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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. Original Motivation For Project Ash Disposal Problem

11. How Much CCA-Treated Wood is Disposed?

12. Disposal Model

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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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)

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

19. 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

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

21. Leaching of Wood Ash - Total Arsenic

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

23. Leaching of Wood Ash - Speciation As,SPLP

24. Leaching of Wood Ash – Speciation Cr,SPLP

25. Leaching of Wood Ash – Speciation Cr,SPLP

26. 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

28. 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

29. Leaching of Mulch

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

31. 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

32. TCLP Results – Total TCLP Limit

33. Leaching - Speciation

34. 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

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

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

37. 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

38. 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

40. Leaching Tests Synthetic Rainfall

41. Toxicity Tests Less Toxic CCA CDDC CBA ACQ CC

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

43. 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

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

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

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

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

48. DETECTORS laser x-ray

49. Laser configuration Laser To PC

50. Wood Plasma Caused By Laser

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

52. LIBS Spectrum of CCA-treated Wood

53. 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

54. 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.

55. X-ray Detector ¾”

56. Treated vs. Untreated Wood

57. Dry vs. Wet Treated Wood

58. Alternative Chemicals

59. Distance readings

60. 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.

61. 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

62. Ultimate Disposal?

63. Lysimeters 2 Monofills / 2 C&D / 2 MSW Untreated (mg/L) Treated (mg/L) Wood Monofill (100% wood) < 0.025 – 43 As(III), As(V) C&D Waste (34% wood) <0.060.4 – 1.8 As(III), As(V), DMAA, MMAA MSW (2% wood) < 0.70.4 – 2.3 As(III), As(V), DMAA, MMAA

64. 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

65. Questions? www.ccaresearch.org hmsolo@miami.edu