Cllr John Duffy has returned to the issue of asebstos contamination in Paddington old Cemetery with an email to councillors and others accusing the council of sanctioning personal attacks on him in the face of his attempts to unearth the facts over the issue.
Duffy wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Brent Council has taken the
extraordinary step of sanctioning personal attacks on me, These attacks
are a complete distortion of the facts and many are plainly untrue.
The Officers of Brent council have published what they call a fact sheet on
there Web-site and handed out a similar document at a public meeting, which
names me..
The officers are suggesting
I am the cause of unhelpful rumours, which have left people feeling scared and
uneasy instead of responding to the needs of my residents.
This is of course nonsense
many of the facts stated are commonly agreed However the document seeks to mislead
Brent residents by mixing -up facts to negate the real issues. All the issues I
have revealed are all supported by evidence, unlike the officers facts which
are based on the their views and have no evidence then other than "The
Audit review report concluded that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries
Service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the
cemetery and that management consider the recommendations from consultants to
proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified" Basically
saying they had no control systems at the time and in layman's terms the
contaminated waste that was sent to Paddington Cemetery was not screened. I have
been in the waste management business for over 40 years , I can tell you
that the idea that officers cannot not tell the difference
between soil ( which would be usual for a graveyard ) and builders rubble
( which ended up in Paddington Cemetery) is frankly staggering.
FACT 1
I believe the import of
builders rubble including Asbestos ,instead of soil has been going
on for a number of years ,in fact since 2010/11 and the audit report confirms
that fact.In 2010/ 11 we paid £21K for work including the
supplying and laying of top Soil. The officer who was in charge went of sick
and the person who took charge queried the quality of the
work and soil. He instructed that the contractor who carried out the work
was not to be used for future work".
FACT 2
If we move forward to
August 2015 , we sees avery similar scenario another assignment of
soil/Clay which was bound for the section 3D on the mound in Paddington
Cemetery.However this time the soil to back fill a hole following the
removal of a tree roots .The assignment was found to have asbestos within
it .The Brent Officers believed it to be asbestos and double bagged
it and sent it West London Waste Authority for disposal , the consignment
note confirms that fact said it was classified as Hazardous
waste and weighted 60 KGs.
FACT 3
The scenario
continued and further shipments of waste was sent to section 3D in Paddington
Cemetery to backfill the hole .During a excavation of 3D for a burial on
the 9th May ( 20 months after delivery of the shipment took place ) and on the
18th May 2017 , asbestos was discovered and a sample was sent to
Tersus Asbestos specialists for examination and they conclude on the 17th May that
it was asbestos cement (Chrysotile) the remaining( hundreds of pieces )
weighting 30Kgs was sent to Brentwood Essex .The consignment note confirms
that fact saying it was Asbestos cement ( Chrysotile ) .
FACT 4
Every since the area (3D )
was used for burials the gravediggers have excavated large amounts of
builders rubble .However on May 9th Asbestos was found.Brent
council instead of stoping all new work still
instructed the contractor to continue to excavate for new burials . The
test result came back from Tersus Asbestos Specialists confirming Asbestos
Cement ( Chrysotile) on the 17th May 2017. A further find of Asbestos
took place on the 18th May by the contractor. Brent officers still instructed
the contractor to continued to carry out burials until May
30th some 21 days after the initial find of asbestos and 13th days after
confirmation that the find of up to a hundred pieces was indeed asbestos
cement. The officers assertion that the gravediggers wore
disposable coveralls for these burial is untrue neither were they
informed of the Tersus results or given any specialised training. Work
continued on the mound throughout out the summer and operatives were not given
any protective clothing or breathing equipment. I am sure now that the
Brent Council have reluctantly agreed to interview staff, they will confirm
the facts.
FACT 5
I produced photographic
evidence that operatives were working on the mound .I supplied pictures given
to me by a resident which were taken Monday June 26th *2017 The resident
was concerned that the work-force / public were not protected
from hazardous dust on Mound arising from works that were taking place. Brent
council in their attempt to smear me and distortions the facts they took
the absurd positions of saying the "Photographs (are)
not conclusive. Works and precise location not identified". They are
pictures of a graveyard , with gravestones .Its a fact we have been
using stones as historical marker since Stonehenge . How Brent Officers can say
gravestones do not a portray a precise location beggars belief. As for
the date of the work you would only need to interview the workforce who were
bussed in to do the work and see if they were informed that Asbestos had been
confirmed on the mound and were they issued with protective clothing and was
the area sealed off to protect the public. I believe the photographs confirm
the fact that work continue on the mound and residents band the
workforce was put at unnecessary risk.
FACT 6
The two specialist
reports by Eton Environment ( Sept 2017) and Delta -Simon (Jan 2018) took
place well after the ( around a hundred pieces of ) asbestos had
been removed following their discovery in May 2017 .The Eton Environment
survey found 28% of their samples were positive for asbestos
including several large chunks of Asbestos cement which had
high content. Whereas both the surveys point to a low risk situation now, the
surveys was taken following the removal of around a hundred pieces of the Asbestos
found on the 9th and 18th May 2017 .Furthermore the reports do not
comment on the level of contamination/ risk that was present when the
Asbestos was discovered and the risk associated with it removal
undertaken by Brent Council. However the reports confirm the fact "No
asbestos sampling was undertaken in association with this (those) reports"
the only asbestos sampling report was Tersus and the consignment notes
which confirm the fact that asbestos was cement
(Chysotile) " and the consignment notes confirm the amount of
Hazardous waste found so far has been 90 KGS
FACT 7
The issue about the council
being open is not sustainable. The facts confirm they have
been forced to publish the internal Audit report, it is clear they tried to
ensure the press and the public were excluded from all meetings . They were
forced to interview staff who were present at the discovery of the
contaminated waste in Carpenders Park. They were forced to interview the
gravediggers who carried out the burials. They also never published
documentation from Tersus Asbestos specialists which showed they were aware it
was Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the 17th May 2017. They have been forced
to publish relevant (not all as at least two consignment notes are
missing) documentation. They did not inform the school that work was
being carried out to remove asbestos .The idea they did not contact
the school/residents not to raise alarm is nonsense. The councils Audit Report
did not mention the School or the affect on residents while the removal of
asbestos was taking place. The council had no intention of informing the school
or indeed the residents. They
reluctantly called a public meeting where they ensured no one but themselves were
given platform , instead allowing a panel of four council officers (accompanied
by a further eight in the audience) to put the council view
ensuring only they could be heard.
At the meeting council
officers tried to avoid the real issue the which is how consignments of
clay changed to builders rubble (with Asbestos) and did they recklessly
put people at risk by continuing to carry-out works after the Asbestos
was found on May 9th and were they right to store the contaminated waste
by the Green Space.
The Audit report the
council relies on, do not address the issues. I believe that the evidence bears our the
fact that the council instead of preparing soil that had ben screened for
the burial of residents , they knowingly transferred to Paddington
Cemetery sub standard soil /rubble including Asbestos. I believe we need an
independent Health and Safety investigation (why did the council chose an audit
report?), which looks at the facts outlined above and believe the council
should be forced to implement that impartial investigation , including the
issue of compensation for resident who bought burial plots in 3D section of the
mound.
* Not the 24th
as originally state
No comments:
Post a Comment