Minutes of the Technical Advisory Group Meeting Held March 17, 2000
Held at the University of Florida, Reitz Union, Room 349
Kevin Archer, Chemical Specialties Inc., Charlotte, NC
Allison Barnes, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
David Bullock, Wood Protection Products, Charlotte, NC
Diana Davis, Florida Power and Light, Juno Beach, FL
David Dee, Landers & Parsons, Tallahassee, FL
Dottie Delfino, Univ. FL Florida Center for Solid and Haz. Waste Mgt., Gainesville, FL
Rick Donaldson, Great Southern Wood Preserving, Bushnell, FL
Keith Drescher, Florida Power and Light, West Palm Beach, FL
Kelvin Gary, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Alex Green, University of Florida - Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Gainesville, FL
Bob Gruber, Hickson Corp., Smyrna, GA
Tim Hannon, Pride of Florida, Starke, FL
Jim Healey, Koppers Industries, Gainesville, FL
Scott Hiaasen, Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, FL
Jim Hickman, Langdale Forest Products, Valdosta, GA
Naila Hosein, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Jake Huffman, University of Florida - School of Forest Resources, Gainesville, FL
Gary Hurst, Robbins Manufacturing, Tampa, FL
Russel Ketchem, Florida Power and Light, West Palm Beach, FL
Kim Kochran, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Monika Kormienko, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
William Krumbholz, Ft. Myers, FL
Lena Ma, University of Florida - Soil and Water Science, Gainesville, FL
Dave Mason, FL Dept. of Environ. Protection, Tallahassee, FL
Ron Matus, Gainesville Sun, Gainesville, FL
Jerry McMullan, Florida Power and Light, West Palm Beach, FL
John Mousa, Alachua County Environ. Protection, Gainesville, FL
Kevin O'Donnell, Florida Power and Light, West Palm Beach, FL
Don Pardue, Wood Treaters, Jacksonville, FL
Michael Provenza, Robbins Manufacturing, Tampa, FL
Scott Ramminger, American Wood Preservers Inst., Fairfax, VA
Dan Rawson, Florida Power and Light, West Palm Beach, FL
Bill Robbins, Robbins Manufacturing, Tampa, FL
Jay Robbins, Robbins Manufacturing, Tampa, FL
Rhonda Rogers, Univ. FL Florida Center for Solid and Haz. Waste Mgt., Gainesville, FL
Steve Rountree, Southeastern Lumber, Forest Park, GA
Roger Sanders, Florida Power and Light, West Melbourne, FL
John Schert, Univ. Florida Florida Center for Solid and Haz. Waste Mgt., Gainesville, FL
Robert A. Schmidt, University of Florida - School of Forest Resources, Gainesville, FL
Jim Seufert, Universal Forest Products, Grand Rapids, MI
Helena Solo-Gabriele, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Jin Kun Song, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Gus Staats, Osmose Wood Preserving Division, Griffin, GA
Kristin Stook, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Don Surrency, Koppers Industries, Gainesville, FL
Thabet Tolaymat, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Tim Townsend, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Yongchul Yang, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Edward Zillioux, Florida Power and Light, Juno Beach, FL
The meeting began at 10:05 am.
Helena Solo-Gabriele welcomed all the attendees to the meeting. Attendees
introduced themselves by stating their name and affiliation. John Schert
described the initiatives of the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management. Helena Solo-Gabriele reviewed the agenda.
2. Motivation and History of Research Project
Helena Solo-Gabriele described the history of the project. The project was initiated several years ago due to elevated metals concentrations observed in the ash from wood cogeneration plants. The metal of primary concern within the State of Florida is arsenic. Florida possesses very low natural background concentrations, less than 1 mg/kg of arsenic on average. Arsenic is also the most toxic metal to humans within CCA. The quantities of arsenic disposed with CCA-treated wood are projected to increase significantly in the near future. Currently approximately 77 tons of arsenic are disposed per year. By the year 2015, roughly 660 tons of arsenic will be disposed per year. Through the year 2000, the cumulative amount of arsenic imported into the state associated with CCA manufacture has been 30,000 tons. These 30,000 tons are equivalent to an increase of approximately 4 mg/kg if the arsenic were assumed to impact the upper 1 inch of Florida soils.
The year 1 portion of the research project focused on developing an
inventory for CCA-treated wood within the State of Florida. The inventory
included a disposal forecast for CCA-treated wood and focused on indentifying
disposal reservoirs for the wood waste. During 1996 most of the discarded
CCA-treated wood was processed through construction and demolition (C&D)
facilities. It was found that the recycled wood waste from these facilities
consisted of 6% CCA-treated wood on average. The primary market for this
wood waste during 1996 was as wood fuel; however, since 1996 the wood cogeneration
plants have become more stringent concerning the types of wood waste accepted
and the market appears to be shifting toward mulch. Given this situation,
the focus of the year 2 study was to develop tools for better managing
CCA-treated wood within the waste stream. Leaching characteristics of wood
ash were evaluated as well as methods for sorting CCA-treated wood from
other wood types. The leaching study included TCLP and SPLP tests as well
as extractions using other chemicals. TCLP tests showed that CCA-treated
wood ash will likely be classified as a hazardous waste, even when CCA-treated
wood represents less than 5% of the mixture. Results from the solvent extraction
study indicate that citric acid is a very promising solvent for ash treatment
purposes, capable of extracting between 40% and 60% of the arsenic. Sorting
technologies evaluated included the use of chemical stains and x-ray fluorescence.
Both technologies performed well in the laboratory. The research tasks
for the year 3 and year 3 supplemental study were briefly described.
Bob Gruber: If the assumption were to apply arsenic to the upper 6 to 10 inches of Florida soil rather than the upper 1 inch, the concentration of arsenic in the soil would increase by a smaller value. Is arsenic of concern due to its importation or disposal? How will the alternatives be ultimately disposed given that they contain copper? Should the copper be burned and ultimately land applied?
Response: The focus of this study was on disposal issues associated
with CCA-treated wood. Importation of arsenic into the State of Florida
results in its ultimate disposal within the State. The focus of the research
on alternative chemicals was to identify whether non-arsenical alternatives
exist to CCA-treated wood. We do not promote that it should be burned and
land applied. More research is needed before suitable disposal options
are identified for the alternatives. The use of an alternative chemical
for treating wood results in the substitution of a more toxic metal with
a less toxic one.
Ed Zillioux: It was mentioned that a wood mixture containing less than 1% CCA-treated wood would fail regulatory criteria for land application. Did this refer to the ash or to the unburned wood?
Response: In the context of the presentation it referred to the
ash; however, the same holds true for the unburned wood. CCA-treated wood
should not be present in even minute quantities if wood ash or unburned
wood were to be land applied.
3. Supplemental Study for Year 3 and Related Research - Soil
Helena Solo-Gabriele described the tasks associated with the supplemental
study. These tasks include: 1) in service issues including the depletion
of Cr, Cu, and As during the service life of CCA-treated wood (task 1)
and the quantity of CCA-treated wood used by major industries (task 2),
2) appropriate disposal options for CCA-treated wood waste as determine
through TCLP and SPLP tests on unburned wood (task 5), and 3) a literature
review for new lines of research (tasks 3 and 4). Naila Hosein mentioned
that during task 2 major wood use sectors will be indentified for three
counties in Florida. Results from these three counties will be used to
extrapolate use categories for the rest of the state. Methods for the soil
sampling associated with task 1 were also described. Tim Townsend presented
background information concerning the FDEP soil clean-up target levels
(SCTL). For arsenic, the residential SCTL is 0.8 mg/kg and the industrial
SCTL is 3.7 mg/kg. The natural background concentrations of arsenic within
the State was determined by Ma et al. 1999 to be 0.42 mg/kg (geometric
mean). 73% of the soil samples tested by Ma et al. 1999 were less
than 0.8 mg/kg whereas over 90% were less than 3.7 mg/kg. Results from
sampling soils beneath CCA-treated decks show that the average arsenic
concentrations in soils beneath CCA-treated decks is 25 mg/kg whereas the
average arsenic concentrations in the background control samples was 1.4
mg/kg. The maximum soil arsenic concentration found below the CCA-treated
decks was 220 mg/kg. Remaining work on the study includes analysis of copper
and chromium, analysis of the soil cores, statistical and trend analysis,
and potentially some soil leaching tests. A preliminary evaluation of the
copper and chromium data indicates a correlation with arsenic.
John Schert: Why was such a large range observed in soil arsenic concentrations for the Oleta River Park site? Is the research team certain that the Lake Talquin deck was CCA treated?
Response: The data are currently being analyzed to determine
why values were high or low. Another visit will be made to the Lake Talquin
deck to determine whether or not it is in fact CCA treated.
Bob Gruber: The residential level of 0.8 mg/kg is lower than 28% of Florida's soils. Does this mean that 28% of the population is at risk?
John Schert: The arsenic concentrations of soils depends upon the soil type. In general soils in wetland areas are elevated in arsenic.
Lena Ma: In general soils containing a high organic content are elevated in natural arsenic levels. Rather than looking at a particular number, the concentrations should be viewed in a broader perspective.
Bob Gruber: The 0.8 mg/kg residential level appears to be very low.
Response: Florida is not the only state with low residential
levels. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends a value of 0.4 mg/kg.
Most of our soil samples were greater than 5 mg/kg. Eight of the nine sites
Tim Hannon: Were the soils analyzed for chromium?
Scott Ramminger: Were the results consistent with the results from the Stilwell study?
Response: Yes, the results were consistent; however, Stilwell
found a few samples with very high concentrations.
John Schert: Was the Cooper study conducted on decks?
Response: It was conducted on CCA-treated utility poles.
Tim Hannon: Was the age of the decks determined and were potential wear problems identified?
Response: The age of the decks was compiled and other pertinent
information was gathered where available. This data will be included in
the final report.
Don Surrency: Were construction techniques documented?
Response: Some of the decks were likely sawn at cut stations
away from the location where the decks were installed.
Bob Gruber: The average values of all the controls was 1.4 mg/kg for all sites, which is higher than the 0.8 mg/kg residential level.
Lena Ma: The averages reported were arithmetic means rather than
geometric means. The arithmetic mean of soil arsenic concentrations in
Florida is larger than 1 but the geometric mean is less than 1 mg/kg.
3 (continued). Supplemental Study for Year 3 and Related Research - Leaching Tests and Related
Tim Townsend presented the relevant data corresponding to the year 3 supplemental leaching studies and complimentary research on construction and demolition waste. The title of the presentation was, "Issues Regarding the Leaching of Unburned Wood." Leaching studies were conducted on unburned CCA-treated wood. Tim Townsend described situations during which leaching is of concern, he described the types of leaching tests, and listed the applicable regulatory criteria for arsenic. The results from the TCLP test , which simulates landfill conditions, shows that arsenic leaching is a function of wood sample size. In general the smaller the sample the more arsenic leached per unit weight of sample. Data showed that unburned CCA-treated wood will fail TCLP criteria on occasion. Of the nine samples tested, six failed the TCLP criteria for arsenic. The results from SPLP tests, which simulates rainfall, shows that samples of CCA-treated wood will also exceed the 5 mg/L regulatory criteria for arsenic. Of the nine samples tested, five exceeded the arsenic SPLP limit. The leachates from artificial mulches subjected to SPLP tests is greater than the groundwater soil clean-up target levels (GWCTL) for arsenic when treated wood represents greater than 1% of the wood mixture. SPLP tests were also conducted on recycled mulch collected from C&D facilities and from garden supply stores. Results of leaching tests conducted on this mulch show that the majority (51 out of 58 samples) exceed the GWCTL for arsenic.
Related research indicated that CCA may leach from treated wood under landfill conditions. Two experiments were conducted: one using laboratory columns and another using field test cells filled with C&D waste. Results from column tests show that arsenic and chromium leaching is a function of time and that the concentrations vary from 400 to 1 ug/l. Data collected from field C&D test cells support the hypothesis that the primary source of leachable chromium and arsenic from these cells is CCA-treated wood. A correlation was found between chromium and arsenic concentrations within the leachate from these test cells.
In summary, it does not take very much arsenic to leach to result in
disposal limitations under current waste management policies and regulations.
To fail TCLP only 6% of the arsenic must leach. If 0.06% of the arsenic
leaches the sample will fail the GWCTL for arsenic. Future work will include:
1) examining the leaching of weathered wood, 2) further simulation of CCA-treated
wood impacts on C&D debris landfills, 3) evaluation of C&D landfill
data, 4) metal speciation studies, and 5) leaching tests of alternative-chemical
Rick Donaldson: How big is a 100 gram samples of wood?
Response: It's about a 2 to 3 inch
long piece of a 2 x 4.
Bob Gruber: Were the samples used for the leaching tests whole or ground?
Bob Gruber: For the sample shown it indicates that CCA-treated wood is below the TCLP limit.
Response: Yes, for this particular
sample. Sometimes CCA-treated wood fails and sometimes it passes TCLP.
John Schert: If the drinking water standard for arsenic falls to 10 ug/l, would any mulch sample pass the standard?
Response: At 10 ug/L, none of the
mulch samples would pass.
Kevin O'Donnell: What is the detection limit of the arsenic analytical procedure?
Response: 5 - 10 ug/L.
Kevin O'Donnell: Then the future
standard could be potentially near the detection limit of the analysis.
Keith Drescher: Were the mulch samples ground prior to conducting TCLP? If not, the sample may have not met the particle size criteria for TCLP.
Response: No, the samples were not
Bob Gruber: Are there laws or regulations that prevents C&D facilities from putting CCA-treated wood in mulch?
Bill Krumbholz: If a facility is
caught, they will be told that such a practice is unacceptable.
John Schert: Why can CCA-treated wood be placed in a landfill?
Lena Ma: What is the rational for excluding CCA-treated wood from being classified as a hazardous waste?
Bob Gruber: Many exemptions have been provided to different wastes.
Gus Staats: Studies conducted during the registration of CCA found that CCA-treated wood was better in the long run than cutting down forests.
Response: In summary, the EPA group
that made this decision would be the individuals to answer this question.
Kevin O'Donnell: Copper is more toxic in the marine environment.
Response: The metals concentrations from wood utilized in the aquatic environment are generally very low due to dilution effects. Also, work conducted by Ken Brooks found that there are other larger sources of copper. His work has found in general that CCA-treated wood and its alternatives are below toxic levels when utilized in aquatic environments.
Kevin O'Donnell: Perhaps evaluating the impacts of organisms that live below decks would be worthwhile.
Response: There has been a paper
published that measured arsenic levels in earthworms found below CCA-treated
decks. The arsenic concentrations in the earthworms were elevated.
John Schert: Was the research team surprised to find elevated metals concentrations in soils below CCA-treated decks?
Response: No, especially given the
results of the Stilwell study.
Bob Gruber: Is the residential level for arsenic risk based and computed from quantitative information?
David Dee: The residential level
for arsenic has been peer reviewed and it is subject to a considerable
amount of scientific debate. The value quoted is the best that can be done
given the limited amount of information. Currently the Florida DEP is sponsoring
a research project by which monkeys are being dosed with arsenic to determine
the % uptake. Right now the residential level is conservatively based upon
100% uptake. The residential standard is based upon a cancer risk of 1
in a million.
Bob Gruber: The residential level is very low.
Ed Zillioux: Other states have lower risk based values for arsenic.
Comment: In Canada the residential
value is 300 mg/kg.
Scott Ramminger: The applicability of the 0.8 mg/kg standard should come into question. It was developed as a soil clean-up number for brownfields
David Dee: It is currently proposed as a state-wide standard.
Diana Davis: The proposed legislation applies to discharges, and CCA-treated wood may not apply.
Comment: Soil clean-up target levels
are not standard. The 0.8 mg/kg value is considered a conservative value
and it should be used for screening purposes.
3. (continued). Current Research Activities: Original Year 3 Study - Presentation on Alternative
The objectives for year 3 focus on evaluating
alternative chemicals (phase I) and on developing disposal management strategies
(phase II). Alternative chemicals are considered to represent a potential
long-term solution to the disposal problem associated with CCA-treated
wood. Disposal-end management strategies are needed to handle the disposal
of CCA-treated wood in the short-term. Disposal-end management strategies
are separated into three tasks: field demonstration of sorting technologies,
evaluation of pyrolysis technology, and developing a resource book for
the wood disposal sector. Chemicals considered for phase I include those
that contain no arsenic, have been used commercially to some extent, have
been standardized by the American Wood Preservers' Association (AWPA),
and are waterborne preservatives. Seven chemicals have been found that
meet these criteria: AAC, ACC, ACQ, Borates, CBA, CC, and CDDC. Methods
for evaluating these alternatives include contacting manufacturers, reviewing
AWPA standards, and sending questionnaires to large-end users and wood
treaters concerning perceived advantages and disadvantages in the use of
alternative chemicals. Four of the most promising alternatives, ACQ, CBA,
CC, and CDDC, were evaluated further. Kelvin Gary provided a review concerning
efficacy, depletion/leaching, corrosion, mechanical properties, costs,
and responses to the questionnaires mailed to wood treaters and large end-users.
Overall, the efficacy of the four alternatives were comparable to that
of CCA for the retention levels tested (0.25 and 0.40 pcf). The percent
copper depletion for ACQ, CBA, and CDDC were comparable to that of CCA.
ACQ- and CC-treated wood were more corrosive to metal fastener systems.
The mechanical properties of the alternative-chemical treated wood products
were comparable to that of CCA-treated wood. Retail costs of ACQ- and CDDC-treated
wood were 10 to 30% higher than that of CCA-treated wood. Responses were
received from 5 of 6 utilities sent questionnaires concerning alternative
chemicals. Four of the 5 utilities purchase treated wood. Two utilities
responded that factors considered which purchasing treated wood were longevity,
cost, useability, environmental issues, and conformance to industry standards.
Two of 2 retail establishments responded to the questionnaire. Factors
considered by both retail establishments when treated wood is purchased
include: grade-marked wood, distribution to stores, warranty, and price.
Of the 22 wood treatment plants that responded to the questionnaire, 15
indicated that the following would prohibit their facility from changing
from CCA to an alternative: cost effectiveness of the alternative, quality
of alternative versus CCA, market requests, safety and warranty, and necessary
process changes needed for conversion. In summary, the efficacy of alternative-chemical
treated wood is comparable to that of CCA-treated wood for the retention
levels tested (0.25 pcf and 0.40 pcf). From a depletion point of view,
none of the alternatives leach arsenic and % copper leaching rates are
similar to that of CCA. ACQ and CDDC concentrates are generally more corrosive
to treatment plant equipment. ACQ- and CC-treated wood is generally more
corrosive to metal fastener systems. Results show that there are four promising
alternative chemicals for CCA for 0.25 pcf and 0.40 pcf retention levels.
These retentions represent 60% of the CCA-treated wood volume and 20% of
the CCA chemical. Recommendations include evaluating the potential impacts
of copper on aquatic environments, evaluating the environmental impacts
of co-biocides, and developing a life cycle analysis for CCA-treated wood
and its alternatives.
Kevin O'Donnell: Why is there a negative value on the chromium depletion data? Does this imply that chromium concentrations increased over time?
Response: The chromium data is likely in error; probably due to errors in determinating the initial concentration of the CCA control. The error in the chromium also calls into question errors in the measurement of the other metals.
Bill Robbins: Is the bulk of the CCA-treated wood at C&D facilities residential, especially since about 60% of the CCA-treated wood in Florida is treated at 0.25 or 0.40 pcf?
Response: At C&D facilities,
one would observe commercial waste and potentially some industrial. However,
for large industries, such as for utilities, the waste would be likely
handled outside the C&D facility.
3 (continued). Disposal-end Management, Phase II, Field Study for Chemical Stain and Pyrolysis
Monika Kormienko summarized the results from the pilot studies at C&D facilities. Three chemical stains were evaluated: chrome azurol, rubeanic acid, and PAN indicator. The objectives of the field studies were to determine whether the chemical stains could be used at C&D facilities to sort CCA-treated wood from other wood types. Three C&D pilot studies have been conducted. For the construction piles evaluated, most of the CCA-treated wood was in the form of cut-offs. Most of the treated wood in the demolition pile analyzed was dimensional lumber. The three sites visited contained pre-sorted wood waste piles. The amount of CCA-treated wood in these piles was 9%, 10%, and 30% by weight for these facilities. The performance of the stains was discussed. PAN indicator was the quickest chemical to react; however it was subject more interferences than chrome azurol. Interferences were noted with paint and nails. The costs associated with the use of chemical stains and x-ray fluorescence technology were presented. For x-ray fluorescence technology, the cost per ton of waste sorted is dependent upon the size of the C&D facility. For the three facilities that were visited, the estimated costs ranged from $2.50 to $9.25 per ton. The cost for using the chemical stains for sorting treated from untreated wood is higher at $25 per ton. Practical applications of the stains include sorting small quantities of treated wood from other wood types and screening fuel quality. The costs for sorting wood waste by either x-ray methods or chemical stains are less than landfill tipping fees.
The literature review on pyrolysis processes focused on evaluating published
data on metals volatilization rates and on identifying full-scale systems
that have been used to test pyrolysis processes on CCA-treated wood. Review
of the published data on arsenic volatilization rates indicates contradictory
information concerning the impacts of temperature on arsenic volatilization
during pyrolysis processes. Two studies indicated that arsenic volatilization
increases with temperature and two indicated that it decreases with increases
in temperature. Reasons for this discrepancy may be due to differences
in wood species of the CCA-treated wood samples tested and differences
in experimental protocols. There are currently two known full-scale pyrolysis
systems in operation in Europe. One is located in France and called "Chartherm"
and the other is run through a copper smelter in Finland. Operational parameters
for each system were presented.
Bob Gruber: The laboratory data on pyrolysis appears to be conflicting. Do the commercial smelters indicate that arsenic volatilization increases or decreases with temperature?
Response: The copper smelter in
Finland utilizes extremely high temperatures and all of the arsenic is
volatilized and captured in the condensing gases.
Alex Greene: Pyrolysis is defined as heating without oxygen. During heating without oxygen, 98% of the copper and chromium are captured in the ash. Some of the arsenic is volatilized but this arsenic can be scrubbed from the gas. Since no air is introduced in a true pyrolysis process, only 20% of the gas volume would have to be scrubbed in a pyrolysis system. The studies presented are not true pyrolysis processes given that air was introduced into the systems. Gasification is defined as a process where the wood is indirectly heated and gasified.
Identification of CCA-treated wood can be accomplished using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy.
Response: The research team currently has a proposal submitted to the Florida DEP's Innovative Recycling Grants Program. The proposal includes an evaluation of both x-ray and laser techniques prior to choosing a detector for sorting treated from untreated wood. Concerning pyrolysis processes, would you anticipate that arsenic emissions increase or decrease with increasing temperatures?
Alex Greene: In true pyrolysis without
the introduction of oxygen, an increase in arsenic emissions would occur
with increasing temperature.
3 (continued). Disposal-end Management, Phase II, Resource book for
The rationale for developing the resource book was presented by Kristin Stook. The purpose of the resource book is to assist individuals who ultimately must dispose treated wood. Kristin Stook proceeded to describe the objectives and the intended audience for the resource book. The resource book was developed from a series of questionnaires send to waste management facilities and parks and recreation departments throughout Florida. The targeted waste management facilities included wood burning facilities, C&D facilities, and municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities. An overview of each questionnaire was provided. A total of 509 questionnaires were mailed and 106 responses were received. Among these 106, 75 requested more information concerning treated wood disposal. Results from C&D facilities indicated that tip fees were approximately the same for mixed versus separated loads of CCA-treated wood. Of the twelve MSW facilities that responded, three do not accept separated loads of treated wood but will accept mixed loads and one facility does not accept treated wood in mixed loads. Among the 6 MSW incinerator facilities that responded only one accepts separated loads of treated wood and one does not accept treated wood in mixed loads. Sixty-eight parks and recreational facilities responded. It was found that few would consider accepting treated wood for reuse.
A summary of the material included within
the resource book was presented. Basic information was included concerning
treated wood, oil-borne preservatives, and CCA. The focus of the resource
book was to provide information concerning the management of discarded
treated wood. Issues addressed in the resource book include: 1) why is
proper management important, 2) are discarded treated products a solid/hazardous
waste, 3) where homeowners can dispose of treated wood products, 4) where
treated wood can be disposed in Florida, 5) reuse and recycling options
for discarded treated wood, and 6) research on recycling options. The resource
book concludes with a list of web sites where additional information can
be found and a list of Florida solid waste management facilities.
Comment: Has the research team thought about how the resource book will be distributed?
Response: The resource book will likely be distributed in conjunction with pamphlets distributed by the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management.
Comment: Perhaps it would be beneficial to distribute the resource book along with solid waste bills?
Bill Krumbholz: The Ft. Myers section
of the FDEP would be interested in distributing the resource book to agencies
within its district.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 pm.
Agenda for TAG Meeting
Alternative Chemicals and Improved Disposal-end Management Practices for CCA-Treated Wood
Friday, March 17, 2000, 10:00am to 1:00 pm
University of Florida
1. Welcome and Introduction Solo-Gabriele/Schert
2. Brief History of Florida CCA Research
Supplemental Study for Year 3 & Related Research
- Leaching Studies, Unburned wood Townsend/Tolaymat/Stook
- Related Research , Lysimeters & Landfills
Original Year 3 Study
4. Discussion of draft of "year 3" report.
- FDEP Innovative Recycling Grants Program