Has Duffy been vindicated on Paddington Cemetery asbestos?

Regular readers will know of the dogged campaign by ex Cllr John Duffy on the issue of asbestos at Paddington Cemetery. A search on this blog (right hand column) will bring up many articles including this.

Duffy eventually resigned the Labour whip in frustration at his efforts to reveal the true facts being rebuffed, undermined and ridiculed by the Labour leadership and officers who minimised any risk from asbestos contamination. Duffy stood as an independent in the council election in May but was not elected.

Now it has been revealed that in addition to Brent Council back-filling the ex-mound that contained asbestos they are installing concrete 'coffin liners' in the ground to facilitate burials. Apparently each liner will take two coffins and there are estimates that between 100 and 200 liners will be installed.

Clearly all this is very expensive and will not have been ordered unless there was a very real issue to be dealt with.

Meanwhile I understand that John Duffy has approached the District Auditor requesting an investigation of the illegal dumping of asbestos.

Almost 2/3 London construction workers don't know asbestos can cause cancer

This may be of interest following the Paddington Cemetery asbestos controversy LINK (From Construction News)

A third of construction workers don’t know that asbestos can cause cancer – in London it’s almost two-thirds.
 

These two statistics staggered me when I read the findings of an asbestos awareness survey by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), published on Monday.

This was part of IOSH’s No Time To Lose campaign, which aims to raise awareness about occupational cancers caused by diesel exhaust fumes, silica dust, solar radiation and asbestos.

You would expect any contractor health and safety programme worth its salt to make sure workers know the dangers of asbestos, are familiar with onsite asbestos registers, and have clear guidelines on what to do when faced with the stuff.

But it seems the message isn’t loud and clear everywhere, with 40 per cent of workers surveyed by IOSH saying either that asbestos risks were not regularly reinforced, or they had never been told about them in the first place.

This failure to inform was reflected in the findings that one in three workers did not check asbestos registers on site, while 15 per cent didn’t even know they existed.

Part of the reason for this ignorance seems to be rooted in the idea that asbestos is an old problem, with the substance being banned for use in new buildings in 1999.

I have to confess, I was in that camp until yesterday. I assumed, given the publicity around it over the past few decades, pretty much everyone – let alone construction workers – knew the dangers.

The stats say otherwise.

Around 5,000 people die from asbestos exposure every year, with construction workers accounting for 66 per cent, according to the Health and Safety Executive.

Within this, 20 tradespeople a week are killed by mesothelioma – a particularly horrible form of cancer that Mesothelioma UK director of services Liz Darlington calls “a death sentence”.

Given the number of workers dying every week due to asbestos, is it really getting the attention it deserves?

It’s true that many sufferers were exposed decades ago, when asbestos was widely used in lagging, insulation boards, fibre concrete, tiles, gaskets and other products.

But we still have a legacy of more than half a million commercial and public buildings containing the deadly mineral. On top of that it’s estimated that more than a million residential properties could contain asbestos

So it is clearly still an ongoing problem for people working on site. If we get complacent about it, then the deaths – which are completely preventable – will continue far into the future.

Speaking to people at the No Time To Lose launch, the lack of awareness primarily affects small and micro companies as well as sole traders.

IOSH is now calling on everyone in the industry to help it reach these organisations. To do this, IOSH has produced workplace posters, information cards for workers, action flowcharts and other general information that is freely available at notimetolose.org.uk.

So even if your company is up to date on the risks and managing them well, make sure the same is true of other subcontractors and partners you work with.

By the time IOSH does its next survey, everyone should be aware of the dangers.

Thanks to David Price, reporter, Construction News 

-->
 

Why were Brent workers allowed to work in Paddington Cemetery without protective clothing when specialists deem it necessary?

Photographs taken at Paddington Cemetery on Wednesday April 4th

Councillor John Duffy has returned to the controversial issue of asbestos at Paddington Cemetery. He has written to Brent Council enclosing the above photographic evidence.

In an email to Brent Council officers and members he states:

You can see from the photo the contractors are working in the area Brent Council officers were conveniently unable to identify from the original photo (albeit the area was signed posted). Again i think this highlights the cover -up that has been taking place by Brent officers to extent of the contamination by builders' rubble containing asbestos and the cost to Brent residents to clear or remediate the site.

I hope your reply will concentrate on why members of the workforce (gravediggers , gardeners) were instructed to work on section 3D without protective clothing  following the discovery of the Asbestos on May 7th (including Monday 26th June 2017).Will you please ensure officers explain why specialists still believe  they should wear protective clothing  to work on the site, when the local workforce were not provide protective clothing or training.

I also hope you will ensure officers give a full explanation of why officers deliberately mislead members of the public at a public meeting, saying  that they were unable to identify the location  "Photographs were not conclusive works and precise location not identified " when they were fully aware of both the location and work that was carried out.

New cemetery asbestos public meeting

The Friends of Paddington Cemetery have arranged a new public meeting on Wednesday evening (March 15th)  at the Kilburn Housing Co-op, Kilburn Square, NW6 at 6.45pm.

The meeting will  deal with issues around the discovery of asbestos in the cemetery, how it arrived there and whether Brent Council responded in a transparent way.

Unlike the last meeting, where the chair was Amar Dave, head of Brent Regeneration, this meeting will have an independent chair.

Cllr Duffy, who has been pursuing the issue for months,  has requested that at least one of the panel from the previous meeting takes part, and is also asking for a trade union representative to be present.

Borough Solicitor attempts to put block on Duffy's questions

The Brent Senior Solicitor has written to Cllr John Duffy regarding Duffy's attempts to ask further questions where he feels officers' answers are deficient. Looqman Desai, the Senior Solicitor has told the councillor that officers will not deal with any further questions on issues that they consider dealt with and that any new questions must be dealt with via the Members Enquiries system.

Cllr Duffy has responded that this is disingenous and a way of ensuring his questions are not answered despite the Mayor's promise that officers would answer his questions. He has written to the Mayor, Cllr Chohan, with further questions:

Mr Mayor it is important you stand by what you told the full council and public at the full meeting and do not renege on it  and ensure the officers answer the  following questions or  instigate an independent  investigation by someone with Health and +Safety  experience to answer them.

(1) Will officers confirm that the soil / rubble was stored in a safe lockable area within Carpenders park  prior to its transfer to Paddington Cemetery and explain how the soil/rubble   was delivered into the lockable area and was the rubble purchased as top soil.

(2)  Will the officers confirm the Soil/Rubble transferred to Paddington Cemetery was the same as the Soil/Rubble that the 60 Kgs of waste was sent for disposal under a consignment note as Hazardous waste. If not where did the original contaminated load go?

(3) Will officers confirm that 60 Samples taken by Eton' Environmental Specialists on behalf of the council showed that17(27%) were contaminated by Asbestos and 57 (95%) were contaminated with builders rubble and do officers believe that the level of rubble is appropriate  for the burial of residents.If officers do not believe its appropriate  for burials  of residents why will the CEO and Lead Member of the Environment not consider compensating the relatives of the deceased for the inconvenience , anguish and uncertainty  they have been put through by Brent Council?

(4) Will officers confirm the last burial which took place on the mount by graveyard employees after the 30 KGS of asbestos was discovered. Will they also confirm that graveyard employees  were not given protective equipment the same as the private contractor. I understand the contractors workforce were instructed by Brent Council to continue to bury people without protection up to 21 days after the asbestos was found.

(5) Will officers confirm that workers were bused in on the 26th June to carry out work on the mound and those workers were given no protective clothing or special instructions. Will Officers also confirm the pictures I presented to officers depict workers raising dust on the mound without any protection for the workforce or any attempt to cordon the area from public access.

(6) Will the Head of Finance confirm the failure of senior officers to control the transportation of Hazardous waste to the Paddington Cemetery cost Brent Council over one million pound and provide a full break-down of costs including loss of revenue , cost so far and expected removal costs.

Mr Mayor I met a relative of one of the deceased buried on the mound, who wrongly believe I was a council official.He was upset and wanted to know how could the council allow people to be buried in builders' rubble. I could not answer him. I have attached a picture of the rubble that is thrown around the mound and a picture of Michael Bond's grave on the footpath to show the affect of the council's policy to use builders' rubble. (Above)

Mr Mayor what we are witnessing is abuse of procedures,where powerful officers are using a timetable to keep information from the  public. I  ask you  to stand up to officer and stop this deliberate abuse of  the Purdah period and ensure ALL  relevant staff  are interviewed ASAP and the results of those interviews are published  along with answers to the six questions  asked above before the 19th March, to ensure they are  not caught up in the Purdah period.

Mr Mayor it is important the concerns of the residents, parents and grave-owners are treated with the respect they deserve and dealt with ASAP.

Dogged Duffy pursues Brent Council on asbestos contamination

Not satisfied with the Mayor's statement on the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue at Full Council on Monday, Cllr John Duffy, who relinquishes his councillor role in May, has returned with further questions to Chris Whyte of Brent Council:

I wrote to the Mayor and he informed me my questions would be answered. I had hope that Brent council would be more transparent and rely on evidence not hear say. To me its important that any investigation is fact based so residents, the school and grave-owners would be satisfied that the council are transparent and has not reverted to their original position of deny everything , just ignore the evidence and rely on secret internal meetings to keep information from the public.

Mr Whyte you were not at either Carpender Park or Paddington Cemetery when the asbestos was discovered. The only witnesses at Carpenders Park are the operatives who discovered the Asbestos who have not been interviewed, the only evidence is the waste transfer certificate which confirms the fact  that 60kgs of hazardous waste was sent for disposal. The only witnesses at the discovery of the Asbestos found in Paddington Cemetery have not been interview, the only evidence is the asbestos discovered on May 9th was sent for analysts to Tersus Asbestos specialist and they confirmed  it was Asbestos Cement(Cyrysotile)  the remaining Asbestos was sent to Brentwood Essex and weighted 30kgs and the waste consignment note further confirms the fact that is was Asbestos cement (Chrysolite).Just to put the amount of asbestos in prospective 90Kgs is the equivalent of 90 plaster boards (2m x sq) broken up. So Mr Wythe as you were not present at either find , I suggest we concentrate on the evidence which speaks for itself.

I understand all operatives will now be interviewed 10 months after the discovery of the Asbestos. I Have told Brent legal department I am happy to wait until all the operatives have been interviewed to  determine what were  the operational failings with respect to the transfer of the soil/ rubble from Carpender’s Park in 2015 . I believe the evidence will supports me that  the soil/ rubble was knowingly transported  to Paddington Cemetery. It beggars belief that  you are suggesting officers cannot not tell the different between soil and rubble. However we must agree to wait until after all the witnesses have been interviewed.

Mr Whyte I asked the Mayor for the CEO or the Lead Member for the Environment to make a statement. I asked that" the statement should also include plans for compensation to the grave -owners who have buried love ones in section 3D who have paid for soil /earth interment and ended -up with builders rubble". I believe that head of finance should also give an estimate on the total cost to the council, which I believe will be somewhere around the 1 million pound mark ". You have not answered those questions. Instead you inferred I am  misleading grave -owners  with a hurtful suggestion .This is nonsense and is yet another attempt to undermine me and stop any questioning of  how the councils managed to deliver the  rubble ( including Asbestos) instead of the soil / earth  which is normal for  graveyards to Paddington Cemetery.

I assume Brent council officers have read  the reports concerning  the description of there soil / rubble on the mound. If not I suggest you look at the evidence. We known there was three finds of Asbestos one in August 2015 ( Carpenders Park ) and two in Paddington Cemetery in May 2017. We known the soil / rubble for Paddington Cemetery came from Carpenders Park after the original 60 KGs of Asbestos was discovered. We know that 30 Kgs of Asbestos was found in May 2017.  In August 2017 Eton Environmental took 60 sample (appendix 3 of their report ) and they give the exact location and description of the samples taken .Of the 60 sample taken 17  were found to have asbestos this confirms 28% of the sample had Asbestos including one sample that had several large chunks of asbestos cement. We also know that of the 60 samples 57 contained rubble ,that is 95% of samples contained rubble, some called cement  or bitumen ,but all identified as rubble. Officers can also visible verify  the present of rubble by inspecting the  residue from the graves, where they will witness boulders as big as footballs which are clearly visible.

I would suggest officers stop making smears against me and concentrate on the facts. I ask again now that I have pointed out the evidence that 95% of samples contain  (you would be hard put to get that level on a bomb site ) rubble will the CEO or Lead member for the Environment  now confirm that  they will compensated the grave -owners who have buried love ones on the mound and who paid for soil /earth interment (as per their contract)  and ended -up with builders rubble (Q1)? The council position that the mound is not heavily contaminated with builders rubble is unsustainable and the longer the council  remain  in a state of denial, the more I believe it undermines their credibility with the public .If the Mayor, CEO and Lead member  for Environment believe that is OK to buried people in ground , which sample show is  95% of rubble instead of soil is acceptable they should confirm that to the residents of Brent. I would also like confirmation on the full cost to  the council of this fiasco  and hope the Head of Finance will confirm the  cost the council tax-payer, which I believe is around the million pound mark (Q2)?

Mr Whyte as well as the financial cost and the health and safety aspects of the officers reckless decision not to halt the transfer of  soil/ rubble to Paddington cemetery after the discovery of asbestos. The council have destroyed pathway to bury people and have buried people in areas with no proper drainage. All this because of the failure of officers to condemn the waste at Carpenders Park and halt the transfer. Yet I see no humility from officers concerning  the actions  undertaken by officers which have led to the Council turning  parts of a  beautiful  Victorian listed graveyard into a brown field site full of rubble.

Please ensure you answer the 2 questions mentioned above concerning compensation and the full cost.

Mr Whyte I have copied in the CEO, as I am not sure she was aware of the high level of rubble present in the sampling

Brent Council answers Cllr Duffy's asbestos queries

Brent Council has responded further to Cllr Duffy's queries about the Paddington asbestos issue following the statement made at Monday's Full Council meeting:

The independent testing that was done confirmed that the level of asbestos at the site is below the scientific detection level at 0.001%. This is consistent with background levels for this substance in soil in urban areas. The asbestos that you refer to as having been removed in May was found in a total of 30kg of mixed soil that was taken for testing. This subsequently confirmed the presence of asbestos at that time. It would be very inaccurate and misleading to suggest the low levels that were subsequently recorded over the wider site had been engineered as a consequence of the removal of this 30kg of mixed soil in May.

The extended audit investigation that is underway is seeking to establish the pathway, if any, of the asbestos that has been detected in the soil at trace levels at Paddington Old Cemetery. This will also determine whether there were any operational failings with respect to the transfer of the soil from Carpender’s Park in 2015 and whether that is actually relevant.

Your reference to 60kg of asbestos having been found at Carpender’s Park must again be challenged. A total of 60kg of mixed soil was removed at that time. It was thought the soil might contain a piece of asbestos.

It would also be misleading and potentially very hurtful to suggest that customers have paid £3k to have their relatives buried in builders’ rubble at Paddington Old Cemetery. The re-opening of graves has been undertaken by specialist teams as a precaution until the facts of this matter have been firmly established. We are now clear that the level of asbestos in the soil at the graves is at background levels, similar to that likely to be found in any garden in Brent.

The council has committed to consulting with the school and the workers at the site and to concluding this matter in a measured and transparent way. Further decision making will be based on the facts that have been established and we will seek to implement pragmatic solutions that are agreed with the various stakeholders.

The council has no plans for compensating grave owners. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring substance which has been detected at the cemetery at levels that are below 0.001%, and which would not draw regulatory sanction or be of any interest to the HSE. Given the concentrations encountered are typical of urban background levels, the council will carefully consider what action is merited in this case and any other cases where the contamination is present at such low concentrations. This will be considered in the context of previous decisions where Local Authorities have, under their statutory powers (Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) determined that other sites including those with much higher concentrations of asbestos do not meet the threshold for definition as Contaminated Land.

Mayor of Brent to make statement on cemetery asbestos tonight

In response to Cllr Duffy's request Cllr Bhagwani Chohan, the Mayor of Brent, will make a statement on the Paddington Cemetery issue at tonight's Full Council Meeting. The statement will be made under Matters Arising from the Minutes and is expected early in the meeting around 7.10-7.15pm.

Cllr Chohan has asked officers to update him on any issues raised by Duffy's request.

Duffy calls for statement on Paddington cemetery asbestos at tonight's Full Council meeting

Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn, Labour) has written to the Mayor of Brent requesting that Carolyn Downs (Brent CEO) or Cllr Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) make a statement on the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue at the begining of tonight's Full Council meeting.  The meeting will be live streamed HERE.

This is Cllr Duffy's letter to Cllr Chohan:

-->

 As you aware the issues of Paddington Cemetery has been highlighted by officers in this weeks Kilburn Times, saying the results of test for Asbestos is at a low level which is true, albeit he samples were taken after the Asbestos was removed and now only a trace of the Asbestos can be found. 

Whereas it true that tests now show a low level of Asbestos now, however the main issue has always been did the council knowingly dumped builders rubble in Paddington Cemetery. The truth remains the same once they found the 60 kgs of Asbestos in Carpenders Park, all consignment to section 3D in Paddington Cemetery should have been halted immediately .It was reckless for the council to continue to delivery waste without a full screening process being carried out to ensure no Asbestos or indeed builders rubble remained in the loads.

It is clear the council is fully responsible and the council in-house Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) Report clearly confirms this (now that it has been reluctantly released) when it states:

  "The Audit review report concluded that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries Service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery ".

 In layman's terms this means the council had no procedures to ensure the so called London Clay (rubble), which was to be delivered to Paddington Cemetery, was screened and was safe to used for burials plots.

Mr Mayor, you may not be aware that at the moment residents pay approx. £3k for a burial plot, which is describe as being buried in Earth on the councils web-site. However what residents did not pay for or expect was their loved ones to be buried in builders’ rubble. Neither did they expect, that when a re-opening of a grave takes place the excavation has to be carried out by a specialist team in masks and protective clothing. This is clearly the legacy of the reckless mistake by Brent council of failing to   implemented adequate screening processes.

Mr Mayor I am the first to recognise and I am grateful that officers / Senior Councillors accept their past mistakes and have subsequently decided to publish the AAC report. I am also grateful to the officers for agreeing to interview all staff (which I assume is underway) that were present when the incidences took place in August 2015 and May 2017. This was a glaring omission from the AAC report and is ultimately the only way we can confirm how much Asbestos was discovered and indeed indicate how much asbestos remains. Hopefully this will also expose whether the workforce were instructed to work on the mound after the discovery of Asbestos on May 9th 2017 without protection. I furthermore believe the change in the council position to ensure that the council will now liaise with the school and local residents, before the removal of the rest of the contaminated waste takes place is welcomed by everybody concerned. This should ensure adequate safety measures are in place. However I believe it is important that the council continues to be transparent and does not revert to secret meetings where residents are banned from attending or even reading the report.

Therefore Mr Mayor I am hoping for the sake of clarity and transparency, you will grant time at the beginning of tonight’s Full Council meeting, to allow either the CEO or the Lead Member for the Environment to make a statement addressing the issues mentioned above concerning Paddington Cemetery. I am sure the statement will take less take less than 5 minutes and reassure residents/ grave owners of the transparency of the council. The statement should also include plans for compensation to the grave -owners who have buried love ones in section 3D who paid for soil /earth interment and ended -up with builders' rubble. I believe that head of finance should also give an estimate on the total cost to the council, which I believe will be somewhere around the 1 million pound mark.

Mr Mayor please replies to all people who have been copied in, as they have all indicated they are interested parties.

GMB support call for an independent report into Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue

Vaughan West, Regional organiser of the GMB union said today:

The GMB are obviously concerned if members of staff and/or the public have been exposed to asbestos and would expect any employer and  especially a public body such as Brent Council to do everything in its power to demonstrate and reassure  its staff and the wider public that their health and safety is the primary concern and issue. 

If that means the commissioning of  an independent report to reassure people then that is a small price to pay.

Brent Council on asbestos - We have been 'measured, proportionate and at no time irresponsible'

Dear Cllr Duffy,

I attach the initial test note from May 2017 that first confirmed the presence of asbestos. This test was commissioned by Veolia and you will note the detail is very limited.

This led to the further investigations that are available on the council’s website. First the Eton report, and then the Delta Simons specialist survey and risk assessment.

On the other matters raised in your email, I refer you again to the very many previous responses, not least with respect to the independence of the audit investigation, the work to remove some soil from the site, the overall level of risk, the circumstances around the hazardous waste that was removed from Carpender’s Park and your allegation that contaminated soil was somehow knowingly and illegally moved to Paddington.

There are a number of further inaccuracies in your email, not least your suggestion that hundreds of pieces of asbestos have been discovered. I refer you again to the report – 

It is important to highlight that there have now been at 34 exploratory holes advanced within the Site / materials, this is considered to be a very high density of investigation and it is highlighted that none of the investigations have identified any evidence of gross asbestos (e.g. large pieces of asbestos cement or asbestos lagging). Rather, the investigations have highlighted the asbestos contamination to be limited and diffuse with Eton reporting concentrations as being ‘Trace’ and the quantification testing by Delta-Simons not finding asbestos above the <0 .001="" limit.="" quantification="" span="">

I really must reiterate the need for responsible reporting of this matter. We have received a query today from a local resident asking whether her tap water is fit to drink. That is extremely regrettable.

The specialist’s report is clear –

It is recommended that the council gives careful consideration as to how the issue is communicated to the various stakeholders due to the perceptions and misunderstanding of the risks associated with asbestos, particularly within soil. Asbestos is a common contaminant in soils in the urban environment and the identification of it at this Site is not unique as it is frequently found in imported soil materials.

The council’s position is known and has been made clear many times. Our communications and reporting have been measured, proportionate and at no time irresponsible.

Cllr Duffy returns with further comments on the Cemetery asbestos issue

Ahead of tomorrow's meeting about the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue (7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square, Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT.) there has been further correspondence between Cllr John Duffy and Brent Council.

John Duffy's email is published below:

Thank you for  your email, however I have some serious concerns about  some of its content.. 

 Firstly you say in your email the council has been open, transparent and public and worker safety focussed throughout this matter. Any examination of the fact show the opposite is true. The council decision to take the  report to an audit committee , where the public and press were banned  cannot be considered  public , open or  transparent . To stop  a democratically elected councillor from having a copy of  the  Audit Advisory committee Report (AAC)  before the meeting  and only  allowing  him  to view  the report in front of two bodyguards cannot by any stretch of the imagination be consider open, transparent and public.

Neither does the decision of the council Audit Investigator not to interview the workforce  who were mostly exposed to the asbestos suggest to me you were focus on worker safety. The neglect of the workforce is also borne out  by the council  decision not  to suspend all work  on the mound while awaiting asbestos analyst .

The decision to bus in workers to carry out work on the mound , without protective clothing  on June 24th 2017 was reckless. The council must be aware  the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012  set minimum standards for the protection of employees from risks related to exposure to asbestos. Employers should also take account of people not directly employed by them but who could be affected by the work being done on asbestos including employees of other employers, people occupying buildings, members of the public etc.

The main issue has always been how did the asbestos get to Paddington Cemetery .We known there were three " finds "of Asbestos one in August  2015 in Carpenders Park. This was found while preparing a load  to infill section 3D which  is an area on the mound  in Paddington Cemetery .The Asbestos was separately bagged and sent to West London waste Authority.(WLWA) .The waste was classified as Hazardous waste and weighted 60 kgs .The council officer ,who had attend asbestos awareness courses confirmed in the AAC report that  he believe the" find " was  asbestos cement.. However you in your latest email have  change that account. You are now saying that it  just was a (one) small plate  made of asbestos in among the 60 kgs. As you kno  I used to be Head of Environmental Enforcement for Westminster City council  and I have always found a change in narrative concerning. However Iam  hoping you will explain  how bags filled with Asbestos cement , can suddenly become a  small asbestos  plate ? In my role Head of Enforcement I have  always believe  that  stories can change  but the facts remain the same. The fact is on the 15th August 2015  the council sent 60 kgs of  waste  which found in a load bound for Section 3D in Paddington Cemetery  to WLWA for deposal and it was all classified as "hazardous Waste" with or without the "small asbestos plate".

The next position of the council is in my mind completely untenable,  Your  email says the council removed the original 60 kgs of contaminated soil in 2015 . The council sent completely different waste to Paddington cemetery shortly after  from a random spoil from previous dug graves within Carpenders Park. The load was sent to  backfill 3D in Paddington Cemetery .The chances of two  random unrelated loads both being contaminated ,can mean one of two things  either Carpenders Park is contaminated throughout  which is very serious or the council failed to screen the 2nd  load properly believing they had  remove  all the Asbestos  before sending it to Paddington Cemetery.

The second "Find” of Asbestos was located  in section 3D on the May 9th 2017 .The find was made after grave diggers were preparing  for a burial .I understand well over a hundred pieces of asbestos were found  and these were found all the way down the dig .The pieces of asbestos  were not as you suggested just at the level of 6 or 7 feet some of it was near or on the surface .The spoil transported to Paddington cemetery in 2015 was used to backfill a hole that had appear after the removal of a very large tree and its roots. The pour of the waste did go to 6 or 7 ft  as the level of the  removed roots were that deep. Your assertion that  because the level where some the asbestos was found , makes the asbestos pre-2010  has no evidence to support that view.

On the 19th May  the third "find "was also found in section 3D again on or just below the surface. Nothing concerning this find  or the find that took place previously was mentioned or highlighted in the councils AAC.

On July17 2017 you sent me an email (see below) ) following an enquiry I made on behalf of a residents  it said.

Dear Cllr Duffy,

I understand a small number of pieces of asbestos have been dug up alongside bricks and other building materials during  a grave excavation in the mounded area at the rear of Paddington Cemetery.

These are small items, and tests have shown them to be a low-risk type asbestos. Also, of course, they’ve been buried and are therefore damp so pose no risk of particles being released. 

They will be disposed of in the appropriate manner

We’re working with Veolia and our in-house H&S team to establish the extent of the problem and, while we do that, we’re not burying there. As far as I’m aware though, there is absolutely no risk to the public here.

This email is misleading there was not a small number of pieces as you described, there were over a hundred pieces of  asbestos found and many of them were large ,will you confirm the number as I believe your reply to me underplayed the size of the asbestos find. Also the  test  you mentioned that you say "showed  low risk type  asbestos", has never  been published .Just to clarify  I am requesting the release of the test results that were carried out  on the asbestos found on the 9th May mentioned in your email along with the consignment notes for the asbestos found on 9th May and 19th May 2017, and the size of both those finds.....Hopefully the quick release of this information will lead to Brent residents having a complete picture. 

As you are aware Eaton Environmental group showed of the 60 pilot holds drilled (after the removal of the over one hundred pieces of asbestos) 28%  were still found to have  asbestos trace and  just under 25% of them including one sample which states " several large chunks of cement "were of "high content". i believe this is being underplayed by officers. Also neither the Eaton or Deltasimmon report consider the tests results  you mention in your email , therefore both the consultants conclusions are flawed as they do not consider the asbestos  from "finds" two and three in their overall results. I believe without those test results , Grave-owners , residents and parents will be unable to make up there own mind on past and future risk.

The other point of most  concern is the  storage of the contaminated waste on the footpath outside  the Green-space .I witnessed over many weeks that the asbestos was clearly visible. I wrote to you in early in December 2017 that were not following the basic Health and safety regulations  on the removal of Asbestos. Most importantly, the Council  did not  carry out the basic courtesy of  alerting  the school whose garden is immediately adjacent to ensure that no children went out  into the Green-space during the operation.  Nor did the Council cordon off the surrounding area to ensure members of the public did not enter.The use of the giant mechanical shovel on a open back lorry  was completely inappropriate and bound to create plumes of hazardous airborne dust. The waste was then placed in an open lorry rather than a locked skip (which is required under COSHH )  which would  ensure  the journey of the hazardous waste would be registered and the load could not be neither tampered  with or mixed with other waste. No protective sheeting was placed on the lorry as it drove off, leaving several pieces of asbestos (see photos on the Perfect storm email) scattered along the path. 

Albeit you were sent photographic evidence  of the waste being loaded into a open back lorry, you seemingly just ignored this  and on the 9th December you sent me another email.

Dear Cllr Duffy,

The contractors have advised the sealed container is still in the depot awaiting a date and time slot for it to be taken for final disposal/treatment in Swindon.

Apparently, there is a booking system rather than a ‘just turn up’ system.

We will advise as soon as we have further information.

Kind regards,

There was no sealed container as the photographs in the perfect storm email confirms. The lorry when to yard and  was off-loaded onto the floor. It is because of Brent  Council’s unwillingness to follow COSHH guidelines and ensure the waste was collect in  locked skip  no one will be able to guarantee the integrity of the load collected from outside the green-space for testing.

I understand from the Head of Finance  that the councils Audit officer  ,who  himself recognises he is not an H+S expert. He will now interview the staff. This again is just an attempt  to ensure the investigation is not open or transparent .It was only a few months ago the audit officer believed these people who were most exposed to asbestos were not  worth talking  to ,he also did not seek out important consignment notes to ensure the committee had all the facts  and the public have all the facts. Of course once he has investigate the decision will go back to the Audit Advisory Committee  and the press and public will once again be excluded  from the meeting .It will be the same result. Brent council will mark it own homework without any scrutiny from the public.

I believe the council lack of openness has caused considerable anxiety to many local residents not just about their health and well-being, it also brings alarm that a big juggernaut like Brent Council can continue to ignore them and hide behind locked doors in the Civic Centre and they are helpless to do anything about it. I am still hoping  the council will announce an independent investigation today (Monday ) prior to Tuesday meeting , which I believe the local residents will welcome and  will lead to a calm and sensible conclusion  that will be in the public interest ..

You mention the affect on some staff which are employed by Brent, which I really do consider. You can rest assured I am not motivated to get anyone disciplined. I believe you can see from my defence of the workers in the graveyard rights to be heard, because  that  I am not that kind of person . However I believe there are lessons to be learn be it extra  H+ S  and  COSHH training , changes in protocol , better contract management , better reporting systems or other solutions…...Mistakes can be made but they  can  be rectified , but they should'nt be hidden  behind secret meetings that excluded the press and public.

As I say I will be at the Civil Centre today ( Monday approx. 1pm), where hopefully  you will be able to give me the test results you mentioned  in your email and the consignment notes, which were all missing from the AAC report, so they can be studied  before Tuesday’s meeting .