
S2
Mean

0.0
0.0
0.0
10C.O
100.0
100.0
97.0
98.6
9:. 3
ro.5
S2.0
:s.8
48.5
58.5
51.0
30. 8
3V. 4
33.1
IS. 7
25.3
a. 6
1.9
6.5
8.4
2.73
.'.76
2.85
include elemental hydrogen
Ultimate analysis:
Moisture
Alh
Carbon
Hydrogen



1

0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96. 2
100.0
96.0
52.4
81.3
75.2 -x
37.9
57.1
48.5
25.3
39.6
31.'
17.5
28.6
20.8
10.8
6.4
8.1
2.95
2.32
2.86
and oxygen



-*-

0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100. C
100. 0
87.7
98.2
95.5
46.1
79.6
84.9
21.9
56.6
57.5
14.:
39.8
38.0
10.5
28.3
25.7
15. j
6.6
6.6
2.65
2.90
2.80
contained in



-

C.O
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
100.0
96.9
87.5
si.:
73.5
62.5
61.6
45.9
39.6
42.0
22.4
23.6
26.3
9.2
6.2
6.2
9.6
2.58
2.77
2.47
the moiature:



—

0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.6
97.7
94.8
73.7
80.8
79.4
48.3
56.1
57.3
30.5
37.7
39.7
17.8
23. S
26.5
8.4
6.9
6.8
2.78
2.80
2.96




5

0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.2
99.1
59.6
77.4
86.9
49.8
54.7
60.9
33.2
34.0
43.5
21.1
15.8
27,6
13.0
7.5
5.9
15.3
2.77
:.70
3.38




6

0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.2
100.0
99.2
77.4
83.6
81.7
54.7
59. «
51.6
34.0
38.5
33.3
19.8
25.0
22.:
7.5
6.4
7.3
' ;.77
2.68
2.70




—

0.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
87.0
rs.6
38.5
•>4.7
55.3
65.6
42.4
35.9
45.8
24.5
;-•. 3
32.3
5.9
7.1
5.4
2.58
2.30
2.67




8

0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
94.4
96.4
62.6
84.1
73.2
43.3
60.7
48.2
26.3
38.3
33.0
16.4
21.5
23.2
9.6
6.7
8.0
2.78
2.75
2.95




100                        Oxygen
                           Sulfur
                           Nltrogei
                              100

-------
                                    APPENDIX C

                     ENVIRONMENTAL TEST PROCEDURES AND DATA


                   TEST PROCEDURES FOR AIR EMISSION SAMPLING
     Visual observation of the effluent from the ADS cyclone had indicated that
it contained some large particles (pieces of paper, etc.) and was perhaps one
of the more significant sources of debris that occurs in and around the plant.
However, some windblown debris also undoubtedly occurs from the semi-enclosed
conveyors and spillage from loading of packer trucks, etc.

     Since it was obvious that the ADS cyclone discharge contained these large
particles, it was considered impractical to sample the effluent using EPA Method
5 sampling trains because the small probe tips that are required would very likely
be plugged by the large particles. The same would have been true for the cascade
impactors that are usually used to determine particle size distribution of partic-
ulate matter in effluent streams. Therefore, it was necessary to utilize high vol-
ume sampling techniques with their larger probes about 25-mm (1-in.) diameter.
Both a high volume mass train and high volume cascade impactor, equipped with a
precyclone, were provided by EPA for this work.
ADS CYCLONE TEST PROCEDURES

     Sampling of the ADS cyclone discharge was carried out in the 1.07-m (42-in.)
diameter horizontal duct at the inlet to the ADS fan as shown in Figure C-l. Two
102-rnm (4-in.) diameter sampling ports had been installed in the top and side of
this duct. The nearest flow disturbance, relative to the sampling ports, was five
duct diameters upstream (a 90-degree elbow) and two diameters downstream (air flow
control vanes and fan).

     Particulate sampling of the emissions from the ADS cyclone was carried out
with a high volume sampler of approximately.0.007 TOT/S (15 cfm). Sampling was con-
ducted using a 23-ram (0.91-in.) diameter probe tip and sampling for 2 min at 14
points along each of the two duct traverses. Configuration of the mass sampling
equipment is shown in Figure C-2. Isokinetic sampling was carried out, but it was
necessary to determine the proper sampling rate based on a preliminary velocity
traverse.

                                        318

-------
                                                                                    i
From ADS
Cyclone
10
                                               102 mm" Did. Sampling Ports
                                                                                        V
                                                                  1.07 m Dia.  Duct
                                ADS Fan
                        Figure C-l.   Diagram of ADS cyclone discharge sampling locations

-------
                      Filter
                      Holder
Orifice -i
        Probe
                                      203 x 254 mm
                                      Fiberglass Filter
CO
NS
O
                                                               \J>
                                           Pump with Variac
                                           Speed Control
                                                                            "Manometer
                                  Note:
                                    A preliminary velocity traverse was  made of gas  flow
                                    in duct in order to determine  proper sampling rate at
                                    each  sample  point. Average sampling rate was  about
                                    0.007rr,3/s

                                    During  tests at Hammermill  Cyclone,heated probe and
                                    filter holder  were used, along with  Ice cooled
                                    condenser preceeding the  orifice.
                          Figure C-2.   Diagram  of particulate mass  sampling equipment

-------
     Particle size distribution of the ADS cyclone discharge was determined us-
ing  the Anderson Hi-Volume cascade impactor and precyclone provided by EPA as
depicted in Figure C-3. A 29-mm (1.125-in.) diameter probe tip was used and the
sampling was conducted for 30 min at a single point near the center of the duct.
HAMMERMILL CYCLONE TEST PROCEDURE

     Sampling of the hammermill cyclone discharge was carried out in a 0,3-m
(12-in.) diameter vertical duct extension equipped with two sampling ports 90
degrees apart* The end of this duct extension was two duct diameters downstream
of the sampling ports and there were in excess of 10 duct diameters upstream of
the ports before any flow disturbance.

     Particulate sampling of emissions from the HM cyclone was carried out using
the same equipment as for sampling of the ADS system (see Figure C-2). The only
differences were the selection of the 29-mm (1.125-in.) diameter probe tip and
use of the probe heater, heating jacket for the filter holder, and moisture trap
ahead of the orifice, in order to minimize problems due to high moisture content
of the effluent stream. Sampling was con ucted for 5 min at four points along
each of the two duct traverses. Again, sampling rate at each point was based on
a preliminary velocity traverse.

     Particle size distribution tests on the HM cyclone discharge were done us-
ing the same high volume cascade impactor used for sampling the ADS system (Fig-
ure C-3). The 29-mm (1.125-in.) diameter probe tip was used and the sampling was
conducted for 1 hr at a single point near the center of the duct. However, be-
cause of the high moisture content of this stream, the heated probe and heating
jacket for the impactor were used.

     The effective cutoff for the impactor stages are noted in the attached ta-
bles. In considering these values, it was assumed that the cutoff diameter for
the precyclone was ~ 10 |J.m. However, the cutoff diameter for the impactor stages
strictly applies only to spherical particles of density 1.0, which undoubtedly
is not the case for the particles in these effluent streams. In this regard,
visual inspection of the material caught on the mass train filter and in the
precyclone showed much of it to be of a fibrous linty nature, similar in appear-
ance to material collected in a household vacuum cleaner.  Small pices of paper
and plastic approximately 25 mm by 25 mm (1 in. by 1 in.)  in size were also ob-
served.

     Bearing in mind the considerations discussed above, it is significant to
note that the data indicate that most of the particulate matter (> 80%) was
caught in the precyclone.
                                       321

-------
                        Precyclone
                 Probe
                  r
to
ro
                          Glass Jar
                                   Manometer
    Andersen HI Volume
    Cascade Impactor
       305 mm  Impactor  Plates
      with Fiberglass Filter
      Paper Substrates
     305 mm  Fiberglass
    Final Filter
Hi-Vol  Blower
with Variac
Speed Control
                            V
                            Constant flow at  0.009 m^/s maintained by adjusting
                            blower speed to keep manometer reading constant
                            at  1.44k Pa  (5.8 inches water  column)
                          "figure  C-%   Diagram of particle size sampling  equipment

-------
HAZABDOUS TESTS

     Mass emission test data for the July 1975 hazardous tests were not tabu-
lated as in previous tests because samples were split in the field for bacteria
and virus analysis. No particle size tests were conducted during the July 1975
tests* Procedures for hazardous tests are contained in the body of this report
under the section entitled "Potentially Hazardous Air Emissions."
                                      323

-------
                                                                                    Table C-I.  MASS EMISSION TEST  DATA
U>
NJ
ADS cyclone discturge
Kun No.
Date

Probe tip diameter (an )
Net time of run fain)
Average orifice vacuum fkPal
Average orifice tempera tur« ' r.t
Volume condeniate (ml )
Percent moisture by volume
Moisture content after condenstr
Volume gas sampled, standard condition (Nm3)
Volume gas sampled, dry standard condition fdNm')
Mrl*cular weighr wet stack eas (g.'g nolej
Molecular weight stack gas at orifice (JE'R nole>
Pttot tube coefficient

g . q r oc y .
Average square root stack temperature (°Y "*
Stack diameter fa)
StacV area (m2>
Average stack gai velocity, standard condition OB/ 3-

Stack gay flnv rate, dry standard condition I'dNm-V's't

art eg art concentrat ^n, ry stan^aid condiiinn %r ,cr_
Particu ate emlsston rate, dry standard condition rlb/hr"
Particti at
-------
                                                                                     Table C-l.   (Continued)
                                                                                          M?S cyclone
                                                                                                                                                     cyclone dlscharRe
ro
Ul
Run M.I.
Dale

Probe tip diameter firm)
Net time of run fmln)
Barnm*trlc pressure fkPa'j

Average orifice vacuum 'VPa)
Orifice pressure absolute I'kPaj
Average orifice temperature CO
Volume condensate (ml*
Percent moisture by volume (gas scream)


Volume gas sampled, standard condition
Volume gas sampled, dry standard condition tg'g molt?"
Molecular weight dry stack gas (g/g mole)
Molecular weight wet stack Has fg/4 mole)

Molecular weight stack gas at orifice  (g's mole)
Pltot tube coefficient
Average stacV velocity head (ItPs)           l ^
Average square root stack velocity head (kPa    )
Average stack temperature f°C)

Average square root stack temperature  (°K  ">
Static pressure stack (kPa)
Stack pressure absolute (kPa)
Stack diameter (n>
Stack area (nr1

Average stack gaa velocity, stack condition (m/'s)
Average ?tacV, ^as velocity, standard condition  fm'd)
Stack gaa flow rate, stack condition (actual m^/s)
Stack gas flow rate, standard condition (NmVs)
Stack gas flow rate, dry standard condition fdNmJ/s)

PartlcuUte weight (mg)
Particular concentration, dry standard condition ^gr
Particulate concentration, dry scandarc condition
Particulale emission rate, dry standard condition flb/hrj
Particulate emission rate, dry standard condition (kg/hr)
Percent tsoklnetic
                                                                                  .'0                21                 2:                 23                 24                25
                                                                            April 18, 197;    April 19, 1975    April  19,  1975    April  19.  1975     April  21,  1975    April ;1. 1975
                                                                                  :3
                                                                                  5S.6:
                                                                                  97.53

                                                                                   .'.69
                                                                                  5O.8&
                                                                                  23
                                                                                   0
    15..'
    li.S
    29.0
    78.74

    28.74
     0.83
     0.121
     0.347
    21

    17.16
    -1.46
    96.07
     1.04'1
     3.352

    12.14
    11.48
    10.32
     9.79
     9.55

22,164.6
    '0.6543]
 1,497
  [113.6]
    51.5
    93.3
    23
    54.97
    "9.56

     2.59
    95.97
    11
     0
     1.3

     1.3
    17.9
    17.6
    29.0    ^
    18.86

    28.86
     0.83
     0.141
     0.374
    10

    16.83
    -1.42
    98.14
     1.041
     0.852

    12.65
    12.75
    10.79
    10.86
    10.72

23,521.6
    [0.5814]
 1,331
  [113.3"
    51.4
   101.6
    23
    56.57
    99.5«

     3.52
    56.04
    20
     0
     2.0

     2.0
    18.1
    17.8
    29.0
    28.78

    28.78
     0.83
     0.147
     0.3B3
    18

    17.08
    •1.29
    98.27
     1.041
     0.852

    13.16
    12.85
    11.20
    10.97
    10.?5

31,378.3
    [0.7670J
 1.755
  i'149.9"
    68.0
    99.4
    28
    38
    99.7]

     4.17
    95.5'
    16
   350
    10.0

     7.0
    14.7
    13.1
    29.0
    27.9

    28.23
     0.83
     0.091
     0.3C1
    46

    17.88
    -0.03
    99.70
     0.298
     0.070

    10.92
     9.91
     0.76
     0.69
     0.62

lb,»81.3
    [0.5400'
 1,236
    T6.1161
    "2.774'
   105.6
    28
    40
   101.25

     2.31
    S8.44
    12
   :75
     6.4

     4.1
    15.3
    I-..*
    29.0
    28.30

    28.55
     0.83
     0.085
     0.291
    38

    17.64
    -0.03
   101..'2
     0.298
     0.070

    10.26
     9.70
     0.72
     0.68
     0.64

17,308.6
    [0.5227]
 1,196
    "6.0541
    ~2.746
   102.4
    28
    in
   101.25

     3.12
    ?S.l4
    18
   400
    10.0

     6.8
    15.6
    U.2
    29.0
    28.25
     0.83
     0.060
     0.29:
    46

    17.88
    -0.03
   101.22
     0.298
     0.070

    10.52
     9.70
     0.74
     O.f>8
     0.61

19,450.2
    [0.5991J
 1.371
    [6.631]
     3.008
   104.3

-------
                                                                                          Tib It C-l.  (Continued)
W
10
Particle Sizing Data (Nev«nb»r 1971*

Hun No. 'date
t-t (MIS)
Novi-mbcr 2 ! . 1 '^74





P-9 (ADS)
November 21., 1™'4





P-10 (HW)
November 22. 19 74.





P-ll :, 1974






jtafci 3p '.M*
Cyclone 10
I 7.0
1 i.3
' 2.0
i 1.1
niter

Cyclone 10
1 ".0
5.)
J 2.0
1 . 1
Filter

*;yclone 10
1 7.0
: 3.3
', : . o
i 1.1
Filter

Cyclone 10
1 7.0
: 3.!
'• 2.0
4 l.l
Filter

Fitter
No.

M
1
22
2
9


21
3
24
4
10


25
5
2*.
*,
11


27
7
2°,
i
12

mn

305
305
305
(05
203 x 251


105
105
305
105
203 x 254

305
305
105
105
305
203 x 254

305
105
105
)05
105
201 x 254

Final ut.
(K3
6.35:1
1.782!
4.1.W
1.756:
-.1040
j.6595

2.9519
5.1556
4.6002
4.;i5l
1.6203
3.6643

0,3751
4.7628
4.6616
4.738:
4.6516
3.6*01

0.4294
4.7257
4.6437
1.719:
-.6516
1.6783

Tare wt.
(a)
0
4.6144
4.6196
4.7413
4.59ii5
3.6251

0
4.725J
4.5'55
4.7375
4,6106
3.6415

0
4.7511
4.6557
4.7311
4.6461
3.6378

0
4.7171
4.6363
4,7141
4.6440
3.4568

1
Pi f I , (a'j
6.35M
0.1377
U.0212
0.0149
(J.0075
C.03U

2.9519
0.6303
0.0217
0.0176
0.0097
0.0228

0.3751
0.0117
0.0059
0.0068
0.0085
0.0223

0.4294
0.0084
0.0074
i).004fl
O.OOH
0.0215

Leu blank

0
0.0005
0.0327
O.OOXJ5
0.0027
0.0005
_ _3
mg • np
0
0.0005
0.002'
0.0005
0.9027
0.0005

Tng'nm
0
0.0005
0.0027
0.0005
0.0027
0.0005
•no /nm*
M°,t tun
0
0.0005
0.0027
0.0005
0.0027
0.0005

Nee wt.
fg)
S.3521
0.1372
O.OldS
0.0144
0.0048
0.0339
6.5609
2.9519
1.6298
0.0220
0.0171
0.0070
0.0223
1.6501
C.3751
0.0112
0.0032
0.00o3
0.0058
0.0213
0.4234
0.4294
0.0079
0.0047
9.0043
0.0049
0.0210
0.4722
Staiei 1-4
wt. r.

78.45
'.0.5?
8.23
;.:i

100.00

93.18
3.25
2.53
1.04

100.00

12.26
12.08
23.77
21.89

100.00

36.24
21.56
19.72
22.48

100.00
C'"*. vt. TL

'8.45
89. Q3
97.26
100.00



93.18
96.43
98.96
100.00



42.26
34.34
78.11
100.00



36.24
57.80
77.52
100.00


Stigei 1-i
+ filter
Wi. «

65.71
8.86
"1.90
2.30
16.23
100.00

90 . 20
3.15
2.45
1.00
3.20
lao.oo

23.19
6.63
13.04
12.01
45.13
100.00

18.46
10.98
10.05
11.15
49.06
100.00
Cur, yjt . >.

«5.71
71.57
81.17
83.77
100.00


90. :o
93.35
95.80
96,80
100.00


23.19
29.82
42.46
J-.cT
100.00


18.46
29.44
39.49
50.94
100.00

Cyclone +
Wt. 7.
97.3:
2.10
0.28
0.22
0.06

100.00
81.37
17.36
0.61
0.47
0.19

100. OU
93.40
2.79
0.80
1.57
1.14

100.00
,5.17
1.75
1,04
0.95
1.09

100.00

97.32
99.42
99. TO
99.92
'.00.00


81.37
98.73
99.34
99. SI
100.00


°3.40
96.19
96.99
98.56
100.00


95.17
96.92
97.96
98.91
100.00


Entire unit
Vt. T
* *
96.82
2.09
0.28
0.22
0.07
O.J2
100.00
80.87
17.26
0.60
0.47
0.19
0.61
100.00
88. 5S
2.64
0.76
1.19
1.37
5.15
100.00
90.94
1.67
0.99
0.91
1.04
4.45
100.00
Cum. vt . ",
96.82
98.91
99.19
99.41
99.48
100.00

80.87
98.13
98.73
99.20
99.39
100.00

88.5°
91.23
91.99
93.43
94.35
100.00

90.91
92.61
93.60
94.51
95.55
100.00

                                                                                      concent rat ion :   14 .17  ma/nc

-------
                                                                                                  Tible C-l.   (Concluded)
Lo
N5
Particle sizing Data (April 1975)

Run So. /date Staae
P-.'6 (ADS) Cvclone
April 21, 1975 1
2
I
4
Filter

P-27 (ADS) Cvclone
April 21, 1975 1
•>
3
'»
FUrer

P-29 (ADS) Cyclone
April 22. 1975 1
2
3
4
Filter

P-28 (HK) Cvclone
April 22, 1975 1
:
3
4
Filter

Pj.ClO.
10
7.0
3.3
i.O
1.1


10
7.0
3.3
2.0
1.1


10
7.0
!.]
2.0
1.1


10
7.0
3.3
2.0
1.1

Fine Grind
Sample SO.'
Filter No. (im)
150
151/31 (305)
152/11 (305)
153/32 (305)
154/12 (305)
155/26 (203 « 254)

156
157/33 (305)
158/13 (305)
159/34 (305)
160/14 (305)
161/27 (201 x 254)

16
-------
                                  APPENDIX D
               STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF PROCESS STREAM SAMPLES
     It was realized that the sampling methodology for characterizing the pro-
cess streams might involve considerable error and not yield representative re-
sults. Therefore, a statistical evaluation of certain data was performed. The
methods used to perform these statistical evaluations and the results are dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs.
                                     328

-------
              STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUSE FUEL ENTERING
                          AND LEAVING THE STORAGE BIN
     The daily sample analysis results for the 10-day period of September 23
through October 4, 1974, of refuse fuel entering the storage bin (S2) and ref-
use fuel leaving the storage bin (S3) were subjected to statistical analysis.

     At 95% statistical confidence coefficient, there was no significant dif-
ference between S2 and S3 for any of the sample spectrums except bulk density.
The bulk density data were reanalyzed and found to be significantly higher in
S3 even at 99% confidence coefficient.

     Bulk density is higher in the storage bin discharge due to the bin packing
factor. Weight of material in the bin causes material compaction at the lower
bin elevations. Since the bin was designed to discharge the material at the bin
bottom, this discharged material is always more compressed and has a higher kg/
m^ (lb/ft3) bulk density than the material entering the bin from the top.
                                      329

-------
                              SAMPLE VARIABILITY
     Two tests were performed to determine sample variance. First, eight subsam-
ples evenly spaced over a 2-hr period were taken of the milled raw refuse (SI)
and the cyclone discharge (S2). Second, eight subsamples evenly spaced over a 1-
hr period were taken of the refuse fuel entering the storage bin (S2) and leav-
ing the storage bin (S3). Each individual subsample was analyzed. The individual
results are shown in Appendix B (Table B-8).

     The sample results were subjected to statistical analysis. It was determined
that there was no significant difference in sample variability between samples
taken over a 1-hr interval and those taken over a 2-hr interval. Whatever short
term time trends may be present, they do not affect the variability or dispersion
of the sample data.

     Daily samples of the various plant refuse streams were composed of four sub-
samples taken at 2-hr intervals which were composited to form one daily sample
that was inspected and analyzed. Daily sample results are therefore the mean of
four subsamples. The precision of such a mean can be calculated from the pooled
sample variance of the previously mentioned test data listed in Table B-8. Table
23 shows the variability for each analysis spectrum category based on 95% con-
fidence coefficient for a sample size of four. In general, the data in Table 23
indicated that results obtained by the normal sampling method (i.e., sample size
of four) could be expected,  with 95% confidence, to be within + 10 to 15% of the
actual mean value for most analysis spectra (e.g., heating value, moisture, etc.).
                                       330

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
    EPA-600/2-77-155a
                             2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
   St. Louis Demonstration Final Report:  Refuse
   Processing Plant  Equipment, Facilities, and
   Environmental Evaluations
                           5. REPORT DATE
                             September 1977(Issuing Date)
                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
   D.E. Fiscus
   P. G. Gorman
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
M.P. Schrag
L. J. Shannon
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   Midwest Research  Institute
   425 Volker Boulevard
   Kansas City, Missouri   64110
                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                               1DC-618
                           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                               68-02-1324
                               68-02-1871
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,  OH
   Office of Research and Development
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Cincinnati, Ohio   45268
                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                           Final-Sept.  1974-Sept.l975
                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                              EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
   One of two  final reports.
Project Officer:   Carlton Wiles  (513-684-7881)
16. ABSTRACT xhis report  presents the results of processing plant evaluations of  the
5t.  Louis-Union Electric  Refuse Fuel Project, including equipment and facilities  as wel]
is assessment of environmental emissions at both  the processing and power plants.  Data
>n plant material flows and operating parameters,  plant operating costs, characteristic
 f plant material flows,  and emissions from various  processing operations were  obtained
luring a testing program  encompassing^53 calendar  weeks.

lefuse derived fuel  (RDF)  is the major product (80.6% by weight) of the refuse  process-
ing plant, the other being ferrous metal scrap, a  marketable by-product.  Average
Derating costs for the entire evaluation period were $8.26/Mg ($7.49/ton).  The  average
iverall processing rate for the period was 168 Mg/8-hr day (185.5 tons/8-hr day)  at
51.0 Mg/hr (34.2 tons/hr).

"uture plants using an  air classification system of  the type used at the ST. Louis
lemonstration plant will  need an emissions control device for particulates from the
.arge de-entrainment cyclone.  Also in the air exhaust from the cyclone were total
:ounts of bacteria and  viruses several times higher  than those of suburban ambient air.
k> water effluent or noise exposure problems were  encountered, although land-fill
Leachate mixed with groundwater could result in contamination, given low dilution rates
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                         c. COS AT I Field/Group
 Wastes
 Refuse disposal
 Materials recovery
 Power
 Reclamation
               Refuse derived fuels
               Waste as energy
               Resource recovery
                                                                           13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Release to Public
              19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
               Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
  347
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

                                               Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
            331
                                                                    i> U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977— 757-056/6557

-------