Kingspan's Phase 2 closing statement arguing that PE ACM cladding was the overwhelming cause of fire spread, not K15 insulation. Counsel defends K15 safety when properly used while acknowledging corporate shortcomings.
00:20:34 foreign
00:20:41 well now the next statement is going to be made by Mr Grant Webb King's Council on behalf of kingspan and Mr Webb when you're ready we should be pleased to hear you thank you very much
00:20:58 Mr chairman Mr istafan Mr akbal thank you
00:21:03 the grenfell Tower of fire was a tragedy but should never have happened and it's phase one report the inquiry concluded that the cladding system on
00:21:15 concluded that the cladding system on grenfell Tower did not comply with the building regulations and that the PE ACM manufactured by iconic was the principal reason for the rapid fire spread
00:21:26 reason for the rapid fire spread at the end of the phase two hearings on day 308 you said this sir and I quote in the course of the hearings it has become apparent that many mistakes were
00:21:38 become apparent that many mistakes were made
00:21:38 made and many witnesses have acknowledged that they or the organizations they represented failed in one way or another to meet the standards to be expected of them
00:21:49 them however in order properly to identify and evaluate the underlying causes of the fire the panel will have to consider the evidence in detail to determine the
00:22:00 the evidence in detail to determine the extent of which such failures contributed to the disaster
00:22:06 next stage of this inquiry process must as you have said sir ensure that the true causes of this tragedy are identified and it's in this context that kingspan
00:22:17 and it's in this context that kingspan insulation now invites the inquiry to make the following five findings based upon the totality of the evidence submitted during phase two firstly Not only was the presence of the
00:22:31 firstly Not only was the presence of the PE ACM cladding the principal cause of the fire spread over the tower as has already been found but it was the overwhelming cause of the rapid fire spread and of the nature and
00:22:43 rapid fire spread and of the nature and speed of the fire spread across the tower
00:22:47 tower when it comes to causative potency the expert evidence demonstrates in our submission that the presence of the PE ACM
00:22:56 ACM effectively eclipses everything else secondly the expert evidence demonstrates that the type of insulation used behind the PE ACM cladding was not
00:23:08 used behind the PE ACM cladding was not relevant to the nature and speed of the spread of the fire over the tower all the types of insulation tested acted in fundamentally the same way
00:23:19 in fundamentally the same way by retaining heat within the system that was the case for both combustible and non-combustible insulation when tested by professor bispy
00:23:30 tested by professor bispy thirdly large-scale testing has demonstrated that k-15 is a safe form of insulation when used in appropriate systems
00:23:39 systems as the inquiry is aware k-15 of the type installed on the tower has been used in 15 different cladding systems which have successfully met br135 criteria when
00:23:52 successfully met br135 criteria when tested to bs8414 the details of which have been disclosed to the inquiry fourthly there is no evidence before the inquiry that any person was adversely
00:24:03 inquiry that any person was adversely affected by any toxic smoke from k-15 Professor Purser made very clear and I quote
00:24:13 he did not consider phenolic Insulation at all end quote this was because of the very low percentage of k-15 on the tower but also because of its location on the tower
00:24:27 because of its location on the tower fifthly while there are shortcomings in relation to the testing and certification of k-15 for which kingspan insulation has sincerely apologized these had no bearing on the selection of
00:24:39 these had no bearing on the selection of the PE ACM product which would have been unsafe in any cladding system and should never have been used on a high-rise building with any form of insulation
00:24:51 building with any form of insulation kingspan's insulations shortcoming while deeply regrettable were not in any way the cause of the fire or the nature or speed of the spread of the fire
00:25:03 so these missions are therefore divided into four parts first I will set out some Fuller submissions on each of those points that I have just briefly outlined second I will explain why there are some
00:25:17 second I will explain why there are some limited but important corrections to the phase one report which we invite the inquiry to make in light of the expert evidence
00:25:25 evidence third I will summarize kingspan installation's response to the criticisms which been made against it and fourth I'll make some concluding remarks
00:25:34 remarks so turning to part one before going into the detailed submissions I'd like to summarize the context in which K15 came to be used on grenfell Tower as you're aware Kingsman insulation was
00:25:47 as you're aware Kingsman insulation was not involved in the refurbishment of Grenville Tower and played no role in either the design or the installation of the cladding system it provided no specific advice or
00:25:58 it provided no specific advice or technical guidance in respect of the suitability of k-15 to those responsible for the design or the implementation of the refurbishment it had no contractual relationship with
00:26:09 it had no contractual relationship with the council or the TMO or any of the designers or the contractors engaged on the refurbishment it did not provide any products directly to those involved in the refurbishment
00:26:22 to those involved in the refurbishment it was not informed that k-15 was going to be used on the tower and it was not aware that k-15 had been used on the tower until after the fire
00:26:33 used on the tower until after the fire that puts it in a very different context to other manufacturers of products used on the tower k-15 only came to be used on the tower at all because as you have heard there's
00:26:44 at all because as you have heard there's a temporary supply problem with the celatex PIR insulation which had been specified for use on the tower those responsible for the refurbishment therefore purchased a limited amount of
00:26:56 therefore purchased a limited amount of k-15 to bridge that supply problem in total only about five percent of the insulation purchased for use on the facade of Grenville Tower was k-15
00:27:09 facade of Grenville Tower was k-15 I'll now turn to the first issue which I outlined namely the fact that the overwhelming cause of the rapid fire spread across the tower was the presence of the PE ACM cladding manufactured by
00:27:21 of the PE ACM cladding manufactured by iconic
00:27:24 paragraph 4B of its written submissions iconic has asserted that the expert evidence given in Phase 2 was and I quote
00:27:33 quote to the effect that acmpe panels are not in themselves unsafe I noted that wasn't repeated in the oral submissions earlier today
00:27:44 submissions earlier today and it is of course a matter for you for the inquiry to consider that submission but certainly in our submission that is a misrepresentation
00:27:56 a misrepresentation of the expert evidence from Professor Bisby
00:28:00 Bisby Professor Bisby could not in our submission have been clearer about the dangers posed by pe ACM his own testing enabled him to conclude with authority the
00:28:13 with authority the p-e-a-p-e-a-acm and I quote represents extreme fire hazards and is uniquely hazardous his words and also quote is not a product that
00:28:25 and also quote is not a product that should be used ever it's not clear on what basis iconic is inviting the panel to conclude that uniquely hazardous or any of those other descriptors should be construed as
00:28:37 descriptors should be construed as meaning not unsafe Professor bisby's testing also enabled him to confirm his position on causation and I quote it remains my view that of
00:28:49 and I quote it remains my view that of the products and materials present in the external wall assembly of Grenville Tower the raynabond PE was primarily responsible for the rate and extent of fire spread
00:29:00 fire spread Professor Bisby provided his expert opinion to the inquiry on the dangers of using PE ACM in any planning system he explained and I quote regulation before of the building regulations requires us
00:29:13 of the building regulations requires us to adequately limit the external spread of Fire
00:29:16 of Fire if you have acmpe used in anything other than insubstantial quantities I don't think you can be confident you've done that as a designer
00:29:27 you've done that as a designer that was day 291 page 38. in other words Professor bisby's assessment following his own testing was that any building with PE ACM cladding
00:29:38 that any building with PE ACM cladding will necessarily fail to comply with the building regulations because of its hazards
00:29:44 hazards he made clear but it should not be used the dangers by posed by pe ACM cannot be adequately controlled so as to render it's safe
00:29:56 it's now clear that as far back as 2001 the government had commissioned large-scale testing of a PE ACM system combined with mineral fiber insulation
00:30:07 combined with mineral fiber insulation that test as you know failed it is deeply regrettable that no action was taken on behalf of the government in respect of that test failure to investigate further whether PE ACM could
00:30:20 investigate further whether PE ACM could ever be used safely the government has recognized that its testing was not published and should have been
00:30:28 have been it is submitted that this was an important missed opportunity
00:30:33 iconic has not disclosed any large-scale testing of any system incorporating its own PE ACM product in those circumstances it is not at all clear in my submission how iconic could
00:30:45 clear in my submission how iconic could ever have considered that its product in any form was safe for use on tall residential buildings prior to the grandfather Tower refurbishment iconic knew that the
00:30:57 refurbishment iconic knew that the cassette version of its PE ATM cladding only achieved euroclast E when tested in those smaller scale tests it therefore knew or should have known
00:31:08 it therefore knew or should have known that its claim of a euroclass b classification was incorrect certainly in respect of the cassette version used on grenful Tower it knew or should have known that the
00:31:20 it knew or should have known that the product was unsafe and not suitable for use on tour residential buildings
00:31:27 had iconic published the fact that PE ACM cassettes achieved a Euro Class E classification then in our submission it seems highly unlikely that it would ever have been selected by a competent designer for use
00:31:41 selected by a competent designer for use in any cladding system for a high-rise Residential Building the effect of the inaccurate Euro Class B rating was the daconics PE ACM product
00:31:53 B rating was the daconics PE ACM product could in theory be used in a cladding system under the linear route under the building regulations if combined with non-combustible insulation
00:32:04 non-combustible insulation in our submission is now clear from the expert evidence that such a system would have been utterly unsafe the large-scale testing commissioned by
00:32:15 the large-scale testing commissioned by the dclg in 2017 demonstrated that PE ACS ATM systems failed in under eight minutes both when using non-combustible mineral wool and when combined with
00:32:26 mineral wool and when combined with combustible PIR insulation the extensive modeling undertaken by effectus has demonstrated the PE ACM was so dominant in the fire spread at the
00:32:38 so dominant in the fire spread at the tower that there would be no material difference in the rate of that fire spread if combustible PIR installation had been replaced with non-combustible insulation
00:32:49 insulation and of course the evidence of professors Bisby and torreiro in module 7 is consistent with that research by effectus and has confirmed the dangers of PE ACM in combination with any form
00:33:02 of PE ACM in combination with any form of insulation even if the peacm had genuinely had a euroclass b classification it could still not have been put it would still not have been permissible to combine
00:33:13 not have been permissible to combine that with cladding that padding with PIR or phenolic insulation under the linear route to compliance that is a failing in our submission which rests with those responsible for
00:33:25 which rests with those responsible for the design and the construction of the refurbishment it was a failing which should have been identified by building control but was not
00:33:35 moving on to the second issue identified a paragraph 4B of their written submissions iconic has also asserted that the expert evidence was the effect that PE ACM is only unsafe if combined
00:33:47 that PE ACM is only unsafe if combined with combustible insulation again of course it is a matter entirely for the inquiry but again we submit but that is a misrepresentation of the totality of Professor bisby's evidence
00:33:59 totality of Professor bisby's evidence his evidence was precisely the opposite Professor Bisby concluded that it was the insulating properties of the installation used and not its combustibility that was relevant to the
00:34:11 combustibility that was relevant to the fire spread caused by pe ACM its paragraph 686 of his work 2 package report and also day 289 on page 178.
00:34:23 report and also day 289 on page 178. explain this all of his fire tests showed that similar results were obtained whether PE ACM was combined with non-combustible mineral fiber insulation or with combustible PIR or phenolic insulation
00:34:36 combustible PIR or phenolic insulation he explained that his testing showed I quote all cases that involve installation of the act of the cavity are broadly similar whether the insulation was combustible or not and
00:34:47 insulation was combustible or not and whether foil faces were present or not he described the total heat release as being broadly similar with each of the types of insulation he tested it's day 289 page 181
00:35:00 289 page 181 in all cases the raynorbond PE and I quote became fully involved in the fire conclusion was that the insulation product did not need to burn in order
00:35:11 product did not need to burn in order for an escalation to occur it was sufficient that the insulation product allowed heat to be retained within the system day 289 page 176 in fact the systems using foil faced
00:35:23 in fact the systems using foil faced non-combustible mineral fiber actually resulted in the PE ACM being fully involved in the fire more quickly than those comprising foil-faced combustible insulation paragraph 685 of the work
00:35:36 insulation paragraph 685 of the work package 2 report Professor Bisbee also made clear that his testing had real-world implications as it showed I quote that even a comparatively small ignition Source such
00:35:48 comparatively small ignition Source such as must be expected in a residential fire scenario can under the right circumstances lead to irreversible and severe escalation of burning and fire spread in orn a ventilated rainscreen
00:36:01 spread in orn a ventilated rainscreen cladding system incorporating ACM panels with a polyethylene filler stroke core alongside either combustible or non-combustible insulation paragraph 702
00:36:12 non-combustible insulation paragraph 702 of his work package 2 report in summary therefore Professor bisby's evidence could not in our submission be clearer iconics PE ACM was unsafe for
00:36:23 clearer iconics PE ACM was unsafe for use with any form of insulation combustible or non-combustible his evidence means that iconic's PE ACM product could never safely be used and so we shouldn't submit should not have
00:36:35 so we shouldn't submit should not have been marketed I know the panel will be astute to ensure that the clear conclusions of the experts are not now misrepresented Professor torreiro agreed with Professor
00:36:47 Professor torreiro agreed with Professor bisby's conclusions that it was the ability of the installation to retain heat within the system not to the combustibility of the installation which resulted in PE ACM entering in his words a runaway phase of fire propagation that
00:37:00 a runaway phase of fire propagation that was day 292 page 97. installation is designed to retain heat and it plays a vital role in this regard for an environmental perspective the
00:37:12 for an environmental perspective the need for insulation in rainscreen cladding refurbishments such as grenfell Tower is a regulatory requirement mandated by part L of the building regulations
00:37:23 regulations therefore a cadding product must be designed to be safe for use with insulation it must be capable of dealing with the heat inevitably retained by the
00:37:34 heat inevitably retained by the insulation it's there for a fundamental importance that the experts have concluded that iconic's peacm product could not be safely used with any form of insulation
00:37:46 safely used with any form of insulation in addition it's important to note that Professor bisby's opinion based on the results of his testing was and I quote the energy contribution from the installation products is comparatively quite small if you compare it against
00:37:58 quite small if you compare it against something like the polyethylene from ACM once it starts burning when asked by Council to inquiry to quantify the meaning of quite small he said that it could be between two to ten percent that stayed 290 page 23.
00:38:11 percent that stayed 290 page 23. kingspan insulation has explained in its written submissions why it considers the professor's bisbee's 2 to 10 estimate is in fact likely to be an overestimate but even working with those Figures it's
00:38:23 even working with those Figures it's clear that any heat release contribution from k-15 would have been negligible between 0.1 and 0.5 percent of all energy produced given that k-15 was only
00:38:34 energy produced given that k-15 was only five percent of the installation ordered for use on the tower in legal terms in our submission and the energy contribution from k-15 would truly have been de Minimus it's also interesting to note that
00:38:46 it's also interesting to note that Professor bisbee's only experiments showed the PE ACM combined with unfaced mineral fiber insulation either type available for use in rainscreen cadding at the time reached critical time and
00:38:58 at the time reached critical time and time of peak heat release rate marginally more quickly on average than when combined with either full-faced PIR or phenolic insulation similar factors modeling also showed
00:39:11 similar factors modeling also showed that if PIR had been substituted with non-combustible insulation the fire propagation would have been marginally quicker
00:39:18 quicker and in addition a 2017 dclg test of PE ACM with mineral fiber again failed marginally more quickly than with PIR in summary all of the expert evidence is
00:39:29 in summary all of the expert evidence is consistent the type of insulation made no material difference to the nature and speed of the spread of the fire at the tower
00:39:36 tower critically there is absolutely no expert evidence to support any claim that the nature or the speed of the spread of the Grenville Tower fire would have been materially different if non-combustible
00:39:47 materially different if non-combustible insulation had been used instead of combustible insulation
00:39:53 moving to the third Point Professor Torero was very careful in his evidence to explain that it is the cladding system as a whole which must be assessed for safety he explained that systems made of
00:40:05 he explained that systems made of entirely non-combustible materials can be unsafe systems as I've said k-15 of the type installed on the tower has been used in 15 different cutting systems which have
00:40:17 different cutting systems which have been successfully which have successfully met the br135 criteria when subjected to a large-scale bs-8414 test the there are other examples of 8414
00:40:29 the there are other examples of 8414 testing of such systems which kingspan was not involved in in addition K15 has therefore been demonstrated by those large-scale tests to be a safe form of insulation when used in
00:40:40 form of insulation when used in appropriate systems as far as Kingsman installation is aware no other rainscreen installation has been used in so many different cladding systems that have successfully met the
00:40:51 systems that have successfully met the br135 performance criteria when tested in large-scale bsa414 tests details of each of those 15 large-scale tests been provided to the inquiry and
00:41:03 tests been provided to the inquiry and Council the inquiry stated on day 113 those large-scale tests would be examined as part of the inquiry process and no doubt they have been carefully examined they are valid tests of
00:41:14 examined they are valid tests of relevant systems there is no expert evidence to the contrary
00:41:20 contrary in contrast it is striking that this inquiry process has not brought to light a single instance of a PE ACM clouding system
00:41:29 system meeting ABS 8414 test and the br135 criteria
00:41:35 criteria the evidence obtained by an inquiry shows that whenever a clouding system incorporating pacm has been subjected to a large-scale testing that system has failed indeed Professor Bisby very memorably
00:41:47 indeed Professor Bisby very memorably threw down the gauntlet on this issue he said I quote I defy you to pass a bs-8414 test with PE ACN that was day
00:41:58 bs-8414 test with PE ACN that was day two 290 page 188 those are strong words which in our submission vividly demonstrate Professor bisby's opinion the PE ATM cladding can never be safe for use
00:42:10 never be safe for use it's certainly a challenge that iconic have not been able to meet they've not pointed to and cannot point to a single successful bs8414 test of a clouding system using PE ACM with any type of
00:42:22 system using PE ACM with any type of installation the fourth issue issue of toxic smoke as I've noted Professor Purser explained that he intentionally did not consider k-15 at all because it was such and I
00:42:34 k-15 at all because it was such and I quote a very small percentage of what was on the tower generally and in particular because so little of it was used again I quote on the upper levels where most of the burning are curved
00:42:45 where most of the burning are curved that's page that's day 297 page 164. accordingly there is no expert evidence that any person suffered any injury as a result of any smoke produced by k-15
00:42:58 result of any smoke produced by k-15 we also note that Professor purse has stated that there was I quote a lack of any data from further full-scale reconstruction tests or computer fire modeling work and that this placed in
00:43:10 modeling work and that this placed in his words limitations on the extent to which I'm able to determine in detail the pattern of development to the smoke and the toxic gas conditions within the flats
00:43:21 flats in fact however there has been extensive independent peer-reviewed and published cfd modeling carried out by effectors which has examined the pattern of development of smoke and toxic gases
00:43:32 development of smoke and toxic gases thus the type of modeling which Professor person considered would assist him not only can be undertaken but has been undertaken perhaps most importantly Professor Purser failed adequately to investigate
00:43:44 Purser failed adequately to investigate the Toxic effect of fires involving apartment contents independent research trauma factors has analyzed various spaces within the tower and has shown that for each of those
00:43:56 and has shown that for each of those spaces the fire involving apartment contents are likely to have generated the largest source of toxic gases professor professor person's analysis simply did not engage with this major
00:44:08 simply did not engage with this major source of toxic gases adequately for all the reasons that we've set out in our written submission it submitted the professor purse's evidence does lack the necessary scientific rigor to enable
00:44:20 the necessary scientific rigor to enable proper conclusions to be drawn from it or any real weight to be placed on it we've set those points out in some detail in our written submissions of course it's entirely matter for the inquiry
00:44:32 inquiry moving on to the fifth point and this is in relation to kingsman installation's shortcoming but the lack of causative effect of those King's peninsulation has accepted and
00:44:44 King's peninsulation has accepted and apologized for the fact that there were shortcomings in relation to the testing and certification of k-15 prior to 2015. mistakes were made which should not have
00:44:55 mistakes were made which should not have been made
00:44:56 been made however none of those shortcomings were causative of the fire or the nature or speed of the spread of the fire in any way
00:45:04 way by the time the k-15 was purchased for use on the tower the older BBA and labc certificates which considered which were considered in detail during course of the inquiry had been revised a new
00:45:17 the inquiry had been revised a new competent professional in our submission would have been misled in any material Way by any of the certification or marketing materials relating to k-15 as at the relevant time naming the time that it was acquired for use on the
00:45:30 that it was acquired for use on the tower
00:45:31 tower unfortunately however none of the designers Architects or Builders involved in the grenful tower refurbishment took any adequate steps to ensure compliance with the requirements of the building regulations and approve
00:45:43 of the building regulations and approve document B they were certainly not misled by any of the testing and certification relating to k-15
00:45:50 to k-15 none of Kingsman installation's shortcomings in any way affected the decisions made by those designers Architects or Builders whether in relation to the use of peacm cladding on the tower all the use of PIR
00:46:01 the tower all the use of PIR installation with PE ACM cladding or the use of the small quantity of k-15 used as a substitute for PIR thermore of course the expert evidence
00:46:12 thermore of course the expert evidence has now clearly shown as I've said that the type of installation on the tower was irrelevant to Nature and extent of the fire spread in summary therefore whilst the shortcomings acknowledged by King spanning station were wrong and
00:46:24 spanning station were wrong and unacceptable they were not in any way caused of the fire or the nature and speed of the spread of the fire I now turn to part two and the issue of Corrections the phase one report
00:46:38 Corrections the phase one report it's submitted that in light of the expert evidence there are some limited but important Corrections which ought now to be made to the phase one report that report correctly concluded that the
00:46:50 that report correctly concluded that the PE ACM cladding was the principle cause the nature and speed of the grenfell Tower of fire was careful to explain that further expert evidence would be needed to ascertain the contribution played by any other materials
00:47:04 played by any other materials however we have identified four passages the phase one report which could be read as suggesting a preliminary conclusion to the effect that the combustibility of the insulation used on the tower may
00:47:16 the insulation used on the tower may have contributed to the speed of the spread of the fire on the tower in some way
00:47:21 way with the benefit of the totality of the expert evidence such statements in our submission now should be Revisited and corrected because they are not supported by the expert evidence of Professor Bisby and Professor Torero
00:47:35 Bisby and Professor Torero none of the expert evidence supports conclusion the nature of all the speed of the spread of the Grenville Tower fire would have been materially different had non-combustible installation being used behind the PE ACM cladding
00:47:46 ACM cladding it's respectfully submitted that that now needs to be fully explained and unless those clarifications are made in our submission there is a material risk that homeowners consumers insurers
00:47:58 risk that homeowners consumers insurers and the construction industry may be misled as the conclusions of the experts instructed by the inquiry
00:48:07 part three and response to the criticisms that have been made of Kingsman installation and k-15 in our submission these criticisms
00:48:18 in our submission these criticisms particularly in so far as they relate to issues of product safety now also need to be Revisited in the light of the expert evidence of professors Bisby and Torero
00:48:28 Torero during the phase two hearings there was a particular focus on certain bs-8414 tests carried out by kingspan insulation on systems incorporating k-15 and I will address each of those briefly
00:48:42 the 2005 test kingspan installation accepts that following the change from old technology to new technology of k-15 in 2006 it should have replaced the 2005
00:48:53 in 2006 it should have replaced the 2005 test with a new bs-8414 test using new technology k-15 Dr Malcolm Rochford former technical director of kingspan installation explained when he gave evidence that the
00:49:06 explained when he gave evidence that the new technology k-15 used substantially the same chemistry and there's no basis for thinking the production changes would make any significant difference in terms of fire performance there's absolutely no intention to
00:49:17 there's absolutely no intention to mislead anyone moreover no expert evidence has been reduced to suggest the production changes would have made any difference in terms of fire performance the short answer to these criticisms of
00:49:28 the short answer to these criticisms of course is that there have been a total of 15 other successful bs-8414 tests of systems which Incorporated the type of k-15 used on the tower no criticism whatsoever has been made of
00:49:40 no criticism whatsoever has been made of those tests they provide in our submission unequivocal evidence that multiple different cutting systems incorporating k-15 of the type used on the tower have met the relevant br135
00:49:52 the tower have met the relevant br135 criteria
00:49:54 criteria those tests are of course available for any fire engineer to rely upon it's also wrongly been contended that a classification report was required to state that the 2005 test had met the
00:50:06 state that the 2005 test had met the criteria set out in br135 however that requirement the requirement for a classification report did not come in until 2015. the test date of the 2005 test remained
00:50:18 the test date of the 2005 test remained available for analysis and the bre was able to issue a positive classification report in 2015 and did so when the requirement for the classification report was introduced
00:50:31 report was introduced of course each of the other 15 bs-8414 tests does have a classification report
00:50:38 the 2007 and 2008 tests of a sotek system
00:50:43 system in December 2007 a bs-8414 test was carried out in respect of a sotek cladding system using new technology k-15
00:50:52 k-15 it was put to several witnesses that this 2007 test somehow demonstrated the new technology k-15 failed even that it failed spectacularly when tested and
00:51:03 failed spectacularly when tested and oral submissions we made to that effect over the last day and a bit such assertions are plainly and obviously wrong
00:51:14 obviously wrong the December 2000 test was a test of a system
00:51:18 system it was a system which combined sotec cladding with k-15 that test very importantly was repeated a month later in January 2008 using the
00:51:29 a month later in January 2008 using the same sotek cladding system but this time with non-combustible mineral fiber insulation that system again failed both systems were designed in the same
00:51:41 both systems were designed in the same way
00:51:42 way no one has suggested that the January 2008 test somehow demonstrates that non-combustible mineral fiber failed spectacularly it clearly did No Such Thing such a suggestion would be absurd
00:51:54 Thing such a suggestion would be absurd and yet this is the direct equivalent of the type of allegations that are made in relation to k-15 in respect to that 2007 test
00:52:04 test and it's quite clear from the evidence professors Bisbee and Torero but the assertions put to factual witnesses to the fact that k-15 failed that December 2007 test would not be supported by
00:52:15 2007 test would not be supported by either of them in fact it's the January 2008 sotek test which is of particular importance for another reason it is an example of a system
00:52:26 it is an example of a system incorporating A1 and A2 cladding and insulation which was compliant under the linear route but nevertheless failed to meet br1 try 135 criteria when tested to
00:52:40 meet br1 try 135 criteria when tested to 8414
00:52:41 8414 it was therefore an example of the important point of Public Safety which has now been emphasized very clearly by Professor Torero in particular that systems using only non-combustible and
00:52:52 systems using only non-combustible and limited combustibility limited combustible materials euroclast A1 and A2 can be unsafe systems and can fail 8414 tests if tested
00:53:04 8414 tests if tested this is an issue which is of direct relevance in our submission to the inquiries terms of reference in relation to recommendations for the future
00:53:14 the 2014 testing of r d versions of k-15 two tests were carried out in March and July 2014 on systems incorporating research and development variants of
00:53:26 research and development variants of k-15
00:53:27 k-15 station has accepted that it failed to make clear that those tests were of non-standard k-15 and it should have made this clear the failure property to explain the r d
00:53:38 the failure property to explain the r d aspects of the 2014 tests was not intentional there was no intention on the part of anyone at King's peninsulation to deceive the market in relation to these tests and once again any fire engineer wanting
00:53:50 and once again any fire engineer wanting to consider the tests relating to k-15 has used on grenfell Tower are able to consider the full 15 other 8414 tests of cladding systems incorporating this type
00:54:01 cladding systems incorporating this type of k-15 as I've said classo testing a lot of time has been spent by the inquiry looking at classo or class 0 as
00:54:12 inquiry looking at classo or class 0 as it's also called Professor torreira has explained that the reference to class so in approved document B diagram 40 is in his words wholly inappropriate because class o
00:54:23 wholly inappropriate because class o testing does not reproduce the system behavior and in his words is not testing the system Behavior Dr Lane explained in some detail how the classo definition changed over time
00:54:37 classo definition changed over time how ultimately it ended up as a test of the surface when the requirements to test the substrate with the surface was removed from the statutory guidance document in 1985.
00:54:49 document in 1985. Kingsman installation understood the class o test in the way that Dr Lane described its history it came to be a test of the surface material
00:54:58 material I.E in the case of this product of the foil
00:55:01 foil it's correct to say that Professor Bisby strongly disagreed that the foil should be tested in isolation but in our submission the wording the statue guidance in this respect is clear
00:55:12 respect is clear and a manufacturer cannot properly be criticized for testing in accordance with the statutory guidance but in any event the classification of classo for insulation
00:55:23 classo for insulation is an irrelevant issue for designers considering the linear routes to compliance it's important to emphasize that and this is because the linear route requires the installation to be of limited combustibility
00:55:35 limited combustibility combustible installation can therefore never be used under the linear route regardless of whether it is classo or not
00:55:42 not certification marketing and promotion of k-15
00:55:47 k-15 much time was spent during the inquiry looking at historic certificates for k-15
00:55:52 k-15 but as at the time the supply of k-15 for use on grenfell Tower in 2015 the labc and BBA certificates had been substantially revised by the time of Supply the certification
00:56:03 by the time of Supply the certification marking and promotional literature concerning k-15 was clear in explaining that the s8414 tests were a test of a specific system none of the product certification or
00:56:15 none of the product certification or product literature for k-15 current at the time of the refurbishment could possibly have misled any competent professional into thinking otherwise in our submission Kingsman installation has accepted that
00:56:26 Kingsman installation has accepted that some of the older variations of the labc and BBA certificates were not always phrased as well as they should have been and in some aspects of those certificates were capable of being misunderstood
00:56:38 misunderstood but those certificates of course were not produced by Kingsman installation the wording of the BBA and lab certificates was a matter for those independent certifying bodies and they are responsible for any errors
00:56:49 and they are responsible for any errors or emissions in their certificates the bba's evidence was clear it acted independently and it accepted that it is responsible for the wording used in those certificates
00:57:01 those certificates there was no dishonesty or fraud or collusion on the part of Kingsman installation in respect to the k-15 certification but Kingsman installation recognizes
00:57:12 but Kingsman installation recognizes that it could and should have done more to draw any issues relating to those certificates the attention of the issuing bodies and King's menu station has apologized for admitting to do that
00:57:23 has apologized for admitting to do that changes have been made to kingsman station's processes to ensure that such issues are picked up and referred back to certifying bodies similarly kingspan has accepted that some of the earlier marketing and
00:57:34 some of the earlier marketing and promotion of k-15 prior to 2015 when k-15 was purchased for use on the tower was not sufficiently clear in specifying the limitations of the 2005 bs8 for one
00:57:45 the limitations of the 2005 bs8 for one for test
00:57:46 for test again Kingsman installation has apologized for those shortcomings it's clear however that no one involved in the Grandville Tower refurbishment was misled in any way by any of the
00:57:57 was misled in any way by any of the relevant testing or certification or promotional materials relating to k-15 had any competent person given any proper consideration to the need to comply with the building regulations
00:58:08 comply with the building regulations then it would have been immediately apparent that combustible insulation could not lawfully be used with PE ACM cladding under the linear route none of the k-15 certificates or marketing materials current at the time
00:58:19 marketing materials current at the time Supply stated otherwise nor represented k-15 to be non-combustible or Limited combustibility ultimately the design of a particular cladding system is of course the
00:58:30 cladding system is of course the responsibility of the designers The Architects and the cladding contractors engaged on that particular Construction it is the responsibility of the designers to be satisfied with the fire
00:58:41 designers to be satisfied with the fire safety of the whole design and to ensure compliance with the building regulations tragically in our submission that responsibility was simply not discharged by those responsible for the grenfell
00:58:53 by those responsible for the grenfell tower refurbishment
00:58:57 I now turn to the allegation that Kingsman installation should somehow be blamed for the use of combustible materials generally in submissions you heard yesterday morning it was rightly accepted by
00:59:09 morning it was rightly accepted by Stephanie barwise King's Council on behalf of BSR team one the k-15 installation did not cause the fire spread at grandfather Tower however assertions were still being made
00:59:20 however assertions were still being made yesterday to the fact that King Spanish station should somehow be held responsible for the fact that other manufacturers produce and promoted unsafe products that is not a fair or sustainable
00:59:32 that is not a fair or sustainable allegation in our submission the seminly causative argument is how it's been referred to put forward by certain bsrs ignores the fact that it
00:59:44 by certain bsrs ignores the fact that it was the government who mended approved document B to allow the use of combustible installation and systems subject to large scale fire tests it also ignores the fact that it is the
00:59:55 it also ignores the fact that it is the responsibility of the designers not the product manufacturers to be satisfied with the fire safety of the system and to ensure compliance with the building regulations and most crucially it also ignores the
01:00:06 and most crucially it also ignores the expert evidence of Professor Bisby that has shown that the type of installation used on the tower was irrelevant to the nature and extent of the fire spread simply put the argument holds no water
01:00:18 simply put the argument holds no water furthermore it's being alleged that King's manual station's k-15 somehow paved the way for PE ACM to follow if that is the case that is being put then it is clearly also wrong
01:00:30 then it is clearly also wrong the government commissioned its first large-scale test of PE ACM systems as we know as far back as 2001. this was precisely because such planning was already in existence in 2001. k-15
01:00:44 was already in existence in 2001. k-15 installation did not come to the market until four years later in 2005. and shortage is quite wrong to suggest that kingspan insulation should somehow be blamed for the fact that other
01:00:55 be blamed for the fact that other companies Market an unsafe PE acms or for fact regulatory system did not prevent the marketing of those unsafe PE ACM systems
01:01:07 Kingsman installation is a manufacturer of one specific type of insulation that has been demonstrated to be capable of being safely used in appropriate cladding systems it is not a proxy for the industry
01:01:20 it is not a proxy for the industry nor responsible for the actions of others in the industry King's plan installation is not responsible in any way for the actions of iconic
01:01:30 corporate culture Kingsman installation has disclosed over 23 000 documents to this inquiry in respect of a 20-year period
01:01:41 respect of a 20-year period virtually every aspect of King Spanish station's business over the last two decades has been examined in extraordinary detail for disclosure Pro purposes and during course of this inquiry
01:01:52 inquiry that process has Unearthed a handful of emails and chats involving a small number of former employees which have revealed conduct which was totally
01:02:03 revealed conduct which was totally inappropriate and unacceptable and which has been acknowledged as such and for which king spaniel station has apologized unreservedly such improper Behavior has no place in
01:02:14 such improper Behavior has no place in kingspan insulation or in the wider kingspan group and it is no way reflective of its core values none of those employees remain in the
01:02:25 none of those employees remain in the employment of the company those isolated Communications however are the exception and they should not condemn the behavior for many hundreds of employees that work at kingspan
01:02:36 of employees that work at kingspan insulation let alone the 21 000 employees who work for the kingspan group worldwide fire safety is at the very heart of
01:02:47 fire safety is at the very heart of kingspan insulations business and it could not be taken more seriously to the best of its knowledge the company has undertaken more 8414 tests of
01:02:58 has undertaken more 8414 tests of systems incorporating k-15 that have been undertaken by any other manufacturer in respect of any other form of rainscreen insulation Kingsman installation is absolutely
01:03:09 Kingsman installation is absolutely confident as the safety of k-15 when used in appropriate tested planning systems this confidence is justified by the number of successful vs8414 tests of
01:03:21 the number of successful vs8414 tests of such planning systems
01:03:25 find it was repeatedly suggested during questioning of witnesses from King's peninsulation the company somehow acted improperly in 2018 in drawing the Parliamentary select committee's attention to the very important fact
01:03:37 attention to the very important fact that just because the system incorporates A1 A2 padding and insulation does not mean that that is necessarily safe or that it will automatically pass an 8414 test
01:03:49 automatically pass an 8414 test King spanning station gave examples of such Systems Failing when tested it carried out testing of an A1 A2 system which was properly designed and built and which failed when tested
01:04:01 and which failed when tested allegations repeated yesterday the Kings Bay installation was somehow trying to manipulate the government or was not using honest science neither allegation is true
01:04:12 neither allegation is true precisely the same points have been emphasized by professors Bisby and Torero quite correctly no criticism has been made of them for articulating these concerns
01:04:22 concerns the fact is that this is a vitally important point of Public Safety and Kingsman installation makes no apology for raising it or illustrating the point by valid and proper testing
01:04:34 by valid and proper testing finally some concluding remarks
01:04:39 in short we would like to emphasize the following points first the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the nature and speed of the spread of the fire at Granville Tower was caused by the presence of the
01:04:51 Tower was caused by the presence of the uniquely hazardous PE ACM panels the nature and speed of the fire spread would not have been materially different had non-combustible insulation being used in combination with pacm
01:05:02 used in combination with pacm peacm was unsafe for use in any cladding system with any form of insulation second the numerous successful large-scale bs-8414 tests of systems
01:05:13 large-scale bs-8414 tests of systems incorporating k-15 demonstrates that K15 is an installation which can safely be used inappropriate cadding systems respect to the grandfather Tower fire there is no evidence that any smoke from
01:05:25 there is no evidence that any smoke from k-15 cause any injury to any individual thirdly
01:05:30 thirdly while there were shortcomings in relation to the testing certification certification of k-15 which kingspan installation has apologized those shortcomings as I've said have no bearing on the selection of PE core
01:05:43 bearing on the selection of PE core product that was used which would have been unsafe in any cladding system and should never have been used on a high-rise building with any insulation none of King Spanish station's shortcomings is of any relevance to the
01:05:55 shortcomings is of any relevance to the issue of causation finally
01:05:59 finally a significant share of responsibility for the tragedy of the Cranford Tower rests with iconic as the manufacturer of the PE ACM material in our submission in addition responsibility also rests
01:06:10 in addition responsibility also rests with those responsible for the design construction and approval of the refurbishment works more generally this inquiry has shown the multiple inadequacies of the regulatory regime which fail to prevent
01:06:22 regulatory regime which fail to prevent uniquely hazardous PE ACM cladding from being used and built in cladding systems kingspan installation has provided a written paper in respect of the reforms
01:06:34 written paper in respect of the reforms which it has implemented since 2017. reflecting what the BSR Team 2 called for yesterday as a change of mindset it has also set out its proposals for
01:06:46 it has also set out its proposals for recommendations for future reform by way of detailed written submissions we respectfully invite the inquiry to pay careful attention to those suggestions as it considers how best to
01:06:59 suggestions as it considers how best to ensure that a tragedy like renfell Tower never happens again Mr chairman members of the panel thank you well thank you very much Mr Webb thank you
01:07:11 thank you thank you well um that statement brings us to the end of the statements which we are expecting to hear today so we shall rise in just a moment but there are more statements to be made
01:07:23 there are more statements to be made tomorrow and therefore we shall sit again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning when we shall hear from another one of the core participants so thank you all very much 10 o'clock
01:07:34 so thank you all very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please okay