Grenfell Tower fire

[Jeremy Harris]

Curiously, as an ex-MoD boffin, SF generally do their own thing, and don't really put any significant pressure on defence research and development.  They tend to be a bit maverick, and will go and buy their own kit, often without going through the normal procurement process, and sometimes that works well (for stuff like boots and small arms) sometimes it doesn't work at all well (like when buying helos).  For example, I was being shown around the armoury at Donnington about 20 years ago, and spotted a couple of racks of AK-47s sitting in the workshop.  They are pretty distinctive, as we don't have guns with wooden stocks.  I asked why on earth we were servicing Kalashnikovs, to be told that it was an "under the counter" job from Hereford.  Apparently these were special Kalshnikovs, accurate ones that actually shot in a straight line and didn't rattle like a tin full of old nails when you carried them.  The reason I was told for SF having them was so that they didn't need to carry lots of ammunition.  In pretty much any likely theatre of operation they could guarantee the enemy would be using AK-47s, so all they had to do was kill them and steal their ammo.

 

It also used to be the case that in decision conferences (the method by which procurements are prioritised) SF always came top of the list, but that had started to change before I retired.  One example I remember clearly was a 1* decision conference looking at future rotary wing requirements, where the starting point was that all SF procurements would get the highest score, and tasks viewed as non-essential got the lowest score.  I was there as a non-voting observer (as I was buying helos and managing the Lynx fleet) and I clearly remember asking why military SAR was the lowest priority (the helos I was involved with didn't really have a Mil SAR role).  There was a debate where one of the other 1*s present (a voting member) remarked that it cost around £2M to train a pilot, and perhaps almost as much for each crew member.  When that was chucked into the equation Mil SAR went from being at the bottom of the list to up near the top, on the basis of value.

[epsilonGreedy]

7 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

...  I clearly remember asking why military SAR was the lowest priority (the helos I was involved with didn't really have a Mil SAR role).

 

 

We can be thankful they were using another financial equation in 1940 during the Battle of Britain, recovered pilots gave us a useful advantage over the Luftwaffe.

 

10 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

There was a debate where one of the other 1*s present (a voting member) remarked that it cost around £2M to train a pilot, and perhaps almost as much for each crew member.  When that was chucked into the equation Mil SAR went from being at the bottom of the list to up near the top, on the basis of value.

 

 

Which entirely overlooks the fact that confidence in the organization and self belief in the cause is what gives a military organization an quantifiable advantage. Without that you get Mussolini's army of 1941.

 

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

13 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

We can be thankful they were using another financial equation in 1940 during the Battle of Britain, recovered pilots gave us a useful advantage over the Luftwaffe.

 

 

Which entirely overlooks the fact that confidence in the organization and self belief in the cause is what gives a military organization an quantifiable advantage. Without that you get Mussolini's army of 1941.

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more, but all the voting members were 1* military officers, from all three services.  1* is Brigadier General, Air Commodore, Commodore, so reasonably high up in the food chain.

[Temp]

Shocking revelations on day one of part 2...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/27/grenfell-tower-inquiry-companies-passing-the-buck-on-responsibility

 

"....Arconic knew the fire performance of its Reynobond polyethylene-filled panels was below the minimum required for facades in Europe..."

 

"....Claude Wehrle, an Arconic official, had explained in internal emails in 2011 that the fire rating of the panels had dropped to class E from class B and so were “unsuitable for use on building facades” in Europe. But, he said, “we can still work with regulators who are not as restrictive”."

 

"In another email in 2015, Wehrle admitted that Reynobond PE was “dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to (FR) fire-resistant as a matter of urgency”."

 

"....counsel for Rydon, the main contractor, who said: “Arconic continued to use the [class B] certificate to promote sales of Reynobond and did so specifically in the case of Grenfell Tower.”

 

and more..

[Simplysimon]

50 minutes ago, Temp said:

Shocking revelations on day one of part 2...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/27/grenfell-tower-inquiry-companies-passing-the-buck-on-responsibility

 

"....Arconic knew the fire performance of its Reynobond polyethylene-filled panels was below the minimum required for facades in Europe..."

 

"....Claude Wehrle, an Arconic official, had explained in internal emails in 2011 that the fire rating of the panels had dropped to class E from class B and so were “unsuitable for use on building facades” in Europe. But, he said, “we can still work with regulators who are not as restrictive”."

 

"In another email in 2015, Wehrle admitted that Reynobond PE was “dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to (FR) fire-resistant as a matter of urgency”."

 

"....counsel for Rydon, the main contractor, who said: “Arconic continued to use the [class B] certificate to promote sales of Reynobond and did so specifically in the case of Grenfell Tower.”

 

and more..

nobody to blame because he said, she said, they said, it's all ok

[Temp]

Looks like they all plan to drop each other in it. My guess is there will be some sort of prosecution and certainly many civil cases. Just hope there is some money left over for the victims families after the lawyers have taken their cut.

 

 

[joe90]

Ordinarily I am not in to “blame culture “ but this is different, this was people’s lives. Frankly I think building regulations departments have  a great responsibility for not making sure materials were “fit for purpose “ and “documented” as such, manufacturers will try to sell anything they can,  not right I know, but that’s business (for some). When you think of some of the hoops BI make us jump through fir our little builds or minor works it beggars belief that high rise multi people accommodation can be allowed to be so dangerous. 

Edited January 28, 2020 by joe90

[Temp]

More emails from before the renovation...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/28/grenfell-tower-refurbishers-knew-cladding-would-fail-inquiry-told

 

“Metal cladding always burns and falls off,” an architect emailed a fire engineer in spring 2015. An employee of the facade installer told a colleague: “As we all know, the ACM [the combustible cladding panels] will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”

[Temp]

Kingspan withdraws insulation fire test admitting it is 'not representative' of product on market for 15 years.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/kingspan-withdraws-insulation-fire-test-admitting-it-is-not-representative-of-product-on-market-for-15-years-68461

 

"Kingspan last week wrote to the Building Research Establishment (BRE), which carried out testing on its Kooltherm K15 product, to withdraw test reports it has used in its marketing since 2005."

 

 

[Temp]

At last someone gives honest answers and explains how it was..

 

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/grenfell-tower-inquiry-diary-week-19-and-that-was-intentional-deliberate-dishonest-68678

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

Quote

... Mr Roper discovered that most of the industry simply didn’t understand the rules: they believed that the test pass meant Kingspan could be widely used....

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/grenfell-tower-inquiry-diary-week-19-and-that-was-intentional-deliberate-dishonest-68678

 

Code for because they didn't understand it, there's a market opportunity here , or more succinctly   '...[they] were simply lazy ...' 

There's a lesson in there about safety and personal responsibility for all of us.  

 

That why respectful skepticism is such a useful habit to develop.

Edited November 21, 2020 by ToughButterCup

[joe90]

Very interesting article, especially NHBC changing their opinion suddenly.

[ProDave]

There are some damning facts coming out.  The outcome will be interesting, I personally feel prison sentences for some will be appropriate.

 

There is also the matter of the many tower blocks needing their cladding replaced.  Surely the companies that falsely claimed what they used was safe, should now pay the cost of replacing the defective cladding on those buildings?

[SteamyTea]

And Celotex failed some of the thermal conductivity tests

[ProDave]

20 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

And Celotex failed some of the thermal conductivity tests

By the time this is over, the Celotex and Kingspan trade names will be trashed.  I wonder what the new names of both companies will be when the inevitable re branding happens?

[joe90]

Makes you wonder if random testing of materials by independent means is required.

[Mr Punter]

I have used that type of Celotex in another couple of applications - internal wall insulation and full fill cavity insulation.  I tested a bit with a blow torch and it did seem less flammable than normal PIR.

 

The issue they had was to claim it was good to use it for high rise rainscreen cladding.

 

I did feel a bit sorry for the young lad Jon Roper, who was recruited by Celotex fresh out of uni and may have been coerced into falsifying safety test information.

 

It is probably the case that much of the U value data from this firm is also dubious.

[Ferdinand]

Celotex is part of Saint Gobain, who also Jewson. Huge company - 180k people.

Kingspan are an Irish Co that are very big in the UK with a London listing, but about 10% of the size.

 

I think we could end up with a Royal Commission. Presumably an enquiry will not recommend a whole new building regs system in detail.

 

The piece linked also draws in NHBC, as has been mentioned, and the BRE man making suggestions about how they could pass the test, which changes were then not mentioned in presentations and policy within Celotex.

 

So there's going to be stuff about separation of regulation / certification and commercial. Private Building Inspectors will be pulled into that imo.

 

Could there be a pivot away from PIR as an insulator?

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Punter]

I think Kingspan will be OK.  Their product is, I think, a bit less flammable than Celotex.  I guess it is Rockwool all the way for high rise now.  Installing it at double the thickness of PIR adds a fair bit to the cost.

 

I hope that some of the parties in the scandal are made to foot the bill for replacement cladding in the other blocks where their product has been installed.

[Onoff]

Grenfell made my mind up that if I ever do ewi it'll be Rockwool.

 

[ADLIan]

The problem with both kingspan and celotex and fire goes back to 2008 when new European/British manufacturing standards were introduced with new fire tests (BS EN 13501-1). If they had adopted these tests their products would have been classed as ‘combustible’ and they would have lost a lot of business. Instead they hid behind the old BS 476, Parts 6 & 7, tests which are simply not relevant to the pur manufacturing Standard. 
 

PUR/PIR and phenolic foams will be classed as combustible but may fall into slightly different Euroclass categories (C or D?)

[joe90]

44 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

I think Kingspan will be OK.  Their product is, I think, a bit less flammable than Celotex. 

but is it good enough???. More thorough testing IMO.

[Mr Punter]

47 minutes ago, joe90 said:

but is it good enough???. More thorough testing IMO.

 

No, not for high rise.  I think it has been withdrawn.

[ADLIan]

Market forces and latest Appr Doc B has sorted high rise!

[Temp]

Really not looking good for Kingspan..

 

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/kingspan-threatened-legal-action-against-nhbc-for-raising-concerns-over-non-compliant-insulation-68732

 

Selected extracts..

 

"Insulation manufacturer Kingspan threatened the country’s largest building control body with an injunction after it discovered issues with its flagship product and vowed to warn others about its faults, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry heard today."

 

"The NHBC sought clarification from Kingspan on the product after discovering conflicting marketing material on the product relating to its suitability for use on buildings taller than 18m."

 

"After waiting for months for confirmation of the product’s suitability, the NHBC said it would have to start warning projects on which K15 had been used that it was non-compliant.

In response Kingspan instructed its lawyers to send a letter on 13 February 2015 to the NHBC saying it would seek a legal injunction under the Defamation Act 2013."

 

---

 

Eventually on 1 May 2009 Kingspan K15 wrongly received certification for use on buildings taller than 18m from the Local Authority Building Control (LABC), which said it “could be considered a material of limited combustibility”.

 

Ms Grange said: “Kingspan knew, didn’t it, all along that K15 was not a material of limited combustibility; on the contrary, it was a combustible insulation, wasn’t it?”

 

Mr Meredith replied: “Yeah, definitely,” adding that the document was “very misleading”.

 

---

 

Transcriptions from his meetings also said: “We were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to that the product still said what it did [on] the tin… we were stretching the truth here and what we are going into [was] an area… where we cannot support the performance of the product.”