Dr Malcolm Rochford (former Kingspan Technical Director 1995-2014) gives evidence about the transition from old to new K15 technology after the 2005 BS 8414 test, his limited understanding of BR135 requirements, and Kingspan's 2020 withdrawal of historic test reports for products 'not representative' of what was sold.
00:00:15 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from another former employee of kingspan yes can we have dr malcolm rochford please
00:00:42 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare
00:00:46 declare and affirm that the evidence i should give should be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much dr rochford would you like to sit down and make stuff comfortable
00:01:01 now before you start i notice you have two glasses one of which has some water in did you does that come with you or it came with me i prepared it in case
00:01:12 me i prepared it in case um i want needed some i just wanted to make sure we hadn't left it there but no no no
00:01:16 no no no i'd be surprised if we had but still that was me right thank you yes it's great
00:01:24 great yes thank you yes can you give the inquiry your full name please malcolm paul rochefort and i'd like to thank you very much for coming to give evidence today it's very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding
00:01:36 if you have any difficulty understanding anything i'm saying please um ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way if you feel they need a break at any time please let us know and if you can keep your voice up for
00:01:47 and if you can keep your voice up for the the lady on your right who's taking a transcription of everything that's being said
00:01:53 said that would be good you've provided one witness statement to the inquiry um if i can take you to that it's in a folder on your desk and it will appear on the screen it's kin40838
00:02:07 on the screen it's kin40838 there it is and we can if we can go to page 55 of that statement we can see there it's dated the 11th of october 2019 and is that your signature yes it is yes
00:02:19 and is that your signature yes it is yes and have you read that witness statement recently i have and can you confirm that the contents are true they are and have you discussed your statement or the evidence you're going to give with anyone before coming here today
00:02:30 anyone before coming here today no thank you so just to start i want to ask you some questions about your background if we can go to paragraph 2.1 of your statement
00:02:40 statement on page 2
00:02:44 here you tell us a little bit about your background and you tell us that you have a
00:02:48 a degree in chemistry is that right that's correct from the university of wales swansea from 1976 and you also tell us that you have a phd in chemistry and specifically
00:03:00 chemistry and specifically is it right your thesis was on the oxidization of mixed phenolic and amino acid systems is that right
00:03:08 right that's correct yeah and then between 1976 and 1994 you worked at ici is that right in a variety of roles yes
00:03:19 is that right in a variety of roles yes and those roles included research scientist process engineer technical planning manager and director of research and technology is that right yes that's also in that same paragraph
00:03:32 yes that's also in that same paragraph um and then you tell us that following those years at ici you joined kingspan in 1994 as the technical development manager that's correct yes and
00:03:43 that's correct yes and we understand from your witness statement that just a year later in 1995 you were promoted to the position of technical director is that right that's correct yes and you
00:03:54 is that right that's correct yes and you remained in that role until your retirement almost 10 years later on the 31st of december 2004. sorry 2014 2014 yeah yes
00:04:06 sorry 2014 2014 yeah yes as technical director uh who did you report to
00:04:10 report to in the period from 2001 to the end of 2014.
00:04:15 2014. oh um that would have been i think peter wilson and he was the managing director of peter was managing director yes yeah
00:04:27 if you we can look at an organogram that mr heath
00:04:30 mr heath has provided for us now um that's within his statement at kin3020709 on page four
00:04:41 his statement at kin3020709 on page four we could blow that um organogram up
00:04:47 now there we can see you at the top of this structure is that right and [Music]
00:04:55 [Music] it we can see that vincent coppock the research and development manager philip heath the technical manager and gwen davis the technical manager on the process side all reported into you is that correct
00:05:06 that correct it did vary during our time there i can't remember if that's the period when that was correct there were certainly at some point during that period this would have been correct yes but the the organization did change
00:05:18 yes but the the organization did change and gwen at one stage i know was reporting into the operations director for example yes rather than me so i i'm not it's it's it's a a picture of i see
00:05:29 it's it's it's a a picture of i see yes what happened is it right though that philip heath did report to you until he moved on in in 2010 elsewhere into the business that's correct yes he was the technical
00:05:40 that's correct yes he was the technical manager and that tony miller chat took his place
00:05:43 his place and would have reported directly to you from 2010 onwards that's correct yes yeah
00:05:51 and we also see a line here from iva meredith
00:05:54 meredith round to you do you see that there i do that's a dotted line yes yes did either have direct reporting responsibilities to you not not as a line manager i think it was for technical advice and technical
00:06:06 for technical advice and technical direction
00:06:07 direction i understand yes going back to mr heath and and then mr militech how would they report to you how regularly did you see them and how regularly did you get reports from them
00:06:20 regularly did you get reports from them well it would have been a monthly meeting um i usually have it became to be called the technical lamination meeting i think because it
00:06:32 lamination meeting i think because it was
00:06:32 was predominantly about that that they would sometimes attend i would get monthly reports from them yeah um
00:06:39 yeah um physically they were a different part of the of the site and often both of them will be traveling for
00:06:47 for long periods of time as i was in fact right so it would have been a few times a month maybe right yeah and is it right that philip heath sent you a monthly report
00:06:58 sent you a monthly report outline the activities of those teams under his remit i believe yes i yes yeah and those were technical services reports do you remember that i do remember yeah now if we can look
00:07:12 i do remember yeah now if we can look now on page three back to your witness statement
00:07:16 statement um paragraph 2.5 on page three
00:07:22 you you explain there you say in my role as technical director i was responsible for everything on the technical side do you see that there yes and is it right that that included research and development
00:07:34 included research and development including all matters to do with the development of the manufacturing processes
00:07:38 processes and the development of products yes it did yes
00:07:42 did yes and was that for all kingspan products not just for k15 which we're interested in uh it was for all the kingspan insulation products yeah yes
00:07:53 products yeah yes and if we look at the bottom of that page paragraph 2.6 of your witness statement
00:07:59 statement you say my primary responsibility was to oversee the technical direction of kingspan
00:08:04 kingspan concentrating on advances that could be brought in or developed that were beneficial to both kingsman and the market including in relation to fire insulation performance and cost effectiveness
00:08:16 performance and cost effectiveness we can see that there yes and is it right that you were responsible as technical director for preparing the overall budget for the technical department yes yes
00:08:31 and is it right that it was from january 2001 onwards that the technical manager and his teams of technical advisers came to fall under your responsibility yes
00:08:42 yes yeah now
00:08:45 yeah now um in respect of k15 more specifically if we look at paragraph 4.4 of your witness statement on page 14
00:08:59 you say there that your overall responsibility is at the bottom of that page in respect of k-15 as for all other king-span insulation products we're looking at that whether the product was fit for the market
00:09:12 product was fit for the market in respect of meeting customers requirements and also identifying whether there were any improvements or developments that could be made to the product so we can see what you say there
00:09:24 see what you say there what about looking at whether the product was fit for market in terms of fire safety did that also fall
00:09:31 fall under your responsibility that would have been via the technical service team yes that would have been my responsibility yes
00:09:43 now a paragraph 3.29 of your witness statement on page 13 you explain that you were not directly involved in the marketing of
00:09:55 directly involved in the marketing of k-15
00:09:56 k-15 is that right that's correct yes did you play any part at all in formulating the marketing strategy for k-15
00:10:06 not that i recall no right did you ever have any role in deciding on the content of such marketing material or product literature for k-15 no and who did have responsibility for
00:10:20 no and who did have responsibility for that
00:10:20 that that would have been the um marketing or marketing director and did mr heath and his team also have some responsibility for that
00:10:32 some responsibility for that for the uh sorry for deciding on the the content the technical content oh sorry the technical content yes they would have had responsibility for that yeah and would you have had had any
00:10:43 yeah and would you have had had any oversight of them in deciding on the technical content of marketing material or product literature what i would have done was leave basically that that area to um the
00:10:55 basically that that area to um the technical manager and their team they were both
00:10:57 were both very experienced people thief i think had been with the company for uh three years before i joined um so in one sense i was a junior to him
00:11:08 so in one sense i was a junior to him and that respect that respect so they would have been uh responsible in terms of the detail that went into any marketing literature yeah and what about mr militare when he
00:11:19 yeah and what about mr militare when he took over that role tony milly chap had worked for phil in fact i think phil mented him in the 90s and i know that tony left for a few years
00:11:30 that tony left for a few years and then came back into kingspan and it was um some years after he came back
00:11:36 back he became technical manager and replaced philippe
00:11:40 philippe right yeah were you ever involved in checking the technical accuracy of marketing material or product literature for k-15 i wasn't directly involved in checking the accuracy not
00:11:51 the accuracy not uh not in terms of application right yeah and in terms of any technical advice which was given by kingspan to customers
00:12:00 customers about the use of k-15 is it right that you had no involvement or responsibility for that
00:12:06 for that either no i think as i say in my statement
00:12:10 statement um occasionally quite rarely items might be um come up the chain to me
00:12:18 me that involve talking to a customer yeah but if it was a customer on the application side i would always feel a bit uncomfortable because i i wasn't really very much knowledgeable in that
00:12:30 really very much knowledgeable in that area i see yeah i was more of a product specialist yeah process specialist if you look at paragraph 4.20 of your witness statement page 18
00:12:50 at the just picking it up so you you say there whilst i had overarching responsibility for the technical services team by the technical manager who reported to me from 2001 i was not directly involved in any of
00:13:02 i was not directly involved in any of their work and responsibility for the technical advice given was fully dedicated to the technical manager and technical services manager so is that that's that's correct yes
00:13:13 so is that that's that's correct yes yes that's consistent with what you just said
00:13:17 said at paragraph 4.19 of your statement which is at the top very top of that page that we're looking at now you say this you say my impression at the time was that kingspan had a
00:13:28 at the time was that kingspan had a reputation for providing customers with straight and clear advice and was respected within the industry for this do you see that there yes i think that's true
00:13:39 true what period of time are you talking about there you say my impression at the time
00:13:43 time it has to be at the time i was working for kingsperm which was up until december 2014 yes did you take any steps at any time to check that
00:13:55 check that straight and clear advice was being given by the technical teams in kingspan i didn't do anything like a um a secret phone call or anything to
00:14:07 um a secret phone call or anything to check i must i must confess i didn't do anything like that but um i had no reason to to think that advice would be incorrect so
00:14:15 so it was a well-run team as far as i could see
00:14:19 how had you formed that impression that they were providing customers with straight and clear advice um that was
00:14:30 um that was it's a good question in terms of how had i actually formed the opinion i would have um
00:14:38 possibly spoken to other people in kingspan people in marketing department or whatever about the advice but that would have always been um my impression anyway i see yeah
00:14:50 um my impression anyway i see yeah and what about um the third party certification of k-15 did you ever have any involvement in that so certification by outside bodies like the bba
00:15:00 the bba or the labc no not directly no
00:15:08 i see we might come back to look at the labc certificate later and some emails that were sent on that um
00:15:16 that um lastly on fire testing of k15 and in particular large-scale testing to bs 8414 if we look at paragraph 11.5 of your witness statement on page 46
00:15:33 you tell us in that in that first line you say my involvement in testing to bs 8414 was generally high level and i was not involved in the day-to-day coordination of such tests is that right that's correct
00:15:46 such tests is that right that's correct yes
00:15:49 and in the area of fire testing can we also look at what you say at paragraph 2.7 of your statement on page four
00:16:00 and if i can pick it up in the second half of the fifth line actually let's pick it up four lines down right on the right hand side there's a
00:16:11 right on the right hand side there's a word beginning four when you say for example
00:16:15 example so you say there for example in relation to fire testing for applications other employees through their past experience had particular knowledge of fire testing and so these individuals would maintain
00:16:27 and so these individuals would maintain overall responsibility for these respective areas and my involvement would be less do you see that there now yes i want to ask you who is it that you're referring to there
00:16:38 you're referring to there you're talking about other employees through their past experience had particular knowledge of fire testing and they would maintain overall responsibility for those areas who are you talking about there
00:16:49 areas who are you talking about there well in terms of application testing it would be people like um
00:16:54 like um via phil or tony it would be people like um
00:16:58 um iva meredith or justin davis or tony milly chapman in the past and in the lab it would have been um vincent coppack or whoever was in the lab at the time yeah
00:17:11 whoever was in the lab at the time yeah what about testing to um bs 476 part six and part seven those are the the tests for national class nought yes and did you have any involvement in
00:17:23 yes and did you have any involvement in that
00:17:25 that uh not in not in preparing samples or um sending samples etc obviously i had some uh involvement in terms of a period when we were looking to improve fire
00:17:37 we were looking to improve fire properties and work was done on the bs 476 part six and seven
00:17:44 and seven one of the things about that test it was a british standard test and um at the time we were moving over or the the um
00:17:55 or the the um the impression was that become the country was moving over to european classification for everything so the european standard was something that i would have been more familiar with the a single burning item yeah a182 b
00:18:09 a single burning item yeah a182 b c d e f yeah the en13501 classifications i see okay now i want to move on now to ask you about your understanding of
00:18:20 to ask you about your understanding of the building regulations and associated guidance um in the period um 2001 to 2010 let's take that period um did you ever receive any training
00:18:34 um did you ever receive any training in regards to the building regulations or the practical guidance in approved document b no did you ever read the practical guidance in approved
00:18:45 the practical guidance in approved document b which addresses external wall construction of buildings including for over 18 meters i i wouldn't have read it cover to cover i might have referenced it when
00:18:56 referenced it when uh items are being discussed right so you don't think you ever read approved document b i don't think so no and what about after 2010 did you ever read it
00:19:07 read it later before you left kingspan i i don't think so now
00:19:13 you were asked by the inquiry about your awareness about the risks associated with the use of combustible materials in buildings over 18 meters in height and if we can just look at um page 19 of
00:19:25 and if we can just look at um page 19 of your witness statement paragraph 4.26 and you say this you say my regulation my recollection is that because technical advisors were on the front line and often acted as a signpost
00:19:37 front line and often acted as a signpost in relation to the queries received training was provided i believe that the advisors
00:19:43 advisors were aware that the requirements for using all facade systems on buildings with a floor over 18 meters were more onerous
00:19:50 onerous because of the limitations of firefighting at heights greater than 18 meters
00:19:54 meters and they would also have been aware that further certification was required to ensure compliance with these requirements where buildings were designed with systems incorporating k-15 that met
00:20:05 systems incorporating k-15 that met the regulator requirements then there was minimal risk do you see that there yes
00:20:12 and when you say there that your rare collection was that they would have been aware that further certification was required what do you mean by that there
00:20:21 there it's three lines up from the bottom they would have also been aware that further certification was required to ensure compliance with these requirements what do you mean by that i think i would have been
00:20:32 have been referring to the um 841 for the uh the range screen cladding test which i i had a little bit of knowledge because
00:20:42 because um of the trade association um connection so i was aware of development work in the 90s for this but um right i see yeah
00:20:56 you you also say in your witness statement um this is a paragraph 6.7 at page 26 that in 2005 your understanding of the testing regime was limited
00:21:10 testing regime was limited do you see that there in the very first line i think i say my understanding of the br135 testing regime was limited i see so you're saying in 2005 my
00:21:22 i see so you're saying in 2005 my understanding of the br-135 testing regime was limited and i was not aware that classification to bl-135 could be sought after a successful 8414 test so is it only in that respect that
00:21:34 so is it only in that respect that you're saying your understanding of the testing regime was limited
00:21:38 limited it's not only that respect but i think particularly that i actually didn't know that the br135 was
00:21:45 was was required right in that time yeah um i
00:21:50 i we'd had discussions about setting up the 2005 test and they'd all been about the 8414 testing so i was aware that that um that was going to happen
00:22:01 was going to happen and that it was important for the market above 18 meters to to get a pass in this test but i wasn't aware that that pass was
00:22:09 was dependent on a br 135 when did you become aware of that of that separate assessment process to the pass-fail criteria in br135 i think
00:22:23 i think in terms of the past fail criteria
00:22:27 criteria i would have relied on what was said to me by
00:22:31 me by people like ivan meredith in terms of the requirement for the thermocouples at 600 not to exceed 600 degrees i would have been aware of that as a primary
00:22:42 been aware of that as a primary requirement and i would have been aware of the bit about uh
00:22:46 about uh no flaming above the above the rig at the end of the um before the end of the test so i would have been aware of those sort of things yeah
00:22:56 yeah but but not that br 135 was required did you understand that that that pass fail criteria was contained in br135 and not in bs8414 itself
00:23:08 not in bs8414 itself i came to understand that yeah later on and when you say later on when i i'm not sure exactly when to be honest yeah
00:23:19 and you also explain in your witness statement that and we don't need to go to this at paragraph 5.1 on page 21 for the transcript that you did become more familiar with the regulations for
00:23:30 more familiar with the regulations for the use of combustible materials on high-rise buildings as the market for such materials increased is that right yes yes actually let's look at um
00:23:43 let's look at that let's look at paragraph 5.1 on page 21 of your statement where you say there so you say over time you came to be more familiar
00:23:55 familiar and then at the end of that paragraph you say my awareness of this area included
00:24:01 included and you've got the bs 8414 part one and part
00:24:04 part two fire tests do you see that there yes did your awareness include the fact that there was a difference between those two tests
00:24:12 tests i understood that um when the 2005 test was done there was just the the single test the eight four one four and i understood that later on another
00:24:23 and i understood that later on another test had been developed so they became eight for one four part one and part two uh for specifically for steel frame yeah [Music]
00:24:33 [Music] of rain screen clouding systems and did you understand that the part one test was for masonry structures i i understood it my thinking the time would have been it was
00:24:44 thinking the time would have been it was for non-combustible right um surfaces but yeah and you also talk about br135 which we've we've just
00:24:57 talk about br135 which we've we've just talked about there can you help us just back to that difference between parts one and part two can you help us about when it was you became more familiar with the difference between part one and
00:25:10 with the difference between part one and part two
00:25:11 part two um well certainly by um the time that i've started looking to do a part two so that presumably would have been sometime in
00:25:22 been sometime in i'm trying to think sometime in 2007 i thought
00:25:25 thought yeah um i see yeah now as far as you were aware let's take your knowledge in 2005 first if you carried out a test to bs
00:25:36 first if you carried out a test to bs 8414
00:25:37 8414 and that system met the relevant criteria
00:25:41 criteria would that allow you to use any system other than the system tested on a building with a floor above 18 meters
00:25:49 18 meters i think my understanding was that if you if you
00:25:53 if you did the test with something that was at the
00:25:56 the in terms of cladding was the most vulnerable cladding system then that would
00:26:08 effectively that system would be suitable for anything that that had a less vulnerable cladding system so presumably if you had something that was very thin um then that would qualify you if it was
00:26:19 um then that would qualify you if it was non-combustible that would qualify you for anything that was thicker than that and in that way i i understood where did you get that that
00:26:30 where did you get that that understanding from where did that come from
00:26:32 from that would have been from discussions with either and possibly phil but certainly either did your understanding of that
00:26:39 of that change or develop at any stage between 2001 and the end of 2014
00:26:50 um trying to think if it my understanding i don't i don't think it did really i think that was still still my understanding that
00:27:01 understanding that um you could qualify for something that was at the bottom end in terms of possibility and it would automatically um the system would be acceptable for
00:27:13 um the system would be acceptable for anything that was um a more onerous uh sorry a more robust combustibility i see but what are you talking about there in terms of
00:27:24 terms of something at the bottom end are you talking about the outer cladding yes sorry i'm talking about the outer cladding and the whole the whole construction the way the construction is done so for example
00:27:35 done so for example i know there were you have fire breaks for example i mean if for example you tested something with a i know fire break every every foot going up
00:27:46 up then one you you'd require that for the the system would require that if it was used in practice uh and that would only qualify you for for that and uh anything that was used
00:27:57 for that and uh anything that was used either
00:27:58 either when it was one foot apart or six inches apart in other words anything in the system um that was changed if it was changed in a way that
00:28:09 changed if it was changed in a way that was likely to make the um the the result worse then um in that case
00:28:21 that would not be acceptable in other words it has to be the lowest the lowest point that you're testing when you say if it was changed in a way likely to make the
00:28:33 was changed in a way likely to make the result worse yes who was making those assessments about whether something might make it worse or not sorry this is my understanding you were asking that was my understanding yeah but but who would on your
00:28:46 yeah but but who would on your understanding who would determine whether the system was making it worse or better compared with what you tested well certainly for the initial test uh
00:28:57 well certainly for the initial test uh my understanding was that uh either had put that together uh with after discussion with the bre and come up with a system that was the most vulnerable in terms of the
00:29:09 the most vulnerable in terms of the outer cladding of a non-combustible outer cladding how was that the most vulnerable if it was a non-combustible outer cladding no uh obviously a combustible outer
00:29:21 no uh obviously a combustible outer cladding would be much more vulnerable so that wouldn't be acceptable so if he's if he's trying to pass a test that gives you acceptance for all non-combustible claddings
00:29:33 non-combustible claddings you choose the least robust outer cladding in order to do the test and i think that's why this um this one was chosen for the 2005 test
00:29:45 was chosen for the 2005 test i see we'll come back to that 2005 test in in a little while if we can go within your witness statement to paragraph 5.3 on page 22.
00:29:59 you you say this you say my understanding was that the complexity of such a large-scale fire test meant that the criteria of a br135 classification could be somewhat
00:30:11 classification could be somewhat subjective in the sense that decisions in respect of this classification are dependent on the skills and experience of the fire engineer who's drawing the conclusion this means that there is a degree of
00:30:22 this means that there is a degree of reliance on people with experience in this area
00:30:24 this area to make consistent decisions and to ensure that a consistent assessment is made
00:30:29 made of whether the criteria are met in each circumstances do you see that there yes now when did the matters that you've set out there um come to your knowledge when do you
00:30:40 um come to your knowledge when do you when did you come to understand that i i think that was one of the fire tests um
00:30:46 um that was done possibly one of the ones in 2014 right where we had an instance where um there was some dispute um
00:30:57 there was some dispute um or disagreement between kingspan and bre as to whether it had passed the criteria or not yes so that's where that that understanding would come from i see yes would you agree with me that as you
00:31:09 would you agree with me that as you spent longer at kingspan you became more and more aware of the complexity of this large-scale fire testing and all the different factors that might affect whether a system passes or not
00:31:21 system passes or not i did yes and it's not as simple is it as saying
00:31:25 as saying well there's a very thin vulnerable outer skin so we can simply you know extrapolate from that and assume other systems with different skins might work
00:31:37 with different skins might work no i i agree it isn't but but i think that was our understanding at the time so is it fair to say that you perhaps had a
00:31:46 had a more simplistic understanding of the system testing which then developed certainly by the time the 2014 tests were carried out i think that would be a fair assessment
00:31:58 i think that would be a fair assessment yeah
00:32:03 the matters that you've referred to there in your statement you've said you think you became aware of this in 2014 did we take it from that that
00:32:11 that therefore you wouldn't have been aware of this the need for you know an assessment there's a degree of reliance on people with experience in this area
00:32:20 this area just to be clear are you saying you wouldn't have been aware of that back in 2005.
00:32:24 2005. i don't think i would have been were you aware of these matters before you met
00:32:32 you met wintec in late 2013 we're going to come to
00:32:35 to some correspondence that shows that you were involved in a meeting with wintec to discuss the use of k-15 in the external construction of high-rise buildings do you think you understood that before you met wintec
00:32:46 understood that before you met wintec i don't think i did in fact i think meeting wintec and sitting down them with them was an education for me i said yeah well we'll come back to that and i'll ask you about that
00:32:57 and i'll ask you about that um i want to ask you now about the phrase limited combustibility which is also a matter you asked about in your witness statement and if we look at paragraph 5.8 of your statement on page 23
00:33:15 you're you're asked the question what was your own understanding of the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility and you say i can no longer recall what my understanding of this would have been during my employment with kingspan do
00:33:26 during my employment with kingspan do you see that there yes can you help us as to what you mean by that i can no longer recall what my understanding of this would have been well i
00:33:37 well i the the trouble is i i am basically a scientist so i i look at figures more than um and and um systems in for organizing things
00:33:48 um systems in for organizing things rather than the words so i would see a term of that says limited combustibility and think what does that mean um now having
00:34:00 um now having having looked at it um subsequently and and tried to remind myself of the euro class i see that technically um it's defined in the euro class as an
00:34:11 um it's defined in the euro class as an a2 would be a limited combustibility so an a1 would be non-combustible yep a2 is limited combustibility yes and class is b through down to f would be combustible
00:34:22 be combustible yeah so i understand that now but at the time
00:34:25 time my understanding at the time i think i would have just looked at the phrase limited combustibility and and not known exactly what was meant by it
00:34:34 it i see and and that knowledge of you've just explained it by reference to the euro classifications how recently did did you obtain that knowledge
00:34:46 knowledge well i i looked at it in in preparation for this inquiry i looked at it again and i saw a chart that said um that gave the euro classifications and a definition beside them and
00:35:00 and a definition beside them and as i looked at it i thought oh well maybe i remember that but it wasn't something
00:35:06 something that would have been front of mind at the time i don't think whilst you were employed by kingspan did you understand kingspan's range of phenolic pir and p-u-r polyurethane insulation products
00:35:18 insulation products to be combustible yes uh yes i mean i i think there was a the reason i'm qualifying this i think there was a range of combustibility
00:35:29 combustibility [Applause] if you look at something like a p-u-p-i-r that would be an e or an f generally
00:35:40 an e or an f generally a p-i-r would be a d um and uh phenolic would be a c or or a b right yeah but you knew the point i'm asking is
00:35:53 but you knew the point i'm asking is whether you knew they were combustible insulation yes they're organic materials so that they have
00:35:58 they have carbon nitrogen and um if it's hot enough they will burn yeah yeah did you know at any time during your tenure as technical director that the phrase limited combustibility
00:36:10 phrase limited combustibility was defined as a concept in approved document b i think it might have been pointed out to me but
00:36:19 to me but i i i wouldn't have been aware of it when you say you think it might have been pointed out to me why do you say that i think it might have been pointed out to me when
00:36:31 pointed out to me when it was it was being described when something was being described yeah but okay
00:36:38 did you ever become aware that there was a table at the back of approved document b where specific definitions can be found including what tests and what criteria you have to meet to be defined as limited
00:36:49 meet to be defined as limited combustibility no i wasn't have you ever heard of the bs-476 part 11 tests
00:36:56 11 tests which are the national test which is relevant for limited combustibility either that or 476 part 4 which is non-combustible
00:37:07 non-combustible were you ever aware of those tests during your time i can't recall being aware of the bs 476 part 11 but i may have been and forgotten it but i can't recall being aware of it is it right that you did
00:37:20 aware of it is it right that you did understand that there were more onerous requirements in the building regulations and and in the guidance and the approved documents for the use of combustible insulation materials for buildings over
00:37:31 insulation materials for buildings over 18 meters
00:37:33 18 meters yes yes i understood that part and why did you think that was at the time i thought it was because uh above 18 meters it had been described to me that the problem was
00:37:45 to me that the problem was um the fire ladders were generally limiting at that height and therefore if there was a fire and if if it took hold uh it would it was necessary to make sure
00:37:57 necessary to make sure it couldn't progress with any rapidity yeah i want to ask you some questions now about the test to 8414 part 1 which was carried out at the bre on the
00:38:08 which was carried out at the bre on the 31st of may 2005. if we can go to paragraph 11.25 of your statement on page 51.
00:38:21 you say there from my review of the contemporary documents i can see that i was aware that an 8414 test was planned and originally scheduled for april 2005. do you see that there yes
00:38:34 april 2005. do you see that there yes and we know that it happened in may 2005 and then um you go on to say you say at a strategic level this is three lines down
00:38:43 down we had identified expansion of the phenolic market as an important opportunity in 2004 and the test would have been commissioned to improve the market possibilities for k-15
00:38:54 possibilities for k-15 if the test was passed do you see that there yes and who's the we there who had identified this area as one for expansion uh i think that would have been probably
00:39:06 uh i think that would have been probably the board of kingsman insulation i would think right you did you sit on the board as technical director yes yeah so you think it was a board level
00:39:17 yeah so you think it was a board level that that decision was made i think so yes that would have been and just to be clear was that expansion in order to
00:39:23 order to ensure a move into the high-rise market yes i think that was identified as a as a potential market yeah
00:39:34 as a potential market yeah and who was it that initiated the project to test k15 in a system to bs 8414
00:39:41 uh i can't recall who who actually initiated it right can you help us there's still a way in which you understood prior to the test being carried out in may 2005 that it would
00:39:53 may 2005 that it would improve the market possibilities for k-15
00:39:56 k-15 how did you think that test was going to be relevant to that i thought that a pass would enable us to um to go into that market
00:40:08 um to go into that market as as i said before with with the appropriate cladding and and system and when you say with the appropriate cladding what was your understanding about how you were entering the market and
00:40:20 how you were entering the market and with what i i understood that it would be for non-combustible cladding materials right and all non-combustible cladding i i think that would be my understanding yes definitely yeah and who would have told you that it
00:40:32 and who would have told you that it would have been either um as we were preparing a eyebrow fill right yeah
00:40:40 and had you read bs 8414 part one prior to the first test in may 2005 i i i can't recall
00:40:51 i i i can't recall um whether i ever would have read it um worth a word i think it would have been pointed out to me and i probably would have seen diagrams of of the test
00:41:02 would have seen diagrams of of the test and i think the the concept would have been described to me and i would have had some um inkling of that through work that was done as i say in the 90s
00:41:13 work that was done as i say in the 90s on on developing facade testing yeah
00:41:19 are you aware that that 2005 test report has very recently been withdrawn by kingspan on the basis that the k-15 that was tested was not representative of what was
00:41:30 was not representative of what was subsequently sold in the marketplace i did see that in the opening statement yes was that the first time you were made aware of that of it being withdrawn yes yes it was yes
00:41:43 it incidentally sorry the fact that it's withdrawn
00:41:49 withdrawn 14 years or 15 years after it was issued wasn't it wasn't a surprise either yes can you help us as to why it wasn't a surprise that's a long time after
00:42:01 a surprise that's a long time after the test so it would be prudent to uh to withdraw and to retest well just to be clear um let's let's just look at the letter
00:42:12 um let's let's just look at the letter that was written on this k i n three zeros four this is a letter from kingspan to the bre date of the 23rd of october 2020
00:42:24 bre date of the 23rd of october 2020 and on page one you can see in the first paragraph
00:42:29 paragraph writing with reference to a number of eight four one four test reports and then in paragraph two it states as you may be aware kingsplan is currently involved as a core participant in the grenfell tower
00:42:40 core participant in the grenfell tower public inquiry as part of our cooperation with requests for information from the inquiry we have undertaken a comprehensive review of all past and current test data which relates to k-15 including bs 8414
00:42:51 which relates to k-15 including bs 8414 tests
00:42:53 tests and then it goes on in the next paragraph through our review we have now concluded that the tests carried out in 2005
00:42:58 2005 and 2014 featured a product featured product
00:43:01 product that was not sufficiently representative of the product currently sold into the marketplace we have listed these reports in a small summary of their construction buildups below
00:43:11 below so just to be clear dr rochford they they haven't been withdrawn on the basis that they're simply old tests and just due to their age they've expired
00:43:19 expired they've been withdrawn because they it said their the featured product was not sufficiently representative of the product currently sold into the marketplace do you see that there
00:43:30 marketplace do you see that there yes i think i think i had seen this this document
00:43:33 document um and i would have taken that to mean um when they say not sufficiently representative of the product currently sold in the
00:43:44 product currently sold in the marketplace that that meant currently sold in 23rd of october 2020 when when the letter was sent that would have been my understanding i may be wrong in that but that was my understanding i see
00:43:56 understanding i see did you ever become aware after the 2005 test that the product the k-15 product changed
00:44:02 changed to become a different product i did yes i i was aware of that although at the time
00:44:08 time i am not sure i was completely clear on which
00:44:13 which product had been tested um in 2005 because i think you're going to be talking about the change between what we call the old technology and the new technology and for some time i wasn't perfectly
00:44:27 and for some time i wasn't perfectly clear it had been apparently old technology that was tested right but i i was aware that the new technology was
00:44:36 was um introduced in in late september 20 2006. i see but of course the change over period had been quite a long time two years we'll come on to that and
00:44:47 two years we'll come on to that and we'll come on to look at some documents relevant to that
00:44:55 just to be clear that this letter does acknowledge that it the product that was sold was not representative of the product sold since september 2006
00:45:08 where does it say that it goes on i i mean probably i'm sure you're right but i can't see it saying that okay we'll get the reference in the letter that's our understanding of what's being said uh by the withdrawal of all these
00:45:21 said uh by the withdrawal of all these reports i'll get the reference um just
00:45:28 um just thinking back to at the time of the 2005 test and you've already said um that your understanding is this right was that once you tested to that system
00:45:41 was that once you tested to that system you could then use that to say that k15 could be used in other non-combustible systems right that was my understanding yes
00:45:52 that was my understanding yes and again who where did that understanding come from did somebody tell you that it would have been from talking to either and i say i ever impossibly feel but
00:46:00 but certainly either did you later come to understand that in fact the exact system tested would have to be replicated
00:46:11 tested would have to be replicated if you were to rely on an 8414 test i don't think i ever understood that the exact cladding would have to be replicated i understood that the
00:46:22 that the the way the system was set up the framing the um the fire breaks uh that would have to be and and the way that the product was mounted
00:46:33 that the product was mounted yeah but i don't think uh i ever understood that it'd have to be exactly the same
00:46:40 the same product right because that would have left to an awful lot of tests
00:46:48 if we go to page two of this letter and look at um paragraph four starting um if you look at two
00:46:59 starting um if you look at two paragraphs down do you see we're talking it's talking about test report 220 876 dated 8th of december 2005. do you see that there yes i do yeah and uh it says in the
00:47:11 yes i do yeah and uh it says in the second paragraph on a full review of raw materials and the manufacturing processes it became apparent that the k-15 manufactured in 2005 would not be representative of the product currently sold on the market
00:47:23 product currently sold on the market from 2006 to today while both products are still phenolic phones kingspan is now of the view that there are sufficient differences to consider withdrawing this test report this is what you were referring to earlier and i can see that now yeah
00:47:38 earlier and i can see that now yeah did you read the test report for the may 2005
00:47:42 2005 8414 test at the time it was received from the bre so that test report came in december 2005. did you read that i must have done at the time but i can't recall it did you note that the
00:47:54 recall it did you note that the outer surface of that test was a building board or cement particle board or fiber cement board did you note that i i don't think it's
00:48:06 did you note that i i don't think it's stuck in my memory i think i remembered it as a combustible material and as the um least robust combustible material we could use in that application so you say that you
00:48:18 application so you say that you remembered it as a combustible material i thought you said earlier sorry a non-combustible i said i'm not good with words non-combustible material and and therefore
00:48:28 therefore that would be the reason it had been used
00:48:31 used was that it was the uh the the least robust of the non-combustible cladding materials how did you understand it was the least
00:48:42 how did you understand it was the least robust of them because that would have been the reason for doing the test you're doing a test to to justify uh being able to use it on products that are actually um more
00:48:53 products that are actually um more robust um
00:48:55 robust um that was my as i said before that was my understanding of the the way the test was done but was that an assumption you made or was that something somebody actually told you that
00:49:04 that it was the least robust of the non-combustible external services that was certainly my understanding at the time and it would have been
00:49:13 have been gained from talking as i said talking to either
00:49:17 either and possibly phil right are you aware that a classification report for the may 2005 test to br 135 was only issued 10 years later so after your retirement
00:49:31 10 years later so after your retirement i only as a result of um doing background reading for the inquiry did i become aware of that yes yeah if we could go back to your witness statement paragraph 6.7 on page 26.
00:49:53 so you say that your understanding was that a successful 8414 test was sufficient to show compliance of the product being tested i did not become aware of the br135
00:50:04 i did not become aware of the br135 classification report could be obtained until later on and i was not aware that the classification report did not exist for a system incorporating br135 between 2005 and 2014. do you see that there
00:50:16 2005 and 2014. do you see that there yes can we look at um kin
00:50:23 at um kin three four zero six zero zero
00:50:30 so these are some emails that i want to show you first up from 2014 if we can go to the top of page 2 we see an email from paul ashford of the caleb group
00:50:44 paul ashford of the caleb group sent to you on the 15th of may 2014 at 6 20. do you see that there and in the middle paragraph he makes reference to tests to bs 8414. he said
00:50:56 reference to tests to bs 8414. he said he also mentioned he thought tests had been done by kingspan in europe on board product to bs 8414 at least for phenolic do you see that there
00:51:06 and he asks in the final line of his email
00:51:11 email do you have recollections of european data being available on bs8414 do you see that
00:51:17 see that yes i do yeah and then your response is in the email above that at the very bottom of page one sent on the same day
00:51:26 you say there back to him we have a bs 8414 part one result and have recently completed an eight four one four part two both on call them k-15 for which we are awaiting the test
00:51:37 for which we are awaiting the test report from the bre as you are probably aware the bs-8414 doesn't result in a direct pass fail but has to be interpreted by a fire engineer or the br bre using br135 do you see that there
00:51:51 bre using br135 do you see that there yes so by 2014 we can see that you are clearly aware that the pass fail criteria
00:51:59 criteria are there in br135 and there has to be some form of assessment to that criteria yes i think i think as i said
00:52:08 i said um following the meeting with wintec i became much more aware about what was required
00:52:16 so does it follow that at some point before that you must have come to learn that there was no br 135 classification report for the 2005 test
00:52:29 i don't know that that
00:52:35 looks like i'm talking about um the 8414 part 2 in this email yes i appreciate that but i'm just trying to establish
00:52:47 trying to establish um at what point before you send this email you had become aware of the need for an assessment under br135
00:52:55 br135 well at least by um october the 31st 2013 which i think was a meeting with wintec i think that would have made me much more aware
00:53:07 that would have made me much more aware of it
00:53:08 of it i see and did it never occurred to you to ask before that point where's the br135 assessment for the 2005 test
00:53:17 2005 test i don't i don't think it would have done no
00:53:24 if we look at an email in the top of this chain this is mr meredith's email to mr ashford do you see that there
00:53:37 to mr ashford do you see that there yes and you're copied into this it's the 21st of may 2014. and i uh mr meredith says paul sorry for the delay
00:53:46 the delay he's a week behind and then he says i've attached the bs 841 for part 1 test i slightly disagree with malcolm's comments though as br135 copy attached for information describes the pass fail criteria so long
00:53:58 describes the pass fail criteria so long as the test data supports the criteria set in the document we can claim that it meets the criteria of bl-135 do you see that there yes do you remember reading that
00:54:10 remember reading that i don't to be honest but um and do you ever
00:54:13 ever remember discussing with mr meredith what he calls a slight disagreement with with you about br135
00:54:22 br135 and what's necessary in terms of an assessment to be r135 no but i wouldn't have been surprised that iva didn't agree with me because he was
00:54:33 because he was he was the expert in this area so if i'd made a mistake i think that's probably why i copy diver in i see oh oh i was copied on paul ashford's email yeah
00:54:45 on paul ashford's email yeah i think paul was a consultant who worked for
00:54:49 for um well he did quite a bit of work in in europe
00:54:54 europe um we could see that mr meredith has attached the bs 8414 part one test do you see that there yeah so that must have been the 2005 test yes
00:55:07 so that must have been the 2005 test yes yep but it it didn't occur to you at that stage to say where's our br135 assessment for that 2005 test
00:55:15 2005 test no it didn't now
00:55:22 did you agree with the approach that mr meredith was advocating in this email so long as the test data supports the criteria set in the document we can claim that it meets the criteria
00:55:33 we can claim that it meets the criteria of br135
00:55:34 of br135 he seems to be saying you don't need to have that separate assessment done we can just claim it as long as we can see it meets the criteria did you agree with that
00:55:43 with that i'd as i said i would have regarded either was the expert in the area so if that's what he thought i i would have assumed that that was correct i see let's go
00:55:54 that that was correct i see let's go back
00:55:55 back um to the period after the 2005 test had been carried out um i want to go to a monthly report for february
00:56:03 february 2006 this is a monthly technical services report kin 405152
00:56:17 kin 405152 now you confirmed earlier in your evidence that these were the reports that you would have received monthly from mr heath and his team yes yes almost certainly what i'd used to do with these i think
00:56:28 with these i think um i would uh praises them usually and go into a technical report for the for the technical department so i'd have one from yeah ts and one
00:56:40 so i'd have one from yeah ts and one from processing side and we can see that um this one's from february 6 and just to put it in context the
00:56:46 the the 8414 test report dated from december 2005. so this is a couple of months after
00:56:51 after okay that if we look at page two in the section headed projects at the bottom of that page do you see that there
00:57:02 that there it says this bs84141 k15 fire test is being assessed by the bre to make full advantage of the results also our next test is being discussed to see if we can cover all types of
00:57:14 see if we can cover all types of cladding and substrates did you see that there
00:57:16 there yes would you have read this report at the time
00:57:21 the time i would have were you aware at the time that the 8414 test was being assessed by the bre to make full advantage of the results
00:57:30 results i would have assumed that because it was it was
00:57:33 it was uh listed here that that was what was happening yes and what did you understand by the next sentence to mean also a next test is being discussed to see if we can cover all types of cladding and
00:57:44 cover all types of cladding and substrates i don't think i would have known in detail what he's referring to i presume he's referring to an one four part two but i don't know uh but it was a logical
00:57:57 but i don't know uh but it was a logical step
00:57:58 step to go from um a simple non-combustible to something more uh complicated and test that
00:58:06 test that what mr meredith has told us and mr heath uh
00:58:09 heath uh agreed with this was that it was a a program
00:58:12 program of testing to 8414 which started with a naked test with just the installation on were you aware of that i was yes i was aware of that and then this next test in 2005
00:58:24 that and then this next test in 2005 just had a building board on the outside at a fiber cement board or cement particle board but no rain screen outer layer whether that be a render or another form
00:58:36 whether that be a render or another form of rain screen system and then it was planned that there would be another test after this to actually replicate a full rain screen system now was that your understanding at the
00:58:48 now was that your understanding at the time that this was part of a planned program of 8414 testing it wasn't my understanding at the time that it was uh there was any need to do it
00:58:59 it on the same system i thought that covered us for
00:59:04 any non-combustible cladding i'd assumed i would have assumed looking at this at the time
00:59:12 the time that it was um as i said for different types of cladding it covers all cladding and substrate so presumably a different type of mounting
00:59:24 well what i'm going to suggest to you is that everybody understood at the time that that 2005 test wasn't a fully representative system and it was just one step along a planned program of tests in order to
00:59:36 a planned program of tests in order to actually
00:59:37 actually get to the point of testing a full rain screen system that's what i want to put to you that wasn't my understanding at the time i now want to ask you about the changes
00:59:48 i now want to ask you about the changes to the k15 product that happened including the change in 2006.
00:59:53 2006. if we go to paragraph 3.6 of your statement on page six of your witness statement you say this in or around 2003 kingspan acquired a
01:00:05 in or around 2003 kingspan acquired a dutch company by the name of marek the purpose of the acquisition was to use their technology to produce better insulating phenolic foam which could be produced at a better rate of productivity
01:00:17 of productivity the object was to use maric technology also known as new technology or kester and technology because of the location of the plant in kestrel netherlands for all of the cool therm range do you see that there yes and then you
01:00:29 do you see that there yes and then you tell us that a program was started to transfer the production of all prod products to the new technology production process that's correct for the transcript that's at paragraph three one one
01:00:40 at paragraph three one one on page seven of your statement and that included k15 didn't it that transfer over to the new technology it would have been for every product we were making at the time
01:00:52 were making at the time it would the intention would have been to make it with the new technology because
01:00:55 because yeah i think as i explain it's it's a better it's a better insulating material than you in terms of it thermal performance in terms of its thermal performance yes it's a better insulating material yes
01:01:06 it's a better insulating material yes yeah now in terms of timing you tell us at paragraph 3.16 on page 9 of your statement if we go to that that the transfer process
01:01:21 you say it was assigned a reference a ppds
01:01:24 ppds reference can you help us what was ppds uh that was the product and process development system i introduced it i think shortly after i
01:01:35 i introduced it i think shortly after i came to kingspan it was something i'd inherited really from my time at ici it was a way of looking at um when you're when you're changing products when you're developing projects
01:01:47 products when you're developing projects products for the market it was important that everyone was involved in in looking at it that could be that's from production technical marketing sales and that they
01:01:59 technical marketing sales and that they were happy with the product or if it was a major variation they were happy with that yeah and you go on to say you've seen it in the third line a screenshot of data that was captured through that relating to
01:02:11 was captured through that relating to the transfer of the new tech for all phenolic products and you you then explained that this shows that this process was signed off by me in january 2006 and ultimately signed off by the operations director on
01:02:23 signed off by the operations director on the 29th of september 2006. do you see that there yes i do yeah
01:02:31 can you help us as to exactly when it was that the new technology k15 was actually placed onto the market for sale our understanding is it was sometime in 2006 is that right
01:02:42 2006 is that right my understanding it was it was sometime in 2006. uh i mean at the time i don't think i would have been
01:02:50 when i wrote this which was almost a year ago i think i wouldn't have been aware of that and i had to look at a lot of background information to find
01:03:01 a lot of background information to find out when but i think we we deduce that it was probably september 2006
01:03:06 2006 yeah now if we can look back um picking it up at paragraph 3.7 of your witness statement page on page six
01:03:17 on page six from paragraph 3.7 onwards you explain the difference between the old technology and the new technology yes and you say
01:03:28 yes and you say that the original cool theme product had tiny pores in the cells that it was made up from this meant that over a long period of time blowing agent in the cells would leak out or air would leak in which could
01:03:39 out or air would leak in which could affect the insulation quality of the product
01:03:42 product yes and then you explain the marek technology or new technology was better because
01:03:46 because the key differences between the old and new tech were that the new tech had no pores in the cell walls which gave better insulating properties and kept the blowing agent trapped in
01:03:57 and kept the blowing agent trapped in the product and then you say b the product was quicker and more cost effective to produce
01:04:02 produce do you see that there yes and you explain
01:04:05 explain in your witness statement those were the key differences is that right yes yeah
01:04:14 and you go on um if we look now at 310 um just below that we can see at the bottom of that page you say this you say both the old and
01:04:25 you say this you say both the old and new technology products are chemically very similar but it's right though that they're not the same would you agree they're not the same but
01:04:36 would you agree they're not the same but they
01:04:36 they they were um phenol formaldehyde resin products
01:04:40 products in other words the vast bulk was composed of um a polymer between phenol and formaldehyde and that's produced by reacting them
01:04:52 and that's produced by reacting them in a controlled way in water so at the end of that reaction you're left with a liquid which has a lot of what's called
01:05:03 which has a lot of what's called oligomers
01:05:03 oligomers or dimers in it i partially polymerized parts of phenolic right and then that is then taken and converted to a phenolic
01:05:15 and converted to a phenolic solid with a catalyst usually an acidic catalyst
01:05:21 catalyst but the the basic constituents are the same
01:05:24 same right but is it right that a different chemical mix was used as the blowing agent
01:05:30 agent as between old tech and new tech yes if i remember this time i think we were using pentane in the old tech yes zero odp and
01:05:41 in the old tech yes zero odp and isopropyl chloride was used in the new tech
01:05:44 tech it was it was a mix of um pentane and isopropyl chloride right so is this right that the old text used
01:05:52 used just a pentane based blowing agent and the new tech was a mix of isopropyl chloride and pentane yes right so the the new on that basis
01:06:04 yes right so the the new on that basis the new
01:06:05 the new the new product that would be slightly less flammable than pure painting
01:06:14 right and then you say um you also explain in that paragraph that there was a difference in the base resin molecular weight and a different water content is that right yes that's correct
01:06:26 content is that right yes that's correct it was it was all part of the process um i think this technology was developed
01:06:34 i want to say in the 1970s
01:06:38 in in the states uh so it used the same general principles you you took a what's called a resole which is the partially polymerized
01:06:49 partially polymerized phenol for that formaldehyde yes but what i'm seeking to get at is although they may have been in in essence to some extent the same there were also differences weren't there
01:06:58 there there were slight differences in the molecular weight of of the original material but when you polymerize that you would get a very high molecular weight polymer and there were differences in terms of the resin that were used
01:07:10 the resin that were used sorry there were differences in terms of the resin that was used the resin is is the resole and that is purely a phenol formaldehyde um a ligament
01:07:19 ligament as i described i see i thought we'd heard from mr heath yesterday that there'd been a process of trying to ensure that the the uk arm of kingspan
01:07:30 the the uk arm of kingspan could replicate the same resin that had been used in casteren no when the product transferred across i think that's not right i think it's a misunderstanding i think
01:07:41 i think it's a misunderstanding i think the the
01:07:43 the the the basic resol um was very similar uh as i say there were some medical weight differences but the one used uh this is between new
01:07:54 but the one used uh this is between new tech and old tech the resale used in kestrel was exactly simulated for the plant of pembridge in other words it was used exactly the same result i think for
01:08:07 exactly the same result i think for reasons of logistics we got another supplier to make it as an additional supplier in in south wales to produce the product
01:08:18 in south wales to produce the product but the product itself was we specified what the product would be they didn't decide what it was going to be we
01:08:25 be we we said what we wanted yes so you simulated it based on what was being used at kesterin but it was not the same as the resole which had been used in the old tech was it
01:08:36 it no it wasn't it was it was actually the same company we used and we said no we don't want that we want this one which has got a i can't remember it had a i think it would have a slightly lower medicare weight and a higher and a lower
01:08:48 medicare weight and a higher and a lower water content yeah as far as you were aware was there any change to anything about the faces of the the product uh no i think it was
01:08:59 of the the product uh no i think it was the same facing material it was um uh it was a 25 micron foil on a glass it was adhered to a glass mat
01:09:13 it was adhered to a glass mat and was that face uh perforated or unperforated i think for the new products it was initially it was just perforated on one side of the product and the perforations were needed in the
01:09:26 and the perforations were needed in the new process um in order to facilitate the drying fa step of processing because there was always a little bit of water left
01:09:39 always a little bit of water left in in the product and it was it was better
01:09:42 better yeah properties if you could dry it out yeah now the perforations were of the order i think of 0.5 0.5 millimeters or less and originally they
01:09:54 millimeters or less and originally they were about seven millimeters apart i think in a square section so they would have comprised um less than half a percent of the surface area right but there were perforations in the new technology which
01:10:07 perforations in the new technology which there hadn't been in the old tech which had been unperforated do you agree uh yes the old tech i think was unperforated yeah and that's that's consistent with what we've been told by king's band
01:10:18 what we've been told by king's band now they've done a schedule of major changes for us and what we've been told is
01:10:23 is it was a perforated facing yes
01:10:32 that's a physical change to the product isn't it it may not be a change to the chemical composition but it's a key difference between the old
01:10:40 old tech and the new tech would you agree that it had perforations in the foil facing
01:10:46 facing the the product was very very similar um the perforations you weren't actually changing the facing at all you would just as i say putting about
01:10:57 just as i say putting about half a percent uh maybe point eighty percent
01:11:01 percent can you help us why did you not mention that change anywhere in your witness statement you're giving us a very detailed explanation in your statement of all the changes why did you not mention the change from unperforated to perforated
01:11:13 unperforated to perforated i thought i had mentioned perforations in the witness statement right i i'm not sure where but i think i had mentioned it i see well if i if i've missed that then
01:11:25 i see well if i if i've missed that then i'm sure some will point that out but um can we go to the schedule that incidentally sorry if if i did miss it that was an oversight because i was certainly aware of
01:11:36 certainly aware of the perforations yes but i thought i had mentioned it right can we go to the changes spreadsheet kin3022307 that kingspan have
01:11:46 have provided to us and it's row seven we need the native version under the major changes tab
01:12:05 it's a very tricky spreadsheet to look at this one i tried to looking at this
01:12:10 when you say it's a tricky spreadsheet to look at it's just i've seen this spreadsheet before yes yes i saw this this is part of my when did you see this spreadsheet
01:12:21 did you see this spreadsheet um i saw this
01:12:24 um well certainly it's one of the um one of the hearings this came up i see
01:12:32 see let's look at row seven where we see the change to the new kester end technology in
01:12:42 there we go september row six do you see that there on the left hand side we've got the custom end technology and i want to then look at column n in this spreadsheet
01:12:53 this spreadsheet which gives various details about the names of particular individuals involved in considering assessing or testing the new technology foam
01:13:02 foam and can you see it it says that the ppds shows that vincent coppock r d manager was the project manager his role was to work with the dutch manufacturer to understand the technology and bring that technology to
01:13:14 technology and bring that technology to pembridge
01:13:15 pembridge and then it says this malcolm technical director
01:13:18 director updated the status of the ppds confirming that fire testing was required for this project and then philip he's technical services manager signed off the part of the ppds to confirm
01:13:29 to confirm that physical fire tests and certification were completed do you see that there yes i do yeah
01:13:37 now if we can look now at your witness statement paragraph 3.16 on page nine [Music]
01:13:50 you tell us there in the third line that you've seen a screenshot of the data that was captured through this ppds process relating to the transfer of new technology for all phenolic products
01:14:01 technology for all phenolic products and then after you've explained that it was signed off by you in january 06 and ultimately signed off by the operations director on the 29th of september 06 you say this this process did include a
01:14:13 you say this this process did include a section in relation to fire testing and certification which was signed off on the 21st of february 2008 by phil heath which indicates to me that fire testing was one of the requirements
01:14:24 fire testing was one of the requirements to be completed and signing off would indicate that this had been completed for all affected products
01:14:30 products do you see that there yes i do yes can you explain to us how it came to be that the new technology product was being sold two years before the section of the ppds
01:14:42 two years before the section of the ppds relating to fire testing had been signed off in february 2008 i think in this case um it would have been you you tried to get
01:14:56 it would have been you you tried to get everything signed off before before it went out um but in practice it was very difficult to do and as long as the the testing was taking place then that
01:15:07 the testing was taking place then that was deemed to be and there were no obvious problems with it that was deemed to be sufficient um now in this if i can just finish the explanation in this case the primary test
01:15:20 in this case the primary test that would have been required i think was for the sea marking of the product which would have required a fire test um result and i think it was a cs1 d-naught
01:15:31 result and i think it was a cs1 d-naught on the euro class and that would have been printed on the on the labels of the of the of the product as it went out so i assume by this time that c must have been the
01:15:43 by this time that c must have been the cs one d naught must have been on the product and otherwise we couldn't have been selling it i see you've made you say you made that assumption about the ce marking for the product what about other claims that were being made by the
01:15:55 other claims that were being made by the k-15 product that it was national class naught that had been successfully tested to bs-8414 part one what about those how can you sell
01:16:05 sell a product when you haven't completed the suite of fire tests on which you are basing your marketing material well
01:16:16 basing your marketing material well regarding the eight four one four part one that's not really for the product that's for that's for the system so that wouldn't have been it that wouldn't have been for the product well hang on
01:16:25 hang on you change your k15 you've got a different product from the one you tested do you not accept that they're then ought to have been eight four one four tests with the new technology k-15 yeah no i'd take
01:16:38 new technology k-15 yeah no i'd take your point there um because that was part of it that probably should have been part of part of this
01:16:44 of this um and what about the national class naught tests of four seven six part six and part seven uh i think as i said as far as i know it still had the uh uh the part six and part seven
01:16:57 uh uh the part six and part seven uh result were you at all concerned during that period that you were selling a product which hadn't been signed off by philip heath in terms of
01:17:10 signed off by philip heath in terms of relevant fire testing i think
01:17:15 with all these sign-offs it acts as a bureaucratic system and essentially i was a bureaucrat trying to get people to sign off and and chipping them to do it so
01:17:26 and chipping them to do it so for that to be a late that that's quite late
01:17:30 late but it wasn't unusual for people to take their time before they signed off on on something but fire safety is a matter of life safety it's not this is not about its
01:17:41 it's not this is not about its its appearance or it's thermal performance is it it's about life safety no i agree with you absolutely though um but did you ever did you ever think about that during that period and did it ever occur to you
01:17:54 that period and did it ever occur to you that
01:17:55 that it was a potentially very unwise move to be selling a product where you hadn't signed off on the fire testing relating to that new product as i said the product would have had to
01:18:07 as i said the product would have had to have the
01:18:08 have the the european classification or we couldn't have sold it so that that was a necessary requirement um i think you make a valid point about the 8414 but i don't think that would have been
01:18:19 but i don't think that would have been front of mind at the time or about the national class naught it's there on all of kingsman's marketing literature i i believe it had as far as i know it had class naught
01:18:31 had class naught um yes the the old technology did no i think that i think the new head i mean apart from anything else if i remember correctly you can read across from a cs 1d nought
01:18:44 across from a cs 1d nought and that was deemed to be equivalent to a ps4 m6
01:18:49 a ps4 m6 class naught class o well we'll come back to that topic um mr chairman i think that's a good moment for a break yes very well thank you very much well we're gonna have a short break now uh dr rochford we'll
01:19:00 rochford we'll we'll come back at 20 to 12 and we'll see what
01:19:03 see what uh council has to ask you then okay can i ask you please while you're out of the room don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else please thank you very much you'd like to go with the usher
01:19:23 right 20 to 12 rupees
01:39:01 would you ask dr roger to come back in
01:39:10 please
01:39:17 all right dr orson ready to carry on thank you yes mr strange yes dr roxford we were talking about the ppds process yeah in relation to the transfer over to new technology k15
01:39:29 new technology k15 can you just help us as to precisely what steps you took before the product was first sold to market to ensure that its fire performance was equivalent and certainly
01:39:41 performance was equivalent and certainly no
01:39:41 no worse than old technology k-15 well it would have been as i said there was a requirement for euro classification to sell it
01:39:53 for euro classification to sell it so it would have been to ensure that it had the cs1 dna classification but i wouldn't be doing that personally i i would have um taken that as being a
01:40:04 i would have um taken that as being a requirement on the fire classification did you yourself ever check that um the euro classification uh had not worsened in terms of the
01:40:16 uh had not worsened in terms of the product's performance um i
01:40:22 um i did i personally checked no no i didn't personally check but um the product would have been tested so does it amount to this and is this fair that effectively you left it to mr heath
01:40:33 that effectively you left it to mr heath and his team to determine that the appropriate fire testing was carried out as part of that ppds uh i think phil was responsible for fire certification on that on that
01:40:45 certification on that on that ppds so yes that would be the that's the way it worked but nevertheless you were content to begin selling the product while that fire testing process was ongoing yes um yes
01:40:58 yes um yes as i say it would have it would have been classified to the european classification otherwise we couldn't have sold it right if we go back to your uh witness statement um now
01:41:10 statement um now uh at page seven paragraph three one oh
01:41:15 and i want to look again at the last just the last three lines i didn't look at before you say this the differences between the products gave me no indication on a chemical level that
01:41:26 no indication on a chemical level that there should be significant difference in the fire performance of the two products particularly given that both have the same faces do you see that there yes
01:41:34 there yes now i think we can agree now can we that the faces were not the same perforations had been introduced i appreciate you think that's minor but can we agree that perforations
01:41:46 minor but can we agree that perforations were new
01:41:47 were new in the new technology okay as far as i recall perforations were new because i recall there was a process by which we got a patent for pre-perforating the facing yeah so that part of your statement's not correct is
01:41:59 part of your statement's not correct is it where you say particularly given that both had the same faces well it's correct in the sense that they were exactly the same faces it's just one had very
01:42:07 very very small holes in it right and the as i say the purpose was to dry out the water over a long period of time in an oven so we're talking about it would be hours um you know five
01:42:18 it would be hours um you know five ten hours half a day in an oven you just need to very gently get dried out basically but did you ever think about or get an assessment
01:42:29 assessment that looked at whether the perforations made a difference in terms of the product's fire performance i think as we as we looked into it later on uh with the fire focus group i
01:42:41 later on uh with the fire focus group i think there was quite a bit of work done on that yes yes but why wasn't that work done before you started selling the product
01:42:51 why wasn't it done yes um as i say because it had the euro classification so it would have been tested and it would have passed that so right when you say a pass what do you mean to
01:43:03 when you say a pass what do you mean to the euro classification we know there's a sliding scale there's a sliding scale but what do you mean by that that product needed to be a c a c classification so it had and it was a c s one
01:43:14 s one minimum smoke no no droplets okay when you say there that um there should be no significant difference you say the differences between the
01:43:25 you say the differences between the products gave me no indication on a chemical level that there should be significant difference in the fire performance can you take us through what factors led you to make that assessment and reach that conclusion
01:43:36 that conclusion i think probably it comes from my experience with uh phenolics that um they are inherently
01:43:47 um they are inherently very good in fire situations because they're resistant to fire they don't burn easily and they give off very low smoke and this was a phenolic nine of them had
01:43:59 and this was a phenolic nine of them had fire retardants added so there was no difference in in that sense if anything the um the blowing agent was slightly less flammable with with the uh new technology so there was nothing
01:44:12 uh new technology so there was nothing and
01:44:12 and as far as i recall the the um kestrel product had um c s one d naught and uh uh bs four seven six part
01:44:23 six part six and seven so there was nothing obviously that um meant that there would be a difference and when you say there that and you say the products are inherently very good in
01:44:35 the products are inherently very good in fire situations because they're resistant to fire they don't burn easily did you get that information from i i've known that for many years i when i worked with ici
01:44:46 for many years i when i worked with ici um i worked on a product for part of the time where it's called modar which i think was a polyurethane acrylic uh thermosetting resin
01:44:56 resin and the the chief competitor at the time were phenolics and they were used for making things like cable trays in tunnels they're also used in navy
01:45:09 in tunnels they're also used in navy applications where fire and smoke are extremely uh important in terms of fire safety um so i would have had a a very positive view
01:45:20 i would have had a a very positive view of phenolic
01:45:23 i see i appreciate you're saying that so you're talking about a positive view both in terms of fire and smoke or just a positive view in terms of smoke fire and smoke very very good in that
01:45:34 fire and smoke very very good in that sense if that was your view why was there a need to do any further fire testing
01:45:41 well you you obviously do need to do some file testing i mean as i've said you would need to do the um the euro class to make sure that it passed that so you could sell the product yeah and you'd need to do any testing
01:45:53 yeah and you'd need to do any testing national
01:45:54 national testing wouldn't you such as class naught or eight for one for testing if you were
01:45:58 you were representing your product as having met those tests i if if that was a marketing requirement yes you would yes
01:46:10 and you also make a similar point just for completeness at paragraph 11.22 of your witness statement on page 50 in the final three lines of that paragraph
01:46:25 you say picking it up four lines up on the right hand side beginning both you say both old and new technology products were basically phenol formaldehyde foams
01:46:36 formaldehyde foams neither containing fire retardant additives so a significant difference in the fire performance was not expected do you see that there yes was that not expected by you or not expected by others at kingspan
01:46:48 expected by others at kingspan i don't think it was expected by me or anyone else as far as i know
01:46:58 did you consider any effects that the change in resin might have had on the fire performance when you reached that conclusion um as i said the resin was was basically
01:47:10 um as i said the resin was was basically is the same as a phenol formaldehyde resin
01:47:13 resin um it was made in the same way the difference was the water content and the pre-polymerization molecular weight
01:47:22 weight um so i wouldn't have expected any difference in in resin now the new technology k15 as that 2006 had not been incorporated into any test to bs 8414 had it
01:47:35 any test to bs 8414 had it um no i don't think it had and can we agree
01:47:39 agree that that may 2005 8414 part one test report
01:47:44 report should never have been relied on to demonstrate compliance after that point given it wasn't carried out on the new technology k15 i think again with this inquiry and
01:47:55 i think again with this inquiry and looking at looking at the paperwork at the time then that was a mistake yes it shouldn't it shouldn't have been used but
01:48:05 it wasn't our understanding at the time
01:48:12 and can you explain why that wasn't your understanding at the time can you explain why it was your understanding that you could carry on referring to that may 2005 8414 test even though you knew
01:48:25 8414 test even though you knew that there'd been a change in the technology of the product since that time when you say carry on referring yes for many years and we'll see it in the
01:48:37 for many years and we'll see it in the documents
01:48:39 documents it's that one 8414 test that kingspan are relying on again and again and again with the bba the labc
01:48:46 labc with advice to customers many many times can we agree that given the change in technology that shouldn't have been relied on
01:48:55 relied on after 2006. i think in retrospect it was a mistake um after i i do know that tests were carried out subsequently and and the system passed
01:49:09 and and the system passed um with terracotta tiling so it wasn't it wasn't an actual um risk in fact but i think it should have been assessed yes it should have been and you're saying tests were carried out and there was terra cotta tiling are you
01:49:21 and there was terra cotta tiling are you talking about the july 2014 test just before no i know that there was some in uh 2015 and 2016 tests were carried out right but you didn't know those at the time did you no selling k15 between 2006
01:49:34 selling k15 between 2006 and 2014 while you were the technical director
01:49:38 director um no no now moving forward um to 2007 um and 2008 kingsman carried out four tests to bs 8414 part
01:49:49 carried out four tests to bs 8414 part two on a steel frame structure at the bre in 2007 and 2008. two of those were carried out in december 07 and april 08 in partnership with sotech and metsec
01:50:01 partnership with sotech and metsec yeah and two were carried out in partnership with kingspan off-site that was in
01:50:05 was in april 08 and june 08. and you were aware weren't you at the time that all four tests were failures and the system couldn't be classified to be r135 i was
01:50:18 couldn't be classified to be r135 i was aware that there was a system failure in each case yes
01:50:25 now can we go to an internal report that was written by mr meredith dated the 7th of january 2008 this is kin 408847
01:50:40 and just to be clear you confirm in your witness statement this is a paragraph 3.18 page nine that you did receive this report from philip heath on the 29th of january 2008.
01:50:51 heath on the 29th of january 2008. correct yes yes so you would have received this report did you read it when it was sent to you yes i would have read it yes
01:51:02 let's look first at the second page of the report under the title project stakeholders
01:51:10 do you see three under executive summary three headings down it says this project was run jointly between sotech metsec and kingspan with all costs fit three ways if it had been successful so tech would
01:51:22 if it had been successful so tech would have included it in their lpcb approved red book listing therefore k-15 would have got into the red book
01:51:30 red book and then in the next paragraph it says this
01:51:34 this this information is essential to kingspan for all facade sales above 18 meters
01:51:39 meters throughout the uk and ireland not having evidence that our product performs onto a steel frame is causing job losses specifically in scotland on a daily basis
01:51:48 basis however we are fighting the case for each project with the bs 8414 part one onto masonry test data performed in 2005. do you see that there yes do you
01:51:59 do you see that there yes do you remember being aware of that at the time when you received the report yes that was my understanding that if we wanted a steel frame um construction then it was important to
01:52:10 um construction then it was important to carry out the eight four one four part two yeah
01:52:13 two yeah what did you think he meant by um however we are fighting the case for each project with the 8414 onto masonry test data what did you understand him to mean by that i would have assumed that what he was
01:52:25 i would have assumed that what he was talking about was where where there were constructions that were masonry
01:52:30 masonry or a non-combustible substrate that the product was acceptable
01:52:40 i see so you didn't read that any more broadly we are fighting the case for each project with that so you you assumed did you that you were only fighting the case for masonry projects was that your
01:52:51 for masonry projects was that your understanding that was my understanding here
01:52:53 here i mean well whatever however masonry's decide i would have seen masonry as a non-combustible cementitious base or is that because you're referring
01:53:05 base or is that because you're referring to the fact that kingspan goes on to advise its customers that as long as the k-15 has a non-combustible substrate behind it you can use it even in a steel
01:53:16 behind it you can use it even in a steel frame system is that why you're saying that
01:53:19 that that wasn't my understanding at this stage would have been that it was actually on a wall that was a masonry wall or a cementitious wall anyway yes and was it your clear understanding
01:53:31 yes and was it your clear understanding at this point that that was the only basis upon which cake 15 could be used over 18 meters where there was a masonry wall behind it where there was a non-combustible um
01:53:44 where there was a non-combustible um masonry cement uh concrete brick uh wall behind it yeah that would have been my understanding yeah now if we can look at the bottom of this page under the heading
01:53:55 this page under the heading results
01:54:01 we can see there it says by 17 minutes the top fire barrier had breached and the raging inferno moved up to the top thermocouples and pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria of vr135
01:54:15 failing the simple criteria of vr135 and then you're told at the bottom there bs 84142 does not have a pass or fail it needs to be cross-referenced with br135 so just pausing there can we agree that by the time you read this report you
01:54:27 by the time you read this report you would have been aware that br135 contained the pass-fail criteria
01:54:32 criteria i would have been yes yes from that reference yes yeah so this is january 2007.
01:54:37 2007. and then we go over to page three where we get more details sorry this is january 2008 i believe isn't it no it's 2007.
01:54:47 2007. sorry it's 2008 yes sorry the test was in 2007.
01:54:54 and then we if we look over the page there we go at the top it says this the phenolic was burning on its own steam and the bre had to extinguish the test early because it was endangering setting
01:55:07 early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory do you see that there yes and then he says under why did it fail the new technology phenolic is very different in a fire situation to the previous technology
01:55:19 previous technology which has passed several similar tests the old technology would turn into a light ash and fall away leaving the substance to feed the fire and then he says please refer to archive test pictures 47 and 48 which
01:55:31 test pictures 47 and 48 which clearly shows this do you see that there yes yes now it's clear from what he says there isn't it that what had been tested previously
01:55:42 previously and he's included photographs in this report of that 8414 report was old technology k-15 yes
01:55:53 in retrospect i can see that that's that's true um whether it occurred to me immediately at the time i don't know but i i would say that's referring to old technology and he makes the point um
01:56:06 and he makes the point um well you told us earlier this morning that you weren't aware whether the 2005 test was
01:56:11 test was done on old technology or new technology k-15
01:56:14 k-15 would you agree that upon receiving this report
01:56:17 report oh yes on this report yes i would have this would have certainly alerted me to the fact that it was old technology yes and and he's even included pictures giving a comparison
01:56:28 giving a comparison of the 2005 test yeah this test remember that the the pictures looking at the pictures wouldn't tell you whether it's old technology or new technology
01:56:39 technology uh it's his his wording would well it's this wording he says the old technology would turn to a light ash and fall away leaving the substance to feed the fire please refer
01:56:50 substance to feed the fire please refer to archive test pictures which clearly shows this that's very clear isn't it he's telling you that in those pictures you can see old technology yeah i'm sorry i didn't what i was
01:57:02 yeah i'm sorry i didn't what i was referring to was the fact that just looking at the pictures wouldn't tell you its old technology from iva's description here that's clearly what he's trying to tell you yes and i would say he's not
01:57:14 tell you yes and i would say he's not just trying to tell you it's very clear what he's telling you in that paragraph would you agree i think he's referring to the archive pictures and
01:57:25 to the archive pictures and as a way of illustrating his point yes yes
01:57:29 yes now it's clear from those observations just pausing there that mr meredith considered the performance of the k-15 to be the new technology k-15 to be a
01:57:40 to be the new technology k-15 to be a matter of significant concern do you agree
01:57:43 agree i agree although he did come up with some other possibilities as to what could be causing the problem were you concerned when you read this report
01:57:52 report dr rochford i was concerned when i read this report because it was the first really negative report i'd seen on new technologies on a test involving new technology
01:58:04 on a test involving new technology did you have any basis on which to disagree with his assessment there that the new technology phenolic is very different in a fire situation to the previous technology in this test
01:58:15 to the previous technology in this test i don't think that shows that um i think um he's he's saying
01:58:25 sorry it's very different in a fire situation i've just re re-read his words in the sense it's very different in a fire situation um and he's illustrating it with those
01:58:36 and he's illustrating it with those pictures it would show that there is a difference in in in the performance yes yes and it's in in the performance of the phenolic he's just not
01:58:44 just not he's not just highlighting that a different system has failed is he he's saying
01:58:49 saying the new technology phenolic is very different in a fire situation and he actually gives you a description of how he's seen that difference it doesn't turn to light ash and fall away do you see that there i do see that but
01:59:01 do you see that there i do see that but this is a different system it was i can't remember exactly what it was i think it was an aluminium cassette uh and that in itself would perform differently to the cementitious product
01:59:13 differently to the cementitious product that was used in the original test and i think that that is also discussed in his report as a possibility for how
01:59:24 as a possibility for how how it turned out differently you're right it is a different system and he does discuss the differences in the system in this report but can we also agree that he is
01:59:35 but can we also agree that he is highlighting that in his assessment and and you've said before that he's one of the experts within kings valley you know was day-to-day involvement with this his assessment was
01:59:47 this his assessment was that the phenolic itself performed very differently having observed that test can we agree on that yes i think the purpose that either wrote this report and this is his report it's not
01:59:56 it's not it's not from the bre as i understand it um
01:59:59 um was to um make a sit up and and take notice that that there was an issue here when you say it's his report not from the bre are you saying that you
02:00:11 not from the bre are you saying that you weren't aware of observations that were made by the bre about the performance of the phenolic foam at this time i i didn't have any direct contact i think later on in the report he does refer to
02:00:23 refer to off the record conversations with them yes it does we'll come to those in a moment
02:00:27 moment did you ever study any of the photographs that he uh refers to in the report i think i would have at the time although i wouldn't remember them now did you carry out the exercise of comparing and
02:00:39 carry out the exercise of comparing and contrasting the photographs from the two tests
02:00:43 tests i probably would have took time but i can't recall that did you watch the video recording of that december 2007 test again i can't recall if i saw that i know i have seen
02:00:54 know i have seen a um an 8414 test at some point but i can't recall if it's a video or actually whether i was present or not go to page
02:01:06 whether i was present or not go to page three
02:01:06 three now come back to this page in a minute but i want to look at what he says at page
02:01:10 page three in the second paragraph
02:01:21 sorry that we just looked at that um yes sorry if you go further down page three it's two paragraphs up from the bottom there can you see it's it's beginning
02:01:33 can you see it's it's beginning perforations do you see he says this perforations in the phenolic foil faces have caused a reduction in the euro class when tested in the sbi single burning item and then he says
02:01:46 sbi single burning item and then he says loss of the perforations may help do you see that there i do see that yeah so can you see that he's clearly telling you his view that perforations have caused a reduction in the euro class when tested
02:01:58 reduction in the euro class when tested to the single burning item tests as far as i know the product
02:02:02 product still had the same euro class cs1 d naught so
02:02:06 naught so i'm not sure that's correct but it's it's one of the hypotheses that either puts forward well you told us earlier that you hadn't expected there to be any change in the fire performance
02:02:18 fire performance um do you agree that he's telling you here
02:02:22 here it has caused a reduction in the euro class and what basis did you have to question that you're not involved day to day in the testing are you no but um i i know that the product
02:02:33 no but um i i know that the product couldn't have been sold with if the euro class had been um lower than cs1 dean or so where are you he might be he might be talking about some tests
02:02:45 talking about some tests that were carried out separately some development tests well he might be he might not be but um were you concerned when you read that that the perforations have caused a
02:02:56 that the perforations have caused a reduction in the euro class when tested in the sbi did that concern you i i think when if i remember correctly when looking at this there were a number of um possible things that could have gone
02:03:08 um possible things that could have gone wrong
02:03:09 wrong and that was certainly one of them that could have caused the problem so it had to be looked at he's not with respect he's not saying it's a possibility is he he's saying have caused a reduction in the euro
02:03:20 have caused a reduction in the euro class he's i know he's saying a definite language isn't it that he's used yeah but but i don't know where he's getting that from let's look um below this on page three we've touched on this already that there are included
02:03:32 on this already that there are included in
02:03:33 in mr meredith's report some comments from the bre
02:03:36 the bre do you see that there in the middle of the page
02:03:39 the page and it's saying comments from the bre the official line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure however unofficial comments it was
02:03:50 however unofficial comments it was apparent that the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame was apparent and the core continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished they stated they did not
02:04:01 extinguished they stated they did not remember the product performing like that
02:04:03 that last time do you see that there yes did you disagree with those unofficial comments from the bre i i couldn't agree or disagree i wasn't at present at the test
02:04:14 at present at the test so that was that was their opinion were you concerned when you read this report that not only was it mr meredith's assessment that the insulation had performed badly but also
02:04:25 but also the bre's assessment that it continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished i think um assuming that was correct then clearly that would be that would be
02:04:38 then clearly that would be that would be of concern and i i don't want to belittle this this report it was it was quite a dramatic report and i think we took notice of it and said hang on a minute what's what's going on here
02:04:49 here so it wasn't that we ignored it completely when you say you said hang on a minute what's going on here what action did you actually take on the back of this report well if i'm
02:05:00 on the back of this report well if i'm if i remember correctly there were a number of other um 8414 tests planned
02:05:08 so the the plan was to to see if we got the same performance because it was distinctly possible that um this was a a result of the system
02:05:21 this was a a result of the system being tested rather than uh the product and that it might be possible to get a a pass with another test i see did you give any consideration upon
02:05:33 did you give any consideration upon receipt of this report to stopping sales of k-15 certainly for buildings over 18 meters given how
02:05:42 given how it was described by the bre and by mr meredith in this report not on this one but i think uh after another test i did i think there was another test in april and i think i said something at that one that
02:05:53 that one that i i was concerned and should we go back to the old technology if that if that was causing the problem when you say if that was causing the problem i have to say that what led you to think that it might not be causing
02:06:05 to think that it might not be causing the problem given what's said here in these comments because it's a system it's a system test and if if the system fails in such a way that it lets more air in um
02:06:15 air in um i mean you need you need oxygen for a fire and you need a um something that can be oxidized so if if it's failing in such a way that lets more air in than wooden
02:06:27 lets more air in than wooden with a non rigid non-combustible um cladding then clearly that could be a system problem or if there were other other issues with the system that of
02:06:38 other issues with the system that of course dr richard one of the things you're being told here and we'll see it in some later reports is you're being told that the core continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished
02:06:49 how were you in a position to be able to explain that away on the basis that it was a system test no it i'm not explaining the way in that what i'm
02:06:58 what i'm doing is looking at possibilities that that could have happened and you've got a effectively a chimney um
02:07:06 um in in the gap between the insulation and the and the cladding and um as i say it is uh phenolic like any organic material
02:07:17 uh phenolic like any organic material it it's got carbon hydrogen and it will react with oxygen and and at a sufficient temperature once the temperature's reached right it will burn so is it your
02:07:28 right it will burn so is it your evidence that upon receiving this report you thought to yourself well this is a system test there could have been all sorts of reasons for this and therefore we can carry on selling k15 at this time
02:07:39 k15 at this time my my thought would have been this is this is a system test there were quite a few reasons why it may not be a product issue obviously it started in my mind the
02:07:51 obviously it started in my mind the thought
02:07:52 thought we need to keep an eye on this right we go back to uh page three two cup two paragraphs up from the
02:08:00 from the sorry it's on this it's on this page um two paragraphs up from the bre comments can you see mr meredith said this
02:08:08 said this in all honesty from what i have seen the way the phenolic burn is of the most concern
02:08:14 concern therefore we need to add a fire retardant which could also help us get class
02:08:18 class naught do you see that there i do yes so um would do you agree that mr meredith could not have been clearer how concerned he was
02:08:30 how concerned he was about the performance of the phenolic itself oh i think malibu definitely was concerned
02:08:35 concerned we knew that yes yes
02:08:39 and that statement that um therefore we need to add a fire retardant which could also help us to get class naught
02:08:50 get class naught you told us in your witness statement for the transcript this is a 320 on page 10 you don't understand this comment
02:08:57 comment my understanding is that we did have class naught on both old and new technology that's that's correct i think we did have class not on old new technology well would you agree that um what mr meredith's telling you
02:09:10 um what mr meredith's telling you there is that you haven't got class naught for the new technology at this time why would he be writing that if you already had class nord
02:09:21 that if you already had class nord uh i don't know but i think what he might be referring to is there was some tests done um with with the product and facing that didn't get class naught so i think he's
02:09:33 didn't get class naught so i think he's referring to that yeah you've just said test done with the product and the facing i test done of k15 as it sold with the foam and it's facing and you're
02:09:44 with the foam and it's facing and you're saying it didn't get class naught i understand that's what he's probably talking about there yes
02:09:54 did you ever check and speak to your colleagues in the marketing department and say by the way we haven't got class naught for the new technology we're struggling
02:10:05 for the new technology we're struggling to get it
02:10:06 to get it please don't include that on what we're saying about its fire performance did you ever say that as technical director to them
02:10:13 to them as far as i understand the product had class naught by dint of um surface spreader frame and fire propagation and it was
02:10:24 and fire propagation and it was allowable on the surface okay how is what mr meredith's written there consistent with that understanding he's obviously thinking about a different test what different test
02:10:38 a different test what different test it would be a test
02:10:41 with the product with the facing on it well isn't that your product that you're selling
02:10:50 selling as far as i understand the class nor and remember
02:10:53 remember this was not um something that the product was required to to meet but as far as understand that was acceptable if the surface
02:11:04 that was acceptable if the surface material
02:11:05 material had a class zero
02:11:08 okay but i'm asking about what mr meredith is telling you here he says which could also help us get class naught does that not tell you that you don't have it at this point it certainly implies that
02:11:19 at this point it certainly implies that we don't have it at that point
02:11:22 [Applause] [Music]
02:11:28 and did you understand him to mean that in order to get it you would need to add a fire retardant to achieve class naught i think as i say the phenolic foams did not have
02:11:41 as i say the phenolic foams did not have fire retardants in them and did not normally need a fire retardant
02:11:46 retardant um i think it's it's a a possibility that he he wants to look at and i think we did look at the various fire retardants uh later on
02:11:57 various fire retardants uh later on we know that there was a technical meeting the next day after this report was
02:12:01 was um delivered so on the 30th of january 2008 if we can go to the minutes of that meeting it's kin three zeros two two four six six
02:12:14 we can see this is a technical meeting lamination minutes do you see that there 30th of january 2008 pembridge yes and we can see that you're present
02:12:27 that you're present do you see that there in fact it looks like you've taken them i've taken the minutes for this one yeah yes i think we rotated the minutes on these yeah
02:12:34 yeah and do you see under urgent topics for discussion under item 1.1 phenolic fire performance yes it says mexic facade test failure though mineral wall also failed with
02:12:46 though mineral wall also failed with this cladding sorry doctor can you just let me finish it says that in item one but i want to ask you about bullet little bullet three there it says
02:12:57 bullet little bullet three there it says bs476
02:12:58 bs476 part six still elusive for certain formulations look at deep tep excellent ol920 do you see that there no i don't
02:13:09 ol920 do you see that there no i don't actually
02:13:10 actually so under phenolic fire performance the first
02:13:13 first sentence bullet point sorry i i was looking for a number it's met sec for test failure then i am concerned on reproductibility of lab tests and then bs 476 part 6 still elusive for
02:13:26 and then bs 476 part 6 still elusive for certain formulations do you see that there yes i see that and then he says look at deep tvp yeah what did you understand him to mean when what did you mean when you
02:13:37 to mean when what did you mean when you wrote these minutes um bs 476 part 6 still elusive for certain formulations that for certain formulations it was still elusive therefore something needed to be uh looked at yeah and did
02:13:50 needed to be uh looked at yeah and did you
02:13:51 you appreciate at the time that bs 476 part six was a key part of national class naught testing um yes i would have understood that yeah
02:14:02 yes i would have understood that yeah and then look at d-e-e-p-t-e-p etc are those fire retardants to be added d-e-e-p
02:14:10 d-e-e-p is a fire tartan tep is a pharytarden the excellent ol920 is a fire retardant ath is an alternative mineral in place of the
02:14:19 of the calcium carbonate which is added to to neutralize the acid and boric acid yeah so so are we agreed that they're
02:14:30 yeah so so are we agreed that they're all some kind of fire retardants to try and help with the bs476 part six tests yes yes yes now you state in your witness statement that you didn't know that new technology k15 did not have
02:14:42 that new technology k15 did not have class naught yet you were present at this meeting where it was discussed and you took the minutes which clearly record that part six was elusive can you explain why you've said
02:14:53 elusive can you explain why you've said in your witness statement you didn't know that new tech k15 didn't have class naught
02:14:57 naught um i think what i said was that the class
02:15:00 class naught the product always had class naught and it was acceptable to test the facing material and get a
02:15:07 and get a a class not that way that was acceptable i think what this is concerned about is is
02:15:12 is is there a an issue around the um the form the the the foam itself the foam combinate foam facing combination when you say
02:15:23 facing combination when you say um you thought it was acceptable to test the facing material and get a class not that way is is that you referring to the fact that kingspan do some tests on just the foil facer alone
02:15:34 tests on just the foil facer alone not with the foam attached and claim class naught on the basis of that testing
02:15:41 testing yeah i think those were done in i think 2007 i think they were done and you thought that that was acceptable did you that that was um acceptable for the ps476 part six
02:15:53 um acceptable for the ps476 part six that was that was a way of of getting did you ever check the s476 part six
02:15:59 part six and check whether it says clearly in that standard that the test must be carried out on whatever substrate is used in the end-use conditions did you ever check that for yourself
02:16:10 you ever check that for yourself i didn't check personally no no did you ever ask anybody else to check the bs 476 part 6 standard to ensure that that was an appropriate way of carrying out that test
02:16:21 carrying out that test um that was my understanding that it was an appropriate way which is why it was used
02:16:27 now if we go to paragraph three two two of your statement page 11.
02:16:38 you tell us in the final five lines of that paragraph that um if just picking it up you say um five lines up but given these
02:16:50 um five lines up but given these concerns testing such as indicative calorimeter tests on both new and old technology products continued
02:16:56 continued with either meredith and philip heath's team to understand the fire performance of the new technology product and clarify if improvements were necessary do you see that there yes did you approve that course of
02:17:08 yes did you approve that course of action to carry out further testing to understand the far performance of the new technology product
02:17:15 product and clarify if improvements were necessary
02:17:19 necessary yes so is it right that there was a significant enough concern about the fire performance of the new product to require investigation by way of further fire testing
02:17:30 further fire testing well i think the i mean this is this is a
02:17:34 a certainly partly a result of the um test result from the previous day if that's what it was um that that there was a concern
02:17:46 how did you satisfy yourself as technical director that it was safe to continue to sell the product at a time when you were undertaking testing and investigations to find out whether the fire performance
02:17:59 to find out whether the fire performance of the new technology product required improvements in terms of fire performance well i think this is a logical way of looking at ways that the product can be improved and anything
02:18:11 the product can be improved and anything that would have been developed could have been used in the future
02:18:16 future did you as technical director ever give consideration to taking k-15 off the market or certainly off the market in terms of over 18 meter sales
02:18:28 over 18 meter sales i think certainly um later on i'm saying
02:18:34 you know we um i'm just trying to certainly that we
02:18:45 certainly that we uh looked at the possibility of moving back to the old process i think i actually recommended that at one point i'm asking you at this stage you've
02:18:56 i'm asking you at this stage you've decided you're going to carry out some more tests to understand the fire performance you've had a report from mr meredith that expresses his concerns in the strongest possible terms did you at any stage give consideration
02:19:09 did you at any stage give consideration to taking
02:19:10 to taking k15 off the market or certainly off the over 18 meter market i don't think personally um i did well i'll rephrase it
02:19:22 i did well i'll rephrase it i think i certainly considered moving back to the old process um at this stage um i think testing carried on i think the intention was to
02:19:32 was to to come up with a product that was obviously more uh fire had a better fire performance if that was possible and who did you tell anybody that you were considering going back to the old
02:19:43 were considering going back to the old process who did you communicate that to i communicated that on a couple of emails i think it's right
02:19:52 can we look at the monthly activity report prepared by mr meredith for the period fourth of april 2008 this is at kin
02:20:00 kin 403698
02:20:06 so this is mr meredith's monthly report for april 2008 can you remember reading this report at the time um i must have read it at the time i can't remember now having read it but i must
02:20:18 remember now having read it but i must have
02:20:19 have i presume did this definitely come to me
02:20:28 we can't tell for sure that it did come to you i can't remember it but it it's likely i did but normally these reports went to uh was this a tech service report
02:20:40 uh was this a tech service report is this from or was it a report just internal for the technical department it seems to be a monthly activity report right
02:20:51 right i i probably saw it it's all i can say at the moment if we look in the third bullet point it says this indicative calorimeter tests on new k15 versus old have shown a quicker time to ignition and double the heat output for
02:21:03 ignition and double the heat output for the newer product thus confirming initial suspicions in respective reaction to fire do you see that there i do yeah that's that's iva's wording isn't it now sorry can i ask now those
02:21:16 now sorry can i ask now those would be wouldn't they the results of the tests undertaken to understand the difference in fire performance between old and new technology do you agree i'm not sure who i'm not sure what that
02:21:27 i'm not sure who i'm not sure what that indicative calorimeter test was actually um the wording's a bit odd in that a calorimeter normally um combusts the whole of the product
02:21:39 um combusts the whole of the product that's been tested so if you were to put in a piece of foam at the weight 70 grams and and test it
02:21:53 the total heat output um would be the same if the phone was of the same weight doesn't matter what the the fire performance of it is so the fact that there was double the heat
02:22:04 fact that there was double the heat output
02:22:05 output suggested me that you had double the amount of material if that's correct if it's if it's a so it's a it's an odd result
02:22:12 result right did you go back to mr meredith and and say to him this is an odd result can you explain this to me what test have you done how have you got to the conclusion that it's quicker time to ignition and double
02:22:23 it's quicker time to ignition and double the heat output did you do that i think i
02:22:26 i i would have done if if i saw this i honestly don't know if i i did see this or not but i i would have done
02:22:34 so you can't remember ever being aware that further investigations had shown a quicker time to ignition and double the heat output were you never aware of that i wasn't aware of that and it doesn't make sense
02:22:45 aware of that and it doesn't make sense as i say
02:22:46 as i say uh because the same amount of material should give the same heat output so i i think you'd need to see the the actual test result to draw would it make sense if one read
02:22:57 to draw would it make sense if one read it as meaning double the rate of heat output
02:22:59 output it could do yes that that is possible that
02:23:03 that that's what he meant
02:23:07 could it have been bomb calorimeter tests that were being carried out by mr meredith at this time that's what i'm assuming and bomb canarims are normally can normally combust the entire item so you you would get a complete
02:23:20 so you you would get a complete calorific value for the for the whole item did you have that level of knowledge about the testing system at that time is that i knew a lot about um
02:23:31 i knew a lot about um things like bomb cannon retry i knew from previous jobs right that that sort of thing i would have known about it's not specific to installation testing
02:23:43 so your evidence is you're not sure whether you saw this and and if you did see it you think it's a bit odd yes i think it's a bit odd and i think i would have questioned either about it at the time but i
02:23:56 either about it at the time but i don't recall either doing that let's go now to the technical services department monthly report for july 2008 which is
02:24:06 which is exhibited to your witness statement and if we go to paragraph um actually it starts at paragraph 3.21 of your statement on page 10.
02:24:23 yes you you say there four lines up from the bottom i can see from the technical services department monthly report from july 08 that there was a workshop held with metsec to discuss the challenging fire requirements of high-rise facades did
02:24:35 requirements of high-rise facades did you see that there
02:24:41 in the last yes just reading it at the moment
02:24:44 moment i can see from the technical services department monthly report from ioa there was a workshop held with metsec to discuss the challenging fire requirements of high-rise facades and then you say it appears therefore
02:24:55 and then you say it appears therefore that the concern was in relation to the system that was tested as opposed to a particular issue with k-15 do you see that there yes is that a conclusion that you reached recently or something that you
02:25:07 reached recently or something that you actually concluded at the time but the concern was in relation to the system tested as opposed to a particular issue with k-15
02:25:16 i think this was a conclusion i reached having a year ago having having read the um the information that i was shown from the tech services report etc
02:25:33 so i don't know what i would have thought at the time let's look at that technical services report now for july 08 kin 408848
02:25:48 do you see that there yes and this is a report you exhibit to your witness statement and if you go down on page two under the heading project
02:26:00 we see that it says this a sample of the op90 fire retardant phenolic has been sent to the bre for indicative calorimetry testing we hope to find a lower calorific output
02:26:13 we hope to find a lower calorific output and slower time to ignition a product with these characteristics is required to maintain our position in the high-rise facade market above 18 meters do you see that there
02:26:23 there yes so regardless of whether you saw the earlier report from mr meredith do you agree that once you saw this report
02:26:34 that once you saw this report you knew that there were problems around the calorific output and time to ignition of the new product
02:26:45 well again this is the same test that he's he's hoping to do telemetry testing on so
02:26:49 on so i i don't know that that was specifically the issue i think he's he's highlighting that that might be an issue with um k-15 um and his final sentences
02:27:01 um k-15 um and his final sentences yeah a product with these characteristics required to maintain our position in the high-rise facade market i would have tied that in with the next paragraph where he's talking about a bs eight four one four
02:27:12 eight four one four two test when you say a would have dr rutford are you giving us the evidence as to what you would have thought when you read this or are you giving us an analysis now that you've come up with
02:27:24 that you've come up with um i don't know what i would have thought when i read this at the time um well what i'm suggesting to you is that you certainly would have been aware
02:27:35 you certainly would have been aware at this time that there was a problem in terms of calorific output and time to ignition otherwise why are you sending a fire retardant sample for indicative
02:27:46 a fire retardant sample for indicative calorimetry testing do you agree i i believe it's either sending this sample in
02:27:53 sample in to the bre yes um so i think it's part of the investigation it's a normal part of investigation that you would do but then that sentence
02:28:04 that you would do but then that sentence at the end as you've already highlighted a
02:28:06 a product with these characteristics is required to maintain our position in the high-rise facade market above 18 meters it couldn't be clearer could it you haven't got a product
02:28:17 haven't got a product that satisfies those requirements and you're having to do this work in order to identify a product that can maintain your position in that market do you agree i don't
02:28:28 in that market do you agree i don't think it necessarily says that i i think he's
02:28:30 he's he's saying um that that how i would have taken that that is one way of looking at um the approach to the 8414
02:28:42 um the approach to the 8414 part two and to test the product with uh if it's got it improved fire characteristics
02:28:50 can you explain how you understood that sentence at the time what did you understand it to mean forget what he might have meant by it what did you actually take from that a product with these characteristics is
02:29:01 a product with these characteristics is required to maintain our position in the high-rise facade market above 18 meters what did you understand by that
02:29:09 by that i i would have understood that he's he's looking for a um a product with improved fire performances he said well let's read the next paragraph he says a vs 84142 test is being planned
02:29:22 says a vs 84142 test is being planned for august if the op90 product shows beneficial characteristics and then he says this a definite increase has been seen in ts technical services inquiries
02:29:34 ts technical services inquiries questioning phenolic suitability for use over 18 meters do you see that yes so what i put to you is that when you read that paragraph with the one above
02:29:45 with the one above you could have been in no doubt that you didn't have a product that could satisfy that over
02:29:51 that over 18 meter market and questions were being asked about the suitability of k-15 for use above 18 meters i don't think that's true i think what what we didn't have was a
02:30:02 what we didn't have was a assistant test to 8414 part two that passed that's what we didn't have but all of this work over a fire retardant
02:30:13 retardant version of k15 do you not agree that that was because you didn't have a k-15 product that you thought could pass as part of a system test because you'd
02:30:24 as part of a system test because you'd seen it perform so badly in the 2007 test i think that was i think that was one possibility uh the other possibility was that the test itself was um
02:30:37 test itself was um in some way causing causing the failure that the setup of the test well what kind of so we were investigating did you reach at the time sorry what conclusion had you finished your answer
02:30:49 uh no i i i i i'll ask i've lost lost my track now so i'm sorry please what conclusion did you reach at the time
02:30:57 time upon reading this um
02:31:03 that he was i mean just just said he wants a
02:31:07 wants a an eight for one for four part test with the ap920 as as one of the ways that we're looking at to improve uh to get a system that works
02:31:19 get a system that works and what did you understand him to me when he says a definite increase has been seen in technical services inquiries questioning phenolic suitability for use above 18 meters
02:31:31 for use above 18 meters again i don't know what i would have thought but i i would have
02:31:36 i mean looking at it now
02:31:40 it looks like he's saying that um there is some concern because presumably someone's heard about the failures in april and december
02:31:52 the failures in april and december that's how i would have read that were you aware at the time that k-15 was being marketed as suitable for use over 18 meters as far as i i was aware it was being uh marketed for
02:32:05 i was aware it was being uh marketed for use above 18 meters on a masonry or cementitious substrate right now moving on the two tests were then carried out with kingspan
02:32:16 kingspan in partnership with kingspan off-site uh at the bre on the um 9th of april and 6th of june 2008 and again neither system after testing
02:32:27 and again neither system after testing could be classified to br 135 could it they were failures um which can you just give me the dates again yes sorry that was april and june 2008 these were the kingspan off-site tests
02:32:38 these were the kingspan off-site tests or the ones in partnership no i remember with kingspan off-site and i want to ask you about some correspondence in the days after the second unsuccessful test on the 6th of june
02:32:48 june 2008. yep if we could go to kin403704 and look at the bottom of the email chain at the bottom of the first page
02:33:04 so this is mr meredith to you and vincent coppock and copying in philip heath and gwyn davis do you see that there yes and he says this malcolm vincent
02:33:16 yes and he says this malcolm vincent the question of k15's bad fire performance is no longer just an internal one it would seem offsite had a very dramatic test failure therefore i need to know
02:33:28 test failure therefore i need to know how soon i can have samples of the op90 phenolic
02:33:31 phenolic for business critical r d and he goes over the page
02:33:42 he says once i've reviewed the information i will provide a more comprehensive report later however the attached picture shows the most recent k-15 test performed by offsite and k-15 burning under its own
02:33:54 offsite and k-15 burning under its own steam
02:33:55 steam 10 minutes after the test was put out off-site are gravely concerned that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does and then he says to validate the new
02:34:06 and then he says to validate the new product from a fire point of view i would need samples of the following sizes and
02:34:11 sizes and one of the things he asked for there do you see two items down is a part six test and then at the end he says in respect of using just one perforated side on the
02:34:22 using just one perforated side on the structural foil faced phenolic foams it was agreed at the meeting that this could happen but how do we put it in place and make sure it happens is this a ppdf situation does anyone know the cost implications
02:34:33 does anyone know the cost implications do you see that there yes do you accept that it was clear from this email that k-15's bad fire performance was a matter which was known internally within kingspan
02:34:46 known internally within kingspan i accept that the bad performance in these tests uh was known yes and it had performed in a similar way hadn't it to the test
02:34:57 in a similar way hadn't it to the test in 2007 2008 which had also been failures in terms of carrying on burning under its own steam it looks like they're similar i think i think they were different products but
02:35:09 i think they were different products but um i think it was different thickness involved in this
02:35:14 but i see is that what you thought at the time that you put that down to different thicknesses no i i don't think i put it down to i think this was part of a
02:35:24 of a um an effort to try and um make sure we had a system that worked for eight four one four part two and um
02:35:36 how do we get that that was that was what the investigation was about looking at that top paragraph on that page where he's put k-15 burning under its own steam in bold
02:35:50 are you are you sure that you took from this that it was just you didn't have a system that worked for 8414 part two as opposed to being aware that there were concerns about k-15 itself
02:36:04 if i can just um uh take a little bit of a side issue here the the when we tested the product in the laboratory we we ran a blow lamp against
02:36:16 we ran a blow lamp against the product that was how we we tested different formulations etcetera uh and for 10 minutes and generally k-15 would not burn through in that time and when you
02:36:27 through in that time and when you turn the blower lamp off it would not carry on burning so i mean that that's the sort of fire resistant pilot it is so when he's burning under its own steam that says to me that the the temperature reached
02:36:39 me that the the temperature reached and the the supply of oxygen is such that we've got conditions for for it burning as i said before that can be a result of the way the test is set up so
02:36:50 of the way the test is set up so yes it could be a product issue but it's it's the system that's failing when you say when we tested the product in the laboratory we ran a blow lamp against
02:37:00 against it etcetera and you say that on the basis of that k-15 would not burn through when did you do that test we did that all the time that was a standard it wasn't a it wasn't just sorry when i say standard test it wasn't
02:37:11 sorry when i say standard test it wasn't a standard test it was one we did regularly in the laboratory looking at samples
02:37:17 samples why do we see no reference to that in any of mr meredith's emails iva wasn't in the in the laboratory he was um
02:37:26 was um several buildings away as far as i know why do we see no email back from you to iva saying you've got this wrong
02:37:32 wrong we've been testing this and it doesn't burn under its own steam we've tested it under laboratory conditions it does this this this why do we
02:37:40 we not see that anywhere in the documents either may be aware of that i mean he's talking about a particular problem here with with the eight four one four part two test
02:37:50 test and um i'm not going to dispute the fact that he's seen it it performing that way in that test what i'm saying is that that's not a normal behavior of k-15
02:38:02 is there any documentation around these other tests that you did in the laboratory which you say disprove this
02:38:12 if i can rephrase it i'm not saying it disproves this because i've just i did say that given a sufficient supply of oxygen and enough temperature it could burn under its own steam what i'm saying is that
02:38:23 i'm saying is that in a normal test result i didn't have any um
02:38:30 real concern about the performance of the product as as in that sense it didn't easily burn under its own steam did this sorry can i start isn't
02:38:41 steam did this sorry can i start isn't there a difficulty here that you're describing the performance of this material under laboratory testing conditions yes mr meredith meredith is describing the
02:38:53 mr meredith meredith is describing the performance of the product under conditions which are intended to replicate
02:38:59 replicate use in practice the chimney availability of oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere so on and so forth
02:39:07 forth so it's not really possible to say this isn't normal is it it's all you can say is this does not reflect what you've found in the laboratory but it may be normal for the way it performs under uh
02:39:20 for the way it performs under uh something approximating to actual use in a building uh clearly it seems to be doing in this in this particular test so you'd have to say that
02:39:31 say that that is happening in the 8414 part two yeah and systems that have been set up yes and this was at least the second such test of this kind because you'd had the one at the bre's yeah i think um i think we'd had it
02:39:44 yeah i think um i think we'd had it might have even been the third third or fourth right so it's it's starting to generate a pattern of normality one might perhaps it's certainly of concern which is why work is being done on the
02:39:55 is why work is being done on the um fire retardant it's possibilities thank you very much yes mr screen yeah when you say it's certainly of concern were you concerned at the time
02:40:07 were you concerned at the time about the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters given what this large-scale fire testing was showing i wasn't um which
02:40:18 i wasn't um which the reason i wasn't was my understanding was it was being um used against a masonry substrate um per
02:40:29 um per what had happened in the 8414 part one test that was my understanding of how it was being used this as i saw it was a different test this was a steel frame test um
02:40:41 this was a steel frame test um there's a possibility that you can get oxygen into it in it in a different way so it was a different test so i wasn't concerned that what was going out there and what was being recommended
02:40:52 recommended was a problem but clearly we needed to pass this test if we were to get the that was my understanding yeah if we were to get the steel frame business but the masonry test you've just referred to was on a different k-15
02:41:03 referred to was on a different k-15 product wasn't it it was on um as we now know on on the old technology product yes which is why i say should we try the old technology
02:41:14 i say should we try the old technology product
02:41:16 product and see how that performs in the test
02:41:20 did you understand why iva was asking is this a ppds situation can you understand why he was asking that i would imagine if we if we had to put a fire down and it would be a ppds
02:41:31 put a fire down and it would be a ppds situation so i see moving up the email chain we can see you responded five minutes later uh at 9 42 on the 9th of june 2008
02:41:45 on the 9th of june 2008 and you say this um please expedite this trial either if you're confident that old process will pass the test we may have no choice but to provide old process k-15
02:41:56 process k-15 for off-site until the fr issue is sorted out do you see that there yes did you mean by that that you you'd have no choice until you'd sorted out this
02:42:07 out this but to provide old technology k-15 to off-site
02:42:11 off-site for the further tests that they got coming up
02:42:15 coming up anything we provided to them for a test would have to be used um if that's that whatever performed in the test
02:42:23 the test would be what you had to sell that that would be normal so what did you mean when you said we may have no choice but to provide old process k-15 for off-site until the fr
02:42:34 process k-15 for off-site until the fr issue is sorted out are you talking there about providing it to off-site for their testing no it's it's it's providing it and if it passed the implication there
02:42:46 and if it passed the implication there is okay it's shortened but the implication is provide it to off-site for the test if it succeeds in the test then you would obviously provide that carry on providing that um now if
02:43:00 carry on providing that um now if if we moved to offsite you would you'd have to do the whole k15 because i don't think you can you can't distinguish
02:43:08 one from the other so you'd have to you'd have to everything would have to every k-15 product you made would have to be old technology hence i say i know it's a nightmare for processing
02:43:19 i know it's a nightmare for processing switching between the two technologies and i'm saying we can't carry on providing something no fails or fire test that's that's self-evident
02:43:31 that's self-evident yeah so i think you explain this in your witness statement which we'll come to um
02:43:40 you're saying that this email shows that you were worried about providing k15 to market is that your evidence if if if this was the cause of the
02:43:51 if if if this was the cause of the problem
02:43:53 problem if if it fails of our test what i'd suggest to you is there's another way this email can be read which is
02:44:00 is that what you're proposing to do is go back to providing old process k-15 to off-site just for their testing
02:44:11 off-site just for their testing until you've sorted out what you're going to do about the new technology k-15 no that's not what i meant i meant if you if you provide old process k15 you'd have to provide it
02:44:22 process k15 you'd have to provide it that would have to be the product you're providing
02:44:25 providing um when i say until the fr issue is sorted out what i mean is if afar retardant is is the answer then in the future you can
02:44:36 is the answer then in the future you can go back to new technology with that fire retardant
02:44:39 retardant well i'd suggest you that a more natural reading this email is exactly as i just put to you that what you're saying is we've got no choice but to provide offsite with some old process k15 for their testing
02:44:50 their testing until we can sort out what we're doing with the new technology k15 and although that's a nightmare for processing because you're going to have to do an old technology batch you can't carry on providing something
02:45:01 you can't carry on providing something to offsite that you know fails a fire test
02:45:04 test that's what i would suggest to use the natural reading of that email no i don't i don't agree i think what i'm looking at there is if we've got to go back to the old technology then that that's what you've got to do
02:45:16 then that that's what you've got to do and
02:45:17 and if that's if that's the reality you have to do it
02:45:21 to do it are you saying that in this email you're actually suggesting moving back to old process k-15 for the entire
02:45:28 entire market is that what you're saying it would have to be because you can't distinguish you can't make a batch practically you can't really make a batch for one person that's labored up for
02:45:40 for one person that's labored up for them
02:45:41 them um because you're you you when you're making a batch you're doing uh a run and it's it would give you logistical problems it would give you all sorts of selection
02:45:53 would give you all sorts of selection problems in the warehouse if you change you change
02:46:00 but is that what you're actually saying to your colleagues in this email that you're
02:46:05 you're did you think that at the time that you were suggesting moving back to old process k-15 for the entire market absolutely yeah and you hope they understood that did you at the time
02:46:17 understood that did you at the time uh yes yes i think if you go with the next email up you'll see oh well maybe it's not this one but there was certainly a comment from gwyn at one stage that says the old
02:46:30 gwyn at one stage that says the old process
02:46:31 process had had also failed which
02:46:36 yes there is i think an email chain if we
02:46:40 we go up the email chain
02:46:49 we'll come to that in a moment i think that might be in a separate email chain we can come back to there yeah i do recall that right now but just back to your email
02:47:00 back to your email this is a direct instruction from you to expedite the production of samples of the op90
02:47:06 the op90 fire retardant phenolic for testing is that correct yes and did you consider that to be a matter of urgency at the time i did yeah
02:47:19 i did yeah and we know from having looked at the july report already that your instructor was followed and that those trial samples were sent to the bre for indicative calorimetry testing yes
02:47:30 testing yes i believe so yes
02:47:38 did you ever raise any concerns about the risks of supplying customers with new technology k15 outside of this email chain
02:47:51 i'm not sure
02:47:54 what other action did you take if public safety was genuinely your concern at this time
02:48:02 this time well we were working on um
02:48:07 looking for a more fr uh fire resistant version if that if that was the problem as i say uh i seem to recall on this email chain that that quinn came back and said
02:48:20 that that quinn came back and said hang on a minute there was a problem with the old process and i think that's why it didn't we didn't move back to the old process if you really were concerned about
02:48:31 if you really were concerned about public safety why not do an awful lot more than we see in this
02:48:36 in this email stream
02:48:40 well i i'm concerned about the potential um this is uh um the potential for public safety but again we're testing a system
02:48:53 again we're testing a system here and it's a system that's failed it's not
02:48:56 it's not necessarily the product there's no reference
02:49:00 reference there by you or by anyone else in this string to the public to safety to fire safety to general sale is there
02:49:08 well we're discussing a technical issue uh development issue so we wouldn't normally put that in an email but if you were
02:49:19 put that in an email but if you were concerned why weren't you doing more given the pattern the clear pattern that you've seen of how the new technology k15 is performing and the fact you've still not got to a point of having a new
02:49:31 still not got to a point of having a new technology k15 that everyone's comfortable with well
02:49:37 in terms of how it's performing i'm i'm suggesting you know let's go back to the old technology if if that's the issue and then i'm hearing that the old
02:49:48 and then i'm hearing that the old technology is also giving a problem so that sounds like it's not the issue it sounds like the issue is actually something else to do with the test dr rock said if this product was being
02:49:59 dr rock said if this product was being supplied to the market for use above 18 meters it was obviously going to be incorporated into other systems wasn't it it it as far as i understood it it was
02:50:12 it it as far as i understood it it was only going to be used with um a non-combustible cladding
02:50:19 on a masonry substrate so i see it so it was your understanding that those limitations were being made that was that was clear to any potential push that was certainly my understanding of the market right
02:50:31 the market right so well maybe that answers my next question which was going to be did you have any concerns about its performance when used in other systems given what you'd learned about its performance
02:50:43 performance in the two systems which have been clearly clearly tested sorry clearly there's a problem with in this system um with the 8414 uh
02:50:54 um with the 8414 uh with whatever the cladding was in the system uh there's a problem so i'd be concerned if it was used in this system and other systems well if they had if they had a
02:51:06 they had a non-combustible cladding then then i i wouldn't and it was on a masonry substrate i wouldn't have been concerned at this stage thank you yes what was it that a lady your concerns
02:51:18 what was it that a lady your concerns about the fire performance of the new technology k-15 which meant that it was sufficient for the product to go on being sold to market
02:51:26 market i think it was i think it was comments that the the old process was also [Music]
02:51:33 [Music] giving problems in the same test so again it's it's pointing to the fact that it's a it's a test issue rather than the product issue
02:51:42 if we move forward with the story we know that in 2008 you philip heath and mr meredith continue to be involved in dealing with queries from kingspan off-site
02:51:51 off-site about the failed tests in systems incorporating k-15 and on the 16th of july 2008 mr wilkinson
02:51:59 wilkinson aiden wilkinson of kingspan offsite put his concerns in writing we can just go to that this is at
02:52:12 kin403714 so we can see at the bottom of that page mr wilkinson has put his concerns in writing
02:52:22 writing about the performance and you see he says following the recent fire test at the bre we have the following concerns after the heat source was extinguished
02:52:33 after the heat source was extinguished the k-15 continued to burn on for a considerable time in fact it was in excess of 30 minutes it was only extinguished when the bre applied water to it at the end of the one hour duration
02:52:43 duration the heat source had been extinguished at 22 minutes is this what is expected of this material is it normal for k-15 to continue to burn for an excess of 30 minutes after the removal
02:52:54 minutes after the removal of the ignition source is the reason for the failure specific to a batch of k-15 to the current formulation of k-15 bearing in mind that this batch was specifically manufactured for these test samples or to the details that we
02:53:07 test samples or to the details that we used we are concerned with the lack of response with regard to the performance of the k15 product on the bs 8414 test that we have completed we have a further four tests booked as you're aware and at this time we are
02:53:19 you're aware and at this time we are unsure of the way forward in terms of detailing the samples to pass the test we have the samples built here at sherburne insulated with material from the same batch as the previous failed
02:53:30 the same batch as the previous failed tests
02:53:31 tests is the material appropriate to use on the future tests you now you have now had the official video so you can see first hand the issue with performance having performed this test yourselves in
02:53:43 having performed this test yourselves in the past and achieved a pass is this what you would have expected please contact us by return do you see that there yes
02:53:54 now above that going up the chain um mr heath and sends an email
02:54:03 to you to mr meredith mr coppock cece and gwyn davis
02:54:12 davis and he says this um good evening we need to be careful how we answer the concerns of offsite any suggestions regards phil can you help us
02:54:20 help us um why
02:54:23 um why why did you think there was a need to be careful how the concerns of offsite were answered
02:54:30 answered i'm not sure exactly what phil means in this in this email i think it's uh i mean it's just one to be
02:54:40 be we need to consider um the details of this uh email and how do we address them that's how i would have taken it well
02:54:51 that's how i would have taken it well can i suggest that um the reason mr heath was saying you need to be careful is because off-site hadn't been told that there'd been a change in technology
02:55:02 that there'd been a change in technology of the k-15 and that you'd already observed
02:55:05 observed a worsening of the fire performance in the tests that kingspan had carried out with metsec and sotech that's right isn't it i i don't know if it's right i mean
02:55:16 i i don't know if it's right i mean that's your suggestion i don't know that that's what he meant
02:55:22 is it possible that that's what he meant looking back and and thinking back now i don't know what he meant there were kingspan off-site so far as you
02:55:33 were kingspan off-site so far as you were aware ever told about the change in the technology and about what kingspan itself had observed about its change in fire performance
02:55:44 change in fire performance um i don't know
02:55:49 well this email is being written to you were you not concerned to find out mr wilkinson is clearly raising significant concerns about the the way that k-15 has performed
02:56:01 that k-15 has performed as the technical director did you not take it upon yourself to find out exactly what they had and hadn't been told and make sure they were told the truth i think the ema the email was actually
02:56:13 i think the ema the email was actually not to me originally it was made in will wilkinson to either yes but then you're clearly
02:56:20 clearly philippines then copies i'm sorry one time
02:56:25 time sorry sorry how did you not feel you hadn't finished your answer
02:56:30 um i just said that the the emails written from aidan wilkinson um to either meredith and then philippe has copied me in
02:56:42 so would you have read that email below when he copied you in i think i would have read it yes let's look at the top of the chain
02:56:55 let's look at the top of the chain here we can see your response to mr heath mr meredith mr coppock and you say this you say i think the best response at the moment is to say that we are investigating possible
02:57:07 that we are investigating possible reasons for the failure and we'll come back to them as soon as we are clearer on what caused it meanwhile we recommend they do not test the other material they have used to fabricate the installations
02:57:18 fabricate the installations as that was the same batch and may suffer from a similar problem if necessary i propose we could send old formulation material for the testing if you think this has a
02:57:29 for the testing if you think this has a better chance and they are pressing but this is undesirable for several reasons and i'd rather delay and get the new fr product made as soon as hexian
02:57:39 as hexian can supply material which we are waiting on
02:57:43 on do you see that there i do yes why are you suggesting to your colleagues that you tell them that you're investigating possible reasons for the failure and you'll come back to them in circumstances where you had a growing
02:57:56 in circumstances where you had a growing body of evidence about the poor performance of k-15 at this time
02:58:02 this time i think what i'm saying here is because the question was from phil how do we respond to offsite so what i'm saying is the best response at the moment is say we're investigating possible reasons that's that's correct
02:58:13 that's that's correct for the failure and come back to them um and to recommend they don't test the other material uh as it's from same batch may suffer a problem until we understand what the
02:58:24 problem until we understand what the issue is
02:58:25 issue is um then that's what we should do clearly whatever was supplied to them was not
02:58:32 was not passing their fire test so we need to look at what can be supplied that could pass a fire test and as again i go on to say we could
02:58:45 and as again i go on to say we could supply the old formulation for the testing if you think it has a better chance in their pressing if the old formulation works then we would have to as i said before
02:58:58 make all the k-15 product out of the old technology product which is why why i say this is undesirable for several reasons uh i'd rather they get the fr product made as soon as hexing can supply
02:59:09 made as soon as hexing can supply material so that was the thinking at the time well dr rutchwood i'd suggest that what you put in that second sentence of that first paragraph is misleading meanwhile we recommend they do not test
02:59:20 meanwhile we recommend they do not test other material they have used to fabricate the installations as that was the same batch and may suffer from a similar problem you're proposing to tell them that it might be about the batch but it's right isn't it that you knew
02:59:32 but it's right isn't it that you knew full well by this time that there were serious problems with the performance of k-15 you'd seen it in the tests that had been done in 2007-2008 and in the calorimeter testing
02:59:43 2007-2008 and in the calorimeter testing do you agree i agree there was a problem with
02:59:46 with uh the performance of k15 in in the 8414 part 2 testing that we've done to date yes so why not tell king span offside though
02:59:56 though it's it's just the system um
03:00:01 the system test gave uh similar results uh or in terms of what was happening so clearly it didn't
03:00:12 what was happening so clearly it didn't make any sense to provide them with more material from the same of the same product
03:00:17 product why not tell them that you had experienced very similar failures why not be
03:00:21 not be open with them and say well actually as it happens we've had similar problems k-15 continuing to burn under its own steam
03:00:28 steam we did these tests they were failures we've had the same problem we're looking at a research and development product why not be open with them
03:00:36 them about this why suggest that it might be down to a bad batch
03:00:42 yeah i see what you i see what you're getting at there um i think it was because my concern would have been at the time that we don't alarm them
03:00:53 that we don't alarm them unnecessarily if if it wasn't the um the k15 that was causing the problem
03:01:01 problem until we understand what what is causing the problem which is why i suggest sending the old formulation material for it now that was the suggestion
03:01:15 for it now that was the suggestion um it wasn't it wasn't desirable but it was it was a suggestion if we did that we'd have to supply that uh in the future for k-15
03:01:26 uh in the future for k-15 mr chairman i have some more questions on this but i think it's a good moment to break
03:01:30 to break yes yes probably is all right thank you uh dr oxford we're gonna have a break now so everyone can get some lunch uh we'll come back at five past two please okay and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or
03:01:42 to anyone about your evidence or anything
03:01:42 anything relating to it while you're away all right thank you very much thank you
03:01:54 thank you five balls two please
03:02:12 you