On Monday the 24th of July, Anne Milton MP organised a meeting at the village hall that she described as a flood forum and it turned out to be much more than that. She brought together Waverley planners, Thames Water, the Environment Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Public Health England, Surrey County Council, the National Flood Forum, Cranleigh Parish Council and Cranleigh Civic Society to discuss openly several of the major concerns Cranleigh’s residents have raised with her. 65 members of the public came along and several parish and borough councillors also attended.
The plan was to address these concerns and direct them specifically to the authority responsible, so that the answers could be heard by all. We were very happy to hear sewerage problems, flooding and asbestos cement water pipes all discussed openly. It was always understood that the problems would not be resolved then and there but that efforts could be made to address them in the coming weeks and months.
To aid this, small sub committees were formed to work on specific areas and they will report back at the next meeting planned for the autumn. It was just the beginning of what will be a long term effort but a positive step and one that Cranleigh Civic Society welcomes. Members of the Society volunteered to join sub committees and share the information they have collected specific to each area so we will be close to the decision making process.
Main Report sent to Waverley Borough Council by Cranleigh Civic Society:
Asbestos Cement Pipes, H & S Risk Assessment, CCS, 29-Jan-17
1. Thames Water email 23-Dec-16, 30% & 2%
2. Water Research Council report, deterioration of AC pipes, 1988
3. Water Research Council Report, May 1985
4. Asbestos in Drinking Water, WHO, 1996, updated 2003
5. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 14, 122-152, 2011
6. Faber Maunsell Ltd Report for DWI, May 2002
7. Crysotile Institute, Bulletin V10, Nov 2011
8. Health Protection Agency toxicological overview, 2007
9. WHO Crysotile Asbestos Report, 2014,
10. Institute of Public Health (Netherlands) Report no. 758473006, 1987, Section 1.1.1 Oral
11. ATSDR (USA) toxicology report, 2001
12. WHO declaration of interest form, 2010
13. Woodstock report, asbestos risk from AC pipes, 1987
14. Request to Jeremy Hunt for medical data, Jan-08-17
15. Asbestos (Hansard, 8 November 1983)
16. Brita filters statement, 28-Apr-16
17. 2015 Thames Water, Drinking Water Quality Report_Z0163_Cranleigh
18. pH tests in Cranleigh, 28-Jan-17
Since publishing this report we have located several other studies on the risk of Asbestos Drinking Water Pipes (although the majority appears to cover Chrysotile (white) asbestos only):
Drinking Water Quality: Problems and Solutions
Cancer of the gastrointestinal tract and exposure to asbestos in drinking water among lighthouse keepers (Norway). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7758048_Cancer_of_the_gastrointestinal_tract_and_exposure_to_asbestos_in_drinking_water_among_lighthouse_keepers_Norway [accessed Jun 6, 2017].
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/12/prweb13918925.htm– Scientists Warn of Mesothelioma Risk in Italy’s Drinking Water, According to Surviving Mesothelioma 7 April 2017
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919155– [Possible health risks from asbestos in drinking water] PubMed Article Dec 2016 Further information here –http://www.epiprev.it/intervento/rischio-clinico-da-ingestione-di-fibre-di-amianto-acqua-potabile english translation towards the bottom of the page).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2744839 Conclusion – There is no agreement between the results of the various studies, but an association between ingested asbestos fibres and cancer of the stomach and pancreas has been found with some degree of consistency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569098/pdf/envhper00459-0054.pdf – In conclusion, there is no question that studies designed at the individual level, such as case control studies, are now needed to establish firmly risk levels to ingested asbestos. However, as illustrated above, the costs of reliably establishing these risk levels will be high, a fact that should be recognized by the sponsors and investigators of future research in this area.
As you will be aware we have had major concerns about our ageing and deteriorating asbestos cement drinking water pipes for some time now. Due to the age of previous significant development in Cranleigh in the 60’s, we suspected that they may contain crocidolite (blue asbestos), in addition to chrysotile (white asbestos). Although Thames Water assured us that the pipes were constructed from white asbestos, our own research did not reflect this, and we have been pushing for testing to be carried out.
Over the past two weeks we were successful in getting Thames Water to send a section of drinking water pipe, being replaced in the Hitherwood area, for independent testing to confirm the presence of blue asbestos (crocidolite). This has now been confirmed.
The presence of crocidolite (blue asbestos) is not the result we were hoping for, but it is in line with the guidance given on the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) website under the Asbestos section. HSE state that asbestos cement pipes made prior to 1969 are likely to contain crocidolite.
A further section of pipe from the Summerlands area has been tested and this has been shown to contain only white asbestos. We have asked also requested details from Thames Water of the percentage of blue to white asbestos, and to assess how much deterioration has taken place in the pipes. Furthermore, we have requested that a section of pipe be tested from the Park Mead area, although we have been told that this will not be carried out until there is a burst pipe there. We will be challenging Thames water on this.
Blue and white asbestos have very different risks associated with them, with the crocidolite being considered more hazardous. We should stress that the majority of evidenced high risks are associated with inhaling asbestos fibres, however, there does appear to be a growing evidence base worldwide that suggests that there is also a risk associated with ingested fibres.
Recently Australia and New Zealand have announced replacement programmes for their asbestos cement pipes, and in the USA they already test drinking water for asbestos fibres, and have set maximum guidelines, testing is NOT carried out in the UK.
We have been asking the authorities, including the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), since September 2016 to assess the risk to Cranleigh residents from a high percentage of ageing and deteriorating asbestos cement drinking water pipes without success. Asbestos cement pipes have a 50-70 year design life and some of these in Cranleigh are approaching 70 years old. The issue also affects residents in Dunsfold, Ewhurst and Alfold, we have not looked into any of the other surrounding areas. In a recent planning application in Waverley for development in Alfold, once again the Society advised Waverley of the existence of blue asbestos in the drinking water network, once again we were ignored.
We have questioned the position of the DWI. Whilst their blanket statement broadly states that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that asbestos is dangerous when ingested, we have studied their database of evidence and that of other qualified evidence available and we are of the opinion that the DWI, and the World Health Organisation (WHO), have based their studies in the main on chrysotile (white asbestos). Furthermore, many of the reports back in the 1970s and 1980s were sponsored by the asbestos industry, and in particular by the Chrysotile Institute, and they should be treated with some caution, as well as being based mainly on the effects of chrysotile.
In January 2017, in discussion with HSE, Cranleigh Civic Society circulated our own Risk Assessment under the Health and Safety Act looking at data from contemporary research carried out over the last few years, some of it by highly respected organisations such as the American Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (a leading publication respected around the world). Our increasing concerns surrounding crocidolite remain, because of its needle-like structure, it has the potential to penetrate membranes in the body more easily than the more curly fibres of white asbestos.
Our research is continuing, and we have received this from a contact in New Zealand. It was put out by Radio New Zealand and is now on their website:
‘A $2.2 billion price tag has been put on the cost of replacing the country’s asbestos water supply pipelines.
Drinking water delivered through functioning asbestos pipes isn’t risky, but airborne particles from broken pipes can be dangerous.
Asbestos cement pipes were installed for local water supply networks from the 1950s to the 1970s, and manufacturers stopped producing them in the mid 1980’s. The pipes’ life expectancy is about 50 years so many will be due for replacement.
Functioning pipes being used for water do not pose a threat to health. The World Health Organisation has said swallowing asbestos present in water does not present the same cancer risk as inhaling dry particles. However, asbestos pipes that are cut or broken when dry can pose a health risk if particles are released into the air.
The Water Services Association of Australia has estimated it could cost $AU8b ($NZ9b) to safely remove Australia’s roughly 40,000km of worn-out asbestos piping.
Water New Zealand estimated the total length of this country’s water supply pipelines at 36,436km, with the network valued at $8.7b. It estimated 9000km of those pipes were made of asbestos cement and that they would need to be replaced in the next 20 to 30 years.
With many of the pipes nearing the end of their useful life, Water New Zealand chief executive John Pfahlert said local councils would have to do careful planning to make the replacement affordable to ratepayers. There were a number of available options cheaper than digging them out, such as relining existing pipes or leaving decommissioned pipes in the ground and placing new pipes around them, he said. Wellington Water spokesperson Alex van Paassen said replacing asbestos cement pipes, as opposed to those made of other materials, did require safety precautions. However, he said, those precautions would not add a significant amount to the overall cost of replacement. Mr van Paassen said pipes in Wellington were prioritised for renewal based on how critical the need for repairs was, or how many households were served, and not on whether they were made of asbestos.
“Wellington Water had a regular pipe renewal schedule for all types of pipes”, he said.’
We have continued to keep our MP Anne Milton informed of our research and she has now arranged a meeting on 24th July in Cranleigh to investigate this further. Thames Water, the DWI and other relevant parties have confirmed their attendance. This is also following the petition sent to Anne Milton following our public meeting on 25th May. We are grateful to her for listening to our concerns and seizing this opportunity to seek answers.
Cranleigh Civic Society, in consultation with the Government’s Health and Safety Executive, prepared a full Risk Assessment on the network of asbestos cement pipes in Cranleigh and sent this to Waverley Borough Council on the 29th January. Waverley ignored it.
We are aware that this subject will cause a high degree of concern in the village and we will of course keep you informed of any developments.
As you will be aware the decision on the Thakeham Homes application for 54 dwellings off the Elmbridge Road was deferred by the Joint Planning Committee pending more evidence on flooding and odour from the Sewage Treatment Works.
If you have any photos of flooding on this site whatsoever, could you please email your photos to email@example.com or send printed copies of photos to Phill Price, Chair, Cranleigh Civic Society, 18 Brookside, Cranleigh GU6 8DA
You may have read recently that Surrey County Council are considering closing Cranleigh Recycling Centre! Before they go ahead with this closure SCC are carrying out a consultation on their proposal to shut the recycling and refuse tip in Cranleigh and other sites across the county.
This news comes only months after the opening hours at the Cranleigh site were reduced. Considering the increase in residents we are expecting following all the house building that Waverley Borough Council have approved this seems pretty short-sighted. Infrastructure issues have been at the heart of our objections to the high increase of housing in the area and this change is very unhelpful and we think it could lead to an increase in the amount of fly-tipping that already costs Waverley Borough Council large amounts each year.
Please click on the link to the consultation site below and complete the questionnaire before 7 August to let them know what you think.
Also, if you have anything you have been meaning to chuck out, take a trip to the tip in the next few days. The more we can prove that we need this refuse tip, the better!
Here is what one of our members thought about this proposal:
|Dear Cranleigh Society
As I am sure are aware, the local paper recently carried a story about a SCC consultation to close a number of Community Recycling Centres including Cranleigh. Travelling to the alternative CRCs would not in any way be convenient, Witley would be a 45 minute journey and the alternative of Guildford likely well in excess of an hour as it will require negotiating central Guildford and then queuing traffic at Slyfield.
I have completed the online survey and if you are able to encourage members (and indeed non members) to respond to the survey there are three opportunities to specifically object to the closure of Cranleigh CRC:
Question 5 – strongly disagree to close Cranleigh
Question 7 – preferred option “closure of some CRCs” set to lowest preference i.e. 1
Question 8 other comments – I have pasted in my own answers below as an example. Although answers to this question cannot be relied on as it is unstructured data it is an opportunity to get individual comments across:
1. Apart from my fortnightly refuse collection, my local CRC is one of the few obvious ways I see that I get something in return for the large amount of council tax I pay. Closing my local CRC would cause me to resent paying my council tax. It’s no good pointing out what else my council tax is spent on as I don’t see any evidence of that, for instance my local roads are very poorly maintained. Putting out “positive” messages about what the saved money would be spent on instead simply won’t cut it as that doesn’t compensate me for the considerable inconvenience of travelling to an alternative CRC. I want the Cranleigh CRC retained, period.
2. At a time when a very large number of new houses are being built or planned to be built in Cranleigh it seems beyond belief that the council would consider closing the Cranleigh CRC. This would be rubbing salt in the wound opened up by having so much housing dumped on a community whose infrastructure is already struggling to cope, and that is before before the population is increased by all the planned house building.