|
A UK analysis
of treated wood waste streams found that the ‘Best Practicable
Environmental Option’ is reuse, findings that are consistent
with the principals of the waste hierarchy employed both in the
UK and Australia. (Not producing the waste in the first place, is
of course preferable.) However, the researchers did note that reuse
markets for wood waste are limited and the value of the waste is
low. Additionally, the quality of the wood waste and the risk of
contamination were also cited as barriers to this option (Enviros
Consulting et al, 2004). Similar research from the US found that
up to 86 percent of CCA-treated timber from residential decks could
be recovered for reuse (Smith et al, 2004). Yet in practice it has
been found that parks and recreation facilities, in Florida at least,
are concerned about the structural integrity of used CCA-treated
timber, and prefer not to use it (Solo-Gabriele et al, 2000).
However,
whilst reuse may deal with the waste disposal problem, it can exacerbate
the health and environmental problems associated with the use of
CCA-treated timber because it prolongs that use. In Florida, waste
CCA-treated timber was prohibited from co-generation plants because
of the resulting heavy metals in the ash but the waste was then
diverted to mulch production, raising the risk to soil and groundwater
through leaching (Solo-Gabriele, et al, 2001). Leachate from mulch
manufactured from construction and demolition waste, which often
contains waste CCA-treated timber failed water quality standards
set by the US EPA (Townsend et al, 2001). And although the CSIRO
highlights the potential use of CCA-treated timber as garden edging
and fence posts, it warns against use of CCA-treated products being
reused in mulch, animal bedding, beehives’ as well as food
chopping boards and boxes used to store or transport food (CSIRO,
2002).
Researchers
at Michigan State University have investigated the use of CCA-treated
timber fibres in wood-cement particle composites. The resulting
composite was found to have comparable strength to normal concrete
and to withstand strains at peak load that are ten fold greater
than normal concrete. This led the researchers to propose this material
for use in energy dissipation applications (Gong et al, 2004).
USDA Forest
Products researchers have found that oxalic acid extraction and
bioleaching with a metal-tolerant bacterium can successfully remove
up to 78 percent of copper, 97 percent of arsenic and all chromium
from CCA-treated pine, which can then be recovered for reuse or
disposal. It is noted that this remediation is currently ‘cost
prohibitive’, but could become financially viable if landfill
restrictions are imposed (Clausen and Kenealy, 2004).
Researchers
from the USDA Forest Service have developed a metal-tolerant wood
decay fungi to degrade waste CCA-treated timber (Illman et al, 2004).
This reduces the volume of waste rather than reusing it.

References:
Clausen,
C. and Kenealy, W., (2004), ‘Scaled-Up Remediation Of CCA-Treated
Wood’, Topic 1: Release of Preservatives into the Environment,
Conference Paper from Environmental Impacts Of Preservative-Treated
Wood Conference, February 8-11, Orlando, Florida.
CSIRO
(2002), ‘CCA Facts’, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation website, http://www.ffp.csiro.au/wft/wpc/ccafact1.html
(accessed 11/11/04).
Enviros
Consulting and The BioComposites Centre, University of Wales (2004),
Treated Wood Waste: Assessment of the Waste Management Challenge,
The Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), UK.
Gong,
A., Kamdem, D., and Harichandran, R. (2004), ‘Compression
Tests On Wood-Cement Particle Composites Made Of CCA-Treated Wood
Removed From Service’, Environmental Impacts Of Preservative-Treated
Wood Conference, February 8-11, 2004, Orlando, Florida.
Illman,
B. and Yang, V. (2004), ‘Bioremediation And Degradation
Of CCA-Treated Wood Waste’, Environmental Impacts Of Preservative-Treated
Wood Conference, February 8-11, 2004, Orlando, Florida.
Smith,
B., Bailey, D., Araman, P. (2004), ‘Characterizing Properties
And Products Of Spent CCA From Residential Decks’, Poster
From The Environmental Impacts Of Preservative-Treated Wood Conference,
February 8-11, 2004, Orlando, Florida.
Solo-Gabriele,
H., Hosein, N., Jacobi, G., Townsend, T., Jambeck, J., Hahn, D.,
Moskal, T., Iida, K. (2001), ‘On-Line Sorting Technologies
for CCA-Treated Wood’, Draft Submitted on September 30,
for Sarasota County for Submission to the FDEP Innovative Recycling
Grants Program.
Solo-Gabriele,
H., Kormienko, M., Gary, K., Townsend, T., Tolaymat, T. (2000),
Alternative Chemicals and Improved Disposal-End Management
Practices for CCA-treated Wood, Florida Center For Solid
And Hazardous Waste Management, Florida.
Townsend,
T., Stook, K., Tolaymat, T., Song, J., Solo-Gabriele, H., Hosein,
N., and Khan, B. (2001), New Lines of CCA-Treated Wood Research:
In-Service and Disposal Issues, Florida Center For Solid
And Hazardous Waste Management, Florida.

|