Q&A Forums
ICC ES AC377 Post New Topic | Post Reply
| Author | Comments |
|---|---|
|
JohnPeters
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 08:57 AM
|
ICC ES AC377
All & Mason,JUNE 1, 2010 - EXPOSED FOAM IN ATTICS AND CRAWL SPACES MUST BE COVERED. I have been following this topic for some time now. I have a few questions / concerns: 1.) The obvious solution to achieving ignition barrier status for exposed foam in attics and crawl spaces will be the use of intumescent paint. Has anyone bothered to test if intumescent paint can pose back end problems related to the building functioning as a system - such as vapor drive movement, mold growth. Has intumescent paint been tested for effects on indoor air quality, human sensitivity? I have heard that humidity greatly effects the performance value of intumescent paints to function as an ignition barrier. And we're going to spray this stuff in a crawl spaces???!!!! 2.) Many bloggers have posted a movement to join the SPFA to battle "legislation" that is going to require the use of ignition barriers. From the bloggs I have seen it looks as though you are all making commision on signing people up with the SPFA. (Bare in mind that I am a huge advocate of the SPFA and hope that someday they develop a national certification standard for foam contractors.) How is joining the SPFA going to accomplish fighting the establishment so that ignition barriers are not going to be required? The results of contracting fire consultants to study foam and fire yielded professional feedback on what is deemed acceptable. The conclusion to use ignition barriers was based on science, testing, data analysis. I don't necessarily believe that ignition barriers should be required given all of the other flammable, noxious smoke producing items in the average home (ie. white pine injected with glue resins and preservatives) - If your stance is to fight the establishment looking to push forth ignition barrier requirements, what is your argument? How do you fight professionally assessed data findings, when you have no conflicting data to dispute the SPFA's tasks force findings? As far as I can see the only argument you have is: "I don't want my costs to go up." (Jim, I know your a fellow engineer so I expect a good answer from you) Curious, jp |
|
Michael Fusco
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 09:04 AM
|
JP Your questions are valid. Unfortunately some of the assumptions are incorrect. I'm going to not address number 1. I will let an "expert" in coatings answer that...I truly don't know. As to number two, at the code hearing, a group of manufacturers opposed to the new test method presented test results which showed that the test configuration proposed did not mimick the behavior of open cell foam in a closed attic assembly (the assembly we spray the most). This data was present by Bill Koffell, who is, in some opinions, the leading fire science guy. This change was to go into effect immediately. As a result of the presentation, implementation was dfeferred for another year..... Which brings us to why join SPFA. SPFA is the organization that, like it or not, pulls all of us together, pools resources, and represents all of us. The orgnization is set up in such a way that the board consists of companies who pay a premium, BUT all committees are open to all memebers. So..if the committee is "stacked", it can steer work, testing and efforts in a specific direction. The organization has taken a beating over this, and it's not the organizations fault....it is ours for allowing these things to happen behind the scenes instead of out in the open. The committee didn't hide anything...it just never got publicized outside of the SPFA website. So...that's how we got where we are. The question is does the research stop now, or do we get enough people on the committee to drive the research forward. We now have 11 months, the clock is ticking. The ICC has already started refusing SWRI99-02 as a fire test. That was the protocol previously used, so this is moving forward. No...the data exists. The testing is expensive and the 3 companies against it are moving forward, but much slower without the support of SPFA and the committee. The cost is the result, not the driver. Remember that 5 years is the return builders base calculations of ROI on for buyers. Much can change......and I have greatly shiortened this resposne for space puproses, but I hope this spurrs you to get more involved, not through the blogs, but through reliable sources of good information. I have been called a few names as a rsult of my stances here...and in the interests of disclosure...I am no longer an applicator, but this industry has offered me a good living for over 30 years....and we are now taking a very large step backwards for no reason other than commercial advantage for a few manufacturers....It is not in my poweer to change any of this...it is in the majority of SPFA members to. |
|
mason
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 10:30 AM
|
The entire plastics and insulation industry organizations have consistently endorsed the building code requirements for ignition barriers and thermal barriers for over 35 years. The key element in the building code that is agreed by the groups is: "Unless otherwise allowed (in the building code) foam plastic shall be separated from the interior of a building by an approved thermal barrier..." Exceptions include in "attics and crawl spaces where entry is for service of utiliites the foam plastic can be protected against ignition using one of the following ignition barriers (1.5 inch mineral fiber, 0.25 inch thick wood structural panels; 0.37 inch particleboard, 0.25 inch hardboard, 0.37 inch gypsum board or corrosion resistant steel having a base metal thickness of 0.016 inch." But there is a specific approval that exempts any foam plastic from these requirements. This is how some foam manufacturers have received ICC evaluation reports based on the SWRI-99 attic and crawl space test. The section reads: "Foam plastic not meeting the requirements of Sections R 314.3 through R 314.5 shall be specifically approved on the basis of one of the following approved tests, NPFA 286 with the acceptance criteria of Section R 315.4, FM 4880, UL 1040, or UL 1715, or approved fire tests related to actual end-use configurations. The specific approval shall be based on the actual end use configuration and shall be performed on the finished foam plastic assembly in the maximum thickness intended for use. Assemblies tested shall include seams, joints, and other typical details used in the installation of the assembly and shall be tested in the manner intended for use. The debate that JimC alludes to is dropping the SWRI-99 test in lieu of a modified room corner test. The new test procedure was adopted based on a testing program established by SPFA and was throughly vetted by the other trade groups and other fire consultants. While there was some opposition from a few companies and individuals, the overwhelming response from the fire consultant industry, foam plastics industry and insulation industry was that the new test was a significant improvement over the SWRI-99 test. In my opinion the new procedure is much better than the SWRI -99 test which compared kraft faced fiberglass (which is not approved to be left exposed in attics and burns and flashes very quickly within 1 to 1.5 minutes.) in lieu of a timed result based on comparison tests on 0.25 inches of wood. (which is a code approved ignition barrier.) The wood consistently had flames out the front of the room corner around 3.5 minutes. So, all you have to do is to have your bare foam last 3.5 minutes before the flames go out the front of the room. Based on results I have seen with products that have been tested in similar procedures, it is unlikely that uncovered foam plastic installed to the underside of a roof deck or to the kneewalls of an attic or crawl space would pass the test without a covering of some type. But, it is also likely that some foam plastics may pass the test when installed to the floor of an attic. (I am aware of a commercial SPF project a few years ago where the sprayfoam was installed to the floor of a crawl space attic and not covered. The manufacturer tested their class 1 foam installed to the floor of the attic in accordance with FM 4880. The foam passed the test and they were granted a code approval for that specific application.) I want folks to remember, that the SWRI-99 is a relatively new test procedure. And most of the last 35 years, foam was required to have an igntion barrier in attics under all circumstances. Only a handful of suppliers used the test to obtain ICC Evaluation Reports based on the tests. Other companies had foams that would have passed but they did not consider the test to be a representative fire test and some sprayfoam companies and the other foam plastic trade groups lobbied hard to ICC ES to modify or drop it. So, the industry only recently had this as an issue. The foam plastic industry as a whole sees this new test procedure as correcting a problem that was short lived and getting back to fire performance testing that is based more realistically on code requirements and end use configuration. I do not believe an effort to change the building code requirement for ignition barriers over foam plastic, would be succesful based on the history of the required use of them. I could see a succesful modification of the new test procedure based on new research. But this research is not likely to happen soon. SPFA is spending most of their resources at the present time addressing safety and health applications issue with OSHA and EPA. This may lead to required education and certification of sprayfoam applicators. To address the other point about coatings and vapor retarder properties. I agree any product used as an igntion barrier must be considered in the environment in which it is to be used. Just like selecting a coating in a SPF roofing application sometimes you would want a vapor retarder coating sometimes you would want a breather coating. Other factors to consider, chemical resistance,climate, humidity, ease of application, cure time, odor, cost, appearance, etc. |
|
jimcoler
I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Jul 31, 2009 09:21 PM
|
John, The SPFA is the recognized entity who was charged by the ICC to come up with a new test. They were given a deadline to come up with "Something" by June 2009 or the ICC will come with "Something" for them. Well, the SPFA came up with "Something alright" and it's not valid!!!! Regardless of it's invalidity in many ways which I will describe, the ICC-ES board went ahead with the recommendation from the Committee Chair who followed the direction of the SPFA to accept the test - active as of June 1st, 2010. SO, how is this test invalid? Well, the test is based on NFPA 286 full room burn test, and the data used to derive an acceptance criteria is statistically invalid for two very good reasons of invalidity. The NFPA 286 test is a 15 minute thermal barrier test of a full room burn scenario. This means it has an 8' high flat ceilng and the burn is very severe compared to a reasonable ignition source which may be in an attic. Try 3 of the largest gas grills at Home Depot on High with flames impinging on the foam. This is the amount of heat introduced in this test! As we all know an attic is not typically 8' high and flat. But it varies greatly on the attic sizes, roof pitches, rafter construction, and venting or unvented of roofs. None of these factors were taken into consideration into the SPFA test. The NFPA 286 test was selected by Jesse Beitel (who is a Fire Engineer hired by SPFA) and his reason for this test was because he thoought it would get accepted quicker by the ICC because it's a recognized test. Ironically, it's been modified enough that it really shouldn't even be associated with the NFPA 286 test and this just adds confusion of a false sense of security that it's an appropriate test. It's not! I talked with Jesse at the code hearing and one comment he made to me was, "He could get any product to pass any test if he really wanted to!" This doesn't sound like he was suggesting the proper test, but a quick fix to meet the demands of the ICC timeframe. The SPFA task force did not do realistic attic burn scenarios even though they were proposed by a couple of people on the committee because the rest of the committee voted to move forward with the modified NFPA 286 test. So, the realistic movement was squashed because too few people on the committee supported it. Why? Well, I would guess they wanted a quick fix and Jesse gave it to them. So, if you and anyone else will join SPFA and join the Attic and Crawlspace task force, we may have a chance to get this changed back. The committee is a democratic process based on votes. Our voices didn't count because we were on the committee. I am now but I'm only one person trying to steer this in the right direction. I could use some help here! The test data obtained by the SPFA testing was good, but their analysis of this data was totally wrong! Would you rate the size of a package by the average of the Length, Width and Height? No, but the SPFA task force took the average of multiple possible failure modes and used this as the pass fail criteria. This is completely and statistically invalid. As an Quality Engineer for alomst 10 years designing, analyzing and interpreting tests, this would never be accepted by anyone who understands how to really interpret data! So regardless of how invalid the testing was, the interpretation and analysis of the data was even worse! Does everyone get charged taxes based on the AVERAGE income rate? (maybe under Obama's plan, but I won't go there!)The different characteristics they averaged are not even objective measurements. Many of them are subjective at best; flash over point & flames out doorway. I could go on and on with analogies, but it's just invalid they way they've come up with the pass fail criteria and they used an invalid test according to most (99%) of all attics and crawlspaces. If there is a crawlspace out there which meets the 8' wall height, it's no longer called a crawlspace in our area - it's a basement and that acceptance criteria is different! Mason is right that a smaller group of the task force took it upon their own to pay a different fire consultant to chime in on the results since the SPFA wasn't listening to them - Bill Koffell. Bill and I had some interesting conversations the day of the code hearing and he supports my position or I support his which ever way you look at it. So, Bill and the couple of companies who hired him did some more realistic testing before the code hearing and found that the results are very different than as described in the SPFA proposal. It just proved the invalidity of the testing and the data analysis of the official SPFA task force. So, your statement of the conclusion based on science testing and data analysis is correct, but it's still wrong! A turd still stinks no matter how you measure or study the perfume characteristics of it! The only argument isn't that I don't want the costs to go up, but this is the direct result of the passing of this test. My argument hinges on using realistic testing conditions, statistical data analysis of the data, and realistic conclusions based on the tesing data. The SPFA test was to show how well intumescent paints worked compared to a not worst case scenario of an ignition barrier in an unreaslistic test which sounds like it's a valid previously accepted test but it's not! They knew what they wanted the test results to say before they tested it. They already had their conclusion before the tests were even run! They then interrogated or manipulated the data long enough to get it to say what they wanted! Do you call this based on science, testing and data analysis? I call it a framed and biased study not based on any of these! SO, there is supporting data on the other side of this fence but the SPFA didn't talk about this because it didn't support their cause of getting "Something" passed before the ICC threatened to pass "Something" of their own! I would have like to have seen what the ICC would have recommended when just before they voted on this, one of the voting members made the statement and asked the question," I should probably already know this but, What is the difference between an ignition barrier and a thermal barrier?" I'm not kidding and if you don't believe me get a copy of the transcript of the hearing! I almost fell out of my chair that he sat through 4-5 hours of a code hearing about this and must have been playing minesweep on his computer or something. Maybe he thought the game was MindSweep because that's what it did! So, your comments are not correct and I would urge you again to get involved and help support true realistic scientific testing and data analysis where the testing results come to a conclusion on their own without trying to manipulate the test and data to get it to say what you want it to! By the way, I'm also an Assistant Chief of a local Fire Department along with my engineering background which should be opposing views if safety was a real issue! It's not and the are worried about Santa burning his butt coming down the chimeny so they are banning fires in the fire places from now on! It doesn't matter if Santa really exists or not, they came up with some testing that they say shows he might and passed the proposal! Jim Coler |
|
jimcoler
I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Jul 31, 2009 10:26 PM
|
Mason, Your Comment "The new test procedure was adopted based on a testing program established by SPFA and was throughly vetted by the other trade groups and other fire consultants." is only your opinion. This test was not thoroughly vetted by other trade groups and fire consultants, but only the task force and the one fire consultant - Jesse Beitel. It was a test to provide the desired results of requiring all foam to be covered with an intumescent paint. If this were a real unbiased test, they would have actually testing a roof system with foam not covered with an intumescent paint! This test was not even done with their new fangled Modified NFPA 286 test! Your comment about it being a significant improvement to the SWRI-99 test, is purely opinion! You're putting words in my mouth because I happen to be a part of each of the fire consultant industry, foam plastics industry and insulation industry and I along with many others within these industries completely disagree. The problem is they aren't even aware of what is transpiring behind closed doors by some SPFA members who decide their fate. No, this isn't like our government system where we have elected officials who we can not ellect next time around when they vote out of our favor, but they have their own agendas to fulfill. Yes, I have mine and that's to keep the prices of foam insulation down while providing yet a safe situation so it can me made available to every home in the US because I believe in the performance of the product. This test is not based on safety, but on a belief that there is a "problem" (as you refer to)! There is no "problem" with foamed attic which are left exposed! SPFA or their hired fire consultant didn't pose any data showing there was a "problem" that needed immediate action, but their opposition clearly showed data which supports the fact there is no "problem"! Again Mason, please get your facts straight! The flames out the door for all tests run by the SPFA varied greatly. There was one test of 1/4" plywood which had a result of 3:46 minutes! The rest were 4:01, 4:15, 4:25, 4:35, 5:03. The SPFA averaged all lof these tests and came up with an average for flames out the door at 4:20. This 4:20 was then averaged with 4:24 (1MW HRR), 4:27 (20 Kw-Floor), and 3:39 (600C) to come up with an average of averages of 4:18 minutes which they called their acceptance criteria. They threw out the paper target results which were averages of 4:47, and 4:57 minutes because the front targets "tended to lag behind" the back targets and it would have "skewed the overall time to flashover" not in their favor. Also keep in mind that they used A-C 1/4" plywod but put the A side towards the fire which would have given longer results. Ture worst case scenario would be to use the C-side out to the fire as this side is rougher and will burn faster. This in turn would have yielded a lower time to failure of a "prescribed ignition barrier". The code doesn't reference the surface finish of the plywood so it should be assumed that a C finish is acceptable. The SPFA is also did not release all of the data it has on this. They chose 6 of 9 plywood tests run and no test results for the intumescent coating tests. You spoke again for the entire "foam plastics industry" which includes me and many other who share my viewpoint and this is false! I would ask you to stop speaking in terms of poeple groups which clearly include many who oppose the views and beliefs you are imposing on them. I for one take offense to you statement because it's not true and sounds like you have the support of the entire foam industry when you don't! There are a lot more people in this industry than the few people on this task force that made this decision against the will of even some on this task force. You don't have a right to speak for the entire industry and make these false statements! The SPFA has said they are willing to support additional testing based on real life and realistic circumstances and a new proposal if the data shows it's necessary. I am one who have stepped up, joined the SPFA against my will and joined the task force to let me voice be heard! I'm hoping others will see through your personal views and opinions and see the real facts which motivate them to get involved and let theri voices be heard. It's time we bring this process out of the closet and let people see what really happened here! You may be right that this might not happen soon, because what motivation does the SPFA have to do testing which may go against their past victory of the criteria change. They said they would, and it's still on the agenda, if they get to it! The more people we have on the task force who want to see real life circumstances and real results, the more chance we have at getting new testing done! Jim Coler |
|
mason
Posted: Aug 03, 2009 08:12 AM
|
Jim, My basic opinion still remains the same even if I did not remember correctly the exact times of the test. Whether it is 3.5 minutes or 4.5 minutes is not as relevent as the fact that the testing program was conducted with the coordination and direction of a very well known and respected fire consultant who the ICC Evaluation Services recommends to companies and organizations. Any member of SPFA could have volunteered to be a member of that task group, so your claim of exlusionary policy is not warranted. It is my opinion that the members of the task group represented a well reprsented cross section of the sprayfoam community including both open and closed cell manufacturers, contractors and chemical companies. While not offically members of the task group, there were other groups who were paying close attention to the testing program and assisting with the "vetting" process included the Polyiso Manufacturer's Association, the Extruded Polystyrene Manufacturers Association, The American Chemistry Council and ASTM's C 16, Thermal Insulation Committee. Our industry does not exist in a vacumn. I do not pretend to be an alarmist, but this is a real issue and a real hazard. No matter how you try to sweep it under the rug, Bare foam is a hazard in attics. Over the last two years 2 sprayfoam applicators have been killed and one seriously injured due to flash fires in the attic. It is only a matter of time before other trades experience the same thing. |
|
mason
Posted: Aug 03, 2009 12:19 PM
|
I would like to expand on my response to Jim. During a phone call a few months ago, we agreed that both of us had differing opinions on this issue and those opinions were not likely to change. We also agreed that both of us were working in the best interests of the sprayfoam industry. But there is one part of Jim's opinion that bothers me more than any other. It is the presumption that the folks who are on the fire testing task group from SPFA have an agenda tied to their company's interest as their primary agenda and not the industry as a whole. One distinct advantage I have over Jim in this regard is that I have spent close to 40 years in the industry and more than 22 years working on the SPFA Technical and Building Envelope Committee first as a member then Chairman and then SPFA staff. During this time I worked as an independent contractor. for 2 polyurethane foam manufacturers, an equipment manufacturer and as paid SPFA staff. I came to know hundreds of folks in the industry and in the course of my very unique work history have been a competitor, client, customer, supplier, employee, boss, associate to a large number of people that work on SPFA committees (and the whole plastic industry) Based on this unique background I have been able to develop a network of individuals who I can rely on to provide me with their honest opinion on issues and not just a company agenda. I was able to find out who you could trust for specific issues and to perform the work. Some folks had the technical skill but not the time so their projects were haphazard and incomplete, some were well intentioned but not knowledgeable or experienced, others had only their company interest at heart and were not reliable. But, a handful of individuals have that rare combination of knowledge, responsibility and the character to work for the industry, no matter what the issue. A short list includes; Jim Andersen, Roger Morrison, Bruce Schenke, Jay Zhang, Steve Heinje, Jerry Whitaker, Bonnie Strickler, Bob Jutras and more (my apologies if your name was not mentioned but I only have so much room). I know that when these folks come into a room that they put their company hats on the shelf in the best interests of the industry because they have proven it to me hundreds of times in Committee projects and meetings. I have other friends that are completely independent without any company ties such as Jim Kirby with NRCA, Walt Rossitor formerly with NIST now with RCI, ****** Fricklas, Pat Thomas former Technical Director with the Society of the Plastics Industry, Dan Benedict (former SPFA Executive Director and more It is these type of folks that I rely on to assist me to determine if a project is valid and to bounce ideas, and play devils advocate on issues. We don't always agree, and yes we can make mistakes but I value their objectivity and their credibility. I know Jim does not have the background with most of these folks and has to determine their credibility based on other factors. But I know in his field of practice that he has a network of trusted individuals that he relies on for information and to bounce ideas and issues with. In time, Jim will know who to trust on the issues of the day. If you have credible data from reliable sources, these folks are very reasonable and influential within the industry because they have developed that reputation. I know a few of these folks were very involved in the fire testing project. And a lot of my support of the task group is based on the partipation of a few of these key individuals. I am not naive and know that many companies attempt to influence committee work to their advantage but their influence is blanced and to a large part controlled by the other individuals that work for the interest of the the whole industry. One thing we both agree on is that more contractors need to be involved to get that perspective. |
|
jimcoler
I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Aug 05, 2009 10:18 PM
|
Mason and All, I stand behind one main principle: "In God we trust - All other bring DATA!" The fact is, Jesse Beitel admitted to me personally that he could get any foam to pass whatever test you want. That's manipulation of the data or test parameters to meet the needs of his customers. He is a paid consultant who is being paid to say things and do things that benefit his customers. If he says something that doesn't support his paying customer, then his pay likely goes away. From this comment made by Jesse Beite, the disgraceful analysis of the data, and the completely inappropriateness of the testing parameters, I feel I have a right to question Jesse Beitel's level of Integrity! To my knowledge there were 3 people on this task force who oppposed the direction of the task force and the concerns of these 3 were not considered. The prposal of this task force was and still is a disgrace to scientific testing and data for use in code development. You may be right that we will continue to agree to disagree, but I will continue to stand along side of the facts and not just a direction that everyone wants to go in. The true data surrounding this "concern" shows it's not the problem you and some others make it out to be! You reference 2 fire related deaths and one injury and associated them to spray foam as the cause. I have asked for the deatils of each of these from you and others in the past and have yet to get them. If you have the details, please pass them along as we'd all like to learn from what went wrong and how foam is taking the wrap for these- right or wrong! Again, I will still side with the facts and I am requesting the data! It's nice to know your history and relationships with these individuals, but it doesn't dismiss what the facts say! One wise person once told me that credentials don't mean a thing if you can't apply the principles with common sense. I've found common sense isn't so common and in more recent times, it's been completely ignored. Well, creditals without common sense are just fancy toilet paper. The facts support that since foam has been used in attics, the number of fatalities have decreased. Frankly, I don't trust what anyone says unless the true data supports it - even if it was said by a family member! My point in describing the descrepency of the times is that the analysis of the data is completely wrong! Ask any statistician and they would agree that you never average averages of averages. This is what was done and it's wrong! Also, when was the last time you were in an attic or crawlspace which was 8' high x 8' wide and 12' deep??? Wel, that's the tes they used! with one side completely open to allow for complete air exchange and convective loops to occur within this space. How does this represent a 2/12 attic with a 2' opening that we have to crawls through with HVAC ducts in this space too? There were a few at the hearing who said the industry was "ALL" in agreement with this proposal and they were proud of that. Well, the fact is, the industry is not all in agreement and most of the industry hasn't been aware of this issue or others like it where the decision is made by a few who may have personal agendas. You say they don't but their actions speak otherwise. If they didn't have an agenda they were pushing with regard to the latest proposal, then they wouldn't have proposed it the way they did and they wouldn't have ignored the opposition. The personal agendas are not balanced as you stae, but they are running the SPFA because more of us are not involved and not aware of the issues at hand. I'm sorry you feel you have to kneel to personal attacks on me and my relationships to suuport your cause. Again, I'm just looking at what the facts say and they don't support what you're saying! We've gone through this in previous threads and you avoid my questions when I ask for the true facts and data surrounding instances you reference. Again, if you have the facts, then let's see them, because I don't trust you and in some areas of the country when someone says, "Trust me!" that means RUN!!!! If you have the facts, then let's see them fair and square. I'm using the facts right from the task force report and proposed testing data. How can you refute this? I will continue to question the facts as stated unless you have the data to support it which you have not been willing or able to produce to date! Jim Coler |
|
mason
Posted: Aug 06, 2009 01:09 PM
|
Jim, In defense of Jesse Beitel, I have heard him say the same thing; But what he means is that He can but he won't, but others do fudge the test to get a specific result. I have worked on projects that Jesse has been involved in,many times from the opposing side. One thing I can say is he is one of the most honorable fire code consultants that are out there. I have been in meetings where he told his number client that they were wrong and needed to change their position. That is one reason that ICC ES recommends him. He may be conservative but his views carry a lot of weight because consistently he has proven that he does not modify his opinions based on the clients wishes and his work consistently passes the "smell test". |
|
mason
Posted: Aug 06, 2009 01:55 PM
|
Jim, I presume you were not talking about me engaging in personal attacks on you. You have a good mind and like to get into the specific details of issues. This forum is called Ask Mason Knowles; You really haven't asked me how to go about your mission of creating a test procedure that would demonstrate that bare foam in attics is a relatively safe application. But here is the answer anyway. As an engineer you feel that the data will convince folks to be on your side. But, you have to realize that as Jess Beitel says, data can be very misleading. To get something changed in this arena you have to get support from folks outside of your industry. I have been involved in the building code arena for close to twenty years and you need political support from within the plastics and building code community as well as credible data. There are major players who you have to convince to either support your efforts or to sit on the fence. Major opposition from these players make it very difficult if not impossible to get things passed. Many of these folks are not technical and rely on others they trust to let them know what passes the smell test and what does not. Others are very technical and have interests and agendas to prevent the adoption of things that hurt their industry. (We have seen the fiberglass industry for example succesfully oppose many items that the SPF industry supports such as energy performance equivalence to mandatory R value requirements.) In order to obtain that support, you need to bring convincing data from credible sources that contradict the data that has been accumulated over the last 35 to 40 years. It is a daunting and expensive task. When the Expanded Polystrene Manufacturers Association wanted to get a modified whitehouse test adopted to allow the use of polystyrene foam over metal roofs without a thermal barrier. They spent more than $1,000,000 and initially had approval but within a couple of years, the test was declared invalid and they were not able to sustain their exemption. Along the way the fight within the plastics organization ruffled a lot of feathers among the plastics industry and created a lot of suspicion about modified tests to gain approvals for foam plastics without thermal barriers. You would also need support from the major chemical companies Huntsman, Dow Chemical, Bayer and BASF and others. They are going to look at the overall foam plastic perspective and not just the SPF industry. Sometimes these things take a long time. I first brought up the subject of testing the energy performance of insulated wall assemblies at high and low temperatures with air infiltration in the early 90s. We worked hard within the American Plastics Council to get a test approved and vetted by all of the foam plastic groups and the Vinyl Institute. Then we took it to NAHB Research Center and to Oakridge National Laboratories for their comments. The results are that the test procedure passes the smell test. But we still have not been able to get it approved by ICC ES as an alternative means to provide energy performance equivalents to prescribed R Values. My point is that you need to work with these other groups and individuals to get progress on your ideas. A grass roots campaign to influence SPFA is a start but even if you obtain their support, you still have to get the testing funded and then take it to the outside world for their thumbs up or down. This is what the Task Group did to get a test that they knew would pass the muster of the other groups and influential individuals with the intent of doing additional testing later on. (if they feel it is neccesary). At the meetings I attended, this was intended to be an interim solution for a critical issue (ICC ES said they were going to provide a solution if the SPF industry did not.) The tests they would have adopted would most likely have been more rigerous than what was proposed by the SPFA. So my advice to you is to get involved with the Task Group, talk to some of these other folks and groups. Call me and I will provide a list of names. Drum up support to fund additional testing, try to get partners from outside the SPFA to financially support additonal testing. (Fire Marshals, NAHB, ACC, and others.) |
|
mason
Posted: Aug 06, 2009 03:25 PM
|
Jim. The foam fires occurred Hilton Head Island, 2007 an sprayfoam applicator died when the foam in the attic caught on fire. I don't have a copy of the news article but you can ask SPFA for it. The others are as follows June 14. 2009, Contractor badly burned in NSB house fire By JULIE MURPHY Staff Writer An insulation contractor who was working in New Smyrna Beach had to be airlifted Saturday to Orlando Regional Medical Center after the home's attic caught fire, New Smyrna Beach officials said. The unidentified man, estimated to be in his 40s, was installing spray foam insulation in a home in the 600 block of Fairway Drive that is being remodeled when the attic above the second floor caught fire, New Smyrna Beach Division Chief Randy Wright said. "The worker dives through (the) second floor ceiling in an attempt to escape flames," he said in a written statement. The homeowner heard the worker yelling and dialed 911. July 23, 2009 An effort to make one Lexington apartment complex more energy efficient sparked a fire this afternoon. Three spot fires were started at Stoney Falls Apartments on the corner of Man O’ War and Armstrong Mill. Foam insulation was being sprayed in between the walls when electrical wires were hit. A handful of apartments were impacted by the small fires. Several renters are being relocated temporarily. This is the second time this has happened since the work started to make the apartments more energy efficient. Friday May 23, 2008 HOME | CAPE COD ONLINE | CLASSIFIEDS | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBER TOOLS | EMAIL NEWS ALERTS Print this Article Email this Article May 18, 2008 NORTH FALMOUTH – Falmouth police are still not releasing the name of a construction worker who died yesterday following a house fire in North Falmouth. The man, who worked for Green Mountain Insulation of White River Junction, Vt., was trapped in the attic of the home at 28 Deer Run Lane after the fire broke out about 2:15 p.m., fire officials said this morning. Emergency workers responded to the scene and rescued the man from the attic. He was taken by ambulance to Falmouth Hospital, where he was pronounced dead later in the afternoon. Officials at Green Mountain Insulation did not return calls for comment. Two other company workers and four fire fighters were also injured in the fire, according to Falmouth Deputy Fire Chief Mark Sullivan. They were treated and released from Falmouth Hospital. The Falmouth Fire Department, police department and the Massachusetts’ State Fire Marshal’s Office are still investigating the cause of the blaze, though fire officials believe it was related to the foam insulation being sprayed into the attic, Sullivan said this morning. Now Jim, I have said earlier that you need to contact others for the data on the TAsk Group. I mentioned some names that you can call. Roger Morrison is a good one. Or talk to Jesse Beitel again and specifically have him address your concerns about the distance and the shape of the attic and why it is appropriate. |
|
jimcoler
I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Aug 06, 2009 03:41 PM
|
Mason, You state there were not political agendas being played out i the acceptance of this proposal, but now you are admitting the politic games that get played. Here is an interesting test which was conducted for JohnsManville on their "Spider" system. http://www.specjm.com/files/pdf/T07-020JMSpiderIgnitionBarrierV2.pdf Is it ironic that this test was conducted in Nov 2007 and shortly there after that the ICC pushes the SPFA to come up with a test procedure? Is it Ironic that their testing shows that a kraft faced fiberglass wall "flashes over" faster than what they call "Bare wood"? Well, the "Bare Wood" appears only to be wood on the roof and it's drywall on the walls with wood studs. This again is not representative of real life circumstances. Is it ironic that their test of a foam with a spray applied ignition barrier failed to meet even the kraft faced fiberglass in one instance and just barely met exceeded it in the other? Is it ironic that they went to the trouble to include the timed pictures of the kraft faced FG, "Bare wood (gyp board), one of the 0.5 SPF with coating, and the Spider coating as an ignition barrier? Where are the rest of the pictures? Based on looking at the pictures of the SPF they provided, it appears that the flashover point wasn't reached until about the 3:43 timeframe and is it ironic that this is the only picture which appears to have been washed out for some reason? By the way, is it ironic that they used a SPF that did not meet ASTM E84 class I ratings? It had a flame spread of 25 and smoke development of 550 and the Ignition barrier coating had higher smoke development than even bare foam. But, for their Spider results, they only state, "Pass". Where's the real data. Is it ironic that NAIMA was one of the outspoken supporters of this proposal requiring ignition barriers in attic and crawlspaces, when thye have business to gain from it? Is this Politics?? By the way, here's what NAIMA states about themselves, "NAIMA is the association for North American manufacturers of fiber glass, rock wool, and slag wool insulation products. Its role is to promote energy efficiency and environmental preservation through the use of fiber glass, rock wool, and slag wool insulation, and to encourage the safe production and use of these materials." What gives them a right to chime in on the SPF industry if they don't have something to gain from it? They don't support us, but they made it clear that they were proud of the industry for coming together and agreeing to this proposal. What a total farce this whole proposal was by the SPFA. It sounds like the SPFA was just the puppet used by NAIMA and te fiberglass industry to get more of their products spec'ed in as ignition barriers. Their losing market share to spray foam, and they can't beat us, so they chose to change the codes and make us use their products or products similar to theirs. It sounds like you drank the special kool-aid that the political parties wanted us to drink and can't see the true facts from the kool-aid induced ones. To correct you, I had Asked you a question earlier on in this forum which lead me to ask for more information and supporting documentation of your position because it didn't make sense. Again, you're not producing real facts and data, but asking me to "TRUST" the people you feel are reliable whether they've drunk the Kool-aid or not! Sorry, but again, where are the facts and I don't trust people on their looks, or personality alone, but only on the data they bring to support practical reasoning. Jesse Beitel may or may not be a great guy (I don't realy know him and can't speak from personal experience), but the facts and data that he supported in this proposal are twisted, not statistical and appear to be presented in a way to support a predisposed cause. The facts speak for themselves and they say otherwise than what you say for Jesse's credibility. As far as getting in bed with political parties who don't play fair and are only in it for themselves, well, I'll stick to the facts instead. Sooner or later the poplitics will fail them and they will have nothing left to stand on, but I will stand strong on the facts I base my position on. |
|
jimcoler
I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Aug 07, 2009 08:09 AM
|
Mason, Interesting data -but it's still very vague. Ironically, the fires you've referenced are all regarding the install process. The July 23rd fire seemed to have a root cause of electrical wiring during the spray install. The other thing not mentioned is the type of foam used and exact conditions in which the fires started. Was it a closed cell with a blowing agent or was it open cell - water blown? These are nice - but where's the data and exact conditions in which the fire started? Let's go back to the basics of Fire 101: You need Fuel, Oxygen (Air) and an Ignition Source. The ignition source is one of the most important of these. What was it in each of these cases? On top of that, where is the data from attics that caught fire and harmed someone once the foam truck has left the area? Days, Months, or Years later. This is what the "Industry" has stated in the latest accepted proposal? The question at the code hearing was, "WHERE'S the FIRE? - that requires immediate attention?" Where's the data to show there is an immediate need? The instances you present are not data - they are news clip which are propaganda! What are the real facts behind each of these cases?Where are the attic fires post install? I haven't seen the and think you're going to be hard pressed to find them. NFPA doesn't show foam in attics as a statistically significant cause of fires or personal harm? Your instances are not data! Much like the proposal from the SPFA which was passed, without the committee even understanding the difference between an Ignition Barrier and a Thermal Barrier. Where's the real data??? Jim Coler |
