Babrauskas, V; Lucas, D; Eisenberg, D; Singla, V; Dedeo, M and Blum, A (2012) Flame retardants in building insulation: A case for re-evaluating building codes. Building Research & Information, 40(6), pp. 738-755. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
US building codes balance the consideration of hazards to public safety, health and general welfare. Current codes require foam plastic insulation materials to have both protection by a thermal barrier and compliance with Steiner Tunnel test requirements. The Steiner Tunnel test is met by adding flame-retardant chemicals to the foam. Studies demonstrate that the Steiner Tunnel test does not give reliable fire safety results for foam plastic insulations. Foams that meet the Steiner Tunnel test still pose a fire hazard if used without a code-mandated thermal barrier. Insulations protected by a thermal barrier are fire safe and the use of flame retardants does not provide any additional benefit. Evidence is examined of the health and ecological impacts from the added flame-retardant chemicals. Changing the building codes could prevent health and environmental harm from the toxicity of these substances without a reduction in fire safety. Plastic foam insulations that are protected by a thermal barrier should be exempted from the Steiner Tunnel test and the need to use flame retardants. This change would align US codes with code regulations in Sweden and Norway and ensure the fire safety as well as improve health and environmental impacts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building codes; fire safety; flame retardants; flammability; insulation; public health; steiner tunnel; thermal barrier; toxicity |
| Index terms: | building code, insulation, fire safety, evidence, environmental impact, regulation, plastic, thermal barrier, Norway, Sweden, public health, compliance, tunnel, public safety |
| Subjects: | Geography, health safety and environment, emergency and crisis management, political science, environmental health, regulatory law, infrastructure and transport systems, evaluation and assessment methods, materials science, environmental impact, building materials |
| Topics: | Governance, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here