Q&A Forums

OSHA and Falmouth Foam Fire Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
jimcoler Posted: Sep 04, 2009 02:32 PM	OSHA and Falmouth Foam Fire Here are some citations that were issued to the contractors involved in the Falmouth Attic Fire where the installer was killed. With the latest press releases by the SPFA on OSHA and other Gov regulatory agencies... (you draw your conclusion)! This shows over $26,000 in 13 citations issued negotiated down to $14,600. This info is from OSHA's report which is the only report currently available through the freedom of information act. 1926.20: The accident prevention program did not provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials and equipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employer. --- $2,000.00. Negotiated to $1,300.00. 1926.21: The employer did not instruct each employer in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to their work environment to control or eliminate any hazards or exposures to illness and injury. --- $2,800.00. Negotiated to $1,820.00 . 1926.21: Employees required to enter into confined or enclosed spaces were not instructed as to the nature of the hazards involved, the necessary precautions to be taken, and in the use of protective and emergency equipment required. --- $2,000.00. Negotiated to $1,300.00. 1926.150: The employer did not develop a fire protection program for all phases of the construction or demolition work. --- $ 2,800.00. Negotiated to $1,820.00. The controlling firm was cited for the following eleven deficiencies: 1926.150: The employer did not develop a fire protection program for all phases of the construction or demolition work. --- $ 2,800.00 Negotiated to $1,820.00 . 1910.134 : The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee’s ability to use a respirator before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. --- $2,000.00 Negotiated to $1,000.00 1910.134 : The employer shall insure that employees using tight-fitting respirators pass an appropriate qualitative or quantitative fit test before an employee may be required to use a respirator. --- $2,000. Negotiated to $1,000.00 1910.134: All respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals, and were not packed to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve. --- $ 2,000.00 Negotiated to $1,000.00 1910.134: The employer did not maintain at the compressor a tag containing the recent filter and/or air purifying sorbent bed change date and signature of the person authorized by the employer to change them. --- $800.00 Negotiated to $400.00 1910.134: Employer did not provide effective training to employees who were required to use respirators. --- $1,000.00 Negotiated to $500.00 1926.151: The vicinity of operations which constituted a fire hazard was not conspicuously posted: “No Smoking or Open Flame.” ---- $1,400.00 Negotiated to $700.00 “Specifically, the foam spraying operation”. 1926.405: Flexible cords were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief is provided to prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws. --- $800.00 Negotiated to $400.00 1926.407: Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of equipment in hazardous (classified) locations were not approved for the hazardous (classified) location or safe for the hazardous (classified) location. ---- $2,000.00 Negotiated to $1,000.00 Specifically, the back of the box truck was not wired for Class 1, Division 2 hazardous location. 1926.407: Equipment which is safe for the location was not of a type and design which the employer demonstrates will provide protection from the hazards arising from the combustibility and flammability of vapors, liquids, gases, dusts, or fibers. --- $2,000.00 Negotiated to $960.00 Specifically, on or about 5/19/08, a non-rated, portable halogen light was used in the attic space
Posted: Sep 06, 2009 10:05 PM	jim,,what caused the fire??
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: Sep 07, 2009 09:26 PM	The only report released to date is from OSHA, which only states "Spontaneous Combustion". As we all know it is possible for the exothemric reaction of closed cell to char or even catch fire, but this was reportedly 1/2lb and 1.0lb foam. The details from this report are still not too clear as it seems someone wrote it who doesn't understand foam. I'm finding the fire investigation field has a lot yet to learn about foam and fires. It's my understanding that the other reports have yet to be filed and I suspect there are strategic legal reasons for not yet releasing these reports. I will reserve any conclusions until a more detailed report is available. I have a feeling this is just the begining of OSHA's fines in the SPFA industry. So, I would suggest the Santa chore quickly - "make a list, check it twice" and address everything on the list ASAP! Jim
JohnPeters Posted: Sep 15, 2009 06:21 PM	This incident occurred in my back yard - so I had a personal attachment to this as well as professional. I was able to get into contact with a family member of the deceased. I also talked to a few other sources regarding the causes of this fire and there is a mixed bag of responses. Family Member: Urethane Soy Systems accused the applicator of merging soy therm's 0.5 lb and 2.0 lb B-sides together. Another claim was that the crew's agitator was broken that day. So the B-side was never mixed - could have resulted in an influx of manic polyols at once. Apparently the A-sides for each were mixed too (which shouldn't make a difference). Because of this, the foam spontaneously combusted. She received this feedback from some official source other than OSHA. Is this true?...not sure. Regional Foam Guru: The applicator took a smoke break in the attic he was spraying in and decided to smoke a cigarette. Highly unlikely - I don't know many applicators who would take a break in a foam fumed filled attic. The human element is to blame some where in this. Foam does not spontaneously combust without external influence. The mixing of 0.5 lb and 2.0 lb could result in thickness passes that are beyond acceptable limits. Surely the manufacturer did not test whatever ratioed amount of 0.5 and 2.0 that these guys mustered up. Acceptable pass thickness? Who knows for a 1.3 lb backyard brewed hybrid. As we've seen in these situations, time and time again...the fire occurs during installation and because of poor education. An intumescent coating would not have done ****** in most of these scenarios. When the rig is off and the foam has cured the statistical probability of a fire occurring is near zero. The fires usually happen during installation. I don't know if we'll ever get to the bottom of this. Too many parties with personal agendas playing CYA. This incident is well over a year old... why is there no legitimate conclusions from this? All I know is my deepest sympathy is extended to the Cowhey family. One take away from this is to get your guys trained. In house / in the field training is good, but formal in class training should be used as well. Safety is often the last thing to be discussed in a "on the job" atmosphere. jp
Posted: Sep 16, 2009 06:44 AM	"She received this feedback from some official source other than OSHA." bet they wore wingtips,,,their lips were moving,,,fast too i might add,,,, "manic polyols causing spontaneous combustion",,if you cant dazzel em with your brilliance,,baffel em with your horseturdy.... so he used the foam as an ashtray and forgot to put the smoke out and the "highly explosive and flammable foam" just went kablooey??? thank god we gonna coat this stuff to keep it from explodin and flashin and stuff,,,and now spontaneously???maybe we should be forced to re-coat it every year just to be real safe.....yeah thats the ticket,,, it seems this would be of more interest to our "professional organizations",,,,this is a hugh safety issue and its etiology needs to be determined for the safety of all applicators... if we wait for "outside sourses" to make the determation,,and just accept the information,, we will most likely end up makeing industry standard changes that are totally rediculous and pretty much economicaly motivated... please post info on this as you guys hear of it..
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: Sep 16, 2009 08:15 PM	John P. - Thanks for the update from the family. Our condolencenses to the family the next time you see them. None of us want anyone to be harmed or killed in the process of our daily duties. I agree with dude's comment that we should be investigating this ourselves as an industry (like the SPFA) and reporting back what happened, why and what we can do to prevent it in the future, but that's not happening. So, I would suggest that you all write Kurt of the SPFA a quick email asking him to use the colaborative influence of the SPFA to get more details on this fire and others within our industry. With the government agencies bretahing down the SPFA's next, this is one of the first things they should have been on top of, but I haven't heard a thing from them regarding this! So, let Kurt and Rick Duncan of the SPFA know that you want to hear from them the truth about this fire and others like it to be able to protect your guys from future occurences. This also puts some of the liability on them if an accident does happen again, as they would have chosen to neglect a valid request by SPFA members to provide further information to protect ourselves and the industry. Again, the more of you involved in the task forces of the SPFA, the better because we need your practical voices and votes. We can't let our industry be run by those who don't have our best interest at heart! Let's take it back ourselves! Jim Coler
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 05:46 AM	..or splinter and form an organization represenative of spray foam applicators not spray foam manufacturers,,,, wouldnt be the first time,,nor will it be the last,,, ...if you cant beat em,,,beat em...
Michael Fusco Posted: Sep 17, 2009 01:42 PM	you are not going to see anything good from SPFA until applicators join and get involved. As far as the fire goes, your not going to hear anything from those that know until the lawyers are done....that could take years.
Dan Beecher Posted: Sep 17, 2009 10:04 PM	Dude, I think you might be on to something there. Getting to the point where WE get a voice. Been in this business for 15 years, and all I see lately from manufacturers is dollar sign in their eyes. Setting up all these new contractors that have no frickin clue what a foam mechanic is or what the right way to sell our products. Spend more time rebuking other foamers than the selling foam for what it can do for the owner. Why is that??? $$$$ maybe?
Terrance Harris Posted: Sep 29, 2009 12:47 PM	Foamdude, ..or splinter and form an organization representive of spray foam applicators not spray foam manufactures,,,, yeah, we could call it UFCA. Urethane Foam Contractors of America.
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: Sep 30, 2009 07:22 AM	I had the same thoughts about starting our own organization, but we already have one -SPFA. All we have to do is get involved. If we are involved, then the manufacturers voice isn't as important. It was pretty sad when one of the most important issues of our industry came to the bench last June and I was the only installer there with a voice. I also get frustrated when I'm one of the only installer on the conference calls. So, why start another organization when no one is willing to be involved with the one we have. It's not the organization that's broken, but your lack of action! BTW, I have no interest in the SPFA, and would rather have our own organization for installers. I refused to become a meber for years on the premise that they didn't represent me, and after they ICC-ES hearing in June, I saw that the only ones the ISS-ES listened to was the SPFA. SO if we don't have time to create the reputation of a new organization, then take control of the one who has the influence!! Jim Coler