CMI Advisory Notice: Report Validations, Performance Requirements & Engineering Assessments, CodeMark NZ Template & Evaluation Reports.

Subject: Evidence of Compliance – Report Validations

CMI wishes to advise all our valued clients of the following requirements in relation to evidence of compliance.

It is the responsibility of the Certificate Holder to make sure that all the evidence supplied to CMI in support of your accreditation is up to date, verifiable and completed by accredited &/or competent persons.

In most cases testing bodies place a validity period on their reports. This means that reports that are approaching the end of this period will require revalidation by the testing authority. Where testing bodies do not place a validity period of testing reports, CMI suggest the testing be validated by the testing authority every 5 years, regardless of whether the testing standard has changed. This may be for a number of reasons, but generally, where the test standards remain current, it is to ensure that the test lab maintains its support of that testing.

In the case of Engineering Reports these need to be kept up to date given the changes in the standards and building codes. To ensure that you are keeping your testing current and Engineering Report, Technical Appraisals etc. current, CMI requests that all of our clients review their current testing and determine if any of the test reports or Appraisals/Evaluations require validation.

It is important to note that, in most cases, the testing body merely needs to issue a validation of the original test, this can normally be done quite quickly by the issuing body. Engineers and technical bodies will similarly re-issue their report having conducted a review of the material.

When conducting annual surveillance and accreditation audits, CMI will be advising Certificate Holders if we note testing that is due for revalidation. CMI believe the above direction is fair and reasonable and shows us that you keep current and up to date records and provide the expected Quality Assurance of your product in the market.

Subject: Performance Requirements & Engineering Assessments

In light of the changes to the Building Code and increased surveillance, moving forward, there will be a need for Engineering Report and Evaluations to be provided in support of any Performance Requirements of the BCA or NZBC being claimed. Please note, this is not a requirement for Deemed to Satisfy (DtS) provisions of the BCA in most cases. An example where an Engineering Report would be required for both the DtS and Performance Requirement is Structure. Clients will be required to engage the services of a suitably Qualified Engineer to assess the test data and report on the product/system’s compliance with the relevant building code and confirm the applicable clauses, inclusive of sub-clauses.

CMI may be able to assist in recommending Engineering firms for this work. Please notify us should you require this assistance.

Subject: New Zealand CodeMark Certificate of Conformity (CoC) Template

As of mid July, CMI has been given the approval to amend the single page CodeMark New Zealand CoC template to an extended template that CMI have produced in line with the CodeMark Australia template. The additional real estate allows us to address matters we previously were unable to on the template supplied to Certification Bodies; such as detailed information on product/system components, tested specimens and subsequent results, evaluation methods etc.

Subject: CMI Evaluation Reports issued in conjunction with CodeMark

Given that the function of the CMI Evaluation Reports was to fill the gaps between the lack of information on the old format CodeMark CoC templates, CMI, upon consultation, has determined that having both the new format CodeMark CoC and an Evaluation Report in the market place will lead to confusion, consequently as the CodeMark CoC is now carrying the same information that the Evaluation Report would have contained, the Evaluation Reports, as related to a CodeMark CoCs, have become redundant. Consequently, CMI will not be issuing Evaluation Reports in conjunction with CodeMark CoCs and will be withdrawing any applicable Evaluation Reports. The above will become effective upon issue of your CodeMark onto the extended template CoC. Following this date, the Evaluation Report will be withdrawn and must be removed from advertising and other company literature.

For those clients who would still prefer to have an Evaluation Report, CMI will be happy to supply one, however this will require a new application and will be subject to Surveillances and Renewals similar any other Scheme offered by CMI.

CMI would like to thank our Clients for their understanding in the above matters and request that should clarification be required in relation to any of the above, please reply via email: office@certmark.org.

Testing requirements under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) – CodeMark Australia, Type Test & WaterMark

The review of the BCA 2016 Amdt 1 has resulted in the redefining of what constitutes an Accredited Testing Laboratory.

Under the requirements of BCA Volume 1, Part A1, the following definition is now stated:

CMI has been in conversation with both NATA and the ABCB and wishes to advise the following:

Any testing undertaken, to be used as evidence of conformity against the BCA, MUST BE conducted by a NATA or ILAC accredited testing body, with the test standard under its scope.
CMI WILL NOT accept testing from testing bodies that do not meet this criteria and nor should any Engineering Firms.

Clients are advised that they must be mindful of this when commissioning test reports. The test lab should be asked to provide a copy of their scope, referencing all of the test standards they are proposing to test the product against. Alternatively, you can search the scope of the laboratory on either the NATA web site https://www.nata.com.au/accredited-facility/ or through a mutually recognised accreditation body from another country https://ilac.org/signatory-search/, such an IANZ in New Zealand http://www.ianz.govt.nz/directory/.

Please note, in many cases, testing bodies who are not accredited will produce test reports with a disclaimer, usually; “this report is not to be used for regulatory purposes”. Such reports can not be used as evidence of compliance against the BCA.

Clients currently proceeding through Initial Certification, Certificate Changes, Surveillance Audits or Renewals, will be notified of whether any reports supplied are not valid, otherwise, CMI request that each Client complete a review of their supporting documentation and ensure that all testing  and Engineering Evaluations have been conducted in line with the above prior to your next audit activity.

If you have any questions, please email office@certmark.org or contact your Client Manager.

Increasing certainty in Certification

The ABCB, in conjunction with the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ), has been driving hard towards the implementation of the revised and improved CodeMark Australia Scheme.

The new scheme will be implemented early in the second half of the year. Significant changes from its predecessor scheme have largely been informed by extensive stakeholder consultation.
Read more Here

CMI Advisory Note: Product Certification vs. System Certification.

certmark-int-180

CMI has recently sought advice from the ABCB regarding the referencing to test results of products that have been tested in concert with other building materials to achieve specific compliance values.

For example, a wall sheeting material that has been tested for its acoustic and insulation values in a wall assembly that incorporates the sheeting, Rockwool insulation, an air gap and plasterboard.

Such an assembly may well achieve a R value of 50 + and comply with the requirements of the Building Code. However; if the CodeMark™ application for certification is for the wall panel, as a “product”, and not for the wall panel as a “system”, then the certificate of compliance cannot reference the R values achieved by the “system”.

In the case of a “product” certification, only the values actually achieved by the “product” that forms the subject of the certification can be attested to on the certificate of compliance.

If the application is for a “system” then the “system” certification must clearly identify the components that go into making up the system. For example:

The XYZ wall system consist of the following:

Product Description
XYZ wall panel The XYZ wall panel is a 12mm fibre cement wall panel.
Top Hat The Top Hats have a nominal width of 35mm
Framing Steel framing conforming to NASH Standard/Timber Framing to AS1684
XYZ Rockwool 75mm XYZ Rockwool
XYZ plaster board 10mm XYZ plasterboard
Fasteners & Fixing Fixing of Top Hat to steel framing; 10-16x16mm Hex Head Teks screw
Fixing of XYZ wall panel panels to Top Hat from inside of buildings 14-10x65mm Hex Head Type 17 Screw
XYZ Adhesive XYZ Adhesive is used for gluing the panels together at vertical and horizontal joints.

 

It is important to note that certification of a building system requires the Certificate Holder to accept responsibility for the other components used in the system. Such components must be clearly defined in the Certificate Holders version controlled installation manual or guide. Any installation of the certified system that varies from the description on the Certificate of Conformity (CoC) will be considered to be non-compliant in line with CMI’s Terms and Conditions and the Scheme Rules.

If you require further information on the above or clarification on any other aspect of the CodeMark Scheme, please contact your CMI Client Liaison Officer.

ABRB – Issue 18 Released

The ABRB is one of the ABCB’s key mechanisms for delivering and raising awareness of technically based information directly relevant to the building and plumbing industry and the community. This electronic publication provides a means for delivering information on code-related issues that address specific technical matters, contains information on broader building and plumbing regulations, and provides for expert opinions on significant technical and regulatory topics.

The ABRB is produced three times each year and is an information service to users of the NCC.

This is the August 2016 edition.

Visit the ABCB website for the PDF Download

Bypass bridge steel found to fail tests in New Zealand

Breaking_News_LogoA article has been published by Radio NZ today that sixteen hundred tonnes of steel from China has been found to be too weak.
This steel was to be used for four bridges on the $450 million Huntly bypass that forms part of the $2 billion Waikato Expressway.

Contractors building the ‘Road of National Significance’ chose a very low bid for the steel tubes.

But the test certificates for them have turned out to be wrong, and now an expensive fix-up job is under way.

The contractors, Fulton Hogan and HEB Construction, have admitted to RNZ News the steel tubes were not good enough. They did not comply with standards for structural steel, which for bridges were very high as they must resist impacts, heavy loads and low temperatures.

It was only after a third lot of testing that the contractors found out. The first tests were done in China by the steel mill and the tube manufacturer; it is understood the second tests were done in New Zealand on samples sent here from China.

Both lots of tests said the steel met the New Zealand standard….

 

Read the full article on www.RadioNZ.co.nz

Statement of Clarification

Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs)

The fallout from the Docklands fire and the ongoing debate (at the highest level of government) has resulted in changes to not only ACPs in the market place, but also, tangible and actionable new requirements under the NCC and State and Territory regulations.

CMI has been in consultation with a number of industry stakeholders regarding the use of composite panels. This includes the Victorian Building Authority (VBA), Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) and the Joint Accreditation Scheme-Australia New Zealand (JAS-ANZ). CMI have also been in discussions with several prominent building surveyors regarding future use of the CodeMark Certificate of Conformity as well as the evidence required in the use of the CodeMark Certificate of Conformity.

CMI’s discussions with the VBA have resulted in the requirement for a performance solution in support of the product. This is required either on a case by case basis for each building or part of the supporting evidence within the CodeMark Certification Certificate. This is due to the VBA’s position on the limited application of Deemed-to-Satisfy clauses for combustible products. For example, specification C1.1 Clause 2.4 requires the attachment not to cause an undue risk of fire spread. This is a performance detail within the DtS clauses which can only be demonstrated through evaluation to the Performance Requirements by an appropriately qualified engineer.

Discussions with the ABCB indicated that a product Evaluation Report by CMI is required with support from a professional fire engineer. In addition, the ABCB have advised that the CodeMark Certificate of Conformity will have a format change to be introduced in late June or early July. The purpose of this change is to greatly enhance the mandatory information contained on the Certificate of Conformity. The proposed format will provide a more useful document that facilitates the granting of consent on building projects.  By having an Evaluation Report supporting the certificate, the information will be transposed from the Evaluation Report to whatever format the certificate may take. During this time, it is considered important that a consistent Evaluation Report be generated.

 

So where to from here?

1 – Test evidence

ACPs will need appropriate testing on a small and large scale. This applies to all panels on an individual basis.

For internal use of the panel, the following testing is required:

  • ISO 9705

Any testing from 1 May 2016 will require documentation detailing a group number under AS 5637.1:2010 from testing to:

  • ISO 9705 or
  • AS/NZS 3837

For external use of the panel, the following testing is required:

  • Core testing to AS 1530.3
  • Assembly testing to AS 1530.3 (panel as a whole)
  • Full scale façade testing
    • NFPA 285
    • BS 8414 or ISO 13785.2 (independent of AS 5113)
    • AS 5113 (BS 8414 or ISO 13785.2)
  • Performance evaluation by a professional fire engineer registered on Engineers Australia NER demonstrating compliance of the product against the Performance Requirements CP2 and CP4.

From the above testing and performance solution additional information relating to the product such as installation manual as well as technical fixing detail for various configurations will be needed. This includes walls, around doors and windows, awnings and the like.

CMI will then complete an Evaluation Report of the product which will be publicly available and supplement the CodeMark Certificate of Conformity.

The CodeMark Certificate of Conformity will be updated in its current format following review of the testing, performance solution and installation details.

When the ABCB releases the final formatting of the enhanced CodeMark Certificate of Conformity, CMI will make the necessary changes as required in consultation with the Certificate Holder. The details will be extracted from the Evaluation Report, which will remain consistent.

Currently, many Certificates of Conformity are at different stages based on various changes. CMI requires that all Certificates of Conformity including new applicants meet the CMI Acceptance Criteria for ACPs with their supporting evidence.

CMI is committed to following directions set by the ABCB, JAS-ANZ and Building Consent Authorities to build confidence in the evidence and application of the CodeMark Certification Scheme.

2 – Next step

As a consequence of the requirements outlined above, the minimum requirement for CMI to approve a new certification or to maintain a current ACP certification will be:

  • A CMI Evaluation Report
  • A performance solution
  • Full scale testing
  • Core material testing
  • Assembly testing

Many CodeMark Certificate Holders will need additional testing or information (Supporting Evidence) to validate their certificates. CMI will work with all ACP applicants and current Certificate Holders to assist in achieving the conformity requirements. CMI will complete a technical analysis of each ACP certificate, and a gap analysis report will be provided to current Certificate Holders.


Update – August 2016

Please note that the small scale testing of AS/NZS 3837 and ISO 5660.1 are no longer accepted, and have been removed from the article.

Termite Risk Management

Technical Notice
Termite Risk Management

Over the coming weeks CMI will be reviewing all the products and systems certified by us that have a termite risk management application. This will be undertaken to ensure conformity of certifications to the requirements of the Nation Construction Code (NCC) 2016.

There are changes in the NCC that will have an impact on termite management systems. Of particular impact is Volume 2 Part 3.1.3 Termite Risk Management, and Volume 2 Part 2.1.1 as well as Queensland state variation Part 2.1.3.

We note the following changes that may have a potential impact on current certifications.

  • The NCC 2016 deleting any specific reference to the following clauses:
  • 1.3.1 Application
  • 1.3.2 Installation of termite management systems
  • 1.3.3 Concrete slab-on-ground edge exposure
  • 1.3.4 Sheet materials
  • 1.3.5 Granular material
  • 1.3.6 Chemical
  • 1.3.7 Attachments to buildings

All of the above are now included in the NCC referencing AS3660. 1; 2014 Part 1 – New building work.

(2)  the deletion of the requirement Queensland requirement for two durable notices to be placed on the building, one in the meter box and the other in the kitchen cupboard.

(3) the Queensland variation for primary building elements to include door jams, window frames, reveals, architraves and skirting’s is now included in Part 1.1 Interpretation.

As the performance requirements referenced in the NCC under P2.1.1 Structural stability and resistance to actions are limited to P2.1.1 (b) (XV) termite actions and as CodeMark certification is based on the performance requirements of the NCC

 

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS

P2.1.2 does not apply in Queensland.

Note: Building work in designated flood hazard areas is regulated by the Building Act 1975 and Development Code 3.5 -Construction of buildings in flood hazard areas.

In Queensland after P2.1.2 insert QLD P2.1.3 as follows:

QLD P2.1.3

(a)    The risk of primary building elements in a Class 1 or 10 building being damaged by subterranean termites must be adequately minimised by the use of a suitable termite management measure that—

(i)      if it serves a non-temporary Class 1 building, has a design life of at least 50 years; or

(ii)     if it serves a building not specified in (i), has a design life of at least 50 years or the specified design life of the building, whichever is the lesser; or

(iii)    is easily and readily accessible for replenishment or replacement and is capable of being replenished or replaced.

(b)    A termite management measure required by (a), to the degree necessary, must—

(i)      be accessible to enable the installation, maintenance and inspection of the termite management measure to be carried out; and

(ii)     incorporate suitable measures to adequately minimise the risk of the termite management measure inadvertently being damaged, bridged or breached.

Explanatory information:

QLD P2.1.3(a) requires a termite management measure in Queensland to have a design life of at least 50 years unless it is easily and readily accessible for replenishment or replacement and is capable of being replenished or replaced. In recognition that some buildings other than non-temporary Class 1 buildings may be designed to last less than 50 years, the option of the termite management measure having a design life at least equal to that specified for the building is given. If this option is used, the design life of the building should be agreed upon by all relevant stakeholders at the design stage and should form part of the documentation kept by the appropriate authority. It should not be assumed that the design life of 50 years in QLD P2.1.3(a)(i) and (ii) applies to any other provisions of the BCA, unless stated.

An example of a termite management measure that may satisfy QLD P2.1.3(a)(iii) is a chemical reticulation system beneath a concrete floor slab laid directly on the ground, provided that the system is easily and readily accessible for replenishment and is capable of being replenished.

An example of a termite management measure that may not satisfy QLD P2.1.3(a) for a non-temporary Class 1 building is a hand-sprayed chemical beneath a concrete floor slab laid directly on the ground if the chemical does not have a design life of at least 50 years. The concrete floor slab being laid directly on the ground would prevent the area beneath the slab from being easily and readily accessible for replenishment or replacement of the termite management measure.

An example of a termite management measure being inadvertently bridged or breached is when a person places a garden or mulch over the top of or above the level of a termite management measure enabling termites to bypass the measure.

P2.1.2 does not apply in South Australia.

 

PART 3.1.3 TERMITE RISK MANAGEMENT

Appropriate Performance Requirements:

Where an alternative termite management system is proposed as a Performance Solution to that described in Part 3.1.3, that proposal must comply with—

(a) Performance Requirement P2.1.1; and

(b) the relevant Performance Requirements determined in accordance with 1.0.7.

Acceptable construction practice

3.1.3.1 Application

Compliance with this acceptable construction practice satisfies Performance Requirement P2.1.1 for termite risk management.

Explanatory information:

The intent of these requirements is to provide for a termite management system that deters termites from gaining entry to a building via a concealed route. The installation of a termite management system will not stop termite activity from occurring on the site.

 

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS

In Queensland delete 3.1.3.1 and replace with the following: 3.1.3.1 Application Compliance with this acceptable construction practice satisfies Performance Requirements P2.1.1 and QLD P2.1.3.

3.1.3.2 Requirements for termite management systems

(a) The requirements of this Part apply where:

(i) a Class 1 or 10 building is constructed in an area where subterranean termites are known to present a potential risk of attack; and

(ii) a primary building element of a Class 1 or 10 building is considered susceptible to termite attack.

(b) For the purposes of (a), a primary building element consisting entirely of, or a combination of, any of the following materials is considered not subject to termite attack:

  • Steel, aluminium or other metals.

(ii) Concrete.

(iii) Masonry.

(iv) Fibre-reinforced cement.

(v) Timber — naturally termite resistant in accordance with Appendix C of AS 3660.1.

(vi) Timber — preservative treated in accordance with Appendix D of AS 3660.1.

Explanatory information:

  1. 3.1.3.2(a): Termites are not considered to be a risk in Tasmania and a lesser risk in parts of Victoria. The appropriate authority may have records of termite activity for each area and may be able to advise on whether termite risk management is needed.
  2. 3.1.3.2(b): Where individual primary building elements are susceptible to termite attack and the remainder of the primary building elements are constructed of termite resistant materials, only the susceptible elements need to be provided with a termite management system.
  3. 3.1.3.2(b)(iii): states that masonry is not subject to termite attack, however termites may gain entry through mortar and other joints.

 

SITE PREPARATION

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS
In Northern Territory delete 3.1.3.2(b)(v) and replace with the following: (v) Timber — naturally termite resistant timber in accordance with Appendix C of AS 3660.1 in areas where Mastotermes darwiniensis are not prevalent

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS
In Queensland delete 3.1.3.2 and replace with the following

3.1.3.2 Requirements for termite management systems
(a) The requirements of this Part apply where:
(i) a Class 1 or 10 building is constructed in an area where subterranean termites are known to present a potential risk of attack; and
(ii) a primary building element of a Class 1 or 10 building is considered susceptible to termite attack.
(b) For the purposes of (a), a primary building element consisting entirely of, or a combination of, any of the following materials is considered not subject to termite attack:
(i) Steel, aluminium or other metals.
(ii) Concrete
(iii) Masonry.
(iv) Fibre-reinforced cement.
(v) Timber — naturally termite resistant in accordance with Appendix C of AS 3660.1.
(vi) Timber — preservative treated in accordance with Appendix D of AS 3660.1.
(c) A termite management system installed in a Class 1 or 10 building to minimise the risk of termite attack to primary building elements shall be in accordance with clause 3.1.3.3.
d) The termite management system required by (c) must have—
(i) for a non-temporary Class 1 building, a design life of at least 50 years; or
(ii) for other than a non-temporary Class 1 building, a design life of at least 50 years or the specified design life of the building, whichever is the lesser.
(e) A termite management system need not comply with (d) if it is easily and readily accessible for replenishment or replacement and is capable of being replenished or replaced
(f) Where a chemical is used as an external perimeter termite management system, it must be—
(i) installed by excavating trenches, treating the exposed trench and backfilling the trench with treated material; and
(ii) covered by a concrete cover strip not less than 50 mm thick and 300 mm wide measured from the external wall of the building.

 

3.1.3.3 Termite management systems

Where a termite management system is required it must—

 (a) be selected appropriate to Table 3.1.3.1; and

(b) comply with—

(i) AS 3660.1; or

(ii) have been tested and passed the tests required by Section 5 of AS 3660.3; and

(c) have a durable notice installed in accordance with 3.1.3.4; and

(d) where a chemical termite management system is used, the chemical must be included on the appropriate authority’s pesticides register

Explanatory information:

3.1.3.3(b)(ii) provides the option of having a chemical termite management system tested to AS 3660.3. In order for the test results to remain valid, the system would then have to be installed as tested.

 

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS

In the Northern Territory delete 3.1.3.3(d) and insert 3.1.3.3(d) and (e) as follows:

(d) include additional termite risk management measures in areas where Mastotermes darwiniensis are prevalent; and

(e) where a chemical termite management system is used—

(i) the chemical must be included on the appropriate authority’s pesticides register; and

(ii) when used as an external perimeter termite management system for Mastotermes darwiniensis, it is—

(A) installed by excavating trenches, treating the exposed trench and backfilling the trench with treated material; and

(B) covered by a concrete cover strip not less than 50 mm thick and 300 mm wide measured from the external wall of the building.

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS

In Queensland delete 3.1.3.3 and replace with the following:

3.1.3.3 Termite management systems Where a termite management system is required it must—

(a) be selected appropriate to QLD Table 3.1.3.1; and

(b) comply with—

(i) AS 3660.1 subject to clause 3.1.3.2(d), (e) and (f); or

(ii) have been tested and passed the test results required by Section 5 of AS 3660.3; and

(c) have a durable notice installed in accordance with 3.1.3.4; and (d) where a chemical termite management system is used, the chemical must be included on the appropriate authority’s pesticides register

3.1.3.4 Durable notice

A durable notice must be permanently fixed to the building in a prominent location, such as in a meter box or the like, indicating—

(a) the termite management system used; and

(b) the date of installation of the system; and

(c) where a chemical is used, its life expectancy as listed on the appropriate authority’s register label; and

(d) the installer’s or manufacturer’s recommendations for the scope and frequency of future inspections of termite activity.

Explanatory information:

  1. Appropriate authority

For the purpose of the pesticides register, the appropriate authority is the government body responsible for the registration of pesticides. Currently, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APMVA) coordinates the registration scheme.

  1. Durable notice

Where a durable notice is required by 3.1.3.3 a durable notice must be fixed to the building in a prominent location advising the building occupants that the system should be inspected and maintained.

The notice should be clearly written, on a material that will not deteriorate or fade over time and be located in or near the electrical meter box or similar location so that it can be easily seen and read by future owners of the building. Additional information may be included if desired by the person placing the notice.

Source NCC 2016 Building Code of Australia – Volume Two
Table 3.1.3.1
ACCEPTABLE TERMITE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS

Building Element Termite management system or component
Concrete slab-on-ground

 

Slab perimeter or external wall

perimeter

Slab edge exposure
Slab perimeter or external wall
Sheet material
perimeter
Penetrations/control joints/area beneath the slab

(see Note)

Sheet material
Granular Material
Chemical
Suspended floors Sheet material
Granular Material
Chemical
Attachments to buildings Termite management system to the attachment or inspection zone
                                         Building Element Termite management system or component
Note: The entire area beneath the slab must be treated when the slab-on-ground is not designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2870 or AS 3600.

 

Explanatory information:

  1. Component

A component of a system as referred to in Table 3.1.3.1 is one that when used in combination with other components, will form a “full system”.

For example, if a concrete slab is used as a component of a system, it in itself will not provide a complete termite management system. Depending on the construction methods and the site conditions, additional requirements will be necessary for service penetrations through the concrete slab. Each of these are “components”, when integrated, will form a “full system”.

  1. Integrity of the termite management system

There are more than 350 species of termites in Australia, about 30 of which achieve economic importance by causing costly damage to building structures. Due to the nature of termites, it is extremely difficult to prevent them gaining access to a building.

In addition to correct installation of a termite management system, its effectiveness will rely on regular maintenance and competent inspection.

  1. Attachments to buildings

Attachments referred to in Table 3.1.3.1 include downpipes, service pipes, steps, verandahs, porches, access ramps, carports, trellises, decks, heated water systems, air conditioners and the like.

 

STATE AND TERRITORY VARIATIONS

In Queensland delete Table 3.1.3.1 and replace with the following: Table 3.1.3.1
ACCEPTABLE TERMITE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS

Termite Management system or component (AS per AS 3660.1  FOOTING SYSTEM
Concrete Slab-on ground complying with AS 2870 Concrete Slab-on ground Not complying with AS 2870 Suspended floors
Penetration and joint controls Slab perimeter Beneath slab (includes Penetrations and Joint controls) Slab perimeter
Slab edge exposure Not suitable Suitable subject to 3.3.3.2(d) Not suitable Suitable subject to 3.3.3.2(d) Not applicable
Termite shielding Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Suitable subject to 3.3.3.2(d)
Stainless steel mesh Component: or full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) Component: or full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) Suitable subject to 3.3.3.2(d)
Graded Stone Component: or full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) Component: or full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d) Component: or full system subject to 3.3.3.2(d)
Chemicals Full system beneath slab subject to 3.3.3.2(d) and (e) Perimeter system subject to 3.1.3.2(d)and (f) Full system beneath slab subject to 3.3.3.2(d) and (e) Perimeter system subject to 3.1.3.2(d)and (f) Full system beneath slab subject to 3.3.3.2(d) and (e)

 

CodeMark Scheme Rules

In accordance with Clause 5.6.2 of the CodeMark Scheme Rules whenever the BCA is amended, the CodeMark certificates are to be updated within 3 months of the amendments coming into effect. NCC 2016 will come into effect on 1 May 2016. Any updated information and completion of the updated certificate will be required by 1 August 2016.

 

Please contact us should you require further information on the above detail.