My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-01-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-01-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2013 9:44:25 AM
Creation date
1/17/2013 3:42:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/22/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
358
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 A -2 <br />WM study and represented 11 percent of the total input. Color- sorted glass, in <br />contrast, represented two percent of total input. <br />The WM study stated that: <br />"The Twin Cities MRF has set a production standard of 1.5 percent (average) or <br />less for total outthrows and prohibitives for its newspaper grade with an action <br />limit of 2 percent. Any deviation above 2 percent in the regular sampling of bales <br />subjects the production staff to a number of remedial procedures entailing review <br />of all operational functions. It also requires additional 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. Therefore, this memo <br />is limited to review of the results as contained in the summary of test results. <br />There was no comparable sorting/analyses reported on recyclables 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 stream processing. <br />From the collection methodology description (i.e., semi - automated or automated <br />curbside vehicles), it is unlikely there was any truck -side quality inspection by the <br />driver (i.e., no truck -side rejects by the drive of non targeted material). This is normal <br />procedure for such lidded cart recycling collection systems, and therefore one may <br />assume the collections were using normal operations. <br />2 B1605 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.