More than three months after the team tasked with the removal of asbestos from the University of Guyana submitted a report, which included how much it would cost, it is still awaiting word from the Ministry of Education, its head Melvyn Sankies said on Thursday.
Contacted by Stabroek News, Sankies said he did not know whether the ministry might have responded to Vice-Chancellor Dr James Rose, but the technical team, which he heads is still awaiting word.
He said the team estimated the cost for the removal and replacement of material from the affected buildings at the university at some $200 million. He said some persons had suggested that the material be covered instead of removed and replaced as this would be a much cheaper exercise.
However, he said his team opted for the removal and replacement process, since covering the material would mean that the problem would remain and be a problem in the future.
Sankies had also proposed that persons work through some weekends, with his team supervising, at the university doing what is known as “rendering” which is really closing up the damaged parts of the asbestos-affected areas to make the buildings safer until the dangerous material was removed. However, when the proposal was submitted, the bursary bluntly refused to release any money for payment. Sankies said that all they can do now is wait. In August, the university had announced that test results on material taken from buildings at UG had shown that many of the samples contained more than trace amounts of asbestos and a decision had been made for the urgent removal of all ceilings with the dangerous fibrous material.
The UG release had said that Canadian laboratory, Resource Environmental Associates Limited (REA) to which some 131 samples were sent for testing had found that “many of the samples contain more than trace amounts of asbestos.”
The samples were taken from the older buildings that were built since around 1968, and these include the Faculties of Technology, Natural Sciences, Humanity, Health, Social Sciences, the library and the cafeteria.
In examining the report, the team headed by Sankies, had indicated that two types of asbestos (amosite and chrysotile) had been found mainly in the ceiling and except for two panels, the walls did not contain asbestos.
According to the release, the team had recommended the removal of all ceilings containing asbestos and this was to be done in phases for better control and management of the material, as well as to minimize the threat to the health of staff and students.
Head of the Department of Business and Management Studies Hector Edwards had told this newspaper that staff members were upset at the length of time the administration had taken to respond to their concerns. It took more than three weeks after a letter was written to the administration on the issue before a response was received.
Edwards had said that the asbestos problem in the building was first noted in the 80s and he had seen a 1998 report in which the university was urged to take action on the issue. He had said that report came from the Ministry of Labour and there were earlier reports done, therefore the issue was not new to the university community. He said that the matter was raised again in 2005 but nothing was done.
In an earlier release, the university had stated that while it acknowledged that asbestos posed a risk it was “ill-advised to make public statements about (any) cause of death or illness without any proper evidence to establish this.”
UG, however, had stated that it was not waiting for any “dire eventuality” as it was taking precautionary and preventative measures.
It had also indicated its willingness to implement the recommendations of the experts pending the eventual removal of all material with asbestos components from the campus.
Asbestos is defined as a group of impure magnesium silicate minerals, which occur in fibrous form. Asbestos fibres are tiny and are therefore easily breathed in.
They do not dissolve and will remain in the lung for a very long time.
While chrysotile is dangerous, amosite is said to be 100 times more dangerous and both can cause illnesses when inhaled.
