The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2022-169 - Notice of Intention to Demolish 3570 King St E, Old Men's Residence, GRH Freeport CampusStaff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: May 3, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Choudhry, Deeksha, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 2 DATE OF REPORT: April 1, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-169 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention of Demolish Old Men's Residence, Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus 3570 King Street East RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Notice of Intention to Demolish received on March 17, 2022, regarding the Old Men's Residence located on the property municipally addressed as 3570 King Street East, be received for information and that the notice period run its course; and that the City arrange to have the Old Men's Residence properly documented through photographs prior to any demolition activity. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed demolition of the Old Men's Residence located on the property municipally addressed as 3570 King Street East. The Old Men's Residence is one of the nine early buildings of the Freeport Sanatorium. • The key finding of this report is that Old Men's Residence has significantly deteriorated and is likely beyond repair. Council should let the notice period run its course as designation is not recommended. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with Heritage Kitchener. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Notice of Intention of Demolish has been submitted for the Old Men's Residence, one of the early nine buildings of the Freeport Sanatorium, also known as the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus. The Old Men's Residence is located on the subject property municipally addressed as 3570 King Street East. The Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 376 of 524 Register. It is also designated as a Cultural Heritage Landscape. The Old Men's Residence is a two-storey brick building with a hipped roof located on the south-east corner of the property. This building has been vacant for approximately twenty (20) years and has fallen into significant disrepair. The applicant has no intention of using this building in the future or restoring it. Heritage Planning staff recommend that Council let the notice period run its course and that the City make arrangements to efficiently document the building prior to any demolition activity. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Demolish the existing Old Men's Residence located on the property municipally addressed as 3570 King Street East, which is listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest (Attachment A). The Old Men's Residence is one of the nine original sanatorium buildings that were included when the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus (GRHFC) was listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (Fig. 1). The subject property was formally "listed" by City Council on January 27, 2014 (Attachment B). The Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus is also designated as a Cultural Heritage Landscape (Attachment C). Figure 1: Location Map of the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus The Notice of Intention to Demolish application was received on March 17, 2022 and was submitted by the Owner. Page 377 of 524 Ontario Heritage Act Provisions Part IV, Section 27(3), of the Ontario Heritage Act provides certain protections to properties listed as non -designated property on the City's Municipal Heritage Register: Restriction on demolition, etc. (3) If property included in the register under subsection (1.2) has not been designated under section 29, the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the owner's intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. In accordance with the Act, Council has 60 days as of and including March 17, 2022 (date of receipt of the Notice of Intention to Demolish), to act, if it so chooses, on the Notice of Intention to Demolish. The 60 days provides Council with the time it requires to issue a Notice of Intention to Designation as a means of preventing the demolition. REPORT: Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus The present-day Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus is a 7.84 -hectare (19.38) acre lot located north of King Street East and east of Morrison Road and is recognized for its design/physical, contextual, and historic/associative value (Fig. 2). Figure 2: Aerial view of the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus. The Old Men's Residence is highlighted in yellow. The land was initially used as farm, known as the Shantz farm until 1912. It was then used to build the Freeport Sanatorium. In the late 19th and early 20th century, tuberculosis was the most common cause of mortality in Canada. Thus, Sanatoria were developed all over Page 378 of 524 the country as a direct result of scientific advancement in the identification of the bacillus that caused tuberculosis, its method of infection, and for its treatment. In 1912, the Berlin Town Council purchased the property from Benjamin Shantz to build a Sanatorium. The Shantz farm was an ideal location to build the Sanatorium because of four main factors: • It was located in the country away from Berlin (now Kitchener) and Waterloo to minimize the spread of infection; • It was accessible to both patients and visitors via the Preston and Berlin Electric Railway which traversed the south side of the property; • It was located at a high altitude which was considered a critical factor at the time in the circulation of air and treatment of patients; and • The existing Shantz farm could be easily repurposed for use by the Sanatorium. The Freeport Sanatorium was originally intended for civilian use, but it first opened as a sanatorium and convalescent home for soldiers who had contracted tuberculosis during the First World War. The Shantz farmhouse (now demolished) served as the original treatment centre. In 1920, the sanatorium was returned to civilian use and the expansion of facilities followed. The site is now a complex of buildings, ten of which were constructed between 1926 and 1953 as part of the Freeport Sanatorium. These ten early buildings include: 1. Old Nurses' Residence 2. Main treatment building 3. Old Doctor's Residence 4. Old Medical Superintendent's house 5. Old Men's Residence 6. Old Women's residence 7. Old Laundry Building 8. Brick Shed 9. Old Pump house 10. Old Power House Of these, nine buildings existed at the time of listing the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. These buildings were recognized for their heritage attributes relating to the construction and the Georgian Revival architectural style (Fig. 3). These were: 1. Old Nurses' Residence 2. Main Treatment Building 3. Old Doctor's Residence (has been demolished) 4. Old Medical Superintendent's House 5. Old Men's Residence 6. Old Laundry Building 7. Brick Shed 8. Old Pump House 9. Old Power House Page 379 of 524 L _�a I.Old bundry bullring .. _ 2. Shed X 9Old man's r.6 do -o Z 01 pvrFip house — 5 -Old power twuse'- 8. nnoii treatn nl buil�g L Old nurse's rosldence ..` –•-- ,_ 8. Oki dod7ot's roldence ` 9- Oki medlcat superiniendeni's residence Figure 3: Map highlighting the nine early buildings of the Freeport Sanatorium out of the all the buildings that exist on the site. The building highlighted by the yellow box is the Old Men's Residence. In the late 1950s, declining sanatorium admissions led to the expansion of care to include chronic -rehabilitative care. By 1970, the tuberculosis division was closed and in 1989 a large health care complex was constructed. An addition to accommodate mental health care was constructed in 2010. The heritage attributes of the nine early sanatorium buildings include all elements related to the construction and Georgian Revival architectural style of these buildings. Old Men's Residence The Old Men's Residence is a two-storey brick building built in 1935 and located towards the south-east corner of the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus (highlighted in yellow in Fig. 2 & 3). It was built in the Georgian Revival architectural style with a hipped roof (Fig. 4). Page 380 of 524 Figure 4: The Old Men's Residence The heritage attributes of the Old Men's Residence include: • Roof and rooflines, including medium -pitched gable roof; • Door and door openings; • Windows and window openings including: o Original double sash wood windows o Concrete sills o Brick voussoirs o Brick soldier course over upper windows • Dark red, variegated brick construction • Concrete foundation According to the applicant, the building has been vacant for approximately twenty (20) years and there are currently no plans to develop the building. However, due to it being unoccupied, the building has deteriorated significantly and is in a state of extreme disrepair. Heritaae Imaact Assessment for the Grand River Hosaital Freeport Camaus A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was undertaken for the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus in 2007. The purpose of the HIA was determine potential impacts of a planned expansion to the Freeport Campus. The proposed expansion directly affected three buildings — Old Nurses' Residence, Old Doctor's Residence, and the Old Medial Superintendent's Residence. However, the HIA considered all the nine early buildings in its analysis and potential impacts. As part of this planned expansion, the Old Doctor's Residence was demolished but was commemorated in the new expansion. Page 381 of 524 The HIA determined that the out of the nine early buildings that existed from when the Sanatorium was originally built, the most significant of these is the Old Nurses' Residence. It set the Georgian Revival Style that the rest of the buildings followed. The Old Men's Residence was built after the Main Treatment Centre and the Old Nurses' Residence. Facility Condition Assessment for the Old Men's Residence A Facility Condition Assessment was undertaken for this building in 2019 (Attachment D). The condition assessment assessed the different structural elements of the building in addition to providing an estimated cost associated with the repair of the building. The assessment found that most of the materials of the buildings including the foundation, support columns, the roof, and the exterior walls were in poor condition (Fig. 5 &6). It can safely be assumed that since then, the building has further deteriorated since no repairs have been performed. rigure o: vvest ksiue) anu norm krront) elevation or the Old Men's Residence Figure 6: East elevation of the building Heritage Planning Staff visited the subject property on February 28, 2022, to assess the existing conditions of the building. The observations from the site visit have been summarized in the table below: Page 382 of 524 Condition of Building Visual Representation Element Roof 7 • The roof of the r� building has+' significantly deteriorated due to i@ -- persistent water infiltration. • A whole section of the roof has fallen in due to significant deterioration • The roofline of the �> building has also significantly I. deteriorated and is in poor condition. 4 , Figure 7: A significantly damaged section of the roof. Figure 8: The roofline has significantly deteriorated. Page 383 of 524 Door��r� • The existing door has significantly�� deteriorated and is r in poor condition.*■ The paint is " f crumbling off and a� portion of the glass transoms on the door is broken. The; .. door opening is in poor condition as well.+ ioil Figure 9: The existing condition of the door. Windows:�+ • Most of the existing original windows t � and window sills .'•_-_ have deteriorated. - • The windows on the ground floor have been boarded and most of the — �°r._dll PI i.Id1 windows on the — g - upper storey are _- ` broken. Figure 10: The current condition of the windows. Page 384 of 524 Page 385 of 524 J NOW ® �s�rl�wl�r ��■�'' �w Me -M .i - Figure 11: All upper -storey windows are broken with significant deterioration of the wooden sashes. Brick Construction I ` • The exterior brick work of the building has deteriorated. In some places, it has N completely come; of. • The presence of efflorescence was also seen on the wall. t- ��.. , u -7911Se , Figure 12: Large sections of bricks that have come off. Page 385 of 524 Table 1: Table Summarizing the existing conditions of the building Substance Audit Update for the Old Men's Residence A substance audit update was undertaken in 2017 to determine the presence of harmful substances in the Old Men's Residence (Attachment E). The audit found that due to the significant deterioration of the building, hazardous materials such as asbestos and significant mould growth due to water damage were found to be present in the building. Page 386 of 524 Council's Options Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council does not have the authority to approve or refuse an owner's Notice of Intention to Demolish. Rather, Council's options include the following: 1. Request further information. 2. Receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its course, at the end of which the Building Division may issue a demolition permit as early as May 16, 2022. 3. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority to deny demolition. Heritage Planninq Staff Comments In this case, City staff recommend Option #2 above as the appropriate course of action (i.e. receive for information the Notice of Intention to Demolish and allow the notice period to run its course). City staff are of the opinion that no action should be taken to designate the Old Men's Residence. Most of the heritage attributes that have been identified in the Statement of Significance prepared in 2014 have since further deteriorated and are likely beyond repair due to significant deterioration of the structure and persistent water infiltration and damage. Moreover, the building in its current condition is neither accessible nor safe due to the presence of asbestos and significant mould growth. As mentioned above, this building has been vacant for the past twenty years and the current owner has no capacity or willingness to undertake repairs to the buildings. While the City could choose to apply the provisions in the Property Standards By-law for vacant heritage buildings should the property be designated, such work would likely have to be undertaken by the City at the owner's expense (added to the tax roll) and would be limited to making base level repairs and not extend in scope to make the building habitable, which is key to long term conservation. While opting to designate the Old Men's Residence could prevent demolition in the short term, the building will likely remain unoccupied and under a continued threat of deterioration. While staff do not recommend pursuing a heritage designation, staff do recommend that arrangements be made to properly document the building prior to any demolition activity. The applicant has also confirmed that the bricks which are still in good condition, will be salvaged and re -used as part of projects to renovate and/or restore the Old Nurses' Residence and the Laundry Building within the next five (5) years. Effect of Proposed Demolition on the Listing of the Cultural Heritage Resource Heritage Planning Staff are of the opinion that the proposed demolition will not adversely affect the reasons for listing the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. After the demolition of the Old Men's Residence, there would still be seven other existing buildings on site that are reflective of the Georgian Revival style of the Old Men's Residence and in better condition. Heritage Planning staff are also of the opinion that the proposed demolition will not adversely impact the Cultural Heritage Landscape designation of the subject property. Page 387 of 524 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Notice of Intention of Demolish. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Planning Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Notice of Intention to Demolish Application for the Former Old Men's Residence Attachment B - Statement of Significance (SoS) for the Grand River Hospital Freeport Campus — 3570 King Street East Attachment C - Data Sheet for the Freeport Hospital Cultural Heritage Landscape Attachment D - Facility Condition Assessment for the Former Old Men's Residence prepared by Nadine Consulting Engineers Attachment E - Substance Audit Update for the Former Old Men's Residence prepared by MTE Page 388 of 524 2022 Pagel of 9 J APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION CONTROL Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Is�ITCHFNER 519-741-2426; planning cD-kitchener.ca APPROVAL PROCESSES There are three processes that may apply to a residential demolition, as outlined below. 1. DEMOLITION CONTROL (By-law 2013-093 & Section 33 of the Ontario Planning Act —this application form) Demolition Control applies to the demolition of any residential building within the Demolition Control Area, which includes properties zoned R-1 through R-6 only. Demolition Control also applies to any former residential dwelling that has been converted to a non-residential use. Any residential building or any building containing one or more dwelling units requires demolition control approval before a demolition permit can be issued by the City's Chief Building Official to physically remove the structure. The purpose of demolition control is primarily to prevent the premature loss of viable housing stock and the creation of vacant parcels of land. Demolition Control does have related benefits of protecting the appearance, character, and integrity of residential neighbourhoods and streetscapes; preventing the premature loss of municipal assessment; retaining existing dwelling units until redevelopment plans have been considered and approved; and ensuring that redevelopment occurs in a timely manner, where proposed. Where a proposed residential demolition is outside of the demolition control area or is exempted under certain criteria, demolition control approval is not required but an exemption must be obtained from the Planning Division. 2. HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION (Ontario Heritage Act) The City has a responsibility to conserve cultural heritage resources. Where demolition is proposed on a property that is designated under Part IV (Individual) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the submission and approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required. A Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Conservation Plan may be required to support the application. Such applications must be considered by the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) and Kitchener City Council. Where demolition is proposed on properties that are listed as non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, the owner is required to give council at least 60 days notice in writing of the intent to demolish. During this time, council may choose to designate the property to provide protection from demolition. Where properties are listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, heritage planning staff will conduct a site visit to confirm the cultural heritage value and/or interest of the property. 3. DEMOLITION PERMIT (Building Code Act) The purpose of this permit is to enhance public safety and to ensure building services are disconnected in a safe and appropriate fashion prior to the City issuing approval for the demolition. It is also to ensure that the site will not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties post demolition. Demolition Permits are issued by the City's Chief Building Official. Please contact the Building Division at 519-741-2433 for more information and for the application procedure. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICATION FEES Complete applications shall be submitted by email to planning. applications(cb_kitchener.ca (maximum 10 MB); for larger files please upload directly to the City's ShareFile account (contact us if you require access) with a corresponding email to advise that the application has been submitted. Original, signed application form and cheque (payable to the City of Kitchener) should be sent to City Hall, Planning Division, to the attention of the Manager of Development Review, by mail or courier as soon as possible following the digital submission. lr First building on site - $595.00 ❑ Each additional building on site - $279.00 ❑ Demolition Control Exemption - $90.00 A city for everyone Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 389 of 524 2022// Page 2 of 9 TOTAL FEES SUBMITTED: $�M. 00 (please include a scanned copy of cheque with the digital submission) DEMOLITION CONTROL PROCEDURE Demolition Control Exemption Where the proposed demolition of a residential building is located outside the Demolition Control Area (this area comprises R-1 through R-6 zoned properties only) or where the building is within the Demolition Control Area but meets one of the Exemption Criteria (outlined in Section 4 of this form), demolition control approval is not required. However, the applicant must obtain approval of a Demolition Control Exemption from the Planning Division, prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the Building Division. The fee for a Demolition Control Exemption is noted in the schedule above. If the property qualifies for an exemption, please check the box that states "Applying for Demolition Control Exemption" at the top of the form and complete the all relevant sections on the form as outlined in Section 1. Also include the required plan and submit any supporting documentation (if applicable). Review and approval of a Demolition Control Exemption may take up to 7 business days. Demolition Control Application Preliminary Review: a) Where demolition control approval is being sought for a building that is designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, or is listed on the Heritage Inventory of Historic Buildings, the applicant should consult with the City's heritage planning staff prior to application submission to determine proper processing requirements. Note that any required heritage approvals must be granted prior to deciding the demolition control application. b) Where demolition control approval is being sought to facilitate a new development, the applicant should check at this time to determine whether a site plan application* and/or building permit will be required. If a site plan application is required, the applicant should discuss the proposal with Planning Division staff and/or the Building Division for building permits. A site plan application and/or building permit application should be filed prior to or concurrently with the demolition control application to the Planning Division and/or Building Division. *Note: A site plan application is required for the construction of a new building or structure, an addition, or alteration to an existing building or structure, which has the effect of substantially increasing its size or usability, or for the establishment of a commercial parking lot or sites for 3 or more trailers. It is not required for the construction of a farm building and, with certain exceptions, a single detached dwelling, a semi-detached dwelling or a duplex. Demolition Control Application Submission and Process Summary: (see attached Demolition Control Flow Chart for more information). 1. This application must be completed and submitted to the Planning Division with the prescribed fees (first residential building and each additional residential building), as noted in the schedule above. The application form must also be accompanied by one (1) copy of an up-to-date property survey or an accurate site plan drawn to scale in metric, such as 1:250 or 1:500 showing: a) The true dimensions and bearings of the property b) The location and dimensions of the residential structure(s) to be removed together with the location and dimensions of any accessory buildings and structures. Show also any buildings proposed to remain c) Existing and proposed elevations, drainage slopes and gradients. 2. After receipt of the form, a Planning staff member will circulate the application for a period of 14 consecutive days to the following departments, for comment: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 390 of 524 2022 Page 3 of 9 Building Division staff - to determine the condition of the residential building(s) proposed to be demolished, if no redevelopment is proposed via a building permit and/or site plan application (if applicable). The application form requests authorization for a City Building Inspector to enter the property and have access to the building(s) for the purposes of carrying out an inspection. Heritage planning staff - to determine if the property is a significant cultural heritage resource, and if so, identify the required level of conservation and proper processing requirements. Should the property be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the consideration of a Heritage Permit Application seeking approval of a demolition, will be required before a decision on the Demolition Control Application can be made. 3. Concurrent with the demolition control application review, Planning Division staff may review the associated site plan application and the Building Division may review the building permit application for the redevelopment of the property, if applicable. 4. If a Heritage approval is required, this must be granted prior to the City's consideration of the demolition control application. 5. Upon review of all relevant issues, a staff recommendation will be made on whether or not the proposed demolition is supported, supported subject to standard approval conditions, or opposed by the Development Services Department. The applicant will be advised as to the department's recommendation. 6. Depending on the circumstances, as outlined in By-law 2013-093, the application will either be considered at the City's standing committee and decided by City Council, or be considered and decided by the City's Manager of Development Review (see attached Demolition Control Flow Chart for more information). 7. The Planning Act prescribes an appeal procedure whereby the applicant may appeal City's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. STAFF USE ONLY — COMPLETE APPLICATION REVIEW ❑ Original, signed application form received and reviewed ❑ Applicable fees submitted ❑ "Staff Use Only" fields completed on form ❑ Signed Record of Pre -submission Consultation attached, if applicable ❑ Any additional information and materials provided, as required ❑ Plan is accurate and to scale (in metric units) ❑ Confirmation of ownership, address & legal description ❑ Affidavit completed and signed by applicant & commissioner ❑ Authorization provided, if required Deemed as a complete application by: Date: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 391 of 524 2022 1 KiTcH .NrR STAFF USE ONLY Page 4 of 9 APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION CONTROL Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; plan ning(a)kitchener.ca Date Received: Date Accepted as Complete: Fees Paid: 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 191 have discussed this demolition proposal with the following staff:K"KSAA cdUL262ql &'I am applying for Demolition Control Approval — Complete sections 1-3 and 5-13 ❑ I am applying for Demolition Control Exemption — Complete sections 1-5 and 10-13 ❑ A site plan application and/or building permit application for the immediate redevelopment of the subject property has been applied for or is being applied for concurrently with this application. Site Plan Application No. Building Permit No. V#: =MSyl=1:i=11019901 :ZIIF3 •i<TifCCRi[Tifl • . • - i% Ii�JfiC.�• Name(s): Phone: Company (if applicable) Extension: Street Address: Email: City/Province: Postal Code:N!?4 (� 3. APPLICANT (if other than reaistered owner Name: Phone: Company (if applicable)' Exten Street Address: Email: City/Province: Postal 4. EXEMP I IUN FKUM UEMULI I IUN UUN I KUL (it applicable) a) Exemption Due to the Property Being Located Outside the Demolition Control Area ❑ The subject property is exempt because it is outside the Demolition Control Area (i.e., the property is not within an R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 or R-6 Zone). The zoning of the subject property is (e.g., M-2, B-1, MU -3, etc.): NOTE: To confirm the zoning of the property you may use the City's interactive mapping tool. b) Exemption Due to Exemption Criteria Applicability The subject property is within the Demolition Control Area but is exempt because it meets one or more of the following criteria check all that apply): Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 392 of 524 2022 Page 5 of 9 ❑ The proposed demolition does not result in the loss of any dwelling units ❑ The residential property is not a permitted use under the current zoning of the property ❑ The residential property has been found to be unsafe under 15.9 of the Building Code Act (unsafe order) and/or has been found to be an immediate danger to life safety under section 15.10 of the Building Code Act (emergency order) and/or has been found to constitute an emergency situation under the Chapter 665 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code and an emergency order has been issued under Section 15.7 of the Building Code Act (submit supporting documentation) 4. hAhMV I IUN t-KUM UtMULI I IUN I:UN I KUL (li appllcaDle — IMV I ❑ The proposed demolition is necessary to facilitate environmental remediation of the site and completion of a record of site condition as specified by a qualified professional (submit supporting documentation) ❑ Demolition of the residential property is necessary to allow for the construction or establishment of a public work or service approved by the City, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo or Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Inc. (submit supporting documentation) ❑ The residential property is a mobile home ❑ The residential property is exempted under any provincial or federal statute or regulation (submit supporting documentation) c) Exemption Application Complete Submission Checklist ❑ Plan submitted as per regular demolition control application form ❑ Supporting documentation included with application form, if applicable ❑ Above checklists completed 5. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND BUILDING a) Municipal address of property subject to application: d N S - If multiple buildings, specify which are to be demolished (indicate on plan also): b) Assessment Roll No.: c) Legal description of subject property: d) Are any of the existing buildings or structures 50 years of age or older? Yes EY' No ❑ - If yes, which buildings (address)? tJ 15 J20SI0�1� List the date that each building or structure was constructed, if known: Identify the type, height and dimensions/floor area of each building (in metres): '2 eTo Q -f -_'M . 0-0c v- G S ANG S 90rrK e) Is the subject property: • Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act? Yes �D"" No El • Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register? Yes Eg- No �❑l • Included on Heritage Kitchener's Inventory of Historic Buildinqs? Yes ElNo L� Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 393 of 524 2022 Page 6 of 9 6. POLICY AND LAND USE a) Official Plan designation: b) Identify the secondary plan and land use designation for the subject property, if applicable: c) Existing zoning, including any special provisions: d) Type and number of dwellings/buildings proposed to be demolished (i.e. single detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling, duplex, street townhouse dwelling, multiple dwelling, etc.): 7. REASON FOR DEMOLITION For example: • To allow immediate redevelopment of the site through a site plan application and building permit application that have been submitted concurrently with this application • To allow the site to be used for open space (e.g., parking lot, landscaped area, etc.) • To remove a dwelling that is in poor repair with no immediate plans to redevelop 8. PROPOSED USE OF LAND AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 9. CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS Is the subject property located within a Source Protection Area? Yes ❑ No ❑ - If yes, have you provided a Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice), obtained from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo? Yes ❑ No ❑ For more information, visit the Region's website. 10. APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD APPROVAL CONDITION • This section should only be completed if redevelopment of the site is proposed via the submission of a site plan application and building permit application. • If owner agrees, the application will be decided by the City's Manager of Development Review, unless the property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest and not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 190, c.O.18. • If the owner does not agree, the application will be decided by City Council. I, , the registered owner of the property that is the subject of this application, hereby agree to the imposition of the following standard conditions as part of the approval of this application: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 394 of 524 2022 Page 7 of 9 a) That the owner obtains final site plan approval for the proposed redevelopment, if applicable under Chapter 683 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code b) That the owner obtains a building permit(s) for the proposed redevelopment Upon satisfaction of subsections a) and b), the City's Chief Building Official may authorize and issue a demolition permit under subsection 33(6) of the Planning Act. The demolition permit will be subject to the following condition: That in the event that construction of the proposed redevelopment is not substantially complete within 2 years of the date of issuance of the demolition permit, the City Clerk may enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, $20,000 for each dwelling unit contained in the residential properties in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residential property is issued. Signature of Owner: Date: 11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT As the owner of the subject property, I fully understand that: • 1 am required to post a City -issued sign on the subject property in a location to be approved by the Manager of Development Review within 24 hours of the approval of this application, should it be granted by the City, and that it shall be maintained in a state of good repair and remain in place until a demolition permit is issued and the building is substantially demolished • The submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized City staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting a property and building inspection that may be necessary for the evalu t' n of this ppli tion. Signature of Owner/Applicant: Date: 12. AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER FOR AGENT TO MAKE THE APPLICATION If the applicant is not the owner of the land that is the subject of this application, the written authorization of the owner is required, as below: application, hereby authorize Signature of Owner: the registered owner of the property that is the subject of this to make this application on my behalf. Date: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 395 of 524 2022 13 I, _ AFFIDAVIT (to be completed in person in the presence of a Commissioner of Oaths) , of the City/Town/Township of Page 8 of 9 in the County/Region of , solemnly declare that the information contained in this application is true, the information contained in the documents that accompany this application is true and that the owner as of the day on which this application is made has unconditional ownership of the subject lands and has disclosed any agreements or encumbrances that apply to the subject lands. Declared before me at the City/Town/Township of Signature of Owner/Applicant: in the County/Region of this day of 20 Commissioner of Oaths: The personal information contained on this form is collected pursuant to the Planning Act and will be used for the purpose of responding to your application. If you have any questions on the gathering of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records & Archive Services at 519-741-2200 ext. 7766. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 396 of 524 2022 Page 9 of 9 FLOW CHART FOR DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION PROCESS A residential building Is proposed to be demolished Isthe building within the Demolition Control Area (11-1 through R-6 Zone Classifications)? If the property Is not in the Demolition Control I I If the property h. within the Demolition Control Area, Area, then an exemption may be granted. then does the propose I meets any of the exemption criteria outlined in the Exemption Criteria on page 2 o the application form? H the proposal meets at least one of the exemption criteria, then an exemption may be granted. Delegated Approval Gitanes a) Redevelopment ofthe residential property to be demolished is proposed via the submission of a building permit application and/orsRe plan opplkation,(if applicable under Chapter 6" of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code), and the applicant is in agreement with the Imposition of the standard approval conditions (as outlined on the application form]; b) The residential property is within a draft plan of subdivision for which a pre -servicing agreement has been registered; or c) In the opinion of the Manager the residential property poses a slgndicant threat to the health, safety, or ecurity of the commun lty. Nohvhhstanding .b—tion, 7(a) to (c), at the discretion of the Manager, any application may be directed to Council for final decision. If the property does not m eet at least one of the exemption criteria, then demolition control approval Is required. Is the property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or Interest or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (does not Include properties on the Kitchener Heritage Inventory)? If the property does have stat us underthe Ontario Heritage Act, then the If the property does not have status underdre Ontario Heritage Act, demolition control application will be decided by Council. Any heritage doesthe rt tat leastone of the three delegated I approvals must be gra me prior to a decklon on the demolition control (see green property g approval application. The application can be refused if no redevelopment is criteria (see green reference box, lop e? This may as in the the proposed. If redevelopment h. proposed, the standard approval discretion of the Manager of Development Review as in the case of conditions may be applied. application If under onwill b) decided staff does not support the proposal, the applKatlon will be decided by Coundl. If the proposal doe. notmeet at lean one If the proposal doesmeet at least one of the of the three the criteria, then the three criteria, then the application will be application will be decided by Council. The decided by the Manager of Development appli®tion can be refused if no Review. The application cannot be refused. redevelopment Is proposed. If if redevelopment is proposed, the standard redevatop ment is proposed, the standard approval conditions may be applied. approval conditions may be applied. Page 397 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 3570 King Street East (Freeport Health Centre) Municipal Address: 3570 King Street East Legal Description: Beasleys Old Survey, Part Lot 12; Registered Plan 58R-5285, Part 1 Year Built: 1926 through to 1989 Architectural Style: Georgian Revival (pre -1989 buildings) Original Owner: Abraham Weber; Benjamin Shantz; Town of Berlin Original, Previous and Present Use: Farm (pre -1912), Sanatorium (1912 - 1989), Freeport Health Centre (1989 - Present) Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 3570 King Street East is a 7.84 hectare (19.38 acre) lot located north of King Street East and east of Morrison Road in the Centreville Chicopee Planning Community in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The property is commonly known as the Freeport Health Centre and was once known as the Freeport Sanatorium. The property contains nine early and mid - twentieth century, red brick buildings that were constructed when the site served as a sanatorium. The property also contains a large health centre complex that was constructed in 1989 and an addition constructed in 2010. Heritage Value The property is recognized for its design/physical, contextual and historic/associative values. The design value relates to the nine sanatoria buildings. The buildings are notable examples of the Georgian Revival architectural style, which retain many intact heritage attributes. The buildings feature: roofs and rooflines, including medium -pitched gable or hip roofs; doors and door openings; including: original exterior wood doors with bronze hardware and knockers, Doric pilasters and entablature, leaded glass sidelights and glass or wood transoms, brick voussoirs, copper porch stoop roof with brackets (doctor's residence); windows and window openings; including: original double sash wood windows, brick or concrete sills, original exterior wood storms, round arched panels of roughcast plaster (nurses' residence), brick voussoirs and artificial stone keystones, brick soldier course over upper windows, circular gable windows (nurses' residence), copper roofed bay window (doctor's residence), octagonal and fan windows (superintendent's residence); dark red, variegated brick construction; concrete foundation; porch (superintendent's residence); original iron railings (nurses' residence, superintendent's house); and, chimney. Page 398 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The physical value pertains to its demonstration of early 201h century scientific achievement for the treatment of tuberculosis. Sanatoria were developed as a direct result of scientific advancements in the identification of the bacillus that caused the disease and its method of infection. Like all sanatoria, the Freeport Sanatorium was located away from dense urban centres to isolate the infected population and prevent spread of the disease. At the time of its construction, the Freeport Sanatorium was located at the outskirts of Berlin (now Kitchener). Visitors could access the site via the Preston Berlin Railway which passed to the south. The Sanatorium also reflected scientific progress in the treatment of tuberculosis, which emphasized rest, fresh air and a healthy diet. High elevation was considered a critical factor in patient access to fresh air, and accordingly, the Freeport Sanatorium was situated at the highest elevation of any sanatorium site in Ontario. The contextual value of the site relates to its historical and functional link to its location. The Shantz farm was an ideal location for a sanatorium because of its location in the country away from Berlin, Waterloo, Preston and Galt to minimize possible spread of infection; it was accessible to both patients and visitors via the Preston and Berlin Electric Railway which traversed the south side of the property; it was located at a high altitude which was considered at the time to be a critical element in the circulation of air and the treatment of patients; and, the existing Shantz farmhouse could be repurposed for use by the Sanatorium (Dilse and Stewart, 2007). The historical/associative value relates to its association with the "Sanatorium Age" in Canada which was marked by extensive, national civic involvement (e.g. emergence of the Canadian Association for Prevention of Consumption and Other Forms of Tuberculosis in 1900 which ultimately evolved into the Canadian Lung Association), and government investment in tuberculosis education and treatment across the country (Grzybowski and Allen, 1999). Grounded on the principles of isolation, fresh air, rest and good nutrition, sanatoria were designed to prevent the spread of tuberculosis which was the most common cause of mortality in Canada in the late 19th century and early 20th century. A total of 14 sanatoria were developed in Ontario, the first of which was constructed in 1896 near Gravenhurst (Conrad, 1985). The Freeport Sanatorium was developed to serve the local community but also admitted a significant number of patients outside of Waterloo County. The associative value relates to its direct relationship with the theme of healthcare and Berlin's (now Kitchener) local civic health care movement. In the early twentieth century, a series of local deaths resulting from tuberculosis roused the concern of the County of Waterloo Coroner, Dr. J. F. Honsberger, and other physicians. In 1908, with the help of Berlin citizens, the doctors organized an "Anti -Consumption League" (later renamed the "Berlin Sanatorium Association") to generate awareness of the disease and its treatment. A committee was formed to select a suitable site for a hospital and to solicit financial support from municipalities in Waterloo County. Berlin town council allocated $2800 to the purchase of the Freeport site and passed a bylaw for an additional $15,000 to be raised for the construction of the Sanatorium. Civic involvement continued to play significant role in the operation of the Freeport Sanatorium through fundraising work of Sanatorium Auxiliaries, and local chapters of the Women's Institute. The property was purchased by the Berlin Town Council in 1912 from Benjamin Shantz to serve as a sanatorium for the treatment of patients suffering from tuberculosis. The Freeport Sanatorium, although originally intended for civilian use, first opened as a sanatorium and convalescent home for soldiers who had contracted tuberculosis during the First World War. The Shantz farmhouse (now demolished) served as the original treatment centre. The sanatorium was returned to civilian use in 1920 and an expansion of the facilities followed. The site is now a complex of buildings, nine of which were constructed between 1926 and 1953. Page 399 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The nine early buildings include a nurses' residence (1926-1927; additions 1933, 1940, 1953), a main treatment centre (1929-1930; additions 1932, 1937-1938, 1950), a doctor's residence (1953; demolished), a medical superintendent's house currently called the pastoral care house (1938-1939), a men's residence (1935-1936), a women's residence (1935-1936), a laundry building, a brick shed, a pump house and a power house (1932). In the late 1950s, advances in tuberculosis treatment and declining sanatorium admissions led to the expansion of care to include chronic -rehabilitative care. Freeport Sanatorium was the first in Ontario to expand the scope of care. By 1970, the tuberculosis division was closed and in 1989 a large health care complex was constructed. An addition to that complex to accommodate mental health care was constructed in 2010. The associative value also relates to its association with architect Bernal A. Jones and Barnett & Rieder. Bernal A. Jones designed the main treatment building and 1950 addition, additions to the Nurses' Residence (1933 and 1940) and the Medical Superintendent's Residence. Jones had a significant impact on local architecture in Kitchener through his designs of a number of important public buildings, including the Public Utilities Building, the Church of the Good Shepherd and St. Mary's Hospital. Jones assisted W.H.E. Schmalz in the design of the 1922/1923 Kitchener City Hall. The firm Schmalz and Jones maintained an office until 1926. Barnett & Rieder designed the east wing of the nurses' residence in 1953 with specifications that called for face brick matching and the colour and texture of brick in the sanatorium's existing buildings. Heritage Attributes ■ All elements related to the construction and Georgian Revival architectural style of the nine early sanatorium buildings, known as the nurses' residence, main treatment centre, doctor's residence, medical superintendent's house, men's residence, laundry building, brick shed, pump house and a power house. These attributes include: o roofs and rooflines, including medium -pitched gable or hip roofs; o doors and door openings; including: ■ original exterior wood doors with bronze hardware and knockers; ■ Doric pilasters and entablature; ■ leaded glass sidelights and glass or wood transoms; ■ brick voussoirs; ■ copper porch stoop roof with brackets (doctor's residence) o windows and window openings; including: ■ original double sash wood windows; ■ brick or concrete sills; ■ original exterior wood storms; ■ round arched panels of roughcast plaster (nurses' residence); ■ brick voussoirs and artificial stone keystones; ■ brick soldier course over upper windows; ■ circular gable windows (nurses' residence); ■ copper roofed bay window (doctor's residence) ■ octagonal and fan windows (superintendent's residence) o dark red, variegated brick construction; o concrete foundation; o porch (superintendent's residence) 0 original iron railings (nurses' residence, superintendent's house); o chimney. Page 400 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Original interior elements for: o nurses' residence including: single paneled doors on the upper floor, window surrounds on all floors, fireplace and mantel, inset bookcase cabinet, front and back staircases; o Doctor's residence, including: main entrance foyer, baseboards and wood window surrounds, front staircase and living room fireplace and mantel; o Superintendent's residence, including: beaded baseboard, original wood panel and glass paned doors, fireplace and mantel, front and back staircase; References The Lung Association Tuberculosis History in Canada. Website: http://www.lung.ca/tb/tbhistory/ 1987 Caring on the Grand : a history of the Freeport Hospital / by Peter Conrad Conrad, Peter KPL-Main Grace Schmidt Rm 362.160971345 Conra 1985 A historical sketch of the Freeport Hospital and the auxiliaries / by Mrs. E. T. Humphrey Humphrey, E. T., Mrs KPL-Main Grace Schmidt Rm 362.160971345 Humph Dilse, P. & Stewart, P. (2007). Heritage Impact Assessment at the Freeport Sanatorium Site 3570 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. Wherrett, G. J. (1977). The Miracle of the Empty Beds: A History of Tuberculosis in Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Grzybowski, S. and Allen, E. A. (1999). Tuberculosis: 2. History of the disease in Canada. CMAJ 160:1025-8. Uttley, W.V. Page 401 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Photos 41 3570 King Street East (Aerial Photograph) .,, 117 l,T 3570 King Street East (Old Nurse's Residence) Page 402 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 11 ■ qd a it k I I{ d 1.4.r i T ` ■ r • A r pw 6 y•� Y ■ F moi.. 1 3570 King Street East (Old Laundry Building) Page 403 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 3570 King Street East Period: 20th Century Field Team Initials: MW/LB Description: Freeport Hospital Date: 2009 Page 404 of 524 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N material or method of ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N unique structure because of the Landmark merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N craftsmanship or details? ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ Does this structure demonstrate a Completeness high degree of technical or ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Notes Page 404 of 524 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N to its surroundings? Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood ❑? Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N original outbuildin s, notable Page 404 of 524 APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes Page 405 of 524 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY SIGNIFICANCE N/A N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its associations with and/or contribute to the original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N features? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ Is this a notable structure due to N Does this property meet the definition of a significant sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Notes Page 405 of 524 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people? Notes Page 405 of 524 3-c ' m w w to ro v m _ 6 L v c O O v— `p 3 '0 . ,� v L u c v� c c> °@ m v° p cv`n u° v U L @ C£ .+ E_ O v m Y@ N y@ N , v @ ' m 0 .°n m o v m O> E �� v v u m" c a � '0 L m m' O m p w v v T U p. m p v L U > . �n v O O r, L ZtfO v N v U,O °J m O N T c Q O@ ti ;_ d t= L v L j£ N v v 0 M b L L O LLL OL�r aU ..03 SO U Q N N m m -p c L T -O vi @°❑ 30 O @ p CC' C C _O i6 C C = L ,� ` R O -p _� v1 n @ Y C = _ > L N V .0 --U L 41 N N C O N O m U @ C L C R @ m y ._ > @ tCE w bA m 'O C ° .i £ tC ELO onv L@ n L v v a c c c v v v a 3 c L L u H U L _p L N C L c �6 A 3 m bYpAC N L O U C@ V u C _Q ° O L L @ O m 'a 3 V R j o. C N .� t; v j, U bA a v v v u v Y c m .v c > vL m v v E p 4 c u ---Jmr .v c U 3 w m o o' m T> m m o c E E> _ 00 o EL i m_ a m v o Q '� E 3 0 °° v o v_ r m E 3 u p F L t= L m U o, j m 0= ��O >� m y _ u O c 'o m v p m .' L av a v v °_° r °nn ro .? a = v c m y Am -0 c m N@ M N C) -p v v C bA ° — K vUi U p u 3= J icL m p cc� to 0 u v 3 C v N L v yr c O@ W .° U U O L — c N m S OA L v u C c i6 Vl u v L c bA 3= U T L@ m v`i L° U L ._+ @ @ O ~ R R@ _° 0- = L • i 11, _ rJI�t it t d i6 O ;_ N~ 'c N N d L v c in 0 u o Y O.5 E v'- `v > F+ �i'lhlllirf :■ c ,o 0 m 0 0 'c v += 3 v °c° m O= v v c L U .� m j c L =rfl L'ZL.j:I':� �Ps� ■ .0 u c c -0 m - v 3 `u _ =O �O c a a �v'R a v m v3 p v 'in ■■ �y O •N v p 0 L m-° u �L O U —N u R O 3 ■■ �� N C L 1 j T ,yL L N N L V] N V1 bAL >' N O 0 N c m m O U ` to R L N c 3 .Y _ c .. a m U C ti m 3 m m •C =� L C S v=i @ N bA ` c. .tm v o c= r 3 u C u u a c u v@ r 2 v o 'c x v v° v p 3 _m -p 3 0 O m V c O o v m., m U bA 4 _ m c a o v 3 S v c m .4 0 u °¢ a o .4 °° u£ v �' 3 c C= Y 0 vui v` N O m L m> L vUi Lu -p 3 O v c0 v O fl. t>`C U L L C m 0 0 C m@ m m CL 3 E Q u d ._ _ E R cn a u o ._ u L m v v 3 ro a o s °• dl N J C Q O � c � Z H w O CL V = m O CL J Q O w \ O ro p = J Z u c > o / N / L U O • _ Y' C N a a a m m` 31yj3No�g APOh v U U L '� o N ❑ x a WW1 � s mr �, a ¢ J¢ va v c m m NADINE CONSULTING ENGINEERS Facility Condition Assessment Program (FCAP) Asset FCA Report Building Name: Grand River Hospital - Men's Residence LHIN: LH3 - Waterloo Wellington HSP: LH3-GH - Grand River Hospital Site: LH3-GH-GHFS - Grand River Hospital - Freeport Site Prepared for: Grand River Hospital - Freeport Site 2325 Skymark Avenue, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5A9 Phone: (905) 602-1850 Fax: (905) 602-1853 info Canadineintl.com I www.nadineintl.com Page 407 of 524 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................3 2.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................4 3.0 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................5 4.0 FIVE (5) YEAR (2021-2025) EXPENDITURE SUMMARY..................................................7 4.1 Five (5) Year (2021-2025) Expenditure Chart.......................................................................7 4.2 Five (5) Year (2021-2025) Expenditure Graph......................................................................8 4.3 Five (5) Year (2021-2025) Detailed Expenditure Table.........................................................9 5.0 TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEAR REQUIREMENT SUMMARY................................................10 5.1 twenty-five (25) Year Expenditure Summary Part 1 (0 to 14 years)...................................10 5.1 twenty-five (25) Year Expenditure Summary Part 2 (15 to 25 years)..................................11 5.2 twenty-five (25) Year Expenditure Graph............................................................................12 5.3 twenty-five (25) Year Expenditure Detail Part 1 (0 to 9 years)...........................................13 5.3 twenty-five (25) Year Expenditure Detail Part 2 (10 to 20 years).......................................14 5.3 twenty-five (25) Year Expenditure Detail Part 3 (21 to 25 years).......................................15 6.0 DETAILED SYSTEM/REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS...........................................................16 6.1 A - SUBSTRUCTURE.........................................................................................................17 6. 1.1 STANDARD WALL FOUNDATIONS - General - A1010000 ....................................18 6.1.2 Slab On Grade - General - A1030000...........................................................................20 6.1.3 Basement Walls - General - A2020000.........................................................................21 6.1.4 Structural Columns/Beams - A2030000.......................................................................22 6.2 B - SHELL...........................................................................................................................23 6.2.1 Floor Construction - General - B1010000....................................................................24 6.2.2 Roof Construction - General - B1020000.....................................................................25 6.2.3 Exterior Walls - General - B2010000...........................................................................27 6.2.4 Exterior Windows - General - B2020000.....................................................................29 6.2.5 Exterior Doors - General - B2030000...........................................................................31 6.2.6 Roof Coverings - General - B3010000.........................................................................33 6.3 C - INTERIORS...................................................................................................................35 6.3.1 Wall Partitions - General - C1010000...........................................................................36 7.0 CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE...................................................................................38 7.1 CRV CALCULATIONS......................................................................................................39 8.0 CAPITAL REQUIREMENT COSTS......................................................................................40 9.0 FACILITY CONDITION INDEX(FCI).................................................................................41 APPENDIX A — Definitions..........................................................................................................43 2325 Skymark Avenue, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5A9 Phone: (905) 602-1850 Fax: (905) 602-1853 info Canadineintl.com I www.nadineintl.com Page 408 of 524 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nadine International Inc. performed a Facility Condition Assessment of Grand River Hospital - Men's Residence which is located at 3570 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. The Report presents the results of the assessment, which was performed as part of the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care, Facility Condition Assessment Program (FCAP), together with the twenty-five (25) year budget forecasts, Current Replacement Value (CRV) and the Facility Condition Index (FCI). A summary of the budgets which will be required to keep the A -Wing building in a good state of repair for the next twenty-five (25) years. The FCI, which is an indicator of the health of the asset is 0.0%, which is considered Good as per the FCAP definition and guidelines and calculated as per the formula noted below: FCI = Deferred Maintenance + 2 Years of Capital Expenditure ,Requirement Costs) Current Replacement Cost of Asset The following is a Uniformat Level I based summary of the Requirement Costs/ Capital Expenditures, which will be required to keep the building in a good state of repair for the next twenty-five (25) years: UNIFORMAT CLASS Budgets 2021 - 2025 Budgets 2026 - (Year 0 to 4) Including 2046 (Year 5 to Inflation 25) Including Inflation B - SHELL (Page 23-34) $0 $45,416 Five Year Sub -totals $0 $45,416 Total Year 0 to 25 $45,416 °leas; see Sections 4-9 of the Report for details on the expenditures and FCI analysis. Page 409 of 524 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION Grand River Hospital - Freeport Site retained Nadine International Inc. to provide a Asset FCA Report of the Grand River Hospital - Men's Residence FCA which was performed as part of the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care's FCAP. The FCA was performed based on scope of work which was provided by the Ministry and was based on ASTM Uniformat II classification, which includes the following major categories: A — Substructure B — Shell C — Interiors D — Services E — Equipment and Furnishings G — Site Work The detailed assessment of each applicable building component based on the above noted categories is detailed in section 6 of this report. Sections 4 and 5 of this report provide a summary of the capital expenditures within the first five (5) and twenty-five (25) years respectively. Sections 7 and 9 provide Current Replacement Value (CRV) and Facility Condition Index (FCI) details. Hyperlinks and Bookmarks are provided throughout the document for ease of navigation to various sections of the Report. The budget estimations were developed using R.S. Means and Nadine International Inc. cost data and experience with previous similar projects. The FCA data which is presented in this Report is used from the FCAP Application at the time of generation of this Report. Please refer to the live data on FCAP Application for any updates since this Report was generated. Please see Appendix A for definitions of common terms which are used in this report. Page 410 of 524 4 3.0 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY General : The Grand River Hospital Men's Residence is located at 3570 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. The building was originally constructed in 1950. The building is provided with two levels in addition to a basement level below the grade level. Architectural & Structural : Substructure: The building foundation consists of cast -in-place concrete with strip foundation along the perimeter and spread footings below the columns and walls. Superstructure: The typical floor is constructed of a metal deck filled with concrete and supported on columns, beams, and walls. The roof structure consists of gable roof and wood structure frame. Exterior Construction: The exterior walls are constructed of load-bearing brick veneer and concrete masonry unit backup walls. The building is provided with wood frame and sashes, single glazed, conventional fixed and operable windows on all elevations. The building is provided with wood door and wood frame. The building roof covering consists of asphalt shingles. Interior Construction The building interior partitions are constructed of interior load-bearing walls and gypsum wallboard partitions. Mechanical : No mechanical system is associated with the building. The building is vacant. Electrical: Page 411 of 524 5 The building is unoccupied. As per staff, there is no electrical equipment or panels inside. No access was provided to see the building interior. Page 412 of 524 6 4.0 FIVE (5) YEAR (2021-2025) EXPENDITURE SUMMARY 4.1 Five (5) Year (2021-2025) Expenditure Chart Uniformat Class 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Yearly Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Five (5) Year (2021-2025) $0 Page 413 of 524 4.2 Five (5) Year (2021-2025) Expenditure Graph 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 ■ Total Five (5) Year (2021- 2025) Page 414 of 524 J-8 4.3 Five (5) Year (2021-2025) Detailed Expenditure Table UNIFORMAT :1 RECOMMENDA TION 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Annual budget for next five (5) years $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total budget for next five (5) years $0 Page 415 of 524 N lf') O (O O EA � N N M p� O N N d m N O N co N O N n N O N N O N N N O N 7 N O N v � O N O � N v � w v O O N Y O w G v C v A O. U � A o o � :p c o � D v � v F � Z `m r O) 0 N lf') O ~ � O EA O M o N N � N a O N O N O EA O N O N O EA n N O N O EA N O N O EA N N O N O EA 7 N O N O EA M N O N O EA N N O N � N O N Y � v v 0 w v � u w a C) U « O z � w b v v w � v v z N lf') O O V N ~ � N O fA O EA O 7 o N � N a � N V V 7 7 coO M O N M O N M O N M O N 7 O N M O N M O N N w o U m v on � a N p z a � W b o o o w _ O EA N � � N m (6 a e 0 N 0 O N O EA M 7 O N O EA N 7 O N O EA N 7 O N O EA w o U v � w y a o � c d a ua 'ti A � o �� o v W d' v v Ey ai � 6.0 DETAILED SYSTEM/REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS This section provides details of all Systems and Requirements including pictures. 16 Page 422 of 524 6.1 A - SUBSTRUCTURE 17 Page 423 of 524 6.1.1 STANDARD WALL FOUNDATIONS - General - A1010000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-A1010000-001 Description: The building foundation consists of cast -in-place concrete with strip foundation along the perimeter and spread footings below the columns and walls. Observation The majority of the foundation elements are embedded and were not inspected; the foundation appeared to be aged and in poor condition. A budget is allowed to conduct a study regarding the condition of the foundation. Service Life: 50 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 390.00 Unit: SM Rate: $415.29 Current Replacement Value: $161,963 18 Page 424 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - A1010000 - STANDARD WALL FOUNDATIONS - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-A1010000-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R1 - Repair 2019 $33,581 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510592 Requirement Name: Study and repair - Structural components Description: Due to the age of the building, a tentative budget is allowed to conduct a study on the structural components of the building to check the structural integrity of the building. The budget includes the anticipated repair works; however, it can be adjusted based on the study. 19 Page 425 of 524 6.1.2 Slab On Grade - General - A1030000 Number of events included: 0 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-A1030000-001 Description: The slab -on -grade is a structural layer of concrete that forms the ground floor. Observation Access to the interior was not available, so the interior assessment is based on the pictures that were provided by hospital management. The majority of the slab -on -grade was covered with finishing materials. In general, the slab appeared to be aged and were in poor condition. A budget is allowed to study the condition of the slab -on -grade. Service Life: 50 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 168.00 Unit: SM Rate: $221.64 Current Replacement Value: $37,235 20 Page 426 of 524 6.1.3 Basement Walls - General - A2020000 Number of events included: 0 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-A2020000-001 Description: The underground perimeter walls of the building on the west side are constructed of cast -in-place reinforced concrete. Observation Access to the interior was not available, so the interior assessment is based on the pictures that were provided by hospital management. The perimeter basement walls appeared to be in poor condition and exhibited deficiencies, such as exposed rebar. A budget is allowed to study the condition of the basement walls. Service Life: 75 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 78.00 Unit: SM Rate: $1,146.25 Current Replacement Value: $89,407 21 Page 427 of 524 6.1.4 Structural Columns/Beams - A2030000 Number of events included: 0 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-A2030000-001 Description: The superstructure of the building is constructed of reinforced concrete columns, beams, and walls. Observation Access to the interior was not available, so the interior assessment is based on the pictures that were provided by hospital management. The majority of the superstructure was covered with finishing materials. Generally, the superstructure appeared to be aged and were in poor condition. A budget is allowed to study the condition of the columns and beams. Service Life: 75 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 390.00 Unit: SM Rate: $175.74 Current Replacement Value: $68,540 22 Page 428 of 524 6.2 B - SHELL 23 Page 429 of 524 6.2.1 Floor Construction - General - B1010000 Number of events included: 0 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B1010000-001 Description: The typical floor is constructed of a metal deck filled with concrete and supported on columns, beams, and walls. Observation Access to the interior was not available, so the interior assessment is based on the pictures that were provided by hospital management. The site assessment consisted of a visual review of readily accessible and exposed structural systems. The majority of the floor construction was covered with finishing materials. Where exposed, signs of deficiencies (such as rust) were noted. A budget is allowed to study the condition of the floor components. Service Life: 50 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 222.00 Unit: SM Rate: $573.12 Current Replacement Value: $127,233 24 Page 430 of 524 6.2.2 Roof Construction - General - B1020000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B1020000-001 Description: The gable roof is constructed of wood trusses supported by the perimeter load-bearing walls. Observation Access to the interior was not available, so the interior assessment is based on the pictures that were provided by hospital management. The roof structure was not visible nor accessible; however, it was reported that it is defective, and restoration is recommended. Service Life: 50 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 168.00 Unit: SM Rate: $379.47 Current Replacement Value: $63,751 25 Page 431 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - B1020000 - Roof Construction - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B1O2OOOO-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R1 - Repair 2019 $95,627 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510596 Requirement Name: Replacement of the roof structure Description: A budget is allocated for the complete replacement of the roof structure. 26 Page 432 of 524 6.2.3 Exterior Walls - General - B2010000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B2010000-001 Description: The exterior walls are constructed of load-bearing brick veneer and concrete masonry unit backup walls. Observation The exterior walls appeared to be stable with no major bowing, leaning, or bulging noted on the exterior wall system. However, signs of deterioration were noted, such as spalling, staining, and efflorescence. Repairs are recommended in the near future. Service Life: 50 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 290.00 Unit: SM Rate: $1,636.54 Current Replacement Value: $474,596 27 Page 433 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - B2010000 - Exterior Walls - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B2010000-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R1 - Repair 2019 $118,649 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510597 Requirement Name: Restoration of the brick walls Description: The building is designated as a significant building and shall be conserved. A tentative budget is allowed to replace the damaged bricks, repoint the deteriorated mortar joints, and clean the efflorescence. 28 Page 434 of 524 6.2.4 Exterior Windows - General - B2020000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B2020000-001 Description: The building is provided with wood frame and sashes, single glazed, conventional fixed/operable windows on all elevations. Observation The majority of the wood framed windows are original to building construction and appeared to be in poor condition with rotted frames, cracks, and broken units. The caulking appeared to be dry where tested. Action is required to replace the windows. Service Life: 30 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 48.00 Unit: SM Rate: $1,198.86 Current Replacement Value: $57,545 29 Page 435 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - B2020000 - Exterior Windows - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B2020000-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R2 - Replacement 2019 $86,318 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510598 Requirement Name: Restoration of the windows Description: The building is designated as significant building and shall be conserved. A budget is allowed to restore the windows throughout the building. 30 Page 436 of 524 6.2.5 Exterior Doors - General - B2030000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B2030000-001 Description: The building is provided with two (2) wood doors and wood frames. Observation The exterior doors are original to construction and are past service life. The doors appeared to be in stable condition; no distortion or movement was noted, and the doors opened and closed properly. However, the majority of the doors exhibited deterioration and discoloration and shall be restored. Service Life: 30 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 2.00 Unit: Each Rate: $2,922.71 Current Replacement Value: $5,845 31 Page 437 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - B2030000 - Exterior Doors - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B2030000-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R2 - Replacement 2019 $8,768 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510599 Requirement Name: Restoration of the exterior doors Description: The building is designated as a significant building and shall be conserved. A budget is allowed to restore the exterior doors. 32 Page 438 of 524 6.2.6 Roof Coverings - General - B3010000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B3010000-001 Description: The building roof covering consists of asphalt shingles. Observation The asphalt shingles are original to building construction and are past service life. The roofing appeared to be in poor condition, with damaged and missing shingles observed, causing holes that allow water to penetrate the interior of the building. Service Life: 20 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 168.00 Unit: SM Rate: $180.22 Current Replacement Value: $30,277 33 Page 439 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - B3010000 - Roof Coverings - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-B3010000-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R2 - Replacement 2019 $45,416 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510600 Requirement Name: Replacement of the roof coverings Description: A budget is allowed to replace the roof coverings. 34 Page 440 of 524 6.3 C - INTERIORS 35 Page 441 of 524 6.3.1 Wall Partitions - General - C1010000 Number of events included: 1 Nadine Equipment ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-C1010000-001 Description: The building interior partitions are constructed of interior load-bearing walls and gypsum wallboard. Observation Access to the interior was not available, so the interior assessment was based on the pictures that were provided by hospital management. The interior light partitions appeared to be aged and demonstrated signs of deficiencies, such as chipping and holes. Interior renovation is recommended in the near future to improve the aesthetics of the building. Service Life: 50 Actual Age: 72 Total Quantity: 390.00 Unit: SM Rate: $444.39 Current Replacement Value: $173,314 36 Page 442 of 524 Requirement: 1 of 1 for - C1010000 - Wall Partitions - General Nadine Requirement ID: 18-LH3-GH-GHFS-GRHMR01-C1010000-001-01 Project Recommendation Type : Action Year: Requirement Cost: R1 - Repair 2019 $433,285 Project Priority: Requirement ID: 3 - Asset Integrity - Type A - Imminent Breakdown REQN-510601 Requirement Name: Renovation - Interior components Description: The majority of interior components (including flooring, wall finishes, ceiling finishes, interior doors, and fittings) appeared to be damaged and deteriorated. A budget is allowed to fully renovate the interior components and finishes of the building. 37 Page 443 of 524 7.0 CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE The Current Replacement Value (CRV) is defined as the total amount of expenditure in current dollars required to replace the asset and meet the current acceptable standards of construction, and comply with regulatory requirements. CRV is not the Insurance Replacement Value, Book Value, or the Market Value. The building costs data are derived from a R. S. Means construction database and our experience with previous similar projects. The CRV in this section also includes site work. Page 444 of 524 38 7.1 CRV CALCULATIONS Asset Name: MOH Current Grand River Hospital - Men's Residence 3570 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario A SUBSTRUCTURE Total Replacement Value $1,289,707 Description Cost A SUBSTRUCTURE $357,145.54 A1010000 STANDARD WALL FOUNDATIONS - General $161,963.38 A1030000 Slab On Grade - General $37,235.12 A2020000 Basement Walls - General $89,407.28 A2030000 Structural Columns/Beams $68,539.76 B SHELL $759,247.71 131010000 Floor Construction - General $127,233.44 B1020000 Roof Construction - General $63,751.04 B2010000 Exterior Walls - General $474,595.58 B2020000 Exterior Windows - General $57,545.19 B2030000 Exterior Doors - General $5,845.41 B3010000 Roof Coverings - General $30,277.04 C INTERIORS $173,313.92 C1010000 Wall Partitions - General $173,313.92 Total $1,289,7071 Page 445 of 524 39 8.0 CAPITAL REQUIREMENT COSTS Renewal refers to work done to extend an Asset's/System's useful life or improve its functionality. Renewal of an Asset can prolong the period of usefulness or enhance service potential. Service potential may be enhanced when there is an increase in the previously assessed physical output or service capacity, resulting in lowered associated operating costs, extended useful life of the Asset, and improvement of output quality. It includes upgrades that increase the service potential of an Asset (and may or may not increase the remaining useful life of the Asset). This type of expense should be reported as a capital expense. A Requirement is a facility need or a deficient condition that should be addressed, including deferred maintenance, code issues, functional Requirements, and capital improvements. A Requirement can affect an assembly, piece of equipment, or any other System. It is assigned a Category, Priority, and System for costs to be catalogued appropriately and a time frame for action assigned. Year Capital Requirement Costs ($) 2021 (Including Deferred Maintenance) $821,643 2022 $0 2023 $0 Page 446 of 524 40 9.0 FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCI) Facility Condition Index (FCI): Facility Condition Index (FCI) scores measure condition as a ratio of the sum of the near term needs for an Asset divided by its replacement value. FCI= Full Deferred Maintenance + 2 Years of Capital Expenditure Current Replacement Cost International Facility Management Association (IFMA) Standard Condition Ratings Based on FCI Good Fair Poor Replace 0% 10% 30% 60% 100% Example: FCI score of 0.10 = 10% or "Good" Good (0-0.10): Functioning as intended. (0.10-0.30): Functioning as intended, maintenance/ rehabilitation will be required in next 5 years. Poor (0.30-0.60): Not functioning as intended, maintenance/rehabilitation will be required in the next year. Replace (>0.60): Not functioning as intended, cost of maintenance/rehabilitation enough to warrant replacement. Full Deferred Maintenance: refers to the accumulated value of the normally required maintenance investments that have been deferred from prior years up to the current year and are due; this is the sum of maintenance needs with action years to the current year, also referred to as "Deferred Maintenance + Current Year" 2 years of Capital Expenditure: refers to all repairs (only includes FCAP priority Requirements 1-5) that have been identified for implementation in the following two years; this is the sum of projected maintenance needs for two years beyond the current year, also referred to as "Planning Years 1+2" Page 447 of 524 41 Current Replacement Cost: is an estimate of the cost of replacing an existing Asset with a similar new Asset with the same functional utility. The Current Replacement Value (CRV) for the Grand River Hospital - Men's Residence is calculated at 3306.9 per square meters times the gross floor area of 390.00 Sq.m. which equals $1,289,707.00 FCI = $821,643.18 $1,289,707.00 1 .A The FCI is calculated based on the yearly renewal needs, which are identified in Section 8 of this Report, and assuming that there are no previous backlog repairs for each year. The following table provides the yearly repairs and the corresponding FCI: Year Renewal Needs ($) FCI Year 1+2 (Including Deferred Maintenance) $821,643 0.64 As indicated in the above table, the current FCI is at 0.64, which is considered Replace as per industry standards. Page 448 of 524 42 APPENDIX A — Definitions Page 449 of 524 43 DEFINITIONS Actual Age This is the current age of the Asset/System. Asset An Asset is a free-standing structure, a portion of a structure, or any part of a facility infrastructure that is distinguishable from its surroundings by date of construction, construction type, and/or the Systems that compromise it. Facility Condition Index (FCI) FCI scores the measure condition as a ratio of the sum of the near-term needs for an Asset divided by its replacement value. The FCI is an indicator of the overall health of a building. Example- FSI snore of 0_10 = 10% or "Good" The Ministry definition of the FCI at a facility level is: FCI = Deferred Maintenance + 2 Years of Capital Expenditure Current Replacement Cost Deferred Maintenance Refers to the accumulated value of normally required maintenance investments that have been deferred from prior years and are due. 2 Years of Capital Expenditures Refers to all repairs which have a project priority between 1 to 5, and have been identified and are planned for implementation in the next two years. Current Replacement Cost Is an estimate of the cost to replace an existing Asset comprised of like systems, with the same functional utility. FCAP Facility Condition Assessment Program. Funding Year Page 450 of 524 44 HC HSP The period commencing on April 1 and ending on the following March 31. This is the timeframe within which hospitals must expense the HIRF allocation. Hospital Corporation. Health Service Provider. LHIN Local Health Integration Network. This is a network that plans integrated funds and monitors local health care systems throughout Ontario consisting of 14 regions: LH1 - Erie St. Clair, LH2 - South West, LH3 - Waterloo Wellington, LH4 - Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant, LH5 - Central West, LH6 - Mississauga Halton, LH7 - Toronto Central, LH8 - Central, LH9 - Central East, LH10 - South East, LH11 - Champlain, LH12 - North Simcoe Muskoka, LH13 - North East, and LH14 - North West. Renewal Renewal refers to work done to extend an Asset's/System's useful life or improve its functionality. Renewal of an Asset can prolong the period of usefulness or enhance service potential. Service potential may be enhanced when there is an increase in the previously assessed physical output or service capacity, resulting in lowered associated operating costs, extended useful life of the Asset, and improvement of output quality. It includes upgrades that increase the service potential of an Asset (and may or may not increase the remaining useful life of the Asset). This type of expense should be reported as a capital expense. Requirement A Requirement is a facility need or a deficient condition that should be addressed, including deferred maintenance, code issues, functional Requirements, and capital improvements. A Requirement can affect an assembly, piece of equipment, or any other System. It is assigned a Category, Priority, and System for costs to be catalogued appropriately and a time frame for action assigned. Service Life/Useful Life/Repeat Interval Service Life/Useful life is defined as the estimated finite period over which a capital Asset is expected to be used. The actual life of a capital Asset may extend beyond its useful life due to good maintenance or under -utilization. Site Healthcare facility location. System A system is an assembly, finish, fixture, piece of equipment, or other component that makes up an Asset. Page 451 of 524 45 Uniformat Code Uniformat Code is a standard for classifying building specifications, cost estimating, and cost analysis. The elements are major components common to most buildings. The system can be used to provide consistency in the economic evaluation of building projects. The Application incorporates ASTM Uniformat II Classification, which provides a common structure linking the building program, specifications, and estimates. A table with a sample extract can be found on page 12 of this Training Manual. Page 452 of 524 46 I Ll- -%- MTE March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: C32688-508 Mr. Greg Donnell Facilities Manager Grand River Hospital 835 King Street W Kitchener, ON N2V 2135 Re: 2017 Designated Substance Audit Update of Former Men's Residence — Freeport Hospital 3570 King Street E, Kitchener ON 1.0 INTRODUCTION MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) was authorized by Mr. Greg Donnell of Grand River Hospital (GRH) to conduct an update to the Designated Substance Audit of the Former Men's Residence at Freeport Hospital located at 3570 King Street E in Kitchener, Ontario. At the request of GRH, the Pump House located adjacent (northwest) to the Former Men's Residence was also included in the assessment. The purpose of the audit update was to verify the presence of Designated Substances previously identified within the building and provide updates to meet the requirements of Ontario Regulation 278/05 and Section 30 of the Occupational Health & Safety Act (OHSA), in advance of demolition. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work for this assessment was completed by MTE and included the following activities: • Review of existing or historical reports and documentation pertaining to Designated Substances within the buildings; • Visual inspection of all accessible areas (with limitations) within the buildings and all accessible exterior finishes and elements to identify the following suspect Designated Substances and Hazardous Building Materials: o Asbestos; o Lead; o Mercury; o Silica; o Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) o Mould growth; and o Polychlorinated Biphenyls limited to fluorescent light ballasts. MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 Phone: 519-743-6500 Fax: 519-743-6513 www.mte85.com Page 453 of 524 1:1- MTE Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 2 • The following Designated Substances are not expected to be present due to the building use or in a form that is hazardous: Acrylonitrile, Arsenic, Benzene, Coke Oven Emissions, Ethylene Oxide, Isocyanates; and Vinyl Chloride; • Collection of bulk building material samples suspected to contain asbestos samples to meet the sampling requirements of Ontario Regulation 278/05; • Collection of paint scrape samples suspected to contain lead not previously sampled; • Submission of samples to an accredited and/or qualified laboratory; • Interpretation of laboratory results; and • Preparation of this report of findings and recommendations. 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA This audit was conducted by review of historical documentation pertaining to the Site, visual and laboratory identification methods for the assessment of materials outlined in Section 2.0 and their corresponding location, use, condition. Materials that are determined to be asbestos -containing materials (ACM) are further classified by their friability and condition. The areas outlined in Section 2.0 were inspected limited to building components, materials and service connections. Notwithstanding that reasonable attempts were made to identify all Designated Substances, the possibility of concealed substances and material exists and may not become visible until substantial demolition has occurred and therefore are currently undocumented. All work was conducted in accordance with industry accepted methods and MTE Standard Operating Procedures and did not include the following: • Locations that may be hazardous to the surveyor; • Locations concealed by building finishes that require substantial demolition or removal for access or determination of quantities; and, • Settled dust or airborne agents. 4.0 HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS REVIEW As part of this assignment MTE reviewed "Grand River Hospital, Freeport — Environmental Building Survey of the Former Men's Residence — 3570 King Street East Kitchener, Ontario" which was prepared by Frontline Environmental Management and dated February 2002. Review of this report indicated the following: Page 454 of 524 1:1- MTE 4.1 Asbestos -containing materials • Air-cell pipe wrap insulation; • Mag -Block pipe insulation; • Cementitious pipe joint, tee and elbow insulation; and • Tank Insulation. Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 3 Both plaster and rolled sheet flooring were sampled as part of the historical assessment in February 2002 and reported to be non -asbestos containing. Due to changes in the classification of asbestos -containing under Ontario Regulation 278/05 (0.5% asbestos by dry weight) these materials were re -sampled to meet the requirements for sampling and asbestos content. Friable asbestos -containing pipe insulation, pipe fittings and tank insulation had been removed as part of abatement in March of 2003. Records of this abatement have been included as an attachment to this report. 4.2 Lead • Sewer (sanitary) pipe gaskets (babbit). Samples of paint were collected to determine lead content and reported between 2,820 and 4,210 micrograms of lead per gram of paint by dry weight (pg/g). Under new lead guidelines (Environmental Abatement Council of Ontario Lead Abatement Guidelines) introduced in 2014, these paints would be classified as lead - containing. Additional samples of paint from the exterior of the Former Men's Residence were collected by MTE on March 8, 2017 to determine lean content as these materials had not previously been assessed. 4.3 Mercury • 17 Fluorescent Light tubes. No fluorescent light tubes were observed on site by MTE on March 8, 2017 and had been removed or have been destroyed due to the deteriorated condition of the building. 4.4 Polychlorinated Biphenys (PCBs) • 6 fluorescent light ballasts (Philips RT -140 -TPC) were identified as containing PCBs. Page 455 of 524 lMT Former Men's Residence ..-_ E March 16, 2017 MTE File No.. 32688-508 Page 4 No light ballasts were identified during the inspection on March 8, 2017 by MTE. 4.5 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) No UFFI was identified in the 2002 Frontline assessment. The report recommended inspections during demolition to determine the presence of UFFI in wall cavities. No UFFI was identified during the inspection by MTE on March 8, 2017. 4.6 Mould Mould growth was identified on surfaces throughout the building. Frontline recommended the completion of a mould survey and sampling event prior to demolition. A copy of the 2002 Frontline Report including abatement records from 2003 have been included in Appendix A. 5.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS An inspection of the building was conducted by MTE on March 8, 2017. Former Men's Residence The 2 -storey building was constructed at the turn of the last century and comprises approximately 160 square metres (1,725 square feet). The building has been abandon since the last assessment in 2002 and has deteriorated significantly due to water infiltration from the collapse of the roof structure and damaged windows. As a result of site conditions, only limited access into the building was attempted. Most wall and ceiling plaster had collapsed and was observed on the floor. Former Pump House The building was constructed at same as the Former Men's Residence and comprises approximately 9.2 square metres (100 square feet). The building is currently being used as a storage shed by GRH Freeport. Page 456 of 524 Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MT E _— MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 5 A summary of assessed building elements and the potential Designated Substance and Hazardous Material associated with them is provided below. Assessed Potential Designated Building Material or Composition Substance/Hazardous Element Material Concrete, concrete block Silica Exterior Roofing materials a er/felts/mastics/sealants None – installedost 1990 p Finishes/ Brick veneer and mortar Silica Structure Sealants Asbestos Wood soffits Lead in Paints Decorative trim Insulations Blown in cellulose None Thermostats Pneumatic Mechanical Parging on pipe fittings Systems/ (tees/elbows/valves/hangers/seams) Insulations Insulation on pipe straights Asbestos – Previously Duct insulation removed in 2003 Parging on fibreglass duct insulation seams Tank insulation Electrical Systems Light tubes, bulbs Mercury – None present Plumbing Systems Packing in pipe gaskets of sanitary lines Lead Vinyl sheet flooring Asbestos Floor Finishes Concrete Ceramic tile & grout Silica Terrazzo Page 457 of 524 1:1- MT E Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 6 Assessed Potential Designated Building Material or Composition Substance/Hazardous Element Material Wall Finishes Concrete Ceramic tile & grout Plaster Ceiling Plaster Finishes 5.1 Findings and Analytical Results Silica Lead in paints Asbestos Lead In paints Asbestos Lead In paints A copy of the 2002 Frontline Report is included in Appendix A. Laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix B. 5.1.1 Asbestos A total of 6 bulk samples of suspect ACM were submitted for asbestos analysis with a total of 6 analyses being performed. Bulk samples were submitted for asbestos analysis to Paracel Laboratories Ltd. (Paracel), in Mississauga, Ontario. Paracel is certified under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program to perform asbestos analysis of bulk samples. Laboratory analysis was conducted in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Test Method EPA/600-R-93/116: Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials, June, 1993 by Polarized Light Microscopy as prescribed by O. Reg. 278/05. Reported laboratory detections of asbestos ranged between non -detect and 1% Chrysotile. Page 458 of 524 lMT Former Men's Residence ..-_ E March 16, 2017 MTE File No.. 32688-508 Page 7 A discussion of ACM identified at the time of the inspection, is provided below. Friable ACM: Former Men's Residence: • Wall and Ceiling Plaster - S01 A reported 1% Chrysotile. Due to extensive water damage all plaster walls and ceilings are classified as friable. Potentially Concealed ACM: • Friable asbestos -containing pipe insulation is likely concealed in the mechanical tunnel located in the basement of the Former Men's Residence. Based on the type of building construction, the presence of vermiculite as loose pour insulation is not anticipated to be present concealed in wall cavities and invasive inspection was not warranted. No sources of asbestos were identified in the Puma House. Suspect or visually confirmed ACM must be deemed to be asbestos -containing and treated as if they contain a type of asbestos other than Chrysotile. Alternatively they may be sampled prior to disturbance to assess the presence of ACM. 5.1.2 Lead Lead pipe gaskets were visually identified in Main Floor Washroom and Basement in the 2002 Frontline report and are likely still present. A total of 2 paint scrape samples were collected from surfaces on the outside of the Former Men's Residence that were previously not sampled. Samples were submitted for laboratory analysis by ASTM D3335 -85A "Standard Method to Test for Low Concentrations of Lead in Paint by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry" following MOE Method E3470 Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry to Paracel Laboratories Ltd., in Ottawa, Ontario. Paracel is accredited by the Canadian Association of Laboratory Accreditation to perform bulk lead analysis of paint. Reported laboratory detections of lead ranged between 21,000 and 154,000 micrograms of lead per gram of paint (pg/g) and are both classified as lead-based under the 2014 EACO Lead Guidelines. Page 459 of 524 Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE _— MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 8 5.1.3 Mercury Mercury is typically used in building service applications such as fluorescent light tubes, compact fluorescent bulbs, metal halide (sodium halide) lamp bulbs, and neon lights as a vapour. Mercury may exist in thermostats and pipe or mechanical equipment thermometers as a liquid. Mercury is presumed to be present in the above materials. While mercury vapour -containing light tubes were visually identified in the 2002 Frontline report, no mercury -containing materials were visually identified by MTE on March 8, 2017. 5.1.4 Silica Silica is present in rock, stone, soil, and sand. Masonry products such as concrete block, brick, and mortar, as well as concrete and associated products contain silica. Due to its ubiquitous nature, silica was historically used in a wide variety of building materials and is still used today in new construction. The following building materials were identified and are presumed to contain silica: • Brick and mortar; • Cinder block and mortar; • Terrazzo (Former Men's Residence only); • Poured concrete; • Ceramic tile and grout (Former Men's Residence only); • Plaster (Former Men's Residence only); and, • Fill and hardscaping throughout the site. 5.1.5 Mould Building materials affected by water damage and suspect mould growth were assessed by surveyor recognition. Significant water damage and mould growth was identified on interior building materials throughout the Former Men's Residence. The source of water damage and appears to be chronic associated with repeated roof leaks and water infiltration in the Basement. All interior building materials were presumed wet at the time of inspection. Page 460 of 524 1:1- MT E 5.1.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 9 No light ballasts transformers, electrical capacitors or other suspect PCB -containing equipment were observed during the inspection of either the Former Men's Residence or the Pump House. 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations In accordance with Section 30 of OHSA and Section 8 of O. Reg. 278/05 the owner must provide a copy of this report to all contractors doing work at the building. The owner must also provide a copy of this report to all prospective contractors at the time of tendering any work at the building. Should any additional suspect Designated Substances be discovered during building renovation demolition, work in the vicinity should cease and the materials should not be disturbed until proper notification, testing and abatement instructions are provided. All waste generated as a result of any and all work at the Site must be handled, transported and disposed of in accordance with Ontario Regulation 347 made under the Environmental Protection Act and local by-laws. Based on the assessment findings and analytical results, the following abatement measures are presented. It should be noted that the recommended actions are the minimum required actions, as prescribed by the appropriate Acts, regulations, guidelines, standards, codes and general best practice measures. 6.1 Asbestos ACMs were identified in the Former Men's Residence during the assessment and must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the procedures prescribed by O. Reg. 278/05. At the time of the audit, all ACM at the building was noted to be in poor condition and action is required as part of the planned demolition. Based on the present condition of the Former Men's Residence asbestos abatement of plaster material prior to demolition may not be possible. As such special management, handling and disposal requirements apply for all building demolition work associated with the Former Men's Residence. Workers involved in the demolition of the Former Men's Residence are to follow measures and procedures for Asbestos Type 2 Operation (outdoor). Dust suppression including the use of amended water is strongly recommended. All asbestos work must be conducted by contractors who are trained and experienced in the type of asbestos operations required, and should be overseen by a qualified third party Health, Safety and Environmental professional. In order to conduct Type 3 asbestos operations, contractors must be certified as Asbestos Abatement Workers Page 461 of 524 1:1- MTE Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 10 AAW (Trade code 253W) and Asbestos Abatement Supervisors AAS (Trade code 253S) by The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (now the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development) as prescribed by Section 20 of O. Reg. 278/05. 6.2 Lead Lead-based and lead -containing paint, lead -containing pipe gaskets were identified as part of the 2002 Frontline assessment and sampling conducted by MTE on March 8, 2017 (Former Men's Residence only). As such special requirements for the management, handling and disposal of lead -containing materials by the owner, constructor, contractor, sub -contractors and workers apply. The abatement contractor should consult EACO's Lead Guideline for Construction, Renovation, Maintenance or Repair (October 2014) for the procedures and methods required to remove and dispose of lead -containing materials. Building finishes with the lead-based paint (window and door trim, soffits and doors) analysis of Leachable Lead according to Ontario Regulation 558/00, or they can be deemed hazardous. If determined hazardous, materials must then be manifested and disposed of off-site at a Ministry of Environment facility that is licensed to accept hazardous waste. 6.3 Mercury Based on visual observation no mercury -containing materials were identified. No special requirements for management, handing and disposal by the owner, constructor, contractor, sub -contractors and workers apply. If materials are found on-site crushing of mercury -containing materials should not occur. Care should be taken to ensure safe storage of the above until recycling or disposal can be coordinated. Under current legislation, mercury waste requires handling and disposal in accordance with Ontario Regulation 490/09 of the OHSA and Ontario Regulation 347 of the Environmental Protection Act. 6.4 Silica Silica is known to be present; therefore special requirements for management and handing are required. The contractor should also consult MOL Occupational Health and Safety Branch's Guideline: Silica on Construction Projects (April 2011) for the procedures and methods required to remove and dispose of silica -containing materials. Page 462 of 524 1:1- MT E 6.5 Mould Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 11 The Former Men's Residence is unoccupied and scheduled for demolition. If building demolition work is conducted from the exterior using heavy machinery, the removal of mould impacted building materials is not required prior to demolition. The following procedures are recommended during demolition work: • Dust control; • Provide air purifying full -face -piece respirator with N-100, R-100, P-100 particulate filter; • The washing of hands and face at on-site facilities; and • No smoking, eating, chewing gum or drinking in the work area. 6.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Based on visual observation no PCB -containing materials were identified. No special requirements for management, handing and disposal by the owner, constructor, contractor, sub -contractors and workers apply. If additional items are found it is the responsibility of the owner to inspect, or ensure the inspection of all light ballasts as they are removed from service to make certain they are properly classified as PCB -containing or non -PCB containing. Fixtures will require dismantling to access date stamps (located on the back of the ballast) in order to be correctly classified in accordance with Environment Canada's document "Identification of Lamp Ballasts Containing PCBs, Report EPS 2/CC/2 (revised), August 1991 ". Statutory Orders and Regulations (SOR)/2008-273, the PCB Regulations, made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, permits continued use of in-service PCB - containing light ballasts until the end of service life or until December 31, 2025. Page 463 of 524 1:1- MT E 6.7 General Recommendations Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 12 In accordance with Section 30 of OHSA and Section 8 of O. Reg. 278/05 the owner must provide a copy of this report to all contractors doing work at the building. The owner must also provide a copy of this report to all prospective contractors at the time of tendering any work at the building. Should any additional suspect Designated Substances be discovered during building renovation demolition, work in the vicinity should cease and the materials should not be disturbed until proper notification, testing and abatement instructions are provided. All waste generated as a result of any and all work at the Site must be handled, transported and disposed of in accordance with Ontario Regulation 347 made under the Environmental Protection Act and local by-laws. It should be noted that the recommended actions are the minimum required actions, as prescribed by the appropriate Acts, regulations, guidelines, standards, codes and general best practice measures. Page 464 of 524 d:1- MTE 7.0 LIMITATIONS Former Men's Residence March 16, 2017 MTE File No.: 32688-508 Page 13 Services performed by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Environmental Engineering & Consulting profession. No other representation expressed or implied as to the accuracy of the information, conclusions or recommendations is included or intended in this report. This report was completed for the sole use of MTE and the Client. It was completed in accordance with the approved Scope of Work referred to in Section 2.0. As such, this report may not deal with all issues potentially applicable to the site and may omit issues that are or may be of interest to the reader. MTE makes no representation that the present report has dealt with all-important environmental features, except as provided in the Scope of Work. All findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on site conditions, as they existed during the time period of the investigation. This report is not intended to be exhaustive in scope or to imply a risk-free facility. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based upon it, are the responsibility of such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for liabilities incurred by or damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken, based upon this report. Others with interest in the site should undertake their own investigations and studies to determine how or if the condition affects them or their plans. It should be recognized that the passage of time might affect the views, conclusions and recommendations (if any) provided in this report because environmental conditions of a property can change. Should additional or new information become available, MTE recommends that it be brought to our attention in order that we may re -assess the contents of this report. Yours truly, MTE CONSULTANTS INC. Martin Mielke, B.Sc., CRSP Technical Advisor mmielkeOmte85.com MJM: Attach. M:\32688\508\32688-508 - DSA Report - Former Men's Residence-Mar-16-17.doc Page 465 of 524 1:1- -%- MT E HISTORICAL REPORT APPENDIX A i Page 466 of 524 GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL, FREEPORT - ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING SURVEY OF THE FORMER MEN'S RESIDENCE - 3570 DING STREET EAST KITCHENER, ONTARIO Prepared for: Grand River Hospital, Freeport c/o 835 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1G3 Prepared by: Frontline Environmental Management Inc. 22 Frederick Street, Suite 910 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6M6 Reference 304-03 Page 467 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................11 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK..............................................................................................11 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................111 4.0 DESIGNATED AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REVIEW ....................22 4.1 Asbestos Containing Materials (AGMs)....................................................22 4.2 Lead............................................................................................................22 4.3 Mercury......................................................................................................22 4.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)...............................................................22 4.5 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI)............................................33 4.6 Mould .............. ....................................... , ......................... 3 5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION........................................................ 4 5.1 Mechanical/Electrical................................................................................44 5.2 Construction and Layout............................................................................44 5.2.1 Former Men's Residence...................................................................44 5.3 Transformer Survey and PCB Storage .....................................................444 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS....................................................44 7.0 LABORATORY RESULTS................................................................................55 7.1 Asbestos.....................................................................................................55 7.2 Lead............................................................................................................55 7.3 Mould.........................................................................................................55 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................66 8.1 Asbestos.....................................................................................................66 8.1.1 Non -Friable Asbestos......................................................................... 66 8.1.2 Friable Asbestos...............................................................................667 8.2 Lead............................................................................................................77 8.2.1 Lead Based Paint...............................................................................77 8.2.2 Lead Pipe Gaskets.............................................................................77 8.3 Mercury......................................................................................................77 Frontline Environmental Management Inc. TOC I February 2002 Page 468 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence 8.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)...........................................................88 8.4.1 Fluorescent Light Ballasts.................................................................88 8.4.2 Transformers......................................................................................88 8.5 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI)............................................99 8.6 Mould.................................................................................9 8.7 Locations and Estimated Quantities of Designated Substances ................99 9.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................99 Frontline Environmental Management Inc. TOC 2 February 2002 Page 469 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence TABLES Table 1: Results of Asbestos Analysis Table 2: Results of Lead Analysis Table 3: Results of Mould Analysis Table 4: Summary of Friable Asbestos Table 5: Estimated Quantities of Designated Substances LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Field Notes APPENDIX B - Site Photographs APPENDIX C - Laboratory Certificates of Analysis Frontline Environmental Management Inc. TOC 3 February 2002 Page 470 of 524 Reference 304-03 Grand River Hospital - Freeport 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pre -Demolition Audit Former Men's Residence Frontline Environmental Management was authorized by the Grand River Hospital (GRH) to conduct an Environmental Building Survey of the former Men's Residence at Freeport Hospital, prior to demolition. The Freeport Hospital is located at 3570 King Street East in the City of Kitchener, as illustrated in Figure 1. The audit is a requirement of Bill 208 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to identify the presence of any designated hazardous substances requiring removal in advance of demolition activities. This report presents the field observations and findings of the audit, together with the results of laboratory analysis and our recommendations for proper abatement activities. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Tasks relating to this study are as follows: • review of the required scope of work with Mr. T. Hasenpflug of GRH; ■ review of GRH policies and procedures for outside contracts working on the premises; site reconnaissance and room by room survey to confirm presence/absence of designated substances; ■ submission of samples to accredited laboratories for analysis; • photographic log; and ■ preparation of a summary report of findings. The report may be used by GRH, constructors and workers to meet the requirements of OHSA. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Freeport Hospital is bounded by King Street to the south, the Grand River to the north and east, and Morrison Road to the west. The Former Men's Residence is located on the eastern portion of the property between the main hospital and the Grand River. This building was historically used as a residence for male students and interns of Freeport Hospital. The construction, design and style of the building is consistent with the turn or the century. Since the 1980's, the building has remained essentially vacant, being used only for storage of seasonal and out -of -use furniture. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 1 Page 471 of 524 Reference 304-03 Grand River Hospital - Freeport Pre -Demolition Audit Former Men's Residence 4.0 DESIGNATED AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REVIEW The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) lists a number of designated substances that require special handling and removal procedures in accordance with governmental regulations. Many of these designated substances are present in building materials and are discussed below. 4.1 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) Asbestos was widely used during the 1950's and 1960's in the production of several building materials and is most commonly found in: • pipe insulation (elbows, joints, valves, tees and straight sections); • bulk insulation in walls and roofs; • ceiling tile; • acoustic ceiling and wall stucco; • vinyl floor tiles (primarily 225x225 mm or 9x9 in); • heating equipment gaskets and exhaust breaching; • fire retardant spray insulation; • fire retardant wall panels (transite); and • some drywall and mortar compounds. Asbestos in building materials was phased out in the mid 1970's. Possible asbestos containing materials (ACM) were surveyed and are discussed in Section 8.1. 4.2 Lead Historically lead and lead oxides were used as a drying agent and pigment base in oil paints. Lead was also used in roofing materials, tank linings, electrical conduits, piping, pipe gaskets and soft solders. The use of lead based paints began a phase out in 1976 and the federal government limited the amount of lead in interior paint to 0.5% by weight (or 5,000 ppm). Possible lead containing materials were surveyed and are subsequently discussed in Section 8.2. 4.3 Mercury Historically mercury has been used as a switch mechanism in thermostats and in the manufacturing of fluorescent light tubes. Possible mercury containing materials were surveyed and are discussed in Section 8.3. 4.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Polychlorinated Biphenyl, more commonly referred to as PCBs, were historically used in electrical equipment containing insulating fluids. The use of PCBs in electrical equipment was banned and began to be phased out in 1977. PCB are most commonly found in electrical equipment such as: Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 2 Page 472 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence fluorescent light ballasts; capacitors; and transformers. Equipment potentially containing PCBs were surveyed and are subsequently discussed in Section 8.4. 4.5 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation was commonly used as an injection insulation in building wall and floor cavities. Although not a designated substance as specified by the OHSA, UFFI is listed under Schedule 1 of the Hazardous Products Act, and therefore its manufacturing and use is banned under the Act. The use of UFFI was phased out in the early 1980's. Although the construction of the inspected building predates the use of such foam, UFFI may have been utilized in renovations or as additional insulation. Possible UFFI containing materials were surveyed and are discussed in Section 8.5. 4.7 Mould Fungi or moulds grow on suitable mediums; namely water damaged building materials. Many mould species are capable, under specific environmental conditions, of producing potent toxic chemicals called mycotoxins. These chemicals are present on the spores and the small fungus fragments that are released into the air when disturbed. Certain species of mould are infectious and opportunistically invade individuals with compromised immune systems. This is of particular concern in a hospital of health care setting. Care must be taken to protect such individuals form exposure to mould and construction/demolition related dust. Proper Infection control policies and procedures must be integrated into all aspects of such work. The occurrence and location(s) of mould growth in the building are discussed in Section 8.6. 5.0 BUILDING INSPECTION The building inspection was completed between January 17 and February 5, 2002 by Frontline personnel in accordance with the GRH requirements for outside contractors. The subject building was in use for storage of furniture and building materials on the main floor and basement levels. The findings of the building inspection are summarized below. Field notes provide the results of the room by room inspections and are provided in Appendix A. Several photographs were taken during the inspection, and are provided in Appendix B. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 3 February 2002 Page 473 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence 5.1 Mechanical/Electrical The building is serviced by municipal water supply and sewer systems. Heat is provided to the building by a network of insulated hot water pipelines which are connected to radiator units. The hot water supply is provided by a gas fired boiler which is located in the north room of the basement. 5.2 Construction and Layout 5.2.1 Former Men's Residence The former men's residence consists of a 3 level structure (basement, main and upper floors) with a peaked roof with exterior decorative brick and stone. The building is supported poured concrete foundation walls and footings. Load bearing wall systems are comprised of cinder block. At the time of inspection, rooms in both the basement and main floors were being used for storage of seasonal and out -of -use furniture, outdoor decorations and recycled brick. The upper floor, 2°d floor, was vacant at the time of inspection. All floors were unoccupied. Typical room finishes are comprised of painted plaster walls with painted plaster ceilings. The walls of the washrooms on both the main and upper floors are predominantly finished with ceramic tile; the remainder of the surfaces of these rooms are painted plaster walls and ceilings. Typical floor finishes consist of jute -backed linoleum flooring. Terrazzo floor finishes are present in the washrooms, stairwell and basement. Primary lighting throughout the building is provided by means of incandescent fixtures; fluorescent fixtures light the north and west rooms of the basement. 5.3 Transformer Survey and PCB Storage A survey of the electrical equipment conducted during the subject building inspection revealed the presence of one dry, non -PCB transformer located in the north room of the basement (ID #3143; Y2K). 6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS A total of 17 representative samples of various building materials were obtained for analysis during the inspection. Of the 17 samples collected, 7 were paint samples suspected of containing lead, 8 were materials suspected of containing asbestos, and 2 were submitted for mould analysis. Sampling of suspected Asbestos Containing Materials was conducted in areas that were accessible. Wetting of the sample area with water, using a hand sprayer, prior to and during sample collection was conducted in order to minimize the release of airborne asbestos fibres to the atmosphere. Sharp sample tools were used to ensure clean cuts and minimal disturbance of sample material. Sample tools were cleaned using distilled water and a damp rag before and after each sample collection to avoid cross contamination. Extreme care was taken to gently remove Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 4 February 2002 Page 474 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence the sample of material and seal it into a plastic sample bag. Duct tape was then securely fastened over the sample location to completely cover the exposed material. All sample locations were clearly marked on the individual inspection reports. Samples of suspected lead based paint were carefully collected and sealed in plastic bags. Care was taken, by surface wetting with water, to minimize the amount of dust and flakes produced during sample collection. Sample tools were also cleaned using distilled water and a damp rag before and after each sample collection to avoid cross contamination. With the exception of the mould samples, all samples were submitted to Lex Scientific Laboratory in Guelph, Ontario. Analysis for asbestos presence and characterization was completed by Polarized Light Microscopy, (PLM) and lead content determination by spectroscopy. Both mould samples were submitted to Dr. J. Klironomos, Professor of Mycology at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario for quantification and speciation. 7.0 LABORATORY RESULTS 7.1 Asbestos Asbestos fibres were detected in 2 of the 8 samples analyzed. Concentrations of asbestos fibres ranged from trace to 40% Chrysotile. Concentrations of asbestos equal to or greater than 1 % are constituted to be asbestos containing material and will require handling and disposal as such. The results of the laboratory analysis for asbestos are summarized in Table 1. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix C. A sample of wall plaster, FPH-M-WPV, taken from the the main floor reported no detection of asbestos fibres. 7.2 Lead The measured concentration of lead in paint ranged from 2820 µg/g (ppm) to 4210 pg/g (ppm). The Federal limit for lead-based paint classification is 0.5% by weight (or 5,000 ppm). Based on the results of this analysis none of the samples exceed the federal guidelines and as such will not require handling as lead paint. The results of the laboratory analysis for lead are summarized in Table 2. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix C. 7.3 Mould In the two materials and samples analyzed for mould, only one species was found in each. Penicillium chrysogenum was the species observed to be associated with the jute -backing of the linoleum flooring; Cladosporium herbarum was the species observed on the representative paint sample. These species, by presence alone, pose little concern to human health. However the significant extent of amplified growth that is present in the subject building (Penicillium chtysogenum, 140,000 colony forming units per centimeter squared; Cladosporium herbarum, 210,000 CFU per CM2), indicate the probability for high worker exposure, thereby dictating that the moulds must be properly abated in advance of demolition work. The results of the laboratory Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 5 February 2002 Page 475 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence analysis for mould species are summarized in Table 3. The laboratory Certificate of Analysis is provided in Appendix C. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on visual inspection and analytical results there are designated substances within the building which will require special handling and disposal prior to building demolition and renovation activities. These materials and removal requirements are summarized below. 8.1 Asbestos 8.1.1 Non -Friable Asbestos No non -friable asbestos containing materials were identified through the environmental inspection, sampling and testing. 8.1.2 Friable Asbestos Findings of the environmental inspection, sampling and testing have confirmed the presence of 4 types of friable ACMs within the subject building, namely: • Air-cell pipe wrap insulation; • Mag -Block pipe insulation; • Cemetitious pipe joint, tee and elbow insulation; and • Tank insulation. ACMs require removal from the subject building and work areas in accordance with Ontario Regulation 838/90 provisions prior to the demolition or renovation work. Therefore, the following abatement measures are recommended: 1. All asbestos should be designated as Type 3 operations in accordance with Regulation 838/90. All ACMs identified here including Tank insulation, Mag - Block pipe insulation, Air-cell pipe wrap and Cementitious pipe joint, elbow, valve, hanger and tee insulation should be removed within the Type 3 enclosure. Job specifications for the removal of asbestos should be prepared for tender purposes. We recommend inspections by qualified environmental engineering staff and air monitoring in association with asbestos work to ensure that work is performed in compliance with regulatory requirements, and the airborne asbestos fibres levels do not exceed permissible action levels. Friable asbestos containing materials were observed in the following areas: Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 6 February 2002 Page 476 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence Table 4: Surninary of Friable Asbestos Floor Room(s) Material(s) Basement West room Aircell Insulation Pipe Elbows Basement North room Aircell Insulation Mag -Block Insulation Pipe Elbows Tank Insulation Basement East room Aircell Insulation Pipe Elbows Basement South room Aircell Insulation Pi e Elbows INSPECTION AND MONITORING i) Inspections by qualified environmental engineering staff and air monitoring in association with the asbestos work is recommended to ensure that work is performed in compliance with regulatory requirements, and the airborne asbestos fibre levels do not exceed permissible action levels. 8.2 Lead 8.2.1 Lead Based Paint Sample analysis revealed that none of the paint containing lead exceeds the applicable Federal limit of 5,000 ug/g. As such, there are no special handling requirements, with regard to lead content, to be adhered to for the removal of the painted surfaces throughout the subject building. 8.2.2 Lead Pipe Gaskets Sewer pipe gaskets inspected in the basement (East room) of the subject building were observed to be lead. All sewer pipe gaskets should be managed in accordance with the OHSA Act Regulation 843 and disposed of in accordance to Regulation 347 prior to demolition. A suitable recycling option for the lead pipe gaskets may be utilized provided the recycler is approved by the MOE. Lead pipe gaskets were observed in the following areas: • Basement, south end of East room (observed); • Main floor, south end of washroom (anticipated); and • Upper floor, south end of washroom (anticipated). 8.3 Mercury Under Schedule 2(B) of Regulation 347, Mercury is characterized as a Hazardous Waste Chemical (B). Under current legislation mercury waste requires handling and disposal in Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 7 February 2002 Page 477 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence accordance with Regulation 844 of OHSA and Regulation 347. A small quantity exemption (SQE) of 5 kilograms per month for mercury waste is stipulated in Regulation 347. Based upon the inspection, the only observed sources of mercury would appear to be fluorescent light tubes. A total of 5 fluorescent light tubes were observed in the West and North rooms of the basement. The disposal of 17 four foot fluorescent light tubes of standard 40mm (1 '/z inch) diameter, or a total of 68 linear feet, per month is the maximum quantity that is allowed to be disposed of to regular landfill. Any quantity above the 17 tubes or 68 linear feet exceeds the SQE as defined in Regulation 347. For the purpose of managing the fluorescent light tubes during the demolition and renovation process, the following options are provided: i) Salvage and reuse of mercury tubes in lighting fixtures; ii) Recycling of collected tubes; or iii) Disposal of collected tubes to a hazardous waste landfill in accordance with Regulation 347. Salvage and reuse of the light tubes is recommended until their replacement during regular maintenance is required. Disposal of such tubes should be in accordance with Regulation 347. If reuse is not a viable option, the recycling of the tubes is the recommended alternative. Off site recycling of the fluorescent light tubes should be conducted by a recycler approved by the MOE. Transportation of intact recyclable tubes is recommended. On site crushing of tubes is not recommended due to the hazards of worker exposure to mercury vapour. 8.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) 8.4.1 Fluorescent Light Ballasts A survey of the fluorescent light ballasts within the subject building was performed as part of the designated substance audit to assess if they contained PCBs. Assessment of the fluorescent light ballasts was completed by visual examination. Five ballasts are present in the west room of the basement; one is located in the north room of the basement. The examined fixtures were manufactured by Philips shared the same model number. Referencing the model number with Environment Canada's guide "Identification of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Containing PCB's" (EPS 2/CC/2; April 1986) determined that the six ballasts inspected contain PCBs. Subsequently, they should be properly disposed of in accordance with Regulation 347. Off site management of the fluorescent light ballasts should be conducted by a recycler approved by the MOE. 8.4.2 Transformers One transformer was observed in the subject building during inspection. The inspected transformer within the subject building was observed to be dry and therefore does not contain PCBs. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 8 February 2002 Page 478 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence 8.5 Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) At the time of inspection, no UFFI was identified within the subject buildings. However, UFFI was used as an injection insulation within building wall and floor cavities and can remain hidden until demolition. We recommend periodic inspections of the buildings during demolition to assess the presence of any previously unidentifiable UFFI. Handling and removal of UFFI should be conducted in accordance with the OHSA Acts Control of Exposure to Biological or Chemical Agents Regulation 654/86. Use of engineered controls and/or proper personal protective equipment should be utilized to ensure exposure limits for formaldehyde do not exceed permissible levels. 8.6 Mould Mould growth was observed, through visual inspection, on all painted surfaces of the main floor, upper floor and stairwell area. Laboratory analysis confirmed significant mould growth on the jute -backing of the linoleum flooring present on the main and upper floors. The significant amplification of mould growth throughout the building requires that appropriate abatement measures are taken prior to demolition of the building to protect worker and patient health and safety. Proliferation of mould is highly dependent on seasonal conditions, winter being the least active season of mould growth. As demolition activities of the Former Men's Residence are not anticipated to commence until Spring or Summer 2002, the mould samples collected and analyzed here will likely not be entirely representative of the species and/or concentrations present in these warmer months. As such, Frontline recommends that a limited mould survey and sampling event be conducted immediately prior to the demolition contract being sent out for tender. 8.7 Locations and Estimated Quantities of Designated Substances Table 5 provides a listing of the locations and estimated quantities of designated substances identified through this study. 9.0 LIMITATIONS Services performed by Frontline Environmental Management Inc. were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Environmental Engineering & Consulting profession. This report was completed for the sole use of Frontline and the client. It was completed in accordance with the Scope of Work referred to in Section 2.0. As such, this report may not deal with all issues potentially applicable to the site and may omit issues which are or may be of interest to the reader. All findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed during the time period of the site investigation. This report is not intended to be exhaustive in scope or to imply a risk-free facility. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 9 February 2002 Page 479 of 524 Reference 304-03 Grand River Hospital - Freeport Pre -Demolition Audit Former Men's Residence Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based upon it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Frontline accepts no responsibility for liabilities incurred by or damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken, based upon this report. It should be recognized that the passage of time may affect the views, conclusions and recommendations (if any) provided in this report because environmental conditions of a property can change. Should additional or new information become available, Frontline recommends that it be brought to our attention in order that we may re -assess the contents of this report. All of which is respectively submitted, FRONTLINE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INC. Laura Schrumm Environmental Geoscientist Bruce Decker Environmental Engineering Technologist Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 10 Page 480 of 524 Reference 304-03 Grand River Hospital - Freeport FIGURES Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Pre Demolition Audit Former Men's Residence Page 481 of 524 11 ACM insulated ' Hot Water Tank - - - - - Approx. 30 ft. Service tunnel 41North Room Hole to • • • be sealed with plywood and caulking 6" IM 3gl3lock 41 41 West Room / Furniture and movable items Air-cell Insuli on to be HEPA vacuumed 4" and covered To Power House Prepared by: East Room Waste: Route to outside. - 8'cues to be HEPA Stairwell to be included in vae med and covered I enclosure South Room I 6" pipe (ACM insulation) LDemolition as required btain access to ACM _ 0 limaA 2 Hard Pack Joints and Transite NOTICE: Building contaminated with amplified mould growth and some animal fecal matter N - Approximate Asbestos Quantities West Room Air -Cell Insulation 100 M., 4" pipe 34 11. 6" pipe Pipe Elbows 20 Hard Pack Joints East Room Air -Cell Insulation 80 I.ft., 4" pipe Pipe Elbows 20 Hard Pack Joints North Room Air -Cell Insulation 55 I.ft., 4" pipe Pipe Elhows 30 Hard Pack Joints Mag -Block Insulation 8 I.ft. 6" pipe Tank Insulation South Room Air -Cell Insulation 6.6 I.ft. 6" pipe 8.5 l.ft., 4" pipe Pipe Elbows 5 Hard Pack Joints MENOMONIE FACM sulation s ion Date: February, 2003 N.T.S. Project: 304-07 Project Name: File: 304-07-02 Asbestos Removal, Basement Former Men's Residence, Freeport Drawn by: MJM INC. Asbestos Locations/Site Description Figure 2 rage 4b2 OT X24 Pi ,poi , d by q Tank Room Maintain access to this area• • for Freeport Staff Sink Approx. Location of flecon Shower Hosee--�� Construct Decon Shpwer .Faucet as close to the wall as possible HW Tank` I • 0 Floor Drain M • Pump House Garage Door To Men's Residence Building Date: February, 2003 N.T.S. Project: 304-07 Pwied Nacre: File: 304-07-03 Asbestos Removal - Power House, Freeport Hospital _ Drawn by: MSM Decon Shower/Site Description Figure 3 rage 427.3 or ZDL4 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence TABLES Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 484 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital — Freeport Former Men's Residence Table 1: Results of Asbestos Analysis Table 2: Results of Lead Analysis Sample H) Asbestos Content (%) Sample Sample II) Sample Location Material Sampled Status 3210 Chrysotile Amosite Other FPH-U-WPB FPH-M-LF Main floor hallway linoleum flooring - - - Passes FPH-M-CP Main floor ceiling plaster - - - Passes FPH-M-WPV Main floor wall plaster - - - Passes FPH-BI-CP Basement, west ceiling plaster - - - Passes room FPH-BI-PI Basement, west pipe insulation - - - Passes room FPH-B lP12 Basement, west pipe insulation 20% - - Fails room FPH-B2-TI Basement, north tank insulation 40% - - Fails room ceiling plaster FPH-B3-CP Basement, east room - - - Passes Table 2: Results of Lead Analysis Sample H) Material Sampled Lead Concentration (ug/9) Sample Status FPH-U-WPG Wall paint, green 3210 Passes FPH-U-WPB Wall paint, blue 4050 Passes FPH-M-WPB Wall paint, beige 3100 Passes FPH-M-MP Ceiling aint 2820 Passes FPH-M-WPG Wall paint, green 4210 Passes FPH-B3-WP 1 Wall paint 3940 Passes FPH-B4-WP Wall paint 2880 Passes Notes: 1. Method Detection Limit (MDL) = 1 ug/g 2. All samples analyzed were collected as bulk samples Table 3: Results of Mould Analysis Sample ID Material Sampled Mould Type Non -Viable Level of Impact cm CFU per Z FPH-M-MLF Linoleum flooring Penicillium chrysogenum 140,000 High Total 140,000 FPH-M-MCP Ceiling paint Cladosporium herbarum 210,000 High Total 210,000 Notes: 1. CFU refers to Colony Forming Units 2. Both samples analyzed were collected as bulk samples Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Tables February 2002 Page 485 of 524 Table 5: Locations and Estimated Quantities of Designated Substances Designated Substance Location Material Estimated Quantity Basement, West room Air-cell Insulation 100 I.ft., 4" pipe 34 I.ft., 6" pipe Pi a Elbows 20 HPJ Basement, North room Air-cell Insulation 55 I.ft., 4" pipe Pipe Elbows 30 HPJ Asbestos Mag -Block Insulation 8 I.ft., 6" pipe Tank Insulation 30 ft2 Basement, East room Air-cell Insulation 80 I.ft, 4" pipe Pi a Elbows 20 HPJ Basement, South room Aircell Insulation 6.6 I.ft, 6" pipe8,5 I.ft., 4" pipe Pipe Elbows 5 HPJ Lead Vertical shaft, south end Pipe Gaskets 10 gaskets Mercury Basement Fluorescent Light Tubes 5 tubes PCBs Basement Fluorescent Light 6 ballasts Ballasts Upper floor Painted walls, ceilings 4600 ft2 and surfaces Linoleum flooring 805 ft2 Mould Main floor Painted walls, ceilings 4600 ft2 and surfaces Linoleum flooring 750 ft2 Basement, South roomPainted walls, ceilings 350 ft2 and surfaces Page 486 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence APPENDIX A Field Notes Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 487 of 524 1%nnna 1 va A.0p,17.tVlEn 1 r URIVl Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario Asbestos r13'tenggenrenf Plan i ". 30W _ 03 PERMANENT RECORD DO NOT DISCARD FACILITY: Grand River Hospital: Freeport Hospital: 850 King Street: FLOOR: WING: QW ri s ROOM(S): Rn! ,me -I- 1,0► eoGe Type of Asbestos Abated and Abatement Action: Non -Friable: Floor Tile❑ Linoleum❑ Transite Panel❑ *Ceiling Tile❑ Roof Felts❑ Asbestos Cement Products ❑ Drywall Joints❑ Gaskets❑ Other Q Friable: Plaster[] Stucco❑ Pipe Joints❑ Pipe Insulation Boiler Insulation[ Fire Retardant ❑ *Ceiling Tile❑ Other 1 Location: Floor❑ WallsSK CeilingV OtherU details: Abatement Action: Cleaning❑ Repair❑ En psulation❑ Removal Was asbestos material replaced Yes❑ No34 Yes with what: Has MOL notice of project been posted at Site Yeso❑- } if Yes was copy obtained Yes o❑ MOL Notice of Project No.:. U -- HZ - QPM MOL Verbal Verification No.: c i oplB A.,-Q_:� Pre -Removal Enclosure Inspection *General Checklist Type l T12e 2 Type 3 Have washing facilities for hands and face been provided Was ACM wetted (with agent additive) before and during removal Are appropriate drop sheets and enclosure(s) being used (double flap doors) Was wetted asbestos waste removed frequently and at regular intervals from the work area Have all items been removed from work area or been covered with sheeting Waste containers cleaned with HEPA Vac/Damp Wipe prior to removal from enclosure Has signage been posted warning of asbestos hazard and restricting access Were drop sheets/enclosure wetted, folded and properly discarded during tear down Has mechanical ventilation been disabled and sealed m p0.„ered vtv+i►dHc— r„, r,.,siadry N Has negative air been applied to enclosure (exhausted through HEPA) Were all tools and equipment leaving the work area cleaned with HEPA Vac/Damp Wipe Has waste transfer room been constructed Were recycled drop sheets HEPA Vac/damp wiped before re -use (Type 1 only) Have worker decon chambers been constructed (clean & dirty change rooms, shower) Pressure Differential (Pa ❑ In we ❑) 1 dismal I *Air Exchanges Per Hour 4 minimum Date of Enclosure Insuection: Mn.- iH, n-7, Notes: stilt NMI- • •. • r s • f ■ R t • t. "i •.. ,� c.� . 11 1 4 a 11 1 a t' ■. w to [ f'.. a a.�' r< A � LYS _ � f� a !• ,.� RY K a _ c i Removal Procedures Inspection *General Checklist Type 1.Type 2 Ty e 3 Has visible dust been cleaned from work area before start or work Was ACM wetted (with agent additive) before and during removal Was wetted asbestos waste removed frequently and at regular intervals from the work area Waste containers cleaned with HEPA Vac/Damp Wipe prior to removal from enclosure Were drop sheets/enclosure wetted, folded and properly discarded during tear down Was "Lock Down"/sealant applied after final clean-up Were all tools and equipment leaving the work area cleaned with HEPA Vac/Damp Wipe Were recycled drop sheets HEPA Vac/damp wiped before re -use (Type 1 only) Date of Removal Inspection: Hard-% ,E. Q 3 Notes: BUL>,-kejr r-ei (�.2 i =e Hospital Representative:Yht 771777 Project Number: 7,044-0 "7- Page 1 of 2 * Indicates generality which may be subject to specific case and/or professional judgment. Page 488 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence APPENDIX B Site Photographs Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 489 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre-Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 1: Exterior of Former Men's Residence; west and south sides facing. Photo 2: Mouldy pipe insulation in west room of basement. Note two runs are asbestos - containing air-cell insulation. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 1 of 1 February 2002 Page 490 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 3: North room of basement. Contains four types of friable asbestos -containing materials (ACM) that will require abatement prior to demolition of the building. Photo 4: Hot water tank with asbestos -containing tank insulation on the exterior. Located in the north room of the basement. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 2 of 2 February 2002 Page 491 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 5: East room of the basement. Photo 6: Asbestos pipe insulation and cementitious joints in south room of basement, under stairwell. Frontline Environmental Management Inc, Page 3 of 3 February 2002 Page 492 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 7: Typical room on main floor. In addition to flaking paint, painted surfaces in most rooms are covered in mould growth. Frontline Environmental Management Inc Page 4 of 4 February 2002 Page 493 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 8: Extensive mould growth in and on the deteriorating ceiling and walls. (Main floor) Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 5 of 5 February 2002 Page 494 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 9: Main floor room with mouldy ceiling and walls. Linoleum flooring is present in all main floor rooms with the exception of the bathroom, stairwell and one residence room. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Page 6 of 6 February 2002 Page 495 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo 10: Stairwell area. Mould growth is present and visible on all painted surfaces. Frontline Environmental Management Inc Page 7 of 7 February 2002 Page 496 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre -Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital Photo I t : Typical example of mould growth on painted surfaces in the main and upper floors of the building. Note sporadic colony growth. Frontline Environmental Management Ina February 2002 Page 8 of 8 Page 497 of 524 Reference 304-03 Pre-Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence, Freeport Hospital rii Photo 12: Standing water in northwest room of upper floor. Photo 13: Upper floor room with significant mould growth on ceiling. Frontline Environmental Management Ina Page 9 of 9 February 2002 Page 498 of 524 Photo 1: Basement of Old Men's Residence prior to ACM removal. I Photo 3: Detail of insulated tank prior to ACM removal. Photo 4: Detail of tank after ACM removal. Prepared by Prepired for: Grand River Hospital Project Norne: Freeport Hospital Old Men's Residence Asbestos Removal Photo 2: Basement of Old Men's Residence after ACM removal and lock -down. Photo 5: Enclosure under stairwell after ACM removal Mar. 14-18, 2003 Project: 304-07 File: 304-07 Drawn by: MJM Photo age 499 of 524 Photo 1: Hydrostatic tank before ACM removal. Photo 2: Hydrostatic tank after removal and lock -down application (inside Type 3 enclosure). Photo 4: Detail of down pipe after ACM removed 3rd floor. Photo 3: Down pipe before ACM removal. Prepared by: Photo 5: Down pipe after ACM removal 2nd Floor inside Type 2 enclosure Prepared for: Grand River Hospital Project Name: Hydrostatic Tank Removal 2nd & 3rd Floor Power use Asbestos Removal Feb. 28 -Mar. 7, 2003 Project: 247-48 File: 247-48 Drawn by: MJM 10, Reference 304-03 Pre Demolition Audit Grand River Hospital - Freeport Former Men's Residence APPENDIX C Laboratory Certificates of Analysis Frontline Environmental Management Inc. February 2002 Page 501 of 524 • �•• �.- aaa vtu vLY J! OY Client: Frontline Environmental Contact: Laura Schrumm LrrA 6k.,IhAllklu INC Client Address: 22 Frederick St., Suite 910, Kitchener, ON Project Number: 08020123 444 Frontline -KW Friday, March 01, 2002 Sampling Date: N/A Client Reference: PO #304-03 Total Number of Samples: 8 Analysis was performed in accordance with the method outlined in the Regulation Respecting Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Building and Repair Operations - made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act Ontario Regulation 838/90 as amended by Ontario Regulation 510/92 and the EPA/600/R- 93/116 Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Euilding Materials. LEX Scientific Inc. is accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP 101949) by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for analysis of bulk rrtxterials,ftn asbestos. c Kim O'Neill, M.Sc., CChem. Laboratory Manager Client: Frontline Environmental �— ge: 1 of 3 Project Number: 08020123 ' Fibrous Asbestos Content% Other Materials Content % I LEX Sample #: 1 Chrysotile: None Detected Fibreglass: None Detected Sample #: 1 Sample Colour: Grey/Beige Analyst: ED Sample Condition Sealed Bag Comments: FPff - M - .LF Amosite: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected Other Amphiboles: ac=actinollte, a=anthophyllite, t-trcmollte, u --unidentified This test report relates only to the items tested PLM- method detection limit is 0.1% It is recommended that all floor the find vermiculite samples be analyzed EI►)<lAl Si using TEM y Glasswool: None Detected Rockwool: None Detected Cellulose: 10% Other: None Detected Non -Fibrous: 90% This tcrt report must not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the United States government. This test report must not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of the laboratory. Z00i Page 502 of 524 _ . - —L 1 Jla of4 a/04 LhA bUlhMIFI(; 1NG 444 Frontline -KW U002 Client: Frontline Environmental Page: 2 of 3 Project Number: 08020123 LEX Sample #: 2 Sample #: 2 Sample Colour: Analyst: Sample Condition Comments: LEX Sample #: Sample #.- Sample :Sample Colour: Analyst: Sample Condition Comments: LEX Sample #: Sample #: Sample Colour: Analyst: Sample Condition Comments; LEX Sample #: Sample #: Sample Colour: Analyst: Sample Condition Comments: Green/Grey ED Sealed Bag FPII - M - WPV 3 3 Yellow/Beige ED Sealed Bag FPH - B l -PI 4 4 Grey ED Sealed Bag FPH-B1 -PI2 5 5 Grey ED Sealed Bag FPH - B2 - TI Fibrous Asbestos Content% Other Materials Content % Chrysotile: None Detected Fibreglass: None Detected Amosite; None Detected Glasswool: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Rock -wool: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected Cellulose: None Detected Other: None Detected Non -Fibrous: 100% Chrysotile: None Detected Amosite: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected Chrysotile: 20% Amosite: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected Chrysotile: 40% Amosite: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected Other Amphiboles: acaactinniitc, a=anthophyllitc, t -tremolite, u=unideutified This tett report relates only to the Items tested PLM - method detection limit is 0.1% It is recommended that all floor file and vermiculite samples be analyzed Anal S1 using TEM This test report must not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of f test report must not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of the laboratory. )Fibreglass: None Detected Glasswool; None Detected Roekwool: None Detected Cellulose: 15% Other; None Detected Non -Fibrous; 85% Fibreglass: None Detected Glasswool: None Detected Roekwook None Detected Cellulose: 10% Other: None Detected Non -Fibrous: 70% Fibreglass: None Detected Glasswool; None Detected Rockwool: None Detected Cellulose: None Detected Other: None Detected Non -Fibrous: 60% Page 503 of 524 - -.- - i - viz v l v� I ZA allln1V11r 1L InU 444. i rontllne—lily tQ 003 Client: Frontline Environmental pa Project Number: 08020123 LEX Sample #: Sample #: Sample Colour: Analyst: Sample Condition Comments: LEX Sample #: Sample M. 6 6 Grey ED Sealed Bag FPH - M - CP 7 7 Sample Colour: Grey Analyst: ED Sample Condition Scaled Bag Comments: FPH - B1 - CP LEX Sample #: Sample #: Sample Colour: Analyst: Sample Condition Comments: Chrysotile: None Detected ri 3 of 3 None Detected Fibrous Asbestos Conte t% None Detected Other Materials Content % Chrysotile: None Detected Fibreglass: None Detected Amosite: None Detected Glasswool: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Roekwool: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected Cellulose: None Detected Other: None :Detected Non -Fibrous: 100% Chrysotile: None Detected Amosite: None Detected Crocidolite: None Detected Other Amphiboles: None Detected 8 Chrysotile: None Detected 8 Amosite: None Detected Beige/Grey Crocidolite: Now Detected ED Other Amphiboles: None Detected Sealed Bag FPH - B3 - CP Other Amphiboles: ac�---actiuolite, a=xuthophyllite, t -tremolite, u=nnideutificd This test report rel Fifes only to the stews tested PLM - method detection limit is 0.1 % It is recommended that all floor tile and vermiculite Kamples be analyzed using TENNI Analysl Fibreglass: None Detected Glasswool: None Detected Roekwool: None Detected Cellulose: None Detected Other: None .Detected Non -Fibrous: 100% Fibreglass: None Detected Glasswool: None :Detected Roekwool: None .Detected Cellulose: None Detected Other: None :Detected Non -Fibrous: 100% This rest report must not be used to elaim product endorsement by NV LAP or any agency of the United States government. This test report must not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of the laboratory. Page 504 of 524 UNIVER,STY YoGULPH COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE Department of Botany Date: Feb 13, 2002 To: Laura Schrumm, Environmental Geoscientist, Frontline Environmental Management, Inc. From: John Klironomos, Professor of Mycology, University of Guelph Samples received on Feb 6, 2002 Sample # # 304-03 - FPH-M-MLF #304-03 - FPH-M-MCP 0 John Klironomos Department of Botany University of Guelph Guelph, ON Canada, N 1 G 2W1 Fungal ID Penicillium chrysogenum Cladosporium herbarum Concentration CFU per 2) 140,000 210,000 GUELPH • ONTARIO • CANADA • NIG 2W1 • (519) 824-4120 • FAX (519) 767-1991 Page 505 of 524 01/30/02 WED 16:46 FAX 1 519 824 5784 LEX SCIENTIFIC INC 343 Frontline -KW 1Q001 January 30, 2002 solutions for a Working World ANALYTICAL REPORT Lead Analysis on Bulk Samples LEX File #: 08020161 Reference #: 304-03 Ms. Laura Schrumm Frontline Environmental Ltd. 22 Frederick St., Suite 910 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6M6 Dear Ms. Schrum, On January 25, 2002, LEX Scientific Inc. received seven samples of bulk material for lead analysis. The requested work has been completed and the results are contained in this report. If you have any questions about this report, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, r � s .aboratory Manager b J, CBierlt iaz, C/ . ; T. oject Scientist 2 Quebec 96reet, Suite 204 Guelph, Ontario NIH 27'3 Phone: 519.824,7082 Fax; 519.824,5784 Toll Free: 1.800.824.7082 e-mail: admin@lexscientific.com 1Febsite: WWW.lexscientific.com Page 506 of 524 01/30/02 WED 18:47 FAX 1 519 824 5784 LEX SCIENTIFIC INC 433 Frontline -KW 1002 Frontline Enviro[vnental. RESULTS Table 1: Results of Lead Analysis Sample Description Lead (n/g) 1 FPH - U - VVPG 3210 w 2 FPH - U - WPB 4050 3 FPH - M - WPB 3100 4 FPH - M - MP 2820 5 FPH - M - WPG 4210 6 FPH - B3 - WP 3940 7 FPH — B4 - WP 2880 MDL = 1 gg/g 08020161 Page 507 of 524 22 FREDERICK STREET SUITE 910 KITCHENER, ONTARIO CANADA N2H6M6 PHONE: 519.741.9011 FAX: 519.741.9323 www.onthefrontlines.com To: Chuck Meyer Grand River Hospital (519) 749-4223 From:Martin Mielke Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Date: 3/20/03 Re: Asbestos Removals for Grand River Hospital Freeport Old Men's Residence This letter is to inform the above interested parties of the status of asbestos removals within the Freeport (GRH) Old Men's Residence. Between March 14 and March 18, 2003 Mr. Martin Mielke and Bruce Decker of Frontline Environmental Management inspected the Type 3 removal of asbestos pipe insulation and tank insulation conducted by Woodhouse Contractors. Abatement of asbestos piping insulation and tank insulation has been completed within the Old Men's Residence in accordance to Ontario Regulation 838/90 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. On site air monitoring conducted by Frontline on Tuesday, March 18th 2003, and analysed by LEX Scientific reported concentrations of asbestos to be <0.013 fibers/cc within the enclosure. This concentration meets the Ontario Reg 837 time weighted average exposure value (TWAEV) of 0.1 f/cc. The work area was observed to be free of asbestos debris, thoroughly and diligently cleaned. Sealant was applied to the inside of the enclosure. No additional work is required or warranted at this time. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis, Photos, MOL visit report, and Inspection Sheets are attached. Sincerely Martin Mielke, B.Sc. Project Coordinator Bruce Decker, CCEP Manager, Building Health Sciences ONTARIO -MANITOBA -ALBERTA Page 508 of 524 03/19/03 WED 12:41 FAX 1 519 824 5784 LEX SCIENTIFIC INC 4-4 Frontline -RW 30L4-6 7 - -- Solutions for a Working World Client: Frontline Euvironmentnl Contact: Brace Decker Client Addreees: 22 Frederick St, Suite 910, Kitchener, ON Wednesday, March 19, 2003 Project Number: 08030533 Sampling Date: 03/182003 Client Refercuce: 30447 Total Number of Samples: 2 Analysis was performed in accordance with MOSH Method 7400. LEX Scientific Inc. partldpates k the CAEAL round robin program for fiber coundug in air_ Michael Hofbauer, B.Sc. Laboratory Manager Client: Frontline Environmental Project Number: 08030533 Sample #: I Field Diameter (sam): 0.089 Description: FPH-0MR B-ASf1V F1oW Rate (Umin): 4 Condition: Sealed Cassette Time (min): 120 Cas_ Size (mm2) 385 Volume (L): 480 Anslyst: - ED Fibers (MD1=10 fibers): 10 Fields: 100 Copun�tg; Scientist 1 of 2 Concentrttion. (FibaWcq) < 0.013 lM 001 2 Quebec Street, Suite 204 Guelph, Ontario NIH 2T3 Phone.- 519.824-7082 Fos- 519.824.5784 '1'011 Free: 1-800-824-7082 e-rnall: admin4lexscientific-corn Website- www.le.xscientific-com Page 509 of 524 03/19/03 WED 12:42 FAX 1 519 824 5784 LEX SCIENTIFIC INC Client: Frontline Environmental Project Number: 08030533 Sample #: 2 Fleld Diameter (mm): 0.089 Description: Lab blank Flow Rate (L/min): Condition: Sealcd Cassette Time (min)' Cas. Size (mm") 385 Volume (L): Analyst: ID Fibers (MDL --10 fibro): Comments: Blank - Pass 1iehis' 100 Frontline -KW 10002 Wage: 2 of 2 Concentration Mhewcc) i D X paPage(LE Ministry Of Labour Operations Occupational Division Health and Safety Premise/Project Name PIP ID Visit Date WOODHOUSE CONTRCITNG LTD 1044091 14 Mar 2003 Premise/Project Location 3570 KING WATE ON CAN WHIM Telephone Inspection Block JHSC Status Worts Force % Complete NOH NREQ 4 10 Assigned Staff Requesting Staff SIC Codes Case Type 299 BRENNER 4023 Contacted: PROJECT SUPERVISOR RANDY BARER Visit Purpose: ROUTINE INSPECTION Q Ontario Premise/Project Form Page 1 of 1 Case ID FV No_ 5148357 5035670 STC Notice ID Field Visit Type Close Assign dose Case INIT f1 ❑ visit Location ENTIRE PROJECT Summary or DISCUSSED REQUIREMENTS FOR ASBESTOS REMVAL AND DEMOIJTION Comments: Recipient J COMTRUG101014 snFETY OFFICER PROM ML onm%= OFFnFR Name 156 FRoorsHim M WATERLOO tav-xi 619 -03 -SM Title Fw* 619 663410" Worker Rewe%erAsOve -— I I�l� caxl Act m p SPY t in a --p'"O" fa"' prw+ae a copy sa rho health am safely Nota; YOU Am rmqulred under U- Occxipatlonai ¢M1" rapr�nertmtl+sa prod ttw rx]RInYt97e !f rev. YaL InVe tRb riph[ to Kid Wr V ordO wtlhin 3R d1l" of Sao dAD of tha urdar and to rnmxmt nuapnrwlen of an oxdEx by Hing your gppagt grit reg4�at in wr)dng on thin arP-Wiats frxrrrs w$h &m Ort" Labour Board try p►►on/ tib 3�7`� ar 1�UnSWt4 Am � f fro+)�or by m+ll Sri rsor i�mra�� by ttse 6uatd twfvrd tl+K miry cn that 3[1 cirY Fes• You rrwY fN6 0702 Fo mw wo sin xvati 6D on me B=13 wcbsr�. �s11G.17wwv/.D .ors.rs�lkaWokMsorne-rtrn Page 511 of 524 ze ' d _"uol Notice of Project -3 5 4 2 90 $ Ontario Ministry of ar 71 Labour The Occupations/ Health and Safety Ac>t rhe following Notice of Project �ogivesn pursuant to tj ire Regulations for Construction Projects, made thereunder. Print or type in BLOCK CAPITAL.$ Ind press hard (you are making copies). 5EE A441LING AND OTHER INSTRUCT1i7NS 01V THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS FORK 6 ( Pleass lcgep atiailable ar the project all treglsrratrurr us Cornsitractvrs and Ernployars Engaged in CanstructiOn F0r1m p 1000) for all employers Of workersorr the proiect. Type of Construction (Please check only ONE choice) Project information IAtwch map if necessary) sBEs-t�S Anticipated number of wnrkers on project. J0 1-5 ❑ 6-19 ❑ 20-49 [ ❑ New Construction ❑ Aheration ,Demolition ❑ Repair or Restoration Indicate the category which best describes the Project. Select ONE choice only. Rasildin s SdrVIC83 Additiditel Cgtr?�ane�CarfL. Residential t3uildin Single Farrtify Housing (incl detached. ❑ Commercial (4022) Hydroelectric Power Plants & ❑ related structures (except trans- ❑Cofferdam (4128)❑ ❑ Excavation - Grading (4214) semi-detached homes/cottages) - (401 1) ❑ Industrial (4021) rnlWon lines) includes dams, E] Ranine (4129) ❑ Apartment and Other Multiple Housing ❑ Institutional (4023) hydroelectric power, hydro- electric generating station (4123) [D Marine (4129) (incclLapartments, condos &townhouses) - !ldditionail CataQa ea C] Cable (4124) XLt_Y,rs[cr.; Removal -Type 3 (4211) (4012) [_1 H(4 storeys & above) El Shaft 4127) ( [:1 Hydro (4124) ❑ Gas (4124) ❑ Mining Plant J4119) L 1 Low Rise (3 storeys & less) D Tunnel (4126{ 4124 El Te ( ) E] Shipbuildm9 (327 1) Road Subway (4129) Elw ❑ Elecc.. Tone wer6/Trans. Lines (4124) ❑ Highway & Road Construction (4121) ❑ Caisson (4221) ❑ Water/Sewer (4122) EJ Asphalt Paving (4216) L-} Pipeline (4113) ❑ Well Drilling (4212) ❑ Bridge (412 1) ❑ Moving of a building/structure (4499) o9was that may be used, haled or disturbed by work on the project 1 See Section 30 of the OHS Act) lomat all designated eubstsr►ces end hesardoue physlul L] Lead ❑ Silica ❑ Vinyl Chloride Asbestos ❑Arsenic Ethylene! Oxide ❑ Isocyanates ❑ Merctuy Coke Oven Emissions f ] ❑ X -Ray E] Acrylonitrile ❑ Benrene — — Forrn laooa9) F7] I 1 I '_ If a diving operation is at this project, please complete the Notice for Diving Operations If a turin®I (including boring, sugaring or lacking) shaft. caisson or cofferdam is to be constructed at INS Project, please complete the Notice for Tunnels, Shafts, Caissons and Cofferdams- IF0 138) ` For trenching, use of cranes to lift workers (sect 153.1(11)) dismantling of multi -point suspended s�effoids. window cleaning and typo 3 asbestus removal operations, telephone or contact the MOL office nearest the project to notify the M.'inistry end to obtain your Notification Number Project Start Date Day , Month i Estimated Total Cost of Labour ... �.... �... �. �� ..�... ., �.......,.. ., slur av Asbestos Management Plan 3c)LA - Q } PERMANENT RECORD DO NOT DISCARD FACILITY: Grand River Hospital: Freeport Hospital: 850 King Street: FLOOR: WING: 0M Hws ROOM(S): F)angvnevtt _. Type of Asbestos Abated and Abatement Action: Nan -Friable: Floor Tile❑ Linoleum❑ Transite Panel❑ *Ceiling Tile❑ Roof Felts❑ Asbestos Cement Products ❑ Drffall Joints❑ Gaskets❑ Other CY Friable: Plaster❑ Stucco❑ Pipe Joints❑ Pipe Insulation Boiler Insulation- Fire Retardant ❑ *Ceiling Tile❑ Other C1 _Location: Floor❑ Wails Ceilin OtherEt details: Abatement Action: Cleaning❑ Repair❑ EngapsulationO Removal Was asbestos material replaced Yes❑ NIf Yes w what; Has MOL notice of project been posted at Site Y'eso❑--+ If Yes was copy obtained YeSD400 MOL Notice of Project No.: 03-��Z- 9a�_ _MOL Verbal Verification No.: 6 ODS _ tv.•r�RQmn�tal Fnelncure lncnection *General Checklist Type I Type 2 Type 3 Faeshing facilities for hands and face been provided ropriate drop sheets and enclosure(s) being used (double flap doors) l items been removed from work area or been covered with sheeting age been posted warning of asbestos hazard and restricting access hanical ventilation been disabled and sealed no po--a, c iiiVeek . 41w�M i n Native air been applied to enclosure (exhausted through NEPA)te transfer room been constructedorker decon chambers been constructed (clean & dirty change rooms, shower) e Differential (Pa ❑ In we ❑) Vii ,at *Air Exchan es Per Hour 4 minimum i • •.a ■ •.WIMAN • w ' . • .yyr a 1 a • .�a n e.i 9161 rwMA WPM= MairrOM u +.l• + Al sr _ C" a MIMa�:* �! • i� Lw w. •. �. i. a • t_ ^_O r A M alI _ • rw,a • t• v •" xw•: ■ Do..•r•vml PrnroAnrvc Inenprtinn *General Checklist Type 11 Type 2 T e 3 Has visible dust been cleaned from work area before start or work Was ACM wetted (with agent additive) before and during removal Was wetted asbestos waste removed frequently and at regular intervals from the work area Waste containers cleaned with HEPA Vac/Damp Wipe prior to removal from enclosure Were drop sheets/enclosure wetted, folded and properly discarded during tear down Was "Lock Down"/sealant applied after final clean-up Were all tools and equipment leaving the work area cleaned with HEPA Vac/Damp Wipe Were recycled drop sheets HEPA Vac/damp wiped before re -use (Type 1 only) Date of Removal Inspection: Hayck, to o 3 Notes: BlInJ '� r Hospital Representative: 1(E ieA __ ProjectNumber. :' ' I -D Page 513ft680f 2 * Indicates generality which may be subject to specific case and/or professional judgment. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT FORM Grand River Hospita4 Kitchener, Ontario Asbestos Management Plan PERMANENT RECORD DO NOT DISCARD Abatement Contractor Information Contractor Name: +nuc �n Address: 22 wtu&Pn Ai;e City: Ki1�l�ey�r Province: Otl Postal Code: IN z G '3M T Phone: 5% Fax: (s g) 74 3 - Z(n 3n Approximate Duration of Removal: _ 5 r wla Was Air Monitoring Performed Yqo❑-_> If Yes by Whom: l3. C12.r-ker Results of Air Monitoring (Occupational Health & Safety TWAEV 0.1 fibers/cc) Sample Name: EPH - Concentration: Status: %5s Sample Name: _ b Concentration:_ Status: Sample Name: Concentration: Status: Talo. as baru la ►+� c �cc1~51sr'++� vhc aid i n b: l i I d i>,`cT ILLUSTRATION OF AREA I��ix ��; Ycluw� sn.n� R'EAR BoKa( E,Vmvw e i - - � r•. [zd�„ Wtndo�.�, ilea y R �ro;h wig may. P� JUrn�Q 2( ,L r CIC" ! spPau hEPA 0 { VGA - demo - GA -demo - 0 i pdocrs QMH-"ar r i - x+011 I — iJ 'f-.,tAl�il Smhll -•7� air 11 I � v..1•�+�1, JR4 U�[{ - - � Fn4tRv�i � _ =J • ..a.re�w�. •• Ld. i.� 1 �k [j semi ^ y FRS A� exhuu5t rn v3ctre+i rq `ai�n \ 1,,v v a+ w3i Asti +, 102 P N+r+-aG} at Wa --Ir dove � ! ! 0 LWAq. �=RRII V l K - - • Page 514K*eEi26Jr2 Eo ' d 14101 Ministry of Notice of Project 3 5429081 Ontario Labour The Occupational Health and Safety Act °rMOL° n The following Notice of Project is given pursuant to the Regulations for Construction Projects, made thereunder. Print or type in BLOCK CAPITALS and press hard (you are making S copies). SEE M41LJIVG AND OTHER IIVSTRUcTIt?NS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS FORM. 6 Dog A-�� Constructor � -116-i Licence No. (MCC ,S.I.B 11 i Z'V L►+ � • - �j , Postal Code Fax No, W.S.I.B. Rate supervisor in chs ge of pro' ct n P/easa keep available at the projact ON Registration of Constructors and ,Employers Engaged in Construction Forms p 1000) for all employers of workers on the project. owner of Project arae Coda ,t Telephone No: �s t et ) �'"l T +ti r Project Information (Attach map hr necessaryi Street Name & No. SLOT && Plan fl jj TTownn1/CCCiit'[y'��orr Township County Postal Code A -r ef"-- pp o...:.,,.. r.,ia.,►..,,,e ni., Anticipated Duration of L fin escription at Yrolect Anticipated number of workers on project: (specify number) 1.5 ❑ 6-19 ❑ 20-49 ❑ 50 and over Address . Type of Construction (Please check only ONE choice) ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ,Demolition ❑ Repair or Restoration Indicate the category which best describes the Project. Select ONE choice only. Residential Build'rn Ouildintas $e-fvicss Additiyrtal Cate ariealCont. ❑ Single Family Housing (inci. detached, ❑ • Commercial (4022) ❑ homes/cottages) - (401 1► ❑ Hydroelecu;o Power Plants & related structures (except trans- ❑ Cofferdam (4128) ❑Excavation -Grading (4214) semi-dett+ched Industrial (4021) nustr mission lines) includes dams, ❑ Railway (4129) ❑ Apartment and Other Multiple Housing. ❑ Institutional (4023) hydroelectric power, hydro- electric generating station (4123) © Marine (4129) (incl. apartments, condos & townhouses)-- (4012) Additional Categories 0 Cable (4124) Asbestos Removal - Type 3 (4211) ❑ High -Rise (4 storeys & above) ❑ Shaft (4127) ❑ Hydro (4124) ❑ Mining Plant (41 19) ❑ Low Rise (3 storeys & less)❑ ❑ Tunnel (412Ci) LJ Gas (4124) Telephone (4124) ❑ Shipbuilding (3271) Road El Subway (4129) ❑ Elec. Towers/Tram, Lines (4124) ❑ Highway & Road Construction (412 1) ❑ Caisson (4221) ❑ Water/Sewer (4122) ❑ Asphalt Paving (421 B) ❑ Pipeline (4113) © a (4121) Bridge g [J ❑ Well Drilling (4212) Moving of a building/structure (4499) List all designated eubstaiir;€iz and hazardous physical agents that may be used, handled or disturbed by work on the project_ (Seo Section 30 of the OHS Act.) ID Vinyl Chloride Asbestos ❑ Arsenic F-1EthyleneOxide ❑ Lead ❑ Mercury ❑ Silica ❑ Cake Oven Emissions ❑ X-RaY Acrylonitrile [] Benzcna ❑ Isocyanates If a diving operation is at this project, please complete the Notice for Diving Operations Form. (41`00139) If a tunnel (including boring, angering or jacking) shaft, caisson or cofferdam is to be constructed at this Project, please complete the Notice for Tunnels, Shafts, Caissons and Cofferdams. (*0068) 5. window and For trenching, use of cranes to lift workerr contact tic MOL office nearesting fthe (project to noify the Med inist y and t obtain your N t fpc tion Number asbestos removal operations, telephoe 3 ne o Project Start Date Project End flats Day Monttr Year Da Month fi er Estimated Total of Labour $ V and Materialsforr the Project: JODI position or Title Date Signed Signature of pan Official Prl t Name De Month Year .S P �.�.V T's o� t E01E0 ' d 029E 2bL GTS Ql1 ON I iDlzl IlN00 3Sf10H000M 7-0:9T 200E—bti—i HW 1:1- -%- MT E APPENDIX B LABORATORY CERTIFICATES OF ANALYSIS Page 516 of 524 (o'P A R A C E L LABORATORIES LTD. MTE Consultants Inc. (Kitchener) 520 Bingemans Centre Dr. Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 Attn: Aisling Dennett TRUSTED. RESPONSIVE. RELIABLE. Certificate of Analysis 15 - 6800 Kitimat Rd Mississauga, ON, L5N 5M1 1-800-749-1947 www.paracellabs.com Client PO: Report Date: 13 -Mar -2017 Project: 32688-508 - Freeport Former Mens Residence DSA Custody: Order Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Order #: 1710431 This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: ParacellD Client ID 1710431-01 S01A-Plaster 1710431-02 S01 B -Plaster 1710431-03 S01C-Plaster 1710431-04 S02A-Sheet Flooring 1710431-05 S0213 -Sheet Flooring 1710431-06 S02C-Sheet Flooring Emma Diaz Approved By: - Senior Analyst Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work. Page 517 of 524 Page 1 of 2 06PARA C E L Order #: 1710431 Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 13 -Mar -2017 Client: MTE Consultants Inc. (Kitchener) Order Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Client PO: Project Description: 32688-508 - Freeport Former Mens Residence DSA Asbestos, PLM Visual Estimation **MDL - 0.5%** Paracel LD. Sample Date Layers Analyzed Colour Description Asbestos Detected- Material Identification °o Content 1710431-01 08 -Mar -17 sample homogenized Beige Plaster Mess Client ID: SO1A-Plaster Chrysotile 1 Non -Fibers 99 1710431-02 08 -Mar -17 Chent ID: S01 B -Plaster not analyzed 1710431-03 08 -Mar -17 Client ID: S01C-Plaster not analyzed 1710431-04 08 -Mar -17 sample homogenized Brown Sheet Vinyl Flooring No Client ID: S02A-Sheet Flooring [AS -PRE] Cellulose 15 Non -Fibers 85 1710431-05 08 -Mar -17 sample homogenized Brown Sheet Vinyl Flooring No Client ID: SUB -Sheet Flooring [AS -PRE] Cellulose 15 Non -Fibers 85 1710431-06 08 -Mar -17 sample homogenized Brown Sheet Vinyl Flooring No Client ID: S02C-Sheet Flooring [AS -PRE] Cellulose 15 Non -Fibers 85 "" Analytes in bold indicate asbestos mineral content. Analysis Summary Table Analysis Method Reference/Description Lab Location NVLAP Lab Code * Analysis Date Asbestos, PLM Visual Estimation by EPA 600/R-93/116 1 - Mississauga 200863-0 13 -Mar -17 " Reference to the NVLAP term does not permit the user of this report to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or any agency of the Federal Government. Qualifier Notes Sample Qualifiers: AS -PRE: Due to the difficult nature of the bulk sample (interfering fibers/binders), additional NOB preparation was required prior to analysis Work Order Revisions / Comments None OTTAWA CALGARY M I S S I S S A U G A KINGSTON LONDON NIAGARA S A R N I A 1-800-749-1947 www.paraceIIabs.corm Page 518 of 524 r Page 2 of 2 OoP ARA C E L Head Office TRUSTED, 30()-2319 5t Laurent Blvd RESPONSIVE. Ottawa. Ontana K1C 4J8 1-800.749.1947 RELIABLE. paraceleparacel labs con, Chain ofCustodv (Lab Use (hdy) 1'a0e �I I Client Name MTE Consultants Projccl Rcfcrenu. 3268008 Freeport Farmer Men's Residence DSA Turnaround Time: 13 Immediate ❑x 1 Day 0 a Hour Q ? Day 0 8 Hour 0 3 Day a Regular Dille IZeLiuired: Contact Name Aisling Dennett Quote 4: Address 520 Bingenrus Center Dr Kitchener ON N2B7X9 PO4 Email Address: mmielkediimtea5 cmadenneu r la&85 com T&phonei14-711-0110cgt 131S ASBESTOS & MOLD ANALYSIS Matrix: []Air Oulk []Tape Litt 11 Swab ❑other Regulaton' Guideline: Required Analyses: []Microscopic Mold ❑Culturable Mold ❑Bacteria GRAM PCM x PLM ❑Chatfield [ITEM Paracel Order Number: (7 ! Sampling Sample ID Date Asbestos - Bulk Air Positive If lavercd. Describe Laver(s) to bc, Is the sampir sampleVolume Analysis Stop? Lncered' Anulvied SeParulely or (L) Required Matrix Description (YIN) (YIN) llomogeniae all I SOLA Plasia Mar R -I' PLM Plaster N '- S0113 Plaster Mar -8-17 PLM Plaster N 3 SOIC Plaster Mar -8-17 PLM Plaster N N a S02A -Sheet Flooring Mar -8.17 PLM Brown Sheet Flouring y N S02B - Sheet Flooring Mar -8-17 PLM Brown Sheet Flooring 5 N t, S02B - Sheet Floonng Mar -8-17 PI.M Brown Sheet Flooring N 1 1i 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 'Each lover will be analwvd and rhargcd separnick "Homogenize= All Imers are blended into a single uniform sample. Comments: Method CUebvcr% Relinquished By (Si Rc xrvW at Wpm Received nl Lab'. Venfied Bv: f Relinquished By (Pnntl Martin Mic ke I?atcTf uric Dal "Time. «�1 � � � DaterTune Duteirime- Mar -9-17 I 100 AM Chain of Custody (Asbestnsl - Rey 0 5 Jan 2016 Page 519 of 524 (e'PARACEL TRUSTED. 300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd Ottawa, ON, K1G418 RESPONSIVE. 1-800-749-1947 LABORATORIES LTli RELIABLE, www.paracellabs.com Certificate of Analysis MTE Consultants Inc. (Kitchener) 520 Bingemans Centre Dr. Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Attn: Aisling Dennett Client PO: Project: 32688-508 - Freeport Former Mens Residence Report Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Custody: Order Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Order #: 1710422 This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID 1710422-01 LP01-Exterior White Trim Paint 1710422-02 LP02-Exterior BrownTrim Paint Approved By: f� Mark Foto, M.Sc. Lab Supervisor Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work Page 520 of 524 Page 1 of 3 ( PARACEL Order #: 1710422 Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Client: MTE Consultants Inc. (Kitchener) Order Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Client PO: Project Description: 32688-508 - Freeport Former Mens Residence Analysis Summary Table Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date Metals, ICP-OES based on MOE E3470, ICP-OES 10 -Mar -17 10 -Mar -17 Sample Data Revisions None Work Order Revisions/Comments: None Other Report Notes: n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Limit Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference. OTTAWA CALGARY M I S S I S S A U G A KINGSTON LONDON NIAGARA S A R N I A 1-800-749-1947 www.paraceIIabs.com Page 521 Of 524 Page 2 of 3 06PA RAC E L Order #: 1710422 Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Client: MTE Consultants Inc. (Kitchener) Order Date: 10 -Mar -2017 Client PO: Project Description: 32688-508 - Freeport Former Mens Residence Sample Results Lead Matrix: Paint Sample Date: 08 -Mar -17 Paracel ID Client ID Units MDL Result 1710422-01 LP01-Exterior White Trim Paint ug/g 20 154000 1710422-02 LP02-Exterior BrownTrim Paint ug/g 20 21000 Laboratory Internal QA/QC OTTAWA CALGARY M I S S I S S A U G A KINGSTON LONDON NIAGARA S A R N I A 1-800-749-1947 www.paraceIIabs.com Page 522 of 524 Page 3 of 3 Reporting Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes Matrix Blank Lead ND 20 ug/g Matrix Duplicate Lead ND 20 ug/g ND 0.0 30 Matrix Spike Lead 239 ug/L ND 95.4 70-130 OTTAWA CALGARY M I S S I S S A U G A KINGSTON LONDON NIAGARA S A R N I A 1-800-749-1947 www.paraceIIabs.com Page 522 of 524 Page 3 of 3 (@'PARACEL "0jeel Reference 32$68.5U Freeport Former Men's Rasftm TAT �iegular �31�y, �2 bar Ill Uer oars Aqu1rcd TRl1STEU, Qw tell Address 54 @w9 mons Celue Ohre Winat ON 442aaxaFnaiul pq p RESPONS1ti LABORATORIES t rllerre EU. Rcr I531As Awn;lu0 liblc _ EUC Hing ®fl. Rra 538,111! QI'1l'QU [](.'CML []SU11 fSvrni) E]SUB l'krnrlan l Mueicipa.11ly: u Ullhr LTD. RELIABLE. OTTAWA , KINGSTON s NIAGARA • MJSSISSAUGA • SARNIA Paracel aIIINIISNIN0IVII�ININIIa wwwparwellal e.com t 4:1 ill of ('[wild} h1kir iiJ, Parc r of i cliam Nerve• MTE crosuhs rs "0jeel Reference 32$68.5U Freeport Former Men's Rasftm TAT �iegular �31�y, �2 bar Ill Uer oars Aqu1rcd Con laellmnt Ruling Pennell. Marlin Mielke Qw tell Address 54 @w9 mons Celue Ohre Winat ON 442aaxaFnaiul pq p rVddret� adeniteltigmteMcarrl, mmielkesanleEcom lrlr,,'a,r' 519.74a.85M t rllerre EU. Rcr I531As Awn;lu0 liblc _ EUC Hing ®fl. Rra 538,111! QI'1l'QU [](.'CML []SU11 fSvrni) E]SUB l'krnrlan l Mueicipa.11ly: u Ullhr Millrn'rxllc:5(Sdu6'Scd.l GWl6wural1�3kri'w1suilucu34'11n) 5,5{51uim5rmlLmv%)rrl 1'11'.un'1 &{Air1 Mffi aj Requir'MlAnn iyso Pimeei Girder Kober: Y � 4 � Sample Taken c C Sample 11M,orarion Name [late Tilllc 1 LP01 • Ealerior Nhlite Trim Painl t Mar -6-17 $:30 PM El ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 LP02 •Extemr &owe Trim Paint P Mar•9•17 2:30 PM ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ J I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ri F-1 ❑l❑�❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ l—I❑❑❑❑❑ 7 ❑❑❑Ll❑❑❑ II ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑ 19 E:1❑ 1::1 ED I[:] ❑ ❑ CL11nlrenrS; tlstlrr a1'11s' vol Rcllaquished By (Si$A Efe oml, Iry 1kiTOP Ih'IN'l maw ll u6 4 _ ` 4 1 L r3 `1 Voli fired I{4 /. Relrngershed Illi i'I'r n1I Mamil Mielke P;Iwhillc l7arl'ffiw. >� N#7al itc:'lln't' } Dllerl'1n.e Mar -9.171 t AM ]'pnpecal8n;, C Cc nper,dure 'G hit Vr'r,lU l; liy: J A, Chain 4 CuAody (Dank) - Rew 0.1 Wrch 20145Y Page 523 of 524