Is this true? Or is it simply a case of ‘out of mind, out of sight’?
I find it frustrating the amount of times I look for information from councils, product manufacturers and so called ‘Green/Sustainable Building websites’ etc regarding the lack of concise and accurate information regarding E3 and Internal Moisture, it really does just seem as if this is been glossed over…let me give you some examples.
Project notes from councils have no information regarding E3? Is this because we don’t assimilate internal moisture with the leaky home syndrome that plagues this country? We should — it’s costing us in excess of 100 million dollars a year to remedy rotten bathrooms.
Shower manufacturers’ and wall board manufacturers’ literature will often exclude showing penetrations in wall linings — as if they don’t even exist inside showers — or show them as tiny tap-like features that resemble some sort of ancient Greek phallic symbol rather than a shower mixer and rose. We do sell more than 50,000 shower mixers annually in NZ, so I would imagine that this is the preferred use of tapware product and deserves to be highlighted as such.
As I have mentioned before, our NZBC E3 Internal Moisture is outdated and lacks compliance documents to demonstrate how certain parts of the minimum requirements are to be achieved, forget about Alternative Solutions, there are area’s there that don’t even have Acceptable Solutions. There isn’t even a verification method for E3.
It’s all smoke and mirrors and perhaps this is why we do have such a high incident rate of failures in wet and splash areas. I feel councils need to have correct relevant information on hand for their inspectors to be able to determine whether a bathroom is going to be compliant and meet the requirements of E3, while producer statements need to be taken from not only plumbers, but waterproofers and tilers as well so all of the vulnerable areas are addressed not just the pressure testing of pipes.
Manufacturers have a responsibility to provide true and correct product information and if this means that their product is going to have a hole in it once it is installed, then their technical information should show how they recommend that this hole is going to be sealed to comply with the requirement of E3 that asks for linings to be impervious etc. Green/Sustainable building websites need to be more than just about heat values and whether a product can be recycled after 50 years of use — what about preventing water damage from occurring, by recommending that some basic procedures and innovative products are adopted as standard as well.
Tradesman also have a responsibility to perform and adopting a Good Code of Practice is something that is not always implemented on jobs. I was visiting a large volume builder recently and was horrified to learn that they do not even allow for water resistant linings such as aqualine or villaboard in the bathrooms that they construct. ‘Too costly…’
A plumber from a well established firm here in Wellington says he relies on bathrooms to leak after a couple of years — just so the work keeps coming in.
Let’s hope we can turn around the sins of the past and focus on a pathway to the future… lest we forget.
July 7, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Hi Chris,
You express many extremely valid concerns hopefully these will be noticed.
What about about the effect of in-wall condensation behind shower wall linings easpecially against an external wall clad with a cavity batten system where the temperature differences can be significant and coved vinyl floor coverings often relying only on a welded joint with no membrane required underneath?
[Reply]
July 8, 2010 at 9:43 am
Hi Hans,
Thanks for your comments, you have a valid point and from what I can understand from reading E3 AS/1 condensation issues behind shower wall linings are not really sufficently addressed in the compliance document. Perhaps Signh or Bhavna may like to make comment regarding this. also regarding vinyl floor coverings, again the compliance document is pretty light on information and the example shown actually shows a coved vinyl floor without any weld joints shown? although it makes mention of this needing to be impervious. surley this just adss weight to the fact that E3 AS/1 urgently needs reviewing, however I do believe that this is not a concern for the DBH at this time, which is why they have put the onus back on the architect and designer to ensure a good code of practice and exceed the NZBC requirements….sounds like a case of passing the buck to me!
Thanks,
Chris
[Reply]
July 8, 2010 at 9:53 am
Hi Hans
I am enjoying your comments on E3 and would like to ask you why the Building Code still allows specifiers and builders to use particle board flooring under wet areas. It also makes sense to me that floor joists under wet areas should be treated to H3.1.
Thanks
Dave
[Reply]
July 8, 2010 at 10:24 am
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comments and I am glad to know that I am not the only one concerned about the oversights and contradictions of E3….According to E3 AS/1 particleboard can be used as long as it has a waterproof coating which would deem to make it impervious, now this alone raises issues regarding waterproof membranes types and correct installation of said waterproof membrane. I agree re your comments about floor joists too and again this is something that architects and designers might consider when designing wet area’s. In theory moisture should never get to the floor joist’s anyway if the wet area has been designed and constructed in a way that exceeds our NZBC, but it’s all about cost I suppose?.
Thanks Dave,
Chris
[Reply]
Mark Ansell:
July 21st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I too am surprised that E3 has not been reviewed and updated following all the issues over E2 and external moisture. We have detailed the recladding of a number of leaky homes now and while there are now vastly improved regulations governing protection from the “enemy without” no further thought is being given towards dealing with the “enemy within”.
Reliance I guess on ventilation (G4AS1) to reduce airborne moisture but this does not deal with constantly wetted areas in/by showers etc
We have for some time been specifying H3 treated plywood as the substrate in wet area floors and HNZC specifys this also as mandatory in their new build and alterations.
Interesting too about shower mixers etc. A wee while ago I discovered mushrooms growing under my house and traced it back to a leak around the shower mixer
The following is an extract from the mixer installation manual
“Fit faceplate to mixer and seal it the to wall lining using a recognized sealing medium”
excellent…had words with the plumber.
[Reply]
July 22, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your comments, and yes the Enemy within as you so rightly state is a huge area that has not been addressed as yet. I recently documented statistics from The ICNZ who confirm that over 10,000 claims are being processed annually for leaks directly attributed to leaky showers and baths. This is directly adding another 100 million dollars a year to the leaky home bill and to this end the current Building and Construction Minister and the DBH are reluctant to associate any of these costs to leaky homes. I have a letter from the Minister stating that the Govt has no apetite for change regarding E3 and its associated compliance documents, however there seems to be some movement in the industry for a review of this and to this end I hope that they address this major oversight and start to amend the holes in our building code that allow for this type of damage to happen.
I think the major contridiction about the NZBC and the correct installation of shower mixers is a farce, as all shower mixers require an access hole to be left in the wall lining, yet there is no requirement to to seal these penetrations and simply asking that a plumber seals the face plate to the wall lining is a band aid approach at the very best, if indeed it happens at all, as in your case.
Let’s hope we do get some clarity around the performance of E3 and some precise compliance documents are produced, as it simply does not make sence to have a requirement from tapware manufacturers to leave an access hole and yet no requirement to seal it…should the plumbing industry take ownership of this contridiction? and adopt a good code of practice when installing shower mixers or perhaps BCA’sand TA’s ask how is the minimum requirement of the NZBC being met regarding E3 and the correct installation of shower mixers.
Tapware manufacturers should also address this issue but seem to be more focussed on looks rather than performance and correct installation requirements.
Thanks
Chris
[Reply]