Below are the links relating to this issue...
Industry needs to watch and learn from this experience!
Given that this is an ongoing investigation, I am reluctant to comment other that to say that It is extremely fortunate that no loss of life was incurred.
This type of event has the potential to have a very negative impact on Home Performance and Weatherization production.
I suspect that this matter is and will be investigated to the fullest extent, given the State of CT's awareness of the SPF Industry.
The ability to increase awareness of this event is a tremendous service to professionals and homeowners alike.
I applaud Mr. Beyer for bringing this to the forum.
I have never heard of a foam, product spontaneously combusting.
I did have an opportunity, about 20 years ago, to participate in flame spread testing of different foam materials found in acute hospitals. There were many fire magazine articles of deaths from smoke inhalation in rest homes that attributed the deaths to toxic fumes released from foam mattresses on the hospital beds. 1,200 beds in just one of the hospitals represented that day.
Knowing I worked with a coating that was fire rated for flame spread and had worked with local fire departments testing it, the chief engineer askled for any input as to how to test it. My suggestion was very simple; Lets take a small piece of a mattress , set it on fire and see what happens. I volunteered my old briquet bar-b-que for the test.
The first test was done on the very large back lawn of one of the hospitals. There were around 15 people present. A 1-foot by 1-ffot section of one of the blue foam mattresses was placed in the bar-b-que with the 'Fingers' pointing up, just like the patients all liked. They were very comfy and helped keep the old folks warm in a cold hospital, a good insulator.
Everyone moved 5 or 6 feet away to the upwind side. A lighter ignited the tip of one of the fingers in the middle of the piece. Immediately there was a surprising amout of dark black smoke coming up. After 15 or so seconds, that finger burnt down to the flat part of the mattress section between the fingers. In a matte3r of maybe 5 seconds, the entire section was ablaze and a HUGE amount of black smoke started billowing up. You would have thought that sevberal tires had been set on fire.
Then the wind shifted and that smoke blew in our direction. It smelled just like burning tires too. My eyes and nose were burning and you COULD NOT BREATHE. Most of us, including me, dropped toi the grass on all fours and crawled to a safe distance.
Since it smelled like rubber burning, assumed a petroleum product.
They immedfiately yanked those mattresses out of the hospitals and began searching for a safer alternative.
I do not know the composition of the spray foam used as insulation now, although I have always wondered about its flame spread rating. Our coating does not stick to petroleum based products. A few years ago our Texas distributor called and reported having problems bonding to spray foam. It had petroleum based materials in it on further investigation. This was maybe 4 or 5 years ago
Does anyone here know what what the spray foam's flame spread rating is? A flame spread will also include a 'Smokje released' rating.
Hal you can get the smoke & fire spread rating from the manufacturer of each product - the only times I have heard of "spontaneous combustion" is when an installer sprays closed cell on to thick & the exothermic reaction reaches critical mass (so to speak). With that per this SPFA article this may even apply to open cell foam: http://www.sprayfoam.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?id=148
I know it is still under investigation but I can't think of any other reason that would happen as no one else should be in the area, everything should be shut down, and the areas well ventilated.
Yes, the manufacturers provide that data. However, there are other things involved in the real life applications that can change the actual performance of the material vs how it performed in the lab test.
1. If the material is applied too thick or too thin, as you mentioned, the results can be very differnt.
2. The method used to apply the material can also produce different results.
3. The flame spread of the substrate can have a huge bearing on it's performance in flame spread testing.
Years ago, they used asbestos cement board for the 'Tunnel test' used to certify the flame spread and smoke developed rating. Now it is a different board for the test. Both are rated at zero flame spread. If the application is to a different substrate, (say wood in actual application vs glass board in lab application) the findings in the lab go right out the door. Wood, obviously, does not have a Zero flame spread.
Unfortunately, this is the best we have to show a flame pread developed; a test that can be affected by many things.
4. If the material contains 2 or more components that must be mixed together prior to application, there again we have the human factor that can cause more problems.
Bottom line here is that the material is never applied to the same substrate as the lab test that gave it it's flame spread and smoke certification. But, that test is all we have to go by and trust.
Many people are aware I have been researching spray polyurethane foam insulation for 3 years and almost full time due to a bad installation within my own home. I have written many blog posts about my findings to only be attacked by industry members who thought it was all fluff and accused me of wanting this industry shut down. Simply stated, this is not true. The real threat these men were worried about was my push within the Connecticut State Government to force mandatory training to protect private citizens and installers from harming themselves with these chemicals by law. SPFA has fought me on this over the last 2 legislative sessions. See... Connecticut House Bill 5908 and 05100. I could only hope next year there will be less resistance now that the product is proving to be deadly when a fire does occur, regardless of the cause.
Of all the cases I have read about this fire is one of the worse residential fires I have ever seen which has pointed directly to spfi while it was being installed. I'm fairly confident the outcome of this investigation will point to another source only because of the federal governments agenda to air seal 80 percent of the American housing stock by 2030. Even a fire of this magnitude will not slow down this train. This industry will fight tooth and nail to save the "JOBS" and once again safety will take a back seat.
The most positive outcome of this fire is no one was hurt or killed.
If you look closely at the fire picture link below you can see the facade burning behind the covering. I can only assume EIFS was installed on the facade of this home which adds fuel to the fire. (polyisocyanurate or styrene which ever was used)
Federated Insurance labeled spray foam as "Solid Gasoline" years ago. Apparently money trumped it then and it will trump it again. I'm very happy this fire did not take any lives. If it did it may have changed the way people looked at this fire and the conclusion of the investigation under way.
Spray polyurethane foam insulation fires in almost all cases are related to installer failure with the exception of those nightclub fires in Brazil, China and the Station Night Club fire in Rhode Island which took the lives of over 100 men and women. Foam fires which occur emit extremely toxic gas (hydrogen cyanide) which kills before the fire ever reaches the victim.
Only one fire resembled this fire during Christmas of 2011 (Madonna Badger fire) which the cause was never published. This home burned so hot and fast that fire fighters could not extinguish the flames. Ms. Badger and her former husband lost their 3 children and her mother and father before the flames reached them. Ms. Badger described the smoke as "Thick Black Smoke" which even a film was attached to her teeth.
It's time our government acts now before more innocent people are harmed! This includes our young work force who act as though they are indestructible as they enter these work sites regularly without PPE.