Arconic ends sales of panels used at Grenfell Tower for high-rises

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Reuters

WORLD NEWS | Mon Jun 26, 2017 | 12:52pm EDT
Arconic ends sales of panels used at Grenfell Tower for high-rises

By Sinead Carew | NEW YORK

Arconic Inc said on Monday it was stopping global sales of its Reynobond PE cladding for use in high-rise buildings after a fire in London's Grenfell Tower, which used those Arconic panels, killed at least 79 people.

Shares of the company, formerly known as Alcoa, fell as much as 11.3 percent after Reuters reported on Saturday it had supplied the PE cladding for Grenfell Tower, despite warning in its brochures those specific panels were a fire risk for tall buildings.

Arconic cited "inconsistencies in building codes around the world" and code compliance issues that have arisen concerning use of cladding systems as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire. ... It said it would continue to support UK authorities as they investigate the June 14 fire.

The stock clawed back some losses after Monday's announcement and was down about 4 percent at $24.46 in midday trading. The volume of shares changing hands was almost four times the 10-day moving average in just the first three hours of trading.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-fire-arconic-idUSKBN19H22Q?il=0

---

* * * * *

Full disclosure: I own shares of Arconic.

See: Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016187835

[Blue_Adept]

1. If you use something in ways that it's not supposed to...

yeesh.

[matt819]

2. Basically, what they're saying is . . .

There are inconsistencies in building codes around the world, and we'll take advantage of this by selling cheap and dangerous products where we can get away with it.

True, local governments are equally culpable, allow austerity demands to override safety.

[MGKrebs]

3. Not sure how much the manufacturer is to blame here, unless

they have been deceptive about the product's fire rating or specs. The manufacturer doesn't necessarily know how the product is going to be used.

It's the architects and builders who are supposed to know the specs and the codes and stay compliant.

[benld74]

4. These same panels were used on the scraper in Dubai that caught fire in 2015

I never found anything on its cause or why it burned so easily. A newspaper article I was reading about this fire, mentioned the scraper fire in Dubai as another incident with said panels.

[Warpy]

7. Fires that have raced up the outside of skyscrapers in Dubai are one example

Such fires have also occurred in France, Beijing, Chechnya, and I believe Brasil (couldn't find that one), all displaying the same pattern of rapid spread up the exterior and into flats via heat shattered windows.

Likely this shit will stay on buildings until landlords are forced to remove it and I don't see that happening soon.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. The Guardian sez 60 other "estate" buildings have the cladding

and that residents of some of those towers have been forced to move in what the tenants call a very abrupt forced removal under threat of being arrested.

seems to me that the Housing Authority ( whatever they are called) would be very sensitive to anything they did, given continuing press coverage. But...maybe not.

[Warpy]

5. Those jerks have known the panels turned buildings into firetraps for a decade

Any fire in the building that shatters a window spreads very quickly up the exterior when those panels are used. The aluminum peels off quickly when exposed to the heat of a fire and the interior plastic both melts and combusts, raining burning debris down on escapees and firefighters, alike. They should have had the brains to know it was a bad product one hell of a long time ago.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. The product is installed on shorter buildings too.

It's a problem with high-rises because firetrucks/ladders can only reach so high, and fire progresses vertically through this material a lot faster than they can move.

On shorter buildings it's trivially easy to extinguish, and doesn't lead to this sort of catastrophe.

Cost/benefit.

Essentially, the installers/property managers mis-used the product.

[architect359]

11. The manufacturer is not culpable

It is stated quite clearly in their literature that the product should only be used within certain height limits and / or conditions. The building owner, general contractor, and the design team (architect and their consultants) should have theoretically abided by the product specifications. Additionally, there will be the "authorities having jurisdiction"i.e. the municipal / regional building reviewers that would and should make comments and redline any aspects of the proposed design as required for code compliance prior to sign-off and release of construction.

A substitution could still be requested during construction by the sub-contractor for whatever reason. It is than the responsibility of the design team and the general contractor to study the proposal and advise the owner about it's validity - even if there is a sizable cost benefit. In my experience, an owner can still override the advise (if any was provided). At that point, the architect could (depending on how the contract was written) refuse to approve the substitution request citing any number of reasons paramount of which would be failure to comply with the fire code for use of the material in a way that it was not intended. Despite all this, the material choice could still push ahead.

How this particular product made it through all the "checks and balances" of the review process remains to be seen.

Also of note: It would seem that the building did not have a functional fire alarm system nor a sprinkler system. On top of it all, the building was only serviced by one (!!!) stair well. How this building got out of the the review process - let alone get constructed - is unimaginable.

[kwassa]

17. The courts will find culpability. ..

This product is inherently unsafe in any application by its flammability alone.

[rurallib]

6. how do these people sleep at night?

[architect359]

10. I would guess - like anybody else actually n/t

[canetoad]

9. I'm glad they have withdrawn the panels

However, the manufacturer is not the person to blame.

The plans and documentation for the building refurbishment would have been drawn up by an architect or building designer. This would have included a list of specifications for materials to be used. Building codes differ over the world but I believe these panels were not compliant with the UK code. They very well may be compliant for use in other buildings and situations.

Once the plans are ready they generally go off to a structural engineer and various other building consultants for sign off before construction begins. After this, the work for the refurbishment would be tendered out to several companies - electrical, cladding, etc etc.

It was at this point, I believe a substitution probably happened. Whoever landed the contract to supply and fit the cladding saw an opportunity to increase their profits by cutting cost on building materials ie using identical/similar looking cladding panels but without the fire rating.

We will not know the truth until all the paper trails have been followed and analysed, starting with the original drawings and specs down to who signed off on materials used.

[FSogol]

15. You left out the shop drawing/ submittial process. Before you purchase a product for construction,

you are required to submit cut sheets on the products you want to use to the architects/engineers for approval. They could not have substituted that product without permission of the designers of record.

[jmowreader]

18. It doesn't look like they withdrew the panels

It appears they won't sell them to you if you intend to put them on a high-rise building. Which makes sense - they'd be okay on a low structure.

The rule is very simple.



If you can't reach the top floor of the building with one of these, the building needs to be made out of fireproof materials.

[chowder66]

12. Because you know killing people in horrific ways is the only way assholes like this change.

DO YOU HEAR THAT REPUBLICANS?

[jmowreader]

13. "The Towering Inferno" was a documentary. Who knew?

This catastrophe had two root causes: the developers were a gang of cheap bastards, and the UK tends to wait till AFTER a bunch of people get killed before they amend their building codes.

[FSogol]

16. Building codes change very slowly. Major changes* usually only happen due to some failure/deaths.

* Outside of some recent energy saying changes.