Coast Guard to the Rescue: Coast Guard assists 20 boaters during busy, warm weekend on the Great Lakes

May 11, 2015

 

CLEVELAND — Coast Guard personnel responded to numerous boater distress calls during the weekend, assisting 20 boaters between Lake St. Clair and Oswego, New York.

At about 2:15 p.m. Saturday, a search-and-rescue coordinator at Coast Guard Sector Detroit responded to a distress call over VHF-FM channel 16 from boaters aboard a disabled 17-foot pleasure craft near Locust Point in the vicinity of Marblehead, Ohio. The boaters, two adults and one child, reported the problem but then lost communications with Sector Detroit. The SAR coordinator directed the launch of a rescue crew aboard a 25-foot response boat from Station Toledo, Ohio. The rescue crew arrived on scene, took the boat in tow and safely towed the boaters to Wild Wings Marina.

At about 5:15 p.m. Saturday, a SAR coordinator at Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, New York, responded to a  mayday broadcast that came across VHF-FM channel 16 from boaters aboard a 34-foot pleasure craft off of Fairhaven State Beach in Lake Ontario. The boaters, one adult and three children, reported their boat taking on water. The SAR coordinator issued an urgent marine information broadcast, to which a good Samaritan boat responded. 

A rescue crew from Coast Guard Station Oswego, New York, aboard a 45-foot response boat also responded. The good Samaritan boater arrived on scene first, took the boat in tow and met up with the rescue crew a short time later. The rescue crew took over the tow and started dewatering the boat with a P-6 dewatering pump. The boat was towed to Fairhaven Marina. The cause of the flooding was determined to be ruptured bellows to the stern drive.

At about 5:50 p.m. a Coast Guard rescue crew responded to the report of a disabled boat with three people aboard in the vicinity of Luna Pier, Michigan. A SAR coordinator issued a broadcast and directed the launch of the rescue crew from Station Toledo. Due to worsening weather and lake conditions, the boaters were deemed to be in distress. 

A commercial salvage company arrived on scene to assist the boaters before the Coast Guard arrived on scene.

Sector Detroit issued another urgent broadcast at about 6:15 p.m. to assist  four boaters in Lake St. Clair near 9 Mile Road, to which a good Samaritan boater responded and assisted.


A Station Toledo rescue crew located and assisted a family of five Saturday evening after the family got stranded on an unknown island during a heavy rain storm. At a little after 6 p.m. the family notified Sector Detroit via cell phone they were in trouble. The communication was broken and eventually lost. The SAR coordinator used local knowledge of the region to narrow down the search area to either Grassy Island or Turtle Island in Lake Erie. 

A rescue boat crew and a Dolphin helicopter crew were dispatched to begin the search. A SAR coordinator at the Coast Guard 9th District in Cleveland pinged the cell phone and received two recent positions. The rescue boat crew located the family and escorted them safely to Cullen Park, Ohio.

The Coast Guard also responded to several false alerts, including one Friday afternoon during which a child’s voice was heard over the radio stating, “Hello? Please help, please help. Hello?” Helicopter and boat crews conducted three searches covering 182 square miles. No distress was found, and the search was suspended. The call came from a radio tower in Sandusky, Ohio.

Two boaters were also cited during the weekend for marijuana possession.
Another boater received a federal ticket for boating under the influence of alcohol after being boarded by a Coast Guard law enforcement team from Station Belle Isle, Michigan. The boater had blood alcohol level of .141, more than double the legal limit.

Coast Guard urges mariners to stay safe after busy start on the water this weekend

May 11, 2015

 

NEW YORK – After a busy weekend on New York and New Jersey waters, the Coast Guard urges mariners to practice safe boating during the busy summer season.

The following cases indicate the importance of preparedness and serve as an example of how challenging the maritime environment can be to mariners of all levels.

Crewmembers from Coast Guard Station New York safely towed a disabled 24-foot vessel today, at approximately 6:30 A.M. Two mariners were aboard and had anchored their boat near Alpine, New Jersey. There were no reports of injuries, damage to the vessel or pollution.

Coast Guard Station Sandy Hook responded to a 21-foot pleasure craft beset by fog near Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, Sunday, May 10, 2015, with 2 people aboard. The vessel was safely anchored with lights displayed when Station Sandy Hook arrived and took the vessel in tow. The mariners and their vessel were safely escorted to Atlantic Highlands Marina. There were no injuries, damage to the vessel or pollution reported.

Coast Guard Station Sandy Hook responded to a 23-foot, white pleasure craft named The Hunter Lynne, Saturday, May 9, 2015, near Raritan West Reach, New York. The vessel was disabled due to a dead battery and had 2 adults and 2 children aboard. There were no injuries or medical concerns.

Coast Guard Station Shinnecock located a 6-foot dinghy with 1 person aboard near East Moriches, New York, Friday, May 8, 2015. Mariner reported he went out on the water but got caught in the fog and needed assistance. He had no radio, cell phone or anchor aboard his vessel. Station Shinnecock boat crew safely escorted mariner to Windswept Marina. No injuries or medical concerns were reported and mariner was wearing life jacket.

For more information about boating safety, go to the Boating Safety Resource Center athttp://ift.tt/16CBKrb (http://ift.tt/16CBKrb)

Vandalism to lights and buoys endangers mariners in Pacific Northwest

May 11, 2015 

The recently replaced Elk Rock Island Light 13 dayboard near Portland, Ore.
U.S. Coast Guard photo by Coast Guard Cutter Bluebell.

SEATTLE — The Coast Guard is asking for the public’s help to put a stop to the vandalism of aids to navigation throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Several navigational lights in the region have been vandalized rendering them inoperable or limiting their visibility.

Recently the batteries were deliberately and illegally removed from a light marking a red and black dayboard on a tower at Reach Range H Rear Light and other aids near Gray’s Harbor. Graffiti applied to the Elk Rock Island Light 13 near Portland, Ore., obscured the green dayboards making them harder to see at a distance and more difficult to read in general.

“The loss of this equipment costs taxpayers and the Coast Guard in many ways: first is the obvious financial burden of replacing the damaged or stolen equipment, second is the slowing of commercial and recreational traffic and third, is the possibility of environmental damage that could result from a collision or grounding that occurs because a hazard is not marked,” said Lt. Cmdr. Michele Schallip, chief of Coast Guard 13^th Waterways Management Branch.

Those found guilty of vandalism to ATON can be fined up to $2,500 and imprisoned for up to five years. Anybody witnessing vandalism to a navigational aid or finding a damaged aid should contact their nearest Coast Guard unit.
“The marine highway is the lifeblood of commerce and transportation on the West Coast and it is vitally important that these aids to navigation remain a reliable tool for mariners in the region,” said Schallip.

The Coast Guard 13^th District, waterways division is responsible for maintaining and permitting aids throughout Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington including more than 1,800 Coast Guard maintained short-range marine aids to navigation, 25 lighthouses and 1,000 bridges using three buoy tenders and four aids to navigation units.

To find out more information about the 13^th District Waterways Management Branch visit,http://ift.tt/1JClloz

Union, BP Agree Terms for Workers' Return to Whiting Oil Refinery

Published in Oil Industry News on Monday, 11 May 2015

BP Plc and the union representing striking workers at the British firm's Whiting, Indiana, oil refinery have reached an agreement setting the terms for them to return to work as soon as May 18 following a three-month strike.

Union officials said a ratification vote is scheduled for Monday on the tentative four-year contract, agreed on May 1 by negotiators for BP and the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 7-1. Striking workers have been walking the picket lines since Feb. 8.

Workers at the Whiting refinery went on strike as part of the largest work stoppage by refinery and chemical plant workers in 35 years, involving 15 plants which included 12 refineries accounting for one-fifth of U.S. capacity.

The national strike began after talks broke down between negotiators for the USW International union and U.S. refinery owners over tighter standards to prevent worker fatigue and the use of contractors in day-to-day plant maintenance.

An agreement was reached on March 12 on national issues including pay, benefits and the fatigue and contractor issues, but strikes continued over local issues at the Whiting refinery and others.

The major sticking point at Whiting was over the union's right to bargain under the contract over policies such as those that affect worker safety at the refinery.
"We look forward to having all our Whiting employees back to work soon and building on the success we had achieved prior to the strike," Refinery Manager Jorge Lanza said in BP's statement.

Striking workers are ready to return to work, said Bob Lofton, USW international representative working with Local 7-1.

"It's been a long three months," Lofton said. "We'll get back into the refinery, and hopefully, within two to three weeks things will get back to normal."
Workers who carried out a three-month strike at Lyondell Basell Industries' Houston refinery are also scheduled to begin returning to work on May 18, a union official said on Saturday.

Workers are still on strike at a refinery in Toledo, Ohio, which is owned by BP and Husky Energy.

Negotiations also are continuing between striking workers and Marathon Petroleum Corp's Galveston Bay Refinery in Texas City, Texas.

BP has kept the refinery in operation with temporary replacement workers while the 1,100 union members have been on strike. An undisclosed number of workers did cross the picket line during the strike, BP and the union have said.
Source: www.reuters.com

Oil Workers 'Behaving' on Trains After Anti-Social Crackdown. Offoshore Workers are Notorious for Their Alcohol-fuelled Anti-Social Behaviour

Published in Oil Industry News on Monday, 11 May 2015

Oil workers are behaving on trains following a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, according to the British Transport Police.

Since August, officers have monitored more than 2000 offshore workers travelling on 350 trains between Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Police also kept tabs on oil and gas staff travelling to England.

The BTP say the operation, which was introduced following a rise in “unsavoury incidents”, has helped cut down on bad behaviour.

Sergeant Ashley Forbes of BTP, who co-ordinated the initiative, said: “There is no doubt that the conduct of those from the offshore industry using the rail network has noticeably improved since the joint problem solving plan commenced last year. It is pleasing that the warnings issued by BTP and the train operators appear, in the main, to have been heeded.”

“There will be no complacency and officers will continue to carry out high-visibility patrols at stations and on trains and work with our rail industry partners to tackle the issue.

“We have made it clear that passengers and rail staff, who may also be Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) members, should be able to travel and work with encountering alcohol-fuelled anti-social behaviour, which is often experienced when offshore workers are travelling.”

RMT’s Willie Strang added: “We have proactively worked with British Transport Police by highlighting the issue of anti-social behaviour in union journals which are sent to members in the rail and offshore sector.

“We have also seen some positive change in the attitudes from offshore workers towards us and hope this continues.”
Source: news.stv.tv

Saipem Cleared to Work on Gazprom’s South Stream, a Black Sea Pipeline

Published in Oil Industry News on Monday, 11 May 2015

Italian oilfield services provider Saipem has said that South Stream Transport has lifted suspension of activities in the Black Sea.

Saipem had contracts for pipe laying of the controversial South Stream pipeline contract in the Black Sea, which was supposed to carry Russian gas through the sea and make a landfall in Bulgaria.

The project was cancelled due to opposition from the EU. Gazprom then decided to redirect the pipeline and send its gas to Turkey.

In its press release issued Friday, Saipem said that the Gazprom-controlled company South Stream Transport BV was lifting the suspension of work under the contracts, and that Saipem “should commence works on the offshore pipeline in the Black Sea.”

While the company did not provide more details, this most likely means Saipem will be laying the Turksih Stream pipes on the seabed.
Source: www.offshoreenergytoday.com

Oilfield Services in Limbo as Long Term Strategies in Jeopardy

Published in Oil Industry News on Monday, 11 May 2015

When oil prices dramatically dropped in the fall of 2014, operators began to significantly alter their plans, Douglas Westwood, an energy intelligence group, says in its DW Monday report.

As months passed, many thought service providers would gain clarity on the upstream situation and begin to develop their own strategic plans. However, as we have progressed toward mid-2015, as answers have been obtained, many new questions have arisen, DW comments.

ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said many producers were trading at valuations that still reflected a price closer to $80 per barrel while Private Equity executives have mentioned to DW that many bid-ask spreads are too wide on transactions for E&P producers, particularly U.S. unconventional shale players. 

This is inhibiting some of the necessary revaluation and consolidation that will lead to a more normalized market environment. So oilfield service providers remain in limbo and investors struggle to mark them to market. Until management of service companies can assess market pricing, future activity levels and an understanding of which of their customers are going to be active, short term strategic plans remain fluid and long term strategies in jeopardy.

So how have service companies and manufacturers managed the situation? Schlumberger, for instance, have been very proactive and cut jobs and capital spending relative to projected activity declines. Others are betting on a stronger and quicker recovery, have less aggressively cut, and hope to be well positioned for a market resurgence – which could lead toward greater cuts if the environment doesn’t rebound accordingly.

Strategic planning is crucially important to the investor community and will be scrutinized in critical moments. It will also be an indicator for how in-touch leaders of oilfield service providers are with their businesses. 

It will be nearly impossible for managers to make unanimously popular decisions, but they will be expected to make the right ones. Time will tell on what companies managed the uncertainty most appropriately.
Source: www.offshoreenergytoday.com

Transportation Safety Board of Canada deploys team to Vancouver, British Columbia, to assess striking of berth involving the container vessel MOL Precision

 

May 11, 2015

Richmond, British Columbia

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) is deploying a team of investigators to Port Metro Vancouver, in British Columbia, where the container vessel MOL Precision struck the berth. 

The TSB will gather information and assess the occurrence.

Americold Logistics facing $47,300 penalty after OSHA finds safety hazards at company's warehouse in Manchester, Pennsylvania

May 11, 2015

Employer Name and Location: Americold Logistics LLC is located at 60 Steamboat Boulevard in Manchester, Pennsylvania. The company provides temperature-controlled warehousing and logistical support to the food industry, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


Date Investigation Initiated: The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration initiated an inspection on Nov. 6, 2014, in response to three complaints alleging workplace safety hazards.


Investigation Findings: Americold was cited for two repeat and two serious violations for safety hazards involving forklifts, including forklifts in need of repair not taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition; workers exposed to falls of four feet or more; and improperly anchored storage racks.

Americold Logistics LLC has 15 business days from receipt of citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Quote: "Powered industrial trucks are useful tools, but they can be dangerous," said Kevin Kilp, director of OSHA's Harrisburg Area Office. "Employers are required to properly service this equipment to ensure that they don't kill or injure their employees."


Proposed penalties: $47,300


View the citations: http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/AmericoldLogisticsLLC_1006851_0501_15.pdf *

Model Employer of the Year: Pennsylvania duct manufacturer faces more than $1M in fines as workers suffer dozens of injuries, including crushed and amputated fingers. Lloyd Industries Inc., named severe safety violator, defies federal safety inspectors

May 11, 2015

Pennsylvania duct manufacturer faces more than $1M in fines as workers suffer dozens of injuries, including crushed and amputated fingers.  Lloyd Industries Inc., named severe safety violator, defies federal safety inspectors

MONTGOMERYVILLE, PA

 Lloyd Industries Inc. manufacturers the ventilation, duct and fire safety products used at places like New York's Chrysler Building, Philadelphia International Airport, and the stadiums the New York Yankees and Baltimore Ravens call home.


In the last 15 years, the people who work for this southeastern Pennsylvania manufacturer have been left to worry about returning home with a workplace injury as Lloyd Industries allows them to operate machines without protection from dangerous moving parts, and exposes them to hazardous noise levels without yearly tests to protect their hearing.

Since 2000, Lloyd has shown a pattern of defiance toward OSHA safety standards. In one instance, OSHA officials were forced to summon U.S. federal marshals to gain entrance when Lloyd refused to admit them, even after they obtained a warrant.

Despite numerous federal inspections, warnings, fines and promises to stop putting workers at risk, the company's repeated failure to keep its employees safe has resulted in approximately 40 serious injuries since 2000. These injuries include serious lacerations as well as crushed, fractured, dislocated and amputated* fingers. 


After an inspection prompted by a gruesome injury in July 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration levied $822,000 in fines against Lloyd Industries Inc. bringing the company's total OSHA fines to more than $1 million since 2000. OSHA has also placed the company in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program. 


"William Lloyd and Lloyd Industries are serial violators of OSHA safety standards, and their workers have paid the price," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "No employer is above the law. For 15 years, they have repeatedly put their employees at risk of serious injuries. This must stop now."


In the July incident, the die on a press brake machine dropped on a worker's right hand, resulting in the amputation of three fingers. The machine lacked required safety guards and had not worked properly before the incident - a fact of which the owner was aware.


Since 2000, William Lloyd has shown a pattern of defiance toward OSHA safety standards: Inspectors find violations, including the absence of safety guards to prevent serious injuries from moving machine parts. Lloyd then agrees to correct the hazardous conditions and accepts OSHA penalties, but similar violations are found when the inspectors return. In one instance, OSHA officials were forced to summon U.S. federal marshals to gain entrance to the plant when Lloyd refused to admit them, even after they obtained a warrant.


During one inspection, Lloyd complained to OSHA inspectors that the machine guards that protected his employees slowed production. He also made a conscious decision in 2013 to stop an audiometric testing program required to prevent employee hearing loss, OSHA found. The testing only resumed in December 2014, after OSHA's investigation. 


In its latest inspection OSHA issued 10 willful violations based on the company's repeated failure to guard machines, and to provide annual audiometric tests. Additionally, the company was cited for three willful, four serious, and seven other-than-serious violations for electrical hazards, noise protection, and recordkeeping violations. Read the citations, here* and here*.


Incorporated in 1981, Lloyd Industries Inc. manufactures fire and smoke dampers. It employs approximately 70 workers at its Montgomeryville site and 25 employees at a second location in Orange Park, Florida. The firm's workers' compensation insurer is AmeriHealth Casualty Services in Philadelphia. The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


Each year, more than 200,000 American workers suffer cuts, lacerations and amputations from operating parts of dangerous machinery. Investigators often find various upsetters, power press brakes and forging machines used in the plant lack adequate safety mechanisms. Machine hazards continue to be among the most frequently cited by OSHA.


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance; file a complaint or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Allentown Area Office at 267-429-7542.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Hanby Farms' workers face grain bin dangers, other hazards OSHA proposes more than $102K in penalties

May 11, 2015

NASHPORT, OHIO


It takes only 60 seconds for a worker to be submerged in flowing grain; more than half of those engulfed in grain die. Workers at Hanby Farms in Nashport were exposed to being buried in grain or overcome by noxious fumes because the company did not verify that conditions were safe before allowing employees to enter bins at the grain elevator and feed mill.


U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors visited Hanby Farms Inc. on Nov. 6, 2014, under the Local Emphasis Program for grain handling. After identifying 29 serious safety violations, OSHA proposed penalties of $102,900. 

"Grain bins can become lethal in seconds," said Deborah Zubaty, OSHA's area director in Columbus. "Hanby Farms needs to take immediate action to eliminate its facility's safety and health hazards." 


Inspectors found Hanby Farms failed to train employees on grain bin and confined space hazards and neglected to provide adequate rescue equipment for employees who entered the bin.


Workers were also exposed to combustible grain dust hazards; moving machinery parts without guards, multiple electrical hazards; and falls from unguarded railings, climbing on lift trucks and improper use of ladders. Investigators also noted powered industrial vehicles not approved for conditions were combustible grain dust may be present and improper storage of flammable materials.


To view current citations, see http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/HanbyFarmsSafety_1006716_0429_15.pdf*
and http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/HanbyFarmsHealth_1006734_0429_15.pdf*


After the deaths of more than 26 U.S. workers in grain bin entrapments in 2010—the highest number on record—OSHA focused its enforcement effort on the grain and feed industry's six major danger areas. These include engulfment, falls, auger entanglement, struck-by, combustible dust and electrocution hazards. OSHA has also published information related to common grain industry hazards and abatement methods, proper bin entry techniques, sweep auger use and many other grain-related topics.


Hanby Farms has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Columbus Area Office at 614-469-5582.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

OSHA cites Burnett Dairy Cooperative for failing to ensure employee's safety after man dies in a grain bin

May 11, 2015

GRANTSBURG, WISCONSIN

For most of his adult life, a 52-year-old man avoided the dangers of working at a Grantsburg feed mill. In November 2014, he was trying to unclog a sump when he was engulfed by corn and died in a grain bin. 


After an inspection, investigators from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration identified two willful and eight serious safety violations at Burnett Dairy Cooperative.


Inspectors found that Burnett did not follow safety standards for entering grain bins; failed to deactivate a drag conveyor; and allowed the worker to be in the bin while the corn was moving. 

"Many people lost a loved one and friend that day-a wife and five children and co-workers that had known him for more than 30 years," said Mark Hysell, OSHA's area director in Eau Claire. "It takes seconds to become trapped in flowing grain. Burnett Dairy is familiar with the precautions to protect its workers, but failed to follow them. Life or limb should never be the cost of doing business." 


OSHA's inspection found Burnett exposed the worker to engulfment hazards by not following required grain handling and energy control procedures which included having the drag conveyor running when the employee entered the grain bin. The company also violated confined space regulations by failing to have an attendant trained in confined space rescue for the worker while inside the grain bin. Burnett also failed to ensure confined space and energy control procedures were implemented and enforced throughout the rest of the feed mill. 

 A confined space, such as a grain bin, is one large enough for workers to enter and perform certain jobs. It also has limited or restricted means for entry or exit and is not designed for continuous occupancy. 


OSHA proposed penalties of $193,200 and placed the company in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program*.


To view current citations, see http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/BurnettDairyCooperative_1009946_05062015.pdf*.


In 2010, following the deaths of at least 26 U.S. workers in grain bin entrapments, the highest number on record, OSHA focused its enforcement effort on the grain and feed industry's six major danger areas. These include engulfment, falls, auger entanglement, struck-by, combustible dust and electrocution hazards. OSHA has also published information related to common grain industry hazards and abatement methods, proper bin entry techniques, sweep auger use and many other grain-related topics.


Burnett Dairy has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Eau Claire office at 715-832-9019. 


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Workers risk serious injuries and amputations at Bellefontaine, Ohio, rubber-hose manufacturing plant HBD/Thermoid faces $134K in fines after 11 OSHA safety violations

May 11, 2015

Workers risk serious injuries and amputations
at Bellefontaine, Ohio, rubber-hose manufacturing plant
HBD/Thermoid faces $134K in fines after 11 OSHA safety violations

BELLEFONTAINE, OHIO

 A rubber-hose manufacturer in Ohio continues to put workers at risk of amputations and serious injuries by ignoring safety rules for industrial machines, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors found after an October 2104 inspection.


OSHA cited HBD/Thermoid Inc., in Bellefontaine, for one willful and 10 serious safety violations and faces $134,000 in proposed penalties. The inspection was opened under OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program. In May 2014, a worker was killed after being caught in an industrial machine at the company's North Carolina location.


"HBD/Thermoid must act now and put required safety guards on large industrial machines. These machines are used by workers who cut and manufacturer rubber hoses at the company's six facilities across the country," said Kim Nelson, area director of OSHA's Toledo office. "Each year, more than 200,000 workers are injured by machines in the United States. Each day, an average of 12 workers are killed on-the-job. Employees and their families pay the painful price emotionally and economically when companies don't follow standards to reduce injuries."


A willful violation was cited for failing to protect workers from the operating parts of hose balers and hose feed equipment during the manufacturing process. 


Workers were also found to be in danger of amputation because machines were not shut down properly before repair and maintenance. The machines were also operated without proper safety devices. Inspectors also noted that work platforms and elevator shafts lacked adequate guardrails to protect workers from falls; electrical parts were not de-energized prior to performing work; and personal protective equipment to safeguard workers from electrical shock was not provided. A total of 10 serious safety violations were issued. 


View the current citations at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/HBDThermoid_1007813_042015.pdf*.


HBD/Thermoid employs about 1,000 workers corporatewide and manufactures hoses used in a variety of industries, such as transportation, food processing and agriculture. The company also has facilities in Bell Gardens, California; Chanute, Kansas; Salisbury, North Carolina; Oneida, Tennessee; and Eglin, South Carolina. 


The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. 


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the Toledo Area Office at 419-259-7542.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Massive Retaining Wall Collapsed; Replacement Wall to Cost a Pretty Penny

ROGERSVILLE, PA

West Greene School Board learned last month just how expensive it is going to be to build a retaining wall behind the district’s new elementary school, following the collapse of the original wall Nov. 6.

The board last month approved a contractor’s proposal to build a new wall at a guaranteed maximum price of $5.2 million. With engineering and administrative fees, the bill could be as much as $6.4 million.

Considering the guaranteed maximum price is almost half the original cost of the elementary school project, the new wall is going to be expensive. Contracts the board awarded in May 2013 for construction of the school, including the original retaining wall, totaled $10.9 million.

Obviously, the board is not happy with the situation. Last month, members questioned where the district would get the money for the project and why the price for the new wall seemed to escalate within a matter of months.

The board earlier decided to build the new elementary school next to the middle-senior high school, which will consolidate all district buildings on one campus. But in order to make room for the new elementary school at the site, the district had to excavate a large hillside, which required the construction of the retaining wall. The original retaining wall was massive. According to early drawings, it stretched 761 feet and reached a height of 31 feet.

Long before the wall collapsed, the board expressed concerns about its adequacy. Last April, seven months before the wall failed, the board hired an engineer to review the wall design to ensure it was appropriate for site conditions. At this time, only the board and others involved in the project, including the architect, the engineering firm that designed the wall, the general contractor and construction manager know why work continued on the wall despite initial doubts about its adequacy.

We can assume each of the parties also has its own point of view of what happened and who should be blamed for the original wall’s collapse. The general contractor on the school project, Liokareas Construction Co., already filed a lawsuit against the district seeking damages for additional work it claims it was asked to perform in response to issues involving the failed wall. The board solicitor has declined to comment on the matter, but we feel confident more lawsuits will follow.

Since the wall collapsed in November, the board expedited the process of hiring a new contractor and developing plans for a new wall. It hopes to have the project completed in time for the district to begin using its new elementary school at the start of the school year.

Though not enough information is available to draw any conclusions about why the wall collapsed or who is at fault, we can say with certainty no one wanted it to happen. We’re sure the board right now would rather be showing off the district’s new elementary building and all its amenities and not sitting on pins and needles waiting to see if a new wall can be built in time for the start of the school 2015-16 school year and within the proposed budget.

The board’s concerns also will probably only be prolonged by the litigation that is bound to follow and could continue for years.

The project certainly has its problems, and if there is any consolation it is the district will soon have a new elementary school that should long outlast the troubles it has caused.

////---------------------/////

ROGERSVILLE – At many of its meetings during the past year, West Greene School Board addressed issues regarding the design and construction of the retaining wall that was being built as part of the new elementary school project.

Its concerns were apparently warranted.

The wall, which runs behind the new elementary center, partially collapsed last Thursday night, district Superintendent Thelma Szarell said.

The district noticed cracks and separations in the wall for the last several weeks, she said.

The board met last Thursday night partly to discuss the matter with representatives of the project architect, The Hayes Design Group, and the construction manager, URS Corp., she said.

“Sometime through the night, it collapsed,” she said.

The district is now trying to determine what caused the wall to collapse, Szarell said. It doesn’t appear soil behind the wall moved, which was one of the district’s earlier concerns, but the wall seems to have failed at its base, she said.

Engineers do not believe the wall will collapse any further.

“It doesn’t appear to be any danger to the new school,” Szarell said.

The new three-story elementary center was constructed in an area that required excavation of a large hillside. According to an early design drawing, the wall stretches 761 feet behind the new building and at its highest point reaches 31 feet.

The district will probably hire an independent engineer to investigate the wall’s collapse and develop a plan to correct the problem, Szarell said.

Though the new elementary building is almost completed, the district is planning not to begin using it for classes until next school year.

At past meetings, the board took action in regard to several issues concerning the wall, including addressing the issue of gray clay in soil behind the wall and the installation of drains beneath the wall’s diversion channel.

In April, the board also hired an independent engineer to review the design of the wall to ensure the wall would be adequate for conditions at the site.

“From the beginning, we’ve been trying to makes sure everything has been carried out correctly,” Szarell said. That is why the board asked for additional testing and took the other steps it did to make sure everything was right, she said. “We feel we have done our due diligence.”

The collapse of the wall is expected to lead to litigation, Szarell said. The district does not believe it should pay for repairing the wall “under any circumstances,” she said.

Read Insurance Policy as Drafted, Not as Insurance Company “Wishes It Had Drafted It”

Confronted with an ambiguity in its own insurance policy, an insurance company will sometimes attempt to rewrite its policy long after it first issued that policy.  Last week, the Pennsylvania Superior Court again rejected such gamesmanship, emphasizing that, when interpreting an insurance policy, a court “must examine and construe the policy as it exists, not the way [the insurer] wishes it had drafted it with the benefit of hindsight.”  

In Rourke v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, 2015 PA Super 100 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015), the Superior Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that a court cannot rewrite a policy to include terms an insurer omitted.

In Rourke, a 19-year-old (former) foster child was severely injured in an auto accident.  Seeking coverage pursuant to their personal auto policy, the (former) foster parents argued that that policy afforded coverage because the 19-year-old was a “family member.”  “Family member” was defined in their policy to mean “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.  

This includes a ward or foster child.”  The policy, however, failed to define the terms “foster child” or “ward.”  In relevant part, the Court’s analysis focused only on whether the 19-year-old was a “ward.”  The insurer claimed that the 19-year-old was not a “ward” because he was not a minor at the time of the accident.  The Pennsylvania Superior Court soundly rejected this argument:

Here, the insurance policy included the term “ward” within the broader term “family member.”  We recognize that the term “ward” may carry with it potentially specialized legal meanings when defining legal duties among parties.  However, these contexts, not being defined in the insurance policy, are not likely to be readily understood by the average insured, especially as the term is included expansively as part of the more familiar term “family member.”  Thus, an insured, relying on a general understanding of the relational nature of a ward, may not be alerted of a need to take other legal action to extend coverage to a household member.

As noted above, our cases unequivocally state that if an insurance policy contains an ambiguous term, the policy is to be construed in favor of the insured to further the contract’s prime purpose of indemnification and against the insurer, as the insurer drafts the policy and controls coverage.  [The insurer], as the drafter of the policy, elected not to include a definition of “ward” in the policy.  Nothing prevents [the insurer] or any insurer from drafting its policies and definitions more precisely or narrowly to avoid future litigation.  However, it did not do so in this case.  This Court must examine and construe the policy as it exists, not the way [the insurer] wishes it had drafted it with the benefit of hindsight.  The law does not permit [the insurer] to give a definition in its policy and then post hoc, after a loss is reported, add an additional textual limitation onto the same term.  Stated another way, [the insurer] cannot add an age restriction onto the term “ward” that is not contained within the policy at the time of its issuance.  (Internal quotations and citations omitted; emphasis added).

Although Rourke involved a personal auto policy, the principles set forth by the Superior Court in this case apply with equal force to other types of insurance policies.  For example, 10 years ago, addressing a commercial-lines policy, the Superior Court, in 401 Fourth St., Inc. v. Investors Insurance Group, 823 A.2d 177, 179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003), aff’d, 879 A.2d 166 (Pa. 2005), similarly stated that “it is not the trial court’s responsibility to rewrite the policy to protect the insurer. If [the insurer] wanted to limit its risk … it could easily have done so.”

Accordingly, policyholders – in Pennsylvania and elsewhere – should always be on the look out for, and be prepared to push back against, an insurance company that attempts to rewrite its policy years after issuance.  Simply put, as the Superior Court observed, an insurance company is bound by the policy it issued, not by the policy it wished has issued.

Source: http://www.policyholderperspective.com

Shareholder Suit Alleging Misrepresentation of Environmental Liabilities

At a time when cyber liability and other hot topics dominate the discussion, potential corporate liability arising from environmental disclosures often does not receive the attention it should. However,  environmental issues have been and remain an area on which plaintiffs’ lawyer have been focused. A recently filed securities class action lawsuit underscores the significance of environmental issues and the connection of these issues to corporate liability exposures.

On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida against Rayonier Advanced Materials (RYAM) and certain of its directors and officers. RYAM is a relatively new publicly traded company. It was formed as a result of the June 30, 2014 spin-off of the Performance Fibers Division of Rayonier, Inc.

The securities class action lawsuit relates to RYAM’s January 28, 2015 fourth quarter and full year earnings release (here). Among other things, in the press release, RYAM announced that it was increasing its reserve for environmental liabilities associated with discontinued operations by $69 million. This reserve represents the company’s estimate of its likely costs associated with the remediation and maintenance of disposed operational sites.

According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ May 4, 2015 press release (here), RYAM’s financial statement were misleading because the company had improperly recorded or failed to record its liabilities for environmental remediation and related obligations and failed to provide sufficient disclosures to investors to permit “meaningful evaluation of the true scope and extend of the environmental remediation and related liabilities, which were associated with decades of environmental pollution.”

The plaintiffs’ complaint (which can be found here) specifically alleges that:

(1) Defendants incorrectly accounted for RYAM’s remediation and long-term monitoring and maintenance for environmental liabilities; (2) as a result, the Company understated its Environmental Reserves; (3) as a result, the Company did not record appropriate reserves as required by GAAP; (4) as a result, the Company did not disclose a range of possible reserves for probable and reasonably estimable environmental remediation and related liabilities as required by GAAP; (5) as a result, RYAM did not properly estimate known and probable environmental remediation obligations as required by GAAP; and (6) as a result, RYAM did not maintain adequate internal and financial controls.

The complaint also alleges that RYAM misled investors about the demand for its product, and that contrary to the company’s representations, demand for acetate was slowing. The complaint further alleges that the company made misrepresentations regarding the debt incurred in connection with the spin-off.

As this case and other recent case filings show, environmental issues are an area of increasing focus for plaintiffs’ lawyers. As I have noted, a number of these environmentally focused shareholder lawsuits have proven to be viable. At a minimum, these cases underscore the fact that reporting companies’ environmental compliance disclosures are facing increasing scrutiny, making the quality of the environmental disclosures increasingly important. As has happened with other corporate entities (BP, Duke Energy), environmental concerns can also lead to mismanagement claims based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The typical D&O liability insurance policy will contain an exclusion for loss arising from claims for pollution and environmental liabilities. However, many of these exclusions also contain a provision carving back coverage for shareholder claims. This case shows the importance of this kind of coverage carve back. The carve back ensures that directors and officers hit with this kind of shareholder suit filed in wake of an environmental incident are able to rely on their  D&O insurance to defend themselves against the shareholder suit.

In recent years, a number of D&O insurance carriers have introduced policy forms that eliminate the pollution exclusion altogether but that also incorporate into the policy’s definition of “Loss” a provision stating that Loss will not included environmental remediation or cleanup costs.

An April 28, 2015 article in Corporate Counsel entitled “D&O Insurance for Environmental Liability Exposures” (here) discusses the D&O insurance issues relating to environmental liability in more detail.

Source:  http://www.dandodiary.com

Federal judge in Pennsylvania shuts down insurer’s refusal to share its playbook

Bad-faith claims against an insurer open the door to many more issues, and a lot more discovery about those issues, than insurers would lead you to believe. Insurers routinely clam up about anything in any of their files — even ones related directly to an insured’s claim — the moment the insured drags the insurer into court. My colleague, Kyle Sturm, recently posted an article here about a pending decision by the Oregon Supreme Court regarding an insurer’s attempt to bury its claims file.

But the claims file, the insurer’s correspondence, reports, and notes about a particular claim, tells only part of the story. That is, these documents will show an insured how he was mistreated by the adjusters. Another rich source of information powering bad-faith claims lies in what the adjusters were supposed to do, what the insurer’s own procedures and training manuals dictate should be done in handling a claim.

These manuals were the subject of a recent order by a federal district-court judge in Pennsylvania in Stephens v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (Apr. 13, 2015). In this case, the insured, Gerald Stephens, told his State Farm agent that he would be renting his home while he was undergoing back surgery. Stephens alleges that the agent assured him that coverage under his homeowner’s policy “would remain unaffected by his departure while he sought medical care.”

And therein lies the rub. After the theft, vandalism, and water-damage loss of over $165,000, State Farm allegedly canceled Stephens’s policy on the grounds that he no longer lived in his home. If you don’t think that insurers would actually play this game, take a look at my post here about an Oregon case involving an insurer’s terrible coverage advice about its own policy.

Stephens sought State Farm’s procedures and training manuals to find out whether the sharp elbows were merely the product of a rogue adjuster, or part of State Farm’s business plan. The judge handily rejected State Farm’s argument that its manuals were irrelevant, noting that “this court has frequently granted such requests for discovery in the past, reasoning that agency claims processing policies, and noncompliance with those policies, may be relevant to a bad faith claim like the claim made by the plaintiffs in this case.” Insureds ought to ask for these manuals in bad-faith cases for precisely this reason.

But the insurer’s potential “noncompliance” with anodyne procedures may not be the worst of it — discovery in other cases has revealed just the kind of bad-faith intent that every policyholder lawyer suspects:

The court references the [insurer’s] manual statements, which called for “aggressive use of [Independent Medical Exams],” attempts at catching claimants “off guard,” and assigning cases to defense counsel who fully follow the adjuster’s orders and who refrain from exercising independent judgment.

Bonenberger v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 791 A.2d 378, 381-82 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).

Discovery of an insurer’s claims manuals may be a double-edged sword cutting the insurer either way: showing noncompliance with good-faith internal rules, or faithful compliance with bad-faith rules. Either way, coverage counsel should not neglect seeking this important source of evidence against insurers.

Opinion reprinted from WestlawNext with permission of Thomson Reuters. If you wish to check the currency of this case by using KeyCite on WestlawNext, please visit www.next.westlaw.com