[ad_1]
The executive who sold the siding used in the Grenfell Tower knew it could burn, but did not tell customers, she admitted to the public inquiry into the fire.
Debbie French, Arconic UK sales manager from 2007 to 2014, said the company provided the most flammable version of the panels by default in a marketing strategy that recognized that a flame retardant version that “dramatically increases resistance to fire “was less likely to secure. Contracts on price.
The easier-to-burn version of Arconic’s Reynobond product, which was the main cause of the rapid spread of the Grenfell fire that claimed 72 lives, cost less. Used polyethylene [PE] sandwiched between 5mm thick aluminum sheets and French said he knew it “was and is flammable.”
During cross-examination, Richard Millett QC, research advisor, asked the executive: “Did you ever explain to your clients, in terms, that the PE would burn?”
“I don’t remember explaining that to them specifically,” he said. “If they had asked me the question, I would have explained it.”
He said he hadn’t seen the building regulations guidelines on fire safety or realized that there were different rules for tall buildings like the 24-story Grenfell Tower.
“My knowledge on the technical side was very limited,” he said. “Working for an organization like Alcoa [as Arconic was known]The question of whether or not it was suitable did not even cross my mind. They were a reputable company and therefore everything was perfectly suited for what I had to do in the UK. “
But the investigation heard that the company sought to “keep secret” the differences between PE and its more flame retardant version. The investigation saw a report of a 2004 fire test in a French laboratory of the cassette-shaped panels, as deployed in Grenfell, which had to stop after 850 seconds because it was emitting too much heat. Millett said this was “ignored” by the company.
French said he had never been informed about the failure, but agreed it was a “very serious omission” and issued a subsequent certificate detailing fire performance issued by the construction industry approval body. , the British Board of Agrément (BBA), “significantly misleading” to its customers.
The investigation also heard how Claude Wehrle, Arconic’s technical manager, ordered French not to disclose information to customers about the difference between the polyethylene-filled panels and the fire-retardant version.
When French asked Wehrle if he could share a paper on the differences between the materials with Arup, a prospective customer, he replied via email: “OH MY GOD !!! Where did you get that from??? Surely you are NOT allowed to disseminate these documents to the client. “
Instead, he told her to talk about the different fire classifications obtained by Arconic through the BBA. This BBA document establishes that the panels “can be considered class 0 surface”, a measure of fire spread.
Millett said the PE core panels had not been tested to show they were class 0 compliant by British standards. French said he didn’t know this.
Wehrle, who worked for Arconic until recently, is one of three current and former employees who refuse to attend to testify to the investigation. They claim they run the risk of being prosecuted under an obscure French law known as the blockade statute. The French government has said it does not believe it will apply, but only French courts can grant immunity.
Millett said Wehrle, Peter Froehlich and Gwenaëlle Derrendinger were not cooperating despite intervention “at the highest level between the British and French governments.” They are expected to be ‘chaired in a vacuum’, with time probably set aside for the key questions they need to answer to be raised.
The investigation continues.
