ACQ & CBA lumber (replacement for CCA) fasteners

I just found out today that, due to the corrosive nature of the chemicals used in the new lumbers replacing the banned CCA materials, standard zinc coated fasteners are not to be used with the new ACQ and CBA materials. I thought others may be interested in this information. See McFeely's web site at:
http://www.mcfeelys.com/acq.asp
-- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack
Yep, much more corrosive. Extra heavy zinc galvanived OR (better) Stainless Steel should be used
John
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then swallowed it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

place...always
I bet the ban originated in California. ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So if a Californian told you not to drink gasoline, would you do it anyway?
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

anyway?
He would never do that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If I'd been doing it for years without ill effect, I would. If I hadn't been doing for years and a Californian told me not to do it, I'd engage in more research. Ralph Nader may not be from California but there are a lot of nuts like him out there. The Corvair was just his first mistake.
rhg
Hitch wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to CCA-treated wood. See:
http://www.bancca.org /
Admittedly, the poisoning of our environment with CCA-treated wood is slow, but is ongoing, and we should remove the product from our environmental as fast as is practicable. Having said that, I am not going to rip out my fairly new deck tomorrow, but I am going to explore surface treatments which will slow down or eliminate CCA leaching from the deck lumber. I'm not going to be Chicken Little about it, but we should pay attention to those who raise alarms because they just might be right.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any chance?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

WISH TV in Indianapolis: http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?Sd5785&nav=0Ra7JXq2
BuilderOnline: http://www.builderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?channelIDY&sectionIDe &articleID$118
EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm
EPA testimony: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ccatestimony1.htm
The EPA said that while they hadn't determined that CCA was bad enough to be banned, the industry had voluntarily decided to quit using it for treating wood destined for residential use, and the EPA had signed a "cancellation order" removing residential uses from the accepted uses on CCA-treated wood, thus making it illegal to treat wood for residential use with CCA, to be effective December 30, 2003.
Obviously, there are opinions on both sides of the issue, but I'm glad the industry has decided to voluntarily move on to preservatives which appear to cause fewer problems. It doesn't seem that often that manufacturers willingly cease profitable production and practices that are apparently (or actually) harmful.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hitch wrote:

The trouble with this sort of thing is that the proponents of the ban never give any thought to what will replace the banned substance. It looks like in this case the replacement is going to contain copper, which used to be used in marine anti-fouling paints but has been discontinued due to environmental damage.
Seems to me that before we ban anything we should have something to replace it with that is _proven_ to be less hazardous.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like switching from one heavy metal in plumbing solder to another, for instance?

If it was scientists making the laws, you'd get that. It's lawyers doing it, for the most part, and they only "know" what they are told by people who may not have entirely factual or objective points of view.
This is the same thing that gives us "This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause..." type of language, when in reality, it just means "Some special interest group got the state legislature to pass a law requiring this wording".
Dave "Not that I'm cynical or anything, mind you..." Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Copper anti-fouling paint isn't banned, the U.S. Government still uses it and I believe that commercial boats can use it (hull length over perhaps 50 ft?). It's just you and me that have a hard time buying it. But it is still out there... a bit harder to find but... ;-)
RB

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RB wrote:

Kind of like CCA then. Government and business get to use the good stuff while the rest of us are stuck with the substitute.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
These folks look to me like a couple who are trying to find something to blame bad genes on other than themselves. I don't see objectivity in their actions.
RB
Dave Hinz wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
calmly ranted:

Considering the small price of the fasteners compared to the project size (on a deck, maybe 1% difference?) going to all stainless hardware seems like the natural thing to do anyway.
--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

I agree and for the DIY type it's an inconvenience, at least in my area at this time, to locate stainless steel fasteners.
I wonder how many contractors are loading SS nails into their framing nailers before they knock out a 20' x 40' deck in an afternoon. I can see the lawsuits coming.
-- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Not in every case. If the deck, or portions of it are submerged for extended periods (like during high tide) stainless may not be your friend. In an anaerobic environment the native oxide needed to retard corrosion doesn't form and stainless will corrode faster than hot dipped galvanized.
RB

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, there are a lot of stainless steel props on boat motors out there....that stay submerged..
Not all stainless steels are created equally.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's right. A few years ago the Washington State Ferryies got into a little trouble by installing a fire sprinkler system on a new boat made from stainless. The problem is that the stainless they used corrodes very quickly with static salt water under pressure, exactly what the system used. If I remember correctly, there was an engineer who was forced to look elsewhere for work after that.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.