Refinery Violations in Texas

Posted on March 22, 2008 by David Austin

If in fact OSHA did give notice of surprise inspections then they are a joke.  This letter from the opinion page of the Houston Chronicle.


Regarding Monday's Page One article "OSHA UNCOVERS SLEW OF REFINERY VIOLATIONS / Inspectors find 146 at 17 sites in what is only the start of a nationwide study": My mother died of cancer two years ago, and while she was in a hospice, her nurse and I visited. She told me she had worked at chemical plants in the Houston area for 17 years before she quit. She said she became a nurse as payback for what she knew was happening in the plants. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, she said, would give a two-week notice to plants before "surprise" inspections, and workers would scramble to clean up and set things right for clean reports. On foggy and rainy nights, she was instructed by supervisors to "release" into the air, as the fog or heavy rain would hide the act.

That OSHA "uncovers slew" of violations at refiner-ies, to me, is a joke. Fines for violations are cheaper to pay than to fix the problems! How can we uncover what heretofore we didn't wish to find?

Tags: , ,

Benzene Exposure Failure to Warn Claim preempted by OSHA

Posted on February 3, 2008 by David Austin

What does that mean?  It means that unless you can show that the manufacturer did not comply with the OSHA regulations then you cannot (at least in this particular benzene lawsuit) proceed with a "failure to warn claim"

Here's the post from the Product Liability Prof Blog:

A Minnesota DIstrict Court dismissed a wrongful death action brought by the family of a former industrial worker against the makers of benzene-containing products to which he was allegedly exposed in his workplace.  OSHA regulations that govern warning and labeling requirements for hazardous chemicals used in the workplace preempt any additional state law requirements, according to the court.  Thus, the only way the plaintiffs could show liability for failing to warn was to show that the manufacturers violated the OSHA regulation requiring warnings be given for products containing more than 0.1% benzene.  Because the plaintiffs produced no evidence that the defendants violated the regulation, the court ruled that the companies were entitled to summary judgment in their favor.  Vettrus v. Ashland, Inc., Minn. Dist. Ct., No. C9-04-817, Jan. 9, 2008).

Tags: , , , , , ,