ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Kingspan insulation burnt ‘ferociously’ in secret 2007 test, inquiry hears

An insulation product used on Grenfell Tower despite having not received certification “burnt very ferociously” as it spectacularly failed a fire safety test, documents uncovered by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry have found.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Lucy Brown
Picture: Lucy Brown
Sharelines

An insulation product used on Grenfell Tower despite having not received certification “burnt very ferociously” as it spectacularly failed a fire safety test, documents uncovered by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry have found. #UKhousing

Documents from Kingspan, which provided insulation for the refurbishment of Grenfell, show that the product used on the tower failed the large-scale fire safety tests despite having been in circulation and advertised for use on high rises for two years.

Kingspan recently admitted to changing the composition of its Kooltherm K15 insulation product in 2005 without amending marketing material that states its suitability for use on high-rise blocks such as Grenfell.

Results of testing on the new version of its phenolic foam K15 insulation carried out in December 2007 shown to the inquiry today revealed the details of how the product failed the test held by the Building Research Establishment (BRE).

Test analysis, published in 2008, said: “The new technology Phenolic is very different in a fire situation to the previous technology which has passed several similar tests. The old technology would turn into a light ash and fall away leaving [no] substance to feed the fire.

“Phenolic burnt very ferociously and gave the top cavity barrier a serious hammering.”


READ MORE

Additional fire barriers added to test on Grenfell insulation amid pressure to boost profits, inquiry hearsAdditional fire barriers added to test on Grenfell insulation amid pressure to boost profits, inquiry hears
Grenfell Tower Inquiry diary week 19: ‘And that was intentional, deliberate, dishonest?’Grenfell Tower Inquiry diary week 19: ‘And that was intentional, deliberate, dishonest?’
Kingspan claims about suitability of its insulation for high rises ‘a house of cards’, inquiry hearsKingspan claims about suitability of its insulation for high rises ‘a house of cards’, inquiry hears
Kingspan directors sold £5m in shares just weeks before Grenfell Inquiry revelationsKingspan directors sold £5m in shares just weeks before Grenfell Inquiry revelations
Kingspan manager said professionals raising fire concerns could ‘go f*ck themselves’, Grenfell Inquiry hearsKingspan manager said professionals raising fire concerns could ‘go f*ck themselves’, Grenfell Inquiry hears

Kingspan officials said of the new product: “The phenolic was burning on its own steam and the BRE had to extinguish the test early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory.”

One of the changes brought in with the new product was to perforate the foil facers on the insulation, which made it “more robust and easier to manufacture” according to Ivor Meredith, Kingspan’s technical project manager at the time, who appeared before the inquiry today.

In his test analysis of the new version of K15, shown today, Mr Meredith said: “Perforations in the Phenolic foil facers have caused a reduction in the Euroclass when tested… Loss of the perforations may help?

“In all honesty from what I have seen the way the phenolic burned is of the most concern. Therefore we need to add a fire retardant. Which could help us get Class 0.”

Subsequent emails from Mr Meredith to his superiors Philip Heath and Malcolm Rochefort said: “The question of K15’s bad fire performance is no longer just an internal one. It would seem Offsite [Kingspan’s sister company, which used the product] had a very dramatic test failure.”

The inquiry saw emails in which Mr Meredith was coming under increasing pressure to explain the fire performance of the new product to colleagues at Offsite.

Mr Meredith sought help from his manager Mr Heath, writing: “Help – I’m getting seriously grilled now.

“We need to ensure continuity of our answers otherwise we will destroy our relationship and never be taken seriously again – also I may get accused of being a liar if we change our story. Are we saying that the product supplied which failed their test is the same product that we got to pass the test?”

Mr Heath did not respond to his questions and merely asked who was grilling him.

Kate Grange, counsel to the inquiry, also picked up on emails between senior managers at Kingspan and the British Board of Agrément (BBA), the certifying body.

After recognising that K15’s BBA certificate did not clarify that the product was suitable for use only when used in the specific set-up that was tested, BBA wrote to Kingspan to say that the certificate would be changed.

After telling the BBA that Kingspan would have “no option” but to pass cost implications of doing so on to BBA, Mr Heath instructed Mr Meredith and another colleague, Gareth Mills, to let BBA’s proposals “gather dust”.

The inquiry continues with further evidence from Mr Meredith tomorrow.

Update: at 10.40am, 27.11.20

Story amended to clarify that the test referred to was carried out in December 2007, not December 2008.

Sign up for Inside Housing’s weekly Grenfell Inquiry newsletter

Sign up for Inside Housing’s weekly Grenfell Inquiry newsletter

Each week our sister publication Inside Housing sends out a newsletter rounding up the key news from the Grenfell Inquiry, along with exclusive analysis of what it all means for the social housing sector.

New to Inside Housing? Click here to register and receive the weekly newsletter straight to your inbox

Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.