Severe storms spawn tornadoes, large hail in MN

By News Tribune on Jun 20, 2016 at 7:04 a.m.

Severe storms raced across northern Minnesota on Sunday night, spawning two apparent tornadoes and dropping hail the size of softballs in some locations.

The National Weather Service in Duluth received a report of a tornado north of Staples in Cass County at about 6:30 p.m. It was reported by law enforcement and later corroborated by photos and video, said Carol Christenson, warning coordination meteorologist with the Weather Service.
About a half-hour later, radar picked up signs of debris being tossed into the sky by an apparent tornado in the Warba and Wawina areas, Christenson said. That information also was corroborated by a video later in the evening.
Weather Service crews will be heading to both areas Monday to survey any damage left by the tornadoes.
There also were several reports of funnel clouds across the region on Sunday night from storms that fired as a cold front swept across the Northland and interacted with the hot, humid air that was in place.
There were reports of at least one injury in the Crosby area when a large tree fell on a house as a severe storm — the one that produced the tornado near Staples — moved through at about 7:30 p.m. That storm also knocked trees down on top of cabins on Placid Lake near Deerwood, according to reports from emergency management officials, relayed by the Weather Service.
To the north, in Swan River southeast of Grand Rapids, near where the other tornado was reported, Lucky Seven gas station clerk Nikki Healy — who also is a Skywarn spotter for the Weather Service in Duluth — said “we had torrential downpours, inch to inch-and-a-half hail, and I'd say the winds were 70-80 mph. We had some funnel clouds, but we didn’t see any touchdown. …
"I thought it was pretty cool just because I'm into that kind of stuff. It was definitely exciting."
The Weather Service also received reports of hail the size of softballs in the Nisswa area of Crow Wing County, north of Brainerd. Christenson said that in about 20 years with the Weather Service in Duluth, it probably was the largest hail report she’s seen in the Northland.
“It’s rare to see 4-inch hail anywhere,” she said.
John Palcher observed tennis-ball-size hail as the storms moved between Nisswa and Crosby. Palcher said there "did not seem to be an extraordinary amount of hail, but what fell was gigantic. Houses just to north especially will need full siding replacement."
The storms largely missed Duluth, though they created stunning cloud formations that filled the sky at sunset.
Elsewhere in the region, there were many other reports of large hail and wind damage, including numerous trees down along county Highway 4 in the Island Lake area north of Duluth, Christenson said.
Minnesota Power reported about 6,800 customers without electricity as of 11:15 p.m. in the wake of the storms, according to the utility's online outage map. Lake Country Power reported about 5,000 customers without power as of 11:15 p.m.
Other reports of storm damage included:

• 30 to 40 trees uprooted or snapped off in Willow River.
• dime-sized hail in Gary-New Duluth at about 9:35 p.m. 
• quarter-size hail covering the ground in Gordon at about 9:20 p.m.
• a 68 mph wind gust at the Solon Springs airport at 9:15 p.m.
• half-dollar-size hail covering the ground near Carlton at 9:10 p.m.
• half-dollar-size hail near Meadowlands at 8:35 p.m.
• funnel cloud near southern Aitkin County at about 7:20 p.m.
• quarter-size hail in Aitkin at about 7:15 p.m.
• estimated 70 mph winds in Nisswa at about 6:50 p.m.

Much quieter weather is expected Monday, with sunny skies and highs in the 70s.
Destructive hail in Koochiching County
Before the evening storms developed, a severe thunderstorm dropped hail the size of tennis balls in far northern Minnesota on Sunday morning.
The National Weather Service relayed reports of 2.5-inch-diameter hail in Lake of the Woods County southwest of Baudette at about 8:15 a.m.
That storm cell moved east into Koochiching County, where storm spotters and law enforcement reported golf-ball and tennis-ball-size hail in the Pelland Junction area, a few miles southwest of International Falls, between about 9:25 and 9:45 a.m.
Joel Sunne, who lives about a mile west of Pelland Junction, said 1 to 1½ inches of hail accumulated in short order at his home; he estimated it ranged in diameter from about the size of a nickel to a quarter.
“It wasn’t giant, but it just came down like somebody had a bucket and just dumped it all at one time,” he said. “I’ve never actually seen it coming out of the sky that fast. You could hardly see any distance, because the hail was just filling the whole sky.”
The hail did a number on Sunne’s commercial strawberry operation.
“I can’t predict yet, but it looks pretty bad,” he said. “It knocked quite a few of the berries off of the stem.There are green berries lying all over the place.”
“I would say we’ll have a 70 percent loss at a minimum. But it might be worse. It could very well be an 80 to 90 percent loss,” Sunne said
Sunne typically relies on his pick-your-own strawberry operation for about two-thirds of his income and had no crop insurance protection.
“To give you an idea, it’s probably between $60,000 and $70,000 worth of berries that went down the drain there in five minutes,” he said.

Arboris LLC, a Non-GMO food additive manufacturer faces $180K in fines after explosion, fire injures 4 workers at Ohio facility

June 21, 2016

Arboris LLC, a Non-GMO food additive manufacturer faces $180K in fines after explosion, fire injures 4 workers at Ohio facility
OSHA cites Arboris LLC, Atlas Industrial Contractors for safety hazards

NEWARK, Ohio - A Newark food additive manufacturer's failure to handle hazardous materials and respond properly to an emergency led to an explosion that injured four workers, including two contractors who scaled an 8-foot security fence topped with triple-strand barbed wire to escape the fireball.
An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration found Arboris LLC violated process safety management procedures for the handling of hazardous materials and did not have emergency shut-down procedures for the evaporator and rotary drum filter at the plant when the fire occurred on Dec. 21, 2015. The plant produces sterols, a renewable, non-genetically modified resource used in food manufacturing to lower cholesterol in products.
"Four workers were lucky to be able to escape with minor injuries after a fireball engulfed their work area," said Vanessa Martin, OSHA's area director in Columbus. "When employers fail to properly document procedures and control highly hazardous chemicals, there is a potential for unintentional releases which can cause explosions and fires. Companies must carefully monitor their processes to ensure safety in manufacturing facilities."
OSHA issued Arboris one willful, 35 serious and five other-than-serious safety violations on June 17 and has proposed penalties of $180,180. Two Arboris workers suffered smoke inhalation and first-degree burns.
An investigation by the agency's Columbus area office found Arboris failed to:

• Designate sufficient egress routes.
• Develop operational procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of equipment.
• Develop procedures to prevent inadvertent startup or release of stored energy.
• Document inspections and maintenance.
• Follow standard operating procedures.
• Review operating procedures annually.
• Develop procedures for starting up the system after a turnaround.
• Ensure piping and instrumentation diagrams are accurate.
• Provide clear instructions to employees during service and maintenance.
• Provide personal protective equipment necessary in the event of a fire.
• Install handrails on stairs.
• Enclose or guard electrical equipment.

Atlas Industrial Contractors LLC employed the two workers hurt scaling the fence. OSHA cited the company for one repeated, one serious and one other-than-serious safety violation on May 17 for failing to store gas cylinders properly and to provide flame-resistant clothing and other personal protective equipment. Atlas employees were working in the facility to decommission and demolishing old process equipment. OSHA has proposed fines of $41,000 to the Columbus-based company.
View citations for Arboris and Atlas.
Arboris has manufacturing plants in Savannah, Georgia, and Newark, to produce sterols - a natural compound produced by pine trees - used commonly in foods such as spreads, bread, milk and yogurt.
Columbus-based Atlas also operates facilities in Troy, Ohio; Lincoln, Alabama; and Longmont, Colorado.
Both companies have 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 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 finds absence of proper safety guards led two workers to suffer amputation injuries at Ajinomoto Windsor Inc., a Piedmont, MO food manufacturer

June 21, 2016

OSHA finds absence of proper safety guards led two workers
to suffer amputation injuries at Ajinomoto Windsor Inc., a Piedmont, MO food manufacturer
Agency fines Ajinomoto Windsor Inc. $140K for repeated, serious safety violations

PIEDMONT, Mo. - Twice in less than a month, two workers at an Ajinomoto Windsor Inc. facility suffered amputation injuries because their employer failed to install adequate safety guards to keep operator's hands out of machine danger zones, inspectors with the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration found. The agency cited the food manufacturer for similar machine hazards at the Piedmont facility in 2013.
Inspectors responded after the Dec. 22, 2015, and Jan. 23, 2016, injuries occurred at the plant. On June 15, the agency cited the company for two repeated, eight serious and three other-than-serious safety violations and proposed $140,000 in penalties.
OSHA inspection found:

• On Dec. 22, 2015, a 54-year-old sanitation worker lost more than half of his right index finger and severed another finger while clearing debris from a breading machine. A third finger was damaged and later medically amputated.
• On Jan. 23, 2016, a reciprocating blade severed the tip of a 30-year-old production worker's left middle finger as he attempted to unjam a bagging machine without adequate safe guards.

"It's hard to imagine the agony and pain these workers suffered when their fingers were amputated. Machine safe guards would have prevented their hands coming in contact with the operating parts of the machine," said Bill McDonald, OSHA's area director in St. Louis. "Such hazards are inexcusable in light of the OSHA intervention that ensued at the plant following a machine guarding inspection in 2013. Ajinomoto Windsor needs to make fundamental changes inside of its workplace to protect workers on the job and to comply with federal safety standards."
Since Jan. 1, 2015, OSHA requires all employers to report any severe work-related injury - defined as a hospitalization, amputation or loss of an eye - within 24 hours. The requirement that an employer report a workplace fatality within eight hours remains in force. In the first full year of the program, Missouri employers reported 88 amputations. Amputation hazards remain among the most frequently cited OSHA violations.
View current citations for December and January injuries.
Based in Ontario, California, Ajinomoto Windsor markets specialty frozen foods for consumers, commercial restaurants, and foodservice operators from 10 plants in eight states. Among their consumer brands are Tai Pei, Jose Ole, Ling Ling and Bernardi.
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 amputations, eye loss, 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 St. Louis office at 314-425-4249.
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.

Yeshiva Kehilath Yakov cited for 21 safety hazards. Employees exposed to widespread, potentially fatal electrical, fall hazards at Williamsburg building site

June 21, 2016 BOS-2016-097

Employees exposed to widespread, potentially fatal electrical,
fall hazards at Williamsburg building site
Yeshiva Kehilath Yakov cited for 21 safety hazards

Employer name: Yeshiva Kehilath Yakov, 638 Bedford Ave., Brooklyn, New York, constructing a six-story school and office building at 642 Bedford St. in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.
Citations issued: On June 3, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Yeshiva Kehilath Yakov for 21 serious violations of workplace safety standards.
Investigation findings: Employees working at the site were exposed to widespread electrical hazards and to falls of from six to more than 10 feet as well as impalement, struck-by and laceration hazards. These included:

• Exposed live electrical outlets and parts, misused and damaged electrical cords throughout the worksite.
• No fall protection for employees working at unguarded building edges and an unguarded elevator shaft.
• An inadequately planked scaffold that was not erected under the supervision of a competent person.
• Employees climbing framing and cross-bracing to access the scaffold.
• Unguarded skylights and floor holes.
• Impalement hazards from unguarded projecting steel rebar.
• Uncapped and unsecured compressed gas cylinders.
• Objects falling from an unguarded elevator shaft.
• A grinder not guarded against employee contact.

The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office under its local emphasis program on construction.
Proposed penalties: $49,200
Quote: "The nature and breadth of these violations are disturbing. Falls and electrocution are two of the four hazards that account for most injuries and deaths in construction work. Responsible employers must ensure that these and other required safeguards are in place and in use at all times. The lives and well-being of their employees depends on this," said Kay Gee, OSHA's area director for Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens.
Yeshiva Kehilath Yakov has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Link to citations: http://go.usa.gov/xq3fF.

Bolivar Enterprises LLC, a Union City, NJ contractor allowed dangerous hazards that led to worker's fatal fall while removing siding at Bayonne home

June 21, 2016

Bolivar Enterprises LLC, a Union City, NJ contractor allowed dangerous hazards that led to worker's fatal fall while removing siding at Bayonne home

Employer name: Bolivar Enterprises LLC, 902 Central Ave., Union City, New Jersey
Citations issued: On June 3, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued citations for nine serious violations.
Investigation findings: OSHA opened an inspection on Dec. 11, 2015, when the Bayonne Police Department reported that a worker had fallen while removing siding from three-story residence. The agency also conducted the inspection under its local emphasis program focused on fall hazards in construction.
Investigators found that the employee - who died from his injuries - was working on an extension ladder that was part of a scaffold, approximately 25 feet high. While removing the existing siding from the front of the house, he pulled a piece of siding, it gave way, and he fell to the ground. OSHA cited Bolivar for allowing the hazard that caused the fall. The agency also issued citations for scaffolding hazards, including:

• Failing to provide adequate fall protection while working on the scaffold.
• Not erecting scaffolding that met OSHA's standards.
• Using scaffolding improperly.
• Failing to provide scaffolding training to workers.

Proposed penalties: $57,000
Quote: "This tragedy could have been prevented if the company had properly protected workers from fall hazards. Instead, Bolivar Enterprises exposed employees to deadly falls from nearly all aspects of the job," said Bryan Flynn, acting area director of OSHA's Parsippany Office. "Falls are the leading cause of injury and death on construction sites. Employers must take worker safety seriously or risk serious consequences."
View the citations: http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/BolivarEnterprisesLLC_1046028.pdf

OSHA finds Americold Logistics, a cold storage company, lacked proper procedures for use of potentially dangerous ammonia

June 21, 2016

OSHA finds Americold Logistics, a cold storage company, lacked proper procedures for use of potentially dangerous ammonia

Employer name: Americold Logistics
Carthage, Missouri
Citations received: June 16, 2016
Investigation findings: The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued nine serious safety violations to Americold Logistics, a food industry provider of cold storage warehousing and logistical services. A January 2016 complaint investigation found the company violated OSHA's process safety management procedures for using ammonia in its refrigeration warehouse facility.
An investigation by the agency's Kansas City area office found the company failed to:

• Identify ammonia refrigeration piping by name and direction of flow.
• Correct equipment deficiencies.
• Follow good engineering practices.
• Train workers on start-up procedures.
• Conduct training on confined space rescue procedures.
• Train workers on the hazardous chemicals in use.
• Close electrical openings.
• Prevent electrical equipment from being exposed to water and moisture.

Quote: "Exposure to ammonia can cause serious eye, throat and respiratory issues for employees," said Dave Keim, OSHA's acting area director in Kansas City. "When highly hazardous chemicals are not properly controlled and stored there is a potential for unintentional release. Companies like Americold Logistics that use ammonia for refrigeration must carefully monitor their processes to ensure safe use."
Proposed Penalties: $54,800
View Citations here.
Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Americold owns and operates more than 175 temperature-controlled warehouses worldwide providing warehousing and logistics services to the food industry.
To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report amputations, eye loss, 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 Kansas City Area Office at 816-502-0297.

OSHA fines High Country Elevators Inc., a grain elevator company for willfully, repeatedly exposing workers to potentially fatal grain engulfment hazards

June 21, 2016

OSHA fines High Country Elevators Inc., a grain elevator company for willfully, repeatedly exposing workers to potentially fatal grain engulfment hazards
Inspection is part of Regional Emphasis Program for Grain Handling Facilities

Employer name: High Country Elevators Inc.
Worksites: 62784 US-491, Dove Creek, CO 81324
Citations issued: June 10, 2016
Investigation findings: The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated High Country Elevators Inc., on March 15, 2016, in Dove Creek as part of the agency's Regional Emphasis Program for Grain Handling Facilities. At the time of the inspection, an employee was inside one of the storage bins alone shoveling sunflower seeds; no protective measures were in place and no other employee was present to stop the elevator in an emergency. OSHA then cited the employer for one willful violation for having an employee working in a storage bin, and not locking-out energized unguarded equipment operating inside the same storage bin. The agency also issued two repeat citations because the employer did not issue a permit to an employee prior to entering a storage bin, a confined space, and the worker was not equipped with a body harness and lifeline. The employer was cited for these same or a similar violation on Aug. 15, 2011.
Additionally, OSHA issued four serious violations to High Country for:

• Not monitoring the air inside a confined space prior to allowing employees to enter them.
• Allowing employees to enter confined spaces without being connected to a rescue line, and failure to have a manual backup system or a means to adjust the force and speed of the electric winch used as part of the rescue equipment for employees who enter confined spaces.
• Not providing an observer outside of the storage bin to provide assistance in the event another employee entered the bin in an emergency.
• Allowing grain dust to accumulate greater than 1/8 inch.

Suffocation is a leading cause of death in grain storage bins. In 2010, 51 workers were engulfed by grain stored in bins; 26 of them died.
Proposed Penalties: $51,920.
Quote: "Moving grain acts like 'quicksand', can bury a worker in seconds and, in many cases, leads to death by suffocation," said David Nelson, OSHA's Area Director in Englewood, Colorado. "Vertical piles of stored grain can also collapse unexpectedly if a worker stands on or near it. These types of incident can be prevented by following some basic rules."
Links to the citations: http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/HighCountryElevators.pdf
Information: High Country Elevators stores and sells a variety of grain and sunflower products. The company has 15 business days from receipt of their citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's Area Director, or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
To ask questions; obtain compliance assistance; file a complaint or report amputations, eye loss, 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 Englewood Area Office at 303-843-4500. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Dog killed, dog rescued, firefighter injured in Logan Square fire in Chicago

Updated 48 mins ago

CHICAGO (WLS) --

One dog was rescued, a firefighter was injured, and one dog was killed in a Tuesday afternoon fire in Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood.

The two-alarm fire broke out in the 2700-block of North Campbell around 12:30 p.m.

The original fire building was at 2720 N. Campbell and had exposures to north and south, according to Fire Media.

One firefighter suffered a minor injury, according to Fire Media.

The video spread from the originating building to a neighboring structure.

There were two dogs inside the burning homes cell phone video shows firefighters running one of them out of the house.

Firefighters say conditions allowed the fire to spread quickly.

The injured firefighter is expected to be OK. Both buildings are now un-inhabitable. The cause of the fire remains under investigation.

The Sun-Times Media Wire contributed to this report.

Schindler v. Tully Construction Co.: Subcontractor’s Failure to Strictly Comply With Notice Provision Costs $200,000

Subcontractor’s Failure to Strictly Comply With Notice Provision Costs $200,000

By Matthew DeVries on June 21, 2016 

Whether you are an owner, contractor, subcontractor or supplier, you will want to read the rest of this post since it illustrates precisely what all those attorneys have been telling you for years: “Please, please, please read your contract.” In this instance, one party’s failure to strictly follow the contractual notice provision was a $209,235.36 mistake.

In Schindler v. Tully Construction Co., 139 A.D.3d 930 (May 18, 2016), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed a trial court’s award of delay damages in favor of a subcontractor on a public contract.  The general contractor entered into an agreement with the City of New York Department of Sanitation to construct a garage. The subcontractor agreed to to furnish and install five elevators for the project. Although the court’s decision does not elaborate on the details, the subcontractor filed suit and was awarded more than $200,000 in damages incurred as a result of delays in performance of the work.

The prime contract between the City and the general contractor, which was incorporated into the subcontract by reference, contained a strict notice provision:

. . . within forty-five (45) Days from the time such damages are first incurred, and every thirty (30) Days thereafter for as long as such damages are incurred, verified statements of the details and amounts of such damages, together with documentary evidence of such damages.
. . . [a failure] to strictly comply with the requirements of Article … 11.1.2 shall be deemed a conclusive waiver by the Contractor of any and all claims for damages for delay arising from such condition.

While the words “condition-precedent” do not appear to be expressly stated in the contract, the court found that the contract contained “a condition-precedent type notice provision.”  The appellate court held that the letters and emails relied upon by the trial court “did not strictly comply with the contractual notice requirement, since they did not contain verified statements of the amount of delay damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff and were unsupported by documentary evidence.”  The appellate court also found that actual knowledge of the delays and claims did not excuse the subcontractor from complying with the the notice requirements of the contract. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the award of damages in favor of the subcontractor and held that the subcontractor’s complaint should be dismissed.

Do you think the court in Schindler reached the right conclusion?  Like every legal question, the answer is: It depends!  Depending on the law in your state, “strict compliance” and “substantial compliance” compel different results.  For example, in Lee Masonry, Inc. v. City of Franklin, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that an owner’s actual knowledge of the events giving rise to the claims at issue did not bar recovery even though the contractors did not strictly comply with the notice requirements.  The appellate court also held that if the contractors did not fully comply with all of the notice provisions, such non-compliance would not be a material deviation from the contract requirements:

We agree with the trial court’s assessment that, based on meeting minutes, daily reports, revised schedules, and default letters to [the engineer], the City had actual knowledge of the delays and disruptions on the project and how they were impacting [the contractors]. As the trial court noted, “[a]ny further written notice would not have served any practical purpose.”

Strict or substantial compliance. When you are required to strictly comply with a particular provision or legal requirement, then any departure from that requirement (no matter how insubstantial) can void the claim or provide an absolute defense.  On the other hand, if only substantial compliance is required, then you need only meet the primary purpose or central aim of the contract or statute is met.  It is an equitable doctrine that if you act in good faith but fail to meet the exact requirements, the law treats the requirement as having been meet.
Your takeaways?  Read the notice provisions in your contract and check your state’s laws on the substantial compliance doctrine.  Read this post on providing notice and ten other tasks when pursuing a construction claim.  Don’t make a $200,000 mistake by failing to follow the contract and law.

Top 5 Things You Need to Know about the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015

Top 5 Things You Need to Know about the TSCA Overhaul

By Stuart Kaplow on June 19, 2016

On June 7, by a voice vote of the Unites State Senate agreeing to changes approved by the House of Representatives on May 24 (voting 403 for and 12 against), Congress has passed the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015” that will amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, sending the 66 page bill to the President for his signature. The President is expected to sign the bill this week.
HR 2576 greatly expands the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate and regulate chemicals.

TSCA was enacted in 1976 to protect the environment and the public’s health against risks posed by chemicals in materials in commerce. Forty years later, there is general agreement that the law has not kept pace with the marketplace including a patchwork of state laws that were effectively trumping this Federal law, and the field was made more complicated by non governmental programs like the LEED green building rating system that incorporates Materials & Resources credits including building product and material ingredient disclosure and optimization.

Some perspective is likely appropriate because of the 85,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory there were only five existing chemicals in the stream of commerce before TSCA went into effect that EPA deemed harmful and just four new chemicals that came to market after 1976 that have since been banned under the existing law.

It has been suggested that the bipartisan effort by Congress acting on this substantive legislative bill is the big news in and of itself. And while compromise on Capitol Hill is a big deal, this bill greatly expands the authority of EPA and will have implications not just for the chemical manufacturers, processors and importers, as TSCA had in the past, but now also for many more businesses. 

The top five takeaways for business are:

1. The scope of the law is widened with a new safety standard providing “that the relevant chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present unreasonable risk of injury to health of the community without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors.” The decades old cost benefit analysis is now altered throughout TSCA where “unreasonable risk” was used that it now excludes consideration of costs and other nonrisk factors, either by striking “unreasonable” or adding “without taking into account cost or other non-risk factors.”
2. All existing chemicals will now be subject to possible future regulation in a bifurcated process. The first step will consist of an EPA risk evaluation and a second step for risk management. Risk evaluations are to be conducted on each chemical EPA designates as a high-priority substance. Six months after enactment, EPA must be conducting risk evaluations for 10 chemicals drawn from its Work Plan. The new law sets a 3 year deadline for all risk evaluations.
3. With new chemicals, today a business is generally able to start producing a new chemical at the end of a 90 day review period, unless EPA finds the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk.” In the future EPA must review and affirmatively make a risk determination for all new chemicals. And if EPA determines that a new chemical presents an unreasonable risk or EPA lacks sufficient information to make a reasoned evaluation or the chemical may present an unreasonable risk or is produced in large amounts and results in large releases or exposures, EPA must impose restrictions to the extent necessary to protect against any such risk.
4. Preempting state laws, that vary across the country, with a single Federal edict (whether good or not so good) was the reason that business supported amending TSCA. And while the preemption provisions are complex, the bill largely accomplishes that. The bill’s preemption applies to state restrictions on a chemical, but not to requirements for reporting, monitoring or disclosure. And most significantly, a state cannot now prohibit all use of a chemical in the state, except via co enforcement with EPA or getting a waiver from EPA. State actions taken before August 1, 2015, or taken under laws in effect on August 31, 2003, are exempted from preemption. And the bill preserves state and private party rights, causes of actions, and remedies from being preempted by EPA.
5. Costs to some business will be significant. Today EPA can only charge fees to cover testing requirements for new chemicals, but now EPA may collect fees for both new and existing chemicals, as well as those designated as high-priority. But the dollars paid to EPA will be small when compared to the legal fees and hard science costs to businesses in compliance. And there is uncertainty associated with this much bigger regulation that impacts many more businesses, including by way of example, costs across industries from the probable banning of asbestos, as is anticipated under this new law.

Also significantly, this new enactment should portend revisions to LEED materials credits (including LEED’s use of EPDs and HPDs that do not include toxicity and as such are inconsistent with this new law) and other nongovernmental standards pegged to federal laws.

California Proposes Adopting New Permitting Program for Wetlands and Waters of the State that are not protected by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA)

California Proposes Adopting New Permitting Program for Wetlands and Waters of the State
By Keith Garner on June 20, 2016 

On June 17, 2017, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) published proposed amendments to the Ocean Plan and the water quality control plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California to adopt procedures for discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state that are not protected by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition to the proposed amendments, the State Board also published a detailed staff report and a separate comparison of the new “State Supplemental Dredged or Fill Guidelines” to the CWA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which requires sequencing of impacts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to waters. Two workshops and a public hearing are scheduled in June and July, with the public comment period ending on August 4, 2016. The proposal is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the State Board in the fall of 2016.



The publication of the proposed amendments and related materials is the latest development in a program the State Board has been working on since 2007 in response to Supreme Court decisions narrowing the scope of aquatic resources subject to the CWA. The State Board had previously referred to its proposed wetland permitting program as the Water Quality Control Policy for Wetland Area Protection and Dredged or Fill Permitting. The State Board believes the program will help address an inconsistency across the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards) in requirements for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the state, including wetlands and will help prevent losses in the quantity and quality of wetlands in California.

The proposed amendments include (1) a wetland definition, (2) wetland delineation procedures, and (3) procedures for applications, and the review and approval of Water Quality Certifications, Waste Discharge Requirements, and waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements for dredged and fill activities.

The proposed wetland definition is similar, but not identical, to the federal definition in the CWA. The State Board asserts that the proposed definition is intended to provide clear and consistent direction for determining whether an aquatic feature is a wetland but does not affect the meaning of “waters of the state” as it pertains to the Water Boards’ jurisdiction pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, nor does it modify the current authorities of the Water Boards to protect water quality. Rather, a statewide wetland definition would provide consistent identification standards for certain types of aquatic features that are sometimes difficult to identify in the field, and for which current policy does not provide adequate guidance.

The proposed wetland delineation procedures incorporate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) CWA delineation procedures and guidance materials to determine if an area meets the wetland definition, with slight modifications. The proposed amendments state that the Waters Boards must rely on any wetland delineation approved by the Corps for purposes of determining the extent of waters of the U.S. For non-federal wetland areas, the Water Boards are directed to use the Corps’ 1987 delineation manual and two regional supplements covering California to determine whether an area meets the State Board’s definition of wetland, except that the lack of wetland vegetation does not preclude an area being a wetland under state law.

The new application procedures would apply to discharges to waters of the state, including waters subject to federal jurisdiction, for all application submitted after the amendments become effective. Notable requirements deal with alternatives analysis and mitigation.

Under guidelines developed by the EPA pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps cannot permit a project unless it determines it is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, or LEDPA. For waters subject to federal jurisdiction, the Water Boards are directed to defer to the Corps and EPA’s determination unless the Water Board makes one of the following findings: (1) the Water Board was not afforded an opportunity to consult during the development of the alternatives analysis; (2) the Corps’ alternatives analysis does not adequately address issues raised by the Water Board during the consultation; (3) additional analysis is requires to comply with CEQA, water quality standards, or other requirements; or (4) the project and all of the identified alternatives would not comply with water quality standards. If a project includes both federal and non-federal waters, the Water Boards may require the applicant to supplement the alternatives analysis to include waters of the state outside of federal jurisdiction. If the project solely involves water of the state that are not subject to federal jurisdiction, Water Boards may require an alternatives analysis in accordance with the Sate Supplemental Dredged or Fill Guidelines, which are excerpted from the EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and included as an appendix to the proposed amendments.

Mitigation requirements are also incorporated from the Corps and EPA’s 2008 Mitigation Rule. This is a change from prior drafts of the Water Quality Control Policy for Wetland Area Protection and Dredged or Fill Permitting, which had proposed mitigation requirements and criteria that were at odds with those required by the Corps.

Routine commercial use of small drones got a green light from the US administration June 21, 2016

More drones-for-hire coming to U.S. skies under landmark rules



Jun 21, 2016 | By Alan Levin, Bloomberg


Routine commercial use of small drones got a green light from the Obama administration June 21, 2016, after years of struggling to write regulations that would both protect public safety and unleash the economic potential and societal benefits of the new technology. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

(Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration is opening U.S. skies to more commercial drones with long-awaited regulations that the government hopes will spawn new industries for inspecting bridges, monitoring crops and taking aerial photography.

In the most comprehensive set of rules yet for the burgeoning unmanned aircraft industry, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday went far beyond its original restrictive proposal issued last year. Drone operators will be able to petition the agency to fly beyond the horizon, at night and over people if they can show such flights are safe.

.

See: FAA Fact Sheet on Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107)

"We are in the early days of an aviation revolution that will change the way we do business, keep people safe, and gather information about our world,” President Barack Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “This is just a first step, but this is the kind of innovative thinking that helps make change work for us — not only to grow the economy, but to improve the lives of the American people."

 

When it comes to insurance, drones have numerous everyday uses from underwriting, to loss prevention, to claims adjusting, to disaster...

The rules could be a boost for drone manufacturers such as SZ DJI Technology Co. of China, the world’s largest. Other U.S. companies that have been working with the FAA on expanding drone operations, such as PrecisionHawk in Raleigh, North Carolina, and AirMap Inc. of Santa Monica, California, also stand to benefit.

The new regulations, which become effective two months from publication in the Federal Register, took years to craft and are seen as a critical step toward realizing the potential of drones to perform such tasks as monitoring crops, inspecting power lines and pipelines as well as assisting government agencies in disasters. 

Low flights


The basic rules permit only low-level flights within sight of an operator and not over people. Drone operators-for-hire will have to pass a written test and be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration — but no longer need to be airplane pilots as current law requires. Drones under the regulation must weight less than 55 pounds (25 kilograms).

Allowing a device to be within eyesight of an assistant — a change from the proposed rules industry advocates won in the final version — means an operator can guide a drone by its video signal.

Drone package deliveries by companies such as Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google Project Wing aren’t allowed under the regulations until the FAA writes separate rules governing their use. Similarly, the limitations in the regulations won’t permit longer flights for agricultural flyovers, pipeline and utility inspections and news media photography over crowds.
Added flexibility


However, the agency heeded industry comments to its earlier proposal and added flexibility so that many such activities would be permitted under a waiver program, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said in a telephone briefing.

“Our focus is to make this as streamlined as possible,” Huerta said. The agency will open an online portal through which applicants can learn how to file for waivers, he said.

Solving the more complex problems inherent in drone deliveries — which envision autonomous vehicles buzzing over highly populated areas — is a “very active research program,” Huerta said. He declined to set a timetable on when such flights would be permitted.

While the rules don’t apply directly to hobbyists, who don’t need a license to fly if they’ve registered their drones with the FAA, it lays out the government’s authority to enforce aviation regulations on all unmanned aircraft.
Symbolic victory


Drone-advocacy groups called the regulations a symbolic victory that paves the way for those future uses. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International trade group forecasts drones will produce $82 billion in economic value and create more than 100,000 new jobs in the first 10 years after widespread flights are approved.

“This is a watershed moment in how advanced technology can improve lives,” Brendan Schulman, drone maker DJI’s vice president of policy and legal affairs, said in an e-mailed statement. “After years of work, DJI and other advocates for reasonable regulation are pleased that the FAA now has a basic set of rules for integrating commercial drone operations into the national airspace.”
Decision to drop piolot's license requirement


The FAA’s decision to drop a requirement for a pilot’s license “is a significant win” for the industry that opens it to many more operators,” Diana Cooper, PrecisionHawk’s senior director of policy, said in a web posting.

“I regard it as a significant milestone,” said AUVSI President Brian Wynne, who had been pushing FAA to issue the regulations for years. “We’ll accelerate the process of understanding what the risks are that will allow us to move on to more complex operations.”

For some companies, the rules didn’t move fast enough. “We still have a long way to go, specifically when it comes to long-distance, or beyond visual line-of-sight, drones,” Tero Heinonen, chief executive officer of Sharper Shape Ltd., a Finnish-based company that has begun power-line inspections in Europe, said in a statement. The company expects to apply to the FAA for a waiver within months, Heinonen said. 

Ahead of EU


The release of the rules puts the U.S. ahead of Europe in setting standards for the drone industry. The European Union has yet to adopt comprehensive rules for civilian drones, according to the European Aviation Safety Agency website. Individual nations have imposed restrictions, but they differ across borders. EASA is trying to develop rules by 2017.


The FAA has already convened groups to study how to eventually allow such flights. Test programs are examining how to: approve long-range drone flights in which an operator steers with video images; make unmanned craft safe to fly over people; and expand agricultural uses.

The Obama administration also announced new federal initiatives with NASA, the FAA and other government agencies to study how to broaden drone uses for tasks such as disaster response and environmental monitoring. NASA is already developing an air-traffic control system for low-altitude drones.
Privacy concerns


Privacy concerns will be addressed by a new government campaign to educate operators and businesses. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration last month issued non-binding privacy policy suggestions. Commercial drone operators will be tested on privacy issues as part of their license, according to the Obama administration.

The FAA has permitted commercial drone operations — those conducted for hire, as opposed to recreational flights by hobbyists who don’t need a license — since September 2014 under a case-by-case exemption process ordered by Congress. Drone operators under this program had to have a traditional pilot’s license. As of June 2, the agency had granted 6,004 such permits to fly drones commercially.

The new regulation allows a far easier approval process and is expected to swell the ranks of commercial operators. The agency is dropping the requirement for a pilots’ license, relying instead on a simpler knowledge test. FAA-approved drone operators will have more leeway to fly different drone models and multiple missions. 

‘Major step’


The regulations are “a major step for not only unmanned aerial systems, but virtually every sector of the economy,” Gregory Walden, counsel to the Small UAV Coalition, a Washington trade group, said in a news release before the rules were released. Walden called the action a victory “for innovation in technology and a new era in aviation.”

They also will promote safety at a time when hundreds of thousands of hobbyists are flying with limited FAA oversight, Wynne said. There were more than 1,200 reports of drone safety incidents last year, including flying too close to airliners, according to FAA.

The new rules codify what until now have been set out as FAA policy statements and interpretations. All drones are aircraft and subject to FAA enforcement actions if operators are reckless or fly in prohibited zones, according to the agency.

“We need an attitude of professionalism where people are working to improve the safety record all the time,” Wynn said. People who obtain FAA drone-pilot certificates will now have an economic incentive to help police the system, he said.

Operators will be restricted to flying below 400 feet, more than five miles from an airport without obtaining FAA permission and must keep the device within sight — limiting flights to roughly a quarter mile.


Copyright 2016 Bloomberg. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Applying predictive insurance claims processingto the claims process can deliver a measurable return on investment with cost savings and increased profits

4 ways analytics can transform the claims process

Jun 14, 2016 | By Stuart Rose

Adding analytics to the claims process can deliver a measurable return on investment with cost savings and increased profits. (Photo: Shutterstock)

When it comes to claims processing, insurers are obsessed with cycle time.
They count the days it takes to make a claim adjudication decision, the minutes it takes to complete the loss intake process, and the seconds it takes to process a transaction. Especially in high-volume environments, time is money.

In the wisdom of insurance claims executives, faster claim payments generally equate to better customer satisfaction and loyalty. Anything that slows the process is burdensome and costly. Insurance companies are always looking for ideas on how to improve or optimize the claims process.

Utilizing the right combination of technology and analytics can improve claim outcomes

Predictive insurance claims processing, or claims analytics, is the process of analyzing structured and unstructured data at all stages in the claims cycle to make the right decision, at the right time, for the right party.

Here are four areas in which applying analytics to the claims process can have the biggest effect:

1. Fraud analytics

Fraud is a large and growing problem for the insurance industry. Most research estimates that about 10% of insurance claims are fraudulent and cost the insurance industry billions of dollars. To combat claims fraud, insurance companies should implement a real-time or near-real-time analytical engine that calculates the propensity for fraud at each stage of the claims life cycle.
The fraud analytical engine must use a combination of techniques, including business rules, predictive modeling, text mining, database searches and exception reporting. In addition, insurers should consider network link analysis technology, which analyzes all historical claims to quickly discover organized fraud rings that might otherwise take months or years to identify and prevent.

2. Recovery optimization

Recovery optimization scores claims at each stage in the claims lifecycle based on known subrogation characteristics, identifying unknown characteristics and optimizing associated activities. By using text analytics, insurers can analyze adjuster notes or other unstructured data to find phrases that typically indicate a subrogation case. Pinpointing likely subrogation opportunities earlier, insurers maximize loss recovery and ultimately reduce loss expenses.

(Photo: Shutterstock)

3. Settlement optimization

Bringing consistency to the claims settlement process is an important objective — especially for claims managers who are pressured to settle faster, with transparent fairness, while using fewer resources and reducing loss-adjustment expenses.

The first ongoing problem with managing claims leakage comes down to one simple thing: Insurers have no effective way of predicting the size and duration of a claim when it is first reported. But accurate loss reserving and claims forecasting is essential, especially in long-tail claims like liability and workers’ compensation. Analytics can more accurately calculate the loss reserve by comparing a loss with similar claims. Then, whenever the claims data is updated, analytics can reassess the loss reserve.

The second issue is to assign claims to the right resources right from the start at first notice of loss and by ensuring that priority claims receive priority treatment. By implementing data mining techniques to cluster and group loss characteristics (such as loss type, location and time of loss, etc.), claims can be scored, prioritized and assigned to the most appropriate adjuster based on experience and loss type. High severity and more complex cases are assigned to the most qualified adjusters, while low-exposure claims are channeled to less experienced adjusters. In some cases, they can even be automatically adjudicated and settled.

4. Litigation optimization

A significant portion of a company’s loss expense ratio goes to defending disputed claims. Every insurer can relate to the typical horror story claim where the passenger of an auto accident broke a finger and walked away with a $250,000 settlement. With litigation optimization, insurers can use analytics to calculate a litigation propensity score.

Claims that involve an attorney often double the settlement amount and significantly increase an insurer’s expenses. Analytics can help determine which claims are likely to result in litigation. Those claims can be assigned to more senior adjusters who are likely to be able to settle the claims sooner and for lower amounts.

As insurance becomes a commodity, carriers need to consider how they can differentiate themselves from competitors. Adding analytics to optimize the claims lifecycle can deliver a measurable ROI with cost savings and increased profits; just a 1% improvement in the claims ratio for a $1 billion insurer is worth more than $7 million on the bottom line. Claims optimization also delivers intangible benefits, such as improved customer satisfaction. And that is a win-win arrangement for both the customer and the insurance carrier.

Machinist says poor protection by Foundry Service & Supplies contributed to his peritoneal mesothelioma. And the jury agreed, awarding him $33 million in damages

The verdict's in: Respirator fails to protect worker

A look at some of the legal decisions of interest to the insurance industry

Jun 10, 2016 | By Patricia L. Harman

Machinist says poor protection contributed to his peritoneal mesothelioma. And the jury agreed.

Verdict: Plaintiff, $32.8 million.
Venue: Los Angeles County, Calif.

.

Plaintiffs: Becky Tyler (60), Louis William Tyler (62).
Defendants: Pfizer Inc., Indasco Inc., CBS Corp., Cabot Corp., Foster Wheeler LLC, General Electric Co., Los Angeles Rubber Co., American Optical Corp., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

William Tyler worked as a machinist at Foundry Service & Supplies, a machine shop located in Torrance, Calif., from 1972 to 1992. During that time, he was provided with an R2090 respirator that was manufactured by American Optical Corp. to protect him from asbestos dust while at work. In 2015, he was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. The cancer occurs in the lining of the abdomen, and in Tyler's case was treated with six rounds of systemic chemotherapy and surgery that required filling his abdominal cavity with chemotherapy drugs that had been heated prior to insertion in his abdomen.

Tyler claimed that the respirator he used was defective and inadequate to protect against asbestos and filed suit against American Optical Corp., Cabot Corp., CBS Corp., Foster Wheeler, General Electric, Indasco, Los Angeles Rubber, Pfizer and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Several of the defendants were dismissed from the case or settled with the plaintiffs, so only American Optical and Los Angeles Rubber proceeded to trial. Before any evidence was presented, Los Angeles Rubber resolved the claims against it, so the trial continued solely with American Optical Corp.

Tyler sought to recover economic damages in the amount of $1.8 million, as well as damages for his past pain and suffering. His wife, Becky Tyler, sued for her loss of consortium and both parties sought recovery of punitive damages as well.

The Tylers’ counsel said he had relied on the work-provided respirator to protect him from inhaling asbestos fibers, but it had not done so due to an improper fit. Counsel claimed American Optical Corp. was aware that the respirators would not protect users, but continued to sell the defective respirators anyway. Labeling on the package also failed to warn end-users of any dangers in using the respirators in this manner. Tyler believed the insufficient protection from the defective respirator contributed substantially to the mesothelioma he subsequently developed.

The defense countered that the R2090N was never designed or sold to protect users against asbestos and any customers should have been aware of this fact based on existing information. They also argued that it was Tyler's work at Foundry Service & Supplies that caused him to be exposed to the asbestos fibers, especially since in the early 1970s the shop used disposable face masks manufactured by 3M Co. The defense said 3M should be held to the same level of accountability even though they were not named in the suit. Since Foundry did not provide protective clothing and Tyler had his respirator on improperly, the defense said Tyler had periods of asbestos exposure where he was unprotected.

Additional arguments were made that Tyler may not have even worn an American Optical respirator and if he did, then 3M, Foundry and the manufacturer of the asbestos products should also be party to the suit since all were wholly responsible. They also countered that it was Foundry's responsibility to provide a safe work environment for employees. However, neither Foundry nor 3M were named as defendants in this matter.

The decision

The jury verdict came back in favor of the plaintiffs, who were awarded $32.8 million:

• Becky Tyler — $6 million, personal injury for loss of consortium and $3 million personal injury for past loss of consortium.
  
• Louis Tyler — $4 million, personal injury for past pain and suffering; $8 million in personal injury for future pain and suffering; $1.8 million for personal injury/economic damages; and $10 million in punitive damages.
  

Multiple parties shared liability with the jury determining that American Optical was 70 percent liable for Tyler's injuries; Foundry Service & Supplies was 20 percent liable even though they were not a party to the suit; 3M was five percent liable even though they were a non-party to the suit; and Tyler himself was responsible for five percent of the liability. Since the jury found against American Optical for all of the intentional tort claims, they were also responsible for the total verdict amount.

A 24-year-old New York woman has died after being swept out into the ocean in an apparent rip current off Long Beach Island

Woman dies after being caught in apparent rip current, officials said

  By MaryAnn Spoto | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

on June 20, 2016 at 12:58 PM, updated June 20, 2016 at 3:51 PM



A file photo of an overturned lifeguard stand, indicating lifeguards are not on duty. A woman died after being swept into the ocean on an unguarded beach in Long Beach Township on Saturday, officials said.File photo UPDATE: Woman who died in apparent rip current was at LBI for wedding, officials say

LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP — A 24-year-old New York woman has died after being swept out into the ocean in an apparent rip current off Long Beach Island on Saturday, authorities said Monday.

The woman, who was only identified as being from Port Chester, NY., and a male companion were knocked off their feet by a wave and pulled out into the ocean off the Spray Beach section of Long Beach Township on Saturday, said Lt. Chuck Schnell, a Long Beach Township police spokesman.

The woman was rushed to Southern Ocean Medical Center in Manahawkin, where officials said on Saturday she was in critical condition. She was later airlifted to a hospital in Philadelphia, where she died early Sunday morning, Long Beach Township Mayor Joseph Mancini said.

Schnell said police were called at 11:12 a.m. to the 24th Street beach on a report of a swimmer in distress. No lifeguards were on duty at the time, Long Beach Township Beach Patrol said on Saturday. Lifeguards officially started guarding the beaches on Sunday, according to its website.

Schnell said it appears the pair got caught in a rip current and pulled out to where they could no longer touch bottom.

When Patrolman Thomas Franks arrived, several good Samaritans were already performing CPR on the woman at the water's edge, Schnell said. Emergency responders also used a defibrillator on her, he said.

This was the second water rescue-related death in Long Beach Township this month. On June 5, a Watchung man died after helping to pull a group of teens from an apparent rip tide. James Clarke, 55, collapsed in the surf after he went to the aid of the teens, including his 15-year-old son.

1 woman killed, 1 man injured when motorcycle rear-ends a pickup truck in Grand Haven, MI

Alex Shabad , WZZM 1:15 PM. EDT June 21, 2016





(Photo: Alex Shabad, WZZM)



GRAND HAVEN, MICH. - The northbound lanes of U.S. 31 are closed to traffic at Robbins Road as crews respond to a fatal crash involving a motorcycle.

A man and woman in their 60s rear-ended a pickup truck around 11:45 a.m. Tuesday, June 21, at Robbins Road, a deputy told WZZM 13's Alex Shabad. The couple is from Louisiana.

The woman was killed in the crash, and the man is expected to be OK with non-life-threatening injuries. Both were not wearing helmets.

Police say the motorcycle was heading north on U.S. 31 when its riders switched lanes and hit the rear of a pickup truck as traffic was starting to back up.

Traffic is being diverted at Comstock Street while police investigate the crash.

This is a developing story.