黑洞社区

A senior material testing technician has denied being aware that a fire test of a Celotex insulation product later installed on Grenfell Tower included extra components to ensure a pass, the inquiry into the 2017 fire has heard.

Phil Clark, former cladding test chief supervisor at testing body the 黑洞社区 Research Establishment (BRE), said that manufacturers of combustible materials were able to 鈥渟neak鈥� extra components onto test rigs without inspectors knowing.

Clark was questioned about the May 2014 test of Celotex鈥檚 combustible RS5000 insulation, which was used on Grenfell Tower鈥檚 flawed refurbishment, on the first of several days of evidence from the BRE.

The test on the insulation, which was actually the same as an earlier product which had failed a fire test, passed after Celotex included 6mm magnesium oxide boards to resist the flames.

The added boards were omitted from both the BRE鈥檚 official test report and Celotex鈥檚 marketing literature for the product.

Two Celotex witnesses, former technical services officer Jamie Hayes and former assistant product manager Jonathan Roper, have told the inquiry that Clark had known about the extra magnesium oxide boards.

But Clark denied any knowledge of the boards, telling yesterday鈥檚 hearing that 鈥渢he reliance was very much was on the honesty of the client鈥�.

Asked by counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC how the boards, which were not logged in official BRE documents, had been installed on the rig unnoticed, Clark said: 鈥淪ecurity guards would circumvent the system sometimes, people being people they would oblige as opposed to annoying the lorry driver.鈥�

Millett asked: 鈥淒oes that mean it was possible for a test sponsor to sneak a piece of kit past the BRE and get it on to a rig without the BRE knowing?鈥�

Clark said: 鈥淵es, yes we weren鈥檛 there all the time, some of these systems could take a week, week and a half 鈥� to complete.

鈥淲e weren鈥檛 there 24/7. We didn鈥檛 have a security guard on the door. So, yes, you鈥檙e right they could have.鈥�

Millett asked if that meant Clark was not always sure what the precise make-up of the rig being tested was.

Clark replied: 鈥淚 wouldn鈥檛 say necessarily, no, but if you鈥檝e got somebody who鈥檚 going out of their way to deceive, then there was a possibility they could do that, if that was their intention.鈥�

Clark said that it was up to the client to prepare the test rig and it was not the BRE鈥檚 job to 鈥減olice necessarily to the nth degree鈥� how the rig was being built, adding: 鈥淭here鈥檚 a large element of trust in everything we do.鈥�

Inquiry chairman Martin Moore-Bick asked: 鈥淲asn鈥檛 it essential for the BRE to know the composition of the system being tested?鈥�

Clark replied: 鈥淚 understand your question and the answer is from checking the delivery notes and checking and measuring on site.

鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 common practice to insist on having them before the test, maybe it should have been, but it wasn鈥檛.鈥�

Millett asked: 鈥淚sn鈥檛 the reality that you knew very well that there was a 6mm magnesium oxide layer behind it? You were in charge of this test, the photographs showed it was there, the deputy knew it was there, as they must have done, it would have taken time to put up and it was covered over by a perfectly obvious ruby-coloured band in two places of a material of a different thickness. Surely you must have realised what was behind it?鈥�

Clark replied: 鈥淣o, I would have reported it. And had I known it, I would have stopped the test.鈥�

Asked to explain how he could have not noticed the magnesium oxide board, Clark said: 鈥淭his is what has been playing in my mind for a long time.鈥�

He added: 鈥淚 would have returned to the burn hall the day before the test and would be running around instrumenting and all that sort of thing, and to this day I still can鈥檛 think why I missed it. No, I can鈥檛 account for that at all.鈥�

Millett asked: 鈥淥ne possibility, Mr Clark, is that you didn鈥檛 miss it, and what Mr Hayes and Mr Roper have told the Inquiry on oath is correct and that you knew it was there.鈥�

Clark replied: 鈥淣o, I didn鈥檛 know it was there, no.鈥�

Millett said: 鈥淚鈥檓 putting it to you that you did?鈥�

鈥淚 refute that, no,鈥� Clark said, later accusing Roper of 鈥渓ying鈥�.

Roper told the inquiry last year that senior staff at Celotex had ordered all reference to the magnesium oxide boards to be removed from marketing literature, admitting that this amounted to a 鈥渇raud on the market鈥�. Celotex withdrew the test report in 2018.

The first phase of the inquiry into the fire, which killed 72 people in June 2017, found that the insulation included in the building鈥檚 cladding system 鈥漨ore likely than not鈥� contributed to the spread of flames up the side of the tower.

The inquiry continues.