Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Evidence from BRE's Phil Clark on fire testing procedures for cladding systems, including controversial testing practices
00:00:10 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing uh we're going to begin today by hearing some further evidence from mr clark who at the time in question was employed by the bre
00:00:21 by the bre so i'm just going to check that mr clark is there i think he is can you see me and can you hear me mr clark i can see you and who you say yes i can thank you very much good morning good morning before we resume your
00:00:33 good morning before we resume your evidence can we just run through the usual
00:00:36 usual housekeeping checks can you confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence i can confirm that say yes thank you can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you
00:00:47 or other materials with you i can confirm that say yes thank you and can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any electronic device in the room with you which is capable of receiving messages i
00:00:59 which is capable of receiving messages i can confirm that say yes very good thank you very much well the arrangements are essentially the same as they were yesterday i don't think i need run through them is there anything you'd like to ask
00:01:10 is there anything you'd like to ask before we carry on no i'm fine sir i'm happy to carry on thank you very much noon right well then mr miller when you're ready uh yes kevin thank you very much now um
00:01:21 uh yes kevin thank you very much now um mr clark yesterday we were examining the test 19th of march 2014 done by kingston on k15
00:01:32 done by kingston on k15 bs 8414 part two and you deal with that in your witness statement at paragraph 237 if we can go to that please at page 58.
00:01:58 and you say there at paragraph 237 my recollection which is supported by my review of the test video footage is that i informed the test sponsor of the potential for flaming
00:02:10 the potential for flaming above the test facility having occurred 2411
00:02:14 2411 due to excessive flaming over the surface of the wing wall however this flaming subsequently reduced
00:02:20 reduced as an as a note at 2421 records flames over the surface of the panels died back you've exhibited the documents now we're going to watch some of the footage from that test now and i've got some
00:02:31 that test now and i've got some questions for you about it before i do that um i'd like to ask you about the criteria for the early termination of a test under bs8414 part two can we go first please to psi
00:02:44 part two can we go first please to psi six zeros ninety seven
00:03:00 now here is the cop here is bs8414 part two
00:03:05 two uh and can we go to page 11 please and this i should just say is the version confirmed as december 2011
00:03:13 2011 and at page 11 as you can see there's paragraph 8.5 under procedure i wonder if we could have that blown up a little bit please
00:03:24 8.5 test termination criteria can you see
00:03:27 see i can see that yeah yes i think that as that march 2014 you were very familiar with this bsi indeed so yes
00:03:36 yes and it says uh under test termination criteria
00:03:40 criteria extinguish the heat source 30 minutes after ignition if no part of the cladding system is still burning terminate the test if flaming or monitored temperatures are still rising continue taking records for an
00:03:52 continue taking records for an additional 30 minutes up to the maximum test duration of 60 minutes
00:03:57 minutes dc 2.4 the test should also be terminated a flame spread extends above the test facility
00:04:05 facility or b if there is a risk for the safety of personnel or impending damage to equipment now you can see there that it says the test shall also be terminated now is it right
00:04:19 shall also be terminated now is it right that section 85 to your understanding at the time
00:04:23 the time march 14 represents the full early termination criteria um that is correct yes i think in the early versions this wasn't in the
00:04:34 versions this wasn't in the part one test but it came into this test um standard yes there's no other section is there
00:04:41 is there which tells the reader that for example the flame spread must be of a certain type
00:04:46 type or of a particular duration um no there isn't no you're correct
00:04:54 uh what is your understanding of why that wording is included in the test standard um the thing with
00:05:05 um the thing with fire testing is it's it's inherently dangerous to a certain extent um
00:05:13 the the the line b for example is obviously if there's impending risk to personnel which is obviously with this is the there's the priority from our side to make sure everybody goes home safely
00:05:27 make sure everybody goes home safely the flame spread above the facility um again it's it is a criteria that's there to
00:05:35 to give you at the grounds for termination
00:05:41 one of the things that we have is that that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to put the test out at that specific time
00:05:51 when do you they put that test out at a specific time do you mean extinguish it or terminate it yes yeah one of the issues you ha you can have is if you have early
00:06:04 you can have is if you have early termination it it doesn't necessarily show up on the thermocouples for the period of time that is required to actually fail the
00:06:16 that is required to actually fail the test on
00:06:17 test on on its temperature criteria so to a certain extent i would work to the the b section in that the risk of
00:06:28 the b section in that the risk of personnel and impending damage as my main criteria for terminating and then once the test was completed the test would officially be terminated
00:06:42 the test would officially be terminated following the review of the data so if we felt that the data was such that it it hadn't passed then it was terminated at that point
00:06:53 um there are a couple of things in there i just want to explore with you just the first is you say once the test was completed the test would officially be terminated following
00:07:03 following the review of the test data i'm not sure i really understand what you're saying there
00:07:07 there are you saying that there'd be an official declaration of termination after the test had been stopped yes yes based on the data that you reviewed yes
00:07:19 based on the data that you reviewed yes and the review of the video that's correct yes you're not saying that you would only terminate the the physical test after having reviewed the data that would be ridiculous no no no that's correct yes you're right yes let's clarify that
00:07:30 yes let's clarify that but going back to the first part of your answer you just told us uh that uh to a certain extent i would work to the b
00:07:40 the b section in in that the risk of personnel or impending damage um just going back if we can please to the standard do you accept that the mandatory
00:07:53 do you accept that the mandatory requirements for termination are one of two either if the flame spread extends above the test facility
00:08:05 the test facility or if there's a risk of safe to up to safety
00:08:08 safety or both at the same time yes you're correct
00:08:13 correct in that regard yes yes yes
00:08:17 and
00:08:20 why was it essential that the test be terminated if the flame spread extends above the test facility in other words what's the purpose of a
00:08:31 in other words what's the purpose of a um
00:08:32 um it's a a mark of performance to a certain extent um you don't have the choice do you to ignore a and go with b um
00:08:43 to ignore a and go with b um [Music]
00:08:45 [Music] there is to a certain extent some i wouldn't say leeway but this this had always been common practice
00:08:52 practice from day one um every single test i've ever performed with me or other people that has always been the way and it
00:09:03 been the way and it carried on in that regard it doesn't mean that the test would then subsequently go on and pass if that's what your
00:09:13 what your interpretation i'm trying to i might get from that you said in answers to my question that a is a mark of performance to a certain extent what do you mean by that
00:09:22 that what is it in a different way what's the purpose of the british standard containing a mandatory requirement for termination if flame spread extends above the test facility
00:09:33 um it's it means that the test the the sample cannot be um classified because you've you've terminated the test i understand that that's
00:09:44 that that's a great respect a circular answer what i want to know is what's the scientific reason
00:09:48 reason for the british standard requiring termination of the test if flame spread extends above the test facility um because it's the test the flaming on the sample is is
00:10:00 test the flaming on the sample is is bound by the top of the of the rig
00:10:07 yes understand that what's the problem with flames going above the rig that requires termination [Music]
00:10:17 in terms of the
00:10:20 the test there's the problem is that that's in in the test that's what is mandated in the test you're right um there's no problem in terms of
00:10:29 terms of what we did in practicality for that um i think we've never failed or passed something that
00:10:40 failed or passed something that hasn't subsequently been reviewed and then
00:10:43 then the the tester said look at that point even though we haven't stopped the test as in extinguished it the test has officially terminated at that point
00:10:54 officially terminated at that point let me have one more guy what i'm really trying to
00:10:57 trying to get out of you here is that is your understanding of the scientific rationale
00:11:03 rationale for a the scientific rationale behind the requirement that the test be terminated if flame spread extends above the test facility what is that it's indicating that the the
00:11:14 the performance of the system is poor enough that it
00:11:18 that it has exceeded the bounds of the facility right there's no more than that is it no that's not
00:11:30 do you accept that if flame spread extends above the facility the test must be terminated and you've got no discretion about that you can't choose i wouldn't say there's no discretion
00:11:42 i wouldn't say there's no discretion because
00:11:43 because termination can be viewed in in different ways we could say to the client and we have said to the client in in reality that this test
00:11:57 in in reality that this test in terms of how it's performed is being terminated we've said that to the client that the test as as is at the moment is being terminated
00:12:08 terminated but because they don't necessarily always
00:12:12 always understand um the mechanisms of things we do and have and always have um in the past if we deemed it to
00:12:24 um in the past if we deemed it to not be unsafe we would allow that system to carry on burning so that knowledge could be gained from how it performed in other ways
00:12:35 how it performed in other ways and that has always been the practice that
00:12:39 that i've always done it's always been with every other person that's ever run tests in the whole of my career so is it your evidence that the bre would uh
00:12:52 your evidence that the bre would uh not apply the mandatory criteria of 85a but apply a discretion as to whether to apply it or not no so it would be that we would say the
00:13:03 no so it would be that we would say the test
00:13:03 test has officially been terminated now but we could allow it to carry on burning um so it may interrupt i'm sorry mr
00:13:15 um so it may interrupt i'm sorry mr millet it seems to me that part of the problem here arises from the understanding of the words terminated if you look at uh criterion
00:13:27 if you look at uh criterion e which requires the test to be terminated if there's a risk to life or get to the maybe to the building that means
00:13:37 means terminate the test in a physical sense doesn't it it does say yes well why does the word terminated in the introductory language not mean the same um because
00:13:52 when you read it in that way you're right sir yes but um i think the practice
00:13:56 practice has always been that we try to get as much learning out of these tests as we can for um for the client
00:14:08 if you if you terminate something you never learn lessons you let failures are as valuable as passes in terms of
00:14:20 as passes in terms of understanding the mechanisms for failure and and if you just terminated everything as you you would never learn anything and no progress would have ever ever be made
00:14:31 no progress would have ever ever be made yeah all right thank you very much yes mr miller
00:14:33 mr miller do you accept that in electing to apply discretion as to whether to terminate the test
00:14:39 the test once flame spread extends above the test facility um you have to adhere to the mandatory requirements of the test standard um
00:14:52 i it's never been pointed out to me that's the case no no because i asked you do you accept that in applying the discretion you are deviating from the mandatory standards
00:15:05 deviating from the mandatory standards required by the bsi standard um in those terms and yes you're correct yes
00:15:11 yes but i would say it's not unusual in fire testing at all um that's
00:15:19 um that's yes from from my experience that's not unusual let me ask you this let's see if you can help me um would you accept that one of the purposes
00:15:29 purposes of a bs8414 test whether under part one or part two would be to test whether or not the full system
00:15:38 system adequately resists the spread of fire over the walls for the purposes of compliance with the proof document b and and the building regulation in particular uh yes that's correct yes and therefore
00:15:50 uh yes that's correct yes and therefore can we take it that if flame spread extends above the test facility the test had to be terminated because ipso facto that full system would not adequately
00:16:02 that full system would not adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls for that uh that is correct yes we're correct um now let's look at the footage um can we go please to bre four zero five six seven two please
00:16:23 five six seven two please and i should i'm reminded uh that i should give a trigger warning uh here there's there will be um there will be fire um shown in the video
00:16:35 bre all zeros five six seven two but before we start it i've just given a trigger warning perhaps we should just wait
00:16:41 wait ten seconds or so so that those who um the fire uh can avert their eyes
00:16:52 now just before we started i can ask a question this is this this is a section of the footage recorded by your head camera of the test carried out on the 19th of march 2014
00:17:03 march 2014 on k15 and trespa hpl isn't it that appears to be yes you've been given an opportunity to review this haven't you
00:17:11 you and the inquiries transcript i have today yes thank you now we can start the video at please uh three minutes um this clip this is about 24 minutes
00:17:24 um this clip this is about 24 minutes into the test if we can start it at 03.00
00:17:28 03.00 and please play to end
00:18:18 give it a couple seconds
00:18:29 give it a couple seconds that's all right
00:18:40 let's just bent the surface off fine
00:18:49 it's just hitting its igniting temperature it just hit its ignition temperature
00:19:26 still all right with me
00:19:35 right uh mr clark come can we now look please at the transcript of the
00:19:44 of the conversation we could hear fairly well actually on that uh video and audio this is a bre 4030s three
00:19:51 three five four one eight please
00:19:59 and i'd like to go please to page six in that exhibit
00:20:10 uh now uh can we look at the fifth line male speaker two uh do you see
00:20:23 uh do you see um i'm sorry we need to get i'm sorry i jumped ahead a little bit myself can we go to page three
00:20:36 i do apologize page three um
00:20:41 and uh on page three
00:20:47 in the fifth line down
00:20:52 you've got male speaker two
00:21:14 uh sorry so sorry i'm just trying to find the spot
00:21:19 the spot um i think it might be slightly further
00:21:28 down
00:21:42 uh yes um we've got male speaker two tom lennon bre
00:21:49 uh who says uh
00:21:57 who says i'm so sorry about this i've lost my place completely um male speaker two it says tom lennon bre in audible see the inaudible thermocouple wings sticking right out phil clark that's uh you male speaker
00:22:09 phil clark that's uh you male speaker one where
00:22:10 one where tom lennon first inaudible thermocouple up on the wing phil clark oh yeah it doesn't make any difference yeah no it doesn't uh and then it goes on um
00:22:23 uh i just want to show you a little bit further down
00:22:34 at page three under the heading bre zero is five six seven two
00:22:50 see that uh yes i think that the male speaker one is where the conversation starts are you right you're right i'm all right that's where the video started
00:23:01 the video started well speaker one phil clark bre you're right tom bell speaker one bill clark we might need to and then stephen howard guys do you want to move that way stephen had right come this way
00:23:13 stephen had right come this way then you say right give it just just grab um tom give it a couple of seconds give it a couple of seconds because it might be don't just be burning off uh i'll get on the hose just give me a shout okay
00:23:24 on the hose just give me a shout okay yeah yeah right that's all right it's just burned the surface off it's fine panic over it's just hit its ignition temperature that's you
00:23:32 you uh male speaker five unknowns sorry it's just hit its ignition temperature either marion with kingsman still all right though to me dunno uh would not like to say
00:23:44 uh and then uh keep going uh keep going down uh into the next section uh tomitoko i'm
00:23:55 uh into the next section uh tomitoko i'm happy to carry on this is you we'll just keep going and then tom lennon says we'll give it another five minutes unless you say otherwise
00:24:02 otherwise yeah yeah no it's all right it's calmed down it's warm isn't it this wasn't on that video yeah that's that's probably right
00:24:13 yeah that's that's probably right and then
00:24:24 i think the video ends male speaker one me
00:24:27 me um i i don't know would not like to say that's where the video ended uh yes it's right isn't it that uh you um could see uh and indeed said that
00:24:41 you um could see uh and indeed said that the
00:24:42 the flames were definitely over the top but it was for a very short time uh that's correct yes yes
00:24:50 why do you say that why do you say it was definitely over the top but it was for a really short time um because that's what happened it was it was
00:24:58 it was literally three three seconds maybe we could see this at the bottom of page five in another from another clip uh where you say uh got a feeling it
00:25:09 uh where you say uh got a feeling it might be quite short-lived it just flashed over the surface there didn't it yes yes uh and then at uh the next page of page five
00:25:20 uh the next page of page five um you see you say uh in the next video sorry at the end of this video yes turn itself off can you see if it comes back on
00:25:31 yes that was in reference to a camera which had turned itself off um now when you say it was definitely over the top but it was a really short time
00:25:40 time uh uh that would have required early determination on your part wouldn't it if you were adhering properly to the test standard um
00:25:51 test standard um yes and i think subsequently the the videos
00:25:54 videos were reviewed and it was um i decided that that was the termination point yeah no i understand that but in your observation which you've agreed with uh that it was definitely over the top
00:26:05 uh that it was definitely over the top but it was for a very short time would require early termination under the mandatory standard wouldn't it um if you read it that way yes yes
00:26:17 um if you read it that way yes yes yes it wasn't open to you to invent additional criteria for her determination was it um no i'm not i'm not inventing early criteria no
00:26:28 criteria no you couldn't choose to ignore the fact that the flames had over topped the rig even if it was for what you regarded as a short time um
00:26:39 um if you look at the standard in that way then no you're correct but the the problem you have is that in from past experience is that
00:26:51 past experience is that [Music]
00:26:53 [Music] the way the data is collected the data requires
00:26:58 requires um temperatures for to be exceeded for a period of 30 seconds and we've had on a number of occasions where
00:27:07 where something has happened where we've been in a position where um it's been terminated for a particular reason
00:27:15 reason and then subsequently looking at the temperature data it hasn't failed in that regard so we were in a position where to make
00:27:26 we were in a position where to make it more robust we were allowing it to carry on
00:27:32 carry on to to be absolutely certain
00:27:39 and and that had always been practice on and throughout my career with with every person who had ever done tests i've done tests with or with anything that i'd ever done
00:27:50 that i'd ever done yes but that would mean that you were introducing a level of discretion into the operation of the termination criteria wouldn't it
00:28:00 um if you put it that way to a certain extent yes and that's not allowed under the
00:28:07 the under the bsi is it there's nowhere near where it says it's up to the test operator to decide decide whether to terminate or when to terminate the test once flames exceed the top of the rig
00:28:20 no but you you learn from experience what's what is relevant i think the implication is that you're saying that had we terminated that the test would
00:28:31 had we terminated that the test would have failed at that point but the tests didn't then subsequently go on to pass any of the criteria so um it's a bit of a superfluous argument
00:28:44 um it's a bit of a superfluous argument matter of analysis that may be right but that's uh
00:28:47 that's uh we know that test termination is a physical act not
00:28:52 an official act indeed yes can we look at the can we look please at the next section of footage i want to show you please bre four zeros five six seven
00:29:01 seven seven
00:29:09 and i i'd like the video to be played please from 0.25 to 4.48 uh this is a long section i'm afraid
00:29:20 uh this is a long section i'm afraid it's about four minutes but um if we can please play that
00:29:38 so
00:29:52 um
00:30:08 yeah yeah
00:30:12 if that gets much worse tom if they get like another they get over a meter we'll not just have to knock it down you're certainly banging on that demon
00:30:34 um
00:30:48 nothing's down in my house
00:31:15 so can it fail if it is considering if it passes during the certain can you feel it if it's getting up there no yeah
00:31:27 what does it have to do um
00:31:44 um
00:31:58 so
00:32:06 it says um
00:33:08 let it
00:33:22 um
00:33:36 um
00:33:50 out
00:34:04 um right that was a bit long but we have the transcript here and i'm going to take you
00:34:09 take you through that now can we please go uh back
00:34:13 back to the transcript bre3035418 and i'd like to start please at page nine in that
00:34:24 under the bulb heading
00:34:32 under the bolt heading bre four zeros five six
00:34:35 five six seven seven they may need to enlarge it yes
00:34:39 yes we start with male speaker one and you've identified that as you and i'll just read it out that um you know that flash from the surface what happened there is the um inaudible but the panel has been heated up to its
00:34:51 but the panel has been heated up to its auto ignition temperature so basically everything inaudible i think you've added those words haven't you i think i have so yes and it just took off but you can see how
00:35:02 and it just took off but you can see how quickly it inaudible burned away it burned probably in audible ten to fifteen seconds male speaker six this is henry and brazier at kingspan you've identified that's why it was
00:35:13 you've identified that's why it was giving you color to the face of the panel isn't it and you say yeah yeah if it gets much worse tom if they get like another like if they get over a meter we might just have to knock it down
00:35:24 just have to knock it down banging on that beam at the moment but um
00:35:27 um then tom lemon says there's a lot of embers going up and over you say nothing's there's no um tom lennon i don't think it's going to go out oh there you go look you say got a hole in my hose
00:35:40 look you say got a hole in my hose sorry i walked in front of the camera you say that's all right i have a meredith says so can it fail if assuming it passed in during the 30 minutes can you fail it if it's getting up there now
00:35:51 it's getting up there now you say yeah he says what does it have to do though what's the you say flames above what you just have to call it a danger or something does it
00:36:02 or something does it you say um it says the standard says and i could pull it up what it says got it here it says um extinguished after 30 minutes um if no parts still burning terminate the
00:36:14 no parts still burning terminate the test
00:36:14 test if flaming monitor and temperature still rising continue recording for up to an additional 30 minutes a maximum of 60 minutes so we're inaudible um the tests are to be terminated
00:36:26 um the tests are to be terminated if spread when spread above the test facility
00:36:29 facility or risks personnel damage to equipment now were you re just pausing there were you reading paragraph 8.5 and particularly a to mr
00:36:40 paragraph 8.5 and particularly a to mr meredith at that point i was yes you had it on your ipad did you
00:36:44 you i did yes so you no doubt at all at that point that the uh the terms of the british standard were it actually physically in front of you
00:36:53 you yes you're correct and it goes on either meredith
00:36:57 meredith the flames spread above the test facility you say yeah i'm a meredith it did and you say that doesn't mean the burn hall though
00:37:09 the burn hall though burn a hole in the roof meredith says are you saying it went above that but you say it's gone above now he says i can't see it and you say you see it's died down a little bit
00:37:21 you see it's died down a little bit actually impacting on that beam up there he says but is that actually is that a fail or
00:37:28 fail or and you say well i'm i'm yeah and he's and then he says on the fence you say on the fence at the moment but it hasn't got any more than the impact onto that beam really so we're going to let it run and see
00:37:40 so we're going to let it run and see where it gets i said to tom if it gets like a meter or so above obviously we'll have to inaudible it does but at the moment it looks like the board is holding it in place and if that falls down it's going
00:37:52 place and if that falls down it's going to expose a bit i'm a meredith says yeah you say but it's also
00:37:57 it's also what um flash did over meredith that flash did
00:38:02 flash did you say it was definitely over the top but we'll have to watch it back and see how long it went for it wasn't for very long and a lesser man might have put that out no comment he
00:38:13 might have put that out no comment he says
00:38:14 says uh if you're going to burn things this is either meredith you're going to burn things you want to watch a proper fire and you say no wimping out halfway through
00:38:23 through now you've heard that the audio videos we've seen the video we've seen this transcript can i ask you this why would you need to watch it back and see how long it went
00:38:34 watch it back and see how long it went for
00:38:36 for um
00:38:39 because um it's ultimately it's not my decision to whether it will be pass or fail um so that's again i think we
00:38:49 we said this yesterday while i undertake the test
00:38:53 the test the decision of to how it performs is undertaken by other people so that's that would be the review that would have been undertaken you could see from as you've confirmed from the criteria that you had in front
00:39:05 from the criteria that you had in front of you that you had to stop the test if flames went above the rig yes um that's what the standard says yes yes yes and you you actually read the words at the time yes so
00:39:19 read the words at the time yes so in terms of what would be reported it would say in the test report that the test was terminated at that point
00:39:31 yes just answer my question i know the test so
00:39:35 test so that if the test to my mind is the bit where you're collecting data to go
00:39:43 to go into the report and which is then used for classification once the test is terminated
00:39:54 once the test is terminated as in you've stopped collecting the data for the purposes um of classification or whatever you as bre had always done and
00:40:05 as bre had always done and i've done it through the whole of my career and nobody has ever corrected me so
00:40:09 so it was common practice to allow that to burn
00:40:13 burn for the client to get additional data so the test
00:40:17 the test officially is terminated but the fire was allowed to burn so that was the difference and i i understand what you mean but as
00:40:28 and i i understand what you mean but as i say that was always common practice from what what we had done
00:40:33 had done now can you answer my question please yes sir the question was you had the text of the test in front of you didn't you i did yes and there are no criteria
00:40:47 i did yes and there are no criteria in the text of the test criteria that you had in front of you before the duration of uh flame spread above the test facility no there isn't
00:40:58 no there isn't correct so were you applying your own discretion as to how long you would let the flames rise above the test facility
00:41:10 rise above the test facility before the test
00:41:15 in that regard yes yes and you agree with me that there is in fact is no discretion afforded to the tester in the test standard
00:41:24 standard in that way is that uh no if you read it in those regards i know you're correct no why were you applying a discretion in whether or not to terminate the test
00:41:35 terminate the test which doesn't exist in the test standard because that is common practice that had always been undertaken and i was doing what had always been done so i had no reason um
00:41:51 common practice or or not do you accept that the common practice was a deviation from the requirements of the test standard
00:41:59 standard um if you by meaning if if it goes over the top you have to extinguish the whole of the facility then
00:42:06 then you're correct yes
00:42:09 and this this deviation from the test test standard in that sense was something by the bre as standard practice is that your
00:42:20 as standard practice is that your evidence
00:42:21 evidence um
00:42:24 i would say yes but officially the test was terminated it's it's yes i understand where you're coming from um
00:42:35 understand where you're coming from um but yes um i think i don't think it's unusual for tests to carry on for for um data gathering purposes
00:42:49 now we're going to play another piece of footage this is the uh announcement one um can we go to bre four zeros five six seven eight please and i'd like
00:43:00 and i'd like this to be played from 1 33 to 4 57 it's about three minutes there with us but it's
00:43:07 but it's it's useful and then i'll show you the transcript which i know you've reviewed so bre four zeros five six seven eight please
00:43:20 but they are they're just transient
00:43:24 it's not the actual test facility but it doesn't it doesn't say what sort of lens just says flames
00:43:37 i think i'm involved in the rewrite so
00:43:52 green
00:44:48 um
00:45:02 then
00:45:58 so
00:46:05 delete the whole sentence on the truck
00:46:36 i think it might be
00:46:46 now can we go to the transcript please back to bre four zeros five six seven eight mr clark
00:46:57 four zeros five six seven eight mr clark uh sorry bre three zero three five four one
00:47:01 one eight it's the transcript we've just seen the video and go to page twelve
00:47:12 and uh if we start at the top of page 12 we can see male speaker five second entry down either married with kingspan he says but they are transient flames you see that
00:47:28 it's not the action test facility on top of that you but it doesn't say doesn't say what sort of flames just says flames so i think um meredith i'm involved in the rewrite so
00:47:39 meredith i'm involved in the rewrite so i might have to clarify that you just put green flames or something like that i'm not seeing that sort of surface burning so very so badly for a long time
00:47:50 long time meredith well inaudible because it wasn't really eating away at that it was sort of concentrating on that side
00:47:57 that side you that shows you why you put the wing wall in because it um meredith pushes it you heats up sorry yeah heats up and then some inaudibles
00:48:08 inaudibles and then meredith inaudible frame would be good for another one then that'll do yeah you between you and me and the something camera yeah uh-huh flames above the rig i will
00:48:19 yeah uh-huh flames above the rig i will put and he writes uh sorry you right um meredith can't you just delete the whole sentence you i will something writing you're writing down i think it might be
00:48:30 writing down i think it might be then there's an audible in a minute it looks like that board just collapsed in now it's right isn't it just reading that um
00:48:40 it's right the bs8414 doesn't actually give you any sort of specification about what sort of flame spread above the rig should lead to termination or not be determination
00:48:52 termination or not be determination uh no you're correct yes yes um one thing that's just come to mind i think at this point um the kingspan were also asking about
00:49:03 the kingspan were also asking about criteria
00:49:04 criteria um and looking for what is the lps 1582 standard um and in in that it all that does actually define
00:49:15 in that it all that does actually define i think i've said in my statement that does define how you um it does state how you define flaming um and it it says essentially
00:49:26 flaming um and it it says essentially not transient but um consistent flame for a period of 60 seconds so that in terms of what you said there was and i think i've said this in my
00:49:37 was and i think i've said this in my statement was the criteria to a certain extent i was working to because one of the things organizations like kingspan were looking to do was to potentially use this data for the lps
00:49:50 potentially use this data for the lps 1582
00:49:51 1582 requirement as well if you look at the bottom of page 12 of the transcript please
00:50:00 you can see four entries up from the bottom you say
00:50:11 uh between you me and the inaudible camera see that uh and there's yeah and then you say
00:50:22 uh and there's yeah and then you say flames above the rig i will put and then you're writing see that i do yes um and then he says can't you just delete the whole sentence
00:50:33 whole sentence and you say i will put and then you write
00:50:38 what was it that mr meredith was suggesting that you delete um if i remember correctly i put in there
00:50:47 there flames above the system review the video i think um something like that say if i remember correctly
00:50:57 correctly have you refreshed your memory i i think i've seen the text yes i think that's if i recall correctly that's what i put what text
00:51:06 what text i think it's in my statement somewhere i think
00:51:09 think sorry did you are these notes yes because because this subsequently went on to be disputed um as part of the dispute
00:51:21 be disputed um as part of the dispute all of this um footage was reviewed and uh
00:51:25 uh and the text of that is in this statement here as part of that right and just be clear your notes that you were making at the time were they preserved uh yeah they've been given as far as i'm
00:51:37 uh yeah they've been given as far as i'm aware did you review them for the purposes of your statement i did yes yes we may have to come back to that
00:51:43 to that uh but uh did did what were you writing down as i've said i just i i i'm sure i put flames
00:51:54 i i i'm sure i put flames uh transient flames or something above um review the video or something like that
00:52:03 and did you delete or make the deletion that mr meredith asked for no i didn't know
00:52:11 i think it was just him joking
00:52:16 right right
00:52:23 can i then take you to a small section of footage from the near the end of the test at bre 40 5679 and can we please start that at 4.20
00:52:36 and can we please start that at 4.20 and then play that to the end
00:53:26 now let's go to the transcript please at bre 303 5418 at page 14 at the top of page 14.
00:53:42 at page 14 at the top of page 14. uh and uh
00:53:47 at the top of that page second entry down you see male speaker five as you and and you say it's actually the panel's burning that far down the something
00:53:58 far down the something inaudible isn't it a flame moving is still transient isn't it inaudible floating up or are they not still transient planes of 59 minutes uh and then you say again well
00:54:10 uh and then you say again well can i just say something now i think um i think i've misidentified male speaker five i think that should read either mereness
00:54:17 mereness all right fine i was going to ask you that look that yeah that's all that there were two that must be either meredith this is you male speaker
00:54:23 speaker one well it doesn't it doesn't define what sort of flame it just says flames above the test facility you could argue they weren't big flames and that they didn't pose a danger
00:54:36 and then if we go perhaps uh
00:54:41 to uh the just a little bit down the page there's another video clip i'm not going to show you but under bra405680 you can see um
00:54:52 you can see um the first thing you say though it didn't pose a danger that day so you can argue that you see that yes i do yes
00:54:59 do yes i mean on what basis could you argue that these flames weren't big flames or that they didn't pose a danger
00:55:10 flames or that they didn't pose a danger a dangerous of the the to the facility is that what i meant in that regard right but but why would the size of the flames of the nature of the flames be relevant
00:55:21 the nature of the flames be relevant um because we're my my main the main criteria when we're testing in that facility is to make sure that everybody is safe so that that's my
00:55:33 that everybody is safe so that that's my criteria in that regard um that's that's what i meant in terms of that i didn't mean they weren't in the real world they wouldn't potentially pose a danger
00:55:46 um but do you accept that the size of flames
00:55:51 flames isn't a matter for your discretion in deciding whether to terminate the test or not
00:55:57 or not um you're correct yes or whether the flames are dangerous as you as an observer might see it um
00:56:08 see it um no but that's why there are other criteria in there that are used to um to determine how our system performed why are you suggesting this as an
00:56:19 why are you suggesting this as an argument an argument by whom um i i i mean an argument as in it's a discussion point it's um
00:56:31 point it's um yeah i don't i don't know what i meant there now
00:56:34 there now no why were you assisting mr meredith who was after all the the client the test sponsor in thinking of potential arguments
00:56:45 in thinking of potential arguments in favor of exercising a discretion based on flame size or flame nature when um considering whether or not the test should be terminated um i don't think that's how i meant it
00:56:57 um i don't think that's how i meant it so it's not his decision to argue or otherwise as whether test is terminated or not that's ultimately the decision falls with bre and and
00:57:07 and and my understanding is that the test was deemed to have been terminated although
00:57:14 although the flames themselves weren't actually extinguished the tape the test was deemed to have been terminated at 58 minutes which is reflected in the in the report that was issued what do
00:57:25 in the report that was issued what do you say you can argue did you mean one could argue
00:57:30 sorry well you say you see it it's on the screen at the moment male speaker one that's you just yes i understand
00:57:43 still you're presenting to the test sponsor arguments that you considered to be sound about why the test shouldn't be terminated based on flame size weren't you um
00:57:57 if you read it in that way but no no that's not how it was meant no why was there any discussion about any of this why didn't you simply terminate the test on the basis of the flames that over top the rig
00:58:09 over top the rig end of story [Music]
00:58:13 [Music] because that's we we work with people to get as much information as they can
00:58:20 they can i think like i said earlier if you if you just
00:58:23 you just start terminating tests in that regard then you never learn anything you never learn how things perform in the real world
00:58:40 and one of the other things is that um i had a senior staff member there who who
00:58:47 who um hadn't said you need to terminate the tests here and and and this was common practice can we go back to the bottom of page 12
00:58:58 can we go back to the bottom of page 12 please
00:59:02 uh oh and that's something in relation to the previous uh audio just and there's something there that uh i they think i completed
00:59:13 uh i they think i completed my questioning on if you go to the bottom of page 12 you can see that um uh four lines uh up i put to you between you me and the inaudible camera see that yes yes it says
00:59:26 see that yes yes it says and then you say flames above the rig i will put and then your writing he asks you to delete the whole sentence and then at the top of page 13 you say i will put and then you're writing
00:59:37 writing uh it looks from that and that you were writing your notes in collaboration with mr meredith
00:59:48 in collaboration with mr meredith um no because he didn't say why don't you put this i wrote it he didn't change he he said i think he said
00:59:59 he he said i think he said jokingly couldn't you just delete the whole sentence
01:00:04 um and i wasn't collaborating with him no
01:00:07 no well he asks you can't you just delete the whole sentence forgive me can i put it to you please he says
01:00:14 says can't you just delete the whole sentence you say
01:00:17 you say i will put what were you putting in response to his question or request to delete the whole sentence um i i think i put review the video
01:00:31 right i think he said jokingly couldn't you have just deleted the whole sentence so
01:00:37 so why are you allowing mr meredith to have any discussion with you at all about your
01:00:41 your notes um
01:00:45 notes um he wasn't but he was with great respect this is what this transcript shows you're having a discussion about what you should enter in your notes yeah if like i said earlier if i thought i
01:00:58 if like i said earlier if i thought i had anything to hide i wouldn't be wearing this helmet camera i've got nothing to hide in terms of what i did um i all i probably put was some clarification
01:01:09 clarification to say review this at a later date there's no collaboration in any way shape or form there right
01:01:20 shape or form there right so in response to his request to delete you made
01:01:24 you made you made a change you then put review video
01:01:27 video that was a change i think isn't it that was an addition right edition addition yes they use you put an edition into your notes based on a discussion indeed a request
01:01:39 based on a discussion indeed a request from
01:01:40 from uh mr meredith yes no he didn't request it i
01:01:43 it i did it under my own volition i would have probably put that anyway
01:01:50 my question you put an audition into your notes
01:01:54 during the course of a conversation about what you should write that you were having with mr meredith no he never at any point did he tell me what to write he never he never suggested i write
01:02:05 he never he never suggested i write anything
01:02:06 anything well he did but maybe you didn't comply with that
01:02:09 with that but you certainly wrote your notes i put it again
01:02:12 it again during the course of the conversation with mr meredith about what your notes should say um i disagree let's look at your witness statement uh
01:02:23 let's look at your witness statement uh please paragraph 239
01:02:34 please paragraph 239 age 59 and you say subsequent examination data indicated that regardless of the presence of observed flaming over the test facility the temperature was still rising on the
01:02:45 the temperature was still rising on the external face of the facade and within the cavity after the normal 30 minutes termination time for the crib as such the test would have been required to continue for the full 60 minutes duration
01:02:58 uh in your view on a subsequent examination of both the video footage and the test data that test was a fail wasn't it uh it was yes
01:03:09 yes yes and indeed you go on a paragraph 240 as we can see to say that it wasn't suitable for classification to be r135 yes indeed just this in other words a
01:03:21 yes indeed just this in other words a fail
01:03:22 fail yes yes and is it right that you were fully supported in that view by stephen howard that is my understanding which is yes did anybody else from the bre review any
01:03:34 did anybody else from the bre review any of the video footage from this test i think um i think tony baker may have right i think there's a video
01:03:45 there's a video sorry an email that suggests that three people had viewed it
01:03:50 um and and stephen howard was actually present at the test as well can we go back to your statement please at page 54 paragraph 224
01:04:15 and you um identify a dispute an exchange which led to kingspan's dispute being escalated and treated as formal complaint within the bre ultimately dealt with by bre's
01:04:27 the bre ultimately dealt with by bre's compliance team can we look at the complaint summary which is a bre four zero sorry three zeros one five six three six
01:04:51 and if we start by looking at the top right hand corner you'll see there's a date february 2013
01:05:02 there's a date february 2013 which is obviously an error because the internal audit report is dated the 6th of june 2014. i think that date at the top sir is actually the references when the document was put together
01:05:14 document was put together i was going to ask you it looks as if this was a a bre form and so this is the 6th of february 2013 the date the form was created yes i think that's correct the actual
01:05:25 yes i think that's correct the actual report is dated the 6th of june 2014. yes that's correct yes i see now looking at page 1 under general summary background it says the purpose of this investigation was to determine if the kings span cladding fire performance
01:05:38 kings span cladding fire performance test reference 293 941 that was the 19th of march
01:05:42 of march test wasn't it yes carried out in accordance with bs 841 for part 2 2005 br
01:05:49 br 135 and bsen iso 17025 of 2005. the test was carried out by phil clark and a representative of king spammers present during the test
01:06:00 present during the test the main grounds for the complaint was that the client disputes the outcome of the fire performance test 293 941 carried out on the 19th of march 2014 no classification was given as phil
01:06:11 no classification was given as phil clark observed and took photographic evidence of the plane spreading above the test facility do you agree uh and if you don't agree please tell tell me that that is an accurate summary of the complaint um
01:06:25 an accurate summary of the complaint um yes i i think they were arguing the flames over the top yes can we go to page two please under testing
01:06:39 the test data was reviewed it says uh with phil clark and the following was noted
01:06:46 noted and in particular just focus on paragraph
01:06:50 paragraph one it says there the cladding wall logger and thermocouples in 38845 and six was last calibrated on the 18th of september 2012
01:07:02 september 2012 and was due calibration on 24th september 2013 this is now classed as a major non-conformance do you know how that major non-conformance was dealt with so far as you remember
01:07:13 you remember um my recollection is that we commissioned our internal audit and calibration team to
01:07:24 internal audit and calibration team to immediately undertake a review of the logger
01:07:28 logger [Music]
01:07:30 [Music] who was responsible for the calibration of the wall loggers and the thermocouples um that at that time fell under my duration
01:07:41 that at that time fell under my duration jurisdiction right can you account for how uh there had been a gap of some 18 months between september 12 and
01:07:54 some 18 months between september 12 and march 14 in the calibration and how come there was no calibration on the new on the due date 24th september 2013.
01:08:03 2013. um so it's so good
01:08:15 sorry what was the date of the test uh the date of the test was the 19th of march 2014. um no i can't
01:08:31 and it was your job to recalibrate it but you didn't do it um there was a period um from march 2013
01:08:46 from march 2013 until about may 2013 while i was um off with long-term sick um but i can't account for the other
01:08:57 um but i can't account for the other period of time it was on occasions very difficult to get the um our internal chat to come down and because because of his workload as well
01:09:08 because because of his workload as well but um
01:09:10 but um i can't account for that necessarily no other than the absence from the office due to long-term sick
01:09:19 that absence from the office wouldn't explain why there was no calibration on the 24th of september 2013 or thereafter would it um no not necessarily no
01:09:31 um no not necessarily no um what effect did you understand that this uh long calibration had or could have had
01:09:42 long calibration had or could have had on tests to bs8414 carried out um uh the
01:09:49 um uh the last calibration date and the particularly the december 13 calibration date
01:09:57 date um if if it had been picked up by for example um ucas they would give you um they would note it
01:10:08 it and they would give you seven days to
01:10:12 get it sorted out and i think in this case it was it was checked and it was found to still be compliant there was no no issues raised
01:10:25 so so even if it was done this was done by an external auditing organization they would give you the that period of time to rectify it
01:10:37 period of time to rectify it and then you would need to demonstrate that it had no detrimental effect to the readings
01:10:46 so are you saying that in fact there was a review
01:10:50 a review of all the thermocouple data since the 24th of september 2014 uh and before the date when uh it was checked and all the
01:11:02 when uh it was checked and all the results were checked again and re-verified is that what happened uh that's my understanding yes
01:11:09 yes where do you how do you understand that what's the source of your understanding that that would be the process as far as i'm i can remember that the the logger was
01:11:18 was was definitely recalibrated um and the checks were done i can't remember who by whom i know i know who would have done undertaking the the calibration but um i don't know
01:11:32 the calibration but um i don't know who else would have checked the other stuff was the check on the historic uh thermocouple and wall over figures between september
01:11:43 and wall over figures between september 2013 and the date when the verification was done carried out internally or externally um it would have been done internally yes
01:11:53 yes um we had a gentleman who worked in the calibration team a gentleman called steve wright and would there have been a report um yes it would have gone into the into the
01:12:05 yes it would have gone into the into the system yes and in that case i think somewhere in my um witness statement that i i kept a file of
01:12:17 kept a file of calibration certificates and they were also kept electronically on the bre central system right well i don't think we've seen those
01:12:27 those so i think we need to see those did you yourself uh review the report in order to satisfy yourself that notwithstanding the
01:12:37 the failure of recalibration of either the warlord or the thermocouples um
01:12:43 um the data that was produced by any tests was not materially inaccurate um i can't recall specifically doing that
01:12:54 i can't recall specifically doing that no
01:12:55 no what was it not was it not your job to make sure
01:12:59 make sure that and to satisfy yourself that the tests
01:13:02 tests that have been done between those dates and reports produced on the basis of the data produced during those between those dates
01:13:10 dates uh were were not materially inaccurate i i probably did but i just as i say i can't recall specifically having doing that exercise but um
01:13:22 having doing that exercise but um you would remember it because it would be quite an exercise to do you would have gone back and reviewed all the thermocouple data warlock updates wall dogger data all of the tests following the date when the recalibration was due that
01:13:33 when the recalibration was due that would be quite a substantial exercise would it not uh yeah probably then i probably think it wasn't done then if that's if i don't remember if i don't recall doing it then
01:13:44 recall doing it then the exercise in in the way you put it probably wasn't done then that would be quite a serious lapse wouldn't it because it would mean that you were taking the risk uh that out there there were tests test reports classification reports
01:13:56 reports classification reports and based on thermocouple data and wall logger data um done after the 24th of september 2013 um which might be materially inaccurate
01:14:07 um which might be materially inaccurate um
01:14:08 um [Music]
01:14:09 [Music] now you you can tell when there's something wrong with data no but you can't tell if you don't look um
01:14:17 um yeah you can yeah you can you could tell well there's something wrong with the data if you don't go back and check it is that what you're saying yes yes
01:14:27 yes yes the thing with the with the with the data is
01:14:30 data is particularly with thermocouples they either work or they don't um and yes
01:14:39 and yes well it's not it's not a light switch is it and the thermocouple is a they are like a light switch like a thermometer aren't they they they measure heat they do measure heat just yes and you can get them to a
01:14:51 just yes and you can get them to a certain tolerance and we we bought the um highest tolerance you could get and um they they they sort of are because they're
01:15:03 they they sort of are because they're essentially two wires and if one of the wires breaks then it will stop working um what was it calibrating what was the
01:15:14 what was it calibrating what was the point of having uh required calibration dates
01:15:20 um to check whether the the logger is working consistently and to an agreed accuracy
01:15:25 accuracy yes and if you don't check that it's working to an agreed accuracy and consistently then there is a risk isn't there that
01:15:36 then there is a risk isn't there that tests done on an unchecked system that might be done on the basis of figures that don't accurately and consistently reflect the true uh
01:15:45 true uh thing that the thermocouple and logger are measuring yes there is that risk yes and in order to ensure that that risk had no consequences it was your responsibility surely um to
01:15:58 it was your responsibility surely um to once the
01:15:58 once the recalibration had been done to check whether or not there had been any material
01:16:04 material discrepancy uh between the shape figures and the figures uh as as originally um produced by the tests uh
01:16:15 um produced by the tests uh yes i think what would have what would have happened and i i didn't undertake this test this this you know obviously the internal audit um was undertaken by somebody else
01:16:27 was undertaken by somebody else um and i was relying on what their suggestions were to and what the actions were to do
01:16:35 my understanding is that the the logger was um
01:16:39 was um calibrated was found to have absolutely no errors and was in within the standards that it had always been and no action was recommended from the audit team so um
01:16:54 that's the logger what about the thermocouples the thermocouples and the logger is part and the same thing
01:17:02 thing so we would change the thermocouples um as when they braked or they stopped working
01:17:11 working but they had already come in from the um the manufacturer with um an audit certificate um we used
01:17:22 with um an audit certificate um we used to buy them as batches labeled batches and they would come in with a certificate of conformity and we had them um um calibrated by the supplier in batches
01:17:37 mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much mr millet
01:17:42 millet um well mr clark we'll have our usual morning break at this point we'll resume your evidence at 25 to 12 please and uh once again
01:17:54 12 please and uh once again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while we're in the break okay so thank you very much see you a bit later thank you very much
01:35:26 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing from mr clark mr clark can you see me and hear me
01:35:33 hear me well i can see you and hear you say yes okay good thank you very much and and you're ready to carry on i hope i am yes good thank you uh when you're ready then mr millet yes thank you very much mr chairman um
01:35:45 yes thank you very much mr chairman um mr clark
01:35:46 mr clark um by oversight there was a passage of video
01:35:49 video that i did not show you i apologize for that
01:35:53 that can i show it to you now it's bre-405674 and there's a transcript associated with it which i will also then show you
01:36:04 it which i will also then show you we've already discussed it but i will show it to you properly so that it goes into the record formally bre 4-0 is five six seven four and can that please be played from three minutes twenty-five to four minutes forty-one
01:36:36 right
01:36:50 i never feel anything out at the top over the circle that might have been thoughtless enough
01:37:04 um
01:37:18 oh
01:37:25 i think only about a minute
01:37:49 now um i'd like please to show you the transcript of that video so we can see the audio written down bre three zeros three five four one eight page six please
01:38:08 and uh if we go within page six that we start uh in the fifth line uh where you can see
01:38:24 uh you say uh yeah it was very short-lived so it just burnt itself out but it's come round
01:38:31 round into this wing tom lennon's still traveling upwards yeah it's up above he says um are there any fire breaks in this you oh
01:38:41 oh um sorry you there are yeah tom lennon horizontal ones and then i think lennon again
01:38:48 again inaudible it looks like there's a fire break there and there's flaming above it actually right up the center you see that intermittent flaming
01:38:56 flaming that looks like it's above the barrier you yeah i never saw anything at the top only the surface but that might have been short-lived enough not to have um lennon says
01:39:08 enough not to have um lennon says don't think there's enough energy in this now to get it going and you say but that was after the 15 minutes anyway so um and it's a burn off very quickly lennon i never saw any flaming at the
01:39:19 lennon i never saw any flaming at the top i looked in the side there as well you say no it was definitely over the top but it was really short time inaudible the gopro turned itself off again
01:39:30 again do that keep it warm huh cool i mean the only
01:39:33 only i think only about a minute before a couple of minutes before the end i've got it all on this anyway made sure i've been watching okay
01:39:44 i've been watching okay and then it goes on about files um when you say i've got it all on this anyway what was this i think i meant my helmet camera
01:39:56 well uh oh i see but you said the gopro turned itself off there's a discussion about that you said i've got it all on this anyway was there a separate recording device apart from the gopro
01:40:07 the gopro um no i don't think so there were a couple of cameras um i think one of the one of the cameras turned itself off but i said i've got it on this as in
01:40:19 i said i've got it on this as in my helmet camera uh now um this is the passage uh that i was putting to you and i was asking you about whether the flames were definitely over the top and would require early termination
01:40:30 termination uh and you answered the questions on that
01:40:34 that and just to confirm now having just seen the video
01:40:38 the video and the transcript of it if the flames were definitely over the top why wasn't the test terminated in accordance with the criteria paragraph 8.5 a of bs8414 um
01:40:51 bs8414 um as i say i agree with what you said um the
01:40:58 um the it it's something that always always been
01:41:01 been common practice and i'd i had no reason to question it and and this is even common practice with tests where sarah caldwell who's who sits on the committee for it had had always said
01:41:14 committee for it had had always said let's carry on so i'd taken it as that's what we
01:41:18 what we did and that was common practice so um does it does it not follow from the language
01:41:27 language of paragraph 8.5 of bs8414 the termination of the test the purposes of that standard automatically equates to extinguishing the fire on the test
01:41:38 to extinguishing the fire on the test rig
01:41:39 rig um no no not to my mind
01:41:44 so you can you extinguish the fire but not determine it not terminate the test or
01:41:49 or you can terminate the test but it doesn't
01:41:53 doesn't necessarily require you in my understanding of how it had always been done is to it didn't necessarily require you to extinguish the flame
01:42:09 now when you said you were on the fence uh was that about extinguishing the fire on the rig or was that about whether or not the
01:42:21 or was that about whether or not the test would be a pass or a fail uh that was a tester it was a thing as i when i say on the on the fence i didn't want to say yes it has no it hasn't i just was not
01:42:32 yes it has no it hasn't i just was not willing to give an opinion on what on whether it had how it performed
01:42:38 performed i mean parcel fail yes yes so you were on the fence about whether it would have passed or failed it was a a polite way no i i was and fully understood at what point
01:42:49 understood at what point i i deemed at that point that it had failed
01:42:54 failed but it's not my job to tell the client what i think it i'm not allowed to say that so it was my polite way of saying no i can't say that in a way shorthand for that i just want to get
01:43:05 shorthand for that i just want to get your evidence clear what you were on the fence about was whether the test had passed or failed no i wasn't on the fence for that it was i it was my polite way of saying i can't confirm either way
01:43:17 way of saying i can't confirm either way it's not my job versus the past or failed that it had passed a trial yesterday let's uh look at the notes of the test that you referred to in your evidence just before the break and i asked you
01:43:29 just before the break and i asked you about those um uh and whether you amended those notes in response to what either meredith told you can we look at those please bre 3032362
01:43:40 can we look at those please bre 3032362 please at page 62.
01:43:58 uh and uh this is
01:44:04 an email that looks like that looks like you you sent it to yourself on the 2nd of june that's correct yes uh and uh
01:44:18 that's correct yes uh and uh can you explain what this document is so that's the notes that i would type as as various things happen throughout the um throughout the test the test was in march this email was in june
01:44:30 march this email was in june 2014. yes why the by the gap um
01:44:36 um [Music]
01:44:38 [Music] i have no idea um if you look below down it you can see there are lots of timings there yes you see all that yes with ignition
01:44:49 yes you see all that yes with ignition at naught
01:44:51 at naught and then you say at the bottom of the first
01:44:56 first um chunk of text you say surface flash to full height and then 39 minutes uh flaming behind panel at 5.5 meters
01:45:09 uh flaming behind panel at 5.5 meters and then 43 minutes transient flaming above rig on surfaces 6.5 meters review video do we take it from your evidence earlier that you added the words review video
01:45:20 words review video in response to mr meredith's request to delete what you'd already written there yes yeah that was that was what i referred to yes and i've just shown you the words after
01:45:33 and i've just shown you the words after 23 minutes [Â __Â ] collapse surface flash to full
01:45:36 to full height um we haven't heard that on the video we'll see that in the transcript about where you you say that where i say what sorry
01:45:49 you you say that where i say what sorry well when you say surface flash to full height it doesn't correspond does it with the orbit sorry so this
01:45:56 so this this information is my typed notes it's not a note of the trend that is not the transcript of what was said but no i i i accept that and i'm not i'm not suggesting to you that it is
01:46:08 not suggesting to you that it is my point is that the description of what happened in these tight notes surf is flashed to full height that does not correspond to where we heard you on the vid on the audio uh say that the flames were definitely
01:46:21 uh say that the flames were definitely over the top um no no part of the reason why the camera was worn and other things was it gives us the ability to look at things post-test because obviously you can see there was lots of running around
01:46:33 can see there was lots of running around and
01:46:35 and making sure people were safe and out the way and you don't always have time to sit there and type in real time now we've seen you say at 43 minutes transient flaming
01:46:46 at 43 minutes transient flaming above the rig where you say surface flash to full height 23 minutes is there a reason why you haven't written flames definitely over the top
01:46:55 the top as we've heard on the audio um no i think that was that um again in the with all the other things that were going on that's probably all i had
01:47:06 going on that's probably all i had the time to write at the time did you not review the gopro or the audio and visio that we've seen
01:47:13 seen before writing these notes now these were would have been written on the day right they're written in real time yes i understand that uh and you would
01:47:24 yes i understand that uh and you would have then had plenty of time to go back and review the audio with the video to check the notes you took in real time against the audio and video record in
01:47:35 against the audio and video record in real time
01:47:36 real time that's correct i think i think um the test report and there is a another
01:47:46 bit of this information where that expands on the as you say i've filled in the gaps there and also um there's there was a review of the video that was undertaken so all of that
01:47:57 video that was undertaken so all of that is
01:47:58 is is noted in that i think it's somewhere further down in my witness statement can you explain why nowhere in this uh these notes you wrote flames definitely over the top as we heard you
01:48:09 definitely over the top as we heard you say
01:48:09 say during the test um as i say i'm typing in the middle of a very dynamic
01:48:19 dynamic situation um what i would do is i would email the raw notes as they were to myself
01:48:26 myself at my bre account and then as part of the review that would be done later so these are the raw un abridged straight off of the notes and then that was done later yes i
01:48:39 and then that was done later yes i understand that i understand what you're saying but these are both sets of data the audio video and these notes are both real-time records i understand that yes yes the question is why when making the real-time record
01:48:51 is why when making the real-time record on the day as per these notes did you not write
01:48:54 not write uh the flames were definitely over the top um because it's a very dynamic thing it's not as you can see we were all running around um and then once that
01:49:06 um and then once that over had been done i'd moved on to the next section of the thing and obviously hadn't gone back on the day to correct my notes as but flames definitely over top is only
01:49:18 but flames definitely over top is only four words what was the problem with writing those in here on the day at the time during um there was no problem with my talk but
01:49:32 what i'm really suggesting to you is that there's an element of um amelioration sweetening the message in these days you didn't want to record the fact that your observation was that
01:49:43 the fact that your observation was that these flames over top the rig and that therefore the test had to be terminated in accordance with paragraph 8.5 a
01:49:49 8.5 a of the british standard no not at all no i totally totally disagree with that why then didn't you record the fact that flames were over topping the rig on the day as i've explained it's a very
01:50:03 on the day as i've explained it's a very dynamic situation we're doing other things i've got people asking me very various questions there was no intent to deceive in that way it was just
01:50:14 deceive in that way it was just something and later on as i say that was all reviewed and that was all put into the test report now can we go back then please to
01:50:23 please to where we were before the break which is the complaint summary bre 40 is one five six three six uh i'd like to go back to page two which
01:50:34 uh i'd like to go back to page two which is where we were and pick up in the list under the heading testing item five this time internal test procedures and result sheets are not controlled
01:50:52 result sheets are not controlled yeah i do yes sorry now despite kingspan's formal complaint or appeal about this decision
01:51:00 decision and it's right isn't it that the bre's position held and the system was never classified to br 135 by the bre was it that is my core that is my understanding that's correct
01:51:11 that is my understanding that's correct yes yes
01:51:13 yes yes uh just on five on on item five internal test procedures the result sheets not being controlled and did you understand what that was a reference to
01:51:25 reference to um i think it refers do you know at the beginning when you showed this this document i said about the date at the top and i think that is the control the document control so it basically says when it's
01:51:36 so it basically says when it's logged into the system um and essentially formed turns it into a formal document i think that was the thing that they hadn't been entered in the system
01:51:47 hadn't been entered in the system following that protocol i think
01:51:55 that makes sense what hadn't been entered into the system the document we're looking at here if you don't mind quickly going up to the top of the at
01:52:06 quickly going up to the top of the at the
01:52:07 the page right see where it says bre global forms internal audit reform it's got doc number revision number date page two of four of
01:52:20 date page two of four of i think that was a reference to that the documents we had and we used didn't have that header on it that's what that meant
01:52:31 on it that's what that meant right um you see item five is a despite the failure of the test as i put you item five um is an observation that internal test procedures and result sheets aren't controlled it was it was what was
01:52:43 aren't controlled it was it was what was noted
01:52:44 noted as a result of the review of the test data with you could you just tell us what it was that was noted which led to the conclusion that internal test procedures and result sheets are not controlled
01:52:55 sheets are not controlled i think that's what i've just explained is that the documents that we had they were on the system but they weren't in this formal control document so that document number that you see at the top of the page f036 is what they would be classed as a
01:53:08 f036 is what they would be classed as a controlled document right what were they what was the system for those internal test procedures and result sheets if not controlled
01:53:19 and result sheets if not controlled sorry i don't understand your question what form were they and what are we controlled for so they were just words word documents and um but they hadn't been
01:53:30 been formally put into the bre system which would have meant they would have got a document number um an issue date and revision dates and now we know that a test report was
01:53:43 and now we know that a test report was prepared for this test notwithstanding the failure why was the test report prepared for this test um it's a very good question
01:53:54 um it's a very good question um i was
01:53:57 um i was told i had to prepare it right by stephen howard and the internal audience
01:54:05 audience let me give you a reason um no you asked for a reason um no i don't and i i don't think i was very comfortable with issuing one
01:54:17 with issuing one did you express your discomfort to mr howard um
01:54:21 howard um i don't recall doing it directly now
01:54:26 uh now we can look at it quick quite quickly one or two documents on this can we go to bre
01:54:35 three 3018037 please
01:54:43 and i'd like to go to page four in this email run
01:54:48 this is an email chain between you and somebody called america that's how you pronounce it of career facades following another unsuccessful test
01:54:58 test on a system incorporating k-15 carried out in december 2014 but this email run is in january 2015. and i'd like to show you page four here
01:55:09 and i'd like to show you page four here and the email you sent to america on the 16th of january 2015. did you say a good uh you say good morning ameri
01:55:22 good morning ameri i hope you're well i would suggest that you discuss the issuing of a report with mr howard
01:55:28 mr howard as we do not issue bsa for one full report so the system did not complete test requirements i'm having to draft a quick letter in report showing the data which steve may be able to forward to you this is copy to
01:55:40 to forward to you this is copy to stephen howard was it correct that as a matter of policy
01:55:47 policy the bre does not issue bsa414 reports if the system doesn't complete the test requirements um it was a bit vague really um i had i had a number of
01:56:01 vague really um i had i had a number of files on my desk where i had asked what to do with them and i didn't get a clear answer ever for it um
01:56:13 uh so that there wasn't really a policy in that regard no uh well when you say we do not issue bsa414 reports of the system
01:56:23 system if if the system you put off but if the citizen did not complete the test requirements you're telling uh ammo a k uh that that is bre's policy aren't you um yeah it was generally the policy i
01:56:36 um yeah it was generally the policy i think
01:56:36 think so was it the general policy of the bre as a matter of fact not to issue test reports if the system doesn't complete the test requirements um i think they if the client did request it then we
01:56:47 if the client did request it then we would yes
01:56:48 would yes um but it wasn't i don't think at the time they were just um written for every single test unless the client requested it i see so is it your evidence that
01:57:02 i see so is it your evidence that as a matter of general policy bre would not issue
01:57:05 not issue a test report if the system fails the test requirements but would do so if the client asked for one uh yes yes right
01:57:16 yes right and if the client asked the one presumably they'd have to pay would they um not necessarily no i think it was included in the cost um are you aware of any occasions before
01:57:27 um are you aware of any occasions before the glensville tower fire when the bre did issue bs8414 reports the systems which had failed the criteria under br135 um
01:57:39 criteria under br135 um i'm not aware of many no obviously apart from the kings fan test which you say you're uncomfortable about yes i'm not aware of many at all now
01:57:51 i'm just going back into time a little bit if i can um to an email in 2010 bre 403327
01:58:03 this is an internal email chain in the early part of that year and you can see that
01:58:12 here at the bottom of the page is an email from you to ivan meredith on the 30th of march
01:58:21 march you see that uh yes i do in response to an email from him
01:58:29 and if you go up the page scroll up towards the top of the page we'll look at the middle of that page
01:58:38 uh it's an email it's part of this string
01:58:43 where tony baker says to you you and stephen howard this is internal we do indicatives how this would be reported
01:58:53 reported sorry if we do indicatives how would this be reported question mark just reading between the lines of either's email it seems as though he would try to pass off indicatives as being full tests or am i just being a cynic and you
01:59:05 tests or am i just being a cynic and you respond to tony baker and stephen howard the same day saying at the top of the page i would suggest that the supply of the data at a brief letter would suffice but no more than that question mark why was that your
01:59:16 question mark why was that your suggestion
01:59:19 um because if you issue a an 8414 report then it's um
01:59:30 it's um the the fact that
01:59:34 people will say it was tested to 8414 but it doesn't define whether it passed or failed um it's just saying that it was tested to that
01:59:42 that to that standard did you agree at least in part with mr baker's view that there was a risk that kingspan
01:59:53 that there was a risk that kingspan might try to pass off the test report at that time being discussed as something that it wasn't in other words a pass
02:00:00 a pass um i don't recall this email particularly but reading what i've written there then possibly yes did it ever form part of your
02:00:12 did it ever form part of your consideration against that background uh in march 2014 four years later when we come to it uh that very great care would need to be issued
02:00:22 issued in issuing a test report
02:00:28 on on request from kingspan in circumstances where the tested system couldn't be classified to be r135 that email we saw was in 2010 wasn't it
02:00:39 that email we saw was in 2010 wasn't it so
02:00:39 so four years later um at that point i i hadn't formed a view but necessarily but at the time when they were requesting this
02:00:51 time when they were requesting this email i know they were quite vociferous in terms of they sorry of the report they were quite um
02:00:58 um adamant that they needed it and it was at the time i think it was probably the first time they were so persistent
02:01:09 persistent so probably in the art the answer to the question probably yes i was becoming a little concerned i think
02:01:17 think so you were concerned about the risks that they would pass off the test report for a failed test has a pass not in that regards as in i failed no not
02:01:27 not no not to but i i was probably a little bit more concerned that they would um read more into it than they should have well let me ask the
02:01:39 they should have well let me ask the question again because i'm not sure you then did answer it i thought you had did part of your consideration come march 2014 march 2014
02:01:52 march 2014 march 2014 that very great care would need to be taken in issuing a test report to kingspan at their request in circumstances where the tested system could not be classified to br 135
02:02:05 could not be classified to br 135 um yes i think yes
02:02:10 and also in circumstances where that decision the decision if it hadn't passed the criteria under the r135 was being fiercely contested by kingspan
02:02:21 kingspan um yes i think i think the test report doesn't necessarily unless you thoroughly read it make it clear that the system has failed
02:02:33 the system has failed knowing as you did in june 2014 that the system would not be classified to be r135 did you consider adding any words to that effect in the body of the test report um it
02:02:45 test report um it does clearly say in the um the description and the timings that the test
02:02:53 test was terminated the thing with the 8414 report and the br br135 is they are two separate documents they are too and and
02:03:04 separate documents they are too and and by adding bits which aren't um related to the bh4 bs8414 tests would probably not be
02:03:15 bs8414 tests would probably not be allowed
02:03:19 so no is the answer to my question yeah i understand that but given the risks that you had already identified some years before that kingspan might well try to pass off
02:03:30 kingspan might well try to pass off a fail as a pass if they'd be given a test report why not simply add some kind of caveat or qualification to the test report itself so that anybody seeing it would
02:03:41 itself so that anybody seeing it would know
02:03:42 know that this test had not met the criteria um it says to make it absolutely plain yes now i understand i understand entirely yeah i i
02:03:54 entirely yeah i i within the industry i don't think that's common practice you could um you can get other reports which
02:04:01 which don't clearly say um obviously if it's a classification report it will clearly state what the classification is but in other things it i suppose you
02:04:12 but in other things it i suppose you could have something that says criteria not met
02:04:15 not met but the issue with that is that bs 8414 doesn't have any criteria um it's just a test are you aware that the test report which
02:04:29 are you aware that the test report which you in the end did assume through kingston k-15 in relation to the march test which is a bre four zeros two five one six and it's dated the 26th of
02:04:42 five one six and it's dated the 26th of june 2014. we need to look at that we can
02:04:45 can are you aware that that test report uh was used as the basis of a number of desktop
02:04:52 desktop assessments to br 135 on systems incorporating k15 as of um when the evidence was given to kingspan
02:05:03 when the evidence was given to kingspan to the inquiry before that i wasn't but obviously when that came out then i have been made aware of that yes i am now aware of that but i wasn't at the time note
02:05:13 time note did you know that there were 29 desktops in total so far as we've been able to count them based on this failed this this test report
02:05:21 report which in fact failed no i wasn't aware at
02:05:24 at all no no three of those assessments we've been able to find are actually bre desktop assessments did you know that no i had no involvement in any assessments at all who would have
02:05:36 any assessments at all who would have had involvement at the bre in producing desktops um my understanding was that was led primarily by stephen howard
02:05:49 led primarily by stephen howard and they were undertaken by um i think somebody that we met was mentioned yesterday didn't look a normal mcdonald's for a period of time i think he may not have done external
02:06:01 i think he may not have done external facade systems and there was a gentleman called andy russell
02:06:06 russell i think was the primary outlet for those right and take it from me that not a single one of those 29 assessments including those done by the bre refers
02:06:18 including those done by the bre refers to the fact that the march 2014 test failed to meet the br 135 criteria did you know that i didn't know when i'm surprised
02:06:29 when i'm surprised that's yes are you able to explain how the bre itself produced three assessments uh which don't say in terms or at all uh that the march 2014 failed to meet
02:06:41 uh that the march 2014 failed to meet the br 135 criteria no because this is the first time i've ever heard that and i find that um very strange and to be honest slightly shocking can i just go back and
02:06:53 slightly shocking can i just go back and clarify one thing you said at least i thought you said in your evidence a minute or two ago about what the retest report
02:06:58 report said correct me if i'm wrong but that and i can't find the case on the transcript at the moment but i think you've said that the test report identified the fact that the test had been terminated is that what you said yes in in the um
02:07:11 is that what you said yes in in the um notes um similar to what you showed earlier with the notes that i took on the day there was a provision put in which said the test was
02:07:23 provision put in which said the test was terminated at um so many minutes as according to provision 8.5 of bs8414 um 2005
02:07:36 um 2005 part two let's just verify that shall we by reference to the report bre 40 is 2516
02:07:42 2516 please
02:07:47 let's just look at that to refresh your memory just to make sure we've got that got that right this is the report itself as you can see uh 26th of june 2014
02:07:58 uh 26th of june 2014 and the test is on a kingspan k15 insulated system with a ventilated trespa rain screen and if we scroll down to page
02:08:05 to page two we can see that it's signed by by you as a senior consultant yes yes that's my signature and the date of the 26th of june
02:08:20 and if you look at the contents perhaps you can help us with this if you look at the contents
02:08:26 contents um well we can probably perhaps go to page nine am i right i'm thinking that in the contents we're looking at test results yes page it's in the it's at 43 minutes i think right above rig
02:08:39 i think right above rig at end of test following criteria defined in clause 8.5 a of test standard i see so that's that's where you
02:08:50 where you i see so looking at that page eight uh just to be absolutely clear under visual observations paragraph 4.2 43 minutes is where you say flaming
02:09:02 43 minutes is where you say flaming above rig on surface
02:09:05 yes it's changed page that i could see but yes that's correct 43 minutes yes let's just please can we get back to it just to be absolutely clear so we can all see what we're talking about 43
02:09:18 all see what we're talking about 43 minutes flaming above i think the scroll needs to go up please
02:09:22 please keep missing it thank you 43 minutes flaming above rig on surface at 6.5 meters
02:09:28 meters end of test following the criteria to find in clause 8.5 a of the test standard so that that you say that's the clear reference determination is it it is indeed yes
02:09:40 determination is it it is indeed yes um given that fact can you explain how anybody at the bre could thereafter have produced a desktop assessment for k-15
02:09:54 assessment for k-15 based on this test result um i find it very strange um i and i can't and i think it should have been picked
02:10:07 and i think it should have been picked up
02:10:09 yes now mr chairman i've come to the end of my prepared questions and there are one or two i have also prepared that i haven't put and i just want to consider whether i i need back over them they're one or two
02:10:21 i need back over them they're one or two straight i think i might need to check uh but subject to that mr chairman and i've come to the end of my prepared questions and this is probably a convenient moment for the usual break yes well mr clark just so that you
02:10:33 yes well mr clark just so that you understand what's going on when council gets to the end of his questions
02:10:38 questions we have a break to enable him just to check whether there are other questions at all to be asked and also to give others who are following the hearing the chance to um suggest questions that
02:10:50 the chance to um suggest questions that ought to be asked as well so we're going to have a break now until 25
02:10:55 25 past 12. and then we'll see at that stage whether there are more questions for you and and um if so then we'll put them to you right understand thank you thank you
02:11:07 right understand thank you thank you very much and again no discussing your evidence with anyone during the break okay thank you very much all right so thank you very much 25 plus 12.
02:30:19 welcome back everyone we've taken a little longer than i originally suggested to allow additional time for
02:30:26 time for further question consideration but i think we're now ready to go back to mr clark mr clark can you see me and hear me
02:30:34 hear me i can't say yes thank you very much well we'll find out from mr millett whether there are more questions that uh he wishes to put to yes mr millet mr chairman yes mr clark one or two
02:30:46 mr chairman yes mr clark one or two um first and they are um slightly separate topics um can you please go back to your transcript
02:30:58 you please go back to your transcript uh for day 96
02:31:10 and i'll in fact it's probably easier if i if i simply put this to you um you said on day 96 of page 78 9 line 9 to 78 line 13
02:31:22 78 9 line 9 to 78 line 13 uh that mr roper had said in his evidence that there was a minimal gap and this is about the vertical gap on the rig of the may test yes yes you agreed
02:31:34 may test yes yes you agreed that it wasn't 10 millimeters yes yes can we go please then instead of going to the transcript we can go i think to dr lane's report that blas
02:31:49 dr lane's report that blas 5026 please at page 40.
02:31:55 this is section e of that report
02:32:03 and she says it paragraph e point 4.21 which is two thirds of the way down the page
02:32:11 the page uh she says this the provision of cavity barriers
02:32:14 barriers is different in the photograph figure 2 in bre report relative to the design drawings figure 7 in the bre report additional vertical cavity barriers were installed in the test above level 1 but
02:32:26 installed in the test above level 1 but are not shown on the test drawings additional third horizontal cavity barrier is installed in the test but is not represented in the test drawings
02:32:37 the test drawings my question is why did you not consider that there were extra cavity barriers in the rig itself that were not in the design drawings um my understanding is they're all um
02:32:49 my understanding is they're all um accounted for in the body of the text i think the trouble with the drawings is they don't necessarily represent the rig
02:33:00 necessarily represent the rig as built they represent how the system should be put together in reality why did the test report not draw attention to the fact uh that the drawings don't represent the
02:33:12 uh that the drawings don't represent the rig as built um i don't know i can't answer that question
02:33:18 question that is a failing on your part isn't it um
02:33:21 um no because the the it's the design of the system so but the text reflects the um the fact that those barriers are
02:33:33 the um the fact that those barriers are there
02:33:36 well if somebody wanted to try to reconstruct a rig for the purposes of a application in real life and use the drawings they would be led
02:33:47 and use the drawings they would be led into error wouldn't they um
02:33:52 and that way potentially yes if they were exactly trying to recreate the rig then yes
02:33:56 then yes they would then they would they would have to read it in in line with the text so the body of the text and the description of the system well why didn't you before you finalized the report go back to your client celetex and ask
02:34:10 go back to your client celetex and ask them to
02:34:10 them to provide you with up-to-date drawings that reflected the rig as built
02:34:18 i don't know the answer to that no that's a failing on your part is it not um
02:34:26 um in terms of if it's a drawing of representative of the rig but my understanding is the drawings aren't a representation of their rig they're a representation of how the system should be built
02:34:37 system should be built when it goes onto a building not well if they're a representation of how the
02:34:46 surely that should replicate exactly the reagan's testing um
02:34:53 yes that's a phenomenon yes yes that's purpose of the s8414 isn't it um yes yes and therefore if a ps84
02:35:06 and therefore if a ps84 1-4 test report or classification report contains drawings which don't show the rig as built then that would lead the reader into error
02:35:18 that would lead the reader into error serious error i would suggest um potentially yes and that would therefore be a failing on your part in letting that report go out with that
02:35:29 that misleading uh error in it um yes that so my understanding of the situation with the drawings is it's it's a representation of how the system
02:35:41 a representation of how the system should be put together so that's the diagram of the rig isn't it
02:35:48 it um
02:35:52 yes yes
02:35:57 why didn't everybody check the rig as built against the drawings that went into the report to make sure that that misleading error did not occur
02:36:06 um my i i don't know the answer to that question
02:36:15 and the failure to do that was a failure on your part um and others yes the others being um the people who
02:36:27 the others being um the people who reviewed and signed it off um over and above me would they be conducting exactly the same exercise of verification they'd be checking the rig
02:36:38 verification they'd be checking the rig as built against the drawings uh there should be yes going down to the rig before ignition with the drawings in hand and making sure that what's built there precisely corresponds to the drawings that are going to go into the report
02:36:50 going to go into the report not not on the rig but know in terms of what is held on the file which they should do yes what comparison would they be making between the diagram as held on file
02:37:02 between the diagram as held on file and other documents on the file what other documents would they look at to make
02:37:07 make that verification everything that's available and and to be honest i've not been through this process of doing that so you probably have to clarify with um stephen howard as to what he actually
02:37:19 stephen howard as to what he actually did and didn't check um i'm not not fully aware of what his process but i would have expected him to have done that what did you yourself check as the
02:37:30 what did you yourself check as the author of the report how did you check or did you check that the physical rig is completed as against the drawings indicated um
02:37:39 um [Music]
02:37:43 i would check the the photographs that were taken any draw any markups that we had had um i would look at the
02:37:50 at the the drawings to get an overall view of what was there um because sometimes these these drawings don't necessarily show the full buildup of the system so they will
02:38:01 will um as in they don't it doesn't say that you should have um elevation drawings um some of the drawings in these um
02:38:14 reports only have plan cut through of certain sections um so it depends on really what the client
02:38:22 client supplies and ultimately those drawings are supplied to us by the client um as a matter of fact did you yourself look at
02:38:31 look at the rig as built before ignition and compare it with the diagram or plan of the rig on the file at that time um
02:38:43 on the file at that time um i think i probably would but not with the
02:38:48 the cad drawings in front of me no i would i would be looking at the system as is built there i'm not there comparing
02:38:56 comparing two documents in real time no why not um because that wasn't the practice well it may not have been the practice well why wasn't it the practice
02:39:07 well why wasn't it the practice um because we we've taken drawings and photographs and notes of the of the system that was in front of us there what is the purpose of having the drawings or plans in the report if they
02:39:18 drawings or plans in the report if they don't accurately reflect what's on the rig um because they're a representation of the system system is what's on the rig yes yes
02:39:32 system is what's on the rig yes yes yes so why again what is the purpose of having the drawings or plans in the report if they don't reflect what's on the ring um in hindsight you're probably right
02:39:44 um in hindsight you're probably right they should have been they should reflect exactly what's there clearly they hadn't i just want to know why how this mismatch came about mr clark
02:39:57 mismatch came about mr clark how the plans and the rig has built happened and how the plan nonetheless was stated in the report i just need to understand that
02:40:08 just need to understand that yeah i think i said yesterday the bs 8414 report isn't a shopping list as to how you put together
02:40:17 together a building in real life when you're when a designer is is out there the the client supplies drawings of a system
02:40:31 client supplies drawings of a system that they have designed and had tested and um ultimately that's what they provide them that's what goes into the report so that that has always been
02:40:42 report so that that has always been what has what has occurred um
02:40:47 well the client desire supplies drawings of a system that they've designed and had tested but you're only testing the system that's designed if you're making sure that you have
02:40:59 making sure that you have actually tested the system as designed and not the system that's different from the design so i don't understand your answer um yes i
02:41:11 um yes i maybe i've i've under misunderstood the the reasons for the drawing but that was my always my understanding of why the drawing should put in there could you just explain it in in words
02:41:23 could you just explain it in in words to me what is the purpose of the plan in the report to show how the system is put together the system as tested is put together now as the system in
02:41:35 is put together now as the system in reality how it should be built in reality to um when it goes on the side of a building
02:41:41 building even if that's not the system that's tested
02:41:45 tested um yeah with we're designing a it's a system test and you have to you have to reflect what the system is i'm afraid mr clark it difficult to
02:41:58 i'm afraid mr clark it difficult to understand these answers and perhaps we'll just leave it there
02:42:04 now can we then move to a different
02:42:10 subject in a different document can we go please to bre three zeroes one eight eight nine that's one eighty eight five nine
02:42:20 pre three zero is one eight eight five nine
02:42:36 yes and uh if we go please uh to
02:42:47 a page page uh we need to go down actually to page two
02:42:55 two to an email that is sent to you and stephen howard
02:43:05 on the 8th of april 2015 you see that uh i do yes and it's subject bs8414 part two
02:43:13 two stephen we would like to incorporate some additional thermocouple in at level one so we can understand when it fails phil had a suggestion so we could understand exactly what's going on at the lower levels perhaps some below and
02:43:24 the lower levels perhaps some below and above the fire barrier in the insulation and
02:43:26 and void i've asked lake smear to update the drawings
02:43:31 drawings i've noted that the vertical joint may have waved a little when reviewing the build
02:43:35 build and then this is in bold can you please confirm whether this will still be okay for a bs 8414 part 2 report and a br 135 classification you see that i do yes
02:43:50 you see that i do yes um but i don't recall this email was that highlighted in yellow by the inquiry i i don't know the answer to that
02:44:01 i i don't know the answer to that question right okay um the fact is this is an email sent to you and here is the question and then we can see the response
02:44:20 uh from stephen howard to either meredith
02:44:24 meredith on the 9th of april see that yes and he says the 25 millimeters is not going to be a problem
02:44:35 i'll come back with dates for the meeting if you want one before to discuss testing we can get in the diary as soon as possible i'm filling up for fast i take you sorted out the additional instrument instrumentation between you and phil for
02:44:47 instrumentation between you and phil for the record we shouldn't include in the report you know i do yes yes and uh that's from stephen howard and you were
02:44:59 that's from stephen howard and you were copied in on that do you know why stephen howard wrote uh what he says there namely i think you've sorted out the additional
02:45:10 i think you've sorted out the additional instrumentation between you and phil first of all um had you sorted out the additional instrument instrumentation with mr meredith um i don't
02:45:21 um i don't ever recall adding any extra instrumentation onto a kingspan test at all no you discussed that with mr meredith at the time um
02:45:32 meredith at the time um [Music]
02:45:34 [Music] no i can't recall no mr howard suggests or
02:45:38 or says in the brackets at the end for the record we shouldn't include in the report you know why he said that
02:45:45 said that um there's no requirement for additional thermocouples so maybe that's what he meant
02:45:51 meant but i i don't know i know at um what year is this 2015. i know potentially around that time the australians were looking to
02:46:04 australians were looking to adopt the 8414 as part of one of their british stand at one of their standard tests and
02:46:10 tests and that has um thermocouples on the rear of the system but he didn't say specifically where so it might have been at the rear in line with what the australians were
02:46:22 in line with what the australians were recommending
02:46:25 right sorry speculating or do you actually know the answer to my question i don't know i'm speculating for that because it doesn't it doesn't specific specify does it did he say
02:46:38 specific specify does it did he say above and below the barrier sorry he said above we can go back to the email to answer your question to me uh if you go to bottom at the bottom of page two um he says
02:46:49 page two um he says additional thermocouple in at level one and then in the last sentence at the first paragraph he says perhaps some below and above the fire barrier in the insulation and void to help you all right so he's right okay
02:47:02 to help you all right so he's right okay so what he's looking to replicate replica replicated level two layout at level one but that's very unusual i i don't recall doing that no
02:47:14 right for that i don't think he'd get any useful information either i don't understand why he's asked that question why would the bre admit the presence of the additional
02:47:25 admit the presence of the additional suggested additional thermocouples from the test record um i think because they're not a requirement for the 8414
02:47:36 requirement for the 8414 so they they would be for the client information specifically you see it says for the record we shouldn't include in the report
02:47:44 report and why why would even though they're not required why would you not put them in
02:47:48 in if they were there um i i would personally but i don't know why mr howard put that we'd have to ask him you might would the
02:47:59 we'd have to ask him you might would the addition of further cut thermocouples have had any effect on the test performance no because um the thermocouples at level one are only used to set the the test start criteria so
02:48:12 to set the the test start criteria so they
02:48:13 they only have one function all of the other data is gleaned from what is at level two so they wouldn't know right
02:48:24 they wouldn't know right um going back if we can to either meredith's email i showed you this a moment ago but it looks as if the addition of the thermocouples was your suggestion is that right
02:48:35 suggestion is that right go back to the first paragraph of mr meredith's email to stephen howard and you it looks as if he thought
02:48:42 thought he says phil had a suggestion so we could understand exactly what's going on at the lower levels um i don't recall the conversation i
02:48:54 um i don't recall the conversation i i don't see what purpose that would have would have served because um that area heats up so quickly i don't think you would have got any
02:49:06 i don't think you would have got any data
02:49:07 data um that would have been a worth it it may have been if you say for example put it below the um the barrier at level two you may have
02:49:18 um the barrier at level two you may have got some
02:49:18 got some some information if you were looking at how a an intumescent barrier or something how that performed come and do a comparison between
02:49:26 between both sides but i can't see what useful data you'd get from that personally so i'm not really asking you about that let me ask the question more directly perhaps perhaps it wasn't clear mr clark
02:49:38 perhaps perhaps it wasn't clear mr clark um in mr meredith's email um the first sentence says i'll read it to you again we would like to incorporate some additional thermocouple in at level one so we can understand when it fails
02:49:49 one so we can understand when it fails phil had a suggestion so he could understand exactly what's going on at the lower levels i don't recall having that conversation now that was the question right you suggest
02:50:02 the question right you suggest to mr meredith that you should incorporate some additional thermocouple in at level one i don't ever recall in that conversation no you see we don't see you going back to
02:50:15 you see we don't see you going back to mr meredith and saying i didn't suggest that or you've misunderstood what i'm saying so can we proceed on the basis safely that um
02:50:23 um but you can't remember it as the document says you did suggest the addition of a thermocouple at level one um is that 2015
02:50:34 um is that 2015 yes now you need to understand i've done lots and lots of tests for lots of people it's um i i can't recall the conversation i
02:50:46 i i can't recall the conversation i can't
02:50:46 can't i don't think we if we did we ever did this i
02:50:50 this i just doesn't ring a bell at all with the addition of if ever thermocouple have had any effect on the test performance i've asked that question i'm just going to ask it again
02:51:01 just going to ask it again no it wouldn't know because that's not where the criteria for the test performance is made if no why declare that why not then simply put them into the test report
02:51:12 them into the test report um yeah i agree and if the additional data wasn't to go into the test report how are you going to communicate that to kingston um i suppose they possibly might
02:51:26 um i suppose they possibly might wanted it as a separate excel sheet or something like that that be by way of off off-the-record comments
02:51:35 not unofficial it would be it would be processed in the usual way but um that would that would have gone out through stephen howard um how he addressed that you'd have to ask him i i never sent any data
02:51:48 i i never sent any data to clients which wasn't sanctioned by um senior management you say not unofficial it would be processed in the usual way
02:51:56 usual way what's that a reference to um in terms of um
02:52:00 of um how we process it so it would be processed with the um the date of the test um a reference the time and temperature access would be um labeled so
02:52:13 would be um labeled so um it would be a clear and precise um graph showing what it actually meant and where it was and and et cetera et cetera it's outside the test report
02:52:25 test report potentially yes it's not a requirement of the tests so but it would still it would still follow the the the standard layout of how a
02:52:33 how a graph should be laid out but if a desktop
02:52:36 desktop report was going to be based on that test report which didn't show the addition of the thermocouple at level one uh the reader of that desktop or the writer of their desktop would be mislead as to precisely
02:52:47 mislead as to precisely how the test was carried out um no i don't agree with that how would they know
02:52:55 they know that there was an additional thermocouple at level one if the test report did not say so um but it's not a requirement of the tests it's it's it's outside that it would it's a
02:53:06 it's it's outside that it would it's a question
02:53:06 question my question was how would the reader of the test report know that there was in fact an additional thermocouple in at level one
02:53:16 level one uh they wouldn't they wouldn't if it's not written and they won't know therefore the communication being sent off that data even if you think useless to kingspan would have to be done
02:53:27 would have to be done informally as part of a document outside the formal test record um in that regard yes it wouldn't be it wouldn't form part of a bs 8.14
02:53:40 it wouldn't form part of a bs 8.14 test in that regard now you're right and do you say that additional thermocouples are permitted within the bsa414 standard um they're not
02:53:53 um they're not excluded no they're not excluded i see that but are they actually committed
02:54:02 they're not part of the standard i don't think it doesn't say that you should or shouldn't it's not not clear in that regard was this suggestion the addition of a level one thermocouple
02:54:14 level one thermocouple a kind of suggestion that you would make to all your clients or was this only made to kingspan um
02:54:22 um [Music]
02:54:25 [Music] i don't know i i i would never i think there was one other occasion where a client asked um for an additional thermocouple
02:54:36 asked um for an additional thermocouple but i can't i can't recall it was unusual i think see that it's right the bre 135 br 135's criteria and the standard are
02:54:47 criteria and the standard are prescriptive on aren't they isn't it as to where the couple should go um the br135 isn't no because it relies back on the
02:54:59 isn't no because it relies back on the 8414 as its base yes and the 8414 is yes yes script yes so if you added an additional thermocouple you would be departing from the prescription in the
02:55:11 the prescription in the test wouldn't you um in that yes you would yes yes yeah the reader of the test report
02:55:22 yeah the reader of the test report wouldn't know if that data had been omitted that the tests the test uh had been done on a series of test readings
02:55:31 readings thermocouple system which did not comply with the prescription in the bsa414 standard
02:55:37 standard um i i slightly i i understand what you say but um if if say for example the request had
02:55:48 if if say for example the request had been to move them from 50 ml on the surface into the cavity then that's not meeting the requirement of the test standard
02:55:58 standard addition it doesn't say in the test standard that you shall not add any thermocouples for um for extra learning and extra data
02:56:12 for extra learning and extra data collection um so i i understand what you're going yes but it's it's
02:56:18 it's it's yes yes
02:56:21 yes yes but given kingspan's propensity as you know
02:56:24 know to misuse
02:56:28 to misuse test reports and then use them as the basis or ask them to be used as the basis of desktops surely this was in any departure from
02:56:39 surely this was in any departure from the rigorous prescriptions in the 8414 standard we're going to be was going to be risky
02:56:50 be risky um in in knowing what we now know and then yeah yeah i think um you're correct yes yes how does taking suggestions such as
02:57:01 yes how does taking suggestions such as this
02:57:02 this to kingspan uh reconciled with the bre's duties
02:57:06 duties and obligations of impartiality
02:57:11 um i don't think it changes that in any way not this is surely the giving of advice isn't it making a suggestion as to where to put the thermocouples
02:57:23 as to where to put the thermocouples but they're not putting in the report how could that possibly be robust and ruthless dependent uh a robust and ruthless independent approach
02:57:34 approach to obligations um [Music]
02:57:40 [Music] i i don't think the the independence is um that we're
02:57:48 we to be honest i can't answer the question i understand where you're coming from um i don't think it does um one of the things
02:58:01 i think is sort of really lost in a way is that
02:58:05 is that bre is born of research and if you don't understand certain things then you don't move forward in knowledge um
02:58:18 knowledge um and i think too on occasions um that ethos has come through and potentially has allowed us to sort of maybe um
02:58:32 allowed us to sort of maybe um try and help where we can in the the knowledge chain i think maybe that's my
02:58:39 that's my reading of it if you're going to use clients as guinea pigs then surely you tell them and you tell them that if you're going to do something uh which you wouldn't ordinarily do for your own benefit you'd have explained
02:58:50 your own benefit you'd have explained that to them and said well we're putting our level one thermocouple on here for our own benefit only it's just for our research do you consent
02:58:57 consent i know but the client requested it exactly
02:59:01 exactly yes right um did the bre ever provide any training to you on impartiality or where the line was to be drawn between um but where the line was to be
02:59:14 between um but where the line was to be drawn but between impartiality and the giving of consultancy or advice no i never received any training on that regard now either inside the bre or from an outside
02:59:26 either inside the bre or from an outside source um
02:59:28 source um no no the only time i did anything on that was i um in the early days of my tenure at kingsman i undertook the bsi
02:59:40 kingsman i undertook the bsi 17025 um
02:59:43 17025 um training but nothing before that no if you didn't have any training where did your understanding of bre's duty impartiality under the british standard
02:59:54 impartiality under the british standard come from um from experience working with senior colleagues [Music]
03:00:03 [Music] working with other people throughout my career
03:00:06 career really um
03:00:10 really um and uh just tell me your line manager when you started in 2004 who in 2004 would have been um i think
03:00:23 been um i think potentially sarah colwell yes at that date sarah caldwell i would have thought yes are you able to give me a list
03:00:30 list off the top of your head of your immediate line managers from 2004 to 2017.
03:00:35 2017. 2004. so it would have been um i think it would have been sarah colwell
03:00:42 colwell um stephen manchester and um
03:00:51 and um stephen howard
03:00:54 did any of them at any time discuss with you
03:00:58 you uh the nature of bre's duty of impartiality um not as i recall now
03:01:09 what sort of thing you could save the client what sort of thing might constitute consultancy or advice um no but um in a position where we were so
03:01:21 no but um in a position where we were so when i first started i obviously was shadowing and working alongside sarah and you could tell from what she would say
03:01:30 say on what she wouldn't say and i i learned from her and and others in terms of how i according myself
03:01:37 myself and i i always made it extremely clear to clients is that um we can't say to them and i was very even reticent to give any answers as to
03:01:49 even reticent to give any answers as to how our system had performed and i've had feedback from people that say no you were always very reluctant to say anything out of turn
03:02:05 um mr clark i've come to the end of my questions um but there's a question that we
03:02:10 we ask some witnesses who have had particular responsibility for a particular sphere of activity and it's this we've been through i regret to say two and a half days now
03:02:21 regret to say two and a half days now of evidence together and you've seen quite a lot of material and i've asked you a lot of questions i appreciate looking back on it all um is there anything that you would have done differently
03:02:33 have done differently indeed yes yes and i can say um that everything that i've learned from this from myself from what other people have have
03:02:45 myself from what other people have have said
03:02:46 said and what the information that is coming through that lessons need to be learned from myself in terms of attention to detail potentially um
03:03:02 making sure that people don't misinterpret what is said and is a bit clearer and and i'm personally in a position where
03:03:13 i'm personally in a position where my feelings go out to this and i never thought
03:03:17 thought given what my role was in throughout my whole career which has always been health and safety and understanding and things that i would never wanted to be in a position where what
03:03:28 what we had done had caused such a disaster um
03:03:32 um to me it's just i feel it feel it very strongly and i feel very strongly for everybody that's been involved
03:03:40 involved in this tragic disaster mr clark thank you very much um i've come to the end of my question and the questions it only remains to me to say thank you very much for coming
03:03:52 to say thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and helping us with our investigations we're very grateful thank you
03:03:56 you well mr clark it's right that i should also thank you on behalf of the panel as a whole for giving up really quite a lot of your time to give your evidence but you should understand it's been very
03:04:08 but you should understand it's been very helpful for us to hear what you have to say and we are very grateful but that's the end of the questions we have for you so you are now free to get back to work thank you very much thank you very much
03:04:19 much thank you very much thank you bye-bye goodbye and we'll break there and we'll resume at five past two please
03:04:41 you