Replies

1. Expert Member
   Dana Dorsett | Jul 10, 2017 05:32pm | #1

   Rigid foam board without a thermal barrier against ignition is a fire hazard.

   The best solution would be to figure out if the place can be insulated reasonably, and see if there aren't any state/local programs for retrofit weatherization available to either you or the landlord. Where are you located?

2. 
   dhollyday | Jul 11, 2017 12:52am | #2

   Hi Dana, thank you for pointing out the fire hazard. I currently have a few pieces covering my windows and was not aware of the fire hazard. My plan was to cover the west facing wall with these from the inside since I am not allowed to make modifications to the place. I am located in Southern California, we have had heat waves up to 105F in recent weeks and the inside of my place gets to be 100F throughout the day when I'm not home. My intent is to try out as many things I can do without making alterations to the place that the landlords don't do. I though this plan would be a good idea. The people at Home Depot told me it would help but did not tell me about the fire hazard.

3. 
   dhollyday | Jul 11, 2017 01:07am | #3

   Would covering it up afterwards work, say put some cork over as decorative which could work to protect from the fire hazard?

4. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | Jul 11, 2017 05:31am | #4

   D.,
   Your anecdote is a reminder of why it's not a good idea to get construction advice, code compliance advice, or fire safety advice from a clerk at your local Home Depot.

   Exposed rigid foam inside a house is a fire hazard. Building codes require rigid foam to be covered with a thermal barrier -- that is, 1/2 inch drywall -- for fire safety. Cork is not a thermal barrier.

   For more information on thermal barriers, see Thermal Barriers and Ignition Barriers for Spray Foam. (Even though the article focuses on spray foam insulation, the same thermal barrier requirements also apply to rigid foam insulation.)

5. 
   ohioandy | Jul 11, 2017 01:02pm | #5

   Dhollyday, your initial question is a good one. You've got the short end of the stick in the landlord/tenant dilemma over energy use. Landlord won't spend money because s/he doesn't sleep in there nor pay the utility bill.

   First, exposed foam is not a fire hazard like it might spontaneously combust. It's a fire hazard because in the event of a fire, foam burns fast and toxic, as the world saw in the recent London apartment building tragedy. That's why it's not allowed to be used in houses unless it's covered up with an approved barrier--not cork--giving occupants enough time to get out before it ignites.

   You're proposing installing rigid foam insulation TEMPORARILY on the west wall which radiates heat at night. There's an entire discussion on whether interior foam is even appropriate for your wall, depending on your climate zone and what's already in the wall. But I'd give it a try in one room. It's possible there will be little effect, since everything in the room is radiating heat to some degree, and the windows, walls, floor, and ceiling may have cracks that continue to allow a lot of warm air in. If it has a noticeable effect, tell your landlord--maybe you can cut a deal to have a contractor install the foam permanently and in compliance with code.

6. Expert Member
   Dana Dorsett | Jul 11, 2017 04:23pm | #6

   To reject cooling load without a huge capital cost, heat rejecting window films applied to the exterior of all windows makes a difference, but makes the most difference on west facing windows. Window films on the interior side lasts longer and is almost as good as on the exterior, but If they are dual-pane windows it's safer to put it on the exterior, since putting it on the interior is likely to overheat the glass, breaking the seal. South facing windows would be next in line, followed by east. Don't go for the maximum rejection varieties since you can lose a lot of daylighting. Within a product line there are usually at least two, and often three different levels of heat rejection.

   Removing window film when you leave is usually pretty easy (about 1/4 the amount of time it takes to put them up), but re-using them rarely works. If the landlords are OK with leaving them, abandon them when you go.

   If you have access to the attic ,are fairly handy, and don't mind getting hot & dirty for a few hours for the sake of longer term comfort, aluminized fabric type radiant barrier stapled to the under side of the rafters can lower the ceiling temperatures of poorly insulated houses. While this type of radiant barrier can be re-used if you do a careful job with a staple puller, it may not be worth your time.

   California does offer subsidies for insulation & weatherization for tenants, as do many cities & counties, but the details vary by location (and sometimes income). You'll have to chase down the specifics for YOUR location starting here:

   http://www.csd.ca.gov/services/residentialenergyefficiencyservices.aspx

   http://www.csd.ca.gov/Services/FindServicesinYourArea

7. 
   dhollyday | Jul 11, 2017 11:06pm | #7

   Thank you Martin for the link, it does help a lot.

   Andy, I appreciate your input and the intent is to do a temporary rig, I will consider the fire hazard and I think when the landlords see my attempt to cool down the apartment I'm in hopes that they take some of the advice that people have suggested and act on it. We have suggested the spray insulation that goes in the walls along with painting the outside wall white and roof. The surface is pretty small.

   Dana, the attic is a great idea as well as the window film. Landlords have agreed to the window film and I'm pushing for more help. They mentioned they would instal a house fan in the roof or attic, I hope that when they do install it they agree to an aluminized fabric.

   I appreciate everyones comments and help.