Cafco Spray: Asbestos-Containing Fireproofing and Pipe Insulation Product
Product Description
Cafco Spray was a spray-applied building material manufactured by United States Mineral Products Company, a New Jersey–based manufacturer that produced a range of fireproofing and insulation products for commercial, industrial, and institutional construction throughout much of the twentieth century. The Cafco line became one of the more widely recognized brand names in the spray-applied fireproofing category, and Cafco Spray in particular was marketed for use on structural steel, decking, and mechanical systems including pipe insulation assemblies.
Spray-applied fireproofing products like Cafco Spray were developed to meet fire resistance requirements in large-scale construction, including high-rise office buildings, industrial facilities, power generation plants, shipyards, and public infrastructure projects. The material was applied wet, then dried in place to form a fibrous, low-density coating that provided both thermal insulation and fire resistance to the surfaces beneath it. Because it could be quickly applied across large surface areas, spray-applied fireproofing became standard practice in mid-century construction and remained in use for decades.
United States Mineral Products Company operated under the trade name USGM and distributed Cafco-branded products through commercial construction supply channels. The company’s products were used by contractors, subcontractors, and building trades workers across the United States during the periods when asbestos-containing formulations were in production and active use.
Asbestos Content
Cafco Spray, in formulations produced during relevant periods of manufacture, contained asbestos as a primary or supplemental ingredient. Asbestos mineral fibers — most commonly chrysotile, and in some formulations amphibole varieties — were incorporated into spray-applied fireproofing products because of their resistance to heat, their binding properties, and their ability to adhere to structural surfaces when applied in a wet slurry mixture.
Spray-applied fireproofing products in general have been among the categories most closely scrutinized under federal asbestos regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) framework identify spray-applied surfacing materials containing asbestos as a significant source of fiber release, particularly during disturbance, aging, or demolition. These regulatory frameworks apply broadly to the category of products in which Cafco Spray participated.
Litigation records document that plaintiffs alleged Cafco Spray products manufactured by United States Mineral Products Company contained asbestos in concentrations sufficient to release respirable fibers during application, disturbance, and removal. Industrial hygiene evidence introduced in litigation has addressed the fiber-release characteristics of spray-applied asbestos fireproofing as a product class.
How Workers Were Exposed
Workers encountered Cafco Spray and similar spray-applied fireproofing materials at multiple points during the life cycle of a building or industrial facility. Exposure pathways varied depending on the trade and the nature of the work being performed, but litigation records document that industrial workers across a range of occupations were placed in proximity to asbestos-containing spray fireproofing during their working lives.
Application workers — those directly handling the product during spray application — mixed dry Cafco Spray material with water in spray equipment and applied it under pressure to structural surfaces. This mixing and spraying process generated airborne dust that could contain asbestos fibers. Workers in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces faced particularly concentrated exposures during application.
Pipe insulators and insulation workers faced exposure when Cafco Spray was used in conjunction with or in proximity to pipe insulation assemblies. In industrial settings, spray fireproofing was frequently applied to pipe hangers, pipe chases, and adjacent structural members, meaning that insulators working on nearby systems could disturb previously applied fireproofing material or work alongside active spray operations.
General construction tradespeople — ironworkers, electricians, plumbers, sheet metal workers, and general laborers — worked in buildings and facilities where Cafco Spray had been applied to overhead steel and decking. Any overhead work, drilling, cutting, or fastening that disturbed the applied coating could release fibers into the breathing zone of workers below or nearby.
Maintenance and renovation workers in industrial settings faced ongoing exposure as spray-applied fireproofing aged, became friable, or was disturbed during repair or modification projects. Plaintiffs alleged that workers performing routine industrial maintenance in facilities where Cafco Spray had been applied decades earlier continued to be exposed to asbestos fibers shed from aging, deteriorating material.
Demolition workers involved in the removal or abatement of older construction materials faced concentrated exposures when spray-applied asbestos fireproofing was disturbed or removed. The friable nature of aged spray fireproofing is recognized under federal NESHAP regulations as a significant release hazard during demolition activities.
OSHA’s permissible exposure limits for asbestos, established and progressively tightened over subsequent decades, reflect the recognized hazard associated with asbestos-containing spray products in occupational settings. The current OSHA PEL of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average reflects the agency’s assessment of acceptable exposure limits under general industry standards.
Documented Trust Fund / Legal Options
United States Mineral Products Company has been the subject of asbestos personal injury litigation. Litigation records document that plaintiffs, including industrial workers and tradespeople, alleged injury from occupational exposure to Cafco Spray and other asbestos-containing products in the Cafco line. Plaintiffs alleged that United States Mineral Products Company knew or should have known of the hazards associated with asbestos-containing spray products and failed to adequately warn workers of those risks.
As a Tier 2 litigated product, Cafco Spray claims are pursued through the civil court system rather than through an established asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. This reflects the litigation posture of claims against United States Mineral Products Company and its successors or insurers as of the time of publication.
Individuals who may have legal claims include:
- Industrial workers who mixed, applied, or worked in proximity to Cafco Spray during construction or renovation projects
- Pipe insulators and mechanical tradespeople who worked alongside spray fireproofing operations
- Maintenance workers in industrial facilities where Cafco Spray was applied and later aged or deteriorated
- Demolition and abatement workers who removed or disturbed Cafco Spray materials
Compensable diagnoses in asbestos litigation typically include mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related conditions. The specific compensability of any individual claim depends on documented exposure history, medical diagnosis, and applicable state law.
Individuals diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness who have a documented work history involving Cafco Spray or exposure to United States Mineral Products Company materials are encouraged to consult a qualified asbestos litigation attorney. An attorney can evaluate exposure records, identify all potentially responsible defendants, assess applicable statutes of limitations, and determine whether civil litigation or other legal pathways offer the best avenue for recovery.
This article is provided for informational purposes based on publicly available litigation records, regulatory documents, and product documentation. It does not constitute legal advice. Individuals seeking legal guidance should consult a licensed attorney.