Safety audit shows shortcomings

An audit by Texas A&M System has revealed several areas of concern on the Commerce campus and led to corrective actions by campus leaders.In the final report approved during the March 26-28 Board of Regents meeting, inspectors cited an inadequate level of safety staff, a lack of University-wide chemical handling procedures, and insufficient safety training to new employees among other issues.The report, conducted by Project Manager Mark Poehl and three other inspectors, stated the University had one employee in an interim position performing some of the required safety duties while dividing her time on other “non-safety duties.” Auditors noted the University could need as many as four full-time staffers to reflect adherence to system policies for environmental management systems. In observations of the chemistry, biology, photography, and agricultural science departments as well as the University Farm, and physical plant, inspectors said chemical inventory listings were non-existent or incorrect, disposal procedures were not in place, and material safety data sheets (MSDS) were missing. Without these precautions, auditors cautioned that chemicals could be taken without notice and the University could be found in violation of federal statutes for chemical disposalTraining of employees about hazardous materials and blood-borne pathogens – as required by the A&M System – were found to be missing for employees who had been identified as in need of training.Observations of 16 teaching laboratories revealed more than a third had improper use of safety goggles and protective attire and more than 60 percent stored chemical incorrectly. Seventy-five percent of the labs had improperly stowed personal items and all the inspected classes in had missing or obstructed safety equipment.Poehl’s team also noted a lack of control in building keys. The report said there was no standard of ordering and authorizing keys, no chain of custody for keys, and no list of employees with keys. Inspectors also listed the lack of rules for students traveling in personal cars on University trips, no documentation of testing transformers for toxic substances, and not testing the campus crisis management plan as additional risks.For each critique of the University, the report listed methods to meet system standards such as increasing staffing and training; better procedures regarding chemicals, student travel guidelines and key handling; and more frequent testing of new and existing procedures.The report also detailed the University’s response in the critical areas, which acknowledged the need to continue improving its health and safety programs. These commitments include the hiring of a director of risk management who will have “overall responsibility for coordinating and reporting on all health ad safety issues.” University management also stated they had hired a trainer in the human resources department who will oversee training on blood-borne pathogens and hazardous materials and the executive director of facilities would implement a plan to re-key the entire campus, which would be completed by Aug. 31, 2009.Executive Director of Facilities and Support Services David McKenna said the University is making strides to address the issues. He points to the new IRIS alert system and safety training for more than 10 employees last week as examples.”We’re aggressively moving to address all the areas in the audit,” McKenna said. “We have a new director of risk management, Jefferey McMurray, who came on board March 24.”Since the audit, McKenna said the University has reached more than three full-time environmental management employees. He also said the University has had a good record regarding safety and praised University Police for their efficiency in handling situations.”I think we’ve been very fortunate and haven’t had any large-scale incidents,” McKenna said. “The administration has been very proactive in wanting to see to it that systems were put in place and personnel that would secure the safety that would secure the safety of students, faculty and staff.” In an attachment to the report, five other campuses in the A&M System were found to be at or above minimum staffing regarding environmental safety staffing.Auditors used criteria set forth by the A&M System, A&M-Commerce, as well as federal and state laws and other accepted administrative practices.