You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Burning plastic on the outside of Grenfell Tower produced “dense and lethal” levels of toxic smoke in the flats of victims, an expert report prepared for the inquiry has concluded.
Professor David Purser yesterday released a detailed report into the impact of toxic gases produced during the fire on residents of the tower who perished in the blaze.
He said that during the first 30 to 45 minutes of the fire the plastic in the cladding panels, insulation and window frames provided the majority of the fuel.
“The mixed toxic smoke products from approximately five kilograms of these materials was sufficient to produce dense, lethal smoke conditions in a flat,” he wrote.
“Once fire penetrated into any flat, the burning structural and contents materials caused a rapid development of lethal smoke conditions.”
He said that during the early stages of the fire “the main source of smoke particulates, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide” is likely to have been the polyisocyanurate insulation burning outside the flats, and similar products in the windows.
The insulation was Celotex RS5000, which had been a popular insulation product before its suspension from sale after Grenfell and remains in common use on buildings across the UK.
“The contribution from each of the major products individually is sufficient to produce dense toxic smoke within the flat and adjacent lobby within a few minutes,” he wrote.
“But in practice the contributions from each burning item are summed as they penetrate into the flat, further increasing the concentrations of irritant smoke and toxic gases. On this basis, I consider that the toxic smoke and gases penetrating a flat during the minutes before the flat contents become significantly involved are sufficient to present a substantial hazard.”
He said that if just 5% of the smoke from the burning insulation entered the flats, it would be enough to render residents unconscious in between two and 25 minutes. If just 1% of the toxic smoke entered flats, residents would collapse within 40 minutes.
Professor Purser explained that residents in flat numbers ending in six were the first to flee the fire – as the floors had the same numbering pattern and these homes were directly above the origin of the blaze in flat 16.
Most of these residents survived – with the exception of two residents who sought refuge in another flat on the 23rd floor.
During the first 35 minutes of the fire (from 00.55am to around 1.30am), it would have been possible to evacuate the tower safely. He estimated that despite the narrow staircase, all 293 residents could have escaped in around seven minutes.
However, he said that as ‘flat 6’ residents were forced to flee, the internal lobbies and eventually the staircase of the tower filled with “dense, black irritant smoke”.
“Some flat 6 occupants have stated that the self-closing mechanisms on their flat doors did not work, so that the doors remained open unless deliberately closed. Several flat 6 occupants stated that they closed their flat doors before they left. These lobbies still filled quite quickly with dense smoke over a period of minutes,” he wrote.
“This smoke is likely to have also originated mainly from flat 6 on each floor, leaking into the lobby around the flat entrance doors and any other leakage paths.”
He said toxicology reports from victims point to inhalation of smoke, with carbon monoxide poisoning identified as the main cause of death.
The inquiry continues.
Closing statements
Day 85: victims' lawyers attack the fire brigade
Further expert evidence
Including some additional evidence from emergency call handlers, bereaved and relatives
Day 84: further evidence from survivors and relatives
Day 83: swift evacuation of tower possible if residents alerted
Day 82: initial fire was extinguished but then returned to the flat
Day 81: overheating fridge-freezer most likely cause of fire
Day 80: fire doors installed did not match product tested
Day 79: resident advised to stay put despite fire in flat
Day 78: insulation and cladding material below required standard
Day 77: molten plastic spread blaze down tower
Day 76: 'stay put' should be dropped when fire spreads across floors
Other witness evidence
Police, ambulance, gas suppliers, council, TMO and call room operators give evidence
Day 75: call room operators give evidence
Day 74: further evidence from TMO officers
Day 73: TMO boss failed to pass information to firefighters
Day 72: fire finally extinguished when gas switched off
Day 71: further questions over stay put advice
Day 70: the police evidence
The bereaved, survivors and relatives’ evidence
Day 69: video shows smoke billowing through fire door
Day 68: KCTMO removed self closing mechanism and never replaced it
Day 67: gaps in cladding fixed with duct tape
Day 66: 'don't fix broken system with a sticking plaster'
Day 65: survivor dragged disabled man down nine floors to safety
Day 64: KCTMO 'did not replace broken fire door'
Day 63: foam insulation inside cladding 'exposed' says survivor
Day 62: father gives harrowing account of son's death
Day 61: council’s management organisation slammed for faulty electrics
Day 60: stay put advice ‘led to deaths’, residents say
Day 59: residents describe problems with new windows
Day 58: survivor describes how daughter saved his life
Day 57: firefighter evidence ‘a slap in the face’, says survivor
Day 56: relations with contractor were ‘toxic’
Day 55: resident 'never happy' with stay-put advice
Day 54: tenant gives evidence about housing association
Day 53: stay put advice 'felt like trap'
Day 52: resident saved by son's phone call
The firefighters’ evidence
Day 51: firefighter feared encouraging residents to jump
Day 50: the LFB commissioner
Day 49: fire chief reveals frustration over lack of building plans
Day 48: internal fire spread 'bigger story' than cladding
Day 47: fire officer considered evacuating crews over building collapse fears
Day 46: 'we were improvising' senior firefighter admits
Day 45: firefighter urged for abandonment of 'stay put' policy
Day 44: firefighter recalls radio signal difficulties
Day 43: call hander 'uncomfortable' with insisting residents stay put
Day 42: residents only told to leave if they called fire brigade back
Day 41: breathing equipment delay 'hampered rescues on upper floors'
Day 40: chiefs told firefighters to abandon policy
Day 39: firefighters reveal dramatic rescue of children
Day 38: firefighters issue aplogies to families
Day 37: council 'unable to provide tower plans'
Day 36: QC defends inquiry process
Day 35: Javid would welcome interim recommendations
Day 34: water from hose 'too weak' to reach the flames
Day 33: 'oh my god, we've been telling people to stay put'
Day 32: further fire fighter describes lack of equipment and low water pressure
Day 31: 'incredibly difficult' task of recording information outlined
Day 30: struggle to maintain control over rescue operation described
Day 29: fire service 'overwhelmed' by survival guidance calls
Day 28: 'the building beat us'
Day 27: firefighters 'forced to abandon plans to reach roof'
Day 26: poor signage hindered rescue efforts
Day 25: water pressure left firefighting equipment 'like garden hose'
Day 24: decision to abandon 'stay put' explored
Day 23: TV images 'could have assissted' rescue effort
Day 22: description of hectic scenes in the control centre
Day 21: account from the fire service 'nerve centre'
Day 20: firefighter describes 'huge volume' of calls from trapped residents
Day 19: firefighter 'given no training on cladding fires'
Day 18: evacuation would have been 'huge catastrophe'
Day 17: firefighters describe access and lift issues
Day 16: scenes of carnage likened to 9/11
Day 15: firefighters recount trauma of survival guidance calls
Day 14: firefighters describe spread of blaze
Day 13: firefighters recall radio difficulties
Day 12: "it was like a war zone"
Day 11: questions raised over fire fighters' radios
Day 10: watch manager emotional under questioning
Day nine: lead firefighter 'not trained in stay put policy'
The expert reports: authors give evidence to inquiry
Day eight: where the fire started
Day seven: what was in the cladding?
Day six: the cause and spread of the fire
Day five: expert highlights key issues
Day four: firefighters defend response to fire
Day three: council and contractors appear for the first time
Day two: lawyers for the survivors make their case
Day one: expert evidence released on cladding and stay put
The commemoration hearings
30 May: Grenfell Council 'recognised it should not house disabled victim above four storeys'
29 May: Anger on day six of the Grenfell Inquiry
25 May: Grenfell families 'forced to live in chimney with stay put policy'
24 May: Grenfell family complained about father being housed on 17th floor
23 May: Tributes to children on third day of Grenfell hearings
22 May: Emotions run high as Grenfell bereaved shown footage of the tower burning
21 May: Grenfell victims share tributes as inquiry opens
In the days following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017, Inside Housing launched the Never Again campaign to call for immediate action to implement the learning from the Lakanal House fire, and a commitment to act – without delay – on learning from the Grenfell Tower tragedy as it becomes available.
One year on, we have extended the campaign asks in the light of information that has emerged since.
Here are our updated asks:
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LANDLORDS