From: Lawrence M Gibbs <lgibbs**At_Symbol_Here**STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] UC chemical classification list
Date: July 30, 2012 1:01:24 PM EDT
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <A1C8ABB3D17BFC409096B7204BC2E65F015DAA25**At_Symbol_Here**>

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.


-----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
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
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

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

-----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
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


Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.