# Persist



## conarb (Aug 8, 2010)

There have been building scientists pushing an exterior cladding system developed in Canada called "PERSIST", it is being used in the Eastern portions of the United States apparently without objection by the local building departments.  Here is a good simple explanation or PERSIST on the Green Building Adviser.I see many problems, not the least of which is that it violates the codes, I haven't bought the CBC version of the iRC (due to take effect January 1st), our current IBC based CBC states: (I would appreciated it if one of you people familiar with the IRC would post the relevant IRC section):



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *1404.2 Water-resistive barrier.*
> 
> A minimum of one layer of No.15 asphalt felt, complying with ASTM D 226 for Type 1 felt or other approved materials, shall be attached to the studs or sheathing, with flashing as described in Section 1405.3, in such a manner as to provide a continuous water-resistive barrierbehind the exterior wall veneer.


Here is the abstract from ASTM D 226:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *Abstract*
> 
> This specification covers asphalt-saturated organic felt used  in roofing and waterproofing. Two types of asphalt-saturated felts are  presented: type I - commonly called No. 15 asphalt felt, and type II -  commonly called No. 30 asphalt felt. In the process of manufacture a  single thickness of dry felt shall be saturated with an asphaltic  saturant. The methods for the determination of openness of the  perforations in saturated felts are presented in detail.


Note that our former UBC also stated "or an approved Kraft paper", that has been deleted in the iBC based code. But also note that the code goes on to say in reference to stucco:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *2510.6 Water-resistive barriers.*
> 
> Water-resistive barriers shall be installed as required in Section 1404.2 and, where applied over wood-based sheathing, shall include a water-resistive vapor-permeable barrier with a performance at least equivalent to two layers of Grade D paper.
> 
> ...


Other problems as I see:
Non-permeable walls can create dryrot problems if moisture enters the wall assembly from the exterior due to a flaw or breach in the covering.
Non-permeable walls can create dryrot problems if moisture enters the wall assembly from the interior, I've heard that each occupant produces somewhere between 3 and 6 gallons of water per day that escapes through the walls (I know that it seems unbelievable but I've seen it in building science articles several times).
The exterior insulation in PRESIST structures is one form or another of  styrofoam, if H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, passes  the House, the Senate, and is signed into law, the following chemicals will  be made illegal, it's my position that installing them in structures now is tantamount to painting with lead paint when we knew lead paint was going to be made illegal, or wrapping ductwork with asbestos when we knew the health problems with asbestos. We here also know the problems our firefighter brethren have with toxic foams, to say nothing of the large portions of this nation subject to insect infestation in all foam products.



> ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF LIST.— ‘‘(A) As of the date of enactment of the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010, there shall be established a list of chemical substances for which safety standard determinations under this section shall first be made, which shall consist of the following chemical substances: ‘‘(i) Bisphenol A. ‘‘(ii) Formaldehyde. ‘‘(iii) N–Hexane. ‘‘(iv) Hexavalent chromium. ‘‘(v) Methylene chloride.‘‘(vi) Trichloroethylene. ‘‘(vii) Vinyl chloride. ‘‘(viii) The following phthalates:
> 
> 
> ‘‘(I) Benzylbutyl phthalate. ‘‘(II) Dibutyl phthalate. ‘‘(III) Diethylhexyl phthalate. ‘‘(IV) Di-isodecyl phthalate. ‘‘(V) Di-isononyl phthalate. ‘‘(VI) Di-n-hexyl phthalate. ‘‘(VII) Di-n-octyl phthalate.
> ...



The code goes on to say:





> *2603.8 Protection against termites.*
> 
> In areas where the probability of termite infestation is very heavy in accordance with Figure 2603.8, extruded and expanded polystyrene, polyisocyanurate and other foam plastics shall not be installed on the exterior face or under interior or exterior foundation walls or slab foundations located below grade. The clearance between foam plastics installed above grade and exposed earth shall be at least 6 inches (152 mm).
> 
> ...


View attachment 1381

​


> As one can easily see most of the United States is subject to termite infestation, and even areas not subject to termites can be subject to other "critter" infestation. So my question to inspectors is, why is this system being allowed?  Particularly in the New England area, and unbelievably I am even seeing it going in in the hot humid climate of Texas, several installations in Austin.  Are inspectors in these areas placing energy efficiency ahead of the code? BTW just so your know, the stock answer coming from the energy efficiency fanatics is Lstiburek;s mantra: "Build it tight and ventilate it right", they are running fan systems, (fans, ERVs, HRVs) 24/7 to continually replace the toxic air they have just sealed in with the toxic substances.
> ​¹ http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100722/HR5820.pdf
> 
> View attachment 1381


/monthly_2010_08/code_termite..jpg.12abbdfb8e0d3c8017bdcc6a8764166b.jpg


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 9, 2010)

Conarb,

I've glaced at some Green nut"s web sites, that are calling for "PERSIST"; but, have not found any specification on the method; or how it will be consistant with the existing code requirements. However, I feel that there is nothing we can do about these people; who have total control of the federal and state government agencies; and, have total disregard for structural stability, and/or inhabitant's health.

In fact they are using "double speak" to give the impression that this is good for the built environment, energy efficiency, and healthy living.

We will not win this fight; and as for me; all I can do as an inspector is try to make sure that construction meets all the requirements.

They will soon have homes that are sealed as tight as commercial refrigeration boxes.

I haven't seen any of this so far,

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Aug 9, 2010)

As Always CA you provide to much info in one post. How about breaking it down alittle. In the roofing area I see products that are somewhat normal. A fast scan of the site leaves my little mind spinning. The basement fit out I see problems with. Next I need to look at the foundation drainage issues. Well I need a break! Interesting stuff. Wrap it up tight and run fans to save energy. Remove toxins or die and if you want fresh air go out side.


----------



## conarb (Aug 9, 2010)

Okay guys, for simplicity's sake, let's say you go out to make an inspection, you find that they have covered the walls of the building with Grace's Vycor or Ice & Water Shield creating a non-permeable WRB sealing up the walls, what do you do? I've listed the IBC sections above, and would appreciate the comparable IRC sections as well.

This is not a rhetorical question, this is being done in New England and parts of Texas, I am being attacked for telling them that it violates code.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 9, 2010)

CA: I believe Ice and water shield exceeds the code requirement.


----------



## conarb (Aug 9, 2010)

RJJ:

You are answering my question as to how they are getting away with it, inspectors don't understand,  you say "exceeds the code requirement", Ice & Water Shield has a permeance of less than 1, meaning that it is waterproof, if you install a waterproof WRB the wall can't "breathe" and "dry-out", California requires a minimum permeance of 5 for conventional building paper and 10 for plastic wraps:



> *5.0 Summary of Results*Key findings regarding the Title 24 SLA reduction credit are summarized below.
> 
> • This research effort was not able to identify any peer-reviewed field data or other technical studies that support or refute a specific perm limit in walls with stucco cladding in California homes. The current limit in Title 24 reflects consensus engineering judgment and risk management decisions in the absence of authoritative technical data.
> 
> • The 10 perm minimum requirement for the SLA credit was established by consensus to address potential moisture concerns associated with building tighter homes. In the absence of field data relating housewrap permeance to installed performance, the justification for the specific value was based on the Committee’s interest in maintaining drying capability equivalent to 5 perm building paper without taped seams. No peer-reviewed field evidence to date in California homes on causes of building failures has identified any linkage between WRB perm rating and widespread moisture problems.¹


In the mid 1970s, after the first oil shortage, the asphalt paper manufacturers removed lots of asphalt from their paper, 15# felt meant it weighed 15 pounds per hundred square feet. after reducing the asphalt content to about half they renamed their product #15 felt, in a slight of hand 15 pound felt became Number 15 felt, taking advantage of the fact that the "#" sign was used both for "pound" and "number". I had three large homes under construction in two AHJs both leaking before completion (much of this had to do with the approval of staples as opposed to asphalt impregnated button nails, something that worked going through 15# felt, but not #15 felt).  I had two more large homes in for permit in another AHJ, I went in to see the plan checker (a structural engineer) proposing that I use an asphalt membrane on the walls that I was using under slabs, it looked and felt like flashing material, black asphalt paper with crossed threads to keep it from tearing. This is what I use under slabs today, note that it comes in .02, .03, and .07 perms, California minimums for walls are 5.0 for asphalt products, and 10.0 for plastic wraps (Tyvek had a perm rating of 50.0 the last I looked). The plan checker yelled at me that I was an idiot, that I was proposing sealing my houses up so they couldn't breathe, I was young and dumb then, but he taught me a valuable lesson.  WRBs are a delicate balance of waterproofing the wall and allowing air to permeate the wall for drying. If inspectors don't understand these basic building science concepts, these green nuts are going to be building buildings that rot out and defeat all of our structural efforts, to say nothing of making people sick from mold and other chemical products.

¹ http://media.godashboard.com/gti/1ResearchCap/1_3EnergyUtil/MoldResearch/Task5_1FinalTitle24AirLeakageRept.pdf


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 9, 2010)

Conarb,

The only place we allow those "Greengos" is Austin; the liberal colony of Texas. You should move to Texas before we close the border to Californians.

Uncle bob


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

Uncle Bob:

How's that movement coming in Texas to secede?


----------



## RJJ (Aug 10, 2010)

OK CA I will take the bait!  If the wall is made water proof and exceeds the level required by code other then the lack of ability to breath whats the big deal? This is the way of green!


----------



## Yankee (Aug 10, 2010)

I don't hear anyone yelling about using non-perm material as a vapor barrier on the (assume inside) warm side. Same issue. The issue is, if the assembly is designed to allow for drying whether it be from the outside of the assembly or from the inside of the assembly, it is fine. I prefer both but I am really happy if I see one.


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

View attachment 171

​
Yankee:Joe Lstiburek's Building Science corporation says that interior vapor barriers should only be installed in the Very Cold and Arctic/Subarctic hygro-thermal zones on the North American continent, that appears to be about 1% of the lower 48 states.​


> Vapor barriers are also a cold climate  artifact that have diffused into other climates more from ignorance  than need. The history of cold climate vapor barriers itself is a story  based more on personalities than physics. Rose (1997)  regales readers of this history. It is frightening indeed that  construction practices can be so dramatically influenced by so little  research and reassuring indeed that the inherent robustness of most  building assemblies has been able to tolerate such foolishness.   *So What is The Problem?*Incorrect  use of vapor barriers is leading to an increase in moisture related  problems. Vapor barriers were originally intended to prevent assemblies  from getting wet. However, they often prevent assemblies from drying.  Vapor barriers installed on the interior of assemblies prevent  assemblies from drying inward. This can be a problem in any  air-conditioned enclosure. This can be a problem in any below grade space. This can be a problem when there is also a vapor barrier on the exterior. This can be a problem where brick is installed over building paper and vapor permeable sheathing.¹



Quite simply stated, code mandated WRBs are required to be permeable, and for good reason, sealing wall cavities on the inside or outside can cause massive problems including dryrot and health problems, especially with the use of today's toxic building products, there solution to the health problems is expansive ERV or HRV air-exchange units. ¹ http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-106-understanding-vapor-barriers/?searchterm=hygro-thermal%20regionsView attachment 171

​/monthly_2010_08/map_consortium..jpg.3d317887d307585cc7abe0768a6cc525.jpg


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 10, 2010)

We didn't have any moisture (or mold) problems; when we wrapped the house with felt and allowed the house to breath.

Saving energy is another way for the utililty companies to get more money for supplying less energy.

*Your energy bill is not going down; only your intelligence; if you buy into this crap.*

You get these houses any tighter; and you won't be able to close the front door without opening a window.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Yankee (Aug 10, 2010)

Vapor barriers are not required to be permeable per code, unfortunately

SECTION R318 MOISTURE VAPOR RETARDERS

R318.1 Moisture control.

In all framed walls, floors and roof/ceilings comprising elements of the building thermal envelope, a vapor retarder shall be installed on the warm- in-winter side of the insulation.

Exceptions:

1.   In construction where moisture or freezing will not damage the materials.

2.   Where the framed cavity or space is ventilated to allow moisture to escape.

3.   In counties identified as in climate zones 1 through 4 in Table N1101.2.


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

Yankee:

A "vapor retarder" by definition is not a "vapor barrier", some more words from the energy efficiency mavens' God Lstiburek:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> The recommendations are based on the following principles:
> 
> 
> Avoidance  of using vapor barriers where vapor retarders will provide satisfactory  performance
> ...


You put a vapor barrier under a slab and on a roof, you put a vapor retarder on your walls, if your walls can't breathe your building cannot dry-in or dry-out, your building can rot-out, and you trap toxics in the building making people sick, or worse causing cancer and birth defects.

¹ http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-106-understanding-vapor-barriers/?searchterm=hygro-thermal%20regions


----------



## Yankee (Aug 10, 2010)

I am well aware of the theory Conarb. You are preaching to the choir. I think the conversation is about what the code requires (or allows). A "vapor retarder" under the IRC has a perm of 1 or less, no bottom minimum.


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

Here are examples of Fortifiber's vapor retarders for installation in wall construction:

View attachment 172

​
Here are examples of Fortifiber's vapor barriers for installation under concrete slabs.​
View attachment 173

​
Note the permeability differences, these are ASTM requirements, inspectors are going to be seeing this and they better get up on the code and ASTM requirements or they are going to be approving rotting buildings housing sick people. Uncle Bob and other Texans, do you guys know any Austin inspectors who you can ask why they are allowing this? Similarly Yankee and other New England inspectors, why are ASTM violations being allowed?​


			
				\ said:
			
		

> A "vapor retarder" under the IRC has a perm of 1 or less, no bottom minimum.



No, a "vapor retarder has a minimum perm of 5 or 10, a "vapor barrier" has a perm of 1 or less.  I know this can get confusing but we better be prepared. 

View attachment 172


View attachment 173

​​​/monthly_2010_08/retarder..jpg.f093d9f667b7936d596d97c495601299.jpg

/monthly_2010_08/barrier..jpg.f7ffc36e1639dc5b26e0994bb44b181d.jpg


----------



## Mule (Aug 10, 2010)

Is this what you are looking for?

R703.2 Water-resistive barrier. One layer of No. 15 asphalt

felt, free from holes and breaks, complying with ASTM D 226

for Type 1 felt or other approvedwater-resistive barrier shall be

applied over studs or sheathing of all exteriorwalls. Such felt or

material shall be applied horizontally, with the upper layer

lapped over the lower layer not less than 2 inches (51 mm).

Where joints occur, felt shall be lapped not less than 6 inches

(152 mm). The felt or other approved material shall be continuous

to the top ofwalls and terminated at penetrations and building

appendages in a manner to meet the requirements of the

exterior wall envelope as described in Section R703.1.

Exception: Omission of the water-resistive barrier is permitted

in the following situations:

1. In detached accessory buildings.

2. Under exterior wall finish materials as permitted in

Table R703.4.

3. Under paperbacked stucco lath when the paper backing

is an approved weather-resistive sheathing paper.


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks Mule, one of these days I'm going to have to buy our new CBC that has IRC based sections, then we will all be on the same numbering, be interesting how Housing and Community Development has amended these sections.

Does anyone have the complete ASTM D 226 and not just the abstract?


----------



## Yankee (Aug 10, 2010)

IRC 2006

*SECTION R202 DEFINITIONS*

*VAPOR PERMEABLE MEMBRANE.* A material or covering having a permeance rating of 5 perms (2.9 × 10-10 kg/Pa× s × m2) or greater, when tested in accordance with the desiccant method using Procedure A of ASTM E 96. A vapor permeable material permits the passage of moisture vapor.

*VAPOR RETARDER.* A vapor resistant material, membrane or covering such as foil, plastic sheeting, or insulation facing having a permeance rating of 1 perm (5.7 × 10-11 kg/Pa × s × m2) or less, when tested in accordance with the dessicant method using Procedure A of ASTM E 96. Vapor retarders limit the amount of moisture vapor that passes through a material or wall assembly.

SECTION R318 MOISTURE VAPOR RETARDERS

R318.1 Moisture control.

In all framed walls, floors and roof/ceilings comprising elements of the building thermal envelope, a vapor retarder shall be installed on the warm- in-winter side of the insulation.

Exceptions:

1. In construction where moisture or freezing will not damage the materials.

2. Where the framed cavity or space is ventilated to allow moisture to escape.

3. In counties identified as in climate zones 1 through 4 in Table N1101.2.


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

Yankee:

Thanks for that, the IRC defines a "vapor retarder" differently than California, it will be interesting to see how California's version of the IRC handles it.

My question is that if the IRC defines a "vapor retarder" as 1 perm or less, that's the classic definition of a "vapor barrier", how does R202 define a "vapor barrier"?  The next question is then, what do you IRC guys enforce for a WRB?  All asphalt felts, Kraft papers, and plastic wraps are anywhere from 3 to 50 perms, so you are not installing "vapor retarders" as WRBs.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 10, 2010)

IRC 2006 Definitions:

WATER-RESISTIVE BARRIER. A material behind an exterior wall covering that is intended to resist liquid water that has penetrated behind the exterior covering from further intruding into the exterior wall assembly.



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> Yankee:Thanks for that, the IRC defines a "vapor retarder" differently than California, it will be interesting to see how California's version of the IRC handles it.
> 
> My question is that if the IRC defines a "vapor retarder" as 1 perm or less, that's the classic definition of a "vapor barrier", how does R202 define a "vapor barrier"? The next question is then, what do you IRC guys enforce for a WRB? All asphalt felts, Kraft papers, and plastic wraps are anywhere from 3 to 50 perms, so you are not installing "vapor retarders" as WRBs.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 10, 2010)

conarb said:
			
		

> Yankee:  All asphalt felts, Kraft papers, and plastic wraps are anywhere from 3 to 50 perms, so you are not installing "vapor retarders" as WRBs.


That's true, in new england we wouldn't want the vapor retarder as a WRB because the vapor retarder goes on the warm in winter side (inside) and the WRB goes on the (wet) outside. If they are both non-perm, as you say, it is Trouble.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 10, 2010)

Mule: If you don't put holes in the felt hows it stay on the building.

I see this as a situation that is basically a failure to communicate. It seems that a small handful of code people are not embracing the Green movement.


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

There is confusion in terminology here, to go back to Lstiburek:



> What is required is to define vapor control  measures on a more regional climatic basis and to define the vapor  control measures more precisely. Part of the problem is that we  struggle with names and terms. We have vapor retarders, we have vapor  barriers, we have vapor permeable we have vapor impermeable,  etc. What do these terms mean? It depends on whom you ask and whether  they are selling something *or arguing with a building official. *In an  attempt to clear up some of the confusion the following definitions are  proposed: Vapor Retarder*:    The element that is designed and installed in an assembly to retard the movement of water by vapor diffusion.                              * taken somewhat from ASHRAE Fundamentals 2001, Chapter 23. The unit of measurement typically used in characterizing the water vapor permeance  of materials is the “perm.” It is further proposed here that there  should be several classes of vapor retarders (this is nothing new – it  is an extension and modification of the Canadian General Standards Board  approach that specifies Type I and Type II vapor retarders – the  numbers here are a little different however):                              Class I Vapor Retarder:  0.1 perm or less                               Class II  Vapor Retarder: 1.0 perm or less and greater than 0.1 perm                               Class III Vapor Retarder 10 perm or less and greater than 1.0 perm                                                                             Test Procedure for vapor retarders:             ASTM E-96 Test Method A (the desiccant method or dry cup method)                  Finally, a vapor barrier is defined as: Vapor Barrier: A Class I vapor retarder.   The  current International Building Code (and its derivative codes) defines a  vapor retarder as 1.0 perm or less (using the same test procedure).  In  other words the current code definition of a vapor retarder is  equivalent to the definition of a Class II Vapor Retarder proposed by  the author. Continuing in the spirit of finally defining terms  that are tossed around in the enclosure business.  It is also proposed  that materials be separated into four general classes based on their  permeance (again nothing new, this is an extension of the discussion in  ASHRAE Journal, February 02 – Moisture Control for Buildings):                            Vapor impermeable 0.1 perm or less                               Vapor semi-impermeable 1.0 perm or less and greater than 0.1 perm                               Vapor semi-permeable: 10 perms or less and greater than 1.0 perm                               Vapor permeable: greater than 10 perms¹


The code mandated WRB states:





> R703.2 Water-resistive barrier. One layer of No. 15 asphalt felt, free from holes and breaks, complying with ASTM D 226 for Type 1 felt or other approved water-resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exterior walls. Such felt or material shall be applied horizontally, with the upper layer lapped over the lower layer not less than 2 inches (51 mm). etc.


The PERSIST system requires an impermeable membrane, no impermeable membrane complies with ASTM D 226, as to other "approved water-resistive barrier(s)" they use a peel and stick, the largest manufacturer is W.R. Grace with their Vycor peel and stick flashing and their Ice and Water Shield roofing membrane, neither Vycor nor Ice and Water Shield is approved as a WRB.  Unless someone can show you an approval for a peel and stick as a WRB you have to disapprove it, note that Lstiburek says "*or arguing with a building official. *" he seems to like that, so have at it if anyone attempts it in your jurisdiction.
Here is a W.R. Grace picture showing where their products can be used.

View attachment 174

​
¹​
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-106-understanding-vapor-barriers/?searchterm=hygro-thermal%20regions​View attachment 174

​/monthly_2010_08/grace..jpg.73b9528c5b534ad6a34950c376a47d63.jpg


----------



## Yankee (Aug 10, 2010)

But conarb, we are talking about two different applications (uses) with some different desired results (and perhaps some similar desired results).

There is no need to try and MAKE them be the same thing.

RJJ "I see this as a situation that is basically a failure to communicate. It seems that a small handful of code people are not embracing the Green movement." ~ you cracked me up : )


----------



## conarb (Aug 10, 2010)

Yankee:

We got off on the vapor issue, let's stay with the WRB, they must install asphalt felt or an approved alternative, an alternative approved for walls, there are no approved peel and stick alternatives. Demand the ES Report for anything you see on walls, except for asphalt felt.  Green movement or not, homes are already rotting out and people are getting sick in them, and that's without complete air sealing. In the home I have in design now we are spending a couple of hundred thousand more to avoid the green and sprinkler codes to build a "healthy home".  I recently had a customer tell me that when she complained to the CBO about being sick in her new million dollar home, he told her to sell it and find a good 50 year old home if she wanted a toxic-free home.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 11, 2010)

Right - and I agree, this issue is not news and has been going this way for 20 years. I live in a 50 year old home and wouldn't even think of buying something new.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 11, 2010)

Yankee: Just trying to put some heat to the pot! We need some good debate. This is just one element and a few die hards still cling to the what once was. Lets face it Green is here so how do we function with it.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 11, 2010)

There are two pressures here, energy efficiency and "green" building which I see as seperate issues.

To properly ventilate, one looses the energy efficiency that can be gained. It is clear a balance has not been found and it is foolish to develop one without also developing the other.

And then "green", avoiding using materials that require MORE ventilation due to their poisonous properties, or that have a large "carbon footprint" when they are being manufactured/delivered/installed.


----------



## conarb (Aug 11, 2010)

Yankee:

You see the issues 100%, in today's ICC Newsletter:



> *Energy Efficiency a Major Focus during Final Action Hearings in  Charlotte* Energy efficiency—a global  topic on several fronts including cost savings, reduced energy usage,  conservation of natural resources and the impact of energy usage on  environment—will be a major focus during Group  B of the Code Council's Final Action Hearings in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The hearings will be held in conjunction with ICC's  Annual Conference, October 24-31, at the Charlotte Convention  Center.


Notice the wide net they are casting, Green and Energy Efficiency are two different code issues that are being combined in the public's eye, yet are in direct contradiction to each other.  In California we had  an Energy Code go into effect one year ago, the Green Code was due to go into effect at the same time but due to some expressed concerns it was made voluntary and due to go into effect on January 1, 2011.  It's the AHJs that adopted it that are having the problems, the green raters are mandating recycled materials to "clean up the forest floor", many of these materials are loaded with toxics, we are sealing those toxics into the sealed-up homes creating the problems. California is mandating lower VOC emissions from those green products; however, those low VOC products are failing, we are getting mold in new OSB, apparently it was the formaldehyde that was inhibiting the mold growth.If nothing else, we are being hit with way too much way too fast. Only the inspectors can stop this insanity, just start demanding ES Reports on everything that appeasers suspect, in the case of these PERSIST structures, I don't think there is a material approved and available that can seal up the walls.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 11, 2010)

Conarb,

RJJ stated; "*Lets face it Green is here* so how do we function with it?"

I agree, Green is here; and the only thing an inspector can hope to do; is be sure that new products are installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. There is nothing in the codes that require using ICC reports.

And you said; " Only the inspectors can stop this insanity"

Inspectors have no, none, zero authority to demand anything. Our job as inspectors is to carry out the instructions of our boss; the Building Official.

Example: I go out and fail an exterior sheathing inspection because the crown of the staples are not parallel with the studs and plates (framing member); and, half of the staple is not in the wood (one prong is sticking out through the sheathing inside the wall cavity).

The manufacturer's installation instructions are printed on each sheet of sheathing; in English and a foreign language; and, requires the staple crown to be parallel to the framing member.

If the Building Official says;* Pass it. **Our job is to pass it**.*

(No, it didn't happen to me; it's just an example.)

Inspectors are not in a position of authority; and, much of an inspector's problems are caused because they don't understand that.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Aug 11, 2010)

UB: The last statement is one we all struggle with and no right answer exists. The whole wrap it tight and build from green is way out of our control. We think the sprinkler issue was contaminated! Well just wait and see how twisted the green machine becomes. It is 6:10 time to go home and enjoy my carbon footprint. Once referred to as a piece of the American Dream.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2010)

Most building departments average 10 to 14 inspections per single family home. Installation of vapor and/or water barriers on exterior above grade walls are not normally included. Not all code requirements included in a 748 + page code book and all referenced standards can be checked or inspected. The would require an inspector to be on the job at all times work is taking place.

conarb I see your points I just do not have a praticle solution


----------



## RJJ (Aug 12, 2010)

Mt: I hear ya! However, during those 10 to 14 trips a looky see my be needed. I agree that and inspector or department can see everything being installed. Selected inspections are such that it affords the opportunity to see the majority.

Conarb: None of us can answer just what other inspectors are approving or not approving. I think for the purpose of debate some single issues need to be posted. From the single issues all of us can focus on the problems or solutions. When someone hits me with the shot gun approach my reaction is to first boil it down to the real issue. I believe we can all agree that the whole green movement is out of control. The energy and building protection is out of control. So I would suggest a simplified approach to these many complicated issues. To reference Cal. code issue is tough for me to respond to with out the actual code reference. Things differ everywhere!


----------



## conarb (Aug 12, 2010)

\ said:
			
		

> I agree, Green is here; and the only thing an inspector  can hope to do; is be sure that new products are installed in accordance  with the manufacturer's installation instructions. There is nothing in  the codes that require using ICC reports.


Uncle Bob, I don't agree.  Mule gave us the relevant IRC section:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> R703.2 Water-resistive barrier. One layer of No. 15 asphalt felt, free from holes and breaks, complying with ASTM D 226 for Type 1 felt or other approvedwater-resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exteriorwalls. Such felt or material shall be applied horizontally, with the upper layer lapped over the lower layer not less than 2 inches (51 mm). Where joints occur, felt shall be lapped not less than 6 inches (152 mm). The felt or other approved material shall be continuous to the top ofwalls and terminated at penetrations and building appendages in a manner to meet the requirements of the exterior wall envelope as described in Section R703.1.


Anything other than the prescription for No. 15 asphalt felt requires an approved alternative, and that includes all plastic wraps I think you have the right and duty to demand an approved alternate, and the usual approval is an ES Report. I recall on one apartment complex I built providing a 3" ring binder full of ICBO reports required by the plan checker.

RJJ:

Based upon my response to our Uncle above I will try to simplify:  I come to you with a PERSIST house, I show on my plans using Grace Ice & Water Shield on the walls to seal them up, based upon R-703.2 you demand I give you information to approve an alternative, I give you ESR-1677, do you approve my PERSIST home in your jurisdiction?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 12, 2010)

> I show on my plans using Grace Ice & Water Shield on the walls to seal them up, based upon R-703.2 you demand I give you information to approve an alternative, I give you ESR-1677, do you approve my PERSIST home in your jurisdiction?


*No based on section 2.0*

*2.0 USES*

Grace Ice & Water Shield®, Grace® Select, Grace® Ultra and Grace® Basik membranes are used as substitutes for the ice barrier specified in Chapter 15 of the IBC, BNBC, and SBC; and in Chapter _9 _of the IRC. The membranes are also used as a substitute for the severe climate underlayments required in Tables 15-B-1, 15-B-2, 15-D-1 and 15-D-2 of the UBC


----------



## conarb (Aug 12, 2010)

Log Cabin:

Chapter 15 of the IBC:



> * CHAPTER 15 ROOF ASSEMBLIES AND ROOFTOP STRUCTURES*
> 
> *SECTION 1501*
> 
> ...


That isn't walls, what does Chapter 9 of the IRC say? Do we have concurrence that ICE & Water Shield cannot be used on walls?I think there should be one exception, it should be allowed on walls used in the construction of gas chambers for use in executing people.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 12, 2010)

IRC Chapter 9 is Roof Assemblies


----------



## RJJ (Aug 12, 2010)

CA: Thanks for simplifying. I kinda agree with the cabin! I will look at it closer after dinner.


----------

