WHILST the scale of failure at Grenfell Tower continues to unfold, I am still struggling to understand how the materials on the exterior of the building were specified and by whom.
I made reference to the external cladding in a previous letter (The Herald, June 26) but an analysis of the Celotex RS5000 insulation located behind it raises equally worrying questions.
If you look at the Celotex website it states that its products are BBA (British Board of Agrement), CE (European Conformity), and BRE (Building Research Establishment) tested.
Two certificate numbers are shown under the BBA insignia, despite the BBA website indicating no such certificates exist. A search of the BBA certificates listed elsewhere by Celotex indicates that none was obtained for RS5000; that is, this particular insulation has no safety certificate.
The BRE certification is used as the justification for using this material in facades greater than 18m in height. Reference is made to the BR135 performance specification.
However, this applies solely to a unique construction based on two 12.5mm skins of plasterboard on a lightweight steel frame, with another 12.5mm of incombustible board, then the Celotex RS5000, and finally a further 12.5mm fibre cement facade panel.
In other word, the insulation has to be totally encapsulated in fireproof material.
Only if that construction is followed is the certification valid.
The manufacturer even warns architects about this by stating that “The fire performance and classification report issued only relates to the components detailed and constructed in Fig 4.
“Any changes to the components listed and construction method set out in figure 4 will need to be considered by the building designer”. That is another way of saying that if you depart from this specification – as the Grenfell Tower facade designer did – then the fire performance is invalid above 18m.
That leaves only the CE certificate. Celotex state that “CE marking confirms that our products fully comply with BS EN 13165 and that key performance characteristics have been verified through independent type testing”.
One would therefore assume that, since this is a product advertised for use in a fire-rated construction, the fire aspects will have been tested.
However, when you drill down into the certificate only the thermal performance and compressive strength have been verified.
The remaining 10 categories simply state “No Performance Determined”. This includes:
*Reaction to fire
*Release of Dangerous Substances
*Durability of reaction to fire against heat
* Durability of thermal resistance against heat.
Nowhere does it tell you that polyisocyanurate releases a lethal gas in a severe fire condition. Put simply, this certificate leaves so much risk with the designer that I would have no choice but to refuse to use the product.
That then begs the question that I asked previously about the Reynobond panel.
How is it possible for so many people involved in the construction of the Grenfell Tower facade apparently not to see the warning signs that both these materials were fundamentally unsuited for use on any high rise construction?
Robert Menzies,
2 Burnbrae Gardens,
Falkirk.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel