Green Party Submission to the Building Industry Authority concerning the proposal to amend Acceptable Solution B2/AS1
Summary of Recommendations:
- Amend the proposed Acceptable Solution to require that only Boric Acid based treatments or waterborne Copper Naphthenate based treatments can be used to achieve the H1.2 standard.
- Amend the proposed Acceptable Solution to allow the use of untreated heartwood Douglas fir and cypress species to satisfy the H1.2 standard.
- Amend the proposed Acceptable Solution to allow the use of H1 hazard class timber in internal wall framing.
1. Introduction
The Green Party is a national political party with a membership of 4000.
The Party's philosophy is based on the four principles of environmental wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision making, and non-violent conflict resolution.
At the 2002 election the Green Party received 140 000 votes and had nine Members of Parliament elected.
The Green Party had a member present on the Government Administration Committee's "Inquiry into the Weathertightness of Buildings in New Zealand" and has followed the weathertightness issue closely.
While we appreciate that this consultation is specifically about the Durability Acceptable Solution, we wish to state clearly that the solutions to the weathertightness problem are much bigger than simply treating timber framing. Building design, building products, building practises and the building control regime are all implicated in the weathertightness problem and we will continue to seek wider changes to address these issues.
We are pleased that the Building Industry Authority is carrying out consultation on this proposal and while we support some of what is proposed we have serious concerns about the health and environmental impacts.
2. Grounds for considering health and environmental impacts of proposal
In considering amendments to the Building Code and its associated Acceptable Solutions it is vital that the BIA have due regard for the health and environmental impact of any decision it makes. Under the Building Act 1991, the purpose of the building control regime is "ensuring that buildings are safe and sanitary and have means of escape from fire" (section 6(1)). The Act goes on to state that safety, health, and environmental costs and benefits must be taken into account in achieving these purposes:
In determining the extent to which the matters provided for in subsection (1) [the purposes] of this section shall be the subject of control, due regard shall be had to the national costs and benefits of any control, including (but not by way of limitation) safety, health, and environmental costs and benefits. Section 6(3).
On these grounds the BIA is bound to consider the health and environmental costs and benefits of the proposal.
3. BIA not bound by Standards New Zealand decisions
The BIA is in no way bound by the decisions that SNZ has made, or is about to make, regarding hazard classes or timber preservative treatments in the revisions to NZS 3602 and NZS 3640.
The SNZ Committees that made the decisions regarding NZS3602 and NZS3640 are small and have a much narrower range of statutory concerns than the BIA has a responsibility to consider. The Standards Act 1988 (Section 10(1)) states:
The primary functions of the [Standards] Council shall be to develop standards and to promote, encourage, and facilitate the use of standards in New Zealand with the object of:
- Improving the quality of goods or services, having regard to economy in their production or supply; or
- Promoting standardisation in industry, trade, or commerce; or
- Encouraging and facilitating industrial development, trade, or commerce; or
- Promoting public or occupational safety, health, or welfare.
Thus, unlike the BIA, the Standards Council is not required to consider environmental costs and benefits (and health costs and benefits are not a primary consideration either).
The BIA has already demonstrated in a small way that it is willing to modify the way in which NZ Standards apply to the proposed Acceptable Solution (with regard to the marking of timber with treatment types).
It is vital that, in the new B2/AS1, the BIA is comfortable with making large modifications to the way in which the underlying New Zealand Standards apply to the Acceptable Solution. Otherwise the BIA will be bound by the narrow considerations of Standards New Zealand, and environmental and health concerns will receive less attention than they must.
4. The likely impact of the proposed Acceptable Solution on chemical volumes
The new Acceptable Solution is likely to be very widely adopted because, while buildings can still be built using an Alternative Solution, in the present climate of concern about rotting timber this is unlikely. This will result in a great increase in the use of those compounds listed below that can be used to achieve the new hazard class, H1.2. This is problematic because the LOSP fungicides are quite toxic, some are highly toxic.
The proposed Acceptable Solution relies on revised versions of NZS3602 and NZS3640. While we have not seen the final versions of these new standards, we are basing this submission on the assumption that they will be relatively unchanged from the consultation drafts.
The consultation draft of NZS3602 establishes a new hazard class H1.2 that applies to timber framing.
The consultation draft of NZS3640 allows for the use of two kinds of compounds to achieve H1.2: Boron compounds and a number of Light Organic Solvent Preservative (LOSP) fungicides. The LOSP fungicides listed are: Tributyltin Oxide, Tributyltin Naphthenate, Copper Naphthenate, and Iodo Propynyl Butyl Carbamate (in combination with Permethrin).
5. The use of Boron
Boron, particularly in its boric acid form, is a relatively inert and benign compound. It has been used successfully and without apparent ill-effect in the New Zealand timber preservation industry for many years before it was largely replaced by kiln-dried planed timber framing in the mid 1990s. We have few concerns about the use of boric acid in timber treatment.
6. The use of LOSP fungicides
6.1 Whole of lifecycle
The varying toxicity of the LOSP fungicides concerns us on both health and environmental grounds. We draw your attention to the environmental and health impacts of using these chemicals throughout the entire lifecycle of the treated timber: from the point of production, through the building process, the disposal of building wastes, the effects on the occupants of the buildings, and finally the disposal of the building at the end of its life.
New Zealand already has a disturbing legacy of toxic sites from timber treatment plants. This legacy is both the residual environmental pollution of former timber treatment plants, and the health legacy of workers with long term disabilities as a result of working in these plants. There are also problems with the waste disposal of the toxic off cuts during the building process and the disposal of the building components at the end of the life of the building. Often these are burnt or sent to landfill — either polluting the general environment immediately or slowly.
6.2 Volatility of LOSP treatments
The health issue with all LOSP products is that they necessarily contain volatile solvents. This makes them liable to cause health problems to those workers required to work around them for any length of time. The off-gassing is greatest soon after production and it is the workers in the treatment plants and on the building sites who receive the worst of it.
However, those who reside in houses built using LOSP treated timber framing are not without cause for concern. These products will be contained in wall and roof cavities but, as they slowly off-gass, they will inevitably have some degree of detrimental effect on the indoor air quality of those buildings.
If this proposal were to proceed these problems would be magnified many times.
6.3 Inadequate Code of Practice
This concern is deepened by the present lack of an adequate Code of Practice (COP) for handling such chemicals. We draw your attention to the Environmental Risk Management Authority June 2003 report Transfer Report. Substances to be transferred to the HSNO Act under section 160(1)(a): Timber Preservatives. In that report ERMA declined to adopt the current Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) document Approved Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Timber Preservative and Antisapstain Chemicals as a HSNO Approved Code of Practice. This followed many submissions from Territorial Authorities to the effect that the current OSH COP is inadequate in meeting the environmental requirements of HSNO.
In the absence of an acceptable Code of Practice it would be reckless for the BIA to approve an Acceptable Solution that would result in a dramatic increase in the use of these compounds.
6.4 Tributyltin compounds
The tributyltin (TBT) compounds are particularly worrisome as they cause harm to aquatic life at the level of only several parts per billion (see US Environmental Protection Agency assessment). This has led to the banning of their use as timber preservatives in Denmark (Danish Environmental Protection Agency). We note that, in submitting to the ERMA transfer report for timber preservatives, Tasman District Council called for the banning of TBT altogether. ERMA has placed these compounds on their priority list for reassessment.
If you proceed with this proposal it is inevitable that TBT will migrate from timber treatment plants and building sites into local waterways with extremely negative outcomes.
6.5 Copper Naphthenate
Our concerns with the Copper Naphthenate treatments are more to do with the method of delivery — ie. whether by volatile solvent or by water — than with the copper naphthenate itself. Waterborne Copper Naphthenate is more environmentally friendly than LOSP Copper Naphthenate and a waterborne process has been developed in the US. We would have few concerns if the BIA were to approve the use of waterborne treatment.
6.6 Iodo Propynyl Butyl Carbamate (in combination with Permethrin)
Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate is not highly toxic but is known to cause dermatitis in Humans.
Permethrin, like all synthetic pyrethroids, is a neurotoxin. Symptoms include tremors, incoordination, elevated body temperature, increased aggressive behaviour, and disruption of learning. Laboratory tests suggest that permethrin is more acutely toxic to children than to adults.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified permethrin as a carcinogen because it causes lung tumours in female mice and liver tumours in mice of both sexes. Permethrin inhibits the activity of the immune system in laboratory tests, and also binds to the receptors for a male sex hormone. It causes chromosome aberrations in human and hamster cells.
Permethrin is toxic to honey bees and other beneficial insects, fish, aquatic insects, crayfish, and shrimp. For many species, concentrations of less than one part per billion are lethal. Permethrin causes deformities and other developmental problems in tadpoles, and reduces the number of oxygen-carrying cells in the blood of birds.
We are totally against this being used in houses — it is likely to contribute to sick building syndrome.
6.7 Conclusion
Given the requirement of the BIA to consider the environmental and health costs and benefits, and given the high environmental and health costs of this proposal as it stands (as outlined above), we recommend that you:
- Amend the proposed Acceptable Solution to require that only Boric Acid based treatments or waterborne Copper Naphthenate based treatments can be used to achieve the H1.2 standard.
7. The use of non-pinus radiata timbers
There are a number of timbers available that have much greater natural resistance to fungal decay than pinus radiata. We particularly draw your attention to Douglas fir and the cypresses. There is considerable anecdotal and scientific evidence of the greater resistance of these timbers.
The natural durability of the cypress heartwoods (macrocarpa, lusitanica, and Lawson) is amongst the highest for New Zealand exotic softwoods (FRI Bulletin Nos.124 & 119). They have long been used in situations requiring long-lived durability.
Douglas fir has the durability of pinus radiata heartwood (FRI Bulletin No.216). Unlike pinus radiata most of the Douglas fir log is actually heartwood rather than sapwood. Forest Research states that Douglas fir is "primarily suited to structural and framing applications" (Forest Research).
And of course there are great environmental and health advantages in being able to use these non-treated timbers in framing.
Given these considerations we recommend that you:
- Amend the proposed Acceptable Solution to allow the use of untreated heartwood Douglas fir and cypress species to satisfy the H1.2 standard.
8. The use of non-treated timbers in internal walls
There is minimal risk of fungal decay in internal walls. The Acceptable Solution should allow the use of non-treated kiln-dried planed pinus radiata in internal walls. Therefore we recommend that you:
- Amend the proposed Acceptable Solution to allow the use of H1 hazard class timber in internal wall framing.
