EIFSFACTS.ORG
The Real Facts About EIFS
Minutes
NATIONAL EVALUATION SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, March 1, 1988
Birmingham Hilton
Birmingham, Alabama
Editor's Note: Following are relevant excerpts from the above titled meeting.
As temporary chairman, John Nosse called the meeting to order at 8:30 am, March 1, 1988. Those present introduced themselves. They were:
Agenda #3. A discussion of the R.J. Kenney study on exterior stucco insulation system adhesively bonded to gypsum substrate. This discussion may consist of outlining concerns resulting from a review of this study and receiving industry comments resulting from their comparative analysis of their system’s performance with regards to the failures described in the study.
Agenda #3 was organized and the minutes taken by BOCA. The following insert is Agenda #3 minutes.
John Nosse [ICBO] asked if there were designated representatives to speaks for the large number of interested parties present. Buck Buchanan indicated that as President he would speak for Exterior Insulating Manufacturer’s Association (EIMA). Frank Healy of Dryvit indicated that he would speak for the technical committee of EIMA. R.J. Kenney indicated that he would comment on his report. McNeil Stokes desired to speak for EIMA, and Gene Erwin, of Wall/Ceiling Consulting, Inc. would speak regarding his assessment of the performance of the EIFS Systems.
Buck Buchanan [EIMA] began the presentation. He described the exterior insulating industry consisting of 18 manufacturers, distributors, and applicators resulting in a total EIMA membership of 300. He said that EIMA was formed in 1981. He stated that the current generation of EIFS Systems was introduced in this country based on technology developed in Europe. Buchanan commented that the sole purpose of EIMA is to continue to develop the industry. In general, he said, there are two types of systems: a polymer-based system (PB) and a polymer-modified (PM) system which is thicker than the PB system. He characterized the role of EIMA as being the focal point for the development of standardized testing to address the use of the products produced by a rapidly growing industry. He said that their industry is currently experiencing a 15 to 20 percent annual growth rate.
R.J. Kenney commented on his study and indicated that he had investigated a number of projects in Massachusetts. His observation was that these jobs [commercial] were characterized by joint failures, cracks in the finish due to inadequate thickness, and improper installation.
In response, Frank Healy [Dryvit] said "We’ve done a lot of testing and need to address design and installation". He indicated that Dryvit, and indeed the industry, provides training to applicators as well as providing the designers with design literature, specifications and recommended details. He stated that "This situation is not one issue dealing with one manufacturer". He added that training of the applicators is an essential part of Dryvit’s quality control system.
In concluding his remarks, Frank Healy [Dryvit] said "We know most about out systems but we have not communicated effectively". He commented that up-to-date research reports with key details would facilitate the proper installation of EIFS systems. He said that his industry is trying to address the following key elements:
Mr. Erwin [consultant] added two additional observations:
He concluded by saying that to perform properly, the EIFS systems must be installed properly.
Dave Bowman [BOCA] asked Wessel [Gypsum Assoc.] "Is there anything in ASTM C79 that provides for exterior sheathing’s use of as a structural base?". Wessel replied "No". Bowman then asked Frank Healy [Dryvit] "Frank, in the use of gypsum sheathing there is one line of defense for water attack. Is there a second line of defense?". Healy responded that his system was "designed as a barrier system".
Kurt Stochlia [ICBO] then asked Healy "What is the weather-resistant barrier for this system?". Healy responded that the system is a function of four (4) elements:
Stochlia [ICBO] stated that if water penetrates to the gypsum sheathing there will be a problem. Healy [Dryvit] said "Yes, but such a failure is localized".
Stochlia [ICBO] asked Healy if the weather barrier consists of the entire system. Healy [Dryvit] responded "Yes". Vince Quevedo [BOCA] then asked if the insulation is a weather barrier. Healy [Dryvit] responded that the base coat with reinforcement is the barrier. Kurt Stochlia [ICBO] commented that the Uniform Building Code has requirements for weather resisting barriers to be equivalent to craft paper. Nosse [ICBO] asked if details of termination are part of the system. Healy [Dryvit] responded yes. When penetrations occur through the systems, sealants are key elements. Dave Buck [SBCCI] asked Frank Healy [Dryvit] if there are any other products besides gypsum that would serve as exterior sheathing. Healy responded that many other products are available. Buck responded that apparently economics dictates. Healy acknowledged this.
Vince Quevedo [BOCA] then asked "Does EIMA certify applicators?". Healy [Dryvit] said the manufacturers conduct training programs where applicators are taught to put the systems together properly. Nosse [ICBO] asked "Is the company certified, or are the individuals who attend the training sessions certified?" Healy [Dryvit] responded that the company is certified. Nosse then asked what Dryvit’s criteria is for certification of applicators. Healy responded by introducing Dick Hopkins, Manager of Quality Assurance for Dryvit.
Hopkins [Dryvit] stated that Dryvit checks references, and conducts training sessions for the applicators. They recommend that the applicators have their foreman and superintendent attend training sessions. Nosse [ICBO] asked if there was recertification of applicators on a regular basis. Hopkins responded no, that there is not. Nosse then asked if the applicators are supposed to advise Dryvit of changes in personnel. Hopkins responded that "We request that contractors return on an annual basis". Ron Tremblay [ICBO] asked "Request or require?" Hopkins replied "Request". Curtis Mann [SBCCI] asked "How come there are failures if trained people are doing the installations?". Healy [Dryvit] responded that "We don’t know why we had the installation failures." Mann [SBCCI] then observed that there seem to be installation problems. He asked if this indicates that training need to be improved. Healy [Dryvit] responded that perhaps that will be determined in litigation.
Gene Erwin [consultant] then offered his presentation, citing his 42 years of experience with stucco veneer-type systems. He characterized the failures of EIFS systems as stemming from the following:
He opined that product failures represented 5% of all failures with the preceding points accounting for 95% of the failures. He said that there will be problems if water penetrates and exterior veneer system since gypsum is a water-soluble product.
He recommended that the substrates be inspected prior to application of any cladding. Specifically, he recommended that the sheathing be inspected for the effects of ambient exposure. He commented that he wouldn’t permit an installation without effective flashing of penetrations. He also added that such veneer systems need "a means disposing of accumulated water". He recommended that the industry standardize the material properties of insulation board. In discussing sealant joints he stated that "I would eliminate fillet joints entirely". Vince Quevedo [BOCA] asked "Should this type of system be subject to third party inspection?" Erwin [consultant] responded that "It would be beneficial". Bowman [BOCA] asked if there was a need to get rid of the water. Erwin responded "Yes, but it is not commonly done". Bowman then asked "Who is the designer he is referring to?" Erwin responded that it is the architect.
Bowman [BOCA] asked with regard to the application of adhesive "What should installers be responsible for?" He asked "Shouldn’t EIMA be responsible for details for mitigation of water?" Erwin [consultant] responded that perimeter-type installation of adhesive traps water. "The only way out is the way it came [in]". He said applying vertical bands of adhesive is one way to move the water out of the system.
John Nosse [ICBO] then asked "Is proper installation so sensitive and so unforgiving, that it might be unreasonable to expect the system be properly installed?" Erwin [consultant] responded "I don’t know of any [systems] that have been installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations. You can’t build it in the field the way you can in a lab". Nosse responded "Do you think proficiency of certified installers can respond to these field conditions?" Erwin commented that "There are not enough of them. To sum it up, there is a considerable way to go to achieve thoroughly trained installers".
McNeill Stokes, the General Council for AWCI said "We don’t see the problem. From my perspective it is a hypothetical horror that hasn’t happened". He claimed that this was an attempt by other industries to slow this industry down. Mr. Stokes stated that this was a vested interest masquerading as a moral principal. "Were you have a break, it’s contained". This is a new system, catching on rapidly, the redundancy is this – exterior finish coat is water repellant, a base coat and the board. Mechanically fastening this system won’t help. It’s a very successful product. It’s easy to repair, just like other gypsum systems." Nosse [ICBO] responded that since the committee is charged with responsibility for putting out technical reports, we must say whether this particular system complies with the report. This discussion is to determine whether this is a problem. Others are welcome to comment on the positive aspects".
Jimmie Crane, an applicator and past president of AWCI, said that his company "installed the first job in 1972. The systems will have localized problems. This system can be installed properly and they have been doing so for 12 to 14 years".
In response to the general question "Can these systems be installed properly?" Frank Healy [Dryvit] said that they provide step-by-step instructions. He said that "great skills are not required". He then asked "What constitutes failure?" Frost responded that the purpose of this meeting lies in developing the ability to predict problems, as opposed to waiting for the material to fall off the buildings. McNeill Stokes [AWCI] responded that the industry had erected 2 billion square feet and there were "no failures". John Nosse [ICBO] responded "Pleased to hear it. We’re the new kid on the street too. We wish to put in the reports the kind of expertise you gentlemen have. Your thoughts on proper installation have changed over the last 10 years".
Jerry Baker [Panel Systems] said "This system is not complicated". Dorothy Roberts [Pleko] said that in their application training programs they use "job core young people" successfully.
Buck Buchanan [EIMA] said "We are concerned about the industry, we want to give our expertise. Mac Stokes gave his opinion from a marketing point of view. What we want to do is continue to further our industry in presenting the standards for installation. Architects are not educated enough. We give seminars in this country through Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Chapters. EIMA brings a board that you can work with. Deal with us as the whole industry. A hundred million feet of EIFS is supplied annually. We are here to help you – we want to solve these questions and concerns and we hope to work with you in the future".
Curtis Mann [SBCCI] asked "If there have been no failures, why are we here?" Buck Buchanan [EIMA] responded that it was largely due to BOCA’s initial response to the R.J. Kenney study. Frost [BOCA] responded that, in his opinion, "there is a failure any time the system does not perform as a manufacturer intends and the code requires". Nosse [ICBO] added that "Failure does not necessarily denote a negative connotation". Nosse then asked if Dick Piper or R.J. Kenney want to comment.
Dick Piper [EOCD] said that the 17 buildings that they investigated were not many by nation-wide standards but represented 100% of their sample. He said that these buildings looked good but when they cut open a n exterior wall the studs were rotting. No indication of problems from the exterior or interior of the building existed. Ron Tremblay [ICBO] asked Dick Piper "How many different installers were on the job[s]?" Piper responded "15".
R.J. Kenney said that "One of the problems is whether they have a problem. We’ve examined 100 failures in 24 states representing a total of 2 million square feet of defective installation. Our studies are both in the United States and Europe. There are differences between American and European installation techniques. What caused the most failures? Inadequate thickness of base coat. Most jobs are at one-half the required thickness of base coat. The failure to install the systems according to manufacturer’s recommendations is widespread. I don’t believe these systems are inadequate, but there would be less problems if the manufacturer’s recommendations were adhered to. Europe doesn’t allow caulking to the finish. They don’t allow scored joints. Porous EPS board is prohibited. I need to get the applicator to conform to the contract documents. They are repairing jobs in a way that is substandard. Good applicators are being forced out of the market. We are encountering jobs that are 14 years old that we have major problems with. What about the jobs being installed now? The manufacturers admit that you have a problem. Why can’t we put the blame where it belongs? Why can’t we make the applicator responsible for his poor workmanship? We have to have thicker base coats, better EPS, 2 million defective board feet is a serious problem. It is a structural system. It is significant to note that various jobs have the types of failures".
Mark Radford [Parex] responded on behalf of EIMA that "the difference is marketing. The question is how to control the applicator. Awards to the lowest bidder with no code enforcement results in a coating being put on too thin. CSTB has regulatory authority. In Europe you must have CSTB approval. You must provide a 10 year warranty. The type of foam used for these systems in Europe is not available in the United States. If it doesn’t exist where can we buy it? I wish we had what they have in France".
R.J. Kenney commented that he didn’t think that EIMA alone could control the installation quality of the jobs.
Tom Frost [BOCA] asked the assembled group if they would support a program of third party inspections under the special inspection provision of the BOCA Code to ensure compliance with the installation instructions. Buchanan responded that he felt EIMA would support such an approach to the problem.
R.J. Kenney commented that "I hope we can get together as reasonable people. EPS board in the USA doesn’t resist the passage of water. Its importance is that if we have a crack the board will allow the migration of water to the surface of the gypsum board.". Tremblay [ICBO] asked "What about a stucco wall?" Stochlia [ICBO]asked "Where’s the weather-resistive barrier?" The stucco has the barrier behind it. I have been told the whole assembly of the EIFS system is the weather-resistive barrier. The EPS board doesn’t provide a barrier. Where is your weather-resistive barrier?"
Bill Fairweather [BASF] responded that it’s important that the board be vapor-permeable. He’s made a study of European standards and he is not aware of any standard by which EPS can be expected to function as a total moisture barrier. He welcomes any opportunity to check the French board products. Nosse [ICBO] commented that "I don’t feel the board has to be waterproof".
After a recess for lunch the meeting reconvened at 2:05 pm. R.J. Kenney commented that he had studied the problem of moisture migration in foam in Europe and the US. He felt that this could be controlled, but that standards regulating the foam have to be implemented for any regulation of foam to be effective. He said "I want the applicator to be accountable". Let’s not say we don’t have the problem – we have it. I’m not saying every job is bad. In closing, let’s leave it up to EIMA to see if we can get together." Buck Buchanan, The President of EIMA, responded "We have no problem in doing exactly what was discussed, we will meet with Frost’s people and look at how we can". McNeill Stokes [AWCI] commented to the NES committee that "You guys are being misled".
David Sweeney, Counsel for Dryvit, said that "Yesterday morning Dryvit’s representatives were ordered to stay off a job from that day forward because they had to call to the attention of the applicator deviations from the specifications. We don’t want to be in an adversarial position with the applicators. The applicators who are here today aren’t the ones we have problems with. From our point of view, if you were able to bring about third party inspections, you’d be doing us a favor. We very much agree with your approach".
Glenn Winslow [SBCCI] asked "Who paid for the report, and what percentage of the jobs have failed?" R.J. Kenney responded "The State of Massachusetts paid for the report in question". He added that other litigants pay in the case of other jobs. Buck Buchanan [EIMA] said in summary "We agree, there are applicator concerns as far as installation is concerned. The intent of our association is to work with the codes. We will work with BOCA in setting standards as well as ICBO and SBCCI. We will be glad to do further research into European standards. The point is we are interested in working together. We acknowledge that there are problems in the installation. We have been slow in doing it, but the ball is in our court. We want to work with you". Dave Buck responded that he would like to "…commend both parties – this discussion has been on a high plain, I feel better about it than when I got here".
Curtis Mann [SBCCI], in response to McNeill Stokes comments earlier said "I don’t feel that I have been misled". He commented that failure need not be construed as the veneer falling off the building, while acknowledging that in the case of the job described by Richard Lampo from the Army Corps of Engineers that this is exactly what had occurred.
Vince Quevedo [BOCA] commented that the concerns brought out in the R.J. Kenney report could not be "swept under the rug". He said that as a result of this meeting "I am more informed".