Treted Pine - ACA ACQ and CCA sawdust

Hello,

Have done some googling and trawling of old threads. There was some good discussion 2006 2007 ish - Any further thoughts since then ?

Seems that people have some different views on treated pine sawdust, and can interpret the same available data in different ways. What a surprise ............

This CSIRO web site implies that if you wear a dust mask you will be fine Working-with-treated-wood | CSIRO

Am confused about CCA vs ACA vs ACQ - have noticed that some treated timber nowadays is almost colorless, would that be ACQ ?

So ........... save me some further googling please ... has anybody already done the relevant trawling and can point me to a good web site ?

My wife wants some finials for 8 decorative garden posts and am keen to do my first useful practical job with the lathe. Propose to wear a very good silicon rubber respirator that I bought a long time ago - with chemically rated filters in conjunction with dust extractor. Need to make sure have got appropriate filters - need to better understand current thinking on treated sawdust. Am aware that some folk just regard it as ordinary sawdust no big deal.

Off to chat with the people in local Bunnings see what they know.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steamingbill

Hello,

Off to chat with the people in local Bunnings see what they know.

Bill

---

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you are such a comedian!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steamingbill

Off to chat with the people in local Bunnings see what they know.

Bill

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you are such a comedian!

---

You may be better contacting a store that sells safety gear.

A wood lathe is one of THE worst machine for making wood dust and lathe operators are amongst the most susceptible to health problems cause by dust.

The coarse dust and chips are of little danger because they fall out of the air very quickly and those that are inhaled have a low surface are to volume ratio so relatively little leaching of the chemicals takes place. Its the fine dust that you cannot even see that is the problem as it hangs in the air for days and the high surface are to volume ratio will more easily allow those chemicals to leach into human tissue. Using a mask is not going to stop your lathe contaminating your whole shed with the fine dust containing those chemicals, so to protect yourself you will need to wear the mask in the shed until all that dust has been removed. For this situation a high air volume dust extractor that vents outside a shed is really the only way to go. I can stand at my lathe and make a much dust as I like and even be standing knee deep in visible shavings but with my DC running the levels of fine dust are the same as as the air outside the shed when I first started. This tells me the DC is continually removing the dust and pulling in fresh air from outside the shed. Of course its better if I clean up the shavings afterwards but doing this with the DC running is a reasonably safe process and then I leave the DC running for a while after that to scrub the shed clean.

OHS best practice is that masks should only be worn once every other avenue of dust extraction has been adopted or nothing else is available.

Thanks for the responses.

Good idea, will go to safety shop and local fence post place - they rebuilt our fences a few years ago and do a lot of machining of treated pine and worksafe have recently audited their procedures. Will read the MSDS first.

Was fairly surprised at the relatively bland advice on the CSIRO page.

Have downloaded some relevant MSDS and will attempt to educate self further from them. Initial impression from a quick perusal of them, especially the first few pages, was that these products are not that nasty, but when one reads some of the warnings about dust in the back end of the sheet it gets far more serious.

Am surprised at the negativity towards the big green shed, after all, they advertise themselves as employing expert tradesmen in the various fields to work in the shop ? Do they supply MSDS upon request ? Will find out.

Was also wondering about shifting lathe outside, that should stop polluting the shed - will just pollute the planet instead.

And with the mucking about and finding out piling up also wondering about simply buying some manufactured TP finials.

Bill

Why not make the finials out of untreated pine then have them treated after they are turned?

You will still have to deal with dust, but it will not contain Copper, Chromium and Arsenic.

Michael

The problem with the BGS is the sheer variability of the expertise in there. One day it'll be an ex-trade painter, the next a $7.69 an hour casual taking a break between college and uni, then a person from gardening filling in for the day, then an ex-public servant doing the 55 and 9 months thing who is earning money/passing time till he can get his pension, then the cool stoner guy, then the chick waiting for a hairdresser's apprenticeship...

So it's a bit of a raffle if they have expertise or not. I find the availability of expertise tends to increase in the sections related to physically challenging occupations, where the 'my job is hell on my back' factor provides knowledgeable (but physically worn out) ex-tradies.

(and the fact that Bunnies doesn't stock the better respirators).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BamBam53

Why not make the finials out of untreated pine then have them treated after they are turned?

You will still have to deal with dust, but it will not contain Copper, Chromium and Arsenic.

Michael

---

Thanks Michael,

Thats a good one.

I guess that's why I post questions on forums - I get access to other peoples brains.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

A wood lathe is one of THE worst machine for making wood dust and lathe operators are amongst the most susceptible to health problems cause by dust.

The coarse dust and chips are of little danger because they fall out of the air very quickly and those that are inhaled have a low surface are to volume ratio so relatively little leaching of the chemicals takes place. Its the fine dust that you cannot even see that is the problem as it hangs in the air for days and the high surface are to volume ratio will more easily allow those chemicals to leach into human tissue. Using a mask is not going to stop your lathe contaminating your whole shed with the fine dust containing those chemicals, so to protect yourself you will need to wear the mask in the shed until all that dust has been removed. For this situation a high air volume dust extractor that vents outside a shed is really the only way to go. I can stand at my lathe and make a much dust as I like and even be standing knee deep in visible shavings but with my DC running the levels of fine dust are the same as as the air outside the shed when I first started. This tells me the DC is continually removing the dust and pulling in fresh air from outside the shed. Of course its better if I clean up the shavings afterwards but doing this with the DC running is a reasonably safe process and then I leave the DC running for a while after that to scrub the shed clean.

OHS best practice is that masks should only be worn once every other avenue of dust extraction has been adopted or nothing else is available.

---

Bob, I agree with most of what you say however shouldn't that be - "OHS best practice is that masks should not be the primary control and should be worn in conjunction with implementing other higher order controls for dust prevention and extraction."

Another common timber treatment is LOSP - Light Organic Solvent Preservative see http://www.timberqueensland.com.au/D..._formatted.pdf covers use only not OH&S controls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

Bob, I agree with most of what you say however shouldn't that be - "OHS best practice is that masks should not be the primary control and should be worn in conjunction with implementing other higher order controls for dust prevention and extraction."

---

Hello,

Here is my OHS rant.

Whilst I was working it was agreed that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is the last resort for mitigating risk.

Whilst I was working we usually had 4 or 5 other steps to be considered and acted upon before the appropriate PPE could be determined to cover the residual risk after the other steps had been taken. Where I worked this approach was called the Hierarchy of Control.

This approach to safety is well documented, if anybody reading this post is not familiar with the concept then google "Safety Hierarchy of Control" you will find an abundance of explanations and diagrams - here is a representative diagram http://www.easyguides.com.au/sitebui...871/hie001.jpg

The concepts are useful to hobbyists and should be considered wherever possible ....... Maybe this idea is explained and discussed elsewhere on this forum ? I haven't looked yet. ............... however ..................

My personal opinion is that the average person working at home does not has the same resources available to big companies. :no: This limits the controls that can be used to mitigate a risk. So hobbyists will tend to use controls from the "least useful" or PPE end of the hierarcy.

For example a big company might completely rebuild a shed to avoid a risk whereas the hobbyist working at home, not having the budget to rebuild the shed, or install a $10,000 dust extraction system will accept the existence of the risk and cover it the best he/she can with PPE.

Sometimes realistic and practical solutions the home H&S issues can be found by applying the process .............Michael's suggested solution to my problem (see post above) is a great example of how applying that hierarchy of control can lessen the risk to me working in my shed, and with minimal expense. Thankyou Michael.

One of the basic principles of this approach is to gather together a team of people to do an initial risk assessment and apply the process. This gets lots of different ideas and points of view and experience onto the problem. Again, this is difficult for a hobbyist working at home - but this forum is a great way of getting a huge virtual team on the job.

Here endeth the rant

Thankyou everybody for your ideas.

PS. Just did a search couldnt find any discussions on hierarchy of control so best resource is google and have a look through search results.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

Bob, I agree with most of what you say however shouldn't that be - "OHS best practice is that masks should not be the primary control and should be worn in conjunction with implementing other higher order controls for dust prevention and extraction." .

---

I can tell we are on the same page but I fear the way DIY'ers would read your statement is that PPE is equivalent to other hierarchies of control whereas Best Practice says otherwise.

The hierarchy of control that Bill refers to is as follows and progress from what is considered most effective to what is least effective.
1. Eliminate, eg: eliminate task, remove hazard
2. Substitute eg: replace with less hazardous process, material
3. Isolate eg: enclosures, restricted access;
4. Engineering eg: guarding, separation, redesign;
5. Administrative eg: Safe Work Procedure, training, ;
6. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) eg: gloves, masks, goggles

Best practice requires any OHS problem to be solved as high as possible up the hierarchy and not to just rely on covering control deficiencies by using more lower levels of control.

ie "we will install a fume extractor that extracts 95% of the poisonous chemical (that's an engineering solution) and also provide basic training for workers (Admin solution), and supply workers with gas masks to cover the remainder of the risk (use of PPE)" Statements like that would immediately get me the "not approved" stamp.

We would be asked why the engineering solution will not extract 100% (or 99.99%) of the chemical, why comprehensive training is not being provided, and would need to detail all residual risks (eg spills during transport etc) and justify these risks, and specifically address issues around PPE type and use.

The DIY accident stats show that DIY'ers are in general hopeless at using PPE., I think only around 10% of DIY reporting at hospital emergency for a DIY accident actually have any PPE and even less use it. Obviously if more DIY used PPE they would be better off but they would be even better off if they used best practice risk management.

It might sound like I'm an OHS nasty but one of the reasons I retired was because of ridiculous OHS issues. It's not so much what was being done but how it was being done ie mindless paper work and ticking boxes.

Hello Again,

This thread straying off topic but might be useful for some folk.

Anybody who is interested and hasn't been exposed to this way of thinking might be able to get some info from local worksafe people or from your OHS people where you work.

I've had similar concerns to BobL about "ticking boxes" and paperwork for the sake of it but the process can be very useful if done properly.

Have to admit though that I've never sat down and done a risk assessment regarding the various things I do in my shed - best done with a few different people present.

Has anybody actually done that at home ?

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steamingbill

Hello Again,

This thread straying off topic but might be useful for some folk.

Anybody who is interested and hasn't been exposed to this way of thinking might be able to get some info from local worksafe people or from your OHS people where you work.

I've had similar concerns to BobL about "ticking boxes" and paperwork for the sake of it but the process can be very useful if done properly.

Have to admit though that I've never sat down and done a risk assessment regarding the various things I do in my shed - best done with a few different people present.

Has anybody actually done that at home ?

Bill

---

Hi Bill

Probably the most dangerous thing I do involves milling logs with a chainsaw mill so I have done several risk assessments of that activity. What came out of that was the most likely risks did not involve the chainsaw but manoeuvring the logs and timber with trucks and forklifts etc so I try to do this slowly and carefully.

The most generally dangerous aspect of my shed at the moment is most likely that it is too crowded and I think that probably is the same at a number of levels for many DIYers.

In terms of physical devices/machines probably my 21 kW gas powered forge is the one I am still coming to terms with. When I attended the two blacksmithing courses recently I was surprised to see how safe it was because no machinery (other than a vacuum cleaner to provide air) was used, they did everything old school including using a charcoal forge which is a lot safer. Unfortunately my house is inner city suburban so using a charcoal forge is out of the question. Normally I am bull-at-a-gate with most things but I am taking things really slowly and double/triple checking things when I use the new forge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steamingbill

Hello,

Here is my OHS rant.

Whilst I was working it was agreed that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is the last resort for mitigating risk.

......
Here endeth the rant

Thankyou everybody for your ideas.

PS. Just did a search couldnt find any discussions on hierarchy of control so best resource is google and have a look through search results.

Bill

---

Bill, No rant at all. I disagree that PPE is a last resort. I believe it should be the first thing woodworkers must acquire & use. Just it should not be the only control used and must be used as well as and in conjunction with higher order controls.

Simply because it is very cost effective, simple to implement, portable and can be used any where irrespective of the setup or available higher order controls. PPE can also be considered a High Order control for eye injuries etc because it eliminates small particles from entering the eye and isolates the eye etc. Same for dust protection, eliminate/isolate particles entering the lungs etc. Far better implementing higher order controls to eliminate, substitute etc....

Don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing about implementing the heirarchy of controls as I agree with both you and Bob about the process just differ in the interpretetion of the use of PPE.

I wish far more wood workers & turners would spread the word and set good examples of risk minimisation and adopt simple routines to stop and think a while about what they are doing before they start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

Bill, No rant at all. I disagree that PPE is a last resort. I believe it should be the first thing woodworkers must acquire & use. Just it should not be the only control used and must be used as well as and in conjunction with higher order controls.

---

This sort of thing worries me a bit because this line of thinking leads to many more injuries and deaths than are needed. The first thing wood workers should do when they think about taking on something new (ie buying that big router) is take a coffee break and think about what they are going to do and apply the hierarchy of control. If they lack experience they should consult someone who has the appropriate experience and maybe even get some proper training. Just rushing out and buying some eye and ear protection is not going to help that user when the big router spears him with a big sliver of wood because he fed the wood in the wrong way. Applying the hierarchy of control may determine that a router is not even needed for the task and also ultimately determines what sort of PEE should be used. Buying the PPE first is definitely the wrong way around

A more community wide example of use of PPE is mains electricity. instead of having some laws that govern who can install electrical connections (oh the expense!), covering conductors with insulation (more expense), suspending conductors from high poles or putting them underground (even more expense), we could just lay them uninsulated on the footpath and tell everyone to wear gloves and boots and allow anyone to connect into the line with a couple of battery clamps. Images of India come to mind?

A risk more closely aligned with wood and metalworking is fire, which is a much greater risk than dust. Most woodworkers use hierarchy of control with respect to fire without even thinking about it - they don't buy PPE first to deal with this risk because they usually think about the risk and then they find they don't need to buy that fireman's breathing apparatus to cope with this potential problem. A comprehensive risk assessment is likely to show that it may be well worth their while buying a fire blanket and making it easily accessible for use. This is not to say that things could be better with respect to fire. How many sheds even have an alternate exit or a window that is easy to get out of, how many sheds have been set up with an area where hot metal work can be carried on without setting fire to combustibles or structures, how many woodworkers take care with how flammables are stored, how many sheds even have a smoke alarm or fire extinguisher?

The stuff around best practice use PPE is comprehensive;
PPE should definitely be used rather than not be used
PPE should be carefully selected and suit the operation or tool
PPE should meet any applicable standards
PPE should be cleaned and maintained in good working order
PPE should easily accessible and readily available
PPE does not last forever and should be replaced as required
But
PPE should be the last thing to be determined and purchased after a comprehensive risk assessment of any process or situation.

This is not my opinion it is just what best practice says.
I usually have scant regard for OHS experts but in this case it is common sense and no university qualification is needed to work this one out.

Metal and wood workers are generally strongly independent types who face dangers everyday and it's this familiarity that breeds contempt and leads to problems. In some sense I am the pot calling the kettle black as I am one of the worst people I know in this regard and am game for taking on all manner of stuff and it has got me into trouble with authorities many times over the years. I still have a letter from the general manager of my former workplace that officially sanctions me for carrying out unapproved construction and electrical work on a building at work (when no one was around on a saturday afternoon) and using power tools without tags. But this does not make it right.

As usual BOBL turns a relativly simple question into a long winded spiel on the Evils of "invisable dust" and other solutions that are way beyond most home workers.

The original question was about treated timber.

By far the best solution to the hazards of chemically treated timber is to not use it at all.

If you must use it, avoid working with it in ways that produce fine dust...and definitely avoid sanding the stuff.

In many situations the use of treated timber is pointless and superfluous.

Afterall the only reason we use treated pine at all is because it is cheaper than good weather durable timber.

In pine the various treatments penetrate quite some way into the timber..there are some that claim all the way to the core..but in practice that is not the case.

In hardwood, the treatment barely penetrates the surface.

SO as soon as you cut or machine treated timber, you need to retreat the cut portion to maintain effectivness.

so use of treated timber for turned or machined work is not a very good choice.

If you are dead set on a treated timber end product, the best way to do it is to machine and finish sand the item THEN treat it.

In manufacturing that is easy enough..the items are machined and put thru the treating process like all the other treated timber.

For us mere mortals, we can not use the same process, but there are similar but not the same products that we can use like "Selleys combat green" ( if it still exists).

Unless these finials are to be fitted and left unpainted, by far the best treatment is good old fashon paint and plenty of it.

Chemical treatment will not prevent splitting,cracking and being weather effected......but good old paint will.

All even better if you start with a weather durable timber rather than the pithy rubbish that they sell as treated pine.

cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

A more community wide example of use of PPE is mains electricity. instead of having some laws that govern who can install electrical connections (oh the expense!), covering conductors with insulation (more expense), suspending conductors from high poles or putting them underground (even more expense), we could just lay them uninsulated on the footpath and tell everyone to wear gloves and boots and allow anyone to connect into the line with a couple of battery clamps.

---

Wont they earth out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

This sort of thing worries me a bit because this line of thinking leads to many more injuries and deaths than are needed. The first thing wood workers should do when they think about taking on something new (ie buying that big router) is take a coffee break and think about what they are going to do and apply the hierarchy of control. .....

---

Bob,

I did say originally that PPE must be used in conjunction with other high order controls.

Yes, the heirarchy of controls are proven to work in industry when it isn't a mindless tick and flick paperwork exercise. It will work in recreational pursuits if it is a genuine attempt to reduce risk and if people have the knowledge, means and resources to implement them. Very few hobbyists have the knowledge plus a sympathetic minister for finance and the luxury to own new machines with modern safety features, or to be able to bear the cost to engineer out many commonly encountered hazards. They can learn to implement the eliminate, substitute, isolate processes etc with what they own or have access to and they can afford good PPE. Not ideal but practical and affordable and will reduce risk. A HQ pair of medium impact spectacles (say uvex) and face shield (Armadillo) are arround $45.

Education about recognising and minimising risk with a focus on implemention of affordable and practical solutions is long overdue in recreational wood hobbies, and metal for that matter.

The available Emergency Department presentation statistics support my my reasoning for HQ PPE. A very significant number of the presentations to ED's are for eye, facial, brow and head injuries that the severity of which most definitely would have been lessened and perhaps even eliminated had the DIYer or hobbyist been wearing what is enforced as mandatory PPE in almost all similar "work" environments - eye protection and face / head protection. Both of which are a rare sight in many home & club workshops.

The other common injuries for wood hobbyists are tangles with operating machinery, powered and hand tools suffered from an oversight or ignorance of safe working proceedures! Catastrophic injuries and deaths are also frequent enough, and rising in my opinion, to be a very significant concern.

PPE will not stop the major injuries or deaths but education on how to recognise hazards and risk will and so will raising awareness through discussions on forums like WWF. Putting on the PPE may also prompt hobbyists to stop and think a while, and start the hazard identification / risk mitigation process.

You can't implement high order controls unless you know how, and have been trained to use safe work proceedures, how to recognise hazards and how to implement hazard controls ..... but hang on aren't education and training lowly administrative controls in the heirarchy pyramid!

Soundmans comment above is a very good example of hazard awareness & identification, risk analysis, potential controls - elimination (don't do it) or substitution (alternate processes or products) then an assessment of the controls practicality, effectiveness (are we just taking on another hazard of similar risk) etc in a hobbyists application / situation. Good one! :2tsup: