Grenfell Inquiry weekly digest: What we learned from ex-Celotex staff

绝缘材料公司Celotex的前员工本周继续向格伦费尔大厦调查委员会(Grenfell Tower Inquiry)提供证据，提供了该公司为获得一种被描述为可以安全用于高层建筑的可燃产品所付出的极端努力的详细情况。

On Monday ex-product manager Jonathan Roper said the firm had exploited “ignorance” about fire-testing regimes within the construction industry to sell its flammable RS5000 polyisocyanurate (PIR) product as suitable for use on structures above 18m in height.

Roper told the inquiry into 2017’s fire disaster – which claimed 72 lives – thatCelotex had behaved in a “completely unethical” wayto ensure it had a product that could be pushed as suitable for use as part of cladding systems on tall buildings.

He said that when the firm’s FR5000 PIR insulation had failed a Building Research Establishment fire test in April 2014, the product had been rebranded as RS5000. The product went on to pass a BS8414 test the following month, but the result had been rigged through the inclusion of a non-combustible magnesium oxide board to improve the chances that the combination of materials would fare better.

Neither the presence of the magnesium oxide board nor the fact that gaps within the test structure were reduced to improve its fire performance in comparison with the official measurements were ever disclosed to customers.

Celotex FR5000最初是在2012年为格雷内尔大厦指定的，并在肯辛顿和切尔西租户管理组织的采购活动中加入了NBS规范，为该街区的翻新寻找主承包商，并于2014年结束。然而，“新”产品RS5000是建筑外部的主要绝缘材料，用于其不幸的升级。

Inquiry lead counsel Richard Millett QC asked Roper whether Celotex’s behaviour in seeking to manipulate the BRE test had struck him as dishonest. “Yes, it did,” he replied.

Asked by Millett why he had gone along with the deception, Roper replied: “I went along with a lot of actions at Celotex that, looking back on reflection, were completely unethical and one that I probably potentially didn’t consider the impact of at the time.”

他补充说:“我当时22-23岁，第一份工作，我认为这是标准做法，尽管它确实让我感到很不舒服。”

Roper表示，Celotex一直热衷于利用市场无知的优势，并希望从竞争对手Kingspan那里获得1000万英镑的收入。

On Tuesday Roper told the inquiry Celotex hadseized on inspection body Local Authority Building Control’s seeming confusionabout the meaning of the “class 0” fire rating to secure a certificate declaring RS5000 safe to use on buildings above 18m in height.

正如在当时的建筑行业中常见的那样，0级评级被错误地认为意味着产品的可燃性有限。然而，0级实际上仅指产品充分抵抗表面火焰蔓延的能力。

授予RS5000的LABC证书的一些措辞本质上是Celotex自己的产品营销材料，这些材料已经通过电子邮件发送给该组织。该证书随后被发送给格伦费尔翻新门面分包商哈利。

Roper admitted that the certificate was “untrue and misleading” and agreed with Millett’s suggestion that Celotex had “intended that to be the case as a way of avoiding being challenged by building control officers down the track”.

同样在周二，Roper告诉调查人员，他是如何帮助Celotex操纵代表RS5000通过BRE测试的包层系统的技术图纸，使绝缘和外部面板之间的空腔看起来比实际情况更大。

He admitted he had asked for the test rig to be constructed with very small ventilation gaps because it was Celotex’s intention to “overengineer the rig so that it passed”.

周三，调查人员查看了Celotex为RS5000提供的营销材料。建筑专家证人、英国皇家建筑师协会(RIBA)前主席保罗•海特(Paul Hyett)在本月早些时候表示，这些材料“有意误导”。

Former head of marketing Paul Evans accepted Millett’s suggestion that documents repeatedly stating RS5000 was “acceptable for use in buildings above 18 metres in height” were “thoroughly misleading”.

Millett asked how the material could have been released to the market on his watch, Evans replied: “Only by relying on other people to give information, and decisions have been made and things have been moved on which has led to us promoting the system this way.”

The session heard that both contractor Durkan – which was shortlisted for the Grenfell refurbishment but beaten on price by eventual main contractor Rydon – and developer Ardmore had raised concerns that the National House Building Council had about RS5000 with Celotex.

The organisation, which conducts independent building inspections and provides warranties for new homes said it would not accept the certification provided by Celotex.

In a January 2015 email chain that Evans was copied in to, Nigel Shields of Durkan reported to Celotex that NHBC would not accept the fire-test certification that the firm had provided for RS5000 because it “does not represent [a] true test of the product in all of its applications”.

Celotex就RS5000适用于高层建筑所做的营销宣传只涉及那些通过BRE的BS8414测试的系统。即使在那时——正如询问所听到的那样——测试中使用的材料的实际配置也没有向客户准确地详细说明。

2015年3月，Celotex收到了来自Ardmore的正式投诉，在NHBC表示该结构的绝缘材料是不可接受的产品后，Ardmore被要求将RS5000从一个拥有121户住宅的高层项目中移除。

Ardmore’s technical director Richard Hunt said the firm was “amazed” that an international supplier and manufacturer of Celotex’s reputation would “send products to market that are not suitable for their intended use”.

In July 2016, NHBC published a guide stating that both RS5000 and rival product Kingspan Kooltherm K15 were acceptable for use with cladding systems provided that the design specification met minimum requirements.

On Thursday, the inquiry questioned former Celotex technical services team leader Jamie Hayes about his involvement with the successful May 2014 BS8414 test that RS5000 passed.

He said he had been aware that the Celotex team had been considering the use of a thicker 12mm version of the Marley Eternit cement rainscreen panels compared with the 8mm panels used on the earlier failed test to improve the test systems resistance to fire.

Hayes said it had been his idea to introduce a non-combustible magnesium-oxide board to the test system as a way to improve the cladding panels’ fire resistance.

但他告诉调查人员，隐瞒通过BS8414测试的实际包层系统的细节，并制作出一份没有正确反映所使用钻机的RS5000合规指南，并不是他的决定。

“I didn’t have any control over how Celotex had chosen to go down that route, although I absolutely accept that I knew about it and didn’t do what was right in raising it,” he said.

“我所能控制的是(……)至少努力确保人们确实收到了合规指导。”

然而，海斯承认，当客户被告知RS5000合规指南时，他是在“向人们推荐一份根本不正确的文档”。

The inquiry heard that both Ardmore and Harley had struggled to get full details of the set-up Celotex had used to obtain the BS8414 test pass for RS5000 because the manufacturer had refused designers access to the actual BRE test report.

Millett问Hayes，他认为设计师如何能够在没有它的情况下遵守建筑法规批准文件B中的指导。

“I don’t think they would be able to,” he replied. “I did realise that it was ridiculous, really, that they would not have that access to that document.”

海耶斯表示，Celotex在测试系统方面存在“蓄意误导”，该公司“不想鼓励人们就测试的具体细节提问”。

He earlier confirmed to the inquiry he had joined Celotex in 2004 as a temporary administrative worker before moving to the company’s technical services team three years later. He said the team sat “squarely” in the marketing department and that he had no technical training. He said his technical knowledge was “entirely picked up on the job”.

The inquiry continues next week.