Timber
Treatment
Survey
A report to the
Department of
Building and Housing
on the results of a
survey of the building
industry into the use
of treated framing
April 2008
308870169
Preface
This report presents the findings from a survey of the building industry
into attitudes, preferences, site practices and opinions in regard to the
current systems involved in timber treatment in New Zealand.
Within this report, the following abbreviated terms are used:
Department – the Department of Building and Housing
Building Code (or ‘Code’) – the New Zealand Building Code
Treaters (or ‘treatment plants’) – those involved in the treatment
of timber
Other suppliers – those involved in retailing treated timber
framing or other timber products
Specifiers – architects, engineers and other designers involved in
specifying timber, including treatments and grades, to be used in
building work.
Builders – those involved, as construction companies, small
building firms or carpenters, in using treated timber framing in
buildings
Assessors – Building Officials, Building Surveyors and other
consultants involved in inspecting or assessing buildings during or
after construction
BCA – building consent authority (the local council that issues
building consents and carries out inspections during construction)
i
308870169
Contents
1.
2.
Page
Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
The survey responses ................................................................................. 1
2.1
Industry details ...................................................................................................... 1
2.2
Industry groups ...................................................................................................... 1
2.2.1
Industry sub-groups....................................................................................... 2
2.3 The survey questions............................................................................................... 2
2.3.1
3.
Industry details ............................................................................................. 2
The hazard classes ..................................................................................... 3
3.1
Clarity of class distinctions ....................................................................................... 3
3.1.1
Notable patterns ............................................................................................ 4
3.1.2
Related comments ......................................................................................... 4
3.2 Treatment choices................................................................................................... 4
3.2.1
Notable patterns ............................................................................................ 5
3.2.2
Related comments ......................................................................................... 5
3.3 Timber identification ................................................................................................ 6
3.3.1
3.3.2
4.
Notable patterns ............................................................................................ 7
Related comments ......................................................................................... 7
Handling LOSP treated timber .................................................................... 9
4.1
Safe flash-off .......................................................................................................... 9
4.1.1
Notable patterns ........................................................................................... 10
4.2 Waiting for flash-off ............................................................................................... 10
4.2.1
Notable patterns ........................................................................................... 11
4.3 Comments on site practices..................................................................................... 11
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
5.
Boron treated timber ................................................................................ 13
5.1
Support for H3.1 boron ........................................................................................... 13
5.2
Related comments ................................................................................................. 13
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
6.
Treatment plants .......................................................................................... 11
Other suppliers ............................................................................................. 11
Specifiers..................................................................................................... 12
Building group .............................................................................................. 12
BCA’s and other consultants ........................................................................... 12
Treatment plants .......................................................................................... 13
Other suppliers ............................................................................................. 13
Specifiers..................................................................................................... 14
Building group .............................................................................................. 14
BCA’s and assessors ...................................................................................... 14
Using treated timber framing ................................................................... 15
6.1
Maximum exposure ................................................................................................ 15
6.1.1
Treatment plants .......................................................................................... 15
6.1.2
Other suppliers ............................................................................................. 15
6.1.3
Specifiers..................................................................................................... 16
6.1.4
Building group .............................................................................................. 16
6.1.5
BCA’s and other consultants ........................................................................... 16
6.2 Site-applied treatments .......................................................................................... 17
6.2.1
6.2.2
7.
Apparent patterns ......................................................................................... 17
Related comments ........................................................................................ 18
Quality control branding ........................................................................... 19
7.1
Brand familiarity and use ........................................................................................ 19
7.2
Brand use ............................................................................................................. 19
7.2.1
Comments ................................................................................................... 19
7.3 Brand effectiveness ................................................................................................ 19
7.3.1
7.3.2
Apparent patterns ......................................................................................... 20
Comments ................................................................................................... 20
ii
308870169
8.
Related issues .......................................................................................... 21
8.1
Health .................................................................................................................. 21
8.1.1
Health concerns ............................................................................................ 21
8.1.2
Other comments ........................................................................................... 22
8.1.3
Patterns ...................................................................................................... 22
8.2 Untreated timber ................................................................................................... 22
8.2.1
Supporting treatment .................................................................................... 23
8.2.2
Alternatives to treated timber......................................................................... 23
8.3 Treatment practices and quality ............................................................................... 23
8.4
Information ........................................................................................................... 24
8.5
Expense ................................................................................................................ 25
8.6
Other issues .......................................................................................................... 25
Appendices ....................................................................................................... 26
The survey questionnaire ................................................................................................ 26
Responses to survey questions ........................................................................................ 30
Charts
Page
Chart 1 Industry categories .................................................................................................. 2
Chart 2 Questions 2 and 3: hazard classes and treatment choices ............................................. 3
Chart 3 Question 2: understanding Hazard classes .................................................................. 3
Chart 4 Framing treatment choices ........................................................................................ 4
Chart 5 Question 10: Current identification systems ................................................................ 7
Chart 6 Question 4: indications of LOSP flash-off ..................................................................... 9
Chart 7 Other issues on handling LOSP treated timber ............................................................ 10
Chart 8 Question 5: Waiting for flash-off ............................................................................... 11
Chart 9 Likely use of H3.1 boron .......................................................................................... 13
Chart 10 Maximum exposure limits ....................................................................................... 15
Chart 11 Site-applied treatments ......................................................................................... 17
Chart 12 Site-applied treatments – further breakdown ............................................................ 18
Chart 13 Trademark timber brands ....................................................................................... 19
Chart 14 Quality assurance timber brands ............................................................................. 19
Chart 15 Effectiveness of timber brands ................................................................................ 20
Tables
Page
Table 1 Responses ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Table 2 Wall framing hazard classes ------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
Table 3 Wall framing timber treatments --------------------------------------------------------------- 30
Table 4 Indications of LOSP flash off ------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Table 5 Waiting for LOSP flash off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Table 6 H3.1 boric treatment --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Table 7 Maximum exposure times ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
Table 8 Site-applied treatments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 32
Table 9 Current systems of identification -------------------------------------------------------------- 32
Table 10 Familiarity with trademarks ------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
Table 11 Checking for trademarks --------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
Table 12 Effectiveness of trademarks ------------------------------------------------------------------ 33
iii
308870169
1.
Introduction
The Department is in the process of reviewing whether treated framing meets the needs and
expectations of the building and construction sector, and whether it has simple and clear selection,
identification and handling requirements. As part of this review, the Department has sought
feedback from the building and construction sector on:
 choices for treated framing
 handling LOSP timber
 boron treatments
 weather exposure
 timber identification and quality assurance.
In February 2008, the Department invited responses to a short survey on the supply and use of
treated framing timber; to be submitted by 14 April 2008. Responses took the form of a simple
questionnaire that could be quickly completed, with additional comments added as wished.
2.
The survey responses
The target audience of the survey were those people working in the building and construction
industry rather than homeowners, and the survey was therefore advertised on the Department’s
website.
2.1
Industry details
Feedback was received from various parts of the industry, as shown below:
Table 1 Responses
Group
Timber supply stage
(‘Suppliers’)
Design stage
(‘Specifiers’)
Construction stage
(‘Building group’)
Inspection/assessment stage
(‘Assessors’)
Categories
Numbers
Treatment plants
Suppliers/merchants
Timber supply – other(1)
Total suppliers
Designers
Engineers
Total specifiers
Construction companies
Small builders
Pre-nail/manufacturing
Joinery shops
Construction - other
Total builders
Building officials
Consultants/surveyors
Total assessors
TOTAL RESPONSES
14
5
6
25
33
7
40
53
52
11
7
3
126
60
5
65
256
Note 1: includes 2 producers of non-radiata species.
As shown in Table 1, construction companies and small builders were the largest group at more
than 40% of total responses, followed by BCA building officials at almost 20%. However, it should
be noted that a response from a merchant came from a support group representing the views of 93
retail outlets1, and this should be taken into account when considering the results of the survey.
2.2
Industry groups
For simplicity, each individual category has been grouped into four broad classifications that
represent the stages that framing timber is dealt with – from the supply stage through to the
This response has not been treated as 93 responses as the survey particularly aims to assess the view of
those people actively involved in working with timber and it was considered that inclusion as 93 retailers would
unduely weight the analysis away from this aim. Responses were also received from several of the outlets
represented.
1
1
308870169
timber in place (both during construction and later in a building’s life). Each group has varying
degrees of involvement in handling timber2, which can be expected to influence responses.
2.2.1 Industry sub-groups
When appropriate in the following analysis, the main groups revert to more detailed categories to
allow investigation of apparent patterns applying to particular survey questions or comments.
The following colours are used to represent the industry groups and sub-groups:
Timber supply stage
greens
Design stage
purples
Construction stage
oranges
Inspection/assessment stage
blues
All survey responses
grey
For consistency and ease of understanding, the colours used for each group and sub-group are
repeated throughout the charts in this report.
2.3
The survey questions
A copy of the survey form is provided in the Appendix on page 26, and this shows the range of
questions posed to the industry. The responses to each question are also provided in the
Appendix in the form of a full set of tables at page 30.
This report explores the responses to each question, together with associated comments.
2.3.1 Industry details
Participants were provided with a range of alternatives and asked to select which suited their
involvement in the industry, and the following chart provides the overall results for:
Question 1. What best describes your involvement in the construction industry?
% of total responses
Chart 1 Industry categories
50%
49%
Industry details
40%
30%
25%
20%
16%
23%
21%
20%
10%
10%
SPECIFICATION
CONSTRUCTION
2%
Total assessors
1%
Consultants/surveyors
Small builders
Construction co's
Total specifiers
Engineers
Designers
Total suppliers
TIMBER SUPPLY STAGE
3%
Building officials
Timber supply - other
4%
Total builders
Suppliers/merchants
3%
Construction - other
2%
Joinery shops
2%
0%
Pre-nail/manufacturing
5%
Treatment plants
13%
ASSESSMENT
Some selected more than one category3, and these combinations are included within the most
appropriate group as ‘other’.
For instance, designers are responsible for specifying different types of timber, but are unlikely to be involved
in physically working with it.
3
For instance, prenail/joinery/manufacturing.
2
2
308870169
3.
The hazard classes
This section of the report considers the understanding of current treatment level requirements,
whether more or less choice is wanted, and considers the adequacy of current identification
systems.
The following chart provides the overall results for:
Question 2. Are the differences between H1.1, H1.2, H3.1 and H3.2 clear to you?
Question 3. Do you require more or less choice in timber treatments for framing?
% of total responses
Chart 2 Questions 2 and 3: hazard classes and treatment choices
80%
Treatment choices
77%
61%
60%
35%
40%
20%
20%
3%
3%
0%
Clear on differences
Unclear on
differences
Not answered
Want less choice
Q2: FRAMING HAZARD CLASSES
3.1
Want no change
Want more choice
Q3: TIMBER FRAMING TREATMENTS
Clarity of class distinctions
As shown in Chart 2, 20% were unclear on differences between the hazard classes required for
timber framing, so answers were categorised by group (and sub-group) in order to explore any
significant differences between them. The following shows the results of that analysis.
Chart 3 Question 2: understanding Hazard classes
ALL
RESPONSES
ASSESSORS
BUILDING
GROUP
SPECIFIERS
SUPPLIERS
Differences between H1.1, H1.2, H3.1 and H3.2
Clear on differences
88%
Unclear on differences
12%
Not answered
Clear on differences
90%
Unclear on differences
8%
Not answered
3%
73%
Clear on differences
Unclear on differences
74%
23%
Not answered
all suppliers
treatersonly
3%
Clear on differences
all building group
builders only
all assessors
BCA's only
69%
Unclear on differences
26%
Not answered
5%
Clear on differences
77%
Unclear on differences
20%
Not answered
3%
0%
20%
40%
3
60%
80%
100% % of group
308870169
There are no significant differences between any of the groups and the sub-groups within them.
3.1.1 Notable patterns
As shown, designers appear to have the greatest level of understanding of requirements, followed
by suppliers – with the building and assessment groups having the lowest.
3.1.2 Related comments
In order to explore this lack of clarity within some groups, associated comments have been
considered. Although few explained their answers, the following summarised comments provides
some possible reasons for confusion.
a) Specifiers

The two classes within H1 and H3 cause confusion
b) Builders

There is confusion between H3.1 and H3.2, and it is hard to distinguish their use.
c) Assessors
3.2

Most builders rely on information from suppliers with vested commercial interests, and have no
idea of treatment requirements.

While you may theoretically understand, you cannot confirm on site and MSG grading has added
to the confusion.
Treatment choices
As shown in Chart 2, 35% of those surveyed wanted no change to the choice available in timber
treatments. The answers were categorised and the following shows the results of that analysis.
Chart 4 Framing treatment choices
57%
SUPPLIERS
Want less choice
SPECIFIERS
Choice in timber treatments
43%
Want no change
32%
Want more choice
all suppliers
treatersonly
4%
Not answered
all building group
builders only
all assessors
BCA's only
4%
Want less choice
45%
Want no change
45%
Want more choice
10%
59%
Want less choice
60%
39%
Want no change
37%
ASSESSORS
Want more choice
Want less choice
ALL RESPONSES
BUILDING
GROUP
60%
Want less choice
2%
74%
Want no change
25%
Not answered
2%
61%
Want no change
35%
Want more choice
3%
Not answered
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
4
80%
100%
% of group
308870169
3.2.1 Notable patterns
As shown, BCA’s and assessors indicated the highest preference for less choice, followed by
treatment plants and builders (at similar levels). Interestingly, the lowest preference for less
choice came from designers – with 45% wanting no change and 10% wanting more choice (the
highest of the groups). Reasons for this are indicated in their associated comments.
3.2.2 Related comments
In order to explore the patterns outlined above, associated comments have been considered.
Many comments were made on this question, and the comments have been grouped, amalgamated
and summarised in the following.
a) Treaters

Almost all suppliers only treat to H1.2, so H1.1 should be deleted as an option.

LOSP does not need H3.1 classification

H1.1 and H3.1 is not needed for CCA treatment
b) Other suppliers
 General – less choice

Choices need rationalising, with fewer treatment levels to choose from.

The old system of treatment was adequate - we don't need all these different grades.

This survey sidesteps the issue of what level is necessary for the levels of risk.
 Specific suggestions for simplification

There is little difference between H1.2 and H3.1 so delete H3.1. Use H2 as a class.

Just have options of untreated and H3.1.

2 choices for house framing should be sufficient.
 More choice wanted

We need to accept durable alternative species.
c) Specifiers
 General – less choice

Need to get back to the former simple method.

There are too many types for suppliers to stock, and only the most common are usually available
anyway.

Timber gradings are also confusing.
 Specific suggestions for simplification

Only 2 levels for framing are needed - H1.2 and H3.2.

Just have 3 treatments - wall framing, outside above ground, in-ground

The old system of H1 to H5 was easier to understand. Use H4 and 5 for exterior, H1 and 2 for
framing.

There is little understanding of H3.1 vs. H3.2, and the 2 classes have caused confusion.
 More choice wanted

Alternate species (such as cypress, Australian hardwoods, Douglas fir, totara etc.) should be
clearly available, with equivalency to treatment levels established.

We should have the choice of using untreated naturally durable timber, such as Douglas fir or
Cypress species.
d) Building group
 General – less choice

The system needs rationalising, as the numbers and types are confusing. We need fewer, easier
options to reduce confusion and risks from inappropriate use and application. Any simplification
would be helpful and cost-effective.

We need total simplicity - the simpler the better onsite. A single treatment regime would be good
for framing timber as this would be more efficient for builders who cut their own frames and would
also be cost effective for merchants.

We need to simplify treatments, as the current system is too complex and leads to errors. There
are increased risks of getting it wrong with too many products and treatments, along with time
delays, availability problems and lack of knowledge.

Go back to what we used to have and make it idiot-proof. Go back to simple grading/ treatment
options. Stop reinventing the wheel and go back to simple choices.

Basic radiata pine treatment and uses should be included in 3604 - and simplified to reflect
availability of products.

We should not be afraid of accepting that H3.1 was overkill and was in excess of what is required.
5
308870169
 Specific suggestions for simplification

We need a simple scale without decimal points to avoid confusion. A simpler system like the past
system would be better - C1 (Boron) C3 (Tanalised) C4 (Ground retention) and C5 (Contact with
water). The old system of H1 boric, H3 tanalised, H4 ground and H5 marine was simple and easy.

We should go back to the old system of H1 and H3. We need only 1 treatment per level i.e. H1.2
& H3.2. Can these not cover the lower numbers per level? Combine H1.1 and H1.2, as there is
little H1.1 produced. There is no need for H3.1 – so just have H1.2 for framing and H3.2 for
exterior uses.

We only need boric for general framing and tanalised for exterior use. We should only have H1.2
boron for all framing - then CCA for exterior use. Keep it simple with green tanalised (external
use) and pink (framing)

2 choices for house framing should be sufficient. Just have 2 treatments, boron and tanalised.
What was wrong with Boric and Tanalised (CCA) and fillet drying?

There is little difference between H1.2 and H3.1 so delete H3.1. H3.1 should be taken off the
market - it gets used in wrong places all the time.

Other suggestions: Reduce choice to just 3 - H1 wall framing, H3 above ground, H4 in-ground.
All framing timber should be H3.2 or better as it is cheap insurance. If treatment is needed - use
H3.1. Just have options of untreated and H3.1. Scale back to choice of treatment free, H1.2 or
H3.2. Have H3.1 boron for general framing, H3.2 for tanalised, then H4 and H5
 Other

Simplification is urgent, but it should be carefully thought out and not be done in series of
incremental steps.

Don't combine H1.2 and H3.1, as this will affect the price of the majority of framing as retention
requirement for H1.2 would have to be raised to H3.1 level (or to an intermediate level).

Builders rely on designers to specify treatment type/level. Timber for group houses is pre-ordered
and builders just use what arrives onsite.
e) BCA’s and other consultants
 General – less choice

Reduce choices to stop owners/ builders using cheapest options without understanding limitations.
If treatment meets H1 or H3, then up to treaters to make product perform to requirements
without complications. Keep it simple - less errors.

Simplification is key to improving current situation. We need only a few basic treatments - of
higher level than required rather than less in order to be idiot proof. Users do not read the
instructions or care about limitations, as they only consider cost. Any changes to system must be
easy to use on site - current system is too complicated.

The selection of grades and treatments needs to be simplified as there is too much complexity for
very little benefit. The system is too complex – we need simple and robust grades. Simplified
treatments/uses will be cost effective and helpful.

Too many timber treatments are confusing to builders and owners. Too many choices lead to a
risk on site where timber orders are not correct and incorrect timber is used up to avoid returning
or reordering. Fewer choices would lead to less confusion and fewer problems (e.g. using H3.1
wrongly). With the problems we are still having, this might be cheaper in the long run.

Past health scares did not warrant the knee jerk reaction to changing the original treatment
systems and allowing untreated framing.
 Specific suggestions for simplification

We should use one treatment level (H3.2) - to stop confusion and save costs of replacing rotting
timber - extra cost about $1,000 (max) which is good insurance against leaking. Have just 1
grade for all house framing (rather than allowing untreated in bathrooms, kitchens etc). We need
just one class for all framing H3, then H4 and H5 for outside etc.

Require H3.2 for all at-risk framing and get rid of H3.1. If H3.2 is used everywhere, many
problems will be solved as there would be no confusion. Should just be H3 to prevent builders
using H3.1 in wrong places e.g. deck joists. It was much easier when just had 1 good grade
timber
 No change wanted

3.3
Except for providing a boron option to H3.1, leave things as they are. Everybody is now used to
the new numbering, so why change again.
Timber identification
This part of the questionnaire aimed to gauge opinion on the current systems of timber markings
and identification of both treatment levels and gradings.
6
308870169
The original range of answers has been reduced from 6 to 3 so that the pattern of responses can
be more easily identified and understood. The results for ‘very inadequate’ and ‘inadequate’ are
therefore merged as ‘inadequate’, ‘somewhat inadequate’ and ‘somewhat adequate’ are merged as
‘neutral’ and ‘adequate’ and ‘very adequate’ are merged as ‘adequate’.
The following chart shows responses to:
Question 10.
How would you rate the current systems of framing timber identification?
% of category
Chart 5 Question 10: Current identification systems
60%
Adequacy of current identification systems
58%
60%
48%
50%
51%
44%
40%
Suppliers
Treaters
Specifiers
Building group
Builders
Assessors
BCA's
All responses
50%
40%
43%
40%
36%
32%
30%
31%
28%
27%
20%
20%
16%
14%
17%
9%
10%
10%
7%
0%
Inadequate
Neutral
Adequate
3.3.1 Notable patterns
As shown, those in the building and assessment groups (who need to use or inspect framing
timbers) showed general dissatisfaction with current practices and systems.
More designers were neutral in their judgement of the current systems, while suppliers showed the
opposite pattern to that for builders and assessors. The pattern is particularly distinct for treaters,
with few considering the systems inadequate.
3.3.2 Related comments
This question also elicited many associated comments – particularly by those groups expressing
dissatisfaction with the current systems.
a) Treaters

H3.1 should not be green, as it should differ from H3.2 CCA timber
b) Other suppliers

The colour dye method is ineffective, with the individual piece inkjet/indent marking complex and
difficult due to the number of options (H1.2 boron / LOSP, H3.1, H3.2, untreated). Reducing the
number of framing treatment options to one would help to provide permanent piece marking.

The industry needs total simplicity in all aspects of treatment and identification/branding. It is
difficult to identify NZO H1.2 onsite.
c) Specifiers

The colours are a problem - especially green H3.2 CCA timber and green H3.1. We should ensure
that nothing but green colour can be used outside (I have seen decks built from the wrong
timber). The system should be foolproof - pink inside, green outside - or mark up length of timber
with rating

Identification is too difficult and dyes are not distinctive enough. It is difficult in practice to work
out treatment on site as markings are usually hard to read after timber has been exposed to the
weather. There are instances where the lack of markings meant that samples needed testing. We
must have clear dyes or clear labeling.

This is a major problem. There is inconsistent application, with far too much timber simply stating
Machine graded and not to what level. Colour alone is inadequate and end marks are cut off or
hidden. Each length should be marked to allow sure identification with the branding on the edge.

We need clear colour coding - for a particular treatment. There is too much confusion between
treatments and grades. A site guide would be very useful.
7
308870169
d) Building group
 General

Marking on 'stick' ends is inadequate as ends brands are cut off and dyes fade. We need better
marking down the entire length to make it easier for builders and inspectors to clearly see that the
correct treatment is used - with grades and treatment information good enough to last the
framing life in the building.

Framing treatment level/type is hard to check - especially on precut frames as there are no offcuts on site for end grain inspection. Markings must be easy to distinguish for 6 months for staff
and BCA. We need clear colours that are not confusing. But decking also needs to be clear or
stained.

Framing should be face or edge branded to a single standard so treatment can be identified insitu.
Ideally colour coded (stripes/dots) for easy ID as branding can be cut off for dwangs and blocking.

When H1.2 was brought out this was to be BLUE now there is everything from Pink, to Clear. The
blue colour fades very quickly - becoming very easy to confuse with greens.

One marking standard should be used throughout, and legends of previous markings should be
readily available (prior 2003 NZS).
 Simplifying choices

Rationalisation would help. We need less choice with more distinct markings on timber, so when
exposed to elements for a year or so we can still see treatment without testing.

Keep it simple - green tanalised (external) and pink (internal) – “enough bush carpenters out
there without you lot confusing them”. It used to be simple, but there are too many variables now
and too many colours.

H3.1 and H3.2 have created confusion and could be numbered differently, leaving H3 as suitable
for exterior use.

Types and uses are very complex - made worse by compatibility issues with wraps. A lot of guys
mix all the timber treatments up - they just don't care or don’t know
e) BCA’s and other consultants

On site identification of timber treatment and grade is one of the biggest problems for building
officials. We also need better systems to be able to identify aged or weathered framing.

The system is unreliable, with fewer than 5% building officials aware of markings. A high number
are colour blind and rely on pre-cutter/builder getting it right. Give users less choices and make
the choices very clear on site, with proper labeling and not relying on colours.

The marking system is inadequate as end brands are cut off or hidden – meaning that BCAs
cannot confirm treatment/grading on site. LOSP H3.1 has tags stapled to ends and clear finish, so
that if the tag is removed, the treatment is impossible to identify. Markings for grading often run,
some stamps are difficult to read, and some suppliers make poor attempts to identify treatment
and grading.

We need clear length markings on treatment levels and grading, which must be very simple and
easy to understand. They should be running brands to show treatment, plant number and timber
grade (as end brands are cut off or hidden).

Better treatment is ID needed to ensure in-service treatment can be easily identifiable. We need
simple and robust identification methods, and need to minimize treatment types and grades.

Colours should be clearer and distinguish in-ground, exterior/subfloor use, and all other framing
members.
8
308870169
4.
Handling LOSP treated timber
This section explores the survey participants’ practices and comments relating to the use of LOSP
treated timber during the construction process.
4.1
Safe flash-off
Those involved in handling LOSP treated timber were asked to indicate how they assured
themselves of the safety of the framing they were handling:
Question 4. How do you know that the LOSP treatment has flashed off to a safe level?
The following chart shows the signs outlined by those for whom the question was relevant.
Chart 6 Question 4: indications of LOSP flash-off
Signs that LOSP has flashed off to safe level
Unsure/don't know
12%
14%
SUPPLIERS
Lack of smell
7%
Dry to touch
Suppliers
treatersonly
20%
all building group
builders only
all assessors
BCA's only
20%
Supplier's responsibility
20%
Appearance/colour
4%
14%
12%
Length of time drying
Unsure/don't know
BUILDING GROUP
44%
25%
Lack of smell
Dry to touch
28%
13%
17%
Supplier's responsibility
Appearance/colour
18%
9%
Length of time drying
3%
Unsure/don't know
28%
25%
ASSESSORS
Lack of smell
Dry to touch
29%
12%
Supplier's responsibility
3%
Appearance/colour
11%
Length of time drying
2%
ALL RESPONSES
Unsure/don't know
32%
Lack of smell
26%
Dry to touch
13%
Supplier's responsibility
12%
Appearance/colour
9%
Length of time drying
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
9
40%
50%
% of group
308870169
4.1.1 Notable patterns
As shown, many (in particular, half of the builders) indicated that they either could not tell, or
could not be sure that the timber was safe to handle. Significant numbers also indicated that they
either did not use or tried to avoid using LOSP-treated timber, while many considered that this
issue was not relevant or applicable to their everyday jobs.
For simplicity, these issues have been separated out, and are shown in the following chart.
Chart 7 Other issues on handling LOSP treated timber
SUPPLIERS
Do not know
Whether LOSP has flashed off
4%
Cannot be sure
8%
Not applicable to job
Not answered
8%
Do not use LOSP
16%
SPECIFIERS
Do not know
10%
Cannot be sure
8%
Not applicable to job
45%
Not answered
3%
ASSESSORS
BUILDING GROUP
Do not use LOSP
13%
Do not know
31%
Cannot be sure
13%
Not applicable to job
Not answered
11%
Do not use LOSP
8%
Do not know
14%
Cannot be sure
14%
Not applicable to job
26%
Not answered
9%
ALL RESPONSES
Do not use LOSP
2%
Do not know
21%
Cannot be sure
12%
Not applicable to job
15%
Not answered
9%
Do not use LOSP
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% of group
As shown, many designers and assessors consider that flash-off issues are not relevant to their
particular jobs.
It is interesting to note the percentage of suppliers who do not use LOSP treated timber. Of the 4
suppliers who this applied to, 2 were treatment plants that treated with boron, 1 was a Douglas Fir
producer and the other supplied reconstituted wood products.
4.2
Waiting for flash-off
The other factor important in working safely with LOSP treatment is whether those who handle the
timber wait until the timber has flashed off.
The following chart shows responses from those who work with LOSP treated timber to:
10
308870169
Question 5. How often do you wait until LOSP treatment has flashed off before you start
handling/working with the timber?
% of category
Chart 8 Question 5: Waiting for flash-off
Waiting for LOSP to flash off before using
78%
80%
Suppliers
Treaters
Building group
Builders
Assessors
BCA's
All responses
83%
69%
60%
54%
38%
40%
20%
16%
14%
13%
10%
17%
8%
0%
Generally don't wait
Sometimes wait
Generally wait
4.2.1 Notable patterns
The most notable patterns shown by Chart 8 are the differences between suppliers and builders,
with most builders not waiting for flash off and most suppliers waiting. In particular, less than
10% of builders consistently waited for flash off, and almost 75% rarely or only occasionally
waited.
Those builders who said that they did not know how to tell whether LOSP has flashed off to a safe
level were correlated to those who did not usually wait – and it was found that almost 30% of
builders do not know and do not wait.
4.3
Comments on site practices
Comments mainly related to how people knew that the timber had flashed off – and are
summarised in the following.
4.3.1 Treatment plants

We use specially designed sheds and have strict controls/monitoring of flash off times, filleting,
and product release procedures. Monitor employees' exposure levels and also adhesion of paint to
treated timber.

Any effective flash-off regime for LOSP is uncertain – and we have engaged an independent expert
to undertake further research on demonstrable advantages achieved by filleting.

All timber should always be flashed off properly by suppliers. We work on 7 days flash off and
filleting of every 2nd layer, which is done in an open area with air flow assisting evaporation of
white spirit. All LOSP treated products should be treated in fully fillets form to allow best possible
flash off post treatment. Regimes of drying times are set.

Verification is provided by way of stickers on packets of timber.
4.3.2 Other suppliers

Some treaters are notifying users by way of a letter or packet sticker. This responsible
development to provide information could become standard practice, and some suppliers/users
see benefit in this, although some are not supportive.

We expect timber to be fit for purpose, of acceptable quality, properly flashed off and to meet all
relevant standards and regulations. Users should request a guarantee that Code of Practice has
been complied with.

However the product is treated and flashed off, appropriate protective equipment is required for
all treated products.

LOSP refers to the process, but the same level can be achieved with other processes.
11
308870169
4.3.3 Specifiers

LOSP treatment should not be used as it is not safe, even after flash off. I never specify, as the
solvents and chemicals are toxic.
4.3.4 Building group
a) Indications

An irritation in nose, eyes and throat is early indication that timber has not flashed off. I have
instant asthmatic reaction to vapour and dust. I am unwell and dozy if the timber is handled too
soon.

All packets of timber are uncovered and left to weather. Colour fading indicates that the solvents
have flashed off. The residual solvent vapours have dissipated.
b) Reliance on suppliers

I rely on the merchant, and have never had a problem. The supplier refuses to supply timber until
it is properly flashed off. It should be the merchant’s responsibility to ensure that the product is
safe. I rely on the retailer to supply a product that is fit for use.

Timber should be safe to handle when leaving factory and it should not be on sale or delivered
unless properly flashed off.

Users should request a guarantee that Code of Practice has been complied with.

I take what comes from retailers. You have to use what is available. It should be sorted at the
timber yard - we have to trust suppliers. I assume it is flashed off and the timber is OK when it
arrives.
c) General problems

Although you have to trust that the product is safe, fumes are sometimes overpowering when the
pack is opened and then you know. Sometimes painters won't touch the stuff.

If you order a packet of timber it is because you want to use it. There are some places in Auckland
where you cannot leave timber lying loose over night. We are always under pressure for deadlines
so must use the timber when it is received.

LOSP is problematic to handle – and it doesn't react well with water based glues/primers etc
(which generally fail). LOSP should not be used in joinery. It is the worst product I have ever dealt
with.

The guidelines are too vague. Odour is not a reliable test. You don't know for sure as it is
sometimes hard to tell whether the timber is safe.

I try to avoid and use untreated NZ Oregon instead. I mainly use CCA timber. I try not to use
LOSP timber at all. LOSP timber is never safe to handle. I avoid using LOSP at all now and would
prefer to see it removed. I do not use it as it is pure poison and should be banned.

Builders are unlikely to think about whether timber flashed off. I did not know about flashing off.
4.3.5 BCA’s and other consultants

Being a building Inspector, by the time I get to site framing has (or should have) been standing
for a reasonable amount of time.

LOSP should not be allowed in the market. Any treatment requiring special handling, and which is
documented as a health risk, should be removed from the market.

BRANZ and Timber Preservation Council seminars have provided advice.

Timber should not be delivered until it is flashed off. The average builder does not even know
what flashed off means. You can never be completely sure - this is a big problem.

I do not understand 'flashed off'. What is 'flashed off'?
12
308870169
5.
Boron treated timber
5.1
Support for H3.1 boron
The following chart shows responses to:
Question 6. If a boron-based treatment was available for the H3.1 treatment class for
timber framing, would you use it?
ALL
RESPONSES ASSESSORS
BUILDING
GROUP
SPECIFIERS
SUPPLIERS
Chart 9 Likely use of H3.1 boron
43%
Would use
56%
Boron-based H3.1 framing
36%
28%
Would not use
21%
16%
Not answered
Would use
88%
Would not use
5%
Not answered
8%
Would use
77%
18%
Would not use
Not answered
20%
3%
Would use
77%
Would not use
12%
Not answered
11%
Would use
77%
Would not use
16%
Not answered
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of group
The overall support is for boron-based H3.1 framing is high, with more than 75% saying that they
would use it. This is significantly less for suppliers – due to the support from treaters at only 43%.
5.2
Related comments
A number of people limited their support for using boron-based H3.1 by outlining certain provisos,
while others stated that they would not use it. Comments help to explain reasons, and have been
grouped and summarised in the following.
5.2.1 Treatment plants
a) Support

Providing it is as effective.

Douglas Fir treater - Would provide H3.1 if the market demanded, but is it really needed? H1.2
boron should provide sufficient protection.
b) Do not support

The H3 level is overkill for wall framing. It may get around some handling problems, but why
introduce extra chemical when it is not needed? It would be best to get rid of H3.1.

Do we need a H3.1 treatment when LOSP should be rated to H3.2 the same as in Australia.

This would only provide limited protection from decay, as boron is prone to leaching and we don’t
know how long it would last. Boron is not appropriate for H3.
5.2.2 Other suppliers
a) Support

3640 Amdmt 3 specifies H3.1 boron, provided an oil alkyd or modified latex grey pigmented
surface coating applied. We support the inclusion of boron H3.1 treatment, provided the coating
requirement is removed. We support provided valid efficacy data is presented in support.
b) Do not support

This survey is a clear attempt to manufacture support for H3.1 Boron to replace LOSP H3.1. H1.2
treatment can withstand wet humid environment for 2 years (at the current point in trial) without
decay onset or strength decline. There are NO equivalent tests on H3.1. There is no practical
13
308870169
difference between H1.2 Boron and H3.1 as both exceed the performance required in decay
environments.

You get lumpy timber and the size of timber fluctuates with boron treated kiln dried timbers.
5.2.3 Specifiers
a) Support

We need to go back to boron or similar (it is good that suppliers are getting H3.2 VSG8 in stock
for most sizes). Boron treated timber is better to handle and less fire risk.

Providing there is scientific assurance that as safe as H1.2 boron. However, I specify the level and
leave it to builder to choose treatment.
b) Do not support

Concerned about the ability to prevent decay/ the depth of penetration of treatment not being
pressure treated/ possible toxicity.
5.2.4 Building group
a) Support

This needs to be available as soon as possible. Providing it can be used clear, without painting or
coating. Would use only where necessary, as H1.2 and untreated are OK in most situations.
b) Do not support
 General concerns

Adequate testing is needed or builders will be liable if things go wrong, as was the case of
untreated timber which was approved by the government.

Don't rush Boron in the same way as LOSP – we must complete testing before approving.

We don’ know enough about it yet. Concern about safety with long term chemical exposure,
implications on joinery profiles, compatibility with manufacturing process, unknown side effects of
increased chemicals, risk that treatment is not adequate and that boron will not prevent rot,
whether boron will stay fixed in timber or will leach out when exposed

Problems with identification. There are “enough bush carpenters out there without you lot
confusing them”. LOSP provides better resistance to decay. We require clear-finished timber. I
don't think it is safe for skin
 Relating to simplifying

With regard to Boron H1.2 vs. H3.1, is this necessary? I understand that the H1.2 Boron is
providing more than sufficient protection to satisfy the need, why add more chemicals than
necessary into the building envelope. Possibly the current H1.2 boron loadings could be promoted
up to being the new H3.1 boron requirement.

H3 level is overkill for wall framing. May get around some handling problems, but why introduce
extra chemical when not needed? There is no need for H3.1 – it should be H1.2 for framing and
H3.2 for exterior. If retained, it must be properly justified. Why complicate - H3.1 is useless
product. Boron washes out or misses some of the timber.

Why can't we just get 1 treatment per level i.e. H1.2 & H3.2? Can these not cover the lower
numbers per level?

There is nothing wrong with H3.2, which is what we mostly use. H3.1 is being used exposed by
cowboys and the ignorant – it is only a matter of time before another major problem arises. I
prefer to use tanalised everywhere.
5.2.5 BCA’s and assessors
a) Support

Providing we ensure that there are no health issues.
b) Do not support
 General

There is a problem of excessive moisture in winter in cold areas, and it can take too long to
reduce to acceptable levels.

Premature leaching of water soluble boron could be a problem if the timber is often wet.
Concerned about the depth of penetration of treatment.

This is unproven and would be yet another thing to check. Safety to users is a concern.

H3.1 is questionable, colour distinction is a problem as it is often used in wrong places.
 Relating to simplifying

If H3.2 is used everywhere, this would not be needed. Keep it simple, so fewer errors are made.
14
308870169
6.
Using treated timber framing
This section considers other aspects involved in using treated timber framing.
6.1
Maximum exposure
This aimed to gauge support for the concept of setting maximum exposure limits on treated
framing timbers, and the following chart shows responses to:
Question 8. Should there be maximum exposure periods for timber framing left open to the
weather during off-site fabrication, delivery and the construction period?
SUPPLIERS
Chart 10 Maximum exposure limits
Exposure periods
79%
Set maximum
84%
14%
No maximum
8%
7%
Not answered
ALL RESPONSES
ASSESSORS
BUILDING GROUP
SPECIFIERS
8%
Set maximum
70%
No maximum
23%
Not answered
8%
80%
Set maximum
No maximum
82%
17%
Not answered
2%
Set maximum
88%
No maximum
8%
Not answered
5%
Set maximum
82%
No maximum
14%
Not answered
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of group
As shown, responses from all groups were similar, with most supporting the concept of setting
limits on the exposure of treated framing. However, there were concerns expressed on the
practicality and monitoring of any system.
6.1.1 Treatment plants
a) Support limits

Timber must be protected as any other building product. Most timber should be kept dry.

Boron leaches out when exposed too long and can be washed off surfaces in rain. Over-exposure
lowers the quality, and then the timber company gets blamed.
b) Do not support limits

Builders will limit timber exposure anyway, as they don't want to work with old frames. Limits
should be part of best practice guidelines and not be made mandatory.
6.1.2 Other suppliers
a) Support limits

A date stamp is needed for the manufacture /pre-nailing/truss stage, and also a use-by date on
invoices (e.g. 1 year from manufacture timber to be used, and say 3 - 6 months maximum from
15
308870169
pre-nail manufacture to closed in). Further specific instructions are needed for the builder if the
frame exceeds maximum (to maintain compliance).

Users should prevent unnecessary damage to products on site, and cannot expect to claim against
suppliers for timber exposed to conditions for which it has not been treated.

There should be a stated maximum to add confidence. The period needs to be realistic and allow
for weather etc - say 3 months
6.1.3 Specifiers
a) Support limits

H1.2 is particularly affected if treatment washes out, and other treatment salts can harm the
environment if they are washed into soils. Exposure must be limited to avoid deterioration through
leaching and warping. LOSP and boron effectiveness reduces with weathering.

There needs to be a guideline, but the weather and season would affect and must be allowed for.
We need simple test for deterioration.

A limit on exposure is critical for interior framing.

Sensible exposure should be tolerated but not for weeks on end - maybe use producer statements
from timber suppliers.
b) Do not support limits

Limits are not practical, as delays are unpredictable or uncontrollable (e.g. a BCA can require up
to 20 working days to process minor framing amendment before work can proceed.)

Limits are not practical to enforce. How do you know the overall exposure? It is very difficult to
know the total exposure term through all stages, and also whether the treatment has reduced to
below the required level so needing replacement.

This depends on the weather, so a definitive test is needed rather than a time limit. A ‘best before’
date would create huge amount of wasted timber. The treatment should be able to handle
exposure.
6.1.4 Building group
a) Support limits

Builders have responsibility to handle/store/use timber to avoid damage as with all building
products. It is up to suppliers to specify how long treatment will last before timber needs to be
covered.

Limits are needed to ensure retention of water soluble agents such as boron as chemicals can
leach out. Boron treatment leaches at a faster rate. Prolonged exposure risks integrity, especially
on cut/notched surfaces. Weathering also causes stability problems. If timber has low treatment
level weathering endangers the structure of timber and causes treatment to wash out.

Limits need to be realistic and without extra complications, both from perspective of construction
and ability for treatment to resist leaching. Limits must be easy to identify practical and practical
for construction time, allowing for weather, project size/difficulty etc. - even if damp when closed
in, timber can be left to dry before lining.

Limits should be variable according to treatment level. Limits should be realistically long enough under 6 months/ at least 6 months/ something like 12 - 18 months.
b) Do not support limits

Treatment should withstand a waiting period without more rules. If the treatment does its job and
penetrates the timber sufficiently, exposure should not be a big concern (although it can't be left
out too long).

It is too difficult to protect timber - treatment needs to be robust enough to withstand. If treated
properly, exposure should not matter.

Timber should be used on delivery. If we sort out the reasons for delays (e.g. over zealous
building controls), then framing will go up more quickly.

We can't deal with the unknown as far as time goes. Any limits should be best practice guidelines
and not mandatory. There is often no choice but to leave exposed. Exposure period needs to be
weather-oriented, not time.

Limits would be very difficult to control. Policing would be a problem. Would be impractical as
some houses take ages to close in.
6.1.5 BCA’s and other consultants
a) Support limits

We often see timber starting to discolour due to exposure to weather (colours often bleach before
BCA inspection) – a finite exposure period could reduce concern (frames have been exposed for 2
yrs and still passed). H3.1 should not stay wet for too long. With horizontal storing, moisture sits
between frames and extended storing outside can start decay. Would need use by stamps, and
treatment should last for set period exposed with proper branding showing this.
16
308870169

Guidance is needed as it is too difficult to identify early decay without experience or analysis. Must
be limits to ensure that durability is not compromised and to prevent colour/treatment washing
out. This is not addressed adequately by NZS3602.

Limits are needed to prevent warping and treatment damage. Limits should depend on species
and treatment level, with warping considered. Limits must be easy to identify and practical for
construction time, allowing realistic exposure time – maximum 1 month/ about 1-2 months /180
days/12 months.

Limits are needed only for untreated timber/for treatments that can leach.
b) Do not support limits
6.2

You can't determine cumulative exposure - can't monitor how long stored at mill, exposed during
transport, stored at merchants, stored on site, exposed to weather before closed in. No one is
responsible for monitoring overall exposure - multiple stakeholders. There are too many factors to
give accurate answer.

Limits would be too difficult to monitor - something else to worry about. It would be very hard to
police effectively and would be difficult to enforce removal of timber if limits were exceeded. There
are sufficient controls available without specifying specific periods.
Site-applied treatments
This section explores opinion on the current systems of timber markings and identification of both
treatment levels and gradings, and the following chart shows responses to:
Question 9. How practical is it to require builders to use site-applied treatments to cut or
notched timber framing on the job?
% of group
Chart 11 Site-applied treatments
58%
60%
Practicalilty of site-applied treatments to cut timber
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
All responses
50%
40%
35%
28%
30%
20%
21%
20%
20%
18%
15%
12%
11%
10%
8%
9%
10%
10%
6%
10%
6%
6%
4%
0%
6.2.1 Apparent patterns
As shown, the pattern for overall responses appears clear; with more than half considering that the
application of site-applied treatments is very impractical.
However, as suppliers and specifiers (who are not involved in the actual application) appear to
differ significantly from those that are more directly involved with the construction process, the
results were broken into sub-groups to investigate further.
In Chart 12, the original range of answers has been reduced from 6 to 3 so that the pattern of
responses can be more easily identified and understood. The results for ‘very inadequate’ and
‘inadequate’ are therefore shown as ‘inadequate’, ‘somewhat inadequate’ and ‘somewhat adequate’
are shown as ‘neutral’ and ‘adequate’ and ‘very adequate’ are shown as ‘adequate’.
As can be seen in Chart 12, the sub-group results are similar to those of their group, except that
significantly more treaters considered site-applied treatments to be practical than other suppliers.
17
308870169
% of category
Chart 12 Site-applied treatments – further breakdown
Practicality of site-applied treatments to cut timber
80%
81%
Suppliers
Treaters
Building group
Builders
Assessors
BCA's
All responses
70%
67%
60%
50%
50%
40%
36%
30%
24%
20%
20%
13%
10%
17%
14%
13%
10%
9%
0%
Impractical
Neutral
Practical
6.2.2 Related comments
a) Treatment plants
 Practical

The requirement is the same as some other materials (e.g. priming steel is you drill it)

It is practical, but does compromise quality
b) Other suppliers
 Impractical

Builders are unlikely to apply surface treatment, whether meant to or not. This should not be
needed with full sapwood penetration of treatment.
 Practical

If required, then competent and diligent tradesmen should be able to do it.
c) Specifiers
 Impractical

This is impractical and unreasonable, as dealing with pre-treated timber risky enough without
expecting onsite application of further hazardous chemicals.
 Practical

There is a problem when treatment does not penetrate to inner core. Why should treatment be
different from priming required in other situations?
d) Building group
 Impractical

If treatment levels are adequate - why is treating sawcuts needed? It shows a lack of confidence
in processing techniques. This should not be needed for normal conditions, as it passes the buck
to the builder.

Most site treatments are to cut ends and notches that are covered over or closed up – making it
difficult for TA to verify durability

This is impractical as you have to leave for several days after applying before priming.

This will never happen as it is too expensive - handler safety is also an issue. Every bit of timber
is cut, and it is impractical to seal every one of them (but it is OK for exterior uses such as decks).
 Practical

Although a hassle, it is essential to maintain treatment integrity (and is the same as specific use
requirements for other products).

We need re-education of builders to implement and deal with extra costs involved.
e) BCA’s and other consultants
 Impractical

It is an outrage to expect builders to use surface coated treatment to cut ends. They will not do it.
Pre-cut merchants are not doing it. This is just another item to check.

Builders cannot be relied on to apply surface treatment, whether meant to or not – and the
application cannot be checked when the timber is in place.

Treatment should be of a level that, if the timber is cut, then no action is required.

If the treatment is 100% saturation, there would be no need to applied additional treatment.
18
308870169
7.
Quality control branding
The following chart shows responses to:
Question 11. Are you familiar with the WoodMark or AgriQuality trademark timber brands?
Question 12. Do you check for these trademark brands when purchasing, installing or
working with treated framing timber?
Chart 13 Trademark timber brands
WoodMark and AgriQuality trademark timber brands
92%
80%
60%
35%
Familiar
Not familiar
Not answered
Familiar and
check
FAMILIARITY WITH BRANDS
7.1
Familiar but do
not check
6%
5%
17%
26%
2%
5%
3%
0%
8%
18%
20%
27%
40%
42%
30%
45%
37%
50%
40%
57%
55%
61%
60%
All responses
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
67%
67%
58%
80%
Familiar but not
answered
USE OF BRANDS
Brand familiarity and use
As shown, familiarity with trademark timber brands was highest for suppliers at more than 90%
and assessors at 80%, although many of these did not actually check for those brands when
working with treated timber. Familiarity with brands was lowest for specifiers at 50%, followed by
the building group at about 60%.
7.2
Brand use
7.2.1 Comments
There very few comments on this, with one builder noting that he only checked “if they are easy to
see” and another noting that “you purchase before you see the timber”. One building official noted
that he only checked if it was “important structurally”.
7.3
Brand effectiveness
The following chart shows responses to:
Question 13. If you are familiar with these quality assurance brands, how effective do you
believe they are in ensuring the standard of treated framing timber?
% of those familiar
Chart 14 Quality assurance timber brands
50%
Effectiveness of QA timber brands
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
All responses
45%
40%
35%
30%
27%
25%
20%
19%19%
23%
19%
17%
10%
9%
4% 5%
8%
13%
10%
13%
9%
0%
19
22%
18%17%
15%
8%
6%
308870169
7.3.1 Apparent patterns
As shown, apart from suppliers, opinions are generally within the neutral range with few
considering the brands to be either ‘very effective’ or ‘very ineffective’.
In order to separate out the opinions of the sub-groups, the original range of answers has been
reduced from 6 to 3 so that the pattern of responses can be more easily identified and understood.
The results for ‘very ineffective’ and ‘ineffective’ are therefore shown as ‘ineffective’, ‘somewhat
ineffective’ and ‘somewhat effective’ are shown as ‘neutral’ and ‘effective’ and ‘very effective’ are
shown as ‘effective’.
% of those familiar with brands
Chart 15 Effectiveness of timber brands
Effectiveness of QA timber brands
Suppliers
Treaters
Building group
Builders
Assessors
BCA's
All responses
80%
60%
85%
57%
45%
49%
40%
29%
22%
29%
17%
20%
41%
29%
29%
24%
8%
27%
8%
0%
Ineffective
Neutral
Effective
This breakdown shows a clear distinction between suppliers (and treaters in particular) and other
groups – with 85% of treaters considering that the timber brands are effective in ensuring the
standard of treated framing timber, in contrast to less than 30% of builders and BCA’s who thought
the same.
7.3.2 Comments
The few comments made on the use of brands are summarised as follows.
a) Other suppliers

Rigorous internal QA processes should be adopted by all timber treaters to significantly minimise
possibility of dispatching non-compliant treated timber. Need standard audit template, specifying
minimum audit requirements, adopted by both Agriquality & TPC to ensure uniform quality of
audit.
b) Builders

Woodmark and Agriquality branding is focused on the treatment/mill end of supply chain, and do
not care about end user. These quality assurance systems lost credibility by not monitoring Flash
off guidelines, which calls into question the whole audit process for other aspects of quality marks.

We rely on timber treatment companies to get it right, as it is not appropriate for builders to
question the quality of treatment or they would have to pay if wrong.

Just because it has a stamp on it, how do we know that somebody has been checking the quality?
c) Assessors

The brands are OK for codes, but there are too many treatment types and levels – making them
too confusing for most.

Brands are only as good as the builder - much work is not visible when inspected.
20
308870169
8.
Related issues
At the end of the questionnaire, people were invited to add further comments on any of the
questions. However many had other concerns that were not directly associated with particular
topics in the survey, but were obvious areas of concern.
These comments have been grouped into categories and ordered according to the number of
comments made of the following topics:






8.1
Health
Untreated timber
Treatment practices and quality issues
Information
Expense
Other issues
Health
This topic attracted many comments, which have been grouped, amalgamated and summarised in
the following.
8.1.1 Health concerns
There were many comments that expressed concerns about the safety and health implications of
timber treatment, with the largest number coming from those that handle timber products on site.
a) Other suppliers

LOSP, either TBT or Azole, remains unacceptable for framing while flash-off issues are not
remedied.

Radiata pine has to be pumped full of deadly poisons, when other species can often be used
instead.
b) Specifiers

When treated and packed plywood is delivered, it still requires 4 days flash off, meaning that you
have to deal with a product covered in poison. There should be regulations that require treated
products to be flashed off before dispatching.

It is really important to be able to consider non-toxic timber for houses. Why have most
developed countries banned LOSP and CCA timber? H1.2 Boron treated Douglas fir is the only
treatment method that fits the 'Purpose' of Act to ensure the safety and health of building
occupants

If a product is not safe it should not be on the market until it is made safe. LOSP solvents and
chemicals are both toxic, as the preservative chemical is a neuro-toxin. Even if not wet, LOSP can
still cause skin irritation and other diseases, especially respiratory-related ones.
c) Building group
 Treatments in general

Treatment used in timber is a huge health risk and will become the asbestos of the future. Copper
Chrome and Arsenic are all toxic, and in CCA you get all 3 in one hit. Modern saws have more
teeth, which produce more deadly dust to inhale. LOSP can also cause severe health problems.
Almost every product used deadly and we build houses from them.

No manufacturer uses ONLY the chemicals prescribed in NZS 3640. The use and side effects (on
durability performance and health and safety) of 'additives' are not assessed and are not currently
identifiable when examining timber on site.

Treatments will have health effects on installers and occupants. Suppliers specify gloves, eye and
mouth/nose protection but will not say that products are safe. What does that tell you?

Tin-based treatments are worse than azole-based and there are more health issues with tin (ban
TBNT).
 LOSP treatment in particular

If a product found to be defective and causes persons to become unwell, then the product should
not be permitted to be sold until it is proven that it is safe to handle. The side effects on health
and safety implications of 'additives' are not assessed. Solvents in LOSP are dangerous - should
be banned to protect industry health. Low toxicity treatments based on Borates provide a viable
option for pine framing that is exposed to moisture, so we don’t need to overkill with the nastier
chemicals.

The long term effects are going to catch up with us, as it does not look good based on the
problems we have heard of - especially in timber yards with protective gloves disintegrating,
21
308870169
inflammation, rashes and burning. LOSP was hailed as organic, but this product will end up being
another asbestos and may lead to premature deaths.

In 20 years time, builders will be showing effects of using LOSP - criminal. Health issues need to
be accepted and LOSP should be banned as it is too hard to handle safely. LOSP is a problem to
handle.

LOSP should not be allowed, as it is much more hazardous to people using it than previous types
of treatments. LOSP is a very dangerous and inadequate form of treatment, whereas boron was
used for many years without the same level of problems.

I have found LSOP to be extremely toxic for myself and my workers and now refuse to use it. I
get a skin irritation from the chemicals used, especially if the timber is not flashed off. I have
started to wear mask when cutting because of smell and effect on nasal and throat passages. I
have an instant asthmatic reaction to the vapour and dust.

LOSP is hard on workers - with sick days taken or leaving the trade. We do not use LOSP any
more, as we used it once and we all got headaches. I use CCA and will not allow LOSP into my
workshop, as it gives me a rash on my arms when I use it.
 Minimising chemicals

We should minimise chemical use. The more chemical-free timbers the better in a building - I
didn't become a builder to choke on toxic chemicals. Treatments also affect our indoor health by
putting chemicals inside our houses.

I guess treatment is to stop rotting but why is framing getting wet to rot in the first place. Should
we be putting all these chemicals into houses we live in? We should move away from using
chemicals, although I am unsure whether there is another solution yet.

Proper practices and designs are important factors. Chemical companies have a vested interest in
selling more chemicals and treated wood waste is an issue. We should not be afraid of accepting
that H3.1 was overkill and was in excess of what is required to protect timber from decay.
 Other concerns

The surface friction between lengths of dry framing needs to increase, as stacked timber too
slippery and this causes many handling accidents.
d) BCA’s and other consultants

LOSP causes health problems such as skin conditions and respiratory problems, and needs to be
off the market. There is evidence of sickness (seizures, breathing). The toxins are difficult to
remove from the body so it will be a big problem longterm. The treatment is a serious health
hazard to handlers and occupants.

Solvents in LOSP are dangerous - should be banned to protect industry health. I used LOSP once
in a joinery factory and had sick staff, so I think that it should be banned. Any treatment
requiring special handling and documented as health risk should be removed from market.

Any health issues from the handling of treated timbers need more publicity to make us more
aware of any dangers. There are few safety precautions and safety equipment used when handling
treated timber, and the issue won't be taken seriously until serious medical conditions appear. The
current medical system not good at recognising problems.

We should limit the use of unnecessary chemicals
8.1.2 Other comments
a) Treatment plants

There should be a survey to determine the extent of LOSP health problems that are anecdotally
referred to - to find out how someone decided that LOSP caused the problem, along with the
outcome of the health problem.

There should have been a question about personal protective equipment used when dealing with
treated and untreated wood.

Flash off issues need to be remedied

We need to be careful to match product performance with what is really required. Overtreating is
a simple solution but inappropriate. (Note – this comment is from a Douglas Fir treater).
8.1.3 Patterns
There appears to be a very clear distinction between comments made by treatment plants and
those from other groups.
8.2
Untreated timber
A number of comments related to the issue of treating timber, and these have been divided into
those generally supporting the need for treatment and those advocating alternatives in order to
avoid or minimise the requirement for treatments.
22
308870169
8.2.1 Supporting treatment
a) Specifiers

The health scares about treatment chemicals in the past did not warrant the knee-jerk reaction of
changing the original treatment systems and the damage to leaking buildings that resulted.

Treated timber is essential for the type of construction used here.
b) Building group

Untreated timber should not have been used in the first place.

Problems with treatments could lead to further decay in some situations (in a similar way to
untreated timbers).
c) BCA’s and other consultants

Untreated timber caused structural failures and financial heartache to owners, so don't go back
there

Untreated timber should not be used for roof purlins, as I have seen too many rotten purlins
during reroofing.
8.2.2 Alternatives to treated timber
a) Alternative species producers

We should also look at the inherent properties and subsequent differing treatment requirements of
Douglas Fir. The option of having untreated Douglas Fir should continue to be looked into.

The industry focuses too much on radiata and does not consider the high quality of alternative
timbers and where they can be used. Naturally durable timber species can be used instead of
treated pine in some cases.
 Other suppliers

There is research available demonstrating the effectiveness of designed moisture management in
order to mitigate decay risk. Preservatives may not be required in as many situations as currently
required.
b) Specifiers

Alternative timber species should be easier to use, as may can withstand time and weather.

Treatment is important for protection from rodents, bugs and fungi but it should not be relied on
to avoid leaking problems.

The survey assumes that treated timber is the only solution. However, I specify all untreated
timber for timber frame houses by using Approved Alternative Solutions.

We need more effort/marketing put into the use of non-toxic timbers such as Douglas Fir,
Lawsons Cyprus and macrocarpa.

This survey misses important questions – such as what treatments are specified for where. For
instance, are designers specifying higher treatment than the minimum required (I am), are they
using correct fixings (e.g. particularly when using CCA treated timber), are they using untreated
timber for internal walls etc?
c) Building group

Timber is taking a bad rap for inadequate workmanship and training. The water should not be
getting to the timber framing.

Treated timber should only be used where necessary - and it should be discouraged as it is not the
answer.

The attitude to species other than pine is bad - other types should be recognised.

Wall framing timber does not need to be treated
d) BCA’s and other consultants
8.3

The bigger issue is weathertight design and construction to keep the water out. With a cavity,
timber does not need to be treated.

Treatment does not stop leaks - 100 yr old houses breathe and were built from untreated native
timbers.
Treatment practices and quality
a) Treatment plants

All LOSP treated products should be treated in fully fillets form to allow best possible flash off post
treatment.
 Other suppliers

There are different sizes coming from LOSP and boron, which cause flush problems. Also treating
KD with boron causes distortion in timber.
23
308870169
b) Specifiers

Far too timbers simply state Machine graded and not to what level. There are also large
differences in quality of timber and apparent treatment from individual plants, which demonstrate
a lack of consistency.

H1.1 & H3.1 LOSP should be taken off the market as they present major handling problems. There
are also instances of rotting through the untreated middle section, where nails or bolts let water
penetrate to inner core and rot the center.

Surface-applied treatment should be forbidden - all treatment should be pressurised.
c) Building group
 General

Woodmark and Agriquality branding is focused on treatment/mill end of supply chain, and do not
care about end user. These quality assurance systems lost credibility by not monitoring Flash off
guidelines, which calls into question the whole audit process for other aspects of quality marks.

No manufacturer uses ONLY the chemicals prescribed in NZS 3640. The use and side effects (on
durability performance and health and safety) of 'additives' not assessed and are not currently
identifiable when examining timber on site.

Why is it left to processing plants to ratify their own industry? ‘The Timber Treatment Association.’
is a comfortable closed shop that shows disdain for the end users.

Suppliers are forcing their preferences on industry in order to increase their profits. What was
wrong with old system pre 1988 i.e. Boric treated internal frames, H3 exterior, H4 in ground. H3 &
H4 to be tanalised. The quality of timber is not as good as say 20 years ago.
 LOSP quality

LOSP treated timber is difficult to paint properly and should not be machined after treatment - get
rid of it. H3.1 framing can be unstable if exposed to hot weather during summer period. H3.1 is
not durable enough, with penetration variable and dubious. Some LOSP timber looks very patchy dip treatment may trap air in block pack.
d) BCA’s and other consultants
8.4

Treatment errors do happen. As it is very difficult to determine the difference between H3.1 &
H3.2, you have to rely on the stamp. If the labels are wrong, it means that H3.1 is used exposed
or unprotected and recourse is difficult to determine.

I know of cases where timber has been incorrectly branded for monetary gain (a QA brand is only
as good as checkers). Any trademark should establish later responsibility, only if the treatment is
applied by an unregistered treatment company.
Information
a) Treatment plants

There should be a study to correlate 4 day flash off period from the Best Practice guidelines with
the WES in common workplace environments.
b) Other suppliers

There is research available demonstrating the effectiveness of designed moisture management in
order to mitigate decay risk. Preservatives may not be required in as many situations as currently
required. All research and test/trial data needs to be expedited.

Specifications often ask for timber that is not available e.g. KD H3.2.
c) Specifiers

We need to make complex processes understandable with improved communication; to help
eliminate mistakes and remove problems. Timber codes need to more clearly communicate timber
codes, with colour and simplified diagrams (in a similar way to the NZS3604 graphic design
facelift).

We need better communication in the form of charts and tables for where varying treatments are
to be used. We need a site guide to identifying timbers.
d) Building group

There are too many decisions made with inadequate science backing (e.g. how do we know that 4
days is OK for flashing off LOSP, as the old MSDS sheets say 14 days). There seems to be no
science to support the change.

The amount of information that builders are expected to know and be up to speed with huge. Time
is money and we are in a very competitive environment where complexity adds to the expense.

Research into monolithic cladding systems should have been a lot more robust before they were
used in designs.

If not banned, must be very strict guidelines as to flashing off LOSP, coupled with severe penalties
if breached.

DBH needs to see the results of scientific testing of treatment types and levels (through a third
party to maintain confidentiality).
24
308870169

Legends of previous markings should be readily available (prior to 2003 changes).
e) BCA’s and other consultants
8.5

People need to understand the requirements that relate to them, and I would prefer this to
happen through education rather than more rules. There is not enough information being supplied
or received by the industry. There is a lack of education on safety precautions needed when
handling treated timber.

3604 has too much unnecessary information, and should focus just on what builders need to know
- including what are the best types of timber to use. Building officials need more information on
alternative timbers such as ironbark, cypress etc.
Expense
a) Building group

Requiring framing treatment has added costs to houses. Higher levels of treatment require
expensive stainless steel hardware. When H3.1 or higher is needed, there is an impact on house
building costs that puts prospective clients off.

Having more options has increased costs due to over-stocking, timber cupping/bowing due to poor
storage, increased handling/holding costs and more products that are not time proven.

The amount of information that builders are expected to know and be up to speed with huge. Time
is money and we are in a very competitive environment where complexity adds to the expense.

The Department should not justify existence by making more and more costly rules.

Some people buy on price rather than grade and quality
b) BCA’s and other consultants

8.6
Users do not read the instructions or care about limitations – they only consider cost.
Other issues
a) Other suppliers

The inadequate hazard class framework in NZS3602 and B2/AS1 inappropriately specifies H3.1
preservative without sufficient scientific support to show that it is needed to achieve the
performance required. A review of treatments must not be considered in isolation to a review of
the framework. We must address what is ‘fit for purpose’. Re-establish 3602 review committee
and commence such a review with urgency.

Timber users need to be less risk averse and take more responsibility for what they choose to do.
b) Specifiers

This survey misses important questions – such as what treatments are specified for where. For
instance, are designers specifying higher treatment than the minimum required (I am), are they
using correct fixings (e.g. particularly when using CCA treated timber), are they using untreated
timber for internal walls etc?

Builders' comments are the most important as they are the end users of timber and practical
issues are prime
c) Building group

There have been more problems in the last 10 years than in the previous 40 – so stop kidding us
about progress and improvements. We are too much driven by manufacturers who are trying to
get a piece of the market, but where are they when things go wrong as their businesses have by
then changed hands 3 times.

The survey is not comprehensive enough to represent wider issues. We are aware of the agendas
of chemical companies and are afraid that their undue influence will distort the outcome of any
review of current requirements. Chemical companies have interest in selling more chemicals.

Pine growers were all given trees free by the Government over 20 years ago. They now want a
return for their efforts and appear to be preventing recognition of other types of timber.
d) BCA’s and other consultants

I doubt whether current treatment levels will prove durable in long term, as inadequate
consideration has been given to the fact that the majority of timber is sapwood – and lack any
history of meeting durability provisions.

There are too many opportunities for error or misconception by builders or suppliers, so
requirements must be idiot-proof.

Builders and suppliers often do not comply with the treatment and grading specified for a building,
which leads to big problems on site for BCAs.
25
308870169
Appendices
The survey questionnaire
Timber treatment survey
The last five years have been a time of rapid change in both timber product development and site
practices. Recently the Department met two focus groups from the construction industry to review
the supply and use of treated framing timber in New Zealand.
The Department now invites feedback from the wider industry on whether treated framing timber
in New Zealand:

is fit-for-purpose and meets the needs of the building and construction sector

has simple and clear selection, identification and handling requirements

meets the expectations of designers, builders and consumers.
Please complete this survey and submit it in one of the following ways:
post or courier to:
Timber Treatment survey
Department of Building and Housing
Level 6, 86 Customhouse Quay
PO Box 10-729
Wellington
or email to:
comments@dbh.govt.nz (please put ‘Timber Treatment survey’ in the
subject line)
or fax to:
(04) 494 0290 (please put ‘Timber Treatment survey’ in the subject line)
The closing date to receive your feedback is 14 April 2008.
Industry details
1. What best describes your involvement in the construction industry?
only)
Treatment plant
Timber supplier’s yard / Builders merchant
Pre-nail plant
Designer (architect, designer, draughtsperson, etc)
Joinery shop
Engineer
Construction company
Student / apprentice
Small builder / carpenter
Building official
Other
[Specify]
26
(Mark one category
308870169
Treatment choices
2. Are the differences between H1.1, H1.2, H3.1 and H3.2 clear to you?
Yes
No
3. Do you require more or less choice in timber treatments for framing?
Less
1
Leave as is
2
More
3
Handling LOSP timber
4. How do you know that the LOSP treatment has flashed off to a safe level?
Comments
5. How often do you wait until LOSP treatment has flashed off before you start
handling/working with the timber?
Rarely
1
2
3
4
5
Always
6
Boron treated timber (pink coloured)
6. If a boron-based treatment was available for the H3.1 treatment class for timber
framing, would you use it?
Yes
No
7. If you replied “no” to the previous question, what concerns would you have about
using boron H3.1 framing?
Comments
27
308870169
Exposure to weather
8. Should there be maximum exposure periods for timber framing left open to the
weather during off-site fabrication, delivery and the construction period?
Yes
No
Comments
9. How practical is it to require builders to use site-applied treatments to cut or notched
timber framing on the job?
Very
impractical
1
2
3
4
5
Very
practical
6
Timber identification
10. How would you rate the current systems of framing timber identification?
Not
adequate
1
2
3
4
5
Very
adequate
6
Treatment quality
11. Are you familiar with the WoodMark or AgriQuality trademark timber brands?
Yes
No
12. Do you check for these trademark brands when purchasing, installing or working with
treated framing timber?
Yes
No
13. If you are familiar with these quality assurance brands, how effective do you believe
they are in ensuring the standard of treated framing timber?
Not
effective
1
2
3
4
5
Very
effective
6
28
308870169
Additional comments
14. Please add any further comments to the questions above (clearly identify the
question number) and use the back page as required.
Comments
29
308870169
Responses to survey questions
2. Are the differences between H1.1, H1.2, H3.1 and H3.2 clear to you?
Table 2 Wall framing hazard classes
Group
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
TOTAL RESPONSES
Differences
Clear on differences
Unclear on differences
Not answered
Clear on differences
Unclear on differences
Not answered
Clear on differences
Unclear on differences
Not answered
Clear on differences
Unclear on differences
Not answered
Clear on differences
Unclear on differences
Not answered
Numbers
%'s
22
3
0
36
3
1
93
29
4
45
17
3
196
52
8
88%
12%
0%
90%
8%
3%
74%
23%
3%
69%
26%
5%
77%
20%
3%
Totals
25
40
126
65
256
3. Do you require more or less choice in timber treatments for framing?
Table 3 Wall framing timber treatments
Group
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
TOTAL RESPONSES
Differences
Want less choice
Want more choice
Want no change
Not answered
Want less choice
Want no change
Want more choice
Not answered
Want less choice
Want no change
Want more choice
Not answered
Want less choice
Want no change
Want more choice
Not answered
Want less choice
Want no change
Want more choice
Not answered
30
Numbers
15
1
8
1
18
18
4
0
76
47
3
0
48
16
0
1
157
89
8
2
%'s
60%
4%
32%
4%
45%
45%
10%
0%
60%
37%
2%
0%
74%
25%
0%
2%
61%
35%
3%
1%
Totals
25
40
126
65
256
308870169
4. How do you know that the LOSP treatment has flashed off to a safe level?
Table 4 Indications of LOSP flash off
All groups
Lack of smell
Dry to touch
Supplier's responsibility
Appearance/colour
Length of time drying
Do not know
Cannot be sure
Avoid using LOSP
Not applicable to job
Not answered
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
Number
%
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
67
33
30
23
10
53
30
20
38
23
26%
5
5
5
1
3
1
2
4
3
2
20%
8
4
0
4
2
4
3
5
18
1
20%
35
16
23
11
4
39
16
10
0
14
28%
19
8
2
7
1
9
9
1
17
6
29%
13%
12%
9%
4%
21%
12%
8%
15%
9%
20%
20%
4%
12%
4%
8%
16%
12%
8%
10%
0%
10%
5%
10%
8%
13%
45%
3%
13%
18%
9%
3%
31%
13%
8%
0%
11%
12%
3%
11%
2%
14%
14%
2%
26%
9%
Note: more than 1 answer able to be given to this question.
5. How often do you wait until LOSP treatment has flashed off before you start handling/working
with the timber?
Table 5 Waiting for LOSP flash off
All groups
Rarely wait
Occasionally wait
Sometimes wait
Sometimes wait
Usually wait
Always wait
Not applicable
Not answered
TOTALS
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
Number
%
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
111
17
18
9
7
26
60
8
256
43%
5
0
1
0
2
5
9
3
25
20%
8
2
2
1
0
4
23
0
40
20%
71
11
12
7
5
12
4
4
126
56%
27
4
3
1
0
5
24
1
65
42%
7%
7%
4%
3%
10%
23%
3%
0%
4%
0%
8%
20%
36%
12%
5%
5%
3%
0%
10%
58%
0%
9%
10%
6%
4%
10%
3%
3%
6%
5%
2%
0%
8%
37%
2%
6. If a boron-based treatment was available for the H3.1 treatment class for timber framing, would
you use it?
Table 6 H3.1 boric treatment
Group
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
ALL GROUPS
Differences
Numbers
Would use
Would not use
Not answered
Would use
Would not use
Not answered
Would use
Would not use
Not answered
Would use
Would not use
Not answered
Not answered
Would not use
Would use
31
14
7
4
35
2
3
97
25
4
50
8
7
18
42
196
%'s
Totals
56%
28%
16%
88%
5%
8%
77%
20%
3%
77%
12%
11%
7%
16%
77%
25
40
126
65
256
308870169
8. Should there be maximum exposure periods for timber framing left open to the weather during
off-site fabrication, delivery and the construction period?
Table 7 Maximum exposure times
Group
Suppliers
Differences
Numbers
%'s
21
2
2
28
9
3
103
21
2
57
5
3
209
37
10
84%
8%
8%
70%
23%
8%
82%
17%
2%
88%
8%
5%
82%
14%
4%
Set maximum
No maximum
Not answered
Set maximum
No maximum
Not answered
Set maximum
No maximum
Not answered
Set maximum
No maximum
Not answered
Set maximum
No maximum
Not answered
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
ALL GROUPS
Totals
25
40
126
65
256
9. How practical is it to require builders to use site-applied treatments to cut or notched timber
framing on the job?
Table 8 Site-applied treatments
All groups
Very impractical
Impractical
Somewhat impractical
Somewhat practical
Practical
Very practical
Not answered
TOTALS
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
Number
%
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
131
47
25
17
14
17
5
256
51%
5
7
2
3
1
5
2
25
20%
14
7
6
4
4
4
1
40
35%
74
26
11
6
5
4
0
126
59%
38
7
6
4
4
4
2
65
58%
18%
10%
7%
5%
7%
2%
28%
8%
12%
4%
20%
8%
18%
15%
10%
10%
10%
3%
21%
9%
5%
4%
3%
0%
11%
9%
6%
6%
6%
3%
10. How would you rate the current systems of framing timber identification?
Table 9 Current systems of identification
All groups
Very inadequate
Inadequate
Somewhat inadequate
Somewhat adequate
Adequate
Very adequate
Not answered
TOTALS
Suppliers
Number
%
65
54
41
46
28
15
7
256
25%
21%
16%
18%
11%
6%
3%
No.
1
3
5
3
7
4
2
25
Specifiers
group %
4%
12%
20%
12%
28%
16%
8%
32
No.
5
11
10
6
6
2
0
40
Building group
Assessors
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
13%
35
26
19
26
12
6
2
126
28%
24
14
7
11
3
3
3
65
37%
28%
25%
15%
15%
5%
0%
21%
15%
21%
10%
5%
2%
22%
11%
17%
5%
5%
5%
308870169
11. Are you familiar with the WoodMark or AgriQuality trademark timber brands?
Table 10 Familiarity with trademarks
All groups
Familiar with brands
Not familiar with brands
Not answered
TOTALS
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
Number
%
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
172
77
7
256
67%
23
0
2
25
92%
20
18
2
40
50%
77
47
2
126
61%
52
12
1
65
80%
30%
3%
0%
8%
45%
5%
37%
2%
18%
2%
12. Do you check for these trademark brands when purchasing, installing or working with treated
framing timber?
Table 11 Checking for trademarks
All groups
Check for brands
Don't check for brands
Familiar/not answered
Not applicable
TOTALS
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
Number
%
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
104
60
8
84
256
41%
13
6
4
2
25
52%
11
8
1
20
40
28%
45
32
0
49
126
36%
35
14
3
13
65
54%
23%
3%
33%
24%
16%
8%
20%
3%
50%
25%
0%
39%
22%
5%
20%
13. If you are familiar with these quality assurance brands, how effective do you believe they are
in ensuring the standard of treated framing timber?
Table 12 Effectiveness of trademarks
All groups
Very ineffective
Ineffective
Somewhat ineffective
Somewhat effective
Effective
Very effective
Familiar/not answered
Not applicable
TOTALS
Suppliers
Specifiers
Building group
Assessors
Number
%
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
group %
No.
13
30
43
32
31
17
6
84
256
5%
1
3
3
2
8
5
1
2
25
4%
1
2
9
5
0
3
0
20
40
3%
7
15
21
13
14
6
1
49
126
6%
4
10
10
12
9
3
4
13
65
12%
17%
13%
12%
7%
2%
33%
12%
12%
8%
32%
20%
4%
8%
33
5%
23%
13%
0%
8%
0%
50%
12%
17%
10%
11%
5%
1%
39%
group %
6%
15%
15%
18%
14%
5%
6%
20%