This time, doubt no longer seems permitted. The gigantic fire which had consumed, on September 26, 2019, more than 9,500 tons of potentially toxic products and plunged the people of Rouen into a stupor got off to a good start at Lubrizol and not at its neighbor Normandie Logistique, whose warehouses had also burned down. These are the conclusions of the long-awaited additional expert report requested more than a year ago by the investigating judges of the Paris court in charge of the criminal investigation. The world could consult them.
Regarding the origin of the fire (the outbreak area), the additional expertise, entrusted to the National Gendarmerie Criminal Research Institute (IRCGN), confirms “the initially selected fire starting zone” in “favoring the hypothesis of a departure on the influence of the company Lubrizol”, in an outdoor storage yard. To reach these conclusions, the investigators analyzed the reports of the personnel of the various departments present on the site when the fire broke out, the photographic and video recordings and the studies on the alarm and detection.
Indicted in particular for “endangering others”, the Lubrizol company has disputed since the start of the investigation being at the origin of the fire. The lubricant manufacturer had formulated the hypothesis with the judges that the start of the fire was located in a building adjoining the Normandie Logistique company and had questioned its fire and anti-intrusion detection systems. The French subsidiary of the American firm had provided new videos. They obviously did not convince the experts: “The spread of the fire from the Normandie Logistique right-of-way to Lubrizol is a very strongly minimized hypothesis. » Contacted by The worldLubrizol, which had unsuccessfully requested the annulment of the legal proceedings, considers that “the additional expert report does not in any way confirm that the fire started on the Lubrizol side” and that’“It’s just a guess”.
Cause still uncertain
Although the additional expertise leaves little doubt about the origin of the fire, the cause of the fire still remains uncertain. “The complementary study does not provide tangible and factual elements useful for the manifestation of the truth”, conclude the experts. Two hypotheses are retained: one “accidental technical cause” which could be linked to an energy source (a streetlight) or a “cause related to human intervention”. The recordings of the video surveillance cameras had made it possible to identify the “movements of a handling machine”the night of the fire, in the area where the fire started.
You have 19.58% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.