Disposal Strategies for CCA-Treated Wood August 13, 2003 National RCRA Conference Washington D.C.

Funding Received from Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Mngt. Florida Power and Light Sarasota County Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida International University/NIEHS Rutgers University/NIEHS

Helena Solo-Gabriele, Ph.D., P.E., Assoc. Prof., Civil/Environ. Engrg Lora Fleming, M.D., Ph.D. Assoc. Prof., Epidemiology/Ph.D. Timothy Townsend, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof., Environ/Solid Waste Engrg Yong Cai, Ph.D. Assist. Prof., Chemistry Active Faculty Researchers

Students Supported on Project  Sean Bennie  Kenneth Brown  Vandin Calitu  Zhangrong Chen  Brajesh Dubey  Tim Franklin  Kelvin Gary  Myron Georgiadis  Naila Hosein  Kendiro Iida  Gary Jacobi  Jenna Jambeck  Bernine Khan  Monika Kormienko  Brian Messick  Tom Moskal  Jennifer Penha  Donna May Sakura  Catalina Santamaria  Ajay Seth  Tomoyuki Shibata  Jin-Kun Song  Kristin Stook  Sheena Szuri  Thabet Tolaymat  Lakmini Wadanambi

Untreated SYP CCA-Treated 0.25 pcf CCA-Treated 0.60 pcf CCA-Treated 2.5 pcf Above Ground Structural Poles Saltwater Splash Saltwater Immersion Pole/Pilings

Background  CCA  Chromated Copper Arsenate  As toxic to humans, carcinogen Cr toxic to humans, carcinogen Cu toxic to aquatic organisms Toxicity Fn of Speciation As(V) and As(III) toxic with As(III) more toxic Cr(VI) more toxic than Cr(III)

Regulatory Issues  CCA currently under-going reregistration  Industry issued a nation-wide phase out for CCA used in residential applications  Exempt at federal level from being classified as a hazardous waste during disposal

Original Motivation For Project Ash Disposal Problem

How Much CCA-Treated Wood is Disposed?

Disposal Model

How Much CCA-Treated Wood in Florida? (Preliminary)

Amount of CCA-Treated Wood To Be Discarded Cumulative Volume Imported = 660 million cubic feet Volume in Service = 440 million cubic feet Statistics for the Year 2003 (Florida) 216,000 miles of 2 x 4’s 100 yds x 50 yds x 2.7 miles 9 times around

How Much CCA-Treated Wood In Florida? (Preliminary)

C&D Landfill MSW Landfill C&D Debris Recycling Facilities CCA-Wood Removed from Service Processed Wood (6% CCA in 1996) Land Application Wood Fuel Facility Ash

Background  Research conducted found CCA-treated wood in C&D waste piles  6% in 1996 (12 C&D facilities)  9 to 30% in 1999 (3 C&D facilities)  22% in 2001 (1 C&D facility studied extensively)

Background (From SFPA) U.S. Statistics for Southern Pine Production

C&D Landfill MSW Landfill C&D Debris Recycling Facilities CCA-Wood Removed from Service Processed Wood (6% CCA in 1996) Land Application Wood Fuel Facility Ash

Disposal Through Wood Ash Industrial Furnace Grate Ash Catch Pan Shred Ashing

Leaching of Wood Ash - Total Arsenic

Wood Ash  The presence of CCA-treated wood as 5% of the wood mix caused the ash to be characterized as hazardous.

Leaching of Wood Ash - Speciation As,SPLP

Leaching of Wood Ash – Speciation Cr,SPLP

Leaching of Wood Ash – Speciation Cr,SPLP

C&D Landfill MSW Landfill C&D Debris Recycling Facilities CCA-Wood Removed from Service Processed Wood (6% CCA in 1996) Land Application Wood Fuel Facility Ash

Leaching of Mulch SamplesNo.No. Exceeding GWCTL for As No. Exceeding GWCTL for Cr C&D Debris20185 Yard Waste311 Colored Mulch 320 Vegetative Mulch 300

Leaching of Mulch

Mulch n Must contain < 0.2 % CCA-treated wood in order to pass GWCTL

C&D Landfill MSW Landfill C&D Debris Recycling Facilities CCA-Wood Removed from Service Processed Wood (6% CCA in 1996) Land Application Wood Fuel Facility Ash

TCLP Results – Total TCLP Limit

Leaching - Speciation

Possible Solutions  “Short–Term” Solution Develop Strategies By Which to Better Manage CCA-Treated Wood  “Long-Term” Solution Use Wood Treated With Non-Arsenical Preservatives

Long-term Solution Use Wood Treated With Non-Arsenical Preservatives

Alternative Chemicals Contain no arsenic Have been used commercially to some extent Standards provided by the AWPA Waterborne preservative Chemicals Considered

Phase I: Alternative Chemicals  AAC: Alkyl Ammonium Compound (a.k.a. DDAC)  ACC: Acid Copper Chromate  ACQ: Ammoniacal Copper Quat  Borates  CBA: Copper Boron Azole  CC: Ammoniacal Copper Citrate  CDDC: Copper Dimethydithiocarbamate Chemicals Initially Considered

General Comments About Remaining 4 Alternative Chemicals  Efficacy  Depletion/Leaching  Corrosion  Mechanical Properties  Costs  Just as Effective for Standardized Products  Leach less As but more Cu  Similar to CCA Some require SS fasteners Cost 10 to 30% more

Leaching Tests Synthetic Rainfall

Toxicity Tests Less Toxic CCA CDDC CBA ACQ CC

“Short-term” Solution for the Disposal Problem Develop Sorting Technologies

C&D Landfill MSW Landfill C&D Debris Recycling Facilities CCA-Wood Removed from Service Processed Wood (6% CCA in 1996) Land Application Wood Fuel Facility Ash Add a Wood Sorting Step CCA-Treated Wood 99.9% Untreated Wood

Objective  Construct and Operate an On-Line System for Sorting Treated From Untreated Wood

Most of the time, the identification of CCA-treated wood is difficult, especially for wood from demolition.

Sorting Technologies  Low Capital Cost, Labor Intensive  Chemical stains UntreatedTreated

 Suitable for On-Line System, High Capital Costs  X-ray Technology (XRF)  Laser Technology (LIBS) Sorting Technologies

DETECTORS laser x-ray

Laser configuration Laser To PC

Wood Plasma Caused By Laser

Output signal for detection of treated wood Strobe Light On -Positive

LIBS Spectrum of CCA-treated Wood

Analysis of single laser shots Treated Lumber Untreated Lumber 100% accuracy 99% accuracy 10-shot average 92% accuracy 95% accuracy Single-shot analysis Cr Signal

Summary of LIBS Results  Successfully detect CCA-treated wood by presence of chromium in the field  Indicator strobe enables real-time, on-line sorting with accuracy approaching 100%  Some inefficiencies noted in this study  wet wood and surface coatings. Can be overcome with a more powerful laser.

X-ray Detector ¾”

Treated vs. Untreated Wood

Dry vs. Wet Treated Wood

Alternative Chemicals

Distance readings

XRF Summary Advantages  Very consistent.  It can not only differentiate between treated and untreated wood but gives the actual amount treated in specific units. Disadvantages  Limited to no more than 1” distance.

Sorting Summary  Both X-ray & Laser Methods Are Very Promising  Improvements, Develop Logic Between Detector and Shear Arm  Full Scale Field Demonstration Recommended to Further Substantiate Performance and Cost Effectiveness

Ultimate Disposal?

Lysimeters 2 Monofills / 2 C&D / 2 MSW Untreated (mg/L) Treated (mg/L) Wood Monofill (100% wood) < – 43 As(III), As(V) C&D Waste (34% wood) < – 1.8 As(III), As(V), DMAA, MMAA MSW (2% wood) < – 2.3 As(III), As(V), DMAA, MMAA

Overall Recommendations  Arsenic and Chromium burden will continue to increase even with proposed industry phase out  Switch to alternative chemicals  + for terrestrial systems  - for aquatic ecosystems (Cu)  Sorting will be necessary  At Source  At C&D Facilities  Disposal Within Lined Landfills Preferred Over Unlined Landfills, Mulch, and Ashing

Questions?