By Pepper Parr
December 12th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
There is an important word missing from the discussion about the “adaptive reuse of the Robert Bateman High School”.
That word is asbestos.
Insulation was commonly used in the 50’s 60’s and early 70’s.
The city knows where asbestos was used in the life of the building that was constructed in 1969, with additions completed in 1973 and 2003.
There was nothing in the Staff report and the question didn’t come up during the lengthy discussions.
By 1985 asbestos was banned in Canada for use in acoustic coatings and sprays including textured ceiling or wall paints, ceiling tiles, drywall compound (joint compound), plaster used for walls & ceilings, vinyl floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, window caulks, window putty.
Several Gazette readers wanted to know how the asbestos concern was being handled.
One reader:
One more piece of information would be helpful if you could get it Pepper. Is the asbestos sprayed on? If it is it will be a lot bigger expense than the city would ever have expected.
Ceiling and floor tiles used to be made of asbestos until the product was banned.
Another reader:
I have scanned the article/phased workplan and don’t see where the costs of asbestos removal and remediation are included. I may simply have missed it but, if not, this is a fairly significant cost that can not be ignored. It also will have a significant impact on the project timelines.
The family of one council member has referred to the asbestos problem publicly. The question as to how much asbestos is there in the building was never asked at the Standing Committee last week.
It is safe, given the Mayor that we have, to conclude that she knows – there is no upside in telling and the way the delegations are structured a citizen cannot ask a direct question of council.
That to date no council member has asked about an asbestos problem is shameful
At some point in will come out – it usually does.
We asked the Director of Communications and Engagement Kwab Ako-Adjei the following questions and will report what we get in response.
The word asbestos was not mentioned during the lengthy meeting when the “adaptive reuse of the Robert Bateman High School” was being discussed at a Standing Committee.
My questions to you are:
Is there asbestos in Bateman High School that has to be removed ?
Was asbestos used when the building was first constructed in 1969 ?
Was it used during the 1973 addition and was it used in the 2003 addition ?
Was any asbestos ever removed from the building ?
Where in the financial parts of the Staff report is the cost and timing of the removal of any asbestos mentioned ?
Let’s see what the Communications people come back with.
Anyone interested in knowing where and how much Asbestos is contained in Robert Bateman School can find it in this report.
https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Documents/Asbestos-Surveys/Robert-Bateman-HS-Asbestos-Survey.pdf
I have worked on major capital and construction projects for decades. If this is indeed missing from the estimates I have to presume this omission is intentional. I could have this estimated in a heart beat.
We definitely all knew during the PAR process about the asbestos at Bateman. In fact one day at the very early stages, I was placing a Save Central sign on a lawn when a worker at a nearby home came to ask me what this was about. He then told me that he worked on the construction when Brock moved to Elgin and it became Bateman and asked if I was aware of the huge amount of asbestos there, the worst he’d ever seen. This was later confirmed by the HDSB.
It is unacceptable that staff and council don’t have an entire section on Asbestos in their reports with detailed plans and costs about its removal, and that this wasn’t discussed in detail in the public meetings. How can they even have agreed on a price for the building without such a specific plan? It’s laughable how they keep touting transparency. Oh right, we can give input (like that is ever listened to), without all the information, after the decisions have been made.
Are they planning to not remove it? I certainly hope not. Now is the time. Asbestos can be inadvertently exposed during even minor renovations or maintenance, which could happen any time. I’ve heard of this happening recently at another school. Dangerous to students and staff and costly to fix urgently.
Of course when you’re dealing with politicians who care so very much about photo ops at a shiny new building, I suppose they don’t want to talk about nasty negatives like dangerous and costly asbestos? They even tried to blame Stolte for telling the public about it back during the infamous complaint. Even our hired gun commissioner threw that out, saying this is common knowledge. Telling though. Will they get Kwab to speak for them – again? Can council members ever speak for themselves, and without spin? Kwab must be the busiest person at COB.
Another major example of failed transparency in terms of their duty to make all decisions in the best interests and well-being of Burlington residents. Newbies is no longer a credible excuse. Transparency was a huge deficiency of this Council, 2018 – 2022 and during the election. It will remain, along with lack of accountability until enough of the electorate begin to use the tool we have been given by the Procedure By-laws – the petition and the Municipal Act – Judicial Review. Unfortunately to get a Judicial Review on the table you have to have councillors willing to expose the issues that require such review. We have yet to see a desire to do the right thing for our city from our Council. Or the need from any media except the Gazette. We are ready and willing to lead such a venture but we need committed signature collectors from among the ranks of those who ran against such Council deficiencies, to make it work.
My best guess is asbestos will be covered under “SOFT COSTS, or, not at all.
If the staff report is silent on the costs and logistics of asbestos removal/remediation, this is a significant and actionable omission. It is always difficult to state with total confidence what someone knows and at what time. However, given the many, many times that the existence of asbestos in the Robert Bateman building has been raised, recently in posts related to the proposed sale and at least as far back as the discussions around which High School(s) would be closed in Burlington, it is difficult to believe that any member of Council is ignorant. And given the role played by our current Mayor in both endeavours, to believe that she does not or did not know begs a massive “willing suspension of disbelief”, in my opinion. Mr. Ako-Adjei had best be most careful and most diligent in his response to your direct and reasonable questions.
From the FAQ on Bateman
“What is the plan for the asbestos at Bateman?
The City and HDSB are both fully aware of presence of asbestos and this has been factored into the due diligence process by the City and is also addressed in the negotiations between the parties relative to the purchase price.”
The “due diligence” didn’t include a plan , yet somehow it was factored into the purchase price.
Except, after purchase COB must follow Section 10 of O.Reg. 278/05 – Owner’s Responsibility before requesting tender or arranging work – requires that an owner shall have an investigation carried out in order to determine if materials, that are likely to be handled, dealt with, disturbed or removed during the alteration of a building, are asbestos-containing and, if so, whether the asbestos-containing material is friable or non-friable and to identify the type of asbestos in the material. Section 10 also requires that the owner shall have a report prepared detailing the investigation findings which is to be provided to any prospective constructor.
The absence of any mention of asbestos by COB, and the associated costs is nothing short of alarming.
I guess I was using too much sarcasm for some people.
They couldn’t factor the asbestos into the purchase price without having a plan on how they were going to to deal with it. Proper “due diligence” would have been to have costs prepared for how they planned to deal with the asbestos.
It would be interesting to see just how the asbestos was “factored” into the purchase price.