TTJ: FOLLOWING BREXIT, HOW HAS BIOCIDAL REGULATION CHANGED FOR TREATED TIMBER ACROSS GREAT BRITAIN?
Olivia Allen: Across the EU, the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR, Regulation (EU) 528/2012) has been in place since 2012 and was statutory legislation from 2013. Overseen by the EU Commission and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the BPR concerns the placing on the market and use of biocidal products, which are used to protect humans, animals, materials or articles against harmful organisms like pests or bacteria, by the action of the active substances contained in the biocidal product. This regulation aims to improve the functioning of the biocidal products market in the EU, whilst ensuring a high level of protection for humans and the environment.
Wood preservatives are authorised for use in Product Type 8 – products used for the preservation of wood, from and including the sawmill stage, or wood products by the control of wood-destroying or wooddisfiguring organisms, including insects under the BPR. Following the end of the EU exit transition period in December 2020, biocidal active substance and products are now governed by GB Biocidal Products Regulation (GB BPR), which is managed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
As an added complexity, biocidal products and active substances placed on the market in Northern Ireland are still governed by the EU BPR but administered by the HSE.
The HSE now has autonomy for biocidal review and does not recognise authorisations approved in an EU country. Because of this, there are currently some disparities between wood protection approvals in GB and the rest of Europe.
For example, across EU member states further restrictions were applied to creosote treated timber in spring of this year, with it only permitted for use for railway sleepers and utility poles. However, these restrictions are not yet enforced across Great Britain.
TTJ: WITH WOOD PRESERVATION EVOLVING, HOW ARE NEW PRODUCTS ASSESSED?
OA: Both the EU BPR and GB BPR require extensive information, assessments and evaluation. Biocides applications cover the following four areas:
- Physico-chemical properties and Physical hazards – covering the wood preservative’s physico-chemical properties to ensure shelf life and technical properties;
- Efficacy – the application must prove that the wood preservative is effective against wood destroying fungi and insects. Preservatives need to be tested in accordance with the requirements of EN 599-1 to show efficacy in the different use classes in which the treated timber is to be used;
- Human health – for wood protection this covers both primary and secondary exposure. For example, with Tanasote the human health risk assessment encompassed both operators treating wood and professionals, or non-professionals working with Tanasote treated wood;
- Environment – to ensure the wood preservative demonstrates an acceptable risk to the environment, the environmental assessment includes data from leaching studies allowing the comparison of multiple scenarios including soil and ground water emissions from the treated timber.
Any active substances contained in the wood preservative must be approved for such a use, and the supplier listed on the article 95 list which can be found on the ECHA or HSE websites.
The BPR application process is far reaching and a significant investment. It takes a number of years to get a new wood preservative to market, and for this reason when a wood preservative is identified as meeting the criteria for non-approval set out in article 5.1 of the BPR, such as creosote, there is typically a transition period to allow for alternative products to be approved and made commercially available.
TTJ: DO THE REGULATIONS SPECIFY THE MINIMUM REQUIRED RETENTION OF PRESERVATIVE IN THE TIMBER?
OA: Yes. Both the EU BPR and GB BPR specify the dilution and retention of the wood preservative for each use class in which the treated timber is intended for use.
It’s really important to remember that the critical values determined during testing are deemed to provide only a baseline efficacy. Estimation of service life requires consideration of the different parameters that have an impact on the service life of wood.
To bring this to life, I will use Tanasote as an example. For Tanasote Arxada engaged in testing beyond the required standards. In addition, we had the efficacy data peer reviewed by BM TRADA, a reputable independent third-party assessor.
TTJ: ARE THERE REGULATORY CONTROLS COVERING HOW TREATED TIMBER CAN BE MARKETED?
OA: Both the EU BPR and the GB BPR also include rules for articles which have been treated with or incorporate a biocidal product. To be fully compliant the treated timber needs some accompanying collateral.
The key requirement of BPR is that it is the responsibility of the company actually placing treated timber on the market to inform its customers and users of the treated timber of the biocidal ingredients used in the wood preservative and the key health and safety guidelines that should be considered. Treated articles should be appropriately labelled with the following information according to article 58 of the BPR:
- a statement that the treated wood incorporates biocidal products;
- the biocidal property attributed to the treated wood (if applicable);
- the names of the active substances;
- confirmation if any nano materials are present;
- any relevant instructions for use.
The labelling shall be clearly visible, legible and durable. Where necessary because of the size or function of the treated article, the labelling can be provided on packaging or on the instructions for use. Where treated articles are designed and manufactured to meet a specific order, the manufacturer and customer may agree other methods of providing the relevant information.
TTJ: DO YOU THINK THE REGULATORY CONTROLS WILL BECOME MORE STRINGENT IN THE FUTURE?
OA: The regulatory landscape is constantly evolving and it takes a dedicated team at Arxada to keep abreast of it all. Wood preservation is one of the most challenging applications in the BPR programme so we consistently find ourselves facing unprecedented issues to resolve.
These challenges are opportunities to innovate, allowing us to work towards future proofing the wood preservation sector.
