Subject: Former site of Turner BrothersAsbestos (TBA) - an Update and Next Steps

Report to: Cabinet

Status: Not For Publication

Date: 2 November2015

Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for Culture,Health and Wellbeing

Report of: Director of Neighbourhoods

Authors’ Email: xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxnicola.roqers(’ãrochdale.qov.ukxxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

I PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

Authors: Andy GloverNicola RogersDavid Oakes

Tel: Tel: 01706 92410501706 92412401706 924324

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update members of Informal Cabinet on the latestposition regarding asbestos contamination at the site of the former TBA factory inSpodden Valley. The report requests approval from Cabinet for funding tocommission an independent site survey in partnership with the owner’srepresentative (UKLP Estates (Rochdale) Ltd, referred to in this report asUKLPER). It also suggests how the issue of the remaining dangerous buildingson the site can be tackled; highlights some of the potential financial implicationsand risks for the authority; and discusses a number of other issues relevant to anynext steps.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Members of Cabinet are requested to:

2.1 supportthe requestforfunding in section 7 belowto commission (jointlywith thelandowner) a site survey which will increase the owner’s and Council’sunderstanding of (i) the level of asbestos and other ground contaminants acrossthe site area and (ii) any public health risks arising from this; and

2.2 consider whether any agreement to joint-fund the site survey should be madeconditional upon the landowner also agreeing to remove any asbestos risk fromthe existing buildings on the TBA site.

ROCHDALEBOROUGH COUNCIL

Comments from StatutoryOfficers:

Key Decision: Yes

Monitoring Officer: YesSection 151 Officer: Yes

3 BACKGROUND

3.1 The site of the premises formerly known as Turner Brothers Asbestos isapproximately 38 hectares in size and is located some 1 .8km north west ofRochdale town centre.

3.2 The former TBA Site has a long history of industrial use dating back to the 19tIcentury. By the 1960’s the site had expanded to its present day extent. In recentyears, some of the buildings on the main factory side have been demolishedleaving the building footprints. Asbestos ceased to be manufactured in the site inthe 1990’s, when the buildings were occupied by various small tenants until theywere completely vacated after 2008. Since then the buildings have become atarget for vandals and are in an advanced state of disrepair.

3.3 In February 2013, a significant fire (suspected to be arson) caused major damageto the structure of the old E Block Buildings. These buildings have since beendemolished. A further fire occurred in January 2014, the cause of which isunknown. Both these fire-damaged buildings have now been demolished and arediscussed in more detail in sections 9-14 below. In response to these on-sitefires, and in order to ensure a co-ordinated response to future incidents, a multi-agency protocol was adopted.

3.4 Members should note that this report will simply focus on the need for a site surveyand will not address any options for future development of the former TBA site.Any options for development will need to take into account the information gainedvia a site survey; once formulated they would ultimately need to undergo thePlanning process (along with any consultation required as appropriate).

4. ASBESTOS AND THE RISKS POSED

4.1 The Council’s Public Health section has been asked to provide expertise regardingthe potential health impact of the former TBA site. At this stage, without anyevidence regarding the possible levels of asbestos remaining on this site or anyidentified causal pathway it is intended to provide only summary information onasbestos and known health effects. This will enable Cabinet to gain a betterunderstanding of the broader issues and to provide clarity and evidence-basedinformation around the challenges of fully understanding any non-occupational risksof potential exposure to asbestos.

4.2 Definition of asbestos and risks

4.2.1 The term Asbestos refers to a group of crystalline mineral silicates that occurnaturally in rock. As asbestos is resistant to heat it was widely used in constructionas well as in creating asbestos fabric which was used for creating fire and heatproof items of clothing and protective wear.

4.2.2 Three main types of asbestos were used in industry; a) chrysotile (white asbestos),b) crocidolite (blue asbestos) and c) amosite (brown asbestos). All three areclassified as known carcinogens and cause serious risk to health. Crocidolite andamosite are considered to be more dangerous.

4.2.3 Asbestos fibres that are airborne are invisible and odourless (Sen, 2015) and nolevels are considered safe. The Health and Safety Executive sets a control limit forworkers of 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.lf/cm3)but make clearthat this is not a safe limit. The asbestos in schools campaign group consider that

anything above a benchmark of 0.0005f/mI pose a “significant” risk (f/mi and f/cm3are equivalent units).

4.2.4 Currently in the UK, asbestos is the biggest cause of work related deaths. Thereare four main types of disease caused by asbestos exposure. Sen (2015) outlinesthe key features of each which is summarised below.

a) Benign pleural disease including pleural plaques, diffuse pleural thickening andbenign pleural effusion. These three diseases can be asymptomatic and are notprecursors to malignant disease;

b) Malignant diseases which are malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer;c) Malignant mesothelioma is a fatal and aggressive form of cancer which is identified

as an industrial disease due to the high proportion caused by asbestos exposure.The latency period between initial exposure and disease is 15-60 years with a meanof forty years. Incidence is increasing and current estimates are that there will be apeak of around 2,500 cases in 2020; and

d) Smoking is associated with 90% of lung cancers but there is evidence of a synergybetween smoking and asbestos which indicates a much higher risk of lung cancerfor those with exposure to both.

4.2.5 Asbestosis (an interstitial lung disease) which is a form of lung disease that causesinflammation and scarring. The latency is from 20-40 years from exposure andthere is a dose-response relationship meaning that those with more exposure aremore likely to develop this disease. The severity of the disease is increased bysmoking and progressing occurs in 40% of cases even after the exposure has beenstopped.

4.3 Interpreting the Evidence

4.3.lThere are no systematic reviews that consider the potential health risks resultingdirectly from a disused asbestos manufacturing plant. The occupational risks anddomestic risks from workers returning home with fibres are clear and wellevidenced. Wider environmental risks that have been reviewed have focused onactive asbestos industry, such as mining, or asbestos in situ in older buildings, suchas schools. These are of limited value in considering the risks associated with adisused site such as the TBA site in Rochdale which includes woodland, andabandoned buildings.

4.4 Confounding Factors

4.4.1 There are some significant complicating factors in considering this type of risk.These are other issues that mean that it is very difficult to determine how much riskthere is to the population from the TBA site in Rochdale. Due to the confoundingfactors discussed below it would be misleading and inaccurate to carry out anyspecific disease analysis locally as it would not be possible to accurately determinethe cause of any variation in disease incidence due to the following factors:

a) Inability to distinguish between occupational, domestic and environmentalexposure.

In addition to occupational exposure for workers directly working at the factory,there are three confounding non-occupational exposures 1) neighbourhoodexposure whilst the factory was working, 2) exposure to asbestos from otherpossible sources such as housing, schools etc., 3) domestic exposure relating tofibres brought home by workers on their bodies and clothes, t Dossibility that local

...._. ..J. I

So, it would be very difficult to accurately consider the risk associatedwith the current TBA site as opposed to the other exposures.

b) Latency of diseaseAs detailed above, the diseases caused by asbestos exposure have a latencyperiod between exposure and the development of disease. In the case ofmesothelioma, this can be as long as sixty years. This means that current diseasein the population could be associated with exposure as long ago as 1955.Therefore, the risks of current exposure are difficult to determine via any diseaseanalysis.

c) Sample sizeThe rates of mesothelioma, in particular, are very low and, therefore, it is difficult todetermine to a degree of significance to any pattern locally.

d) Lack of information on levels of asbestos contaminationAs there has been no full survey of the site, it is not known how contaminated thesite is. Although there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, the currentinformation available does not indicate how much asbestos there is in the site, orwhether this might be a source of new exposures.

e) Population mobilityIn order to accurately consider the population at risk, all residents of the local areawould need to be traced and their other exposures tracked. This would be verydifficult due to the potential presence of asbestos in other buildings or places.

f) Smoking prevalenceAsbestos and smoking are both causes of lung cancer. 22.7% of adults in theRochdale borough are still smokers, and the smoking rate has been much higher inthe past. Even now, this is significantly higher than the England average (RochdaleHealth Profile, 2013). Lung cancer is a significant cause of ill health and mortalityin Rochdale but in the main, this is most likely to be smoking related disease.

4.5 Levels of disease in Rochdale Borough

a) Lung Cancer

The tables below indicate the incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer inRochdale as compared to England and Greater Manchester. Rochdale has ahigher rate than England for both incidence and mortality but is not higher than theGreater Manchester figures.

Age Standardised Incidence Rates per 100,000 - All Ages IncidenceLung Cancer 2010-12

Males Females Persons

England 94.17 62.4 75.99

Greater Manchester 128.67 89.02 105.57

Rochdale 110.18 89.17 98.01Age Standardised Death Rates per 100,000 - All Ages Mortality LungCancer 2011-13

Males Females Persons

England 75.73 48.6 60.19

Greater Manchester 97.37 68.91 80.76

Rochdale 82.9 75.37 78.2

b) Malignant Mesothelioma

From 2003 to 2014, there have been a total of 70 deaths from malignantmesothelioma in Rochdale borough. This is a mean of 5.83 a year (a median of 6).The crude rate locally for 2012-14 is 3.14 per 100,000 population which comparesto a crude rate for England of 4.0 deaths per 100,000 population (2012 data). Thenumbers of deaths are small and therefore no conclusion can be made regardingthe significance of this data.

4.6 Conclusions regarding asbestos and risk posed

a) There is no clear evidence from the literature review regarding the health effectsfrom exposure from a disused asbestos factory. The focus of risk analysis hasbeen on the occupational or domestic. Therefore, the conclusion is that it is notpossible to determine the potential for health harm from the TBA site based on aliterature review;

b) The data regarding asbestos related disease and the potential confounding factorsindicates that further analysis would be unlikely to reveal any additionalinformation; and

c) A full site investigation would confirm the levels of asbestos on site which maybeneficial in understanding how to assess risk going forward

4.7 Air Quality Monitoring

4.7.1 Despite difficulties with establishing any wider health risks to local communities,the Council is keen to act where it can to better understand the risks (if any)posed by the site which may arise from its industrial history. As a result, theCouncil has commissioned a firm to undertake sampling around the perimeter ofthe site, to gather data on whether asbestos levels in the air are within expectedparameters.

4.7.2 The work is being undertaken by Bureau Veritas of Didsbury. Monitoringequipment has been placed at 4 carefully selected locations. These locationswill be secure (placed within residents’ gardens with their full agreement), andbetween them will cover the full circumference of the site. In order to act as acomparator, an additional “control” unit has been housed on the roof of NumberOne Riverside.

4.7.3 The exercise is due to commence in September 2015. Under the agreedSample Analysis Plan, monthly samples will then be taken over the next 12months until August 2016. A total of 5 samples will be taken each month(including the control sample).

4.7.4 The full cost of this exercise will be borne by Rochdale Council. At a meeting ofRochdale Township on 16 September 2015, it was agreed that the outcome ofthe sampling will be shared with Rochdale Township and other area forums suchas Spotland and Falinge, Healey and Norden.

5 OWNERSHIP OF THE SITE I AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES INVOLVED

5.1 The Land Registry confirms that the site is owned by Renshaw Properties Ltd.This is an offshore company registered in the British Virgin Islands and its solerepresentative in this country is UK Land and Property (UKLPER).

5.2 There are also a number of community-based groups which are committed to thepreservation of the green open space surrounding the former TBA site andcontinue to scrutinise the Council’s actions and decision-making processes in thisregard. These groups include:

• TBA Working Group (the nature of the relationship between this Group and theCouncil has been the subject of some discussion with the Portfolio Holder. Ithas been agreed that the Group will remain at arm’s length from andunsupported by the Council, although meetings will be held at Number OneRiverside subject to rental for the room being paid); and

• Save Spodden Valley Group.

6. EXISTING SITE INFORMATION

6.1 A wide range of information about the former TBA site is held by the site ownerand Rochdale Council. A full list of the information gathered though a range ofstudies is attached as Appendix 1. However, there are a number of gaps in theCouncil’s knowledge base, as discussed in paragraph 7.1.1 below.

7. WHY IS A SITE SURVEY REQUIRED?

7.1 General aims

7.1.1 The historical information held to date is incomplete as it has been gatheredover a number of years and relates to a series of disconnected, previousinvestigations. The document attached as Appendix 2 sets out a detailedexamination of the current gaps in knowledge about the extent ofcontamination at the site. When all of this fragmented information is broughttogether and examined, the Council and site owner accept that there are gapsin the knowledge and understanding of the site’s (asbestos) contamination risk.It is therefore considered necessary to consolidate the available information,

and to supplement it through the commissioning of additional intrusive siteinvestigations. This would enable the Council and owner to gain a full anddetailed understanding of the site, including:

(i) the level of asbestos and other contaminants present in the ground; and

(ii) a risk assessment of health issues arising from the above which may impacton the local community.

7.1.2 The overall objectives of the site investigation are to identify and characterise allpotential contaminant linkages; draw conclusions on their significance; andprovide a concise and robust report with conclusions on the site’s status (withfull justifications).

7.2 Council objectives

7.2.1 A site survey will assist in resolving further Council objectives. For instance, theoutcome of the survey may oblige the Council to take certain statutory steps,including recording the site on the Register of Contaminated Land. (The site isnot currently on the Register due to the lack of information from a ground-based survey, although - as the home of a former producer of asbestos-containing materials — it has been identified as requiring inspection inaccordance with the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy under Part 2A ofthe Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Statutory Guidance). The site hasbeen identified as a potential concern since it is within close proximity tosensitive residential properties and there are a number of known asbestosdumps within the site vicinity. It is not known to what extent asbestos fibredispersal is occurring from the factory buildings and former landfills (if at all),and - if so - what risks they represent to the surrounding receptors. Pt is this gapin knowledge which the site survey would seek to fill.

Furthermore, a complete site investigation will assist the DevelopmentManagement team to better understand the planning implications which anyproposals for future development may have to satisfy. This is a standardPlanning technique and is normal industry practice. It is true that normally theburden of acquiring a site investigation report would fall wholly to the developer.However, by previously rejecting a planning application (on the grounds of lackof information provided), and given the particular demands of this site, theCouncil may now be committed to a joint-funded approach.

7.2.2 In summary, of particular concern to the Council are the requirements for:

a. an assessment of the release and migration of asbestos fibres from dumps andthe derelict buildings and their capability of reaching receptors;

b. an assessment of the risk to controlled waters to the satisfaction of theEnvironment Agency;

c. an investigation to determine the presence of contaminants and their risk; andd. an assessment of slope stability issues and the identification of the presence

and location of mine shafts on site.

7.3 Other objectives

7.3.1 In addition, the site survey will also offer benefits to the owner from theperspective of UKLPER. In particular, it will enable UKLPER to betterunderstand the development potential of the site. Whilst this is of secondary

benefit for the Council, it will clearly be of real significance for the land ownersand their representatives, and will assist in enabling a final sustainable solutionfor the site to be found

8.1 In 2014, the Council embarked on a comprehensive tendering exercise in relationto the site survey; this resulted in confirmation that the site survey for the groundcontamination only could be undertaken by a preferred contractor at a cost of£246,541.71. This sum included optional items identified in the revised submissionbut excluded work for:

• an assessment of the level of asbestos in the existing on-site buildings; and• the cost for a baseline flood risk assessment to identify any constraints to any

proposed development.

With a contingency of 15% (37,000), the total cost for this work was estimated at£283,541 .71. On the assumption that the cost of this survey would have beenshared equally with UKLPER, this would bring the Council’s contribution to£141,771 .00 (including contingency).

8.2 Under existing Procurement rules, it may be necessary to recommence thetendering process for the site survey (which could take up to 5-6 months tocomplete). However, officers understand the need to ensure that anyprocurement exercise is streamlined as much as possible.

8.3 On the positive side, the site survey provides an opportunity for the Council(should it so wish) to ensure that any asbestos risk posed by the existing buildingsis resolved at the same time. The Council could require that (as a condition ofagreeing to jointly fund a site survey) the landowners undertake to remove allasbestos from the site buildings at their own expense. This may or not result inthe demolition of the buildings; this would be a matter for the landowner inchoosing how best to deal with the asbestos risk, and is discussed in more detailin paragraphs 10.3 and 11.1 below.

8.4 Any funding could also be conditional upon full contact details of the individuals,directors or secretary of Renshaw Properties Ltd being the Council,which should inc” i inc1”’ al b”’4 the UK. I

8.5 Should this report or any other financial information be taken in open session toRochdale Township, Spotland Area Forum, Scrutiny or Cabinet, this and any otherrelevant information would need to be redacted due to its commercially sensitivenature.

8. TENDER PROCESS

9. EXISTING BUILDINGS I SUPERSTRUCTURES — OVERVIEW

9.1 The former TBA site contains a number of existing buildings which formed theprevious asbestos works. There are around a dozen buildings within this complex,the structural condition of which has deteriorated during a long period of disuse.The buildings have suffered from vandalism and have been the target ofcontinuous and sustained metal theft by thieves.

9.2 Historically, the buildings formed part of the asbestos product manufacturingprocess over several decades, before being left vacant by the last tenants in thelast 10 years or so. The building fabric is believed to consist of asbestos-containing materials (ACM5) in many areas, and there is also concern that manyof the voids, ducts and shafts within the internal structure of the buildings maycontain contaminated dust particles, which may possibly present a risk to health ifthey become airborne (e.g. if they are released into the air by a smoke plume froma fire).

9.3 Two of the buildings have been demolished in the last two-years (by the owners)due to fires caused by unauthorised trespassers gaining access into theseunsecured structures, causing anxiety amongst local action groups who areconcerned that asbestos fibres may have been released into the localatmosphere.

10. EXISTING BUILDINGS — PRESENT SITUATION

10.1 The last building fire at the site occurred in early 2014, after which the landownerincreased on-site security with the provision of two security guards who patrol thesite 24 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year; this provision still exists today. The Councilhas been in regular contact with the site manager, and he has confirmed thatsince the introduction of security guards and motion detectors on the site, theincidence of unauthorised access into the buildings has significantly reduced topractically zero. This is supported by the fact that the Council has not received anyfurther calls or complaints from local residents or from the Police or Fire andRescue Services since the last fire incident.

10.3 The level of asbestos contamination within the building fabric and within any dustwhich may or may not exist within internal ducts, voids and shafts etc, is unknownby the Council. To our best knowledge, an asbestos survey of the buildings hasnot been undertaken by the previous owners, or if one does exist, the Council hasnot been made aware of any findings it may contain. The Council has attempted togain this information from the present landowners and their development agent(UKLPER) but without success. This supports the need to commission an

additional survey relating to the risk posed by the existing on-site buildings, asdiscussed in paragraph 8.3 above.

11. EXISTING BUILDINGS — ANTICIPATED COSTS OF DEMOLITION

11 .1 During the demolition process of the previous fire damaged building, BuildingControl approached specialist dem’i contractor- on the likely costsof der II of the b’ ‘‘

12. EXISTING BUILDINGS — LEGAL ISSUES

12.1 The Council has taken legalits available enforcement powers.

13. EXISTING BUILDINGS — ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS

13.1 Building Control has three main enforcement options for the site, should it benecessary to take action at this stage. These are set out in detail in Appendix 3to this report.

14. EXISTING BUILDINGS — PROPOSED NEXT STEPS

14.1 Members may wish to consider whether to formu’’’ -‘ coniwith the outcome of Counsel’s advice

15. Financial Implications

15.1 All known external funding sources have been explored from both a UK and EUperspective , but there is no prospect of being able to access these movingforward.

15.2 It should be noted that, on 6 November 2014, a formal written approach wasmade by the Leader to DEFRA (as the relevant government with responsibilityfor Contaminated Land); the purpose of this was to explore whether any financialsupport for site remediation would be available from central government. Inparticular, the approach stressed the unique challenges for this Council posed bythe size of the site and the potential nature of contamination. On 16 February2015, a response was received from Lord de Mauley (Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Natural Environment and Science) confirming that noadditional financial support would be forthcoming. In June 2015 a further letterwas sent to DEFRA by the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, reiterating theneed for dialogue on the way forward. At the meeting of Rochdale Township on16 September 2015, the Leader of Rochdale Council confirmed that a responsehad been received from the new Secretary of State, who had indicated that(whilst no new money would be made available) a meeting with DEFRArepresentatives would now be possible.

15.3 The table below seeks to pull together a summary of the possible financialimplications for the Council set out in the body of the report:

Asbestossurvey

Demolitionworks

Remed iationof total site

16. Legal Implications

16.1 The Council has a duty to inspect land in its Borough under the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990 for the purpose of identifying contaminated land. TheSecretary of State has issued specific guidance which local authorities have toact in accordance with. Previous inspections have been carried out however thefull extent and degree of contamination is not known.

16.2 In order to protect the Council’s position and limit any potential liability arisingfrom the commissioning of the site survey and its report, the Council has chosento take independent legal advice from Counsel. This is attached as Appendix 4(in a form reduced to “question and answer” format for ease of reference). Thish h thr hoyt the r rt asI

17. Personnel Implications

17.1 There are no personnel implications arising from this report.

18. Corporate Priorities

18.1 The importance of Place is stressed in the Council’s Corporate Plan 2014/1 5.This includes a commitment to high quality public space; accessible countryside;and places where people want to live and stay.

19. Risk Assessment Implications

19.1 A detailed assessment of risks (and mitigating steps) is set out in the tableattached as Appendix 5.

20. Equalities Impacts

20.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report.

20.2 Equality Impact Assessments

There are no (significant) equality issues arising from this report. The main conclusionis that the proposed site survey will provide a holistic overview of the on-sitecontaminants, thereby eliminating the gaps in knowledge arising from the previous adhoc surveys which have taken place. This improved knowledge will then allow a betterunderstanding of the risks posed by the site, as well as arising from any subsequentremediation or development.

Background PapersDocument Place of Inspection

Appendix IList of previous studies relating to the former TBA site

Date Author I SubjectCommissioned by:

July 2006 Atkins Former Turner Brothers Asbestos Plant AsbestosEnvironmental Review of Outline PlanningSubmission D44701: Non-Technical SummaryReport (Doc ref: 077_30849)

July 2006 Atkins Non- Asbestos Environmental Review of OutlinePlanning Submission D44701: Non-TechnicalSummary Report (Doc ref: 077_308050)

April 2005 Encia Audit, Asbestos Disposal Areas at Spodden Valleyand July & The Former Federal Mogul Factory Site, Rooley2004 Moor Rd, Rochdale (Report No. 6134/2)

April 2008 ERM Former Federal Mogul Site, Rochdale, ConceptualSite Model Report

Jan 2011 ERM Asbestos Ground Contamination Survey (18January2011)

25 March Knight Frank Report2009

Feb 201 1 REFA Consulting Proposed Residential Development, ShawcloughEngineers Road, Rochdale, Lancashire for Wain Homes LMT

(GI Report 09095)

unknown TBA Composites Application for Substantial Change toLtd Authorisation 17/94 under the 1990 EPA

Feb 1993 TBA Composites TBA Sealing Materials LMT EPA Application forLtd Authorisation under IPC

Sept 1997 T&N Composites Automotive Heat & Vibration Management Report

15 January URS Phase 1 Environmental Assessment of Federal2001 Mogul Systems Protection Group, Rochdale, UK

(Report No. 1 4084-034-420!RL!MS!pI

Feb 2013 URS United Utilities Air test certificate

June 1994 Wimpey Desk Study ReportEnvironmental Ltd

July! August Wimpey SI Report1994 Environmental Ltd

15 July 2008 WSP Former Federal Mogul Site, Rochdale, NonTechnical Summary for Conceptual Site ModelReport

23 January Tyler Grange Former Federal Mogul Site, Rochdale Ecological2014 Appraisal

Appendix 2

TBA — Gaps in knowledge

In 2006 Rochdale BC commissioned Atkins to carry out a peer review of the planningsubmission relating to the redevelopment of the former TBA Plant. The purpose of the peerreview was to assess the environmental assessment works undertaken to date to assistRMBC in assessing the application from the context of environmental condition and whetherthe proposed redevelopment and remediation options will render the site “suitable for use”under the current Planning Regime and its associated guidance to land contamination.

The peer review was based on information provided in support of the outline planningapplication ref D44701 and receipt of a supplementary ground investigation in June 2005.Additional anecdotal information was also collated as part of this review.

Atkins did not undertake any ground investigations or laboratory analysis as part of thisassessment, nor completed any generic or detailed quantitative risk assessments.

The recommendations provided in the report were for the sole use of Rochdale BC to assistthe Council in making its decisions relating to the outline planning application for the site.

Atkins subsequently divided the project into asbestos and non-asbestos relatedcontamination. Two reports were produced; Asbestos Environmental Review (the asbestosreport) and Non-Asbestos Environmental Review (the non-asbestos report)

The “asbestos report” is 179 pages and the non-technical summary is 29 pages. The reportpresents a detailed review of asbestos ground contamination issues at the site and withinexisting factory buildings.

The “non-asbestos report” is 139 pages and the non-technical summary is 26 pages. Thereport presents a detailed review of the non-asbestos contamination issues at the site.

Information contained in both reports was assessed against UK regulatory requirementscurrent at the time of writing, relating to the assessment and redevelopment of contaminatedland.

In completing the peer review, Atkins were not requested to assess the followingpotential environmental impacts:

• Traffic impacts on the local area;

• Review of detailed ecological surveys; and

• Risks posed by offsite sources of contamination.

The review and assessment was conducted under the Planning Regime and issues pertainingonly to the Part IIA regime (contaminated land regulation) were not considered or discussed inthe reports.

Both the “asbestos” and “non-asbestos” reports covered;• Site history

• Site characterisation

• Previous environmental Investigations

• Previous conceptual site models

• Atkins conceptual site model

• Previous risk assessment methodologies

• Recommended detail risk assessment framework

• Remediation and redevelopment

• Conclusions and recommendations

“Asbestos” Report Findings;

Contaminant Sources

It is generally considered by Atkins that the presence of asbestos contamination cannot beruled out across much of the site, due to the various stages of industrial development acrossthe site and the fact that emissions to air of dusts which are assumed to contain asbestos, areknown to have occurred. The landscaped areas, some of which have been generallyunchanged since the site first manufactured asbestos products, may therefore have receivedairborne deposits of asbestos for some time, which may now be entrained within the uppersoil surface. Asbestos is likely to widespread in the disposal areas in the Northern WoodlandZone and within the vicinity of mineshafts.

Northern Woodland

Asbestos wastes up to 4.5 metres thick have been reported in the Northern Woodland Zone,within the vicinity of the former Harridge Mill (now demolished). The Northern Woodland Zonehas been the subject of the greatest sample density. It should be noted that a phase ofasbestos removal works took place in 1996. The current status of asbestos contaminationis not reliably known.

Steep side slopes in the extreme northern portion of the Northern Woodland Zone arepotentially unstable geotechnically, with previous asbestos exposure being identified at thesurface as a result of tree and woodland soil instability.

Lodge Zone

Localised occurrences of asbestos have been identified in the Lodge Zone. Based on itshistory, the Lodge Zone will potentially have the least asbestos contamination present,although sampling density to date is low.

Hollows Wood Zone

Asbestos has been identified in the Hollows Wood Zone. Again, sample density isconsidered to be low, and some areas have not been sampled to date, particularly theexisting woodland areas.

Southern Zone

Several areas of potential asbestos contamination are considered to be present in theSouthern Zone. It is possible that infilled mill races (reservoirs) may contain asbestoscontamination.

Upper Tier Zone

Significant ground disturbance has taken place as the factory expanded in the central factoryarea. This may have resulted in asbestos contamination being redeposited on the southernand eastern fringes of the site (Upper Tier and Hollows Wood Zone).

Lower Tier Zone

Atkins understands that crushed concrete stockpiles were present within the Lower Tier Zone.The precise source of the stockpile materials is not known, but analysis indicated onestockpile contained asbestos.

Central Factory Area

Some areas of the central factory area have not been investigated, asbestos wastes mighthave been placed beneath floor slabs of buildings when factories have expanded. Thesematerials may have been placed along strip footings or used to provide general fill to theunderside of concrete floor slabs.

General

The majority of site investigations for asbestos have not been targeted on the potentialsources identified (with the exception of the Northern Woodland Zone).

The investigations have not been sufficiently targeted with regards the proposed end useof the site.

Very little near surface sampling (ie

• More surface sampling is generally required across the site to reflect theproposed end use and final site levels.

• Clarification of asbestos contamination is required in the Northern WoodlandZone, since the majority of asbestos sampling and analysis was conducted priorto asbestos removal works being undertaken in 1996.

• Additional asbestos sampling and analysis should be conducted in areas of thesite where no redevelopment is proposed, such as landscaped areas andwoodland areas. It is considered that the density of sampling required in theseareas should reflect the likely activities which may give rise to future soildisturbance (and hence exposure).

• Soil classification data should be collected during future investigations. Soiltype and moisture content may influence the risk assessment process.

• Background air quality data should be collected for the site, particularly in areasof the site where asbestos has previously been identified. PCOM techniques areconsidered to be an appropriate test method, but sample volumes should reflectthe benchmark air quality standards which Atkins has proposed for the site inthe “asbestos report”.

• Atkins recommends dusts should be sampled in key void areas in existingfactory buildings known to have contained asbestos fibre opening andprocessing operations.

“Non Asbestos” Report Findings;

For the purposes of the report, Environmental risk means the risks posed to human health,controlled waters (groundwater, surface waters) and built structures (buildings, services etc)from the presence of non-asbestos contaminants.

It should also be noted that there are known ecological receptors; badger sets were identifiedin the Upper Tier Zone on the periphery of the development area and the protected woodlandis immediately to the west around the mill ponds / Lodge Zone.

Contaminant Sources;

Several hydrocarbons sources have been identified in the Lower Tier Zone, immediately eastof the River Spodden. These are associated with fuel tanks, oil storage tanks and otherfactory processes which might have utilized hydrocarbons;

A major hydrocarbon source was present in the Flexitallic Zone, which was the location of asolvent recovery process plant.

Isolated sources of contamination have been identified associated with former oil-fired andcoal-fired boiler houses located across the site.

It is evident from site historical photographs, that major earthworks, associated with theasbestos factory expansion, have resulted in the deposits of natural, and possibly man made,materials in the southern and eastern parts of the site. This might have implications for thecurrent distribution of contamination across the site.

It is generally considered that, due to the various stages of industrial development across thesite, the presence of non-asbestos contamination cannot be ruled out across much of the site.

Northern Woodland Zone

Although known historically as the location where the majority of asbestos waste tipping tookplace, may contain other non-asbestos contaminants within the asbestos wastes themselves.

Central Factory Area

It is considered likely that the central factory area, which makes up the Lower, Middle, Upper,Flexitallic and Southern Zones, will contain the most likely sources of non-asbestoscontamination within them.

Several historical sources of contamination were been identified across the site which maypose a risk to the future users of the site which have not been assessed to date;

• The historical presence of a gasometer within the Southern Zone;

• Potential backfilled structures and depressions which may contain made groundcontaining biodegradable materials. These infilled areas might be a potential source ofground gases;

• Ash deposits associated with coal fired boilers and previous allotments on site and

• Transformers present in the industrial areas.

Site Investigations

Several phases of intrusive site investigation have taken place across the site. Generally,investigations commenced in 1994 within the Northern Woodland Zone, and then haveconcentrated on the central factory area. The intrusive site investigations most relevant to theassessment of non-asbestos contamination have been completed since 2004.

Atkins recommends the following issues need to be addressed:

• Further intrusive ground investigations and chemical analysis are required toaddress identified data gaps.

• The investigation and sampling strategy should be designed by considering thelikely environmental risks both during and post the redevelopment works posedby the known and suspected sources of contamination. This should take account ofrisks to human health, built structures, controlled waters and hazards from groundgases and vapours.

• In designing further site investigation and chemical analysis, consideration must begiven to the need for several rounds of sampling where contaminantconcentrations may vary with time and site conditions (groundwater & groundgas I vapour)

Environmental Risk Assessment

Atkins recommends that before detailed risk assessments are attempted, the followingissues need to be addressed to ensure the assessments are sufficiently robust:

• Collate soil analysis data into appropriate groups in accordance with current UKguidance, based on an appropriately developed set of zone specific CSMs. Statisticalanalyses in accordance with current UK guidance should be undertaken to identify anyanomalies in the data sets.

• When undertaking generic human health risk assessments, Atkins recommends thatappropriate generic screening criteria for soils should be derived using UKregulatory compliant methods.

• Detailed risk assessments for both human health and controlled waters shouldbe completed to inform the need for remediation works.

• Detailed risk assessments should be conducted using appropriate numericalmodels which have either been produced in the UK or have been made UK compliant.

Remediation and Redevelopment

In reviewing the remediation and redevelopment proposals submitted, Atkins did not reviewother potential geohazards associated with the sites redevelopment. These include:

• flood risks on the proposed development;

• artesian groundwater conditions which have been noted across southern parts ofthe site; and

• geotechnical risks associated with redeveloping the site. This may include but not belimited to the presence of previous mine workings, mine shafts and any subsequentfoundation requirements.

Recommendations;

Any remedial works to mitigate risks posed by the presence of asbestos in the NorthernWoodland Zone should consider the possible presence of non-asbestos contamination.

A more detailed ground gas risk assessment is required and this should extend to theassessment of vapour risks from known hydrocarbon sources on site.

The implications of risk of piled foundations on controlled waters, should be consideredas part of a piling risk assessment. This will require approval from the Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency provided comment on the potential for floods to occur at the site andhas identified the need to conduct more detailed flood risk assessments. This has not beenconsidered further in the context of environmental risk, but may warrant further review whenthe flood risk assessment is completed.

The reuse of materials on site for the purposes of redevelopment may require approval fromthe Environment Agency for waste management purposes. It may be necessary todemonstrate no adverse environmental risks are associated with the redeposit of materialsacross the site as part of any waste exemption applications.

A series of remediation technologies have been proposed for the treatment of knownhydrocarbon sources in the Flexitallic Zone. Atkins’ agrees with the suitability of thetechnologies proposed in treating the hydrocarbons identified in this zone, and recommends

that detailed proposals should be provided for the commercial redevelopments in theFlexitallic Zone, to ensure the finalisation of remediation technologies considers theassessment of both end use and foundation risks respectively.

Appropriate validation reports should be submitted to RBC for approval. In the case ofcontrolled waters, appropriate approvals should be obtained from the EnvironmentAgency when remediating to be protective of controlled waters.

Appendix 3

EXISTING BUILDINGS — ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS

Building Control has three main enforcement options for the site, should it be necessary totake action at this stage.

It is worth noting that the enforcement scenarios have already been made available to theCouncil’s Legal team, and these, to a l-”” the need tr””” ftQueen’s Co for further

I

Appendix 5

Risks Associated with the former TBA site

Risk Issues MitigationGround contamination Historical information held; RMBC commissioned the Atkins report to

fragmented with gaps in knowledge review the asbestos issues. It identifiedand linkages known and likely sources of asbestos

Information held is that groundcontamination does not pose a danger tohuman healthAll information is in the public domain

Presence of other contaminants Unknown; site survey and full report wouldidentify other contaminants and risk

2 Slope stability Recognised potential of asbestos fibre Walk over surveys to identify trees whichrelease from uprooted trees in the are in danger of uprooting.northern woodland area Action by landowner to remove such trees

and make good the surface3 Mine Shafts Local information to suggest that Unknown; site survey and full report would

asbestos materials were dumped identify the location of the mine shafts onwithin whilst site operational site

4 Derelict buildings Unknown quantities of asbestos and Since fire in January 2014 security has beenremaining on site asbestos containing material in the improved

fabric of the building and void spaces Land owner paying for security paSecurity managed via local site repNo further fires on siteFire damaged building demolishedNo reported incursions onto site

Suffer fire or collapse;Accepted a fire or building collapsewould increase the risk of fibrerelease but no evidence to quantifythe extent of the increase Site specific multi agency emergency plan

developedAbility to mobilise perimeter air samplingduring an emergency incident

5 Human health The risk to human health involves Duty to manage asbestos on site and toconsiderably more than simply the prevent release from site falls to the landpresence of asbestos. There needs to ownerbe a pathway / route to a receptor. Duty towards employees is the responsibilityReceptors can be: of the employer. Workers on site Atkins report says the risk from the site is

. Trespassers low and remains so until further information

. Residents about the pathway / route to the receptorsis knownConsidered with public health and PHE acomparison of Rochdale Borough’s healthdata with other similar urban areas for theincidence of lung disease. Difficult toquantify given the significant time lag forlung disease associated with asbestos and

the limitations of the data heldConsidered with public health and PHE areview of current literature of health effectsassociated with asbestos sites. Thepublications relate to occupational exposureand therefore difficult to draw any robustconclusionsPerimeter air sampling would act asreassurance to understand the level ofexposure to asbestos fibres in the local area.Funding has been identified via PublicProtection, Building Control and Rochdale

_____________________________________

TownshipContamination of the river from Unknown; site survey and full report wouldasbestos or other contaminants on identify and quantify risksite

6 River Spodden

7 Site Ownership

8 Site Owner There is a client representative whose Client representatives are a locally basedRepresentatives aim is to maximise the development company

opportunity for the site Reps are in direct and regular contact withThey have no authority to make site ownersdecisions Contact maintained with RMBCThey have no autonomy regardingissues raised

9 Pressure Groups Local pressure groups are committed Officer attendance at meetingsto the preservation of green open Sharing all RMBC information with thespace groups repsHigh level of scrutiny Reps have been involved in the conditionsCritical of regulatory agencies attached to the recent demolition of the fireRegular raise issues at Township and damaged building.Area ForumsGovernance Issues are unresolvedBelieve cannot deal with the site as“normal industrial premises” due toits previous usage

10 Funding No RMBC budget to deal with issues Members are asked in principal to consideron the site funding streams from other RMBC budgets /

No UK funding via Contaminated LandGrants SchemeEuropean Regional Development Fundcriteria are not met therefore no ERDF

is available for the site

RMBC and client representative havedeveloped an invitation to tender andevaluated responses for a site surveyand full report on the ground

contamination on site.Tender based on 50 / 50 split fundingNo funding has been identified byRMBC to deliver

Used Home and Communities Agency termsand conditions

Used HCA 29roved contractor list

11 Jointly procured sitesurvey

contingencies / capital programme

12 RMBC

I

F