“MO12345lemonde” reveals the conclusions of the expertise paid to the criminal survey on the industrial disaster during which more than 9,500 tonnes of potentially toxic products had burned, in September 2019.
by Stéphane Mandard
This time, doubt no longer seems allowed. The gigantic fire which had consumed more than 9,500 tonnes of potentially toxic products and plunged the Rouennais into stupor on September 26, 2019 started well at Lubrizol and not with its Logistical Normandy neighbor whose warehouses had also burned. These are the conclusions of the highly anticipated report of additional expertise requested more than a year ago by the investigating judges of the Paris court in charge of the criminal investigation. Mo12345lemonde was able to consult them.
Regarding the origin of the fire (the hatching zone), the complement of expertise, entrusted to the National Gendarmerie Criminal Research Institute (IRCGN), confirms “the starting zone of fire initially retained “By” favoring the hypothesis of a departure on the grip of the company Lubrizol “, in an outdoor storage courtyard. To achieve these conclusions, the investigators analyzed the minutes of the staff of the various services present on the site when the fire broke out, photographic and videos and studies on alarm and Detection.
Indictment in particular for “endangering others”, the Lubrizol company has been challenging since the start of the investigation to be at the origin of the fire. The lubricant manufacturer had formulated the hypothesis with the judges that the start of fire was located in a adjoining building of the Normandy Logistics company and questioned its anti-fire and anti-intrusion detection systems. The French subsidiary of the American firm had provided new videos. They have obviously not convinced the experts: “The spread of the fire of the Normandy Logistique to Lubrizol is a very strongly minimized hypothesis.” Contacted by MO12345lemonde, Lubrizol, who had asked in vain the procedure of the procedure Judicial, believes that “the additional expertise report does not confirm in any case that the fire left on the lubrizol side” and that “it is only a hypothesis”.
cause always cause uncertain
If the complement of expertise no longer leaves any doubt about the origin of the start of the fire, the cause of the fire, it always remains uncertain. “The complementary study does not provide tangible and factual elements useful for the manifestation of the truth,” conclude experts. Two hypotheses are retained: an “accidental technical cause” which could be linked to an energy source (a lamp) or a “cause linked to human intervention”. The recordings of the video surveillance cameras had notably identified the “movements of a handling machine”, the night of the fire, in the starting area of the fire.
You have 19.52% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.