Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower -emails

[rooster59]

Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower -emails

By Tom Bergin

 

The burnt out remains of the Grenfell Tower are seen in North Kensington, London, Britain June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Marko Djurica

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Six emails sent by and to an Arconic Inc <ARNC.N> sales manager raise questions about why the company supplied combustible cladding to a distributor for use at Grenfell Tower, despite publicly warning such panels were a fire risk for tall buildings.

 

The emails, dating from 2014 and seen by Reuters, were between Deborah French, Arconic's UK sales manager, and executives at the contractors involved in the bidding process for the refurbishment contract at Grenfell Tower in London, where 79 people died in a blaze last week.

 

When asked about the emails, Arconic said in a statement that it had known the panels would be used at Grenfell Tower but that it was not its role to decide what was or was not compliant with local building regulations.

 

The company manufactures three main types of Reynobond panel-- one with a polyethylene (PE) core, one with a fire retardant core and another with a non-combustible core, according to its website.

 

Diagrams in a 2016 Arconic brochure for its Reynobond panels describe how PE core panels are suitable up to 10 metres in height. Panels with a fire resistant core -- the FR model -- can be used up to 30 metres, while above that height, panels with the non-combustible core -- the A2 model -- should be used, the brochure says.

 

Grenfell Tower is more than 60 metres tall.

 

The brochure also issued a blunt warning that cladding can be a fire risk. "When conceiving a building, it is crucial to choose the adapted products in order to avoid the fire to spread to the whole building. Especially when it comes to facades and roofs, the fire can spread extremely rapidly," the brochure said.

 

"As soon as the building is higher than the fire fighters’ladders, it has to be conceived with an incombustible material."

 

Nonetheless, between May and July 2014, French, who was based at Arconic's factory in Merxheim, France, responded to requests from the companies involved in refurbishing Grenfell Tower on the availability of samples of five different types of Reynobond aluminium-covered panels, all of which were only available in the combustible PE and FR versions, according to Arconic brochures.

 

In the end, Arconic said on Friday, the company provided PE panels.

 

"While we publish general usage guidelines, regulations and codes vary by country and need to be determined by the local building code experts," the company said in an emailed statement in response to the Reuters enquiry.

 

"The loss of lives, injuries and destruction following the Grenfell Tower fire are devastating, and we would like to express our deepest sympathies to everyone affected by this tragedy ... We will fully support the authorities as they investigate this tragedy," the statement said.

 

French did not respond to requests for comment.

 

Arconic, which was known as Alcoa Inc until 2016, declined to say if it knew how tall the tower was and the emails seen by Reuters do not specifically refer to its height. They do, however, refer to "Grenfell Tower" and mention other high rise projects where panelling has been used when discussing the appearance that was being sought for Grenfell Tower.

 

Arconic also knew the quantity of panels being supplied and thus the total exterior coverage. A source at one of the companies involved in the process said Arconic had "full involvement" throughout the contract bidding process.

 

Omnis Exteriors, Arconic's UK distributor, Harley Facades Ltd., the company which installed the panels, Rydon Group, the overall contractor on the 2014-2016 Grenfell refurbishment, and the local authority which owns the tower block all declined to comment.

 

Rydon and Omnis have previously said in statements that their work on the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, which was intended to give the building better heat and sound insulation, complied with all building regulations. Harley said last week it was "not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding to the tower".

 

In the emails, French and representatives of Harley, Omnis and Rydon also discuss the choice of panel models and colours and how they were inching towards securing the contract with the local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

 

Harris did not respond to requests for comment. RBKC declined to comment.

 

At the weekend, British finance minister Philip Hammond said the type of panels used, which are cheaper than non-combustible panels, were banned for use in high rise buildings in Britain, as they are in Europe and the United States.

 

Safety experts say the regulations are not black and white as they consider the overall safety of a project, taking account of how the safety measures taken interact.

 

This 'principles-based' approach is different to the highly specific 'rules-based' approach to regulation taken in the United States.

 

The fatal fire was started by a faulty Hotpoint fridge-freezer in one of the apartments, London police said on Friday. Detective Superintendent Fiona McCormack said insulation on the building, and the cladding panels, had failed safety tests carried out after the disaster.

 

The police investigation was considering the possibility of manslaughter and criminal offences in respect of the fire.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-24

 

 

[Basil B]

She may not be a expert in British building regs but she should know what her company recommends...

 

8 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

Diagrams in a 2016 Arconic brochure for its Reynobond panels describe how PE core panels are suitable up to 10 metres in height. Panels with a fire resistant core -- the FR model -- can be used up to 30 metres, while above that height, panels with the non-combustible core -- the A2 model -- should be used, the brochure says.

 

[ddavidovsky]

The company selling the panels are hardly culpable, any more than a car manufacturer is culpable when someone drives recklessly and cases an accident.

 

This situation is a mess of multiple responsibilities and a belief in technology over risk, such is the modern mindset. Seems that nobody really believed that these particular panels were an inferno danger, or thought the risk was negligible.

 

Who would know the practical risk? Who ought to know based on experience with actual infernos? Who has the jurisdiction to enforce the regulations? Only the fire department, whose job it is to go round and advise on fire safety and ensure enforcement. What do they have to say all this? Nothing, apparently. If I was the mayor, those guys would be in my office explaining themselves.

[Jonmarleesco]

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Harley said last week it was "not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding to the tower".

They must have dropped off, then. Or out.

[trogers]

No building professionals bother to check, from specifications, to bidding, to approval of shop drawings and material samples, and to the final installation and certifying the finished work.

[retarius]

Search for a scapegoat here.

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, trogers said:

No building professionals bother to check, from specifications, to bidding, to approval of shop drawings and material samples, and to the final installation and certifying the finished work.

The electrical side is tightly controlled and inspected and certified. No reason why other elements shouldn't have to be compliant with the appropriate codes. The cladding brochure actually lists compliance with various country's codes.

 

Anybody know where Boot Hill is? I want to get there early....

[Dagnabbit]

Amazing that they use flammable materials at all in this day and age

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

[nasanews]

3 hours ago, retarius said:

Search for a scapegoat here.

Well said.

[Srikcir]

18 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Safety experts say the regulations are not black and white as they consider the overall safety of a project, taking account of how the safety measures taken interact.

Not knowing the specifics of safety measures used in the Grenfell Tower building, safety experts seem to indicate that if there are safety measures in place that will overall mitigate the potential fire hazard of PE panels, such panel use would not be disallowed. According to Reuters, building regulations documents did not specifically say PE-core panels should not be used.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-fire-cladding-idUKL8N1JD3YI

 

Interaction of safety measures might in my opinion include aggressive inspections of potential fire sources throughout the building and apartments, extensive use of automatic fire sprinkler systems throughout the building and apartments, building and apartment smoke and CO2 detectors, implanted panel early warning systems such as temperature and strain gauges, fire blocking between floors, etc. The manufacturer and distributor of PE panels would have no control or perhaps even knowledge over the extent of such appurtenant safety measures.

 

But certainly the Rydon Group and the local authority which owns the tower block would know what overall safety measures were going into the building and their adequacy to mitigate any potential fire danger from the PE panels. Note that the cause of the fire was an apartment appliance, not the PE panels.  I'd say at best Rydon Group and authorities each have 45% civil liability for deaths, injuries and property damage while Arconic has 10% liability (likely can be covered in part by product liability insurance). Since the authorities have compliance oversight of the renovation, it alone should bear any criminal liability unless Rydon knowingly conspired with authorities to falsify adherence to compliance.

[Srikcir]

19 hours ago, rooster59 said:

This 'principles-based' approach is different to the highly specific 'rules-based' approach to regulation taken in the United States.

That is until the supply and building industry tells Trump it's losing jobs and profits by such regulations. Then Trump will likely have those "business-killing" regulations quickly voided.

[Richard W]

32 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Note that the cause of the fire was an apartment appliance, not the PE panels.  I'd say at best Rydon Group and authorities each have 45% civil liability for deaths, injuries and property damage while Arconic has 10% liability (likely can be covered in part by product liability insurance). Since the authorities have compliance oversight of the renovation, it alone should bear any criminal liability unless Rydon knowingly conspired with authorities to falsify adherence to compliance.

As has been pointed out, blocks of flats should be designed to prevent the spread of fire.  'Hotpoint'  may have responsibility for what happened at the flat where the fire started; others have responsibility for what happened beyond the flat.

[tigermoth]

It sounds like a whole lot of bullshit is being said here. Either the panels are legal for that type of building or they are not!!! Simple.

 

No manufacturer, particularly one as large as this one does not know where their product is going or does not have discussions with the person responsible for deciding on the cladding design. The contractor would have to know the rules and also the local council as they are responsible for approving the modification.

 

The non fire proof panels should not be used anywhere, even in single story buildings. I am surprised they are still being manufactured.

[tigermoth]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

As has been pointed out, blocks of flats should be designed to prevent the spread of fire.  'Hotpoint'  may have responsibility for what happened at the flat where the fire started; others have responsibility for what happened beyond the flat.

Hotpoint can bear no responsibility for the fire.  If the flats had been constructed/modified with non law complying materials then those suppliers, contractors and authorities are responsible.

[dick dasterdly]

21 hours ago, rooster59 said:

seen by Reuters do not specifically refer to its height. They do, however, refer to "Grenfell Tower" and mention other high rise projects where panelling has been used when discussing the appearance that was being sought for Grenfell Tower.

When "discussing the 'APPEARANCE' that was being sought"? 

 

21 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Rydon and Omnis have previously said in statements that their work on the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, which was intended to give the building better heat and sound insulation, complied with all building regulations.

Ignoring why these flammable panels should never have been fitted in the first place.... I'm also cynical that it was for "sound insulation".... 

[trogers]

"Safety experts say the regulations are not black and white as they consider the overall safety of a project, taking account of how the safety measures taken interact"

 

 

They are liberal, aren't they?

 

It's okay to let terrorists into the country. We have the police and anti-terror squads and can take into account on how they interact...

 

Don't they cut off threats at the source anymore? Why invite the Devil in, in the first place?

 

The old and wise have taught us, "Prevention is better than cure"!

Edited June 25, 2017 by trogers

[watcharacters]

 

 

There are several statements in the article I find  disturbing.

[ilostmypassword]

41 minutes ago, trogers said:

"Safety experts say the regulations are not black and white as they consider the overall safety of a project, taking account of how the safety measures taken interact"

 

 

They are liberal, aren't they?

 

It's okay to let terrorists into the country. We have the police and anti-terror squads and can take into account on how they interact...

 

Don't they cut off threats at the source anymore? Why invite the Devil in, in the first place?

 

The old and wise have taught us, "Prevention is better than cure"!

Obsessed?

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Omnis Exteriors, Arconic's UK distributor, Harley Facades Ltd., the company which installed the panels, Rydon Group, the overall contractor on the 2014-2016 Grenfell refurbishment, and the local authority which owns the tower block all declined to comment.

 

It would seem that all of the above were at least partially criminally negligent, but it would be interesting to know how the refurbished building managed to obtain a Fire Certificate when it was clearly known that this 60 metre tall building was clad with non-fire-resistant materials, contrary (probably) to the then current building regulations and presumably to existing fire regulations, if not plain common sense.

 

No doubt, lack of funds will be cited as the cause but it would seem that a mere few hundred million pounds can always be found for some dubious forms of overseas aid and/or any kind of military conflict not directly our concern.  Priorities a bit skewed perhaps?