supplemental study for year 3
DESCRIPTION
Supplemental Study for Year 3. Project Completed. Reason for Supplemental Study. Accelerate new lines of research which were identified in August 1999 during the deliberations concerning a ban on CCA in Minnesota. Tasks Assoc. with Supplemental Funds. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Supplemental Study for Year 3
Project Completed
Reason for Supplemental Study
Accelerate new lines of research which were identified in August 1999 during the deliberations concerning a ban on CCA in Minnesota
Tasks Assoc. with Supplemental Funds
In-Service Issues
Disposal
Literature Review
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)
Task 5:
TCLP and SPLP Tests on Unburned CCA-Treated Wood
CCA-Treated Wood and Mulch Leaching Tests
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 C&D debris recycling operations
Leaching of new CCA-treated wood using standardized regulatory leaching tests
Types of Leaching Tests
Batch Tests Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
(SPLP)
Column Tests Field Tests
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
Reminder for Arsenic
Toxicity CharacteristicArsenic: 5 mg/lChromium: 5 mg/l
Groundwater Cleanup Target LevelArsenic: 0.05 mg/lChromium: 0.10 mg/lCopper: 1 mg/l
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 wastes can be land disposed.
SPLP: To determine if land-applied waste or contaminated soil presents a risk to groundwater from chemical leaching.
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.
Leaching Tests
10 samples of new CCA-treated dimensional lumber were collected from retail outlets
The wood was processed into 4 different sizes
TCLP and SPLP performed on all samples Additional leaching tests (EP Tox, MEP,
WET) were performed on one sample.
Figure IV.3: SPLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from Saw Dust
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Brand1 (2x4)
Brand1 (2x6)
Brand1 (2x8)
Brand1 (4x4)
Brand2 (4x4)
Brand3 (2x4)
Brand3 (2x6)
Brand4 (2x4)
Brand4 (2x6)
Brand5 (2x4)
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L) As
Cu
Cr
0.25 pcf 0.4 pcf
Figure IV.6: SPLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from 1, 100-g Block
0
1
2
3
Brand1 (2x4)
Brand1 (2x6)
Brand1 (2x8)
Brand1 (4x4)
Brand2 (4x4)
Brand3 (2x4)
Brand3 (2x6)
Brand4 (2x4)
Brand4 (2x6)
Brand5 (2x4)
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L)
AsCuCr
0.25 pcf 0.4 pcf
Figure IV.7: TCLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from Sawdust
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Brand1 (2x4)
Brand1 (2x6)
Brand1 (2x8)
Brand1 (4x4)
Brand2 (4x4)
Brand3 (2x4)
Brand3 (2x6)
Brand4 (2x4)
Brand4 (2x6)
Brand5 (2x4)
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L)
As
Cu
Cr
0.25 pcf 0.4 pcf
Figure IV.10: TCLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from 100-g Block
0
1
2
3
4
Brand 1(2x4)
Brand 1(2x6)
Brand 1(2x8)
Brand 1(4x4)
Brand 2(4x4)
Brand 3(2x4)
Brand 3(2x6)
Brand 4(2x4)
Brand 4(2x6)
Brand 5(2x4)
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L) As
CuCr
0.25 pcf 0.4 pcf
Figure IV.11: Arsenic Concentration in Extracts from TCLP, SPLP, EPTOX, and WET
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
TCLP SPLP EPTOX WET
As, C
oncentr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
Sawdust
Chipped Wood
5 20-g Blocks
100 g Block
Figure IV.14: MEP Test Results for Arsenic, Copper, and Chromium Using 3 20-g Blocks
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 3 5 7 9 11Time (Days)
Concentr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
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).
What About Reuse Outside the Landfill (wood mulch)?
Mulch Bagging Operation
Leaching from Land Applied Mulch
SPLP was performed on samples of processed wood from C&D debris recycling facilities
SPLP was also performed on several samples of other mulches, including commercial colored mulch
Table IV.7: Samples Exceeding the GWCTL
Samples
Number of Samples
Number of Samples
Exceeding As GWCTL
Number of Samples
Exceeding Cr GWCTL
1997 C&D Debris Samples (Sites A through M, except D2 and D4)
18 16 5
1999 C&D Debris Mulch Sample (Site N)
2 2 0
Yard Waste Facility (Site R, D2, D4)
3 1 1
Commercial Mulch (pine bark, cypress)
(Sites S, T, U) 3 0 0
Colored Mulch 1 (Site P)
1 0 0
Colored Mulch 2 (Site Q)
2 2 0
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 C&D wood samples are already greater than 1%.
Questions?
Task 2: Major Use Sectors
Objectives
Estimate the distribution of CCA within different use sectors Production & disposal by product type Total amount of As currently in service Breakdown use – U.S. Statistics
- Florida Statistics
(utility poles/docks)
Production and Disposal By Product Type (Florida)
0
10
20
30
40
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040Year
CC
A-T
rea
ted
Wo
od
(m
illio
n c
ub
ic f
t)
Disposal:Lumber &Timbers
Production: Lumber & Timbers
Disposal:Poles & Crossties
Production
Production and Disposal By Product Type (Florida)
0
1
2
3
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
Year
CC
A-T
rea
ted
Wo
od
(m
illio
n c
ub
ic f
t)Production:
Pole & Crossties
Disposal:Pole & Crossties
Amount of As Currently In Service
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
19
60
19
70
19
80
19
90
20
00
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
Year
Cu
mu
lati
ve
As
(to
ns
)
Imported(or sold in FL)
Disposed
NetIn-Service
1,800 tons
28,600 tons
Net26,800 tons
Florida Statistics
28,600 tons of As, Cumulative
1600 tons Asimported per year In-service losses (10%):
2900 tons
Disposed to date:1600 tons
Future disposal(for that imported through 2000):
24,100 tons
U.S. Southern Pine Markets (From SFPA)
36%
8% 15%
18%
10%
Outdoor Decks, 36%
Marine, 18%Landscape,
15%
Highw ay, 10%
Fences, 8%
Other, 7%
From SFPA
Florida Use Statistics
FocusUtility PolesDocks (Marine & Freshwater)
Utility Poles
CCA-Treated Utility Poles In Florida (1961-2000)
Purchased Disposed In-Service
Units
Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2 Million ft3 26.1 21.6 0.7 0.5 25.4 21.1 Tons, As 1720 1430 43 36 1680 1390
Method 1 Method 2 % Arsenic within Utility Poles Versus Arsenic in All Treated Wood Products 6.3 5.2
Residential Docks
Evaluated data for 3 counties (Alachua, Dade and Leon)
Material distribution in Alachua County Docks
no CCA5%
other + CCA 5%
concrete + CCA5%
only unknown wood29%
only CCA57%
Predominantly Freshwater Docks
only CCA31%
unspecified mat'l14%
only unknown
wood55%
Material distribution in Leon County Docks
Predominantly Freshwater Docks
Material distribution in Dade County Docks
only CCA49%
only unknown wood11%
only concrete9%
CCA + all other15%
concrete + all other9%
no CCA7%
Predominantly Salt water Docks
Results
Units CCA-Treated Wood Used for Salt and Fresh
Water Applications
ft3 22 million tons, As 4,220 % Arsenic Uses for Marine and Salt Water Applications Versus Arsenic in All Treated Wood Products
16%
Conclusions
Majority of wood sold in the form of lumber & timbers
Disposal of lumber & timbers should peak by 2020
Disposal of utility poles not yet observed in significant quantities -- >Current pole recycling/reuse operations will not be likely able to handle the decommissioning of major lines
Conclusions (con’d)
Amount of arsenic currently in service due to CCA is 26,800 tons (estimated) This quantity can significantly impact water & soil
if not disposed properly.
Management plan needed to recover as much of the As as feasible.
Conclusions (con’d)Marine &
Freshwater Applications
16%
Outdoor Decks, Landscaping,
Fences, & Highway
Construction
Utility Poles5%
Alternative ChemicalTreated Wood Available for These Uses
79%
Task 1: Depletion During Service Life
Task 1: Depletion During Service Life
Methods
Literature Review Sample Soils Below CCA-Treated Decks Analyze Soil Samples
Task 1: Depletion During Service Life
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 (to confirm CCA retention)
Sample soils below CCA-Treated Decks
Gainesville Decks
Paynes Prairie
Foot Bridge at NW 34th St
Bivens Arm Park
Miami Decks
A.D. Barnes Park
Oleta River Park
Tropical Park
Tallahassee Decks
Lake Talquin
Tom Brown Park
Maclay Gardens
Sampling Grid
Soil Core
Stains, wood bore, &Sawdust
XRF Analysis by Robbins Manufacturing
Deck Retention LevelsSample Deck Age,yrs XRF Result,pcf StainsGainesville
BR 5 0.755 positiveBP 14 0.477 positivePP 15 0.206 positive
MiamiAD 9 0.261 positiveTP 6 0.206 positiveOP 14 (0.005-0.54) positive
TallahasseeMG 4 0.412 positiveLT 19 0.008 negativeTB 2 0.247 positive
Grain Size Analysis
Sample ID Avg. Grain size (mm)
GainesvilleBR 0.343BP 0.387PP 0.370
MiamiAD 0.339TP 0.284OP 0.293
TallahasseeMG 0.387LT 0.393TB 0.390
Volatiles vs. As concentration
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average % Volatile
Ave
rag
e A
s co
nc.
TP
OP
LT
MG
TB
AD BP
PP
BR
Percent volatile vs. As conc
Bivens Arm Park, Gainesville
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 C01 C02 C03 C04 C05 C06 C07 C08
As
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/kg
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% V
ola
tile
As
% Volatile
Deck Soils Control Soils
Metal Concentrations in Soil Under Sampled Decks
Arsenic Concentrations in Soil Under Sampled Decks
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.
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 >90% of soil samples were less than 3.7 mg/kg
Table II.2: Arsenic Results for Surface Soils
Surface Soil Samples Collected Below Decks (all analyses above detection limit)
Controls (above detection
limit)
Controls (BDL1 = 0)
Location N
Average (mg/kg)
Std. Dev. (mg/kg)
Max. (mg/kg)
Min. (mg/kg)
N Average (mg/kg)
N Average (mg/kg)
Gainesville BP 8 41.6 22.8 87.9 15.6 8 2.61 8 2.61 BR 9 10.7 9.15 33.2 4.05 5 0.46 9 0.26 PP 8 9.56 4.50 18.1 3.54 4 1.03 8 0.52 total samples 25 20.2 20.2 87.9 3.54 17 1.61 25 1.09 Tallahassee TB 8 17.2 7.72 31.0 8.59 8 2.31 8 2.31 MG 8 34.0 13.7 48.8 5.09 8 1.42 8 1.42 LT 8 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.25 8 0.47 8 0.47 total samples2 16 25.6 13.8 48.8 5.09 16 1.86 16 1.86 Miami AD 8 33.9 20.7 81.2 15.5 8 1.98 8 1.98 TP 8 4.30 2.32 7.47 1.18 8 1.13 8 1.13 OP 8 79.1 60.7 217 31.7 8 0.66 8 0.66 total samples 24 39.1 47.3 217 1.18 24 1.26 24 1.26 All Sites2 65 28.5 32.8 217 1.18 57 1.53 65 1.34
1BDL=Below Detection Limit. Detection limit is 0.25 mg/kg based on sample dry mass of 2.0 g 2Does not include results from Lake Talquin, LT, deck
Figure II.1: Comparison of Mean Deck Arsenic Soil Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
BP BR PP LT TB MG AD TP OP
Ars
en
ic C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(m
g/k
g)
Control Under Deck
Gainesville MiamiTallahassee
Figure II.3: Comparison of Mean Deck Soil Chromium Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BP BR PP LT TB MG AD TP OP
Ch
rom
ium
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/kg
)
Control Under Deck
Gainesville MiamiTallahassee
Figure II.5: Comparison of Mean Deck Soil Copper Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BP BR PP LT TB MG AD TP OP
Co
pp
er
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(m
g/k
g)
Control Under Deck
Gainesville MiamiTallahassee
Figure II.10: Average of Soil Cores (As only)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Arsenic Concentration (mg/kg)
Figure II.11: Log of Arsenic Concentrations
0
1
10
100
1000
Lo
g (
Ars
enic
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/kg
))
LT
Residential
Industiral
Leaching
Average
TB
MG
BP
BR
PP
TP
OP
AD
Residential
Industrial
Average
Leaching
Areal Extent of Potential Impact
An estimate of the area of soil impacted by CCA-treated decks was performed (see page 28).
Approximate 25,000 acres of Florida land covered by CCA-treated decks (39 square miles).
Top 8 inches of this area would correspond to 60 million tons of soil.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
% Leaching
Soi
l As
Con
cen
trat
ion
(m
g/k
g)
2 inch 4 inch
8 inch
12 inch
Potential Soil Arsenic Concentrations Under Decks
Questions?
Draft of Final Report
Available at www.ccaresearch.org
Comments to be accepted through January 21, 2001
Questions?