Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.



2 Pages<12
Go to last post Go to first unread
#41 Posted : 07 August 2017 09:49:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user

The environmental lobby created the drive for high insulation foams that were/are supposedly greener also to produce.  But any carbonaceous material is always going to have problems when heated especially in oxygen deficient atmospheres.  Thus long term environmental safety becomes king over the immediate health and safety of persons.  In much the same way the blind decision to insist on samples at high level without a clear justification does exactly the same.

#42 Posted : 07 August 2017 10:49:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user

Originally Posted by: Stedman Go to Quoted Post

Before you rush in to take samples, it is likely that someone somewhere will have put together an operation and maintenance manual which should contain drawings and data and details relating to the installed cladding.  So it should not be necessary to rush in and take samples with all the hazards and risk associated with this task.

With the BRE undertaking extensive fire testing, that information will also be in the public domain.

Surely doing a desktop exercise is going to be quicker and more effective method of assessing what buildings are initially at risk?

Depending on the date of installation there may be a Health and Safety File in accordance with CDM Regulations.

That H&S File will include details of all construction materials used in the refurbishment and including cladding, fixings, maintenance of etc.

There will also be a Scope of Works with product specificacions.

Now then, all above is in the perfect world where everyone involved has acted in accordance with CDM, but we all know some will cut corners.  The Scope of Works can be looked at to see what cladding should have been used and the Cladding can be checked to see if it conformed to the SOW. 

I do not say the cladding should not be tested for its fire resistance, it may be that the cladding conforms to all previous tests and is the correct cladding for the job?

It may be the previous testing was not thorough enough?

However it may be that the cladding chosen was not that required by the SOW to save a few quid, if so there is another paper trail required, (or it could be electronically saved on CD disc, or on someone's PC, and that should be with the Client.

Did the CDM responsible Planning Supervisor/CDM Consultant/Principal Designer make checks on materials recommended or used?

To answer the point about the fire service water bouncing off the cladding, that's what the cladding is for when protecting the building from weather.

The best way to tackle that fire was from inside the tower, but that was impossible due to the fire, heat, smoke, single staircase, large number of people to be evacuated/rescued etc.

#43 Posted : 07 August 2017 11:09:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user

Thanks to Johnmurray:

This is one of a number of insurance-based guidance on the subject dating back many years, I discovered to my surprise, whilst doing some personal research on the subject. Of course, public sector housing is unlikely to involve insurance advice. It seems that there have been 'parallel universes' of knowledge.

#44 Posted : 08 August 2017 08:16:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user


Or parallel universes of I dont want to know this knowledge because it costs money!!!

Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.