Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Friday, January 13, 2012

OSHA cites Newton, NJ, manufacturer for workplace safety and health violations- proposes nearly $49,000 in fines

The seal of the United States Department of LaborImage via Wikipedia

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited retaining ring manufacturer Schneider & Marquard Inc. for 21 workplace safety and health violations. OSHA initiated an inspection in response to a complaint alleging several workplace hazards at the company's Newton facility. Proposed fines total $48,840.

Three repeat safety violations with $23,760 in penalties involve obstructed exit routes, lack of proper machine guarding and deficient record keeping for power press inspections. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. The company was cited for similar violations in 2009.

Twelve serious safety and health violations with $21,120 in penalties involve failing to implement a hearing conservation program that includes noise monitoring, audiometric testing and training; properly mount and identify portable fire extinguishers; provide powered industrial truck training; implement a hazard communication program that includes training; ensure proper use and listing of electrical equipment; ensure compressed air was reduced to 30 pounds per square inch; and ensure proper functioning and maintenance of mechanical power presses. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

Six other-than-serious safety violations with $3,960 in penalties involve failing to record workplace injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 log. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

"These hazards should be immediately addressed to ensure a safe and healthful workplace for employees," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office. "OSHA will continue to hold employers responsible when they violate federal laws."

Schneider & Marquard Inc., which employs about 24 workers at its Newton site, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, ask for an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Occupational Health: An International Effort Launched by WHO

The World Health Organization (WHO) has launched a global effort to promote the improvement of working conditions. WHO has developed a Global workplan in collaboration with the WHO Network of Collaborating Centres based on the objectives of the GPA for 2009-2012. The workplan organizes the activities of the Collaborating Centres into 14 priority areas.


Click here to read The Final Edition of the 2009-2012 Workplan (just released)

The main objectives of the WHO Global Plan of Action on Workers' Health (GPA) (2008-2017) are to:
  • Strengthen the governance and leadership function of national health systems to respond to the specific health needs of working populations
  • Establish basic levels of health protection at all workplaces to decrease inequalities in workers health between and within countries and strengthen the promotion of health at work.
  • Ensure access of all workers to preventive health services and link occupational health to primary health care.
  • Improve the knowledge base for action on protecting and promoting the health of workers and establish linkages between health and work.
  • Stimulate incorporation of actions on workers health into other policies, such as sustainable development, poverty reduction, trade liberalization, environmental protection and employment.

Cold War Compensation Act - EEOICPA: US DOL Notifies Workers of 17 Facilities of Eligibility

US Department of Labor notifies workers of 17 facilities associated with Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act about potential eligibility under EEOICPA

The U.S. Department of Labor is notifying former workers of 17 facilities associated with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act about compensation and medical benefits potentially available to them under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which is administered by the department's Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation. Survivors of qualified workers also may be entitled to benefits.
Former employees may be eligible if they worked at any of the facilities during a period of covered U.S. Department of Energy-funded environmental remediation efforts. Additionally, three facilities already covered under the EEOICPA now have expanded periods of eligibility.
On Dec. 15, 2010, DEEOIC determined that the Uranium Mill at Shiprock, N.M., was a covered DOE facility for the purposes of the EEOICPA. Given that Uranium Mill at Shiprock was only one of the facilities associated with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, DEEOIC conducted a review considering whether additional facilities met the statutory definition of a covered DOE facility under the EEOICPA. Based on that review, DEEOIC determined that the above-mentioned facilities meet the definition.
On July 31, 2001, the Labor Department began administering Part B of the EEOICPA. Part B covers current and former workers who have been diagnosed with cancer, beryllium disease or silicosis, and whose illness was caused by exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica while working directly for DOE, that department's contractors or subcontractors, a designated Atomic Weapons Employer or a beryllium vendor. Part E, created by an amendment to the EEOICPA on Oct. 28, 2004, provides federal compensation and medical benefits to DOE contractors and subcontractors who worked at covered facilities and sustained an illness as a result of exposure to toxic substances.
The EEOICPA also provides additional compensation for uranium workers who worked at facilities covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice. To assist individuals regardless of where they live, the department has 11 stationary resource centers located throughout the country. These resource centers provide an initial point-of-contact for individuals interested in filing a claim under EEOICPA, and staff provide both in-person and telephone-based assistance. For additional information about how to file a claim under EEOICPA, call toll-free at 866-888-3322 or visit the DEEOIC's website at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/.
Editor's note: A list of the 17 facilities and the periods of covered DOE-funded environmental remediation efforts follows this release. Facilities with an expanded eligibility period are indicated by an asterisk.

Facilities associated with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
  1. Uranium Mill in Monument Valley, Ariz., from May 1989 through February 1990 and September 1992 through May 1994
  2. Uranium Mill in Tuba City, Ariz., from January 1985 through February 1986 and January 1988 through April 1990
  3. Climax Uranium Mill in Grand Junction, Colo., from December 1988 through August 1994
  4. Uranium Mill in Gunnison, Colo., September 1991 through December 1995
  5. Uranium Mill in Maybell, Colo., from May 1995 through September 1998
  6. Uranium Mill in Naturita, Colo., May 1994 through November 1994 and June 1996 through September 1998
  7. New Uranium Mill in Rifle, Colo., September 1988 through September 1989 and April 1992 through October 1996
  8. Old Uranium Mill in Rifle, Colo., September 1988 through September 1989 and April 1992 through October 1996
  9. Uranium Mill No. 1 in Slick Rock (East), Colo., in 1995 and 1996
  10. Uranium Mill No. 2 in Slick Rock (West), Colo., in 1995 and 1996
  11. Uranium Mill in Lowman, Idaho, in 1992 and from 1994 to the present
  12. Uranium Mill in Ambrosia Lake, N.M., from July 1987 through April 1989 and October 1992 through July 1995
  13. Uranium Mill and Disposal Cell in Lakeview, Ore., from 1986 through 1989
  14. Uranium Mill in Falls City, Texas, from January 1992 through June 1994
  15. Uranium Mill in Mexican Hat, Utah, from July 1987 through October 1987 and September 1992 through February 1995
  16. Uranium Mill in Riverton, Wyo., from May 1988 through September 1990
  17. Uranium Mill in Converse County (Spook Site), Wyo., from April 1989 through September 1989
  18. *Uranium Mill in Durango, Colo., already covered for 1948 through 1953, now also is covered for October 1986 through May 1991
  19. *Vitro Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pa., already covered as a beryllium vendor facility for 1948, and as an Atomic Weapons Employer facility for 1942 through 1959 (with residual radiation coverage for 1958 through 1985), now also is covered for 1983 through 1985 and for 1996
  20. *Uranium Mill in Monticello, Utah, already covered for 1948 through 1960, now also is covered for remediation performed by DOE and DOE contractors under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act for 1983 through 2000
*Additional years of qualifying employment have been added to these three facilities currently covered under the EEOICPA.

Defense Base Act Bars Convoy Drivers Lawsuit Against KBR

The U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled the convoy drivers employed by a defense contractor, KBR,  in Iraq were bared by the Defense Base Act (DBA) which is US law that shields military employers from civil actions. The drivers were injured while performing their jobs for the military contractor in providing logistical support to the military.


Read the Bloomberg news dispatch: KBR Won't Face Trial in Convoy Driver Deaths, Court Rules
"Coverage of an injury under the DBA precludes an employee from recovering from his employer,” even if the worker claims the company was “substantially certain” the injuries would occur, U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla R. Owen said in a 30-page ruling by the panel."


Thursday, January 12, 2012

Nanomaterial Requires More Regulation by the EPA Inspector General Reports

EPA Report Recommends More Regulation
A recent report by the Inspector General of the US Environmental Protection Agency found that EPA does not currently have sufficient information or processes to  effectively manage the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. EPA has the statutory authority to regulate nanomaterials but currently lacks the environmental and human health exposure and toxicological data to do so effectively. The Agency proposed a policy under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to identify new pesticides being registered with nanoscale materials. After minimal industry participation in a voluntary data collection program, the Agency has proposed mandatory reporting rules for nanomaterials under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and is also developing proposed rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Nanomaterials are currently being used in many applications including: consumer products, health care, transportation, energy, and agriculture.

.....

Top Disability Research Papers

The Social Science Research Network [SSRN] compiles published academic research papers and makes abstracts or the full articles available for download online. The database includes 376,944 abstracts, 308,704 full text articles and 177,289 authors, To date over 50,293,537 research paper downloads have occurred.


The TOP 4 Papers for the Journal of Disability Income & Work Injury Compensation eJournal hits for the last 90 days have been the following:

RankPaper Title
1
Pregnancy as 'Disability' and the Amended Americans with Disabilities Act Jeannette Cox,
University of Dayton School of Law,
Date posted to database: November 19, 2011
Last Revised: November 19, 2011
2
What Should We Do About Social Security Disability Appeals? Richard J. Pierce,
George Washington University Law School,
Date posted to database: November 8, 2011
Last Revised: November 8, 2011
3
What Can We Learn from Analyzing Historical Data on Social Security Entitlements? Joyce ManchesterJae Song,
Government of the United States of America - Congressional Budget Office (CBO), U.S. Social Security Administration,
Date posted to database: November 4, 2011
Last Revised: November 4, 2011
4
The Complex World of Workers' Compensation and Pharmaceutical Benefits Jon L. Gelman,
Attorney,
Date posted to database: November 17, 2011
Last Revised: November 17, 2011

.....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

US Supreme Court Rules Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Covers Work-Related Injuries

English: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of...Image via Wikipedia
Justice Clarence Thomas

In an historic ruling yesterday the US Supreme Court held that The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCS] governs those who work on oil drilling platforms and other fixed structures beyond state maritime boundaries, and workers are eligible for compensation for "any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the [OCS]." 


For complete coverage of this case click here: The Jurist

"Although the Ninth Circuit’s test may not be the easiest to administer, it best reflects the text of §1333(b), which establishes neither a situs-of-injury nor a "but for" test. We are confident that ALJs and courts will be able to determine whether an injured employee has established a significant causal link between the injury he suffered and his employer's on-OCS extractive operations. Although we expect that employees injured while performing tasks on the OCS will regularly satisfy the test, whether an employee injured while performing an off-OCS task qualifies—like Valladolid, who died while tasked with onshore scrap metal consolidation—is a question that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case." Justice Clarence Thomas

Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid 
.....