Reference

N8S

PUBLICATIONS

AlllOt. 0S3bTS

NBSIR 85-3213

The Chlorine Content of Municipal

Solid Waste From Baltimore

County, MD and Brooklyn, NY

K. L. Churney, A. E. Ledford, Jr., S. S. Bruce, and E. S. Domalski

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Measurement Laboratory

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

April 1985

Issued October 1 985

Prepared for Office of Renewable Technology

Energy from Municipal Waste Division

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

and

The City of New York

nor>or+rr,Qnt of Sanitation

»Q(^.-_TMTM_«=..Resource Recovery and Waste Disposal Planning

100 Street, Room 815

• U56 :, NY 10007

85-3213

1985

[J7ATI0NAI;' SUHEATJ

^ OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY NBSIR 85*3213 /

'

THE CHLORINE CONTENT OF MUNICIPAL

^

SOLID WASTE FROM BALTIMORE ' ^ COUNTY. MD AND BROOKLYN, NY

K. L. Churney, A. E. Ledford, Jr., S. S. Bruce, and E. S. Domalski

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Measurement Laboratory

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

April 1985

Issued October 1985

Prepared for Office of Renewable Technology

Energy from Municipal Waste Division

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

and

The City of New York

Department of Sanitation

Office of Resource Recovery and Waste Disposal Planning

51 Chambers Street, Room 815

New York, NY 10007

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
Mi

r^iwS \\}/^" ym^')'.: m! 'M

m:

JffiVJ

•

If

, A.' j^S

",«'l ,i:|

.« ., % ,y"r '>;#!'

' .'U

MW'

fclt -W

I

if>!.'H '-'iVv.’ -<£7 1 lnle’:W'li1

%:

A.

i'» * • I m

'4 .

#1

Ij^ M "i’; iV *''' i 'lSBf®i''i'0

'

11

•-ilS(i'«rj ^'^4 H >Ri rf:'

mu V ,#A

H;V

v^*.,r ., V, '-• . ,r * Wiff,* s-ii

fe?’

'T'.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 1

1 .0 Introduction 2

2.0 Sampling Municipal Solid Waste 3

2.1 Collection, Sorting, and Sample Preparation

Baltimore County, MD 3

2.2 Collection, Sorting, and Sample Preparation,

Brooklyn, NY 6

3.0 Experimental Results 10

3.1 Baltimore County, MD 10

3.2 Brooklyn, NY 13

3.3 Comparison of Experimental Results 16

M.O Summary and Conclusions 18

4.1 General 18

4.2 Baltimore County, MD 18

4.3 Brooklyn, NY 20

5.0 References 24

6.0 Acknowledgments 26

Appendix Definitions of Statistical Parameters 27
LIST OF TABLES

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

1. Average Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained from the

Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility, Cockeysville, MD

during January, 1983.

2. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained 10, 11, 12, 19,

21 January, 1983 from the Baltimore County Recovery Facility,

Cockeysville, MD.

3. Processing of Waste Components

4. Composition and Chlorine Content of Composite Samples,

Baltimore County, MD

5. Residual Moisture Content, Baltimore County, MD

6. Total Chlorine Content, Baltimore County, MD

7. Water Soluble Chlorine Content, Baltimore County, MD

8. Sulfur Content of Composite Samples, Baltimore County,

MD

9. Variability of Total Chlorine Content, Baltimore County, MD

10. Variability of Water Soluble Chlorine Content, Baltimore

County, MD

11. Summary of Total Chlorine, Water Soluble Chlorine, and Water

Insoluble Chlorine Contents, Baltimore County, MD

12. Amount of Chlorine Contributed by MSW Components, Baltimore

County, MD

13. Calculated Percent of Chlorine Contributed by Components of

Baltimore County MSW to Chlorine Content

14. Average Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained from the

Greenpoint Incinerator Facility, Brooklyn, NY during January

1984 (Mass As-Received at the Facility)

15. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained 30 January, 1984

from the Greenpoint Incinerator, Brooklyn, NY.

16. Composition and Chlorine Content of Composite Samples,

Brooklyn, NY

17. Residual Moisture Content, Brooklyn, NY

18. Total Chlorine Content, Brooklyn, NY

19. Water Soluble Chlorine Content, Brooklyn, NY

20. Sulfur Content of Composite Samples, Brooklyn, NY
Table 21 .

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Variability of Total Chlorine Content, Brooklyn, NY

Variability of Water Soluble Chlorine Content, Brooklyn, NY

Summary of Total Chlorine, Water Soluble Chlorine, and Water

Insoluble Chlorine Contents, Brooklyn, NY

Amount of Chlorine Contributed to MSW Components, Brooklyn, NY

Calculated Percent of Chlorine Contributed by Components of

Baltimore County MSW to Chlorine Content

The Chlorine Content of Municipal Solid Waste

from Baltimore County. MD cind Brooklyn, NY

K.L. Churney, A.E. Ledford, Jr., S.S. Bruce, and E.S. Doraalski

Chemical Thermodynamics Division

Center for Chemical Physics

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Abstract

The total chlorine and water soluble chlorine contents of the

components of municipal solid waste (MSW) have been determined from

sampling studies carried out at two sites, Baltimore County, MD, and

Brooklyn, NY, for a five-day period. The total chlorine contents of the

overall MSW samples at Baltimore County, MD, and Brooklyn, NY, are 0.45

and 0.89 mass %, respectively.

The component which contributed the largest fraction to the chlorine

content in Baltimore County, MD, was the paper fraction (0.25 mass % or

5656 of the total chlorine) while in Brooklyn, NY, the plastics fraction

provided the major contribution (0.46 mass % or 52$ of the total chlorine). Chemical analyses for sulfur content were also performed on

composite samples for each day of sampling at the two sites. The sulfur

contents found in composite samples representing Baltimore County, MD, and

Brooklyn, NY, were 0.13 and 0.14 mass $, respectively. American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard methods for sulfur, total

chlorine, and water soluble chlorine contents, developed for refusederived fuel, were used in performing the analyses.

All values mentioned above in mass $ are on a dry basis.

1
1 . Introduction

During the late 1970 *3 and early 1980's, polychlorinated

dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD's) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF's) have

been found in the precipitator fly ash and flue gas of a number of

incinerator facilities in the U.S. and Europe in the parts per billion to

parts per trillion range [1-9]. The resulting public alarm has seriously

slowed or even stopped the construction or operation of waste-to-energy

plants. In order to understand the reason for the presence of chlorinated

organic pollutants in the precipitator fly ash or flue gas of incinerator

facilities, an analysis for the chlorine content of each component of the

input waste stream is needed. Examination of the literature showed that

a study of the distribution of chlorine content among the components of

municipal solid waste (MSW) had been carried out in Central Wayne County,

MI in August of 1979 [10]. The data in that study consisted of the

chlorine content of the textile/garment and plastic fractions of MSW for a

five day period as well as data on the chlorine content of all waste

components from one day's sampling. Examination of their results suggested

that a more comprehensive study of the chlorine content of MSW was warranted. Hence, during the past year, a total chlorine and water soluble

chlorine content study was carried out by NBS over a five day period on

MSW from each of two sources: Baltimore County, Maryland, and Brooklyn,

New York.

The results of the two studies are presented in this report.

Some definitions of elementary statistical parameters are provided in an

appendix.

2
2.0 Sampling Municipal Solid Waste

2. 1 Collection, Sorting, and Sample Preparation ,

Baltimore County, MD

Thirteen to twenty-three kilograms of RDF-2*' were obtained on 5

working days (January 10, 11 , 12, 19, 21 , 1983) from the Baltimore County

Resource Recovery Facility in Cockeysville, Maryland. Each sample was

removed from the conveyor belt immediately after the primary shredder, but

before any further processing occurred. Only one sample was taken from the

conveyor belt each day. The material was brought to NBS on the same day,

dried for 12 hours at 105 ®C to determine its total moisture content, and

then stored at 5®C. We assumed that no moisture was lost in transit

because samples were triple bagged. Each day’s material was hand sorted

into eight categories. The categories were: paper, soft (film) plastics,

hard (rigid) plastics, wood/ vegetable matter , textiles, "fines" (sweepings), glass/ceramics, and metals.

The average composition of MSW obtained from Baltimore County, MD is

provided in table 1 for each of the separated components in mass % on an

as-received basis at the facility and the daily composition of the MSW is

given in table 2. In table 2, the first row gives the total moisture

content on an as-received basis at the facility and rows 2 to 8 show the

mass percent of each waste component on a dry basis. Rows 9 to 1 0 give the

composition according to combustible content (the sums of paper, soft

Refuse-derived fuel-2, RDF-2, is MSW that has been processed to reduce

the particle size so that 95 mass-percent passes through a 1 5 cm square mesh.

3
plastics, hard plastics, wood/vegetable matter and textiles ), and

noncombustible content (metals, glass/oeraraics , and "fines"), also on a

dry basis.

Each category except for metals and glass/ceramlcs for each day’s

material was processed to 2 mm particle size or less and blended as

described in table 3. As indicated in the second column, all components

except paper required some initial processing. Dry ice was used, in the

final particle size reduction of plastics, wood/ vegetable , and textiles to

prevent jamming of the milling equipment. Four milling machines were used

to carry out the size reduction of the waste components; a Williams Hammer

Mill^ (Model GP-1512, Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Co.), a Wiley

Mill (No. 4, model S-60982, Sargent-Welch Co.), and two Brinkmann Instrument Co. Mills (Models SR-3 and ZM-1). The Williams Hammer Mill was used

in the initial processing of the hard plastics and in the final reduction

of the paper. The cutting action of the Wiley Mill was found to be most

suitable for the final reduction of the wood/vegetable and textiles

components. A rotor-beater mill (Brinkmann Instrument Co., Model SR-3)

was used in the final reduction of the soft and hard plastic components. A

centrifugal grinding mill (Brinkmann Instrument Co., Model ZM-1) was used

in the final reduction of the "fines" component. The SR-3 mill is similar

to the ZM-1 mill in its principle of operation but is better suited for

processing large quantities of softer materials than the ZM-1 mill.

The commercial sources cited in this paper are included to adequately

describe the experimental procedures. Such identification does not

imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Bureau of

Standards

.

4
The processed components were stored at 5®C in glass or pxDlyethylene

bottles except for the paper which was stored in large double polyethylene

bags. After blending each of the components, samples were removed from

each of the components for total chlorine analysis (three samples, each

about 2 g), water soluble chlorine analysis (three samples, each between

3.5 to 5 g), residual moisture determinations (two samples, each about 2

g), and a reserve for use in later tests.

The processing of MSW components to 2 mm particle size increases the

surface area of the sample making it more susceptible to the adsorption of

moisture from the air. Consequently, a second moisture determination is

necessary and called residual moisture. The residual moisture is smaller

in magnitude (3 to 5 mass %) than the original total moisture (20 to 26

mass %)

.

The residual moisture determinations are usually performed

concurrently with other analyses, such as chlorine or sulfur, so that

calculation to a dry basis is possible.

In this study, the processed components of MSW were not analyzed

separately for sulfur content. However, triplicate sulfur determinations

were carried out on a composite sample.

A composite sample having a mass of about 42 grams was prepared from

each day's components. The composite sample had almost the same

composition as the original waste exclusive of the glass/ceramics and

metal fractions. It was prepared from the reserve fractions in

appropriate proportions assuming that each separate component was totally

dry. Thereafter, duplicate residual moisture determinations were

performed on each of the components and the moisture data were used to

correct the composition of the composite sample to a dry basis. Also, the

5
residual moisture was determined for the composite sample itself so that

the corresponding analyses for total chlorine, water soluble chlorine, and

sulfur content could be adjusted to a dry basis.

The composite sample was blended by end-over-end tumbling in a

polyethylene bottle for twenty-four hours. It was then subdivided into

test samples using a Brinkmann Instrument Co. Sample Divider PTZ to obtain

samples for total chlorine, water soluble chlorine, residual moisture, and

total sulfur analyses. Our previous study on assessing the credibility of

the calorific value of MSW [11] showed that sample subdivision by this

method gives aliquots that are representative even though the sample is

heterogeneous

.

The samples of individual components as well as the composite sample

for each type of analysis were analyzed in random order; the entire

contents of each sample (e.g., 2 grams for an individual chlorine analysis) was used in a single measurement. Chlorine, sulfur, and residual

moisture analyses were carried out according to ASTM standard methods;

E776-81 , Total Sulfur in the Analysis Sample of Refuse-Derived Fuel;

E775-81 , Forms of Chlorine in Refuse-Derived Fuel; and E7 90-81 , Residual

Moisture in a Refuse-Derived Fuel Analysis Sample, respectively. The

determinations for chlorine, sulfur, and residual moisture were performed

at Gascoyne Laboratories, Inc., Baltimore, MD for both Baltimore County,

MD and Brooklyn, NY.

6
2.2 Collection, Sorting, and Sample Preparation, Brooklyn, NY

Sampling of MSW at the Greenpoint Incinerator Facility was carried

out on five consecutive days from January 30 through February 3» 1984. The

total number of increments withdrawn and mass per Increment were selected

on the basis of ASTM Committee E-38 provisional document EDS-18, which is

based on ASTM method D 2234, "Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal." The

mass per increment was chosen to correspond to the "unit" size of the MSW

as-received in a "jiffy" or nominal trash bag. The total number of

increments was set by the mass per increment and the maximum mass allowed

by our working and storage space at NBS, 227 kg (500 lbs).

After examining the ASTM’s provisional document EDS-18, we decided to

withdraw 35 increments for the week, 7 increments each day with each

increment of about 7 kg (15 lb) mass.

In practice a total of 29 increments were withdrawn for the week

rather than the planned 35; the number of increments per day ranging from

5 to 7. Each of the Increments was withdrawn at as nearly the same time

each day as circumstances permitted. The actual withdrawal times for each

day were as follows;

COLLECTION TIMES

DATE

Increments

Collected ^ —AM 4 —PM———

1 /30 5 — 10:30 1 1 ;40 12:00 — 1 :45 3:15

1/31 6 9:40 10:30 11 :00 12:00 12:45 — 3:00

2/1 7 10:00 10:50 11 ;30 12:10 1 :00 2:10 3:00

2/2 6 10:00 1 1 :00 1 1 ;45 — 12:45 2:00 2:50

2/3 5 10:00 — — 12:20 1 :20 1 :45 3:00

7
In our initial sampling plan, the crane operator would be told to mix

the contents of two or more dump truck loads in the bottom of the dumping

pit by repeated picking up and dropping of parts of the load with the

grapple hook. He then would pick up a grapple hook load of the "mixed”

waste and drop it in the area used to pile noncombustible bulky materials.

The amount of mixed waste dumped was supposed to be between Ml kg (90 lbs)

and 82 kg (180 lbs). The pile would then be divided into equal parts by a

grid. The parts should each contain about 7 kg (15 lbs) and the geometrical location of the grid should be fixed relative to the dropping area.

In practice, sampling was limited to between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The

day shift started at 8:00 AM. Truck deliveries ceased after 3:00 PM, or

so, for the day shift and resumed after 7:30 PM for the next shift. The

method of collecting and preparing an increment had to be modified since

it was discovered on arrival that the grapple hook design precludes the

pickup of less than a full load (greater than 300 cu. ft., about 1500

lbs). No space or equipment (such as a front loader) was available to

spread a full load in order to pull out an increment (about 15 lbs). The

following substitute procedure was immediately developed and implemented.

Increments were prepared by sampling the contents of two or more

delivery trucks. As each truck dumped its load into the receiving pit,

the storage bags which contained most of the MSW broke open, and part of

the load spilled over on to the actual traffic area in front of the

receiving pit. This spillover was collected provided it did not appear to

be grossly different from the bulk of the truck's contents (e.g. by visual

comparison with the bulk dropped into the bottom of the pit). Otherwise

8
the material was discarded and the next truck was sampled and so on.

Hospital refuse was not included in the collection because of the potential health hazard. Some types of MSW (e.g., tapes and files of legal

evidence) could not be included because this is prohibited by the New York

City Police. Construction materials and ash (ie. from tenemant buildings),

which are sometimes dumped into the pit, were not included since this

material is normally dumped into barges and then transported to a

landfill.

Sample increments were triple bagged, dried at NBS for 12 hours at

105 °C to determine their total moisture content, and then stored at 5®C.

Thereafter, each increment was hand-sorted into nine categories:

unbleached paper, bleached paper, soft (film) plastics, hard (rigid)

plastics, wood/vegetables , textiles, metals, glass/ceramics, and "fines”

(sweepings). The corresponding components of the increments of the same

day were then combined. The average composition of MSW at Brooklyn's

Greenpoint Incinerator is given in table 14. The corresponding daily

composition is shown in table 15.

Each category except for metals and glass/ceramics for each day's

material was processed to 2 mm particle size or less and blended as

described in table 3. Thereafter, the processing procedures for the

Brooklyn samples were identical to those used for the Baltimore County

samples with respect to the choice of milling machines, blending,

preparation of a composite sample, sub-sampling, bottling, and storage.

Similarly, analyses for total chlorine, water soluble chlorine, sulfur,

and residual moisture were carried out using the corresponding ASTM

methods mentioned earlier.

9
3.0 Experimental Results

3. 1 Baltimore County, MD Results

The results of the analyses for the Baltimore County, MD study are

given in tables 4 through 8. Table ^ provides data on the composition and

chlorine content of the prepared composite sample and also gives the

corresponding values derived from the original composition of the waste in

Table 1 and the chlorine content data in table 6. The purpose of the

"measured" and "calculated" columns for each day in Table 4 is to show

that the earlier assumption of the "dryness" of the components was

acceptable in the preparation of the composite samples. The smallness of

the differences between the measured and calculated values suggested that

good control prevailed during the preparation and chlorine analyses of the

composite samples assuring their representativeness.

Table 5 gives data on duplicate determinations for residual moisture

and the corresponding average value. Triplicate determinations for total

chlorine and water soluble chlorine content can be found in tables 6 and 7

along with the average values on both an as-received and dry basis. Table

8 provides triplicate determinations for the sulfur content of the

composite samples and the average value on both an as-received and dry

basis. It is evident that the sulfur content of the Baltimore Count MSW

is quite low.

An analysis of the variability of the total chlorine and water

soluble chlorine contents was carried out using standard statistical

methods [12,13]. Results are summarized in tables 9 and 10. The percent

coefficient of variation, % C.V., for the withln-day variability of the

total chlorine content is less than the between-day variability for all

10
waste components except for the paper. The approximate equality of the

corresponding within and between-day variabilities of the composite

samples may be partially due to the large chlorine content of the paper,

which constitutes 60 to 70 mass % of the composite sample (see table 4).

The % C.'J. of the within-day and between-day variability of the water

soluble chlorine are scattered, showing both high and low values. The

relatively large within-day variability of the chlorine content analyses

in tables 9 and 10 is probably due to the heterogeneous nature of refuse.

The average values on a dry basis in tables 6 and 7 have been

rearranged into a breakdown of the total chlorine content of the composite

sample and the various components into water soluble and water insoluble

chlorine contents. These results are given in table 11. The water

insoluble chlorine content is the total chlorine content minus the water

soluble chlorine content. The water insoluble chlorine content has been

called "organic” chlorine content but this can be misleading. Some

organic chlorides are water soluble and some inorganic chlorides are water

insoluble. The first row in table 11 opposite a given component or the

composite sample contains the corresponding average on a dry basis total

chlorine content listed in table 6. The second row is the ratio in percent

of the corresponding water soluble chlorine content in table 7 divided by

the corresponding first row entry. The third row is 100 minus the second

row entry. Day averages are given in the far right column. It should be

noted that all numbers refer to the composite sample or particular

component alone and not the contribution of this component to the overall

total, water soluble, or water insoluble chlorine content of each day's

material. It can be seen that the water insoluble chlorine content is a
factor of two to three greater than that of the water soluble chlorine

content for the composite sample and all components except for

wood/vegetable matter. In the latter component, the water soluble

chlorine content is twice that of the water insoluble chlorine content.

The calculated contribution of the various components of the waste to

the overall total chlorine, water soluble chlorine, and water insoluble

chlorine content of each day’s material are listed in table 12. It is

assumed that the chlorine contents of the glass and metal fractions are

negligible. Each day's value for total and water soluble chlorine

content was calculated by multiplying the average percent chlorine content

on a dry basis of each component in table 6 and 7 by the mass percent of

the component in table 2. The water insoluble chlorine content was

calculated by difference. One finds that the total chlorine content of

the original waste is predominantly (76%) water insoluble chlorine

according to table 12.

The percent contribution of the various components of the waste to

each day's overall total chlorine, water soluble chlorine, and water

insoluble chlorine content of each day's material is listed in table 13.

The sums of each column of a given type of chlorine for each day is equal

to 100. The percent of the sum of the components averages are listed in

the far right column (The latter are not, in general, equal to the average

percentages.) On the average, the paper fraction contributed slightly

more than half the total chlorine content and four fifths the water

soluble chlorine content. The combined plastic fractions contribute about
one third of the total chlorine content and about two fifths of the water

insoluble chlorine content. The "fines” contribute about 10? of the

total, water soluble, and water insoluble chlorine contents.

3.2 Brooklyn, NY

The average and daily composition of MSW at Brooklyn's Greenpoint

Incinerator are provided in tables 14 and 15, respectively. Care was

taken to separate the plastic fraction into soft and hard component as was

done with the Baltimore County study. In addition, the paper fraction was

divided into bleached and unbleached portions to see if any significance

could be attributed to such a separation and the observed values

determined for total chlorine and water soluble chlorine. The results of

the analyses for the Brooklyn, NY, study are given in tables 16 through

20. Table I 6 provides data on the "measured" composition and chlorine

content of the prepared composite sample. Also, the corresponding

"calculated" values are shown and were derived from the original

composition of the waste in table 15 and the chlorine content data in

tables 18 and 19. The closeness of agreement between the "measured" and

"calculated" columns indicates that the earlier assumption regarding the

"dryness" of the components was acceptable in the preparation of the

composite samples and that good control prevailed during the preparation

and chlorine analyses of the composite samples.

Duplicate determinations and the average values for residual moisture

are shown in table 17. Tables 18 and 19 give data on triplicate

determinations and average values for both an as-received and dry basis

for total chlorine and water soluble chlorine content, respectively.

13
I

Table 20 provides triplicate determinations for the sulfur content of the

composite samples and average values on both an as-received and dry basis.

Here, as with the Baltimore County study, the sulfur content is quite low.

An analysis of the variability of the total chlorine and water

soluble chlorine contents was carried out using standard statistical

methods [12,13]. Results are summarized in tables 21 and 22. The percent

coefficient of variation, % C.V., for the within-day variability of the

total chlorine content is less than the between-day variability for all

waste components except for the total chlorine content of the

wood/vegetable matter. The greater within-day variability of the latter

is due to an apparent outlier in the measurements on day 3 (see table 18).

Exclusion of this outlier yields the row of parenthetic values in table

21 . The within-day variability of the latter is less than the between-day

variability. In table 22, the % C.V. of the within-day variability of the

water soluble chlorine is less than the between-day variability for all

components except for the water soluble chlorine content of the ’’fines."

Inspection of table 19 suggests that the greater within-day variability of

the "fines" in table 22 is not due to a single outlier and, thus, is real.

The averages on a dry basis in tables 18 and 19 have been rearranged

into a breakdown of the total chlorine content of the composite sample and

the various components into water soluble and water insoluble chlorine

contents. These results are given in table 23. The water insoluble

chlorine content is the total chlorine content minus the water soluble

chlorine content. The first row in table 23 opposite a given component or

in the composite sample contains the corresponding average total chlorine

14
content listed in table 18 in mass percent, dry basis. The second row is

the ratio in percent of the corresponding water soluble chlorine content

in table 19 divided by the corresponding first row entry. The third row is

100 minus the second row entry. Day averages are given in the far right

column. It should be noted that all numbers refer to the composite sample

or particular component alone and not the contribution of this component

to the overall total, water soluble, or water insoluble chlorine content

of each day’s material. It can be seen that the water soluble chlorine

content of the composite sample tends to be less than a third of the total

chlorine content.

Average values for the components given in table 23 suggests that

virtually all of the components except the two plastic fractions have

roughly equal amounts of water soluble and water insoluble chlorine.

Thus, the plastic fractions, both of which contain very little or no water

soluble chlorine, cause the water insoluble content of the composite

sample to be larger than its water soluble content. This, evidently, is

the case even though the mass percent of plastics in the composite samples

(see table 16) is only about 20^ of the combustible components.

The calculated values of the total, water soluble, and water

insoluble contents of the Brooklyn MSW based on its initial (dry)

composition are given in table 24. It is assumed that the chlorine

contents of the glass and metal fractions are negligible, although, their

presence must be accounted for in calculating the final values for the

mass percent of chlorine. Each day’s value for total or water soluble

chlorine content' was calculated by multiplying the percent chlorine

content of each component in table 18 and 19 by the mass percent of the

15
component listed in table 15. The water insoluble chlorine content value

was calculated by difference. One can see that the total chlorine content

of the original waste stream is predominantly (76/t) water insoluble

chlorine

.

The percent contribution of the various components of the waste to

each day’s overall total chlorine, water soluble chlorine, and water

insoluble chlorine content of each day’s material is listed in table 25.

The sums of each column of a given type of chlorine for each day is equal

to 100. The percent of the sum of component averages are listed in the

far right column. In general, the latter are not equal to the average

percentages. On the average, the combined plastics contribute about one

half of the total chlorine content and two thirds of the water insoluble

chlorine content. The combined paper fractions contribute only one

quarter of the total chlorine content but about two thirds of the water

soluble chlorine content. The ’’fines", which constitute only 4 mass

percent of the total mass (see table 2) contribute 15^ to the total and to

the water insoluble chlorine contents and 10/6 to the water soluble

chlorine content.

3. 3 Comparison of Experimental Results

The mass percent of the paper in the Baltimore County waste (5956) and

Brooklyn waste (47?) are grossly comparable (compare tables 1 and 2 with

tables 14 and 15); fewer newspapers and more commercial paper (e.g.,

office, computer and bank papers) were observed in the Brooklyn paper

fraction. The mass percent of the plastic fraction of the Baltimore County

waste (7?) was two thirds as large as that of the Brooklyn waste (11?).

The mass percent of the hard plastic fraction of the Brooklyn waste (8?)

16
was some two and one half times greater than that from Baltimore County

(3$). The sum of the mass percent of the glass/ceramic and "fines"

fractions for Baltimore County (21 $) and Brooklyn (23/6) were comparable.

The larger mass percent of the "fines" fraction for the Baltimore County

waste (15/6) versus that for Brooklyn (il$) is probably due to the passage

of the Baltimore County waste through the primary shredder prior to our

sampling.

Tables 12 and 24 indicate that the total chlorine, water soluble, and

water Insoluble chlorine are all roughly a factor of two larger for

Brooklyn as compared to Baltimore County. From these tables, one sees

that the total chlorine content of the Brooklyn waste is larger because of

the larger contributions by the Brooklyn plastic fraction, 0.46% versus

0.14% for Baltimore County and the Brooklyn, "fines" fraction, 0.13%

versus 0.04% for Baltimore County. The larger contribution of the

Brooklyn wood/ vegetable fraction, 0.06% versus 0.01% for Baltimore County,

is about offset by the smaller contribution of the Brooklyn paper

fraction, 0.22% versus 0.25% for Baltimore County. The larger

contribution to the total chlorine content by the Brooklyn "fines" and

wood/vegetable fractions, as well as the larger overall water insoluble

chlorine content of the Brooklyn waste, are in part due to the larger food

wastes observed in the Brooklyn waste. This could be due to the

prohibition of "disposals" in Brooklyn residential areas and also to the

fact that the Greenpoint Incinerator receives restaurant waste from

Kennedy airport.

17
4.0 Summary and Conclusions

4. 1 General

(1) Chlorine in MSW is present in all combustible components.

(2) The major amounts of the chlorine in MSW are contained in the

paper and plastic fractions.

(3) The paper fraction contains about one third to half of its

chlorine as the water soluble form while the plastic fraction

contains most (greater than 90 mass %) of its chlorine as the

water insoluble form.

4.2 Baltimore County, MD

The results of the Baltimore County, MD, chlorine content study show

the following:

(1) The overall chlorine content for a five day period is 0.52!^

(table 11), exclusive of the metal and glass/ceramics fractions,

and is 0.455^ of the original dry waste when the metal and

glass/ceramics fractions are included; 2 ^% of the latter

chlorine content is water soluble chlorine (table 12).

(2) The paper fraction, which constitutes about 595t of the waste

(table 2), has an average total chlorine content of 0.435J; 35^

of the latter is water soluble chlorine (table 11). The average

amount of total chlorine contributed to the original dry waste

is 0.255^ (table 1 2)

.

(3) The plastic fraction, which constitutes 1% of the waste (table

2), has an average total chlorine content of 1.29$ for soft

(film) plastics, and 2.96$ for hard (rigid) plastics. The water

soluble chlorine is less than 10$ of either of the latter values

18
(table 11). The combined average amount of total chlorine

contributed by the plastic fractions to the original dry waste

is 0.14^ (table 12).

(4) The wood and vegetable fraction, which constitues 2% of the

waste (table 2), has an average total chlorine content of 0.3556;

about 10lo of this is water soluble chlorine (table 11). The

amount of total chlorine contributed by this fraction to the

original dry waste is 0.0156 (table 12).

(5) The textile fraction, which constitues 456 of the original dry

waste (table 2), has an average total chlorine content of 0. 4656 ;

about 3856 of the latter is water soluble chlorine. The average

amount of total chlorine contributed by the textile fraction to

the original dry waste is 0.0256 (table 12).

(6) The "fines” or sweepings fraction, which constitutes 1 556 of the

original dry waste (table 2), has an average total chlorine

content of 0.2856 ; about 2356 of this is water soluble chlorine

(table 11). The amount of total chlorine contributed by the

"fines" fraction to the original dry waste is 0.0456 (table 12).

(7) If all plastics were removed from the waste stream, the average

total chlorine content would decrease from 0.52 to 0. 3756 in the

composite sample which does not contain metal or glass/ceramic

components. The average measured composition of the soft and

hard plastic fractions of the composite sample are 5.3 and 3.856 ,

respectively (table 4). Using average data from table 11, the

combined amount of total chlorine contributed by the plastic

fraction to the composite samples is 0.1 856. Correcting for the

19
change in mass fractions gives (0.52-0. 18)/(1-0. 091 ) - 0.37?f.

If the metal and glass/ceramic components were included, the

total chlorine content of the waste stream would change from

0.46 to 0.35^. FY*om table 12, the plastic fractions contribute

0.14/S to the total chlorine content. Correcting for the change

in mass fraction gives (0.46-0.1 4)/(1-0. 074) = 0.35/S. The

values, 0.37/S or 0.355S represent a significant presence of

chlorine in the waste stream contributed by components other

than plastics.

(8) Of the components in Baltimore County, paper contributes most to

the total chlorine content. If all of the paper and plastic

fractions were removed, the average total chlorine content would

decrease from 0.46 to 0.07/S. This decrease represents a

substantial reduction in total chlorine content, although from a

practical standpoint, a difficult reduction to implement.

(9) The MSW sampled in Baltimore County, MD can be classified as a

low acid-gas-producing fuel because the sum of the as-received

(at the facility) sulfur and chlorine contents does not exceed

0.5 mass % (0.105S S + 0.34? Cl = 0.44?).

20
4.3 Brooklyn, NY

The results of the Brooklyn, NY, chlorine content study show the

following:

(1) The overall chlorine content for a five day period is 1.11J

(table 23), exclusive of the metal and glass/ceramics fractions,

and is 0.89J for the original dry waste (table 24) when the

metal and glass/ceramic fractions are included; 25? of the

latter chlorine content is water soluble chlorine (table 24)

.

(2) The unbleached paper fraction, which constitutes about 43? of

the original dry waste (table 15) , has an average total

chlorine content of 0.49?; 59? of the latter is water soluble

chlorine (table 23). The bleached paper fraction, which

constitutes about 5? of the waste (table 15), has an average

total chlorine content of 0.30?; 47? of the latter is water

soluble chlorine (table 23). The combined average amount of

total chlorine contributed by the paper fractions to the

original dry waste is 0.22? (table 24).

(3) The plastic fraction, which constitutes 11? of the waste (table

15), has an average total chlorine content of 3.63? for soft

(film) plastics and 4.20? for hard (rigid) plastics. The water

soluble chlorine content is less than 10? of either of the

latter values (table 23) . The combined average amount of total

chlorine contributed by the plastic fractions to the original

dry waste is 0.46? (table 24) when the metal and glass/ ceramics

fractions are included.

21
(4) The wood and vegetable fraction, which constitutes about 1% of

the original dry waste (table 15), has an average total chlorine

content of 0.78$; about 52$ of this is water soluble chlorine

(table 23). The average amount of total chlorine contributed by

this fraction to the original dry waste is 0.06$ (table 24).

(5) The textile fraction, which constitutes about 2$ of the original

dry waste (table 15), has an average total chlorine content of

0.74$, about 52$ of the latter is water soluble chlorine (table

23). The average amount of total chlorine contributed by this

fraction to the original dry waste is 0.02$ (table 24)

(6) The "fines” or sweepings fraction, which constitutes about 4$ of

the original dry waste (table 15), has an average total chlorine

content of 2.03$; about 58$ of this is water soluble chlorine

(table 23). The average amount of total chlorine contributed by

this fraction to the original dry waste is 0.13$ (table 24).

(7) If all plastics were removed from the waste stream, the average

total chlorine content would decrease from 1.11 to 0.55$ in the

composite sample which does not contain metal and glass/ceramic

components. The average measured compositions of the soft and

hard plastic fractions of the composite sample are 4.4 and

11.6$, respectively (table 16). Using average data from table

23, the combined amount of total chlorine contributed by the

plastic fraction to the composite sample is 0.65$. Correcting

for the change in mass fraction, one has ( 1 . 1

1 -0. 65)/( 1 -0. 1 6) =

0.55$. If the metal and glass/ceramlc components were

included, the total chlorine content would change from 0.89 to

22
O.M856. From table 2 ^, the plastics fractions contribute 0.45$

to the total chlorine content. Correcting for the change in

mass fractions (see table 2) gives (0. 89-0. 46)/(1-. 113) .48$.

The values 0.54$ or 0.50$ represent a significant presence of

chlorine in the waste stream contributed by components other

than plastics. Of these, most of the total chlorine content is

contributed by the plastics.

(8) If all of the paper and plastic fractions were removed, the

average total-chlorine content would decrease from 0.89 to

0.21$. This decrease represents a substantial reduction in

total-chlorine content, although from a practical standpoint, a

difficult reduction to implement.

(9) The MSW sampled in Brooklyn, NY cannot be classified as a low

acid-gas-producing fuel because the sum of the as-received (at

the facility) sulfur and chlorine contents does exceed 0.5 mass$

(0.12$ S + 0.74$ Cl = 0.86$).

23
5. References

[1] Olie, K., Vermeulen, P.L., and Hutzinger, 0., Cheraosphere 6, 455

(1977).

[2] Buser, H. , Bosshardt, H. , and Rappe, C., Chemosphere 1_, 165 (1978).

[ 3 ] Eiceman, G.A. , Clement, R.E., and Karasek, F. W., Anal. Chem.

2343 (1 979).

[4] Lustenhauwer , J.A. , Olie, K.I., and Hutzinger, 0., Cheraosphere 9, 501

( 1980 ).

[ 5 ] Cavallaro, A., Bandi, G., Invernizzi, G., Luciana, L. , Mongini , E.

,

and Gorni , A., Chemosphere 9, 6l 1 (1980).

[6] Karasek, F.W., Clement, R.E., and Viau, A.C., J. Chromatography 239 ,

173 (1 982).

[ 7 ] Tiernan, T.O., Taylor, M.L. , Garrett, J.H., Van Ness, G.F. , Solch,

J.C., Dies, D.A., and Wagel, D.J., Chemosphere V2^, 595 (1983).

[8] Olie, K., Berg, M.v.d., and Hutzinger, 0., Cheraosphere 1_2, 627

(1 983).

[ 9 ] Liberti, A., Goretti, G., and Russo, M.V., Chemosphere j_2, 661

(1 983).

[10] Hollander, H.I., Eller, V.I., Stephenson, J.W., and Kieffer, J.K., ”A

Comprehensive Municipal Refuse Characterization Program,” Ninth ASME

National Waste Processing Conference, Washington, D.C., May 11-

1 4,(1 980).

24
[11] Churney, K.L., Domalski, E.S., Ledford, Jr., A.E., Colbert, J.C.,

Bruce, S.S., Buckley, T.J., Paule, R.C., and Reilly, M.L. "Assessing

the Credibility of the Calorific Value of Municipal Solid Waste",

NBSIR 8M-2825(DoE)

,

U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,

MD, February 1984.

[12] Mandel, J. , and Paule, R.C., "Interlaboratory Evaluation of a Material

with Unequal Numbers of Replicates," Anal. Chera. 1194 (1970) and

Correction, Anal. Chem. 1287 (1971).

[13] Mandel, J. "Repeatability and Reproducibility," Materials Research and

Standards, 1J_ (No. 8), 8 (1971), American Society for Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA.

[14] ASTM Standard Method E456-83a Standard Terminology for Statistical

Methods, approved April 6, 1983.

[15] Dixon, W.J., and Massey, F.J., Jr., "Introduction to Statistical

Analysis," McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1951).

[16] Kendall, M.G., and Buckland, W.R., "A Dictionary of Statistical

Terms," Third Edition, Hafner Publications New York, 1971).

25
6.0 Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided by the

Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility in Cockeysville , MD and the

Greenpoint Incinerator Facility in Brooklyn, NY for allowing us to sample

their municipal solid waste.

Primary financial support for this research program has come from the

Office of Renewable Technology, Biofuels and Municipal Waste Technology

Division, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Supplemental

financial support has also been provided by the City of New York,

Department of Sanitation, Office of Resource Recovery and Waste Disposal

Planning, New York, NY.

26
Appendix Definitions of Statistical Parameters

The definitions given below have been taken from references [14, 15, and

16]. In some cases, minor modifications have been made to definitions so that there might be a closer relatability to the subject matter of this

report

.

Accuracy The closeness of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value.

Average The arithmetic mean or central value of a population; the sum

of all observed values divided by the number of observed

values. If there are n observed values: (X^ + X2

+ X

3

.

. + X^)/n

Coefficient of Variation A measure of relative precision calculated as the standard deviation divided by the average,

(std.dev. )/X

Component of Variance A part of the total variance identified with a specified source of variablity, i.e., withln-day

variability or between-day variability.

Mean A synonym for average.

Precision The closeness of agreement between randomly selected

individual measurements or test results.

Standard Deviation A measure of the dispersion of observed

values or results expressed as the positive square

root of the variance.

[S(X.-x)2/(n-1)]1/2

Standard Deviation of the Mean A measure of the dispersion of observed

means expressed as the positive square

root of the variance

[Z(X^-X)2/(n(n-1))]l/2

Variance Square of the standard deviation.

Z(X.-x)2/(n-1)

27
Wmurn mm

Ml

t>:'

rfiAJ

'4S^I .ui»

'

' X*i

I 'I't

.« „ * ^f‘ )i

... ."''!'"I''¥^^S

S0.¥" ,!j£^d^'-'* ''I'®

IM': m

?,., "1 r .. V/'.' " .V'< ,. , . „

p

<k ^i.::''

S'-’-

I'Stj^'if 4’

:

s6a

ili'l*’" T'^,,

.;»MJ

.tKi' ... i'^...% ,

J'i|p:i5

i'S'CT

i/

iS
Table 1. Average Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained from the

Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility, Cockeysville , MD,

during January, 1983.

Component (Mass /t, As-Received at the Facility)

1) Total Moisture 25.8

2) Paper 43.5

Plastics, soft 3.5

Plastics, hard 2.0

3) Plastics, total 5.5

4) Wood/Vegetable 1.3

5) Textiles 3.2

6) Metal 5.3

7) Glass/Ceramics 4.3

8) "Fines" 11.1
Table 2. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained 10, 11, 12, 19, 21 January 1983 from the Baltimore County Resource Recovery

Facility, Cockeysville, MD.

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average

(Mass56, As-Received1 at the Facility)

1) Total

Moisture 25.9 22.4 34.5 23.5 20.9 25.8

(Mass %, Dry Basis)

2) Paper 50.9 56.9 61 .5 56.6 67.6 58.7

Plastics

,

soft

4.0 2.2 3.0 9.2 5.0 4.7

Plastics

,

hard

3.0 3.0 1 .9 3.6 2.1 2.7

3) Plastics,

total 7.0 5.2 4.9 12.8 7.1 7.4

M) Wood/

vegetable 2.9 2.1 1.0 0.4 1.9 1 .7

5) Textiles 3.6 0.8 0.5 11.7 5.1 4.3

6) Metal 10.9 10.0 7.9 1.1 5.4 7.1

7) Glass/

Ceramics 5.8 10.9 5.8 2.7 3.8 5.8

8) •'Fines" 18.9 14.1 18.4 1 4.7 9.1 15.0

9) Combustible

content 64.4 65.0 67.9 81 .5 81 .7 72.

1

10) Noncombustible

content 35.6 35.0 32.1 18.5 18.3 27.9
Table 3. Processing of Waste Components

Component Initial

Processing

Final Particle

Size Reduction

Blending

Paper — Hammer Mill,

3 mm sieve

Hand mix in

storage bags

Plastic, soft Remove metals,

shear to 20-25 mm

size

SR-3 Mill,

2 mm sieve

dry ice

Vee blend with

intensif ier

Plastic, hard Hammer Mill

1 2mm sieve

do Vee blend without

intensif ier

Wood/Vegetable Remove metals,

shear to 20-25 mm

size

Wiley Mill,

2 mm sieve

dry ice

do

Textiles do do Vee blend with

intensif ier

"Fines" Remove magnetic

metals with

ZM-1 Mill,

2 mm sieve

Vee blend without

intensif ier

magnet
Table

4.

Composition

and

Chlorine

Content

of

Composite

Samples,

O in on VO r- VO CM

a CD CD 1—1 • • • • • • r— S rH

05 3- in CM CM in o • • o a £> O t— o o O E C

LT> 05 0

CD 03 4-5 • 4-5 C

CO o cn on <T> oo o 05 CD o

05 • • • • • XT r— S- 4-5 o

CD <T> in

a on in on • • 05 *rH S <-o t— o o a 03 0

CD

O c

03a ••H E t- E O o • CM on o o rH o CX3 VO • • oo in S- x; 1—1 • • « • CM ir» 43- t— <i-i CQ CD

05 CO on o • • O LO o o •o >» o

CO

<1>

CD CCS c C 'O 0 • -=r •»H CO CO CO 43- • • i-H ,

o E x: CM

05 • • • • VO

B

05 CO

in «

t- o

CD >- CT\O • • CD 05 0 S CO o o 4-5 CD

CD rH

£3

0)

4-> •O 0 O

CD

4-5

CO • CO

/-s rH 03 c

••-4 o on in CM CM VO CM a" CM

a 03 •rl CO 1—1 • • • • • •

V./ 4T E 05

05 cO on CM ^o

Uil« Eoo • • 05 E 0

CQ

>> on o CO

CD - -t

CM

O o 03 rH 0 05

4-5 0

•o

S- Q CO

o5

aE

05 OO

(D

VO OO in• CJv• OO C^H o

on

43- on

4-5 4-5

•rH

O

03H EO

Q CD on on «

o OJ • • O £- S

CO s VO CM 4-5 c

CD o o aE • O 0 a

•o

>> CO

4-5 4-5

O

N 0

4-> CO CO

W h-H 4-5

C s • Oo 0 03 0 3 o o«

CT> oo oo o 00 VO o X rH o (—1 E • • • • • • CD vO ,

4-5 0 3 O 05 CM on CM T— • • 1—1 O

CLJ ^—

C o o CM

O I-H (U CM o •f—1 e O -H 0

S-oe CO o O o VO CM

Vi4 O

iH =r

a

4-5 P t. C 0 O0

•»H 05 • • • • • • Axo

VO f

0 a 1—I

4-5 CD c o CM «

OO • • +5

a (—1 S o C^ ^

o o C E E m O E 0

CQ

4-^ o 03 £3

•1—1

CO CM 0 0 • o« c o 45 O E ,

OO VO in oo C--

a 43- •rH 4-5 •rH t—1 • • • • • • VO ^

X 03

05

uo «

-:q- on on CM • • o -o

O VO CM o O rH 0 Rc-:

x: 03 E ^

O 03 O X5 0 O C

cO •o o 0 • c o Cm

CO LT\ OO VO vO OO OO 0 tO vO

05 • • • • • • VO

a

CD ,

•=r on on T— • • c C 0 S VO CM o o O 0 O 0

•H t- • •rH rH

4-5 0 0 P £3

•rH 5 B •H 0

•* CD CD (D 03 0 0 P

CO CO 1—1

CO c CD c 2a b. o o £3 0) £ •rH rH •rH o bo

R E

••H 4^ .r-4 -O 05 rH 03 tO t- S •rH E O

tO <*H 4-5 SL. 4-5 CD t-~\ o t- 3 O o x:

a

O tCD CO o CO 05 •o CD 4-> C 05 r-5 CD i-H 1—1 O 3 5T O <*rl >> a 05 CO 05 o: o bO X •iH 4-5 x: 4-5 o x:

05 05 1—t <—1 o CD 0) o o 05 cn o Q a a a > H £ H 3: 0 £3 3O

£3

CO rt

4-5 C 03 O 05 C »

T3

<1)

<0 iH3O
Table 5. Residual Moisture Content,

Baltimore County, MD

(Mass $, As-Received Basis

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Composite 4.50 3.49 2.86 2.25 3.30

sample 3.27 3.41 3.65 2.91 2.89

Average 3.89 3.45 3.26 2.58 3.10

Paper 4.75 4.52 3.33 3.64 3.77

4.69 3.44 3.76 3.65 5.12

Average 4.72 3.98 3.55 3.65 4.45

Plastics, soft 0.73 1.65 1 .78 0.98 1.52

1 .29 1 .28 1 .86 1 .27 2.48

Average 1.01 1 .47 1.82 1.13 2.00

Plastics, hard 0.59 0.76 0.41 0.35 0.41

0.29 0.69 1.53 0.25 0.46

Average 0.44 0.73 0.97 0.30 0.44

Wood/vegetable 3.72 4.71 5.20 5.08 6.17

4.84 5.12 4.71 5.06 5.58

Average 4.28 4.92 4.96 5.07 5.88

Textiles 2.70 3.58 3.20 2.61 2.04

3.30 3.28 3.63 2.56 2.62

Average 3.00 3.43 3.42 2.59 2.33

"Fines” 1.55 0.54 0.47 0.54 1.14

1 .38 0.99 0.83 0.68 1 .02

Average 1.47 0.77 0.65 0.61 1 .08

^As-Received Basis as a 2mm particle size sample at the test laboratory.
Table 6. Total Chlorine Content

,

Baltimore County, MD

(Mass /O

Day 1 , 2 3 4 5

Composite 0.51 0.51 0.39 0.48 0.45

Sample 0.70 0.84 0.39 0.42 0.41

0.56 0.50 0.46 0.60 0.34

Average, As-Rec'd® 0.59 0.62 0.41 0.50 0.40

Average, Dry-Basis 0.61 0.64 0.43 0.51 0.41

Paper 0.M1 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.31

0.50 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.34

0.59 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.39

Average, As-Rec*d 0.50 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.35

Average, Dry-Basis 0.52 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.37

Plastics, soft 1.43 1.18 1 .41 0.68 1.64

1.28 1.40 1.12 0.76 1.68

1 .40 1.40 1 .22 0.80 1 .60

Average, As-Rec'd 1.37 1.33 1 .25 0.75 1.61*

Average, Dry-Basis 1.38 1.35 1.27 0.76 1 .67

Plastics, hard 2.45 6.87 1 .78 1 .30 2.51

3.79 7.10 1 .23 1.23 2.25

2.96 6.53 1.31 0.78 2.12

Average, As-Rec*d 3.07 6.83 1.44 1.10 2.29

Average, Dry-Basis 3.08 6.88 1.45 1.11 2.30

Wood/vegetable 0.17 0.08 0.13 0.50 0.54

0.23 0.42 0.21 0.53 0.57

0.19 0.41 0.07 0.48 0.46

Average, As-Rec'd 0.20 0.30 0.14 0.50 0.52

Average, Dry-Basis 0.21 0.32 0.14 0.53 0.56

Textiles 1 .06 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.20

1.09 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.18

1.37 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.17

Average, As-Rec'd 1.17 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.18

Average, Dry-Basis 1 .21 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.19

"Fines" 0.27 0.22 0.17 0.36 0.39

0.25 0.19 0.24 0.37 0.32

0.29 0.19 0.32 0.34 0.26

Average, As-Rec'd 0.27 0.20 0.24 0.36 0.32

Average, Dry-Basis 0.27 0.20 0.25 0.36 0.33

^Average, As-Received as a 2tnm particle size sample at the test

laboratory.
Table 7 Water Soluble Chlorine Content

Baltimore County, MD

(Mass %)

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Composite 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.04

Sample 0.22 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.12

0.17 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.13

Average, As-Rec*d^ 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.10

Average, Dry Basis 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.10

Paper 0.19 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.11

0.17 0.02 0 . i 6 0.19 0.13

0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.11

Average, As-Rec*d® 0.17 0.11 oTTF 0.18 0.12

Average, Dry Basis 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.19 0.1 2

Plastics, soft 0.08 •’ 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.09

0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10

0.09 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.11

Average, As-Rec*d^ 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10

Average, Dry Basis 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10

Plastics, hard 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

Average, As-Rec'd^ 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

Average, Dry Basis 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

Wood/vegetable 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.26

0.09 0.20 0.13 0.40 0.25

0.10 0.30 0.14 0.43 0.27

Average, As-Rec’d^ 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.38

Average, Dry Basis 0.11 0.23 0.15 0.40 0.28

Textiles 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.10

0.16 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.10

0.14 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.07

Average, As-Rec’d^ 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.09

Average, Dry Basis 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.09

’•Fines” 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.10

0.09 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.10

0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09

Average, As-Rec'd^ 0.07 0.05 oTP” 0.06 0.10

Average , Dry Basis 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.10

^Average, As-Received as a 2mra particle size sample at the test

laboratory

.
Table 8. Sulfur Content of Composite Samples,

Baltimore County, MD

(Mass %)

Day 1 2 3 5 Average

Sample 1 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.17

Sample 2 0.17 O.U 0.06 0.1M 0.22

Sample 3 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.14

Average,

As-Rec’d^ 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.13

Average,

Dry Basis 0.19 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.13

^Average, As-Received as a 2mm particle size sample at the test

laboratory

.
Table 9. Variability of Total Chlorine Content,

Baltimore County, MD

Average Std.a

Dev.

% Wlthin^Day Between-Day

(Mass Dry Basis) ($ C.V.b) i% C.V.)

Composite

Sample

0.52 .05 21 16

Paper 0.H3 .03 13 12

Plastics, soft 1 .29 .15 8 25

Plastics, hard 2.96 1 .04 13 78

Wood/vegetable 0.35 .08 28 51

Textiles 0.46 .19 19 92

"Fines” 0.28 .03 16 21

^ Standard deviation of the day averages.

^ Coefficient of variation; standard deviation divided by the average
Table 10. Variability of Water Soluble Chlorine Content,

Baltimore County, MD

Average

,

% Std.a

Dev.

Within-Day Between-D

(Mass Dry Basis) {% C.V.) C.V.)

Composite

sample

0.13 .01 35 16

Paper 0.15 .02 23 20

Plastics, soft 0.09 .01 11 16

Plastics, hard 0.01 .002 50 35

Wood/ vegetable 0.23 .05 18 48

Textiles 0.13 .01 8 21

"Fines" 0.06 .01 20 35

a Standard deviation of the day averages
Table

11.

Summary

of

Total

Chlorine,

Water

Soluble

Chlorine,

and

Water

Insoluble

Chlorine

Contents,

Baltimore

County,

MD

<DbO

(0

t.

0)><

C\J m

in LO

c\j

ro

•=r o ir> LT* m VO

o^

CM t— ro

Ov

VO

CTv

C\J o o

o

ir> m

O t~- CO

vD CO

VO

:a' O 00 CM m VO

00

CM on 0-

CM

un o .=r vo

CM c—

COo m t- m vo

VO

VD .=T CTi

Om

CM o o

o

vo

irv o o o m in

ovo t~- on

=t m

mono o o

on t~-

LOo o o CM 00

ir> O CM oo ^ m

vO

0-o on 0- oo

os

as

onm

ir> m 0- CM

onO 00 CM ir in

voon

• on O »- 00

on

on

<o o o on 0-

CM

:=r O CO CM on vo

CM

T— vo ^Os

in

T- CJV OS

• o o o o

o

on

CO O o ^ vo

mCMO vo ^ T- oo

CM voo cr> oo

o

O GO CM

CM

mon.-mmOs00

00

• vo O oo

CMon

• CM oo O CM

0-

CMo -=r vom

o

CMo m m CM tvoo o o on

CMm

o m m on vo

ooon

on

os

COo

on o o

o

CM

» CM OO o m =!•

CM on t~- T- ooCM

Cl so ST

CM 0-

m CO 00 CO CO CO (0

•rH •H •iH •rH •iH .fH •rH CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

05 05 05 CO 05 CO 05 JQ X5 X5 X) Xi X) 43

>> >> >. >> >. >» >.

t. •o rH TO

t. TO •o •o

05 »—

1

rH r—

1

rH rH

4-> 05 * 05 ... 05 05 .. CO .. rH VI <—

1

o 1—1 40 40 40 40 40 W. 03 05 05 o I—

1

o t—

1

o f—

1

o rH O 1—

1

40

CO 4J \ CO 40 40 CO 05 40 CO 05 40 CO 05 40 <0 05 40 CO CO o

CO OjO CO o CO 40 CO 40 CO 40 CO 40 \ CO 40 40

05 4J • 05 40 « 05 o • CO o • 05 O • CO o • 05 O

B \ rH e rH E 40 rH s 40 #H £ 40 rH E 40 rH e 40 . 05 o • o o o o o rH

•v • CO .. rH CO .. • CO • CO . CO .. . (0 .. . o

rH r—

i

c I—

1

o c 1—

1

rH c t—

1

rH c rH rH c rH rH c 1—

t

fH CO

05 o H-( 05 CO •tH 05 o •1—1 05 o •fH 05 o .H 05 o •*H 05 o c

jJ CO 4J 40 CO 40 CO 40 CO 40 CO 40 CO o • • o • • O • • O . • O • • O • • O . • 5 3 40 40 5 40 :* 5 40 3 40 5 5 40 5

x:oo

3

i-H o

tn

t-

(U o

053

40 • 05 "H 05 CO CO rH CO CO fH o o X5 05 - O O- •t-4 40 •H T3 03 f—

t

<n cx e s- 40 Ci-t 40 L 40 •rH Q) S CO 05 CO o CO 03 T3 05 40 c

>. O CO a 03 CO 03 x: o bO X •rH 03 o cO 1—

1

r—

1

o 05 05 Ou Q D-f a. CX > f-r z

5

O

.insol.-

water

insoluble

chlorine,

%

=

(total

chlorine)-

(water

soluble

chlorine)
Table

12.

Amount

of

Chlorine

Contributed

by

MSW

Components,

Baltimore

County,

MD

03 • on o VO CO o o o on on 0- on o o Or- > CD VO o CM X ov o o in VO b- X— o o on o Or0) bO o t— on o o o o o on O o o o o o oo Q cO o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o oo • CD o o o o o o o o o (D CD o CD o o oo *0 >

CO

CD in on in CJV o o CM in OO 43“ o on VO o CDCDV bO in in oo o T— o o r=r in oo o o o o o oo

03 CM o o o O o o o •=r o o o o o o oo o CD o o O o o o o CD o o o o o oo < o =r 00 o o o o on in o in in o OCTv

in ooX— r— o o on on 00 o o o o o oo

CM o o o o o o o O o o o o o oo

in o o o CD o o o o o

CDc

CD o o d

dd oo

CO in o o CM o o on t- •*H OO CTi o CM 00 o ocyv

•iH in

O on o o in in o£O

O

O o o o oo

CO CMO oo oo OO o

CD oo oo oo o CD

OO od oo oo oooo

oo

>>

CD

CD

Q c 00 CO oo X— CM o o VO on 00 CM o CM o oc^

»rH in on CM o o o o t- C3V

O o o o o oo •k s. CM o O o o o o o on O O o o o o oo m o

(0 rH

o: o o o o o o o o o CO

O CD o d o o oo

CO

03 s: o

r~i oo o vO CM o o CO

S-CD on CM o in o o^-

CCJ CM on

O o o o o CM o Cfi VOO o o o o oo

CM

4-J o

Ovl o CM o o o o o in o O o o o o oo O o O o o o o o o o O o o o o oo

in in CM VO o o on CM 43“ o on VO o oon

VO in o :=r o o in

— CTv o o o o o OrCM o O o o o o o in o o o o o o oo o o o CD o o o o o o CD o o o d oo

4->

a CD to 4-> •a CD CO

<i-i t- 1—1 o <4-1 t- 1—1 O o cO £) •^ o tO n •H

CO x: CO E to x: to

B

(0 to

CD

L tD

u

CO CO bO (0 (D to to bO CO 0) o o CD CD O c o o CD (D OS

•rH > 1—i \ CO •rH •rH > rH CO

L

n 4-> •1—1r-H to CD (—1 t- 4-> 4-> •1—1 rH to CD

CD (0 CO TD -u (C3 to c (0 CD CO to TD 03 CO

C

a (0 (0

O

X 4-> (0 •i-H 4->

a (0 to

O

X (C3 *rH c« CO 1—1 i-H O <D 0) 1—1

Du o to 1—1 1—1 o CD <D «H Cx-i

Q cu cv. 0, :s s o £ H Ou cu a. :s

H X. o=

Total

0.118

0.078

0.110

0.146

0.105

0.110

0.0085^
0) a

(U>

<D 4-> 03 <C <T> VO <03 ID 0 0 on 03 <0 Q C3> 0 CM 0 <53 0 0 ID 03 3 * 03 0 ,

on 0 0 0 0 0 on bO <4-1 03 • x: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 0 T3

4->

X) 4-3 • • • • • • • • • C

C 4-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03

€ <0

(U 00 > 3 C 0 <0 03 03 a 03 03 c

•fH f= x: x: X. o 4D D 0 o rH

03 on ^

on CM on 0 0 on 43- 0-1 <t-l x: bO CD LTi 00 0 0 0 on 0 0 0

CO cO T— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on

2: X, • • • • • • • • • 03

D rH

03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 <0 >. > 0 0 D

£) <c iH t. 0

4D 4D

T3 <0 03

03 cr> o> <X3 vD ID 0 0 00 t- 03 VD t- =r 0 0 0 0 CM CM > CO x: 3 ^

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on 03 3 4-3 n ITi • • • • • • • • • TO cr

•rH CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 tc. TO • 0

t. 0) 03 <*H c y—s CO > xo 0 0) t 0 0 <03 0 0 TO a D 03 • 0 •rH -=r VD •=j- 0 0 0 •=r T— c 03 03

03 t— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on CO cO 03 bO 4-3 03 (U

CJ) • 4-3 t. cO

C

C PQ 0 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 0 03 c CO £- 03

•rH 03

g 03

C

t- >> 03 3 03 > 0 0 £- x: rH D CO D.

f—1 Q 0 VD GO r— r— 0 0 <03 CO

D 0 C s

x: MD on CM 0 0 0 0 ro vD 0 03 03 0 0 t— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CM 4-3 x: 0

on

03 0 03

C 4-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 x: 0 rH 0 CO 1 03 D C3 <41 CO >! 03 * * 03 0 3

4-3 tfl tC 03 T3 c s

*-• 03 ID 00 VD CM

V 0 0 ro <0 •*H

C 03 tH 3 >> VO CM 0 0 0 0 0 CM CM 3 •rH C > 0 4-> 03 T— 0 CM 0 0 0 0 0 •=r cr TO t. 0 **H s C CM • 03 03 0 •rH *0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D rH 4J C 0 <t-l 03 x: CO -r-4 0 0 •fH CD fH 1—t > X T3 C3 on CM on CO 0 0 00 ID 03 03 0

03 S~ C-- LO 03 0 on 0 0 on C03 3 rH •0 <41 3 0 T

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on 03 CC3 D C s 2: 3 •0 03

•1—4 rH 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 03 rH

X 03 40 4-3 .C <1-. 0 <0 3 c »H 0 03 TD rH 0 tt c C <0 0 OQ <i-i D •H <0 > 0 c 4J

03 t- 03 03

J-> c 03 c • 0 a

4-> 03 -rH CM D •0 03 03 0 <0 x: X S CiH t- rH 0 L. R 3 D 0 0 OJ D •fH 0 rH

03 03 x: cfl

B 03 C3 <x. jr

f—

H

D <0 t- 0 0 C3 JD •• 03 t- CO x: <x

03 03 bO 03 03

D 0 03 03 t- 0 0 03 03 0 cr CO 03 CD rH

•fH •r—1 > iH \ 03 CO 03 03

X

D

iD 4-^ •r4 03 03 rH 3 <0 3

03 03 CO •0

D <0 (0

C <0 03 t- rH 3 rH

>, Q. cO CO 0 X

D CO

D x: 0 <0 cr 0

CO 03 •—1 rH 0 0) 03 Cb 0 H <i-i >• 03 03 Q Pu Qu (X S H s 0 S E- cfl D

Note :

Conversion

from a

dry

basis

to

an

as-received

basis

at

the

facility

can

be

made

multiplying

the

mass

%,

dry

basis

in

table

12

by

(100- %

total

moisture

(table

2))/l00

for

daily

or

average

values.

For

example,

the

average

total

chlorine

content

is

0.^155

mass

t,

dry

basis;

(0.^55) (1

00-25.

8)/1

00=

0.338

or

0.3^

mass

%,

as-received

at

the

facility.
^ . no <v o 7

0? ° O O ^ O „ o -T « ' » ^ S» e

-, o> 0» <y/ d[

M

X

w* 1 g

w

»* 'l » ” * s.

-\Ti » ft tt

cr ^ jA S

i£,»S5j?“

it- . (ft.A vk4, l» I

*r% S I II3 3

s*r I sf o o o f o ^ <& - i n so 1

00 'o • • o • . €>

b >7] • '*.\i 3

-V «7 ^** j \> ’•I

Jill '# %jti* i

f-

:; *'• *•
Table 13. Calculated Percent of Chlorine Contributed by Components of

Baltimore County MSW to Chlorine Content

(Percent of sum of components for each day, dry initial

composition)

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Total Chlorine Content

Paper, total 51 46 69 56 58 56

Plastics, soft 11 6 10 15 19 12

Plastics, hard 18 41 8 9 11 18

Plastics, total 29 47 18 24 30 30

Wood/Vegetable 1 1 0 0 3 1

Textiles 9 0 1 8 2 4

’’Fines” 10 6 12 12 7 9

Water Soluble Chlorine Content

Paper, total 78 81 89 74 77 80

Plastics, soft 3 3 2 6 5 4

Plastics, hard 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plastics, total 3 3 2 6 5 4

Wood/Vegetable 3 6 2 1 5 3

Textiles 5 1 1 12 5 5

’’Fines” 1

1

9 6 6 8 8

Water Insoluble Chlorine Content

Paper , total 43 39 61 47 51 47

Plastics, soft 13 7 14 20 24 15

Plastics, hard 23 49 10 13 15 24

Plastics, total 36 56 24 33 39 39

Wood/Vegetable 1 0 0 0 2 0

Textiles 10 0 0 6 2

’’Fines” 10 5 15 1 4 6 10
Table 14. Average Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained from the

Greenpoint Incinerator Facility, Brooklyn, NY, during January

1984 (Mass As-Received at the Facility)

Component

1) Total Moisture

Paper, unbleached

Paper, bleached

2) Paper, total

Plastics, soft

Plastics, hard

3) Plastics, total

4) Wood/Vegetable

5) Textiles

6) Metal

7) Glass/Ceramics

8) "Fines"

(Mass As-Received at the Facility)

16.0

35.7

3.9

39.6

2.9

6.6

9.5

6.1

1.9

8.1

15.5

3.3
Table 15. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Obtained 30 January 1984

3 February 1984 from the Greenpoint Incinerator, Brooklyn, NY

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average

(Mass As-Received at the Facility)

1) Total Moisture 16.6 18.4 15.3 15.8 13.9 16.0

Paper

,

unbleached 46.0

(Mass %,

43.7

Dry Basis)

44.3 40.7 37.7 42.5

Paper

,

bleached 4.7 3.0 6.2 5.0 4.3 4.6

2) Paper, total 50.7 46.7 50.5 45.7 42.0 47.1

Plastics, soft 2.3 4.6 3.4 5.1 1.5 3.4

Plastics, hard 6.9 7.2 5.9 8.9 10.6 7.9

3) Plastics,

total 9.2 11.8 9.3 14.0 12.1 11.3

4) Wood/Vegetable 5.9 7.0 8.1 8.1 6.9 7.2

5) Textiles 3.0 1.7 2.1 3.1 1.8 2.3

6) Metals 7.4 11.3 11.9 6.9 10.9 9.7

7) Glass/Ceramics 15.3 18.7 15.9 17.3 25.4 18.5

8) "Fines" 8.5 2.8 2.2 4.9 0.9 3.9

9) Combustible

content 68.8 67.2 70.0 70.9 62.8 67.9

10) Noncombustible

content 31 .2 32.8 30.0 29.1 37.2 32.

1
e

CvJ oX . X o CO OO =r VO GO 00 m on CD 1—1 • m • • • • • • • CO

03 CTi vO CvJ VO o CvJ t

o CO o m r

»— CDO

in

O • c^ CM X

CO ^l>- in in vO

O on •=r O.

CO0) f—1

o.

03 • • • • • • • • • 03 (» vO CJ c- o on ,— ,— o CD S in 3~ X

CD • B

CT5 (/) GO vO S COE X 03 O vO OO c- t- r— LO vD —

(D • • • • • • • • • h

03 CO vO vO T— o =3- LO

O o X

O in 1

r

S CvJ CO

33- CO cx • CO

0)

-1

on tX 4-3 10 VO CO C73 c^ o .=r — \o — C 3 cQ

OS • • • • • • • • • CD

O

O 03 CO in in CvJ C-- rn o o C

X S 03 in f

k-JU B

O 03 o 1—1

O.E C

<0 <0

X.E CO O 03 • 03 CD

4-3 vD CM

O S c

0) (0 o

f—1

cn vO• t-• CvJ• Cvj• • o• CTv• X3 CD 03 03 r— CO OO OJ on •r-4 COo

o.s o o CD i-H 4-J coo

NY

CO

03 CQ

O

CO

4-3 •fH COo

VO

X

X

03 E X 03

03

m o c

>>r CO o.E , , OO CO t- c^ 0^ o CvJ OO

:=r

X

CD CD >> 03 o • • • • • • • r. . '*7* • • CO X 1—1

(—

J

03 o 03 CO CO OO o C\J ’fH

/••v o o tH

Q S in T— o E m

rH

x:u ooL

CQ CO oc

4-> C

CD o o X X

<*H So

•o

CO o o

(30 VO CO o •=T o C

in vO

OO •o o

CD

03

r-H CO

4-> •iH • CO 33- vO o o C\J -=T oo o o C 00

•rH • CO

•rH o

C\J

COo

Q.EO

VO

CDc

•p in D- E >3 X 03

CDX

X

CDX

CO 10

O 03 CO VO VO OJ V-/ VO T—

X

O

03 • • • • • • • rH • • 03

CJCL

<—

03 2: VO

vO o <73 CO o o o CD CD rH cOO n GO X cx E O

cc3 CO CO • in t

O C73 vO ON o CO MO CO o • • • • • • • m • CD 03 f—i

03 vO CO OO C-- on Cv) o X S

03 in 1

•iH

Fable

O CO r-H - O 03 X X E O

03 vO •=r

O f- • o in o o m GO C\J O cy\ o

CO • • • • • • • • • 03 CT> VO CO CJ3 t- on CvJ o <4H • 03 in <— O CD 2: N C -rH O CO

•«H o CD CD X CD

03 •• 03C CDC ••H

r

—1 •o CO CO t—1 CO •1—1

i-H •rH (0 o o 03 o o -o X) (D X X X O -4

03 « x: •rH 4-3

X 03 rH CO o 3 o X

X

L 03

X o 4-3 4-3 ^ 4-3 •iH CD rH 1—4 S- 1—1 rH E X

03 r-H 03 03 CO

O CO

X •o 03 -P

C 03

X CD o X

O o5 Q. O cx 03 03 CO 03 O t30 X 4-3 O 4-> CO o O X

03 03

C CC3 1—1 1—1 r-H

O CD CD Ci-i o CO

Q Ou 3 CU X) Q- a- IS > H c t- :s cO

Composition

of

composite

sample

calculated

from

data

in

table

15,

and

chlorine

content

calculated
Table 17. Residual Moisture Content

Brooklyn, NY

(Mass As-Received Basis)^

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Composite M.39 4.11 4.28 4.09 4.27

sample 3.99 3.79 3.89 3.78 4.31

Average 11.19 3.95 4.09 3.94 4.29

Paper

,

3.90 4.01 4.85 5.75

unbleached 5.62 4.25 3.89 4.53 5.21

Average 5.03 4.08 3.95 4.69 5.48

Paper

,

H.17 2.13 4.07 3.92 4.75

bleached 5.01 3.91 4.05 4.00 4.31

Average 4.59 3.02 4.06 3.91 4.53

Plastics, soft 1.83 1 .76 2.03 1.45 2.10

2.29 1 .76 2.03 1 .22 1 .69

Average 2.06 1.76 2.03 1 .34 1.90

Plastics, hard 2.37 0.87 0.59 1 .03 0.85

1.17 0.65 0.54 0.98 0.88

Average 1.77 0.76 0.57 1 .01 0.87

Wood/Vegetable 5.09 5.40 5.42 7.26 4.95

4.57 5.91 5.25 8.77 5.62

Average 4.83 5.66 5.34 8.02 5.29

Textiles 2.87 3.36 1.68 1.88 0.43

2.82 2.62 2.65 2.03 0.59

Average 2.85 2.99 2.17 1.96 0.51

"Fines” 1.99 2.24 2.92 2.61 4.35

2.01 2.60 2.52 2.28 4.62

Average 2.00 2.42 2.72 2.45 4.49

^As-Received Basi s as a 2 mm particle size sample at the test laboratory
Table 18. Total Chlorine Content,

Brooklyn , NY

(Mass %)

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Composite 1 .91 0.59 0.82 0.63 1.38

sample 1.91 0.51 0.85 0.62 1.15

2.10 0.77 0.68 0.57 1 .39

Average, As Rec*d^ 1.97 0.62 0.78 0.61 1.31

Average, Dry Basis 2.06 0.65 0.82 0.63 1.37

Paper

,

1.07 0.27 0.05 0.36 0.73

unbleached 1 .01 0.38 0.25 0.28 0.70

0.82 0.25 0.20 0.27 0.40

Average, As Rec’d^ 0.97 0.30 0.17 0.30 0.61

Average , Dry Basis 1 .02 0.31 0.17 0.32 0.65

Paper

,

0.17 0.48 0.22 0.17 0.40

bleached 0.28 0.32 0.26 0.28 0.41

0.16 0.38 0.21 0.16 0.42

Average, As Rec’d^ 0.20 0.39 0.23 0.20 0.41

Average, Dry Basis 0.21 0.41 0.24 0.21 0.43

Plastics ,soft 3.00 3.21 7.99 1 .79 1 .78

3.12 2.76 7.64 1.97 1.86

3.26 3.12 8.34 1 .96 1 .65

Average, As Rec’d® 3.13 3.03 7.99 1 .91 1 .76

Average, Dry Basis 3.19 3.08 8.16 1.93 1.80

Plastics, hard 7.16 1 .51 5.15 1.35 6.21

7.95 1.60 3.91 1 .61 4.66

7.95 1 .53 3.52 1 .77 6.42

Average, As Rec'd^ 7.69 1 .55 4.19 1.58 5.76

Average, Dry Basis 7.83 1 .56 4.22 1 .59 5.81

Wood/vegetable 1.16 0.42 2.77 0.50 0.21

1.13 0.51 0.25 0.57 0.77

1 .22 0.19 0.62 0.58 0.15

Average, As Rec'd^ 1.17 0.37 1 .21 0.55

Average, Dry Basis 1 .23 0.40 1 .28 0.60 0.40
Table 18. (Continued) Total Chlorine Content

Brooklyn, NY

(Mass %)

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Textiles 0.79 0.68 0.25 1 .75 0.22

0.67 0.55 0.17 1.95 0.19

0.73 0.59 0.26 1 .93 0.19

Average, As Rec’d^ 0.73 0.61 0.23 1.88 0.20

Average, Dry Basis 0.75 0.63 0.23 1.91 0.20

"Fines" 6.09 0.51 0.40 0.61 1 .70

8.03 0.47 0.39 0.55 1 .69

6.19 0.49 0.42 0.60 1 .54

Average, As Rec’d^ 6.77 0.49 0.40 0.59 1 .64

Average , Dry Basis 6.91 0.50 0.41 0.60 1.72

^Average As-Received as a 2mm particle size sample at the test

laboratory

.
Table 19. Water Soluble Chlorine Content,

Brooklyn , NY

(Mass %)

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Composite 0.98 0.10 0.18 0.17 0.43

sample 0.59 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.31

1.13 0.19 0.11 0.17 0.42

Average, As-Rec*d^ 0.90 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.39

Average, Dry Basis 0.9^ 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.40

Paper , 0.76 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.50

unbleached 0.92 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.32

0.62 0.20 0.08 0.13 0.36

Average, As-Rec'd^ 0.77 0.17 0.08 0.14 0.39

Average, Dry Basis 0.81 0.17 0.08 0.15 0.42

Paper

,

0.08 0.23 0.09 0.09 0.29

bleached 0.08 0.22 0.06 0.08 0.30

0.04 0.23 0.08 0.08 0.29

Average, As-Rec’d^ 0.07 0.23 0.08 0.08 0.29

Average, Dry Basis 0.07 0.23 0.08 0.09 0.31

Plastics, soft 0.42 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.18

0.30 0.18 0.13 0.1 6 0.24

0.37 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.26

Average, As-Rec'd^ 0.36 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.23

Average, Dry Basis 0.37 0.19 0.13 0.18 0.23

Plastics, hard 0.31 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.05

0.43 0.09 0,03 0.03 0.05

0.47 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.05

Average, As-Rec’d^ 0.40 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.05

Average, Dry Basis 0.41 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.05

Wood/ vegetable 0.59 0.26 0.16 0.25 0.30

0.59 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.31

0.33 0.16 0.29 0.22 0.48

Average, As-Rec*d^ 0.50 0.23 0.23 0.23

Average, Dry Basis 0.53 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.38
Table 19 (Continued) Water Soluble Chlorine Content,

Brooklyn, NY

(Mass %)

Day 1 2 3 4 5

Textiles 0.65 0.42 0.20 0.27 0.09

0.60 0.33 0.13 0.26 0.09

0.34 0.32 0.13 0.22 0.03

Average, As-Rec*d^ 0.53 0.36 0.15 0.25 0.07

Average, Dry Basis 0.55 0.37 0.16 0.25 0.07

"Fines" 0.65 0.25 0.27 0.53 1 .50

0.33 0.41 0.32 0.32 0.40

1.33 0.50 0.39 0.22 0.78

Average, As-Rec*d^ 0.77 0.39 0.33 o7^

Average, Dry Basis 0.79 0.40 0.34 0.37 0.93

^Average As-Received as a 2mm particle size sample at the test laboratory
Table 20. Sulfur Content of Composite Samples,

Brooklyn, NY

(Mass)

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sample 1 0.18 0.06 0.18 0.12 0.12

Sample 2 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.05

Sample 3 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.05 0.12

Average,

As-Rec’d^ 0.22 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.10 0.14

Average,

Dry Basis 0.23 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.14

^Average As-Received as a 2mm particle size sample at the test laboratory.
Table 21. Variability of Total Chlorine Content,

Brooklyn, NY

Average Std.a

Dev.

Within-Day Between-Day

(Mass Dry Basis) {% c.v.t)) i% C.V.)

Composite

sample

1.11 0.27 10 55

Paper

,

unbleached

0.H9 0.15 24 69

Paper

,

bleached

0.30 0.05 19 35

Plastics

,

soft

3.63 1.17 6 72

Plastics

,

hard

4.20 1 .22 15 64

Wood/

vegetable

0.78

(0.62)

0.20

(0.16)

81 (31)

32

(52)

Textiles 0.74 0.31 9 94

"Fines" 2.03 1 .24 24 136

a

b

Standard deviation of the day averages.

Coefficient of variation: standard deviation divided by the average.
Table 22. Variability of Water Soluble Chlorine Content,

Brooklyn, NY

Average Std. Dev. Within-Day Between-Day

(Mass Dry Basis) ($ C.V.) (56 C.V.)

Composite

sample

0.36 0.15 43 91

Paper

unbleached

0.33 0.13 25 90

Paper

bleached

0.16 0.0M8 8 68

Plastics

,

soft

0.22 0.041 15 40

Plastics

,

hard

0.12 0.074 32 136

Wood/

vegetable

0.33 0.057 28 35

Textiles 0.28 0.084 30 65

"Fines" 0.57 0.12 62 32

^ Standard deviation of the day averages.
Table

23.

Summary

of

Total

Chlorine,

Water

Soluble

Chlorine,

and

Water

Insoluble

Chlorine

Contents,

Brooklyn,

NY

0) <J\ o on o OO .=3“ on

bO .=T on vo CM o

(0 • • • • • • • • L T- T- O (ON o C-- on on OO CM ^ on c^ o CM OO O CM 00 CM OO CM

(U CM tn -(S' .=r in C3N CON in .=r in in .=r ><

LTV OO '•O on o =r CO CO o=r o

(\j CM

ON

CM t- o mVO

toon

O CM CO

CM on LO cjN oo CJN o LO in

C7N o to in on VO ^ vO

to ^

to

on

vD• o on

CM

CMono 0- on

=r LO

CMo on 0-

=r to

on

(ON

CJN

CJN

C3N LO on c^ON oVOO CM OO

=T ITl

ON on

00 ovoO CM OOvo on

CM OO• o 0- on

OO

0-O t- CM ^ in

•=r CMo on c^ on vovo

CO CM OO

C7N

CM

CM=3-0 0O

OO

CM

(ON r- OO

on

CMo o o

i>- on

=ro on 0-

oo on

in OO vo o on o vo on .=T o in vo in . • • • • • • • o vo =r o in m O v£> :I3- on vo ^ T- in in o o o O CTN o o o

CM in :=r (ON ON vo .=r in -a" OO CM

vO CM C7N cn tn in O O CM .— CO CM CTn • • . • • • • • CM vo .=r ^ C0\ .— O cn t- cn CM OO in in .— cn b- o cn l>- VO ON

:r in >- CM cn vo OO CJN 43- in b- CM y— CO

CO CO CO CO co CO to to

•iH •rH •iH •H •fH •r^ •iH 0) n CO CO CO CO to to CO c

cO CO CO cO CO to CO cO •rH JO n JO JO JO JO JO JO t,

/“S >, >> >, >, >. >, >. >. rH

t. £- t, t.

L t. £- JO

•o 1—1 TO T3 •o T3 •o T3 •o o

(0 fH iH I—1 1—1

4-> 1—1

fH .. CO cO .. CO cO * fH d) 1—1 o CO Vi. 1—1

CO 43 %*l 43 43 43 to 1—1

CO 4-> 1—1

43 cO 43 iH o fH o 1—1 O 1—1 O fH 43 JO

CO 4.3 CO CO

O CO 43

O CO cO 43 CO to 43 to to 43 (0 to 43 CO CtJO 3

CO on CO 4-> 4-) CO o 43 CO 43 CO 43 to 43 \ CO 43 CO 4-> 43 1—1

CO 4J • CO o CO 43 (0 o • CO o . to

O • cO o . COO

O s \ rH B 43 . E \ • E 43 rH E 43 1—1 E 43 rH E 43 fH E 4-> • CO

CO o \ 1—1

CO rH o o o o fH • CO « t o • o .. • CO .* • to • CO « • to « • o t_ fH i-H c 1—1

i-H CO fH rH CO fH iH c 1—1

rH c fH rH c f—1 1—1 c 1—1

rH (0 (U CO o •f-H CO o c cO o c CO o CO o *.—(

to o to o to o c 43

CO 4J CO •r4 43 CO ••H 43 CO 43 CO 43 CO 43 CO 43 CO •rH (0 o • • o • . O • • O • • o • . o • • o . • o • • 5

4J 3 3 4-> 3 3 43 3 3 43 3 3 43 3 3 43 3 3 43 3 3 43 3 3

II •o

(1> CD 43 0) JO

•f-c fH o

CO O. cO O S S- o

O, CO 0) fH >> E (0 Q. JO

cO

O cO

C

Q o IX 3

•a CO CO

CD o o n 43 •iH •o

S- o 43 Cw 43 td) CO CO o to to a CD CO to CO JO

to f—1

iH f—1

a. JO a. o.

CD fH CO JO CD c

to 1—1CO \ 43 •fH (D O CD 43 C O bO X O CD CD Cju 13 > E- z O

ff) 3 3

(0

.insol.-

water

insoluble

chlorine, %=

(total

chlorine)-

(water

soluble

chlorine)
Table 24. Amount of Chlorine Contributed by MSW Components, Brooklyn, NY

(Mass Dry Basis)

Std. Dev.

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average Average

Paper

,

unbleached 0.469

Total Chlorine

0.135 0.075 0.130 0.245 0.21

1

0.0702

Paper

,

bleached 0.010 0.01 2 0.015 0.01

1

0.018 0.01 3 0.0015

Plastics, soft 0.073 0.1 42 0.277 0.098 0.027 0.123 0.0427

Plastics, hard 0.540 0.112 0.249 0.142 0.61 6 0.332 0.1038

Wood/Vegetable 0.073 0.028 0.104 0.049 0.028 0.056 0.0145

Textiles 0.023 0.01

1

0.005 0.059 0.004 0.020 0.0102

Metal 0.000 0.000 00.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

Glass/Ceramics 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

"Fines" 0.587 0.014 0.009 0.029 0.015 0.131 0.1141

Total 1.775 0.454 0.734 0.518 0.953 0.886 0.1 757^

Pa per

,

unbleached 0.373

Water

0.074

Soluble

0.035

Chlorine

0.061 0.158 0.140 0.0618

Paper,

bleached 0.003 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.01 3 0.007 0.0017

Plastics, soft 0.009 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.003 0.007 0.0014

Plastics, hard 0.028 0.006 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.009 0.0049

Wood/Vegetable 0.031 0.017 0.019 0.020 0.026 0.023 0.0026

Textiles 0.017 0.006 0.003 0.008 0.001 0.007 0.0028

Metal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

Glass/Ceramics 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

"Fines" 0.067 0.011 0.007 0.018 0.008 0.022 0.01 14

Total 0.528 0.130 0.074 0.125 0.21 4 0.215 0.0632a
Table 24. (Continued) Amount of Chlorine Contributed by MSW Components,

Brooklyn, NY

(Mass ?, Dry Basis)

Std. Dev.

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average of the Average

Water Insoluble Chlorine

Paper

,

unbleached 0.096 0.061 0.040 0.069 0.087 0.071 0.0935

Paper

,

bleached 0.007 0.005 0.010 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.0023

Plastics, soft 0.064 0.133 0.273 0.089 0.024 0.117 0.0427

Plastics, hard 0.512 0.106 0.248 0.138 0.61

1

0.323 0.1039

Wood/Vegetable 0.042 0.011 0.085 0.029 0.002 0.034 0.0147

Textile 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.051 0.003 0.013 0.0106

Metal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

Glass/Ceramics 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

"Fines" 0.520 0.003 0.002 0.01

1

0.007 0.109 0.1 1 47

Total 1.247 0.324 0.660 0.393 0.739 0.674 0.1867*^

^The square root of the sum of squares of the standard deviations of the averages

for each component of MSW listed in the column above.

'^Values for water insoluble chlorine contents are the square root of the sum of

squares of the standard deviations of the averages for the total chlorine and water

soluble chlorine values for individual components.

Note ; Conversion from a dry basis to an as-received basis at the facility can be

made by multiplying the mass % dry basis in table 12 by (100 - $ total moisture

(table 15))/100 for daily or average values. For example, the average total

chlorine content is 0.886 mass %, dry basis; (0.886) ( 1 00-1 6.0)/1 00 = 0.744 or 0.74

mass as received at the facility.
"-:;•?¥ -.-^Sy ' k&

' "'•a- t9mit^imO C&«t?iti4noD)

ta ^ W\rt^XJio6'ia,

std.- 0<|v,1

1 'leiW 'Semfr^r: 5 *v«^»* ^

Tb^Ai Chliirine

« '^lnl^lA|%w8l®I ®-f ’

Q

^FTo,o s> M\? cW'.*^ » W.y »p(?Af |-

«-®' J

^ 6.<to»*}ifi

o

‘

o? j -

q.»1e ao. m^ crow 0 . 027 ^ 6'. 4 h

^ W2 V.H «^Vi m

'®. *» sfM w

m ^j^p? v,^

Bia m « w

T4> m .iPfeft w, V:i^

doro.o ./(o-o

4f , ti^ It • ''.-A

fse/0

#10^, 0.

TOO,©

(?.'44|i *i| U.WT>f^

,,' ^ - —<

, fljtfo. !>V)9VV

•

• tl

0©00^0

I!±L2

iii» ^•*. '

'

^4 :

000.0

OQO.O

(^© r.Q

>» rd.G —tOO^O ff0.0 SOO.O £00.0 os?.o *— —T»^ saxirmt trni^um «

Sf.'-P l?VA m V.W, ^olV4 | o.r«oy

, /; olffl&*rt> 3\8» u, g

'-. V "! ^ •?.

•'esbii'?i

lUli' i ^

ffS^'W'r. Sri4 7c acoliciV^ biclincStf 7ei^*30c'i ^

<f .f i -»

,

-Ji

10 Jwe

^

lo Joon » «J^a ^ .i artrho (iroiijilv A ?%Jsn«iii 9^ \o . Jj

* W is404 »B»^9VU tMlJ

UTJU »‘JtT.O « OOfVCO.d

cO .1^-

j.oTXMur*^’* "V^ ;»yTWS^^!S

0.000 , O.i- x.^m

w14 jJb*

O.OOO

0.0^7 -««41i

»-«.!• o.cSa

0.52tt 0*136

‘ * Tv'-'"'

' "'iy

% i nesill

0.?<5
Table 25. Calculated Percent of Chlorine Contributed by

Components of Brooklyn MSW to Chlorine Content

(Percent of sum of components for each day, dry initial

composition)

Day 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Total Chlorine Content

Paper, unbleached 26 30 10 25 26 24

Paper, bleached 1 3 2 2 2 1

Paper, total 27 33 12 27 28 25

Plastics, soft 31 38 19 3 1 4

Plastics, hard 30 25 34 28 65 38

Plastics, total 34 56 62 47 68 52

Wood/vegetable 6 1 4 9 3 6

Textiles 1 2 1 11 0 2

"Fines" 34 3 1 6 1 15

Water Soluble Chlorine Content

Paper, unbleached 71 57 47 49 74 65

Paper, bleached 0 5 7 4 6 3

Paper , total 71 62 54 53 88 68

Plastics, soft 2 7 5 7 2 4

Plastics, hard 5 5 1 3 2 4

Plastics, total 7 12 6 10 4 8

Wood/vegetable 6 13 26 16 12 1

1

Textiles 3 5 4 7 0 3

"Fines" 13 8 10 1 4 4 10
Table 25. (Continued) Calculated Percent of Chlorine Contributed by

Components of Brooklyn MSW to Chlorine Content

(Percent of sum of components for each day, dry initial

composition)

Day 1 2

Water Insoluble

3

Chlorine

4

Content

5 Average

Paper , unbleached 8 19 6 18 12 11

Paper, bleached 1 2 2 2 1 1

Paper , total 9 2 8 20 13 12

Plastics, soft 5 40 41 22 3 17

Plastics, hard 41 33 38 35 83 48

Plastics, total 46 73 79 57 86 65

Wood/ vegetable 3 3 13 7 0 5

Textiles 0 2 0 13 0 2

"Fines" 42 1 0 3 1 16
NBS>n4A IREV. 2-80

U.5. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 85-3213 543 September 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

The Chlorine Content of Municipal Solid Waste from Baltimore County, MD and

Brooklyn, NY

5. AUTHOR(S)

K.L. Churney, A.E. Ledford, Jr., S.S. Bruce, and E.S. Domalski

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No. nF-Aioi-BB-r.FBomi

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

Interagency Report FY1984

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

Office of Renewable Technology, Energy from Municipal Waste Division, U.S. Department

of Energy, Washington, D.C., and

Department of Sanitation, Office of Resource Recovery and Waste Disposal Planning

The City of New York, New York.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The total chlorine and water soluble chlorine contents of the components of

municipal solid waste (MSW) have been determined from sampling studies carried out

at two sites, Baltimore County, MD and Brooklyn, NY for a five-day period. The

total chlorine contents of the overall MSW samples at Baltimore County, MD and

Brooklyn, NY are 0.45 and 0.89 mass %, respectively.

The component which contributed the largest fraction to the chlorine content

in Baltimore County, MD was the paper fraction (0.25 mass % or 55% of the total

chlorine) while in Brooklyn, NY, the plastics fraction provided the major contribution

(0.46 mass % or 52% of the total chlorine). Chemical analyses for sulfur content

were performed on composite samples for each day of sampling at the two sites. The

sulfur contents found in composite samples representing Baltimore County, MD and

Brooklyn, NY were 0.13 and 0.14 mass %, respectively. American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) standard methods for sulfur, total chlorine, and water soluble

chlorine contents, developed for refuse-derived fuel, were used in performing the

analyses.

All values mentioned above in mass % are on a dry basis.

12.

KEY WORDS (S/x to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon

chlorine analysis; municipal solid waste; sample size reduction; sampling; sorting;

total chlorine content; water insoluble chlorine; water soluble chlorine.

13. AVAILABILITY

[Xj Uni imited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

^31 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAG!

62

15. Price

$ 10.00

U»COMM-f A 4
p'Ai X.1

^ . sSr p3f

' ' "**- '’'ft^’W ''w? ' V

^'’' "'

' M ‘*'sr 5«fi Ci! Tiomttifta stafiWjbKo? fjq^^rtiJH te JasJfwDjSnHorrta^'jrt^^^

UilanoQ ‘.E.3^n*’',93in^ .2.2 ,.lt?’,b"'<rtb«j'

ii^;L i»i >ipi jfcMt/' * " *** P.

|9« 1

-if- 1

m

2

BSir-’*'® e. -it

aaffA«tt«re vAdxua jawoitam

iMflMiod rkiwtTjiA33<j MiW ,a.# ,»OT9WHeAt ^•j t ^ ... a

jW»t\le3AaoA 3ja5^» ot<A. k^>i fftqfcptfiuM RKn’te yjei9ii 3 ,'«fpTon<ta9T ^ _

tsf,^^ s- ^ " r ,.3.0 ,nari?mn^6« .vfiij

j9?8Wf<* 932^ bos r»9'^ 0P9fl OJIUOaBJ? 90^0 ,nofj 6^fft5E >6 MrMtlMSK — ^

.iioY ^0

*Fr—— T5?— t57o^^

H f3 T 9 ST - te &$; ,2 - ,, , -:; tl ,yw/<i^ua ifcwaW .etl»3Z^S4rta«»y<|

in*»'!\b#|W i> *»iMS\ Jntiftuftoh ,noWo*i«o\o< wa«" r»»«ws»£ 4lS

a ^ 0 i» ? 0 A

' To sJn9iioq»o'> To s^necfooo soHofrto sfdufoe toiew brw sniHoT^d XsJoi sNlfT ^ Jwq ftoitMiJe goWtq'iiss woitTi Oao^ansigjS osod sv^ (k<2M) t^^8«v^ bMoz lisqJal'nuar #5

ddT^.boH»q \tsb*9vtT s tOT YH ,ftxr?»o<na bns OM ,>timKC5 yto^nl'dTs^ ,.5K»ta owt?is 'L

bnii CP ,x^f««o3 93omfdf^ is zsCqiwoe W2H Ifsiftvo srtj To «i09i/too jwHoFdp ffijoi' s

’ .xf#vtiosqa«3 ,1 «awn 68.0 bos 5^.0 ers YW ,oxf'<oooa

iotinoo ^n^30 ^fb odd oi notiosiT iasposf arti beJudr-^inoD rtotdw inwnoqmoo sdY

Tsdoi ®fii Yo Jtaa 10 I: 22sm 2S.0) noHos'tT osqsq odd as^ CP *\Jnuo3 sio^fifsa^ol’

no'fi^dHinoo To^sw sdi b9b^v03Q nofiosiT aoliasfq odd *YM idytlJlooifl dJ #(Mv/ (snl'ipfdO

ddadoo3'*ooT(oe *toT eos^^sns fsplwsrtb ^(snhofdo fsipd add To ?S;a dO 1^ .«?sC^.O)

ddT .aoiU owi add ds poHqmss Ya*\ob rfdss *toT aafqmse sifaoqoio^ no bstinoT’i^i^^sw

bos CP «NldmM)0 9oopiYdrsa*pot3ds«9oqani eolqifMia »J^^oqmo3 of bouoT ainoinob iiviTCua

QfihsaY 10T ^o^DO^! osoMsinA .^.tfavfdooqafln ,d*^aa6« AT.O bds £f,0 sTw YH ^p>oohr8

sfdufoa Oddflw bosnaoHoCrt^ fsioi *ioTfua ooi sbodiaw bisbnsda (HT?A) afshs^^bds

add onYfmoVi^q nf boau sim JOwT bevhut-oaoTon doT bopoFovab *adoainoo p»WCdo

jjp yjoKm

.slasd s 00 Sdft d aasw of avods banoYinsm aaulftv f(A

a

y»l« ( 2 *nt\«>>i •vl*<»J of hU) SOAC>W' YaA^*IJ

ipnfdioa#;Bnffqmsa irtofiDuban <nu sfqwsa ;ada6w brfoa rsqfaroom jarax^sos ^rioid^r

.,^T .aoHofdD afduloa*'-isds^ ianrtofdo afdufoan^ 3 ads»^*^; JoaJnoo' aohofib ftiiod

il-i ''ir^ .... ifia n"f>l»m I? 30 .0« .!

? 90A 3 OaTMtOO % m 4-

;.*- tnflMlir^u .q ^ K

2(Tt9 0 »«K«la|tieV« oO ..noitudOtalO kM»«dO

.5.0 .nWjrtlAMW j«o 0»0 »nUf»H«l tr««tm»vo9 .»,W .wniKitfjs^O '« L.l .*/ I n . , .... -r .. Ti) .iJM**''* '

lAtSl .AV .bkiOartlioa .(«-<TVr> »»iv»W nofiowirtitl , l

' i

.

- ‘iS

• > » ? “ m . Ji

»lvA« 0i»>«»2O0*fj ' m .'1 '•..^> VxA\j.

[ii .