"Experts" clear brown asbestos from Harcourt School site

[SheilaJOliver]

Naomi Harries, of Greater Manchester Geological Unit, Urban Vision, Salford Council, told a diversion of footpath public inquiry on 06/01/10 that there were changes in legislation which meant that work was done which led to the contamination subsequently being found after she had stated that the school area was safe. Andrew Webb, Director of Children and Young People's Department, repeated this claim to local parents. The Council  are refusing to say what changes in legislation.

[Intravenusdimilo]

@SheilaJOliver very experthas said it's safe, even the Labour party say it's safe

[rollaphat1]

@Intravenusdimilo You're an idiot if you believe them...

[SheilaJOliver]

I asked Trevor Hough, site manager, for details of his firm's insurers, as future claims may be made against his company, BAM Construction Ltd, from people living around the site who may well have been exposed to brown asbestos fibres during construction - and it appears from the clip that correct safety procedures were not followed. He has not responded.

[SheilaJOliver]

See what will happen to the babies and young children's lungs:-

youtube.com/watch?v=ayhyG7ZlRa­c&feature=related

[SheilaJOliver]

Stockport Council is insisting that all questions regarding this issue are vexatious, yet they tried to do no contamination investigations, knowing full well, as Councillor Mark Weldon admitted recently in the Manchester Evening News, that the site was likely to be contaminated with brown asbestos. Councillor Weldon even had a photo-opportunity recently with young children sitting on the contaminated land whilst he dug the first sod of earth from the site with a shovel.

[SheilaJOliver]

GMGU's proof of evidence from David Woorich to the public inquiry in 2006 regarding the Adswood former Jackson's Brickyards stated:- "The general thrust of guidance is that, ideally, gassing landfill sites should not be developed for 'hard' end uses until they have stabilised but should be developed instead for open space use. Stabilized in this sense means a methane level of below 1%v/v .. and a CO2 level below 1.5%v/v." The school site is gassing over 14%v/v CO2 .

[SheilaJOliver]

From the GMGU proof of evidence to the public inquiry 2006 - "The only suitable forms of hard deveopments are large scale commercial developments such as offices, supermarkets etc. Schemes to protect buildings in these situations need to provide multiple levels of protetction e.g., extraction wells, sealing techniques, ventilation voids and extensive monitoring." This is not happening for the 550 primary school pupils in the school though. Why not?

[SheilaJOliver]

From GMGU's proof of evidence to the 2006 public inquiry regarding the sister site at Adswood:- ..Waste Management Paper 27 states that housing (and presumably by extension schools) should not be constructed on landfill sites ..where the CO2 levels are in excess of 1.5%v/v. Asphyxia can occur if there is sufficient concentration to give significant oxygen depletion. - The school site is gassing 14%v/v, but there was no mention of that concern with regards to the children.

[SheilaJOliver]

From GMGU's proof of evidence from David Woolrich at the public inquiry in 2006 regarding the sister site at Adswood:- "Very few sites are so badly contaminated that they cannot be reused at all, but the choice of a new use may be restricted by contamination as well as other planning considerations and the consequent financial implication. That .....must include the longterm financial consequences for the site occupants. No mention of this problem for the school site.

[SheilaJOliver]

In 2006 GMGU stated to a public inquiry about the sister Jackson's Brickyard site at Adswood:- "Where the redevelopment of a closed landfill or nearby land is involved, even the possibility of difficulties from migrating gas would be a material planning consideration." It wasn't for this new school.

[SheilaJOliver]

The Council's Environmental Health Officer about the Jackson's brickyard sister site at Adswood said:- "Any exposure to genotoxic carcinogens increases the likelihoold of developing cancer, and future residents at the site could therefore have increased lifetime cancer risk." Though he had no concern about the 550 primary school children in this respect. I wonder why not?

[SheilaJOliver]

In a memo written by Stockport Council's Environmental Health Officer referring to the former Jackson's Brickyard sister site at Adswood he states:- "If a venting point was driven though an area of asbestos there would be the potential for asbestos fibres to be released on to the development. No lower threshold exists for certain types of asbestos, hence a serious health risk would occur if even one fibre of asbestos were to be released during the venting of the gas".

[SheilaJOliver]

Regarding the former Jackson's Brickyard site at Adswood, also in 2006, the Council's Environmental Health Officer stated:- "The number of carcinogenic (and other) compounds which could potentially be present within the fill is extremely large. Due to the unknown composition of the fill, this department cannot speculate on the gases that are to be liberated during the venting process." He was not in the least bothered about this school site.

[SheilaJOliver]

BS 10175 (7.6.2.5), which the Council and Greater Manchester Geological Unit claim to have complied with in their April 2006 investigations, states that a high density of sampling grid can also be necessary where a high level of confidence is required for the outcome of a risk assessment. Presumably, for 550 primary school pupils and 78 babies directly on top of a still gassing former toxic waste dump a high level of confidence would be required. Apparently not!

[SheilaJOliver]

Bs 10175 (7.6.2.3) also states the most common pattern for establishing sample locations is the square grid with samples taken at intersections. This was not the case in the April 2006 investigations although the Council and Greater Manchester repeatedly claimed to have complied with BS 10175.

[SheilaJOliver]

BS 10175 (7.6.2.2) which Stockport Council and Greater Manchester Geological Unit claim to have complied with in April 2006 states that potential sources of contamination include past storage tanks, backfilled pits and waste disposal areas and mean that sampling points should be located at equal spacing and increasing distance from the centre. This simply wasn't done.

[SheilaJOliver]

BS 10175 (7.6.2.1) states the more sensitive the receptors...the greater degree of confidence needed in the outcome of the risk assessment and the subsequent risk management. Greater Manchester Geological Unit said 104 boreholes and 209 trial pits (some from an investigation in the 1990s) were not enough for the sister former Jackson's Brickyard site at Adswood, but for this school, directly over the old tip, 4 contamination pits and 11 boreholes on a similar-sized site were adequate. Why?

[SheilaJOliver]

Greater Manchester Geological Unit Ground Investigation Report dated 28th May 2006 states that this had been done in accordance with Bs10175. BS 10175 (7.2) states sampling locations for contamination should not be moved from a selected grid pattern, yet there were no contamination investigations done under the full sized football pitch. Therefore, BS 10175 (7.2) was not complied with.

[SheilaJOliver]

I don't think the link worked to the clip with showing how the lungs are damaged.

This might be better:-

You Tube- Abestos WorkSafeBC

Very scary.

[SheilaJOliver]

This video explains what fibres of asbestos do to your lungs.Why are local children, some just babies and local residents deliberately being exposed to this danger?

youtube.com/watch?v=jifoNSXvTu­Q&feature=related

[SheilaJOliver]

The Adswood former Jackson's Brickyards had 64 boreholes and 176 contamination pits dug. The housing they were proposing is not directly over the old tip. The site is 4 hectares.

The school site, with just four trial pits and 11 boreholes and with the school going directly over the old tip, is 3 hectares.

[SheilaJOliver]

The warehousing at the Bredbury former Jackson's Brickyards, where they did more investigations 30 years ago than they did for this school in 2006, is not even directly over the old tipped waste - the new school is directly over the old tip.

[SheilaJOliver]

At a sister Jackson's Brickyard site at Adswood were 64 boreholes dug and 176 contamination trial pits. The Council's experts stated at a public inquiry in 2006 that that amount was not enough, at exactly the same time they were saying four trial pits and 11 boreholes was fine for Harcourt Street where the school was going, These are the same experts who said the Harcourt site was safe originally and are now in charge of further investigations. I have no confidence in their competence.

[SheilaJOliver]

In the early 1980s on a sister Jackson's Brickyards site opened in 1922, like the Hacourt Street site, with the same layout and planning and tipping history, they did more contamination investigations on a regular grid pattern for just warehouses than they did in 2006 for this 550 pupil primary school. The 1982 warehouses were not going directly over the old tip. This school is. Why would the safety standards be better 30 years ago than now?

[SheilaJOliver]

I went to the Environment Agency and proved how contaminated the land was and they put further planning restrictions on the Council in January 2008 which for some reason weren't done until October 2009, paid for by the developers, which showed the entire site to be contaminated.

When the EA told the Council not to decide the planning application on grounds of contamination, the Council "forgot" to tell the planning committee that fact.

[SheilaJOliver]

In 2006 the then Chief Exec of the Council banned me from asking any council meeting questions or talking to any council officer. It was supposed to be an indefinite ban. He claimed I had been rude and offensive to council staff. No evidence was ever produced and there was no appeal process. When I threatened to sue, the Council said in writing I was not rude or offensive. This ban meant I was not allowed to ask the planning officer if he had contacted the Environment Agency. He hadn't.

[SheilaJOliver]

menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpres­s/news/s/1025192_council_admit­s_planning_error

[SheilaJOliver]

In 1974 the Council refused three planning applications for housing for the site because the land was tipped and unsuitable for building. In the early 1980s they set aside the site for a primary school.

Although the Executive Councillor responsible stated in the press recently they expected to have found brown asbestos on the site, Stockport Council tried initially to do no contamination investigations whatsoever; then they did one borehole when they were made to by local people.

[SheilaJOliver]

The Council's contamination experts claimed to have complied with BS 10175, which lays down a strict grid pattern of investigations points. They didn't do that and didn't bother to investigate at all under a full sized football pitch on the site. When they were forced to carry out investigations using a strict grid pattern, then it was found out that the entire site was contaminated. It has been intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974 with no records kept of what was tipped on the site.

[SheilaJOliver]

The background to this is contamination experts funded by Stockport Council claimed the part of the site where the school was going was not contaminated. They said there were contamination hotspots at the other end of the site and children could be protected from them by means of prickly bushes! It turned out after they had to prove the site was not contamination for a public inquiry, that the entire site was contaminated with the contaminants being lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.