Don E. Howard, retired
(CABO #1651)

AN UPDATE ON EIFS

EIFS, usually pronounced “EEFS”, is the acronym for “Exterior Insulating Finish System”. EIFS is often described and referred to as “synthetic stucco” to differentiate it from the cement stucco wall finishes which have been used for hundreds of years. There are no similarities between the two wall systems other than appearance.

The "EIFS problem" has been a source of great anxiety for prospective homebuyers, confusion and uncertainty in the real estate industry, and serious hardships for homeowners who were unprepared to deal with the costs of repairs and remediation.

Occasional TV programs and newspaper articles created and maintained public awareness of EIFS issues, but there have also been complaints that the programs and articles were sensationalistic; causing panic reactions among homebuyers and in the real estate industry. There may be some justification in the complaints, but the problems with EIFS are real, can be expensive to identify and remedy, and require vigilance to deal with over the long run. However, media programs and articles cannot adequately provide the details and updates needed to properly serve the needs of the situation however.

Much has been learned about the technical side of testing, repair and remediation over the past three years that should be made available to the general public. There has also been such a surge of new players into EIFS testing and remediation that standards have become confused; driven more by market opportunities than by technical effectiveness. Hopefully, this article will bring some order out of the chaos. One purpose for this article will be to suggest realistic responses to EIFS problems as alternatives to panic ("Tear it all off") and denial ("What problem").

We (GAHI) have confidence in the accuracy and usefulness of this article because of the experience our individual inspectors have accumulated and shared over the past three years. GAHI also has representation in the ERC (EIFS Review Committee), a technical research group recognized as an agency of the office of the Attorney General of North Carolina in matters related to the inspection, remediation, technical development and litigation of EIFS-related claims. Committee membership includes manufacturer’s representatives, builders, EIFS installers, public inspectors and private inspectors. ERC’s work is on the cutting edge of the technical development.

Why is EIFS a problem?

The public is generally aware that the EIFS external water barrier wall system is flawed and, under some conditions, is fatally flawed. The problem is water intrusion and entrapment in the wall cavities. A brick or cement stucco wall will contain an internal water barrier. Water intruding into the EIFS wall cavities is more damaging because the internal water barrier was eliminated from the EIFS wall system, leaving the internal sheathing and wood framing vulnerable to rot and decay.

Eliminating the internal water barrier was based upon the assumption that EIFS exterior finishes were essentially waterproof so that no internal water barrier would be needed. That assumption is the crux of the problem. Liquid water does get past the exterior finish through windows, deficient flashing details, and wall penetrations. Once inside, it cannot readily escape back out through the waterproof EIFS exterior as it can through brick veneer or cement stucco. Brick veneer, for instance, is supposed to have "weep holes" to drain off intruding water

Successful installations of External Barrier EIFS ( the kind on our houses) depended upon keeping water out of the wall cavities so each major manufacturer developed elaborate specifications for sealing around windows with backer rod and sealant, for backwrap sealing of edges, for joining dissimilar materials, and for other measures to keep the water out. The manufacturers trained and certified installers to apply the EIFS system and supplied them with materials which met specification standards. Unfortunately the manufacturers failed to take into account the realities of the construction industry.

Windows leak regardless of how well the backer rod/sealant method seals the joints between window and the edge of the EIFS wall. The very best windows allow some water into the wall cavity through their own joints, and construction grade windows leak a great deal. The building code requirements for flashing windows are rarely fully enforced in Georgia but the fact remains that the windows themselves leak.

EIFS installers had little control over construction details designed to prevent water intrusion into wall cavities from roofs, even including those details which are required by the state building codes and by the specifications of the EIFS manufacturers. Unless the builder required the roofing subcontractor to install (building code required) step flashing and (EIFS required) kickouts, it probably was not done. The Georgia State building codes (CABO) and policy allow counties considerable latitude in enforcing code requirements. County inspection departments generally do not enforce the very building code requirements which are critical to successful EIFS installations. These policies affect the quality of house construction generally in Georgia, but that is another issue.

Manufacturer training and certification of installers seems to have become meaningless in the marketplace. Although almost every manufacturer required the use of backer rod/sealant joints and edge backwrapping, it is almost never seen in the thousands of EIFS-clad houses in the Atlanta area. Adhering to specifications added to installation/construction costs so specifications were generally ignored. The manufacturers never seem to have noticed what their "certified" installers were doing, and not doing.

The EIFS external barrier system is flawed by dependence upon an external water barrier to keep water out of wall cavities when there are so many entry points for water intrusion. It is also flawed by the failure to provide an internal water barrier in conjunction with an external "skin" which prevents intruding water from escaping to the outside. It became fatally flawed by the manufacturer’s unrealistic expectations that the building industry (including public inspection departments) would maintain industry specifications and standards, and by the manufacturer’s failure to insist upon those standards through their certification systems.

Did the major manufacturers of EIFS materials know that there was a problem with water retention and decay in EIFS-system walls? Yes. EIFS manufacturers apparently knew about the problems of internal wall decay as far back as the mid-1980’s. Was this information provided to the public? Absolutely not.

How bad is the situation in Georgia? Well it could be a great deal worse - as demonstrated by the situation in the Wilmington area of North Carolina, where hundreds of homes have been stripped of their EIFS exteriors. Building requirements in coastal areas call for the use of plywood or OSB (oriented strand board) structural sheathing to resist the Atlantic winds.

Both plywood and OSB are considered to be water resistant because they do not readily delaminate or come apart when wet, however OSB soaks up water like a sponge; OSB and plywood are both very vulnerable to decay damage. In Atlanta, gypsum board is the more common sheathing material and it is less vulnerable to water damage until its protective paper deteriorates from repeated water intrusions. When the protective paper ceases to function properly, the glue will no longer hold the foam boards on the wall, intruding water turns the gypsum interior to mud, and all protection to the framing is lost. Until gyp board sheathed houses are effectively sealed, they exist on "borrowed time". In general, gyp board sheathed walls soak up less water and postpone decay past the time when OSB sheathed houses would have been saturated and severely damaged.

The marketplace:

GAHI inspectors are not experts in real estate marketing. Nevertheless, we have observed trends and participated in discussions which should be a part of the public’s general store of information.

The media’s handling of the EIFS problem was necessary and helpful in alerting the public. Unfortunately, the time which broadcast media allocates to any particular issue is so limited that misunderstanding and misinformation will occur. For a very long time, many real estate agents would not even list a house with a cement (hardcoat) stucco exterior because they, and the general public, did not distinguish between these two completely different wall systems. Many agents themselves could not distinguish between EIFS and hardcoat. The two systems are not comparable in any way except appearance, and now that early reaction seems to be changing.

There are a great many potential home buyers who will not even consider the purchase of an EIFS-clad house. That position can be justified by market values, possible delays in re-selling the house, or because of the difficulty in following the maintenance protocols which EIFS requires. The EIFS system, while flawed, is not hopeless however. GAHI inspectors only recommend that the EIFS be torn off and replaced on about 1% of the homes inspected. Unless the house has OSB sheathing, framing damage is usually limited to the areas which have received large amounts of water over extended periods of time.

Some inspectors will recommend a complete tear-off and replacement of the EIFS if they find even one area of elevated moisture. This may be the mark of an inspector who is associated with a construction contractor, who fears liability for undiscovered damage, who uses panic as a marketing tactic, or who really does not understand the EIFS system.

Amazingly, some EIFS-clad houses built before glue patterns (holding foam boards to the sheathing) were changed are almost completely dry and have no internal decay. EIFS is full of surprises and it must be treated with caution, but the "tear it all off" mentality has no place in EIFS inspections.

Two reality-based reasons for discounting the value of an EIFS-clad house are the delays and costs related to remediation and re-sale. People who are subject to sudden job transfers are at a special disadvantage. If a pre-sale inspection reveals moisture inside the walls, then the details of recommended remediation must be spelled out, a contractor must be hired, and the work performed; all of which takes time. A significant amount of time (three to six months) after remediation should be allowed to give the walls a chance to dry out.

We are aware of instances where remediation work was done, but with workmanship so poor and incomplete that no reputable inspector would sign off on the work. In such cases, there are usually long delays in the sale of the property. By now, the general public is aware that EIFS-clad houses will not tolerate poor remediation or maintenance.

EIFS was marketed with the claim that it is almost maintenance-free, and that is almost true. However, the EIFS system places an unusual maintenance burden on other structural elements designed to keep water out of the wall cavities. Again, EIFS does not tolerate poor installation or neglected maintenance. After remediation, homeowners must adopt a regular (every 6 months or yearly) schedule of examining the exterior for deteriorated caulk and/or other points for water intrusion, painting and sealing. Actually, this level of vigilance should be exercised by home owners regardless of the exterior wall system, but some exteriors are more forgiving than others. If the home buyer cannot accept this discipline, then they should stay away from EIFS.

Remediation:

When problems are discovered in an EIFS-clad house, the first question asked of the inspector is how to fix it. Three years ago, the primary recommendation which could be offered was to retro-fit the installation to meet manufacturer’s installation specifications. This was reinforced by the insistence of manufacturer’s representatives that the problem existed only because installers and builders had not followed the building codes and installation specifications in the first place - never mind that the manufacturers had long been aware that the specifications were not being followed.

Another recommendation was to tear the EIFS off and put up another material. The Atlanta area house first shown on local TV was in very bad condition because it had a poor EIFS installation over OSB sheathing, so the complete tear-off and replacement was certainly justified. The damage was so extensive that decayed chimney framing could be removed in handfuls. This house was atypical however, and many fine houses will provide years of satisfactory service with remediation at water entry points, vigilance, and proper maintenance.

There is nothing wrong with going back to original specifications for sealing window edges (backer rod and sealant). The original manufacturer’s specifications alone are seldom adequate though, because water will also enter through the window construction. A consensus on the ERC (EIFS Review Committee) is that there are other methods for sealing window edges which are just as effective, but may cost less to install.

Several innovative methods and materials have been developed to improve remediation when the return to original specifications fails to eliminate the leaks. One of the more successful procedures is to install a drain pan under window sills to transport any water leaking through window penetrations to the exterior.

We have learned to "think like water", so we now recommend caulking and sealing in areas which previously did not seem to require sealing. We have learned where water hides in the decorative trim to cause decay in the windows. We have also learned that some window decay being blamed on EIFS is really being caused by poor quality windows. Sometimes windows were not flashed (the county inspection department policy again), and/or they were inadequately sealed and painted by the builder. Only rarely does the siding and trim painting on new houses meet the specifications of the siding and window manufacturers.

The homeowner’s most difficult problem in getting proper remediation is in the selection of a good contractor. Since EIFS problems emerged, a whole new industry has emerged for testing and remediating house walls. Remediation has been a life-saver to many EIFS installers who were effectively put out of business when Exterior Barrier EIFS was banned from the market. Many of these people recognized the seriousness of the problem and have put their skills and experience to good use. Others do not seem to recognize the importance of working in a meticulous manner to seal out every possibility for water intrusion. Incompetent installers often became incompetent remediators.

In negotiating with remediation contractors, the homeowner should be very specific about the work to be done. The inspector should have clearly identified the problem areas and, to the extent possible, the water intrusion points. The inspector may have described the advantages or disadvantages of optional methods for remediation, and he/she should provide some guidance concerning acceptable materials to be used. The homeowner should choose the options which are most appropriate to their situation and insist that all the required work be done - and properly done.

In most cases, the lower edge of the EIFS will be at, or below, the soil line. The lower edge may or may not be sealed. Unless the house sheathing is OSB, there is rarely a problem of water wicking up from the soil and into the wall system. The requirement that the lower edge be cut back and sealed to provide a 6" gap between lower edge and soil is a requirement of the pest control industry to prevent termites reaching wood framing through tunnels hidden in the EIFS foam boards. EIFS below the soil line is much more a termite issue than a moisture issue. A special note: Very recently, the Georgia Pest Control Association recommended that its members adopt the policy that cement stucco (hardcoat) must also be cut back and sealed, to provide a 6" gap between soil and the lower edge; in order to receive the certification letter required for resale of a house. Again, the issue is termite control, rather than moisture problems.

Inspections and inspectors:

First exposure of EIFS problems was presented in the Atlanta media about three years ago. The Governors Commission on Consumer Affairs invited three private inspectors, code-certified members of GAHI, to spend a day with the Inspections Director and Assistant Inspections Director of New Hanover County, NC; the men who had first identified the systemic problems of EIFS. The three GAHI inspectors gathered field data for several weeks and agreed that metro Atlanta also had the problem. Since then, GAHI has conducted regular training programs in EIFS inspection procedures for CABO (State building code) certified inspectors.

It is important for the public to understand that there is no public certification system for any home inspector in Georgia, nor is there a public certification for EIFS inspectors. It has been said that the only thing required to be a private home inspector in Georgia is a flashlight and a business card. To be an EIFS inspector, you must have a moisture meter and a business card. Some inspectors claim to have "certification" as EIFS inspectors, but their certification probably came from the same manufacturers who "certified" installers. Others were "certified" through private (and for profit) training programs, while others "certified" themselves. People who have received specialized training in the inspection of EIFS may have a good understanding of the problem and how to do testing, but the test results must still be interpreted. This is explored in a following paragraph, but it is important to remember that there is no national, state, county or municipal certification program for home inspectors or EIFS inspectors available in Georgia.

County inspections departments are not a useful resource either. At last count, only 13% of county inspectors in Georgia had passed their CABO (building code) tests and few county inspections departments even include exterior walls or roofs in their routine inspections.

GAHI does not "certify" its members as EIFS inspectors, but all its members have passed their CABO (building code) certification examinations as a requirement for membership. GAHI believes CABO certification is the best available indicator that the inspector understands building construction and how water might move inside the wall cavities. GAHI does provide a list of its members who have received GAHI training in the peculiarities and testing of EIFS, and who have agreed to follow the appropriate testing protocols and reporting methods. A basic understanding of residential construction is critical however, because Inspectors who don’t know the difference between a bandboard and a flying buttress have no business inspecting EIFS-clad walls.

The testing of EIFS wall systems does require specialized knowledge and specialized equipment. The original test protocol developed in New Hanover County, NC required making hundreds of holes in the walls of a house so that Delmhorst probes could be inserted into the wood sheathing and studs. This procedure was modified by GAHI to take into account the local use of sheathings other than OSB and plywood. The ERC has developed a new protocol which is acceptable to the courts and the insurance industry for the assertion of claims by home owners. Inspectors on the GAHI approved list will be able to do their reports in the approved manner.

The invention of an extremely sensitive instrument, the Tramex Wet Wall Scanner, makes it possible to follow the GAHI inspection protocol and make penetrations only where the Tramex indicates measurable moisture. The Tramex has reduced the costs and increased the accuracy of tests considerably, but the Tramex has also allowed a large number of persons to become instant inspectors, despite their dubious "certification", their ignorance of acceptable test protocols, and their useless or misleading reports.

Be especially wary of inspectors who report moisture levels inside the wall cavity using only the Tramex. The Tramex Wet Wall Scanner cannot provide that level of measurement precision. Similarly, one of the functions of probing the walls using the Delmhorst is that the probe itself provides information as to the condition of the wood framing inside the wall. Decay can only be located by probing.

Misleading or inadequate reports are a serious problem for the home owner, especially when the inspection data is interpreted by the wrong criteria. Both the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) and EIMA (EIFS Industry Manufacturers Association) advise that moisture readings below 19% are acceptable because that level will not promote decay. This standard completely misinterprets the significance and usefulness of the readings.

When a house is framed, the moisture content of the lumber is surprisingly high (about 19%) to minimize the likelihood of splitting the wood while nailing. After the framing is covered, it quickly dries out to a level below the 8% which a digital Delmhorst moisture meter can read. Therefore, when a Delmhorst probe indicates any level of moisture inside the wall, it means that water is intruding into the wall cavity from somewhere.

An inspector should not report a below-19% reading as acceptable or report that, since there were no readings above 19%, the house is dry. Instead, all measurable moisture levels should be reported. All measurable moisture levels should receive special examination for decay and comment in the report. Any level of moisture which the Delmhorst can measure is the beginning of detective work to identify the water intrusion point(s). If the water intrusion point is not sealed, then a low moisture reading may jump to 35% after the next rain, and a cycle of decay may begin.

One method now being marketed for testing EIFS walls uses infra-red technology to locate water entrapment and entry points. Infra-red has some utility in locating water leaks in large, flat industrial roofs, but my reading of technical materials supplied by a manufacturer of infra-red test equipment gives little suggestion that it would be useful for locating water inside EIFS-clad walls. Infra-red technology identifies temperature differentials rather than moisture, so it can only measure moisture secondarily, if-and-when the retained moisture produces a sufficiently large temperature differential . There are any number of construction details or anomalies which will give false positives and false negatives to an infra-red meter.

It was my perception, after reading a moisture report derived through infra-red testing, that the report relied more upon visual observation and readings from a Tramex Wet Wall Scanner than upon infra-red readouts. One of the marketing points for infra-red inspections is that it is not intrusive; it does not make probe holes in the exterior finish. The absence of probe holes is an attractive idea, even though they would be sealed with color-matched silicone caulk. Unfortunately, failure to probe where the test protocol and the scanner readouts indicate the need negates one of the most important elements in testing. The inspector must determine whether decay is present in conjunction with moisture entrapment.

Then there is the inspector who creates his own reputation and establishes his expertise with references to important past positions in the EIFS manufacturing industry. I believe his specialty is doing inspections in preparation for legal action. I was able to examine one of his reports on the EIFS cladding of a very large house. Except for two decorative foam panels in the shelter of the front porch, the house was entirely clad in cement stucco (hardcoat). This inspector collected a large fee for an EIFS inspection and an EIFS report on a cement stucco house. I wonder how that would stand up in court.

A very large number of people bought a Tramex Wet Wall Scanner and jumped into the inspection business with little or no training. EIFS testing is time-intensive work requiring intimate knowledge of residential construction, so be wary of the inspector who does a 3000 sq. ft. house in two hours, and only reports that "your house is wet (or dry)". The indicator for this inspector may be the quote of a ridiculously low fee. Another indicator of the poorly trained inspector will be ignorance of building materials and methods, or serious mistakes in interpretation

A perfect example of the poorly trained inspector came to light recently. His report described a house as completely saturated with water - including those sides which were clad in fiberboard, rather than EIFS. It seems that this inspector had misused the Tramex scanner in several ways, including its use on both sides of fiberboard-clad walls. He found "water" everywhere without realizing that the house had been sheathed in foil-backed foam, a material which reads as water to the scanner. When asked whether he was going to probe the "wet" walls, he told the homeowner "No, I am not going to mess up your walls with probes holes". A proper inspection revealed a relatively dry house with water in very specific areas. When finished, the probe holes were so well concealed that the homeowner could not find them.

Another category of inspectors to be careful of are those who are associated with remediation contractors. This arrangement creates such temptations for skewing test results that GAHI forbids its members being involved with remediation contractors.

EIFS inspections tend to be expensive because a strict test protocol must be followed and there is no way to know how much time will be required. A house with high, wet walls, many windows and complex structural details will take a long time to test, but even a simple structure with relatively dry walls must be tested and reported in accordance with the protocol. Regardless of how much on-site time is actually required, the inspector’s schedule must allow for all the time that may be needed. A useful report requires additional time.

In retrospect:

With the possible exception of new home construction, nothing has revealed the deficiencies of quality control in residential housing more than the EIFS wall system. It has demonstrated the lack of accountability in the building industry, the limitations of public oversight from our county inspections departments, and the relative helplessness of the individual homeowner or home buyer in obtaining a quality house. It is tragic that this object lesson has been so expensive. Much of the damage and costs associated with EIFS could have been avoided if county inspection departments diligently enforced building code requirements for window and step flashing, but they do not have budgets to pay for adequate staffs of code-certified inspectors.

There has been considerable litigation over the EIFS problem. A class-action lawsuit against one manufacturer has been settled and approved by the courts; several other lawsuits are still pending. Georgia has created restrictions which make it more difficult for the homeowner to pursue legal relief however, so the legal options are still unclear.

Don E. Howard July, 1999

Don E. Howard, retired (CABO #1651)