
Myths abound regarding one of today's most commonly used building products: Pressure treated lumber. Is it safe? Which type is best? What does one need to know when building with it?
Working for the nation's leading producer of pressure treated lumber for 25 years, I offer answers to questions and facts to counter misconceptions.
The process used to make the micronized copper formulation found in ProWood Micro CA was awarded Environmentally Preferred Product (EPP) status by Scientific Certification Services in December 2007. This was the first pressure treated lumber formulation to earn such status.
We are now pleased to announce that this same formulation has recently earned Green Approved Product Certification from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center. Now, ProWood Micro CA pressure treated lumber products are eligible to receive points toward a building being certified under both the National Green Building Standard and LEED. Go to the
ProWood Micro CA Web site to read complete details.


There are interesting new developments in the Osmose vs. Viance court battle. Viance, a maker of treated wood chemicals, has claimed publicly competitor Osmose’s wildly popular pressure treated lumber formulation MicroPro, which is used by Universal in its ProWood Micro brand, doesn’t work as advertised. Not sitting still for this, Osmose sued, and on March 24 a judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), forcing Viance to cease its attacks.
On September 29th, Osmose was granted a motion for preliminary injunction reaffirming that Viance must stop its negative marketing campaign against the MicroPro technology and micronized copper wood preservatives. Viance tried hard to get the judge to lift the TRO and was denied with this ruling. By continuing the restraining order the judge has affirmed the court’s position that Viance must discontinue their attacks on MicroPro.
Both Osmose and Viance have sought injunctions against one other. They are almost mirrors of each another, both accusing the other of misleading statements and false advertising. The judge said “yes” to Osmose and “no” to Viance. Emphatically so, if you read the court order, available here: http://www.treatedwoodtruth.com/pdf/09-29-09-USDC-188-Order-on-Preliminary-Injunction-Osmose-vs-Viance.pdf
Of significance is the fact that Viance does not have any details of this latest ruling, with the exception of their own press release, on their Web site. The fact that the latest court order cannot be found there raises the question, "Why not?"
Various industry publications are lining up with Osmose on this issue. Their comments can be found here:
http://www.prosalesmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?referer=rss427§ionID=427&articleID=1087411
And here:
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=tedsremodelingblog&postId=89675
Documents related to this case can be found on the treatedwoodtruth.com site, here: http://www.treatedwoodtruth.com/index.php
As the nation’s leading pressure treated lumber producer, we’re often contacted by fledgling companies seeking to gain a market foothold with a new wood preservative product or technology. Our staff of chemical engineers and wood technologists evaluates each new product opportunity with close scrutiny given to the efficacy, safety and value inherent in the new process or technology.
We manufacture for our customers only those products that pass our own very rigorous testing methods. Those products include the ProWood family of pressure treated lumber brands. Some products that don’t meet our high manufacturing and selling standards – whether for reasons of effectiveness, value or warranty concerns – end up in the general marketplace, regardless of our judgment.
Occasionally we receive an inquiry from one of our customers to quote a job that requires a product we have previously tested and don’t necessarily recommend. As a loyal supplier to that customer we will supply the job, while specifically disclaiming any liability in the event of the failure of that product to perform.
A recent example of this is our single-order agreement to sell a product called BluWood to one of our customers. BluWood is not a product we would recommend for its intended use but the specification in the building plan called for it. UFP will ship lumber to a BluWood facility for treatment and from there it will be shipped to UFP’s customer. Without our prior knowledge, EcoBlue, the company that makes BluWood, put out a press release announcing the order for this one job, while intimating an ongoing and growing relationship between our companies. This is not the case and we have asked EcoBlue to retract those statements that would lead the reader to infer that the two companies enjoy an ongoing partnership. We sold the product to our customer because it was specified and not because we advocated its use. Finally, there is no distribution agreement between EcoBlue and UFP, nor are there plans to create one.
Your mid-summer outdoor pursuits may find you wandering pressure treated docks, boardwalks and nature path bridges. The posts supporting these structures are often sunk in water. Speculation regarding exposing aquatic wildlife to the chemicals used to treat the wood has led in some cases to concerns about the use of pressure treated wood in these applications.
In a recently published article, Dr. Kenneth Brooks, of Aquatic Environmental Sciences, presented his conclusions regarding this concern after studying the environmental response to pressure treated lumber over the last 17 years. As Dr. Brooks states in the article, “In 14 of 15 risk assessments, no significant adverse affects to the environment were documented. In fact, invertebrate communities were more diverse and abundant near these (pressure treated lumber) structures than at nearby reference locations.”
The newest, most technologically advanced pressure treatment formula—such as that used in ProWood Micro CA—is micronized copper azole. According to testing performed by Scientific Certification Systems, this new formulation has achieved a 90-99% reduction in copper release in aquatic and terrestrial environments. In addition, the copper in ProWood Micro CA bonds readily to organic matter in the soil. The copper becomes biologically inactive, thus causing no ecological impacts. 
Continuous improvement through better technology is helping pressure treated lumber become an even more sustainable product, with no decline in performance.
With the recession in full swing home gardening is making a comeback. Vegetable lovers with diminished means are finding that a little more green in the pocket is worth a bit of toil in the soil. A good choice for many backyard growers is a raised garden bed. The perfect building material for raised beds is pressure treated lumber. It’s economical, easy to work and safe to use in gardening applications. The new micronized copper formulations, including ProWood Micro CA, use a treatment process that has earned Environmentally Preferred Product status from Scientific Certification Systems. This new formulation also has a lighter, fresher appearance compared to other formulations and is less corrosive to fasteners.

According to Becky Wern, Master Gardener with the Duvall County
Agricultural Extension Service and the University of Florida, today's pressure treated lumber "is safe to use around children and animals and for gardens with edibles."
Don’t burn or compost pressure treated wood. Once you’re finished building the bed, your pressure treated wood scraps and sawdust can be land-filled along with ordinary household trash.
While awaiting my flight in the gate area at LaGuardia the other night I noticed a young woman across from me. She was lugging a huge "Louis Vitton" roller bag and a matching purse. Prolly $6-8,000 in designer swag in her possession. The fact that she was flying coach, and that on any given day you can spot your average coed strutting around in head-to-toe "Burberry", tells me her accoutrements were fake.
Knockoffs are invading the appeals of some marketers as well. With the proliferation of "eco-labels" (there are over 300 "green" labels and counting, according to the Web site ecolabelling.org) the bar is being lowered on what exactly it means to be green. As put recently in popularmechanics.com, "It's easy to take a cynical attitude toward this profusion of promises. As 'green' has gone mainstream, it's become tough to tell the true contenders from the imposters who slap on seductive stickers."
A recent case in point: Faced with a competitor's use of a recognized third party sustainability label in its marketing materials, one maker of an outdoor building product responded by simply making up its own "green" label. Not letting a stringent life cycle analysis by an independent testing agency get in their way, they just popped into their ad and brochure a slick logo, with a bit of copy containing their spurious green promise. They do it because they feel they can; most observers won't know the difference. (I'm thinking the designer of that fake green logo did so while wearing his street corner Rolex.)
But they, like others, are contributing to all the green noise out there, causing consumers and retailers alike to wonder what's a legitimate green claim and what's not. If you've ever scratched your head about what's green and what's greenwash, there is a reliable source to which you can turn. The Wall Street Journal recently offered a list of green label programs recognized as good benchmarks by experts:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862823846680371.html Also, do your own research. Google the label on the box or in the ad and make your own judgement as to its authenticity. Hopefully, some day there will be a universal green standard and the deceitful pitchmen will have to think of other ways to compensate for a weak value proposition.
Remember when the word "awesome" was meant to describe something that, well, inspired awe? Today it has devolved into an everyday expression often meaning not much more than "OK". Mom: "Want mac & cheese for lunch?" Kid: "That'd be awesome."
The more a word is used the less power it coveys. This applies to business jargon especially. Speakers who use "outside the box", "paradigm shift" and "disintermediate" can be sure they will not be confused with communicators of fresh ideas.
Which brings us to today's hottest, most overused, business buzzword: "Green". When used to describe a product or service that is sustainable, or in some way possesses a lower carbon footprint than a competing version, a green label helps a consumer make an informed, conscientious buying decision.
Sort of.
With over 300 "eco-labels" and certification programs available to manufacturers today, Kermit the Frog could now be singing, "It's Easy Being Green." Retailers and consumers are growing agitated with the recent proliferation of green labeling, lamenting the confusion it is causing among buyers and sellers alike. In future posts I will offer examples of what to look for when assessing products that call themselves green, and how to use "life cycle analysis" to measure a product's true sustainability.
How simple it would be if there was only one true green label for every product. Buying decisions would be easy and we'd all feel confident about our purchases. I think that would be awesome.
Composite decking is getting a lot of publicity lately, but it still makes up less than 25% of decking sold. For those traditionalists, for whom wood is the only proper decking choice, there are many types and species from which they can choose. Let's look at the pros and cons of each:
Cedar and redwood
Pros:
Made from a renewable resource, they are light weight, easy to work, naturally resistant to rot, decay and insects and have a tight-grained, naturally attractive appearance.
Cons:
Due to the tannic acids in cedar, stainless steel fasteners are recommended. Both should be stained or sealed at least every two years if you don't want the surface to go gray. They can be difficult to find in some parts of the country and cost considerably more than pressure treated. Depending on the sapwood/heartwood ratio the decking may need replacement in as little as 10 years.
More info:
http://www.wrcla.org/ ;
http://www.calredwood.org/
Tropical hardwoods (Ipe, Mahogany, others)
Pros:
Ipe is a clear winner, aesthetically. Very tight grain and few, any knots. Extremely durable.
Cons:
Very hard to work; predrilling required to fasten. 4-6X or more the cost of pressure treated lumber. The many varieties of mahogany require very careful shopping, as the attributes and drawbacks vary widely depending on the exact species.
More info:
http://www.aljoma.com/products/hardwoods/index.htm
Pressure treated lumber
Pros:
At less than half the cost of cedar or redwood, and a fraction of the cost of tropical hardwoods, it's far and away the economical choice. With the newest micronized copper treatments, such as ProWood Micro CA, a lifetime limited warranty comes with a bonus of a lighter, fresher appearance and a compatibility with fasteners that rivals untreated wood. Available in various color tints. Widely obtainable.
Cons: Although it will be perfectly serviceable for decades you may not like how it looks after a few years if you don't seal it at least every other year.
More info:
http://www.ufpi.com/product/pwmicro/index.htm
When you think of sustainable building products what sort of products come to mind? Solar panels? Super-efficient insulation? Naturally. But when you consider the total life cycle analysis - the true measure of a product's greenness - you find wood measures up better than just about anything. An especially sustainable product choice for an exterior project is pressure treated lumber.
Treated lumber makes a positive environmental impact in many ways:
Less energy consumption - Using treated lumber products, instead of materials like plastic and steel, aids in the fight against global warming. When you compare the total energy costs of different kinds of building materials - including the costs to acquire the raw material, transport it, process it into useful product and then actually use it - wood far outshines its competition.
Save trees - Yes, You read that right. Because it can stay in service for decades, using pressure treated lumber extends the wood resource. In North America, the use of pressure treated wood saves millions of trees from harvest each year. Plus, the process of making steel and plastic involves extraction of non-renewable resources, while trees are renewable, sustainable and abundant.
Recyclable - Once taken out of service, pressure treaded wood can be reused as landscaping, garden edging, steps or many other popular projects.
What about the state of today's forests? Today the U.S. has 750 million acres of forestland. Forest inventory, the number of trees still standing after mortality and harvesting, increased by 49% between 1953 and 2006.
Every day more than 1.7 million trees are planted in the U.S. – 4 trees per person per year. There are 12 million more acres of forest in the U.S. today than there were 20 years ago.

Pressure treated lumber products are produced from plentiful, fast-growing trees from managed forests, not old-growth or rain forests. The process used to treat one brand, ProWood Micro CA, is the first to gain Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP) status as certified by Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). SCS is a third-party certification services and standards development company. EPA guidelines require that such products have reduced impacts on human health and the environment when compared to other products that serve the same purpose.
Advancements in technology are causing pressure treated lumber to be less green in hue and more green in application.
There has been more discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of various types of pressure treated lumber over the last year than the last 50. Most of the debate has centered around Micronized Copper Quaternary, or MCQ. Introduced in 2006, the MCQ formulation now makes

up the majority of the pressure treated wood sold in the US. Unlike ACQ, a competing formula, it does not color the wood green, is much less corrosive to fasteners and can be used in direct contact with aluminum. For those reasons, and because it costs about the same as other common formulations, MCQ has become the preferred wood preservative among contractors and do-it-yourself'ers alike. Plus, 6 years of field testing, building code acceptance (ICC - ES), affirmative scientific performance reviews (Forest Products Journal, Nov 2008) and a lifetime limited warranty combine to provide peace of mind to its users.
Viance LLC, the only major treated wood chemical producer that does not have the MCQ technology, has gone to great lengths over the past year to discredit MCQ. Osmose, Inc, the largest producer of MCQ, recently sued Viance in US District Court and won a temporary restraining order, preventing Viance from continuing their "...baseless media campaign, which has negatively impacted the credibility of the entire treated wood industry.", according to Paul Goydan, president of Osmose. For the full text go here:
http://www.treatedwoodtruth.com/The debate will continue, and in this space I will provide updates as they occur and further illumination on the issues.