Spray Foam and Termites
In the southern United States, a conflict has been brewing between pest management professionals (PMPs) and the spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation industry. At the heart of the issue, which impacts multifamily and light commercial structures with Type V wood frame construction, is termites. Many termite bonds, or warranties between property owner and PMP provider, forbid certain building modifications, refusing coverage if the owner proceeds with them. Lately, one such modification that PMPs are cancelling termite bonds over is the installation of high-performance spray polyurethane foam insulation. Not only do these cancellations undermine property owners’ ability to optimize energy efficiency in the building envelope, but they leave these structures vulnerable to moisture damage. Most importantly, these cancellations are completely avoidable.
One state where the conflict has been heating up is Alabama. In late 2016, PMPs in the state began voiding warranties in homes optimized with spray foam insulation citing the excuse they are unable to accurately perform annual visual inspections behind the insulation as is required to fulfill these warranty programs. Providing an immediate solution to Alabama PMPs, the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA), speaking on behalf of the spray foam industry, provided guidance including modified SPF applications in addition to alternative termite detection methods. The effective means for inspection provided by the SPFA included both infrared cameras and acoustic emission devices. PMPs in turn dismissed these alternative methods stating a desire to stick with less expensive inspection methods, despite their 25-30 percent detection rate.
After a few years, the termite bond issue spread to nearby Georgia when, in late 2019, the Georgia Structural Pest Control Commission (GSPCC) spearheaded a code change proposal to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (GDCA) that (if passed) eliminates permanently installed insulation on the rim joist and sill plate. It requires the use of a removable, air-permeable fiberglass batt coupled with caulk sealants. The primary issue with this centers around the Foundation-Framing Interface (FFI), or the area where the structure’s wood framing meets its concrete or masonry foundation. The FFI is a concerning source of air infiltration and, to meet energy code air tightness requirements, must therefore be addressed through sealing. Moisture intrusion and energy loss are dramatically reduced when the FFI is properly sealed, however doing so with caulk is impractical and ineffective. Additionally, the GSPCC proposal requires the removal and reinstallation of fiberglass batts during the termite inspection. Continued removal of batt insulation dramatically reduces R-value of these batts.
To address this Georgia issue, SPFA along with sister industry organization, Spray Foam Coalition (SFC), created an alternative code change proposal outlining two options for insulating crawlspaces. The first option includes the GSPCCs proposal. The second, which primarily applies to new construction, requires the use of treated lumber, termite shields, as well as exposure on the side of the sill plate to facilitate effective visual inspection. Several reputable building science experts, including Dr. Joe Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng. and the Building Performance Institute agree with the options presented in the new proposal, as well as the spray foam industry’s overall position on termite inspections and alternate methods. Unfortunately, this spray foam industry led code change proposal was not approved by GDCA’s Energy, Residential and Building Amendments Subcommittee and Code Advisory Council. Instead, they approved the GSPCC proposal, which will be sent for public comment before a final September 2021 vote.
There are serious ongoing concerns about this issue in Georgia and what it could ultimately mean for state-by-state treatment concerning the intersection of spray foam insulation and termite control in apartment and commercial properties. Additionally, future national building codes could be affected if the issue is left unchallenged. Georgia and other states could not only ban the use of spray foam insulation in crawlspaces but could establish an unnecessary precedent leading to additional limitations on the use of the high-performance, combined thermal, air, water and vapor barrier solution in other locations in wood-framed buildings.
Building and energy codes should not be used to block both the access to, and the exceptional performance of, spray foam, which remains an incredibly optimal solution in the country’s fight to enhance energy efficiency, lower ongoing energy bills and, ultimately decarbonize commercial buildings in an effort to curb greenhouse gas induced climate change. In doing so, especially when known alternatives and workarounds clearly exist, building owners, occupants and the environment all suffer.
The spray foam industry, represented by both SPFA and SFC, will therefore continue to monitor these code developments and mobilize to educate stakeholders and oppose them. For those interested in joining in this important effort, please contact me at rickduncan@sprayfoam.org. SPFA membership is not required.
To learn more about termites and spray foam, view the industry guidance here: https://www.sprayfoam.org/compatible
In the southern United States, a conflict has been brewing between pest management professionals (PMPs) and the spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation industry. At the heart of the issue, which impacts multifamily and light commercial structures with Type V wood frame construction, is termites. Many termite bonds, or warranties between property owner and PMP provider, forbid certain building modifications, refusing coverage if the owner proceeds with them. Lately, one such modification that PMPs are cancelling termite bonds over is the installation of high-performance spray polyurethane foam insulation. Not only do these cancellations undermine property owners’ ability to optimize energy efficiency in the building envelope, but they leave these structures vulnerable to moisture damage. Most importantly, these cancellations are completely avoidable.
One state where the conflict has been heating up is Alabama. In late 2016, PMPs in the state began voiding warranties in homes optimized with spray foam insulation citing the excuse they are unable to accurately perform annual visual inspections behind the insulation as is required to fulfill these warranty programs. Providing an immediate solution to Alabama PMPs, the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA), speaking on behalf of the spray foam industry, provided guidance including modified SPF applications in addition to alternative termite detection methods. The effective means for inspection provided by the SPFA included both infrared cameras and acoustic emission devices. PMPs in turn dismissed these alternative methods stating a desire to stick with less expensive inspection methods, despite their 25-30 percent detection rate.
After a few years, the termite bond issue spread to nearby Georgia when, in late 2019, the Georgia Structural Pest Control Commission (GSPCC) spearheaded a code change proposal to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (GDCA) that (if passed) eliminates permanently installed insulation on the rim joist and sill plate. It requires the use of a removable, air-permeable fiberglass batt coupled with caulk sealants. The primary issue with this centers around the Foundation-Framing Interface (FFI), or the area where the structure’s wood framing meets its concrete or masonry foundation. The FFI is a concerning source of air infiltration and, to meet energy code air tightness requirements, must therefore be addressed through sealing. Moisture intrusion and energy loss are dramatically reduced when the FFI is properly sealed, however doing so with caulk is impractical and ineffective. Additionally, the GSPCC proposal requires the removal and reinstallation of fiberglass batts during the termite inspection. Continued removal of batt insulation dramatically reduces R-value of these batts.
To address this Georgia issue, SPFA along with sister industry organization, Spray Foam Coalition (SFC), created an alternative code change proposal outlining two options for insulating crawlspaces. The first option includes the GSPCCs proposal. The second, which primarily applies to new construction, requires the use of treated lumber, termite shields, as well as exposure on the side of the sill plate to facilitate effective visual inspection. Several reputable building science experts, including Dr. Joe Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng. and the Building Performance Institute agree with the options presented in the new proposal, as well as the spray foam industry’s overall position on termite inspections and alternate methods. Unfortunately, this spray foam industry led code change proposal was not approved by GDCA’s Energy, Residential and Building Amendments Subcommittee and Code Advisory Council. Instead, they approved the GSPCC proposal, which will be sent for public comment before a final September 2021 vote.
There are serious ongoing concerns about this issue in Georgia and what it could ultimately mean for state-by-state treatment concerning the intersection of spray foam insulation and termite control in apartment and commercial properties. Additionally, future national building codes could be affected if the issue is left unchallenged. Georgia and other states could not only ban the use of spray foam insulation in crawlspaces but could establish an unnecessary precedent leading to additional limitations on the use of the high-performance, combined thermal, air, water and vapor barrier solution in other locations in wood-framed buildings.
Building and energy codes should not be used to block both the access to, and the exceptional performance of, spray foam, which remains an incredibly optimal solution in the country’s fight to enhance energy efficiency, lower ongoing energy bills and, ultimately decarbonize commercial buildings in an effort to curb greenhouse gas induced climate change. In doing so, especially when known alternatives and workarounds clearly exist, building owners, occupants and the environment all suffer.
The spray foam industry, represented by both SPFA and SFC, will therefore continue to monitor these code developments and mobilize to educate stakeholders and oppose them. For those interested in joining in this important effort, please contact me at rickduncan@sprayfoam.org. SPFA membership is not required.
To learn more about termites and spray foam, view the industry guidance here: https://www.sprayfoam.org/compatible
