TOM KELLY
Editor and Publisher

Treated wood products manufacturers face a deadline of December 31 2003, to halt use of the chemical chromated copper arsenate, known in the trade as CCA, for residential and other non-industrial uses.

The chemical comes off the market as a residential wood preservative because it contains a compound of arsenic, a poison in its natural state, even though tests indicate CCA is a safe product. At a conference of the Forest Products Society MidSouth Section held last month in Biloxi, Mississippi, specialists from the timber treating industry discussed developments in wood preservation, and the movement to replace CCA.

Steve Conklin, an executive of Universal Forest Products, Grand Rapids, Michigan, made the keynote presentation at the conference, on the topic "Recent developments in the wood treating industry to the CCA phaseout."

The following is from a telephone interview with The Piney Woods Journal covering issues in wood treatment, quoting Mr. Conklin.

The big picture is that there has been a voluntary label change in the CCA label, which removes many of the current uses of the product. In general terms, you would describe the remaining uses as industrial, and the uses which are going to be phased out as non-industrial.

We are currently in a transition period which is to end December 31, 2003. The company I work for is a treating company, largely producing residential products. For example, Home Depot is one of our customers. So that puts us in a position where we need to switch from CCA to another preservative.

The good news is that there are at least two good viable preservatives on the market that we can switch to. We've made our decisions, and intend to switch our production to ACQ (Alkanine Copper Quaternary) preservative. That basic formulation has been on U.S. market for ten years. There's development work that predates that by a good number of years. It's a product while it has not had a huge amount of use, just because of the dominance of CCA in the market, it is in fact a pretty well tested product.

What is the primary basis for phasing out CCA in residential products? Does it relate to arsenic content?

There are a number of market issues. It's basically a market driven issue, that encompasses a lot of different areas. There was a perceived concern about the product that was related to the fact that it did contain arsenic, as chromated copper arsenate. That expressed itself in a number of different ways. It became kind of a political issue.

The science on the safety of CCA treated wood is absolutely clear. The product is safe, hands down. In fact there have been some really excellent data on studies done, in the last couple of years, looking at that question. I am happy to say it has all reaffirmed the safety of CCA treated wood when it is used properly. The fact of the matter is that it is that perception that will drive the marketplace.

I don't believe that most consumers think about the fact that what they are buying is CCA treated wood. What they are buying is a treated wood product that they can use outdoors. They are not going in looking for particular pesticides. I draw the analogy, if you walk into your favorite home improvement store to buy something for your roses, or for slugs in your garden, most people are not looking for particular pesticides. They are looking for that stuff on the shelf that will kill the slugs in the garden. I think treated wood is largely the same way.

My concern in all of this with the media, if it had been allowed to continue, if we had not been tried to make a transition to some of these other products, eventually those headlines would have actually impacted the market for treated wood. I don't believe they have today. I think the transition is coming early enough in the process that we won't do that. We have not seen any impact in our sales of treated wood. I did have a concern that if it continued, people would become concerned, not just about CCA, per se but about treated wood. That's what really matters - that treated wood remains a viable products and people continue to appreciate the benefits of pressure treated wood products.

What's involved in making the transition in manufacturing process? Is it terribly expensive to change your treatment system?

There is some cost. Typically some repiping the plant has to do, and some components of the plant that were OK with CCA, but are not compatible with the new products. That equipment needs to be changed. But typically, it is not a big deal. There is the cost of cleaning out CCA and bringing in the new product. The actual costs are not that high. It is a brand new product, and so every treater that makes that switch will have some new ropes to learn in using the new product, but the basic product is very sound. The basic process is the same, but people will definitely have to go through a little bit of a learning curve and some fine tuning as they switch over.

Is there any appreciable difference in the cost to consumers?

Yes, that's the biggest single difference. ACQ is a good product, will have comparable performance to CCA, but it is more expensive. The preservative itself is considerably more expensive. A very large component of the cost is the price of the lumber itself. Ultimately we're thinking that the cost of the treated lumber off the shelf is going to be anywhere from ten to 30 percent higher, depending on the product. There is relatively inexpensive wood, and there is relatively expensive wood that gets treated. So the cost impact on that less expensive wood will tend to be higher, as a percentage of the price. For example, if you have wood that's $800 per thousand, and you've had an increase in chemical cost, that's going to get diluted because then the total cost of the product is so much higher.

What about subterranean Formosan termite problem? Is there any impact in the new treatment process?

American Wood Preservers Association evaluated preservatives including ACQ, specifically for efficacy against Formosan termites. Their conclusion, in the proceedings of the AWPA, bottom line, is the standards for above ground and ground contact use are effective, with a pretty good safety margin, in fact.

One of the benefits of CCA is that it is good against Formosan termites. Is that correct?

Basically, the conclusions are that all the standardized products, CCA, ACQ, and copper Azol, are effective against the Formosan termite. The only product that actually has a different retention for Formosan termites - which we knew going in - was borate.

Is the ACQ formulation going to be the standard in industry for treated lumber, or are there other products that will be equally out there?

Currently we have two good products, basically standardized for above ground and ground contact for a wide variety of applications that can replace CCA in non-industrial applications. These are ACQ and Copper Azol. Of the two, more people are tending to choose ACQ, but both are good products, viable alternatives. I do expect that we will see additional preservatives developed and standardized over the next several years. There is at least one that is working with AWPA now to become standardized. But I think there will be more, and that's a good thing for the industry and the consumer. One thing about CCA, the product was so good, and cost effective that it really stymied development and introduction of other products. If you think about it, the last major change in CCA was standardized in 1969, which was when the Type C oxide formulation was standardized in AWPA. It's hard to find too many products that have not changed a lick since 1969. That's a testament to just how good a product CCA is. Now that CCA is now limited in its application, and effectively out of some markets, we're now seeing more interest in wood preservation research, and I think that's a good thing.

What about the old-time creosote? Is it still in use for some purposes?

Creosote remains the preservative of choice for railroad crossties. And it's difficult to see it ever being unseated. It seems to be uniquely qualified for the protection of hardwood ties. And you still see some applications for pilings and utility poles, but certainly the lion's share of creosote is still used to protect railroad ties.

Is there anything else on the subject that needs to be mentioned?

The most important message I want to convey is that CCA treated wood is a safe product. The industry absolutely stands behind it, and we always have and always will.

Back