Life cycle assessment of pentachlorophenol-treated wooden utility poles with comparisons to steel and concrete utility poles
Introduction
Wood products are susceptible to degradation when left untreated [1] and preservative treatments can extend the useful life of a wood product by 20–40 times that of untreated wood [2] in weather-exposed or wet environments subject to microbial or insect attack. To lengthen the service life of wood products susceptible to degradation, chemical preservation was introduced in the late 1700s and early 1800s. By 1842, wood preservation chemicals included mercuric chloride, copper sulfate, zinc chloride, ferrous sulfate with a sulfide, and creosote [3]. Over the years, industry has modified its wood preservation formulations with new preservatives, thereby meeting consumer preferences and addressing various treated wood applications, such as railroad ties, utility poles, marine pilings, guard rail systems, highway bridge timbers, agricultural fencing, and dimensional lumber.
There are an estimated 120–200 million preservative-treated wood utility poles currently in service in the U.S. Common preservatives used in wood utility pole treatment include chromated copper arsenate (CCA), creosote, and pentachlorophenol (penta). Approximately 62 percent of the total annual preserved utility pole production is estimated to be treated with penta [4].
Penta production began experimentally in the 1930s, with commercial use expanding during the 1940s through the 1980s. Prior to 1987, penta was registered for use as a herbicide, defoliant, molluscicide, fungicide, and insecticide [5]. Since then, penta has been a restricted-use pesticide for use by certified applicators only. Penta is mostly used now in the U.S. as a wood preservative. One of the primary products treated with penta preservative is utility poles.
Penta is mixed with petroleum oil, typically diesel or similar oil cuts, and applied under pressure to the wood products. The American Wood Protection Association [6] includes penta-treating as appropriate for round poles used for utility service.
Previous studies, such as research conducted by the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), have investigated the environmental impacts of wood products. CORRIM's efforts build on a report issued under the auspices of the National Academy of Science regarding the energy consumption of renewable materials during production processes [7]. CORRIM's recent efforts by Johnson et al. [8], [9] and Oneil et al. [10] have focused on an expanded list of environmental aspects necessary to bring wood products to market. Also, the in-service releases from penta-treated utility poles has been the subject of research conducted by Lorber et al. [11], Bulle et al. [12], Winters et al. [13], Murarka et al. [14], and others.
This study investigates the cradle-to-grave life cycle environmental impacts related to penta-treated wooden utility poles used for electricity distribution and transmission, and telecommunications, and uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to quantify such impacts. It covers one treated wood product in a series of LCAs commissioned by the Treated Wood Council (TWC). The series of treated wood product LCAs also covers alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ)-treated lumber, borate-treated lumber, creosote-treated railroad ties, chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated marine pilings, and CCA-treated guard rail systems.
Alternatives to treated wood utility poles include spun concrete and steel. The alternative products are produced by many different manufacturers using differing materials and manufacturing processes. The concrete and steel products have approximately the same dimensions as, and generally are used interchangeably with, penta-treated utility poles.
Section snippets
Goal and scope
This study inventories the environmental inputs and outputs attributable to penta-treated utility poles, completes a comparable inventory of steel and concrete utility poles, calculates impact indicators for each product, and makes comparisons between the products. This study was performed using life cycle assessment methodologies in a manner consistent with the principles and guidance provided by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in standards ISO 14040 and 14044 [15],
Life cycle inventory analysis
The inventory phase of the LCA developed the inputs from, and outputs to, the environment through each life cycle stage of the product. Inventory development included defining the products, selecting a means to compile data, obtaining and developing applicable life cycle data for life stages, distributing inputs and outputs appropriately between the target and co- or by-products, and summarizing the flow data. The cradle-to-grave life cycle stages considered in this LCA are illustrated in Fig. 1
Selection of the impact indicators
The impact assessment phase of the LCA uses the inventory results to calculate indicators of potential impacts of interest. The environmental impact indicators are considered at “mid-point” rather than at “end-point” in that, for example, the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) was provided rather than estimating end-points of global temperature or sea level increases. The life cycle impact assessment was performed using USEPA's Tool for the
Findings
To assess the processes that result in environmental impact from penta-treated utility poles, impact indicator values were totaled at the four life cycle stages. The impact indicator values at each of the four life cycle stages, and a total for the cradle-to-grave life cycle of penta-treated utility poles, are reported in Table 2.
Impact indicator values were totaled at two stages for concrete and steel products including: (1) the new concrete or steel pole at the utility yard and (2) after
Conclusions
The use of penta-treated utility poles offers lower fossil fuel and water use and environmental impacts than similar products manufactured of concrete and steel, with the exception of emissions with the potential to create smog. Compared to a penta-treated utility pole, and using the assumptions of this LCA, with the understanding that assumptions can vary, use of a concrete utility pole results in approximately four times more fossil fuel use and results in emissions with potential to cause
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the TWC for its funding of this project. The TWC members and their Executive Director, Mr. Jeff Miller, have been integral in its completion. We also thank the internal reviewers, James H. Clark, Mike H. Freeman, and Craig R. McIntyre and the independent external reviewers, Mary Ann Curran, Paul Cooper, and Yurika Nishioka for their support, patience, and perseverance in seeing this project through to completion.
References (46)
- et al.
Investigation of the potential release of polychlorinated dioxins and furans from PCP-treated utility poles
Sci Total Environ
(2002) - et al.
Sensitivity study of an OCDD environmental fate screening model in soils in the presence of PCP wood preserving oil
Chemosphere
(2008) - et al.
The feasibility of including sustainability in LCA for product development
J Clean Prod
(1998) Forest Products Laboratory. Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report. FPL–GTR–113
(1999)Disposal of treated wood
Wood preservation
(1993)Comments on pentachlorophenol revised risk assessments: notice of availability and solicitation on risk reduction options—Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0402
(2008)Basic information about pentachlorophenol in drinking water
(2010)U1-10—use category system for treated wood
(2010)- et al.
Wood for structural and architectural purposes
Forest Prod J
(1976)
Life-cycle impacts of inland northwest and northeast/north central forest resources
Wood Fiber Sci
A field study to evaluate the potential for the release of dioxins from pentachlorophenol-treated utility poles
Release, migration, and degradation of pentachlorophenol around in-service utility poles
Proc Am Wood Preservers Assoc
Standard P8-09. Standard for oil-borne preservatives
Standard P9-10. Standard for solvents and formulations for organic preservative systems
Life-cycle impacts of forest resource activities in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast United States
Wood Fiber Sci
Softwood logs with bark, harvested at average intensity site, at mill, US PNW. U.S. LCI Database
Softwood logs with bark, harvested at average intensity site, at mill, US SE. U.S. LCI Database
Statistical overview of the U.S. wood preserving industry: 2007
Cited by (62)
Study on mechanical properties and application in communication pole line engineering of glass fiber reinforced polyurethane composites (GFRP)
2023, Case Studies in Construction MaterialsLife cycle assessment of a novel tannin-boron association for wood protection
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentEnvironmental full cost accounting of alternative materials used for railroad ties: Treated-wood and concrete case study
2022, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :Concrete is the lowest total cost product alternative. This is due, in large part, to the longer service life of concrete ties, which require less maintenance and replacement (Bolin and Smith, 2011b). The EOL emissions for concrete are essentially zero since there is no chemical leaching or biodegradation associated with concrete.