The Good, the Bad and the Mouldy

Every week, thousands of SFU students go to classes, office hours, and lectures in the Education Building, one of SFU’s oldest structures and the headquarters of several of its faculties. Beyond its reputation as one of the school’s more run down areas, the Education Building may be posing a significant health risk to students, as well as to faculty members and staff — many of whom remain unaware that any such issue even exists.

Last June, a building envelope assessment prepared by James Neill & Associates was issued to SFU which confirmed the presence of mould in multiple sites within the Education Building. These sites include, among other areas, the location of the Education and Archaeology faculty offices.

However, a copy of this report, which was obtained by The Peak, was not delivered to the Central  University and Local Joint Health and Safety Committees until almost a full year after its completion, nor was it forwarded to any of the on-campus unions and formal committees representing faculty, staff and students who use the building on a daily basis.

The report, dated June 19, 2013, identified mould in a number of offices on the 8000 level of the north zone of the Education Building, in addition to elevated mould spore counts in regions throughout the south zone on the 8000 and 7000 levels. Eight of the 50 rooms examined (from April 30 to May 7, 2013) were identified by SFU’s Environmental Health & Research Safety (EHRS) as requiring “immediate action.”

Furthermore, several locations within the Education Building were classified as having elevated moisture contents (over seven per cent), which is conducive to further mould growth and indicative of leakage in the building.

An informal survey indicated that undergraduates were mostly unaware that a mould problem existed.

The report pegged the total cost of repairs — exterior, interior, and roof work — at $1,241,540, allowing for engineering, contingency, and GST. Despite the significant potential for adverse health effects identified, large swaths of the building were not analyzed; the report identifies these areas as “wall obstructed or area inaccessible.” A number of these unexamined regions include offices and common areas, i.e. hallways, stairwells, and foyers.

It is unclear as to when SFU commissioned the assessment, as James Neill, the individual who prepared the report, was unavailable for comment.

In a sit-down interview with The Peak, Dr. Terry Waterhouse, SFU’s chief safety officer, indicated that the building envelope assessment was the first report in a series commissioned by SFU to determine the extent of mould infiltration. He noted that the successive analyses are to be compiled into a single report slated for release at the end of either May or June of this year, at which point, he said, they will become available for public viewing. 

Dr. Waterhouse further indicated that the Environmental Health and Research Safety Department is in the finishing stages of building a website designed to address frequently asked questions regarding indoor air quality and mould, on which the reports will be made available soon.

Despite the report’s findings, very little information was initially communicated to staff or supporting unions and committees; this omission included the Health and Safety Committees, which officially received the report in March and April (Central and Local, respectively) of this year, at least six months after the documents began to be unofficially circulated through union offices.

John Bannister, a representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3338, first became aware of the report during a monthly human resources meeting between employee groups, the faculty association, Administrative and Professional Staff Association (APSA) and Poly Party in September of 2013. “It was raised there that this report was available, so I requested [it] and [EHRS] sent it to me.”

Concerned by the report’s contents, Bannister forwarded a copy to the Teaching and Support Staff Union (TSSU), which was, at that point, unaware of its existence. The TSSU also requested a copy of the report from EHRS, but as of yet have not received one.

Dr. Waterhouse addressed concerns regarding the lack of communication, attributing it to an evolution of his office’s distributive protocol “which quite frankly,” he said, “didn’t exist at the time.” He clarified: “We did not distribute it [the report] because it was not part of the process we had in place at the time. It is now.”

Waterhouse said that in the past, SFU had no distribution protocol in place for technical reports involving indoor air quality — reports were simply distributed to technical staff who acted upon them. He further stressed that SFU was spurred to act immediately, which included initiation of building renovations and relocation of the entire graduate studies wing in the Education Building to Discovery Park last year.

“Through this, we’re developing a process that ensures all those groups get the reports,” he said.

Melissa Roth, a spokesperson for the TSSU and a student in the Faculty of Archaeology, indicated that the union raised concerns regarding the building envelope assessment in November of 2013 during the Employee Council Meeting with the VP Administration, a group including President Andrew Petter and VPs Judith Osborne, Pat Hibbitts and Jon Driver and others who engage with resentatives from all unions and associations once a semester. “We brought [the document] up, in that we were not consulted about a serious hazard regarding the health of our members, and we were assured that we would be put into the loop from then on, but we have still not,” Roth claimed.

However, in an interview with Wanda Chow of the Burnaby NewsLeader, Dr. Waterhouse explained that [SFU] has “communicated broadly” with users of the Education Building, culminating in a town hall meeting conducted on March 17, the goal of which was “to be extremely proactive and transparent within the university community about these issues.”

As a TSSU representative and SFU student, Roth attended the town hall meeting, and said that it “quickly got away from [SFU].” The discussions rapidly devolved into an acrimonious standoff, she said, as a number of attendees alleged that the university failed to aptly communicate the true nature of building renovations that began last summer in the wake of the report from James Neill & Associates. 

“In my opinion, there were a lot of upset people in the audience,” Roth said. According to her, the attendees in question became aggravated when the university’s presentation focused on dust remediation, and repeatedly interrupted proceedings in protest. When concerns were raised regarding the presence of mould in the building, Roth said “[SFU’s] general consensus was ‘Don’t worry, it’s not a problem.’”

A number of attendees reportedly denounced the board’s claims of transparency, announcing that they had lost faith in the university. According to Roth, one individual charged that “our trust level is at zero,” continuing, “how do we believe you that it’s safe to return to the [Education Building]?” Another attendee reportedly stated that they could “taste gasoline on their tongue” upon entering their office.

Apart from Waterhouse, the powerpoint presentation featured at the town hall named several other individuals who comprised the EHRS body responsible for the initial report including Bohdan Kosteckyj (director of maintenance and operations), Ian Abercrombie (director of campus planning and development), Melinda Skura (advisor for occupational health and trades safety), and TJ Aujla (coordinator for occupational health and trades safety). The Peak has not yet reached these individuals for comment.

Long-time staffers working in the Education Building have raised concerns regarding symptoms associated with chronic mould exposure.

Roth, who also sits on the TSSU Local Joint Health and Safety Committee, stated that normal WorkSafeBC protocols dictate that SFU must work in conjunction with the Health and Safety Committee regarding matters of environmental hazards that may affect the health of employees and/or students. As aforementioned, the latter failed to receive any information whatsoever from the university regarding the presence, extent, or nature of the mould infestation until well after SFU’s own discovery. She voiced this concern at the town hall meeting.

“Terry [Waterhouse] answered that there was a specialized [. . .] committee that is dealing with the issue as the ‘local was for day to day things’,” Roth communicated in an email to The Peak on May 11, 2014.

“As a follow up,” she said, “I sent him an email a few days ago asking who was on that committee as all health and safety reps should be listed publicly so people know who to contact if they have concerns, but there is no word on SFU’s website about such a committee even existing. It is important to know who is on this committee, as all health and safety decisions in BC must have at least half workers and half administrators according to WorkSafeBC [guidelines].”

“[We] absolutely understand the feelings of those individuals [who spoke up at the town hall],” said Dr. Waterhouse. He stated that he subsequently spoke to all of those individuals in a more one-on-one manner to directly address their concerns. “We understand that this is a health issue, and it is our concern [regarding this] issue that is driving our efforts to address them.” He also stated that there was a working group, including members of the Faculty of Education, who dealt directly with the issue of the report when it was delivered. 

The perceived lack of notification provided by SFU regarding the town hall provoked further concern from some, despite Dr. Waterhouse’s publicized statement in the Burnaby NewsLeader. The Peak conducted an informal survey including over 20 instructors, graduates and undergraduates in the Education Building which indicated that, while some of the former groups were directly informed about the town hall, undergraduates were mostly unaware that a mould problem existed, much less that a meeting had been organized to address concerns.

Despite occupying a space in the Education Building, the Archaeology faculty was reportedly not invited to attend the town hall meeting, a fact Dr. Waterhouse described as an unintentional oversight.

This apparent exclusion was odd given that the university is currently conducting an additional assessment of the entire building, expanding beyond the Education Faculty to include the Teaching and Learning Commons and Archaeology areas. That report is scheduled for release at the end of May or June.

Dr. Waterhouse assured The Peak that this was not the result of any focused discounting of the faculty. He stated that SFU broadly advertised the town hall, with the support of the Faculty of Education, resulting in Dean Magnusson’s appearance on the panel. 

However, he stressed that future meetings held in response to the future reports delivered would specifically target those who were unaware of the previous meeting. 

So, how significant is mould exposure? A number of long-time staffers working in the Education Building have previously raised concerns regarding symptoms — such as headaches, nausea, and shortness of breath — which have been associated with chronic mould exposure. Despite logging their concerns over the years, staffers were repeatedly assured that there was no issue.

With mounting evidence regarding the presence of mould and the university’s existing knowledge, the same employees now feel betrayed.

Dr. Waterhouse, in his interview with the Burnaby NewsLeader, addressed concerns regarding mould exposure. “What we do know,” he said, “is that some people are more susceptible to indoor air quality problems [. . .] But the science is not at a stage where a direct correlation can be made to the presence of mould, for example, and a health impact for an individual.” He went on to note that direct correlation was not required for the university to take action. 

Waterhouse’s statement is not, however, entirely supported by information provided by Health Canada, which states on its website that it considers indoor mould to be a “potential health hazard” — with all moulds posing a potential risk to respiratory health — and advocates for immediate removal. According to Health Canada there is, however, insufficient evidence to ascertain whether black moulds (which are commonly referred to as toxic moulds, given their production of mycotoxins) have greater health effects than other moulds.

A study performed by the Center of Integrative Toxicology at Michigan State University relates the presence of black mould to the onset of ‘damp building related illness,’ and allergic sensitization, inflammation and cell toxicity in animal models. Other studies have linked high dose short-term exposure to lung hemorrhaging in humans.

When reached for comment Dr. Ryan Allen, an associate professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences who specializes in the effects of outdoor pollution on individuals, cautioned against alarm. “Dr. Waterhouse is correct [in] that it is very difficult to link an environmental exposure with the presence of illness or disease in an individual,” he wrote in an email to The Peak. “In other words, except in rare cases, it’s difficult to say that a specific person’s illness was definitely caused by a specific exposure.

“Mould has been linked with asthma irritation and respiratory problems, especially in children.” – Dr. Ryan Allen, Associate professor of Health Sciences

“Some exposures make it more likely that we’ll develop an illness, [but] not everyone who is exposed will develop the illness…[which] usually has many causes,” he continued. “Having said that, mould has been linked with asthma irritation and respiratory symptoms, especially in children. It may also be a risk factor for the development of asthma in those who don’t already have it.”

This is corroborated by WorkSafeBC’s Occupational Health and Safety Guidelines, which also warn that “For those individuals with compromised or sensitized immune systems, exposure to pathogenic moulds [. . .] may be associated with a variety of adverse health effects.”  

It should be noted that the position of senior director for Environmental Health & Research Safety — a position that provides Dr. Waterhouse with specialized information regarding potential mould related toxicity — has remained vacant for some time since the retirement of Apollonia Cifarelli in November 2013.

When asked for clarification, Dr. Waterhouse stated that he had assumed the office’s responsibilities in the interim, but that his office had compiled a shortlist of candidates for interview and that SFU hopes to hire someone to fill the position by the end of the summer semester.

Dr. Waterhouse stressed again that SFU’s response to the initial report and its findings was proactive, up to date, and attempted to minimize exposure to mould and air-borne allergens for users in the Education Building, but the lack of initial communications for several months has left a sour aftertaste for a number of individuals who continue to participate in regular classes, and have laboratories and office space there.

When asked to respond to the perceived lack of communication forthcoming from SFU, Roth expressed more frustration than anger. “As a student here who has taught multiple classes in the Faculty of Education, it upsets me greatly,” she said. “Not only are my friends and colleagues who are in there not [aware of] what hazards they were put through, but I didn’t know. And I can tell you that I’m very upset.”