Rigid Foam on interior

[aerieandy]

Have started doing some research in this area but it seems like one of those where the more you learn the more you, realize you don't know.
About to close in a remodel job in Northern CA (bay area). The house was poorly built and designed and needed lots of reinforcement. The upshot is between windows and framing on some walls I can insulate maybe 25% of the wall (tons of 4x12 beams). Considering using a thin (3/4) layer of foam on strategic walls but not sure if it's a good Idea in this climate zone.
The envelope is 1/2 cdx, Jumbo-tech, Cedar shingle. with Fiberglass batts in bays One of my concerns is trapping moisture, the others are about cost effectiveness. Any input appreciated.

Andy

[magna111]

I have been concidering the same for my own home and would be interested to know if it has been tried before and with what level of success or failure. I too am concerned with the possibility of trapping moisture, but also like the idea of adding a good amount of R value while taking minimal sqft away from my rooms.

[Dick Seibert]

Andy:

You are going to have to cover it with 5/8" Type X sheetrock, there are disposal problems, here we have to supply the AHJ with a waste disposal plan and disposing of foams is one of the hardest to comply with, I would also figure the cost of bringing in an air quality consultant or Industrial Hygienist to test the air in the home when you are done for your own legal protection. Do you have a Green Building Code in the area? It will be statewide on the frist of the year, this 14 Day Air Flushing period made it into the new state Green Code.

[Martin Holladay]

Andy,
It sounds like you are considering 3/4" XPS or poliso. Either product will work fine; plenty of New England builders do it all the time. Two options: screw the drywall through the foam, or install strapping between the drywall and foam if you are worried about squishiness.

Of course, 3/4" isn't much -- for better R-value, think about thicker foam.

You can safely ignore Dick's advice about disposal problems and IAQ problems.

[aerieandy]

Dick,
Disposal is not a problem. For yrs now I can't get a final inspection untill I show receipts and proof that I disposed of all debris at a location that sorts and recycles a certain percentage of the material They charge more for foam but I suppose they have to They also charge mafia rates for old treated lumber but thats another thread.
The green building code here seems to change everyday and is often contradictory to code or common sense, and has no regard for realistic cost for HOs. Still waiting for everyone to get on the same book never mind the same page.

Martin,
Yes I was thinking of XPS with 5/8 right over the top, there's so much bloody wood in the walls I don't think there will be any squishy effect. Much of it will be in a recessed alcove off a cathedral ceiling very high up so no one will ever have their mitts on it anyway. That is also the main reason I was concerned with moisture, it's a likely collection point.
There is an ongoing effort to control ground moisture under the structure (30 degree plus slope) but letting the building have drying capabilities is a must. Very difficult to tell how much moisture is coming from the ground and how much is ambient because of no climate control all winter, still need to do more research on my specific zone.
Thanks for the input,

Andy

[Dick Seibert]

Andy:

You have to realize that Martin is in New England, not Marin County California, with your involvement with the Audubon Society I'm sure you don't want styrofoam ending up in the Pacific Gyre, I don't know Marin County's rules, but here across the Bay:

In Central Contra Costa, we’re lucky to have a recycling program accepting all plastics numbered #1 through #5 as well as #7. (Many programs only take #1s and #2s!) Wide- and narrow-neck containers are acceptable; however, absolutely no plastic bags (no matter what number is printed on them) or #6 Styrofoam of any type should be put in the recycling cart.¹

Each year as much as 150,000 tons of plastic debris, most notably Styrofoam, wash up on the shores of Japan alone, Saido said. Vast expanses of waste, consisting mainly of plastic, float elsewhere in the oceans. The so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch between California and Hawaii was twice the size of Texas and mainly plastic waste.4

When the question is posed of what to do with packaging foams we are told to bag them up and reuse them since there is no vehicle presently available for recycling. I've had some real problems with Walnut Creek on this matter, I was told that the only thing I could do witth styrofoam waste on a construction job was to pack it up and ship it our of state. :

Sec. 5-3.603. Submission of Waste Management Plan.
a. WMP Forms: Applicants for building, demolition, or site development
permits involving any Covered Project shall complete and submit a Waste Management
Plan (“WMP”), on a WMP form approved by the City for this purpose as part of the
application packet for the building, demolition, or site development permit. The
completed WMP shall indicate all of the following:
1. The estimated volume or weight of project debris, by materials type, to
be generated;
2. The maximum volume or weight of such materials that can feasibly be
diverted via reuse or recycling;
3. The vendor or facility that the Applicant proposes to use to collect or
receive the materials; and
4. The estimated volume or weight of materials that will be landfilled.
b. Calculating Volume and Weight of Debris: In estimating the volume or
weight of materials identified in the WMP, the Applicant shall use the standardized
Conversion Rates approved by the City for this purpose.²

As to IAQ, that is a huge issue now with areas that have adopted a Green Building Code, many new homes are sitting vacant down in Los Altos, on the home I'm working on down there I have retained Linda Kinkaid to check all materials before they are placed in the home.

Air Quality Like Katrina Trailers

A 2005 statewide study of residential ventilation and indoor air quality found that new homes in California have very little natural ventilation (around 0.1 air change per hour). Unless windows are opened daily, formaldehyde can concentrate to unhealthy levels. My 2009 study of new, unoccupied South Bay homes showed formaldehyde levels that can cause illness. Homes in San Jose and surrounding communities typically had formaldehyde levels between 30 and 80 ppb. Compare this to the 27 ppb recommended by GreenPoint Rated. Homes in Los Altos typically had formaldehyde between 60 and 120 ppb. Compare this to the median formaldehyde level in the infamous Hurricane Katrina FEMA trailers: 79 ppb.

The homes I studied were unoccupied and had minimal furniture. Formaldehyde levels will likely increase when the homes are occupied, as cooking, smoking, and furniture can increase formaldehyde in a home.

Los Altos requires new homes to be GreenPoint Rated and many Bay Area cities are following Los Altos's lead. Southern California cities are adopting the analogous Green Builder certification. To meet the energy conservation requirements of these programs, these new homes allow minimal fresh air to leak in. GreenPoint Rated also encourages use of manufactured wood products to reduce consumption of virgin timber. Plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard (MDF) conserve resources, which is good, but they are often manufactured with resins that emit formaldehyde for decades.
"Sick Building" Syndrome Redux

The energy crisis of the 1970s brought remarkable advances in energy conservation in commercial buildings, but ventilation in some buildings was reduced to levels where chemicals concentrated in indoor air. "Sick buildings" of the early 1980s were a result, in part, of inadequate ventilation. History is repeating itself, as homes are built with energy saving in mind.

We can fix this. Codes now require office buildings to exchange the air once per hour; homes could do this, too. Wood products can be made with soy-based resins, which do not emit formaldehyde. The US Green Building Council may require formaldehyde testing in their 2012 revision of LEED. Build It Green could require homes to meet the K8 formaldehyde standard or cities could require it even if Build It Green does not. Citizens can demand that new homes be tested for indoor air quality before purchasing them.

Let's have energy efficiency ... but let's have healthy homes.³

By the time you install a whole home ventilation system (assuming this is a remodel and not a new home requiring it) cranked up to 1.0 ACH you will spending more to heat and cool the home than they ever did before.

BTW, driving home yesterday I was listening to Michael Finney the KGO consumer protection reporter, a lady called in saying that she moved from a 1969 home in San Jose with no insulation and a PG&E bill of $160 a month, to a much newer fully insulated home in Scotts Valley 250 square feet larger, her bill is averaging $750 a month in the new home. Smart meters have not been installed yet, but she was asking why new homes consume so much more energy than old homes? I don't know the detail's any more than what I've said, her newer home wasn't new enough to be covered by the Green Codes that have proved disastrous.

¹ http://wastediversion.org/files/mana...271/03fall.pdf
² http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/dep...tcreek-ord.pdf
³ http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/The...p?q=2010010201
4 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-pio080309.php

[Dick Seibert]

Andy:

I just read your post after posting:

They charge more for foam but I suppose they have to

That's interesting, as far as I know they are still not taking it here, in fact it was just a few months ago that I read (or heard) that advice to keep it and reuse it as packing, since I receive shipping but never send it I'm a scofflaw and bury it in the middle of the garbage hoping they don't find it.

You've also got to consider customer perception, I remember building a home for an attorney friend, when we started he said: "Dick, there are only two reasons I'll sue you building this home, 1) If you kill one of my oak trees, and 2) If I catch you putting one piece of plastic in my home.

[Martin Holladay]

Dick,
I have no problem with the concept that most homes require mechanical ventilation. So what else is new?

I just get tired of you bringing up this obvious subject (which most conscientious builders have known about for, oh, 15 or 20 years) every time anyone brings up the radical idea of insulating their walls.

[Dick Seibert]

Dick,
I have no problem with the concept that most homes require mechanical ventilation. So what else is new?

Martin:

The problem is that the use of toxic materials is requiring mechanical ventilation to be cranked up so high that energy costs are higher than if the buildings were not sealed up, this is the 80s commercial office building "sick building syndrome", how can we forget so soon?

I just get tired of you bringing up this obvious subject (which most conscientious builders have known about for, oh, 15 or 20 years) every time anyone brings up the radical idea of insulating their walls.

And I get tired of you constantly promoting insulation over more important concerns such as the health of occupants and their structural safety. Non-toxic insulation in itself isn't a problem, and as far as I've heard there in only one brand of fiberglass that is non-toxic, all other insulation appears toxic when tested (I'm sure this will improve now that it's a major issue). Sealing up buildings is a problem, especially when there is insulation in the walls to hold the moisture, sealing up buildings then pumping in exterior air to constantly condition it costs more in utility consumption than anything saved by sealing up the buildings could ever save. We have now cranked up the ASHRAE 62.2 mandated 0.35 ACH to 1.0 ACH, but that increase is resulting in higher energy consumption than an uninsulated building.

It now appears that "green" and "energy efficient" are mutually exclusive.

[Martin Holladay]

Dick,
"Toxic" means poisonous. Can you point to a single instance of human poisoning caused by fiberglass batts in walls?

[Dick Seibert]

Martin:

Read some of Linda Kinkaid's articles, I've retained her to help me avoid formaldehyde in building products, apparently fiberglass is the main culprit, although all forms of engineered wood products are contributing, California has a program to eliminate formaldehyde in all building products over a period of time. Here is the time schedule for phasing formaldehydes out of wood products, I'm sure there is something similar for insulation products, at the present time all I am interested in is an insulation product that passes today so I can get certified toxic free when done, and she says she has that in one brand of fiberglass.

Overview
California 01350 is a Special Environmental Requirements standard specification developed by the State of California to cover key environmental performance issues related to the selection and handling of building materials. It represents a significant step forward in specification to evaluate and reduce the impact of building materials on indoor air quality and health in buildings and could become a major driving force for better products and healthier buildings as its use spreads. The key elements affecting indoor air quality are in the specification for screening building materials (primarily major interior finishes) based on:
• emissions testing protocol
• hazardous content screening and
• avoiding mold and mildew from construction practices

Conclusion & Recommendations
Much remains to be explored to provide us with more complete confidence that the materials we specify in buildings are not contributing to health problems. CA 01350 is an important new tool that we can use to help move a major step toward more healthy buildings as part of a more comprehensive material screening process.

A more thorough material screening process will address VOCs and other major health issues throughout the material life cycle.

HBN recommends that a material screening policy include:
������ No PVC (polyvinyl chloride, vinyl)
������ Low or no VOCs (volatile organic compounds)
• CA 01350 compliant & No added formaldehyde
������ No phthalates or heavy metals
������ No HFRs (halogenated flame retardants)
������ No PFCs (perfluorocarbons, PFOA, Teflon & others)¹

I understand that there is a push in the next code cycle to force contractors to obtain an AQ clearance before a final is issued on a building permit. We now have a 14-day flushing period in the statewide green code taking effect next January 1st, ths solution is to not build with toxics in the first place so they don't have to be flushed.

In addition, if you seal a wall up with fiberglass insulation in the wall it's a magnet for mold, water comes though all code allowable WRBs, and sealed mold grows inside the walls, if a contractor has mold he might just as well file bankruptcy, insurance no-longer covers mold and the remediation claims on the average home run around $700,000 around here. Building codes are going to have to change before anyone is safe building toxic homes, sealing them up, and pumping the toxics out, to say nothing of the added costs of running the ventilation fans and heating and cooling the whole outdoors. .


¹ http://www.healthybuilding.net/healt...50_summary.pdf