British Board of Agrément (BBA) Evidence - Thursday 11th March 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:06 good afternoon everyone welcome back we're going to continue hearing evidence from Mr Gregorian at this point so Mr Gregorian are you there and can you hear me and see me yes I can hear you and see

00:00:18 me and see me yes I can hear you and see you good thank you very much indeed are you ready to carry on y good then in that case I'll invite Mr milet to put some more questions to you yes ready Mr milet yes Mr chairman thank you very

00:00:29 milet yes Mr chairman thank you very much uh before I continue my questions there's something I just ought to make clear to those watching and that is Mr Haynes uh as we understand it Mr Haynes

00:00:40 Haynes uh as we understand it Mr Haynes uh was very seriously ill in the months leading up to the end of last year and sadly passed away in the last few months um and so has been unable to come to

00:00:51 um and so has been unable to come to give evidence to the inquiry so Mr chairman I hope that that um clarifies any any questions that people might have about why Mr h is not able to yes well thank you very much I think it is

00:01:02 thank you very much I think it is helpful to know that uh can we now um M Mr Gregorian can we now go to your witness statement at page six please I'd like to look at inquiry

00:01:13 please I'd like to look at inquiry question 14 on that page and in doing this I'm picking up from where we left off before the lunch

00:01:21 break uh you can see there that the question 14 is did you consider the field of application of the products certified in in certificate 08 stroke

00:01:33 certified in in certificate 08 stroke 4510 and your answer is at paragraph 33 and you say the fields of application considered would have been those in the cstb certificate and set out in the application form is it your evidence so

00:01:44 application form is it your evidence so that we're clear that you did consider the field of application uh set out in classification 5A that we've seen

00:01:55 uh well cstb would Define uh what the field of application was and as members of

00:02:05 of uatc uh that CB's

00:02:13 um definition were were acceptable to BBA yes I mean the question is did you consider the field of application and your answer in this in your statement is

00:02:24 your answer in this in your statement is the fields of application considered would have been those in the cstb certificate my question did you actually consider did you actually think about the field of application of the product

00:02:35 the field of application of the product as said I must have thought about yes yes uh um the reason I ask is because the BBA certificate doesn't say anything about the European result B being

00:02:49 about the European result B being limited to rivet full does

00:02:55 it uh no because as I've mentioned before

00:03:00 before uh the fixing method was considered irrelevant because we were assessing the the panel material yes and uh you you

00:03:11 the panel material yes and uh you you said you told us that but just to be clear you agree I think that the certificate also doesn't say that a reader of it should check the field of application with arconic does

00:03:23 application with arconic does it uh no I can't remember statement such as that no do you know why it doesn't

00:03:36 um we have just followed the format of the certificate and um

00:03:45 uh I'm not sure if I'm not sure if that would have been uh

00:03:59 say bearing in mind I say it's the material we're considering I'm I'm not sure if the

00:04:07 application would be relevant it's just a comment I'm just saying that the BB certificate had a certain format and um I'm just assuming

00:04:18 certain format and um I'm just assuming that field of application um was not uh meant to be in the certificate I I can't comment on that beyond that

00:04:31 how would a reader of this certificate know that the European Class B was relevant only to the rivet fix of

00:04:43 B was relevant only to the rivet fix of the

00:04:46 product uh I think we do say somewhere in the certificate that it's got to be the whole certificate has got to be read in

00:04:56 in entirety um so uh whoever was looking at that should have had some knowledge as to how a

00:05:07 have had some knowledge as to how a technical knowledge as to how the product could be used I think that's the impression we do get we do try and get in the BB

00:05:15 in the BB certificate there's nothing in the certificate which tells us that the class

00:05:21 class B fire

00:05:24 B fire classification stated in it relates only to Raina 55 in Rivet fix no my question so no so my question

00:05:36 fix no my question so no so my question is how would a reader know that U again it's the material the panel material we were considering and the method of fixing was

00:05:48 considering and the method of fixing was considered

00:05:53 irrelevant so they could based on based on the details given in the certificate they could good form fabricate particular panel size and providing all the criteria were

00:06:08 size and providing all the criteria were met

00:06:09 met uh they would install can we go back to the certificate then please at BBA 647 page

00:06:26 five look at paragraph or section 6.1 on that

00:06:30 that page it says a standard sample of the product Etc achieved a classification of B s2d not how would anybody reading that section know that it was only a standard

00:06:43 section know that it was only a standard sample of the product in Rivet form as opposed to in ccept form that had achieved that

00:06:50 classification no again as soon as you mention a fixing method uh people would assume that you can only use that particular panel

00:07:03 you can only use that particular panel uh in a rivet form but the as I say the fixing method was considered irrelevant because we were assessing the panel material go back to page three

00:07:16 panel material go back to page three then

00:07:21 please look at look at paragraph 1.1 look at the second line the panels are available either plain Edge riveted system or flanged cassette

00:07:33 Edge riveted system or flanged cassette system to suit architectural requirements see figure one if the difference between uh riveted system and cassette system was

00:07:44 system was irrelevant and you were only certifying the raw panel what was the point of inserting that sentence and going to the trouble of inserting figure one

00:08:03 uh that's just an example it's meant to be an

00:08:07 be an example what panels are currently available there's you could choose Consulting engineer could choose any any Dimension

00:08:19 engineer could choose any any Dimension any any panel size and this is just meant to be an example of what what was available why was the certificate telling the reader by example what was

00:08:34 telling the reader by example what was available I think that must have been the standard standard format of the certificate I really wouldn't know I mean again it's a it's a format that the BBA had adopted for a long time

00:08:48 BBA had adopted for a long time for panels panels such as this why does the certificate not tell the reader uh that in either of these systems as fabricated

00:09:00 fabricated the fabricated panel Falls outside the scope of the

00:09:10 certificate

00:09:17 um I think I think there is some reference to this isn't there somewhere in the somewhere in the perhaps the back page of the certificate I think

00:09:29 I seem to remember there's something to say that the uh it's just the P just a panel material

00:09:40 uh it's just the P just a panel material we're we're assessing especially with regard to

00:09:54 fire well take it from me that there's nothing in this certificate which tells the

00:10:02 the reader uh that the fabricated systems fabricated for rivet or fabricated for cassette fall outside the scope of the certificate my question is why is that

00:10:14 certificate my question is why is that if it was irr I can't I can't answer that

00:10:17 that I

00:10:19 I uh you're very if you look down at paragraph

00:10:22 paragraph 1.4 you can see there's a footnote relating to the subframe which is very clearly identified is not covered by this certificate if you were intending

00:10:33 this certificate if you were intending to exclude from the cover of this certificate the riveted system and the cassette system as identified in figure one why didn't you make it clear as you

00:10:44 one why didn't you make it clear as you had with the

00:10:49 subframe

00:10:55 um with hindsight we could have IFI that aspect a bit more clearly in

00:11:06 certificate going back to paragraph 6.1 please on page

00:11:16 five looking at 6.1 when it says the standard sample of the product when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of B s2d do you accept

00:11:29 s2d do you accept that a reader of that sentence would be led to think that what had achieved a classification of B s2d was the

00:11:40 s2d was the product in both rivet and cassette Fabrications

00:11:49 um we in this particular section we just we just state facts this particular panel was tested to this and that's all

00:12:00 panel was tested to this and that's all that's saying there's no reference to the fixing method at all so if I were reading

00:12:07 reading this I would take it as that is how the material behaves in fire

00:12:14 fire uh what material Mr gregoria the the the material tested what was tested was the material

00:12:25 tested what was tested was the material in a rivet form wasn't it

00:12:30 no I I think as far as I remember a sample has been tested there's no reference to whether it was fixed or whe it was jet fixed or or

00:12:43 fixed or whe it was jet fixed or or cassette fixed so again I have to emphasize I don't know much about fire so I well very little I know very little about fire so

00:12:55 little I know very little about fire so I can't constructively comment as to why [Music]

00:13:02 [Music] um why this particular statement appears as it is that but I'm I'm quite sure that that the product we were assessing had nothing to do with the fixing method

00:13:15 had nothing to do with the fixing method was just basically making sure that the that the panel was suitable for inclusion in a a clading

00:13:24 system the product you were assessing you say had nothing to do with the fixing method method if that's the case can you explain what figure one is doing in the

00:13:34 in the certificate um again it was normal practice for some details to be included

00:13:44 uh you had to give the certificate holder some indication of his product how how how he was going to use it and that was one way of doing it we always

00:13:55 that was one way of doing it we always included some detail respect to whether they covered by the certificate um insect

00:14:02 insect whether uh yes they were covered by the certificate or

00:14:10 not I think do make it clear in the certificate that the what what is covered do you

00:14:22 covered do you accept that the reader of this certificate when seeing the words a standard sample of the product uh would think that both rivet

00:14:33 product uh would think that both rivet and cassette versions were covered by the classification B s2d if I were reading this that's the conclusion I would have come to and do you accept that that was

00:14:45 come to and do you accept that that was a wrong

00:14:47 a wrong conclusion no I think in the context of the assessment subject which was the actual panel material I would assume that the fixing

00:14:59 material I would assume that the fixing method was irrelevant that's what I would conclude from reading that

00:15:08 statement do you accept I'll try this one more time do you accept as a matter of fact that when a reader is told that a s standard sample of the product achieved a classification of B s2d not

00:15:20 achieved a classification of B s2d not in circumstances where it was only the riveted version uh of that product which has achieved that standard the reader would be

00:15:34 misled um uh this statement uh points to a sample it actually refers to a sample a sample could be any suitable Dimension um for

00:15:48 could be any suitable Dimension um for the test

00:15:49 the test facility uh so again the way I would read this

00:15:55 read this is uh it's irrelevant how it's fixed to the

00:16:01 the substructure that's how I would interpret it you see given that the test itself the classification bs2 D not was only on the rivet fixed you accept the the reader uh would not realize that and

00:16:13 the reader uh would not realize that and might be misled into thinking that it applied to both

00:16:19 fixes uh he would be right to assume that it it would apply to both fixing types he wouldn't be wrong but as I say if I were reading this I wouldn't take

00:16:31 if I were reading this I wouldn't take notice of how the panels were fixed to the substructure well with great respect Mr gorian he would be wrong because as I've shown you the classification of B uh was only achieved on the rivet form

00:16:43 uh was only achieved on the rivet form and not the cassette form that's true but as far as our assessment was concerned it was considered irrelevant can we again look at

00:16:55 6.2 sample of the product I've shown you I've read that to you can we have at the same time on the screen technical file page5 BBA

00:17:09 4842 this is a classification report from the

00:17:14 cstb in relation to uh the F

00:17:19 F product

00:17:23 yeah which was on the file and you can see that the date of that is October the 19th 2006 and you can see from the middle of the page that it relates to raino bond and if we go to

00:17:35 raino bond and if we go to page7 in that document keeping uh the left hand side of the screen where it is you can see that the product compos the description there um in the third line down is tested system riveted on metal

00:17:48 down is tested system riveted on metal substructure so you got the FR FR on Rivet and if you go to the um final page of this report page 161 you can see the classification

00:17:59 161 you can see the classification B s1d and again underneath it under field of application paragraph 4.3 uh it tells you that the classification is valid uh for the following product parameters thickness

00:18:11 following product parameters thickness of four millimeters and then underneath that this classification is valid for the following end use conditions riveted system or metal substructure is this the test uh that is

00:18:23 substructure is this the test uh that is referred to in paragraph 6.2 of the certificate uh yes this is the cstb data uh we would have received and it would

00:18:34 uh we would have received and it would have been uh perfectly acceptable to the BBA I'm I'm so sorry I I mean I've taken you to 6.2 I mean 6.1 second half of 6.1

00:18:45 you to 6.2 I mean 6.1 second half of 6.1 I apologize where it says in 6.1 a fire retardant sample of the product with a gold color durog gloss finish achieved a classification of B

00:18:56 s1d am I right in thinking that it's it the test on the right hand side of the screen yes which is the basis of the claim for fire performance in that second sentence yeah

00:19:09 second sentence yeah yes now let's let's look and see how this document came to be on the technical file um I think I can take this quite shortly do you recall that um this was uh requested uh by Mandy

00:19:23 this was uh requested uh by Mandy Osman in November

00:19:27 2007 uh yes I I know Mandy work with her yes let's look at let's go to me30 558 59

00:19:36 59 please I just trace the emails through um this is an email we can take both of those off the screen yes this is an email second email down from Mandy Osman

00:19:47 email second email down from Mandy Osman to the

00:19:50 BBA we need page two I'm sorry page two second email down uh you can see she um writes to Claude verley on the 2nd of November 2007 uh and uh she encloses a

00:20:04 November 2007 uh and uh she encloses a copy of the proposed certificate un asks for his written approval uh and uh she then says at the bottom as this certificate is the first of a type to be

00:20:15 certificate is the first of a type to be put into the new format we shall circulate the draft to the regulatory authorities and our technical Assessors for their comments you'll be sent a further copy them for your approval uh and if you go up to the first uh email on this page you can see

00:20:27 first uh email on this page you can see it's uh a response from Claude verle to Mandy Osman and to you and he says hello I got some remarks and um this email uh which is

00:20:39 remarks and um this email uh which is 23rd of November has got some text in blue and red um the red is Claude ver and there are some comments in green if we scroll up to the very bottom of page one in this email

00:20:51 one in this email chain we can see that it's your at the very bottom of the page we can see you say same day 23rd of November 2007 uh Claude please see my response Below in

00:21:02 Claude please see my response Below in green you see that so can we take it the green text on page two is yours yes if we go back to the top of page two then and let's let's look at

00:21:13 page two then and let's let's look at the email from Claude Vera to which you have

00:21:16 have responded um you can see that on one it says

00:21:21 says description uh instead of a gloss durac coating a pbdf coating can you write a dur or pbdf coating protects the exposed face in many different colors to outside

00:21:33 many different colors to outside exposure the exposed face is protected with the polyest primer and a you've added is this right you've added text will be amended as advised yes yes and then on 1 three Mr ver writes C can you

00:21:46 then on 1 three Mr ver writes C can you add the two Dimensions 2,000 time 3,000 and 2,000 time 4,000 and again you've said in response in green text will be amended as advised that's you again is it yeah and then on 61

00:21:59 it yeah and then on 61 um he says can you add the results of our fire certification for Rainer Bond B s1d not test report sent to ham some month ago and then you say in green I do

00:22:10 month ago and then you say in green I do not appear to have received this report please resend and then if we scroll up to the bottom of page one second email from the

00:22:19 bottom you can see there that in response to this email from you with your green comments in it Claude Vera comes back to

00:22:30 comments in it Claude Vera comes back to you and says hello ham please find and close the document for our raino bond F certification and if you uh look at the attachment well you can't see the attachment to that but in fact um the

00:22:44 attachment to that but in fact um the attachment is the certificate of 2006 we've just been looking at for rivet in and at the top of page one second email down a little bit later the same

00:22:56 email down a little bit later the same day you say uh the report is fine I'll add appropriate statement to section

00:23:03 6.1 can we take it from the the email run I've shown you that it was Claude ver who asked you specifically to include the European classification for

00:23:14 include the European classification for c raob

00:23:17 c raob bond

00:23:21 um we would we would do that uh we would have to do that we need to put information in the certificate so

00:23:32 so [Music]

00:23:35 [Music] um

00:23:36 um yes yes he wants you to add the results you say I haven't had the report he sends it to you and you tell him it's fine I'm just asking you really to

00:23:49 fine I'm just asking you really to summarize that and it it it's just to agree with me that it was Claude verle who asked you specifically to include that European classification for FR called Reno Bond

00:24:00 called Reno Bond yes that's yes I yes I suppose so yes we don't see that you asked him having received the report he sends you whether there was an equivalent uh test for FR

00:24:12 there was an equivalent uh test for FR called Rabon 55 in a cassette fix do you think you did ask him for that I can't remember it doesn't appear

00:24:24 that I can't remember it doesn't appear that you didn't my question would be on the basis that you didn't Why didn't

00:24:47 um I I can't answer I can't answer I mean I don't know the details I can't remember what went [Music]

00:24:55 [Music] on during our communication uh [Music]

00:25:02 um so far sorry do you want to no

00:25:18 sure on the go Mr milet yes um um so far everything we've been looking at by way of reports from cstb have been class ification reports we've seen test 5A for

00:25:31 ification reports we've seen test 5A for the PE rivet and we've seen the 2006 test for in rivid uh we've seen no underlying test data on which those classifications are

00:25:43 data on which those classifications are based

00:25:46 based uh do I take it from that that you never asked arconic for the underlying test

00:25:55 data I think our assessment was based on whatever information they supplied did you realize that under the contract that arconic had with the BBA arconic was obliged to send all relevant

00:26:08 arconic was obliged to send all relevant test data to you

00:26:13 you uh they must have done you say they must have done I I can't I I mean for fire assessment we would require documentation and um Aron

00:26:25 would require documentation and um Aron um would um uh would have had to supply that uh and the r assessment would have been

00:26:36 uh and the r assessment would have been based on the bs476 4777 test uh and whatever other information cstb or Aron

00:26:47 whatever other information cstb or Aron would

00:26:48 would provide did you notice that you have sorry I asked I started asking my question I think before you finished your answer maybe not did did you notice uh that

00:27:01 maybe not did did you notice uh that although you had classification reports ionic had not provided you with the underlying test data on which those classification reports were

00:27:12 based sorry can you repeat the question I can't quite you notice that you didn't have any underlying test data which supported the classification reports I've showed you I think the there's a

00:27:23 I've showed you I think the there's a good chance the cstb document the AY technique would have had some information

00:27:29 uh and whether be um whether the um Warrington fire test was done previous to that I can't remember I I couldn't

00:27:42 to that I can't remember I I couldn't couldn't comment specifically in relation to the test data underlying the classification reports for fire that we've seen did you notice that AR conic had not sent you that underlying fire

00:27:55 had not sent you that underlying fire test data

00:28:02 um I suppose from the communication I can only conclude the they hadn't uh so I had to chase

00:28:13 the they hadn't uh so I had to chase uh so can we take it that that you accepted the BBA accepted the classification reports from the cstb as the basis of your certification of Rabon

00:28:26 the basis of your certification of Rabon 55

00:28:28 55 as

00:28:29 as having uh Euro Class B without looking at the underlying test data I think that's quite normal procedure actually between the uatc

00:28:42 procedure actually between the uatc members it's normal procedure is it it is yes yes see now as I've shown you I think probably too many times Mr Mr Gregorian

00:28:53 probably too many times Mr Mr Gregorian we've seen that uh both the European classification reports from the cstb for rain Bond 55 related to the uh Fabrication in Rivet

00:29:04 Fabrication in Rivet fix we we know now that our conic did another test on Rabon PE in cassette fix can we look at that test report please it's at ALC

00:29:21 50536 I'll just show you this document and see whether you're familiar with it uh you can see that uh it's a reaction to fire test report number ra

00:29:32 to fire test report number ra 0530

00:29:34 0530 5B according to European standards E1 3823 and NF ISO 11925 part2 we've called this test 5B and it says at the very top

00:29:46 this test 5B and it says at the very top uh K7 system and then there's an exclamation mark in a triangle not classified because the test had to be

00:29:55 had to be interrupted uh and and um if we look uh uh at

00:30:00 uh at the um

00:30:03 the um the uh the document on its face just the first page of it I think probably do for this purpose is this a document you've ever seen

00:30:12 ever seen before uh I must have come across it I suppose I can't

00:30:18 remember let's look at page three you can see that it's

00:30:25 uh uh it it's dated or rather Bears the date of test of the 2nd of December 2004 and a little bit lower down it refers to the commercial brand as rainon 55 PE

00:30:37 the commercial brand as rainon 55 PE cassette system you see that yes the bottom of the page we can see right at the bottom that there's a date 7th of January 2005 and signed by

00:30:49 date 7th of January 2005 and signed by the cstb

00:30:51 the cstb there and if we go to page seven we can look at the the results for specimen one and there was only one specimen and there are the results set

00:31:02 specimen and there are the results set out for the product raino Bor 55 PE you got the figur the th and and the smra figure set out across the page uh and then under comments if you look at the Bold text at the very end of that little

00:31:14 Bold text at the very end of that little block of text it says the tests were stopped after 850 seconds the results are not usable but give an idea of the fire behavior of the product now there's no evidence that

00:31:25 product now there's no evidence that we've seen in the documents Mr Gregorian that the BBA ever received this document and to the best of your recollection is that correct I certainly can't remember

00:31:36 correct I certainly can't remember seeing this document do you remember whether ionic ever told you that they' done a uh a European test under en 13

00:31:47 13 13501 on the cassette variant of Rabon PE I can't remember that either no did you ever discuss with Claude Vera

00:31:58 no did you ever discuss with Claude Vera any T any tests at all done on cassette fix raino Bond uh no no I don't think so do we take it from that that you were simply not aware of the far performance tests on raino bond that

00:32:10 tests on raino bond that were on done on

00:32:15 cassette uh again I can't remember the um whatever information was lacking so I'm guessing uh again because it was

00:32:28 so I'm guessing uh again because it was was not entirely relevant to our assessment I'm guessing we didn't ask for

00:32:35 for it right uh now now just to get back to a point we've been looking at earlier you had on the file in 2006 the two Avy technique reports from the cstb one for

00:32:46 technique reports from the cstb one for rivet and one for cassette you remember looking at those this morning with me so you knew that there were two different kinds of test uh rather two different kinds of fabrication so far as

00:32:57 different kinds of fabrication so far as the Cs TB was concerned yes yeah yes yes and you knew that there was a c a cstb classification for rivet for fire um did you notice regardless of

00:33:10 for fire um did you notice regardless of whether it was relevant did you notice that there wasn't one that you had for cassette whether in PE or in

00:33:23 um uh I'm again from memory I might have uh considered this but as I say because we were assessing the panel

00:33:36 say because we were assessing the panel not

00:33:37 not the with the exclusion of the fixing system um we didn't chase for anything else we just used whatever cstb had provided let me try it this way did you

00:33:49 provided let me try it this way did you ever have a conversation with Mr ver along the lines of well look Claude we've got your cstb reports ay Tech uh for rivet and cassette but we've only

00:34:01 uh for rivet and cassette but we've only got rivet tests for fire do you have any cassette tests for fire did you ever have a conversation along those lines no I no I can't remember having such such a conversation but uh again because

00:34:14 conversation but uh again because because it was irrelevant uh I didn't feel the need to um pursue that information if if the distinction between the two was irrelevant as you

00:34:25 between the two was irrelevant as you tell us can you did you wonder why there were two separate reports done by the cstb under Avy Technique One for cassette and one for rivet

00:34:36 cassette and one for rivet uh you ask for information from cstb and they provide whatever they have so yes I appreciate that but did you ever ask yourself well I wonder why there are two

00:34:48 yourself well I wonder why there are two separate reports one for cassette and one for rivet if the distinction between them for your purposes was irrelevant yes I think yes that's that's what I assume because again we we were

00:34:59 assume because again we we were assessing the product and uh either of these reports would have been could could have been used for our assessment when you you say that's what

00:35:10 assessment when you you say that's what I assumed what did you assume well I assume what whatever information that provided was sufficient for us to make an [Music]

00:35:25 assessment uh

00:35:31 do I take it from that that you as a matter of fact never asked Mr verle why you had received test data for the rivet fix but no test data for the cassette

00:35:42 fix but no test data for the cassette fix that's correct I didn't ask I didn't ask him for anything else that's because you thought that there was the distinction between them was irrelevant even though you had clear

00:35:53 was irrelevant even though you had clear separate cstb Avy technique reports for cassette and rivet respected that's correct

00:36:00 correct yes now can we look at Brian haynes's witness statement please that's a BBA 3010

00:36:12 784 and I'd like to go to page 11 in that document with you and look at paragraph 45 please if we can and you can see a question in uh bold from the inquiry at the top of the screen top of

00:36:23 inquiry at the top of the screen top of page 11 the question goes as follows what information on Far performance was Alcoa asked to provide to the BBA prior to the certification in 08 Stoke 4510 did you order anyone at the BBA ask alaa

00:36:36 did you order anyone at the BBA ask alaa for all relevant test data in respect of RAB Bond architecture wall panels if not why not and the answer he gives us at paragraph 45 and he says this from the from evidence on the file Alcoa was

00:36:47 from evidence on the file Alcoa was asked by the product assessor to provide evidence for the reaction to file performance for the standard panel as was already available for the FR grade product in this request BBA assumed that

00:36:59 product in this request BBA assumed that all relevant data would be supplied did you expect this is my question to you Mr Gregorian did you expect that when the BBA asked for evidence for the reaction to fire of PE panels you would have

00:37:12 to fire of PE panels you would have expected arconic to provide you all relevant

00:37:16 relevant data yes ideally that's what should have happened but

00:37:23 uh I think we made assessments with whatever data were available you say ideally that's what should have happened um why was that an ideal why should it

00:37:35 um why was that an ideal why should it not have happened as a matter of course well that

00:37:40 there's the idea is to ask for information from the client uh uh but you don't always get what you want so

00:37:52 want so so we think of other ways of assessing the product sorry you were reading this paragraph but I can't see it on the screen oh I'm I'm sorry and I'm slightly surprised about that because it's still

00:38:04 surprised about that because it's still on my screen can you not see paragraph 11 or rather paragraph 45 and 46 of Mr haes oh yes yes would you like me to to read it to

00:38:15 yes would you like me to to read it to you again yes if you would yes well the the answer to his the question that you can see in bold is from evidence on the file Alcoa was asked by the product

00:38:26 file Alcoa was asked by the product Assessor to provide evidence for the reaction to fire performance for the standard panel as was already available for the FR grade product in making this request BBA assumed that all relevant

00:38:37 request BBA assumed that all relevant data would be

00:38:40 supplied that's the that was the what I was asking you about yes yes that's what we normally expect yes the client to provide

00:38:52 expect yes the client to provide but they provided whatever they had and when would you therefore have expected all relevant data to have included the fire test data that I've

00:39:04 included the fire test data that I've just shown you in relation to the cassette version in early 2005 namely test B

00:39:13 5B um

00:39:31 uh so I I can't answer that question to be honest I uh well let me try it this way if our colic was sitting on test 5B and the BBA was assuming that all

00:39:44 5B and the BBA was assuming that all relevant test data would be supplied do I take it that the BBA would assume that test 5B would be supplied yes yes

00:39:55 supplied yes yes yes did the fact that Mr valy had not provided you with a classification report for PE cassette fix nor indeed any test data for PE cassette

00:40:07 any test data for PE cassette fix ring any alarm Bells with

00:40:15 you uh no again back to my statement before it was just a panel we were considering and the you know the fixing method was

00:40:26 the you know the fixing method was considered relevant and I must have discussed it with with Brian at some stage and um they were assessing the the panel

00:40:36 panel accordingly were you proceeding when you say that the distinction between rivet and cassette was irrelevant were you proceeding on the

00:40:47 irrelevant were you proceeding on the assumption that in those two different fixing

00:40:52 fixing systems uh there would be no difference to the far performance of the prod that's

00:40:58 that's correct what was the basis of that assumption again with my limited knowledge of fire issues I must have discuss discussed it with

00:41:09 with Brian

00:41:12 Brian um

00:41:14 um and I must admit I agreed with the with the conclusion that we could assess the the panel on its own and the fixing method would be irrelevant uh sort of

00:41:27 method would be irrelevant uh sort of concurred with Brian I must have done my question really is what was the what was the basis so far as you remember of the assumption that in

00:41:38 remember of the assumption that in different fixing systems there would be no difference between them as to the fire performance of the product what was the basis uh what was the scientific basis

00:41:49 this again I can't I can't comment on that because I don't know enough about fire fire issues but I think it's logical to assume I thought I must have

00:42:00 logical to assume I thought I must have thought that at that stage that it's you're testing you're testing a material how how it's fixed I mean whatever test you do is fixed to

00:42:11 whatever test you do is fixed to something did anybody at the BBA ever rigorously verify that assumption or try to no I as suppose I know

00:42:22 to no I as suppose I know that did anybody at the BBA at the time ever perceive that in fact in proceeding a letter assumption there was a great deal of

00:42:30 deal of risk um no uh as far as I know no were you aware in general terms at the time of any understanding or belief

00:42:42 the time of any understanding or belief in

00:42:44 in the the UK construction industry or perhaps the European construction industry that rivet fix ACM would perform worse in Far tests than

00:42:55 perform worse in Far tests than ceptics well I wasn't aware of that I don't I don't know can we then look at uh arconic's claims for class not for PE it's a slightly different topic but very

00:43:07 it's a slightly different topic but very much the same documents um can we begin in the technical file please at page 83 BBA 4 is 8042 page

00:43:18 83 now this is a brochure from renob bond which is on the technical file and I'll just wait for it to come up there it is it's called discover New

00:43:31 Perspectives uh just looking at the front page is this a document you recall do you think no I can't remember but uh it's quite normal for some Pro promotional literature to

00:43:42 for some Pro promotional literature to be included in the technical dossier right can we look at page

00:43:52 104 and uh I'm afraid this is going to have to be expanded considerably but in the bottom right hand corner of the document you can see it has uh 11 stroke 05

00:44:03 05 GB you just see that in vertical print can you see that version 11 stroke 05 GB yes we've taken that to me November 2005 um do you remember looking at this

00:44:15 2005 um do you remember looking at this document on the technical file when you were preparing this certificate no I can't remember um would it be typical for you uh or to your knowledge anybody else at the BBA to review this sort of

00:44:27 else at the BBA to review this sort of literature as part of the assessment of a certificate no we would we wouldn't review every single document that was supplied uh no but would you would you typically review this kind of literature

00:44:39 typically review this kind of literature would you use it as part of your assessment no no I no I don't think so no let's just look at it page 101 and see how far we go and at that

00:44:50 101 and see how far we go and at that page you can see that there is a list of fire certificates and at the fourth line down if we could have that expanded you can see that there is a block of four UK entries there can you see that yes the

00:45:01 entries there can you see that yes the first two relate to PE uh and if uh and the second to relate to FR and if we track across we can see Warrington fire documents 1 132

00:45:13 Warrington fire documents 1 132 316 and 132 317 for f and those are the reports from 2003 uh which I think we looked at before if we go up a little bit to the

00:45:25 before if we go up a little bit to the PE results above we can see that ionic are saying in this document that that PE cord ACM has a class not rating yes

00:45:35 yes yeah and if you track across you can see that to support that the Warrington far documents 7077 and 7078 are referred to um now I've shown you that because it's

00:45:46 um now I've shown you that because it's on your file were you aware at the time of arconic's claim that uh ACM RAB 55 with a PE call uh had class

00:46:05 n sorry the question is were you aware at the time you were preparing the certificate that arconic claimed in its product literature and this is an example of it on your file

00:46:16 this is an example of it on your file that RAB Bond 55 in PE had class

00:46:23 n uh again not being familiar with the details I must have uh consulted a fire expert for this um I vaguely remember this document but

00:46:35 um I vaguely remember this document but uh I haven't gone into detail at all all right let me try a different way this is a document which we can see because we can read it and it was on your file by

00:46:46 can read it and it was on your file by which ionic claim that Rabon 55 in PE other words the standard had actually got class not my question is were you aware at the time that AR conic had

00:46:58 aware at the time that AR conic had claimed and was claiming that PE called rer Bond 55 was class North I can't remember now we've got the documents referred to uh CER certificate

00:47:09 documents referred to uh CER certificate 7077 and

00:47:11 7077 and 7078 uh and indeed a summary report um there's no evidence that we've seen that those certificates were actually ever sent to the BBA do you can you help with that do you

00:47:22 BBA do you can you help with that do you think they ever were sent to the BBA um

00:47:28 BBA um I remember seeing some documents from Warrington but um but I

00:47:36 um but I say I can't remember having seen this particular report at all did you I think the answer is no but do I take it from your evidence so far that you didn't

00:47:47 your evidence so far that you didn't notice that this brocher indicated that there might be more documents relevant to UK National classification that you didn't

00:47:55 didn't have uh the warington uh report I think we we had and I think we for all I know the fire expert would have consulted these particular

00:48:07 have consulted these particular documents for their assessment yes the the the um FR you would have had but the uh PE Warrington documents the two 7077

00:48:20 uh PE Warrington documents the two 7077 7077 and

00:48:21 7077 and 70708 we can't see that you did have my question is did you notice uh that this brocher was saying that those documents existed but you didn't have the reports

00:48:32 existed but you didn't have the reports no I didn't notice no did you have any document in your possession which showed that rainor 55 in PE in PE had actually been tested under bs476 Parts six and seven and

00:48:46 under bs476 Parts six and seven and achieved a class not classification I'm sorry what was your question again did you have any documents in your possession which showed that Rabon 55 in p

00:48:57 p had undergone the BSI test at 476 and had achieved a class n classification no I no I don't know I

00:49:08 just did you know and I can take this shortly I think did you know that in fact the certificates 7077 and 7078 related to a product called renob

00:49:20 7078 related to a product called renob Bond RB 160 PE not RAB Bond 55

00:49:29 I can't remember the details I can't remember at all uh taking it from me that those two sets of tests 7077 and

00:49:41 7077 and 7078

00:49:42 7078 uh were um dated 9th of May 1997 take that from me um would you be surprised

00:49:53 that from me um would you be surprised uh to to uh see that um classification still being referred to in a

00:50:04 referred to in a brochure uh seven years later or eight years later sorry I don't understand the question uh was there any well let me

00:50:16 question uh was there any well let me try it a different way did you have any rule of thore policy perhaps within the BBA about how old test data uh could be to on the basis of a certificate um

00:50:30 be to on the basis of a certificate um I'm not aware of such a thing but um uh I'm guessing any any test data which might be

00:50:41 any any test data which might be used uh to some extent to assess fire performance would have been useful but I believe there is there

00:50:52 been useful but I believe there is there is a time limit but I have no idea as to what what that time limit is very well can we then turn to the certificate again the BBA certificate

00:51:03 certificate again the BBA certificate BBA 60 47 and look at section 63 on page

00:51:18 five BBA 60 47 page five

00:51:27 and if we just blow that up please um I just want to see we've been through quite a lot of material and it's quite Technical and it's a long time ago so let me try and help you by summarizing where I think we've got to so far Mr

00:51:39 where I think we've got to so far Mr Gregorian um at this stage we we've covered three things do you agree then first the BBA had a European classification for rivet fix PE core ACM

00:51:53 classification for rivet fix PE core ACM in gray green showing it to be Class B

00:52:00 You' nodded yes um sorry which paragraph are

00:52:04 are you just looking at 61 and 62 okay summarizing what they they tell us what we've been through first of all you you've been sent a European

00:52:16 you you've been sent a European classification report for rivet fix PE cord ACM in a gray green color saying it's Class B yes Class B s2d

00:52:27 it's Class B yes Class B s2d yeah secondly you've had a European classification for rivet fix F core in Gold also Class B 2006 yes I'm not sure where you reading

00:52:40 2006 yes I'm not sure where you reading the

00:52:41 the r I'm just summarizing where we've got to should I do this again let's start

00:52:48 again you you we've been through we've seen

00:52:51 seen three separate classification reports uh or test reports we've seen first of all the test 5A from 2005 which

00:53:02 first of all the test 5A from 2005 which is a European classification for rivet fix PR PE core with a gray in a gray green color showing it to be Class B s2d yes yeah yes we've also seen a

00:53:15 s2d yes yeah yes we've also seen a European classification for rivet fix in a gold color also Class B it's Class B S1 D not yeah both of those are

00:53:26 Class B S1 D not yeah both of those are referred to in 6.1 and we've also got looking at 6.2 a a a set of uh results from September 2003 under

00:53:39 September 2003 under bs476 achieving UK National class KN for FR core in a metallic gray yes yeah so that's that's in a

00:53:50 gray yes yeah so that's that's in a nutshell what 61 and 62 are referring to can we now look at 6.3 and I want to look at this very

00:54:01 6.3 and I want to look at this very carefully with you at 6.3 it says as a consequence of sections 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a class n surface in relation to

00:54:14 having a class n surface in relation to the approved document B of the building regulations 2000 as amended England and Wales I don't need to go on if we skip to page one of the

00:54:25 on if we skip to page one of the certificate C which I said I'd come back to let's go to it now and look under key factors assessed there third

00:54:36 under key factors assessed there third item down behavior in relation to fire it says in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class

00:54:48 panels may be regarded as having a class nort surface in England and Wales I want to examine with you the statement the words that the panels made may be regarded as having a class KN

00:55:01 may be regarded as having a class KN surface in both of those parts my first question to you is what do those words mean the words the panels may be

00:55:12 mean the words the panels may be regarded as having a class nor surface I think again I've got to emphasize that this is a wording that

00:55:23 this is a wording that uh uh Brian looked at and uh approved so but generally the impression I get is maybe

00:55:31 maybe means

00:55:33 means uh they

00:55:36 uh they are it's not it's not possibly it's they can be regarded as a l low risk material that's how I would read it well how did you understand it at the

00:55:48 it well how did you understand it at the time yes I think that's yes that's the always the impression I get when they say maybe it means can be classed as a material with low

00:56:02 risk did you write that statement did you you did you

00:56:09 you uh draft the words may be regarded as having a class nor surface uh again this is a fairly standard sort of statement um but I must

00:56:21 um but I must have I must have discussed it with Brian uh who would have approved the statement I cannot I have no knowledge of what is CL what is low

00:56:34 of what is CL what is low risk

00:56:36 risk uh what is what is incombustible or whatever so I'm I'm sure I would have okay this particular statement by discussing it with Brian

00:56:48 statement by discussing it with Brian did was this a you say uh that um this is a fairly standard sort of statement is this a word may be regarded as having a class nor

00:56:59 may be regarded as having a class nor surface a phrase you took from somewhere else yes it's there's a good chance there was a similar uh product which I've actually included but again uh it's something

00:57:14 included but again uh it's something that

00:57:15 that they not only for fire but all all the other sections who would look at it they would edit as

00:57:23 appropriate certificate isn't

00:57:27 isn't final there are so many different sort of drafts eventually we get to the correct answer when you chose the words you used here in the initial draft

00:57:42 and why didn't you simply say the the panels have a class not surface I think the class note it is

00:57:54 surface I think the class note it is quite clear that the it has a class note but all all this is saying is that it can be regarded as a low risk material and as to the logic behind that I

00:58:07 and as to the logic behind that I wouldn't have a clue uh I don't know I don't know why class node surface is called a lowrisk material no

00:58:18 lowrisk material no idea um is there any reason why you chose to use the words the panels may be regarded as having a class not surface as opposed to using the words the panels

00:58:29 as opposed to using the words the panels have a class n

00:58:34 surface I think but because because of the um assessment we were carrying out uh bearing in mind uh the front face

00:58:46 out uh bearing in mind uh the front face was different to the back face of the panel

00:58:52 panel uh eventually we came well I'm sure the fire expert would have come to the to the conclusion that respective of the differences

00:59:04 that respective of the differences between the the two faces it can still be regarded as a class node surface as to what it's a bearing in mind it's a composite material it's even probably more complicated than getting a

00:59:15 more complicated than getting a homogeneous material to assess so this is this is the conclusion uh despite all the various tests and so on

00:59:26 despite all the various tests and so on uh the conclusion was it may be regarded as a class note uh surface I mean a let's go back to page five and look

00:59:37 let's go back to page five and look at

00:59:39 at the use of the expression in that part of the

00:59:44 of the certificate you say in 6.3 as I've shown you as a consequence of section 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a class not surface what was it about about section

00:59:56 surface what was it about about section 6.1 and 6.2 that led to the consequence the that the products may be regarded as having a class North surface again I have no knowledge of how the conclusions

01:00:08 have no knowledge of how the conclusions were drawn all I know is that they've got there are two two or three different uh samples which were tested and the conclusion uh has been stated in

01:00:22 conclusion uh has been stated in 6.3 was it not clear to you at the time that although had indeed passed 4 bs476 tests and achieved class n PE had

01:00:36 not um I can't comment on that I can't remember the details

01:00:45 uh you refer in an earlier answer to there being expert uh input on this you say Brian Haynes approved looked at and approved

01:00:56 Haynes approved looked at and approved this wording did Brian Haynes himself obtain any expert guidance from outside the BBA on that wording we're looking yes I believe I believe um I think Sarah

01:01:08 yes I believe I believe um I think Sarah cwell was the only

01:01:12 only uh the only consultant he he actually communicated with uh whether he had Brian Haynes was always in uh in

01:01:24 had Brian Haynes was always in uh in touch with bre with regard to fire so if had if it had been discussed

01:01:31 u in my absence I would know did Brian HS to your knowledge take notes of his discussions with the these with the BR on on these occasions he was in touch

01:01:43 on on these occasions he was in touch with them no no

01:01:47 no he he had his own office uh as technical manager but he he was constantly in communication with BR as far as I know and as far as you know did he make notes of those constant Communications did he

01:01:59 of those constant Communications did he record the advice that was given on each occasion no with regard to this particular product or generally let's start with this particular product no no the only conversation I seem to remember

01:02:10 the only conversation I seem to remember is

01:02:12 is um is with Sarah cwell with regard to fire assessment of this product just just a moment in in general terms in general terms then did Bri was

01:02:23 terms in general terms then did Bri was it Brian haynes's practice to your knowledge was it Brian haynes's practice not to take notes of of advice given to him by external fire experts such as Sarah cwell no he wouldn't

01:02:35 Sarah cwell no he wouldn't no so how can you tell us how that advice would then be um recorded uh within the BR other than in Brian haynes's own

01:02:46 haynes's own memory perhaps it wouldn't

01:02:50 be as far as I know there were no written records of the I mean obviously I didn't get a response from BR uh so I asked Brian to look to look

01:03:05 BR uh so I asked Brian to look to look into

01:03:06 into it was there ever was there ever a time in your time at the BR when external fire expertise advice of this nature coming from Sarah cwell or perhaps other

01:03:17 coming from Sarah cwell or perhaps other experts um was required to be formalized memorialized in writing uh that is the general

01:03:28 um that's the general method we always insist on written uh when you when you write an email to a to a consultant you

01:03:40 write an email to a to a consultant you expect the result but in this case uh it was rather unusual not not to have a response and uh that's why I I talked to Brian um that's why I remember some of

01:03:53 Brian um that's why I remember some of the details because it was unusual in that

01:03:57 that respect right well let's um let's pursue this a bit more can we go to technical file page 505 please that's BBA 442 page

01:04:08 442 page 505 and we can go to the bottom of the page we can see an email to Sarah cwell from

01:04:16 from you uh

01:04:19 uh um on the 29th of November 2007 copy to Brian Haynes subject reaction to fire Ram screen cladding and we need to go over to page 507 to see

01:04:32 we need to go over to page 507 to see the rest of

01:04:35 it and it says Dear Sarah we are currently assessing a composite panel comprising two aluminium sheets bonded to a polyethylene core for use of back ventilated and drained rainscreen

01:04:46 ventilated and drained rainscreen cladding systems the panel is coated on both faces with a six Micron thick polyester primer the exposed face is additionally protected by a 30 Micron thick durog gloss or pvdf coating based

01:04:58 thick durog gloss or pvdf coating based on testing and classification to 13501 part1 and bs476 parts six and seven the exposed face has been assessed as having a class KN surface in relation to

01:05:09 a class KN surface in relation to approved document B of the building regulations as I'm sure you're aware for buildings other than dwellings the regulations also require classification of the surface facing the cavity CLS

01:05:21 of the surface facing the cavity CLS 12.9 no test data for the back face exists however as it has a much thinner coating and therefore less energy content than the exposed face we think it is not unreasonable to assume a class

01:05:32 it is not unreasonable to assume a class not rating for the back face too this has indeed been demonstrated by tests on similar products in the past now um first do do you accept as a matter of fact that the PE standard uh

01:05:44 matter of fact that the PE standard uh of Rabon 55 had not been tested under bs476 and did not have class n Only did

01:06:01 um sorry your question again please well looking five lines down you say based on testing and classification do 13501 part1 and bs476

01:06:14 classification do 13501 part1 and bs476 part 6 and 7 the exposed face has been assessed as having a class nor surface in relation to approved document B do you accept that that applied that that bs476 six and seven only applied to the

01:06:28 bs476 six and seven only applied to the version of renon 55 and not the PE version uh again I can't remember the details but I'm I'm guessing that that was the

01:06:38 was the case uh yes I mean you'd not seen at the time you wrote this email any test data under bs476 part 6 and 7 which related to the PE

01:06:50 to the PE core only the call uh

01:06:55 call uh do say something about the PE version in the certificate don't we uh just just can you just answer my question I'll try it once more do you accept that as a matter of fact you didn't have any test

01:07:08 matter of fact you didn't have any test data under bs476 part 6 and seven relating to the PE core version of Rabon 55 only the yes I yes I I would accept

01:07:20 55 only the yes I yes I I would accept so when you told Sarah cwell um uh that the exposed face had been been assessed as having a class not surface that was true only in respect of FR it wasn't true was it in respect of the PE the

01:07:34 standard that must have been the case I I can't remember I mean

01:07:40 mean uh why didn't you make that clear to Sarah colell at the time um

01:07:55 uh this I think I must have I say I must have the intention here is to assess a particular panel with the particular

01:08:08 codings now I'm not sure if this m material was fire retardant type or the PE type

01:08:15 PE type um all I'm asking in this email is if you could have a look uh as to how we can assess this and

01:08:27 look uh as to how we can assess this and um provide appropriate statement in the certificate that's that's all well I'm just trying to understand how you come to make the statement to Sarah cwell that you do in the sentence we're

01:08:40 that you do in the sentence we're examining uh first of all do you accept uh that when you tell her that the exposed face has been assessed as having a class nor surface that was true only in respect of of the AR but not true in

01:08:53 in respect of of the AR but not true in respect of the uh the AR or for the standard uh version would have been defined by the by the PDF P pvdf coding or or any other

01:09:07 PDF P pvdf coding or or any other coding I mean the intention is to see with this particular quoting what would be her

01:09:17 be her assessment the I would have no knowledge of what a fire retardant version was what a p version was uh basically this is the information we had

01:09:29 basically this is the information we had and I as far as I remember I let S I have the necessary information to make an

01:09:37 an assessment when you said based on testing and classification to 13501 which is the European Standard did you think that classification of rivet PE as

01:09:48 think that classification of rivet PE as Class B as we've seen contributed in some way to the products claimed to have class n

01:09:57 again the fixing method was considered irrelevant here well let's look and see what Brian Haynes says about this can we go to his witness statement please at page six

01:10:09 witness statement please at page six paragraph

01:10:14 28 and he's uh talking about

01:10:22 the uh he's talking about the European test I'll wait for it to come up on the screen uh BBA 3010 784 thank you page six paragraph 28 four

01:10:36 784 thank you page six paragraph 28 four lines

01:10:38 lines down uh he says and he's referring to the European standards and in the in the fourth line in that paragraph do can you see Mr Gregor and he says they were published

01:10:50 Gregor and he says they were published as part of a much wider process of Standards harmonization than at the time of the in question they were not widely recognized by users in the UK they could not be used to definitively establish

01:11:02 not be used to definitively establish class nor performance as defined in UK building regulations however they could be used to classify performance in relation to em 13501 part one harmonized European classification standard which was

01:11:14 classification standard which was equally acceptable under building regulations approved document B can we look at page 12 please of the same state paragraph uh 53 under question

01:11:27 paragraph uh 53 under question 16 um the bottom of that page Mr Gregorian you can see a lengthy question set out by the inquiry did the 2008 certificate for RAB Bond architectural

01:11:38 certificate for RAB Bond architectural wall panels 84510 indicate that all such panels achieve National class not if not why not please explain with particular reference to the contents of the certificate including one key factors

01:11:50 certificate including one key factors assessed on page one uh subsection section 13.1 on page page eight this certificate relates only to the product stroke system that is named and described on the front page and three

01:12:01 described on the front page and three section 6.2 the test to National class provided to the BBA and the answer he gives is over the page on page 13 and he says at paragraph 53 the certificate did not state that

01:12:12 53 the certificate did not state that all panels achieved National class n the certificate makes clear that not all colors were covered and it states that some products were tested and classified to en1 13501 part one as stated above

01:12:23 to en1 13501 part one as stated above the certificate goes on to state that the EM classified panels would be suitable in class n

01:12:31 situations now looking at your understanding at the time did you understand yourself that the European test results could not be used to establish the British standard

01:12:42 used to establish the British standard class

01:12:44 class n uh I never get got involved in uh uh European standards and especially with regard to

01:12:52 regard to fire um I have no knowledge of this at all right and was it any part of your thinking that because PE in had achieved a Class B in rivid um it could be

01:13:04 a Class B in rivid um it could be treated as as if it had class N I can't comment on that it's it's way outside my area of expertise did you realize I think you

01:13:17 expertise did you realize I think you told us earlier that you did look at diagram 40 of the um of approved document B we looked at earlier on in your examination did you realize when you were

01:13:28 did you realize when you were drafting this part of the report um that European Class B did not equate automatically with national class not no I've got no knowledge of that at

01:13:40 I've got no knowledge of that at all all I knew that uh under um approved document B it was acceptable to have U material of limited

01:13:52 to have U material of limited combustibility above 18 meters uh that's all I know uh as regards classifications as to what constitutes a material of

01:14:03 as to what constitutes a material of low combustibility I just wouldn't know how do you did you know that the tests for limited combustibility whether under the European system or the British

01:14:15 the European system or the British system the BS system were completely different tests um from the tests of surface spread of flame uh and the other tests leading to class n okay I have no knowledge of this at all I would have

01:14:27 knowledge of this at all I would have consulted the fire expert why was it necessary to say anything at all about class n for the purposes of the um PE standard version of rainon because I

01:14:38 standard version of rainon because I believe uh I believe that was the requirement of the approved document uh Mand

01:14:45 Mand basically you need to have certain classifications to be able to make an assessment on the product but we saw diagram 40 and it said you could either use Class B or National class Nord given

01:14:56 use Class B or National class Nord given that you had class B for rivet why was it necessary to say anything at all about class Nord I can't comment on that I I don't know I can't remember I did our colleague ask you to put class nort

01:15:07 colleague ask you to put class nort somewhere in this

01:15:10 certificate

01:15:14 uh they they may have they may have done but we would definitely have checked the validity of that statement

01:15:26 checked the validity of that statement why didn't you simply say that because the standard PE in rivid had achieved Class B it satisfied diagram 40 for use above 18

01:15:36 meters I can't comment on that I I wouldn't know can you see how somebody reading the certificate might have been misled into thinking uh that the that

01:15:47 misled into thinking uh that the that standard PE uh either had class Nord which it didn't or could be regarded as having class Nord but on a basis which you can't

01:15:58 but on a basis which you can't understand or explain uh the certificate obviously has come to the conclus or the fire expert uh with the approval of Brian Haynes they must

01:16:09 the approval of Brian Haynes they must have come to the conclusion that they can be

01:16:14 can be uh they can be regarded as class notes but also the certificate refers to the appropriate section for amplification on this

01:16:30 now we we'll come back to Sarah Cole Well's

01:16:34 Well's response uh to the email I've shown you uh after the break uh which I'm going to ask the chairman to give us in a second um can I just ask you one question

01:16:46 um can I just ask you one question before we do and that is do you remember whether the wording may be regarded as having a class not

01:16:56 classification came from Sarah cwell

01:17:04 uh there a good chance Brian Haynes would have initiated this I and obviously they must have

01:17:15 this I and obviously they must have discussed the issue between the themselves and agreed that this is appropriate statement uh you you I think you're specula you say there's a good chance

01:17:26 specula you say there's a good chance but from your own record doing the best you can and I know after 11 years or longer actually 13 years it's difficult do you remember whether that phraseology uh was either specifically

01:17:40 phraseology uh was either specifically suggested by Sarah cwell uh or actually approved by Sarah cwell herself I can't make a comment on that I don't know very well thank you very much Mr

01:17:52 know very well thank you very much Mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes I think it is thank you very much well Mr Gregorian we're going to have a short break at this point we'll we'll come back to resume at 25 to4 please and in

01:18:05 back to resume at 25 to4 please and in the meantime please make sure not to talk about your evidence to anyone uh anyone else all right okay thank you see you a bit later on y thank you very much

01:18:23 good

01:18:53 e

01:19:23 e

01:19:53 e

01:20:23 e

01:20:53 e

01:21:23 e

01:21:53 e

01:22:23 e

01:22:53 e

01:23:23 e

01:23:53 e

01:24:23 e

01:24:53 e

01:25:23 e

01:25:53 e

01:26:23 e

01:26:53 e

01:27:23 e

01:27:53 e

01:28:23 e

01:28:53 e

01:29:23 e

01:29:53 e

01:30:22 e

01:30:52 e

01:31:22 e

01:31:52 e

01:32:22 e

01:32:52 e

01:33:22 e

01:33:52 e

01:34:22 e

01:34:52 e

01:35:22 e

01:35:52 e

01:36:22 e

01:36:52 e

01:37:22 e

01:37:52 e

01:38:22 e

01:38:52 e e

01:39:32 welcome back everyone I apologize for the slight delay but we are now ready to continue so I'll just check that Mr Gregorian is there and can hear me and see me yes and very good Mr Gregorian

01:39:44 see me yes and very good Mr Gregorian and you're I hope ready to carry on are you I am yes thank you very much in that case I'll invite Mr Millet to put some more questions to you thank thank you very much Mr chairman um can we go back

01:39:55 very much Mr chairman um can we go back to the BBA certificate please at ba 6047 page five and I'd like to look at section

01:40:03 section 6.3 ba BBA 6 Ser 47 page five and if you look at 6.3 in the last sentence there it says the unexposed side of the product may also

01:40:16 unexposed side of the product may also be regarded as having a class nor surface uh I want to look to see with you what supported that statement can we start by looking at the technical file please bb4 is 8042 at page

01:40:34 535 this is an email from you to Claude veray on the 22nd of October if we look at the second half of the uh email run on the screen uh and you say dear Claude

01:40:46 on the screen uh and you say dear Claude a copy of our proposed draft certificate is attached and then you say in the third paragraph uh with regard reaction to fire in accordance with the requirements of the UK building

01:40:57 requirements of the UK building regulations we also need classification of the reverse unexposed side of the panel in section 6.3 we have assumed and stated that the unexposed side of the

01:41:08 stated that the unexposed side of the products may also be regarded as having a class n surface however we will still need documentary evidence showing that this is indeed the case the Warrington test report makes no specific reference to the performance of the reverse

01:41:21 to the performance of the reverse side is it right that you understood that arconic had to provide separate documentation showing the performance of the reverse side of the panel um ideally yes of the particular product we were

01:41:34 yes of the particular product we were covering and in the paragraph there you refer to the Warrington test report um was that the 2003 Warrington test report that we've seen on

01:41:51 F I can't I can't remember now um if we go um uh to page 499 we can see uh uh the response 499

01:42:03 499 we can see uh uh the response 499 same um technical file uh this is uh his email of the 5th of December 2007 uh and he says hello hamo after

01:42:15 2007 uh and he says hello hamo after having checked with our paint laboratory and the different certification we have today I give you those two information in order to qual ify the back pH of our raino bond panels and one the only

01:42:26 raino bond panels and one the only difference between front and back side is the thickness of the coating which is six microns instead of 35 microns so we have a 14.2 gram per square meter coating weight on the back face for 47.2

01:42:39 coating weight on the back face for 47.2 grams per square meter on the front side two like you can see in the attached reaction to fire classification report number ra

01:42:48 number ra 07082 our coated aluminium used for the skins of RAB Bond are classified as A1 non-combustible can you please now let me know if you have all the required information to close our certification

01:43:00 information to close our certification process and you can see that there's an attachment to this email uh at the top there ralux A1 ra 0701

01:43:10 0701 82 uh can we go to that that's on the technical file and a different part of it page

01:43:19 139 and as one might expect given the title in the attachment it relates to rol Lux can you see that in the middle of the page there yeah that's a totally different product from Reno Bond 55

01:43:32 different product from Reno Bond 55 isn't it it is yes can you explain how a classification for a completely different product could be acceptable as the basis for a claim for class n on the backside of Rabon 55 um again I've got

01:43:45 backside of Rabon 55 um again I've got to emphasize that I uh I have very little knowledge of fire issues but I I would imagine the the substrate on which the paint has

01:43:56 the the substrate on which the paint has been

01:43:57 been applied uh being metal uh that wouldn't catch fire so the only um fire issue would have been the the actual coating which in this case was

01:44:09 actual coating which in this case was much less than the uh front face uh coating I think six Micron against 35 microns I seem to remember but you're you're being asked

01:44:21 remember but you're you're being asked to extrapolate are you uh from the results on Reno Lux uh to a thicker surface on Reno bog uh I wasn't involved in in decisions regarding that so that's

01:44:35 in in decisions regarding that so that's why I consulted fire experts for that to be honest I uh I I find it quite logical to assume that is the case but again I I had to

01:44:48 that is the case but again I I had to have confirmation from a fire expert you say we had to have confirmation from a fire expert uh indeed we've seen your email to Sarah cwell of the 29th of November

01:45:01 cwell of the 29th of November 2007 uh at least in part can we go back to that that's at in the technical file at page 507 BBA 4 8042 at page

01:45:12 at page 507 BBA 4 8042 at page 57 we looked at half of this let's look at the rest of it I was showing you this before the break uh um and you you say just below

01:45:24 break uh um and you you say just below halfway down no test data for the back face exists however it has as it has a much thinner coating and therefore less energy content than the exposed pH we think it's not unreasonable to assume a class n rating for The Back phas 2 this

01:45:36 class n rating for The Back phas 2 this has indeed been demonstrated by tests on similar products in the past could you please comment on the validity of our assumption and if we see at page

01:45:48 assumption and if we see at page 505 her response it's in the second email from the top on that page um also dated the 29th of November um and she says ham we would need to see

01:45:59 and she says ham we would need to see the test data to be able to make any meaningful comment on the potential product performance if you would like us to complete a review we would be happy to look at this for you and provide a proposal if necessary for any additional work or formal

01:46:10 work or formal assessment and your response to that is a little bit above it still on page 505 we can just scroll up please you say Sarah I was not able to

01:46:22 please you say Sarah I was not able to contact you by by telephone hence email the attached documents classification reports for the standard and fire retardant versions testing to the s476 part six and seven has also been

01:46:33 part six and seven has also been undertaken but only hard copies of the reports exist please let me know if this is sufficient for your purposes if you need to have a chat please give me a call when you're free I'm not in this afternoon but I am in the office until

01:46:44 afternoon but I am in the office until 12: noon and the rest of this week rest of the

01:46:48 of the week

01:46:51 week uh do you remember where you actually had the chat to which you refer with Sarah yes with Sarah Kell um no I I couldn't get hold of

01:47:06 her having been told by Warrington uh that the only solution was to get tests done why did you approach Sarah

01:47:16 Sarah cwell uh to see whether our assumption was correct bearing in mind I must have discussed with Brian regarding this and we we were seeking confirmation from

01:47:29 we we were seeking confirmation from Sarah right now we've got no evidence on the file we've seen that Sarah Colwell ever responded to you or indeed to Brian Haynes

01:47:41 Haynes uh did did she do you think in response to this

01:47:47 request as far as I remember they well there was no response from her um because of her busy work schedule so that's why I

01:48:00 busy work schedule so that's why I contacted Brian to have a chat with her now we can see from this email before we leave it that you sent her can you look at the attachment line you can see you sent her the two European tests uh for

01:48:12 sent her the two European tests uh for Rabon 55 um first of all the test for PE which had a euroclass b s2d North that was classification 5A we looked at earlier and also RAB Bond

01:48:25 earlier and also RAB Bond bs1

01:48:26 bs1 Dort which was the 2006 test yeah didn't Center the 2003

01:48:35 2003 bs476 Parts six and seven tests uh that had been done by Warrington fire for FR did you uh where I say only hard copy exists uh that's what you're referring

01:48:47 exists uh that's what you're referring to is it yes uh yes um why uh I was as I say I was expecting a response

01:48:57 response uh and I I didn't receive a written response but based on I think based on the actual specification

01:49:09 think based on the actual specification that's that was supplied by uh arconic

01:49:15 arconic Alcoa uh I'm guessing she was able to assess the fire performance of the the back

01:49:24 back face based on what she had can we get sorry I'm so sorry you I I keep thinking you finished your answer can we go to your statement

01:49:35 answer can we go to your statement please at page four uh and you can see inquiry question six in bold you say what information on fire performance was Alcoa asked to provide to the BBA prior to the

01:49:47 provide to the BBA prior to the certification in in 08 4510 did you or anyone at the BBA ask Alcoa for all relevant test data in respective R architecture wall panels if not why not and you answer a paragraph

01:49:59 not why not and you answer a paragraph 22 can you see you say from The Correspondents available and to the best of my recollection Alcoa provided information related to the front face of the panels which had a pvdf coating of thickness 35 microns the back face of

01:50:10 thickness 35 microns the back face of the panels had a polyester primer coating six microns on the advice of br's fire expert our technical manager accepted that in fire the back face of the panels would perform at least as well as the front face

01:50:23 well as the front face uh and as I think we've seen in your statement already at paragraph 39 you say that it was Brian Haynes who sought the advice of Sarah cwell um were you are you able to shed

01:50:34 cwell um were you are you able to shed any further light on when that advice was given when sorry on when that advice was

01:50:42 was given are you able to tell us when that advice was given what what advice is that sorry the advice that we see in this last sentence of your paragraph 22

01:50:53 this last sentence of your paragraph 22 on advice of br's fire expert our technical manager accepted that in fire the back face of the panels would perform at least as well as the front face yeah this this is the conversation I was referring

01:51:04 I was referring to the telephone conversation with Sarah I see so that's the conversation that Bri Haynes had with Sarah Colwell that you listened in on but couldn't hear what that's correct again I don't know

01:51:16 what that's correct again I don't know what Sarah said uh there was a a short conversation between Brian and Sarah and

01:51:24 and um I I sort of got the approval from Brian soon afterwards and when Brian Haynes

01:51:35 afterwards and when Brian Haynes reported to you what Sarah kwell had told him is the totality all of the advice that he got from her reflected in

01:51:46 advice that he got from her reflected in that last sentence in paragraph 22 yes I would imagine that was that was the conclusion that Brian came came to based on the advice given by

01:51:57 came to based on the advice given by Sarah did Sarah cwell to the best of your knowledge or explain to Brian Haynes or did Brian Haynes tell you why it was technically acceptable to use the

01:52:10 it was technically acceptable to use the rolx classification to draw any conclusions about the fire performance of the back face of raino no there was no explanation but I think um I think we

01:52:21 no explanation but I think um I think we both agreed that it the it's a

01:52:24 it's a reasonable assessment because there's less paint so there's better fire performance with regard to the back back face that's a

01:52:36 regard to the back back face that's a process of extrapolation isn't it was there any technical basis that you knew of which would permit extrapolation from the results of the test on one product to another product no I mean because I

01:52:49 to another product no I mean because I wasn't sure about um about this extrapolation U we sought confirmation from

01:53:01 BR I'd like to turn back to the certificate please to look now at section 6.4 on color if we go back please to BBA 6047 page

01:53:19 5 it says there let's have that blown up if we can paragraph 6.4 these performances may not be

01:53:31 6.4 these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and the designations of a particular color should be confirmed by and then you set out some tests there uh now do we understand from your

01:53:43 there uh now do we understand from your witness

01:53:44 witness statement uh that coverage of the BBA certificate was limited to the colors expressly set out in the certific ific so gray green metallic gray and gold for

01:53:57 so gray green metallic gray and gold for the particular types of panel that's correct and is it right that the particular uh colors are valid in other words covered by the certificate only if

01:54:10 words covered by the certificate only if they are on the stated core types so gray green only certified if it's on PE called renob that's correct yes was it your understanding that particular colors are only valid for particular

01:54:21 colors are only valid for particular coating so the certificate would only cover metallic gray durog gloss finish when applied to PE called raino Bond that's correct yes and is it right

01:54:33 Bond that's correct yes and is it right therefore that you intended that the reader should understand that every other color and every other combination outside what we've discussed had to be tested that's correct what was the

01:54:45 tested that's correct what was the technical justification for that color limitation uh from my conversation with uh Brian

01:54:53 uh Brian uh the impression I got was um fire performance is very much a function of the actual color it's it's very sensitive to the

01:55:05 color it's it's very sensitive to the actual

01:55:06 actual color as to why that is I wouldn't know uh possibly something to do with the energy contained within the paint coating uh I don't know BBA

01:55:19 know BBA ex sorry did you want to finish your answer

01:55:24 answer no I'm I'm okay we were about to say something else and I started the next question all right I'll ask the next question did the BBA expect that it would that uh that color limitation would be rigorously adhered to by

01:55:38 customers

01:55:44 uh uh the certificate covers that product and that product only with that particular coding uh as to what how how the certificate is

01:55:57 uh as to what how how the certificate is used uh that's really be beyond our control

01:56:01 control really

01:56:03 really um did the BBA ever hear that this color restriction in the certificate was routinely ignored in the UK

01:56:15 Market um I cannot comment on that I don't

01:56:20 don't know so you never heard any intelligence or rumors that UK customers were ignoring this color restriction

01:56:31 restriction no did you ever hear that customers couldn't understand why the difference in color would make a

01:56:41 difference

01:56:46 um I can't comment on that uh I mean the this it's a it's a fact that we were aware of but

01:56:57 aware of but uh as far as the certificate is concerned it covers this particular product if the if the if the client or the installer wants to put a different uh

01:57:11 installer wants to put a different uh different product uh in his clading system that would be out of our control it wouldn't be covered by the certificate that's what we are saying in here can you explain

01:57:24 here can you explain why the the certificate doesn't say on its front page that it certifies renob Bond cladding wall panels in these three colors in these

01:57:36 panels in these three colors in these three

01:57:36 three forms yes nothing else that's it but why doesn't it say that on the front

01:57:45 page this is just a standard format of the um certificate I'm I'm not sure I'm not sure why not

01:57:55 not uh but

01:57:57 uh but specifically uh those statements are relevant to the behavior in relation to fire so it seems logical to me that it would be in the fire section can we go to page 471 of the

01:58:10 section can we go to page 471 of the technical

01:58:14 file at the bottom of page 471 a technical file BBA 4 804 two the bottom of page 471 we see an email from

01:58:25 bottom of page 471 we see an email from Claude verle to you on the 12th of December

01:58:29 December 2007 subject Rainer Bond certification hello ham sorry to disturb but coming back to our call from yesterday could I have an official document from the BBA that certify that we have the BBA

01:58:40 that certify that we have the BBA approval for raino bond in pvdf finish and in durog gloss 5000 finish and you respond to him a little bit further up the screen if we can same page

01:58:54 same day uh you uh say Claude as requested please find attached letter hard copy to follow I hope it proves helpful and you can see that the attachment is an approved letter in PDF

01:59:06 attachment is an approved letter in PDF we can see that on page

01:59:09 473 we go two down two pages down and it's a letter signed by Brian Haynes addressed to Claude Val at ionic dat of the 12th of December 2007 uh it's entitled Rainer Bond

01:59:21 2007 uh it's entitled Rainer Bond architecture wall cladding panels with jogl 5000 or pbdf coating and he says I'm writing to confirm that all technical work relating to the assessment of the above product has now been successfully completed the

01:59:33 been successfully completed the certificate is currently being finalized for ISU and will be will be forwarded to you in due course we hope this letter is helpful in the

01:59:41 meantime uh do you know whether this letter was intended for Claude verle to use officially perhaps to send out to clients no uh as far as I know uh they

01:59:54 clients no uh as far as I know uh they couldn't use this they shouldn't use this uh uh as proof of uh uh technical approval by the

02:00:05 proof of uh uh technical approval by the BBA they would have to wait until the certificate was formally issued now we whether they had used this to in a particular project or not I

02:00:18 this to in a particular project or not I just would know uh I don't think BBA generally would know about these things but all we are saying here bearing in mind the client is anxious to get his approval this is a fairly

02:00:31 get his approval this is a fairly standard sort of letter which Brian Haynes has signed obviously here

02:00:38 here uh just to reassure uh the client as to what stage the um the assessment is uh just to keep him happy

02:00:49 him happy really we can see there's no mention of particular colors being certified here or of core types or finishes my question is if if colors and core types was such

02:01:02 is if if colors and core types was such an important scope limitation why was that not spelled out by Mr Haynes in his

02:01:10 letter I I don't know I I wouldn't know I mean

02:01:15 I mean uh I say the certificate mentions in the appropriate section what is covered especially with regard to fire

02:01:28 um otherwise the the title here would have been much longer than it is now can we go back to the certificate please at page three BBA 6 Ser 47 page

02:01:41 three I'd like to look at section 1.1 or paragraph 1.1 with you again page three just blow that up um and it says

02:01:54 we've read this a number of times but you can see in the middle um it says the at the end of the line a jurug gloss or pvdf coating available in various colors

02:02:05 pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed face do you refer there to various colors um do you recall that in fact it was Claude verle who had proposed that

02:02:17 was Claude verle who had proposed that wording and you'd you'd added it with without any objection we saw that from the red and green email you remember that yes I I would I would guess this this was how cstb document uh

02:02:31 guess this this was how cstb document uh was

02:02:32 was worded well we see how what Claude ver intended uh by these words that you had agreed to add at his suggestion as we saw from the red and green email earlier

02:02:44 saw from the red and green email earlier can we go to his witness statement at page 12 it's me30 53190 page 12 paragraph 4

02:02:56 two uh it's a long paragraph uh uh so um we need to pick it up um about halfway down

02:03:07 down uh and it's it's on the screen in front of you about three4 of the way down and it says if if the certificate do you see

02:03:18 it says if if the certificate do you see if if the certific states color color exactly if the C States coloris d That's French I think color various the testing

02:03:30 French I think color various the testing May relate to all colors in the range or if a specific color is stated on the certificate it will only relate to that if customers had any concerns it would

02:03:41 if customers had any concerns it would be expected that they would contact the company so that the issue could be discussed my question Mr Gregorian for you is did you understand that Mr ver wanted the certific ific to relate to

02:03:52 wanted the certific ific to relate to all the colors in the range or only to the colors specifically stated uh he may have ideally wanted that to cover all colors but uh I don't

02:04:07 that to cover all colors but uh I don't think they would accept that so that's why we have clearly stated in the certificate as to what colors were uh were covered

02:04:27 do you accept that the reader might understand from section 1.1 that we've just been looking at on page three of the certificate that all colors in the range were certified were covered by the certificate either with a jog gloss or a

02:04:40 certificate either with a jog gloss or a pbdf

02:04:43 coating um

02:04:52 I'm not sure but I haven't got the statement in front of

02:04:58 me BBA 6 47 page three we can see it again then it says as I shown you it says in the fourth line a durog gloss or pvdf coating

02:05:11 line a durog gloss or pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed

02:05:14 exposed face my question is do you accept that a reader of that might understand uh that all in the range are covered by this certificate no I think we we have made

02:05:27 certificate no I think we we have made that clear I think obviously that is that is true the they have these systems these different panels with different codings and so on uh but they wouldn't

02:05:40 codings and so on uh but they wouldn't be covered because we have made that clear in the appropriate section as to what is covered and the only ones we have covered obviously if again we we say if if a

02:05:53 obviously if again we we say if if a different color is involved uh obviously they would have to go back to the certificate holder for confirmation as regards fire performance do you accept that by adding

02:06:04 performance do you accept that by adding what Mr verle had had asked you to namely the reference to various colors there you were introducing an ambiguity in certificate on the one hand

02:06:17 ambiguity in certificate on the one hand between saying that various colors were were covered but on the other only the color specifically identified covered the fact that there's a statement uh here as as regards the um

02:06:31 statement uh here as as regards the um the different products that were on offer by

02:06:36 offer by Alcoa uh doesn't necessarily mean that it's covered it merely States what the manufacturer can

02:06:44 provide that's the best way I can

02:06:49 explain can we then M on uh and see how the draft was uh circulated uh we we've seen from Mr haynes's evidence uh and from

02:07:00 haynes's evidence uh and from discussions you and I have had earlier in the day Mr Gregorian that this this was a leader certificate which meant that there was a review process um can we go please to BBA 3010

02:07:13 we go please to BBA 3010 784 the page five this is Mr Hayes's witness statement I want to show you paragraph 21

02:07:25 and at paragraph 21 uh Mr Haynes says leaders were submitted for comment to other BBA staff and to external experts the lead the the experts to whom the

02:07:36 the lead the the experts to whom the draft was circulated would depend on the nature of the product I exhibit document bh1 forming part of this statement which sets out those parties to whom the draft of this certificate was sent both

02:07:47 of this certificate was sent both internal and external as follows and then there's a long list of bullet points with names next to them you can see that and the first of which is the client uh and uh others down the list uh

02:08:02 client uh and uh others down the list uh the BBA section head was the second bullet point on that list I think we established earlier was Jeff gurny is that is that right that's correct uh would this document also have

02:08:13 correct uh would this document also have gone to John

02:08:18 albon um John would most probably have looked at the durability aspect because that's how he would get involved in things like this right most probably he

02:08:31 things like this right most probably he would have at some stage been consulted which regard to durability right we see on the panel if I can put

02:08:42 right we see on the panel if I can put it that way for review of leader certificates such as this yeah

02:08:52 this yeah which section was John Alor in at the time do you

02:08:56 recall uh

02:09:02 um I think durability was his main area of uh

02:09:08 of uh activity can't remember the what the section was called To be honest I think just

02:09:13 just durability

02:09:17 um and would I be right in thinking that Brian Haynes would have had the ultimate sign off yes on the burning of the certificate yep yes I see now in this

02:09:28 certificate yep yes I see now in this list here uh we we can see who is there but we can't see anybody in this list from BR or from Warrington uh who would have seen this draft in its final form

02:09:41 have seen this draft in its final form and signed off statements about fire performance is that because nobody from the BR or warington or any other fire expert external to BBA did

02:09:55 um yes I I'm not I'm not aware that I mean this was obviously standard list of um different parties that would have a look and the BR wasn't in it so I

02:10:09 look and the BR wasn't in it so I wouldn't know I wouldn't know about that can we go to the technical file again please and look at page 319

02:10:23 uh this is uh a document which has the word draft one on the top you can see this looks like the very first draft of the BBA certificate it hasn't even got a number on at that stage but at the very

02:10:35 number on at that stage but at the very top somebody has written in manuscript circulation does that tell us that this draft was circulated for commentary within the BBA

02:10:47 uh obviously there would be some circulation because the section head would each individual section head would have to look at this to assess the uh the product from

02:11:00 this to assess the uh the product from their own

02:11:02 their own perspective um

02:11:06 um circulation as it's written here it could very well mean the circulation to the various parties which Brian Hayes is actually uh drawn drawn

02:11:18 actually uh drawn drawn up uh

02:11:22 up uh how wide would the circulation of a a draft one's version of certificate like this be sorry how long how wide would the circulation of draft one of a

02:11:33 the circulation of draft one of a certificate such as as this be normally the the draft draft would go to various departments who would uh would look at this and then P

02:11:44 would uh would look at this and then P pass on to the you know between it would just go between the various departments various sections uh would the circulation be narrower than the final list of people we saw in

02:11:56 than the final list of people we saw in Brian Hayes's statement a minute ago with with I believe I believe with confirmation certificates uh uh there was less

02:12:06 was less uh less of an problem in this respect but for normal certification it would definitely go into a loop several times

02:12:18 definitely go into a loop several times many times sometimes uh this it was finalized can we have this version side by side please with the issued version I want to

02:12:29 version I want to compare uh the front pages of each of them if you keep dra one up on the screen please and let's have the final version as issued which is BBA 6047

02:12:40 version as issued which is BBA 6047 there it is um let's just compare behavior in relation to fire on the leftand side in draft one you can see that it says uh in relation do you see where it says in relation to the

02:12:52 where it says in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class one surface in England and Wales then when you look across to the final version uh it says the panels

02:13:03 the final version uh it says the panels may be regarded as having a class not surface in England and Wales um now the technical file doesn't contain any record of any external commentator suggesting that change or

02:13:14 commentator suggesting that change or indeed when it might be have been made F first of all do you know when that change was made no I no I can't I can't comment on this

02:13:25 no I no I can't I can't comment on this but um bearing in mind the certificates um actually is stamped on it for comment only and there will be a lot of drafts

02:13:36 only and there will be a lot of drafts including uh things that would have to be finalized and um as say after consultation with BR uh it was decided that class note was

02:13:47 BR uh it was decided that class note was the appropriate one but as to when this happened I just couldn't tell you uh do you know who decided to make that change

02:13:59 um this must have been after discussion with Brian Haynes do you know who was it his decision did he decide to make that change class one to class North I

02:14:11 change class one to class North I believe so yes I believe I certainly didn't make that the decision do do you know on what basis from your own knowledge on what basis the change was made from class one to class not based on the advice from

02:14:28 BR

02:14:35 uh was the BR asked to advise on what the

02:14:40 the classification of the panels should be I think I think the the idea was to confirm

02:14:49 confirm that uh

02:14:52 that uh that the panels could be considered as class

02:14:56 note um for all I know uh Brian may have actually seen the class

02:15:05 class one uh classification and changed it to class note I can't remember that uh do you know when that advice was given by the BR to change from class one

02:15:17 given by the BR to change from class one to class North sorry what was the question

02:15:22 question sorry do you know when the BR gave the advice to change the classification on the certificate from class one no no I wouldn't no no I wouldn't

02:15:34 wouldn't no no I wouldn't know right I've got one or two more topics to cover with you Mr Gregorian um the next one is surveillance um are you aware or were you familiar

02:15:46 um are you aware or were you familiar with the fact that the BBA terms and conditions required um the certificate holder to allow the BBA to conduct

02:15:57 surveillance the accepted Arrangement within the uatc was uh the original uh certification body would conduct all surveillance um and they would they

02:16:09 surveillance um and they would they would be expected to inform the BBA if there were major uh non-conformances uh having said that I think uh

02:16:21 having said that I think uh something I've probably missed in my witness statement uh every three years we would go through each certificate to make

02:16:30 make sure uh there were there were any problems um and one of the uh questions we would ask uh

02:16:41 we would ask uh cstb was whether there were any non uh non-conformances and I think that that process is still going on now every three years he would review a certificate can we go to the technical file please

02:16:53 can we go to the technical file please bb4 is 8042 Page

02:17:06 121 this is a document headed request for surveillance visit at the bottom you can see that it's dated the 21st of April 2008 you can have that on the screen and there's a signature next to

02:17:17 screen and there's a signature next to it project manager it looks like your signature yes it is yes the other signature is head of approvals Brian chamberling yes yes and in the table you can see details

02:17:29 yes and in the table you can see details of locations to be visited if we can just scroll back up

02:17:38 please you can see details of locations to be visited and visit frequency uh location mkim visits perom zero uh and at the bottom of that

02:17:50 zero uh and at the bottom of that there's SE there's a note and it says one unless technically Justified each location should receive at least two visits per anom please identify if the visit is to be combined with an existing visit

02:18:02 visit Arrangement uh and then at the very bottom of the table it says if no surveillance required provide reason then somebody's put surveillance by cstb France did that mean that the BBA was

02:18:13 France did that mean that the BBA was going to rely on the cstb to conduct the surveillance at mkim yes yes yes as I say um within uh

02:18:25 mkim yes yes yes as I say um within uh within um uatc rules um

02:18:31 rules um uh the original certification body would well they were supposed to carry out any surveillance and uh inform they were

02:18:42 surveillance and uh inform they were expected to inform the BBA if there were any major non-conformances that was the accepted procedure within the u8c rules can we then go please to page one

02:18:55 rules can we then go please to page one two three of the technical

02:18:58 file your email bottom of the page 17th of May 2007 to Lauren panol de Lauren we're currently assessing the above product with a view

02:19:09 assessing the above product with a view to issuing an agal certificate and you set out the applicants details and then you say as part of our assessment we would normally carry out a factory inspection against a quality plan however we understand that there is

02:19:20 however we understand that there is currently scheme in operation by which regular surveillance by cstb is carried out in view of this we should be grateful if you would kindly confirm that factory production control relating to the product has been satisfactorily

02:19:31 to the product has been satisfactorily maintained and that once the certificate is issued you will inform the BBA if a there are a any major non-compliances are identified B the factory visits are discontinued your prompt responses uh

02:19:43 discontinued your prompt responses uh would be much appreciated and above that you could see um that uh La plel responds on the on the 21st of May dear Hammer I confirm you that any major

02:19:55 Hammer I confirm you that any major non-compliances are identified the factory audits are continued the next audit will be scheduled the 14th of June 2007 best regards L clol um is that the

02:20:06 2007 best regards L clol um is that the as we've seen from the emails there the agreement to set up regular audits by the cstb yes it's quite standard way of um asking cstb if everything is okay was

02:20:17 um asking cstb if everything is okay was it your understanding or expectation therefore that the cstb would conduct surveillance twice a year and report back to the BBA yes that's within the u uatc

02:20:30 BBA yes that's within the u uatc rules

02:20:33 rules uh we were perfectly entitled to assume that CST would carry out the

02:20:44 that CST would carry out the surveillance there was no audit was there and certainly no evidence we've seen that there was no no that wasn't that wasn't required so did the BBA have an equality plan with

02:20:55 plan with arconic when it was originally assessing uh the the RAB Bond 55 product and issuing the certificate uh I can't remember to be

02:21:06 certificate uh I can't remember to be honest I no I don't know so when you when when sorry when cstb certificate is given to the VBA uh all quality issues were the

02:21:20 VBA uh all quality issues were the respons responsibility of the uh original issuing body uh cstb so whether quality plan was

02:21:32 body uh cstb so whether quality plan was not relevant here I can't remember but certainly there was no Direct Control by the VBA over the manufacturer of the product is the effect of this that when

02:21:44 product is the effect of this that when it came to issuing the certificate you hadn't had any quality plan or surveillance report from the cstb no I

02:21:55 cstb no I don't uh I don't um I don't remember having any such thing because it it wasn't the normal thing to do I mean obviously there's nothing on file uh

02:22:06 obviously there's nothing on file uh regarding the quality plan but uh something like this email would probably be sufficient for our

02:22:18 probably be sufficient for our purposes was the arrangement then therefore that uh the cstb would effectively report only ma major

02:22:29 effectively report only ma major non-conformities and nothing else that's right now you were at the BBA for more than two years after January 2008 when

02:22:41 than two years after January 2008 when the certificate for Raina Bond 55 was issued in that time I think it's right isn't it that the BBA did not receive any surveillance reports

02:22:52 uh that's correct yes did that surprise you no whether they were expected to provide surveillance reports or not I I don't know

02:23:06 uh but I I say after three years uh in 2011 I I believe there was a review but I I left BBA by

02:23:18 BBA by then and as I say that during the review uh things like quality control issues would have been addressed yes thank you I've just got

02:23:29 addressed yes thank you I've just got one more short topic can we go please to mea

02:23:36 42052 mea

02:23:41 42052 I'd like to go to page 55 in that document

02:23:51 this is a letter uh from the BBA dated the 15th of January 2008 and sent to Claude Vera and um if you go to page

02:24:06 two you can see that it's signed by GG lines section head technical writing and Publications

02:24:17 Publications uh we haven't heard anything about Mr L so far in your evidence what was his role at this time je was the head of technical writing right I've worked very

02:24:28 technical writing right I've worked very closely with him did he have any role to play in the technical drafting of the BBA certificate itself no the the originator of the uh draft

02:24:41 the the originator of the uh draft certificate would be me and then he would he would be in charge of circulating into various departments getting comments including them and entually I would get I would have a look

02:24:52 entually I would get I would have a look at the draft they get and he had no

02:24:57 no uh input into the technical aspects he would

02:25:02 would basically be in charge of the uh actually just producing the certificate if we go back to page one we can

02:25:13 can see

02:25:15 see heading you can see the certificate is referred to there and in the first paragraph he said says I'm pleased to inform you that agrial certificate number 08 4510 first issue has been

02:25:26 number 08 4510 first issue has been awarded to the above product and a copy of the certificate bearing the number and our chief executive signature is enclosed if we go to the next page which I've just had on the screen you can see

02:25:37 I've just had on the screen you can see that it was sent by Mr lines um would you have been aware of this letter at the time this is a standard letter which I I must have

02:25:48 must have seen several times I see this is towards the end of the um you know once the um certificate is signed by the chief executive uh that's

02:26:01 signed by the chief executive uh that's the letter that would go to the client under conditions there on that page you can see that the letter says we must draw your attention to the conditions of certification in the certificate and

02:26:13 certification in the certificate and point out that if modifications are made to the specification or conditions of use of the certific the certificated product During the period of validity of the agreement certificate the BBA must

02:26:24 the agreement certificate the BBA must be informed without delay failure to do so could invalidate the certificate was that standard wording yes I I believe

02:26:34 so so was it the position of the BBA that the certificate holder would have to tell the BBA if there were any modifications or if the conditions for use were different that's correct yes

02:26:47 use were different that's correct yes would you have expected uh that to have included changes to or updates in the fire classification of Rainer Bond

02:26:59 55 I think it would apply to the certificate as a whole uh any any material change would have had to

02:27:11 had to be conveyed to the to the BBA if for example the European fire classification for PE rivet uh had been downgraded to

02:27:22 for PE rivet uh had been downgraded to an E Class E or a Class C would you have expected that fact to have been communicated to the BBA that's what that's what we are asking the client to do and

02:27:36 asking the client to do and um not sure if that sort of scenario has happened before but it s sort of that particular Clause

02:27:47 but it s sort of that particular Clause actually just confirms that any from what we have assessed would have to be uh conveyed to

02:28:00 BBA I think that's a logical thing to do isn't

02:28:05 it would you have expected arconic to have told the BBA if it came if it became aware or that any of its statements in the certificate were

02:28:16 statements in the certificate were incorrect misleading or required updating our colleague would have had to do that just just to make sure that the certificate is valid for for their

02:28:28 certificate is valid for for their product yes thank you Mr chairman I've come to the end of my prepared questions right and may I ask therefore that this be the time for the um the appropriate break I'm sorry that it's just one

02:28:40 break I'm sorry that it's just one minute before 4:30 um but uh it would be convenient now to take the break look at any further questions and then release the witness if possible yes well Mr Gregorian we need to have a short break

02:28:52 Gregorian we need to have a short break at this stage so that uh Mr milet can check that he's asked you all the questions he needs to ask you and also to enable others who are following the proceedings uh to consider whether they

02:29:05 proceedings uh to consider whether they think there are other questions that need to be asked so we'll uh have a short break until quarter to 5 please and at that point we'll see if there are any further questions for you okay thank

02:29:17 any further questions for you okay thank you and as before please no talking to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room so to speak sure all right see you later thank you very

02:29:49 much

02:30:18 e

02:30:48 e

02:31:18 e

02:31:48 e

02:32:18 e

02:32:48 e

02:33:18 e

02:33:48 e

02:34:18 e

02:34:48 e

02:35:18 e

02:35:48 e

02:36:18 e

02:36:48 e

02:37:18 e

02:37:48 e

02:38:18 e

02:38:48 e

02:39:18 e

02:39:48 e

02:40:18 e

02:40:48 e

02:41:18 e

02:41:48 e

02:42:18 e

02:42:48 e

02:43:18 e

02:43:48 e e

02:44:31 welcome back everyone we'll see now whether there are any further questions from Mr Gregorian you there Mr Gregorian can you see me and hear me all right yes I can good thank you very much well

02:44:42 I can good thank you very much well we'll find out now whether Mr milet has any more questions for you Mr yes thank you Mr chairman Mr gorian I have two documents to put to you if I may can the first one please be put it's BBA

02:44:56 30107 01 at page one so BBA 0000001

02:45:05 0000001 [Music]

02:45:07 [Music] 0701 uh and this is an email uh which is sent by John albon on the 20th of November 2007

02:45:19 albon on the 20th of November 2007 to Brian Haynes copy to you uh and uh it follows on from the discussions on that day about comparing

02:45:30 discussions on that day about comparing the front side and the back side and whether it's safe to conclude that the back side is class not uh that's the context and if you look at the text of the email it says I

02:45:43 look at the text of the email it says I would be amazed if the coating isn't class not but can't see what we are gaining by not asking them to prove it it also seems unfair to the other

02:45:54 it also seems unfair to the other certificate holders who haven't commissioned the necessary test could we compromise by proceeding to issue but asking them to conf provide the confirmatory data

02:46:05 confirmatory data retrospectively now in that email first of all did you understand the them there to be a reference to

02:46:13 arconic yes yes that's yes I suppose that's that's true yes do you you know what happened uh to that question or

02:46:24 what happened uh to that question or proposal by John albon uh whether there was a request sent back to arconic to to uh ask them to provide the

02:46:35 arconic to to uh ask them to provide the confirmatory data

02:46:38 retrospectively I can't remember uh I can't remember that at all no can we look at BBA Z

02:46:49 no can we look at BBA Z 001

02:46:51 001 0711

02:47:04 please this is uh the email

02:47:10 email uh same

02:47:13 uh same day uh which um isn't part of the same email stream but uh you write to Brian Haynes copy to John alurn and say thanks Brian in response to a different uh

02:47:26 Brian in response to a different uh document uh and you say I'll get Alcoa to have the test done one less thing to do for the coil coed sheet did you get ala to have the test done do you think I

02:47:39 ala to have the test done do you think I think I think in the correspondence we have seen

02:47:42 have seen before uh we did ask for additional tests with test results but in the end because that

02:47:53 results but in the end because that wasn't forthcoming we decided to go a different route with regard to

02:48:03 assessment mainly the extraction the extraction idea which which we used why not simply insist that arconic do the test as you

02:48:16 insist that arconic do the test as you had agreed that you would get them to do

02:48:22 um I can't remember the the exact context in which this was agreed but I think it was considered acceptable to use an

02:48:34 was considered acceptable to use an extrapolation of some kind uh bearing in mind Alcoa would want their certificate as soon as possible uh we agreed that was a that

02:48:47 possible uh we agreed that was a that was a sort of reasonable decision to make well let me just pursue this a little bit more if I may you say I'll get Alcoa to have the test done did you

02:48:58 get Alcoa to have the test done did you go back to our conic ala yes Mr ver and say do the test please yes I think I think there was a correspondence which

02:49:08 which uh spelled out the requ our requirements but in the end as I say we decided that it was just adequate for us

02:49:19 decided that it was just adequate for us to do some sort of EX extrapolation did Mr ver refuse to do the

02:49:25 the test

02:49:32 um again it looks like they were reluctant to to do a test why did you allow them to get away with expressing reluctance to do a test

02:49:45 with expressing reluctance to do a test you you told Mr Haynes that would get ala to have the test done why didn't you insist

02:49:55 insist um I

02:49:57 um I say after discussion with Brian uh we decided an easier option cheaper option for the client it was just appropriate

02:50:08 for the client it was just appropriate just to use some kind of EXT extrapolation based on advice given by bre but do you remember whether ala actually told you that they were not

02:50:20 actually told you that they were not going to do the test despite your request no I can't remember that no can you remember why you settled for an extrapolation rather than insisting that

02:50:31 extrapolation rather than insisting that ala do the test that you told Mr Haynes you were going to get them to do I guess it must have been as a result of my discussion with Brian uh whether we could we could go a different

02:50:47 route which is why I asked the question did did Al did alconic refuse to do what you asked

02:50:52 you asked them um I I suppose so it's not so much that they refused but they they had whatever test that was available uh and as I say we decided

02:51:06 available uh and as I say we decided that was probably adequate for us to make an assessment

02:51:12 uh right did you settle for an extrapolation rather than insisting that our conic

02:51:19 our conic produce the test you'd asked for for commercial reasons

02:51:24 reasons um I think technically it was a sound decision and I say I have very little knowledge of fire as I've said before but I think the impression I got with

02:51:36 but I think the impression I got with with talking to Brian so on um was that it wasn't unreasonable to uh assess the product in this

02:51:47 way it was it wasn't just merely for commercial reasons it was just to just it's an easier and simpler method of doing this and perfectly acceptable as far as I

02:52:10 know yes thank you very much indeed mror um well I have come to the end of my questions now uh and uh it remains only for me thank you very much for coming to the inquiry to give your evidence uh

02:52:22 the inquiry to give your evidence uh we're most grateful to you so thank you very much indeed thank you I hope I've been some help well you have indeed Mr Gregorian and it's right that I should thank you on behalf of the panel for the

02:52:33 thank you on behalf of the panel for the time you've given us and for the evidence you've given us we found it very useful and we're very grateful to you for coming along to talk to us so uh I think that's everything we need to ask

02:52:44 I think that's everything we need to ask you and you're now free to go thank you very much thank you very much indeed and that's the end of our proceedings for today we'll resume at 10 o'clock on Monday of next week thank you thank you

02:52:56 Monday of next week thank you thank you all right

02:53:17 bye e