HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-6518
.
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
# 0286C
Date: December 26, 2007
THIS CERTIFIES that the replacement of bulkhead, and the addition of rock armor seaward
of the bulkhead
At 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue, New York
Suffolk County Tax Map # 83-1-6
Conforms to the application for a Trustees Permit heretofore filed in this office
Dated 11/20/06 pursuant to which Trustees Permit # 6518 & 6518C Dated 01/24/07.
Was issued, and conforms to all ofthe requirements aud conditious ofthe applicable
provisions of law, The project for which this certificate is being issued
is for the replacement of bulkhead. and addition of rock armor seaward of the bulkhead
The certificate is issued to THOMAS Y ANNlOS owner of the
aforesaid property.
~07~
Authorized Signature
.
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN
APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO
SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE
PERMIT.
INSPECTION SCHEDULE
Pre-construction, hay bale line
1 st day of construction
Y, constructed
/ Project complete, compliance inspection.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Permittee, Thomas Yannios, 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue, as part of the consideration for
the issuance of the Permit does understand and prescribe to the following:
I. That the said Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold are released from any and all
damages, or claims for damages, of suits arising directly or indirectly as a result of any
operation performed pursuant to this permit, and the said Permittee will, at his or her own
expense, defend any and all such suits initiated by third parties, and the said Permittee
assumes full liability with respect thereto, to the complete exclusion of the Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold.
2. That this Permit is valid for a period of 24 months, which is considered to be the estimated
time required to complete the work involved, but should circumstances warrant, request for
an extension may be made to the Board.
3. That this Permit should be retained indefinitely, or as long as the said Permittee wishes to
maintain the structure or project involved, to provide evidence to anyone concerned that
authorization was originally obtained.
4. That the work involved will be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board or its
agents, and non-compliance with the provisions of the originating application may be cause
for revocation ofthis Permit by resolution of the said Board.
5. That there will be no unreasonable interference with navigation as a result of the work
herein authorized.
6. That there shall be no interference with the right of the public to pass and repass along the
beach between high and low water marks.
7. That if future operations of the Town of Southold require the removal and/or alterations in
the location of the work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees,
the work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to free navigation, the said Permittee will be
required, upon due notice, to remove or alter this work project herein stated without
expenses to the Town of Southold.
8. The Permittee is required to provide evidence that a copy of this Trustee permit has been
recorded with the Suffolk County Department of Real Properties Office as a notice
covenant and deed restriction to the deed of the subject parcel. Such evidence shall be
provided within ninety (90) calendar days of issuance of this permit.
9. That the said Board will be notified by the Permittee of the completion of the work
authorized.
10. That the Permittee will obtain all other permits and consents that may be required
supplemental to this permit, which may be subject to revoke upon failure to obtain same.
.
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 24, 2007
David Corwin
639 Main Street
Greenport, N.Y. 11944
RE: THOMAS YANNIOS
545 GLEN COURT, CUTCHOGUE
SCTM#83-1-6
Dear Mr. Corwin:
The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS, David Corwin on behalf of THOMAS YANNIOS applied to the Southold Town
Trustees for a permit under the proVisions of Chapter 275 of the South old Town Code, the
Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated November 20, 2006, and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and
recommendations, and,
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on
January 24, 2007 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard,
and,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in
question and the surrounding area, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted
concerning this application, and,
WHEREAS, the proposal complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 of the Southold
Town Code, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health,
safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town,
2
.
.
WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommends that the proposal is an exempt Minor Action
and not subject to LWRP review pursuant to Chapter 268-3; Items A and Boo and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT,
RESOLVED, that the Board ofTrustees approve the application of THOMAS Y ANNIOS to
replace 120 If. of existing bulkhead, in place, using vinyl sheathing, 25 cy. of fill from an upland
source, rock armor seaward of the structure, and all as depicted on the plans drawn by D.
Corwin dated November 11, 2006.
Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed.
Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this
notification.
Inspections are required at a fee of $50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.)
This is not a determination from any other agency.
Fees: $50.00
Very Trul~ 0< ~
James F. King
President, Board of Trustees
JFK/hkc
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Permit #6518C
Date: January 24, 2007
SCTM# 83-1-6
Name of Applicant/Agent: David Corwin
Name of Permittee: Thomas Yannios
Address of Permittee: 43 Hill Rd., Stillwater, NY 12170
Property Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Replace 120 If. of existing bulkhead, in place, using vinyl
sheathing, 25 cy. of fill from an upland source, rock armor seaward of the structure, and all as
depicted on the plans drawn by D. Corwin dated November 11, 2006.
Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit
is signed.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (apply if marked)
_ Bluff restoration through a re-vegetation plan is a necessary special condition of this
permit.
_ A relocation agreement is attached hereto and is a necessary special condition of
this permit.
_ A maintenance agreement is attached with application and is a necessary special
condition of this permit.
James F. King
President, Board of Trustees
JFK/hkc
ro<~
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CArlA! '"
~ :11 ."\rY1~S'
\ \ (20 (o&,
1(2.'-1/01
,
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
TO:
D~v\j
Please be advised that your application dated
reviewed by this Board at the regular meeting of
following action was taken:
( v{ Application Approved (see below)
L-) Application Denied (see below)
L-) Application Tabled (see below)
.
Town Hall
53095 Route 205
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 7605-1892
Fax (631) 7605-6641
.~{A(l('\"6~
has been
and the
If your application is approved as noted above, a permit fee is now due. Make check or
money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees. The fee is computed below
according to the schedule of rates as set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town
Code.
The following fee must be paid within 90 days or re-application fees will be necessary.
COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: $, C; 0
TOTAL FEES DUE: $
So~
BY:
J"mes F. Kin9.LPresid~nt
Board of Trustees
h~ I NJr-e<---\,;v
tiJ ;AO"
\?-\I
.
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio. Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New Yark 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN
APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE.CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO
SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE
PERMIT.
INSPECTION SCHEDULE
/
Pre-construction, hay bale line
1 st day of construction
Yz constructed
V Project complete, compliance inspection.
,
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Board of Trustees
Field InspectionIWork session Report
Date/Time:
/2/ (; Iv/;
I {
David Corwin on behalf of THOMAS Y ANNIOS requests a Wetland Permit &
Coastal Erosion Permit to replace 120 If. of existing bulkhead, inkind/inpla'ce,
using CCA lumber and 25 cy. of fill from an upland source. Located: 545 Glen
Court, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-6
Type of area to be impacted: ~
Saltwater Wetland Freshwater W etland ~ Sound Front ~ Bay Front
Distance of proposed work to edge of above:
Paj;t of Town C~ proposed work falls under:
'LChapl.275 ~Chapl. 111 ~other
Type of Application: ~Wetland c/Coastal Erosion
_Emergency
Amendment
Administrative
Info needed:
~-\: \iv'll (
A-/-( ~~'J ?
loz:t:,d .
'), IVl
t.-J 11 l 1L4... r rJ
Modifications: lA \ <- V \ V"\ j i
.(4y--0-.<>r W \ ~
Conditions:
"
P~ent Were: ~ng (...o~oherty _P.Dickerson v--6. Bergen vIi: Ghosio, Ir
H. Cusack D. Dzenkowski other .
MailedlFaxed to:
Date:
;Jo (CA-frr-
.
.
Telephone
(631) 765-1892
Town HaJJ
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971-0959
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed.,
December 6, 2006, the following recommendation was made:
Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by Jack McGreevy, it was
RESOLVED to SUPPORT the Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit applications of
THOMAS YANNIOS to replace 120 If. of existing bulkhead, inkindlinplace, using CCA
lumber and 25 cy. of fill from an upland source.
Located: 545 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-6
Inspected by: Don Wilder, Jack McGreevy
The CAC Supports the application with the Condition no treated lumber is used and a
certified best practice plan is submitted.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
The question, leftover from last month, is whether CCA treated wood can be used on the
Yannios bulkhead.
(e(lct Ila~IClI
i:;t SWb.. blf
Co.ud~
If you look at the town code Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline, Section 275-
11. Construction and operation standards, subdivision B Shoreline structures;
subdivision F
(f) In order to prevent the release of metals and other contaminants into the wetlands
and waters of Southold, the use of lumber treated with chromated copper arsenate
(also known as "CCA"), ... is prohibited for use in sheathing and decking.
If you look at the town code Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas; subdivision i
111-15. Erosion protection structures.; subdivision C
C. All materials used in such structures must be durable and capable of withstanding
inundation, wave impacts, weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a
minimum of 30 years. Individual component materials may have a working life of less
than 30 years only when a maintenance program ensures that they will be regularly
maintained and replaced as necessary to attain the required 30 years of erosion
protection.
I have to contend that vinyl has not been in service in Southold Town on the sound long
enough to establish itself as durable enough to withstand penetration by floating debris
The Executive Summary of a United States Army Corps of Engineers study dated
August 2003 and entitled "A Study of the Long-term Application of Vinyl Sheet Piles"
found: "Published research data from five years of weathering have shown very little degradation
in tensile and flexural properties but have shown some degradation in impact properties".
With regard to leeching of metals into the waters of Southold Town I have to direct your
attention to: Assessment of the Risks to Aquatic Life from the Use of Pressure
TreatedWood In Water
From the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Web Site at
http://www.dec.state.nv.us/website/dfwmr/habitatlwoodline . pdf
A study done by the DEC which indicates leeching of metals into waters is not a problem
I want to direct your attention to two bulkheads I believe were constructed from CCA
treated lumber after the adoption of the present town code one being the Bittner
bulkhead in Peconic where wood replaced failed vinyl, and the other being a bulkhead
replaced this summer in the Hashamomuck Beach area one quarter of a mile east of
Southold Town Beach, where wood replaced wood. I do not have all the details of these
projects that let to the use of wood.
I am not sighting these as precedents because I believe ever project should be done on
a case by case basis. I do want to say that wood has been used before.
Thank you
.
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Engineer Research and
Development Center I
A STUDY OF THE LONG-TERM
APPLICATIONS OF VINYL SHEET PILES
Piyush K. Dulta and Uday Vaidya
August 2003
"
~;.
A STUDY OF THE LONG-TERM APPLICATIONS
OF VINYL SHEET PILES
Piyush K. Dutta
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
Engineer Research and Development Center
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
Hanover, NH 03755
Uday Vaidya
Department of Materials Science
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, AL 35294
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, written for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, summarizes the results of a brief
investigation of the long-term application of vinyl sheet piles to address some of the concerns
raised in a recent Engineering and Construction Bulletin about the integrity, durability, impact
damage, construction standards, and allowable design of commercially available PVC sheet piles.
The data used in this investigation were available from existing literature, technical
organizational databases, (e.g. the Vinyl Institute), manufacturers' input, input from the technical
experts on vinyl, and a few limited laboratory tests. The comments apply primarily to generic
PVC and not to the specific PVC material of any manufacturer. The performance of an individual
manufacturer's PVC sheet pile may vary from what has been generally reported here. The
following are the pertinent observations:
. Approximately ten-year-old PVC sheet pile installations have still not shown any signs of
significant degradation in the material.
. Published research data from five years of weathering have shown very little degradation
in tensile and flexural properties but have shown some degradation in impact properties.
. The basic material, PVC, is well investigated, and exhaustive data are available from
organizations like the Vinyl Institute, Vinyl by Design, etc.
. PVC has been used in the medical, electrical, building, and construction industries for
almost 50 years.
. In some places, corrosion degradation of steel pile was observed to be much wter than
any degradation of PVC sheet pile.
. The four U.S. manufacturers ofPVC sheet piles have different design approaches in
structuring the materials and profiling the shapes ofthe PVC sheet piles.
. No ASTM standards or other standards were found to assess the performance of PVC
sheet piles.
We performed a series oflaboratory tests as below:
Accelerated aging test: Accelerated aging tests were performed on sheet pile PVC flexural
samples by boiling them for I, 2, 10, and 20 hours and comparing their flexural properties with
un-boiled samples. No significant degradation in properties was observed.
UVexposure test: To study the effects of UV radiation exposure, two sets of samples were
made. The first set was exposed to 350-nm, 9500-J!W/in.2 UV radiation and then subjected to an
ASTM 3763 tap impact test in an Instron 8250 machine. Severe discoloration was observed. No
brittle cracking was observed. The depth of indentation of the tap was smallest for the highest-
radiation samples. Rockwell hardness testing showed an increase in hardness of the surface with
exposure.
Impact resistance degradation test: Another batch of samples similarly exposed to UV
radiation were subjected to Izod impact tests. A nonlinear progressive degradation of impact
strength with exposure time was observed. With a more exhaustive and systematic investigation,
it would be possible to develop a model to predict the degradation rate with years.
In analyzing the overall structural performance issues ofthe PVC sheet piles, we observed
that while material degradation generally may not be a factor in long-term performance, the
vi
Assessment of the Risks to Aquatic Life from the Use of Pressure Treated
Wood in Water
Prepared by Timothy J. Sinnott
Standards and Criteria Unit Leader
Bureau of Habitat
Ecotoxicology Section
Division ofFish, Wildlife and Marine Resources
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
March 17, 2000
Executive Summary
Wood preservatives are chemical pesticides that are applied to wood to protect it from
decay brought about by fungi or insect attack. While preservatives can be brushed on, sprayed
on, or soaked into wood, the most effective treatment is to force preservative solutions deeply
into the wood under high pressure. Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and inorganic arsenicals such as
chromated copper arsenate (CCA) are the three most widely used wood preservative compounds.
When preserved wood is used for in-water construction such as pilings, break walls, abutments,
or other submerged or partially submerged structures, the. potential exists for the. toxic
preservatives to leach from the wood. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate whether or
not preservative compounds leaching from treated wood have the potential to harm aquatic life.
Available scientific literature for each of the three types of preservatives was reviewed to attempt
to assess the potential risks to aquatic life from the use of pressure treated wood in water. For all
three wood preservatives, the greatest amount of leaching occurs when freshly-treated wood is
first installed in the water. The rate of leaching drops off significantly after this short initial period
of relatively high leaching. In general, any impacts to aquatic life are most likely to occur during
that initial period of high leaching. The greater the distance from the treated wood, the more
dilute the concentration of leached preservative, and the lower the likelihood of adverse impacts.
For each of the three preservatives, fate processes such as volatilization, photolysis, sediment
sorption and microbial degradation work to degrade and reduce the concentration of the
preservative both in the water and in sediments, even during the initial period of high leaching.
For each specific type of wood preservative, recommendations are provided for minimizing the
risks to aquatic life. In sununary, the use of pressure treated wood in water is unlikely to have
significant impacts on aquatic life. However, wood treated with pentachlorophenol should not be
used in salt water. Two additional fmdings of the risk assessment are that creosote and CCA
treated wood does not present a hazard to marine organisms when used in salt water, and utility
poles in wetlands are also unlikely to cause adverse ecological impacts, particularly after the poles
have been in place longer than one to three months.
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 11
1. Purpose 1
2. B~k~oood 1
3. Summary of Findings and RecommendatiollS 3
A. Gffi~ 3
B. Creosote 4
C. Pen~hlorophenol 5
D. Inorganic Arsenicals 5
E. Construction Practices 6
4. Alternatives 7
5. Aquatic Risk Assessment of Creosote 8
6. Aquatic Risk Assessment ofPffi~hlorophenol 15
7. Aquatic Risk Assessment of CCA & other Inorganic Arsenicals 22
8. Other Habitats 30
A. Marine 30
B. Wetlands 30
9. Sources of Additional Information 33
10. Consumer Information Sheets 34
11. Literature Cited 39
12. WWPI Best Management Practices for Pressure Treated Wood 45
III
Assessment of the Risks to Aquatic Life from the Use of Pressure treated
Wood in Water
1. Purpose
The purpose of this document is to assess the ecological risks from using pressure treated
wood in water. This document does not discuss risks associated with terrestrial uses of pressure
treated wood. Likewise, it does not discuss safe handling, use, and disposal offreated wood,
scrap, or sawdust. It does not discuss human health concerns. The primary focus of the risk
assessment is the use of pressure treated wood in fresh water. However, the use of pressure
treated wood in other related habitats such as wetlands and marine waters is also discussed. This
assessment is only applicable to wood that has been properly pressure treated. Wood thathas
been soaked, dip-treated, brush or spray treated, or treated with any other wood preservative
process other than pressure treatment should never be placed in water or used near natural water
bodies.
All wood preservatives have the potential to leach out, to some degree, from pressure
treated wood that is submerged in water. While the assessment does attempt to make a
quantitative assessment of the potential from such leaching, it is impossible to model every
possible scenario. For example, a large number of submerged, treated wood structures in a small
water body with a small outlet will pose much greater risk to aquatic life than a small number of
similar structures in a large, deep lake or river. The results of the assessment are general, and
must be carefully applied to any specific real-world situation.
2. Background
Wood preservatives are compounds that prevent wood from being decayed, degraded, or
otherwise attacked by insects or fungi. These compounds act to defeat fungi and insects by being
acutely toxic to fungal spores that might land on the wood, or insects that attempt to eat wood or
bore into the wood for habitation or to lay eggs. The preservatives can be applied in a number of
different ways. They can be brushed or sprayed on; wood can be dipped or soaked in a cold
solution of the preservative, or wood can be dipped or soaked in a heated preservative solution.
These methods only provide surface protection. Preservatives applied in this manner will wear
away, or insects and fungi can penetrate through holes made by nails or screws, or through minute
checks and cracks that develop naturally in wood over time.
To provide long term protection of wood, it must be pressure treated. In this process, the
wood is placed in a pressure cylinder. The preservative solution is introduced and the internal
pressure of the cell is raised to. as much as ISO psi for six to eight hours. Under those conditions,
the preservative is driven deeply into the wood. After the pressure is vented off, the wood is
removed and allowed to dry. Depending on the size and type of wood, the preservative can
completely permeate the wood. In more dense wood, the preservative may penetrate as little as
I
0.4 inches. Under any circumstance, the preservative is driven as deeply into the wood as
practicable and the interior of the wood is better protected than with topical applications.
However, if the treated layer is breached, such as by a nail- or screw-hole, or natural check or
crack in the wood, the untreated interior will be vulnerable to fungi and/or invertebrate attack.
There are three main kinds of preservative pesticides commonly used for pressure
treatment of wood: creosote, pentacWorophenol, and inorganic arsenicals. Creosote is a complex
mixture of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are products of the fractional distillation
of coal tar. PentacWorophenol is a manufactured organocWorine pesticide. Inorganic arsenicals
are various blends of metallic oxides and arsenic, such as CCA (chromated copper arsenic); or
mixtures of metallic oxides, arsenic, and other compounds such as ACZA (Ammoniacal Copper
Zinc Arsenate). All three wood preservatives prevent wood decay because they are toxic to
insects and to fungi.
The weight of preservative in a given volume of wood in the treated zone is known as
retention, and is measured in pounds per cubic foot (pet). The American Wood-Preservers'
Association (A WPA) is a professional/technical society for individuals and organizations
interested in wood preservation. In the A WP A Book of Standards, recommendations are
provided regarding the preservative retention required for different purposes depending on the
type of wood, the specific preservative to be used, and where it will be used. For example, based
on the 1989 A WPA Book of Standards (standards can change with time), Eastern (northern)
white pine to be used for lumber, timber or ties above ground should be treated to the following
retentions: creosote, 8.0 pef; pentacWorophenol, 0.4 pef; CCA, 0.25 pef. A typical white pine 2"
X 4" X 8' stud consists of approximately 0.27 cubic feet of wood. If pressure treated, the stud
would contain about 2.16 Ibs of creosote, 0.11 pounds of pentacWorophenol, or 0.07 Ibs of
copper, chromium, and arsenic, assuming that the preservative penetrated completely through the
wood.
Wood preservatives are pesticides, and as such, they must be registered for use by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In October 1978, the EP A issued notices of Rebuttable Presumptions
Against Registration (RPAR) on creosote, pentacWorophenol, and inorganic arsenical wood
preservatives. The issuance of the RPARs meant that the U.S. EPA had concerns about the
potential for adverse human health and environmental effects from the use of these compounds.
In July 1984, the U.S. EPA issued "Notices of Intent to Cancel" the FlFRA registrations of
creosote, pentachlorophenol, and inorganic arsenical wood preservatives, unless the
manufacturers agreed to certain changes in the registrations. The "Notices of Intent to Cancel"
the registrations were further amended by the U.S. EPA in January 1986.
In their assessment, the U.S. EP A determined that although wood preservative chemicals
are pesticides, treated wood itself was not considered a pesticide, and need not be regulated as
such. Changes to registrations of the three wood preservative compounds dealt mostly with the
use of the preservatives themselves during the wood treatment process. U. S. EPA's regulatory
2
changes included such items as making the three types of preservatives restricted use pesticides,
requiring protective clothing be worn by wood treatment operators, establishing standards about
how the compounds were to be used and disposed of, not allowing the use of creosote or
pentachlorophenol treated wood in the interiOrs of homes or other buildings unless properly
sealed, etc. Regarding the use of treated wood itself, the U.S. EPA instituted a voluntary
Consumer Awareness Program (CAP) which required that consumer information sheets (CIS) be
developed by the manufacturers, approved by the U.S. EPA, and provided to the end-users of
treated wood (see Section 10). One of the requirements stipulated by the U.S, EPA was that
wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol, or inorganic arsenicals should not be used where
it may come into direct or indirect contact with public drinking water, except for uses involving
incidental contact such as docks and bridges.
There is a growing demand for the use of preserved wood in structures that are to be
submerged in water. Docks, for example, are built upon preserved wood pilings. Break walls and
other structures are also often built out of heavy timbers that have been pressure treated with
preservatives. The U.S.EPA review focused primarily on the potential impacts to human-health
from the use of wood preservative compounds to treated wood, and the potential impacts of
treated wood itself on human health. The U.S. EP A did not examine in detail the potential for
adverse ecological impacts from the use of treated wood in water.
3. Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Following are general recommendations pertinent to all three types of wood preservatives,
and more specific findings and recommendations for each individual type of wood preservative
when used in water. Each of the three types of wood preservatives are then discussed in detail in
separate sections.
A. General - applicable to all types of pressure treated wood:
I. Only wood bearing a stamp, tag, or brand certifying that the
treatment was accomplished in accordance with the standards of the
American Wood-Preservers' Association (AWPA)'should be used for in-
water construction. The accompanying stamp or tag will show the type of
preservative, the retention, the recommended use, and the applicable A WPA
standard. The standards described in the A WP A Book of Standards specifically
for in-water applications should be carefully adhered to.
2. Only wood treated in accordance with Western Wood Preservative
Institute Best Management Practices should be used for in-water construction.
3. Contract-writerS should specify compliance with A WPA standards and
WWPI BMPs when writing contracts for submerged, treated wood structures.
Consumets should inquire about compliance with the same standards I BMPs when
3
purchasing pressure treated wood for use in water.
4. The U.s. EPA states that for all types of pressure treated wood:
"Treated wood should not be used where it may come into direct or indirect
contact with public drinking water, except for uses involving incidental contact
such as docks or bridges." The EP A warning statement is vague, because the
difference "indirect contact" and "incidental contact" is not defined. The EP A
does describe the use of treated wood for docks and bridges as incidental contact
and therefore acceptable in public drinking water. This guidance recommends that
before using pressure treated wood in New York State waters classified A, AA, A-
S, or AA-S for structures other than docks or bridges, consult with the regional
office of the New York State Department of Health, or the Pesticide Control
Specialist in the regional office of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
4. Wood that has been re-treated because it failed inspection following the
first pressure-treatment application of a preservative should not be used for in-
water construction.
5. Comprehensive environmental literature reviews and risk assessments
for creosote, pentacWorophenol, CCA (Chromated Copper Arsenate), ACZA
(Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate), and ACQ (Ammoniacal Copper Quat) have
been produced for the Western Wood Preserver's Institute (Brooks, 1997, 1998,
1997a, 1997b, and 1998a). These reports include comprehensive computer
models for estimating preservative losses from submerged structures. In order to
predict site-specific risks, these models should be consulted when designing large
products with significant volumes of treated wood, or projects using treated wood
in small, low flow, or poorly flushed waters. See Section 9.
B. Creosote:
1. Creosote-treated wood used in water does not pose a significant risk to
aquatic life. Any actual impacts are likely to be short term and occur when the
treated wood is first installed in the water. A thin film or sheen frequently appears
on the surface of the water around a creosote-treated wood structure immediately
after the structure is put in place. The sheen results from low quantities of volatile
P AHs leaching from the wood. The sheen can be controlled by the installation of
an absorbent boom around the treated wood structure, but that might serve to
concentrate the chemical odor present while the materials evaporate from the
water. Aquatic organisms that dwell immediately at the air-water interface could
be impacted while the sheen is present. The presence of a sheen, however, is not
indicative of the presence of contaminants from creosote treated wood in the water
column under the sheen.
4
2. Creosote treated wood should be aged at least three months in air
following treatment, before being installed in water. This will allow some of the
volatile, lciw and medium molecular weight components to evaporate, reducing or
eliminating the period of time during which a sheen is visible on the water's surface
after the wood is installed in the water. For effective evaporation to occur during
the aging, the treated wood needs to be stacked in such a way that air can circulate
freely through the pile. The wood should not be stacked at a location where
precipitation running off the wood could drain into a natural water body.
C. Pentachlorophenol
1. The use of penta treated wood in water is unlikely to harm aquatic life.
Measurable impacts might occur only during the first month after the wood is
installed and the potential for leaching is at its highest. For large projects with
significant volumes of treated wood, there should be adequate flow to keep the
concentration of penta in the water from exceeding the New York State ambient
water quality standard for the protection of fish propagation and survival. This
flow rate is a site specific value that must be determined during the design stage of
a proposed project, by using a model such as Brooks (1998).
2. Penta treated wood should be aged three months after treatment and
prior to submersion. This aging period will allow time for some of the carrier oil
to evaporate and for the binding of penta with lignin in the middle lamella to begin,
thus reducing the potential for higher rates of leaching when the treated wood is
first installed in the water. For effective evaporation to occur during the aging, the
treated wood needs to be stacked in such a way that air can circulate freely
through the pile. The wood should not be stacked at a location where
precipitation running off the wood could drain into a natural water body.
3. Wood treated with pentachlorophenol should never be used in water
with salinity greater than 8%0. The A WP A has no standard for the use of penta
treated wood in saline waters;
D. Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) and other Inorganic Arsenicals
I. During the treatment process, copper, chromium, and arsenic form
insoluble complexes within the wood. Because of the insoluble nature of the
precipitates, the metals are unlikely to leach mnch, except under very acidic
conditions (pH of3.5 or less). However, a very small fraction of the CCA
preservative will leach from the wood. Also, unreacted surface deposits of metal
oxides are soluble. When CCA-treated wood is first placed into the water, there
will be an initial period of relatively high leaching that drops off sharply with time.
The amount of copper and arsenic that will leach from the wood is not likely to be
5
harmful to aquatic life.
2. CCA-treated wood must pass the Chromotrophic Acid test (A WP A
Standard A3-97)) before being used for in-water construction. TIris test shows
that at least 99.6% of the chromium (VI) has been reduced to Chromium (III).
When this has been achieved, there is likely to be little loss of any metal from the
treated wood.
3. When CCA-treated wood is proposed for in-water construction, the
wood should be treated with CCA type C to minimize leaching potential. CCA
Type C is the most common formulation of CCA currently being produced.
5. CCA treated wood should be clean and free of obvious surface deposits
of preservative. When deposits are present, they should be removed by washing
under running water. The wash water must not be allowed to run off into natural
water bodies.
E. Construction practices for all types of treated wood.
I. Cutting, shaping, drilling, and other construction activities should not be
conducted near the water where sawdust, chips, or other debris might fall into the
water.
2. Sawdust, chips, waste wood, and other debris should be collected and
disposed of properly.
6
4. Alternatives
In recent years, a number of products made out of recycled plastic have become available
as substitutes for pressure treated wood. These products are designed to replace treated wood
for fencing, pilings, and decking, etc. In general, the findings of this assessment are that the use
of pressure treated wood in water is unlikely to cause adverse ecological impacts to aquatic
ecosystems. However, there is far less uncertainty about the ecological risks from the use of
products made from plastics. They are safer because their resistance to decay is not derived from
toxicity. Plastic pilings, timber, or decking are simply unsuitable substrate for most fungi or
insects to subsist in or on. A discussion of whether or not recycled plastic products have the
necessary structural or functional integrity to replace pressure treated lumber, or whether or not
they are economically viable replacements for pressure treated lumber is beyond the scope of this
risk assessment, however, one useful discussion of this topic can be found in Breslin et al, (1998).
The use of alternative materials for in-water construction should be strongly considered
when a large structure is proposed in a small water body, or numerous structures made out of
pressure treated wood are already in place in close proximity, or a structure is planned near a
sensitive habitat or habitat for a endangered or threatened species, or in areas where the flow
adjacent to the proposed structure is very low. More generally, the use of treated wood in water
should be limited in water bodies or portions of water bodies where the small concentrations of
preservatives that will leach out could not be rapidly diluted, dissipated, or degraded.
7
5. Aquatic Risk Assessment of Creosote
A. Chemical Description: Creosote is a complex mixture of organic chemical products
of the fractional distillation of coal tar (USDA, 1980). It consists principally of liquid and solid
aromatic hydrocarbons, and contains appreciable quantities of tar acids and bases (USDA, 1980).
Creosote contains substantial amounts of naphthalene and anthracene (Hawley, 1977). Over 200
chemical compounds have been identified in creosote and it has been estimated that several
thousand compounds may be present (Ingram et al, 1984). Three separate studies that analyzed
the composition of creosote generally found the same 12-15 principal components, however the
percentages of each component were quite different. All three studies listed phenanthrene as the
most abundant compound, but the percentage of phenanthrene in different creosote mixtures
varied from 12% to 23.6%. Table 5-1 lists the three studies reviewed that report on the
composition of creosote and provides the breakdown of components. Note that none of the
percentages of the composition studies add up to 100%.
Table 5-1: A comparison of the composition of creosote as reported in 3 different studies: Study
I = Lorenz and Gjovik 1972; Study 2= Ingram et al, 1982; and Study 3= Ingram et al, 1984.
------------------------------.--------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------
Compound or
Component
Study 1
Composition (%)
Study 2
Study 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphthalene* 3.0 19.60
I-Methylnaphthalene 2.1 2.55
2-Methylnaphthalene 5.68
Dimethylnaphthalenes 2.0
Biphenyl 0.8 1.74
Acenaphthene* 9.0 7.65
Acenaphthylene 1.51
Dibenzofuran 5.0 5.74
F1uorene* 10.0 6.38
Methylfluorenes 3.0
Phenanthrene* 21.0 23.55
Anthracene* 2.0 5.10
Carbazole 2.0 2.32
Methylphenanthrene 3.0
F1uoranthene* 10.0 10.44
Methylanthracene 4.0
Pyrene* 8.5 6.32
1,2-Benzanthracene 0.29
Benzofluorenes 2.0
Chrysene* 3.0 1.10
Total 90.4 99.97
. EP A Priority Pollutants
10.5
2.1
4.0
1.2
4.8
0.29
3.2
3.7
12.0
3.2
7.3
5.2
1.6
1.0
60.09
8
The American Wood-Preservers' Association (A WPA) Standard for coal tar creosote for
land, fresh water, and marine (coastal water) use does not specify the composition of creosote by
chemical component, but rather, the composition of creosote is described as the percentage of
coal tar distiliatesthat are collected at several specified temperature ranges (A WP A, 1989). Table
5-2 provides an example of this system of documenting the composition of creosote.
Table 5.2: Standard composition for coal tar creosote for land, freshwater, and marine/ coastal
water use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation temperature range
Percent (%) by weight of the total creosote mixture made
up of distillates from the corresponding distillation
temperature range:
Not Less Than Not More Than
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 2100C
Up to 2350C
Up to 2700C
Upt03150C
Up to 3550C
IO
40
65
2.0
12.0
40
65
77
.-------------------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Uses: Creosote was first used to treat railroad ties in 1865 (Webb and Gjovik, 1988).
In 1978, cross ties, switch ties, and landscape ties accounted for about 67% of the wood treated
with creosote as a preservative. Utility poles accounted for 12%, and lumber and timbers
accounted for 7% of the remaining wood treated with creosote (USDA, 1980). Creosote is the
wood preservative of choice for marine pilings (Seesman et al, 1977). It has been found that
creosote with a greater proportion of naphthalene was required to adequately protect wood
pilings from attacks by the marine borer, Linmoria trinunctata (Seesman et al, 1977). Ninety nine
percent of all creosote treated wood products are pressure treated products (Webb, 1980).
C. Review of Creosote Literature: Unlike CCA or pentachlorophenol, the literature
does not suggest any bonding or fixing of creosote components with or to the wood. Creosote is
retained in the wood by being forced deeply into the wood structure during the pressure treatment
process, and because it is generally insoluble. Naphthalene is probably the most soluble of the
creosote components, with a solubility in water of 33 mg/L. The solubilities of other creosote
components in water include acenaphthene, 3.42 mgIL; fluorene, 1.92 mgIL; and phenanthrene,
1.15 mgIL (U.S. EPA, 1979). In a study conducted by Ingram et al, (1982) those four
compounds accounted for 60% of the aromatic hydrocarbons that leached out of creosote treated
wood into surrounding water. The same four compounds (plus methylated naphthalene) generally
comprise between 36 - 65% of the overall composition of creosote. Goyette and Brooks, (1999)
found that a significant portion of the naphthalene component contained in raw creosote was lost
during the pressure-treatment process.
9
The majority of the studies reviewed came to the conclusion that only small quantities of
aromatic hydrocarbons leach into water from submerged creosote treated wood. This conclusion
was derived from the observation that treated wood usually remains in service for a considerable
period of time unaffected by decay or attack by marine or aquatic organisms, and that samples
taken from treated wood submerged for extensive periods of time still show high preservative
retentions. Webb (1980) cites.a study by Baechler and Roth (1961) in which pilings that had been
in service for 59 years were found to contain creosote retentions of 19 to 20 pounds per cubic
foot (pct). The A WP A standard for creosote treated marine pilings is 20 pef.
Ingram et al, (1982) conducted a comprehensive study of creosote leaching from treated
wood by placing sample pilings in a 300 gallon stainless steel tank and measuring the
concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P AH's) in the water over time. They
compared the differences in leaching between saltwater and freshwater, at different temperatures,
and the different rates of leaching between freshly-treated wood with that of a wood piling that
had been in service for 12 years. Their results and conclusions were as follows:
I. Leaching of creosote occurs in water. The rate of leaching, based on the
concentration ofPAH's in the water, could be estimated as being equivalent to an
annual loss of 77-147 grams oftotal P AH's from a piling lOft. long and 6 1/4 in.
in diameter.
2. P AH's leached from creosote treated wood in fresh water twice as fast as the
leaching rate from creosote treated wood in sea water.
3. PAH's leached from creosote treated wood approximately twice as fast at 400C
than at 20oC.
4. Lower concentrationsofPAH's leached from aged pilings than freshly treated
pilings.
Kelso and Behr (1977) submerged creosote treated southern pine logs in a one acre pond
for 5.5 months followed by an exposure in air for 7.5 months. Upon analysis after 13 months,
they found that about 20% of the creosote was lost. An analysis of the creosote content in wood
showed that most of the loss occurred from the outer Y, inch of the logs. Brooks, (personal
communication) suggests that some of the loss of preservative from the outer layer of wood might
also be accounted for by migration of the preservative towards the interior of the wood as well as
by losses to the surrounding air or water. Kelso and Behr (1977) also cite Hochman (1967) as
reporting that when creosote treated wood is placed in sea water, two thirds of the first year's
losses occurred during the first month.
Webb (1980) reported thata surface sheen usually appears when creosote treated wood is
placed in the water. Freshly treated timbers, piling, and lumber will leach some quantity oflow
and medium molecular weight PAHs, particularly when the treated wood is first immersed. These
10
creosote component compounds, such as naphthalene, anthracene, and phenanthrene are
somewhat soluble, and are volatile. They will migrate from the wood and concentrate directly at
the surface of the water in a very thin layer. This thin layer will refract light, and as a result, a
rainbow sheen is visible on the water while the materials are leaching. This sheen is very thin.
Because the P AHs are volatile they evaporate from the water quickly and are degraded in the
atmosphere. The sheen might last 30 - 90 days, depending on the amount of treated wood that
was installed. Then, as the surplus low and medium molecular weight P AHs are depleted, the
sheen will disappear. After the first month, leaching slows considerably (Kelso and Behr, 1977),
as the excess volume of the more soluble creosote components is depleted The presence of the
sheen does not necessarily indicate that toxic conditions exist in the water column below. Brooks,
(personal communication) cites Collwell and Seesman, (1976) and Wade et al, (1987) as being
unable to detect P AHs in the water under heavy sheening. Goyette and Brooks (1999) used semi-
permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) to measure the concentration of dissolved PAHs in the
water within 10-15 cm of individual pilings in a six piling dolphin. They detected a maximum
value of only 31 ng!L total P AH in the water.
No documented reports of environmental harm from creosote treated wood used in water
could be found (USDA, 1980). Dunn and Stich (1975, as reported in USDA, 1980) reported
higher concentrations ofbenzo(a) pyrene in mussels located closer to creosote treated pilings than
in mussels further away. However, they were unable to substantiate that the creosote treated
piling was in fact the source of the benzo(a) pyrene. This study did not take into consideration
the impact of gasoline combustion occurring in boat engines in the immediate vicinity of the piling
(Webb, personal communication).
Tagatz et al, (1983) examined the impact of whole creosote mixed into marine sediments
on the abundance of organisms and the number of species inhabiting the sediments. They found
significantly fewer numbers of annelids, echinoderms, and arthropods in sediments contaminated
with 177 ug/g of whole creosote. Mollusks were more resistant, but were significantly affected
by concentrations of 844 ug/g of whole creosote in the sediments. Goyette and Brooks (1999)
hypothesize that creosote derived P AHs do not readily dissolve in water and that they are
transported from treated wood to sediments as small particles. They found a maximum
concentration of about 18 ug/g dry sediment at 0.5 meters from treated wood structures. Two
meters from the same structures, the total PAH concentration in sediments was less than 5 ug/g
dry sediments. At 0.5 meters, the total P AH concentration in sediment peaked about 384 days
after the structure was immersed, then declined steadily thereafter.
Creosote treated wood has never been identified as a significant source ofPAH's in the
water. In ajoint impact assessment report by USDA, U.S. EPA, and state land grant universities,
creosote treated wood was reported as not posing a significant environmental hazard because only
very small quantities ofPAH's were released, and those same quantities were rapidly removed
from the water column (USDA 1980). The major source ofPAH's in water is atmospheric
deposition of particulates from combustion sources, including natura1 sources such as forest fires,
and urban runoff (Hites et al, 1980; Hoffinan et al, 1984).
11
D. Environmental Fate QfLeached Creosote Compounds: Once PAH's from creosote
enter the water, they are subject to a variety of fate processes. The lower molecular weight, two
and three ring P AH's are subject to photolysis, volatilization, biodegradation, and sediment
sorption. Four and five ring P AH's are more stable and are much less subject to photolysis and
volatilization. The primll1)' route of removal is sediment sorption. Once the P AHs are in the
sediment, they are slowly biodegraded by microorganisms (U.S. EPA, 1979). These four and
five ring P AH's however, are the creosote components less likely to leach, because of their higher
degree of insolubility.
Microbial degradation ofPAHs is well-documented. Seesman et ai, (1977) found that
naphthalene in creosote treated wood suppressed the growth of agar digesting bacteria, but
treated wood was colonized by bacteria that were able to utilize naphthalene. Biodegradation is
considered the primll1)' route of removal for 2 and 3 ring PAH's in water (U.S. EPA 1979).
Phenanthrene has been shown to biodegrade at a rate of 80% over a four week period (Sherrill
and Sayler 1980); it is likely that anthracene biodegrades at a similar rate as welL
E. Quantitative Risk Assessment: Using the literature citations discussed above, a
simplified, worst-case risk assessment model can be constructed to estimate the concentrations of
total P AHs that might occur in the water following the installation of a wooden structure pressure
treated with creosote in water. As stated above, Ingram et ai, (1982) conducted a comprehensive
study of creosote leaching from treated wood by placing sample pilings in a 300 gallon stainless
steel tank and measuring the concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P AH's) in the
water over time. The rate ofleaching, based on the concentration of P AH's in the water, could be
estimated as being equivalent to an armualloss of 77-147 grams of total PAH's from a piling 10 ft.
long and 61/4 inches in diameter. Kelso and Behr (1977) cited Hochman (1967) as reporting that
when creosote treated wood is placed in sea water, two thirds of the first year's losses occurred
during the first month. If ten pilings lOft. long and 6 1/4 in. in diameter were insta1led in a pond
six feet deep with a surface acre of one acre, based on the citations above, the worst-case,
expected armual total loss ofPAHs from the treated wood would be 1,470 grams, 2/3rds of
which, or about 980 grams, would be lost during the first month. This corresponds to average
daily loss rates of about 33 grams of total PAH during the first month and about 1.5 grams during
the subsequent 11 months.
Ingram et ai, (1982) reported that 29% of the P AHs leached from creosote-treated wood
was naphthalene or methyl-naphthalene, 16% was phenanthrene, and 5% was anthracene. So, of
anthracene possessing a photolytic half-life of five hours during peak summertime conditions and
clear water. Assuming average conditions over a month long period, a photolytic half-life of one
day was estimated. Using half-lives of 0.5, 1, and 1 day for naphthalene, and phenanthrene and
anthracene respectively, the average daily concentration during the first month of these three
P AHs in a one acre pond six feet deep can be estimated to be: naphthalene & methyl-naphthalene:
1.4 ugIL; phenanthrene: 1.4 ugIL; and anthracerte: 0.54 ugIL.
These concentrations would persist during the first month following the immersion of the
creosote-treated wood. During the subsequent 11 months, the average daily P AH loss rates from
the creosote treated pilings would only be .1.5 g total P AHs consisting of 0.44 g naphthalene and
methylnaphthalene, 0.24 g phenanthrene, and 0.075 g anthracerte. Using the same half lives as
discussed above, the average daily concentrations of these three PAHs in the one acre pond six
feet deep would be 60 ng/L naphthalene & methylnaphthalene; 64 ngIL phenanthrene; and 20
ng/L anthracerte. The sum of these three P AHs in the water column is 144 ngIL, which is about 4
times the concentration of total PAHs found by Goyette and Brooks (1999) using SMPDs. Table
5.3 lists the New York State acute and chronic water quality guidance values for the three P AHs.
At no time does the concentration of any of the P AHs approach the corresponding water quality
guidance value.
Table 5-3. New York State acute and chronic ambient water quality guidance valuesfor some
PAHs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute guidance value
Chronic guidance value
Naphthalene
1l0ugIL
13 ugIL
Anthracerte
35 ugIL
3.8 ugIL
Phenanthrene
45 ugIL
5.0 ugIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This risk assessment model is not precise because leaching was modeled as a two stage
linear process. Actual leaching rates over time have a curved distribution, with a high rate of
leaching initially that drops off consistently as time progresses. This model probably
overestimates leaching during the first 30 days and the final 30 - 60 days of the first year following
immersion of a creosote treated wooden structure. It probably underestimates leaching during the
middle, 2-10 month period. However, because the water column concentrations ofPAHs do not
exceed chronic water quality guidance values, even during the first 30 day, peak leaching period,
harmful impacts to aquatic life are unlikely at any time.t
F. Summary: Submerged structures constructed of wood that has been properly pressure
treated with creosote wood preservative solutions in accordance with American Wood-
Preservers' Association Standards and the Western Wood Preservers institute's Best Management
Practices are not likely to present a risk of harm to aquatic life. Creosote does not bond to wood,
but is retained by being forced deeply into the wood by the pressure treatment process, and
because of the low solubility of most of the creosote cOmponents. When freshly-treated wood is
placed in the water some leaching of primarily low and medium molecular weight P AH's will
13
occur. The majority of the leaching occurs in the fIrst 30 days after being placed in the water.
Most of the leaching appears to come from the outer 0.5 inch of the wood. Leaching occurs at a
higher rate at higher temperatures, and leaching occurs faster in freshwater than in saltwater.
Leaching occurs much more rapidly from freshly-treated wood than from wood allowed to age
after the treatment process, due to the loss of volatile components during aging. The creosote
components that are leached have a relatively short life in the water, and are removed by
photolysis, volatilization, biodegradation, and sediment sorption. Based on this assessment,
creosote treated wood, when treated by pressure methods in accordance with American Wood-
Preservers' Association Standards, is unlikely to cause adverse ecological impacts when used for
in-water construction.
The risks to aquatic life from P AHs leaching from treated wood during the fIrst month can
probably be reduced by not installing the pilings or timbers immediately after they are treated.
Allowing at least three months for the lighter creosote components to evaporate into the air
before immersing them in water could significantly reduce the quantity oflow and medium weight
P AHs that would otherwise leach out of the treated wood into the water after they were
immersed.
14
6. Aquatic Risk Assessment of Pentachlorophenol
A. Chemical Description: Pure pentachlorophenol is a white mononclinic crystalline
solid with a phenolic odor. Pentachlorophenol is also called penta or PCP (although PCP is also
the common abbreviation for phencyclidine, a controlled narcotic often involved in street drug
traffic (Hoeting, 1977). . The solubility of penta in water is pH dependent, ranging from about 10
mg/L at pH 6 to 20mg/L at pH 8 (Brooks, 1998). The sodium salt, sodium pentachlorophenate,
is readily soluble in water (USDA, 1980). Eisler (1989) reports that the solubility of sodium and
potassium pentachlorophenate in water is pH dependent and increases from about 79 mg/L at pH
5.0 to > 4000 mg/L at pH 8.0. Penta is stable and does not decompose when heated at
temperatures up to its boiling point for extended periods of time (USDA, 1980). Prior to 1986,
technical grade penta typically contained 80-90% pentachlorophenol, 6-12% tetrachlorophenol
and other polychlorophenols, and traces to several thousand parts per million of polychlorinated
dibenzo"p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (Choudhury et al, 1986). After 1986, the
U.S. EP A set limits that greatly reduced the concentration of dioxin impurities in technical-grade
penta (Federal Register, 1986).
Penta is effective against bacteria, fungi, and insects, and it exerts its toxic effect by
uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation in living cells. Since this biochemical process is essentially
the same for the aerobic generation of adenosine triphosphate in all biological systems, penta and
its salts are highly effective broad-spectrum biocides (USDA, 1980). The toxicity of penta varies
with pH, but this is due to variations in the uptake of penta at different pH values rather than
changes in water solubility. At a pH 4.0, penta is fully protonated, therefore electrostatically
neutral and lipophillic. At a pH of9.0, penta is almost completely ionized and uptake and
accumulation into lipids is minimal (Eisler, 1989).
B. Uses: The fIrst use of penta as a wood preservative occurred in the Panama Canal
Zone in 1931 (Hoeting, 1977). Although introduced as a wood preservative in the United States
in 1936, commercial production of penta was not reported in the United States until 1950
(Choudhury et al, 1986). In addition to its use as a wood preservative, penta has also been used
as an herbicide, defoliant, and mossicide. Its' sodium salt is used for sapstain control, as a general
herbicide and mossicide, and as a biocide in mushroom houses (USDA, 1980). As a wood
preservative, penta is used primarily to treat utility poles and crossarms (60%), lumber and timber
(19%), and fenceposts (10%). Exterior millwork (such as door frames, window sills, moldings,
etc.) is also typically treated with penta, and penta has also been used as a slime reducer in paper
and pulp mills (USDA, 1980; Choudhury et al, 1986). Between 1970 and 1977, production of
penta ranged from a low of 21.5 million pounds in 1977 to a high of 46 million pounds in 1972.
About 90% of the penta produced annually is used for pressure treatment of wood. The
remaining 10% is used in thermal, groundline, dip, and other treatment processes (USDA, 1980).
Penta is also applied to in-service utility poles by groundline treatment, in which a trench
is dug around a standing pole and a thick solution is painted on the pole in the vicinity of where
the pole meets the ground. The treated area of the pole is wrapped with plastic to retain the
preservative and the trench is fIlled back in (USDA, 1980).
15
c. Review of Pentachlorophenol Literature: One of the major concerns about
pentachlorophenol prior to 1986 was its association with chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans.
These contaminants were present in technical grade penta as production impurities prior to 1986.
They are also formed as degradation products of penta photolysis, both in water and on the
surface of treated wood (Arsenault 1976; Choudhury et ai, 1986; Johnson et ai, 1973; and
USDA, 1980). The most highly toxic dioxin compound, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) has never been detected in pentachlorophenol produced in the U.S. (USDA, 1980), nor
as a penta degradation product (Arsenault, 1976). Johnson et ai, (1973) states that this is not
surprising, because the appropriate precursors for formation of 2,3,7,8- TCDD are not present in
technical grade penta.
The significance of dioxin contaminants as impurities in technical grade penta diminished
significantly when in 1986, the U.S. EP A ruled that in order to be registered as a pesticide, the
concentration of HxCDD in penta must be less than I ppm, and the concentration of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD in penta must be below the limit of analytical detection (Federal Register, 1986).
Pentachlorophenol exposed to sunlight on the surface of treated wood can form
octachlorodibenzo-dioxin (OCDD) via a photolytic condensation reaction. After exposing small
pieces of penta-treated wood for 20 days to natural and artificial light, Lamparski and Stehl
(1980) measured OCDD concentrations of about 70 ppm (og OCDD/mg PCP). The OCDDin
turn degraded to HpCDD and HxCDD (hepta- and hexa-chlorodibenzodioxin). The final.
concentration of HxCDD was approximately 15 - 20 ppm. When P-9 oil was used as the solvent
for penta, concentration of OCDD formed from penta ranged from 2 - 4 ppm. Of the three
contaminants identified above, the most toxic is the hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD). The
toxicity of HxCDD is approximately the same as that of pentachlorophenol. The acute LDso for
the HxCDD is about 100 mglkg in male rats. For penta, the acute LDso for rats ranges from 27 -
80 mglkg depending upon the solvent used (Arsenault, 1976). Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(OCDD) is the least toxic polychlorinated dioxin compound. Doses of 1 glkg and 4 glkg of
OCDD to female rats and male mice, respectively, failed to cause any lethality (Johnson et ai,
1973). The most toxic chlorinated dioxin, 2,3,7,8- TCDD, has acute LDsos ranging from 0.6
uglkg for male guinea pigs to 115 uglkg for rabbits of both sexes. Based on the toxicity
equivalency factors, Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) is about three orders of magnitude
less toxic (lOOOX) than 2,3,7,8-TCDD (U.S. EPA, 1987). The photolytic formation ofOCDD,
HpCDD, and HxCDD were all reduced when the concentrations of the three polychlorinated
dioxins present in the original formulation were also reduced (Lamparski and Stehl, 1980), so the
EP A-mandated reduction in polychlorinated dioxin contaminants should also serve to reduce the
concentration of dioxin contaminants produced by photolytic processes.
Penta is retained in the wood initially because it is driven deeply into the wood under high
pressure. Some of the compound may bleed out, vaporize along with the carrier oil, or be washed
away. With time, the biological activity decreases and extractable penta declines although
physical analysis shows that the penta concentration in the wood remains constant Several
methods of analysis all show that the penta eventually becomes bound to the cell walls, primarily
16
in the middle lan1ella (Crosby, 1981; Arsenault, 1973). The middle lan1ella is the intercellular
space between the primary walls of wood cells. In wood cells, the middle lamella is commonly
lignified (Esau, 1967). Lignin has Ii sttongaffinity for phenolic substances by hydrogen bonding
(Arsenault, 1973). The adsorption of penta to the lignin in the middle lamella and cell walls is a
time-dependent process. Arsenault (1973) reported that heartwood aged three years after penta
treatment released only 50-60% of the penta upon benzene extraction, but newly treated wood
released 97%.
Loss of penta to the air, probably through evaporation, occurs mostly from the outer 0.5
in of treated poles. The amount of penta lost is influenced by the characteristics of the carrier oil
used (Walters and Arsenault, 1971).
Few studies could be found that investigated the loss of penta via leaching from treated
wood submerged in water. Arsenault (1976) reported on the leaching of penta from pressure
treated thin slats used to line cooling towers. Connor (1994) (cited in Brooks, 1998) studied the
leaching of penta from treated piling sections to support the EP A re-registration of penta as a
pesticide. Brooks (1998) used Connor's work to develop an aquatic risk assessment model for
penta treated wood in water. Like creosote, penta and the carrier oil that is used to transport the
penta into the wood during the treatment process are fairly insoluble, so the likelihood that much
penta would leach out into water is small. Penta is also apparently not the preservative of choice
for marine pilings or other submerged structures. No standard for penta-treated marine pilings is
published in the American Wood-Preservers' Association book of standards (A WPA 1989,
National Timber Piling Council, 1995).
Penta is highly toxic to aquatic life. Adverse effects on growth, survival, and reproduction
have been documented at penta concentrations of 2.5 to 100 ug/L for aquatic and marine
invertebrates, especially mollusks, and <1.0 to 68 ug/L for fish, especially salmonids (Eisler,
1989). Although penta is usually described as insoluble, the solubility of penta in water at 20.C is
14 ug/L. The acute LCj() for the common carp is 4.355 ug/L, which is more than three times
lower than the solubility of penta in water (U.S. EPA, 1986). The toxicity of penta is pH
dependent, and increasing the pH of the water column decreases the risk to aquatic biota (Eisler,
1989).
D. Environmental Fate: Microbial degradation is an important, perhaps dominant
removal mechanism for pentachlorophenol in soil. In a moist garden, the half-life of penta in non-
sterile soil was about 12 days, with only a 30"10 decomposition rate over the same time period in
sterile soil. In other soil types, however, microbial degradation required as much as 72 days.
Penta is strongly adsorbed and is relatively immobile in acidic soils, but is more mobile and less
tightly bound in neutral or alkaline soils. Penta will also undergo photolysis in the soil, with
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin as a degradation product. Penta decomposes more readily in soils of
high organic content than in soils oflow organic content, and more rapidly when moisture content
is high and temperatures are conducive for microbial activity. The typical soil half-life of
pentachlorophenol in soil is about 2-4 weeks (Choudhury et ai, 1986).
17
In water, the concentration of penta is degraded by photolysis, sediment sorption, and
microbial degradation. Pignatello et ai, (1983) found that in an artificial stream, photolysis was
rapid near the water's surface and accounted for 5 - 28% of the initial decline of penta in the
water. Sediment sorption and uptake by biota accounted for <15% of the decline. After about
three weeks, microbial degradation became significant and accounted for 26 - 46% of the initial
decline of penta in the water.
The rate of photolysis decreases with depth and light penetration. Pignatello et ai, (1983)
determined that the photolytic half-life of penta in water during daylight hours varied from 0.7-
9.63 hours as the depth varied from 0.5 - 13.8 cm, and the photolytic half-life over a 24 hour
period varied from 3.02 - 43.9 hours over the same depth range.
Pierce et ai, (1977) noted that following a spill into a 30 acre lake in Mississippi, penta had
a short residence time in the water colunm, but remained present in sediments and leaf litter.
DeLaune et ai, (1983) found that the rate of microbial degradation of penta in sediments was
related to pH and redox potential. Less than 1 % of radiolabelled penta was degraded to 14C02 at
pH 5, while maximum penta degradation occurred.at pH 8 +500 mY, where 68% of the
radiolabelled penta was degraded to 14C02 after about 40 days.
Microbial degradation of penta in water can occur in waters that have been exposed to
domestic and industrial effluents. A lag period of about two weeks is necessary for microbial
populations to adapt to metabolizing penta. In relatively unpolluted waters, microbial degradation
occurs very slowly or not at all. Penta will sorb to sediments, but the degree of sorption varies
depending on the pH, whether the sediments are oxidized or reduced, and the chemical form of
penta (Choudhury et ai, 1986). Eisler (1989) reported that overall, the half-life of penta in water
ranged from 0.15 - 15 days, being fastest when ambient conditions included high incident
radiation, high dissolved oxygen, and elevated pH.
It appears that in the air, the non-disassociated form of penta undergoes photolysis at an
enviromnentaIly significant rate. It is possible that direct photolysis is an important enviromnentaI
sink for penta present in the atmosphere (Choudhury et ai, 1986).
E. Quantitative Risk Assessment: In order to assess the potential for toxic
concentrations of penta to leach from treated wood, the rate of loss of penta from treated wood
must be estimated, and the resulting concentration compared to in-water toxicity thresholds.
Arsenault (1976) reported that in cooling tower leach tests with thin (3/8") wooden specimens,
the loss of penta was 38% after 1 Y:. years, 47% after 5 years, and 66% after 10 years. This
equates to monthly loss rates due to leaching of2.1%; 0.78%, and 0.55% respectively.
Assume that a dock was built in a one-acre pond with a mean depth of six feet. The dock
is supported by 10 timber pilings treated with pentachlorophenol. The pilings are 1 foot in
diameter and the average length of the submerged portion is three feet. The volume of
submerged, treated wood in the scenario described above is 23.56 ft'. Walters & Arsenault
18
(1971) reported that after studying the loss of penta from treated wood to air over a 97 month
period, most of the losses occurred from the outer 0.5 inch zone of wood. Most of the penta lost
from submerged pilings via leaching also probably comes from the outer 0.5 inch zone. The total
volume of wood in the outer 0.5 inch of the submerged portion of the ten pilings is 3.76 if. The
A WP A (1989) Book of Standards recommends that for use in fresh water, pilings should be
treated to a retention of 0.6 - 0.85 pef, depending on the type of wood used in the piling.
Assuming that the 0.85 pcf retention level was used, the volume of penta contained in the outer
0.5 inch of the 10 wooden pilings submerged an average of three feet in water is about 3.2
pounds. At a monthly loss rate of 2.1 %, it could be expected that a total of 0.0672 Ibs of penta,
approximately 31 grams, would leach out of the ten timber pilings each month, or about I gram
per day.
The total volume of water in a one acre pond with a mean depth of six feet would be
7,400,931 liters. Eisler (1989) describes the half-life of penta in water as 0.15 - IS days. The
geometric mean of that range is 1.5 days. However, such a rapid rate of dissipation is only
realistic in very clear, very shallow (less than six inches) water, where the rate of photolysis is the
most rapid. Penta treated wood is more likely to be used in deeper, more turbid waters where
rapid photolysis would not be anticipated. For that reason, the arithmetic half-life, 7.6 days, is
probably a better estimate of the average half-life of penta in water. Thus, if about I gram of
penta were released from the treated wood into a six foot deep, one acre pond each day, and the
half-life of penta in the water ranged from 7.6 - 15 days, the steady-state concentration of penta in
the pond water would be 2.13 - 4.2 ug/L.
The New York State water quality standard varies with the pH of the ambient water. At a
pH of 6.5, the chronic water quality standard for the protection of aquatic life propagation and
survival would be 4.1 ug/L. At a pH of 7.0, the water quality standard would rise to 6.7 ug/L. At
the slowest degradation rate, T 112 = 15 days, the concentration of penta resulting from leaching
from 10 pilings into a six foot deep pond one acre pond with a low pH would just equal the
chronic water quality standard. At higher pH values, the water quality standard is not likely to be
exceeded. A pH of 6.5 is the lower bound of the range of pH values (6.5 - 9.0) needed to provide
adequate protection for fish and benthic invertebrates (U.S. EPA, 1986a). Although lower pH
values would result in a lower water quality standard for penta, below a pH of 6.5, aquatic life
would begin to be impaired by the low pH value itself regardless of the concentration of penta or
other contaminants.
In a larger water body with greater dilution of leached penta, the likelihood of exceeding
the water quality standard would greatly diminish. The Arsenault (1976) data clearly shows that
the rate of loss of penta from submerged wood decreases over time. The monthly loss rate after
five years was approximately 1/3rd of the loss rate after I Y:. years, or about 0.78% per month
instead of 2.1 % as modeled above. The difference is because, like creosote, there is a short initial
period of relatively high leaching when the treated wood is initially installed, which biases the
estimated monthly loss rates.
19
Brooks, (1998) used data from Connor, (1994) to develop an algorithm to describe the
penta loss rates from submerged pole sections:
Penta loss = 10.9 * exp~.2SS. Doy + 0.355 . pH +0.01. satinily ug/cm2 _ day
This equation can be used to calculate the daily loss rates of penta from a treated pole
submerged in water. By plotting the daily loss rates from day I to 25 for penta leaching at a pH
of 7.0 and a salinity of 0, it can be seen in Figure 6-1 that the high initial leaching rate drops off
rapidly and stabilizes around day 10. The difference between the 18 month and 60 month average
penta losses reported by Arsenault (1976) is probably due to the influence of this initial period of
high leaching, and the continued steady albeit slow decline in the loss rate with time. See Figure
6.1
Figure 6.1. Daily loss rates of pentachlorophenol from
submerged pole sections. From Brooks (1998)
12
8
10
6
4
2......................
o
o 5
days
10 15 20
1- Penta loss rate in ugIsq. cmlday
25
30
Brook's (1998) model can also be used to estimate the water colunm concentration of
penta in the same scenario as described above. The total submerged surface area of the ten
pilings, each one foot in diameter three feet in submerged length, would be about 87,560 cm2.
The daily loss rate on day 10 in a water body with a pH of7 and salinity 0% would be 3.34
ug/cm2 for a total daily loss of 292,3000 ug penta from the submerged pilings. Using a half-life
in water of 7.6 days, and assuming the day 10 loss rate was constant, the average concentration of
penta in the pond would be 0.061 ugIL, or 61 ngIL.
Repeating the first analysis described above with the 5 year average leaching rate from
Arsenault (1976), that is, 47% over 5 years, or 0.78% /month instead of 2.1 %/month shows that
only 0.025 Ibs, or about 11.3 grams of penta would be lost each month, or 0.38 g lost each day.
The steady-state concentration of penta in the water would be about 0.077 ugIL (77 ngIL) using
the half-life of 7.6 days. lbis concentration is practically the same as the concentration predicted
by the Brooks, (1998) model. Pierce et al, (1977) reported that the "background" concentration
of penta in a control pond was 0.5 ugIL. The quantitative risk assessment shows that penta
20
leaching from treated wood submerged in water is unlikely to result in ambient water
concentrations that are harmful to aquatic life.
F. Summary: Pentachlorophenol appears to leach from treated wood at very slow rates,
ranging from 2.1 % month over a 1 Y:z year period to 0.55% per month over a 10 year period.
Over time, penta binds increasingly to lignin in the middle lamella of the treated wood, and the
rate ofleaching decreases. Penta is degraded relatively quickly in water, and has the potential to
degrade rapidly in sediments, depending upon the sediment pH and redox potential. At the
highest leaching rate and slowest half-life modeled, the penta concentration estimates in the risk
assessment model only marginally exceeded the New York State water quality standard for
chronic aquatic life toxicity. The A WP A does not have a standard for the use of penta treated
wood in marine waters. According to the Brooks, (1998) model, penta will leach at a higher rate
in salt water. However, because of the lack of an A WPA standard, penta treated wood should
not be used in salt, brackish, or estuarine waters. For purposes of determining whether not penta
treated wood should be used, salt, brackish, or estuarine waters can be defined as waters where
the salinity does not exceed 8 %0 at any time. The use of penta treated wood in water is unlikely
to present any long lasting impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, particularly after the treated wood
has been in place for more than one to three months.
21
7. Aquatic Risk Assessment of CCA and other Inorganic Arsenicals
A. Chemical Description: Inorganic arsenicals are wood preservatives that use
solutions of soluble metallic oxides as toxic agents to prevent wood decay. The concept of using
toxic metallic oxides (metallic salts were used originally) is not new. In 1730 wood was treated
by immersion in arsenic solutions to protect against insect attack (Henry and Jeroski, 1967). This
method was not suitable for treating wood that would be submerged in water because the soluble
arsenic salts would immediately leach out. In 1931, Falk and Kamesam conducted a series of
experiments in which they attempted to "fix" the arsenic in wood by precipitating insoluble
complexes. They developed a leach-resistant formula of arsenic pentoxide and sodium
dichromate, and were granted a French patent in 1933. Copper sulfate was another soluble
metallic salt that was known to be effective as a fungicide, so with the addition of copper sulfate
to Falk and Kamesam's original formulation, the wood preservative CCA (Chromated Copper
Arsenate) was produced (Henry and Jeroski 1967).
CCA is just one of a number of water-soluble wood preservatives that use metallic ions as
toxic agents. Others include Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) and Ammoniacal
Copper Quat (ACQ).
B. Uses: As of 1977, CCA comprised 91% of all of the water-soluble wood
preservatives in use. In 1978, 79% of all CCA treated wood products were lumber and timber,
and an additional 12% were plywood and fence posts (USDA 1980). For most of the wood
treated with CCA, application is made by pressure treatment (USDA, 1980). CCA is used in low
quantities. A typical white pine 2" X 4" X 8' stud consists of approximately 0.27 cubic feet of
wood. If pressure treated to a retention of 1.0 pcf, the stud would contain 0.27 Ibs ('" 123 g) of
copper, chromium, and arsenic. Using the ratio of metallic oxides found in CCA type C, the stud
would contain 58.4 g chromic oxide; 22.8 g of copper oxide; and 41.8 g of arsenic pentoxide.
This is equivalent to 30.4 g ionic chromium, 18.2 g ionic copper, and 31.8 g ionic arsenic.
C. Review of CCA Literature: During pressure treatment, the copper, chromium,
and arsenic compounds are driven deeply into the wood in a water solution. Once in the wood, a
series of fixing reactions occur involving the reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium and formation of a complex mixture of insoluble chromates (Arsenault, 1975). These
reactions occur in the treated wood during the treating process under conditions of low pH. The
chromium has little or no biocidal properties in itself. Its primary function is to fix the arsenic and
copper by forming insoluble complexes with the arsenic, copper and wood carbohydrate
structures (Hartford, 1986).
CCA permanence is dependent on a number of factors, such as the ratio of reactants
(copper, chromium, and arsenic), the pH, and the time and temperature allowed for the fixing
reactions to occur. Each of these factors is discussed below:
22
Ratio of Reaetants: Henry and Jeroski (1%7) experimented with ten
fonnulations of CCA to find which combination of components provided the most leach-
resistant fonnula. They found when the arsenic pentoxide (As20S) content was more
than two-thirds of the chromic oxide (cr03) content, the excess arsenic pentoxide was
wasted through leaching. They also found that if the chromic oxide content was more
than twice the arsenic pentoxide content, the excess chromic oxide did not contribute
additional pennanence.
In a similar series of experiments, Hliger (1969) found that copper from a simple
soluble salt (copper sulfate) could be fixed in sawdust even without a fixing agent. Hliger
(1969) also found that the addition of chromium does improve the fiXlltion of copper.
Irvine and Dahlgren (1976) noted the formation of copper-arsenic compounds that
represented minima points on a curve of copper leaching rates from CCA treated wood
with changes in pH.
Henry and Jeroski (1967) reported the most leach resistant fonnulation ofCCA to
be a mixture of chromic oxide SO%, copper oxide 17%, and arsenic pentoxide 33%. In a
similar experiment, Fahlstrom et al, (1987) found the most leach resistant fonnula from
their series to be a ratio of chromic oxide 49.1 %, copper oxide 17.2%, and arsenic
pentoxide 33.7%.
The American Wood-Preservers' Association currently recognizes three standard
fonnulations of CCA (A WP A, 1989). These standard fonnulations are described in table
7-1.
Table 7-1. A WPA-recognized standard fonnulations ofchromated copper arsenate (CCA).
Type
A
B
C
Chromium
as cr03
6S.5
3S.3
47.S
Percentage of
Copper Arsenic
asCuO as As20S
18.1
19.6
18.S
16.4
4S.1
34.0
The fonnulation of CCA Type C most closely matches the experimental results of
Henry and Jeroski (1967) and Fahlstrom et al, (1967), suggesting that CCA type C is the
most leach resistant. The preponderance of CCA treatments are now based on the CCA-C
fonnulation. CCA-A and CCA-B are not commonly used anymore (Brooks, personal
communication).
pH: During the pressure treatment process, the pH of the working solution must
23
be below 2.5-3.0 to allow the hexavalent chromium to be reduced to trivalent chromium.
The trivalent chromium reacts with copper, arsenic, and wood carbohydrates to precipitate
insoluble complexes in the wood. As this reaction proceeds, the pH in the wood increases
to about 5.5, the normal pH of wood (Hartford, 1986). However, the precipitation of
insoluble complexes is reversible. Cook (1957) reported that significant leaching of fixed
copper chromium arsenic preservatives can occur when the pH of moving water in contact
with the treated timber drops to a value below 3.0. Evans (1987) reported that silage,
described as "very acid", leached considerable quantities of copper, chromium, and arsenic
from silo panels constructed from CCA treated wood.
Reaction Time and Temperature: The formation of insoluble precipitates in
treated wood depends on the presence of water as a substrate in which the soluble ions
react. The fixing of copper, chromium, and arsenic in the wood is not completed during
the pressure treatment process. Pressure treatment forces the compounds deeply into the
wood where the reactions then take place over time. The presence of water over the time
period when reactions are occurring is important for maximum fixation. Oven drying of
CCA pressure- treated wood can drive off critical moisture and hasten the reactions to a
different end point, rather than the desired insoluble precipitates (Arsenault, 1975).
Drying the wood too quickly may not allow the wood to equilibrate at a higher pH, thus
increasing the rate ofleaching (Arsenault, 1975).
The factors discussed above demonstrate how the potential for leaching can be increased
or decreased by the processes used to treat the wood. The end user of the treated wood has no
control over there factors. To insure that treated wood has been preserved properly for the
greatest resistance to leaching of copper, chromium and arsenic, the consumer should
examine the wood for a stamp, tag, or brand indicating that the wood has been treated in
accordance with the standards and methods developed by the American Wood-Preservers'
Association. The quality of the preservative treatment of treated wood not bearing that stamp or
brand is suspect. Furthermore, when treated wood will be placed in water, the end user should
insure that the wood was treated in accordance with the Best Management Procedures for CCA,
ACZA, or ACQ developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute. These Pr;lctices will insure
that the treatment process will result in the most leach resistant product possible.
It has been shown that the rate of leaching decreases markedly with increase in the size of
the piece of treated wood, and when the proportion of the end grain exposed per unit of surface
area leached is reduced (Arsenault, 1975; Fahlstrom et al, 1967). The significance of this fact
must be taken into consideration when evaluating earlier (pre-1995) laboratory studies of CCA
leaching. Most older leaching studies use sawdust, thin wood shavings, or small pieces of wood,
all of which have very high surface area to volume ratios. The leaching from timbers, logs, and
pilings, all with much less surface area per unit of volume, will occur at a lower rate. More recent
studies account for this variable by coating the ends of wood samples with paraffin to reduce or
eliminate the proportion of end grain exposed, or by simply using larger pieces of wood.
24
The environmental impacts of leaching from CCA have been the object of considerable
research. Most of the research, however, has examined treated wood such as timbers, poles,
pilings, and water codling tower slats that have been in service for varying periods of time
(Arsenault, 1975). The preservative retentions after the wood has been in service were compared
to original retentions before the wood was placed in service. Arsenault (1975) reported CCA
treated pilings that had been in service for 18 years showed no significant changes in CCA
retentions, and cooling tower slats treated with CCA type A and exposed to leaching for 10 years
retained 75.82% of the original CCA applied. (Note that CCA type Ais not the most leach
resistant formulation). Baechler et al, (1970) submerged wooden coupons treated with CCA in
sea water, and after 60 months the coupons actually showed an increase in CCA retention. They
suspected that there must have been some1oss of wood without a balanced loss of preservative.
The increase however, implies that overall preservative loss was slight. Webb and Gjovik, (1988)
reported that leachability studies from arsenically treated wood resulted in arsenic concentrations
in the environment that would be 'considered normal background residual levels for arsenic
compounds.
Despite numerous studies that show very high preservative retentions remaining in CCA
treated wood after considerable periods of time, CCA components will leach from wood. Some
leaching of copper, chromium, and arsenic ions must occur if toxicity to destructive organisms is
to occur (Hartford, 1986).
Evans (1987) collected rainwater that washed off CCA treated wooden roofing boards.
After two years of exposure to a combined total of 1800 rom of precipitation, the following
concentratiOns ofleached metallic ions were measured in the colleeted rainwater: copper 0.76
mg/L, chromium 0.094 mg/L; arsenic 1.21 mg/L. In a simultaneous experiment, CCA treated
roofing boards were washed with a brush and water to remove any particles of preservative on the
surfaces of the wood. This treatment reduced the concentration of copper in the collected
rainwater by 62%; chromium by 19",4,; and arsenic 8%. . The pH of the rainwater ranged from 4.0
to 6.5.
Cserjesi (1976) also examined the leaching of CCA components from roofing panels. He
found that leaching did occur, but after 8 months of exposure, adequate CCAremained to prevent
biological deterioration. Analysis of the rainwater collected showed that leaching leveled off to a
relatively low level after 6-8 months of exposure and remained at this level for at least an
additional year, when the experiment was concluded. Less leaching of copper, chromium, and
arsenic occurred from roofing panels treated with CCA-C than from those treated with CCA-B.
Arsenault (1975) documented reductions in CCA retentions from preserved wood in
service, although these reductions were slight.
Spodaryk (1977) also documented that copper and arsenic would leach from treated
wood. He examined the rate of leaching of CCA type B from short sections of a treated wooden
post. It was his conclusion that the copper and arsenic leaching would not present a hazard in
25
terms of acute toxicity to fish. He also found that chromium leaching was insignificant.
D. Environmental Fate: The water column concentrations of copper and arsenic
resulting from CCA treated wood leaching are influenced by their fate in the environment. At
pH's of 6-7, copper ions are readily complexed by carbonates, hydroxide, or organic molecules
(U.S. EPA, 1979). Many of the copper complexes are insoluble and precipitate out into the water
and sediments (Elder and Horne, 1978). Copper itself, as well as many copper complexes adsorb
to the sediments and are thus removed from the water column (U.S. EPA, 1979). Wagemann and
Barica (1979) found that dissolved copper from copper sulfate treatments for algae control in six
lakes had a half-life of 1-2 days while in one other lake, the half-life of copper in the water was
seven days. The most toxic form of copper is the CU++ ion, and the various complexes and
precipitates of copper are significantly less toxic (Andrewet al, 1976).
Arsenic in CCA is in the pentavalent state, which is much less toxic than arsenic in the
trivalent state (U.S. EP A, 1979). Arsenic is sorbed rapidly to sediments. When 1000 ppb of
arsenic was added to water only 17% remained after 11 days (USDA, 1980). Once in the
sediments, arsenic can be metabolized by microorganisms, and released back into the water as
organic complexes. The organic metabolites are less toxic than inorganic arsenic compounds
(Sax, 1979). Because of the cyclical behavior of arsenic in the water and it's resulting mobility,
the ultimate sink of arsenic is considered to be the oceans (U.S. EP A, 1979).
E. Quantitative Risk Assessment:
In recent years, several careful studies have been conducted into the leaching of copper,
chromium, and arsenic from CCA treated wood. Lebow, et al, (1999) examined the loss of
metals from CCA treated lumber and pilings in freshwater and saltwater of different degrees of
salinity over a 10-15 month period. They found that there is a initial period of relatively high
leaching for copper and arsenic when the treated wood is first placed in water, that drops off
rapidly over time. From their study, Lebow, et al. determined the average rate of metal loss per
unit of surface area for the first six months following immersion (short term loss rate), and the
average monthly rate of loss per unit of surface area for the subsequent months of the study (long
term rate). They compared their results with three other CCA leaching studies, and found that all
four studies had approximately the same results. From the Lebow et al, (1999) study, a model
can be constructed to estimate the potential impacts from the installation of CCA treated wood in
a small pond.
Assume that a dock was built in a one-acre pond with a mean depth of six feet. The dock
is supported by 10 timber pilings treated with CCA Type C. The pilings are one foot in diameter
and the submerged portion is three feet in length. The surface area of wood exposed to the water
is 94.24 ft2, about or 87560 cm2.
Lebow et al, (1999) examined leaching rates from both lumber and pilings treated at a high
retention (2.5 pct) and a low retention (1.25 pct) in fresh (deionized) water and salt water with
26
salinities of 23%0 and 34%0. They found that pilings leached more than lumber; wood treated at
the higher retention leached more than wood treated at the lower retention; treated wood
submerged in salt water leached more than treated wood in freshwater, and wood submerged in
salt water with a salinity of23%o leached more than wood submerged in salt water with a salinity
of 34%0.
From Lebow et al, (1999), the highest freshwater, saltwater, short term, and long term
leaching rates for copper and arsenic were used to estimate the worst case potential for impacts to
aquatic life in the model scenario described above. Their short term leaching rate was the average
leaching rate for the first six months. Their long term leaching rate was the monthly average
leaching rate for the subsequent 4-9 months. From those average rates, daily short term and long
term leaching rates can be estimated. See Table 7-2.
Table 7-2: Estimates of daily short term and long term leaching rates for copper and arsenic from
CCA treated wood in fresh and salt water. Six month and monthly average leaching rates are
from Lebow,et al, (1999). Daily averages were determined by dividing by 180 and 30 days
. I
resoectIve v.
6 month average loss Daily short Monthly average loss Daily short
rate in uglcm' (from term loss rate in uglcm' frOm term loss rate
Metal water type lebow et aI, (1999) short rate in Lebowet ai, (1999) in uglcm2/day
tern loss rate uglcm'/day (long term loss rate)
copper fresh 73 0.41 0.9 0.Q3
salt 258 1.43 I 24.4 0.81
copper
arsenic. fresh 78 0.43 4.1 0.14
arsenic salt 48 0.27 2.4 0.08
From the daily loss rates determined in table 7-2, the total amount of metal lost each day from the
10 pilings in the model pond can be estimated by multiplying by 87561.12 cm2. See table 7-3.
When released into the water, the resulting metals concentrations are degraded by a
variety of enviromnental fate processes. Wagemann & Barica (1979) reported that the water
colunm half-life of copper in six lakes was one to two days, and seven days in one other lake.
Taking the geometric mean, the half-life of dissolved copper in water can be estimated to be 2.4
days. The USDA (1980) reported that when 1000 ug/L of arsenic was added to water, only 17%
remained after II days. By linear interpolation, the half-life of ionic arsenic in water can be
estimated as 6.6 days. The metal is bound up by organic complexes, suspended sediment, and .
other particulate matter in the water. Ultimately, the fate of the leached copper and arsenic is to
be deposited in the bottom sediments. Higher concentrations of metals would be expected to
occur in the sediments immediately surrounding the submerged CCA treated structure.
27
Table 7-3. Estimates of daily total metal losses from 10 CCA treated pilings three feet long
submerged in a one acre pond with a mean depth of six feet, in ug/day. Total metals lost
estimated by multiplying daily loss rate in uglcm2/dav by 8756Ll2 cm2.
short term long term
daily loss rate total metals daily loss rate total metals
in ug/cm2/day lost in ug/day in ug/cm2/day lost in ug/day
metal water
copper fresh 0.41 35900 0.03 2627
copper salt 1.43 125212 0.81 70925
arsenic fresh 0.43 37651 0.14 12259
arsenic salt 0.27 23542 0.08 7005
Even though metals are being continuously released into the water column from the CCA
treated wood, fate processes are working to remove the metals from the water. Using a computer
program, the steady- state concentration of metals in the water resulting from a combination of
leaching and environmental fate processes can be estimated. See table 7-4.
Table 7-4: Estimate of the steady state equilibrium concentration of metals in the water column
taking into account the continuous release of metals from the CCA treated wood and the fate
k . talfr th I
rocesses at wor removmg me s om e water co umn.
estimate of the steady state Concentration of metals in the
amount of metal available water column of a one acre pond
metal water total metals lost in the water column in ug with a mean depth of six feet, in
in ug/day ug/L
Short term (fIrst six months after wood is installed)
copper fresh 35900 172320 0.023
copper salt 125212 601018 0.081
arsenic fresh 37651 496993 0.067
arsenic salt 23642 312074 0.042
Long term
copper fresh 2627 12598 0.002
copper salt 70925 340132 0.046
arsenic fresh 12259 146592 0.020
arsenic salt 7005 83765 0.011
28
To estimate the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic life, the copper and arsenic
concentrations in the last colwnn of table 7-4 can be compared to the corresponding New York
State water quality standards for the protection of survival and propagation of aquatic life. The
copper water quality standard is dependent upon the hardness of the water. New York's water
quality standards for copper and arsenic are summarized in table 7-5.
Table 7-5: New York State ambient water quality standards for copper and arsenic for the
protection of aquatic life propagation and survival, in ug/L. Hardness concentrations are in parts
per million as CaC03
Hardness (ppm)
Metal Water 50 100 200
copper fresh 5 9 26
copper salt 3.4
arsenic fresh 150
arsenic salt 63
A comparison of the concentrations of copper and arsenic that would occur in the water
colwnn when ten pilings three feet long are installed in a one acre pond with a mean depth of six
feet to the New York State water quality standards shows that the copper and arsenic leaching
from the treated wood are not likely to impact aquatic life.
Chromium was not addressed in this quantitative evaluation because chromium is of low
toxicity compared to copper and arsenic, and leaching rates for chromium are consistently lower
than those of copper and arsenic (Lebow et al, 1999).
F. Summary: A thorough consideration of the factors described above indicates that the
use ofCCA-treated wood is not likely to result in a significant environmental impact when used
for in-water construction. Although copper and arsenic wil1leach into the water, they are not
likely to leach enough to be harmfu1 to aquatic life. Dissolved copper and arsenic are removed
from the water colwnn fairly quickly by sediment sorption or complexation. The concentration of
copper and arsenic in the sediments near CCA-treated pilings would probably be higher than
background, although the metals in the sediments are most likely to be adsorbed and in a
biologically unavailable state. Brooks, (1997a) investigated the accumulation of copper in
sediments in the vicinity of CCA treated pilings. He found copper concentrations in the sediments
in the vicinity of the pilings to be approximately only 0.35 ppm. Because the data show that
CCA-treated wood retains most of the metallic oxides, the volume that could build up in the
sediments as a result of leaching is apparently small. This risk assessment generally shows that
metals leaching from CCA treated wood are unlikely to build up to concentrations in the sediment
or water colwnn that would be harmfu1 to aquatic life.
29
8. Other Aquatic Habitats
A. Marine:
I. Creosote. Creosote-treated timbers are commonly used as pilings in both fresh
water and salt water. As stated above, Ingram et ai, (1982) reported that P AH's leached from
creosote treated wood in fresh water twice as fast as the leaching rate from creosote treated wood
in sea water. Since leaching occurs more slowly in salt water than in freshwater, the risk of
adverse impacts to marine life are correspondingly lower than the risks to freshwater aquatic life.
2. Pentachlorophenol. According to the Brooks, (1998) model, penta leaches at a
higher rate in salt water than in fresh water. For example, on day 10 following submersion, a
penta treated piling would leach 3.34 ug/cm2 in freshwater, salinity O. In water with a salinity
with 35%0, the piling would leach 3.69 ug/cm2. More importantly, The America Wood Preservers
Association has not developed a standard for the use of penta treated wood in salt water. The
lack of an A WP A standard suggests that either penta is not effective in controlling marine
organisms that attack submerged wood, or that the pe,llta will leach out of the wood. In either
case, because the A WP A has not developed a standard, penta treated wood should not be used in
salt water. TI1is risk assessment recommends against the use of penta-treated wood in water with
a salinity greater than 8%0. At that salinity concentration, sensitive freshwater organisms (zebra
mussels) begin to have significant mortality due to salinity effects, suggesting that 8%0 is an
appropriate salinity for differentiating fresh water habitat from marine/estuarine habitat (Mackie
and Kilgour, 1992).
3. CCA. The leaching ofCCA in salt water was examined in the CCA
Quantitative Risk Assessment Section (Section 7E) of this report. Copper tended to leach more
in salt water, and arsenic leached more in fresh water. In the model scenario analyzed, neither
copper nor arsenic leaching caused an exceedance of state water quality standards in fresh or salt
water. Brooks, (1997a) developed a model that integrates salinity as a factor for estimati,ng
leaching rates.
B. Wetlands: Two typical applications of pressure treated wood in wetlands are
occasionally observed in New York State. The rust is the construction of trails or walkways
tluough wetlands visited by the public, and the second is the installation of utility poles through
wetland areas. Utility poles are most frequently treated with pentacWorophenol; however,
walkways, boardwalks, or bridges can be constructed out of timbers treated with any of the three
common wood preservatives. Wetlands can either have permanent standing water over the
saturated soils, or have only seasonal, temporary pools of standing water.
TI1is risk assessment has already found that the use of pressure treated wood in freshwater
habitats is unlikely to be harmful to aquatic life. Preservatives leached only in small quantities,
and at the highest rates when fresWy-treated wood has been newly installed. The leached
preservative compounds have a short half-life in the environment in their most toxic form. It is
30
similarly unlikely that creosote or CCA treated timbers would have adverse impacts on wetlands,
particularly those without permanent standing water. Soluble (ionic) copper, chromium, arsenic
would be rapidly complexed into forms with little or no biological availability by humic substances
in the wetland soil. PARs from creosote would adsorb strongly to organic carbon in wetland soil
and be degraded by microbes.
Pentachlorophenol treated wood used in the decking for boardwalks in wetlands is also
likely to have little or no measurable adverse ecological impact. The primary source of water to
leach penta would be precipitation. Penta washed off the decking would adsorb to the typically
acidic soils found in wetlands and be degraded either by photolysis or microbial degradation.
Pentachlorophenol is C\lITeIltly the most widely-used wood preservative for utility poles
(USDA, 1980). Concerns have been frequently raised about the potential for adverse
environmental impacts from utility poles being placed into wetlands. Utility poles could be placed
in two types of wetland situations: I) saturated soil but no standing water over the soil; and 2)
saturated soil and 1-6 feet of standing water over the saturated soil. In the first case, the concern
would be the impact of penta leaching into soil. In the second case, the concern would be for
penta leaching into soil and into the surface water in the wetland.
In either case, groundwater contamination should not be a concern. Penta leaching out of
the wood into the soil would be bound up and degraded in the soil, and not likely to move more
than a foot or so away from the pole, particularly in acidic soils. Also, wetlands in general tend to
be impervious areas where surface water is unable to penetrate to groundwater, although there
are some wetlands with the specific function of groundwater recharge.
In wetlands with little or no standing water over the saturated soils, the moisture in the
soil could provide a medium for penta to leach out of the pole into the surrounding soil. Penta
tends to more strongly adsorb to soils with lower pH and higher organic matter content
(ESEERCO, 1992). High organic matter and low pH tend in general to be characteristics of
wetland soils. Leached penta would adsorb to the soil where it would be decomposed by
microbial degradation. Because of the relatively low volumes of penta that can be leached,
detectable concentrations of penta are unlikely to be found more than a foot or so away from the
pole.
If a wetland has standing water over the saturated soils, penta could leach out of the poles
into the ambient water in the same manner as described earlier for pilings. A worst-case scenario
would be a one acre wetland that was 45 feet wide by 1000 feet long covered by six feet of
standing water. Traversing the wetland's length would require about 12 poles separated by 70-80
feet. If each pole was one foot in diameter, treated to a retention of 0.8 pcf, and submerged in six
feet of water, the possible concentration of penta leaching from the 12 poles into the surrounding
surface water could be estimated.
The surface area of the 12 submerged utility poles, assuming they are submerged to a
31
depth of six feet in standing water is 226.2 ft2, or 210,142 cm2. In the Pentachlorophenol
Quantitative Risk Assessment section (Section 6E), the daily leaching rate for penta on day 10
after submersion in water with a salinity of 0 %0 and a pH 00.0, was found to be 3.34 uglcm2
using the leaching model from Brooks, (1998). From this leaching rate, the steady state
concentration of penta in the water from the 12 poles would be 2.8 ugIL if the half-life of penta in
water was 15 days, or 1.4 ugIL if the half-life of penta in water was 7.6 days. Neither value
exceeds the NY State ambient water quality standard for pentachlorophenol for the protection of
fish propagation and survival.
32
9. Sources of Additional Information
Further infonnation about wood preservatives can be obtained from Internet Web sites.
The American Wood-Preserver's Association maintains a site at: http://www.awpa.eom. The
American Wood Preserver's Institute maintains an website at http://www.awpi.org. Also, the
Western Wood Preserver's Institute maintains a website at http://wwpinstitute.org The Western
Wood Preserver's Institute website contains the series of Best Management Practices for
minimizing environmental impacts when pressure treated wood is used in water. The risk
assessment documents and computer modeling software referred to through this report for
creosote (Brooks, 1997); pentachlorophenol (Brooks, 1998), CCA (Brooks, 1997a); ACZA
(Brooks, 1997b); and ACQ (Brooks, 1998a) can also be obtained from that website.
33
10. Consumer Information Sheets
As a condition of registration, the U.S. EPA required the wood preservative industry to
develop and distribute Consumer Infonnation Sheets for each type of treated wood. The sheets
provide information on the safe use, handling, and disposal of treated wood. Copies of the U.S.
EPA-approved consumer infonnation sheets for CCA (Inorganic Arsenical), pentacWorophenol,
and creosote treated wood follow:
34
Consumer Information Sheet
-
INORGANIC ARSENICAL
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD
(Including CCA, ACA, and ACZA)
CONSUMER INFORMATION
This wood has been preserved by pressure treatment with an EP A-registered pesticide containing inorganic arsenic
to protect it from insect attack and decay . Wood treated with inorganic arsenic should be used only where such
protection is important.
Inorganic arsenic penetrates deeply into and remains in the pressure-treated wood for a long time. Exposure to
inorganic arsenic may present certain hazards. Therefore, the following precautions should be taken both when handling
the treated wood and in determining where to use or dispose of the treated wood.
USE SITE PRECAUTIONS
Wood pressure-treated with waterborne arsenical preservatives may be used inside residences as long as all sawdust
and construction debris are cleaned up and disposed of after construction.
Do not use treated wood under circumstances where the preservative may become a component of food or animal feed.
Examples of such sites would be structures or containers for storing silage or food.
Do not use treated wood for cutting-boards or countertops. Only treated wood that is visibly clean and free of surface
residue should be used for patios, decks and walkways.
Do not use treated wood for construction of those portions of beehives which may come in contact with the honey.
Treated wood should not be used where it may come into direct or indirect contact with public drinking water, except
for uses involving incidental contact such as docks and bridges.
HANDLING PRECAUTIONS
Dispose of treated wood by ordinary trash collection or burial. Treated wood should not be burned in open frres or
in stoves, frreplaces, or residential boilers because toxic chemicals may be produced as part of the smoke and ashes.
Treated wood from commercial or industrial use (e.g., construction sites) may be burned only in commercial or
industrial incinerators or boilers in accordance with state and Federal regulations.
Avoid frequent or prolonged inhalation of sawdust from treated wood. When sawing and machining treated wood,
wear a dust mask. Whenever possible, these operations should be performed outdoors to avoid indoor accumulations
of airborne sawdust from treated wood.
When power-sawing and machining, wear goggles to protect eyes from flying particles.
After working with the wood, and before eating, drinking, and use of tobacco products, wash exposed areas
thoroughly.
If preservatives or sawdust accurnulate on clothes, launder before reuse. Wash work clothes separately from other
housebold clothing.
Approved by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
8/87
Consumer Information Sheet
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD
CONSUMER INFORMATION
This wood has been preserved by pressure-treatment with an EP A-registered pesticide containing pentachlorophenol to protect
it from insect attack and decay. Wood treated with pentachlorophenol should he used only where such protection is important.
Pentachlorophenol penetrates deeply into and remains in the pressure-treated wood for a long time. Exposure to
pentachlorophenol may present certain hazards. Therefore, the following precautions should be taken both when handling the
treated wood and in determining where to use and dispose of the treated wood.
USE SITE PRECAUTIONS
Logs treated with pentachlorophenol should not be used for log homes.
Wood treated with pentachlorophenol should not be used where it will he in frequent or prolonged contact with bare skin (for
example, chairs and other outdoor furniture), unless an effective sealer has been applied.
Pentachlorophenol-treated wood should not be used in residential, industrial, or commercial interiors except for laminated
beams or for building components which are in ground contact and are subject to decay or insect infestation and where two coats
of an appropriate sealer is applied. Sealers may he applied at the installation site.
Wood treated with pentachlorophenol should not be used in the interiors offarm buildings where there may be direct contact
with domestic animals or livestock which may crib (bite) or lick the wood.
In interiors of farm buildings where domestic animals or livestock are unlikely to crib (bite) or lick the wood,
pentachlorophenol-treated wood may be used for building components which are in ground contact and are subject to decay or
insect infestation and where two coats of an appropriate sealer are applied. Sealers may be applied at the installation site.
Do not use pentachlorophenol-treated wood for farrowing or brooding facilities.
Do not use treated wood under circumstances where the preservative may hecome a component of food or animal teed.
Examples of such sites would he structures or containers for storing silage or food.
Do not use treated wood for cutting-boards or countertops.
Only treated wood that is visibly clean and free of surface residue should be used for patios, decks and walkways.
Do not use treated wood for construction of those portions of beehives which may come in contact with the honey.
Pentachlorophenol-treated wood should not he used where it may come in direct or
indirect contact with public drinking water, except for uses involving incidental contact such as docks and bridges.
Do not use pentachlorophenol-treated wood where it may come into direct or indirect contact with drinking water for domestic
animals or livestock, except for uses involving incidental contact such as docks and bridges.
HANDLING PRECAUTIONS
Dispose of treated wood by ordinary trash collection or burial. Treated wood should not be burned in open fires or in stoves,
fireplaces, or residential boilers because toxic chemicals may he produced as part of the smoke and ashes. Treated wood from
commercial or industrial use (e.g., construction sites) may be burned only in commercial or industrial incinerators or boilers
rated at 20 million BTU/hour or greater heat input or its equivalent in accordance with state and Federal regulations.
A void frequent or prolonged inhalation of sawdust from treated wood. When sawing and machining treated wood, wear a dust
mask. Whenever possible, these operations should be performed outdoors to avoid indoor accumulations of airborne sawdust
from treated wood.
Avoid frequent or prolonged skin contact with pentachlorophenol-treated wood; when handling the treated wood, wear
long-sleeved shirts and long pants and use gloves impervious to the chemicals (for example, gloves that are vinyl coated).
When power-sawing and machining, wear goggles to protect eyes from flying particles.
After working with the wood, and before eating, drinking, and use of tobacco products, wash exposed areas thoroughly.
If oily preservatives or sawdust accumulate on clothes, launder before reuse. Wash work clothes separately from other
household clothing. Urethane, shellac, latex epoxy enamel and varnish are acceptable sealers for pentachlorophenol-treated
wood.
Approved by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
8/87
Consumer Information Sheet
CREOSOTE
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD
CONSUMER INFORMATION
This wood has been preserved by pressure-trelItment with an EPA-registered pesticide containing creosote to protect it
from insect attack and decay. Wood treated with creosote should be used ouly where such protection is important.
Creosote penetrates deeply into and remains in the pressure-treated wood for a long time. Exposure to creosote may
present certain hazards. Therefore, the following precautions should be taken both with handling the treated wood and in
determining where to use the treated wood.
USE SITE PRECAUTIONS
Wood treated with creosote should not be used where it will be in frequent contact with bare skin (for example, chain; and
other outdoor furniture) unless an effective sealer has been applied.
Creosote-treated wood should not be used in residential interiors. Creosote-treated wood in interiors of industrial building
should be used only for industrial building components which are in ground contact and are subject to decay or insect
infestation and wood block flooring. For such uses, two coats of an appropriate sealer must be applied. Sealers may be
applied at the installation site.
Wood treated with creosote should not be used in the interiors of fium buildings where there may be direct contact with
domestic animals or livestock which may crib (bite) or lick the wood.
In interiors of fium buildings where domestic animals or livestock are unlikely to crib (bite) or lick the wood, creo-
sote-treated wood may be used for building components which are in ground contact and are subject to decay or insect
infestation if two coats of an effective sealer are applied. Sealers may be applied at the installation site.
Do not use creosote-treated wood for finrowing or brooding facilities.
Do not use treated wood under circumstances where the preservative may become a component of food or animal feed.
Examples of such use would be structures or containers for storing silage or food.
Do not use treated wood fot cutting-boards or countertops.
Only treated wood that is visibly clean and free of surface residue should be used for patios, decks and walkways.
Do not use treated wood for construction of those portions of beehives which may come in contact with the honey.
Creosote-treated wood should not be used where it may come into direct or indirect contact with public drinking water,
except for the uses involving incidental contact such as docks or bridges.
Do not use creosote-treated wood where it may come into direct or indirect contact with drinking water for domestic
animals or livestock, except for uses involving incidental contact such as docks and bridges.
HANDLING PRECAUTIONS
Dispose of treated wood by ordinary trash collection or burial. Treated wood should not be burned in open fIres or in
stoves, fIreplaces,or residential boilers because toxic chemicals may be produced as part of the smoke and ashes. Treated
wood from commercial or industrial use (e.g., construction sites) may be burned only in commercial or industrial
incinerators or boilers in accordance with state and Federal regulations.
A void frequent or prolonged inhalation of sawdust from treated wood. When sawing and machining treated wood, wear a
dust mask. Whenever possible, these operations should be performed outdoors to avoid indoor accumulations of airborne
sawdust from treated wood.
A void frequent or prolonged skin contact with creosote-treated wood; when handling the treated wood, wear long sleeved
shirts and long pants and use gloves impervious to the chemicals (for example, gloves that are vinyl coated).
When power-sawing and machining, wear goggles to protect eyes from flying particles.
After working with the wood, and before eating, drinking, and the use of tobacco products, wash exposed areas
thoroughly.
If oily preservatives or sawdust accumulate on clothes, launder before reuse. Wash work clothes separately from other
household clothing.
Coal tar pitch and coal tar pitch emulsion are effective sealers for creosote-treated wood-block flooring.
Urethane, epoxy, and shellac are acceptable sealers for all creosote-treated wood.
Approved by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
8/87
11. LITERATURE CITED
Andrew, RK., Biesinger, K.E., and G.E. Glass, 1977. Effects ofInorganic Complexing on the
Toxicity of Copper to Danbnia mal111a Water Research, 11 :309-315
Arsenault, RD., 1973. Chapter 2. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Preservative Systems.
in Wood Deterioration and Its Prevention by Preservative Treatments, Volume
11, Preservatives and Preservative Systems. Darrel D. Nicholas, Editor. Syracuse University
Press, 1973, Syracuse, New York.
Arsenault, RD., 1975. CCA- Treated Wood Foundations: A study of Permanence, Effectiveness,
Durability, and Environmental Considerations. Proc. American Wood-Preserver's Association,
V.71:126-147
Arsenault, RD., 1976. Pentachlorophenol and Contained Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins in the
Environment. Joumal of the American Wood-Preservers Association, 1976.
A WP A, 1989. American Wood Preservers' Association Book of Standards, 1989. American
Wood Preservers Association, Stevensville, Maryland.
A WP A, 1989. American Wood Preservers' Association Book of Standards, 1989.
Baechler, RH. and H.G. Roth, 1961. Further Data on the Extraction of Creosote from Marine
Piles. Proc. A WPA 57:120-132.
Baechler, RH., Richards, B.R., Richards, AP., and H.G. Roth, 1970. Effectiveness and
Permanence of Several Preservatives in Wood Coupons Exposed to Sea Water. Proc. American
Wood-Preserver's Association, Vo1.66:1-16
Breslin, V.T., Senturk, U., and C.C. Berndt, 1998. Long-term engineering properties of recycled
plastic lumber used in pier construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 23(1998) 243-
358. Elsevier Science B.V.
Brooks, K.M., 1997. Literature Review, Computer Model and Assessment of the Potential
Environmental Risks Associated With Creosote Treated Wood Products Used in Aquatic
Environments. Apri125, 1995, Revised June 1, 1997. Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old
Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. Prepared for Western Wood Preservers
Institute, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, Vancouver, Washington, 98660.
39
Brooks, K.M., 1997a. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated
With the Use ofCCA Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments, August 1, 1997.
Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368.
Prepared for Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver,
Washington, 98665.
Brooks, K.M., 1997a. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated
With the Use of ACZA Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments, August 1, 1997.
Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368.
Prepared for Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver,
Washington, 98665.
Brooks, K.M., 1998. Literature Review, Computer Model and Assessment of the Potential
Environmental Risks Associated With Pentachlorophenol Treated Wood Products Used in
Aquatic Environments, February 9, 1998. Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old
Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. Prepared for Western Wood Preservers
Institute,7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, Washington, 98665.
Brooks, K.M., I 998a. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated
With the Use of ACQ Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments, January 21,1998.
Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368.
Prepared for Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver,
Washington, 98665.
Brooks, K.M., Personal Communication. Letter, from Dr. Kenneth M. Brooks, Aquatic
Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. to
Timothy J. Sinnott, NYSDEC, dated November 16,1999.
Choudhury, H., Coleman, J., De Rosa, C.T., and J.F. Stara, 1986. Pentachlorophenol: Health and
Environmental Effects Profile. Toxicology and Industrial Health 2(4):483-571, 1986.
Collwell, R.R., and R.A. Seesman, 1976. Progress Report on Roosevelt Roads Pilings Project,
Preliminary Work. Report to Koppers Company: Koppers; 1976. 7 pp. A WPI.
Connor, S.R., 1994. Pentachlorophenol- Leaching from utility poles exposed to the aquatic
environment. Springborn Laboratories Report Number 94-3-5201. EnvironmenUll Sciences
Division, 790 Main Street, Wareham, Massachusetts 02571-1075.
Cook, C.D., 1957. The Permanence of Water Borne Preservatives in Timber. Chemistry and
Industry, 25 May 1957, p. 663.
Crosby, D.G., 1981. Environmental Chemistry of Pentachlorophenol. Pure and Applied Chern.,
Vol. 53, pp 1051-1080 Pergammon Press, Ltd., 1981.
40
Cserjesi, A.I., 1975. Permanence of PreSerVatives in Treated Experimental Shake Roofs. Forest
Products Journal 26(12):34-39
DeLaune, RD., Gambrell, RP., and K.S. Reddy, 1983. Fate of Pentachlorophenol in Estuarine
Sediment. Enviromnental Pollution (Series B) 6 (1983) 297-308.
Dunn, B.P. and H.G. Stich, 1975. The Use of Mussels in Estimating Benzo(A) pyrene
Contamination of the Marine Enviromnent. Proc. Soc. Exp. BioI. Med. 150:49-51.
Elder, J.F., and A.J. Home, 1978. Copper Cycles and CUS04 algicidal Capacity in Two
California Lakes. Enviromnental Management 2(1): 17-30, 1978.
Eisler, R, 1989. Pentachlorophenol hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A synoptic
Review. Biological Report 85(1.17) Apri11989, Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 17,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Esan, K., 1967. Plant Anatomy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 3rd Printing.
ESEERCO,1992. Pentachlorophenol in Wood Utility Poles: Enviromnental Fate and
Toxicology, LiteratureReview. Empire State Electrical Energy Research Cooperation, Electric
Energy Research Institute, February, 1992. Prepared by O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc.
Syracuse, N.Y. 13221
Evans, F.G., 1987. Leaching from CCA-impregnated Wood to Food, Drinking-Water, and
Silage. International Research Group on Wood Preservation, Eighteenth Annnal Meeting, 17-22
May 1987. DocumentNo:IRGIWP/3433
Fahlstrom, G.B., Gumming, P.E., and J.A. Carlson, 1967. Copper-Chrome-Arsenate Wood
Preservatives: A Study of the Influence of Composition on Leachability. Forest Products Journal
17(7):17-22.
Federal Register, 1986. Creosote, Pentachlorophenol, and Inorganic Arsenicals: Amendment of
Notice ofIntent to Cancel Registrations. U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency. Federal
Register 51(7):1334-1348. Friday, January 10, 1986.
Goyette, D., andKM. Brooks, 1999. Creosote Evaluation: Phase II. Sooke Basin Study-
Baseline to 535 Days Post Construction 1995 - 1996. Published by Enviromnent Canada. 224
West Esplanade, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7M 3H7. 568 pp.
Hliger, B., 1969. Leaching Tests on Copper-Chromium-Arsenic Preservatives. Forest Products
JoumalI9(10):21-26
41
Hartford, W.H., 1986. The Practical Chemistry of CCA in Service. Proc. American W ood-
Preserver's Association 82:28-45
Hawley, G.G., 1977. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 9th ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, New York, New York.
Henry, W.T. and E.B. Jeroski,1967. Relationship of Arsenic Concentration to the Leachability of
Chromated Copper Arsenate Formulations. Proc. American Wood-Preserver's Association 63:1-6.
Hites, RA., LaFlanune, RE. and J.G. Windsor, Jr., 1980. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
Marine/Aquatic Sediments: Their Ubiquity. Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 185, Petroleum in
the Marine Environment. American Chemical Society.
Hochman, H., 1967. Creosoted Wood in the Marine Environment - A Summary Report. Proc.
AWPA 63,138-150.
Hooting, A.L., 1979. Penta - Another Environmental Contaminant. Reprinted manuscript from A
talk presented at the Spring Meeting of the Central States Association of Food and Drug Officials,
Mason, Ohio, May 4-5,1977.
Hoffman, E.J., Mills, G.L., Latimer, J.S., and J. G. Quinn, 1984. Urban Runoff as A Source of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Coastal Waters. Environmental Science and Technology
18(8):580-587.
Ingham, G.L. Jr., McGinnis, G.D., Gjovik, L.R, and G. Roberson, 1982. Migration of Creosote
and its Components from Treated Piling Sections in A Marine Environment. Proc. A WP A
78:120-128.
Ingham, G.L. Jr., McGinnis, G.D. Prince, S.E., Gjovik, L.R, and D.A. Webb, 1984. The Effects
of Temperature, Flow Rates, and Coating Systems on the Vaporization of Creosote Components
from Treated Wood. Proc. A WPA 80:97-104.
Irvine, 1. and S.E. Dahlgren, 1976. Mechanism of Leaching of Copper- Chrome-Arsenic
Preservatives in Saline Waters. Holzforschung. 30(2):45-60
Johnson, RL., Gehring, P.J., Kociba, R.I., and BA Schwetz, 1973. Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins
and Pentachlorophenol. Environmental Health Perspectives, September, 1973 pp. 171- I 75
Kelso, W.C. Jr. and E.A. Behr, 1977. Depletion of Preservatives from Round Southern Pine in
Fresh Water. Proc. A WPA 73:135-139.
42
Lamparski, G.L., and RH. Stehl, 1980. Photolysis of Pentachlorophenol-Treated Wood.
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin Formation. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 14, pp.
196-200, February 1980.
Lorenz, L.G., and L.R. Gjovik, 1972. Analyzing Creosote by Gas Chromatography: Relationship
to Creosote Specification. Proc. A WP A. 68:32-41.
Mackie, G.L., and B.W. Kilgour, 1992. Effects of Salinity on Growth and Survival of Zebra
Mussels. Mackie and Associates Water Systems Analysts, 381 Elmira Road, Guelph, Ontario,
Canada NIK lH3. Prepared for Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, 1155
Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, April, 1992
National Timber Piling Council, 1995. Technical Guidelines for Construction with Treated
Round Timber Piling. National Timber Piling Council, Inc., 446 Park Ave, Rye, New York
10580
Pierce, R.H., Brent, C.R, Williams, H.P., and S.G. Reeves, 1977. Pentachlorophenol
Distribution in A Fresh Water Ecosystem. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15(2):251-258.
Pignatello, 1.1., Martinson, M.M.,Steiert, 1.G., Carlson, RE., and RL. Crawford, 1983.
Biodegradation and Photolysis of Pentachlorophenol in Artificial Freshwater Streams. Applied
and Environmental Microbiology 46(5):1024-1031, November 1983.
Sax, N.l., (1979). Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 5th Edition. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York.
Seesman, P.A., Colwell, R.R. and A. Zachary, 1977. Biodegradation of Creosote /Naphthalene-
Treated Wood in the Marine Environment. Proc. AWPA 73:54-60.
Sherrill, T.W. and G.S. Sayler, 1980. Phenanthrene Biodegradation in Freshwater Environments.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 39(1):172-178.
Spodaryk, J.G., 1977. Status Report: The Use of Osmose K-33 (CCA-B) as A Wood
Preservative. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of
Environmental Protection, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-4756
Tagatz, M.E., Plaia, G.R Deans, C.H., and E.M. Tores, 1983. Toxicity of Creosote-
Contaminated Sediment to Field and Laboratory-Colonized Estuarine Benthic Communities.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2:441-450.
USDA, 1980. The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Pentachlorophenol, Inorganic
Arsenicals, and Creosote, Vol. 1 : Wood Preservatives. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Technical Bulletin number 165 8-1.
43
U.S. EPA, 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants, Volume II. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Planning and Standards, PB 80-204381, EPA-
440/4-79-029b.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Pentachlorophenol. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 440/5-86-009 September, 1986.
U.S. EP A, 19800. Quality Criteria for Water, 1986. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, EPA 440/5-86-001, May I, 1986.
U.S. EPA, 1987. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to
Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/625/3-87/012, March 1987.
Wade, M.J., Connor, M.S., Jop, K.M., Hillman, RE., and H.J. Costa, 1987. Final Report to the
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantic Region. Prepared by
Battelle Ocean Sciences, 397 Washington Street, Duxberry, Massachusetts 02332.
Wagemann, R and J. Barica, 1979. Speciation and Rate of Loss of Copper from Lakewater with
Implications to Toxicity. Water Research 13:515-523.
WaIters, C.S. and RD. Arsenault, 1971. The Concentration and Distribution of
Pentachlorophenol in Pressure treated Pine Pole-Stubs After Exposure. Joumal of the American
Wood-Preservers' Association, 1971, pp. 149-169.
Webb, D.A., 1980. Creosote its Biodegradation and Environmental Effects. Proc. A WP A 76:65-
68.
Webb, D.A. and L.R Gjovik, 1988. Treated Wood Products, Their Effect on the Environment.
Proc. American W()od-Preserver's Association 84:254-259
44
12. WWPI Best Management Practices
As stated several times throughout this report, the W estern Wood Preservers Institute
(WWPI) has developed a series of best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs were
developed for the wood preserving industry. They identify practices and procedures for
producing treated wood in a manner that will minimize the potential for leaching when the !'reated
wood is placed in water. Preserved wood should be treated in accordance with these BMPs
whenever it will be placed in water.
These BMPs are in a state of evolution, just as A WP A standards can change with
advances in the science of wood preservation. With the permission of the WWPI, the BMPs as
of March, 2000 are included in this report. In future years, the WWPI website should be checked
to see if BMPs have been changed or updated.
The WWPI is trying to implement a nation-wide program wherein wood treated in
accordance with the BMPs will be marked with a specific stamp or brand. In the future, it will be
possible to confirm that wood has been treated in accordance with the WWPI BMPs simply by
looking for the appropriate marking. In the meantime, contract-writers should stipulate that
treated wood intended for in-water applications must be processed in accordance with the WWPI
BMPs.
NOTE: Western Wood Preservative Institute BMP's are not included in the
on-line version of the risk assessment. The BMPs can be downloaded at
http://wwpinstitute.org
Acknowledgements
The Division offish, Wildlife and Marine Resources would like to acknowledge and thank the
following individuals for the time and effort they spent reviewing and providing detailed
comments on earlier drafts of this report:
Dr. Vincent Breslin
Assistant Professor
Marine Science Research Center
State University of New York
Stony Brook, New York 11794-5000
Dr. Kenneth Brooks
Aquatic Environmental Sciences
644 Old Eaglemount Road
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
45
.
Yannios Bulkhead Reconstruction
lonland Sound, Cutchogue
I
I
r--
-.
~
-.
..........-:
10-24-06 - High tide, looking east from west end of bulkhead
I
,
.-
.'
I ... '"
,;:r..,..M- ...J
~ 'i."7'tI~.:""-' ...; I
10-24-06 - High tide, looking west from east end of bulkhead
10f2
"
.
Yannios Bulkhead Reconstruction
Lonland Sound, Cutchogue
"
.
. . '~.~
t"T
\:
"
~
~~ "'L . -.J.
1 . -'i'."" ' - ..
,',.t ! l' -----.! JJ...!~ ..;.1. :1 '~~ t.....'-.E' tri. ,. i:
I ."...., .,Ir . 1....1.'
'.. 'I. ...' I, . ~
" ' I~--
. ----.----~- ~~- ~-_.... "
J' --=-_' . .r
: .... ,_'. I
"
- ,
.: ... ..,.
"."':.-
"
~
.. .-.
..-
'.
'. -
--- -. -,":..
10-24-06 - High tide, Looking southwest from east end
.
-
- .
&;.Io~
\
\
10f2
10-24-06 - High tide, Looking southeast from west corner of bulkhead
.
.
,
<o::~'.>-Z -==-____ -- -- -
, --
:;;~ .
, ,
, I
,
II
I
~f
"
51!!'"""'
~~ ~
ni
Q
~
'%
C),
"l,
00
: ~ i
~ ~ s
~ rn ~
,
I
'.""1- -,
"
- ~ --- ",TO, {", ,
-
'.
,>
n Ie
~ !i
'",'il,',',
8~_
-.
~.~-
~n,
~:. ~
>-..... Ii ~
~~j
~~-
8i~
e
II ,'I',
". ~ ~
:{F~
I" ~m!
~ m:
~ ;~~hl'jl~.:
~, - I ,
- ' if'
I; i!iIIJl:!lli
g,.'"''li
~ I i~'
:i I .~
ld~~~i
Ii iei
;;; I i
1 ~ ~ ~ i
HiH
idn
I
I
I
'f
I" "
,1111
! Lilli
~ n n ~
~; ,!; ~ .i J
ie!!!
I Iii
( i '.~ \
j.i itt
~,,7 :
__ . 0 ~
I
,
"
'e
; f 1 ~ ~
lljAf"
jlL!d
II'
~:. >.l
I :i
1 J ~
; l' l
j"ld
.I j ~ t
I
J
.
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
John Holzapfel
.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Office Use Only
./Coastal Erosion Pennit Application
~W edand Pennit Application _ Administrative Pennit
AmendmentITransfer/Extension
_--Received Application: III d(J uk.
..c::cReceived Fee:$ 5\)..y
_ -C-ompleted Application I ( / :+(j 7J L
_Incomplete .
_SEQRA Classification:
Type I_Type II_Unlisted~
_ Coordination:( date sent)
~"LWRP Consistency Assessment Form / / / .+cJi0b
_.-cAC Referral Sent: ~~I.o .
_-I)ate of InspectIOn: I _ _~ _
_Receipt of CAC Report:
_Lead Agency Detennination:_
_Technical Review:
_ ..Jlttblic Hearing Held: /.)./ dJr:-l,.
_Resolution:
Name of Applicant T )l6MhS Y ANN I 0 S
Address '13 HII..L rz.D: srILLWA.iElGJ NV 12.170
Phone Number:( ) .'1 J g - .5"& 4, - 0 8 Cll.f
Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - B3 - ) - ~
Property Location: S I...J ~ 6'L EN
c..<!) ORI . c.U/"GJ-K) (S.7() E
,
c),O:> 5 V I S,TA. P I....~CE.
(provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location)
c# <10'(
~~ ,\\I'
AGENT: .vA V I D c..cR tV J N
(If applicable)
Address: rr, 39 )"\ A I J\/
UQy4 -111.3\
ST )
CYR..f..E.N Per2.1 J IV Y
,
Phone: 477-CJalf
~ Board of Trustees APP1~ion
GENERAL DATA
Land Area (in square feet):
Area Zoning:
KE61f>ENr 14L
Previous use of property:
-
Intended use of property:
-
Prior permits/approvals for site improvements:
Agency
Date
_ No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency?
V No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
Project Description (use attachments if necessary):
R,Et>Lt:fcE
1'2..() L.P: d;: cX/S7/N5- i~()L.l<.H-eA{)
,
1M KIND
IN
I> LlrC c:
J
c.GA LUM :Bel>-. J
2. 5"" G.Y
~ ILl...- PR.eM {IP LAND S:.c)~C.;f=:
2..
~ Board of Trustees APP1~ion
WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA
Purpose of the proposed operations:
I~E.P /...,f)Gc
EXISTINr;.-
l~UL}CH I5hD
Area of wetlands on lot:
-
square feet
Percent coverage oflot:
%
Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland
edge of wetlands: <.. S- feet
Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland
edge of wetlands: ."~M c feet
Does the proj ect involve excavation or filling?
No v--- Yes
If yes, how much material will be excavated?
cubic yards
How much material will be filled?
:2S"
cubic yards vPuM/} ScrU/tc6
Depth of which material will be removed or deposited:
feet
Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:
-
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
RU.B13~k.. 7/~c() L-OIlDI3~
Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by
reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate):
N61\)E..
.s.
~ Board of Trustees APpl~ion
COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA
Purposes of proposed activity:
R6t>L/,GC-
~X)$rIN<S=-- '&OU./HC/tfj
Are wetlands present within 100 feet ofthe proposed activity?
No ~ Yes
Does the project involve excavation or filling?
No ~es
If Yes, how much material will be excavated?
,.......
(cubic yards)
How much material will be filled?
ze:;-
(cubic yards) UPL~A)L:; SeLl Jt,G6
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
R. u f3 13[; ~ T'/I~_!;b
LdAtJ.e:~
Describe the nature and extent ofthe environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting
from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary)
NcJ N c
LJ
.
.
Board of Trustees Application
County of Suffolk
State of New York
--(kCv\'lWl '-f(lIU'vt~ BEING DULY SWORN
DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE
TRUE TO THE BEST OF HISIHER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK
WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY
BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT
AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES
HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING
UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS
APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR
REPRESENT ATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE
PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION.
~
SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
,"tL
DAY OF W~ ,20 cr(p
/;l.,,k{ &~JJL.
J'j(otary Publi .
PAMELA J. BARBU'f!
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YOHK I'
No.01BA6114136
QUALIFIED IN MONTGOMERY COUN'" .
MY GOMMISSION EXPIRES AUG_9, }. ClJ<(
!;"'
.
.
617.20
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A )plicant or Project SDOnsorl
1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME
Thomas Yannios Yannios Bulkhead Replacement
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
Municipality Town ofSoutbold County Suffolk
4. PRECiSE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)
545 Glen Court, Cutchogue, NY
5. PROPOSED ACTION IS:
DNew o Expansion o Modification/alteration
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Replace 120 linear feet of existing bulkhead, in kind in place, CCA lumber; 25 cubic yards of fill from upland source
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
In~ially acres U~imately acres
6. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS7
o Yes DNO If No, describe briefly
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
~ Residential o Industrial o Commercial D Agriculture 0 Park/Forest/Open Space o Other
Descri :
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR UL TIMATEL Y FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
(FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)?
[(] Yes 0 No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals:
NYSDEC Wetlands; Town of South old Wetlands, Coastal Erosion
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
DYes [ZJNO If Yes, list agency(s) name and permiUapprovals:
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
DYes DNO
/j(>,f:tA/ Y I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
"-IlP"""nltepc"~ DaVid<:;orwinJj . Date: 11/17/06
Signature: ~ (J9..l-lJvV
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
R.....
PART II. IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be e eted b Lead A eRe
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? II yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
DYes D No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE CooROINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? II No, a negative
declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.
DYes D No
C. COULD ACTION RESUL TIN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, W legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
C2. Aesthetic. agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cuttural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
C3. Vegetatton or fauna, fish, shellfish or wiktlife species. significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as offiCiaRy adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly:
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activnies likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly:
C6. long term, short tenn, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly:
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use 01 either quantity or type 01 energy)? Explain briefly:
D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)?
DYes 0 No If Yes, explain briefly:
E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACTS?
DYes 0 No If Yes, explain briefly:
PART 111- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be compieted by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each
effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability 01 occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e)
geographic scope; and (f) magni1ude. II necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain
sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. II question 0 of Part II was Checked
yes, the determination 01 significance must evaluate the potential impact 01 the proposed action on the environmental characteristics 01 the CEA.
D Check this box W you have identified one or more potentially iarge or significant adverse impacts which MAYoccur. Then proceed directly to the FUL
EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
o Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WIU
NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination
11/17/06
Name of Lead Agency
Date
Pnnt or Type Name of Responsible Officer in lead Agency
Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Signature of Preparer (II different from responsible off...r)
Rtlset
. .
[ (a(V\~ ~1 kJ IV\~ U-'-
:N-v('V\~ 4\J^0S~ Ms, ~UVlV''-\GS
.{~
/ ~ f5 fQ1ih'\ C (C A-<2-
AJJfvu~(( y- [)(p'S\'-/
J. ..--
:{-d ~~ 7 :(/-l-rc b (7 \ L 'L~
(lJ 2, ) '2 t- ~ 021 ;-- G0 U^'-,J <----
.t9NN/65/
co IC/}(.V,C'
J ames ~'. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
c:~~~~~~~~~)()!JlL-~--------------------
STATE OF NEW YORK)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, -MUI/) QJA(.lJJ-1/,residingat C 39' IJ{IJ/),j 57
@A.i?-Lj/;J()~ ;-
being duly sworn, depose and say:
That on the day of
, 200 , I personally posted the property known as
by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have
checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public
hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Uh#. 10(2(', I.J, QJO/jIJ~
On 01 aoOrt rp:30 flY?
Dated:
f/4 ~0 G~
(signature)
. _ f} Sworn to before me this
/S~ day o~ 200(:,
~.._-------_........
~~'~~L,.J )
tary Public
JANE:!' E~st .._.......
Notary PublIC .-- ."'ft.
~~~~~July~Q.1
.Yti))NJ6 S / CUiced6=tJE
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS
Name:
Address:
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
t>~~ ~~WI#
G1 'jJ;-
day of ,20-, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice
set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named
persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set
opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current
assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post
Q!lice at (:() rc:::;r;(]<S:-f/E , that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by
( (Ct!rtifie'(registered) mail.
, residing at C;; .3 '7 ,.t:l # / AI $?-
, being duIy sworn, deposes and says that on the
fY-~ ~~ ~
Swornt~s tS~
Day of ,2()~
f./
S,~-.2~r ~~
Notary Public
)
~. STAPlES
Notary SlIte of New lbrfc
eomNom"" 483 <_, Suffolk County 69
1$S1OII ....res July 31, 20 ~
1000-83-1-7
ANTONIO V ANGI
PO BOX..48' tl q ~
CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935
1...11,.,111,1...,11"1,1,,,.111
.
1000-83-1-35
RENE GENDRON
4710 MAYFLOWER WAYW
ESTERO, FL 33928
1"11...11.1.1,,.,1,11,,1..1,1.1
7006 0810 0003 6880 6933
7006 0810 0003 6880 6940
.
1000-83-1-19
ROBERT DUNN
600 VISTA PL
CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935
1",11",11I,1",.11"1,1,,,,11I
7006 0810 0003 6880 6957
'-.
.
.
APPLICANT/AGENTIREPRESENTATIVE
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM
The Town of South old's Code of Ethics orohibits conflicts ofinterest on the Dart of town officers and emolovees. The Durnase of
this form is to orovide information which can alert the town of oossible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is
necessarv to avoid same.
YOUR NAME:
'f"lIdM'+<; '1~NII/OS
(Last name, first name, J)liddle initial, unless you are applying in the name of
someone else or other entity, such as a company. Ifso, indicate the other
person's or company's name.)
NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.)
Tax grievance
Variance
Change of Zone
Approval of plat
Exemption from plat or official map
Other
(If "Other", name the activity.)
Building
Trustee
Coastal Erosion
Mooring
Planning
:;::::.
Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee
of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business,
including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation
in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares.
V
YES
NO
If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this fonn and date and sign where indicated.
Name of person employed by the Town of South old
Title or position of that person
Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant/agent/representative) and the town officer or employee. Either check
the appropriate line A) through D) andlor describe in the space provided.
The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply):
~) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applic~nt
(when the applicant is a corporation);
_B) the legal orbeneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the
applicant is not a corporation);
_ C) an officer, director, partner, or employee of the applicant; or
_D) the actual applicant.
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP
Submitted this 7
Signature
Print Name
day of
M
'it, O"'~5
~
YAIU/Vlo5
200S
Form TS I
I
Town of South old
.
.
LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM
A. INSTRUcnONS
1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for
proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This
assessment is intended to supplement other infonnation used by a Town of Southold agency in
making a detennination of consistency. * Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits
and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this fonn should review the exempt
minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. A Drowsed action will be evaluated as to its significant
beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town).
3. If any question in Section C on this fonn is answered "yes" or "no", then the proposed action will
affect the achievement of the L WRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency
review law. Thus. each answer must be exPlained in detail. Ustinl! both supportim! and DOD-
supportinl!: facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the L WRP policy standards and
conditions, it shall not be undertaken.
A copy of the L WRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold ' s
website (southoldtown.northfork..net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all
local libraries and the Town Clerk's office.
B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION
SCTM# Ie ~c'\ -~- ) - G
PROJECT NAME 'I ,q N A)J 05 B (j L J{ HE/.) fj
') ;J
RE P l.4 ce-IV\ tAlI
The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response):
Town Board D Planning Board D Building Dept. D Board ofTrnstees [B"
1. Category ofTown of South old agency action (check appropriate response):
(a)
Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital
construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction)
D
D
(b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy)
(c)
Permit, approval, license, certification:
[j}/
Nature and extent of action:
Rt!>t..J}-ce eX 1,<, r)lv~ ~(H.j(.}JM'J
~! lC )A/tJ lit) PLl}cr
. .
Location of action: 5"I/S Q-LDJ <::::..rj()A-0 CUJv!f(j (i:-IJE
Site acreage:
~
Present land use: /<CS J b.e,A) T/ A L
Present zoning classification: R.. ES J /') ;: /() r / ~ t....-
2. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following
information shall be provided:
(a) Name of applicant: THO 1'1I.4-<; 'j/})./ N /('J ,<;
(b) Mailing address: 43 H) L L J<. J)/ <; rJ LLL..JA7"t:A, / NY /2) 7 ()
(c) Telephone nwnber: Area Code () -08 - S-S ~ - ~s (J l.j
(d) Applicationnwnber, ifany:
Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, o~y a state or federal agency?
y es ~o D If yes, which state or federal agency? /II V S/J.!3 c.....
.
C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or
not support the polides. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy.
Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion.
DEVELOPED COAST POLICY
Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character,
preserves open space, makes effident use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and
minimizes adverse effects of development. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation
criteria.
DYes D No ~otApplieable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See
LWRP Section III - Polides Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria
DYes 0 No WNotApplicable
.
.
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources thronghout the Town of Southold. See
L WRP Section nI - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria
DYes D No ~t Applicable
Attach additional sheets jf necessary
NATURAL COAST POLICIES
Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See L WRP
Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria
[3" Yes D No D Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III
- Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria
Gr"Yes D No 0 Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See L WRP Section ill - Policies; Pages 22
through 32 for evalnation criteria.
Q("oo
'xis
No
I Applicable
.
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town o( Southold. See LWRP Section III _ Policies
Pages 32 through 34 (or evaluation criteria.
DYes 0 No ~PPlicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold (rom solid waste and hazardous
substances and wastes. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 (or evaluation criteria.
DYes 0 No ~ot Applicable
PUBLIC COAST POLICIES
Policy 9. Provide (or public access to, and recreational use 0(, coastal waters, public lands, and public
resources o( the Town o( Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 (or evaluation
criteria.
o YeO No~tAPPlicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
WORIaNG COAST plCIES
.
Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in
suitable locations. See}WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria.
Dyes 0 No urNot Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic
Estuary and Town wyers. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria.
o Yes 0 No 0' Not Applicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages
62 through 65 for eval"tion criteria.
Dyes 0 No~otAPplicable
Attach additional sheets if necessary
Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP
Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria.
DYes 0 No ~ot Applicable
PREPARED BY DI1()/ I) Cd.QIJIN
TITLE Ik;.w I
DATE /1-20-66
.
.
Yannios Bulkhead Replacement
LWRP Consistency Assessment Form Continuation Sheet
Policy 2 Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold.
There are no historical or archaeological artifacts in the vicinity of the area where
construction will be undertaken,
Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and
erosion.
The original timber shore protection structure is deteriorated, A new CCA timber
bulkhead will be constructed along the same line as the existing bulkhead, CCA timber
has proven to be superior to other materials in this type of service, If is easier to
construct the bulkhead wall with timber sheets as they have a smaller width than vinyl
and they resist the abrasion of water carried sand better than vinyl.
There are no groins associated with the existing bulkhead,
Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
5.3 Protect and enhance quality of eoutal waters.
No excavation with a backhoe or clamshell bucket is anticipated in front of the existing
structure, Installation of timber sheets and piles will be with a water jet The area
behind the existing structure will be excavated to allow the installation of a tiered backing
system, Excavated area will use existing sand and some sand from an upland location
as backfill,
No discharge into coastal waters from the backing excavation is anticipated,
Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold
ecosystem.
Excavation for the tierod backing system will be accomplish by backhoe excavation,
hand digging and water jet
Native vegetation will be allowed to reestablish itself behind the bulkhead, In a one year
growing season native plants will establish themselves and help stabilize the existing
bank, No fertilizer will be used on the project
1
.
.
631-477-0184
David S. Corwin
639 Main Street
Greenport NY 11944-1431
corwin@optonilne.net
November 20, 2006
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Subject: Yannios Bulkhead Replacement, Glen Court, Cutchogue
Dear Trustees:
Enclosed please find a permit application for Thomas Yannios, 545 Glen Court,
Cutchogue, NY.
The application includes:
· One original plus 2 copies of the application form
· Short Environmental Assessment Form - 2 copies
· L WRP Consistency Assessment Form - 2 copies
· Survey - 2 copies
· Project Drawing - 5 copies
· Photographs
· Transactional Disclosure Form
· Wetlands application fee $250
· Coastal Erosion application fee $250
If you require any additional information or have any questions please contact me
directly.
Very truly yours,
~ O,^~~, ~,:'-f\
David S. Corwin
Enc9
I
'"
SO;:z.A 'v;Vr-
41/LS CHRIST OS C. Y ANNIOS lifi!Q
111 CHERRY VALLEY AVENU~ .
UNIT S03W
GARDEN CITY, N. Y. 11530
TELEPHONE 516+873-6761
FEB 2 1 2007
f) - 8-011
Jj~~
,
,--Z ~~ Jua4cL ~
cJ~ "'~ .J.e,;.)...-J ~ ~~ io
1/uv ~ r?~ ~::
'-'!- s 'IS .JiP~ ~:tJ ~.b V.-U>T ~ 'J'L/:.. 't7J
K~"J-uv~ '- T,L..-Ja-j-~.7L~'
0~:) V~,_1Ja-d- o-J,yf~~-tc
Al a-<f.. 1Ad d"1 ' JhJ ~. J-J'<<'-J - ~ J
~ ~ ~~ J~~~"~ci .~::
.xvi ,rrLL k~J ~~~ J. '
-tr~) --.:> ~-t ~.,.J ~ /U'<-""A.
o-il O-<VV e:~C~ _ ~~~~~~L-
""".1- ~.LO t~/..z,71,J ~j~ f.
.~ ~r'.& r<uV7.L.h ~df~.
-;f' -<A4t -I aLL, ~J~ _0 ~~.
~ ~ ~ c~~JJ- ~ t~...-n~
~/~~/a~/d~
~~~~~~
~~ ~'j.~. . ~~
~-I~ U~~7 ~
tAaf ecnd~ ~ ~;z/.p.I ~a~
~.~'?1hoA~' u
.~.tZD ~ ~ ~~;-+~
..t~ .~~~' . J~
3r
.
Sv ,;2; 1tA/,v{
111 K'l CHRISTOS C. Y ANNIOS JlIIl'Ii)
111 CHERRY VALLEY AVENU~ .
UNIT 503 W
GARDEN CITY, N. Y. 11530
TELEPHONE 516-873-6761
I
~ ~ ~ . 9--r>~ ~j;d;:J J.~JC4A~
~~,,?/Z.~~~
f ~ J ~ tI~ qA...<- .~~
~ 1~eb ~ .~~~.,L
(~~ (.-?<./-t..-,-".iL---'- CC,v~.. /;~~~
];j .A.GC~ (f..u J~ ,~ ~aA(s"--
-J2, ~ fa ~~..L- ~ -/b- ~..~~
~ 7~ .x d" /,.<LA -f" J.-nf ~ !' ~
?Y-A- ~ .-I~ ~ ~..~
.16../'0". ~J ~ c~'j~ ~ i~
~ .{7& ~7 -4q1J J-~.,;j /.~
~~_ !j...J.-J--'- fl~J>-.L T.,Lf.~
sO ~.~.J ,a;Jo-!~' 1~~1 7'~A'
A~,~ Q-n~~ ?.vJ~ J~.
'VV-e.- J~ a/ ~ ~ ~..~ -;/',J' ~
~ /YJ~g
~ )
jt d<~ .~~~e/ (f~~~
1IJZ- . -/ I ~ +- ..
a. ~ C;. if ,. ,'" ~ -L~, <!VoL:
--t.a.....:v ~ T" -!-te- ,J J' '
~'" ..J ~ "I ~CJ .. L Z-./ 12. CJr:
. c.<..""--' ' <-<- ,b 07
.. .~. ~
~~i t5-UN --t:::J3 c'~7 "'"-n~
J u..-",,.( cj d
....A---u.J G<..-y1~ ~ -!~. . 0 Cfo~ ~j
t~~~
~~
~_._._._.-_..
_Jl (
1ft R. .5
CHRISTOS C. Y ANNIOS .5fiJl
111 CHERRY VALLEY AVENU~ '
UNIT 503
GARDEN CITY, N. Y. 11530
TELEPHONE 516-873-6761
:.),c L~) ~1Jk 0 (~~ r~ ~
~tHn -jA~t ~ ~ a.--nol-- ,~.J.&
,oU-,;:t.0 01.<< 7'~ C~~ .J,3- I
Ik-~' -If~ ~ y~ ~ ;a-f(Ld;f
c;LeU ~~ -;!v-v- ~ /?71 ~ /tn.~~
~ ([;:f~ ~~oL k~ ~ ~ '
C01u 7~ 70..-0z~ cf o~.J ~ /~i{"~J
-rlJ e~c1,1~ aYL~ -Ilz~, ' 0
~~ ~~. 10 ~,L/~d
~~ ~ t JJo-</ rv .A ~~ .
~ -;~ ,./- ~L.Nt~~).r>'<,-~ J,~~Lv
(~ ~ ~ ~~J'7~ ~~7
tLL JJ.:i~ Jd4 I .'~ ~~
~ ~50~r~~~(~'
-
p. $;,
yj~)
;xf:j~Jt~
/1 )/
"J--rJhU 71L<2- ~"'<::~~" /-.
_ . L )/' P,,:;...'~~A
/ \. d"c/<rr _Z./l.<-<~J.u /'i",~-I(~K"
7...~....,o-' /- -I " ~) d.;f
'.' ...--:h c<l..'Y~ (II ._ ~. /' L
. . ~ -" J 11.,.-.- Iv .
~/ -<-<.> /' -+ ~., v ~
-A"JL,.( .Y
~ cd.. 0
, /' SVA;q rvtVr--
I,/~ 'CHRISTOSC
111 CHERR; ~~NNIOS. MiiE.
EY AVENUE
UNIT 503 ~
GARDEN CITY N
.......:...- . Y. 11530
TELEPHONE 516-873
-6761
() ,
--1111., d P/l._H'uA/ ;'}._(~-07
j/VL.. /'" .~l/"""--""- I
.
<f~r ~ I~ ~ (f""'~
,~1IuU~~ ~-AaA7
~ ~ ~.u/,.v,/'~
~ ,# .J c".d tiP'-' ~~ _L
,...,~~=-'~. jT~ ,
~.~~ ...YI'~~C~.-
./}'7~~' J~~' ~ ~ cd
1Iu/:.~O<" u a-r~ >>-;10 ,i
.-0V.'~ ~ ~~r ~~.
"",flu.- 5~' J: JJ- .~d ~ a- ~
to ~~--"d ~ fl,~ .~ c~
~ ~~. ~ ~ :.d"""h ,)
~d · ;; Ii""^" .J,<VY<- ,<>>--<~
f~ ;Iu.- ~7'o 7';(.c. rr
. fl,vy~5J~ U~ ~
-;,z.v" ~';;1 ~ !J ~
FED 0 ,
t..' ~ 11
LOT 35
RENE GENDRON
4710 MAYFLOWER WAY W
ESTERO FL 33928
LOT 7
645 GLEN CT
ANTONIO VANGI LC:i;
PO BOX 48
CUTCHOGUE NY 1 1935
au""\)
\) S
GIS~
\.0""
~I.>N
N
J
----
-~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~K>N
---;--- ;\~
---- ,00 'Qu...:f. 'f..1""\)
----- ~I\I.'Q'-'" C'- I"
-- llG I'll'
-<--'\ ~IS~C'_ ~~~;\I""G
_-- \ \ ",,-I' S;\v'
\ \ ~I~\.
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
HAGSTROM SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLAS
t.tAP 2.3. GRID G38
\I. ""0. ,_4
SC~ a-llY
,00
630' TO DUCK POND LANE
ACCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION
,_1
11"-
,000-
"0.
SC~\I.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
0
>- .....
0
i:O :J:
I- J\..
=>
0 ~
en
u.. >:::
0 ~ \
z
~ " ~
0
i
,-~
dY
,000-0
""0.
SC~\I.
\""r
. I'i'l
cou~
GI.'-""
LOT 19
340 VISTA PL
ROBERT DUNN
600 VISTA PL
CUTCHOGUE NY 11935
'&
~
.L
~
'7
BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT
LONG ISLAND SOUND
CUTCHOGUE, NY
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
THOMAS YANNIOS
DRAWN BY: D. CORWIN
NOVEMBER 11, 2006
SHEET 1 OF 2
REVISED JANUARY 2, 2007
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1"=40'
FILL 20 CU.YDS.
FROM UPLAND SOURCE
3/4" x 10' TIE ROD
8"~ CCA DEAD MA
8"~ x 6' CCA
ANCHOR PILE
CROSSVIEW AT FILL SECTION
NO SCALE
EXISTING GRADE
8"~ x 1Z' CCA PILE
1-6'
CROSSVIEW EXCAVATION
NO SCALE
6" x 6" CCA TIMBER WALE (TYPICAL)
VINYL SHEATHING
ROCK ARMOR
EXISTING CCA
Z" SHEATHING
~ 8' PENETRATION
CLEAN SAND FILL TO REPLACE LOST FILL
FROM UPLAND SOURCE
APPROXIMATE VOLUME ZO CUBIC YARDS
CROSSVIEW
SCALE 1 "=5'
.
"
Z5' (VARIES)
AHW
BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT
LONG ISLAND SOUND
CUTCHOGUE, NY
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
THOMAS YANNIOS
DRAWN BY: D. CORWIN
NOVEMBER 11, 2006
SHEET 2 OF 2
REVISED JANUARY Z, ZD07