Impact case study database

Addressing policy makers in the EU

In June 2015 Hull summarised the University of Central Lancashire’s work on the need to quantify smoke toxicity at a meeting in the European Parliament. The participants included MEPs and Mr Gwenole Cozigou, the Director from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG Grow) responsible for Construction Product Regulation (CPR). In January 2016 Hull was one of 30 scientists selected from over 300 for the Scientist-MEP pairing scheme, where he discussed the issue of smoke toxicity on a one-to-one basis with 12 MEPs and their researchers [A]. In March 2016, Mr Cozigou was an invited speaker at an international symposium on Fire Toxicity, organised by the University of Central Lancashire where, in front of 150 experts, he announced the launch of a study considering regulation of smoke toxicity of construction products. The study was limited to a pre-selected group of contractors, and the project started in December 2016. Hull was the only academic, amongst predominantly industry and trade association representatives, on the project steering group. During the study, but after the Grenfell Tower fire, Reuters reported that the study would not recommend regulation amid concerns that regulation “could increase product costs and potentially remove some products from the market.” [B]. Between September 6-7th 2017, Stec and Hull explained the Grenfell tragedy to a further 15 MEPs. The following week, the European Parliament had an hour-long debate on fire safety. Of the 25 MEPs who spoke, over 20 said that the European Commission needed to regulate smoke toxicity of construction products. Baron Khan of Burnley, then MEP for North West England, met with Hull and Stec before contributing to the European Parliament debate on fire safety in buildings. He said, “…that while fire toxicity in trains, planes and ships is regulated, there is a real lack of regulation in the construction sector. Renovation works at Grenfell were inspected 16 times by the local authority, showing current rules simply aren’t fit for purpose.” [C]. The Commission recognised that much more work was needed in fire safety of buildings and responded by announcing the Fire Information Exchange Platform (FIEP) to address these issues. The EC Smoke Toxicity study was finally published in January 2018 and concluded on page 101 that “regulation of smoke in general, including toxic smoke, leaking into or being generated in areas that are considered to be safe zones and / or escape routes need to be considered in new or amended existing regulations.” [D] However, with the ongoing review of the Construction Product Regulation, how to enact this proposal is still under consideration.

Raising awareness of the risk of smoke toxicity following the Grenfell Tower fire

On the 14th June 2017, the recently refurbished Grenfell Tower was engulfed in flames spreading around its external façade, leading to the deaths of 72 residents. In the aftermath, Hull described his relevant 2011 study showing the very high toxicity of burning insulation material that had been used on the Tower [6] on BBC’s Newsnight, Radio 4’s World at One, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News [E]. Hull’s research was also reported in over 20 national newspapers. He explained that a 1 kg (50 cm x 50 cm) piece of polyisocyanurate (PIR) insulation was sufficient to fill an entire apartment with toxic fumes of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide when burning, and, as Planning and Building Control Today reported, the government had no regulations to control it [F]. Hull’s work with the media after the Grenfell tragedy highlighted the importance of the combustible insulation in the disaster, and particularly the high toxicity of burning PIR insulation, alongside reports that several survivors had been treated for cyanide poisoning [E]. This led to a general recognition that smoke toxicity, rather than burns, had led to much of the tragic loss of life. As a consequence, the world-leading specialist in fire toxicity, Professor David Purser, was invited to join the team of expert witnesses to the Grenfell Inquiry in May 2018, followed by Stec as an expert in fire toxicity, in September 2018. [G]

Informing policy makers in the UK

Our high-profile media activity around the Grenfell Tower fire was followed by invitations to present our research to the UK’s Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, an All-Party Parliamentary Group, at the Houses of Parliament in September 2017. This was followed by two presentations to the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group. Stec was invited to join Dame Judith Hackitt’s Review of Building Fire Safety Regulations, Working Group 6, Products and Classifications, which recommended including smoke toxicity in the Building Regulations [H]. The results were also presented to the Royal Institute for British Architecture Expert Group on Fire Safety who then presented their conclusions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Communities, Housing and Local Government [J]. Between December 2018 and March 2019, a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consultation document on the review of Approved Document B (Fire Safety) [I] had four questions on the incorporation of smoke toxicity into the UK's fire regulations. The University of Central Lancashire’s response to the consultation in a letter to MHCLG included urging ‘the government to review the existing guidelines on smoke, including the major hazard of its acute toxicity and the longer term toxicity of fire smoke and residue.’ The conclusion of the consultation was that a discrete research programme was needed to address smoke and toxicity [K]. In May 2020 MHCLG released a tender for research to underpin smoke toxicity regulation in England. This provided GBP605,000 funding, for a three-year partly experimental project to assess the need and methodology for assessing smoke toxicity of construction products, awarded in September 2020 to a consortium led by OFR Consultants.

In the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire, public opinion focused on the polyethylene-cored aluminium composite panels (ACP-PE) as a major cause of the tragedy. Hull appeared on broadcast media more than 20 times [A] explaining that the flammability of ACP-PE and combustible insulation foam had combined with disastrous consequences. Shortly afterwards, the UK’s Building Research Establishment (BRE) were instructed to undertake 7 tests using the BS8414 rig for the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on different combinations of ACP and insulation. The first two tests, using ACP-PE were stopped, before the insulation became involved in the fire, for safety reasons (as specified in BS8414), and the two tests with fire retarded ACP and combustible insulation were stopped after a little longer, again for safety reasons, so the contribution of the insulation remained unknown.

In September 2017, Hull and Stec were invited to present their findings, later reported in a peer-reviewed paper [2], showing the contribution of both insulation and polyethylene-filled ACP, to an All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. This was followed by a report in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology POSTNOTE [B], which brought our work to the wider attention of MPs and peers.

In February 2018, Stec was appointed to the Review of Building Regulations chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt as a member of Working Group 6 Products and Classification, and outlined our work, showing that changes to the building regulations were necessary. The Working Group concluded that revision was required of the test standard that allowed combustible materials to be used on tall buildings (BS 8414) [C].

In June 2018, Stec was also appointed as an Expert Witness to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry where she continues to investigate the effect of combustible materials on the tragedies that unfolded on the night of the fire. The progress of the Inquiry has been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic [D].

Hull and Stec have also independently reported their research to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, Fire Safety Rescue, to a separate audience of MPs and peers, and also to the Local Government Association, in person to its Chairman, Lord Porter of Spalding, and his team. The results were also presented to the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Expert Group on Fire Safety who presented their conclusions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Communities, Housing and Local Government [E].

The work with the Fire Protection Association on combustible façades was reported directly to civil servants in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), responsible for fire regulations in buildings, and published online before the announcement of the ban on combustible materials on tall residential buildings [F]. After our results had been reported to MHCLG, the Minister for Housing, the Rt Hon James Brokenshire, announced the ban on combustible products on all high-rise residential buildings. That ban came into force in December 2018. However, the problem of combustible facades on existing tall residential buildings is massive, and remediation will take time. The government has pledged GBP3,500,000,000 to remove combustible cladding from all the 12,000 residential buildings over 18 metres and to provide loans to support remediation in the 77,500 residential buildings between 11 and 18 metres. Overall, 839,000 people are believed to live in buildings over 11 metres with some form of cladding [G, H]. From January to May 2020, the MHCLG consulted on a proposal to increase the scope of the ban to cover all buildings over 11 metres, the outcome is still awaited (March 2021).

The fire hazard of another form of combustible cladding, High Pressure Laminate (HPL), which is cheaper, and approximately 3 times more prevalent than ACP-PE on high-rise buildings, was shown in our paper [2] to have a much higher heat release and shorter ignition time than ACP-PE, and contributed to the 6 deaths in the Lakanal House fire in July 2009. In January 2019, Hull highlighted the risks of fires, similar to Grenfell, in HPL clad buildings [I]. In March 2019 the Government announced plans to undertake limited testing of the safest fire-retarded form of HPL, backed by non-combustible insulation, in the BS8414 large-scale scenario [J]. In January 2020, Hull’s research helped inform a legal case by Leigh-Day Solicitors, who were preparing an action against the government for failing to protect the occupants of HPL clad buildings. As a result of increased awareness of the risks posed by HPL cladding from Hull’s research, in May 2020 the Housing Secretary, Rt Hon Robert Jenrick, MP, announced that the government would release a further GBP1,000,000,000 to replace unsafe non-ACM cladding. This is predominantly combustible HPL cladding [K].

As a result of our research and the changing regulatory landscape there has been a decline in the use of combustible materials and an uptake in non-combustible alternatives on building exteriors. In a survey, the number of UK architects expecting PUR/PIR insulation usage to increase fell from 45% in 2016 to 17% in 2020, while over the same period, for glass wool insulation, usage expectation increased from 11% to 23%, and for stone wool insulation it increased from 21% to 37% [L, M ]. Similar figures were reported for other European countries. In the UK the market share of non-combustible insulation has increased significantly, with a corresponding decrease in plastic foam. The Rockwool Group reported in their 2018 annual report that “The focus on stronger fire-safety regulation affected the UK and Polish markets, contributing to greater demand for non-combustible stone wool building materials.” [N]

Raising awareness of soil contamination caused by the Grenfell Tower fire

Stec’s investigation into the persistent environmental contamination caused by deposition of particulates from the Grenfell Tower Fire was the first analysis to be conducted at or near the site. Public Health England had previously only conducted air quality monitoring, targeting the most common atmospheric pollutants: an approach insufficient for uncovering the full extent of contamination caused by the tragedy. Where Public Health England had concluded a ‘consistently low’ risk to public health, Stec’s findings uncovered an overlooked and considerable risk to residents and firefighters’ health and the urgent need for investigation. Her preliminary findings, showing high concentrations of potential carcinogens in the area, were shared with PHE, NHS England and government officials in February 2018. They were reported on the front page of The Guardian every day for a week, in October 2018 [A]. This led to Prime Minister Theresa May calling on her chief scientific advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance, to establish a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) on Grenfell Environmental Contamination, onto which Prof Stec was invited as the leading expert (Prof Chris Witty was a member of the group) [B]. The SAG commissioned comprehensive soil analysis as well as a GBP50,000,000 programme of health screening for affected residents [C]. Stec was called to give evidence on both the Grenfell Contamination and firefighter cancers to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) [D], and her work featured heavily in their report [E]. Stec’s Grenfell contamination work was one of six final nominees for the Times Higher Education Research Project of the Year Award in 2020 [F].

Protecting firefighters from exposure to toxic fire effluent and residues

Stec initiated a meeting in the European Parliament for the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Against Cancer Group in September 2017 to raise awareness of firefighters’ occupational exposure to toxic fire effluents and increased risk of cancer and disease. Pavel Poc, MEP Vice Chair of the MEPs Against Cancer Group, summarised: “It is clear that it is time to take action both on national and EU levels to ensure that our firefighters are no longer left alone in their battle with cancer. I call on upon the Euro commission and member states to take a strong and necessary lead on this issue and I call on all colleagues in the European parliament to support us, to support this initiative with only objective in mind the safety of our firefighters and all EU citizens.” [G]. This work was also presented to UK Members of Parliament and peers at the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group and to the Government’s Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. It was also discussed at the British Standards technical committee (Firefighters’ PPE, PH/14). Stec’s research findings directly led to representation by counsel for the Grenfell Tower fire victims, and also counsel for the FBU, arguing that cancers and other chronic diseases should be included in the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick [H].

The utility and potential of the contamination study [2] for protecting firefighters’ health has been recognised by the Environmental Audit Committee in Recommendation 15 of the Report on Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life: ‘Recommendation 15: We also recommend that the Health and Safety Executive monitors the progress of the Fire Brigades Union research and provides assistance in implementing recommendations which seek to improve the work environments of UK firefighters. This should include measures to minimise contamination from clothing and equipment and reduce the overall exposure of firefighters, their families and the public’ [I, J]. The UCLan guidance document, commissioned by the FBU, Minimising firefighters’ exposure to toxic fire effluents Interim Best Practice Report responded to and set out the strategies for addressing the issues raised in Recommendation 15 [K1].

Research undertaken in collaboration with the FBU has already had significant impact by raising awareness of, and reforming, fire contamination control practices within UK FRSs. The best practice report [3] aims to help protect firefighters’ health by highlighting the risks and common sources of contamination. It also suggests preventative measures for minimising exposure to contaminants and best practice for the decontamination of FRS personnel and firefighting equipment after exposure to toxic fire effluent. It provides background information, statistics, resources and actions vital for improving firefighters’ health and well-being, keeping them safe and preventing the contamination which otherwise will lead to serious health conditions resulting in either life-changing problems and/or premature death. This is the first time such guidance has been provided to UK FRSs.

Matt Wrack, FBU General Secretary, says in his foreword to the report that it “not only provides evidence of the heightened risk faced by firefighters through their work, but also delivers clear and authoritative guidance to fire and rescue services across the UK about the measures they can take to minimise firefighters’ exposure to contaminants. The report details how firefighters face danger from breathing and ingesting contaminants long after a fire has been extinguished – and how these toxic fire effluents can be absorbed by the skin. It demonstrates where current Fire and Rescue health and safety practices are failing, builds on existing good practice and sets out a path to a safer future.” [K1]

The report made a series of practical recommendations, supported by the FBU, for changes that could be implemented by both the fire service and firefighters themselves. One firefighter commented: “I believe if the current recommendations had been in place when I first joined the service, I am in no doubt that they would have made a difference to me and my colleagues. If we’d known and we’d had these measures, we’d have used them and fewer of us would have got sick.” [K2, K3]

The UK government’s Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) is planning to publish their review on firefighters and cancer imminently (March 2021) and have expressed interest in referencing the best practice recommendations made within the guidance document [L].

Distribution and best practice adoption in the UK and abroad

The impact of the guidance document is having a positive influence on the health of firefighters internationally. Fire Services in Poland have already adopted the document. The Firefighters Union KSP NSZZ "Solidarność" have said they “recommend this document to be used by all firefighters in Poland.” [M]. The Chief of the Fire Brigade in Olsztyn-Gutkowo, stated that the best practice report “has some impressive, radical, provoking and stimulating suggestions that are really needed in our sector in order to make any change. Our Fire Brigade is on board with all your findings in your report.” Zapadka also confirms that the “document was distributed across Polish Fire Stations, and I am sure that there are more Fire Brigades using and adopting your document.” [M] Following publication of the guidance in November 2020 emergency services and fire professionals in the USA, Australia, Netherlands, Norway and Ireland have expressed interest in the guidance [M].

The best practice document was welcomed by the FRSs in the UK, many of them incorporating the recommendations into their practice. Examples include fire services from London, Scotland, Greater Manchester, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Avon, Lancashire, Merseyside and the Isle of Wight. In a letter to Matt Wrack, Martin Blunden of the Scottish Fire Rescue Service states that their Contaminants Control Group “has implemented action planning in all key areas where contaminants can present, this includes station design, appliance design, firefighting operations, PPE, Occupational Health, culture & behaviour, training and record keeping. In support of this work, the Service published a general information note in June 2020 which outlines in detail the standards, processes and behaviours expected in relation to these key areas.” Furthermore, Blunden reports that “This work will continue to be of high importance for the Service and the CG are currently scoping the recommendations from the UCLan Interim Report to ensure that any learning and recommendations are incorporated into the ongoing work of the CG.” [M]