The following note was sent to me, which the author let me post as a comment. David
###
Thanks for the article. It was very interesting. We do take issue with one paragraph near the end concerning issues with preservatives used to treat poles. Yes, it’s true that in the early days of treating plants in the last century were less judicious with the application of preservatives. However, implying that those plants were responsible for “shoreline areas teaming with toxins” is simply not true. Take PAHs for example. You are correct they are found in creosote. They are also found in petroleum products, asphalt and a host of other materials used in industrial production that has operated for decades in and around the Puget Sound. Blaming wood treating for all PAHs that are in the Puget Sound environment is unfair and simply not true.
One thing to consider is why we pressure treat utility poles. When using wood for infrastructure, you want it to last as long as possible given the disruption in replacing them. Without preservatives, wood poles would last only a few years in service. By pressure treating poles, we can create poles that last for many decades in service, despite being exposed to incredibly demanding conditions. Preservatives are intended to keep decay and insects (and yes wood peckers) from deteriorating the wood by creating a protective barrier in the wood. Some of the preservative does move out of the pole, but it does not move far and instead become part of that protective barrier.
Attached is a report on research on preserved wood poles and their impact on the environment. It reviews preservatives moving from poles into the environment, providing context on what actually happens with poles in service.
Another thing to consider: if we didn’t use preserved wood poles, what else would we use? Many assume steel, concrete or composite plastics are without any impact to the environment. Internationally recognized life cycle science shows that isn’t the case. The attached report on a life cycle assessment, or LCA, on penta poles vs. alternative materials clearly shows preserved wood poles have a far lower impact on the environment.
One other point often neglected when discussing alternatives to wood poles – the ability to provide replacements after storms or natural disasters. The wood treating industry has an impressive record of gearing up to provide replacements and get power restored. After Hurricane Katrina, some 92,000 treated wood poles and 90,000 wood crossarms were delivered within four weeks. Whether it’s wildfires or winter storms, we’ve continued to deliver replacement poles in this region quickly to get the power back on. The manufacturing process for alternative materials makes it impossible for them to match that.
David, there are tradeoffs with any product. We understand preserved wood poles are not perfect and past practices in treating them would not be the choices we would make today. Like every industry, we’ve learned how to do things better. Our operations today seek to protect the surrounding environment as much as possible and our plants have spent millions to provide that protection. We work to place enough preservative to protect the wood while limiting the amount that can potential move into the environment. We do all of this to deliver preserved wood poles that are safe, durable, long-lasting and readily available at an affordable cost.
Much has changed in our country over the nearly two centuries since the first wood pole was used. Still, despite the many technical advances we’ve achieved, preserved wood poles are still a critical part of today’s electrical system. As we increase our reliance on electricity for our way of life, these poles will be even more essential to our future.
Thanks David B. Always interesting. Always entertaining. Opening our eyes and awareness to our environment(s).
The following note was sent to me, which the author let me post as a comment. David
###
Thanks for the article. It was very interesting. We do take issue with one paragraph near the end concerning issues with preservatives used to treat poles. Yes, it’s true that in the early days of treating plants in the last century were less judicious with the application of preservatives. However, implying that those plants were responsible for “shoreline areas teaming with toxins” is simply not true. Take PAHs for example. You are correct they are found in creosote. They are also found in petroleum products, asphalt and a host of other materials used in industrial production that has operated for decades in and around the Puget Sound. Blaming wood treating for all PAHs that are in the Puget Sound environment is unfair and simply not true.
One thing to consider is why we pressure treat utility poles. When using wood for infrastructure, you want it to last as long as possible given the disruption in replacing them. Without preservatives, wood poles would last only a few years in service. By pressure treating poles, we can create poles that last for many decades in service, despite being exposed to incredibly demanding conditions. Preservatives are intended to keep decay and insects (and yes wood peckers) from deteriorating the wood by creating a protective barrier in the wood. Some of the preservative does move out of the pole, but it does not move far and instead become part of that protective barrier.
Attached is a report on research on preserved wood poles and their impact on the environment. It reviews preservatives moving from poles into the environment, providing context on what actually happens with poles in service.
Another thing to consider: if we didn’t use preserved wood poles, what else would we use? Many assume steel, concrete or composite plastics are without any impact to the environment. Internationally recognized life cycle science shows that isn’t the case. The attached report on a life cycle assessment, or LCA, on penta poles vs. alternative materials clearly shows preserved wood poles have a far lower impact on the environment.
One other point often neglected when discussing alternatives to wood poles – the ability to provide replacements after storms or natural disasters. The wood treating industry has an impressive record of gearing up to provide replacements and get power restored. After Hurricane Katrina, some 92,000 treated wood poles and 90,000 wood crossarms were delivered within four weeks. Whether it’s wildfires or winter storms, we’ve continued to deliver replacement poles in this region quickly to get the power back on. The manufacturing process for alternative materials makes it impossible for them to match that.
David, there are tradeoffs with any product. We understand preserved wood poles are not perfect and past practices in treating them would not be the choices we would make today. Like every industry, we’ve learned how to do things better. Our operations today seek to protect the surrounding environment as much as possible and our plants have spent millions to provide that protection. We work to place enough preservative to protect the wood while limiting the amount that can potential move into the environment. We do all of this to deliver preserved wood poles that are safe, durable, long-lasting and readily available at an affordable cost.
Much has changed in our country over the nearly two centuries since the first wood pole was used. Still, despite the many technical advances we’ve achieved, preserved wood poles are still a critical part of today’s electrical system. As we increase our reliance on electricity for our way of life, these poles will be even more essential to our future.
--
Butch Bernhardt
Sr. Program Manager
Western Wood Preservers Institute
David, are these being collected somewhere I can go back and read or review. Will this be a collection of essays?
Great article. Do you have a reference for interpreting the poles signature/signage