But Wood Industry Representatives Say Chemcials Pose No Threat
By Michael MacMillan
They send power into homes, and keep customers' lights on and appliances running. They also make good neighborhood billboards. As common as paved roads and front lawns, utility wood poles hardly warrant much attention. But a U.S. activist organization is making serious allegations about the poles that stride neighborhoods across North America. Once considered proudly as a symbol of modern technology, the utility pole is now at the center of an intense environmental debate.
Last February, the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), a Washington, D.C. lobby group founded in 1981 that monitors the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals, released a document called "Poison Poles -- A Report About Their Toxic Trail and Safer Alternatives." The report criticizes the use of chemical pesticides to extend the life of wood utility poles. Soaked deep into the wood, the chemicals help ward off insects, fungus, and other bacteria that are harmful to wood. Together, they represent the single largest use of pesticides in the U.S. And according to NCAMP, they are among the most dangerous pesticides available on the market. They have been linked to a variety of health problems, including birth defects, genetic damage, and possibly even cancer.
The report goes on to document the environmental damage caused by pesticides. Every stage of a pole's life, NCAMP says, from its production, transportation, storage, and disposal poses a threat. This is the cycle that NCAMP refers to as the "toxic trail." Perhaps most disturbing is their claim that these chemicals are slowly leaching from treated poles, thus creating millions of what they call Òmini-toxic dumps." The amount of evidence supporting their position, they say, is overwhelming.
"We believe there is sufficient evidence to force regulatory action against these chemicals, taking them off the market for use in and on utility poles," said Jay Feldman, the organization's executive director. He hopes the North American electric utility industry hears NCAMP's message, and does what government has so far refused to do: ban the use of wood preservative chemicals. "The utility industry needs to take a close look at the compelling data in this report . . . and look at the evidence here, and take voluntary action."
NCAMP says three chemicals in particular: pentachlorophenol (or penta), creosote (a derivative of coal and tar), and certain types of arsenic -- all commonly used as wood preservatives -- as the worst offenders. And they claim the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not, or will not, do what it takes to reduce the use of these substances. Although the agency has been working steadily toward a revised pesticide policy since the mid-seventies, Feldman accuses the EPA of not doing all it can.
"They say the EPA doesn't really engage in science as much as political science," he mused, "because it's subjected to so much political pressure from the regulated community and the people whose businesses are . . . dependent on pesticides."
Few people are aware of what it takes to make a utility pole. Wood poles are born as "premium trees," made from higher quality wood than most lumber. Workers strip the trees, cut them to a uniform size, and dry them. Then they are treated with pesticides. Intense pressure is applied during treatment, to ensure the pesticides are buried deep within the wood. Once this is complete, the poles are shipped to storage sites to await installation. After anywhere from 40 to 60 years of useful life, they must be replaced.
In 1995, utility poles (including phone poles and railroad ties) represented slightly more than 50 per cent of total treated wood use in Canada, or nearly 11.6 million cubic feet. This is one of the largest sectors of treated wood production, second only to lumber.
Canada differs slightly from the U.S. in pesticide preference, although variations exist on a provincial level. Of all the treated wood in Ontario, more than 80 per cent is treated with copper chromate arsenate, or CCA. B.C. is also moving towards CCA. The use of penta, however, still dominates in Quebec. In most provinces, however, some combination of the two is the norm.
And confusion still surrounds the actual health risks associated with these chemicals. Of all the pesticides cited in NCAMP's report, penta is clearly the most dangerous. It is now banned in 25 countries, including Denmark, Germany and India. Representatives from the Canadian Institute of Wood Preservers (CIWP) and several major utilities say that penta is being slowly and unofficially phased out. CCA, because it is cleaner, safer, and cheaper, is the preferred alternative. But there are some misgivings. Most people in the industry still feel that penta is the best preservative for the job.
As an oil-based solution, penta has the potential to become airborne. It is also easily absorbed through the skin. Arsenic, on the other hand, has a much lower skin absorption rate, and tends to bind with soil when it leaches from poles. It also binds much more tightly with the wood, thus reducing the risk of leaching. So, at least at first glance, CCA seems safer then penta.
In Canada, penta is banned from "over-the-counter" use. Homeowners, for instance, cannot buy penta-based wood preservers from their local hardware store. And penta is no longer used in the construction of residential homes. It is, however, still permitted for use in heavy-duty industrial applications. Currently, penta and other pesticides are undergoing "re-evaluation," a formal reassessment of their status by the pesticide branch of Environment Canada. They decide how, when, and where pesticides are used in this country.
But Barry Munsen, an Edmonton toxicologist with Environment Canada's Environmental Protection Branch, said there is still much research needed to properly determine if leaching poles are a threat to public safety. In the meantime, he sees nothing wrong with utilities continuing to use penta.
"Penta is probably the method of choice for preserving utility poles," he said, " because it's damn good at what it does. It's a very effective wood preservative."
NCAMP and its critics do agree on one thing. Pesticides do, and will, seep from treated wood poles over time. Even the most adamant supporters of penta and other pesticides readily admit that all treated poles leak some chemicals into environment. Munsen said penta can be found in measurable amounts in the soil and air around nearly every utility pole in which it is used. "It starts leaching as soon as it's put in the wood," he confirmed. "It leaches while it/s being stored and it leaches while it's being transported . . . it starts leaching as soon as it's put in the ground."
"Over a period of time, some of it is going to come out," agreed Henry Wolthert, Executive Director of CIWP. "The question is, how much comes out? And that will obviously vary because it's very difficult to in fact predict because the (wood) species has an effect, the temperature has an effect, the actual preservative and the concentration that went in has an effect . . . all you can do is estimate."
This is where skeptics of NCAMP's report part ways with Feldman. No one, they argue, knows for sure what effects Ñ if any Ñ the minute amounts of leaching chemicals may have on the environment. They are also critical of data used in NCAMP's report. Some of it, Munsen said, is nearly 30 years old, from a time when safety regulations were almost non-existent. And many of the mishaps involving wood preservatives detailed in NCAMP's report, he added, reflect poor regulations and lax enforcement measures rather than unwise pesticide choices. To reassure the public, CWIP and their American counterparts have released a document that refutes point-by-point most of NCAMP's allegations.
Wood pole supporters are also pragmatic. If grass can grow around the poles, and worms can be found in the soil, wonders Munsen, how harmful could its possibly be to humans?
"The pesticide is there to kill things," he explained, "and it's very effective at what it does. If it wasn't, they wouldn't use it . . . But whether or not the amount that leaches out of a utility pole when it is sitting in the ground is a problem, off the top of my head, I would say no."
Wolthert and other in the preservative industry also point out that so far there is not one piece of research that shows any direct link between treated wood poles and human health. Everyone acknowledges that the individual chemicals, in and of themselves, are dangerous. Those most at risk, workers who handle the chemicals on a daily basis, undergo safety training, and wear protective gear.
But none of this has much do with what leaches from poles. Similar chemicals, supporters argue, are used to treat most wooden decks and assorted outdoor wooden furniture, which are handled unprotected by millions everyday. And the EPA has already determined that most poles have a limited leaching potential, about a "one part per ten billion" potential at a 30-foot depth. This puts it well above most groundwater reserves. In light of this, Wolthert said, any leaching that does occur is very low-risk. Barring a person literally eating the wood, he cannot conceive of a situation where a wood pole could harm someone.
"Generally hygiene takes care of any exposure you might get. I have no problems with my kids playing on the deck, (but) I make sure they wash their hands. And arsenic is naturally occurring. You can be exposed to arsenic naturally. If you eat a lot of seafood, you eat a lot of arsenic. So that kind of exposure you are going to get anyhow."
Nonetheless, NCAMP says that the sheer number of poles make up for small amounts. Adults may know better, Feldman explained, but children have been known to put their mouths on poles and the surrounding soil. The real damage, he insists, comes when hundreds, even thousands of poles are piled together. Feldman points to a study conducted by Bell Canada of 28 of its pole storage sites in QuŽbec and Ontario. Investigators found that groundwater and surface soil concentrations of wood preservative chemicals exceeded the provincial clean up criteria at nine sites by factors of two to ten. In some instances, cleanup criteria were exceeded by as much as 100. Even Munsen agrees that if there is indeed a problem in all this, it probably has more to do with pole storage sites, and the manner in which poles are disposed.
And this is where utilities bear the most responsibility. Concentrations of wood preservatives are at their highest in storage sites. Poles that are no longer fit for use must be disposed of. Burning them releases chemicals into the air, and is illegal in some provinces. Burying them is no safer. So, instead of changing their entire system of pole distribution, utilities are attacking the problem from the other end.
"We haven't used penta in poles since 1990," said Dave Yu, Senior Engineer and monitor of pole issues at B.C. Hydro. "CCA is currently he only preservative we use in poles." Yu said B.C. Hydro is still looking over the contents of NCAMP's report, but added that they have long been aware of the possible effects of penta. They have also established specifications for new poles. They must be clean to the touch, and free of CCA dust. Ultimately, they are hoping to make whatever risks are associated with wood poles minimal. Yu adds that if further research determines that stricter measures are needed, B.C. Hydro is prepared to act.
Since Ontario Hydro also leans toward CCA, sites are not a big concern for them. "We keep them mostly in regional centers where we need them," explained Ted Groetzner, a spokesperson for Ontario Hydro. He said the Crown corporation tries to reuse its million or so poles as much as possible by cutting the bottom off, and putting them back into service where shorter poles are required. As far as disposal, a private company, Northern Pressure Treated Wood Ltd. (NPTW Ltd.) takes the old poles and recycles what it can.
NPTW Ltd. spokesperson Michael McCullough said his company takes an approach to wood recycling used by others across the country. Poles sent by Ontario Hydro are first stripped of their treated portions, about thirty to forty per cent of the wood. This wood is still fresh, and can be used as planking, siding or fencing. Old cross arms are sold as landscaping ties. Meanwhile, the treated parts are broken down to wood chips, and incinerated according to provincial regulations. Or, as in the case of Northern, burned and used as an internal energy source.
"Even if it's all rotted out, it's still a good fuel source. We have a wood waste border, so it will be burned and used to make steam," McCullough explained.
In Québec, Hydro-Québec either gives the poles to private disposal companies -- on the condition that they are not burned -- or puts out a tender for those who wish to make use of them. "Wood poles are the most economic," explained Marie Archambault, Hydro-Québec spokesperson. "They're easily available, and are made from trees that grow in Québec."
Feldman is glad some utilities are taking some initiative. However, he thinks the public will only be safe when one of two things happen; first, when penta is either banned outright, even for heavy duty industrial uses, or when utilities look to alternative pole materials. And it is the latter that Feldman is pushing for. Regulators, he said, should no longer listen to utilities who claim non-wood poles are not feasible.
"Under the U.S. law, and the Canadian law to some extent, the availability of alternative materials makes the risk that EPA believed it had to accept twelve years ago unacceptable today. The economic impact on the. . .utility industry would not be that great given the availability of competitive alternatives."
There is no shortage of wood pole competitors. Companies that specialize in concrete, steel, and even fiberglass poles are competing for a share of the wood-dominated market. But, having used wood for so long, many utilities are unlikely to change overnight. Nor should they, says Gouri Bhuyan, senior engineer at B.C.'s Powertech Labs Inc. In his view, a complete life-cycle assessment of non-wood poles must be carried out for a fair comparison with wood poles. Moreover, utilities should consider the socio-economic impact of choosing alternate poles.
From an efficiency standpoint, wood is much more convenient to use. With it, poles can be built at a standard length, and then cut to size as required. And, unlike other alternate materials, wood is renewable.
While no one disputes that non-wood poles have a longer life span than those made of wood, their initial costs are higher. In the end, he said it would make little sense for any utility to go out and replace all their wood poles. "Costs associated with alternate poles, with respect to maintenance, is unknown as this stage," he said.
Bhuyan admitted that he is not completely familiar with wood preservatives, nor with the NCAMP report. But he said utilities, if they decide to act on the report, should look at the overall benefit, if any, of the alternative selected.
Bhuyan also thinks most utilities could make better use of existing wood poles. In response to the cost crunch of the last decade, Bhuyan and his colleagues at Powertech Labs, and at B.C. Hydro's transmission and distribution division have come up with a plan to prevent premature replacement and increase the life of the utility's 1, 000,000 poles. New poles are being more closely inspected to see that they meet standard requirements. Condition of the aging poles is being assessed more accurately and reinforced wherever appropriate. Computer programs are also being used for looking at the serviceability of poles, considering groundline condition and attachments, and determining suitability of poles involved in uprating. Efforts like this, he said, reduces waste, and helps utilities to better manage their wood pole assets.
Feldman agrees that opting for steel or concrete over wood is not an ideal solution. But it is, he said, the best one currently available. And if it drastically reduces the risk of pesticide exposure to the public, then he thinks it is worth it. If there is a lack of research involving wood poles, he says it is because no on has taken the issue seriously until now. He says it is only a matter of time before many of the assumptions and myths surrounding the safety of wood poles are erased.
"This is a problem we have in the pesticide area. We make assumptions that chemicals. . . bind tightly to organic matter and don't move. In fact, that's not the case here."
But wood pole supporters say they would like to shatter some myths of their own. Organizations like NCAMP they say, are doing the public a disservice by using scare tactics. Munsen said that with a little common sense, most problems associated with wood preservatives can be avoided.
"Sure enough, penta is a pain when you get it into the environment, and we should stop it from getting there . . . But it's a toxic chemical, and you have to keep your head up when you're dealing with it." ET