ICC-ES Won't Protect The Public Why Do They Refuse to Address Their Westcoat Problem?

[Bill Leys]

Hello To All;

My name is Bill Leys. I am a contractor and consultant (yeah yeah) focusing on the installation of Division 7 Traffic Coatings.

You can look up all the claims, complaints and info below at http://deckexpert.com/westcoat-maintenance.html

Please read all about me at my site and decide if I'm legit in my claims...please!

Over the last few years I have been complaining to ICC-ES regarding a product called ALX Deck Coating. It's made by Westcoat Specialty Coating Systems.

They have an ICC-ES report #2201, that says its a Class A E-108 rated roof assembly when installed...as per mfg instructions...

Westcoat's ICC report http://www.icc-es.org/reports/index.cfm?csi_num=07%2018%2013&view_details does not have it listed as a One Hour E-119.

On a number of different pieces of media-brochures, websites, technical bulletins, CSI Specs, Sweets Catalog etc, Westcoat has used their ICC-ES number along with statements saying One Hour/E-119.

Here's the link to their listing at Sweets, note the ICC report number and the one Hour claim.

http://products.construction.com/Manufacturer/Westcoat-Specialty-Coating-Systems-NST151629/products/Waterproof-Products-NST34323-p

Westcoat sells their system as Class A/One hour, but there's another problem with them...they market a different system that is often installed where a Class A/One Hour may be required, but code enforcement doesn't even know that there's a problem...

YouTube video ALX system Fire tested with peel n stick membrane from Protectowrap and as per ICC ES assembly methods. I did my own fire tests...watch n see what happens!

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbYTNrwNNQ

ICC-ES rules specifically prohibit using reports in a misleading manner.. Because of my loud complaining, ICC-ES finally did issue a bulletin regarding classified roofing systems.

http://www.icc-es.org/News/Classified_Roofing_Systems.shtml

ICC's Michael Beaton has been their point man for most of this and his last reply to my complaints was that they were working on getting Westcoat in compliance.

Here is ICC's Facebook page where I posted a complaint; please feel free to look and comment and "Like" click on the "Top Posts" at the top of the page if you don't see my post there...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Code-Council/122907857740822?sk=wall&filter=12

After I posted at ICC's Facebook, I got a email from a gentleman who had a few things to say about ICC-ES.

"I would assume that most of the manufacturers you deal with have products that are being evaluated using tests already addressed in the code. In these cases there is no reason in the code that they need evaluation reports. All they need acccording to the IBC are reports signed by a licensed engineer that the product complies with the provisions in the building code.

The reasons that manufacturers are forced to get evaluation reports is because building officials illegaly require evaluation reports and because architects and engineers have been brainwashed into insisting on evaluation reports. This effectively creates a monopoly. The various ways to address this are for the FTC to go after ICC-ES for promoting a monopoly, somebody to sue a building official for illegaly requiring evaluation reports and publicize the judgement, and to educate design professionals what the code really requires. To pull this off some of the manufacturers need to take some public action.

For those manufacturers who are not ready to push back they may want to consider getting evaluation reports from one of the other issuers of these reports. One of the more reputable ones is IAPMO-ES. IAPMO-ES's fees are lower and they seem to be more responsive. "

Here's more-

I share your opinion that ICC-ES does not want to loose the income. ICC has become dependent on the profits from ICC-ES and it has been suggested that ICC-ES is under pressure to make more money. You might want to look on the ICC-ES web site an look at the cost of their annual renewal fees. Follow the money.

I do not believe that ICC-ES operates on a mission to “Protect the Public”. They are a profit making business that happens to be owned by ICC. While ICC can make the claim, although weakly, that their clients are the building officials ICC-ES’s clients are the manufacturers of the products and as a result they have a contractual/professional responsibility to promote the interests of their clients.

ICC-ES will make the claim that they see their client as being the building official but legally and practically their client is the manufacturer. Do not expect ICC-ES to admonish their clients. The whole ICC-ES system is biased in favor of the manufacturer.

The first draft of the ESR is prepared by the manufacturer. It has been previously reported that manufacturers will cherry pick the data that they submit to ICC-ES. ICC-ES is not directly involved in performing or inspecting the tests. ICC-ES role is basiclly limited to reviewing the report prepared by the manufacturer or his consultants.

I have seen where other manufacturer’s who have an evaluation report for an old code have as a result gotten acceptance of their product.

If there is a design professional, architect or professional engineer, on the project the fact that the specified product does not comply with the code requirement could cause the design professional liability exposure. The question that should be asked is what did the construction documents for the project say about the deck product. Was it specified by name by the Architect and did the Architect review the product for use on the specific project.

Yes I have become intimately familiar with ICC-ES and their practices related to evaluation reports for structural products.

I need help and feedback on ICC-ES...are they a help or a hindrance? Why do they protect a manufacturer who puts the public at risk, lies about a One Hour rating, won't do what they need to do?

Responses please Lets Talk Thank You...

[video=youtube;PhbYTNrwNNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbYTNrwNNQ

 

[fatboy]

First, welcome to the forum. Second, I don't know what the test standards are, off hand, for 1-HR fire resistance, but if memeory serves correctly, the class ratings are established based on "firebrands"? Not on setting a campfire up. It did burn through the "deck" but obviously did not sustain the burning mode. Like I said, don't know the requirements of the test, but have my doubts that the test calls for a campfire. And, if what you are saying is true, what are we as building officials supposed to accept as proof that something is, what it is, if ICC-ES is suspect? Do our own testing on everything? And, I'm curious what your stake is in this........you state you are a contractor/consultant, but what is the drive behind this? Just curious...........

 

[mark handler]

You need to rewrite the questions you want answered your post is all over the place.

You do not need a ICC report to use a product there are numerous testing labs out there. UL is the largest.

A one-hour rating indicates that a wall or roof constructed in a manner as specified, similar to the one tested, will contain flames and high temperatures, and support its full load, for at least one hour after the fire begins. It does not mean it will take one hour to get inside the wall or roof.

 

[Mark K]

Fire resistance ratings are defined in IBC Section 703 and the requirements are fully defined in the building code. On the subject of fire ratings I would suggest that all the building official needs is a test report prepared by an approved testing agency as per IBC Section 1703.

 

[Bill Leys]

Hello Fatboy,

Yes the standards are based on various burning brands, Class A is a 12" x 12"dried oak brand. The ICC-Es tests call for a Class A brand, I'm not claiming we followed the protocal for ICC-Es and in fact emphatically say that this is not in keeping with ICC's test protocols. It was my own rudimentary test. That said, what happens if a burning branch lands on a deck? It's not a Class A burning brand either...

My stake in this is to call out a manufacturer's lies, where life safety is concerned. Second stake is to draw attention to ICC-Es and the fact that they aren't protecting the public from their paying clients.

Thanks

 

[fatboy]

Which, until proven otherwise would include the ICC-ES. I know the ICC has plenty of shortfalls, but I do rely on the ES reports when there is no other listing.

 

[fatboy]

"My stake in this is to call out a manufacturer's lies, where life safety is concerned. Second stake is to draw attention to ICC-Es and the fact that they aren't protecting the public from their paying clients."

So, you are implying that the product does not meet the testing standards?

 

[Bill Leys]

I'm saying the product they market and sell to their installers does not meet the testing standards.

http://westcoat.com/downloads/ALX_Standard_Spec_Sheet.pdf

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2201.pdf

Read the ICC report, pay attention to 3.0 materials. Note that it starts with metal lath being stapled down, no seam treatment.

Read the Westcoat install instructions. Note they lack any ICC-ES report reference. Pay attention to the APPLICATION method. Note they require WP-40 over the seams. Not in the ICC report, they didn't test it using WP-40. ICC-ES won't let them reference any ICC-ES report number, because they haven't tested/evaluated it with WP-40.

WP-40 is a Protectowrap product. Protectowraps ICC report did not test for fire resistance and it's limited to use on 16% roof slopes or greater, under Concrete or clay tiles.

I'm saying Westcoat mis-represents their product to the detriment of the publics safety, and to Building Code officials.

 

[Mark K]

I would argue that the ICC-ES report is not in strict compliance with the IBC because ICC-ES is not an approved testing agency. ICC-ES is provided the test results by the manufacturer. ICC-ES does not perform or supervise any testing. It could be reasonably inferred that the tests referenced in the report have been performed but by itself does not comply with IBC Section 1703.