Here is Jonathan Roome, the former specification manager at Celotex, admitting the firm's marketing of the insulation product used on Grenfell was 'misleading' when it said it was 'suitable for use' on tall buildings
A little breakdown:
- RS5000 (used on Grenfell) passed a large-scale test as part of a wall made from cement fibre panels in 2014.
- This meant it was acceptable 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 for walls of tall buildings made in exactly the same way (cement fibre panels)
- But Celotex then went ahead and marketed it as "therefore suitable for use on buildings above 18m", no cavaet. It was used in many combinations, including the combustible ACM panels on Grenfell Tower
- The 2014 test has since been retracted for irregulaties including the undeclared use of fire resisting boards around the temperature monitors which recorded pass/fail.
- BONUS: it's actually still being advertised in that way on some websites (although it has actually been withdrawn from sale) (yes I've tried buying some to check) insulation-online.com/celotex-rs5000…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Phase One of the inquiry has already concluded that cladding - which had a core of polyethylene, a plastic akin to solid petrol - was the "principal reason" for the spread of the fire up and around Grenfell Tower, as the plastic inside the panels ignited and melted
We now know that in 2005, Arconic's French arm tested these panels in two forms: rivetted (fixed to a building with bolts) and cassette (bent and hung on rails).
The cassette product performed abysymally - the test was stopped due to fire and it got a 'Class E' rating
We've just learned that a global market leading insulation firm has withdrawn its fire testing for a product that has been on the market for 15 years - admitting the test "does not represent" what it has been selling
The product, Kooltherm K15, was among the insulation used on Grenfell Tower and has been installed on thousands of buildings around the UK including high rises. It passed a large-scale test in 2005. But in 2006, the chemical composition materially changed but the branding didn't.
This new product had a "poor performance in fire" and when tested internal Kingspan notes refer to the result as a "raging inferno" (lawyers for Grenfell survivors just claimed). But the product marketing continued to refer to the old testing.
We've just heard a devastating, detailed account from lawyers for the bereaved of Grenfell Tower alleging that giant cladding and insulation companies were engaged in "sinister" attempts to undermine building regulations and manipulate official testing insidehousing.co.uk/news/grenfell-…
I honestly don't even know where to start in explaining this in a thread, but the above story is in front of our paywall and will remain there. The full opening statement is below. Properly understood this could be one of the great scandals of our time assets.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/BSR00000063_BS…
Some highlights. Internal emails from insulation manufacturer Kingspan referred to its own testing as "complete spin". An internal email from cladding giant Arconic said "we are not clean".
Tomorrow could well be one of the most important days in the Grenfell Tower inquiry since it began two and a half years ago.
I appreciate minds are firmly elsewhere, but here's a quick thread of what's happening and why it matters:
We are about to begin Module 2 of Phase 2. This section will look at 'the testing, classification, certification and marketing' of the deadly materials fitted to the walls of the tower. That sounds technical, and it will be, but it's also really important.
Ultimately, this is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime lifting of the curtain to look at how giant multinational companies test, certify, market and sell their products. At Grenfell we're primarily talking about two companies: Arconic (cladding) and Celotex (insulation).
Well, well, well. This - from Paul Hyett's report - is a pretty devastating conclusion for government.
By way of explanation - the government has argued since the fire that its guidance was not to blame for Grenfell and the wider cladding crisis because it did not permit Class 0 cladding. Many in the industry have vociferously argued the opposite.
Hyett (the inquiry's architectural expert) has concluded firmly that Approved Document B did in fact permit Class 0. If he's correct, it would mean the govt has been misleading everyone about its own culpability since Grenfell. (Other experts have taken different positions)
An unusual section of the inquiry where expert Paul Hyett and team assembled and disassembled a scale model of the cladding system on Grenfell - including their own 'indicative approach' which would have aligned with regulations
Much of what they showed is already known and has been discussed at quite a lot of length, but it was helpful to see it in this way. For example, we've heard a lot about how cavity barriers were not put directly around window openings...
... this shows exactly what was done. They are the grey horizontal lines cutting through the turquoise. You can see how far from the top and bottom of the window they are: