After hearing extensive feedback from the construction industry that rated operating capacity (ROC) is not a suitable indicator of a crane operator’s skill and experience, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced today in a proposed rule change that it intends to remove an existing provision from its standard for cranes and derricks in construction that required different levels of operator certification based on a crane’s ROC.
Crane operators will still have to be certified, but, according to the new rule, they won’t be limited to what cranes they can operate by what cranes they have been certified on. From now on, that will all be in the hands of their employers.
With the removal of ROC-based restrictions from its required operator certifications, OSHA says it will instead require employers to thoroughly and continuously ensure the competency of their crane operators through training and evaluation. To that end, the agency will clarify its expectations of employers in regard to these requirements and it will establish minimum requirements for determining operator competency.
Background
The proposed changes to OSHA’s crane operator qualification rules were published today in a 36-page portion of the Federal Register. Issued as a final standard on August 9, 2010, the rule required operators to be certified in one of four ways:
- A state or local license to operate a crane within a state or local jurisdiction with acceptable requirements
- A certification issued by an accredited, third-party testing organization.
- A qualification issued under an audited employer program
- A qualification issued by the U.S. Military
So, in its final rule, OSHA required that third-party certification indicate the equipment types and the rated operating capacities that an operator has been certified to operate. Employers were then only allowed to let an operator operate cranes with ROCs equal to or lower than the ROC of the crane in which they were tested. None of the other three certification options required certification by capacity.
Fallout
After the rule was issued in 2010, OSHA says two accredited testing organizations that did not offer certifications by capacity questioned the need for specifying ROCs in future certifications. In short, they told the agency that meeting this new ROC-based specification would be too costly for them to implement and, more importantly, it would provide no real safety benefit.
“They asserted that employers will still take steps to ensure that certified operators are capable of safely operating the cranes at their worksites, regardless of the rated lifting capacities of those
cranes,” according to OSHA’s proposed changes. “Thus, these testing organizations expressed the view that the certification by capacity requirement is unnecessary.”
What those testing organizations and others in the construction industry were not expecting however, was OSHA’s decision in 2014 to remove temporary requirements from the ruling that employers had a “duty” to ensure that operators are not only certified, but also competent by evaluating their performance.
The proposed changes in detail
In today’s proposed rule change, OSHA is throwing out the ROC-based certification restrictions and reversing its decision on an employer’s duty in ensuring competence. The two changes go hand in hand.
Based on its research and the feedback it has heard from the industry, OSHA has determined that “while certification by type of crane establishes that an operator has a basic level of skill and knowledge about the operation of that type of crane, it is the employer’s evaluation that best ensures the operator has the skill and knowledge necessary to operate a crane in a particular configuration.”
In other words, rather than relying on a machine’s rated operating capacity as a measure of skill delivered through standardized testing, OSHA is placing the onus of determining an operator’s competency squarely on his or her employer
To that end, in addition to hiring certified operators, OSHA’s proposed rule change will require employers to “continue to evaluate the operating competency of potential operators and provide training beyond that which is merely sufficient for those individuals to obtain certifications.”
In effect, the benefits of being an operator with a “portable” certification takes a major hit. While operators may obtain certification and training under different, prior employers, the proposed rule change “would require that every employer evaluate an employee first as an operator-in-training before permitting him or her to operate equipment without oversight.” Under this proposed rule, all operators, regardless of their experience and past certifications, will be handled as a trainee in their first days with a new employer.
In evaluating an operator for sufficient competency, OSHA says an employer would “assess different skills than the existing certification tests,” such as:
- Inspecting the equipment
- Assessing unstable loads
- Hoisting loads of irregular size
- Operation from a barge
- Personnel hoisting
- Rigging the load
- Leveling the crane
- Hoisting in tight spaces
- Making judgments about wind speed and other environmental factors
- Performing multiple crane lifts
- Traveling with or without a load
- Operating near power lines
- Hoisting light loads
- Hoisting blind picks where the operator cannot see the load
One other training company took it even further, telling OSHA that “only a fool” would rely on certification alone as an accurate assessment of an operator’s ability.
“The proposed evaluation requirement is a mechanism to help ensure that operators possess the skill to account for the variations within even a single type of crane; without the evaluation requirement there would be no distinction between the competency required to operate the smallest, simplest mobile crane and the largest, most complex mobile crane,” the agency explains in its proposal. “It is our intent with this proposal to avoid a repeat of a tragedy like the Deep South collapse, in which an operator was assigned to a crane of a type for which he was certified, but the controls and operations were substantially different.”
The agency is hoping to gather further feedback from the construction industry on the proposed changes and has requested public comments. Specifically, the agency asks, “Are there more effective ways of ensuring that operators are fully qualified to use cranes for the specific activities that the operator will be required to complete, such as independent third-party evaluations?”
The proposed changes to the crane certification rule follow two delays in the agency’s deadline for compliance. Employers were initially given until November 10, 2014 to comply with the new certification rules.
However in 2013, the agency extended the compliance deadline to 2017. But in November of that year, the agency again pushed back the deadline, this time until November 10, 2018.
Torrington opens re-bidding process for sewer upgrades
TORRINGTON — The city has released documents for the re-bidding process of its $70 million sewer upgrade project.The new bids are due June 19.
The initial bid document was rejected by the state Department of Energy and Environment because the city missed the April 3 filing deadline. George Hicks, DEEP’s supervising sanitary engineer, said the wording of two addenda from the first bid have now been incorporated into the body of the re-bid document. Specifically, he said, the first document contained wording that required companies to bid on specified manufacturing equipment. Now, he said, bidders are allowed to price equipment from other manufacturers.
Hicks said he couldn’t predict whether the re-bid process would attract additional interest from contractors. Only one company, Nickerson Engineering of Torrington, submitted a bid for initial bid document. Hicks that since the amount for the first bid is now public, “some may look at it and know they can’t beat the numbers.”
Interested bidders are encouraged by city officials to attend a pre-bid conference at the plant site, 252 Lower Bogue Road, Harwinton, at 10 a.m. May 30.
Construction on the project is expected to begin in late August. “We have it at the top of our list” for authorization, Hicks said.
New Norwalk Visitor’s Docks reopen
NORWALK — The sun glared off the newly installed aluminum gangway platforms at the new Norwalk Visitor’s Docks on Monday afternoon. “They were installed late Wednesday, so we haven’t been officially opened during the week yet because we haven’t staffed the boating center,” said Ken Hughes, Norwalk’s acting director of recreation and parks. “We’re going to start staffing Thursday, so we’ll be open full time.”
The gangway installation marks one of the final phases of the $1.5 million dock replacement project at the David S. Dunavan Boating Center. While the center was reopened on a weekend basis in early May, full seven-day-week staffing will start Thursday.
From 11 a.m. to noon on Friday, the city of Norwalk and the Connecticut Port Authority will hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the new docks. The dock replacement project was paid partly with a $908,250 grant through the port authority’s Small Harbor Improvement Projects Program. The city hired Terry Marine as its general contractor for the project, which installed new pilings and floating docks at the boating center. The project is done save for electrical work and the marine pump-out station, according to Hughes. “The utilities won’t be done 100 percent,” Hughes said of the beginning of weekday staffing at the boating center on Thursday. “But we’re hoping to do a final walk-through June 2 or June 3. The dock replacement project began in January with officials hoping to reopen the boating center fully on May 1. Several late-season snowstorms, however, delayed the delivery of materials.
The new floating docks were built by subcontractor Bellingham Marine at its facilities in Castle Hayne, N.C., and York, Pa., and arrived by truck in sub-assembled sections. The gangways were made by Ravens Marine of Kissimmee, Fla.
The initial dock stretches, running off the new concrete boat-launch ramps, are constructed of treated timber, the offshore portions of concrete. The ramps comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to officials.
Hughes described them as a vast improvement to previous docks, which took a beating from Hurricane Sandy in October 2012.
“The docks actually sit a little higher above the water and the pilings are encased in steel,” Hughes said. “We used all stainless steel fasteners and screws for the decking and dock bumpers. They’re brand-new docks, brand-new concrete, it will be brand-new utilities.”
Hughes said the new docks should last 50-plus years, based upon the manufacturer’s ratings.
The dock replacement marks the second phase and final phase of improvements to the boating center.
During the winter of 2016-17, under a $2.1 million contract with city, Holzner Construction replaced the deteriorated underwater wooden launch ramps with massive full-width concrete ramps. The project also installed a retaining wall and raised the parking lot at the boating center.
Eversource asked to drop 16 percent gas rate hike
Bill Cummings
HARTFORD — Consumer advocates are demanding Eversource drop a requested 16 percent rate increase for natural gas, noting the electric company is already reaping profits from new federal tax breaks and doesn’t need a costly price hike.
“Eversource is on notice: if they persist in this unconscionable, massive rate increase I will help consumers in opposing it,” said U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, referring to a rate case before the state Public Utilities Regulatory Authority “Consumers are watching and cannot afford this rate hike,” Blumenthal said. “Eversource has reaped millions in federal tax breaks and has no justifiable reason for yet another sweeping rate hike.”
Eversource is requesting a 15.9 percent hike in natural gas rates over the next three years that would cost consumers $49 million more in the first year.
“The public policy behind the rate request is wrong for ratepayers and wrong for the company over the longer term,” said Tom Swan, director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group “We call on Eversource to rethink this strategy and do the right thing,” Swan said.
In a statement, Eversource said the overall $86 million rate increase has already been reduced because of the federal tax cuts.“Thanks to the changes in tax law, we’ve reduced our total request by more than $44 million,” said Mitch Gross, an Eversource spokesman. “It’s important to note our request is to further strengthen the natural gas distribution system and continue to provide our customers top-tier reliability.”
Gross said the extra money is earmarked for replacing existing cast iron and bare steel gas main lines with newer plastic pipe, which he said is safer, more durable and better able to handle fluctuations in underground temperatures “These investments minimize repairs and service interruptions so our customers have the energy they need for every moment of their lives,” Gross said.
Eversource’s gas customer base has increased over 9 percent since 2011.
Blumenthal said Connecticut consumers already pay the 10th highest natural gas rates in the nation and said recent rate increases approved by PURA for the Connecticut Natural Gas Co. and the Southern Connecticut Gas Co. were less than a third of Eversource’s request. He said the millions in annual tax breaks handed to Eversource from the massive tax cut recently approved by Congress more than offset the need for another rate increase to improve gas lines.
Chris Phelps, director of the Connecticut Public Interest Research Group, also said the rate hike is unnecessary. “This proposed rate increase is really unconscionable and outrageous,” Phelps said.
“We know as a state and a nation that we have to shift off fossil fuels toward zero carbon energy resources,” Phelps said. “When utilities are trying to invest in new infrastructure and stick consumers with the cost, that’s a burden that will become an albatross around ratepayers and our economy.”
Costs Rise For Final Phase Of Hartford's Front Street
Kenneth R. Gosselin
he final phase of Hartford’s Front Street is on track to be completed in a year, but the nearly $23 million apartment project will cost more than first expected.
The cost of environmental cleanup on the narrow strip of land sandwiched between Arch Street and the Whitehead Highway has risen from $1 million to about $1.5 million, according to the Capital Region Development Authority.
Under the agreement between the state and the Front Street developer, Greenwich-based HB Nitkin Group, the state agreed to pick up the costs of environmental cleanup for the development. The initial $1 million for the fourth phase of Front Street came from an Urban Act state grant.
The cost for the clean-up rose when the level of contamination in certain areas was worse than expected, leading to higher than expected disposal costs.
The higher costs sent CRDA scrambling to find funding. The authority had about $300,000 left from public funds earmarked for the larger Adriaen’s Landing that came under CRDA’s control after it took over responsibility for the project from its predecessor, the Capital City Economic Development Authority. Front Street is part of Adriaen’s Landing as well as the convention center and the Marriott hotel.
The remainder, Freimuth said, will have to be borne by the developer.Nitkin did not return multiple calls and emails seeking comment.
The fourth phase includes 53 market-rate apartments and nearly 11,000 square feet of retail space. The apartments are a mix of studios, one- and two-bedroom rentals. CRDA also has approved a $5.6 million loan to help finance the construction.
Front Street has unfolded, slowly at first, beginning with the entertainment district in 2010, which sat empty for two years as the state struggled to emerge from a deep recession. Leasing picked up with the signing of a movie theater and Infinity Hall as the anchor tenant.
The leasing of the 121-unit Front Street Lofts, beginning in 2015, moved more quickly and is now nearly fully leased, latest figures from CRDA show. The third phase — the UConn’s new, $140 million downtown campus — opened last fall.
Eversource Under Fire For Gas Rate Hike Request
Stephen Singer
A requested three-year natural gas rate increase of more than 15 percent sought by Eversource drew its first fire Monday as U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanded it be scaled back.
The utility said it has already reduced its proposed increase, which will generate $86 million to replace cast iron and bare steel gas mains with newer plastic pipe that is safer, more durable and better able to handle fluctuations in underground temperatures. “These rate increases seem blatantly unjustified and unsupportable by the facts,” Blumenthal said at a news conference at the Capitol. “And they threaten damage not only to those consumers, but to our entire economy, to small businesses as well as individual homeowners.”
Southern Connecticut Gas and Connecticut Natural Gas did similar work while requesting smaller rate increases, he said.
Eversource has not formally submitted its request, but notifed the state Public Utilities Regulatory Authority earlier this month that it will file a rate increase request this summer. It’s seeking an increase of $49 million in the first year, $21 million in the second and $16 million in the third year.
Blumenthal said Eversource should use savings from federal tax reductions to reduce its request.
“We agree with Sen. Blumenthal that our customers should receive the benefits of the new tax law and our filing reflects that,” Eversource spokeswoman Tricia Taskey Modifica said. “In fact, thanks to the changes in tax law, we’ve reduced our total request by more than $44 million.”
In January, the state Office of Consumer Counsel and PURA reached a settlement with Eversource that more than halved an electricity rate increase. Part of the reduction was due to a cut in federal taxes, to 21 percent from 35 percent.
Blumenthal said that if approved, the higher natural gas rates jeopardize Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s policy to spur lower energy costs for businesses and individuals by spurring construction of natural gas pipelines.
“These natural gas rate increases undercut the state’s energy policy,” he said.Malloy kicked off his energy policy early in his administration, calling for more natural gas as an alternative to home heating oil, which has been costlier than natural gas. As of last fall, homeowners using natural gas were expected to spend 12 percent, or $69, more to heat their homes last winter than the prior year while home heating oil costs were expected to rise 17 percent or $215 year over year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Chris Phelps of the Connecticut Public Interest Research Group said the rate increase would divert money to polluting fossil fuels at a time when money needs to be spent on clean energy such as solar and wind power.
“We know as a state and as a nation that we have to, over the course of really the next 20 to 25 years, increasingly shift off of dependence on fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure toward zero carbon energy resources,” he said.
Eversource operates and maintains 3,370 miles of natural gas systems in 73 municipalities in Connecticut. Since 2011, the utility has replaced 145 miles of gas pipeline and plans to upgrade an additional 371 miles, it said.