Q&A Forums

Forums Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
Thomas Barbato Posted: May 19, 2009 07:17 AM	Forums I'd like to thank jimcoler for elequently raising the same questions i've had about these tests. everything is subject to manipulation depending on who it is that needs to do it. i'm disappointed w/ the administrator and those that felt the need to lock the thread that jim and mason got going as i and my partners have found it a very interesting conversation to follow also because we are dealing w/ the same code changes and inconsistencies up here in MA. so, to assume that we the readers need to be parented by the administrators because someone has the "BALLS" to say what others are thinking and what other people just disagree with...well.. i say NO THANKS, I'M A BIG BOY DADDY!!! i guess maybe this is just another B.S. forum
mason Posted: May 19, 2009 07:33 AM	OK, to answer the points that I did not address to Jimcoler's discussion and then we will leave it alone. Jim assumes that a flash fire will not occur in an unvented attic due to the lack of oxygen to support the fire. that the fire will go out quickly not causing any harm and that the only folks in the attic is someone working on the HVAC, plumbing or electrical. The first point: No, I have personally been hired by a food processesing company to clean up and refoam a small freezer that had exposed foam that caught fire when the owners son tried to install a new pipe into the room. The doors were shut, the room was unvented. the size of the freezer was 15 ft by 30 ft and 8 ft high (sound familiar just the size of a typical attic). The cutting torch according to witnesses started a flash fire that within seconds developed large amounts of smoke. The fire went out very quickly but the owner's son could not be resucitated and died. The foam was scorched and charred to about 1/2" and the foam below it was in perfect condition. So, Jim the foam did not burn just like wood and as you predicted the lack of oxygen made the fire die out very quickly, but still the flash fire caused the death of the owner's son. In attics the code reads "in attics and crawl spaces where entry is only for service of utilities a barrier to igntion is required" The code bodies are trying to protect the folks working on the HVAC units, duct work, plumbing or electrical in the attic or crawl space. They know that foam can flash even in an unvented attic and they are trying to give the worker enough time to get out if the foam flashes. Foam does not burn like wood. Wood gradually goes from a small fire to a large fire. It flashes in stages. But, foam may look like a small fire at first and then as the flames begin to lick up the walls, it suddenly and without warning flashes the exterior surface with amazing speed. This flash is typically brief and in most cases goes out quicktly. I have seen this up close and personal. It is a real danger. The whole plastics industry is aware of this danger and has for more than 35 years tried to prevent tragedies that we could have prevented in the past. That is why this is such a hot button topic. Every so often new applicators coming into the industry have advanced the exact same theories that Jim has expoused. The first time I heard it was in 1970 about 6 months before I was cleaning up the tragic fire that took a life in the freezer. I remember my dad telling the owner before the sprayfoam application that the foam could flash and required a thermal barrier and that he could not perform the work unless he installed one. However the owner said another contractor told him that the thermal barrier was not required because the foam is self extinguishing and according to E 84 will not support continued combustion and the flash will not occur due to the lack of sufficient oxygen in the room. Six months later he was burying his son. There have been fires involving sprayfoam in the past couple of years that have taken lives and the industry is holding its breath that they do not start a change reaction media feeding frenzy. So far, so good but opinions like Jims do not help our cause. The prevention to flash fires is very cost effective, a thin coat of an intumescent coating or a layer of 1.5 inches of fiberglass is not going to keep a contractor from getting a job. You are only adding about 25 to 50 cents a foot to the job. This is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that the foam is not going to contribute to a tragedy.
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 19, 2009 08:29 AM	Mason, First of all I want to say that I didn't say it wouldn't flash over. I did ask the question of what started the fire and suggested addressing the root cause not the foam. I'm sorry to hear about your clients son, and it is a tragedy to lose a life in any way. I'm not advocating that we can use a torch in a confined space and expect it to all go well. This would be like using a torch next to a gasoline tanks and expecting good results. This has happened many times while people weld or torch things on their vehicles but we haven't banned gas tanks. We've educated the workers of the potential danger under certain conditions which are not that common. The area in the code where it states "service of utilities" is one of the most confusing areas of the code for code officials. Some interpret it as open combustion appliances such as furnace or water heater but others consider a light bulb a heat producing appliance and require it to be covered. This is one area that needs to be addressed and I'm not for a blanket statement which says to cover everything. This would be like implementing a dress code because one person wore something that was completely umprofessional and inappropriate. These should be addressed on an individual basis and not with a blanket statement. There are other possible solutions such as posting a warning sign at all entrances banning the use of a torch in the attic or crawlspace. The technology is there that HVAC and plumbers should not even have to use a torch anymore if it's necessary. With the more common use of Pex tubing the areas where a torch would be used are decreasing rapidly. Just to clarify, I'm not a new applicator and I've had these questions for years which have gone unanswered with actual facts. I had a lengthy discussion about this with Kurt Reisenberg of the SPFA and he too didn't have factual reasons to support the direction of the committee. The reasons he gave were not agreed upon by all manufacturers there (3 mfgrs on record against it) and they proceeded anyways. I am not saying that we shouldn't protect HVAC workers or other in this space, but asking why is someone working in this space to begin with and can this be eliminated? There is real value ot adding foam (even exposed foam in an attic and crawlspace) which will protect the occupants if done right. I've tried to explain this in my previous posts and feel you have not acknowledged them. The discussion we've been having is a healthy one which I feel is long overdue and we can't fix a problem with the same mindset that got us there. I am opposed to the current direction of the SPFA sub committee and I'm entitle to my opinion. I find it wrong that the administrator of sprayfoammagazine.com locked the prevoius thread upon your request and feel we were actually getting somewhere. I fell discussing how the tests are performed and the potential flaws in their applications is helful not just for me, but for every spray foam applicator out there. We need to be well informed of the limitations of the tests and the "Intent" of the codes because we tend to be the ones educating the code officials on these issues. I'd like to continue discussing this as I feel it is very productive and educational to all who may be reading along. I woudl also encourage others to chime in and question what we are told. Just because someone says so or the codes say so, doesn't mean it's true or the right thing to do. We all need to understand it which is what I'm trying to do. I think I understand it more than many out there with a diverse background as an Engineer, an Asst Fire Chief, and a Spray foamer. Let's all put our heads together and discuss it and understand it rather than just take someone's word that their looking out for our best interest! Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 19, 2009 12:10 PM	Jijm, 1. ICC staff interprets any attic and crawl space with access to be considered access for service of utitilies. There response was from a direct question to them that I posed a few years ago. ICC ES staff has also reiterated that position. They say that even if there is no HVAC duct work or other plumbing or electrical in the space that a tradesperson could come in later and put in those utilities. 2. Warning signs and education of other trades. I researched the fire issues regarding other trades and developed an educational brochure with the Center for the Polyurethane Industry a few years ago that addresses this specific issue Please go to polyurethane.org and download 6 Steps to Fire Safety Working with Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Foam. At SPFA we also developed a warning sticker that contractors could purchase from us warning other trades about hot work around bare foam. We used these in the past during construction and it did help. You can get your own stickers created by going online to a variety of online safety supply companies The problem we found is that this information though available is not used frequently and other trades tend not to do their due diligence about fire safety when using cutting tools. Thankfully cutting torches and welding torches are being used less and less but there still is a lot of them used in duct work and plumbing. You still have to weld on copper and metal. I hope you will reconsider your positions. Why take a chance when you don't have to? The new coatings don't cost that much and are fairly easy to install. Then when you are spraying foam in an attic you might be able to say that the attic space is better protected than before you installed the foam. Without it there is always that risk.
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 19, 2009 01:14 PM	Mason, I understand that the ICC may have interpreted the code but even their interpretation leaves it open for interpretation for the code officials. I've gone through this issue with many code officials and it can be interpreted either way. If you have the official interpretation, we'd all like to see it and if it says what you say it does, then why didn't they say that when they wrote the code? Through my conversations and investigations on this, the "Intent" of the code was related to open cumbustion appliances which have been common in the attic and crawlspace area. From a conservative perspective, I can agree that foam should not be left exposed where there is an open combustion appliance. I've heard from numerous people that the ICC has interpreted it this way and meant open combustion appliances and they did not intend light bulbs or other possible heat producing items. Technically, speaking then if it's required in the attic spaces, then how can we spray right over Romex wire? As the circuit is used it will produce heat and technically this is a heat producing appliance. Do we need to paint our wires with intumescent paint too before we spray them with foam? I can agree with the warning signs, but to my knowledge this is not what the code sayas and this is not what the SPFA is proposing. As far as the coatings, I've priced the coatings and if you have a source for the $.40-.50/sqft that's a much better price than some I've gotten, but this also would eb just the materials. How can we be expected to not include labor costs associated with this additional time and labor required on a job? So, from my figures, your adding another $1.00-$1.50/sqft on top fo the cost of the foam. My experience and discussions with homeonwners, architects, engineers and other specifiers is that they will mnot pay for it if it costs that much. Trust me that I can try to sell the value, but their pockets are only so deep and their budgets are limited. We have a hard enough time out there now selling just foam when we're figting filterglass prices. As I mentioned before - we need to be discussing the tests and if you're willing to do that, I'll willing to continue because I think this is where the root cause of the issues are. Jim Coler www.coler.com
JohnPeters Posted: May 19, 2009 06:30 PM	Jim, As you undoubtedly know - There are a couple foam manufacturers that offer products with ICC approval for exposure in Attics and Crawl space that are used for "utility" purposes. Why don't you start offering their products so you don't have to deal with this political red tape? Sometimes you have to roll with the punches. Get on the manufacturer / distributor you are using to develop products that have ICC approval for exposure. Mason, Chemically speaking, what makes these fore-mentioned foam products different from products without ICC approval for exposure? Is this "tumbs up" approval for exposure something that manufacturers pay for, or do these products legitimately offer greater fire and combustion protection? Great string of conversation BTW. Long over due! Kudos! jp
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 19, 2009 08:58 PM	John P., As a matter of fact I am spraying one of the materials which is current approved by the FCC through the SwRI Attic and Crawlspace test. This won't matter if this proposal by the SPFA is passed through the ICC. Hear me clearly - it states ALL foams will need to be covered with an intumescent coating because that the only thing which will pass the test they've devised. If you continue to read the other forums, you'll see there is a lot to it than just switching vendors. It seems I might be better off switching to another foam manufacturer who also makes intumescent coatinsg as I can probably get a better over all price for both from the same company. Why would they sell the coating to a competitive foam for a very competitive price when they can use it to promote their one foam? This sounds like why the roofing shingle manufacturers don't support their warranties with unvented roof - because they don't offer foam. Oh, that's right Certainteed now has foam and they changed their warranty stance. To answer your chemical question, I don't believe there is much of a difference in how the different products perform. You have to take into consideration the history of this industry and the involvement of the FTC back in the 1970s. They slapped some PU foam manufacturers hands really hard and now it seems that these same companies were not willing to stick their hands out and risk them being slapped again by the FTC with the SwRI 99-02 test. So, If the other foams were tested in the same manner, I expect they would perform the same as the ones that have passed, but they lack confidence in any compromise from a very conservative approach to this matter and will not stray from it suspectedly because of past legal reasons. So, again, it's politics at it's best - the proposed answer is not based on truth and what is right, but what is politically appealing. Thanks for the thought, but that won't work because this proposal will do away with the current ICC approvals. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 20, 2009 07:51 AM	Jim correctly points out that most sprayfoam manufacturers would probably have a foam that would pass the SWRI attic and crawl space test. It is a low bar to jump over because it compares bare foam (or foam with a coating) to a baseline assembly with kraft faced fiberglass. Kraft faced fiberglass is not a code designated igntion barrier and flashes out the front of the room corner test in around 1 to 2 minutes. So, a lot of foams can depending on where and how much surface area is involved can perform as well or better in that specific test. The attic and crawl space task group was formed because ICC ES staff determined that the SWRI test procedure was flawed due to the this fact and directed the foam plastic industry to come up with a better test. The test that has been developed still might not be the final test, but it was the result of a majority decision of the foam plastic industry including most fire code consultants and sprayfoam manufacturers(exception Bill Koffell and 3 SPF manufacturers). Is this the absolute best test, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is going to take a lot more work and time to create a better one. One thing for sure it is much better than the old SWRI procedure because it compares foam in attics to 1/4 inch plywood which is the most flammable code approved ignition barrier.
Terrance Harris Posted: May 21, 2009 01:50 AM	This is a forum. Mr. Coler is informed and has apparently done his homework. Most of us on this forum are contractors with large investments at stake. No one wants to cause harm to anyone, be sued, or lose their business. Let Mr. Coler have his say on this issue.
JohnPeters Posted: May 21, 2009 01:40 PM	So when is this new rule going to be implemented? I guess I should start offering gutter installation along with SPF. I don't for-see many people being able to opt for foam anymore. With the added cost inherent to foam itself along with the $.80 - $1.00 increase in cost per sq/ft for ignition paint. Mmm...if only there were a savy enough chemical engineer out there who could R&D us out of this mess. jp
Michael Fusco Posted: May 21, 2009 02:50 PM	Uh...hold the phone here....just because there is discussion does not mean it's a done deal. There is a meeting June 1-3 of the ICC-ES which will reveiew and make decisions on various proposals for a new test protocol. The SPFA proposal would cause (in all probability) all foams to be covered on all surfaces. I disagree with both this proposal and with most of Mason's arguments in it's support, but that is not the issue. There are a few alternative proposals, as well as a group who believe's this is moving too fast and needs more data before we change an entire industry. If this were a done deal, there would be no reason to hold the hearings. SPFA has formed a committee to work over this project. There has been questions raised about the composition of that committee. I think the questions are valid, but at the end of the day, if you're an SPFA member, you are entitled to sit on the committee. So...the first question is...are all you guys members? The second questions is where does your manufacturer stand? Do you know? Applicators have a very substantial investment in this industry...you better start looking at protecting it. If you don't like what is being done, why are you supporting the people who are doing it? Start asking questions....while you still have a reason to.
Michael Fusco Posted: May 21, 2009 03:00 PM	Mason, Once again I have to take umbridge with your answers. You state the SPFA envisioned foam test is good because it compares foam to an ignition barrier. Can you tell me where that requirement came from? The code requires "full scale testing" in lieu of the stated protocols. How does the SPFA test remotely approach full scale without a sloped roof, or roof of any kind for that matter. Even the old SWRI 99-02 had a roof of sorts. The fire stats show that since the advent of closed attic assemblies, fires in attics has DECLINED....where is the necessity for a rush to a new tst? The SPFA test is simply a modified corner burn test. As to the makeup of the committee, I suggest you review it again..... How many coatings manufacturers were in the group? How many manufacturers of closed cell only? (remember no closed cell has ever earned an ESR with no coating). How mny fire engineers? SPFA hired Jess only. He is the original author of the SWRI99-02, and in all fairness to him, had a concern about using the test for foam. "IT was never created for foam"... those are Jess's words. You make it sound like the "industry" decided this was the ONLY way to go. That is a dis-service to us all. As an industry, the ICC tasked us with comming up with a new test. We didn't. We still need to. There are those who think all foam should be covered. I submit, until we burn assemblies with sloped roofs, multiple sloped roofs, we will never know the relative safety or lack of safety of what we are doing in attics and crawl spaces. Urethane makes a very noxious, smokey fire. A blow torch will ignite urethane, and it will create a god-awful amount of smoke very quickly. Uh...so does you couch...so does you carpet pad..and so does your gas line. If one follows your logic, we would not be cooking in the house, or heating with gass, after all, someone might cut a gas line with a torch......
Frank Bood Posted: May 21, 2009 07:22 PM	This is a great topic please keep it going. Very very good.
mason Posted: May 21, 2009 07:40 PM	1. The new test is better than the SWRI test because it uses a pass/fail timed test based the fire performance of a code designated ignition barrier rather than a non-code compliant kraft faced fiberglass. 2. Jess Beitel was hired because in the fire testing world he is the most well respected authority on foam plastics and fires. When you call ICC ES and ask for help on fire tests his name is the one they specifically recommend. There used to be two others, Gus Degencalb (died 10 years ago) and Don Bellows (who retired and helped SPFA get the Sill Plate approval). So the new testing with Jess Beitel at the table provided better credibility to the rest of the foam plastics world and the ICC ES and construction community 3. Other closed cell foam plastics have passed room corner tests with bare foam on the floor of the attic but I don't know of any closed cell foam manufacturers who have tried to obtain ICC ES with bare foam on walls or ceilings. AGain many would be able to the pass the SWRI, It is a low bar to jump over. 4. I never said all foam has to be covered. I said and the foam plastic industry has agreed collectively since the 70s with the following statement. Foam plastics must be covered with a 15 minute thermal barrier in inhabited spaces and an ignition barrier in attics and crawl spaces unless full scale fire tests (such as but not limited to UL 1715, NFPA 286, FM 4880, UBC 26-3) specific to the application demonstrates that the assembly can be used without a code designated thermal or ignition barrier. 5. Statistics can mislead. While the number of attics fires are down the number of lives lost in attic fires involving sprayfoam are up. In the last 3 years I am aware of 3 foam fires in attics that cost a life. In the previous 20 years I had not heard of any. The increase in the use of foam while significant to our industry is still a very small percentage of the whole insulation market (less than 2 %) So I don't think you can use the use of sprayfoam as a reason for less attic fires until we have a larger statistical number of foam applications in attics. Having sat in many committees of the foam plastic industry (not just sprayfoam committees), in order for the sprayfoam recommended test to be adopted, the rest of the foam plastic industry, fire code consultant community and construction community would have to sign off on the test procedure as well. The test that was developed passes this "smell" test. Is there a better test that can be developed. Perhaps, but it will take more time and money to do that. In the meanwhile, ICC ES told the sprayfoam industry that if they did not recommend a test that they would develop one for us. And it would be much more rigorous than what the task group developed. AS stated earlier bare foam that covers a substantial surface area on walls and ceilings can flash at a fairly low temperature (600 to 800 degrees) and it can go from just a few flames licking up the walls to a flash fire in just seconds. This is the danger. If a company can demonstrate that the volume of smoke and heat released during a fire event is less than a code designated ignition barrier than it is acceptable. By the way, I agree that the testing to determine ignition barriers was flawed in the 70s. But again to change that requirement in the code is a whole nother battle and probably would end up with even more rigerous testing to qualify an ignition barrier making it even more expensive to install sprayfoam in attics and crawl spaces. AGain I feel we are going in circles on this issue. It is not a done deal, more testing will be performed and this test procedure might change and probably will change again in a few years, but for the short term, this is the best the sprayfoam industry can expect. You might not like it but SPFA is working on behalf of the whole industry on this issue and I support them 100%.
JohnPeters Posted: May 21, 2009 10:10 PM	All, Less than 2% market share for residential? I heard that figure years ago when I got into this business. Surely that figure has changed by now. You'd be hard pressed to find a custom home that uses anything but foam now-a-days. Custom homes are the only thing in residential that is moving right now. Anyway...back to the convo Well, it seems as though we have 3 agenda's: 1.) Contractor Perspective: We want as little rules to abide by as possible. The easier the process of installation is the better, the less amount of rules the better. We also don't want foam insulation to cost anymore than it currently does. Raising the cost of foam will surely decrease demand. 2.) Do gooders: This group possess' a genuine care for the industry and does not want to see fire issues bring down the foam world. 3.) No gooders: Seek to gain personally / professionally by advocating and mandating the need for ignition barriers. Personally, regardless of our significant investments in capital equipment you cannot argue with data. If the data shows that foam can flash easily, then so be it. Lets think of how we can fix it. Mason, Unfortunately, it seems like too little too late. Realistically, think of the thousands of homes out there with no ignition barrier...think of the thousands of contractors that will never install ignition barriers regardless of the regs. If you really think that this exposed foam scenario is as dangerous as you are interpreting it out to be, then I don't think there is any stopping another accident. I think a better use of effort and resources would be to educate the general public and contractors about the use of open flame welding devices and open flame combustion heating systems around foam. This point used in conjunction with rallying foam manufacturers to develop combustive proof foam formulas would be the better approach. The SPFA needs to think outside the box - there must be better solutions then ignition paint. The goal of the SPFA should be to promote the superior performance value of foam as insulation as well as look to regulate the industry for expanding further growth. No other building product has been as tested and scrutinized over as foam insulation has. Why? Why so much attention? I wonder if Graco is lobbying about this...I wonder about the manufacturers - which ones are no-gooders and do-gooders?
Leonard Stansbury Posted: May 21, 2009 10:18 PM	i am new to the insulating part of this business. i have done a many of roofs but in my part of the country no one uses any kind of coating in attics, above drop ceilings,crawlspaces. if we did we would all be out of business. every one complains about prices of foam. again i am very new to the insulating part of this. so this is very good info on this subject. i personally never want to lose sleep thinking damn if i just would have coated that attic!
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 21, 2009 11:48 PM	Mason and All, I realy don't care who they hired if the test they suggested is not realistic to real life conditions. This is the real issue we're upset about! The test proposed is not realistic and no foam will pass it unless you buy and apply a coating to it. That doesn't make it a valid test. You keep saying the test is better, but better than what? The SwRI test? Maybe, but better under what circumstances. If the SwRI test was using a baseline of kraft faced fiberglass, this is not code compliant, BUT when was the last time you were in an attic where there was exposed kraft faced filterglass? I was in one today. The "thermal barrier" was a piece of tacked up paneling. This would have gone up light a lit fart!It was a fire trap! I wouldn't call this code complaint at all but has passed CofO inspections een when rented in a very strictly code enforced town. Heck, some guys won't even work in the town because of the typical code conflicts with the code officials. Last year I was in a 3 story commercial office building (only 6 years old) and it had exposed kraft faced filterglass in the attic and above the drop ceilings. The attic space and space above the drop ceilings were also being used as the return air plenum. This building was just inspected by the fire marshal the week before and nothing was said. This building had passed the annual inspection every year and the initial inspection to get the Certificate of Occupancy. I mentioned it to the head facilities guy I was with and he just shrugged his should and said yeah, you're porbably right but it passed inspection and the fire marshall didn't say anything so I guess it's OK. This is the type of lax treatment filterglass gets when we get water boarded about our testing data and even then they don't always approve it. Here is a video of a room burn test with a good monologue following the progression of the fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMhfLamERc The fire was started in a recliner chair which is much more flammable than our foam. Flashover occurs at about 2 minutes after sight of the initial flame. To put this in terms of the proposed test would be difficult because the fire is progressively growing where the proposed test is a steady 40KWh fire from the start. You might consider the flame comparable to a 40KWh fire at about 1 minute on the timer. This means the room flashes over within 1 minute. This is comparable to what you said foam flashes over at in a previous post. Here is a second video with a propane torch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_eHBqVYa8A&feature=related I don't know the exact BTus as it's not stated, but let's assume it's a 100,000 BTu torch which is high compared to most of the ones available at your local hradware store (30-50K BTU). So, this is showing charcoal ready to cook on within 2 minutes. Did I mention that this is only about 3/4s of the proposed test method? Try adding another 26% more BTUs to this and see what happens. That's about 136,485 BTUs which equals a 40KWh burner as proposed in the test. What foam would you expect to pass this when charcoal is ready in 2 minutes to cook on at only 74% of the test heat? Is this realistic? Compared to what? Well, here is a test showing an attic simulation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo5ZtBXJiHo It was meant to compare trusses to rafter construction in a fire, but I think you get the point. Keep in mind that the heat source is not controlled and grows exponentially which is contrary to the proposed test with is consistent from start to finish at 40KWh. Don't try to read into this too much because the fuel load is quite heavy under the roof but appears about equal between the two tests. So, how would exposed foam on the underside of the roof do in this test compared to the trusses and rafters? I expect foam between the rafters would have lengthened the collapse much longer ( if at all)as it would have had to burn through the foam to compormise the structural intergrity of the rafters. I also expect exposed foam to the underside of the roof with the trusses would have lengthened the collapse time but probably not as long as the rafters. I'm sure the coatings would improve things altogether better than all of them but would it help the trusses enough to prevent the trusses from collapsing? I don't think so, but I reserve my judgement until the test is performed. This is a more realistic test than the one proposed by the SPFA! What about one job I was on where the contractor was forced to put drywall on the direct underside of the top chords of the trusses to cover the foam with a 15 minute thermal barrier. All this did was add weight load to the roof so it collapses faster in a fire and this was what the code official insisted on against my recommendation and better judgement of putting it on the lower chord bottoms. He was concerned the exposed truss members would possible burn in the attic above the drywall and cause a collapse. Now you have an inevitable collapse if there was a real fire and I told him as a firefighter I would refuse to allow any of my men to enter the building even if it was the President in the building. (NO political reasons implied!) You admitted that the ignition barrier test from the 1970s and is still used today is flawed and needs to change, but resolved yourself to not even fight that battle. So, that means that every test which uses that "approved" but inaccurate test is also inaccurate and gives a false result. Let's fix what's wrong and test the products right. Not just allow another false test to become the baseline again which is why you claim we're discussing this today. If kraft faced filterglass isn't an acceptable baseline and the ignition barrier test is admittedly flawed, then how much better is this test? The question was impied if Graco has anything to gain by this prposed code approval and the answer is yes. Graco is the largest manufacturer of the paint equipment on the market which would be needed to apply the intumescent paint. Is it true that one of the prominent independant intumescent coating manufacturers stated they disagreed with this proposed test method to the committee and they were ignored? If you build your case on false truths, you won't get the truth as the result! I like Einstein's statement, "You can't fix the problem with the same thought process that was used to create it! Gotta love YouTube for the videos! Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 22, 2009 09:33 AM	Jim, This is my last post on this topic. You seem to forget that fire testing of materials has been going on for quite a while and much smarter minds than ours have worked on this issue for decades. As for me, I have sat in on hundreds of fire committee meetings with the best minds in the construction and fire industry and I have a good feel for when a person is spouting a company line and when they are concerned about fire safety. I also have seen close to a hundred videos of fire testing and seen a few actual foam fires. There are groups that want to discredit all plastics (not just sprayfoam) and when I worked with the American Plastics Council as their technical director I went to many meetings and was involved in many projects to prevent the misuse of onerous fire tests on foam and plastic products being used in Europe. (in those tests they burned the products until all of the material was consumed, measured the gases and toxic chemicals released and wanted to mandate those tests in the US.) All I can say is the fire tests that were developed in the 70s addressed a real problem and allowed foam plastics to be used with relative safety in the construction industry. The same rules applied to everybody for more than 30 years. It has only been in the last few years that the SWRI test was used to evaluate ignition barrier exceptions. While I agreed that ignition barrier testing was inadequate I did not say that the code designated ignition barrier products were not appropriate but that the folks in the 70s made a mistake by not going the further step and developing a test to determine the suitability of products and materials in attics and crawl spaces. The new test procedures developed by the new task group is attempting to provide a test specific to attics and crawl spaces. That was my point, the testing of the 70s was performed on hundreds of combinations of materials and millions were spent to develop the codes as they stand now. But, they failed to provide a specific test to determine ignition barriers similar to the thermal barrier test (E119). So, I expect the group will continue on. This is a reasonable test that provides a fair way to judge the relative fire burning characteristics of foam plastics with a variety of coverings or no coverings. Go to some these meetings, get some experience with the other groups and see what I am talking about. There is no hidden agenda by the foam and coating suppliers. They truly want to protect our industry. Saying they have a profit motive in this to unfairly eliminate competition is not accurate. It is only in the last few years that opinions like yours have been taken seriously in the foam community. I am not sure how to post photos on here but Roger Morrison has some from the latest round of testing that I can send to you or others. The difference in having an ignition barrier and/or thermal barrier are amazing. By the way 10 years ago, the amount of sprayfoam used in residential construction was less than .5%. So to have 2% of the market is an increase of 4 times.
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 22, 2009 10:32 AM	Mason, I think you're continuing to miss the point. I'm not questioning the validity of improvement an ignition barrier or thermal barrier makes, but I am questioning the baseline in which bare exposed foam was considered to in a realistic attic/crawlspace condition. This is comparing an assembly with only structural rafters/trusses and roof decking (which is in almost all houses ont using foam) to the same structural assembly with bare exposed foam. To see an increase in the use of foam by 4 fold (.5-2% of the market) and only see 3 foam related fires which the details of each of these fires has still not been discussed even though they were asked for, in not unreasonable when you consider the overall volume of the market we're talking about. I don't doubt that there are other oganizations out there trying to discredit us and destroy our industry, but it's sad to see actions which indicate it's happening from within our industry. I believe opinions like mine are being taken more seriously because this issue of personal interest is more wide spread and people are fed up with it. I can't speak for the individuals on the task force about their intent or interests, but I haven't heard them express or defend their positions on here or anywhere else. I remeber a question being asked at the Sprayfoam conference where one of the companies in question refused to answer the questions and would not even give a reason. This is also a company which has a vested interest in the coatings. So what are we supposed to believe? You're words say one thing but their actions say otherwise. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 22, 2009 02:50 PM	Jim, the best place to raise your questions and present your opinions would be to the fire test experts at the meetings that are held around the country. These guys have been at it a long time and have a great many explanations for the various burn calculations for different scenarios. I know they spent a lot of time on determining the specific amount of BTUs to be used for the test and how far away from the surface it should be. I don't pretend to have the skill set to be on their level, so I rely of specific persons who I have worked with in the past that have been reliable and objective. As we discussed on the phone a good start would be to attend the ICC evaluation hearings in Birmingham June 3 & 4. This specific test will be discussed in detail by folks for and against the test procedure. Jesse Beitel will be there as well as Bill Koffel (both fire scientists on opposite sides of the debate) along with many others from the construction, code and foam plastics arena. It would be a great place to get some greater experience on the issues and talk to the folks that are working on the committees.
Michael Fusco Posted: May 24, 2009 09:23 AM	You know...I think it's a shame that legitamate disagreement is stifled by "but I know better". Does anyone know of another forum for this discussion. It is vital to our industry that ALL be heard. My opinion remains the same, this test fostered by SPFA is politically motivated and does NOT MEET THE CODE MANDATED REQUIREMENT OF A FULL SCALE TEST. It modifies a NFPA 286 and therefore is NOT a 286, and just because it has a pass/fail element does not make i9t appropriate to the application. Please email me if you are aware of another forum.
mason Posted: May 24, 2009 10:13 PM	I have been in this industry for many years and I have developed a large network of folks that I can obtain information on almost any topic. Some things I know off the top of my head based on my own research and experience. But, on some things I obtain additional information. Some folks I contact are motivated by their company's best interest and I take that into consideration. Others I know have always provided me with their objective opinions and facts no matter what the company line. My advice to anyone who is interested in this debate. Talk to the fire testing experts, the other foam plastics organizations, the ICC ES staff, other suppliers, and if you can, go to some of the meetings. With more knowledge and experience you can make your own opinions. My own experience with fire tests & research combined with discussions with my network of experts convinces me that these tests are not politically motivated but are a legitimate response by the industry to provide a better evaluation for ignition and crawl space foam applications. nuf said.
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 25, 2009 10:23 PM	As I posted on another forum - there are fire experts on both sides of the fence and this is not an open and shut case as Mason paints the picture. My intent of starting this topic thread was to get others involved and make others aware of what is going on. If we aren't asking the questions and demanding facts with supporting data, we fall prey to someone's politic agenda. Also as a spray foam profession in this field, a firefighter, a building scientist and almost 10 years in as a Sr. Quality Engineer, I feel this test is flawed and is not realistic. I feel I have continued to raise valid questions which get brushed over and not directly answered. To me this is an indication that a decision was made on feelings and not on facts. As I stated previously, " In God we Trust, All others bring Data!". There is another forum where we can post our concerns. This woud be the ICC directly. They have forum a forum site and we all have a right to ask for an explaination from the ICC on the prposed code change. I think the more they hear from us, the more they will question the pretty package with doggie doodoo in it being proposed. I'll try to look up references for the sites I'm talking about, but to start with it woudl be under www.icc-es.org and look for the proposed codes. There are some letters posted there from companies who support this like Bayer, Demilec, SPFA, and the American Chemistry Council. Unfortunately, it appears the timeframe to get letters from us posted here has passed, butI'm sure that if they get an flood of feedback from our industry on this issue, they'll have to take notice and listen. The code change you need to reference when writing to them is the AC377. Please email me with your suport letters to so I can hand deliver them on June 3rd in Birmingham, AL. I'm planning to be there to state our opposition. I don't expect many of you to be able to join me for this in person, but I would love to have a letter from each of you that I can present to them which would be true representation of our industry rather than what the SPFA is pushing. Thanks, Jim Coler jim@coler.com www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 26, 2009 07:44 AM	Jim, here is the webpage with the responses. www.icc-es.org/Criteria_Development/0906-pres/Responses/14_AC377.pdf
JohnPeters Posted: May 26, 2009 08:41 AM	It is my understanding that ICC has recently approved sprinkler systems for residential projects. How will this rule effect the need for ignition barriers? While I think having sprinkler systems in homes is ridiculous, I would think it would be favorable to doing away with the ignition barrier topic. jp
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 26, 2009 08:51 AM	Sprinklers, their requirements, and how these affect ouus and our products would be another good topic of discussion. I personally think sprinklers are a great idea because it is proven that they save lives, property and buy firemen time to help svae people and property. There are some issues which need to be worked out with this requirement such as their astronomical cost, the overall complexity and over design of the systems due to unrealistic requirements, and the limited or lack of contractors who will install residential sprinkler systems. If the reasoning an ignition barrier is required is as Mason ststes, then a sprinkler would not help because it takes heat and time for these to activate. If we were talking about thermal barrier requirements, then this would be a different story, but Mason stated the reason for the ignition barrier is due to an initial flahover which in actuallity may or may not trigger tth sprinkler system but after the flash over has occurred. It's like comparing it to a gasoline vapor fire. You may get a flash burning the vapors and small particles/surfaces like your hair and skin but there woulf be little depth to the burns. Now that was if it was as Mason says it is. From my perspective, Foam doesn't burn as fast as gasoline and something else has to be burning in order to ignite the foam. So, if something else is burning, then it may reach the temp to trigger the sprinkler heads ad prevent flash over. Typically these sprinkler heads are set at about 155oF for interior insulated areas unless it's in a typical FG insulated attic situation where they may us a higher temp setting like 180-200oF because of the solar heat gains to the roof and attic space. So, the bottom line, I know sprinklers do help, but not sure they would help convince people with the flashover fear without further extensive testing. Jim Coler www.coler.com
mason Posted: May 26, 2009 04:12 PM	I agree with Jim that they would most likely still require thermal barrier and ignition barriers. As a fire code expert explained it to me some years ago. There is a chance the sprinklers would not operate or not come on in time to prevent the flash over. . But, since they are putting in sprinklers, (retrofitting some buildings by 2011) it would be a great opportunity to increase their insulation at the sametime.
arpitkakkar1 <a href="http://newmeditech.com/products/blood-collection/blood-donor-chair/">blood donor chair</a> Posted: Feb 10, 2017 01:16 PM	solar vaccine refrigerator is the important equipment for the biological labs. Vaccines protect us from serious diseases so we should keep it with care at cool and try place. Now a days so many vaccine refrigerator in market which work very efficiently and solar energy used to provide power to that refrigerator by connecting them with solar panels and other techniques. That solar powered refrigerator are used commercially in research laboratories and hospitals. It is safe to use no burns is there.