PROMOTING ENHANCED RESOURCE RECOVERY OF HURRICANE DEBRIS IN POLK COUNTY FLORIDA INNOVATIVE RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION GRANT (IG8‐03) Prepared for: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Tallahassee, Florida Prepared by: Polk County Waste Resource Management Division Winter Haven, Florida Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. Gainesville, Florida Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC Gainesville, Florida November 2010
Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Project Introduction ...................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Report Organization ...................................................................................... 4 Background ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Hurricanes ..................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Hurricane Debris ........................................................................................... 7 2.4 Current Management Practices .................................................................. 10 2.5 Beneficial Use of Woody Biomass as an Energy Source ............................. 11 2.6 Woody Hurricane Debris‐Management Issues ........................................... 12 2.6.1 Decomposition ............................................................................................ 12 2.6.2 Self‐Ignited Fires ......................................................................................... 12 2.6.3 Additional Considerations ........................................................................... 13 2.6.4 Summary ..................................................................................................... 13 2.7 Agricultural Silage Storage Systems (Ag‐Bag) ............................................. 14 Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments..................................................... 15 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Experiment Setup ....................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Bagging System ........................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Hurricane Debris Stored in Ag‐Bags ............................................................ 16 3.2.3 Hurricane Debris Stored and Treated with ConCover ................................. 19 3.2.4 Woody Debris Stored in Barrels and Treated with Additives ...................... 20 3.2.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Routine Sampling ........................................................................................ 23 3.4 Laboratory Analysis ..................................................................................... 25 3.4.1 Moisture Content and Organic Content ...................................................... 25 3.4.2 BTU Value .................................................................................................... 26 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 27 Table of Contents i Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 5. 4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Qualitative Analysis ..................................................................................... 27 4.2.1 Ag‐Bag Integrity .......................................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Liquid Accumulation .................................................................................... 29 4.2.3 Gas Generation ........................................................................................... 29 4.3 Quantitative Evaluation .............................................................................. 30 4.3.1 Evaluation Approach ................................................................................... 30 4.3.2 Assessment of the Effectiveness of Ag‐Bag as Moisture Barrier ................ 30 4.3.3 Assessment of Ag‐Bag for Preserving the Energy Content and Organic Content ........................................................................................................ 31 4.3.4 Assessment of Additives for Preserving Energy and Organic Content ........ 35 4.3.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 40 Cost‐Benefit Model ......................................................................................... 41 5.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 41 5.2 Cost Elements ............................................................................................. 41 5.2.1 Debris Handling and Size Reduction Cost ................................................... 41 5.2.2 Land Requirement ....................................................................................... 42 5.2.3 Plastic Silage System Cost ........................................................................... 43 5.2.4 Transportation Cost .................................................................................... 44 5.2.5 Other Costs .................................................................................................. 44 5.3 Benefit Elements ......................................................................................... 44 5.3.1 Tipping Fees ................................................................................................ 44 5.3.2 Sale of Woody Biomass ............................................................................... 45 5.4 Additional Considerations ........................................................................... 45 6. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 46 7. References ....................................................................................................... 48 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2‐1. Hurricanes Affecting Florida in 2004 ............................................................... 6 Figure 2‐2. Hurricanes Affecting Florida in 2005 ............................................................... 6 Figure 2‐3. Yard Waste and Hurricane Debris Generation for Polk County from 2001 to 2008 ....................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2‐4. Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties in Florida ............................... 8 Table of Contents ii Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 2‐5. C&D Debris Disposal from 2001 to 2008 in Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2‐6. Hurricane Debris Composition (Alexander as Reported in USEPA 2010) ........ 9 Figure 3‐1. Grinding of Wood Debris in a Tub Grinder ..................................................... 17 Figure 3‐2. Ground Wood Debris Stockpile ..................................................................... 17 Figure 3‐3. Loading Ground Wood Debris into the CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System ........................ 18 Figure 3‐4. The CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System Filling an Ag‐Bag with Ground Woody Debris ....... 18 Figure 3‐5. Ag‐Bags Stored at the PCNCLF ....................................................................... 19 Figure 3‐6. Aerial Photograph of the PCNCLF Yard Debris Processing Area‐Sept 2008 .. 19 Figure 3‐7. Adding ConCover to a Stored Wood Pile ....................................................... 20 Figure 3‐8. Incinerator Ash Added to a Wood Debris Storage Barrel .............................. 21 Figure 3‐9. Lime Added to a Wood Debris Storage Barrel ............................................... 21 Figure 3‐10. Rolling the Barrel to Mix the Additive into the Wood Debris ..................... 22 Figure 3‐11. An Opened Ag‐bag ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 3‐12. Sampling Woody Debris after Opening an Ag‐Bag ...................................... 24 Figure 4‐1. Examples Ag‐Bag Rips (a) <1 in. and (b) <12‐in. ............................................ 28 Figure 4‐2. Condensation Formed on the Interior of an Ag‐Bag ..................................... 29 Figure 4‐3. Box‐and‐Whisker Plot Definition Sketch ....................................................... 30 Figure 4‐4. Moisture Content of Woody Debris Sampled in September 2010. The moisture content of the debris stored in Ag‐bags was significantly lower than the moisture content of the debris stored in the open‐air control piles indicating the Ag‐Bags .......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4‐5. Organic Content of (a) Yard Debris and (b) Woody Debris Stored in Ag‐Bags. The organic content of the woody debris and yard debris stored in Ag‐Bags appears to be higher than the control pile, suggesting that the Ag‐Bag helped retard decomposition of woody and yard debris. .............................................. 33 Figure 4‐6. Energy Content of (a) Yard Debris and (b) Woody Debris Stored in Ag‐Bags. The energy content of debris stored in Ag‐Bags is higher than the energy content of debris stored in the open‐air control piles, suggesting that the Ag‐
Bags helped to preserve the energy content of the debris. ............................... 34 Figure 4‐7. Sieve Test on Woody Debris Collected September 2010. The woody debris stored in Ag‐Bags appears to be composed of larger particles than the debris stored in open windrows, indicating that the debris stored in open windrows was probably further degraded. .......................................................................... 35 Figure 4‐8. Organic Content of (a) Woody Debris and (b) Yard Debris Treated with ConCover. The organic content of samples collected from the piles treated with ConCover appears to be similar to the control, indicating that ConCover did not retard decomposition. ......................................................................................... 36 Figure 4‐9. Energy Content of (a) Woody Debris and (b) Yard Debris Treated with ConCover. The energy content of samples collected from the wood piles treated with ConCover appears similar to the energy content of debris collected from the control piles, indicating that ConCover did not effectively preserve the energy content of the debris. .............................................................................. 37 Table of Contents iii Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 4‐10. Organic Content of Woody Debris Treated with Lime, Ash, and Bora‐Care®. The organic content of woody debris mixed with lime and ash was lower than the debris stored in Ag‐Bags alone. Also, the pesticide, Bora‐Care®, appears to preserve the organic content of the debris. ....................................................... 39 Figure 4‐11. Energy Content of Woody Debris Treated with Lime, Ash, and Bora‐Care®. The energy content of debris mixed with lime and ash appears to be lower when compared to the background energy content and the energy content of debris stored in Ag‐Bags. ..................................................................................... 39 LIST OF TABLES Table 3‐1. Summary of Testing Conditions and Rationale ............................................... 15 Table 3‐2. Experiment Setup Summary ........................................................................... 22 Table 3‐3. Summary of Project Activities ......................................................................... 23 Table 3‐4. Sampling Events Summary .............................................................................. 25 Table 4‐1. Summary of Testing Conditions, Rationale, and Results ................................ 40 Table 5‐1. Plastic Silage Bag Storage System Cost and Benefit Elements ....................... 41 Table 5‐2. Summary of Costs Associate with Storing Debris in Plastic Silage Bags ......... 44 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Ag‐Bag Brochures Appendix B – Bora‐Care® Information Appendix C – Summary Data Table of Contents iv Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, INITIALISMS, AND ACRONYMS AOR Annual Operating Report ASTM ASTM International BTU British Thermal Units C&D construction and demolition cy cubic yard DI deionized FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration hp horsepower kWh kilowatt‐hour LCD land‐clearing debris MW megawatt PCNCLF Polk County North Central Landfill PCWRMD Polk County Waste Resource Management Division PTE potential to emit RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard TDSR Temporary Debris Storage and Reduction USACE United States Army Corp. of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEIA United State Energy Information Administration USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents v Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Three hurricanes moved through Polk County, Florida, between August and September 2004, generating more than 1.6 million tons of woody debris. The volume of woody debris generated following these storms was enough to power all residential dwellings in Polk County for approximately 4 months if it was beneficially used for power generation. More than 3.5 million tons of woody biomass was combusted in Florida in 2009 as fuel, but more than 50% of the debris collected after hurricanes was either combusted in air curtain incinerators with no energy recovery, land applied, or disposed of in landfills. Only a fraction of debris generated in Polk County in 2004 was used to generate power. Resource recovery is limited because of large volumes generated over a very short duration and issues with temporary storage of debris until it can be combusted at a resource recovery facility. Storage of woody debris in a pile exposed to the atmosphere has three major concerns. First, a pile of wood exposed to air presents a fire threat. Second, the quality of wood to be used as fuel would deteriorate when exposed to rain. Lastly, numerous human health and environmental hazards are associated with storing debris in open‐air stockpiles including employee exposure harmful fungi and bacteria, air emissions from the stockpiles, and storm water runoff. In 2007, Polk County Waste Resource Management Division (PCWRMD) was awarded an innovative recycling grant to evaluate using commercially‐available plastic silage bags (commonly used to store animal feedstock and for composting organic wastes) to store woody debris to enhance resource recovery and recycling of hurricane debris. PCWRMD contracted with Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. and their subcontractor, Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC, to conduct the evaluation. Woody debris delivered to the Polk County North Central Landfill (PCNCLF) was stockpiled at the yard trash processing area and was later ground and loaded into twenty‐four 100‐ft long 5‐ft diameter plastic silage bags. Two open windrows, similar in dimension to the silage bags, were constructed as control piles. In addition to the material stored in silage bags, the project team evaluated the performance of other chemicals (lime, ash, pesticide/fungicide (Bora‐Care®), and ConCover) in preserving the organic and energy content of the woody debris. The temporal variation of the energy content of woody debris stored in plastic silage bags, control piles, and chemically treated piles was tracked by routinely collecting and sending samples to an outside lab to analyze moisture content, energy content, and organic content. The collected data were used to evaluate the ability of the silage bags to preserve the energy content of the stored debris. The data collected as a part of this study suggest that over the long term the plastic silage bags better preserved the energy content and slowed the decomposition of the organic fraction of the waste material. The energy content and organic content of debris treated with ConCover were similar to untreated debris stored in open windrows. The addition of a pesticide/fungicide was found to reduce decomposition and better preserve the energy content of woody debris when compared to background levels. The role of lime and ash in preserving the energy and organic content was inconclusive. Executive Summary 1 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris The silage bag and bagger manufacturer and vendors were contacted to gather information to estimate the cost of storing woody debris in plastic bags. The cost of temporarily storing the debris in plastic silage bags was estimated to range from $1.62 per cubic yard to $1.68 per cubic yard. Based on the literature review and data provided by waste‐to‐energy facility operators in Florida, the price that the waste‐to‐
energy plant may pay to procure woody biomass was found to range from $10 per ton to $17 per ton. The cost to transport the stored woody debris to the end user (waste‐
to‐energy plant), which would primarily depend on distance of the storage facility to the end user, would likely dictate the economic viability of the plastic silage bag storage method. Given the proximity of the PCNCLF to the Wheelabrator Ridge Generating Station – a facility that burns waste tires, woody debris, and landfill gas to generate power – storing woody debris in plastic silage bags to eventually use for power generation seems to be an economically viable option. Storing and using woody hurricane debris as a fuel source, if assessed to be economically viable, should be included as a debris‐management option in the disaster debris‐management plan, and the facility owner/operator should negotiate a contract with the end user. The contract should include price, biomass fuel specifications, and a debris delivery rate. The debris collection, processing, and storage plan should be designed to meet the end user’s specifications. In addition to the cost and benefit elements discussed above, the facility owner should also take additional considerations into account as part of the decision‐making process. The land requirement for the plastic silage bag storage method is estimated to be almost three times that of storing in open stockpiles. The availability of land should be assessed as one of the first steps when considering the use of plastic silage bags as a temporary debris storage method. The facility owners should compare the net benefit of using stored woody debris as a fuel source to alternative hurricane debris‐
management approaches (e.g., on‐site use as an alternative daily cover, composting the woody debris to make a top soil product), since recycling woody hurricane debris for use as a fuel source may not be the most economically viable management option for all facilities. Executive Summary 2 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Introduction Significant volumes of vegetative and construction debris are generated in the wake of a hurricane. As the intensity of each hurricane season varies from year to year, debris generation also varies, making resource recovery a unique management issue. Large volumes of debris are generated in a relatively short time following a hurricane. For example, more than 1.6 million tons of woody debris were generated in Polk County in 2004–2005 after three hurricanes moved through Polk County, Florida, over about 5 weeks. Current debris‐management strategies focus primarily on clearing debris as quickly as possible, which is usually achieved by grinding, incinerating, land‐applying, or landfilling debris as it is received following a hurricane. Some debris is recovered as biomass fuel; however, the large influx of debris is difficult for the biomass fuel market to absorb following a hurricane. The debris should therefore be temporarily stored until it is supplied to end users based on their demand. Storing debris in open stockpiles is commonly practiced in Florida. However, storing wood‐based debris in a pile exposed to the atmosphere has three major concerns: potential human health and environmental risks, potential risk of fire, potential impact to the fuel quality of the wood because of exposure to rain and decomposition. Biomass fuel end users may have specifications regarding the fuel quality (e.g., moisture content and energy content) that may be difficult to meet by storing the debris in open piles. An effective temporary storage system that reduces stored debris exposure to moisture and helps preserve the energy content of the debris would be of interest to those seeking to recover debris as a fuel source. If such a system were made available, Polk County (and other counties in Florida) would potentially be able to generate additional revenue from the sale of woody biomass fuel derived from hurricane debris and potentially save air space in their landfills. Temporary debris storage in plastic silage bags (e.g., Ag‐Bag system), which are commercially used to store and preserve animal feed stock and compost waste product, can potentially preserve the energy content of the woody debris by minimizing exposure to rainfall. The Waste Reduction Section of Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) funded the Polk County Waste Resource Management Division (PCWRMD) to assess using commercially available plastic silage bags as a temporary storage system for woody debris to promote its recovery and recycling under its Innovative Recycling/Waste Reduction Grants program for FY 2007/2008. PCWRMD contracted Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc. and their sub‐
contractor Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC, to conduct the assessment and prepare the deliverables to fulfill the grant’s contractual obligations. 1.2 Project Objectives The objectives of this project were to: Introduction 3 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris •
Evaluate the ability of plastic silage bags to preserve the energy content of woody debris for later use as fuel. As described above, plastic silage bags are expected to minimize exposure of the debris to moisture, which has been well‐
documented to promote decomposition of organic substrates, such as woody debris. To assess the ability of the plastic silage bags to preserve the debris’ energy content, the woody debris was stored in bags and the energy content of the stored debris was tracked over time and compared with that of the debris stored in open piles. •
Evaluate techniques to inhibit wood decomposition using commercially‐
available chemicals and incinerator ash. Treating woody debris with lime and ash may reduce microbial activity by altering the pH of the substrate. The use of a pesticide/fungicide may inhibit the growth of microbial, fungal, or insect communities that contribute to the decomposition of wood. The temporal variation of the chemically treated woody debris was tracked to assess the impact of chemical treatment on woody debris energy content. •
Evaluate the economic and technical feasibility of temporarily storing hurricane debris within a plastic silage bag. Data were collected to estimate the benefit of preserving the energy value of the recovered biomass and the costs of storing the debris in plastic silage bags to make a preliminary assessment of the economics of the woody debris storage in plastic silage bags. 1.3 Report Organization This report is organized into seven sections. Section 1 introduces the project and the project goals and objectives. Section 2 provides background information on woody debris and current management practices. Section 3 describes the project design and setup. Section 4 details the results of the study. Section 5 presents cost and benefit elements that should be considered when evaluating the economic feasibility of implementing the use of plastic silage bags for the temporary storage of woody debris for its eventual use as an energy source. Section 6 presents the project summary and conclusions. Section 7 lists the references used in developing this report. Supplemental information is provided in a series of appendices. Introduction 4 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 2. Background 2.1 Overview As a result of the destructive nature of hurricanes and other natural disasters, large volumes of waste are generated over a short duration, which presents a unique waste management challenge. This section provides background information on hurricanes; hurricane debris generation, rate, and composition; and current management practices in Florida. 2.2
Hurricanes Hurricanes are tropical cyclones that form over tropical or subtropical waters as a result of the temperature differential between the water and air. They are characterized by a large low‐pressure center surrounded by numerous thunderstorms that generate high winds and rain. How hurricanes form is not fully understood and is a topic of ongoing investigation (NOAA 2006). The Atlantic hurricane season lasts from June 1 through November 30; however, tropical storms and cyclones have developed outside of the nominal hurricane season. Given Florida’s location, it is prone to the effects of tropical cyclones that form and move through the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Over the past decade, several devastating hurricanes have caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage (Rappaport and Fernandez‐Partagas 1995; Pielke et al. 2008). The hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 produced several historic storms that caused damage in excess of $150 billion (Pielke et al. 2008). In 2004, Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne, among others, made landfall or generated debris in several Florida counties. In 2005, Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma generated debris in Florida counties. Figure 2‐1 and Figure 2‐2 show the paths of hurricanes that affected Florida in 2004 and 2005. Background 5 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 2‐1. Hurricanes Affecting Florida in 2004 Figure 2‐2. Hurricanes Affecting Florida in 2005 Background 6 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 2.3
Hurricane Debris Hurricanes generate winds, heavy rainfall, and storm surge and can spawn tornados. All of these effects contribute to the debris left in wake of a hurricane. Based on the categories established for recovery operations by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from actual hurricane debris data after Hurricanes Frederic, Hugo, and Andrew, hurricane debris was split into two broad categories: clean wood debris and construction and demolition (C&D) debris (FEMA 2007). In about a 5‐week period in August and September 2004, Hurricane Charley, Frances, and Jeanne moved through Polk County, generating more than 1.6 million tons of woody debris. Figure 2‐3 shows the normal yard debris generation in Polk County from 2001 to 2008, including the debris generated from Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. 1800
Yard Waste
Woody Hurricane Debris
1600
Thousand Short Tons
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 2‐3. Yard Waste and Hurricane Debris Generation for Polk County from 2001 to 2008 The amount of debris generated from these three storms far exceeded typical yard waste generation rates in the County. Apart from the volume, the rate at which the debris is generated contributes to the difficulty in managing the debris. As shown in Figures 2‐1 and 2‐2, several hurricanes made landfall in the Florida panhandle in 2004 and 2005, including Frances, Ivan, and Dennis. Ivan and Dennis each struck western Florida around Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties. Figure 2‐4 shows the locations of the three counties in Florida. Background 7 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 2‐4. Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties in Florida From 2004 to 2005, Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties each experienced a significant increase in C&D debris collection according to figures presented in the Solid Waste Annual Reports (FDEP 2002; FDEP 2003; FDEP 2004; FDEP 2005; FDEP 2006; FDEP 2007; FDEP 2008; FDEP 2009). Figure 2‐5 shows C&D debris collected in Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties from 2001 to 2008. As Figure 2‐4 demonstrates, C&D debris generation in all three counties in 2005 was substantially greater than the years before and after. C&D generation in these counties in 2005 was reported to be as much as three times that in 2004. It should be noted that these data do not include the generated woody debris volumes. Such an unexpected and sudden increase in C&D generation undoubtedly poses a management issue. Background 8 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 600
Santa Rosa
Escambia
Okaloosa
Thousand Short Tons
500
400
300
200
100
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Figure 2‐5. C&D Debris Disposal from 2001 to 2008 in Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties In 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prepared a Materials Characterization Paper on C&D disaster debris. Figure 2‐6 shows the composition of hurricane‐related debris as reported in USEPA (2010). The figure shows that vegetative debris comprises the largest fraction of hurricane debris (76%), followed by mixed debris (17%), C&D debris (7%), and white goods (1%). Mixed Debris 17%
C&D 7%
White Goods
< 1%
Vegetative 76%
Figure 2‐6. Hurricane Debris Composition (Alexander as Reported in USEPA 2010) Background 9 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris A compositional study of hurricane debris in Florida from Andrew in 1992 by the USACE and FEMA showed that the debris consisted of approximately 30% clean, woody material, and 70% mixed C&D debris. On the other hand, the hurricane debris generated in North Carolina after Fran in 1996 consisted of approximately 70% clean woody material and 30% C&D debris (FEMA 2007). The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida, estimated the composition of debris generated from Frances and Jean in September 2004. In Palm Beach County, 4.0 million cubic yards of hurricane debris was generated, 80% of which was classified as vegetation while 20% was classified as mixed debris (SWA 2004). Based on the data presented above, the composition of hurricane debris can vary substantially and depends mostly on the exact location hit by the storm, but in general a large fraction is composed of woody material. 2.4
Current Management Practices Several counties in Florida have developed dedicated strategies for managing hurricane debris. In general, these plans include identifying several temporary debris storage and reduction (TDSR) sites across the county that can be used to accept disaster debris. Based on criteria such as availability, duration of availability, ingress/egress, concentration of debris relative to each site, the geographic location within the county, and the severity of the damage, the county opens some or all of the identified TDSR sites after a hurricane strikes. Each TDSR site may be operated to receive debris with a specific composition. For example, clean woody debris may be hauled to some specific TDSRs, whereas other TDSR sites may receive only mixed C&D. Once the site is opened and starts receiving debris, the material undergoes size reduction either by incinerating, grinding, or crushing. Grinding is often the preferred method of reduction as the open burning of debris requires more controls and an approval from the Division of Forestry. After volume reduction at TDSRs or other solid waste management sites, the hurricane debris (the ground material or ash) is usually land‐applied, combusted in an air‐curtain incinerator, or disposed of in a landfill. Although the quantity of material landfilled depends on the severity of the hurricane, the majority of woody hurricane debris is either landfilled or incinerated without energy recovery (Yepsen 2008). Landfilling hurricane debris is partly out of necessity and convenience, since with the large influx, the focus is primarily on clearing the debris as quickly as possible (USEPA 2010). Polk County follows similar protocol to those described above following a hurricane. Much of the debris brought to Polk County North Central Landfill (PCNCLF) and the Polk County Southeast Landfill was disposed of directly in the landfill. Recovery of woody hurricane debris for biomass fuel, though, occurs in some parts of Florida. Progress Energy in Florida received almost 800,000 cubic yards of debris following Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. Escambia County, which managed around 6.5 million cubic yards of debris following Ivan and Dennis, exported approximately 60% of the debris to Italy as biomass for electricity generation (Yepsen Background 10 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 2008). Due to strict greenhouse gas emissions regulations in the international community, the demand for North American woody biomass in Europe has commanded a price of between $100 and $125 per ton. In Florida, the price paid for woody biomass typically ranges from $10 to $17 per ton (Yepsen 2008; TMC Power 2010). For Polk County, a potential end market for woody biomass may include the Wheelabrator Ridge Generating Station, located adjacent to the PCNCLF. 2.5
Beneficial Use of Woody Biomass as an Energy Source Woody biomass has several beneficial end uses including mulch, compost, animal bedding, and boiler fuel. Woody material has a relatively high energy content making it a potentially viable source of energy. Many studies have reported a range of high heating value for wood waste as 7,000 to 9,000 BTU per dry pound depending on the type of wood (Baker 1983; White 1987). In the US, 2 quadrillion BTU of energy were generated from wood and wood‐derived fuels, constituting over 25% of all renewable energy in 2008 (USEIA 2010a). As of 2006, wood‐ and wood‐waste‐fueled electricity accounted for 380 megawatts (MW), or 0.7% of installed electricity generating capacity, in Florida (Navigant 2008). Based on the data presented in the 2009 annual operating reports (AOR) submitted to FDEP by 22 facilities in Florida, more than 3.5 million tons of wood and bark were combusted in Florida in 2009. Not all facilities are required to submit an AOR; therefore, the actual tonnage of combusted wood is likely greater than 3.5 million tons. The Florida Public Service Commission drafted a rule regarding the establishment of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for Florida. The proposed RPS calls for 20% of energy generated in Florida to come from renewable resources such as wind, solar, and biomass. Rossi et al. (2010) estimated that by 2040, under a 20% RPS, more than 80% of the renewable energy generation (approximately 32‐58 billion kWh) will come from woody biomass due to the higher cost of other renewable technologies such as solar and wind energy. To generate this amount of electricity, between 9.1 and 16.4 million tons of wood and bark would be required. The implementation of an RPS in Florida, therefore, may substantially increase the beneficial use of woody debris as an energy source and put woody hurricane debris in demand. Had all of the debris collected in Polk County after Charley, Frances, and Jeanne (1.6 million tons of woody debris) been combusted for electricity generation, all Polk County residences could have been powered for approximately 3.9 months assuming the following: •
The average Florida home consumes approximately 1,120 kWh per month (USEIA 2010b). •
Thermal energy to electricity conversion efficiency is 25% (Rossi et al. 2010). •
Polk County, Florida has 321,316 residential dwellings (PCPA 2010). •
The energy content of woody biomass is 6,000 BTU/lb (USDA 2004). Background 11 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris •
2.6
The standard thermal energy to electricity conversion factor is 3,412.3 BTU/kWh. Woody Hurricane Debris‐Management Issues One constraint that hinders recycling and recovery of hurricane woody debris as a fuel source is its temporary storage. Facilities that combust woody debris operate at a design capacity and may not be able to use the debris at the rate it is generated following a hurricane. Temporarily storing the material on‐site (at the waste management facility) would allow the woody material to be retained and trickled into the biomass combustion market. Three major issues associated with storing woody hurricane debris in open piles for future use as fuel are reduction in energy content of wood over time, spontaneous combustion of wood piles, and human health and environmental issues. This section discusses the causes and effects of each of these issues. 2.6.1 Decomposition Wood is composed of three major components: cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Cellulose is a linear polymer that provides structure to the cell wall in plant cells. Lignin is a natural polymer that gives flexibility and strength to cellulose in the cell wall of plant cells (Malherbe and Cloete 2002). Lignin is very resistant to degradation as it is held together with strong covalent bonds; therefore, wood with low lignin content is expected to decompose more quickly than wood with high lignin content. The decomposition process and rate depend on several factors such as moisture content, temperature, and physical and chemical characteristics (e.g., particle size, lignin content) of the wood. The moisture content of a wood pile controls the degree of bacterial and fungal activity; the lower the moisture content, the lower the activity (Lehtikangas 2000). When debris is stored in open piles, precipitation contacts the pile. As decomposition is in part a function of the moisture content, debris stored in open piles is more likely to decompose faster than debris stored under a cover area. The temperature within wood piles also controls the degree of microbial and fungal activity as well as the chemical oxidation of organic matter. Several insects also facilitate the decomposition of wood through various physical and chemical processes. Storing wood in open piles subjects the stored debris to unhindered insect infestation. Grinding wood and mechanically size‐reducing wood can also facilitate the decomposition of organic matter in a wood pile (Barlaz 2006). The energy content of woody debris stored in open‐air stockpiles is also expected to decline over time. 2.6.2 Self‐Ignited Fires The second issue with temporary storage of woody debris in open piles is the potential for self‐ignition. The self‐heating of wood piles that leads to self‐ignition is caused by physical, biological, and chemical processes (Hogland and Marques 2007). Microbial and fungal activity in wood piles cause heat development in piles at temperatures up to 70 °C. The increased heat generation facilitates further microbial growth and further heat generation (Jirjis 1995). Chemical oxidation contributes to heat generation at Background 12 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris higher temperature ranges (as low as 50 °C but primarily between 80 and 90 °C). The ultimate potential of the wood pile to spontaneously ignite depends on the amount of heat produced by the biological and chemical processes within the wood pile and how much of the heat is transported out (Gislerud 1990). The major factors affecting these processes and the overall temperature within a wood pile are the moisture content of the wood pile, the moisture distribution through the pile, the size of the pile, and the fraction size, and size distribution of the wood. Natural drying of wood in an open pile can reduce the moisture content of the wood to approximately 25 to 30%, which reduces the fungal and microbial activity in the wood. However, natural drying can increase the potential for fire. Storing wood as chips can also increase the potential for spontaneous ignition due to increased microbial activity and reduced or uneven air ventilation (Gislerud 1990). Hogland and Marques (2007) indicated that loose wood should only be stored in small amounts for short periods of time to reduce the chance of self‐ignition. Springer (1980) indicated that drying and maintaining the dryness of wood piles can help prevent self‐ignition. The height and configuration of the piles has also been shown to play a role in heat generation; larger piles of chips had faster and higher heat increases than a smaller pile of wood chips and two piles of wood chunks (one the same height and one smaller) (Jirjis 2005). Hogland and Marques (2007), while evaluating baling as a storage method, also indicated that higher pile heights had a higher risk of self‐ignition of the pile. Heat generation in wood piles has been shown to be higher in piles with smaller‐sized materials (Jirjis 2005). Other studies have been conducted on spontaneous fires in coal piles. Krishnaswamy et al. (1996) found that coal pile sides with steeper slopes were more likely to catch fire. The occurrence of fires on the same slopes declined after regrading the slopes to a gentler rise. Fires were reported at several C&D landfill sites in Florida Panhandle in 2005 (e.g., Saufley Landfill in Escambia County). The Saufley Landfill received a substantial amount of hurricane debris after the area was impacted by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and experienced issues with fires due in part to a steep side slope configuration. 2.6.3 Additional Considerations Another issue associated with storing wood in open piles, apart from decomposition and fires, is the atmospheric emissions from the wood pile due to the oxidation and decomposition of wood and the associated human health issues (Gislerud 1990; Svedberg et al. 2004; Rupar‐Gadd 2006). Open‐air stockpiles are also exposed to the elements, leaving them prone the stormwater runoff that must be controlled. Lastly, it may be difficult to meet the specifications of many biomass fuel end users if debris is stored in open‐air stockpiles. As mentioned earlier, debris stored in large open‐
air stockpiles may decompose more quickly. Also, exposure to moisture may decrease the energy content of the stored debris. 2.6.4 Summary Background 13 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Due to the operational, environmental, and health issues described above, on‐site storage of woody debris in open piles may not be an appropriate storage method if the debris is intended to be used as a fuel source. A viable storage method that reduces the energy loss of the wood and the fire risk of the wood pile is expected to promote resource recovery and recycling of the woody hurricane debris. 2.7
Agricultural Silage Storage Systems (Ag‐Bag) The agricultural industry uses what are known as agricultural silage storage bags to store animal feedstock (e.g., grains or hays) and compost. These systems are manufactured by a variety of companies including the Versa Corporation (www.versacorporation.com), Ag‐Bag (www.ag‐bag.com), Kelly Ryan Equipment Company (www.kryan.com), and PowerFill (www.PowerFill.net). Generally, these pieces of equipment use two filling mechanisms. The first is through the use of a hydraulic ram. The feedstock is loaded into a large hopper and as the chamber is filled, a hydraulic ram pushes the material into the bag as the equipment advances linearly. This type of bagger is referenced herein as the hydraulic ram bagger. The second mechanism uses a conveyor belt and a rotor to load the bags. Once enough material has been loaded into a particular section of the bag, the equipment is allowed to advance and additional plastic is released from the spool to continue filling. To store woody debris, the hydraulic ram bagger is more favorable based on the consistency and other properties of ground woody debris. Silage bags are available in a variety of diameters (5 ft to 14 ft), lengths (up to 200 ft), and thicknesses from several manufacturers (e.g. Ag‐Bag, UpNorth, Bridon Cordage). Generally, bags with a larger diameter are constructed with thicker plastic.
Background 14 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 3. Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 3.1
Overview Field investigations were conducted to evaluate using a commercially‐available animal feed‐stock storage technology to temporarily store the woody debris. The project team used the Ag‐Bag system (Miller‐St. Nazianz, Inc.) in this study; however, silage bagging equipment is manufactured under other trademark names as well (e.g. Internal Density® by Versa Corp., Centerline Pro Baggers by Kelly Ryan, PowerFill 2000 by PowerFill USA, Inc.). The results of this study may be applicable to all similar silage storage systems. The primary objective of the investigation was to evaluate whether the storage of debris in plastic silage bags preserved the energy content of the debris better than open‐air stockpiling (also referred to as open windrow). In addition to investigating temporary storage in Ag‐Bags, the use of other chemical additives or treatments was evaluated. ConCover (an alternative daily cover used at the PCNCLF), lime, ash, and Bora‐Care® were individually added to different stockpiles to evaluate the ability of each to preserve the energy content of woody debris. Table 3‐1 shows each test condition and the rationale for each. Table 3‐1. Summary of Testing Conditions and Rationale Test Condition Ag‐Bag ConCover Testing Rationale Reduced exposure to moisture and slowed decomposition. Currently used on site as an alternative daily cover; if found to preserve the energy content, implementation would be relatively easy. Lime Ash Inhibition of microbial activity by increasing pH. Inhibition of microbial activity by increasing pH. Inhibition of decomposition facilitated by various organisms including Bora‐Care® microbes, fungi, and insects. The following sections describe in detail the materials and methodology used in this investigation. 3.2
Experiment Setup 3.2.1 Bagging System A CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System was rented and brought to the PCNCLF. Since the PCNCLF operates under a Title V air permit, the potential emissions of the CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System were calculated. The emissions from the system’s engine (a 13‐hp Honda GX‐390) running for 3 weeks were estimated based on the manufacturer’s air emissions limit values. The air emissions estimate submitted to the FDEP Southwest District Air Section demonstrated that the air emissions from operating the CT‐5 Ag‐Bag system for 3 weeks were insignificant and would fall below the potential‐to‐emit (PTE) threshold for the site. Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 15 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris The CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System consisted of a 3‐cubic yard hopper and a 13‐hp Honda GX‐390 gasoline engine. Approximately 3 to 4 cubic yards (cy) of ground material were dropped into the 10‐ft wide fill throat. An Ag‐Bag (a 5‐ft diameter, 200‐ft long plastic silage bag) was attached to the outer edge of the CT‐5 tunnel, and a hydraulic ram pushed the material through the tunnel into the Ag‐bag. A single Ag‐Bag can store about 190 cy of material, and up to six bags (200‐ft sections) were filled in a day. Before and after filling, each end of the Ag‐Bag was sealed to enclose the material within the bag. The field effort to fill all of the bags lasted 1 week. 3.2.2 Hurricane Debris Stored in Ag‐Bags Two fractions of woody biomass entering the facility evaluated in this study were woody debris and yard debris. Woody debris was classified as large stumps and logs generated as land‐clearing debris (LCD). Yard debris consisted of stumps and logs, smaller limbs and twigs, leaves, and other organic debris generated from typical residential, commercial, and municipal yard work and landscaping. All debris brought to the PCNCLF as yard trash and LCD was ground at the site using a tub grinder (routinely used for processing yard trash at PCNCLF) and was stockpiled at PCNCLF’s permitted yard trash processing area (shown in Figure 3‐1 and Figure 3‐2). The ground yard debris was sealed in six 200‐ft‐long 5‐ft diameter Ag‐Bags using the CT‐
5 Ag‐Bag over a graded and mulched area at the PCNCLF (shown in Figure 3‐3, Figure 3‐4, and Figure 3‐5). Additional information on Ag‐Bag machines and plastic are provided in Appendix A. The ground woody debris from LCD was also sealed in six 200‐
ft long Ag‐Bags. Each 100‐ft section of the Ag‐Bag was sealed using the sealing strip provided by the Ag‐Bag vendor. In summary, twelve 100‐ft Ag‐Bag sections (referred to as Ag‐Bag pile) contained woody debris and twelve 100‐ft Ag‐Bag sections contained yard debris. Two additional piles of similar dimensions to the Ag‐Bags were laid without being sealed in an Ag‐Bag to serve as the control piles—one control pile for the yard debris and one for the woody debris. A front‐end loader was used to load the Ag‐Bag. Each of the 26 piles (two control and 24 Ag‐Bag piles) contained approximately 90 cy of ground woody biomass. Site personnel filled all of the Ag‐Bags from June 2, 2008 through June 6, 2008. Figure 3‐6 shows the aerial view of the Ag‐Bags and opened Ag‐Bags along with the control and ConCover piles (ConCover piles are discussed in Section 3.2.3) in September 2008. Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 16 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 8/26/2008
Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC
4
Figure 3‐1. Grinding of Wood Debris in a Tub Grinder Figure 3‐2. Ground Wood Debris Stockpile Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 17 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 3‐3. Loading Ground Wood Debris into the CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System Figure 3‐4. The CT‐5 Ag‐Bag System Filling an Ag‐Bag with Ground Woody Debris Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 18 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 3‐5. Ag‐Bags Stored at the PCNCLF Opened Ag‐Bags
ConCover Piles
Control Piles
Figure 3‐6. Aerial Photograph of the PCNCLF Yard Debris Processing Area‐Sept 2008 3.2.3 Hurricane Debris Stored and Treated with ConCover Two additional piles (one woody debris and one yard debris) of similar size to those sealed within the Ag‐Bags were laid but not sealed. These piles were covered with ConCover (a spray‐on alternative daily cover currently permitted to use as daily cover at the site) to evaluate the impact of the spray‐on daily cover on the wood preservation (as Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 19 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris shown in Figure 3‐7). The woody debris piles treated with ConCover were sampled at the end of the study period (September 2010). Figure 3‐7. Adding ConCover to a Stored Wood Pile 3.2.4 Woody Debris Stored in Barrels and Treated with Additives Portions of the woody debris were stored in four 55‐gallon barrels to investigate the impact of three additives (ash from the Wheelabrator Ridge Generating Station adjacent to the PCNCLF, lime, and a commercially‐available pesticide and fungicide called Bora‐
Care®) on wood degradation. Lime and ash were expected to retard the woody debris decomposition by increasing the pH of the debris, and BoraCare® was expected to retard the decomposition by discouraging insect infestation and fungal growth. Bora‐
Care® is a 40% volumetric solution of disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (Na2B8O13.4H2O) in water. Additional information on Bora‐Care® can be found in Appendix B. Woody debris was used to fill the barrels to about the 75% level. Each barrel was filled in three 1‐ to 2 ft‐thick layers. A known mass of each of three additives (ash, lime, and Bora‐Care®) was added into an individual barrel. For the barrels treated with lime and ash, approximately 1 gallon of dry additive (lime or ash) was spread at each layer (as shown in Figure 3‐8 and Figure 3‐9). Approximately 3 gallons of additive (lime or ash) was added to about 40 gallons of woody debris. Each barrel was sealed to prevent liquid infiltration and rolled to mix the additive with the debris (as shown in Figure 3‐10). Bora‐Care® was applied by a licensed pest control professional. A 1:5 solution (Bora‐Care®:water) was prepared, and 0.5 Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 20 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris gallon of the solution was used to treat 40 gallons of the woody debris in the barrel. The barrels were sampled at the end of the study period to measure moisture content, organic content, and energy content. Figure 3‐8. Incinerator Ash Added to a Wood Debris Storage Barrel Figure 3‐9. Lime Added to a Wood Debris Storage Barrel Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 21 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 3‐10. Rolling the Barrel to Mix the Additive into the Wood Debris 3.2.5 Summary Table 3‐2 summarizes the experiment setup. Table 3‐2. Experiment Setup Summary Storage Method Quantity Ag‐Bags‐woody debris Ag‐Bags‐yard debris Open Windrow‐woody debris Open Windrow‐yard debris ConCover Treated Open Windrow‐woody debris ConCover Treated Open Windrow‐yard debris Lime Treated‐Woody Debris (55‐gallon barrel) Ash Treated‐Woody Debris (55‐gallon barrel) Bora‐Care® Treated‐Woody Debris (55‐gallon barrel) 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 3‐3 provides a summary of the project activities. Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 22 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Table 3‐3. Summary of Project Activities Date February–May 2008 June 2008 July 2008–September 2010 3.3
Project Activity Collection of yard debris and woody debris Experiment setup Samples collection Routine Sampling Initial samples of the ground wood materials were collected and analyzed for moisture content, organic content, and energy content before being placed into the Ag‐Bags in June 2008 to provide the project team with background data. From July 2008 to December 2008, the project team opened one yard debris and one woody debris Ag‐bag and collected samples monthly (as shown in Figure 3‐11). After reviewing the data from the first 12 Ag‐Bags (opened over a 6‐month period), the project team found that the energy content of wood stored in the Ag‐Bags was not significantly different from the control pile. As such, in January 2009 FDEP granted an extension to reduce the sampling frequency from two bags per month to two bags per quarter, which extended the timeframe over which the woody debris could degrade. In May 2009, the project team found that the control piles and the piles covered with ConCover were covered with the processed yard debris and were no longer accessible for sampling. To remedy the situation, four bags were opened that month—two yard debris bags and two wood debris bags. One of each category was made the new control pile, and the other two were coated with ConCover. Sampling continued through September 2010. To begin each sampling event, the Ag‐Bags were opened with a utility knife, and the excess plastic was pulled back to expose the wood debris. Using a clean shovel, nine pockets were dug into the windrow approximately 12 to 24 inches deep spaced evenly along the length of the 100‐ft windrow. Later, two samples were taken for laboratory analysis in 250‐mL jars from each of the nine holes (Figure 3‐12). The samples were stored in a cooler at 4 oC and shipped to TestAmerica Analytical Testing Corp. for energy, organic, and moisture content analysis. After each of the samples was collected from the nine holes, a composite sample was taken and stored in a sealable 5‐gallon bucket. The composite sample was collected by taking approximately one shovel‐full of debris from each of the nine holes along each windrow. The composite samples were taken beginning in October 2008. Until December 2008, three samples were collected from each pile. The data analysis suggested a high variability of the energy content of samples collected from a single pile. To address the variability, the number of samples collected from each pile was increased to nine starting in January 2009. Table 3‐4 below lists the sampling events and number of samples collected during each sampling event. Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 23 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 3‐11. An Opened Ag‐bag Figure 3‐12. Sampling Woody Debris after Opening an Ag‐Bag Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 24 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Table 3‐4. Sampling Events Summary Number of Samples Collected Sampling Date Control Ag‐Bag Jun‐08 Jul‐08 Aug‐08 Sep‐08 Oct‐08 Nov‐08 Dec‐08 Jan‐09 May‐09 Sep‐09 Jan‐10 Jun‐10 Sep‐10 3.4
Woody Debris 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 Yards Debris ConCover/ Additive 9 (ConCover) 5 (Lime) 5 (Ash) 5 (Bora‐Care®) Control Ag‐Bag ConCover/ Additive 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (ConCover) 5 (Lime) 5 (Ash) 5 (Bora‐Care®) Laboratory Analysis 3.4.1 Moisture Content and Organic Content TestAmerica followed the ASTM International (ASTM) Standard D2974‐07a to measure the moisture, organic, and ash content. Moisture content was quantified as the difference between the mass of the original sample (wet weight) and the mass of the oven‐dried sample (dried weight) in terms of the mass of the original sample. The oven‐
dried mass was obtained by drying a representative portion of the sample in an oven maintained at 105 °C ± 5 °C for a minimum of 16 hours. Following the 16‐hour period, the sample was removed from the oven, cooled in a desiccator, and then weighed at room temperature. This procedure was repeated hourly until a minimum of two weights verified constant mass. The organic content was measured by igniting an over‐dried sample in a muffle furnace at 440 °C ± 22 °C over a 16‐hour period. Constant mass was achieved by following the same procedure used for oven drying. The mass that remains at the end of combustion in the muffle furnace is Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 25 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris defined as ash, and the ash content is determined by dividing the mass of the ash by the mass of the oven‐dried sample ignited in the furnace. The percent organic matter is calculated by subtracting the percent ash content from one hundred. The laboratory analyzed samples collected in June 2008 for total volatile solids as opposed to the organic content. The difference between the two is that total volatile solids is measured by combusting the sample at 550 ± 50 °C, whereas the organic content is measured by combusting the sample at 440 ± 22 °C. 3.4.2 BTU Value TestAmerica measured the gross heat of combustion, which is the total heat generated as the sample burns and the heat expanded when the water vapor (produced from the burn) condenses, in BTUs per pound based on ASTM Method E711. A known sample mass (approximately 0.2 to 1 g) was placed in the oxygen bomb, which consists of a cylinder and an electrode loop. The cylinder was then sealed with a screw cap (lightly moistened at the ring) that has ignition wires, a gas inlet, and an oxygen release, allowing the bomb to be under oxygen and pressure. The oxygen bomb was then submerged in a bucket containing either 2 kg or 2 L of DI water that had an impeller for stirring and a thermometer to measure temperature. The bucket was placed inside an air jacket, and this combination constitutes the oxygen bomb calorimeter. After the DI water was stirred for 6 minutes and the temperature was recorded each minute, the electric ignition button was pressed and 45 seconds later temperature measurements started at 15‐second intervals for 2 minutes and then at 1‐minute intervals until the rate of temperature change was constant over a 6‐minute period. If the DI water temperature did not increase rapidly within approximately 30 seconds, the sample did not ignite and the bomb was removed. The sample was then prepared again with the addition of an accelerant, such as n‐butanol (~0.1 g). During the sample testing, time and temperature were recorded. Gross heat of combustion was then calculated with the data obtained during the test period. The washings from the oxygen bomb calorimeter were titrated with reagents to determine the amount of nitric acid formed and the sulfur content was measured turbidimetrically (USEPA Method 375.4). Materials, Methods, and Field Experiments 26 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 4. Results and Discussion 4.1
Overview The performance of the Ag‐Bags was evaluated based on several qualitative and quantitative parameters. Ag‐Bag integrity and its ability to control the flux of liquids and gases across the Ag‐Bag were primarily evaluated qualitatively based on the field observations. The efficacy of the Ag‐Bag to preserve the energy content of the stored debris was quantitatively evaluated by collecting and measuring the energy content and the organic content of the woody debris over time. This section presents the performance evaluation of the Ag‐Bag conducted as a part of the project. 4.2
Qualitative Analysis 4.2.1 Ag‐Bag Integrity The Ag‐Bags were fully exposed to the sun over 26 months (June 2008 to September 2010). The manufacturer brochure reports that the bags are expected to last for approximately 2 years in rugged weather conditions. In general, the Ag‐Bags remained in good condition throughout the project. The Ag‐Bags were inspected for holes, rips, and cuts on multiple occasions. The bags were first inspected immediately after the filling was completed in June 2008. The filling resulted in a few small rips (typically < 1 inch in diameter) in the Ag‐Bags caused by sharp edges of the debris. Figure 4‐1 (a) presents an example of the small rips observed. For the most part, each 100‐ft section of the Ag‐bag had fewer than two rips or tears. Two of the yard debris Ag‐bags had four rips each. More rips per 100‐ft section of the Ag‐bag were observed in the subsequent inspections. The Ag‐Bag manufacturer provided multiple polyethylene tape rolls to repair cuts and rips. However, to assess the Ag‐bag performance under no or minimal maintenance scenario, the observed rips were not repaired. In addition to the small rips, a few (fewer than five) bigger cuts (up to approximately 12 inches in diameter) were observed during the project. An example of these types of rips is presented in Figure 4‐1 (b). These cuts were caused by heavy equipment movement and debris movement over time. Results and Discussion 27 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris (a) (b) Figure 4‐1. Examples Ag‐Bag Rips (a) <1 in. and (b) <12‐in. Results and Discussion 28 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 4.2.2 Liquid Accumulation One concern at the beginning of the project was the potential for the intrinsic moisture from the debris to accumulate at the bottom of the Ag‐Bags during the project. As each bag was opened, the interior of the bag was inspected for the presence of liquid. None of the bags was observed to contain ponded liquids, probably because of the low initial moisture content of the debris. A small amount of condensation was observed on the interior of most bags after opening (Figure 4‐2). Figure 4‐2. Condensation Formed on the Interior of an Ag‐Bag 4.2.3 Gas Generation Another concern was the accumulation of gases generated as a result of debris decomposition within the sealed Ag‐Bags. The accumulation of gases, if any, would result in “ballooning” of the Ag‐Bag because of the greater pressure of the gases inside the Ag‐Bag. The Ag‐Bags were monitored for ballooning throughout the project. The manufacturer provided vents that can be installed on the Ag‐Bags to promote gas flux across the impervious Ag‐Bag in the event ballooning of the Ag‐Bags was observed. For the duration of the project, the Ag‐Bag plastic stayed in direct contact with the debris and no ballooning was observed, probably because of an insignificant debris decomposition rate and potential venting through the cuts and rip described earlier. The vents were therefore not installed on the Ag‐Bags. Results and Discussion 29 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 4.3
Quantitative Evaluation 4.3.1 Evaluation Approach Two of the primary objectives of this report are to evaluate the ability of plastic silage bags to preserve the energy content for later use as fuel and to evaluate techniques to inhibit wood decomposition using commercially‐available chemicals and incinerator ash. To fulfill these objectives, a field and laboratory testing plan, described in Section 3.0, was implemented to gather energy content and organic content data. The temporal variations of the energy content (BTU/lb) and the organic content (mass‐based) were used to quantitatively assess the efficacy of the Ag‐Bag storage system for preserving the energy content of the debris for its ultimate use as an energy source. Likewise, the effects of ConCover, lime, ash, and Bora‐Care® were evaluated based on the variations in the energy content and organic content when compared to background and control data. Multiple samples were collected from each Ag‐Bag on each sampling event to measure energy, organic, and moisture contents in the laboratory. Box‐and‐whisker plots were constructed to compare the measured energy, organic, and moisture content values among the various storage techniques evaluated in this study. These types of plots visually portray the statistical distribution of the data. Figure 4‐3 presents a definition sketch of the box‐and‐whisker plot. The line inside the box represents the median. The top of the box represents the 75th percentile and the bottom of the box represents the 25th percentile. The lines that extend upward and downward (whiskers) from the box represent the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively. The outliers are presented as individual points outside the whiskers. Data collected during this study are presented in this section and in Appendix C. A subset of the data presented in Appendix C is used in this section to present and discuss the overall evaluation. 120
100
Outlier
90th Percentile
80
Y Data
75th Percentile
60
50th Percentile
40
25th Percentile
20
10th Percentile
Outlier
0
0
1
2
X Data
Figure 4‐3. Box‐and‐Whisker Plot Definition Sketch 4.3.2 Assessment of the Effectiveness of Ag‐Bag as Moisture Barrier Results and Discussion 30 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris The Ag‐Bag was primarily hypothesized to preserve the energy content of the contained debris by minimizing the exposure of the debris to precipitation. Figure 4‐4 presents the distribution of the moisture content of woody debris stored in Ag‐Bags compared to the initial moisture content of the debris and the moisture content of the control piles at the end of the project. The moisture content values of the debris stored in the Ag‐Bags was less than the initial moisture content of the debris, potentially attributable to the heterogeneous nature of the debris. The moisture content of debris stored in Ag‐Bags was significantly lower than debris stored in the open‐air control piles, suggesting that the net moisture flux across the Ag‐Bag was negligible and the Ag‐Bag acted as an effective moisture barrier. In addition, the moisture content of the debris in the control pile (open windrow) was significantly greater than the moisture content values of the initial moisture content and Ag‐Bagged debris. 45
Moisture Content (wet basis %)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Control
Sept 2010
Ag-Bag
Sept 2010
Figure 4‐4. Moisture Content of Woody Debris Sampled in September 2010. The moisture content of the debris stored in Ag‐bags was significantly lower than the moisture content of the debris stored in the open‐air control piles indicating the Ag‐
Bags 4.3.3 Assessment of Ag‐Bag for Preserving the Energy Content and Organic Content To evaluate the magnitude of the change in energy and organic content attributable to debris decomposition, the dry‐weight basis energy and organic content data were calculated and compared. Figure 4‐5 (a and b) presents the organic content (dry‐weight basis) for yard debris and woody debris stored in an Ag‐Bag and open windrows along Results and Discussion 31 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris with the background data. Figure 4‐6 (a and b) shows the energy content of yard debris stored in Ag‐Bags and open windrows along with the background data. The debris stored in Ag‐Bags has substantially higher energy content (BTU per wet mass) and organic content (% dry mass) than the debris stored in the open windrow. The data from debris stored in Ag‐Bags are also comparable to the background data. The background energy content ranged from 4,900 BTU/lb (dry‐weight basis) to 10,800 BTU/lb (dry‐weight basis), which is consistent with the energy content reported elsewhere (e.g., the USDA Fuel Value Calculator (2004) reports a value of 6,000 BTU/lb). The data shown in Figure 4‐6 suggest that Ag‐Bags preserved the energy content and the organic content. Results and Discussion 32 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 100
Yard Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Background
1
(May 2009)
Control
2 Pile
(Sept 2010)
Ag-Bag
3
(Sept 2010)
4
(a) 100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Background
1
(May 2009)
Control
2 Pile
(Sept 2010)
Ag-Bag
3
(Sept 2010)
4
(b) Figure 4‐5. Organic Content of (a) Yard Debris and (b) Woody Debris Stored in Ag‐
Bags. The organic content of the woody debris and yard debris stored in Ag‐Bags appears to be higher than the control pile, suggesting that the Ag‐Bag helped retard decomposition of woody and yard debris. Results and Discussion 33 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1
Background
(May 2009)
2 Pile
Control
(Sept 2010)
3
Ag-Bag
(Sept 2010)
4
(a) Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Yard Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
Background
1
(May 2009)
Control
2 Pile
(Sept 2010)
Ag-Bag
3
(Sept 2010)
4
(b) Figure 4‐6. Energy Content of (a) Yard Debris and (b) Woody Debris Stored in Ag‐Bags. The energy content of debris stored in Ag‐Bags is higher than the energy content of debris stored in the open‐air control piles, suggesting that the Ag‐Bags helped to preserve the energy content of the debris. Results and Discussion 34 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris To further evaluate the comparative decomposition of debris stored in Ag‐Bags and in open windrows, the project team conducted a sieve test on a composite sample in which the debris samples were passed through a series of sieves with decreasing screen sizes to determine the particle size distribution. Figure 4‐7 shows the particle size distribution for woody debris samples stored in an Ag‐Bag and in open windrows collected in September 2010. The data indicate that debris stored in open windrows is comprised of smaller particles overall when compared to debris stored in Ag‐Bags. This suggests that the debris stored in open windrows was probably more degraded than debris stored in the Ag‐Bags. Percent Finer (wet weight basis)
100
80
Woody Debris Open Windrow
(Sept 2010)
60
Woody Debris Ag-Bag (Sept 2010)
40
20
0
100
10
1
0.1
Sieve Size (mm)
Figure 4‐7. Sieve Test on Woody Debris Collected September 2010. The woody debris stored in Ag‐Bags appears to be composed of larger particles than the debris stored in open windrows, indicating that the debris stored in open windrows was probably further degraded. 4.3.4 Assessment of Additives for Preserving Energy and Organic Content Polk County uses ConCover as an alternative daily cover material at the PCNCLF. If ConCover is found to preserve the energy content of the stored debris, implementing a temporary storage system using ConCover would be relatively easy. Figure 4‐8 (a and b) shows the organic content of woody debris and yard debris treated with ConCover. Results and Discussion 35 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Figure 4‐9 (a and b) presents the energy content of woody debris and yard debris treated with ConCover. 100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Background
1
(May 2009)
Concover
2
Covered Pile
(Sept 2010)
Control
3 Pile
(Sept 2010)
4
(a) 100
Yard Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Background
1
(May 2009)
Concover
2
Covered Pile
(Sept 2010)
Control
3 Pile
(Sept 2010)
4
Figure 4‐8. Organic Content of (a) Woody Debris and (b) Yard Debris Treated with ConCover. The organic content of samples collected from the piles treated with ConCover appears to be similar to the control, indicating that ConCover did not retard decomposition. Results and Discussion 36 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1
Background
(May 2009)
2
Concover
Covered Pile
(Sept 2010)
3 Pile
Control
(Sept 2010)
4
(a) Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Yard Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
Background
1
(May 2009)
Concover
2
Covered Pile
(Sept 2010)
Control
3 Pile
(Sept 2010)
4
(b) Figure 4‐9. Energy Content of (a) Woody Debris and (b) Yard Debris Treated with ConCover. The energy content of samples collected from the wood piles treated with ConCover appears similar to the energy content of debris collected from the control piles, indicating that ConCover did not effectively preserve the energy content of the debris. Results and Discussion 37 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris The energy content of woody debris treated with ConCover was found to be slightly lower than the control pile. The energy content of yard debris treated with ConCover was similar to the energy content of yard debris stored in open windrows. The data suggest that ConCover did not to have a significant impact on preserving the organic content of debris. As described previously, three additional barrels of woody debris were each treated with lime, ash, and Bora‐Care® to evaluate the ability of each additive to reduce decomposition and preserve the energy content of the debris. Figure 4‐10 and Figure 4‐11 show the performance of each of the additives on decomposition and energy content preservation of woody debris, respectively. Each of the three woody debris piles treated with an additive was stored in a closed container and was sampled only once in September 2010. To evaluate the impact of each additive on reducing decomposition and preserving the energy content of the debris, data collected for the woody debris stored in an Ag‐Bag opened in September 2010 were used as the control. As Figure 4‐10 and Figure 4‐11 show, the organic content and energy content of the debris treated with lime and ash were much lower than the control data. This may be due in part to the change in the composition of the wood debris (i.e., inorganic lime and largely inorganic ash added to the weight of the sample but not to the organic content or energy content). No conclusions, therefore, could be drawn regarding the efficacy of lime and ash in preserving the organic content or energy content of the debris. The data also suggest that treating woody debris with Bora‐Care® may slow decomposition and preserve the energy content. Since decomposition is facilitated in part by insects and fungi, the addition of Bora‐Care® appears to be effective. Additional research on the ability of pesticides and fungicides to reduce debris decomposition and to preserve the energy content in open windrows is warranted. Results and Discussion 38 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 100
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Lime
Ash
Pesticide
Background
Ag-Bag
1
2
3
4
5
(June 2008) (Sept 2010) (Sept 2010) (Sept 2010) (Sept 2010)
6
Figure 4‐10. Organic Content of Woody Debris Treated with Lime, Ash, and Bora‐
Care®. The organic content of woody debris mixed with lime and ash was lower than the debris stored in Ag‐Bags alone. Also, the pesticide, Bora‐Care®, appears to preserve the organic content of the debris. Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Ag-Bag
Lime
Ash
Background
(June 2008) (Sept 2010) (Sept 2010) (Sept 2010)
Pesticide
(Sept 2010)
Figure 4‐11. Energy Content of Woody Debris Treated with Lime, Ash, and Bora‐Care®. The energy content of debris mixed with lime and ash appears to be lower when compared to the background energy content and the energy content of debris stored in Ag‐Bags. Results and Discussion 39 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 4.3.5 Summary Table 4‐1 summarizes the results of the analysis. The Ag‐Bags and pesticide were found to be effective in preserving the energy content of stored debris. Additional research is warranted to further investigate the effects of the pesticide on debris stored in open windrows. ConCover did not appear to preserve the energy content of the stored debris. The results of the samples mixed with lime and ash were inconclusive. Table 4‐1. Summary of Testing Conditions, Rationale, and Results Test Condition Ag‐Bag ConCover Lime Ash Bora‐Care® Testing Rationale Reduced exposure to moisture and slowed decomposition. Currently used on site as an alternative daily cover; if found to preserve the energy content, then implementation would be relatively easy. Inhibition of microbial activity by increasing pH. Inhibition of microbial activity by increasing pH. Inhibition of decomposition facilitated by various organisms including microbes, fungi, and insects. Effective Energy Preservation Yes No Inconclusive Inconclusive Yes Results and Discussion 40 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 5. Cost‐Benefit Model 5.1
Overview The economic viability of storing woody debris in plastic silage bags for eventual use as a fuel source depends on several factors that are expected to vary from site to site. This section presents the factors that should be considered when estimating the major cost and benefit elements of deploying plastic silage bags to temporarily store woody debris to preserve its energy content. The cost and benefit estimates presented at the end of each section reflect the costs and benefits above and beyond what a typical disaster debris‐management operation might incur. Table 5‐1 below presents the major cost and benefit elements of the project. These elements are discussed in detail later in this section. Table 5‐1. Plastic Silage Bag Storage System Cost and Benefit Elements Cost Elements •
•
•
•
5.2
Benefit Elements Debris handling and size reduction Plastic silage system Transportation Other (e.g., project design, permitting, land) •
•
•
Tipping fee Revenue from sale of debris Other benefits (e.g., avoided cost, environmental) Cost Elements 5.2.1 Debris Handling and Size Reduction Cost Once waste is received on site, an area should be made available for stockpiling debris until it is processed and stored in the plastic silage bags. Following a hurricane, the increase in woody debris delivered to a processing facility is expected to increase substantially. As a result, the land available for staging hurricane debris should be sufficient to address the influx. In addition to the land needs, equipment such as loaders and an operator(s) will be required to manage the drop‐off area. Depending on the quality of the incoming debris, several workers may also be needed to screen non‐
woody debris from delivered materials. The equipment and the number of operators and workers needed would depend of the debris receipt rate. The woody debris should be size‐reduced for storage in plastic silage bags. Equipment such as tub grinders, horizontal hammer mills, or wood chippers may be used to size‐
reduce the debris. The end user of the woody debris may have specific size requirements. Simple volume reduction may not achieve these size requirements, and the needs of potential end users should be evaluated (Yepsen 2008). End users may have additional specifications regarding energy content, moisture content, and dirt content that should be carefully considered when selecting a debris size‐reduction technique and equipment. Apart from size‐reduction equipment, an excavator with a grappling claw and an operator would be needed to load the size‐reduction equipment. The debris receipt Cost‐Benefit Model 41 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris rate and processing space available at the site will dictate the number of pieces of equipment (e.g., size‐reduction equipment and excavators) required at the site. The cost associated with debris handling and size reduction should include the equipment rental or purchase cost, operating and maintenance cost, labor cost, and the land cost. As discussed earlier in the report, the processing of debris to reduce its size is a common element in all disaster debris‐management plans that the project team reviewed as a part of this project. Therefore, the cost and equipment needed to process woody debris does not differ substantially from the cost and equipment already required to handle and process woody debris in most typical hurricane debris management plans. 5.2.2 Land Requirement For facilities storing size‐reduced woody debris in plastic silage bags, land use will be similar to that of a composting facility with windrows. The land requirement would depend on the bag size used. Larger bags will allow more debris storage per acre of land. The suitability of the available plastic silage bags and the silage bagger should be evaluated to ensure compatibility with storing ground woody debris and subsequently to estimate the land requirement. As described earlier in the report, there were two commercially‐available baggers identified, the hydraulic ram and the rotor and conveyor belt. The rotor‐type baggers are more commonly used for filling finer materials such as animal feed into bags. These baggers are designed to pack debris with particle size less than ¾ in. and probably would not be suitable for woody debris (AFS 2010). The hydraulic ram type bagger would be more appropriate for packing woody debris in plastic silage bags (AFS 2010; UpNorth 2010). The largest plastic silage bag currently available in the market for a hydraulic ram type bagger is 10‐ft diameter bag (UpNorth 2010). Approximately 2.5 cy of debris can be stored per linear foot of 10‐ft diameter bag (AFS 2010; UpNorth 2010). These bags can be spaced 13 ft apart on center (AFS 2010). Approximately 6,500 cy of debris can be stored per acre assuming the following: •
•
•
10‐ft diameter, 300‐ft long bags are used. Bags are clustered in groups of ten. Each cluster has a 25‐ft buffer around the perimeter to allow for access. The land requirement for debris storage in open piles was estimated based on the pile size and spacing recommended by FDEP’s Storm Debris Staging Area Guidance published in June 2010. Based on standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association, FDEP recommends storing ground debris in piles not exceeding 18 ft in height, 50 ft in width, and 350 ft in length with a minimum pile spacing of 25 ft. Approximately 18,000 cy of debris can be stored per acre by following these size and spacing requirements. Based on the numbers presented above, the land requirement for storing the debris in silage bags (10‐ft diameter bags) is almost three times the land requirement for debris storage in open piles. The availability of land (and the associated cost) is, therefore, a critical factor that should be evaluated when considering storing debris in silage bags. Cost‐Benefit Model 42 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 5.2.3 Plastic Silage System Cost The equipment needed for storage includes a wheel loader, plastic silage bags, and silage bagger. The bagger (Ag‐Bag CT‐5) used for the project comes with a remote control that the loader operator can use to move the bagger and does not require a dedicated operator. However, depending of the type of bagger used, dedicated personnel may be needed to operate the bagger. In addition to a loader, dump trucks may be needed to haul the debris from the size‐reducing equipment to the bagger, depending on the haul distance. For the field evaluation as a part of this project, a loader and an operator were used to load the bagger. The grinding operation and the storage operation may be coupled such that the grinder directly feeds the processed debris to the silage bagger. The need for additional equipment in addition to the silage bagger, therefore, can be eliminated depending on factors such as site configuration and the incoming debris rate. The location of size‐reduction equipment relative to the bagger should be evaluated to minimize the required equipment and operator hours needed to fill the bags. The cost associated with storage should include the equipment rental or purchase, operating and maintenance, labor, and land costs. The overall bagging cost would depend on the site‐specific conditions. The bagger and bag manufacturers and vendors were contacted to gather cost data to estimate the bagging costs. A hydraulic ram type bagger (CT‐10) needed to fill 10‐ft diameter costs $160,000 (AFS 2010). AFS (2010) indicated that based on 6‐8 operating hours a day and 5 operating days a week, the bagger has an operating life of 7–10 years. The bagger life, therefore, is estimated to be 9,000 to 20,000 operating hours. AFS (2010) indicated that this bagger can fill a 10‐ft diameter 200‐ft long bag, which holds approximately 500 cy of debris, in 1–1.5 operating hours. Based on the data presented above, the bagger cost of $160,000 results in a bagging cost of $0.01–$0.04 per cy of debris. The number of baggers needed to fill the debris in a reasonable timeframe should also be considered when designing the project. A CT‐10 bagger can bag 300 to 500 cy of debris per hour. Assuming 10 operating hours a day and 5 operating days a week, a CT‐
10 bagger can bag 15,000 to 25,000 cy of debris per week. The operating and maintenance costs of the Ag‐Bag CT‐10 bagger were reported to be $0.50 per ton of debris (AFS 2010). Based on the FORA (1996)‐reported woody debris density range of 425 lb per cy to 550 lb per cy, the operating and maintenance cost is expected to range from $0.11 to $0.14 per cy. Based on the cost per silage bag and the bag capacity provided by AFS (2010), the unit bagging cost was estimated to be $1.50 per cy. Based on the costs presented above, the plastic silage bag storage cost is expected to range from $1.62 to $1.68 per cy. Table 5‐2 summarizes the estimated additional costs above and beyond those expected to be incurred by storing debris in open‐air stockpiles. Cost‐Benefit Model 43 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Table 5‐2. Summary of Costs Associate with Storing Debris in Plastic Silage Bags Cost Element Plastic Silage Bags Bagger (Procurement) Bagger (Operating and Maintenance) Cost ($/cy) $1.50 $0.01‐0.04 $0.11‐$0.14 This estimate reflects the cost associated with plastic silage bag and the bagger (including procurement and operating and maintenance cost) and does not include the cost of any additional equipment needed to haul and load debris into the bagger. The costs presented in this section are unique to woody debris plastic silage storage and would not be incurred if debris was stored in open piles. 5.2.4 Transportation Cost The cost of transporting the bagged debris to the end user would primarily depend on the distance from the site to the end user. The equipment needed to transport ground woody debris to the end user includes dump trucks or semi‐trucks and a wheel loader. The selection of the quantity and type of truck will depend on the distance from the site to the end user and the rate (tonnage) that materials would be delivered to the end user. The wheel loader and operator would load the bagged debris into trucks for transportation. Similar to the debris‐processing costs, the cost of transportation may not be unique to woody debris storage in plastic silage bags and may be encountered when transporting the debris stored in open piles to its final destination (e.g., disposal facility). Transportation costs are expected to have a significant impact on the overall cost given the relatively low cost of bagging. In the case of the PCNCLF, the Wheelabrator Ridge Generating Station is located on the adjacent property, thus transportation costs in this instance may be minimal. It is expected that the cost to transport would be specified in an agreement between the solid waste management facility and the end user. 5.2.5 Other Costs In addition to the major cost elements presented above, beneficially using woody debris generated from hurricanes may include additional costs associated with design, engineering, and permitting. These other costs should be considered when evaluating the overall project cost. 5.3
Benefit Elements 5.3.1 Tipping Fees Most processing facilities that accept yard trash will charge the customers a tipping fee. The tipping fees from customers delivering material is the primary revenue source for operators of solid waste management facilities. Depending on the type of facility, Cost‐Benefit Model 44 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris tipping fees in Florida ranges from $5 to $92 per ton (FDEP 2003). Immediately following a hurricane, some processing facilities may not charge tipping fees but instead may seek an equivalent reimbursement from FEMA. For example, PCWRMD did not charge a tipping fee for hurricane debris received at PCNCLF in the wake of the 2004 hurricane season but received reimbursement from FEMA (PCWRMD 2010). 5.3.2 Sale of Woody Biomass The sale of the ground woody biomass to an end user is another potential revenue source for the entity undertaking the recovery and recycling of woody hurricane debris. In Florida, more than twenty facilities are known to combust woody biomass in their respective processes. The facilities that purchase woody biomass have been reported to pay a price of $10 to $17 per ton of debris (Yepsen 2008, TMC Power 2010). Due to strict greenhouse gas regulations in Europe, the demand for North American woody debris has driven the price in some cases to $100 to $125 per ton (Yepsen 2008). Some investigators predict that if an RPS is implemented in Florida, the woody biomass resource price could increase substantially (Hodges et al. 2010). The woody hurricane debris recycler should identify the facilities that combust wood as a fuel source near its location and discuss the debris specifications, price, and demand to evaluate the economic feasibility of the project. 5.4
Additional Considerations In addition to the cost and benefit elements discussed above, the project owner should also consider other factors including the net benefit of using woody debris at a resource recovery facility versus other hurricane debris management strategies. Facility owners and those that will manage hurricane debris should consider the costs and benefits of alternative approaches (e.g., on‐site use as alternative daily cover, composting of woody debris to produce top soil) to select the most suitable approach for managing the woody debris. Storing and using woody hurricane debris as a fuel source, if assessed to be economically viable, should be included as a debris‐management option in the disaster debris‐management plan, and the facility owner/operator should negotiate a contract with the end user. The contract should include at a minimum the material procurement price, fuel specifications, debris delivery rate, and transport cost responsibility. The debris collection, processing, and storage plan should be designed to meet the end user’s specifications. The ability to combust the stored debris as well as the storage bag itself should be discussed with the end users as well. If the end user cannot accept the used plastic silage bag for combustion along with the debris, alternative options and the associated cost of managing the used plastic silage bag should be explored. Cost‐Benefit Model 45 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 6. Summary and Conclusions Woody hurricane debris is a waste stream that due to the large volume of debris generated over a short period has largely been untapped for beneficial use. In 2004, Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne generated more than 1.6 million tons of woody debris in Polk County alone. Woody biomass is commonly used as a fuel source throughout Florida. In 2009, 22 companies reported combusting woody biomass as a part of their operations, totaling more than 3.5 million tons for the year. The market for the woody biomass fuel may be expected to grow as state and federal legislation appears to favor developing alternative energy sources. Several disaster debris‐management plans reviewed typically involve hauling debris to a predetermined location, size‐reducing the debris on site, and then land‐applying or otherwise disposing of the debris. For the most part, the hurricane debris‐management plans did not incorporate temporary storage systems to store debris for future use as fuel since the primary focus of these plans is often the timely cleanup of damage and debris. The large spike in woody debris generation following a hurricane was found to be largely unused by resource recovery facilities because of a lack of space to accommodate the large volume of material. Furthermore, several issues with storage of woody debris in open‐air stockpiles (e.g., exposure to rainfall and subsequent enhanced decomposition of the debris, the potential for fires, and other environmental and health issues) were identified, thus this study focused on a method to allow for temporary woody debris storage for future use as a fuel in a permitted facility. The goal of this study was to evaluate using a commercially‐available plastic silage storage system, such as the Ag‐Bag system, to store woody hurricane debris for future use as an energy source. Twenty‐four plastic silage bags were filled with woody debris and yard debris and sampled over 26 months and analyzed for moisture, organic, and energy content. In addition, three 55‐gallon enclosed barrels of woody debris were individually treated with lime, incinerator ash, and Bora‐Care® to assess the impact of chemical treatment on the energy content. Data were collected to estimate the cost of storing the woody debris in plastic silage bags and the value of the stored debris if sold as woody biomass for energy generation to assess the economic viability of the evaluated storage system. The following are the major findings of this study: •
Temporarily storing woody hurricane debris using Ag‐bags can help preserve the energy content of the debris. •
ConCover did not effectively reduce decomposition or preserve the energy content of debris stored in open windrows. •
Adding lime and ash did not appear to preserve the energy content of the woody debris; therefore, using these materials would not be expected to provide an additional benefit when compared to the silage bag storage system. •
Spraying woody biomass with Bora‐Care® may help preserve the energy value of woody hurricane debris; additional research is needed to further investigate the Summary and Conclusions 46 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris effects of the pesticide on fuel value, fuel quality, and potential emissions from debris when stored in open piles. •
Approximately 6,500 cy of debris can be stored per acre in plastic silage bags. The area requirement for this storage method is almost three times that of debris storage in open piles. •
The cost of storing the woody debris in plastic silage bags was estimated to range from $1.62 to $1.68 per cy. •
The facilities that burn woody biomass in Florida for energy generation reportedly procure biomass at $10 to $17 per ton. •
The economic viability of using plastic silage bag to temporarily store woody debris for eventual sale to a resource recovery facility for energy generation primarily depends on the transportation cost. The proximity to the end user, therefore, would dictate the economic viability of the beneficial use of the woody debris for energy generation. The costs and benefits of alternative approaches (e.g., on‐site use as alternative daily cover, composting of woody debris to produce top soil) should be considered before selecting temporary storage in plastic silage bags for eventual use in energy generation as the management strategy. Summary and Conclusions 47 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris 7. References AFS (2010). Personal communication with Ag‐Bag Forage Solutions by Pradeep Jain of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC. Baker, A. J. (1983). Wood fuel properties and fuel products from woods. In: Fuelwood management and utilization seminar: Proceedings. East Lansing, MI; 1982 November 9‐11. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University: 14‐25. Barlaz, M.A. (2006). Forest products decomposition in municipal solid waste landfills. Waste Management. 321‐333. Bilbao, R., Mastral, J.F., Aldea, M.E., Ceamanos, J., and M. Bertrán (2001). Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Ignition and Smoldering of Wood Including Convective Effects. Combustion and Flame. The Combustion Institute. FDEP (2010). Florida Annual Operating Reports Database. Received 14 October 2010. FDEP (2009). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2008. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/08_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2008). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2007. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/07_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2007). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2006. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/06_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2006). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2005. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/05_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2005). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2004. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/04_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2004). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2003. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/03_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2003). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2002. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/02_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. References 48 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris FDEP (2002). Florida Solid Waste Management Annual Report Data for the year 2001. < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/01_data.h
tm>. Accessed 15 October 2010. FDEP (2001). C&D Debris Recycling Study: Final Report. Prepared by FDEP and the Florida House Environmental Protection Committee for the State of Florida. FEMA (2007). Public Assistance: Debris Management Guide. FEMA‐325. US Department of Homeland Security. FOR A (1996). Recycling Yard Trash: Best Management Practices for Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Gislerud, O. (1990). Drying and Storing of Comminuted Wood Fuels. Biomass. 229‐244. Hodges, A.W., Stevens, T.J., and M. Rahmani (2010). Economic Impacts of Expanded Woody Biomass Utlilzation on the Bioenergy and Forest Products Industries in Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Hogland, W. and M. Marques (2007). Fires in Storage Areas for Organic Waste. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management. 5‐7 September 2007. Jirjis, R. (1995). Storage and Drying of Wood Fuel. Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol 9. Nos.1‐
5. 181‐190. Krishnaswamy, S., Agarwal, P.K., and R.D. Gunn (1996). Low temperature oxidation of coal: 3. Modeling spontaneous combustion in coal stockpiles. Fuel. Vol 75. No. 3. 353‐362. Lehtikangas, P. (2000). Storage effects on pelletised sawdust, logging residues, and bark. Biomass and Bioenergy. Vol 19. 287‐293. Malherbe, S. and T.E. Cloete (2002). Lignocellulose Biodegradation: Fundamentals and Applications. Re/Views in Environmental Science &Biotechnology. Vol 1.pp 105‐
114. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2006). Hurricanes…Unleashing Nature’s Fury. US Department of Commerce. Navigant (2008). ―Florida Renewable Energy Potential Assessment.ԡ Full Report Draft. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for Florida Public Service Commission, Florida Governor’s Energy Office, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. October 15, 2010. <http://www.floridapsc.com/Default.aspx>. References 49 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris Pielke, R.A. et al. (2008). Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900‐2005. Natural Hazards Review. ASCE: 29‐42. PCPA (2010). Personal communication with Polk County Property Appraiser personnel by Brett Tooley of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC. November 2010. PCWRMD (2010). Personal communication with Polk County Waste Resource Management Division personnel by Pradeep Jain of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC. November 2010. Rappaport, E.N. and J. Fernandez‐Partagas (1995). The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492‐1996. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadly.shtml?>. Rupar‐Gadd, K. (2006). Biomass Pre‐treatment for the Production of Sustainable Energy‐
Emissions and Self‐Ignition. Acta Wexionensia No 88/2006. ISSN:1404‐4307, ISBN: 91‐7636‐501‐8. Written in English. Rossi, F.J., Carter, D.R., and R.C. Abt (2010). Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in Florida: Bioeconomic Impact of a Proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Mandate. Prepared by University of Florida for US Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Springer, E.L. (1980). Should Whole‐Tree Chips for Fuel be Dried Before Storage?. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Products Laboratory. Research Note FPL‐0241. Svedberg, U.R.A., Högberg, H.E., Högberg, J. and B. Galle (2004). Emission of Hexanal and Carbon Monoxide from Storage of Wood Pellets, a Potential Occupational and Domestic Health Hazard. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. Vol 38, No.4, 339‐349. SWA (2004). 2003‐2004 Annual Report: Mountains of Debris. Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, FL. TMC Power (2010). Personal communication with TMC Power personnel by Brett Tooley of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC. October 2010. UpNorth (2010). Personal communication with UpNorth Plastics, Inc. personnel by Pradeep Jain of Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC. USDA (2004). Fuel Value Calculator. Forest Products Laboratory. Forest Service. United States Department of Agriculture. < http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/techlin e/fuel‐value‐calculator.pdf>. References 50 Promoting Enhanced Resource Recovery of Hurricane Debris USEIA (2010a). Renewable energy trends in consumption and electricity 2008. A report prepared by the US Energy Information Administration, Washington DC, 2010. USEIA (2010b). Residential Average Monthly Bill by Census, Division, and State 2008. Table 5A. Frequently Asked Questions‐Electricity. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electri city_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home>. USEPA (2010). Materials Characterization Paper: In Support of the Proposed Rulemaking‐
Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste Construction and Demolition Materials‐Disaster Debris. 18 March 2010. White, R. H. (1987). Effect of Lignin Content and Extractives on the Higher Heating Value of Wood. Wood and Fiber Science. 19(4): 446‐452. Yepsen, R. (2008). Generating Biomass Fuel from Disaster Debris. Biocycle. Vol. 49: page 51. <http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001685.html>. References 51 APPENDIX A Ag‐Bag Product Information Ag-Bag, a division of Miller-St. Nazianz.
Page 1 of 1
Genuine
Ag-Bag
Accessories
Home >> Our Products >> Environmental >>Composting Machines >> CT10
Environmental
Tradeshows & Events
CT-10
Jan. 04 2011
Keystone Farm Show
York, PA
Jan. 18 2011
Fort Wayne Farm Show
Fort Wayne, IN
The Ag-Bag Environmental CT10 SL compost system is
designed for the extra large
volume operator who requires the convenience of a hopper and
the capacity of the larger EcoPOD. The CT-10SL works in
conjunction with the 10' x 200' EcoPOD, which has the storage
capacity of 200 tons or 500 yards per EcoPOD.
Jan. 24 2011
Mid West Forage Association
Wisconsin Dells, WI
J
27 2011
Description:
The patented design incorporates a 6" hydraulic cylinder, which
pushes the material through the tunnel and into the EcoPOD. It
is equipped with a 55 hp John Deere Power Tech diesel engine
to power the hydraulics. It features a remote control unit for
the operator to control the system, permitting a one-man
operation. The feed hopper will hold approximately 7.5 yards of
material at one fill.




















Standard equipment includes:
55hp John Deere Power Tech Diesel engine, 4 cylinder
10' Tunnel
Deluxe operator platform and control panel
50 gallon fuel tank
50 gallon hydraulic tank
23 yard hopper with UHMW lining
Self-contained hydraulics and controls
28 gpm hydraulic pressure compensated pump
6 – 12" x 19.5" wheels
High flotation tires with 2 1/2-ton drive
Bag boom with electric winch
Pipe reels and tube guidesv
Remote control unit
6" 3 stage hydraulic cylinder
Complete air brake system
Wheel drive
Manual Lift Jack
Bag pan assembly
27 gallon inoculum tank w/spray applicator & nozzle
Accessories include: Masterseal tool, vent valve tool &
temperature probe
Dimensions:
LENGTH
WIDTH (work position)
WIDTH (transport)
HEIGHT
WEIGHT
FILL RATE
21' 8"
15'
11' 4"
11' 7"
18,000
3 Tons/Min
Ag-Bag, a Miller-St. Nazianz, Inc. Company • 511 East Main Street • St. Nazianz, Wisconsin 54232 • Ph: 920-773-2121 • Fax: 920-773-1200
http://www.ag-bag.com/products/ct10_overview.php
11/10/2010
Genuine
Genuine Ag-Bag
It’s more than a brand name. Our technology produces
the best bags, resulting in the best feed quality.
That’s our commitment to you.
Genuine Ag-Bag
The Genuine Ag-Bag exclusive formula is
the result of decades of development and
production of leading silage films technology.
Today, our formulation features the latest
in polymers science coupled with the most
advanced manufacturing process. Our silage
bags are produced using a unique resin,
resulting in a bag that:
•
•
•
•
Allows more tons per bag
Maintains a high feed quality
Is more tear and puncture resistant, and
Boasts higher tensile strength
The Genuine Ag-Bag bag system eliminates
the problems associated with traditional
pit and bunker storage. The exterior white
layer of Ag-Bag’s unique 3-ply construction
repels solar heat and keeps the contents
cooler. The black inner lining, however,
keeps out sunlight and preserves valuable
nutrients. With UV inhibitors to resist sun
damage, each Ag-Bag bag is built to last two
years in rugged weather conditions.
The airtight environment prevents growth
of aerobic bacteria, molds, and insects.
It eliminates the need for dangerous
chemicals and fumigants. At the same time,
it enhances the benefits of cool fermentation with optimal levels of lactic acid and
without damaging heat buildup. The result
in an easily digestible and highly nutritious
feed that livestock prefer. This helps
provide for higher production without the
need for expensive feed supplements.
Bag Capacity (approximate, will vary by product)
Genuine
Genuine Ag-Bag Plastic
PO Box 159, 9480 Jamaica Ave S., Cottage Grove, MN 55016
800-544-7659, Extension 6214 www.agbagplastic.com
t 8 foot bag - 1.0 Ton/Foot (t/f)
t 9 foot bag - 1.0-1.25
t 10 foot bag - 1.5
t 12 foot bag - 2.0-2.25
t 14 foot bag - 2.75-3.0
The Genuine Ag-Bag system puts
unlimited, low-cost storage capacity,
where you want it, when you need it.
t Bags can be placed for convenient
access, allowing feed to be removed
with a front-end loader or to be
self-fed.
t Ag-Bag bags store a wide variety of
feeds, grains, crop residues, and byproducts.
t Feed rations cab be blended and
balanced.
Genuine Ag-Bag plastics allow
you to cut your feed costs, not
your feed quality.
Ground to Ground Measurements are
guidelines only and will vary depending on
the machine used, material bagged, and
packing pressure.
t8 foot bag - 19.5’
t9 foot bag - 20.5’
t10 foot bag - 21.5’
t12 foot bag - 26.5’
t14 foot bag - 29.5’
APPENDIX B Bora‐Care® Product Information BORA-CARE®
Termiticide, Insecticide and Fungicide Concentrate
For the Prevention and Control of:
• Subterranean Termites • Formosan Termites • Drywood Termites • Carpenter Ants
• Listed Wood Destroying Beetles • Fungi (Rot) • Algae
For use in and around Homes, Apartments, Garages, Museums, Public and Private Institutions, Schools, Hotels,
Hospitals, Kennels, Stables, Farm Buildings, Trucks, Trailers, Warehouses and Non-Food Areas of
Supermarkets, Restaurants and Food Processing Plants.
Active Ingredient:
Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (CAS No. 12280-03-4).. 40%
Other Ingredients.................................................................. 60%
Total........................................................................................ 100%
EPA Reg. No. 64405-1
EPA Est. 64405-TN-1
U.S. Patent Nos. 5,645,828; 7,597,902
Keep Out of Reach of Children
CAUTION
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
Hazards to Humans & Domestic Animals
CAUTION: Harmful if inhaled or absorbed through skin.
Avoid breathing vapors or spray mist. Causes moderate
eye irritation. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing.
Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling and
before eating, drinking or using tobacco.
Remove
contaminated clothing and wash clothing before reuse.
Avoid contamination of food or feed.
First Aid
Borate Pesticide
If Inhaled
• Move person to fresh air.
• If person is not breathing, call 911 or
an ambulance, then give artificial
respiration, preferably by mouth-tomouth, if possible.
If on Skin
• Take off contaminated clothing.
or Clothing • Immediately rinse skin with plenty of
water for 15-20 minutes.
If in Eyes
• Hold eye open and rinse slowly and
gently with water for 15-20 minutes.
• Remove contact lenses, if present,
after the first 5 minutes, then continue
rinsing eye.
Call a poison control center or doctor for further
treatment advice. Have the product container or label
with you when calling a poison control center or doctor,
or going for treatment. You may also contact 1-800424-9300 for emergency medical treatment information.
For 1 gallon containers:
For 5, 50 and 250 gallon containers:
Environmental Hazards
This pesticide is toxic to fish and wildlife. Do not apply
directly to water, to intertidal areas where surface water is
present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water
mark. Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment
or disposing of equipment washwaters. Do not discharge
effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds,
estuaries, oceans or other waters unless in accordance
with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the permitting
authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do
not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer
systems without previously notifying the local sewage
treatment plant authority. For guidance contact your state
water board or regional office of the EPA.
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a
manner inconsistent with its labeling.
Notice
Read and understand the entire label before using. Use
only according to label directions.
Before buying or using this product, read Warranty
Disclaimer and Limitation of Remedies statements
found elsewhere on this label. If terms are unacceptable,
return unopened package to seller for full refund of
purchase price. Otherwise, use by the buyer or any other
user constitutes acceptance of the terms under Warranty
Disclaimer and Limitation of Remedies.
Environmental Hazards
Use Restrictions
This pesticide is toxic to fish and wildlife. Do not apply
directly to water, to intertidal areas where surface water is
present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water
mark. Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment
or disposing of equipment washwaters.
Do not use in edible product areas of food processing
plants or on countertops and other surfaces where food is
prepared. Do not use in serving areas where food is
exposed. Do not contaminate feed, water or food. Do not
enter or allow others to enter or occupy treated areas until
spray has been absorbed into the wood. Treated areas
must not be occupied during application.
Phytotoxicity
This product may be phytotoxic to plants. When treating
around the exterior of structures, cover and protect
shrubbery and plants that may be potentially exposed to
this product, when applied in accordance with the label
directions.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this
product are barrier laminate; butyl, nitrile, neoprene and
natural rubbers 14 mils; polyethylene; polyvinyl
chloride; and viton 14 mils. If you want more options,
follow the instructions for category C on an EPA
chemical-resistance category selection chart.
Applicators, mixers and other handlers must wear longsleeved shirt, long pants, socks, shoes, chemicalresistant gloves and protective eyewear. When applying
Bora-Care in confined spaces, provide ventilation or an
exhaust system or use of a NIOSH-approved dust/mist
filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number
prefix TC-21C) with a prefilter approved for pesticides
(MSHA/NIOSH approval prefix TC-23C), or a canister
approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval prefix
TC-14G) or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R,
P or HE prefilter is recommended.
User Safety Requirements
Follow manufacturer’s instructions for cleaning/
maintaining PPE. If no such instructions for washables
exist, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE
separately from other laundry.
User Safety Recommendations
Users should:
• Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum,
using tobacco or using the toilet;
• Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets
inside, then wash thoroughly and put on clean
clothing;
•
Remove PPE immediately after handling this
product. Wash the outside of gloves before
removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly
and change into clean clothing.
I. Mixing Instructions
Bora-Care is a concentrate that must be diluted with clean
water before use. The use of warm or hot water, if
available, and an impeller-type mixer that can be used with
an electric drill aids the dilution process.
A. Hand Sprayers: Mix in a clean container and stir the
solution until completely uniform.
Always mix in a
separate container then add the solution to a spray tank.
Mixing Bora-Care directly in a spray tank can block hoses
and nozzles.
B. Hand Volume Pumping Systems: Add all of the
dilution water to tank, start recirculator and slowly add
Bora-Care concentrate. Mix until uniform.
Use 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 Bora-Care solutions within 24 hours
after mixing. 5:1 solutions will remain stable for up to 30
days. Do not leave unused solution under pressure or in
tank overnight. Clean and/or flush equipment and lines
with water after use.
Bora-Care can be mixed with pyrethrins at 0.3% for
®
carpenter ants and other listed insects, or with Mold-Care
Moldicide Concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 6836-212-64405)
for mold, in accordance with the most restrictive of label
limitations and precautions. No label dosage rates should
be exceeded. This product cannot be mixed with any
product containing a label prohibition against such mixing.
II. Dilution Rations by Volume
Table A
Mixing Ratios
Water plus
Bora-Care
1:1 or 2:1
Target Pests
Subterranean and
Formosan Termites
Drywood Termites
1:1, 2:1 or 5:1
Anobiid and Lyctid
Powderpost Beetles
1:1, 2:1 or 5:1
Old House Borers,
Longhorn Beetles
and Ambrosia
Beetles
Carpenter Ants
1:1 or 5:1
1:1, 2:1 or 5:1
Fungi (Rot) and
Algae
1:1, 3:1 or 5:1
Application Notes
For remedial and preventative treatments apply a 1:1 dilution
ratio for all treatments by spray, injection, brush or roller. The 2:1
dilution ratio may be used for foaming or, for application into
inaccessible wall voids, may be used in a misting machine.
For remedial treatment apply the 1:1 or 2:1 by foam or by misting
using a misting machine. Use the 5:1 dilution ratio for prevention.
For all remedial treatments use a 1:1 dilution ratio. Logs > 4”
require a 1:1 dilution ratio for prevention. Use a 2:1 dilution ratio
for treating hardwood floors. Use the 5:1 dilution ratio for
prevention.
Use the 1:1 dilution ratio for remedial and preventative treatment
in wood > 4" in thickness. Use the 5:1 dilution ratio for prevention
in wood less than 4” in thickness.
Use the 1:1 dilution ratio for all remedial treatments. Use the 2:1
dilution ratio for remedial treatments applied by foam or with a
misting machine (or applicator). Use the 5:1 dilution ratio for
prevention.
For remedial control use a 1:1 dilution ratio on wood members 4”
or greater in thickness. Use a 3:1 dilution ratio for wood less than
4” in thickness. For prevention use a 5:1 dilution ratio.
Table B
Materials to Be
Treated
Logs, Large Beams,
Timber and
Dimensional Lumber
> 4”
Decking, Fences and
Plywood
Logs, Large Beams
and Dimensional
Lumber
Cellulosic Drywall
and Insulation
Mixing Ratios
Water plus Bora-Care
See target pests in Table A
Application Notes
All spray applications for insects and Fungi (rot).
See target pests in Table A
Use on wood members 2” or less in thickness.
See target pests in Table A
Use the 5:1 dilution ratio only for dip treatment for insect
prevention. May be used in conjunction with other fungicides for
fungi (rot) control.
Use the 3:1 dilution ratio for active remedial treatment of dry rot.
Use the 5:1 dilution ratio for prevention of dry rot. May be used in
conjunction with other fungicides.
1:1, 3:1 or 5:1
Table C
Parts Water
1
2
3
5
to
to
to
to
Part
Bora-Care
1
1
1
1
% Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate
23%
16%
13%
9%
III.
General Information
Bora-Care is not intended for application to soil; it is not a
soil termiticide. Do not use to directly treat soil. When
active infestations exist, get a professional inspection.
Bora-Care contains an inorganic borate salt, soluble in
water, with insecticidal and fungicidal properties effective
against wood destroying organisms, including the target
pests listed below. This product may be used as a
remedial treatment of infested wood and as a long-term
protective or preventive treatment (before signs of
infestations are observed) of wood in existing or new
construction. Bora-Care is recommended for protection of
all interior and exterior wood (including wood-foam
composite structural components). Treatment is long
lasting provided the treated material is not exposed to rain
or continuous water or in contact with the ground.
Subterranean Termites: Reticulitermes, Heterotermes
Formosan Termites: Coptotermes
Drywood Termites: Kalotermes, Incisitermes
Dampwood Termites: Zootermopsis, Neotermes
Powderpost Beetles: Lyctidae, Bostrichidae
Anobiid Beetles: Anobiidae
Old House Borers, Longhorn Beetles: Cerambycidae,
Hylotrupes
Ambrosia Beetles: Platypodidae, Scolytidae
Carpenter Ants: Camponotus
Brown Rot (including dry rot), White Rot, Wood Decay
Bora-Care may be used on all non-food contact surface
cellulosic materials including wood, plywood, particle
board, paper, oriented strand board (OSB), cardboard
(non-food packaging material), wood composite structural
components, concrete, block, brick, metals, PVC plumbing
pipes and other non-cellulosic materials found in
structures. Apply Bora-Care only to bare wood, plywood,
particle board and other cellulosic materials where an
intact water-repellent barrier, such as paint, stain or sealer,
is not present.
For tracking purposes (to make it easier to see where
Bora-Care solutions have been applied) an appropriate
marker dye or pigment may be added to the solution when
diluting Bora-Care with water. Refer to the dye or pigment
product label for recommended amount to add to the BoraCare solution.
When spraying overhead interior areas of homes,
apartment buildings, etc., cover or protect all surfaces
below the area being sprayed with plastic sheeting or other
material that can be disposed of if contamination from
dripping occurs. Do not apply in food serving areas while
food is exposed. Cover to protect all food contact and
preparation surfaces prior to treatment. After treatment,
thoroughly clean all food contact surfaces with a potable
water/detergent solution followed with a potable water
rinse. Remove all pets, turn off fish aquarium pumps, and
cover.
In new construction applications for the prevention of
subterranean termites, structural wood is defined as: only
wood needed for the basic building structure as found in
the dried-in stage of construction, including wood in direct
contact with foundations, interior and exterior wall sill
plates, wood studs, wood or cellulosic sheathing, floor
joists and sub-flooring.
Use soap and water to clean up tools.
In structures where a soil treatment/barrier termiticide has
been applied and/or termite bait system installed, apply
Bora-Care as an additional treatment to protect wood from
subterranean termites that may have penetrated the
chemical gaps occurring within the termiticide-treated soil
or have bypassed the bait/monitor systems.
As a remedial treatment, Bora-Care will both eliminate and
prevent infestations of Formosan, native subterranean
termites, wood boring beetles, carpenter ants and decay
fungi. It may also be used as a supplement or alternative
to fumigation in order to provide long-term residual control.
The active ingredient in Bora-Care is an inorganic salt and
once in place it will not decompose or volatilize out of the
wood.
Older wood boring beetle larvae and especially pupae
(particularly Old House Borers) already present in the
wood at the time of treatment may occasionally emerge
sometime after treatment. This is because they are no
longer feeding on the wood. This will not occur frequently
enough to cause structural damage to any wooden
member and reinfestation is prevented.
IV. Remedial Wooden Structure Treatment
for the Control of Subterranean, Formosan,
Drywood and Dampwood Termites, Carpenter
Ants, Old House Borers, Powderpost and
Listed Wood Boring Beetles and Fungi (Rot)
A.
Infested wood: Spray and/or inject Bora-Care
solution into beetle holes, termite and carpenter ant
galleries and decay pockets. Apply one (1) coat of
Bora-Care solution to the point of surface saturation to all
infested and susceptible wood, paying particular attention
to infested areas. Apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care
solution to those wood members with only one (1) or two
(2) exposed sides. For quicker control, apply an additional
coat to heavily infested areas. Wait at least 20 minutes
between applications. For specific pests to be controlled
refer to Table A for applicable mixing instructions.
In cases where the infestation is not accessible from the
surface, drill small holes into the wood to gain access to
the infested area. Inject enough solution to completely
flood galleries or voids. Adjacent intact wood may be
treated by pressure injecting Bora-Care into holes drilled
into the wood at eight (8) to ten (10)-inch intervals. Inject
at 40 psi for four (4) to six (6) seconds per hole.
For treating infested wall voids, refer to Sections IV.E. and
F.
Basements and crawl spaces: Apply one (1)
B.
coat of diluted Bora-Care solution to the point of surface
saturation to all accessible surfaces including sill plates,
piers, girders, subfloors, floor joists and any wood exposed
to vertical access above ground. On wood where access
is limited to one (1) or two (2) sides of wood members,
such as sills and plates on foundation walls, apply two (2)
coats of Bora-Care solution. Allow first application to dry
by waiting at least 20 minutes between applications.
Buildings on slabs: Apply Bora-Care solution
C.
into wall voids by foaming or misting. Locate each stud
and drill a small hole through the wall covering to gain
access to the infested area. Drill holes every 18-24 inches
adjacent to the side of each stud and inject at least 1/3
fluid ounce of Bora-Care solution per hole. Drill at least
one hole per stud bay near the floor to treat the base plate
in each void. Treat entire wall area as opposed to single
stud bays to completely include the infested area within
the treatment zone. Cover at least six (6) inches of slab
surface area out from the penetration site.
Wood flooring: Treat by spray, brush or roller
D.
application. Prior to application, remove any existing finish
by complete coarse sanding or stripping. Apply a two (2)
parts water to one (1) part Bora-Care (2:1) solution at a
rate of approximately one (1) gallon of solution per 500
square feet of floor surface. For treating infestations of
subterranean or Formosan termites, two (2) coats may be
required, waiting at least one (1) hour between
applications. Allow floor to completely dry (typically 48 to
72 hours). Moisture content must be 10% or less before
applying final finish. Bora-Care applications may raise the
grain of the wood and an additional light sanding may be
necessary before applying a new finish. Bora-Care is
compatible with most floor coatings; always test a small
section of treated floor with the new finish and check for
appropriate adhesion prior to coating the entire floor.
Note: If surface is tacky or residue is evident after 72
hours of drying time, wash affected area with clean water
and a mop, cloth or sponge, rinsing frequently. Allow
surface to dry prior to final light sanding and application of
finish coat.
Inaccessible wall voids, wall studs and
E.
wood members: Apply by foaming or misting into
voids and channels of damaged or suspected infested
wood and/or through small holes drilled into walls and
baseboard areas. Space holes no more than 24” apart
along each member to be treated and at least one (1) hole
must be drilled between each wall stud when treating base
plates. Use sufficient amount of material to cover all areas
to the point of wetness.
Note: Existing insulation may interfere with distribution of
the Bora-Care solution. If necessary, move or displace
insulation during or prior to treatment.
Foam application: Apply Bora-Care to bare
F.
wood surfaces and void areas as a foam by mixing two (2)
parts water with one (1) part Bora-Care (2:1) and adding 3
to 8 ounces of foaming agent per gallon of mixed solution.
Foam will take approximately one (1) hour to return to
liquid state and soak into bare wood. Apply foamed BoraCare to void spaces at a 1:20 to 1:30 foam ratio (one (1)
gallon of mixed solution expanded with foaming agent to
produce 20 to 30 gallons of foam). Apply enough foam to
fill void and contact all wood surfaces in the void space.
Foam insulation: Apply by injecting a one (1)
G.
part water to one (1) part Bora-Care (1:1) solution into the
infested area and/or low pressure surface spraying at a
rate of one (1) gallon per 300 to 400 square feet.
Note:
Some types of foam insulation, such as
polyisocyanurate and extruded polystyrene, have closed
cell structures that do not allow significant penetration from
surface application. Inject and surface spray these types
of insulation.
For remedial treatments: Apply a
H.
supplemental treatment of Bora-Care to concrete, block or
brick on the interior of crawlspace and basement
foundations to prevent shelter tubing by subterranean
termites. Apply Bora-Care 1:1 [one (1) part water to one
(1) part Bora-Care] solution at the rate of one (1) gallon to
400 square feet of surface area. In crawlspaces, apply
solution two (2) feet (24 inches) up from the ground on
interior wall surfaces. In unfinished basements with bare
slabs, apply Bora-Care 1:1 solution two (2) feet (24 inches)
up from the slab on interior foundation walls. In addition to
the wall treatment, extend application up to six (6) inches
away from foundation walls onto the horizontal surface of
the bare slab. Treat bath trap areas in slab construction,
after obtaining access to the area, by evenly applying eight
(8) ounces of the 1:1 Bora-Care solution into the soil of dirt
filled traps and applying a 1:1 Bora-Care solution in at
least a one (1) foot (12 inch) band covering all sides on the
slab surface area out from the trap area. Treat other
termite access areas (such as plumbing penetrations,
expansion joints and abutting slabs) by applying the 1:1
Bora-Care solution in at least a one (1) foot (12 inch) band
covering all sides of the slab surface area out from the
penetration and by treating protruding utilities and adjacent
wood to a height of two (2) feet (24 inches).
V.
Preventative Treatment of Wooden
Structures for Formosan, Drywood and
Dampwood Termites, Carpenter Ants, Old
House Borers, Powerderpost and other Wood
Boring Beetles, and Fungi (Rot)
Note: Bora-Care is not intended for application to soil.
Bora-Care provides only limited and temporary protection
of wood in contact with the ground (see specific
instructions) and is not a substitute for products registered
for protection of wood in contact with the ground. BoraCare may be applied as a treatment to protect wood from
Formosan, drywood and dampwood termites, carpenter
ants, old house borers, powderpost and listed wood boring
beetles and wood decay fungi.
Apply when access to wooden structural components is
optimized such as at the “dried-in” stage when sheathing
and roofing are in place, yet before installation of
insulation, wiring, plumbing and other mechanical
components.
For framed wood surfaces above ground, apply to the
point of wetness one (1) coat of a one (1) gallon water to
one (1) gallon Bora-Care (1:1) solution for subterranean
termites and Formosan termites as described in Section
VI. For treatment of new log structures see Section IX.
Treat remainder of structural wood in a five (5) parts water
to one (1) part Bora-Care (5:1) solution. Concentrate
application in areas susceptible to attack, to include all
sills, plates, floor joists, piers, girders and subfloors. Treat
structural wood in all plumbing, electrical and ductwork
areas where they penetrate walls or floors. Treat all
structural wood base plates and studs on interior and
exterior walls, especially those surrounding any high
moisture areas such as bathrooms, kitchens and laundry
rooms. For buildings built on slabs, treat all structural
wood in contact with the slab, all interior and exterior wall
studs and wall sheathing material. In attics, treat all
structural wood including ceiling joists, trusses, top plates,
rafters and roof decking. Treat all structural wood sill
plates and structural wood contacting garages and
porches are treated.
In areas where access is limited to one (1) or two (2) sides
of a wood member, apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care
solution to the exposed surfaces. Wait at least 20 minutes
between re-applications.
Treat all exterior wood including siding, facias, soffits,
eaves, roofing, porches, decks and railings.
VI. Preventative and Pretreatments for
Subterranean
Termites
(Crawl
Space,
Basement and Slab)
Note: This treatment serves as a primary treatment for
the control of subterranean termites.
Use only a one (1) part water to one (1) part Bora-Care
(1:1) solution when treating for subterranean termites.
Apply when access to wooden structural components is
optimized and when no further framing modifications will
be made, such as after final framing inspection. If
treatment is carried out prior to framing inspection, a
second visit is required to ensure full treatment is still
intact.
Do not use for new construction treatments if the total
linear footage of the cellulosic base plates is less than
60% of the total linear footage of all base plates in
structure to include exterior and interior walls. In new
construction with 60% or more lineal footage of base
plates, but without continuous wood on every exterior wall,
the Bora-Care treatment must be installed to all other
exterior structural construction materials, including brick or
block, to a height of two (2) feet (24 inches) and extended
out onto the slab a minimum of two (2) to a maximum of
eight (8) inches.
A.
Buildings on Crawl Spaces and Basements:
Apply one (1) coat of a one (1) gallon water to one (1)
gallon (1:1) Bora-Care solution in a two (2) foot (24-inch)
wide uninterrupted band to the point of wetness to all
structural wood surfaces in crawl spaces and basements,
to include all sills, plates, floor joists, piers, girders and
subfloors as well as structural wood exposed to direct
vertical access from the soil. To prevent termite shelter
tubes on crawlspace walls, apply a 1:1 Bora-Care solution
to crawlspace concrete or block walls in a two (2) foot (24
inch) band up from the ground on interior wall surfaces.
Apply at the rate of one (1) gallon to 400 square feet of
surface area. Treat a two (2) foot (24-inch) band around
construction materials and structural wood adjacent to
plumbing, electrical conduit and ducts where they
penetrate subfloors, if they provide a direct vertical access
from the soil. Treat all structural wood, including wall studs
and sills, in finished-out basements where structural wood
framing is immediately adjacent to the exterior foundation
walls. Spray concrete slab surface a minimum of two (2)
up to a maximum of eight (8) inches. To prevent termite
shelter tubes on basement walls, spray all interior concrete
or block foundation walls with a two (2) foot (24 inch) band
up from the slab area. Apply the 1:1 Bora-Care solution at
the rate of one (1) gallon per 400 square feet of concrete
foundation wall area.
On structural wood where access is limited to one (1)
or two (2) sides of wood members such as sills and
plates on foundation walls or wrapped sheathing,
apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care solution. Wait at least
20 minutes between re-applications. If accessible, treat
the exterior of structural wood sill areas around the entire
perimeter of the structure with a 24-inch wide band of
Bora-Care solution beginning with the sill area and
extending upwards onto the sheathing material. On
multiple story structures, treat only the first story above the
masonry foundation level. Coated or painted structural
wood may be treated by pressure injecting Bora-Care into
holes drilled into the wood at eight (8)- to ten (10)-inch
intervals. Inject at 40 psi for four (4) to six (6) seconds per
hole.
B.
Buildings on slabs: Apply one (1) coat of a one (1)
gallon water to one (1) gallon Bora-Care (1:1) solution to
all base plates and the bottom two (2) feet (24 inches) of
all studs on all exterior and interior walls. When spraying
base plates also treat concrete surface a minimum of two
(2) inches to a maximum of eight (8) inches in from plates.
In areas where access is limited to one (1) or two (2)
sides of a structural wood member, such as sills and
plates on foundation walls or wrapped sheathing,
apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care solution to the
exposed surfaces. Wait at least 20 minutes between
applications. Treat all structural wood in plumbing walls
and apply to any wood in bath traps as well as structural
wood adjacent to plumbing, electrical conduit and duct
penetrations to provide a minimum two (2) foot (24-inch)
wide barrier of treatment between the soil and the balance
of the structure. Using a 1:1 Bora-Care solution treat all
available plumbing penetrations at least two (2) feet (24
inches) up from slab. Treat all slab surface area at least
one (1) foot out from all bath trap penetrations. Evenly
treat dirt-filled bath traps with a minimum of eight (8)
ounces of the 1:1 Bora-Care solution to a maximum of
sixteen (16) ounces per square foot of trap. Treat any
penetrations (such as plumbing, expansion joints and
abutting slabs) not associated with any nearby structural
wood by spraying the 1:1 Bora-Care solution on available
penetrations up to two (2) feet (24 inches) high and
extending application to cover at least six (6) inches of
slab surface area out from penetration site.
C.
Foam insulation: Treat with low-pressure surface
spraying or injecting a one (1) part water to one (1) part
Bora-Care (1:1) solution to the infested area at the rate of
one (1) gallon per 300 to 400 square feet.
Note:
Some types of foam insulation, such as
polyisocyanurate and extruded polystyrene, have closed
cell structures that do not allow significant penetration from
surface application. Inject and surface spray these types
of insulation.
VII. Preventative Treatment for
Termites and Powderpost Beetles
Drywood
Apply one (1) coat of a 5:1 [five (5) gallons water to one (1)
gallon Bora-Care] solution to the point of wetness to all
structural wood surfaces using a brush, spray or mist.
Apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care solution to those
surfaces where access is limited to one (1) or two (2) sides
of structural wood members. Wait at least 20 minutes
between re-applications.
VIII. Treatment of Exterior Wood Surfaces
Less Than Two Inches Thick such as Decks,
Sheds and Fences
Apply only to bare wood or to wood surfaces where an
intact water repellent or finish is not present. Remove
paint or finish prior to application. Apply one (1) coat of
Bora-Care solution to the point of wetness to all wood
surfaces. Apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care solution to
heavily infested areas and to those surfaces where access
is limited to one (1) or two (2) sides of wood members. Do
not apply in rain or snow. Do not expose treated exterior
wood surfaces to rain or snow for at least 48 hours after
treatment. If inclement weather is expected, protect
exterior treated surfaces with a plastic tarp.
For wood in contact with the ground or soil, see Section
XII.
A.
Finishing and Maintaining Treated Surfaces: For
longer performance, exterior wood surfaces that have
been treated with Bora-Care will require a topcoating with
a water-resistant finish such as paint or exterior stain.
Apply the finish or topcoat within six (6) weeks of
treatment. It is important to allow Bora-Care-treated wood
to completely dry (at least 48 hours) before applying any
protective topcoat. Coat a small section of treated wood
with the finish to be used and check for compatibility prior
to complete application.
IX. Treatment of Log Structures, Timbers,
Beams, Pilings and Exterior Wood Members
Two or More Inches Thick
Apply only to bare wood or to wood surfaces where an
intact water repellent or other finish is not present.
Remove paint or finish prior to application. Prior to
treatment clean interior, unfinished surfaces that have
accumulated dirt or cooking oils with a strong detergent.
Apply a one (1) part water to one (1) part Bora-Care (1:1)
solution to the point of wetness to all interior and exterior
wood surfaces. Refer to application chart for minimum
amount of Bora-Care to treat various sized logs or beams.
Typically, two (2) coats of solution are required to treat
round logs 10” or greater in diameter and rectangular logs
larger than 6” x 12”. Wait at least one (1) hour before reapplication. Apply two (2) coats of Bora-Care solution to
log ends, notches, corners and sill logs. Actual number of
coats necessary to meet minimum requirements will
depend upon actual wood size, surface porosity and
number of sides accessible for treatment. Do not apply in
rain or snow. Do not expose treated exterior wood
surfaces to rain or snow for at least 48 hours after
treatment. If inclement weather is expected, protect
exterior treated surfaces with a plastic tarp.
A.
Finishing and Maintaining Treated Surfaces: For
long-term protection, exterior wood surfaces that have
been treated with Bora-Care will require a topcoating with
a water-resistant finish, paint or exterior stain. Apply the
finish or topcoat within six (6) weeks of treatment. It is
important to allow Bora-Care-treated wood to completely
dry (at least 48 hours) before applying any protective
topcoat. Coat a small section of treated wood with the
finish to be used and check for compatibility prior to
complete application.
X.
Dip Treating Logs and Lumber
Prepare a dip treating solution by mixing five (5) parts
water to one (1) part Bora-Care (5:1). This will result in a
stable solution containing 9% active ingredient. Sticker
bundled wood to ensure the solution covers all wood
surfaces. Submerge logs and/or lumber in the solution for
at least one (1) minute or until all entrapped air has
escaped. Protect treated wood from rain or snow for at
least 24 hours after treatment.
XI. Treatment of Wood In Contact With the
Ground
A Bora-Care treatment to wood in contact with the ground
or soil has a limited lifespan and will require periodic
reapplication. Protection may be extended with the use of
a 40% disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (or borate) gel
product.
XII. Prevention and Remedial Control of
Algae for Cellulosic Building Components
Apply Bora-Care for the prevention and remedial control of
algae to cellulosic building components (drywall,
insulation) in new construction and existing structures and
where an intact water repellant barrier such as paint, stain
or sealer is not present. Apply Bora-Care at the rate of
one (1) gallon of solution per 400 square feet of surface
area. Apply only to the back paper side of drywall and to
cellulose insulation. In areas where drywall has been
installed and insulation is enclosed, apply Bora-Care using
a misting machine (or applicator) applying sufficient
solution to cover surfaces at the rate of one (1) gallon per
400 square feet. Refer to Tables A and B for mixing
ratios for preventative and remedial algae treatments.
XIII. General Pest Control Applications
The application of Bora-Care to the surface of wood in new
construction or to wood surfaces inside wall void areas in
existing structures helps to prevent the establishment of
cockroach, ant (except Fire ants, Harvester ants, Pharaoh
ants), silverfish, earwig, boxelder bug, millipede and
cricket infestations that come in direct contact with these
treated areas. Apply one (1) gallon of Bora-Care solution
per 400 square feet of surface area or refer to Tables A
and B when applying as a surface application.
XIV. Bora-Care Total Wood Preservative
A wood preservative for protection and treatment of wood
against brown rot, white rot, fungi (rot) and wood
destroying insects including beetles, termites and
carpenter ants. Treatment is permanent provided the
treated material is not exposed to rain, moisture or ground
contact.
A.
General Information: Bora-Care is a concentrated
solution of sodium borate with additives that facilitate rapid
penetration of wood, regardless of moisture content. It is
designed for preventative and/or remedial treatment of
wood in both new and existing structures against fungi
(rot) and wood boring insects including:
Subterranean Termites (Reticulitermes, Heterotermes,
Coptotermes)
Dampwood Termites (Zootermopsis)
Drywood Termites (Kalotermes, Incisitermes)
Powderpost Beetles (Lyctidae, Bostrichidae)
Anobiid Beetles (Anobiidae)
Old House Borers, Longhorn Beetles (Cerambycidae)
Carpenter Ants (Camponotus)
B.
Surface Preparation: Apply only to bare wood.
Remove any previous finishes or water repellents before
application of Bora-Care. Surfaces must be free of dirt and
other contaminates. If finished appearance is a concern,
prior to application of Bora-Care, remove any mold or
mildew with an appropriate wood cleaner followed by
thorough surface rinsing.
C.
Application Instructions:
1.
Treatment of Dimensional Lumber, Plywood and
Exterior Wood Surfaces (Decks, Sheds, Siding, etc.):
Apply only to bare wood or to wood surfaces where an
intact water repellent or finish is not present. If necessary,
remove paint or finish prior to application. To all wood
surfaces apply to the point of wetness one (1) coat of
either a one (1) part water to one (1) part Bora-Care (1:1)
solution for remedial control of wood-infesting insects,
three (3) parts water to one (1) part Bora-Care (3:1) for
remedial control of fungi (rot), two (2) parts water to one
(1) part Bora-Care (2:1) foam or mist solution or a five (5)
parts water to one (1) part Bora-Care (5:1) solution for
insect and fungi (rot) prevention. Apply two (2) coats of
Bora-Care solution to heavily infested areas and to those
surfaces where access is limited to one (1) or two (2) sides
of wood members. Do not apply in rain or snow. Do not
expose treated exterior wood surfaces to rain or snow for
at least 48 hours after treatment. If inclement weather is
expected, protect exterior treated surfaces with a plastic
tarp.
2.
Treatment of Logs, Timbers and Large Beams:
Apply only to bare wood or to wood surfaces where an
intact water repellent or other finish is not present. If
necessary, remove paint or finish prior to application. Prior
to treatment, clean interior, unfinished surfaces that have
accumulated dirt or cooking oils with a strong detergent.
Apply to the point of runoff by spray or brush a one (1) part
water to one (1) part Bora-Care (1:1) solution to all interior
and exterior wood surfaces. Refer to application chart for
minimum amount of Bora-Care to treat various sized logs
or beams. Typically, two (2) coats of solution will be
required to treat round logs 10” or greater in diameter and
rectangular logs larger than 6” x 12”. Wait at least one (1)
hour between applications. Also apply two (2) coats of
Bora-Care solution to log ends, notches, corners and sill
logs. Actual number of coats necessary to meet the
minimum requirements will depend upon actual wood size,
surface porosity and number of sides accessible for
treatment. Do not apply in rain or snow. If inclement
weather is expected, protect exterior treated surfaces with
a plastic tarp for at least 48 hours after treatment.
3.
Dip Treating Logs and Lumber: Prepare a dip
treating solution by mixing five (5) parts water to one (1)
part Bora-Care (5:1). This will result in a stable solution
containing 9% active ingredient. Sticker bundled wood to
ensure the solution covers all wood surfaces. Submerge
logs and/or lumber in the solution for at least one (1)
minute or until all entrapped air has escaped. Protect
treated wood from rain or snow for at least 24 hours after
treatment.
D.
Finishing and Maintaining Exterior-Treated
Surfaces:
For long-term protection, exterior wood
surfaces that have been treated with Bora-Care require a
topcoating with a water-resistant finish such as paint or
exterior stain. Apply the finish or topcoat within six (6)
weeks of treatment. It is important to allow Bora-Caretreated wood to completely dry (at least 48 hours) before
applying any protective topcoat. Coat a small section of
treated wood with the finish to be used and check for
compatibility prior to complete application.
Interior
surfaces do not require topcoating except in situations
involving repeated moisture contact or high humidity
(shower stalls, bath houses, saunas, etc.)
E.
Retention Rates: One (1) gallon of Bora-Care
concentrate (two (2) gallons of Bora-Care solution as
applied) will treat 800 board feet of wood to a minimum
retention level of 0.084 pounds per cubic foot boric acid
equivalent (BAE). Since the active ingredient penetrates
throughout the wood being treated, calculate the amount
of Bora-Care needed on the volume of wood being treated,
not just the surface area. Use the following formulas to
calculate the required amount of Bora-Care:
For Dimensional Lumber
(2 x 4, 2 x 6, 2 x 12, etc.)
Material thickness (inches) x material width (inches)
x material length (feet) divided by 12 = Board Feet
For Log Homes
Log height (inches) x log thickness (inches)
x perimeter (feet)
x number of courses divided by 12 = Board Feet
(For round logs use the average diameter for both height
and thickness measurements)
For Siding and Paneling
One (1) gallon of Bora-Care concentrate (two (2) gallons of
solution) will treat 800 sq. ft. of 1” thick wood by spraying
only one side. If siding or paneling is ” thick, one (1)
gallon of Bora-Care concentrate (two (2) gallons solution)
treats 1,600 sq. ft.
XV. Application Rates
Table A – Dimensional Lumber
Lumber Size
(Inches)
1 Gallon of Diluted
®
Bora-Care
Will Treat Up To
1x4
1 x 12
2x4
2x6
2x8
2 x 10
2 x 12
4x4
4x6
4x8
4 x 12
6x6
6x8
6 x 10
6 x 12
1,200 Lineal Feet
400
600
400
308
240
200
300
200
150
100
133
100
80
68
Minimum Amount of
®
Diluted Bora-Care
To Treat 1000 Lineal Feet
0.8 Gal.
2.6
1.6
2.6
3.2
4.2
5.0
3.4
5.0
6.8
10.0
7.6
10.0
12.6
15.0
Table B – Panels, Siding and Plywood
(1:1 or 2:1 mixing ratio)
Thickness
(Inches)
1 Gallon of Diluted
®
Bora-Care
Will Treat Up To
1/4
3/8
1/2
3/4
1,600 sq. ft.
1,067
800
533
1
400
Minimum Amount of
®
Diluted Bora-Care
To Treat 1000 Square Feet
0.6 Gal.
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.6
Table C – Round Logs
(only the 1:1 mixing ratio)
Diameter
(Inches)
1 Gallon of Diluted
®
Bora-Care
Will Treat Up To
6
8
10
12
167 Lineal Feet
96
61
43
Minimum Amount of
®
Diluted Bora-Care
To Treat 1000 Lineal Feet
6.0 Gal.
10.4
16.4
23.4
Note: The numbers listed above are based on an
application rate of one (1) gallon of Bora-Care solution to
400 board feet of wood.
For product in rigid, refillable containers:
Storage and Disposal
Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or
disposal.
Pesticide Storage: Store in original container in a
preferably locked storage area inaccessible to children
and pets. Do not freeze. Pesticide Disposal: Wastes
resulting from the use of this product may be disposed
of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility.
Container Management: Refillable container; refill this
container only with Bora-Care. Do not reuse this
container for any other purpose. Cleaning the container
before refilling is the responsibility of the refiller;
cleaning before final disposal is the responsibility of the
person disposing of the container. To clean the
container before final disposal, empty the remaining
contents from this container into application equipment
or mix tank. Fill the container about 10% full with water,
then vigorously agitate or recirculate water with the
pump for 2 minutes. Pour or pump rinsate into
application equipment or rinsate collection system.
Repeat this rinsing procedure 2 more times, then offer
for recycling, if available, or reconditioning, if
appropriate; or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary
landfill; or by incineration.
For product packaged in rigid, non-refillable
containers less than or equal to 5 gallons:
Storage and Disposal
Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or
disposal.
Pesticide Storage: Store in a cool, dry (preferably
locked) storage area inaccessible to children and pets.
Do not freeze. Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting
from the use of this product may be disposed of on site
or at an approved waste disposal facility. Container
Management: Nonrefillable container; do not reuse or
refill this container. Triple rinse (or equivalent)
container promptly after emptying. Triple rinse as
follows: Empty the remaining contents into application
equipment or a mix tank and drain for 10 seconds after
the flow begins to drip. Fill the container full with
water and recap. Shake for 10 seconds. Pour rinsate
into application equipment or a mix tank or store rinsate
for later use or disposal. Drain for 10 seconds after the
flow begins to drip. Repeat this procedure two more
times, then offer for recycling, if available; or
reconditioning, if appropriate; or puncture and dispose
of in a sanitary landfill; or by incineration.
For product packaged in rigid, non-refillable
containers greater than 5 gallons:
Storage and Disposal
Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or
disposal.
Pesticide Storage: Store in a cool, dry (preferably
locked) storage area inaccessible to children and pets.
Do not freeze. Pesticide Disposal: Wastes resulting
from the use of this product may be disposed of on site
or at an approved waste disposal facility. Container
Management: Nonrefillable container; do not reuse or
refill this container. Triple rinse (or equivalent)
container promptly after emptying. Triple rinse as
follows: Empty the remaining contents into application
equipment or a mix tank. Fill the container full with
water. Replace and tighten closures. Tip container on
its side and roll it back and forth, ensuring at least one
complete revolution, for 30 seconds. Stand the
container on its end and tip it back and forth several
times. Turn the container over onto its other end and
tip it back and forth several times. Empty the rinsate
into application equipment or a mix tank or store rinsate
for later use or disposal. Repeat this procedure two
more times. Then offer for recycling, if available; or
reconditioning, if appropriate; or puncture and dispose
of in a sanitary landfill; or by incineration.
XVI. Warranty Disclaimer
Manufacturer warrants that this product conforms to the
chemical description on the label and is reasonably fit for
the purposes stated on the label when used in strict
accordance with the directions, subject to the inherent
risks set forth below. To the extent not prohibited by
applicable law, MANUFACTURER MAKES NO OTHER
EXPRESS
OR
IMPLIED
WARRANTY
OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTY.
Inherent Risks of Use
The directions for use of this product are believed to be
adequate and must be carefully followed. It is impossible
to eliminate all risks associated with use of this product.
Lack of performance or other unintended consequences
may result because of such factors as use of the product
contrary to label instructions, abnormal conditions, the
presence of other materials, climatic conditions or the
manner of use/application, all of which are beyond the
control of the Manufacturer. The buyer/user assumes all
such risks.
Limitation of Remedies
To the extent not prohibited by applicable law, the
exclusive remedy for losses or damages resulting from this
product (including claims based on contract, negligence,
strict liability or other legal theories) shall be limited to, at
Manufacturer’s election, one of the following:
1. Refund of purchase price paid by buyer or user for
product bought, or
2. Replacement of amount of product used.
To the extent not prohibited by applicable law: a)
Manufacturer shall not be liable for losses or damages
resulting from handling or use of this product unless
Manufacturer is promptly notified of such loss or damage
in writing; and b) IN NO CASE SHALL MANUFACTURER
BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL
DAMAGES OR LOSSES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMIT,
HEALTH RELATED DAMAGES OR INJURIES.
The terms of this Warranty Disclaimer and Limitation of
Remedies cannot be varied by any written or verbal
statements or agreements. No employee or sales agent of
Manufacturer or the seller is authorized to vary or exceed
the terms of this Warranty Disclaimer or Limitation of
Remedies in any manner.
It is not intended that this product be used to practice any
applicable patent, whether mentioned or not, without
procurement of a license, if necessary, from the owner,
following investigation by the user.
Nisus Corporation
100 Nisus Drive
Rockford, TN 37853
(800) 264-0870
®
®
Bora-Care and Mold-Care are Registered Trademarks of Nisus Corporation
Made in the U.S.A.
©2010 Nisus Corporation
BC-SL-0410a/SAL51308+SD
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
Issued Date: 8/24/1989
Revised Date: 04-01-10
BORA-CARE
®
®
Health Emergencies: CHEMTREC (800) 424-9300
SECTION I - PRODUCT & COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
SECTION V - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
Manufacturer:
FLASH POINT Above 220°F (Tag Closed Cup)
FLAMMABLE LIMITS: Not known.
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: CO2, dry powder or universal type foam.
FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: This material will not readily ignite.
FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Avoid inhaling smoke. The use of a
SCBA is recommended for fire fighters. Water spray may be useful in
minimizing vapors and cooling containers exposed to heat and flame.
Nisus Corporation
100 Nisus Drive
Rockford, TN 37853
(800) 266-0870
®
Product Trade Name: BORA-CARE
EPA Registration No. 64405-1
Chemical Family: Glycol borate solution
Formula: Proprietary Mixture
CAS No.: N/A
SECTION II – COMPOSITION
40% Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate
60% mixed glycols (monoethylene and polyethylene glycols are used in
the manufacturing process)
PRECAUTIONS IN CASE OF RELEASE OR SPILL: Absorb with
organic liquid absorbent. Do not let material or washwaters enter
sewers or waterways.
Where large release has occurred see
ecological section.
SECTION VI - HANDLING AND STORAGE
SECTION III - HAZARDS
Hazard Rating: NFPA
SECTION VI - SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES
Health
Flammability
Reactivity
1
0
0
Slight hazard
Material or Component: Manufactured using Ethylene Glycol CAS No.
107-21-1
TLV 50.00 ppm ACGIH
Type CEIL
(Note this is a raw material and there is no free ethylene glycol present.)
EYE CONTACT: Causes moderate eye irritation. Direct contact may
cause burning, tearing and redness in sensitive individuals.
SKIN CONTACT: This material is essentially non-irritating. Prolonged
or repeated exposure to this material may cause softening of the skin.
Persons with preexisting skin disorders may be more susceptible to the
effects of this material. Harmful if absorbed through skin.
INGESTION: Ingestion of large amounts may cause nausea, mental
sluggishness followed by difficulty in breathing and heart failure, kidney
and brain damage, possibly death.
INHALATION: Harmful if inhaled. Breathing high concentrations of
vapors may cause nausea, dizziness or drowsiness, and irritation of the
nose and throat. Preexisting lung disorders may be aggravated by
exposure to this material.
SECTION IV - EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES
INHALATION: Move person to fresh air. If person is not breathing, call
911 or an ambulance, then give artificial respiration, preferably by
mouth-to-mouth, if possible.
SKIN CONTACT: Take off contaminated clothing. Immediately rinse
skin with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes.
EYE CONTACT: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water
for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5
minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison control center or
doctor for further treatment advice. Have the product container or label
with you when calling a poison control center or doctor, or going for
treatment.
INGESTION: SEEK EMERGENCY MEDICAL ATTENTION If the victim
is drowsy or unconscious, place on the left side with the head down. Do
not give anything by mouth. If victim is conscious and alert, vomiting
should be induced for ingestion of more than 1 – 2 tablespoons for an
adult, preferably with syrup of ipecac under direction from a physician or
poison center. If syrup of ipecac is not available, vomiting can be
induced by gently placing two fingers in back of throat. If large amounts
are ingested, treat for glycol and borate toxicity. If possible, do not leave
victim unattended.
NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: Treat for exposure to glycols. Contains borates.
Monitor electrolytes.
HANDLING AND STORAGE PRECAUTIONS: Store between 40°F and
90°F. Do not store in direct sunlight. Keep containers tightly closed.
Store in areas not accessible to children and pets.
Do not store with strong oxidizers.
Locked storage is required for EPA registered materials.
SECTION VIII - SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Good ventilation. When applying BoraCare in confined spaces, provide ventilation or an exhaust system or
use of a NIOSH-approved dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH
approval number prefix TC-21C) with a prefilter approved for pesticides
(MSHA/NIOSH approval prefix TC-23C), or a canister approved for
pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval prefix TC-14G) or a NIOSHapproved respirator with any N, R, P or HE prefilter is recommended.
VENTILATION: Exhaust to ventilate.
Bora-Care is easily washed form eyes and skin.
US EPA requires the following personal protective equipment when
applying registered materials:
PROTECTIVE GLOVES: Some materials that are chemical-resistant to
this product are barrier laminate; butyl, nitrile, neoprene and natural
rubbers 14 mils; polyethylene; polyvinyl chloride; and viton 14 mils.
If you want more options, follow the instructions for category C on an
EPA chemical-resistance category selection chart.
EYE PROTECTION: Use safety glasses, goggles or face shield.
OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Applicators, mixers and other
handlers must wear long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks, shoes,
chemical-resistant gloves and protective eyewear. It is recommended
that a source of clean water be available in the work area for flushing
eyes and washing skin.
SECTION IX - PHYSICAL DATA
Appearance: Clear viscous gel
Specific Gravity: 1.38 g/ml
% Volatile: 36% by weight by TGA (as water)
Vapor Pressure: Negligible (<0.1)
Boiling Point: Above 212° F
Odor: None
% Solubility in Water: 100%
pH: 50% aqueous solution 6.9 - 7. 1
SECTION X - REACTIVITY DATA
STABILITY: Stable
CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Exposure to strong oxidizing agents.
INCOMPATIBILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID). This material is
incompatible with strong oxidizing agents. This product may corrode
aluminum.
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Ethylene oxide, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide.
7-day LC50 = 65 mg B/L
3-day LC50 = 71 mg B/L
SECTION XI - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Bora-Care is of very low acute mammalian toxicity.
Acute oral LD50 - greater than 5000 mg/kg body weight
(Sprague-Dawley male and female rats).
Acute dermal LD50 - greater than 2000 mg/kg body weight (New Zealand
Albino male and female rabbits).
Acute inhalation LC50 – 5.06 mg/L for 4 hours (Sprague-Dawley male
and female rats).
Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling this
material may be harmful or fatal.
None of the major constituents of this material have been identified as
carcinogens or probable carcinogens by IARC or OSHA.
The RfD for ethylene glycol is 2.0 mg/kg/day based on kidney toxicity in
rats. US EPA has a high confidence in the study on which the RfD was
based. The RfD is protective of animal demonstrated chronic and
reproductive effects. Preexisting kidney disorders may be aggravated
by exposure to this material.
Borates have been shown to have some chronic toxicity in animals fed
high doses, similar to that of alcohol, but this has not been found in
humans.
SECTION XII – ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The LC50 of ethylene glycol = 9500 to 51,000 mg/l depending on
organism, so is of no relevance. See above boron ecological
information.
In the event of accidental environmental release, dilute with water.
Bora-Care is rapidly diluted to natural background micronutrient levels
of boron, and the organic glycol components are biodegraded by
microorganisms with a half-life of between 1 and 10 days (90% in one
day using OECD 302B Test).
SECTION XIII – DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Make up only the amount of solution to be used that day. Excess
solution can be used in treatment or further diluted with water and this
diluted solution used to dilute product in future applications.
WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD: Unopened containers may be returned
to Nisus corporation for reprocessing. Contact your State Pesticide,
Environmental Control Agency or local authorities for proper disposal
guidelines. Most sewage facilities will allow discharge to sewage of
small volumes. Very large volume can retard sewage processing.
SECTION XIV – TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION
General: Boron (B) is the element in disodium octaborate tetrahydrate
(the active ingredient in Bora-Care) which is used by convention to
report borate product ecological effects. To convert disodium octaborate
tetrahydrate into the equivalent boron (B) content, multiply by 0.2096.
Bora-Care contains 8.4% B by weight.
Phytotoxicity: Boron is an essential micronutrient for healthy growth of
plants; however, it can he harmful to boron sensitive plants (e.g. grass
and ornamentals) in high quantities.
Algal Toxicity: Green algae, Scenedesmus subspicatus
96-hr EC10 = 24 mg B/L
Invertebrate Toxicity: Daphnids, Daphnia magna straus
24-hr EC50=242 mg B/L
Test substance: sodium tetraborate
Fish Toxicity:
Seawater:
Dab, Limanda limanda
96-hr LC50 74 MG B/LL
Freshwater:
Rainbow trout, S. gairdneri (embryo-larval stage)
24-day LC50 = 88 mg B/L
32-day LC50) = 54 mg B/L
Goldfish, Carassius auratus (embryo-larval stage)
DOT Hazard Classification: Not Regulated
SECTION XV – REGULATORY INFORMATION
EPA Registration No. 64405-1
Chemical Family: Glycol borate solution
Hazard Rating: NFPA
Health
Flammability
Reactivity
1
0
0
Slight hazard
SECTION XVI – OTHER INFORMATION
The information and recommendations contained herein are based
upon data believed to be correct. However, no guarantee or warranty of
any kind expressed or implied is made with respect to the information
contained herein. This information and product are furnished on the
condition that the persons receiving them shall make their own
determination as to the suitability of the product for their particular
purpose and on the condition that they assume the risk of their use
thereof.
100 Nisus Drive • Rockford, TN 37853 USA • (800) 264-0870
©2010 • BC-MSDS-INT-0410a
APPENDIX C Summary Data 100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M
ar
Figure C-1.
20
08
Ju
n
20
08
Se
p
20
08
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
n
n
p
p
c2
c2
20
20
20
20
20
20
00
0
0
1
0
1
0
10
0
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Control, Woody Debris Organic Content
100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M
ar
Figure C-2.
20
08
Ju
n
20
08
Se
p
20
08
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
n
n
p
p
c2
c2
2
2
2
2
2
20
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
10
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Ag-Bagged, Woody Debris Organic Content
100
Yard Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M
Figure C-3.
ar
Ju
20
08
n
20
08
Se
p
20
08
De
c
M
20
08
ar
Ju
20
09
n
20
09
Se
p
20
09
De
c
M
20
09
Ju
n
ar
2
01
0
20
10
Se
p
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Control, Yard Debris Organic Content
20
10
100
Yard Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M
ar
Figure C-4.
20
08
Ju
n
20
08
Se
p
20
08
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
n
n
p
p
c2
c2
20
20
20
20
20
20
00
0
0
1
0
1
0
10
0
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Ag-Bagged, Yard Debris Organic Content
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Figure C-5.
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
ar
n
n
n
p
p
p
c2
c2
20
2
2
20
2
2
20
2
20
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
08
08
08
10
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Control, Woody Debris Energy Content
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Figure C-6.
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
ar
n
n
n
p
p
p
c2
c2
20
2
2
20
2
2
20
2
20
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
08
08
08
10
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Ag-Bagged, Woody Debris Energy Content
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
10000
Yard Debris
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Figure C-7.
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
ar
n
n
n
p
p
p
c2
c2
20
2
2
20
2
2
20
2
20
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
08
08
08
10
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Control, Yard Debris Energy Content
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
10000
Yard Debris
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Figure C-8.
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
De
M
Ju
Se
ar
ar
ar
n
n
n
p
p
p
c2
c2
20
2
2
20
2
2
20
2
20
00
01
00
01
00
00
00
08
08
08
10
9
0
9
0
9
8
9
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Ag-Bagged, Yard Debris Energy Content
100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Background
1
(June 2008)
Figure C-9.
Ag-Bag
2
(Sept 2010)
Lime
3
(Sept 2010)
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Organic Content for Woody Debris with Lime
100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Figure C-10.
1
Background
(June 2008)
2
Ag-Bag
(Sept 2010)
3
Ash
(Sept 2010)
4
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Organic Content for Woody Debris with Ash
100
Woody Debris
90
Organic Content (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
Figure C-11.
Background
1
(June 2008)
Ag-Bag
2
(Sept 2010)
Pesticide
3
(Sept 2010)
4
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Organic Content for Woody Debris with Pesticide (Boracore)
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Background
(June 2008)
Figure C-12.
Ag-Bag
(Sept 2010)
Lime
(Sept 2010)
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Energy Content for Woody Debris with Lime
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Background
(June 2008)
Figure C-13.
Ag-Bag
(Sept 2010)
Ash
(Sept 2010)
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Energy Content for Woody Debris with Ash
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
Woody Debris
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Background
(June 2008)
Figure C-14.
Ag-Bag
(Sept 2010)
Pesticide
(Sept 2010)
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Energy Content for Woody Debris with Pesticide
100
Organic Content (%)
80
60
40
20
0
WD Background
(June 2008)
Figure C-15.
YD Background
(June 2008)
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Organic Content for the Background Levels of both Woody and
Yard Debris
Energy Content (BTU/lb, dry weight basis)
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
Wood Debris Background
(June 2008)
Figure C-16.
Yard Debris Background
(June 2008)
Box-and-Whisker Plot of Energy Content for the Background Levels of both Woody and
Yard Debris