Peter Apps Profile picture
16 Feb, 18 tweets, 3 min read
Lunchtime update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:

- President of Arconic accepts "false statement" in certificate describing the fire classification of cladding used on tower
- Says 'regulatory differences' reason why highly combustible panels were so popular in UK Image
This morning we've been hearing from Claude Schmidt, current president of AAP SAS, the French arm of Arconic which made and sold the 'Reynobond PE' cladding panels used on Grenfell. They have already been identified as the 'primary cause' of the rapid fire spread at the tower.
Inquiry counsel Richard Millett began by asking him (via a translator) whether or not he agreed with several factual statements. Among other things, he asked whether he agreed that the PE panels, when bent into the cassette shape in which they were used on Grenfell...
... obtained a European classification of 'Class E' in 2010, and no classification in 2004. And that it had never achieved the higher rating of 'Class B' in this form. Mr Schmidt answered 'oui' to all these questions.
He then agreed that the certificate (from respected third party certifier the BBA) drew no distinction between panels bent in this way, and those fixed with rivets (where the fire performance is better). Instead, it presented both as Class B. Once more, oui.
"Do you agree that was a false statement, so far as concerns the cassette fixed version?" asked Millett

"Yes"
Asked to explain this, he said he could not - but referred to the fact that the BBA certificate also referred to the entirely separate British standard of Class 0 (more on which below)
Mr Schmidt then asked several questions about the sale of Reynobond PE panels into the UK market generally. In his witness statement, he said that Arconic had a relatively small share of the UK market (around 10%). But it mainly sold PE - as opposed to a more fire safe version.
"This was what the UK market demanded," his statement said. He contrasted this with other jurisdictions, such as Poland, where "legislation was in place which prevented the use of PE products in architecture other than in limited circumstances".
"Does the regulatory difference account for why people bought more PE in the UK than they did in Poland?" asks Millett.

"Yes, I believe so," replies Schmidt
Next he was asked about testing of the panels to the UK standard of Class 0. Keep in mind, this is a specific British standard. Our building guidance said cladding panels could be EITHER the European Class B or national Class 0
It transpired that a product called Reynobond 160 PE passed a Class 0 test at Warrington Fire testing house in 1997. Mr Schmidt said that this was 'identical' to the Reynobond PE 55 eventually sold for Grenfell
The difference was that 160 PE was made in the US, whereas from the mid-2000s the product was produced in the French plant and was rebranded '55'. But this new French product was never retested.
Schmidt said he had 'no answer' as to why fresh testing was not done and accepted that it would have been 'a good idea'. This 1997 test was never presented to the BBA when it produced its 2007 certificate saying the product 'may be regarded as having a Class 0 surface'
Instead, this was based on testing on the fire retardant version of the product, carried out in 2003 - but the BBA certificate apparently applied to both. Before lunch we began talking about the European testing, that topic will continue in the afternoon.
We are translating questions and answers from French into English, which makes for very slow progress but is also a lot easier to shorthand so from a selfish perspective, this is great.
Also, there was a minor row in the morning when Arconic's lawyer (below) unmuted his mic to jump in and accuse Mr Millett of making a mistake in the question. First time this has happened, counsel normally submit clarifications via email - as Mr Millett very testily pointed out Image
Continued into the morning break when basically Sir Martin Moore-Bick said there shouldn't be any live interruptions. Had a bit a squabbling public school boys being ticked off by the school master energy. Schmidt continues after lunch.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Peter Apps

Peter Apps Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PeteApps

18 Feb
Lunchtime update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:

President of Arconic's French arm accepts customers were 'deliberately and dishonestly misled' over fire classification of cladding panels, as he is asked about email saying failed fire test must be kept 'VERY CONFIDENTIAL' Image
The most interesting point of this morning's evidence came right at the end of the session when Claude Schmidt was grilled about an email his colleague Claude Wehrle sent regarding the serious failure of polyethylene-cored ACM panels when bent into a cassette form in March 2010
Remember: Arconic in 2004/5 tested its ACM PE panel when bent into cassette and when bolted to a wall with rivets. The cassette version failed spectacularly, burning 10 times as fast. But Arconic dismissed this as a 'rogue result' and drew no distinction in its marketing...
Read 13 tweets
17 Feb
Lunchtime update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:

President of French company which sold cladding for Grenfell accepts company told a "misleading half truth" by concealing serious fire test failure from certifiers Image
Claude Schmidt has been grilled this morning mostly about the means by which Arconic obtained a certificate from the British Board of Agrèment regarding the fire performance of the panels used on Grenfell Tower: Image
(A note: BBA certs are widely used and very well respected in the construction sector as the authoritative statement on how products perform. Most building professionals + inspectors will simply take them on their word)
Read 13 tweets
16 Feb
Report from today at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:

President of the firm which sold the highly combustible used on Grenfell denies that a 2005 test in which it failed “spectacularly” was the firm’s “deadly secret”

insidehousing.co.uk/news/grenfell-…
There is a lot in today's evidence which is crucial in understanding why Grenfell happened. Essentially, we heard the details of a test in 2005 which showed the cladding was exceptionally combustible when bent into a 'cassette' shape Image
This is the configuration used on Grenfell Tower. Arconic did not warn the market about this risk and instead sold the cladding with a certificate suggesting it met a much higher standard.
Read 6 tweets
16 Feb
This is pretty extraordinary. Test reports shows Grenfell cladding burned 10 times more quickly, released seven times as much heat and three times as much smoke when bent into cassette shapes as opposed to a flat panel.

Arconic's certificate drew no distinction between them.
Worth emphasising here that while the refurbishment team did not know this, the only reason cassette shaped panels was used on Grenfell was aesthetics. They were actually more expensive.
For those interested, riveted panels had a fire growth rate 105.5 watts, cassette had 1009. Riveted had a heat realease of 7.8 megajoules, cassette had 59. Riveted had smoke growth index rating of 5.7, cassette was 16.6.
Read 5 tweets
15 Feb
Right, short afternoon break coming up at the inquiry so a quick summary of some interesting bits of evidence this afternoon:

Arconic told sales people in France to push more fire safe product from 2016 onwards, but continued to sell deadly product in England Image
So this afternoon, we've been hearing from Vince Meakins who took over as Arconic's UK sales manager in late 2014. He had little involvement in Grenfell Tower, but has been asked about the company's approach to the market and fire safety questions.
He said that he was told to focus more on winning sales for the 'FR' (a more fire resistant version with less of the petrol-like polyethylene), at a sales meeting which he says was early in his time at Arconic
Read 14 tweets
10 Feb
A final thought on Jenrick's announcement today. The route of the government's problem is a failure to distinguish the varying levels of risk in buildings and until that nettle is grasped this problem will never go away.
We've got to remember why all this is necessary. It's to stop a repeat of the absolutely appalling tragedy which took place less than four years ago. Fire deaths in high rises might be low, but that doesn't change the fact that the conditions for a repeat disaster still exist.
Any part of achieving this aim should be proactively assessing blocks of flats with a view to working out which are potential Grenfells, which are potential Lakanals and which are not perfect but are not that bad.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!