UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The evaluation of heavy metal contents in the bottom ash from Burnaby refuse incinerator Ting, Jyh-Haw 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0637.pdf [ 3.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0050407.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0050407-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0050407-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0050407-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0050407-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0050407-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0050407-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0050407-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0050407.ris

Full Text

THE EVALUATION OF HEAVY METAL CONTENTS IN THE BOTTOM ASH FROM BURNABY REFUSE INCINERATOR by JYH-HAW TING B.S. (Environmental Science), Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C., 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Civil Engineering  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1994  0 Jyh-Haw Ting, 1994  presenting In this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted the head by of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of (Itt’; / The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  ABSTRACT  Eighteen sets of bottom ash samples from the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s (GVRD) Burnaby MSW Incinerator were collected during 1991. The samples were analyzed for particle size distribution based on seven fractions. The coarse fractions with particle sizes greater than the 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) diameter were analyzed as to material content, while the fine fractions with particle sizes less than the 9.5 mm were subjected to leaching tests following the Leachate Extraction Procedure (B.C. Reg. 63/88). Fine materials clinging to the coarse particles were collected and tested for the leachability of heavy metals. The total metal levels in the particles with sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter were also evaluated.  The results of the particle size gradation tests indicate that the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator generally meets the specification for a wellgraded base course specified in the B.C. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. The material distribution in the fractions with particle sizes greater than the 9.5 mm diameter have shown that magnetic materials contributed about 12 % by weight of the bottom ash stream, which suggests the need of a second magnet. Inert materials such as glass, rock, concrete, ceramic and clinker were found to be the largest component of the coarse particles with sizes greater than the 9.5 mm diameter.  The leaching test results of the three fine bottom ash fractions with particle sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter have shown that lead is the only of the eight selected elements which would leach out with levels exceeding the regulation limits. In the three fine bottom ash fractions, the one with particle sizes between  11  the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter were found to contain the greatest leachable lead levels. On the other hand, the coarsest fraction with particle sizes between the 4.75 mm and 9.5 mm diameter were found to leach out lead with the lowest levels. The fine material clinging to the coarse particles were also found to leach out heavy metals with levels comparable to the three fine bottom ash fractions. The results of the total metal concentrations in the three fine bottom ash fractions indicate that metal levels generally increase with a particle size decrease. For leachable metal levels, the trend is not apparent.  111  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgment Chapter 1.  iv vi viii xi  Introduction  1  Chapter 2. 2.1 2.2  Literature Review Extraction Test for MSW Incinerator Residue Factors Affecting Leachable Metal Levels from the MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash 2.3 Findings Regarding the Leaching of MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash 2.4 Characteristics of MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash 2.5 Possible Utilizations of the Glass in MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash 2.6 The Recovery and Reclamation of Materials from Bottom Ash 2.7 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used as Fill Materials 2.8 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used in Concrete Making 2.9 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used as Aggregates in Road Construction 2.10 Other Issues Regarding the Use of Bottom Ash 2.11 Summary  4 5 8 13 15 20 22 25 27 28 32 34  Chapter 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7  Materials and Methods Sampling Procedure Particle Size Distribution Analysis Quartering Procedure Material Components Distribution Analysis Leachate Extraction Procedure Total Metals Acid Digestion Metal Analysis  37 37 42 43 45 46 49 50  Chapter 4. 4.1 4.2  Results Bottom Ash Particle Size Distribution Material Distribution in Bottom Ash Fractions with Particle Size Greater than the 9.5 mm Diameter The Leachable Metal Levels of the Bottom Ash Fractions The Fixed and Total Metal Levels of the Bottom Ash Fractions The Leaching Test Results of the Washing-off Materials of the Samples from Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions Metal Concentrations in the Rinse Water of Samples from Three Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions  52 52 56  4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6  iv  61 91 101 105  4.7  Result Summary  109  Discussion Issues Regarding the Samplings of Bottom Ash Particle Size Gradation in the Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Material Contents in Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash The Leachable Heavy Metals from Bottom Ash  112 112 113  Chapter 6.  Summary and Conclusions  128  Chapter 7.  Recommendations  131  Chapter 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4  References  114 118  133  Appendix 1. Raw Data Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Particle Size Distribution  141  Appendix 2. Raw Data Material Components Distribution in Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions  145  Appendix 3. Raw Data LEP Leachable Metal Concentrations in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  153  Appendix 4. Raw Data Leachable Metal Concentrations of the Washingoff from the coarse bottom ash fractions with Particle Size Greater than the 9.5 mm Diameter  157  Appendix 5. Raw Data Fixed(Non-leachable) Metal Levels in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  158  Appendix 6. Raw Data Selected LEP Leachable Metal Concentrations in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  159  Appendix 7. Total Metal Results in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  160  Appendix 8. The Fixed Metal Levels as Percentages of the Total Metal Levels in Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  161  Appendix 9. Raw Data Metal Concentrations in the Bottom Ash Rinse Water  162  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  v  LIST OF TABLES  Table 2.1  Total Metal Concentrations in the Ashes  16  Table 2.2  Leachate Quality Standards  18  Table 2.3  Typical MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Physical and Chemical Properties  19  Table 2.4  Average Composition of Municipal Incinerator Bottom Ash  21  Table 2.5  Metallic Ash Constituents  23  Table 3.1  Burnaby Refuse Incinerator Bottom Ash Sampling Schedules vs. Sample Weights  40  Table 4.1  Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Particle Size Gradation vs. BC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction  54  Table 4.2  Descriptive Material Distributions in Four Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions (With Particle Diameter Greater Than 9.5 mm) from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  57  Table 4.3  Statistics Summary for the LEP Leachable Metals Found in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator with Particle Size Between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm Diameters  73  Table 4.4  Statistics Summary for the LEP Leachable Metals Found in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator with Particle Size Between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm Diameters  74  Table 4.5  Statistics Summary for the LEP Leachable Metals Found in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator with Particle Size Less than the 2.36 mm Diameter  75  Table 4.6  Comparison of the Geometric Means of Results from the B.C. Reg. 63/88 Leachate Extraction Procedure with Data from Selected Literature  77  Table 4.7  Geometric Means of the LEP Leachable Cadmium and Lead Levels in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator Taken on Each Sampling Date  88  Table 4.8  Geometric Means of the Fixed (Non-leachable) Metal Levels in the Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  93  vi  Table 4.9  Average Fixed Metal Levels as Percentages of the Total Metals in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions  95  Table 4.10  Ranges of Total Metal Concentrations in Bottom Ash from this Research and Selected Reference  97  Table 4.11  Comparison of Metal Levels in the LEP Leachate of Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions and the Washing-off from Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions  104  Table 4.12  Average Metal Concentration in Coarse Bottom Ash Rinse Water (1Kg Ash: 1L Distilled Water Ratio) and the Maximum Acceptable Levels Specified in Regulations  106  Table 4.13  Summary of the Metal Levels Specified in Selected Water Quality Guidelines for Industrial Uses  108  vii  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 3.1  Summary of Bottom Ash Sampling & Analysis Procedures  38  Figure 3.2  Greater Vancouver Regional District Burnaby Incinerator A Refuse to Energy Facility  39  Figure 3.3  The Collection of Bottom Ash Sample at the End of No.3 Ash Conveyer of Burnaby Refuse Incinerator  41  Figure 3.4  Quartering on a Hard, Clean Level Surface  44  Figure 3.5  Quartering on a Canvas Blanket  44  Figure 3.6  Rotary Extractor Used in Bottom Ash Leachate Extraction Procedure  48  Figure 4.1  Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Size Distribution  53  Figure 4.2  MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate Gradations: This Study and Selected references  55  Figure 4.3  Material Contribution by Coarse Fractions to the Bottom Ash Stream from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  59  Figure 4.4  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Cadmium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  64  Figure 4.5  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Chromium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  64  Figure 4.6  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Copper Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  65  Figure 4.7  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Iron Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  65  Figure 4.8  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Manganese Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  66  Figure 4.9  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Nickel Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  66  Figure 4.10  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Lead Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  67  -  VII’  Figure 4.11  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Zinc Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  67  Figure 4.12  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Cadmium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  68  Figure 4.13  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Chromium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  68  Figure 4.14  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Copper Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  69  Figure 4.15  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Iron Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  69  Figure 4.16  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Manganese Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  70  Figure 4.17  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Nickel Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  70  Figure 4.18  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Lead Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  71  Figure 4.19  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Zinc Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  71  Figure 4.20  The Trends of the LEP Cadmium Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  79  Figure 4.21  The Trends of the LEP Chromium Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  80  Figure 4.22  The Trends of the LEP Copper Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  81  ix  Figure 4.23  The Trends of the LEP Iron Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  82  Figure 4.24  The Trends of the LEP Manganese Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  83  Figure 4.25  The Trends of the LEP Nickel Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  84  Figure 4.26  The Trends of the LEP Lead Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  85  Figure 4.27  The Trends of the LEP Zinc Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  86  Figure 4.28(a),(b) Geometric Means of Metal Concentrations Leached from Bottom Ash Fractions in the Leachate Extraction Procedure  90  Figure 4.29(a) Total Metal Concentrations of Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  98  Figure 4.29(b) Total Metal Concentrations of Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  99  Figure 4.30  Geometric Means of the Total Metals Concentrations in Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  100  Figure 4.31  Comparison of Total Lead Contribution by Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  102  Figure 4.32  Comparison of the Leachable and Total Lead Levels in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  103  Figure 5.1  LEP Leachable Lead Contribution by Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  117  Figure 5.2  Variation in Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Generation Over Time in Burnaby and New Westminster  121  Figure 5.3  Ratio of Mass of Residues Generated to the Mass of Solid Waste Burnt Corrected for Moisture Differences  122  x  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Jim Atwater, for his constant encourage and helpful advise throughout the course of this study. Special thanks also are extended to Dr. Ken Hall, Mike Stringer and Rob Miller for their valuable suggestions and advise during the preparation of this thesis.  I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the GVRD Solid Waste and Recycling Department staff, Montenay Inc. staff, GVRD Library staff, UBC Civil Engineering Department Environmental Engineering Laboratory staff, UBC Mining & Mineral Process Engineering Department staff, UBC Civil Engineering Work Shop Staff and B.C. Research during the study of this project.  Finally, I would like to express appreciation to my parents for their patience and support throughout my study in Canada.  xi  1 Chapter 1. Introduction  Municipal refuse has been disposed of in landfills for many years. With the increasing cost of the landfills and the reduced pollutant levels released from municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators in recent years, MSW incinerators have become more popular for the disposal of the municipal refuse. The Greater Vancouver Regional District’s (GVRD) Burnaby Municipal Refuse Incinerator is a mass burning incinerator with inclined reciprocating grates and water wall boilers. It has been operated since 1988 by Montenay Inc. and is capable of incinerating about 230 tonnes of refuse daily in each of the three identical lines. In 1991, it had disposed of 227,590 tonnes of refuse and generated 45,350 tonnes of bottom ash and 6,970 tonnes of fly ash. (Montenay Inc., 1988, 1991) Currently, the fly ash and bottom ash from the Burnaby Refuse Incinerator are disposed separately at an engineered landfill site with a complete leachate control system. (Sawell et al., 1990)  Previous literature has shown that bottom ash has the potential for reuse as substitutes for the aggregates in asphalt paving, concrete construction and in fill without prominent negative impacts on the environment. (Collins, 1977) (Gress et a!., 1991) However, the public still hesitates to accept bottom ash as a non-hazardous material due to the readily leachable nature of some heavy metals that may exceed the levels defining hazardous materials. (Denison, 1988) One might expect that the finer particles of the bottom ash contain higher leachable metal levels due to their greater contact surface with the extraction medium when compared to the coarser particles of the same weight. However, only limited research has reported that finer portions contain higher metal  2 concentrations than coarse fractions. (Stegemann et at., 1991) The coarse fraction (particle size greater than 9.5 mm) of the bottom ash is typically composed of inert materials such as glass, rock etc. and generally won’t leach out high concentrations of metals. As the fine bottom ash fractions compose about 40 % by weight of the bottom ash stream, some further research on the leaching of heavy metals from the fine bottom ash fractions relative to particle size is needed for better management of the bottom ash. If higher levels of leachable heavy metals were found to associate with any specific fraction, this fraction could be sorted out of the bottom ash stream and disposed of separately. The rest of the bottom ash could be reduced in the leachable heavy metals and would be more acceptable as a reusable material. The public could benefit not only from the saving of money in the storage, transportation and treatment of only the hazardous fraction instead of the whole bottom ash stream but also from the sale of the non-hazardous fraction as reusable materials.  This research is intended to characterize the bottom ash generated at the GVRD’s Burnaby Refuse Incinerator and provide information through the tests on the fine and coarse bottom ash fractions for the evaluation of the possibility of using such materials. Particle size distribution tests on the bottom ash were carried out as this parameter is a primary specification for the use of bottom ash as a substitute for aggregate in construction purposes. In addition, the material distribution in the coarse bottom ash fractions (with particle size greater than 9.5 mm diameter) has been evaluated to obtain further information about the content of the bottom ash for possible reuse. Effort has also been given to address the bottom ash fractions with higher leachability of heavy metals subject to the B.C. Reg. 63/88 Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) and the results will be valuable for considering the effective disposal and management of such materials. The  3 fine bottom ash fraction (with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter) is separated into three fractions: <2.36 mm diameter, between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter and between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter. All three fractions were subjected to the LEP test as well as total metal digestion and the filtrates of the leachate were analyzed for selected heavy metals by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. The selected metals include those for which there is the most environmental concern; lead, cadmium, zinc and copper as well as chromium, iron, manganese and nickel. Samples from the coarse bottom ash fractions were washed with distilled water and the washing-off materials were collected and compared with the fine bottom ash fractions LEP leachable metal levels. The wash water of the coarse bottom ash was also analyzed for its reusabiity based on the heavy metal concentrations.  This thesis consists of seven chapters and nine appendices. Relevant literature on MSW incinerator bottom ash is reviewed in Chapter 2. Presented in Chapter 3 are the sampling procedures, analysis protocols, and instrumental analysis procedures used in this study. The results are reported in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents a discussion section on the findings of this study. The conclusions of this study are presented in Chapter 6, followed by some recommendations in Chapter 7. The raw data of the analyses and experiments in this study are collected in the Appendix section.  4 Chapter 2. Literature Review  With the increasing acceptance of the incineration of municipal solid wastes (MSW) by municipalities around North America, the general public is increasingly concerned with the potential pollution from the incinerator, as well as with the management and disposal of the large quantities of ash residues. Since the air pollution control technologies developed through the eighties have dramatically reduce the levels of the contaminants in the flue gas released from the MSW incinerators, the management of the ash residues has become an important issue in the control of post incineration pollution. Fly ash and bottom ash are the two major categories among the remaining residue streams. Conventionally, the fly ash and bottom ash were combined before treatment. Recent research has reported that the fly ash contained higher levels of many toxic metals than bottom ash. (Andrews et al., 1991) Separate treatment of fly ash and bottom ash has become the trend of MSW incinerator ash residue management.  MSW incinerator bottom ash is the largest fraction of the ash residue stream. The most popular disposal scenario of bottom ash is placing it in a landfill with a leachate collecting system. (Repa, 1987) Due to the high percentages of inert materials, bottom ash has been used as substitute materials for different purposes. The disposal and recycle of MSW incinerator bottom ash has become one of the most interesting issues in the field of solid waste management. Many studies dealing with bottom ash topics have been reviewed and these findings are reported in the following pages. These topics include incinerator residue extraction tests, factors on the leachable metal levels from  5  bottom ash, leaching of MSW incinerator bottom ash, characteristics of bottom ash, utilization of glass in bottom ash, recovery and reclamation of materials from bottom ash, utilization of bottom ash as fill materials, bottom ash used in concrete making and bottom ash used in road construction.  2.1 Extraction Tests for MSW Incinerator Residue  Since MSW incinerator ash residues have been reported to contain many hazardous materials (Denison 1988), knowledge about the levels of these materials in the ash residues and their mobility is necessary when considering the proper management and final disposal of ash. Currently, ash residues from most of the MSW incinerator in North America are sent to landfills. In order to evaluate the behavior of the incinerator ash after landfilling, many tests have been applied to simulate the leaching of the incinerator residues. The methods used to evaluate the leaching of the incinerator ashes can be split into two categories : column methods and batch extraction methods. The column test is used to simulate the long term leaching behavior of the MSW incinerator bottom ash from a ash disposal site. Its long leaching time and the large quantity of ash needed have limited its use on the leaching test of the MSW incinerator bottom ash. On the other hand, the batch type tests are simpler and more reproducible and thus widely used by many agencies or research groups. (Jackson et at., 1984) The Extraction Procedure Toxicity (EP Toxicity) test and The Toxic Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) are the most commonly used procedures applied to MSW incinerator ash in U.S.. The EP Toxicity test is a laboratory test that attempts to mimic the landfill environment and disposal scenario of five percent unknown waste and 95 percent untreated municipal waste in an unlined landfill. The EP Toxicity test required that a minimum of 100  6 grams of sample be extracted with 16 times its weight in deionized water. 0.5 N acetic acid is added as needed to maintain the solution at pH 5.0 ± 0.2. After 24 hours, deionized water is added to the solution to a final 1:20 solid-to-liquid ratio. The reason for using acetic acid as the extractant acid is that it is a common constituent of young landfill leachates. The EP Toxicity test has been used by the U.S. EPA to determine if an unknown waste that may be subjected to leaching in a landfill should be managed as a hazardous waste.  However, the inability of the EP Toxicity test to represent the conditions at a landfill comprised solely of incinerator ash led to the development of TCLP. Unlike EP Toxicity test, TCLP uses either buffered acetic acid or dilute acetic acid as the extractant depending on the initial pH of aqueous sample. Instead of a rigorously control of pH, the extractant is introduced in one addition and the pH of the solution is allowed to drift to a final equilibrium after the extractant is added. The extraction is carried out for 18 hours in a closed extraction container.  In British Columbia, the Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) listed in Special Waste Regulation 63/88 of the Waste Management Act is the extraction procedure used to classify wastes as hazardous or non-hazardous. The test involved slowly mixing a 50 gram sample of ash in 800 mL of distilled water in a closed vessel for 24 hours at pH 5.0±0.2 (or less if the natural pH of the waste is acid). A maximum of 200 mL of 0.5 N acetic acid can be added into the solution if needed during the extraction to lower the pH to the required level. The solution is adjusted to 1000 mL with distilled water at the end of the test. The liquid and solid phases are separated via filtration through 0.45 micron membrane filters. The resulting leachate is preserved to pH 2 with nitric acid for the subsequent metal analyses. (Government of British Columbia, 1992)  7  In addition to EP, TCLP and LEP, there are various other extraction methodologies used by different groups to evaluate the leachable metals concentrations in MSW incinerator residues. The inherent differences between these extraction procedures results in the unavoidable variance between the data collected by different tests. There is a difficulty in comparing the results from the different extraction tests. Besides, the extraction fluids there are other factors contributory to confusing this task. These factors include the sample size, the particle size for test, the combustion technology, air pollution control system, and the inherent variability of ash characteristics as well as the sampling methodology. (Clapp et at., 1988) (Sawell et at., 1989) (Atwater et at., 1993) A group of experts from North America and West Europe have been working together since 1990 to compare not only the data about the ash characteristics but also its treatment and disposal. Their original desire to build a global data base of ash information has proven impossible due to the insufficient descriptions in the literature about the methods used. However, they believed these results are still valuable when used to illustrate relevant trends. (Chandler et at., 1991)  There were many studies which have compared the levels of metal concentrations in fly ash and bottom ash. Clapp et at. (1988) discovered that cadmium content was at least five times greater in the fly ash than in the bottom ash. They also discovered that lead content was much greater in the fly ash while barium was much more predominant in the bottom ash. Sawell et at. (1990) found the relatively heat stable metals such as chromium and nickel were concentrated in the bottom ash, whereas relatively volatile metals such as cadmium and mercury were concentrated in the fly ash. They pointed out that lead was at a higher concentration in the bottom ash than in the fly ash. This finding is  8 contrary to that reported by Clapp et at. (1988), which may be related to the differences between the two studies in the refuse sources, incinerator designs and analytical protocols. Andrews et at. (1991) discovered that for most metals, bottom ash leach test concentrations are less than concentrations for combined and fly ash. Sawell et at. (1989) also found that bottom ashes were more water insoluble than fly ashes and suggested that bottom ashes are suitable for landfill disposal and should be kept at an alkaline pH.  2.2 Factors Affecting Leachable Metal Levels from the MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash  All of the batch extraction methods have specified a screen opening through which the ash residues are subject to the test. In the LEP test, the sieve opening is specified as 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Such bottom ash still contains different particle size materials and further sifting of such bottom ash into several fractions would be necessary when focusing on the relation between metal contaminant and particle size. Scientist have addressed the finest materials in the MSW incinerator ash containing the highest level of contaminants. (Greenberg et at., 1978) (Sawell et at., 1986) However, there is still limited information available about the relationship of particle size to metal concentrations in MSW bottom ash. A study conducted by Sawell et at. (1990) demonstrated that bottom ash particles less than 4.0 mm in size contained the highest concentrations of lead. Stegemann et at. (1991) examined the composition and leachability of the different bottom ash in four size fractions: <0.4 mm, 0.4 mm -2 mm, 2 mm  -  8  mm, and> 8 mm. Each fraction was subjected to a series of tests including total metal and Sequential Chemical Extraction acid neutralization capacity test and  two European regulatory tests. Based on the results in total metal analysis, they  9 observed a clear trend for the zinc level to decrease with increasing particle size. To a lesser degree, such a tendency was observed for cadmium, nickel and copper. However, no trend for lead was apparent. Higher leachability of these metals was observed in the finer size fractions. They discovered that the smallest particle size fraction appeared to have a greater acid neutralization capacity than the other three particle size fractions. Stegemann et a!. (1991) concluded that the removal of the higher contaminant size fractions from the MSW incinerator bottom ash will improve the suitability of the remaining bottom ash for constructive utilities such as road building.  Some researchers compared the characteristics of the residues from MSW incinerators with different combustion technologies and discovered that the chemical properties of the ashes might be related to the incinerator design. Sawell et a!. (1989) reported that ferrous metal removal in the pre-processing of refuse at a refuse derived fuel (RDF) incinerator have reduced the concentrations of cadmium, lead and zinc in the fly ash. They also reported that in a RDF facility the volatile metals were evenly distributed between fly ash and bottom ash, while much higher volatile metals concentrations were found in the fly ash than bottom ash from the modular incinerator. However, Andrew et a!. (1991) reported that ash from RDF incinerator has not been shown to contain lower total or leachable levels of most toxic metals than ash from mass burn plants.  The different characteristics of ash residues from MSW incinerators with different combustion systems have shown to have a effect on ash management strategy. Sawell et al. (1989) reported that the chemical characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash from a RDF facility with ferrous recovery were similar and separate collection for treatment of fly ash may not be necessary. Contrarily, the  10 characteristics of ashes from a modular facility were very different, and thus the separate collection of fly ash and bottom ash, and the treatment of the fly ash are required.  The effects of different pH leaching solutions on leachable heavy metals from incinerator ashes have been addressed by many MSW ash workers. Results have shown significant influence of pH on the metal concentrations in MSW ash leachate. Andrew et at. (1991) performed research to determine the chemical and leaching properties of fly ash, combined ash and bottom ash from MSW incinerators and reported that the leaching of lead and cadmium from the residues is chiefly dependent on the pH of the leaching solutions. Hasselriis (1988) pointed out that the leaching of heavy metals from the naturally alkaline MSW incinerator residues can be kept to minimum levels by not being subject to excessive acid or alkaline environments. He discovered that the minimum solubility of lead is in the pH range from about 8 to 10. With either higher or lower pH leachate, the solubility of lead will increase dramatically. Similar results were also reported by Sundstrom et at. (1991) and Sloot et at. (1989). Sundstrom et at. (1991) found that lead and zinc exhibited amphoteric behavior and had minimum solubility in the extraction between pH 8 and 10. They also discovered that most metals, including cadmium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese, decreased in solubility as pH increased. Sloot et at. (1989) examined the influence of pH and compared the results with the prediction of a geochemical speciation model. They reported that the leaching behavior was found to be very systematic in some cases the pH range for minimum leaching of metals is in the range from 8 to 10; at pH values below 7, the leaching of metals from incinerator residues increase sharply. Thus their suggestion has emphasized the importance of the  11 knowledge of the long term pH changes for the disposal and utilization of incinerator residues.  DiPietro et at. (1989) applied controlled batch experiments and a geochemical thermodynamic computer model (MINTEQ) to evaluate the influence of pH and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) on metal leachabilities of MSW incinerator residues. They discovered that pH has a significant influence on the aqueous phase concentration of Ca, Zn, Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe, Mn, Pb and Al. On the other hand, ORP was found to have significant influence on the mobilization of Zn, Cu, Ni, Fe, Pb and Al. They found that ash residues exposed to acidic reducing conditions have higher aqueous metal concentrations compared to alkaline reducing conditions. DiPietro et at. reported that the influence of ORP is strongly affected by pH and may be non-linear across extreme upper and lower pH levels. They also reported that MINTEQ was able to imitate the trends and changes in experimentally derived metals solubilities in batch extractions for a wide range of pH and ORP. They believed that the model has the potential to improve predictions of leachate concentration at different liquid/solid ratios.  Sawell et at. (1989) applied the Sequential Chemical Extraction Procedure to test the potential availability of metals for leaching from the ashes under different leaching conditions. The results indicate that larger proportions of metals present in the bottom ash were available for leaching under acidic leaching conditions than those in the dry scrubber or fabric filter fly ash. Yet these results were in conflict with results from previous (Sawell and Constable, 1988; Sawell et at., 1989b) studies which have verified that larger proportions of metals in the fly ashes are available for leaching than those in bottom ashes. They thought the difference may be due to the higher buffering capacity of the fabric  12 filter ash compared to those from other facilities and the change in the predominant metal species as a results of some industrial input to the refuse stream.  In the research of Francis et al. (1987), four resource recovery ashes were leached under field conditions simulating monodisposal of ash in a monofill and codisposal of the ash in a landfill with MSW. The Waste Extraction Test (WET) was chosen as the laboratory ash extraction procedure with the RCRA EP for comparison. Two other extraction mediums were also used to extract the ash. They found that the extracts from the WET contained higher concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se, and Zn than extracts from any of the other tests. Comparison between the concentrations determined in the WET and those observed in leachate at the field lysimeter was made and it indicated that the WET overestimated the toxic metal concentrations in the leachate, except for selenium. The extreme case was lead where concentrations, determined by WET, were found to be 800 times higher than that observed at the field test site. Concentrations of the other metals in the WET extracts were observed to be 25 to 75 times higher than that found in the field leachate. In their conclusion, Francis  et al. suggested that the WET was conservative when used as an indicator of the leaching characteristics of heavy metals from resource recovery ashes in either a monodisposal or codisposal scenario.  Hasselriis (1988) reported that leaching tests which use deionized water or simulated acid rain was found to simulate landfill leaching conditions better than the EP and TCLP tests which use acid that will counteract the natural buffering ability of the ash residues. He also reported that two or three washes would remove almost all of the leachable lead and cadmium from the ash, thus  13 suggesting that most of the soluble metals were on the surfaces of the ash residues.  2.3 Findings Regarding the Leaching of MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash  Long term effect on the chemical compositions in the leachates from ash disposal sites have been monitored by ash researchers. Schoenberger et a!. (1976) discovered that there were only two of their selected chemical parameters, iron and chemical oxygen demand, in the leachate of a ash disposal site that could be seen to be decreasing during four years of monitoring. They also reported that pH, phosphate, and chloride, appeared to be in a cyclical trend and were not necessarily decreasing. The nitrate was discovered to be very low until about thirty months after the start of leaching, when the nitrate concentration increased. They believed that the increase in nitrate was due to the decomposition of organic nitrogen compounds present in the residue. They also observed the high concentration of salt as sodium and potassium in the leachate and suggested that substantial dilution around a residue landfill would be required. Maynard (1977) reported that the leachate of the MSW residue had high concentrations of pollutants initially but that the concentration level was low enough for treatment in the sanitary sewer system. He found that after continued leaching, the contamination to the leachate from the residue will eventually be acceptable for ground water contact.  Hjelmar (1989) performed a study on leachate from two MSW incinerator ash monofills and two MSW incinerator ash codisposal sites, covering periods of 5 to 16 years. The data revealed that infiltration of precipitation into an ash landfill may be reduced by the installation of a somewhat permeable top layer,  14 e.g. clay, combined with a surface drainage system. High concentrations of inorganic salts and low concentrations of most trace elements were observed in leachate from both monofill and codisposal sites. Hjelmar also indicated that codisposal of organic waste with incinerator ash is problematic due to a contradiction between the options available for treatment and discharge of the largely inorganic leachate from well-combusted ash and the generally organic leachate from domestic garbage. In his conclusion, Hjelmar suggested that a proper and consistent disposal strategy for MSW incinerator ash must approach siting and design as well as the possible treatment and ultimate fate of the leachate in a long term perspective.  Legiec et at. (1989) investigated the kinetics of lead, cadmium, and chromium extraction through a series of batch extraction studies of ash residues from a MSW incinerator. Eight different time periods were set to examine the ash/extractant conditions in the batch extraction study. All liquid fractions were analyzed for pH, conductivity, Pb, Cd, and Cr. The results revealed that the pH values all increased from the initial extractant pH to steady-state equilibrium pH values of 3.0±0.4. Legiec et at. believed that the difference of pH observed in the unsteady state time period was due to the varied structure of the ashes and their related buffering capacities. They also discovered that the trend in the change in conductance for all the ashes was that of a sharp decrease until an asymptotic values was attained, and then the conductance was maintained throughout the rest of the time period. The lead concentration curves of the extractions showed a definite variance between the ashes. Some ashes were found to have the rate of removal of lead faster than the rate of neutralization in the ash. The extractable levels of cadmium for all the tested ashes stabilized rapidly, and the removal  15 mechanism exhibited a pH dependency. The chromium concentrations for all the ashes quickly stabilized.  Sawell et at. (1990) conducted research on characterization of some of the chemical properties and leachability of separate ash streams from the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s Burnaby Municipal Refuse Incinerator as a part of Environment Canada’s National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program (NITEP) during the fall of 1988. In their investigation of the metal concentrations in the samples. (Table 2.1), Sawell et al. noted that low to moderate concentrations (less than 3500 ig/g) of antimony, arsenic, boron, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel and selenium, and high to very high concentrations of aluminum (up to 6.4 %), lead (up to 1.0  %) and zinc (up to 1.5 %) were found in the ashes.  In order to reduce the hazardous character of the MSW incinerator ash, Denison et at. (1990) recommend that the objectives of ash management have to include the following : 1) separately test and manage fly and bottom ash; 2) dispose of ash separately from other wastes in a secure facility; 3) encourage or require treatment of ash prior to disposal to reduce both its present and future hazards; 4) keep toxic metals out of products and keep wastes containing metals out of incinerators.  2.4 Characteristics of MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash  Since MSW incinerator bottom ash is not listed as a hazardous waste in regulations of many agencies, the management and disposal of bottom ash does not need to meet the stringent requirement for special wastes. In British  16 Table 2.1 Total Metal Concentractions in the Ashes Element  BAR*  BANR*  DSR*  DSNR*  FFR*  FFNR*  Al Sb As Ba B Cd Cr Co Cu Pb Mn Hg Ni Se Ag Zn  41900 200 4.5 790 160 11 3170 350 2370 9900 1910 3.4 1840 <0.2 <5 2360  43800 270 1.5 860 330 18 1200 290 3000 8750 2170 2.1 1350 <0.2 <5 5210  63500 290 118 1590 350 94 490 92 1000 2860 2600 34 3520 <0.2 <5 9950  35900 170 <0.3 710 132 36 270 26 530 1400 1170 8 260 <0.2 <5 5000  7430 525 <0.3 200 124 300 125 <5 450 7830 300 54 75 <0.2 <5 14500  6670 450 <0.3 138 96.2 154 86 <5 335 4870 240 24 66 <0.2 <5 9350  Note :  *  All units are in .tg/g (ppm) Bottom ash (recycle**) Bottom ash (no-recycle) Dry scrubber ash (recycle*j Dry scrubber ash (no-recyde) Fabric filter ash (recycle**) Fabric filter ash (no-recyde)  **  BA-R = BA-NR = DS-R = DS-NR = FF-R = FF-NR =  A portion of fly ash was reused as a substitute for a portion of the fresh lime injected into the flue gas stream for add gas control.  Source: Sawell et al. (1990)  17 Columbia, only those bottom ash failing to pass the Leachate Quality Standards listed in Table 2.2 when subjected to LEP test will be defined as special wastes. (Government of British Columbia, 1992) Generally MSW incinerator bottom ash is not a special waste.  In addition to the leaching test, efforts have been made to collect physical and chemical characteristics of the MSW incinerator bottom ash in order to evaluate it for some utility scenarios. These characteristics include grain size distribution, material distribution, abrasion resistance, durability, bulk specific gravity, density, compaction, and acid neutralizing capacity. A list of typical MSW incinerator bottom ash physical and chemical properties is shown in Table 2.3. If the properties of the bottom ash tested are compatible with intended needs, it is possible to utilize bottom ash for such needs. For instance, the grain size distribution of MSW incinerator bottom ash must meet the standard specifications for highway construction when considering the use of these materials as base or sub-base aggregates in road construction. (Gress et at., 1991) (Hartlén et at., 1989) Durability of bottom ash represents the ability of such material to retain its strength and size distribution under stress. The MSW incinerator ash used as an aggregate in construction utilities needs to have a good durability. (Atwater et at., 1993) Compaction tests are important to consider due to the risk of crushing of bottom ash particles during laying and compaction when used as a substitute for sand and gravel. (Hartlén et at., 1989) Moreover, economic considerations are typically more decisive than environmental concerns when considering specific utilization.  18 Table 2.2 Leachate Quality Standards Contaminant  Concentration in Waste Extract (mg/L)  Aldicarb Aidrin + Dieldrin Arsenic Barium Benzene Boron Cadmium Carbaryl/ 1-Naphthyl-N-methyl carbamate Carbon tetrachioride Chlordane Chromium Copper Cyanide (free) Diazinon DDT 2,4-D Ethylbenzene Fluorides Heptachlor + Heptachior epoxide Lead Lindane Mercury Methoxychlor Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) Parathion Pentachlorophenol Selenium Silver Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6Toluene Trichiorophenoxyacetic acid,2,4,5- (2,4,5-T) Trihalomethanes Uranium Xylenes Zinc Source: Government of British Columbia (1992)  0.9 0.07 5.0 100.0 0.5 500.0 0.5 9.0 0.5 0.7 5.0 100.0 20.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 0.24 150.0 0.3 5.0 0.4 0.1 90.0 1000.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 0.1 2.4 28.0 35.0 10.0 30.0 500.0  19 Table 2.3 Typical MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Physical and Chemical Properties Parameter Water Content (%) Uniformity Coefficient (D60/D10) Effective Size (D1O, mm) Bulk Specific Gravity (<4.75 mm) Bulk Specific Gravity (>4.75 mm) Adsoprtion (%, <4.75 mm) Adsoprtion (%, >4.75 mm) LOT (%) Ferrous Content (%) Unit Weight (kg/m3) Optimum Proctor Moisture (%) Proctor Dry Density (kg/m3) LA Abrasion (%) Na2SO4 Soundness (Fine Fraction) Na2SO4 Soundness (Coarse Fraction) Acid Neutralization Capacity (meg/g)  Source: Gressetal. (1991)  Range of Values 2.6 11.6 0.155 1.30 2.03 7.66 1.74 4.8 15.6 1,109 11 1,724 46.4 10.38 2.51 1.5  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  53 38.0 0.762 2.06 2.43 21.23 7.80 10.7 39.9 1,223 17 1,782 48.2 14.32 2.76 3.5  20 2.5 Possible Utilizations of the Glass in MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash  An approximate material composition of MSW incinerator bottom ash is given by Kenahan et at. (1967) in Table 2.4. The bottom ash is comprised of more  than 40 % glass. The high percentage of glass in bottom ash has led to research on glass reuse. Johnson et at. (1973) conducted a study on evaluating the economics of four processes for using glass fractions from municipal incinerator residues. They used the colored glass fractions in three processes, brick production, floor tile production, and glass wool production, and then the colorless glass fraction in glass spheres production. They discovered that the making of the products from the glass fractions recycled from the municipal incinerator residues was typically an economically feasible operation. However, they recommended that the market size and the effect on the market should be analyzed carefully.  Buekens et at. (1979) reported that the glass cullet recovered from the MSW incinerator residue is possibly suitable for the manufacturing of brick and slag wool. Like Johnson et at. (1973), they believed that the only serious obstacle is the marketing of the end products.  In the research of Carbone et at. (1989), refuse incinerator ashes were incorporated into melted glass, ceramics and cement to yield solid materials. The EP Toxicity test was applied to measure the extent of leachability of toxic elements. From the results of their study, Carbone et at. discovered that such solid matrices can immobilize toxic elements effectively. They reported that the ash-cement could be used as construction materials, and the glass or ceramic materials could possibly be utilized for production of decorative products  21  Table 2.4 Average Composition of Municipal Incinerator Bottom Ash Material Ferrous Metals Non-ferrous metals Glass Ceramics/Stone Ash Carbon Other Organics  Source : Kenahan et al. (1967)  % Dry Weight 28.2 1.4 44.1 1.9 15.4 8.3 0.7  22 instead of disposed in landfills. They suggested that the refuse incinerator ash could be incorporated into melted glass at the incinerator site prior to landfill disposal. However, they pointed out that the melting of glass using the heat from the incinerator would reduce the heat available for the generation of steam and electricity which is sold to make up for the cost of operation of refuse-derived fuel incinerators.  Harlow et at. (1990) conducted research on the vitrification of MSW incinerator ash. Vitrification is a process that changes materials such as silica, silica oxides, or iron oxides into a glass-like substance. In their study, they reported that further refinement of fly ash and bottom ash by a sintering or vitrification procedure is an acceptable practice in producing light weight aggregates which are suitable for use in construction projects. They suggested that glass is an excellent medium for encapsulating hazardous materials. They found that molten glass can effectively dissolve or capture most inorganic materials and then be cooled to a solid state. The solid state products were discovered to be highly resistant to groundwater leaching. Their studies showed that the leaching levels of metals from the products of the vitrification process were reduced by up to three orders of magnitude when compared to the input materials.  2.6 The Recovery and Reclamation of Materials from Bottom Ash  Given that the input MSW contains a variety of materials, the remaining bottom ash contains unburned materials including many metallic constituents. A study conducted by Sussman (1989) reported the metallic constituents of  23  Table 2.5 Metallic Ash Constituents MAJOR  %  MINOR  %  TRACE  %  Al Ca Fe Na Si  3 8 10 6 30  Cu Pb Mn Mo K Ti Zn  0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3  As Ba Cd Cr Hg Se Ag  0.003 0.05 0.003 0.02 0.0006 0.004 0.0006  Source: Sussman (1989)  24 incinerator ash listed in Table 2.5. The reclaiming of these metals from incinerator residues has been evaluated from a feasibility and economical perspective.  Reclamation is the regeneration of waste materials or the recovery of materials with value from waste. Reclamation methods include dewatering, ion exchange, distillation, and smelting. (Wagner, 1990) However, the collection of ferrous scrap from the MSW incinerator residue is not reclamation. Both reclamation and recovering of metallic materials from MSW incinerator bottom ash not only create benefits from the sale of such materials but also provide great aid in extending the life of landfill sites. Research conducted by Henn et al. (1971) has evaluated the recycling of ferrous, aluminum, and copper-zinc scrap as well as colorless and colored glass from MSW incinerator residues. They reported that after the recycling process, 17 %, on a dry weight basis, of the original incinerator residue would needed to be landfilled. The volume of the materials sent to landfill would become less than 10 % of the original volume of the residue. Since there is no data available regarding the volume reduction related to the recycling of such materials from the bottom ash of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator, it can be estimated that only about 3.4 % of the original volume of the residue needs to be landfilled based on the finding that 20 % by weight of the incoming refuse remained as residue. The data of Henn et a!. (1971) seems higher than the estimates for the Burnaby MSW Incinerator and may be due to the difference of the characteristics between the ash samples. In addition to the volume reduction by recycling the ash components, a study conducted by Tay (1988) has reported that the revenue collected from the sale of electricity and scrap iron could offset the annual cost of operating the MSW incinerator.  25 Buekens et al. (1979) have evaluated the possibility of recovering the nonferrous metals from MSW incinerator ash and reported that it has high value but it was only present in small amounts. Sussman (1989) conducted research on evaluation of the testing methods, constituents and potential uses of MSW incinerator ash. In his report, Sussman concluded that present testing methods do not adequately simulate the real situation when ash is placed into a controlled landfill unit. He suggested that cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, silver and gold are recoverable from incinerator ash by using chemical processes similar to those used in the mineral industry.  Research conducted by Legiec et al. (1989) used a plating technique, the cyclic voltammetry, to determine the characteristic peak of lead, and to evaluate the recoverability of lead, cadmium, and chromium from the ash extract solutions. The treated and untreated ashes were subjected to total metals analysis and the results revealed a 45 % reduction for lead and a 90 % reduction for cadmium. They also reported that the recovered metal was in a relatively pure form and suggested the potential of recovering such metals from the ash extract solutions with electrochemical process.  2.7 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used As Fill Materials  MSW incinerator bottom ash have been used as fill materials since the 1960’s. Requardt et at. (1962) evaluated the possibility of using incinerator ash as the covering material on a landfill. They reported that incinerator ash has many advantages over sandy clay as landfill cover material. These benefits include the compatibility over a broad range of weather conditions, the greater internal strength after compactness, the freedom from shrinkage upon drying, afforded  26 by surface rigidity, and the lack of muddiness in the area during rainy weather. Maynard (1977) reported that the benefits of using incinerator residue as fill materials are that it is inert, non-plastic, well-graded, granular and easy to compact to near its maximum density. Once compacted, the residue is relatively stable and insensitive to additional pressures within a practical range. Hartlén et al. (1989) pointed out the importance of sorting the bottom ash before using it as fill materials because sorting will eliminate uncombusted and metallic materials. They have tested both fresh and aged sorted bottom ash and the results showed that aged ash performed better than fresh ash. The higher water content of the fresh ash was believed to be the main reason why it couldn’t perform better than the aged ash. Meanwhile, they also suspected that oxidation during aging may change the properties of the ash. The results of compaction tests also indicated that sorted MSW incinerator bottom ash was very suitable as fill material in structural fills.  Andrews (1991) has also reported the successful use of MSW incinerator residues as a substitute for soil in the Tampa Bay region since 1983. The residue after sorting has been applied as daily cover at the landfill working face, as substitute for aggregates in road base, to stabilize sandy or muddy areas, and to construct berms. Some of the characteristics of the reused MSW incinerator residue were reported as the following: 1) The high alkalinity of the residue was discovered to be related to carbonates and bicarbonates present in the material; 2) the strength of the products made with reused MSW incinerator residue was as strong or stronger than the products made with conventional raw material; 3) the maturation period is usually greater than that for conventionally made products; 4) once the residue was incorporated into a cement matrix, the heavy metal constituents in it were virtually immobilized.  27  MSW incinerator bottom ash used as landfill roads, barriers, and cover materials in U.S. have been reported, (Atwater et al., 1993) The bottom ash from Burnaby MSW incinerator have been used for constructing road access to the closed Coquitlam landfill as well as for making work platforms for other activities. (Atwater et a!., 1993)  2.8 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used in Concrete Making  The use of MSW incinerator bottom ash instead of natural aggregates in concrete has also been evaluated. Research conducted by Stoelhorst (1991) have shown that MSW incinerator bottom ash concrete is limited to low value unreinforced constructions due to its lower quality compared to concrete made with river sand and gravel. They reported that the high chloride content of MSW incinerator bottom ash has a potential risk of corrosion of the reinforcement steel. They also reported that only crushed, screened and iron-free ash can be considered for use as an aggregate for concrete. Research conducted by Kreijger (1984) has pointed out that the reaction between aluminum (present in ash  residue) and cement will result in expansion and thus decrease the strength of the concrete made with MSW incinerator bottom ash. In addition, the expansion problem due to silica-alkali reactions caused by the glass present in ash was also reported by Kreijger (1984) when evaluating the strength of bottom ash made concrete.  Tay (1988) reported that a lot of fine material and fibers attached to the ash particle could become contrary, which causes a poor concrete setting and inconsistent concrete strength, when using residue as fine aggregate for concrete  28 mixing. Compared to a natural sand, the wasted incinerator residue was discovered to have similar specific gravity and higher water absorption values. From a series of tests, Tay concluded that the incinerator residues after washing could be used as fine aggregate in concrete.  2.9  MSW  Incinerator  Bottom  Ash  Used  As  Aggregates  in  Road  Construction  Many studies have been carried out on the possibility of using incinerator residues as aggregates in bituminous base construction (littercrete pavement). Paviovich et al. (1977) evaluated the use of municipal incinerator residue as aggregates in bituminous pavement construction in the laboratory and in the field. They found that, with proper precautions, incinerator residue is useful as aggregate substitute in bituminous base construction. These precautions include the removal of fines and the addition of slurried-lime to the stockpile, which was used as an anti stripping agent for the glass in the incinerator residue. A study by Blank (1976) reported that the possibility of the manufacture of lightweight aggregates from incinerator residues is dependent upon a high content of glass, which evolves a gas on heating and expands to a lightweight aggregate having satisfactory structure and strength at high temperatures.  Haynes et al. (1975) (1977) reported that littercrete pavement met the specifications for asphalt stabilized materials and it can use conventional equipment and technology. He also reported that the performance of littercrete pavement is as good as that of the conventional pavement. From the results of the investigations, they estimated the life of the littercrete pavement to be 10- 15 years and found it is limited by the strength of the lime stabilized subgrade. In  29 some areas where aggregates cost are high, the low cost of the incinerator residues has resulted in the use of incinerator residues in bituminous base construction. Teague et al. (1978) conducted research on the performance of littercrete pavement during the first three years of service. In his report, he concluded that littercrete pavement performed, almost identical with the conventional pavement.  Patankar et al. (1979) evaluated the economic and environmental factors influencing the use of fused and unfused incinerator residues in highway construction. They reported that from the results of economic analysis, unfused incinerator residue is very practical when the landfilling cost savings associated are taken into account. They found that although the fused incinerator residue may have significant skid-resistant properties on pavement, its use is not justified solely on the basis of economics. They also indicated that the amount of incinerator residue available is far less than the demand for urban aggregates. Patankar et al. believed that there wouldn’t be a business conflict to the fixed investment of the vertically integrated highway construction and materials industry. The same comment has been reported by Strauss (1989) in his research on the potential reuse of hardened incinerator ash.  Lauer (1979) conducted a study evaluating the potential use of MSW incinerator residue as a source of aggregate. In his research, the fly ash was combined with the residue. From the results of American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) acceptance tests, the residue was found to be potentially suitable for using as subbase and base-course material and aggregate for asphaltic concrete, Portland cement concrete, and masonry concrete block. He pointed out that the expansion of the alkali-aggregate occurred when the waste  30 glass was substituted for the coarse aggregates in concrete, and it could be controlled by adding fly ash collected in an electroprecipitator from a refuse incinerator instead of some of the cement to dissipate the alkali.  Collins et al. (1977) classified the municipal incinerator residues in three categories, based on degree of burnout. These categories are well burned-out, intermediately burn-out, and poorly burn-out. He thought that municipal incinerator residues are predictable in their composition and gradation. From the results of his study on the use of incinerator residue in highway construction, Collins concluded that only well burned and intermediately burned residues were viable for use in highway construction. They recommended that an aging period was necessary to improve the quality of the residue prior to its use as a fill material. Based on the results of the laboratory tests and field performance of base course and wearing surface mixtures placed in various test sections, they suggested that the incinerator residue should be blended with natural aggregates on an equal weight basis in bituminous paving mixtures. Since the incinerator residue contains a high percentage of glass, Collins et al. also reported that the addition of hydrated lime is necessary for improving the anti-stripping properties of asphalt when using incinerator residue in bituminous paving mixtures. They discovered that the use of incinerator residue in Portland cement concrete was not suitable since the aluminum reactivity in the mixture causes an expansion. From the results of 48 hour leachate tests, he discovered that the use of a binding agent, such as lime, cement, or asphalt, tended to encapsulate the elements in the incinerator residue and noticeably reduce their solubilities and concentrations in the leachate. In their conclusions, Collins et al. reported that the use of incinerator residue in bituminous paving mixture appeared to be the most promising application of the MSW incinerator residue. Collins (1978) also  31 reported that the energy requirements and economics associated with the use of incinerator residue as a synthetic aggregate through heat fusion, and the production of structural brick and mineral wool insulation has to be taken into account in the reuse of incinerator residue.  Research conducted by Buekens et al. (1979) found that high combustion temperatures that cause the sintering and the partial melting of the residue has a benefit of decreasing the solubility of ash in ground water and thus reducing the potential water pollution of the tipped ash. He also reported that the graded incinerator ash is still a desirable raw material which can be used for hardening secondary roads, preparing park or sport grounds or as a sub-base material for road making. However, the high porosity, improper grading, low strength and brittleness of the residue also makes for some problems in road construction. Its high sulfate content also restricts its use to a minimum distance of 0.5 m from concrete products.  Walter (1976) also confirmed that MSW incinerator residue is usable in both base and surface course of asphalt pavements. He reported that hot asphalt coating on the incinerator residue would form an impervious covering which prevents leaching of heavy metals from the residue into surrounding soils. However, he discovered that excess ferrous material present in the residue can adversely affect adhesion of the asphalt due to its highly oxidized state after incineration. Consequent pavement failure, a requirement for more asphalt and a change in aggregate characteristics with time were also related to the ferrous constituent in the incinerator residue. Thus he recommended that the removal of oversize particles and excessive ferrous materials prior to the utilization of incinerator residue in asphalt pavement was necessary. Additional residue  32 gradation, was also suggested by Walter, which might further reduce the variability of the residue quality due to its heterogeneous property.  2.10 Other Issues Regarding the Use of Bottom Ash  Blaisdell et at. (1990) conducted a study to evaluate the economic feasibility of drying MSW incinerator residue. He reported that the moisture of ash due to the quench water increases the weight and cost of the ash sent to the landfill as well as the cost of treatment of the increased leachate generated. With increasing landfill disposal costs, he suggested that bottom ash moisture reduction would be worth taking into consideration. In four bottom ash moisture reduction schemes investigated, he discovered that the use of electric resistance heating after quench to reduce moisture was the most economically feasible design.  Strauss (1989) conducted a study regarding the evaluation of the stabilization of heavy metals in incinerator ash and the potential reuse of the hardened materials. He discovered that the quality of the stabilized products made from MSW residue was adequate, but with the cost of production and the cost of amortization of the equipment it could not compete with natural aggregates. He also reported that in the melting and solidification of the MSW incinerator ash, a dramatic reduction in volume was observed (from 3 to 5 times less volume). Strauss suggested that this process was economical even when using landfill disposal, since the ability to put 3 to 5 times more ash in the same space may offset the cost of installing and operating the melting plant. In the brick making scenario, the cost of the product was found to be too high. He  33 predicted that if the percentage of the ash could be high enough, the process may be more economical.  In addition to the applications stated above, many studies have been carried out or are underway on developing other uses for MSW incinerator residues. These alternative uses include artificial reef development and the production of brick, cinder block, and curbing. (Andrews, 1991)  Though many MSW incinerator bottom ash utilization options have been practiced successfully for years, there are still several issues impeding the utilization of MSW incinerator residues. These issues include: “1) Environmental Consequences and Human Health Concerns, which focus on the heavy metals in the ashes as well as their form and their ultimate fate when the ash is applied to uses like roadbed, building blocks, etc. 2) Long-term Performance and Prediction of Performance, which concerns the ability of accurately measuring and predicting the environmental behavior of the ashes over extended periods for various utilization scenarios. 3) Liability, the potential liability for future problems and the uncertain regulatory situations have impeded the utilization of MSW incinerator residues. 4) The Lack of Guidance on MSW Incinerator Ash Measurement and Utilization, which has impeded the initialization of field demonstrations required to evaluate the benefits, risks and other factors associated with ash utilization and thus creates uncertainty for the industry, the users, and the public. 5) The Need of Criteria for Utilization, which must specify the physical properties and characteristics of the materials to be replaced for the MSW incinerator ash to meet. 6) Markets, already mentioned in some previous literature, is a decisive issue of all MSW incinerator ash utilization options.”  34 Further research and demonstrations are needed to assist in resolving these issues. (Wiles, 1991)  2.11 Summary  The conventional disposal of MSW incinerator bottom ash in landfills have been practiced for years. Many researchers have addressed the evaluation of the leachable metal levels from such ash landfills due to potential contamination of groundwater sources which may in turn provide a pathway for human contact. Owing to the lack of specific guidelines for the testing of incinerator residues, many test protocols have been developed by different groups and agencies for the extraction of contaminants from the residue from MSW incinerators. Scientists found that results from different test protocols were not comparable due to the different test conditions as well as other factors such as combustion technology, sampling protocol, sample size, leaching medium, and pH of leaching solution which all have effects on the leachable metal concentrations in the leachate from MSW incinerator residues. Despite the different extraction tests, many studies have shown that MSW incinerator bottom ash generally leached out metals in concentrations lower than the maximum acceptable levels in regulations defining hazardous materials. Moreover, much of the utilization research regarding the incinerator residue in the past was done on combined bottom and fly ash. It is remarkable that the fly ash properties have also changed over the last ten years with the pollution control requirements such as acid gas scrubbers and the subsequent injection of lime into the gas treatment stream.  35 Few ash researchers have addressed the leachable metal levels in the bottom ash associated with residue particle size. A study from Western Europe (Stegemann et al., 1991) reported that metal concentration in the leachate increased with the decreasing particle size of the extracted bottom ash sample. Only limited literature is available for clarifying this finding. This leads to the extraction test practiced on three bottom ash fractions in this study to verify the relationship between particle size and the leachable metal level.  Since MSW incinerator bottom ash is generally classified as a nonhazardous material, many researchers have evaluated the possible utilization of these materials. The use of the glass and metallic materials in the bottom ash have been evaluated for feasibility and economics. The factor deciding the use of glass in the bottom ash, however, is the market potential of end products made from such materials. The successful use of MSW incinerator bottom ash as an aggregate substitute in concrete mixing, road base making and bituminous paving have been reported by many researchers in both North America and Western Europe. Utilization of bottom ash in artificial reef development and production of brick, cinder block, curbing and other materials have also been reported by researchers. Physical properties such as durability, particle size gradation, specific gravity, and LA abrasion have to be evaluated and meet the specifications of specific use.  The main objective of this study is to determine if leachable heavy metals were concentrated in any specific fractions of the fine bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. If any specific fraction was found to leach out higher levels of heavy metals, a better management of the bottom ash could be made by sorting out the problematic fraction which would upgrade the quality of the rest.  36 Another objective of this study is to characterize the grain size distribution of the bottom ash. This physical property of bottom ash is required for engineering purposes when evaluating the suitability of bottom ash as aggregate substitute in uses such as road building and concrete mixing. Many engineering uses of bottom ash require the ash to meet the specifications for the grain size distribution of the conventional aggregate used. Also, the material distribution of the coarse bottom ash fraction is to be characterized in this study. Like the grain size distribution, knowledge of the material distribution of the coarse bottom ash fractions is necessary when considering the reuse of bottom ash in engineering uses. In addition, the fixed and total metals in the fine bottom ash fractions are to be evaluated in this study for a general understanding of the heavy metals levels in the bottom ash. When a long term disposal of the bottom ash is considered, such information will be beneficial for a proper management of such ash residues.  37 Chapter 3. Materials And Methods  A brief description of the methods used in this research is presented in this chapter. A flow chart of the procedures is shown in Figure 3.1.  3.1 Sampling Procedure  The bottom ash samples used in this research were collected at the Burnaby Refuse Incinerator between January and December 1991. The sampling frequency was originally designed as three times per month. It was later modified to twice per month, based on the practicalities of sampling. On occasion, sampling was postponed due to regular plant shut down for maintenance, or a busy plant schedule. The samping location is shown in the cross sectional diagram of the Burnaby Incinerator, Figure 3.2. The sampling schedule as well as the quantity of ash collected is illustrated in Table 3.1.  For each sampling date, ten to twelve half-bucket containers were used to collect bottom ash samples at the plant. Except for those obtained between January and February at the end of No.2 ash conveyer, the bottom ash samples were collected at the end of No.3 ash conveyer. A sheet of plywood as shown in Figure 3.3 was attached to the bottom ash crane to direct bottom ash falling off the conveyer into a crane bucket. A roller magnet at the end of conveyer collected ferrous materials from the bottom ash, the ferrous material was discharged to a pit beside the ash bunker, thus the ash samples collected did not include the ferrous metal fraction. The average collecting time for one half-bucket of bottom ash was approximately twenty minutes. The bottom ash crane was then moved  Physical Components Distribution Analysis  Figure 3.1 Summary of Bottom Ash Sampling & Analysis Procedures  Get 4 Sets of 6 Size Fractional Samples  Combine Each 3 Sets of the Same Size Fractional Samples  Get 10-12 Sets of 6 Size Fractional Samples  Fractions of Passing 50 mm Sieve Opening  Environmental Eng. Lab, UBC Civil Eng. Dept.  2 kg Sample Rinsed With 2L Distilled Water  I 2 3 4 5 5 7 S 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 IA  FEEb CHUTE GIATE DCHtLQEfl ASH d(INKER BOILER SUPERHEATER ECONOMIZER CONDITIONING TOWER RETC4I (LIME INJECTIONI FABRIC FILTERS St4CI  MANOEUVERING APROW nEcEIvtaG HALL MAW4TENANCE BAY flEFUSE BUNICER  -  Figure 3.2 Greater Vancouver Regional District Burnaby Incinerator A Refuse to Energy Facility  Bottom ash samples taken from here  GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BURNABY INCINERATOR- A REFUSE TO ENERGY FACILITY  Ffl  40 Table 3.1 Burnaby Refuse Incinerator Bottom Ash Sampling Schedule vs. Sample Weights Sampling  Number of  Total Bottom Ash Average Half-bucket  Date  Half-buckets  Sample Wt. (kg)  Sample Wt. (kg)  N/A* 1/2/91 12 N/A* 1/14/91 12 N/A* 1/22/91 12 2/4/91 10 688.5 2/18/91 12 765.0 3/6/91 10 580.3 3/30/91 12 618.0 4/12/91 12 658.8 4/21/91 12 666.4 4/29/91 12 622.6 6/6/91 12 650.8 7/7/91 12 630.6 8/10/91 12 615.4 8/30/91 12 532.1 9/13/91 12 664.2 9/26/91 12 652.7 11 11/16/91 591.7 12/17/91 10 521.8 *NOTE -The prticle size distribution analysis began 2/4/91.  N/A* N/A* N/A* 68.85  63.75 58.03 51.50 54.90 55.53 51.88 54.23 52.55 51.28 44.34 55.35 54.39 53.79 52.18  41  Figure 3.3 The Collection of Bottom Ash Sample at the End of No.3 Ash Conveyer of Burnaby Refuse Incinerator  42 outside the plant to load the bottom ash into the half-bucket containers. Ten to twelve half-buckets of bottom ash were collected in at half hour intervals. According to ASTM Method No. D75-87, “Standard Practice for Sampling Aggregates” (ASTM 1989), the suggested approximate minimum mass of field samples for 50 mm (two inches) size aggregate is 100 kg. The ASTM Designation C 136-84a “Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates” (ASTM 1991), suggests that a 20 kg sample is appropriate when 50 mm diameter aggregate is present. In this research, ten to twelve half-buckets of bottom ash, instead of one large sample, were taken for each sampling day. Each half-bucket held about fifty to sixty kilograms of air-dried bottom ash.  The bottom ash samples were subjected to an air drying procedure. Each half-bucket of ash was dumped onto a piece of clean plastic and kept in the open air at the plant for a week to ten days. During this period, regular mixing of the ash piles was practiced to make sure that the bottom ash samples were thoroughly dry before beginning the subsequent particle size distribution analysis.  3.2 Particle Size Distribution Analysis  The particle size distribution survey of the bottom ash was performed by using a Gilson Test-Master® Model TM-4 sifting machine. This top loading low vibration test-screening machine holds six trays and a pan. The sifting time was set at five minutes for one load of ash to be separated to seven fractions. The sizes of the sieve opening used in this test were 2 inches (50 mm), 1 inch (25.0 mm), 1/2 inch (12.5 mm), 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), No. 4 sieve (4.75 mm), and No. 8 sieve (2.36 mm). Each half-bucket of the air dried bottom ash was divided into three  43 loads to ensure complete separation. The same fractions resulting from the three siftings were combined. Each fraction was then weighed at the plant and coned and quartered to reduce each fraction to a desired testing size, of approximately two kilograms.  3.3 Quartering Procedure  3.3.1  The seven fractions or portions of each bottom ash sample were  subject to a coning & quartering procedure following the guidelines stated in Method B (Quartering) of ASTM Designation: C702-87 “Standard Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size” (ASTM 1991). Each fraction of the ash sample was placed on a piece of clean plastic located on a hard, clean, level surface in the incinerator plant. The material was mixed thoroughly by turning the entire sample over three times. After the mixing, the entire sample was shoveled to form a conical pile. The conical pile was then carefully flattened to a uniform thickness and diameter by pressing down the apex with a shovel so that each quarter sector of the resulting pile contained the material originally in it. The diameter was approximately four to eight times the thickness. The flattened mass was divided into four equal quarters with a shovel. The two diagonally opposite quarters, including all fine material, were removed and the cleared spaces were cleaned. The remaining quarters were mixed and quartered successively until the sample was reduced to the desired size. The quartering procedures is shown in Figure 3.4.  3.3.2 An alternative to the procedure described in 3.3.1 was also practiced in this research when handling the finer fractions, which pass the 3/8’ (9.5 mm) opening sieve. The ash sample was placed on a piece of clean plastic  44  L’J  Cone Sample on Hard Clerr Surface  S.cmplc  Mo. to.  Quarter  Forming New Cone  l)icdcd Into ç)rter  k(tri flaiccncn (one  tirc (.)ppcscIe Qir1erI h ihcc iwo Quarter’  Rcjcc i  Figure 3.4 Quartering on a Hard, Clean Level Surface (Source : ASTM Designation: C 702 87) -  7’ Form Cone alter Mctcng  Mcs by Roilcng ott BLanket  /  Sample Dwcded  IntO  Quarters  Quarter After Rattening Cone  ——  Retain Opposite Quarters Rejcei the Other Two Quarters  Figure 3.5 Quartering on a Canvas Blanket (Source: ASTM Designation: C 702 87) -  45 and was mixed by alternately lifting each corner of the plastic and pulling it over the sample toward the diagonally opposite corner, causing the material to be rolled. The pile was flattened and divided into quarters, as described in 3.3.1. The diagonally opposite quarters were removed and the fines on the plastic were carefully cleaned. The remaining material was mixed and quartered successively until the sample was reduced to the desired size (Figure 3.5).  3.4 Material Components Distribution Analysis  The bottom ash samples with particle size greater than 9.5 mm were subject to a material components distribution analysis. Due to its small group and heavy weight, compared to other fractions, the portion with particle size greater than 50 mm was analyzed visually for its material components at the plant site and discarded thereafter.  The portions between 50 mm and 9,5 mm were sorted at the Environmental Lab of UBC Civil Engineering Department. Two kilograms of the air dried bottom ash with particle size between 50 mm and 25 mm was rinsed with 2 liters of distilled water several times until no more fine materials could be removed from the ash. The rinsed bottom ash samples were collected with a strainer and air dried in the laboratory for approximately one week and then subjected to visual sorting of the material components. Before the start of the  sorting procedure, ten clean beakers were weighed and labeled. The air dried ash samples were weighed and then sorted into ten different material categories. The categories of the material components of the bottom ash samples used in this research include ferrous metals, which were not removed by the roller magnet, brick, concrete pieces, glass pieces, unburned paper & wood pieces, ceramics,  46 rock and gravel, non-ferrous metals, glass mixtures and fused & unidentified mixtures. Each category of the material component of a bottom ash sample was sorted out and put into a specific beaker. When the sorting procedure was completed, each beaker carrying a category of the material component of the bottom ash was weighed. Weights for the ten material components of a bottom ash sample were divided by the total weight of the ash sample to get the material component distribution percentages on a weight basis.  The bottom ash rinse water was collected and filtered through a 7.0 cm diameter Whatman 934-AH glass fiber filter with a porcelain Büchner filtering funnel. The solid phase was collected and air dried. The liquid phase was preserved with concentrated nitric acid for metal analysis described in section 3.7.  The air dried bottom ash of the fractions between 25 mm and 12.5 mm and the fractions between 12.5 mm and 9.5 mm were subjected to the same procedure stated above, except one kilogram of air dried ash was rinsed with 1 liter of distilled water.  3.5 Leachate Extraction Procedure  The fine aggregate portions (passing 9.5 mm mesh opening) of the bottom ash samples were subjected to Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) following the Extraction Procedure outlined in B.C. Reg. 63/88 “Waste Management Act, Special Waste Regulation” Schedule 4 (Government of British Columbia, 1992). The moisture of the air dried ash samples was determined by drying a suitable aliquot to constant weight at 60° C in an oven. The equivalence of 50 g dry  47 weight of the bottom ash was placed in one liter 1000 mL Nalgene TM highdensity polyethylene wide-mouth square bottle with 800 mL of distilled water. The bottle was capped and agitated at about 10 rpm in a rotary extractor, which can hold 12 bottles at one time (Figure 3.6). At 15 minutes after the start, the rotary extractor was stopped and a bottle was removed for a pH measurement. The solution in the bottle was agitated and immediately measured with a Beckman PHITM 44 pH meter. If the pH of the solution was greater than 5.0 ± 0.2, a sufficient volume of 0.5 N acetic acid was added to adjust the pH to 5.0 ± 0.2 and then the bottle was capped and returned to the extraction. If the pH of the solution was less than 5.0 ± 0.2, no adjustment was needed and the bottle was kept in the tumbling apparatus. The bottle and its contents were rotated in the rotary extractor at 10 rpm at room temperature (20°C to 25°C). The following procedure was carefully followed during the period of extraction:  1) The pH of the solution was measured at 1 hour, 3 hours, and 6 hours. If the pH was above 5.2, it was reduced it to pH 5.0 ± 0.2 by adding of 0.5 N acetic acid. If the pH was below 5.0, no adjustments were made. The maximum amount of the 0.5 N acetic acid added was no more than 200 mL in the test.  2) Adjusted the volume of the solution to 1000 mL with distilled water, if the pH was below 5.0 ± 0.2 after 6 hours.  3) Measured and reduced the pH to 5.0 ± 0.2, if needed, after 22 hours and continued the extraction for an additional 2 hours.  48  Figure 3.6 Rotary Extractor Used In Bottom Ash Leachate Extraction Procedure  49 At the end of the extraction period, if a total of 200 mL of 0.5 acetic acid wasn’t added, enough distilled water was added to the bottle so that the total volume of the liquid was 1000 mL. The amount of 0.5 N acetic acid added and the final pH of the solution were also recorded. The solution was then filtered through a 0.45 tm Satorius cellulose nitrate membrane filter with a Nalgene TM filter funnel and clamp (Cat. No. FT 356). The filtrate was preserved by adding concentrated nitric acid to lower the pH to less than pH 2 and stored at 40 C for metal analysis. The solid portion was collected, air dried at room temperature, and subject to a total metals acid digestion procedure. A blank sample was carried through the entire procedure by using dilute acetic acid at pH 5.0 ± 0.2.  3.6 Total Metals Acid Digestion  The solids obtained from the LEP procedure were pulverized to 100 mesh size. After the pulverization, there usually were pieces of metals remaining in the ash powder. These metals appeared as the forms of drops or chips which were typically aluminum, lead, copper and iron. They comprised about 10 % to 20 % by weight of the solid subject to pulverization. These metal pieces did not pulverize to powder in the pulverization process, which was done at the Mining and Mineral Process Engineering Department (UBC) using the pulverizing machine. They were removed from the pulverized ash to make sure that the remaining ash powder was homogenous enough to get one gram of sample for total acid digestion. Therefore, the total metal results of the bottom ash in this study have been underestimated due to the removal of metal pieces in the pulverization process. According to The Standard Methods No. 3030 F. “Nitric Acid-Hydrochloric Acid Digestion Procedure” (A.P.H.A. et al. 1990) , one gram of the ground ash sample was weighed into a conical flask with 3 mL of  50 concentrated HNO . The flask was placed on a hot plate located in a fume hood. 3 The liquid in the conical flask was cautiously evaporated to a lowest volume possible, making certain that the sample did not boil and that no area of the bottom of the container went dry. The sample & flask was then cooled and 5 mL concentrated HNO 3 was added. A watch glass was used to cover the flask when it was returned to the hot plate. The temperature of the hot plate was increased so that a gentle reflux action occurred. The flask was heated continually, adding additional acid as necessary, until the digestion was completed; when the digestate was light in color or didn’t change in appearance with continued refluxing. The digestate was evaporated to <5 mL and cooled. 10 mL 1  +  1 HC1  (  50 % concentration) and 15 mL water per 100 mL anticipated final volume were added into the flask, and then heated for an additional 15 minutes to dissolve any precipitate or residue. The flask was cooled and the remains on the flask wall and watch glass were washed down with distilled water. The solution was filtered through a 0.45 jim Satorius cellulose nitrate membrane filter to remove the insoluble material. The filtrate was adjusted to 100 mL final volume with distilled water for metal analysis.  3.7 Metal Analysis  The acid preserved liquid samples from the LEP, the Total Metals Acid Digestion and the Physical Components Distribution Analysis Procedure were analyzed for Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn by atomic absorption spectroscopy. A Thermo Jarrell Ash IL VIDEOTM 22 aa/ae Spectrophotometer at the UBC Civil/Environmental Engineering Lab was used to determine metal concentrations in liquid samples except for those Ni in the LEP leachate samples and most of the samples from coarse bottom ash rinse water which were  51 determined by using a Perkin-Elmer 703 Atomic Absorption graphite furnace at the same lab. The methodology of determining metal levels in the leachate of the bottom ash samples from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator was following No. 303 of the Standard Methods (APHA et aL, 1985). The procedures for setting up the atomic absorption spectrophotometers were following the specific users manuals from the manufacturers.  52 Chapter 4. Results  This chapter presents the results of the tests on the bottom ash samples taken from January 2, 1991 to December 18, 1991 at the No. 2 and No. 3 units of the Burnaby Refuse Incinerator. The bottom ash particle size distribution tests began on February 4, 1991. The bottom ash material component characterization for the four coarse fractions with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter was done on samples collected on sampling dates between January 2, 1991 and December 18, 1991.  4.1 Bottom Ash Particle Size Distribution  The particle size distribution for 173 bottom ash samples from Burnaby MSW Incinerator is shown in Figure 4.1. Detailed results for each sample are presented in Appendix 1. On average, the fine ash passing the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve consists of 25 % by weight of the bottom ash. The fraction with a particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 50 mm diameter contained 66 % by weight of the bottom ash stream. Only bout 9 % by weight of the bottom ash was retained on the 50 mm opening sieve. Compared to the aggregate gradation range specified in Section 202 of the BC Ministry of Transportation and Highway’s “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction” (Government of British Columbia, 1991), the bottom ash tested generally meets the specification for a well-graded base course for use in highway construction. The aggregate gradations of bottom ash as well as the standard specification are presented in Table 4.1. Bottom ash aggregate gradations reported in selected references are shown in Figure 4.2. It is apparant that the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW  0  10  20  30  -  -  -  -  -  1  ,  No. 8 (2.36mm)  —  .  -  ,  ‘  /  /  /  10  I  3/8” (9.5 mm)  ,/  ,‘  /1  /  /  1/2” (12.5mm)  ,‘  ‘/,  (50mm)  —•-  5th Percentile -25th Percentle -50 Percentile -75th Percentile --i-- -95th Percentile —  -  ,/  ,.‘—‘  / /  /i” 7(25mm)  ,/,//  _,...  ,‘,  /  SIEVE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS  (4.75mm)  _.  /  .  .  .•  ,  x  .  ..‘  0 100  20  30  50  60  70  80  90  100  Figure 4.1 BURNARY MSW INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH SIZE DISTRIBUTION (169 SAMPLES ON 15 DAYS BETWEEN JAN TO DEC 1991)  Lii  Lii  -  -  -  50-  70  80  90  100  54 Table 4.1 Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Particle Size Gradation* vs. BC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction Burnaby MSW Incinerator  Specification for Well Graded  Sieve Size  Bottom Ash  Base Course Aggregate  (mm)  (Percentage Passing by Weight)  (Percentage Passing by Weight)  75 50 (2 in.) 37.5 25 (1 in.) 12.5 (1/2 in.) 9.5 (3/8 in.) 4.75 (No.4) 2.36 (No. 8) 1.18 0.300 0.075  Note:  *  100  -  83—97 -  65—90 39-68 30—59 14—37 5—25 -  -  -  -  60-400 -  35—80 25—60 20—40 15—30 10—20 3—10 0-5  Based on the 90% confidence of the results for 173 samples.  Sieve  Millimeters  10  100 Size in  0 1  0 0.1  20  20  0.01  40  40  60  80  80  60  100  100  Figure 4.2 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate Gradations: This Study and Selected References  a,  U  a,  C  U,  C  a,  120  1 20  01 01  56 incinerator between February and December in 1991 contained more coarse particles than reported in the literature. However, the bottom ash samples used by Gress et al. (1991) and Stegemann et at. (1991) excluded oversized particles and contained only those with size less than the 1 inch sieve opening. When the oversize particles (greater than the 1 inch sieve opening) were not taken into account in the aggregate gradation of the bottom ash samples in this study, the aggregate gradation become quite comparable to those reported by Gress et at. (1991) and Stegemann et at. (1991). The data reported by Tay (1989) shows a quite different aggregate gradation since only bottom ash passing through 5 mm sieve opening were analyzed.  4.2 Material Distributions in Bottom Ash Fractions with Particle Size Greater than the 9.5 mm Diameter  The descriptive material distributions in the bottom ash fractions with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter have been evaluated in this study and the results are presented in Appendix 2. Four coarse bottom ash fractions include those with particle size between the 9.5 mm and the 12.5 mm diameter, between the 12.5 mm and the 25 mm diameter, between the 25 mm and the 50 mm diameter, and retained on the 50 mm opening sieve. The average descriptive material distribution in each bottom ash fraction is presented in Table 4.2. However, these results just simply present the materials distribution in each bottom ash fraction based on the weight basis of each fraction. In order to evaluate the material distributions in each coarse bottom ash fraction on the weight basis of the whole bottom ash fractions, the bottom ash particle size distributions have also been incorporated into the calculations. The resulting materials distribution in the four bottom ash fractions on a weight basis for the  30.42% 1.76% 4.24% 3.70% 0.47% 8.53% 9.68% 2.57% 11.79% 26.85%  Percentage in Fraction 2* 25 mm < PS** <50mm 25.82% 0.38% 1.22% 14.10% 0.24% 7.75% 5.39% 3.70% 25.11% 16.30%  Percentage in Fraction 3* 12.5 mm < PS** <25 mm 9.5 mm  <  <  12.5 mm 22.99% 0.18% 1.19% 22.72% 0.20% 3.33% 4.33% 3.40% 26.68% 14.97%  PS’  Percentage in Fraction 4*  The average percentage of each fraction in the total bottom ash stream is: Fraction 1 (9.44%), Fraction 2 (12.19%), Fraction 3 (24.16%), Fraction 4(10.42%). ** PS = particle size. *** Glass mixtures contain mostly glass. 1 Others contain mostly fused materials and some materials not classifed as those listed in the table.  *  0.41% 3.33% 9.42% 0.11% 0.71% 0.74% 7.71% 10.93% 0.00% 66.65%  Magnetic Brick Concrete Glass Paper & Wood Ceramics Rock Non-ferrous Metals Glass Mixtures*** Otherst  Note:  Percentage in Fraction 1* PS** >50mm  Material  Table 4.2 Descriptive Material Distributions in Four Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions (With Particle Size Greater Than the 9.5 mm Diameter) From Burnaby MSW Incinerator (On Weight Basis)  (ii  58 whole bottom ash fractions is presented in Figure 4.3. Results for each category are reported in the following:  The magnetic materials found in the bottom ash were usually fused with other materials such as glass, ceramics, and rock, which generally appeared in small quantities. Such materials were sometimes partially magnetic. Magnetic coins such as nickels and dimes were often found in good condition in the bottom ash samples. These coins were generally retained on the 12.5 mm opening sieve. As shown in Figure 4.3, the magnetic materials in these bottom ash fractions comprised totally around 12.5 % by weight of the bottom ash samples. The magnetic materials were chiefly found in the bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 50 mm diameter. Only a few large sized magnetic materials were found in the bottom ash samples from Burnaby MSW Incinerator and this may be owing to the higher efficiency of the roller magnet in removing those oversize magnetic materials from the bottom ash stream. The roller magnet seems less efficient in removing the partially magnetic materials with smaller particle size from residue. The magnetic materials in the bottom ash may have mineralogical value for iron. However, further research on MSW incinerator bottom ash is required when evaluating the feasibility and economy of recovering iron from these residues.  There was about 0.5 % brick and nearly 2 % concrete found in the bottom ash on weight basis. These brick and concrete pieces were seldom fused with other materials. The distributions of brick and concrete pieces were typically in higher percentages in the fractions with coarser particle size. This is probably related to their greater physical strength which prevented them from being broken through the refuse collection, transportation and incineration processes.  Figure 4.3 Material Contribution by Coarse Fractions to the Bottom Ash Stream from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  0  12  12  ‘a  14  14  10  16  16  60 On the other hand, glass and its mixtures are mostly distributed in finer fractions. This apparently is related to its fragile property. Unlike brick and concrete, glass often fused with materials like metals, ceramics, rocks and others and these mixtures were mainly classified as glass mixtures in this study. On average, glass comprised 6.5 % by weight of the bottom ash while the glass mixtures were found to be 10.5 % of the bottom ash on weight basis.  The percentages of ceramics and rock in the bottom ash samples were very close, about 3.5 % on weight basis. The distribution of the ceramics and rock in the bottom ash were generally in the fractions with a particle size between the 12.5 mm and the 50 mm diameter. Very few ceramics with particle size> 50 mm diameter were found in the bottom ash samples. On the other hand, there were occasional rocks with particle size greater than the 50 mm diameter discovered in the bottom ash. The greater physical strength of rocks than that of ceramics is believed to be the primary explanation that such large sized rocks could survive the processes from refuse collection to incineration.  The non-ferrous metals discovered in the bottom ash were approximately 2.5 % on weight basis, about half with particle size greater than the 25 mm diameter and the other between the 9.5 mm and the 25 mm diameter. These metals were generally aluminum, tin, copper, penny coins and unclassified metals. Sometimes there were glass or ceramics pieces, which only appeared in small quantity, clinging to these materials. The aluminum discovered was pieces of beverage cans in most of the cases. Tin and copper chiefly appeared as drops in the bottom ash samples. Like nickels and dimes, the penny coins were usually found in the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 12.5 mm and the 25 nun diameter.  61  Unburned paper and wood pieces were found in very small quantities in the bottom ash, (< 0.5 % by weight). These materials were chiefly unburned newspaper. A few pieces of unburned tree trunks were also found in the bottom ash stream. However, these large wood pieces were always discovered in sample of a weight much greater than the desired 50 kilogram sample size and thus were excluded from the sampling. In summer season, unburned grass clippings were also found in the fractions with particle sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter, which were not tested for material distribution.  Fused mixtures and unclassified materials comprised about 15 % of the bottom ash samples on weight basis. These materials were abundant in all of four coarse bottom ash fractions tested in this study. Many of the categories stated above have been found fused with clinkers in the bottom ash samples. Clinkers comprised the majority of these fused materials in most of the cases. There were some fused materials with large particle sizes found in the bottom ash samples. Such materials were so strong that they could remain in good shapes through the sifting procedure. Generally, these over sized fused materials were at a little higher percentage of the bottom ash than those with smaller particle sizes.  4.3 The Leachable Metal Levels of The Bottom Ash Fractions  The metal concentrations in leachate from B.C. Reg. 63/88 Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) on samples from three fine bottom ash fractions are reported in Appendix 3. Before describing these results, it is important to make sure that the data are normally distributed. An approach to judging data normality in this study is to sequence the results in ascending order and plot the  62 data value against the normal deviation (Z-score) associated with the medium rank of each sequenced point. The medium rank of each data point in a sequenced data set containing N data points can be approximated by the formula shown below:  P  =  (i 0.3)/(N -  +  0.4) for the th point.  where: N = number of data points in a data set; P  =  medium rank of each data point in a sequenced data set  The normal deviate (Z-score) can be calculated using the following approximation: (Rigo, 1989; Abramowitz et a!., 1968)  forP0.5: T  =  SQRT[-0.2 x ln(P)]  Z  =  T (2.30753 -  +  0.27061T)/(1  +  0.99229T  +  ) 2 0.04481T  while, for P> 0.5: T = SQRT[-0.2 x ln(1 P)] -  Z  =  (2.30753  +  0.27061T)/(1  +  0.99229T  +  ) T 2 0.04481T -  where: P  =  medium rank of each data point in a sequenced data set;  Z  =  normal deviate (Z-score)  When the data is properly normalized, the plot of the sequenced data versus Z-score will be quite close to a straight line. Results with a plot shown as a curve or two different lines are not normally distributed.  63 Sequenced and plotted versus Z-score, the LEP leachable metal concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter are presented in Fig. 4.4 to Fig. 4.11. The results with concentrations below the detection limits were presented as half the concentration of the detection limits which are less problematic to handle than presenting the numbers as zero or detection limit concentrations when further data transformation is required. (Rigo, 1989) From this analysis, most of the data are described as curves and thus not normaly distributed. Few results with large values are the main cause of these data failing to fit a normal distribution. The only data set showing a plot close to a straight line is the LEP leachable cadmium concentration in the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter.  Since most of the data about the LEP leachable metal concentrations in the three fine bottom ash fractions are not normally distributed, data transformation is required before any good statistical analysis can be drawn from those data. The natural logarithm transform is chosen in this study because it is suitable for a data set with the mean about equal to the standard deviation. (Rigo, 1989) To judge the normalcy, the transformed data are sequenced and plotted versus Z score for the three fine bottom ash fractions. The result plots, shown in Fig. 4.12 to Fig. 4.19, are closer to straight lines for all of those transformed data sets and are fairly normally distributed for a statistical analysis.  The statistical analysis of the results must be properly calculated and concise enough to provide information regarding LEP results to meet the concerns of the general public as well as the regulatory agencies. In the U.S., a waste is determined to be non-hazardous if the 80 percent upper confidence limit  U’.  3  2  .  mm artc%ize  •  <  .  -2  ....-..—  6 mm  a) 0 U  0  -  —1  -2  -3  0  i  05  15  4  3:5  2:5  Cadmium Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.4 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Cadmium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  2  3  I  ‘  2  :  4.Z5 mm  <  a  Partcte Size c .5.xnm mm  rff6V 4.(  I  r——  .2  -  ..4 0  U C,,  0  -—  —.-—....-  .-...-------  w —1  -  .  ...  .-  -3  •0  $ xxLs.t..oo  8 .  -2  .—...-—-.--..—  ....—  .  0  o.Os  0.1  ..-....  +  ,c. .  0 p  x  0.15  0  0.2  Chromium Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.5 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Chromium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  65  3  2  a) 0  I  I  I  .  •  o  artieze  <  .  ....—.  6 mm  -2  0  I’  C.)  —1 .....  -2  -3  0  ..-:..  0  ib  5  20  15  30  25  35  Copper Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.6 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Copper Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  3 x •  2  0 C.)  < 9.S..znm 4.Z5 mm < articte Size mn< Partj size < 4.15 mm Particle size c .i6 mm  2  0  —1  -2  -3  .  I.)  20  40  60  80  luO  iron Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.7 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Iron Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  66  I  0  U (.1,  Manganese Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.8 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Manganese Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  0  C) U,  -2  -3  Nickel Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 49 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Nickel Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  67  3  3 jze  mm <  2  •  artlceze <  .  6  2  m  —  mm  1  1 a)  ‘  0  (3  f%J  —1  -0 .—  E  -2  -3  200  150  100  50  C,  Lead Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.10 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Lead Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  3  I  .  ••  mm < Particle Size < mm.c PartJLe 51ze < 4.15 mm mm Particle Size <  4.75  x 0 •  2 • (.. c o•  -3  ZZH  a) 1.  0  U (I,  2  0  —1 00  -2  x  -  -3  C)  50  -‘  .  0  •  100  X  260  250  Zinc Concentration (mg/L)  Figure 4.11 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Zinc Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  68  I  0  ci  U,  r4  Transformed Cadmium Concentration : Ln(mg/L)  Figure 4.12  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Cadmium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  3 2  0 U,  0 —1 -2 -3 Transformed Chromium Concentration : L.n(mg/L)  LEP Figure 4.13 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed Chromium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  69  a) 0 U Cl,  Transformed Copper Concentration : Ln(mg/L)  Figure 4.14 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Copper Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  3  2  0 C) Cl,  0  -2  -3  Transformed Iron Concentration: Ln(mg/L)  Figure 4.15 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Iron Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  70  -3  I  3 0  x  2  2  4  x  a) 0 C.) (1)  0 —1  -  .-.....——  X X  .  j  -2  .1  4.75  mm c Particle Size < 9.5jm Z.3 mm.< Particle Size < 4.15 mm Particle Size c Li6 mm  x 0  •  •  0 0 x...e  2  0.x 2  -3  -1  -‘  2  Ô  4  3  Transformed Manganese Concentration: Ln(mg/L)  Figure 4.16 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Manganese Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  3  --  0  )c  2  2  .  ‘x.’ ..  a) 1 0 C.) U,  : —1  •  -3 -0  Q  mm .c Particle Size c 9.Smm Lib mm..< Particle Size < 4.15 mm Particle Size c Li6 mm  4.75  x  -2  -5  -4  -3  -  -  .  o  2  -3  Transformed Nickel Concentration : Ln(mg/L)  Figure 4.17 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Nickel Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  71  3  -3  .  x  0  2  I  0  I-) C,)  -  0  %  •$  :  C)  0  •  x  —1 -  -2  .  -  .  x 0 •  4.75 mm < Particle Size < 9.Smm Z.b mm..< Particle size 4.15 mm) Particle Size < Li6 mm 1  X .-  x—-.  -3  •  Ô  -2  -6  ..  )O  .  Transformed Lead Concentration : Ln(mg/L)  Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Lead  Figure 4.18  Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  -3  3 X  a2  0  a  * 0  x  •  *  ‘  1  .  -.•*.x  —  ——  C) I-  0  U C,,  0  ZELZ Z  —1  [  -2  •  -3 I.)  mm < Particle 5ize << Z.3 mm.< Partjte size Particle Size < .i6 mm  a  .rnm  4.( mm  .—.-  .......—.  0•  3  4  ..  ...  X  5  Transformed Zinc Concentration : Lri(mg/L)  Figure 4.19 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP Zinc Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  72 (UCL) is less than the standard. (USEPA, 1986) The 80 percent UCL of a data set provides very valuable information about the data since there is 90 percent chance for any given data points to be below this value. In this study, the 80 percent UCL of the LEP leachable metal levels in the three bottom ash fractions are calculated. When the value of the 80 percent UCL of the concentrations for a specific element is below the regulation limit, it is adequate to determine the bottom ash fraction to be non-hazardous on an individual elemental basis. The 80 percent UCL for each data set is calculated by following the formula shown below:  UCL  =  +  100 t s/J,  where: 5E is the mean value of the data set; 100 is the 80 percent probability t statistic for n 1 data points; t S is the standard deviation; and n is the number of data points in the analysis. -  -  These calculations are presented in Table 4.3,4.4 and 4.5 as statistical summaries for both the LEP leachable metal levels in three bottom ash fractions and the transformed data. The 80 percent UCL as well as the mean value for the transformed data of the LEP leachable metal concentrations in three bottom ash fractions were calculated and then inverted to the untransformed data plane by reversing the mathematics of the transformation process. (Rigo, 1989) Those means obtained by transformation back to the original scale are the geometric means of the original data.  Compared with the B.C. regulatory limits (Schedule 4 of B.C. Reg. 63/88), the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm  None NaturalLog  None Natural Log  None NaturalLog  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  Iron  Manganese  Nickel  Lead  Zinc  71  Copper  71  None  Natural Log  Chromium  27.19 3.04  71  4.26 0.33  0.27 -1.61  3.62 0.63  6.51 0.95  2.52 0.37  -4.25  0.03  -3.28  0.05  MEAN  71  71 71  71 71  71 71  71 71  71 71  71 71  None Natural Log  Cadmium  NO. POINTS  TRANSFORMATION  METAL  NORMALIZING  23.67 1.03  1.81  10.44  0.35 1.09  10.16 1.16  1.72  11.96  3.92 1.44  0.04 1.51  0.09 0.74  STD DEV.  2.19 -0.36  6.56 -0.27  4.94 0.23  7.25 1.14  5.42 -0.63  6.10 -1.51  1.87 0.20  6.73 0.70  SKEWNESS  8.23 -0.14  49.00 -0.21  30.30 1.33  56.39 1.81  37.04 0.32  44.74 4.87  -1.36  3.41  51.33 0.17  TOSIS  KUR-  6.21  500.0  5.0 1.61  100.0 4.61  5.0 1.61  -0.69  0.5  TRANSFORM STANDARD  30.83 3.20  0.60  5.87  -1.44  0.32  5.18 0.81  8.34 1.21  3.13 0.59  -4.02  0.04  0.06 -3.17  TRANSFORM UCL  30.83 24.57  5.87  0.32  5.18 2.24  8.34 3.36  3.13 1.81  0.04  0.06 0.04  UCL  INVERSED  20.97  1.38  0.20  1.87  2.58  1.45  0.01  0.04  GEOMETRIC MEAN  Table 4.3 Statistics Summary for The LEP Leachable Metals Found in The Bottom Ash Fraction From Burnaby MSW Incinerator With Particle Size Between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm Diameter (mgIL)  TRANSFORMATION  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  METAL  Cadmium  Chromium  Copper  Iron  Manganese  Nickel  Lead  Zinc  NORMALIZING  72 72 43.84 3.63  2.12  14.66  0.44 -1.04  72  1.67  72  9.97  6.01 0.90  2.86 0.99  22.92 0.71  16.57 1.20  0.30 0.87  14.69 1.17  0.32 -1.11  1.58 0.19  0.98 -0.31  2.46 0.87  1.68 -1.20  1.34  6.77 1.96  3.36  1.79  0.99 -0.43  0.42  3.06  NESS  SKEW-  0.61  0.06 1.03  0.65  0.07 -3.06  0.08  0.10  72  72 72  STh DEV.  -2.49  MEAN  72  72  72  72 72  72 72  72 72  POINTS  NO.  -0.49 1.94  1.77 -0.99  0.85 -0.01  -0.21  5.60  2.81 1.82  16.64 4.21  -0.40 0.22  1.14  14.60  TOSIS  KUR-  500.0 6.21  5.0 1.61  100.0 4.61  5.0 1.61  -0.69  0.5  TRANSFORM STANDARD  47.34 3.74  17.19 2.30  -0.91  0.48  12.22 1.85  7.05 1.20  3.13 1.08  0.08 -2.91  -2.39  0.11  TRANSFORM UCL  47.34 42.24  17.19 9.95  0.40  0.48  12.22 6.37  7.05 3.33  3.13  0.08 0.05  0.11  UCL  INVERSED  37.89  8.29  0.35  5.32  2.47  2.69  0.05  0.08  MEAN  GEOMETRIC  Table 4.4 Statistics Summary for The LEP Leachable Metals Found in The Bottom Ash Fraction From Burnaby MSW Incinerator With Particle Size Between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm Diameter (mg/L)  None Natural Log  None Natural Log  Lead  Zinc  None  Natural Log  Manganese  None Natural Log  78  None Natural Log  Iron  Nickel  78  None Natural Log  Copper  56.61 3.90  78  1.37  78  14.46  78  78 78  0.48 -1.06  78  1.78  8.86  1.12 -2.26  78  0.45  78  78  2.15  78  0.06 -3.04  78  -1.81  0.27  MEAN  78  None Natural Log  78  Qiromium  78  None  Natural Log  Cadniium  NO. POINTS  TRANSFORIS4ATION  METAL  NORMALIZING  0.54  29.56  1.88  25.98  0.97  0.40  0.79  12.35  2.25  4.31  1.08  1.55  0.66  0.04  0.83  0.53  DEV.  STD  -0.61  1.40  4.12 -0.66  -1.93  2.90  1.18  4.75  6.78 -0.02  -3.41  2.02  0.05  0.68  0.78  5.68  NESS  SKEW-  1.32  2.92  1.78  23.30  7.88  14.11  1.19  28.95  -0.04  51.24  17.77  6.65  -0.68  -0.32  3.67  33.05  TOSIS  KUR-  6.21  500.0  1.61  5.0  4.61  100.0  1.61  5.0  -0.69  0.5  STANDARD  TRANSFORM  3.98  60.94  1.65  18.27  -0.92  0.54  1.89  10.67  -1.93  1.75  0.61  2.38  -2.94  0.06  -1.69  0.34  UCL  TRANSFORM  60.94  J.2  18.27  0.54  10.67  1.75  2.38  0.06  0.34  INVERSED UCL  49.58  3.94  0.35  5.90  0.10  1.57  0.05  0.16  MEAN  GEOMETRIC  Table 4.5 Statistics Summary for The LEP Leachable Metals Found in The Bottom Ash Fraction From Burnaby MSW Incinerator With Particle Size Less the 2.36 mm Diameter (mgIL)  76 diameter can be classified as non-hazardous material due to the 80 percent UCL for all LEP leachable metal levels tested below the regulation limits. The two bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter would not be classified as non-hazardous materials since the 80 percent UCL for the LEP leachable lead levels are greater than the maximum acceptable concentration. In the fractions with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter, the 80 percent UCL of the LEP leachable lead levels is 9.95 mg/L, almost double the value of the maximum acceptable level of 5 mg/L. On the other hand, the bottom ash fraction with a particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter was discovered to contain LEP leachable lead levels with the 80 percent UCL of 5.19 mg/L, which is slightly greater than the regulation limit. For other LEP leachable metals in these two bottom ash fractions, the 80 percent UCL levels are all much less than the regulation limits.  Consider the geometric means of the LEP leachable metal concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions, only the fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter contains the LEP leachable lead concentration greater than the regulation limit. Table 4.6 presents a summary of these data as well as some selected literature data for comparison. Generally speaking, for cadmium, chromium, manganese and zinc, the geometric means in the three bottom ash fractions are comparable to literature data. On the other hand, copper, nickel and lead are the three leachable elements in the three bottom ash fractions with geometric means less than the published literature data. Compared to data from Sawell et al. (1990) on the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator, the lead concentrations in the bottom ash LEP leachate have shown a dramatic decrease, to about one third or less of the value. Compared to another study conducted by Sawell et al. (1988), however, only the  0.08  0.04  0.01  1.45  2.58  1.87  0.20  1.38  20.97  Cd  Cr  Cu  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  Source:  37.89  8.29  0.35  5.32  2.47  2.69  49.58  3.94  0.35  5.90  0.10  1.57  0.05  0.16  GEOMETRIC MEAN  Fraction 3 PS*< 2.36 mm  29.70  21.60  1.62  6.34  6.80  0.10  0.05  MEAN  Literature Data 1**  52.60  31.40  1.51  5.74  6.26  0.09  0.36  MEAN  Literature Data 2***  27.37  8.03  0.64  0.39  0.06  0.05  MEAN  Literature Data 3t  **  p5 = Particle Size Sawell et a!. (1990): Incinerator operated with recycling of a portion of fly ash as a substitute for a portion of the fresh lime injected into the flue gas stream for acid gas control Sawell et a!. (1990): Same source as above except without fly ash recycle t Sawell et at. (1988) if Government of British Columbia (1992)  *  GEOMETRIC MEAN  GEOMETRIC MEAN  0.05  Fraction 2 2.36mm <PS*< 4.75 mm  Metal  Fraction 1 4.75 mm < PS*< 9.5 mm  Table 4.6 Comparison of The Geometric Means of Results form the B.C. Reg. 63/88 Leachate Extraction Procedure With Data From Selected Literature (mg/L)  500.0  5.0  100.0  5.0  0.5  MEAN  Regulatory Limitff  78 bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter contains the LEP leachable lead concentration with a geometric mean slightly greater than literature data.  The trends of the LEP leachable metals in the three bottom ash fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator during 1991 are presented in Fig. 4.20 to Fig. 4.27. Although only a limited number of samples were tested in each sampling date, the variation of the results of the leachable metal concentrations in the bottom ash fractions have shown to be reasonably log normally distribution on most of the sampling dates. Considering the results of samples taken on a sampling date as a sample set, there were only a few results found with considerably higher or lower values than the others in a sample set. Without those peculiar results, the rest in the data sets are generally log normally distributed. These results are troublesome when considering the geometric means of the data sets. Fortunately, such results were not found very often. As presented in Fig. 4.20 to Fig. 4.27, the results from different sample sets are generally consistent with each other for the leachable concentrations of an element in a bottom ash fraction. As these results are reasonably log normally distributed, the geometric means of the results in each data set can be estimated from these figures. There are some sample sets apparently containing lower or higher geometric means than the others. For instance, the LEP leachable cadmium concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions, taken on January 14, 1991, are obviously higher than those in the samples taken on other dates. However, the LEP leachable iron concentrations in the bottom ash fraction with a particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter, taken on March 30 in 1991, are all below the detection limit, apparently lower than those found on the other dates.  79  -j  4.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE  0)  <  10  9.5 mm  E  z  0 I—  z Lii U  z  N XX  0  U  X  0.1-  0.1  D  X  X  X XX  0 U  X  X  N  *  XXXX  Lii  X  XXX X x  XX  N  -io  iz  “1  i4  MONTH IN 1991  2  10-  2.36 mm <PARTICLE SIZE  0)  <  b0  4.75 mm  E  z —1  1X X N N  X  X  0.1XX X XX  0.1  X X  N  X  X  X  N  *  N  X  0.01  io  4  140.01  12  MONTH IN 1991 -j  10-  PARTICLE SIZE  0)  E  <  -10  2.36 mm  X  z 1-  1 X N *XX XX X  0.1  N X  X  N  N  N  X X N  x  x  N  0.1  Ny  XX X  XX  0.01  2  4  6  8  MONTH IN 1991  10  12  14  Figure 4.20 The Trends of the LEP Cadmium Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  80  2  .  4.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mm  -  C)  2 z  x  0. 1  *..x  .  x x  f1  x  x  xx x x  x  )c x x  x  0.01-  A Al  0 x  x  X  X  X  XXX  X  X  C-, LU -J  0.001  -J  1  -  4  10  12  A AA1  14  MONTH IN 1991  2.36  C)  2 z 0 I  x  X  mm  <  PARTICLE SIZE  <  4.75  mm  -  X  xX  x  0.1 I—  z LU  x  X X  C-,  z  -0.1 X  X  X  1  )( )(  X  X X X  X  0  X XX  X  XXX  C-,  0.01  x  -0.01  x  X  0 X  X  L) LU  -J  a  •001•  4  10  14000l  12  MONTH IN 1991 -j  1  .-  C)  PARTICLE SIZE  -  2 z  <  2.36  mm  -  1  0  0.1  0.1  .  I  z IJJ  Xx xx  C-)  z  0  X  x  X* Xx  X  x  X xxx  X X X  X  X  C-)  -0...  0.01  D  0 () LU -J  Figure 4.21  A  A  2  4  B  B  10  12  14  MONTH IN 1991  The Trends of the LEP Chromium Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  81  ,  fin  4.75  -j  E z  :  w  0 I  PARTICLE SIZE  x  X  x  X X  x  x  X  X  0  z  -  X X  X  X  w  100  mm  x  X  .*  z  9.5  <  10  XXX  XXXXX XKX*X  1  mm <  0.1  0  -01  0  x  LIJ  nfl  fif1  0 0 0  X fi  n nal  ff1  4  10  12  14  MONTH IN 1991 -J 0,  100  2.36  E z  mm  <PARTICLE SIZE  <  4.75  100 mm  X X  I I  1’  10 XX X  K  X  X  X X  X  x* XX X X  0.1-  4  12  10  14  0.1  MONTH IN 1991 100.  PARTICLE SIZE  <  2.36  100 mm  10  0.1  ::  0.01  0.01 X  0.001  2  4  6 8 MONTH IN 1991  10  12  140001  Figure 4.22 The Trends of the LEP Copper Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  82  -J  “.  E  100  1  ñ(t  100 0  ...x  10  z z  X  0 x x x  1  IJJ C,  0 C,  x  xx  z  C  1000  4.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mm  xx  x  x x  10  x  x  x  X.  x x  0.1  0.1  z  0 0.01  0.01  x  0 IJJ  —I I. nfl  4  2.36 mm <PARTICLE SIZE  -J  12  10  MONTH IN 1991 <  .1000  4.75 mm  C,  • 100  E  z  I  x I  0 x  x x  x  x  x  x  x  .10  Fx x  x.x  x  x  0.1  -0. —i  x x  -0.01  x a fin,  fi fifi 1  4  ...II-  10  12  14  ac  Z.36 mi  -  MONTH IN 1991 1 00-  PARTCLE SIZE  -J  100  x  C)  E  X  If  x x  z  10  x x x  .-  x  x  x  x x  x  0.1 0.01  •  X  x  XW  c  x x x  0  “1  x x  xx  x  -  -  x  0.001  X  x  ..‘  x  x  X  0.01  xxxx ,  2  4  10  12  14  nf’1  MONTH IN 1991  Figure 4.23  The Trends of the LEP Iron Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  83  0)  E  lnnn  4.75 mm  “  <  PATIcL.E SIZE  <  9.5  1000  mm  z  0  100 x  z  X  uJ  L)  z  10  10 XX  0  I-) w (1) ‘JJ  z  X X X  X *XX  X  0.1-  4  -J -j  0)  X  X  z Ui  X  X  1  10  -U.  12  14  MONTH IN 1991 1 000-  2.36 mm < PARTICLE SIZE  E  <  1000  4.75 mm  -  z 100  K X  X X  X L.X X X X XXX MXX  10-  X  X  X  )(  1 00  x  X  X  x  X  10  X  X  X  1  1  0.1-  4  10  .U.  12  14  MONTH IN 1991 lnnn-_  100  PARTICLE SIZE  <  1000  2.36 mm  100  ...  xX  XX X X  10  X  X X  .X  .x  *  x XX  XX  X  2  X X  X  X  XXX  X X  X  X  4  6  10  X  X  8  XX XXX X  10  12  14  MONTH IN 1991  Figure 4.24  The Trends of the LEP Manganese Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  84  a  I (1  -J  4.75  mm  <PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5  100  mm  C,  E  a z  I  :10 X X X XXXX  X  X  XXX  “1  0.1 ‘C  ( ñl  n  fi  n  nni  X  0.001.  2  4  6 8 MONTH IN 1991  10  14  12  10  In  2.36 mm  ‘  <  PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mm  -  X  X  ..X  1X XX  0..  X* X  X  ‘C  ‘C  X  1  X  X  X  XA XX  0.01-  ,•  4  10  fI  14  12  MONTH IN 1991 If’  PARTICLE SIZE  <  10  2.36 mm  -  X  1  -1  .X  x  XX  *  K  X  X  x  * ‘C  X XX  X  X  ‘C  .I_  X  0 X  0...  t• (II  X  0.001-  Figure 4.25  f’ ff’I -  4  10  12  14  MONTH IN 1991  The Trends of the LEP Nickel Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  85  I  rnn  1000  4.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mm  -J 0)  E 0  10  0.1  -J  x xx xx*X X X x XXx XX xx x x x X  X  ,,X  “  1.  I  100  X  z  10  XXX X  x X  x  *  X  X  X  *  x  0.01  0.01 (  0.001  2  4  1  2.36 mm  ‘“‘‘  10  6 6 MONTH IN 1991 <  PARTICL SIZE  <  12 1000  4.75 mm  C,  E  z  100  0  xX z LIJ  100  * X  X  in  (3  .  z  X XX X  0 0  x  X  x  X  x x  x x  XX  *  x  0  X XX  X  X  XX *  1  10  1  U.’  -J Lii -J  0.1  4  2. 1  12  10  MONTH IN 1991 1 -J  “i”  1000  PARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mm  ‘‘‘  0)  E  100  x  z  I  4  10 * 1  2  X  0.1  10  X  ..  XX  1  *  X  -  100  x  X  x  X  **XX  X  X  -0.1  x  0.01  .  x  n  f• ffI  2  4  6  8  n..ni  10  12  14  MONTH IN 1991  Figure 4.26  The Trends of the LEP Lead Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  86  1000  4.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < .5 mm  •‘“.“  -J  E X  z x  ion  x  X *X X  -  100 X X  X  XX  X  x  X  X  *  10  S.  10  1-  4  4  i2  ft  1  MONTH IN 1991  1000  1000  Z.36 mm <PARflCII SIZE c 4.75 mm  -J  E  z 100  in-  100  x  _X  10  .  I  X  V  ,  2  4  6 8 MONTH IN 1991  10  nan  PARTICLE SIZE.< Z.36  -J  4  12  .1000  mm  S..  0)  E  z  C  I Figure 4.27  100  10  !. .  j  x  4  10  12  10  14  MONTH IN 1991  The Trends of the LEP Zinc Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  87 In view of proper management of the MSW incinerator bottom ash, the sample sets with higher geometric means are of more concern than the rest, especially when exceeding the regulation limit. Among the eight elements tested, lead is the only metal found in some size segregated bottom ash samples with LEP leachable levels exceeding the regulation limits. However, on an individual sample basis, cadmium concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/L were found in the LEP leachate of the odd bottom ash samples. Therefore, a closer review on the trends of these two LEP leachable metals’ concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions is necessary for an appropriate decision on the safe disposal of these three bottom ash fractions; more so for lead than cadmium.  Table 4.7 presents the geometric means of the leachable cadmium and lead levels in the three bottom ash fractions on each sampling date during the sampling period. Although some samples have been found with leachable cadmium concentrations exceeding the regulation limit, the geometric means of the leachable cadmium levels in the three tested bottom ash fractions taken on each sampling date are all below the regulation limit. Therefore, consideration of the trend of the leachable metal levels in the bottom ash fractions is then focused on lead only. For the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter, the geometric means of the leachable lead levels are below the regulation limit in the samples taken in between March and December in 1991. Four of the five sample sets taken in between January and February, 1991 were found to contain the leachable lead levels with geometric means exceeding the regulation limit. In the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 nun and the 4.75 mm diameter, there are only five sample sets containing leachable lead levels with geometric means less than the regulation limit in the eighteen sample sets taken in between January and  0.07 0.20 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03  FRACTION 1*  0.04 0.09 0.09  0.13 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.05  0.04  0.09 0.36 0.13 0.17 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.07  0.10 0.40 0.46 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.22 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.20  CADMIUM (mg/L) FRACTION 2* FRACTION 3*  0.04 0.69 0.27  5.19 11.15 1.13 5.04 7.92 0.74 0.48 2.20 4.82 1.99 3.10 0.92 0.80 1.58 0.60  FRACTION 1*  Fraction 2 (2.36 mm < Particle Size <4.75 mm) Fraction 3 (Particle Size < 2.36 mm)  Note: Bold numbers = numbers that are greater than the regulation limits. * Fraction 1 (4.75 mm < Particle Size <9.5 mm)  ELEMENT DATE 1/2/91 1/14/91 1/22/91 2/4/91 2/18/91 3/6/91 3/30/91 4/12/91 4/21/91 4/29/91 6/6/91 7/7/91 8/10/91 8/30/91 9/13/91 9/26/91 11/16/91 12/17/91 7.57 30.37 2.23 6.70 22.47 4.22 5.86 6.68 11.91 4.38 59.82 42.60 4.09 5.20 5.52 2.63 10.44 6.30  LEAD (mg/L) FRACTION 2* 22.76 57.30 10.92 2.79 7.29 0.89 0.08 1.27 4.53 7.26 49.91 24.22 1.51 5.04 1.38 1.49 5.33 1.07  FRACTION 3*  Table 4.7 Geometric Means of the LEP Leachable Cadmium and Lead Levels in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator Taken on Each Sampling Date  89 December in 1991. Moreover, these five sample sets were not collected on successive sampling dates but were generally collected on every third sampling date in the 18 sampling dates during 1991. Those samples collected on January 14, February 18, June 6, and July 7 in 1991 were found containing leachable lead levels with much greater geometric means than the other. In the finest bottom ash fraction with a particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter, there were half of the sampling sets containing the leachable lead concentrations with geometric means greater than the regulation limit. Most of these samples were taken in between January and February, or in between late April and July in 1991. Samples collected on January 2, January 14, June 6, and July 7 in 1991 were found containing greater leachable lead levels than the other. Such finds are very similar to that for the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. For samples collected on August 30 and November 16, 1991, the leachable lead levels were found with geometric means slightly greater than the regulation limit.  The function of the particle size on the metal concentrations in the bottom ash LEP leachate is shown in Figures 4.28(a) and (b). Generally speaking, there is some kind of relationship between the particle size and the leachable level for some metals in the bottom ash fractions. However, there is no clear trend that can describe such function for all elements leached from those bottom ash fractions tested in this research. The geometric means of the concentrations of cadmium, manganese and zinc in the LEP leachate showed a trend to increase with decreasing particle size. On the other hand, the iron concentrations in the LEP leachate decrease with the particle size decrease. The LEP leachable iron concentrations in the leachate from the two bottom ash fractions with particle size greater than the 2.36 mm diameter are very close, both are much greater than  90  10  -J 0)  E z  I Cd  Cr  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Figure 4.28(a) Geometric Means of Metal Concentrations Leached from Bottom Ash Fractions in the Leachate Extraction Procedure  1000  -J  100  0)  E z  10  Cu  Zn  Figure 4.28(b) Geometric Means of Metal Concentrations Leached from Bottom Ash Fractions in the Leachate Extraction Procedure  91 the concentration in the leachate from the finest fraction. This might be related to the inclination of the magnetic metals to fuse with other materials, such as glass and clinker, during the incineration process and become larger pieces unable to pass the 2.36 mm diameter. The geometric means of the LEP leachable copper and lead were found to be the greatest in the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. For chromium and nickel, the geometric means of these elements in the LEP leachate from the two bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter are about the same, both are greater than those in the LEP leachate from the fraction with a particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter.  4.4 The Fixed and Total Metal Levels of the Bottom Ash Fractions  Due to the difficulty in the pulverization of bottom ash samples, some small metal pieces have been picked out of the ash samples before the pulverization procedure. Such metal pieces were often visually recognized as iron, copper and lead. These metal pieces were generally about 10 % to 20 % by weight of the bottom ash pulverized. However, further information about the percentage of each metal is not available in this study. The fixed and total iron, copper and lead found in the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator were thus underestimated for some degree, based on the results from the pulverized ash samples used in this study.  Since the bottom ash samples were subject to the LEP test prior to the aqua regia digestion, the metal levels in the aqua regia extractions would be viewed as the fixed part of the metal levels in the bottom ash fractions which didn’t leach out in the LEP test. The fixed part of metal levels in the bottom ash fractions  92 represents a potential metal contamination of the bottom ash in addition to the leachable component. Moreover, the total metal concentrations in the tested bottom ash fractions could be viewed as the sum of the fixed and leachable metal levels. The results of the fixed and the corresponding leachable metal concentrations in the bottom ash samples are presented in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6, respectively. The results of the total metal concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions are also presented in Appendix 7.  The geometric means of the fixed metal concentrations in the bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator are presented in Table 4.8. The geometric means of the fixed cadmium concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter are less than 8 mg/kg. For the fixed chromium in the fine bottom ash fractions, the geometric means of the results are in between the level around 100 mg/kg (0.01 %) and 200 mg/kg (0.02 %). The geometric means of the fixed copper levels in the bottom ash fractions fell in the range between 1500 mg/kg (0.15 %) and 4000 mg/kg (0.4 %). Iron is the most abundant element of the eight tested metals in the three fine bottom ash fractions. The geometric means of the fixed iron levels in the bottom ash fractions are around 7 % — 8 % on weight basis of the bottom ash fractions. The fixed manganese levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions were found with geometric means in between 800 mg/kg (0.08 %) and 1000 mg/kg (0.1 %). The geometric means of the fixed nickel levels in the three bottom ash fractions were found in between 100 mg/kg (0.01 %) and 250 mg/kg (0.025 %). The fixed lead levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions were found with geometric means in between 790 mg/kg (0.079%) and 4200 mg/kg (0.42 %). For the fixed zinc levels, the results were found with geometric means in between 1300 mg/kg (0.13 %) and 2700 mg/kg (0.27 %) in the three bottom ash fractions. From Table  93 Table 4.8 Geometric Means of the Fixed (Non-leachable) Metal Levels in the Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator (mg/kg) Concentration (mg/kg) Fraction  4.75 mm  <  PS* <9.5mm  2.36mm  <  PS’  <  4.75 mm  PS  <  2.36mm  Metal Cd  2.7 98 1663 73921  Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn  *  PS  864 125 790 1364  =  Particle Size.  4.2 118 2193 77379 982 177  7.7 141 3670 71101 1091 242  2235 2005  4135 2699  94 4.8, it is clear that the fixed metal levels in the tested bottom ash fractions generally increase with the particle size decrease. The trend is most apparent for lead. The geometric mean of the fixed lead levels in the finest bottom ash fraction is more than 5 times the value for the fraction with a particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter. Iron is the only exception of the eight elements tested. It seems more abundant in the fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter.  The fixed metal concentrations as the percentages of the total metal concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator are given in Appendix 8. A summary of these results is presented in Table 4.9. Since the total metal concentration in the bottom ash sample is the sum of the leachable and fixed metal concentrations, Table 4.9 also provides the leachability of metals from the three bottom ash fractions. In the eight tested elements, cadmium and zinc are the two metals more easily leached from the ash than the others. Approximately 30 % of the total concentrations of Ca and Zn in the three bottom ash fractions was leachable. Iron seems to be the least leachable in the eight elements tested (< 0.2 %) in the fine bottom ash fractions. Chromium, copper and nickel leached out on average less than 5 % of the total metal in the three bottom ash fractions. Manganese on average leached out by around 10 % to 15 % of the total concentration in the bottom ash fractions. For lead, 5 % to 12 % of the total metal in the fine bottom ash fraction was leached out. The leachability of the metals has no clear trend related to the particle size for all the eight elements tested. However, chromium, copper, iron have similar leachabilities from the three fine bottom ash fractions. Cadmium is more leachable in the two finer fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter. Manganese, lead  95  Table 4.9 Average Fixed Metal Levels as Percentages of the Total Metals in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions (On Weight Basis) Metal  4.75 mm < PS”  Cd  77.0% 99.0% 96.7% 99.8% 91.9% 93.5% 92.8% 72.4%  Cr Cu Fe Mn  Ni Pb Zn  Note:  <  *  PS  =  Particle Size  9.5 mm  2.36 mm < PS’ 69.4% 98.7% 95.3% 99.9% 84.4% 94.6% 88.3% 68.6%  <  4.75 mm  PS  <  2.36 mm  69.0% 99.1% 98.3% 100% 89.0% 96.4% 94.7% 71.2%  96 and zinc seem more leachable in the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. Nickel is the only element which shows a increase in leachability with the particle size increase.  A summary of the total metal concentrations in the samples of the three tested bottom ash fractions is presented in Table 4.10. Results from selected literature are also listed as comparison. Generally, the metal constituents in the three fine bottom ash fractions were comparable to those reported in previous studies. The results for the three fine bottom ash fractions in the sampling period are presented in Figure 4.29 (a) and (b). It is clear that these results varied over time for all three bottom ash fractions. Comparing the variations for all elements tested in three fractions, iron is the only metal showing little variation during the sampling period. The great variations of these elements are typically due to the heterogeneous nature of the municipal refuse. Most of the time, these variations were quite consistent for each metal in all three bottom ash fractions.  The geometric means of the total metals levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator are presented in Figure 4.30. An apparent trend is shown in this figure that the total metals concentrations in the bottom ash generally increase as particle size decreases for most of the tested elements. The total cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel and zinc concentrations in the bottom ash fractions were found to have this trend. On the other hand, iron did not show a clear trend.  The total lead contributions of the three fine fractions in the bottom ash samples are presented in Figure 4.31. The lead contributions by the three fine bottom ash fractions were found to be 0.05 0.25 % of the bottom ash on weight -  32.96  248.4  838  Ni  Pb  Zn  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  8121  3805  503.2  9210  130805.2  5000  315.2  9.72  Particle Size.  350.8  Mn  =  37736.4  Fe  PS  713.8  Cu  *  45.6  Cr  Note:  0.70  1112  964.6  93.18  685.2  45650  880  65.2  2.2  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  4.75 mm  19487  10435  728.4  5836  105392.4  7012.4  150.4  16.1  <  This Research  4.75 mm < PS < 9.5 inn 2.36 mm < PS  Cd  Metal <  2292  1252.8  82.84  847.2  52754  1732.8  89  6.7  PS’  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  7124  10568  600.4  3362  108655  16232  534.8  33.9  2.36 mm  2360  8750  1350  1910  2370  1200  11  -  -  -  -  -  -  5210  9900  1840  2170  3000  3170  18  Result Range  Sawell et al.(1990)  200  110  9  50  1000  80  13  1.1  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  12400  5000  226  3100  133500  10700  520  46  Result Range  Roffman (1991)  -  -  -  2105.4  777.6  35.7  4821.4  -  6792.9  1563.3  431  1064  75763.5  1477.2  196.9  35.2  Result Range  Kosson et aI.(1991)  Table 4.10 Ranges of Total Metal Concentrations in Bottom Ash from this Reseasrch and Selected Reference (mg/kg)  0,  C.)  2  E  z  E  2  3  4  5  7  8  Month in 1991  6  9  Month in 1991  10  11  Figure 4.29 (a) Total Metals Concentrations of Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  2  U C 0 C.) C  a)  C  I  C., C 0 C.)  C  C 0  E  C,  .  4-a  Month in 1991  Month in 1991  I-. 4-a  4-.  C 0  E  C,  -  0)  I 12  0)  4 5  6  7 8  9  10  11  12  4_a  Cø  C  .2 4_a  E  z  0  -  13  C.)  o  o  io0  2 3  4  5  6  7  8  Month in 1991  Month in 1991  9  10  11  Figure 4.29 (b) Total Metals Concentrations of Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  Month in 1 991  10  a)  U C 0 C.) C., C  3  0)  -  -  C  100  1000  a)  C 0 C-)  C a)  4_a  C 0  E  0)  C  2  Month in 1991  0) -  a)  L. 4_a  .  o  C  E  0)  -  0)  0) C  C  a)  C.) a)  o  C  C  4_a  1..  s o  E  0)  _  12  100  1000  Cd  Cr Cu  Fe Mn Metal  4.75 mm < Particle Size < 9.5 mm 2.36 mm < Particle Size < 4.75 mm Particle Size < 2.36 mm  Ni  Pb  Zn  1  10  100  1000  1  Figure 4.30 Geometric Means of the Total Metals Concentrations in Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Bumaby MSW Incinerator  U C 0 C-)  a,  C  4-’  L..  4-,  C 0  E  0)  0)  1  5 io  .  C C  101 basis. The finest bottom ash fraction generally contributed the greatest portion of lead in the bottom ash, about half of the sum contributed by all three fine bottom ash fractions. Also from Figure 4.31, the samples taken on February 18, June 6, August 10, November 16 and December 17 in 1991 were found containing higher total lead concentrations than those taken on other dates, all greater than 0.15 % on weight basis of the bottom ash stream.  Figure 4.32 shows the LEP leachable and total lead concentrations in the three fine bottom ash fractions. Both trends of the LEP leachable and total lead concentrations during the sampling period were quite consistent. However, it is apparent that the LEP leachable lead levels were much more variable than the total lead levels in all the three bottom ash fractions, by up to 100 times. The higher variations in the LEP leachable lead may be related to the chemical natures of different lead forms in the bottom ash as well as the bottom ash chemistry, which in turn are related to the heterogeneous nature of the municipal solid wastes.  4.5 The Leaching Test Results of the Washing-off Materials of the Samples from Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions  The samples from the bottom ash fractions with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter were rinsed with distilled water and the washings were collected. These washings were normally particles with sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter. They were air dried and processed with the LEP procedure. The metal concentrations in the leachate of the washed material are presented in Table 4.11, along with the ranges of the results of the leachate from the LEP test. The levels of the metals in the leachate of the washed-off materials were  0  500  1000  1500  2000  .  :  —  -  1  I  2  ° A  -. -  •  I  3  I  I’  I  4  I  -. ;  I  5  I  I  / I-. - -  I  -  /  -  -  -  I  -  I  - - -  I  ——  I  7 6 8 Month in 1 991  - -  /  I  4.75 mm < Particle Size < 9.5 mm 2.36 mm < Particle Size < 4.75 mm Particle Size < 2.36 mm Sum of Three Fractions  • •  •  -  9  I  -  10  I  jf...  -  11  -  ‘0  •  /  12  — — —  13  0  500  1000  1500  2000  2500  Figure 4.31 Comparison of Total Lead Contribution by Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  I-  0  4-0  -j  0  -Q  C 0 C.) C 0 C-)  4-.  I  C 0  0)  2500  -  “3  103  ——Total Lead —OP- Leachable Lead 10’  10’  Bottom Ash Fraction with Particle Size  -  1000  1000  100  100  F C 0  10  10  :_..  .  I! C  ‘:;/\  w  U C 0  v 3  0.1  0.1  0.01  0.01 Z  3  4  S  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  3  Month in 1991 10’  10’.  Bottom Ash Fraction with Particle Size Between 2.36 mm & 4.75 mm Diameter 10  10’ OC  1000  1000  --  C 0 Ce  C  100  100 U.—..  C  0 C-)  -J  ..J ,  10  1  ...  /  / l 2  ..-c  .p..q  ,  ...  10  ‘CW,,...O.  V  ..-..  3  4  5  ..  6  7  8  9  ..—..  10  11  12  13  Month in 1991 10  Bottom Ash Fraction with Particle Size Less than 2.36 mm Diameter  0) 0)  1000  1000  B C 0  100  100  0 /  C C 0 C-) 0 CS  .._e\  -\  10  10  \./N..  \z. fI .  0.1  z  3  0.1  4  8  9  10  11  12  13  Month in 1991  Figure 4.32 Comparison of The Leachable and Total Lead Levels in the Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991  104 Table 4.11 Comparsion of Metal Levels in the LEP Leachate of Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions and the Washing-off from Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions  Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn  Note:  <0.05 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 0.27 0.007 0.01 1.78  *  PS  =  Fine Bottom Ash Fractions < PS* <4.75mm  PS* <9.5mm 2.36mm  Metal 4.75mm Range (mgIL) <  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  0.228 0.19 26.50 45.0 105.5 4.28 77.0 204.8  Particle Size.  Range (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 0.67 <0.005 0.85 0.04 0.98 2.47  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  0.7 0.21 31.5 91.0 82.9 2.59 83.0 145.6  PS* <2.36mm Range (mgIL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2.13 <0.005 <0.005 8.14  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  3.59 0.17 9.73 35.0 93.5 2.8 184.0 165  Washings from Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions Average (mg/L) Range (mgIL) 0.09 <0.005 0.6 0.07 4.3 0.14 0.12 20.6  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  0.51 0.05 14.2 4.3 79.9 1.0 75.8 394  0.18 0.02 2.75 1.00 19.98 0.43 5.05 68.5  105 comparable with those from the fine bottom ash fractions. However, it is not clear that these washed materials relate to any one of the three fine bottom ash fractions tested in this study. The leachable metal levels were basically equivalent to that for the mixture of the three fine bottom ash fractions. The results of the LEP leachable metals levels in the washed-off materials are presented in Appendix 4.  4.6 Metal Concentrations in the Rinse Water of Samples from Three Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions  Table 4.12 shows the results of the metal concentrations in the coarse bottom ash rinse water. The maximum acceptable levels listed in Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines and Special Waste Regulation Leachate Quality Standards are also presented as comparison. The metal concentrations in the rinse water for all three coarse bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator were far below the regulation levels specified in Leachate Quality Standards. The cadmium concentrations in the rinse water of the three coarse bottom ash fractions were only 1 % to 2 % of the maximum acceptable level specified in Leachate Quality Standards. For chromium and zinc, the concentrations in the rinse water of the three coarse fractions were all less than 1 % of the maximum acceptable concentrations specified. Copper levels in the rinse water samples were about 0.1 % to 1.5 % of the regulation limit.  Lead  concentrations in the rinse water were around 3 % to 4.5 % of the maximum acceptable concentration specified in the Special Waste Regulation.  Some metal concentrations in the bottom ash rinse water appeared to be higher than the levels specified in Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines.  106 Table 4.12 Average Metal Concentrations in Coarse Bottom Ash Rinse Water (1Kg Ash: 1L Distilled Water Ratio) and the Maximum Acceptable Levels Specified in Regulations (mg[L)  Metal 25 mm < PS’  <  Bottom Ash Fraction 50 nni 12.5 mm < PS’ < 25 mn 9.5 mm  <  PS < 12.5 mm Regulation 1  Regulation 2***  Rinse Water  Rinse Water  Rinse Water  Cd  0.005  0.006  0.010  0.005  0.50  Cr  <0.005  0.01  0.02  0.05  5.00  Cu  0.12  0.19  0.35  1.0  100.00  Fe  0.14  0.05  0.05  0.3  Mn  0.08  0.02  0.02  0.05  Ni  <0.005  <0.005  0.01  Pb  0.15  0.17  0.22  0.05  5.00  Zn  0.06  0.01  0.01  5.0  500.00  Note:  *  ***  PS = Particle Size Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (Environment Canada, 1979) Special Waste Regulation: Leachate Quality Standards (Government of British Columbia, 1992)  107 (Environment Canada, 1979) The concentrations of lead in the rinse water were about 3 to 4 times greater than the maximum acceptable level. The average cadmium concentrations in the rinse water of two bottom ash fractions with particle size between the 12.5 mm and 50 mm diameter were in the range of the regulation level. Cadmium in the rinse water of the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 9.5 mm and the 12.5 mm diameter was twice the level specified in the regulation. Manganese in the rinse water of the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 25 mm and the 50 mm diameter were greater than the regulation limit by 60 % of the maximum acceptable concentration. Copper in the rinse water of the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 12.5 mm and the 25 mm diameter were also found to be greater than the regulation levels by around 46 % of the acceptable concentration. The results of the metal concentrations in the bottom ash rinse water are shown in Appendix 9.  Appendix 10 presents a collation of the metal levels specified in selected water guidelines for industrial uses. (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, 1993) A summary of these metal levels is shown in Table 4.13. Iron, manganese and copper are the three elements specified in most of these guidelines. Comparing to the regulations, the metal concentrations found in the bottom ash rinse water are still below the maximum acceptable levels specified in some of the water quality guidelines for industrial uses. Those uses include the water for the pulp and paper industry, the chemical and allied industries, the food and beverage industry, the tanning and leather industry, and the petroleum industry. For most of the time, the rinse water of the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 25 mm and the 50 mm diameter didn’t  —  <0.1 —  —  0.010  —  —  —  —  <1 <0.2 144D*  <0.1 <0.05  Food & Beverage Industry Lowest Highest  <1.0  0.010  Steam Generators Lowest Highest  —  —  <0.5 <0.5  —  —  <0.02 <0.02 (Fe+Mn) —  —  NS** NS  Chemical & Allied Industries Lowest Highest  —  —  <0.5 <0.02  One-through Cooling & Makeup Water System Lowest Highest  **  —  <0.5 <0.5 <0.08  —  ND ND <0.01  —  <0.3 <0.05 5  Water Guidelines (mg/L) Textile Industry Lowest Highest  —  —  —  —  Cooling Tower Lowest Highest  Water Guidelines (mgIL)  ND = not detected. NS = not specified. Sources: Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, 1993.  *  Fe Mn Cu Zn  Metal  Industry  Fe Mn Cu Zn  Metal  Industry  <1.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01  —  —  <0.1 <0.01  —  —  <50 <0.2  Tanning & Leather Industry Lowest Highest  —  —  —  <0.01  Power Generation Stations Lowest Highest  —  —  —  —  —  —  <1.0  —  <1.0 <0.5  Petroleum Industry  <0.1 <0.05  Pulp & Paper Industry Highest Lowest  Table 4.13 Summary of the Metal Levels Specified in Selected Water Quality Guidelines for Industrial Uses  00  109 pass some of the regulations specified in the uses listed above due to the higher iron levels.  4.7 Result Summary  1) The particle size gradation of the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator generally meets the specification for well graded base course aggregate specified in BC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.  2) Magnetic materials comprised around 20 % to 30 % on weight basis of the coarse bottom ash fractions (particle size between 9.5 mm and 50 mm diameter) from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Inert materials, including brick, concrete, ceramics, rock, clinker, glass and its mixture, comprised around 60 % to 70 % by weight of the coarse bottom ash fractions. The non-ferrous metals found in the coarse bottom ash fractions are between 2 % and 4 % on weight basis for each fraction. For the oversize bottom ash fraction with particle size greater than the 50 mm diameter, inert materials comprised more than 80 % on weight basis of this fraction. Magnetic materials and non-ferrous metals found in the oversize fraction were less than 0. 5 % and around 11 % on weight basis, respectively.  3) The 80 % upper confidence limit (UCL) and geometric mean of lead in the LEP leachate of the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter is less than the regulation limit. On daily sample basis, there were four of the eighteen sampling dates on which the daily geometric means of the LEP lead levels were found greater than the regulation lmiit.  110 4) For the bottom ash fraction with particle size greater than the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter, the 80 % UCL and geometric mean of lead in the LEP leachate have shown that this fraction would be classified as hazardous material since both values are greater than the regulation limit.  5) The 80 % UCL of the lead in the LEP leachate of the bottom ash fraction with particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter was found slight greater than the regulation limit. However, the geometric mean of the LEP leachable lead from this bottom ash fraction did not exceed the regulation limit. On a daily basis, there were half of the eighteen sampling dates on which the daily geometric means of the leachable lead levels from this bottom ash fraction were greater than the regulation limit.  6) There is no clear trend found between the particle size and the metal concentration in the LEP leachate of the fine bottom ash fractions for all the eight elements tested. Cadmium, magnesium and zinc are the three metals showing a trend of increasing with the particle size decrease in the LEP leachate from the fine bottom ash fractions. Chromium and nickel were leached out about the same levels in the two bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter, both were greater than those leached from the fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter. Lead and Copper were found in greater concentrations in the LEP leachate from the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. Iron was leached out in higher levels from the two fractions with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter than the finest fraction with particle size less than 2.36 mm diameter.  111 7) Based on the results in this study, the fixed and total metal concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions with particle sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter generally increased as particle size decreased. The only exception of the eight elements tested is iron, where there is no clear trend between the metal concentration and the particle size. Due to the difficulty in the pulverization process, it is expected that iron, copper and lead might have been underestimated for the fixed (non-leachable) and total concentration in the fine bottom ash fractions. However, the trend between the particle size and metal levels will still be good for lead and copper since most small metal chips were removed from the finer fractions in the pulverization process.  8) The trends of the leachable and total lead levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator were quite comparable to each other during the sampling period in 1991. However, the variance of the leachable lead levels is much greater than that of the total lead levels by as much as 100 times.  9) The washings collected from the washing of the coarse bottom ash fractions were found to contain LEP leachable heavy metals in levels comparable to those found in the leachate of the fine bottom ash fractions. The heavy metal levels in the wash water of the coarse bottom ash fractions were found to be below the regulation limits specified in the Special Waste Regulation : Leachate Quality Standards (Government of British Columbia, 1992). However, cadmium, manganese and lead levels in the wash water exceeded the standards in the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (Environment Canada, 1979). Comparing to other standards for industrial uses, the wash water of the coarse bottom ash fractions in this study is reusable in limited industries.  112 Chapter 5 Discussion  5.1 Issues Regarding the Samplings of Bottom Ash  When sampling heterogeneous materials like incinerator residues, there is concern as to how representative the collected samples are, of the whole residue stream. It is difficult to collect several hundred kilograms of samples which will represent the contents of hundreds of tonnes of the MSW incinerator bottom ash. Therefore, the sampling procedure must be designed to increase the representative nature of the collected samples. In this research, efforts have been made to get a representative sample from the bottom ash stream by collecting ten to twelve samples of about fifty kilograms at the frequency of half an hour each on a sampling date. As the bottom ash is continuously carried out on the conveyer from the incinerator, such a collection method has the benefit of getting more homogeneous samples from the bottom ash stream and avoiding the collection of residues from any single refuse source which could cause higher variability.  However, there are still some factors that will affect the consistency of the incinerator refuse source which in turn will increase the variability of the remaining residues. The first is the changing nature of the refuse source to the incinerator. As the Burnaby Refuse Incinerator is one of several facilities in the GVRD solid waste management system, the refuse flow can be manipulated with service areas being varied. The proportions of refuse collected from each service area in the Burnaby MSW Incinerator refuse source may change day by day. The second obvious factor is the seasonal variations of the contents in refuse. A study  113 reported by Atwater et a!. (1993) has pointed out that refuse collected in Vancouver Lower Mainland during the period between April to mid-November contained increased yard or trimmed lawn wastes. The yard wastes have been found to have a higher content of ash than other materials. Generally speaking, yard wastes yields 23.3 % by weight as ash residue through the incineration process. (Robinson, 1986) The increase of yard wastes in the refuse source will increase the percentage of the remaining residues and thus change the characteristics of the bottom ash from the incineration process.  5.2 Particle Size Gradation In the Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash  In the survey of particle size gradation of MSW incinerator bottom ash, there is one thing to be considered: aging of the bottom ash. It was found that aging decreases the moisture content in the bottom ash and makes the bottom ash easier to sift into different fractions without clogging on the sieve openings. Without an aging process, it is likely that more fine materials will cling on the coarse particles and the particle size gradation results based on such materials will have greater variability. Therefore, aging is a necessary procedure before bottom ash is subjected to the sifting procedure of the particle size gradation test.  The particle size gradation of the bottom ash samples from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator have been found to meet the BC Standard Specification for Highway Construction as an aggregate substitute. A comparison with the Master Municipal Specifications (Municipal Engineers’ Division of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia et at., 1991), shows that the particle size gradation of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash also meets the specifications for aggregates used in select granular subbase. That  114  means the bottom ash would be usable in highway construction based on its aggregate gradation. However, there are some other physical properties of MSW incinerator bottom ash that would concern highway construction engineers. Determination of physical properties such as unit weight, specific gravity, durability, L. A. abrasion, density, compaction and etc. would provide more information about the MSW incinerator bottom ash. Such information would help evaluate the suitability of using the MSW incinerator bottom ash as aggregate in highway construction. As the determination of physical properties other than the particle size gradation of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash was not an objective of this study, no data was generated. Research on the physical properties of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash is desired to assess its physical suitability.  5.3 Material Contents in Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash  In addition to the physical properties, the material distribution in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator is also needed when evaluating the reuse of such ash residues in engineering uses. In the ten categories verified, glass and magnetic materials are the two categories that have been reported to have some adverse effects on the products made of bottom ash. Therefore, it will be necessary to have a close review of such material contents in the bottom ash before any proper disposal and management of the ash residue can be made.  According to the findings of this study, glass in the bottom ash constituted 6.5 % by weight of the bottom ash stream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. The glass mixture in the bottom ash was found to be about 10.5 % by weight of the bottom ash stream. If the glass in the glass mixtures were roughly estimated  115 as one quarter by weight of the mixtures, the glass in the bottom ash stream would be about 9 % on weight basis. As the bottom ash is known to be about 22 % by weight of the burned refuse, the glass in the refuse can be estimated to be about 2 % by weight of the refuse. Compared to typical glass content in the MSW, averagely 4-16 % on weight basis (Cerrato, 1993), this low percentage of glass in the refuse burned at the Burnaby MSW incinerator may be contributable to the Blue Box Recycling plan practiced in the Lower Mainland area. However, there is no data available about how much the Blue Box Recycling plan has helped reduce the glass content in the MSW. Some researchers have reported on the recycling of glass cullet from MSW incinerator bottom ash. (Buekens et al., 1979) The success is basically dependent on the percentage of glass content in the bottom ash. The low percentage of glass in this bottom ash could make the recycling of the glass cullet from the bottom ash less economical and therefore, impractical.  Another issue regarding the glass in the bottom ash is the use of bottom ash as aggregates in Portland Cement concrete. A study from the Civil Engineering Department of the University of British Columbia (1992) had used the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator as the 10 %, 30 % and 50 % aggregate substitutions in Portland Cement concrete specimens. These bottom ash concrete specimens were tested for different physical properties relating to the strength of the concrete. The results have shown that the strength of the bottom ash concrete specimens was degraded when comparing to those concrete specimens made of natural aggregates. The conclusion of that study suggested that the degradation was related to the glass pieces in the bottom ash which provide a source of alkali that is reactive and believed to cause the problem of the expansion in the bottom ash made concrete. Therefore, the glass content in the  116 bottom ash will limit the bottom ash to be used as an aggregate substitute only in unreinforced concrete.  A recent study (WASTE Program Consortium, 1992) has reported that the alkali content in the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator is about 7 % by weight of the bottom ash stream. According to the study reported by Atwater et at. (1993), the glass in MSW refuse streams contains alkali (Na 0) from 20 % to 25 2 % on weight basis. From the findings of this study, glass and the glass in the mixtures composed about 9 % by weight of the bottom ash stream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Therefore, the alkali content in the bottom ash stream due to glass would be equal to 1.8 % to 2.3 % on weight basis, which is much lower than the data reported by WASTE, 1992. Since the material distribution tests in this study were applied on coarse bottom ash fractions (with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter) only, the difference of the alkali content in the bottom ash could be contributed by the fine bottom ash fractions.  Magnetic materials comprised about 12 % on average of the bottom ash stream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Though the magnetic materials found in the bottom ash samples are partially magnetic and mostly mixed with materials such as glass and clinker, it is still profitable to sort out these magnetic materials from the bottom ash stream by a second magnet. The benefits from the sale of the collected scrap, and the reduced rusting from the bottom ash used as aggregate substitute in some construction uses might compensate for part or all of the cost for installing and operating the second magnet.  3  4 5  7 6 8 Month in 1991  9  10  11  12  13  0 2  0  1  2  4  6  8  10  2  4  6  8  10  12  12  Figure 5.1 LEP Leachable Lead Contribution by Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator  -J 0 LU -J  a)  U  Cu -c  -J a) -D  a)  Cu  0 U -D  C-)  a)  I 4-,  0  E  -J  14  14  118 5.4 The Leachable Heavy Metals From Bottom Ash  The leaching of heavy metals from the bottom ash is probably the issue of greatest concern regarding the reuse of bottom ash in construction uses. According to the results in this study, lead is the only metal in the eight elements tested which will leach out at levels greater than the regulation limit from the fine bottom ash fractions. Presented in Figure 5.1 is the LEP leachable lead contribution by the three fine bottom ash in the whole bottom ash stream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Based on the whole bottom ash basis, the annual average of the leachable lead contribution by the fine bottom ash fractions is approximately 4 mg/L, which is less than the regulation limit 5 mg/L. As coarse bottom ash fractions contain mostly inert materials, it is logical to use the leachable lead contribution by the three fine bottom ash fractions (with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter) to represent the leachable lead concentration in the total bottom ash stream. Therefore, the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator is suitable for reuse due to the leachable lead level passing the regulation limit on an annual basis.  In addition to an annual average, one needs to be concerned about the seasonal and even the daily variation of the leachable lead level in the bottom ash. In a certain season or period of time the bottom ash may contain leachable lead levels higher than regulatory levels and those bottom ashes would not be suitable for reuse as an aggregate substitute. One would have to decide on a treatment scenario other than reuse for the bottom ash collected in such specific periods of time. Those quantities of bottom ash with higher leachable lead might have to be collected separately and treated as a special waste. This would increase the quality of bottom ash for reuse and would make sure that bottom  119 ash with high leachable lead levels will be adequately disposed. However, the cost for the disposal and treatment of those special waste might outweigh the savings generated by the reuse of the higher quality fraction.  Based on the results presented in Figure 5.1, it is apparent that there are some sampling dates with leachable lead levels in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator which exceed the regulation limit. Those sampling dates include February 18, April 21, June 6, July 7, and November 16 in 1991. It seems that in summer season between April and July, the leachable lead levels in the bottom ash samples from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator were greater than those in other seasons. Therefore, there might be a problem for the reuse of the bottom ash generated in summer due to the higher levels of the leachable lead in it. Based on the data gathered in 1991, separate disposal of the bottom ash collected in summer may be needed to make sure that the bottom ash for reuse would be safe based on the leaching of lead from it. Another problem that may have to be considered is that there may be some individual date other than the problematic summer season that the bottom ash may contain higher levels of leachable lead. To identify such dates, a daily database on the leaching of the heavy metals from the bottom ash would be useful. However, to get a database on the leaching of heavy metals from the MSW bottom ash on a daily basis, a great deal of research on the bottom ash would have to be done and that may not be practical. It is suggested that continuing research on the leaching of heavy metals from the bottom ash is needed. The sampling frequency, however, has to be determined as short as possible to get a representive data base within a research budget and manpower allocation which are affordable.  120 A possible explanation of the higher leachable lead concentration in the summer season is the change of the characteristics of the refuse. The Burnaby MSW Incinerator utilizes refuse collected from several municipalities in the Lower Mainland area. The refuse collected in each municipality may be quite different from another and thus contribute variability in the characteristics of the bottom ash. The refuse sent to the Burnaby MSW Incinerator is collected from both residential and commercial sources. Therefore, the ratio of the these two sources in the incinerated refuse may play an important role on the properties of the resulting bottom ash.  Figure 5.2 shows the variations in the residential and commercial refuse generated in Burnaby and New Westminster in between January, 1991 and June, 1992. Figure 5.3 shows the residue/refuse ratios (bottom ash, iron and fly ash) of the incinerated refuse collected in the same period of time. Comparing the variations of the refuse sources and the ash/solid ratios of the burned solid wastes, it is apparent that the increased residential waste ratio in the refuse collected between April and July in 1991 had increased the ash/solid ratios of the refuse incinerated. As most of the gardening work is beginning in April, it is obvious that there would be an increase of yard wastes in the residential refuse. According to the finding in this study, many unburned grass clippings were found in the fine fractions of the bottom ash samples taken in the summer of 1991. A likely cause of the increased ratio of the residential waste in the collected refuse is due to the increase of the yard waste collected in summer time. As yard wastes are believed to be one of the most likely lead containing materials (Robinson, 1986), it is possible that the increase of the leachable lead levels in the bottom ash stream collected from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator in the summer time of 1991 was related to the increased yard wastes in the refuse source. A  I-.  0  z  Z  Ui  cn  z  4  0  a.  Ui  Z  -  o  r  a  .-  m  •1  0)  ,-  0)  0)  •-  D <  -j  TIME  D  0)  —  0)  •  -  0  Z  0)  —  MONTHS  —  0)  -  0)  04 0)  01 0)  c’i  Figure 5.2 Variation in Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Generation Over Time In Burnaby and New Westmister (Source: Atwater et al., 1993)  0  500  1000  1500  2000  2500  3000  3500  4000  4500  5000  ><  04 0)  D  z  CM 0) Lii  0 U) LU Cr  LU  I  0 LU LU Li.  -  0  5.  10  15  20  25  B  -  4;a 4;a a  4;  a  a  0-0  4;4; a a  Wig)  a  a •:•  I’—I —  •. .  Nr •;‘; a 000 a a a  o  B  a  -  a  •  a  a  •  I  a  i-.  MONTHS  a  en . • .— ,—  —  LI  TIME  a  .  •  a  n  N  B El BUBB  .y-..,g  B  a 0 i  b  a  I  a .—  . —  •_  a  a  a  —  • a  a  N  N  ••  •.  •  I  a  N  a  I  I  a  N  CiA  I  a  N  a  •.•  N  .  %FEISWCORR. %FNSWCORR  %BAISW B  •  %BNSWCORR  El U  B.  .  El  0—N.q_ ,. (‘1  .  .  0_WU  El  Figure 5.3 Ratio of Mass of Residues Generated to the Mass of Solid Waste Burnt Corrected for Moisture Differences (Source: Atwater et al., 1993)  0 a  “•..  •.  N  -  m•”  U  0  123 separate collection and disposal of the yard wastes from the refuse may lower the leachable lead level in the MSW incinerator bottom ash and improve its quality for reuse in different purposes. However, no data are available so far that could prove such a supposition. Further research on the leachable level’s contribution by the yard wastes is needed to clarify this point.  Besides the verification and separation of high lead containing materials from the refuse to improve the leaching of lead from the MSW incinerator bottom ash, consideration could be given to separating those bottom ash fractions containing higher leachable lead levels from the whole bottom ash stream to improve the quality of the remaining material for reusability. It was suspected that high levels of leachable lead may be found in a specific fraction or fractions of the finer bottom ash (with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter) as the materials contained in the coarse bottom ash fractions with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter are basically inert materials such as glass, concrete, rock and clinker.  According to the findings in this study, the 80 % UCL values of the leachable lead levels in the two bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter are both greater than the maximum acceptable level specified in the Schedule 4 of B.C. Reg. 63/88. On the other hand, samples from the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter were found to pass the LEP tests. This finding suggests that in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator, only the fine fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter would be considered as special wastes due to the leachable lead levels. Therefore, sorting of these special fractions out of the bottom ash stream for separate disposal and treatment would  124 certainly make the remaining fractions more suitable as reusable materials for different purposes. The problem with this procedure is the high cost for the special waste treatment which would apply on the sorted out fractions.  As the fraction with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter comprised about 20 % by weight of the bottom ash stream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator, it would cost a lot of money to treat such a quantity of bottom ash as a special waste. Therefore, further separations in the finer fraction may be needed to cut down the cost since there is still a possibility that only some of the sub-fraction is a special waste. Based on the results in this study, the leachable lead levels were found to be higher in the fraction with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter than those in the finest fraction (with particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter). It seems that the refining fraction size should focus on the fraction with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter rather than the finest fraction.  The explanations for the concentration of heavy metals in the smaller particle size fractions have not been verified in previous literature. It is assumed that incineration of some materials, such as paint and inks on paper and packaging, and additives in plastics and rubber, that contain relatively high amounts of heavy metals may contribute a major portion of the fines in the incineration residue. (Stegemann et al., 1991) Stegemann et al. (1991) also reported that research in Germany (Schneider, 1986) had suggested that the fine grate siftings may contain higher levels of heavy metals since they have not been exposed to the full residence time or temperature in the incinerator and as such were not volatilized to the same extent. As the grate siftings are mostly particles with the sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter, they contributed to the heavy metal  125 levels in the fine bottom ash fractions. Therefore, separating the grate siftings from the bottom ash may reduce the heavy metal levels in the bottom ash stream.  Another issue relating the heavy metal levels and the particle size was found in the fine bottom ash fractions. From the findings of this study, the total metal levels in the three bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter are basically increasing as the particle size increase. The only exception is the iron which is greater in the fraction with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. It is expected that finer fractions would leach out greater metal levels compared to the same mass of a coarse fraction due to their greater total surface area of the fine particles, when contacting with the leaching liquid. However, findings in this study have shown that such an assumption is not necessarily true for some elements tested. For instance, lead and copper were both leached out in higher levels from the second finest bottom ash fraction, with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. Though some literature has reported similar phenomenon in the fine bottom ash fractions, the causes for such a phenomenon are still unknown. From the findings in this study, one conclusion can be drawn that the leachable levels of all the tested metals but iron seems to be higher in the two bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter.  Based on the results of the particle size gradation of the bottom ash samples from Burnaby MSW Incinerator, there will be on average 80 % of the bottom ash retained with particle size greater than the 4.75 mm diameter. This retained bottom ash would be safe because of its lower level of the leachable heavy metals and thus is reusable at anytime. In order to use this material in construction some natural sand will be required to mix with the bottom ash to  126 make up the fine portion of the particle size gradation which is specified in the standard specifications for aggregates used in many construction uses. Besides the special fraction of the bottom ash, the fine materials that cling on the coarse particles may also be of concern due to the higher levels of leachable heavy metals found in those fine materials. The quality of such ash residue may be improved by several washes. The drawback of the washing procedure is that one will have to treat the wash water after several washings of bottom ash.  Comparing the results to the data reported by Sawell et al. (1990), the leachable lead levels in the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator have changed over time. The leachable lead concentrations in the fine bottom ash fractions collected through 1991 were all less than those reported in the bottom ash samples collected in the late 1988 by Sawell et al. There is one major difference between the sampling procedures used by Sawell et al. and this study and that is: those bottom ash pieces that failed to pass the 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) sieve opening were mashed in Sawell et al.’s study so that all bottom ash fractions were able to pass. In this study, only that bottom ash passing the 9.5 mm sieve opening is subject to the LEP test. Therefore, samples in Sawell et al.’s study may not reflect the real behaviors of the bottom ash when subject to leaching since most of the coarse particles will not easily break up. Some part of the ash particles containing leachable lead may have been incorporated into glass and thus immobilized. Mashing such materials may release the leachable lead from the immobilized materials and thus increase the chance of the contact between the lead and the leaching solution during the leaching test. Then, the lead concentrations in the leachate may have been increased to some degree.  127 Another possible explanation of the higher leachable lead levels in the bottom ash reported by Sawell et a!. (1990) is probably related to the change of the materials distribution in the refuse. GVRD (1989) have had a program investigating the source of lead in the MSW stream. In addition to lead acid batteries, several other sources of lead were identified, including fire assay laboratory cupels, wastes from three North Shore laboratories and weights from commercial fish nets. These wastes were removed from the incinerators feed and are disposed by alternative methods such as the reclaiming of lead from the MSW stream. This would possibly lead to the reduced lead levels in the bottom ash samples taken in this study. Besides the lead source control program, some recycling programs such as the Blue Box Recycling plan may also contribute to the reduction of lead levels in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Many recyclable materials such as corrugated paper, newsprint, rigid plastics as well as glass and tin cans have been removed from the MSW stream since 1989. As reported by Robinson (1986), corrugated, newsprint, other paper, film plastic, rigid plastic, textiles, yard wastes and sweepings are the materials believed most likely to contain lead in the municipal refuse. Such materials in the incinerated refuse would certainly increase the total lead levels in the resulting bottom ash. As the total lead levels increase, it is logical that the leachable lead levels in the bottom ash will increase, too. Therefore, it is possible that the lower leachable lead levels found in the bottom ash samples in this study may have resulted from the recycling programs which removed part of the lead containing materials including the corrugated paper, newsprint, some rigid plastics and other paper from the municipal refuse.  128 Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions  The particle size distribution of the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator is comparable to other MSW incinerators. The results of the particle gradation of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash generally fall in the range specified in the “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction” (Government of British Columbia, 1991) for the aggregates used for a wellgraded base course in highway construction. It is believed that the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash could be used as aggregate substitute in highway constructions based on the particle gradation only.  Findings about the material distribution of the four coarse bottom ash fractions (with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter) have shown that inert materials such glass, concrete, ceramic and clinker make up the largest part of coarse bottom ash fractions. The magnetic materials composed of about 12.5 % by weight of the bottom ash stream and typically appeared as pieces with particle size less than the 50 mm diameter. A second magnet may be needed to sort out of these magnetic materials from the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Glass was found to be about 10 % by weight of bottom ash which in turn was about 2 % of the incinerated refuse on a weight basis.  With the exception of iron, the fixed (non-leachable) and total metal levels for the selected elements tested in the three fine bottom ash fractions showed an apparent trend that metal levels generally increase with particle size decrease. On the other hand, only cadmium, manganese and zinc leachable metals levels followed that trend. Iron was leached from the two fractions with particle size  129 between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter rather than the finest fractions. For lead and copper, the middle fine bottom ash fraction (between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter) was found to contain greater leachable levels than the other two fractions. Among the eight elements tested, lead is the only element leached out in levels exceeding the regulation limit from the two fine bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter. These two fine bottom ash fractions would be classified as special wastes due to the leachable lead levels.  In comparison with data reported in the literature by Sawell et al. (1990), the LEP leachable lead levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions of this study are much lower. It is most likely that the GVRD’s lead source control program as well as the Blue Box Recycling plan practiced in the GVRD municipalities is responsible for the decrease of leachable lead levels. For chromium, copper and nickel, the leachable levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator are slightly lower than Sawell et al.’s data. As for cadmium, manganese and zinc, the leachable levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions are comparable to the literature data.  The lead levels in the bottom ash contributed by the three fine bottom ash fractions have shown that there are some high values in February, November and the period between April and August in 1991. The increase of yard waste in the refuse collected in the summer time may be a possible cause for the increase of the lead levels in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator during that period.  130 The fine materials collected from washing the coarse bottom ash fractions have shown a similarity to the three fine bottom ash fractions regarding the LEP leachable metal levels. Results of the metal concentrations in the wash water have shown that only a small fraction of the metals in the fine bottom ash are water soluble. The wash water of the coarse bottom ash fractions could be used repeatedly.  131 Chapter 7 Recommendations  1. A second magnet is suggested to collect the magnetic materials from the bottom ash stream more effectively.  2. The bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator is suitable for use as aggregates in highway base construction based on its particle size gradation. However, other physical properties of the bottom ash are not available to evaluate the suitability of reusing such materials for this purpose. Further research on the physical properties of the bottom ash is necessary to determine that suitability.  3. A period of aging time is needed for the bottom ash to avoid the clogging of the sieve openings during the sifting procedure by reducing the moisture content of the bottom ash. The particle size gradation based on the aged bottom ash will also reduce the variability due to the fine materials clinging on the coarse particles.  4. Since the grate siftings have been reported to contain higher heavy metal levels, it is recommended that separate disposal methods be considered for the grate siftings and the bottom ash. A study by Rob Miller for the GVRD is examining the effect of removing the grate siftings from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash.  132 5. Several washes of the coarse bottom ash fractions will help improve the quality of bottom ash by washing off the fine materials that contain higher levels of heavy metals from the coarse particles.  6. Further research is needed to verify the lead levels in the bottom ash relating to the increase of yard wastes in the refuse.  133 REFERENCES Abramowitz, M. and I. Segun (1968), Handbook of Mathematical Functions, New York, Dover Publications, Inc., May 1968, P. 933. Andrews, Carol A. and Mary T. Hoffman (1991), Analysis of Laboratory and Field  Leachate Test Data for Ash from Twelve Municipal Solid Waste Combustors, Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the Second Annual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 739-758.  Andrews, James C. (1991), Incinerator Ash Disposal in the Tampa Bay Region, Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the Second Annual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 284-298. A.P.H.A., A.W.W.A., and W.P.C.F. (1985), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition, 1985. A.P.H.A., A.W.W.A., and W.P.C.F. (1990), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 17th Edition, 1990.  ASTM (1989), Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, Designation: D 75-87, 1989 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, p. 577-580.  ASTM (1991), Standard Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size, Designation: C 702-87, 1991 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, p. 361-364. Atwater, Jim and D. Sims (1993), Bottom Ash Utilization Project, Prepared for the Solid Waste and Recycling Department, Greater Vancouver Regional District, January 15, 1993.  Black, Horance R. (1976), Synthetic Aggregate from Incinerator Residues, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division (Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers), Vol. 102, No. EM1, February 1976, p. 31-41. Blaisdell, Mark, Daesoo Lee and Brian Baetz (1990), Economic Feasibility of Drying Municipal Solid-Waste Combustion Residue, Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 2, August 1990, p. 87-97. Buekens, A.G. and J.G. Schoeters (1979), Utilization of Incinerator Residue, Proceedings of the 2nd World Recycling Conference, 1979, Brussels, p. 11/4/121-11/4/137.  134 Carbone, Lawrence G., Walter H. Gutenmann and Donald J. Lisk (1989), Element Immobilization in Refuse Incinerator Ashes by Solidfication in Glass, Ceramic or Cement, Chemosphere, Vol. 19, No. 12, P. 1951-1958.  Cerrato, David S. (1993), Characterization of Waste Streams, Chapter 3 of The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook, Ed. Herbert F. Lund, New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc. , 1993, p. 3.29. Chandler, A.J., J. Hartlen, D. Kosson, H.A. van der Sloot, T.T. Eighmy, 0. Hjelmar, S.E. Sawell and J. Vehiow (1991), An International Perspective on Ash From Municipal Waste Incinerators, Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the Second Annual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 284-298. Clapp, T.L., J.F. Magee II, R.C. Ahiert and D.S. Kosson (1988), Municipal Solid Waste Composition and the Behavior of Metals in Incinerator Ashes, Environmental Progress, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 1988, p. 22-30.  Collins, Robert Joseph (1977), Highway Construction Use of Incinerator Residue, in Proceedings of the Conference of Geotechnical Practice for Disposal of Solid Waste Materials, June 13-15, 1977, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 246-266. Collins, R.J., R.H. Miller and S.K. Ciesielski (1977), Guidelines for Use of Incinerator Residue as Highway Construction Material, U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD 77-150, September 1977.  Collins, Robert J. (1978), Promising Applications for Municipal Incinerator Residues, Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Municipal Waste Utilization, May 2-3, 1978, Chicago, p. 212-221. Denison, Richard A. (1988), The Hazards of Municipal Incinerator Ash as Fundamental Objectives of Ash Management, Resource Recovery of Municipal Solid Wastes, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 84, No. 265, 1988, p. 148-153. Dension, Richard A. and John Ruston, ed. (1990), Recycling and Incineration Evaluating the Choices, Washington D.C., Island Press, 1990. DiPietro, John V., M. Robin Collins, Marcel Guay and T. Taylor Eighmy (1989), Evaluation of pH and Oxidation-Reduction Potential on Leachability of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 2B-21 through 2B-43.  135  Environment Canada (1979), Water Quality Sourcebook-Inland Waters Directorate. Francis, C.W. and G.H. White (1987). Leaching of Toxic Metals from Incinerator Ashes, Journal of WPCF, Vol. 59, No. 11, November 1987, P. 979-986. Government of British Columbia (1991), Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, Section 22, p. 202-1 through 202-14. Government of British Columbia (1992). Waste Management Act, Special Waste Regulation, B.C. Reg. 63/88, April 16, 1992. Greenberg, R.R., W.H. Zoller and G.E. Gordon (1978), Composition and Particle Size in Refrse Incineration, Environmental Science and Technology, No. 12, 1978, p. 566-573. Gress, D.L., X. Zhang, S. Tarr, I. Pazienza and T.T. Eighmy (1991), Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Ash as An Aggregate Substitute in Asphaltic Concrete, Waste Materials in Construction, in proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Implications of Construction with Waste Materials, Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, J.J.J.M Goumans, H.A. van der Sloot and Th. G. Aalbers (Editors), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 161-175. GVRD(Greater Vancouver Regional District) (1989), Incinerator Ash Management Lead Monitoring and Removal Program, Report to Water and Waste Management Committee Meeting, October 12, 1989.  -  Harlow, G. L., C. A. Whitehurst, H. Robards, D. Deville and B. V. Rao (1990), Ash Vitrification-A Technology Ready for Transfer, Proceedings of the (14th Biennial) National Waste Processing Conference, June 3-6 1990, Long Beach, California, P. 143-150. Hartlén, Jan and Jan Rogbeck (1989), Sorted Incinerator Slag Used As Fill Material, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 5B-1 through 5B-13. Hasselriis, Floyd (1988), How Control of Combustion, Emissions and Ash Residues from Municipal Solid Waste can Minimize Environmental Risk, Resource Recovery of Municipal Solid Wastes, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 84, No. 265, 1988, p. 154-167. Haynes, J. and W.B. Ledbetter (1975), Incinerator Residue in Bituminous Base Construction, U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-76-12, December 1975.  136  Haynes, Joseph. A. and William B. Ledbetter (1977), Incinerator Residue in Asphalt Base Construction, Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE, Vol. 103, No. TE5, September 1977, p. 555-564. Henn, John J. and Frank A. Peters (1971), Cost Evaluation of a Metal and Mineral Recovery Process for Treating Municipal Incinerator Residues, Bureau of Mines, United States Department of the Interior, Information Circular 8533, 1971. Hjelmar, Ole (1989), Characterization of Leaching from Landfilled MSWI Ash, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 3B-1 through 3B-19. Jackson, Danny R., Benjamin C. Garrett and Thomas A. Bishop (1984), Comparison of Batch and Column Methods for Assessing Leachability of Hazardous Waste, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 9, p. 668-673. Johnson, Paul W. and James A. Barclay (1973), Economic Studies of Uses of the Glass Fractions From Municipal Incinerator Residues, Bureau of Mines, United States Department of the Interior, Information Circular 8567, 1973. Kenahan, C.B. and P.M. Sullivan (1967), Lets not overlook salvage, Am. Public Works Assoc., Rep. 34:5. Kreijger, P.C. (1984), Some Notes Regarding the Performance of Waste Materials and Concrete in Building Components, in Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Institute Conference on Adhesion Problems in the Recycling of Concrete, New York, New York: Plenum. p. 396-401. Lauer, K.R. (1979), Potential Use of Incinerator Reside as Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete, Transportation Research Record, No. 734, 1979. Legiec, l.A., C. A. Hayes and D. S. Kosson (1989), Continuous Recovery of Heavy Metals from MSW Incinerator Ashes, Environmental Progresses, Vol. 8, No. 3, August 1989, p. 212-216. Maynard, Theodore R. (1977). Incinerator Residue Disposal in Chicago, in Proceedings of the Conference on Geotechnical Practice for Disposal of Solid Waste Materials, June 13-15, 1977, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 773-792. Montenay Inc. (1988). Greater Vancouver Regional District Burnaby Incinerator A Refuse to Energy Facility, Unpublished data of Montenay Inc., 1988. -  137 Montenay Inc. (1991). Unpublished statistic data of Montenay Inc., 1991. Municipal Engineers’ Division of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, the British Columbia Road Builders and Heavy Construction and the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia (1991), Master Municipal Specfications, September 1991, Section 02226, p. 6. Paviovich, R.D., H.J. Lentz and W.C. Ormsby (1977), Installation of Incinerator Residues as Base-Course Paving Material in Washing, D.C., Report of Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-78-114, December 1977. Patankar, Uday M., Gary D. Gindlesperger, Emilio Palermo and Michael R. Taylor (1979), Evaluation of the Economic and Environmental Feasibility of Using Fused and Unfused Incinerator Residue in Highway Construction, U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-79-83, April 1979. Repa, Edward (1987). The Confusion and Questions about Ash, Waste Age, Vol. 18, No. 9, September 1987, p. 89-93. Requardt, G.J. and W.M. Harrington,Jr. (1962), Utilization of Incinerator Ash as Landfill Cover Material, Paper presented at APWA Public Works Congress, New Orleans, October 1962.  Rigo, H. Gregor (1989), Evaluation of Incinerator Ash Testing Data A Statistically Correct Approach, in Proceedings of the Intentional Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 5C-15 through 5C-30. -  Robinson, William D. (1986), The Solid Waste Hand Book A Practical Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1986, p. 531. Santoleri, Joseph J. (1991), Incinerator Technology Overview, in Proceedings of SPIE Environmental Sensing & Combustion Diagnostics, Vol. 1434, Los Angels, Ca., January 24-25, 1991, p. 2-13. Sawell, S.E., T.R. Bridle and T.W. Constable (1986), Assessment of Ash Contaminant Leachability, NITEP Phase Il-Testing of the FLAKT Air Pollution Control Technology at the Quebec City Municipal Energy from Waste Facility, Industrial Programs Branch, Wastewater Technology Centre (Burlington, Ontario: Environment Canada).  Sawell, S.E. and T.W. Constable (1988), National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program : The Combustion Characterization of Mass Burning Technology  -  138  Assessment of Contaminant Leachability from Residues, Environment Canada Report, IP-82, August 1988. Sawell, S.E. and T.W. Constable (1989), The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program : Characterization of Residues from A Refuse Derived Fuel Combustion System and A Modular Municipal Waste Incinerator, in Proceedings of the Intentional Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 2B-45 through 2B-62. Sawell, S.E., T.W. Constable and R.K. Klicius (1989b), National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program:: Characterization of Residues from A Modular Municipal Waste Incinerator with Lime-based Air Pollution Control, Environment Canada Report, Manuscript Series, IP-lOl, September 1989. Sawell, S.E., T.W. Constable, and R.K. Klicius (1990). The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: Characterization of Residues from A State-ofArt Mass Burning Municipal Waste Incinerator (Burnaby, B.C.), Environment Canada Report, IP-ilO (revised), April 1990. Schneider, J. (1986), Bestimmung der elementaren Mullzusammensetzung durch Analytik der Mullverbennungsruckstande, Recycling International. VI., Ed. K.J. Kozmiensky, EF-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. Schoenberger, Robert J. and P. Walton Purdom (1976), Long Term Chemical Leaching from Incinerator Residue, Proceedings of the National Waste Proceeding Conference, May 23, 1979, Boston, p. 489-497. Sloot, H.A. van der, G.J. de Groot, J. Wijkstra, and P. Leeders (1989). Leaching Characteristics of Incinerator Residues and Potential for Modification of Leaching, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 2B-1 through 2B-19. Stegemann, J.A. and J. Schneider (1991), Leaching Potential of Municipal Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash as A Function of Particle Size Distribution, Waste Materials in Construction, in proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Implications of Construction with Waste Materials, Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, J.J.J.M Goumans, H.A. van der Sloot and Th. G. Aalbers (Editors), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 135-143.  Stoelhorst, D. (1991), The Use of Waste Materials in Civil Engineering, Waste Materials in Construction, in proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Implications of Construction with Waste Materials, Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, J.J.J.M Goumans,  139 H.A. van der Sloot and Th. G. Aalbers (Editors), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 71-80.  Strauss, William (1989), Stablization of Heavy Metals in Incinerator Ash and Potential Re-use of the Hardened Material, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 2, p. 11B-1 through 11B-13. Sundstrom, D.W., H.E. Klei, B.A. Weir and A.J. Perna (1991), Leaching Behavior of Residues from Mass Burn and Refuse Derived Fuel Incinerators, Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the Second Annual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 759-774. Sussman, David B.(1989), Municipal Waste Combustion Ash: Testing Methods, Constituents and Potential Uses, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol.2, p. 11B-13 through 11B-25.  Tay, Joo-Haw (1988), Energy Generation and Resources Recovery from Refuse Incineration, Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 3, December 1988, p. 107-117. Teague, D.J. and W.B. Ledbetter (1978), Three Years Results on the Performance of Incinerator Residue in a Bituminous Base, U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-78-144, August 1978. University of British Columbia, Civil Engineering 321, (1992), Three reports investigating the substitution of 10 %, 30 % and 50% MSW incinerator bottom ash for conventional aggregate in concrete. Submitted to Professor S. Mindess, April 1992. US EPA (1986), Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Vol. II: Field Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, November 1986, p. Nine-6. Wagner, Travis P. (1990), Hazardous Waste Identification and Classification Manual, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, p. 78. Walter, C. Edward (1976), Practical Refuse Recycling, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division (Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers), Vol. 102, No. EM1, February 1976, p. 139-148. WASTE Program Consortium (1992), Waste Analysis, Sampling, Testing and Evaluation. Effect of Waste Stream Characteristics on MSW Incineration: The  140 Fate and Behavior of Metals (Mass Burn MSW Incineration: Burnaby, B. C. Produced for Environment Canada, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the International Lead Zinc Research Organization and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Consortium members include: A. J. Chandler and Associates Ltd.; Rigo and Rigo Associates, Inc.; The Environmental Research Group University of New Hampshire; and Wastewater Technology Center (Burlington, Ontario). -  -  Wiles, Canton C. (1991), Incinerator Ash Disposal in the Tampa Bay Region, Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the Second Annual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 205-227.  141 APPENDIX 1.  RAW DATA  -  BURNABY REFUSE INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (Unit: Percentage by Weight)  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  2/4/91 50mm< PS 25mm< PS 6.97% 2.73% 7.58% 4.32% 5.22% 4.92% 3.85% 5.74% 4.36% 6.36%  <50mm 12.Smm< PS 11.07% 14.45% 10.87% 10.59% 10.21% 14.75% 6.13% 11.15% 6.20% 9.27%  <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12,5mm 4.75mm< PS 3 1.42% 13.01% 39.80% 15.36% 34.48% 14.95% 33.65% 14.55% 13.81% 33.21% 36.30% 11.01% 26.37% 13.47% 32.32% 15.24% 22.44% 13.27% 34.79% 14.64%  Date Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  2/18/91 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 4.49% 8.34% 2.78% 3.02% 5.54% 4.55% 2.17% 9.04% 7.98% 6.58% 3.35% 4.47%  <50mm 12.Smm< PS 10.40% 8.52% 6.90% 7.91% 10.09% 6.10% 6.83% 8.75% 12.91% 8.10% 5.94% 8.00%  <25mm 9,Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 10.77% 11.82% 20. 19% 10. 17% 32. 16% 11.89% 11.36% 25.47% 11. 89% 22.54% 4.75% 12.37% 34.86% 15.41% 22.94% 11.11% 12.53% 27.11% 14.67% 23.64% 5.21% 10.67% 26.80% 18.78% 22.91% 5.50% 29,21% 11.51% 28.87% 14.26% 14.00% 7.08% 25.92% 12.00% 32.00% 13.80% 6.22% 25.95% 12.05% 24.20% 6.99% 14.23% 24.75% 10.53% 22.62% 21.09% 9.25% 9.16% 24.56% 21.26% 13.86% 6.17% 12.64% 26.28% 3 1.76% 3.76% 28.55% 16.24% 28.24% 10.75%  Date Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  3/6/9 1 S0mjn< PS 25mm< PS 5.57% 10.36% 8.14% 20.49% 7.54% 8.21% 16.93% 2.38% 11.48% 17.78%  <50mm 12.Smm< PS 13.46% 13.40% 13.90% 16.39% 14.24% 11.81% 16.77% 7.75% 15.90% 18.72%  <25mm 9.Smin< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 13.37% 19.96% 5.39% 30.55% 11.70% 7.55% 11.92% 28. 19% 10.98% 17.60% 6.86% 13.05% 32.97% 10.08% 15.00% 4.71% 10.55% 26.77% 8.81% 12.29% 7.46% 6.53% 31.61% 12.80% 19.83% 4.96% 22.36% 7.39% 32.01% 13.26% 10.30% 9.98% 15.29% 4.84% 25.90% 17.68% 25.92% 11.72% 24.03% 10.53% 10.91% 30. 10% 10.44% 15.71% 5.46% 4.07% 3.60% 32.58% 9.63% 13.63%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  3/30191 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 4.57% 1.28% 5.28% 6.92% 7.80% 8.28% 6.57% 9.58% 7.77% 3.91% 5.62% 7.93%  <50mm 12.5mm< PS 7.94% 5.86% 8.90% 10.33% 8.89% 12.48% 12.68% 14.96% 12.41% 10.34% 7.93% 9.96%  <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS 23.35% 11.67% 22.14% 11.80% 18.00% 9.10% 21.49% 8.67% 23.41% 11.98% 23.68% 9.26% 27.29% 10.31% 24.45% 9.40% 22.92% 9.47% 21.99% 10.07% 23.02% 9.91% 21.86% 10.38%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  4/12/91 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 14.37% 11.41% 13.23% 11.23% 10.92% 10.51% 9.90% 4.32%  <50mm 12.Smm< PS<25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2,36mm< PS <4.75mm PS<2.36mm 10.73% 19.40% 9.51% 19.87% 10.73% 15.39% 11.16% 18.71% 9.88% 20.56% 9.80% 18.47% 15.19% 25.35% 9.04% 14.91% 7.92% 14.35% 11.42% 20.04% 9.58% 18.01% 9.39% 20.33% 15.07% 20.91% 8.30% 16.93% 13.38% 14.48% 14.79% 26.75% 9.24% 17.51% 9.44% 11.77% 14.46% 26.94% 9.12% 17.21% 9.81% 12.56% 10.94% 31.71% 10.85% 21.14% 10.20% 10.85%  <9.5mm 2,36mm< PS <4,75mm PS <2.36mm 6.40% 20.35% 10. 78% 4.87% 5.45% 17.34% 6.01% 19.24% 6.87% 9.01% 7.64% 20.24% 20.06% 8.16% 9.33% 4.06% 18.81% 10. 15% 15.54% 7.70% 26.94% 22.03% 10. 29% 3.23% 17.43% 5.87% 30.43% 8.12% 5.67% 21. 15%  <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4,75mm PS <2.36mm 11.07% 19.37% 22.02% 21.50% 26.08% 11.34% 24.17% 23.19% 11.35% 10.24% 23.25% 19. 10% 16.97% 22.14% 8.80% 11.99% 21.15% 13.16% 11.10% 11.21% 20.84% 10.58% 13.59% 17.43% 15.44% 19.98% 12.03% 17.71% 21.90% 14.07% 14.43% 24.23% 14.87% 15.86% 20.76% 13.25%  142 9 10 11 12  8.33% 7.50% 7.74% 11.93%  8.78% 10.64% 7.95% 9.79%  14.93% 28.60% 17.96% 19.29%  8.51% 10.20% 11.56% 10.16%  27.78% 19.35% 25.49% 22.65%  17.47% 9.33% 10.73% 9.79%  14.21% 14.39% 18.58% 16.40%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  4t21/91 50mm< PS 25mm< PS 6.83% 9.01% 8.93% 12.11% 13.63% 12.40% 12.36% 5.19% 9.29% 7.10% 4.72% 13.06%  <S0tmn 12,5mm< PS 14.26% 11.84% 18.94% 14.57% 12.54% 11.31% 10.09% 13.45% 12.44% 14.40% 11.18% 9.77%  <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS 27.92% 10,93% 21.26% 10.12% 25.48% 9.84% 28.05% 10.29% 25.00% 9.87% 21.63% 10,68% 20.44% 10.60% 29.31% 11.97% 21.00% 9.69% 28.80% 11.14% 25.24% 11.85% 18.54% 10.87%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  4129/91 5Omm< PS 25mm< PS 9.79% 19.78% 11.68% 14.08% 12.91% 15.00% 12.27% 15.06% 12.87% 9.81% 16.92% 13.51%  <50mm 12.Smm< PS 12.41% 15.45% 18.17% 17.95% 15.87% 17.77% 16.91% 20.69% 16.20% 14.98% 14.83% 16.99%  <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 17.46% 9.08% 21.90% 9.89% 19.48% 15.45% 18.49% 7.85% 14.81% 8.17% 16.09% 27.68% 4.93% 10.64% 10.81% 13.98% 27.20% 5.36% 11.70% 9.72% 24.75% 8.07% 13.54% 15.70% 9.15% 11.17% 14.52% 26.17% 6.59% 8.79% 10.59% 14.59% 6.32% 29.37% 9.94% 11.27% 12.78% 25.68% 6.18% 8.34% 7.66% 12.87% 15.65% 25.31% 9.43% 10.95% 17.98% 28.51% 7.54% 10.23% 15.29% 5.73% 27.84% 10.28% 9.10% 15.90% 6.86% 10.68% 25.49% 10.57%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  6/6/9 1 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 15.20% 12.54% 11.13% 6.71% 11.11% 16.38% 9.37% 8.22% 10.14% 17.38% 13.94% 14.07%  <50mm 12.Smm< PS<25mm 9.5imn< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS 16.04% 8.07% 21.11% 10.90% 19.10% 8.61% 14.41% 19.64% 7.58% 17.56% 22.61% 9.10% 20.49% 27.22% 846% 19.60% 26.63% 8.04% 13.27% 30.89% 10.20% 9.99% 22.28% 10.26% 18.15% 25.97% 10.42% 21.68% 26.08% 8.15% 21.29% 8.76% 24.12% 18.11% 20.71% 7.42%  <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 18.48% 13.70% 7.41% 15.66% 9.67% 23.52% 25.63% 13.19% 842% 19.94% 16.08% 8.00% 11.42% 14.27% 7.03% 5.83% 12.36% 11.16% 6.40% 15.86% 14.01% 18.66% 21.40% 9.20% 12.26% 17.08% 5.98% 10.57% 11.92% 4.21% 12.94% 13.86% 5.09% 16.67% 14.64% 8.38%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  7/7/91 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 17.50% 10.78% 7.95% 13.98% 4.01% 12.31% 13.93% 10.98% 14.07% 7.03% 16.94% 17.15%  <50mm 12.5mm< PS 17.50% 17.63% 17.89% 21.60% 12.64% 20.79% 25.43% 17.28% 14.07% 22.05% 11.81% 27.75%  <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 16.62% 13.29% 8.31% 12.05% 14.79% 7.03% 16.08% 16.68% 7.87% 4.53% 7.43% 13.11% 7.12% 19.66% 12.44% 13.34% 6.00% 10.65% 11.86% 6.74% 10.06% 15.74% 6.55% 11.06% 17.87% 7.32% 7.89% 8.76% 15.35% 5.84% 17.23% 12.68% 8.42% 9.34% 3.66% 4.34%  Date: Samples 1 2  8/10/91 SOmm<PS 25mm<PS <50mm 12.5mm<PS <25mm 9.Smm<PS <12,5mm 4.75mm<PS <9.5mm 2.36mm<PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 9.34% 9.74% 19.68% 20.48% 9.94% 10.83% 19.98% 13.58% 11.64% 24.09% 17.01% 10.16% 8.45% 15.07%  <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS 19.65% 7.14% 28.22% 9.50% 24.11% 9.42% 29.99% 9.35% 31.09% 13.04% 27.40% 9.51% 24.80% 7.19% 28.60% 9.79% 28.42% 10.36% 30.70% 10.27% 23.04% 9.87% 29.87% 7.90%  <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 17.51% 8.11% 14.43% 19.94% 10.22% 17.61% 16.13% 6.78% 13.90% 16.85% 11.48% 6.65% 19.65% 9.95% 9.36% 22.62% 9.59% 11.76% 21.53% 13.54% 11.44% 20.78% 10.95% 8.35% 5.09% 24.39% 18.09% 19.72% 10.95% 7.89% 21.19% 9.44% 16.38% 19.74% 9.27% 18.74%  143 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  14.50% 8.71% 15.31% 11.40% 11.15% 4.73% 10.93% 6.44% 10.57% 11.64%  12.28% 13.88% 10.61% 14.40% 10.17% 11.58% 9.74% 15.00% 8.90% 13.06%  22.16% 26.95% 26.76% 23.31% 23.10% 26.97% 26.74% 29.56% 22.99% 28.34%  Date Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  8/30/91 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 5.09% 8.82% 9.38% 8.19% 7.47% 7.99% 3.85% 10.40% 6.94% 5.94% 5.49% 1.54%  <50mm 8.96% 10.31% 8.37% 10.45% 5.90% 7.08% 5.31% 9.35% 10.88% 6.97% 4.34% 6.87%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  9/13191 SOmm< PS 25mm< PS 14.46% 8.03% 11.53% 8.70% 10.99% 12.50% 3.52% 9.63% 11.21% 5.29% 7.43% 12.80%  <50mm 12,Smm< PS 12.07% 11.91% 11.69% 10.91% 11.36% 10.47% 10.65% 10.32% 8.67% 8.08% 10.80% 9.62%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  9126/91 SOmm< PS 2Smm< PS <50mm 2.80% 7.98% 12.56% 8.41% 3.87% 7.83% 13.65% 7.36% 6.84% 7.58% 13.80% 16.14% 8.65% 7.08% 9.92% 11.91% 10.81% 6.77% 6.26% 9.92% 4.75% 9.80% 8.81% 8.99%  Date: Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  11/16/91 S0inm< PS 2Smm< PS 13.95% 14.17% 3.58% 7.68% 16.03% 23.51% 4.71% 16.75% 12.89% 11.07% 15.20%  10.34% 11.43% 10.89% 10.28% 11.25% 12.23% 12.72% 11.44% 10.76% 11.54%  12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS 27.54% 13.50% 25.59% 12.67% 25.86% 13.56% 32.12% 13.10% 22.89% 15.18% 22.85% 11.73% 22.27% 13.63% 21.26% 9.93% 28.13% 12.62% 23.20% 12.91% 18.58% 11.95% 24.76% 12.56%  16.90% 19.33% 17.09% 18.59% 19.15% 19.93% 20.18% 16.67% 18.30% 17.41%  7.48% 7.71% 6.95% 9.08% 8.98% 8.90% 7.85% 7.44% 9.49% 6.98%  16.34% 11.98% 12.39% 12.94% 16.19% 15.66% 11.83% 13.44% 18.98% 11.03%  <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4,75mm PS <2.36mm 8.30% 16,37% 20.24% 8.07% 15.65% 18.88% 15.84% 20.03% 6.97% 6.17% 17.00% 12.97% 8.80% 15.66% 24.10% 20.83% 10.11% 19.41% 25.91% 11.24% 17.79% 16.94% 9.70% 22.43% 19.21% 7.41% 14.81% 19.09% 21.94% 9.94% 23.36% 11.33% 24.96% 25.95% 9.36% 18.96%  <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 18.93% 25.21% 6.69% 11.32% 11.32% 21.49% 24.98% 8.03% 13.46% 12.10% 21.95% 8.22% 22.97% 11.53% 12.12% 10.38% 17.21% 22.36% 19.88% 10.56% 8.59% 16.90% 20.13% 21.14% 10.90% 7.56% 11.72% 20.74% 25.00% 12.02% 9.97% 14.08% 24.05% 24.54% 13.20% 12.53% 21.82% 7.93% 25.06% 12.70% 10.37% 18.69% 21.92% 18.95% 10.20% 16.16% 26.00% 21.17% 10.31% 13.00% 22.04% 9.03% 15.31% 23.19% 12.21% 19.35% 9.91% 16.27% 21.66% 10.39%  12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 19.65% 13.16% 9.87% 24.51% 22.04% 18.84% 19.76% 9.93% 20.67% 9.83% 21.92% 21.64% 11.42% 22.38% 10.96% 15.96% 18.09% 10.64% 8.24% 26.06% 17.38% 9.33% 20.70% 13.49% 24.68% 20.17% 8.70% 15.50% 7.86% 17.83% 17.99% 19.27% 11.21% 25.86% 9.93% 23.64% 10.27% 17.52% 7.59% 19.15% 15.29% 19.07% 11.25% 8.61% 28.21% 12.84% 19.93% 7.01% 35.78% 8.26% 23.47% 10.20% 19.21% 11.09% 21.49% 19.45% 9.54% 18.72% 10.28% 24.22%  <50mm 12.5mm< PS 11.59% 15.79% 6.74% 11.22% 21.64% 11.43% 10.88% 18.34% 9.56% 14.67% 12.45%  <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm 18.36% 13.95% 13.33% 7.69% 21.13% 16.25% 6.68% 13.27% 12.18% 21.66% 16.63% 8.32% 17.16% 21.79% 25.79% 23.36% 8.90% 16.89% 10.92% 21.03% 25.39% 14.00% 8.22% 4.96% 9.76% 17.55% 6.94% 15.84% 10.86% 13.88% 23.22% 11.40% 22.80% 10.25% 16.74% 25.66% 7.76% 13.32% 6.70% 11.46% 10.55% 5.23% 14.88% 16.05% 30.84% 20.12% 5.71% 16.08% 12.39% 19.95% 19.02% 10.20% 14.90% 10.78% 17.45%  144 Date Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  12/17/91 5Omm< PS 25mm< PS 11.53% 4.67% 6.56% 7.43% 7.39% 5.56% 8.32% 5.19% 10.31% 6.66%  <50mm 12.5mm< PS 10.09% 5.28% 8.81% 6.28% 12.45% 11.22% 10.06% 10.61% 12.06% 13.93%  <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm Ps <2.36mm 15.95% 9.89% 14.02% 19.98% 18.54% 17.28% 20.33% 11.18% 29.47% 11.79% 15.20% 8.29% 22.45% 15.03% 23.66% 15.49% 9.47% 14.69% 23,36% 23.27% 17.51% 18.12% 9.92% 20.85% 13.77% 19.18% 8.07% 19.29% 12.16% 24.53% 19.83% 8.61% 16.54% 12.48% 24.18% 17.79% 7.85% 16.91% 13.37% 28.29% 16.94% 7.46% 17.31% 12.89% 23.02% 14.79% 8.04% 20.93% 14.88% 20.76%  145 RAW DATA MATERIAL COMPONENTS DISTRIBUTION IN COARSE BOTTOM ASH FRACTIONS (Unit: Percentage by Weight)  APPENIZ)IX 2.  .-  Fraction 1. 50 mm < Particle Size Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Glass  Paier & Wood  Porcelin & Tile  Rock  Non-ferrous Metals  Mix  21-001  1.03%  0.00%  13.40%  0,00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.15%  25.77%  21-002  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  33.33%  9.09%  57.58%  21-003  0.00%  0.00%  18.87%  0.00%  1.89%  0.00%  22.64%  16.04%  40.57%  21-004  0.00%  8.33%  25.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  20.00%  46.67%  21-005  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.27%  29.58%  59.15%  21-006  0.00%  0.00%  17.46%  0.00%  0.00%  1.59%  0.00%  15.87%  65.08%  21-007  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  37.04%  0.00%  62.96%  21-008  0.00%  0.00%  41.38%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.15%  29.89%  27.59%  21-009  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.52%  0.00%  0.00%  19.70%  78.79%  21-010  0.00%  0.00%  28.92%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  20.48%  7.23%  43.37%  22-001  0.00%  5.00%  21.67%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  6.67%  66.67%  22-002  2.13%  0.00%  12.77%  0.00%  0.00%  3.19%  0.00%  10.64%  71.28%  22-003  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  32.26%  67.74%  22-004  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  35.29%  2.94%  61.76%  22-005  0.00%  0.00%  31.34%  0.00%  0.00%  7.46%  0.00%  19.40%  41.79%  22-006  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  24.53%  37.74%  37.74%  22-007  0.00%  0.00%  38.46%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  26.92%  34.62%  22-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  2.15%  2.15%  32.26%  63.44%  22-009  0.00%  0.00%  41.24%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  27.84%  30.93%  22-010  0.00%  20.27%  0.00%  0.00%  2.70%  0.00%  0.00%  28.38%  48.65%  22-011  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  47.73%  2.27%  50.00%  22-012  0.00%  0.00%  28.07%  0.00%  0.00%  10.53%  0.00%  29.82%  31.58%  31-001  0.00%  33.33%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.67%  55.00%  31-002  3.76%  18.05%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  18.80%  0.00%  23.31%  36.09%  31-003  7.29%  0.00%  25.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  15.63%  28.13%  23.96%  31-004  0.00%  13.62%  6.81%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.26%  75.32%  31-005  0.00%  16.85%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  12.36%  70.79%  31-006  0.00%  32.97%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  67.03%  31-007  2.30%  32.26%  12.44%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  10.60%  42.40%  31-008  0.00%  37.50%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  12.50%  0.00%  0.00%  50.00%  3 1-009  0.00%  9.02%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  12.30%  78.69%  31-010  0.00%  18.94%  11.01%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.96%  15.42%  50.66%  32-001  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  68.42%  0.00%  31.58%  32-002  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  100.00%  32-003  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  7.41%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  14.8 1%  77.78%  32-004  0.00%  6.67%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  20.00%  73.33%  32-005  3.49%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  19.77%  76.74%  32-006  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  45.88%  54.12%  32-007  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.72%  0.00%  0.00%  20.69%  77.59%  32-008  0.00%  4.76%  9.52%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  29.52%  56.19%  32-009  0.00%  0.00%  25.61%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  7.32%  21.95%  45.12%  32-010  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  61.90%  38.10%  32-011  0.00%  0.00%  54.90%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.76%  33.33%  32-012  0.00%  12.77%  21.28%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.06%  64.89% 53.25%  54.64%  41-001  0.00%  0.00%  36.36%  0.00%  0.00%  1.95%  5.84%  2.60%  41-002  0.00%  0.00%  52.11%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.63%  2.82%  39.44%  41-003  0.00%  41.55%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  7.04%  51.41%  41-004  0.00%  0.00%  34.48%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  6.90%  22.41%  36.21%  41-005  0.00%  0.00%  12.40%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  9.30%  78.29%  41-006  0.00%  2.78%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.63%  0.00%  92.59%  41-007  0.00%  0.00%  24.35%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  10.43%  3.48%  61.74%  41-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  21.28%  0.00%  0.00%  6.38%  72.34%  146 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Glass  Paper & Wood  Porcelin & Tile  Rock  Non-ferrous Metals  Mixtures  41-009  0.00%  0.00%  4.35%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  41-010  0.00%  0.00%  17.44%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  82.56%  41-011  0,00%  0.00%  25.33%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  14.67%  0.00%  60.00%  41-012  0.00%  0.00%  14.84%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  28.91%  32.03%  24.22%  42-001  0.00%  15.00%  6.25%  0.00%  10.00%  0.00%  0.00%  6.25%  62.50%  42-002  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.12%  0.00%  0.00%  98.88%  42-003  0.00%  2.78%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.93%  96.30%  42-004  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.75%  99.25%  42-005  0.00% 0.00%  0.00%  2.45%  8.59%  0.00%  88.96%  0.00%  0.00%  15.33%  0.00% 0.00%  0.00%  42-006  0.00% 0.00%  0.00%  13.87%  0.00%  70.80%  42-007  0.00%  0.00%  3.40%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  43.54%  0.00%  53.06%  42-008  0.00%  10.71%  0.00%  7.14%  0.00%  0.00%  16.07%  0.00%  66.07%  42-009  0.00%  8.70%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  15.65%  8.70%  66.96%  42-010  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.39%  0.00%  0.00%  98.61%  42-011  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  9.92%  3.82%  0.00% 0.00%  87.76%  3.05%  0.00% 0.00%  12.24%  42-012  0.00% 0.00%  31.30%  51.91%  43-001  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  16.49%  3.09%  80.41%  43-002  0.00%  4.45%  1.62%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  93.93%  43-003  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.70%  96.30%  43-004  0.00%  0.70%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  19.01%  80.28%  43-005  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  100.00%  43-006  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  25.48%  74.52%  43-007  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  21.97%  15.91%  62.12%  43-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  2.16%  97.84%  43-009  0.00%  0.00%  46.55%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.45%  13.79%  36.21%  43-010  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  8.42%  91.58%  43-011  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.54%  99.46%  43-012  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  8.06%  0.00%  91.94%  61-001  0.00%  8.02%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  9.26%  82.72%  61-002  0.00%  18.30%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.27%  3.92%  74.51%  6 1-003  2.52%  0.00%  5.04%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  35.29%  14.29%  42.86%  61-004  0.00%  0.00%  20.55%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  20.55%  0.00%  58.90%  61-005  0.00%  5.50%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.59%  89.91%  61-006  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.23%  98.77%  61-007  0.00%  0.00%  10.89%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  6.93%  82.18%  61-008  0.00%  5.38%  16.13%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  6.45%  2.15%  69.89%  61-009  0.00%  0.00%  7.62%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.43%  80.95%  61-010  0.00%  0.00%  12.37%  0.00%  0.00%  1.55%  2.58%  5.67%  77.84%  61-011  1.80%  0.00%  1.80%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  16.17%  80.24%  61-012  4.11%  0.00%  3.42%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.68%  91.78%  71-001  0.00%  0.00%  6.70%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.17%  0.00%  82.12%  71-002  1.69%  0.00%  4.24%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.08%  11.02%  77.97%  71-003  0.00%  0.00%  8.70%  0.00%  0.00%  2.17%  0.00%  0.00%  89.13%  71-004  0.00%  2.07%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.69%  97.24%  95.65%  71-005  0.00%  0.00%  47.50%  0.00%  0.00%  5.00%  0.00%  2.50%  45.00%  71-006  5.04%  0.00%  9.24%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  22.69%  63.03%  71-007  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.87%  96.13%  71-008  0.00%  0.00%  9.30%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.78%  89.92%  71-009  0.00%  1.35%  22.30%  0.00%  0.00%  10.81%  0.00%  0.68%  64.86%  71-010  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  100.00%  71-011  0.00%  8.00%  13.71%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.57%  77.71%  71-012  0.00%  11.24%  3.37%  0.00%  0.00%  0.56%  2.81%  2.81%  79.21%  8 1-001  0.00%  0.00%  24.47%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  75.53%  81-002  0.00%  17.65%  6.72%  2.52%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.88%  67.23%  81-003  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.64%  0.00%  0.00%  2.55%  96.82%  81-004  0.00%  0.00%  5.21%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.21%  14.58%  75.00%  147 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Glass  Paper & Wood  Porcelin & Tile  Rock  Non-ferrous Metals  Mixtures  81-005  1.23%  9.20%  0.00%  0.00%  1.23%  0.00%  8.59%  12.27%  81-006  0.00%  0.00%  2.26%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  10.53%  87.22%  81-007  0,00%  0.88%  20.35%  0.00%  0.00%  5.31%  0.00%  0.00%  73.45% 94.12%  67.48%  81-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.88%  81-009  0.00%  12.73%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  87.27%  81-010  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.45%  0.00%  6.90%  22.41%  67.24%  80.56%  81-011  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  19.44%  81-012  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  10.43%  3.48%  86.09%  82-001  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  26.09%  23.91%  50.00%  82-002  4.23%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.27%  84.51%  82-003  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  12.16%  0.00%  33.78%  8.11%  45.95%  82-004  1.54%  0.00%  32.31%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  23.08%  18.46%  24.62%  82-005  17.74%  33.87%  0.00%  0.00%  6.45%  0.00%  0.00%  6.45%  35.48%  82-006  1.27%  0.00%  18.99%  0.00%  1.27%  7.59%  21.52%  16.46%  32.91%  82-007  0.00%  0.00%  13.51%  0.00%  0.00%  13.51%  0.00%  0.00%  72.97%  82-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  10.11%  0.00%  10.11%  20.22%  59.55%  82-009  0.00%  0.00%  28.33%  0.00%  6.67%  5.00%  0.00%  55.00%  5.00%  82-010  0.00%  15.38%  0.00%  0.00%  9.62%  0.00%  0.00%  3.85%  71.15%  82-011  0.00%  27.42%  4.84%  0.00%  0.00%  6.45%  48.39%  0.00%  12.90%  82-012  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  15.38%  84.62%  91-001  0.00%  2.29%  4.57%  1.71%  0.00%  0.00%  14.86%  0.00%  76.57%  91-002  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  19.28%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  80.72%  91-003  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  3.68%  9.56%  86.76%  91-004  0.00%  0.00%  10.20%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  89.80%  91-005  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  2.52%  97.48%  91-006  0.00%  0.00%  26.36%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  24.81%  48.84%  91-007  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  2.78%  97.22%  91-008  0.00%  0.00%  29.20%  0.00%  1.77%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  69.03%  91-009  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  40.91%  27.27%  31.82%  91-010  0.00%  0.00%  10.53%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  14.04%  3.51%  71.93%  91-011  0.00%  0.00%  17.86%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  82.14%  91-012  0.00%  0.00%  8.27%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  24.81%  12.78%  54.14%  92-001  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  17.65%  82.35%  92-002  0.00%  0.00%  26.61%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  35.48%  0.81%  37.10%  92-003  0.00%  0.00%  14.29%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  9.52%  0.00%  76.19%  92-004  0.00%  0.00%  18.18%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  77.27%  0.65%  3.90%  92-005  0.00%  0.00%  72.97%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.35%  25.68%  92-006  0.00%  0.00%  2.31%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.62%  93.08%  92-007  2.27%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  61.36%  7.95%  28.41%  92-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.22%  24.35%  70.43%  92-009  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  33.33%  31.71%  34.96%  92-010  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  18.67%  81.33%  92-011  0.00%  12.50%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.17%  83.33%  92-012  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  35.42%  21.88%  42.71%  111-001  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.47%  0.00%  2.21%  7.35%  88.97%  111-002  0.00%  0.00%  25.48%  0.00%  1.91%  0.00%  0.00%  5.10%  67.52% 32.35%  111-003  0.00%  20.59%  17.65%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  29.41%  0.00%  111-004  0.00%  3.95%  0.00%  0.00%  1.32%  0.00%  0.00%  6.58%  88.16%  111-005  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.52%  0.00%  2.03%  96.45%  111-006  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  5.56%  0.00%  94.44%  111-007  0.00%  0.00%  24.44%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  75.56%  111-008  0.00%  0.00%  5.79%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.58%  92.63%  111-009  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.20%  0.00%  12.59%  83.22%  111-010  0.00%  0.00%  13.49%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  16.67%  11.90%  57.94%  111-011  0.00%  3.23%  14.19%  0.00%  1.29%  0.00%  11.61%  3.87%  65.81%  121-001  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  30.00%  70.00%  148 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Porcelin &  Glass  Rock  Non-ferrous  Mixtures  121-002  0.00%  0.00%  23.91%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  19.57%  121-003  0.00%  0.00%  15.79%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  84.21%  121-004  0.00%  0.00%  40.48%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  1.19%  58.33%  56.52%  121-005  0.00%  0.00%  13.70%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  9.59%  15.07%  61.64%  121-006  3.77%  0.00%  9.43%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  39.62%  47.17%  121-007  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  22.09%  5.81%  72.09%  121-008  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  4.26%  12.77%  34.04%  48.94%  121-009  0.00%  0.00%  19.64%  0.00%  0.89%  0.00%  14.29%  20.54%  44.64%  121-010  0.00%  0.00%  11.69%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  11.69%  24.68%  51.95%  Fraction 2. 25 mm < Particle Size < 50 mm Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Porcelin &  Glass  Rock  Non-ferrous MUTes  Others  11-101  22.14%  1.96%  2.40%  14.04%  0.82%  9.42%  4.79%  2.04%  12.66%  11-102  18.23%  3.04%  11.97%  8.10%  1.33%  12.19%  2.64%  4.88%  18.27%  19.35%  11-103  19.50%  5.04%  5.25%  5.43%  1.99%  14.19%  6.61%  2.46%  14.75%  24.78%  11-104  23.80%  3.10%  3.47%  3.39%  2.63%  15.72%  9.23%  1.87%  13.57%  23.23%  12-101  24.19%  12.39%  0.93%  2.48%  2.07%  11.55%  1.28%  2.75%  16.38%  25.97%  12-102  11.71%  8.48%  16.99%  7.61%  0.52%  11.60%  1.36%  2.95%  16.44%  22.33%  12-103  1.96%  11.39%  8.91%  15.52%  2.52%  8.13%  5.57%  7.63%  9.17%  29.20%  29,74%  12-104  5.60%  16.12%  1.63%  4.02%  3.82%  13.01%  11.12%  5.95%  12.82%  25.92%  13-101  14.23%  12.63%  1.70%  2.96%  0.29%  15.68%  11.53%  1.28%  10.28%  29.43%  13-102  20.83%  2.91%  0.48%  15.27%  1.17%  8.98%  8.68%  3.00%  13.59%  25.08%  13-103  18.35%  0.98%  3.25%  16.91%  0.85%  13.19%  10.43%  4.75%  8.67%  22.62%  13-104  19.29%  0.00%  5.91%  7.99%  0.31%  15.44%  13.23%  1.47%  15.83%  20.54%  21-101  18.99%  1.32%  4.08%  8.08%  0.45%  14.71%  19.01%  4.20%  6.95%  22.23%  21-102  19.80%  0.00%  0.00%  9.38%  0.06%  11.69%  14.07%  6.33%  17.55%  21.12% 23.58%  21-103  16.90%  1.04%  4.83%  11.62%  1.79%  17.52%  7.75%  1.15%  13.81%  21-104  18.71%  2.24%  2.71%  6.50%  0.12%  9.56%  27.12%  0.93%  12.58%  19.54%  22-101  17.71%  0.00%  3.69%  3.05%  0.11%  10.09%  28.82%  1.90%  15.57%  19.06%  22-102  16.72%  2.59%  0.00%  15.08%  2.47%  18.51%  7.70%  3.09%  13.39%  20.45%  22-103  18.12%  0.00%  0.00%  2.89%  0.79%  18.62%  34.85%  0.54%  6.05%  18.15%  22-104  19.03%  0.00%  3.84%  16.72%  0.66%  10.64%  18.58%  8.61%  7.68%  14.25%  31-101  17.73%  1.54%  5.27%  2.30%  0.02%  7.64%  32.92%  0.01%  10.21%  22.36%  31-102  24.03%  0.00%  0.00%  0.98%  0.02%  2.44%  17.56%  1.94%  13.99%  39.05%  31-103  28.00%  0.00%  4.90%  11.79%  0.00%  4.37%  9.97%  4.07%  5.38%  31.53%  31-104  36.96%  1.04%  1.48%  0.00%  0.25%  2.55%  1.53%  0.45%  17.09%  38.64%  32-101  37.50%  0.00%  12.22%  1.43%  0.00%  3.44%  8.93%  0.34%  13.68%  22.46%  32-102  23.38%  0.00%  1.95%  1.11%  0.04%  8.09%  4.55%  13.76%  5.11%  42.02%  32-103  34.84%  0.00%  8.01%  1.17%  0.01%  7.18%  6.96%  0.79%  13.22%  27.82%  32-104  38.36%  0.00%  7.55%  0.00%  0.00%  7.79%  7.31%  0.23%  17.37%  21.39%  41-101  32.84%  0.00%  27.81%  1.17%  0.00%  8.25%  3.81%  0.86%  13.14%  12.11%  41-102  36.94%  0.00%  11.85%  2.58%  0.00%  10.80%  2.58%  3.22%  15.05%  16.98%  41-103  26.72%  5.34%  15.90%  1.72%  0.00%  4.35%  7.25%  3.71%  17.87%  17.14%  41-104  27.69%  1.51%  19.95%  0.00%  0.00%  1.86%  15.24%  0.00%  10.75%  23.01%  42-101  44.63%  0.00%  1.37%  0.36%  0.07%  4.22%  9.12%  0.80%  11.31%  28.13%  42-102  63.87%  0.00%  2.78%  0.85%  0.00%  3.54%  3.11%  1.63%  5.35%  18.86%  42-103  22.26%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.04%  4.10%  18.51%  0.00%  19.60%  35.50%  42-104  48.47%  1.20%  1.13%  0.00%  0.13%  3.86%  6.22%  0.84%  8.16%  29.98%  43-101  22.58%  0.00%  0.00%  0.43%  0.08%  3.15%  7.22%  0.06%  20.47%  46.01%  43-102  59.37%  0.00%  1.75%  1.53%  0.00%  5.62%  5.16%  1.99%  9.71%  14.86%  43-103  46.53%  0.00%  0.00%  0.93%  0.00%  4.83%  4.67%  2.07%  19.29%  21.69%  43-104  28.63%  0.74%  4.08%  3.80%  0.01%  4.79%  11.14%  0.33%  18.65%  27.82%  61-101  23.74%  0.52%  4.64%  0.61%  0.13%  3.64%  7.92%  1.50%  17.59%  39.71%  61-102  43.17%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  7.33%  1.58%  0.96%  17.52%  29.43%  61-103  45.36%  2.98%  0.00%  2.72%  0.00%  5.23%  5.79%  0.66%  7.94%  29.32%  149 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Glass  Paper & Wood  Porcelin & Tile  Rock  Non-ferrous Metals  Glass Mixtures  Others  61-104  29.17%  2.11%  0,00%  0.00%  0.08%  6.55%  1.87%  0.09%  5.01%  55.12%  71-101  36.52%  3.28%  0.00%  0.12%  0.10%  0.00%  1.00%  0.33%  9.84%  48.82%  71-102  33.61%  6.36%  3.78%  0.00%  0.03%  5.01%  2.96%  1.33%  11.64%  35.27%  71-103  30.13%  0.95%  6.56%  0.18%  0.02%  4.96%  7.81%  2.43%  4.79%  42.16%  71-104  35.22%  0.00%  2.07%  3.53%  0.02%  7.62%  13.83%  1.30%  9.90%  26.51%  81-101  34.96%  0.00%  2.45%  4.15%  0.01%  8.71%  18.73%  1.47%  10.54%  18.98%  81-102  23.23%  2.46%  0.00%  0.15%  0.00%  3.22%  3.41%  6.05%  15.53%  45.95%  81-103  37.51%  2.46%  3.05%  0.00%  0.00%  3.87%  17.14%  2.88%  10.33%  22.76%  81-104  40.48%  0.80%  3.21%  5.71%  0.05%  6.93%  5.55%  8.27%  9.75%  19.26%  82-101  24.17%  0.00%  1.43%  7.64%  1.38%  17.84%  6.41%  2.34%  22.92%  15.87%  82-102  26.72%  0.00%  1.17%  6.90%  0.79%  20.93%  13.00%  3.57%  14.94%  11.96%  82-103  23.87%  0.00%  0.83%  3.10%  0.90%  25.46%  19.72%  7.31%  13.42%  5.39%  82-104  31.52%  0.00%  1.99%  9.31%  0.02%  20.52%  12.66%  0.18%  9.58%  14.22%  91-101  41.32%  0.53%  2.32%  0.00%  0.00%  4.38%  7.74%  5.37%  10.14%  28.20%  91-102  35.07%  0.00%  8.60%  0.00%  0.00%  8.93%  17.37%  6.30%  1.76%  21.96%  91-103  54.78%  0.00%  5.99%  1.99%  0.01%  5.82%  4.19%  2.87%  9.67%  14.67%  91-104  18.76%  2.11%  4.32%  0.00%  0.00%  2.02%  6.45%  3.59%  11.97%  50.80%  92-101  29.74%  0.81%  8.16%  2.67%  0.02%  9.15%  10.75%  2.56%  11.26%  24.87%  92-102  30.56%  0.00%  12.41%  0.00%  0.85%  9.58%  7.90%  2.25%  3.29%  33.16%  92-103  33.50%  0.00%  5.82%  1.20%  0.00%  6.84%  16.35%  0.43%  5.40%  30.46%  92-104  31.07%  0.00%  7.63%  0.00%  0.00%  7.01%  10.85%  3.64%  10.76%  29.04%  111-101  38.73%  0.00%  1.64%  0.00%  1.39%  10.41%  9.44%  2.28%  7.39%  28.71%  111-102  43.78%  1.44%  0.00%  0.00%  0.00%  2.37%  2.59%  0.00%  9.15%  40.67%  111-103  26.94%  2.13%  1.30%  0.01%  0.62%  7.41%  5.55%  2.08%  11.72%  42.24%  111-104  36.65%  1.05%  1.17%  0.00%  0.66%  6.46%  6.01%  1.45%  9.27%  37.28%  121-101  68.67%  0.00%  1.51%  2.68%  1.12%  1.70%  6.52%  4.54%  3.75%  9.52%  121-102  52.73%  0.00%  1.02%  2.94%  0.01%  6.01%  5.51%  0.08%  8.45%  23.25%  121-103  29.99%  0.00%  2.27%  0.02%  0.00%  7.98%  2.96%  0.19%  18.86%  37.73%  121-104  51.48%  0.00%  0.03%  1.74%  0.00%  6.66%  9.59%  1.64%  3.07%  25.79%  Fraction 3. 12.5 mm < Particle Size < 25 mm Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Porcelin &  Glass  Rock  ferrous 1 No M:es  Others  11-201  13.17%  0.49%  0.00%  20.93%  2.02%  5.74%  2.37%  1.47%  20.49%  33.31%  11-202  10.20%  0.00%  0.36%  31.91%  0.31%  6.00%  1.42%  2.16%  38.09%  9.56%  11-203  10.56%  0.00%  0.65%  32.09%  0.32%  5.19%  9.38%  0.60%  31.44%  9.77%  11-204  8.32%  0.00%  0.00%  33.34%  0.34%  11.36%  6.40%  4.71%  28.49%  7.03%  12-201  9.13%  2.00%  1.45%  14.51%  0.11%  11.19%  3.39%  3.61%  28.03%  26.59%  12-202  8.22%  0.00%  2.66%  29.68%  1.08%  9.33%  2.06%  2.75%  25.59%  18.64%  12-203  9.20%  0.28%  1.55%  35.37%  0.39%  7.84%  2.60%  3.34%  25.64%  13.79%  12-204  11.29%  0.00%  0.00%  37.19%  0.14%  10.26%  0.80%  3.65%  31.31%  5.34%  13-201  22.33%  0.82%  0.00%  19.05%  0.00%  13.49%  1.68%  2.04%  18.58%  22.01%  13-202  10.57%  9.50%  0.28%  18.33%  0.44%  6.02%  5.83%  4.90%  28.17%  15.96%  13-203  21.84%  2.13%  0.00%  10.00%  0.11%  16.76%  1.95%  3.79%  27.12%  16.30%  13-204  18.62%  0.93%  0.35%  15.32%  0.38%  18.57%  1.01%  6.40%  26.03%  12.38%  21-201  19.82%  0.00%  0.71%  13.33%  0.06%  7.30%  1.62%  2.50%  34.69%  19.96%  21-202  19.44%  0.00%  0.00%  11.34%  0.05%  12.55%  8.45%  3.52%  31.99%  12.66%  21-203  27.95%  0.44%  5.89%  10.94%  1.12%  5.68%  7.26%  3.08%  17.79%  19.86%  21-204  21.40%  0.00%  2.30%  11.93%  0.11%  8.62%  6.78%  2.83%  28.01%  18.01%  22-201  10.47%  0.00%  2.01%  28.89%  0.19%  14.79%  3.83%  6.59%  24.31%  8.91%  22-202  11.46%  0.00%  2.42%  17.48%  0.37%  13.91%  7.80%  0.73%  28.19%  17.65%  22-203  10.82%  0.00%  0.00%  19.51%  0.54%  14.56%  2.03%  13.15%  27.95%  11.44%  22-204  11.01%  0.00%  2.08%  21.92%  0.72%  12.85%  4.66%  7.42%  26.93%  12.41%  31-201  36.52%  1.89%  0.35%  9.02%  0.62%  8.87%  5.24%  1.78%  22.73%  12.97%  31-202  42.93%  0.00%  0.40%  6.87%  0.29%  4.21%  2.53%  3.78%  21.91%  17.09%  31-203  26.25%  0.00%  1.47%  15.55%  0.00%  7.94%  4.38%  4.01%  19.81%  20.59%  150 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Glass  1  Porcelin &  Rock  Non-ferrous  31-204  33.88%  0.00%  5.38%  9.36%  0.16%  1.53%  7.10%  3.81%  24.37%  32-201  28.44%  0.00%  1.66%  15.67%  0.16%  6.95%  16.02%  1.95%  21.32%  7.83%  32-202  33.75%  0.55%  0.79%  18.06%  0.00%  9.15%  3.08%  2.07%  18.91%  13.64%  14.41%  32-203  17.56%  0.18%  1.86%  10.43%  0.41%  7.27%  7.07%  5.07%  26.38%  23.77%  32-204  27.95%  0.21%  2.92%  14.79%  0.03%  4.60%  3.74%  3.40%  21.55%  20.81%  41-201  30.92%  0.00%  4.99%  11.92%  0.22%  3.37%  4.56%  3.79%  23.53%  16.70%  41-202  30.89%  1.08%  1.24%  13.57%  0.11%  5.27%  4.53%  4.77%  12.22%  26.32%  41-203  24.72%  0.44%  1.89%  16.14%  0.00%  7.84%  6.79%  2.48%  18.59%  21.12%  41-204  31.64%  0.00%  3.67%  13.91%  0.24%  4.36%  1.16%  2.62%  24.65%  17.75%  42-201  42.14%  0.25%  0.69%  3.24%  0.09%  6.61%  7.24%  4.52%  15.78%  19.45%  42-202  24.98%  0.00%  1.49%  8.61%  0.00%  6.32%  5.54%  2.62%  36.79%  13.64% 12.26%  42-203  35.45%  0.00%  1.04%  7.62%  0.00%  6.44%  5.88%  4.09%  27.21%  42-204  39.38%  0.00%  0.22%  7.53%  0.05%  8.19%  4.42%  4.87%  19.96%  15.38%  43-201  35.81%  0.44%  0.96%  7.03%  0.00%  4.93%  4.80%  4.25%  15.25%  26.53%  43-202  46.30%  0.00%  0.00%  6.46%  0.09%  3.65%  4.96%  1.38%  14.83%  22.32%  43-203  37.03%  0.11%  0.33%  6.34%  0,00%  5.13%  4.22%  2.35%  20.23%  24.27%  43-204  33.43%  0.00%  0.00%  6.87%  0.11%  6.07%  2.41%  1.21%  33.21%  16.70%  61-201  23.23%  0.00%  0.78%  8.90%  0.00%  5.97%  4.26%  0.16%  38.90%  17.80%  61-202  29.37%  0.00%  0.00%  3.13%  0.22%  2.20%  9.35%  2.77%  22.95%  30.02%  61-203  29.77%  0.00%  0.25%  0.71%  0.05%  6.75%  5.66%  0.19%  27.33%  29.29%  61-204  36.22%  0.00%  0.63%  2.54%  0.62%  4.64%  3.63%  3.04%  26.70%  21.97%  71-201  23.98%  0.26%  1.87%  4.42%  0.06%  2.43%  3.42%  1.97%  38.91%  22.68%  71-202  35.84%  0.00%  0.00%  2.52%  0.15%  2.56%  10.66%  5.34%  22.36%  20.55%  71-203  45.96%  0.00%  0.00%  1.74%  0.13%  2.62%  5.28%  1.42%  19.08%  23.78%  71-204  29.94%  0.00%  0.42%  10.74%  0.20%  3.36%  15.75%  2.37%  21.32%  15.90%  81-201  26.79%  0.00%  0.00%  13.04%  0.05%  7.72%  4.68%  5.58%  29.83%  12.31%  81-202  24.13%  0.90%  0.00%  15.33%  0.29%  5.15%  11.25%  5.89%  28.14%  8.92%  81-203  20.07%  0.81%  0.00%  17.01%  0.49%  3.65%  14.29%  3.32%  26.58%  13.79%  81-204  23.87%  0.50%  0.00%  14.73%  0.27%  5.22%  10.43%  5.13%  28.31%  11.54%  82-201  20.58%  0.00%  0.16%  18.39%  0.52%  9.15%  8.94%  5.92%  26.04%  10.31%  82-202  19.70%  0.12%  0.56%  22.76%  0.23%  10.18%  11.43%  6.26%  18.26%  10.48%  82-203  13.78%  0.00%  0.34%  21.18%  0.26%  11.57%  7.52%  10.28%  30.03%  5.03%  82-204  18.27%  0.00%  0.60%  28.78%  0.26%  14.78%  5.31%  4.57%  19.45%  7.98%  91-201  32.92%  0.00%  5.42%  16.32%  0.00%  5.70%  5.47%  1.37%  23.55%  9.25%  91-202  28.36%  0.00%  2.35%  10.14%  0.13%  6.45%  1.90%  7.60%  23.50%  19.57%  91-203  25.18%  0.70%  0.00%  14.69%  0.00%  5.88%  1.94%  6.81%  34.04%  10.76%  91-204  23.43%  0.00%  4.48%  17.54%  0.05%  7.27%  0.82%  3.87%  17.92%  24.60%  92-201  27.19%  0.00%  2.75%  13.37%  0.12%  7.51%  6.82%  4.84%  27.13%  10.28%  92-202  26.55%  0.00%  0.83%  12.74%  0.24%  6.22%  10.95%  5.50%  27.98%  9.01%  92-203  37.64%  0.00%  3.02%  14.70%  0.06%  6.88%  2.22%  2.17%  25.71%  7.60%  92-204  30.54%  0.00%  1.28%  10.65%  0.09%  6.01%  4.55%  3.48%  33.53%  9.87%  111-201  23.73%  0.00%  0.00%  7.32%  0.02%  10.37%  7.47%  4.01%  27.62%  19.46%  111-202  38.81%  0.00%  0.56%  2.94%  0.19%  11.27%  1.64%  2.35%  22.32%  19.94%  111-203  42.66%  0.00%  0.00%  7.46%  0.08%  9.79%  3.47%  1.30%  18.61%  16.64%  111-204  37.06%  0.00%  1.42%  4.55%  0.08%  10.20%  2.30%  0.61%  26.22%  17.56%  121-201  37.27%  2.27%  1.43%  4.51%  0.71%  5.02%  4.62%  0.19%  17.48%  26.51%  121-202  15.80%  0.00%  0.93%  23.48%  0.00%  8.60%  5.60%  3.37%  27.71%  14.49%  121-203  29.37%  0.00%  2.50%  14.47%  0.00%  5.74%  6.02%  3.34%  26.65%  11.89%  121-204  34.95%  0.00%  0.93%  12.24%  0.27%  16.56%  3.43%  7.05%  15.86%  8.71%  Fraction 4. 9.5 mm < Particle Size < 12.5 mm Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Glass  Paper&  Porcelin &  Rock  Non-ferrous Mu  Others  11-301  10.92%  0.00%  0.88%  43.85%  0.19%  2.29%  3.48%  2.53%  14.01%  11-302  7.55%  0.00%  0.00%  40.40%  0.12%  2.64%  1.63%  2.65%  14.20%  30.79%  11-303  9.32%  0.00%  0.71%  46.18%  0.25%  1.22%  2.97%  2.09%  14.04%  23.22%  21.85%  151 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Porcelin &  Glass  Rock  Non-ferous Mixtures  Others  11-304  12,70%  0.00%  0.22%  39.24%  0.12%  1.88%  3.27%  3.52%  17.37%  12-301  7.44%  0.00%  0.22%  31.87%  0.00%  3.31%  3.94%  5.02%  34.68%  13.53%  12-302  6.53%  0.00%  0.28%  33.57%  0.42%  2.17%  4.40%  4.73%  32.84%  15.06%  12-303  9.01%  0.00%  0.78%  25.90%  0.15%  1.98%  3.53%  7.35%  36.77%  14.55%  12-304  6.18%  0.00%  0.44%  45.90%  0.30%  3.47%  2.43%  4.73%  25.96%  10.60%  13-301  11.13%  3.89%  0.46%  20.27%  0.17%  7.71%  4.23%  3.61%  33.17%  15.36%  13-302  15.57%  0.28%  1.71%  21.32%  0.15%  4.48%  3.32%  2.69%  32.67%  17.82%  13-303  18.18%  0.00%  0.00%  19.41%  0.26%  7.32%  4.07%  3.57%  32.50%  14.69%  13-304  14.66%  1.29%  0.73%  20.53%  0.19%  6.54%  3.80%  3.49%  32.97%  15.80%  21-301  28.10%  0.00%  0.55%  20.60%  0.15%  4.13%  1.04%  3.13%  27.65%  14.65% 16.59%  21.70%  21-302  19.84%  0.09%  0.33%  16.76%  0.37%  3.72%  3.36%  4.34%  34.60%  21-303  20.60%  0.00%  0.88%  25.66%  0.02%  2.65%  2.54%  2.89%  35.93%  8.83%  21-304  21.13%  0.00%  0.54%  25.70%  0.14%  3.50%  3.30%  2.06%  31.52%  12.12% 12.25%  22-301  8.59%  0.00%  0.00%  23.65%  0.25%  3.75%  6.49%  3.97%  41.05%  22-302  11.57%  0.08%  3.85%  31.61%  0.16%  5.48%  3.77%  3.11%  32.61%  7.77%  22-303  10.82%  0.00%  0.00%  19.50%  0.54%  14.55%  2.03%  13.14%  27.94%  11.48%  22-304  15.70%  0.00%  10.96%  27.86%  0.42%  3.29%  5.40%  3.06%  25.86%  7.45%  31-301  34.93%  0.00%  2.21%  15.99%  0.30%  1.80%  3.69%  2.63%  19.01%  19.44%  31-302  36.80%  0.14%  0.98%  15.99%  0.25%  4.66%  6.28%  3.33%  17.73%  13.82%  31-303  34.14%  0.00%  0.77%  17.90%  0.13%  2.74%  3.96%  3.63%  18.87%  17.86%  31-304  28.75%  0.00%  2.25%  18.70%  0.09%  2.35%  3.77%  4.82%  20.46%  18.79%  32-301  25.39%  0.00%  0.22%  14.37%  0.09%  3.80%  7.35%  3.76%  27.93%  17.09%  32-302  30.63%  0.58%  1.56%  19.43%  0.00%  1.99%  6.08%  3.51%  17.18%  19.05%  32-303  26.75%  0.15%  1.84%  23.93%  0.18%  3.04%  5.75%  2.69%  17.48%  18.18% 20.42%  32-304  30.20%  0.06%  2.28%  19.70%  0.13%  3.21%  5.70%  1.97%  16.33%  41-301  29.35%  0.26%  1.61%  28.07%  0.05%  1.94%  4.59%  5.57%  16.77%  11.79%  41-302  25.49%  0.00%  1.93%  24.27%  0.00%  1.90%  6.07%  2.61%  16.86%  20.88%  41-303  22.84%  0.45%  1.34%  33.75%  0.77%  2.44%  5.23%  1.46%  13.05%  18.67%  41-304  26.16%  0.00%  1.24%  24.36%  0.19%  4.05%  3.33%  3.56%  20.39%  16.72%  42-301  41.38%  0.23%  0.15%  18.41%  0.17%  1.90%  4.06%  3.21%  16.36%  14.13%  42-302  29.10%  0.15%  1.44%  12.18%  0.19%  3.57%  2.98%  2.85%  31.32%  16.24%  42-303  31.49%  0.00%  0.88%  18.44%  0.07%  2.73%  3.06%  4.28%  25.10%  13.96%  42-304  32.09%  0.00%  0.51%  18.52%  0.28%  2.10%  2.65%  3.69%  28.30%  11.87%  43-301  30.71%  0.15%  0.55%  10.53%  0.07%  0.98%  4.65%  2.13%  24.35%  25.87%  43-302  37.32%  0.64%  1.22%  19.86%  0.05%  3.21%  2.85%  2.57%  15.04%  17.24%  43-303  31.07%  0.00%  0.63%  13.84%  0.12%  1.43%  2.97%  1.96%  26.06%  21.93%  43-304  25.53%  0.27%  0.34%  19.18%  0.03%  1.94%  3.01%  2.77%  34.07%  12.86%  61-301  25.75%  0.00%  0.42%  17.87%  0.28%  1.86%  6.42%  2.23%  25.74%  19.43%  61-302  26.85%  0.00%  0.43%  11.42%  0.60%  1.06%  3.73%  1.31%  37.11%  17.49%  61-303  26.48%  0.71%  0.49%  8.96%  0.22%  3.04%  2.84%  1.86%  42.92%  12.48%  61-304  24.90%  0.00%  2.41%  8.19%  0.14%  1.81%  1.93%  1.78%  43.22%  15.63%  71-301  33.61%  0.16%  1.00%  6.27%  0.18%  1.22%  4.01%  1.59%  28.56%  23.41%  71-302  26.04%  0.00%  0.20%  13.08%  0.22%  4.03%  7.63%  3.75%  26.07%  18.98%  71-303  33.41%  0.43%  0.35%  6.55%  0.31%  0.81%  3.89%  1.36%  38.96%  13.92%  71-304  22.78%  0.00%  0.32%  19.05%  0.14%  2.71%  8.03%  3.58%  29.71%  13.68%  81-301  16.08%  0.00%  1.24%  20.12%  0.16%  1.84%  7.98%  3.48%  32.45%  16.65%  81-302  17.93%  0.08%  0.59%  16.31%  0.23%  2.76%  6.42%  4.77%  31.34%  19.55%  81-303  12.53%  0.00%  0.67%  24.30%  0.38%  5.26%  5.67%  4.90%  32.03%  14.25%  81-304  20.59%  0.00%  042%  21.35%  0.26%  3.62%  4.28%  4.92%  30.92%  13.62%  82-301  17.36%  0.30%  0.46%  31.58%  0.70%  5.23%  4.34%  3.81%  26.50%  9.72%  82-302  10.24%  0.00%  2.07%  46.24%  0.15%  6.10%  8.53%  1.71%  17.14%  7.84%  82-303  2.88%  0.00%  0.63%  29.05%  0.10%  5.63%  4.47%  3.85%  34.77%  18.62%  82-304  17.84%  0.00%  0.86%  33.54%  0.50%  5.74%  5.17%  4.44%  24.61%  7.31%  91-301  28.70%  0.00%  0.68%  17.05%  0.11%  3.01%  2.00%  2.60%  31.64%  14.21%  91-302  24.36%  0.00%  0.58%  28.23%  0.31%  2.65%  3.79%  3.95%  26.60%  9.54%  91-303  23.44%  0.00%  1.61%  23.44%  0.01%  2.80%  4.57%  4.53%  31.37%  8.23%  152 Sample No.  Magnetic  Bricks  Concrete  Porceirn &  Glass  Rock  Non-ferrous MXu  91-304  24.02%  0.00%  1.35%  22.49%  0.14%  2.31%  5.23%  2.84%  30.86%  92-301  30.09%  0.00%  1.52%  26.19%  0.13%  2.85%  3.40%  3.00%  23.03%  9.79%  92-302  33.33%  0.00%  0.80%  22.80%  0.20%  2.93%  4.63%  2.69%  21.94%  10.69%  92-303  29.32%  0.00%  1.64%  28.62%  0.21%  2.35%  5.57%  3.44%  19.96%  8.89%  92-304  26.87%  0.00%  0.68%  25.37%  0.30%  4.00%  4.22%  3.85%  26.75%  7.97%  10.76%  111-301  25.30%  1.16%  1.11%  18.82%  0.11%  1.78%  3.83%  2.86%  31.28%  13.74%  111-302  38.86%  0.00%  1.12%  9.20%  0.24%  1.34%  2.32%  1.63%  31,35%  13.94%  111-303  41.38%  0.32%  0.82%  4.13%  0.08%  3.29%  3.62%  2.18%  22.87%  21.31%  111-304  25.94%  0.00%  1.17%  10.14%  0.05%  3.17%  5.36%  3.88%  33.14%  17.15%  121-301  26.90%  0.14%  2.07%  27.37%  0.08%  4.86%  4.63%  3.16%  23.13%  7.65%  121-302  24.23%  0.00%  5.25%  32.24%  0.16%  4.35%  4.60%  3.42%  18.45%  7.29%  121-303  21.78%  0.25%  1.19%  27.56%  0.00%  4.45%  6.61%  1.95%  24.18%  12.03%  121-304  19.57%  0.41%  4.28%  31.42%  0.08%  3.34%  5.02%  5.00%  21.72%  9.16%  153 APPENDIX 3. RAW DATA LEP LEACHABLE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BOTTOM ASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/L) -  Fraction 1. (4.75mm <Particle Size <9.5mm) Sample No.  Cd  Cr  Cu  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  11-401  0.06  0.01  6.63  0.19  3.67  0.13  3.90  11-402  0.08  0.01  4.40  0.24  4.05  0.10  6.83  27.9  11-403  0.06  <0005  7.49  0.47  3.57  0.10  12.03  125.2  11-404  0.09  <0.005  2.28  0.17  3.11  0.13  2.27  52.0  12401  0.22  0.07  2.55  6.50  105.5  4.28  5.30  24.9  12402  0.22  0.12  1.54  11.41  2.17  0.18  11.21  109.5  12403  0.15  0.11  3.28  5.98  0.23  0.05  2.70  6.62  2.70 58.0  0.29  12404 13401  24.1 10.79  44.5  0.06 0.07  0.02  1.24  0.08  6.05  13402  0.03  1.86  0.16  8.56  2.27 0.07  48.4  40.7  0.36  18.7  0.63  66.9  6.41  52.8  13403  0.18  0.04  3.98  0.59  2.54  0.34 0.07  21401  0.07  0.15  3.91  28.5  14.70  1.31  5.33  31.6  21402 21403  0.11  0.16 0.19  2.12  1.76  1.67 1.82  0.42 2.56  2.27 4.26  48.3 23.2 27.3  0.08 0.01  2.49 3.53  12.73 16.33  <0.05  0.04 <0.05  <0.05  16.7  2.13 7.3  0.26 0.3  12.54 77.0  22402  <0.05  <0.05  1.2  10.4  3.8  0.2  9.2  22403  <0.05  <0.05  2.4  19.6  2.2  0.5  1.4  28  22404  0.10  0.16  3.26  40.0  3.93  0.08  3.96  39,9  31401  0.04 0.06  <0.005  15.97  2.98  0.16  112.4  0.01  0.91  0.01  1.08 19.48  0.17  31402  0.07  2.17  55.3  31403  0.04  <0.005  0.70  0.55  14.60  0.07  1.34  38.3  31404  0.04  <0.005  0.36  1.09  7.08  0.19  0.63  17.6  32401  0.05  0.01  10.57  12.70  1.61  0.10  1.16  26.1 9.42  21404 22401  31 37  32402  0.02  0.08  0.30  10.35  1.81  0.18  0.10  32-403 32404  0.03  0.11  6.30  16.85  0.95  0.06  0.22  8.06  0.01  26.5  16.82  1.44  0.40  2.02  44.1 23.9  41401  0.04  0.13 0.05  4.03  20.5  1.47  0.29  11.13  41402  0.02  0.11  5.78  3.00  2.44  0.17  3.51  15.6  41403  0.04  0.12  3.11  22.5  1.00  0.32  0.33  43.5  0.30 0.24  1.81 12.40  84.3 106.3  41404  0.04  0.12  5.38  45.0  42401  0.03  2.46  15.50  2.17 1.95  42402  0.03  0.02 0.17  3.80  21.0  2.96  1.40  28.0  204.8  42403  0.02  0.10  0.30  19.23  1.46  0.82  2.07  34.7  42404  0.02  0.09  4.40  8.74  1.04  1.94  0.75  74.2  43401  0.02  0.43  43402 43403  0.01 0.02  <0.005 0.01  1.62 6.94  0.54 1.24  0.04 0.04  34.9 0.06  4.24 6.93  43404  0.02  <0.005 <0.005  1.47 2.44  0.75 0.87  0.36 0.05  8.17 0.91  13.06 37.6  61401  0.07  0.01  0.23  1.04  1.02  0.12  2.27  5.0  61402  0.18  0.01  0.34  2.78  18.49  0.39  2.88  15.1  61403  0.05  0.01  2.06  1.13  3.92  0.21  4.93  43.0  61404  0.06  0.05  4.99  5.75  1.06  0.13  2.86  6.9  71401  0.03  <0.005  1.18  32.7  0.88  0.52  9.78  5.05  1.39 5.37 3.75  71402  0.03  0.01  1.15  5.40  1.30  0.40  0.04  8.64  71403  0.03  <0.005  1.34  3.61  0.85  0.41  4.44  5.77  71404  0.03  0.05  3.44  2.60  2.18  0.10  0.42  30.1  81401  0.02 0.04  <0.005  0.29  0.76  0.79  0.20  0.20  6.8  <0.005  1.91  0.30  7.04  0.17  1.89  47.8  81403  0.02  1.47 1.67  0.91  0.15  0.80  24.5  0.03  <0.005 <0.005  0.17  81404 82401  0.13  4.54  0.13  1.36  36.3  0.02  <0.005  0.58  0.68  0.22  0.45  8.3  82402  0.02  0.01  2.33 7.64  2.23  0.53  15.32  5.3  82403  0.02 0.03  0.01  0.58  5.60  0.58  0.29 0.24  0.01  3.27  1.79  0.69  0.17  0.41 2.21  11.9  81402  82404  5.9  154 91-401  0.03  <0.005  1.50  0,14  0.36  0.36  0.16  12.5  91402  0.03  <0.005  0.94  0.82  0.48  0.32  1.85  10.75  91-403  0.03  <0.005  1.56  1.59  0.54  0.18  0.39  52.2  91-404  0.02  <0.005  1.14  0.50  0.27  1.12  27.3  92-401  0.02 0.02  0.01 <0.005  1.26 0.30  0.34 0.27  0.04 0.04  0.01 0.11  1.8 20.7  0.02  0.51 0.21  0.80 1.13 2.64  92-402 92-403  0.02  <0.005 <0.005  0.24  1.38  0.47 0.45  0.09 0.03  0.06 0.05  1.92  92-404 111-401  0.06  0.02  2.54  7.70  1.92  0.50  1.31  17.5  111-402  0.04  0.03  0.74  1.08  1.01  0.12  0.87  11.0  111-403  0.03  0.49  0.14  <0.005  1.48  0.21  0.22 0.90  12.7 12.2  121401  0.04  0.01  1.12 0.14  5.26 2.24  1.66  111-404  0.07 0.04  2.19  0.96  0.01  0.14  4.0  121-402  0.03  0.02  <0.005  2,85  0.98  0.27  0.30  33.8  121-403  0.02  0.02  1.47  5.11  1.88  0.06  0.32  16.1  121404  0.04  <0.005  0.33  3.78  1.19  0.45  0.39  19.2  Fraction 2. (2.36mm <Particle Size <4.75 mm) Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-501 0.08 0.01 1.97 11-502 0.09 <0.005 1.61  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  1.9  Zn  0.12  3.11  0.19  33.2  22.7  0.01  4.73  7.24  14.4 16.3 48.9  11-503 11-504  0.09  0.01  0.87  0.05  3.08  0.11 0.04  0.10  0.01  1.37  <0.005  3.48  0.22  4.19 3.25  12-501  0.42  0.21  3.01  6.22  7.67  0.76  13.04  79.3  12-502  0.22  0.15  2.79  4.92  5.18  0.29  55.2  49.3  12-503  0.25  0.13  2.63  3.66  0.70  2.12  9.66  0.09 0.45  43.5 27.2  13-501 13-502  0.11 0.15  0.10 0.08  3.57 3.89  45.5  12-504  0.51 0.17  5.04 47.8  0.12  0.03  2.47 1.35  0.09  4.62 2.77  13-503  0.11  0.04  1.49  0.16  13.50  0.04  1.06  49.7 46.1 81.9  13-504  0.15  0.04  1.93  0.23  3.69  0.35  1.81  46.3 30.7  21-501  0.14  4.28  34.5  21-502 21-503  0.11 0.18  0.20 0.12  0.14 0.02  0.42 2.42  10.81 7.37  66.9 46.6  0.10  1.89 1.40  11.19 2.42 7.63  0.54  2.84  47.5  21-504  0.27  0.11  2.23  0.18  29.5  0.92  8.93  48.2  22-501  <0.05  <0.05  2.9  11.7  23.0  0.6  36.0  74  22-502  0.1  <0.05  2.2  8.6  11.1  0.5  15.0  92  22-503  <0.05  <0.05  2.5  7.4  3.3  0.1  33.0  46  22-504  0.1  <0.05  1.2  4.4  5.9  0.5  14.3  41  31-501  0.11  0.01  3.13  0.44  82.9  0.50  2.08  2.47  31-502  0.15  0.05  3.29  2.23  15.06  0.33  7.53  35.8  31-503  0.10  0.04  3.21  1.43  42.8  0.21  5.11  66.7  31-504  0.10  0.04  3.18  1.06  57.3  0.48  3.95  85.5  32-501  0.04  0.16  2.20  7.62  2.28  0.61  4.06  50.6  32-502  0.08  0.13  4.20  6.86  62.4  0.24  12.20  50.5  32-503  0.08  0.19  16.30  4.85  2.38  0.40  15.08  32-504  0.09  0.17  31.5  2.34  2.79  0.10  1.58  23.1 27.3  41-501  0.05  0.20  3.65  0.05  2.38  17.68  0.66 0.60  3.31 52.8  104.4 79.6  41-503 41-504  0.10 0.06  0.17 0.19  13.93 13.93  2.44  41-502  11.38  3.58  0.39  1.76  38.2  0.09  3.51 4.58  0.50  42-501  25.0 17.98  1.28  6.46 2.44  58.3 51.0  42-502 42-503  0.16  1.87 2.38  0.07  0.21 0.20  6.10 13.40  25.0  9.68  0.86  16.74  86.2  0.02  0.11  6.10  10.83  23.5  1.33  22.4  42-504 43-501  0.13 0.03  0.18  2.70 2.89  43-502  0.03  0.04 0,03  21.0  2.58  22.0  2.06  6.99 1.10  1.08 65.3  2.59 0.96 0.10  66.4 52.1  4.71 4.07  19.16 12.46  43-503  0.06  0.05  5.80  2.78  1.56  0.11  4.57  22.0  43-504  0.04  0.03  2.53  2.88  1.74  0.18  4.21  18.06  61-501  0.11  0.03  1,94  0.40  1.96  0.37  41.2  11.6  155 61-502  0.21  0.05  3.98  3.53  10.85  0.43  83.0  45.1  61-503  0.11  0.03  3.67  7.52  0.49  52.9  44.9  61-504  0.11  0.03  2.30  91.0 3.41  71-501  0.06  0.04  4.93  6.44  1.70 1.35  0.39 0.69  70.8 71.4  40.9 38.8  71-502  0.09  0.03  3.37  3.54  1.51  0.33  57.7  58.2  71-503  0.13  0.03  2.71  4.22  19.93  0.73  36.5  55.0  71-504  0.08  6.25  5.96  32.4  0.53  21.9  55.9  81-501  0.06  6.73 2.65  0.92 0,76  1.67 81.8  0.24 0.20  0.98  81-502  0.07 0.09  0.05 0.04  18.6 145.6  81-503  0.05  0.01  3.95  0.37  34.2  0.20  9.66  99  81-504  0.03  0.01  2.07  1.94  2.40  0.18  1.27  49.7  82-501  0.08  0.03  3.22  5.50  3.22  0.69  1.29  49.2  82-502  0.06  2.32  8.30  2.52  0.66  25  76.2  82-503  0.06 0.11  1.75  0.66  1.46  1.07  10.07  35.5  82-504  0.06  0.02 0.03  0.76  91-501  0.02  6.26 1.36  0.55 0.49  2.25 7.86  16.3 57.2  91-502  0.06 0.05  1.03 2.73  0.04  1.21  2.03  0.65  3.01  8.9  91-503  0.04  0.02  1.86  1.25  0.38  6.23  27.1  91-504  0.05  0.03  1.76 0.67  1.32  2.92  1.16  6.29  11.38  92-501  0.04  0.02  2.59  1.50  2.14  0.17  2.33  16.3  92-502  0.05  0.02  2.99  2.36  0.85  0.11  4.67  8.44  92-503  0.06  0.02  2.40  2.52  2.73  0.15  1.39  20.6  92-504  0.03  <0.005  2.74  1.43  1.60  0.14  3.17  12.4  111-501  0.13  0.14  2.80  31.1  3.97  0.37  45.3  47.4  111-502  0.06  0.16  2.09  5.37  2.61  26.9  0.14  0.21  9.30  0.03  9.62 9.27  0.34  0.07  1.93 2.16  2.50 7.56  0.27  111-503 111-504  4.14  0.10  55.5 43.2  121-501  0.06  0.05  2.41  13.07  2.62  0.74  10.82 2.48  121-502  0.09  0.04  2.82  17.90  3.11  0.62  4.06  121-503  0.07  0.05  12.24  4.08  0.71  20.7  82.9  121-504  0.16  0.06  2.29 1.69  17.00  3.02  0.42  7.55  40.9  Fraction 3. (Particle Size <2.36mm) Sample No. Cd Cr 11-601  Cu  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  25.7 65.1  Zn  0.03  3.41  0.59  5.27  0.18  41.6  49.0  3.38  0.04  4.84  0.09  0.10  0.01 0.02  1.55  0.09  3.97  0.03  15.63 36.4  32.9 26.9  11-604  0.11  0.02  3.35  0.13  3.54  0.19  11.33  23.7  12-601  0.46  0.06  1.26  3.42  4.34  0.33  28.2  73.6  12-602  0.33  0.15  3.61  35.0  4.55  0.38  184.0  125.4  12-603  0.36  0.14  2.77  12.34  16.34  0.38  58.6  101.6  12-604  0.46  0.04  2.08  7.24  10.44  0.41  35.5  87.9  13-601  0.33  0.03  2.13  0.17  3.74  0.22  24.9  70.5  13-602  0.23  0.03  1.22  0.15  4.83  0.11  4.33  54.7  13-603  0.17  0.04  2.75  0.25  5.41  0.17  5.16  50.1  13-604 21-601  3.59  2.76 1.4  0.45  25.6  93.1  0.5  30.0  165  21-602  0.5  <0.05  1.7  7.1 0.7  35.4 27.0  0.16  0.1  0.05 <0.05  10.0  0.7  10.5  68  21-603  0.1  <0.05  1.3  0.2  7.9  0.4  2.2  52  21-604  <0.05  <0.05  0.3  0.9  22  <0.05  <0.05  0.5  2.3 2.2  0.1  21-605  <0.05 <0.05  0.3  0.4  26  21-606 21-607  <0.05 0.2  <0.05 <0.05  <0.05  0.1  2.6  2.8  1.7  21-608  0.3  <0.05  0.5 0.8  0.1 0.1  4.0 3.3  0.3 0.3  2.0 3.2  43 44  21-609  0.1  <0.05  0.7  <0.05  3.8  1.1  7.4  21-610  0.3  <0.05  0.6  <0.05  3.2  0.3  1.4  57  22-601  0.1  <0.05  1.1  0.3  21.0  0.5  5.9  100  22-602  <0.05  0.1  1.0  3.8  6.1  0.6  22-603  0.1  <0.05 <0.05  3.7 6.7  0.6 0.5  47  0.1  1.3 <0.05  12.7 8.0  22-604  1.2 1.1  4.7  51  11-602 11-603  0.11 0.07  3.53 8.17  23.4  45 56  65  156 31-601  0.21  0.06  1.10  <0.005  4.94  0.12  0.74  27,9  31-602  0.09  0.12  1.70  10.75  31-603  0.20  0.03  1.64  <0.005 0.07  0.28 0.29  0.75 1.29  52.7 57.5  14.01  31-604  0.16  0.05  1.58  0.10  14.50  0.34  0.87  53.3  32-601  0.08  <0.005  <0.005  2.89  0.07  0.29  22.1  32-602 32-603  0.12 0.07  0.10 0.08  1.30 2.05 2.00  <0.005 <0.005 <0.005  9.87 2.58  0.08 <0.005  0.05 0.94  34.7 13.01  32-604  0.13  0.09 0.09  2.13  0.04  <0.005  8.14  41-601  0.07  0.15  0.89  <0.005  2.62  0.33  0.39  66.7  41-602  0.08  0.17  1.72  3.17  20.5  0.71  35.1  71.9  41-603  3.20  0.90  <0.005  3.67  0.31  0.36  35.3  41-604  0.08  0.11 0.14  1.04  <0.005  0.08  1.90  <0.005  0.74  0.53 1.08  41.0 64.2  0.11  0.08 0.10  5.31 6.81  0.37  42-601 42-602  4.40  1.48  8.13  1.32  21.8  82.3  42-603  0.14  0.05  3.10  <0.005  32.0  0.99  1.52  74.2  42-604  0.10  0.13  3.80  <0.005  5.73  1.38  11.73  92.9  43-601  0.37  0.05  4.89  <0.005  3.46  0.47  7.81  54.5  43-602  0.09  0.09  0.59  0.06  0.32  0.19 0.42  56.1  0.26  93.5 38.9  18.37  43-603  5.71 4.85  11.57  53.3  43-604  0.07  0.05  2.68  0.02  4.37  0.18  1.67  34.4  61-601  0.32  0.12  2.47  0.33  3.37  0.67  54.5  58.8  61-602  0.41  0.12  4.91  2.15  6.02  0.63  72.2  61.0  61-603  0.22  0.08  3.97  0.44  12.47  0.61  51.2  68.0  61-604  0.23  3.13  0.59  4.28  71-601  0.19  0.09 0.10  9.73  0.41  2.96  0.56 0.80  30.8 65.9  61.7 72.1  71-602  0.32  0.08  5.83  0.36  2.94  0.70  25.8  78.3  71-603  0.61  0.06  3.63  0.12  3.84  1.16  26.9  52.2  71-604  0.16  0.06  3.41  0.06  7.52  76.4  0.19 0.16  0.05 0.04  2.23 1.47  0.10 0.11  21.0 2.78  0.67  81-601  0.40  46.5  0.18  2.21  0.13  18.10 18.90  0.20 0.29  1.03 4.63  1.80  0.16  9.97  1.72 1.55  0.01  2.89  0.09  1.55 1.55  0.03 0.09  81-602 81-603  1.16  155.2 130  0.26 0.89  0.94 2.99  78.5 43.8  2.87  0.21  4.51  49  2.81 2.86  0.96  7.93  56  0.21  6.04  52.4  81-604  0.13  0.05 0.04  82-601  0.15  0.06  82-602 82-603  0.21 0.32  0.03  82-604  0.26  0.05 0.03  91-601  0.12  0.03  2.78  0.13  2.59  0.72  7.24  53.2  91-602  0.15  0.02  1.45  0.13  3.73  0.60  0.71  31.8  91-603  0.13  0.03  1.49  0.10  3.65  0.68  1.51  46.6  91-604  0.12  0.03  1.14  0.13  2.14  0.82  0.47  24.4  92-601  0.14  0.01  2.64  0.12  3.97  0.26  1.53  36.4  92-602  0.17  0.04  3.16  0.20  2.75  0.27  2.39  37.7  92-603  0.17  0.03  2.04  0.21  5.54  0.19  1.23  37.4  92-604  0.14  0.03  2.26  0.13  5.02  0.28  1.09  35.0  111-601  0.20  0.06  2.19  0.63  6.83  0.66  50.6  104.0  111-602  0.17  0.11  1.37  0.03  6.37  0.48  0.57  28.1  111-603  0.34  0.12  1.25  0.13  8.50  0.54  3.04  51.2  111-604  0.16  0.03  1.36  0.28  7.21  0.31  9.22  49.1  121-601  0.25  0.03  0.91  0.20  3.85  0.64  0.85  20.6  121-602  0.14  0.04  0.79  0.20  4.64  0.51  0.70  12.6  121-603 121-604  0.26 0.17  0.05 0.05  1.02 0.90  0.20 0.18  7.72 5.81  0.68 0.51  3.19 0.70  54.0 27.5  157  APPENDIX 4. RAW DATA LEACHABLE MErAL CONCENTRATIONS OF THE WASHING-OFF FROM THE COARSE BOTFOM ASH FRACTIONS WITH PARTICLE SIZE GREATER THAN THE 9.5 mm DIAMETERS (mgIL) -  DATE  Cd  Cr  Cu  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  112191  0.20  0.04  1.47  0.10  5.38  0.20  1.15  20.61  1/14/91  0.23  <0.005  1.30  0.08  5.54  0.22  1.85  21.65  1/22/91  0.11  0.01  0.94  0.09  6.78  0.14  0.71  27.66  2/4/91  0.09  0.04  0.91  0.10  5.00  0.42  0.67  23.88  2/18/91  0.11  <0.005  1.66  0.11  5.97  0.41  0.39  34.04  3/6/91  0.12  0.03  1.09  0.12  19.84  0.29  0.37  27.11  3/30/91  0.12  0.05  10.57  0.16  5.49  0.29  0.26  24.87  4/12/91  0.15  0.05  2.63  4.27  5.33  0.61  0.61  35.17  4/21191  0.17  <0.005  1.81  0.28  7.15  0.71  0.46  36.27  4/29/91  0.14  0.02  2.44  2.28  15.00  0.29  3.15  29.18  6/6/91  0.26  0.03  1.57  3.81  4.29  0.27  3.63  35,47  711/91  0.13  0.03  1.79  0.28  79.9  0.70  0.31  42.08  8/10/91  0.21  0.01  14.17  3.84  67.0  0.47  75.8  300.0  8/30/91  0.21  0.03  1.01  0.32  9.60  0.56  0.55  33.69  91113/91  0.51  0.03  1.65  0.07  78.1  1.05  0.29  85.85  9/26/91  0.14  0.03  1.96  0.07  27.6  0.33  0.12  393.8  11/16191  0.11  0.02  0.62  0.16  6.13  0.32  0.34  22.31  12/17/91  0.15  0.02  1.96  1.91  5.70  0.45  0.28  39.76  158  APPENDIX 5. RAW DATA FIXED (NON-LEACHABLE) METAL LEVELS IN THE BOTh)M ASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/kg) -  Fraction 1. 4.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mm Sample No, Cd Cr Cu 11-401 1.8 71 2905 12-401 4.1 75 1408 13-402 1.4 50 862 21-403 2.2 95 664 22-401 7.3 55 5000 31-402 3.1 130 1089 32-404 0.7 43 2545 41-402 3.4 131 2575 42-403 2.6 151 1305 43-404 3.1 93 1714 61-403 2.0 90 1120 71-403 4.4 87 4020 81-402 2.1 144 2305 82-403 1.5 315 1199 91-401 3.4 119 697 2.6 92-403 113 1125 111-403 8.3 102 2024 121-403 3.1 95 2569  Fe 54650 64950 47850 67000 42350 100600 37400 106950 108000 88850 82050 81050 66400 60950 80700 76800 130700 107050  Mn  Fraction 2. 2.36mm <PARTICLE SIZE <4.75mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-504 4.7 65 999 12-501 7.7 94 2685 13-501 6.3 142 2260 21-504 5.1 140 3760 22-501 4.4 100 6680 3 1-501 4.0 148 3255 32-503 2.6 132 554 41-503 3.5 134 6975 42-503 2.2 106 4.445 43-503 4.0 118 1543 61-502 3.9 121 2107 71-501 2.8 1179 121 81-502 7.9 113 2117 82-503 6.4 150 1367 91-501 2.8 149 2022 92-502 3.6 109 1861 111-503 3.7 109 2880 12 1-503 4.4 115 1345  Fe 45650 71450 74950 52050 57650 95800 102000 83250 79800 75400 92650 83350 72300 60350 89700 98000 105200 88400  Mn  Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-602 5.4 101 3225 12-601 17.5 126 3220 13-603 8.6 534 4825 21-604 6.7 119 5100 22-604 5.1 119 16210 31-601 29.9 151 3255 32-602 7.2 93 4105 41-602 10.3 178 4685 42-603 6.5 127 3300 43-601 6.7 88 1635 61-604 5.6 304 5180 71-601 4.7 131 2575 81-602 9.4 100 1956 82-603 7.6 171 5250 91-601 5.7 202 2569 92-602 5.6 128 1873 111-603 7.8 95 2824 121-603 8.0 107 5600  Fe 79250 80850 108650 61850 53300 93800 70150 73450 72200 63600 79450 68350 62400 53550 68600 52750 80150 80450  Mn 1016 1039 1356 873 994 878 1714 938 1390 788 882 788 3000 996 831 871 1438 1158  Pb  Ni  639 7100 2123 664 538 1584 322 753 816 576 671 714 983 718 681 746 777 870  1603 515 438 1790 2265 882 208 790 758 480 1295 805 2013 703 1665 317 493 480  1700 1070 1520 580 1685 2410 515 1055 920 855 4475 1265 7165 720 1174 1100 1975 1284  136 152 112 710 229 140 161 255 107 91 135 224 161 227 320 147 110 246  Pb 3658 3400 1460 2875 3145 923 1052 1263 1438 1523 8775 1498 9373 3660 1318 1463 1663 3030  Zn 2860 1845 2705  81 236 469 408 344 274 97 391 198 171 417 212 140 249 586 283 232 156  Pb 10255 6505 3388 10105 5598 3653 2238 4228 2338 1733 7230 3018 7960 2748 2977 1205 7397 5505  Zn 1805 2840 2280 3515 3850 1735 3345 1905 3860 1665 4395 1705 4020 3240 2284 1960 2784 4215  Ni  665 1011 1242 1645 846 1679 721 916 744 654 937 781 4200 755 864 780 856 852  Zn  73 196 183 452 69 84 25 139 441 44 85 100 110 285 141 89 72 498  Ni  3265 1485 3545 650 1700 1770 1225 1300 1380 16575 2090 1540 1130 1775 2440  159  APPENDIX 6. RAW DATA SELECTED LEP LEACHABLE METAL CONCENTRAT[ONS IN THE BOflOM ASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/kg) -  Fraction 1. 4.75mm Sample No. Cd 11401 12-401 13402 21403 22401 31402 32404 41402 42403 43404 61403 71403 81402 82403 91401 92403 111-403 121-403  <PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mm Cr Cu 1 0.2 133 4.4 1 51.0 1 0.6 37.2 2 3.8 49.8 <1 <1 <1 1 0.2 18 0.2 2.6 530 0.4 2.2 116 0.4 2.0 6.0 0.4 <0.1 75.0 1 0.2 41.2 0.6 <0.1 26.8 0.7 <0.1 38.2 0.4 0.2 12 0.5 <0.1 30.0 0.4 <0.1 4.2 1 0.6 9.8 0.4 0.4 29.4  Fraction 2. 2.36mm Sample No. Cd 11-504 12-501 13-501 21-504 22-501 31-501 32-503 41-503 42-503 43-503 61-502 71-501 81-502 82-503 91-501 92-502 111-503 121-503  <PARTICLE SIZE <4. 75 mm Cr Cu 1.9 0.2 27.4 8.4 4.2 60.2 2.1 1.6 49.4 5.4 2.2 44.6 <1 <1 58 2.2 0.2 62.6 2 3.8 326.0 2.0 3.8 37.4 0.4 2.2 122 1.2 1.0 116 4.3 1.0 79.6 1 0.8 98.6 2 1.2 53.0 2.2 0.4 35.0 1 0.4 54.6 0.9 0.4 59.8 2.7 4.2 38.6 1 1.0 45.8  Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mm Sample No. Cd Cr 11-602 1 0.2 12-601 9.2 1 13-603 3.4 0.8 21-604 <1 <1 22-604 2 <1 31-601 4.2 1 32-602 2.4 2 41-602 2 3.4 42-603 2.8 1 43-601 7.4 1 61-604 4.6 2 71-601 3.9 2 81-602 3.2 0.8 82-603 6.3 1 91-601 2.3 1 92-602 3.5 1 111-603 6.8 2.4 121-603 5.1 1  Cu 67.6 25.2 55.0 6 22 22.0 26.0 34.4 62.0 97.8 62.6 195 29.4 31.0 55.6 63.2 25.0 20.4  Fe  Mn  Ni  3.8 130 3.2 254.6 334 0.2 336.4 60.0 384.6 48.8 22.6 72.2 6.0 112 2.8 52.8 105 102  73.4 2110 171 36.4 146 389.6 28.8 48.8 29.2 17 78.4 17 141 12 7.2 9.4 33.2 37.6  Fe <0.1 124 10.2 3.6 234 8.8 97.0 227.6 216.6 55.6 70.6 129 15 13 70.6 47.2 192 244.8  Mn 69.6 153 101 590 460 1658 47.6 71.6 470 31.2 217.0 27.0 1636 29.2 27.2 17 151 81.6  Ni  Fe  Mn  Ni  0.8 68.4 5.0 <1 <1 <0.1 <0.1 63.4 <0.1 <0.1 12 8.2 2.2 0.6 2.6 4.0 2.6 4.0  96.8 86.8 108 46 134 98.8 197 409 640 69.2 85.6 59.2 362.0 56.2 51.8 55.0 170 154  Pb 2.5 85.6 6.7 51,2 6.0 1 8.0 3.4 16 0.9 4.2 8.3 3.4 4.8 7.2 2 2.8 1  Zn  78.0 106 13 85.2 1540 43.4 40.4 70.2 41.4 18 98.6 88.8 37.8 8.2 3.2 1 4.4 6.4  Pb 4.4 15 2.3 18 12 10 8.0 7.8 26.6 2.2 8.6 14 3.9 21.4 9.8 2.2 6.7 14  65.0 260.8 92.4 179 720 41.6 301.6 35.2 447 91.4 1660 1428 467 201.4 157 93.4 186 414  2 6.6 3.4 2 10 2.3 2 14 20 9.4 11 16 4.0 19 14 5.4 11 14  Pb 312.6 564 103 18 94 15 1 701 30.4 156 616 1318 92.6 159 145 47.8 60.8 63.8  968 498 1338 463 620 1106 882 312 694 751 860 115 956 118 250 38.4 254 322  Zn 978 1586 922 965 1480 49.4 462 764 1328 439 902 776 2912 710 1144 169 1110 1658  Zn 658 1472 1002 440 1020 557 694 1438 1484 1089 1234 1442 3104 1120 1064 754 1024 1080  160  APPENDIX 7. TOTAL METAL RESULTS IN THE BOTTOM ASH FRACTIONS PROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/kg) Fraction 1. 4.75mm < PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-401 2.9 71 3038 12-401 8.5 76 1459 13-402 2.8 51 899 21-403 3.8 99 714 22-401 7.3 55 5000 31-402 4.3 130 1107 32-404 0.9 46 3075 41-402 3.8 133 2691 42-403 3.0 153 1311 43-404 3.5 93 1789 61-403 3.1 90 1161 71-403 5.0 87 4047 81-402 2.8 144 2343 82-403 1.9 315 1211 91-401 3.9 119 727 92-403 3.0 113 1129 111-403 9.7 103 2034 121-403 3.5 95 2598  Fe 54654 65080 47853 67255 42684 100600 37736 107010 108385 88899 82073 81122 66406 61062 80703 76853 130805 107152  Mn  Fraction 2. 2.36mm < PARTICLE SIZE <4.75mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-504 6.6 65 1026 12-501 16.1 98 2745 13-501 8.4 144 2309 21-504 10.5 142 3805 22-501 4.4 100 6738 31-501 6.2 148 3318 32-503 4.2 136 880 41-503 5.5 138 7012 42-503 2.6 108 4567 43-503 5,2 119 1659 61-502 8.2 122 2187 71-501 4.0 122 1278 81-502 9.7 114 2170 82-503 8.6 150 1402 91-501 4.0 149 2077 92-502 4.5 109 1921 111-503 6.4 113 2919 121-503 5.9 116 1391  Fe 45650 71574 74960 52054 57884 95809 102097 83478 80017 75456 92721 83479 72315 60363 89771 98047 105392 88645  Mn  Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mm Sample No. Cd Cr 11-602 6.8 101 12-601 26.7 127 13-603 12.0 535 21-604 6.7 119 22-604 7.1 119 31-601 34.1 152 32-602 9.6 95 41-602 11.9 181 42-603 9.3 128 43-601 14.1 89 61-604 10.2 306 71-601 8.6 133 81-602 12.6 101 82-603 13.9 172 91-601 8.0 203 92-602 9.1 129 111-603 14.6 97 121-603 13.1 108  Fe 79251 80918 108655 61850 53300 93800 70150 73513 72200 63600 79462 68358 62402 53551 68603 52754 80153 80454  Mn 1113 1126 1464 919 1128 977 1911 1347 2030 857 968 847 3362 1052 883 926 1608 1312  Cu 3293 3245 4880 5106 16232 3277 4131 4719 3362 1733 5243 2770 1985 5281 2625 1936 2849 5620  Ni  712 9210 2294 700 684 1974 351 802 845 593 749 731 1124 730 688 755 810 908  76 282 190 503 75 85 33 142 457 45 89 108 113 290 148 91 75 499  Pb 1681 621 451 1875 3805 925 248 860 799 498 1394 894 2051 711 1668 318 497 486  Zn 2668 1568 2858 1043 2305 3516 1397 1367 1614 1606 5335 1380 8121 838 1424 1138 2229 1606  140 167 114 728 241 150 169 263 134 93 144 238 165 248 330 149 117 260  Pb 3723 3661 1552 3054 3865 965 1354 1298 1885 1614 10435 2926 9840 3861 1475 1556 1849 3444  Zn 3838 3431 3627 4230 2965 3594 1112 2464 3098 1664 2202 2156 19487 2800 2684 1299 2885 4098  83 243 472 410 354 276 99 405 218 180 428 228 144 268 600 288 243 170  Pb 10568 7069 3491 10123 5692 3668 2239 4929 2368 1889 7846 4336 8053 2907 3122 1253 7458 5569  Zn 2463 4312 3282 3955 4870 2292 4039 3343 5344 2754 5629 3147 7124 4360 3348 2714 3808 5295  Ni  735 1164 1343 2235 1306 3337 769 988 1214 685 1154 808 5836 784 891 797 1007 934  Ni  161 APPENDIX 8. THE FIXED METAL LEVELS AS PERCENTAGES OF THE TOATL METAL LEVELS IN BOTI’OM ASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (PERCENTAGE ON WEIGHT BASIS) Fraction 1. 4.75mm <PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-401 62.1 99.7 95.6 12-401 48.2 98.2 96.5 13-402 49.6 98.8 95.9 21-403 57.9 96.2 93.0 22-401 100.0 100.0 100.0 31-402 71.8 99.8 98.4 32-404 77.8 94.3 82.8 41-402 89.5 98.3 95.7 42-403 86.7 98.7 99.5 43-404 88.6 100.0 95.8 61-403 64.9 99.8 96.5 71-403 87.6 100.0 99.3 81-402 75.0 100.0 98.4 82-403 78.1 99.9 99.0 91-401 87.2 100.0 95.9 92-403 86.7 100.0 99.6 111-403 85.4 99.4 99.5 121-403 88.6 99.6 98.9 Average 77.0 99.0 96.7 Fraction 2. 2.36mm <PARTICLE SIZE <4.75mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-504 70.8 99.7 97.3 12-501 47.8 95.7 97.8 13-501 75.0 98.9 97.9 21-504 48.6 98.5 98.8 22-501 100.0 100.0 99.1 31-501 64.5 98.1 99.9 32-503 61.9 97.2 63.0 41-503 63.6 97.2 99.5 42-503 84.6 98.0 97.3 43-503 76.9 99.2 93.0 61-502 47.7 99.2 96.4 71-501 70.0 99.3 92.3 81-502 81.6 98.9 97.6 82-503 74.6 99.7 97.5 91-501 70.0 99.7 97.4 92-502 79.6 99.6 96.9 111-503 57.6 96.3 98.7 121-503 74.8 99.1 96.7 Average 69.4 98.7 95.3 Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mm Sample No. Cd Cr 11-602 79.6 99.8 12-601 65.5 99.1 13-603 71.4 99.9 21-604 100.0 100.0 22-604 71.8 100.0 31-601 87.7 99.2 32-602 75.0 98.3 41-602 86.6 98.1 42-603 69.9 99.2 43-601 47.5 98.9 61-604 54.8 99.4 71-601 54.8 98.5 81-602 74.5 99.2 82-603 54.7 99.4 91-601 71.3 99.7 92-602 61.7 99.4 111-603 53.5 97.5 121-603 61.1 99.1 Average 69.0 99.1  Cu 97,9 99.2  98.9 99.9 99.9 99.3  99.4 99.3 98.2  94.4 98.8 93.0 98.5  99.4 97.9 96.7  99.1 99.6 98.3  Fe 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.6 99.2 100.0 99.1  99.8  Mn 89.7 77.1 92.5 94.8 78.7 80.3 91.8 93.9 96.5 97.1 89.5 97.7 87.5 98.4 99.0 98.8 95.9 95.9 91.9  Fe 100.0  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  90.5  99.8  86.8  96.9 90.9  100.0 100.0 99.6 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.7 99.9  98.0 97.5 95.0 93.3 95.3 97.0 80.1 97.7 94.0 94.2 97.6 91.4 97.0 98.5 94.3 94.5  74.5 53.8 74.6 77.2  81.4 95.7  50.1 98.6  77.7 97.3 76.3 94.3 84.1 51.2 95.3 94.8  58.5 69.0 57.1 73.6 59.0 64.0 85.1 74.6  89.3  57.4  94.0  87.0  99.7  92.5 73.6 64.8 50.3 93.8 92.8 61.3 95.4 81.2 96.7 72.0 96.3 96.9 97.9 85.0 91.3  98.3 92.9 94.0 94.2  89.9 88.0  61.5 59.5  99.9  84.4  94.6  88.3  68.6  Fe 100.0  Mn 91.3 92.3 92.6 95.0 88.1 89.9 89.7 69.6 68.5 91.9 91.2 93.0 89.2 94.7 94.1 94.1 89.4 88.2 89.0  Ni 97.8 97.3 99.3 99.5 97.2 99.2 98.4 96.5 90.9 94.8 97.4 93.0 97.2 92.9 97.6 98.1 95.6 92.0 96.4  Pb 97.0 92.0 97.0 99.8 98.3 99.6 100.0 85.8 98.7 91.7 92.1 69.6 98.9 94.5 95.4 96.2 99.2 98.9 94.7  Zn 73.3 65.9 69.5 88.9 79.1 75.7 82.8 57.0 72.2 60.5 78.1 54.2 56.4 74.3 68.2 72.2 73.1 79.6 71.2  99.9 99.6 99.9 100.0  99.9 100.0  99.8 100.0  99.9 99.9 99.9  99.9 99.8 100.0 100.0  99.9 100.0  99.8  99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0  Ni 96.6 69.6 96.5 89.8 92.0 98.3 75.8 97.6 96.4 98.0 95.2 92.4 97.0 98.3 95.1 98.1 96.3 99.7 93.5  Pb 95.4 82.9 97.2 95.5 59.5 95.3 83.7 91.8 94.8 96.3 92.9 90.1 98.2 98.8 99.8 99.6 99.1 98.7 92.8  Zn 63.7 68.2 53.2 55.6 73.1 68.5 36.9 77.2 57.0 53.2 83.9 91.6 88.2 85.9 82.4 96.6 88.6 80.0 72.4  162 APPENDIX 9.  RAW DATA METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BOTTOM ASH RINSE WAThR (mg/L) -  Fraction 1. 25mm <PARTICLE SIZE <50mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  11-101  0.006  <0.005  0.12  0.26  0.01  <0.005  0.21  0.04  11-102  0.012  <0.005  0.16  0.14  0.02  <0005  0.29  0.02  11-103  0.008  0.01  0.08  0.11  0.01  0.01  0.23  0.03  11-104  0.006  <0,005  0.14  0.13  0.03  0.07  0.03  12-101  0.100  0.01  0.26  1.44  0.08  <0.005 <0.005  0.29  0.16  12-102  <0.001  0.01 <0.005  0.28 0.10  0.02 0.02  <0.005 <0.005  0.02  0.005  0.17 0.45  0.35  12-103  0.22  0.03  12-104  0.010  <0.005  0.31  0.10  0.05  0.01  0.22  0.02  13-101  0.012  <0.005  0.04  <0.005  0.01  <0.005  0.30  <0.005  13-102  0.016 <0.001  <0.005  0.08  <0.005  0.26  0.01  <0.005  13-104 21-101  0.022 0.004  <0.005 <0.005  <0.005 0.01  0.14  13-103  0.01 0.20  <0.005 <0.005  0.09 0.14  <0.005 <0.005  <0.005  0.02 0.06  0.01 0.09 0.02  <0.005  0.17  <0.005  21-102  <0.005  0.Q5  0.34  0.01  0.01  0.20  21-103  0.001 0.003  <0.005  0.17  0.08  0.02  <0.005  0.10  <0.005 <0.005  21-104  <0.001  <0.005  0.03  0.16  <0005  <0.005  0.22  22-101  <0.001  <0.005  0.05  0.09  22-102  <0.001  <0.005  0.12  0.10  <0.005 0.03  0.01 <0.005  0.10 0.17  22-103  0.003  <0.005  0.50  1.07  0.01  <0.005  0.18  22-104  0.005  <0.005  0.09  0.16  0.01  <0.005  0.12  0.03  31-101  0.003  <0.005  <0.005  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.16  <0.005  31-102  0.004  <0.005  0.04  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.09  <0.005  31-103  <0.001  <0.005  0.03  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  0.15  31-104  0.003  <0.005  0.09  0.27  0.03  0.01  0.15  <0.005 0.04  32-101  <0.001  0.01  0.02  0.04  0.08  <0.005  0.17  0.01  32-102  0.002  0.07  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.22  32-103  0.001  <0.005 0.01  3.14  0.29  <0.005  <0.005  0.12  0.01 0.01  32-104 41-101  0.002  0.01 <0.005  0.44 0.10  0.04 0.02  0.02 <0.005  <0.005 <0.005  0.18 0.16  0.01  <0.001  41-102  0.001  <0.005  0.08  0.10  0.02  <0.005  0.09  0.02  41-103  <0.001  0.01  0.05  <0.005  0.01  <0.005  0.10  0.02  41-104  0.003  <0.005  0.13  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  0.09  0.01  42-101  0.015 0.011  0.01  0.01  <0.005  0.10  0.02  0.01  0.17 0.28  <0.005  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.08  0.02  42-103 42-104  0.011  <0.005  0.14  0.01  <0.005  0.04  0.003  <0.005 <0.005  0.01  0.12  <0.005  <0.005  0.01 0.01  43-101  <0.001  <0.005  <0.005  0.08  <0.005  <0.005  0.10 0.17  43-102  0.007  <0.005  0.01  0.08  <0.005  <0.005  0.07  0.01  43-103  0.014  0.01  0.01  0.03  <0.005  0.01  0.07  <0.005  43-104  0.011  <0.005  0.04  0.04  0.01  <0.005  0.15  0.01  61-101  0.010  0.01  0.06  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  0.16  <0.005  61-102  0.026  0.02  0.03  0.03  <0.005  <0.005  0.09  0.01  61-103  0.007  <0.005  0.01  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  0.01  0.01  61-104  0.016  <0.005  0.01  <0.005  0.01  0.06  <0.005  71-101  <0.001 <0.001  <0.005  0.04  0.03 0.22  <0.005  <0.005  0.16  <0.005  0.02  0.13  <0.005  0.01  0.03 0.01  <0.001  <0.005 <0.005  <0.005  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.11 0.12  0.03  0.14  <0.005  <0.005  0.11  0.02  0.02 <0.005  0.03  0.04  0.07  <0.005  0.21  <0.005  0.06  2.98  0.01 <0.005  0.23  1.69 0.04  1.75 0.09  42-102  71-102 71-103 71-104  <0.001  81-101  <0.001  0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06  0.02  0.01  <0.005  81-102  0.012  81-103  <0.001 0.005  <0.005  <0.005 <0.005  <0.005  0.02  0.03 0.01  <0.005  0.17 0.12  <0.001  <0.005  0.03  0.32  <0.005  <0.005  0.16  82-102  <0.001  <0.005  0.03  0.12  <0.005  <0.005  0.13  0.03  82-103  <0.001  0.01  0.05  <0.005  <0.005  0.11  <0.005  82-104  <0.001  <0.005  0.02 0.17  0.22  0.01  <0.005  0.23  0.16  81-104 82-101  0.02 0.02  163 91-101  <0.001  0.01  0.02  0.15  <0.005  <0.005  0.10  91-102  <0.001  0.01  0.03  0.12  <0.005  <0.005  0.10  0.05  91-103  <0.001  0.01  0.01  0.15  <0.005  0.01  0.14  <0.005  91-104 92-101  <0.001  0.01 0.01 0.01  0.06  0.09  <0.005  <0.005  0.05  0.02 0.32  0.06 0.27  <0.005 <0.005  0.01 0.08 0.97 0.03 0.04  0.02  92-102 92-103  0.001 <0.001 <0.001  0.01  0.04  0.11  0.01 0.06 <0.005  <0.005  0.16 0.22 0.13  92-104  <0.001  0.01  0.06  0.10  <0.005  0.01  0.11  111-101  <0.001  <0.005  <0.005  0.19  0.02  <0.001  <0.005  0.01  0.17  <0.005  111-103  <0.001  <0.005 0.01  0.29 0.15  0.01  111-102  0.09 0.01  0.19  0.01  0.01  0.14 0.08  <0.005  0,001  0.03 0.05  <0.005  111-104  0.002  <0.005  0.03  0.17  <0.005 <0.005  0.16  121-101  <0.005 <0.005  0.01 <0.005  121-102  0.001  <0.005  0.03  0.08  <0.005  0.01  0.13  0.01  121-103  0.010  <0.005  0.01  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  0.10  <0.005  121-104  <0.001  0.01  0.01  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  0.07  <0.005  Fraction 2. 12.5mm <PARTICLE SIZE <25mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu 11-201  0.008  0.01  0.30  0.05  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  0.05  0.06  0.03  0.27  0.04  11-202  <0.001  0.01  1.37  0.08  0.03  0.01  0.09  <0.005  11-203  <0.005  0.08 0.07  <0.005  0.40  0.01  0.60 0.65  0.02  11-204  <0.001 0.017  0.01  <0.005  0.23  <0.005 0.02  12-201  0.010  <0.005  0.29  0.05  0.04  0.01  0.27  0.01  12-202  0.021  0.03  0.40  0.06  0.02  <0.005  0.33  0.03  12-203  0.012  12-204 13-201  0.004 0.008  0.01 <0.005  0.02 0.01  13-202  0.009  13-203 13-204  1.47  0.08  0.06  0.03  0.26  0.02  1.07 0.32  0.06 0.06  0.03 0.04  0.01 <0.005  0.20 0.24  0.02  0.35  0.01  0.05  <0.005  0.25  0.011  0.05  0.22  0.08  0.06  <0.005  0.21  0.01  0.020  0.03  0.35  0.04  0.02  0.01  0.29  <0.005  21-201  0.003  <0.005  0.04  0.05  0.02  <0.005  0.24  0.04  21-202  0.001  <0.005  0.07  0.02  <0.005  0.01  0.07  <0.005  21-203  0.004  <0.005  0.06  0.01  0.03  0.01  0.08  <0.005  21-204  0.003  <0.005  0.01  0.04  0.03  <0.005  0.11  <0.005  22-201  0.001  <0.005  0.41  0.04  0.04  <0.005  0.16  0.01  22-202  <0.001  0.01  0.15  0.07  0.01  0.01  0.18  <0.005  22-203  0.009  <0.005  0.28  0.05  0.03  0.01  0.008  0.01  0.21  0.03  0.02  <0.005  0.14 0.17  0.01  22-204 31-201  0.008  0.02  0.12  0.01  0.02  <0.005  0.21  <0.005  31-202  0.010  <0.005  0.37  0.02  0.08  <0.005  0.11  0.02  31-203  0.012  <0.005  0.14  <0.005  0.02  <0.005  0.13  0.01  31-204  0.019  0.02  0.10  <0.005  <0.005  0.01  0.12  0.01  32-201  0.002  0.03  0.10  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  0.10  <0.005  32-202  0.008  0.01  0.11  <0.005  0.08  <0.005  0.12  0.01  32-203  0.010  <0.005  0.21  0.09 0.05  0.09  0.13 0.10  <0.005  0.06  0.01 <0.005  0.02  0.02  0.16  <0.005  0.02 0.03  0.01 <0.005  0.01 <0.005  0.10 0.18 0.12  0.01 0.01  32-204  0.007  <0.005  0.21  41-201  0.006  0.01  41-202  0.004 0.003  <0.005 0.01  0.08 0.17  41-203 41-204  0.01 0.01  0.01  0.01  0.002  <0.005  0.10 0.50  0.02  0.01  <0.005 <0.005  42-201  <0.001  0.02  0.02  <0.005  0.01  0.02  0.18  <0.005  42-202  0.010  0.02  0.21  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.09  0.01  0.27 <0.005  0.11  0.01 0.02  0.01 <0.005  0.15  0.003 0.007  0.03 <0.005  0.01  42-203  0.03  <0.005  <0.005 <0.005  0.07 0.14  0.01 0.01  0.01 <0.005  <0.005  0.13  <0.005  0.01  0.15  0.01  42-204 43-201  0.01  0.007  <0.005 <0.005  43-202  0.014  <0.005  0.05  43-203  0.008  <0.005  0.10  0.03 0.16  43-204  <0.001  <0.005  0.06  0.16  <0.005  0.01  0.14  0.01  61-201  0.005  0.04  0.10  0.02  0.02  <0.005  0.15  0.01  164 61-202  0.023  0.04  0.03  <0005  0.21  0.016  0.02 0.01  0.11  61-203  0.13  0.12  0.02  0.01  0.21  0.01  61-204  0.003  <0.005  0.06  <0,005  0.01  <0.005  0.22  <0.005  0.01  71-201  0.004  <0.005  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  <0.005  71-202  <0.001  <0.005  0.04  0.09  0.01  <0.005  0.04  0.01  71-203  <0.001  <0.005  0.04  0.09  0.01  0.01  0.05  0.02  71-204  <0.001  0.01  0.04  0.01  0.01  <0.001  0.02  0.10  0.09  <0.005  0.16 0.19  <0.005  81-201  0.01 <0.005  81-202  <0.001  <0.005  0.02  <0.005  0.03  <0.005  0.22  <0.005  0.02  81-203  0.003  0.01  0.12  0.10  0.01  0.01  0.24  0.01  81-204  0.002  <0.005  0.08  0.05  0.01  <0.005  0.22  <0.005  82-201  0.001 <0.001  0.02  0.12 0.02  0.08 0.07  0.01 <0.005  <0.005 <0.005  0.16 0.21  0.01 0.01  82-202 82-203  0.01  0.003 0.002  <0.005  0.06 0.13  0.03 0.16  0.01 0.01  0.01 <0.005  0.13 0.17  0.05  82-204  0.01  91-201  0.002  0.03  0.07  0.04  <0.005  0.01  0.22  0.01  91-202  <0.001  0.03  0.02  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.16  0.01  91-203 91-204  0.004  0.06 0.04  0.10 0.09  0.01 0.12  <0.005 0.01  <0.005 <0.005  0.15 0.14  0.01  92-201  0.001 0.003  0.07  0.04  0.02  0.01  0.17  92-202  0.001  0.01 0.01  0.01 <0.005 0.01  0.05  0.03  0.01  0.01  0.13  0.02  92-203  0.002  0.01  0.08  0.10  0.01  <0.005  0.21  0.01  92-204  0.002  0.02  91.0  0.07  0.01  <0.005  0.18  0.01  111-201  0.005  0.02  0.10  0.05  <0.005  0.01  0.12  0.01  111-202  0.008  <0.005  0.05  0.08  0.02  <0.005  0.17  <0.005  111-203  0.005  <0.005  0.05  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.23  <0.005  111-204  0.009  0.01  0.06  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.22  0.01  121-201  0.001  0.01  0.05  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.13  0.01  121-202  0.002  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.02  <0.005  <0.001  0.01  <0.005 0.01  0.19  121-204  0.06 0.10  <0.005 <0.005  0.16  0.004  0.02 0.02  0.10  121-203  0.01  0.18  <0.005  Fraction 3. 9.5mm <PARTICLE SIZE <12.5mm Sample No. Cd Cr Cu  0.08  Fe  Mn  Ni  Pb  Zn  0.03 0.03  <0.005 0.01  0.19  0.04  0.67 0.52  0.04 0.08 0.07  0.04  <0.005  0.24 0.22  0.02 0.01  <0.005  0.43  0.05  0.12  0.07  0.02 0.04  0.01 0.16  0.27 0.24  0.02  0.02  0.012  <0.005  0.64  0.04  0.01  <0.005  0.26  0.01  12-303  0.022  0.03  0.71  0.07  0.05  <0.005  0.46  0.02  12-304  0.015  0.01  0.76  0.10  0.02  0.01  0.22  0.01  13-301  0.033  0.05  0.87  0.06  0.02  0.01  0.40  0.02  13-302  0.021  0.04  0.59  0.08  0.01  <0.005  0.40  0.02  13-303  0.015  0.04  0.30  0.06  0.02  <0.005  0.26  0.01  13-304 21-301  0.020  0.74  0.07  0.33  0.02  1.50  0.04  0.05 0.01  0.01  0.002  0.01 <0.005  <0.005  0.16  0.02  21-302  0.002  0.01  0.10  0.06  0.03  0.02  0.18  0.01  21-303  0.013  0.01  0.10  0.05  0.02  0.01  0.20  0.01  21-304  0.004  <0.005  0.08  0.06  0.03  <0.005  0.25  0.01  22-301  0.009 0.012  0.02  0.55 0.43  0.05  0.01  <0.005  0.23  0.01  0.07  0.02  0.01  0.21  0.02  0.11  0.04  0.01  <0.005  0.21  <0.005  11-301 11-302 11-303  0.016 0.011 0.012  0.01 <0.005 0.01  11-304  0.010  12-301  0.017  12-302  22-302 22-303  0.20  0.03  0.008  0.01 0.02  22-304  0.012  0.01  0.46  0.11  0.03  <0.005  0.24  0.01  3 1-301  0.008  0.01  0.25  0.09  <0.005  0.01  0.26  0.01  31-302  0.014  0.02  0.21  0.03  0.01  0.01  0.22  0.01  31-303 31-304  0.01 0.01 0.04  0.19 0.97 0.28  0.02 0.03 <0.005  <0.005 <0.005 0.01  <0.005 0.02 0.01  0.21 0.21  <0.005 0.01  32-301  0.009 0.010 0.008  0.19  0.01  32-302  0.008  0.02  0.22  0.02  0.07  <0.005  0.21  0.01  165 32-303  0.012  0.03  4.00  0,01  0.17  0.01  0.011  0.02  0.30  0.01 <0.005  0.08  32-304  0.02  <0.005  0.21  0.01  41-301  0.009  0.01  0.20  0.01  0.12  <0005  0.18  0.01  41-302  0.006  1.26  <0.005  41-303 41-304  0.013 0.010  0.01 0.01  0.43  0.06  0.03 0.02  <0.005 <0.005  0.20 0.22  0.01 0.02  0.97 0.09  0.02  0.01  0.18  0.03  0.03  0.06  0.04 <0.005  0.01  42-302  0.012 0.009  0.01 0.02  0.05  42-301  0.01  <0.005 <0.005  0.23 0.25  <0.005 0.01  42-303  0.012  0.01  0.10  0.42  0.07  <0.005  0.20  0.14  42-304  0.013  0.01  0.05  0.01  <0.005  0.13  <0.005  43-301  0.022  <0.005  0.04  0.06 0.10  43-302  0.008  <0.005  0.12  0.01  0.01 <0.005  0.01 0.01  0.21 0.19  0.01 0.01  43-303  0.005  <0.005  0.14  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  0.19  <0.005  43-304  0.004  <0.005  0.15  0.12  0.01  <0.005  0.08  0.01  61-301  0.013  0.04  0.27  0.05  0.02  <0.005  0.32  0.02  61-302  0.013  0.04  0.18  <0.005  0.01  <0.005  0.35  0.02  61-303  0.006  0.02  0.08  0.01  <0.005  0.22  0.01  61-304  0.008  0.05  0.08 0.13  0.02  0.01  0.01  0.27  0.01  71-301  <0.001  <0.005  0.03  0.01  0.01  <0.005  0.09  0.01  71-302  0.006  0.01  0.09  0.01  <0.005  0.01  0.14  0.01  71-303  0.003  <0.005  0.04  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.10  0.01  7 1-304  0.005  0.01  0.09  0.03  0.02  <0.005  <0.005  81-301 81-302  0.005  0.02  0.004  0.01  0.16 0.06  0.03 0.01  0.02 0.03  <0.005 0.01  0.06 0.27 0.23  <0.005  81-303  0.008 0.006  0.01  0.10  0.04  0.02  0.01  81-304  0.01  0.18  0.02  0.01  <0.005  0.31 0.28  0.01 <0.005  82-301  0.005  0.15 0.34  0.03 0.02  <0.005 0.04  0.02 <0.005  0.02  0.011 0.007  <0.005 0.01  0.19  82-302 82-303 82-304  0.24  0.09 0.36  0.01 0.06  0.01 0.01  <0.005 <0.005  0.13 0.14  0.01 0.02  0.008  0.02 0.01  91-301  0.011  0.07  0.49  0.01  0.01  <0.005  0.29  0.01  91-302  0.009  0.04  0.13  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.23  0.01  91-303  0.012  0.04  0.10  0.08  0.01  0.01  0.25  0.02  91-304  0.005  0.22  0.04  <0.005  0.20 0.24  0.01  0.01  0.02  92-301  0.006  0.03 0.03  0.25  0.02  0.02  <0.005 0.01  92-302  0.003  0.02  0.13  0.01  <0.005  <0.005  0.20  0.01  92-303  0.008  0.02  0.16  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.26  0.01  92-304  0.005  0.02  0.05  0.10  0.02  0.01  0.22  0.01  111-301  0.012  0.06  0.30  0.04  <0.005  <0.005  0.20  0.01  111-302  0.005  <0.005  0.03  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.17  0.01  111-303  0.012  0.01  0.05  0.01  0.02  <0.005  0.17  0.01  111-304  0.002  0.03  0.17  0.03  <0.005  0.01  0.12  <0.005  121-301  0.003  0.03  0.17  0.03  0.01  <0.005  0.19  0.01  121-302  0.006  0.02  0.09  0.01  0.01  0.22  0.01  121-303 121-304  0.010  0.02 0.01  0.11  0.04  <0.005  0.01 0.02  0.21  0.28  0.06  <0.005  <0.005  0.16  <0.005 0.01  0.002  0.01  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0050407/manifest

Comment

Related Items