Supplemental study for year 3
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 81

Supplemental Study for Year 3 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 77 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

Supplemental Study for Year 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Supplemental study for year 3

Supplemental Study for Year 3

Project Completed


Reason for supplemental study

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

Tasks Assoc. with Supplemental Funds

  • 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)

In-Service Issues

Disposal

Literature Review


Task 5 tclp and splp tests on unburned cca treated wood

Task 5:TCLP and SPLP Tests on Unburned CCA-Treated Wood


Cca treated wood and mulch leaching tests

CCA-Treated Wood and Mulch Leaching Tests


Leaching tests on unburned cca treated wood in year 3 supplemental project

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

Leaching of newCCA-treated wood using standardized regulatory leaching tests


Types of 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

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

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


How are tclp and splp tests applied

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

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

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

Figure IV.3: SPLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from Saw Dust


Figure iv 6 splp extraction results for as cu and cr from 1 100 g block

Figure IV.6: SPLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from 1, 100-g Block


Figure iv 7 tclp extraction results for as cu and cr from sawdust

Figure IV.7: TCLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from Sawdust


Figure iv 10 tclp extraction results for as cu and cr from 100 g block

Figure IV.10: TCLP Extraction Results for As, Cu, and Cr from 100-g Block


Figure iv 11 arsenic concentration in extracts from tclp splp eptox and wet

Figure IV.11: Arsenic Concentration in Extracts from TCLP, SPLP, EPTOX, and WET


Figure iv 14 mep test results for arsenic copper and chromium using 3 20 g blocks

Figure IV.14: MEP Test Results for Arsenic, Copper, and Chromium Using 3 20-g Blocks


Implications of leaching tests

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

What About Reuse Outside the Landfill (wood mulch)?


Supplemental study for year 3

Mulch Bagging Operation


Leaching from land applied mulch

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

Table IV.7: Samples Exceeding the GWCTL


Implications for mulch

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

Questions?


Task 2 major use sectors

Task 2: Major Use Sectors


Objectives

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

Production and Disposal By Product Type (Florida)


Production and disposal by product type florida1

Production and Disposal By Product Type (Florida)


Amount of as currently in service

Amount of As Currently In Service

FloridaStatistics


Supplemental study for year 3

28,600 tons of As, Cumulative

1600 tons As

imported

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

U.S. Southern Pine Markets

From SFPA

(From SFPA)

10%

36%

18%

8%

15%


Florida use statistics

Florida Use Statistics

  • Focus

    • Utility Poles

    • Docks (Marine & Freshwater)


Supplemental study for year 3

Utility Poles


Residential docks

Residential Docks

  • Evaluated data for 3 counties (Alachua, Dade and Leon)


Material distribution in alachua county docks

Material distribution in Alachua County Docks

Predominantly Freshwater Docks


Material distribution in leon county docks

Material distribution in Leon County Docks

Predominantly Freshwater Docks


Material distribution in dade county docks

Material distribution in Dade County Docks

Predominantly Salt water Docks


Results

Results


Conclusions

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

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 d1

Conclusions (con’d)


Task 1 depletion during service life

Task 1: Depletion During Service Life


Task 1 depletion during service life1

Task 1: Depletion During Service Life

Methods

  • Literature Review

  • Sample Soils Below CCA-Treated Decks

  • Analyze Soil Samples


Task 1 depletion during service life2

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 (to confirm CCA retention)


Gainesville decks

Paynes Prairie

Gainesville Decks

Foot Bridge at NW 34th St

Bivens Arm Park


Miami decks

Miami Decks

A.D. Barnes Park

Oleta River Park

Tropical Park


Tallahassee decks

Tallahassee Decks

Maclay Gardens

Lake Talquin

Tom Brown Park


Sampling grid

Sampling Grid


Soil core

Soil Core


Stains wood bore sawdust

Stains, wood bore, &Sawdust

XRF Analysis by

Robbins Manufacturing


Deck retention levels

Deck Retention Levels


Grain size analysis

Grain Size Analysis


Volatiles vs as concentration

Volatiles vs. As concentration


Percent volatile vs as conc

Percent volatile vs. As conc


Metal concentrations in soil under sampled decks

Metal Concentrations in Soil Under Sampled Decks


Arsenic concentrations in soil under sampled decks

Arsenic Concentrations in Soil Under Sampled Decks


Background information

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 information1

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

Table II.2: Arsenic Results for Surface Soils

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

Figure II.1: Comparison of Mean Deck Arsenic Soil Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


Figure ii 3 comparison of mean deck soil chromium concentration versus control soil concentrations

Figure II.3: Comparison of Mean Deck Soil Chromium Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


Figure ii 5 comparison of mean deck soil copper concentration versus control soil concentrations

Figure II.5: Comparison of Mean Deck Soil Copper Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


Figure ii 10 average of soil cores as only

Figure II.10: Average of Soil Cores(As only)


Figure ii 11 log of arsenic concentrations

Figure II.11: Log of Arsenic Concentrations


Areal extent of potential impact

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.


Supplemental study for year 3

Potential Soil Arsenic Concentrations Under Decks


Questions1

Questions?


Draft of final report

Draft of Final Report

  • Available at www.ccaresearch.org

  • Comments to be accepted through January 21, 2001


Questions2

Questions?


  • Login