Q&A Forums

installer casualty Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
Tim Trott Posted: May 18, 2008 10:37 AM	installer casualty Front page of the Sunday Cape Cod Times, Massachusetts- May, 18, 2008- Foam installer dies from injuries sustained in an attic fire reportedly as a result of spray foam insulation igniting. Although I don't know any more details about this tragic story, I wonder if the spray foam industry will at some point be regulated and/or licensed/certified by some state or government agency to ensure that properly trained personnell are applying these products. This statement is in no way directing liability in this instance,just my personal thoughts. However, as my company has been in the spray foam business for a little over a year, I have seen firsthand how quickly an area of building envelope (usually ceilings)can become charred and the possibility of ignition evident when the layers are being applied too quickly and liberally on top of each other. There is a building official in one of the towns we do business in who requires a signed affidavid for each job we install spray foam in. The information required includes; envelope components the foam was applied to, stated R-value per inch, type of foam (open or closed) stated average minimum thickness and number of layers and thickness per pass to achieve said thickness applied. This document is no doubt covering his end of the construction process. Does anyone else out there have any comments about this subject matter?
Bryan Kwater Posted: May 19, 2008 08:54 AM	I personally would LOVE for companies to have to be licensed to install foam. Might cut down on the number of half-ass contractors. Might see one good thing come out of bad publicity like this. For some reason, people love to work cheaper and cheaper, and one cut-throat contractor can sure screw up an entire area.
JohnPeters Posted: May 20, 2008 08:34 PM	While I share your sentiments of anger with "half-ass" contractors I would like to point out that a life was lost. We all know that applying foam is completely safe or we would not be doing it. As long we recognize the do's and don'ts of foam application there is no reason to ever think that this could happen to any of us. Over spraying in multiple passes too quickly can cause an immense amount of heat to be created as a result of exotherm reaction. This incident is proof of why your product supplier stresses these limits on how thick to apply passes. This flash fire was a freak occurence and a result of someone who was not familiar with the stipulations of applying foam. I think the appropriate reaction to this incident is compassion and condolences to Robert Cowhey, his family and his co-working family. It is unfortunate that a life had to be lost in order to learn how important it is to keep your pass thicknesses within spec. The legal and regulatory ramifications that will catalyze from this incident will reverberate across the country. The only thing we can hope for is that the media correctly portrays what happened in this fire and not fabricate some convoluted story that portrays foam in a bad light. Surely cellulose and fiberglass manufacturers / suppliers will be jumping on this story to bad talk foam. It will be every foam contractor’s job across the country to have an intelligent and tangible answer for your customers or potential customers who ask you about this event. I hope organizations like sprayfoammagazine.com, sprayfoam.org, all the product suppliers / manufacturers and all the building regulatory commissions band together to come up strong defensive to this event. Regardless of who made this foam or who applied it, the whole industry just received a black eye. At a time when foam is gaining more popularity in light of increased energy costs and popularity of green building; foam in under the microscope. In reading the article from cape cod times, the name of the foam used was "soytherm 50". I do not know who the manufacturer / blender of this product is. I suggest that they come forward to work with the bulding code authorities / OSHA and provide all the ASTM fire related testing information and proof of class 1 fire rating. If this foam is not rated as class 1 or if it has not passed the appropriate ASTM tests then shame on you for allowing this product to be sold and applied. For those of you replying to this post - keep in mind the media might be reading through websites such as this to find out more information. SAFE FOAMING TO ALL, jp
Gerry Wagoner Posted: May 20, 2008 10:40 PM	While even one death is a regrettable occurance, I see no reason to make more out of this abstract accident than is warranted. oG
JohnPeters Posted: May 21, 2008 01:40 PM	Olger, I hope you are right. I hope I am not making more out of this accident then is warranted. Thousands of people die all across the country as a result of construction accidents every year. If a foamer fell of a scaffold or cherry picker and passed away, no one would blink twice about it. It is the circumstances of this incident that makes my concerns warranted. As I mentioned, we just have to hope the authorities, regulatory / safety reps and media get their facts straight and present this incident for what it really is - "someone failed to follow the proper regulations of installing SPF." Instead of the incorrectly stating - "green foam made from soy self ignites." If this occurence happened in your operational territory, I bet you would have different feelings on the matter. jp
Tim Trott Posted: May 21, 2008 03:16 PM	I guess the point I was trying to make about the regulatory comment was that as a business owner I could literally hire joe six-pack off the street and put a foam gun in his hand after a week and tell him to go for it. Who is liable then?
JohnPeters Posted: May 21, 2008 04:34 PM	You're right. Joe six-pack needs training. I might seem a bit neurotic with my banter. But I have worked in a marketing department for 3 years. Product suppliers who compete against foam will have every reason to shout this story as loudly as possible. http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/NEWS/805200318 This news reporter has no ties to foam, fiberglass or cellulose and look at how he chose to mold his words. jp
John Birch Posted: May 27, 2008 12:48 PM	I think it's important to not jump to conclusions on this one. Assuming that the cause of the fire was incorrect pass thickness doesn't seem to me to be a correct assumption. He was spraying open-cell foam first-off which has much higher thresholds for pass depths, secondly they make a point of stating that the insulation itself did not ignite. It looks to me like it was the aeresolized vapor that ignited (somehow)- not the foam itself. Regardless, to say that "we all no spraying foam is completely safe" is clearly not paying attention. This story makes it painfully obvious that its NOT. Duh. To always assume that it's some other 'half-assed' contractor is ridiculous. The message is "It could have been you." You and your company should use this tragic and sad event to change, alter, or re-affirm all your safety standards. It is my sincere hope that this sad incident pushes the industry towards safer (which probably means more regulations and standards) work-sites. This really, really sucks. My sincerest condolences to the family and Richards colleagues and company.
JohnPeters Posted: May 29, 2008 07:07 AM	Why would you get on an open, public forum and say that "spraying foam is not safe"? Your creating your own bad publicity...i am sure your customers would love to hear you say that one. I am not sure what kind of safety standards your company adheres to, but all of the foamers I keep in contact with (including myself) have extremely safe track records. Reminder - This website / blog was to created to promote the improvement of the SPF industry and facilitate awareness about the superiority over other forms of insulation. Once again - condolences to the Richards.
John Birch Posted: May 29, 2008 11:18 AM	John P, My statement about foam safety was in response to your original comment, "We all know that spraying foam is completely safe" which, in light of this incident - where an installer died in a fire while spraying foam - seems at the very least overstated. If you'd thrown in a least one qualifying word or phrase I'd have gone along with it. But as written your statement sounds a bit like an airline spokesman saying how safe air travel is while standing in front of a crash site. And call me human, but right now how my customers feel about foam safety is low on my list of concerns. I want to find out what happened - exactly what happened - so I can assure my crews (and my customers) that something like this will never happen again. BTW Our company has stringent safety standards and procedures and a spotless safety record and we've been blowing foam for 5 years. I'm astounded at your cavalier attitude and your admonition and reminder about the purpose of this blog. As an industry, and I suppose as contributors to this site, we have as much of a responsibility to keep our applicators safe as we do to promote and sell our product. For any of us to turn a blind eye to this incident by chalking it up to "half-assed contractors" is missing an opportunity to make this industry better, stronger, and safer. I thought that this forum was a place to share ideas and learn - advancing the industry and our business in the process. But if, as you imply, it's merely a tool of self-promotion then I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for real discussions about topics, like safety, that truly matter.
Bryan Kwater Posted: May 29, 2008 02:25 PM	If the worker had a fresh air supply mask would the smoke have killed him? Also, was the worker burned from the vapors burning? It is hard to make conclusions without knowing the full facts such as: what kind of safety gear was he wearing, what caused the fire, was there any other exits such as the porch that the second rescue attempt was made? Any death in your related field is tragic, but it's hard to know all the facts from just one article. Until everything is known, what should we do differently?
Thomas Tisthammer Posted: May 29, 2008 02:38 PM	Tim points out that more training is needed in the SPF industry. This is no doubt true but the training should include the SPF sales force as well. Over the last 30 years I have seen this tragedy repeated whenever SPF systems are marketed vigorously by unsophisticated sales forces. Market forces encourage applicators to do this kind of work under terrible conditions for little profit. Competeing with other types of residential insulation using SPF is very difficult & generally creates liability problems for all. The conditions under which spontaneous ignition occurs with SPF are well understood & are always a risk when SPF is applied improperly. When applied in interior spaces the risk increases. While ignition usually occurs because of rationing problems or pass thickness, both application errors create the same outcomes-personal injury, property damage and/or bad press. It is quite possible that with new applicators from the conventional side of the insulation business coming on line, there is a lack of understanding of this very real problem. Applicator/sales training should include a demonstration of charring for all to see. I have SPF in my own home & there is no doubt it is the best insulation choice. However, SPF is not cheap & a Probler is not a staple gun....
JohnPeters Posted: May 31, 2008 01:40 PM	Foam on the range, I can tell you are the kind of guy that likes to get the last word in...Me too. You have brought up two topics that I am more familiar with then I care to mention; safety and aviation. Don't ask me how I got into foam... I will wager that no one on this post has spent more time reading over OSHA standards and studying safety guidelines then me. So please get off your safety soap box when replying to me. After attaing a BS in Aeronautics with a minor in safety and spending 4 years in the USAF, I think I am well qualified to talk about how "safe air travel is while standing in front of a crash site." Flying is the safest mode of mass transportation humans have invented to date. That phrase, "you are more likely to get hit by a car walking across the street or hit by lighting then to die in a plane crash" is true. Its purely based on statistics. Your analogy about my comments on this topic being compared to an airline spokesman is ridiculous. Now that I have filled you in on a little bit of myself and completely diverted off the topic allow me to get back on track. First let me say that we are in agreement on many things: 1.) Standardizing safety regs for SPF installers 2.) Complete compassion and condolences for the family of the deceased 3.) Figuring out EXACTLY what went wrong in that attic in hyannis 4.) Making the SPF industry stronger and safer 5.) This incident is not the result of "half ass contractors" You might want to call off your jobs for the next 6 months until the OSHA reps and special investigation personnel come out with their conclusion on what happened in hyannis in that attic. Then you can assure your crew and customers that this will never happen again. The rest of us have businesses to run. Fires such as these have occured as the result of SPF application before. In each example it is found that it is the result of human error / application error. More specifically, pass thickness. On this incident - If I am wrong, then let me be wrong. At least I was wrong in a way that does not deface this industry. Don’t run around on public forums “saying SPF application is not safe.” How can you say that I implied that this site is a tool for self promotion? Honestly?? Allow me to reiterate. I care about two things: 1.) The improvement of the SPF industry (this includes safety) 2.) And proving SPF's superiority of other forms of insulation. There is no self promotion here. You find no links to my company’s website below my screen name. All I ask - If your going to bad mouth this industry by saying “it is not safe”, then do so in the privacy of your own home and by your self. Please do not do it on a public forum. We have enough people against us. Remember – flying is the safest form of mass transportation.
Jim Coler Posted: Jun 24, 2008 03:35 PM	This accident is a real tragedy for the installer, his family, the company and the industry. It makes it worse that the media has blamed the spray foam on the fire without knowing the facts yet. It seems noone knows the true facts of what happened that day yet and it's all speculation. From my perspective as a foam installer and a fire fighter, I'm not sure the foam is the cause as they say. Number one, it was an open cell foam using a water blown blowing agent. This releases CO2 in the process which is also used in fire extinguishers. Number two, most of the discussion about exothermic reaction causing it to self ignite is related to closed cell foams - most of those using blowing agents that are very flammable. In most cases it would char first. Most of the foams today use much more fire retardant blowing agents (some use water)and are better at controlling this charring and combustion issue related to thickness. Number three: It states "vapors" were burning and not the insulation. It is true that when you atomize particles of almost anything, it can create a combustive atmosphere, but what about one that is heaby with CO2 and what was the ignition source? Could it have been a light bulb which was bumped and broken, or a lighter in his pocket which sparked when he was moving around in the attic? There are too many QUESTIONS UNANSWERED to come to any conclusion at this point, including that the foam was the cause. We are all entitled to their opinions. It's mine that the foam is not the cause and other factors unrelated to the foam caused the atmoshpere and ignition source. The sad part is that when the truth is revealed as it is not the foam, it will not get the same publicity as the negative initial reaction of the press! Who's holding the press responsible for false statements without knowing the facts? Who are they accountable to and what is their punishement when they damage entire industries like this based on false knee jerk assumptions?
philip mullins Posted: Jul 01, 2008 01:22 AM	wow! i guess you told him! i may seam feable in the presence of some of these great minds round here but, i am gonna have to bet that air travel would not be near as safe if joe six pack were flying the plane. and i would like to add that i will never die in a plane crash cause i dont fly. to many idiots in the aeronautics industry. but, with my luck i will get hit by a crashing plane while crossing the street just after the bus leaves that i couldnt get on cause it was full of mexicans! so while we are all trying to get the last word here we just make ourselves look like real pricks! we are discussing the loss of a life. i dont know if he was a good man or not. but he lost his life while busting his rump to make a dollar. and since while you guys were in college getting your heads swollen i was out busting my rump in the 100 degree heat, also to make an honest living, i can say with a high level of certainty that even if this guy did make mistakes, this tragedy trumps your ego's! so can it! IT COULD HAPPEN TO ANY ONE OF US AT ANY TIME! and for the record, i hired joe six pack. he is now called joe three pack, cause i drank three of his beers so we could toast the life of our fallen comrad. and as far as publicity goes, i will show this article to every lead i get! with all the cut throat sob's round here i am never even near the lowest bid. i will show them the article and then ask them, "are you sure you want the cheapest guy you can find?"
JohnPeters Posted: Jul 26, 2008 09:48 AM	You're right trout. I did get out of hand. My desire to prove a point over shadowed what is really going on here. nuff said until the assessment report is released. jp
quentin Posted: Sep 09, 2008 01:30 PM	Looks like some here know what happened. Idiot was not wearing a mask and SMOKING while spraying. He also sprayed off target to clear a gun on some cardboard sitting over the only exit, it caught and he died trying to go out that exit which was already on fire. We can do a lot to make things safe but you can't regulate stupidity if that is really the case of what happened.
Jim Coler Posted: Sep 10, 2008 12:30 PM	Quentin, where'd you hear this? Can this information be confirmed from a reliable source who is close to the investigation? Thanks for the update.
quentin Posted: Sep 11, 2008 08:53 AM	It was discussed briefly in classes at CPi. One od the instructors knew about the situation and what happened. Exactly how I do not know which is why I put in the pat that IF his information was correct. It may be wrong but he was pretty detailed and seemed to know what happened pretty well.
JohnPeters Posted: Oct 04, 2008 10:24 AM	I talked to a very reputable source and I received a completely different story. They gave two critical reasons for the fire. 1.) Incompatible A and B side were used (ie. soytherm 50 A-side was used with a soytherm 100 B-side). It has always been my understanding that A-side (isocyonate) regardless of manufacturer or density is of the same chemical composition - I guess I was wrong, mixing A-sides and B-sides from different density formulas apparently is bad practice. 2.) Soy therm 100 B-side should be agitated for 2 hours (according to the manufacturer/blender). The agitation device was not working on the day of the fire and as a result the B-side was not mixed. This resulted in a stratification of ingredients in the B-side drum. When applied to the substrate, the foam did not react well to the stratified contents flowing down the b-side hose. This is what I heard, I am not saying it is factual. I was guilty of jumping to conclusions a few months ago when this tragedy first occurred. I will be holding tight on trusting any conclusion to this topic until I read an official report from whatever safety organization is conducting a safety/accident analysis. So - I ask that we all hold tight until we find out what really happened.
Christopher Gruenwald Posted: Oct 06, 2011 10:32 PM	Wow that was some time ago now. Soytherm 50 is produced by Urethane Soy Systems out of Volga, SD. I got a news letter from them this spring saying they were liquidating all assets and stopping production. The product was a pretty crap tastik product anyhow.