Q&A Forums

Attic and Crawlspace SPFA Committee Direction Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
jimcoler Posted: Apr 29, 2009 09:27 AM	Attic and Crawlspace SPFA Committee Direction Hi Mason, As you may have read on some of the other posts and are likely aware of the progressions of the SPFA Attic and Crawlspace committee, I'd like to ask you to get involved in this and express your opinion. I've copied my original post below and feel this is a politically motivated code change which adds significant cost with little benefit to the consumers. I am asking you to contact Kurt and Rick personally and express concern on this decision and the impact it will have on our industry. It is my understanding that the SPFA has established a committee to address foam in attics and crawlspaces with regards to fire safety. I was excited to hear this since this is commonly a confusing issue for customers, architects, engineers and code officials. I am concerned about what I’m hearing about the direction of this committee, that the testing is not related to real life circumstances or realistic fire load conditions and I hear rumors that this is due to political and personal agendas being pursued under the guise of this committee. This would be companies that have foams that do not meet the current SwRI Attic and Crawlspace test and or companies that produce ignition barrier coatings. I urge you to not let this committee be directed by political or personal interests and direct the committee to re-evaluate and revise the testing criteria to reflect real life circumstances. Common comparable circumstances would be an attic with exposed roof rafters/trusses and exposed fiberglass insulation on the floor. The testing pass/fail criteria should be based on how it directly affects the three goals of the fire service industry; Occupant Life Safety, Rescuer Life Safety, and Property Preservation (fire extension). As the Assistant Chief of a local volunteer fire department, I would feel more comfortable responding to a building even with exposed ASTM E84- class I rated foam than I would with fiberglass insulation due to the slowed fire extension, superior compartmentalization of areas, and added sacrificial surface protecting the structural elements of the building. Some fire safety data shows a decrease in attic fires since installing foam exposed in attics. The codes do not currently compensate for thermo-set (does not melt or drip) and thermo-form plastic foams (melt and drip) and the extremely different fire characteristics between them. It also does not account for the fire retardancy or fuel contribution of the blowing agents. Some of the older foams were highly flammable partly due to the highly flammable blowing agents where many newer foams are water blown which release Carbon Dioxide (also used in fire extinguishers). The code only states, “All plastic foam” which totally negates performance characteristics of a product. This would be like saying all wood is good for structural building, when you wouldn’t want to build a house out balsam wood. The codes should be changed to reflect true product performance characteristics and not have blanket statements negating product performance characteristics. This is how the SPFA can help rather than pushing a personal agenda. I personally have experience with a situation where the foam minimized fire damage and self extinguished within a cathedral ceiling with wiring which was struck by lightning. The fire damaged areas we only about 1’x 3’ along the wire and it was already extinguished when the fire department personnel tore open the drywall it was already out. The impact of the proposed testing from this committee would be extremely damaging to the spray foam industry and add no value to the end consumers. It would add costs in excess of $1.50/square foot which gets passed down to the end consumers and results in less foam installs and less foam sold. The fiberglass manufacturers, ignition barrier coating manufacturers, and manufacturers of inferior fire rated spray foam are the only benefiting parties from this proposal which could result in a damaging code change. The SPFA will not be viewed as a leader in the industry, but as another channel/organization for special interest groups to drive their objective through the system. It is disturbing and discouraging to see a committee within SPFA, which is supposed to be objective and looking out for the interest of the industry, succumb to special interest groups with political or financial motivations. It is my understanding that the direction of this committee and their intended actions have not been finalized or approved by the SPFA. You are responsible for the final outcome of this committee and can direct this towards a beneficial solution for consumers and spray foam contractor and I urge you to act now before it goes any further. Please contact me to let me know your decision and the direction of the task force committee. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: Apr 29, 2009 09:41 AM	Jim, The entire foam plastic industry has been involved in developing a "new generation" attic and crawl space test that would simulate more realistic fire conditions within an attic or crawl space. The old test that has been used SWRI-99 was developed in the 90s to qualify EPS for use in kneewalls of crawl spaces and attics. The pass/fail criteria orginally was based on using a baseline comparison assembly (with a code disignated ignition barrier) to the tested assembly. If you performed better or equal to the baseline assembly you would pass. However, there was some testing performed using kraft faced fiberglass batts within a wall and/or ceiling assembly as the baseline. Somehow this became the baseline used by the sprayfoam industry to determine the relative safety of ignition barriers (or bare foam) in attics and crawl spaces. Kraft faced fiberglass in the attic and crawl space tests fails at around 1 to 2 minutes. Whereas bare foam typically fails at around the same time (both open and closed cell foam). Sprayfoam both open and closed cell foam are a fire hazard if significant surface areas are left exposed due to their tendency to flash. The flash is typically brief but produces large volumes of smoke and heat. The danger is if someone is in the attic or crawl space (such as a HVAC worker welding a duct or pipe) and they do not have time to get out of the attic before being overcome by smoke. I have seen the tests and observed both open and close cell foams perform similarily. It is not the type of blowing agent that causes the flash, but just the foam cells and air within the foam. It was agreed by most of the plastics organizations (including SPFA) that the old test needed to be modified or dropped. The group has conducted testing and has endorsed a new test based on a modified NFPA 286 room corner test in which the control is dropped in lieu of a timed pass/fail criteria. The pass/fail times were determined by a series of tests using various code approved igntion barriers. I have been a part of these task groups and support their work. There are some political angles that you are suggesting. While some plastics groups are concerned about leaving bare foam of any type in attics and crawl spaces, SPFA and the sprayfoam industry recognizes that small surface areas of foam do not produce significant heat and smoke and in some cases can reduce the spread of fire to other areas of the building. For example, based on room corner tests, it was determined that the installation of sprayfoam in sill plates does not constitute a safety hazard in buildings and the ICC building codes specifically allow the use of bare sprayfoam in those applications. Any manufacturer can test their products with any combination of ignition/thermal barriers or bare foam in accordance with the room corner tests. If they pass, the specific foam and coating (or bare foam) can be used. My biggest concern is that too much foam is being sprayed without any thermal or ignition barrier and that fires eventually will happen that kill workers in attics. In the 70s, this exact scenario almost killed the SPF industry. The residential market dried up almost overnight and the FTC and the foam plastic industry agreed on a consent decree that did not allow any foam plastic to use E 84 as a basis for predicting its fire safety and forbid the marketing of foam as a fire retardent, self extinguishing material. The following is an article I wrote recently in RSI Magazine about E 84 and foam plastics "All building materials can burn and release heat and toxic gases, causing injury or death. All building materials react differently in a fire situation. And while the history of testing interior finishes for fire characteristics goes back to the early part of the 20th century, it took a series of disastrous fires in the 1940s for the public to raise concerns sufficient enough to take action. The infamous fires at the Coconut Grove nightclub in Boston, the Chicago LaSalle Street Hotel, and the Atlanta Winecoff Hotel killed more than 670 people and prompted the public to demand a reliable test to determine the flame spread and smoke development of a building's interior finish in a fire situation and to classify them for use in buildings. ASTM E-84 (Steiner tunnel test) The predominant test accepted was the Steiner tunnel test, developed by Albert Steiner of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) from the early 1920s to the '40s. Steiner used red oak as a baseline material because of its common use as a flooring material. The Steiner tunnel is a furnace chamber 25 feet long that measures flame spread and smoke development. The test compares the surface flame spread and smoke generated to that obtained from tests of mineral fiber cement board and select-grade red oak. The test procedure was first published by UL in 1950 and became an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard in 1961. How well your material performed against the baseline determined the classification of your building product. The test is conducted with the specimen in the ceiling position, with the surface to be evaluated exposed face down to the ignition source. The furnace is calibrated when a 10-minute test of red oak decking will pass flame out of the end of the tunnel in 5 minutes 30 seconds (plus or minus 15 seconds). Mineral fiber cement board forms the zero point for flame spread and smoke-developed indices, while the red oak flooring flame spread is typically around 90 and smoke developed index is set at 100. Flame is reported numerically from 1 to 100. Smoke generated is reported numerically from 1 to 1,000. From the flame spread and smoke ratings, the material or product is listed in three classes: Class I (or A), Class II (or B), or Class III (or C), or unrated: • Class I: Flame spread 0-25; Smoke developed 0-450 • Class II: Flame spread 26-75; Smoke developed 0-450 • Class III: Flame spread 76-200; Smoke developed 0-450 Foam plastics and FTC consent decree For the next 20 years, the Steiner tunnel test became the predominant method of determining if an interior finish was an acceptable risk for use in construction. In the late 1960s to early '70s, foam plastic was becoming a popular alternative insulation in buildings. Many companies advertised the foam based on the Steiner tunnel test as non-burning, non-combustible, and self-extinguishing. Most foam plastics could achieve Class I and Class II ratings on their products, but the flame ratings did not accurately predict the relative safety of their use in construction. Thermoplastic foams, such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS), would melt during the test, generating misleading low flame-spread values. Thermoset materials, such as polyurethane foam, could generate flame or flashover conditions if large surface areas became involved in a fire. After a series of fires involving foam plastics, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stepped in and demanded the foam plastics industry address the issue. In 1974 the FTC entered into a Consent Decree and Order with the foam plastics industry (as represented by the Society of the Plastics Industry [SPI]) that prescribed specific marketing and sales practices of foam plastics. The Consent Decree and Order stated that all parties selling or installing foam plastic: • Cease and desist from using, publishing, or disseminating (or encouraging others to use, publish or disseminate) descriptive terms, such as 'non-burning,' 'self extinguishing,' or 'non-combustible' in connection with cellular foam plastics products unless they perform as described under actual fire conditions; • Refrain from referencing numerical flame spread ratings in connection with cellular foam plastic products, based on small-scale flammability tests without a detailed disclaimer noting that the ratings are not predictive of the hazards presented by these products under actual fire conditions; • Implement a notice and reporting program on the terms and conditions of, and compliance with, the order; • Establish and fund a research program on the safe and effective use of cellular foam plastic products. In the 1970s SPI, working in conjunction with downstream industry groups, such as the Urethane Foam Contractors Association (UFCA), the polyurethanes division of SPI, and the polystyrene foam groups, conducted extensive large-scale tests on foam plastics and various coverings. From this research new fire-performance tests were developed that more accurately demonstrated the behavior of wall and ceiling assemblies under realistic fire situations. Specific thermal barrier materials were identified, such as half-inch gypsum drywall and 1-inch-thick masonry/cement/plaster along with the development of specific room corner fire tests that could determine what designs, materials, and/or assemblies could be acceptable in construction (such as UL 1715, Factory Mutual [FM] 4880, Uniform Building Code [UBC] 26-3, National Fire Protection Association [NFPA] 286, etc.). The foam plastic industry established safe-use guidelines adopted by the various building codes that remain substantially unchanged to this day. So much of the flak you are hearing from other groups and SPFA comes form this concern that we are revisiting old mistakes by installing foam uncovered. For more information check out my articles on the topic at my website, masonknowles.com
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: May 11, 2009 09:59 PM	Mason, I posted a reply showing references to the NFPA studies on the fires you referenced and stating some more info on foam and ifres. Have you deleted this post? If please respond as to why and what you felt was inappropriate because I thought it was a good followup to our online conversation. Jim
mason Posted: May 12, 2009 09:42 AM	Jim, No I didn't delete anything from this post. In the over 486 topics and thousands of posts, I have only deleted one post and the editor has deleted another. Try posting again.
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: May 15, 2009 05:19 AM	OK, Here's a rewrite of a previous post: In your response you mentioned the Coconut Grove nightclub in Boston (1942), the Chicago LaSalle Street Hotel (1946), and the Atlanta Winecoff Hotel (1946) of which your statement seems to have come from the following link. All fires referenced are from 1946 and earlier. This article addresses all three of the fire incidents you’ve referenced and explains the development and progression of the Steiner Tunnel Test. Some interesting points are noted in the Advantages and Limitations section where thermoplastic and thermosetting cellular plastics are referenced in brief. http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=19&i=81 In the Cocoanut Grove fire investigation report, no reference to foam plastics in this report is ever mentioned. Although there is some indication that thermoplastic materials (not to be confused with thermo setting materials) are linked to the start of the fire. Many other contributing factors are referenced which most have been addressed in the current codes. http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/cocogrove.pdf The Chicago LaSalle Hotel referenced also have no mention of foam but the wood finishes and massive air flows contributed to the fatalities of this fire. http://chicago.urban-history.org/sites/hotels/lasalle.htm Below is a link to “The 10 deadliest public assembly and nightclub fires in U.S. history” http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=851&itemID=21090&URL=Safety%20Information/For%20consumers/Nightclubs/assembly%20occupancies/Public%20assembly%20and%20nightclub%20fires The cocoanut grove night club you referenced is mentioned in it along with 9 other night club fires – all but three of them occurred before 1944 of which time foam was just making it’s debut in commercial roofing. If you look into these further you find that there were many contributing factors which lead to the deaths, which include over occupancy, lack of adequate egress, lack of sprinklers, “balloon frame” construction , massive amounts of air flow throughout the building feeding the fire, and a real misunderstanding or lack of regards to fire safety and codes. One thing to note is there was a lack of plastic materials used in any of these before 1944 as they were not prevalently used back then. Today codes have changed and our buildings are much safer than back then due to code enforcement and a better understanding of fire safety in the design and construction process. Around the 1940s-1950s, the codes required fire blocking and platform construction was implemented with “Balloon Frame Construction” practices banned. This coincides directly with a large decrease in fire fatalities. So, let’s put this into perspective. The primary building material was and is wood. Many newer commercial buildings and high rises are of non combustible materials like steel and concrete, but wood still is a large majority of our structural element of architecture today. Wood is more combustible than most thermo-set foams according to the Steiner Tunnel Test (ASTM E-84) – Red Oak Flame Spread 100; cement board flame spread 0; and most thermo set foams are flame spread <25. Yes, flash over is a concern which will even occur with wood as demonstrated in many of the fires you referenced, but what about the value foam adds to minimizing air flow through the building (extension of flame and heated gasses), and it acting as a sacrificial material before the fire burns through the structural element. These are much more important than what they are being given credit for. These two characteristics of thermo-set foams alone can be presented as a safer construction system which reduces fire related deaths and improves rescue success. As an Assistant Chief of a local fire department, I would rather know that the structural elements holding the roof above my head will take longer to burn if there is a child or other occupant in the building who needs rescued. It’s really sad to see the media jump on the band wagon and categorize all foams as dangerous as a result of publicly followed fire fatalities. An example of this is the recent 2007 South Carolina Super Sofa fire where 9 firefighters died. The foam used in couches and chairs were a major source of fuel for this fire which lead to the deaths of the firefighters. The media followed this story and stated foam was the cause of the roof collapse leading to the firefighter deaths. What the media didn’t say is that these firefighters didn’t have enough water supply or hose size to fight this fire and had no business being inside the building at the time of collapse. All the news stated was “Polyurethane Foam” caused a flashover. This is partially true, but the type of PU foam is different than that used in most spray foams. The ones used in couches are thermoplastic foam which burns like tires where most spray foams are thermo set foam and burns much slower. There are arguments that the ASTM E-84 is an inappropriate test for foams, but this is primarily due to the dripping and melting of thermoplastic foams and the test should still be valid for thermo set plastic foams like spray foams. So, this committee had no business implementing a test which no foam can pass and is driven by financial gains by the sale of their coatings. The 1970s FTC decree was supposed to be a temporary action until an adequate test was defined. It shouldn’t have been an adequate test, but a better definition of what is appropriate to pass the existing test and not (ASTM E-84) – ie. thermo set vs. thermo plastic properties. The fact is that our buildings are much safer with spray foam applied due to the lack of air flow (oxygen supply) and sacrificial surface properties that spray foams lend to a building. Even the ICC codes recognize and define the differences between thermo set and thermo plastic foams in the definitions section, but don’t distinguish any difference between them in how they are handled in the codes applications section– when they should. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 15, 2009 02:38 PM	Foam plastics were not being used in the 40s so the reaction by consumers and the building industry was to other building interior finishes that had contributed to the fatal fires of that era. The fires in the 40s caused the construction industry and building codes to adopt E 84 as the primary test method for determining the relative fire safety of interior finishes. However, fires in the late 60s and early 70s involving foam plastics led to the FTC Consent Decree and the realization that E 84 was not a good predictor of the burning characteristics of foam plastics. So other tests (full scale room corner) were developed to help determine the relative safety of foam plastics in various applications.
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: May 16, 2009 01:49 PM	Mason, In the 1970s, it was actually a fire in Pittsburgh, PA where a family lost their children that initiated the FTC to impose their decree.There is little documentation or publicity on this specific fire as it was not a night club or hotel where there were massive fatalities like many other commonly referenced. The most common fire recnetly referenced in regards to foam is the Rhode Island - The Station night club fire where a Class C foam (egg crate type of foam)was applied to the walls and ceilings for sound attenuation purposes. What you don't hear much about is the otehr code violoation and major contributing facts such as the illegal use of pyrotechnics by the band -Great White(code violation), no sprinklers (code violation), over occupancy limits(code violation), doors painted over and not marked properly(code violation), etc. The fact is thermo set and thermo plastic foams are lumped together in the codes even though they perform very differently in the ASTM E-84 test. Thermoplastic foams melt and drip at about 250oF while they burn which skews the flame spread and smoke development results. Where thermo set plastics don't melt and drip and will only combust at about 400oF. Materials such as cellulose and blown in fiberglass have special accomodations to hold them in place in this test like chicken wire. Thermo set foams remain in place and still provide a good flames spread. To put this further into perspective, the flame spread of wood commonly used in attics which can be left exposed has a flame spread of 70-150 according to ASTM E-84. If we spray foam to the underside of the roof or even to the attic floor, foam has a flame spread of <25 according to the same test. This ss 3-6 times less than the wood which is holding up the building (http://www.dps.state.la.us/sfm/doc_woodproducts.html). If there were a fire in the attic, the wood would burn and the building would collapse much sooner than if it was protected with foam insulation. This is because the foam acts as a sacrificial surface to the wood structural members. So why do we reject the value of foam -even being left exposed in attics and crawlspaces? It's much like a Zinc coating on steel. The Zinc is considered a sacrificial surface which protects the steel from corroding as fast. It doesn't mean it won't corrode, but it has to corrode through the zinc before corroding the steel. So, to require an additional fire protection over the foam which performs better than the wood that is already there and holding up the roof, is ludicrous and only driven by someone's unfounded fear or their monetary interest in the coatings. It's like saying someone is afraid of Santa Claus when it's an irrational fear. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 16, 2009 04:45 PM	Jim, Exposed sprayfoam in attics will flash at around 1 to 2 minutes regardless of E 84 classification. Wood paneling at 1/4 inch flashes around 4 minutes. So, you are wrong in your assumptions. The new tests demonstrate a more real world way to determine the relative fire safety of ignition barriers. There is not magic sprayfoam that does not flash when a large surface area is exposed to sufficient heat (flame source)such as a cutting torch or welding torch. We learned this the hard way in the 70s and there were many foam fires. I observed 3 just in the Houston area in the early 70s. I agree the Rhode Island fire is not the appropriate example. But, there have been a few more fires since then that I am aware of that are examples of bare foam in attics flashing.
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: May 16, 2009 04:56 PM	OK, If you say there have been more fires where foam has "flashed over" then what were the parameter and conditions of these fires on a case by case basis. My point is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. If they all are a result of welding or cutting in the area of the foam, then why kill spray foam when stupidity is the root cause. My experience has been it's not just one thing that is the cause, but multiple contributing factors all leading to a resultant factor. If we can identify what those factors are and the likelihood of each, then we should be able to address the issue. A great exanple of this is if all the fires occurred in furnace rooms or attics. Then why not require a sprinkler head in all furnace/utility rooms? There's another solution to the problem. Or ban the use of systems which require the use of a torch or grinder near foam. The answer's not to mandate all foams to be covered adding additional cost to no real added value to the consumers. But the answer is to control the circumstances and other factors related to the fire condition. How about fires in today's time? Let's look beyond the 1970s and look at the fires involving exposed foam and the number of casualties. Then compare this to a similar house and other construction conditions to see if the number of casualties increased or decreased. Based on what i can see they have decreased, but if you interogate data long enough you can get it to say whatever you want and I'll admit the data I have is limited because it's hard to come by all of the specifics of the fire conditions data. Again, don't throw the baby out with the bath water and let's looks real life circumstances. Today, there are more and more 90%+ efficient sealed combustion furnaces being installed in an attic, or no furnaces in the attic at all. If you don't have the ignition source that you've implied was a torch or grinder, then why ban it. Let's get out of the 1970s and move into the 21s century with the materials and true characteristics. BY mandating the covering of foam, it's like banning all foams because Urea Formaldehyde didn't work. Again I disagree and feel this has been railroaded by those who have finiancial gain in the coatings industry or have a "fear" without understanding of the real issue. Are you afraid of the boogie man? Does he exist? No, so why are some people afraid. Mostly because someone told them a story that sounded true and they chose to believe it. But if they based their belief on the ture facts, then they shouldn't be afraid. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 18, 2009 08:32 AM	Jim, This is a real danger and a real fire concern. Folks who have been in the industry for a period of time know what happens when the media gets a hold of an issue and beats it to death. It can literally destroy an industry overnight. We have seen it happen. I believe this issue is going in circles now with no new information being discussed. You views on this matter are a decided minority among the foam plastics industry. Ask any of the foam plastics organizations, or fire code experts. They will say the same thing. Cover the foam unless you can demonstrate with reliable full scale fire tests that the foam can be left exposed.
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: May 18, 2009 09:52 AM	Mason, I agree it's a real danger and concern that this small group can get their way without basing it on Truth. I may be a minority, but that doesn't make me wrong and I decide based on Truth not based on some statement saying we've been there without the proof and consideration of all factors. This is like someone saying the Boogie Man exists and is going to come out of their closet and get them in the dark night. Kids have that fear because they don't know any better. Someone may have told them about the Boogie Man and planted that seed, but when they know the truth he doesn't exist the fear goes away and they quickly dispell the myths when someone tries to bring it up. It only takes a look or two in the closet to know there's no Boogie Man! It's playing off of their ignorance and gulibilty. So are we thought to be that ignorant and gulible to believe that what we've been doing is that unsafe? No, I'm not which is why I'm voicing my opinion base on teh truth and facts. This is what has happened in this industry. The fear of foam in a fire situation has been blown all of proportion by the media and people who don't understand the truth. Just because they may be the majority and the fiberglass industry hasn't helped (I'm sure) by promoting this percieved fear regarding foam), doesn't mean their perspective is right. You are right that this decision was made by a small minority - But they have something to gain by this decision. They are the ones who got their hands spanked in the 1970s and are afraid of taking a stand on truth and against anything other than what their told to say. They are being "Yes Men" who are abandoning Truth. they've also found a way that they can capitalize on this fear and gain monetary income from the sale of these coatings. I'm surprised to hear you take their side and call it a done deal. It seems you've bought into their lie - have you? So you say we need a full scale burn test for foam to be left exposed... Does wood trusses, beam 2x6s, plywood and OSB pass the full scale burn test? This is what we're truly up against. If we can leave these exposed in attics then we should be able to leave foam exposed. It's a lie that foam needs to be held at a higher standard than what is currently acceptable to codes. The next thing we know the coating guys are going to be going after this too and say that all of the buildings we've built are all wrong and unsafe because they don't use their coatings - even on exposed wood attics. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 18, 2009 10:30 AM	Jim, Extensive testing has recently been performed using a room corner test where 1/4 inch of plywood was installed to the ceiling of simulated attic and compared to both open and closed cell sprayfoam installed in the same configuration. At least 6 tests were conducted on the sample assemblies. The results; The plywood sheathed assembly had flames out the front of the room in an average of 4 minutes and 18 seconds whereas the foam assemblies had flames out the front in between 1 to 2 minutes. I have seen the test photos and the videos. This is consistent with the tests performed in the 70s , 80s, 90s, and from 2000 to the present. I agree once the foam is covered with a fire resistant coating (many on the market now that can be installed for around 25 to 50 cents a ft) its fire contribution is greatly reduced and becomes a much safer application than exposed wood. This is due to the foam creating an intumescent char that helps stop the spread of fire. The problem is and alwasy has been the intitial flash tendencies of the foam. Once that is taken care of the foam performs very well in a fire situation. This is not a political issue created by other foam plastic groups, the fiberglass industry or coating manufacturers. I do not sell any products or take commission from any supplier, contractor, testing laboratory or agency. My views are consistent with the rest of the vast majority of the foam plastic industry based on experience, examination of the research, discussions with hundreds of people from all walks of the construction industry. It is a real danger that can be eliminated with a cost effective coating or building code designated ignition barrier. All you have to do is talk to a family who has lost one of their sons or husbands to this type of fire or the contractor who lost their business due to a lawsuit to realize that it is a small price to pay for added safety during construction.
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: May 18, 2009 11:21 AM	Mason, Again, what you've stated is not comparing the real life circumstances. You mentioned the test was performed with 1/4" plywood installed to the ceiling of simulated attic. This should not have been the case at it should have been just the attic plywood and rafters left exposed. You have reduced the surface area by putting a 1/4" layer of plywood across the surface. So, is this meant to be a cost effective or viable solution as an ignition barrier? I don't see it as one. On top of that was this a vented or unvented attic situation for the plywood test? As you know, unless we're spraying directly to the roofdeck, we need ot vent the attics. So, "Real Life" scenario would be with a highly vented attic while burning the direct underside of the roof and rafters with a ridge vent installed at the top which will melt and drip like in a real fire. A second factor is that the foam creates an air seal to the attic space an limits the oxygen. Was this atken into account and was the full room burn test in a completely enclosed space which minimized air flow from outside and venting through a doorway or window, etc. This again would be more like a real life circumstance. Unless it simulates a fire with a sealed attic condition, then the test results are false and misleading. To my knowledge the tests that you're referring to us an open wall or open doorway and evaluate a pass fail partially by when the flames that come through that opening. Yes, they are trying to establish same conditions to evaluate different scenarios "side-by-side", but real life side by side would be based on all of the ventilation, surface areas and real fire conditions - not equal on on some parts. To my knowledge this test with a well vented attic with nothing but the underside of the roof and the rafters or trusses has not been done along side the same scenario with an unvented roof with foam directly to the underside of the roof - with no ventilation to this space. On top of that, who would be in an attic during flash over as you've described if it's truly an attic or a crawlspace? I've heard of plumbers or HVAC guys doing something stupid, but other than that, what are you referring to? Foam MAY flash over faster initially under some circumstances which I expect are more vented conditions because the oxygen is what allows a fire to spread and grow which it gets eaten up fast once a fire starts and the room is sealed. The full room burn tests don't account for a sealed room condition and are yielding misleading results. So, the question still lies with what's wrong with the ASTM E84 steiner tunnel test for thermo set foams? I understand why thermo plastic foams give false results due to their melting and dripping characteristics. This was the baseline test and the results of thermo plastic foams gave all foams a bad name in this test. So, thermo set foams got a bad name and it's misrepresented. If you feel this is such a danger - which I feel it's not, then let's see the facts and case studies to prove it. The ones I've seen are misleading and give thermo set foam a bad rap with false conclusions. I'm open to see the facts if you have them and I've asked others who hadn't been able to produce them either. To my knowledge this is just a statement out there which is not based on factual conditions and claiming a Boogie Man in the closet when there's not.
mason Posted: May 18, 2009 12:43 PM	Jim, Your arguments are the same we have heard in the past. They are not accurate. My father in the 60s predicted the fires of the 70s and the ensuing legal and FTC problems that almost destroyed the industy then. As I said before this topic has been hashed out enough. Your views are dangerous to the industry and folks who follow your advice can get themselves in trouble if they are installing bare foam in attics that has not been tested in accordance to the appropriate fire tests. Both Doug Commette and I have decided to stop this thread now before our readers get the wrong ideas. The topic and discussion thread will remain but no further discussion will be listed. This is only the 3rd time a topic has been altered on this forum. This is being stopped because the views expressed by Jimc are not what a contractor should be following. I can't say it strongly enough. I am not influenced unduly by any group. These are the facts. Exposed foam of sufficient surface area is a danger unless protected against acccidental ignition that could cause a flash fire. The fire is too fast for someone inside the attic to leave. It does not burn the same as wood. Wood takes a little more time for the flames to get to the point where you could not get out of the room.
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: May 18, 2009 01:05 PM	Mason, These are not the same statements as discussed before. I thought we were getting somewhere with discussing the actual testing parameters and the flaws in how they are tested. I'm shocked that you've decided to shut this thread down and feel you are doing so because I am not willing to just agree with your opinion. If you were open to consider my viewpoint, I think we might be able to get somewhere. I don't think it's right to shut this down and feel it would be against the best interest of the industry to do so. This forum is supposed to be a place where all opinions and perspectives are allows to be discussed. This topic in particular is one that has been discussed by many for quite a while and to my knowledge I'm the only one who has gotten shut down. Is this because I actually am making sense out of this and questioning what some are lead to believe as fact when it's not? I stand against shutting down this thread and the position the SPFA has taken on attics and crawlspaces. Jim Coler ww.coler.com Doug, Since I cannot add a reply, I'm adding my comments to this post. My comments and opinions are not against what the current code says. It is against a proposed code change which is currently under review. I brought this issue up because tehre are some who want to take this to the next level, but are not taking the facts into account. I'm not faulting Mason for his opinion which he's entitled to, but feel you have a right to continue this discussion and get to the bottom of the issues. That's my intent. Trust me - I'm also a fireman and a Engineer. I wouldn't suggest something that was known to be dangerous, but I will question statements made that cannot be backed up with the facts. In God we Trust - All others bring data! Einstein stated, "We cannot solve problems using the same thought process that caused the problem!" I would urge you to change your mind and re-open this thread as it is a very productive one. Jim Coler
Doug Commette Posted: May 18, 2009 01:33 PM	Jim: Doug here. Thanks for the debate. We are here to help. Not hurt. This is also why we take the conservative approach and endorse following the all applicable laws, building codes and industry standards in effect. We really do value your opinions, however, we are not the determining and/or enforcing bodies. The problem is not here with Mason. He is entitled to his opinion, which has been expressed. More importantly he states a lot more fact than opinion regarding this issue and the code "situation" at hand. We dont write the codes, we dont even lobby for the codes. We try and help folks understand the issues, do a good job, and be safe. It is my opinion as editor/publisher that we have heard the arguments. Once again I learned a few things I did not know from this forum, which is the main reason we are here. We will keep this live for the good of all to draw their own conclusions. Jim, let's talk offline and find a better platform to debate this issue. I think I may have some good ideas for you. Thank you for using SprayFoamMagazine.com. I hope you continue to do so. Doug Here is a link to a new blog Jim has started: https://sprayfoammagazine.com/blps/blog.cfm?weblog=34 Its also on the left.