EPA-650/2-75-044
May 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
f
*
-------
EPA-650/2-75-044
ST. LOUIS REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT:
EQUIPMENT, FACILITY,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
by
L. J. Shannon, D. E. Fiscus,
and P . G. Gorman
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-02-1324
Task 4
ROAP No. 21AQQ-010
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officers:
J.D. Kilgroe, Control Systems Laboratory
J.R. Holloway, Resource Recovery Division
C.C. Wiles, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
May 1975
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the National Environmental Research
Center - Research Triangle Park, Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, have been grouped into series. These broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and applica-
tion of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was
consciously planned to foster technology transfer and maximum interface
in related fields. These 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
9. MISCELLANEOUS
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to
develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and methodology
to repair or prevent environmental 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 for sale through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-650/2-75-044
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes partial results of the following tests and evalua-
tions at the St. Louis refuse processing plant from September 1974 to
January 1975: plant mass and energy balances; equipment and plant per-
formance evaluations; an analysis of plant operating costs; particulate
emission tests on the hammermill and air classification system dust col-
lection cyclones; a pollution evaluation of plant washdown water; and a
plant sound survey. The plant operated satisfactorily during the eval-
uation period, with about 80% of the incoming refuse converted to refuse
fuel, on both a mass and energy basis. No major equipment breakdowns
occurred. Plant operating and maintenance costs ranged from $2.58 to
$14.80/ton of refuse produced, with costs varying primarily as a func-
tion of tonnage. Particulate emissions from the hammermill cyclone dis-
charge were less than 0.01 gr/dscf; those from the air classifier cy-
clone discharge averaged 0.209 gr/dscf (about 1.25 Ib/ton of refuse
processed) . Over 807o by weight of these particles had mean diameters
greater than 10 urn. Washdown water samples showed significant increases
in TSS, BOD, and COD; however, the small quantity of effluent (2,000
gal., twice/week) can be handled easily by the average municipal waste
treatment facility. At eight of the 17 plant positions at which sound
measurements were taken, sound levels were in excess of 90 dBA, the
maximum OSHA level for continuous 8-hr exposure .
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Acknowledgments xi
X
Summary 1
Background 1
Processing Plant Evaluations 1
Environmental Tests 3
Introduction 5
Methodology 6
Equipment and Facilities Evaluation 12
Plant Operations and Costs 12
Equipment Downtime and Maintenance 22
Characterization of Plant Equipment 22
Plant Material Flow and Characterization 26
Statistical Evaluation of Process Stream Samples 45
Statistical Difference Between Refuse Fuel Entering and Leav-
ing the Storage Bin 48
Sample Variability 48
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Environmental Evaluations 51
Test Procedures for Air Emission Sampling 51
ADS Cyclone Test Procedures 52
Hammermill Cyclone Test Procedure 52
Results of Air Emission Tests. ...... ..... 56
ADS Cyclone 56
HM Cyclone . 62
Runoff from Washdown Activities 62
Test Procedure for Sound Survey 64
Sound Survey Results 66
Appendix - Tabulations of Data on Equipment and Analysis of Refuse
Samples 73
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
1 Flow Diagram of Processing Plant and Refuse Sampling
Locations. • • 8
2 Daily Variations in Midday Ambient Temperature and Relative
Humidity 16
3 Daily Variations in Amount and Rate of Raw Refuse Processed. . 18
4 Total Cost per Ton and Kilowatt-Hour per Ton Versus Total
Weekly Tonnage of Refuse Fuel Produced 21
5 Daily Variations in Motor Current 25
6 Daily Variations in Hammermill Bearing Skin Temperatures and
Ambient Temperatures 27
7 Daily Variations in ADS Cyclone Exhaust Air Flow Rate and
Relative Humidity, and Ambient Relative Humidity 28
8 Daily Variations in Material and Energy Recovery 42
9 Heating Value of Refuse Fuel Versus Moisture Content for
Daily Samples 47
10 Diagram of ADS Cyclone Discharge Sampling Locations 53
11 Diagram of Particulate Mass Sampling Equipment 54
12 Diagram of Particle Size Sampling Equipment 55
13 Particle Size Distribution for ADS Cyclone Discharge 60
14 Particle Size Distribution for Hammermill Cyclone Discharge. . 61
15 Sound Survey Measurement Locations 68
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1 Processing Plant—Objectives of Equipment and Facilities
Evaluation and Environmental Evaluation 7
2 Sampling and Analysis Performed (Intensive) 9
3 Sampling and Analyses Performed (Baseline) 11
4 Processing Plant Daily Activity 13
5 Weekly Summary of Processing Plant Operations and Costs. ... 19
6 Weekly Summary of Plant Downtime During Processing Days. ... 23
7 Weekly Summary of Major Plant Maintenance not Counted as
Downtime 24
8 Plant Flow Stream Description 29
9a Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 23 September 1974 31
9b Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 30 September 1974 32
9c Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 7 October 1974 33
9d Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 14 October 1974. 34
9e Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 21 October 1974 35
9f Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 18 November 1974 36
9g Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows and Characteris-
tics for Week of 25 November 1974 37
9h Summary of Processing Plant Material Flows During 3-Week
Period When Kef use Samples were not Taken 38
9i Average Characteristics of Streams Over Duration of
Sampling 39
10 Weekly Summary of Plant Material and Energy Balance 41
11 Weekly Summary of Plant Ferrous Metal Recovery 44
12 Weekly Summary of Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Refuse
Fuel Produced 46
13 Sample Variability of Milled Refuse 49
14 Results of Emission Tests at Processing Plant 57
15 Mass Emission Test Data 58
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No.
16 Particle Size Distributions of ADS and Hammermill Dis-
charges 59
17 Test Data on Particles Captured by Net Placed Over ADS Fan
Discharge 63
18 Tabulation of Data on Washdown Activity 65
19 Sound Survey Measurement Locations 67
20 Sound Survey - City of St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
(Plant in Operation) 69
21 Sound Survey - City of St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
(Background Sound - Plant not in Operation) 70
22 Location of Sound Levels Above 90 dBA and Allowable Exposure . 72
A-l Major Items of Equipment - Refuse Processing Plant 74
A-2 Major Motors - Refuse Processing Plant 75
A-3a Moisture Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams - Percent by
Weight 76
A-3b Heating Value of Milled Refuse Streams Btu/Lb 77
A-3c Ash Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Percent by Weight. ... 78
A-3d Daily Results - Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Refuse
Fuel 79
A-3e Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Ferrous by Chemical Analy-
sis (F6203), Aluminum by Chemical Analysis (A1203), Percent
by Weight 80
A-3f Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Copper by Chemical Analy-
sis (CuO), Lead by Chemical Analysis (PbO), Percent by
Weight 81
A-3g Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Nickel by Chemical Analy-
sis (NiO), Zinc by Chemical Analysis (ZnO), Percent by
Weight 82
A-3h Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Ferrous Metal by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 83
A-3i Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Tin Cans by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 84
A-3j Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Aluminum by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 85
A-3k Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Copper by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 86
A-31 Bulk Density of Milled Refuse Streams, Lb/Ft3 87
A-3m Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Paper by Visual Analysis,
Percent by Weight 88
A-3n Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Plastic by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 89
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
No. Page
A-3o Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Wood by Visual Analy-
sis, Percent by Weight 90
A-3p Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Glass by Visual Analy-
sis, Percent by Weight 91
A-3q Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Magnetic Metal by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 92
A-3r Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Nonmagnetic Metal by
Visual Analysis, Percent by Weight 93
A-3s Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Organics by Visual
Analysis, Percent by Weight 94
A-3t Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Miscellaneous Material
by Visual Analysis (Not Otherwise Classified as Paper,
Plastic, Wood, Glass, Metal or Organics), Percent by
Weight 95
A-3u Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Square Screen Size, Per-
cent by Weight 96
A-3v Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Particle Size - Geo-
metric Mean Diameter - Inch, Percent by Weight 103
A-3w Analysis of Milled Refuse Streams, Particle Size - Geo-
metric Standard Deviation 104
A-4a Weekly Summary Weighted Average Heating Value (Btu/lb),
Total Heat Energy (Btu x 10°) 105
A-4b Weekly Summary Weighted Average, Percent of Magnetic Metal. . 106
A-5a Sample Variability of Milled Refuse—Results by Weight. . . . 107
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-02-1324. It describes the work carried out by Midwest
Research Institute (MRI) at the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant for
the period of 23 September 1974 through 30 November 1974. The results
of sound tests performed on 20 and 21 January 1975 are also presented.
This EPA-sponsored test and evaluation work was directed by James D.
Kilgroe of the Control System Laboratory, Robert Holloway of the Re-
source Recovery Division and Carlton Wiles of the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Research Laboratory.
Mr. Doug Fiscus, Mr. Paul Gorman and Dr. L. J. Shannon were the princi-
pal authors of this report. Many other MRI personnel assisted in com-
pilation and analysis of the data. Actual equipment tests and refuse
sampling were carried out at the processing plant by Mr. Steve Howard
and Lynn Cook, under the direction of Mr. Doug Fiscus (MRI Field Mana-
ger). Most of the laboratory analysis of the refuse samples was done
by Ralston Purina—Research 900—in St. Louis. Also, the conduct 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 (Refuse Commissioner - City of St. Louis) and
his staff, especially Mr. John Molitar and Mr. Nick Young.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
M. Hubba/d,
-------
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Early in 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to design and implement a detailed study
for evaluation of the St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel Project. This
program was primarily directed to evaluation of the equipment and facili-
ties, and assessment of environmental emissions at both the processing
plant and power plant. The extensive data collection and testing nec-
essary under this program to make the required evaluations were begun on
23 September 1974. This interim report presents the results of the test
and evaluation program at the processing plant for the period 23 September
to 30 November 1974. It also presents the results of special sound tests
performed on 20 and 21 January 1975.
PROCESSING PLANT EVALUATIONS
Information required for evaluation of the equipment and facilities and
for environmental impacts was collected at the processing plant during
the period 23 September 'through 30 November 1974. Data on plant material
flows, operating parameters, costs and character of the plant material
flows were obtained. The following paragraphs describe the plant oper-
ating mode (processing rate) during the test periods and present impor-
tant data and results.
One of the more important parts of the test plan, and certainly the one
that provided the greatest amount of data, was characterization of plant
material flows. Daily sampling of individual process streams with anal-
yses of samples was conducted to determine:
Heating value (Btu/lb),
Moisture (%),
Bulk density (lb/ft3),
Ash (7»),
-------
Size,
Composition (percent of wood, paper, plastic, glass, metal, etc.),
Metals analyses (percent of Fe, Al, Pb, Cu, Ni and Zn), and
Proximate and ultimate analyses of refuse fuel.
The above characteristics were determined on either a daily basis or a
weekly basis for at least the four major input/output streams during 7
of the 10 test weeks, in order to characterize the plant flows as com-
pletely as possible. The analysis results are tabulated in the appendix
of this report. Sampling of each process stream normally involved col-
lection of samples at 2-hr intervals, four times each day. The four indi-
vidual samples were combined into a daily composite sample on which anal-
yses were performed. However, the reliability of the results using this
sampling method was not known. Therefore, additional special sampling
sequences were undertaken for the purpose of statistically evaluating the
results obtained by the normal sampling method. These statistical eval-
uations indicated that the results obtained by the normal sampling method
could be expected, with 95% confidence, to be within 10 to 157= of the
actual mean value for most analysis parameters (e.g., heating value, mois-
ture, etc.). This degree of reliability was considered to be acceptable
for the purposes of this test program.
Although sampling and analyses were an important part of the effort at
the processing plant during the subject test period, other important in-
formation and data were collected during each week, especially those
weeks wheu the plant was operated at specific production rates.
In the first 2 weeks of the test period the plant was operated at maximum
capacity (300 tons/8-hr day) and it was demonstrated that the plant was
capable of sustaining this rate over a 2-week period. Subsequent testing
was conducted at a processing rate of at least 150 tons/8-hr day for 3
weeks, followed by 5 weeks at variable rates that ranged from approximately
100 to 200 tons/8-hr day. No major equipment breakdowns occurred during
these periods. Planned shutdowns did occur to perform normal maintenance,
including 1 week for repair of refuse handling equipment at the power
plant.
In addition to monitoring daily plant production rates, records were kept
of the quantity of all input/output streams and bin inventories. These
data were used to compute weekly material balances for the plant and they
were also used, along with sample analysis results previously discussed,
to compute plant energy balances. Plant output weights averaged 6.8%
-------
less than the plant input weights. No single item was identified to
account for this apparent loss but it is suspected that errors in weighing
refuse fuel trucks may have occurred. Ignoring the error in mass
balance, the refuse fuel output stream represented, on the average,
79.8% of the weight of raw refuse and 82.3% of the energy contained
in the raw refuse.
During the 10-week test period (23 September through 30 November) records
were kept of plant operating costs (operating and maintenance labor,
operating supplies, parts and electrical power, etc.). These records
were used to compute weekly production (operating) costs on the basis of
dollars per ton of refuse fuel produced. These weekly costs ranged from
$2.58 up to $14.80/ton and the overall cost for the 10-week period was
$6.20/ton. This overall cost reflects 1 week when there was no production
and several weeks when the plant was purposely operated at considerably
less than design capacity (300 tons/8-hr day). The lowest operating cost
of $2.58/ton represented those 2 weeks when the plant was operated near
design capacity and no unscheduled shutdowns occurred. Therefore, if the
plant were normally operated near design capacity, operating costs should
be less than $6.20/ton, but probably more than $2.58/ton because some un-
scheduled downtime and maintenance is to be expected.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS
Although most of the work at the processing plant during the 10-week test
period was directed to collection of data on plant operations and sampling
and analysis of refuse streams, the program did include environmental
testing with emphasis on determination of emissions from the air density
separator (ADS) cyclone and hammermill (HM) cyclone and an evaluation of
processing plant sound levels. The most important result of the air
emission sampling was that the emissions from the ADS cyclone averaged
50 Ib/hr. At a nominal processing rate of 40 tons/hr, this represents
an emission factor of 1.25 Ib/ton of processed refuse. In all cases, at
least 80% of the particles were above 10 urn in size. The ADS emission
rate is significant, indicating a need to reduce emissions, possibly by
equipment redesign, or more likely by installation of a suitable particu-
late control device.
The major sound-level contributors are the hammermill, air-density separa-
tor (ADS) heavies discharge, nuggetizer and magnetic belt feed to the nug-
getizer, ADS fan exhaust, the front-end loader used to push raw refuse
onto the receiving belt, and the dumping of raw-refuse trucks. In general,
the higher sound levels occur below 2,000 Hz frequency, with the exception
of the nuggetizer in combination with the magnetic-separation belt-feed
to the nuggetizer.
-------
The maximum processing-equipment sound level was 103 dB at 4,000 Hz center
band frequency next to the nuggetizer feed duct. The maximum plant sound
level was 110 dB at 63 Hz center band frequency inside the raw-refuse
receiving building when the raw-refuse trucks were dumping.
No location at which an employee must spend a continuous 8 hr was found
to be above 90 dBA. Several locations have sound levels above 90 dBA,
but these do not require the continuous presence of any single employee.
-------
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 produc-
tion. Two separate facilities comprise the system—a processing plant
operated by the City of St. Louis, and two identical boilers (tangentially
fired), which were modified to fire shredded air classified refuse along
with coal at the Union Electric Company's Meramec Plant near St. Louis.
This demonstration facility has been in operation for over 2 years and
has shown that such a system is a workable method for utilizing raw refuse
as a supplementary fuel, and that some saleable by-product (ferrous metal)
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 has expanded their program at St.
Louis to permit a more detailed study of the performance and character-
istics of the operations, including environmental aspects.
EPA contracted with MRI to conduct a test and evaluation program at the
St. Louis demonstration facility. This program includes 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 interim report presents the results of test and evaluation activity
at the processing plant during the period 23 September to 30 November
1974. The results of sound tests performed in January 1975 are also
included. In order, the report presents (a) test methodology, (b) equip-
ment and facilities evaluation, and (c) environmental evaluations.
-------
METHODOLOGY
The test and evaluation program that is being conducted by MRI at the
processing plant is primarily directed to two areas:
1. Equipment and Facilities Evaluation, and
2. Environmental Evaluations.
The objectives of this evaluation program, stipulated in Table 1, served
as the basis for development of appropriate test schedules and procedures.
Briefly, the schedules and procedures consisted of the following:
1. Two-week intensive sampling and analysis at a processing rate of 300
tons/8-hr day (23 September to 6 October 1974).
2. Three-week baseline sampling and analysis at a processing rate of at
least 150 tons/8-hr day (7 October to 27 October 1974).
3. One week of air and water pollution testing at a processing rate
equivalent to 300 tons/8-hr day while processing plant testing was in
progress (18 November to 22 November 1974).
4. Continuing sample analyses and compilation of data, on a weekly basis,
to describe plant inputs/outputs, maintenance requirements, operating
costs, etc. (23 September to 30 November and continuing thereafter).
5. A survey of the sound levels in the refuse processing plant (20 and
21 January 1975).
The 2-week intensive sampling period involved daily sampling of eight
process streams as designated in Figure 1. Sampling of these streams con-
sisted of collecting a sample from each stream (~ 1/3 ft^), at approxi-
mately 2-hr intervals and combining the resultant four individual samples
into a composite daily sample. The daily composite samples, for each of
the eight streams, were then analyzed as specified in Table 2.
-------
Table 1. PROCESSING PLANT—OBJECTIVES OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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
heating value may be lost in by-product streams).
3. Characterization of various material flows as to:
Moisture content
Bulk density
Size analysis
Heating value
Composition (percent-paper, plastic, wood, glass, magnetic metal,
other metals, other organics, miscellaneous)
Chemical analyses (ash, Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn)
4. Characterization of equipment as to:
Horsepower (nameplate and actual)
RPM
Air flow (blowers)
Belt width and speed (conveyors)
Grate size (hammermill)
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 recovery)
Ferrous metal recovery efficiency
Operating hours and downtime
Power and supplies required
Operating labor required
Maintenance labor required
Electric power required per ton of refuse fuel produced
Total costs per ton of refuse fuel produced
6. Quantify and characterize air, liquid and solid waste effluents
from the processing plant to include:
Air emissions from ADS cyclone
Air emissions from HM cyclone
Effluent from area washdown activities
Reject material hauled to landfill
7. Characterization of sound levels at the processing plant.
-------
oo
AIR CLASSIFIER
Cyclone Separator
HAMMERMILL
Packer Truck
STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
I Storage Bin
JP
5^N' 1
Stationary Packer
Separation Chute
Noetic Belt
UU
RAW REFUSE DELIVERY
Trailer Truck
U
-------
V£>
Table 2. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PERFORMED
(Intensive)
SI
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Stream
identification
- Hammermill discharge
- Cyclone separator bottoms
- Storage bin discharge
- Air classifier bottoms
- Magnetic belt rejects
- Nuggetizer feed
- Magnetic drum rejects
- Ferrous metal by-product
Moisture
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bulk
density
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Size
X
X
X
X
X
X
Heating Proximate
value analysis
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
Ultimate Compo-
analysis sition£'
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Metals
analysis
xa/
xi/
x£
xfe/
xW
xk/
Xk/
xt/
a/ Chemical analyses to determine percent Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn.
b/ Visual analysis for metallic components (wt 7o - tin cans, ferrous metal, Al and Cu).
£/ Composition will include determination of percent magnetic material, as well as major constituents,
-------
A reduced "baseline" sampling and analysis scheme was used during the 3-
week period that followed the 2-week intensive period. The same four sam-
ples per day schedule was followed, but only four input/output streams
were sampled as specified in Table 3. Daily composite samples of these
four streams were analyzed, except that metals analyses were done only on
weekly composite samples.
The baseline sampling and analysis schedule was also carried out during
the 1 week of environmental testing at the processing plant. After the
3-week baseline sampling period, daily analysis of samples was discon-
tinued and instead, two daily samples were collected and utilized for pre-
paring weekly composite samples for analysis in order to minimize analysis
costs.
In addition to collection and analyses of refuse samples, plant operating
data and costs were compiled for each weekly test period. This data,
along with the analyses results, were used for evaluating the equipment
and facilities as described in the next section of this report.
10
-------
Table 3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSES PERFORMED^/
(Baseline)
SI
S2
S5
S8
Stream
identification
- Hammermill discharge
- Cyclone separator bottoms
- Magnetic belt rejects
- Ferrous metal by-product
Moisture
X
X
X
X
Bulk
density
X
X
X
X
Heating Proximate
Size value analysis
X X
XXX
X X
X X
Ultimate Compo- Metals
analysis sition-/ analysis-
x xk/
XY vD/
A A——
x£^/
x x£/
a_l Analyses to be performed on daily composite samples except that metals analysis will be done only on
weekly composite samples.
b/ Chemical analyses to determine percent Fe, Al, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn.
£/ Visual analysis for metallic components (wt % - tin cans, ferrous metal, Al and Cu).
d_/ Composition will include determination of percent magnetic material, as well as major constituents.
e/ Includes analysis for percent organics and volatile material for samples taken during week of
environmental tests.
Note: After 3-week baseline sampling period, analyses were performed only on weekly composite
samples including stream S7 (magnetic drum rejects). However, daily sampling and
analyses were performed during week of environmental tests.
-------
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES EVALUATION
Data were collected at the processing plant over the 10-week time period
of 23 September 1974 through 30 November 1974 according to the test pro-
gram shown below:
Specified Daily
Raw Refuse
Week No. Processed - Tons Refuse Sampling Schedule
1,2 300 daily (8 streams sampled)
3,4,5 150 + daily (4 input/output streams
sampled)
6,7 nonspecified none - environmental testing at U. E,
8 nonspecified none - prepare for environmental
testing at processing plant
9 as required for normal daily - environmental tests at
tons/hr rate (300 tons/day) processing plant
10 nonspecified weekly composite for 5 input/output
streams
Even though refuse samples were not taken during weeks 6, 7, and 8, plant
material flows, man-hours, and costs were recorded.
All of the refuse sample analyses results and plant operating data col-
lected during the above weeks were compiled and analyzed with the aim of
meeting the objectives of the equipment and facilities evaluation as
listed previously in Table 1. With these objectives in mind, the results
have been summarized and are presented in the following sections of this
report. The detailed data from the entire test period are tabulated in
the appendix.
PLANT OPERATIONS AND COSTS
A daily log of plant production rates and plant activity during the 10-
week test period is presented in Table 4. Because the bulk of the plant
equipment is located outside, ambient temperature and humidity were re-
corded (Figure 2) for each test day to show the environment in which the
equipment was operating.
12
-------
Table 4. PROCESSING PLANT DAILY ACTIVITY
Day
Week 1
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
(Averages are for days plant is processing, not work days per week)
(Test days are days refuse samples taken)
Raw refuse
Date
Mo.
9
9
9
9
9
1974
Day
23
24
25
26
27
Weather
Clear
it
it
Fog
Cloudy
Test
day
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Week 2
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
9
10
10
10
10
30
1
2
3
4
Clear
M
n
ii
n
6
7
8
9
10
Average
Week 3
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
10
10
10
10
10
7
8
9
10
11
Clear
n
n
n
n
11
12
13
14
15
Average
Week 4
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
10
10
10
10
10
14
15
16
17
18
Rain
Clear
n
n
Cloudy
-
16
17
18
19
Average
processed
Tons /Day
284.6
303.0
312.3
309.2
319.9
305.8
309.7
325.1
312.0
297.5
299.8
308.8
176.0
177.3
182.9
184.5
182.6
180.7
-
205.9
200.6
191.9
178.8
194.3
Tons/ Hr Comments
31.0
40.4
41.2
39.9
41.3
38.8
44.2
40.6
38.6
40.6
41.4
41.1
28.5
28.7
37.2
42.6
47.7
36.9
Holiday - Columbus Day
39.8
33.4
42.6
35.8
37.9
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Day
Date 1974 Test
Week 5 Mo. Day Weather day
Mon 10 21 Clear 20
Tues 10 22 " 21
Wed 10 23 Cloudy 22
Thurs 10 24 " 23
Fri 10 25 " 24
Average
Week 6
Mon 10 28
Tues 10 29
Wed 10 30
Thurs 10 31
Fri 11 1
Average
Week 7
Mon 11 4
Tues 11 5
Wed 11 6
Thurs 11 7
Fri 11 8
Average
Week 8
Mon 11 11
Tue 11 12
Wed 11 13
Thurs 11 14
Fri 11 15
Raw refuse
processed
Tons/Day Tons/Hr Comments
177.7
81.1
179.6
176.2
161.8
155.3
0
110.2
25.3*
0
157.4
133.8
0
-
0
0
0
-
123.1
115.9
114.5
111.2
29.6
32.4
35.9
37.1
46.2
36.2
0 Holiday for U.E. - Veterans Day for U.E.
31.5
•JC yf
22.1 Regrind Experiment (Not included in averages)
0 Not in operation-Change mill grates, clean up
29.6
30.6
0 Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
Holiday - Election Day
0 Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
0 Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
0 Planned maintenance outage for U.E.
Holiday - Veterans Day for city employees
32.8
26.9
38.2
23.6
Average
116.2
30.4
-------
Table 4. (Concluded)
Day
Week 9
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Raw refuse
Date
Mo.
11
11
11
11
11
1974
Day
18
19
20
21
22
Weather
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
ii
ii
Test
day
25
26
27
28
29
Average
Week 10
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
11
11
11
11
11
Aver;
25
26
27
28
29
aee
Clear
Clear
30
-
31
-
-
processed
Tons /Day
88.2
280.5
287.6
234.6
173.9
212.9
265.1
0
197.9
-
0
231.5
Tons/Hr
27.9
35.4
32.9
34.3
31.2
32.3
33.9
0
25.5
-
0
29.7
Comments
Environmental testing at processing
Environmental testing at processing
Environmental testing at processing
Environmental testing at processing
Hot bearing on ADS fan
Replaced ADS fan bearing
Holiday - Thanksgiving
plant
plant
plant
plant
Not in operation - General maintenance
-------
100
>-
5
50
o
i i i i i i i i i
10
15
TEST DAY
20
i i i i
25
3031
100
o
£
50
Ol — I I I I I I I I I — I I I _ I_J
0
10
15
TEST DAY
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
20
25
3031
Figure 2. Daily variations in midday ambient temperature and relative humidity.
-------
The plant processing rates listed in Table 4 have been plotted in Figure
3 to depict fluctuations and are based on actual time the plant operated
(i.e., not including downtime).
The required daily tonnage amounts were met except for 22 October 1974,
where due to miscommunications, only 81.1 tons instead of 150 tons of raw
refuse were delivered to the processing plant. This was not a serious fac-
tor because the weekly average was still above 150 tons/day and there was
no large drop in the 22 October hourly processing rate.
As shown in Figure 3, the processing rate becomes more variable at lower
daily tonnages and there appears to be a slight trend of processing rate
decreasing with a decrease in daily tonnage. Statistical analysis of the
data yielded only a 617» correlation between tons per hour and tons per
day. However, it is important to point out that while tons of refuse
processed is primarily a function of the number of hours the plant oper-
ates, more variability in the processing rate is to be expected when the
daily tonnage required is reduced. Part of the reason for this is the
design of the hammermill interlock system which shuts off the raw refuse
feed conveyors if the maximum motor load on the hammermill is exceeded
for too long. Therefore, to minimize the frequency of such shutoffs,
the operators may decrease the speed of the raw refuse feed conveyors
based on the daily tonnage required.
Processing rate is controlled by an operator's visual observation of the
hammermill motor current via an ampmeter. The operator's objective is to
keep the hammermill operating as close as possible 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 45 tons/hr. The daily rates varied from 52 to 106%
of this design rate, with the average being 79%. An individual day may
have a high processing rate. However, due to the variabilities of in-
coming raw refuse and the human operator's alertness, it would be difficult
to greatly improve the average processing rate over a long time span.
A summary of plant operations and operating costs for each weekly test
period has been tabulated in Table 5. Cost data were obtained from the
City of St. Louis, but these are kept on a monthly basis so it was nec-
essary to prorate the monthly data in order to establish weekly cost data.
The weeks in November showed an increase in total costs. Part of this
increase was due to a single large payment of $1,386 for hammermill parts.
Also, there were increased labor costs for the month and a larger than
usual number of smaller bills for parts and supplies.
17
-------
50 r
00
-i 400
-300
Processing Rate
(Tons/Hr)
Daily Amount
Processed Tons
Regrind Test
III II
10 15 20 25
PLANT OPERATING DAYS (Not Test Days)
V)
O
to
LJJ
8
DC
a.
LU
to
1
U.
O
O
5
>
<
Figure 3. Daily variations in amount and rate of raw refuse processed.
-------
c/
Table 5. WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT OPERATIONS AND COSTS-
Actual processing time
Plant downtime
Total plant time on processing days
Days processing performed
Days no processing performed
Possible working days
Refuse received (tons)
Refuse fuel produced (tons)
Fe metal produced (tons)
Operating labor (man-hours)—'
Maintenance labor (man-hours)
Total direct labor
Electric power used (kw-hr)
Maintenance parts cost ($)
9-23
(hr) 39.8
(hr) 1.1
(hr) 40.9
5
0
5
1,529.0
1,185.6
77.1
324.5
149.0
473.5
33,600
243
Operating supplies, fuel, power, misc. 644
Salaries and benefits ($)-'
Total plant operating costs ($)
Total direct labor (man -hours /ton)
Total electric power (kw-hr/ton)
Total cost ($/ton)
2,173
3,060
0.40
28.3
2.58
9-30
37.7
5.3
43.0
5
0
5
1,544.1
1,195.4
93.8
348.5
124.5
473.0
34,080
210
606
2,266
3,082
0.40
28.5
2.58
10-7
25.4
1.0
26.4
5
0
5
903.3
719.1
58.1
337.5
107.0
444.5
23,040
202
596
2.290
3,088
0.62
32.0
4.29
10-14
20.7
7.7
28.4
4
0
4
777 .2
586.2
38.3
282.5
91.5
374.0
19,440
162
477
1.832
2,471
0.64
33.2
4.22
10-21
21.8
4.2
26.0
5
_P_
5
776.4
625.0
37.2
380.5
131.5
512.0
20,400
202
596
2,290
3,088
0.82
32.6
4.94
10-28 11-4
14.0 0
5.7 0
19.7 0
3 0
2 4
5 4
292.9 0
245.4 0
15.0 0
424.0 200.5
120.0 139.0
544.0 339.5
14,000 7,660
317 623
738 1,042
2,592 3,041
3,647 4,706
2.22
57.0
14.86
11-11
15.8
2.0
17.8
4
0
4
464.7
393.8
25.1
326.5
109.5
436.0
16,500
623
1,042
3*041
4,706
1.11
41.9
11.95
11-18
32.2
1.9
34.1
5
0
5
1,064.8
898.7
54.9
396.8
104.3
501.1
27,120
779
1,303
3,802
5,884
0.56
30.2
6.54
11-25
15.6
2.9
18.5
2
2
4
463.0
347.9
22.9
284.0
112,0
396.0
17,520
623
1,042
3,041
4,706
1.14
50.4
13.53
- Includes direct supervision. Does not include clerical and indirect supervision.
-/ Salaries and benefits include clerical and indirect supervision.
£/ No costs for landfill of refuse fuel are included because these were incurred only for purposes of maintaining desired production
rates for test purposes.
-------
During the week of 4 November, there was no plant production, which pre-
cluded calculation of dollars per ton costs for that week. It is impor-
tant to point out that yearly costs divided by total yearly tons, would
of course take into account costs from weeks with no production. The
weekly costs ranged from $2.58/ton to $14.80/ton. The overall cost for
the period 23 September through 29 November 1974 was $6.20/ton (computed
as total cost divided by total tonnage of refuse fuel). This overall
cost of $6.20/ton reflects 1 week with no production and several weeks
when the plant was operated at considerably less than design capacity.
However, if the plant were normally operated at near design capacity of
300 tons/8 hr as was done in the 2 weeks of 23 September and 30 September
1974, operating costs per ton of refuse fuel produced could be expected
to be less than $6.20/ton but probably more than $2.58/ton. It is ex-
tremely doubtful that a cost of $2.58/ton could be achieved over the
long term because a certain amount of downtime days will be required for
equipment maintenance.
Cost data on a dollar per ton basis and power usage (kw-hr/ton) from
Table 5 have been plotted in Figure 4. Statistical analysis of the data
showed good correlation between electric power, costs and tonnage. Corre-
lation coefficients were 98 and 93%, respectively, for kilowatt-hour per
ton and dollar per ton. These results are shown in Figure 4.
The important conclusion is that the rate of both electric power consump-
tion and total costs are a function of tonnage. Lowest rates occur at
the highest weekly tonnage.
The best fit curve equations corresponding to the correlation coefficients
are shown in Figure 4. Both curves are of the form: rate = M + h
tons
where h-± and h2 are constants. The significance between the two curves
is that h2 for kilowatt-hour per ton is much larger than for dollars per
ton. A portion of electric power is used for lighting, heat, air condi-
tioning and maintenance, which is not a function of tons processed.
Therefore, kilowatt-hour per ton reaches its minimum value before dollars
per ton. The data in Figure 4 should be used with a degree of caution
because only a limited number of data points comprise the correlation.
Additional data are needed to confirm the implications of Figure 4. Fur-
thermore, the curves in Figure 4 should not be used to predict results
beyond the range of weekly tons shown in Figure 4. For example, a signi-
ficant increase in tonnage may require more employees which would change
the cost curve equation.
20
-------
-i60
98% Correlation
Kw- HrAon = ( 9409/Tons) +19.4
15r
O-
u «
z"- 10
o s
O
C* C
a. o
O
93% Correlation
$/Ton = (4167/Tons)- 0.58
50
0)
o
3
O
ct
-------
EQUIPMENT DOWNTIME AND MAINTENANCE
There were no major equipment failures during this 10-week test period.
Table 6 defines the plant downtime. There were 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 processing time and the
downtime.
Table 7 lists the major items of maintenance performed that were not
counted as downtime. Such maintenance occurred either during the plant
operating time, before or after the plant was actually processing refuse,
or on the days when the plant was not processing refuse. It is inter-
esting to note that maintenance man-hours comprised about 25% of the
total direct labor shown in Table 5.
CHARACTERIZATION OF PLANT EQUIPMENT
The refuse processing facility is made up of several major pieces of
equipment as well as many conveyors, etc. In order to characterize these
items, their physical size has been described in the appendix (Table A-l).
Since most of the items of equipment are electrically driven, the elec-
trical characteristics of each has also been tabulated in the appendix
(Table A-2). By far the largest power users are the hammermill (1,250 hp),
ADS fan (200 hp), storage bin discharge screw conveyor (150 hp), and the
nuggetizer (100 hp).
All motors, except the hammermill, operated 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 mea-
sured daily because of their large size and possible varying load. Figure
5 depicts these daily readings.
Hammermill current fluctuates rapidly due to the varying composition of
the incoming raw refuse. Also, the large mass of the mill rotor acts as
a flywheel. Large pieces of metal or other hard-to-mill refuse in the
stream try 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 due to its flywheel effect,
which in turn causes a quick decrease in motor current. The motor elec-
tric power circuit is fitted with a dial ampmeter. It is possible to
read the high and low points of the fluctuating meter dial. However, it
is impossible to determine average current draw from this meter. There-
fore, the maximum and minimum amperage were recorded and are shown in
Figure 5.
22
-------
Table 6. WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PLANT DOWNTIME DURING PROCESSING DAYS
Week of 1974 Downtime
Month Day hours
9 23 1.1
9 30 4.3
1.0
5.3
10 7 1.0
10 14 0.7
0.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
7.7
Lo 10 21 2.0
1.2
1.0
4.2
10 28 0.8
0.4
4.5
5.7
11 11 0.8
0.2
1.0
2.0
11 18 0.3
0.3
1.3
1.9
11 25 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
Vibrating 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 Suwa, 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 7. WEEKLY SUMMARY OF MAJOR PLANT MAINTENANCE NOT COUNTED AS DOWNTIME
Week of
Mo.
9
9
10
10
1974
Day
23
30
7
14
Equipment
Hammermill
Stationary packer
ADS
Nugget izer
Magnetic belt
Hammermill
Hammermill
Hammermill
Magnetic drum
Description
Hammer retipping, replacement of 18 hammers
Welded plate on packer
Clean fan
Clean fan, turn wear plate around, inspection
Mistracked and jammed, realigned and reject hopper cleared
Hammer retipping
Hammer retipping, replacement of 14 hammers
Hammer retipping, hammer replacement
Repair hole in feed chute
10
10
21
28
Hammermill
Hammermill
Hammermill feed conv.
Nuggetizer
Conveyor belts
Storage bin
Magnetic belt
ADS
Fire in refuse collected behind discharge, hammer retipping
Replace oil lines, change oil
Replace bolt, replace seal
Lubricate, tighten bolts, clean fan
Clean
Install new lugs on auger
Lubricate
Clean fan
11
11
11
11
11
18
25
Hammermill
ADS
Storage bin
Nuggetizer
Union Electric
Receiving facility
Payloader
Hammermill
Hammermill feed conv.
ADS
Nuggetizer
Storage bin
Conveyor belts
Hammermill
ADS
Nuggetizer
Conveyor belts
Surge bin
Packer truck
Hammermill
Hammermill feed conv.
ADS
Stationary packer
Nuggetizer
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 retipping
Clean fan, clean pneumatic control system
Replace anchor bolt, lubricate
Replace coverings
Remove plastic lining
Repair broken oil lines
Hammer retipping
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
24
-------
400
Hammermill
300
Q.
200
100
Maximum Observed Readings
Minimum Observed Readings (no load condition)
i i i i i i i i i i i i I I I I i i I i i i I I l I l l l l l
10 15 20
TEST DAY
25
30 31
200 r
ADS Fan
to
a.
100
Storage Bin Discharge
Screw Conveyor
— i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i ]
10 15 20
TEST DAY
25
3031
3031
Figure 5. Daily variations in motor current.
25
-------
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.
The hammermill bearings are of prime interest since a major plant shut-
down had occurred before the start of the test period due to a bearing
failure. Bearing skin temperature is an indication of upcoming bearing
failure. Daily skin temperatures were recorded and reported in Figure 6.
The bearing manufacturer considers 175°F as the maximum safe skin tem-
perature. The highest temperature reached during the test period was
156°F. The trend is for the outboard bearing away from the motor to run
a few degrees hotter. This may be because it is the newest bearing,
having been replaced during the previous bearing failure, and therefore
it had not worn in as much as the older bearing. Conversely, the mill
rotor is directly coupled to the motor shaft and 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. Variations in the air flow rates are a
reflection of control condition changes that were made on the basis of
visual observations to obtain good separation efficiencies with daily
changes in refuse properties. Wet and dry bulb temperature readings
were taken to determine ambient and ADS air discharge relative humidity.
This information is reported in Figure 7. Relative humidity of the fan
discharge was always above the ambient humidity, showing that the air
stream picks up moisture from the refuse as it passes through the ADS
system.
During the week of environmental testing, the relative humidity of the
hammermill dust collection cyclone exhaust was found to be 1007». There-
fore, there is also a moisture loss from the refuse as it passes through
the hammermill. These moisture losses account in part for apparent dis-
crepancies between material input and output weights at the processing
plant.
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 indentification.
Table 8 presents a description of the eight material streams and the
point at which they were sampled (also see Figure 1).
26
-------
160
140
120
Outboard
\ Bearing
\
Inboard Bearing
(Next to Motor)
100
LU
Q_
80
60
40 -
20 -
0
10
15
TEST DAY
20
25
3031
Figure 6. Daily variations in hammermill bearing
skin temperatures and ambient temperatures.
27
-------
35,000r
30,000
u
o
25,000
20,000
i i i i i i i i i i i i ' i I i I I i I ' I I
10
15
TEST DAY
20
25
3031
100
80
t 60
Q
2
40
20
i— \
i i
l I J
i l i i i l i i i i i i i i l i i i
10
15
TEST DAY
20
25
Figure 7. Daily variations in ADS cyclone exhaust air flow rate and
relative humidity, and ambient relative humidity.
3031
28
-------
Table 8. PLANT FLOW STREAM DESCRIPTION
Stream
SI
Mill discharge
S2
Cyclone discharge
S3
Storage bin
discharge
S4
ADS heavies
S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
S7
Magnetic drum
rejects
S8
Ferrous metal
Description
Milled refuse discharge
from hammermill.
Refuse fuel 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 supported by
air flow in the air density
separation system.
That portion of S4 that
cannot be magnetized and
is taken to city landfill.
That portion of S4 that
can be magnetized.
Product coming from the
the nuggetizer that cannot
be magnetized
Steel scrap by-product
sold to steel mill.
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 receiving
truck.
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.
29
-------
A daily record was kept of the quantity of all input/output streams for
the purposes of making plant material balances. Also, as previously men-
tioned, samples of each stream were obtained for the purpose of charac-
terizing these streams. Results of this work are presented in the form
of weekly summaries of tonnage and stream characteristics in Tables 9a
through 9h. Table 9i shows the average characteristics of the streams
over the period in which streams were sampled.
The actual weight of the storage bin discharge (S3), magnetic belt re-
jects (S5), magnetic drum rejects (S7), and ferrous metal by-products
(S8) was determined. The amount of refuse fuel produced each day (S2)
was calculated from the S3 shipments and the storage and packer bins
daily beginning and ending inventories.
Tables 9a through 9h list tonnages for the mill discharge (Si). However,
this is actually the total of the raw refuse weights delivered to the
processing plant as determined by weighing the refuse trucks. As dis-
cussed previously, the samples identified as raw refuse were taken after
they had passed through the hammermill. Therefore, the SI tonnages are
for raw refuse, while the sample analysis results are for milled raw
refuse. There is a difference in these two streams in that the milled
refuse will have experienced a weight and moisture loss passing through
the hammermill. The weight loss is due to pickup of moisture and par-
ticulates by the mill dust collection system and spillage of milled
refuse. This weight loss probably does not exceed 2% of the incoming
material.
For comparison purposes in Tables 9a through 9h, the nuggetizer feed (S6)
was calculated as the sum of S7 + S8. ADS heavies (S4) was calculated as
the sum of S6 + S5. S3 was determined by weighings of the packer trucks
that transport the refuse fuel to the power plant. S2 was calculated from
S3 and weekly estimates of the storage bin inventory.
Besides quantifying each process stream, Tables 9a through 9h also include
weekly averages of the analysis results in order to characterize the
streams. These averages were computed from the daily sample analysis
results tabulated in the appendix (Tables A-3a through A-3v) except for
the following:
1. Chemical analysis of metals was done on a daily basis only for weeks
23 September and 30 September 1974. Thereafter, this analysis was per-
formed only on a weekly composite sample to reduce analysis cost.
30
-------
Table 9a. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1974
u>
Quantity (tons)
Heating value (Btu/lb)!/
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Moisture (wt 7.)
Composition (wt 7.)
(Tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal -'
Other metal
Organlcs
Miscellaneous —
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)
Ash
Fe
-------
Table 9b. SUMMARY Of PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OP 30 SEPTEMBER 1974
CO
NJ
Quantity (tons.)
Heating value (Btu/lb)!/
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Moisture (wt X)
Compolltlon (vt 7.)
(Tr - trice)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal ^'
Other nwtal§
Organlcs
Miscellaneous i-'
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)
Aah
Pe (Fe203)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Vliual Analyila (wt 7.)
Fe
Tin cam
Al
Cu
Size (Inches)
Percent less than 0.75 In.
Percent less than 0.375 In.
Percent less than 0.187 In.
Percent less than 0.094 in.
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter Inches
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
1.544.1
4,646.9
8.4
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
07 n
y f . u
72.1
45.1
23.7
11.6
0,39
2.49
S2
Cyclone
discharge
1.195.4
4,887.1
7.0
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
0.26
2.69
S3
Storage bin
discharge
1,163.0
4,844.5
8.8
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
233.2
2,584.3
38.0
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
0.77
1.86
S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
138.2
2,750.5
37.2
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
0.56
2.27
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
95.0
38.8
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
1.07
1.48
sa
S7 Ferroua
Magnetic drum metal
relects by-products
1.2 93.8
3,177.3 2,223.0
57.2 59.1
0.34 0.12
Tr 0
0.2 0
0.3 0
0 0
86.5 98.8
12.7 0.1
0.2 0
0.04 1.1
13.58 14.60
66.31 84.59
15.90 0.07
0.66 0.06
0.1
99.9
99. 7
54.6
7.7
0.5
0.2
0.69
1.57
aj Values shown are higher heating values and represent complete combustion of all components, Including metals. Therefore, the values shown
for those streams comprised mostly of metal (S4-S8J, ,-jre not representative of heat that could b.- r.-covered in the utility boiler combus-
tion process.
b/ Because the ferrous metal (and other dense components) are such ;i small part of some streams (e.g., SI), especially on a volume basis con-
siderable inaccuracies may occur in the composition analysis due to the relatively small ^anple volants.
£/ Miscellaneous category is comprised of small or otherwise imi cfrnti f lable mat'.-rial.
-------
Table 9c. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF 7 OCTOBER 1974
OJ
oo
Quantity (tons)
Heating value (Btu/lb)l/
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Moisture (wt 7.)
Composition (wt %)
(Tr « trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal-'
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous —
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nt (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis fwt %)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
_Size (inches}
Percent less than 2.5 in.
Percent less than 1.5 in.
Percent less than 0.75 in.
Percent less than 0.375 In,
Percent less than 0.187 in.
Percent less than 0.094 in.
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter Inches
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
903.3
5,420.9
7.0
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
0.36
2.77
S2
Cyclone
discharge
719.1
5,557.1
5.6
18.70
57.6
5.7
3.3
2.5
0.8
l.l
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
0.29
2.84
S3 35
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge rejects
761.7 72.5
2,391.3
36.0
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
0.42
2.34
S8
S7 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
rejects by-products
1.1 : 58.1
2,274.9
62.0
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
0.71
1.60
a/
b/
c/
Values shown are higher heating values and represent complete combustion of all components, Including metals. Therefore, the values shown
for those streams comprised mostly of metal (S4-S8), are not representative of heat that could be recovered in the utility boiler combus-
tion process.
tlon process.
Because the ferrous metal (and other dense components) are such a small part of some streams (e.g., SI), e
siderable inaccuracies may occur in the composition analysis due to the relatively small sample volumes
Miscellaneous category is comprised of small or otherwise unidentifiable material.
art of some streams (e.g., SI), especially on a volume basis, con-
-------
T.ble 9d. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS TOR MEEK OF 14 OCTOBER 1974
Quantity (ton»)
Heating value (fltu/lb)5/
Bulk density (lb/£t3)
Moisture (wt H)
Composition (wt I)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal-'
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous-'
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Ash
Fe (Fe20 )
Al (AljOj)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt 7.)
Fe
Tin cana
Al
Cu
Size (Inches)
Percent less than 2.5 in.
Percent less than 1.5 in.
Percent less than 0.375 in.
Percent less than 0.187 in.
Percent less than 0.094 in.
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter inches
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
777.2
4,612.2
8.7
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
0.30
2.70
S2
Cyclone
separator
bottoms
586.2
4,838.1
6.7
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
ftl Q
01,7
57.6
36.9
23.0
0.27
2.71
S3 S5
Storage bin Magnetic belt
discharge retects
572.1 60.7
2,508.1
31.2
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
0.42
2.06
SB
S7 Petrous
Magnetic drum metal
retects by-products
1.0 38.3
2,235.0
61.3
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
0.71
1.56
a/ Values shown are higher heating values and represent complete combustion of all components, Including metals. Therefore, the values shown
for those streams comprised mostly of metal (S4-S8), are not representative of heat that could be recovered in the utility boiler combus
tion process.
W Because the ferrous metal (and other dense components) are such a small part of some streams (e.g., SI), especially on a volu
siderable inaccuracies may occur in the composition analysis due to the relatively small sample volumes.
c_/ Miscellaneous category is comprised of small or otherwise unidentifiable material.
lume basis, con-
-------
Table 9e. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF 21 OCTOBER 1974
(J\
S2 S8
SI Cyclone S3 S5 S7 Ferrous
Mill separator Storage bin Magnetic belt Magnetic drum metal
diacharae bottoms discharge
Quantity (tons)
Heating value (Btu/lb)8/
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Moisture (wt ?,)
Composition (wt Z)
Paper
plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal-
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous-
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Ash
Fa (FCJO.J)
Al (AljO,)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ml (NiO)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt 70)
fe
Tin. cans
Al
Cu
Size (Inches)
Percent less than 2,5 in.
Percent less than 1,5 In.
Percent less than 0.75 in.
?ercent leas than 0,375 in.
Percent less than 0.094 in.
?articVe size
Geometric mean diameter inches
Geometric standard deviation
776.4
4,959.1 5,
6.7
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
Q
100.0
97.4
72.8
30.3
16.1
0.33
2.81
a/ Values shown are higher heating values and repre
for those streams comprised mostly of metal (S
tion process.
b/ Because the ferrous metal (and
625.0 640.0
312.4
5.9
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
100.0
96.6
73.3
47.2
30, 7
21.8
0.33
2.87
sent complete combustion o£ a
4-S8), ,-ire not representative
other dense components) are such a small part
rejects
67.7
3,174.6
31.6
13.02
7.9
4.5
4.8
15.2
13.0
6.5
27.2
20.8
5.36
11.91
18.07
3.13
5.9
94.1
93.4
61.2
32.0
12. 2
5.3
0.53
2.38
1) compou
uf heat
of some s
reflects by-products
1.2 37.2
2,232.1
C3.0
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
0.68
1.57
cuts, Including metals. Therefore, tl
that could be recovered in the utilir
tfeams (e.g., SI), especially on a vol1
siderable inaccuracies may occur in the composition analysis due to thp relatively small sample volume
Miscellaneous category ifi comprised of sma H or oth
-------
Table 9f. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF 18 NOVEMBER 1974
LJ
Quantity (tons)
Mating value (Btu/lb)!'
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Moisture (wt 7.)
Composition (wt 7.)
(Tr - trace)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal -
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous^
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Ash
Fe (Pe203>
Al (Al203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Nl (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt 7.1
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (Inches)
Percent Isrger than 2.5 in.
Percent less than 2.5 in.
Percent less than 1.5 in.
Percent less than 0.75 in.
Percent less than 0.375 in.
Percent less thsn 0.187 in.
Percent less than 0.094 in.
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter inch
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
1,064.8
5,216.8
6.1
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
0.38
2.69
S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
898.7 922.1
5,189.5
4.7
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
0.41
2.87
S5
Magnetic belt
rejects
83.5
2,145.3
39.3
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
0.49
2.23
58
57 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
retects by-products
1.2 54.9
2,796.4 2,235.9
62.9 60.9
0.21 0.09
0 Tr
0.7 Tr
0.4 0
0 0
89.8 99.8
9.0 0.1
0 0
0.1 0.1
12.89 12.15
72.96 68.64
11.59 0.60
0.36 0.04
0
100.0
97.3
48.5
5.8
0.5
0.2
0.74
1.58
a/ Values shown are higher heating values and represent complete combustion of all components, including metals. Therefore the values shown
for those streams comprised mostly of metal (S4-S8), are not representative of heat that could be recovered in the utility boiler combus-
tion process.
b/ Because the ferrous metal (and other dense components) are such a small part of some strt^ms (e.g., SI), especially on a volume basis con-
siderable inaccuracies may occur in the composition analysis due to the relatively small sample volumes.
c_/ Mi Bee 1 laneous category is comprised of small or otherwise unidentifiable mater ia 1.
-------
Table 9g. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS FOR WEEK OF 25 NOVEMBER 1974
UJ
•vj
Quantity (tons)
Heating value (Btu/lbjS./
Bulk density (Ib/ft )
Moisture (wt 7.)
Composition (wt 7D)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal-'
Other metals
Organics
Miscellaneous -
Ash
Fe (Fe;^)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ml (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (Inches)
Percent larger than 2.5 In.
Percent lea* than 2.5 in.
Percent less than 0.75 in.
Percent less than 0.375 in.
Percent less than 0.187 in.
Percent less than 0,094 in.
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter inch
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
463.0
5,063.5
6.0
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
0.38
2.93
S2 S3
Cyclone Storage bin
discharge discharge
347.9 333.7
5,541.7
5.2
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
0.44
3.45
55
Magnetic belt
rejects
35.1
3,461.0
34.7
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
0.51
2.58
a/ Values shown are higher heating values and represent complete combustion of all components
for those streams comprised mostly of metal (S4-S8), are not representative of heat that
tion process.
b/ Because the ferrous metal
aiderable inaccuracies
c/ Miscellaneous category is
(and other dense
may occur In the
S8
S7 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
rejects by-products
0.6 22.9
2,774.7 2,235.7
62.1 61.7
0.26 0.08
0 0
0.5 0
0 0
0 0
91.7 99.9
7.8 O.I
0 0
0 0
8.98 9.99
77.80 88.93
10.97 0.20
0.50 0
0
100.0
96.9
59.9
11.4
1.0
0.2
0.65
1.67
, including metals. Therefore, the values shown
could be recovered in the utility boiler combus-
components) are such a small part of some streams (e.g., SI), especially on a volume basis, con-
composition analysis due to the
comprised of small or otherwise unidentifiable
relatively small
material.
sample volumes.
-------
LO
00
Table 9h. SUMMARY OF PROCESSING PLANT MATERIAL FLOWS DURING 3-WEEK PERIOD WHEN
REFUSE SAMPLES WERE NOT TAKEN
Weekly totals -
Week of
Month
10
11
11
1974
Day
28
4
11
SI
Raw refuse
to
mill
292.9
Plant not
464.7
S2
Cyclone
separator
bottoms
245.4
operating
393.8
• Quantity tons
Stream
S3
Storage
bin
discharge
287.9
313.7
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
21.3
38.2
S8
Ferrous
metal
by-product
15.0
25.1
-------
Table 91. AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS OVER DURATION OF SAMPLING
IO
Heating value (Btu/lb)
Bulk density (lb/ft3)
Moisture (wt 7.)
Composition (wt 7.)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metal
Organlcs
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Ash
Fe (Fe203)
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Pb (PbO)
Ni (N10)
Zn (ZnO)
Visual analysis (wt 7.)
Fe
Tin cans
Al
Cu
Size (inches)
Percent larger than 2.5 In.
Percent less than 2.5 in.
Percent less than 1.5 in.
Percent less than 0.75 in.
Percent less than 0.375 in.
Percent less than 0.187 in.
Percent less than 0.094 in.
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter (inches)
Geometric standard deviation
SI
Mill
discharge
5,008.3
7.2
22.17
57.1
6.3
3.2
2.8
3.8
0.5
2.3
24.1
22.66
2.33
1.42
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.10
2.3
97.7
94.2
71.3
45.3
26.9
16.5
0.38
2.77
S2
Cyc lone
discharge
5,178.0
5.9
23.10
58.9
5.4
2.6
1.6
0.2
0.6
2.9
26.2
19.16
0.87
1.47
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.07
2.5
97.5
94.0
73.5
49.0
31.9
21.2
0.34
2.92
S3
Storage bin
discharge
4,862.2
8.1
28.85
63.3
6.5
2.4
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.6
25.4
19.19
11.14
1.53
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.09
S4
ADS
heavies
2,575.6
38.6
4.84
1.5
0.9
2.8
6.6
69.4
3.8
7.5
7.9
9.35
50.01
2.30
0.30
1.6
98.4
91.0
25.1
9.4
3.0
1.4
0.87
1.82
S5
Magnetic belt
re 1ects
2,712.8
35.5
14.99
6.8
3.8
8.5
18.5
19.2
4.8
20.4
19.0
3.03
10.55
5.24
1.11
2.6
97.4
93.7
66.7
35.6
12.9
5.2
0.49
2.31
S6
Nugget Izer
feed
.
38.8
0.31
0.05
0.05
0
0
99.8
0.02
0
0.2
12.08
85.18
0.05
0.001
1.0
99.0
80.6
11.0
1.0
0.4
0.2
1.11
1.46
S8
S7 Ferrous
Magnetic drum metal
rejects by-products
2,937.9 2,238.2
59.7 60.9
0.89 0.21
0.14 0
0.5 0.02
0.4 0
0 0
87.1 99.5
11.3 0.08
0.1 0
0.7 0.3
12.78 12.69
69.09 83.81
13.72 0.17
0.59 0.02
0
100.0
98.8
54.8
8.4
0.7
0.2
0.69
1.59
-------
2. All analysis for the week of 25 November 1974 was performed on a
weekly composite sample. This data is recorded directly in Table 9g and
there is no appendix table for this week.
The ADS heavies (Stream S4) and the various metal streams (Streams S4, S6,
S7, S8) contained too high a metal content to make chemical analysis prac-
tical. Therefore, these samples were analyzed visually for metal content.
The magnetic portion 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 detail. However, to make
comparisons easier, the geometric mean diameter and the geometric standard
deviation were calculated and reported in Appendix Tables A-3v and A-3w.
These two parameters are a standard method adopted by the American Society
of Agriculture Engineers, Standard ASAE S319, for expressing 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 indicates 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 product (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.
Plant material flow results given in Tables 9a through 9h, in conjunction
with calculated weighted average heating values and percent magnetic metal,
were utilized to compute weekly mass and energy balances as well as fer-
rous metal recovery efficiencies. Weighted averages, instead of the
straight arithmetic averages reported in Tables 9a through 9h, were used
to take into account the daily tonnage variations. This was done so that
the energy balance and ferrous metal recovery computations would be as
accurate as possible. Weighted averages are shown in Appendix Tables A-4a
and A-4b. Results of the mass and energy balances on a percentage basis
are tabulated in Table 10 and plotted in Figure 8.
Figure 8 reflects the fact that the refuse fuel is higher in heating value
(Btu/lb) than the raw refuse, and therefore the refuse fuel represents a
40
-------
Table 10. WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PLANT MATERIAL
AND ENERGY BALANCE
Week of 1974
Weight ,
expressed
as 7, of SI
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Month
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
Day
23
30
7
14
21
28
11
18
25
SI
Mill
discharge
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
Energy,
expressed
as % of SI-'
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
23
30
7
14
21
18
25
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Average
S2
Cyclone
discharge
77.54
77.42
79.61
75.42
80.50
83.78
84.74
84.40
75.14
79.84
82.95
81.52
81.21
78.98
85.76
83.31
82.23
82.28
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
7.54
8.95
8.03
7.81
8.73
7.27
8.22
7.84
7.58
8.00
4.24
5.27
3.44
4.26
5.77
3.22
5.18
4.48
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.15
W
b/
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.05
0.05
c/
c/
£/
0.07
0.07
0.06
S8
Ferrous
metal
5.04
6.07
6.43
4.93
4.79
5.12
5.40
5.16
4.95
5.32
2.45
2.91
2.71
2.40
2.14
2.18
2.18
2.42
Error in
balance
9.80
7.48
5.81
11.71
5.83
3.83
1.64
2.49
12.20
6.75
10.31
10.25
12.64
14.36
6.33
11.22
10.34
10.78
SJBased on data presented in Appendix A (Table A-4a).
b/ Magnetic drum rejects not weighed. Calculated weight loss therefore includes magnetic drum rejects.
£./ Heating valve of magnetic drum rejects was not determined. Calculated energy loss therefore
includes magnetic drum rejects.
-------
100 -
90 -
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
- Weight
Weight^
Material and Energy
in Refuse Fuel as %
of Incoming Raw Refuse
Unaccounted-For Plant
Material and Energy
as % of Incoming
Raw Refuse
01 2345689 10
WEEK (TableS)
Figure 8. Daily variations in material and energy recovery.
42
-------
higher percent recovery from the raw refuse on an energy basis than on a
weight basis; i.e., the heavy fraction from the ADS is mainly dense non-
combustible materials.
The curves in Figure 8 and the data in Table 10 show that there was always
considerable error in mass and, consequently, energy balances. That is,
the amount of plant product (S2, S5, S7, and S8) never equaled the amount
of incoming raw refuse (SI). Energy balances are calculated by multiplying
the weight of material at the various input and output points by the corre-
sponding higher heating values of the materials as determined by sample
analysis. Errors in the mass balance therefore result in energy balance
errors. There are four possible sources of these errors:
1. Particulate and moisture lost through the hammermill dust collection
system (SI weights were determined by weighing raw refuse, prior to
shredding).
2. Particulate matter and moisture carried away by the ADS air.
3. Spillage from equipment.
4. 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 only account for about
1.5% of the apparent weight loss. Observation of equipment spillage indi-
cates that this would not likely account for much of the loss. Therefore,
scale errors would seem the most likely reason for the material imbalance
errors.
It is important to note that of all the various categories of trucks
weighed, the semitrucks (tractor-trailer units) used for refuse fuel ship-
ments are too long to fit on the plant truck scale. These trucks are
weighed by weighing separately each of the three axles (two for the trac-
tor, one for the trailer). The three weights are summed and a correction
factor applied to yield total weight. At this point we assume that much
of the material loss could be attributed to errors in weighing these
trucks. In future tests we plan to investigate this by weighing some of
the refuse fuel trucks on a full-length truck scale.
Data from Tables 9a through 9h and Appendix Table A-4b were also used to
compute ferrous metal recovery efficiency as shown in Table 11. This
tabulation shows considerable variability in the recovery of ferrous metal
from week to week and indicates that a considerable amount of Fe metal is
being lost in the magnetic belt reject stream. It may be possible to
43
-------
Table 11. WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PLANT FERROUS METAL RECOVERY-/
Tons of magnetic metal
Week of
Month
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
1974
Day
23
30
7
14
21
18
25^
S2
Cyclone
separator
discharge
3.56
2.39
7.19
0
2.5
0
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
37.95
41.99
13.32
12.69
8.75
4.01
6.00
S7
Magnetic
drums
rejects
0.93
1.04
0.91^
0.90k/
1.01^
1.04
0.53
S8
Ferrous
metal
stream
76.25
92.67
57.87
38.18
36.27
54.79
22.88
Total
118.69
138.09
79.29
51.77
48.53
59.84
29.41
Ferrous
metal
recovered
(%)
64.2
67.7
73.0
73.7
74.7
91.6
77.8
§ Based on data presented in Appendix A (Table A-4b).
—' Assumes 86.3% magnetic material.
£/ Weekly composite.
-------
improve magnetic belt efficiency by adjusting belt spacing. However, it
has been necessary to purposely set the belt spacing for lower recovery
in order to avoid overloading the nuggetizer.
In characterizing the streams, as tabulated in Tables 9a through 9h, the
refuse fuel stream samples were also used to determine proximate and ul-
timate analysis. Weekly summaries of these analyses results were com-
puted, as shown in Table 12, based on data from the appendix. Table 12
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 on a weight basis as follows:
Lower Higher
Heating value Moisture
Volatile matter Ash
Fixed carbon Oxygen
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Nitrogen
The largest difference is sulfur. The refuse fuel contained only slightly
more than one-tenth the sulfur content of Orient 6 coal during the test
period shown in Table 12. The heating value of refuse fuel is 45% of the
coal heating value.
Data on moisture and heating values of the refuse fuel, from Table 12,
have also been plotted in Figure 9 and show an expected, but important,
relationship of increasing refuse fuel heating value with decreasing
moisture content. Statistical analysis of the data showed 85% correla-
tion between heating value and moisture. The best fit curve equation is
a linear function, indicating that heating value is relatively constant
on a dry matter basis. As stated before, all sample results including
heating values are reported on a sample as received basis. Comparison
of refuse fuel heating value to the heating values of other fuels will
depend in part upon the moisture content of the refuse fuel.
STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF PROCESS STREAM SAMPLES
It was realized that the sampling methodology for characterizing the
process streams might involve considerable error and not yield represen-
tative results. Therefore, a statistical evaluation of certain data was
performed. The methods used to perform these statistical evaluations and
the results are discussed in the follwoing paragraphs.
45
-------
Table 12. WEEKLY SUMMARY OF PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE FUEL PRODUCED
Received moisture basis - weekly average
Date 1974
Week of
Month Day
9 23
9 30
9 23
9 30
10 7
10 14
10 21
11 18
11 25
7 week
avg. of
Stream S2
Avg of. 21
Orient 6
coal samples
10-31-74
through
11-7-74
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Percent by weight
Volatile Fixed
Moisture
Ash
matter carbon
Carbon Hydrogen
Stream S3 - Storage bin
4,879.8
4,844.5
4,920.2
4,887.1
5,557.1
4,838.1
5,312.4
5,189.5
5.541.7
5,178.0
11,579.4
27.76
26.94
27.86
26.30
18.70
28.98
20.60
21.84
17.40
23.10
12.49
19.06
19.32
18.90
19.87
21.94
22.19
23.90
17.46
22.30
20.94
7.61
26.10
27.71
26.93
27.71
29.60
24.62
28.81
34.81
36.39
29.84
32.88
7.17
6.73
Stream S2 -
6.48
7.84
15.97
9.64
15.67
9.11
9.54
10.61
46.78
27.74
26.35
Cyclone
27.07
26.58
22.88
26.62
29.58
30.17
30.65
27.65
66.08
discharge
3.79
3.72
discharge
4.39
3.76
4.05
3.59
3.99
4.62
6.72
4.45
5.29
Oxygen (by
difference)
1.47
3.63
1.87
3.82
11.92
3.51
10.17
8.45
7.81
6.79
5.78
Sulfur
0.20
0.15
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.17
1.57
Nitrogen
0.61
0.55
0.59
0.53
0.63
0.54
0.60
0.51
0.59
0.57
1.45
-------
7000
6000
5000
CQ
LU
ID
CO
:D
u.
u_
o
o
z
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
85% Correlation
BTU/lb = 6547-59.5 (% Moisture)
1
10 20
% MOISTURE
30
40
Figure 9. Heating value of refuse fuel versus
moisture content for daily samples.
47
-------
Statistical Difference Between Refuse Fuel Entering and Leaving the
Storage Bin
The daily sample analysis results on Streams S2 and S3, taken during the
10-day period 23 September through 4 October 1974, were subjected to sta-
tistical 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. Logically, it would not be surprising to find that 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 discharge material is always more compressed and has a
higher bulk density (lb/ft3), than the material entering the bin.
Sample Variability
Two tests were performed to determine sample variance. First, eight sub-
samples 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 leaving the storage bin (S3). Each individual
subsample was analyzed. The individual results are shown in Appendix
Table A-5.
The sample results were subjected to statistical analysis. It was deter-
mined that there was no significant difference in sample variability be-
tween samples taken over a 1-hr interval and those taken over a 2-hr
interval. Short-term time trends that may be present do not effect the
variability or dispersion of the sample data.
Daily samples of the various plant refuse streams were composed of four
subsamples taken at 2-hr intervals which were composited to form one daily
sample that was inspected and analyzed. Daily sample results are there-
fore the mean of four subsamples. The precision of such a mean can be
calculated from the pooled sample variance of the test data listed in
Table A-5. Table 13 shows the variability for each analysis spectrum
category based on 95% confidence coefficient for a sample size of four,
which constitutes the number of subsamples in each daily composite sample.
This then is an estimate of the precision of the daily results reported
during the test period. In general, the data in Table 13 indicate 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.)8
48
-------
Table 13. SAMPLE VARIABILITY OF MILLED REFUSE
Variability about
the mean (+)£/
(at 957o confidence
coefficient and
Spectrum sample size = 4)
Moisture (%) 3.89
Heating value (Btu/lb) 482
Ash (%) 3.66
Bulk density 1.08
Metal content by chemical
analysis (%)
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 (*%,)
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 (%)
Paper 9.4
Plastic 6.73
Wood 2.75
Glass 0.90
Magnetic metal W
Other metal b_/
Organics W
Miscellaneous (Tr = trace) 10.09
49
-------
Table 13. (Concluded)
Variability about
the mean (+)—'
(at 95% confidence
coefficient and
Spectrum sample size = 4)
Square screen size (in.) (%)
Larger than 2.5 in. No variance
Less than 2.5 in. No variance
Less than 1.5 in. 8.26
Less than 0.75 in. 12.04
Less than 0.375 in. 10.66
Less than 0.187 in. 8.08
Less than 0.094 in. 6.00
a/ Variability based on sample data reported in
Appendix A (Table A-5).
b/ Variance not calculated because of large number of
trace or zero responses.
50
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
During the weeks of 18 November 1974 and 20 January 1975, environmental
tests were conducted at the processing plant. The purpose of these tests
was to:
1. Characterize air pollutant emissions from the discharge of the Air
Density Separator (ADS) cyclone as to mass emission rate and particle
size.
2. Characterize air pollutant emissions from the discharge of the hammer-
mill (HM) cyclone as to mass emission rate and particle size.
3. Determine the quantity and character of runoff resulting from area
washdown activities.
4. Determine sound levels at various locations in the processing plant.
Sampling and analysis of refuse streams was also carried out during each
day of the November environmental tests. These results are contained in
the preceding section.
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 re-
quired 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 particulate matter in effluent
streams. Therefore, it was necessary to utilize high-volume sampling
51
-------
techniques with their larger probes (~ 1-in. diameter). Both a high-
volume mass train and high-volume cascade impactor, equipped with a pre-
cyclone, were provided by EPA for this work.
ADS Cyclone Test Procedures
Sampling of the ADS cyclone discharge was carried out in the 42-in.diameter
horizontal duct at the inlet to the ADS fan as shown in Figure 10. Two
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 (~ 15 scfm) sampler. Sampling was conducted using a
0.91-in. diameter probe tip and sampling for 2 rain at 14 points along each
of the two duct traverses. Configuration of the mass sampling equipment
is shown in Figure 11. Isokinetic sampling was carried out, but it was
necessary to determine the proper sampling rate based on a preliminary
velocity traverse.
Particle size distribution of the ADS cyclone discharge was determined
using the Andersen Hi-Volume cascade impactor and precyclone provided by
EPA as depicted in Figure 12. A 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 hammennill cyclone discharge was carried out in a 12-in.
diameter vertical duct extension equipped with two sampling ports 90
degrees apart. The end of this duct extension was two duct diameters down-
stream 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 11).
The only differences were the selection of the 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 conducted 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.
52
-------
t
From ADS
Cyclone
Ul
to
4" Dia. Sampling Ports
V
42" Dia. Duct
ADS Fan
Figure 10. Diagram of ADS cyclone discharge sampling locations.
-------
Filter
Holder
Orifice —i
Probe
L.
8"x10"
Fiberglass Filter
Ui
•P-
•L.
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
15cfm
During tests at Hammermill Cyclone,heated probe and
filter holder were used, along with ice cooled
condenser proceeding the orifice.
Figure 11. Diagram of participate mass sampling equipment,
-------
Precyclone
Ln
Probe •
Glass Jar
Manometer
5.8"H2O AP
Andersen Hi Volume
Cascade Impactor
12"Dia. Impactor Plates
with Fiberglass Filter
Paper Substrates
12" Dia. Fiberglass
Final Filter
Hi-Vol Blower
with Variac
Speed Control
a/
Constant flow at 20 cfm maintained by adjusting
blower speed to keep manometer reading constant
at 5.8" H2OAP
Figure 12. Diagram of particle size sampling equipment.
-------
Particle size distribution tests on the HM cyclone discharge were done
using the same high-volume cascade impactor used for sampling the ADS
system (Figure 12). The 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, because of the high moisture content of this stream, the
heated probe and heating jacket for the impactor were used.
RESULTS OF AIR EMISSION TESTS
During the week of 18 November 1974, the processing plant was operated
at the 300 tons/8-hr day rate and the mass emission and particle size
tests were carried out. A total of five mass emission tests were con-
ducted on the ADS cyclone discharge and two tests on the HM cyclone dis-
charge. Results of these tests are summarized in Table 14 and a complete
listing of the test data is contained in Table 15.
ADS Cyclone
Table 14 shows that the emissions from the ADS cyclone ranged from
19.9 Ib/hr up to 68.2 Ib/hr with an average of 50 Ib/hr. At a normal
processing rate of 40 tons/hr, this represents an emission factor of 1.25
Ib/ton of raw refuse. This is a significant quantity of emissions and
verifies the need for controlling or reducing the emissions in future
plants of this type.
Two particle size distribution tests were also conducted on the ADS cyclone
discharge and HM cyclone discharge as summarized in Table 16 and depicted
in Figures 13 and 14. The effective cutoff for the impactor stages are
noted in Table 16 and in considering these values it was assumed that the
cutoff diameter for the precyclone was ~ 10 u . 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 appearance to material collected in a
household vacuum cleaner. Small pieces of paper and plastic (~ 1 in. x
1 in.) were also observed.
Bearing in mind the considerations discussed above, it is significant to
note that the data in Table 16 indicate that most of the particulate mat-
ter (> 807,,) was caught in the precyclone.
56
-------
Table 14. RESULTS OF EMISSION TESTS AT PROCESSING PLANT
ADS cyclone discharge
Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3 Test No. 4 Test No. 5
11-19-74 11-20-74 11-20-74 11-20-74 11-20-74
Ui
Gas flow (air)
(scfm)
Particulate concentration
(grains/dscf)
Particulate emissions
(lb/hr)
25,560
0.089
19.9
23,310
0.280
55.3
Hammennill cyclone discharge
Test No. 6 Test No. 7
11-21-74 11-21-74
Gas flow (air)
(scfm)
1,890
1,850
30,000
0.169
43.0
30,910
0.243
63.6
30,670
0.263
68.2
Particulate concentration 0.0082
(grains/dscf)
Particulate emissions 0.127
(lb/hr)
0.0012
0.018
-------
Table 15, MASS EMISSION TEST DATA
ADS cvclone discharge
Run No.
Date
Probe tip dla (in.)
Net time of run (min)
Barometric pressure (in. Hg)
Avg orifice vacuum (in. Hg)
Orifice pressure absolute (in. Hg)
Avg orifice temperature ("F)
Volume condensate (ml)
Percent moisture by volume
Moisture content after condenser
Volume gas sampled, std cond. (scf)
Volume gas sampled, dry std cond. (dscf)
Molecular wt dry stack gas (Ib/lb mole)
Molecular wt wet stack gas (Ib/lb mole)
00
Molecular wt stack gas at orifice (Ib/lb mole)
Pi tot tube coefficient
Avg stack velocity head (in. H.O)
Avg sq root stack velocity head
Avg stack temperature (°F)
Avg sq root stack temperature
Static pressure stack (in. Hg)
Stack pressure absolute (in. Hg)
Stack dia (ft)
Stack area (ft2)
Avg atack gas velocity (ft /min)
Avg atack gas velocity, std cond. (ft/mln)
Stack gas flow rate, stack cond. (ac'fm)
Stack gas flow rate, std cond. (scfim)
Stack gas glow rate, dry std cond. (dscfm)
Particulate weight (mg)
Particulate concentration, dry std cond. (gr/dscf)
Farticulate concentration, dry std cond. (mg/ncm)
Particulate emission rate, dry std cond. (Ib/hr)
Particulate emission rate, dry std cond. (kg/hr)
Percent isokinetic
1
19-11-74
0.91
56.50
29.44
1.43
28.01
63.9
0
2.1
2.1
726
711
29.0
28.77
28.77
0.85
0.749
0.855
60.0
22.804
-0.61
28.83
3.4167
9.168
2,950
2,900
27,050
26,560
26,000
4,124.7
0.0893
204
19.93
9.0
98.5
2
20-11-74
0.91
56.18
29.39
1.16
28.23
55.2
0
1.3
!-3
622
614
29.0
28.86
28.86
0.85
0.616
0.748
53.1
22.651
-0.61
28.78
3.4167
9.168
2,560
2,540
23,470
23,310
23,010
11,172.8
0.2802
641
55.32
25.1
96.9
3
20-11-74
0.91
56.28
29.71
1.26
28.45
57.6
0
1.1
1.1
824
815
29.0
28.88
28.88
0.826
0.975
0.985
55
22.694
-0.61
29.10
3.4167
9.168
3,270
3,270
29,980
30,000
29,670
8,928.0
0.1687
386
42.95
19.5
99.5
4
20-11-74
0.91
55.94
29.71
1.55
28.16
53.8
0
1.3
1.3
843
832
29.0
28.86
28.86
0.826
1.034
1.015
53.5
22.661
-0.61
29.10
3.4167
9.168
2,360
3,370
30,800
30,910
30,510
13,125.3
0.2429
556
63.60
28.8
99.4
5
20-11-74
0.91
56.22
29.71
1.44
28.27
53.1
0
1.4
1.4
841
829
29.0
28.85
28.85
0.826
1.018
1.007
53
22.650
-0.61
29.10
2.4167
9.168
2,330
3,350
30,530
30,670
30,240
14,144.8
0.2628
601
68.18
30.9
99.2
HM cvclone discharge
6
21-11-74
1.125
40.0
29.76
0.91
28.85
47.1
178
3.9
2.7
701
674
29.0
28.57
28.70
0.826
0.586
0.763
83.9
23.321
-0.03
29.73
0.979
0.753
2,590
2,510
1,950
1,890
1,820
357.0
0.0082
18.67
0.1274
0.0578
101.2
7
21-11-74
1.125
40.0
29.78
0.95
28.83
53.3
223
5.0
3.5
669
636
29.0
28.45
28.62
0.826
0.574
0.755
91.8
23.489
-0.03
29.75
0.979
0.753
2,580
2,460
1,940
1,850
1,760
49.4
0.0012
2.74
0.0181
0.0082
98.5
-------
a/
Table 16. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS OF ADS AND HAMMERMILL DISCHARGES-'
Ui
vo
Effective cutoff -
diameters -microns
Precyclone 10
Stage 1 7.0
Stage 2 3.3
Stage 3 2.0
Stage 4 1.1
Final filter
ADS cyclone discharge Hammermill cyclone discharge
(wt %) (wt %)
Test No. 8 Test No. 9 Test No. 10 Test No. 11
96.82 80.87 88.59 90.94
2.09 17.26 2.64 1.67
0.28 0.60 0.76 0.99
0.22 0.47 1.49 0.91
0.07 0.19 1.37 1.04
0.52 0.61 5.15 4.45
a/ Hi-Volume Anderson Cascade Impactor with precyclone.
b/ Cutoff diameters are for special particles of density 1.0, which undoubtedly is not
the case for the particles in these effluent streams.
-------
100.0
10.0
o
u
s
o:
LU
Q
UJ
1.0
0.1
I I I I I I I I
oV"
u
i
Cfc
111 I _
Run Date
O 8 21 Nov 74
A 9 22 Nov 74
I I II 1 I 1 t I I 1 II II
0.01 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 9899
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
I
99.9 99.99
Figure 13. Particle size distribution for
ADS cyclone discharge.
60
-------
100.0
I I I I I i I I I I I l I i i I i _
10.0
o
Qi
UJ
UJ
<
UJ
_J
u
I—
C£
2
—
b
o
-
\
Run Date
O 10 21 Nov 74
A 11 22 Nov 74
i 1 ! 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
0.01 OTl 12 510 20 40 60 80 90 95 98 99 99.9 99.99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 14. Particle size distribution for
hammermill cyclone discharge.
61
-------
Because of the results of the particle size tests on the effluent from the
ADS cyclone and visual observation of the large particles in this stream,
it was thought worthwhile to try to quantify the emission of these parti-
cles for comparison with the overall average emission rate of 50 Ib/hr.
Therefore, a net arrangement was constructed of nylon mesh with openings
of about 1/4 in. x 1/4 in. During 4 days in December 1974 and Janaury
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 par-
ticles. These tests (Table 17) showed that the emission rate of large
particles (> 1/4 in.) ranged from 4.3 to 8.0 Ib/hr with an average of 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.
HM Cyclone
Measured emissions from the HM cyclone are included in Table 14 and the
two tests showed values of 0.018 Ib/hr and 0.127 Ib/hr. As expected, the
emissions from the HM cyclone are much lower than those from the ADS cy-
clone and are not a significant source of particulate emissions. The
emission test data for the HM cyclone (Table 15) show that the effluent
gas temperature was about 25°F above ambient and that it contained a rela-
tively high moisture content (~ 47» moisture by volume). This result veri-
fies 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 discharge from
the HM cyclone. Results of these tests are included in Table 16 and are
plotted in Figure 14. As was the case for the ADS cyclone effluent, the
particle size distribution tests on the HM cyclone effluent showed that
most of the particulate matter (> 88%) was caught in the precyclone.
RUNOFF FROM WASHDOWN ACTIVITIES
Washdown of the asphalted processing area of the plant (not including the
floor of the raw refuse receiving building) is periodically carried out
by plant personnel. This cleanup effort removes dust and settled particles,
much of which occurs due to blowoff from conveyor belts and ADS cyclone
emissions. It was therefore of interest to determine the quantity and
character of runoff from this washdown activity.
During the week of environmental tests (18-22 November 1974) two washdowns
took place, one on 20 November 1974, and another 2 days later on 22 Novem-
ber 1974. The test procedure used during these periods was to determine
the quantity of water being used over the length of the washdown period
62
-------
Table 17. TEST DATA ON PARTICLES CAPTURED BY
NET PLACED OVER ADS FAN DISCHARGE
Monday
12-30-74
Tuesday
12-31-74
Thursday
1-2-75
Monday
1-6-75
Test time (min:sec) 13:27
Emissions (Ib/hr) 8.0
Fan air flow (acfm) 27,420
30:00
5.5
31,317
30:00
4.3
31,181
31:15
4.4
30,161
Sample Composition
Density(Ib/ft3)£/
Paper (7.)
Plastic (%)
Wood (%)
Glass (%)
Magnetic metal (7>)
Other metal (70)
Organics (7.)
Miscellaneous (T,)-/
1.8
33.2
13.2
0
0
0
0
0
53.6
2.1
49.0
30.5
0
0
0
0.3£/
0
20.2
2.3
21.2
8.2
0
0
0
0
0
70.6
1.6
15.0
15.0
0
0
0
0
0
70.0
a/ Uncompacted density--material very fluffy.
b/ 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.
63
-------
(~ 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
analyzed.
A tabulation of the data obtained for the two washdown periods is pre-
sented in Table 18. These data show that the washdown rate was about
35 gal/min and total runoff was about 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. How-
ever, the quantity of effluent (~ 2,000 gal.) seems relatively small, con-
sidering the fact that it occurs only one or two times per week.
TEST PROCEDURE FOR SOUND SURVEY
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
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 4.5 ft above grade at each
measurement location.
Sound levels in decibels at slow meter response were measured at ten
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 pro-
duced. Octave bands used are as follows:
Octave band No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
64
OCTAVE BANDS
Band center
31.5
63
125
250
500
1,000
2,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
USED
Frequency
Lower cutoff
22.3
44.6
88.4
177
354
707
1,414
2,828
5,656
11,310
(Hz)
Upper cutoff
44.6
89.2
177
354
707
1,414
2,820
5,656
11,310
22,620
-------
Table 18. TABULATION OF DATA ON WASHDOWN ACTIVITY
01
Date
Time of washdown
Raw water flow rate
Total water used
Volume of runoff collected
Water analysis
Total suspended solids (ppm)
Total dissolved solids (ppm)
Biochemical oxygen demand (ppm)
Chemical oxygen demand (ppm)
pH
Total alkalinity (ppm)
Total organic carbon (ppm)
Test No. 1
11/20/74
1:50-2:40 p.m.
35 GPM
1,745 gal.
9.8 gal.
Raw Composite
water runoff sample
8.00 6,024.00
248.00 444.00
NDl/ 374.00
52.90 2,137.30
9.7 6.5
62.00 80.00
4.50 1,760.00
Test No. 2
11/22/74
1:09-2:10 p.m.
35 GPM
2,111 gal.
12.9 gal.
Raw
water
8.00
252.00
ND£/
33.40
9.5
32.00
6.50
Composite
runoff sample
9,292.00
564.00
765.00
1,532.00
6.3
38.00
1,150.00
a/ None detected.
-------
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 terms of dBA measure-
ments . )
Measurements were made (a) when the plant was conducting normal opera-
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 combination of the sound produced by the equip-
ment plus the background sound. For the City of St. Louis Refuse
Processing Plant, the background sound sources consist of the fol-
1 owi ng :
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 19 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).
Figure 15 is a plot plan showing the measurement locations.
SOUND SURVEY RESULTS
Tables 20 and 21 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 hammermill, nuggetizer, ADS
fan exhaust, front-end loader, and raw-refuse trucks are the principal
contributors.
66
-------
Table 19. SOUND SURVEY MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
No. Description
1 Control Room - Inside operators control room. Approximately center of room.
2 Shop - Inside maintenance shop and storage room located next to hammermili..
Approximately center of room.
3 Packer Control - 2 ft west of packer control panel east-west center line. Location
where operator would stand to operate controls.
4 Receiving Building - 3 ft south of raw refuse receiving building north wall on building
north-south center line.
4 I Front-end loader operating at maximum load. No refuse trucks
dumping.
4_2 - Refuse trucks dumping. Front-end loader at engine idle.
5 Front-End Loader - Inside operator's cab of front-end loader used inside receiving
building to push raw refuse onto the raw refuse receiving belt con-
veyor. Cab doors closed.
6 ADS Heavies Discharge- 3 ft east of edge of ADS heavies belt conveyor tail pulley.
7 Mag Belt Discharge - 5 ft 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.
8 Fe Metal Discharge - 3 ft south of edge of ferrous metal belt conveyor. Location just
outside door to drivers compartment of ferrous metal truck. Lo-
cated when truck is positioned to fill front 1/3 of truck body.
9 Hammermili - 5 ft east of edge of hammermili frame on mill east-west centerline.
Location on top of concrete base for hammermili.
IQ Nuggetizer - 5 ft east from edge of nuggetizer frame on nuggetizer east-west
centerline.
II ADS Fan Exhaust - 40 ft south of edge of fan exhaust duct on duct north-south center-
line.
There is a truck driveway on the east, south, and west sides of the processing area. The following lo-
cations are along the outside edge of this driveway.
12 E. Drive - £ mill - 65 ft east of edge of hammermili frame on mill east-west
centerline.
13 E. Drive - fc Stg. Bin - 60 ft east of edge of storage bin on bin east-west
centerline.
14 w. Drive - f. ADS - 75 ft west of edge of ADS air separation chamber on chamber
east-west centerline.
15 w. Drive - £ Stg. Bin - 70 ft west of edge of storage bin on bin east-west
centerline.
16 S. Drive - £ Stg. Bin - 40 ft south of edge of storage bin on bin north-south
centerline.
67
-------
Stationary
Packer
00
RAW REFUSE RECEIVING BLDG.
Sound Survey
Measurement Locations
Figure 15. Sound survey measurement locations.
-------
Table 20. SOUND SURVEY - CITY OF ST. LOUIS REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
Plant in operation
20 January 1974
vo
Measurement location
No. Description
1 Control room
2 Shop
3 Packer control
4.1 Receiving bldg.
4.2 Receiving bldg.
5 Front end loader
6 ADS heavies disch.
7 Mag. belt disch.
8 Fe metal disch.
9 Hammermill
10 Nuggetizer
11 ADS fan exhaust
12 E. Drive - £ Mill
13 E. Drive - fi Stg. bin
14 W. Drive - 6 ADS
15 W. Drive - £ Stg. bin
16 S. Drive - £ Stg. bin
Decibels (dB) at center band frequency - Hz
Hz 31.5
82
83
91
92
100
106
93
91
88
96
94
100
90
85
84
90
85
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
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
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
-------
Table 21. SOUND SURVEY - CITY OF ST. LOUIS REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
•vl
o
Background sound - plant not in operation
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 bldg.
Front end loader-'
ADS heavies disch.
Mag. belt disch.
Fe metal disch.
Hammermill
Nugget izer
ADS fan exhaust
E. Drive - £ Mill
E. Drive - 6 Stg. Bin
W. Drive - £ ADS
W. Drive - fi Stg. Bin
S. Drive - fi Stg. Bin
Hz 3.15
51
60
62
62
64
65
64
66
60
63
66
62
60
62
62
63
Decibels
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
21 January 1974
(dB) at center band frequency - Hz
250
<44
55
56
57
49
69
61
61
58
65
55
55
56
60
62
62
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 54
are less than 56
44 dB at all 47
locations. 61
59
59
56
59
55
52
57
59
56
58
a/ Motor off - loader inside building.
-------
Location 7 had the highest sound level in the upper frequencies. This
location was closest to the working mechanism 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 engine 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 refuse onto the building floor. These refuse trucks
are not dump trucks with a tilting 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 currenti' O.S.H.A. regulations specify a maximum of 90 dBA for con-
tinuous 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 22.
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 less than 100% of the time.
I/ O.S.H.A. regulations as of 27 June 1974.
71
-------
Table 22. LOCATION OF SOUND LEVELS ABOVE 90 dBA AND ALLOWABLE EXPOSURE
O.S.H.A. allowable time
Locations Description dBA exposure - hours—
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
72
-------
APPENDIX
TABULTIONS OF DATA ON EQUIPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF REFUSE SAMPLES
73
-------
Table A-l. MAJOR ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT - REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
Equipment description
Belt conveyors
Raw refuse to Hammermill
Milled refuse to ADsV
Refuse fuel to storage bi
Storage bin feeding cross
Storage bin discharge
Load out to packer
ADS heavies
Ferrous metal
Magnetic belt (Indiana
General-Model 54-A)
a/ Raw refuse receiving
b/ Both conveyors driven
Vibrating conveyors
Haroroermill feeder
Hammermill discharge
ADS feederS./
a/ Feeder has round hole
from feed to ADS.
Other conveyors
ADS drag conveyor
ADS drag conveyor
scalping roll
Other equipment
Hammermill
ADS fan
Nuggetizer
Magnetic drum
Bins
Storage bin
Length
24 ft 0 in 8
92 ft 0 in. 5
75 ft 9 in. 4
nt/ 98 ft 3 in. 4
belt 27 ft 0 in. 5
73 ft 0 in. 4
100 ft 0 in. 4
51 ft 0 in. 2
39 ft 0 in. 2
6 ft 4 in. 2
conveyor variable speed
by one 10 HP motor.
Length
12 ft 9 in. 7
16 ft 0 in. 7
9 ft 9 in. 8
flat metal perforated
Speed
42 ft /rain
82 rpm
Shaft speed
(rpm)
894
1,570
419
42
Material
height
35 ft 0 in. 60
Physical parameters
Angle of Troughing Idlers
incline Belt Nominal
Width (degrees) Ft/Mln type Degrees spacing
ft 1 in 0 5.7 Smooth None
ft 0 in. 20 285 Smooth 35 5 ft 0 in.
ft 6 in. 18 235 Smooth 35 5 ft 0 In.
ft 6 In. 18 230 Smooth 35 5 ft 0 in.
ft 0 in. 0 215 Smooth 20 3 ft 0 in.
ft 0 In. 0 215 Smooth 35 3 ft 4 In.
ft 0 in. 15 216 Smooth 35 4 ft 6 in.
ft 6 in. 17 200 Rough 20 5 ft 0 in.
top
ft 6 in. 15 60 Rough 20 5 ft 0 in.
top
ft 6 in. 14 350 Metal None
bar
0 to 23 ft/rain maximum (5.7 ft/min normal).
Angle of
incline
Width (degrees) Stroke RPM Model
ft 0 in. 0 1 ft 454 Stephens Adamson natural
frequency conveyor
ft 7 in. 0 1 ft 460 Stephens Adamson natural
frequency conveyor
ft 0 In. 0 -- 902 FMC straight line
vibrator No. 62810
ecreen 2 ft 0 in. large to remove fine particles
Model
R«der Pneumatic's 7 ft 6 in. wide
feed from 8 ft x 12 ft hopper.
7 ft 6 in. wide by 18 in. diameter.
Model
Gruendler 60 ft x 84 ft with 3 In.
square grate
New York blower size 44
Design 48,000 cfm, 134 BHP at 13.5 in.
WGSP and 1,449 rpm
Eid«l mill model 100B
Sterns magnetic drum with permanent
magnetic; 22 in. wide, 26 in. diameter
Length Width Capacity (ft3)
I ft 4 in. 14 ft 2 in. top 35,020
19 ft 0 in. bottom
Packer bin
19 ft 9 In. 11 ft 0 In.
6 ft 0 In.
1,304
74
-------
Table A-2. MAJOR MOTORS - REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
Equipment served HP RPM
3 Phase 4.160 V motors
Hammermill 1,250 894
3 Phase 460 V motors
Raw refuse receiving belt conveyor
Raw refuse belt conveyor to Hammermill
Hammermill feeder vibrating conveyor
Hammermill 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 drum
Nuggetizer dust collection fan
Ferrous metal 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
1-1/2 1,740
Amperage
155
Acutal
50-300
32-194
5
15
20
7.5
25
10
15
3
10
25
25
200
5
150
10
7.5
60
3
5
100
1
7.5
3
3
1/2
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
16.5
13.5
10
69
4.2
6.8
117
1.9
10.3
4.6
4.6
1
0.5
10.0
11
6.5
14
8.5
10.8
1.5
6.2
11
13
145-170
3.3
50-120
6.0
5.0
18
2.5
4.2
32-100
1.7
5.9
2.6
4.0
not
6
51
41
65
42
63
56
33
48
32
43
63-74
47
30-73
44
50
26
60
62
27-86
89
57
57
87
used
5.5
4.8
87
Storage bin discharge screw conveyor
Carriage drive (variable speed, max
1,750 RPM) 1/2 1,750 5
Power supplies - 3 phase 460 V kv
Magnetic belt power supply 10 -- 15
4.2
84
53
75
-------
Table A-3a. MOISTURE ANALYSIS OF MILLED
REFUSE STREAMS - PERCENT BY WEIGHT
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
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
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies reiects
28.80 8.00 32.80
31.10 7.40 12.20
31.60 6.70 26.10
24.90 4.67 12.60
22.40 1.10 14.10
27.76 5.57 19.56
25.20 0.32 12.00
33.00 7.00 17.90
25.40 4.80 17.00
27.00 1.30 14.70
24.10 7.10 7.59
26.94 4.10 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
Nuggetizer
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
rejects
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
Ono
ZT7T
S8
Ferrous
metal
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
.Do
0.09
76
-------
Table A-3b. HEATING VALUE OF MILLED REFUSE
STREAMS BTU/LB (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
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
5,057.9
4,144.3
4,447.7
4,716.3
4,628.4
4,598.9.
3,973.7
4,638.9
5,059.7
4,838.7
4,723.5
4,646.9
5,092.0
5,195.6
5,654.7
5,822.4
5,339.7
5,420.9
4,470.3
4,616.6
4,250.3
5,111.5
4,612.2
4,628.4
4,588.0
5,556.7
5,612.5
4,410.0
4,959.1
4,291.2
4,872.2
5,480.7
5,109.8
6,329.9
5,216.8
S2
Cyclone
discharge
4,981.8
4,926.9
4,638.2
4,981.6
5,072.4
4,920.2
4,982.9
4,340.7
4,628.6
5,022.6
5,460.9
4,887.1
5,414.3
5,225.5
5,852.5
5,734.8
5,558.2
5,557.1
4,587.4
4,563.8
5,209.3
4,991.7
4,838.1
4,746.3
5,266.3
5,420.4
5,671.6
5,457.0
5,312.4
4,835.2
5,132.1
5,266.3
5,039.7
5,674.2
5,189.5
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies rejects
4,865.6 2,641.3 2,274.7
4,741.0 2,522.4 2,648.1
4,379.8 2,528.4 2,556.9
5,085.5 2,373.7 3,171.8
5.326.9 2,768.9 2,142.4
4,879.8 2,566.9 2,558.8
5,061.8 2,498.0 2,912.8
4,500.3 2,491.5 2,662.5
5,260.3 2,531.4 2,973.9
4,619.2 2,847.5 2,964.2
4,781.0 2,552.9 2,239.1
4,844.5 2,584.3 2,750.5
2,301.7
2,196.0
2,637.3
1,845.4
2,976.2
2,391.3
3,409.2
2,282.0
1,717.4
2,623.9
2,508.1
3,807.9
2,861.1
3,637.7
3,282.5
2,333.6
3,174.6
2,289.6
2,570.6
1,676.9
2,124.3
2,315.2
2,195.3
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
2,589.0
3,273.9
3,022.9
3,346.6
2,784.0
3,003.3
2,967.7
2,913.2
3,220.0
3,078.5
3,207.1
3,077.3
2,863.9
3,075.1
2,718.9
2,712.8
2,611.5
2,796.4
S8
Ferrous
metal
2,207.8
2,225.6
2,224.5
2,262.1
2,233.3
2,230.7
2,215.1
2,229.8
2,214.8
2,235.2
2,219.5
2,223.0
2,619.2
2,180.0
2,187.5
2,232.8
2,154.8
2,274.9
2,245.2
2,250.1
2,231.2
2,213.3
2,235.0
2,199.2
2,204.6
2,184.4
2,369.4
2,202.8
2,232.1
2,205.2
2,202.6
2,216.0
2,223.4
2,332.1
2,235.9
77
-------
Table A-3c. ASH ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Stream
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 ave
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
18.70
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
78
-------
Table A-3d.
DAILY RESULTS - PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE
ANALYSIS OF REFUSE FUEL
Percent by weight (received moisture basis)
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
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
Volatile
matter
Fixed
carbon
(Stream S3
26.94
25.35
25.66
25.02
27.53
26.10
27.12
27.76
28.28
26.59
28.82
27.71
28.77
28.73
23.51
25.65
26.93
26.93
27.03
29.21
24.35
29.35
28.59
27.71
32.63
28.59
27.94
27.87
30.95
29.60
24.77
23.70
26.76
23.24
24.62
31.75
26.50
25.70
32.33
27.77
28.81
27.42
33.64
32.90
30.08
50.03
34.81
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
Oxygen (by
Carbon
- Storage
28.64
26.71
24.25
29.84
29.27
27.74
26.46
23.64
28.04
26.76
26.83
26.35
Hydrogen difference)
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
0
0
0.27
1.40
5.70
1.47
3.89
0.00
3.99
3.30
6.96
3.63
Sulfur
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.15
Nitrogen
0.63
0.61
0.66
0.57
0.57
0.61
0.59
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.61
0.55
S2 - Cyclone discharge)
26.81
27.19
25.94
27.83
27.58
27.07
26.34
21.98
26.45
27.47
30.64
26.58
29.93
29.30
27.32
30.37
27.48
22.88
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
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
0.69
2.37
0
2.42
3.89
1.87
0.00
0.00
2.94
3.28
12.86
3.82
10.52
9.04
7.52
12.23
20.28
11.92
0.44
0
8.08
5.52
3.51
6.40
8.21
9.94
16.06
10.23
10.17
2.39
5.75
6.58
5.85
21.70
8.45
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
0.62
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
79
-------
Table A-3e. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
FERROUS BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
ALUMINUM BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (Al^)
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Ferrous (F&2^^
Aluminum (A^C^)
Stream
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
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
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
Stream
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
Weekly composite
week of (1974)
10-7
10-15
10-21
11-18
1.60
0.73
0.49
2.03
0.88
0.59
0.52
0.53
1.41
1.53
1.36
1.05
1.78
1.21
1.42
1.46
80
-------
Table A-3f. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
COPPER BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (CuO)
LEAD BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (PbO)
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Copper (CuO)
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
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
Stream
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
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
Lead (PbO)
Stream
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
Weekly composite
week of (1974)
10-7
10-15
10-21
11-18
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.05
81
-------
Table A-3g. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
NICKEL BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (NiO)
ZINC BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (ZnO)
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Nickel (NiO)
Zinc (ZnO)
Stream
Daily samples
Date 1974
SI
Mill
Month Day discharge
9 23
9 24
9 25
9 26
9 27
Week avg
9 30
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
Week avg
Weekly composite
week of (1974)
10-7
10-15
10-21
11-18
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
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
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
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
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
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.04
Stream
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
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.07
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
82
-------
Table A-3h. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
FERROUS METAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
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
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
Stream
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
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
83
-------
Table A-3i. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
TIN CANS BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (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
Stream
S5
S4 Magnetic 56
ADS belt Nuggetizer
heavies rejects feed
37.90 7
42.60 12
51.04 12
51.86 5
75.16 12
51.71 10
45.85 30
48.08 23
53.50 14
51.13 9
42.92 16
48.30 19
10
7
7
11
16
10
3
16
1
16
9
12
12
7
5
10
11
5
5
4
7
.39 71.73
.73 94.33
.93 87.25
.99 88.47
.80 . 90.54
.37 88.46
.45 86.88
.97 78.07
.86 87.05
.13 81.67
.73 85.76
.03 83.89
.91
.65
.41
.34
.94
.85
.67
.87
.10
.50
.54
.08
.48
.69
.95
.67
.91
.60
.58
.30
.01
11.86
6.87
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
52
62
67
59
54
59
67
62
65
70
66
66
73
65
75
73
76,
.75
.75
.80
.01
.04
.27
.13
.38
.17
.64
.23
.31
.77
.61
.40
.76
.28
72.96
S8
Ferrous
metal
80
85
80
87
84
83
83
85
86
85
82
84
86
85
87
82
86
87
85
88
89
86
87
85
87
84
80
86
85
86
0
90
83
81,
68.
.02
.38
.54
.45
.70
.62
.18
.01
.81
.33
.64
.59
.04
.91
.96
.92
.88
.94
.89
.86
.86
.90
.88
.91
.13
.97
.77
.41
.04
.95
.20
.88
.44
.73
64
84
-------
Table A-3j. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
ALUMINUM BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (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
S5
S4 Magnetic
ADS belt
heavies rejects
1.84 2.
2.78 2.
3.36 2.
2.57 4.
0.99 2.
2.31 3.
1.99 6.
2.51 2.
1.71 3.
1.78 3.
3.44 4.
2.29 4.
1.
2.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
2.
3.
5.
3.
4.
6.
3.
1.
4.
4.
49
81
36
63
75
01
86
46
57
50
53
18
47
09
50
30
51
97
69
72
79
87
52
67
38
28
96
78
61
49
16
44
69
53
06
Stream
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.004
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejects
13.
20.
15.
17.
14.
16.
13.
14.
17.
15.
17.
15.
13.
16.
9.
9.
7.
11.
41
92
95
27
46
40
90
97
31
92
33
90
96
85
67
58
90
59
S8
Ferrous
metal
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.
2.
10
05
10
10
04
08
10
05
08
004
10
07
06
06
10
09
10
08
10
10
10
08
10
10
10
001
10
08
20
08
10
60
0.60
85
-------
Table A-3k. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
COPPER BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Daily
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
samples
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
S5
S4 Magnetic
ADS belt
heavies rejects
0.46 0.20
0.19 1.23
0 0.30
0.10 0.29
0.04 0.09
0.16 0.42
0.40 0.79
1.49 0.08
0.10 1.08
0.05 0.60
0.09 0.46
0.43 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
Stream
S7
S6 Magnetic
Nuggetizer drum
feed rejects
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
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
86
-------
Table A-31. BULK DENSITY OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
IB/FT3 (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
7.
6.
8.
8.
6.
7.
8.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
5.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
9.
8.
8.
7.
6.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
6.
5.
6.
4.
6.
3
9
1
5
5
5
9
6
4
5
5
4
1
3
2
3
0
0
9
7
7
5
7
7
8
6
8
4
7
7
9
6
4
0
1
S2
Cyclone
discharge
5
6
6
6
6
6
8
6
6
6
6
7
6
5
5
5
4
5
7
6
5
6
6
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
.9
.5
.9
.1
.5
.4
.5
.9
.4
.8
.4
.0
.4
.6
.6
.6
.8
.6
.7
.4
.8
.8
.7
.6
.2
.4
.2
.6
.9
.2
.8
.8
.8
.0
.7
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic S6
bin ADS belt Nuggetizer
discharge heavies reiects feed
7.7 38.4 37.
7.3 40.0 37.
6.8 36,3 35.
7.7 38.4 41.
7.7 42.3 39.
7.4 39.1 38.
8.5 39.9 36.
8.9 39.5 34.
8.9 37.9 32.
8.5 37.4 37.
9.3 35.5 44.
8.8 38.0 37.
37.
39.
29.
37.
37.
36.
21.
33.
33.
36.
31.
27.
38.
27.
25.
39.
31.
42.
33.
40.
39.
40.
39.
6 38.7
4 41.0
2 37.4
6 38.3
4 38.2
2 38.7
7 35.5
7 37.9
7 36.3
1 41.5
8 42.7
2 38.8
1
1
4
1
1
0
8
1
5
6
2
4
7
0
8
1
6
7
9
3
1
3
3
S7
Magnetic
drum
reiects
57.
55.
55.
55.
58.
56.
59.
56.
56.
57.
56.
57.
58.
58.
65.
66.
66.
62.
3
2
6
6
9
5
3
9
0
1
8
2
5
5
3
1
1
9
S8
Ferrous
metal
58.
60.
58.
57.
58.
58.
61.
59.
55.
58.
59.
59.
59.
61.
62.
62.
64.
62.
59.
58.
63.
63.
61.
68.
62.
59.
62.
62.
63.
61.
57.
60.
60.
63.
60.
1
o
9
3
5
6
8
3
8
9
7
1
0
4
1
9
7
0
3
2
9
9
3
1
5
5
5
5
0
7
7
9
5
7
9
87
-------
Table A-3m. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
PAPER BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Daily
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
samples
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
S2
Cyclone
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.
58.
54.
27.
73.
65.
55.
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
3
5
5
3
8
9
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
68
46
68
65
.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
.5
.7
.8
.2
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies rejects
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
.5
.3
.2
.0
.6
.9
.8
.1
.6
.6
.0
.6
.6
.3
.4
.2
.5
.6
.7
.0
.0
.4
.5
.4
.8
.2
.3
.8
.9
.3
.6
.7
.7
.7
.0
S7
S6 Magnetic
Nuggetizer drum
feed rejects
0 0
trace 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.4
trace 0.1
0.6 trace
trace trace
0 0
0.1 0
trace trace
0.1 trace
0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
trace
0
0
trace
. 0
trace
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
trace
0
trace
88
-------
Table A-3n. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
PLASTIC BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Daily
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
samples
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
7.
6.
12.
9.
3.
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.
8
4
5
5
7
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
2.2
2.3
5.0
S2
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic S6
Cyclone
discharge
2.
4.
4.
5.
3.
3.
7.
3.
4.
3.
10.
5.
12.
3.
2.
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
8.
3.
5.
4.
5.
3.
3.
3.
4.
8.
4.
6.
10.
6.
7.
4
2
8
1
0
9
5
4
5
5
6
9
1
1
4
0
7
7
7
9
1
3
5
2
5
1
7
7
0
7
8
0
3
0
2
bin ADS belt Nuggetizer
discharge heavies reiects 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 trace 3.
6.1 1.2 2.
9.
1.
8.
10.
3.
6.
2.
7.
1.
1.
3.
0.
0
9.
12.
0.
4.
3.
13.
1.
0.
0 0.2
9 0.1
1 0
1 0
1 0
8 0.1
5 trace
9 0
0 0
8 0
4 trace
3 trace
0
2
0
8
3
5
7
4
2
0
2
6
0
6
4
5
3
7
0
6
0.3
3.8
S7
Magnetic
drum
reiects
0
0.7
0.5
0.2
CK7.
0.4
trace
0
0
0.6
0.6
0.2
0
0
3.3
0.2
0.1
0.7
S8
Ferrous
metal
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
trace
0
trace
89
-------
Table A-3o. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
WOOD BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (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.
3.
9
9
0
trace
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
4.
1.
2.
0.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
15.
3.
0.
2.
5.
3.
2.
3.
0
2.
2.
0
0.
22.
2.
3.
5.
6
5
9
2
7
6
3
•j
9
7
4
7
7
1
1
8
8
0
4
0
2
2
6
2
9
4
2
3
8
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.
1.
5.
1.
0.
2.
1.
0
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
4.
7.
3.
7.
1.
3.
2.
3.
9
6
3
9
6
1
1
3
9
8
0
1
8
4
1
2
3
5
2
0
1
4
trace
2.
2.
1.
9.
3.
0
0
1.
6.
1.
2.
1
3
4
5
1
8
7
8
1
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies reiects
3.4 2.6 2
3.5 0.3 6
1.4 6.0 5
1.8 4.3 2
0.4 0 5
2.1 2.6 4
3.1 5.8 2
0.3 5.0 16
1.4 2.3 14
4.3 0.4 5
3.8 1.0 17
2.6 2.9 11
1
15
3
16
5
8
3
6
23
24
14
3
4
6
2
8
4
0
2
4
20
5
6
.4
.9
.0
.1
.0
.3
.9
.1
.0
.5
.3
.2
.3
.1
.5
.2
.0
.2
.2
.4
.0
.9
.4
.0
.5
.1
.4
.2
.8
.2
.0
.0
.2
.7
.4
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S7
Magnetic
drum
reiects
0
0.1
4.6
0
0.1
1.0
trace
0
1.2
0.4
0
0.3
0.6
0
0
0
1.3
0.4
S8
Ferrous
metal
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
90
-------
Table A-3p. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
GLASS BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Dai ly
Date
samples
• 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
1C
11
avg
15
16
17
18
avg
21
22
23
24
25
avg
18
19
20
21
22
avg
SI
Mill
discharge
1
1
0
1
0
1
5
3
4
3
.7
.2
.9
.8
.8
.3
.1
.2
.2
.3
trace
3
11
3
0
2
3
4
0
2
2
6
2
1
9
3
0
4
3
1
6
0
0
0
1
.2
.8
.8
.4
.0
.0
.2
.5
.7
.5
.0
.9
.2
.8
.2
.1
.7
.7
.9
.4
.8
S2
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
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
2
4
0
2
5
5
bin ADS belt
discharge heavies reiects
1.0 5.1 18
trace 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
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S7
Magnetic
drum
reiects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
me ta 1
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
91
-------
Table A-3q. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
MAGNETIC METAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Dally
Date
Month
q
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
Samples
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
a/
a/
a/
1.4
1.8
1.6
2.9
1.5
1
2
i
2
6
2
1
6
2
3
3
3
17
4
7
1
1
2
5
5
3
2
5
3
5
9
5
.5
.1
.4
f 2
.6
.1
.8
.3
.7
.9
.5
.3
.5
.1
.1
.6
.0
.5
.0
.8
.2
.5
.3
.0
.4
.9
.2
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0
0.8
0
0
0.3
0.2
1.3
0
0
0
0
0.3
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
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic S6
bin ADS belt Nuggetizer
discharge heavies reiects feed
0 71.2 20.
0 73.7 40.
0 74.7 38.
1.2 83.1 36.
0 81.5 25.
0.2 76.8 32.
0 24.7 40.
0.2 77.3 55.
0 69.7 4.
trace 54.5 16.
trace 84.5 24.
0.04 62.1 28.
38.
11.
0
7.
23.
15.
14.
43.
0
27.
3 98.7
2 99.7
4 99.9
9 99.6
0 100
2 99.6
1 99.4
4 100
6 100
7 99.9
4 100
2 99.9
0
2
0
4
9
9
5
6
S7
Magnetic
drum
reiects
85.
79.
74.
80.
82.
80.
91.
87.
82.
80.
89.
86.
0
4
2
3
7
3
9
6
7
9
2
5
21.5
26.
.8
10.1
6.6
0
21.6
13.0
2.3
13.5
0
87.5
85.7
89.8
3.7
0.1
3.9
94.4
91.6
89.8
S8
Ferrous
metal
99.
99.
99.
97.
99.
99.
99.
96.
99.
98.
99.
98.
100
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
99.
90.
99.
99.
100
100
99.
99.
99.
8
9
9
0
7
3
9
2
4
6
9
8
9
1
7
9
7
7
8
8
6
7
7
1
5
8
9
6
8
,8
,4
99.8
days only.
92
-------
Table A-3r. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
NONMAGNETIC METAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Daily
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
samples
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
a/
a/
a/
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.3
trace
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.4
0
0.1
0.3
trace
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0
1.1
0.4
0.4
S3
S2 Storage
Cyclone bin
discharge discharge
0 0
0.5 0
0 0
0 0
trace 4.6
0.1 0.9
2.4 0.8
0 0.5
0 0
0 0
0.2 0
0.5 0.3
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
Stream
S5
S4 Magnetic
ADS belt
heavies rejects
2.5 3.0
6.3 2.7
3.9 6.0
3.4 1.2
0 3.0
3.2 3.2
8.2 9.4
2.8 2.9
5.6 24.2
2.0 0
3.4 14.6
4.4 10.2
0
3.8
18.7
2.8
12.3
7.5
7.9
0.5
0
0
2.1
3.8
1.5
14.7
1.3
11.4
6.5
0
4.2
6.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
S7
S6 Magnetic S8
Nuggetizer drum Ferrous
feed rejects -metal
0 14.3 0
0 18.8 0
0 15.8 0.1
0.2 19.0 0
0 10.1 0
0.04 15.6 0.02
0 7.9 0.1
0 12.4 0
0 15.0 0.1
0 18.1 0
0 10.2 0.1
0 12.7 0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
trace
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.2
0
0
0.04
11.7 0
14.3 0
6.7 0.2
5.4 trace
7.0 0.5
9.0 0.1
a_/ Changed inspection method to pick up metal in SI. Average for 2 days only.
93
-------
Table A-3s. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
ORGANICS BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Daily
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
samples
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
1
3
0
7
0
2
0
0
4
4
0
1
1
2
4
7
0
3
0
5
4
2
3
2
10
4
0
3
4
0
0
.4
.8
.3
.0
.5
.2
.4
.7
.5
.4
.6
.3
.2
.8
.0
.6
.0
.1
.5
.9
.9
.1
.3
2.0
0.4
4.2
1.3
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0
5
12
0
0
3
4
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
.2
.5
.0
.5
.6
.8
.0
.4
.3
.5
.8
.1
S3
Storage S4
bin ADS
discharge heavies
0 4.8
0.8 1.6
0.6 2.6
0.9 5.0
0 6.3
0.5 4.1
0 18.5
0 5.8
0 13.1
2.3 10.0
0.9 7.0
0.6 10.9
trace
0
3
1
2
21
3
0
6
2
9
4
1
1
3
1
2
1
5
1
2
.7
.0
.2
.0
.5
.0
.6
.1
.3
.7
.4
.6
.8
.2
.4
.8
.6
.8
.6
S6
Magnetic
belt
relects
6.
8.
7.
12.
22.
11.
26.
4.
20.
16.
13.
16.
12.
25.
14.
18.
7.
16.
10.
14.
14.
9.
12.
28.
34.
19.
40.
14.
27.
29.
29.
35.
31.
33.
31.
0
1
8
8
8
5
8
1
1
3
7
2
5
2
8
5
3
7
0
4
3
5
2
0
4
4
0
4
2
0
7
8
0
7
8
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S7
Magnetic
drum
reiects
00
0
0
0
0.5
0.1
0
0
1.1
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
S8
Ferrous
metal
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
94
-------
Table A-3t. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL BY VISUAL ANALYSIS
(NOT OTHERWISE CLASSIFIED AS PAPER, PLASTIC,
WOOD, GLASS, METAL OR ORGANICS)
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (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
41
32
39
26
29
33
22
26
22
4
18
18
25
28
22
51
18
29
32
30
21
20
26
.2
.8
.4
.8
.2
.9
.0
.6
.0
.6
.0
.6
.6
.3
.0
.1
.6
.1
.0
.4
.2
.1
.1
26.8
22
51
35
20
31
31
26
36
15
14
24
.9
.8
.5
.8
.6
.1
.1
.9
.0
.1
.6
S2
Stream
S3 S5
Storage S4 Magnetic
Cyclone
discharge
30.
30.
37.
21.
27.
29.
29.
29.
36.
33.
8
9
4
7
3
6
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
discharge heavies rejects
34.3 12.1 46.
33.8 11.0 21.
30.2 7.8 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.
30.
20.
47.
10.
22.
11.
23.
13.
25.
24.
24.
16.
20.
27.
11.
27.
24.
24.
23.
6
9
4
8
7
5
0
6
1
6
7
8
1
0
2
9
6
2
9
2
4
7
1
3
2
5
7
2
8
0
9
7
9
8
3
S7
S6 Magnetic
Nuggetizer drum
feed rejects
1.1 0.7
0.2 1.0
0.1 4.9
0.2 0
0 6.0
0.3 2.5
0 0.2
0 0
trace 0
0 0
0 trace
trace 0.04
S8
Ferrous
metal
0.
0.
0
3.
0.
0.
0
3.
0.
1.
0
1.
0
0
2
1
0
3
7
8
5
4
1
Trace
0.2
0
0.2
0
Trace
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
i
02
95
-------
vo
CTi
Table A-3i,. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSK STREAMS
SQUARE SCREEN SIZE
PKRCKNT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
(LARGER THAN 2.5 IN.)
Daily
Date
samples
1974
Month pay
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
MiH
di s charge
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
Cyclone
discharge
0
0
8.7
6.3
0
3.0
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
Stream
S5
S4 Magnetic S6
ADS belt Nuggeti^.er
heavies rejects feed
0 0 7.4
0 00
15.9 0 0
000
0 8.1 0
3.2 1.6 1.5
0 0 2.3
000
0 3.1 0
000
000
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
Ferrous
metal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table A-3u. (Continued)
(SMALLER THAN 2.5 IN.)
VO
•vj
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
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
Stream
S4
ADS
heavies
100
100
84.1
100
100
96.8
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
100
100
100
100
91.9
98.4
100
100
96.9
100
100
99.4
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
S6 S8
Nuggetizer Ferrous
feed metal
92.6 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
98.5 100
97.7 99.3
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
99.5 99.9
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1QQ
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-------
Table A-3u. (Continued)
VD
oo
Daily samples
Date
197A
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
S2
Cyclone
discharge
100
89
61
89
71
82
100
95
100
97
92
97
100
96
96
92
96
96
96
98
97
100
98
99
100
93
96
98
97
98
97
95
98
96
97
.2
.0
.9
.9
.4
.4
.3
.4
.0
.7
.4
.1
.9
.4
.1
.9
.2
.1
.1
.2
.0
.8
.4
.0
.6
.5
.8
.1
.2
discharge
97
100
83
86
93
92
100
99
100
99
95
98
99
99
95
100
89
96
100
100
97
96
98
93
96
98
97
96
96
93
93
92
93
91
92
.1
.5
.3
.2
.0
.2
.1
.3
.7
.0
.0
.7
.7
.7
.2
.7
.5
.5
.6
.7
.5
.5
.6
.7
.6
.6
.4
.2
.4
Stream
S5
S4 Magnetic S6
ADS belt Nuggetizer
heavies rejects feed
100 88
87.7 100
72.7 100
82.2 89
87.2 91
86.0 94
92.7 100
98.0 86
94.7 88
100 84
94.6 93
96.0 90
89
100
100
100
100
97
99
98
99
94
98
.9 74.5
100
91.8
.9 71.2
.9 56.7
.1 78.8
94.3
.4 69.9
.8 67.6
.8 85.1
.2 94.4
.6 82.3
.0
.8
.0
.6
.6
.6
.0
94.5
100
75
99
97
93
93
97
97
93
92
94
.8
.1
.5
.4
.8
.5
.8
.1
.2
.9
S8
Ferrous
metal
100
97
100
100
100
99
99
100
100
99
100
99
98
100
96
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
100
100
100
99
100
98
95
97
95
97
.7
.5
.3
.0
.0
.2
.0
.7
.4
.2
.9
.0
.0
.0
.4
.0
.0
.4
.5
.6
.3
-------
Table A-3u. (Continued)
(SMALLER THAN 0.75 IN.)
VO
VD
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
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
leek avg
SI
Mill
discharge
77.
71.
37.
63.
46.
59.
77.
65.
84.
61.
71.
72.
57.
84.
83.
50.
82.
71.
83.
87.
72.
68.
78.
76.
60.
75.
67.
84.
72.
84.
61.
65.
82.
55.
9
4
0
1
5
2
2
9
7
3
4
1
5
6
3
0
6
6
1
6
6
7
0
8
2
7
3
1
8
0
7
8
7
9
70.0
S2
Cyclone
discharge
71
82
60
68
73
71
86
84
81
84
79
83
74
82
83
78
70
78
86
81
78
80
81
68
69
84
69
74
73
75
55
67
64
66
65
.4
.3
.2
.4
.5
.2
.5
.7
.4
.5
.1
.2
.7
.8
.9
.3
.5
.0
.9
.2
.9
.4
.9
.5
.5
.8
.1
.7
.3
.2
.1
.0
.1
.6
.6
Stream
S5
S4 Magnetic S6
ADS belt Nuggetizer
heavies rej
14.8 59
20.7 71
16.4 60
17.4 65
28.1 67
19.5 64
17.4 55
26.7 47
39.0 59
21.7 50
48.6 77
30.7 58
65
71
80
77
62
71
82
95
75
66
79
41
66
62
72
64
61
59
86
66
65
60
67
ects feed
.9 1.9
.3 11.8
.0 18.4
.4 2.5
.9 8.3
.9 8.6
.6 12.3
8 11.1
.7 10.7
.0 26.0
.3 6.9
.1 13.4
.4
.9
,0
.1
.2
.3
.9
.0
.2
.4
.9
.3
.1
.1
.4
.2
.2
.6
.2
.4
.7
.0
.7
S8
Ferrous
metal
85
46
58
65
59
63
61
60
47
53,
50,
54.
56,
63.
39,
45.
49.
50.
46.
50.
39.
64.
49.
53.
60.
63.
58.
49.
57.
50.
45.
55.
42.
49.
48.
.6
.9
.6
.5
.6
.2
.0
.4
.7
.2
,5
,6
,4
.2
,6
,0
0
,8
0
1
0
0
8
7
4
2
5
8
1
0
2
9
2
9
5
-------
Table A-3u. (Continued)
(SMALLER THAN 0.375 IN.)
O
O
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 IS
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
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
Stream
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
S5
Magnetic S6
belt Nuggetlzer
rejects feed
29.9 0.7
34.3 0.9
26.8 0.8
49.2 0.5
38.3 0.4
35.7 0.7
22.5 2.2
21.6 1.3
36.0 0.6
22.6 1.6
43.3 1.0
29.2 1.3
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
Ferrous
metal
14.4
4.5
5.7
9.4
13.0
9.4
9.9
6.4
6.6
7.7
7.9
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
-------
Table A-3u. (Continued)
(SMALLER THAN 0.187 IN.)
Daily
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
samples
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
Week avg
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
Stream
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 36
belt Nuggetizer
rejects feed
10.0 0.6
12.1 0.3
6.9 0.4
17.1 0.3
14.2 0.3
12.1 0.4
7.9 0.5
7.6 0.3
14.8 0.3
7.6 0.4
13.1 0.3
10.2 0.4
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
Ferrous
metal
0.9
0.3
1.1
0.9
1.9
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.6
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
-------
Table A-3u. (Concluded)
(SMALLER THAN 0.094 IN.)
O
N>
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
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
22.5
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
Stream
32 34
Cyclone ADS
discharge heavies
22.2 1.3
24.1 1.0
14.6 1.2
21.1 0.6
18.2 1.5
20.0 1.1
29.5 2.0
25.0 1.0
22.1 1.5
27.3 2.1
18.6 2.0
24.5 1.7
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
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
4.8
5,4
1.1
6.6
6.9
5.0
2.3
3.6
6.1
3.5
4.3
4.0
12.0
4.9
7.3
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
S6 S8
Nuggetizer Ferrous
feed metal
0.2 0.4
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.4
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
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
-------
Table A-3v. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
PARTICLE SIZE - GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER - INCH
PERCENT BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
o
00
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
0.28
0.33
0.80
0.42
0.68
0.50
0.31
0.36
0.29
0.52
0.45
0.39
0.43
0.29
0.31
0.46
0.30
0.36
0.27
0.25
0.34
0.35
0.30
0.28
0.42
0.32
0.38
0.27
0.33
0.29
0.40
0.40
0.31
0.48
0.38
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.31
0.26
0.47
0.38
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.25
0.27
0.24
0.33
0.26
0.30
0.25
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.29
0.22
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.27
0.37
0.35
0.27
0.34
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.47
0.41
0.41
0.43
0.41
Stream
ADS
heavies
0.90
0.92
1.12
1.00
0.84
0.96
0.83
0.80
0.75
O.S4
0.67
0.78
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
0.55
0.45
0.55
0.43
0.47
0.49
0.58
0.66
0.51
0.65
0.42
0.56
0.41
0.43
0.37
0.40
0.51
0.42
0.35
0.34
0.43
0.58
0.42
0.67
0.44
0.61
0.45
0.4S
0.53
0.51
0.36
0.48
0.53
0.54
0.49
S6
Nuggetizer
feed
1.24
0.97
0.97
1.23
1.29
1.14
1.00
1.16
1.19
0.95
1.03
1.07
SB
Ferrous
metal
0.53
0.75
0.67
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.72
0.70
0.71
0.69
0.66
0.59
0.81
0.75
0 73
0.71
0.71
0.74
0.77
0.71
0.67
0 65
0.66
0 67
0 72
oTiss
0 71
0 71
0 79
0.74
-------
Table A-3w. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE STREAMS
PARTICLE SIZE - GEOMETRIC STANDARD DEVIATION
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
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
Stream
S2 S4
Cyclone ADS
discharge heavies
2.95 1.59
2.71 1.74
3.18 1.91
3.28 1.67
2.86 1.92
3.00 1.77
2.69 2.02
2.67 1.77
2.68 1.85
2.71 1.72
2.72 1.95
2.69 1.86
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
S5
Magnetic
belt
re4ects
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
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
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 s s
-------
Table A-4a. WEEKLY SUMMARY WEIGHTED AVERAGE HEATING VALUE (Btu/lb)
TOTAL HEAT ENERGY (Btu x 106)
lo.
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
Week of
1974
Month Day
9 23 Weighted Avg Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
9 30 Weighted Avg Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
10 7 Weighted Avg Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
10 14 Weighted Avg Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
10 21 Weighted Avg Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
11 18 Weighted Avg Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
11 25 Weekly Composite Heating Value
Total Heat Energy
SI
Mill
discharge
4,593.3
14,046
4,645.4
14,346
5,425.5
9,802
4,601.2
7,152
5,016.7
7,790
5,278.8
11,242
5,063.5
4,684
Stream
S3
S2 Cyclone S4
Cyclone bin ADS
discharge discharge heavies
4,913.6 4,853.2 2,557.7
11,651 11,267= 990
4,891.6 4,812.9 2,580.4
11,695 11,195 1,204
5,534.6
7,960
4,818.0
5,640
5,344.6
6,681
5,210.4
9,366
5,541.7
3,856
S5
Mag.
belt
rejects
2,580.3
545
2,733.1
755
2,326.7
337
2,514.0
305
3,317.8
449
2,165.4
362
3,461.0
243
S7
Mag. S8
drum Mag.
rejects metal
2,983.4 2,233.3
7.16 344
3,104.5 2,223.9
7.45 417
2,287.0
2,663
2,237.7
171
2,238.3
167
3,232.4 2,232.2
7.76 245
2,774.7 2,235.7
3.33 102
-------
Table A-4b. WEEKLY SUMMARY WEIGHTED AVERAGE
PERCENT OF MAGNETIC METAL
Week
of
1974
Mo.
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
Day
23
30
7
15
21
18
25
S2
Cyclone
discharge
0.3
0.2
1.0
0
0.4
0
0
S5
Magnetic
belt
rejects
32.6
30.1
18.1
20.9
12.9
4.8
17.1
S7
Magnetic
drum
rejectes
78.8
85.9
86. 3^/
a /
86. 3-'
86. ^
88.9
91.5
88
Magnetic
metal
stream
98.9
98.8
99.6
99.7
97.5
99.8
99.9
a/ Average of weeks 9-23, 30; 11-18, 25.
106
-------
Table A-5a. SAMPLE VARIABILITY OF MILLED REFUSE--RESULTS BY WEIGHT (RECEIVED MOISTURE BASIS)
Time
£or
eight
Date sul>-
1974 siimpli-'s
Spectrum Month Day (hr)
Moisture 10 1 2
m
9 26 1
Heating v.ilvr 10 1 2
(Btu/lh)
9 26 I
Ash 10 1 2
H)
9 26 1
Metal content
by chemical
analysis ('/,)
Je (¥e203) 10 1 2
9 26 1
Al (A1203) 10 1 2
9 26 1
CU (CuO) 10 1 2
9 26 1
Pb (PbO) 10 1 2
9 26 1
HI (NiO) 10 1 2
9 26 1
Zn (ZnO) 10 1 2
9 26 1
S tream
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
52
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
52
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
Individual sul:
31.2.'}
30.63
27.63
29.36
4,680.9
4,351.8
4,791.'l
4, 908. 't
19.17
19.91
19.84
18.47
1.17
0.78
1.56
1.71
1.36
1.38
1.76
1.99
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.07
1
33.10
30.10
27.10
30.20
4, 319. 7
'i,45:i.2
4,199.8
.'i,937.1
18.16
19.49
19.84
18.91
0.81
0.68
2.34
2.69
1.10
1.22
1.41
2.83
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.21
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.18
0.08
0.07
2
11.10
22.90
30.50
30.10
7,381.9
4 , 849 . 0
4,919.1
5,111.2
24.81
23.94
16.69
17.98
1.24
1.21
2.09
2.64
1.57
1.56
1.57
2.20
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.03
O.OZ
0.02
O.OZ
0.20
0.08
0.10
0.06
3
33.50
35.90
27.00
30.00
3,630.3
3,904.3
4,997.3
5,225.5
25.93
21.32
10.71
11.31
2.23
1.21
1.45
1.03
1.63
2.21
1.70
1.25
0.14
0.04
0.14
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.06
4
33.10
33.80
29.70
28.80
4,582.7
'4,500.9
4,786.1
4,904."
18.40
16.14
18.50
20.19
1.01
0.59
1.01
1.67
1.06
1.04
1.63
1.87
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.06
tsump! <><;
5
36.80
25.50
32 .20
2 8 . 00
3,756.2
4,463.0
4,647.6
4,689.7
16 . 80
?4.42
17.25
22.31
1.01
0.79
0.94
1.42
1.23
1.53
1.63
2.81
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04 '
0.07
0.07
6
37.50
34.20
24.2.0
30.40
4,111.0
4,372.2
:>,164.9
4,723.1
16.62
16.13
18.72
20.79
1.00
0.55
1.06
1.46
1.21
1.10
1.55
1.94
0.03
0.01
0.03
O.O4
0.07
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.08
7
33.20
33.10
24.20
28.00
4,570.3
4, 148.2
4,399.0
4,968.1
18.27
18.48
28.98
16.21
0.91
0.47
2.06
0.82
1.40
1.08
2.64
1.23
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.08
8
31.50
29.50
26.10
29.40
5,144.8
4,441.9
V214.5
4,708.0
14.37
19.39
18.04
20.04
1.17
0.74
1.54
1.97
1.65
1.30
1.93
1.79
0.15
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.14
0.06
0.07
0.10
-------
Table A-5a. (Continued)
o
00
Date
1974
Spectrum
Proximate and
ultimate
analysis (7,)
Volatile
mutter
Fixed carbon
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
(by dif-
ference)
Sulfur
Nitrogen
Month
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
Day
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
Time
for
eight
nitb-
samplefl
(hr )
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
I
2
1
2
1
2
1
Individual s
Stream
S2
S2
S3
S2
S2
S3
S2
S2
S3
S2
S2
S3
S2
S2
S3
S2
S2
S3
S2
S2
S3
Mean
27 .22
27,54
25.58
2.43
5.95
5.86
23.57
26.16
25.91
3.38
3.76
3.73
1.52
2.05
1.37
0.16
0.23
0.15
0.48
0.53
0.59
1
27.75
27.24
26.37
1.62
6.07
3.43
23.40
28.22
26.20
3.40
3.89
3.53
1.85
0.42
0.00
0.13
0.20
0.19
0.59
0.57
0.53
2
32.03
24.12
24.36
3.48
7.50
6.52
26.51
27.40
26.86
3.96
3.84
3.94
4.35
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.13
0.19
0.46
0.64
0.61
3
27.90
26.51
20.20
0.00
6.07
17.49
20.26
26.43
27.94
2.82
4.32
4.10
0.00
1.15
4.93
0.30
0.22
0.11
0.51
0.46
0.62
4
23.17
25.65
27.06
4.51
5.27
3.45
23.69
25.28
25.49
3.26
3.56
3.70
0.07
1.18
0.56
0.14
0.42
0.13
0.53
0.48
0.63
mbsamples
5
31.61
24.65
29.09
0.00
4.07
0.45
24.50
24.75
25.08
3.58
3.55
3.52
2.47
0.00
0.19
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.43
0.49
0.62
6
23.19
29.65
26.79
3.97
9.10
0.86
23.59
26.08
24.34
3.37
3.10
3.64
0.00
8.76
0.00
0.11
0.21
0.23
0.42
0.58
0.58
7
26.31
34.38
24.18
1.31
0.00
11.44
22.04
24.11
26.21
3.12
3.92
3.82
1.87
0.00
4.90
0.13
0.33
0.12
0.45
0.56
0.58
8
25.80
27.08
26.55
4.51
9.50
3.25
24.60
27.03
25.16
3.55
3.92
3.62
1.54
4.92
0.40
0.13
0.21
0.10
0.48
0.49
0.53
-------
T.ib It; A-5i'i. (Corn i nued )
Spectrum
Bulk density
(lb/ftj)
Time
for
eight
Date sub-
1974 samples
Month Day (hr)
10 1 2
9 26 1
Stream Mean
SI 9.1
32 7.1
S2 6.8
S3 7.6
1
7.3
6.5
6.5
6.9
S.I
6.5
7.1
7.3
Individual
1 4
12.1 8.5
8.8 6.8
6.5 6.1
6.5 7.3
sub samp I'-S
9.8 8.1
6.8 6.9
7.3 6.5
8,5 8.5
10.3
6.5
8.5
7.3
8.
7
b.
8.
.9
.7
.0
.5
o
VD
Composition by
visual analysis
(X)
Paper 10 1 2
9 26 1
Plastic 10 1 2
9261
Wood 10 1 2
9 26 1
Glass 10 1 2
9 26 1
Fe metal 10 1 2
9 26 1
Other metal 10 12
9 26 1
Organlcs 10 1 2
9 26 1
Miscellaneous 10 1 2
9 26 1
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
SI
S2
S2
S3
56.5
67.1
62.8
64.1
7.2
4.5
8.6
5.9
4.6
2.2
3.3
2.6
1.1
0.9
0.4
1.3
2.8
2.1
0.0
0.7
1.1
0.1
Trace
0.1
1.7
1.9
0.7
0.1
25.1
21.2
23.9
24.8
53 . 0
65.6
66.5
81.3
2.4
5.6
11.0
12.1
15.3
1.6
2.6
4.0
0.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
Trace
Trace
2.4
7.4
0.0
0.0
20.7
18.6
17.9
1.4
44 . 7
66.6
67.0
67.9
4.1
9.0
3.9
13.7
3.2
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
Trace
0.8
1.4
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
Trace
0.0
0.0
40.5
21.5
25.3
16.0
52.3
41.4
66.8
57.6
4.6
12.4
13.7
2.9
2.0
0.0
0.8
2.9
1.0
0.0
0.8
Trace
1.7
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.9
1.0
0.0
35.3
44.3
16.9
31.2
64.3
64. 'i
55.9
57.4
0.6
2.8
5.9
2.6
7.0
0.5
4.9
3.3
1.5
Trace
Trace
0.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.9
0.0
1.1
22.0
30.8
33.3
34.1
58.3
85.8
62 . 3
63.4
9.9
1.7
11.4
1.7
2.7
1.4
3.8
1.9
3.3
1.9
Trace
3.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.6
Trace
2.5
0.0
21.6
9.2
20.0
29.6
48.5
81.3
60.5
61.1
33.0
0.7
15.9
5.4
1.0
2.5
1.6
2.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
14.7
15.5
19.5
28.0
59.9
bl.4
53.3
58.6
1.3
2.5
3.3
2.7
2.0
4.2
3.3
2.0
1.1
2.2
0.6
1.5
2.1
15.4
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.5
3.9
0.0
0.0
28.5
10.4
39.5
34.3
71.4
70.1
70.3
65.4
1.6
1.6
3.5
6.4
3.4
4.9
7. 4
3.8
Trace
1.6
Trace
0.5
6.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
17.1
19.2
18.8
23.9
-------
Table A-5a. iCcmc 1'iiied)
Date
1974
Spectrum
Square screen
size (In.)
Larger than
2.5
Less than
2.5
Les.s than
1.5
Less than
0.75
Less than
0.375
Less than
0.187
Less than
0.094
Particle size
Geometric mean
diameter (in. )
Geometric
standard
deviation
Month
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
Day
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
1
26
Time
foe
eight
sub-
samplcs
(hr)
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Individual fl'j
S treflm
Si
S2
S2
SI
S2
S2
Rl
S2
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
52
SI
S2
S2
Si
S2
S2
SI
S2
S2
SI
S2
S2
Mrnn
0.0
0.0
0.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
97 .0
98.6
92.3
70.5
82,0
75.8
48.5
58,5
51.0
30.8
39.4
33.1
18.7
25.8
21.6
0.351
0,257
0.331
2.73
2.78
2.85
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.2
100.0
96.0
52.4
81.3
75.2
37.9
57.1
48.5
25.3
39.6
31.7
17.5
28.6
20.8
0.426
0. 253
0.320
2.95
2.82
2.86
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
87.7
98.2
95.5
46.1
79.6
84.9
21.9
56.6
57.5
14.2
39.8
38.0
10.5
28.3
25.7
0.601
0.260
0.261
2.65
2.90
2.80
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
100.0
96.9
87.5
81.2
73.5
62.5
61.6
45.9
39.6
42.0
22.4
23.6
26.8
9.2
0.243
0.245
0.379
2.58
2.77
2.47
4
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
23.8
26.5
0.332
0.272
0.268
2.78
2.80
2.96
bsamp 1 tis
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
19.8
27.8
13.0
0.297
0.233
0.601
2.77
2.70
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
59.6
51.6
34.0
38.5
33.3
19.8
25.0
22.2
0.297
0.253
0.288
2.77
2.68
2.70
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
87.0
78.6
88.5
64.7
55.3
65.6
42.4
35.9
45.8
24.5
24.3
32.3
0.233
0.278
0.212
2.58
2.80
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
18.3
33.0
16.4
21.5
23.2
0.379
0.265
0.316
2.78
2.75
2.95
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-650/2-75-044
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
Equipment, Facility, and Environmental Evaluations
5. REPORT DATE
1975
May
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHORIS)
L.J.Shannon, D.E.Fiscus, and P.G.Gorman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013: ROAP 21AQQ-010
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1324, Task 4
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
and Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Task: 9/74 - 1/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT The report describes partial results of the following tests and evaluations
at the St. Louis refuse processing plant from 9/74 to 1/75: plant mass and energy bal-
ances; equipment and plant performance evaluations; an analysis of plant operating
costs; particulate emission tests on the hammermill and air classification system
dust collection cyclones; a pollution evaluation of plant washdown water; and a plant
sound survey. The plant operated satisfactorily during the evaluation period, with
about 80% of the incoming refuse converted to refuse fuel, on both a mass and energy
basis. No major equipment breakdowns occurred. Plant operating and maintenance
costs ranged from $2. 58 to $14. 80/ton of refuse produced, with costs varying pri-
marily as a function of tonnage. Particulate emissions from the hammermill cyclone
discharge were less than 0.01 gr/dscf; those from the air classifier cyclone discharge
averaged 0.209 gr/dscf (about 1. 25 Ib/ton of refuse processed). Over 80% by weight
of these particles had mean diameters greater than 10 micrometers. Washdown water
samples showed significant increases in TSS, BOD, and COD; however, the small
quantity of effluent (2000 gal. , twice/week) can be handled easily by the average
municipal waste treatment facility. At 8 of the 17 plant positions at which sound
measurements were taken, sound levels were in excess of 90 dBA, the maximum
QSHA level for continuous 8-hour exposure.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Combustion
Refuse
Evaluation
Acoustic Measurement
Washing
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Wastes
Municipal Waste
Particulates
13B 13H, 7A
2 IB
13A
14A
20A, 14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
121
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
111
------- |