Evidence from Panel Systems Ltd and presentation from Arconic regarding ACM panel supply and fire testing
00:00:09 good afternoon welcome back everyone we are currently in the course of hearing a presentation by mr millet of the iconic documents so if you're ready to continue mr millet
00:00:20 so if you're ready to continue mr millet please do so mr chairman i am thank you very much um there is one event that occurred during the time that the bba was assessing rene bond first certification
00:00:31 certification in 2007 which is where we were when we left off before the break can we go first then to meta401953
00:00:51 this is an alcoa visit report as you can see and the visit is to a company called astrap in oslo norway
00:01:02 norway and the report is written by gerard sontag
00:01:05 sontag the date of the visit is 11th to the 13th of september 2007.
00:01:12 2007. the people present uh were some people from astrop uh and from arconic you could see who was present gerard sontag the marketing manager and didier felder area sales manager
00:01:27 didier felder area sales manager at point one if we look a little bit lower down the document uh you could see the reason for visit astra
00:01:35 astra organized a three-day open days to celebrate the 150 years of the company and below that we can see that under general information astrip is described
00:01:47 general information astrip is described as the biggest metal and plastic distributor in norway with four warehouses and four additional sales office around the country that's what it says can we look at page two of this report
00:01:59 can we look at page two of this report please
00:02:03 uh you can see a section there called seminar presentations under which it says each of the suppliers was invited to present two times over the three days their product or a subject
00:02:14 product or a subject related to his uh product below that we see aapm see that and then offer tile
00:02:25 see that and then offer tile underneath that and that offital uh presentation is a reference to a presentation uh given by mr fred roderick poll
00:02:38 uh given by mr fred roderick poll and uh you can see that uh at the bottle towards the bottom of the page
00:02:44 page if you go about halfway down that block of text and picking it up it says mr fred roderick poll pearl consult international was
00:02:55 poll pearl consult international was during more than 20 years the export manager for alcan novelis ff2 and ff3 and alloy 5754h 42 and is working as consultant
00:03:07 5754h 42 and is working as consultant for specification work he writes also regularly article in different aluminium and wall cladding magazines in different countries the last called solid aluminium versus acm
00:03:18 acm quotes on quotes was published in the international aluminium journal in july august 2007 he's preparing a new book that he planned to publish at the end of the year concerning planning solutions with painted aluminium
00:03:30 with painted aluminium now that's important because we we get to see next uh what uh the content of the presentation is and what mr sontag the author of this report says about it if we go to the bottom of
00:03:41 says about it if we go to the bottom of page two you can see he says the presentation where he compares
00:03:47 compares acm and solid aluminium was a very high shock
00:03:51 shock for me from two points of view on one side a part of the information that he used against technical possibilities and deflection of the acm were not true
00:04:02 and deflection of the acm were not true or only partly and too much orientated on the specification of alubond aluko bond on the other side the true information that he give of the
00:04:14 the true information that he give of the fuel power of a pe core on a product of 5
00:04:17 5 000 square meters where he compares it to a truck of 19 000 litre oil is very impressive and was well received by all customers who were present during the presentation
00:04:28 who were present during the presentation the arguments was also documented with pictures of acn fire in the world and a movie from the twin tower in doha showing how quick a fire can evolutes
00:04:39 showing how quick a fire can evolutes with a pe acm core all arguments were supported by the pictures who showed a tremendous big volume of toxic smoke who was even much more dangerous than the fire himself
00:04:51 the fire himself because in such a case a person could die from the smoke emission within the first two or three minutes of the fire
00:04:58 the fire if we go on down to uh the second last paragraph
00:05:02 paragraph in this section staying on the same page uh it says this claude verlet showed me two months ago a copy on paper
00:05:13 showed me two months ago a copy on paper from this
00:05:14 from this alcan novelis presentation where the arguments
00:05:17 arguments were mentioned but mr pearl is a very persuasive person and the arguments are ten times much stronger during the seminars
00:05:25 seminars we now go to the conclusion in this document
00:05:31 uh four lines uh rather four paragraph three paragraphs i'm sorry three paragraphs down he says let's imagine if you could see that
00:05:40 see that let's imagine that autofile organized a lobbying activity on the european parliament to show such a presentation in
00:05:46 in bruxelle the result could become catastrophic for the acm products one of the arguments from mr poll was what will happen if only one building
00:05:57 what will happen if only one building made out pe core is in fire and will kill 60 to 70 persons
00:06:02 persons what is the responsibility of the acm supplier
00:06:06 supplier if we want not to take any risk for anyone and be proud of the ehs value of alcoa
00:06:12 alcoa we should evaluate a new option in our lt strategic analysis what could be the financial results and impact on the market if alcoa decide to sail reynobond
00:06:23 if alcoa decide to sail reynobond architecture only with an fr core and launch it on bau 2009.
00:06:29 bau 2009. in parallel we should of course in this case launch a cost reduction program to become able to produce the fr to the cost
00:06:36 cost of the pe then he signs himself off gerard sontag marketing manager
00:06:47 now that document i've read at some length um
00:06:50 length um clearly allowances need to be made for um the author's english but it's very clear notwithstanding that but questions which
00:07:01 notwithstanding that but questions which arise would include was there any discussion within arconic either before or after this meeting about selling only acm with an fr core
00:07:13 only acm with an fr core if there was what happened to those discussions specifically was there any discussion within arconic about mr sontag's question what is the
00:07:24 about mr sontag's question what is the responsibility of the manufacturer in the event of a fire
00:07:28 fire of the type and magnitude he describes we can see from the last paragraph i've just shown you that sontag proposed that arconic should launch a cost
00:07:39 that arconic should launch a cost reduction program to be able to product the fr to the cost of pe the question there is whether this meeting and the content of it as
00:07:51 this meeting and the content of it as shown by this document was the driver for the program fe at pe cost fr pe cost uh that was um
00:08:02 pe cost uh that was um that was discussed in the evidence was the background to that program the known dangers of pe called acm identified in this paper
00:08:16 we can then turn to 2011
00:08:23 we'll go back with the bba witnesses of course to the bba certificate in due course and probably seen quite a lot of that already anyway in 2011 some six years after the initial
00:08:36 in 2011 some six years after the initial tests 5a and 5b on renault 55 at pe the iconic performed two more european classification tests on that
00:08:47 classification tests on that material i can start with the rivet as you know from test 5a the classification accorded to rivet uh in 2005 was b s 1 d naught
00:09:03 there was a further classification in 2011.
00:09:07 2011. this is dated 9th of february 2011 and it's at arc 50383
00:09:23 and it's at arc 50383 uh you could see the date of that 9th of 11 9th of february 2011 and if we go to page
00:09:28 page four we can see the classification b s one d naught so that's the the classification can we have up at the same time
00:09:39 same time uh the fight test 5a from 2005. that's arc50358
00:09:48 and have have again please page four we can see there uh that in 2005 the test 5a was bs2 d naught
00:10:02 and if you look at section 4.3 under field of application at the foot of each of the pages uh you can compare the two on the right hand side of the screen you've got
00:10:13 hand side of the screen you've got test 5a 2005 showing in the last uh or second bullet point
00:10:20 point under the second heading under 4.3 field of application it says with a minimum air gap of 50 millimeters and if you look then to the left hand
00:10:31 and if you look then to the left hand side of the screen and look at the 2011 classification report
00:10:35 report in the same place in this in the um
00:10:41 in the second bullet point it says again with a minimum air gap of 50 millimeters so you've got just to summarize you've got the 2005 test 5a classification bs2d naught
00:10:56 test 5a classification bs2d naught and in 2011 a slight improvement bs1 d naught both of which say minimum air gap of 50 millimeters
00:11:07 millimeters now there's a question or line of investigation about that air gap can we start looking at that by going
00:11:18 can we start looking at that by going to mr verlet's witness statement at page 19
00:11:21 19 of paragraph 64.
00:11:26 at the end of that paragraph you can see it says three lines up from the bottom it is correct to say that different air gaps and type stroke thicknesses of insulation for example are likely to influence the test result achieved
00:11:38 test result achieved i previously used an air gap at 50 millimeters for some tests but since july 2011 i believe only air gaps of 20 millimeters were used you can see the 2011 report was february
00:11:51 you can see the 2011 report was february 2011. uh now let's look at some contemporaneous documents on that question next met 30 is 53158 page 184 it is
00:12:04 page 184 it is the part one of mr verlais exhibit run and this is the end of an email chain with cstb
00:12:12 with cstb about testing later on in 2011. if we go to the bottom of page 184 we can see an email of the 1st of july 2011 from claude verla to maxine bauer at the
00:12:25 from claude verla to maxine bauer at the cstb
00:12:27 cstb and uh he says hello can you tell me how big the air gap between the rainer bond cladding and the insulation was during the test
00:12:36 the test above that you can see mr bauer responds he says um the air gap is 20 millimeters for all tests performed so far we use 30 millimeters rock wool and
00:12:47 we use 30 millimeters rock wool and above that uh we can see that uh mr verle thanks him
00:12:52 him and says i do think that this is how the panels should be tested because that's how they are used if you scroll up to the uh i think actually that's that's the top
00:13:03 i think actually that's that's the top of the page that then raises a number of of questions
00:13:09 questions at this time first who was responsible for designing the test set up in 2005 and 2011
00:13:17 and 2011 in particular for testing the cladding with a 50 millimeter air gap as opposed to a 20 millimeter air gap did mr verla himself think that 20 millimeter air gaps were how rain
00:13:29 millimeter air gaps were how rain airborne panels were typically used and if so was that the case in 2005 or did perhaps his understanding change between
00:13:36 between 2005 and july of 2011. did you think that 50 millimeter air gaps did reflect or did not reflect the typical end use of panels
00:13:47 the typical end use of panels and what was what was it about the situation that pertained in 2005 that led him to test the panels with a 50 millimeter air gap
00:13:59 the panels with a 50 millimeter air gap in that year and indeed the same in the february of 2011.
00:14:05 2011. that leads to a a broader question if it's right that the air gap can make a difference and if it's right that the 50 millimeter air gap was not realistic then were the
00:14:16 air gap was not realistic then were the tests that produced the b classifications for p e and rivet fix in 2005 b s 2 d naught under test 5a
00:14:27 s 2 d naught under test 5a and in february 2011 at b s one d naught truly representative of the expected fire performance of p e
00:14:38 of the expected fire performance of p e chord rayner bond in rivet form there's some further evidence that shows that threat sheds a little bit of light on that question after
00:14:51 of light on that question after the february 2011 test rivet fix renault bond never got a b classification in european tests under en 13501
00:15:02 in european tests under en 13501 again thereafter all the tests indicated that it was a class c can we go to a bundle of unexhibited documents
00:15:12 documents met 3064988 at page 129
00:15:21 this is a set of documents not exhibited to any of the iconic witnesses statements the page one two nine you could see an email from claude verla to julia kaisenick
00:15:36 who was a sales representative for arconic
00:15:39 arconic in 2016. and they are discussing here fire certification of a competitor and this is an email from mr verlet to
00:15:51 and this is an email from mr verlet to julie kassianic and he says julie this is a certificate for pe not for fr we also had a class b at the time in pe but by arranging the system to pass it
00:16:02 but by arranging the system to pass it puts the word arranging there in inverted commas so this report is really not a reference have a nice weekend now this email and its meaning was put to mr schmidt on day one at page 76 at lines three to
00:16:14 on day one at page 76 at lines three to six and
00:16:15 six and he was unable to assist us the question level remains outstanding what did mr verleigh mean by arranging the system to pass does that mean that it was manipulated to say that it would pass or was there
00:16:27 to say that it would pass or was there some other meaning to what he's saying here if if that is correct
00:16:32 correct in what way was the arrangement made specifically was the cstb providing any particular advice or assistance in making the arrangements whatever they were
00:16:44 arrangements whatever they were for the rivet tests to get a b was anybody else assisting or advising for example a fabricator who else within arconic knew about this arrangement to pass
00:16:55 arrangement to pass as mr verley described it was this a cause of conduct sanctioned by upper management another document which may also
00:17:07 another document which may also shed light on this question of these questions but it's later it's in 2014. can we go to met3 zeros 64988 at page 64.
00:17:22 this is an email the 31st of january 2014.
00:17:26 2014. if we look at the bottom of the page page 64
00:17:30 page 64 you can see that uh it uh is from a gentleman called gregoritis ernst to claude verla
00:17:41 and as we'll see and then deed have already seen on that date 31st of january 2014 both rivet and cassette pe were classified as class e by the cs by the cstb
00:17:55 e by the cs by the cstb now if we follow the email chain up from page 64
00:17:58 page 64 through 63 to 62
00:18:03 you can see how this works the question if you follow up 62 comes from
00:18:10 from ernst uh gregoritis i think he's earnest gregorites rather than grigority's ernst and he says hi claude i don't think you understood my question according to the sbi test reynabond pe was a b
00:18:22 sbi test reynabond pe was a b and and now suddenly it's e on the one hand e cannot be mounted on the facade any longer and on the other hand i don't understand how a core can be reclassified from a b to an
00:18:33 to an e question mark and the response if one scrolls up a little bit higher from claude verlay to mr grigority's
00:18:44 to mr grigority's is and this is the 14th of february 2014.
00:18:49 2014. hi it was always e for cassettes for the riveted system it was b but only with a certain rear ventilation distance
00:18:58 distance the new certification is now valid for both systems cassettes and riveted we were asked for there to be only one class per product depending on the system
00:19:08 system i hope it's clear if not we can talk on monday
00:19:19 now this raises the obvious question whether in fact the euro class b was and had always been known by mr velay to have been achieved by using a 50 millimeter air
00:19:32 achieved by using a 50 millimeter air gap
00:19:33 gap such that in fact um when tested with the requisite 20 millimeter air gap it would not have achieved to be that's the outstanding question
00:19:45 what an outstanding question can we next turn then
00:19:49 turn then back to 2011 and look at what happened with the test done by the c
00:19:55 c ctsb for pe cassette in that year go to claude verlet's witness statement please at page 18 paragraph 62 first
00:20:12 at paragraph 62 he says this on the 29th of march 2011 i sent the cstb an email with a copy of the unclassified test report from the 2005 cassette pe
00:20:24 report from the 2005 cassette pe test and inquired what was the best classification that could be obtained with the said report i inquired whether a classification d could be possible exhibited at page 109 i had become aware
00:20:36 exhibited at page 109 i had become aware from discussions with either the eaa or the cstb sometime around 2010 that other products similar to aap sas is pe product
00:20:47 similar to aap sas is pe product but possibly shown a difference in reaction to fire testing between the cassette and rivet variant i was therefore concerned to find out whether
00:20:55 whether aap's original understanding i.e that the rivet variant would perform less well
00:21:00 well could be incorrect and i wished to check this position through further testing so we see here that arconic waited six years before instructing uh the cstb to perform another test on
00:21:12 uh the cstb to perform another test on renderborne 55pe we can also see that mr verde says he didn't
00:21:17 didn't even ask for a full set of the three tests
00:21:22 tests the question we would have is why is that why did he not ask for that and why did he wait so long we can also see that he asked if he could use test 5b in order to get a class d on the pe
00:21:34 in order to get a class d on the pe cassette
00:21:36 cassette now if one puts that in context looking at the time this is 2011 march 2011.
00:21:45 2011. we know by this time that mr verde is aware
00:21:48 aware of fires for example the bucharest fire in 2009 and in his own words how dangerous pe can be
00:21:59 his own words how dangerous pe can be when it comes to architecture that's a reference to his email of the 17th of july 2009
00:22:06 july 2009 to lord schmidt at met3053158 underscore p10 page one two two
00:22:14 and to add to that you saw emails on the 15th and 16th of march 2010 so almost exactly a year before these events he's describing a paragraph 62
00:22:26 events he's describing a paragraph 62 in which claude verlais told isabelle moyeses rb in cassette doesn't achieve a b either and that was something to keep in his words
00:22:37 words in caps very confidential the english version of that email is at met3064988 page 125. and now in the light of the background
00:22:49 and now in the light of the background events i've just described from the documents the questions that arise are whether it was the concerns expressed in 2009 and 2010
00:23:02 the concerns expressed in 2009 and 2010 that had prompted mr verle's concern to revisit his original understanding that rivet would perform less
00:23:10 less well than cassette and whether indeed he had realized or at least suspected before he decided to test
00:23:20 test cassette again in 2011 that the cassette test 5b
00:23:25 test 5b from january 2005 was not a rogue result there's a further question whether in fact
00:23:33 fact the idea that 5b was a result was ever a view genuinely held within our comic and
00:23:41 and if it was uh when mr verleigh first began to suspect that it was
00:23:48 unfounded let's remind ourselves next about what happened in the 2011 reynobond 55 pe cassette test can we go please to met 30s 53158
00:24:03 can we go please to met 30s 53158 page 172
00:24:08 if we go to the second email from the top of the page we can see that it's from maxine bauer of the cstb on the 29th of june 2011. and again i think you've seen this document
00:24:19 think you've seen this document uh before but let's revisit it now that we have some further context he says hello mr verleigh we have performed a test on your reference renewable
00:24:29 renewable pe unfortunately we stopped the test before the end of the test note fall of large pieces of the small wing
00:24:37 wing widespread fire on the surface reaching critical values resulting in the termination of the ongoing test 350 kilowatts therefore we cannot provide you with a classification for the cassette version
00:24:49 classification for the cassette version i propose that this project will be concluded for an amount of 2297 euros sbi test plus cleaning cost plus main burner repair
00:25:00 main burner repair so like the 5b test the pe cassette test in 2011 was stopped for the reasons that mr bauer gives in this email
00:25:11 email but at the top of the page if we look up at the
00:25:14 at the top of the screen there we can see that mr verle responds on the same morning a few minutes later hello is this far from a declassification the question that arises on that
00:25:25 the question that arises on that document is whether he thought at that time that it was realistic for the pe
00:25:31 the pe cassette version of radio 155 to obtain a declassification at all now here's what mr verley has to say about that test can we go to his witness
00:25:42 about that test can we go to his witness statement please at page 18 of paragraph 63. it's important that you
00:25:47 you put this in context of his uh his witness statement
00:25:58 in may 2011 he says i made all the necessary arrangements for the cstb to undertake tests in accordance with the en 13501 standard on arena bond 55 pe cassette varied the
00:26:11 on arena bond 55 pe cassette varied the cstb subsequently informed me that it had stopped the test conducted in accordance with the en 13823 standard before the end of the test period but it therefore could not deliver a classification and then it proposed to
00:26:23 classification and then it proposed to close
00:26:23 close the matter at that stage i was not clear why this would be the case but i was coming to the conclusion that in actual fact the exposed edges along the outer lines of the rivet variant may mean that once the panel
00:26:35 variant may mean that once the panel reaches a certain temperature the core begins to melt leading to leading to a relatively consistent drip of core from the panel whereas in the cassette variant
00:26:47 whereas in the cassette variant where the bottom of the panel may have either a single or double return once the panel reaches a temperature where the core begins to melt the core does not simply drip out of the panel rather
00:26:58 panel rather it collects in the return and continues to increase in temperature until it reaches the point of auto ignition generating what is referred to as a flashover event
00:27:09 to as a flashover event i was aware that products are often tested with the anticipated result not being achieved and that the testing is therefore stopped at a classification report not produced this is what was being proposed by the cstb
00:27:21 cstb i did however want a classification report for the cassette pe variant because as things stood i had two separate unclassified test results and now i had a potentially different understanding about the behavior of the
00:27:33 understanding about the behavior of the cassette variant and i wanted this to be reflected in an actual classification report i therefore inquired whether a declassification could be obtained and when i was informed by the cstb that this was unlikely
00:27:44 this was unlikely i requested an f classification the worst classification the cstb however informed me that it could conduct the test in accordance with the en11925 standard
00:27:55 with the en11925 standard and if the product satisfied the relevant criteria under that test it could be granted an e-classification i confirmed this if we go over the page i confirmed this approach
00:28:06 i confirmed this approach with the cstb and the classification report was subsequently received on 12th of october 2011. relevant documents are exhibited at p117 now a number of questions flow from
00:28:19 now a number of questions flow from the documents i've shown you and mr verde's
00:28:23 verde's evidence if there had been any shred of a view within arconic that test 5b was a rogue did this test in 2011 dispel that view
00:28:35 in 2011 dispel that view if it did not why did it not when it came to his theory as he's explained in some detail in this paragraph about why cassette performed worse
00:28:45 worse namely am i summarized the pooling of molten pe
00:28:48 molten pe at the return base of the panel did he share that conclusion with anyone else within arconic if he did with whom if he did not
00:28:59 if he did with whom if he did not why did he not what's his reaction when discovering that pe in cassette form was capable of producing a flashover event before the end of the test did he take steps to alert relevant
00:29:10 did he take steps to alert relevant customers
00:29:11 customers or the bba or did he take any steps to remove the bba from circulation if he didn't why was that
00:29:22 we then come a little bit later in 2011 or indeed starting more or less at the same time in 2011 to the bba's review of the bba certificate
00:29:34 certificate you'll recall that the certificate had been issued in january 2008 and it came up for review in 2011 three years later we will look at the audits in a little
00:29:45 we will look at the audits in a little bit of detail with the bba witnesses to come but if i could just summarize the position uh the it is as follows the bba
00:29:56 uh the it is as follows the bba did not perform a factory inspection at merckstein because the bba had contracted the cstb to do that task a new review project was opened in august 2010
00:30:07 august 2010 under a new contract which had incorporated the original terms and conditions that was signed in december 2010 that's bba 408044 page 11. the bba
00:30:20 page 11. the bba project manager at the time requested documents to perform a review and those documents were provided as requested and the bba did not pick up
00:30:31 as requested and the bba did not pick up the fact
00:30:31 the fact or were not told that test 5a only applied to reynabond in rivet form or that there might be a separate test 5b which had been done on cassette
00:30:44 in june 2011 the bba produced a review report
00:30:49 report at net30s 53158 underscore p16 page 174
00:30:57 and that said that the bba certificate for reyna bond was valid until 2014 and that was sent to claude velle on the 1st of july 2011.
00:31:09 on the 1st of july 2011. the email of that date from the bba sending that document to mr verde is at met 30 53158 underscore p16 page 179
00:31:23 i just want then to remind you of a document we saw a few minutes ago can we go back to the maxine bauer emailed to mr verlay of the 29th of june 2011.
00:31:35 2011. this is at met 3053158 page 172.
00:31:42 and i've read this out to you in detail i won't re-read it but you will recognize that this was the email by which the cstb told mr verde that the 2011
00:31:53 told mr verde that the 2011 test on pe cassette had been terminated before the end of the test the timing is what matters here 29th of june
00:32:02 june 2011. that's two days before the first of july
00:32:06 of july 2011 when uh the bba review report comes from the bba to mr verde
00:32:17 so the questions raised by the timing here
00:32:21 here are first whether mr verde realized that the
00:32:25 the review that the bba had just done and had sent to him was missing some very important information namely the recent result of the cstb europe
00:32:36 the recent result of the cstb europe euro test on pe55 in the cassette variant we've seen no evidence that mr verde told the bba about the results of that test in 2011
00:32:51 and so one has to look at what mr verde says about that if we go back to his statement at page 50 a paragraph 59 we see what he does
00:33:03 50 a paragraph 59 we see what he does say because he does address this question
00:33:08 we go back to mr verlet's witness statement please paragraph 59 he
00:33:16 says given the purpose and status of the bba certificate as outlined above it did not occur to me that would be it would be necessary at a later date to provide to the bba any further testing information such as
00:33:28 any further testing information such as for example the result of the 2011 en 13501 standard tests on the cassette variant i had no reason to suppose that this affected the capability of the product
00:33:39 affected the capability of the product itself
00:33:40 itself to achieve class naught and i believe that if the bba had been provided with the result of the en standard class e classification and had requested a further test on the bs476
00:33:52 bs476 this would yet i'm not aware of the detail of the contracts between aap sas and the bba over time connor southgate myself and nicholas remy
00:34:02 remy have received bba contract documentation but as i organized this the certifications in numerous countries i did not know all the contractual details relating to such i rely on the relevant certification body to let me
00:34:13 relevant certification body to let me know what information it requires in order to undertake its assessment process i also have every confidence in the ongoing audit processes that the certification bodies conduct
00:34:30 so you can see what he says um the second sentence there which starts i have no reason to suppose this affected the capability of
00:34:41 suppose this affected the capability of the products itself to achieve class naught is one which raises
00:34:47 raises questions uh it raises particular questions about how mr burleigh came to that conclusion if it was one he did come to at the time and whether there was any discussion of
00:34:58 and whether there was any discussion of that conclusion within our comic
00:35:04 later on in 2011 there is further relevant communication can we go to met3053158 underscore p04 at page 54.
00:35:20 you can see from this document what arconic is telling customers at this time namely november 2011.
00:35:38 net30s 53158 underscore p04 page four thank you now this is a letter a formal letter uh from claude verlais uh to mr gonzalez of endeza
00:35:52 uh to mr gonzalez of endeza dated merck signed 23rd of november 2011.
00:35:55 2011. he says as the fire reaction tests recently changed in europe and especially for spain we kindly inform you that some modifications have have to be taken into consideration for
00:36:07 have to be taken into consideration for your project in desert planning systems for projects in spain have to be classified bs3 d2 minimum based on the en 13501 standard the reynabond fr our riveted and
00:36:19 the reynabond fr our riveted and cassette systems are both b s1 d naught for the rhino bond pe riveted systems are b s one d naught and our cassette systems
00:36:30 our cassette systems are e the desert project is made with cassettes therefore we recommend you to use our
00:36:35 use our rainer bond fr product it seems that the document speaks for itself
00:36:44 itself the question on this document is why did claude berlin not tell the bba what he was telling his customer mr gonzalez here namely that cassette pe had achieved a
00:36:55 namely that cassette pe had achieved a class e
00:36:59 if we go to look on mr gonzalez gonzalez's response of the next day 24th of november 2011. we we can see what he says this is at met 3064988 at page 34.
00:37:32 and he says uh he says dear claude after reading your letter as technician there is some issues i would like to have a bit more clear in order to
00:37:43 have a bit more clear in order to clarify them to our con custom and contractors uh i would like a brief explanation about how the fire reaction tests have changed
00:37:52 changed how did they affect it to the pe and why if riveted system gets bs1d naught the cassette one goes straight to e what if you let me be sarcastic is close to the spontaneous
00:38:03 close to the spontaneous combustion now we've not seen in the inquiry records any response from mr verne to the question posed in this email
00:38:16 question posed in this email from this point on november 2011 the questions are did mr verde realize not only one that the the test 5b was
00:38:28 not only one that the the test 5b was not a rogue but also two that the theory that the cassette variant could be assumed to perform better than the rivet variant because of the cassettes lack of exposed
00:38:39 because of the cassettes lack of exposed edges was no longer tenable if it ever was was it also relevant the spanish regulation had restricted the use of pe but the uk had not changed any
00:38:50 but the uk had not changed any regulations affecting the use of pe or or in particular requiring only the use of en
00:38:58 use of en 13501 classification
00:39:03 we then go two years on to 2013.
00:39:13 uh and an email of april of that year i'd like to go to met3053158 underscore p04 at page one two three
00:39:29 underscore p04 at page one two three now this is an internal email within our conic
00:39:32 conic dated the third of sorry date of the fourth of april 2013. we believe that it is to the french sales team at the time um from uh elve mariche
00:39:46 at the time um from uh elve mariche uh copied to among others claude verlet and peter frolich and in the wider context this is 4th of april 2013.
00:39:57 april 2013. it's a month before or so before the 13th of may 2013 email from debbie french which she sent to cinco and cep
00:40:08 cinco and cep and other fabricators in the uk in the wake of the uae fires and you'll recall though that that material it is also after claude verlet's discussions in the
00:40:20 claude verlet's discussions in the february of 2013 with cstb about classifying both rivet and cassette fix p e to class d a topic he covers in his
00:40:31 e to class d a topic he covers in his witness statement at paragraph 65 on page 19. uh you can see that the email is from urban maryland as i say uh and he says hi jp and everybody uh
00:40:44 uh and he says hi jp and everybody uh after talking with claude we agreed that we brackets you patrice marieva me must not write anything related to fire regulations which has not been validated
00:40:55 not been validated or issued by alcoa technical department why that after showing a kodi and sunclear documents that they sent to specifiers and customers see attached claude advised me not to do
00:41:07 see attached claude advised me not to do the same
00:41:07 the same since these docs involve too much our responsibility on a quote's touchy unquote
00:41:12 unquote subject so i passed this info to all french sales dream teams mindy face so to avoid potential mistakes and the attachment uh which you can see
00:41:25 and the attachment uh which you can see is identified from this email as class malfur dakodi is that met 3053158 underscore p04 page 125 so just a couple of pages on from here
00:41:38 of pages on from here this email raises a number of questions but that's the attachment and in fact it's worth looking at attachment while it's on the screen um because you can see
00:41:48 see what the um well rather what our conic's understanding of the equivalence were between the euro classes and the french classes particularly that b was equivalent to m1
00:41:59 equivalent to m1 and e was equivalent to m4 and you can see that on the right hand side it says e m4 cassette reynold p e a leukobond p e larsen p e
00:42:14 the questions that arise on this email are what was the touchy subject
00:42:21 subject exactly what if anything was it that mr burley had instructed the french sales team not to discuss with customers which customers and was it a specific
00:42:33 which customers and was it a specific instruction not to say anything about fire regulation
00:42:38 in particular
00:42:42 the question for mr frederick would be what he understood by that message when he received it and what if anything did he do about it
00:42:52 we then come a little bit later in that year to july 2013 when arconic instructed the cstb to conduct further tests the results of those tests were returned
00:43:03 the results of those tests were returned in november 2013.
00:43:08 and we've seen the document in the evidence of mr schmidt but just to remind you can we look at claude verle's exhibits at met3053158 underscore p02 at page 38 please
00:43:29 this is um a run of emails uh that you will have seen before um at the very bottom of page 38 we have an email from um benoit
00:43:42 we have an email from um benoit forrest to philippe vonnton at arconic
00:43:50 on the 7th of november 2013 with the results of the sbi single burning item test and just to remind you the sbi test is en13823
00:44:02 en13823 and he says if we go over the page
00:44:07 uh that um the result for the rivet fixed pe was class c uh s2 d naught
00:44:19 and the result or rather the test for the cassette system if you look a little lower down said that the test had to be stopped at 800 seconds out of 1260 seconds for widespread ignition best possible
00:44:31 for widespread ignition best possible classification e ignition test now that was the third time that the cassette test had been stopped for widespread ignition we had test 5b
00:44:43 for widespread ignition we had test 5b in 2004
00:44:46 in 2004 late 2004 we had the test done in the february of 2011 and now we've got it again uh in uh november 2013.
00:45:03 now the class c that you can see on this page
00:45:06 page c s 2 d naught for p e in rivet was not memorialized or formalized in any final classification report
00:45:15 report as opposed to a test report instead our conic
00:45:19 conic it appears decided to classify all pe called rayner bond weather rivet or cassette
00:45:26 cassette as class e and you've seen this before i'll just show it to you again met30s 53158 underscore p04 page 135.
00:45:48 this is uh the uh cstb uh classification report reissue dated the 31st of january 2014
00:45:59 reissue dated the 31st of january 2014 and you'll recall what's noted at the bottom of that page
00:46:07 just scroll down to the bottom of the page um
00:46:10 page um it's a cancellation and rewrite essentially of the february 2011 and test 5a from january 2005.
00:46:28 and test 5a from january 2005. so that's how matters stood as at the 31st of january 2014
00:46:38 both rivet and cassette were class e
00:46:44 we then moved through 2014 the next thing is the email of the 3rd of february
00:46:49 february 2014 which uh was sent by mr verlais to raf leased commercial extern among
00:47:00 to raf leased commercial extern among others
00:47:01 others informing the sales representatives in various european countries that the new classification for raynaud architecture in pe was class e we looked at that document
00:47:12 was class e we looked at that document um with barconic witnesses who gave evidence
00:47:16 evidence there is no evidence that we have seen that deborah french for the uk sent that information to her uk
00:47:23 uk customers will for your note her evidence about this is at day 88 page 138
00:47:34 this is at day 88 page 138 line two and page 140 at 9 12. she accepted that she would have read that email and read it and that she didn't forward it um and i don't want to paraphrase her evidence but you
00:47:45 want to paraphrase her evidence but you have her evidence about that but that's the context of of this event in the wider history let's then look at the communications in
00:47:56 let's then look at the communications in the months after the third of february 2014 email and specifically what happened in relation to a project called woodbury down a residential high-rise property in north
00:48:07 residential high-rise property in north london
00:48:09 london let me go to met30s 64988 at page 97
00:48:18 please
00:48:22 on page 97 here we see an email dated the 6th of march 2014 from mr steve berger of our comic to michael graff
00:48:33 michael graff of vietnam relation to woodbury down london renault ball core selection
00:48:41 selection and if you go to page 98 please first you could see that steve berger uh is uh a um an area sales manager for
00:48:52 is uh a um an area sales manager for alcoa
00:48:53 alcoa in germany and if we go back a page to where we were page 97 he says hello mr graf as discussed over the telephone it is
00:49:04 as discussed over the telephone it is accurate in england a pe core is enough because pe and fr have the same test requirement
00:49:14 and at page 88 of this email run we just dot back to that
00:49:22 we can see that attached to the original german version of this email because what i've shown you is an english translation um there is a list of fire classifications showing that
00:49:33 of fire classifications showing that both pe
00:49:33 both pe and fr have class naught in the uk you can see there great britain and both pe and fr
00:49:42 pe and fr are said to have passed both part six and part seven and therefore have class naught
00:49:52 if we go to page 96 in the same uh exhibit run we can see what happens to the email
00:50:03 we can see what happens to the email from steve berger it it is it is forwarded to a number of people in the lindner group
00:50:17 from michael graff and the lindner group appear to have been the facade specialists on the woodbury dam project
00:50:28 woodbury dam project if we go to the bottom half of that page you can see that uh mr vitona says to mr eichner of lindner in the first paragraph fire
00:50:42 of lindner in the first paragraph fire protection he says reynaband offers two different core materials on the one hand a pe core which in germany qualifies for the classification b2 normally famible on the other hand
00:50:54 b2 normally famible on the other hand the fr core which in germany qualifies as b1
00:50:57 as b1 hardly flammable the fr core is in principle also made of pe material which however is mixed with fire retardant substances and thus qualifies as b1
00:51:07 as b1 in england according to alcoa even the slightly cheaper pe core would meet the fire protection requirements to what extent this makes sense would have to be coordinated with the customer or the authorities
00:51:22 with the customer or the authorities now mr mr dob meyer uh of the linden the group uh takes this up uh with
00:51:33 takes this up uh with uh because he gets this email from mr eichner as you see a little bit higher up the page he then takes this up uh with our comic we scroll slowly up the page
00:51:46 our comic we scroll slowly up the page you can see that the email that i've just read out to you uh to mr eichner uh gets sent to uh mr dobmeyer also lindner
00:51:57 uh mr dobmeyer also lindner and then if we scroll on up to page 95 we can see that he comes back to steve berger
00:52:05 berger on the 4th of april 2014
00:52:10 and he says dear mr burger for the construction project would bury down in london you've sent us the attack documents including the excerpt from class naught summary report four pages
00:52:21 class naught summary report four pages just note the four pages there for full supporting documentation of the materials used by us i would like to ask you to send me the full report nine pages please in addition we need the supporting documents three two two eight
00:52:33 supporting documents three two two eight four
00:52:33 four and three two two eight four five to account for the products to our building contractor this summary should be ready in conjunction with and not accepted as a substitute for the x-over warrington
00:52:44 a substitute for the x-over warrington fire test reports numbers three two two eight four four three two two eight four five those test reports may include additional information which may be relevant to the assessment of the potential fire hazard of the product
00:52:57 hazard of the product now we can tell from those certificate references that the lindner group was provided with the 2012
00:53:04 the 2012 classification reports for raynerborn 55 with an
00:53:07 with an fr core done under bs 476 part 6 and 7 dated the 5th of november 2012. those are at arc61050610
00:53:22 those are at arc61050610 and arc50608 respectively we looked at those with um the archonic witnesses briefly
00:53:33 witnesses briefly so that's what gets sent to them the 2012 classification reports for rayner bond 55 with an fr core if we go up to page 94 and look at the bottom half of the page
00:53:44 bottom half of the page we can see how mr burger responds to mr dobmeyer he says thank you for your message
00:53:55 your message after consultation with our technical department i unfortunately have to inform you that we are not permitted to provide you with the full version of the class naught summary report this document does indeed contain some information which is owned by alcoa such as secrets regarding
00:54:07 owned by alcoa such as secrets regarding the names of the supplier materials specifications etc the same statement applies to the reports numbers three two two eight four four and three two two eight four five other manufacturers only publish
00:54:18 five other manufacturers only publish the results classification and not the full reports as well if you have further questions on this subject please do not hesitate to contact our mr claude verlae head of technical department give us a number
00:54:31 department give us a number now again you can see the references there so 322 8444 322845 those are the 2012 uh fr tests not pe
00:54:44 uh fr tests not pe and if we just go on up then to page 93 in the same email run uh mr dobmeyer responds on the same day
00:55:00 and he says dear mr burger of course i understand that your company does not want
00:55:04 want to hand over the test report however you also want your product to be used and our duty is to account for the product with with regard to the building contractor moreover in contrast to the opinion of your technical department you are only
00:55:16 your technical department you are only allowed to publish the report in its entirety
00:55:18 entirety every classification report provides for this as does your report this version of the report has been produced from a pdf format electronic file that has been provided by xover warrington fire to the sponsor
00:55:29 by xover warrington fire to the sponsor of the report and must only be reproduced in full extracts or abridgements of reports must not be published without permission of x over warrington fire as far as i know there are no secrets in
00:55:41 as far as i know there are no secrets in the classification report and your competitors will also send us the complete documents we will not forward this information and will not start recreating a sandwich panel
00:55:48 panel for this reason i ask you once again to send me the complete test and classification report and above that on page 93 we can see mr verlay's
00:55:59 see mr verlay's response a brief uh also the 4th of april 2014 uh copper to steve berger dear mr dogma
00:56:10 uh copper to steve berger dear mr dogma i've tried to call you but could not reach you would it be please possible sorry would it please be possible that we talk about it together when would you have time for it regards thought and let's go to arc50609 please
00:56:31 thought and let's go to arc50609 please we can see that this is the report they were discussing the class naught summary report 5th of november 2012.
00:56:43 5th of november 2012. and if we go uh to the fourth page page four of this document you'll see that that is the last page
00:56:58 that that is the last page uh and at the very bottom of it again you have the date but you can see um just above the date fifth november 2012
00:57:07 2012 it says four of nine page numbers four of nine
00:57:11 of nine that that's the four pages that got sent we do have of course a copy of the full report the nine pages uh let's go to that that's at
00:57:25 four exo401948 and not exhibited by a narcotic list this is from xover's disclosure
00:57:35 and if you look at page four
00:57:38 1948 under introduction uh you can see there that uh it summarizes the tests that mr dogmei referred to numbers three two two eight four four
00:57:49 four four and three two two eight four five you can see them there uh and uh towards the middle of the page of the blue header introduction um
00:58:00 of the blue header introduction um you can see the penultimate paragraph there
00:58:03 there which starts this summary should be read in conjunction with uh is exactly as mr dogma has copied it or perhaps screen shotted it into his email which we saw earlier the questions which
00:58:16 which we saw earlier the questions which arise on this email run and this is this event call it that ah did our colleague cut down
00:58:23 cut down reports like this routinely was it their policy to send only cut down reports unless pressed by customers for the full report
00:58:34 report was it was was that the case even where the testing house such as xavier in this instance
00:58:40 instance uh required that the full report be provided
00:58:45 we look at page two of the abridged full page version we go back to that
00:58:53 i say the abridged full page version i mean the four-page abridged version of the nine-page version at arc50609 you can see that there is a table and in the first row
00:59:05 there is a table and in the first row you could see that the product if we blow it up is described as product reference reynabond fr
00:59:13 now the original question posed
00:59:23 that's what steve berger was asked
00:59:27 this is a report about fr it's not a report about pe the questions which arise on this whole exchange beyond those i've um i've identified
00:59:38 beyond those i've um i've identified already are why our conic sent a report on fr core when the question was about pe core
00:59:48 and was all the available information sent to the client in order to assist him
00:59:55 him with the decision he had to make the request was for information about which core of reynad1 could be used in the uk
01:00:05 the uk if all the material in iconic's possession was not sent to that customer to enable him to make that decision the question is why not
01:00:15 why not specifically was this customer told that there was no test report supporting the classification of rayner bond 55 pe to class
01:00:26 bond 55 pe to class naught if he wasn't told that is there a reason why he wasn't told that
01:00:35 we next uh go back a month or so to the october of 2014. and further european tests run at that time can we look please at mr
01:00:48 at that time can we look please at mr verlet's statement at page 21 paragraph 70.
01:00:55 he says
01:01:00 the next en 13501 testing that i organized
01:01:04 organized on reynabon 55pe was later in 2014. it had become clear from discussions within aap sas at the wider market that there was a desire to again have
01:01:15 that there was a desire to again have separate classification reports for the pe rivet and cassette variants to more accurately reflect the classifications that each had in practice obtained
01:01:26 practice obtained and then he goes on to explain how to achieve it to achieve that goal
01:01:33 as you've heard already the rivet variant
01:01:37 variant of pe was tested and classified c s 2 d naught in october 2014 in various colors
01:01:48 in october 2014 in various colors from that point on all or at least the various colors of renault pe rivet were class c just to remind you before that from the
01:02:01 just to remind you before that from the 31st of january 2014 the class was class e for both rivet and cassette variants and you saw the cstb classification report reissue of the 31st of january
01:02:12 report reissue of the 31st of january 2014 a few moments ago
01:02:17 so we have this period during 2014 and the 31st of january until october of that year uh when reino bond pe in both fixings was a class e
01:02:28 class e in october it achieves rivet achieves a class c s2 d naught the references for that are at arc 50397
01:02:45 for the rivet and for the cassette met three zeros five three one five eight p sorry underscore p zero two page 105. and just
01:02:56 zero two page 105. and just it's probably worth just putting the rivet report up on the screen 50397 please
01:03:11 you can see that this is a classification report under em13501 commercial brand renamon 55pe riveted system date
01:03:22 renamon 55pe riveted system date december the 4th 2014. and uh it's done um pursuant to a test uh done in october 2014.
01:03:36 uh done in october 2014. if you look at the classification on page four you can see that it's cs2d
01:03:42 nought and field of application below that under 4.3 uh last bullet point various colors
01:03:54 now questions that arise at all by this point
01:03:59 point the end 2014 as i say the test was in october
01:04:04 october this um report classification report is dated the 4th of december 2014. the questions that arise by this point uh are
01:04:14 uh are among other things about the motivations for this further reclassification who was it in the wider market that had a desire for separate classification of rivet
01:04:25 classification of rivet as opposed to cassette pe according to mr vernet
01:04:29 mr vernet where was that desire coming from was there also perhaps a desire with an archonic to have separate classifications if so who was desiring that
01:04:40 if so who was desiring that what was the driver for this change was it commercial or was it technical or was it both in varying degrees
01:04:51 now that brings us to the end of 2014 one can look across to what was happening
01:04:57 happening at grenfell tower at this point you've seen the documents in module 1 and when
01:05:04 and when deborah french gave evidence to the inquiry
01:05:07 inquiry and we know that she sent the bba certificate to harley on the 23rd of april 2014 under an email with the reference
01:05:18 under an email with the reference cep50281
01:05:21 cep50281 that uh certificate that said uh that reynabon 55pe was classified as euroclass b
01:05:33 we know that as at the 23rd of april 2014
01:05:37 2014 reyna bond 55 pe was class e in any fixing system rivet orca set as a result of the certification issued on the 31st of january 2014
01:05:48 on the 31st of january 2014 which rewrote among other things test 5a
01:05:53 so when the plan has approved reynabon pe cassette fix as they did at the end of july 2014 informally by the end of september 2014 formerly banner born pe and cassette fix
01:06:07 formerly banner born pe and cassette fix was a class e and had always been and rivet
01:06:11 rivet was also a class e
01:06:16 after the reclassification on the 4th of december 2014 the cassette remained class e rivet was class c
01:06:24 class c c s 2 d naught therefore neither of them met the e m 13 501 classification in adb
01:06:35 now for all that happened in 2014 on the grenfell tower project there was no order for rayner bond in 2014 that did not in fact happen until march 2015
01:06:47 2015 has turned to that yeah in at the end of 2014 we know that deborah french left arconic and vince meakin started in may 2015
01:06:59 and vince meakin started in may 2015 and in the interim mr froelich assisted by guanajuato derendanger managed uk sales
01:07:07 let's let's look then now at what arconic knew internally about the grenfell tower project we start on this topic by looking at gweneil derendanger's exhibit one
01:07:19 gweneil derendanger's exhibit one at met3053159 page 86.
01:07:26 this is an email which appears to be automatically generated by our conics crm or customer relation management database
01:07:37 management database and i've taken that from the email address at the very top of the screen do not reply at crm on demand dot com
01:07:49 at crm on demand dot com this email is dated thursday april the 10th 2014
01:07:54 10th 2014 and sent to guadalajara subject labo request client harley curtin walling
01:08:05 fourth uh 4 10 14 that may be 10th of april must be 10th of april 2014 is submitted
01:08:12 submitted the first line of the text you can see says subject grenfell tower project client curtain harley curtin wall contact mark harris use reynabon 55 transformation mode
01:08:23 use reynabon 55 transformation mode cassettes
01:08:27 questions arising on that document did the mode of fabrication have to be entered into the crm as you can see it has been here in order to generate an order
01:08:40 did somebody have to manually enter the transformation mode cassettes into the crm field if they did have to enter that manually who would have put cassettes in this
01:08:52 who would have put cassettes in this document
01:08:54 document is it right that arconic as a result of this system could know in any given case the fixing method
01:09:03 method for any given project and is it right that in this case iconic did know that uh reinaborn 55 in cassette form
01:09:14 uh reinaborn 55 in cassette form was going to go on to grenfell tower project if the order was followed through
01:09:24 deborah french gave evidence about this and
01:09:27 and told the inquiry that she believed that this document would have been generated by gweneil de antarche that's french at day 88 page 76 line 16-17
01:09:39 if that is correct questions are rising or how
01:09:43 or how mr military would have known to generate those details and in particular the fabrication mode cassette
01:09:51 cassette and whether she would have been doing so on instructions from somebody else such as deborah french or perhaps peter frederick or or perhaps well i don't know
01:10:04 let them pursue a little further the quotations and the order documents for grenfell tower can we go to grinnell durham danger's witness statement at 53191
01:10:17 at 53191 at page 36.
01:10:25 the paragraph 104 she says this on 3rd of march 2015 i sent an email to neil wilson's cep copy to peter frelich attaching a formal quotation for the
01:10:36 attaching a formal quotation for the grenfell tower project addressed to cep with reference
01:10:43 in an 2015-8411 i refer to a telephone call with mr wilson earlier that day i did not remember the details of that call but mr wilson would have asked me to produce a quotation and provided all the details that i
01:10:54 and provided all the details that i needed in order to generate it i do not remember whether the call was discussed during this call or subsequently with peter however it was a uk project and unless the customer told me that they wanted fr
01:11:05 the customer told me that they wanted fr i would have quoted for pe a copy of this email and the quotation appeared from page 278 to 281
01:11:12 to 281 of gd1 let me look at the quotation she refers to please this is at a r c 6 0 is 1
01:11:24 0.
01:11:30 uh we can see that it bears a quotation number 2015 8411 one
01:11:36 8411 one and it's dated the third of march 2015 if you look a little bit lower down in the same part of the document and it says position one rayleigh bond
01:11:49 and it says position one rayleigh bond aluminium composite material architecture rb55 if you look a little bit lower down it says feature standard coating topside dg 5000
01:12:03 standard coating topside dg 5000 two coats smoke silver metallic e9107s there's a price below that 33 pounds 25 pence
01:12:14 33 pounds 25 pence per buenato one question on this document is whether pe was
01:12:22 pe was requested by cep specifically or whether it was our conic's assumption that pe was required because cep had not told arconic that they wanted
01:12:37 had not told arconic that they wanted fr
01:12:44 and i say cep that is because immediately underneath the quotation number if you go back to the top of the screen
01:12:51 screen uh it is cep to whom the quotation is addressed you can see that immediately under the date third of march
01:13:02 now we know that this eventually led to an order and let's look at some more documents on that uh mr chairman i know the time um yes perhaps it's a it's a convenient moment
01:13:13 perhaps it's a it's a convenient moment for a break before we go on to look at documents that do lead to this order yes well that's a good idea how are you getting on quite well i sense yes absolutely actually i should be finished um
01:13:24 finished um comfortably before for the usual time for braking well we'll take a break now we'll resume at half past three and see what you have in store for us then
01:13:35 then all right i'll pass through then please thank you very much
01:30:29 welcome back everyone mr millet is in the course of presenting the iconic documents and i think he's ready to continue
01:30:36 continue mr millet if you're ready when you're when it suits you thank you mr chairman can we go to peter frolick's exhibit at page 28 met 53161
01:30:56 page 28. this is an email
01:31:04 so sorry yes this is an email uh from gwenell duran danger to peter froelich uh if we can enlarge it please say it's more visible thank you very much and it's dated the
01:31:16 thank you very much and it's dated the 13th of march 2015 and the subject is projects with cep uk and she says i just spoke with neil wilson from cep uk by phone
01:31:27 wilson from cep uk by phone and here are some interesting news to share with you and if you look at the second bullet point down she says project grenfell tower three thousand square meters in rb55pe
01:31:38 thousand square meters in rb55pe four millimeters 1750 millimeters width smoke silver metallic color they won the project total project represents 6 000 square meters according to him
01:31:48 to him so we should get the po for it shortly and note that it's pe there that she refers to so we then go to the
01:31:59 refers to so we then go to the order documents that met three zeros five three one six one page forty says same exhibit run to page 14. and here's the purchase order from cep
01:32:11 and here's the purchase order from cep and you can see that the uh original project order date is the 18th of march 2015.
01:32:19 2015. purchase order number arc5213023 as you can see at the top right hand corner there
01:32:30 corner there and on the description it says the order is for rayner bond four millimeters by 1750 millimeters there's no mention on this document uh
01:32:42 there's no mention on this document uh of the fact that what is being ordered is renam155 with a pe core it's silent on the core it's just described as e9107s make
01:32:56 it's just described as e9107s make silver metallic
01:32:59 now let's go to the email uh at met 3053161 page thirty one so nine documents back or nine pages
01:33:10 so nine documents back or nine pages back in the same email run or same exhibit run i should say this is an email from cep to gwinnell durandoje
01:33:21 on the 18th of march the same day
01:33:28 and it says deb uh even though it's sent to gwenell deranger and that may be a reference
01:33:38 reference to deborah talbert who's copied in on this and she's a cep person uh please can you order the following smoke silver metallic four millimeters thick rayno bond as attached quotation
01:33:50 thick rayno bond as attached quotation and if you just cast your eye down those there are two sets of orders both to cep at different quantities uh same totals but different uh different makeup with a total price
01:34:05 uh different makeup with a total price i split the requirement into two equal call-offs
01:34:08 call-offs the key point about this document is that you'll see that there's no mention here either of pe core so the purchase order doesn't have pe core nor does the the order or the email raising the order
01:34:20 the order or the email raising the order and but if we look at the order acknowledgement at arc50149
01:34:29 we see that it does identify the core as pe
01:34:36 it's arc50149 and this is dated the 18th of march 2015 and this is an alcoa document so this is the other side of the transaction this is what our comic
01:34:50 the transaction this is what our comic generates
01:34:50 generates in response to the purchase order which we see
01:34:54 we see and you can see there that in relation to
01:34:58 to the order pe is identified and you can see that in the two major columns in the middle of the page reinaborn 55 smoke silver metallic
01:35:09 reinaborn 55 smoke silver metallic e9107s
01:35:10 e9107s dg 5000 washco just above it it says p e in the case of each element of this order p e and one has to read across the two
01:35:21 e and one has to read across the two columns
01:35:22 columns the lackage columns lacaze recto and lacaz versa so top and reverse side coating there's no distinction between the two in the way in which this product is identified in this order acknowledgement so far as
01:35:33 so far as we can see from this document
01:35:37 uh then let's go back to the quotation at arc
01:35:41 at arc zeros
01:35:47 which we saw earlier on before the break and at the bottom of the page if we go to right to the bottom of page one i showed you the price what i didn't show you was the the names of those that are conic it's gwen el
01:35:58 of those that are conic it's gwen el dorado and peter frederick
01:36:02 uh now mr frolic explains in his statement
01:36:05 statement and i think there's a need to see it it's paragraph 40.1 on page 12 me 230 is 53197 page 12. now that his name is on this purchase order because there was no uk
01:36:16 order because there was no uk salesperson at the time and that the price quoted 23 pounds 25 pence per square meter was lower than he was able to approve so this might also have gone to alan flackon
01:36:27 flackon who was the director of sales and marketing at the time for his approval the questions arise on this document run i've shown you is either anybody in the inside
01:36:39 either anybody in the inside sales team uh at our conic would actually consider or did actually consider whether the order was appropriate for this client and indeed for any
01:36:51 for this client and indeed for any client
01:36:52 client and if so who would that person be was there any process within arconic for ensuring that pe was suitable for grenfell tower particularly as
01:37:03 for grenfell tower particularly as archonic knew and recorded that the intended fixing was to be
01:37:07 was to be cassette
01:37:12 now 2015 uh was a year when uh the existence of the la crosse fire in australia came to the attention of arconic and i'm
01:37:24 came to the attention of arconic and i'm going to show you one or two um pictures of photographs and other things
01:37:30 things which show fire in tall buildings and i ought to give a trigger warning for anybody who finds that too difficult to see um they won't come for a few minutes yet so
01:37:41 come for a few minutes yet so people have time to avert themselves but at this time as i say our comic was told about a clowning fire which had occurred
01:37:50 occurred in the lacrosse building in melbourne the fire had itself broken out on the evening of the 24th of november 2014. in the april and again in the june 2050
01:38:04 in the april and again in the june 2050 a post-incident analysis report of the fire done by an outfit called mfb was sent to several people within our comic those people included alan flackon claude verlais
01:38:16 alan flackon claude verlais and gunner gonail derantanche can we go first to met three zeros 53159 at page 404.
01:38:42 this is an email from john cobb at simonite in new zealand to gweneil duran danger and anna flackart iconic and he attaches the post-incident
01:38:53 and he attaches the post-incident analysis at la crosse he says hi gwen and allah i have attached a fire report for a building that caught fire in melbourne as you can see it is a pretty scathing of our luco best
01:39:04 of our luco best but also acm in general as you know we only use your fr panel would it be possible to send me all your current fire test documentation and any material we can use to defend
01:39:15 and any material we can use to defend the impending criticism from local media can we then go to met 30s 53158 underscore p10 page 183
01:39:34 this is an email
01:39:38 at the top of the screen from brad woods uh to claude vale
01:39:46 and it attaches the post-incident analysis lacrosse docklands report and he says hi claw this is the fire report incident from melbourne that i've been talking about
01:39:58 been talking about uh and brad woods um appears to be some kind of design or cladding professional at architectural glass and telling propriety
01:40:09 telling propriety limp proprietary limited in new south wales
01:40:15 so he sends that to mr verlai also you can see it's sent to alan flacco guernell duran jay and julia julie uh kessianic at arconic
01:40:29 uh kessianic at arconic can we then look at met30s 53158 underscore p11 at page 113.
01:40:42 this is an email from claude verlais to cstb martial bonhomme and gildas create uh subject fur on fire in australia
01:40:54 uh subject fur on fire in australia uh post-incident analysis lacrosse docklands hello please find attached a very interesting report that i would like to share with you
01:41:02 you and he forwarded also to frank ritter of 3a on the same day asking whether he had already seen it there's no need to turn up the reference but it said any t30s 53158 underscore
01:41:14 but it said any t30s 53158 underscore p12 page 41. and let's look at the report
01:41:17 report itself this is at met3053158 underscore p12
01:41:23 p12 at page 42.
01:41:30 this is the front page internal front page
01:41:34 page of the uh report produced by mfb uh into the la crosse docklands fire post incident analysis report uh and you can see that
01:41:46 analysis report uh and you can see that mfb are based in richmond uh
01:41:51 victoria i think i can see at the bottom left-hand corner and uh if we go to page 65 of the exhibit
01:42:00 exhibit we can see what uh is said
01:42:06 oh and it says uh the highlight the highlighted points are highlighted in in the document we have but towards the bottom of the screen um it says importantly the nfb is not
01:42:19 um it says importantly the nfb is not aware
01:42:20 aware just reading that out it says importantly the mfb is not aware of any competitor aluminium polyethylene panel product
01:42:26 product which has been successfully sort of been successful in being determined as non-combustible when tested under as1530.1 1994 combustibility test for materials that's
01:42:38 combustibility test for materials that's the australian standard app as mentioned elsewhere in this report many competitor products have however gained a certificate of conformity for their use under the abcb codemark scheme based on alternative
01:42:50 codemark scheme based on alternative test results if we go to page 67 of this document
01:42:58 we could see a little bit more detail under
01:43:02 under section 6.1 external wall cladding a luca best rapid fire spread mfb comment first hand accounts from attending mfb firefighters and residents
01:43:14 attending mfb firefighters and residents of the building described the fire as appearing to be associated directly with the facade of the building rather than the combustible contents and storage on the external balconies burning and flaming facades on high-rise
01:43:25 burning and flaming facades on high-rise buildings is not a common phenomenon witnessed by the mfb and it is of genuine concern of even greater concern is the speed and intensity of the fire spread
01:43:36 intensity of the fire spread and then there's a photograph of the rapid
01:43:40 rapid vertical first spread only four minutes after level eight sprinkler activation and then if you look a little bit lower down on this same page you see the last paragraph
01:43:53 paragraph the timeline described above it is reasonable to derive external vertical fire spread occurred from the eighth floor to the roof above the 21st floor within 10 to 15 minutes
01:44:04 floor within 10 to 15 minutes penetrating the adjacent internal rooms on all floors in the case examined in this report the upward vertical spread of fire was restricted only by the height of the building if the building and the construction of the
01:44:15 the building and the construction of the external walls continued to a greater height of upwards of 21 stories it is highly probable fire spread would have continued beyond 21 stories
01:44:27 beyond 21 stories looking at page 68 can we look at the second and fourth paragraphs on that page
01:44:33 page uh in different the second paragraph says in different circumstances and in contrast to the outcomes of this fire event
01:44:40 event we may have witnessed internal fire growth and spread established over 16 plus levels aided by high easterly winds back into the face of the building this would be an extremely high
01:44:51 this would be an extremely high challenge event for safe building evacuation and effective fire brigade intervention and the fourth paragraph says the fire resulted in internal ignition occurrences on all floors where external
01:45:02 occurrences on all floors where external fire spread occurred simultaneous fire incidents over many floors at heights possibly well beyond external reach capabilities of the attending fire brigade is an extremely challenging scenario for
01:45:13 is an extremely challenging scenario for successful fire brigade intervention based on the observations of the fire incident the chief officer believes that the building solution does not incorporate elements to the degree necessary
01:45:23 necessary to avoid the spread of fire
01:45:27 and still in part 12 of this exhibit as we're in can we go to page 18144 please
01:45:38 this is appendix 12 to the mfb analysis report on the lacrosse fire in november 2014 which sets out a number of other clouding fires around the world
01:45:50 of other clouding fires around the world and some of them will be by now familiar to most people on page 144 itself we can see the torch tower in dubai 21st february 2015 the mermails tower
01:46:03 21st february 2015 the mermails tower in ruby in france in 2012 that's familiar to you page 145 the al tayer tower in charger in 2012.
01:46:16 tayer tower in charger in 2012. you can see uh metal composite cladding second bullet point down aluminium polyethylene composite panel facade
01:46:23 facade and the saeef belhaza building in t com in dubai
01:46:27 in dubai 2012 second bullet point aluminium polyethylene composite panel facade now the next page please page 146 tamweel tower dubai 2012. you can see
01:46:39 tamweel tower dubai 2012. you can see the picture second bullet point aluminium polyethylene composite panel facade underneath that wuxin golden sweets busan south korea you can see the photograph of that fire
01:46:51 photograph of that fire second bullet point down aluminium polyethylene composite panel facade in the next page page 147 water club tower atlantic city usa
01:47:04 water club tower atlantic city usa there's a photograph there of that fire second bullet point down aluminium polyethylene composite panel facade
01:47:12 facade and then the text on page 147 itself beneath that photograph what is evident from the photos and descriptions above is the rapid and extensive vertical fire
01:47:23 is the rapid and extensive vertical fire spread up and down the buildings in direct correlation with the fire at six seven three six to six eight three latrobe street docklands that's that's lacrosse whilst the brand and make the panels are not identified in the report they would
01:47:34 not identified in the report they would all appear to be a very similar material and construction to the material installed in the facade of the subject building
01:47:40 building also the fire location in almost all cases
01:47:44 cases is generally on a configuration of the facade where internal returns channels and or balconies are present this is perhaps attributed to the higher incidence of ignition sources on balconies
01:47:55 balconies and the retention of heat in channels and returns in the form and shape of the facade
01:47:59 facade rather than on flat plain areas of facades where loss of heat straight to the atmosphere may occur
01:48:10 that i don't think needs any comment that report but you can see how it comes into our conic
01:48:17 conic at the same time in early 2015 iconic changed the core color of pe from translucent to black i don't need to go into the details of that other than to give you some
01:48:29 that other than to give you some uh documentary references and there was notification to customers and to the cstb but not to bba um documents to look at would be the cstb notification at met3053158
01:48:42 cstb notification at met3053158 underscore p02 page 128. customers being informed for example by peter frodick met3053161 of page one
01:48:53 peter frodick met3053161 of page one cep we're told cep50 is 547 and cep407141 and cep three zeros five four three three eight genius facades being told the same
01:49:04 eight genius facades being told the same thing
01:49:04 thing at met three zeros five three one six one page eight and uh argonaute another of um iconic's uk fabricators at me2 30
01:49:15 iconic's uk fabricators at me2 30 53161 page 9. there was another fire in october 2015. this is at the in riyadh in saudi arabia
01:49:27 this is at the in riyadh in saudi arabia at the kingfire head medical center again i should give the trigger warning we will be showing pictures of buildings damaged by fire if not in fact on fire if we can go to uh met30s 53158
01:49:41 if we can go to uh met30s 53158 underscore p10 at page 168.
01:49:49 we can put page 168 and also page 169 up together please so because it's easier to read if we have 168 the bottom of one six
01:50:00 if we have 168 the bottom of one six eight this is an email from nursey on wednesday the 14th of october 2015 uh to hafid asara
01:50:14 uh to hafid asara and the subject is fire in king forehead medical center riyad aluko bond fr find the attached pictures and then they're attached you can see the pictures a little earlier on in the
01:50:25 the pictures a little earlier on in the exhibit run at pages one six four to one six six if we could just quickly look at those
01:50:33 164 and then one six five and then one 166
01:50:44 this is the fire damage
01:50:48 and then 166 please as well you can see that briefly this is the fire damage done at the kingfire head medical center in riyadh using a luca bond
01:50:58 uh and uh
01:51:02 we go to 168 please you can see that the email
01:51:05 email which had come from the source i showed you makes its way to claude verlet looking up the email chain uh it is an email from claude verlet back
01:51:17 it is an email from claude verlet back to
01:51:18 to hafiz asera
01:51:26 16th of october 2015. um fr showed a very good behavior he says in pe the fire would have spread over the entire height of the tower well in this case only the area near the
01:51:38 well in this case only the area near the fire is affected long live fr and then there is a colon a dash and a closed bracket which um is likely i think one can see is a
01:51:49 is likely i think one can see is a smiley face uh we can see that claude vale does not appear to have any knowledge of the facade system uh but we can see what he says about
01:52:00 uh but we can see what he says about npe the fire would have spread the question
01:52:04 question which this document raises is whether his general observation about pe on this document was derived from his having seen the la crosse fire report
01:52:14 report earlier in 2015 uh or perhaps from other knowledge earlier knowledge that he might have had and further what were his views this
01:52:25 and further what were his views this time
01:52:25 time now october 15 about the fire risks of using
01:52:30 using aluminium composite material with a polyethylene core at height
01:52:38 to come then to 2016 there are two further fires in in that year the first is at the address in the uae on new year's eve 2015 to 16.
01:52:51 in the uae on new year's eve 2015 to 16. can we go please to met 30s 53158 underscore p10 page 174.
01:53:08 this is the image that was shared within our conic in emails about that fire if we can go to those emails two pages back please at 172.
01:53:18 you can see that at the bottom of the page it's an email from robert campbell of um uk rayno lux he's aerial sales uk reyna lux we heard
01:53:30 he's aerial sales uk reyna lux we heard a little bit about him uh from deborah french uh uh to uh capturing petty and serge varla raino duel and in the
01:53:41 varla raino duel and in the highlighted part it says the hotel in dubai allegedly had a luca bond pe on it when it went quickly up in flames on new year's eve
01:53:51 and then if we go um the sentence before that i should also have read out she says he says that it seems that architects are once again sitting up and pondering
01:54:02 are once again sitting up and pondering about how safe is a composite with a pe core
01:54:06 core and that email went into the inbox of alan flackon if we can go to the second email from the top we see that and mr flacco replies uh second email from the top uh
01:54:19 uh second email from the top uh copied this time to among others peter froelich
01:54:23 froelich claude velle and claude schmidt no surprise the only good news is it seems to be a b
01:54:29 to be a b products and at the top of the chain we see claude verlet's response to adam flack on serge varla i hope that
01:54:40 to adam flack on serge varla i hope that pe will gradually be excluded from facade cladding because each time it is the image of all the acms that takes a hit now the question about that email run and his response at the
01:54:52 that email run and his response at the end of it there is whether anything was done within arconic about pe
01:54:57 pe whether by mr verlei or anybody else why did mr verlet hope that pe would gradually be excluded from facade cladding
01:55:08 facade cladding while arconic was continuing to manufacture it and to sell it if we can scroll down into alverle's exhibits to page 176 only four pages on from this
01:55:27 you can see that the same day 6th of january 2016 gee scheideker sends an email to claude vale
01:55:37 vale subject tr the address forwarding the attachment claude can you read this article please i'd like to know what you think about it they are destroying the acm in pe and i don't think it's the only component
01:55:48 don't think it's the only component responsible for such a fire i look forward to hearing your feedback question there is whether that fairly reflected the attitude of iconic senior management to pe at this time
01:56:01 management to pe at this time and explore what what was meant by it the second fire of the two in 2016 uh to refer to is the one at place de aguino
01:56:11 aguino in strasbourg in we believe january 2016.
01:56:15 2016. you've seen something of that already can we look at met three zeros five three one five eight underscore p10 page one seven eight so it's two pages on from this
01:56:28 pages on from this there there is the email with which i think you're familiar from claude verlet to anna flacco uh and and others at arconic dated the 19th of january 2016
01:56:40 january 2016 and the embedded photograph the translation is on the next page page 179 please look at that and he says hello we were very lucky the vollek tower is in rainbow on pe 10
01:56:52 the vollek tower is in rainbow on pe 10 meters from the fire and he sets out an email address there and embeds it fortunately the wind didn't change direction but we really need to stop proposing pe
01:57:03 proposing pe in architecture exclamation mark we are in the
01:57:07 in the no in the know in inverted commas and i think it is up to us to be proactive dot dot dot and then in cats at last now the concern here
01:57:20 now the concern here is as one can see that the fire on the roof of the building in the huda agunu might have spread to a building 10 meters away clad in reynabond pe
01:57:30 this time it's not a luco bond or some other manufacturer's pe it's renavon the question is what happened to mr verlais's warning to senior management
01:57:41 senior management mrs flacco and mark on a did they do anything about this
01:57:46 and if so what now there's then before this time a review done by the bba
01:57:57 done by the bba between 2013 and 2050. we've not yet uh presented anything about the bba review of certificate zero eight straight four five one zero
01:58:09 zero eight straight four five one zero that became due in uh 2014 the review in fact started as we'll see from later witnesses in october 2013. between october 2013
01:58:20 in october 2013. between october 2013 and january 2015 the bba made repeated attempts to contact arconic and there are at least five attempts to speak to our comic
01:58:31 speak to our comic uh and one could see that at met 30 53158 underscore p17 185 to 182 and also at 186 and on several occasions
01:58:44 and also at 186 and on several occasions the bba clearly requested information and confirmation that there had been no changes that would affect the suitability for the use of uh rayner bond pe and just for the
01:58:55 just for the note met three zeros five three one five eight underscore p17 at page 182 paragraph two of that email
01:59:02 email we will be looking at those emails into course
01:59:05 course with witnesses
01:59:09 there is no evidence that the inquiry has seen that anybody in our connect ever responded with any positive information relating to the many
01:59:18 many new test fire testing documents and certifications that arconic had acquired since the first issue of the bba certificate in january 2008.
01:59:30 in january 2008. the the question is why was there no communication about the revised classifications provided
01:59:38 provided at this time we know the review was completed
01:59:42 completed and the certificate was confirmed as valid for three more years until january 2017. it was signed off by valentina amarozza the bba project manager
01:59:52 manager for arconic rene bond 55 on the 10th of april 2015 and authorized by prayer nakomo the team manager at the bba the certificate itself
02:00:04 certificate itself is at met3053158 all of that will be explored in evidence with
02:00:12 with the bba witnesses to come the reissue of the bba certificate had been due in the july of 2014 and in fact the cycle was overdue
02:00:24 and in fact the cycle was overdue the review cycle had run over in the context
02:00:28 context of the grenfell tower project and and to repeat to some extent what i've said before in july 2014 the information that would have been current was under the 2014
02:00:40 current was under the 2014 tests at that point as i say between january and october 2014 reynold bond p e in rivet
02:00:51 reynold bond p e in rivet with a class e cassette was also a class e
02:00:55 e as it always had been and would always remain
02:01:00 remain had the bba certificate been updated accurately and reissued at that time then the fire performance of pe cassette might have come to the attention of uh studio e
02:01:12 of uh studio e ryden harley or cep
02:01:16 and as we know in july 2014 the planners were looking at the mock-up of the facade
02:01:20 facade were insisting on cassette fix to the disappointment as we've seen from module one
02:01:25 one of several parties involved in the project
02:01:29 project there was then a further pba review in october 2016 to june 17. before we get to that i should just mention a further event in the may of 2015. in that month
02:01:41 in the may of 2015. in that month a reissue contract was raised by the bba and it's a bba 3010889 under reference s one stroke five seven
02:01:52 under reference s one stroke five seven two six
02:01:53 two six two uh and that was stated to cover non-technical updates to the certificate it was sent to arconic on the fifth of may 2015 that as we can see from
02:02:05 may 2015 that as we can see from exhibits to mr verlais statement at met 30-53158 underscore p18 page 31. it's signed and returned by mr verle
02:02:17 it's signed and returned by mr verle under his email at p at the same place page 38 met three zero
02:02:22 zero five three one five eight underscore p18 page 38
02:02:26 page 38 uh and at the site there was a signed contract page 41 the same exhibit
02:02:34 it appears that
02:02:39 the contract was never taken up by the bba and the project was abandoned
02:02:46 abandoned at that stage and we would like we would have investigated with mr verde uh whether he sought to push it along at
02:02:57 uh whether he sought to push it along at all and if he didn't why he didn't why it was from his perspective that that reissue did not proceed
02:03:06 going back then to the next period of review october 16 to june 70 which is when the certificate came up for its triennial review uh there was another review now there's
02:03:17 uh there was another review now there's one document to look at from this review which i should show you which is at met30s 53158p 18 underscore p18 page 61.
02:03:33 the document we're going to look at in due course with the bba witnesses but this is from the iconic side internally
02:03:45 internally this is a a draft of an email um sent to be sent uh to valentina amarozzo who had conduct as project manager
02:03:56 project manager of this review the 2016-17 review of the bba certificate and it's an email from remy nick from nicolas remy to claude vale
02:04:07 nicolas remy to claude vale on the 18th of october 2016
02:04:11 and it's a response in draft to some of her requests and we'll see that in in detail in due course with the witnesses
02:04:21 witnesses but what he says next the word draft is what matters for this purpose and he says i really feel like i'm dealing with something that is not clear-cut they're coming to do a review and i'm informing them that what they're coming
02:04:32 informing them that what they're coming to review
02:04:33 to review has been completely modified without them knowing anything about it and above that we see mr verle's response back to nicolas where me
02:04:44 response back to nicolas where me if you look up i scroll up the page he says
02:04:53 says uh same day 18th october 2016 hi we'll talk about the situation before distribution in order to alleviate this bad impression for you smiley face
02:05:04 impression for you smiley face claude the question is did mr burley have a conversation with mr lemmy if he did what did he tell him
02:05:16 him how was this resolved internally within arconic
02:05:20 arconic and as i say we will come back to this email chain and the detail of it in the correspondence as between the bba and iconic with the witnesses
02:05:32 iconic with the witnesses mr chairman i've come to the end of this presentation uh it may well be that there are other documents
02:05:39 documents to which core participants would wish to have attention drawn this is not the usual situation where there is a witness who must be asked any further questions before release
02:05:50 release and the concomitant pressure of time uh uh on us um there there there is therefore
02:05:58 therefore plenty of opportunity for core participants if they want to to refer to any further documents that they consider to be relevant they can do that in their written closing submissions before
02:06:10 closing submissions before for module 2 which are in time and that of course includes arconic as well so the fact that there are documents which others consider to be relevant and need to be put into the public
02:06:21 and need to be put into the public domain for the purposes of the record uh it does not mean um the fact that i haven't covered them does not mean that they aren't relevant should not be put into the public domain
02:06:33 should not be put into the public domain there is plenty of opportunity for all core participants to identify those documents
02:06:37 documents in due course that said that brings me to the end of my presentation yes well thank you very much indeed mr militant that's been very helpful to get that
02:06:47 that overview of the documents and the way in which events developed over the 10 years or so before grenfell um fire
02:06:59 grenfell um fire so um and as you've said others will be uh entitled to bring documents specifically to the panel's attention in so far as they think that they
02:07:10 think that they are important and haven't been properly opened
02:07:14 opened already so i think at this stage it just reminds me to thank you for taking us through those documents and that i think will draw an end to today's hearing
02:07:27 an end to today's hearing and tomorrow we have another witness is that right yes mr chairman we have uh the first of the bba witnesses mr haymo gregorian we're good well we'll look forward to seeing him at ten o'clock tomorrow
02:07:40 seeing him at ten o'clock tomorrow but for the time being that will conclude the business for today thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow