Figure 1
Figure 1 is a two-tiered graphic that describes Executive Order 1039 (effective 2009) - the Chancellor’s Office’s delegation of authority and designation of responsibilities for health and safety to specific entities throughout the California State University system, as prescribed under the Chancellor’s Office Executive Order 1039 (effective 2009). The first tier includes a box labeled “Chancellor” with four arrows flowing down the page toward the second tier, which includes a row of four colored boxes, each representing the entities to which the Chancellor’s Office delegates its authority. Under each box is bulleted text describing the type of authority and responsibility that the Chancellor’s Office has delegated to that entity. Specifically, the first arrow flows down from the Chancellor’s Office box on tier one to the left toward the light-blue box labeled, “Systemwide Office of Risk Management” (risk management). The text beneath the box indicates that the Chancellor’s has provided risk management with authority to oversee the administration of risk management programs and the responsibility to provide guidance to the campuses regarding policies and procedures to ensure campuses comply with environmental health and safety regulations. The next arrow flows to the second tier to a brown-colored box, second from the left, labeled “Campus Presidents.” The text beneath this box indicates that the campus president is responsible for designating a campus EH&S program administrator and authorizing them to develop and maintain a campus health and safety program, and ensure that the administrator submits required annual health and safety reports. The third arrow flows to a green box, second from the right, labeled, “Campus EH&S Program Administrators.” The text beneath this box notes that campus EH&S program administrators must develop and maintain a campus health and safety program and provide an annual health and safety program report to the campus president and the systemwide Office of Risk Management. The fourth arrow flows to a dark blue box, farthest to the right, labeled, “Campus Departments.” The text beneath indicates that campus departments should assist EH&S program administrators in evaluating the need for student training, while focusing on courses with potential for exposure to biological, chemical, or physical hazards.
Figure 2
Figure 2, a timeline moving chronologically from left to right. The figure describes the key findings from five reports published between 1994 and 2014 by the Office of Audit and Advisory Services at the California State University Chancellor’s Office (University Auditor). The reports pertain to the campuses hazardous materials management and occupational health and safety. The first reference at the farthest left of the timeline describes findings from the University Auditor’s 1994 hazardous materials management report that the Chancellor’s Office had not made a concerted effort to assure that all campuses have procedures in place to provide employees with timely and adequate training, and the campuses reviewed did not always comply with regulatory requirements regarding laboratory inspections. Next, the timeline references a University Auditor occupational health and safety report from 1998 that found campuses did not always document employee training, did not establish procedures to assure that students were trained, and did not always conduct timely health and safety inspections as frequently as required. The timeline then references a 2001 hazardous materials management report by the University Auditor that indicated employees and student assistants at the campuses reviewed had either not undergone orientation training or training had not taken place, and emergency eyewash and shower equipment in the laboratories was not installed or inspected as state regulations require. The timeline next references the University Auditor’s 2008 occupational health and safety report that found that the campuses reviewed needed to improve their processes for tracking and providing health and safety training to employees and students, the campuses could not provide health and safety training for students, and some campuses did not maintain evidence of periodic health and safety inspections. Finally, the last reference, situated to the far right of the graphic, describes the findings from the University Auditor’s 2014 hazardous materials management report found that the Chancellor’s Office had no effective process to monitor campus compliance with regulatory provisions regarding health and safety inspection or employee and student training. The report also indicated that the campuses reviewed had issues related to providing student health and safety training and completing , documenting, and following up on the inspection process and the Chancellor’s Office did not following up on the late or missing campus health and safety program reports.
Figure 3
Figure 3, a color-coded bar chart that depicts the average number of months between inspections and flushes of laboratory safeguards – such as showers, eyewashes, and fire extinguishers – at each campus. The graph includes the “Average Number of Months Between Inspections” along the vertical axis, and the four campuses listed alphabetically along the horizontal axis. Above each campus name, the chart included three color-coded bars – dark blue to represent showers, green to represent eyewashes, and light blue to represent fire extinguishers. The graph includes a note that indicates that state regulations require monthly flushes of showers and eyewashes, and monthly inspections of fire extinguishers. The chart begins with Channel Islands on the far left, noting that it is the only campus to comply with regulations in that it averaged one month between inspections and flushes for each of the three safeguards tested. Next, the chart indicated that Sacramento averaged 2 months between shower flushes, 1.7 months between eyewash flushes, and 1.1 month between fire extinguisher inspections. To the right of that is San Diego, which averaged 8.9 months between shower and between eyewash flushes, and 1 month between fire extinguisher inspections. Finally, Sonoma is located on the far right of the graph, which indicates that it averaged 23.5 months for shower flushes, 19.7 months for eyewash flushes, and 3 months for fire extinguisher inspections.
Figure B
Figure B, an info-graphic with statistics reflecting the survey responses of 244 instruction support technicians throughout the California State University system. The graphic is presented as a document placed atop a clipboard, with two sets of statistics. On the left side of the document, the graphic includes statistics based on responses from all 244 respondents to the survey. These responses reflect that 13 percent of respondents stated that the campus does not provide a healthy and safe work environment, and 18 percent believe campus management has not emphasized the importance of health and safety when using hazardous chemicals. In addition, 11 percent stated they perceive impediments to reporting concerns about hazardous or unsafe working conditions. The right side of the document includes responses generated from a subset of all 244 survey respondents. These responses are based on 193 support technicians whom the Chancellor’s Office indicated worked in biology, chemistry, engineering, physics, and art departments, or in the natural sciences. A note below the graphic indicates that we chose to present the results of these specific departments because these are the departments on which we focused our audit work. The graphic indicates that 46 percent of respondents stated management does not seek and include their input when assessing risks to employee health and safety in chemical stockroom or laboratory areas. In addition, 23 percent of respondents stated primary chemical stockrooms do not include the requisite engineering controls and 10 percent stated primary chemical stockrooms do not include the requisite emergency safeguards. Further, 15 percent of respondents stated laboratory areas do not include the requisite engineering controls, and 15 percent stated that laboratory areas do not include the requisite emergency safeguards. Moreover, 36 percent of respondents stated they did not receive laboratory health and safety training before starting work and 20 percent of those respondents stated they have never received such training. Finally, the graphic indicates that nine percent of respondents stated that the campus did not provide them with necessary personal protective equipment in a timely manner.