SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY

Similar documents
Minnesota Statewide Waste Characterization Study

PARTICIPATION & SET-OUT RATE ASSESSMENT

2013 Statewide Waste Characterization

Figure -1 Functional Elements of the Life Cycle Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives.

SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO GUIDE LECO CORPORATION 3000 Lakeview Avenue St. Joseph, MI Mr. Dennis Lawrenz Phone:

Sustainable Development and Eco-friendly Waste Disposal Technology for the Local Community

COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Processing Facility 2012 Annual Report Solid Waste Permit Program

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subpart AAAA: Revised Materials Separation Plan

Commonwealth of Virginia Locality Recycling Rate Report For Calendar Year 2014

Economic Impact of Recycling in Alabama and Opportunities for Growth. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Land Division Solid Waste Branch

Background. What is a bale?

MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM REGISTRATION GUIDE & FORMS

Lignite Properties and Boiler Performance

2010 Residential Waste Stream Composition Study Results. Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee March 8, 2011

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Annual Waste Reduction and Recycling Questionnaire

CITY CLERK. Blue Box Residue and Recycling of Coloured Glass

Mapping Solid Waste III Data Analysis & Presentation

ORANGE COUNTY WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY

Residual Waste and Recycling Composition Analysis From Flats. Barnet Borough Council. November April 2015 DRAFT REPORT

MINNESOTA>ENVIRONMENTAL<INITIATIVE

Climate and Materials Management. SERDC November 3, 2009 Jennifer Brady USEPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Division of Materials Management New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, New York

Data Report # Blue Box Tonnage Highlights (Residential)

Specialist in solving environmental problems

Mapping Solid Waste II Sample Collection & Analysis

INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOLS ON WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS FOR 3R INITIATIVES

This document contains the Connecticut regulations concerning recycling. This document was prepared by the State of Connecticut Department of

Astana city Municipal Solid Waste Characterization Bexultan Abylkhani

Chapter page 1

CITY OF MANASSAS MANASSAS, VA PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 8500 Public Works Drive Manassas, VA 20110

Guide to ASTM Test Methods for the Analysis of Coal and Coke

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010

CT Recycling Laws & Regulations Connecticut Department of. Energy and Environmental Protection

THE PARADIGM SHIFT What s Wrong With Our Financials? SERDC November 2016 David Lank

2006 Waste Characterization Study

Reform of the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law in Japan. April, 2006 Rengo Co., Ltd

Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis: Amman City case study

July 14, Mr. Jimmy Peak Complex Manager House of Raeford Farms, Inc. PO Box 40 Rose Hill, NC 28458

CalRecovery, Inc. 2017, CalRecovery, Inc.

July 1, 2014 LELAP Lab ID # AI No Accreditation Year FY 2015 Renewal due FY 2016

SEMjEDX Studies on Association of Mineral Matter in Coal

Volume 2 Waste Stream Composition Study

Up to 225,000 tons of coal, FOB Barge, beginning in July 2018 and ending in September 2018 (refer to Nymex Specification A )

Material Recovery Facility Mass Balance and Efficiency Study

Field Test Program to Evaluate Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Facilities with SCR-FGD Systems

COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE RECYCLING REPORT FORMS! HOW TO DECIDE WHICH REPORT TO SUBMIT:

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EMISSIONS, POLLUTION CONTROL, ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Chaffee Landfill Olean Road Chaffee, New York Annual Report

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008

New Economics ($21.12) Pratt Recycling Shawn State

Plasma Gasification Facility

Re: EBR Postings RA01E0023 and RA01E0027 Strengthening Ontario s Hazardous Waste Management Framework (Next Steps)

Minneapolis Public Works Department

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2011

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2011

RETHINKING OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE: ReENGINEERED FEEDSTOCK. Compliance made easy: ReEngineered Feedstock

- Procedures to Become a Voluntary Steward of the Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba Program; and - Voluntary Steward Agreement

CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE UNITED STATES: 1998 UPDATE. Prepared for

Maryland Recycling Act (MRA) ( ) February 2, 2017

GASIFICATION THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY SOLUTION SYNGAS WASTE STEAM CONSUMER PRODUCTS TRANSPORTATION FUELS HYDROGEN FOR OIL REFINING FERTILIZERS CHEMICALS

Greatmoor Energy from Waste Facility. Carbon Footprint Assessment

Material Recovery Facilities Process Modeling. Phillip Pressley PhD Student Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering

Up to 400,000 tons of coal, FOB Barge, beginning in January 2018 and ending in June 2018 (refer to Nymex Specification A )

AEPSC is seeking spot and/or term proposals for up to the following tonnages by Coal Region:

DEC 7, 2012 Biomass Project Partnership

THE USE OF MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY FOR DRY ASHING PROCEDURES. by S. E. Carr and C. R. Moser. CEM Corporation, Matthews, North Carolina.

BT-Wolfgang Binder GmbH

S WOLF. Remanufacturing and systems interaction. Sardinia Symposium Solid Waste Life-Cycle Modeling Workshop

INTRODUCTION. Background

Annual Recycling Report Instructions for Form FM-11, FM-12 or FM-13 COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE RECYCLING REPORT FORMS!

Annual Recycling Report Instructions for Form FM-11, FM-12 or FM-13 COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE RECYCLING REPORT FORMS!

WHITE PAPER NO. 3 LIFECYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON: VIRGIN PAPER AND RECYCLED PAPER-BASED SYSTEMS

NORTH DAKOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RECOGNITION OF CERTIFICATIQN^ORACCREDITATION -V

RCBC 40 th Zero Waste Conference

Will the Waste Industry Morph Into the Resource Management Industry? A Paradigm Shift May be Upon Us

New River Resource Authority Annual Recycling Report Instructions:

SECTION (SECTION 01351) CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT

2015 King County Waste Characterization and Customer Survey Report

Solid Waste Management Waste Management. Liquid and solid Waste ( )

CHARACTERISTICS OF RDF ASH

MARKETING COOPERATIVE Schedule C Quality Specifications - Keep for Your Records

Up to 500,000 tons of coal, FOB Barge, beginning in January 2017 and ending in March 2017 (refer to Nymex Specification A )

May 18, Mr. Mark Hans. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 270 Michigan Avenue Buffalo, New York

Improved solutions for solid waste to energy conversion

27.0 SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS

Crawford County Solid Waste Management District SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE. DRAFT October 2, 2015

Chapter 9&12. Separation and Processing of Solid Waste. Recovery of Materials in MSW

CE 326 Principles of Environmental Engineering INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Callidus Oxidizer Systems. Thermal and Catalytic Oxidizer Systems

Generating Electricity with Biomass Fuels at Ethanol Plants

CHAPTER 7: RECYCLING PROGRAMS AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT

1day. Therefore, capacity will be reached in approximately 85 days instead of 10 years kg / m

TYRANNOSAURUS Process. SRF Fuel for Cement Kilns

Life-Cycle-based Solid Waste Management. II: Illustrative Applications

Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups

Annual Recycling Report Instructions for Forms FM-11, FM-12 or FM-13 COMPLETE ONLY ONE OF THE RECYCLING REPORT FORMS!

Life Cycle Management of Municipal Solid Waste:

Falcon Heights Recycling Report. Greg & Willie Tennis Tennis Sanitation 2/14/2014

RDF/SRF evolution and MSW bio-drying

Transcription:

SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY RESULTS PERHAM RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY JANUARY 19, 2012 2850 100 TH COURT NE BLAINE, MN 55449 TEL: (612) 285-9865 FAX: (612) 285-9000 www.stericycle.com

January 19, 2012 Mr. Brian Schmidt Perham Resource Recovery Facility 201 6 th Avenue NE Perham, MN 56573 Re: 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Results Dear Mr. Schmidt: This report summarizes the results from the Solid Waste Composition Study (Study) performed by your facility during the month of December, 2011. Pursuant to the MPCA letter dated December 12, 2011, the waste fractions have been identified using the specified MPCA nomenclature, to the extent practical. For each of the 40 samples collected, results were tabulated and averaged to determine the overall percentages of the fractions separated from the waste streams. The field data sheets from the Study are included in Appendix D. Tabulated results are included in Appendix A. Results are summarized as follows for the combustible and non-combustible waste fraction groupings in Table 1: Table 1: Weight Fractions of each Fraction Grouping Present in MSW Total Combustibles Item wt% Paper 1,494.6 11.12% Cardboard 2,394.3 17.81% Plastic 2,664.2 19.82% Organics 2,565.5 19.08% Electronics 296.0 2.20% Total 9,414.6 70.03% Total Non-Combustibles Item wt% Various 4,029.4 29.97% Total 13,444.0 100.00% Stericycle, Inc. 2850 100 th Court NE Blaine, Minnesota 55449 Phone (612) 285-9865 Fax (612) 285-9000 www.stericycle.com

Results for each of the individual fractions are presented below in Table 2: Table 2: Weight Fractions of Each Individual Fraction Present in MSW Fraction Top Bottom Non- Samples Fines Fines Separables Total () Wt% Paper Newsprint (ONP) 582.0 582.0 4.3% Paper Mixed 773.0 136.0 3.6 0.0 912.6 6.8% Cardboard Corrugated (OCC) 997.0 997.0 7.4% Cardboard Boxboard 1,011.0 386.3 0.0 0.0 1,397.3 10.4% Plastic HDPE Bottles/Jars 622.0 622.0 4.6% Plastic PET Bottles/Jars 614.0 614.0 4.6% Plastic PVC 193.0 193.0 1.4% Plastic Other 916.0 262.6 56.6 0.0 1,235.2 9.2% Organics Yard Waste 155.0 155.0 1.2% Organics Other 1,373.0 381.0 656.5 0.0 2,410.5 17.9% Electronics / Small Appliances 296.0 296.0 2.2% Metal Ferrous 570.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 592.0 4.4% Metal Aluminum Beverage Cans 578.0 578.0 4.3% Metal Other Non-Ferrous 358.0 34.0 7.0 0.0 399.0 3.0% Glass 725.0 262.6 205.3 0.0 1,192.9 8.9% Inorganic Materials 1,115.0 60.5 22.0 0.0 1,197.5 8.9% HHW Mercury Containing Devices 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.1% HHW Other 52.0 52.0 0.4% Total 10,948.0 1,545.0 951.0 0.0 13,444.0 100.0%

Samples were submitted to MVTL Laboratories for analysis to determine proximate analysis, heating value, and ultimate analysis of the combustible fractions. MVTL homogenized and split samples pursuant to the Solid Waste Composition Study procedures. Four individual samples were analyzed. Analytical results are included in Appendix B. A Summary of the proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, and heating value analytical results are presented below in Tables 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Calculations are included in Appendix C. Table 3: Proximate Analysis (Combustible Fractions Only) Analyte Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Average Total Moisture wt% 26.45% 26.44% 26.26% 26.19% 26.34% Ash wt% 4.31% 4.52% 4.34% 4.41% 4.40% Volatile Matter wt% 59.64% 59.81% 59.20% 60.12% 59.69% Total Sulfur wt% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% Fixed Carbon (By Difference) wt% 9.53% 9.15% 10.13% 9.21% 9.51% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Table 4: Ultimate Analysis (Combustible Fractions Only) Analyte Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Average Total Moisture wt% 26.45% 26.44% 26.26% 26.19% 26.34% Ash wt% 4.31% 4.52% 4.34% 4.41% 4.40% Carbon wt% 38.55% 38.50% 38.73% 39.37% 38.79% Hydrogen wt% 7.73% 7.56% 7.66% 7.80% 7.69% Nitrogen wt% 0.41% 0.36% 0.41% 0.49% 0.42% Total Sulfur wt% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% Chlorine wt% 0.17% 0.15% 0.17% 0.12% 0.15% Oxygen (By Difference) wt% 48.76% 48.83% 48.62% 47.74% 48.49% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Table 5: Heating Value (Combustible Fractions Only) Analyte Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Average Heating Value Btu/lb. 6,296 6,370 6,187 6,160 6,253

The above results were numerically adjusted to take into account the non-combustible fraction of waste to represent the proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, and heating value of MSW as incinerated. These results are presented below in Tables 6, 7, and 8, respectively: Table 6: Proximate Analysis (As Incinerated) Analyte Result as Incinerated Total Moisture 18.44% Ash 3.08% Volatile Matter 41.80% Total Sulfur 0.05% Fixed Carbon (By Difference) 6.66% Non-Combustibles 29.97% Total 100.00% Table 7: Ultimate Analysis (As Incinerated) Analyte Result as Incinerated Total Moisture 18.44% Ash 2.27% Carbon 20.01% Hydrogen 3.97% Nitrogen 0.22% Total Sulfur 0.04% Chlorine 0.08% Oxygen (By Difference) 25.01% Non-Combustibles 29.97% Total 100.00% Table 8: Heating Value (As Incinerated) Analyte Units Heating Value Btu/lb. 4,379

If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, or if you require any additional information, please feel free to contact us at (612) 285-9865. Sincerely, Stericycle, Inc. David W. Estensen Compliance & Regulatory Affairs Manager cc: Carolina Espejel-Schutt, MPCA Lisa Mojsiej, MPCA

Appendix A Field Data Sheet Numerical Analysis

Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Field Sheet Data Analysis Sample Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Fraction Paper Newsprint (ONP) 2.0 10.0 15.0 60.0 48.0 20.0 15.0 6.0 12.0 15.0 16.0 40.0 20.0 12.0 8.0 21.0 29.0 Paper Mixed 40.0 20.0 20.0 3.0 4.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 14.0 20.0 35.0 18.0 14.0 18.0 16.0 10.0 Cardboard Corrugated (OCC) 20.0 60.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 18.0 20.0 18.0 20.0 13.0 60.0 45.0 20.0 16.0 14.0 21.0 40.0 Cardboard Boxboard 40.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 42.0 16.0 65.0 21.0 12.0 40.0 20.0 22.0 25.0 16.0 26.0 15.0 Plastic HDPE Bottles/Jars 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 14.0 18.0 30.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 18.0 50.0 18.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 15.0 Plastic PET Bottles/Jars 10.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 13.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 18.0 16.0 30.0 16.0 9.0 11.0 21.0 20.0 Plastic PVC 15.0 10.0 10.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 20.0 4.0 7.0 Plastic Other 20.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 16.0 21.0 16.0 20.0 9.0 100.0 40.0 20.0 21.0 21.0 28.0 34.0 Organics Yard Waste 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 16.0 2.0 4.0 14.0 12.0 Organics Other 8.0 20.0 20.0 110.0 100.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 5.0 26.0 21.0 26.0 16.0 200.0 15.0 15.0 4.0 4.0 60.0 70.0 Electronics / Small Appliances 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 16.0 19.0 Metal Ferrous 10.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 24.0 1.0 14.0 8.0 5.0 20.0 21.0 12.0 35.0 25.0 Metal Aluminum Beverage Cans 12.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 20.0 16.0 14.0 15.0 14.0 22.0 21.0 20.0 22.0 Metal Other Non-Ferrous 5.0 10.0 2.0 18.0 11.0 2.0 12.0 30.0 6.0 16.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 Glass 10.0 5.0 20.0 25.0 10.0 8.0 20.0 25.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 16.0 20.0 22.0 28.0 21.0 30.0 22.0 Inorganic Materials 10.0 12.0 20.0 18.0 40.0 20.0 14.0 4.0 4.0 28.0 10.0 8.0 4.0 35.0 37.0 27.0 HHW Mercury Containing Devices 5.0 7.0 1.0 HHW Other 2.0 4.0 10.0 Sample Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Top Fines 80.0 100.0 50.0 60.0 80.0 40.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 80.0 17.0 50.0 21.0 52.0 18.0 18.0 20.0 60.0 Paper - - 5.0-16.0-3.2 - - 3.6 - - - - - 10.4 - - - - Cardboard 8.0 10.0 25.0-16.0 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 18.0 16.0 8.5-10.5 10.4 9.0 - - 12.0 Plastic 16.0 20.0 15.0 12.0 16.0-3.2 3.2 5.4 3.6-16.0 8.5 25.0 10.5 10.4-9.0-12.0 Organics 8.0 10.0 5.0 42.0 16.0 20.0 3.2 9.6 5.4 3.6-16.0-25.0-10.4 9.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 Metal Ferrous - 10.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.0 Metal Other Non-Ferrous 24.0 10.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Glass 16.0 30.0-6.0 16.0 16.0 3.2-3.6 3.6-16.0 - - - 10.4 - - 10.0 12.0 Inorganic Material 8.0 10.0 - - - - - - - - - 16.0 - - - - - - - - HHW Mercury Containing Devices - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paper % 10% 20% 20% 20% 20% Cardboard % 10% 10% 50% 20% 10% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 50% 50% 20% 50% 20% Plastic % 20% 20% 30% 20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 20% 20% 50% 50% 50% 20% 50% 20% Organics % 10% 10% 10% 70% 20% 50% 20% 60% 30% 20% 20% 50% 20% 50% 50% 50% 20% Metal Ferrous % 10% 20% Metal Other Non-Ferrous % 30% 10% Glass % 20% 30% 10% 20% 40% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 50% 20% Inorganic Material % 10% 10% 20% HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 1 of 6

Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Field Sheet Data Analysis Sample Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Bottom Fines 20.0 60.0 70.0 40.0 70.0 20.0 14.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 0.0 40.0 2.0 40.0 0.0 16.0 6.0 6.0 25.0 40.0 Paper - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cardboard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plastic - - - - 14.0 - - - - - - - - 20.0 - - - - - 12.0 Organics 2.0 48.0 56.0 36.0 42.0 10.0 14.0 11.0 5.0 4.5-36.0 2.0 20.0-8.0 6.0 6.0 12.5 20.0 Metal Ferrous - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Metal Other Non-Ferrous - - 7.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Glass 2.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 14.0 10.0 - - 5.0 4.5-4.0 - - - 8.0 - - 12.5 8.0 Inorganic Material 16.0 6.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HHW Mercury Containing Devices - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % 20% 50% 30% Organics % 10% 80% 80% 90% 60% 50% 100% 100% 50% 50% 90% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 50% 50% Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % 10% Glass % 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 50% 50% 50% 10% 50% 50% 20% Inorganic Material % 80% 10% HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sample Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Non-Separable #1 Paper - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cardboard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plastic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Organics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Metal Ferrous - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Metal Other Non-Ferrous - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Glass - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inorganic Material - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HHW Mercury Containing Devices - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Page 2 of 6

Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Field Sheet Data Analysis Sample Fraction Paper Newsprint (ONP) Paper Mixed Cardboard Corrugated (OCC) Cardboard Boxboard Plastic HDPE Bottles/Jars Plastic PET Bottles/Jars Plastic PVC Plastic Other Organics Yard Waste Organics Other Electronics / Small Appliances Metal Ferrous Metal Aluminum Beverage Cans Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Materials HHW Mercury Containing Devices HHW Other Units 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 5.0 4.0 26.0 10.0 22.0 35.0 15.0 5.0 20.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 21.0 10.0 8.0 4.0 100.0 25.0 10.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 40.0 14.0 15.0 20.0 21.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 14.0 26.0 3.0 16.0 22.0 50.0 45.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 25.0 11.0 13.0 14.0 65.0 16.0 31.0 21.0 16.0 16.0 30.0 165.0 10.0 18.0 16.0 20.0 30.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 18.0 9.0 12.0 13.0 70.0 22.0 19.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 2.0 20.0 12.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 12.0 18.0 18.0 25.0 11.0 20.0 22.0 16.0 14.0 11.0 22.0 14.0 14.0 4.0 25.0 16.0 20.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 12.0 18.0 12.0 19.0 18.0 14.0 10.0 13.0 18.0 16.0 13.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 17.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 10.0 11.0 25.0 35.0 14.0 28.0 25.0 18.0 30.0 15.0 30.0 40.0 21.0 18.0 20.0 88.0 16.0 18.0 4.0 18.0 16.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 12.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 42.0 40.0 35.0 14.0 28.0 90.0 20.0 25.0 11.0 17.0 35.0 26.0 29.0 31.0 30.0 34.0 28.0 38.0 29.0 11.0 20.0 2.0 20.0 45.0 20.0 35.0 55.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 12.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 40.0 60.0 14.0 19.0 17.0 25.0 14.0 12.0 14.0 11.0 8.0 21.0 13.0 12.0 16.0 5.0 24.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 28.0 26.0 28.0 11.0 11.0 22.0 16.0 18.0 11.0 21.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 20.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 8.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 4.0 12.0 12.0 21.0 30.0 18.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 28.0 29.0 31.0 40.0 11.0 26.0 18.0 21.0 16.0 68.0 165.0 65.0 80.0 18.0 10.0 35.0 65.0 35.0 60.0 65.0 4.0 16.0 18.0 50.0 28.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 4.0 1.0 18.0 15.0 3.0 Sample Units Top Fines Paper Cardboard Plastic Organics Metal Ferrous Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Material HHW Mercury Containing Devices Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 11.0 40.0 30.0 42.0 80.0 40.0 60.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 25.0 40.0 42.0 36.0 36.0 11.0 31.0 38.0 15.0 36.0 - - 6.0 - - - - 6.0 8.0 21.0 5.0 8.0 8.4 7.2 7.2-6.2 7.6-7.2-40.0 6.0 21.0-20.0 54.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 8.4 7.2 7.2-6.2 7.6 7.5 7.2 - - 6.0 - - - - 6.0 8.0-5.0 8.0 8.4 7.2 7.2-6.2 7.6-7.2 11.0-6.0-40.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 8.0-5.0 8.0 8.4 7.2 7.2 5.5 6.2 7.6 7.5 7.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.0-40.0 - - 6.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 8.0 8.4 7.2 7.2-6.2 7.6-7.2 - - - 21.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 5.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20% 20% 20% 70% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 50% 50% 90% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 50% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 50% 50% 10% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 50% 20% 20% 50% 20% 20% 50% 20% 20% 10% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 3 of 6

Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Field Sheet Data Analysis Sample Bottom Fines Paper Cardboard Plastic Organics Metal Ferrous Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Material HHW Mercury Containing Devices Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % Units HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 8.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 20.0 35.0 52.0 32.0 18.0 20.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 9.0 21.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.0 - - 3.6 - - - - - - 8.0-10.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 10.0 14.0 26.0 16.0 9.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 14.0 9.0 10.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 - - - - - - 10.0 14.0 26.0 16.0 1.8 10.0-8.0 14.0-10.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20% 20% 20% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 100% 50% 50% 50% 40% 50% 50% 10% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sample Non-Separable #1 Paper Cardboard Plastic Organics Metal Ferrous Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Material HHW Mercury Containing Devices Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % Units HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Page 4 of 6

Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Field Sheet Data Analysis Sample Fraction Paper Newsprint (ONP) Paper Mixed Cardboard Corrugated (OCC) Cardboard Boxboard Plastic HDPE Bottles/Jars Plastic PET Bottles/Jars Plastic PVC Plastic Other Organics Yard Waste Organics Other Electronics / Small Appliances Metal Ferrous Metal Aluminum Beverage Cans Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Materials HHW Mercury Containing Devices HHW Other Units Sample Units Top Fines Paper Cardboard Plastic Organics Metal Ferrous Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Material HHW Mercury Containing Devices Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % Item Subtotal Wt % of Total Wt % Primary Fraction Fraction Samples Top Fines Bottom Fines Non-Separables Total Wt% Total 582.0 4.3% 43.0% Paper Newsprint (ONP) 582.0 582.0 4.3% 773.0 5.7% Paper 1,355.0 57.0% 100% Paper Mixed 773.0 136.0 3.6-912.6 6.8% 997.0 7.4% 49.7% Cardboard Corrugated (OCC) 997.0 997.0 7.4% 1,011.0 7.5% Cardboard 2,008.0 50.3% 100% Cardboard Boxboard 1,011.0 386.3 - - 1,397.3 10.4% 622.0 4.6% 26.5% Plastic HDPE Bottles/Jars 622.0 622.0 4.6% 614.0 4.6% 26.2% Plastic PET Bottles/Jars 614.0 614.0 4.6% 193.0 1.4% 8.2% Plastic PVC 193.0 193.0 1.4% 916.0 6.8% Plastic 2,345.0 39.1% 100% Plastic Other 916.0 262.6 56.6-1,235.2 9.2% 155.0 1.2% 10.1% Organics Yard Waste 155.0 155.0 1.2% 1,373.0 10.2% Organics 1,528.0 89.9% 100% Organics Other 1,373.0 381.0 656.5-2,410.5 17.9% 296.0 2.2% Electronics 296.0 100.0% 100% Electronics / Small Appliances 296.0 296.0 2.2% 570.0 4.2% Metal Ferrous 570.0 22.0 - - 592.0 4.4% 578.0 4.3% Metal Aluminum Beverage Cans 578.0 578.0 4.3% 358.0 2.7% Metal Other Non-Ferrous 358.0 34.0 7.0-399.0 3.0% 725.0 5.4% Glass 725.0 262.6 205.3-1,192.9 8.9% 1,115.0 8.3% Inorganic Materials 1,115.0 60.5 22.0-1,197.5 8.9% 18.0 0.1% HHW Mercury Containing Devices 18.0 - - - 18.0 0.1% 52.0 0.4% Various 3,416.0 HHW Other 52.0 52.0 0.4% 0.0% Total 10,948.0 1,545.0 951.0-13,444.0 100.0% Item Subtotal Wt % of Total 1,545.0 11.5% 136.0 1.0% Paper 136.0 386.3 2.9% Cardboard 386.3 Total Combustibles Wt % Total Wt % Combustibles 262.6 2.0% Plastic 262.6 Item 381.0 2.8% Organics 381.0 Paper 1,494.6 11.12% 15.88% 22.0 0.2% Cardboard 2,394.3 17.81% 25.43% 34.0 0.3% Plastic 2,664.2 19.82% 28.30% 262.6 2.0% Organics 2,565.5 19.08% 27.25% 60.5 0.5% Electronics / Small Appliances 296.0 2.20% 3.14% - 0.0% Various 379.1 Total 9414.6 70.03% 100.00% Combustibles Non-Combustibles Combustibles Non- Combustibles Total Non-Combustibles Wt % Total Various 4,029.4 29.97% 100.00% Page 5 of 6

Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Field Sheet Data Analysis Sample Bottom Fines Paper Cardboard Plastic Organics Metal Ferrous Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Material HHW Mercury Containing Devices Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % Units HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % Item Subtotal Wt % of Total 951.0 7.1% 3.6 0.0% Paper 3.6-0.0% Cardboard - 56.6 0.4% Plastic 56.6 656.5 4.9% Organics 656.5-0.0% 7.0 0.1% 205.3 1.5% 22.0 0.2% - 0.0% Combustibles Non- Combustibles Various 234.3 Sample Non-Separable #1 Paper Cardboard Plastic Organics Metal Ferrous Metal Other Non-Ferrous Glass Inorganic Material HHW Mercury Containing Devices Paper % Cardboard % Plastic % Organics % Metal Ferrous % Metal Other Non-Ferrous % Glass % Inorganic Material % Units HHW Mercury Containing Devices % Total % Item Subtotal Wt % of Total 0.0 0.0% - 0.0% Paper - - 0.0% Cardboard - - 0.0% Plastic - - 0.0% Organics - - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% Combustibles Non- Combustibles Various - 13444.0 100.0% Total. 13,444.0 Page 6 of 6

Appendix B MVTL Analytical Results

MVTL MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 1126 N. Front St. ~ New Ulm, MN 56073 ~ 800-782-3557 ~ Fax 507-359-2890 2616 E. Broadway Ave. ~ Bismarck, ND 58501 ~ 800-279-6885 ~ Fax 701-258-9724 51 W. Lincoln Way ~ Nevada, IA 50201 ~ 800-362-0855 ~ Fax 515-382-3885 MVTL guarantees the accuracy of the analysis done on the sample submitted for testing. It is not possible for MVTL to guarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any other sample unless all conditions affecting the sample are the same, including sampling by MVTL. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MEMBER ACIL Sample Number: 11-M4947 Report Date: 1/ 5/12 Brian Schmidt Work Order #: 81-1556 Perham Resource Recovery Facility P.O. #: B. Schmidt 201 6th Ave NE Date Collected: 12/14/11 12:00 Perham MN 56573 Date Received: 12/20/11 Sample Description: Sample #1 Sample Site: Solid Waste Composite * PROXIMATE * * ULTIMATE * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Moisture 26.45 wt. % Total Moisture 26.45 wt. % Ash 4.31 wt. % 5.86 wt. % Ash 4.31 wt. % 5.86 wt. % Volatile Matter 59.64 wt. % 81.09 wt. % Carbon 38.55 wt. % 52.41 wt. % Fixed Carbon 9.60 wt. % 13.05 wt. % Hydrogen 7.73 wt. % 6.49 wt. % BTU/lb 6296 BTU/lb 8561 BTU/lb Nitrogen 0.41 wt. % 0.56 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.10 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.10 wt. % Oxygen by Difference 48.93 wt. % 34.59 wt. % Chlorine 1740 ug/g 2370 ug/g * SULFUR FORMS * * ASH FUSION * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE REDUCING OXIDIZING ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.10 wt. % * MINERAL ANALYSIS OF ASH * * MISCELLANEOUS * ANALYTE DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Comment: No metal was included in the prepared sample. Approved by:

MVTL MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 1126 N. Front St. ~ New Ulm, MN 56073 ~ 800-782-3557 ~ Fax 507-359-2890 2616 E. Broadway Ave. ~ Bismarck, ND 58501 ~ 800-279-6885 ~ Fax 701-258-9724 51 W. Lincoln Way ~ Nevada, IA 50201 ~ 800-362-0855 ~ Fax 515-382-3885 MVTL guarantees the accuracy of the analysis done on the sample submitted for testing. It is not possible for MVTL to guarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any other sample unless all conditions affecting the sample are the same, including sampling by MVTL. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MEMBER ACIL Sample Number: 11-M4948 Report Date: 1/ 5/12 Brian Schmidt Work Order #: 81-1556 Perham Resource Recovery Facility P.O. #: B. Schmidt 201 6th Ave NE Date Collected: 12/14/11 12:00 Perham MN 56573 Date Received: 12/20/11 Sample Description: Sample #2 Sample Site: Solid Waste Composite * PROXIMATE * * ULTIMATE * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Moisture 26.44 wt. % Total Moisture 26.44 wt. % Ash 4.52 wt. % 6.14 wt. % Ash 4.52 wt. % 6.14 wt. % Volatile Matter 59.81 wt. % 81.31 wt. % Carbon 38.50 wt. % 52.34 wt. % Fixed Carbon 9.23 wt. % 12.55 wt. % Hydrogen 7.56 wt. % 6.26 wt. % BTU/lb 6370 BTU/lb 8660 BTU/lb Nitrogen 0.36 wt. % 0.49 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.08 wt. % 0.11 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.08 wt. % 0.11 wt. % Oxygen by Difference 48.98 wt. % 34.66 wt. % Chlorine 1540 ug/g 2090 ug/g * SULFUR FORMS * * ASH FUSION * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE REDUCING OXIDIZING ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Sulfur 0.08 wt. % 0.11 wt. % * MINERAL ANALYSIS OF ASH * * MISCELLANEOUS * ANALYTE DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Comment: No metal was included in the prepared sample. Approved by:

MVTL MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 1126 N. Front St. ~ New Ulm, MN 56073 ~ 800-782-3557 ~ Fax 507-359-2890 2616 E. Broadway Ave. ~ Bismarck, ND 58501 ~ 800-279-6885 ~ Fax 701-258-9724 51 W. Lincoln Way ~ Nevada, IA 50201 ~ 800-362-0855 ~ Fax 515-382-3885 MVTL guarantees the accuracy of the analysis done on the sample submitted for testing. It is not possible for MVTL to guarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any other sample unless all conditions affecting the sample are the same, including sampling by MVTL. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MEMBER ACIL Sample Number: 11-M4949 Report Date: 1/ 5/12 Brian Schmidt Work Order #: 81-1556 Perham Resource Recovery Facility P.O. #: B. Schmidt 201 6th Ave NE Date Collected: 12/14/11 12:00 Perham MN 56573 Date Received: 12/20/11 Sample Description: Sample #3 Sample Site: Solid Waste Composite * PROXIMATE * * ULTIMATE * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Moisture 26.26 wt. % Total Moisture 26.26 wt. % Ash 4.34 wt. % 5.89 wt. % Ash 4.34 wt. % 5.89 wt. % Volatile Matter 59.20 wt. % 80.28 wt. % Carbon 38.73 wt. % 52.52 wt. % Fixed Carbon 10.20 wt. % 13.83 wt. % Hydrogen 7.66 wt. % 6.40 wt. % BTU/lb 6187 BTU/lb 8390 BTU/lb Nitrogen 0.41 wt. % 0.56 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.09 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.09 wt. % Oxygen by Difference 48.79 wt. % 34.54 wt. % Chlorine 1660 ug/g 2250 ug/g * SULFUR FORMS * * ASH FUSION * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE REDUCING OXIDIZING ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.09 wt. % * MINERAL ANALYSIS OF ASH * * MISCELLANEOUS * ANALYTE DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Comment: No metal was included in the prepared sample. Approved by:

MVTL MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. 1126 N. Front St. ~ New Ulm, MN 56073 ~ 800-782-3557 ~ Fax 507-359-2890 2616 E. Broadway Ave. ~ Bismarck, ND 58501 ~ 800-279-6885 ~ Fax 701-258-9724 51 W. Lincoln Way ~ Nevada, IA 50201 ~ 800-362-0855 ~ Fax 515-382-3885 MVTL guarantees the accuracy of the analysis done on the sample submitted for testing. It is not possible for MVTL to guarantee that a test result obtained on a particular sample will be the same on any other sample unless all conditions affecting the sample are the same, including sampling by MVTL. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and ourselves, all reports are submitted as the confidential property of clients, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusions or extracts from or regarding our reports is reserved pending our written approval. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MEMBER ACIL Sample Number: 11-M4950 Report Date: 1/ 5/12 Brian Schmidt Work Order #: 81-1556 Perham Resource Recovery Facility P.O. #: B. Schmidt 201 6th Ave NE Date Collected: 12/14/11 12:00 Perham MN 56573 Date Received: 12/20/11 Sample Description: Sample #4 Sample Site: Solid Waste Composite * PROXIMATE * * ULTIMATE * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Moisture 26.19 wt. % Total Moisture 26.19 wt. % Ash 4.41 wt. % 5.97 wt. % Ash 4.41 wt. % 5.97 wt. % Volatile Matter 60.12 wt. % 81.45 wt. % Carbon 39.37 wt. % 53.34 wt. % Fixed Carbon 9.29 wt. % 12.58 wt. % Hydrogen 7.80 wt. % 6.60 wt. % BTU/lb 6160 BTU/lb 8345 BTU/lb Nitrogen 0.49 wt. % 0.66 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.09 wt. % Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.09 wt. % Oxygen by Difference 47.86 wt. % 33.33 wt. % Chlorine 1240 ug/g 1680 ug/g * SULFUR FORMS * * ASH FUSION * ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ANALYTE REDUCING OXIDIZING ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------- Total Sulfur 0.07 wt. % 0.09 wt. % * MINERAL ANALYSIS OF ASH * * MISCELLANEOUS * ANALYTE DRY BASIS ANALYTE AS RECEIVED DRY BASIS ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Comment: No metal was included in the prepared sample. Approved by:

Appendix C Proximate Analysis, Ultimate Analysis, and Heating Value Calculations

Total Combustibles Item wt% Paper 1,494.6 11.12% Cardboard 2,394.3 17.81% Plastic 2,664.2 19.82% Organics 2,565.5 19.08% Electronics 296.0 2.20% Total 9,414.6 70.03% Total Non-Combustibles Item wt% Total 4,029.4 29.97% Total 13,444.0 100.00% Perham Resource Recovery Facility 2011 Solid Waste Composition Study Results Proximate Analysis (Combustible Fractions Only - As Received Basis) Proximate Analysis (Including Non-Combustibles) Analyte Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Average Analyte Result as Incinerated (Including Non-Combustibles) Total Moisture wt% 26.45% 26.44% 26.26% 26.19% 26.34% Total Moisture 18.44% Ash wt% 4.31% 4.52% 4.34% 4.41% 4.40% Ash 3.08% Volatile Matter wt% 59.64% 59.81% 59.20% 60.12% 59.69% Volatile Matter 41.80% Total Sulfur 1 wt% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% Total Sulfur 1 0.05% Fixed Carbon (by difference) 2 wt% 9.53% 9.15% 10.13% 9.21% 9.51% Fixed Carbon (by difference) 6.66% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Non-Combustibles 29.97% Total 100.00% Heating Value Btu/lb. 6,296 6,370 6,187 6,160 6,253 Heating Value 4,379 Ultimate Analysis (Combustible Fractions Only - As Received Basis) Ultimate Analysis (Including Non-Combustibles) Result as Incinerated Analyte Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Average Analyte (Including Non-Combustibles) Total Moisture wt% 26.45% 26.44% 26.26% 26.19% 26.34% Total Moisture 18.44% Ash 3 wt% 4.31% 4.52% 4.34% 4.41% 4.40% Ash 3 2.27% Carbon wt% 38.55% 38.50% 38.73% 39.37% 38.79% Carbon 20.01% Hydrogen wt% 7.73% 7.56% 7.66% 7.80% 7.69% Hydrogen 3.97% Nitrogen wt% 0.41% 0.36% 0.41% 0.49% 0.42% Nitrogen 0.22% Total Sulfur wt% 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% Total Sulfur 0.04% Chlorine wt% 0.17% 0.15% 0.17% 0.12% 0.15% Chlorine 0.08% Oxygen (by difference) 4 wt% 48.76% 48.83% 48.62% 47.74% 48.49% Oxygen (by difference) 25.01% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Non-Combustibles 29.97%. Total 100.00% 1 Total Sulfur has been included in Proximate Analysis 2 Fixed Carbon (by difference) is slightly lower than reported in MVTL analytical due to inclusion of Total Sulfur 3 Ash has been included in Ultimate Analysis 4 Oxygen (by difference) is slightly lower than reported in MVTL analytical due to inclusion of Chlorine

Appendix D Field Data Sheets