Town of Medley FDEP Innovative Recycling Grants Program Augmented Sorting of Recovered Wood Waste Using Stain and X-Ray Technologies Town of Medley FDEP Innovative Recycling Grants Program

Focus on Automated Sorting History/Background Earlier Innovative Recycling Grant through Sarasota County (2000-2001) Focus on Automated Sorting Using Conveyors

Objectives of Current Innovative Recycling Grant (Medley) Evaluate two innovative technologies for identifying and removing CCA-treated wood within recovered wood waste. PAN Indicator Stain X-ray Technology (hand-held units)

Tasks Phase I Sort 10 tons (minimum) of dimensional C&D waste wood using visual methods PAN stain XRF unit Document speed and costs. Phase II Picking Line Sorts Visual With stain With XRF Documentation

Project Collaborators Host Facility

Innovative Recycling Grant Town of Medley

Introduction Goal: 40 tons Wood sorted was separated into “Piles”. Normally one pile created per day Sorted Visually PAN XRF units when available Each pile was separated into type of wood and each piece was counted and weighed

Mulch Engineered Wood Vegetative Wood X Additional Processes Commingled C&D Wood Source Separated X Additional Processes Picking Line X Wood Feed Mulch Host Facility

Introduction Pile Type Total Tons 1 - 3 Source Separated 10.2 4* 10.9 5 - 19, 25, 27, 30 Commingled 16.9 20 - 24, 26, 28, 29 Commingled (Laborer Sorted) 3.0 Change Font and Table Colors? Input Totals * Not acceptable to Host Facility

Source Separated (Piles 1 - 3) Use Pictures on Next three slides. Delete Text?

Specially requested load containing treated wood (Pile 4*) Delete Text? * Not acceptable to Host Facility

Co-Mingled loads sorted after picking line operation (Piles 5 - 19, 25, 27, 30) Delete Text? Rename Title? Change Pile Numbers.

Methods Visual PAN Indicator Stain XRF

Visual Sort Quickest method Room for human error Improves with experience More difficult with older weathered wood Impossible to identify CCA vs. Cu alternative More untreated wood mistakenly identified as treated Change text on methods slides.

PAN Indicator Stain PAN Indicator reacts with Copper Easy to apply Impossible to identify CCA vs. Cu alternative Takes longer than visual inspection Difficult when wood is wet or dirty Stain reacts with some materials on outside of wood

XRF Sort Much slower than visual or PAN Good for spot checking and weathered wood Works well with wet or dirty wood Identifies CCA vs. Cu treated Change Picture

Analysis: (Piles 1 - 3) Source Separated Treated Untreated Fix Labels. Label Dimensional Lumber/Timber

Analysis (Pile 4*) Source Separated Other: Doors 1% Combined Strandboard 1% Strandboard 2% Do same thing as previous background Enlarge text on chart, change labels to L&T, add text box to describe “Other” Treated * Not acceptable to Host Facility Untreated

Analysis: (Piles 5 - 19, 25, 27, 30) Commingled Wood Change text on chart like previous slides Treated Untreated

Analysis: (Piles 5 - 19, 25, 27, 30) Treated Untreated Increase text size Add picture of end tags

Analysis: Visual Sorting Amount Mention dirtyness of wood and size of pieces. Show pictures on next slides Hours per Ton and add PAN Time * Not acceptable to Host Facility

Source Separated Wood Commingled C&D Wood

Analysis: Sorting Amount * Not acceptable to Host Facility

Analysis: PAN Sorting Amount Not Recommended * Not acceptable to Host Facility

Day Laborer Sort: (Laborer A) Presumed Treated Presumed Untreated Put both charts on same slide. Have second come in as animation. Add amount in Tons Treated Untreated

Day Laborer Sort: (Laborer B) Presumed Treated Presumed Untreated Add amount in Tons Treated Untreated

Day Laborer Time Comparison Make graph in hours per ton

New Sort: Group 1 Presumed Treated Presumed Untreated

New Sort: Group 2 Presumed Treated Presumed Untreated

Sort Amount

Summary Commingled C&D wood contained a greater amount of treated wood than source separated Source separated wood was much larger in size and cleaner than commingled wood PAN Indicator was much more useful with source separated wood than with commingled wood This is primarily due to the cleanliness of the wood PAN indicator is ineffective with wet wood PAN indicator sometimes reacts with contaminants on outside of wood

Summary XRF is most useful with commingled wood XRF is capable of detecting arsenic in wood that is very wet and/or dirty Different laborers have different sorting efficiencies and different sorting speeds

Cost Analysis Labor measured directly Chemical usage measured directly For hand-held XRF, capital and maintenance costs evaluated using: 8% interest rate 10 year equipment life Maintenance at $1K/year Usage at 2000 hours per year

Labor Costs ($10/hr)

Labor Costs ($10/hour)

Labor Costs ($10/hr)

Landfill Disposal Cost Overall Costs Landfill Disposal Cost

estimate from Sarasota Project Decrease Sorting Times Automated XRF (Topic of an earlier Innovative Grant through Sarasota County) Manual XRF Automated XRF estimate from Sarasota Project Decrease Sorting Times Sorting Time per Piece

Summary Front-end control important for lowering costs for sorting wood Picking line wood (dirty and smaller) thus increased costs for sorting after the fact. XRF units excellent at identifying metals Handheld XRFs excellent tools for spot checking

Recommendations Sort with handheld XRFs in a more efficient fashion to lower labor costs Addition of screen will help for picking line wood Consider automated sorting with XRF and conveyors

Questions ? Acknowledgments