New document reinforce that Science Centre closure was not supported by engineers

New documents, obtained by Canadian Architect through a freedom of information request, appear to indicate that Rimkus—the structural engineers hired to assess the Ontario Science Centre’s roof before its closure—did not support closing the Centre for public safety reasons.

The draft versions of the report instead recommend regular, routine maintenance to the roofs over the course of the coming 20 years.

When read in conjunction with correspondence preceding the closure obtained by Global News, it seems likely that the engineers were pressured by the government to produce a report that would support the shuttering of the Ontario Science Centre. However, such a recommendation was not supported by their research and expertise.

Canadian Architect obtained draft versions of parts of the Rimkus report from March, April, and May of 2024. The report, whose final version is dated June 18, 2024, was commissioned to assess the condition of the Science Centre’s reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) roof panels, an outdated form of construction that can pose problems over time if not properly maintained. It was based on on-site investigations conducted by Rimkus from December 2023 to March 2024.

In a key section on RAAC Panel Recommendations, the March and April versions of the report clearly recommend to proceed with repairs to a set of panels identified as “high risk”—less than 2.5% of the Science Centre’s roofs—over the summer. It reads: “It is Rimkus’ recommendation to address all 2024 RAAC panel repair (amber risk) locations as a single project. As such, it is our opinion that the most cost effective strategy would be a consistent repair approach. Panel replacement rather than reinforcement is feasible at all areas, and presented in Table 7.”

The government seems to have pushed the engineers to go further, asking how the RAAC risk could be entirely eliminated. The May version adds the sentences: “It is recommended that RAAC panels should be replaced at the time of the next scheduled roof replacement, to completely eliminate the RAAC panel risk. Recommended timelines for complete roof assembly and RAAC panel (where applicable) replacements, and budgetary costs, by roof area are shown in Table 8.”

In the March, April, and May versions of the report, there is no provision for declining to do the repairs—simply because roof repairs are a relatively routine, straightforward undertaking. RAAC panels at the Science Centre had been routinely replaced in the past. At the time of the inspection, a half dozen panels were identified as being in critical condition, and were already being replaced while the report was completed. A building permit was in progress to repair a section of the roof over the rainforest room. The cost of the immediate repairs needed would amount to around $500,000—or just over $7 million, if coupled with replacing, repairing, and maintaining larger sections of the Science Centre’s roofs that year.

And yet, the language apparently wasn’t strong enough for the Ontario government, whose communications staffers aimed to justify the closure as a public safety issue. For the final version of the report, government officials seem to have pressed the engineers to answer the question: what if we just don’t do the repairs? Wouldn’t the only totally safe option, in that case, be to close the building?

As a result, the final version of the report included the following passage: “Where replacement or reinforcement cannot be completed within the recommended time frame, then one of the following supplemental risk mitigation options is recommended and should be implemented in conjunction with the snow/load monitoring program:

Option 1: Restricted access or full closure to prevent any persons from walking in areas where high risk panels are present.

Option 2: Installation of temporary shoring (reinforcement) supporting the underside of RAAC panels.

Options 3: If shoring is not possible, installation of horizontal hoarding near the underside of hard ceiling levels, or other building interferences (sprinkler mains/process piping etc.)

The above three recommended options are listed in order of preference, with option 1 completing [sic] eliminating the risk to public or staff.”

As I have written before, while a quick reading of this passage may seem to suggest “full closure” of the Science Centre, a closer look shows that access would only need to be restricted at the areas “where high risk panels are present.” The high-risk panels represent a miniscule portion of the Science Centre’s roof, almost entirely in non-exhibition areas.

Text messages between Infrastructure Ontario CEO Michael Lindsay and the agency’s top communications staffer, from the run-up to the closure announcement, suggest that the agency was working closely with Rimkus and pressing executives to tailor its language before the report was submitted. “The executives at Rimkus look like survivors of the apocalypse. [laugh/cry emoji],” one of the texts reads. The presence of a typo in the report’s added section also suggests a rushed addition.

When the final report was sent, a member of Rimkus’s team seems to have also referenced conversations that took place between the two parties. “Please refer to revised final summary report (R2) attached, with updated notes/paragraphs, as discussed,” they wrote on June 18.

While some back-and-forth between consultants and public clients is expected, it is unusual that this contact would be with the Ministry’s top brass—particularly for a routine, technical report. Also notable is that while the Rimkus report released to the public by Infrastructure Ontario was signed by the engineers, it was not stamped—an indication that the engineers may not have felt entirely comfortable with how the report landed, and were unwilling to be professionally liable for it.

In an email to top Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario officials after the closure announcement, an Ontario Ministry director of communications shares a few questions that may arise. One is: “Q: Is this [closure] just a convenient excuse to move [the Ontario Science Centre] to Ont Place?” He suggests the reply: “This is a health and safety issue. Full stop.”

But for the engineers that actually inspected the roof, closure should never have been on the table: the roof issue could—and should—have been addressed with routine repairs.

The post New document reinforce that Science Centre closure was not supported by engineers appeared first on Canadian Architect.