Yes, having a license is no
Yes, having a license is no guarantee of quality of work. But it does show that they have at least met whatever requirements there are for it. No license means no way to know if the person has any relevant experience or education or not. It can also make the license holder more accountable in some situations.
The problem with Buyer Be Ware and relying on Capitalism is that it assumes the buyer has pre-existing knowledge about the work to be done and the contractor who does the work. Often people don’t know a bad job until someone else points it out to them.
Here in North East New Jersey, it seems contractors just don’t care. My boss put it this way…there is too much work and not enough contractors (in any discipline). They don’t care about doing a half-assed job since there will be no loss for work and they rush it to get to the next gig. And in my experience, even the people who want to do a good job fall short since they are rushed due to the workload.
A foremean for the roofers (multi-state company that specializes in communities etc.) who put a new roof on my condo couldn’t understand when I was explaining to him that how they did the dryer exhaust is against code and created a fire hazard on top of the fact that half of the moist air is blowing into the attic. I gave up and said never mind, I’ll fix it my self. The engineering firm that was acting as project manager, I emailed the engineer and explained that due to the size of my attic, the minimum net free air of the roof vents is below code. He said it is better to have a 50/50 intake from the soffit and output from the vents than to make the vents bigger and unbalanced. I replied back that the soffit vents run the entire length of the roof plus extra on the gable and have more than a dozen times the required area already. Not to mention the 1/300 minimum code requires is based on a peaked roof and my section is a lean-to shape which has triple the air volume as the one used for the code calculation. And that they have the software to properly calculate the fluid dynamics of a passive ventilation system. I got ignored at that point. Both companies are doing extremely well regardless of being incompetent. Both of them are still more competent than the company that did my original HVAC system and insulation which is still doing very well also. And I’m barely getting started. Capitalism isn’t working. Buyer be ware isn’t working. Relying on companies and people to do the right thing and have integrity isn’t working. I’d say we need more inspections to keep people honest but the inspectors are overworked and suffer from the same issues.

I know of a building that burned so hot that the fire department could not put the fire out. I am a life member of the local fire department and I have seen many instances of flammable insulation making it impossible to contain the flames.
Who can forget the London fire of the high rise burning from the outside? The insulation was extruded polystyrene, and is the reason the fire spread.
Enough said.

To close the loop on this
To close the loop on this side discussion, I reviewed materials sent to me by Bill and it appears that Dow has ‘threaded the needle’ to get their extruded polystyrene products (Scoreboard in this case) approved for use in attics and crawl spaces, as well as other building assemblies, without an ignition barrier as specified in IRC Section R316.5.4.3. The specific applications and conditions are covered in ESR-2142. This is surprising to me but I’m happy to admit that I was wrong.

In a nutshell, certain listed Dow XPS products up to 2 inches in thickness are allowed in crawl spaces without a separate ignition barrier. Use in attics is limited to 1 inch, with further restrictions.

The UL test (ASTM E84) that accompanied the ESR reported flame spread and smoke developed classifications of 5 & 165, respectively, for most Dow Styrofoam(tm) brand products. These results are well below code-required 25 & 400.

Interestingly, the UL report included the following footnote:
“Flame Spread and Smoke Developed were recorded while the material remained in the original test position. Ignition of molten residue on the furnace floor resulted in flame travel and smoke generation equivalent to a calculated flame spread classification of 125 and a smoke developed classification of over 500.”

Hmm… Seems like ignition of plastic insulation that melts and falls on the floor would be cause for concern? Methinks this a bureaucratic loophole. In any case, I’m still hesitant to specify exposed XPS in a crawl space that communicates with basement and has supplies and returns, as described.

@Bill, I’ve reached out to
@Bill, I’ve reached out to you via email. IRC Section R316 Foam Plastic is quite clear on this. In particular, Section R316.5.4 spells out the specific requirements for using foam in a crawl space. Bottom line: unless an approved thermal barrier is installed as described in Section R316.4 or R316.5.4, the product must have a specific approval related to actual end-use configuration (R316.6). Dow Scoreboard does not have such an approval.

I’m not sure what his rationale may be but it wouldn’t be the first time a building inspector misinterprets the code (although it’s usually in the other direction)! But this is not something you want to skimp on just because you can. I would cover the Dow board with a layer of foil-faced polyiso or a coat of intumescent paint.

David,
David,

If you are interested in seeing what our local Chief Building Inspector has replied to me with regarding the use of the exposed Dow Scoreboard, 2″ foam board insulation in conditioned crawlspace (supply and return air duct openings as well as communication with the adjacent basement, I’d love for your opinion on it. If there is an email I can send the reply document to please email me directly and I’ll forward his rebuttal to you.

At this point I’m at a loss because it seems the information he provided in some ways is contradictory based on the specifics of this particular install.

Thank you.

Bill Barnes

You are correct of course.
You are correct of course. What the manufacturers *should* say is that these products “can be used without a *separate* thermal barrier.”

BTW, Thermax has foil facings, not vinyl, and is available with a white acrylic coated aluminum for applications where aesthetics are a concern. Standard Thermax has a reflective foil facings with logos, etc.

David, Thank you for the
David, Thank you for the reply and advice. After I get another look at the foam board I’ll be able to determine the course of action we’ll need to take. We have an occupancy permit and apparently the AHJ signed off on the exposed insulation. He seems to have been more of a drive by kind of guy since there have been a few issues with this build that had he looked he would have identified, like no insulation on the foundation wall before back filling was approved, thus the foam board on the interior of the basement and crawlspace foundations. I’m not sure I can identify the make of the spray foam in the box ends but will certainly get to the bottom of this by contacting the application contractor.

Yippee.

Regards,

Bill Barnes