Colt v. US

COLT INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee No. 89-1165 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 880 F.2d 1311; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 10672; 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9450; 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5231; 30 ERC (BNA) 1179; 19 ELR 21450 July 24, 1989, Decided Taxpayer was assessed civil penalties in a consent decree because it failed to eliminate violations of the Clean Air Act. In satisfaction of the civil penalties imposed by the consent decree, the taxpayer remitted payment. The taxpayer then claimed the payment as an ordinary business deduction under I.R.C. § 162(a). Does anything more clearly demonstrate the fact businesses see non-compliance fines as just an ordinary business cost?

that's all, folks

Title 29 - Labor Chapter 15 - Occupational Safety & Health Sec. 666 - Civil and criminal penalties (e) Willful violation causing death to employee Any employer who willfully violates any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, and that violation caused death to any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for no more than six months, or by both; except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. Now, here we go: > "civil and criminal penalties" gives a first impression that the plural applies to criminal, as well as civil. Nope. There's only one criminal provision under the federal (and Minnesota) Occupational Safety & Health Act. It's here. You need to actually achieve killing your employee. Not only that, but it also needs to meet the legal definition of "willful", which isn't the same as used in normal conversation. There's one of those op-ed pieces on a blog bemoaning the state of affairs when killing your worker carries a lower penalty than assaulting a burro on federal property. A claim I've read before. The author, however, failed to provide a bibliography along with the word 'bibliography'. So, I'm not sure how valid his numbers are, or where they're from. Which is sad, because I would like to use some of them & would have been happier if I didn't need to go looking for the information from primary sources. Like the burro. Or ... "By comparison with other federal agencies, OSHA is hardly the big bully it is often painted as. For example, the penalty for killing a burro on federal land is one year in jail, and the penalty for mail fraud is up to 30 years behind bars. The Environmental Protection Agency [in the course of] one year obtained prison sentences totaling 256 years." e.g. I'd like to know which year that was & where the burro law is. He also stated: "... there are fewer OSHA compliance officers than there are U.S. fish and game wardens. In other words, the large mouth bass and the wild turkey are afforded better [protection] than U.S. workers."

OHS prosecution in UK

Apparently we aren't the only ones who complain about the lack of prosecution for occupational safety failure.

The Guardian is pro-labor, left-leaning paper (left in the sense the the US uses it).

Libby, part 1

Well, a bit delayed with posting ... From February... W.R. Grace was back in the news with a new lawsuit. This is the owner of the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. The stupendous point of this is that the defendants in the suit are the Grace executives, not the company. This is the first time the EPA has tried this. They - unlike OSHA - are allowed to directly bring suit against individuals. Actually, I’m not sure OSHA is even allowed to sue anyone, just implement fines. I’m sure the rest of the legal community is waiting with baited breath (assuming we don’t have asbestosis, of course). The company did ban smoking at the mine in 1978 — smoking compounds the dangers of asbestos, doctors say — and also issued respirator masks to workers. But showers that the miners could have used at the end of their shifts before heading home were ruled out, because they might have overly worried people. In the largest judgment after trial (in 2003) in the history of the federal Superfund law, the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that the District Court of Montana has ordered W.R. Grace & Co. to pay over $54.5 million to reimburse the federal government for the costs of investigation and cleanup of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana. There is asbestos all over the entire town. Usually asbestos abatement brings an image of workers in Tyvek suits & respirators working behind plastic sheeting. This abatement is somehow supposed to be the entire city of Libby.

100 pounds of Hg

largest mercury spill in 20 years the fact that this isn't simply the largest is scarier. Reading the idiocy posted by idiots reading the papers is even scarier. "He said he was unaware of any damage to workers' health." It's amazing what you can be unaware of, simply by not being told. No one could possibly know within 24 hours whether or not the workers' health is impaired. Still ... I had a job once where I was explicitly told to "take your time getting back here", so that the corporate president could go on TV and say "we don't have that information yet". Of course not, I had it. So, I'm not really impressed anymore with "I'm unaware of ...." He added he did not know which company employed the supervisors who gave his employees their instructions. -- this is just a prime example of failure to stay on top of your employees' safety. If anyone is giving my employees directions involving their health, I damn well want to know who they are. I might now know what was said/done, but I would at least know who ran my safety program. ...notified the state's Office of Emergency Services about a spill of one pint of mercury - equal to 14 pounds. About three weeks later, the company amended its report to 90 pounds. ... reported the [second] spill to the state as six pounds and about a week later amended that amount to 90 pounds do you think someone might have checked into this, after the first amendment? Changing it to a larger amount doesn't surprise me - once you have a better idea of what happened, I would expect the number to increase. But from 14 to 90? That's not just a little blip, that's a 500% increase. Under laws effective last year, any company failing to notify the center promptly about a reportable spill could face a fine of up to $32,500 a day, EPA officials said. come on ... does ANYONE actually think the EPA will even try to fine these people? He added that the law now requires a professional survey assuring asbestos has been removed from a site, but "there is no similar requirement to have a professional survey for mercury and other hazardous materials." I might understand this, in a general sort of way. Tearing down the Gustavus Adolphus building on 16th & Lake really wouldn't warrant one's attention for hazardous materials. But a manufacturing site, which is known to have used hazardous chemicals in large quantities? Anyone who has ever dealt with older companies and especially older facilities in disrepair knows that it is almost a sure-fire guarantee to find 'unexpected' items. (I could tell you horror stories about cleaning a deep freezer which had, at one time, belonged to an infectious disease laboratory.) Hazardous materials assessment should precede demolition or major construction activities at any facility. That could be as simple as "looked around, it was an office, no asbestos, no radon, check" - or in the case of an old pesticide plant, like the one just west of me in the Philips Neighborhood: "um, old pesticide manufacturing plant, no one owns it anymore, it's a Brownfield, there's arsenic all over the neighborhood ...".

$8.8 million

third largest fine in history $8,777,500 in fines 108 willful violations about combstible dust I'm left wondering if the inspectors simply cited every observation separately, rather than as one blanket "failure to comply with ...." I called OSHA to ask for a copy. I am in awe. Morbid, horrified awe.

Tube Mill in Conneticut

article doesn't specify when the audit happened, printed on 7 aug 2008 58 serious + 5 repeat + 7 other 5 repeat = $40,800 = $8,160 ea. 58 serious = $168,800 = $2,910 ea. 7 other = $2,400 = $323 = ea.