A nonprofit publication of the Kentucky Center for Public Service Journalism

Keven Moore: Hard lessons from Grenfell Tower fire; shortcuts, outdated codes have consequences


The Grenfell Tower fire in west London that killed 79 people and injured another 74 people was heart-wrenching to watch on TV the night of June 14.

According to reports, it was the deadliest fire in Great Britain since World War II. The 43-year-old building housed approximately 600 people, contained 127 flats and had 227 bedrooms.

Emergency crews were quick to arrive on the scene after being notified and were able to rescue 65 people from the 24-story building before flames trapped many others on the floors above. Fire crews quickly extinguish the fire on the 4th floor where a faulty refrigerator apparently started the fire.

But by then the fire had quickly jumped to the exterior of the building and spread upward where it penetrated the interior of the building. It continued to burn out of control for another 60 hours.

The 24 story Grenfell Tower fire in west London killed 79 people

The rapid spread of the fire was believed to have been aided by the building’s recently added exterior cladding. Cladding is the application of one material over another to provide a skin or layer. In construction, cladding is used to provide a degree of thermal insulation and weather resistance, and to improve the appearance of buildings.

The 10 columns up the side of the building represent an unusual design, and when fitted with combustible cladding and flammable insulation they created an air gap. Investigators think the cladding and triangular-shaped concrete columns led to a so-called ‘chimney effect:’ a space through which the flames were able to race up the side of the tower.

Preliminary tests show the insulation samples collected from Grenfell Tower combusted quickly. The equivalent aluminum composite tiles used as cladding in a recent refurbishment of the building failed initial safety tests.

In just about every tragic scenario of the past, there is always one person who cried wolf. While I watched the news that evening they reported that one man had predicted that such a fire could tragically occur because of the recent installation of exterior cladding. But like a prophet in his own land, his concern fell on deaf ears and was not heeded.

What may have also contributed to the number of deaths was the fact that many of the residents sheltered in place once the fire began.

In a July 2014 Grenfell Tower regeneration newsletter, the KCTMO had instructed residents to stay in the flat in case of a fire (“Our longstanding ‘stay put’ policy stays in force until you are told otherwise”) and stated that the front doors for each unit could survive a fire for up to 30 minutes.

The smoke detection systems had been upgraded, but there are reports that some of the alarms were not operational. What is more disturbing was that like many other high-rise buildings in the UK, the tower had only a single central staircase. Unlike many other countries, UK regulations do not require a second staircase, a policy which is baffling and inconceivable to me.

To add to the perfect storm scenario, the building was not equipped with a fire suppression sprinkler system. The Grenfell Tower residents as a group did not favor adding sprinklers during the recent renovations because if they had been installed, because it would have delayed the refurbishment and been more disruptive.

According to 2012 report each flat could have had fire sprinklers installed for less than $1,500 or approximately $175,000 for the entire building.

Some experts are saying that if the cladding was at fault for the fire spreading as quickly as it did, then a sprinkler system would have had little effect. But I would argue that if the flat had been equipped with a fire sprinkler system it would have extinguished the blaze and prevented it from spreading from that kitchen, or at least contained it long enough for the fire department to arrive.

Many are accusing the British government of ignoring warnings about fire safety in tower blocks. A former chief fire official and secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety said ministers stonewalled requests for meetings and efforts to tighten safety rules.

What is even more troubling is that there are estimates of some 4,000 older and similar tower blocks (high-rise apartment complexes) throughout the UK that have the same safety concerns.

From what I read this weekend, officials have already identified at least 11 other tower blocks in England with cladding similar to the kind that apparently fueled the rapid spread of the fire in Grenfell Tower.

In America today, we would not dream of building a high rise building under the safety and building code standards of the 1970s because as a civilization we have learned and grown from our mistakes and past tragedies. However those that inhabit and work within these older buildings have to live with the legacy of those outdated codes that can prove to be deadly.

As with any tragedy, you can rest assured that there are several people who could be blamed, who made decisions that were not in the best interest of safety.

In my profession as a safety and risk management professional, I see such oversights on a regular basis after an incident has occurred. In this particular situation, however, the police are now considering manslaughter charges, among others.

According to reports, the building was insured for a little over $25 million, but the direct costs of the fire are likely to be substantially higher. The financial impact could reach as high as $1B when you factor in the combination of litigation, compensation for deaths and injuries, rehousing and rehabilitation, the cost of demolition and rebuilding and the possibility that other tower blocks may have to be improved or evacuated.

As with any tragedy, lessons are learned and new safety standards are issued to prevent reoccurrence. The defining outcome of this tragedy may be the demolition of these obsolete building that represent the worst mistakes of buildings dating from the 1960s and 1970s.

Those of you who poke fun at health and safety regulations and red tape need to take a hard look at the consequences of the Grenfell Tower fire and ask yourselves: Are shortcuts and ignoring requests for safety improvements worth the risk?

Maybe the more important question is: Can you live with yourself and your regrets from behind bars if you are responsible for such a tragedy? Decisions can have deadly consequences.

Be Safe My Friends.

Keven-Moore_10221

Keven Moore works in risk management services. He has a bachelor’s degree from University of Kentucky, a master’s from Eastern Kentucky University and 25-plus years of experience in the safety and insurance profession. He lives in Lexington with his family and works out of both the Lexington and Northern Kentucky offices. Keven can be reached at kmoore@roeding.com.


Related Posts

Leave a Comment