Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety

Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety
“Fire resistant walls,” he added, “are not economically viable for the prevention of fire spread from floor to floor of a building,”
and “we run the risk of using a test method because it exists, not because it delivers real benefits to building owners or users.” (In an interview last week, Mr. Ledbetter said his group had updated its position earlier this year to warn against the type of cladding used at Grenfell Tower.)
“I can’t predict what the public would think,” Mr. Martin replied, “but that is the situation.”
Moving to a requirement that the exterior of a building be “noncombustible,” Mr. Martin said, “limits your choice of materials quite significantly.”
After the coroner’s report, a cross-party coalition of members of Parliament petitioned government ministers
to reform the regulations, including adding automatic sprinklers and revisiting the standards for cladding.
In other European countries, Arconic’s sales materials explicitly instructed
that “as soon as the building is higher than the firefighters’ ladders, it has to be conceived with an incombustible material.” An Arconic website for British customers said only that such use “depends on local building codes.”
For years, members of Parliament had written letters requesting new restrictions on cladding, especially as the same
flammable facades were blamed for fires in Britain, France, the United Arab Emirates, Australia and elsewhere.
“The problem with cladding is that it will, if it is able, spread fire, and it will spread it vertically.”
The firefighters and engineers warned Parliament that British codes required only
that the aluminum used in cladding resist ignition, even though the heat of a fire would breach the surface and expose the flammable material inside.