Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Safety Matters: Voluntary to Mandatory

About the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

ANSI is a voluntary standardization system, originally established in 1918 as the American Engineering Standards Committee. The first American Standard Safety Code was approved in 1921 and covered the protection of the head and eyes of industrial workers. ANSI itself does not develop standards; however, it oversees the development and use of standards by accrediting the procedures of standards-developing organizations. ANSI accreditation signifies that the procedures used by these organizations meet ANSI’s requirements for openness, balance, consensus, and due process.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) incorporates the standards by reference; and by specifically incorporating the ANSI standards into its regulations, OSHA converts voluntary standards into federal requirements.

OSHA requires PPE to meet the following ANSI or ANSI-related standards:

  • Eye and Face Protection: ANSI Z87.1—American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices;
  • Head Protection: ANSI Z89.1—American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; and
  • Foot Protection: ANSI Z41.1, merged into ASTM F2412 and F2413—Foot Protection and Performance Package.

For hand protection, there is no ANSI standard for gloves; however, OSHA strongly recommends that glove selection be based upon the tasks to be performed and the performance and construction characteristics of the glove material.

ANSI Eye and Face Protection: Z87.1

As described in the ANSI website, “This standard sets forth criteria related to the general requirements, testing, permanent marking, selection, care, and use of protectors to minimize the occurrence and severity or prevention of injuries from such hazards as impact, non-ionizing radiation and liquid splash exposures in occupational and educational environments including, but not limited to, machinery operations, material welding and cutting, chemical handling, and assembly operations.” (See https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/isea/ansiiseaz872015).

To indicate that a device complies with ANSI Z87.1 requirements for eye and face protection, the device is marked with the standard code: Z87. While the Z87 marking indicates general compliance related to hazards, additional markings—relevant to work in our industry—indicate whether the device is rated for impact or non-impact activities, for protection from chemical splash and dust, and for protection against a variety of optical radiation exposures. These secondary markings are summarized in Table 1. As applicable, the secondary markings may appear in a combined list to show criteria have been met for multiple types of protection.

Some markings for optical radiation protection—indicated by (*) in Table 1—also include a number that indicates the device meets standard criteria for a specific level of protection. There also may be markings to identify prescription lenses and for devices sized to fit a small head.

ANSI Head Protection: ANSI Z89.1

This standard separates protective helmets (hard hats) into different types and classes. The standard identifies Type 1 and Type 2 helmets. Type 1 helmets incorporate a full brim (the brim fully encircles the dome of the hat); Type 2 helmets have no encircling brim but may include a short bill on the front (like a baseball cap).

Under the Z89.1-1997 revision, the following 3 classes are recognized as electrical protection levels:

  • Class G (General) Helmets—This is equivalent to the old Class A. Class G helmets are proof tested at 2,200 volts.
  • Class E (Electrical) Helmets—This is equivalent to the old Class B. Class E helmets are proof tested at 20,000 volts.
  • Class C (Conductive) Helmets—This class provides no electrical insulation; the alpha designation did not change from the old standard.

Hard hats must also contain the manufacturer’s name, ANSI legend, and class designation. ANSI Z89.1‑1997-compliant helmets must be marked with the date of manufacture. Instructions pertaining to sizing, care, and service-life guidelines also must accompany the hard hat.

Foot Protection: Formerly ANSI Z41.1

Although OSHA allows footwear that meets performance requirements of ANSI Z41 (1991 or 1999), manufacturers no longer make footwear that meets these criteria because the ANSI standard was retired in 2005 and replaced by ASTM F2412 and F2413. OSHA updated its standard in 2009. Per the updated standard, protective footwear must adhere to one or more of the following standards:

  • ASTM F2412-05: Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection;
  • ASTM F2413-05: Standard Specification for Performance requirements for protective footwear; and/or
  • ANSI Z41-1991 and Z41-1999: ANSI standards for the quality of protective footwear.

Follow Standards and Perform Due Diligence

Because ANSI testing protocols are rigorous and straightforward, OSHA has been able to incorporate many of ANSI’s standards into its regulations. As with any potential hazard, however, a hazard assessment must be completed to ensure that you are selecting the appropriate PPE for the task or hazards associated. In addition, the ANSI standards have been through multiple revisions, so when you select PPE, be sure to inquire about the most recent revision.

ANSI has developed committees for many of its standards, and the organization welcomes expert participation. Who knows, you may be the one to further the standard for our industry!

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

NIA Establishes New Industry Certification: The Thermal Insulation Inspector Certification™

Recognizing the Need

Inspections are required on many construction disciplines, including electrical, welding, coating, corrosion under insulation (CUI), plumbing, and more, but currently, inspections are not required for mechanical insulation. Readers of Insulation Outlook magazine know that the benefits of mechanical insulation are very well documented for properly designed, installed, and maintained systems. However, these benefits can be greatly reduced when there is improper design, application, or maintenance.

The need for the National Insulation Association’s (NIA’s)Thermal Insulation Inspection Certification™ was realized after many discussions with the engineering and insulation end-user communities indicated a need to provide a quality process metric for certified inspectors to evaluate mechanical insulation systems. There is general consensus that the insulation industry’s dwindling knowledge base—in combination with the shortage of qualified labor, compressed construction schedules, and other factors—has contributed to an increasing need for independent review by trained and certified inspectors. NIA has stepped in to fill this need and give owners, engineers, and insulation contractors a way to verify the insulation installation.

Course Development

As the voice of the insulation industry, NIA is a trade organization that encompasses the entire mechanical insulation supply chain and provides essential educational, training, and networking opportunities to its members and the greater industry. Utilizing the combined knowledge of the industry, NIA’s Board of Directors, committees, and staff develop programs and initiatives to advance NIA’s mission, the mechanical insulation industry, and the businesses represented throughout its membership.

With initial funding contributed by NIA’s Foundation for Education, Training, and Industry Advancement, NIA sought out subject matter experts with decades of experience and knowledge from all aspects of the insulation industry, including manufacturers, fabricators, contractors, engineering/design firms, and facility owners to begin developing the Thermal Insulation Inspector Certification course in 2017. To further refine the course, in December 2018, an invitation-only mock program was held for select participants who represented all mechanical insulation and industrial and commercial industry segments, including building owners, commercial and industrial engineers, safety professionals, union and merit contractors, distributors/fabricators, manufacturers, and those with technical insulation and educational backgrounds. In May 2019, NIA officially launched the Thermal Insulation Inspector Certification and is excited to announce the availability of erudite Certified Insulation Inspectors. (See the full list on page 32.

Recognizing the Value

With all course participants participating, the feedback received is impressive and affirming:

  • 95% rated this course as good or excellent;
  • 95% would recommend this course to others;
  • 95% received the information needed to explain the inspection process and benefits to potential customers;
  • 95% feel qualified/confident about performing a thermal insulation inspection after taking this course;
  • 100% of participants found the takeaway course materials to be a useful reference when they begin conducting inspections; and
  • 100% received clear information on the type of data needed to conduct an inspection.

Simon Rix, a QC Engineer for Chiyoda Corporation, which handles about 40% of the global LNG market for engineering design and construction, recently became a NIA Certified Insulation Inspector™ to add to his current NACE/CINI/ICorr certifications. He sees a huge benefit of the program as a cost saver for owners and project managers, saying “Now we have the opportunity to filter out a lot of errors before they become an expense.” In addition, this certification gives respect and a brand to the insulation industry. He thinks the program will spread quickly, giving the example that engineers and contractors in his company are asking him how they too can become certified. “People recognize the value and it will continue to grow,” he added.

NIA Certified Thermal Insulation Inspector™ Benefits

Quality insulation systems help to promote employee and public safety, save on energy costs, improve process output, protect the environment, and reduce costs associated with non-compliant mechanical insulation specifications and improper or insufficient maintenance. This certification program will train future inspectors to have knowledge of mechanical insulation, verify that the insulation is being installed to the specification, and identify potential areas of concern during initial installation or in ongoing operations.

Additional benefits will vary by the type of company and focus area. Following are a few of the top benefits to consider.

Top 3 Benefits for Engineering and Design Firms:

  1. Supports compliance monitoring with the specifications.
  2. Provides an unbiased source for information on conflicting specification provisions or comments.
  3. Provides an unbiased information source for an assessment as to the condition of insulation systems that have or appear to have been damaged, which can assist in identifying potential CUI, personnel, environmental, and other areas of concern.

Top 3 Benefits for Facility Owners:

  1. Supports contractor compliance monitoring with the specifications.
  2. Provides an unbiased source for information on conflicting specification provisions or comments.
  3. Provides a platform for understanding the importance of the role of insulation in CUI, as well as an unbiased information source for assessing the condition of existing insulation systems that have or appear to have potential CUI, personnel, environmental, and other areas of concern.

Top 3 Benefits for Mechanical Insulation Contractors:

  1. Provides a mechanism to request specification clarity.
  2. Complements a new or existing QA/QC program and provides a platform for supporting the contractor position on potential installation disputes.
  3. Offers a means of competitor differentiation.

In addition to the sales and marketing benefit of having certified inspectors on your staff, this one-of-a-kind certification can be an integral part of Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC), commissioning, and other processes while helping to achieve the benefits the mechanical insulation system was designed for by verifying the materials and the installation are in compliance with the specifications, standards, or assessments of previously installed mechanical insulation systems.

When considering industry realities—that the industry is requesting certified mechanical insulation inspectors and the financial benefits of inspection—the conclusion is: the use of certified mechanical insulation inspectors should be included in all new construction projects and be an integral part of facility maintenance programs.

Having a mechanical insulation inspection program and certifying inspectors will not resolve all concerns, but it does provide a way for engineering firms, facility owners, and others to verify that they are receiving what they expect and to identify potential areas of concern during initial installation or in ongoing operations. In fact, NIA has already received requests for Certified Thermal Insulation Inspectors.

Patriot Insulation Project Manager David Kitto knew he wanted to be among the first to earn his certification after seeing the course description saying, “I’ve been in the industry 32 years, and I’ve always been keen on increasing the level of professionalism in our trade. It was great to hear that engineering firms and large mechanical insulation customers are asking for this certification to ensure they are getting what is specified and also to clarify conflicting specifications.” He added that as a Retired U.S. Army 1st Sergeant, his background has taught him that “You can’t expect what you don’t inspect. As a contractor, I welcome this certification and the new business opportunities it will provide.”

While the minimum level of experience is 3 years, there is no maximum level of experience suggested. Whether you have 5 years of experience or 25 years in the industry, this course will be of value to you and your business. When NIA Instructor Ron King was asked what someone with 25 years of experience would learn in the course, he noted, “The role of an inspector is totally different than a contractor or manufacturer or system designer. When you look from an inspector point of view, it will take your perspective to a new level.”

Why this Certification Is Needed

Numerous factors have contributed to the current and increasing need for independent review by trained and certified inspectors, making this certification more important today than ever before. Through the work of the Certified Inspectors, this course will, over time, raise the bar for the industry and will benefit all who specify, manufacture, distribute, fabricate, install, and use mechanical insulation.

Two Thermal Insulation Inspector Certification courses for 2019 are scheduled for August and December (see “Upcoming Courses and Registration Information” on this page) and additional dates for 2020 will be announced soon. NIA has reached out to organizations that impact the industry, including industrial and commercial design engineers and facility owners, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive, with the vast majority saying that the certification is overdue and needed for our industry.

Interested in Becoming a Certified Appraiser?

Course Information

The Thermal Insulation Inspector Certification is designed for individuals who have a minimum of 3 years of experience in commercial and/or industrial construction, process, and maintenance industry, inspection, or related fields, among other pre-qualifications. Each certification class will have a wide variety of experience levels, and the class is designed to handle this range through the 2 parts of the course. Please visit NIA’s  website for the full list of pre-qualifications and to read about the instructors’ extensive expertise. The 4-day course consists of 2 levels.

Part 1—NIA’s Introduction to Mechanical Insulation

The introduction portion includes a comprehensive overview of the industry and helps participants comprehend the underlying question, why insulate? Understanding the objective of why insulation is being installed on a system is critical to the insulation inspection process. Design objectives reviewed in the curriculum are heat transfer, condensation control, energy conservation, fire safety, freeze protection, personnel protection and/or comfort, process control, and noise or acoustical control. In addition, there are other conditions that may need to be considered in the ultimate design and selection of an insulation system. Examples of these design considerations are: abuse resistance, CUI, indoor air quality, maintainability, regulatory considerations, service and location, and service life. Participants also learn the role and responsibilities of an insulation inspector; core insulation materials and protective coverings; how different types of systems and their temperature range impact the inspection; real-life inspection lessons; and a host of inspection-related topics.

Part 2—NIA’s Thermal Insulation Inspector Certification Level

Participants learn about insulation in commercial, refrigeration, HVAC, cryogenic, and industrial applications in new construction, retrofit, and maintenance projects; piping and equipment insulation materials and securement methods (including fabrication); what to expect when examining insulation and finishing; jacketing materials that have been in service and exposed to operating temperatures and environmental elements; and common installation occurrences, problem areas, and common occurrences by core material system.

Certification

To qualify to become a Certified Thermal Insulation Inspector, class participants must complete all pre-qualifications, meet the work experience criteria, complete both parts of the course, and pass all related examinations.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Announcing the 2019 Premier Industry Manufacturers

NIA's EVP/CEO Michele M. Jones says,

“We congratulate these NIA member companies for leading the way in this inaugural year. They have truly set a high bar in their achievements by setting the example.”

NIA’s 2019 Premier Industry Manufacturers are pictured above with NIA Executive Vice President and CEO Michele M. Jones and 2018–2019 NIA President Dan Bofinger

What it means for you

Look for this logo on select industry products and company materials. NIA member companies are at the leading edge of the insulation industry. These companies differentiate themselves by demonstrating their commitment to continuous improvement by participating in industry events and educational programs, and through peer-to-peer learning opportunities. NIA’s new Premier Industry Manufacturer designation was only given to 7 companies in 2019.

How the program works

The newly established award recognizes and distinguishes exemplary companies as industry advocates and leaders. Available exclusively to NIA member companies, the award rewards the top Manufacturer (Associate) members for their actions in 2018 that demonstrated leadership, commitment, and support to the mechanical insulation industry and NIA. Each of the winning companies participated in activities and actions that support NIA and the industry.Through this program, these manufacturers demonstrate to customers that their company is a recognized leader amongst their peers.

 

To learn more, please visit NIA's website at www.insulation.org/membership/premier_manufacturer

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Insulation Helps Save Energy at American Landmarks

House of Representatives on Capitol Hill:

Cannon House Office Building

Kevin Orchard, Advanced Contracting Company, an Irex Company

The Cannon House Office Building, the oldest Congressional office building outside of the Capitol Building, has not received a comprehensive system upgrade since the 1930s, and many of the building's systems are original—dating back to 1908 or earlier.

The systems are past the end of their useful lives, and the increasing risk of their failure jeopardizes the building's long-term functionality and safety. As part of the Cannon Renewal Project, a completely new fifth floor will be constructed during each successive phase. Member offices will flank both sides of the corridor, as they do on the lower floors. Work includes demolishing the walls and roof, then rebuilding an entirely new fifth floor. Other necessary work includes upgrading infrastructure systems and repairing the exterior stone façade.

A major portion of this project is to replace piping, in some cases more than 100 years old, and upgrading the HVAC system. This project involves many insulation products including fiberglass, calcium silicate, Fyrewrap, aluminum, PVC and canvas jacketing, elastomeric, and various sundry items such as tapes, mastics, etc.

The renewal process is scheduled to take approximately 10 years, with each of the 5 phases (0–4) aligned to fall between Congressional move cycles. Phases 1–4 of the project will require that affected wings of the building be vacated. Members and their staffs will remain in the upper campus, while some Committee and support staff will relocate to the Ford House Office Building or the O'Neill House Office Building.

Empire State Building

Sandy Shattles, Armacell

Built in 1930–1931, the original construction of the Empire State Building (ESB) in New York, New York, took 1 year and 45 days, the equivalent of 7-million man hours, to complete. When it came time to renovate one of the world’s most famous skyscrapers, Armacell was part of the team. The $20 million renovation to modernize energy conditions, guided by a partnership between the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI), Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), and Rocky Mountain Institute, has delivered a 38% energy savings and earned this historic icon a LEED® Gold certification for Existing Buildings: Operation & Maintenance.

Renovations include everything from triple-glazed windows to occupancy sensors and involved the installation of more than 6,000 insulated reflective barriers behind radiator units located on the perimeter of the building. For the ducts, “AP-Armaflex self-adhering duct liner was written into the Empire State Building’s specifications several years ago—[and was chosen again] without any substitution,” said Bob Dizel, retired Northeast Sales & Market Manager for Armacell. Properly installed, Armaflex should last as long as the duct itself, said Mr. Dizel, adding that it is a solution for insulation, condensate control, and noise attenuation, which is a large job for a 1,250-foot building that has 102 stories and features observatories on the 86th and 102nd floors. Each night the unique tower lights up and curious readers can find what is being celebrated each day at www.esbnyc.com.

The project has been successful. According to www.esbnyc.com, ESB also received the 2011 Green Power Leadership Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and USGBC monitoring and verification proved ESB’s retrofit project exceeded projected energy savings for the consecutive years and reduced costs by millions of dollars each year.

Harvard University

Paul Ainsworth, Axion Specialty Contracting

Established in 1636, 140 years before the United States declared its independence, Harvard’s prestige is unmatched. It is the oldest institution of higher education in the United States, and Axion Specialty Contracting recently started work to help bring insulation’s green power to its campus.

The project was new construction and included insulating HVAC, mechanical, plumbing piping, equipment, and ductwork components. This was a very exciting project and they paid great attention to acoustics and energy savings. The project involved 15-20 insulation products from other NIA member companies, including:  fiberglass pipe covering, fiberglass board and blanket ductwork insulation, fiberglass pipe and tank wrap, calcium silicate, Fyrewrap, jacketing (aluminum, stainless steel, and PVC—12 colors), elastomeric, and acoustical insulations. Insulation Outlook magazine plans to feature the details of this project in a
future issue.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

American-Made Product Guide

Insulation Outlook Magazine is continuing its special product series with the following American-Made Product Guide. While the magazine typically discusses projects and products in general terms, we created this guide to help our readers learn more about available products. The information in this guide comes directly from insulation manufacturers. In this issue, we asked companies to submit a popular, American-made insulation product.

We hope these guides make your research easier and help you on your next project. If you missed one of our recent reader guides, they are posted online at www.insulation.org/io/columns.

* Disclaimer: NIA is an insulation trade association and does not test or endorse products or companies. The information included in this section is based on free submissions from NIA member companies, and NIA cannot verify their accuracy. These listings are provided for educational purposes. Readers should always verify that any products they are considering meet the unique needs of their systems and that the claims stated by the manufacturers are accurate.

INDEX OF COMPANIES AND PRODUCTS

  • Armacell: ArmaFlex® Shield
  • Bay Insulation Systems: Laminated Metal Building Insulation
  • CertainTeed Insulation: SoftTouch™ Duct Wrap
  • ITW Insulation Systems: TRYMER PIR
  • Owens Corning: SSL II® with ASJ Max Fiberglas™ Pipe Insulation

Company Name: Armacell

Product Name: ArmaFlex® Shield

Type of Insulation Materials: Elastomeric Foam with Protective Coating

Recommended Application: HVAC and refrigeration applications, indoors and outdoors

Product Description: New ArmaFlex® Shield flexible foam insulation from Armacell is moisture- and UV-resistant, with a durable protective jacket specially designed for line set, HVAC and refrigeration applications.

Manufacturing Location: Dallas, GA

Company Name: Bay Insulation Systems

Product Name: Laminated Metal Building Insulation

Type of Insulation Materials: Faced Fiberglass Blanket

Recommended Application: Metal building roofs and walls

Product Description: NAIMA 202-96 fiberglass with the following facings adhered to one surface: FSK R-3035, FSK R3035HD, Vinyl, WMP-10, WMP-30, WMP-50, WMP-VR, WMP-VR-R+, Arenashield, or Gymguard. All finished products are UL certified for FHC25/50.

Manufacturing Location: 23 U.S. locations

Company Name: CertainTeed Insulation

Product Name: SoftTouch™ Duct Wrap

Type of Insulation Materials: Fiberglass

Recommended Application: HVAC ductwork

Product Description: Used to insulate rectangular and round HVAC ductwork, SoftTouch Duct Wrap improves thermal efficiency by reducing unwanted heat loss or gain, while also eliminating condensation problems on cold duct surfaces.

Manufacturing Location:
Chowchilla, CA
Athens, GA
Kansas City, KS
Sherman, TX

Company Name: ITW Insulation Systems

Product Name: TRYMER PIR

Type of Insulation Materials: Polyisocyanurate (PIR)

Recommended Application: Chilled-water applications, pipe insulation, structural and architectural panels, tank and vessel insulation

Product Description: TRYMER PIR is a closed-cell, high-performance insulation featuring low-ambient k-factors; can be used in a temperature range from -297°F to 300°F; and is available in a selection of densities and compressive strengths.

Manufacturing Location: La Porte, TX

Company Name:Owens Corning

Product Name: SSL II® with ASJ Max Fiberglas™ Pipe Insulation

Type of Insulation Materials: Fiberglass Insulation

Recommended Application: Insulation of iron, copper, PVC and other polymer pipes operating from 0°F to 1,000°F

Product Description: Owens Corning® SSL II® with ASJ Max Fiberglas™ Pipe Insulation is molded of heavy-density, resin-bonded, inorganic glass fibers. The insulation is tailored to fit for copper and iron pipe applications.

Manufacturing Location: Newark, OH

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The Commercial and Industrial Mechanical Insulation and Laminated Metal Building Insulation Markets Exhibit Overall Growth

As a benefit to our members and the industry as a whole, the National Insulation Association (NIA) conducts a survey every 2 years to gauge the size of the mechanical insulation and laminated metal building insulation industry segments. The surveys began in 1997 to gain data about the size of the mechanical insulation industry, which had not been measured before that time; the laminated metal building insulation segment was added in 2013. The survey is sponsored by NIA's Foundation for Education, Training, and Industry Advancement (Foundation), and aims to provide data regarding market size and growth rates for the U.S. commercial and industrial mechanical and laminated metal building insulation market. The survey goes to NIA’s Associate and Metal Building Laminator members who are manufacturers of insulation products or insulation accessories. NIA asks those members to provide information about their sales volume, and then a third-party company—using this information and formulas created by NIA—determines the annual size of the respective U.S. insulation industry segments.

Survey Comparisons

The latest mechanical insulation industry survey was conducted in the first quarter of 2019 to look at growth from 2017–2018, to compare that growth against previous forecasts and to forecast future growth in 2019–2020.

In summary, the survey indicated the market grew by 9.8% from 2016. 2017 saw an increase of 2.0%, while 2018 experienced an increase of 7.9%. Growth in 2019 and 2020 is forecast at 6.2% and 4.8%, respectively. The 2020 United States mechanical insulation industry is forecast to reach $12.4 billion in 2020.

Findings

As we have seen with past surveys, industry growth is not uniform across market segments, the country, by region, state, or even within states. Figure 1 exhibits the industry growth trend over the last 21 years (1997–2018).

While the survey process does not provide a breakdown between what is generally referred to as the commercial and industrial market segments, informal analysis indicates the commercial and industrial market experienced growth in 2017 and in 2018.

To gain a more complete picture, NIA also conducts an informal survey regarding the ratio of labor to material among contractors, and sales margins among distributors and contractors.

Contractors reported a significant change in the labor to material ratio. In more recent surveys, the blended ratio in commercial and industrial industry segments, across all projects (new construction and maintenance) and type of contracts was estimated to be 72% labor and 28% material (72/28 ratio). The ratio changed to 71/29 in 2017 and 70/30 in 2018. The 2017 and 2018 ratios changed due to changes in both fields, with industrial having a stronger change.

The change is believed to be driven by a combination of the use of higher-cost insulation systems, major price increase adjustments with many materials driven by tariffs, raw material and freight cost, and a larger number of projects utilizing multiple layer/complex insulation systems specifically for cryogenic applications.

The ratio of labor to material varies between commercial and industrial projects and applications. The survey calculations are based on an estimated blended ratio. With the methodology utilized in the survey calculations, a change in the ratio can have a pronounced effect on the survey results.

The survey indicated that, on a national basis, there was gross margin improvement in both the distribution and contractor channels. More significant improvement was reported with this survey than in other recent surveys. This was expected and is not an uncommon occurrence when revenue opportunities are abundant—especially combined with a shortage of qualified workers.

With improving margins at the distributor and contractor levels, one might expect that the manufacturing segment experienced similar results, though we cannot know for certain since the survey looks exclusively at manufacturing sales volume.

Figure 2 illustrates the industry growth percentage year to year. 2005 marked a high, with a 22.9% annual growth rate, while 2009 represented a decline of 27.7%. Annual fluctuations are to be expected and are caused mainly by changes in the overall economy. When analyzing the data in comparison to the economy, one needs to take into consideration that, due to construction cycles, the industry typically trails the economy between 9 and 15 months. The compounded annual growth rate—which refers to industry growth over the entire period—is 2.8%, while the average annual growth rate over that period is 3.7%. The average growth rate over the last 5 years is 3.1%.

Beginning with the 2013–2014 survey, the survey respondents provided their forecasted growth over the preceding 2 years. The current survey indicates an expected average industry growth of 6.2% in 2019 and 4.8% in 2020.

The 2019 forecast varied from 3% to 18% for an average of 6.2%. If you remove the high and low numbers, the average is 5.6%. 45% of the increase is projected to be in unit growth, and the balance in dollar growth (price increases).

The 2020 forecast had a similar variance, from 3% to 9%. Without the high and low percentage, the average was 4.6%. The forecast was split evenly between unit and dollar growth.

Based upon the 2018 survey results, and compounding the forecast for 2019 and 2020, the mechanical insulation industry is projected to reach $12.4 billion in 2020.

Actual industry results were below forecasted levels for both 2017 and 2018. That difference was greatly impacted by the labor/material ratio change. If the same ratio would have been in effect for 2017, the results would have been 96.4% of forecast and 2018 would have equaled the forecast of $11.9 billion dollars.

Analysis of survey results is always subject to individual interpretation. In this case, considering the high-level basis of the forecast and the methodology employed to determine the survey results, the comparison of actual results versus the forecast is worthy of discussion.

Without adjusting the forecast or actual results for impacts due to unforeseen or uncontrollable events like unexpected changes in the economy, the change of the labor and material ratio, global events, and similar considerations, forecasted results have been reasonably close to actual results. Actual results met or exceeded the forecast in 2013–2015 and fell short from 2016–2018. Of those 6 years, 2016 was the only year that actual results were less than 90% of forecast—and that was the year that may have surprised many companies. While averages in this case may be less meaningful, over the 6-year period, actual results have been 99.1% of forecast.

Unfortunately, the survey methodology does not allow for differentiation between increases in unit or dollar growth or between industry segments. Based upon the informal survey results, both market segments had growth in 2017 and 2018. Unit growth may have been higher in 2017 than dollar growth, but 2018 may have seen more dollar growth.

The recent survey exhibited a similar ratio of accessory materials in comparison to primary core insulation materials. That may be indicative of more expensive finishing systems that are traditionally utilized in the industrial market being offset by the use of high-cost insulation systems.

Facility or shop fabrication hours of labor and related accessories/consumables were included in this survey, whereas prior to 2015 they were excluded. That addition had less than one tenth of a percent (.1%) impact on the results. All previous survey results have been adjusted to include a similar impact for year-over-year comparisons.

Survey Methodology and Assumptions

While survey results may be subject to interpretation, below are considerations and possible conclusions suggested by survey data.

  • The survey is based upon dollars, not units, and a consistent approach has been utilized over the 21 years (1997–2018). Based on the survey methodology, the results should represent a conservative number.
  • The survey does not include data related to metal building insulation; heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) duct liner; original equipment manufacturer products; building insulation; residential insulation; refractory products; other specialty insulations; or insulation products or technologies not currently encompassed in NIA’s scope of mechanical insulation products. The potential impact of imported products outside North America, which is believed to be minimal, also has not been included. The survey excludes major project scaffolding and similar project requirements. Informal surveys were conducted to determine margins and labor and material ratios. Variations in those results could affect the total insulation market estimate.
  • Insulation products include any/all accessory products when sold as an integral part of the manufacturer’s products (e.g., all-service jacket [ASJ] or other facing on blanket, board, or pipe covering).
  • The survey is intended to show a national picture for the respective calendar year. Results reveal significant geographical and product variances, which is not inconsistent with a survey of
    this nature.
  • The 2019 and 2020 forecasts seem to be reasonably in line with overall commercial and industrial construction market forecasts: a reasonably strong 2019, and a softer market in 2020. The forecast does not break out growth expectations between the commercial or industrial market segments, or between new construction, retrofits, and/or maintenance applications. Historically, a forecast of this nature includes a blend of these applications, with new construction being the largest percentage. Regardless, the growth forecasts are welcome news and some believe they may be conservative.
  • Unfortunately, the survey methodology does not allow for interpretation between the commercial and industrial market segments, or between types of applications, contracts, or product types. The survey does allow for any analysis as to whether the increases or decreases were led by unit or dollar growth.
  • The Foundation always requests survey participants to share detailed information about the insulation industry, but many are only willing to share general information, rather than detailed segment or business information. In addition, many products are fabricated into different shapes and shipped to various locations for use in multiple industry segments, which makes reporting or forecasting by industry segment difficult.

Looking Forward

The mechanical insulation market continues to exhibit compounded growth over an extended period. While some market segments may fluctuate year over year, and occasionally the overall market may experience a decline, the industry has experienced a 2.8% compounded annual growth rate over 22 years, and a 3.1% growth rate over the last 5 years (2014–2018). As unpredictable and vulnerable to outside influences as the commercial and industrial construction industry seems, those compounded growth rates indicate the mechanical insulation industry continues to stand the test of time, and the future is looking bright.

The Laminated Metal Building Insulation Industry

In the original industry-measurement surveys, dating back to 1997, laminated metal building insulation was excluded because the survey methodology used for mechanical insulation was not applicable. With the help of several metal building laminators, an approach and methodology for laminated metal building insulation was developed.

The survey's goal is to provide valuable data regarding market size and growth rates for the U.S. laminated metal building insulation market. The NIA members who participated in the survey provided information to an independent, third-party company. The company took that information and applied a formula created by NIA to extrapolate the annual size of the laminated metal building insulation industry in the United States. The latest survey was conducted in the first quarter of 2019 to determine industry growth from 2017 through 2018 and to obtain an indication of estimated growth for 2019 and 2020.

Survey results indicate that the market is continuing to grow at double-digit rates. As shown in Figure 4, the U.S. laminated metal building insulation market exceeded $374 million in 2017 (a 12.7% increase over 2016) and grew 20.1% in 2018 to $450 million. The market is forecast to reach $481.5 million in 2019 (a 7% increase over 2018), and over $509 million in 2020 (a 5.8% increase over 2019).

The average actual annual growth rate since 2013 is 16.5%, and the compounded annual growth rate for 2013–2018 equals 15.9%. The market has basically doubled in size in 6 years. Those growth rates are the of envy of many industries.

The survey included the following general definition for laminated metal building insulation products: all fiber glass insulation products and jacketing products sold by manufacturers for use in developing (fabricating/laminating) laminated metal building insulation systems. Using informal survey methods, the following were added to develop the final survey results: lamination accessory materials (adhesives, packaging, etc.), laminating labor, laminator margin (believed to have remained steady during the period), and delivery costs. The intent was for the survey to represent only laminated metal building insulation, but the methodology employed may have captured some allowance for liner-type products.

It is important to note that survey responses regarding 2019 forecast (7% growth) varied slightly from 6% growth to 8%. Overall growth was expected in both units and dollars (price increases) with 60% of the forecast increase coming from dollar growth. The variances were greater for the 2020 forecast (5.8% growth), ranging from 0% to 10%, with 60% coming from dollar growth. The greater variance in the dollar growth category may indicate some uncertainty among the respondents as to sustainability of dollar growth in 2020.

In the 4 years that the survey has included forecast information, the actual results have exceeded forecasts by an average of 13.2%. That indicates the markets have been stronger than anticipated, or perhaps some responders are underreporting. Regardless, that trend is nothing less than impressive; if it continues, the market will exceed $600 million in 2022.

As with the mechanical insulation survey, the results of the Laminated Metal Building Insulation Industry survey are subject to individual interpretation. The following paragraphs offer survey considerations and possible conclusions suggested by survey data.

  • The survey is based upon dollars, not units, and a consistent approach has been utilized. Based on the survey methodology, the results should represent a conservative number. The survey does not include all of the various products utilized in the metal building insulation market, nor has the potential impact of imported products outside North America been included.
  • The survey is intended to show a national picture for the respective calendar year. The significant geographical and product variances in survey results are not inconsistent with a survey of this nature.
  • Based upon an informal survey, it appears that while laminator/fabricator margins varied geographically, the overall national average margin has not substantially changed from the previous survey, nor has the ratio between the core insulation and jacketing materials. However, there was margin improvement in 2017 and in 2018.
  • Mechanical insulation and building insulation, including all accessory products, are excluded for the purposes of this survey.
  • The 2019 and 2020 forecasts seem to be reasonably in line with the overall commercial construction market forecast. The forecast does not break out growth expectations between new construction, retrofits, or maintenance applications. Historically, a forecast of this nature includes a blend of each, with new construction being the largest percentage. Regardless, the growth forecasts are good news.

Conclusion

Results from both survey segments show continued growth. The laminated metal building insulation
market continues to sustain impressive annual growth and if that trend continues, the industry could reach the $500 million plateau by 2020.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

OSHA Regulatory Update

Safety is a key component for all construction companies, but it can be hard to keep up with regulations. Insulation Outlook staff recently reached out to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to get an update on the latest regulatory developments. Below is the most current information available from an OSHA spokesperson on construction-related regulations.

  • OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel in August 2018 to discuss a potential telecommunications towers standard. OSHA will use information collected from a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel to identify effective work practices and advances in
    engineering technology that would best address industry safety and health concerns. While this panel will focus on communication towers, OSHA will consider also covering structures that have telecommunications equipment on or attached to them (e.g., buildings, rooftops, water towers, billboards, etc.). No proposed or final rule has been published.
  • OSHA updated the national emphasis program (NEP) on preventing trenching and excavation collapses in October 2018. OSHA’s NEP will increase education and enforcement efforts while its inspectors will record trenching and excavation inspections in a national reporting system, and each area OSHA office will develop outreach programs.
  • OSHA published a final rule in November 2018 that clarifies certification requirements for crane operators, and maintains the employer’s duty to ensure that crane operators can safely operate the equipment. The final rule will maintain safety and health protections for workers while reducing compliance burdens. The final rule text can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/y23rae9g.
  • Regarding respirable crystalline silica, OSHA will soon issue a request for information on the effectiveness of control measures not currently included for tasks and tools listed in Table 1: Specified Exposure Control Methods When Working With Materials Containing Crystalline Silica. Table 1 is posted at https://www.osha.gov/silica/Table1sect1926.1153.pdf. OSHA is also interested in tasks and tools involving exposure to respirable crystalline silica that are not currently listed in Table 1, along with information on the effectiveness of dust control methods in limiting worker exposure to respirable crystalline silica when performing those operations. OSHA intends to evaluate the available information to determine if revisions to Table 1 may be appropriate.
  • On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in the Federal Register (82 FR 2470). OSHA concluded that employees exposed to beryllium and beryllium compounds at the preceding permissible exposure limits (PELs) were at significant risk of material impairment of
    health, specifically chronic beryllium disease and lung cancer. OSHA also concluded that the new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) PEL of µg/m3 reduced this significant risk to the maximum extent feasible.

After a review of the comments received and a review of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, OSHA proposed to revoke ancillary provisions applicable to the construction and shipyard sectors on June 28, 2018 (82 FR 29182), but to retain the new lower PEL of 0.2 µg/m3 and the short-term exposure limits (STEL) of 2.0 µg/m3 for those  sectors. OSHA has evidence that beryllium exposure in these sectors is limited to the following operations: abrasive blasting in construction, abrasive blasting in shipyards, and welding in shipyards. OSHA has a number of standards already specifically applicable to these operations, including ventilation (29 CFR 1926.57) and mechanical paint removers
(29 CFR 1915.34).

Because OSHA determined that there is significant risk of material impairment of health at the new lower PEL of 0.2 µg/m3, OSHA continues to believe that it is necessary to protect workers exposed at this level. However, OSHA is now reconsidering the need for ancillary provisions in the construction and shipyards sectors, and is currently reviewing comments received in response to the proposal to finalize the rulemaking.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, please visit OSHA’s website at www.osha.gov.

 

Side Bar: Safety Resources

OSHA's Hazard Identification Training Video Game

It is an interactive, online, game-based training tool for small business owners, workers, and others interested in learning the core concepts of hazard identification. After using this tool, users will better understand the process to identify hazards in their own workplace.

This tool is intended to:

  • Teach small business owners and their workers the process for finding hazards in their workplace,
  •  Raise awareness on the types of information and resources about workplace hazards available on OSHA's website.

Visit www.osha.gov/hazfinder/index.html to use it.

OSHA's "$afety Pays" Program

OSHA's "$afety Pays" program can help employers assess the impact of occupational injuries and illnesses on their profitability. This program uses a company's profit margin, the average costs of an injury or illness, and an indirect cost multiplier to project the amount of sales a company would need to cover those costs. The program is intended as a tool to raise awareness of how occupational injuries and illnesses can impact a company's profitability, not to provide a detailed analysis of a particular company's occupational injury and illness costs.

The "$afety Pays" program will:

  • Allow users to pick an injury type from a drop-down list or to enter their workers' compensation costs
  • Prompt users for information to do the analysis, including their profit margin and number of injuries
  • Generate a report of the costs and the sales needed to cover those costs

Visit www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/safetypays/estimator.html.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Safety Matters: Safety Culture: As Explained by Goofus and Gallant®

Safety culture has become a big topic in the safety profession in recent years. But what exactly is safety culture? Is it something you either have or don’t have? Can you change your safety culture? Definitions usually include terms such as shared attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and practices toward safety. Others mention core values, philosophy, atmosphere, norms, and similar hazy terms. There is no real consensus on a definition—everybody just knows it’s a good thing.
I find it easier to explain safety culture through examples, which brings us to Goofus and Gallant®, a cartoon created by Garry Cleveland Myers. For our Millennial readers, Goofus and Gallant® were the title characters in a comic strip depicting 2 boys in Highlights For Children® magazine. Goofus did everything the wrong way, and Gallant did everything the right way. In my example, Goofus and Gallant® are all grown up now and have their own insulation companies: Gallant Contracting and Goofus Industrial. Just like when they were kids, Gallant does things the right way and his company has a strong safety culture. Goofus thinks safety programs are unnecessary, ineffective, and too expensive. Safety culture at his company is lacking.

 

Strive to be like Gallant when it comes to safety; your culture will improve. It may take time, but safety culture can be shaped. It takes commitment from the top and buy-in from all levels. The time and effort will pay off. A strong safety culture does more than just reduce injuries and illnesses. Companies with a strong safety culture are more profitable, more competitive, have better employee morale, lower turnover, better recruiting, and a better reputation in general. So, follow Gallant’s lead and build your safety culture; don’t be a Goofus.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The General Duty Clause: Exploding Barbecues, Killer Whales, Distracted Driving, and Other Workplace Hazards

Beware Exploding Backyard Grills

There were just too many guests. This was turning into the biggest employee summer picnic in the history of Larry’s modest insulation company. He had expected maybe 45 people max, just like last year, and the year before that, and the year before that. But this time was different. The guests kept coming and coming. After all, Larry just added 12 employees for the warehouse project and forgot that they too were invited, along with their families. And so, as Larry feverishly flipped burgers like a whirling dervish, he counted 68 mouths to feed with just one small gas grill and a depleted propane tank. How could he possibly cook enough burgers, dogs, and chicken breasts?

But it didn’t end that way. In fact, what should have been just a normal, yet slightly crowded company picnic, turned into a disaster. A literal disaster. The kind of disaster with an explosion, a fire, and burns. It ended with an ambulance rushing Fred to the hospital.

It turned out that the bigger propane tank’s regulator coupling was totally incompatible with Larry’s grill. When Fred jerry-rigged the connection and lit the grill, the flame was sucked down into the large full tank, triggering an explosion.

So Fred was injured, the grill exploded, and the company picnic was ruined. But wait—there’s more. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Larry’s company and issued a $13,270 fine!

The General Duty Clause

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Department of Labor can create specific occupational safety and health standards “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.” As such, OSHA has issued safety standards covering General Industry, Construction, Maritime, Record Keeping, and Agriculture.

So how did OSHA cite Larry’s company for the grill debacle? There is no OSHA standard on “Outdoor Cooking” or even “Backyard Picnics.” Not yet anyway.

Enter the General Duty Clause, the catch-all safety requirement used by OSHA in the absence of any particular OSHA standard. The General Duty Clause requires that “each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”

To establish a violation of the General Duty Clause, OSHA must prove that: (1) an activity or condition in the employer’s workplace presented a hazard to an employee; (2) either the employer or the industry recognized the condition or activity as a hazard; (3) the hazard was likely to or actually caused death or serious physical harm; and (4) a feasible means to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard existed.

The fact that some incident or injury occurred is not proof that a hazard existed. The existence of a hazard is only established if the hazardous incident can occur under other-than-freakish or utterly implausible circumstances.

For example, in SeaWorld v. Perez, the employer, SeaWorld, was found to have violated the general duty clause when Tilikum, one of its killer whales, killed a trainer. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found a hazard that was likely to cause death, which the employer recognized and could have avoided. In that case, the hazard presented by the killer whale was apparently recognized, especially since the employer knew that Tilikum had actually already killed a trainer. SeaWorld’s incident reports also showed that its killer whales had previously bitten trainers and pulled them into and under the water. Moreover, the year before Tilikum killed the SeaWorld trainer, there was an incident where a killer whale killed a trainer at another water park.

But there are much more frequent, if not common, applications of the General Duty Clause than swimming with man-eating beasts. For example, OSHA has identified distracted driving, heat stress, and cold stress, among many other recognized hazards of employment as likely to cause death or serious physical harm.

Distracted Driving

Most everybody, including OSHA, understands the hazards of distracted driving. OSHA has reported that driving fatalities increase 75% for each additional 1 million text messages sent. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that every single day, roughly 9 people are killed and more than 1,000 are injured in accidents purportedly linked to distracted driving.

Although Model T drivers in the 1920s were undoubtedly distracted from time to time, this problem has obviously reached epidemic proportions, given all of the tempting gadgets that modern American drivers can’t keep their eyes off of. In the absence of an OSHA standard covering distracted driving, OSHA has been using the General Duty Clause to encourage employers to police their employees’ driving habits.

To avoid General Duty Clause citations for an employee’s distracted driving accident, employers should implement a robust distracted driving policy. That policy would include the use of cell phones (including tablets, laptops, and any other electronic devices) that can (but should never) be used while driving. A competent distracted driving policy would prohibit cell phones for any purpose while driving for work regardless of whose vehicle the employee is using. And this includes talking and texting.

OSHA recommends including the following in a distracted driving policy:

  • Prohibit texting while driving. Declare vehicles as “text-free zones.”
  • Establish work procedures and rules that do not make it necessary for employees to text while driving.
  • Set clear procedures, times, and places for drivers’ safe use of texting and other technologies for communicating with managers, customers, and others.
  • Eliminate financial and other incentives that encourage workers to text while driving.

Employers will have to train employees in this policy, test them on it, and discipline employees who violate it. If an employee is involved in an accident, and it is determined that the employee was texting at the time, OSHA will likely cite the employer under the General Duty Clause. An employer’s only defense may be unpreventable employee misconduct.

Heat Stress

OSHA is also using the General Duty Clause tocite employers for exposing employees to heat stress. In the absence of specific rules, OSHA will simply rely on the heat index to determine if a heat hazard exists. This is not limited to temperature alone, but humidity also, as evident in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) heat index.

When the temperatures and relative humidity are high enough to show up on this chart, employers need to implement their heat illness prevention program. The program actions depend on whether the risk is mild, medium, or severe. Additionally, working in direct sunlight adds 15 degrees to this chart.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established the following recommendations for a heat illness prevention program that will help employers address heat stress:

  •  Acclimatize employees to high heat.
  • Provide cool water and encourage employees to drink 5–7 oz. of fluid every 15–20 minutes.
  • Provide a cool rest area in the shade.
  • Provide training for employees regarding health effects associated with heat stress, the symptoms of heat induced illnesses, and methods of prevention.
  • Develop a work/rest regimen.

To help employers monitor conditions that could lead to heat stress, OSHA and NIOSH have created a smartphone app that gives users real-time data regarding risks from heat stress.

Cold Stress

Similarly, OSHA has no standard on cold stress, but will also rely on the General Duty Clause to protect employees working in cold environments. OSHA advises employers to:

  • Train employees to recognize, prevent, and treat cold stress. This includes using heaters to warm employees working in the cold, and if possible, reduce windchill by shielding work areas from wind;
  • Provide warm drinks for employees working in the cold, which like heat, can lead to dehydration;
  • Avoid scheduling heavy work during the coldest part of the day;
  • Make sure employees are dressing properly for the cold; and
  • Provide opportunities to get out of the cold and into warm areas.

Because there is no standard on cold stress, employers should look to any guidance provided by OSHA and NIOSH. But understand that if there is ever an injury or illness from heat or cold exposure—no matter what protocols are in place to protect against such things—OSHA may likely issue a General Duty Clause citation.

Larry’s Combustible Grill

Remember Larry? This is a story about Larry. Or any employer that might not anticipate an injurious incident. Larry did not know his grill would explode and injure his maintenance foreman, Fred. He is an insulator, not a propane expert. But in a real OSHA case with very similar facts, Safeway v. OSHRC, OSHA found that an employer which operated a bread-baking plant should have recognized the propane tank hazard because of hazard stickers on the large propane tank warned against connecting it to a grill equipped with a standard-sized tank.

The lesson here is that employers are not only responsible for rules and regulations that are in OSHA standards. OSHA can cite an employer for certain hazards that employers are expected to recognize. In this way, OSHA has expanded the universe of citable safety violations without specific standards. Employers must be vigilant to anticipate and protect against such hazards to avoid employee injuries and General Duty Clause citations.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

NIA Announces 2018 Theodore H. Brodie Distinguished Safety Award Winners

In this safety-themed issue, we’re highlighting some of NIA’s member companies who have been awarded NIA’s Theodore H. Brodie Distinguished Safety Award. These companies have gone above and beyond to improve their safety programs, helping to ensure safe working environments and smooth project operations.

NIA’s Safety Award is the only national award for outstanding safety performance in the mechanical insulation industry. NIA created the award program more than a decade ago to recognize top companies that have established structured safety programs to ensure the well-being of their employees and create safe working environments. NIA’s Safety Award program honors 4 levels of excellence: Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze for Manufacturers (Associates), Contractors, Distributors/Fabricators, and Metal Building Laminators.

NIA's Executive Vice President/CEO Michele M. Jones said, “We are pleased to honor our member companies that not only make safety a priority every day, but also seek to make continuous improvements to their safety programs. We are very proud to have 29 Platinum winners and 4 first-time applicants in this year’s competition. Congratulations to all of this year’s winners.”

Throughout the judging process, applicant companies remain anonymous and winners are evaluated on the basis of their overall safety program, means of communication, and safety policy. All applicant companies receive an individualized and detailed Safety Training Analysis Results (STAR) Report. The STAR Report includes personalized safety improvement recommendations based on each applicant’s answers to the application questions.

Beginning this year and going forward, NIA has streamlined the Safety Award judging process to make the customized STAR Reports available to winners in conjunction with the award announcement. Applications for the 2019 Safety Award are now available on NIA’s website (www.insulation.org/membership/safety-award/) and are due on September 3, 2019.

In 2019, NIA honored these companies for their 2018 safety programs.

Manufacturer Category Winners

Bronze:
Knauf Insulation, Inc., Shelbyville, IN
Polyguard Products, Inc., Ennis, TX

Silver:
Midwest Fasteners, Inc., Miamisburg, OH

Gold:
Armacell, Chapel Hill, NC
Johns Manville, Denver, CO

Platinum:
CertainTeed Corporation, Malvern, PA
Dyplast Products, LLC, Miami, FL
ITW Insulation Systems, Houston, TX
Owens Corning, Toledo, OH
Proto Corporation, Clearwater, FL

Contractor Category Winners

Bronze:
Performance Firestop, Inc., Green Bay, WI

Gold:
Apache Industrial Services, Inc., Houston, TX
Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., McKees Rocks, PA
Smart Energy—Michigan Mechanical Insulation, Farmington Hills, MI
Triangle Enterprises, Inc., Paducah, KY

Platinum:
Advanced Energy Protection, LLC, Greenwood, IN
Advanced Industrial Services, LLC, Toledo, OH
Advanced Nuclear, LLC, Greenwood, IN
Advanced Specialty Contractors, LLC, Aston, PA
APi, Inc., New Brighton, MN
ATI, Inc., Grand Junction, CO
Atlantic Contracting & Specialties, LLC, Hicksville, NY
Cornerstone Services Group, LLC, Kansas City, MO
DKB, Inc., Pasco, WA
Farwest Insulation Contracting, Anaheim, CA
Gagnon, Inc., St. Paul, MN
Gribbins Insulation Company, Inc., Evansville, IN
Hawkeye Insulation Specialists, Inc., Cedar Rapids, IA
Iowa Illinois Taylor Insulation Company, Davenport, IA
I-Star Energy Solutions, Quarryville, PA
Liberty Industrial Group, Phoenix, AZ
Luse Thermal Technologies, Aurora, IL
Performance Contracting, Inc., Lenexa, KS
QCI Thermal Systems, Inc., Iowa City, IA
Thermal Solutions—Ohio, Inc., Proctorville, OH

Distributor/Fabricator Category Winners

Gold:
Ideal Products of America, LP, Malvern, PA
Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co., Birmingham, AL
Specialty Products & Insulation, Rye, NY

Platinum:
American Mechanical Insulation Sales, Inc., Farmington Hills, MI
Bay Insulation Systems, Inc., Green Bay, WI
Extol of Ohio, Inc., Norwalk, OH

Metal Building Laminator Category Winners

Gold:
Silvercote, LLC, Greenville, SC

Platinum:
Bay Insulation Systems, Inc., Green Bay, WI

NIA's Safety Excellence Award

For the upcoming awards, NIA is changing the name of their safety award to NIA's Safety Excellence Award. It is the only national award for outstanding safety performance in the mechanical insulation industry. Applications for Associates (Manufacturers), Contractors, Distributor/Fabricator, and Metal Building Laminators are available and will be accepted through September 3, 2019.

Visit www.insulation.org/membership/safety-award/ to learn more.