黑洞社区

Leading insulation manufacturer Kingspan spent a second week in the spotlight at the public inquiry probing the background to the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives in 2017.

Current and former staff at the firm gave more evidence about the efforts they went to in order to convince the construction industry their Kooltherm K15 phenolic insulation was safe to use on buildings above 18m 鈥� despite a lack of genuine test data to evidence those claims.

Last week the inquiry heard that Kingspan relied on 2005 fire-test data for a different version of K15 to support its marketing. This week it emerged that later fire-test results were secured using a 鈥渢rial鈥� version of the product that was also different to the version actually being sold to the construction industry.

It also emerged that government officials responsible for fire safety in buildings became aware of the use of combustible insulation being used as part of cladding systems on high-rise blocks as far back as 2014, with K15 identified as the principal product.

Kooltherm K15 was never specified for use on Grenfell Tower, but contractors responsible for the west London block鈥檚 ill-fated upgrade installed quantities of the product when they could not obtain Celotex RS5000 insultation 鈥� which was also combustible and should not have been used.

Kingspan technical manager Philip Heath continued giving evidence to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry on Monday. He was presented with a selection of brash and expletive-laden emails he wrote when construction firms raised safety queries about K15.

Heath, who still works for the firm, also conceded that 鈥渨ith hindsight鈥� Kingspan should have withdrawn K15 from the market as a product suitable for use on buildings above 18m after a revised version of the product dramatically failed a 2007 黑洞社区 Research Establishment fire test. Instead, the so-called 鈥渘ew technology鈥� K15 continued to be marketed with the support of a fire test obtained using the 鈥渙ld technology鈥� version.

In October this year, Kingspan withdrew three BS8414 test certificates relating to K15 on the grounds that they were not reflective of the version of the product that had been marketed since 2006. However the company website .

We find it incredible you have any comfort in proposing K15 on this project, or in fact any other over 18m. This does bring your corporate responsibility into question

Email from Astec to Kingspan

Among the email rants Heath was presented with was an internal communication from 2008 in which he said facades consultant Wintech could 鈥済o f鈥�#ck [sic] themselves鈥� after the specialist advised contractor Bowmer & Kirkland that K15 was not suitable for use on high-rise buildings.

In another email, forwarded to a friend, Heath suggested Bowmer & Kirkland was 鈥済etting me confused with someone who gives a dam [sic]鈥�.

Heath accepted that the emails were 鈥渢otally unprofessional鈥� but insisted they were born out of frustration that 鈥渃ame out on a Friday鈥� rather a reflection of a culture within Kingspan at the time.

鈥淚 think we did take life safety seriously,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e provided Wintech with the data we had for them to make the appropriate analysis.鈥�

On Tuesday, the inquiry heard that Kingspan had sought to reassure construction industry clients that K15 was appropriate to use on high-rise buildings with fire-test results obtained in 2014 with a 鈥渢rial product鈥� that was not the same as the actual K15 being sold by the firm. The trial version contained a new blowing agent to form the cellular structure of the insulation.

Former Kingspan technical director Dr Malcolm Rochefort accepted that he was aware of the situation.

Inquiry barrister Kate Grange QC asked Rochefort how he had been comfortable relying on test data that related to a trial product.

Rochefort replied: 鈥淚 think that I assumed, maybe wrongly, that they鈥檙e talking about a new product [that] would be produced based on this blowing agent configuration.鈥�

Under further questioning, Rochefort said he had been relying on a 2009 certificate supporting K15 from Local Authority 黑洞社区 Control. But Grange noted that by that time the LABC certificate had 鈥渓ong expired鈥� and that Rochefort couldn鈥檛 have been relying on it.

Rochefort admitted: 鈥淣ot if it was expired I couldn鈥檛 be, no.鈥�

The hearing was shown an email chain from inspection and warranty organisation the National House 黑洞社区 Council, which called the LABC certificate 鈥済arbage鈥�.

Tony Millichap, a former technical head at Kingspan, gave evidence to the inquiry on Wednesday. He insisted he was not aware that K15 was not safe to use on tall buildings when he worked at the firm, between 2010 and 2015.

But Millichap also said the difference between the 鈥渙ld technology鈥� and 鈥渘ew technology鈥� versions of K15 had been 鈥渓ost鈥� on him.

鈥淚 was aware of old technology being used in the 2005 test,鈥� he admitted. 鈥淲hat I didn鈥檛 appreciate was that it didn鈥檛 represent, or wasn鈥檛 representative of, the product that was being sold laterally when I was in the role.鈥�

Asked by inquiry barrister Grange if he had ever asked someone to explain to him what the difference between the two products was, Millichap replied: 鈥淣ot specifically.鈥�

The session was also presented with email chains detailing concerns about the safety of K15 from construction contractors Astec Projects and Lakesmere.

Astec complained that Kingspan had reassured it that K15 insulation could be used on a luxury 15-storey development in central London called Hampton House when the firm knew it was the BRE鈥檚 view 鈥渢hat the use of K15 should not be specified on the basis of those test results鈥�.

The email continued: 鈥淲e find it incredible you have any comfort in proposing K15 on this project, or in fact any other over 18m. This does bring your corporate responsibility into question.鈥�

Millichap admitted that the points raised in the email were 鈥渧alid鈥� but added: 鈥淭hey鈥檝e stated themselves in the email that they are the envelope contractor and that it is their responsibility.鈥�

Astec Projects, which had a turnover of 拢45m, went into administration in 2014 with the loss of 85 jobs.

Wednesday鈥檚 session also heard that Kingspan issued cladding contractor Lakesmere with a 拢20,000 credit note after it discovered the K15 installed on its First Street North project in Manchester did not comply with building regulations. The insulation was stripped off and replaced with mineral wool.

Lakesmere went into administration in November 2017 with the loss of 109 jobs.

Millichap said in his witness statement that it 鈥渨as not Kingspan鈥檚 responsibility to determine compliance鈥�. He added that clients would sometimes raise concerns but these were 鈥渕isplaced: they were trying to lay responsibility for compliance with Kingspan which was not appropriate鈥�.

Thursday鈥檚 hearing was shown evidence that senior officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) were aware of concerns about combustible insulation being used on high-rise buildings鈥� fa莽ade systems three years before the Grenfell fire.

The detail Brian Martin, policy lead for building fire-safety at DCLG 鈥� the forerunner to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 鈥� and Neil Smith and Steve Evans at NHBC.

Martin said he had been 鈥渢alking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently鈥� and was hearing anecdotal evidence that several buildings well over 18m in height had been constructed with PIR (polyisocyanurate) insulation as part of their cladding systems.

鈥淎pparently people are under the impression that PIR is a material of limited combustibility (which it isn鈥檛),鈥� he wrote.

鈥淎llegedly, many of these buildings are blocks of flats. I鈥檝e no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively reliable sources.鈥�

Martin said his email should be treated as 鈥渁 friendly warning鈥� that NHBC 鈥渕ight want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this鈥�.

Evans, a senior technical manager at NHBC, responded to Martin confirming that the organisation was aware of the concerns and had been in discussion with the construction industry on the topic for some time.

He said the issue related directly to Kingspan Kooltherm K15 and that 鈥渃onfusion has arisen鈥� from the firm鈥檚 assertions that the product was suitable for use on buildings above 18m in height despite being 鈥渕ade from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is, by nature, combustible鈥�.

Evans said NHBC was in talks with Kingspan over the issue and awaiting the result of further tests on K15 to determine its suitability with different cladding systems.

鈥淭here is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with Kingspan K15 are at risk at this time, it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out,鈥� Evans wrote.

鈥淜ingspan are confident that the testing currently under way will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18m.

鈥淚f they are not able to do this, we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18m as well as informing other stakeholders such as BCA and the Fire and Rescue Service, although both parties are already aware of our on-going discussions.鈥�

In early 2015 NHBC said it would start the process of alerting stakeholders about its concerns, but Kingspan鈥檚 lawyers responded with the demand for a 鈥渟ensible period in which to demonstrate compliance鈥� against the threat of legal action under the Defamation Act 2013.

Kingspan鈥檚 former technical head Millichap told Thursday鈥檚 session the firm understood the concerns that NHBC had been raising but had been trying to 鈥渨ork towards鈥� satisfying them.

The session also heard that Arup fire-safety expert Dr Barbara Lane 鈥� now an expert witness to the inquiry 鈥� had been asked to ratify test data for K15 in 2014, but had been unable to 鈥減ositively review鈥� it.

She subsequently told the NHBC: 鈥淎rup are actually deeply concerned about the lack of understanding of assemblies [of products] and the ongoing incorrect use of test reports for individual materials being applied to more complex building envelope forms.

鈥淭he use of highly combustible materials in residential buildings is now simply an accident waiting to happen.鈥�

The inquiry continues.