Fifty Years of Roof Consulting

26 • IIBEC Interface July 2023
Fifty Years of
Roof Consulting
Feature
By Jim D. Koontz, PE, RRC
This paper was originally presented at the 2023 IIBEC International Convention and Trade Show.
before cellphones and AutoCAD, all drafting
was done by hand. All reports were typed by
hand on a manual typewriter. Copy machines
were a luxury. We did not have a word processor.
The first infrared surveys were performed with
equipment that weighed over 70 lb. The infrared
equipment required the use of liquid nitrogen
poured into the camera on the job site. The most
important equipment was a 200-ft cloth tape
and a notepad on a clipboard.
FIRST ROOF CONSULTANT
ORGANIZATIONS
In the late 1970s the National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA) asked for a
meeting with the major roofing consultants
in the United States. The meeting was held
in Chicago. The NRCA was represented by
its technical director, its president, and a few
board members. Fewer than ten roof consulting
firms attended the meeting. Three major roof
consulting firms, which were invited to the
meeting, chose not to participate with the NRCA.
The NRCA took the position that there
were several unqualified firms in the United
States providing improper and unprofessional
roof consulting services. The NRCA asked the
consultants present to form an association and
set quality control standards for roof consultants.
The initial participants in the meeting were
from throughout the United States. The roof
consultants who were present, less than ten,
agreed to move forward. As a result, the Institute
of Roofing and Waterproofing Consultants
(IRWC) was formed.
Founding members of the newly formed
association met several times and established
some fairly high standards for membership,
which included education, background
verification, and long-term experience in
various areas of roofing. After the group was
formed, the IRWC asked for a meeting with the
NRCA to propose a working relationship with
the NRCA. For whatever reason, the NRCA had
a change of heart and refused to meet with or
recognize the IRWC.
Unfortunately, this was a time period where
there was a great deal of animosity from the
NRCA towards roof consultants. Some of this
may have been well deserved. For a while
the NRCA would not allow roof consultants
to attend the NRCA annual conventions.
Fortunately, this changed.
Although the IRWC set very high standards
for membership, it floundered. In 1982 Robert
“Bob” Lyons founded the Roof Consultants
Institute (RCI). Membership in the RCI exploded
to Bob Lyons’s credit. The roof consultant
industry changed dramatically. An excellent book
titled The First Five Years by William C. Correll,2
AIA, 1989, documents the early history and key
players involved in the start of RCI.
ROOF ENGINEERING INC.
AND JIM D. KOONTZ &
ASSOCIATES INC.
After working as a roof consultant in the early
1970s, I obtained my Professional Engineer
Interface articles may cite trade, brand,
or product names to specify or describe
adequately materials, experimental
procedures, and/or equipment. In no
case does such identification imply
recommendation or endorsement by the
International Institute of Building Enclosure
Consultants (IIBEC).
EARLY HISTORY
In the early 1970s there were only a few active
roof consultants within the United States. At
the time I was unaware there were any firms
exclusively offering roof consultant services.
My father and I, in the late 1960s and early
1970s, would assist/consult with architects in
the design of reroofing projects. Consulting
would also involve assisting representatives of
insurance companies with hail and wind claims.
I became aware of three roof consultants in
a small advertisement in the back of a Sweets
Architectural Trade Catalog,1 which looked like a
set of green encyclopedias. This was obviously
pre-internet. The three consultants were Werner
Gumpertz/Carl Cash of Simpson, Gumpertz and
Heger in Boston, Massachusetts; Frank Moore
of Armm Consultants in Gloucester City, New
Jersey; and Edward Schreiber of Construction
Consultants in Detroit, Michigan.
After reviewing background data on these
consultants, I knew I was on the right track
to becoming a roof consultant. I met some of
these consultants and roofing manufacturers’
top technical people at an American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) meeting in 1974
in Houston, Texas. This was a revelation to me of
the technical aspects of the roofing industry.
The roof consulting business grew to include
quality control inspection during construction,
laboratory analysis of roofing samples, assistance
on large insurance claims, and cost estimating
and expert testimony in roof litigation. Most of
the initial clients had serious roof problems. One
of the biggest obstacles was trying to explain,
“What is a roof consultant?”
Things were pretty basic in the beginning
of the roof consulting business, particularly
compared to today’s technology. In this era
July 2023 IIBEC Interface • 27
license and formed Roof Engineering Inc. (REI)
in 1976. The business grew rapidly. In 1987
Professional Services Inc. (PSI) acquired REI, and
I worked as a vice president with Bob Lyons and
PSI for about a year and a half. In 1990 I started
Jim D. Koontz & Associates Inc. (JDKA), and I
continued to work until 2022.
EDUCATION: TECHNICAL
ADVANCES
As a roof consultant, one of the first books I relied
upon was the American Institute of Architects
(AIA) Manual of Built-Up Roof Systems by C. W.
Griffin, PE,3 published in 1970 (Fig. 1).
The book was very informative and, at the
time, one of the best references in the roofing
industry. I read it from cover to cover, multiple
times. The book was extraordinary, with no
agenda, just letting the reader know where we
were in the roofing industry. One of the original
reviewers was William C. Cullen of the National
Bureau of Standards, now known as the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). As
the roofing industry changed, Griffin, with Dick
Fricklas, updated the future publications.
In 1996 the name of the Third Edition
changed from Manual of Built-Up Roof Systems
to The Manual of Low-Slope Roof Systems.4 This
reflected the increased use of non-built-up roof
systems, such as single plies. The Fourth Edition5
in 2006 has approximately three times as many
pages as the First Edition. This is an indication
of the increase in technical knowledge in the
roofing industry from 1970 to 2006.
Paul A. Tente of Colorado Springs was one of
the first roof consultants in the United States. In
1977, Tente authored a book, Roofing Concepts/
Principles,6 which was relied upon and referred
to by many early roof consultants.
Another early quality reference book includes
Roofs by Maxwell Baker7 in 1980 by the National
Research Council of Canada.
ROOFING ORGANIZATIONS
Emphasis on technical knowledge within the
roofing industry grew exponentially. In 1972
Johns Manville (JM) introduced a four-day
seminar on roofing, BURSI (Built Up Roofing
Systems Institute). BURSI was directed by Dick
Fricklas. The classes, held in Denver, Colorado,
were highly successful. Within the roofing
industry, contractors, architects, and a few
future roof consultants clamored to obtain
invitations to attend these technical meetings.
During the course of over 50 years, the original
BURSI morphed into the Better Understanding
of Roof Systems Institute.
The NRCA worked with JM and formed the
Roofing Industry Educational Institute (RIEI)
in 1979. RIEI was headed by Dick Fricklas. The
RIEI seminar, which was also a multiday class
on roofing, was held at different locations
throughout the United States.
The first RIEI roofing seminar in 1980 was
held in Atlanta. The seminar was a huge success.
RIEI had more applicants for attendance than
could be accommodated. I attended this
seminar.
Several other organizations promoted the
technical aspects of roofing and would publish
articles generated by professionals within the
roofing industry. These organizations would
also hold technical seminars and symposia on
roofing. A few of these organizations included
ASTM, Department of Energy, International
Union of Testing and Research, National Bureau
of Standards, National Research Council of
Canada, and Single Ply Roofing Institute.
Simultaneously over the years, the various
roof contractors’ associations would hold
technical seminars. This would include the NRCA,
the Midwestern Roofing Contractors Association,
RCI, and several others. There was basically an
explosion of technical knowledge within the
roofing industry.
GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT
IN ROOF CONSULTING
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several
government agencies began to use roof
consultants. This included the General Services
Administration (GSA), Air Force (USAF), US
Navy, and US Army. As a roofing contractor I
had a great deal of prior experience working on
government contracts.
REI was awarded a GSA contract for
five states: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, and Louisiana. Services included
design of new and reroof projects, full-time
quality control inspection, laboratory testing,
evaluation of existing roof systems, and cost
estimating. This first GSA contract generated
a substantial amount of business. The GSA
expanded the contract to include six additional
states from Colorado to North Dakota. REI was
very busy.
Other contracts followed with the USAF,
US Post Office, US Army, and US Navy. The
government contracts injected a great deal of
work into the roof consulting industry. Several
other roof consulting firms benefited from
this work.
In 1980 the USAF adopted a technical
manual, AFM 91-36,8 authored by a roof
consultant from Detroit. Overall, the document
was a good quality control manual on the
application of built-up roofing. The document
had some strict quality control requirements
that in some cases were objectionable to the
NRCA.
Interply bitumen tolerances of 15% plus or
minus was required. One of its recommendations
was the removal of roof samples and testing
of newly installed built-up roofing on a daily
basis. At the time the USAF had approved one
laboratory to perform testing on samples per
ASTM D2829 requirements. Over a period, REI
was able to obtain contracts for laboratory testing
with five Air Force bases.
The NRCA was very opposed to this testing.
At least two articles published were critical of
the AFM 91-36: “Quality Assurance for Built-Up
Roof Construction”9 by William C. Cullen, NRCA
1985, Proceedings of the 1985 International
Symposium on Roofing Technology, and “The Air
Force Goes under the Knife”10 from Roof Spec/
Professional Roofing in 1987.
Figure 1. Roofing manuals: Manual of Built-Up Roof Systems, C. W. Griffin, First
Edition 1970; Manual of Built-Up Roof Systems, C. W. Griffin, Second Edition
1982; The Manual of Low-Slope Roof Systems, C. W. Griffin and
Richard Fricklas, Third Edition 1996; Manual of Low-Slope Roof Systems,
C. W. Griffin and Richard Fricklas, Fourth Edition 2006.
28 • IIBEC Interface July 2023
The US Army developed a program in 1989
called “Roofer: An Engineered Management
Systems for Bituminous Built-Up Roofs.”11 The
document was developed by David Bailey,
Donald Brotherson, Wayne Tobiasson, and Al
Knehans, all well-known technologists in the
roofing industry. The document was designed to
assist army personnel in how to make the best
use of maintenance and repair funds for built-up
roofs.
ROOF FAILURES
Roof failures have played a key role in advancing
roof consulting (see sidebar “Roof Failure
Articles,” p. 32) New, unproven, untested
roofing material systems came on the market
just as roof consulting was getting started. Roofs
would fail! The bigger the roof failure, the greater
amount of money would be in dispute. Roof
failures were the result of:
• Material failure
• Quality-of-work errors on the part of the roofer
• Improper design on the part of the architect/
designer
In numerous cases, roof failures were
a combination of all three factors. In some
situations when new products were introduced
it took time or somewhat of a learning curve to
understand the failure mode.
As some built-up roofing systems failed,
there became an increased market and demand
for roofing experts. These initial roof failures,
along with the introduction of a variety of new,
unproven roof systems, created a market for
the roof consulting industry. In the late 1970s
and early 1980s an emphasis on technical
research on both conventional and newly
introduced roofing systems, (e.g., single-ply and
modified bitumen membrane) fueled the roof
consulting industry.
Many newly introduced roofing systems
were problematic and added to the roof failure
portion of roof consulting. Early on the NRCA
had concerns about problematic “unqualified”
roof consultants with unsupportable opinions.
Two-Ply Built-Up Roofs
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the two-ply
built-up roof was introduced to the market.
Instead of the traditional four-ply, 15-lb built-up
roof, the new roofing system only required two
plies of 40-lb organic felts. These 40-lb felts were
15-lb felts with extra asphalt. The manufacturers
marketed two 40s equal to four 15s. Perhaps
they were numerically similar, but they were not
the same in tensile strength. The extra asphalt
coating also made it more difficult to properly
adhere the two membranes with hot asphalt.
The two plies failed, split, and delaminated. This
created a lot of lawsuits, thus the need for the
“expert witness” on roofing.
The roof expert would determine the cause
of the failure, assign blame, generate reports,
and eventually become an expert witness. This
generated large fees for the roof consultant. In
many roof failure cases, regardless of the facts,
the initial blame was placed on the roofer.
In 1974, The National Bureau of Standards
published Preliminary Performance Criteria
for Bituminous Membrane Roofing, by Robert
Mathey and Bill Cullen.12 They tested the physical
properties of various four-ply built-up roofing
systems. The tests included:
• Tensile strength
• Thermal expansion
• Flexural strength
• Tensile fatigue strength
• Flexural fatigue strength
• Shear strength
• Impact resistance
This groundbreaking research changed the
roofing industry. The two-ply roofing systems
were discontinued. The two-ply systems could
not meet these recommended performance
standards. The cause of some roof failures
could be attributed to the roofing system and
not the roofer or architect. In some cases, the
qualifications and knowledge of the new roofing
expert were called into question. Unqualified
experts created a lot of animosity with roofers
and thus roofing associations.
PVC Roofing Systems
New, unproven, untested roofing systems
came on the market just as roof consulting was
beginning to develop. This included single-ply
roofs. When polyvinyl chloride (PVC) single plies
were first introduced they were marketed as
easy to install, free of blisters, lightweight, and
clean. The PVC roofs were marketed as superior
to built-up roofing, based on advanced German
technology.
Unreinforced PVC roof systems, using
unstable plasticizers, in some cases would
shatter like a pane of glass after a few years of
service. The chemical mix of the PVC could not
stand up to UV exposure over a period of time.
The PVC shatter failures were in some cases
cataclysmic. Entire buildings would be flooded,
resulting in the loss of all equipment, inventory,
and items within the building. Whatever
businesses were in these buildings would be
completely shut down for months. The insurance
claims were staggering.
Thus the need for a “roof expert” to take
samples, perform lab testing, evaluate the
roofing system, and offer expert advice to the
insurance carrier, its attorneys, and the
building owner.
Asphalt Shingles
Roof failures also occurred with asphalt
shingles. After just a few years of service, many
fiberglass asphalt shingles would split. Several
shingle manufacturers were required to issue
“recall notices” for their products. The subject
of splitting shingles was discussed by several
parties. I myself wrote articles on the topic:
“Fiberglass Shingles: Shingle Splitting Problem
Observed in a Number of Western Applications”
from the May/June 1990 issue of Western
Roofing,13 and “Performance Attributes of
Fiberglass Shingles” from the July 2007 issue of
RCI Interface.14
Foam Insulations
In the late 1970s, following the Arab oil embargo,
there was a growing concern about energy
conservation. Gas prices at the time increased
from 0.30 to 1 USD per gallon.
Increasing the R-value of roofing systems
was seen as a way to save on fuel for heating and
cooling. Roof insulation at the time, fiberglass,
wood fiber, or perlite had a minimal R-value of
approximately 2.7 to 3.7 per inch. Additional
insulation with higher R-value was installed in
roofing systems. This was primarily driven by
changes in the building code. Polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate board stock roof insulations with
higher R-values were manufactured and marketed
by the roofing manufacturers. The insulations,
however, had not been subject to long-term “field
evaluation.”
The increase in thickness of roof insulations
complicated roof designs. As these products
were used, various problems began to develop.
This included facer sheet delamination, which
obviously exacerbated uplift problems resulting
in roof blow-offs. Many times, the facer sheet
problems were accompanied by the presence of
“knit-lines” that were formed in the roof insulation
at the time of manufacture.
Problems reported included dimensional
stability issues, cupping, and bowing, particularly
shrinkage, and edge cavitation, and crushing
or powdering. The NRCA issued a technical
bulletin 2000-3 recommending a cover board
over polyisocyanurate roof insulation.15 This
provided some temporary relief. Many of the
problems were not solved until manufacturers
researched and implemented changes to the
chemistry of the foam formulations. The NRCA
also recommended changes in compressive
strength, dimensional stability, and R-value
determination.
Phenolic Foam
One roof insulation introduced by the Koppers
Co. was phenolic foam. The new insulation had
somewhat of an orange color. The insulation
was marketed with an R-value of 8.2 per inch.
The insulation, however, had a serious issue.
When exposed to any moisture from roof
leakage to humidity within the building, the
chemicals within the phenolic foam would
become acidic and leach out. The net result
was corrosion or rusting of the steel deck. The
failure of the steel deck in some cases would
occur in as short as five years.
Koppers sold its phenolic foam
manufacturing business to JM in 1989. JM
manufactured and sold phenolic foam until
1992, at which time serious corrosion problems
of the phenolic foam over steel decking were
well known. JM and Koppers were the subject
of a class action lawsuit in 1996. The US District
Court granted a final approval settlement
involving Koppers and JM in December of
2000. At the time this was the largest class
action settlement in the roofing industry.
Articles concerning the corrosion problems
of phenolic foam appeared in 1991 and 1993.
This included “Metal Deck Corrosion: Three
Case Studies” by R. P. Cannon16 and “Steel
Deck Corrosion Associated with Phenolic Roof
Insulation” by Thomas L. Smith and James D.
Carlson (NRCA).17 An excellent follow-up article
was published in Professional Roofing by the
NRCA in 2005, entitled “The Aftermath of
Phenolic Foam” by Rex Greenwald.18
Coal Tar Type III
Historically, a four-ply coal tar pitch membrane
with gravel was one of the best-performing
systems in the roofing industry. A life span of
30 to 40 years was not uncommon. Working
with coal tar pitch fumes, however, was very
problematic. The roofs had to be installed on
low-slope or no-slope structures. The fumes
would cause eye and skin irritation, and it was
later learned that prolonged exposure to these
fumes could cause cancer.
In response to the fume problem, the
manufacturers of coal tar pitch changed the
formulation and provided an additive that
cut down on the fuming. Roofing contractors
jokingly referred to the new coal tar as
“perfumed pitch.” The installation of the coal tar
bitumen minimized eye and or skin irritation.
Safety was touted as an advantage. The lowfuming
“coal tar bitumen” was given its own
ASTM designation in 1978: ASTM D450, Type
III.19
After a few years of use of the coal tar
bitumen, problems began to develop. The flood
coat surface would begin to harden, crack,
and split, unlike a typical coal tar pitch. An
oily brownish residue would also develop on
the surface of the roof. When questioned, the
manufacturers denied asphalt had been added
to their product. It turned out the additive
being used was some type of paraffin or candle
wax material.
The bitumen also had a higher softening
point. As the roofs aged, cracks would develop
in the surface of the roofing system. Overall,
the roofs did not appear to be defective other
than the oily surface. The cracking occurring in
the bitumen, however, would go completely
through the system. This would allow water to
flow through the roof and into the interior of the
building. I tested a number of these roofs which
had prematurely failed.
FAILURE SUMMARY
Roof failures from workmanship, materials,
or design have historically accounted for a
considerable portion of business for the roof
consulting industry. A big part of roof consulting
over the last 50 years has been the introduction
of new, unproven roofing systems. One of the
problems is the new systems have to be in
place a number of years in different geographic
locations to see if they will perform. Some of
these new systems have difficulty surviving
the test of time. I am confident this trend
will continue.
A FEW NOTABLE PROJECTS
The Kingdome, Seattle, Washington
REI was retained by the insurance carrier
for King County on two different occasions.
The first inspection involved a problem
with a solvent-based coating applied over a
polyurethane foam (PUF) roof also known as
spray polyurethane foam (SPF) roof. The roof
on the Kingdome consisted of a Tectum panel
covered with reinforced concrete deck that was
overlaid with SPF roofing, which was covered
with an elastomeric coating (Fig. 2).
Two passes of solvent-based elastomeric
coating had been applied over an existing SPF
roof in 1993. The first pass of coating had not
fully cured prior to the application of the second
coating; the cool, cloudy, rainy weather in
Seattle may have exacerbated this problem. The
second coating did cure.
After the two coatings were applied, birds
began to peck at the foam roof. One theory was
the birds were getting high on the underlying
uncured solvent, like sniffing glue. The peck
holes were about an inch in diameter and
extended into the polyurethane foam.
A meeting was held with King County,
their architects, engineers, contractors, and
the coating manufacturer. I represented the
insurance carrier. The consultants to King
County tried to put forth a claim on the roof
indicating the holes were not related to
pecking but were caused by hail or some other
singular weather event phenomenon. When
I tried to explain the bird pecking issue, the
management representative with King County
responded loudly, “Oh [expletive], you really
don’t expect us to believe the holes in the roof
are caused by birds.”
After some back-and-forth discussion,
particularly with the coating manufacturer, the
consensus of the various parties in the meeting
was that the holes in the roof were in fact caused
by birds. King County took the position that the
bird peck holes were a covered peril under their
insurance policy. The insurance carrier said yes,
but each bird peck at a different time period
has a “separate deductible.” The fight was on!
Eventually a resolution was reached.
A tragic event occurred at the Kingdome in
1994, resulting in the deaths of two workmen.
The King County decided in 2000 to implode or
Figure 2. The Kingdome, Seattle, Washington.
July 2023 IIBEC Interface • 29
30 • IIBEC Interface July 2023
destroy the Kingdome. The two deaths and the
eventual destruction of the Kingdome had all
started with a coating and bird pecking problem
on the SPF roof.
Stapleton International Airport,
Denver, Colorado
I was retained to examine the PVC roof on
the old Stapleton International Airport in
1997. The City of Denver had closed Stapleton
International Airport and in turn opened the
new Denver International Airport (DIA) in 1995.
The roof consisted of a mechanically attached,
non-reinforced PVC membrane. The PVC roof
had shattered and completely failed, causing
the unoccupied airport to flood. If the airport
had still been in operation, it would have been a
complete disaster.
While walking Stapleton International
Airport’s roof with the management for the City
of Denver, the facilities director about halfway
through the inspection stopped and exclaimed,
“We have the same roofing system on the new
Denver International Airport. Will the new DIA
roof fail in the same manner?”
Denver International Airport,
Denver, Colorado
The new DIA was constructed in phases.
The south main terminal was initially
constructed, followed by concourses A, B, and
C. The roofs on all four areas consisted of PVC
nonreinforced membrane. I was retained by
the city of Denver to examine and test all four
roof areas at DIA (Fig. 3).
The examination involved removal of 76
samples, each 2 × 2 ft. in size, from the main
terminal and the three concourses. All of the
samples were impacted with ice spheres per
National Bureau of Standards 55 procedure.
It was determinted that all of the PVC roofs
were vulnerable to hail. Because of slight
variations in the type of plasticizer used in the
PVC membrane and age from the terminal to
concourses A, B, and C, it was determined the
main terminal was vulnerable to hail 1 inch in
diameter.
Concourses A, B, and C were also vulnerable
to damage from hail slightly larger than 1 inch.
After a report was completed for DIA, a hail event
did occur there.
The main terminal roof failed exactly as I had
predicted. Fortunately, there was a relatively
minor amount of rain following the hail event.
The main terminal roof was temporarily repaired
with 6- x 6-in. black membrane peel-and-stick
patches. The PVC roof was replaced.
MURRAH FEDERAL BUILDING,
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building opened
on March 2, 1977, and was named for an
Oklahoma native who was one of the youngest
federal judges in US history. I had worked
on the building for the GSA. The roof was a
ballasted EPDM (Fig. 4).
Figure 3. Denver International Airport roofs.
Former US Army soldier Timothy McVeigh
parked a truck in front of the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building on April 19, 1995. Within
the truck was a homemade bomb built by
McVeigh.
At 9:02 a.m. the homemade bomb
exploded. Once the explosion occurred the
surrounding area looked like a war zone. The
Murrah building was reduced to rubble.
After the bombing of the Murrah Federal
Building, JDKA was retained by several
insurance companies to examine and evaluate
damage to various buildings in the immediate
area of the blast zone adjacent to the Murrah
Federal Building.
The blast or shock wave from the explosion
blew out windows and doors, resulting in the
pressurization of the inside of the buildings.
Consequently, roofs and structural decks were
uplifted and damaged.
One of JDKA’s clients was Zurich Insurance.
A meeting was held in Oklahoma City with the
president of Zurich Insurance, several building
consultants, and senior property adjusters. The
president of Zurich instructed the consultants
that the primary goal was to restore the insureds
to the pre-explosion conditions just as quickly as
possible.
The president of Zurich stressed that the
building consultants had a free hand to spend
whatever was necessary to accomplish this goal,
although they should not let it get out of control.
Competitive bids for building repairs were not
July 2023 IIBEC Interface • 31
The roof inspection was obviously over. The
clients and all of the people at the inspection left
to return home. I stayed at the hospital for a few
hours and helped move patients from one floor
to another in order to have one floor open for
incoming casualties from the Pentagon.
Initially, all flights out of Washington, DC,
were canceled, and there was a long waiting
list for the first available flights. I spent the next
week at a hotel, along with at least a hundred
other stranded people from all over the United
States. I would see the same people every day for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and by the end of
the week, I had become friends with quite a few
of them.
Finally, I was able to take the first American
Airlines flight from Washington, DC, to Dallas. I
sent a brief report to my client, specifying that
the roof leakage was a flashing problem. I never
heard back from my client about the hospital job.
United States Post Office,
New York, New York
Following the September 11, 2001, attack by
terrorists on New York, I examined the roof of the
United States Post Office (USPO) located at 90
Church Street, New York.
United Flight 175, flying at 446 mph, had
hit the World Trade Center Tower 2. A jet engine
from Flight 175 penetrated through the building,
exited, and hit the roof of the Church Street USPO
(Fig. 5). The engine bounced off the roof and
landed at the intersection of Murray Street and
Church Street. The impact knocked a hole in the
structural concrete deck of the USPO about the
size of a small car.
Other falling debris hit the roof, resulting in
impact damage. At the time of my inspection,
temporary repairs had been performed to the
roof. Some of the debris from the towers also
partially obstructed the internal roof drains.
Figure 4. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, after it was
bombed.
Figure 5. United States Post Office, 90 Church
Street, New York, New York.
required. This was accomplished with several
of the insureds in downtown Oklahoma City.
Other JDKA insurance company clients took the
same position. Often, insurance companies are
criticized for not authorizing sufficient funds to
repair damage to buildings. That did not happen
in this case.
MedStar Washington Hospital
Center, Washington, DC
On the morning of September 11, 2001,
I was inspecting the roof on MedStar
Washington Hospital Center in downtown
Washington, DC. A roofer and several hospital
representatives were on the roof with me. The
hospital is approximately five miles northeast
of the Pentagon.
I was walking the roof with my head down
and taking photographs. During the roof
inspection, one of the roofers yelled, “Look at
that!” Smoke could be seen rising from the
Pentagon, which had just been impacted by a
hijacked airplane.
Conventions Are Back!
Will the Economy Cooperate?
Special interest
The numbers don’t lie: In-person conventions have come roaring back as concerns about COVID-19
have receded.
“Convention halls … across the country are filling up again, restoring a vital source of economic
fuel that had been cut off during the pandemic and was slow to recover in many cities,” wrote
Austen Hufford in the Wall Street Journal. The Events Industry Council reported that its indexes
show that conference and hotel demand in the fourth quarter exceeded the same in 2019.
What does that mean for you? More opportunities to travel and network. But for how long?
Hufford noted that one Dallas, Texas, visitors bureau “is preparing for a short-term slowdown in
tourism because of the possibility of a US recession.” He also pointed to travel-budget cuts at
Microsoft and 3M as further evidence of a possible downturn.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Mike Flippo/shutterstock.com