1. Survey of CCA-Treated Wood in the C&D Waste Stream CCA TAG Meeting CCA TAG Meeting May 13, 2004 May 13, 2004 Orlando, Florida Orlando, Florida Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management A Type I (Statewide) Research Center created by the Florida Legislature in 1988 A Type I (Statewide) Research Center created by the Florida Legislature in 1988

2. The Center’s mission is to sponsor and conduct research in the area of solid and hazardous waste management. We work with faculty at nine universities.

3. Construction & Demolition Debris Construction & Demolition Debris Electronic Waste Electronic Waste Hazardous Waste Management Hazardous Waste Management Incineration Incineration Landfills Landfills Medical Waste Management Medical Waste Management Principal research areas include: Municipal Solid Waste Management Municipal Solid Waste Management Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention Recycling and Reuse Recycling and Reuse Socioeconomic Issues Socioeconomic Issues Special Wastes Special Wastes Waste Reduction Waste Reduction

4. Current CCA Research Projects Extent of CCA-Treated Wood Used for Commercial Mulch Helena Solo-Gabriele, Ph.D., P.E. University of Miami Timothy Townsend, Ph.D. University of Florida

5. Management and Disposal Options for CCA- Treated Wood Waste Management and Disposal Options for CCA- Treated Wood Waste Helena Solo-Gabriele, Ph.D., P.E. University of Miami Timothy Townsend, Ph.D. University of Florida

6. Arsenic Uptake Released From CCA-Treated Lumber by Florida Vegetable Crops Arsenic Uptake Released From CCA-Treated Lumber by Florida Vegetable Crops Aziz Shiralipour, Ph.D. University of Florida/IFAS School of Forest Resources and Conservation

7. Survey Team FCSHWM: FCSHWM: –Cheryl Baker –Marcia Marwede –Rosemary McDaniel –Diana Reichenbach –Rhonda Rogers –John Schert –Kim Stenger –Dion Weaver Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection: Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection: –Suzanne Boroff –Bill Hinkley –Lee Martin –Chris McGuire –Richard Tedder

8. University of Miami: University of Miami: –Gary Jacobi –Tomoyuki Shibata –Dr.Helena Solo- Gabriele Survey Team University of Florida: University of Florida: –Kim Cochran –Sreeram Jonnalagadda –Aaron Jordan –Dr. Tim Townsend –Qiyong Xu

9. Survey Team Organizational/Safety Meeting Feb 18, 2004

10. Survey Team

11. FCSHWM Survey Team

12. The Contribution of Wood to C&D Debris New Construction Demolition Renovation Yard Waste

13. Survey of Disposal Facilities in Florida Provide data/information on the occurrence of CCA-treated wood in the waste stream.

14. Survey of Disposal Facilities 23 facilities were visited across the state between February 26 – May 4 23 facilities were visited across the state between February 26 – May 4 –Class III landfills –C&D landfills –Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs) –Class I landfill (one facility) Staff observed that there is very little difference in the type of waste accepted at Class III landfills and C&D landfills. Staff observed that there is very little difference in the type of waste accepted at Class III landfills and C&D landfills.

15. Landfills

16. Recycling Facilities

17. Survey of Disposal Facilities Bay Broward Columbia Dixie Flagler Gulf Hernando Leon Liberty Marion Manatee Nassau Okaloosa Palm Beach Pasco Polk Putnam Santa Rosa Sarasota Suwanee 20 Counties visited

18. Preliminary Data!! Preliminary Data!! Total # of loads observed = 342 Total # of loads observed = 342 Est. total volume of all loads = 6501 yd 3 Est. total volume of all loads = 6501 yd 3 # of loads containing wood = 319 or 93% (319/342) # of loads containing wood = 319 or 93% (319/342) Est. total volume of wood = 1566 yd 3 or 24% (1566/6501) Est. total volume of wood = 1566 yd 3 or 24% (1566/6501) # of loads contained treated wood = 141 or 41% (141/342) # of loads contained treated wood = 141 or 41% (141/342) Est. total volume of treated wood = 261 yd 3 or 4% (261/6501) Est. total volume of treated wood = 261 yd 3 or 4% (261/6501) Survey of Disposal Facilities

19. 4% Seems about right based on previous research by Townsend and Solo-Gabriele. 4% Seems about right based on previous research by Townsend and Solo-Gabriele. Wood Mix Untreated vs. Treated 83% untreated 17% treated wood

20. Due to safety issues, the source of the loads (residential/ commercial, construction/ demolition/ renovation, etc.) could not be determined for all loads. Survey of Disposal Facilities

21. Dedicated Loads (Deck/Dock)

22. Dedicated Loads Of the 342 total loads observed, 141 of the loads contained treated wood. Of the 141 loads containing wood, there were 9 loads (6.3%) where the fraction of treated wood was greater than 80% of the total volume of the load. Of the 141 loads containing wood, there were 5 loads (3.5%) where the fraction of treated wood was greater than 98% of the total volume of the load.

23. So, the PRELIMINARY data indicates that only 1.5% of the 342 loads were “dedicated loads”.

24. Dedicated load from a dock builder

25. The identification and removal of CCA-treated wood is VERY difficult in some instances.

27. Identification of treated wood is difficult when the wood is painted.

28. End tags help identify CCA-treated wood

30. Is it CCA, ACQ or Copper Azole?

31. Color differences between untreated and treated wood (NOT WEATHERED)

32. Mixed wood debris

33. Weathering and paint make identification difficult

34. Treated wood may be hidden in landscaping and yard waste

35. Survey of Disposal Facilities Of the 141 loads that contained treated wood: 63% were identified by the greenish hue63% were identified by the greenish hue 37% were from a structure that is typically treated (fence, deck, dock, etc.)37% were from a structure that is typically treated (fence, deck, dock, etc.) 10% were identified through consultation with landfill staff, hauler, or other expert10% were identified through consultation with landfill staff, hauler, or other expert 5% were identified by end tags5% were identified by end tags *note: some loads were identified using more than one method How was CCA-treated wood identified?

36. Survey of Disposal Facilities

37. Borate treated wood for interior use only

38. Survey of Disposal Facilities

42. How waste enters MRFs

43. Waste Sorting at MRFs

44. Wood separated from other waste at MRFs

45. A concrete tipping floor such as this makes picking and sorting easier

46. Some landfills have more area for walking around the waste to sort out recyclables

47. Most landfills have little room for sorting waste after tipping

48. Phone Survey The team contacted approximately 500 businesses that typically dispose of wood.

49. Contractors – 14 Contractors – 14 Decks – 6 Decks – 6 Demolition – 5 Demolition – 5 Docks – 31 Docks – 31 Fencing – 140 Fencing – 140 Marine – 34 Marine – 34 Woodworks - 2 Woodworks - 2 Businesses that participated Insert photo

50. Typical Uses Decks, Boardwalks Decks, Boardwalks

51. Typical Uses Fences Fences

52. Typical Uses Docks Docks

53. Typical Uses Utility Poles Utility Poles

56. Phone Survey Results General contractors reported CCA-treated wood was in SOME of their loads Deck Builders reported that nearly ALL the decks were CCA-treated Demolition Contractors reported that VERY FEW of their loads contained CCA-treated wood Dock Builders reported that MOST docks were CCA-treated How much CCA-treated wood is being discarded?

57. Fence Builders – –21% reported less than half of their discarded wood waste was CCA-treated – –2% reported that half of their discarded wood was CCA-treated – –38% reported that most of their discarded wood waste was CCA-treated – –39% were unsure how much of their discarded wood was CCA-treated

58. Marine Contractors – –14% said a small amount of their wood waste was CCA-treated – –12% said most of their wood waste was CCA- treated – –56% said all of their wood waste was CCA- treated – –18% were unsure how much of their discarded wood was CCA-treated

59. Where is the discarded wood going?

60. Waste wood disposed in a roll-off

64. Residential Collection Some residential treated wood waste is already being hauled to a waste- to-energy plant or lined MSW landfill through curbside collection.

68. Residential Collection

69. Some landfills indicate they do not accept treated wood

70. THANK YOU TO: Arena Landfill and Sand, Crestview Arena Landfill and Sand, Crestview Bayside of Ocala, Ocala Bayside of Ocala, Ocala Coastal Landfill Disposal of Florida, Hudson Coastal Landfill Disposal of Florida, Hudson Deland Landfill, Deland Deland Landfill, Deland Delta Recycling, Pompano Beach Delta Recycling, Pompano Beach Dixie County Transfer Station and C&D Site, Cross City Dixie County Transfer Station and C&D Site, Cross City Five Points Landfill, Port St. Joe Five Points Landfill, Port St. Joe Lena Road – Manatee County Landfill, Bradenton Lena Road – Manatee County Landfill, Bradenton Leon County South Landfill, Tallahassee Leon County South Landfill, Tallahassee Liberty County Landfill, Bristol Liberty County Landfill, Bristol Live Oak C&D Landfill, Live Oak Live Oak C&D Landfill, Live Oak Pasco County Landfill, Springhill Pasco County Landfill, Springhill Pasco Lakes Landfill, Wesley Chapel Pasco Lakes Landfill, Wesley Chapel Polk County North Central Landfill Facility, Winter Haven Polk County North Central Landfill Facility, Winter Haven Putnam County Central Landfill, Palatka Putnam County Central Landfill, Palatka Sandhill Recycling, Fernandina Beach Sandhill Recycling, Fernandina Beach Santa Rosa Central Landfill, Milton Santa Rosa Central Landfill, Milton Sarasota County Central Landfill, Nokomis Sarasota County Central Landfill, Nokomis Sun Recycling, Dania Sun Recycling, Dania Sun Recycling, Lantana Sun Recycling, Lantana Sunshine Grove Road C&D Landfill, Brooksville Sunshine Grove Road C&D Landfill, Brooksville Waste Recyclers of North Florida, Freeport Waste Recyclers of North Florida, Freeport Winfield Southwest Facility, Lake City Winfield Southwest Facility, Lake City And to all the businesses that gave of their time to answer the phone survey