Grenfell Tower fire

[Ferdinand]

On 21/11/2020 at 16:25, ADLIan said:

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

 

Fire Sprinklers reqd in blocks of flats over 11m.

 

Into force today.

 

Hmmm.

[ProDave]

23 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Fire Sprinklers reqd in blocks of flats over 11m.

 

Into force today.

 

Hmmm.

Will those cascade water down the outside (or inside) of the cladding?

[Ferdinand]

13 hours ago, Temp said:

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.”

 

 

I think there's a further big question here, as the NHBC seems to have possibly caved in to the legal threats (by my interpretation). Also from the piece:

 

Quote

The NHBC would go on in 2016 to publish guidance saying that K15 could be used on high rises with various common cladding panels without even being justified by test data.

 

BTW Inside Housing allows regstration of free accounts that lets you see the whole article.

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

 

F

[joe90]

23 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

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”.

I have always thought that LABC should have independent testing results for any product used anywhere. 

[Ferdinand]

12 minutes ago, joe90 said:

I have always thought that LABC should have independent testing results for any product used anywhere. 

 

Is that not in theory what BRE is supposed to have done?

 

Perhaps what we actually need is for LABC to commission the testing.

 

The "construction research" setup has been very ingrown for decades - eg the Partners in Innovation programme where the DTI used to require research proposals from consortia covering research organisations and industrial partners. Which means that everyone knows each other and has to wear multiple hats in different settings. That may be too integrated.

Some orgs even overlapped into regulatory or semi-regulatory  roles - writing standards etc.

 

[joe90]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

The "construction research" setup has been very ingrown for decades

well let’s hope the silver lining from Grenfell is this is sorted out properly.

[ADLIan]

LABC issued certificates for both Celotex & Kingspan after both manufactures approached their local building control office in West Suffolk & Hereford. Kingspan swamped the BCB at Hereford with fire test data and it does not appear that they were experienced or qualified to make a judgement - K15 certainly should not have been classed as ' limited combustibility'.

[Temp]

More emails disclosed in The Times today..

 

Quote

 

Emails disclosed at the inquiry show that Mr Heath [Kingspan employee] faced questions in 2008 from a contractor about Kingspan's claim that K15 had passed safety tests. An employee of Bowmer & Kirkland wrote: "To date you have not substantiated on what basis K15 is suitable for buildings over 18m".

Mr Heath forwarded the message to colleagues with the comment "I think Bowmer & Kirkland - snip - are getting me confused with someone that gives a dam (sic). I'm trying to think of a way  out of this one, imagine a fire running up this tower!!!"
 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Temp

[Temp]

And..

 

Wintech, a facade engineering firm, also questioned the suitability of the product. It said Kingspan had "failed to provide any assurances on this matter" and was relying on misleading test data.

When a Kingspan employee told Mr Heath that Wintech were "digging their heels in on a couple of projects", he emailed in reply: "Wintech can go f*** themselves and if they are not careful we'll sue the arse off them."

 

[Temp]

Heard on the radio yesterday that Liverpool has initiated fire watch patrols on 32 tower blocks it owns after a report concluded that EPS based cladding had contributed to a fire in one of them and could have been serious in another if it had started lower down the block. 

 

Fire expert interviewed said the government had been advised to carry out tests on EPS based insulation following the Grenfell tower fire but had refused to do so.

 

I got the impression from the interview that the government attitude was.. EPS insulation isnt the same type as that responsible for Grenfell so no need to worry about it.

 

The expert suggested the attutude was that covering the insulation in aluminium somehow made it safer than the Grenfell type where as in reality the EPS melted and the aluminium fell off allowing it to burn.

 

Sorry if I've missed reported anything but I was driving at the time.