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 PlantSpecific 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 RefuseResults 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 systema 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 Reas 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
analysis3.5 C, 16% Cr, 1.0% Mo; deposit hardness50-54 Re, magnetic
for abrasion and impact.
McKay 55-TIC Rod
387o alloy of high chromium cast iron, 11% titanium carbides, deposit
hardness40-50 Re for severe abrasion and moderate impact.
Amsco Superchrome Rod
Large volume of chromium carbides and austenite nominal deposit anal-
ysis4,5% C, 2,0% Si, 30.0% Cr; deposit hardness56-61 Re for sliding
abrasion and moderate impact.
29
-------
Large volume of complex carbide and martensite, nominal deposit anal-
ysis6.0% C, 22% Cr, 7% Mo, 5% W; deposit hardness60-65 Re for se-
vere abrasion.
McKay 258 TIC-0 Wire
Moderate carbon-chromium 17% alloy steel with 1170 titanium carbides,
deposit hardness36-58 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 highermoisture, 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
iii i i i i i iiiTT
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'sreport 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 placeone 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 ProcessA
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 onlyFebruary 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 onlyMarch 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
II
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 LaboratoryGin., 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
------- |