Supplemental study for year 3
Download
1 / 81

Supplemental Study for Year 3 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Supplemental Study for Year 3 ' - minowa


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

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



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 new Supplemental ProjectCCA-treated wood using standardized regulatory leaching tests


Types of leaching tests
Types of Leaching Tests Supplemental Project

  • 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 Supplemental Project

  • 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 Supplemental Project

  • 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? Supplemental Project

  • 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 Supplemental Project

  • 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 Supplemental Project

  • 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.








Implications of leaching tests
Implications of Leaching Tests Chromium

  • 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).



Mulch Chromium Bagging Operation


Leaching from land applied mulch
Leaching from Land Applied Mulch Chromium

  • 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



Implications for mulch
Implications for Mulch Chromium

  • 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? Chromium


Task 2 major use sectors

Task 2: Chromium Major Use Sectors


Objectives
Objectives Chromium

  • 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)




Amount of as currently in service
Amount of As Currently In Service Chromium

FloridaStatistics


28,600 tons of As, Cumulative Chromium

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 Chromium

From SFPA

(From SFPA)

10%

36%

18%

8%

15%


Florida use statistics
Florida Use Statistics Chromium

  • Focus

    • Utility Poles

    • Docks (Marine & Freshwater)


Utility Poles Chromium


Residential docks
Residential Docks Chromium

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


Material distribution in alachua county docks
Material distribution in Alachua County Docks Chromium

Predominantly Freshwater Docks


Material distribution in leon county docks
Material distribution in Leon County Docks Chromium

Predominantly Freshwater Docks


Material distribution in dade county docks
Material distribution in Dade County Docks Chromium

Predominantly Salt water Docks


Results
Results Chromium


Conclusions
Conclusions Chromium

  • 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) Chromium

  • 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.



Task 1 depletion during service life

Task 1: Chromium Depletion During Service Life


Task 1 depletion during service life1
Task 1: Depletion During Service Life Chromium

Methods

  • Literature Review

  • Sample Soils Below CCA-Treated Decks

  • Analyze Soil Samples


Task 1 depletion during service life2
Task 1: Depletion During Service Life Chromium

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 Chromium

Gainesville Decks

Foot Bridge at NW 34th St

Bivens Arm Park


Miami decks
Miami Decks Chromium

A.D. Barnes Park

Oleta River Park

Tropical Park


Tallahassee decks
Tallahassee Decks Chromium

Maclay Gardens

Lake Talquin

Tom Brown Park


Sampling grid
Sampling Grid Chromium


Soil core
Soil Core Chromium


Stains wood bore sawdust
Stains, wood bore, & Chromium Sawdust

XRF Analysis by

Robbins Manufacturing








Background information
Background Information Chromium

  • 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 Chromium

  • 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 Chromium

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 Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations(As only)


Figure ii 11 log of arsenic concentrations
Figure II.11: Log of Arsenic Concentrations Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


Areal extent of potential impact
Areal Extent of Potential Impact Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations

  • 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.


Potential Soil Arsenic Concentrations Under Decks Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


Questions1
Questions? Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


Draft of final report
Draft of Final Report Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations

  • Available at www.ccaresearch.org

  • Comments to be accepted through January 21, 2001


Questions2
Questions? Concentration versus Control Soil Concentrations


ad