Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
APPENDICES
a) Key to and hot links to high resolution photos and video
SOSJ overview of Esplanade site (before excavation work started) as at 12 July 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/overview.jpg
1: Topsoil not covered 8 July, 2015 http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo1.jpg
2: Workers in hazmat suits whilst public nearby are not - 9 July 2015 http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo2.jpg
3: Nursery group possibly exposed to contaminated dust - 10 July 2015 http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo3.jpg
4: Drilling into contaminated ground - workers masked, public close by are not - 12 August 2015 http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo4.jpg
5: Drilling into contaminated ground- workers suited, pedestrians close by are not - 13 August 2015 http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo5.jpg
6: Contamination of ground- ash deposits and other debris clearly shown - 1 Sept 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo6.jpg
7: Contaminated water and mud arising from workings and later leaking into road - 3 Sept 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo7.jpg
8: Contaminated water running off site and pooling around pedestrians - 8 Sept 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo8.jpg
9: Unidentified waste being loaded into separate skips - 9 Sept 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo9.jpg
10: Heritage sea wall being breached in two places. The first breach (above) shows water has arisen and concrete has been poured in to stem the water -11 Sept 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo10.jpg
11: Excavation to north east corner clearly shows layers of ash contamination and water arising from breach 14 Sept 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo11.jpg
12: (a & b) 2 photos of ‘event’ described (violent escape of contaminated water onto pavement and road on 7 October 2015http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo12a.jpg
http://www.axiomci.com/downloads/photo12b.jpg
VIDEO
Dust blows across Esplanade and down past bus station 3 Sept 2015 (.mov file)LINK: http://axiomci.com/downloads/dust.mov
1
(b) Response from Alistair Coates dated 11th April, 2015
2
(c) Sample of emails from office workers above the site, concerned residents, plus mail to Peter Brown from Andre Ferrari 17th September 2015 and and Mr Brown’s response - 18th September 2015
Mails from a senior office manager overlooking site: (name and email address redacted)
10 July 2015
Infants and staff from the local nursery obliviously walking past a few feet away from contaminated dust being excavated and blown towards them.
1 Sept 2015
There is so much activity on the site these days it's difficult to pin any isolated incidents down.... With regards H&S - some of the guys appear to be kitted out whilst others not so. However this may be down to individuals flaunting the regulations rather than the correct gear not being available.The main pit is around 20 foot deep at the moment and all sorts are coming out of it. Little or no measures seem to be currently taken to contain any dust being generated. Will attach a couple of pictures for you.
3 Sept 2015
Hi - picture attachedThe Drilling rig was spraying water onto the road at the corner of Castle St/Esplanade(which contains mud etc from the ground and could be potentially contaminated). It looks like a higher hoarding was erected in order to prevent water splashing onto the road. You can clearly see the water on the in the picture.
8 Sept 2015
Despite the erection of makeshift screens - liquid is still escaping from the Drilling operations on the site and spilling into the road and footpath. Pedestrians are obliviously exposed to it as they wait at the traffic lights.
11 Sept 2015
... there is considerably more destruction of the old sea wall going on at the Esplanade Site. The contractors basically have an excavator in the pit knocking chunks out of it with a drill attachment. Dosent (sic) seem to be much in the way of governance or control around it. Pic attached.Regards
7 October 2015
Somethong (sic) just ruptured on the piling machine down the side of Castle street resulting in contaminated water shooting all over the road and footpath. Fortunately nobody was walking past at the time. However people are now obliviously walking through the mess. The contractors response was to jump over the fence and hose the mess into the drains.Pictures attached.
3
Mail from Neil Walker 3 Sept 2015 [email protected]
Dust from the Esplanade this morning at 9am. Blowing East covering everything. Pic and video attached.
Looked like a fine dust to me. I could see it hanging in the air all the way down the road towards the bus station and the fort - like a haze. Sun was shining and it was reflecting. Spray would have also been wet? I had to walk through it and it was most defiantly (sic) not wet. I can't be 100% but I'm fairly certain. I could see it on the pavements and road surface. I walked passed again at about 2pm in the other direction, there was nothing in the air but muddy water was coming out from under the barriers over the road so assume they were wetting the surface at that point.
I only walked through it so don't know how long it was going on. Can't recall any noticeable noise though it was 9am so a lot going on round there.
Neil
From: Richard Lock 12 August 2015
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Esplanade Car Park Contamination
Dave,
Great pictures showing how dust and debris from the top of the auger can be blown onto the passing public on the other side of the hoarding !The authorities need to come clean over the soil samples and quick.In particular the Environmental Health Officer who set out conditions for ground works in the planning consent needs to be prodded into action.
Regards
Richard
From: Richard Lock 12 August 2015
Email: [email protected]
Message: I walk past the site everyday to get to work.
Has the Health Minister yet responded to your written concerns regarding asbestos dust ?Has the data concerning the soil samples taken last month been released to the public ?
Thanks
4
Mail from Andre Ferrari 15 September 2015 [email protected]
Dear S.O.S., I took these photos over the hoardings on the Esplanade site yesterday evening. It was blowing a gale and once again raises the question of how the contractors can claim that contaminated dust is not blowing onto the general public. They claim that they have been testing the infill. But short of testing each and every spadeful of material, I don’t see how they can know where the contaminated material is. Pockets of ash are fairly easy to identify (even though the then Public Services continued to deny it was going in there). But it is much harder with asbestos. At that time asbestos cement sheets were routinely smashed up on demolition sites, and these bits ended up mixed in with inert rubble before it even reached the reclamation site. So I don’t see how they can possibly identify and extract all those pieces, short of doing it by hand with a sieve!
As my photos show, the excavated area is open to the elements as are the untouched edges of the hole. Any contamination embedded within those edges is at risk from been blown into the air from the gales which are the norm at this time of year.
Perhaps S.O.S. could challenge the contractors to explain to the public exactly how they are testing for contaminants? Are they doing it constantly with the material they are working through? And if the infill is a 3 dimensional puzzle of contamination, why are the raw edges just left exposed?
Please use my photos as you see fit. I will send an additional photo in a 2nd e-mail.
Yours sincerely, Andre Ferrari
Mail from Andre Ferrari 6 October 2015 [email protected]: francis <[email protected]>Subject: update photo of the Esplanade siteDate: 6 October 2015 14:49:00 BSTTo: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Hi David,I was passing the Esplanade the other evening (30 Sept) with my camera. I didn’t have my stepladder! But I noticed the the red and white plastic barrier blocks are conveniently situated right up against the site fence. So I simply stood on them and held my camera over the top, just to get an update. As you can see they have made a hole in the base of the seawall. The diggers on the site don’t seem to suggest that there is much careful excavation of the infill as it comes out. Of course, I have no real understanding of how they are taking it out. My original question to Mr Brown was never answered, and the contractors have never got back to me! Keep up the good work, Andre
Mail from Andre Ferrari to Peter Brown 17 Sep 2015
Mail from Andre Ferrari to peter Brown 17 Sep 2015
From: francis [mailto:[email protected]]
5
Sent: 17 September 2015 14:39To: Peter BrownSubject: risk of contaminated dust on the Esplanade site
Dear Mr Brown,
I took the attached photos on Monday evening (14 Sept) of the development site on the Esplanade. I was surprised to see an excavated pit open to the elements. The public have been assured that there is no risk of contaminated dust blowing from this site. Yet given the seasonal gales now blowing across this exposed area, and the fact that the excavated pit is uncovered, I find it impossible to see how potentially contaminated material is not blowing onto adjoining public areas. Indeed, a member of my family mentioned that clouds of dust were swirling around the area on the Saturday before. And I recall that in the 1980’s, windblown dust was a constant problem when the site was being infilled (boat owners at the Albert Marina were among those who complained).
In addition, there has been no full explanation to the public of how contaminated material is being identified and separated from all the infill down there. Control of what was dumped there was very lackadaisical. I lived nearby at the time, and saw ash dumped in the very places where officials had denied that it was being dumped. The entire site is an uncharted 3 dimensional puzzle.
The ash at least, is easy to identify both visually and from its pungent smell. The issue of asbestos material is another matter. I’m sure some demolition contractors disposed of asbestos cement sheeting properly. But others didn’t. It was not uncommon to see asbestos cement sheet roofs being torn down with bulldozers. I even witnessed such a roof being smashed up with a lump hammer in the early 1980’s, with the dust blowing onto a town street ( I was so alarmed I actually rang Public Health about that and was told it “wasn’t a problem”!). In such cases, the asbestos cement sheeting could end up in tiny pieces, getting crushed under the caterpillar tracks of the machines. All of that material ended up mixed in with rubble and earth even before it got to the reclamation site. Given that fact, I struggle to understand how those tiny pieces are being identified and separated today. Are workmen sifting through infill by hand, inch by inch with trowels? I feel the public are entitled to a full explanation of the methods being used, particularly as they were so misled by former officials as to what was getting dumped down there in the first place.
1980’s Jersey had a very relaxed attitude to asbestos cement materials. In the late 1980’s I again queried the Public Health department about the safety of breaking up such sheeting, and was again told it was not a problem. In the end I resorted to writing a query to a national D.I.Y. magazine. I was informed in no uncertain terms that asbestos cement products should not be drilled, sawn or broken.
So given the relaxed attitude the health department had to asbestos cement sheeting, the very relaxed attitude by some demolition contractors, and the equally relaxed attitude of the Public Services department as to what got dumped at the reclamation site, a further rather
6
obvious question arises: did any of the more dangerous forms of asbestos get quietly dumped in that site? Hence my concern at the dust blowing from this site.
Yours sincerely,
Andre Ferrari
Reply from Peter Brown to Andre Ferrari: 18 Sept 2015
From: [email protected]: [email protected]: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:59:53 +0100Subject: RE: risk of contaminated dust on the Esplanade site
Dear Mr Ferrari I have forwarded your email to Camerons and you can expect a response from them in due course. The problem of windblown dust is acknowledged and you are correct that some incidents of visible dust emission have been observed. The scaffold mounted mist netting is designed to reduce windblown dust leaving the site including during high winds. In respect of the recent gales, they were also accompanied by very heavy rainfall which would have significantly damped down the area and reduced or prevented dust leaving the site. Perimeter dust monitoring is being carried out and off site monitoring should have started today but the (new) equipment sent by the manufacturer is faulty and annoyingly (to me anyway) has to be returned for replacement. We as regulators also know that the site was originally filled somewhat indiscriminately and we have no absolute guarantees as to the contents of the infill, though test cores have been drilled to find out. The excavation is covered by a waste management plan, enforced by the Environment Department and there is a States Officer normally based at the La Collette waste disposal site on site full time to ensure that waste is properly separated for appropriate disposal. Monitoring takes place for airborne asbestos, particulates and nitrogen dioxide and all will continue while there is merit and some will be long term. The States, in their capacity as Regulators of the development (including Environmental Health, the Environment Department and the Health and Safety Inspectorate) have a broad oversight into compliance matters on site. Although we may not deal immediately with more minor instances of apparent non-compliance or complaint from the public, we expect Camerons and Jersey Development to address these and to complete incident reports which are then supplied to the Regulators. We also receive independently audited weekly reports from the developer regarding monitoring, incidents, issues and progress. I can assure you that any ‘relaxed attitude’ to asbestos cement has been consigned to history. Waste is most definitely sorted with considerable care before it is removed from site. If friable asbestos is observed, it will be properly dealt with. Airborne asbestos monitoring is carried out during all excavation operations and no elevated levels have thus far been observed.
7
We expect individual complaints to be addressed by the applicant and the developer and we have regular meetings on site with them to ensure that best practice and compliance is achieved. I am happy to answer general queries about enforcement and about the development, but in the first instance could I ask that complaints about specific instances of pollution or suspected non-compliance are sent to the developer for a response, and maybe copy environmental health and JDC in? The contact for the developer is [email protected] , for Jersey Development is [email protected] and for Environmental Health is eh@health. gov.je (not directly to me please as this will ensure we get the email when I am out of the office). I hope this helps. Kind regardsPeter Brown - Environmental Health OfficerDepartment of Health & Social ServicesMaison le Pape, The Parade, St Helier, JE2 3PUTel: 01534 445809 Fax: 01534 445773
8
(d) Email from SOSJ’s Dave Cabeldu to Peter Brown and his response - 7 Sept 2015
From: David Cabeldu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 September 2015 07:44To: Peter BrownCc: Tammy FageSubject: Public complaints Building 4 Esplanade car park6th September, 2015
Dear Peter Safety concerns and two public complaints: Building 4 Esplanade Car park We wish to forward two complaints of several we have received from the public who have contacted us recently, mainly about dust blowing off the site of Building 4 Esplanade. We would also appreciate the answers to some questions, to be found at the foot of this letter. We attach several clear photos and a video of the Esplanade Development area. The video was sent in from a member of the public last Thursday, 3rd September, and the photos were taken by the public and/or from our site cam. You will remember regarding the dust blowing issue at the start of the work, that you assured us then it was ‘only topsoil’ and that you had had no complaints from the public? We receive several complaints a week and we ask them to contact your department. I believe at least one person has done so. There is a reluctance when we ask the public to contact you. I think this is due to this being a high profile project and not someone’s bonfire next to their garden. People are nervous of making waves when it doesn’t directly affect them, or frankly from our previous experience, think nothing will be acted upon. You visited the site and assured us that from then on the site would be kept dampened down but on a further occasion soon after, dust was blowing over the hoardings and not from topsoil which had by then been removed. One member of the public (Dawn Melia) contacted us saying that that she had phoned you on 24th August on our advice. She reported that you had told her what she saw was only ‘soil dust’ and nothing to worry about. She said you had assured her that the only asbestos buried there is asbestos cement not the ‘fly around kind’ and that it was all being monitored property with dust monitors and more were on order and will be able to be viewed online. There are several questions that we would like to ask, given the recent observations, phone calls and emails received hereto. First, here are details of the attached photos and video. The photos are as follows: 1: Nursery group going by 7/7/09 low res (nothing has changed to date- they are still allowed to use that pavement.) 2: The pit before clearance, 1st September, showing continuous areas of incinerator ash, a large strip of (possibly) roofing felt and unidentified lumps, pipes and other objects. 3: The pit on 2d September following clearance. The drill has been washed down and the site hosed. Water was observed splashing under the fence and is flowing into the road, ultimately into
9
the drain courses ending up in the sea. The water at this point will be toxic leachate, not ‘clean mud’ from topsoil. 4: The corner of the Esplanade Site/ Castle Street/ Esplanade taken 3rd September. This video clearly shows clouds of dust ir possibly fine spray, billowing over the hoarding across the road and over pedestrians.. The current piles of toxic fill are partially uncovered and the site is covered in a fine layer of leachate from the workings. This dries out and with a south westerly wind has been blowing off the site. It will contain particles of incinerator ash and possibly fibrous asbestos. We thought at first, it may be fine spray, and asked Neil Walker who sent it in. Mr. Walker mailed us saying: “Looked like a fine dust to me. I could see it hanging in the air all the way down the road towards the bus station and the fort - like a haze. Sun was shining and it was reflecting. Spray would have also been wet? I had to walk through it and it was most definitely not wet.... I could see it on the pavements and road surface. I walked passed again at about 2pm in the other direction, there was nothing in the air but muddy water was coming out from under the barriers over the road so assume they were wetting the surface at that point.” 5: The next photo taken on 1st September, is of a worker in full protection gear. In the background is a worker who is not. At the time a member of the public sent us this report with the photo: "I happened to walk passed the site at lunchtime and a member of the public, on the corner of Castle Street / Esplanade, was stood on the exterior box looking at what was going on. On my return, as the drill rig was moving, I also jumped on the box and there are about 7 guys watching the drilling rig, 5 of which with masks /suits but 2 without ?!! you can just see the guy in the yellow hat without - on the attached. All the staff got rather agitated and irritated as I watched them !!" I also attach a photo taken earlier two weeks in showing a nursery group going by a few metres away from the drill which is being tended by workers in masks and suits. We are concerned that pedestrians are still allowed so close unprotected when workers are and as you may remember, we wrote to the Health Minister and your department. We have not received the courtesy of a reply or even an acknowledgement from the Health Minister or his officers, though you have kindly responded to our previous enquiry. Surely at the very least if the JDC do not consider that enclosing the site in plastic sheeting as Dandara did across the road, the pavement should be closed off and warning signs that the site is a Red Hazard Zone' put on the hoardings? SoJDC are only part way through the first of 6 sites, (God forbid, if they continue this madness.) If the underground car park goes ahead, then they will be below sea level, 11 metres down. The volumes of hazardous material to be excavated and moved about are huge. It really is that massive a problem. Building 4 is on the western end of the site and therefore in the construction, should the JIFC continue, of further office buildings and the underground car park then future excavations of contamination will mean that the toxins will blow directly towards the existing offices on site, due to the prevailing winds, which CANNOT be stopped ( as highlighted in the movie clip ). Thus the offices in the JIFC pose a risk to their occupants and public !! The contamination, now confirmed at 20% and not the 5%, should ALL have been removed in a single process as originally set out in the masterplan. The projected costs of handling and burying the hazardous fill have not taken into account the realities and alone will cripple the project if honestly accounted. The financial pitfalls are not a concern for your department, but we must sure all be holistic in our approach for the good of the island?
10
Our questions are as follows: 1: We understand from your department that the public were to be protected by dust monitor and asbestos dust monitoring equipment to be placed on the corner of Castle Street and the Esplanade. We were assured by Lee Henry CEO SoJDC that the results would be available in real time online.Have these monitors arrived, and been fitted? If so for how long and what are the results and when will they be available? 2: Are you satisfied that the public are at no risk from dust arising from the workings and blowing over them? 3: Why are some workers wearing protective suits and masks, and some not? 4: Are you happy that people (especially children) walk by a few yards away from excavations that are open to the elements in a very exposed position, containing known toxic fill? Why is the pavement adjacent to the hoardings closed, warning signs erected, and why is plastic sheeting not erected on scaffold to enclose the site? 5: Given that the contractors have now excavated a good portion of the site and our photos show dense areas of hazardous ash and other as yet unidentified builders' waste, can your department now request confirmation from the contractors of the volume in percentage of ash and amounts of fibrous asbestos present? 6: Could you confirm that the Law Officers are happy with the current arrangements and have they undertaken a risk assessment? Should there be future claims for compensation in the event that members of the public develop respiratory disease, or even class actions in the future, how prepared would they be? If, having reviewed our questions you believe something should be done, it should be done without delay due to the health repercussion. We can only raise our concerns where they should be heard and hope someone listens. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible to address the above. Kind Regards Dave Dave Cabeldu Co-ordinatorSOS Jersey Tel: +44 1534 851981Mobile: 07797 733613SOSJersey.co.uk
11
From: Peter Brown <[email protected]>Date: 7 September 2015 12:10:20 GMT+01:00To: David Cabeldu <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Public complaints Building 4 Esplanade car park Dear Mr Cabeldu Thanks for your email. I haven't looked at the movie yet (I have to transfer it to another computer with a .MOV player), but I will, and I will show it to the developer 'for comment' and discuss what we can do to minimise episodes of dust migration off site. In answer to your questions: 1. The monitor has arrived in Jersey and I am to collect it from the airport today. A power supply and location has been organised and I will arrange for installation as soon as possible. I am assured it will work 'out the box' but we will see. I will also arrange for real time data to be made available as soon as possible. Although it is JDC's equipment, I will ensure that it is properly installed and working. 2. I am happy that all reasonable measures to minimise dust have been taken and I will enforce these measures if I find that there is any non-compliance. The situation is under constant review and specific measures will be taken if they are considered to be necessary at any stage of the development. 3. The wearing of PPE is a health and safety matter and not for me to comment. When I go on site, I don't wear and am not required to wear PPE except the usual hat, tabard and shoes. 4. I am happy that all reasonable measures are being taken to control dust. On site dust monitoring (not real time) shows that excessive dust is not a problem on site, though the figures obtained would not be able to register specific dusty events as they only give a daily average. I would happily let my own child walk past the site and she has done so on numerous occasions recently. I also walk past it myself twice a day at least. I have no idea why the pavement is closed and didn't know it was. I will enquire. It is not possible to enclose the site owing to the presence of large equipment. When the building frame is up, it probably will be. 5. The excavation and indeed the whole development is the subject of a waste management plan which is not enforced by Environmental Health, though I do have an interest in its contents. I will pass on your question to the Waste Management Officer as he is the more appropriate person to answer. 6. Every aspect of the development is subject to risk assessment or similar scrutiny. Any future claims for compensation are not within my remit and I cannot comment. I would also like to add the following comments, for the avoidance of doubt: 1. In respect of previous phone calls about this development, any comments I made were valid at the time. The clearance of the planted areas did cause a degree of wind-blown dust, which would have been soil and not excavated material.
12
2. I have never said that 'the only asbestos buried there is asbestos cement'. Nor would I ever use the expression 'nothing to worry about' as it is emotive and can be misinterpreted. I do not know specifically what is buried there, but it is the subject of a waste management plan and at the time of my conversations with various members of the public, the only asbestos I was aware of were a small number of items of asbestos containing cement products. This also remains true at the time of writing. The presence of airborne asbestos fibres is being monitored as part of regular on-site monitoring. The latest report I have been sent reports 'no raised levels'. 3. The site foreman is aware of water running off site under the hoarding and has taken measures to prevent it. I will add this to my 'checklist' for future site visits. The waste management plan will also cover the disposal of site liquids. 4. The depth of the current excavation is, from memory, somewhere between 3 and 4 meters and does not extend below the high tide level. I asked this question myself and was told pumping will not be routinely necessary. It is however, still a large excavation and I will be making regular visits, both announced and unannounced to the site. Myself and my colleagues from the Environment Department work closely together to ensure that the site is managed in the best way to minimise off-site effects. We make regular visits but also genuinely welcome reports of incidents from wherever they come as they help us to ensure that site management is as effective as it can be and also helps Environmental Health in particular to respond to nuisance events. Please get back to me directly if you have further questions. Kind regards Peter Brown - Environmental Health OfficerDepartment of Health & Social Service
Maison le Pape, The Parade, St Helier, JE2 3PUTel: 01534 445809 Fax: 01534 44577
13
(e) Email from SOSJ’s Jacqui Carrel to Peter Brown and his response confirming lack of dust monitoring equipment in public areas - 29 Sept 2015
From: Jacqui Carrel - SOS Jersey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 September 2015 15:52To: HSS EHCc: Peter Brown; 'David Cabeldu'Subject: Dust monitor query
Dear Peter/Environmental Health team member Reference the IFC/Esplanade digging, please would you confirm the following dates? 1. Dust monitors ordered2. Dust monitors received3. Dust monitors found to be defective and returned4. New monitors received5. Working dust monitors installed Also, are the data from these monitors available? Many thanks Jacqui Jacqui CarrelSave Our Shoreline Jersey07797 824 565
From: Peter Brown [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 September 2015 16:34To: Jacqui Carrel - SOS Jersey <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Dust monitor query Dear Ms Carrel 1. Dust monitors ordered - Sometime in late July/early August (by JDC)2. Dust monitors received - 16 September3. Dust monitors found to be defective - 18 September and returned - 22nd September4. New monitors received Not yet. Followed up this morning and currently in the hands
of UPS for re-delivery to Jersey.5. Working dust monitors installed. Not yet. Hopefully by next week.When the real time monitor is returned, the intention is that it will supply live data which will
be made available for public view in real time. 2 Indicative particulate monitors are already installed (by the contractor) at the boundary of
the site and record 15 minute averages throughout the working day only. In the absence of a real time monitor, I have asked for a breakdown of data and they
14
are looking into how it can be supplied. At present I only receive daily 15-minute maximums, which has been adequate so far but I would like more. No 15 minute average reading has thus far been above the nominal limit of 250 ug/m3. This doesn't take into account brief episodes of higher PM emission or events which are not picked up by the 2 existing monitors. Most significant events would be clearly visible however. Existing real time monitors in St Helier show that levels fluctuate greatly and sometimes unpredictably but generally average around 20-30 ug/m3 but can go well over 100 on occasion, even at Howard Davis Park where a lower background might be expected.
The particulate monitoring is separate from the airborne asbestos fibre monitoring which is
independently carried out and has so far shown no elevated levels. I hope this answers your questions Kind regardsPeter Brown - Environmental Health OfficerDepartment of Health & Social ServicesMaison le Pape, The Parade, St Helier, JE2 3PUTel: 01534 445809 Fax: 01534 445773
15
![Recommendations Rivers Appendix1[1]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/577daac31a28ab223f8b5554/recommendations-rivers-appendix11.jpg)
