Log In  |  Register          Free Newsletter Subscription

The Product Guy

Nick Bajzek
Nick Bajzek
Covering all the latest products, news and techniques from manufacturers and service providers in the residential home building industry. 

To submit news or a product for review, please send a press release and high-resolution image to nicholas.bajzek@reedbusiness.com


Thursday, March 5, 2009

Nick Bajzek

Viance vs. Osmose: Round 2

Mar 5 2009 10:28AM | Permalink | Email this | Comments (19) |
Blog This! using: Blogger.com | LiveJournal |

By Nick Bajzek

Things continue to get interesting with the Viance vs. Osmose case. To recap, here’s the official wordage: On March 3, Osmose, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, to stop Charlotte-based Viance, LLC from continuing its negative public relations campaign intended to scare users of treated wood. According to Osmose, the Viance media campaign falsely attacks the effectiveness and safety of wood treated with micronized copper wood preservatives.

Before the back-and-forth mudslinging, Viance hired Timber Products Inspection (TP), a leading independent and accredited wood products inspection and testing organization. They conducted a series of tests comparing Viance’s ACQ wood preservative versus Osmose’s MCQ preservative. (If you don’t know the difference between the two, check out this page for about the most objective piece I’ve seen so far: http://www.buildingproductsplus.com/prod_pressure-treated-lumber.shtml).

Viance claimed (see the press release below) that the results favored their wood treatment. However, several days after the Viance claims and subsequent marketing blitz, TP published an open letter to the industry in which it stated that the results contained in its report did not necessarily reflect scientific random sampling, and that there is a subjective element to the grading in the report. Therefore, the tests “should not necessarily be viewed as a representative sample of MCQ posts in use at this time in the United States.” In other words: you can’t draw those conclusions about the safety and durability of micronized copper-treated wood from the findings in TP’s report to Viance. TP adds “the work TP has performed for Viance regarding the inspection and evaluation of micronized treated wood and MCQ does not provide a basis for retailers, builders, contractors and homeowners to be concerned about the performance and durability of MicroPro treated wood products.”

Another twist: an open letter to Viance was endorsed by 17 of the largest wood treating companies in the U.S., expressing concern “about the negative impact this campaign is having on our industry.” 

I’ll post Viance’s original press release (you know, the one that’s causing all the hubbub) below here. In the meantime I’ll keep following this story. 

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Feb. 9 /PRNewswire/ — Findings on 4×4 posts at residential locations reveal dramatic evidence that wood treated with micronized copper preservative(MCQ(TM)) is decaying more rapidly than anticipated. These decay findings raise serious concerns about the structural integrity and safety of outdoor structures, such as decks and fencing, built with micronized copper preservatives within the last three years.
 
“We are very concerned about the safety of possibly millions of consumers whose decks and other structures were built with micronized copper-treated wood because the wood may be subject to early failure and possible collapse,” said Steve Ainscough, president and CEO of Viance, a leading provider of wood preservation technologies that refuses to offer micronized copper preservatives due to ongoing concerns about the technology. 

Residential Findings in Southeastern U.S. Show Evidence of Significant Decay
Today’s announcement is based on Viance’s in-service findings of decay on 4×4 posts located in multiple residential locations near Atlanta, Georgia and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. in the United States, supervised the identification, extraction and testing of the decaying posts at these locations. 

TP’s reports describe numerous posts receiving a rating of “less than sound” on the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) rating scale. The decaying posts from these multiple subdivisions were rated at “9.5,” “9″ and “8″ on the AWPA’s scale of 1 to 10. One post removed from the Georgia location was rated a “7,” which the AWPA defines as having moderate to severe attack with 10 to 30% of the cross sectional area subject to decay. A decay rating of 7 or below is considered unserviceable by the building industry. TP verified that the average preservative penetration and retentions for the samples examined met the current retention requirements outlined in the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) requirements for MCQ products. The TP report is available in it’s entirety at Viance’s website; www.Treatedwood.com. Furthermore, TP’s reports indicate that the decay is present in the outside zones of the posts below the ground line, to a depth of nearly one inch on some posts. 

According to Lee Gjovik, a widely published independent wood scientist, “Any decay on a post that’s only been in service for less than two years represents a significant amount of unexpected decay. Decay ratings of 9.0 or 9.5 should not occur until after many years of service.” 

“Another cause for concern,” explains Ainscough, “is that the decay we’re seeing is below the line of sight where consumers may not be able to see or properly inspect the posts. A post’s strength comes primarily from the outer surface of the post, and it is also in this area that the preservatives are present and must prevent decay. The hidden or buried portion of a post must have preservatives that work and prevent decay or the post and structures will fail.” 

These recent decay findings corroborate the results of Viance’s ongoing field tests, which were presented to the lumber and building products industries in the spring of 2008 and can be downloaded in their entirety at www.treatedwood.com. 

An Overview Of Today’s Technologies 

Micronized copper-treated wood products were first introduced to the marketplace in 2006. The manufacturers of micronized copper preservatives, Osmose(R), Arch(R) Wood Protection and PhibroWood(R), have not submitted any of these products to the AWPA for review or standardization. Micronized copper wood preservatives are sold to U.S. builders and consumers through more than 5,000 lumberyards and some leading national home center chains. 

Viance remains committed to providing its customers with high quality, industry standardized preservatives, such as Preserve(R) ACQ(R) and Ecolife(R) Stabilized, Weather-Resistant Wood, and ongoing information, testing and investigations regarding the performance of micronized copper-treated products. 

Viance LLC provides an extensive range of advanced wood treatment technologies and services to the global wood treatment industry. With an expertise in wood biocides and wood protection chemicals, Viance provides high-level product support to its customers to provide innovative, advanced solutions that improve the performance and durability of wood and wood products. Viance is a joint venture between Rohm and Haas Company and Chemical Specialties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. For more information about wood treatment technology and Viance products, visit www.treatedwood.com. 

SOURCE Viance LLC

Reader Comments


at 3/9/2009 11:53:03 AM, Joe The Builder said:
Obviously there is major issues with the MCQ and other micronized products because none of the micronized products have passed the AWPA standards process. Buyer beware!

at 3/10/2009 8:40:26 AM, AWPA Member said:
Not so fast Joe. The reason that no micronized wood has AWPA approval probably has more to do with the fact that its approval is non-proprietary. In other words, if the AWPA approves a process it is available for all your competitors as well (unles you have a patent). On the other hand, ICC aproval is proprietary. AWPA is looking to amend its approval process to allow for proprietary approvals. You can learn more about the anticipated AWPA changes at www.awpa.com/ProtocolDraft3.pdf

at 3/10/2009 4:00:51 PM, Joe The Builder said:
The open nature of the AWPA approval system has not stopped other systems from being submitted in recent years. My guess is that the micronized products do not have a test results package that will pass critical review by industry experts and the "proprietary" claim is simply an excuse.

at 3/11/2009 6:57:22 AM, Tom Horvat, U.S. Marketing Manager, Osmo said:
Osmose is currently in the process of receiving a patent on its micronized wood preservative technology. The product has already received approval from the ICC Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) – an agency that uses some of the same scientists, procedures and laboratories as AWPA when conducting evaluations.

Osmose has received an ES Report from ICC-ES because this type of report is preferred by Building Code Inspectors when determining if a product meets Building Code requirements. ICC also offers nondisclosure agreements that protect our product from being copied.

at 3/12/2009 7:08:39 AM, Dick Gauthier said:
Joe: There is one party claiming MCQ "has issues": Viance, the only major preservative maker without access to the technology. Your guess that MCQ does not have "a test results package that will pass critical review by industy experts" is a bad guess. Forest Product Journal published in their Nov 2008 edition extensive, thorough, unequivocal test results concluding MCQ performs as well or better than ACQ.

at 3/20/2009 4:42:24 PM, AWPA advocate said:
AWPA news release - go their web site and find the media page... this was not distributed on any wire services.

STANDARDS FOR TREATED WOOD? AWPA PROVIDES CLARITY IN A CONFUSING MARKETPLACE

Have you been confused by recent information about treated wood standards?

Several statements regarding the efficacy of wood preservatives containing sub-micron sized copper particles (often referred to as "micronized" copper) have been released by various wood preservative manufacturers.

Most of these press releases refer to AWPA Standards, and as a result, AWPA has received many inquiries about these preservatives. Based on assertions made in the press releases, it seems that a large number of people now assume that the "micronized" wood preservative systems have been evaluated and approved by AWPA. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not true.

AWPA''s Technical Committees develop several types of Standards. AWPA Evaluation Standards are developed to test wood preservatives for the purpose of submitting the resulting data to our Technical Committees.

However, because AWPA Evaluation Standards do yield valuable information, they are frequently used for purposes other than AWPA''s
standardization process.

When used outside of AWPA, this information is not subject to the same degree of expert review provided by AWPA''s open, consensus-based process which is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

AWPA''s Analytical Standards are developed to determine the presence and amount of preservatives in wood, but they do not provide any indication as to whether or not a preservative will effectively protect a wood product.

To date, no data supporting the effectiveness of "micronized" copper systems have been submitted to AWPA for evaluation or standardization. The only treated wood products reviewed and standardized by AWPA are those listed in AWPA
Standard U1.

When statements are made that a treated wood product has been tested in accordance with AWPA Standards it does not mean that the product meets or conforms to any AWPA Standard unless that product is listed in AWPA Standard U1. An excerpt from Standard U1 can be downloaded from the AWPA web site.

A listing of currently standardized residential treated wood products can be found at the awpa web site.

AWPA welcomes the submission of proposals and supporting data for any wood protection system for review by its
Technical Committees for the purpose of listing it in AWPA Standards.

at 3/20/2009 4:44:12 PM, Professional Deck Builder said:
A point that garners some attention is that no micronized-copper preservatives are listed in the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) Standard U1, unlike ACQ and CA.

According to Colin McCown, executive vice president of the AWPA, Standard U1 is the only standard for decay-resistant lumber directly referenced in the International Residential Code. (Local inspectors have discretion to accept or reject other criteria, and most do accept micronized-copper preservatives.)

Manufacturers of micronized-copper preservatives claim they’ve tested the products following AWPA standards. However, according to the AWPA, to date no maker has submitted test results for the review required for Standard U1.

Industry scuttlebutt has it that manufacturers of micronized copper believe that submitting the formulation would reveal trade secrets.

McCown asserts this concern is unfounded, as the AWPA only requires disclosure of the biocides in a preservative formula, information that is by law submitted to the EPA and therefore public record. — Andy Engel

at 3/21/2009 7:34:05 PM, Joe the Builder said:
To Dick Gauthier

Looks like I may have been right after all. The Forest Products Journal article you suggested that I read says that one of the reasons micronized products have not been submitted to the AWPA is "extent of testing".

at 3/24/2009 8:15:32 AM, Joe the Builder said:
To Tom Horvat. I checked on your claim that Building Code Inspectors prefer the type of ES report used for MCQ over the AWPA standards. It seems that the AWPA standard systems also have ES reports that are linked to the AWPA standard and these are preferred over the non-AWPA ES reports. Also some concern was expressed that the non-AWPA inspection procedures are not under the ALSC inspection system. While the ES reports for the micronized products are being accepted by code officials, it does not seem to be the case that these reports are preferred over the ES reports for AWPA standard systems. Could you give us the contact information for a code official who will confirm your statement that the non-AWPA ES reports are preferred.

at 3/24/2009 8:18:41 AM, AWPA Member said:
Well, judging from the fact that Viance has basically removed everything but the pictures at its treatedwoodalert.com website, it appears that the judge has sided with Osmose and that Viance''s claims were false and misleading.

at 3/25/2009 9:43:40 AM, Tom Horvat, Osmose said:
You can find more information on approved treated wood products and evaluation reports on the ICC-ES website: www.icc-es.org/Evaluation_Reports/index.shtml.

at 5/13/2009 3:28:25 PM, Robor said:
Hello,
Super post, Need to mark it on Digg


at 7/28/2009 6:54:48 AM, AlexAxe said:
Amazing! Not clear for me, how offen you updating your www.housingzone.com.
Have a nice day


at 8/29/2009 5:57:39 PM, AnnaHopn said:
Hi,
Can i get a one small picture from your blog?
AnnaHopn

at 9/20/2009 10:44:36 PM, Rufor said:
Greatings, Interesting, I`ll quote it on my site later.
Have a nice day


at 9/24/2009 3:51:38 PM, Rufor said:
Hi,
Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!


at 9/27/2009 12:53:39 AM, Robor said:
Amazing! Not clear for me, how offen you updating your www.housingzone.com.


at 9/29/2009 1:08:10 AM, Pett said:
Hi,
Can i get a one small picture from your site?
Pett

at 10/1/2009 6:53:04 AM, anon said:
Osmose just won the lawsuit. Debate over.

Post a comment


Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.



Advertisement


 
advertisement


Advertisement



Advertisement




Advertisement


Sponsored Links
Security System
Affordable wireless security systems from SafeMart.
Hardwood Floors
Stylish and durable hardwood floors from Armstrong