This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooper, P. Articles by Timusk, C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cooper, P. Articles by Timusk, C. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Potential for Re-Use of Preservative-Treated Utility Poles Removed From Service

Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S3B3, Canada

Tony Ung

Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S3B3, Canada

Jean-Paul Aucoin

Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S3B3, Canada

Chris Timusk

Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S3B3, Canada

This study investigates the feasibility of re-using or recycling utility poles or parts of poles for solid wood products. Four hundred and fifty-six poles or pole sections, removed from service in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, were characterized by age, wood species, preservative type, residual preservative, dimensions and condition. Based on this characterization, the potential for re-use as round poles or posts, sawn posts, timber, lumber and cedar roof shingles was evaluated. About 8% of the poles can be re-used without reprocessing, 15% of the pole volume can be used for cedar shingles, and about 35% of the pole volume can be converted to sawn products based on the selected hierarchy of preferred uses.

Most of the poles removed from service had been treated with pentachlorophenol. The average levels of treatment decreased with age of the poles and approached the toxic threshold retentions in 25-year-old (or older) poles. For older poles (>35 years), creosote was the predominant treatment. Creosote levels were about 50% of the assumed levels when fresh treated. Creosote extracted from these poles contained fewer polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon components than "new" creosote. The poles treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) retained high levels of preservative, even after many years in service.

Used poles can be sawn into lumber of a good grade (#2 and better) using a small portable bandsaw. Special sawdust handling and disposal provisions must be made if this use is to be adopted. Treated poles with depleted reserves of creosote or pentachlorophenol could be re-treated with CCA or creosote preservatives to acceptable retentions. The quality of re-treatment was as good or better than that observed with new wood, and the re-treatment should ensure several decades of protection for guide-rail posts and other high decay hazard applications.

Key Words: Utility poles • re-use • chromated copper arsenate (CCA) • creosote • pentachlorophenol • lumber • posts • shingles • timbers • guide-rail posts • Canada.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?