The URL can be used to link to this page

Imp. Proj. #659GORDON L. JENSEN* STEVEN A.SONDRALL MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAITt C.ALDEN PEARSONl JULIE A. THILL OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 -1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424 -8811 • TELEFAX (763) 493 -5193 e -mail law@)jensen-sondraIl.com September 27, 2000 Mr. John Taggart Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc. P.O. Box 9747 Richmond VA 23228 Re: New Hope Fire Station Roof Replacement and Remediation Agreement Our File No.: 99.53050 Dear John: I want to confirm our recent telephone conversations concerning amendment to the New Hope Fire Station Roof Replacement and Remediation Agreement. Specifically, the City of New Hope and Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc., acting as the agents for Johns Manville International, Inc., have reached the following agreements amending and modifying the July 3, 2000 Roof Replacement and Remediation Agreement between the City of New Hope and Johns Manville: The City agrees to permit RCM & Associates, Inc. to perform the roof replacement on the fire station building. This decision was made after Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc. and the City reviewed the bids from RCM & Associates, Inc., B & B Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc., Dalbec Roofing, Inc. and Nieman Roofing, Inc. The City and Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc. have chosen RCM & Associates, Inc. to perform the roof replacement. As indicated, RCM & Associates, Inc. is the roofing contractor connected with Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc. 2. The City has elected to upgrade the EPDM (roofing membrane) to 60 mil. The cost to the City for this upgrade is $1,750.00. The City has elected to install the 6 mil. polyethylene vapor retarder /barrier. The cost to the City for this upgrade is $560.00. *Real Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association f Qualified ADR Neutral 4. The City has agreed to the re -use of the standing seam metal decking currently installed on the fire station building. The re -use of this decking is conditioned upon Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc.'s assurance that the decking will not be damaged in its removal, storage and reinstallation on the building and that it will look and function in as good or better condition than prior to its removal. Also, Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc. will provide and install at its cost, and at no cost to the City, an ice and water shield over the acoustical metal decking and insulation prior to the reinstallation of the standing seam metal decking on the roof. Me . John Taggart September 27, 2000 Page 2 Also John, I need to bring your attention to Paragraph 4 (1I)(1) of Exhibit A to the contract regarding the roofing contractor installation guaranty. I believe this paragraph calls for a 5 -year contractor's warranty. As a result, the City should not have to pay an additional $1,500.00 for said warranty in that it is included in and made part of our contract with Johns Manville. I would like you to review that paragraph of Exhibit A and tell me why my interpretation of that provision is incorrect and why the City would now be required to make a $1,500.00 payment to obtain the 5 -year contractor's warranty. Also, pursuant to the contract, I would like to receive a copy of RCM & Associates, Inc.'s contract with Johns Manville relating to the roof replacement portion of this project. Johns Manville is required to send the City a copy of that contract pursuant to Paragraph 3 (b) of the agreement. Finally, I am assuming that we will also receive the manufacturer's warranty for the roofing materials required by Paragraph 7 (b) of the agreement upon completion of the project. If this letter summarizes an accurate and correct understanding of our recent discussions concerning modifications to the July 3, 2000 agreement, please sign one copy of this letter acknowledging that fact and return it to me for my files. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly you e Steven A. Sondrall New Hope City Attorney JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc., by and through its authorized representative, John Taggart, agree with the content of this letter as a modification to the July 3, 2000 New Hope Fire Station Roof Replacement and Remediation Agreement between the City of New Hope and Johns Manville International, Inc. John Taggart Roofing Consultants of VA, Inc. cc: David Wells Shari French / Kirk McDonald' Jerry Pertzsch P:\Attomey \SAS\Letters \CNH53050 -002- Taggart Ltr G Y HO At, August 4, 2000 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 -4898 www.ci.new-hope.mn.us Mr. Charles Beaver Wells Fargo Bank 832042 nd Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Beaver: City Hall: 763 -531 -5100 Police: 763 - 531 -5170 Public Works: 763 - 533 -4823 TDD: 763 - 531 -5109 City Hall Fax: 763 -531 -5136 Police Fax: 763 -531 -5174 Public Works Fax: 763 - 533 -7650 Next month, a contractor working for the City of New Hope will begin making repairs to'the roof of the West Metro Fire Station at 4251 Xylon Avenue North, the building just north of the Wells Fargo Bank property. Along the north side of the Bank parking lot, but still on Bank property, is a group of cottonwood trees growing on a narrow green space. These trees and this green space provide a nice buffer between the Bank's parking area and the Fire Station's service driveway and parking areas. Unfortunately, some of these trees are leaning badly to the north and are rubbing against the south side of the Fire Station, or are hanging over and onto it's roof. While these trees have not been responsible for the necessary repairs, their contact with the building has been a concern of City staff for some time. The presence of these trees near and over the Fire Station will add difficulty to the repairs being made to the roof. If not removed, it is possible that these trees may cause damage to the building in the future. Therefore, the City of New Hope requests that Wells Fargo make arrangements to have the offending trees pruned or removed so that they do not interfere with the Fire Station building. We further request that this work be performed before Labor Day, after which time the work on the Fire Station will begin. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (763) 533 -4823, ext. 13. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely - I - om �� Tom Schuster City Forester Cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Kevin McGinty, Chief, West Metro Fire - Rescue District Doug Sandstad, Building Official Shari French, Director of Parks and Recreation Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Family Styled City For Family Living JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law ( j GORDON L. JENSEN* WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEVEN A. SONDRALL MARTIN P. MALECHA C. ALDEN PEARSONt DEAN A. TRONGARDt JULIE A. THILL OF COUNSEL LORENS Q.BRYNESTAD *Real Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association tQualified ADR Neutral 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 -1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424 -8811 • TELEFAx (612) 493 -5193 E -MAIL jss @jsspa.COm June 3, 1999 Kirk McDonald Mark Hanson Community Development Director City Engineer City of New Hope Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. 4401 Xylon Avenue North 2335 West Highway 36 New Hope, MN 55428 Roseville, MN 55113 Shari French Doug Sandstad Park and Recreation Director Building Official City of New Hope City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 New Hope, MN 55428 Kevin McGinty Jerry Pertzsch City of New Hope Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. 4401 Xylon Avenue North 2335 West Highway 36 New Hope, MN 55428 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Article on Steel Deck Corrosion Associated with Phenolic Roof Insulation Problem Causes, Prevention, Damage Assessment and Corrective Action Please find enclosed for your review and comment the referenced article I was able to obtain from an architect named James S. Luckino. Mr. Luckino has worked on numerous phenolic foam cases and was referred to me by Mike Holman at the Bricker & Eckler Law Firm located in Ohio. Also enclosed is Mr. Luckino's curriculum vitae. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Enclosures CNH- Roofing - Letter. wpd a plof0SSiooal deSigc comp8oy CURRICULUM VITAE James S. Luckino, A.I.A. Archatas, Principal and Founder 6797 North High Street, Suite 129 Worthington, Ohio 43085 -2533 EDUCATION 1976 — Graduate B.S. in Architecture from The Ohio State University REGISTRATION Base State: Ohio, 1979 Additional Registrations: West Virginia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky N.C.A.R.B. File and Certificate Holder. MILITARY EXPERIENCE Unites States Navy, Mobile Construction Battalion — Vietnam Veteran. COMMUNITY & PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Architects University Lodge Free and Accepted Masons of Ohio 32' degree Mason, Aladdin Temple, Columbus, Ohio American Italian Golf Association, Columbus, Ohio Columbus Italian Club AREAS OF PRACTICE Full service architectural organization. Special areas of practice: Forensic Investigations for roof, masonry and concrete failures and intrusive moisture problems. Contract evaluation and performance. REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS State of Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections State of Ohio, Ohio State University State of Ohio, Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities State of Ohio, Department of Mental Health State of Ohio, Ohio School for the Deaf Lebanon City Schools Lakota City Schools 6191 N. HIGH S1. S01T1 129 W081HING10N - OHIO - 1 3065 0 Middletown Regional Hospital CompuServe, Columbus, Ohio Miscellaneous Private Developers RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT Schaffer, Parrot Johnson, Lickenwalter & Associates. Consulting Engineers, Columbus, Ohio. Interstate Highway and Structure designer /detailer. W. Byron Ireland and Associates Architects and Planners, Columbus, Ohio. Construction Administrator /designer. Multicon Communities Columbus, Ohio. Manager Technical services & Construction Services Department. Contract Management Company Contract Manager Tortt and Bean Architects Columbus, Ohio. Architect, Director of Field /Contract Administration and Technical Services. William H. Trembly & Associates Vice President Archatas Principal and Founder a "Problems: Issues and Answers" April 22- 23,1993 Gaithersburg, Maryland Sponsored by: National Institute of Standards and Technology National Roofing Contractors Association 108 STEEL DECK CORROSION ASSOCIATED WITH PHENOLIC ROOF INSULATION: PROBLEM CAUSES, PREVENTION, DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION THOMAS L. SMITH and JAMES D. CARL SON National Roofing Contractors Association Rosemont, I11. TIM L. WAUAK The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada I n 1990 /91, NRCA received an increased number of re- ports of severe deck corrosion, all of which utilized dornes- tically produced phenolic roof insulation. NRCA commis- sioned several laboratory evaluations and began an in -situ corrosion research program in 1991. The laboratory and in -situ work, as described herein, provides some valuable insights regarding the phenome- non of steel deck corrosion related to phenolic insulation. This paper discusses steel decks, phenolic insulation developments and material properties, deck damage assess- ment, and corrective actions. Conclusions and recommen- dations for existing roofs, reroofing and new construction are presented. KEYWORDS Phenolic roof insulation, steel deck corrosion. INTRODUCTION In 1990 and early 1991, the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) received an increased number of reports of severe steel deck corrosion. All of the jobs uti- lized domestically produced (i.e., manufactured in the U.S.) phenolic foam roof insulation. Because of the serious ramifications of severe deck corrosion, NRCA surveyed its contractor membership, commissioned several laboratory evaluations and began an in -situ corrosion research pro- gram. (:Vote: Unless othenuise specifically noted, this paper dis- ( domestically produced phenolic insulation exclusively.) Domestic production of phenolic roof insulation ceased in early 1992. Reportedly, this decision by the manufactur- er %%•its unrelated to corrosion issues. Phenolic roof insula- tion is still produced in Canada and Europe. Since there is no dornestic source of phenolic insulation s%itltin the U.S. roofing industry, the concern regarding phenolic corrosion is primarily related to existing roof sys- tenis that have phenolic insulation adjacent to steel decks, and the potential problems that may occur if deck corro- sion compromises the deck's structural integrit%. For an (,review of'corrosion fundamentals, see Appendix 1. This paper discusses steel decks (including protective fin - ish „ptions), phenolic insulation material propc•rtic•', rclat- cd to corrosivit%, lahoratory and field evaluations, deck e1a111iwc as:sessrnent and corrective actions, :urcl presents c nnclusions and reconurncndations. STEEL DECKS NRCA's Project Pinpoint baseline data for 1983 to 1992 indicates that steel decks were utilized on 67 percent of non - residential new construction projects. In the U.S., steel roof decks are typically IX in. (38mm) or 3 in. (75mm) deep, with lYi in. being the most common. One and one - half inch decks are available in three types, with the "wide - rib" (referred to as "Type B ") being the most common. Decks are now available in 16 to 22 gauge (1.45 to 0.71mm). Twenty -two gauge decks are most commonly used. ASTM material standard A 611 covers the steel deck that is to be prime painted, and ASTM A 446 covers the steel deck that is galvanized. t In the U.S., most steel decks are prime painted. The prime paint is applied to the steel coil prior to the coil being formed into decking. According to Levine, the dry film thickness of the prime paint may be as little as 0.2 mils (0.005mm) to 0.4 mils (0.01mm) on each side of the coil (edges are not painted). Voids and pinholes typically occur in the primer coat. He states that the primer is "primarily for eye - appeal and product appearance." He advises that "if greater corrosion resistance is required, multiple coats or galvanized should be applied." The other common deck coating option in the U.S. is' hot -dip galvanizing. ASTM A 525 specifies types of galva- nized coatings and their designations. G-60 and G-90 (coat- ing designations, as defined in AST%1 A 525) are typically utilized for steel decks, with G -60 galanizing being the most common. C-60 coatings provide a minimum of 0.60 ounces of zinc per square foot (183 g /m total coating weight for both sides of the steel sheet, when tested by the triple -spot test (as defined in ASTMM A 525). G-90 coatings have 0.90 ounces per square foot (275 g /m Unless the galvanized deck is to be shop painted or sprayed with fire- proofing, it is typically supplied in a mill protective coating that is intended to protect the galvanized steel from pre- mature development of zinc oxide ('j%llit(• rust "). In Canada, steel decks are tyPicall galvanized rather than painted. 1 foweyer, it thinner coating is normally used. The typical coating is it tine -iron albs • designated in accor- dance with ASTM A 525M (metric) as "ZF75 " This coating provides it ntinirntun of 0.25 ounces per square foot (75 g/111 per the• triple-spot test. The ZF coatings are pro - dticed as gal.uute alcd or wiped coat. Other coating options include it runthirt;ttion of' galva- nizing and tactom painting. Levine• state s that this "is they most effective corrosive protection in cmiron- 109 rnents. " Decks can ;tlso he specified with it ccnnbin ;'bolt of facte r �ry- applied printe and one or more finish coats of v:ui ()Its types of paint. (lortthinations of' galvanizing and paint- ing, or combinations of various paints are typical) speci- fied for facilities such as chemical plants, pulp and paper mills, swimming pools, etc., where the deck is subjected to it corrosive interior environment. Decks can also be field painted (over the existing finish), but this is typically done on the bottom surface for aesthet- ics when the underside of the deck is exposed to view. Field painting the top of the deck is sometimes performed prior to reroofing, when additional protection is desired or the existing finish has deteriorated. Another deck finish is aluminum zinc alloy (known by the proprietary name "Galvalume "). This type of' coating is covered by ASTNI A 792. Although aluminum zinc alloy steel is typically used for steel roofing panels, it is not com- monly used for decking. Compared to G-90 galvanizing, aluminum zinc alloy is a relatively expensive coating. Levine reported that adding copper to carbon steel would be beneficial for atmospheric (i.e., exposed to the ambient air) corrosion protection. However, he advised that more expensive copper- bearing steel would provide little or no benefit if the corrosion is caused by roof leak- age or condensation. PHENOLIC INSULATION Domestically produced phenolic roof insulation (closed -cell) was introduced commercially in 1982. Canadian - produced phenolic roof insulation is discussed at the e of this section. In a 1982 article,' the issue of phenolic insulation and cor- rosion was briefly discussed. In the article, Dupuis was quoted as staling "acids used in the manufacturing process can com- bine with moisture after the product is installed." He further stated that this can create an acidic solution and cause a cor- rosion problem around fasteners, but he stated "this is all conjecture." In the same article, Stuart Smith was quoted as stating that he "knows of phenolic foams on the market that contain 'free acids'." And he stated that there was only a remote possibility of phenolic corroding a metal deck, but that "it can eat nails and aluminum facers right up." A phe- nolic manufacturer's representative in the article stated that "we're studying it (corrosion) very carefully. We're con- cerned enough to run some tests." There were several reports of problems involing phenolic insulation during the first few years after commercialization. However, these problems were primarily related to dimen- sional stability (board shrinkage) and board crashing or breakage, as described by Baxter. These problems were eventually largely resolved, in part by the introduction of dif- ferent facers and by increasing the board density.' A 1985 docurent by Kifer (a phenolic manufacturer's representative) discussed phenolic corrosion.`' fic stated that closed -cell phenolic foam was "reasonably permeable to water vapor," but it did not behave as a "sponge" because the passage of liquid water through the cell struc- ture had virtual) been eliminated. He also noted that there was it lesser degree of Catalyst "leachability" front the closed -cell foam. In another paper later flat ycar,t he explained that because• foam production was eat.tkmd with it blend of organic sulfollic acids, the• acids "give corrosion rates which decrease nru•kc•dly as a fiutctinn crf time•. I'hc sulfcrnatc salts produced by they initial sm1;1(r reaction of available cat ;tlst with common metals crf construction appear to act as inhibitors to funhc•r irttc•ractiort." He fur- ther stated that "the single most important factor in caus- ing c•nd use corrosion is the pre•scnce oi' lidttid cvatcr." In Reference• 9, he stated the following c'onc'lusions: 1. "Properly applied phenolic foam does not present it sig- nificant corrosion hazard to either metal decks or approved mechanical fasteners. 2. Any effects related to corrosion, as they occur in the field, are likely to be insignificant for all insulations test- ed; that is, none would be expected to affect the perfor- mance of the system. 3. Corrosive behavior of ... closed-cell insulation is usual) characterized by short -term passivation of active metal surfaces. Long -term corrosion rates are essentially the same as for comparable roofing insulations.' In Reference 10, Kifer discussed pH. When "ground up in water, [phenolic insulation] will frequently give pH val- ues of 2.5 to 3.0. However, the corrosive behavior of the resulting leachate is the property of importance, not the pH value itself." He asserted that long -term corrosion rates of closed -cell phenolic "are comparable to those of other insulation materials, in spite of the potential for somewhat lower pH values." Also in 1985, Dvorchak (a phenolic manufacturer's rep- resentative) briefly discussed corrosion of steel decks and fasteners when in contact with insulation. I He mentioned reports of phenolic foam's corrosiveness, especially when inorganic mineral acids such as hvdrochloric, sulfuric and phosphoric are used as catalysts. But he stated "the corro- siveness of foam greatly diminishes with the use of organic catalysts [which his company used] such as oxalic, adipic, benzenesulfonic, p- toluenesulfonic, phenosulforic and petro -based sulfonic, and catalysts." He also advised that "further testing of all insulation materials is needed to more thoroughly evaluate corrosion potential and to deter- mine whether corrosion represents a serious problem.' A 1985 document by Blizzard'`' reported on a laboratory evaluation I - or a phenolic insulation manufacturer which compared the corrosive characteristics of some common insulation boards in contact with roof deck samples. The deck samples included prime painted steel, G -60 galva- nized steel and bare carbon steel. The insulation board samples included expanded polystyrene (EPS), fiberglass, polyurethane ancf three phenolic samples. Specimens were conditioned at various temperature and humidity condi- tions and were exposed for periods of 20, 100 and 200 clays. Distilled w ater was added to some specimens three times it wce•k to "encourage the leaching process." The report prese•nted several findings, including the following: • For the chi insulation test series, "the phenolic foams were more dru to the paint integrity (with this particu- lar paint firrntulmion) than anv of the other corrtbinations• (of prime painted deck and other instil ;uiorts utilized in the testing]. This paint peeling behavior is probably relat- ed to it particular chemical interaction with this type crf patint at tic• faccr /paint interface which rna� he plf se•n,r tive... 110 • For the wet insulation test series, "the phenolic foams were more likely to cause paint damage than most other test materials with initially wet insulation. The phenolic foarns appear to be more compatible with the galvanized finish, along with most other insulations. Pitting, howev- er, became a significant factor in several tests." • For the continuously wet test series (in which water was periodically added), "with few exceptions, the phenolic foam sarnples were more damaging to the painted pan- els in this test series than the other insulations. Phenolic foams as a group had competitive corrosion rates on gal- vanized panels in the 200 -day continuously wet test series." • "Test data indicates significant deterioration of this par- ticular organic deck coating (primer paint) with a change to initially wet or continuously wet test surfaces for all insulations tested." • Pitting corrosion became more of a factor on both steel and galvanized surfaces in the long -term (200 -day) tests with the wet and continuousl• wet exposure. It is impor- tant to note that the rate at which a pit can penetrate a metal surface is not necessarily or typically related to the general corrosion rate.... The most significant thing to note is that pitting can occur under a specific set of con- ditions which could reach serious proportions.... • Galvanized steel appears to be the most desirable deck- ing material for many insulations, and phenolic foam in particular." • It would be helpful if a compatible corrosion inhibitor could be incorporated into the phenolic foam products to reduce short -term corrosion rates." In 1985, a membrane manufacturer issued a technical note that stated "test results have indicated that some phenolic foam insulations can contribute significantly to corrosion of metals in certain environments." It further advised that "you should refrain frorn -utilizing phenolic foam insulation" under their membrane system. In 1989 ASTM material standard C 1126 for phenolic insulation was issued. Section 11.3 stated "phenolic foams may contain some compounds which may promote corrosion in the presence of liquid water.... When it is anticipated that the foam will be in direct contact with metal, the foam supplier shall provide the proper installa- tion procedure." In 1989, another domestic manufacturer purchased the phenolic manufacturing rights from the manufacturer that introduced the product in 1982. In 1990, the new manufac- turer issued a bulletin on steel deck corrosion.tj In part it stated that prime painted decks are not designed for corro- sion protection after roof installation. It also stated that phenolic insulation can "interact with the paint," thus - allowing a thin surface layer of corrosion to form on the steel. This process also accelerates in conditions of high temperature and high humidity...." It is not believed "that this reaction poses a threat to the structural integrity or perforniance of metal roof decks...." In March 1991, the manufacturer introduced a "facer designed to prevent corrosion reactions" for their phenolic insulation.tr' In :March 1992, the manufacturer issued another bul- letin on steel deck corrosion. It stated that observations °suggest that the corrosion phenomenon can occur under - certain circumstances on galvanized as well as painted steel decks." ... "However, under extreme conditions, where the insulation is wet or cfarnaged, we now believe there is a potential that the corrosion reaction could progress to a point which could weaken or penetrate an area in it metal deck." ... "Where evidence of wet or damaged phenolic insulation exists, or severe deck corrosion is observed, care should be exercised in operating equipment, moving heavy loads, and walking across a roof." ... "If you detect a leaking roof, severe deck corrosion, or, damaged or wet insulation associated with our phenolic foam, please call ...." Also in March 1992, the company representing the phe- nolic foam that was manufactured prior to 1989 issued a product alert bulletin. It discussed the receipt of reports in the last year of steel deck corrosion under single -ply membranes. It stated that severe "desk corrosion can lead to an unsafe condition, which under extraordinary condi- tions could result in property damage or bodily injury ...." ... "If the following conditions exist, there is an increased chance of deck corrosion being present: • Roof leaks have been experienced. • When roof leaks were present, wet insulation was not removed. • The insulation has been crushed ...." • "The building is located in an area where there is a high average relative humidity." • The interior relative humidity is in excess of 40 percent and the insulation is adjacent to the deck. Lastly, it stated "if any of these conditions exist with a sin- gle -ply roof membrane, ballasted or unballasted, please contact ...." Canadian Phenolics One Canadian manufacturer began producing an open -cell phenolic roof insulation in the mid- 1970s. Production ceased in 1991, reportedly for reasons unrelated to corrosion. Limited information on this product is presented later. Another manufacturer began production of a product essentially identical to the U.S. phenolic in 1989. It is report- ed that this product now uses a corrosion inhibiting facer. Limited information on this product (prior to the introduc- tion of the corrosion inhibiting facer) is presented later. A third manufacturer began commercial production of a closed -cell phenolic in 1989. The manufacturer reported that "both the chemistry and manufacturing process are different from those used to produce other phenolic foams that are currently on the market. " To differentiate this material from other phenolic insulations, it is now desig- nated as a "resol" foam. As described in Reference 18, the manufacturer asserts that this product has a relatively low corrosM y potential. As will be discussed later, the results of \RCA's work is consistent with this claim. Table 1 pre- sents the results of leachate analysis commissioned by \RCA, which shows this phenolic (sample "H ") to have sig- nificantly higher pH, compared to U.S. phenolics. Figure I presents the results of moisture gain studies commissioned by tiRCA, which shows that this phenolic (samples "H -1" and "H -NF ") has significantly different moisture gain prop- erties, compared to U.S. phenolics. Also, in a limited field study conducted by NRCA (described later), this product, as well as the open -cell phenolic, did not show surface interaction (superficial corrosion) with the prime painted deck, whereas the domestically- produced phenolic and its Canadian counterpart did show surface interaction. PROBLEM CAUSES Steel deck corrosion associated with moist insulation (as a result of roof leakage, moisture entrapment during or prior to construction, or inadequate condensation control) is not new, nor is it only limited to certain types of insula- tions. If there is sufficient moisture at the deck /insulation interface, the deck will eventually corrode if it is prime painted. If the deck is galvanized, corrosion of the steel is also likely to occur, but if the galvanizing is G-60 or greater, it will take longer for this to happen. However, for insulations other than domestically- produced phenolic insulation, it typically takes many years for the deck to be structurally compromised. The Steel Deck Institute (SDI) advises that corrosion was not an issue prior to the introduction of phenolic insulation. It may be understand- able that this would be SDI's perception, for two reasons. First, it is probable that most building owners would not be greatly upset if they needed to replace some decking after 15, 20 or more years of service. Secondly, if there was a desire on the part of the owner or other parties to contact the deck manufacturer, in most cases, it would probably be difficult to determine who the manufacturer was. For domestically - produced phenolic, the corrosion rate can be dramatically accelerated, compared to other rigid roof insulations. Severe deck corrosion has been reported to NRCA on jobs that were from approximately three to five years old. Based upon work performed by NRCA, as well as review of the references, there are two characteristics of domesti- cally- produced phenolic insulation that appear to influ- ence rapid corrosion of decks when the insulation becomes moist. The first is related to leachate from moist insulation. (Leachate is the solution that percolates from wet insulation. It contains soluble products dissolved from the insulation, and may contain other products that were in the water prior to it coming in contact with the insula- tion). As shown in Table 1 (and described later), domesti- cally- produced phenolic leachate has a very low pH. While a low pH is not necessarily very corrosive, phenolic leachate has proven to be very aggressive. Factors other than leachate that influence corrosion are the rates of moisture ingress and oxygen diffusion that occur through the insulation. (Note: pH is used to express acidity and alkalinity an a scale of 0 to 14, udth 7 being neutral. values less than 7 are increasingly acidic.) The other significant characteristic of domestically-pro- duced phenolic is related to its affinity for water. It is a hygroscopic material. Kifer was correct in stating that it is permeable to water vapor. (See Figure 1.) But, NRCA's studies found his statement about the passage of liquid water through the cell Stucture having been virtually elim- inated to be incorrect. During NRGA field research, phe- nolic boards were found to fairly readily absorb water (i.e., when wetted, they greatly increased in weight), and they ( slow to release it, compared to polyisocyannralc insrlation. The hygroscopic nature of domestirrlly-produred plrc- nolic probably plays it key role in surface interaction (superficial corrosion), which is commonly seen when phe- nolic boards are removed from prime painted decks. (,Vole; Superficial corrosion is defined as a condition wherein the deck fru- ish is still largely intact, but rust stains are present.) Depending upon storage and transit conditions after manufacturing, and ambient conditions at the time of installation, the installed boards can have a relatively high moisture con- tent by weight (see Table 2), yet still be perceived by the roofing mechanic as not being moist or wet. This small amount of moisture appears to be sufficient to develop some leachate, which then causes the superficial corrosion. During summer drying months, if there is no vapor retarder, the residual moisture content is typically reduced by downward drying. Unless moisture is added to the roof system by leakage or wintertime condensation, there appears to be insufficient moisture to continue the corro- sion process. Also, as discussed in Reference 12, perhaps the layer of corrosion products is somewhat protective. If the phenolic does absorb additional moisture, the cor- rosion process can continue. Loss of metal can occur some- what uniformly across the deck (including the top and bot- tom flanges and the web). However, pitting corrosion also occurs on these surfaces. It appears that pitting is more pronounced at the shoulder of the deck (where the top flange meets the web). (See Figure 9.) As the corrosion becomes more advanced, the pits develop into small holes through the metal, which in turn can cause a separation of the flange from the web. (See Figure 1.) When this hap- pens, the deck's structural integrity in the affected area is immensely compromised. Holes can also develop in the top flange. These can be quite small or up to a few inches (several mm) in diameter, (See Figures 2 and 3.) NRCA has received two reports of small pieces of corroded deck falling to the floor. Under some circumstances (e.g., slow leakage), domestic phenolic's hygroscopicity may unfortunately serve to mask leakage. For example, one job that experienced severe cor- rosion was found to have two small membrane punctures. The severest corrosion occurred near the punctures, and decreased with distance from them. The building owner reported that interior leakage was not observed. The prob- lem was discovered when a small portion of deck yielded when stepped on by a worker. About 8 squares (74 m of deck were corroded to varying degrees. About 5 squares ( 46 m were replaced, as directed by an engineer. While a severely deteriorated deck may fail by collapsing from a uniformly distributed load (e.g., snow load), it may be more prone to a point load failure (e.g., it person walk- ing on the roof). 19 In many parts of North America, if there is roof leakage, acid rain could also be expected to play some role in steel deck corrosion, regardless of the t of roof insulation. Cher the past several decades, the acidity of rainwater has increased. In some locations, rainwater is now relatively acidic. Hence, although in the past it hits likely taken several years (except in the case of phenolic insulation) for leakage to cause severe corrosion, acid rain rnav now accelerate tltc process. 112 REPORTS TO NRCA In 1989, NRCA surveyed its contractor membership on problems with all types of insulation. Seventeen percent (29 jobs) of the 169 job reports indicated problems with phenolic insulation. The majority of these problems were crushing and shrinkage. None of the phenolic reports in the sun'ey identified corrosion as a problem. The first phenolic corrosion problem in the NRCA archives was reported in 1984. By early 1990, approximate - ly six reports had been made to NRCA. A few more reports were received later in 1990 and early 1991. Some of these reported that the deck was structurally impaired. Because of the increased incidence of corrosion reports, the NRCA contractor membership was surveyed in April 1991. Fourteen contractors responded by reporting 18 prob- lern jobs. Seven of the 18 jobs had phenolic insulation adja- cent to the deck. The other 11 jobs used four other different types of insulation. The reports of both phenolic and other types of insulation indicated that corrosion was experienced over galvanized as well as prime painted decks. It was unknown if the galvanized decks were G-60 or G-90. (.'Vote: Two other surveys on different subjects were sent concurrently with the corrosion survey. The number of returns on one of the surveys was rel- atively high. Accordingly, it is believed that the low return of the corro- sion survey was reflective of the contractor experience at that time, rather than contractors not responding.) By June 1991, NRCA was aware of slightly more than 20 corrosion problems wherein phenolic was adjacent to the deck. The number of reports to NRCA has continued to increase, but the total number is still relatively low. The reports have involved a variety of low -slope and steep -slope systems. Roof coverings have included built -up, single -ply, tile and metal. Reference 17 implies the corrosion is linnt- ed to single -ply membranes, which is not the case. NRCA has received a larger number of reports involving ballasted EPDN1 membranes (the larger number appears to be relat- ed to puncture susceptibility), but clearly the corrosion problem is a direct function of moisture gain within the roof system rather than the type of roof covering. The first definitive reporting of steel deck corrosion associated with phenolic insulation in the literature was made by Canon in 1991. NRCA RESEARCH NRCA has commissioned laboratory research and has con ducted field research as described below. Leachate A leachate study was performed on phenolic, perlite, poly- isocyan Lira te, rigid fiberglass and wood fiberboard in 1991 and 1992. The phenolic samples included material from a job that experienced severe deck corrosion, as well as three phenolics that had not been incorporated into a roof. One of the phenolics had corrosion inhibiting facers, and one of the phenolics (resol) was manufactured in Canada. The lab cut a specimen from each sample. For faced products, the specimen included the facers. Each speci- men was broken into small pieces arid placed in a beaker, which was filled with dernineralized water. The beakers were stored at room temperature for one week. Free water (which contained water soluble extracted material) was poured off from each beaker and analyzed bv ion ch matography. Cations were detected by e lectrical corrduetiv- ity. Anions were detected by electrical conductivity and ultraviolet (UV) absorption at 225 rim. Table 1 gives the pH of the extracts and the concentra- tions of the cations and anions. The low pH of the extract from domestic phenolic samples "EP -2," "I -B" and "If -A -1 " is believed to be caused by the large concentrations of toluene sulfonic acid and ethyl benzene sulf'onic acid (anions), which were not neutralized b the cations to pro- duce a neutral salt. It is believed that the composition of the cations (sodium, ammonium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) would not contribute to corrosivity. Regard- ing pH of the other samples, it should be realized that water absorbs carbon dioxide from the air —this alone can lower the pH to 4.5 -5. (Note: This was a limited study. It is unknown how represenla- tive these samples are of the products which they represent. However, the data appears to correlate with other reports and obser- vations. If additional samples of similar products were similarly tested, there likely would be some variation in the findings, but it is believed that it would not be significant.) Moisture Gain A moisture gain study was performed on three phenolic and one polyisocyanurate samples in 1991 and 1992. One of the phenolics had corrosion inhibiting facers and one phenolic was manufactured in Canada. The samples mea- sured approximately 12 in. x 12 in. (300rnm x 300mm). They were placed in an oven for drying. After reaching a constant weight, they were placed in an environmental chamber maintained at 90 °F (34 °C) and 95 percent rela- tive humidity. They were placed on racks so that all faces of each sample were exposed. The samples were periodically removed from the chamber and weighed. The testing was terminated after 28 days. Two samples ( "H -1" and "H -NF ") of a Canadian pheno- lic ( resol) were included in the study. Both samples were taken from the same board. This product had a kraft paper facer adhered in asphalt to the foam. Since it was believed that the facer could play a significant role in limiting mois- ture gain, on one sample ( "H -NF ") the facer and asphalt were removed. The results of this study are shown in Figure 14. The domestic phenolics 1-4:-1" and "II-lA" (with and w6thout a corrosion inhibiting facer) essentially had the same mois- ture gain curve. After 28 days, they had a moisture content of approximately 20 percent (by weight). The moisture content of the polyisocyanurate sample ( "IV -lA ") was approximately 5 percent. The moisture content of the Canadian phenolic was approximately 6 percent with fac- ers and 10 percent without facers. Moisture Loss Sarnples of phenolic and polyisocyanurate that were used in the NRCA field research project were taken for moisture content evaluation. Samples were taken in the spring of 1991 when the job was installed. Additional samples syere taken in the fall of 1991 to determine the amount of down- ward drying in the summer. Samples were then taken the following spring to determine if they gained rnoisurre dur- 113 ing the winter. Moisture content (by weight) w<ts deter- mined by oven drying. Results are shown in Table 2. The phenolic "I" hoards were approximately seven months old at the time of installation (see Table I for fur- ther product information). At the time of application, one sample had a rnoisture content of 32.1 percent —it did not feel damp. Another sample had a moisture content of 208 percent. This sample did feel damp in the field and was specifically taken for moisture content analysis. The phenolic "II" boards had corrosion inhibiting facers (see Table I for further product information). They were approximately two weeks old at the time of installation. The polyisocy "IV" boards were approximately one month old at the time of install As can be seen on Table 2, all of the phenolic samples had a much higher moisture content at the time of applica- tion, compared to the polyisocyanurate. As expected, the boards lost moisture during the summer, but the moisture content of the phenolic samples was still much higher than that of the polyisocyanurate. The results of the fall 1991 evaluation show fairly large board - to-board variation of the moisture content within a given product. The spring 1992 tests suggests the boards gained a minor amount of mois- ture during the winter. Field Research In April 1991, NRCA began an in -situ corrosion research project in the Chicago, Ill. area. The building houses a roofing contractor's sheet metal shop and warehouse. It is heated, but not air conditioned. The roof system is a bal- lasted EPDM membrane over rigid insulation over 22 gage (0.71mm) 1 2 in. (38mm) deep Type B (wide rib) steel deck. Four insulation products were utilized (their age at time of application was noted above): * 2Y, in. (63mm) thick phenolic with fiberglass facers, des- ignated as "I." • 2% in. (60mm) thick phenolic with corrosion inhibiting fiberglass facers, designated as "II." • 2 %in. (70mm) thick polyisocyanurate with fiberglass Etc - ers, designated as "III." These boards were approximate- ly two months old at the time of application. • 2X in. (67mm) thick polyisocyanurate with organic /inor- ganic perforated facers, designated as "IV." The majority of the deck was G-60 galvanized, however, an area of primme painted deck occurred under each of the four insulation products. Each area of prime deck mea- sured approximately 6 ft. x 20 ft. (1.8 m x 6 m). At one test area over each of the four insulations, the membrane was ballasted and a loaded ballast belgp' made several passes over the ballast. The intent was to damage, but not pulverize the boards. This was done because several cif' the corrosion problem jobs also reported crushing prohlems. After crushing, the inenibrane teas removed 'and the boards were examined. All firur insulations had considerable (film- age of the upper portion of the foarn, but there �e no core fractures or damage on the underside of the boards. The boards in the test area were wetted on both sides. 1'he phenolic hoards ( "1° anti "II ") somewhat readily •lhsorbed water that was poured on them (see Table 3 for the' amount of applWd water). i he liit'r1117ranr' was then reinstalled and ballasted. W(.1 boards of all Imil insulations occurred over the galvanized and prime painted decks. In late September 1991 (approxiniatel five months after application), one -1 ft. x 8 fl. ( 1.2 nt x 2. ill) hoard was removed for observation at each of the four u'st seciions. synopsis of cibser`iltions is presented in Table 3. For a full discussion of the field testing, see Appendix 2. To determine if the corrosion process would stagnate of- progress, the four boards were re- wetted and the mem- brane reinstalled. In May 1992 (approximately one year after installation), three of the areas were re- opened. Because of the previous similarity between polyisocyanurate "ill" and 1%'," it was decided not to open "IV." (See Table 3.) It was unclear if the lack of additional corrosion (as described in Table 3) was due to reduced winter tempera - tures (since corrosion is decelerated at lower tempera- tures), or due to a lesser amount of water being applied in the fall versus the spring, or if the corrosion products were offering protection against further corrosion. It was decid- ed to re -wet the three areas and continue the studv. Wote: As noted at Table 3, approximately twice as much water was applied in April 1991 compared to September 1991.) In November 1992 (approximately 19 months after application), the three areas were re- opened. At each of the three insulations, an area of deck (including galva- nized and prime painted) approximately 20 ft. x 9 ft. (6 m x 2.7 m) was exposed. The corrosion had progressed over the summer at phenolic I and II and polyisocyanurate III. (See Table 3 and Figures 4 to 13.) At this point, it ap- peared that if the boards remained wet, the corrosion would continue. Since the test area was over an occupied building, it was decided to terminate the test, rather than continue the test to failure. Field Research In 1988, the Midwest Roofing Contractors Association (MRCA) and NRCA conducted a joint in -situ research pro- ject on uplift and crushing resistance of polyisocyanurate and domestic phenolic roof insulation. The work occurred in Kansas City, Mo. The built -up membrane and insulations were applied over a prime painted steel deck. The deck was over an unenclosed storage area. Corrosion evaluation was not part of the work. However, superficial deck corrosion was observed under the phenolic insulation the following; year when the roof covering was removed as part of a fcllc`ny- up study. The 1989 study, which was still limited to uplift and crushing evaluation, utilized three Canadian - produced phenolics and one domestic phenolic.? The 1988 and 1941) studies used domestic phenolic from different manufactur- ers. In januan 1992 (approximately 28 months after appli- cation), one test cut was made at each of the four plic'ncr lies. Under thc• domestic phenolic and its Canadian coun- terpart, the deck had superficial corrosion. The deck had not corroded under tilt• other two phenolics (one of «hi( h was closed-cell. and the other was a re.sol foam). Nonc• of these phcnolir� that wcIc applied in 1989 occurred wlicit phenolic was installer) for the 1946 project. 114 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT If a steel deck has superficially corroded (i.e., the deck fin- ish is still largely intact, but rust stains are present), struc- tural degradation would be unlikely. Typically, the deck would not be in need of repainting. Conversely, if the deck has obvious signs of structural impairment (e.g., flange sep- arated from the web or large holes through the deck), deck replacement is needed in the affected area. However, in assessing the structural condition of corroded decks, the difficult decks to assess are those that are between these two extreme cases. At the present time, an accepted protocol for assessing corroded decks does not exist. There are no standards for field, laboratory or analytical evaluation of these problem jobs. Accordingly, structural integrity assessment is left to rely upon the good judgment and expertise of the person performing this task. CORRECTIVE ACTION If the deck has superficially corroded (i.e., the deck finish is still largely intact, but rust stains are present), typically the deck would not be in need of repainting. If the corrosion is more advanced, but the structural integrity is judged to be adequate, preparation of the surface and repainting with a suitable coating is recommended. Accepted protocols for deck preparation and painting do not exist. If the deck or portions thereof has been judged to be structurally impaired, deck replacement in the affected area is needed to avoid compromising the safety of build- ing occupants and people on the roof. CONCLUSIONS lib'hen moist, domestically- produced phenolic insulation (without corrosion inhibiting facers) can contribute to steel deck corrosion significantly more than other com- mon types of rigid roof insulation (irrespective of the type of roof covering). The NRCA in -situ corrosion research correlates with Blizzard's lab work which indicated that the rate of corrosion is initially high, but decreases after a short time period. However, if this type of phenolic insulation remains moist, it appears that the corrosion does not become passive, but rather it continues. If the insulation remains moist for a long enough period (which may be as short as three years or less), it appears that prime painted 22 gage (0.71mrn) steel deck can become struc- turalh• unsound. With this type of phenolic insulation, galvanizing does not prevent the corrosion process. However, based on the NRCA in -situ corrosion research, G-60 galvanizing does retard the rate of corrosion. The additional " time - tb- failure" that G-60 (or G-90) provides, compared to prime paint is unknown. But it appears that G-60 may offer perhaps another year or two, or more. With this additional time, there is an increased possibility that the problem will be discovered before the deck develops a hazardous condition. (Note: Levind makes note of the importance of the zinr thick- ness (weight). Reduced thickness results in reduced corrosion resistance. It is likely that thinner galvanizing, such as 7175 rripeel coat (commonly used in Canada) would not offer sigriifi- cantly greater corrosion protertion with this type o/ phenoli( than Grime pains.) Crushed versus uncrushed insulation does not appear to directly influence corrosion. One exception could he a case where crushing has moved the clew point near the critical deck /insulation interface, which when coupled with condensation, may result in development of leachate. Leaching exacerbation may be another exception. If a vapor retarder with good integrity occurs between the phenolic insulation and the roof deck, the probabili- ty of deck corrosion associated with the phenolic is mini- mized. Even if the phenolic gets wet, the vapor retarder should be effective in preventing leachate contact with the deck. Also, the presence of a suitable vapor retarder should avoid leachate development associated with con- densation from within the building. 2. As noted in Table 3, the corrosion inhibiting facer that was used in the NRCA research projects appears to sig- nificantly reduce deck corrosion if the insulation becomes wet. However, at board joints, its effectiveness appears to be minimal. (See Figures 11 and 12.) 3. Based on NRCA's limited assessment, the Canadian phe- nolic (resol) that reportedh• uses a different chemistry and manufacturing process appears to be significantly less corrosive when wet, compared to domestically-pro- duced phenolic that does not incorporate corrosion inhibiting facers. 4. Corrosion of fasteners in contact with moist phenolic was not assessed. However, based upon the limited number of reports to NRCA that included fasteners, it appears that if the fasteners passed FM 4470. and if there is no vapor retarder, deck problems would likely develop prior to fas- tener problems. 5. For those building owners that desire additional deck corrosion protection (regardless of the type of roof insu- lation), NRCA Bulletin 15 -91 appears appropriate. 93 However, for most buildings, mandating greater protec- tion does not appear justified, but rather should contin- ue to remain as an option. Deck corrosion protection should not be viewed as a solution for insulation products that can emit leachate which greatly accelerates the corrosion rate. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Because of the potential for development of structurally impaired decks due to corrosion, it is recommended that building owners with domestic phenolic insulation (without corrosion inhibiting facers) over steel roof decks have semiannual roof inspections performed by a roofing professional to look for signs of leakage. (Note: This recommendation is applicable to all roofs, but is of panic= ular importance for the insulation noted.) It is recommended that building owners with domes- tic phenolic insulation (without corrosion inhibiting fac- ers) also have semiannual inspections of the underside of the deck to look for signs of leakage and deck deteri- oration, if the deck can be readily observed. However, significant corrosion can exist without it being apparent from an under -deck observation. 115 For rooft_,that arc capable of being surveyed by in- frared thermography, it is recormended the building owner consider haying the roof surveyed on a three -year interval. (,Vole: Infrared thernnography will unlikely inrlicale minor moisture gain clue to condensation.) The building owner should control access to the roof. Personnel on the roof should be alerted to refrain from abusing the roof (e.g., dropping HVAC access panels or tools on the membrane). If moist insulation is detected, it should be removed and the deck should be evaluated. tance and assist in evaluating new products or changt•s to existing products. Use of' electrical impedance inea_ surements coati• be applicable (see Appendix 3). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Roofing contractors, designers and others who contributed samples, photographs and information on problem jobs deserve special thanks. Appreciation is also extended to Hans Rosenow Roofing Company for the use of their new facility and labor for the field work. `?. �h`hen reroofing, tear -off rather than recover is recorn- . mended when domestic phenolic (without corrosion inhibiting facers) occurs. This will allow visual observa- tion of the entire top surface of the deck, which thereby minimizes the possibility of reroofing over deteriorated areas. (Note: During the reroofing work, care should be exercised if corroded deck is encountered. Worker or equipment fall - through is a potential problem if the corrosion is significant.) 3. If other than superficial corrosion is discovered, it is rec- ommended that the structural integrity of the deck be evaluated by an engineer. It is recommended that the roofing contractor obtain deck replacement and /or repair /repainting directions from the engineer. If the insulation is domestic phenolic, it is recommended the manufacturer be advised and consulted (see References 16 and 17). 4. For phenolic insulation with corrosion inhibiting facers, until enhancements are made to compensate for inten- sified corrosion at board joints, it is recommended that the deck have a C-60 (minimum) finish. 5. Regardless of the type of insulation, it is recommended that building designers specify galvanized finishes for steel decks in accordance with NRCA Bulletin 15 -91. (See Conclusion 5.) This recommendation is correlated with the NRCA in- situ research and with Blizzard's lab work, which con- cluded that galvanizing appeared to be the most desir- able coating (compared to prime paint) for many insu- lations. NRCA Bulletin 15 -91 presents the option of using C or G-90 galvanizing, or aluminum zinc alloy. Because of the cost differential, for most buildings, utilizing alu- Ininum zinc alloy for decking is probably not cost-effec- tive. Incidently, if a concrete or insulating concrete fill is placed over the deck, galvanized rather than aluminum zinc alloy should be used to avoid compatibility prob- Icnrs between the fill and the coating. 6. Regardless of the type of roof insulation, if the building has "highly corrosive or chemical atmospheres" on the interior of the building, or if unusually corrosive materi- als cornet leak into the roof system, special deck finishes ruin be prudent. In these situations, consult with the steel deck manufacturer. 3.25 7. h is recommended that work on an ASTM standard for .t,sr•ssing the corrosion potential of roof insulation prod- uct, he continued. A standard could be of great impor- REFERENCES 1 Palmer, J.W., "Steel Roof Decks," The Consinrrtiorr Specifier, pp. 81, November 1991. 2 Levine, P., Introduction to Steel Decks, 1992. 3 Levine, P. and Luttrell, L.D., A Rational Approach to Steel Deck Corrosion Protection, 1992. 4 Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Roofing :Materials Guide, Volume 6, pp. 85, NRCA, February 1985. 5 "Phenolic Foam: Insulation of the Future ?," RS1, pp. 44, October 1982. 6 Baxter, R., "Phenolic foam: Problem - solver or problem ?," Roofing Spec, pp. 25, November 1984. 7 Results of Uplift and Crushing Resistance Tests of Polyisocyan- urate and Phenolic Foam Roof Insulations When a Built -up Roof was Directly Adhered Under Simulated Field Condidons, MRCA and NRCA, October 1988. 8 Result of Crushing, Membrane Adhesion and Uplift Tests on Phenolic and Polyisocyanurate Foam Roof Insulations, MRCA and NRCA, October 1989. 9 Kifer, E.W. and Henry, C.E., Koppers Phenolic Foarn— Tomorrow's Insulation Today, February 1985. 10 Kifer, E.W., Corrosion and Koppers Closed -cell Phenolic Foam, Dec. 5, 1985. 11 Dvorchak, M J., "Use of Phenolic Foam In Low -slope Roofing," Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Roofing Technology, pp. 360, 1985. 12 Blizzard, J.M. and Williams, B.T., Insulation —Roof Decking Corrosion Test, Science and Technology Center, Monroeville, Pa., Nov. 13, 1985. 13 "Hi -Tuff Technical Note, Phenolic Foam Insulation," J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Aug. 27, 1985. 14 ASTM C 1126 -89, "Standard Specification for Faced or Unfaced Rigid Cellular Phenolic Thermal Insulation ", Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 04.06, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1991. 15 Steel Roof Deck Corrosion —Roof Insulations, Manville Marketing Bulletin 52A4 -373A, Sept. I4, 1990. 16 Phenolic Foam Roof Insulation, Steel Roof Deck Corrosion, Manville Marketing Bulletin 52A4 -396, March 30, 1992. 17 Product Alert Bulletin, hoppers Rx All- purpose Insulation Board, Beazer East, inc., undated, but attached to a March 31. 1992 cover letter. 18 Reeves, E., "Phenolic insulation: One material standar(l, with vast differences,. Mofemonal Koofirig, pp. 27, March 1992. 1`) Personal communication ssith Richard P. Canon, it roof con- sultant and enginccr that has had experience with steel deck corrosion associated with phenolic roof insulation. March 1993. 20 ,Smith 'I ".L., ".Acic1 ram and solcanic ash: llow thcs affect the roof," Professional Rooling, pp_ 7-1, June 1990. 116 21 Canon, R.P., "Metal -deck corrosion: Three case studies," Professional Roofing, pp. 28, August 1991. 22 Approval Standard, Class I Roof Covers (4470), Factory Mutual Research, April 1986. 23 Bulletin 15 -91, Corrosion Protection for new Steel Roof Decks, NRCA, May 1991. 24 Garcia, R.G., "Better finish is key to avoiding corrosion," Professional Roof ng, pp. 26, August 1991. 2 Steel Deck Institute Design Manual, SDI, 1991. APPENDICES Appendix 1 Fundamentals of Corrosion Corrosion is an electrochemical process that can be defined as the destruction or deterioration of a metal because of a reaction with its environment. For corrosion to occur, many factors are required. The basic requirements are the pres- ence of moisture (water) and the ability for both oxidation (anodic) and reduction (cathodic) reactions to be sus- tained. If the metal is iron, then the most common reactions that combine to form the overall corrosion reaction are as follows: Fe— Fe + 2e Anodic (oxidation) ............... (1) 2H+ + 2e— H,, Cathodic (reduction) .........(2a) Hydrogen evolution Acid conditions 0,) + 4H+ x 4e— H Cathodic (reduction) .........(2b) Oxygen reduction Acid conditions 2H,,O + O + 46=+ 4(OH) Cathodic (reduction) .........(2c) Oxygen reduction Neutral or basic conditions For example, in water (near neutral) that is exposed to the atmosphere the overall reaction can be obtained by combining (1) and (2c): 2Fe + 2H + 0 2Fe ++ 4(OH) -> 2Fe(OH)2 ..............(3) Thus, the ferrous oxide is precipitated from solution. However, this compound is unstable in oxygen- containing solutions and is oxidized to the ferric hydroxide ( "rust" forms) . 2Fe(OH)2 + H + 1/20,, 2Fe( OH) 3 ............................. (4) It is important to note that the anodic and cathodic reac- tions are partial reactions —both must occur simultaneous - Iv and at the same rate on the metal surface. It is not important whether they are physically separated or occur at the same point; in some corrosion reactions the oxida- tion reaction occurs uniformly on the surface, while in oth- ers it is localized at specific areas. In the case of dissimilar metals joined together, the oxidation reaction will occur on the less noble metal and the cathodic reaction will occur on the more noble metal. Factors Affecting Corrosion Rates of Metals Within a given metal - electrolyte system, the corrosion rate will vary with a number of factors: • Temperature: In general, higher temperatures result in higher corrosion rates. This is mainly because the rate of the electrochemical reactions are increased. • Oxygen: In the case of iron in an aqueous environment, the presence of oxygen (or other oxidizer) will also increase the rate of corrosion. • Composition of the environment: Factors such as hydro- gen ion content (pH), and the presence of other conta- minants such as chlorides, sulfur species, etc., can also affect the corrosion rate of metals. In general, iron will corrode faster in acidic solutions, while the presence of' chlorides can accelerate the localized corrosion attack. These factors form the basis of the thermodynamic (or equilibrium) information about a metal - electrolyte system. This thermodynamic information can be used to deter- mine a tendency to corrode; what this information cannot predict is how fast the corrosion reactions will occur (the kinetics of the process). Corroding systems are not at equi- librium. However, since corrosion is an electrochemical process, the rate of corrosion can be monitored by measur- ing the magnitude of the current passing through the sys- tem. This rate of corrosion will be a function of additional factors such as type of corrosion products formed and the type of corrosion that occurs. If the corrosion product is a uniform oxide film that acts as a barrier that impedes diffusion of species to the metal surface, then the rate of corrosion will be reduced. If the corrosion products are soluble species, then the corrosion reactions will continue to proceed; in some cases the by- products remaining in solution after the corrosion prod- ucts have been dissolved are then available to participate in the corrosion reaction again, thus acting as further acceler- ants in an autocatalytic fashion. The type of corrosion, i.e., whether it is uniform attack or localized attack such as pitting or crevice corrosion, intergranular corrosion or selective dissolution can also determine the ultimate rate of attack. Appendix 2 Detailed Observations, NRCA In -situ Corrosion Research Available upon request from NRCA. Appendix 3 Use of Electrochemical Impedance Measurements Available upon request from NRCA. 117 Table 1 Analysis of leachate from roof insulation samples. * Cations Anions Sample pH Sodium Ammonium Potassium Magnesium Calcium Chloride Sulfate Toluene Ethyl Phos- Sulfonic Benzene phate Acid Sulfonic Acid Phenolic 2.10 65 435 1,620 310 790 35 TRACE 44,200 7,000 (-) "EP -2" Phenolic 1.75 35 210 1,480 30 40 85 TRACE 58,000 12,700 (-) "I -B" Phenolic 2.40 25 70 590 90 4,800 110 TRACE 35,100 8,200 ( ) Phenolic 4.85 75 5 <1 15 125 150 TRACE 750 160 (-) (resol) „ Perlite 5.65 680 20 40 290 385 315 1,910 " Polyiso- cyanurate 6.25 370 30 130 30 170 115 430 TRACE 170 (-) "IV - Rigid Fiberglass 6.70 350 130 10 20 155 65 1,890 (-) 1,260 (-) " Wood Fiberboard 3.70 170 10 680 (-) (-) 25 440 (-) (-) 310 " In mg /kg as received. Note: 1. Phenolic "EP -2" was from a job that experienced severe deck deterioration. The insulation was manufactured in 1986. It had fiberglass facers and was 1%in. (35mm) thick. 2. Phenolic "I -B" was used in the NRCA in -situ corrosion research project (this sample was not incorporated into the roof). The insulation was manufactured in 1990. It had fiberglass facers and was 2� in. (63mm) thick. 3. Phenolic "II -A -1" was used in the NRCA in -situ corrosion research project (this sample was not incorporated into the roof). The insulation was manufactured in 1991. It had fiberglass facers with a corrosion inhibiting agent. It was 2% in. (60mm) thick. 4. Phenolic (resol) "H" was manufactured in 1991 in Canada. It had kraft paper facers adhered in asphalt. It was 1 % in. (32mm) thick. 5. Perlite "E" was 1 �6 in. (38mm) thick. 6. Polyisocyanu rate "IV -C" was used in the NRCA in -situ corrosion research project (this sample was not incorporated into the roof). The insulation was manufactured in 1991. It had an organic /inorganic facer. It was 2% in. (67mm) thick. 7. Rigid fiberglass "G" had an asphalt/kraft paper facer on one side. it was ;din. (16mm) thick. 8. Wood fiberboard "F" had an asphaltic coating on one side. It was '1in. (13mm) thick. 9. Except for sample EP -2, all samples were procured from a contractor's yard or a distributor's warehouse. Only sample EP -2 came from a roof. 10. ( -) denotes below detection limit. 11. Laboratory work was performed by Puricons, Inc. Table 1 Analysis of leachate from roof insulation samples. * its Table L !Moisture Contents` of insulation samples. 01/22/91 09/27/91 05/11/92 Phenolic 1 -0 208.0% I -4A 32.1 -4C 6.1% I -5A 7.2 I -5C 6.7% I -6A 7.0 Phenolic 11-11A 10.7 II-4A 10 II -4C 7.2 II -5A 9.9 11 -5C 6.0 11 -7A 9 II -20A 7.8 Polyisocyanurate IV -1A 2.3 IV -4A 1.9 IV -20A 1.6 ' By weight percent. Note: 1. Samples were taken from the NFICA in -situ corrosion research project. The dates indicate the day the samples were taken from the roof. 2. The "I," "11" and "IV" samples correspond to the "I," "11" and "IV" samples in Table 1, although they were taken from different boards (of the same lot). 3. Key to sample identification (e.g., 1 -4A): • 1 = Specific insulation (same manufacturer, product and lot), as identified in Table 1. • 4 = Chronological number that was assigned to installed boards. • A = Chronological letter that was assigned to samples taken from the same board. For example, I -4A and 14C are samples taken from the same board. I -4A and I -5A are adjacent boards. 4. The samples taken on 4/22/91 were approximately 3 ft. x 4 ft. (900mm x 1,200mm). The samples taken on the other days were approximately 3 ft. x 3 ft. (900mm x 900mm). Soon after they were taken from the roof, they were wrapped in plastic bags and sent to the lab. All samples were trimmed to 24 in. x 24 in. (600mm x 600mm) for testing. 5. Chicago Testing Laboratory analyzed sample "1 -0." The remainder of the work was performed by Holometrix, Inc. Table L !Moisture Contents` of insulation samples. 119 Phenolic "I" Phenolic "II" (corrosion inhibiting facers) 9/2 7/91 (5 months) Underside of EPDM and top board wet. Bottom of board dry. Board stuck to deck (considerable amount of corroded primed deck remained adhered to the board. Entire surface of primed deck was corroded. The layer of corrosion products was quite thick. Pitting occurred at the deck shoulder. Galvanized deck had white rust and a few areas of red rust, but the corrosion was superficial. 5/11/92 (12 months) A little moisture on underside of EPDM. Both sides of board damp. Appeared that corrosion on primed and galvanized had progressed very little over winter. Pitting at deck shoulder more advanced with Phenolic "I" vs "II" A little moisture on underside of EPDM. Top of board damp. Bottom wet. Appeared that corrosion on primed and galvanized had progressed very little over winter. 11/23/92 (19 month A little moisture on underside of EPDM. Top of all 5 boards damp. Bottom of boards dry. Prime: Pits more advanced at the board that was rewetted twice vs the board rewetted once. At 30x, some pits much deeper than others. Galvanized: At board joints, pits were more advanced. Pitting was less significant than at the primed area. Minimal corrosion at boards that were not wetted (prime & galvanized). No significant difference in corrosion under crushed vs. u boards. Underside of EPDM wet. Top of 2 boards damp. Prime: at 30x some pits much deeper than others. Pitting not as advanced as at Phenolic I. Large portions of several flanges somewhat corroded. At board joints, more advanced corrosion — pitting similar to Phenolic I. Galvanized: At board joints, more advanced corrosion. Pitting is not as advanced as primed area. Minimal corrosion at boards that were not wetted (primed & galvanized). Underside of EPEM and both sides of boards dry. Prime: Pits developed, but not as deep or wide as at Phenolic "I" or "ll ". Minimal corrosion on flanges. Galvanized: No red rust. Minimal corrosion at boards that were not wetted (primed & galvanized). Underside of EPDM and top board wet. Bottom of board was dry. Portions of top flange of primed deck had superficial corrosion. Galvanized deck had white and red rust, but not as extensive as at Phenolic "I" Corrosion was exacerbated at board joints. Polyiso- Underside of EPDM and both sides cyanurate "III" of board dry. Some superficial corrosion of primed deck, but not as extensive as Phenolic tl. Some white rust at galvanized deck. Polyiso Essentially the same as Polyiso- cya "IV" cyanurate "III" Note: One small wet area on underside of EPDM. Appeared that corrosion on primed and galvanized had progressed very little over winter. 1. The dates indicate the date the observations were made. Wetting of insulation boards • 4/22/91: 2 boards of each insulation were sprayed with water. • 4/23/91: The boards were resprayed. After crushing, approximately 1.75 gallons (6.6L) of water was poured on each board. • 9/27/91: 1 board of each insulation that was previously wetted, received approximately 1 gallon (3.8L) of water. The gallon was applied to the top and bottom, with the majority being applied to the top. • 5/11/92: The boards that were wetted on 9/27/91, received approximately 3.75 gallons (14.2L) of water. The water was applied seve times over a 1 - 2 hour period, to both the top and bo ttom, with t he majority being applied to the top. Table 3 Synopsis of observations, NRCA in -situ corrosion research project. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects July 20, 1999 Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: New Hope Fire Station Roof Replacement City Project No. 659 BRA File No. 34 -99 -106 Dear Mr. Sandstad: This letter is a follow -up to the letter dated June 30, 1999 regarding the structural condition of the roof on the Fire Station. The letter will supplement the previous referenced letter. In the previous letter, two issues were discussed relative to the structural capacity of the metal decking. The first is the capacity to transfer the vertical load applied to the roof to the steel joists supporting it. The second issue is the capacity of the metal decking to act as a wind diaphragm to brace the masonry walls. Based on test results from American Engineering Testing (AET) and using a snow density of 22 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the allowable snow drifting height above the office area is 3' -3" to 4' -0" high. In the apparatus bay, the allowable snow height is 1' -10 ", except in the one location in the southwest corner near the hose tower. In this area, the allowable snow depth is V -0 ". Variations in snow density would increase or decrease the allowable snow depths. The second purpose of the metal decking is to act as a diaphragm to resist the wind forces on the building wall. Essentially, the diaphragm acts as a horizontal support or brace for the top of the wall and transfers the forces to the side walls. The plans state that the building was designed for a wind load of 20 psf. The Uniform Building Code specifies a wind design speed of 80 mph. Based on the test results from AET and building code requirements, the structure can safely withstand a wind speed of approximately 45 mph. The building code requires a structure to withstand a minimum wind speed of 80 mph. The review of the load capacities assumes that the corrosion has not caused a hole in the deck at the intersection of the top flange and web of the deck. If this has occurred, the analysis is not valid and the load carrying capacities would be significantly reduced. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. • Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Glenn R. Cook, RE. • Robert G. Schunicht, RE. • Jerry A. Bourdon, RE, Robert W. Rosene, RE. and Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A., Senior Consultants Associate Principals.' Howard A. Sanford, P.E. • Keith A. Gordon, RE. • Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W Foster, P.E. • David O. Loskota, P.E. • Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, RE. • Ted K.Field, RE. • Kenneth P. Anderson, RE. • Mark R. Rolfs, . RE. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P Rau, P.E. Allan Rick Schmidt, RE. Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN • Milwaukee, WI Website: www.bonestroo.com 2335 West Highway 36 ® St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651 -636 -4600 ■ Fax: 651 -636 -1311 Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope Page 2 Based on test cuts made in the roof and thickness testing made by AET, the structural capacity of the metal deck over most of the roof has been reduced. This is evidenced by the corrosion of the metal deck. With corrosion still taking place due to the presence of phenolic insulation, the situation will continue to deteriorate. The roof deck needs to be replaced in the near future to maintain the structural integrity of the building. The urgency of the roof replacement depends on the rate at which corrosion progresses, which is an unknown. If you should have any questions on these items, please call me at (651) 604 -4895. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. '0' rry D. Pertzsch, P.E. JDP:cv Cc: Steve Sondrall — City Attorney Kirk McDonald — New Hope Shari French — New Hope Wing Kong — AET Mark Hanson - BRA 07/21/99 09:16 FAX 6124935193 J S & S, ATTORNEYS NEW HOPE PD 1¢002 GORDON L. JFsNSEN* WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEVEN A.SONDRALL MARTIN P. NIALECiRA C. ALDEN PEARSONt DEAN A.TRONGARDt JULIE A. THILL OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD 'Real Property Law Speciatist Certified By The mimesntu State Bar Asmelal- {QunlNled ADR Neutral JENSEN SWANSON & SONDTIUA A , p. A . Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, 5TE. 201 j3ROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 -1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424 -8811 • TELEFAX (612) 493 -5193 E -MAIL jss@a jSSpa.cam July 20, 1999 Dirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Fire Station Roof Repair /Johns Manville Corporation Our File No.: 99.53050 Dear Kirk: This letter will summarize our actions in connection with repair of the fire station roof. The repair is necessitated by the use of an insulation product called phenolic foam. Specifically, when this insulation product becomes wet, it results in corrosion to the metal decking upon which the insulation has been installed. The corrosion has resulted in a deterioration to the roof's thickness which can minimize the structural integrity of the entire building as pointed out in the City Engineer's June 30, 1999 memo (see attached). The history of this problem has been set out in the Building Official's April 14, 1999 letter, a copy of which is also attached. Basically, the City was not made aware of any problems with the roof until we received a four page fax from Roofing Consultants of Virginia, Inc. (RCV). This company was retained by the manufacturer of the phenolic foam, Johns Manville (JM), to investigate for problems relating to the use of their phenolic foam product. RCV conducted tests on the fire station roof on September 30 and October 1, 1998. On April 20, 1999, the Building Official sent a letter to RCV requesting written results from the 1998 inspection. The City subsequently received an April 28, 1999 letter from JM proposing a repair solution and attaching a report from RCV regarding their inspection of the roof in 1998. We have not yet responded to the settlement proposal set forth in the April 28, 1999 Johns Manville letter. We needed an independent evaluation before a response can be made. This evaluation was done by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). Based upon AEI's own independent evaluation of the roof's condition, it appears that the settlement solution proposed by the April 28, 1999 Johns Manville letter falls far short of a 07/21/99 09.17 FAX 6124935193 J S & S, ATPORNEYS NEW HOPE PD Ron July 20, 1999 Page 2 satisfactory solution. The June 9, 1999 report prepared by American Engineering Testing, Inc. under the direction of the City Engineer indicates the metal deck roofing has deteriorated as much as 56°1 from its original thickness. In other words, the metal decking is a 22 gauge wide rib decking that has a designed thickness of .0295 inches. The study done by AET indicates the thickness of the decking has diminished to .010 inches in at least one location on the roof. As a result of the testing made by AET, the City Engineer has indicated the structural capacity of the deck has been significantly reduced and must be completely replaced within a short period of time. However, in speaking with the City Engineer, it is his opinion that a delay until the spring of 2000 is acceptable relative to the safety and usability of the building. Despite the fact we have prepared plans and specifications for the roof repair and requested bids, a contract for repair cannot be awarded at this time. Therefore, I would recommend that action on the bids be tabled until the first meeting in October. In the interim period we will initiate settlement discussions and /or litigation if settlement discussions break down regarding replacement of the roof pursuant to our own plans and specifications for repair of this roof and the bids we have received in response to said plans and specifications. Before we proceed with repairs, we must provide the responsible parties with an opportunity to propose a satisfactory correction in order to perfect our right to sue under our bond. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or the attachments hereto Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall 3ENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Enclosures M. Dan Donahue CNH53050.01 -Kirk Ltr.wpd Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects June 30, 1999 Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: New Hope Fire Station Roof Replacement Citv Proiect No. 659 BRA File No. 34 -99 -106 Dear Mr. Sandstad: W e have reviewed the report prepared by American Engineering Testing (AET) dated June 9, 1999 regarding the condition study of the roof. A portion of the report lists the thickness of the steel roof decking at various locations of the apparatus bay. The thickness of the decking ranged from 0.010 inches to 0,031 inches. According to the original plans for the building, this decking is 22 gauge wide rib decking which has a design thickness of 0.0295 inches. The metal decking serves two purposes in the building. The first is to transfer the vertical load applied to the roof to the steel joists supporting it. The load includes both the dead load and live load. Dead load includes the weight of the metal decking, insulation, roof membrane, ballast and items supported from the bottom of the decking. For this analysis, the dead load was taken to be 17 pounds per square foot (psf). For a roof, the live load is the snow load. For this building, the basic snow load is 40 psf plus drifting loads. In accordance with the "Minnesota State Building Code," drifting loads at changes in elevation in the roof can be three times the basic snow load or 120 psf. In the apparatus bay, the decking is supported at 5' -4" on center, Based on published values of the metal decking, the decking has a total load carrying capacity of 113 psf. With a dead load of 17 psf, the live load capacity is 96 psf which is above the basic snow load of 40 psf. Due to the configuration of the deck, �1 5y+� ..: .- .._..t 4., ar�� t.::.,t... <.., ., vF :7Z,.� ,0.: +a-;a� T��r; irk t t i t� )., / v ;� cc the ioad early ±ILg capau 1, 11i UlJVl tlVlla3 LV L11V tlil'v lac rn 3e li ✓ th various thickness of deck and load carrying capacities. Deck Load Capacity (PSF) for 5' -4" Support Spacing Deck Thickness Total Capacity Dead Load Capacity Live Load Capacit 0.010" 38 17 21 0.0 15 "_ 57 17 40 0.0 0.0 19 73 17 - 1 4 5 0.020' 77 17 _ 60 0. 022" 84 -- 1 -- __ -- 1 7 - - _— —� _ 67 - - - - -� 0.024" 92 -- 1 ; 75 0.026" _ 100 1 17 _ 83 90 0.028" _� "_ _ 107 17 _ —I 0.0295 _ 1.13 — 17 _— _ -- - -- Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. - Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. - Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Richard E. Turner, PE. • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. - Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. - Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Robert W. Rosene, RE. rind Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A., Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, PE. - Keith A. Gordon, P.E. - Robert R. Pfefferle, PE. Richard W. Foster, P.E. - David O. Loskota, RE. - Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson, RE. Michael T. Rautmann, P. - Ted K.Field, P.E. • Kenneth P. Anderson, RE. - Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. - Robert F. Kotsmith • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P Rau, PE. Allan Rick Schmidt, PE. Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN • Milwaukee, WI Website: www.bonestroo.com 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311 Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope Page 2 Based on the thickness readings, the metal decking in the apparatus bay with the exception of one area has the required capacity. The one area of concern is in the southwest corner close to the hose tower. It should be noted that the corrosion of the metal deck is continuing and the load carrying capacity is being further reduced as corrosion continues. In the area above the offices, the decking is supported at 5' -0" on center. Based on published values of the metal decking, the decking has a total load carrying capacity of 128 psf. With a dead load of 17 psf, the live load capacity is 111 psf which is above the basic snow load of 40 psf but slightly below the maximum drifting load of 120 psf. Due to the configuration of the deck, the load carrying capacity is proportional to the thickness of the material. The following table lists the various thicknesses of deck and load carrying capacities. Deck Load (PSI+ ) Capacity for 5' -0" Support Spacing Deck Thickness Total Capacity Dead Load Capacity Live Load Capacit 0.020" 87 17 70 0.022" 95 17 78 0.024" 104 17 87 0.026" 113 17 96 0.028" 1 121 17 104 0.0295" 1 128 17 111 Thickness readings were not taken in the area above the offices due to the presence of the ceiling. Test Cut #1 taken in this area showed corrosion scaling on the top surface of the metal decking. This is similar to the findings at Test Cuts #2, 4 and 5. Based on readings near Test Cuts #2 and #4, the deck thickness is probably between 0.020" and 0.025" which would have a load carrying capacity of between 70 psf and 92 psf. The drifting snow loads, particularly next to the location of elevation changes exceeds these values. The second purpose of the metal decking is to act as a diaphragm to resist the wind forces on the building wall. Essentially, the diaphragm acts as a horizontal support or brace for the top of the wall and transfers the forces to the side walls. The plans state that the building was designed for a wind load of 20 psf. The controlling area for roof diaphragm: is the apparatus bay with a wind om the east or west. The corresponding shear in the diaphragm along the end walls is 183 pounds per lineal foot (plf). From the original plans, the deck is attached to the steel supports with 5/8 inch diameter puddle welds at 12 inches on center and #12 screw sidelap fasteners at 3' -0" on center. From the Steel Deck Institute, the deck has a diaphragm capacity of 203 plf. As the deck thickness is decreased, the diaphragm capacity is decreased proportionally. A deck thickness of 0.0266 inches will have a capacity of 183 plf. Deck thicknesses less than 0.0266 inches will have a diaphragm capacity less than 183 plf. Of the 38 thickness measurements taken, 34 were less than 0.0266 inches. In conclusion, the capacity of the metal roof deck to carry both the vertical load (dead load and live load) and the horizontal diaphragm forces have been reduced by the corrosion of the metal deck. Based on thickness reading in the AET Report, the vertical load capacity has been reduced in one area of the apparatus bay to the point of being unsafe and several areas above the offices due to the snow drifting loads in locations of elevation changes of the roof. The horizontal diaphragm capacity has also been reduced with the most significant area being the apparatus bay. Based on the thickness measurements by AET, 34 of the 38 readings show an inadequate thickness for the diaphragm strength. The most critical Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New elope Page 3 areas for the diaphgram are along the edges of the roof deck, i.e. next to the walls. These areas have the most rust visible on the bottom of the deck. The above review of the load capacities assumes that the corrosion has not caused a hole in the deck at the intersection of the top flange and web of the deck. If this has occurred, the analysis is not valid and the load carrying capacities would be significantly reduced. Based on test cuts made in the roof and thickness testing made by AET, the structural capacity of the metal deck over most of the roof has been reduced. This is evidenced by the corrosion of the metal deck. With corrosion still taking place due to the presence of phenolic insulation, the situation will continue to deteriorate. The roof deck needs to be replaced in the near future to maintain the structural integrity of the building. If you should have any questions on these items, please call me at (651) 604 -4895. Sincerely, BONESTROO, R4P.E. 5ANDERILIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. J D. ertzsch, JDP:cv C c: Steve Sondrall — City Attorney Kirk McDonald — New Hope Shari French — New Hope Wing Kong — AET Mark Hanson - BRA Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects June 30, 1999 Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: New Hope Fire Station Roof Replacement City Proiect No. 659 BP\ File No. 34 -99 -106 Dear Mr. Sandstad: 9 w`�i S qq • °"k �u Live Load Cap 0.010" 3 38 , We have reviewed the report prepared by American Engineering Testing (AET) dated June 9, 1999 , the condition study of the roof. A portion of the report lists the thickness of the steel roof decking at various locations of the apparatus bay. The thickness of the decking ranged from 0.010 inches to 0.031 inches. According to the original plans for the building, this decking is 22 gauge wide rib decking which has a design thickness of 0.0295 inches. 'Phe, r etal decking serves two purposes in the building. The first is to transfer the vertical load applied to the roof to the steel joists supporting it. The load includes both the dead load and live load. Dead load includes the weigh, of the metal decking, insulation, roof membrane,1;allast and items supported from the; bottom of the decking. For this analysis, the dead load was taken to be 17 pounds per square foot (psf). For a roof, the live load is the snow load. For this building, the basic snow load is 40 psf plus drifting loads. In accordatice with the "Minnesota State Building Code," drifting loads at changes in elevation in the roof can be three times the basic snow load or 120 psf. In the apparatus bay, the decking is supported at 5' -4" on center. Based on published values of the metal decking, the decking has a total load carrying capacity of 113 psf, With a dead load of 17 psf, the live lead capacity is 96 psf which is above the basic snow load of 40 psf. Due to the configuration of the deck, . a.., i..,� 4'. .� �, of t) e .,, rP,;�i 'rho rollou,ir,v table. lists the il,t, ioai.i vlxar y iiil:, v. tau. lr i� li:!��:�,'.r'ri�lilu.+ Ali La a.. u 1V1aiS�..+J i+..--- - --• -• — - w rious thickness of deck and load carrying capacities. Deck Load Capacity (PSF) for 5' -4" Support Spacing D eck T Total Capacity D Dead Load C ap L Live Load Cap 0.010" 3 38 , , — 21 _ _ -- 0.015 5 57 —_ - 40 - - 65 1 17 4 48 0.019 _ 73 1 17 _ _ 56 _ _ _ _ 7 '7 — 17 - - -- --I — —_ — — 60 i i _ I - 84 1 —__ 1 6 7 I 0.0 9 92 1 1-7 — 0.026" 1 100 — — . -- 17 0,028" 1 10 7 1 17 — + + 90 Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. • Marvin L. Sorvala, PE. Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. • Robert G. Schunicht, PE. • Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Robert W. Rosene, P.E. and Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A., Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. • Keith A. Gordon, P.E. • Robert R. Pfefferle, RE. - Richard W. Foster, P.E. - David O. Loskota, P.E. • Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P. E. • Ted K.Field, P.E. • Kenneth P Anderson, PE.. • Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. Sidney R Williamson, P.E., L.S. • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P. Rau, P.E. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN • Milwaukee, WI Website: www.bonestroo.com 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651 - 636 -4600 ■ Fax: 651 -636 -1311 Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope Page 2 Based on the thickness readings, the metal decking in the apparatus bay with the exception of one area has the required capacity. The one area of concern is in the southwest corner close to the hose tower. It should be noted that the corrosion of the metal deck is continuing and the load carrying capacity is being further reduced as corrosion continues. In the area above the offices, the decking is supported at 5' -0" on center. Based on published values of the metal decking, the decking has a total load carrying capacity of 128 psf. With a dead load of 17 psf, the live load capacity is 111 psf which is above the basic snow load of 40 psf but slightly below the maximum drifting load of 120 psf. Due to the configuration of the deck, the load carrying capacity is proportional to the thickness of the material. The following table lists the various thicknesses of deck and load carrying capacities. Deck Load (PSF) Capacity for 5' -0" Support Spacing Deck Thickness Total Capacity Dead Load Capacity Live Load Capacit 0.020" 87 17 70 0.022" 95 17 78 0.024" 104 17 87 0.026" 113 17 96 0.028" 121 17 104 0.0295" 128 17 1 111 Thickness readings were not taken in the area above the offices due to the presence of the ceiling. Test Cut #1 taken in this area showed corrosion scaling on the top surface of the metal decking. This is similar to the findings at Test Cuts #2, 4 and 5. Based on readings near Test Cuts #2 and #4, the deck thickness is probably between 0.020" and 0.025" which would have a load carrying capacity of between 70 psf and 92 psf. The drifting snow loads, particularly next to the location of elevation changes exceeds these values. The second purpose of the metal decking is to act as a diaphragm to resist the wind forces on the building wall. Essentially, the diaphragm acts as a horizontal support or brace for the top of the wall and transfers the forces to the side walls. The plans state that the building was designed for a wind load of 20 psf. Th controlling area for roof diaphragm is the :apparatus bay with a wind from the east or west. The corresponding shear in the diaphragm along the end walls is 183 pounds per lineal foot (plf). From the original plans, the deck is attached to the steel supports with 5/8 inch diameter puddle welds at 12 inches on center and #12 screw sidelap fasteners at 3' -0" on center. From the Steel Deck Institute, the deck has a diaphragm capacity of 203 plf. As the deck thickness is decreased, the diaphragm capacity is decreased proportionally. A deck thickness of 0.0266 inches will have a capacity of 183 plf. Deck thicknesses less than 0.0266 inches will have a diaphragm capacity less than 183 plf. Of the 38 thickness measurements taken, 34 were less than 0.0266 inches. In conclusion, the capacity of the metal roof deck to carry both the vertical load (dead load and live load) and the horizontal diaphragm forces have been reduced by the corrosion of the metal deck. Based on thickness reading in the AET Report, the vertical load capacity has been reduced in one area of the apparatus bay to the point of being unsafe and several areas above the offices due to the snow drifting loads in locations of elevation changes of the roof. The horizontal diaphragm capacity has also been reduced with the most significant area being the apparatus bay. Based on the thickness measurements by AET, 34 of the 38 readings show an inadequate thickness for the diaphragm strength. The most critical Mr. Douglas Sandstad City of New Hope Page 3 areas for the diaphgram are along the edges of the roof deck, i.e. next to the walls. These areas have the most rust visible on the bottom of the deck. The above review of the load capacities assumes that the corrosion has not caused a hole in the deck at the intersection of the top flange and web of the deck. If this has occurred, the analysis is not valid and the load carrying capacities would be significantly reduced. Based on test cuts made in the roof and thickness testing made by AET, the structural capacity of the metal deck over most of the roof has been reduced. This is evidenced by the corrosion of the metal deck. With corrosion still taking place due to the presence of phenolic insulation, the situation will continue to deteriorate. The roof deck reeds to be replaced in the rear future to maintain the structural integrity of the building. If you should have any questions on these items, please call me at (651) 604 -4895. Sincerely, BONESTR ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. erryl Pertzsch, P.. . JDP:cv Cc: Steve Sondrall — City Attorney Kirk McDonald — New Hope Shari French — New Hope Wing Kong — AET Mark Hanson - BRA AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC, CONSULTANTS • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL Fork'- REPORT OF CONDITIONAL SURVEY OF METAL ROOF DECK PROJECT: NEW HOPE FIRE STATION NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA REPORTED TO: X BONESTROO, ROSENE & ANDERLIK 2335 WEST HIGHWAY 36 ST. PAUL, MN 55113 ATTN: MR. JERRY PERTZSCH AET JOB NO: 05 -00361 DATE: JUNE 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the conditional survey performed by our firm at the New Hope Fire Station Building in New Hope, Minnesota. The scope of our work was limited to: 1. Reviewing available background information and original project drawings. 2. Field observations of existing condition of steel roof deck and supporting structural members. 3. Test cuts through the roof system to expose the top of the metal roof deck. 4. Ultrasonic thickness testing of random metal roof deck locations. 5. Preparing a written report with our findings. Our work was requested by Mr. Jerry Pertzsch of Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik, and authorized by the City of New Hope on May 6, 1999. BACKGROUND INFORMATION It is our understanding that the house was constructed in 1990 -91. According to Doug Sandstad, in April 1998, Roofing Consultants of Virginia (RCV), the authorized representative of Johns Manville, contacted the City of New Hope requesting permission to verify the type roof insulation installed at the New Hope Fire Station. From September 30 to October 1, 1998, RCV was on site to perform roof inspection and test cuts at the New Hope Fire Station. The roof test cuts confirmed that the existing roof insulation consisted of phenolic foam insulation board. In addition, corrosion of the metal roof deck was detected during the test cuts. "AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 550 Cleveland Avenue North • St. Paul, MN 55114. 651- 659 -9001 • Fax 651 - 659 -1379 Duluth • Mankato • Marshall - Rochester • Wausau AET 405 -00361 - Page 2 PROCEDURES American Engineering Testing, Inc. personnel visited the New Hope Fire Station on May 11, 12 and 18, 1999 to document the existing condition of the metal roof deck and supporting structural members, perform ultrasonic thickness measurement of the existing metal roof deck, and conduct test cuts through the roof system. In addition, photographs were taken of the typical conditions encountered. Conditional survey to document the existing condition of the metal roof deck and supporting structural members was conducted with the aid of a platform lift and step ladder. Ultrasonic thickness testing was performed using Ultrasonic Scope Panametrics Epoch III Model 2300 with measurement accuracy of ± .005 ". Test cuts through the roof system to expose the top of the metal roof deck was performed by Dalbec Roofing. Samples of metal roof deck were obtained using a hole drill with a 2" opening. FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS Conditional Survey of the Metal Roof Deck The following presents our visual observations of the underside of the metal roof deck: Spotting and /or blistering on the painted surface of the metal roof deck, generally along the perimeter of the building. 2. Rust and corrosion was detected underneath these spots and blisters. 3. Severe metal roof deck corrosion at the southeast corner of the building, adjacent to the hose tower. 4. Rust spots at various locations throughout the building, including acoustical metal roof deck of the standing seam metal roof, and the upper and lower roofs of the office and conference rooms. 5. Rust stain at one steel joist web member. 6. Peeling paint on the surface of the metal roof deck and steel roof joist at several locations. AET #05 -00361 - Page 3 Ultrasonic Thickness Testing The following presents the results of the ultrasonic thickness measurements at various locations of the Fire Station: Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Measurement # Approximate Location* Thickness ( in.) 1 Southeast corner, west of hose tower .010 .020 .015 .017 2 Southeast corner, northwest of hose tower .019 .019 .021 .023 .028 3 East perimeter .027 .022 .025 4 North edge of garage bay .017 .020 .021 5 Northwest corner of garage bay .019 .017 .023 .025 6 West perimeter .023 .024 7 North Central of garage bay .020 .022 .023 8 Center of garage bay .023 .031 .022 .029 9 West perimeter, inside corner of jog .017 .022 .023 .019 .025 10 Northwest comer of jog .023 .019 .014 11 Southwest corner .025 .018 *Note: Refer to sketch for approximate locations of ultrasonic thickness measurements. According to the original construction drawings, the metal roof deck is 1 /z ", 22 gauge, wide rib metal deck. The thickness for a 22 gauge metal deck is approximately 0.0299 ". The Ultrasonic Scope used for the measurement has an accuracy of ± .005 ". At measurement location #1, the existing metal has lost as much as 2/3 of its manufactured thickness. The Ultrasonic Scope uses a transducer to send sound wave through a medium and the scope measures the time and it takes to pass through the medium and converts the reading into thickness reading. A micrometer thickness measurement of the metal deck was made prior to the test and the thickness measurement was used to calibrate the Ultrasonic Scope. It should be noted that it is possible for well bonded paint or corrosion scaling to skew the thickness reading to the thick side. AET 405 -00361 - Page 4 Draft C"- Test Cuts Through Roof S. stem Six test cuts were made at the ballasted single -ply EPDM roof system (see attached sketch for test locations). One test cut was made at the pre - finished standing seam metal roof location, from the building interior, through the acoustical metal roof deck. The following presents our observations of the metal roof deck at the seven test openings: Typical flat roof system, in ascending order, consisted of: 1. 1'/2 ", 22 gauge, wide rib metal roof deck. 2. Two layers of 1'/2 " phenolic foam board insulation. 3. 45 mil EPDM roof membrane. 4. Round river wash gravel ballast. 5. 1 layer of tapered expanded polystyrene insulation over phenolic foam insulation at roof cricket locations. Roof Test Cuts Insulation Metal Roof T.C. * Deck Observations Wet /Dry Type /Condition 1 Dry 2 layers of 1Ih" Top Surface Corrosion scaling and glass fiber adhering to the phenolic foam board Corrosion top surface of the metal roof deck. No sign of insulation. deficiency on the bottom surface of the metal Top I" of the top layer roof deck. is crushed. 2 Dry 2 layers of 1 Top Surface Corrosion scaling on the top surface of the metal phenolic foam board Corrosion roof deck. No sign of deficiency on the bottom insulation. surface of the metal roof deck. Top 1" of the top layer is crushed. 3 Dry 1 layer of tapered Surface Rust Test opening made at a reported leakage and a expanded polystyrene roof cricket locations. Minor surface rust. At insulation over 2 layers this location, there is a layer of tapered of llh" phenolic foam expanded polystyrene insulation over the two 1- board insulation. ' /z" layers of phenolic foam insulation. 4 Dry 2 layers of 1Ih" Top Surface Corrosion scaling at the top surface of the metal phenolic foam board Corrosion roof deck, no sign of deficiency from the painted insulation. bottom surface of the metal roof deck. Top 1" of the top layer is crushed. AET #05 -00361 - Page 5 Draft Copy l o r Review 111V Note: Refer to sketch for location of the Test Cut (T. C.). At each test opening locations, a 2 -inch diameter core of the metal roof deck was taken. At Test Cut #5 a 4" x 4" sample of wet phenolic foam insulation was taken. Refer to attached sketch for our complete field observations and measurements. REMARKS It should be noted that our work was limited to visual review of the areas of distress and measurements of existing conditions, it did not include any structural calculations to verify the building settlement. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, feel free to contact Wing at (651) 659 -1354. Report prepared by: Wing F. Kong Report reviewed by: John A. Amundson, P.E. Insulation Metal Roof T. C . * Deck Observations Wet/Dry Type /Condition 5 Wet 2 layers of 1 1 /2 " Top Surface Corrosion scaling at the top surface of the metal phenolic foam board Corrosion roof deck, no sign of deficiency from the painted insulation. bottom surface of the metal roof deck. Entire top 1' /z" layer and the top 1" of the bottom layer of the phenolic foam insulation is soaked with moisture. 6 Dry 1 layer of tapered Surface Rust Test opening performed at roof cricket location. expanded polystyrene Surface rust with partial corrosion scaling. At insulation over 2 layers this location, there is a layer of tapered of 1 /2" phenolic foam expanded polystyrene insulation over the two board insulation. 1 /2" layers of phenolic foam insulation. 7 Dry Did not cut all the way Minor Surface Pre - finished standing seam metal roof location. through the core Rust Test opening consisted of coring a 2" diameter opening. Confirmed opening on the vertical face of the acoustical use of phenolic foam metal roof deck. insulation at standing seam metal roof location. Note: Refer to sketch for location of the Test Cut (T. C.). At each test opening locations, a 2 -inch diameter core of the metal roof deck was taken. At Test Cut #5 a 4" x 4" sample of wet phenolic foam insulation was taken. Refer to attached sketch for our complete field observations and measurements. REMARKS It should be noted that our work was limited to visual review of the areas of distress and measurements of existing conditions, it did not include any structural calculations to verify the building settlement. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, feel free to contact Wing at (651) 659 -1354. Report prepared by: Wing F. Kong Report reviewed by: John A. Amundson, P.E. ou C_ r Z - D F D Z C a m o a � rn 11 r rn rn z v O S 2 2 M g NO Z 00 ; R �y vc� °cFII t ®tly m ---I D 3 m .r chi tZII N 9 E C H �u < Z z rn 0 s no METAL DECK REMEDIATION PROCEDURES September 17, 1999 City of New Hope Fire Station — New Hope, MN Remediation Method A: (Deck Corrosion levels 1 -2) + BroornNacuum debris from the surface of the metal deck. Remediation Method B: (Deck Corrosion levels 3 -=1) + BroomNacuum debris from the surface of the metal deck. + Paint th deck surface with a Sherwin Williams Direct To Metal (DTM) Waterbased Acrylic. Remediation Method C: (Deck Corrosion levels 5 -6) + Use the power descaler (rotary powered wire brush) to clean the surface of the metal deck. + BroomNacuum the deck surface. + Paint the deck surface with a Sherwin Williams Direct To Metal (DTM) Waterbased Acrylic. Apply to a wet thickness of 8 mils for an equivalent dry thickness of 3 mils. Let the paint dry for at least 30 minutes or as otherwise directed. Paint must be dry to the touch before new roof insulation is installed. Remediation Method D: (Deck Corrosion level 7) + Scrape heavy rust scale from the deck flange with a spud bar. Broom the scale from the deck surface. + Use the power descaler to further clean the surface of the metal deck. + BroomNacuum the deck surface. + Paint the deck surface with a Sherwin Williams Direct To Metal (DTM) Waterbased Acrylic. Apply to a wet thickness of 8 mils for an equivalent dry thickness of 3 mils. Let the paint dry for at least 30 minutes or as otherwise directed. Paint must be dry to the touch before roof insulation is installed. Page 2 Remediation Method E: (Deck Corrosion level 8) + Complete Remediation Method D above. 9 -17 -99 + Overlay with new decking of same configuration (painted bottom side) and fasten to deck areas that have penetration at deck flange edges (shoulder). Overlay decking should span over minimum of two bar joists (structural supports). Fasten perimeter ends of new sheet metal at every flange; repeat flange fastening even 30" o.c.; fasten perimeter sides every 12" o.c. parallel to the flutes. Remediation Method F: (Deck Corrosion levels 9 -10) + Examine underside of the metal deck for any conduit located directly below the deck surface, anything suspended or fastened to the deck, etc. If necessary, detach all objects from the bottom side of the deck to be removed. + Remove the corroded metal deck using a Saw -Z -All. + Fasten a new corniQated metal deck of the same configuration and color to the bar joists. If necessary, paint the underside of deck to match existing deck interior color. New metal deck should span over minimum of three bar joists (structural supports). Fasten perimeter ends of new metal deck at every flange; fasten every flute at the bar joists; fasten perimeter sides every 12" o.c. parallel to the flutes. Note: The required remediation method is to be determined by Johns Manville /RCVA representative. The remedial measures are to be done at the direction and cost of Johns Manville. - End Procedures - PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 2;, 199? DEGREE #1: a. Deck paint or protective surfacing is not visually affected upon removal of phenolic insulation from the deck. b. Surface is smooth to touch with the hand. C. Scraping surface with a coin does not create red rust color between the metal and the surfacing which would indicate blistering of the surfacing from the metal. d. No rusting or discoloration is evident immediately below the insulation joints. e. Discoloration at welds is evident and slight construction rust may appear. f. Rib openings (flutes) meet a,b,c criteria above. g. This is typical deck control sample; determine metal deck thickness; determine baseline fastener pullout results. PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 28, 1)92 DEGREE #2: a. Deck paint or protective surfacing is slightly discolored with early indications of red rust. b. Surface feels grainy to touch. C. Scraping with a coin does create red rust color indicating blistering of the surfacing from the metal. d. Slight discoloration on the deck is evident immediately below the insulation joints. e. Discoloration at welds is evident and slight construction rust may appear. Rib openings (flutes) have no indication of red rust. g. Deck thickness and fastener pullout results should resemble #1 control sample. FAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 28 0, 2 DEGREE #3: a, Red rust is evident at flange or crown area (0 -50%). b. Surface: looks and feels grainy. C. Red rust appears upon rubbing surface with fingers. Red rust is evident at insulation joints. U. Red rust is evident at welds. Rib openings (flutes) 0- 25 discolored with red rust. Dc ck thickness /fastaner pullout results? ^ _ ^~~- - � _ ~� �`` PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 2F� .0)2 DEGREE #4: a. Red rust is evident at flange or crown area (50- 100 b. Surface looks and feels rough. C, Rubbing With finger easily creates uniform layer of red rust powder. d. Rusting is accentuated at the insulation joints. e. Welds have considerable red rust. f. Rib openings (flutes) 25 -5O discolored with red rust. g. Deck thickness /fastener pullout results? PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 28, L992 DEGREE #5: (* indicates change from 6- 25 -92) a. * Red rust on 75 of flange or crown area. b. * 0 -25% of deck flange has dark brown rust scale. C. Surface beyond red rust powder stage. More extensive corrosion indicated with dark brown rust scale that can be scraped /wire brushed off to the bare metal. Metal surface is not noticeably pitted. d. Insulation joints less noticeable due to uniform rust. e. Rusted welds less noticeable due to uniform rust. f. Rib openings (flutes) 50-75c discolored with red rust. 9. Deck thickness /fastener pullout results'? h. Slight discoloration of bottom insulation facer. PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 28, 1992 DEGREE #6: (` indicates change from 6- 25 -92) a. * Red rust on 50% of flange or crown area. b. * Dark brown rust scaling on 5004., of flange. C. Dark brown rust scale removed by scraping /wire brushing to indicate minor pitting of the metal surface. d. Insulation joints less noticeable due to uniform rust. e. Some welds may be camouflaged. f. # Rib openings (flutes) 100 discolored. g. Deck thickness /fastener pullout results? h. Discoloration of bottom insulation facer equals 25rf( of deck flange area. Mgt r A -& - .,Il IF �rlmro � LAW- PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 28, 1992 DEGREE #7: ( indicates change from 6- 25 -92) a. * Red rust on < 50% of flange or crown area. b. * Dark brown rust scaling on > 50% of flange. c. * Dark brown rust scale removed by scraping /wire brushing to indicate intermediate pitting of the metal surface. Scraping the flange crown /shoulder with a metal object can create small pinholes at the crown /shoulder. d. Insulation facer may attach to deck surface. Insulation may be crushed into rib openings. e. Welds may be difficult to locate. f. Rib openings (flutes) 100 discolored. g. Deck thickness /fastener pullout results? h. Discoloration of bottom insulation facer equals 50% of deck flange area. +R 1 _T r PAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION Suptembur A 1992 DEGREE #8: (* indicates change from 6- 25-92) a. Very little red rust on any of the deck surface. b. Dark brown rust scale on entire flange or crown area. C. * Dark brown rust scale removed by scraping /wire brushing to indicate considerable pitting of the metal surface. Small pinholes are evident at the flange crown /shoulder. d. Insulation facer may attach to deck surface in some areas. Insulation may be crushed into rib openings e. Most welds may be difficult to locate. f. Rib openings (flutes) have scaled rust. g. Deck thickness /fastener pullout results? h. Discoloration of bottom insulation facer equals 100'0 of deck flange area. PAIN F—D METAL DECK CORROSION Septcmbcr 28, 1992 DEGREE #9: (` indicates change from 6- 25 -92) Red rust possible in varying degrees on any of the deck surface. b. Dark brown rust scale possible in varying degrees on any of the deck surface. C. * Deck flange crown /shoulder area or insulation joint area has rusted through at least a 1.5 inch linear section. FAINTED METAL DECK CORROSION September 2� 1992 DEGREE #10: (* indicates change from 6- 25-92) a. Red rust possible in varying degrees on any of the deck surface. b. Dark brown rust scale possible in varying degrees on any of the deck surface. C. * Entire deck sections (flanges and [lutes) have been or can be readily removed during examination or areas of decking are missing. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager 11 -22 -99 Dev. & Planning ,f Item No. By: Dan Donahue By: 8.1 DISCUSSION REGARDING FIRE STATION ROOF REPAIR (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 659) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests to update the Council on the negotiations with the Johns Manville Corporation for repair of the fire station roof. BACKGROUND This issue was last discussed at the Council Work Session of November 1, 1999, at which time the City Attorney reviewed the conditions as outlined in the attached memorandum. The City Attorney will report on the latest developments on Monday night. ATTACHMENTS November 1St Memorandum from City Attorney's Office November 1St Work Session Minutes M(MON BY Kel SECOND BY �N RFA -001 JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. (� Attorneys At Law ` 8525 EDrNBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MEM NESOTA 55443 - 1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424 -8811 • TELEF.a.`C (612) 493 -5193 MEMORANDUM Date: November 1, 1999 To:' New Hope City Council and City Manager From: Steven A. Sondrall Re: Fire Station Roof City will agree to the Johns Manville remediation program under the following conditions: • monetary contribution by the City of $31,500.00, • scaling back of the JIM remediation program by 1 level: meaning level 9 will be repaired like a level 10, level 8 will be treated like level 9 and so forth, • in addition to the repairs required by the remediation program, new metal decking will be overlaid on the entire single ply roof of the fire station. This will require approx.14,500 sq. ft. of intermediate decking thatwill "dovetail" with the existing decking that is not removed or new decking installed per the remediation program, • complete replacement of the standing seam metal roof, insulation and 20 gauge interior acoustical decking, • removal and replacement of the 45 mil. EPDM roof membrane. The City may want to upgrade the membrane to 60 mil. In that case, the City would pay the difference for the upgrade to 60 mil. • repainting of all exposed to view interior decking (primarily in the apparatus bay area) and interior acoustical decking under the standing seam roof protected by the "Bird Screen" in the north office area (this would also include inspecting, cleaning and spot painting tops of existing steel joists, trusses and supports), • coordination of remediation work on project between JM contractor and New Hope City Engineer; i.e., after membrane is removed and prior to initiation of work, JM contractor and City Engineer to inspect roof and agree on levels of remediation. JM contractor to determine extent of repair as long as JM and contractor provide warranty for workmanship and materials subsequent to completion of project, • submission of work schedule for review and approval showing commencement, order and completion dates for the work to be performed with 72 hour advanced notice of any disruption to utilities or service to the building, • materials and workmanship employed in the alterations shall conform to the original work, • removed debris to be placed in approved Contractor furnished containers and removed to an approved landfill, • all decking, insulation and other construction material used and all construction procedures used for installation and fastening of the metal deck and roof must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for quality assurance (the intermediate overlay decking must be attached to provide a shear capacity of 190 lbs. per LF) Basically, repairs to be made per June 1999 Specifications for Fire Station Roof Replacement, with exception that replacement requirement will be replaced with JM remediation program. MEMORANDUM - PAGE 1 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 City Council November 1, 1995 Work Session City Hall, 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in special work session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor W. Peter Enck called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Present: W. Peter Enck Sharon Cassen Don Collier Mark Thompson Council Absent: Pat LaVine Norby Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Daryl Sulander, Chief Financial Officer Steve Sondrall, City Attorney FIRE FACILITY Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, requested permission to add a topic to the ROOF agenda: the fire station roof issue. Mayor Enck directed staff to present relative IMP, PROJECT 659 information. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, distributed a memorandum dated November 1, 1999, outlining conditions of the Johns Manville Corporation remediation program relative to the fire facility roof. Discussion ensued regarding the depreciated value of the 9 -year old roof. He illustrated present roof conditions and levels of deterioration. Mr. Sondrall recommended that Council accept the proposed remediation program for the fire facility roof. He noted the monetary contribution by the City has not yet been finalized with the Johns Manville Corporation. Motion was made by Councilmember Thompson, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, authorizing the City Manager to proceed based on the conditions set forth in the City Attorney's memorandum dated November 1, 1999. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Donahue commented that he would advise the Council of the final settlement. Mr. Sondrall was excused from the meeting. PRELIMINARY Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11. 1, Review of Preliminary Budget for BUDGET Year 2000. Item 11.1 Mr. Donahue reported that senior staff reviewed line items of the general fund budget and is recommending an approximate $400,000 reduction in expenditures which lowers the preliminary operating deficit from $654,000 to $255,000. Mr. Daryl Sulander, Chief Financial Officer, reported that the personnel budget includes an upgrade from part -time to full -time for the Information Technology Coordinator and upgrading the Medial Specialist position from intern status to full- New Hope City Council November 1, 1999 Page 1 MEMO TO: KIRK McDONALD & SHARI FRENCH, "CORROSION" PROJECT LEADERS FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: MAY 3, 1999 RE: RESPONSE FROM JOHNS NVILLE CORPORATION Today, I received the attached letter in response to my April 20th letter. In brief, the writer appears willing to commit to a small amount of roof covering repairs, although they state that they would remediate the deck at their cost after the roof system is removed. In construction terms, the roof covering includes insulation, membranes, felts, roofing tars, fasteners and rock ballast for this type of building. Roof framing includes the support structure with beams, bar joists, bracing and steel decking. cc: "TEAM" City Attorney file -4251 Xylon Ave. No. N .Johns Manville April 28, 1999 Mr. Douglas Sandstad Building Official City of New Hope 4410 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 -4898 Re: Johns Manville Phenolic Insulated Roof System City fof New Hope Fire Station 4251 Won Ave. North New Hope, MN Dear Mr. Sandstad: Johns Manville Corporation 717 17th Street �80202� P.O. Box 5108 Denver, CO 802175/08 303 978 2000 MAY 3 Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1999. This letter was forwarded to me by Mr. John Taggart of Roofing Consultants of Virginia, the company performing field inspections for Johns Manville. I have reviewed the complete file and have copied the pertinent information for your review. We did inspect this roof system last October as you stated. Before I specifically address the findings from the October inspection, I would like to give you some background information concerning Johns Manville's Phenolic Foam Roof Insulation Program. I will start with a general perspective on the phenolic foam issue in hopes that you will better understand our program and policies. Johns Manville purchased the phenolic foam business in January 1989 from Beazer East as the successor to Koppers. At the time, we were convinced that the product provided the best insulation values of any roof insulation on the market, superior fire resistance, and presented no negative characteristics due to some key changes in the cell chemistry that Koppers had introduced. We manufactured and sold the product until February 1992 when it became apparent through our own field experience that the product, under certain circumstances could have a corrosive effect on steel decks in the presence of moisture. Immediately after exiting the business, Johns Manville undertook an aggressive program to locate the phenolic foam that we had manufactured and sold, and we have continued a program to inspect roofs and remediate damage where necessary. To date, we have performed approximately 2450 inspections on 1400 roofs systems using over 55 million square feet of product. These inspections have yielded consistent results, namely that although the product may have an essentially cosmetic effect on a steel deck due to ambient moisture which is simply iron oxide and does not appear to progress beyond the initial construction phase in the absence of some affirmative source of additional moisture, either from unusually high humidity condition inside the building or, more commonly, from identifiable leaks in the membrane. Page 2 April 28, 1999 Because the corrosion reaction requires a continuing source of moisture, the vast majority of our inspections find that the steel deck has no structural damage. Where there is advanced damage, it is localized within a relatively small perimeter of roof around a leak in the membrane or flashings. In those rare instances where we do find a deck area that is largely involved with advanced corrosion, there is an identifiable source of interior moisture that has invaded the roof system. Our program to spot remediate those areas where we do find advanced corrosion is premised on three essential tenets. First, we want to locate and delineate all areas of the roof which present a potential problem. Second, we want to correct problems before they develop into larger, more expensive problems, and certainly well before they might present a risk of personal injury to people working on or under the roof. Finally, we want to address the problem in a way that is least disruptive to the building owner's ongoing operations. In order to evaluate the extent of corrosion, we examine a number of factors that correlate to the amount of damage on the deck. The first is simply a visual observation in which corrosion is rated on a scale of 1 to 10 where a 1 is clean deck and a 10 is significant penetrations in the deck. The scale is obviously progressive between 1 and 10. In general, corrosion levels of 2 or 3 are no different than the light surface rust that might be observed on any steel deck as a result of construction conditions. In addition to the visual evaluation, we perform fastener pullout tests though the roof system as a whole and through the bare metal deck. We also take coupons from the deck and analyze them for loss of metal in terms of both weight and thickness as measured against as appropriate standard for deck of the gauge in question. We also take samples of the insulation to analyze for moisture content. We found the new Inframetrics Infrared camera to be helpful in verifying leak areas and high insulation moisture content areas that are obviously our focus in this program. In some cases, nuclear Non destructive evaluation techniques are used to find moisture in a roof system. In the course of our inspection program we have analyzed the results of the pullout tests, deck coupon testing, insulation moisture sampling, and deck corrosion observations from over 14,000 test cuts, giving us a great deal of data correlating these means of evaluating conditions on a roof. In those cases where we have replaced an entire roof system, we have also had the opportunity to observe the accuracy of our sampling techniques in correctly portraying conditions through out the roof system. As a result of this experience, we have tremendous confidence in our ability to assess the conditions on a roof and to take remedial action where necessary, thereby maintaining the roof in sound condition for the duration of its projected useful life. Page 3 April 28, 1999 With respect to the October roof inspection at the New Hope fire station, we observed metal deck corrosion level of 3 at two locations, level 5 at twelve locations, level 6 at one location and level 7 at one location. We obviously took all of the test cuts at suspect I areas where leaks or detail problems were evident. Based on these most recent results and a review of the previous test cuts results, we believe that this roof system requires -1-1 extensive remediation beyond the spot remediation program previously described. Please note that there were a couple of roof system leaks that were repaired and reported in the Summary of Observations in the latter part of the inspection report that I have attached. There were also two leaks that could not be found. Generally we recommend a program which will permit us to spot remediate and continue to monitor this roof in the future. If we determine that a discreet area of the roof needs immediate remediation because the corrosion appears to be progressing to a more advanced stage, we would undertake spot remediation, including the removal and return of the roof system over the deck in question to the original roof specification and the repair of the deck itself. In this case, we would feel that consideration should be made to replace the roof system since it is eight years and six months old. The phenolic insulation was manufactured in August of 1990 so we believe that the roof system was probably installed on October or November of 1990. If you have further information on the roof installation date please let me know. Johns Manville would expect to compensate the building owner for the loss of the remaining years of useful life that would have been obtained from the roof system under normal conditions. We generally accomplish this by agreeing to a depreciated value of the roof system measured in terms of then current dollars for the actual cost of replacing the roof system as opposed to the original cost of the roof system which is being replaced. Since the system is leaking at numerous locations, I believe that the roof membrane is nearing the end of its useful life. Based on our experience, this type of roof system would have a useful life in the range of ten (10) to twelve (12) years. If Johns Manville was to generously calculate its participation on a twelve (12) year useful life and contribute 3.5 years/ 12 years for the remaining useful roof life, we would contribute 29._16% toward the cost of the like kind roof replacement, The City of New Hope",Tops` Services would be responsible for 8.5/12 or 70.84% of the cost to replace the roof system in kind. This offer is made contingent on the use of Johns Manville insulation and membrane materials used in the new roof system. Of course, Johns Manville will remediate the deck at our cost after the roof system is removed. If you elect to upgrade the insulation or membrane system, the cost for the upgrade will be the responsibility of the building owner. Page 4 April 28, 1999 If you have any questions or comments relating to the above offer, please call me at 303- 978 -4982. I would be glad to speak with you about this offer in hopes that we can come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Yours truly, ° Alc David L. Wells Johns Manville Roofing Systems Group Copyholders: Craig Maginness - Johns Manville Keith McCloskey - Johns Manville John Taggart - RCVA File #: 37 -1ONG Johns Manville Corporation Roofing Systems Division 71717th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 KEY # 3196 FILE # 37 -10NG NEW HOPE FIRE STATION 43RD & XYLON AVENUE NEW HOPE, MN Inspection Dates: 10/1/98 Remediation Dates: Total Roof Area and Area Previously Remediated: Total Roof Area With UGP: 1 16.16 (sqs) Previous Remediation: 0.00 (sqs) Percent Remediated: 0.00 Report Prepared By: Roofing Consultants of Va., Inc. P.O. Box 29774 Richmond, Virginia 23242 L9 (9 1190 I ;_ !! 3. iJl (800) 637 -7109 BUILDING INFORMATION BLDG USE: GOVERNMENT BLDG HEIGHT: 15' / 18' / 23.5' FEET EXTERIOR WALL TYPE: BRICK (CONDITION): GOOD ROOF ACCESS: EXT LADDER /HATCH ROOF SIZE: QUANITY SHIPPED: QUANITY UGP FOUND FILE STATUS IS: 1:6.16 ROOF TRUSS TYPE: S TEEL WEBB OUTSIDE TE'•IPERATURE HEIGHT: 44" / 14" INCHES INSIDE =.PERATURE: SPAN: 74'/15'/64' SPACING: N/D RELATIVE HUMIDITY: OY 232.32 OPEN 4 0 68. 32.% ;SQUARES; (SQUARES; ;SQUARES; o^ O r ROOF SYSTEM INFORMATION MEMBRANE TYPE /SPEC: C ARLISLE EPDM MEMBRANE SURFACING: BALLAST VAPOR RETARDER: NO TYPE N/A LOCATION: N/A ROOF INSULATION TYPES LAYER NUMBER INSULATION TYPE THICKNESS ATTACHMENT I PHENOLIC I. LUUJL LAJU 2 PHENOLIC 1.5 LOOSE LAID ROOF DECK TYPES DIVORCING QUANITY OF DIVORCING AGENT NO. OF UGP FOUND AGENT PROTECTION UGP ON UGP PER DECK DECK TYPE SIZE (sqs) SLOPE (IN/M INSTALLED LEVEL AREA LAYERS TYPE PAINTED 116.16 1/4 NO N/A YES 2 232.32 Total Roof Size 116.16 Total Qty. UGP Foundl 232.32 - PHENOLIC INSULATION INVESTIGATION REPORT — KEY # : FILE GUARANTEE # : DATE I NS PECTE ' 3196 N /A. : 10 / 1 PROJECT INFORMATION ROOF COMPLETION DATE FIRST DATE INSPECTED LAST DATE INSPECTED LAST DATE REMEDIATED UNKNOW 10/1/98 10/1/98 N/A BUILDING: OWNER: CONTRACTOR: 43RD .LO ;'EW HO MN. KEVIN `'rGINT' (612) ,37 -232_ (612) 53, -2323 612 9' 2 2 « BUILDING INFORMATION BLDG USE: GOVERNMENT BLDG HEIGHT: 15' / 18' / 23.5' FEET EXTERIOR WALL TYPE: BRICK (CONDITION): GOOD ROOF ACCESS: EXT LADDER /HATCH ROOF SIZE: QUANITY SHIPPED: QUANITY UGP FOUND FILE STATUS IS: 1:6.16 ROOF TRUSS TYPE: S TEEL WEBB OUTSIDE TE'•IPERATURE HEIGHT: 44" / 14" INCHES INSIDE =.PERATURE: SPAN: 74'/15'/64' SPACING: N/D RELATIVE HUMIDITY: OY 232.32 OPEN 4 0 68. 32.% ;SQUARES; (SQUARES; ;SQUARES; o^ O r ROOF SYSTEM INFORMATION MEMBRANE TYPE /SPEC: C ARLISLE EPDM MEMBRANE SURFACING: BALLAST VAPOR RETARDER: NO TYPE N/A LOCATION: N/A ROOF INSULATION TYPES LAYER NUMBER INSULATION TYPE THICKNESS ATTACHMENT I PHENOLIC I. LUUJL LAJU 2 PHENOLIC 1.5 LOOSE LAID ROOF DECK TYPES DIVORCING QUANITY OF DIVORCING AGENT NO. OF UGP FOUND AGENT PROTECTION UGP ON UGP PER DECK DECK TYPE SIZE (sqs) SLOPE (IN/M INSTALLED LEVEL AREA LAYERS TYPE PAINTED 116.16 1/4 NO N/A YES 2 232.32 Total Roof Size 116.16 Total Qty. UGP Foundl 232.32 NEW HOPE FIRE STATION NEW HOPE, NIN FILE #:37 -LONG KEY #:3196 DATE OF INSPECTION: 10/1/98 TEST CUT NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 DEGREE OF CORROSION (1 -10) _ I SPUD BAR METHOD USED @ LEVEL 7 (YIN) No , 'es Yes N0 NO i HOW SUSPECT AREA DETERMINED A AS AS AS CUT TAKEN AT LEAK AREA (YIN) Yes No No No No NO TEST CUT SIZE 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 18_8 x 18 MEMBRANE PULLOUT 500 0 900 440 510 490 DECK PULLOUT 460 220 340 400 440 400 INSULATION LENGTH N/D N/D N/C N/D N/D N/D INSULATION WIDTH N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N. / D INSULATION SAMPLE SIZE (" x ") 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 INSULATION JOINT GAP @ DECK NONE FOUND NONE FOUND NONE FOUND TIGHT NONE FOUND NONE FOUND INSUL. DATE CODE 1081390 NCT FOUND NOT FOUND NOT FOUND NOT FOUND NOT FOUND COUPONS RETRIEVED (C) CONTROL (R) RUST R R R R R R. FASTENER RETRIEVED YIN No No No No No No DECK TYPE PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED NDE (NUCLEAR) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NDE (INFRA -RED N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A REMEDIATION DATE WEIGHT /MOISTURE WT. ILAYER WT. (LAYER . WT. 'LAYER ' WT. (LAYER WT. -LAYER WT. MOISTURE1 MOISTURE; MOISTURE, MOISTUREI MOISTURE MOISTURE __]LAYER 1i 2 41.9 1 459.4 1; 47.4 1 43.1 1 42.5 1 9 3.2 25. 21.24 1229.28 i 37. 1 -5 24.71 22.97 43.3 2 726.8 2 '. 49.2 2 43.7 2 II 41.2 2 41.5 I.. 25.29 2003.01 42.36 26.45 19.21 20.08 COUPONJ 1 pCOUPOW 1 COUPON. 1 :COUPON( 1 ((COUPON! 1 ;COUPON' 1 WEIGHT WEIGHT LOM ' I WEIGHT LOM WEIGHT LOM WEIGHT LOM 11 WEIGHT LOM 1.65% 35.59% 16.850 8.29% 6.81% 8.740 THICKNESS LOM THICKNESS LOM 11 THICKNESS LOM 11 THICKNESS OM , ,j THICKNESS LOM 1 1 THICKNESS LOM 5.11% 68.29% 64.50% 34.86 29.93% 27.18% Page 1 of 3 NEW HOPE FIRE STATION NEW HOPE, MN FILE #:37 -IONG KEY #:3196 DATE OF INSPECTION: 10/1/98 TEST CUT NUMBER 7 $ 9 10 1 1 1 DEGREE OF CORROSION (1 -10) 5 5 SPUD BAR METHOD USED @ LEVEL 7 (Y /N) No No No Nc Nc Nc HOW SUSPECT AREA DETERMINED AS AS AS C AS CUT TAKEN AT LEAK AREA (YIN) No No No No No INC TEST CUT SIZE 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 1 18 x 18 MEMBRANE PULLOUT 490 480 480 370 430 570 DECK PULLOUT 520 460 340 310 370 450 INSULATION LENGTH N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D INSULATION WIDTH N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D INSULATION SAMPLE SIZE (11 x ^) 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 INSULATION JOINT GAP @ DECK TIGHT NONE FOUND TIGHT TIGHT TIGHT NONE FOUND INSUL. DATE CODE NOT FOUND 1081390 NOT FOUND 1081390 NOT FOUND NOT FOUND COUPONS RETRIEVED (C) CONTROL (R) RUST R R R R R R FASTENER RETRIEVED YIN No No No No No No DECK TYPE PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED NDE (NUCLEAR) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NDE (INFRA -RED N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A REMEDIATION DATE WEIGHT/MOISTURE LAYER ; WT. !LAYER WT. LAYER j WT. iLAYER I WT. !LAYER I WT. LAYER : WT. MOISTUREI MOISTURE; MOISTURE! MOISTURE! MOISTURE MOISTURE 1 42.6 1 43.6 1 1 43.4 1 ; 50.3 1 I ! 45.1 23.26 26.16 25.58 1 45.54 30.5 2 39.7 2 37.3 2 43.5 COUPON 1 2' 38 j COUPON! 1 WEIGHT LOM 14.87 7.93 25.87 WEIGHT LOM COUPONI, 1 !ICOUPON! 1 COUPON! 1 20.84% =UPON' 1 5.18 WEIGHT LOM ; WEIGHT LOM WEIGHT LOM 'I LOM jl WEIGHT LOM T HICKNESS LOM 4.32% 3.92% 9.64 51.68% 11.27% 22.18% j THICKNESS LOM ii THICKNESS LOM THICKNESS LOM I THICKNESS LOM 19.89°% 9.25% 29.11% 26.71% Page 2 of 3 NEW HOPE FIRE STATION NEW HOPE, NIN FILE #:37 -LONG KEY #:3196 DATE OF INSPECTION: 10/1/98 TEST CUT NUMBER 13 14 15 16 DEGREE OF CORROSION (1 -10) SPUD BAR METHOD USED @ LEVEL 7 (YIN) i+C id0 Nc HOW SUSPECT AREA DETERMINED N/D CUT TAKEN AT LEAK AREA (YIN) No Yes Yes No TEST CUT SIZE 18 x 18 18 x 18 18 x 18 6 x 6 MEMBRANE PULLOUT 530 300 530 N/D DECK PULLOUT 480 310 440 N/D INSULATION LENGTH N/D N/D N/D N/D INSULATION WIDTH N/D N/D N/D N/D INSULATION SAMPLE SIZE(" x °) 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 6 x 6 INSULATION JOINT GAP @ DECK TIGHT NONE FOUND 1062590 NONE FOUND INSUL. DATE CODE NOT FOUND NOT FOUND NOT FOUND NOT FOUND COUPONS RETRIEVED (C) CONTROL (R) RUST R R R N FASTENER RETRIEVED YIN No No No No DECK TYPE PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED PAINTED NDE (NUCLEAR) N/A N/A N/A N/A NDE (INFRA -RED N/A N/A N/A N/A REMEDIATION DATE WEIGHT /MOISTURE LAYER ' WT. LAYER • WT. !LAYER WT. !LAYER WT. MOISTURE! MOISTUREI MOISTURE: MOISTURE; 1 j 42 — 54.2 1 G 99.1 21.53 56.83 27.6 ; ICOUPONi' 1 2i 52.4 COUPON! 1 WEIGHT LOM S 1.62 WEIGHT LOM 1 0.34% COUPON! 1 7.60% THICKNESS LOM WEIGHT LOM I THICKNESS LOM 3.39% ; 35.14% 26.82°% THICKNESS LOM 92.71% SPECIAL CONDITIONS /INSPECTION NOTES(IF ANY): ** NO MOISTURE WEIGHTS TAKEN AT TEST CUT #12 DUE TO CRUSHED INSULATION ** LAYER #2 AT TEST CUTS #10, #13 & #15 MOISTURE WEIGHTS WERE NO TAKEN DUE TO CRUSHED INSULATION ** WET INSULATION FOUND AT TEST CUT #2 Page 3 of 3 How Suspect Ardis Determined Index I.EkK AItEA OR IZFP0ItTF.D LEAK Alt EA. It. (AWSHE'D INSULATION. (' ItUS'1 OR Sl AINS OBSERVED UNDER DECK. D IIOI.E IN NIENIBRANE. I.. ♦F,A I 10 1) R 1IN LINE:. C til 4G1\G AItI,- OR POSS III I.E: SIAGI: \'G AItE::1. II 'WLA BELO \1' S1I:A:N1 ROO,NI,SIIO\VEIzs,s\\ I \1 \11 \'G I'OOI.,IIIGII IIuMID1I1. 1',I( I I'A1('II I'S OR I REPAIIts, .I RANDOM NO SUSPE0 AVAILABLE:. K. NEXT TO PREVIOUS LEAK AREA. I.. PREVIOUS LEAK AREA. Ni. NEXT TO SUSPECT CORNER DETAILING. N. NDE INSTRUMENTATION. 0. DAMAGED MEMBRANE. P. DETAILING PROBLEM. Q. EXPANSION JOINT COVER REPAIR. W CONSTRUCTION FOOT TRAFFIC. S. NEAR TIE IN. T. NEXT TO METAL ROOF SYSTEM. U. NEXT TO WALL FLASHING. V. NEXT TO PENETRATION OR ADDED PENETRATION. W. BUCKLE IN FELT. X. REPAIR AREA. V. BUCKLE IN MEMBRANE, BLISTER IN MEMBRANE. Z. NEAR ROOF ELEVATION CHANGE. AA. INSIDE TO OUTSIDE TEMP CHANGE. AB. AREA BALLAST PUSHED BACK. AC. TAKEN FROM PREVIOUS TEST CUT. AD. VERIFICATION CUT. AE. NEXT TO DEBRIS ON ROOF SYSTEM. AF. WEND EROSION AREA. AG. SHINGLE ROOF TIE -IN. Ali. NEXT TO MECHANICAL SCREEN. AL OPEN SEAM. AJ. HVAC LEAK. AK. STAINED CEILING TILE. AL. TAKEN NEAR PREVIOUS REMEDIATION AREA. AM. TAKEN INSIDE PREVIOUS REMEDIATION AREA_ AN, WATER TRAPED BEHIND FLASHING. AO. TAKEN NEXT TO ORIGINAL COUPON LOCATION. AP. METAL ROOF PANEL SLID & EXPOSED INSULATION. AQ. DEBRIS UNDER MEMBRANE. AR. PAINT PEELING ON UNDERSIDE OF DECK. AS. SATELLFTE CUT. AT. RANDOM TEST CUT TAKEN DURING REMEDIATION TO MAKE UP FOR CUT REMEDIATED. AU. HOLE IN BASE FLASHING. ZZ. ORIGINAL ADL RANDOM TEST CUT MADE DURING FIRST INSPECTION. AV. NEAR EXPANSION JOINT. AW. NEAR ROOF SYSTEM COMPOSITION DIFFERENCE. AX. TAKEN AT LOCATION DETERMINED BY BUILDING OWNER. AY. CONTRACTOR STOPPED WORK AND DID NOT PROPERLY SEAL EDGE. YY. RANDOM TEST CUT TAKEN AFTER JULY 1997 USING RANDOM SAMPLE LOCATION SHEETS. 27- play -98 Page l of / §] G }� }{ .. £/ } §�§ } \ �\ / • §_ T }S `/J / O / § 7ƒ o ~� » \ \ \ > \} - \ #� ° aI e r § \>=f� zz # f =; ) z >.- ) » o s -° cm z �_ M. > M 0 a@& ) § _ /.�..,..� f § � It ® ° ) ° # / cr §§ \�k / fE! \ ■�k \�kk w \ �. @ 0 � 0 . � / / q !! } o)}, 7 k \ | \ \}j A T } c « \ \§ § _ § �� f� j /j\§\\\ ROOF ACCESS Outside Ladder Stairway Extension Ladder Inside Ladder Roof Hatch EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR WALLS Type (0 :Condition i Y/N I Observations Itwlo Brick ExpansiwVContraction Brick/Concrete i Settlement Cracks 4 fX 94 t 5 _/0 Poured Concrete Deterioration Precast Concrete Moisture Stains Concrete Block Water Stains Steel Curtain Well Physical Damage /Y Other 1 Other ROOF PURLINS Type (0 ) Condition KEY NO: 3196 . p Wd Observations JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION FILE NO: 7 Sp A ' ROOFING SYSTEMS DIVISION Al 7- WARANTEENUU11EX WAPPLICAVILE Y17 Concrete Block Deflection SUILOiNG K&MIE NSPiCTIOh DATV71ME NEW HOPE FIRE STATION Other Other Spacing/Spen 4 STREET C ITY STATE zip INSPECTOR MAJ.* 1 43RD & XYLON AVENUE NEW HOPE MN DOBOSZENSKI CONTACT 4"t TITLE P4CNE -- DEAN ' C.ONOIT10449 Y EAP Nx) I L D I+C7iU. L T CITY OF NEW HOPE/METRO WEST FIRE bTKUT CITY FATE LIP HAS BU LDING BEEN REPOOFEO 4401 XYLON AVENUE NEW H MN SU28 tic) 0%VNER CONTACT TTTLE _ P _H ONE - - _P1 30 WHEN KEVIN MCGINTY (612) 537-2323 PLAOINO USE AW6 UNUSUAL CONOITION.11 D66CRIK IN DETAIL ON BACK OF THIS ►AGE GOVERNMENT NE W CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTIOpv DATES COMPLETE TEAROFF RECOVER ROOF $LZF INSIOE TEMP .Ik;TSICE TEMP E HUMIHUMIDITY �'L W'341�T I NUMBER NUMBER OF T� �RIES 32 3 �2, 7 a 3, -!5 ARE - LA * NS AMC 3PECIF CATCUS AVAjLoL9L6') NAME OF ORIGINAL ROOF NO OR REROQFiNO CaKTItACTOR CURRAN V. NIELSEN COMPANY AACMITECTICONTACT !AOORIESS CI TY S . TA . TE zrp $600 OXFORD STREET ST. LOUIS PARK MN 56425 4 ROOF GUARMTEED 'ROOFER CONTACT PHONE yea No 808 DRE38ACK (61 2) 926-1222 TOTAL NLUKA OF LFAX3 RPORTID TOTAL NUMBER OF LEAKS REPAIREO DURING THIS INS"CTION CWM T) Is INSPECTION REPORT CONSEQUENTIAL 1PROPIRTY OAMAG6 ROOF ACCESS Outside Ladder Stairway Extension Ladder Inside Ladder Roof Hatch EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR WALLS Type (0 :Condition i Y/N I Observations Itwlo Brick ExpansiwVContraction Brick/Concrete i Settlement Cracks 4 fX 94 t 5 _/0 Poured Concrete Deterioration Precast Concrete Moisture Stains Concrete Block Water Stains Steel Curtain Well Physical Damage /Y Other 1 Other ROOF PURLINS Type (0 ) Condition !YIN . p Wd Observations Water Stains Steel Beam // Steel /, Delenoration 7 Sp A ' -L/— Wood Physical Damage Al 7- Concrete Moisture Steins Y17 Concrete Block Deflection IL Other Other Spacing/Spen ROOF DECK Pm5 T ( J ) Dir eons I Condtion cu Y/N Obsorvatrons Pr ,,_ ki r �:� C Wood Plank Secured to SupWs (How) y. Wood TdG Edges SlockeWC4ved au iV ��- f • Wood Fiber Ezpanon/Contraction N' Ptywood W Stains Poured Concnos Delerioration Pr*-cast C cmo + phya" DantMP \, Poured Gypsurn I N&A Fastener Swkoul A • Pound Lt. We" � D*tlsCtton r ' Skis Laps Fastened Y O� f' i N'I it J� trn.Aor wilted • MFOR N Lb odw sleet Deck Stop* ' per tool Doss rod drain Dyes 0 no Rib —2 FWW NAdth Rib Depth VAPOR RE TAADEA Noe* lb Type Condlion Y/N Ob* voftw PhDtC Cosled FAN wet Pty 0% F" _ Dawwrated Fly FA3 F*N secure to Sube1rab PVC ft" — taw - N - Kmn tt O ther — Hm AUSChed Loeatbn mq Syslsm ROOF 01BLILATION Nan. D TYPO (metal dw Order 1,U) Ca Minn YIN Observattaw Perse _ wet Fibs Qlm _ warpedcuppsd Y wbod Fbw _ AN@~ to Substrate X th.Mn.n. sArtrMr.p. Y um4pw a ompaek -- Jame smoo«.a Y Cn,.ned y ISO omwomme Traub Donspa w Fherwk Opw A Type _ G"Nwffl — Otter Tapered (f)pq tMtn60 dLayers THktvne*s (1) �. • }OW Alt &wd o OS -C a By (2) MMtOA -M A N ✓► // L taper (3 WWO rod outs made? O No Now /AmM Obsorvadorm on back of tNe pp* PtfoMb AnaChed l SINGLE PLY ROOFING I Condition Y Page Membrane Type Condition N YM Observations p, EPDM Shrinking Wet N /V _ F, Neoprene Splitting How Attached (J) C Condition Y Y/N PVC Crazing Solid Adhered O Other Nypalon Nistenng y Anchor Bar _ CPE _ Wnnkted I �/ _ Modified Bit. Other Other MFGR Seams ( J) I I Condition Y Y/N Cemented V V Loose N N Welded _ _. Curled Torched W Wet N N Other ' 'T' Splices How Attached (J) C Condition Y Y/N Loose Laid L Loose Solid Adhered O Other Spot Adhered Anchor Bar _ _ Anchor Plates _ _ CMher Anchor ad (J) Condition Y/N Nails Rusted Type Loose Length Other Screws Type Length surtacirl (J) Corxmion Y/N None Wind Erosion IV Ballast 3 , _✓ Deteriora Size 7 '0 l Other Paver Baltast _ Coating — Type SINGLE PLY FLASMNG NONE ❑ Baas Rashing T r t�noic C crhdtiorh Y/N Observations t 5%DM CnbckW -- N Neoprene _ SPM iv' Coated Metal Loose at Wax N Bit Loose at Top /V Uncured Looss Laps /✓ Other WON; / V Other MFGR How Attached (J) C xMion Y/N Loose - Nails Backed Ovt /✓ /,0 Nailed (O.C.) Other Cemented Other ....'..T�n r, Acmime% NONE A Ps, Type Caxiit,on YIN Observations ry Pf Cotter Eluded N Draw Cross Sect)on Gaty SIGN Detanorated Stainless St" Los" V4 i Load � Cut N 3 AK#rdM m Bent /V Other mosirp Gauge or Thkkneos Attached (it known) Fastened Lsngth Laps Open Othtr Other ,o" And Andes ConcNorl Y/N Observations °^0 Lapped — R4n1ed Draw Cross Section Lot*ed __ DeWoraled Soldered Thru was One Place Loo" Cauatfig Gone Thru weA Reoelvw Caukfrq Deteriorated Cast In Phm _ OIPW Room — V�edped — Fan NWI* _. Fan Screws _ 5 — C u kfrp Type — Other YIFa/e Abovt Flas" Y/N Obrvatfons " R SAck Concreb Block P'our'ed Conc+rele Condron Lou" Mortar Drawn Cross Socbon y � -- Poo" Coravb Pr+e1r Loo" Mortar N Parlsi tM tb Mwvarnerll Cracks N Over cWW V\T7nV Coping Type (4) .�r��s w C ndlGon Y/N Obeerveriona Cast Corlom" LAaidt'tp N Draw Cross Secdon _ T� � V4 Meal Loo" Littld - N 3 Type 0 le IN /V Membrane e cWW U h,. ofm r • J► l �' Akff*wm StaMr�o 8ts+el — Copw Lerlm O&W Loo" Deteriorated L"klnp Face Foomr+td Capped O&W ROOF PENETRATIONS EollDment Base Flashing & Equipment Housing Flashing None D Pe Aool Vent Flashing None O Condition Y/N Observations Fr Lead __ Damaged Draw Cross Sect,cn Y/N Observations Gate, Sleet Other /V Stain. Steel i N Copper C a PL's Ring Tight Y Other Deteriorated N Pitch Pans None Condition WN Observations P c Re Type Metal Pans Rusted Damaged Draw Cross Section Scuppers Yes (X No0 Type Fitter Fitter Shrunk Size water cutoff used y Capped Other Type 6 v e fi.- Other size G , , X / ° • ' Does Roof Pond Water Y Spisaft Block Yes No If so, describe 4YPe Fes. Joint Covers None O Condition Y/N Observations 7ce Type Metal Rusted 1/ Draw Cross Section tsSek� to yvaAi on rod to Babows Type Bent y Bellows Width Joints Open II $o, what kind? — Pa t. y -- Prefab Type Splits /V Width (Outside) loose /Y other L4 Joint covers y MFGR Other DRAINAGE NONE O T Condition Y/N Observations 1rdmiorDmm Yes No leaking /V Type -- C4 s Y Cracked N Size Ring Tight Y Drain Covers Deteriorated N Gutters Yes O No 0 Drain Covers Type Missing N Size Damaged / Scuppers Yes (X No0 Broken Botts N Size water cutoff used y Downspouts Yes O No O Other Type 6 v e fi.- size G , , X / ° • ' Does Roof Pond Water Y Spisaft Block Yes No If so, describe 4YPe ROOF TOP EGWPMENT OPERATION NONE O Y/N Observations Ar. C"*W wt'ts Diadwged onto roof? N tsSek� to yvaAi on rod to y Are Wabkways provided? y II $o, what kind? — Pa t. e r S Does Egkripmertt drain property? y Is epuipR � property? General Comments: Use Back of Page SUMMMAY OF OBSERVATIONS PA( o — 7 L4 - t <2 icy -e- s f 44 "7 s- O L 7� e W, e CL ' A 7 // / "n / S a- ea ,- )1"5 /"- ;7or 7 7 An c d 6 -e L' If C, r - DOUG SAW)STA Building Oi'ficil Y 4401 xyton Ave N New 00Pe• MN 55428 44 612-531- 612-531-5136 FAX -,-- INSPECTION SCHEDULING email: dSandsta'J@ci •new-hop e .,n.us Key #; 3 196 File #: 37 - LONG - — Facility: NEW HO FIR STA TION City: N REPORTING ROOF SYSTE&I D F IFNriFS 1) Deficiencies NOT REPAIRED by RCVA. y1 U/ 7 2) Deficiencies REPAIRED by RCVA. S 1 T� OjL hr�r. b�rcc� Shari French - RE: Fire Station Roof Repairs /Project 659 P age 1 From: "Sondrall, Steven" <sas @jsspa.com> To: Kirk Mcdonald <Kmcdonald @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, <mhanson @bonestroo.com >, Dan Donahue <Ddonahue @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Doug Sandstad <Dsandstad @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Kevin McGinty <KMcGinty @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Larry Watts <Lwatts @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Shari French <Sfrench @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, "Sondrall, Steven" <sas @jsspa.com> Date: 4/13/99 1:26PM Subject: RE: Fire Station Roof Repairs /Project 659 After our meeting, I discussed this matter with Alden Pearson and Dean Trongard of my office. Alden ran a 10 -K search on John Manville Corp. filed with the SEC. A class action suit has been filed in Boston regarding the foam issue. The company's 10 -K indicates they intend to vigorously defend the suit. We are in the process of getting the information on this suit. We may not want to join the class, but may want to bring our own independent action. I will keep all parties posted on this development. Steve - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Kirk Mcdonald [mai Ito: Kmcdonald @ ci.new- hope.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 11:46 AM To: mhanson @bonestroo.com; Dan Donahue; Doug Sandstad; Kevin McGinty; Larry Watts; Shari French; sas @jsspa.com Cc: Marge Runnakko; Pam Fiedler; Pam Sylvester; Valerie Leone Subject: Fire Station Roof Repairs /Project 659 This e -mail is from Kirk and Shari and is intended to serve as a summary/minutes of the meeting held on April 13 regarding roof repairs to the Fire Station. The persons that this e-mail is addressed to were in attendance at the meeting. Doug Sandstad gave a brief overview of the discovery of the problem and what actions had been taken to date. Photographs of the damaged roof were distributed for review. Kevin McGinty gave a tour of the station and pointed out areas where the roof was damaged. We further discussed the contractors involved and Doug agreed to prepare a memo with the chronological order of events. Steve Sondrall indicated that the appropriate companies should be put on notice as soon as possible. Larry Watts indicated that he was unsure if the original Fire Station project had ever officially been closed out and said that the City was retaining $4,000 on the project. Dan indicated that he wanted Bonestroo to be involved in the corrective action and directed Mark Hanson to have Jerry Pertzsch work with Doug on a proposal. The steps of action to be taken in the near future were discussed and agreed upon as follows: 1. Doug to prepare memo re: chronology of events with dates and contractors Shari French - RE: Fire Station Roof Repairs /Project 659 Page 2 for City Attorney. Doug will also get Steve duplicate copies of the photos of the damage. 2. Bonestroo to conduct an independent review of the situation and prepare a proposal to correct the problem in conjunction with the Building Official. 3. Kirk and Shari were directed to manage the project. They will get the City Clerk to retrieve the old improvement project files and get the appropriate contract documents and other pertinent information to the City Attorney. They will also assign a new improvement project number to this project and complete the appropriate form for signature by the City Manager. (The new improvement project number is 659). Dan indicated that the roof repairs should be funded initially by the Insurance Fund. 4. After Steve has received the memo from Doug and the contract documents from the original construction, he will put the appropriate companies on notice about the problem. 5. Larry will check with the insurance company to see if there is any coverage there for this type of problem. The next meeting date /time for the group will be April 27 at 8:00 a.m. at the Fire Station. CC: Marge Runnakko <MRunnakko @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Pam Fiedler <Pfiedler @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Pam Sylvester <Psylvester @ci.new- hope.mn.us >, Valerie Leone <Vleone @ci. new -hope. mn. us> Kirk Mcd onald -Fire Station Roof Repairs /Project 659 Page 1 From: To: French; Date: Subject: Kirk Mcdonald Dan Donahue; Doug Sandstad; Kevin McGinty; Larry Watts; Mark Hanson; Shari Steve Sondrall 4/13/99 11:45AM Fire Station Roof Repairs /Project 659 This e -mail is from Kirk and Shari and is intended to serve as a summary/minutes of the meeting held on April 13 regarding roof repairs to the Fire Station. The persons that this e-mail is addressed to were in attendance at the meeting. Doug Sandstad gave a brief overview of the discovery of the problem and what actions had been taken to date. Photographs of the damaged roof were distributed for review. Kevin McGinty gave a tour of the station and pointed out areas where the roof was damaged. We further discussed the contractors involved and Doug agreed to prepare a memo with the chronological order of events. Steve Sondrall indicated that the appropriate companies should be put on notice as soon as possible. Larry Watts indicated that he was unsure if the original Fire Station project had ever officially been closed out and said that the City was retaining $4,000 on the project. Dan indicated that he wanted Bonestroo to be involved in the corrective action and directed Mark Hanson to have Jerry Pertzsch work with Doug on a proposal. The steps of action to be taken in the near future were discussed and agreed upon as follows: 1. Doug to prepare memo re: chronology of events with dates and contractors for City Attorney. Doug will also get Steve duplicate copies of the photos of the damage. 2. Bonestroo to conduct an independent review of the situation and prepare a proposal to correct the problem in conjunction with the Building Official. 3. Kirk and Shari were directed to manage the project. They will get the City Clerk to retrieve the old improvement project files and get the appropriate contract documents and other pertinent information to the City Attorney. They will also assign a new improvement project number to this project and complete the appropriate form for signature by the City Manager. (The new improvement project number is 659). Dan indicated that the roof repairs should be funded initially by the Insurance Fund. 4. After Steve has received the memo from Doug and the contract documents from the original construction, he will put the appropriate companies on notice about the problem. 5. Larry will check with the insurance company to see if there is any coverage there for this type of problem. The next meeting date /time for the group will be April 27 at 8:00 a.m. at the Fire Station. CC: Marge Runnakko; Pam Fiedler; Pam Sylvester; Valerie Leone From: Kirk Mcdonald To: Dan Donahue; Kevin McGinty Date: 4/1/99 7:59AM - Subject: Fire Station Roof Repairs For your information, you should be receiving a copy of a memo that Doug wrote to me regarding the roof corrosion on the Fire Station in response to an inquiry from Kevin. I have forwarded this information to the City Attorney for review and recommendation and also spoke with him briefly about it on the phone. I will let you know what his feedback is. 1 assume he will want to get the appropriate staff together to get all the facts straight before proceeding to the architect and /or contractor. CC: Doug Sandstad; Larry Watts; Steve Sondrall From: Doug Sandstad To: Kirk McDonald Subject: Fire Station Roof Corrosion Kevin McGinty has asked if we can push the responsible parties on his corroding fire station roof repairs. As you may recall from the attachments, the roof insulation [phenolic foam] manufacturer and /or installer was going to submit a repair proposal to us, after "Roofing Consultants of Virginia" made test cuts and inspected it last Spring. I informed you via the 5 -4 -98 Memo that I would observe their work, which I did. I, also, took color photos and advised Mark Hanson and Jerry Pertzsch [BRA], by phone. Since we have'nt heard a word from them and the corrosion was serious, in a building we continue to occupy, we may want to have the City Attorney draft a letter of leverage. We should, perhaps, have a strategy meeting, first,with all players. Should we invite Bernie Herman, the architect who specified "phenolic foam" ? The best case scenario involves major repairs to the roof, to our satisfaction, on our schedule, at their expense. The worst case could involve lawyers, architects, engineers, contractors we hired, vacating the building during rebuild, and long delays etc. Please advise. Doug Sandstad CC: Dan Donahue; Kevin McGinty To: Kevin McGinty From: Doug Sandstad Date: May 4, 1998 Re: New Hope Fire Station oof Examination with test cuts & repairs There has been a problem of roof deck corrosion on some new buildings with a nasty combination of phenolic foam [insulation] and water problems. Our new fire station MAY have a problem. Please review the attached material. Doug Smith is very familiar with the new building and may have copies of the roof membrane and roof insulation warranties, noted in their letter. I would be glad to go through a pile of product specifications and shop drawings, if you locate them and want some help. The contractor will need approximately % day with building access to make test cuts and repairs while ex aminin g the steel deck for signs of corrosion. We will want to outline the rules of access and liability, carefully. We may want to ask our City Engineer to view the exposed deck, along with us. I would be glad to lead the crew up, observe some of their cuts and take record photos, if you request. Please advise. cc; Kirk McDonald Dan Donahue file z 1 � SUBCONTRACTOR AND MATERIAL SUPPLIER LIST L NEW HOPE FIRE STATION JOB NO. 604 13 August 1990 1 Page 2 Section Subcontractor /Supplier Contact/Telephone Casework Ron's Cabinets Jerry Weiner 1010 Summit Avenue North 1 -252 -3165 P.O. Box 250 1- 252 -0673 (Fax) Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 MIIN 4 Roofing,Flashing Formed Roofing & Walls, Roof Hatches Sealants H.M. Doors,Frames, Wood Doors y• Alum.Entrances, Alum.Windows, Glazing Finish Hardware Ceramic,Quarry Tile Division 7 Corporation 12221 Wood Lake Drive Burnsville, MN 55337 Curran V. Nielsen 6600 Oxford Street Minneapolis, MN 55426 Droels Caulking P.O. Box 25094 Woodbury, MN 55125 Glewwe Doors, Inc. 935 Apollo Road Eagan, MN 55121 Twin City Garage Door Co. 4609 85th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55443 Minneapolis Glass Co. 14600 28th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55441 Glewwe Doors, Inc. 935 Apollo Road Eagan, MN 55121 Brent Anderson 894 -8552 894 -6410 (Fax) Rex Greenwald 925 -3222 925 -9732 (Fax) 731 -8661 731 -3650 (Fax) Terry Hersch 456 -9194 456 -9956 (Fax) Joe Butler 424 -8282 424 -8224 ;Fax) Ery Lichten 559 -0635 559 -4202 (Fax) Terry Herrsch 456 -9194 456 -9956 (Fax) Not available at this time Larry's Tile 381 S. Osceola St. Paul, MN 55102 Tarry Leach 227 -3545 No facsimile Acoustical Action Acoustics Dave Meyer Treatment 2780 Rice Creek Terrace 636 -3392 New Brighton, MN 55112 636 -0252 (Fax) Fax: Tr a nsmittal. to: DOUG SANDSTRAD CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NEW H MN from John TaggarIM1111am Sanders ROOFING CONSULTANTS OF VIRGINIA, INC. P.O. BOX 29774 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23242 tel; (800) 837 - 7109 fax; (804) 515 -0880 date 4/23/98 1:13:05 PM ro: NEW HOPE FIRE STATION APPROX. 32 SQUARES Pao": - Y , INCLUDING COVER SHEET notes: G�auG C,9�C.KiiuC 7u ♦ F �/,✓y, �S/oL O s THE' M .wr�•� G >•�tG�s r..�.� �C"C.t.�lY o,�/ Ti!% s ProjectCoatict Informatlan Form 31 -A�.98 Johan Manville Project Key Number; 31% Client File Number: Is Roof System Guaranteed (Yes/No Guarantee st: Guaranteed By Whom: TO BE DETERMINED Building Contact: Building Telephone: Building Company: NEW HOPE FIRE STATION Fa: Number; Building Streets 43RD dt XYLON AVENUE Building City; NEW HOPE State: MN Zip; OWNER INFORMATION Owner Contact; DOUG SANDSTRAD Owner Telephonc: (fi12 )53I -5122 r 9 Owner Company Name CITY Oh NEW HOPE Fax Numbers (612) 531 - 5136 Owner Street: 4441 XYLON ,AVENUE Owner City: N HOPE State; M Zip: 55428 -GONMUCIOR INFORMATION Roofer Contractor Contacts BOB DRESBACK Phone: 612 925 -3222 _ Roofer Company Name: CURR V. NIELSEN COMPANY Fax Number: Roofer Address: 6600 OXFORD STREET Roofer City: ST. LOUIS PARK ale; MN Zip; 55426 Metal Deck; _ — YES _ Other Deck Types (Please List): Vapor Barrier- Phenolic Insulation Used: Built -Up Roof System: Single Ply Roof System: Vapor Barrier Installed On Deck; Phenolic Installed On Dock: NO — Gravel Surface On BUR; YES Were Additional "Yen Of Insulation Installed: Are There Current Leaks: Ballast On Single Ply: Roof Area (squares): 32 NO YES Are There Any Repaired Le*k ; Completion Date: Comments: 3,200 SQ.Fr. OF P1 TOLIC ROOF MSULATION TO PROJECT 1191... LOT Johns blanville September 19, 1997 To Whom It May Concern: Johns Manville Corporation Roofing Systems Group 717 17th Street (80202) P.O. Box 5108 DOrt Ver, CO 80217.5108 303 978 2000 303 978 3!?04 Fax This is to advise that Roofing Consultants of Virginia is a agent and/or representative authorized to complete a roof inspection program on bebaif of Johns Manville Corporation. They will perform roof test cuts and repair same using good roofing practices and procedures that have been established by the roofing industry. It is our understanding that the roof system to be inspected is not guaranteed or warranted by any roofing material manufacturer other than Johns Manville (formerly Schuller) Roofwg Systems Group. If this roof system is guaranteed or warranted by a company other than Johns Manville, please contact Mr. David Wells immediately at 1- 840 - 345 -%02. The cost for this inspection will not be borne by the building owner. Theme you for your cooperation with our roof inspection program. 1, David L. Wells Project Manager Johns Manville Corporation Roofing Systems Group S1(1H1U1LjL1E1R Roofing Sysums November 1994 PHENOLIC FOAM ROOF INSULATION METAL ROOF DECK CORROSION This bulletin addresses our knowledge of the potential for phenolic foam roof insulation to contribute to the corrosion of metal roof decks. Observations of phenolic foam roof insulation suggest that the corrosion phenomenon occurs on galvanized as well as painted steel decks. The ultimate severity of corrosion associated with phenolic insulation, and its potential effect on the performance of a steel deck, cannot be predicted In all field conditions. However, in extreme conditions, where insulation is wet or damaged, we believe there is a pctential that the corrosion reaction could progress to a point which could weaken or penetrate an area of a metal deck. It is clear from both laboratory research and field observations that the introduction of moisture into a roof system Is the most important variable In the ultimate severity of the corrosion phenomenon. Moisture intrusion into the system can occur in a number of ways, including leeks in the roof membrane system, condensation within the Insulation resulting from the lack of a vapor retarder and /or adequate Insulation R -value where high interior moisture levels occur, and moisture Introduced Into the system during application. As a result, appropriate measures should be taken to avoid moisture intrusion In the design, application, and maintenance of a roofing system that contains phenolic foam Insulation. Where evidence of wet or damaged phenolic insulation exists, or severe deck corrosion is observed from the interior, care should be exercised In operating equipment, moving heavy loads, and walking across the roof. Schuller is continuing to investigate and develop data on its phenolic roof insulation and the phenomenon of metal deck corrosion. In this regard, we have undertaken an extensive field inspection program and laboratory testing and analysis. You may be contacted directly In the near future to assist In the location of any and all roof systems, that include phenolic foam insulation in direct contact with a metal deck. If you know of a roof system that meets this criteria, please call the Schuller phenolic insulation 800 number below to advise us of specific project information. UltraOard Premier phenolic foam insulation was manufactured and sold by Schuller between January 19, 1989 and March 31, 1992. if you detect a leaking roof, severe deck corrosion, or wet or damaged phenolic foam Insulation, please call 1- 800 -345 -9602, Monday through Friday, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) to arrange for a Schuller roof inspection. OU -1093 4-04 AA'1MA In USA P.O. Box 5108 Deriver, Colorado 80217 -5108 1- 800 -345 -9602 0753 - gLP.STIC SfIHE"T ROOFING 1. ROOF INSULATION do RKF&.E a : Refer to Section 0180 for explanation of abbreviated specification format. PART 1 (L; 1.01 Scoff - Provide and install. 1.02 Alternate Bids - See 0110. 1.03 Unit Prices - Not required. 1.04 Shop Drawl s - Not required. 1.05 Samples - ture: Materials description and installation A. Manufacturer's Litera instructions for system. on project B. Shop Drawings: Details of the conditions enomm or reviewed, bearing statement that details have been prepared, and approved by the manufacturer's technical staff. C. Samples: 10 -lbs. aggregate ballast. its -itating D. Test Reports: Independent testing laboratories repo rigid compliance with Federal Specifications for each type polyisocyanurate insulation. Test reports shall be dated within six months of the product manufacture date- covering covering 1.06 Guarantee - Ten (10) year written manufacturer's Warranty materials and workmanship. ifications, Federal 1.07 Standards - Per contract condition, AS'M A SP Specifications. 1.08 Test' - Not required. 1.09 Include List - A. Roof insulation B. Roofing membrane C. Stone ballast D. Installation inspection E. Membrane flashing at perimeter, curbs and penetrations. F. Pre -cast concrete deck pavers system for balcony deck. 1.10 Do Not Include List - Roof blocking (except as noted on drawings), sheet metal flashing. , Diversatech 1.11 Standard of Quality - Firestone, Carlisle, Goodyear General. 1.12 Clean Up - Per contract condition PART 2 PRCUM: 2.01 Manufacturer - Roofi.ng materials shall be by Firestone Industrial products Company or approved equal- 2.02 Materials A. Insulation: Over steel deck, 3 phenolic Foam, oamplying with FS kH -I- 1972/2, Class 1 uniform thickness as shown on drawings• Put dawn a minimum of 2 layers or 1 layer frith shiplap Joints on all sides. Provide tapered insulation as specified above uniformly tapered as shown on drawings. If alternative insulations are proposed and accepted for use, it shall be this subcontractors responsibility to coordinate with other subcontractors all relative work affected by this change. .045 E.P.D.M. (Ethylene prePylene B. Menbrane. Firestone Rubberguard _ Diene Monomer) . 'T'r f}C2 (- (nj „ W �!-� M (� r ►1 j✓ TEAM MEETING AGENDA FIRE STATION ROOF REPAIRS (Improvement Project #659) Tuesday, June 11,1999 - 8:00 am 1. Review May 11 minutes 2. Discussion with AET re: results found during independent testing, discussion of Johns Manville report and letter. 3. Reports: • City Attorney - notification to parties, testing data found on moisture issues, resolve legal issues before repairs are made? • City Engineer - preparing of plans and specs, report from Carlisle Roofing • Fire Chief - relocation /staging issues 4. Next steps 5. Council action needs 6. Discuss additional assignments 7. Schedule next meeting Attachments: 5/11 minutes Distributed to: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Kevin McGinty, Fire Chief Daryl Sulander, Finance Director Doug Sandstad, Building Official Shari French, Parks and Recreation Director Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director Val Leone, City Clerk (Improvement Project #659) MINUTES OF FIRE STATION ROOF MEETING OF 5/11/99 Present: Kirk McDonald, Kevin McGinty, Doug Sandstad, Jerry Pertzsch, Steve Sondrall, Shari French. Doug shared photos showing winter construction of the fire station roof with snow on the ground. Steve reported that in his opinion statute of limitations began on Sept. 30, 1998. Substantial completion of the fire station was in early 1991 so the City has until Sept. 30, 2000 to make claims. Jerry reported that he had learned from a roofing company that 2 manufacturers were involved with phenolic foam products. One is addressing the problems and Johns Manville is basically fighting them. On May 10, 1999 the City Council approved the hiring of AET to do needed testing on behalf of the City and they approved BRAA preparing plans and specs for the roofing repair /fix. The testing includes one test cut at the golf course maintenance building. AET will begin on Wednesday, May 12, weather permitting. Plans and specs will come back to council for approval on June 14. Steve told the committee that the City needs to resolve the legal issues surrounding this project. What claims are to be made and who is to pay. This should be done before repairing the roof to insure that there is no waiving of claims for the repairs. Steve also stated that the City needs to respond to the letter received May 3, 1999 from Johns Manville. There are many questions regarding this letter. What does "remediate the deck" mean? Also the letter states that a Johns Manville product must be used if they are to participate in the cost to do the work. They say that the roof life is 10 -12 years. Jerry stated that a roof membrane should last 15 -20 years. 10 -12 years seems too short a time. All these issues need to be clarified. Steve added that if it is 20 years, then Johns Manville would be needing to pay 50 -55% of the repair. Also, a Johns Manville membrane product is fine to use if the engineers say it's OK and a good product. The group discussed the rating system used in the report. It seems to be arbitrary with no definitions as to what each number means. Doug felt it was revealing that there were twelve 5's. The highest was a seven at test cut #2 but Kevin reported that the people who did the test cut raked away rock from the worst area and left much of it away to lessen the weight on that section of the roof and advised fire staff not to walk up there in that area. What would a 10 look like if this area is only a 7? Steve suggested that AET test and also review Johns Manville's report. There was some discussion as to whether or not 3 test cuts are enough for AET to do. Kirk suggested that if more are required, just let Kirk and Shari know and they will discuss with Dan. Jerry suggested that two test cuts be done at areas already tested by Johns Manville and then a third cut be somewhere not previously tested. Once the tests are analyzed and AET has had time to analyze the letter and information from Johns Manville then a meeting will be organized to get all in a room to hear AET's results. Kirk questioned whether the offer to the City from Johns Manville is the same as had been made to consumers on the east coast who ended up in court. Steve speculated that the letter is probably not their final offer so the City needs to counter it once all our facts have been gathered. Steve will be the one to respond to their offer on behalf of the City. Jerry will call Carlisle Roof Company and ask about terminology in Johns Manville's report. He will also arrange for AET to come to the next meeting. Steve will prepare a list of questions for AET to address. Some discussion surrounded whether there is a point of moisture in this building that could cause the problem? Is there testing data available on moisture issues? Steve will look up on the internet. Is there a certain kind of business that should be conducted if phenolic foam is used in roofing insulation? Most places in MN are humid. Was there a warning in the spec sheet that should have been noticed by the architect and /or general contractor that if the new building is to be a fire station operation then the foam should not have used? The use of the building has not changed in any way since plans and specs were created. Doug reported that the insurance carrier for the City is "skeptical" that this problem would be covered but he was going to send out an adjuster. Jerry stated that AET will do some ultra sonic thickness testing on the decking itself. Jerry estimated that the cost for replacement of the membrane and insulation would be about $7 per square foot. There is 11,600 square feet of roofing at the fire station, not including the pitched roof. The bar joist issue came up. Johns Manville does not mention this potential problem in their letter. Steve will get out a notification to all parties from original project - architect, general contractor, roofing sub, etc. to put them on notice of this phenolic foam issue. Steve added that if an agreement can't be reached with Johns Manville as to repair of the problems, the City would go to the architect, general contractor, and their bonding company for restitution and let them go back against the manufacturer to fight as to fault. It was noted that Johns Manville does not indicate that there was any problem with workmanship regarding installation. Kevin noted that the fire department wants to continue to operate at least a couple of trucks and all office personnel at the fire station during repairs. Moving out would create a problem for phones and computers. Staging becomes very important. It was noted again that air conditioning may become an issue if people stay in the building. Just before the meeting ended, Mark from AET arrived. Doug and Jerry will decide with Mark where the test cut sites are to be. Assignments for the next meeting include: • Steve: get out letters to all appropriate project 447 parties to put them on notice; 7:� prepare list of questions for AET to respond to; => look up in the internet for testing data available on moisture issues, => respond to Johns Manville letter at the appropriate time. • Shari & Kirk: => prepare meeting minutes; => prepare 6/14 RFA for approval of plans and specs and call for bids. • Doug: =:> work with Jerry and AET. • Jerry: =:> direct AET; => call Carlisle Roofing to discuss terminology used in Johns Manville report and letter; => arrange for AET to attend June 1S meeting. Next meeting: June 1 at 8am at the fire station. AET is to be in attendance, also. 0 6�1 MINUTES OF FIRE STATION ROOF MEETING OF 5/11/99 Present: Kirk McDonald, Kevin McGinty, Doug Sandstad, Jerry Pertzsch, Steve Sondrall, Shari French. Doug shared photos showing winter construction of the fire station roof with snow on the ground. Steve reported that in his opinion statute of limitations began on Sept. 30, 1998. Substantial completion of the fire station was in early 1991 so the City has until Sept. 30, 2000 to make claims. Jerry reported that he had learned from a roofing company that 2 manufacturers were involved with phenolic foam products. One is addressing the problems and Johns Manville is basically fighting them. On May 10, 1999 the City Council approved the hiring of AET to do needed testing on behalf of the City and they approved BRAA preparing plans and specs for the roofing repair /fix. The testing includes one test cut at the golf course maintenance building. AET will begin on Wednesday, May 12, weather permitting. Plans and specs will come back to council for approval on June 14. Steve told the committee that the City needs to resolve the legal issues surrounding this project. What claims are to be made and who is to pay. This should be done before repairing the roof to insure that there is no waiving of claims for the repairs. Steve also stated that the City needs to respond to the letter received May 3, 1999 from Johns Manville. There are many questions regarding this letter. What does "remediate the deck" mean? Also the letter states that a Johns Manville product must be used if they are to participate in the cost to do the work. They say that the roof life is 10 -12 years. Jerry stated that a roof membrane should last 15 -20 years. 10 -12 years seems too short a time. All these issues need to be clarified. Steve added that if it is 20 years, then Johns Manville would be needing to pay 50 -55% of the repair. Also, a Johns Manville membrane product is fine to use if the engineers say it's OK and a good product. The group discussed the rating system used in the report. It seems to be arbitrary with no definitions as to what each number means. Doug felt it was revealing that there were twelve 5's. The highest was a seven at test cut #2 but Kevin reported that the people who did the test cut raked away rock from the worst area and left much of it away to lessen the weight on that section of the roof and advised fire staff not to walk up there in that area. What would a 10 look like if this area is only a 7? Steve suggested that AET test and also review Johns Manville's report. There was some discussion as to whether or not 3 test cuts are enough for AET to do. Kirk suggested that if more are required, just let Kirk and Shari know and they will discuss with Dan. Jerry suggested that two test cuts be done at areas already tested by Johns Manville and then a third cut be somewhere not previously tested. Once the tests are analyzed and AET has had time to analyze the letter and information from Johns Manville then a meeting will be organized to get all in a room to hear AET's results. Kirk questioned whether the offer to the City from Johns Manville is the same as had been made to consumers on the east coast who ended up in court. Steve speculated that the letter is probably not their final offer so the City needs to counter it once all our facts have been gathered. Steve will be the one to respond to their offer on behalf of the City. Jerry will call Carlisle Roof Company and ask about terminology in Johns Manville's report. He will also arrange for AET to come to the next meeting. Steve will prepare a list of questions for AET to address. Some discussion surrounded whether there is a point of moisture in this building that could cause the problem? Is there testing data available on moisture issues? Steve will look up on the internet. Is there a certain kind of business that should be conducted if phenolic foam is used in roofing insulation? Most places in MN are humid. Was there a warning in the spec sheet that should have been noticed by the architect and /or general contractor that if the new building is to be a fire station operation then the foam should not have used? The use of the building has not changed in any way since plans and specs were created. Doug reported that the insurance carrier for the City is "skeptical" that this problem would be covered but he was going to send out an adjuster. Jerry stated that AET will do some ultra sonic thickness testing on the decking itself. Jerry estimated that the cost for replacement of the membrane and insulation would be about $7 per square foot. There is 11,600 square feet of roofing at the fire station, not including the pitched roof. The bar joist issue came up. Johns Manville does not mention this potential problem in their letter. Steve will get out a notification to all parties from original project - architect, general contractor, roofing sub, etc. to put them on notice of this phenolic foam issue. Steve added that if an agreement can't be reached with Johns Manville as to repair of the problems, the City would go to the architect, general contractor, and their bonding company for restitution and let them go back against the manufacturer to fight as to fault. It was noted that Johns Manville does not indicate that there was any problem with workmanship regarding installation. Kevin noted that the fire department wants to continue to operate at least a couple of trucks and all office personnel at the fire station during repairs. Moving out would create a problem for phones and computers. Staging becomes very important. It was noted again that air conditioning may become an issue if people stay in the building. Just before the meeting ended, Mark from AET arrived. Doug and Jerry will decide with Mark where the test cut sites are to be. Assignments for the next meeting include: • Steve: get out letters to all appropriate project 447 parties to put them on notice; => prepare list of questions for AET to respond to; => look up in the internet for testing data available on moisture issues; => respond to Johns Manville letter at the appropriate time. Shari & Kirk: => prepare meeting minutes; => prepare 6/14 RFA for approval of plans and specs and call for bids. • Doug: => work with Jerry and AET. • Jerry: =:> direct AET; => call Carlisle Roofing to discuss terminology used in Johns Manville report and letter; arrange for AET to attend June 1St meeting. Next meeting: June 1s at 8am at the fire station. AET is to be in attendance, also. Valerie Leone - MINUTES OF JUNE 1 MEET ING.doc Page 1 l MINUTES OF FIRE STATION ROOF MEETING OF 6/1/99 Revised 6/4199. Present: Kirk McDonald, Kevin McGinty, Doug Sandstad, Jerry Pertzsch, Steve Sondrall, Shari French. Also present: Wing Kong from American Engineering Testing, Inc. Doug shared photos that were taken during AET test cuts. He also confirmed that the Golf Course maintenance building does not have any phenolic foam in its roof insulation. Steve shared that his office has been attempting to get information from Boston, Massachusetts as to the class action suit against Johns Manville. So far, the Boston Clerk of Court has nothing. He will try another angle. Steve reported again that the wants to nail down issues before the City makes repairs to this facility. Steve reported that he had gotten some information off the internet regarding phenolic foam and shared the hard copies with everyone. He has some concern about proceeding with any repairs before all the legal issues are resolved. Jerry stated that any contractor hired by the City will need to come to the work site prepared to replace the entire roof including the steel. They cannot come to the site and then attempt to order steel if the decking is found to be in need of replacement. Wing reported that he found rust and corrosion in areas where there is no visible signs from below. He took 7 test cuts: 5 showed corrosion and 2 showed surface rust. He reported that 100% of the roof is involved. The same degree of corrosion was found over the office area as well as over the bays. The moisture from below seems to have not made any difference in whether there is corrosion present or not. The offices have controlled humidity. Again the discussion centered around the fact that this building has always been intended to be a fire station with the normal activities that take place in any fire station including washing of trucks. The specs for the building were not written with any other use in mind. Steve observed from the test data from Roofing Consultants of Virginia that test cut #2's numbers are significantly higher than all other test cuts. He feels that Johns Manville should remove and replace the roof and not just remediate which their letter seems to imply. Valerie Leone - MINUTES OF JUNE 1 MEETING.doc Page 2 Discussion concluded that metal roof decking is considered to be permanent and should last the life of the building as should the metal sloping deck. There are no written results back as of yet from the ultrasound tests. But Wing reported that the roof decking should be .0299" in thickness. The worst test site showed .010" near test cut #2. (1/3 of what it should be.) The group discussed whether or not to have infrared thermography testing done. It seems that this test is best to do when there are huge temperature swings such as in the winter. The test would tell us if the insulation is wet or dry. Wing felt that it was probably not necessary because there is not a big enough temperature swing this time of year. Wing shared that he felt that the Roofing Consultants of Virginia tests were appropriate. Kevin asked Wing what more the City needs to do to prove our case. Wing stated that we need to look at the data. How much capacity has been lost? We need to base a claim on that, the lost safety factor. How much does the damage done from phenolic foam limit future use of the roof. Steve added that the City needs to determine what it can live with. Jerry stated that twenty two gauge is the minimum thickness for roof decking. The key is to look at load carrying and wind load transfer for a roof, both which keep the structure stable. Doug reported that this building was designed for 80 mph winds. Doug asked if the roof can be repaired other than tearing it all off, including removal of the steel decking. Jerry reported that in theory the moisture can be stopped and so the rusting could then be stopped. However blasting the decking to remove the rust would be very difficult as it was only .0299" thickness to begin with. AET's recommendation is that the entire roof needs to be torn off and replaced. In answer to a question, Wing stated that he saw no blame as to the workmanship of the roof installation. Steve needs from Wing: => AET's opinion on depreciation of our roof. He needs the description to be broken down by each section of the roof - membrane, insulation, metal decking, acoustical decking, ballast; flat roof, as well as standing seam roof. Also sections will be included for electrical, mechanical, and painting. => It was noted that there is paint staining on masonry walls by the hose tower. The bar joists and steel supports will need to be cleaned up and then painted after Valerie Leone - MINUTES OF JUNE 1 MEETING.doc Page 3 i I removal of the steel deck. Someone will need to watch that work carefully to ensure that all is done well. Steve will get in touch with Wing and set up a meeting to discuss final test results and AET's recommendations as to a remediation of this roof. The City will need to get bids so it is known how much the project would cost before negotiating with Johns Manville on a fair resolution. The specs will spell out Johns Manville products or equal. The bid will be broken out by all the parts for exact prices of each. The base bid will call for 45 mil membrane and an alternate will call for 60 mil membrane. Steve will call the author of the letter from Johns Manville and discuss issues with them. Assignments: • Steve: i get out letters to all appropriate project 447 parties to put them on notice (this may have been done - copy all letters to project file at city hall); => set up meeting with Wing from AET, notifying the rest of the committee re: when meeting is to be; => respond to Johns Manville letter at the appropriate time. • Shari & Kirk: => prepare meeting minutes; i prepare 6/14/99 RFA for approval of plans and specs and call for bids. • Doug: => continue to work with Jerry and AET. • Jerry: => direct AET; call Carlisle Roofing to discuss terminology used in Johns Manville report and letter (this may have been done - copy of info gathered needed for project file at city hall); I => prepare plans and specs and get to Kirk and Shari by June 7 or 8; => attend meeting between Steve Sondrall and Wing from AET. The next meeting has not been set until more data has been gathered.