This post is the tenth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"
The Rowland Hall Asbestos War
It began innocently enough with an email on October 23, 2018 saying that new sprinklers would be installed in my hallway during the week of November 5th through 9th, and "If you have your office in these rooms, Facilities is suggesting that you may want to put away anything on top of your desk that may easily break during that week."
I asked the department manager how to ensure I could use my computer, phone, and printer that week without their getting broken, and he said he'd check with Facilities.
Three days later I pointed out that people in my hallway were getting worried, since the floors already had bubble wrap on them. Did we still have until November 4 to clear our desks?
The reply was an assurance that construction wouldn't begin before November 5. But our worries were well-founded. The work was completed on November 2.
My office was in a new part of Rowland Hall, the building that housed the Math department and parts of the Chemistry and Physics departments.
The incident led my colleagues to think about things we hadn't quite noticed, but should have. Such as that most of the ceiling tiles in the central (old) part of Rowland Hall's fifth floor had been missing for perhaps a half year or longer. The soft material above the missing tiles was disintegrating and falling down, and looked rather unhealthy.
After we were informed of the work's "completion", my hallway still had debris that our shoes were grinding into the carpet, and many ceiling panels were still missing. My computer normally sat under what was now three holes in the ceiling, in anticipation of the eventual installation of a sprinkler. To try to keep it safe from surprise construction activity, I moved my computer to a nearly inaccessible corner, which made it hard for me to work.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Building Manager emailed me, I asked him when the ceiling tiles in the old part of the building would be put back, and whether there was any asbestos in the disintegrating stuff that was now exposed.
His reply began, "To clarify on my previous statement there is no ceiling tiles that contain any asbestos in any part of Rowland Hall. Over the years there's been many asbestos abatement project. Where possible, the ACM has either been removed and/or encapsulated." He went on to ensure me that "At no point in this project is any occupants in harms way. All involved parties from the design to performing the work are trained professionals and understand the intent of maintaining the occupants safety in an occupied building." He ended with "If you need further clarification you can call Environmental Health and Safety Services directly and state your concerns. Have a nice day."
Dutifully following the Building Manager's suggestion, I looked up the website for Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S). The only way to communicate with them seemed to be to click on "Report an Injury/Safety Concern" so I did, and I asked whether there is asbestos in Rowland Hall that is now exposed.
Since the EH&S representative wanted to meet in person rather than respond by email, we arranged to meet. The Math office manager and I notified people we thought might be interested. On November 15, the EH&S rep met with a sizable group of Math and Chemistry faculty and staff, who expressed ongoing concerns about poor air quality, falling debris, and exposure to harmful substances.
The EH&S rep told us that, as required by law, UCI sends an email to everyone at the beginning of January every year about asbestos in the building. None of us could remember ever receiving such an email (and the following January, we noticed the lack of notification).
Some of us tagged along on a tour of the visible "encapsulated asbestos" above us that was exposed by the removal of the ceiling tiles. The encapsulation was supposed to protect us, but a colleague told me later that it looked to him as if the encapsulation didn't fully cover an asbestos-covered cross beam.
After the meeting some questions remained, which the EH&S rep had promised to follow up on. I sent her an email reminder. Regarding the finite but unknown lifespan of the encapsulant, she replied that the Building Manager "was going to forward this question to UCI Design and Construction Services who led the project to request the product information". (After further requests and no answer, someone told me months later that no one knows how long the encapsulant lasts.) About her promise to provide us with the "Clayton Report" and its updates (a "comprehensive asbestos investigation report" that "has floor plans plotting identified asbestos-containing materials and also lists room numbers and names"), she said I had to make an appointment to go and view them at EH&S the week after Thanksgiving. I felt as if I were being given the runaround.
As the faculty saw and learned more over the next few months, we grew more concerned.
We learned by searching the Internet, and not from the university, that access to the restroom ceilings is "prohibited" due to non-encapsulated asbestos. This presumably explained the cryptic warnings attached to plastic sheeting taped around the restroom doors when sprinklers were being installed in the restroom ceilings.
Colleagues were afraid to spend time in the building.
On January 9, the Dean came to the beginning of a Math department faculty meeting to tell us about pressure "from above" to hire based on "Inclusive Excellence". After the Dean finished, I, at the urging of some colleagues, pointed out some of our health and safety concerns, and I (having warned the Dean before the meeting that I would ask him this) asked if he could have a look at the fifth floor with us that day. The Dean refused. Some colleagues backed me up, but others who had told me they would back me up, didn't. Afterwards, one such junior colleague told me he was shocked by how the Dean completely blew me off; he lost all respect for the Dean at that moment, so he didn't see any point in supporting me publicly. Without thinking, I shot back, "Oh, the Dean has always treated me that way. He has a problem with senior women. That's why I was hoping that some men would back me up. The Dean would respect you more than me, and he might have listened to you."
Some people from the Chemistry department contacted the grad students' Union, which sent off a letter expressing health and safety concerns and asking for greater transparency and better communication. It pointed out that the building occupants weren't notified that the work involved asbestos.
An email that led to even greater concern was sent by the Dean, on January 18, to staff and senior faculty (but not to postdocs, students, new faculty, and other researchers who work, take classes, or have offices in the building). His message read:
Dear Team:I am passing on the report from the air quality managers regarding the work going on in Rowland Hall. The essence of the report is that the air is being continuously monitored for fibers. So far, the highest reading is a factor of 10 below the recommended maximum. Most of the readings are well below this. I circulated the report to our air quality faculty members, and they had so suggestions for how the monitoring could be even better.My understanding is that the fifth floor work should be complete this month.KCJ
The message did not mention asbestos. One had to open and read the attachment to find out it was an Asbestos Air Monitoring Summary Report for certain dates between December 4 and 28.
The Report was not reassuring. No measurements had been done in the wings in which the mathematicians had offices, or in the restrooms that were connected by open vents to those wings, where unencapsulated asbestos was being disturbed.
On short notice, over a holiday weekend in which mathematicians were flying back from the Joint Mathematics Meetings, a petition to the Dean was signed by 70 members of the math department (including the Chair), the grad students' union, and 7 named union representatives. The petition respectfully asked for additional asbestos air quality monitoring in the areas about which we were especially concerned, and asked that we be given the results in a timely manner. Grad students with few resources offered to chip in for independent air quality monitoring. Fear of asbestos had united a factious Math department.
As the signatures poured in, colleagues noticed that, while the Report claimed that the results "did not exceed" the limit, the data in the Report seemed to contradict that claim. Rather than the highest reading being a factor of 10 below the recommended maximum, as claimed by the Dean, a number of readings were several times over the limit, including one that was 5.5 times the limit. Those high values were around the time that several people had reported tears in the protective plastic, during the week when students were taking their final exams in Rowland Hall. The high fiber levels were measured and known to the contractors on December 7 and 12, but we only found out if we very carefully read the attachment to the Dean's January 18 email.
A student raised concerns on social media and it went viral, causing the university to react. A Chemistry professor responded to a query about it by saying that "the student is absolutely incorrect," the building is safe, and "we literally just got a report from the dean last week on asbestos levels and we are 10x lower than the safety requirements. The student screwed up and is now causing a panic for absolutely no reason. ... If anyone says anything just reassure them that the levels are safe as promised by the dean."
On the other hand, a message to Chemistry students from their Department Chair to assure them that "appropriate safety measure are being taken to prevent exposure to asbestos" pointed out that "The air is being monitored for asbestos fibers, and almost all readings have fallen well below the EPA limits. Although one high reading was recorded outside of a contained area on December 12, when labs were no longer in session, we are confident that all areas outside of the enclosed containment areas are now safe." At least someone was admitting that there were high readings.
In addition to 8 values above the limit, including 2 in hallways "outside of a contained area", there were 4 "overloaded" results, which we learned much later meant that there was such an abundance of particles in the sample that it was rendered unreadable, including at least one in a hallway with "no containment" that we had walked through unawares.
At 1:22 pm on January 22, in reaction to that day's viral social media posts, the Dean sent an email, signed by the Campus Architect and by the Assistant Vice Chancellor for EH&S, and addressed to "Rowland Hall Faculty, Staff, and Students" but not sent to students, postdocs, new faculty, or visitors. The email notified us that there would be "a town hall meeting today in Rowland Hall" from 4 to 5 pm.
This was exactly the time of a job talk that math faculty and grad students were supposed to attend. Since the job candidate was in my field, I certainly couldn't go to the town hall meeting.
Afterwards, I learned that the the person who ran the "town hall meeting" was UCI's Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration.
A couple of days later the Dean sent out an email that began "The health and safety of the UCI community is of paramount importance. Contrary to recent social media postings about the air quality in Rowland Hall, we want to reassure you that Rowland Hall is safe" and ended "This experience reminded us of the importance of clear and timely communication. Therefore, we have created awebpage dedicated to information about the Rowland Hall Fire Life Safety Improvement project [2] that we will update with new project information as it becomes available." He soon resent it with "[2]" replaced by a link for a Division of Finance and Administration website.
Some of us didn't find it reassuring that our wellness was being handled by the Division of Finance and Administration. (Though perhaps that was better than the Associate Vice Chancellor for Environmental and Facilities Services, who had been promoted to that position soon after being the rude Assistant Dean in the Scene at the Breakfast Lecture in part 9 of my Retaliation story.)
Meanwhile, the Dean hadn't responded to or even acknowledged receiving our petition. I eventually emailed him to ask if he'd received it and whether our requests were being considered. He replied:
Dear Professor Silverberg:Yes, the letter was received. The campus is responding. As you know, a town hall was organized, and a web page is being created that will have constantly updated information. Yesterday extensive monitoring was performed in public areas and no violations were detected. I believe this new data will be on the web shortly.Please let me know what other information you would help address your concerns.Ken
Later that day he wrote:
Dear Alice:In addition to my previous, more general response, EHS is preparing a more detailed response with results of specific measurements. They hope to complete that one by tomorrow.Sincerely,KCJ
The next day the Assistant Dean (who was the math department manager in my vacuum cleaner and "Alice, Professor X is here" stories, before she was promoted) forwarded me a letter from the Campus Architect and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for EH&S. They said that the ducts between the restrooms and the wings transfer air from the office wings into the restrooms, not the other way around. The translucent plastic temporarily taped over the vents was only a "visual barrier". When some plastic sheeting was reported as torn, it was repaired, and it wasn't a hazard since the air had gone through a HEPA filter. They planned to increase air monitoring and share a summary of the findings. Their response to our request to be sent in a timely manner the results of the specific extra monitoring we had requested was, "We can have our independent consultant meet with you to go over the report results."
Later that day the Assistant Dean emailed me to ask, "What is your opinion about the best way to circulate this information to other people such as those [who signed the petition]?" I replied that I thought the information should be put on a website, and everyone who works in Rowland Hall should be sent a link, and told when new information is posted, and official reports containing full data on all measurements should be posted or sent to the occupants of Rowland Hall promptly, without needing to go elsewhere to find it, or make appointments to see it. I pointed out that some people who work in Rowland Hall hadn't received any of the Dean's emails.
People who worked in Rowland Hall continued to send me concerns they had about things that didn't look right. On February 4, I forwarded someone's concern about a possibly-urgent asbestos exhaust issue, complete with a photo, to the Dean and the Vice Chancellors on the Dean's cc list for them to handle, and reminded them that some of the students and faculty hadn't received any information on where to report problems. Five hours later I got the reply:
Alice,Kelly, Director of Strategy, is working on preparing a response, which should be ready by tomorrow.Best Regards,Ronald S. Cortez, JD, MAChief Financial OfficerVice Chancellor of Finance and Administration
I don't know why he thought I would want to hear from a Director of Strategy. In any case, I never got a response from anyone named Kelly. And as far as I know, no one contacted the person with the safety concern to try to understand the concern and deal with it.
On February 19, the Math department Chair emailed the following to the Chancellor, Provost, and Dean, with cc's to four Associate Vice Chancellors and one Assistant Vice Chancellor:
FROM: Chair of Mathematics Department, on behalf of the Mathematics DepartmentSUBJECT: Requests Regarding Rowland Hall AsbestosFaculty, students, and staff in our department are very concerned about possible health risks as a result of the ongoing asbestos-related work in Rowland Hall. There are members of our department who do not feel safe in the building and who are concerned because they are not being provided with the actual current and recent data on the asbestos levels in a timely manner.During finals week of fall quarter, while math students were taking final exams in Rowland Hall, levels above the .01 fibers/cc limit, and an "overloaded" result, were measured in hallways that we were walking through at the time. We only learned of this by carefully reading an attachment that we were not sent until January 18, over a month after the fact. Especially concerning was that the high values coincided with at least 3 separate reports of rips in the protective plastic.We request the complete and full official measurements of all the asbestos air monitoring in Rowland Hall conducted since the December report, and the daily measurements as they come in. Given the health risks involved, we are requesting that the results of the measurements be sent to us promptly, and posted online within 24 hours of the measurements.We request that those results include the results of daily monitoring in the hallways and office areas, including in particular the hallways and offices of the 540, 510, 440, 410, and 340 wings, and the hallways, offices, and restrooms in the interior of the building, during and soon after the periods in which work is being done on those floors of Rowland Hall.We further request that surface testing be done to determine whether asbestos has been left on surfaces.In addition, we request that UCI formulate and inform us of a plan to inform and evacuate the building's occupants, including students, faculty, and staff, when levels are elevated above 0.01 fibers/cc outside of the "regulated work areas".
A lengthy reply came from Ronald S. Cortez, JD, MA, Chief Financial Officer, Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration. He claimed that "in all cases the results met or exceeded applicable air quality standards" since "air samples outside the work containment area that contained fiber levels in excess of the EPA’s clearance criteria of 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeters were observed to be the result of non-asbestos related construction, and the samples were taken in high traffic areas. For example, in one situation, construction workers were in a hallway cutting new ceiling tiles that did not contain asbestos. Since then, non-asbestos related construction is being conducted in ways that will not confound air monitoring results."
On March 22, some of us noticed that not only had we not been getting the daily reports that the bureaucrats said they would give in a timely manner, we also hadn't yet gotten the February report. The university seemed to be learning the data quickly, but not sharing it with us. We wondered why. If asbestos levels were high, how soon would we learn about it, and how many hundreds of students, faculty, and staff would attend classes or work in labs or offices while levels were high? There didn't seem to be a clear plan to alert or evacuate the building occupants. In true UCI fashion, the protocol seemed to be that staff would tell other staff, and no one would think to tell the students and faculty.
When was it safe to go back in the restrooms? After the construction work was done in the restrooms that housed non-encapsulated asbestos, we were let back in before we saw any fiber levels.
A "February report" that only covered 7 dates in late January and early February was finally posted on April 6, and recorded a January 29 value in my hallway that exceeded the EPA limit. It wasn't clear whether they were telling us all the measurements that were done, or holding some back.
The university continued to euphemistically name the asbestos-related construction activity "the Life Safety Enhancement project", "the fire life safety improvement project", and eventually the "Rowland Hall Tenant Improvement Project 2020", avoiding the word "asbestos".
What would make the university take our asbestos concerns seriously, besides viral social media posts? I imagined a headline in a large font in the Los Angeles Times:
UCI tarnishes the legacy of Nobel Prize winner Sherwood Rowland
Rowland was a UCI Chemistry professor for nearly half a century. The university is justly proud of his fight to save the ozone layer. Rowland bravely stood up to special interest groups who tried to discredit him. Rowland's office was around the corner from mine, in Rowland Hall itself. It would be sad if UCI's treatment of the occupants of Rowland Hall were to tarnish the legacy of the man for whom the building was named.
UCI is also proud of the high marks it gets for "sustainability". One reason it's "green" is that the indoor air is largely recirculated, rather than well ventilated to the outside. That's not necessarily what one wants during asbestos disturbance or the COVID pandemic.
Should we trust that UCI followed COVID ventilation recommendations, and should we believe what it told us about it? Would you?