Softwood Plywood Manufacturing Us

CORRIM: Phase I Final Report
Module D
SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING
June 1, 2004
Prepared by:
James B. Wilson
Eric T. Sakimoto 1
1
Wilson is the Principal Investigator and Professor, and Sakimoto is a Graduate Research Assistant, Department of
Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-5751. Contributions were
also made by Eric Dancer, Graduate Research Assistant, and Maureen Puettmann, Research Associate; both of
Oregon State University.
i
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study is to develop a life cycle inventory (LCI) for the production of softwood plywood as
manufactured in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington) and the Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas). Softwood plywood is considered a structural panel product, and is
used for roof, wall and floor sheathing and sub-flooring in residential and commercial construction. Wood species
used for veneers to make plywood in the Pacific Northwest include Douglas fir, western hemlock, and some spruce
and western larch, whereas wood species used to make plywood in the Southeast include loblolly and slash pine
(referred to as Southern Pine). Plywood plants were surveyed in these two regions to obtain a record of all inputs
and outputs associated with the production process. Input data collected included material transportation distances
and the use of wood, bark, electricity, fuel and resin. Output data quantified plywood product, co-products of chips,
trimmings, clippings, bark, and sawdust, as well as emissions to land, water and air. The analysis is a gate-to-gate
LCI for the production of softwood plywood, with transportation data provided for delivery of logs, bark, veneer,
and resin resources. The LCI data was provided to the US LCI Database project for inclusion in their database, and
was used by ATHENATM and CORRIM to develop resource-to-residential construction LCIs (cradle-to-gate) for
this report. A critical outside review was conducted of the process and data analysis to ensure compliance with
CORRIM and ISO 14040 protocol.
In addition to the LCI assessment, this study also involved a sensitivity analysis of the type of fuel used for heat
generation. This assessment examined tradeoffs between use of wood/bark hogged fuel and natural gas. A carbon
balance of wood material inputs and outputs was performed to track carbon through the process. Carbon storage is
important since it makes it unavailable for formation of carbon dioxide (CO2), the major atmospheric greenhouse
gas. A cost analysis of plywood production, completed as a part of this study effort, is also reported herein.
Five plywood manufacturing plants in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and five plants in the Southeast (SE) were
surveyed. The surveyed plants produced 1.23 billion square feet (MMMSF) 3/8-inch basis in the PNW and 1.38
billion square feet (MMMSF) 3/8-inch basis in the Southeast in 2000, representing 27% and 14% of total production
in the PNW and SE, respectively.
A unit process approach was taken in modeling the LCI of manufacturing plywood. The plywood process was
defined in terms of six unit processesbucking and debarking, block conditioning, peeling and clipping, drying,
lay-up and pressing, and trimming and sawing. The rationale for this approach is that this type of model would be
useful in analyzing ways to improve process efficiency, optimize operations, and finding means to reduce
environmental impacts. These things cannot be achieved using a simple “black-box” approach. With the recent
attention given to conservation of raw materials, awareness of price volatility and increases in the cost of electricity
and fuel, and the substantial cost of emissions mitigation, it has become imperative to address these concerns. The
LCI data presented would be useful as a benchmark to assess environmental performance and economic feasibility
of process improvements.
i
As expected, the major use of electricity and heat (generated with fuel) were the drying and pressing sub-unit
processes and to a lesser extent the conditioning process. The same was true of emissions. All inputs and outputs
were determined per thousand square feet (MSF) 3/8-inch basis of plywood. The PNW used 1.40E+06 Btu of heat
in processing, of which 90% was from wood and bark hogged fuel with the other 10% from natural gas. Similarly
the SE used 1.84E+06 Btu of heat—89% from hogged fuel and 11% from natural gas. The greater use of heat in the
Southeast is due to the need to remove a greater amount of moisture from the veneer. The ability of the plywood
industry to generate a major portion of its heat needs from the combustion of hogged fuel instead of natural gas
provides a significant benefit. If a plant producing about 290,000 MSF 3/8-inch annually replaced the hogged fuel
with an equivalent quantity of natural gas, at $0.26 per therm (100,000 Btu), a PNW plant would have an additional
natural gas bill of $137,309, and the SE plant would have an additional $183,363 bill. The electricity use per MSF
3/8-inch basis of plywood is 138.9 kWh for the PNW and 122.0 kWh for the SE. As such, the electricity bills for
the same annual production of 290,000 MSF 3/8-inch basis would be substantial; at $0.0425 and $0.047 per kWh,
respectively, the annual bills would be about $1.7 million and $1.6 million respectively. With the projected cost
increases of both natural gas and electricity, means to become more energy efficient will receive more attention.
The PNW and the SE had wood recoveries of 51% and 50% respectively as determined by the output of wood in the
form of plywood as a percentage by weight of the wood input to the manufacturing facilities in the form of logs. For
the PNW 65.6 ft.3 (1,788 lb oven-dry) of wood in log form plus 20.6 lbs of purchased veneer were required to
produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch basis of plywood, while for the SE 66.0 ft.3 (2080 lb oven-dry) of wood in log form and
18.5 lb of purchased veneer were required. The quantity of bark generated during the debarking process based on
the dry weight of bark to dry weight of wood was 5.5% (99 lb) and 6.0% (124 lb) for the PNW and SE, respectively.
Emissions and emissions mitigation are becoming increasingly important in terms of plant operations and
manufacturing costs. Emissions are presented for two cases: 1) total emissions for the entire plywood
manufacturing process, including those associated with the production and delivery of fuels, electricity, and resin;
and 2) site emissions, those associated with the plywood manufacturing process only. Burdens, or allocations of
emissions, were assigned to products and co-products on a mass basis. Emissions reported for plywood had a
burden on a mass-based allocation of 51.1% and 49.6% for the PNW and SE, respectively. Approximately half the
emissions were assigned to the plywood and the other half to the co-products of peeler core, chips, clippings,
trimmings, veneer (green and dry), bark, and sawdust based on their weight percentage. Bark and wood waste used
for hogged fuel within the plant were not allocated any emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas of
international interest, is generated by combustion of fuels. Since a major portion of the heat generation for the
production of plywood was based upon hogged fuel; this type of fuel contributed 97% of the total CO2 emissions
from the plant. However, this impact is negated or greatly lessened by the growing of trees that remove CO2 from
the atmosphere. CO2 values were obtained from EPA reports.
The quality of the data is considered very good. Based on the amount of data for the five plants from each region, a
comparison of values between plants established the validity of the data. Additional data analysis (i.e., mass and
energy balances), as well as regional comparisons, further supported the integrity of our findings. The unit process
approach for modeling the LCI of plywood should prove useful for modeling other similar processes such as
laminated veneer lumber (LVL) production, which uses green and dry veneer to produce product. The model would
also be valuable as a tool to optimize operations, and the LCI data could be used as a benchmark to assess
improvements.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... i
1.0 PACIFIC NORTHWEST SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD ...............................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Unit Process Approach........................................................................................................2
1.1.2 Materials Flow 4
1.1.3 Transportation ................................................................................................................5
1.1.4 Wood Density ................................................................................................................5
1.1.5 Assumptions ................................................................................................................6
1.2 PRODUCT YIELDS .........................................................................................................................7
1.3 MANUFACTURING ENERGY SUMMARY ...............................................................................10
1.3.1 Sources of Energy .............................................................................................................10
1.3.2 Electricity Use Summary ..................................................................................................10
1.4 FUEL UTILIZATION AS A HEAT SOURCE ..............................................................................11
1.5 DRYING EMISSIONS FOR PNW PLYWOOD PRODUCTION .................................................13
1.6 PRESSING EMISSIONS FOR PNW PLYWOOD PRODUCTION ..............................................14
1.7 ADHESIVE USE AND ENERGY/ELECTRICITY TO PRODUCE .............................................15
1.8 PROCESS RELATED EMISSIONS ..............................................................................................16
1.9 LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY RESULTS FOR PLYWOOD PRODUCTION FROM THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ................................................................................................................17
1.10 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................25
1.10.1 Sensitivity analysis of plywood manufacturing in the PNW.............................................25
1.10.2 Sensitivity analysis results ................................................................................................25
1.11 CARBON BALANCE FOR PNW PLYWOOD .............................................................................27
1.11.1 Procedure ..............................................................................................................27
1.11.2 Results ..............................................................................................................28
1.12 COST ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................30
1.12.1 Production and Employees................................................................................................30
1.12.2 Variable Costs ..............................................................................................................31
1.12.3 Fixed Costs ..............................................................................................................32
1.12.4 Energy and Co-products Sold ...........................................................................................32
2.0 SOUTHEAST SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD ................................................................................................34
2.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................34
iii
2.1.1 Unit Process Approach......................................................................................................35
2.1.2 Material Flows 38
2.1.3 Transportation ..............................................................................................................38
2.1.4 Wood Density ..............................................................................................................38
2.1.5 Assumptions ..............................................................................................................39
2.2 PRODUCT YIELDS .......................................................................................................................40
2.3 MANUFACTURING ENERGY SUMMARY ...............................................................................42
2.3.1 Sources of Energy .............................................................................................................42
2.3.2 Electricity Use Summary ..................................................................................................43
2.4 HOGGED FUEL UTILIZATION...................................................................................................44
2.5 DRYING EMISSIONS FOR SOUTHEAST PLYWOOD PRODUCTION ...................................47
2.6 PRESSING EMISSIONS SOUTHEAST PLYWOOD PRODUCTION ........................................47
2.7 ADHESIVE USE AND ENERGY/ELECTRICITY TO PRODUCE .............................................48
2.8 PROCESS RELATED EMISSIONS ..............................................................................................50
SOUTHEAST REGION..................................................................................................................51
2.10 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................58
2.10.1 Sensitivity analysis of plywood manufacturing in the SE region of the United States .....58
2.10.2 Sensitivity analysis results ................................................................................................58
2.11 CARBON BALANCE FOR PLYWOOD IN THE SOUTHEAST.................................................60
2.11.1 Procedure ..............................................................................................................60
2.11.2 Results ..............................................................................................................61
2.12 COST ANALYSIS OF SOUTHEAST PLYWOOD.......................................................................63
2.12.1 Production and Employees ...................................................................................................63
2.12.2 Variable Cost........................................................................................................................64
2.12.3 Fixed Cost ..............................................................................................................65
2.12.4 Energy and Co-products Sold ...........................................................................................66
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................67
APPENDIX 1: SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD MILL SURVEY ................................................................70
APPENDIX 2: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES...........................................................................................81
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Unit process approach to the modeling of the plywood manufacturing process. ............... 2
Figure 1.2. System Boundary and Unit Processes Used to Model the Plywood
Manufacturing Process: a) for Site Generated Emissions Only, and b) for Site
and Off-site Emissions. ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.3. Annual Production vs. Number of Employees. ................................................................ 31
Figure 2.1. Unit Process approach to the modeling of the plywood manufacturing process. ............. 35
Figure 2.2. System boundary and sub-unit processes used to model the plywood
manufacturing process...................................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.3. Annual Production vs. Number of Employees. ................................................................ 64
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Listing of Input Materials, Products, and Co-products for Producing Plywood................ 5
Table 1.2. Pacific Northwest Delivery Distance (one-way) for Plywood Production. ....................... 5
Table 1.3. Average Density of Wood Species Used to Calculate Mass of Wood from Logs............. 6
Table 1.4. Inputs to Produce 1.0 MSF (3/8-in) and 1.0 m3 Plywood in the Pacific
Northwest.1/ ........................................................................................................................ 8
Table 1.5. Wood Mass Balance for Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest Region
per 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis.................................................................................................... 9
Table 1.6. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Primary Energy Sources
and State for the Pacific Northwest Region as Defined by the US Department of
Energy. ............................................................................................................................. 10
Table 1.7. Electricity Distribution by Unit Process for Plywood Production in the Pacific
Northwest. ........................................................................................................................ 11
Table 1.8. Pacific Northwest Weighted Data Conversion of Boiler Inputs, Direct-Fired
Inputs and Purchased Fuel into Heat Energy for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of
Plywood............................................................................................................................ 11
Table 1.9. Boiler Energy Requirements for Conditioning, Drying, and Pressing Sub-unit
Processes Used in Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest. 1/ ................................ 12
Table 1.10. Survey Data on Air Emissions for Boilers as Output from SimaPro 5 (using the
FAL1 boiler data) Compared to Survey Data. .................................................................. 13
Table 1.11. Emissions for Drying Veneer in the Pacific Northwest as Reported in Surveys............. 14
Table 1.12. Emissions for Hot Pressing Plywood in the Pacific Northwest........................................ 14
Table 1.13. Production Requirements1 for the 15.88 lb of Phenol-formaldehyde Resin
Needed to Manufacture 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the PNW. ............................. 15
Table 1.14. Air Emissions1 for the Production of the 15.88 lb of Phenol-formaldehyde (PF)
Resin Needed to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Plywood. ........................................................ 15
Table 1.15. Process Emissions for Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest Region. ................ 17
Table 1.16. Life-cycle Inventory Inputs for Producing 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood in
the Pacific Northwest. ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 1.17. Life-cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood Production in
the Pacific Northwest Region........................................................................................... 19
Table 1.18. Life-cycle Inventory Results for Production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in
the Pacific Northwest. ...................................................................................................... 23
Table 1.19. Summary of Life-Cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood
Production in the Pacific Northwest Region—a Comparison of Total to Site-
Generated Emissions. ....................................................................................................... 24
Table 1.20. Sensitivity Analysis Summary for the PNW. Fuel Use Comparison for Steam
vi
Production using Natural Gas, Hogged Fuel and “As Is” (original fuel
distribution). ..................................................................................................................... 26
Table 1.21. Percent of Carbon in Wood, Pacific Northwest ............................................................... 28
Table 1.22. Carbon Balance, PNW ..................................................................................................... 29
Table 1.23. Variable Costs to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.......................................... 32
Table 1.24. Fixed Cost to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood. ............................................... 32
Table 1.25. Sold Energy and Co-products Resulting from the Production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-in
Basis of Plywood.............................................................................................................. 33
Table 2.1. Listing of Input materials, Products, and Co-products for Producing SE
Plywood............................................................................................................................ 38
Table 2.2. Southeast Delivery Distance (One-Way) For Plywood Production. ............................... 38
Table 2.3. Average Density of Wood Species Used To Calculate the Mass of Wood From
Logs.................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 2.4. Inputs to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood in the Southeast. ............................ 41
Table 2.5. Wood Mass Balance for Plywood Production in the Southeast Region per 1.0
MSF 3/8-in Basis. Oven-dry Weights. ............................................................................. 42
Table 2.6. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Primary Energy Sources
and State for the Southeast Region as Defined by the US Department of Energy. .......... 43
Table 2.7. Electricity Allocation by Unit Process for Plywood Production in the Southeast........... 43
Table 2.8. Southeast Weighted Data Conversion of Boiler Inputs into Heat Energy for 1.0
MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood. ......................................................................................... 44
Table 2.9. Boiler Energy Requirements for Conditioning, Drying, and Pressing Unit
Processes Used in the Production of Plywood in the Southeast Region........................... 45
Table 2.10. Survey Data on Air Emissions for Boilers as Output from SimaPro 5 (Using the
FAL1 Boiler Data) Compared to Survey Data.................................................................. 46
Table 2.11. Emissions for Drying Veneer in the Southeast as Reported in Surveys. .......................... 47
Table 2.12. Emissions for Hot Pressing Plywood in the Southeast..................................................... 48
Table 2.13. Production Requirements1 for the 19.68 lb of Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin
Needed to Manufacture 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the Southeast Region. .......... 48
Table 2.14. Air Emissions for the Production of the 19.68 lb of Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin
Needed to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the Southeast Region................... 49
Table 2.15. Process Emissions for Plywood Production in the Southeast Region. ............................. 50
Table 2.16. Life-Cycle Inventory Results for Producing 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood in
the Southeast Region. ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 2.17. Life-Cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch Basis Plywood Production in
the Southeast Region. ....................................................................................................... 53
Table 2.18. Life-Cycle Inventory Results for Production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch Basis Plywood
vii
in the Southeast Region.................................................................................................... 55
Table 2.19. Life-cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood Production
from the Southeast region................................................................................................. 57
Table 2.20. Sensitivity Analysis for the SE. Fuel Use Comparison for Steam Production,
Analyzing Natural gas, Hogged Fuel and “As Is” (Original Fuel Distribution)............... 59
Table 2.21. Percentage of carbon in wood, Southeast......................................................................... 61
Table 2.22. Carbon Balance, Southeast............................................................................................... 62
Table 2.23. Variable Cost to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood. .......................................... 65
Table 2.24. Fixed Cost to Produce a MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood on an Annual Basis and
on a MSF 3/8-in Basis. ..................................................................................................... 65
Table 2.25. Energy and Co-products Sold in the Production of MSF 3/8-in Basis of
Plywood............................................................................................................................ 66
viii
1.0 PACIFIC NORTHWEST SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Softwood plywood has had a long tradition as a structural building material for both commercial and residential
construction. Plywood is used as roof, wall and floor sheathing, and for sub-flooring in home construction.
Although plywood comes in a variety of grades and thickness, its production is based on a one thousand square feet
(MSF) of 3/8-inch basis equivalence—industry refers to this as M 3/8. In SI units, it is on a one thousand square
meters (MSM) of 9-mm basis. Plywood is made from various species in the Pacific Northwest region; Douglas-fir
and western hemlock dominate, with other species such as spruce and western larch also used. This report focuses
on production practices in Oregon and Washington. The size of production facilities in the region range from
50,000 to 450,000 MSF 3/8-inch basis annually. This study collected data from representative plants that would be
considered in the upper portion of this range. The total annual softwood plywood production for the region was
4,686,000 MSF 3/8-inch in 2000 (APA 2001), representing 27% of all US plywood production (17,475,000 MSF
3/8-inch basis) and 13% of all structural panel production (29,381,000 MSF 3/8-inch basis) (APA 2001). The
region produces enough panels, if it were all sheathing, to build 754,000 homes annually (NAHB 2001  6.212
MSF 3/8 sheathing per home). Panels are normally produced in 4-x 8-foot sheets.
To conduct the survey of plywood manufacturers, five plants were identified based on their production capability
and representativeness of the industry. All five plants provided data for 2000 in terms of plywood and co-products
production, raw materials, electricity and fuel use, and emissions. The five plywood producers surveyed represent
26% of the region’s production. Total annual production from producers surveyed was 1,233,424 MSF 3/8-inch
basis.
This report documents the life cycle inventory (LCI) of manufacturing structural plywood based on resources from
the Pacific Northwest softwood region. The output of this report, a gate-to-gate analysis plus transportation data for
delivery of materials, will be used to conduct a cradle-to-residential building life cycle analysis (LCA) of structural
building materials by CORRIM. This report considers those impacts associated solely with the manufacture of
softwood plywood, documenting all inputs and outputs and their impact. Primary data was collected through a
survey of plywood manufacturers, while secondary data was obtained for impacts associated with the manufacture
and delivery of electricity and all fuels (Franklin Associates 2001; Pre´ Consultants 2001; USDOE 2000), CO2 and
press emissions (EPA 2001), and the production of phenol-formaldehyde resin (ATHENATM 1993). For a cradle-to-
gate analysis this data would need to be combined with the impacts for the resource module that generated logs and
bark, and the transportation impacts for delivery of logs, bark, veneer, and resin to the plywood plants.
The scope of this report encompasses production of softwood plywood in the Pacific Northwest region (Oregon and
Washington) including raw material transport (mileage data provided) to the production facility (commonly referred
to as a gate-to-gate analysis). This report is confined to transportation of logs and resin materials to the
manufacturing site, and production of phenol-formaldehyde resin, electricity, natural gas, plywood and its co-
products. A critical review of this LCI process and analysis was conducted to ensure compliance with CORRIM
and ISO 14040 protocol.
1
1.1.1 Unit Process Approach
The plywood process was broken down into six unit processes rather than examining the process as a “black box.”
The rationale for taking this approach is that a unit type of model would be most useful in analyzing ways to
improve process efficiency, optimize operations, and reduce environmental impacts. Furthermore, data in this
format could be used as a benchmark to document process improvements. In addition, this approach allows unit
processes developed for one process to be used for modeling other processes. For instance, the peeling and drying
unit processes could be used as input for green and dry veneer, respectively, into a laminated veneer lumber (LVL)
life cycle inventory analysis (LCI). The unit processes used to model softwood plywood production are shown in
Figure 1.1.
Input: Logs
Bucking & Debarking

Blocks
Block Conditioning
Inputs: Heat (i.e., boiler, Outputs: By-products—bark, chips,
direct fired), water, electricity, peeler core, clippings, green veneer,
purchased veneer, PF resin, downfall, trim and sawdust.
Peeling & Clipping
and ancillary materials
Emissions to air, land and water
Veneer Drying (VOC, HAP, Ash, etc.)
Hot Pressing
Unit process
Trimming & Sawing
Plywood process
Output: Plywood
Figure 1.1. Unit process approach to the modeling of the plywood manufacturing process.
Description of unit processes:
1. Debarking: includes debarking and bucking logs—cutting to length—to make blocks for peeling; possible
co-products include bark and some wood waste,
2. Conditioning: heating the blocks with either hot water or steam to condition—increase temperature and
moisture content—the blocks for peeling,
3. Peeling and Clipping: blocks are peeled in the lathe to make veneer, clipped to size, and sorted by moisture
content (which is a function of the percentage of sapwood and heartwood in the sheet) in preparation for
drying; co-products include round-up wood, peeler cores, veneer clippings and trim,
2
4. Veneer Drying: veneers are dried in “continuous dryers” to 3-5% moisture content. Various heat sources
are used for the drying. This process center includes redrying, a practice where 10-20% of the veneer
processed through the dryer is still too wet, so it is redried or set aside for conditioning. Co-products
include veneer downfall and other wood waste,
5. Lay-up and Pressing: veneers are coated with phenol-formaldehyde resin and composed into panels for hot
pressing; heat and pressure are used to cure the resin, thereby bonding the veneers to make plywood,
6. Trimming and Sawing: plywood panels coming out of the press are sawn to appropriate dimensions. Co-
products include plywood trim and sawdust.
Bark and some wood waste are used as fuel to fire boilers and fuel cells that supply heat to various unit processes—
conditioning, drying and hot pressing—in the manufacturing process. As such, the bark and other wood waste
when used as “hogged fuel” to generate heat are considered within the system boundary for the LCI analysis.
Excluded from the study were the production of catalyst, fillers, and extenders used in resins, and the growth and
harvesting of the trees. The boiler, although not considered as a unit process, was analyzed as a separate operation
within the system boundary. Figure 1.2 provides an overview of the entire system boundary used to model the
plywood process, two conditions are examined: A) considering site generated emissions and B) considering site and
off-site emissions.
3
Figure 1.2. System Boundary and Unit Processes Used to Model the Plywood Manufacturing Process: a)
for Site Generated Emissions Only, and b) for Site and Off-site Emissions.
Notes: Co-product flows are not included in the sketch.
1.1.2 Materials Flow
Those materials considered in the LCI analysis included those listed in Table 1.1. Input materials considered were
logs (includes wood and bark), dry and green veneer, and phenol-formaldehyde resin. Outputs were plywood and
co-products consisting of peeler core, chips, clippings, trimmings, veneer (green and dry), bark, wood waste, and
sawdust. All flow analyses of wood and bark in the process were determined on an oven-dry weight basis. Only for
energy calculations were bark and hogged fuel considered green (with moisture) at 50% moisture content wet-basis,
all other weights are at an oven dry condition. To derive the wood and bark weights and to determine how much
water was “dried” from the wood and bark, the following assumptions were made: bark was at 50% moisture
content (MC) on a wet-basis, the wood was at 60% MC for sapwood and 25% MC for heartwood—both on an oven-
dry basis, and dry veneer and wood waste were at 7% MC on an oven-dry basis.
4
Table 1.1. Listing of Input Materials, Products, and Co-products for Producing Plywood.
Input Materials Co-products Produced Products

Logs Bark Plywood
Green veneer Chips, green
Dry veneer Peeler cores
Phenol-formaldehyde resin Clippings, green
Veneer, dry
Veneer downfall, dry
Plywood trimmings, dry
Sawdust, dry
1.1.3 Transportation
Delivery of the input materials was by truck. The one-way delivery distances for logs, veneer, and resin are given in
Table 1.2. The impacts of delivering materials is not considered in this module, rather the data is used by CORRIM
and ATHENATM when conducting resource through residential construction LCAs presented in Module J.
Table 1.2. Pacific Northwest Delivery Distance (one-way) for Plywood Production.
Material Delivery Distance (miles)

Logs (roundwood) 60
Bark on logs 60
Purchased Veneer 75
Purchased hogged fuel 55
Resin 122
1.1.4 Wood Density
The weight of the input wood was determined by using the log volume data in Scribner scale and converting to
cubic feet (ft3) of wood using the appropriate conversion factor as given by Briggs (1994). A final conversion was
then made from ft3 to mass (lb) by multiplying by the average weighted densities as determined by their percentage
use as given by the survey, and the densities for these species as provided in the Wood Handbook (1999). The
average wood density used was 27.26 lb/ft3 oven-dry, wet volume for the mix of Douglas-fir, spruce, hemlock-fir,
and western larch as given by the survey (Table 1.3).
5
Table 1.3. Average Density of Wood Species Used to Calculate Mass of Wood from Logs.
Percentage
Wood Species Use in Survey Density1 Weighted Average Density
% lb/ft3 lb/ft3 kg/m3
Douglas fir2 67.6 28.08 18.98 304.20
Sitka spruce 11.6 23.09 2.68 42.92
Western Hemlock-Fir 16.8 26.21 4.40 70.56
Western larch 4.0 30.00 1.20 19.20
Total 100 27.26 436.88
Sources: 1 Wood density values are from Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (1999).
2
Coastal West
1.1.5 Assumptions
The data collection, analysis, and assumptions followed protocols as defined in “Consortium for Research on
Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM)--Research Guidelines for Life Cycle Inventories” dated April 18, 2001
and ISO 14040. Additional considerations include:
• A critical review was conducted of the process and data analysis to ensure compliance with CORRIM and
ISO 14040 protocol.
• Data quality was found to be high based upon comparisons between plants, and on mass and heat balances.
Data was also compared between regions and was found to be consistent when accounting for the higher
density and moisture content of wood species for the southeast region.
• LCI data for site generated emissions considered only those emissions at the manufacturing process, thus
giving a gate-to-gate LCI; to provide a cradle-to-gate LCI the reader would need to include the
environmental impact of the growing and harvesting of the trees for logs, the transportation of logs, resin,
purchased veneer and hogged fuel to the mill. LCI data for site and off-site emissions are also considered,
but exclude burdens for logs and transportation of logs, resin, and purchased veneer and hogged fuel to the
mill.
• All data from the mill survey taken in 2000 was weight averaged for the five plants based on the individual
production of each plant in comparison to the total production for the year.
• The purchase dry and wet veneers, come with the same allocated burdens, as if produced in the plant since
they use the same unit process models. The addition burden for transportation of the veneers is handled
separately using the delivery mileage data.
• A mass-allocation process was used for assigning burdens.
• Co-products were defined as any materials that were sold outside the system boundary.
• 100% of diesel fuel use was assigned to debarking and bucking to address fuel use by yard log loaders.
6
• 20% of liquid propane gas (LPG) was assigned to each of the five sub-unit processes from Conditioning
through Trimming and Sawing to account for fuel use by forklift trucks within the plant.Density values for
the wood species used to make the plywood were obtained from Wood Handbook—Wood as an
Engineering Material (1999), and based on their weighted percentage of use as reported by manufacturers;
the weighted average density was calculated to be 27.26 lb/ft3 oven-dry, wet volume.
• Log inputs were provided in thousand board feet (Mbf) in Scribner scale and converted to ft3.
• All conversion units for forestry and forest products type conversions were taken from Forest Products
Measurements and Conversion Factors, with special emphasis on the US Pacific Northwest (Briggs 1994).
• Unaccounted wood mass of 7.5% was established by the difference between reported input and output
wood material flows (see Table 1.5 for material balance analysis); since there was a similar weight
difference between hogged fuel and bark, much of the difference may have been the unaccounted for wood
that was hogged for fuel. The unaccounted wood was treated as a co-product for the mass-based allocation
of environmental burdens.
• SimaPro 5.0.9, a software package designed for analyzing the environmental impact of products during
their whole life cycle, was used to perform the life cycle analysis. Developed in the Netherlands by PRé
Consultants B.V., SimaPro5 contains a US database for a number of materials, including paper products,
fuels, and chemicals. Franklin Associates (FAL) provides an additional US database.
1.2 PRODUCT YIELDS
The input to produce a thousand square feet (MSF) 3/8-inch basis consists of 65.6 cubic foot (ft3) or 1,788 lb of
wood from logs (based on volume and wood densities given in Table 1.3) and 20.6 lb of purchased veneer. These
inputs yield 916 lb of oven-dry plywood (wood only) and 191.5 lb of oven-dry hogged fuel that is about half bark
(the survey had a second category for bark where plants reported 99 lb oven-dry bark which appears to have been
also included in the hogged fuel reported value). See Table 1.4 for a listing of all inputs and outputs.
7
Table 1.4. Inputs to Produce 1.0 MSF (3/8-in) and 1.0 m3 Plywood in the Pacific Northwest.1/
PNW Plywood – INPUTS

Materials2/ Units MSF SI Units m3
3/8-in Basis
Roundwood ft3 6.56E+01 m3 2.10E+00
lb 1.79E+03 kg 9.18E+02
Phenol-formaldehyde adhesive lb 1.59E+01 kg 8.15E+00
Extender and fillers lb 8.90E+00 kg 4.56E+00
Catalyst3/ lb 1.11E+00 kg 5.69E-01
Soda Ash3/ lb 3.30E-01 kg 1.69E-01
Bark4/ lb 9.90E+01 kg 5.07E+01
Purchased
Dry veneer lb 6.40E+00 kg 3.28E+00
Green veneer lb 1.42E+01 kg 7.28E+00
Electrical Use
Electricity kWh 1.39E+02 MJ 5.65E+02
Fuel Use
Hogged Fuel (produced) lb 1.92E+02 kg 9.84E+01
Hogged Fuel (purchased) lb 1.70E+01 kg 8.71E+00
Wood waste lb 5.00E-01 kg 2.56E-01
Liquid propane gas gal 3.59E-01 L 1.54E+00
Natural gas ft3 1.63E+02 m3 8.36E+01
Diesel gal 3.95E-01 L 1.69E+00
Water Use
Municipal water source gal 8.28E+01 L 3.54E+02
Well water source gal 2.94E+01 L 1.26E+02
Recycled water source gal 3.00E-01 L 1.28E+00
Notes: 1/ All information comes from primary survey data collected in 2000 for plant site only
2/ All materials are given as an oven-dry basis or solids weights
3/ These materials were not included in the SimaPro LCI analysis; excluded based on the 2% rule
4/ Oven-dry weight. Assumed to be 50% moisture content on wet-basis in survey data.
A complete wood mass balance is given in Table 1.5. Bark was not considered in the wood flow. The percentage
by weight of bark based on the weight of wood from the processed logs was most likely 10% if all the hogged fuel
generated within the plant was bark; however when only the reported bark weight was considered then the amount
of bark was 5.5%, and the remainder of the fuel would be from wood residues. From these values it appears that at
least half of the hogged fuel was bark.
The difference between the total wood input and output is 137 lb, which was labeled as the “unaccounted for wood.”
The unaccounted for wood amounted to 7.5% of the total wood input, which is reasonably close for a survey of this
type. The percentage of recovery of wood in terms of wood input as logs and output as plywood is 51%—defined as
the weight of wood in plywood expressed as a percentage of the total weight of input wood from the logs. This is a
very good efficiency for an industry that has had to use smaller and smaller diameter logs to produce veneer. The
smaller diameter logs make it more challenging to maintain a high recovery value. Most of the remaining 49% of
wood material went into co-products and, as defined, were sold outside the plant.
8
Some of the 137 lb of unaccounted wood may have been included in the reported hogged fuel value. The plants
reported that they produced 191.5 lb of hogged fuel; however, only 99 lb of this was specifically reported as bark
from the debarking unit process. The difference may be bark, but more likely it is wood waste that had been hogged
for fuel from various unit processes.
Table 1.5. Wood Mass Balance for Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest Region per 1.0 MSF 3/8-in
Basis.
Inputs lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3

Round wood (logs) 1,7881 917
Purchased dry veneer 6 3.1
Purchased green veneer 14 7.2
Total 1,809 927
Outputs lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3

Plywood (wood only) 9162 470
Wood chips 425 218
Peeler core 95 49
Green clippings 31 16
Veneer downfall 3.4 1.7
Panel trim 107 55
Sawdust 9.6 4.9
Wood waste to boiler 0.25 0.13
Sold wood waste 21 11
Sold dry veneer 63 32
Unaccounted for wood 1373 704
Total 1,809 927
1
Based on Douglas-fir, spruce, western hemlock and western larch weighted average wood density of 27.26 lb/ft3 for 65.6 ft. of
wood in logs to produce MSF 3/8-in basis.
2
Plywood (wood only) based on estimated weight of plywood, 991 lb, minus 80% of resin, filler, soda ash, and catalyst total use.
3
7.6% unaccounted for wood; a good portion of this was likely in the hogged fuel.
Note: All weights are at oven-dry or 100% solids.
9
1.3 MANUFACTURING ENERGY SUMMARY
1.3.1 Sources of Energy
Energy for the production of plywood comes from electricity, diesel, liquid propane gas (LPG), bark-hogged fuel,
and steam. With the volatile and increasing fuel and electricity prices, this topic will attract considerable attention in
the coming years as plants seek to maintain profitability by reducing costs. The electricity is used to operate the
debarker, bucker, lathe, pneumatic and mechanical conveying equipment, fans, hydraulic pumps, saws, and a radio-
frequency redryer (one plant only). Electricity was used in all processes. Diesel fuel use is attributed solely to log
loaders in the “Debarking” sub-unit process. As such, all of the diesel use was assigned to this process. Forklift
trucks used small amounts of LPG in one or more of the remaining five sub-unit processes. This fuel use was
assigned evenly over the five sub-unit processes from “Conditioning” to “Trimming and Sawing;” as such, 20% of
the LPG use was assigned to each of these operations.
1.3.2 Electricity Use Summary
The source of fuel used to generate the electricity used in the manufacturing process is very important in
determining the type and amount of impact in the LCA. The breakdown of electricity for the Pacific Northwest by
fuel source is given in Table 1.6. The source of this data is the US Department of Energy (DOE). In 2000 the
dominant form of electricity generation in the region was hydro, representing 74.3% of the total, followed by natural
gas at 12.3% and coal at 8.1%. In the SimaPro (LCA software) impact analysis, no impacts are associated with
hydro-generated electricity; however, combusting of coal can contribute significant impact values.
Table 1.6. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Primary Energy Sources and State for the
Pacific Northwest Region as Defined by the US Department of Energy.
Percentage Share, 20001

Fuel Source OR WA Average
Coal 7.4 8.8 8.1
Petroleum 0.1 0.4 0.25
Natural Gas 17.1 7.5 12.3
Nuclear 0.0 7.9 3.95
Hydro 74.3 74.3 74.3
Others 1.1 1.1 1.1
1
Source: Energy Information Administration/State Electric Profiles 2000, Department of Energy (2000).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/toc.html
The distribution of electricity use by unit process for the various plants was not obtained from the survey data.
Rather it was extracted from data provided by the Oregon State University Energy Extension Office and a
publication entitled Energy Use and Conservation in Oregon’s Lumber and Wood Products Industry (Grist and
Karmous 1988) of the Oregon Department of Energy. Table 1.7 provides a breakdown of electricity use by unit
process. The dominant electricity use is for drying (36.7%) to operate the high velocity fans used in longitudinal,
cross-flow and jet dryers (methods used to increase the heat and mass transfer rates during drying). Each of four
other unit processes—debarking/bucking, peeling/clipping, lay-up/pressing, and trimming/sawing—each use
approximately 15% of the total electricity. Conditioning used the least amount (7%).
10
Table 1.7. Electricity Distribution by Unit Process for Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest.
Unit Process kWh Allocation

MSF 3/8-in Basis %1
Debarking & bucking 17.2 12.4
Conditioning 9.6 6.9
Peeling & clipping 24.5 17.6
Drying 51.0 36.7
Lay-up & pressing 15.3 11.0
Trimming & sawing 21.4 15.4
Total 138.9 100.0
1
Source: Ferrari, C.J. 2000. Life Cycle Assessment: Environmental modeling of plywood and laminated veneer lumber
manufacturing. Table 24, Appendix D., page 111 – Distribution of electricity use by unit processes.
Notes: All values are given per 1.0 MSF 3/8-in basis of plywood.
1.4 FUEL UTILIZATION AS A HEAT SOURCE
All of the bark generated during debarking as well as other wood waste sources in the plants were combined with
some purchased hogged fuel (approximately 10% of the total hogged fuel) to use as hogged fuel in either a boiler or
a direct-fired fuel cell. Hogged fuel weight, following industry practice, was given as green weight and assumed to
be at 50% moisture content on a wet-weight basis. As such the total hogged fuel burned, 405 lb at 50% moisture
content on a wet basis, is 202.5 lb of oven-dry weight hogged fuel. The hogged fuel burned was determined by the
417 lb of total hogged fuel at 50% moisture content that were generated and purchased, minus the 12 lb of hogged
fuel sold. Since this plant is a composite of five plants, there are both purchased and sold hogged fuel for the
composite plant. Because of the small difference of the bark sold and purchased, and burden to produce the bark
was not considered. However, transportation of bark would be considered in any cradle-to-gate LCI or LCA. A
very small amount of “wood waste” was burned in the boiler. In addition to hogged fuel for heat generation, natural
gas was also used. Natural gas was direct fired in dryers and also used as a fuel source for heat in a boiler. Hogged
fuel consisting of bark and wood residuee was by far the dominant fuel source at 90% of the total energy. Natural
gas represented only 10% of energy use. In addition to all of these inputs, there is a fraction of the hogged fuel that
is sold outside of the mill. Hogged fuel that is sold represents about 4% of the total amount of hogged fuel used in
plywood manufacturing. Table 1.8 provides a breakdown of heat energy use for the boilers by fuel source.
Table 1.8. Pacific Northwest Weighted Data Conversion of Boiler Inputs, Direct-Fired Inputs and
Purchased Fuel into Heat Energy for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.
Fuel Type Heat Energy Fuel Source

Input Btu %
Total Breakdown Total Breakdown Total Breakdown
Hogged Fuel (lb)1/2/ 2.03E+02 1.22E+06 90
Self generated bark/wood for 1.68E+02 1.01E+06
boiler 83
Purchased bark/wood for boiler 1.90E+01 1.15E+05 9
Self generated for fuel cell 1.58E+01 9.53E+04 8
Wood waste (lb)1/2/ 2.50E-01 1.51E+03 0.11
Natural gas (ft3)3/ 1.63E+02 1.33E+05 10
Direct fired fuel cell 1.29E+02 1.04E+05 79
Boiler 3.48E+01 2.83E+04 21
Total 1.35E+06 100
1
Oven-dry weights; weight of green-hogged fuel (assumed to be 50% MC wet-basis, i.e., 202.5 lb oven dry is 405.0 lb green
2
Weight of green hogged bark or wood waste multiplied by 4500 Btu/lb of green bark multiplied by 67% boiler efficiency
3
Volume of natural gas multiplied by 1016 Btu/ft3 of natural gas, 80% boiler efficiency—source ATHENA™
11
Three unit processes used hogged fuel and natural gas for heatblock conditioning, veneer drying, and hot pressing.
Veneer drying used the dominant amount of energy for heating (75.5%), followed by hot pressing (14.8%) and
conditioning (9.7%). The plants reported heat use for drying and pressing. To determine heat use for conditioning it
was calculated by taking the total heat use for the plant (as determined by hogged bark/wood fuel used in the boiler
to generate steam) and subtracting the reported heat use for drying and hot pressing. In summary, dryers used the
dominant amount of electricity (36.7%) and overall energy (75.5%) compared to the total use for the three
production centers. Table 1.9 provides a breakdown of heat use by sub-unit process and source.
Table 1.9. Boiler Energy Requirements for Conditioning, Drying, and Pressing Sub-unit Processes Used in
Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest. 1/
MSF 3/8-in basis

Fuel Inputs Conditioning Drying Pressing Total Percent
Btu/MSF Btu/MSF Btu/MSF Btu/MSF 3/8-in
3/8-in Basis 3/8-in Basis 3/8-in Basis Basis %
Hogged fuel2/ 125,977 822,299 177,827 1,126,103 83.2
Fuel cell 95,274 95,274 7.0
Natural gas 4,875.3 104,493 23,401 132,770 9.8
Total 130,852 1,022,066 201,228 1,354,146 100.0
Percent % 9.7 75.5 14.8 100
1/
Heat inputs does not account for hogged fuel sold.
2/
Hogged fuel values include self produced and purchased hogged fuel along with wood residue. Hogged fuel does not include
fuel cell for the veneer dryers.
Boiler data in the LCI was determined by calculating the energy equivalence of the two fuel sources of hogged fuel
and natural gas for the boiler and fuel cell,, then entering this data into either a specially written module for hogged
fuel generated within the plant that is combusted in either the boiler or fuel cell, or for natural gas using the Franklin
Database natural gas boiler. The boiler module written for hogged fuel used the Franklin Associates (FAL) data for
wood boiler emissions which did not include a transportation burden for the delivery of hogged fuel to the plant.
The fuel cell was similar to the wood boiler in that there were no transportation burdens associated with it since the
fuel was generated in the plant. The natural gas fired boiler also used the FAL database but did include a production
and transportation burden to the plant. For all fuel, whether wood residue, hogged fuel, or natural gas, emissions
from the FAL database in the LCI analysis were used. Table 1.10 provides a comparison of emissions as generated
by the FAL database to that of the weighted production data collected by the survey. All survey data, except for
CO2, was provided by the survey; CO2 was calculated from EPA data on boiler emissions (EPA 1999). Although
the emissions data for FAL and the CORRIM survey are similar in magnitude, there are differences. The difference
between the FAL data and survey/EPA data is due to several factors. First, the FAL data represents all wood-fired
boilers throughout the US and does not consider wood species or regional effects on the values. Secondly, the FAL
database is based upon a much larger database. Consideration should be given to establishing a new database for
hogged-fuel fired boilers based on the CORRIM survey data for the various manufacturing processes. The
CORRIM database could include boiler data from modules for softwood plywood, softwood lumber, and oriented
strand board (OSB) production.
12
Table 1.10. Survey Data on Air Emissions for Boilers as Output from SimaPro 5 (using the FAL1 boiler
data) Compared to Survey Data.
Air Emission FAL Database1 CORRIM Survey Data

lb/MSF (3/8-in) lb/MSF (3/8-in)
Acetaldehyde 3.96E-04 2.12E-03
Acrolien N/R 1.50E-06
CO 1.80E+00 4.79E+00
1/
CO2 2.78E+02 3.76E+023/
Formaldehyde 8.71E-04 4.61E-03
NOX 2.05E-01 8.10E-01
Particulates 2.25E-02 5.39E-01
Particulates (PM10) N/R 4.36E-01
Phenol 5.28E-03 2.91E-04
SO2 1.03E-02 1.60E-01
2/
VOC N/R 3.18E-01
1
Reference: SimaPro 5.0, 2001; Franklin Associates, FAL Database, 1998.
2
N/R= Not reported in surveys.
3
Calculated from EPA Wood Waste Combustion in Boilers, AP-42, Section 1.6, EPA, 1999.
Notes: Data represents total emissions based on weighted production data for boilers with no allocations or burdens to co-
products.
1.5 DRYING EMISSIONS FOR PNW PLYWOOD PRODUCTION
Dryers are used to take the moisture content of green veneer from about 25-60% to 3-6% (oven-dry basis). Dryer
temperatures are normally in the 300 to 365ºF range; however, the wood veneer does not experience this higher
temperature until much of its moisture is evaporated near the output end of the dryer. Most emissions are generated
at this time. One of the plants surveyed had a direct-fired natural gas dryer, and because of this, the emissions
reported have components of CO, CO2 (fossil), NOx, and SO2 that are not emitted from the steam heated dryers.
One plant also used a fuel cell that combusted hogged fuel which exhausted into the dryer, resulting in emissions
charged to the dryer, thus the CO2 biomass.
13
Table 1.11. Emissions for Drying Veneer in the Pacific Northwest as Reported in Surveys.
Emission to Air1 Emissions from Dryer Emissions from Dryer

lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3
Acrolein 7.05E-07 3.61E-07
CO 1.50E-01 7.69E-02
CO2 (biomass)2 9.80E+00 5.02E+00
CO2 (fossil)2 2.71E+00 1.39E+00
Methanol 3.44E-02 1.76E-02
NOx 4.99E-02 2.56E-02
Particulates (PM10) 2.81E-01 1.44E-01
Phenol 2.76E-03 1.41E-03
SO2 1.10E-03 5.64E-04
VOC 6.28E-01 3.22E-01
1
Air emission data as reported from surveys based on weighted production data .
2
Calculated from EPA Plywood Manufacturing – Emission Factor Documentation, AP-42, Chapter 10, Table 10.5-2, 2001.
Notes: Data represents total emissions fordryers with no allocations or burdens to co-products.
1.6 PRESSING EMISSIONS FOR PNW PLYWOOD PRODUCTION
Hot pressing is done in the plywood process to provide intimate contact between veneers while the phenol-
formaldehyde adhesive cures as a result of temperature in the 325-340oF range. Emissions are generated from the
wood as a result of the high temperatures and the adhesive curing.
Table 1.12. Emissions for Hot Pressing Plywood in the Pacific Northwest.
Emissions to Air Emissions from Press Emissions from Press

lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis1 kg/m3
Acetone 6.50E-03 3.33E-03
Alpha-pinene 9.80E-02 5.02E-02
Beta-pinene 3.80E-02 1.95E-02
Limonene 1.10E-02 5.64E-03
Methanol 1.39E-01 7.13E-02
Methyl ethyl ketone 8.70E-04 4.46E-04
Methyl isobutyl ketone 7.10E-04 3.64E-04
Phenol 1.39E-03 7.13E-04
THC as carbon 2.10E-01 1.08E-01
VOC 2.49E-01 1.28E-01
1
Notes: Data represents total emissions based on weighted production averages from dryer with no allocations to co-products.
14
1.7 ADHESIVE USE AND ENERGY/ELECTRICITY TO PRODUCE
Phenol-formaldehyde (phenolic) resin is the adhesive used in plywood production. The manufacture of phenolic
resins is particularly energy intensive. The total energy requirement for the production of 15.88 lb of phenolic
needed for MSF 3/8-inch basis plywood from the Pacific Northwest is 1.94E+05 BTUs. Electricity requirements for
phenol-formaldehyde production per MSF 3/8-inch basis are 7% of the total electricity used to produce plywood in
the Pacific Northwest region. The 15.88 lb of phenol-formaldehyde resin is comprised of 65% formaldehyde and
35% phenol by weight. All the materials, fuel, and electricity used to produce the phenol-formaldehyde resin are
listed in Table 1.13. Total air emissions for the production of the 15.88 lb of phenol-formaldehyde resin are given in
Table 1.14.
Table 1.13. Production Requirements1 for the 15.88 lb of Phenol-formaldehyde Resin Needed to
Manufacture 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the PNW.
PNW – PF Resin Inputs

Material lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3
Formaldehyde 1.03E+01 5.28E+00
Phenol 5.56E+00 2.85E+00
Fuel Use Btu/MSF 3/8-in Basis MJ/m3
Heavy oil 9.91E+03 1.18E+05
Gasoline 6.83E+01 8.14E+02
Natural gas 1.84E+05 2.19E+06
Electricity Use kWh/MSF 3/8-in Basis MJ//m3
Electricity 1.02E+01 4.15E+01
1
Data obtained from Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles & Environmental Unit Factor Estimates: Structural Wood
Products, ATHENATM, 1993.
Table 1.14. Air Emissions1 for the Production of the 15.88 lb of Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) Resin Needed to
Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Plywood.
Plywood Production2
lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis PF Resin Contribution to
PF Resin Production1 Plywood Production
Emissions to Air lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis %
Acrolein 2.93E-08 8.69E-07 3.37
Aldehydes 8.31E-05 3.79E-04 21.95
Ammonia 3.72E-05 4.45E-04 8.36
Be 9.35E-09 9.63E-08 9.71
Benzene 8.77E-06 5.28E-04 1.66
Cd 7.02E-08 4.43E-07 15.85
CO 8.19E-02 2.36E+00 3.48
CO2 (fossil) 2.46E+01 7.32E+01 33.59
Cobalt 8.24E-08 6.31E-07 13.05
Cumene 7.41E-05 7.44E-05 99.69
Dichloromethane 1.17E-07 1.34E-06 8.70
Dioxin (TEQ) 1.56E-13 1.80E-12 8.67
15
Formaldehyde 1.68E-02 3.75E-02 44.88
HCl 1.47E-04 1.71E-03 8.60
HF 2.03E-05 2.36E-04 8.59
Hg 6.35E-08 6.88E-07 9.23
Kerosene 9.13E-07 1.08E-05 8.45
Metals 2.09E-06 9.06E-06 23.11
Methane 6.11E-02 1.96E-01 31.16
N-nitrodimethylamine 6.19E-09 7.19E-08 8.61
N2O 1.67E-05 1.93E-04 8.67
Non methane VOC 1.85E-01 8.13E-01 22.79
NOX 3.22E-01 8.75E-01 36.76
Particulates (unspecified) 2.50E-03 2.51E-02 9.96
Phenol 2.17E-02 3.07E-02 70.69
Sb 3.19E-08 2.58E-07 12.38
Se 2.36E-07 2.63E-06 8.95
SOX 3.12E-01 9.50E-01 32.87
Tetrachloroethene 2.81E-08 3.25E-07 8.66
Tetrachloromethane 5.81E-08 5.63E-07 10.32
Trichloroethene 2.77E-08 3.22E-07 8.60
1
Products, ATHENATM, 1993. Includes all emissions from resource through resin production, it does not include emissions for
delivery of resin to plant, this is handled separately.
2
Includes all emissions for plywood and resin production, plus those emissions associated with the production and delivery of
electricity and fuel, it does not include emissions for to generate the logs or to deliver materials to the plant, these are handled
separately.
1.8 PROCESS RELATED EMISSIONS
The total emissions from each unit process can also be determined. Table 1.15 gives the emissions breakdown for
the six processes. The values include the burdens in terms of emissions for the production of any electricity, fuel,
and adhesive, in addition to that of the hogged fuel and wood. The total values for Tables 1.15 and 1.17 differ
slightly due to rounding error as the values were accumulated from unit process to unit process. The allocation of all
emissions to plywood was 51.1%; as such, to find total emissions, divide the emissions allocated to plywood by
0.511. The remainder of emissions (48.9%) was assigned to the co-products.
16
Table 1.15. Process Emissions for Plywood Production in the Pacific Northwest Region.
Debarking Sawing and

and Log Veneer Veneer Trimming
Bucking Conditioning Peeling Drying Pressing Total
Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis

Acetaldehyde 3.18E-05 0.00E+00 8.51E-03 3.41E-03 0.00E+00 1.20E-02
Acrolein 3.02E-08 1.65E-08 4.20E-08 6.53E-07 8.04E-08 5.51E-08 8.77E-07
CO 2.59E-02 1.49E-01 6.97E-03 1.48E+00 4.11E-01 9.44E-03 2.08E+00
CO2 (fossil) 2.37E-03 2.76E+00 5.46E+00 1.78E+01 3.60E+01 7.26E+00 6.92E+01
CO2 (biofuel) 8.73E+00 2.22E+01 1.71E-03 2.15E+02 4.85E+01 2.26E-03 2.94E+02
Formaldehyde 9.30E-03 7.03E-05 7.61E-07 1.74E-02 1.85E-02 1.00E-06 4.53E-02
Methane 2.47E-02 6.98E-03 1.34E-02 3.83E-02 1.28E-01 1.79E-02 2.29E-01
Methanol 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.57E-02 1.10E-01 0.00E+00 1.36E-01
Non methane VOC 1.11E-01 9.28E-03 1.38E-02 3.53E-02 2.27E-01 1.90E-02 4.16E-01
Particulates 4.41E-04 1.85E-03 6.86E-03 2.53E-01 1.05E-01 7.93E-03 3.75E-01
Particulates (PM10) 2.41E-03 2.48E-04 4.06E-03 2.12E-01 2.16E-03 8.72E-03 2.30E-01
Particulates (unspecified) 0.00E+00 1.19E-03 2.98E-03 8.95E-03 5.86E-03 3.92E-03 2.29E-02
Phenol 1.00E-07 4.24E-04 1.10E-07 6.02E-03 2.37E-02 1.45E-07 3.02E-02
NOx 6.85E-03 3.16E-02 2.54E-02 2.58E-01 1.94E-01 3.47E-02 5.50E-01
SO2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.24E-04 4.44E-06 0.00E+00 8.28E-04
SOx 4.80E-02 3.28E-02 5.85E-02 1.74E-01 6.64E-01 7.81E-02 1.06E+00
VOC 4.68E-01 1.98E-01 0.00E+00 6.67E-01
Notes: Data are allocated total emissions, which include emissions for the production and delivery of electricity and fuel, and the
production of resin; it does not include emissions for production of logs, or for delivery of logs, bark, resin, purchased veneer to
the plant, this is handled separately.
1.9 LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY RESULTS FOR PLYWOOD PRODUCTION FROM THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
Life-cycle inventory results for production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch of softwood plywood in the Pacific Northwest are
given in Table 1.16 (inputs) and 1.17 (outputs). Results include all processes within the system boundary defined in
Figure 1.2. Results were generated in SimaPro 5.0.9 version 5 Life-Cycle Assessment software with the Franklin
Database employed for LCI on fuel use and electricity production burdens for their production. Emissions for
production of the phenolic adhesive were obtained from ATHENA TM. Other inputs and outputs were based on data
from the manufacturing plant surveys.
17
Table 1.16. Life-cycle Inventory Inputs for Producing 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood in the Pacific
Northwest.
PNW Plywood – INPUTS

Unit/
Materials1/ Units MSF 3/8-in Basis SI Units SI Unit/m3
Roundwood (logs) lb 1.79E+03 kg 9.18E+02
Phenol-formaldehyde adhesive lb 1.59E+01 kg 8.15E+00
Soda ash2/ lb 3.30E-01 kg 1.69E-01
Bark3/4/ lb 9.90E+01 kg 5.07E+01
Purchased
Electrical Use
Fuel Use1/
Hogged fuel (produced)3/4/ lb 1.92E+02 kg 9.84E+01
Hogged fuel (purchased)3/4/ lb 1.70E+01 kg 8.71E+00
Wood waste4/ lb 2.50E-01 kg 1.28E-01
Water Use 0.00E+00

1
All wood, bark and other materials given as oven-dry weights.
2
These materials were not included in the SimaPro LCI analysis; excluded based on the 2% rule.
3
Bark weight included in the ‘hogged fuel produced’ weight.
4
Bark, wood and hogged fuel when used for fuel assumed 50% MC wet basis for energy calculations.
18
Table 1.17. Life-cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood Production in the Pacific
Northwest Region.
Raw Materials Cl2 1.03E-03 2.86E-04

lb/MSF kg/m 3 CO 2.08E+00 6.10E-04
Substance 3/8 in CO2 (fossil) 7.78E+01 3.75E-08
PNW bark on logs 4.68E+01 2.40E+01 CO2 (biofuel) 2.85E+02 1.00E-04
PNW logs 9.27E+02 4.75E+02 Cobalt 7.44E-07 1.22E-03
0.00E+00 Cr 7.44E-06 1.63E-04
Coal FAL 9.63E+00 4.94E+00 Cumene 7.44E-05 4.20E-05
Crude oil FAL 1.14E+01 5.84E+00 Dichloromethane 1.37E-06 1.69E-01
Limestone 1.63E+00 8.36E-01 Dioxin (TEQ) 1.83E-12 3.33E-01
Natural gas FAL 2.58E+01 1.32E+01 Fe 5.82E-04 1.17E-02
Uranium FAL 5.01E-05 2.57E-05 Formaldehyde 3.74E-02 1.95E-01
Wood/wood wastes FAL 1.87E+01 9.59E+00 HCl 1.73E-03 1.16E-01
HF 2.40E-04 8.87E-04
Hg 7.13E-07 1.23E-04
Electricity Use K 1.03E-01 3.65E-07
Kerosene 1.09E-05 5.28E-02
kWh/MSF MJ/m3
Limonene 8.63E-03 5.59E-06
Substance 3/8 in
Metals 1.19E-05 4.42E-03
Electricity from other sources 1.12E+00 4.56E+00
Methane 2.13E-01 6.10E-06
Energy from hydropower 7.57E+01 3.08E+02
Methanol 1.36E-01 1.09E-01
Methyl i-butyl ketone 5.58E-04 3.49E-04
Energy Use Mn 1.19E-03 2.86E-04
Btu/MSF MJ/m3 N-nitrodimethylamine 7.31E-08 6.10E-04
Substance 3/8 in N2O 1.96E-04 3.75E-08
Hogged fuel-fuel cell 7.13E+04 8.50E+05 Na 2.38E-03 1.00E-04
Natural gas-fuel cell 7.81E+04 9.31E+05 Naphthalene 3.18E-04 1.22E-03
Ni 8.19E-05 1.63E-04
Non methane VOC 3.29E-01 4.20E-05
Water Use Nox 6.50E-01 1.69E-01
ft3/MSF 3/8 m3/m3 Organic substances 2.28E-02 3.33E-01
Substance in Particulates 3.81E-01 1.17E-02
Municipal water source 5.80E+00 1.86E-01 Particulates (PM10) 2.27E-01 1.95E-01
Recycled water 2.31E-02 7.39E-04 Particulates (unspecified) 2.52E-02 1.29E-02
Well water source 2.06E+00 6.59E-02 Pb 1.60E-04 8.20E-05
Phenol 3.02E-02 1.55E-02
Sb 2.98E-07 1.53E-07
Emissions to Air Se 2.71E-06 1.39E-06
lb/MSF kg/m3 SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04
Substance 3/8 in SOx 1.06E+00 5.43E-01
Acetaldehyde 1.19E-02 6.10E-03 Tetrachloroethene 3.30E-07 1.69E-07
Acetone 5.11E-03 2.62E-03 Tetrachloromethane 5.85E-07 3.00E-07
Acrolein 8.75E-07 8.87E-04 THC as carbon 1.65E-01 8.46E-02
Aldehydes 8.56E-04 1.23E-04 Trichloroethene 3.27E-07 1.68E-07
Alpha-pinene 7.69E-02 3.65E-07 VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01
Ammonia 4.85E-04 5.28E-02 Zn 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
As 1.26E-05 5.59E-06
Ba 5.82E-04 4.42E-03
Be 1.02E-07 6.10E-06 Emissions to Water
Benzene 4.86E-04 1.09E-01 lb/MSF kg/m3
Beta-pinene 2.99E-02 6.97E-02 Substance 3/8 in
Cd 5.69E-07 3.49E-04 Acid as H+ 1.23E-08 6.30E-09
19
B 9.19E-04 4.71E-04 Other organics 4.08E-03 2.09E-03
BOD 1.44E-03 7.38E-04 Pb 2.24E-08 1.15E-08
Ca 1.03E-07 5.28E-08 Phenol 8.50E-07 4.36E-07
Calcium ions 9.31E-06 4.77E-06 Phosphate 1.15E-04 5.89E-05
Cd 6.23E-05 3.19E-05 Sulphate 5.43E-02 2.78E-02
Chromate 4.43E-07 2.27E-07 Suspended solids 3.27E-02 1.68E-02
Cl- 6.24E-02 3.20E-02 Zn 2.16E-05 1.11E-05
COD 1.67E-02 8.56E-03
Cr 6.23E-05 3.19E-05
Cyanide 9.31E-08 4.77E-08 Solid Waste Emissions
Dissolved solids 1.38E+00 7.07E-01 lb/MSF kg/m3
Fe 1.35E-03 6.92E-04 Substance 3/8 in
Fluoride ions 4.36E-05 2.23E-05 Solid waste 1.88E+01 9.64E+00
H2SO4 2.30E-04 1.18E-04
Hg 4.89E-09 2.51E-09
Metallic ions 2.61E-04 1.34E-04 Nonmaterial Emissions
Mn 7.56E-04 3.88E-04 Ci/MSF 3/8 Bq/m3
Na 1.73E-05 8.87E-06 Substance in
NH3 5.45E-05 2.79E-05 Radioactive substances to air 1.21E-05 5.06E+04
Nitrate 4.11E-06 2.11E-06
Oil 2.45E-02 1.26E-02
production of resin but not its delivery to plant.. Excludes burden for logs and their delivery.
It is also useful to examine those emissions solely attributed to the production of plywood. Table 1.18 provides output
data for site-generated emissions from manufacturing plywood only; not included are emissions contributed by the
production and delivery of resin, fuel, and electricity, and transportation of materials. Table 1.19 provides a summary
comparison of the site-generated emissions to the total emissions that include those from the production and delivery of
resin, fuel, and electricity, and transportation of materials.
20
Table 1.18. Life-cycle Inventory Results for Production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the Pacific
Northwest.
Raw Materials Ba 5.82E-04 2.98E-04

3
lb/MSF kg/m Benzene 4.76E-04 2.44E-04
Substance 3/8 in Beta-pinene 2.99E-02 1.53E-02
PNW bark on logs 4.68E+01 2.40E+01 Cl2 1.03E-03 5.28E-04
PNW logs 9.27E+02 4.75E+02 CO 1.94E+00 9.94E-01
Phenol formaldehyde resin 1.25E+01 6.41E+00 CO2 (fossil) 1.20E+01 6.15E+00
Wood 1.86E+01 9.53E+00 CO2 (biofuel) 2.85E+02 1.46E+02
ft3/MSF m3/m3
Cr 6.08E-06 3.12E-06
Substance 3/8 in
Fe 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
Distillate fuel oil (DFO) 2.74E-02 8.77E-04 Formaldehyde 2.06E-02 1.06E-02
Natural gas (vol) 4.19E+01 1.34E+00 K 1.03E-01 5.28E-02
Limonene 8.63E-03 4.42E-03
Electricity Methane 7.13E-05 3.65E-05
kWh/MSF MJ/m3
Methanol 1.36E-01 6.97E-02
Substance 3/8 in
TM
Electricity from ATHENA 9.38E+01 3.82E+02 Methyl i-butyl ketone 1.11E-02 5.69E-03
Mn 1.19E-03 6.10E-04
Na 2.38E-03 1.22E-03
Energy
Btu/MSF MJ/m 3 Naphthalene 3.18E-04 1.63E-04
Substance 3/8 in Ni 7.44E-05 3.81E-05
Hogged fuel direct fired 7.13E+04 8.50E+05 Non methane VOC 2.32E-02 1.19E-02
Natural gas direct fired 7.81E+04 9.31E+05 NOX 3.79E-01 1.94E-01
Organic substances 2.19E-02 1.12E-02
Water Use Particulates 3.75E-01 1.92E-01
3 3
3
ft /MSF m /m Particulates (PM10) 2.22E-01 1.14E-01
Substance 3/8 in Pb 1.59E-04 8.15E-05
Municipal Water Source 5.80E+00 1.86E-01 Phenol 8.44E-03 4.33E-03
0.00E+00 SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04
Recycled Water 2.31E-02 7.39E-04 SOX 1.80E-02 9.23E-03
Well Water Source 2.06E+00 6.59E-02 THC as carbon 1.65E-01 8.46E-02
VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01
Emissions to Air Zn 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
lb/MSF kg/m3
Substance 3/8 in
Acetaldehyde 1.19E-02 6.10E-03 Emissions to Water
lb/MSF kg/m3
Acetone 5.11E-03 2.62E-03
Substance 3/8 in
Acrolein 5.28E-07 2.71E-07
BOD 5.69E-06 2.92E-06
COD 4.88E-04 2.50E-04
As 1.16E-05 5.95E-06
23
Dissolved solids 9.56E-04 4.90E-04
NH3 1.10E-06 5.64E-07
Suspended solids 1.02E-03 5.23E-04
Solid Waste Emissions

kg/m3
lb/MSF
Substance 3/8 in
Solid waste 1.19E+01 6.10E+00
.
Source: SimaPro 5.0 LCI results
Notes: Results are for plywood production only [referred to as “site generated data”]; no emissions for production or
transportation considered for fuel, electricity, resin and logs/bark. These are allocated emissions for plywood
Table 1.19. Summary of Life-Cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood Production in the
Pacific Northwest Region—a Comparison of Total to Site-Generated Emissions.
LCI Total LCI Site-Generated

Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis
Acrolein 8.75E-07 5.28E-07
CO 2.08E+00 1.94E+00
CO2 (fossil) 7.78E+01 1.20E+01
CO2 (biofuel) 2.85E+02 2.85E+02
Methane 2.13E-01 7.13E-05
Methanol 1.36E-01 1.36E-01
NOX 6.50E-01 3.79E-01
Particulates (unspecified) 2.52E-02 0.00E 00
Phenol 3.02E-02 8.44E-03
SO2 8.25E-04 8.25E-04
SOX 1.06E+00 1.80E-02
VOC 6.69E-01 6.69E-01
Notes: Summary data for site-generated emissions for plywood production only; does not include production or
transportation emissions for fuel, electricity and resin.
24
1.10 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effects of using different fuel sources for heat generation.
Currently there are two fuel sources used, hogged fuel, which is comprised of bark and wood waste, and natural gas.
This analysis used the plywood manufacturing model created in an LCI software program called SimaPro 5.0.9,
using all natural gas and all self-produced hogged fuel for heat generation. Three scenarios were modeled: 1)
comparing all natural gas versus the “as is” original plywood model, with no fuel changes and incorporating both
natural gas and hogged fuel, 2) comparing using all self-produced hogged fuel versus the “as is” original plywood
model, with no changes, and 3) comparing use of all natural gas versus all self-produced hogged fuel as a fuel for
heat.
1.10.1 Sensitivity analysis of plywood manufacturing in the PNW
Sensitivity analyses were used to study the LCI model that represented plywood manufacturing. The analysis can be
useful to understand how various process parameters contribute to environmental output factors. For instance, in
plywood manufacturing, heat is used in several subunit processes, consuming hogged fuel and/or natural gas as fuel
to generate the heat. Changing the fuel source, also referred to as fuel switching, can have a dramatic effect on the
type and quantity of emissions into the environment. This sensitivity analysis was used to compare the effects of
using all self produced hogged fuel—consisting of bark removed from the logs used to make veneer, and wood
residue from production of plywood—or only natural gas as a fuel input. In the original model, fuel sources used
for heat purposes included both natural gas and hogged fuel consisting of bark and wood residue.
The original PNW model that was based on survey data assumed 90.5% of the fuel in the form of hogged fuel, self
produced and purchased, and 9.5% as natural gas. In actuality, most mills use only one or two types of fuel source,
whereas, the original study resulted in an averaged model incorporating different fuel sources taken from primary
survey information for five mills. There were three scenarios done for this “average mill.” The first scenario used
LCI results to compare fuel use of 100% natural gas versus the weighted average fuel use from the survey, referred
to as the “as is” condition. The second scenario compared 100% self generated hogged fuel versus the “as is”, and
the third scenario compared 100% self generated hogged fuel versus 100% natural gas.
1.10.2 Sensitivity analysis results
Table 1.20 is a summary of the three scenarios, with a partial list of air emissions for the PNW (for a detailed listing
see Appendix 2). In the first two scenarios, all natural gas versus “as is” and all self-produced hogged fuel versus
“as is,” a negative percentage difference number indicates that the assumed fuel source contributes fewer emissions
than the “as is” plywood model. A positive percentage difference means that the “as is” or original model
contributes lower emissions. In the third scenario, a negative number indicates that all natural gas contributes fewer
emissions than all self-generated hogged fuel and a positive percentage number means that all self-produced hogged
fuel contributes fewer emissions.
25
Table 1.20. Sensitivity Analysis Summary for the PNW. Fuel Use Comparison for Steam Production using
Natural Gas, Hogged Fuel and “As Is” (original fuel distribution).
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Natural Gas
As Is, Original versus
All Fuel All Natural All Hogged Hogged Fuel
All Natural Hogged Distribution Gas Fuel Difference1/
1/ 1/
Gas Fuel Difference Difference
Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis %
CO2 (fossil) 1.71E+02 6.00E+01 7.78E+01 120 -23 185
CO2 (biofuel)2/ 4.85E-02 3.40E+02 2.85E+02 -100 20 -100

Methane 4.84E-01 1.67E-01 2.13E-01 127 -22 190
NOX 9.63E-01 8.50E-01 6.50E-01 48 31 13
SO2 8.25E-04 8.25E-04 8.25E-04 0 0 0
SOX 2.49E+00 8.06E-01 1.06E+00 136 -24 209
Acetaldehyde 1.16E-02 1.20E-02 1.19E-02 -3 1 -4
Acrolein 8.75E-07 8.56E-07 8.75E-07 0 -2 2
Formaldehyde 3.66E-02 3.76E-02 3.74E-02 -2 1 -3
Methanol 1.36E-01 1.36E-01 1.36E-01 0 0 0
Phenol 2.49E-02 3.14E-02 3.02E-02 -18 4 -21
CO 5.12E-01 2.48E+00 2.08E+00 -75 19 -79
Particulates 3.65E-01 3.85E-01 3.81E-01 -4 1 -5
Particulates (PM10) 2.26E-01 2.26E-01 2.27E-01 0 0 0
Particulates (unspecified) 2.70E-02 2.39E-02 2.52E-02 7 -5 13
Non methane VOC 8.13E-01 3.64E-01 3.29E-01 147 11 123
VOC 6.69E-01 6.69E-01 6.69E-01 0 0 0
1/
All comparisons are with the weighted fuel use as indicated in the mill survey.
2/
CO2 biomass and non-fossil (which comes from SimaPro database and is most likely biomass) collaborated.
Notes: Data are allocated emissions for plywood.
The following is a summary of the comparison results when fuel switching:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 fossil and biomass emissions are treated separately in LCI analyses; hogged fuel is a biomass fuel and natural
gas is a fossil fuel. CO2 biomass is treated separately because the carbon can be taken back up in biomass and
oxygen released to the atmosphere through photosynthesis in growing trees. As such CO2 biomass is assumed to
have a neutral impact on the environment, while CO2 fossil emissions cannot be readily replenished as natural gas.
Methane (CH4)
Methane emissions increased by more than 100% when natural gas was used compared to all self-generated hogged
fuel and the “as is” model. All self-produced hogged fuel contributed lower methane emissions than the all natural
gas and the “as is” models.
26
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
NOX emissions in all three scenarios are higher than in the "as is" model, with natural gas having the highest
emissions. Natural gas emitted 13 percent more NOX emissions than hogged fuel.
SO2 and SOX
There is no difference in SO2 emissions between various fuel sources used for heat generation, this occurs because it
was reported in the survey for the dryers and does not change. SO2 could have been included in the SOX. The
SOX emissions are significantly higher when using natural gas.
VOC and Non Methane VOC
There is no difference in VOC emissions between fuel sources for heat generation, although, non methane VOC, is
heavily influenced by natural gas combustion and is more than double those of scenarios 2 and 3. Hogged fuel use
did not contribute any non-methane VOC. VOC emissions come from drying of veneer and also pressing emissions
of plywood panel production.
HAP (hazardous air pollutants include acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol)
HAP emissions are not influenced by fuel inputs since the drying of wood provides all HAP emissions. In this
analysis, phenol was the only HAP that was influenced and it decreased when natural gas fuel was used.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Combustion of natural gas decreases CO emissions. When hogged fuel is used, CO emissions increased slightly
compared to the “as is” model and were 78% higher than natural gas.
Particulates
Particulate emissions were affected little by fuel switching, indicating that both fuel sources contribute similar
amounts of particulates. There was a slight indication that hogged fuel combustion generates more particulates than
combustion of all natural gas (1% more) and the “as is” (4% more) models.
1.11 CARBON BALANCE FOR PNW PLYWOOD
1.11.1 Procedure
The element, carbon, was tracked “gate-to-gate” in the study of softwood plywood manufacturing. To track carbon,
a checklist was devised to balance the inputs of carbon with the outputs to see if there was any carbon missing and
to also follow carbon in the LCI of plywood, to see which product or emission carbon is assigned. This analysis
followed carbon from the inputs of material, electricity and fuels to its production of plywood as a product, also its
co-products and emissions into the environment. The percentage of carbon in wood was taken from a separate study
done by R.A Birdsey, in 1994. The percentage was species specific and was manipulated to fit this study by
allocating a percentage of the species used in the modeling of plywood manufacturing. Other carbon percentages in
materials other than wood were either taken from the Merck Index (1989) or were calculated by using atomic
masses of each element from the chemical formula.
27
1.11.2 Results
Table 1.21 describes the allocation of carbon percentages based on the species of wood; carbon comprises 51.23%
of the total mass of wood material. Table 1.22 includes a list of inputs and outputs associated with plywood
manufacturing. Values are based on an LCI of plywood only and thus the input of materials, electricity, and fuels
are allocated to plywood, which is 51% by weight of the total outputs of materials. As a result, the inputs were also
allocated so that 51% of the inputs by mass are used. Note that the result is that the carbon balance has a difference
to the LCI of 2.7%.
Table 1.21. Percent of Carbon in Wood, Pacific Northwest
Species
Conversion Weighted Density Roundwood Roundwood Carbon Carbon
Factor 1,2 Allocation lb/ ft3 ft3 lb lb %
Douglas–fir 15.11 0.676 28.08 65.6 1842.05 991.27 53.81
Spruce 9.8 0.116 23.088 65.6 1514.57 642.88 42.45
Hemlock 12.17 0.168 26.208 65.6 1719.24 798.35 46.44
Larch 14.26 0.04 29.952 65.6 1964.85 935.46 47.61
Weighted average 13.97 1.0 27.26 65.63 1788.34 916.18 51.23
1/
Birdsey, R.A., 1994. Carbon storage and accumulation in US forest ecosystems. General Technical Report WO-59.
Washington, DC. USDA-Forest Service.
2/
Skog, Kenneth E. and Geraldine A. Nicholson. Carbon cycling through wood products: The role of wood and paper products
in carbon sequestration. FPJ. 48(7/8): 75-83.
3/
65.6 ft3 is the volume of wood needed to produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch basis of plywood and the co-products.
28
Table 1.22. Carbon Balance, PNW
PNW PLYWOOD – INPUTS

Carbon Carbon
Materials lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis % lb
Roundwood 1.79E+03 51.23 9.16E+02
Bark 9.90E+01 51.23 5.07E+01
Purchased
Dry veneer 6.43E+00 51.23 3.30E+00
Green veneer 1.42E+01 51.23 7.29E+00
Hogged fuel (minus bark sold) 1.10E+01 51.23 5.635E+00
Total 1.92E+03 51.23 9.83E+02
1/
PNW PLYWOOD – OUTPUTS
Emissions to Air
Carbon Carbon
Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis % lb
Acetaldehyde 1.19E-02 54.00 6.45E-03
Acetone 5.11E-03 64.27 3.29E-03
Acrolein 5.28E-07 65.00 3.43E-07
Alpha-pinene 7.69E-02 88.16 6.78E-02
Benzene 4.76E-04 92.25 4.39E-04
Beta-pinene 2.99E-02 88.16 2.63E-02
CO 1.94E+00 42.86 8.30E-01
CO2 (biofuel) 2.85E+02 27.27 7.76E+01
Formaldehyde 2.06E-02 40.00 8.23E-03
Limonene 8.63E-03 88.16 7.60E-03
Methane 7.13E-05 75.00 5.34E-05
Methanol 1.36E-01 37.50 5.09E-02
Methyl ethyl ketone 6.81E-04 66.63 4.54E-04
Methyl i-butyl ketone 1.11E-02 71.94 8.01E-03
Naphthalene 3.18E-04 93.71 2.98E-04
Non methane VOC 2.32E-02 100.00 2.32E-02
Organic substances 2.19E-02 50.00 1.10E-02
Particulates 3.75E-01 51.23 1.92E-01
Particulates (PM10) 2.22E-01 51.23 1.14E-01
Phenol 8.44E-03 76.57 6.46E-03
THC as carbon 1.65E-01 100.00 1.65E-01
VOC 6.69E-01 100.00 6.69E-01
29
Carbon Carbon
Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in basis % lb
Solid waste 1.19E+01 51.23 6.08E+00
Subtotal 3.12E+02 8.91E+01
Plywood 9.37E+02 51.23 4.80E+02
Wood chips 4.25E+02 51.23 2.18E+02
Peeler core 9.51E+01 51.23 4.87E+01
Green clippings 3.10E+01 51.23 1.59E+01
Veneer downfall 3.40E+00 51.23 1.74E+00
Panel trim 1.07E+02 51.23 5.47E+01
Sawdust 9.63E+00 51.23 4.93E+00
Wood waste (sold) 2.10E+01 51.23 1.08E+01
Wood waste to boiler 2.50E-01 51.23 1.28E-01
Dry veneer (sold) 6.31E+01 51.23 3.23E+01
Total Output 2.00E+03 9.56E+02
DIFFERENCE % 2.7
1/
Some of the emissions are due to the adhesive system used and was not included in the input.
1.12 COST ANALYSIS
A cost analysis was conducted for plywood production in the Pacific Northwest. The analysis took into account the
total cost of purchased materials and energy, co-products, and fuels to obtain the cost to manufacture one MSF 3/8-
inch basis of plywood. This value was then compared to the market price of a MSF 3/8-inch basis of plywood.
This analysis considered variable costs such as those associated with purchased electricity, hogged fuel, propane,
natural gas and diesel fuel, logs, dry and green veneer, and phenol formaldehyde (PF) resin. It also examined fixed
costs, including costs of capital, maintenance, labor, and overhead.
1.12.1 Production and Employees
A weighted average of production was obtained through primary surveys in the PNW and then plotted against the
number of employees (Figure 1.2). After the slope of the graph was obtained, the weighted-average value of
production was used to determine the number of employees. The manufacture of 290,268MSF 3/8-inch basis of
plywood translates to 441 employees.
30
Production Plot
500,000
450,000
y = 405.33x + 111516
Annual Production, MSF 3/8 in. Basis
R2 = 0.7569
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Employees
Figure 1.3. Annual Production vs. Number of Employees.
1.12.2 Variable Costs
Electricity prices vary from time to time and are influenced by the region of generation. For the Pacific Northwest
the average price per kWh in 2001 was 4.25 cents, with a range of 3.60 to 5.90 cents per kWh. For natural gas, the
price came from data taken in 1999. The reason why 3-year-old information is used is because data from the winter
of 2000-2001 was unusually high, and therefore1999 data was used to represent current and expected price,
however, based on recent forecasts, future prices could be much higher. As a result, the average price for a Dtherm
(1,000,000 Btu) of natural gas is taken as $2.85, with a range of $2.20 to $4.70. Prices of wood material as logs and
purchased green veneer came from Crow’s Market Report, averaged over the year, 2002. Table 1.23 describes the
variable cost on an annual basis and on a production basis of one MSF 3/8-inch.
31
Table 1.23. Variable Costs to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.
Variable Cost Units $/Unit Units/Year $/Year Units/MSF $/MSF

Energy Consumption
Electricity kWh 0.0425 40,318,280 1,713,527 138.90 5.90
Hogged fuel lb 0.01 11,030,199 110,302 34.00 0.34
Liquid propane gas gal 0.95 104,177 98,969 0.36 0.34
Natural gas ft3 0.0029 47,429,856 137,309 163.40 0.47
Diesel gal 1.3 114,670 149,072 0.40 0.51
Materials
Logs bf 0.4741 81,878,910 38,822,067 282.08 133.75
Purchased dry veneer M 3/8 193.51 2,192 424,080 7.55E-03 1.46
Purchased green veneer M 3/8 170.47 4,847 826,344 1.67E-02 2.85
Resin lb 0.45 4,609,462 2,074,258 15.88 7.15
1.12.3 Fixed Costs
Fixed costs are costs that are not dependent on production and can be a one-time annual cost. This analysis included
fixed costs of capital, maintenance, labor and overhead. Table 1.24 details these fixed costs.
Table 1.24. Fixed Cost to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.
Fixed Cost Units $/unit MSF/Year $/Year $/MSF

Capital Annual 1,290,082 290,268 1,290,082 4.44
Maintenance MSF 9 290,268 2,612,416 9.00
Labor Annual 19,950,840 290,268 19,950,840 68.73
Overhead MSF 10 290,268 2,902,684 10.00
The total cost, adding both variable and fixed cost, is equal to $244.95/MSF with the variable cost of energy and raw
materials being $157.77 and the fixed cost coming to $92.18.
1.12.4 Energy and Co-products Sold
Fuels sold include hogged fuel and wood waste. Also sold are the co-products of wood chips, peeler core, green
clippings, veneer downfall, panel trim, sawdust and dry veneer. These items are sold on a per ton oven dry weight
basis. Table 1.25 lists the prices of these fuels and co-products.
32
Table 1.25. Sold Energy and Co-products Resulting from the Production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.
Units/MSF $/MSF
Sold Unit $/Unit Units/Year $/Year 3/8-in Basis 3/8-in Basis
Sold Energy
Hogged fuel lb 0.01 4,673,321 46,733 16.1 0.16
Wood waste lb 0.005 6,095,636 30,478 21 0.11
Sold Co-products
Wood chips lb 0.030 123,451,150 3,703,534 425.3 12.76
Peeler core lb 0.015 27,604,525 414,068 95.1 1.43
Green clippings lb 0.015 8,998,320 134,975 31 0.47
Veneer downfall lb 0.015 998,523 14,978 3.44 0.05
Panel trim lb 0.015 31,000,665 465,010 106.8 1.60
Sawdust lb 0.015 2,795,285 41,929 9.63 0.14
Sold dry veneer lb 0.227 18,316,348 4,160,673 63.1 14.33
The selling price of the hogged fuel sold is $10/green ton (which at 50% moisture content gives $20/ton oven-dry)
and the price of wood waste is $10/ton OD (oven-dry) weight. The co-products peeler core, green clippings, veneer
downfall and panel trim were assumed to be sold on a basis of $30/ton OD weight. Wood chips are mostly used for
pulping and have a higher selling price, in this case equaling $60/ton OD weight. Dry veneer is sold to other
plywood or LVL plants; in this case the selling price ($45-46/MSF of 1/10inch veneer) was determined by averaging
the monthly price of veneer as reported in Crow’s Market Report.
Total costs minus the sold energy and co-products, result in a net cost of $213.90 to produce one MSF 3/8-inch of
plywood. Crow’s Market Report, was used again to obtain the monthly average price for plywood 3/8-inch basis,
CD grade (coastal) - $221.75/MSF. Subtracting the net cost to produce plywood from the selling price of plywood,
results in a $7.85 margin per MSF 3/8-inch. The margin would differ for a production mix of different thicknesses
of plywood.
33
2.0 SOUTHEAST SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Softwood plywood has had a long tradition as a structural building material for both commercial and residential
construction. Plywood is used as roof, wall and floor sheathing, and for subflooring in home construction.
Although plywood comes in a variety of grades and thicknesses, its production is based on a thousand square feet
(MSF) of 3/8-inch equivalence—industry refers to this as M 3/8. In SI units, it is on a one cubic meter (m3).
Plywood for the Southeast region is made from a group of wood species referred to as southern pine; the dominant
species in this group are slash and loblolly pine. This report focuses on plywood production practices in a region
consisting of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, and Texas. The size of production
facilities in the region range from about 100,000 to 400,000 MSF 3/8-inch basis annually. This study collected data
from representative plants that would be considered in the upper production capacity of this range. The total annual
softwood plywood production for the region was 9,838,000 MSF 3/8-inch in 2000 (APA 2001), representing 56% of
all US plywood production and 33% of all structural panel production including oriented strand board (OSB). The
region produces enough panels if it were all sheathing, to build 1,583,000 homes annually (NAHB 2001—6.212
MSF sheathing per home). Panels are normally produced in 4- x 8-foot sheets.
To conduct the survey of plywood manufacturers, five plants were identified based on their production capability
and representativeness of the industry. All five plants provided data for 2000 in terms of plywood and co-products
production, raw materials, electricity and fuel use, and emissions. The five plywood producers surveyed represent
14% of the region’s total production. Total annual production for producers surveyed was 1,383,642 MSF 3/8-inch
basis.
This report documents the life cycle inventory (LCI) of manufacturing structural plywood based on resources from
the Southeast softwood region. The output of this report, a gate-to-gate analysis plus transportation data for delivery
of materials, will be used as an input to the life cycle analysis (LCA) of structural building materials by CORRIM in
its cradle-to-residential building analysis. This report considers those impacts associated solely with the
manufacture of softwood plywood, documenting all inputs and outputs and their impact. Primary data was collected
by a survey of plywood manufacturers, while secondary data was obtained for impacts associated with the
manufacture and delivery of electricity and all fuels (Franklin and Associates 2001; PRé Consultants 2001; USDOE
2000), CO2 and press emissions (EPA 2001), and production of phenol-formaldehyde resin (ATHENATM 1993).
For cradle-to-gate analysis, this would data would need to be combined with the impacts for the resource module
that generated logs, and bark, and the transportation impacts for delivery of logs, bark, veneer, and resin to the
plywood plants.
The scope of this report encompasses production of softwood plywood from the Southeast region (Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, and Texas) including raw material transport to the production
facility (commonly referred to as a gate-to-gate analysis). This report is confined to transportation of logs and resin
materials to the manufacturing site, production of phenol-formaldehyde resin, electricity, natural gas, plywood and
its co-products. A critical review of this LCI process and analysis was conducted to ensure compliance with
CORRIM and ISO 14040 protocol.
34
2.1.1 Unit Process Approach
The plywood process was broken down into six unit processes rather than examining the process as a “black box.”
The rationale for taking this approach is that this type of model would be most useful in analyzing ways to improve
efficiency, optimize operations, and find means to reduce environmental impacts. Furthermore, data in this format
could be used as a benchmark to document process improvements. In addition, this approach allows unit processes
developed for one process to be used in modeling other processes. For instance, the peeling and drying unit
processes could be used as input for green and dry veneer respectively into a laminated veneer lumber (LVL)
process. The unit processes used to model softwood plywood production are shown in Figure 2.1.
Input: Logs
Bucking & Debarking

Blocks
Block Conditioning
Inputs: Heat (i.e., boiler, direct Outputs: By-products—bark, chips,
fired) water, electricity, peeler core, clippings, green veneer,
purchased veneer, PF resin, & downfall, trim and sawdust.
Peeling & Clipping
ancillary materials
Emissions to air, land & water (VOC,
Veneer Drying HAP, Ash, etc.)
Hot Pressing
Unit process
Trimming & Sawing
Plywood process
Output: Plywood
Figure 2.1. Unit Process approach to the modeling of the plywood manufacturing process.
Description of unit processes:
1. Debarking: includes debarking and bucking logs to make peeler blocks. Co-products include bark and some
wood waste,
2. Conditioning: heating the blocks with either hot water or steam to condition the blocks for peeling,
3. Peeling and Clipping: blocks are peeled in the lathe to make veneer, clipped to size, and sorted by moisture
content (which is a function of the percentage of sapwood and heartwood in the sheet) in preparation for drying—
co-products include round-up wood, peeler cores, veneer clippings and trim,
4. Veneer Drying: veneers are dried in “continuous dryers” to 3-8% moisture content; various heat sources are used
for the drying. This center includes redrying, a practice where 10-20% of the veneer processed through the dryer is
still too wet, so it is redried. Co-products include veneer downfall and other wood waste,
35
5. Lay-up and Pressing: veneers are coated with phenol-formaldehyde resin and composed into panels for hot
pressing; heat and pressure are used to cure the resin, thereby bonding the veneers together to make plywood,
6. Trimming and Sawing: plywood panels coming out of the press are sawn to appropriate dimension. Co-products
include plywood trim and sawdust.
Bark and some wood waste are used as fuel to fire boilers or fuel cells that supply heat to various unit processes—
conditioning, drying and hot pressing—in the manufacturing process. As such, the bark and other wood waste
when used as “hogged fuel” to generate heat are considered within the system boundary for the LCI analysis.
Excluded from the study are the production of the catalyst, fillers, and extenders used in resins, the harvesting and
growth of the trees, and the transportation of logs to the mill. The boiler, although not considered as a unit process,
was analyzed as a separate operation within the system boundary. Figure 2.2 provides an overview of the entire
system boundary used to model the plywood process.
36
Bark
Debarking
hogged
fuel
Logs
PF Resin Conditioning
Purchased
hogged fuel
Boiler
Peeling & Clipping
Natural Gas
Air emissions
LPG Purchased Green Veneer
Wood hogged fuel

Drying Water effluents
Diesel fuel
Solid Waste
Electricity Softwood Plywood

Layup &
Purchased Dry Veneer Pressing
Co-products
Trimming & Sawing
A) System Boundary for site generated emissions only
Bark hogged Debarking

fuel
Logs
Conditioning
Purchased
hogged fuel
Peeling & Clipping

Boiler
Natural Gas
Air emissions
LPG
Purchased Green Veneer
Wood hogged fuel
Water effluents
Drying
Diesel fuel Natural Gas
Solid Waste
Electricity
Softwood Plywood
Layup & Pressing
Purchased Dry Veneer Co-products
PF Resin
Trimming & Sawing
B) System Boundary for Site and Off-site Generated Emissions which include those for fuels, resin,
purchased veneer and hogged fuel, and electricity, but do not include emissions for delivery of logs, resin, and
purchased veneer, nor for production of logs
Figure 2.2. System boundary and sub-unit processes used to model the plywood manufacturing process.
Notes: Not included in the sketch are the co-product flows.
37
2.1.2 Material Flows
Those materials considered in the LCI analysis included those listed in Table 2.1. Input materials considered were
logs (includes wood and bark), green veneer, dry veneer, and phenol-formaldehyde resin. Outputs were plywood
and co-products consisting of peeler core, chips, clippings, trimmings, veneer (green and dry), bark, and sawdust.
All flow analyses of wood in the process were determined on an oven-dry weight basis. To derive the wood and
bark weights and to determine how much water was “dried” from the wood and bark, the following assumptions
were made: bark, as well as hogged fuel, was at 50% moisture content (MC) on a wet-basis, the wood was at an
average of 100% MC oven-dry basis and mostly sapwood, and dry veneer and wood waste were at 7% MC on an
oven-dry basis.
Table 2.1. Listing of Input materials, Products, and Co-products for Producing SE Plywood.
Input Materials Co-products Produced Products

Logs Bark Plywood
Green veneer Chips, green
Dry veneer Peeler cores
Phenol formaldehyde resin Clippings, green
Veneer, dry
Plywood trimmings, dry
Sawdust, dry
2.1.3 Transportation
Delivery of the input materials was by truck. The one-way delivery distances for logs, veneer, and resin are given in
Table 2.2. The impacts of delivering materials is not considered in this module, rather the data is used by CORRIM
and ATHENATM when conducting resource through residential construction LCAs presented in Module J.
Table 2.2. Southeast Delivery Distance (One-Way) For Plywood Production.
Material Delivery Distance

(Miles)
Logs (roundwood) 97
Bark on logs 97
Purchased veneer 153
Purchased hogged fuel 64
Resin 98
2.1.4 Wood Density
The weight of the input wood was determined by using the log volume data in Doyle scale and converting to cubic
feet (ft3) of wood using the appropriate conversion factor as given by Briggs (1994). A final conversion was then
made from ft3 to mass (lb) by multiplying by the average weighted densities as determined by their percentage use
as given by the survey, and the densities for these species as provided in the Wood Handbook (1999). The average
wood density used was 31.51 lb/ft3 oven-dry for the mix of loblolly and slash logs (Table 2.3).
38
Table 2.3. Average Density of Wood Species Used To Calculate the Mass of Wood From Logs.
Wood Species Percentage Density2

Use in Survey1
% lb/ft3 kg/m3
Loblolly 50 29.33 235
Slash 50 33.70 270
Average 100 31.51 505
1
Assumed value.
2
Wood density values are from Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (1999).
2.1.5 Assumptions
The data collection, analysis, and assumptions followed protocols as defined in “Consortium for Research on
Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM)Research Guidelines for Life Cycle Inventories” dated April 18, 2001
and ISO 14040. Additional conditions include:
• A critical review was conducted of the process and data analysis to ensure compliance with CORRIM and
ISO 14040 protocol.
• Data quality was found to be high based upon comparisons between plants, and on mass and heat balances.
Data was also compared between regions and was found to be consistent when accounting for the lower
density and moisture contents of wood species for the Pacific Northwest region.
• LCI data for site generated emissions considered only those emissions at the manufacturing process, thus
giving a gate-to-gate LCI; to provide a cradle-to-gate LCI the reader would need to include the
environmental impact of the growing and harvesting of the trees for logs, the transportation of logs, resin,
purchased veneer and hogged fuel to the mill. LCI data for site and off-site emissions are also considered,
but exclude burdens for logs and transportation of logs, resin, and purchased veneer and hogged fuel to the
mill.
• All data from the mill survey taken in 2000 was weight averaged for the five plants based on the individual
production of each plant in comparison to the total production for the year.
• The purchase dry and wet veneers, come with the same allocated burdens, as if produced in the plant since
they use the same unit process models. The addition burden for transportation of the veneers is handled
separately using the delivery mileage data.
• A mass-allocation process was used for assigning burdens.
• Co-products were defined as any materials that were sold outside the system boundary.
• 20% of liquid propane gas (LPG) was assigned to each of the five sub-unit processes from Conditioning
through Trimming and Sawing to account for fuel use by forklift trucks within the plant.
• 100% of diesel fuel use was assigned to debarking and bucking to address fuel use by yard log loaders.
• Density values for the wood species used to make the plywood were obtained from Wood Handbook—
Wood as an Engineering Material (1999), and based on their weighted percentage of use as reported by
manufacturers; the weighted average density was calculated to be 31.51 lb/ft3 oven-dry.
• Log inputs were provided in thousand board feet (Mbf) in Doyle scale and converted to ft3.
39
• All conversion units for forestry and forest products type conversions were taken from Forest Products
Measurements and Conversion Factors, with special Emphasis on the US Pacific Northwest (Briggs 1994).
• Unaccounted wood mass of 1.6% was established by the difference between reported input and output
wood material flows (see Table 2.5 for material balance analysis). The unaccounted wood was treated as a
co-product for the mass-based allocation of environmental burdens.
• SimaPro5, a software package designed for analyzing the environmental impact of products during their
whole life cycle, was used to perform the life cycle analysis. Developed in the Netherlands by PRé
Consultants B.V., SimaPro5 contains a US database for a number of materials, including paper products,
fuels, and chemicals. Franklin Associates (FAL) provides an additional US database.
2.2 PRODUCT YIELDS
The input to produce a thousand square feet (MSF) 3/8-inch basis consists of 65.99 cubic foot (ft3) or 2,079.5 lb of
wood from logs (based on volume and wood densities given in Table 1.3), 10.4 lbs of green veneer and 8.07 lb of
purchased dry veneer. These inputs yielded 1,083 lb of oven-dry plywood and 194 lb of oven-dry self produced
hogged fuel that is mostly bark (the survey had a second category for bark where plants reported 124 lb oven-dry
bark that appears to have been also included in the hogged fuel reported value. See Table 2.4 for a listing of all
inputs and outputs.
40
Table 2.4. Inputs to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood in the Southeast.
SE – Inputs
INPUTS Unit/MSF 3/8-in Basis SI Unit/m3
Materials1/ Units Weighted Average SI Units Weighted Average
lb 2.08E+03 kg 1.07E+03
Phenol formaldehyde lb 1.97E+01 kg 1.01E+01
Soda ash2/ lb 1.58E+00 kg 8.10E-01
Bark3/ lb 1.24E+02 kg 6.36E+01
Purchased
Electrical Use
Fuel
Hog fuel (produced)3/ lb 1.94E+02 kg 9.94E+01
Hog fuel (purchased)3/ lb 4.58E+01 kg 2.35E+01
Wood waste1/ lb 6.07E+01 kg 3.11E+01
Water Use
1
All materials are given as oven-dry or solids weights
2
These materials were not included in the SimaPro LCI analysis; excluded based on the 2% rule
3
Oven-dry weights were determined based on green weights assumed to be 50% moisture content on wet-basis.
A complete wood mass balance is given in Table 2.5. Bark was not considered in the wood flow. The percentage
by weight of oven-dry bark based on the weight of oven-dry wood from the processed logs would be 9.7% if all the
hogged fuel generated within the plant was bark, however if only the reported bark weight was considered then the
amount of bark would be 5.9%. From these values it appears that 70 lb of the hogged fuel generated could be a
mixture of bark and wood residue.
The difference between the total wood input and output is 2.64 lb, which was labeled as the “unaccounted for wood”
and negative since more wood was output than input. The unaccounted wood amounts to only 0.1% of the total
wood input. The percentage of recovery of wood in terms of wood input as logs and output as plywood is 50.2%—
defined as the oven-dry weight of wood in plywood expressed as a percentage of the total oven-dry weight of input
wood from the logs. This is a very good efficiency for an industry that has had to use smaller and smaller diameter
logs to produce veneer. The smaller diameter logs make it more challenging to maintain a high recovery value.
The plants reported that they produced 194 lb of hogged fuel. However, only 124 lb of this was specifically
reported as bark from the debarking unit process. Most likely the difference is bark, but it may also include some
wood waste that had been hogged for fuel from various unit processes.
41
Table 2.5. Wood Mass Balance for Plywood Production in the Southeast Region per 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis.
Inputs lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3
Round wood (logs)1 2079.5 1066

Purchased dry veneer 8.1 4.2
Purchased green veneer 10.4 5.3
Total 2098.0 1075
Outputs lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3
Plywood (wood only)2 1055 541

Wood chips 645.2 331
Peeler core 112 57
Green clippings 172.7 89
Veneer downfall 0 0
Panel trim 60.6 31
Sawdust 4.2 2.2
Wood waste, sold 20.5 11
Wood waste (to boiler) 30.4 16
Sold dry veneer 0 0
3
Unaccounted for wood -2.64 -1.4
Total 2098.0 1075
1 Based on slash and loblolly logs using a weighted average wood density of 31.51 lb/ft3 for 65.99 ft3 of wood in logs to produce
MSF 3/8-inch basis.
2 Plywood (wood only) based on estimated weight of plywood, 1083.2 lb, minus 80% of resin, filler, soda ash, and catalyst total
use.
3 0.1% unaccounted for wood based on input weight.
Notes: All weights are on an oven-dry basis.
2.3 MANUFACTURING ENERGY SUMMARY
2.3.1 Sources of Energy
Energy for the production of plywood comes from electricity, diesel, liquid propane gas (LPG), bark-hogged fuel,
and steam. With the recent dramatic cost increases for fuel and electricity, and the potential for greater cost
increases, this topic will attract considerable attention in the coming years as plants seek to maintain profitability.
The electricity is used to operate the debarker, bucker, lathe, pneumatic and mechanical conveying equipment, fans,
hydraulic pumps, and saws. Electricity was used in all processes. Diesel fuel use is attributed solely to log loaders
in the “Debarking” sub-unit process. As such, all of the diesel use was assigned to this process. Forklift trucks used
small amounts of LPG in one or more of the remaining five sub-unit processes. This fuel use was assigned evenly
over the five sub-unit processes from “Conditioning” to “Trimming and Sawing”; as such, 20% of the LPG use was
assigned to each of these operations.
42
2.3.2 Electricity Use Summary
The source of fuel used to generate the electricity used in the manufacturing process is very important in
determining the type and amount of impact in the LCA. The breakdown of electricity use in the Southeast by fuel
source is given in Table 2.6. The source of this data is the US Department of Energy (USDOE 2000). In 2000, the
dominant form of fuel source in the region was coal, representing 45.56% of the total, followed by natural gas at
23.03% and nuclear at 21.57%. In the SimaPro 5.0 analysis using the FAL database, combusting of coal contributes
significant impact values, as does nuclear and petroleum, whereas natural gas and hydroelectric power contributes
relatively less.
Table 2.6. Electric Power Industry Generation of Electricity by Primary Energy Sources and State for the
Southeast Region as Defined by the US Department of Energy.
Percentage Share, 20001
Fuel AL GA LA MS FL AR TX AVG
Coal 61.90 64.80 25.60 37.00 37.90 54.70 37.00 45.56
Petroleum 0.20 1.30 2.30 7.90 18.50 0.50 0.70 4.49
Gas 4.30 2.70 49.60 22.50 22.70 7.80 51.60 23.03
Nuclear 25.20 26.40 17.60 28.50 16.90 26.50 9.90 21.57
Hydroelectric 4.70 1.90 0.60 0.00 0.00 5.40 0.20 1.83
Other 3.70 2.90 4.30 4.10 4.00 5.10 0.60 3.53
1 Source: Energy Information Administration/State Electric Profiles 2000, Department of Energy.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/toc.html
The distribution of electricity use by unit process for the various plants was not obtained from the survey data.
Rather it was extracted from data provided by outside sources as documented in Section 1.32 of the Pacific
Northwest (PNW) plywood report (Grist and Karmous 1988). It was felt, in the absence of data for the Southeast,
that the distribution of electricity by unit process would be comparable to data reported for the PNW. Table 2.7
provides a breakdown of electricity use by unit process. The dominant electricity use is for drying (36.7%) to
operate the high velocity fans used in jet dryers (methods used to increase the heat and mass transfer rates during
drying). Each of four other unit processes—debarking/ bucking, peeling/clipping, lay-up/pressing, and
trimming/sawing—each use approximately 15% of the total electricity. Conditioning uses the least amount (7%).
Table 2.7. Electricity Allocation by Unit Process for Plywood Production in the Southeast.
Allocation
Unit process kWh/MSF 3/8-in Basis %1
Debarking 15.1 12.4
Conditioning 8.4 6.9
Peeling & clipping 21.5 14.6
Veneer drying 44.8 36.7
Lay-up & pressing 13.4 11.0
Trimming & sawing 18.8 15.4
Total 122.0 100.0
Source: 1 Ferrari, C.J., 2000. Life Cycle Assessment: Environmental modeling of plywood and laminated veneer lumber
manufacturing. Table 24, Appendix D., page 111 – Distribution of electricity use by sub-unit processes.
Notes: All values are given per 1.0 MSF 3/8-in basis of plywood.
43
2.4 HOGGED FUEL UTILIZATION
All of the bark generated during debarking as well as other waste sources in the plants were combined with some
purchased hogged fuel (approximately 19% of the total hogged fuel which includes the wood waste burned) to use
as hogged fuel in either a boiler or a direct-fired fuel cell. Hogged fuel weight, following industry practice, was
reported in the surveys as green weight and assumed to be at 50% moisture content on a wet-weight basis. As such,
the total hogged fuel burned is 479 lb at 50% moisture content on a wet basis, or 240 lb of oven-dry weight hogged
fuel. A very small amount of wood waste, 30.4 lb oven-dry, was reported as burned in the boiler. In addition to
hogged fuel for heat generation, natural gas was also used, representing 11.4% of the total heat generation. Hogged
fuel and wood waste were by far the dominant fuel sources at 88.6% of the total energy for heat. Table 2.8 provides
a breakdown of heat energy use for the boilers by fuel source.
Table 2.8. Southeast Weighted Data Conversion of Boiler Inputs into Heat Energy for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis
of Plywood.
Fuel Type Input Heat Energy Fuel Source

Btu %
Total Breakdown Total Breakdown Total Breakdown
1, 2
Hogged fuel (lb) 2.40E+02 1.44E+06 79
Self generated –
Wood boiler 1.94E+02 1.17E+06 81
Purchased – Wood
boiler 4.58E+01 2.76E+05 19
1,2
Wood waste (lb) 3.04E+01 1.86E+05 10
3 3
Natural gas (ft ) 2.42E+02 2.09E+05 11
Total 1.84E+06 100
1
Oven-dry weight based on assumed weight of green hogged fuel at 50% MC wet-basis.
2
Energy calculations done on green weight of hogged fuel and wood waste multiplied by 4500 Btu/lb of green fuel multiplied by
67% efficiency for burning.
3
Volume of natural gas multiplied by 1016 Btu/ft3 of natural gas, 80% efficiency—source ATHENA™.
Three unit processes used hogged fuel and natural gas for heatblock conditioning, veneer drying, and hot pressing.
Veneer drying used the dominant amount of energy for heating (77%), followed by hot pressing (13%) and
conditioning (10%). The plants reported heat use for drying and pressing. To determine heat use for conditioning it
was calculated by taking the total heat use for the plant (as determined by hogged and wood waste fuel used in the
boiler to generate steam) and subtracting the reported steam use for drying and hot pressing. In summary, dryers
used the dominant amount of electricity (36.7%) and overall energy (77%) compared to the total use for the three
production centers. Table 2.9 provides a breakdown of heat use by sub-unit process and source.
44
Table 2.9. Boiler Energy Requirements for Conditioning, Drying, and Pressing Unit Processes Used in the
Production of Plywood in the Southeast Region.
Conditioning Drying Pressing Total

Btu/MSF Btu/MSF Btu/MSF 3/8- Btu/MSF Total
Fuel Inputs 3/8-in Basis 3/8-in Basis in Basis 3/8-in Basis %
Hogged fuel1/ 168,010 1,135,802 225,758 1,529,570 88
Natural gas 209,271 209,271 12
Total 168,010 1,345,073 225,758 1,738,841 100
Percent 10 77 13 100
1/
Hogged fuel values include self-produced hogged fuel along with wood waste.
Boiler data in the LCI was determined by calculating the energy equivalence of the two fuel sources of hogged fuel
and natural gas, then entering this data into a boiler module for hogged fuel generated within the plant, or in the
Franklin Associates database for a natural gas fired boiler, respectively. The wood boiler database did not include a
transportation burden for its delivery. The natural gas fired boiler used the FAL database that included a
transportation burden to the plant. For all fuel, whether wood, hogged fuel, or natural gas, emissions from the FAL
database in the LCI analysis were used. Table 2.10 provides a comparison of emissions as generated by the FAL
database to that of the data collected by the survey. All survey data, except for CO2, was provided by the survey;
CO2 was calculated from EPA data on boiler emissions (EPA 1999). Although the emissions data for FAL and the
CORRIM survey are similar in magnitude, there are differences. The difference between the FAL data and
survey/EPA data is due to several factors. First, the FAL data represents wood-fired boilers throughout the US and
does not consider wood species or regional effects on the values. Secondly, the FAL database is based upon a much
larger sampling. Consideration should be given to establishing a new database for hogged-fuel fired boilers based
on the CORRIM survey data. The CORRIM database could include boiler data from other modules for softwood
plywood, softwood lumber, and OSB. Transportation impacts for hogged fuel were not included in this emissions
data, however, it would need to be considered whether self-generated or purchased in any cradle-to-gate LCI or
LCA.
45
Table 2.10. Survey Data on Air Emissions for Boilers as Output from SimaPro 5 (Using the FAL1 Boiler
Data) Compared to Survey Data.
Emissions to Air FAL Data1 CORRIM Survey Data

lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis
Acrolien N/R 4.06E-05
CO 2.63E+00 4.87E+00
CO2 4.06E+02 6.41E+022
Methanol N/R 5.17E-03
NOX 3.08E-01 1.14E+00
Particulates PM10 N/R 1.72E-01
Phenol 7.73E-03 6.77E-06
SO2 1.53E-02 2.30E-02
VOC N/R 7.30E-02
Water vapor N/R 2.36E+02
1
Reference: SimaPro 5.0, 2001; Franklin and Associates, FAL Database, 1998.
2
Calculated from EPA Wood Residue Combustion in Boilers, AP-42, Section 1.6, EPA, 2001.
Notes: Data represent total emissions based on weighted production data for the boilers with no allocation to co-products.
N/R= Not reported in surveys.
46
2.5 DRYING EMISSIONS FOR SOUTHEAST PLYWOOD PRODUCTION
Dryers are used to take the moisture content of green veneer from about 100% down to about 5% (oven-dry basis).
Dryer temperatures are normally in the 340 to 380ºF range, however, the wood veneer does not experience this
higher temperature until much of its moisture is evaporated near the output end of the dryer. Most emissions are
generated at this time. One of the plants surveyed had a direct-fired natural gas dryer, and because of this the
reported emissions have components of CO, CO2 (fossil), NOx, and SO2 that would not be emitted from the steam
heated dryers.
Table 2.11. Emissions for Drying Veneer in the Southeast as Reported in Surveys.
Emissions to Air 1/ Emissions from Dryer lb/MSF Emissions from Dryer

3/8-in Basis 1/ kg/m3
Acrolien 6.76E-06 3.47E-06
CO2 (fossil)2/ 2.04E+01 1.05E+01
CO 1.22E-01 6.25E-02
Methanol 7.21E-04 3.70E-04
NOX 4.06E-02 2.08E-02
PM10 2.09E-02 1.07E-02
Phenol 3.15E-04 1.61E-04
SO2 8.21E-05 4.21E-05
VOC 7.61E-02 3.90E-02
1
Air emission data based on weighted production data as reported from surveys.
2
Natural gas, direct-fired dryer for one of the surveyed plants.
Notes: Data are total emissions; no burden or allocation to co-products.
2.6 PRESSING EMISSIONS SOUTHEAST PLYWOOD PRODUCTION
Hot pressing is done in the plywood process to provide intimate contact between veneers while the phenol-
formaldehyde adhesive cures as a result of temperature in the 325-340ºF range. Emissions are generated from the
wood as a result of the high temperatures, and the adhesive also generate emissions during cure.
47
Table 2.12. Emissions for Hot Pressing Plywood in the Southeast.
Emissions to Air Emissions from Dryer lb/MSF 3/8- Emissions from Dryer
in Basis 1/ kg/m3
Acetone 6.50E-03 3.33E-03
Methanol 1.40E-01 7.18E-02
Particulate matter 1.78E-01 9.12E-02
Phenol 1.40E-03 7.18E-04
THC as carbon 2.10E-01 1.08E-01
VOC as propane 2.50E-01 1.28E-01
Water vapor 2.85E+01 1.46E+01
1
Notes: Data are total emissions; no burden of allocation has been made to co-products.
2.7 ADHESIVE USE AND ENERGY/ELECTRICITY TO PRODUCE
Phenol-formaldehyde (phenolic) resin is the adhesive used in plywood production. The manufacture of phenolic
resins is particularly energy intensive. The total energy requirement for the production of 19.68 lb of phenolic
needed for MSF 3/8-inch basis plywood from the Southeast is 3.25E+05 Btu. Electricity requirements for phenol-
formaldehyde production per MSF 3/8-inch basis are 10.4% of the total electricity used to produce plywood in the
Southeast region. The 19.68 lb of phenol-formaldehyde resin is comprised of 65% formaldehyde and 35% phenol
by weight. All the materials, fuel, and electricity used to produce the phenol-formaldehyde resin are listed in Table
2.13. Total air emissions for the production of the 19.68 lb of phenol-formaldehyde resin are given in Table 2.14.
Table 2.13. Production Requirements1 for the 19.68 lb of Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin Needed to
Manufacture 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the Southeast Region.
INPUTS
Materials lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3
Formaldehyde 1.28E+01 3.02E+01
Phenol 6.89E+00 1.62E+01
Fuel Use Btu/MSF 3/8-in Basis MJ/m3

Heavy oil 1.20E+04 1.43E+05
Gasoline 8.47E+04 1.01E+06
Natural gas 2.28E+05 2.72E+06
Electrical Use kWh/MSF 3/8-in Basis MJ/m3

Electricity 1.27E+01 5.17E+01
1
Products, ATHENATM, 1993.
48
Table 2.14. Air Emissions for the Production of the 19.68 lb of Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin Needed to
Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood in the Southeast Region.
PF Resin Total for Plywood PF Resin Contribution to

Production1 Production2 Plywood Production
Substance
lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis %
Aldehydes 9.20E-04 1.48E-03 62.35
Ammonia 1.54E-04 8.94E-04 17.19
Be 7.68E-08 6.16E-07 12.46
Cd 7.44E-07 4.74E-06 15.69
CO 1.58E-01 3.14E+00 5.01
CO2 (fossil) 5.17E+01 2.07E+02 24.97
Cobalt 7.98E-07 5.43E-06 14.70
Cr 1.04E-06 1.73E-05 6.03
Cumene 9.85E-05 1.03E-04 95.49
Dichloromethane 8.53E-07 7.56E-06 11.28
Dioxin (TEQ) 1.11E-12 9.94E-12 11.20
Formaldehyde 2.24E-02 2.76E-02 81.10
HCl 1.05E-03 9.38E-03 11.24
HF 1.46E-04 1.31E-03 11.16
Hg 4.91E-07 4.11E-06 11.95
Kerosene 6.42E-06 5.81E-05 11.05
Metals 1.00E-05 3.22E-05 31.20
Methane 1.68E-01 4.93E-01 34.19
N-nitrodimethylamine 4.44E-08 3.96E-07 11.21
N 2O 1.23E-04 1.09E-03 11.25
Ni 1.03E-05 1.79E-04 5.78
Non methane VOC 4.09E-01 6.24E-01 65.51
NOX 5.05E-01 1.53E+00 33.12
Particulates (unspecified) 1.53E-02 1.33E-01 11.46
Phenol 2.89E-02 3.98E-02 72.58
Sb 3.03E-07 2.13E-06 14.27
Se 1.73E-06 1.48E-05 11.70
SOX 8.37E-01 2.15E+00 38.93
Tetrachloroethene 2.04E-07 1.81E-06 11.25
Tetrachloromethane 5.77E-07 4.91E-06 11.75
Trichloroethene 1.99E-07 1.78E-06 11.21
1
Products, ATHENATM, 1993. . Includes all emissions from resource through resin production, it does not include emissions for
delivery of resin to plant, this is handled separately.
2
Includes all emissions for plywood and resin production, plus those emissions associated with the production and delivery of
electricity and fuel, it does not include emissions for to generate the logs or to deliver materials to the plant, these are handled
separately.
49
2.8 PROCESS RELATED EMISSIONS
The total emissions from each unit process can also be determined. Table 2.15 gives the emissions breakdown for
the six unit processes. The values include the burdens in terms of emissions for the production of any electricity,
fuel, and adhesive, in addition to that of the hogged fuel and wood. The total values for Tables 2.15 and 2.16 differ
slightly due to rounding error as the values were accumulated from sub-unit process to sub-unit process. The
allocation of all emissions to plywood was 48.49%; as such, to find total emissions, divide the emissions allocated to
plywood by 0.4849. The reminder of emissions (51.55%) was assigned to the co-products.
Table 2.15. Process Emissions for Plywood Production in the Southeast Region.
Lay up &
Bucking & Log Peeling & Veneer Pressing Trimming
Debarking Conditioning Clipping Drying & Sawing Total
Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis
Acetaldehyde 0.00E+00 3.74E-05 0.00E+00 7.40E-04 3.63E-03 0.00E+00 4.41E-03
Acrolein 1.30E-07 7.32E-08 1.87E-07 6.45E-06 4.65E-07 2.76E-07 7.58E-06
CO 2.06E-02 1.75E-01 1.18E-02 2.21E+00 5.96E-01 1.78E-02 3.03E+00
CO2 (fossil) 4.83E-03 6.78E+00 1.65E+01 6.49E+01 7.12E+01 2.45E+01 1.84E+02
CO2 (biofuel)1/ 1.44E+01 2.62E+01 5.96E-03 3.17E+02 6.50E+01 8.83E-03 4.23E+02

Formaldehyde 0.00E+00 8.27E-05 1.30E-06 1.24E-03 2.42E-02 1.92E-06 2.56E-02
Methane 2.44E-02 1.49E-02 3.58E-02 1.32E-01 2.11E-01 5.32E-02 4.71E-01
Methanol 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.18E-01 0.00E+00 1.18E-01
Non methane VOC 2.28E-02 1.10E-02 2.14E-02 7.20E-02 4.37E-01 3.26E-02 5.97E-01
NOX 1.01E-01 5.00E-02 6.60E-02 5.09E-01 6.36E-01 9.95E-02 1.46E+00
Particulates 4.21E-03 2.16E-03 2.48E-05 8.82E-02 1.62E-01 2.76E-01 5.33E-01
Particulates (PM10) 1.98E-03 1.11E-03 2.85E-03 2.84E-02 6.40E-03 8.26E-02 1.23E-01
Particulates
(unspecified) 9.33E-03 5.17E-03 1.32E-02 4.94E-02 3.04E-02 1.95E-02 1.27E-01
Phenol 3.32E-07 4.98E-04 4.58E-07 6.31E-03 3.13E-02 6.77E-07 3.81E-02
SO2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.97E-05 4.82E-07 0.00E+00 7.02E-05
SOX 1.00E-01 6.10E-02 1.42E-01 5.32E-01 1.00E+00 2.12E-01 2.05E+00
VOC 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.46E-02 2.12E-01 0.00E+00 2.76E-01
1
CO2 biomass and non-fossil collaborated.
production of resin; it does not include emissions for production of logs, or for delivery of logs, bark, resin, purchased veneer to
the plant, this is handled separately.
50
SOUTHEAST REGION
Life-cycle inventory results for production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch of softwood plywood in the Southeast are given in
Table 2.16 (inputs) and 2.17 (outputs). Results include all processes within the system boundary defined in Figure
2.2. Results were generated in SimaPro 5 Life-Cycle Assessment software with the Franklin Associates’ database
for fuel use and electricity production burdens. Emissions for production of the phenolic adhesive were obtained
from ATHENATM. Other inputs and outputs were obtained from the surveyed plants.
51
Table 2.16. Life-Cycle Inventory Results for Producing 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood in the Southeast
Region.
SE Plywood – Inputs
INPUTS Unit/MSF 3/8-in Basis SI Unit/m3
Materials1/ Units Weighted Average SI Units Weighted Average
lb 2.08E+03 kg 1.07E+03
Phenol formaldehyde lb 1.97E+01 kg 1.01E+01
2/
Catalyst lb 1.40E+00 kg 7.18E-01
2/
Soda ash lb 1.58E+00 kg 8.10E-01
Bark3/4/ lb 1.24E+02 kg 6.36E+01
Purchased
Electrical Use
Fuel1/
Hog fuel (produced)3/4/ lb 1.94E+02 kg 9.94E+01
3/4/
Hog fuel (purchased) lb 4.58E+01 kg 2.35E+01
4/
Wood waste lb 3.04E+01 kg 1.56E+01
Water Use
1
All wood, bark and other materials given as oven-dry weights.
2
These materials were not included in the SimaPro LCI analysis; excluded based on the 2% rule.
3
Bark weight included in the hogged fuel produced weight.
4
Bark, wood and hogged fuel when used for fuel assumed 50% MC wet basis for energy calculations.
52
Table 2.17. Life-Cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch Basis Plywood Production in the Southeast
Region.

Raw Materials
Ammonia 8.94E-04 4.58E-04
lb/MSF kg/m3
As 2.42E-05 1.24E-05
Substance 3/8 in
Ba 8.88E-04 4.55E-04
SE Bark from log 5.05E+01 2.59E+01
Be 6.16E-07 3.16E-07
SE Logs 1.01E+03 5.18E+02
0.00E+00 Benzene 7.44E-04 3.81E-04
Coal FAL 5.21E+01 2.67E+01
Cd 4.74E-06 2.43E-06
Crude oil FAL 1.84E+01 9.43E+00
Limestone 6.01E+00 3.08E+00 Cl2 1.58E-03 8.10E-04
Natural gas FAL 3.83E+01 1.96E+01 CO 3.14E+00 1.61E+00
CO2 (fossil) 2.07E+02 1.06E+02
Uranium FAL 2.65E-04 1.36E-04
CO2 (biomass) 4.24E+02 2.17E+02
Wood/wood wastes FAL 5.21E+01 2.67E+01
Cobalt 5.43E-06 2.78E-06
Cr 1.73E-05 8.87E-06
Electricity Use
MJ/m 3 Cumene 1.03E-04 5.28E-05
kWh/MSF
Substance 3/8 in Dichloromethane 7.56E-06 3.88E-06
Electricity from other sources 3.58E+00 1.46E+01 Dioxin (TEQ) 9.94E-12 5.10E-12
Energy from hydro power 1.86E+00 7.57E+00 Fe 8.88E-04 4.55E-04
HCl 9.38E-03 4.81E-03
Energy Use
Btu/MSF MJ/m3 HF 1.31E-03 6.72E-04
3/8 in Hg 4.11E-06 2.11E-06
Substance
K 1.58E-01 8.10E-02
Natural gas direct fired 1.85E+05 2.21E+06
Kerosene 5.81E-05 2.98E-05
Limonene 9.69E-03 4.97E-03
Water Use
ft3/MSF 3/8 m3/m3 Metals 3.22E-05 1.65E-05
in Methane 4.93E-01 2.53E-01
Substance
Methanol 1.24E-01 6.36E-02
Municipal Water Source 2.01E+00 6.43E-02
Recycled Water Source 5.43E-02 1.74E-03
Well Water Source 6.15E+00 1.97E-01
Mn 1.83E-03 9.38E-04
Emissions to Air n-nitrodimethylamine 3.96E-07 2.03E-07

3
lb/MSF kg/m N2O 1.09E-03 5.59E-04
Substance 3/8 in Na 3.64E-03 1.87E-03
Acetaldehyde 4.61E-03 2.36E-03 Naphthalene 4.85E-04 2.49E-04
Acetone 5.73E-03 2.94E-03 Ni 1.79E-04 9.18E-05
Acrolein 7.88E-06 4.04E-06 Non methane VOC 6.24E-01 3.20E-01
Aldehydes 1.48E-03 7.59E-04 NOx 1.53E+00 7.84E-01
53
Organic substances 3.51E-02 1.80E-02 Cr 9.25E-05 4.74E-05
Particulates 5.71E-01 2.93E-01 Cyanide 1.38E-07 7.07E-08
Particulates (PM10) 1.33E-01 6.82E-02 Dissolved solids 2.03E+00 1.04E+00
Particulates (unspecified) 1.33E-01 6.82E-02 Fe 7.31E-03 3.75E-03
Pb 2.50E-04 1.28E-04 Fluoride ions 2.32E-04 1.19E-04
Phenol 3.98E-02 2.04E-02 H2SO4 1.31E-03 6.72E-04
Sb 2.13E-06 1.09E-06 Hg 7.25E-09 3.72E-09
Se 1.48E-05 7.59E-06 Metallic ions 4.12E-04 2.11E-04
SO2 7.31E-05 3.75E-05 Mn 4.09E-03 2.10E-03
SOx 2.15E+00 1.10E+00 Na 9.19E-05 4.71E-05
Tetrachloroethene 1.81E-06 9.28E-07 NH3 1.36E-04 6.97E-05
Tetrachloromethane 4.91E-06 2.52E-06 Nitrate 2.19E-05 1.12E-05
THC as Carbon 1.85E-01 9.48E-02 Oil 3.63E-02 1.86E-02
Trichloroethene 1.78E-06 9.12E-07 Other organics 6.81E-03 3.49E-03
VOC 2.88E-01 1.48E-01 Pb 3.53E-08 1.81E-08
Water vapor 5.08E+02 2.60E+02 Phenol 1.34E-06 6.87E-07
Zn 8.88E-04 4.55E-04 Phosphate 6.50E-04 3.33E-04
Sulphate 1.01E-01 5.18E-02
Emissions to Water
lb/MSF kg/m3 Zn 3.21E-05 1.65E-05
3/8 in
Substance
Acid as H+ 1.94E-08 9.94E-09
lb/MSF kg/m3
B 5.21E-03 2.67E-03 Substance 3/8 in
BOD 2.09E-03 1.07E-03 Solid waste 4.54E+01 2.33E+01
Ca 1.43E-07 7.33E-08
Calcium ions 4.99E-05 2.56E-05 Nonmaterial Emissions
Cd 9.25E-05 4.74E-05 Ci/MSF Bq/m3
Substance 3/8 in
Chromate 3.74E-06 1.92E-06
Radioactive subst. to air 3.49E-05 1.46E+05
Cl- 9.31E-02 4.77E-02
COD 2.04E-02 1.05E-02
Notes: Data are allocated emissions and total emissions, which includes emissions for the production and delivery of electricity
and fuel, and production of resin but not its delivery to plant. Excludes burden for logs and their delivery.
It is also useful to examine those emissions solely from the production of plywood, which is referred to as site
emissions. Tables 2.18 and 2.19 provide output data for the plywood excluding the emissions contributed by the
production of resin, fuel, electricity, logs, and transportation.
54
Table 2.18. Life-Cycle Inventory Results for Production of 1.0 MSF 3/8-inch Basis Plywood in the Southeast
Region.
Raw Materials
lb/MSF kg/m3
Substance 3/8 in
SE bark from log 5.05E+01 2.59E+01
SE logs 1.01E+03 5.18E+02
Phenol formaldehyde resin 1.73E+01 8.87E+00
Wood 5.18E+01 2.66E+01
ft3/MSF m3/m3
Substance 3/8 in
Distillate fuel oil (DFO) 1.76E-02 5.63E-04
LPG stand alone 5.56E-03 1.78E-04
Natural gas (vol) 2.73E+01 8.74E-01
Electricity Use
kWh/MSF 3/8 MJ/m3
Substance in
Electricity from
ATHENATM 9.03E+01 3.67E+02
Energy Use
Btu/MSF 3/8 MJ/m3
Substance in
Natural gas direct fired 1.85E+05 2.21E+06
Water Use
ft3/MSF m3/m3
Substance 3/8 in
Municipal water source 2.01E+00 6.43E-02
Recycled water source 5.43E-02 1.74E-03
Well water source 6.15E+00 1.97E-01
Emissions to Air
lb/MSF kg/m3
Substance 3/8 in
Acetone 5.73E-03 2.94E-03
As 1.78E-05 9.12E-06
Ba 8.88E-04 4.55E-04
55
Benzene 7.25E-04 3.72E-04
Cl2 1.58E-03 8.10E-04
CO 2.87E+00 1.47E+00
CO2 (fossil) 1.01E+01 5.18E+00
CO2 (biomass) 4.24E+02 2.17E+02
Cr 9.31E-06 4.77E-06
Fe 8.88E-04 4.55E-04
K 1.58E-01 8.10E-02
Limonene 9.69E-03 4.97E-03
Methane 9.50E-05 4.87E-05
Methanol 1.24E-01 6.36E-02
Mn 1.82E-03 9.33E-04
Na 3.64E-03 1.87E-03
Naphthalene 4.85E-04 2.49E-04
Ni 1.13E-04 5.79E-05
NOX 4.09E-01 2.10E-01
Organic substances 3.35E-02 1.72E-02
Pb 2.43E-04 1.25E-04
Phenol 9.56E-03 4.90E-03
SO2 7.31E-05 3.75E-05
SOX 2.15E-02 1.10E-02
THC as Carbon 1.85E-01 9.48E-02
VOC 2.88E-01 1.48E-01
Zn 8.88E-04 4.55E-04
Emissions to water
lb/MSF kg/m3
Substance 3/8 in
BOD 7.63E-06 3.91E-06
COD 6.50E-04 3.33E-04
Dissolved solids 1.28E-03 6.56E-04
NH3 1.47E-06 7.54E-07
56
lb/MSF kg/m3
Substance 3/8 in
Solid waste 1.82E+01 9.33E+00
Source: taken from SimaPro 5.0 LCI
Notes: Results are for plywood production only [referred to as “site generated data”]; no emissions for production or
transportation considered for fuel, electricity, resin, and logs/bark. It also doesn’t include delivery emissions for purchased
veneer or purchased hogged fuel. These are allocated emissions for plywood.
Table 2.19. Life-cycle Inventory Results for 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis Plywood Production from the Southeast
region.
LCI Total LCI Site-Generated

Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis
Acrolein 7.88E-06
CO 3.14E+00 2.87E+00
CO2 (fossil) 2.07E+02 1.01E+01
CO2 (biofuel) 4.24E+02 4.24E+02
Methane 4.93E-01 9.50E-05
Methanol 1.24E-01 1.24E-01
NOX 1.53E+00 4.09E-01
Particulates (unspecified) 1.33E-01
Phenol 3.98E-02 9.56E-03
SO2 7.31E-05 7.31E-05
SOX 2.15E+00 2.15E-02
VOC 2.88E-01 2.88E-01
Notes: Table gives a comparison of the total LCI to the LCI of site generated emissions for plywood
production only; does not include production and transportation emissions for fuel, electricity, and
resin.)
57
2.10 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the effects of using different fuel sources for heat generation.
Currently there are two fuel sources used, hogged fuel, which is comprised of bark and wood waste, and natural gas.
This analysis used the plywood manufacturing model created in an LCI software program called SimaPro version
5.0.009, using all natural gas and all self-produced hogged fuel for heat generation. Three scenarios were modeled:
1) comparing all natural gas versus the “as is” original plywood model, with no fuel changes and incorporating both
natural gas and hogged fuel, 2) comparing the use of all self-produced hogged fuel versus the “as is” original
plywood model, with no changes, and 3) comparing the use of all natural gas versus all self-produced hogged fuel as
a fuel for heat.
2.10.1 Sensitivity analysis of plywood manufacturing in the SE region of the United States
Sensitivity analyses were used to study the LCI model that represented plywood manufacturing. The analysis can be
useful to understand how various process parameters contribute to environmental output factors. For instance, in
plywood manufacturing, heat is used in several unit processes, consuming hogged fuel and/or natural gas as fuel to
generate the heat. Changing the fuel source can have dramatic effect on the type and quantity of emissions into the
environment. This sensitivity analysis was used to compare the effects of using all self produced hogged fuel to
natural gas as a fuel input. In the original model, fuel sources used for heat purposes included both natural gas and
hogged fuel consisting of bark and wood waste.
The original SE model that was based on survey data had 89% of the fuel in the form of hogged fuel, self produced
and purchased, and 11% as natural gas. In actuality, most mills use only one type of fuel source, whereas, the
original study resulted in an averaged model incorporating different fuel sources taken from primary survey
information. There were three scenarios done for the "average" mill. The first scenario used LCI results to compare
fuel use of 100% natural gas only versus the weighted average fuel use from the survey, referred to as the “as is”
condition. The second scenario compared 100% self generated hogged fuel versus the “as is”, and the third scenario
compared 100% self generated hogged fuel versus 100% natural gas.
2.10.2 Sensitivity analysis results
Table 2.20 is a summary of the three scenarios, with a partial list of air emissions for the SE (for a detailed listing
see Appendix 2). In the first two scenarios, all natural gas versus “as is” and all self-produced hogged fuel versus
“as is,” a negative percentage difference number indicates that the assumed fuel source contributes fewer emissions
than the “as is” plywood model. A positive percentage difference means that the “as is” or original model
contributes fewer emissions. In the third scenario, a negative number indicates that all natural gas contributes fewer
emissions than all self-generated hogged fuel and a positive percentage number means that all self-produced hogged
fuel contributes fewer emissions.
58
Table 2.20. Sensitivity Analysis for the SE. Fuel Use Comparison for Steam Production, Analyzing Natural
gas, Hogged Fuel and “As Is” (Original Fuel Distribution).
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Natural Gas Hogged Natural gas
Difference Fuel versus
1/
"As is", Difference Hogged Fuel
1/
Original Fuel Difference1/
Natural Gas Hogged Distribution % %
Fuel %
Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in basis
CO 8.06E-01 3.73E+00 3.14E+00 -74 19 -74
CO2 (fossil) 3.95E+02 2.04E+02 2.07E+02 91 -1 91
2/
CO2 (biofuel) 1.20E-01 5.16E+02 4.24E+02 -100 22 -100
NOx 1.82E+00 1.58E+00 1.53E+00 19 3 19
SO2 7.31E-05 7.31E-05 7.31E-05 0 0 0
SOx 5.06E+00 2.16E+00 2.15E+00 135 0 135
VOC 2.88E-01 2.88E-01 2.88E-01 0 0 0
Non methane VOC 1.39E+00 6.24E-01 6.24E-01 123 0 123
Acetaldehyde 4.00E-03 4.74E-03 4.61E-03 -13 3 -13
Acrolein 1.91E-06 1.88E-06 7.88E-06 -76 -76 -76
Formaldehyde 2.63E-02 2.79E-02 2.76E-02 -5 1 -5
Methane 1.04E+00 4.93E-01 4.93E-01 112 0 112
Methanol 1.24E-01 1.24E-01 1.24E-01 0 0 0
Phenol 3.17E-02 4.15E-02 3.98E-02 -20 4 -20
Particulates 5.50E-01 5.78E-01 5.71E-01 -4 1 -4
Particulates (PM10) 1.33E-01 1.33E-01 1.33E-01 0 0 0
Particulates (unspecified) 1.38E-01 1.33E-01 1.33E-01 4 0 4
1/
All comparisons are with the weighted average fuel use as indicated in the mill survey.
2/
CO2 biomass and non-fossil (which comes from SimaPro database and is most likely biomass) collaborated
Notes: Data are allocated emissions for plywood.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 fossil and biomass emissions are treated differently in LCI analyses because hogged fuel is a biomass fuel, and
natural gas, a fossil fuel. CO2 biomass is treated separately because it can be taken back up in biomass through
photosynthesis and assumed to have a neutral impact on the environment, while CO2 fossil emissions cannot be
readily replenished as natural gas.
The following is a summary of the comparison results when fuel switching:
Methane (CH4)
Methane emissions increased by more than 100% when natural gas was used compared to the “as is” model. All
self-produced hogged fuel contributed about the same methane emissions as the "as is" model.
59
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
NOX emissions in all three scenarios are higher than in the "as is" model, with natural gas having the highest
emissions. Natural gas emitted 19% more NOX emissions than hogged fuel.
SO2 and SOX
There is no difference in SO2 emissions between various fuel sources use for heat generation it is the value that was
reported in the plant survey for the dryers. However, SOX emissions are significantly higher than when using
natural gas rather than hogged fuel.
VOC and Non Methane VOC
There is no difference in VOC emissions between various fuel sources for heat generation, although, non methane
VOC is heavily influenced by natural gas combustion and is more than double those of scenarios 2 and 3. Hogged
fuel use does not contribute any non-methane VOC. VOC emissions come from drying of veneer and also pressing
emissions of plywood panel production.
HAP (hazardous air pollutants which include acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol)
Using natural gas as a heat source decreased HAP emissions, with the exception of methanol that was not influenced
by fuel inputs. In this analysis, when switching to all self-produced hogged fuel, acrolein was the only HAP
emission that decreased.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Combustion of natural gas decreases CO emissions. When hogged fuel was used, CO emissions increased
compared to the "as is" model and were 74% higher than when using natural gas.
Particulates
Particulate emissions were affected little by fuel switching indicating that both fuel sources contribute similar
amounts of particulates. There was a slight indication that hogged fuel combustion generates contributes more
particulates than combustion of all natural gas (1% more) and the “as is” (4% more) models.
2.11 CARBON BALANCE FOR PLYWOOD IN THE SOUTHEAST
2.11.1 Procedure
The element, carbon, was tracked throughout the production of softwood plywood. To track carbon, a checklist was
devised to balance the inputs of carbon with the outputs to see if there was any carbon missing and to also follow
carbon in the LCI of plywood, to see which product or emission carbon is assigned to. This analysis followed
carbon from the inputs of material, electricity and fuels to its production of plywood as a product, its co-products
and emissions into the environment. The percentage of carbon in wood was taken from a separate study done by
R.A Birdsey, in 1994. The percentage was species specific and was manipulated to fit this study by allocating a
percentage of the species used in the modeling of plywood manufacturing. For the southeast specifically, Birdsey’s
publication did not separate southern pine species. Other carbon percentages in materials other than wood material
were either taken from the Merck Index (1989) or were calculated by using atomic masses of each element from the
chemical formula.
60
Table 2.21. Percentage of carbon in wood, Southeast.
Conversion Species Density Roundwood (3) Roundwood Carbon Carbon (lb

factor (1,2) allocation lb carbon /lb
ft3 lb roundwood)
lb/ft3 %
SE S. Pine 16.9 1 31.51 65.99 2079.34 1115.23 53.63
1/
Birdsey, R.A., 1994. Carbon storage and accumulation in US forest ecosystems. General technical Report WO-59.
Washington, DC. USDA Forest Services.
2/
Skog, Kenneth E. and Geraldine A. Nicholson. 1998. Carbon cycling through wood products: the role of wood and paper
products in carbon sequestration. FPJ 48(7/8): 75-83.
3/
65.99 ft3 is the volume of wood needed to produce a MSF of plywood and the co-products.
2.11.2 Results
Table 2.21 describes the allocation of carbon percentages based on the species of wood. Table 2.22 includes a list of
inputs and a LCI of plywood manufacturing with a carbon percentage and weight of each item that included carbon.
The LCI is for plywood only and so the input of materials, electricity, and fuels are allocated to plywood, which is
48.5% by weight of the total outputs of materials. As a result, the inputs are also allocated so that 48.5% of the
inputs by mass are used. So, the inputs are allocated correctly to obtain a carbon balance that has a difference to the
LCI of 4.1%.
61
Table 2.22. Carbon Balance, Southeast
SE PLYWOOD – INPUTS
Carbon Carbon
Materials lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis % lb
Roundwood (w/o bark) 2.08E+03 53.63 1.12E+03
Bark 1.24E+02 53.63 6.65E+01
Purchased
Dry veneer 8.07E+00 53.63 4.33E+00
Green veneer 1.04E+01 53.63 5.60E+00
Purchased hogged fuel 4.58E+01 53.63 2.46E+01
Total Inputs 2.27E+03 1.22E+03
SE PLYWOOD – OUTPUTS
Carbon Carbon
Acetaldehyde 4.61E-03 54.00 2.49E-03
Acetone 5.73E-03 64.27 3.68E-03
Alpha-pinene 8.63E-02 88.16 7.60E-02
Benzene 7.25E-04 92.25 6.69E-04
Beta-pinene 3.35E-02 88.16 2.95E-02
CO 2.87E+00 42.86 1.23E+00
CO2 (biofuel) 4.24E+02 27.27 1.16E+02
Formaldehyde 4.17E-03 40.00 1.67E-03
Limonene 9.69E-03 88.16 8.54E-03
Methane 9.50E-05 75.00 7.13E-05
Methanol 1.24E-01 37.50 4.64E-02
Methyl ethyl ketone 7.69E-04 66.63 5.12E-04
Methyl I-butyl ketone 6.25E-04 71.94 4.50E-04
Naphthalene 4.85E-04 93.71 4.54E-04
Non methane VOC 5.19E-03 100.00 5.19E-03
Organic substances 3.35E-02 50.00 1.68E-02
Particulates 5.64E-01 53.63 3.02E-01
Particulates (PM10) 1.05E-01 53.63 5.63E-02
Phenol 9.56E-03 76.57 7.32E-03
THC as carbon 1.85E-01 100.00 1.85E-01
VOC 2.88E-01 100.00 2.88E-01
Solid Wastes
Carbon Carbon
Solid waste 1.82E+01 51.23 9.32E+00
Subtotal 4.57E+02 1.30E+02
62
Plywood 1.08E+03 53.63 5.79E+02
Wood chips 6.45E+02 53.63 3.46E+02
Peeler core 1.12E+02 53.63 6.01E+01
Green clipping 1.73E+02 53.63 9.28E+01
Panel trim 6.06E+01 53.63 3.25E+01
Sawdust 4.19E+00 53.63 2.25E+00
Wood waste, sold 2.05E+01 53.63 1.10E+01
Wood waste (to boiler) 3.04E+01 53.63 1.63E+01
Total Output 2.58E+03 1.27E+03
DIFFERENCE % 4.1
Carbon is an important issue related to global warming in terms of its relation to CO2 emissions. The carbon
balance completed in this study will be used to track carbon in CORRIM II assessment of wood products. Knowing
where carbon is in its various paths from a log to different products and co-products is important to fully understand
the flow of carbon in biomass. This study can be used to increase the understanding of the carbon cycle by having a
benchmark of carbon mass values for plywood manufacturing.
2.12 COST ANALYSIS OF SOUTHEAST PLYWOOD
A cost analysis was conducted for plywood production in the Southeast. The analysis took into account the cost of
purchased materials and energy less income from sales of co-products and fuels to obtain the cost to manufacture 1.0
MSF 3/8-inch basis of plywood. This value was then compared to market price of a MSF 3/8-inch basis of
plywood.
This analysis considered variable costs such as those associated with purchased electricity, hogged fuel, propane,
natural gas and diesel fuel, logs, dry and green veneer, and phenol formaldehyde (PF) resin. It also examined fixed
costs, including costs of capital, maintenance, labor, and overhead.
2.12.1 Production and Employees
A weighted average of production was obtained through primary surveys in the Southeast and then plotted against
the number of employees (Figure 2.3). After the slope of the graph was obtained the weighted average value of
production was used to determine the number of employees.
63
Production vs. Em ployees
500,000
450,000
Annual Production, MSF 3/8-in Basis
y =405.33x + 111516
R2 =0.7569
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Em ployees
Figure 2.3. Annual Production vs. Number of Employees.
2.12.2 Variable Cost
Electricity prices vary from time to time and are influenced by the region of generation. For the Southeast, the
average price per kWh in 2001 was 4.70 cents, with a range of 3.10 – 6.90 cents. For natural gas the price came
from data taken in 1999. The reason 3-year-old information is used is because data from the winter of 2000-2001
was unusually high. As a result 1999 data was used to represent the current and expected price. The average price
for natural gas/Dtherm was $2.60, with a range of $2.00-$4.90 (a Dtherm is equal to 1,000,000 Btu). Prices of wood
material as logs and purchased green veneer came from Crow’s Market Report, averaged for the year, 2002. Table
2.23 describes the variable cost on an annual basis and on a production basis of 1.0 MSF 3/8 inch.
64
Table 2.23. Variable Cost to Produce 1.0 MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.
Units $/Unit Units/Year $/Year Unit/MSF $/MSF 3/8

Variable Cost 3/8 in in
Energy Consumption
Electricity kWh 0.047 34,958,355 1,643,043 122.04 5.74
Hogged fuel lb 0.01 26,233,089 262,331 91.58 0.92
Liquid propane gas gal 0.95 120,309 114,294 0.42 0.40
Natural gas ft3 2.64E-03 69,435,474 183,363 242.4 0.64
Gasoline gal 1.35 48,697 65,740 0.17 0.23
Diesel gal 1.27 77,341 97,837 0.27 0.34
Materials
Logs bf 0.45 73,892,896 32,882,339 257.96 114.79
Purchased dry veneer M 3/8 193.51 2,346 453,976 8.19E-03 1.58
Purchased green veneer M 3/8 170.47 3,036 517,606 1.06E-02 1.81
Resin lb 0.45 5,637,335 2,536,801 19.68 8.86
2.12.3 Fixed Cost
Fixed costs are costs that are not dependent on production and can be a one-time annual cost. This analysis included
fixed costs of capital, maintenance, labor and overhead. Table 2.24 details the fixed costs.
Table 2.24. Fixed Cost to Produce a MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood on an Annual Basis and on a MSF 3/8-in
Basis.
Units $/Unit MSF 3/8-in $/Year $/MSF

Fixed Cost Basis/Year 3/8-in Basis
Capital Annual 6,000,000 20.95
Interest on Capital Annual 480,000 1.68
Maintenance MSF 6 286,450 1,718,700 6.00
Labor Annual 19,524,864 19,524,864 68.16
Overhead MSF 10 286,450 2,864,500 10.00
The total cost adding both variable and fixed cost is equal to $242.09 per MSF 3/8-inch basis with the variable cost
of energy and raw materials being $135.30 per MSF 3/8-inch basis and the fixed cost coming to $106.78 per MSF
3/8-inch basis.
65
2.12.4 Energy and Co-products Sold
Fuels sold include hogged fuel and wood waste. Also sold are the co-products wood chips, peeler core, green
clippings, veneer downfall, panel trim, sawdust and dry veneer. These items are sold on a per ton oven dry weight
basis. Table 2.25 lists the prices of these fuels and co-products sold.
Table 2.25. Energy and Co-products Sold in the Production of MSF 3/8-in Basis of Plywood.
Units $/Unit lb/Year $/Year MSF $/MSF

Sold 3/8-in Basis 3/8-in Basis
Sold Energy
Hogged fuel lb 0.01 9,094,787 90,948 31.75 0.32
Wood waste lb 0.005 5,866,495 29,332 20.48 0.10
Sold Co-products
Wood chips lb 0.03 184,814,659 5,544,440 645.19 19.36
Peeler core lb 0.015 32,082,398 481,236 112 1.68
Green clippings lb 0.015 49,481,369 742,221 172.74 2.59
Veneer downfall lb 0.015 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Panel trim lb 0.015 17,350,275 260,254 60.57 0.91
Sawdust lb 0.015 1,200,225 18,003 4.19 0.06
Dry veneer lb 0.197 49,787 9,784 0.174 0.03
The selling price for hogged fuel is $10/green ton (50% moisture content) and the price for wood waste is $10/ton
OD weight. Both of these prices were adjusted to a pound basis. For sold co-products, peeler core, green clippings,
veneer downfall and panel trim was sold on a basis of $30/ton OD weight. Wood chips are mostly used for pulping
and have a higher selling price at$60/ton OD weight. Similar to the sold energies, these two prices were converted
to a pound basis. Dry veneer sold to other plywood or LVL plants has an averaged set price of $45.46/MSF 3/8-inch
basis taken from Crow’s Market Reports from 2002. The total amount of money obtained from selling the fuels and
co-products are equal to $25.05/MSF 3/8-inch.
Taking the total cost and subtracting the sold energy and co-products, you come to the net cost equaling $217.03 to
produce a MSF 3/8-inch basis of plywood. Crow’s Market Report, publication has a price listing of 15/32-inch 3
ply, CD grade. For 2002, the price of plywood was averaged monthly and is equal to $214.67/MSF 3/8-inch basis
of plywood. Subtracting the net cost to produce plywood by the selling price of plywood, results in a $ 2.37 loss per
MSF 3/8-inch.
66
3.0 REFERENCES
APAThe Engineered Wood Association (APA). 2001. North America Structural Panel Production by Geography
2000. March, 1 p.
ATHENATM Sustainable Materials Institute. 1993. Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and Environmental
Unit Factor Estimates: Structural Wood Products. Forintek Canada Corp., Ottawa, Canada. March.
Birdsey, R.A. 1994. “Forest Products Measurements and Conversion Factors: with Special Emphasis on the US
Pacific Northwest.” College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. Institute of Forest
Resources. Contribution No. 75. 161 p.
Briggs, David. 1994. Forest Products Measurements and Conversion Factors: with Special Emphasis on the US
Pacific Northwest. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Institute of
Forest Resources. Contribution No. 75. 161 p.
Crow’s Weekly Market Report for Lumber and Panel Products. 2002. CC Crows Publications, Inc. Portland, OR.
Ferrari, C.J. 2000. Life Cycle Assessment: Environmental Modeling of Plywood and Laminated Veneer Lumber
Manufacturing. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. Table 24, Appendix D. p.111.
Forest Products Laboratory. 1999. Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-
GTR-113. Madison, WI: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 463 p.
Franklin Associates. 2001. The Franklin Associates Life Cycle Inventory Database. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle
Assessment Software Package, version 36, 2001.
Franklin Associates. 2000. Wood Precombustion. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package, version 36,
2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Combustion of Wood in Industrial Boilers. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software
Package, version 36, 2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Diesel Powered Industrial Equipment. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software
Package, version 36, 2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Electricity from Coal. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package, version 36,
2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Electricity from DFO. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package, version 36,
2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Electricity from Hydropower. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package,
version 36, 2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Electricity from Natural Gas. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package,
version 36, 2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Electricity from Uranium. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package, version
36, 2001.
Franklin Associates. 1998. LPG Precombustion. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package, version 36,
2001.
67
Franklin Associates. 1998. Natural Gas Combustion in Industrial Boilers. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment
Software Package, version 36, 2001.
Grist, C. and M. Karmous. 1988. Energy Use and Conservation in Oregon’s Lumber and Wood Products Industry.
Oregon Department of Energy, Salem Oregon.
Merck Index, Eleventh Edition. 1989. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. Merck
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 2001. Material used in Building a 2085-Square-Foot Single
Family Home. http://www.nahb.org/facts/economics/mub.html
PRé Consultants B.V. 2001. SimaPro5 Life-Cycle Assessment Software Package, version 36. Plotter 12, 3821 BB
Amersfoort, The Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl/.
Skog, Kenneth E. and Geraldine A. Nicholson. 1998. Carbon cycling through wood products: the role of wood and
paper products in carbon sequestration. FPJ 48(7/8): 75-83.
The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (ATHENATM). 1993. Raw Material Balances, Energy Profiles and
Environmental Unit Factor Estimates: Structural Wood Products. Forintek Canada Corp, Ottawa, Canada.
March 1993.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2000. State Electricity Profiles 2000.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Plywood Manufacturing. Chapter 10, Plywood and
Composite Wood Products. AP-42.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Wood Waste Combustion in Boilers. Chapter 1,
External Combustion Sources AP-42.
68
69
APPENDIX 1: SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD MILL SURVEY
70
CORRIM SURVEY
The Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM II)
Softwood Plywood Mills
1-15-2001
The information from this survey will be used in a project by CORRIM II, a consortia comprised of
universities, industry, and government groups. CORRIM is conducting a life-cycle assessment that will describe
environmental influences of building materials and will focus our initial effort on structural building materials.
CORRIM’s objective is to acquire a database and produce life-cycle models of environmental performance for
building materials. The database will be the basis for the scientific evaluation of feasible alternatives affecting the
environmental releases and energy requirements of building materials through their life cycles. It is hoped that the
output of the study will be used to competitively position wood in the marketplace over other types of building
materials.
This CORRIM survey is designed specifically for softwood plywood mills. Questions will be concentrated
on annual production, electricity production and usage, fuel use, material flows, and environmental emissions. We
realize that you may not have all the information requested, especially when it comes to specific
equipment/processing groups or what we call ‘machine centers.’ The data you are able to provide will be
appreciated. Our intent is to maintain the confidentiality of the companies that supply the data for this survey.
Company:
Facility Site (city, state):
Should we have a follow-up question about the data, please provide the name and the following information for the
contact in your company.
Name: Title:
Telephone: E-mail:
If you have questions about the survey, contact:

Eric Sakimoto
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Forest Products
289 Richardson Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-5751
541-737-1299
eric.sakimoto@orst.edu
71
Annual Production (Please provide units of measurement if different than stated.)
TOTAL PRODUCTION
1. Plywood production in 1999 or 2000 MSF 3/8-inch basis
Give production year
2. Log volume consumption BF
Give log scale (i.e., Scribner, Doyle)
3. Veneer
a. Purchased veneer:
i. Dry MSF 3/8-inch basis
ii. Green MSF 3/8-inch basis
b. Produced veneer:
i. Used in mill MSF 3/8-inch basis

ii. Sold MSF 3/8-inch basis
Annual Energy Consumption (Please provide units of measurement if different.)
If you completed a 1999 Annual Fuel and Energy Survey for AF&PA, you may want to attach the survey and skip to
the next section entitled “Other related information.”
1. Purchased electricity KWH

2. Purchased steam lbs. (at temperature oF?)
If you know fuel source used to generate steam, please state type, i.e.
natural gas, hog fuel
3. Coal Tons
4. Hog fuel Self-generated Tons
Purchased Tons
Wood waste Tons
Residual fuel oil 42 Gal. Bbls.
Distillate fuel oil 42 Gal. Bbls.
Liquid propane gas Gallons
Natural gas ft.3
Gasoline and kerosene Gallons
Diesel Gallons
Other (Specify)
Less energy sold or transferred
a. Electricity KWh
b. Steam lbs. (at temperature oF?)
c. Hog fuel Tons
d. Wood waste Tons
Note: please list fuel (i.e., propane, diesel, etc.) consumption in appropriate category above for use of fork
lifts in yard and mill.
72
14. If you have a boiler, what is its heat source? Check appropriate box.
G Hogged fuel
G Oil
G Natural gas
G Other
Other Related Information on an annual basis
1. For dryer(s), check box for the heat source type and state the annual fuel consumption if known:
9 Steam lbs.
9 Natural gas direct-fired ft.3
9 Hog fuel direct-fired Tons (50% m.c.)
9 Other (please specify)
2. For dryer(s) specify the following:
Type of dryer(s) (i.e. jet, longitudinal, cross

flow)
How is dryer(s) heated (direct–such as a fuel

cell, heat exchanger, etc.)
Do you recycle dryer exhaust, if so to where
3. For dryer(s):
Wood species dried and approximately

percentage of total
wood species % of total veneers
Average moisture content into dryer % ovendry basis
Average moisture content out of dryer % ovendry basis
Percentage of redry %
73
4. For hot press(es), check box for heat source type and state the annual fuel consumption if known:
9 Steam lbs.
9 Oil 42 gal. bbls.
9 Electricity KWH
9 Other
5. Formulation and usage of resin, fillers, and other components.
Component type range % solids by weight total annual use (lbs.) on a solids or wet basis–
please state basis
phenol formaldehyde
extender and filler
catalyst (NaOH)
water
other (please specify)
6. Annual water use (check source and give amount):
9 Municipal water source

Gallons
9 Well water source Gallons
9 Recycled water Gallons
7a. Transportation method and distance to deliver logs (check method(s)):
(note - if you only purchase veneer please skip to question 7b.)
Log delivery method % of Total
9 Truck
9 Rail
9 Other
Total= 100%
Average distance to deliver logs

Miles
74
7b. Transportation method and distance to deliver veneer
Veneer delivery method % of Total
9 Truck
9 Rail
9 Other
Total= 100%
Average distance of delivery for veneer Miles
8. Transportation method used to deliver resin
9
Truck
9 Rail
9 Other
Average distance to deliver resin to mill

Miles
Annual Material Flow
This is a general material flow survey for plywood mills. This survey is designed to trace all wood components
from the log that are generated during production. Please check box that pertains to your mill and answer related
questions.
G Debarking and Bucking
1. Tons
Bark produced annually
2. Wood chips produced

Tons
75
G Peeling and Chipping (give unit used)
1. Volume of peeler core ft3., pieces, etc.
2. Green clippings Tons
G Veneer Dryer
1. Veneer downfall Tons
G Lay-up
1. Lay-up scrap Tons
2. Resin use lbs
G Sawing and Trimming
1. Panel trim Tons
2. Saw dust Tons
Emission Control Device and Environmental Emission
The following is a chart of emission control devices and on page seven (7) is a listing of chemical compounds that
are observed and/or permitted. Please fill in all information related to the control devices. Then list all compounds
that are collected and known for the mill from all control device sources. If you recently applied for an air permit,
use those numbers. Fill in all that apply and for which you have data. If you have more than five devices, please
make a copy of this page and the next, change numbers from 1 to 6, i.e. ECD 1 to ECD 6, complete form and attach.
Emission Control Device (ECD) - Electricity, Fuel Usage and Emission Output
ECD 1 ECD 2 ECD 3 ECD 4 ECD 5
Equipment type
controlled (boiler,
dryer, press, etc.)
Type of device (i.e.,

RTO, RCO, Scrubber,
WESP, cyclone,
baghouse, etc.)
Manufacturer and
year installed
77
ECD exhaust
temperature (oF) and
flow rate (acfm)
Electricity use in % of
total mill use or kWh,
please state units
Natural gas use in %

of total mill use or ft.3,
please state units
Annual Emissions to Air (provide data for same device identified on prior page; please provide unit of
measurement for each.)
Organic Compound ECD 1 ECD 2 ECD 3 ECD 4 ECD 5
Equipment type
controlled (boiler,
dryer, press, etc.)
Units Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year Tons/year
CO2
CO
NOX
SO2
VOC
Particulate
PM10
Acrolien*
Acetaldehyde*
Propionaldehyde*
Formaldehyde*
Methanol*
Phenol*
Water Vapor
* HAPS; you may
want to provide total
HAPS rather than
specific chemicals
Other (Please Specify
78
Solid Emissions From All Known Sources (please provide units of measurement)
Method of disposal or end

use (i.e., land fill,
Emission Quantity (i.e., tons, lbs.) landscaping, sewer)
Bark/wood waste
Boiler ash and fly ash
Recovered particulates from pollution

abatement equipment
Water (BOD, COD, suspended solids, etc.)
Other (please specify)
79
Machine Center Breakdown for Electricity and Fuel Use
Fill in all that apply and for which you have data. If you don’t have a given machine center such as a co-generator,
draw a line through that row and write none.
Model/Type Annual Electricity Use Fuel Use
Million KWH or % of
Total Electricity Use for % of Total Use for
Machine Center Year Installed Mill Mill
Boiler
Co-generator
Debarker
Log conditioning
Peeling and Clipping
Dryer
Lay-Up
Press
Trimming
80
APPENDIX 2: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
81
PNW Sensitivity Analysis LCI full – All Natural Gas versus Original Setup (90.5% Hogged Fuel; 9.5%
Natural Gas).
All Natural Gas 90.5% Hogged Fuel 9.5% Natural Gas
lb/MSF kg/m3 Difference lb/MSF kg/m3

Substance 3/8-inch % Substance 3/8-inch
Acetaldehyde 1.16E-02 5.95E-03 -3 Acetaldehyde 1.19E-02 6.10E-03
Acetone 5.11E-03 2.62E-03 0 Acetone 5.11E-03 2.62E-03
Acrolein 8.75E-07 4.49E-07 0 Acrolein 8.75E-07 4.49E-07
Aldehydes 1.10E-03 5.64E-04 28 Aldehydes 8.56E-04 4.39E-04
Alpha-pinene 7.69E-02 3.94E-02 0 Alpha-pinene 7.69E-02 3.94E-02
Ammonia 2.03E-04 1.04E-04 -58 Ammonia 4.85E-04 2.49E-04
As 1.03E-06 5.28E-07 -92 As 1.26E-05 6.46E-06
Ba -100 Ba 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
Be 1.04E-07 5.33E-08 2 Be 1.02E-07 5.23E-08
Benzene 9.13E-06 4.68E-06 -98 Benzene 4.86E-04 2.49E-04
Beta-pinene 2.99E-02 1.53E-02 0 Beta-pinene 2.99E-02 1.53E-02
Cd 6.19E-07 3.17E-07 9 Cd 5.69E-07 2.92E-07
Cl2 2.44E-06 1.25E-06 -100 Cl2 1.03E-03 5.28E-04
CO 5.12E-01 2.62E-01 -75 CO 2.08E+00 1.07E+00
CO2 (fossil) 1.71E+02 8.77E+01 120 CO2 (fossil) 7.78E+01 3.99E+01
CO2 (biomass) 4.85E-02 2.49E-02 -100 CO2 (biomass) 2.85E+02 1.46E+02
Cobalt 7.88E-07 4.04E-07 6 Cobalt 7.44E-07 3.81E-07
Cr 1.32E-06 6.77E-07 -82 Cr 7.44E-06 3.81E-06
Cumene 7.44E-05 3.81E-05 0 Cumene 7.44E-05 3.81E-05
Dichloromethane 1.38E-06 7.07E-07 0 Dichloromethane 1.37E-06 7.02E-07
Dioxin (TEQ) 1.84E-12 9.43E-13 1 Dioxin (TEQ) 1.83E-12 9.38E-13
Fe -100 Fe 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
Formaldehyde 3.66E-02 1.88E-02 -2 Formaldehyde 3.74E-02 1.92E-02
HCl 1.74E-03 8.92E-04 0 HCl 1.73E-03 8.87E-04
HF 2.41E-04 1.24E-04 0 HF 2.40E-04 1.23E-04
Hg 7.25E-07 3.72E-07 2 Hg 7.13E-07 3.65E-07
K -100 K 1.03E-01 5.28E-02
Kerosene 9.81E-06 5.03E-06 -10 Kerosene 1.09E-05 5.59E-06
Limonene 8.63E-03 4.42E-03 0 Limonene 8.63E-03 4.42E-03
Metals 1.93E-05 9.89E-06 62 Metals 1.19E-05 6.10E-06
Methane 4.84E-01 2.48E-01 127 Methane 2.13E-01 1.09E-01
Methanol 1.36E-01 6.97E-02 0 Methanol 1.36E-01 6.97E-02
82
Methyl ethyl ketone 6.81E-04 3.49E-04 0 Methyl ethyl ketone 6.81E-04 3.49E-04
Methyl i-butyl ketone 5.58E-04 2.86E-04 0 Methyl i-butyl ketone 5.58E-04 2.86E-04
Mn 2.71E-06 1.39E-06 -100 Mn 1.19E-03 6.10E-04
N-nitrodimethylamine 7.31E-08 3.75E-08 0 N-nitrodimethylamine 7.31E-08 3.75E-08
N2O 1.96E-04 1.00E-04 0 N2O 1.96E-04 1.00E-04
Na -100 Na 2.38E-03 1.22E-03
Naphthalene 7.63E-08 3.91E-08 -100 Naphthalene 3.18E-04 1.63E-04
Ni 8.88E-06 4.55E-06 -89 Ni 8.19E-05 4.20E-05
Non methane VOC 8.13E-01 4.17E-01 147 Non methane VOC 3.29E-01 1.69E-01
NOX 9.63E-01 4.94E-01 48 NOX 6.50E-01 3.33E-01
Organic substances 1.48E-03 7.59E-04 -94 Organic substances 2.28E-02 1.17E-02
Particulates 3.65E-01 1.87E-01 -4 Particulates 3.81E-01 1.95E-01
Particulates (PM10) 2.26E-01 1.16E-01 0 Particulates (PM10) 2.27E-01 1.16E-01
Particulates (unspecified) 2.70E-02 1.38E-02 7 Particulates (unspecified) 2.52E-02 1.29E-02
Pb 1.43E-06 7.33E-07 -99 Pb 1.60E-04 8.20E-05
Phenol 2.49E-02 1.28E-02 -18 Phenol 3.02E-02 1.55E-02
Sb 3.14E-07 1.61E-07 6 Sb 2.98E-07 1.53E-07
Se 2.64E-06 1.35E-06 -3 Se 2.71E-06 1.39E-06
SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04 0 SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04
SOX 2.49E+00 1.28E+00 136 SOX 1.06E+00 5.43E-01
Tetrachloroethene 3.31E-07 1.70E-07 0 Tetrachloroethene 3.30E-07 1.69E-07
Tetrachloromethane 5.54E-07 2.84E-07 -5 Tetrachloromethane 5.85E-07 3.00E-07
THC as carbon 1.65E-01 8.46E-02 0 THC as carbon 1.65E-01 8.46E-02
Trichloroethene 3.28E-07 1.68E-07 0 Trichloroethene 3.27E-07 1.68E-07
VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01 0 VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01
Zn -100 Zn 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
83
PNW Sensitivity Analysis LCI full – All Hogged Fuel versus Original Setup (90.5% Hogged Fuel; 9.5%
Natural Gas).
All Self-Generated Hogged Fuel 90.5% HOGGED FUEL 9.5% NATURAL GAS
lb/MSF 3/8- kg/m3 Difference lb/MSF kg/m3

Substance in % Substance 3/8-in
Acetaldehyde 1.20E-02 6.15E-03 1 Acetaldehyde 1.19E-02 6.10E-03
Acrolein 8.56E-07 4.39E-07 -2 Acrolein 8.75E-07 4.49E-07
Aldehydes 8.13E-04 4.17E-04 -5 Aldehydes 8.56E-04 4.39E-04
Ammonia 1.96E-04 1.00E-04 -60 Ammonia 4.85E-04 2.49E-04
As 1.51E-05 7.74E-06 20 As 1.26E-05 6.46E-06
Ba 7.13E-04 3.65E-04 22 Ba 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
Be 9.25E-08 4.74E-08 -9 Be 1.02E-07 5.23E-08
Benzene 5.92E-04 3.03E-04 22 Benzene 4.86E-04 2.49E-04
Cd 3.96E-07 2.03E-07 -30 Cd 5.69E-07 2.92E-07
Cl2 1.26E-03 6.46E-04 22 Cl2 1.03E-03 5.28E-04
CO 2.48E+00 1.27E+00 19 CO 2.08E+00 1.07E+00
CO2 (biomass) 3.40E+02 1.74E+02 28 CO2 (biomass) 2.65E+02 1.36E+02
CO2 (fossil) 6.00E+01 3.08E+01 -23 CO2 (fossil) 7.78E+01 3.99E+01
Cobalt 5.79E-07 2.97E-07 -22 Cobalt 7.44E-07 3.81E-07
Cr 8.56E-06 4.39E-06 15 Cr 7.44E-06 3.81E-06
Dichloromethane 1.30E-06 6.66E-07 -5 Dichloromethane 1.37E-06 7.02E-07
Dioxin (TEQ) 1.75E-12 8.97E-13 -4 Dioxin (TEQ) 1.83E-12 9.38E-13
Fe 7.13E-04 3.65E-04 22 Fe 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
Formaldehyde 3.76E-02 1.93E-02 1 Formaldehyde 3.74E-02 1.92E-02
HCl 1.66E-03 8.51E-04 -4 HCl 1.73E-03 8.87E-04
HF 2.30E-04 1.18E-04 -4 HF 2.40E-04 1.23E-04
Hg 6.63E-07 3.40E-07 -7 Hg 7.13E-07 3.65E-07
K 1.26E-01 6.46E-02 22 K 1.03E-01 5.28E-02
Kerosene 9.44E-06 4.84E-06 -14 Kerosene 1.09E-05 5.59E-06
Metals 1.02E-05 5.23E-06 -14 Metals 1.19E-05 6.10E-06
Methane 1.67E-01 8.56E-02 -22 Methane 2.13E-01 1.09E-01
Mn 1.46E-03 7.48E-04 22 Mn 1.19E-03 6.10E-04
84
N-nitrodimethylamine 7.00E-08 3.59E-08 -4 N-nitrodimethylamine 7.31E-08 3.75E-08
N2O 1.86E-04 9.53E-05 -5 N2O 1.96E-04 1.00E-04
Na 2.91E-03 1.49E-03 22 Na 2.38E-03 1.22E-03
Naphthalene 3.88E-04 1.99E-04 22 Naphthalene 3.18E-04 1.63E-04
Ni 9.63E-05 4.94E-05 18 Ni 8.19E-05 4.20E-05
NOX 8.50E-01 4.36E-01 31 NOX 6.50E-01 3.33E-01
Organic substances 2.76E-02 1.41E-02 21 Organic substances 2.28E-02 1.17E-02
Particulates 3.85E-01 1.97E-01 1 Particulates 3.81E-01 1.95E-01
Particulates
Particulates (unspecified) 2.39E-02 1.23E-02 -5 (unspecified) 2.52E-02 1.29E-02
Pb 1.96E-04 1.00E-04 22 Pb 1.60E-04 8.20E-05
Phenol 3.14E-02 1.61E-02 4 Phenol 3.02E-02 1.55E-02
Sb 2.41E-07 1.24E-07 -19 Sb 2.98E-07 1.53E-07
Se 2.46E-06 1.26E-06 -9 Se 2.71E-06 1.39E-06
SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04 0 SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04
SOX 8.06E-01 4.13E-01 -24 SOX 1.06E+00 5.43E-01
Tetrachloroethene 3.14E-07 1.61E-07 -5 Tetrachloroethene 3.30E-07 1.69E-07
Tetrachloromethane 4.63E-07 2.37E-07 -21 Tetrachloromethane 5.85E-07 3.00E-07
Trichloroethene 3.13E-07 1.60E-07 -4 Trichloroethene 3.27E-07 1.68E-07
VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01 0 VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01
Zn 7.13E-04 3.65E-04 22 Zn 5.82E-04 2.98E-04
85
PNW Sensitivity Analysis LCI full – All Hogged Fuel versus Natural Gas
All Natural Gas All Self-Generated Hogged Fuel
lb/MSF kg/m3 Difference lb/MSF kg/m3
Substance 3/8-in % Substance 3/8-in
Acetaldehyde 1.16E-02 5.95E-03 -4 Acetaldehyde 1.20E-02 6.15E-03
Acrolein 8.75E-07 4.49E-07 2 Acrolein 8.56E-07 4.39E-07
Aldehydes 1.10E-03 5.64E-04 35 Aldehydes 8.13E-04 4.17E-04
Ammonia 2.03E-04 1.04E-04 4 Ammonia 1.96E-04 1.00E-04
As 1.03E-06 5.28E-07 -93 As 1.51E-05 7.74E-06
Ba -100 Ba 7.13E-04 3.65E-04
Be 1.04E-07 5.33E-08 12 Be 9.25E-08 4.74E-08
Benzene 9.13E-06 4.68E-06 -98 Benzene 5.92E-04 3.03E-04
Cd 6.19E-07 3.17E-07 57 Cd 3.96E-07 2.03E-07
Cl2 2.44E-06 1.25E-06 -100 Cl2 1.26E-03 6.46E-04
CO 5.12E-01 2.62E-01 -79 CO 2.48E+00 1.27E+00
CO2 (biomass) 4.85E-02 2.49E-02 -100 CO2 (biomass) 3.40E+02 1.74E+02
CO2 (fossil) 1.71E+02 8.77E+01 185 CO2 (fossil) 6.00E+01 3.08E+01
Cobalt 7.88E-07 4.04E-07 36 Cobalt 5.79E-07 2.97E-07
Cr 1.32E-06 6.77E-07 -85 Cr 8.56E-06 4.39E-06
Dichloromethane 1.38E-06 7.07E-07 6 Dichloromethane 1.30E-06 6.66E-07
Dioxin (TEQ) 1.84E-12 9.43E-13 5 Dioxin (TEQ) 1.75E-12 8.97E-13
Fe -100 Fe 7.13E-04 3.65E-04
Formaldehyde 3.66E-02 1.88E-02 -3 Formaldehyde 3.76E-02 1.93E-02
HCl 1.74E-03 8.92E-04 5 HCl 1.66E-03 8.51E-04
HF 2.41E-04 1.24E-04 5 HF 2.30E-04 1.18E-04
Hg 7.25E-07 3.72E-07 9 Hg 6.63E-07 3.40E-07
K -100 K 1.26E-01 6.46E-02
Kerosene 9.81E-06 5.03E-06 4 Kerosene 9.44E-06 4.84E-06
Metals 1.93E-05 9.89E-06 89 Metals 1.02E-05 5.23E-06
Methane 4.84E-01 2.48E-01 190 Methane 1.67E-01 8.56E-02
86
Mn 2.71E-06 1.39E-06 -100 Mn 1.46E-03 7.48E-04
N-nitrodimethylamine 7.31E-08 3.75E-08 4 N-nitrodimethylamine 7.00E-08 3.59E-08
N2O 1.96E-04 1.00E-04 5 N2O 1.86E-04 9.53E-05
Na -100 Na 2.91E-03 1.49E-03
Naphthalene 7.63E-08 3.91E-08 -100 Naphthalene 3.88E-04 1.99E-04
Ni 8.88E-06 4.55E-06 -91 Ni 9.63E-05 4.94E-05
NOX 9.63E-01 4.94E-01 13 NOX 8.50E-01 4.36E-01
Organic substances 1.48E-03 7.59E-04 -95 Organic substances 2.76E-02 1.41E-02
Particulates 3.65E-01 1.87E-01 -5 Particulates 3.85E-01 1.97E-01
Particulates (unspecified) 2.70E-02 1.38E-02 13 Particulates (unspecified) 2.39E-02 1.23E-02
Pb 1.43E-06 7.33E-07 -99 Pb 1.96E-04 1.00E-04
Phenol 2.49E-02 1.28E-02 -21 Phenol 3.14E-02 1.61E-02
Sb 3.14E-07 1.61E-07 31 Sb 2.41E-07 1.24E-07
Se 2.64E-06 1.35E-06 7 Se 2.46E-06 1.26E-06
SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04 0 SO2 8.25E-04 4.23E-04
SOX 2.49E+00 1.28E+00 209 SOX 8.06E-01 4.13E-01
Tetrachloroethene 3.31E-07 1.70E-07 5 Tetrachloroethene 3.14E-07 1.61E-07
Tetrachloromethane 5.54E-07 2.84E-07 20 Tetrachloromethane 4.63E-07 2.37E-07
Trichloroethene 3.28E-07 1.68E-07 5 Trichloroethene 3.13E-07 1.60E-07
VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01 0 VOC 6.69E-01 3.43E-01
Zn Zn 7.13E-04 3.65E-04
87

Softwood Plywood Manufacturing Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Softwood Plywood Manufacturing Us

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Softwood Plywood Manufacturing Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CORRIM: Phase I Final Report

SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... i

1.0 PACIFIC NORTHWEST SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD ...............................................................................1

2.0 SOUTHEAST SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD ................................................................................................34

3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................67

APPENDIX 1: SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD MILL SURVEY ................................................................70

APPENDIX 2: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES...........................................................................................81

Bucking & Debarking

Description of unit processes:

1.1.2 Materials Flow

Input Materials Co-products Produced Products

Material Delivery Distance (miles)

1.1.4 Wood Density

• A mass-allocation process was used for assigning burdens.

1.2 PRODUCT YIELDS

PNW Plywood – INPUTS

Inputs lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3

Outputs lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis kg/m3

1.3.1 Sources of Energy

1.3.2 Electricity Use Summary

Percentage Share, 20001

Unit Process kWh Allocation

1.4 FUEL UTILIZATION AS A HEAT SOURCE

Fuel Type Heat Energy Fuel Source

MSF 3/8-in basis

Air Emission FAL Database1 CORRIM Survey Data

1.5 DRYING EMISSIONS FOR PNW PLYWOOD PRODUCTION

Emission to Air1 Emissions from Dryer Emissions from Dryer

1.6 PRESSING EMISSIONS FOR PNW PLYWOOD PRODUCTION

Emissions to Air Emissions from Press Emissions from Press

PNW – PF Resin Inputs

1.8 PROCESS RELATED EMISSIONS

Debarking Sawing and

Substance lb/MSF 3/8-in Basis

PNW Plywood – INPUTS

Water Use 0.00E+00

Raw Materials Cl2 1.03E-03 2.86E-04

Raw Materials Ba 5.82E-04 2.98E-04

Solid Waste Emissions

LCI Total LCI Site-Generated

1.10.1 Sensitivity analysis of plywood manufacturing in the PNW

1.10.2 Sensitivity analysis results

CO2 (biofuel)2/ 4.85E-02 3.40E+02 2.85E+02 -100 20 -100

The following is a summary of the comparison results when fuel switching:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

SO2 and SOX

VOC and Non Methane VOC

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1.11 CARBON BALANCE FOR PNW PLYWOOD

Table 1.21. Percent of Carbon in Wood, Pacific Northwest

PNW PLYWOOD – INPUTS

1.12 COST ANALYSIS

1.12.1 Production and Employees

Figure 1.3. Annual Production vs. Number of Employees.

1.12.2 Variable Costs

Variable Cost Units $/Unit Units/Year $/Year Units/MSF $/MSF

1.12.3 Fixed Costs

Fixed Cost Units $/unit MSF/Year $/Year $/MSF