Supplemental Study for Year 3

1
Supplemental Study for Year 3
2
Reason for Supplemental Study

• Accelerate new lines of research.

3
Tasks Assoc. with Supplemental Funds
In-Service Issues

• Depletion of Cr, Cu, and As during the service
  life of CCA-treated wood (task 1)
• Quantity of CCA-treated wood used by major
  industries (task 2)
• TCLP and SPLP tests for unburned CCA-treated wood
  (task 5)
• Laboratory Methods for Cr and As speciation (task
  3)
• Identify laboratory methods for organics analysis
  assoc. with alternative chemicals (task 4)

Disposal
Literature Review
4
Task 5TCLP and SPLP Tests on Unburned
CCA-Treated Wood
5
CCA-Treated Wood and Mulch Leaching Tests
6
Background

• Year 1 Study -- Collected samples of processed
  wood from CD debris recycling facilities in
  Florida. Found that approximately 6 of wood
  stream was CCA-treated.
• Year 2 Study -- Characterized ash from the
  combustion of CCA-treated wood and wood mixtures.
  Found that the presence of 5 CCA-treated wood
  caused ash to fail TCLP and be characterized as a
  hazardous waste.

7
Background

• No leaching studies were conducted on unburned
  CCA-treated wood as part of year 1 and 2 studies.

8
When is Leaching a Concern?

• Leaching during In-Service Use
• Leaching during Storage
• Leaching upon Reuse of Mulch
• Leaching during Disposal

9
Leaching Tests on Unburned CCA-Treated Wood in
Year 3 Supplemental Project

• Leaching of new CCA-treated wood using
  standardized regulatory leaching tests
• Leaching of wood mulch produced by CD debris
  recycling operations

10
Leaching of new CCA-treated wood using
standardized regulatory leaching tests
11
Types of Leaching Tests

• Batch Tests
• Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
• Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)
• Column Tests
• Field Tests

12
Testing Results to be Discussed

• Ten samples of CCA-treated wood purchased from
  home supply stores
• TCLP
• SPLP
• Particle Size
• One sample
• TCLP, SPLP, EP, WET, MEP

13
Reminder for Arsenic

• Toxicity Characteristic
• Arsenic 5 mg/l
• Chromium 5 mg/l
• Groundwater Cleanup Target Level
• Arsenic 0.05 mg/l
• Chromium 0.10 mg/l
• Copper 1 mg/l

14
How are TCLP and SPLP Tests Applied?

• TCLP To determine if solid waste is hazardous
  by toxicity characteristic. Note Discarded
  arsenical-treated wood is exempt under RCRA.
• TCLP To determine is hazardous waste can be
  land disposed.
• SPLP To determine if land-applied waste or
  contaminated soil presents a risk to groundwater
  from chemical leaching.

15
TCLP and SPLP

• Batch tests.
• TCLP Municipal Landfill
• SPLP Acidic Rain
• 100 g of waste per 2 L of leaching solution.
• Extracted for 18 hours.
• Leachate if filtered and analyzed.

16
TCLP Arsenic(Sawdust)
17
TCLP Chromium(Sawdust)
18
TCLP Copper(Sawdust)
19
SPLP Arsenic(Sawdust)
20
SPLP Chromium(Sawdust)
21
SPLP Copper(Sawdust)
22
TCLP ArsenicImpact of Particle Size
Chips
5 Blocks
1 Block
Sawdust
23
Comparison ofSPLP TCLP (As)
24
Comparison ofSPLP TCLP (Cu)
25
Comparison ofBatch Leaching Tests(Arsenic)
SPLP
EP
WET
TCLP
26
Multiple Extraction Procedure(Arsenic)
27
Implications of Leaching Tests

• Without the exclusion, CCA-treated wood would
  often be a characteristic hazardous waste.
• If SPLP results are compared to GWCTLs, should
  not be disposed in an unlined landfill (based on
  current policy for other wastes).

28
What About Reuse Outside the Landfill (wood
mulch)?
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
Mulch Bagging Operation
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
Leaching from Land Applied Mulch

• The SPLP is the test most commonly used to assess
  leaching from a land applied waste.

42
CD Wood MulchAs in SPLP Leachates Total
Samples 58 Mean 153 ug/l Range 21 to 658
ug/l 51 Samples gt 50 ug/l
0
50
100
200
300
400
500
600
Arsenic Concentration (ug/l)
43
Implications for Mulch

• When considering SPLP leaching, CCA-treated wood
  must be present at levels of less than 1 in wood
  mulch to meet current groundwater standards.
• Most CD wood samples are already greater than 1.

44
Task 2 Major Use Sectors
45
Cumulative Arsenic Quantities
46
Florida Production
47
U.S. Southern Pine Markets
(From SFPA)
10
36
18
8
15
48
Double-Check Values for Florida

• Focus
• Transportation Sector
• Utility Poles
• Docks

49
Transportation Sector

• Initial contact with FDOT Districts

50
Utility Poles

• Compiled volume of treated wood for 1998 from
  questionnaires sent out last year
• Scaled data by population served
• Scaled 1998 data against US historical pole
  production statistics

51
Utility Poles

• Preliminary Results
• 1600 tons of As (Cumulative)
• 6 of all As associated with CCA-treated wood
  that is currently in service

52
Residential Docks

• Evaluated data for 3 counties (Alachua, Dade and
  Leon)
• For each county, we
• Obtained copies of dock building permits
• Contacted the Property Appraisers Office
• Reviewed aerial photographs
• Contacted dock manufacturers

53
Results from permits

• Alachua
• 41 permits reviewed
• Approx 486 (freshwater) docks permitted since
  recording in 1994
• Dade
• 100 permits reviewed
• Approx 6000 (marine) docks permitted since
  recording in 1980
• Leon
• 71 permits reviewed
• Approx 450 (freshwater) docks permitted since
  recording began in 1993

54
Material distribution in Alachua County Docks
Predominantly Freshwater Docks
55
Material distribution in Dade County Docks
Predominantly Salt water Docks
56
Material distribution in Leon County Docks
Predominantly Freshwater Docks
57
Preliminary Results

• Obtained Typical Retention Levels
• Average Dock Size (Surface Area)
• Typical Design
• Scale Data to County Population
• Numbers Computed Appear Low

58
Possible Reasons for Small No.

• Not all docks have been permitted
• Other marine applications (Piers, Bulkheads,
  etc.
• SFPA estimates that docks represent 32 of marine
  applications

59
Task 1 Depletion During Service Life
60
Task 1 Depletion During Service Life
Methods

• Literature Review
• Sample Soils Below CCA-Treated Decks
• Analyze Soil Samples

61
Task 1 Depletion During Service Life
Sample soils below CCA-Treated Decks

• A total of nine decks sampled
• 3 in Gainesville
• 3 in Miami
• 2 in Tallahassee (1 other deck sampled, not
  CCA-treated)
• Samples collected in a grid-like fashion below
  each deck
• Initially, at least 2 background samples were
  collected near each deck. Later, a total of 8
  were collected
• A core sample/sawdust collected

62
Gainesville Decks
Paynes Prairie
Foot Bridge at NW 34th St
Bivens Arm Park
63
Miami Decks
A.D. Barnes Park
Oleta River Park
Tropical Park
64
Tallahassee Decks
Maclay Gardens
Lake Talquin
Tom Brown Park
65
Sampling Grid
66
Soil Core
67
Stains, wood bore, Sawdust
XRF Analysis by Robbins Manufacturing
68
Deck Retention Levels
69
Grain Size Analysis
70
Volatiles vs. As concentration
71
Percent volatile vs. As conc (Tal)
72
Metal Concentrations in Soil Under Sampled Decks
73
Background Information

• The Florida Department of Environmental
  Protection has developed a set of risk-based
  concentration levels of chemicals in soil
• The Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTL)
• Direct Exposure
• Residential SCTL for As is 0.8 mg/kg.
• Industrial SCTL for As is 3.7 mg/kg.

74
Background Information

• The naturally occurring As concentration in
  Florida soils has been measured (Ma et al. 1999).
• Geometric Mean 0.42 mg/kg
• 73 of soil samples were less than 0.8 mg/kg
• gt90 of soil samples were less than 3.7 mg/kg

75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)
79
(No Transcript)
80
Summary

• The mean As concentration under 8 of the 9 decks
  exceeded the industrial Florida SCTL of 3.7
  mg/kg.
• Sixty one of 73 of the individual soil samples
  exceeded the industrial Florida SCTL.

81
Additional Sample Collection

• Additional control samples were collected and
  analyzed to assist with statistical comparison

82
Gainesville Site BPDeck Samples As 41.6
mg/kg (n 8)Control As 7.0 mg/kg (n 2)
83
Gainesville Site BPDeck Samples As 41.6
mg/kg (n 8)Control As 2.6 mg/kg (n 8)
84
Copper and Chromium Analysis

• Analysis of Copper and Chromium has been completed

85
Comparison of Chromiumand Arsenic
86
Comparison of Copperand Arsenic
87
Soil Cores

• One soil core was collected from underneath each
  deck

88

• Miami Site OPSoil Core Data
• Arsenic

89

• Miami Site OPSoil Core Data
• Arsenic

90

• Miami Site OPSoil Core Data
• Arsenic
• Chromium

91

• Miami Site OPSoil Core Data
• Arsenic
• Chromium
• Copper

92
Questions?