Greenbuilder Logo

Non Toxic Termite Control


Sponsored in part by:




Non Toxic Termite Control Contents:

CSI NUMBERS
DEFINITION
CONSIDERATIONS
COMMERCIAL STATUS
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
GUIDELINES

RESOURCES

CSI Numbers:


DEFINITION:

Non-toxic termite control is the use of termite prevention and control without chemical use. Instead, physical controls are installed during construction such as sand barriers or metal termite shields. If termite infestation does occur, least toxic methods of treatment are used.


CONSIDERATIONS:

Most areas of Texas have termites. These include subterranean termites that live in the soil and drywood termites that attack dry wood. According to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, there is a greater than 70 percent probability that wooden structures in Texas will be attacked by termites within 10 to 20 years. Termite problems within one year after construction have been reported.

When wood is used as a building material, termite prevention in the form of treated wood or naturally resistant wood will be required by building codes. Typically, chromated copper arsenate (CCA) pressure-treated wood is used. Two alternative chemical substances have gained popularity as more toxic substances such as chlordane have been banned for soil treatment. These include organophosphates and pyrethroids. However, these chemicals are toxic to people as well as termites, and can offgas and leach out into the soil and water table. They can be absorbed through the skin, lungs and through ingestion. Exposure to small children, workers, chemically-sensitive individuals and animals can lead to serious health problems.

Less toxic wood treatments are available. (See Wood Treatment Section.) However, alternatives to wood treatment and chemical treatment can be quite effective. Least-toxic strategies must be used in combination to achieve maximum effectiveness. Few pest control managers expect non-toxic methods to completely replace chemical use. However, they offer considerable potential for the reduction of chemical use, and may prevent such use in all but extreme situations.

Commercial
Status
Implementation
Issues
technology suppliers cost financing public regulatory
sand barrier, termite shields
Legend
green Satisfactory
yellow Satisfactory in most conditions
red Satisfactory in Limited Conditions
black Unsatisfactory or Difficult

COMMERCIAL STATUS

TECHNOLOGY:

Research and monitoring is underway to test the effectiveness of non-toxic termite prevention techniques. The USDA Southern Forest Experiment Station in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the University of Hawaii are doing research. Successful laboratory results have been obtained with the use of properly designed sand barriers. Pest control professionals in California have adapted and tested sand barriers with good results. Some studies in California have found some physical barriers to be 15% more effective than chemical treatments.

SUPPLIERS:

There are architects and pest management companies in Austin that can provide expertise and services in non-toxic termite prevention and control. However, not all professionals currently have knowledge or experience with non-toxic termite control.

COST:

Initial costs of non-toxic termite prevention may be 25% higher than chemical controls. However, these costs may be offset due to the long term nature of structural solutions. In addition, cost offsets can occur if traditional fill material is replaced with sand or cinder barriers, preventing the need for termiticides.


IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

FINANCING:

Lenders will typically look for traditional methods for the prevention of termites, such as the use of treated wood. Educating lenders about the effectiveness of non-toxic prevention measures and encouraging financing incentives for their use is a goal of the Green Builder Program.

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

For successful termite prevention using non-toxic methods, education and cooperation between the professional and the resident/owner will be necessary. Increased monitoring after construction will be necessary.

REGULATORY:

Building codes (such as Section R-310 of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code) call for protection by chemical soil treatment, pressure-treated wood, naturally termite-resistant wood (such as heartwood of redwood and eastern red cedar), or physical barriers approved by the building official in areas with subterranean termites. Approved combinations of methods may be used.

For decay prevention, any wood (siding, trim, framing) within 6 inches of the finished grade must be protected. Additionally, wood girders within 12 inches, wood structural floor within 18 inches, and wood sills on masonry slabs within 8 inches must also be protected. Decay prevention and termite protection are addressed jointly with wood treatment and naturally resistant wood. Structural controls for termites such as sand barriers and termite shields will not eliminate the need for decay prevention in wood within the distances from the ground mentioned above.

The Honolulu building code was rewritten in 1991 to include the use of sand barriers instead of chemical controls. The City of Austin will examine precedents accepted by other jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis.


GUIDELINES

Any pest management program that uses the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), or least toxic methods, will have the following components:

No method of termite treatment can be assumed to be 100% effective. In homes with wood as a construction material, regular inspections should be performed, regardless of treatment and prevention methods. The best method is non-toxic prevention, however there are also non-toxic treatment methods if termites are found.

  • 1.0 Prevention
  • 2.0 Sand Barriers
  • 3.0 Metal Termite Shields
  • 4.0 Monitoring, Detection and Identification
  • 5.0 Termite treatment

  • RESOURCES


    PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE



    COMPONENTS / MATERIALS / SYSTEMS



    GENERAL ASSISTANCE:


    NET RESOURCES:

    return to Table of Contents  

     


    This document was adapted to HTML by Bill Christensen, sysop and environmental editor of Texas InfiNet, an online community for progressive information.

    Sustainable Building Sourcebook web version copyright Sustainable Sources 1994-1999.