1. 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

2. Focus on Automated Sorting
History/Background
Earlier Innovative Recycling Grant through Sarasota County ( )
Focus on Automated Sorting
Using Conveyors

3. 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)

4. 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

5. Project Collaborators
Host Facility

6. Innovative Recycling Grant
Town of Medley

7. 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

8. 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

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

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

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

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

13. Methods
Visual
PAN Indicator Stain
XRF

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. 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

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

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

21. 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

22. Source Separated Wood
Commingled C&D Wood

23. Analysis: Sorting Amount
* Not acceptable to Host Facility

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

25. 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

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

27. Day Laborer Time Comparison
Make graph in hours per ton

28. New Sort: Group 1
Presumed Treated
Presumed Untreated

29. New Sort: Group 2
Presumed Treated
Presumed Untreated

30. Sort Amount

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. Labor Costs ($10/hr)

35. Labor Costs ($10/hour)

36. Labor Costs ($10/hr)

37. Landfill Disposal Cost
Overall Costs
Landfill Disposal Cost

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Questions ? Acknowledgments