At a Jan. 5 meeting, Town Hall Construction Committee (THCC) member Pablo Carbonell told his fellow committee members that he doesn’t agree with the insulation method chosen in the Town Hall renovation plan. The plan calls for removing the interior walls and spraying closed-cell foam into the wall cavities. Carbonell said using blown-in insulation instead was a better solution, and the Owner’s Project Manager, Steve Kirby, agreed. Kirby said that he thought new windows would be more important to the energy efficiency of the building than spray insulation.
In making his case, Carbonell explained the drawbacks to using closed-cell insulation. For one thing, he said, closed-cell foam expands and hardens, and because of that it can trap moisture, which could lead to wood rot. In addition, once the foam is applied, the wall cavities become inaccessible without ripping open the walls, and Carbonell said he has seen the foam degrade over time, leaving uninsulated air pockets.
Town Hall plans developed by the selectmen over a year ago called for blown-in insulation, but when building consultant John Holland’s report recommended closed-cell spray insulation, the selectmen agreed and changed the plan. The change added about $148,000 to the estimated cost because the interior walls would have to be removed to spray the insulation into the cavities. Carbonell said that blown-in insulation could be installed efficiently and accurately because all the exterior siding is being replaced, so installers could easily see if they missed any areas.
The construction committee voted unanimously to recommend switching to blown-in insulation for Town Hall at the next BOS meeting on Jan. 13.
