Spent CCA Treated Wood from Residential Decks can be a Resource for

Reuse and Recycling

Bob Smith, Dept. of Wood Science and Forest Products, Virginia Tech, Phil Araman,

USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, David Bailey, Pallet One Enterprises,

Matt Winn, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station

Abstract

The volume of CCA treated wood being disposed ofin landfills is growing at an alarming rate. In order toreduce the demand on landfills and timber harvest,more environmentally responsible alternatives forspent CCA treated wood have to be addressed. Theobjective of this study was to determine feasibleproducts that can be produced from CCA treatedwood.

Several products were produced from CCA treatedwood recovered from dismantled residential decks.The products chosen were practical to make and usedin residential and public applications. The productsmade were a picnic table, trellis, trash container,pallets, patio chair and table, sawhorses, a deck, deckcomponents, planter boxes, and a porch swing. Allproducts made required little training or carpentryskills, low monetary investment in tools andhardware, and required a low amount of time tocomplete. Therefore, the spent CCA treated wood isfeasible to be recycled by most landfills andrecycling organizations. Pallets produced fromrecycled CCA treated wood were tested and theirperformance found to be similar to pallets usinguntreated virgin wood. From interviews with MSWand C&D landfills, recycling centers, and potentialusers, there appears to be a communication barrierbetween the groups. Many landfills managers andrecyclers do not know of a market for the recycledCCA treated wood and do not feel they receive alarge volume to make CCA wood recyclingprofitable. The potential users were found to bewilling to use the recycled CCA treated wood, butdid not know where to get the material. Awarenessand partnerships are needed to recycle CCA treatedwood from residential decks.

Introduction

The volume of disposed CCA treated wood fromspent residential decks is enormous, and manyinvestigators have predicted the rate of disposal toincrease of the next several years, Recent estimatesof CCA decking materials being or predicted to bedisposed in landfills are between 1-5,000,000,000

board feet per year (Alderman, 2001 and McQueenand Stevens, 1998). The heavy burden of disposal isplaced primarily on municipal solid waste (MSW)and construction and demolition (C&D) landfills(Alderman, 2001 and McQueen and Stevens, 1998).The large volume of spent CCA treated woodreaching landfills has instigated several studies on theenvironmental and safety impacts of this material inlandfills (Townsend and Solo-Gabriele, 2000 andCooper, 1993). Most research has suggested thatalternative disposal practices need to be initiated inorder to mitigate the possible detrimental impact thatspent CCA treated wood disposed in landfills,especially unlined, will have on human health andenvironmental safety. If stricter disposal regulationsare enacted then higher tipping fees will mostly likelyfollow. In order to reduce the demand on landfillsand extend the useful life of CCA treated woodrecycling practices need to be developed for thismaterial.

Recycling is prevalent and successful in manyindustries. Metals, plastics, and several woodproducts have developed recycling programs thathave helped decrease the potential of governmentregulations, negative public opinions towards thedisposal, and increase social acceptance of thematerial. Wood recycling was 5% in 1997, but wasprojected to increase to 10% by 2000 (EPA, 1998).An increase in virgin wood prices and an increasedconsumer demand for recycled materials are mainreasons for the increase (Sherman-Huntoon, 2001).The recycling rate will increase as more regulationsare implemented and tipping fees are raised atlandfills.

R. Marutzky (1996) stated the followingpreconditions for successful recycling of wood waste:

The assortments are available continuously andin sufficient amounts

The quality of the assortment is in accordancewith the proposed recycling

The recycled wood products have a market

Urban Rural Interface Conference Proceedings

293

The recycling produces no new disposal

problems

Meeting these criteria is important for successfulrecycling of CCA treated wood waste, and theindustry has several barriers associated with theseconditions to overcome. Research has suggested thatthe building contractors are important factors inrecyclers receiving sufficient amounts of spent CCAtreated wood from residential decks. Alderman

(2001) suggested that in order to receive an adequatesupply of spent CCA treated wood for recyclers,marketing campaigns and financial incentives need tohe used to entice building contractors to bring in thematerial to be recycled. Also, the CCA treated debrismust be separated from other wood debris.Townsend and Solo-Gabriele (2000) found thatapproximately 6% of C&D landfill wood debris isCCA treated. If CCA treated wood is not separatedfrom untreated wood, than the quality of the materialwill not meet the needs of the proposed recycling.

Research has been performed on finding markets forspent CCA treated lumber. There has been a largeamount of research in using spent CCA treatedlumber in wood-based composite products (Vick etal., 1996; Mengeloglu and Gardner, 2000; Munsonand Kamdem, 1998). The researchers varied withtheir results, depending on the wood based compositemade and the amount of CCA treated lumber used,but in most of the research it would be a viable optionfor spent CCA treated lumber. Composite

manufacturers have been evaluated to see if they area viable option in using spent CCA treated wood, butmost research has found that they are reluctant toconsider spent CCA treated lumber as a possible rawmaterial source (Smith and Shiau, 1996 and Falk,1997). The main reasons found were concerns withthe health and safety of mill workers, residualchemicals that the material may still have, andproducts made from recycled treated wood may nothave the same resistance to decay and insects as theoriginal treated wood product. Therefore eventhough wood-based composite products could beproduced from spent CCA treated lumber it does notseem to be a practical option for manufacturers in thenear future.

Research has also been performed to remove thetreating chemical from the spent CCA treated wood.If this process can be performed successfully then theCCA treated wood can be mixed with other woodwaste for recycling. Clausen and Smith (Wilson,1997) and Glasser (Alderman, 2001) haveexperimented with this method. Clausen’s work hasbeen successful in removing 92% of the copper and

42% of the arsenic, but there has been no success ofremoving the chromium because it is bond tightly to

the lignin (Wilson, 1997). Shiau, Smith, and

Avellaer (2000) were successful in extracting over80% of CCA chemicals in the wood particles withcitric acid. Another barrier associated with removingthe treating chemical from the wood is that it iscurrently more expensive to do this than it is todispose of the treated wood in a C&D landfill(Avellar and Glasser, 1995). As stated previously,incentives need to be developed for buildingcontractors to bring spent CCA treated wood torecyclers. This will only happen if recyclers findeconomic viable products and markets for therecovered CCA treated wood. The following

research examines potential products and marketbarriers associated with the successful recycling ofspent CCA treated wood from residential decks.

Objectives

Determine feasible products that can be producedfrom recovered CCA treated wood.Recognize barriers that exist for landfills, recyclingcenters, and organizations in reusing CCA treatedwood from residential decks.

Products From Recovered CCA treatedwood from residential decks

Methodology

The products manufactured were chosen becausethey were practical, easily fabricated, required littlecarpentry training or skill, a small number ofinexpensive tools, and effectively utilized therecovered CCA treated wood from the residentialdecks. This will aid recycling centers in hiring andtraining qualified employees, and also easilyproduced products can be performed by people ororganizations that acquire the recycled wood for do-it-yourself (DIY) outdoor projects. The designs ofthe products made for this research were from DIYoutdoor wood furnishings designs, taken frompublished books or over the Internet. The tools usedto produce the products was a 12” compound mitersaw, a 12” table saw, a 10” circular saw, cordlessdrill (with several different drill bits), a reciprocatingsaw, and other miscellaneous tools such as hammers,tape measure, and wrenches. The hardware usedwere different sizes of galvanized decking screws,galvanized lag bolts and screws, and galvanized nails.It should be noted that strict safety procedures werefollowed when handling and machining the CCAtreated wood. Proper dust masks, clothing, safetygloves, glasses, or goggles, and hearing protectionwas worn by at all times while working with the

294

Urban Rural Interface Conference Proceedings

CCA treated material, and all exposed areas were users stated that they could use the material, but did

thoroughly washed after work was completed. For not know where to get it. From the personal

each product, the worker-hours required, amount of interviews it appears that the biggest barrier in the

hardware and cost, and type and volume of material recycling of CCA treated wood waste is lack off

were documented. communication between all interested parties.

Products Manufactured What needs to be done

Several products were made that fit the criteria ofbeing practical to use and make, cost feasible, andrequired little previous experience and training inwood carpentry. Table 1 displays the products madefrom recycled CCA treated lumber, along with thetype of CCA treated wood used, volume, type ofhardware, cost of hardware, and the worker-hoursneeded to create the product.

Pictures of the products made are located in Figure 1.It should be noted that the worker-hours needed tocomplete each product will be much lower than theones shown in Table 1 if they are mass produced,because the learning curve and time to produce eachproduct will reduce after several of the same productis produced. The only products that required unusedCCA treated wood was the deck that used new 5/4x6decking, and the trash container that required treatedplywood for the lid. Table 2 shows the volume ofmaterial used to make the 13 products shown inTable 1. The 2x8, 4x4, and 2x6 material was themost utilized dimensional material. In this study wefound that 2x6 and 2x8 were the most successfullyrecovered material and the highest volume from spentCCA treated residential decks. Therefore, it isbeneficial that 2x6 and 2x8 lumber was utilized in themanufacturing of the products. All products wereuncomplicated to make, and required a smallinvestment in hardware (from Table 1 only the deck,trellis, patio table, and picnic table required hardwarethat cost $10.00). Other material used in the makingof the products included: latex stain ($18.99/gallon),white latex paint ($10.99/quart), white sealer primer(6.99/quart), deck stain (17.99/gallon), sandpaper($0.40/sheet), and paint brushes ($3.99/brush).

The objectives of this research were to make productsthat could feasibly utilize recycled CCA treated woodfrom residential decks, and to determine barriers thatmay exist in the reuse of spent CCA treated wood.Several products were made from recovered CCAtreated wood. The products produced, in this study,included outdoor home furnishings, landscapingproducts, pallets, and residential decks andcomponents. Those produced were uncomplicateddesigns that allowed researchers with limitedknowledge or skill in wood carpentry to completesuccessfully. The products were also inexpensive toproduce, requiring a small amount of monetaryinvestment in tools and hardware. The products alsoutilized the highest volume of CCA treated woodcoming from spent residential decks, which are 2x6sand 2x8s. This study made only a few products thatcould be made from recovered CCA treated wood,several other items can be made, including but notlimited to, benches, raised walkways, walkingbridges, trail guides and paths, and in residential andcommercial landscaping. Pallets made from therecovered CCA treated wood were found to performsimilar to that of untreated wooden pallets, of thesame species and similar quality. The recycled CCAtreated wood can be used in several different aboveground applications as effectively as new CCAtreated wood.

Market Assessment

Six C&D and six MSW landfill managers, sixrecycling companies, and four potential users of therecovered CCA treated wood were interviewed.Several barriers exist in the reuse of recycled CCAtreated wood. Landfills stated that they receive littleCCA treated wood, and believed that separating itfrom other waste would not be cost effective becausethere are no markets. Recycling centers also claimedit would not be possible to recover the material, mostciting that there are no markets and not a consistentsupply of spent CCA treated wood. Several potential

Several groups will influence the success ofrecycling CCA treated wood from residential decks.These groups include manufacturers of CCA treatedwood, building contractors, or other “ waste”producers, government organizations, andlandfillers/recyclers. Many manufacturers have notevaluated the effect their product has on theirprofitably after it has been sold. This has alreadyoccurred with the ban of CCA treated wood inresidential applications at the end of 2003. Theenvironmental groups and media attack on the use ofCCA treated wood, though questionable, has forcedthe industry to spend millions of dollars on newchemical development and treatment processes, andalso a loss of market share which might have beenavoided if the issue was confronted earlier. Theindustry is currently facing another negative attack onits products with the possible adverse safety andenvironmental side affects on the disposal of spent

Urban Rural Interface Conference Proceedings

295

CCA treated wood. Therefore the industry must beproactive and support the development of recyclingprograms and markets, through financial incentivesor other forms of support in order to keep CCA woodmarkets sustainable.

Building contractors currently dispose of CCAtreated wood in landfills because it is less expensivethan to recycle and there are no other alternatives.Therefore, the development of recovery programs forlandfill and recycling centers are needed, and also

required is support by the local government.Incentives need to be giving to CCA waste producersthat bring separated CCA treated wood waste into thefacility. This can be. achieved by lowering tipping

fees for sorted CCA treated wood waste, or by raisingthe fees to accept unsorted C&D wood waste. TheCCA treated wood waste producers will only makean effort to recover the waste if there are no cheaperalternatives.

To make CCA treated wood recycling successful,local governments need to support and initiateprograms that foster communication and awarenessof the amount of CCA treated wood reachinglandfills and the potential reuse of the material.Landfills, recyclers, and potential users (individualcitizens, pa rks and recreation, non-profitorganizations) need to be informed how each sectorcan benefit from the recovery of CCA treated wood.Government officials should help develop marketsfor the material, and aid recyclers in developingbusiness opportunities in making recycled CCAwood profitable. Government officials and recyclersshould develop easy drop off and purchase sites forCCA treated wood.

In summary, the recycling of CCA treated wood fromresidential decks can be achieved if all affectedparties are aware of the issues and potential reuse ofthe material. If the industry, builders, governments,recyclers, and users associated with the use, disposal,and recycling of CCA treated wood understand theneeds of each party, and response accordingly, thenthe barriers in the reuse of spent CCA treatedresidential decks can be diminished.

Literature Citied

Alderman, D.R. 2001. An Investigation into

Attitudes Towards Recycling CCA TreatedLumber. Department of Wood Science and ForestProducts. Virginia Tech. Blacksburg, VA. Ph.D.dissertation.

Avellar, B.K. and Glasser, W.G. 1995. Steam-assisted Biomass Fractionation I. Process

Considerations and Economic Evaluation.Biomass and Bioenergy. v. 14(3) p.205-218.

Copper, P.A. 1993. Disposal of Treated Wood

Removed From Service: The Issues. Proceedings:Environmental Considerations in theManufacture, Use, and Disposal of Preservative-Treated Wood. Carolinas-Chesapeake Section ofthe Forest Products Society. May 13. Richmond,VA.

EPA. 1998. Puzzled About Recycling’s Value?Look Beyond the Bin. January. Report #EPA530-K-98-008. www.epa.gov/osw.

Falk, Bob. 1997. Wood Recycling: Opportunitiesfor the Wood Waste Resource. Forest Products

Journal. v.47(6) p.17-22.Marutzky, R. Disposal and Recycling of Wood

Waste. 1996. Wihelm-Klauditz-Institut,Fraunhofer-Insitut fur HulzforschungBraunschweig/Germany. p.107-110.

McQueen, J. and J. Stevens. 1998. Disposal of CCATreated Lumber. Forest Products Journal.

v.48(11/12): p.86-90.Mengeloglu, F. and D.J. Gardner. 2000. Recycled

CCA-Treated Lumber in Flakeboards: Evaluationof Adhesives and Flakes. Forest Products

Journal. v.50(2) p.41-45Munson, J.M. and D.P. Kamdem. 1998.

Reconstituted Particleboards From CCA-Treated Red Pine utility Poles. Forest Products

Journal. v.48(3) p.55-62.Sherman-Huntoon, Rhonda. 2001. Wood Waste

Study Provides Clues To Recycling Success.Biocycle. July. p. 68-70.

Shiau, R.J., Smith, R.L., and Avellar, B. 2000.Effects of Steam Explosion Processingand Organic Acids on CCA Removal FromTreated Wood Waste. Wood Science andTechnology. 34(2000) 377-388.

Smith, R.L. and Marshall Shiau. 1996. The

Identification of Markets to Spent CCA-TreatedWood Fiber. Proceedings: The Use of RecycledWood Paper in Building Applications. USDAForest Service and The Forest Products Society.September. Madison, Wisconsin.

Townsend, T.G. and H. Solo-Gabrielle. 2000. CCAWood Waste Issues. Presented at the SoutheastRecycling Market Development Roundtable andWorkshop. December 6.

Vick, C.B., Geimer, R.L., and Wood, J.E. 1996.

Flakeboards From Recycled CCA-Treated Southern Pine Lumber. Forest ProductsJournal. v.46(11/12) p.89-91.

Wilson, Alex. 1997. Disposal: The Achilles’ Heelof CCA-Treated Wood. Environmental BuildingNews. v.6(3).

296

Urban Rural Interface Conference Proceedings

Table 1. Products manufactured, material and volume used of CCA treated wood, type and cost of

hardware, and worker-hours need to complete.

Urban Rural Interface Conference Proceedings297

Table 2. Volume and percent of recovered CCA treated wood used to manufacturer products.

Figure 1. Products Made From Spent CCA

298Urban Rural Interface Conference Proceedings

Proceedings

EMERGING ISSUES ALONG URBAN/RURALINTERFACES: LINKING SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

March 13-16, 2005Hilton Atlanta

Atlanta, Georgia

Edited by:David N. Laband

Conference Co-sponsors:

Center for Forest Sustainability: A Peak of Excellence at Auburn University

National Science Foundation

USDA Forest Service, Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface Research andInformation

School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn UniversityForest Policy Center, Auburn University

Plum Creek FoundationGeorgia PacificSmurfit-Stone

Weyerhaeuser Company FoundationInter-American Institute for Global Change Research

Temple-InlandThe Pinchot Institute

Ecological Society of AmericaAuburn University Environmental Institute

International Union of Forestry Research OrganizationsAmerican Water Resources Association

August 2005