JAE...newer technology has produced some improvement in the membrane MATERIALS but not necessarily so in their seaming techniques and training of installers. Manufacturers still "qualify" their installers by financial performance not roofing capability. Some of the more "exotic" polymers used to produce roof membranes actually are pretty good materials...the weak link being the manner in which their seams are bonded and their flashing details.
EPDM roofs have not improved a great deal since their inception. In some cases, their experimental "improvements" have been disastrous. Many of the failures I investigated were 10 to 15 years ago, though have done several in the last few years. One reason I have seen for a lack of complaints with many roof systems is that owners do not keep the buildings long enough to know if the roof is performing properly or not. Often failures result in the second, third, or fourth ownership, thus precluding a claim against the original roofer and the manufacturer of the membrane, if either is actually known at that point.
Regarding patches to a BUR, the process is not to peel back successive layers, but to PUT BACK successive layers. Finding a leak in a BUR is tremendously easier than finding a leak in most single ply systems. Since BUR's are usually fully bonded systems, leaks don't travel a great deal from their source (there are notable exceptions, but generally this is the case). For fully bonded single ply systems, the same is true. For mechanically attached or ballasted single ply systems, the leak may be in the membrane on one side of the building and show up as a leak in the building on the other side! In short, once through the membrane, it is free to travel laterally until it finds its way into the building.
I know my bias against single ply systems comes through readily. I've just seen too many problems with them to treat them as equivalent to a quality built-up roof system. Yes, there are relatively good single ply systems on the market and, yes, there are even ones that I would specify under the right conditions, but as a class of system, I consider them inferior to a quality built-up roof or to a quality modified bitumen system. They are usually much less expensive ($1.50 to $3.00 less per sf than a good BUR), and if an owner looks at the cost vs. the expected time he will have the building, they often win.
In developing and following the management of roof systems for several school districts as well as "a major theme park", the owners who will "live with" the building for its life see the life cycle cost benefit of quality BUR systems and proper maintenance.
Sorry for the diatribe...!