Q&A Forums

SPFA Attic and Crawlspaces - They need to hear our reaction Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
jimcoler Posted: Apr 22, 2009 08:12 AM	SPFA Attic and Crawlspaces - They need to hear our reaction As is commonly discussed on this forum, Fire codes in Attic and Crawlspaces regarding foam are a common issue. Please read the below information and take action so we can keep this industry moving forward instead of moving backward with outrageous prices with little to no added value to the consumer. ************** 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
Posted: Apr 24, 2009 05:51 AM	jim,, great post,,, your analogies and observations are dead on,,, please keep me informed,, did you send this to the spfa???? i am unsure who you are addressing in the closeing paragraph,,if it is the spfa,, and they tender a response,,would you please post the response here as an addendum.. if you are saying that i,,as a member,,control the direction of this committee,,i friggin wish man,,in fact,,,i would guess that im one of the independants whoms balls they intend to cut... their "product specific" wording has found its way into many construction documents here in the cornfield,,,and it is takein some time to reeducate the uniformed,,,particularly when it seems they have few competent and qualified applicators to fullfill their dreams of domination... your observations on flame and fire are dead on...but we continue to be hobbled by old studies, chemistry and old disasters,,, thanx again for your post,, i look forward to hearing more from you on this topic,,, 'dude
travis fails Posted: Apr 24, 2009 01:25 PM	Seems to me someone from this site could get a petion drive here, where all of us contractors could voice our disapproval of their current actions. Maybe this will also show if this site is here for us the contractors and spray foams future are just to generate money.
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: Apr 24, 2009 04:55 PM	Yes, This was sent to the SPFA which spawned a phone call from Kurt Reisenberg the next day. We had a 90 minute conversation/debate about the issue and I told him I hold him personally responsible for allowing this personal iteerst to occur under the guise of the SPFA and the damage that will occur to the SPF industry as a result of this decision. Kurt told me that I was the only contractor who had contacted him and other contractors felt it wouldn't have an impact on their business. I told him I don't believe that and feel that we aren't calling him because he's not asking for us to. If he wants to know our voice, then ask us, and he's not. So, I would ask all of you to call Kurt, email him , send him letters and let them know that we disapprove of this decision and want immediate action taken on our behalf. Yes, our opinions do count, especially when we have the facts supporting us. We just need to band together and force the issue with our phonecalls and emails. Dare to go on record as opposing this politically driven code change and take action now! Yes a petition would be good and that was kind of the intent to start some discussion about this here and follow up with a petition. The most important thing you can do NOW is to call and email Kurt and the committee. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way and we can't let this special intersst action take place without our voices being heard. SPFA 4400 Fair Lakes Court, Suite 105 Fairfax, VA 22033 Tel: (800) 523-6154 Fax: (703) 222-5816 kurtriesenberg@sprayfoam.org Jim Coler www.coler.com
Gerry Wagoner Posted: Apr 27, 2009 02:22 PM	Email sent, og
Gerry Wagoner Posted: Apr 28, 2009 08:32 AM	Two things: Requiring a mandatory ignition barrier over foam in attics & crawl spaces will have the net effect of reducing SPF market share, through unnecessary costs. Especially crawl spaces. We have the best product in the world, and we need to keep it within reach of prospective buyers. I can accurately predict what will happen when I tell a customer that they must pay another 1.20-2.00 per ft² for a white paint over the foam - a majority of them will ask "Is there a Home Depot nearby?" and that will be the end of their interest in SPF. I would not blame them. (The $2 figure is for navigating a pressure hose down in a lousy crawlspace). Secondly, I would wager 10k cash that the percentage of fires that originate in a crawl space is in the .0_ range. Subjugating a 99% majority to the abstractions of a fractional minority is bad business at best! It is within the realm of reason to request more time to adequately test our products. This will keep our industry from rushing into a box canyon that we regret in 5 years. Best regards, XXX
Gerry Wagoner Posted: Apr 28, 2009 08:42 AM	rickduncan@sprayfoam.org
Gerry Wagoner Posted: Apr 28, 2009 08:44 AM	Jim I tried to contact your link only to be told that it is not a good link. email? gcw
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: Apr 28, 2009 09:01 AM	jimcoler@yahoo.com
quentin Posted: May 18, 2009 09:26 AM	Been busy with other things like a second job and stupid ex creating problems so havent' been on in a while. COmputer bieng DOA hasn't been helpful either but I send an email too. I have kept up some on the issue and am upset that the SPFA has worked to help put contractors out of business anymore. While I understand safety is important, requiring the additional expense of ignitions and thermal barriers in crawl spaces and attics is putting those on the ground out of business. As of now my company has had ZERO work in over 90 days with this being a large part of the reason. With the downturn in the economy and most of the calls we receive being retrofit work for those areas, adding even $1 per square foot for the barriers where it is done at cost by myself has kept the costs too high for people. Foam is safe and those are areas that are very unlikely to have a problem where a fire is created but the special interests of the large companies who care only for selling their coatings and not that the actual contractors are being put out of business seem to be ruling the industry and organization at this point. While contractors like myself are out there spending every last penny we have on getting out estimates, working jobs on the side to keep afloat, these large companies do not have to worry about those issues and only selling, pushing and even requiring their products. The SPFA is supposed to be representing ALL of the industry and must recognize that if the majority of contractors are pushed out of business, then sales of everything will be down. You can’t install products if there are no contractors left to install them or sell equipment if the market is full of good used machines and parts from all the contractors who have been put OOB by this kind of additional requirement. The SPFA should reconsider the situation and look at all factors and sides of the issue including the fact foam is a very safe product in these places and unlikely to be a factor in the safety when a fire does happen in rare cases. We already have to fight code officials at the local levels who have no understanding of our products, the higher costs compared to other insulation products, competition between different companies and the frequent issues with general contractors having a network where the work goes to their friends with fiberglass instead of superior products. Adding additional barriers to us is a sure way to ensure the industry dies before there is any improvement in the economy or a chance for the contractors to overcome these problems! Thank you, Quentin Durrstein Foam Dogs LLC 3951 Planeview Dr Beavercreek Ohio 45431 937-478-4818 www.FoamDogs.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 18, 2009 01:23 PM	Quentin, Thanks for your support. I was hoping we'd have a lot more support on here to show the SPFA that this is not in our best interest and that the contractors have never said that it would not effect the rate of their business. I've been having a discussion about this same topic with Mason Knowles on the Ask Mason section where Mason just decided to lock me out of further discussion about this topic on his thread. I think we were actually getting somewhere to the root of the issue with the testing methods and unrealistic comparaisons and expectations of foam to other materials. I feel it's wrong for Mason to refuse to discuss this further as that's what these forums are for. Mason is entitled to his opinion just as I'm entitled to mine and we both should have the freedom to voice that opinion freely. This thread can be found at the link below: https://sprayfoammagazine.com/mnps/fullthread.cfm?threadid=8928&mnforumid=2&mnboardid=5&startat=1 I would encourage you to voice yours otherwise they'll seek to control the rest of our businesses or put us out of business for not following them even if what we do is right. Jim Coler www.coler.com
quentin Posted: May 19, 2009 04:18 PM	Quentin Thank you for your note and for explaining your concerns. I take them very seriously and assure you that it is farthest from my intention – direct or indirect – to negatively impact any member’s business. I don’t want to write a book here in response so I’ll try to stick to the main points, but feel free to call if you want to discuss further, debate any of my points, etc. I hope you take the time to read them since this isn’t some kind of canned response. First, the most important issue needs to be resolved: As of now my company has had ZERO work in over 90 days with this being a large part of the reason. I hate to hear of loss of work for any member, and there are many reasons that can lead to that. But in this case, any requirement for coatings is not one of them since this has not even been brought before ICC yet (hearing is in June), and any requirement for new fire performance won’t even go into effect until January or June 2010 at the earliest. So if someone told you that this requirement has taken effect and that is driving your business away, they were quite simply incorrect and provided bad information. 1. We responded to ICC demanding that either we, the industry, come up with a replacement for SwRI 99-02 fire test because it had been abused by some people in our industry (it was) for 9 years, or they were going to do it for us (with PIMA, XPSA, fiberglass, etc as developers). That was a no-brainer, we needed to do it. And it is mostly because our industry created this situation for itself. 2. We are not requiring that ignition or thermal barriers be applied. The biggest criticism of the old/current SPF testing is that we were conducting it comparing SPF performance to a non-code compliant assembly in SwRI test. We had to develop a test that would stand up to scrutiny in being a code-compliant assembly test. The simplest and most closely related test to what the industry has also used in the past was the NFPA 286 test (yes, this is for thermal barriers). But working with the best fire industry consultant, we modified the test to accommodate SPF, making changes that make sense for us. People flip out because they say we are applying a “thermal barrier test” but we are not. The NFPA 286 requirement for thermal barrier is 40kw for 5 minutes, then ramp up to something like 140kw heat, and the product needs to last 15 minutes. All our test did was use that test design, and burn SPF against plywood (the easiest code-compliant assembly). Being that plywood is code-compliant, all the SPF had to do was burn as long/longer than the plywood in the same test. The plywood lasted something like 4 ½ minutes. The SPF lasted something like 5+ minutes with coatings, and when the 5 minute mark was hit, they ramped up the kw for the hell of it to see how it would do compared to an actual thermal barrier test (but was irrelevant to any of our testing requirements). All we agreed to was that in that test, SPF needed to equal or outperform plywood. Period. That is the test. Can SPF do that today bare? Not likely. It probably needs a coating for now. But mfgrs are working on new technologies that will hopefully be able to overcome the requirement with fire retardants, etc and not need a coating in the future. Bottom line, the TIME performance is what the test is for. And I believe your estimate of +$1/sqft is too high by at least 50 %, especially once volume increases and costs come down even more. 3. You state foam is safe. It is not. Bare foam flashes over (I have watched this, repeatedly) and does not provide ample time to escape. And yes, this applies equally to low or medium density. There is no debate there – only marketing. There have been 3 attic deaths this year involving SPF. One is too many. One really big fire event and you all would be wishing you had adopted this testing approach because no one would be buying any foam from you, then the industry would tank – the XPS, Polyiso and fiberglass folks would see to that. 4. I honestly do not believe the claims that the suppliers are driving this for their own self-interest. Their interest is in staying in business and making money on a profitable product, which SPF is. It is directly contradictory to say they are doing this for their own self-interest, and then say it is going to put the very contractors out of business that the suppliers need to have in business to sell their materials to. Your best interest is also theirs. I have been in their meetings and seen them working, and know this to be true. SPFA is representing all of the industry on this Quentin. Just because on face value some folks don’t like it (more often they don’t fully understand), or some technological approaches are going to have to be altered to keep up with demands placed on the product, doesn’t mean that we are not acting with the best interest of the entire industry (low density, medium/high density, roofing, wall foam, etc) at heart. The last point is that you keep stating that SPFA is doing all of these bad things to the contractors and the industry. The Task Force that has worked for the past 18 months on this has contractors participating as well as suppliers. Additionally, SPFA has 3 staff – myself, our Tech Director and an admin. WE are not doing this. The industry, suppliers, contractors alike, represent the industry through SPFA and despite many heated debates on this topic, they have in fact hammered out this approach as being something they honestly believe the industry will not only survive, but thrive upon and continue to grow. “We” are “you”. You and any member contractors are able to participate on the committees and TFs that are doing this work – most by teleconference. These are not closed societies. We have accepted this work/proposal from the Task Force and have approval from the building envelope committee, the technical (roofing) committee, and the Board of Directors (by the by-laws, seats favor contractors and reserve president and vice president positions for contractors only). We are not adding barriers, we are removing them. The FG industry won’t have a leg to stand on in criticizing us, or in confusing the code officials (especially since ICC is going to help promote this change). We are making the industry more stable and able to withstand the criticism that is coming, and that will come more, as it does with any product that is taking market share away from competing technologies. The fight unfortunately has only just begun. But I promise you – SPFA is solely interested in growing the industry and making our contractor members successful in their growing businesses. Change sucks while it is happening, but must happen to keep the industry moving ahead. We as an industry have survived and found success after much worse challenges of the past. Lots of sincere and much-smarter-than-me people worked on this project and have solid science and business behind it. They want you to be successful and so do I. I started out skeptical that their approach was going to work and made them spend the year convincing me. Unless I was convinced I could not stand behind it. They have done so and I believe this is the right approach. Additionally, every time I have shown an open mind and asked someone to come up with something better and I would back it, they have failed to do so, and our time with ICC is up. What we have isn’t perfect, but it is better. I hope I can count on your patience and open minded approach to helping us find the ways to make this work. There are a million challenges we need to overcome in this industry – many of which are more like a war of attrition, but we are working on them as well and will win them. And as always, thank you for your service to our country, and your commitment to SPFA. I always mention your company whenever I have the chance to highlight a member vet-owned business. Call me if you want to discuss any of this. Please understand I am not trying to change your mind, I just want you to get my side of this issue as well. Kurt
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 08:27 PM	I'm assuming this is a response from Kurt Reisenberg of the SPFA, but somehow got posted under Quentin's login. Kurt, Thanks for joining us in this issue as you are one person who can personally make a difference with this decision. I know a couple of months ago we had a lengthy phone conversation about this issue where you stated that I was the only contractor who flet this would hurt our businesses. I stood firm then and stand firm now that this is not true and I hope you have seen from some of the responses here and ones I know were personally directed to you over the past couple fo months that this will have a negative impact on our business. At that time you pledged to me that you would check with at least three objective home insulation installers/contractors to get their objective opinion on whether this would have a negative impact on their business. I have not heard back you response from this pledged further investigation. As far as this task force being open to anyone, well that depends on whetehr you pay your SPFA dues or not. Shortly after this task force was created,I expressed sincere interest in joining it. When I dug into it further you personally got back to me and stated this was only for members and I was no long an SPFA member so I couldn’t participate. I wrote back to you stating that I paid my dues at least one year previously and found no benefit to me for being a member and I thougt it was ridiculous to pay $500-$700 a year just to be on a task force and volunteer my time and expertise which I had to pay to provide input. You never responded to my comment about the dues – I guess you thought If I wasn’t willing to pay, I wasn’t able to play. You mentioned that the task force hammered out a solution. The approached they’ve hammered out is unreasonable to subject foam to and at least three companies on the task force stated on record that they totally disagree with the approach being taken. In our phone conversation you agreed that there is no foam which will currently meet this requirement. A 40KW fire is like withstanding 3 very large gas grills on high wide open. Or have you ever used one of those weed burners (sometimes called a rose bud burner)? It would take at least 5 of these combined to simulate what is proposed. So, what in an attic is expected to ever reach that amount of heat release within that period of time - especially if there is nothing in the attic or crawlspace except maybe a lightbulb. Mason and I had a lengthy phone discussion about this today and we ended it by agreeing to disagree. I will post some more of the details regarding this phone conversation later but in brief, We agreed that the only way we may be able to agree on something was to have a better test. You happened to use that same terminology - Better! Well, better in my mind was something more realistic to real life circumstances and not to put words in Mason's mouth, but it was something with regards to safer. We ended the conversation that we would agree to disagree even though we are both trying to look out for the best interest of the spray foam industry in different ways. In essence, we're on the same team when you consider the other wars being waged. One thing that was intersting out of our conversation was Mason's mention of 3 different supposedly lower cost intumescent coating on the market; Aldo Coat - associated with NCFI; SPI associated with Demilec; and Bay Systems which has their own IC coating. To my knowledge, all three of these are some of the more key players on this task force who are proposing this new test which can only be passed with an intumescent coating. This is where the question of monetary interests comes into play as the three companies who oppose this decision and are also oon the taskforce, do not have any affiliation to intumescent coatings. So, I again would say your democratic vote on whetehr the test was valid or not was not a valid democratic vote if it was stacked with persons with special intersts to gain from the decision. Kurt, you stated, "WE (SPFA) are not doing this." You may not personally be doing this but you are allowing it to happen under your oversight. This means that it's done under your watch and you are responsible for the decision. As an analogy, If you don’t stop a murder and the person is under your supervision/authority you can be charged with murder or accomplice to murder out of neglect by not stopping them when their under your authority. This Task force is under your authority and you personally are responsible for the wake this will leave behind within the industry. In our phone conversation I charged you personally with this responsibility and the blood of lost business suffered from this decision will be on your hands. Again, I thank you Kurt for at least responding and hope you will take my concerns more seriously and take action against the curent direction of this committee before you personally damage the spray foam industry and our business sales. Thanks, Jim Coler
Posted: May 20, 2009 10:04 PM	"I'm assuming this is a response from Kurt Reisenberg of the SPFA, but somehow got posted under Quentin's login." rofl,, no,,, pmpilsh
quentin Posted: Jun 08, 2009 02:39 PM	That was the email he sent back to me based on the one I sent. Since the ONLY work around here right now that I can get is remodels and attics, it would pretty well kill us. We already are fighting to get business when the FG guys have dropped their prices since they could get labor a lot cheaper now but we never had a high labor charge before so can't really drop the prices like they did. Ok Obama! You put us in to debt for the next 50 years, now now where is that money besides the pockets of banks and the local GM plants that all got shut down anyways after you gave the company BILLIONS to float for a few months? At least we are willing to WORK for the money!
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: Jun 08, 2009 06:51 PM	Anyone want to start installing gutters? Ok Guys, Here's the update: As I promised, I went to Alabama to voice our dissatisfaction of this SPFA's proposal to the ICC ES Committee. The code hearing for the AC 377 was one of the longest ones over the three days of hearings. It lasted about 5 hours. We all got to say our piece and I even got to submit a 4 page letter the day before to be submitted as evidence. I'd be happy to post the letter in a later post if anyone wants. Overall it appeared we had a really strong case to reject the SPFA proposal and call for more testing and data whcih would be more representative to real life circumstances. When it came down to the vote, the committee voted unanimously to accept the SPFA proposal effective as of June 1, 2010. So, that gives us all one year to try to get it changed in our favor. So, I'm sorry to say that we lost in this hearing. I still don't undertsna dhwo they could have unanimously accepted this proposal on such bogus data and unrealistic testing, but we're stuck with it now. Unfortunately, I was the only contractor/installer at this hearing and I guess they didn't feel my voice counted. Afterwards, there was an impromptu meeting in the lobby with many manufacturers from both sides and SPFA (Kurt and Rick). The SPFA stated that they woudl like to continue the testing as we proposed and gather more data which represents real life circumstances. They also stated that some of the larger manufacturers are willing to help support this testing financially. So, the SPFA is planning to continue this task force and pursue it further. So how does this help us? Well, if we all are SPFA members then each company has one vote on whether to accept or reject a submission. That means our voice can count with more numbers of us. So, I told Kurt that I was willing to become a member again and be involved in the task force IF the SPFA was willing to truly represent me as a contractor/instaler and not just the manufacturers. It will come dow to the number of member votes on the decisions so the more we have represented, the more likely we have to get the decision favored towards our desire. I'll keep you all informed on other progressions that may be in the works, but right now, this looks like the way to win this battle/war for now. Sorry for the bad news as I'm really down about it too, but I'm not giving up yet and hope you aren't either!
Michael Fusco Posted: Jun 23, 2009 05:13 PM	Jim, I hope your message gets through. Applicators better start waking up while we still have a market. There is a difference between what SPFA has said, and what SPFA has done. I would be asking which manufacturer's supported what.......
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: Jun 23, 2009 08:37 PM	U-man1, Thanks, but I think we're not hearing much uprising on the street because the questions is, "Where do we turn from here and what are our options now?" After the hearing there were a number of mannufacturers and the SPFA who made a committment to further the testing and come up with a better proposal. Here we are 1 month later and I haven't heard anything regarding a plan to continue testing and a new proposal. Even still, I'm not sure a new proposal would be accepted by the ICC-ES committee since they didn't seem to make their decision based on facts and truth this time, so what makes us believe that they will accept it the next time. Someone there mentioned legal action possibly being taken on the ICC-Es committee and SPFA. I would love to discuss this further with a lawyer who is willing to pursue this avenue further. I think there might be some leverage under the Anti Trust Laws regarding Tying Arrangements. In this case the intumescent coatinsg are the tying arrangement to using foam. I would also be looking at Negligence and lack of exercising due dillegence and discovery of the facts on the ICC Committee for accepting this SPFA proposal when just before they voted, one of the committe voting members made the comments and asked the question, "I should probably already know this, but what exactly is the difference between a thermal barrier and an ignition barrier?" This statement was made after hearing over four hours of dicussion and debate on the issue. This is clear evidence that at least one committee member voted on this to accept the proposal but didn't really know what he was voting for or against. This is negligence and lack of his ethical duty to understand the principles thoroughly before voting them into approval. So does anyone have any lawyer friends who might be interested in discussing possible actions against the ICC-ES Committee and the SPFA? I'd love to keep this thread or similar threads going, but I'm not hearing much from you guys and this doesn't help the moralle to continue the pursuit. Let me know your thoughts.
Michael Fusco Posted: Jun 28, 2009 02:42 PM	Jim, I am afraid you are dead on...yet again. That commitment was made to keep folks like you quiet and "mollified". There is no commitment. A month has gone by and there is no movement except to watch the manufacturers who wanted this pat each other on the back and tell each other how they saved us all from our own....blah blah blah. SPFA, as an organization, can only go where it's membership tells it to go. Hence the importance of membership. There is some justice out there......in 2010 a new blowing agent becomes available, which should drive down the cost of 245fa. Lets see which manufacturers pass some savings to their applicators (closed cell. I don't think you are going to see much support until after December when this all hits you square in the face.
Michael Fusco Posted: Jun 28, 2009 07:06 PM	You know guys....I was surfing the site, and I found an advertisement by Corebond. Now, understand I am NOT picking on Corebond....I just happened to see their ad which raised the flag. Now that all foam will be covered at least on the verticle surface, manufacturers are killing themselves to align themselves with a coating manufacturer. Corebond has one and in their ad makes the following statement: "XXX is a vapor barrier as well"..... Here's an unintended consequesnce of the madness... If I spray corebond with this coating in say Vegas or Phoenix or Texas.....I am putting the Vapor barrier on the cold side instead of the warm side where it belongs. I'm sure the proponents will argue that CCF is a vapor barrier itself, which it isn't after a year or two......, let the madness begin.
Posted: Jul 06, 2009 04:40 PM	We cannot charge customers no more for this foam. They will barely pay what we need to buy the materials that are just extremly to high in cost. Any more cost will doom us all.
jimcoler I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Aug 02, 2009 01:07 PM	Kidswell, If you realy mean this, then you will get involved with the SPFA and join the Attic and Crawl task force. This is the only way I foresee us making an impact on these codes as the code bodies are only really listening to what the SPFA says. So, If our voice can't be heard as opposing the SPFA, then we must join them and make their direction ours. This organization is supposed to be representing us and the way it's structured is that this will only happen if we're involved in it!. Jim Coler
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 05:44 AM	...from 5-19-09 post,,this thread,, We are not adding barriers, we are removing them. The FG industry won’t have a leg to stand on in criticizing us, or in confusing the code officials (especially since ICC is going to help promote this change). We are making the industry more stable and able to withstand the criticism that is coming, and that will come more, as it does with any product that is taking market share away from competing technologies. uh,,,the FG industry is buyin into the foam industry in a big way,,, they are writing their icc reports to limit the use of spf...(that means BE only for those of you from loma linda,,,,take a gander and see for yourself..."know your enemy and keep em close")... they are being very word specific about just how and where our product can be applied,,,and,,imho...the coatings to the conditioned lid will pretty much KILL the conditioned lid,,but sealing the drywall lid and covering with filterglass will work just fine,,and their icc report will mandate such... there is increased scruitiny being giving to spf by code officials,,and you will live and die by the icc reports...(anyone try and leave more than 3.25" open cell in an exposed box sill?? code dont allow it,,,unintended wording???,,,but real consequenses,,oh by the way...3.25 inches of a 3.8r foam dont give me what the local energy audit requires,,) ...and sunday mornin comin down,,,,,
Eric Sparks Posted: Aug 31, 2009 09:11 PM	Jim I agree with everything you have said, on joining the spfa I can barely make my payments things have been so slow I can't afford to join a group like this, if the membership was more reasonable I would join. Someone in a earlier post said something about the antitrust act this subject and the costs of our material is what this act is all about. I wanted to know exactly what the antitrust act was so I google it, you should look it up to or go to the doj and read about it. The only things I have ever tried to shop for and not find a variety in costs are oil gas and foam. Why is that?
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 03, 2009 10:28 PM	Dude, You're right on. If you look closely at this report by Johns Mansvile and put in into the context of what has been happning to the foam industry, it would all be clear. http://www.specjm.com/files/pdf/T07-020JMSpiderIgnitionBarrierV2.pdf The Date: this was done in Dec 2007 - Ignigition barrier requirements pushed through ICC-ES in June 2009 - effective June 1,2010. The foma Used: The foam they used was not even acceptable foam for insulation. Look at the specs for Flame Spread and Smoke Development. They used a foam which made them look better. Coating made the burn test worse?: If you lok at the ASTM E-84 table showing bare foam and intumescent coated foam, the coating made it worse with smoke development and they didn't even do the same test with only the Spider system - they used ASTM E136. Changing the rules in the middle of the game. The Missing Phot Documentation: If you track the tests performed and the pictures shown, you'll see that they didn't show you all of the pictures and neglected to include the other entire test of foam with another bogus coating. The Doctored photo: Which one of these pictures is not like the others? Well, there's only one and it's the foam. It's much cloudier, hazier, different angle, and you can't read the time. They realized that so they were generous enough to write it in for us next to the photo. The only other photo which is different is the last one of the bare wood, which again is a different angle and not clear on the time. The Time of Flashover: Flashover is a subjective criteria and it depends on who is evaluating it. According to the pictures of the foam - they didn't get a picture of the flashover. It was sometime between 2:52 and 3:43 according to these pictures, but who knows with the integrity of the 3:43 picture in question. The Time/Stage Confusion Factor: The pictures shown appear almost intentionally mixed up. The time put for flashover on the kraft faced FG is the last picture shown, and is very severe, but the other pictures show different times and different stages of the fire. It's almost like they picked out the pictures that made them look the best and made the data fit what they wanted. The Offical Test or what I say it is?: Take note that this is only a tech bulletin produced and distributed by JM. The real tests performed by SWRI are not shown. This report and it's conclusions are not endorsed or supported by any third party entity - but they slaughter us for that! Approval over Closed Cell? Well, it seems they got approval over closed cell foam without having to test it. In the conclusion they say it's acceptable over open and closed cell foam based on the testing! Where the closed cell test that was done?How about the other open cell foam test pictures that was performed and referenced? This is just one of them and they have lost a lot of market share to foam over the past year. So, how else can they expect to survive? Make it look as bad as possible for as long as possible until they get into it themselves and then show the real test data to prove it's not what they said it was -but wait it's new (same)data then...
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 03, 2009 11:03 PM	Sparky, I have to disagree with you because you can't afford not to pay the dues for SPFA and make a difference. You think you're slow now, well wait until your prices go up and your time to complete the job goes up, and your labor increases, and customers go back to the cheap methods. We told the ICC-ES committee that businesses stand to lose 30-40% of their business if this is approved because it will add another $1 - $1.25/sf to the already expensive foam and add no perceived value to the homeowner. Try selling them rotten apples!! Well, You think it's tough now, just wait until 3rd and 4th qtr of 2010. They didn't even base it on factual data, but a bunch of averages of a test that's not even close to real life conditions. Why not drop cars out of airplanes to test airbag deployment??? I'm sure some will go off! ;-) I think you need to find a way to pay your dues and get involved now while we may still stand a chance to change something before it's too late. I can't do this alone! I'm only one voice and one vote. I'm currently out numbered by many who are not looking for the applicators best interests. The SPFA is set up as a democratic process and the more votes on a side wins. Yes, it's a pay to vote game, but those are the rules. You can't play poker without anteing up! If you don't get involved, what gives you the right to complain or even be heard? You can make a difference if you get involved and see it as an investment. I agree it's not cheap, but what is in this industry especially stuff by Graco? Jim Coler
Paul Covert Posted: Jan 14, 2011 07:58 PM	What gives me the right to complain?? How 'bout 6 years and every dime I have ever had, trying to sell SPF to backward-ass people who are stuck in the 1950'?? Now a bunch of lobbyists have sold me out?? I just spent $28,000.00 for a new rig, and now this?? Whoever is responsible for this needs to show me how to sell this extra cost in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was just beginning to look like I might make it. I am getting ready to foam a 9,000 square foot roof job. Come and tell my customer that it will now cost an extra 14,000.00, and see how fast they tell me "Thanks, but no thanks"...
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: Jan 14, 2011 08:28 PM	Rowdy, You seem to be a little bit late on entering this thread! You're almost a year and 4 months too late at entering this conversation and there have been a lot of them since then! I'm now not promoting being an SPFA member, but actually boycotting their trade show in Reno this year! I'm not going to support them because they haven't shown how they support us with numerous request and supposed attempts! They don't stick up for us (the contractors) against OSHA, NIOSH, EPA or any other regulatory agency and just bend over!! I'm sick of hearing of how we're so neglected when we can't stand up for ourselves. I asked a number of questions at the last SPFA conference and still haven't gotten any answers. As a matter of fact, it seems I got removed from many of the committees that I was on without being told because the emails just stopped coming in! I have requested to stay involved numerous times to Kurt R. and haven't gotten a response! So, don't know what's hapening to the SPFA anymore because it seems I've been black balled for the past year! SO, make your own decision on whether to go or not, but don't expect to see me there because I'll be at the SprayFoamMagazine.com conference this may -if I can get off work for a couple of days to attend during our busy season! Thanks, Jim
Paul Covert Posted: Jan 14, 2011 08:45 PM	Jim - I have been kind of busy trying to keep my head above water, doing the day-to-day stuff that a foam contractor does. I certainly didn't suspect that the very organization that is supposed to be on my side was busy ruining my future. I was just starting to feel good that I have made the local inspectors understand the concept of unvented attics. This ignition barrier crap will effectively put me out of business. Did it take effect on 01/01/11??
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: Jan 14, 2011 10:55 PM	Rowdy, I can understand about keeping head above water! That's a good thing! I agree about the SPFA and them not supporting us! I wish it was different, but it seems no such luck at this point. Just the political games being played by the players. So, I've decided to support sprayfoammagazine.com and help them help our industry! They've already helped so much with this forum and can do so much more. It depends on what foam you're spraying. I've heard a couple of different stories on whether it's needed and where. You can check your ICC Report or check with your manufacturer about the details. SOme foams went active as of June 1st 2010. But, I for one am fighting the codes ICC-ES decision. I opposed the approval of the ICC-ES committee decision last year based on false data and a false test in non "end use configuration"! SO, any help is appreciated. Thanks, Jim