| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2012 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] UC - LADA Agreement Date: July 30, 2012 1:20:43 PM EDT Author: "Alnajjar, Mikhail S" |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] UC chemical classification list Date: July 30, 2012 5:42:00 PM EDT Author: Russell Vernon |
The employer is the institution that signs the paycheck, withholds taxes, etc, even if the money came in as a research grant to the PI. .
Michael J. Wright
Director of Health, Safety and Environment
United Steelworkers
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Work (412) 562-2580
Cell (412) 370-0105
Fax (412) 562-2584
mwright**At_Symbol_Here**usw.org
Visit us on the web at www.usw.org
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Lawrence M Gibbs
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:01 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] UC chemical classification list
Nick, I don't disagree with your assertion, but that would be discussed or argued on a case by case basis by whichever regulatory agency was bringing action. In a civil case, certainly this could be viewed as precedent. But each institution should look at this based on their review of their program.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicholas Waddell
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:31 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] UC chemical classification list
I am curious about how other view Statement of Fact #2, which clearly states that in this case UCLA is the employer. This goes against what many universities believe, in that many universities believe the PI is the employer and therefore is responsible for providing appropriate PPE (among other employer responsibilities). I am wondering if more universities will get on board with the idea that they are the employer and PI is more of a supervisor in light of this.
Larry- I have a J.D. and you are exactly correct that this settlement will be used as a model for interpretation, and may spur further review/revision, but it is not necessarily the new governing regulation.
However, in the legal sense, this agreement may be used as precedent in future cases when they arise. Since this agreement serves as notice to universities themselves, should a similar incident occur, I would almost guarantee that this agreement will be cited whether regulations are changed or not.
Nick Waddell
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Lawrence M Gibbs
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:35 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] UC chemical classification list
Also, thinking out loud:
First of all, I am not a lawyer (and never want to be). However, I believe the settlement agreement is just that; a legally binding agreement between the parties involved to items that "may" be beyond the current scope and applicability of the pertinent regulations. I realize that many will view whatever is in the document as the "de facto" definition or interpretation of the regulation, but that is not always the case with a settlement, where the parties agree to and can stipulate requirements or interpretations beyond what is in any regulation. I am not arguing that the contents are not useful and helpful guidance for all, but a settlement does not create new regulatory schema that can automatically be applied beyond the parties involved in the agreement to the entire regulated community.
That said, there is certainly much good guidance that can be taken from the information in the agreement, and that should be reviewed and carefully scrutinized for applicability to each institution's programs.
Larry Gibbs, CIH
Associate Vice Provost for EH&S
Stanford University
480 Oak Road
Stanford, CA 94305-8007
Ph: 650-723-7403
LGibbs**At_Symbol_Here**Stanford.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Ralph B Stuart
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:56 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] UC chemical classification list
Thinking out loud:
Reviewing the UCalifornia's settlement with the LADA's office, I notice that the chemical classification list that requires SOP development includes a variety of chemicals, such as nitric acid, perchloric acid, hydrochloric acid, etc. without a description of what concentration this requirement applies to. I wonder if there was a discussion of a de minimus concentration below which the hazards of these chemicals are such that their use doesn't trigger that requirement...
- Ralph
Ralph Stuart CIH
Laboratory Ventilation Specialist
Department of Environmental Health and Safety Cornell University
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post