Evidence from Mr. Harrison of Cadent Gas on PIV valves, LC33 corrosion surveys, and gas supply mapping. Focuses on missing PIVs, delayed corrosion inspections, and inaccurate network maps at Grenfell Tower.
00:00:20 Would
00:00:30 you ask Mr. Harrison to come in again, please?
00:00:45 All right. You ready to carry on, Mr. Harrison?
00:00:47 Harrison? Yes.
00:00:48 Yes. Good. Thank you very much. Yes, it's Hinds.
00:00:50 Hinds. Thank you, Mr. Harrison. We were speaking before the break about PIBs at Grenfell, and you said you thought that there were PIBs on the services going in, but perhaps at least two of them
00:01:03 in, but perhaps at least two of them could not be found. Can we please go to your exhibit 7, which is CAD 40 2984?
00:01:19 And when that gets rotated, you'll see that this is from the HASOP meetings. Can you first of all, do you recognize this document?
00:01:32 this document? Yes, I recognize that. Can you tell us what it is? So, these were the um this was a summary of what happened at Grenville Tower following the survey. So in column C
00:01:44 following the survey. So in column C you've got a summary there of which rise has been cut off. Um the status of the heating in the building. Um the the PIV
00:01:55 heating in the building. Um the the PIV um point comes up. It says there is about PIV S1 or S2 and internal isolation valves present. So some summary comments following the survey
00:02:06 summary comments following the survey and then there are some agreed actions. Now my question was what what this document is. Would I be right to say that this was a record of some of the
00:02:17 that this was a record of some of the meetings that were held about Grenfell Tower?
00:02:20 Tower? Yes, the these are the a summary of actions following the hazop at Grenville Tower
00:02:24 Tower and we see a lot of black on that document. That's because those are about other buildings that were discussed at the Hazop meetings. Is that right? Yes.
00:02:34 Yes. Yes. So what we can see here is a record of some of the discussions about Grenfell. Have I have I got that right? You have. Yes. And we can see it's marked row 11 on
00:02:47 And we can see it's marked row 11 on this document. And if we go to column C, which you've already drawn our attention to, it reads this. It says R2 has been cut off. There is communal heating
00:02:58 cut off. There is communal heating throughout the building. There is no PIV on S1 or S2. their internal isolation valves present. So is that a description of the LC21
00:03:11 So is that a description of the LC21 survey
00:03:13 survey or at least some of the findings of the LC21 survey? Yeah, I think those are in the author's words the outcome of the um the LC21
00:03:25 words the outcome of the um the LC21 survey.
00:03:25 survey. Would it be right to say they are the key points perhaps from the LC21 survey? Um it's missing there about the um the corrosion.
00:03:37 corrosion. Right. Right. Um just looking at the line there's no PIV on S1 or S2. Does that indicate that it was recognized um
00:03:48 that indicate that it was recognized um at least when this comment was written that there were no PIVs found in 2016? Yes. Now, that certainly accords with what we've seen on the LC21 survey of September 2016, doesn't it?
00:04:00 September 2016, doesn't it? It does. Yes. Now, we can see it also says there are internal isolation valves present. Would that be a reference to the bibs that we saw on residential supply one?
00:04:14 I believe so, but I don't know whether they were referring to the bibs or the IIVs or the um ECVS.
00:04:25 IIVs or the um ECVS. They can't really be referring to the IIV because the IIV was put on residential supply 2, which wouldn't have existed as at September 2016.
00:04:37 as at September 2016. That's correct. Yes. So it would be the bibs or all of those other valves that we looked at on the landlord supply. So the the AIV or as you say the ECV. So all of those valves
00:04:48 So all of those valves would be noted in this document. So is that right? I I
00:04:56 I I I I believe so. But that that's all I can see written in front of me. Yes. And just as a a matter of technical reality, bibs aren't substitute for
00:05:07 reality, bibs aren't substitute for PIVs.
00:05:08 PIVs. They're not. No. And bibs are for for maintenance. I think you've said that. And in the case of Grenfall, they're very high up, aren't they? Yes.
00:05:15 Yes. Um so high up that they're really quite inaccessible. Is that fair? Yes.
00:05:20 Yes. Yeah. And they're meant to be inaccessible, aren't they? Or more difficult to accept? Yes.
00:05:26 Yes. Yeah. And would I be right to say that they're meant to because that's because they're for maintenance. They're for specialist gas engineers to operate when
00:05:38 specialist gas engineers to operate when they're doing maintenance. Yes, that's correct. Now, if we look at column D on this document,
00:05:45 document, you can see the header is actions agreed on the 5th of December 2016. And if we look down
00:05:54 look down in the um cell that's filled in, it says Mark Petty to arrange for LC33 survey if not already completed. Uh Mark Petty is an or certainly was an employee of
00:06:05 an or certainly was an employee of Cadent, wasn't he? He was. Yes. And just to remind us ourselves, we heard earlier that the purpose of an LC33 survey was to examine severe corrosion. Is that right?
00:06:17 corrosion. Is that right? Yes. Um,
00:06:21 in column D, we've got the actions, but there's no action about PIVs. Can you explain why the hazard meeting didn't record any action about the PIVs?
00:06:33 record any action about the PIVs? I I don't know why that that is the case.
00:06:37 case. Can we go to CAD50109?
00:06:46 And this is an email chain. If we scroll down to the bottom, the the email at the bottom is from Ali Hamani. If we just jump to page three for a moment,
00:06:58 moment, we can see at the top, you can take it from me, that that's the end of that email. We can see at that top email there that he's an employee of National Grid. Do you do you recall that to be
00:07:09 Grid. Do you do you recall that to be the case?
00:07:10 the case? I do recall that. Yes. And if we go back to the bottom of page one, this is dated 20th of January 2017. And the subject of the email is actions
00:07:22 And the subject of the email is actions from the 5th of the 12th 16 plus Grenfell Tower. If we scroll down to page two, we can see that that line Grenfell
00:07:34 we can see that that line Grenfell Tower, that's the same line that we've seen at least up until December the 5th. Yes. Yeah. So, he's copied and pasted that presumably from the original document
00:07:46 presumably from the original document that we were just looking at. Yes. Is that right? Yes. If we go to the bottom of page one, please,
00:07:55 we can see under the header Pat. Now, is that Patrick Kelly who's on the list of recipients? I believe it is. Yes.
00:08:06 I believe it is. Yes. And if Mr. Hamdani's email reads, Pat, please advise what the current situation of Grenfell is in respect to these comments and actions. Should we ask GDSP
00:08:18 ask GDSP to install missing valves during current operations? And based on LC33 survey results, can we increase scope of works to include any unrefurbishable rises at
00:08:31 to include any unrefurbishable rises at this stage? Now just taking this in stages does GDSP mean trio in this context?
00:08:38 context? Yes.
00:08:40 Yes. Can you tell us what GDSP stands for? It stands for gas distribution strategic partnership. Thank you. Do you understand Mr. Hanani to be asking about whether TRIO should
00:08:52 to be asking about whether TRIO should be restoring the PIVs on residential supply one and landlord supply?
00:09:00 I believe he's referring to the PIBs there. Yes. Would you expect that to be a question asked following a survey like this? No.
00:09:10 No. Why not?
00:09:11 Why not? Um I would expect the um the team within the network other than our contract partners to go and look for the PIVs.
00:09:22 partners to go and look for the PIVs. So am I right to to say that you would expect that the question wouldn't need to be asked? It would already be in train. Yes. And I would the GDSPs were more
00:09:34 Yes. And I would the GDSPs were more engaged in big engineering projects rather than looking for um an installing small valves which would be the case of a PIV.
00:09:47 So are you saying that the GDSP in this case TRIO you would not expect them to be thinking about installing the small valves?
00:09:57 valves? No. No. their their package of work here was to go and um install a new design and install a new riser in Grenfell Tower. Um the the PIV should have been
00:10:09 Tower. Um the the PIV should have been identified through another department within the London network and another department would be responsible for
00:10:18 reinstating access to the pier. Yes. Yes.
00:10:21 Yes. Yes. I see. So this is an unusual question because
00:10:26 because you wouldn't expect TRIO to be even to be to be contracted to do to to do the reinstatement of the PIVs. No, I mean Trio were there to to do a specific piece of work which was to to
00:10:38 specific piece of work which was to to construct a new riser feed in the flats ending with two of which they would have had to have installed a PIV there as well. I I wouldn't have expected an instruction to go to TRIO specifically
00:10:49 instruction to go to TRIO specifically to look for the other two PIVs. I see. But there would be another department in Cadence who would be looking at that. Uh can we look at the reply from Mr. Kelly which is at the top of this page dated 20th of January
00:11:02 dated 20th of January and he says this Alli one trio will be gassing up the disconnected riser on Tuesday. Two SIV will be introduced in the gassing up operation. Three scope to
00:11:13 the gassing up operation. Three scope to run new pipe to encompass the severe corrosion can be extended. You will need need to email Liry etc. Now, SIV again, do you understand that
00:11:24 Now, SIV again, do you understand that would mean service isolation valve? Yes,
00:11:27 Yes, that's another word for PIV. I believe he was referring to a PIV there.
00:11:30 there. And what he seems to be referring I think I'm interested in your view is that the new riser would have a PIV on it. That's what he seems to be saying. Is that how you
00:11:42 seems to be saying. Is that how you understand this? It it is. Yes. you you can't com it's it's more straightforward to commission a new riser if you have a PIV because you have the flow of gas going up to the PIV and then you open that valve to
00:11:53 PIV and then you open that valve to allow the gas up the riser. I see. So you would as you're working on the riser you can hold the gas off and then when it's ready gas tight done all your testing then you can open the PIV
00:12:04 your testing then you can open the PIV and then it can all go up. Yeah. Effectively so. Yes. Right. But he's not said anything about uncovering the PIVs on the older supplies, residential supply one or the landlord supply, has he?
00:12:15 landlord supply, has he? No, he hasn't. Would it be enough for Cadent to say, well, there's a PIV on residential supply 2, so we've met our regulatory duty on that?
00:12:27 our regulatory duty on that? No. So at some point would you have expected Cadence to have passed this issue about the PIVs
00:12:38 issue about the PIVs on to the other department that looks after the PIVs? Yes. Yes.
00:12:43 Yes. Yes. Right. Um are you aware if that was passed on? No, I'm not aware. Are you aware that it was that it wasn't passed on? I'm not aware either way. Right. Now, you've told us that Caden
00:12:57 Right. Now, you've told us that Caden is aware that PIVs get lost as a phenomenon and that the survey process required operatives to check for PIVs. Now, in those circumstances,
00:13:08 Now, in those circumstances, as far as you know, why wasn't any action taken on the PIVs? I I don't know.
00:13:18 Well, we know that there's we certainly have cause to believe that there would be a PIV on the new supply and we've seen in the landlord supply a
00:13:30 we've seen in the landlord supply a various assortment of valves that could shut that supply off. In circumstances where eventually following the proactive works all of the
00:13:41 following the proactive works all of the supply would be coming through residential supply 2, would it be fair to say that actually uncovering the lost PIVs on residential supply one would be a bit of a wasted effort?
00:13:54 a bit of a wasted effort? No, I don't think it would. If we were to have to isolate the supplies in residential supply number two, one way of isolating them would be to close the PIV valve as part of the decommissioning
00:14:06 PIV valve as part of the decommissioning program.
00:14:07 program. Right? But did you see what I'm I'm getting at is that if eventually once all of the works once all of the gas would be supplied to the flats directly through residential supply two once that
00:14:20 through residential supply two once that happened there'd be no need to have residential supply one supplying any gas the old riser there's no need to maintain that PIV beyond
00:14:32 beyond once gas is coming through the other pipeline and so what I'm really asking is was it any part of Cadence's thinking that we don't really need to uncover
00:14:43 that we don't really need to uncover this PIV because fairly soon all of the gas is going to be coming through the new pipe?
00:14:49 new pipe? No, I I don't think so. I mean, this this email trail here leads me to believe that extending the supplies was some way off in the project. Um, and in which case we'd have still needed access
00:15:01 which case we'd have still needed access to the PIVs. Can you account for why no action was taken? I can't. No. I want to now turn to the issue of the
00:15:12 I want to now turn to the issue of the LC33 survey which we've just seen in the document with the hazop meetings. Um, in fact, it should still be on your screen. CAD
00:15:23 CAD uh
00:15:25 uh I think it's 50109. And if we go down to page two, we can just remind ourselves of what it said. We can see in that
00:15:36 We can see in that second column from the right, Mark Petty to arrange for the LC33 survey if not already completed. So that's what was said on the 5th of December. Now going back to something we were
00:15:49 Now going back to something we were talking about very very much at the beginning of the day. Do you accept that cadence is required to protect the service pipe work from corrosion? I do. Yes. And we talked about the
00:16:00 I do. Yes. And we talked about the different types of corrosion and severe corrosion is the one that will trigger this LC33 process, isn't it? It is. Yes. Can we go to your first
00:16:11 It is. Yes. Can we go to your first inquiry statement? CAD 4's 2985 page 9
00:16:25 CAD 40 29 85.
00:16:34 Yes. Page nine, paragraph 34. You say when severe corrosion is detected during a survey of a building, the surveyor shall contact the MOB's
00:16:46 the surveyor shall contact the MOB's network lead who shall arrange for a more detailed corrosion assessment to be undertaken within 14 calendar days. The more detailed corrosion assessment is known as the LC33 survey and the process
00:16:58 known as the LC33 survey and the process for this survey is set out in a separate cadence management procedure and we've already seen that procedure.
00:17:06 Now the hazard meeting that we were looking at was dated 5th of December 2016. Now am I right that there had been no LC33 survey
00:17:17 right that there had been no LC33 survey as at 5th of December 2016?
00:17:23 I I I believe so. I don't think we got well we hadn't got into the the specific flat to check the corrosion. Right. And does that mean that Cadence didn't meet its own deadline of the 14
00:17:34 didn't meet its own deadline of the 14 days?
00:17:35 days? It does. Yes. Can you account for why Caden didn't meet that 14 days? I can't. No. Can we just return to your first inquiry statement picking it up at paragraph 35
00:17:47 statement picking it up at paragraph 35 which is already on the page there? The LC21 survey is a visual inspection whereas the LC33 survey is a more detailed inspection of the risers to
00:17:58 detailed inspection of the risers to determine their integrity and continued fitness.
00:18:01 fitness. During a LC33 survey, the surveyor will inspect the riser surface, determine the category of corrosion before taking any remedial action required.
00:18:13 remedial action required. The remedial action ensures the integrity of the riser uh is satisfactory to allow for a minimum 5-year inspection frequency. Again, in order to inspect the pipework, the
00:18:24 order to inspect the pipework, the surveyor must have access to the building and to the pipework where corrosion was identified. When undertaking the LC33 survey, the surveyor will have a copy of the LC21 survey result and photographs showing
00:18:36 survey result and photographs showing the location of the corrosion identified during the LC21 survey. The surveyor will inspect the pipework and if the wall thickness of the pipework is is within a permitted is within the
00:18:48 within a permitted is within the permitted parameters as defined in the LC33 management procedure, the surveyor will paint the pipe work with specialized paint and will remedy the issue of corrosion. If the corrosion has
00:19:00 issue of corrosion. If the corrosion has penetrated the pipework so that it is too thin to be repaired, the condition of the pipe work will be rechecked until the pipe is cut out or the whole riser is replaced.
00:19:11 is replaced. So we have there quite a detailed picture of what happens on the LC33 survey. Now, do I understand correctly that no remedial action is taken unless
00:19:24 that no remedial action is taken unless and until the LC33 survey has has happened?
00:19:30 happened? Yes. In this case, yes. Do I understand by your answer that sometimes there might be some remedial action taken, but not in this case? There might be some immediate action taken immediately, but most often it's
00:19:41 taken immediately, but most often it's following the LC33. An example would be if the LC21 surveyor was able to do what he would be doing as part of an LC33 on site, then he or she may do it then,
00:19:52 site, then he or she may do it then, right? Um, could that be why there's a requirement to have this LC33 survey done within 14 days?
00:20:03 days? Yes, it could be. I think it's just so we can keep up to date records of our assets is why we we say 14 days. But is it is it just a matter of asset record? Isn't Isn't it somewhat unsafe
00:20:15 record? Isn't Isn't it somewhat unsafe to have untreated severe corrosion in a building?
00:20:19 building? Well, we we're the the asset was wasn't leaking at the time. Um if it was and we'd have taken a different course of action. Um but by on checking it, we believed it was okay to operate until an
00:20:32 believed it was okay to operate until an LC33 was complete. But but when the LC21 survey was filled in, presumably the surveyor was contemplating that the LC33 survey would happen in 14 days.
00:20:44 survey would happen in 14 days. Correct. Yes. So, so 14 days is the time period that Cadent itself says is an appropriate time period. Correct. Yes. Can we go to CAD 402984?
00:20:57 We've seen this before, I think.
00:21:05 This is um your exhibit that we've seen. This is the Hazip meeting record. Now, we've already seen the 5th of December action. If we go down to go across to column E, we can see notes
00:21:17 across to column E, we can see notes from further discussion on the 23rd of February. Would that have been the next hazard meeting?
00:21:25 I I I think so from looking at the the schedule here. Yes. Yes. Um you you think so? Okay, if we look again at that column that's not blocked out, it says access issues Andy to try
00:21:39 out, it says access issues Andy to try again. Reactive work complete, proactive work still outstanding. And in column F, it says similarly to earlier, mark petty to
00:21:51 similarly to earlier, mark petty to arrange for LC33 survey. Um, so by this time 23rd of February, there's been no LC33 survey.
00:22:03 there's been no LC33 survey. Yes, we we tried to gain access to the flat on two occasions, but we were unable to get in to conduct an LC33 survey.
00:22:12 survey. We'll certainly come to the detail of that in in a moment. I just want to think generally, is gaining access to inspect and maintain service pipe work a common challenge for multi occupancy
00:22:24 common challenge for multi occupancy buildings? It is. Yes. And is that specifically because they're located inside people's flats? Um
00:22:34 Um because yeah, there you flats and people aren't always in those flats,
00:22:40 flats, right? And in an LC33 survey, does the surveyor inspect every pipe or does the surveyor
00:22:51 does the surveyor go just to the pipes that have been identified as having severe corrosion? They they go just to the area of pipe that's been identified. So in the case of Grenfell Tower, that would have been two specific flats that
00:23:03 would have been two specific flats that they were to go to to deal with the severe corrosion identified there. I think it was just one because one of the severe corrosions was the pipe feeding one one of the severely
00:23:16 the pipe feeding one one of the severely corroded pipes was isolated when we isolated rise of six. So that left one and flat 165. I think you're I think you're quite right. If one of them had a flat had a flat number ending in two, it would not
00:23:27 flat number ending in two, it would not would have been cut off. So there wouldn't be any reason to go and remediate the severe corrosion in that in that flat. Um, if it's right that not every pipe is
00:23:39 Um, if it's right that not every pipe is inspected in an LC21 survey and if an LC33 survey only goes to the pipes that have been found to have severe corrosion,
00:23:50 corrosion, does it follow that there could be a lot more corroded pipes sitting in Grenfell Tower that were just not identified on the first time round? Well, when the engineers went there the first time
00:24:01 engineers went there the first time around, they'd have taken um checks along all of across all of the risers and at points where the riser enters the building. Um you're right, there were elements of those risers that were not
00:24:13 elements of those risers that were not checked. Um and they they could have um had corrosion. Um but from an assessment we took of the riser itself, we we we made a judgment on whether there was further work needed or or or not. Um,
00:24:26 further work needed or or or not. Um, and the only corrosion that was identified was that in in flat 165. Well, how can you be sure that there's not corrosion in the other pipes?
00:24:37 not corrosion in the other pipes? I I can't be sure of pipes that we physically haven't seen, but when we look at when we look at these assets, you can get a a general view on what you believe the quality of the rest of the asset would be,
00:24:48 asset would be, right? Do you have a sense of what the general view of the quality of Grenfell tower pipes were? I I don't have a view from from looking at this information. No,
00:25:00 at this information. No, but looking Sorry. But when we look at the um the survey, it was clear that there was the the couple of bits of career severe corrosion and the other elements were superficial.
00:25:11 elements were superficial. Right.
00:25:12 Right. Can we look now at what happened at the with this about the survey on Grenfell Tower? like to go to your first inquiry statement again at page 10 CAD 42985.
00:25:29 We're coming now to the detail about what exactly happened at paragraph 37.
00:25:36 37. You say this following the Hazup meeting on 5th of December 2016, Mark Petty allocated the LC33 survey to one of his first core operative engineers whose
00:25:48 first core operative engineers whose role it is to carry out LC33 surveys. We've spoken with the engineer and he recalls attempting to complete the LC33 survey on at least two separate occasions. However, he was unable to
00:26:00 occasions. However, he was unable to gain access to inspect the relevant pipe work. On the first occasion, he was not able to enter the tower itself as a security fob was required to enter the tower. On the second occasion, a
00:26:11 tower. On the second occasion, a caretaker allowed him access into the tower. However, the surveyor was unable to gain access to the individual flat where the corrosion had been identified in order to carry out his more detailed inspection of the pipework. He sought
00:26:23 inspection of the pipework. He sought assistance from the tenant management organization office located under the railway arches near the tower, but they were not able to facilitate access. On that second occasion, when the surveyor
00:26:34 that second occasion, when the surveyor was able to gain entry into the tower itself, the surveyor undertook a letter box check, which is when a probe is inserted through a letter box to test for any gas leaks. No gas leak was
00:26:47 for any gas leaks. No gas leak was tested.
00:26:48 tested. Do you happen to know when or approximately when those attempts to visit the the um flat with corrosion were made? I'm afraid I don't know exactly when
00:27:01 I'm afraid I don't know exactly when when they were and you've described this letter box check and that if I've understood correctly that would just be of the flat
00:27:12 correctly that would just be of the flat where the severe corrosion yes
00:27:14 yes was was done. Now just carrying on with your first inquiry statement. Can we go over the page to page 11 please? And it says this. Where a surveyor is
00:27:26 And it says this. Where a surveyor is having difficulty in accessing a building or individual flats to complete a survey. Three attempts to gain access should be made on separate days over a two-eek period. Following the three attempts, the surveyor records the
00:27:38 attempts, the surveyor records the details, dates, times, addresses, etc. on the survey form and flags no access to the customer specialist. Now, I think it was your evidence that there were only two attempts made. Is that right?
00:27:51 only two attempts made. Is that right? Yes, it is. So, in fact, there weren't three attempts within a twoe period, were there?
00:27:59 I there there weren't three attempts within a twoe period? No. And
00:28:08 would I be right to say that the process was abandoned at that point? Um,
00:28:16 Um, I don't know about abandoned, but I've got we haven't found any evidence or records to say that a third survey was attempted. If we look at the LC21 procedure itself, we go to CAD 40 2987
00:28:36 and we recognize that as the LC21 procedure. And can we go to paragraph 14?
00:28:47 Sorry, page 14.
00:28:52 Paragraph 5.6.3, second paragraph down, the final part of that paragraph, starting the customer specialist. Have you found it?
00:29:03 you found it? Yes.
00:29:03 Yes. The customer specialist shall contact the building owner occupiers to confirm why access was not granted and to make arrangements to gain access. Would it be correct to say that because there had
00:29:16 correct to say that because there had not been three attempts at Grenfell Tower, the customer specialist had not been contacted, was not required to and and just did not end up contacting the building owner or
00:29:30 end up contacting the building owner or the occupiers about access. Yeah. Yeah. with um the information I've seen, I I I can't I I don't think that that customer specialist element was um
00:29:41 that customer specialist element was um started, didn't it? Just didn't start. No.
00:29:44 No. As far as the documents we have go, can we go to the LC34 work procedure which is CAD 430001
00:29:59 and can we go to page eight of that please?
00:30:04 please? And it says par paragraph four five lines down. It starts with the words prior to and it says prior to the survey being carried out. The customer specialist for
00:30:16 carried out. The customer specialist for the network shall ensure that bullet point the building owner and occupiers have been contacted to explain the purpose of the survey and arrange a suitable date time for the work. This
00:30:27 suitable date time for the work. This contact information shall form part of the survey pack and be included on the associated engagement plan. So am I right to understand that engagement was expected before the LC33 survey would
00:30:40 expected before the LC33 survey would take place?
00:30:45 Yes. And in fact that that doesn't seem to have happened in this case does it? No.
00:30:53 No. Do you accept that this planned LC33 survey wasn't arranged in accordance with Cadence policy? And I accept that. Yes.
00:31:05 And I accept that. Yes. And would you go so far as to accept that it wasn't arranged very well? Um, I go so far as to accept it wasn't completed. Yes. Do you accept that it was unsupported or
00:31:17 Do you accept that it was unsupported or largely unsupported by Cadence's team? Um
00:31:26 I know I don't I I don't I don't I don't know actually. I know that the surveyor made efforts to go and gain access um which we would reasonably expect of a surveyor but I
00:31:39 reasonably expect of a surveyor but I don't know to what extent the customer specialist got involved to try and support that person gaining access or indeed if he asked for help to gain access.
00:31:48 access. I follow. Can we go to your first inquiry statement at page 11? That's CAD 402985.
00:31:56 402985. Page 11,
00:31:59 Page 11, paragraph 41 at the bottom of the page there.
00:32:03 there. And you say this, at the time of the fire, the surveyor had still not been able to gain access to the tower in order to complete the LC33 survey, and the survey was still outstanding. Unfortunately, difficulties with access,
00:32:16 Unfortunately, difficulties with access, particularly individual flats within mobs, is not unusual. Without access to a flat or building, our engineers are unable to complete the necessary physical inspections, as was the case in
00:32:28 physical inspections, as was the case in with the tower. Now, you can take it from me that we've not found any documents indicating that any action was taken after the 23rd of February, the last hazard meeting where
00:32:40 February, the last hazard meeting where Grenfell Tower appears. Was there to your knowledge any further action on corrosion in the old pipeline from that date?
00:32:53 Not to my knowledge. No. So this was identified at the end of September 2016 and as at the 14th of June 2017 there
00:33:05 and as at the 14th of June 2017 there had not been any action as far as the documents that we've seen are concerned. the the procedure had not been completed. You know, we hadn't completed those three attempts or checked the the
00:33:19 those three attempts or checked the the asset.
00:33:19 asset. Is that an unacceptable delay? Um
00:33:30 I don't think I do not think it's acceptable. No. Can we go back to just for one last time to the hazel meeting minutes CAD 40's 2984
00:33:48 and we see in column E the last line there proactive work still outstanding. Is there any reason that proactive works
00:33:59 Is there any reason that proactive works would be relevant? Um it would be relevant because the proactive work would
00:34:08 would um
00:34:09 um install the riser to all of the other flats in the building and therefore be part of decommissioning the the lateral or riser that had the severe corrosion on it. Would it be
00:34:21 on it. Would it be would it be part of Cadence's thinking at all that going and fixing this corrosion would be again wasted effort if eventually
00:34:33 eventually all of these risers would be all these old old pipes would be decommissioned? No, I don't think that was the case. I think that at this stage the proactive work was still at a very early stage and
00:34:44 work was still at a very early stage and would have taken some time to complete. So our our process should have continued to complete that LC33. I see.
00:34:53 I see. The last topic I want to talk to you about is cadent maps and plans. Can we go back to the LC21 survey at CAD6031
00:35:04 CAD6031 again? We need that in native format. Please,
00:35:14 can we please go to the tab called supporting photos on the left hand side.
00:35:29 And if we go right to the top, we see an image. It looks like a screenshot. And it appears to be a map of the gas services into Grenfell Tower. Can you
00:35:42 services into Grenfell Tower. Can you confirm that? I can confirm that. Yes. Is this cadence map of the area as it was in its records in September 2016? Yes.
00:35:53 Yes. Now, we can see that there's only one service pipe marked going in and it seems to be the 10-in landlord supplied. Is that what you read from this map? That is. Yes.
00:36:04 That is. Yes. Can we now go to CAD5051?
00:36:17 Now, this is perhaps a more detailed map than we've seen before. Now, I believe these are some slides that Cadent created
00:36:29 some slides that Cadent created um and were in fact forwarded during the isolation operation on the 14th of June 2017. Do you recognize them? I recognize the image. I don't recognize
00:36:41 I recognize the image. I don't recognize them as slides, but I do recognize the the image. Yeah. And and would that be would that be the image of the gas plans as at the 14th of June 2017?
00:36:58 gas plans as at the 14th of June 2017? Yes. Yes. I can't see the exact diameters, but it Yes, of course. Yes. Um we we'll take you to some of the detail of that in in um due course, but we can
00:37:09 of that in in um due course, but we can see for example that the pipelines still going in. So they haven't been isolated at this point and we can still make out the one going from the southwest to the
00:37:21 the one going from the southwest to the northeast being the station walk main for example. Yes.
00:37:25 Yes. Yeah.
00:37:28 Yeah. And Grenfell Tower is in the top center. Might be a little difficult to see it but it's in towards the very top. There's Grenfell Tower written in uh in the box there. Can you can you see that?
00:37:40 the box there. Can you can you see that? I can.
00:37:41 I can. Yeah.
00:37:42 Yeah. Now again on that map we can see that there's only one pipeline actually going into Grenfell Tower and that's the 10-in landlord supply service.
00:37:53 landlord supply service. Is that right? Um that's right in that that's all we can see here. But there was the other supply going in. Well yes. So residential supply one and residential supply two would also have
00:38:05 residential supply two would also have should also have been on this this map if it were completely accurate. Yes. Yeah. So
00:38:14 So if that's right, then these these map it's not entirely up to date, is it? It's not. No. Now you describe in your second MPS statement how the emergency team
00:38:25 statement how the emergency team received information on the the day of the fire. And to summarize that, I believe the information included the
00:38:37 I believe the information included the fact that some of the operatives had been working in the area, so knew the surrounding area, that some of the operatives had knowledge of the gas supply because they'd been working in
00:38:48 supply because they'd been working in the tower itself on the replacement riser.
00:38:51 riser. Um, and also that there was an email sent to the emergency team with information about the gas supply. Have I have I fairly summarized the principal
00:39:02 have I fairly summarized the principal in pieces of information for the emergency? Yes. Yes.
00:39:05 Yes. Yes. Thank you. Can we go to the email? It's exhibit 9 to your second Metropolitan Police statement. We can find it at ME30's
00:39:15 ME30's 18309.
00:39:22 And if we go to page two, at the very bottom we see an email from Simon Bgel and he I understand is the subcontractor
00:39:35 and he I understand is the subcontractor to TRIO.
00:39:37 to TRIO. Do you know who I mean? I do. Yes. Is that correct? Yes.
00:39:41 Yes. And he seems to have provided some information to Mr. Kelly and Mr. Connelly. And I understand both of those people are cadent employees or were cadent employees. They were. Yes. Now, if we scroll to the
00:39:52 They were. Yes. Now, if we scroll to the top of the page, um I'm sorry, can we actually just stay back down on the bottom of the page? You can see that he's given some details of the gas supply. For example, there is a
00:40:04 the gas supply. For example, there is a deep boiler room below the block. Do you see that? I do. Yes. Now, if we scroll to the top of the page,
00:40:16 we can see eventually that this goes to the operatives who were there on the day, including Mr. All Day from whom we heard in phase one. So, this information at 8:15 made it to
00:40:31 So, this information at 8:15 made it to the gas emergency team who were at the fire at the time. Is that right? Correct. Yes. Now, as helpful as that information may have been, surely it's not the way
00:40:45 may have been, surely it's not the way that Cadent emergency team would usually come to understand how gas supply pipes go into a building, is it? No. I mean normally when when projects
00:40:58 No. I mean normally when when projects like this are completed, we have a period of time from project being completed to um all of the records being gathered and then updated onto our our core map system,
00:41:09 core map system, right? And are you saying that it's because the project was ongoing that this map wasn't? Yeah, I I I don't know why those maps weren't put forward to be
00:41:22 why those maps weren't put forward to be put onto the system, whether it was because the project was ongoing or because there was a delay in updating those records. But that would that would be something of a reason for residential
00:41:33 something of a reason for residential supply 2, the new riser, but it wouldn't really account for why the old riser service going into the building, residential supply one, wouldn't account for why that's not on this map, would
00:41:44 for why that's not on this map, would it?
00:41:44 it? It wouldn't. No. Was it not a little fertuitous for the emergency team that somebody knew this information and proactively decided to contact Cadent about it?
00:41:55 about it? Um,
00:41:57 Um, I mean the the the services that go into the tower, not all of them were on the maps. Um,
00:42:05 maps. Um, I guess you could say it was fortuitous that we were able to get our hands on to that information. Yes. Do you accept that Cadent really ought not have to rely on someone like Mr. boy sending this information that the
00:42:16 sending this information that the network map certainly of the service services going into the tower the network map should have been up to date. Well, I I I don't know whether that email from Mr. Bgel was also in a in a
00:42:28 email from Mr. Bgel was also in a in a stack of information about the main or the riser that had been constructed in Grenell Tower which was waiting to be updated. So that could well have been in process to have been updated and it hadn't been finalized on the system that
00:42:40 hadn't been finalized on the system that our engineers see. When that system worked its way through, would that have updated the map to include residential supply one, the old
00:42:51 include residential supply one, the old pipe going in as well, do you think? Um I I don't know. I don't think so. Given what I said earlier on about um trio were there just to install the new riser. we hadn't instructed them to look
00:43:02 riser. we hadn't instructed them to look for the other PIVs or the other supply. I'd like to take just a little look at the 2008 survey which is CAD 402989.
00:43:13 And if we can go straight to page seven.
00:43:20 And if we zoom in please on Grenfell Tower which is ringed in blue highlighter.
00:43:27 And what we see there are the red pipes going in. And we can see a black line drawn going horizontally.
00:43:38 And I think that says 4 in service. Do do you see there's a little tag on it saying 4 inch service?
00:43:48 So I just so if we look look at Grenfell Tower and we can see the main going all along the top and then from north down to south. Yeah.
00:43:56 Yeah. We can see the red line at the bottom which I think is the landlord supply. Yeah.
00:44:00 Yeah. And if you go above that there's a black line that's drawn from left to right and there's a tag on it that says 4 in. Yes,
00:44:11 there's a tag on it that says 4 in. Yes, I can see. So I I suspect and I'm asking you if that's residential supply one drawn there. I believe it could be cuz that was 4 in.
00:44:25 I believe it could be cuz that was 4 in. And we see that there's four black crosses in that inner square there. Does that indicate the four vertical rises that then rise up through the building? I I believe it does because it said, you
00:44:38 I I believe it does because it said, you know, the engineers annotated that on the sketch. Yeah. So, it seems that in 2008 the surveyor identified that the map was missing the surface pipeline of
00:44:49 missing the surface pipeline of residential supply one, doesn't it? It does. Yes. Yeah. So, should Caden have updated its records after this survey in 2008? Yes.
00:44:59 Yes. Can you tell us what the formal process is for updating maps? Um when when an a diagram sent through to our engineering team um we call it
00:45:11 to our engineering team um we call it the data assurance team they would pick up this um and do some checks to make sure that yes that is what the engineer wrote and on on the form and then it would go into our system to be processed
00:45:22 would go into our system to be processed digitally so that it then appears on our maps.
00:45:26 maps. Right. Was that process to the best of your knowledge just not followed in this instance?
00:45:33 instance? I I don't know whether it wasn't followed or whether it appeared on our mapping system and then dropped away from it afterwards or not. I don't know. Well, how could that have happened that it appeared on the map and then dropped
00:45:44 it appeared on the map and then dropped away?
00:45:44 away? I I I don't know. I'm speculating. Right. It must be the case that something's gone wrong with this because that that's riser systems not on Yes.
00:45:52 Yes. the network map. Yes, I agree. Now, we saw earlier the as laid drawing, and we can go back to that if you'd like, but we saw that there was
00:46:03 if you'd like, but we saw that there was a service pipe with the PIV marked on it. Do you recall that drawing? The Simon Bole one. Uh, no. Let's go to it. It's TRRI 501416
00:46:15 Uh, no. Let's go to it. It's TRRI 501416 1417.
00:46:20 We do you recall that? Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
00:46:23 do. Yes. And we can see that there's a service pipeline uh indicator there in red. Yes.
00:46:31 Yes. Would in the normal scheme of things would Cadent have received this drawing? Yes. So these these drawings are included with a bundle of other drawings um of the newly constructed riser. We
00:46:42 um of the newly constructed riser. We would receive them from TRIO and then we would update them in our record system. When would you expect Trio to have sent these that drawing? um
00:46:54 these that drawing? um as soon as the project's been completed. So
00:46:56 So right, if we go down to the bottom right hand corner, we can see the date 6th of February.
00:47:02 February. Now we know that at the time of the fire, this project wasn't completely complete, not even the reactive works, the reactive reinstatement had been completed at that time. Would you have
00:47:14 completed at that time. Would you have expected nonetheless to have this drawing or would you have expected for to wait for the entire project to be completed before receiving this? We'd normally wait until the entire
00:47:25 We'd normally wait until the entire project's completed. So it may just be, correct me if I'm wrong, it may just be a function that because the works hadn't completely completed that you wouldn't have had this map.
00:47:35 this map. It it could be. Yes. I see.
00:47:39 I see. Now, we discussed earlier that and I think you agreed that PIVs are an emergency apparatus and that each of the three of the gas service pipes should have had a PIV fitted.
00:47:51 fitted. Given that these are the three pipes that would have had PIVs on them, isn't that all the more reason to make sure these maps are up to date?
00:48:05 It it is. Yes. I mean, yes. Um, can we return to the slides at CAD5051,
00:48:13 CAD5051, please?
00:48:23 So, I've already identified the pipeline on the left hand side running southwest to northeast, and we now know that that's the 15-in
00:48:34 and we now know that that's the 15-in main on station walk. Now, the chairman heard evidence in phase one about the go books, the electronic maps that the cadent emergency team carried, and we heard
00:48:47 emergency team carried, and we heard that these showed that the main on station walk was identified as being a 12in main on the go books, but once it had been dug up, it was discovered to be
00:48:58 had been dug up, it was discovered to be a 15-in main. And it was also not exactly where the cadence team expected it to be. It was a little bit deeper and it wasn't exactly where the line was was
00:49:11 it wasn't exactly where the line was was drawn.
00:49:13 drawn. Can we just go to page two of the slide deck to give you a picture in detail? You can see the tag there. It says 12in die. Does that indicate 12in
00:49:24 says 12in die. Does that indicate 12in diameter?
00:49:25 diameter? It does. And that's why I think the Cadence emergency operatives thought it was a 12-in man. Yeah. From from memory when we looked at it, um
00:49:37 it, um we didn't know where along that that that road station walk outside road station where it transitioned from being a 12 in to where it was a 15 inch.
00:49:48 a 12 in to where it was a 15 inch. Right.
00:49:49 Right. Um and we we excavated where we believed it to be 12 in. And when we found it, we realized it was was 15 inches. Yes. Yes. Of course. Now, we saw earlier
00:50:00 Yes. Yes. Of course. Now, we saw earlier that regulation 16 of the pipeline safety regulations um says something about prevention of damage to pipelines. It might be helpful just to remind ourselves of that. It's
00:50:11 just to remind ourselves of that. It's inquiry 30 or 3014790
00:50:19 and it's at page nine.
00:50:24 And it says, "For the purpose of ensuring that no damage is caused to a pipeline, the operator shall take such steps to inform persons of its existence and whereabouts as are reasonable."
00:50:38 and whereabouts as are reasonable." Now, is it your understanding that implicit in this regulation that Cadent ought to have had accurate maps of its gas mains?
00:50:51 maps of its gas mains? Um
00:50:53 Um yeah, I mean I I guess I I would agree with that with reference to to this statement. Um but these these gas panes were were deeper than we suspected. Um and what we
00:51:06 deeper than we suspected. Um and what we find is the the the ground conditions above can change. So there could have been a road laid on top of another road which would make the pipe d deeper than we first thought or or deeper than when
00:51:17 we first thought or or deeper than when it was constructed. I mean, these pipes are old. You know, they were constructed in the Victorian times, some of them. Right. Well, indeed, that's a a question
00:51:28 Right. Well, indeed, that's a a question I had. How old do you think these pipes might be?
00:51:31 might be? Um, I I I don't know exactly, but they would they would have definitely been laid before I believe they would have been laid before um Grenfell Tower, right,
00:51:40 right, constructed. Do you accept that potentially Cadent might be in breach of regulation 16 by not having an accurate map of the diameter of this main?
00:51:51 map of the diameter of this main? Um
00:51:54 I I I don't think so. I think the only thing that we had that was incorrect was the the size of the main. Yeah.
00:52:02 Yeah. Um I I don't I I don't I mean the just the diameter of the main over a short period of distance changed um and these these
00:52:13 distance changed um and these these records date back many many years right just thinking about regulation 16 which should still be on your screen there
00:52:20 there in cadence view or in your view was this main reasonably marked so that others were aware of its existence to avoid doing it damage in my view it was yes
00:52:32 in my view it was yes in an emergency would a cadent engineer typically expect to isolate a main like this by digging it up and capping it as they did?
00:52:42 they did? Not in an emergency. No. No. During routine maintenance, would caden would a cad caden engineer typically expect to have to isolate a main like this?
00:52:53 this? It's unlikely that they would have to isolate a main like that during routine maintenance. What would they typically do in routine maintenance? Um, so if if there was um a gas leak on that main, then they would
00:53:04 gas leak on that main, then they would excavate and repair the gas leak, which would involve fitting something onto the main.
00:53:12 Now, in your experience, are there a lot of gas mains like this that are inaccurately recorded on maps? Um, not a lot. No. Caden has 210,000 km
00:53:24 Um, not a lot. No. Caden has 210,000 km of of gas pipe. How are you sure that they're accurately recorded if they're if at least some of them are very old? So, excuse me. So, when we when we do
00:53:37 So, excuse me. So, when we when we do identify the pipes um and they're not in the location where we believe they should be, then we um we mark out where the pipe is and then submit it to our engineering department who who will
00:53:48 engineering department who who will update our maps to show where that new where that pipe has been recently found to be. Um but one of the the challenges that I alluded to a moment ago is that um sometimes the road network can
00:54:00 um sometimes the road network can change. So when the road was laid and the pipe was built, you'd measure from a curb.
00:54:05 curb. Yeah.
00:54:05 Yeah. If the curb has been if the road's been wide and the curb no longer is there, then that kind of data point is no longer relevant. Um and we sometimes find ourselves um in situations where the road network's
00:54:17 situations where the road network's changed and therefore people's orientation is different. Now in those Sorry, can I just interrupt? Um we saw from that um diagram and also from the evidence that
00:54:28 diagram and also from the evidence that we heard last time that the main was thought to be a 12-in main. Yes.
00:54:32 Yes. And it was only when it was excavated that it was found to be a 15-in main. What was the basis on which it was identified on the diagrams on the on the then current maps as a 12in main?
00:54:46 then current maps as a 12in main? Well, we see where it's 12 in. That's where it's coming out of one of our pumping stations. And we know the pipe work there is is a 12 in pipe work. But what we didn't know is exactly where it changed from being 12 in into 15 in.
00:55:00 it changed from being 12 in into 15 in. Well, did you know that it did change somewhere? We did. Yes. I see.
00:55:05 I see. We go back. That information about the size of the mains
00:55:10 mains is derived from historical records. It is. Yes. until we get the opportunity as it were to fix a gas leak on that main and validate the size and location of it.
00:55:21 validate the size and location of it. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Thank you very much. Well, it might be of some assistance if we go back to CAD5051.
00:55:37 And I'm not sure you can quite see it on this diagram, but where that right where that main turns and goes at the top of the page from northwest down
00:55:49 the top of the page from northwest down to southeast, do you see the beginning of a diagram that looks like a triangle? Do you see what I'm very very top? It's cut off slightly. Yes.
00:56:00 Yes. Do you see that? Um, when we see that in full, that's a triangle and there's a circle on the end of it. And I think that might mean that there's a change of diameter. Would I have
00:56:11 a change of diameter. Would I have interpreted that correctly? Um they they sometimes used for change in diameter or change in position or to show there's another sketch available somewhere.
00:56:22 somewhere. So it might be the case that someone thought that that little symbol there meant that that was the point at which it changed into a 15inch man. It it could have been. Yeah. Um, you
00:56:35 It it could have been. Yeah. Um, you talked about there being a change perhaps in where the foot curb was or how the road goes exactly or how indeed how deep a road is or how deep how high
00:56:46 how deep a road is or how deep how high up it's built. Um, and that every one of those little changes might make the reference point incorrect and therefore the mains maps slightly inaccurate.
00:56:59 the mains maps slightly inaccurate. Would that be fair to say? Yes. What would it take to record all of the mains with 100% accuracy?
00:57:11 the mains with 100% accuracy? We would have to um effectively excavate on all of our gas pipes, um put sensory equipment on them to determine where they went and then
00:57:24 to determine where they went and then map that out in, you know, in real time today.
00:57:30 today. Sir, those are the end that's the end of my prepared questions. Right. Thank you. So, can we could pause to see if there are any further questions? Yes. Um, while we're still on that
00:57:42 Yes. Um, while we're still on that diagram and and the location of the mains, can can you tell from this diagram, I think probably you can't,
00:57:53 diagram, I think probably you can't, whether the 12in main changes to a 15-in main at any point. I think this may be too large a too small a scale to to um I can't quite see I can see it saying 12
00:58:06 I can't quite see I can see it saying 12 in when it comes out of the pumping station by Latimer road tube station but I can't see the point where it would change anywhere along that length going northeast. I mean it suggests that perhaps no one
00:58:18 I mean it suggests that perhaps no one realized there was a 15inch man up there. Um, I think we knew at some point it there was a 15-inch main because of what it says at the the the kind of the top of
00:58:29 says at the the the kind of the top of the um the map there, but we just didn't know on the night where it transitioned from being a 12 in to to a 15 in. All right. Thank you very much. No,
00:58:41 All right. Thank you very much. No, nothing else you want to follow up from that?
00:58:43 that? No, sir. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Well, Mr. Harrison um council thinks she's reached the end of her questions and she probably has but we always have a pause at this point to um enable her to check that she's not
00:58:54 um enable her to check that she's not left anything out and to enable other people who aren't here to suggest questions that perhaps we ought to be putting to you. So we'll have a break now till quart 3 and then when you come
00:59:07 now till quart 3 and then when you come back we'll see if there are any more questions for you then. Is that all right?
00:59:10 right? Okay.
00:59:11 Okay. Right. Thank you very much. We'd like to go to the usher please. All
00:59:26 right, group pass three then please. Thank you. Thank you.
01:16:26 Yes. Would you ask Mr. Harrison to come back in, please?
01:16:40 Right, Mr. Harrison. We'll see if there are any more questions for you. Yes, Miss Hines. Yes. Just one point probably of clarification more than anything. Can we go to TRI501417
01:17:00 and this is the aslaid drawing and your evidence was that you would normally wait until the entire project was completed before Kate would would receive this drawing.
01:17:12 receive this drawing. If we go to Mr. Dolan's witness statement which is TRRI 401797
01:17:27 at page nine
01:17:31 paragraph 36. He says the location of the PIV, which related only to the newly installed riser, was data captured by TRIO when attending the site to produce an aslaid
01:17:43 attending the site to produce an aslaid plan on the 6th of February 2017. This was sent to Cadent on the 2nd of March 2017 to update their asset mapping system. Um, are you in a position to say
01:17:55 system. Um, are you in a position to say whether Mr. Dolan is correct on that or not?
01:17:58 not? Um, I'm I'm not. I mean, I Obviously, I wasn't in charge of that department then. I thought that records were
01:18:09 then. I thought that records were submitted and updated when the projects were completed. Very well, sir. Those are all of my prepared questions. Right. Thank you. And Mr. Harrison, I would just like to
01:18:21 And Mr. Harrison, I would just like to thank you very much for attending to help us today. Yes. And Mr. Harrison, I'd like to thank you very much on behalf of all three members of the panel for your time and effort in coming to give evidence for
01:18:32 effort in coming to give evidence for us. It's been very helpful to us to hear about the details of how the gas supply system works and so on. Something of which I certainly hadn't had much previous knowledge. So, thank you very
01:18:44 previous knowledge. So, thank you very much indeed. And uh you're now free to go.
01:18:47 go. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We'd like to go to the usher. Thank you.
01:18:59 Thank you. Right times, thank you very much. Thank you, sir. And that's it for today, is it? That's it for today. And tomorrow, we'll have Mr. Dolan of TRIO. Right. Thank you very much. Right. Well,
01:19:10 Right. Thank you very much. Right. Well, at that point, we'll break for the day and we'll resume tomorrow at 10:00. Thank you very much.