Letters

A former FM employee reacts

After reading "My observations of FM Global" in the December 2004 issue, page 23, it is clear Dick Baxter, president of CRS Inc., Monroe, N.C., is thoroughly frustrated with FM Global, its data sheets and Approval Guide. As a former FM Global employee, I dealt with similar frustrations on a regular basis.

I noted some statements and complaints in the article regarding FM Global data sheets and Approval Guide are not accurate. It appears Baxter's criticisms are based on his lack of knowledge of the documents. I agree they are difficult to follow but not impossible. The lack of guidance for base sheet attachment Baxter complains about is covered by Approval Guide listings as referenced in a data sheet.

I was shocked at Baxter's one-sided attack of FM Global's handling of two specific damage claims. An attack in an industry trade magazine on how a company handles its business is incomprehensible. My vast experience with FM Global is that it always has been fair and objective regarding handling of damage claims.

As a roof system designer, I think NRCA is a valuable resource. However, I am disappointed by such negative articles in Professional Roofing. The article may present frustrations shared by roofing contractors; however, there was no attempt in the article to resolve frustrations. I found nothing constructive in the article.

There apparently is a wide gap between FM Global and many roofing professionals. In addition, most building owners are not even aware of FM Global or its requirements. If FM Global becomes an obstacle, a contractor could bring this to a building owner's attention and recommend use of a design professional. FM Global and code issues can be addressed by someone else, allowing contractors to focus on what they do best.

I share some of Baxter's anxiety with regard to FM Global's RoofNav program that will replace the Approval Guide. I may be the only person outside FM Global who actually likes the Approval Guide. Once RoofNav is implemented, I, too, will wander in darkness with Baxter. But I hope there is someone to light a candle rather than curse my darkness.

Darren R. Perry, PE, RRC
Roof Engineering Inc.
Greenville, N.C.

Following is Baxter's reply to the letter:

"My experience with companies of the old Factory Mutual System generally was positive; my experience with FM Global has been less than positive. Things change. My experience with FM Global Research is that it is nonresponsive.

"I personally coordinated a joint effort among roofing contractors, NRCA and roofing materials manufacturers to provide FM Global Research with a functional, comprehensible format for the Approval Guide that would have eliminated most of the gray areas and black holes in the publication. The Approval Guide format remains unchanged, but I was told the format we provided was used in the development of RoofNav. I was promised a part in the Alpha and Beta testing of RoofNav. To date, I have not seen RoofNav, and at the published fee of $1,400 or so a year, it isn't likely I'll ever see it!

"If Perry recalls, a few years ago, he volunteered to author a joint article with me to put the Factory Mutual System in perspective. After several attempts to contact him, I finally got a note indicating his workload would not allow his involvement. Could there have been some adverse pressure here? I believe I have put forth more than a good-faith effort to resolve the 'frustration' with constructive criticism for more years than I care to remember and the dedication of a whole lot of my time—at no cost to FM Global and to no avail.

"I have voiced my concern about a lack of completeness in the Data Sheets and confusion with the Approval Guide publicly and directly to FM Global Research. So far, there have been no significant changes—much less for the better. Professional Roofing doesn't have enough room in the magazine for me to begin to elaborate on the discrepancies and confusing issues regarding FM Global's involvement in the roofing industry, but I doubt the issues have been resolved with RoofNav.

"My sentiments don't change: If you write (or want to write) the 'rules,' then live with the 'rules.' FM Global needs to get its separate divisions singing out of the same hymnal to minimize the 'their stuff' and 'our stuff' bullshit in the resolution of claims. Until then, I'll remain convinced FM Global provides more confusion than necessary in the roofing industry."

A designer's wish for PIMA members

As usual, I read the "Tech Today" column in the January issue ("PIMA's advice about storage and handling," page 52, by Mark S. Graham, NRCA's associate executive director of technical services) with great interest, looking forward to Graham's musings specific to an obscure and often overlooked aspect of this industry. The article's focus was a critical review of a Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA) technical bulletin addressing storage and handling recommendations for polyisocyanurate insulation. Graham criticizes the bulletin and what is perceived as "blatant attempts to shift the responsibility and liability for proper storage and handling solely to roofing contractors" and opines these responsibilities should be "shared between designers, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and contractors."

In its simplest form, roof insulation is a commodity. Similar to any product, there is a point of manufacture and point of end use. It is between these points Graham expresses his concerns. Although it is painfully obvious to most—and stated as such in the bulletin—the factory wrap from a plant provides less than adequate protection for the product during transportation and job-site storage. To suggest the described responsibility of product protection be shared by many, including design professionals, is a stretch.

If PIMA members are serious about their established two-week maximum window between acceptance at a job site and installation, perhaps they should take the high road and ship products in more substantial packaging. The well-ventilated warehouse requirement also is an interesting element of the bulletin because the product is delivered in plastic wrap with condensation routinely found between the plastic wrap and enclosed product. The presence of the plastic wrap potentially could diminish the benefits of the so far unexplained need for ventilation of a product that, by most, would be considered inert and by design not thought to be susceptible to significant changes in properties as a result of ambient conditions.

As a member of the design community, it is my opinion roof system designers should be removed from those listed who may share in the responsibility of establishing the standard of care for polyisocyanurate insulation between the points of origin and end use. The responsibility for establishing the means and methods of protection from the factory to final installation is the sole responsibility of those involved who realize profit through initial sale, distribution, warehousing and installation.

Recognizing the need to install dry, square insulation boards, roof system designers routinely include explicit language directing contractors to store materials off the ground with supplemental coverings, such as tarpaulins. Beyond the portion of a specification intended to impart the importance of proper storage and handling, once insulation boards are delivered to a job site, the appropriate storage and standard of care is established by the contractor. These measures may be good, bad or indifferent as they relate to standards set forth by the industry. Enforcement largely is contingent upon the integrity of contractors and diligence of those providing the service of construction observation.

I thank Graham for his insight, and I look forward to reading his future informative contributions to Professional Roofing magazine.

Don Kilpatrick
Racine, Wis.

A consultant stands up for PIMA

NRCA's Associate Executive Director of Technical Services Mark Graham points out in "PIMA's advice about storage and handling," January issue, page 52, that manufacturers and distributors are not following Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA) recommendations. In my opinion, the article complains contractors will have to take extra precautions and actions.

I see this as a bit of hypocrisy. NRCA actively has tried to pass the responsibility for quality control of roofing projects to property owners. NRCA's recommendation is that a "quality-assurance inspector" be hired for full-time presence on a roofing project. A new ASTM International standard is passing into existence—against my vote—to define what NRCA wants. PIMA's recommendations will lead to better quality roof systems. Roofing contractors should wake up and embrace better quality roofs, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

I suggest NRCA help PIMA persuade its members to improve packaging so problems do not occur. Roofing contractors are the customers, so the sellers should hear them. Some manufacturers will not go along with NRCA's recommendations, so they will have slightly lower prices. Roofing contractors will buy the lowest-cost products—and probably not protect the insulation—so the problems will persist.

As a specifier/consultant, I will continue to specify PIMA recommendations. I always am grateful for the job security roofing contractors create for me by not improving.

Bruce Wittenbaum
Achievement Industries Inc.
Scottsdale, Ariz.