My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report
>
2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 12:57:42 PM
Creation date
6/5/2012 3:05:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment B <br />about four percent residue of total input. (Approximations do not add to 100 percent <br />due to Project Team rounding.} Colar-mixed, broken glass was defined as a product <br />by the WNI/RAA study and represented 11 percent of the total input. Color-sorted <br />glass, in contrast, represented two percent of total input. <br />The WNTIRAA study slated that: <br />"The Twin Cities MRF has set a production standard of 1.5 percent (average) or <br />less for tatal ouit�rows ax►d prohibitives for its newspaper grade with an action <br />]irn,it of 2 percent. Any deviation above 2 percent i.n the regular sampling of bales <br />subjects the production staff to a number of remedial procedures entailing review <br />of all operational functions. It aiso requires additianal sampling until a <br />production standard of less than 1.5 percent is met." <br />Critical Review - The report provided to the Project Team was titled a"Summary" <br />and no raw data, analytical methods or statistics were provided. Thcrefore, this memo <br />is limited to xeview of the results as contained in the suxnmary of test results. <br />Therc was no comparablc sortir�g/analyses reported on recyciablcs from dual stream <br />collection systems. Therefore, it is impossible for the Project Team to determine the <br />net increase in process residue of single stream processing vs. dual s#ream processing. <br />Frozn the collection naethodology descniption (i.e., semi-automated or automated <br />cuxbside vehicles), it is unlikely there was any truck-side quality inspection by the <br />drivez (i_e., no truck-side rejects by the drive of non targeted material). This is normat <br />procedure for such lidded cart recycling collectian systems, az�d therefore one may <br />assu�me the collections were using normal operations. <br />2 DRA'F'i' 7rzaos <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.