Creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties have been used for more than a century to support steel rails and to transfer load from the rails to the underlying ballast while keeping the rails at the correct gauge. As t...Creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties have been used for more than a century to support steel rails and to transfer load from the rails to the underlying ballast while keeping the rails at the correct gauge. As transportation engineers look for improved service life and environmental performance in railway systems, alternatives to the creosote-treated wooden crosstie are being considered. This paper compares the cradle-to-grave environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) results of creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties with the primary alternative products: concrete and plastic composite (P/C) crossties. This LCA includes a life cycle inventory (LCI) to catalogue the input and output data from crosstie manufacture, service life, and disposition, and a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel and water use, and emissions with the potential to cause acidification, smog, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication. Comparisons of the products are made at a functional unit of 1.61 kilometers (1.0 mile) of rail-road track per year. This LCA finds that the manufacture, use, and disposition of creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties offers lower fossil fuel and water use and lesser environmental impacts than competing products manufactured of concrete and P/C.展开更多
This article reports results of a survey of railroad tie management conducted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) reflecting 2017 practices. Similar surveys were previously conducted for 2013 and 2008 pract...This article reports results of a survey of railroad tie management conducted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) reflecting 2017 practices. Similar surveys were previously conducted for 2013 and 2008 practices. North American railroads purchase approximately 23 million new wood crossties annually. Most ties are used to replace worn ties. Through this survey, the AAR seeks to provide clarity to its member railroads, the regulators, and other interested parties, regarding how the railroads’ tie purchase preferences and used tie management choices have been changing in response to changing technologies and regulations. Technology changes include use of borate preservatives to dual-treat wood ties to provide longer service life in high decay environments, non-wood ties made of concrete or plastic, and energy conversion methods for used ties such as gasification and torrefaction. Passage of the EPA Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule in 2011, including updates in 2013, 2016, and 2018, is reducing the potential for recycling used ties as fuel. However, the EPA is also promoting use of biological materials, such as wood, to produce energy without increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing human caused climate change. Purchase and tie management trends are indicated by the survey results. Approximately 95% of all ties purchased are preservative-treated wood. Due to demonstrated longer service life in high decay zones for wood ties that are dual treated with borate and either creosote or copper naphthenate, the fraction of concrete and plastic tie purchases has decreased while the faction of dual treated wood tie purchases has increased. Recycling used ties for energy remains the most common practice, at 66% of ties, but has declined from 81% in 2013. Reuse of ties for other treated wood uses, such as landscape and agricultural type purposes, remains common at approximately 18%. Landfill disposal remains uncommon, but seems to be increasing at 6% of removed ties. The shift away from recycling for energy is thought to result from the both impact of the EPA NHSM rule and the low cost of natural gas. The smaller market tie users, mainly the short line railroads in contrast to the Class 1 railroads, manage far fewer ties per company, but purchase and manage approximately 31% of all ties. The short lines recycle to landscape and agricultural uses at about half the rate of the Class 1s and dispose in landfills at a much higher rate of 76% versus 1.2% for the Class 1s. This difference is thought to result from the economics and availability of local versus distant management options.展开更多
This paper discusses the U.S. Environmental Agency’s potential improper expansion of its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal pesticide statute, to regulate not...This paper discusses the U.S. Environmental Agency’s potential improper expansion of its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal pesticide statute, to regulate not only the registration, labeling, and use of wood preservatives, but also treated wood products. EPA’s oversight of wood preservatives under FIFRA is extensive. In recent years, despite EPA’s own Treated Articles Exemption, 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(a), EPA has moved toward utilizing wood preservative labeling in a way that could impose restrictions on the end use of treated wood. Wood preservative registrant and user groups should be concerned and vigilant about this trend toward regulation of treated wood. At the same time, they should continue to interact with EPA in a constructive manner, in part to ensure that EPA respects its own regulatory boundary between wood preservatives, such as creosote, and treated wood, such as creosote-treated railroad crossties, which are a key component of the nation’s transportation critical infrastructure.展开更多
文摘Creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties have been used for more than a century to support steel rails and to transfer load from the rails to the underlying ballast while keeping the rails at the correct gauge. As transportation engineers look for improved service life and environmental performance in railway systems, alternatives to the creosote-treated wooden crosstie are being considered. This paper compares the cradle-to-grave environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) results of creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties with the primary alternative products: concrete and plastic composite (P/C) crossties. This LCA includes a life cycle inventory (LCI) to catalogue the input and output data from crosstie manufacture, service life, and disposition, and a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel and water use, and emissions with the potential to cause acidification, smog, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication. Comparisons of the products are made at a functional unit of 1.61 kilometers (1.0 mile) of rail-road track per year. This LCA finds that the manufacture, use, and disposition of creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties offers lower fossil fuel and water use and lesser environmental impacts than competing products manufactured of concrete and P/C.
文摘This article reports results of a survey of railroad tie management conducted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) reflecting 2017 practices. Similar surveys were previously conducted for 2013 and 2008 practices. North American railroads purchase approximately 23 million new wood crossties annually. Most ties are used to replace worn ties. Through this survey, the AAR seeks to provide clarity to its member railroads, the regulators, and other interested parties, regarding how the railroads’ tie purchase preferences and used tie management choices have been changing in response to changing technologies and regulations. Technology changes include use of borate preservatives to dual-treat wood ties to provide longer service life in high decay environments, non-wood ties made of concrete or plastic, and energy conversion methods for used ties such as gasification and torrefaction. Passage of the EPA Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule in 2011, including updates in 2013, 2016, and 2018, is reducing the potential for recycling used ties as fuel. However, the EPA is also promoting use of biological materials, such as wood, to produce energy without increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing human caused climate change. Purchase and tie management trends are indicated by the survey results. Approximately 95% of all ties purchased are preservative-treated wood. Due to demonstrated longer service life in high decay zones for wood ties that are dual treated with borate and either creosote or copper naphthenate, the fraction of concrete and plastic tie purchases has decreased while the faction of dual treated wood tie purchases has increased. Recycling used ties for energy remains the most common practice, at 66% of ties, but has declined from 81% in 2013. Reuse of ties for other treated wood uses, such as landscape and agricultural type purposes, remains common at approximately 18%. Landfill disposal remains uncommon, but seems to be increasing at 6% of removed ties. The shift away from recycling for energy is thought to result from the both impact of the EPA NHSM rule and the low cost of natural gas. The smaller market tie users, mainly the short line railroads in contrast to the Class 1 railroads, manage far fewer ties per company, but purchase and manage approximately 31% of all ties. The short lines recycle to landscape and agricultural uses at about half the rate of the Class 1s and dispose in landfills at a much higher rate of 76% versus 1.2% for the Class 1s. This difference is thought to result from the economics and availability of local versus distant management options.
文摘This paper discusses the U.S. Environmental Agency’s potential improper expansion of its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal pesticide statute, to regulate not only the registration, labeling, and use of wood preservatives, but also treated wood products. EPA’s oversight of wood preservatives under FIFRA is extensive. In recent years, despite EPA’s own Treated Articles Exemption, 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(a), EPA has moved toward utilizing wood preservative labeling in a way that could impose restrictions on the end use of treated wood. Wood preservative registrant and user groups should be concerned and vigilant about this trend toward regulation of treated wood. At the same time, they should continue to interact with EPA in a constructive manner, in part to ensure that EPA respects its own regulatory boundary between wood preservatives, such as creosote, and treated wood, such as creosote-treated railroad crossties, which are a key component of the nation’s transportation critical infrastructure.
