Matthew Dolan, Contract Director for Trio (joint venture between Morrison Utility Services and Skanska), gives evidence on the gas riser replacement design at Grenfell Tower. He admits the design risk assessment process was 'weak' and 'flawed' for missing critical fire safety considerations.
00:00:42 so
00:00:47 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:50 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from a representative of trio which was the body
00:00:57 body instructed by caden gas to fit the new riser in grenfell tower yes ms grange yes mr chairman can we call mr matthew dolan please thank you
00:01:16 good morning mr darling good morning um i gather you're going to make the affirmation yes thank you very much so if you'd like to read the words on the screen that would be
00:01:26 would be appropriate thank you i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
00:01:37 nothing but the truth thank you very much no do sit down make yourself comfortable
00:01:47 right yep good thank you yes mr strange yes thank you yes can you give the inquiry your full name please it's matthew john dolan thank you and and thank you very much for coming to the inquiry today to assist us with our
00:01:59 the inquiry today to assist us with our investigations it's very much appreciated um if you have any difficulty in understanding any of the questions that i ask you today please just ask me to repeat the question or i'll put the point in a different way
00:02:12 or i'll put the point in a different way we will take scheduled breaks today if you feel you need an additional break please just say and please try and keep your voice up so that the transcriber who's sitting to your right can take a nice clear note of your evidence
00:02:24 nice clear note of your evidence thank you now we have two witness statements from you if we can go to the first this is a m-e-t
00:02:31 m-e-t three zeroes one two seven one one this is a statement dated the 5th of february 2018 which you gave to the metropolitan police it's 18 pages long we'll call
00:02:44 police it's 18 pages long we'll call that your first statement um can we also pull up your inquiry statement
00:02:50 statement this is a tri401797
00:02:57 so this is the statement that you made to the inquiry if we look at page 10 we can see it's dated the 5th of october 2018
00:03:08 2018 and is that your signature there it is yes
00:03:12 yes now have you read both of these statements recently i have thank you and can you confirm that the contents are true they're correct yeah thank you and have you discussed the evidence you're going to give today with anyone before coming here this morning
00:03:24 anyone before coming here this morning only people directly involved in um putting the statement together i think yeah
00:03:31 yeah were those your lawyers lawyers yeah yeah thank you now we know that you were involved in the grenfell tower project because you worked for the entity that we know as trio
00:03:41 trio is that right that's correct now what sort of entity was trio can you explain yeah trio was a joint venture between morrison utility services and katskanska
00:03:52 morrison utility services and katskanska construction it was awarded an eight-year contract in at the back end of 2012 to deliver amongst other things gas mains replacement multiple occupancy building
00:04:03 replacement multiple occupancy building and connections work for national grid yes which later become cadent gas yes that's very helpful thank you and it was formed specifically to bid for
00:04:15 was formed specifically to bid for contracts with national grid is that correct yes
00:04:19 and as you've just mentioned we know that in 2016 national grid changed its name to cadent we'll call it cadent today in in the questioning
00:04:31 questioning and as you said so we know that on the 18th of december 2012 trio was awarded the contract for gas distribution services in the north london region for cadent is that correct
00:04:42 cadent is that correct it was and also the east of england so there was two contracts that were awarded
00:04:46 awarded yes one for london network and one for the east of england network yes thank you and that contract was known as the gas distributions strategic partnership the
00:04:57 distributions strategic partnership the gdsp
00:04:58 gdsp that's correct is that right and it was an exclusive contract for trio to do all the work in defined regions is that correct
00:05:07 correct yes and you've mentioned already and mr harrison told us yesterday that the term of that contract was for eight years that's right yeah yeah and is it right
00:05:18 that's right yeah yeah and is it right that that came to an end it terminated by expiry in december 2020
00:05:23 2020 yes and is it right that trio as a joint venture doesn't exist anymore that's correct yeah now you helpfully set out a summary of what trio was
00:05:34 set out a summary of what trio was contracted to provide in your first witness statement if we can go to that at page two so that's your met statement i want to look at paragraph
00:05:44 paragraph ten
00:05:47 you tell us there it's right at the bottom of that page if we can blow that up
00:05:54 yes you said you say under the contract trio carries out work in london to replace existing metallic gas mains with new polyethylene gas mains lay new
00:06:05 with new polyethylene gas mains lay new gas mains and install new connections work is done on the instruction of cadent which owns the gas network
00:06:12 network this includes providing a design and construction service for replacement gas networks in multi-occupancy buildings mobs of which around eighty percent of the
00:06:23 of which around eighty percent of the mob's programme works arise from reports from the public and others relating to gas leaks reactive works and the remaining twenty percent relate to planned replacement programs
00:06:34 programs proactive works now we've heard from mr harrison yesterday and i just want you to confirm that the gas
00:06:41 gas riser works which trio carried out at grenfell tower started at the beginning of october 2016 that had not been completed by the night of the fire
00:06:52 of the fire in june 2017 is that correct that's correct
00:06:57 and just to be clear it's right isn't it that trio did this work to the gas pipes at grenfell tower under the strategic partnership contract yes and trio provided the design for
00:07:09 yes and trio provided the design for those works yes yes and also manage the construction services for those works yes we did yes thank you
00:07:19 and um in that paragraph that we just read paragraph 10 in the second sentence second line you begin there by saying work is done on the instruction of cadent
00:07:32 on the instruction of cadent can you just explain precisely what you mean by that so in the context of the reactive mobs program
00:07:39 program we would have been issued with a what is known as a client brief a a mobs pro former which is an instruction to commence the design and construction activities associated
00:07:50 and construction activities associated with the replacement of the gas riser that had been cut off due to public reported gas escape yes and once you take on responsibility responsibility for that design
00:08:01 responsibility for that design is it fair to say that you're not being instructed by caden about the design it's up to trio then to to to plan that design work is that correct yeah we were the designer the principal designer and the principal
00:08:12 the principal designer and the principal contractor for that work yeah and um in terms of your role can you just help when did you start working for trio
00:08:23 trio i started working on the trio contracts on the first of april 2013 i joined as a program and compliance manager
00:08:33 manager yes and then became a contract director i'm just going to get it right here in terms of
00:08:40 terms of the start of year 4 which would have been 2016. yes 2016. yes so we've got in around april 2016
00:08:51 yes so we've got in around april 2016 you became contract director does that sound right that's right yes yes and from march 2018 did you become director of operations i did yes thank you now
00:09:02 i did yes thank you now just going back again to your first statement this time one page on on page three if we look at paragraph 11. you tell us here at any one point in time trio has
00:09:15 here at any one point in time trio has approximately 500 projects ongoing of which around 20 to 30 can be mob multi-occupancy buildings projects i am one of two of trio's contract
00:09:26 i am one of two of trio's contract directors responsible for the delivery of the overall programme of works with part of my area of responsibility relating to the design and construction of the mobs projects for both the london and east of england
00:09:38 for both the london and east of england networks
00:09:41 now just to clarify at the date you made that statement you were still a contract director at trio is that correct and that was your role at the time of the works at grenfell
00:09:52 at the time of the works at grenfell tower
00:09:52 tower is that correct yes
00:09:57 and you tell us there that there were two contract directors can you just help how was the role divided up did you have different areas of responsibility yeah so my area of responsibility i
00:10:08 yeah so my area of responsibility i looked after operations for the london network
00:10:12 network and i had design health and safety responsibility for both the london and eastern
00:10:17 eastern east of england network and then my counterpart had operational responsibility for the east of england plus he looked after customer services and some other activities but my
00:10:28 and some other activities but my responsibility was london network operations for both contracts london and the east of england plus health and safety for both contracts london east of england yes thank you that's very helpful can
00:10:40 yes thank you that's very helpful can you just keep your voice up a little bit because it's dipping down a little bit at the end just so we can get a clear note thank you
00:10:50 yes and typically how many multi-occupancy building projects would you be looking after at any one time so at any one point as in my statement
00:11:01 at any one point as in my statement around 20 to 30 yes predominantly in the london in london network right the vast majority of the mob's projects were in the london network yes and in terms of the grenfell tower
00:11:14 yes and in terms of the grenfell tower project
00:11:15 project what direct involvement did you have uh first of all with the design of the new riser at grenfell tower so i would have had very little um direct responsibility so i had overall
00:11:27 direct responsibility so i had overall responsibility but in terms of day-to-day delivery of the design and construction work that would have been discharged through my team
00:11:33 team yes and what about the construction work at grenfell tower again what was your direct involvement in that very similar to the design so i would have had a operations manager responsible for the delivery of the
00:11:45 responsible for the delivery of the project and a design manager responsible for the design of the project yes so they were direct reports of mine yes
00:11:52 yes and is it right that you did have some involvement during the works when problems were escalated to you yes so there was specific problems that occurred notably an asbestos incident that
00:12:04 notably an asbestos incident that occurred in one of the flats and and i would have been notified of any complaints that would have been escalated to me if they couldn't be resolved but my team yes thank you
00:12:18 now in terms of your own background um is it right that you're a gas engineer by training yes i started in the gas industry in 1988
00:12:27 1988 and spent 25 years working for british gas transport and national grid before joining
00:12:33 joining the trio contract in 2013. yes thank you and is it right that you did your training at national grid before it became cadent i did yeah yes and
00:12:45 i did yeah yes and when did you commence that training training was ongoing um throughout my my 25 years working for national grid and its predecessor company so depending upon the role i was
00:12:56 company so depending upon the role i was undertaking training would have been involved in supporting me in the delivery of that particular job or those particular jobs yes thank you
00:13:07 yes thank you and um in 2010 you took on the role of engineering manager at national grid is that right yes it is yes and was that a senior role
00:13:18 yes it is yes and was that a senior role within uh national grid yes it was a a senior management role yes thank you so to summarize before you started working at trio you'd worked as a gas engineer for over 25 years
00:13:30 a gas engineer for over 25 years yeah i joined joined the gas industry when i was 21 in 1988. yes thank you and are you still working in the gas industry i am yes yes um
00:13:42 i am yes yes um now i want to ask you a little bit more now about the relationship between trio and cadent we heard from mr harrison yesterday that caden as a gas transporter
00:13:53 caden as a gas transporter has statutory duties for example in connecting customers to gas and keeping the pipeline in safe and efficient working order now is it right that the contract with
00:14:05 now is it right that the contract with trio
00:14:06 trio was designed to assist caden in fulfilling those obligations yes and under that contract trio was cadence contractor is that correct yes
00:14:18 now um it's also right isn't it that the relevant gas regulations themselves are in functional form i they set out goals is that correct that's correct yes so
00:14:28 so rather than prescribing exactly what the gas transporter has to do they set out these functional requirements yes yes
00:14:38 and is it right that in order to achieve those goals the industry frequently refers to a range of different guidance including hse guidance industry technical
00:14:50 hse guidance industry technical standards
00:14:51 standards and other british and european standards is that correct yeah there will be a hierarchy of documentation specifications that we would
00:14:59 would refer to yes
00:15:03 um mr stephen mason of caden has provided several witness statements to the metropolitan police and to the inquiry he was the operations director for cadent
00:15:14 director for cadent i just want to look at something he says in one of his statements if we could bring that up at cad 403005 at page three
00:15:28 and i want to look at paragraph 11.
00:15:34 so there he tells us he says um this contract that's the one between cadent and trio
00:15:39 and trio underpins the relationship between cadent and trio and sets out the contractual relationship for this eight year period trio as contractor for works under the contract is required to comply with all statutory requirements
00:15:51 statutory requirements including the cdm regulations as defined in paragraph 16 below and any obligations imposed by the health and safety executive or ofgem relevant british or european standards
00:16:02 relevant british or european standards or codes of practice and best practice guidelines in respect of health and safety as are applicable to the activities carried out under the contract now do you agree with what mr mason says
00:16:15 now do you agree with what mr mason says there in terms of yes thank you and just to be clear the best practice guidelines that he's referring to around five lines down he says best
00:16:26 around five lines down he says best practice guidelines in respect of health and safety would for example the publication igem fart g5
00:16:34 fart g5 be classified as good practice guidance yes thank you
00:16:39 now if we go over the page in his statement to page four and look at paragraph 12 he says at the beginning there as part
00:16:50 he says at the beginning there as part of the contract trio is required to work in accordance with a number of cadence policies procedures and industry standards
00:16:57 standards which includes igem g5
00:17:02 and you tell us in your second witness statement
00:17:06 statement i don't think we need to turn it up but page six paragraph 23 you tell us that trio applied the igem g5 standard when designing and constructing the gas supply replacement works is that right
00:17:18 supply replacement works is that right that's correct and you also tell us that this summarizes best practice and guidance from legislation and existing gas industry standards and procedures for gas installations in multi-occupancy
00:17:30 installations in multi-occupancy buildings is that correct yes yes and just um help us i think we heard yesterday but igem for those listening igem is the institution of gas engineers and managers that's correct
00:17:42 engineers and managers that's correct yes
00:17:44 yes and is it right that igem issues technical
00:17:47 technical standards for the gas engineering industry yes we can see igem d5 at if we look at it's an exhibit to mr hancox's report
00:17:58 it's an exhibit to mr hancox's report he's the inquiry's gas expert at rhx705
00:18:08 we can see that this is the second edition
00:18:12 edition of igem g5 gas in multi-occupancy buildings
00:18:19 and this version was issued in 2012 and was the current issue at the time of the gas replacement works at grenfell tower is that your understanding yes yes thank you
00:18:33 and i think you agree but just to confirm you agree that trio was required to work to this standard and meet the technical requirements that it set out that's correct would you have expected
00:18:45 that's correct would you have expected the trio design team to have been familiar with it yes
00:18:50 now under the building regulations regime there was also practical guidance in the form of a number of approved documents including something called approved document b on fire safety um
00:19:04 on fire safety um were you familiar with that document at the time you were responsible for the grenfell tower design works i was familiar with the building regulations but not specifically the approved document b that you referenced
00:19:16 approved document b that you referenced yes would you expect that those at trio who were designing the the works the the replacement riser works
00:19:24 works would have been familiar with approved document b in so far as it has sections relevant to gas works i would have expected the design team to be familiar with the document
00:19:35 with the document i'm not sure i can answer whether or not they've been specifically understood that particular section yeah they would have recognized the building regulation but maybe not the fire safety order section
00:19:47 maybe not the fire safety order section that you referenced right yes let's just pull up a pre-document b it's at clg 50224
00:20:02 there it is it's quite a long document it contains a lot of practical guidance um just to be absolutely clear about your answer you would have expected the trio designers to have been familiar and aware of this document yes
00:20:14 familiar and aware of this document yes they would have been aware of the building regulations document yes when you say aware of the building regulations document do you mean this practical guidance or do you mean the building regulations themselves
00:20:25 building regulations themselves building regulations themselves right so they will have been aware of the functional requirements in the building regulations yes but not necessarily familiar with this
00:20:35 this detailed practical guidance that's correct yeah
00:20:41 is it right that in 2016 and 2017 a gas engineer would have referred primarily to the igem standards in terms of health and safety yes
00:20:53 and would that be the only guidance document that a gas engineer would have referred to in their work or would there be other guidance documents that you can think of that were likely to
00:21:04 to come up more frequently to clarify in the context of the mob's programmer works
00:21:09 works the design team and the operational team would have referenced igem g5 yes thank you and is it right that in 2016 and 2017
00:21:20 and is it right that in 2016 and 2017 trio designers would have believed that if their design complied with the technical requirements of igem g5 then it would also comply with all other relevant standards that is correct yes yes
00:21:34 now we we saw reference to the cdm regulations the construction design and management regulations in mr mason's statement
00:21:44 statement and i think you accept in your first statement that the cdm regulations applied to the work of the strategic partnership contract yes yep
00:21:55 and it's right isn't it that as part of your contract with cadent trio had designated roles and had to abide by the cdm regulations is that correct yes
00:22:06 um for the grenfell tower project do you recall which particular cdm roles trio had
00:22:13 had under the 2015 cdm regulations i do yes yes what were those uh principal designer yes designer and principal contractor yes so all three distinct roles trio held
00:22:25 so all three distinct roles trio held those is that correct we did yes yes now
00:22:30 yes now we know that the role of principal designer was a new role created in the 2015 regulations that had not existed previously can you help us what training did trio undertake to take
00:22:44 what training did trio undertake to take on this new role when the new regulations came in caden approached us um when the new duty holder role came into place to
00:22:55 duty holder role came into place to take on that role we engaged the services of an external consultant namely arab arab came in and reviewed our business processes our
00:23:06 and reviewed our business processes our health and safety documentation our capability and they produced what in effect was a gap analysis report which identified those parts that we
00:23:18 which identified those parts that we currently complied with and therefore could take on that role and the parts that we would have to do some additional training and development of processes to enable us to fulfill the full role yes there was a plan
00:23:30 yes there was a plan that plan was actioned and then we were in a position to take on the role of principal designer yes and that was agreed contractually with with caden
00:23:41 with with caden yes thank you that's very helpful and and had that plan all been actioned by the time the grenfell tower project started it had yes yes
00:23:54 so did trio take steps to make sure that somebody with the necessary cdm competencies was engaged in any particular project uh our design scene in the context of
00:24:05 uh our design scene in the context of the design uh fulfilled both cdm training and also uh training in g5 when that was issued to us
00:24:13 to us yes now if we could look at your first statement
00:24:17 statement again your met statement at page four paragraph 20 this time you tell us that as principal designer trio had responsibility to plan manage
00:24:28 trio had responsibility to plan manage monitor and coordinate health and safety during the pre-construction phase and to liaise with the principal contractor during the delivery of the construction work now as principal designer would you
00:24:41 now as principal designer would you accept that trio had a duty to assess the health and safety risks throughout the life cycle of the whole project yes so not just at the beginning not just at the end but actually throughout
00:24:52 just at the end but actually throughout the work throughout the works and post completion and for any inspection and maintenance that would need would be needed
00:24:58 needed for the pipeline once commissioned yes and can we agree that the principal designer has other duties such as assisting the client with preparing pre-construction information
00:25:10 pre-construction information that's right monitoring the construction phase
00:25:14 phase coordinating health and safety matters during construction yes and identifying eliminating or controlling foreseeable risks yes thank you and at the end of a project
00:25:26 thank you and at the end of a project like this one where more than one contractor was involved the principal designer prepares the health and safety file and passes that completed file to the client is that your understanding that
00:25:37 client is that your understanding that is correct
00:25:39 now as you've mentioned trio was also a designer for the purposes of the cdm regulations and if we look again at your first statement
00:25:50 statement now at paragraph 21 same page you tell us that as designer trio's role was to prepare and modify the design in relation to the in-ground works and riser pipework at
00:26:02 in-ground works and riser pipework at the tower
00:26:03 the tower in performing that role trios trio's designers took account of pre-construction information provided by cadent
00:26:10 cadent to try to eliminate foreseeable risks to the health and safety of those working on the project the residents and others affected by the works in circumstances where the risks could not be eliminated
00:26:21 could not be eliminated trio's designers took steps to reduce and control those risks the design was then shared with the construction team and others working for trio
00:26:31 so we know that the roles of principal designer and then designer their separate roles under the cdm regime aren't they yes they are
00:26:43 and the role of cdm designer is also distinct from any design role in the sense of having a contractual obligation to design is that correct it is yeah
00:26:55 and for the grenfell project trio was both cdm designer as well as having the primary contractual role in designing the works under the contract with cadent yes that's correct
00:27:08 and then looking again at your first statement now paragraph 22 you tell us that as principal contractor this time
00:27:17 this time trio had responsibility to plan manage monitor and coordinate the entire construction phase of the reactive and proactive works is that correct yes yes thank you now
00:27:31 yes thank you now moving on to consider the gas installations at grenfell tower itself
00:27:38 we asked mr harrison about the three different gas supplies into the tower uh yesterday but i just want to confirm your understanding of those if we go to rhx6012
00:27:51 if we go to rhx6012 at page 14.
00:27:57 this is a figure figure four from mr hancock's expert report and it shows the three different gas supplies
00:28:05 supplies into the tower at the bottom we see in purple the landlord supply which we understand feeds the boilers now it's right that trio had nothing to do with that
00:28:17 trio had nothing to do with that gas supply did it that's correct yeah and then we can see in red at the top on the right hand side residential supply one
00:28:28 supply one now this was the original gas supply to the flats
00:28:31 the flats installed when grenfell tower was built is that correct yes and we can see if we follow the red line that it comes into the basement and then divides into four four rises
00:28:43 and then divides into four four rises one for each of the corners four corners of the building do you see that i do and again was that your understanding at the time yes yes and
00:28:54 yes yes and as it goes up two of those rides are split into two so there are in fact six pipes going up one into each of the six flats on each floor is that correct that is correct thank you
00:29:05 you and if we go to page 26 within this report and look at figure 18
00:29:11 this is a typical floor plan at grenfell tower between levels 4 and 23 of the tower
00:29:19 tower and we can see in blue where the original
00:29:23 original gas riser cupboards were for this supply for residential supply one do you see those i do yes yes so we can see the gas riser cupboards
00:29:34 see the gas riser cupboards and is it right that that would be where the meter was and the pipes would come from there to the gas appliances i.e the cookers yeah so the the riser would go up through the riser
00:29:45 through the riser utility shaft into the flat into the riser
00:29:48 riser cupboard where the meter yes yes thank you and again did trio have anything to do with the work on residential supply one no and if we go back to page 14
00:30:02 no and if we go back to page 14 and look at the figure four of mr hancock's report then we see in the middle of the page on the right hand side
00:30:14 the right hand side with the green label and the green line something called residential gas supply 2
00:30:20 2 now that was the new gas supply riser that trio installed in 2016 and 2017 is that correct it is and if we follow the green line uh we can see that it also comes into
00:30:32 uh we can see that it also comes into the basement and then comes to the southeast corner of the building is that correct that's correct and from there is it right that it rises up through the building
00:30:43 through the building through the stairwell and then through into the lobbies and into the flats yes yes now we'll come to more detail about that shortly
00:30:54 detail about that shortly um in terms of the background to this riser
00:30:58 riser we heard from mr harrison yesterday that as part of their rolling inspection program
00:31:03 program cadence surveyed to grenfell tower and the surveyor identified that there was a leak between flats 22 and 32 and a cadent team cut the entire riser that served all of
00:31:15 cut the entire riser that served all of the flaps ending in two to the tower so that the entire southeast corner was cut off from gas again was that your understanding at the time trio worked on the project yes
00:31:26 time trio worked on the project yes did trio have any involvement with that action that cutting and capping none at all no
00:31:35 and that was done by an emergency cadence team isn't it yes
00:31:41 now you mentioned earlier about that you'd get a request pro forma
00:31:49 i want to look at that now in the context of discussing what information was provided to trio about this project if we can go to cad zeros
00:32:03 this is an email from someone called danny large we can see at the bottom of the page that he worked for national grid then became cadent
00:32:14 national grid then became cadent the email is dated the 3rd of october 2016.
00:32:18 2016. and if we look at the email addresses we can see it's sent to a number of people including trio personnel and there is an attachment he says please see disconnected mob
00:32:31 please see disconnected mob we'll go to that in a moment and uh in the red text of the email he says trio have met with national grid on site to confirm project scope
00:32:42 scope do you see that i do
00:32:46 now do we understand correctly from this that by the third of october 2016 the time this email was sent trio had already been to grenfell tower and met cadent to discuss the scope of the works that
00:32:57 to discuss the scope of the works that trio was to perform following the cutting off of the gas supply to some of the flats yes yes and just just to be absolutely clear were you any part of that meeting
00:33:09 clear were you any part of that meeting no no and would trio designers have attended that meeting i'm not sure um i'm not sure yeah now you tell us in your first statement
00:33:21 now you tell us in your first statement that trio was instructed to carry out reinstatement works to the flats affected
00:33:26 affected and that trio was not required to provide a detailed quote prior to starting the work because of their urgency you say that in your first statement at paragraph 14.
00:33:38 paragraph 14. um was the usual process that trio would set out a detailed quotation for cadent to consider we had a schedule of rates that were
00:33:49 we had a schedule of rates that were agreed as part of the contractual framework agreement so in terms of the reactive works which this clearly was one of those projects the gas had been cut off
00:34:00 been cut off so we received the client brief and mobilized the site so the process can start off and then the costing of the projects and the design of the project would follow on that would then be submitted to caden at
00:34:11 that would then be submitted to caden at a later date for approval
00:34:16 yes i see but i think what i'm getting at is normally would cadence set out in a detailed quotation the the work that it was proposing to do before
00:34:27 before it started work not on the reactive works no
00:34:30 works no no i see so for reactive works yes it's different to the planned proactive works or active works the costing follows
00:34:39 yes i see so for the reactive works you just need to get going with the work and then any quotation would follow up later yes
00:34:48 later yes thank you and just to be absolutely clear
00:34:52 clear what did trio understand to be the particular urgency in this case
00:34:59 guest customers or customers being without their gas supply winter time coming yes the welfare of the customers was clearly a priority and therefore
00:35:11 was clearly a priority and therefore hence
00:35:12 hence the urgency to get the gas the design and construction process commenced yes to reinstate the gas supplies yes thank you
00:35:20 thank you now i want to look now at this spreadsheet that we can see being sent in this email if we could go to tr tri five zeros one seven six eight and we i think we need to see
00:35:33 six eight and we i think we need to see the pdf the native version of this yes thank you um so this is the trio multi-occupancy buildings pre-design
00:35:44 buildings pre-design hazard information do you see that at the top yes and then if we go to the second page
00:35:53 what we can see there is it's um at the very top it's called you could blow the top up it's called a riser request pro former is that a document you're familiar with
00:36:04 is that a document you're familiar with it is yes
00:36:06 it is yes and underneath that title there's a green box thank you we're just zooming in as much as we can but i'll read it out to you as
00:36:17 as we can but i'll read it out to you as well
00:36:17 well so that it in under in that very top green box it says this document is classed as the client brief and supports the ongoing compliance to the construction
00:36:29 ongoing compliance to the construction design and management regulations 2015. the information contained in this document has been prepared to the best knowledge of the client and in accordance with regulation four four and
00:36:42 four four and below that we can see the date that this part of the form was completed it was the first of october we've got that there in the box the yellow box and the time of cutoff was 2 am in the
00:36:53 and the time of cutoff was 2 am in the morning
00:36:55 morning and midway down the page we can see on the left-hand side there's a
00:37:01 a heading supply material we can see some details of the service pipes that were affected
00:37:07 affected they're said to be steel pipes diameter of four inches the riser material is steel it's an internal riser location etc so we can see that there and beneath
00:37:20 etc so we can see that there and beneath that we see some details about the building it says height of the building in excess of 40 meters category of job high rise
00:37:29 high rise number of floors 23 number of properties affected 38. and then beneath that we see the flat numbers
00:37:38 numbers of the flats of customers that were believed at that time to be affected and i think mr harrison accepted yesterday that some of this may be inaccurate because
00:37:49 some of this may be inaccurate because some of these flats seemed to end in a one not a
00:37:51 one not a two and it was only those ending in two that had their gas cut off is that right that's right yes yeah um and in that table we can see in the fourth column along from the left that
00:38:04 fourth column along from the left that there's something called vulnerability identified and there's some information in there about vulnerabilities for some of the gas users
00:38:13 gas users so for example you can see someone is said to have young children a few lines down and in the seventh column in the far right column there's also information about what
00:38:24 there's also information about what appliances these residents used do you see that there yes i do yeah and and would this information be used and referred to throughout trio's works
00:38:38 and referred to throughout trio's works yes this is the document that that's issued um
00:38:41 issued um as i mentioned earlier on which is the client brief and then this would be added to as the design and pre-construction process matures through the the programming of the works
00:38:53 programming of the works yes yes i see um and just to confirm was all
00:38:57 all was this all that trio received by way of written instruction from cadent on the work that you were to perform yes this is the initial document that's that's sent through would you have expected more than this
00:39:09 would you have expected more than this as an instruction to carry out such work this was the agreed document so this is what we would have expected to receive yes right
00:39:16 yes right okay
00:39:20 and going back to the first page
00:39:25 [Applause] of this document
00:39:34 yes thank you um as we saw earlier this is
00:39:38 is titled trio mobs multi-occupancy buildings pre-design hazard information
00:39:46 and if we go to the bottom of this page we can see it's dated 3rd of october 2016.
00:39:55 2016. now is it right that this was a document that trio operatives would routinely fill out
00:39:59 fill out in order to brief trio for works to be done on gas risers can i just ask to go back to the topic just as yeah
00:40:12 yes yes thank you and in the middle of the page in the first yellow box um i think we need to go down a bit further there is
00:40:24 further there is a box for esri vulnerable customer information and it's noted that a vulnerable customer is president with young children
00:40:35 young children we can see that there and if we go to page five of this same document clip
00:40:44 we can see that some data has been gathered about crime statistics based on data released by local police the area around lancaster west has a crime rate which is much lower than the regional average
00:40:56 much lower than the regional average this is a safe place to live etc so there's some data on on crime statistics um is that something that cadent provided to you or that trio
00:41:08 that cadent provided to you or that trio would go and routinely gather we would gather this information we would run this
00:41:12 this report to understand the environment the location we were working and the hazard that the crime uh could potentially present yes i see and then on page seven of this
00:41:23 i see and then on page seven of this same clip there's a map of the gas supply
00:41:25 supply to grenfell tower we have that there
00:41:32 and um we saw that the riser request pro forma was stated to be in accordance with the cm cdm regulations and that refers to one of cadence duties as client under the
00:41:44 of cadence duties as client under the cdn regulations which is the duty to provide
00:41:46 provide pre-construction information you're familiar with that yes yep um
00:41:53 yep um one of the experts the inquiry dr lane has expressed the view that this riser request pro forma was not on its own
00:42:00 own sufficient to meet the requirement of pre-construction information would you agree with that it was the initial document that was sent through yes i understand it was the initial document
00:42:12 i understand it was the initial document sent through but in terms of what you would be looking for as pre-construction information from the client
00:42:19 client was that document alone sufficient in your view
00:42:22 your view or would that need to be supplemented it would need to be supplemented yes thank you and um if we can go to your first
00:42:34 and um if we can go to your first witness statement again now the the met statement and look at page eight
00:42:42 of that and paragraph 30.
00:42:47 you say this you say cadent provided some information to trio about the tower such as the height of the tower number of floors number of properties and gas usage
00:42:58 and gas usage within the tower trio added to that information during the pre-construction stage of works during which the surveyor gathered information from site by knocking on doors at the tower
00:43:11 by knocking on doors at the tower the tower was owned by kensington and chelsea borough council and managed by the tmo
00:43:16 the tmo now was it typical for trio to supplement the information given to it by
00:43:22 by cadent by conducting further work on the ground as you've described here yes and can you help us what sort of information would trio be seeking by
00:43:34 information would trio be seeking by knocking on doors as you've explained there um location of the existing uh infrastructure gas infrastructure within the building and potential locations for the new meter
00:43:45 potential locations for the new meter location
00:43:47 location yes appliances uh whether or not there were
00:43:50 were any additional if there was any additional information around vulnerable customers
00:43:56 customers the general layout of the property uh in the surveyors experience what might be of use in the design and construction of the replacement riser
00:44:07 replacement riser yes um
00:44:11 yes um was getting access to the flats a challenge
00:44:15 challenge um at grenfell tower do you know yes like all mobs getting access to properties is not an easy easy task
00:44:27 is not an easy easy task it needs to be worked out on a continual basis it's not just a one knock and get access it is a continual process that you need to you need to follow yes and presumably that might be because people just simply aren't in
00:44:38 aren't in when your engineers are going around that's correct yes or would sometimes people not not be happy to let gas engineers into the flag that could very well be the case yes
00:44:49 well be the case yes yeah and does that mean that there might not be
00:44:54 not be um good or even complete data available to trio
00:44:58 to trio when it was designing the riser
00:45:03 the information the information was added to during the life cycle of the project
00:45:08 project so the information that was available at the time would have informed the the design and the design wouldn't progress
00:45:15 progress unless it had the appropriate information to enable it to move on to the next
00:45:19 the next the next stage yes so just to be clear at grenfell tower you weren't ever told that the design couldn't progress because you didn't have sufficient information about the riser
00:45:30 riser that's right yeah
00:45:39 now um
00:45:43 how would in practice how would the information you gathered um about the riser at the tower about for example people's vulnerabilities about locations of meters etc
00:45:54 about locations of meters etc all that information you're gathering how would that be shared with the trio team so
00:46:00 team so the information in terms of if i just talk you through the design so in terms of being able to design the riser we would need to know where the meter location was going to be going in the
00:46:11 location was going to be going in the new property yes so the information provided by the surveyor
00:46:15 surveyor would be used to inform the design team where the new riser pipeline would need to run both vertically at the building and horizontally on each floor so it knew where to install the access
00:46:28 so it knew where to install the access into the property yes
00:46:34 but in practice on the ground how would you actually be sharing that information amongst the surveyor the design team or the
00:46:42 the all the operatives that were on site yeah so on when the client brief is issued to to to us
00:46:49 us in trio we then commence the creation of what we call the health and safety file and that's in our it would have been in our electronic system we had a database a repository
00:47:00 system we had a database a repository called nexus whereby we would start to collect information we were issued with an engineering bulletin from the client with regards to what the content of the health and safety should include
00:47:11 safety should include yes and the hierarchy of folders within the electronic system would represent the requirements of the health and safety file required by the clyde and client and also what information we
00:47:23 client and also what information we would need to uh to use to inform the design and the construction so it was an iterative process
00:47:29 process yeah in terms of building that information and the full team would have had access to nexus it was on the web so that's how the information would have been shared and and by electronic forms
00:47:41 been shared and and by electronic forms emails and and uh teleconferences etc yes and just to be clear is that that health and safety file is that the same as a health and safety file for cdm purposes it is it is the cdm health and
00:47:52 purposes it is it is the cdm health and safety
00:47:53 safety and would it be shared we'll come on in a moment in just a moment actually to look at all the different contractors and subcontractors beyond trio underneath trio who were assisting with this work
00:48:04 with this work would they also have access to the health and safety file not necessarily no
00:48:12 they would get that information through an operational handover right looking back do you think they perhaps ought to have had access to the information in the health and safety file
00:48:24 file that would have that would have yes would have improved the process yes thank you
00:48:31 so in your first witness statement you've helpfully set out a list of contractors and subcontractors who worked on the riser replacement at grenfell tower and i just want to run through a few of
00:48:43 and i just want to run through a few of them if we go to your first statement your met
00:48:46 your met statement at page 5
00:48:51 there is a table at the bottom of that of paragraph 25 of your statement where you say you've set out below a table of the organizations and
00:49:02 table of the organizations and individuals to which and to whom work was subcontracted as part of the project and we can see in the top row we've got k and s and it says that they were a
00:49:14 k and s and it says that they were a subcontractor to trio now under role it just says senior partner and we can see the key contact was kenny snell can you help us as to what was kns
00:49:26 can you help us as to what was kns subcontracted to do at grenfell tower kns were subcontracted to uh fabricate um the and install the new riser and lateral system
00:49:39 yes so they're working on the pipe itself is that correct the fabrication of the pipe the installation and the commissioning of the pipe
00:49:47 the pipe yes thank you and was kns were they well known to trio they were yes yes
00:49:56 and at the next row down second from the top we can see london operations gas um and they are said to be a
00:50:07 gas um and they are said to be a subcontractor 2k and s yes yes and they were there as a surveyor is that correct yes so seoul trader and that was someone
00:50:18 yes so seoul trader and that was someone called simon boygill yes is that correct that's correct yes so you were about to say something about it i was jumping ahead there so no no it's fine and what was mr boygirl
00:50:29 was mr boygirl subcontracted by kns to do simon was subcontract he was the surveyor so simon visited the property and he produced the this he produced a survey
00:50:39 survey which was then provided to the design team to enable design to to proceed yes and although mr boygirl was a subcontractor to kns
00:50:51 subcontractor to kns did trio have direct dealings with him on this project not contractually that was dealt with through
00:50:58 through kns but on a day-to-day basis he would have been in constant dialogue with the diet the design and pre-construction scene right thank you and then third way down we can see holland gas
00:51:11 third way down we can see holland gas engineers limited again said to be a subcontractor to kns um under their role it just says director and it's nathan littlebree
00:51:22 director and it's nathan littlebree can you help us what were holland gas engineers contracted to do holland gas provided the gas safe engineers
00:51:29 engineers they were contracted to relocate the meter
00:51:33 meter run the copper outlet pipe work from the meter and reconnect back into the customer's appliances so the gas could be reinstated so all of their work would be
00:51:44 reinstated so all of their work would be inside people's flats it would be is that correct yes yes and again even though they were a subcontractor of kns did trio have direct
00:51:54 direct day-to-day dealings with them on the project
00:51:57 project not as not as there would have been contact and dialogue but not in the same way as they would have been with the surveyor he was part of that integrated and pre-construction activity yes i see
00:52:08 yes i see and then the fourth row down we can see express building contractors limited um subcontracted to trio role director and it's alan monaghan is the key contact what were they contracted to do
00:52:21 contact what were they contracted to do express builders were they we used those for the boxing in of the riser electoral system and any work that was required inside the the the flats um
00:52:32 inside the the the flats um in terms of moving boxing to enable the meters to be moved or the copper pipe work to be run yes thank you so that was carpentry work yes sorry
00:52:45 yes sorry he said to be moved or the copper pipe work to be run yeah so sorry just to clarify express builders
00:52:54 builders so if oil and gas required any internal uh modification inside the flat which involved carpentry work express builders would have done that uh on their behalf
00:53:05 on their behalf but they were contracted direct to us to do that work yes i understand so effectively they're mainly providing carpentry services that's correct yes yeah great and then finally at the fifth row or
00:53:17 and then finally at the fifth row or this is all i want to ask you here we've got cape electrical um subcontracted to trio managing director
00:53:25 director phil casateri what were they contracted to do
00:53:30 to do where um some of the lighting where the lateral pipe work for example was run around the lobbies to lay that pipe electrical lights
00:53:41 to lay that pipe electrical lights needed to be moved to enable the route of the pipe to be installed yes did they ever
00:53:46 ever move any of the light wells in the stairs do you remember i don't i don't remember it may have been a temporary requirement but i'm not 100 sure on there yeah and you tell us in your witness
00:53:58 yeah and you tell us in your witness statement
00:53:58 statement that these contractors were on your approved contractors register can you just help us what is that register yeah before we engage the services
00:54:07 services of any contractor they need to fulfill certain criteria and that's known as a pre-qualification questionnaire and that is filled in and that's then
00:54:18 and that is filled in and that's then reviewed and it satisfies that they are a company that we want to engage with both from a financially viability perspective but also from a health and safety capability
00:54:30 safety capability yes and what checks would be carried out to satisfy trio that from a health and safety
00:54:38 safety capability perspective this was an appropriate subcontractor to be dealing with so for example
00:54:44 example if they would have had a health and safety management system which laid out the arrangements that that company would would undertake to satisfy their legal obligations from a health and safety
00:54:55 obligations from a health and safety perspective
00:54:58 yes so trio would require to see details of that health and safety management system
00:55:03 system yes that that pre-qualification questionnaire will be reviewed by both our commercial team and our health and safety team yes and that would get signed off as being suitable or not yes thank you and
00:55:15 suitable or not yes thank you and did trio expressly approve kns's subcontractors so where there's a chain below
00:55:21 below k and s would trio expressly approve those
00:55:27 those i'm not sure to be honest with you um i'm
00:55:31 i'm there was a requirement for all contractors and subcontractors under the contract with cadence to be approved um but on that basis you know we put these individuals to
00:55:42 you know we put these individuals to work they were inducted into trio and therefore that would suggest that they were
00:55:49 they were uh they would have gone through that process but i can't explicitly 100 give you that i understand i think if we look on over the page in this witness statement at page
00:56:00 27. we could go over the page
00:56:06 to page six
00:56:14 you start that paragraph by saying with trio's approval kns subcontracted parts of its work to specialist contractors so is it right your understanding is they would have had some approval by trio before doing that yes and
00:56:26 trio before doing that yes and again just to just to clarify that is a contract would have been a contractual requirement with cadence that we did that yeah and were kns's subcontractors for example london
00:56:37 london operational gas and holland gas were they on trio's own approved contractors register yes yes
00:56:46 did cadent have any role in approving trio's contractors or was this entirely a matter for trio it was it was a matter for trio yeah and that information would have been shared with caden in in terms of who was
00:56:58 shared with caden in in terms of who was on that avo if they requested it yes and um just to be clear were these um contractors and subcontractors beneath trio obliged to meet the
00:57:09 beneath trio obliged to meet the standards and guidance that we talked about earlier including igem g5 and approved document b
00:57:16 b i'm not so dependent upon which contractor so holland gas being a gas engineering company would have had some requirements to satisfy the requirement of gas safe
00:57:28 to satisfy the requirement of gas safe registration yeah um simon boyegal being a surveyor wouldn't he would have been knowledgeable of g5 um so in terms of discharging his duties he would have had knowledge of g5 as well yes
00:57:40 had knowledge of g5 as well yes i understand but i think what you were hinting at is that perhaps some of the subcontractors you might not expect to be as familiar because for example they're doing carpentry work or something like that express builders cape electrical
00:57:52 express builders cape electrical non-gas related activity wouldn't have need to yeah the industry specs now in terms of those um
00:57:59 um contractors who needed to be aware of certain standards including the igem standards
00:58:05 standards how in practice did trio make sure that those contractors and their work met those standards there was a
00:58:14 was a an in-depth inspection and audit regime undertaken by both the contractors our own internal inspection and audit regime
00:58:25 regime plus an audit regime undertaken by the client so there was three tiers of audits that were undertaken on all works that was delivered on the on the the trio contract and specifically the the grenfell tower
00:58:37 specifically the the grenfell tower project yes and at what stage were those three tiers of audits carried out that was an ongoing process so as soon as work commenced there would have been inspections
00:58:49 there would have been inspections undertaken it would have been recorded on
00:58:51 on for example our mobile platform system and that information would have then been made available to the management team
00:58:57 team in the form of management information and action taken if non-performance were identified yeah now turning more specifically to the work that trio did at grenfell tower
00:59:13 is it right that trio's work was intended
00:59:16 intended to be in two phases first to reinstate the gas service to the riser that was cut off uh after the gas leak that's the flat two
00:59:28 after the gas leak that's the flat two work yes yes and second to use that design that that new riser to eventually supply all the flats through that new riser is that right
00:59:39 that right yes yes
00:59:42 and is it right that you would call the first of that work the first replacement riser to the flat twos you call that reactive works
00:59:54 works is that right yes and that's reactive to a cut in supply yes and the next stage of work by connecting all the remaining flats to that new riser
01:00:05 that new riser you call that proactive works is that correct yes it is and that means proactively replacing the gas supply is that yes a planned operation yes
01:00:18 and just to be clear was trio instructed from the outset to replace the entire supply of gas to all the flats yes so it follows does it that caden
01:00:29 yes so it follows does it that caden assumed at the very outset that residential supply one would in due course be decommissioned and replaced with whatever solution was designed and agreed
01:00:39 agreed by trio that's correct chess now if we look at your first witness statement again um actually we have it here if we go to page three of this
01:00:51 page three of this and look at paragraph 17. you tell us there a survey and pre-construction activities were also carried out for the proposed
01:01:02 carried out for the proposed proactive replacement of the remaining five rises but construction work had not started
01:01:09 started on the other five rises at the time of the fire
01:01:12 the fire as one of the six risers had leaked it was standard practice for cadent to take the opportunity to replace the other five risers in the building and was it standard practice because there'd
01:01:24 was it standard practice because there'd been a leak in this old gas pipe riser is that why it was standard practice to replace the others because in one of the rises you've had a leak
01:01:35 in one of the rises you've had a leak i'm not i i can't answer for cadence processes and policies um i think it's taking the opportunity if we're if we're installing a new riser then we would leave the opportunity to
01:01:47 then we would leave the opportunity to replace the existing risers and on that assumption due to the age of the existing risers it would make sense to replace those whether that's directly related to the condition of the riser that cut off i
01:01:59 condition of the riser that cut off i think that'd be a question for for for for cayden um right so you can't help as to whether there might have been any other factors that led to that decision to decide ultimately to
01:02:10 ultimately to ensure that all the flats were supplied by the new riser
01:02:17 it's an aging pipe and therefore we've replaced one um and hence we would leave uh the ability to replace the others due to the age of the the existing rises
01:02:28 the existing rises that's what that would be my yeah uh yeah my yeah and to be clear was was trio um did they have any part in the decision as to what to do about residential
01:02:40 as to what to do about residential supply one or was it just understood that the whole gas supply would eventually be replaced no we had no involvement in that decision
01:02:47 decision yeah now
01:02:50 yeah now we know that eventually it was decided to put the new gas riser up through the stairs certainly that main part goes through the stairs we'll discuss
01:02:59 discuss separately what happens at lower level and i want to understand exactly how that decision came about to put the riser through the stairs
01:03:09 stairs at grenfell tower we understand from your statements that trio instructed simon boygirl to conduct a survey um and he was assisted by two other
01:03:20 um and he was assisted by two other people
01:03:20 people at trio is this right by harvey smith and martin wiskin yes and can you help who was harvey smith harvey smith was the project manager um
01:03:32 harvey smith was the project manager um our operational project manager so harvey would have been responsible for the delivery of the installation and martin whiskey was our design engineer and martin was responsible for the design um of the
01:03:45 was responsible for the design um of the the new riser system yeah and was anybody else involved in considering the route that the new riser would take for example um k and s were they involved at all
01:03:56 involved at all it would have been an integrated uh review um
01:03:59 review um so that that process of of finding a solution
01:04:04 solution would have been an integrated um decision an integrated process so there would have been input we would have taken the the advice or necessary input from our
01:04:15 advice or necessary input from our experts who would have been involved in whether or not a design was a feasible constructable solution so it would have been a
01:04:23 been a a an interactive process yes i follow and to what extent did caden have any role in um assisting with the decision about where the new riser was
01:04:35 where the new riser was was to go can you just clarify when you when you see yeah i'm talking about the stairs putting the rider in the stairs to what extent did cadent play any role in that decision
01:04:47 play any role in that decision the design would have been trio's design so that that we would have ended up using the requirements as a hierarchy in g5 and
01:04:54 g5 and and we're looking for the least disruptive least hazardous route so martin and his design team would have with input from simon boyegal would have come up with a
01:05:06 simon boyegal would have come up with a solution
01:05:07 solution that solution would have been clearly shared
01:05:10 shared with the cape with with the client um throughout that that that process i see yes and what about the the tmo the tenant management organization who were managing
01:05:20 managing the building do you recall whether they had any input into the decision ultimately to put the riser in the stairs yeah we were we were restricted there were other
01:05:31 were other options they were discounted due to being
01:05:36 being not not available to us so for example putting the riser on the external facade of the building which would have been clearly our preference that was rejected
01:05:47 clearly our preference that was rejected by the the tmo on the basis of the cladding
01:05:50 cladding and and that was so that was rejected yeah
01:05:53 yeah yes thank you in a moment what i'm going to do is take you through each of the options that were considered and the reasons why they discounted i guess at this stage i'm just trying to understand who would have had an involvement in in that decision
01:06:07 involvement in in that decision and you say the tmo did have some involvement yes it was a a tripartite in effect involvement with cayden
01:06:14 cayden the tmo and ourselves now um some of the tma witnesses have been asked questions about this and i just want to look at um something that mr madison peter madison said he was the
01:06:27 mr madison peter madison said he was the director of assets and regeneration at the tmo
01:06:30 the tmo if we could go to the transcript please now at day one two four day 124 i want to look at page 160
01:06:44 we can see at the top um he's being asked at this point about a number of complaints that have been raised about the riser going through the stairs
01:06:53 stairs and at the top we get the question so does that tell us that in fact although you say you were keeping the complaint open you were only keeping it partly open in other words you'd already decided to keep the
01:07:04 words you'd already decided to keep the pipes in the stairwell but make sure that they were boxed in properly and this is the answer he gives he says this if it was my decision i wouldn't have had the pipes there i would have had the gas removed from
01:07:16 i would have had the gas removed from the building altogether so it wasn't my choice this was something that national grid imposed and they were inflexible around this said this was the only place it could go
01:07:27 said this was the only place it could go and we had no choice really in this matter and i just wanted to get your
01:07:33 your response to that do you recall there being discussions with the tmo about
01:07:40 about specifically about placing the riser in the stairs
01:07:46 there were i do i do recall discussions around the riser going in the stairwell and that was what
01:07:52 was what would have been relating to the boxing in
01:07:55 in um of the system yes i don't i don't um i don't recognize that that statement there as
01:08:03 there as that wasn't something i would have been uh made aware of right yes so you can't um from your perspective in terms of what you were aware of were caden or or trio acting for caden
01:08:17 were caden or or trio acting for caden inflexible about the route that the riser could take it was the only route available to us if we was to reinstate gas back to those properties and was that communicated clearly to the tmo
01:08:29 that communicated clearly to the tmo that it was the only route available it was after the other options have been discounted by other parties yes yes so are we to understand then that
01:08:39 that um your designers did at least investigate the possibility or
01:08:45 or consider the possibility of putting the riser somewhere else and that that was raised with either the tmo or the council or both of them and the message came back
01:08:56 the message came back you can't put it in this case outside the building yes there were four options available to us uh one of which was the option that got designed there were three other options
01:09:07 three other options one of which was discounted it wasn't practical or there wasn't a engineering solution to it the other two were
01:09:14 were were disregarded by others namely the tmo and kaiden what were those two options i know one of them was to put it up the other side of the building
01:09:24 building the other option was to buy the gas out so not put gas back in um to the building so really three possibilities by the by the gas out
01:09:34 out yes put the riser on the external facade or put it upstairs that's correct yeah and
01:09:42 and those were all raised but two of them were this discounted either by the gmo in the case of the external riser or cadent you say in the case of buying
01:09:54 or cadent you say in the case of buying out yes that's correct thank you
01:09:58 yes now um just going through those options in a little bit more detail so option one the outside of the building
01:10:07 building um is it right and i think you've just confirmed that there is a preference for routing gas rises outside a building where possible that's correct and does that come from
01:10:19 that's correct and does that come from technical standard idem d5 which says that running the rises and all the laterals externally and then bringing them into meter points immediately on entry to the building is the most preferred gas pipe design
01:10:31 the most preferred gas pipe design it is yes and just in practice um what happens with that do you encase the gas riser in its own external shaft outside the building how does that
01:10:43 shaft outside the building how does that work no the shaft the boxing is required so for ventilation purposes and clearly if the pipe is running external to the building it's naturally ventilated yes so there is no requirement to box
01:10:56 yes so there is no requirement to box that in
01:10:56 that in i see as you described yes left vent should a leak occur so you just see a naked you just see a naked pipe going up the outside of the building yes and then penetrating each of the flats where it would then
01:11:07 flats where it would then meet a meter inside those flats yes that's correct that's how it would work yeah yes sorry dropped again but maybe i don't understand exactly how
01:11:18 maybe i don't understand exactly how this would work but do the planners not have any view about
01:11:22 about the appearance an external pipe of some kind or another unboxed in and protected yes it can be a challenge uh the aesthetic um impact if that's a
01:11:33 uh the aesthetic um impact if that's a way to describe it of a pipe can on the outside of a building is not always
01:11:38 always welcome and what sort of pipe would it be it would be steel pipe um generally speaking two inch in diameter
01:11:46 diameter depending upon the number of customers that it would need to supply it'll be steel pipe painted black yeah thank you yes and can you help us how
01:11:57 thank you yes and can you help us how how serious was the consideration given at grenfell tower to that option it was a it was our preferred option
01:12:05 option so it was the preferred option it would have been the number one option available to us um when that was discounted or we were told that we couldn't do that then we looked at the buyout option
01:12:17 then we looked at the buyout option and that wasn't possible and then we were left with finding a a viable route and that was the route that was available to the only bit that was available to us after those two other options had been
01:12:29 two other options had been discounted yes and i think you you tell us in your witness statement that the reason it was discounted is because it would penetrate the new cladding and would have rendered the cladding guarantee
01:12:41 guarantee not null and void is that correct it is my understanding yes and also for aesthetic reasons they didn't want the new cladding being penetrated by gas pipes is that correct and that was
01:12:52 pipes is that correct and that was something the tmo communicated to you is that it was yeah not me personally but yes so there were discussions um with the tmo where they're over this
01:13:04 um with the tmo where they're over this option
01:13:04 option yes right and were those verbal discussions because we haven't been able to find any documents that that detail these discussions i i don't know um i can't 100
01:13:16 i i don't know um i can't 100 sure and and would it be fair to say that it was decided quite quickly that the riser would have to be reinstated if it was going to be reinstated through the interior of the building yes
01:13:29 through the interior of the building yes after we've discounted those two options to be able to comply with the requirements of g5 that was the route that was was taken
01:13:40 yes mr chairman i was just going to quickly run through the other a couple of other options but equally i can
01:13:47 can stop there because that they're slightly discreet little topics and what would you prefer to do let's stop now i'm making good progress um good and i'll carry on with the other options when we pick up after the break
01:13:58 options when we pick up after the break right thank you well mr donald as i think we warned you we have a break during each session this seems to be a good time to take a break now so we'll stop and resume at half fast eleven
01:14:09 stop and resume at half fast eleven and i have to ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything
01:14:13 anything relating to it during the break all right thank you very much would you like to give the usher please
01:14:29 to give the usher please thank you half of us
01:32:14 would you ask mr dolan to come back in
01:32:24 please
01:32:31 all right mr dolan ready yes carry on yep thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you yes we were in the middle of discussing the different options for the replacement riser and how it came about that that riser
01:32:43 and how it came about that that riser ended up in the stairs and we've already just discussed um the fact that there was a proposal to put it on the outside the building but you explained that that was not not satisfactory for the tmo and so
01:32:56 not not satisfactory for the tmo and so you had to look inside the building for the riser is that correct that's correct chess yeah now now i want to just discuss the option of running running it through residential supply
01:33:08 running it through residential supply one so
01:33:10 one so running it through the existing position of the riser that had been cut off now as we understand it is this right the existing gas supply ran from the basement up through the building and
01:33:23 basement up through the building and into the flats at the kitchen so it's actually going internal to the flats yes as it penetrated the building yeah smarter standard in through the basement up into a riser cupboard and then into a
01:33:35 up into a riser cupboard and then into a flat and then it would have progressed through the building through the flats yeah to the very top yeah and if we look at your first statement again your met statement page 8 paragraph
01:33:48 your met statement page 8 paragraph 31
01:33:51 31 you tell us that the existing network could not be repaired due to the leakage being within the fabric of the building i embedded in the concrete between flats
01:34:02 concrete between flats if we could have visually expected inspected the gas riser it may have been possible to refurbish the existing pipe so um was any consideration actually given
01:34:14 um was any consideration actually given to the possibility of simply repairing the cut riser so there is a process that subjects have been able to inspect the pipe in its entirety um
01:34:27 the pipe in its entirety um and then possibly to put a what we call a test on it it would have been possible to reconnect it but because we couldn't visibly inspect
01:34:36 inspect the pipe there was no option to use that that option was not available to us yeah and is it right that you couldn't visibly
01:34:44 visibly inspect it really for two reasons one because it was going up between people's flats so there was the problem of access and two because it was going between concrete floors yes through
01:34:55 concrete floors yes through concrete floors yes inspection difficult is that a fair summary of the problems it is yes yes thank you well i think you'll just explain what
01:35:06 well i think you'll just explain what you were trying to say is embedded in the
01:35:08 the the fabric of the building in the concrete it is yes yeah yes and what is the problem with pipes being embedded in concrete can you just explain in the context of being able to
01:35:19 in the context of being able to reconnect it and use it yes not been able to visibly inspect it right yes
01:35:31 and it's right isn't it that there weren't any sleeves through the around the original pipe work so the the pipe was just directly concreted in to the to the floors is
01:35:42 concreted in to the to the floors is that correct that's my understanding yes yes
01:35:46 and um the next option i just want to ask you about is is running it through the utilities shaft we know that there were already some shafts for utilities
01:35:57 shafts for utilities running vertically through grenfell tower for water for example and that's in particular there's a utility shaft in a cupboard by the stairs opposite the lifts i don't
01:36:08 by the stairs opposite the lifts i don't know whether you recall that yeah there are there are two from the basement there is a utility cupboard or utility cupboard uh on the what we would consider the first
01:36:19 would consider the first floor a second utility cupboard above that that would then go into the flat above and then the riser would proceed up through the flats so whilst we could have got a pipe into
01:36:30 so whilst we could have got a pipe into the basement and into the first two riser cupboards you couldn't go up into the flats because you'd have to get in the flats and run the pipeline within the flats yeah
01:36:38 yeah that was not available to us yes what about going up through those utilities cupboards and then going into the utilities cupboards that go through the lobbies um at grenfell tower at levels 4
01:36:50 lobbies um at grenfell tower at levels 4 to 23.
01:36:52 to 23. so the question was asked through dialogue with the tmo around using the existing
01:36:57 existing ceilings to run the lateral pipes that was discounted their contractor advised against that in terms of
01:37:05 terms of room and being unvent event unventilated right i see so i think what you're saying is that this what the ceilings in those
01:37:16 this what the ceilings in those utilities cupboards were wouldn't have been appropriate for running your laterals off it yes that was my understanding at the time of the discussions between the design team and the tmi yeah and you're saying there was a
01:37:28 yeah and you're saying there was a potential problem with ventilation in that utility shaft is that correct in the in the in the full ceilings the suspended ceilings that's my understanding yes right
01:37:43 and was this ever a serious option that was looked at at grenfell tower doing it this way it was looked at yes um and i have seen email uh traffic between ourselves and the tmo where that
01:37:55 between ourselves and the tmo where that option was discussed right now let's look at the route that was actually chosen um if we could go to tri7044
01:38:07 um if we could go to tri7044 this is an email from mr boygill the surveyor
01:38:10 surveyor on the 12th of october 2016 and he's copying in is sending this to various trio personnel um and he you can see that he says in
01:38:22 um and he you can see that he says in the
01:38:23 the the main paragraph so after hello harvey he says
01:38:27 he says as discussed i've identified a route up through the block to the top floor this pipe would eventually supply the remainder of the block
01:38:35 block security valves can be left the riser can be installed in the stairwell close to the affected flats the main issue is the recently installed mechanical air vents circulating the air on all communal
01:38:47 circulating the air on all communal landings
01:38:49 landings and then he says at this stage i haven't contacted the council whilst investigation's still ongoing and he says that the council contact is charlie saul at the tmo and we'll see his name in some other exchanges
01:39:02 in some other exchanges and um mr boykill attaches some marked up photographs to that email and we can see the route that was proposed and we'll do that in a moment um can you help us where he says at the
01:39:13 um can you help us where he says at the end of that first paragraph the main issue is the recently installed mechanical air vents circulating the air on all communal landings can you help us to what he means by that
01:39:24 means by that yeah the issue he's referring to is to be able to ventilate so the gas pipe that would have run in this
01:39:31 this what he's talking about here running from the stairwell into each communal landing that communal landing had
01:39:37 had mechanical ventilation fitted and there are two issues with mechanical ventilation one there is a source of ignition which is a problem obviously if there's gas is escaping from a leak on the the pipe
01:39:49 from a leak on the the pipe and also should that mechanical ventilation breakdown therefore there is no ventilation and therefore it's not suitable
01:39:58 suitable mechanical ventilation isn't suitable for providing the ventilation requirements are specified by g5 for gas pipes
01:40:05 pipes in that location yes because it's right isn't it that ideally um well the recommendation is that you have natural ventilation around a gas pipe is that correct it is
01:40:16 around a gas pipe is that correct it is a natural ventilation indirect and direct ventilation dependent upon the construction used yes thank you let's look then at the marked up photograph showing the route that he was proposing
01:40:27 showing the route that he was proposing if we can go to cad
01:40:34 6054
01:40:39 and we look at if we look at page four of this clip
01:40:45 here we can see a marked up map showing the gas services coming in from the east which is where the other two services come in from so he's sending uh that and you can see
01:40:57 so he's sending uh that and you can see he's marking a new supply onto this map i think in the yellow in the yellow arrows if we then go to page nine
01:41:10 arrows if we then go to page nine we can see a photograph
01:41:14 this is a photograph of the east side of the tower at ground level and what mr boygirl's done is marked up the three services coming in and is it right that the new service was the four inch service at the right of
01:41:26 the four inch service at the right of this picture is that correct we can see there's a 10-inch service service going in to the left um the 4-inch and the 10-inch are the
01:41:38 the 4-inch and the 10-inch are the existing supplies ah i see sorry that's a mistake in our notes yeah sorry
01:41:43 sorry um so he's is this just showing you what the existing services are that are going in
01:41:49 in yes so the 10 inch and the four inch to 10 inches to the uh boiler landlord supply and the four inch was to the existing six risers yes thank you if we go to page 10
01:42:04 we can see is this right with these yellow
01:42:07 yellow uh lines he's showing how the service would come into the basement at around five meters high is that correct it is yes yeah and then page 12
01:42:20 yeah and then page 12 shows us how it would um come into the basement and then up uh through the ceiling of the basement is that correct
01:42:28 correct it is yeah page 13
01:42:34 then and this is where you were talking about um
01:42:37 about um service riser cupboards um we can see that he's suggesting that it's going at this is at ground and first floor level it will go through this service cupboard
01:42:48 it will go through this service cupboard is that correct it is yeah yeah and then at page 14 the next page we can see how the riser would go through the main entrance lobby
01:43:00 through the main entrance lobby at grenfell do you have that i do and again that's the yellow dotted line yes yeah um at page 15 we see floor two
01:43:13 this is the second floor so it's coming through the floor of the stairs having gone through that atrium and then it's rising into the stairs and starting to travel through the stair
01:43:24 starting to travel through the stair shaft is that correct yes on on the previous picture the riser that we installed yes let's go back to that yeah yeah so if we go back one picture yes do you want to explain that that
01:43:36 yes do you want to explain that that rise of
01:43:37 rise of through the the two floors before it entered into the stairwell as you just seen they were the riser cupboards so there was a riser cupboard on as it come out the basement there's a riser cover with a louvered door
01:43:49 cover with a louvered door then there was a similar um scenario set up above that where it went into then it went into a storeroom and then it went into the stairwell
01:43:57 stairwell yes i see yes so it's not actually going it doesn't actually go there lobby like this it's going behind where we're seeing
01:44:04 seeing yeah through a series of cupboards and other riser cupboards yeah that's correct yeah thank you for that um and then if we go to page 16
01:44:18 we can see yes that he's explaining how it would go up through the stairs and you can see at the top that it would go through the ceilings of the stairs
01:44:29 go through the ceilings of the stairs and and he's also starting to show how lateral pipes pipes would branch off to start to serve each floor is that correct it is yes and if we look at page 17 now
01:44:45 this shows the view from the communal lobby
01:44:48 lobby at levels 4 to 23 and is it right that the pipe comes in through the left and then snakes around the top of the wall
01:44:57 wall under the ceiling and then across to the flat is that correct yes yes thank you
01:45:06 and then just a few pictures to show how the riser was actually built because this also helps to explain the position that it went into if we could go to cad 401640
01:45:28 this is a picture of the riser on floor four
01:45:31 four in the stairs and it's gone through the floor at the bottom and it goes through the top and then it's branching off and then going through the wall into the lobby
01:45:41 lobby is that correct on the other side yes that's correct and if we could go to another picture sorry
01:45:49 sorry tri five zeroes one four three one
01:46:02 sorry if we just rotate that picture now we can see the as built picture with the this is the pipe work so what we haven't got and we'll come to it
01:46:13 we haven't got and we'll come to it later is the boxing in at this point but am i right that this is how the pipe itself was built um coming out of the stairs at the wall to the left and again passing around the ceiling or
01:46:26 and again passing around the ceiling or just underneath the ceiling and then down and through to the flat twos is that correct it is and it wasn't all flat twos was it it was only some of them who needed gas 13 of the 20 um
01:46:37 who needed gas 13 of the 20 um flats needed gas yes thank you so that's that was the proposal and then we know that there was a second survey by mr boygill
01:46:48 by mr boygill if we can go to that this is at cad 6038
01:46:59 this is an email that he sends on the first of november 2016 again to trio and a number of its subcontractors and he says morning harvey as requested
01:47:10 and he says morning harvey as requested i've had another look at the landings to avoid running any pipe work within the heating pipe boxing and he gives a number of measurements that he's carried out and then if we go down to where he's got
01:47:22 and then if we go down to where he's got a heading gas meter recites he says this all flats have an area of between one meters and four meters that back onto the communal landings which can be drilled through for new gas
01:47:34 which can be drilled through for new gas meter positions there are a variety of cupboards to relocate the meter into now just to be clear was it necessary to move the gas meters within flats to be
01:47:46 move the gas meters within flats to be closer to where the pipe work entered the flats yeah there are there are restrictions on the length of of pipe that can be run inside a residential property that length is two meters
01:47:58 meters so to if we would have tr if if to get back to the original meter locations we would have had to have laid or installed pipe a greater length to two meters with also we'd have
01:48:10 to two meters with also we'd have introduced fittings that isn't allowed under the specifications that we work to so we had to look for a location for the meter to be relocated that was within that 2 meter
01:48:22 maximum length yes thank you yes that's helpful so they're effectively within 2 meters of
01:48:28 meters of the front door yes exactly yes so they're moved just to be clear from the kitchen cupboards to being by the front door is that correct
01:48:39 correct there is a room next so as you come through the front door there is a hallway and there is a room next to that hallway and that's where the meter was relocated
01:48:46 relocated yes and i'll i'll take you to some pictures of that in due course we'll have a look at that um
01:48:53 um now simon boygirl attaches some more marked up photographs to this second survey and these illustrate how he proposed the proactive works to be
01:49:04 he proposed the proactive works to be installed i this was the works later to extend the riser to serve more flats if we just have a look at that um this is within the same document page four of this same document
01:49:22 and is it right that the pink arrows going to the left here are showing how the riser would be extended in that direction in the stairs is that correct
01:49:34 i'm not i'm not sure with that photo the that if that was that was the extension of the riser in the stairwell to get to a pipe to lay into a
01:49:46 stairwell to get to a pipe to lay into a separate floor right you're not not into my my under my understanding for my recollection was that we would branch off of the the the pipe on the green with the yellow into the stair into the communal
01:49:57 yellow into the stair into the communal landings
01:49:59 landings and then to all of the landings i see so you can't help us with what he's showing in the pink i can only yeah no i'm not not one i'm not 100 sure i can make a sort of engineering judgment on
01:50:10 make a sort of engineering judgment on it but we
01:50:11 it but we think we think that the pink areas might be to go to the flats ending in one is that possible it could be but for the flat ones it goes that way and for all the other flats it could very well be yes right thank you
01:50:24 could very well be yes right thank you and if we go to page eight
01:50:28 of this clip we can see uh with the pink arrows he's showing how the riser would be extended within the lobbies to to service other flats is that correct
01:50:40 flats is that correct that is right yes those are the laterals branching into each of the flats yeah and then at page 11
01:50:49 we can also see something similar being shown
01:50:53 shown yes and there you can see another another view of that do you see that yes
01:51:01 now um would the trio designers have received all this information from mr boygill following his surveys yes we would have understood that the number of flats on each floor
01:51:12 number of flats on each floor the the gas loading requirements of each customer
01:51:16 customer and they would have used that information to design the size of the pipe required to satisfy that that gas requirement yes now would they have examined this
01:51:27 now would they have examined this proposed route for themselves i'm looking to explore the extent to which they would have just taken what mr boygill said in his survey or would they have separately asked themselves the question whether that was a sensible route they
01:51:41 whether that was a sensible route they they would have asked the question yes um they would have asked for alternative routes whether or not simon could find an alternative route
01:51:49 route i'm not sure that's the design that's the survey information that we received it it enabled the designers to extend the reactive works to the flats
01:52:00 the reactive works to the flats that would have been part of the the planned proactive works right and and thinking about um both surveys that mr boygill did the first one showing the root of the new
01:52:11 first one showing the root of the new riser and the second showing more about the proactive works would the trio was it the responsibility of the trio designers to evaluate the safety and compliance of
01:52:23 to evaluate the safety and compliance of those routes themselves it was yes right so they couldn't just rely on mr boygirl's surveying work they had to ask themselves separately whether it was a safe and compliant route to follow is
01:52:34 safe and compliant route to follow is that
01:52:35 that absolutely yes yeah now let's look at um the the first design um i'm going to call it replacement design number one if we can go to tri
01:52:56 60263 so this is a a drawing and it's also got some little inserts including with the map of um the first design that was
01:53:10 of um the first design that was come up with for this work and on the left hand side in the third box down we get the uh date it's dated the 11th of november 2016.
01:53:21 2016. so that's very small writing that's better that's better yes you can see the user id ashley johnson who was ashley johnson ashley was a design
01:53:31 design analyst yeah or as a design analyst yeah and the date is the 11th of november 2016
01:53:38 2016 and it
01:53:41 and it says um in the bottom third of the page bottom text in the left-hand column it tells us that this project has been yeah right at the bottom there this project has been designed in accordance
01:53:52 project has been designed in accordance with igem
01:53:53 with igem g5 and tpr ml4 what was tprml4 that is cadence main laying procedure so any uh gas pipe
01:54:04 main laying procedure so any uh gas pipe it was
01:54:04 it was it relates to the in-ground pipe so the in-ground pipe would have been designed to ml4 requirements and the riser system to g5
01:54:13 to g5 yeah and at the very bottom of this page we can see a a web address a url for this document there we go right at the bottom and
01:54:24 there we go right at the bottom and there's reference there to something called gasworks nine now um you tell us in your first statement that the project was designed using this software is that correct yeah in terms of design gas works 9
01:54:38 yeah in terms of design gas works 9 would be used to size the riser system so it would take the length of the pipe required it would take the gas usage and it would use those
01:54:51 gas usage and it would use those two component parts to determine the size of the pipe required for that particular building yeah so in the context of design that's what that means yes i see and that's just to be clear that's
01:55:03 i see and that's just to be clear that's gas modeling software is that correct yeah it's a hydraulically modeled using hydraulically uh analysis yes and does it model pressure drop velocity gas demand size
01:55:15 pressure drop velocity gas demand size of pipe
01:55:16 of pipe it does yes yes
01:55:20 and it just to be clear it doesn't assist with considering other technical compliance issues like ventilation or compartmentation breaches does it no it doesn't
01:55:30 doesn't so if we look at the drawing itself we can see at the bottom there we've got that little red dotted line is that the gas main into the building that would be the yes that will be the inlet pipe
01:55:41 inlet pipe the 90 mil and a new service pipe had to be built underground for this supply didn't it
01:55:46 didn't it it did yeah and the red bow shaped symbol um is that a an isolation valve yeah that's the pipeline i survey pipeline isolation valve known as a piv
01:55:57 pipeline isolation valve known as a piv if yes thank you um and then the dark green pipe goes through the basement and up and we can see a little blue symbol then each floor perhaps if we can now
01:56:08 then each floor perhaps if we can now pan out of the drawing and see um now that little blue symbol at each floor
01:56:17 floor and does that indicate that the valve that was there when the proactive design was going to be put in it's very difficult to say
01:56:28 put in it's very difficult to say on this drawing um i just want to clarify the the the that would be to extend the yes the proactive works right yes
01:56:40 the yes the proactive works right yes and then on each floor we can see a yellow pipe that's coming out and is going round through the stairs into the lobby and around the outside of the lobby
01:56:50 the lobby um is that right that that's showing the the laterals yeah it is yeah and then the bright green box on each floor is that where it enters each individual flat
01:57:01 individual flat that's on this particular drawing this is entering the flats ended in two yes yes just to be clear that this is exactly this is the design for the first
01:57:13 exactly this is the design for the first phase of your work yeah yeah and we can see the drawing finishes at the top with the laterals on floor
01:57:20 floor 23 and is it right that the intention was the pipes would finish at floor 23 and then take advantage
01:57:28 advantage of the natural ventilation provided by the roof
01:57:31 the roof vent yes that's right now just looking at the little in insect drawing in the middle of the page if we could blow that up
01:57:43 the drawing that's it thank you so this is headed internal lateral pipe work requires boxing in on each floor as below so it's showing as the boxing
01:57:54 as below so it's showing as the boxing in plan
01:57:56 in plan and um as we understand it is it right the the dark green pipe on the left that's the riser coming up through the stairs
01:58:04 stairs yes yes the yellow pipes are the laterals
01:58:07 laterals that then go through the stair wall and into people's flats yes yes and the hard black line around that some of those laterals shows the boxing in
01:58:18 the boxing in now is it right and this is important is it right that in this particular design the boxing in is only on the communal lobby side where the boxing the pipes were to be boxed in completely
01:58:30 boxed in completely yes so as the pipe went through the wall from the stairwell into the communal lobby
01:58:34 lobby yeah on that side of the wall in the communal lobby the extent of the pipe in the lobby would have been boxed in yeah so once it's in the lobby it's got its own
01:58:43 its own little compartment around it but when it's in the stairs according to this first design the pipe was going to be naked is that correct yes it would be
01:58:54 correct yes it would be indep segregated from the this is for ventilation purposes because of the mechanical ventilation that i referenced earlier
01:59:00 earlier so it would segue we segregated this pipe from these lobbies where the mechanical ventilation was and in effect become part of the stairwell it was open-ended into the stairwell yes
01:59:11 it was open-ended into the stairwell yes thank you
01:59:14 and and so there'd be oversized holes wouldn't there around the pipe as it goes into the lobby that's right yeah to allow a free flow of ventilation from the boxing in
01:59:25 of ventilation from the boxing in back into the stairwell yes correct and the stairwell itself would be provide the this is the intention to provide the natural ventilation to to the to the riser itself yeah yeah
01:59:36 to to the to the riser itself yeah yeah so for design one there was ventilation at roof level yes and
01:59:41 and i think it's pretty important to know that the pipe in the stairwell in design one was
01:59:45 one was a welded system yes so direct ventilation was available at the roof vent and at the bottom of the stairwell we had indirect ventilation which was
01:59:56 we had indirect ventilation which was the door
01:59:57 the door movement air movement resulting from the door
02:00:00 door into the stairwell so we had indirect ventilation at the bottom of the stairwell and direct ventilation at the top right and that was the design that was produced yes
02:00:12 produced yes and then the red text at the bottom of this inset drawing it says boxing to be open-ended into the communal stairwell to allow ventilation of the lateral pipe work that's what we were just discussing that is it yes
02:00:28 yes and just to visualize um the the hole around the pipe through the stairwell and into the lobby if we can just look at a picture cad 40165
02:00:50 this is a photograph on the stair side of the lateral on the stair side going through the wall into the lobby and there we can clearly see the oversized hole
02:01:00 hole is that correct that is that is set yeah yeah and it's there for ventilation purposes
02:01:04 purposes it's there to vent yes for the the laterals yeah yeah
02:01:15 so this design did require the compartment between the stair and the lobbies to be breached to ensure that the gas pipes could be ventilated that's right isn't it it is yeah
02:01:29 that's right isn't it it is yeah now can we look at the design risk register
02:01:32 register now that trio completed in relation to this design that's at tri60369
02:01:46 at the top we can see this is called a cdm design risk register and in the box underneath that we can see it's dated the 15th of november 2016.
02:02:00 and beneath that there is a box or two below that we can see the designer's name ashley johnson and just below that it says project rag status based on residual risk score now can you
02:02:12 based on residual risk score now can you just
02:02:13 just help us with what does rag rag stand for so it determines so very very very very simply in terms of rag is red amber green
02:02:24 rag is red amber green red being higher risk than amber amber being high risk than green
02:02:31 yes and then we can see below that in highlighted in green we can see the score for this under this assessment is 17 yes is that right yeah and
02:02:44 yes is that right yeah and the significance of that is is can be seen by looking at the key beneath that because what it says in the key beneath that is it if it's less than 18
02:02:55 if it's less than 18 it's very tiny text i don't know whether we can make it any better so in the in the smaller little green rectangle it says if it's less than 18 the the the wording says issue to ops
02:03:07 the the the wording says issue to ops no hazard op handover meeting required and then in red what it says is if it's greater than 18 greater than or equal to 18 full
02:03:18 greater than or equal to 18 full dra required is that right that is right yes yeah and what does a full dra
02:03:25 full dra mean so a dra stands for design risk assessment yeah it may help if i explain the process so let's please do yeah so the design the design team within trio
02:03:36 design team within trio designed mobs projects but it also designed range replacement projects and various other activities that were required under the contract every project went through the design
02:03:47 every project went through the design risk register process and it was those projects that would deem to have a higher level of risk after going through that process whereby a more detailed design risk assessment would be undertaken
02:03:58 would be undertaken in this instance for design one the risk was felt at that time it was sufficiently low enough not to require a design risk assessment yes thank you
02:04:10 a design risk assessment yes thank you yes and so because this the score came to 17 in this instance um there was no need to consider any further risks in this design is that
02:04:21 further risks in this design is that correct
02:04:22 correct that's right yes yeah and if we go to the bottom of the page
02:04:31 we can also see a box right at the bottom that says manual dra override needed question mark do you see that
02:04:39 that yes what does that mean if so the design risk register requires information to be input and a score is generated from the the actual system itself
02:04:51 actual system itself now if the designer at that point if that for example comes out at 10 but the designer feels that in this instance a design risk assessment is required he can override that and go to the full design risk assessment
02:05:03 the full design risk assessment yes so it's a human being yes countenancing what's happened with the system there's a security yeah let's look at it as a security
02:05:14 as a security level in effect and in this case it looks like the designer did not manually override the process and go on and do a full design risk assessment is that correct it is yes yeah let's just have a quick look to see
02:05:27 yeah let's just have a quick look to see what would have been considered had that dra process been triggered um if we can go to tri50218
02:05:42 this is the design risk assessment which was conducted later in march 2017 we're going to come to that in due course and see that there was a second design risk assessment process
02:05:53 risk assessment process but just for the moment i want to see what would have been considered the questions that would have would have had to be considered if this dra process had been triggered if we can go to page four of this
02:06:04 if we can go to page four of this document
02:06:08 and towards the bottom of the table sorry again it's very tiny writing if we could blow up the bottom items 19 20 and 21
02:06:20 items 19 20 and 21 what we what we get is a in the header in blue
02:06:24 in blue it says mobs specific hazards so as i understand these are specific hazards which might arise in multi-occupancy buildings is that correct
02:06:34 correct yes and beneath that we've got three items that are asked to be considered that's better thank you very much we can
02:06:45 that's better thank you very much we can see 19 is breach of fire comp compartments 20 failure mode expansion south facing packwork and thermal expansions that's about expansion of pipe work
02:06:56 pipe work and 21 is inadequate ventilation do you see those three matters there yes so um it's right that those three
02:07:08 so um it's right that those three items are only considered if there is a design risk assessment process is that correct it is yes so unless someone's manually overridden it or unless the score is high enough these
02:07:20 or unless the score is high enough these questions are not asked at the design risk assessment process is that correct yes they're not they wouldn't have been in this instance yes now can we agree that replacing the gas supply to grenfell
02:07:31 supply to grenfell grenfell tower did involve breaching of fire compartments it did yes and pretty important fire compartments weren't they as in the stairs a single stair yes yes
02:07:43 as in the stairs a single stair yes yes and through to the communal lobbies yes for flats and it also involved can we agree this a complex ventilation strategy
02:07:53 strategy yes
02:07:57 and so can we take it from this that the trio designer did not specifically consider
02:08:02 consider these features in any detail when the initial design was created he they considered the breaches the fire compartments
02:08:13 compartments in terms of boxing in the the boxing was fire-rated but it wasn't part of the design risk assessment process it wasn't formally documented under this process
02:08:24 documented under this process can you help us as to why not why given what you've just accepted that this was breaching
02:08:29 breaching important fire compartments it was a complex ventilation strategy can you account for why a trio designer didn't manually override so that those specific
02:08:41 manually override so that those specific risks were considered i i can't provide an explanation as to why the designer at that point did not
02:08:49 not manually override that design risk register
02:08:54 register looking back on this now um do you agree that those features speech of complementation ventilation should have been the subject of a detailed design risk assessment i
02:09:06 of a detailed design risk assessment i do yes
02:09:11 but the way that the design assessment process was carried out the overall score meant that these risks were not considered in any detail that's right isn't it not part of that process yet yeah
02:09:23 part of that process yet yeah doesn't that indicate that this design risk assessment process was flawed yes it does it was weak yes thank you now if we can go um you tell us in your
02:09:34 now if we can go um you tell us in your first statement at page 10 i don't think we need to put it up paragraph 39 you tell us that the design was prepared by trio designers and was approved by a trio design
02:09:45 and was approved by a trio design engineer
02:09:47 engineer can you help us what was the process for design review and final approval yeah on in trio we have something called a design management plan and it's a document that sets out the
02:09:58 and it's a document that sets out the arrangements of how we manage design across the various work streams under this contract under that contract and within that design management plan is a
02:10:09 the arrangements for reviewing and approving designs before it finds its way into the the the as an approved document as an approved design so in in grenfell tower the designer was
02:10:21 so in in grenfell tower the designer was the design was produced by as you can see ashley johnson um it would have been pr approved by our design engineer design one would have been approved by martin wisconner design engineer
02:10:34 right yeah now i just want to focus now on some other particular design principles and the consideration given by trio and others to these in the design um
02:10:46 to these in the design um so as we've seen the design required the riser to go through the stairwell for most of its part can we just look at approved document b now so
02:10:57 at approved document b now so this is at clg50224 and i want to look at page 53
02:11:06 we can see on the right hand column there's a paragraph 440 and the heading to that
02:11:12 to that is gas service pipes in protected stairways
02:11:16 stairways do you have that yes oh yes and we can see what it says it says gas service and installation pipes or associated meters should not be incorporated with a protected stairway unless
02:11:27 protected stairway unless the gas installation is in accordance with the requirements for the installation and connection set out in the pipeline safety regulations 1996 and the gas safety installation and use
02:11:39 and the gas safety installation and use regulations 1998. so in other words is it right that this appears to say that you can build a gas ariser in a protected stair
02:11:50 ariser in a protected stair but it has to meet other technical requirements of a gas riser in those other regulations that's what that says yes were you aware of this provision within approved document b
02:12:01 document b at the time i wasn't personally no would would you expect your i mean you mentioned before that you wouldn't have expected your designers to have been particularly familiar with approved document b no they wouldn't have been
02:12:12 document b no they wouldn't have been they would have been using igm g5 as the main document in producing that design on the understanding that by complying with g5
02:12:21 with g5 these other regulations that relate to the work would have been satisfied yes so does it follow that you wouldn't have expected the trio designers to be
02:12:32 expected the trio designers to be have been aware of this particular part of approved document b that's correct chess yeah would you expect a trio designer to know the difference between a protected stare and a fire fighting stare
02:12:45 and a fire fighting stare not necessarily as far as you are aware was there any further consideration about whether putting the riser in the stair
02:12:57 putting the riser in the stair was acceptable for example did trio consider
02:13:01 consider asking the tmo to check with the london fire brigade if that was acceptable we we didn't specifically ask that it's checked with the london fire brigade but the design was sent through to the tmo and the tmo approved that design right
02:13:14 and the tmo approved that design right so what they approved the commencement of the projects and there was there was dialogue email traffic between our design team and the tmo with regards to the design and whether or not it was would be
02:13:25 and whether or not it was would be acceptable from the tmos perspective right
02:13:28 right but you didn't specifically flag that you would suggest that the london fire brigade
02:13:33 brigade should be consulted over this not the london fire brigade but there was email dialogue or traffic around checking or confirming the fire requirements of the building right what about flagging that it ought
02:13:44 right what about flagging that it ought to be checked with the fire risk assessor
02:13:47 assessor uh that was being used by the tmo to check that they were content with it being in that location i'm i can't recall personally whether or not that question was asked in terms of specifically with their fire
02:13:58 in terms of specifically with their fire risk assessor although i do know that fire risk assessor reviewed the works and the design yes can we look at another part of approved document b now um at page 116
02:14:13 now um at page 116 this is diagram 52 that sets out various components of a firefighting shaft
02:14:19 shaft and this is in the b5 section of approved document b which to help you this that deals with access and facilities for firefighters in buildings so this is diagram 52 and
02:14:31 in buildings so this is diagram 52 and at the
02:14:32 at the very bottom we can see in the notes at point 4 it says this it says this diagram is only to illustrate the basic component components and is not meant to represent
02:14:45 components and is not meant to represent the only acceptable layout the shaft should be constructed generally in accordance with clauses seven and eight of bs double five double eight from 2004
02:14:56 of bs double five double eight from 2004 do you see that yes now um i think it follows from your earlier answers that you wouldn't have expected the trio designers to have been aware of this part of approved document b on
02:15:08 of this part of approved document b on firefighting shafts that's correct yeah if we can go to that british standard um bs double five double eight it's at bsi
02:15:17 bsi six zeros eighty seven
02:15:25 we can see it's the title is five precautions in the design construction and use of buildings part five access and facilities for firefighting and if we go within it to page 23.
02:15:38 actually um sorry this section just so you can see it it starts on page 22. if we go back one page yes there's a section here section 7.1.4 layout of firefighting
02:15:51 section 7.1.4 layout of firefighting shafts
02:15:53 shafts and then if we go over the page within this section and look at the third paragraph down we can see it says this it says goods lifts and service lifts should not be located within
02:16:04 located within firefighting shafts only services associated with the firefighting shaft should pass through or be contained within the firefighting shaft
02:16:14 shaft a firefighting shaft should not contain any cupboards or provide access to service shafts serving the remainder of the building do you see that yes now can we agree
02:16:26 do you see that yes now can we agree just looking at that now that the practical effect of that is that if the stairwell at grenfell tower was a firefighting shaft then there should not have been a gas riser in it in terms of yes in this document yes in
02:16:39 in terms of yes in this document yes in 2016 is that something that trio and its designers understood no no thank you i just want to focus now on some of the ventilation aspects
02:16:50 ventilation aspects of the first design um if we can go back to approved document b um this is clg50224 and look now at page 81.
02:17:11 this is within the b3 section which is about internal fire spread and it includes provisions about compartmentation and paragraph 8.41 we can see
02:17:22 and paragraph 8.41 we can see is talking about their ventilation of protected shafts conveying gas and we can see it says this a protected shaft conveying piped flammable gas
02:17:33 shaft conveying piped flammable gas should be adequately ventilated direct to the outside air by ventilation openings at high and low level in the shaft any extension of the story floor into the shaft should not compromise the free
02:17:45 the shaft should not compromise the free movement of air over the entire length of the shaft guidance on such shafts including sizing of the ventilation openings is given and then there's another british standard bs 8313 from 1997.
02:17:58 now can we agree in simple terms a gas supply needs to be adequately ventilated at the top and at the bottom of the shaft yes and you've already mentioned that it really
02:18:10 you've already mentioned that it really needs to ventilate naturally there are all sorts of problems with mechanical ventilation yeah there's a there's a difference between us mechanically mechanical ventilation um direct and then there's indirect
02:18:22 um direct and then there's indirect ventilation in the context of the riser that was put in the stairwell design one was a welded system
02:18:29 system and g5 which was a spec that the designers used to design that riser system ensured that there was direct or indirect ventilation at top of the bottom top direct ventilation through the roof
02:18:41 top direct ventilation through the roof vent and at the bottom there was a step there was a door onto the
02:18:46 the uh atrium level there's a door going onto a landing that goes on to the atrium and then there's the front doors and it's the door movements um air movement over 30 minutes which would
02:18:58 air movement over 30 minutes which would have
02:18:58 have satisfied the indirect ventilation at the bottom that's how the design was produced but is it right that that would have to rely upon the riser being welded steel absolutely yes correct yeah now looking
02:19:11 absolutely yes correct yeah now looking at that paragraph 8.41 again just to be clear
02:19:14 clear i think from what you've said you wouldn't have expected the trio designers to have known about that provision at the time they were designing the grenfell tower riser
02:19:23 riser that's correct yep
02:19:27 if we can go to um cad 6035 now
02:19:35 now these are some notes of something called the mobs
02:19:39 the mobs performance call dated the 25th of october
02:19:43 october 2016. um
02:19:46 2016. um can you just you can see that in the subject of this email and and what we're going to get is a whole list i think of buildings
02:19:53 buildings um can you just explain what this mob's performance call was
02:20:00 i there was a there was a there was a twice daily call between uh the client caden and the trio operational team and that twice daily
02:20:13 operational team and that twice daily call
02:20:14 call was looking at gas off so where gas rises had been disconnected due to a gas escape
02:20:24 how long would it take to get the gas back onto those customers so it was a performance meeting held by the client where we would be asked the question as to what was still off what was on yeah how long was
02:20:35 still off what was on yeah how long was it going to take to get it on and that was a twice daily call that was held
02:20:40 yes thank you now if we look on page two of this document at the top of the page we can see the record of the discussions that were held about grenfell tower and
02:20:54 we can see about halfway down that entry on the 10th 11th story of october 2016 it says
02:21:02 it says potential buy out awaiting confirmation in hand and then do you see below that it says root that was identified doesn't have ventilation
02:21:15 buy out for whole building can you see those words in that in those notes yep yes i can can you just help us as to what was being discussed
02:21:26 being discussed uh based on those notes i i can't comment on the actual call i wasn't involved
02:21:34 involved with involved in that it appears to be a discussion around the survey what was identified from the survey as a potential route and the thinking at that time as to whether
02:21:45 the thinking at that time as to whether or not that was a viable option yeah hence can we go down the buyout route and not put gas back into the building yeah and you know in terms of what you presented there i think that's what i
02:21:56 presented there i think that's what i would take from that yes and in terms of the words where it says root that was identified doesn't have ventilation does that trigger a memory in terms of what the problem was about ventilation
02:22:08 what the problem was about ventilation that was being discussed at this point yeah i i wasn't involved with that right that's cool so i can't right so you can't help about whether that was the problem of of mechanical ventilation being in the
02:22:19 of mechanical ventilation being in the communal lobby it could very well be yes yes
02:22:24 now we we saw that in simon boygall's initial survey of the 12th of october 2016 there was no express reference to a ventilation strategy in that but if we go back to his second
02:22:37 in that but if we go back to his second survey
02:22:38 survey that he did in november 16 this is at cad
02:22:41 cad 6038
02:22:49 at the bottom of that page this is the email that he sent we can see there's also a heading ventilation g5 um
02:23:00 g5 um and would you understand that g5 to be a reference to the igem g5 technical standard
02:23:05 standard it is yes and he says this once the pipework is installed the riser system could be segregated from the mechanical air extraction by being boxed in
02:23:16 extraction by being boxed in there is a route out to fresh air through the basement and would assume a route out through the top floor no access to roof as locked
02:23:27 now was it acceptable in your view for the trio designers to have relied on that statement by simon boygill as having given sufficient consideration
02:23:39 as having given sufficient consideration to the ventilation question for the pipe work
02:23:42 work no it's the designer's responsibility to to produce the design and the ventilation requirements so is it right that you would have expected them the trio designers to have given separate consideration
02:23:54 separate consideration to the ventilation uh aspects of this new riser design yes do you know if they did in fact give separate consideration to those
02:24:05 separate consideration to those ventilation aspects in terms of the design one they would have done in terms of what the resultant design was around i just explained that earlier on in terms
02:24:16 just explained that earlier on in terms of roof access and the door movement um so how do we get how do we that he talks about their simon route to the basement the design one required on the door
02:24:27 the design one required on the door movement at the bottom of the stairwell going into the atrium level to the front door which is the design what the design has ended
02:24:33 has ended it ended up with yeah so why simon has mentioned the basement there in terms of that iterative process of producing the design it was the indirect ventilation that was
02:24:44 it was the indirect ventilation that was available or was was part of the end design that the designers produced yes now we have not seen any evidence
02:24:52 evidence any written evidence that trio gave more consideration to ventilation and in particular to the ventilation in the route between the basement and the stairs um can you help us as to
02:25:04 and the stairs um can you help us as to why we don't see that in any of the design documentation i
02:25:13 in terms of the decision the thought process that they went through
02:25:20 so when you say i don't think that anything that wasn't documented in terms of their thought processes do you mean that you would have you you understand all their thought processes to have been
02:25:31 their thought processes to have been documented as they progress with the design yes in terms of
02:25:36 terms of the interesting process of ending up with the final design documenting the process that they would have gone through to end up with that final solution yes so are you saying it was done but
02:25:48 yes so are you saying it was done but not
02:25:48 not documented yes i know it was done because
02:25:51 because in terms of the final design that in terms of the ventilation requirements of it but i i haven't seen any documented um i haven't seen that documented yes we've also not seen any documentation
02:26:03 we've also not seen any documentation relating to the ventilation at the bottom of the stairs where the riser comes into the stairwell again um can you help us as to why we don't see any documentation
02:26:14 don't see any documentation dealing with that at the design stage i i can't if it's not documented then we won't have had it in in terms of written down yeah we also can't find any documentation relating to the very top
02:26:25 relating to the very top of the building um there was as far as we can tell there was no design actually completed for how it was going to vent at the top is that your understanding yes right yeah
02:26:38 and that and that should have happened shouldn't it in terms of design in confirming the ventilation requirements yes calculations to confirm that the ventilation
02:26:49 ventilation in the design was was satisfied yes there was no documented um design inclusive of calculations yes the
02:27:00 inclusive of calculations yes the inquiries expert is critical of the of the fact that there isn't a detailed design or description as to how let's take go back to the bottom of the building as to how the pipe between the basement and the stairs
02:27:12 pipe between the basement and the stairs was going to be ventilated as it passed through each of those spaces do you accept that criticism yes i do in terms of design one there was a there was information was
02:27:26 there was a there was information was conveyed between the designers and the operation
02:27:29 operation team in terms of what should happen but again it wasn't documented there is no documented evidence support he's also not seen any reference to the need for vents conforming to the relevant british
02:27:41 vents conforming to the relevant british standards that's bs 8313 or table 7 of igem g5 in these spaces between the basement and the stairs again do you accept that there should
02:27:52 again do you accept that there should have been
02:27:54 have been vents between those locations the general the general approach so design one the general approach to to design is to fill in holes
02:28:05 to to design is to fill in holes once they've been breached unless required for ventilation purposes so in design one all holes were to be filled
02:28:14 filled um other than the uh holes that went from the lobby into the basements so it the lobby into the stairwell
02:28:22 stairwell yes so all holes that were drilled were to be filled in design one that changed uh for design two
02:28:30 two yes i'll come back to that later that's what's happening at levels four to twenty three of the tower i'm focusing uh about what happens between the basement and the lower part of the stairs we've
02:28:42 and the lower part of the stairs we've not seen any reference to the need for vents
02:28:45 vents in that lower portion of the pipe and the suggestion is that that is in breach of the british standard and in breach of igem 5. do you accept that if i maybe i can explain that will help
02:28:57 if i maybe i can explain that will help in the basement so if you look at the basement as a as a separate compartment and the there was a plant door room and therefore it was in terms of the
02:29:08 and therefore it was in terms of the design of that plant room door would provide the natural ventilation required for the basement yes as the pipe root went through the first riser cupboard it went through that riser cupboard up
02:29:20 it went through that riser cupboard up to the seed and then into the second riser cupboard yes those holes were to be filled and the ventilation would have been provided through the as you see earlier on the the louvered doors
02:29:31 doors which went out into a a landing which went onto a door which went into the atrium which went out to the front doors so the ventilation in the riser cupboards one and two on get the floor numbers
02:29:43 one and two on get the floor numbers right
02:29:43 right the floor above the basement and the next floor that's how the ventilation the designers satisfied the ventilation requirements as it went into the storeroom before it went into the stairwell there
02:29:55 before it went into the stairwell there was a door so all of those holes should have been filled in or would have been filled in
02:30:00 filled in between the basement and as it come into the stairwell yeah so they would have been filled in and the ventilation was through the door door people going into the rooms door movements and then the route outside that's the intent of
02:30:11 the route outside that's the intent of the design right and then the stairwell was yeah the tail was separate i understand let's just look at an image some photographs which help us visualize this if we go to rhx
02:30:25 6012 at page 30.
02:30:35 these images at the top of the page
02:30:41 show the riser going so this is the area between the basement and the lower part of the stair so on the left we've got the riser entering the utility shaft at ground floor
02:30:52 the utility shaft at ground floor then we've got it going up the utility shaft and then we've got the riser exiting the utility shaft at second floor
02:31:00 floor and um you're saying that there was ventilation in these spaces because what there were doors onto these spaces is that what you're saying yeah there were doors onto these spaces that had louvers in in
02:31:12 onto these spaces that had louvers in in the riser cupboard so the two riser cupboards
02:31:14 cupboards that you're showing there had doors which had louvers on right and that's even though it's not documented in the design that's how this ventilation was supposed to be that was the intent of the design yes in terms of
02:31:26 the intent of the design yes in terms of ventilation yes
02:31:33 and and can you help us as to why we also don't see any calculations which are carried out in relation to the ventilation and suggesting that this design was going to be adequate
02:31:45 design was going to be adequate in terms of the ventilation that it provided at the time there wasn't there was no calculations that supported that design should there have been yes there should have been yeah and that was in a mission
02:31:56 have been yeah and that was in a mission in the design process
02:32:00 now in terms of compartmentation um i just want to look at some discussions that occurred about breaching the stairwall into the lobby if we can go to tmo zero zero
02:32:14 if we can go to tmo zero zero eight three three four eight six
02:32:25 eight three three four eight six this is an email chain between um
02:32:30 charlie saul at the tmo we saw before that he was the the contact point at the tmo on this issue and harvey smith of trio and also um yeah martin whiskin
02:32:43 um yeah martin whiskin the designer is copied in yes yes and harvey smith was the he was the project manager that's correct and if we look at page two of this chain first midway down is an email from harvey
02:32:56 midway down is an email from harvey smith to charlie saul on the 18th of november 2016 and we can see that he referred to the design of the gas riser and he asked for permission to the from the tmo to complete the works
02:33:09 the tmo to complete the works so he says please find a tax to design for the above i've been advised that buyout is not an option for this block so would be grateful if you could review the design and confirm whether permission will be granted to complete the works
02:33:20 the works and then if we scroll up to the top of page one
02:33:24 page one we can see the email back from charlie saul to harvey smith 24th of november 2016 and he says good afternoon harvey i'm wondering if you could please answer a couple of queries
02:33:35 could please answer a couple of queries with regard to the boxing around the pipe work to be installed what is the finish to the boxing how will the boxing affect the fire safety of the block with regards to fire safety we are
02:33:48 with regards to fire safety we are querying if the boxing will compromise the compartmentation of the stairs lobby areas
02:33:53 areas it's not clear from the plans if the boxing will end in the lobby or continue into the stairwell the worry is that if the boxing continues into the stairwell then this will
02:34:01 will allow the passage of smoke through the block
02:34:05 block how could the flow of smoke be controlled within the open-ended boxing so some questions are being asked by the tmo about the boxing in
02:34:16 about the boxing in and compartmentation in this email and then we if we go to the response from martin wiskin at tm010015271
02:34:35 this is a response the same day 24th of november
02:34:39 november 2016. and
02:34:42 2016. and he says martin whiskin says this the intention is that the boxing will isolate the pipe work from the mechanical ventilation in the communal areas it will be vented directly to the
02:34:54 it will be vented directly to the stairwell at one end which itself is well ventilated and run to a dead end at the point of entry to the individual flats at the other
02:35:03 other in case of fire in the stairwell any smoke would travel along the boxing to a dead end and would be isolated within the boxing in turn any smoke within the communal
02:35:14 in turn any smoke within the communal area would not get into the stairwell as the boxing would be fire rated so martin whiskin is explaining how compartmentation was intended to be
02:35:26 how compartmentation was intended to be preserved in this first design yes that's correct and at the same time these questions were referred to the tmos fire risk assessor mr carl stokes if we can go
02:35:37 if we can go to zero tmo1001 five three zero five
02:35:49 now you can take it from me that in this chain
02:35:53 chain we see that janice ray of the tmo forwards it forwards this chain of correspondence to mr stokes
02:36:01 mr stokes and at the top we can see mr stokes's email of the 25th of november 2016 and he says this all noted but what happens if the fire is in the flat
02:36:12 happens if the fire is in the flat does that mean that the fire can travel via the boxing to the stairwell this is notifiable work so i am assuming that all the work will go through the building regulations process and meet all the requirements of the
02:36:23 and meet all the requirements of the building regulations can the utility company please provide a full method statement and schedule of works
02:36:30 works showing that all the work will meet the building regulations requirements so that's mr stokes's response now just pausing there did trio think at the time that this gas
02:36:41 did trio think at the time that this gas riser work uh was notifiable to building control we didn't when we was producing the design though
02:36:52 and um can you just explain why you didn't think it was notifiable it was we we just in terms of the response earlier on inter we did the designers and the design team
02:37:05 designers and the design team understood by designing the riser system to g5 that the requirements of the building regulations would be required and in submitting that design to the tmo charlie saw for approval our understanding would be
02:37:17 for approval our understanding would be that the tmo would deal with building control
02:37:19 control if they felt it was a requirement right did anybody with expertise in fire safety ever check trio's designs so on your side of the
02:37:30 trio's designs so on your side of the fence
02:37:30 fence to make sure there was nothing about the design that would imp impact and compromise fire safety in the building no no we didn't now we can see that mr stokes has raised a
02:37:41 we can see that mr stokes has raised a question about the effect of the boxing in and the potential effect of smoke traveling from a flat which is on fire to the stairwell let's just look at the response to that if we can go at tri60405
02:38:04 and if we look at the second email down on that first page and on the 28th of november
02:38:13 november 2016 we can see that martin whiskin gets back to carl stokes and he says carl our pipe work must be installed in accordance with igem g5 this in turn has been written in
02:38:25 this in turn has been written in accordance with the building regs all pipe work will be fire stopped between
02:38:30 between fire compartments
02:38:34 okay so that's that's the response and at the very top of the page carl states has replied thank you martin do you see that yes now
02:38:46 thank you martin do you see that yes now looking at that response from martin whiskey
02:38:48 whiskey whisking can we agree that it's unclear as to whether what he's talking about there is holes between flats and the lobby which would be fire stopped
02:38:59 stopped or holes between the stair wall and the lobby being fire stopped he's not clear on that is he it's not clear from the email no and it's right isn't it that there was
02:39:10 and it's right isn't it that there was no intention we've discussed this before no intention of fire stopping in the final design around the pipe between the stairs and the lobby because those oversized holes were
02:39:21 because those oversized holes were necessary for the pipes to be ventilated back to the stairs yes the designer assumed that the boxing in or
02:39:28 or is in terms of producing the design with respect to the ventilation requirements the boxing of the laterals in the lobby in effect became part of the stairwell fire compartmentation
02:39:39 fire compartmentation yes and the holes would need to be left home
02:39:42 home left open uh so that if a gas escape if that did escape from the pipe in the in in the lobby it could find its way out to the stairwell yeah which was which was ventilated
02:39:53 ventilated yes but you wouldn't get a dead end as he described it unless you had fire stopping between the flat and the lobby would you there was there was a in terms of so as the as the
02:40:04 the as the one thing is he mr whisking described the
02:40:08 the boxing in as providing a dead end at the end opposite to the stairs and you would only get a dead end if you fire stop the uh between the lobby and the flat
02:40:21 uh between the lobby and the flat wouldn't you the dead end martin was referring to was where the box so where the boxing end the boxing in ended within the in the lobby would have been a dead end yeah so there'd been a dead end so the
02:40:32 yeah so there'd been a dead end so the boxing if you can visualize the boxing and being constructed it may have ended up at that wall there it would have been that would have been the dead end and then there will be an open end with the hole into the stairwell but there would only have been a dead end
02:40:45 would only have been a dead end if the pipe if the hole through which the pipe
02:40:48 the pipe inside the boxing uh entered the flat had been fire stocked and did otherwise smoke could go through into the flat they were so the holes into the site the drilled holes in from the lobby into
02:41:01 the drilled holes in from the lobby into the flats were fire stops exactly yes which i have to say when i read this succession of exchanges it seemed to me that he he was talking about or must have been talking
02:41:12 talking about or must have been talking about the
02:41:13 about the uh the whole into the flat if you read the whole series of exchanges
02:41:21 yes martin's reference in terms of when i've read the emails and clearly looking at this is that he's he's deemed the fire compartmentation of the stairwell and the boxing pipe in the lobbies would be won
02:41:32 lobbies would be won and anyhow other than the hole drilled between the stairwell and the lobby would be would be fire stopped right yeah well i was only intervening because
02:41:41 because it seemed to me maybe you weren't entirely doing him justice by accepting that it wasn't clear what he was referring to because suggesting the perhaps in the context of all the exchanges it was
02:41:52 all the exchanges it was fairly clear i think when you read the whole email trowel yes in the context of the
02:41:56 the the one email there then yes it is i agree
02:42:00 agree yes let's look carl stokes actually then attends and writes a report in january 2017
02:42:06 2017 after the rise has been built if we just go to that cst 4030
02:42:34 cst403082 is that there yes thank you so we can see this is a letter of the 30th of january 2017
02:42:45 of the 30th of january 2017 to janice ray at the tmo and you can see from the first lines he says thank you for asking me to comment on look at the gas the installation of the new gas pipe work within grenfell
02:42:56 the new gas pipe work within grenfell tower
02:42:57 tower and then he gives a description of it and then he we can see if we go to the bottom of page three under conclusions
02:43:12 at point three he says um documentation should be provided by the gas contractors showing the fire rated materials
02:43:21 materials used for the fire stopping of the compartment walls and the fire rating of the fire collars used sorry i should have read point two first i apologize if you look at point two he says all
02:43:32 if you look at point two he says all holes in compartment wall must be suitably fire stopped using fire rated materials of a minimum of 90 minutes fire rating do you see that
02:43:42 that yes and
02:43:46 yes and um can you see above that is a picture if we scroll up
02:43:56 he's got pipe penetrating the staircase landing hole through the landing whole not made good and then above that he's got gas pipe passing through the flat
02:44:07 got gas pipe passing through the flat lift
02:44:07 lift to lift lobby area compartment wall what fire stopping materials have been used in
02:44:12 in to fill to infill this hole around the pipe
02:44:18 pipe now just looking at what karl stark's carl stokes says at point two of his conclusions
02:44:30 he says all holes in compartment wall must be suitably fired up using fire rated materials he doesn't distinguish there does he between the holes between the lobby and the flats and the holes between the stair and the
02:44:41 and the holes between the stair and the lobby that's yes now
02:44:46 yes now um is it possible that there was a failure of communication between trio and carl stokes on this point in that he thought that all these holes needed to be
02:44:57 needed to be fire stopped and didn't appreciate that part of the design left some of these holes open for ventilation purposes that that may very well very well may be
02:45:10 that that may very well very well may be the case
02:45:10 the case um i'm not i don't recall seeing this document myself and whether or not it was passed to the designers at the time or just to miss ray and whether or not she passed that to to
02:45:21 she passed that to to to us yes because certainly that um that first the photo we can see there on the screen penetrating the staircase landing hole through the landing the whole not made good that that
02:45:34 the whole not made good that that comment the whole not made good perhaps suggests that he doesn't appreciate that there's got to be a hole around that pipe
02:45:41 pipe for the staircase to to ventilate properly hasn't there that's exactly right yes
02:45:49 now it was shortly after this exchange that the design was settled and agreed if we can look at tmo tm00828915
02:46:11 if we can look at tmo tm00828915 tmo zero zero eight two eight nine one five
02:46:15 five and this is an email chain between trio and the tmo on the 30th of november 2016 and if we can go within it to page three we can see there's an email from charlie
02:46:27 we can see there's an email from charlie saul in the bottom half of that page to martin whiskin and harvey smith and he says thank you martin our health and safety department have asked the following questions of the proposal and we can see he wants
02:46:39 of the proposal and we can see he wants a method statement a schedule of works and then
02:46:42 and then the third bullet is con confirm that works will meet building regulations
02:46:49 um and then on page two if we go up midway down the page the first email is from harvey smith to charlie saul in the third paragraph
02:47:00 to charlie saul in the third paragraph down he writes we do comply with building regulations and we'll take advice from you or your engineers on the fire rating required for this particular installation and then he goes on and talks about
02:47:12 and then he goes on and talks about other points and then if we go up to the first page at the top is an email from charlie saul on the 30th of november 2016
02:47:22 2016 and in the second line he writes please proceed with works as laid out in the plans discussed now um do you understand that this was the tmo's approval of the design for the works and
02:47:32 works and their instruction to proceed yes and we know that subsequently on the 9th of december 2016 works did commence at the tower is that correct it is yes
02:47:44 now we know that concurrently with these events there was also parallel consideration being given to the option of buying out the gas and i've just got a few
02:47:55 the gas and i've just got a few questions for you on that now can you just describe in your own words what what you understand the phrase buying out the gas to mean yeah so
02:48:05 yeah so the the risers in the building in terms of the riser that was cut off supplied 13 of the 20 flats there is an option open to caden to to pay
02:48:16 open to caden to to pay financials in financial settlement for uh the gas customer not to have a gas supply
02:48:22 supply and and i think it's a cadent process but it comes down to some economics around whether or not it's economically viable to replace the riser system
02:48:31 system or buy it out in terms of financial remuneration um yeah in regards to that so that is the option to buy out the gas supply right and that is available or was available on and may very well be
02:48:43 available on and may very well be still available on on mob's projects yes so your understanding is there there will be a kind of some form of economic assessment being made of the cost of replacement versus
02:48:54 replacement versus the cost of buy-out
02:49:01 and um through november there were exchanges between the tmo and trio about the option to buy out the gas now we heard evidence from again from peter madison from the tmo about this
02:49:13 peter madison from the tmo about this i don't think we need to go to the transcript but he said in his evidence that
02:49:17 that his preference was that they removed the gas supply from the block he said he felt that running the new gas supply through the block was unnecessary and felt that they should buy out the residents and put in electric
02:49:30 residents and put in electric now as far as you were aware at trio did you get the clear impression that the tmo's preference was to have the gas decommissioned and for there to be buyout of those customers i
02:49:41 there to be buyout of those customers i i can't recollect that from the from the tmo we would have been dealing directly with the client caden and i've asked that question as to whether or not it was an option and that would have been
02:49:52 would have been the extent of our involvement in terms of the buyout process right so your involvement in that process was pretty limited it was a question of is it an option for us uh
02:50:02 us uh and the client would have looked at it and made that decision and informed of informed us of that decision which on this occasion it wasn't it was conveyed to us it wasn't it wasn't um
02:50:13 wasn't um available in your experience was it your understanding that the decision to buy out
02:50:19 out was focused predominantly on the wishes of the customers in the flats themselves and less
02:50:24 and less about the wishes of the building owner my my understanding of the process and as is a cadent process but my understanding is that they need to get every customer within the building as agreement
02:50:35 agreement to buy it out if they couldn't get a agreement with all the customers then they uh
02:50:40 they uh they can proceed with that option yes let's just look at some emails on this if we go to cad 6058
02:51:00 we can see sorry yes the second email down is from some someone called mary ryan at cadent um on the 16th of november 2016.
02:51:12 um on the 16th of november 2016. and from the second paragraph down she says
02:51:16 says with reference to your point on compensation all gas users will be entitled to the maximum guaranteed standard of services compensation of 1 500 pounds please accept my apologies for not receiving any firm information
02:51:27 for not receiving any firm information from trio to date on either a restoration or buyout proposal the decision on whether a buyout is a viable solution rests with myself on behalf of national grid based on cost
02:51:38 on behalf of national grid based on cost of replacement versus compensation to gas users is there any information you could share on confirmed gas users within the building to expedite this option so she appears to be apologizing for the
02:51:50 so she appears to be apologizing for the fact that trio haven't responded on this point but saying buy out is actually a question for us cadent is that correct that's correct chess yeah
02:52:02 um and then if we can go to cad
02:52:12 6059
02:52:17 if we look at the bottom of page one we can see an email from mary ryan to martin whiskin trio and she's on the 17th of november 2016 and she says
02:52:29 2016 and she says unfortunately your colleagues have been stating that this is a buyout location to the local authority and national grid for approximately the last month you are correct we will only buy out a whole building not a single riser etcetera
02:52:42 not a single riser etcetera i have no idea what detail the discussions have reached with reference to the above hence the chasing emails and information required on the t-cons
02:52:54 um now um is it your experience that caden won't buy out all of a building when only one riser
02:53:05 all of a building when only one riser has been cut off
02:53:09 yes she's suggesting there yes but in this
02:53:12 this situation wasn't that rather illogical in circumstances where it had already been decided to replace the other risers via the new riser so there would need to be
02:53:22 be quite extensive works to put that proactive
02:53:25 proactive program in place yes do you know whether that was ever considered as part of the grenfell project in terms of buying out the whole building yes it was that that is the buy-out
02:53:36 yes it was that that is the buy-out process
02:53:40 yes but she seems to be saying we're only going to buy out a whole building not a single riser but not recognizing that actually there had been a decision to replace all of the risers in the
02:53:52 to replace all of the risers in the building
02:53:52 building so in terms of the cost-benefit analysis that was being done no national or mary would have been aware of the proactive element of it absolutely yes
02:54:07 absolutely yes and just help us with this in circumstances where buyouts been rejected as an option by cadent um
02:54:19 by cadent um is it right that um trio could ask for that decision to be reopened if for example there were safety concerns about
02:54:30 concerns about the riser design it would come back down to whether or not it was safe we could construct a safe and compliant pipeline system if if if we couldn't
02:54:41 pipeline system if if if we couldn't construct
02:54:42 construct a safe and compliant system then we shouldn't be putting gas back into that building and i think that would have then just started a sec you know that's different conversation around the buyout in the building
02:54:53 in the building are you aware of instances for other with other projects where buyout's been rejected as an option trio have been asked to do replacement works but then trio have gone back to
02:55:04 works but then trio have gone back to caden and said i'm sorry we've looked at this really carefully and it's simply not safe to do this you're going to have to look at buy out again has that ever occurred in your experience not in my experience
02:55:16 experience not in my experience no not that i can recall
02:55:22 is it trio's position that the route and the design was a safe and compliant one as things stood
02:55:29 stood in november 2016. it was yes right and it's right isn't it trio didn't ever come back to cadent and reopen the buyout question
02:55:40 and reopen the buyout question because no safety concerns were raised about putting the riser through the stairs and the associated works yeah when when the original buy option was rejected the question was asked we we proceeded
02:55:52 the question was asked we we proceeded to
02:55:52 to produce what we consider to be a safe and compliant design and from that point on we proceeded with the
02:55:59 the you know the pre-construction and construction activity so we never reverted back to and asking a question yeah now um in terms of the construction work
02:56:11 work the construction of the new riser commenced on the 9th of december 2016. does that sound right yes yes and the riser was then tested and commissioned by the 25th of january 2017 we believe
02:56:24 by the 25th of january 2017 we believe yep yes and then gas was reinstated to most of the flats ending in two by the 10th of march 2017.
02:56:31 2017. that's correct yeah and uh it's correct isn't it that the boxing in
02:56:38 in of the laterals in the lobbies on the lobby side was not complete by the time that the gas was reinstated and it's right isn't it that this was
02:56:49 and it's right isn't it that this was not done by the time of the fire that is correct now that was not in line with the ventilation and compartmentation design was it that's correct during that period
02:57:04 that's correct during that period so when the boxing in hadn't been completed
02:57:07 completed wasn't there a danger that gas might have leaked but could not ventilate naturally it would ventilate into the communal lobbies and not to the staircase and then the outside as
02:57:18 to the staircase and then the outside as intended
02:57:19 intended the the holes between the stairwell and the lobby was the the oversized holes were still open they were open what hadn't happened was the boxing in um so so yes the answer that is although
02:57:31 um so so yes the answer that is although there was a route out to the stairwell um the ventilation of the boxing in wasn't complete and therefore the full ventilation process hadn't been completed yes so
02:57:43 process hadn't been completed yes so you've got a situation where if there's a gas leak the ventilation is inadequate during that period yes yes and should that have happened in hindsight no it shouldn't have been
02:57:55 in hindsight no it shouldn't have been left like that should it no no thank you mr chairman i think that's a good moment for the the lunch break and i'm making good progress
02:58:05 progress um and i'm confident we certainly will be finished this afternoon good thank you
02:58:09 you well it sounds like council is going to move on to another topic so that sounds uh like a very good point to have the break for lunch we'll stop now we'll resume please at two o'clock
02:58:20 two o'clock and again as i asked before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right thank you very much
02:58:38 good thank you very much two o'clock then please
02:58:52 you