The state Department of Commerce has rescinded a report ordering UW-Stout to correct 51 occupational safety and health violations identified in an investigation prompted by employee asbestos-related complaints.
"There are some things lacking in that order that are key elements for us, like a date of issuance, appeal rights, a signature," Commerce Department spokesman Tony Hozeny said Wednesday. "It will be rewritten, ... and until it is, we can't comment on it."
Hozeny said he didn't know when the new report, which will be rewritten by a supervisor of the original investigator, would be completed but noted UW-Stout officials were notified Wednesday of the decision.
"We're glad to hear that the Department of Commerce is taking another look at this report," said Doug Mell, UW-Stout executive director of communications, who went to Madison Tuesday to inform area legislators about the matter. "We're obviously going to have to withhold judgment until we see what the revised report says, but it's a positive step, and we're glad they did it."
Chancellor Charles Sorensen's office received the original report Oct. 27, according to the date stamped on the document. He, Mell and other university officials said Tuesday they took issue with certain findings in the report and planned to appeal.
"The original findings primarily related to state projects under construction this summer (by the Division of State Facilities), the need for an improved chemical hygiene plan and upgrades to other safety training plans," Mell said in a communication sent around campus Wednesday. "Unfortunately, in our opinion, many of the findings contained inaccuracies, did not fully disclose all of the facts or were not reasonable."
The original document was the result of a Department of Commerce investigation into two employee complaints. The first said UW-Stout employees were being exposed to asbestos, and the second claimed employees used a freight elevator in Price Commons contaminated with asbestos during the abatement process. It also said no signs saying the elevator was contaminated were displayed for several days.
The Commerce Department investigator, who was on campus June 18 and July 7-9 and 13, interviewing employees and reviewing documents, included corrective action orders for each violation outlined in the original report. One of those included closing the Price Commons freight elevator, used weekly to transport about 25,000 pounds of food, until verification of safe conditions could be documented.
"If that elevator was such a hazard to the public, why did she wait (several) months to order us to close it?" Mell said Tuesday.
Sorensen said he feels like the university is a "pingpong ball caught between two state agencies," the Department of Commerce and the Division of State Facilities. The functions of the latter include supervising construction projects at state facilities such as UW-Stout.
"(Commerce says,) 'When DSF is on campus ... you have total authority over what they do," Sorensen said, "and DSF says, 'No you don't.' "
In the original report, UW-Stout was given until Dec. 21 to correct all violations or show a good-faith effort that it was working to do so.
While university officials felt the timetable was unreasonable, John Gast, a custodian at the university and president of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, Local 383, said they should have taken steps to ensure employees' safety to begin with.
"This report is 110 percent accurate," Gast said Wednesday. "This isn't the first time Stout has been cited."
The Menomonie university was found to have asbestos-related violations in 2003 and 2006, according to the Department of Commerce original report.
"They don't care about people's safety," said Gast, who fears safety concerns will be swept aside.
Mell disagreed.
"UW-Stout strives at all times to maintain a healthy and safe environment for everyone on campus," he said in the message Wednesday. "There was no evidence in the report that any employee, student or member of the public sustained any injury or other harm because of the alleged events."
O'Brien can be reached at 830-5838, 800-236-7077 or christena.obrien@ecpc.com.
stoutfan
As she did in the other recent story about this subject, the reporter here missed an obvious point that compromises the paper's credibility. How can you quote Doug Mell and NOT mention he used to be the paper's managing editor. How many people did in the newsroom did he hire? Now I know Doug was not well-liked in the newsroom (far from it!), but when you quote somebody who use to hold a position of power in the office, you need to disclose that.
intheknow
I will keep this short and concise.
The elevator was not ordered closed by DOC right away because the inspector did not find out until recently that the first air clearance testing was done improperly.
While many of the violations concerned DSF construction projects, UW Stout students and staff were still occupying the buildings. This requires Stout to comply with OSHA (and other) regulations to maintain a safe and healthy environment. I think that Mr. Mell says that this is Stouts top priority.
Sixety days IS plenty of time to comply with the violations. It is also very easy to get an extension if needed. The report is clear, the violations are accurate and Stout should work at correcting the shortcomings on campus instead of fighting an embarrassing report in Madison.
asbestos1
UW Stout Administrators must have really cashed in some heavy duty chips with UW System and DOC, as in reviewing past Violations from Stout and other University's the very same inspector (in reports since 2003) has NEVER had to have any of the reasons listed above in her reports before. Why now, as a matter of fact there is no spot for a signature on the form itself, the date of issuance is typed on the form and the appeal rights and even how to apply for a extension to the 12-21-09 deadline is also included in the report. SHAME SHAME on not only Stout but now the big wigs at Dept. of Commerce, you should fight this hard to follow the laws and you would not be in this mess. John Gast is correct Safety sure looks like it has been swept aside. How long has these laws been in place? these are not new laws Stout has been in violation of these laws since when? and they feel 12-21-09 is not a reasonable amount of time to get in line with the rest of the University's. my god what have you people been doing all these YEARS
bordeaux
Since Asbestos is serious stuff maybe Stout should worry more about fixing possible violations then the timeframe and signatures. I guess they better figure out who is in charge before they do anymore projects - people's health is at stake there.
asbestos1
so Doug the University feels like a ping pong ball. WHY the issue here is the safety of the employees and students of the University. THAT should be and is the responsibility of the Administration at Stout. When the Safety and Risk Management officer receives notification of a unsafe working condition and walks away stating it is a DSF project I am not allowed to get involved (per Diane Moens directive and orders the employees to continue to do their work that is not as you say "strives at all times to maintain a healthy and safe environment. WHY in the world would Stout not remove the employees and students from harms way until DSF could be notified and correct the problem. Also lets talk about "members of the public" if Stout is so sure NOBODY was harmed, why has Stout not notified the parents of the 5,6,7 year old Children that attended a camp in the Sports and Fitness building as the contractor was drilling holes in the ceiling tile (that the University knew contained Asbestos since 2005 when they had it tested) the children were exposed to Friable asbestos as there was NO containment, just a good old fashion drill.Not to mention the employees and students that Stout has ignored. ( I think we can agree on this one since OSHA came on campus and fined the contractor as such)again your DIRECTOR of safety was notified at 8.15 am only to walk away, and again say its a DFS project. how sad it is that Stout got caught AGAIN with 51 yes 51 violations and all they can do about it is whine to DOC Administrators that you are being treated unfair, even to go as far as to attack the investigator from DOC as a disgruntled employee. considering all the violations Stout has received over the years I really do agree you should start blaming someone else, then you have the gull to whine to the legislators sounds like you are worried about getting sued as you probably should be. lets also make the public aware that this is 8 different areas in 5 different buildings in 6 months time. you would think they would have leaned after the first one. yes the University is proud of all its fancy new buildings and additions and it runs press release after press release but at what cost to the dedicated employees of The award winning gem of the UW System UW STOUT