Share This Article:

Life Cycle Assessment of CCA-Treated Wood Highway Guard Rail Posts in the US with Comparisons to Galvanized Steel Guard Rail Posts

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:143KB) PP. 58-67
DOI: 10.4236/jtts.2013.31007    5,441 Downloads   8,750 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment is done to identify the environmental impacts of chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated timber used for highway guard rail posts, to understand the processes that contribute to the total impacts, and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, galvanized steel posts. Guard rail posts are the supporting structures for highway guard rails. Transportation engineers, as well as public and regulatory interests, have increasing need to understand the environmental implications of guard rail post selection, in addition to factors such as costs and service performance. This study uses a life cycle inventory (LCI) to catalogue the input and output data from guard rail post manufacture, service life, and disposition, and a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to assess anthropogenic and net greenhouse gas (GHG), acidification, smog, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication potentially resulting from life cycle air emissions. Other indicators of interest also are tracked, such as fossil fuel and water use. Comparisons of guard rail post products are made at a functional unit of one post per year of service. This life cycle assessment (LCA) finds that the manufacture, use, and disposition of CCA-treated wood guard rails offers lower fossil fuel use and lower anthropogenic and net GHG emissions, acidification, smog potential, and ecotoxicity environmental impacts than impact indicator values for galvanized steel posts. Water use and eutrophication impact indicator values for CCA-treated guard rail posts are greater than impact indicator values for galvanized steel guard rail posts.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Bolin, C. and Smith, S. (2013) Life Cycle Assessment of CCA-Treated Wood Highway Guard Rail Posts in the US with Comparisons to Galvanized Steel Guard Rail Posts. Journal of Transportation Technologies, 3, 58-67. doi: 10.4236/jtts.2013.31007.

References

[1] A. Atahan, R. Bligh and H. Ross, “Evaluation of Recycled Content Guardrail Posts,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 2, 2002, pp. 156-166.
[2] J. Morrell, “Disposal of Treated Wood,” In: Environmental Impacts of Preservative Treated Wood, National Pesticide Information Center, Orlando, 2004, p. 27.
[3] J. Bigelow, S. Lebow, C. Clausen, L. Greimann and T. Wipf, “Preservation Treatment for Wood Bridge Application,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2108, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC, 2009, pp. 77-85.
[4] US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Chromated Arsenicals,” Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington DC, 2008.
[5] C. Plaxico, G. Patzner and M. Ray, “Finite Element Modeling of Guardrail Timber Posts and the Post-Soil Interaction,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1647, No. 1998, 1998, pp. 139-146. doi:10.3141/1647-17
[6] R. Faller, J. Reid, D. Kretschmann, J. Hascall and D. Sicking, “Midwest Guardrail System with Round Timber Posts,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2120, No. 2009, 2009, pp. 47-59. doi:10.3141/2120-06
[7] K. Andersson, M. Eide, U. Lundqvist and B. Mattsson, “The Feasibility of Including Sustainablility in LCA for Product Development,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 1998, pp. 289-298.
[8] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment— Principles and Framework,” ISO 14040:2006, Geneva, 2006.
[9] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment— Requirements and Guidelines,” ISO 14044:2006, Geneva, 2006.
[10] International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), “Life Cycle Inventory Data for Steel Products and Application of the IISI LCI Data to Recycling Scenarios,” Brussels, 2006.
[11] C. Boyd, et al., “Wood for Structural and Architectural Purposes,” Wood and Fiber Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1976, pp. 3-72.
[12] L. Johnson, B. Lippke, J. Marshall and J. Comnick, “Forest Resources-Pacific Northwest and Southeast. CORRIM Phase I Final Report Module A: Life-Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building Materials in the Context of Residential Building Construction,” 2004. http://www.corrim.org/reports
[13] L. Johnson, B. Lippke, J. Marshall and J. and Comnick, “Life-Cycle Impacts of Forest Resource Activities in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast United States,” Wood Fiber Science, Vol. 37, No. 12, 2005, pp. 30-46.
[14] B. L. Johnson, E. Oneil, J. Comnick and L Mason, “Forest Resources-Inland West. Corrim Phase II Report Module A. Environmental Performance Measures for Renewable Building Materials with Alternatives for Improved Performance,” Seattle, 2008. http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2005/phase1/
[15] E. Oneil, et al., “Life-Cycle Impacts of Inland Northwest and Northeast/North Central Forest Resources,” Wood and Fiber Science, Vol. 42, Special Issue, 2010, pp. 2951.
[16] M. Milota, C. West and I. Hartley, “Phase I Final Report, Module C, Softwood Lumber—Southeast Region,” 2004. http://www.corrim.org/pubs/index.asp#2004
[17] R. Vlosky, “Statistical Overview of the US Wood Preserving Industry: 2007,” Louisiana Forest Products Development Center, Baton Rouge, 2009.
[18] USDA, Forest Products Service, Forest Products Laboratory, “Wood Handbook, Wood as an Engineering Material,” General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190, USDA, Forest Products Service, Forest Products Laboratory Madison, 2010.
[19] American Wood Protection Association, “Standard P5-09 Standard for Waterborne Preservations,” In: 2010 AWPA Book of Standards, American Wood Protection Association, Birmingham, 2010.
[20] American Wood Protection Association, “Standard U1-10 Use Category System: User Specification for Treated Wood,” In: 2010 AWPA Book of Standards, American Wood Protection Association, Birmingham, 2010.
[21] US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks,” 3rd Edition, USEPA, Washington DC, 2006.
[22] J. Menard, et al. “Life Cycle Assessment of a Bioreactor and an Engineered Landfill for Municipal Solid Waste Treatment,” 2003. www.lcacenter.org/InLCA-LCM03/Menard-presentation.ppt
[23] US DOT, “Drawings,” 1994. http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/standard/st61711.pdf
[24] American Galvanizers Association, “Galvanize It,” 2002. http://www.galvanizeit.org/images/uploads/publicationPDFs/SP_SGRS_02.pdf
[25] J. Bare, G. Norris, D. Pennington and T. McKone, “TRACI—The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2003, pp. 49-78. http://mitpress.mit.edu/jie doi:10.1162/108819802766269539
[26] US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI),” 2009. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/
[27] R. Rosenbaum, et al., “USEtox—The UNEP-SETAC Toxicity Model: Recommended Characterization Factors for Human Toxicity and Freshwater Ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13, No. 7, 2008, pp. 532-546. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4
[28] US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902007,” Report No: EPA 430-R-09-004, USEPA, Washington DC, 2009.
[29] M. A. Barlaz, “Carbon Storage during Biodegradation of Municipal Solid Waste Components in Laboratory-Scale Landfills,” Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1998, pp. 373-380. doi:10.1029/98GB00350
[30] R. Ham, P. Fritschel and M. Norman, “Refuse Decomposition at a Large Landfill,” Proceedings Sardinia 93, 4th International Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, 11-15 October 1993, pp. 1046-1054.
[31] R. Ham, P. Fritschel and M. Norman, “Chemical Characterization of Fresh Kills Landfill Refuse and Extracts,” Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 6, 1993, pp. 1176-1195. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993)119:6(1176)
[32] Y.-S. Wang, C. S. Byrd and M. A. Barlaz, “Anaerobic Biodegradability of Cellulose and Hermicelluloses in Excavated Refuse Samples Using a Biochemical Methane Potential Assay,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1994, pp. 147-153. doi:10.1007/BF01583999
[33] C. A. Bolin and S. Smith, “Life Cycle Assessment of ACQ-Treated Lumber with Comparison to Wood Plastic Composite Decking,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 6-7, 2011, pp. 620-629. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.004
[34] C. A. Bolin and S. Smith, “Life Cycle Assessment of Borate-Treated Lumber with Comparison to Galvanized Steel Framing,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 6-7, 2011, pp. 630-639. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.005
[35] C. A. Bolin and S. Smith, “Life Cycle Assessment of Pentachlorophenol-Treated Wooden Utility Poles with Comparisons to Steel and Concrete Utility Poles,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2011, pp. 2475-2486. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.019

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.