Kingspan insulation burnt ‘ferociously’ in secret 2007 test, inquiry hears

Kingspan officials said of the new product: “The phenolic was burning on its own steam and the BRE had to extinguish the test early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory.”

One of the changes brought in with the new product was to perforate the foil facers on the insulation, which made it “more robust and easier to manufacture” according to Ivor Meredith, Kingspan’s technical project manager at the time, who appeared before the inquiry today.

In his test analysis of the new version of K15, shown today, Mr Meredith said: “Perforations in the Phenolic foil facers have caused a reduction in the Euroclass when tested… Loss of the perforations may help?

“In all honesty from what I have seen the way the phenolic burned is of the most concern. Therefore we need to add a fire retardant. Which could help us get Class 0.”

Subsequent emails from Mr Meredith to his superiors Philip Heath and Malcolm Rochefort said: “The question of K15’s bad fire performance is no longer just an internal one. It would seem Offsite [Kingspan’s sister company, which used the product] had a very dramatic test failure.”

The inquiry saw emails in which Mr Meredith was coming under increasing pressure to explain the fire performance of the new product to colleagues at Offsite.

Mr Meredith sought help from his manager Mr Heath, writing: “Help – I’m getting seriously grilled now.

“We need to ensure continuity of our answers otherwise we will destroy our relationship and never be taken seriously again – also I may get accused of being a liar if we change our story. Are we saying that the product supplied which failed their test is the same product that we got to pass the test?”

Mr Heath did not respond to his questions and merely asked who was grilling him.

Kate Grange, counsel to the inquiry, also picked up on emails between senior managers at Kingspan and the British Board of Agrément (BBA), the certifying body.

After recognising that K15’s BBA certificate did not clarify that the product was suitable for use only when used in the specific set-up that was tested, BBA wrote to Kingspan to say that the certificate would be changed.

After telling the BBA that Kingspan would have “no option” but to pass cost implications of doing so on to BBA, Mr Heath instructed Mr Meredith and another colleague, Gareth Mills, to let BBA’s proposals “gather dust”.

The inquiry continues with further evidence from Mr Meredith tomorrow.

Update: at 10.40am, 27.11.20

Story amended to clarify that the test referred to was carried out in December 2007, not December 2008.