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.

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.

Asbestos row: Duffy accuses Brent Council of sanctioning personal attacks on him

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:

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 

Brent CEO apologises to Salusbury Primary School over asbestos

Salusbury Primary and Paddington Old Cemetery

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, publicly apologised yesterday evening for the Council's failure to contact the headteacher of Salusbury Primary School over the possible asbestos contamination at Paddington Cemetery, which borders the school.

Ms Downs was moved to apologise after parents  had told the meeting about their fears for their children's health when they heard about the issue earlier this year. Several parents pointed out that the children grow vegetables in the school garden adjacent to the cemetery, The area has been closed off to pupils pending investigation of the soil. Parents said that even if they had not been told it was incumbent on the Council to inform the headteacher so that she could decide what action to take.

The Chair of Governors of Salusbury Primary requested a clear timeline of Council action to reiterate their commitment to making the area safe. She asked for the school to be consulted over the timing of the proposed removal of soil from the cemetery mound. She asked for much better communication and transparency.

Council Officers had argued  earlier that they had received advice that there was more public risk in raising parental anxiety by publicising the issue than the low risk posed by the asbestos contamination itself.

The CEO had earlier told the meeting that the full report into the asbestos had only been withheld from the public in case there was enough evidence to press criminal charges against those who had dumped the asbestos.When it was clear that there was insufficient evidence the report had been published on the council website. LINK

During the meeting the tension between Cllr John Duffy, who has pursued the issue relentlessly, was palpable. Duffy was confined to making interventions from the audience and his contributions were frequently curtailed or interrupted by Amar Dave, Head of Regeneration who was conducting the meeting. I think it would have been better if Duffy had been invited to join the panel and make his contribution alongside Chris Whyte (Operational Director of Environmental Services), Michael Bradley (Head of Audit and Investigations) and Simon Clennel-Jones (of Delta Simons who prepared the investigation of asbestos at the cemetery). That would have enabled him to make a clear presentation of his own investigations and answer questions from the audience.

Duffy contested whether Michael Bradley's report had been truly independent, he wanted an external investigation, and pointed out that the Delta Simons investigation had analysed soil samples after soil had been removed to the West London Waste Authority facility.

Cllr Duffy protested that the Bradley investigation had not interviewed gravediggers at the site, the people most at risk because their daily work disturbed the contaminated soil, and had spoken to managers instead. He was told that workers would now be interviewed.

The Simon Delta report had emphasised the low risk posed by the incidence of asbestos found which they said was normal for an urban environment but a member of the audience pointed out the section in their report that stated:

Nevertheless, the Client as landowner (and potentially as employer) has a duty to manage to ensure exposuresis kept as low as reasonably practicable; further, the assessment has identified the potential for exposures to exceed a level at which has been considered in civil litigation as being a material contributor to a case of mesothelioma. (Para 8.1)

Officers said that Veolia had advised their workers to contact their GPs over possible exposure which raised for me what appeared during the meeting to be a grey area of responsibility between Brent Council, as a public body, and Veolia, a multi-national company.

This was evident when Friends of Old Paddington Cemetery LINK raised issues about works, other than asbestos related, at the Cemetery which was listed on the National Register of Parks and Gardens and where English Heritage should be consulted about any changes.  The Friends had been distressed about the destruction of footpaths to accommodate new graves without any consultation. It was unclear from responses whether the council had been fully informed of works Veolia had carried out.

Officers said they were going to remove all the soil from the 'mound', the area where the suspect soild had been dumped as a way to reassure residents.

After the meeting it was clear that some residents still did not feel they had the full pictures and there was particular confusion over key dates and what took place on them. The timeline promised by the council may address this or it may raise further questions.

Other Brent councillors were present at the meeting, including Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council,  but none spoke except for Cllr Duffy.

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.

Brent Council to hold Public Meeting on asbestos controversy - February 6th

From Brent Council

Public meeting for anyone who has any concerns about Paddington Old Cemetery, where you can hear first-hand from independent experts as well as the Council. Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square, Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT.

Duffy asks, 'Why didn't Brent Council interview key witnesses over transportation of asbestos contaminated waste?'

Councillor Duffy has responded to Brent Council's replies to his questions about the asbestos contamination at Paddington Cemetery with this email to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive:

Thank you for letter you asked Mr Whyte to send on your behalf. I will study it and deal with the questions around the events of 24th June and 30th November and contamination in general in a second reply as I need to get more information. However this reply will focus on how the waste got to Paddington Cemetery, which is the most crucial issue. Firstly I am delighted you have said "I can confirm that the AAC report was initially restricted for its consideration by the Committee in December. it has been publicly available on the council’s website since the last Audit Advisory Committee on the 10^th January. I believe your decision to lift the restriction is a good decision for democracy and will allow an open debate around the report

As you know, until you published it, I was bound by the council standing orders not to reveal what was in the report. This was most frustrating as the report is flawed and omits crucial evidence. Only in Brent would a report that does not interview witnesses be acceptable. The report not only fails to interview anybody who witnessed the transportation from Carpenter Park to Paddington Cemetery (as they may tell a different story), it relies completely on what Senior Brent council officers say is true and does not seek relevant documentation.

As you know my allegations have always been the same since November 2017:

(1) The council knowingly/deliberate transported contaminated waste from Carpenters Park, putting the workforce and the public at unnecessary risk.

The report points out there were two known incidences of contamination in Paddington Cemetery. 

The first one took place in 2011, where the council received supposedly top-soil from a waste contractor. A council officer called Mr A dealt directly with the contractor named as company XX. He did not seek additional quotations as the contractor XX (this is normal for Brent not to seek best value) had previously carried out work in Willesden New Cemetery. Instead, Mr A met the contractor on site and agreed a price and raised a work order from the contractor to supply" Clean Top soil." 

While Mr A was off sick a Senior manager Mr F (rightly) challenged the workmanship of company XX and informed Mr A on his return to work that the company should not be used again. Mr F is now retired. Mr A however said the clay/soil was, he understood, to have been tested and no contamination was found. Bizarrely the investigating officer did not ask the name of the company who tested it or ask see a copy of the test results.

The second incident took place in Carpenders Park in August 2015, The work was being carried out by different contractor YY to carry out levelling work in section 3d in Paddington cemetery. Mr A was alerted to contaminated soil again .Mr A believed it to be (guessed it to be) "Asbestos cement", which he described as low risk. He removed some of the "Asbestos Cement"  and double bagged it and disposed of it to landfill and obtained a waste transfer certificate and the  remaining waste still contaminated  with asbestos fibres was transported to Paddington Old cemetery without a test being carried out to assert the level of contamination still within the soil this confirms the council knowingly transferred  waste to Paddington Cemetery knowing it to be contaminated. This is all confirmed at the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 of the AAC report.

I assume the waste was then taken to the West London Waste Authority (WLWA) Site on Abbey road NW10 as we are a member of that waste authority. WLWA are required to keep Waste Transfer notes for a minimum of 2 years. So it is very likely they will still have copies and that information would be a basic requirement to any investigation Date, Weight, description but this obvious avenue was yet again not pursued by the investigator.

However the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in a report and after nearly forty years experience, I am still not sure I believe what i read. It was the statement from the investigating officer saying "Although dealing with contaminated land falls within the remit of the ( the council's) environment monitoring team they stated they would NOT pursue a criminal investigation against the the contractor should evidence of an offence under the Environmental Protection Act come to light." This is the Environmental team telling the investigator and the committee, whatever he then finds, it does not matter because environmental officers will not pursue it.

As I say, I welcome your decision to remove the restriction on the ACC Report and i hope it get a full airing at the public meeting, however I believe the publishing of the AAC report makes an Independent public investigation carried out by a Health and Safety expert( to reassure the public) inevitable. I believe the idea that issues in the public interest can be dealt with by a restricted special committee where the council mark their own homework and give themselves an A+  has to be challenged 

I have only one question: Are you happy that the investigating officer did not seek relevant available documents and failed to interview key witness involved in the transportation of the asbestos contaminated waste to Paddington cemetery 

An early reply will be much appreciated. I will also get back to you on the other two points later in the week. Namely, 

(2) That the council knowingly instructed the workforce to work in the contaminated ground in full knowledge that it was contaminated with Asbestos 

(3)  That the council knowingly did not follow proper H+S regulations on the 24th of June and 30th of November.