ASA Adjudication on Rockwool Insulation Ltd

Ad

An ad in a specialist magazine, for roof cladding and insulation, stated "ROCKWOOL ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE. FIRE AFFECTS EVERYONE. Every year we count the cost of fire related incidents whether they occur in residential dwellings, commercial buildings, vehicles or outdoors. People are injured or even killed, property is destroyed and lives are permanently affected ...

One of the main methods of combating fire spread is to create sealed compartments throughout a building to ensure that the fire is contained within the area of its origin. This concept has been adopted by all the regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The specific legislation covering England and Wales can be found in Approved Document B - Vol 2 (ADB2) of the Building Regulations. Paragraphs 8.29 and 8.30 of ADB2 state that a zone of the roof, 15000mm wide on either side of the wall, should have a substrate or deck of material of limited combustibility (see Figure 1).

In practical terms this means that combustible insulation such as plastic foam cannot be used in these zones unless other cost-adding measures, such as parapet walls or fire resistant ceilings, are incorporated into the roof construction to show compliance with the regulations. The best solution is to use mineral wool insulation which is non-combustible (and also of 'Limited Combustibility').

Marketing terms such as 'fire safe' and 'fire proof' can be misinterpreted as being somehow equivalent to 'non-combustible', leading to potential confusion in the market. Plastic foam insulation products (commonly made from polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, polystyrene or phenolic materials) are combustible and, in the event of fire, will contribute to its growth. These products cannot be classified as products of limited combustibility or as non-combustible.

The Buildings Regulations deem all products which achieve an A1 classification as BS EN 13501-1, to be non-combustible. This standard in turn describes all A1 rated products as those which 'will not contribute in any stage of a fire, including the fully developed stage'. The most widely used non-combustible insulations are mineral wool products manufactured from stone or glass. Similarly those products which achieve an 'A2 (s3, d2) rating or higher are said to be of 'Limited Combustibility' (including non-combustible A1 products).

A further piece of recent legislation is the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order (RRFSO) which is intended to minimise the risk from fire by identifying and reducing potential fire hazards to an acceptable level … the RRFSO clearly states that, designers may face criminal prosecution if they do not communicate all elements of the design that may affect fire performance, including the use of combustible insulation products.

The Construction, Design and Management (CDM) regulations, introduced in April 2007, also clarify the significance of the RRFSO with regard to the responsibility of the building contractor... roofing contractors must also consider the combustibility of the products they are installing and advise building owners and employers accordingly or risk criminal prosecution.

Fire continues to seriously impact on our lives, homes and workplaces leaving us to count both social and economic costs. Using truly non-combustible building materials such as stone wool insulation will help greatly reduce this cost. Its [sic] as simple as that."

Issue

Engineering Panels in Construction (EPIC), Kingspan Insulation Ltd (Kingspan), The Phenolic Foam Manufacturers' Association (PFMA) and the British Rigid Urethane Manufacturers' Association (BRUFMA) objected to the ad on a number of grounds.

1. PFMA, EPIC and Kingspan believed the claim that plastic foam insulation products would contribute towards a fire's growth was not accurate, because there was evidence that polyisocyanurate and phenolic or PIC Core systems did not contribute to the growth of a fire;

2. BRUMFA, EPIC and Kingspan objected that the ADB2 in the building regulations did not require cost-adding measures to be taken if plastic foam insulation was used; rather, they were guidelines that allowed other measures to be taken;

3. EPIC and PFMA objected that the RRFSO and CDM did not state that one would be open to criminal prosecution if not all factors that might affect fire performance were not declared because they did not have to be declared if they did not represent a significant risk;

4. Kingspan said the RRFSO and CDM did not refer to "combustible material in the construction";

5. PFMA and Kingspan challenged the statement that using the advertised insulation would reduce the social and economic impact of fires;

6. PFMA, BRUMFA and EPIC objected that "Using truly non-combustible building materials such as stone wool insulation" manufactured by Rockwool "will help greatly reduce its cost" was misleading and could not be substantiated

7. BRUFMA and Kingspan objected that the fire shown in the picture would not have been affected by the creation of sealed compartments as described above the picture.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Rockwool Insulation Ltd (Rockwool) said there was a distinction to be made between a plastic foam system and plastic foam insulation products (PIR). They said a plastic foam system consisted of a fully finished building component made from several layers, for example a roofing system which included a metal deck, VCL (a vapour control layer), insulation and water proofing membrane. They said the comments made in the ad about combustibility clearly related to plastic foam insulation products. Rockwool said, when making the claim, they had in mind the European Reaction to Fire Classification System, which classified products according to their reaction to fire using designations A1, A2, B, C, D, E and F. They said Rockwool insulation products achieved the best performing, least combustible, classifications, A1 and A2, whereas the ratings for plastic foams were lower. Rockwool said no plastic insulation product achieved a rating greater than B, for specialist phenolic products, whilst most achieved ratings C to F. They said under this rating system it could therefore be seen that all PIR products contributed to fire to some extent, as claimed in their ad.

Rockwool said they had carried out their own testing of the reactions of various insulation products to fire, and those tests were available on the DVD that accompanied the magazine in which the ad was placed, so readers could see the evidence. They sent a copy of the DVD.

2, Rockwool said their ad set out the requirements of the Building Regulations ABD2 paragraphs 8.29 and 8.30, which stated that a zone of a roof 15000 mm wide on either side of the wall should have a substrate or deck of material of limited combustibility. They said that, in practical terms, the effect of these regulations was that additional cost adding measures were required when using plastic foam insulation. They said their ad did not state that cost adding measures were required under the regulations, but rather that they were a practical necessity in order to be compliant when using plastic foam insulation. They pointed out their ad gave two examples of cost-adding measures which would overcome the regulations when using plastic foam insulation, namely parapet walls or fire resistant ceilings. They said the Department of Communities and Local Government had confirmed it did not object to Rockwool publically providing this interpretation. They said they believed the product literature of the complainants supported their view that cost-adding measures would be required and gave an example.

3. Rockwool said paragraph 8 of the RRFSO placed the responsible person under a general duty to make general fire precautions. They said general fire precautions were defined under paragraph 4 and included taking measures to reduce the risk of fire and the spread of fire. They said paragraph 32 stated that it was an offence for any responsible person or any other person to fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 where that failure placed anyone at risk of death or serious injury. They said it was clear that in order to comply, all fire performance factors should be declared. Rockwool said they believed a full risk assessment was required in order to assess what factors were of significance. They said their interpretation was supported by a guidance document issued by the Department for Children, Schools and Families which set out standard specifications for roof coverings in schools. They pointed out that it stated that all aspects of the design that might affect the eventual fire risk assessment, including the use of combustible products in construction were required to be communicated by the designers under the Regulatory Reform Fire Order 2006, and that errors resulting from judgements based on the acceptance of misleading or inaccurate information could lead to criminal prosecution.

4. Rockwool referred to the requirement under the RRFSO to reduce the risk of fire and the spread of fire. They said, given the effect of these provisions, it was clear that combustible materials used in construction would be caught by them.

5. Rockwool said, given the A1 Euroclass class rating awarded to their advertised product, that is a product which would not contribute to any stage of a fire, even the fully developed stage, they believed that the statement used in the ad that their product would help reduce the cost of a fire was true.

6. Rockwool said their ad used stone wool insulation as an example of a non combustible material which could be used and did not assert that stone wool was the only non-combustible material which could be used or that Rockwool was the only manufacturer. They referred once again to a document on fire proofing design in schools published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which they said discussed limiting the use of easily ignited materials and also referred to restrictions imposed on building materials to limit the spread of fire. They said they believed their statement was not misleading, especially when read in the context of the ad as a whole.

7. Rockwool said the illustration was simply a picture of a building on fire, which was relevant to the ad. They said the ad did not assert that the fire in the picture could have been prevented by the use of sealed compartments, given that there would be no way to prove this one way or the other.

Rockwool said they had no plans to use the ad again.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA understood that plastic foam insulation materials were used as thermal insulation in the building trade and could be sprayed into wall cavities or might form the insulating core of plywood panels or sandwich panel systems where the insulating core was pressed between metal sheets. We understood that plastic foam insulation materials themselves were combustible, although to differing degrees, and could ignite and burn if exposed to a sufficient heat source. However, we understood that installed plastic foam insulation materials and systems varied in terms of their fire performance and that metal sandwich panels containing some types of plastic foam insulation were unlikely to contribute significantly to the growth phase of a fire. Whilst we agreed that plastic foam insulation products could not be classified as products of limited combustibility or as non-combustible, we considered that the claim "Plastic foam insulation products (commonly made from polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, polystyrene or phenolic materials) are combustible and, in the event of fire, will contribute to its growth. These products cannot be classified as products of limited combustibility or as non-combustible" was misleading in the context of the ad as a whole because it gave the impression that plastic foam insulation materials installed in buildings in whatever manner would definitely contribute to the growth of a fire when that was not the case.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

2. Upheld

We considered that the claim "The specific legislation covering England and Wales can be found in Approved Document B - Vol 2 (ADB2) of the Building Regulations. Paragraphs 8.29 and 8.30 of ADB2 state that a zone of the roof, 15000mm wide on either side of the wall, should have a substrate or deck of material of limited combustibility (see Figure 1). In practical terms this means that combustible insulation such as plastic foam cannot be used in these zones unless other cost-adding measures, such as parapet walls or fire resistant ceilings, are incorporated into the roof construction to show compliance with the regulations" was likely to mislead by suggesting that only insulation products of limited combustibility, such as Rockwool's stone wool, could fulfil the Building Regulations without additional cost when that was not the case.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

3. Upheld

We understood that the RRFSO (2005) did not refer to designers but to those responsible for carrying out risk assessments for commercial properties. We understood the CDM Regulations (2007) referred to designers and said that designers should provide sufficient information with their design about all aspects of its structure, construction and maintenance which would adequately assist other involved parties to comply with their obligations. We noted the RRFSO stated that the person responsible for a building's risk assessment should make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons were exposed, for the purposes of identifying general fire precautions. We understood that, in premises where more than five people were employed, significant hazards should be written down as part of that assessment and understood such an assessment should include the reporting of any dangerous substances. We noted that dangerous substances were defined as explosive, oxidising, extremely or highly flammable or flammable. We understood that plastic foam insulation materials, whilst combustible at high temperatures in the event of a fire, were not hazardous such that they needed to be particularly flagged as a dangerous substance in an RRFSO assessment. On this point we concluded that the claim "the RRFSO clearly states that, designers may face criminal prosecution if they do not communicate all elements of the design that may affect fire performance, including the use of combustible insulation products" gave the misleading impression that plastic foam insulation products were so hazardous they had to be reported in an RRFSO risk assessment when that was not the case.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. Upheld

We acknowledged that the RRFSO did not use the words "including the use of combustible insulation products" when discussing the circumstances under which risk assessors might face criminal prosecution for negligent reporting. We also noted the CDM did not refer to "combustible insulation products" when discussing the circumstances under which building designers might face criminal prosecution. We concluded the ad was likely to mislead by giving the impression that they did.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

5. & 6. Upheld

We considered that, because we had not seen evidence to show that there would be less social and economic costs in fires where the advertiser's insulation product, rather than plastic foam insulation products, had been used in construction (for example in the form of comparative mortality rates or financial damages) Rockwool had not substantiated the claim "Fire continues to seriously impact on our lives, homes and workplaces leaving us to count both social and economic costs. Using truly non-combustible building materials such as stone wool insulation will help greatly reduce this cost".

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), Truthfulness (7.1) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

7. Not upheld

We considered the image of a burning building in the ad was a general illustration and that the ad did not imply the damage would have been less extensive in that particular case had sealed compartments had been created within it.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)