Workers cite ASU building safety hazards

[Guest guest]

January 19, 2008

Workers cite ASU building safety hazards

East Valley Tribune - Mesa,AZ*

son, Tribune

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/107036

ASU workers last year accused the university of more than 20

workplace hazards that violated safety regulations. But the state

agency responsible for investigating such allegations usually

directed Arizona State University to inspect itself.

And ASU officials rarely found problems on their campus, a Tribune

review of complaints shows.

The one time that the Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and

Health conducted an unannounced inspection, it found a university

building supervisor had sent his employees to tear down a roof

loaded with asbestos.

The agency initially cited ASU for a " serious " violation. But

college officials negotiated that down to " non-serious " as part of a

settlement deal last month.

Before the asbestos case, the agency had declined to investigate

allegations that ASU put employees at risk of exposure to mold and

electrical currents and that it had leveled scaffolding using phone

books and didn't provide equipment to protect against falls.

The university's health and safety office denied most of the 22

individual allegations made throughout 2007, complaint records and

internal e-mail records show. However, ASU officials told the state

agency they couldn't confirm or deny some of the most serious

alleged hazards.

Leon Igras, the university's health and safety director, declined to

comment for this story. Backus, head of ASU's carpentry shop,

also declined to comment specifically on the asbestos case, in which

he was involved.

In October, state inspectors found Backus had told his employees the

Lyceum Theater's porch roof he'd assigned them to remove had tested

negative for asbestos. In fact, he never had it tested.

" In the process of tearing off the roof, a big cloud of dust was

created that caused coughing and watering of the eyes, " the employee

complaint said.

The employees stopped work after just three hours, worried that the

69-year-old theater did contain the carcinogen. Asbestos only poses

a serious risk if it becomes airborne.

" The roof had seven layers of felt paper that tested positive for

asbestos, " the complaint said.

After the state agency cited it for a serious violation, the

university established a more rigorous building permit system and

added training for construction supervisors to prevent future

hazards, Leah Hardesty, an ASU spokeswoman, wrote in response to the

Tribune's questions.

When complaints " are serious in nature or could possibly result in

serious harm or even someone's death, then we're going to put a lot

more weight on those, " said Darin Perkins, Arizona's occupational

safety and health director.

If state regulators didn't inspect certain alleged hazards at the

university, Perkins said it is likely because the complaint didn't

meet all the state agency's criteria. Those criteria are that the

complaint detail a situation that could cause serious injury, that

it be filed in writing and that at least one current employee sign

their name on it.

The state agency commonly directs employers to handle minor

complaints that don't include a significant health risk, Perkins

said. The agency is sometimes notified when an office's carpet isn't

flat, for instance.

Employers typically provide the agency accurate information about

such " nonserious " allegations because they risk criminal prosecution

if they don't, said Alan Doran, a Phoenix labor law attorney

with Greenberg Traurig.

" Why would anybody lie about something that's of relatively little

consequence in the big scheme of things? " Doran said.

Records do not indicate if any of the allegations against ASU,

besides the asbestos, were minor by state standards. Nor do they say

what factors caused regulators to decline to investigate.

In March, a complaint said workers repairing the Tempe campus'

s Center, a two-story building, kept scaffolding level by

placing phone books and bricks underneath the structure's legs. That

could destabilize the scaffolding and violates state and federal

regulations.

An ASU safety official checked the construction site the day after

receiving the complaint, but the scaffolding had already been

disassembled.

Perkins said construction workers often level scaffolds with pieces

of wood, considered a " nonserious " violation.

However, he added, " you're not normally going to find a phone book

used to level a scaffold. "

Less than a month later, the state agency asked the university to

investigate another potential fall risk. That complaint accused ASU

construction supervisors of directing employees to work at elevated

heights without fall-protection measures.

Igras told the agency in an April 4 letter his office's internal

review was inconclusive.

" While no hazard was observed, " Igras wrote, " the potential for

employees to work at elevations in excess of six feet without guard

rails and fall arrest systems was identified. "

Falls are the second most common cause of Arizona workplace deaths,

according to agency statistics.

That same complaint also said ASU building supervisors exposed

workers to mold growing on water damaged ceilings. Igras' letter

said there was no evidence supporting that claim.

But even if there was evidence of mold, Perkins said the agency

wouldn't have inspected the tiles.

Mold can cause health problems, but the agency doesn't cite

employers for it because there are no laws regarding mold growth, he

said. " There're no federal standards, no state standards, there's

nothing out there that says, `If you have this much mold, you're in

violation,' " he said.

ASU's single violation last year, for the asbestos, cost the

university $750. It negotiated the agency's fine down from $1,000 as

part of a settlement that lowered the charge to " nonserious " and

closed the case.

While the $250 saved is inconsequential to the nation's largest

university, Doran said it is important to employers to

downgrade " serious " violations.

If the state cites the university again, a serious violation can

prompt inspectors to charge ASU with " repeat, " or even " willful "

violations.

Those citations bring much larger fines and can damage an employer's

reputation. The agency is often willing to lower the violation to

close cases without costly court battles, Doran said.

" It's really just part of the day to day administrative horse

trading that gets these resolved without going to a hearing, " he

said.