Report citing violations gets rewrite
 1 comment(s)
By BARBARA LYON
editor@dunnconnect.com
Sunday, November 8, 2009 7:06 AM CST
UW-Stout protests inspector’s findings of 51 health and safety infractions
Call it a “do over.”
A report from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce (DOC) citing UW-Stout with 51 health and safety violations has been rescinded and will be rewritten.
An investigation was launched by the DOC last summer after the department received two complaints from employees alleging that they were being or had been exposed to asbestos. John Gast, a custodian and president of the university’s chapter of the Wisconsin State Employees Union (WSEU), filed the complaints.
In response, DOC inspector Susen Trail visited the UW-Stout campus on June 18 to perform a work site and safety program evaluations. She returned on July 7 to continue her inspection, which lasted until July 13.
One of the complaints targeted a freight elevator at Price Commons that is used to transport 25,000 lbs. of food each week to the second floor cafeteria. Gast claimed that the elevator “was contaminated with asbestos during the abatement process,” that it was used by university employees before it was locked off, and that there were no signs alerting them that the elevator had been contaminated for several days and that anyone using it may have been exposed.
Problems with the report
On Wednesday, Stout Director of Communications Doug Mell spoke about the violations listed in the report.
“About a third of them have to do with asbestos handling, about a third have to do with how we handle chemicals in our laboratories, and then there was a third that was pretty much miscellaneous,” he said.
“We had a major problem with the report,” Mell continued. “First of all, it’s unreadable, in our opinion. It’s very hard to understand. We believe there wasn’t a lot of ... hard evidence behind a lot of the allegations. And also, taken in total ... it really puts us in a position between the Department of Commerce and the Division of State Facilities (DSF). Many of these allegations had to do with projects that were being done by the Division of State Facilities.”
DSF, a division of the state’s Department of Administration (DOA) was working on the renovation of the Price Commons cafeteria when the possibility of asbestos contamination in the freight elevator was raised by an inspector during his monthly check.
Since the renovation is a DSF project, Mell explained, “What that means is DSF is in total control of what happens on that project. ... We were being cited for things that the Department of Commerce thought happened either in Price Commons or Jarvis or Hovlid Hall — all DSF projects — even though the project wasn’t in our control.”
Cleared for use
Mell pointed out that when it comes to major building projects in the UW System, the DOA “runs the show,” hiring the architect and contractors and signing the contracts.
Regarding the problems with the Price Commons elevator, Mell said, “DSF hired a contractor this summer to clean it ... and DSF cleared that elevator for use. They told us it was safe to use. ... Basically the Department of Commerce didn’t trust the contractor that DSF hired, and said, ‘You guys have to close it down.’”
Mell added that there’s one thing about the cited violation that he has a hard time understanding: “She [Trail] was here this summer. If the Price Commons elevator was presenting such a danger to the public that we had to shut it down, why didn’t she order us to do it immediately. Why did she wait four months?”
Many of the violations put the university, Mell said, directly in the line of fire between two state agencies. Stout was working with its legal counsel to file an appeal when word was received Wednesday afternoon that the DOC was rescinding the report.
Tony Hozeney, DOC spokesperson, said, “The original report lacked a couple of critical things, like date of issuance, compliance period signature and in general, we want to make sure that when it’s rewritten, it’s easy to follow and cites any appropriate codes that should be cited.”
Mell said the university is pleased with the DOC action. “We intend to work with them if they need help writing a report that’s more specific, more reasonable.”
110 percent accurate
Gast’s assessment of the DOC report is different from Mell’s. “This report is 110 percent accurate,” he said. “UW-Stout as a whole continues to get caught not following the laws on asbestos removal or how to take care of it, following the asbestos standard.
“I went to the chancellor, I went to health and safety, I went to everybody before I filed a complaint with the Department of Commerce,” Gast continued. “They wanted nothing to do with it. They said we’re not doing anything wrong. You’re just making a mountain out of a molehill. You’re a troublemaker. If I’m a troublemaker and UW-Stout’s not doing anything wrong, where did the 51 violations come from?”
He pointed out that the university was cited for asbestos violations in 2003 and 2006.
“My membership came up to me and told me that there were issues going on in the worksite and the work area,” Gast explained. “Health and safety, asbestos has been an ongoing problem at Stout since 2003. There’s been numerous grievances filed and won at UW-Stout over asbestos.”
About issues with DSF, he said, “DSF comes in, they have their contractors that come in. Then it’s up to DSF to police their own contractors, whether their contractors are following the law regarding asbestos or whatever.
“We’re not trying to put our nose into that,” Gast added. “The concern that we have is — it’s a DSF project, but the buildings are still inhabited by employees. Jarvis Hall and Price Commons was.”
It’s about safety, he said. “The resolution that I want to see here is for this to stop. I want to see employees be able to come in, do their work and do what they’re supposed to do without having the fear of getting exposed to asbestos.”
At the heart of why he filed the complaints with the DOC, Gast said, “UW-Stout has a legal obligation for the health and safety of its employees... not only the employees, the students, young children ... And bottom line, they never once did that. And that’s the issue.”
Awards and records
According to Mell, there’s a national average that’s computed to determine how much time loss on the job can be expected in a university the size of UW-Stout.
“Our job-loss claims are going down,” he said. “We’ve received national awards for our health and employee safety programs.”
When something is wrong on the job or material is being mishandled, Stout employees are expected report their concerns, Mell said. “We have asbestos handling policies, we have policies for just about every other health and safety problem. We have a health and safety director. ... We take health and safety very, very seriously on this campus.
About the DOC document, he concluded, “There’s never a suggestion, evidence or contention in this report that any UW-Stout employee, student, contractor or member of the public ever suffered any harm. Nothing in the report says anybody ever got sick, got hurt, or anything to that effect.”
DOC spokesperson Hozeney declined to comment about when a rewritten report would be completed.
|
Archives
Stoutfan wrote on Nov 16, 2009 9:08 AM:
I think the University should simply be honest and candidly handle the situation so it can live up to its obligations to its employees. Mell doesn't help anybody with his clumsy attempt to spin this report. I know he draws a paycheck from the university, but his conscience should remind him that human lives are at stake. "