Since last February, the Government of Mexico City, headed by Claudia Sheinbaum, had informed the DNV company of its rejection of the results of the latest ruling on the collapse of Metro Line 12, which occurred on May 3, 2021 in the Tláhuac mayor’s office, reported the newspaper El País.
Documents obtained by the Spanish media indicate that the capital’s government and the Norwegian consultancy maintained an exchange of communications for months about the alleged deficiencies pointed out by the local government in carrying out the last opinion of the collapse that concludes that the tragedy had four concurrent causes: failures in design, certification, bolt installation and maintenance.
While the company, according to El País, defended its work and emphatically rejected the accusations of the government of Claudia Sheinbaum claiming an alleged “series of deficiencies and inconsistencies” found in the last document. Said communications were sent between the two actors during February and April of this year, this being the last period in which the conflict occurred that delayed the publication of the document.
When presenting a chronology of said communications, the media outlet explained that it was on February 15 when the Secretariat for Comprehensive Risk Management and Civil Protection sent an official letter to the DNV company where they accused that the quality of the report was below what expected.
Since the so-called “mirror section” was not taken as a reference, at the same time that alternative hypotheses were not included, “a common practice” in the analysis of these claims, and that they did not investigate in depth the importance of the design flaws detected.
Likewise, the capital government claimed the methodology with which the document was made, and says that “the complete application” of the technique is not observed —a registered trademark of DNV and internationally recognized—, as they have done in other analyzed accidents.
The letter concludes with a request to DNV to carry out the analysis again, but this time apply “the full methodology” and “do not omit the information” that was provided.
Meanwhile, on February 25, the DNV company responded to the capital government that the contract specified that the section to be evaluated was the one that collapsed, and not the “mirror section”, in addition to the fact that its specialists ruled it out for not being ” relevant”.
Regarding the alternative hypotheses, the company assured that they analyzed the causes of what they determined as the most probable danger model.
Regarding the incomplete application of its own methodology, the consultant stressed that it was not applied in the same way as in other claims because each case is different due to the type of “process, installation and people involved.”
Finally, it is indicated that between March and April was when the definitive rupture occurred, this after the local government wrote again to DNV on March 10 to claim that it was not satisfied with the final report and cited an extract of the signed contract between the two actors in which it says that, in the event that the authorities find irregularities in the service, the employment relationship does not end until they are resolved.
Consultant refuses to give statements
The Norwegian company Det Norske Veritas (DNV), which was contracted by the Government of Mexico City to carry out the expert reports on the collapse of Line 12 of the Metro, reported that it will not make any further comments regarding the latest report that the head of government, Claudia Sheinbaum pointed out that it was “biased and false”.
Neil James Slater, head of Media Relations at the firm, told El Economista that after the press release issued on May 4, DNV “will not make any further comments” on the matter.
It should be remembered that through the Secretariat of Comprehensive Risk Management and Civil Protection of the capital, it was reported that the so-called “Phase III Report” failed to comply with the specifications requested in the contract entered into, unlike the documents corresponding to the Preliminary Technical Opinion (Phase I) and the Final Technical Opinion (Phase II).
(With information from Iván Rodríguez)