Correspondence between MHCLG and Marcus Bell

Reply MHCLG 13 may 2021

Dear Marcus,

Thank you for your letter of reply dated 15th April to my letter of 31st March responding to your review of the Grenfell environmental checks programme.

You asked me to clarify if the independent Science Advisory Group (SAG) had any further response to your letter of 29th March. In that letter you highlighted your concern that the community will not be reassured by merely being presented with complex numbers at the end of the investigation. SAG has asked me to relay that this is a concern they share. Its quality assurance role includes commenting on both AECOM's stage 2 report (twice) and AECOM's non-technical summary. It is particularly concerned, in the case of the latter, to ensure that this will be readily understandable by the Grenfell community.

This is also a priority for the Multi-Agency Partnership (MAP). In addition, both SAG and MAP welcome your role in supporting the community’s understanding of the findings.

You raised concerns about the management of soil changes in relation to the investigation and the purpose of the investigation if it finds that the only ‘remediation’ required essentially involves changing the soil in certain areas. In your letter you state that the clean-up/remediation is essentially the crux of the issue and you see this as the most likely form of resolution. It is a little unclear in your letter if you are suggesting that a thorough clean-up is all that is necessary?

From a government and MAP perspective, the aim of the environmental checks is to carry out a thorough investigation to address the community’s specific concerns about any environmental contamination to green areas as a result of the fire and manage any health risks that arise, and to do so with a high level of independent scrutiny. Therefore we have looked not only at soil in gardens, but in wider park spaces that can be accessed by small children.

Kensington and Chelsea Council has a record of the soil that was changed in the Parks and Community Kitchen Gardens and this information was provided to the investigation before soils were sampled for Stage 1 of the Environmental Checks Programme. Some soils were replaced in response to requests from residents which were received before there were plans to test the soil. No changes have been made since May 2019, other than required top ups to ensure the beds remained usable and these were only completed after checking that these activities did not compromise the soil sampling plans.

You also raised a concern that any uncertainty should be accounted for. MAP and SAG have been made aware of your concern and we will try to address this as far as possible in the report.

On the issue of the cleaning of resident’s flats and the rationale for making this a voluntary offer, I can confirm that this was made on the basis of supporting residents and their ongoing recovery. There was no identified public health risk to support an obligatory or statutory duty to clean the flats, so the optional cleaning was not carried out on this basis. The public health risk assessment undertaken by Public Health England following the fire, considered potential exposure to dust and debris. This was identified as low, but to reduce any ongoing exposure, advice was given to residents on appropriate clean up e.g. damp dusting or to seek Local Authority assistance with cleaning where necessary who then provided that offer. Kensington and Chelsea Council confirms that 155 properties across the Lancaster West Estate took up the offer.

MAP also note and accept your comments about dust being reported by members of the Residents Association.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Kenny

Grenfell Recovery

Reply From Marcus Bell 15th April 2021

Subject: Environmental Contamination following the Grenfell Fire – Response to MHCLG

Dear Sean,

I hope you are well and thank you for your letter dated 31st March 2021. I appreciate the detail you have provided on several of the points raised in my Review (of 15th January 2021) and subsequently the letter regarding community representation on SAG (29th March). Both myself and the Lancaster West Residents Association (LWRA) appreciate your input, engagement and the reasoning provided and hope such dialogue will continue until this aspect of the Grenfell legacy is concluded.

After reviewing your letter, we would like to raise some additional points as numbered below. Please also clarify if there is any further response to the SAG letter, as your response focussed mainly on the Review.

Your letter appears to broadly agree with my Review over the application of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and its inherent shortcomings when applied to the type of contamination being dealt with here. It’s not really the type of contaminated land the legislation was aimed at, which I expect you would agree with. I appreciate that Counsel advised that this legislation should be used because no other appropriate solution existed and the statutory guidance on Part 2A does also describe it as a tool of last resort (although that’s primarily because of the impact it can have on people in a number of negative ways, rather than it being incorrect for the nature of contamination). The reference in the letter to land normally being remediated through planning is true but that trend has developed largely as a response to Part 2A being so difficult to implement as much as anything else. Strictly if a risk exists then the enforcing authority are obliged to deal with it, not wait for a planning application (even though I agree that may happen in reality).

The reference (P5) in your letter as to how AECOM received records of soil changes from RBKC does highlight the point made in my Review (#7) on this aspect and it’s discussed in their Technical Note 5. It seems odd that this clean-up/remediation is essentially the crux of the issue and what I see as the most likely form of resolution, yet it’s been handled in such an informal and inconsistent, piecemeal fashion. Some of AECOM’s understanding about this aspect has come from residents (that’s no criticism of AECOM, its good reconnaissance on their part) but if they are employed by RBKC then I’m surprised at how little this information was communicated. If at the end of this process we are left with this ‘remediation’, comprising the placing of loose soils over the top of fire debris in some areas, and no further cleaning of property but coupled with extensive reports and laboratory analysis, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that it would feel like a wholesale failure, from any perspective.

1) Mid Page 2: There are several sections in the letter which relate to not testing indoor dust as the findings would be unclear. I expect that is correct and you probably would pick up contamination from a range of other sources too, but one of the key issues raised in my Review was that where uncertainty exists it still needs to be accounted for. There is no logic to dismissing a plausible risk because it could not be accurately quantified, rather a conservative assumption should be made that the risk exists, and we should act accordingly. This is no different to a range of other principles in contaminated land management, we routinely assume that a wide range of generic exposure pathways are active despite not having any site-specific evidence to prove it. That evidence could be gathered in most cases, but the level of investigation would be disproportionate to what the remediation would involve. The absence of testing does not mean the absence of risk, just that we don’t know what the risk is.

2) End P3: I wasn’t aware that Professor Stec was undertaking further investigations. That is welcomed, as is your offer to share finalised Stage 2 findings in confidence.

It may be worth reiterating in light of the above points that, while further data and efforts to bridge the gaps and uncertainties in the data are commendable, it won’t actually improve the conditions ‘on the ground’.

There may also be some uncertainties, as described in my Review, which cannot realistically be overcome now. This issue of contamination following the fire is clearly not straightforward, as evidenced though Professor Stec’s input, AECOM’s assessments and several other professionals’ involvement, including myself. The data may no longer be available and even if materials such as debris were tested further, it may become very complex to interpret it while not providing a conclusive answer to the satisfaction of stakeholders (as you have alluded to in the letter), while incurring ever greater cost. Through undertaking (and commissioning) all of this ongoing work, the relevant public bodies would benefit from reviewing what the realistic outcomes could be and having an awareness of what form of remediation could be deployed if required. As stated in my Review, for all the complexities and intricacies in the conceptualisation of the contamination risks at the Tower site, the remediation may be quite straightforward and cost effective particularly if followed directly on from the Tower’s demolition (assuming that takes place).

3) End of P2: With regards to the deep clean of flats, your letter conceded that the cleaning would not constitute an ‘environmental deep clean’, but it did include cleaning of surfaces and soft furnishings (mainly curtains) with painting optional. I would refer you to Point 8 in my Review, and that the then Neighbourhoods Director (Mr Steve Jacobs) referred to this as a ‘wash-up and brush-up’, and we understand this involved painting, if requested, and curtain cleaning. The Association are strongly of the view that this was not adequate to ensure people’s flats were not contaminated (and they appear to be justified). It should be acknowledged that if there was a public health need for this de-contamination, it should not have been voluntary/optional. The reference to voluntary remediation and non-use of Powers of Entry on P2 would be commendable had it achieved the same level of de-contamination that enforcement powers would have (as the letter describes). Voluntary remediation doesn’t mean people have the option of remediation or not, just that the remediation can proceed outside of the formal regime (for which there are many tangible benefits). The implementation of public health legislation is a statutory function, not optional.

I appreciate that it would have been insensitive to use powers of entry immediately after the fire, but we are now left in the middle ground where an inadequate process of cleaning was implemented sporadically and there is limited confidence in the outcome. That aside, the point I made in my Review about voluntary remediation was not in regard to things like powers of entry: I was alluding to the point that if the Stage 2 soil results do not put the site in Category 1 or 2 under Part 2A, whether a pragmatic approach to resolution of this problem would be to undertake ‘voluntary’ remediation outside of Part 2A for the reasons outlined in my Review. It is not uncommon on Part 2A sites to have areas of voluntary remediation and areas of involuntary remediation, often alongside one another. The implementation of this legislation (on any site) can be so incendiary that the enforcing authority (and their elected members) may take the view that an area larger than what they are statutorily obliged to remediate is treated much the same. I have experience of that.

4) Mid P3. I appreciate your openness, but the suggestion that dust or ash would have been suppressed/dampened down during the fire as the Tower was saturated through firefighting efforts using water and later through rain, is slightly unrealistic. Until the Tower was wrapped, there are first-hand reports from members of the Association of flats being repeatedly smothered in dust, well after the fire had been extinguished.

The reference on P4 to an Environmental Impact Assessment of the Tower coming down is encouraging and welcomed particularly by the Association, who advised that they are very keen to see this and ensure that the risks are well assessed prior to action.

I look forward to hearing from you again in due course.

Yours Sincerely,

Reply to Marcus Bell review 31st March 2021

Dear Marcus,

 Thank you for your letter of 29th March.  Your understanding in relation to the issue of membership of the Science Advisory Group (SAG) is appreciated.  You also requested feedback in response to your review of the environmental programme from SAG and the Multi-Agency Partnership (MAP).  Both groups welcomed the review and have made the following detailed comments which I hope you will find useful.

 MAP were interested in the point raised in the review relating to the apparent limitations of the Part 2A approach and concerns about its ability to address all of the health concerns held by the community.   

 MAP noted that whilst the environmental checks programme does focus on soil, the terms of reference of MAP are broader than this and there is a significant amount of additional work being carried out to assess the impact of the fire on health, including long term health monitoring and the impact on mental health. This work will continue long after conclusions about land contamination under this programme have been made.  

 MAP have consistently highlighted the limited scope of Part 2A in that it only considers risks to health and the environment from contaminants in, on or under land and not wider health risks. However, it is the appropriate framework to use for assessing these risks in these circumstances, because no other appropriate solution existed.  

 Kensington and Chelsea Council also sought Legal Counsel advice about appropriate legislation to apply and Part 2A was confirmed as being so. Land contamination is normally addressed when land is developed (or redeveloped) under the planning system. This wasn’t an appropriate solution in this case but MAP did seek to obtain baseline information from identifying and reviewing ground investigation reports in the study area which had been submitted for planning purposes. 

 Your review also draws comparisons between voluntary approaches to land remediation and statutory intervention under Part 2A. Part 2A, however, does not preclude voluntary action. For example, our investigation has not used powers of entry to carry out the investigation but have sought voluntary agreements with landowners and occupiers to investigate the land areas concerned.  

If any contaminated land is identified, then Part 2A does encourage voluntary remediation.  Part 2A specifically prohibits Local Authorities from serving a remediation notice if they are satisfied that steps will be taken on a voluntary basis which are likely to achieve a standard of remediation equal to, or better than, what they would have required under a remediation notice.     

 MAP notes that the review also raises some issues with the Overarching Guidance and has commented that the report was issued in October 2019 and is based on the Environment Agency’s CLR11 Model Procedures guidance which at the time, was in the process of being updated by land contamination risk management (LCRM). CLR11 was formally withdrawn until October 2020. 

LCRM was produced to represent up to date government guidance on land contamination risk management which is fully compliant to be published in a web based format on GOV.UK while complying with new accessibility laws. 

 The scope, purpose and framework introduced by CLR11 remains the same as in LCRM. The technical language, terminology and content has been updated, explained and retained where necessary. Version 1 of this guidance was published on 6th June 2019 to seek feedback. Version 2, incorporating this feedback, was published on 6th May 2020 and the current version was published on 8th October 2020 following further feedback. This enabled CLR11 to be withdrawn.  The Stage 2 reports will refer to LCRM rather than CLR11 as we included this in the Specification for Stage 2. The stage 2 report will also use the updated statistical guidance published by CL:AIRE. 

The review also raises the issue of dust inside residents’ flats.  Under Stage 1 of the programme, SAG considered the case for indoor sampling and concluded that broad spectrum, untargeted, testing indoors was not recommended because the significance, origins and interpretations of any findings would be unclear.  

 Indoor dust is a mixture of household derived dust (e.g. cleaning products, pets, skin etc.) and sources from the outdoor environment (e.g. road traffic emissions/ road dust resuspension). Testing and analysis of indoor dust is unlikely to clearly determine its source due to its heterogenic nature. In addition, the analysis would be challenging to look for potential compounds from the fire as the scientific literature base on what could be present after time has elapsed is weak.  

 The Part 2A contaminated land investigation focuses on soils but in assessing risks from soil, account is also taken of dusts that may be derived from the soil. For example, soil tracked backed from outside to inside on dirty footwear can dry indoors and form a dust which people may be exposed to by ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact. These potential exposure pathways are considered in assessing the risks and setting assessment criteria for the soil.   

 The review also raises concerns about deep cleaning of residents’ flats.  In response we can confirm that cleaning was offered to Housing Management residents to assist them with cleaning up their homes.   This was made available and publicised through Council Lancaster West newsletters (up until mid-2018) and to residents who were in temporary accommodation and thinking about returning home.  Although not an environmental deep clean, the service included cleaning of surfaces and soft furnishings (primarily curtains) and painting was offered and taken up sporadically.   

 On the issue of testing debris, this was considered by SAG and MAP previously. The Technical Note 5 in the stage 1 report identified that the main types of debris were metal, glass and insulation foam. These materials would be considered to be inert and exposure is only likely to arise from ingesting or inhaling fines (shards or fibres). If any fines, including fibres, found their way into the soil and remained there at the time of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 testing, the fines would be tested as part of the soil sampling.  

 It is also worth noting that the stage 1 soil testing schedule was informed by AECOM’s Fire Chemistry Literature Review under Technical Note 4.  MHCLG also undertook engagement with residents to identify where debris had fallen to enable the production of figure TN12-01 and this was used to inform the design locations for Stage 2. 

 In addition, following a recommendation by SAG, the Stage 2 soil testing has been informed by the findings of an independent literature review of fire-related emissions by fire chemistry experts from the Universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde. 

 In the acute phase of the fire any materials inside the Tower were saturated during the fire fighting and therefore the potential for dust or ash inside the Tower being released externally was small other than what was contained in the smoke plume.  Over time that material would have dried out such that there may have been some ‘wind whipping’ from surfaces due to the open nature of the building but this will also have meant rain ingress which would have a dampening down effect.  

Based on site experience, there were particles that came off the Tower.  These were visible specs and appeared to be generated during windy conditions and come from the charred cladding/outer materials as it moved. The removal of the cladding was completed before the Tower was wrapped and the generation of these ash specs seemed to reduce.  

 Any wind-blown material from inside or the exterior of the building will have been entrained in the air and subsequently deposited in the surrounding area. Ongoing air quality monitoring for particulate matter has not identified any significantly elevated levels of dust or fine particulate matter. In addition, deposition of dusts on to soils is likely to lead to it becoming part of the soils matrix and therefore present for the Stage 1 and 2 soils testing. 

 The review makes reference to Professor Anna Stec’s report and raises a concern that this was not factored into the programme.  However, Stage 1 did in fact draw on Professer Stec’s report and AECOM looked for all the chemicals of concern that the report drew attention to.   

 MAP and SAG are aware however that Professor Stec has been asked by the Public Inquiry to obtain samples of combustible building products and of soot and dust deposits and to conduct an analysis of the samples obtained and provide a report on her findings. We intend to share finalised Stage 2 findings in confidence with Professor Stec in case they may be useful for her work.  We would also be happy to share them with you on the same basis.

The review mentions that dust and debris may be deposited when the Tower is deconstructed.  No decision has yet been made on the future of the Tower but relevant environmental impacts will be taken account of in decision-making, including environmental impact assessments as appropriate.  

 In response to the review’s concerns that lead is being focused on despite it not being released by the fire, our programme recognises that the lead we find may well not be related to the fire in any significant way.  However, lead was included as a potential contaminant of concern at the outset based on guidance from the British Standard for investigating fire effluents.  Lead was also found at elevated levels under stage 1. 

The report references concerns about the process for relacing soils and the impact on the programme.  AECOM received records of soil changes from Kensington and Chelsea Council and AECOM also sought further information and opinions from residents during site walkovers, which will be taken into account in their interpretation of the results.  Kensington and Chelsea Council also made community groups aware of the soil sampling when they received requests for soil changes to be made.  This doesn’t, however, rule out the possibility that some soil changes were made without the council being notified, perhaps in the context of private community gardens for example.   

In conclusion, the review references TN8 and the chemical 7,12-dimethylbenzo(a)anthracene, raising a concern that although it was included in Professor Stec’s report it was not included in our programme’s ‘PAH suite’, despite its toxicity.  AECOM have confirmed that whilst this chemical was indeed not included as part of the defined ‘PAH suite’ they asked the laboratory analysis to report it through the SVOC TIC analysis (as PAHs are a sub-set of SVOCs).  The chemical was therefore analysed in all stage 1 samples and was discussed in the Stage 1 report. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Yours sincerely,

Sean Kenny

Grenfell Recovery Team

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Marcus Bell Review of Phase 1 and the scope of Phase 2

Following observing the soil sampling by AECOM last August our independent expert Marcus Bell has produced a report of phase 1 of the investigation and his opinion of the scope and extent of phase 2 of the investigation.

In the report, he asks why the investigation has been soil-based when a lot of the contamination was soot deposits and indoor dust, neither of which have been tested as part of the investigation. It also questions the value of an expensive investigation into contaminants that may have a short life in the environment but can still have long term health effects if they were absorbed in the time directly after the fire.

you can read his conclusions here

Q&A on Soil Contamination with Marcus Bell

The RA has funded our own independent expert to help us with the investigation into possible soil contamination after the fire. This is a chance for residents to meet our expert and listen to his report on the work so far.

Watch the video Here: https://youtu.be/dMdyF_QRmmw

The Stec report

A scientific paper (The Stec Report) has been published today (Thursday 28 March) by Professor Anna Stec on potential contaminants in the environment around Grenfell Tower. The LWRA are seeking assurances from the Government, RBKC, and NHS Public Health England.

The full Anna Stec Report can be read below but it is very long and scientific which is why we are seeking clarification of what it all actually means for residents.

An expert has been invited to attend the Engagement Day on Saturday March 30th at The Kensington Leisure Centre, to answer questions residents may have.

All the latest will be posted on this page.

For more information (rather than opinions or fears) that is available please click on the links below.  

External Grenfell FAQs - click here

NHS Update - click here

Letter from Elizabeth Campbell - click here

Stec Report - click here

Scientific paper on environmental contamination around Grenfell Tower is published.

A scientific paper has been published today (Thursday 28 March) by Professor Anna Stec on potential contaminants in the environment around Grenfell Tower. We recognise local people and staff working in the area may be concerned about this issue. We are urgently seek interpretation of its findings from specialist scientists, and their advice on next steps. In the meantime, the NHS has put in place a comprehensive set of services including enhanced health checks and support with managing anxiety. If you are worried about your health, you should go to your GP. Information on NHS services can be found at: www.grenfell.nhs.uk Advice from public health experts is to wash and peel any fruit or vegetables grown locally, and wash your hands after gardening. Further advice is available here: www.gov.uk/government/news/public-health-advice-following-the-grenfell-tower-fire The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government is leading on the environmental monitoring programme and if you want to find out more about it please contact them at environmental-checks@communities.gov.uk or go to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/soil-and-environmental-checks

NHS North Kensington Major Incident Response :: Home

Have you or someone you know been affected by the Grenfell Tower Fire? We are here to help you. Browse our site with information on physical, emotional health and wellbeing and how to get help with coming to terms with the disaster.

GRENFELL.NHS.UK