| "Indoor Air that can Injure or Kill" |
| The True Story of Manufactured Housing Indoor Air Quality |
Prepared for: Manufactured Homeowners' and Homebuyers
By:
John Taylor
"The American Internet Society of Manufactured Homeowners"
Noncompliance with the Federal Standards
This discussion will start with a quote from Lynda McDonnell from the Center for Auto Safety so that you will have a general understanding of the industry business practices and objectives. The below statement was part of Ms. McDonnell from the Center for Auto Safety, July 23, 1973 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Ms. McDonnell was assigned the task of researching this industry to discover the cause of the problems that drove the need for the creation of the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Bill and ultimately the passage of this Bill into law.
Lynda McDonnell, Center for Auto Safety
We would also suggest eliminating the section of the bill, which would allow
proposed standards to be vetoed solely because they would increase the cost of
the mobile home (current, H.R. 1776 will allow this). This clause could easily
precipitate frequent court battles from mobile home manufacturers who are
notoriously preoccupied with keeping the costs down, whether or not safety
and quality suffer in the bargain. Mobile home manufacturers are well aware
that the wider the gap between the price of mobile homes and the price of conventional
homes, the better their business will be. Because of this, mobile home
manufacturers are interested in keeping their homes cheap and they
are not likely to favor any standards, which would significantly increase the retail
price of their products. If cost alone is allowed to veto proposed construction
changes, it is doubtful that the quality and safety of mobile homes will improve
substantially with the federal standards.
This suggestion was taken and the section she is referring to was modified to reflect her suggestion, as were the majority of her suggestions, which included the name for the title of this Act, and it is named as per her suggestion. What she could not have known was that eventually this would be the modus operandi of HUD to allow cost alone to be the sole reason for vetoing new standards, or amending current standards (H.R. 1776 & S.1452 legitimize this practice). This practice is commonplace even though the Act prohibits this. It has taken an Act of God (Hurricane) and an Act of Congress threatening to end this program to get HUD to make any significant improvements to the standards. One of these improvements failed to address the whole problem and therefore is a half measure and the other was significantly undermined, as were other standards, through deceptive manipulation of the standards, to be of little, if any benefit to the consumer. The proposed waiver is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, just as was the improvement intended to make this housing less vulnerable to windstorm damage and more energy efficient.
The currently proposed waiver (See Appendix A) to the HUD-code (Federal Manufactured Home and Construction Standards) is the subject of this report. This report will provide you with the answers to all of the above questions and explain the real objective of this waiver. HUD's failure to carry out the "The National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard Act" as intended by Congress has allowed potentially millions of manufactured homes to be constructed that do not conform to the HUD-code. The failure to carry out the Act, as intended, is due largely to HUD's misguided perception that cheap housing is the solution to the nations affordable housing needs. As a result, durability, safety, and quality have been sacrificed to carry out this misguided notion. The danger of this misguided approach is that it has created the illusion of an affordable housing source that is durable, safe, and of quality, when in reality, it is nothing more than a source of cheap housing. This misleads consumers into thinking that their homes are SAFE, when in fact they are more than likely living in homes that are slowly destroying their health.
The manufacturer's reasons for ignoring the standards are accurately described by Lynda McDonnell in her 1973 statement.
The moisture defect is currently the most visible problem with manufactured housing, but it is by far not the only serious problem with manufactured housing. The defect in the design or construction of a manufactured home that has allowed moisture build-up in the walls of manufactured homes has been presented in deceptive manner to make it appear as though the HUD-code caused this problem.
Background
An improperly designed home can develop serious moisture build-up in the ceiling, floor cavity, and in the walls. It is common for the damage being caused by the build-up of moisture in ceiling, floor, and wall cavities to remain hidden for as long as 10 - 20 years. Properly designing a home for the prevention of structural damage as well as preventing serious health risks caused by moisture build-up in homes is a job that is best left to Professional Engineers and Architects. The Federal regulations require that all home designs, be inspected and approved or rejected by an inspection service that is comprised of Professional Engineers and/or Architects from the various fields of engineering (3282.358). The federal standards mandate that manufactured homes shall be constructed in conformance with accepted engineering practices.
3280.303
General requirements.
(b) Construction. All construction methods shall be in conformance with accepted engineering practices to insure durable, livable, and safe housing and shall demonstrate acceptable workmanship reflecting journeyman quality of work of the various trades.
It would be virtually impossible for Professional Engineers and/or Architects to have not noticed that homes designed and constructed for warm climates or cold climates were having the vapor retarders designed or installed on the wrong side of the wall. It would be even more impossible for anyone to argue that a Professional Engineer and/or Architect did not know where the warm or cold climate was located in the United States and where the vapor barrier should be located in these different climates. If they do not know, then this constitutes incompetence under most, if not every State Engineering-licensing requirement and these Engineers and/or Architects are subject to forfeiture of their license to practice these trades. What needs to be understood is that regardless of what the Federal Standard's say, an Engineer cannot place his or her seal on a design that he or she knows will pose or may pose a health or safety risk to the public. There is no federal standard for this aspect of manufactured home design and/or construction and therefore State law applies. It is impossible for these Professionals to have not known that moisture build-up in a home would not pose a health or safety risk to the public. If the Federal Standards had any such flaw that would direct or cause such a defect in a manufactured home, then the Professional Engineers and/or Architects who perform design approval activities for HUD should not have approved such plans, for construction.
The Deception of the proposed moisture waiver
Do not allow yourself to be lead by this waiver or anyone else into believing that
the vapor retarder is the sole cause of moisture in these homes. Do not think
as the waiver directs or as anyone else might direct that the moisture barrier
provides' a single solution to the problem of condensation and moisture build-up
in homes. In addition, and most important, do not let yourself believe that condensation
in homes is a Humid and Fringe climate zone issue. The Humid and Fringe
climate zone may magnify that a defect exists in the design or construction
of a home, but the Humid and Fringe climate zone is not the cause of this
defect. If moisture barriers are used in the design as part of the solution for
controlling condensation, the single determining factor for the
location of the vapor retarder is whether or not the home is located in a warm
or cold climate. How much humidity is in the air has nothing to do with
the location of the vapor retarder. Improperly locating the vapor retarder
is a defect in design or construction, and can cause serious structural damage
to the home, as well as serious health problems and even death for the occupants of
the home. This can occur in homes located in cold climates with a design or construction
defect just as readily as it can occur in homes in warm climates.
The proposed waiver presents that there is a need for a map to identify where it is humid in the United States and creates an alternative standard for the design and construction of homes located in this region. If the manufacturer wishes, they may continue to use the current standard for the design and construction of homes to be sited within the Humid and Fringe climate. The proposed waiver simply creates an identical standard to the current standard, worded differently to give it the appearance of being different. The only other notable difference is that it lowers the permeability rating for the inside of the exterior wall, which is the exterior wall cover and/or sheathing in cold climates.
The current standard provides the information needed by a Professional Engineer or Architect to correctly design a home for both a warm or cold climate and it is not utilized, and there is no reason to believe that this new added standard will be utilized. The reason for this will be apparent later in this report.
This proposed waiver sole purpose is to provide a scapegoat to the manufacturers for most all of the moisture-related defects in their product. It provides a scapegoat to HUD for allowing potentially millions of manufactured homes to be designed or manufactured that do not comply with the federal standards.
We will take an excerpt from the edition of the ASHRAE publication (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers) that was incorporated into the Federal standards in approximately 1993 to help explain how this will be done.
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, 1989
"In high humidity climates, moisture condenses on the exterior surface
of a building because its temperature is frequently lower than the ambient dew point.
In roof systems with high relative humidity under the roof, condensation may occur
on the bottom surface of the roofing, wetting the insulation. This may be mistaken
as a leaky roof."
Note: the above excerpt was taken from the same page of the federal standards that contains the map that the proposed waiver is referencing, will be the source for the new Humid and Fringe Climate zone map. It should also be noted that it says high relative humidity under the roof, not outside.
This same condensation problem can occur in the wall and floor cavities of the home and could easily be mistaken for, window leaks, or some other source of moisture build-up on the inside of the home. It could also just as easily be said that moisture build-up in the home from this defect was the source of roof leaks, window leaks or other sources of moisture in the home caused by what this proposed waiver is presenting as a defect in the HUD-code.
What are the consequences of moisture build-up in the home and some of the solutions? We will let Home Energy Magazine answer this question for us.
Fundamentals Of Moisture In Houses
November/December 1995
by Joseph Lstiburek and John Carmody
Mold and Mildew
Mold and mildew (two words for the same thing) are simple plants, of the group known as fungi, that grow on the surfaces of objects when the relative humidity is high. Mold discolors surfaces, causes odor problems, and causes deterioration of building materials. Mold can also produce allergic reactions, hypersensitivity, and infectious diseases. Certain fungi found in indoor air produce mycotoxins, which can be carcinogenic (induces cancer), teratogenic (induces birth defects), immunosuppressive (reduces immune system performance), or oxigenic (poisons tissues).Air Conditioned Spaces
In warmer climates, many problems are caused by wall air conditioners or supply registers that cool a particular spot on an exterior wall. If exterior humid air enters the wall cavity as a result of an air pressure difference and comes in contact with the cooled surface of the gypsum board or plaster, mold can grow in the wall cavity. Impermeable wall coverings, such as vinyl wallpaper, can exacerbate the problem by trapping moisture between the interior finish and the gypsum board. Several solutions are possible: (1) preventing the hot, humid exterior air from contacting the cold gypsum board by controlling air pressure differences and air leakage openings; (2) eliminating the cold spots and elevating the temperature of the surface by relocating ducts and diffusers; (3) increasing indoor surface temperatures by preventing the overcooling of rooms; or (4) increasing the permeability (breathability) of interior finish materials in hot, humid climates.
Note: they said that permeability should be increased in hot, humid climates. Earlier we stated that the proposed waiver would lower the permeability of the interior finish materials from not less than 5.0 perms to not less than 3.0 perms. This is going the opposite way if they are trying to fix this problem, but of course they are not. In addition, it should be noted that in colder climates, the hot humid air is inside of the home.
Read one more time the part about impermeable wall coverings and number (4)! You should also note that the paragraph begins with "In warmer climates" not in the humid and fringe zone. You should also note that installing a moisture barrier on the outside of the wall in warm climates would it self not insure that this problem will be resolved.
If you do not shut down all points of entry for moisture latent air to enter the wall cavity, you will have condensation occur in the wall cavities. Remember that the article states exterior humid air enters the wall cavity because of an air pressure difference. The amount of moisture that air can hold is related to the temperature of the air, i.e. the higher the air temperature, the more moisture it can hold. The higher air pressure is the result of the heating of the air, not the amount of moisture in the air. The air pressure inside of the air-conditioned home is cooler and therefore has a lower air pressure than the outside air; this is just the opposite in cold climates. In conventional home construction, it would be an engineering feat or a construction feat to prevent all of the warm moist air, which has a higher air pressure than the cool air inside of the home, from entering the wall cavities, even with the use of a vapor barrier. For a cold climate, this is just the opposite since it is the interior space that is heated, and the exterior air that is cold. Engineers and Architects accept that warm moist air will enter the unventilated wall cavity of a home because of this pressure difference, where it can come into contact with the cold surface of the opposite side of the exterior wall assembly.
Because of this fact, Engineers and Architects design homes with a permeable inside wall or outside wall, depending on whether the home is being designed for a warm or cold climate location. In warm climates, the moisture is removed through the permeable inside covering of the wall assembly where it can be taken out of the home by a properly sized air-conditioning system. If the air-conditioning is not correctly sized for the home, it will be less effective at this job, or can even cause the moisture build-up in the wall cavities to increase. It must be correctly sized for the specific model of home and the location for where the home will be located.
What are some of the problems common in mobile homes that can be blamed on what this proposed waiver presents as the cause of condensation in mobile homes in the South? Note that this problem is just the opposite in cold climates. A couple of examples are provided below and were taken from "Home Energy Magazine"
Mobile Homes: Small Zones, Big Problems by Larry Kinney,
September/October 1993
Larry Kinney is president of Synertech Systems Corporation in Syracuse, New York.
"Worse, the frequent combination of leaks in mobile home ducts and belly boards results not only in low heating and cooling system efficiency, but uncontrolled air leakage. This wastes energy and can affect indoor air quality, raise moisture levels, cause structural deterioration--or all three."
Checking Out HUD's Proposed Mobile Home Performance Standards by
Ron Judkoff,
November/December 1993
Ron Judkoff is a Senior Scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in
Golden, Colorado.
"The plastic strapping that supports the insulation batts between the floor joists was not stapled at each joist., causing batts to sag and leaving voids behind the band joist, which created a thermal short at the floor edge. This problem was especially evident in the warm-zone home with R-11 (3.5 in.) batts. Stapling the strapping at every joist would help. A better solution would be to always fill the joist cavity with a full-depth batt (R-19 for these homes) and staple at every joist regardless of the zone for which the home was designed."
Before we move on, we should point out a couple of cost cutting measures being used by the manufacturers of this product to reduce production cost, that can increase the moisture build-up in the home.
Floor joists are 5 1/2", minimum in depth and is why Mr. Judkoff was referencing R-19 which is 5 1/2" deep, these cavities are being filled with a 3 1/2 " insulation (lower cost), and this means that there will always be a cavity between the floor and the insulation (very common in manufactured housing) for warm moist air to enter. The HUD-code does not specify that the cavity must be completely filled, but it does not say that it cannot be filled completely. This would depend on whether or not the manufacturer wanted a home to be energy efficient, or just cheap.
They were not stapling the plastic strapping that supports the insulation at every joist cuts production time What he is referencing by using the term "thermal short" is warm air coming in contact with the cooler floor decking of the home.
Remember Larry Kinney the president of Synertech Systems Corporation in Syracuse, New York talked about uncontrolled air leakage raising the moisture level in the home that results in three negative consequences for the home. Ron Judkoff, when describing his observations during a factory visit talked about improperly installed insulation in the floor cavities that would result in uncontrolled air leakage. This combination of conditions would result in condensation build-up in the interior of the home and most especially in the floor cavity. In addition, the insulation will accumulate moisture, making it improbable that these areas will ever dry out. This is regardless of whether or not a ground vapor barrier is installed. It should also be noted that Ron Judkoff disclosed that he was observing the construction of a home that was headed for a warm climate, not a humid climate and proper materials and installation practices should be used regardless of which zone the home was designed for.
Now that you know that in air-conditioned spaces should have a permeable inside wall and that their are ways other than just the walls, for moisture to enter the structure lets look at the permeability of vinyl covered gypsum as published by "National Gypsum". Vinyl covered gypsum is the primary interior wall covering throughout the entire mobile home industry and has probably been used in 80% of all manufactured homes built since 1976. The strongest market for manufactured homes has been traditionally in the warm climates (South). This wall covering is less expensive than conventional gypsum board and is easy to install, which speeds up production. This provides for an attractive finish, which is low maintenance and this makes it possible to sell the product in a finished home for almost the same price as conventional dry wall. These factors make it extremely attractive to this industry.
Durasan Vinyl Covered Wall Panels
VAPOR PERMEANCE
The water vapor permeance of Durasan Vinyl Panels is less than 1.0 perms by the
Wet Cup Method and less than 0.5 perms by the Dry Cup Method at typical
conditions of 73°F and 50% relative humidity, tested in accordance with ASTM
E 96. , and a second vapor retarder should not be placed behind these products, i.e.
kraft face insulation. For this reason, foil backed Durasan is not available.
Moisture Conditions
Durasan Panels should not be used around bath tubs, in shower enclosures or
in areas where panels will be subject to free moisture, floor and ceiling.
If Vinyl covered gypsum board is a vapor retarder, and it carries a warning that says that it is, it would be prohibited for use in unventilated wall cavities in homes designed and constructed for sale in the warm climates of the United States. It was stated earlier in the Fundamentals Of Moisture In Houses that in air-conditioned environments that the inside (location of vinyl covered gypsum) of the exterior wall should be permeable. If it is not permeable, it will trap water in the wall cavity. We will show later that the current HUD-code that has been in effect since 1975 already states this fact clearly and HUD clarified this in Interpretive Bulletin F-1-76 in 1976. You should also note that this material should not be used in an area subjected to free moisture such as floor and ceilings. The practice of using this material in some of the areas described in the National Gypsum specification sheet under moisture conditions is commonplace in the industry.
We have already shown that this is not a humid and fringe zone issue, but a warm or cold climate issue. Now let's dispel the assertion that this problem is primarily occurring in the Humid and Fringe (warm) climate zone.
| Moisture and Mobile Home Weatherization by George Tsongas |
| George Tsongas is a professor of mechanical engineering at Portland State University and an independent energy and moisture consultant |
Wood Decay and Exterior Vapor Retarders
The first known cases of extensive decay in the wall framing members of hundreds, if not thousands, of mobile homes involved Tri State Homes in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan (the company has since gone bankrupt). The decay was attributed to high levels of indoor moisture, but the primary cause was really the presence of an exterior vapor retarder that trapped moisture within the wall cavity. The low permeability retarder was on the outside of the plywood sheathing behind hardboard lap siding. The presence of the vapor retarder caused the plywood to get much wetter than normal during the winter and spring and reduced the rate at which it dried. Thus the wood was still quite wet in the early summer when temperatures were high enough to promote the growth of decay fungi.
Because the decay progressed slowly, it was first noticed only about 8 years ago. Moreover, the wet wall conditions led to substantial mold growth which seriously affected the health of many of the occupants.
The low permeability retarder was on the outside of the plywood sheathing behind hardboard lap siding. It would also seem that the HUD-code does not prohibit the installation of a vapor retarder on the outside of the exterior wall assembly when it should be on the inside. It should also be mentioned that installing a moisture barrier on both walls is more devastating than installing one vapor barrier on the wrong wall.
Maybe the manufacturers should try following the HUD-code instead of focusing their energy on how to beat or get away with not following the federal standards so that they can build cheap houses to boost their sales. One thing is certain, the Federal Standards do not tell the manufacturers of this product to design and build homes that pose a serious health hazard to the occupant of the home or that would cause serious structural damage to the home. This will be shown at the end of the report when we briefly discuss the Federal Statues. It should also be noted that the vapor barrier was installed on the outside of the wall, where the proposed waiver states that this is not permitted.
Back to the Article:
"Our inspection of 17 Tri State homes that had had all the siding removed revealed that 16 had plywood decay and 12 of the cases were severe enough that the plywood could be torn apart by hand."
"A comparison of sheathing and siding moisture levels for walls with and without an exterior vapor retarder was also undertaken using the MOIST computer model developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The MOIST software predicts the moisture content of wall components. The modeling results further reinforce the field inspection finding that the EVR caused the structural damage."
HUD and the industry claim the do not have any data on what has caused this problem, know for certain what has caused this problem, or if they do know, it is protected by trade secret. The waiver reflects this claim and HUD intends to publish this waiver without making this information available to the public for evaluation as mandated by Act and without knowing for sure what has caused the moisture build-up in these homes. In either case, it is an unconscionable act since this will cloud who is liable for this defect, but of course, this is the objective of the waiver. Maybe if HUD would pick up the telephone and call the NIST, they could help them solve this mystery with the MOIST software described above and tell the public the cause of this problem as instructed to do so by the Act.
Let us look at what the waiver tells us about this problem.
The Moisture Waiver
Proposed waiver, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 62, March 3, 2000
Manufacturers and State Administrative agencies have recently reported an increase in
the number and the severity of consumer complaints caused primarily by moisture
build up and condensation in homes located in the south. They
suggest this increase in complaints coincide with the Departments implementing
more stringent energy efficiency requirements in its regulations regarding
manufactured home construction and safety standards.
Increase -
This is an admission that this defect already existed and it would be safe to say, from a far back as 1976, but for certain, they have known since 1994. Rotting homes dating back to the beginning of this program could be blamed on what this proposed waiver is presenting as the reason that these defective home designs were approved by HUD for construction, or passed the construction inspections, if they were properly designed.Primarily in the south -
This means that this problem is not restricted to the south or the humid and fringe zone located in the Southeastern United States, homes from any part of the country with moisture related defects could be blamed on what this proposed waiver is presenting as the cause.Severity - The problem got much worse with the new energy efficient standards, again indicating that HUD had knowledge that there was a defect in the design or construction of manufactured homes that was causing moisture build-up in manufactured homes. For how many years or how many homes may never be known since HUD has failed to enforce compliance with the record keeping requirements mandated by the Act.
They suggest - This means they either do not, or unwilling to disclose the cause of this defect in manufactured homes. This leaves the door open to blame a host of different defects in the design and construction of manufactured that have caused moisture related defects and could be blamed on what this proposed waiver is presenting as the cause.
Moisture build up and condensation in homes - Not in the unventilated wall cavities, but in the home. This leaves the door open to blame all moisture related defects on what this proposed waiver is presenting as the cause of moisture build-up in homes.
Proposed waiver, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 62, March 3, 2000
At present, the Standards at 24 CFR 3280.504 do not distinguish between climates
for requirements for condensation control and installation of vapor retarders.
Thus, for example, the Standards do not separately address homes placed
in humid and fringe environments or climates, which are predominantly located in
the southeastern part of the United States. In these climates, it may be beneficial
to prevent the outside, moisture-laden air from entering through "<the
warm (exterior) side of the home's exterior wall >" and
condensing and collecting on the cold (living space or interior) side of the wall
assembly.
Let's take a look at the bold print above before moving on. THE WARM SIDE OF THE WALL OF THE HOMES EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY. In addition, if they do not quite using vinyl coated gypsum board, and they will not, it will not matter what they do to the outside. We just wanted to make sure that you read this carefully, now let us move on.
Lets look at what the HUD-code says and then we will look at how HUD interpreted this standard for the manufacturers back in 1976.
3280.504
Condensation control and installation of vapor retarders.
(b) Exterior walls. (1) Exterior walls shall have a vapor barrier not greater than 1 perm (dry cup method) installed on the living space side of the wall, or
(2) Unventilated wall cavities shall have an external covering and/ or sheathing which forms the pressure envelope. The covering and/or sheathingshall have a combined permeance of not less than 5.0 perms. In the absence of test data, combined permeance may be computed using the formula: PTotal=(1/[(1/P1)+(1/P2)])
Date of issue ---- 40 FR 58752, Dec. 18, 1975
It is to take a standard written for cold climates, and this one is written for a cold climate, and for a warm climate, switch the location of the vapor barrier to the opposite wall and make the interior wall permeable. For warm climates this would read, Exterior walls shall have a permeance of not less than 5.0 perms on the living space side of the wall. The covering and/or sheathing shall have a combined permeance of not greater the 1.0 perms, or a vapor barrier installed of not more than 1.0 perm (dry cup method).
Let's see how HUD interpreted this standard for the manufacturers back in 1976.
Interpretative Bulletin F-1-76
In unventilated wall cavities, the exterior covering and/or sheathing may have
a combined permeance of less than 5.0 perms, provided that there is a vapor
barrier of one perm (dry cup method) or less on the warm side
of the wall, and that neither the sheathing nor the exterior covering
have an individual perm rating less than < the vapor barrier installed
on the warm side of the wall>.
The current standard
The warm side of the wall shall have a vapor barrier, now let us
go back to the statement from the proposed waiver at the top of this page.
The moisture waiver
In these climates, it may be beneficial to prevent the outside, moisture-laden
air from entering through "<the warm (exterior) side
of the home's exterior wall>"
These two statements are the same in more than one way.
Now let's take a look at another paragraph from the proposed waiver.
Proposed waiver, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 62, March 3, 2000
One means of preventing moisture from entering the exterior wall cavity from the
outside would be to install a vapor retarder on the warm or exterior side
of the wall.
HUD's interpretation of the current standard
The vapor barrier installed on the warm side of the wall
The proposed waiver
Install a vapor retarder on the warm or exterior side of the wall
This should settle the question of whether or not that HUD and the Manufacturers know that the location of the vapor barrier is dependent on WARM climate or COLD climate and not the humid and fringe zone. It should also settle the question of whether or not they knew where to locate the vapor retarder for these climates.
Now lets say that HUD decides out of the blue that it will enforce this new standard, and they legally cannot because it will not be required by the proposed waiver, and does not allow homes not constructed for the humid and fringe climate to be installed in this zone. We already know that this is a cold climate / warm climate issue and not a Humid and Fringe Zone issue. The proposed waiver builds in the next defect to the HUD-code for the manufacturers to blame for their moisture-related defects. The proposed waiver narrows the warm climate region of the United States to an area of the country that represents maybe 20% of the Nations warm climate region. This in combination with the fact the manufacturers do not have to use this proposed standard in the first place, will insure that nothing changes in the current design and construction or business practices of this industry that are the true cause of this moisture problem.
Proposed waiver, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 62, March 3, 2000
Manufacturer who elect to utilize this alternative rather
than to follow the requirements of the existing standards in 24 CFR 3280.504(b)(1)
If what this proposed waiver says were true, this would not be an alternative. They do not disclose that 24 CFR 3280.504 (b)(1) is linked by the term "or" to a series of different approaches for condensation control in the wall cavities of the manufactured home. HUD has made the outlandish statement that the use of the term "or" located at the end of 24 CFR 3280.504 (b)(1) and each subsequent numbered subpart does not permit the use of these other prescribed methods of condensation control. We will publish the whole section (24 CFR 3280.504 (b)) and let you decide for yourself if this statement by HUD is beyond logic.
(b) Exterior walls. (1) Exterior walls shall have a vapor barrier not greater than 1 perm (dry cup method) installed on the living space side of the wall, or (2) Unventilated wall cavities shall have an external covering and/or sheathing which forms the pressure envelope. The covering and/or sheathing shall have a combined permeance of not less than 5.0 perms. In the absence of test data, combined permeance may be computed using the formula: PTotal=(1/[(1/P1)+(1/P2)]) where P1 and P2 are the permeance values of the exterior covering and sheathing in perms. Formed exterior siding applied in sections with joints not caulked or sealed shall not be considered to restrict water vapor transmission, or (3) Wall cavities shall be constructed so that ventilation is provided to dissipate any condensation occurring in these cavities.
You don't need to worry about the meaning of the different parts, the Engineer's, HUD, and the industry all know what this sections means and how it is applied to the different temperature climates. All you need to decide is whether or not (b)(1) permits the use of the other parts of (b). You should note the stated objective of this standard at the end of section (b), we underlined it for you. This is the performance requirement for this standard and that is the only design requirement that the manufacturers were bound by in the design and construction of a manufactured home. How they accomplished this objective was up to them and the Engineers or Architects that design their homes.
HUD and the industry do not want you to look at these other statements because it exposes their proposed waiver for what it is. They are trying to direct you to (b)(1) because if you do not know what is the accepted engineering practice for using a standard for both warm or cold climate applications, this single part (b)(1) would seem to support the proposed waiver. Like we said at the beginning of the report, SMOKE AND MIRRORS!
What do you suppose that the current standard (section (b)) is talking about in this sentence, below?
Formed exterior siding applied in sections with joints not caulked or sealed shall not be considered to restrict water vapor transmission.
The proposed waiver indicates that the HUD-code does not permit for a vapor retarder to be installed on the outside of the exterior wall where the exterior siding is located and presents (b)(1) as proof that such is true. You do not suppose this part of (b) is referring to a moisture barrier. Nothing directs that a particular material must be used to form the vapor barrier, just that it cannot be permeable. It makes one wonder why this standard would be discussing the exterior siding in the context of a vapor barrier (vapor retarder) when the proposed waiver asserts that putting the vapor barrier on the outside of the exterior wall assembly was not permitted in warm climates by this standard. We already know from earlier what happens to homes located in cold climates if you put a vapor retarder on the outside of the exterior wall assembly.
Now it is time to tell why the industry and HUD want desperately to cover-up the defect that has caused this moisture problem in manufactured homes, quite possibly since the beginning of this Federal Program.
42 USC Sec. 5414 01/26/98
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 70 - MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS
Sec. 5414. Notification and correction of defects by manufacturer
(a) Notice to purchaser within reasonable time after discovery of defect
Every manufacturer of manufactured homes shall furnish notification of any defect in any manufactured home produced by such manufacturer which he determines, in good faith, relates to a Federal manufactured home construction or safety standard or contains a defect which constitutes an imminentsafety hazard to the purchaser of such manufactured home, within a reasonable time after such manufacturer has discovered such defect.
It is disclosed in the proposed waiver that the manufacturers have knowledge
that a defect in their product is causing moisture build up in the walls cavities
of their homes. It is well known by both the Engineering and Architectural communities
that this promotes mold growth and that mold poses an imminent health hazard
to the occupants of a building.
This is evidenced by the immediate evacuation of government building upon its discovery.
(e) Notice by Secretary to manufacturers of noncompliance with standards or defective nature of manufactured home; contents of notice; presentation by manufacturer of views; notice to purchasers of defects
If the Secretary determines that any manufactured home -
(1) Does not comply with an applicable Federal manufactured home construction and safety standard prescribed pursuant to section 5403 of this title; or
(2) Contains a defect, which constitutes an imminent safety hazard, then he shall immediately notify the manufacturer of such manufactured home of such defect or failure to comply.
It is disclosed in the proposed waiver that the Secretary of HUD has knowledge that a defect in this product is causing moisture build up in the walls cavities of these homes. This has not been caused by the HUD-code and cannot be caused by a performance code, so this defect has been caused by noncompliance with the HUD-code.
It is beyond a reasonable doubt that both HUD and the manufacturers of this product, which includes their associations, know that there are homes with a defect that is causing moisture build-up in the wall cavities of these homes. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that this will promote the growth of molds in the home. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that molds pose serious if not fatal health consequences for person(s) exposed to this in concentrations that elevated in the indoor environment.
What is the big deal about telling homeowner that their home could be causing health problems for them and their family (parent, baby, young child, pregnant wife, etc.)? One of the reasons should be obvious and the other is contained within the FMHCSS Act.
(g) Correction of defects by manufacturer; conditions; procedures; contract or legal rights of purchasers or other persons unaffected
A manufacturer required to furnish notification of a defect under subsection (a) or (e) of this section shall also bring the manufactured home into compliance with applicable standards and correct the defect or have the defect corrected within a reasonable period of time at no expense to the owner, but only if -
(1) The defect presents an unreasonable risk of injury or death to occupants of the affected manufactured home or homes;
(2) The defect can be related to an error in design or assembly of the manufactured home by the manufacturer. The Secretary may direct the manufacturer to make such corrections after providing an opportunity for oral and written presentation of views by interested persons. Nothing in this section shall limit the rights of the purchaser or any other person under any contract or applicable law.
Note, this does not say imminent safety hazard, but unreasonable risk of injury or death. It would be reasonable to say that mold is growing in these homes because of this defect, and that mold can be very dangerous to the occupants of the home. What is unreasonable is that there are no plans by HUD or the Manufacturers to notify homeowners of this problem, or that this notification is not even being considered by HUD or the manufacturers.
Regardless of whether or not this defect was caused by the code, a defect in design, or construction, the Act mandates that the consumers of this product be notified if an imminent safety hazard exists in a home. Notification of any defect in any manufactured home, even if it is just one home.
You should know by now that the homeowners should be notified just as an automaker would do if this were a car that the wheel might fall off because of a design or assembly defect and cause death or injury to the cars' occupants. The FMHCSS Act mandates that this notification be accomplished and prohibits failure to carry out this notification to the homeowners.
42 USC Sec. 5409 01/26/98
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 70 - MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS
Sec. 5409. Prohibited acts; exemptions
-STATUTE-
(a) No person shall -
(3) Fail to furnish notification of any defect as required
by section 5414 of this title;
No person means that no one is excluded from this section of the Act including HUD.
42 USC Sec. 5410 01/26/98
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 70 - MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS
Sec. 5410. Civil and criminal penalties
-STATUTE-
(b) An individual or a director, officer, or agent of a corporation who knowingly
and willfully violates section 5409 of this title in a manner which
threatens the health or safety of any purchaser shall be fined not more
than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
It would sure seem that 24 years would be enough time to notify the homeowner that they have a defect in their home that could threaten the safety of the family who occupies the home. We know that if a home sited in a warm climate has vinyl-covered gypsum board installed in it, it has a defect in it, because it is a vapor retarder and will cause moisture build-up in the wall cavities.
What are HUD and the Manufacturer's big problem? Because they have failed to keep the records mandated by this Act, they have no way of knowing where these homes are located, what homes are effected by this defect, and certainly do not know the names of the people who occupy these defective homes. They have also knowingly violated the Act and this constitutes a criminal act under this Title.
They need a fix for this problem and guess what it is?
H.R. 1776 and S.1452, which has now been replaced by H.R. 1776
John M. Taylor
"The American Internet Society of Manufactured Homeowners"
TAISMHO