Insulation industry news from Global Insulation

UK: The six-year public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives in 2017, has issued its final report, finding fault with ‘dishonest’ companies, as well as former governments and a disorganised response from the fire service. The inquiry criticised the role of cladding manufacturers, notably US-based Arconic, for its ‘systematic dishonesty’ in concealing the true fire hazards of its products. Arconic, which produced the Reynobond 55 polyethylene cladding used on Grenfell Tower, was accused of having hidden ‘very poor’ fire safety test results from the public and certification bodies. In the report, the cladding is described as ‘extremely dangerous’ when used in folded cassette form, and was ‘by far the largest contributor’ to the Grenfell fire.

The inquiry also named both Celotex and Kingspan as contributors to the incident. Celotex was accused of making ‘false and misleading claims’ by presenting its product to cladding contractor Harley Facades as being safe and suitable for Grenfell, even though ‘it knew that was not the case.’ Insulation producer Kingspan reportedly ‘misled the market’ by not revealing the limitations of its product, which was used on a small section of the building. In response to these findings, the inquiry has called for a revision in testing materials and designs for fire safety, advocating for transparency by making these test results publicly accessible. The findings of this inquiry lay the groundwork for potential criminal charges, with police and prosecutors indicating that investigations will continue until the end of 2025, and decisions on criminal charges expected by the end of 2026, according to a report by the BBC.

Kingspan said in a statement “We welcome the publication of today’s report which is crucial to a public understanding of what went wrong and why. It explains clearly and unambiguously that the type of insulation (whether combustible or non-combustible) was immaterial, and that the principal reason for the fire spread was the PE ACM cladding, which was not made by Kingspan. Kingspan has long acknowledged the wholly unacceptable historical failings that occurred in part of our UK insulation business. These were in no way reflective of how we conduct ourselves as a Group, then or now. While deeply regrettable, they were not found to be causative of the tragedy and Kingspan has already emphatically addressed these issues.”

A spokesperson for Celotex said “The publication of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report marks the conclusion of the inquiry’s work and we are considering its contents with care. This review was a significant and thorough undertaking, and the results of that work were disclosed promptly and proactively to relevant stakeholders, including the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Independent testing commissioned following the review demonstrated that the cladding system described in the Celotex RS5000 marketing literature met the relevant safety criteria. That system was substantially different to that used at Grenfell Tower. Decisions about design, construction and the selection of materials for the Tower were made by construction industry professionals.”

A spokesperson for Arconic subsidiary Arconic Architectural Products (AAP), which Building News reports supplied aluminium composite material used for the rainscreen at Grenfell Tower, said “The company respects the Inquiry process. AAP cooperated fully with the work of the Inquiry and will continue to engage with further legal processes. Together with other parties, AAP has made financial contributions to settlements for those affected, as well as to the restorative justice fund. Throughout the Inquiry, AAP has maintained a number of points: AAP sold sheets of aluminium composite material as specified in the design process. This product was safe to use as a building material, and legal to sell in the UK as well as the more than 30 other countries in which AAP customers purchased the product. We reject any claim that AAP sold an unsafe product. AAP regularly conducted tests of its materials using third-party testing bodies. Reports on these results were all publicly available, and AAP made these reports available to its customers. AAP did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customer, or the public.”