Thread by @PeteApps

Having had a bit of time to reflect on this I think it's worth running through the role of Arconic in a bit more detail.

They are the huge Pennsylvania based multi-national which made the ACM cladding which was installed on the walls of Grenfell Tower

https://twitter.com/PeteApps/status/1324336448963751938

Phase One of the inquiry has already concluded that cladding - which had a core of polyethylene, a plastic akin to solid petrol - was the "principal reason" for the spread of the fire up and around Grenfell Tower, as the plastic inside the panels ignited and melted

We now know that in 2005, Arconic's French arm tested these panels in two forms: rivetted (fixed to a building with bolts) and cassette (bent and hung on rails).

The cassette product performed abysymally - the test was stopped due to fire and it got a 'Class E' rating

But then, in 2006, Arconic had a strategy meeting in Luton. It decided it needed to obtain a certificate for the cladding panels to win jobs in lucrative public sector market in the UK. UK building regs required Euroclass B or UK Class 0 to be used on high rises.

The panel was available in two forms: untreated polyethylene which burned like petrol and fire retardant (FR), which was far less flammable. It had testing which said it met Class 0 but only, the survivors lawyers say, for the FR panel.

Nonetheless, in 2008 it obtained a certificate which appeared to bestow Class 0 + B ratings on the panel in all forms. This certificate was from the British Board of Agrement - which was highly regarded in the UK construction sector. The BBA was not told about the Class E test.

Following this (lawyers for Celotex allege) Arconic promoted the PE product, because it knew it was cheaper and would therefore be more likely to win jobs as clients sought the cheapest product. But internally, Arconic staff raised concerns about what was happening.

Claude Wehrle wrote in 2015: "PE is dangerous on facades, and everything should be transferred to [fire resistant] as a matter of urgency." He added: “This opinion is technical and anti-commercial, it seems…”

In 2010, asked about this issue internally, he wrote: "Its hard to make a note about this…..because we are not clean."
He escalated these concerns. The American president of Arconic was informed of the testing in 2015 (survivors claim)

Arconic was also aware of fires around the world involving PE ACM, and was monitoring fires in France, Australia, Azerbaijan and the Middle East.

In 2014, Debbie French, its UK sales manager, provided the BBA certificate to the team working on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, who took it (despite some significant cavaets) as evidence that the panel was Class 0 and acceptable for use in the UK.

They were seeking the cheapest product available in order to get the job done within an artificially tight budget.

Three years later, a fire started in a fridge, broke out of a window and the rest is well known.

Arconic's lawyers emphasise significant construction defects at Grenfell and other failings "which could not have been predicted by Arconic". They say it would have been possible to use the cassette panel safely without these defects being present.

This is about a currently trading, large multinational company which turned over $7.2bn globally last year. Three key witnesses based in Europe have indicated they may not even attend to give evidence, citing a French law on corporate secrecy.

Please remember: this is an inquiry into the deaths of 72 innocent people, including 18 children, and the permanenet devastation of hundreds of lives (ends)