Wood protection Association
This article is from the
Wood Protection Association
website
(continued from previous page)
For more about wood protection visit the
Wood Protection Association
Changes in standards
In a spirit of cooperation with the European Commission, the UK
timber preservation industry, starting in the late 1980s, threw
itself into the work of the European Standards Commission (CEN) to
develop performance standards for wood preservatives. These, it was
thought, would be needed for compliance with the Construction
Products Directive, itself published in December 1988. In the event,
wood preservatives were not classified as construction products in
their own right but as components of products such as poles and
structural timber that are construction products within the meaning
of the directive.
At the time the UK had a perfectly good set of standards governing
preservative composition and the treatment of timber in all end uses
following so-called process specifications. In these, the process
was defined in terms of the concentration of preservative and the
combination of vacuum and pressure periods during the treatment.
These, followed correctly, conferred the appropriate level of
durability on otherwise non-durable timber and effective quality
assurance schemes could be operated at minimal cost giving
confidence in the performance of the treated timber. This approach
had evolved independently and different from the industry elsewhere
in Europe and the UK had to accept in the preparation of the new
performance standards that a different approach would have to be
adopted. Preservatives would, in the future, be defined not in terms
of their composition, but how they perform in a series of biological
tests. Timber treatment would be defined not in terms of the
treatment process but in terms of the penetration of the
preservative into the timber and how much was deposited (the
retention) in the penetrated zone – so-called results
specifications.
After vast expenditure by the industry in time and travel, a series
of new European standards emerged reflecting the approach outlined
above. These became published as British Standards in accordance
with the UK’s obligations as members of CEN and the industry set to
to prepare national guidance for the UK. This was published in 2003
as BS 8417: 2003 Preservation of timber- Recommendations. The old
conflicting British Standards BS 5589 and BS 5268: Part 5 were
declared for obsolescence in late 2003 and so the UK timber and
timber preservation industry is poised on the brink of the brave new
world of results specifications.
BS 8417 continues the tradition established in the old standards of
explaining the factors affecting choice of preservative treatment.
These include an assessment of the biological hazard faced by timber
in service; the desired service life; the options for choosing
naturally durable timber; and an assessment as to whether treatment
(or timber with higher levels of natural durability) is unnecessary,
optional, desirable or essential.
Having made a decision to choose treatment, a preservative must be
selected along with the combination of penetration and loading to
give the required performance. The performance specifications on
which BS 8417 is based give the specifier the opportunity to choose
any combination of preservative, penetration and retention but in
practice it is expected that the guidance in 8417 will be followed.
The European performance standard for preservatives gives national
bodies the freedom to declare retention requirements for existing
products without further testing and this has been done for CCA,
creosote, certain solvent-based preservatives and boron compounds.
The requirements for other older preservatives have yet to be
declared. For newer preservatives introduced over the past ten years
or so while the new standards were being worked on, performance is
expressed in terms of the amount of preservative shown to be
effective in biological tests – it is expressed as the ‘critical
value’. For such preservatives, BS 8417 then guides the specifier to
the appropriate retention (expressed as a multiple of the critical
value) of any preservative for which the manufacturer declares a
critical value.
Quality assurance procedures with these results specifications will
include analysis of treated timber for penetration and retention –
an added cost for the treater and eventually for the customer.
However, a concession to established UK practice won by the UK team
at CEN, means it will be possible to rely on a particular process to
achieve the penetration and retention required without carrying out
the analyses each time. Such a procedure has to be confirmed by
repeat testing at intervals but it makes QA much more manageable and
cost effective for the treater.
Changes in regulations
Wood preservatives have been subjected to rigorous controls in the
UK since the early 1970s, first under the voluntary schemes with
which Wood Protection Association members complied, and since 1986
under the Control of Pesticides Regulations (CoPR). Independent
experts assess products for safety before approval is granted and
tough conditions are placed on their sale and use. Now a new EU
–wide system of approvals will be introduced as the Biocidal
Products Directive (BPD) procedures take effect over the next ten
years, replacing the CoPR.
The BPD procedures will involve a re-assessment of all wood
preservatives but the European Commission has felt it necessary to
introduce restrictions, via directives, on creosote and chromated
copper arsenate (CCA) preservatives ahead of those reviews. This has
been prompted at least partly by political considerations reflecting
restrictions in place in some member states at the time of their
joining the EU. The Wood Protection Association and its members
afford the safety of the public and that of people working in the
industry the utmost importance and fully support the principles and
objectives set out in the directives. To this end, association
members have closely monitored developments preceding the adoption
of the directives, and already supply and use preservatives that
comply with their requirements well before they come into force.
Creosote
From 1 July 2003, approval for DIY uses of creosote was withdrawn
and restrictions were introduced on certain uses of creosote-treated
timber. Most of the restricted uses are in any case not suitable for
creosoted timber due to risk of staining clothing from contact with
any creosote there may be on the surface. Consequently, the major
uses of creosoted timber for poles, fencing and sleepers have not
changed. The WPA has advised suppliers and users of creosoted timber
to review their handling, use and disposal procedures and this has
largely been completed. Sale and use of old creosoted timber,
typically railway sleepers and poles, continues and this is an
environmentally appropriate method of disposal.
For DIY use, alternatives to creosote have long existed and the gap
in the DIY market created by the loss of brush-applied creosote
grades has been filled by existing and some new formulations. The
WPA is concerned that the public is not well informed about the
correct choice of product for various DIY uses and a number of
products are now on sale that appear to be creosote replacements but
in fact do not offer the same level of preservative performance. The
WPA is seeking to improve point of selection material available to
the public to help them make the best choice.
CCA
The directive includes restrictions on CCA preservatives and CCA-treated
timber reflecting the outcome of a recent review which identified
concerns about potential risk to the health of children in frequent
contact with treated wood, risks arising from household burning of
waste wood treated with CCA and risk of effects on aquatic organisms
in certain marine waters. Nevertheless the restrictions do not apply
to CCA-treated wood already in place. This mirrors the position in
the USA where the Environmental Protection Agency has advised there
is no reason to remove or replace existing CCA-treated structures,
including decks or playground equipment. This is now supported by
the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, which has recommended
that no further action be taken to regulate wood treated with CCA.
The directive does require EU member states to introduce regulations
by 1 July 2004 that will severely restrict the use of CCA-treated
timber especially in construction and, for example, most fencing
uses. DIY use will stop. However, preservative manufacturers have
placed great emphasis on research and development for many years and
wood preservatives formulated without arsenic are already available
and in fact already in widespread use. The performance of timber
treated with alternatives to CCA in many uses, including
construction, is excellent. The UK timber preservation market has
responded to the publication of the directive by switching a
considerable proportion of production capacity to alternative
preservatives. Sufficient CCA treatment capacity will remain to
satisfy those uses where confidence is required in very long service
life in the higher hazard and critical end uses such as motorway
fencing. This is expected to continue while service experience with
alternative products for such uses accumulates. In many such
situations creosote continues to be one of the options for treatment
alongside the water-based alternatives. The Wood Protection
Association looks for an orderly transition to alternative wood
preservative types starting with those end uses where decades of
reliable durability to ensure safety in use is not an essential
requirement.
Confidence maintained
Although the industry faces a challenging time, the Wood Protection
Association and its members are managing the changes so that
specifiers and users will find they have sufficient information to
choose treatments that maintain confidence in timber in all
situations. The WPA website is being developed as a major source of
information for specifiers and users that will include the
forthcoming update to the WPA (formerly BWPDA) Manual. WPA
information is expected to be available via the AskTRADA website.
Dr C R Coggins
© BWPDA 2003
|