Checks and Audits on Buildings with External Cladding

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Home Affairs other than the buildings with external cladding being tested by SCDF, whether there are and should be plans for BCA to conduct an extensive audit of all buildings with external cladding and ensure compliance of construction materials with the Fire Code.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether SCDF's checks on buildings with non-Class "0" cladding also cover the lifts done under the Lift Upgrading Programme; (b) for buildings found with non-Class "0" cladding, what interim measures are being taken to protect the safety of the occupiers; and (c) what is the timeline given to these affected buildings to remove the unsafe claddings.

Miss Cheryl Chan1 has also asked a related question for a subsequent Sitting. I will also answer her question.

When we look at these questions, it is useful, first, to consider how extensive the use of cladding is in Singapore. If you look at it from 1985, based on building plans submitted, less than 20% of these building projects used cladding.

If you look at composite materials, they typically comprise two non-flammable layers with a core material sandwiched between the two non-combustible layers. The Fire Code requirements for these composite panels when they are used as cladding on external walls accepts three internationally recognised testing standards, the EN 13501-1, which is the European standard, the BS 476 group of tests, which is British standard, and the United States (US) standard, NFPA 285. So, we accept all three.

In this case, the BS 476 tests were applied. For composite panels used as cladding on external walls, in order to meet the Fire Code requirement when using this British standard, you take the core material of the panels, and they have to be tested on their own. When they are tested on their own, they must meet Class "0" standard. What does it mean? When the core material is ignited on its own, the fire must not spread along the surface. So, whenever I refer to Class "0" standard or Class "0" on core standard, I am referring to this British standard, and the equivalent under the US and European testing standards.

So, going to Miss Chan's question on conformance of building materials with fire safety standards that are stipulated, it works in this way. If you have a building project, you will have appointed registered architects or professional engineers. We call them Qualified Persons (QPs). They are responsible for selecting the correct materials, appropriate materials and products which comply with the Fire Code. On top of that, there is an independent Registered Inspector who is required to inspect the building when completed. Only then will the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) issue a Fire Safety Certificate, because every premises must get the certificate before the premises can be used or occupied.

So, how does the process work? Some material will require testing to ensure that they meet the Fire Code requirements, like composite panels. They will have to be certified by local Certification Bodies. How do the Certification Bodies go about it? They will accept test results from accredited testing laboratories, which can be either overseas or in Singapore. If they are overseas, there is a certain number of them, which is accredited by us, accepted by us. We do not accept everyone.

The Certification Bodies also will have to conduct periodic audits to ensure that certified products continue to conform to those standards.

Of course, if you carry out any work which is unauthorised or if you allow any unauthorised works which have an impact on fire safety, that will be an offence and attracting fines of up to $200,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. SCDF will take action against QPs and Registered Inspectors if they have not carried out their duties properly.

In respect of 30 Toh Guan Road fire on 4 May, investigations were conducted. The investigations have not been completed. I want to be tentative about it, because, first, the investigations have not been completed, and second, you have to be fair to the people involved.

It appears that some of the Alubond composite panels used as cladding on the external walls of the buildings were not of Class "0" on core standard as required under the Fire Code. When my Ministry discovered this, we decided to check how many other buildings had been supplied with Alubond cladding by the same distributor. That distributor happens to be the sole local distributor of this material.

As of 24 August, we issued a press statement. We identified 40 affected buildings, or buildings we thought were affected. We took the approach that, with the exception of those that tested compliant, as long as the building had public access, and even if the cladding was low, 3% of the external wall, we will still identify it. So, we took a very zero-tolerance approach, because we felt the public ought to know.

Since 24 August, and as of 8 September, more buildings have been tested and more QPs have contacted SCDF. As of 8 September, there are 37 buildings that may have used Alubond composite panels as cladding on their walls. Twenty of these have been tested so far, and the composite panels of 15 of them have been found to be not of Class "0" on core standard. Five comply with Class "0" standard. As I said, these 15 range from 3% to higher but, mostly, it is, if my memory serves me right, less than 25%.

How did this happen? We will set out what we know so far. Conclusions are preliminary. What we know is that the distributor had sold two models of Alubond composite panels. One meets the Class "0" on core requirement for use as cladding on external walls, while the other model does not. It appears that stocks of both models may have been mixed together at the distributor's local warehouse. As a result, I think non-Class "0" on core composite panels may have, at times, been supplied for use on the external walls of buildings. It does not mean that all the panels would have been non-compliant, but some may have been non-compliant, or are non-compliant.

And there seems to be a second reason. It appears that the composite panels which were certified to be Class "0" on core were not of uniformly same quality; some met the standard, but others did not. So, we are investigating if this is a manufacturing issue. In summary, on this point, it appears that non-compliant claddings may have been installed for a mix of these two reasons. For the public to understand, in addition to requirements on claddings, we have very strict fire safety requirements to minimise fire-spread and protect occupants. Those requirements, for example, fire-resistant floors, fire-resistant walls, exits which have to meet certain requirements − all of these, put together, will help us assess the fire safety of a building. Which is why SCDF said, looking at all the buildings, that is the first thing we did. We assessed the buildings to be safe, despite the non-compliant claddings. But at the same time, we required the non-compliant claddings to be removed within two months. So, that should be done by the end of October.

SCDF's assessment is that those buildings remain fit and safe for occupancy and they have adequate safety provisions, including other fire protection systems. SCDF has also required the building owners to check their fire safety systems to make sure they are in good order. And, while the claddings are being removed, to enhance the vigilance of their personnel, remove any fire hazards.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if SCDF has checked whether lifts under the —

Yes, I will try to, Sir. I am taking three questions together plus one.

Er Dr Lee asked if SCDF has checked whether lifts under the Lift Upgrading Programme use non-Class "0" on core cladding. Actually, the vast majority of Housing and Development Board blocks do not use cladding, or use only non-combustible cladding. A small number use composite panels as cladding on the exterior of lift shafts, and SCDF has checked that these panels meet the fire safety requirements.

We will work with the relevant agencies, building industry, to review the processes. For example, we will explore whether composite panels of different classes of flame-spread could be more clearly differentiated using identifiable labels to, for example, reduce the possibility of the wrong type of composite panels being used.

We have also issued an advisory to all QPs and Registered Inspectors to check carefully the intended cladding's Certificate of Conformity and test reports. If they have any doubt whatsoever that the cladding is Class "0" on core standard, they have been advised to send in the samples for tests by an accredited testing laboratory.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if there are plans to conduct a more thorough testing/extensive audit of all claddings. I have set out what has been done and what reminders have been sent, for example, to QPs and Registered Inspectors. But in order to understand this, you have to understand how the testing is done and what the processes are. For example, it is not possible to test every panel because, if you understand testing, it requires burning of the panel. So, by definition, if you test every panel, there will be no panels left to install. That is why sampling remains the international standard. In addition to what has been done, we are also looking beyond the projects supplied by the distributor of the Alubond composite panels. We are reviewing them based on the testing that has been done, to consider whether any further steps will be necessary.

The point is, sampling should be effective. But I have indicated to Members the two preliminary views on two possible reasons as to why this might have happened. When we have completed the investigations, we will relook at that to see whether anything else needs to be done.

We have to be stringent. At the same time, when something like this happens, we need to find out why it happened. Is it because the rules were not adequate? Or is it because of a specific set of human errors which could not have been prevented by the rules? And, if so, then whether some additional rules are necessary.

Sir, I have told the House what we have found so far. Once we have completed the investigations, we will consider what further steps, if any, are necessary. And if Members of the House have any other suggestions, they can send them to my Ministry.