The changing face of nuclear power: New tech could lead to an energy renaissance
David Holahan
Climate change has been a windfall for the nuclear power
industry, both here and nationwide. Atomic energy does not emit greenhouse
gasses, and Connecticut has set an ambitious goal of eliminating these
planet-warming pollutants from its electric grid in just 17 years.
Last year Gov. Ned Lamont signed a bill reversing the
moratorium on new nuclear plants in Connecticut, a ban that had been in place
since 1979. The Millstone
Power Station in Waterford, with its two operating reactors, would be
the spot where the next generation of reactors could be built.
There is even talk of a national “nuclear renaissance.”
Advanced generating technologies have been developed or are in the pipeline,
and a recent U.S. breakthrough in long-touted fusion technology has raised hope
for even greater advances in decades to come. A new plant in Tennessee went
online in 2016, America’s first in this century, and two plants are expected to
start operating in Georgia this year. In addition, power companies in four
states have licenses from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build new facilities. And funding, both
from federal and private sources, for existing and developing nuclear
technologies has ramped up in recent years and is expected to accelerate. In
its January special report, “New Hope for Nuclear Power,” corporate strategic
counseling firm the Dilenschneider Group predicts that the federal government
will invest at least $40 billion in the nuclear industry over the next decade,
plus billions more from private investors.
Will Connecticut be joining this incipient nuclear power
parade? Dominion Energy, which owns Millstone, is looking into that very
possibility.
Some of the more promising next-generation nuclear
designs are for SMRs, or “small modular reactors,” like the one being developed
by NuScale, headquartered in
Portland, Ore. Smaller in size and output than existing plants, the technology
is billed as safer and both more efficient and economical than the large-scale
reactors, such as those at Millstone. The smaller units can be clustered
together to increase output at a given site. To date, the NuScale plan is the
only SMR design to be approved by the NRC.
NuScale touts its SMRs as “dry cooled,” using 90 percent
less water than plants such as Millstone’s. A 462-megawatt SMR facility, which
has received more than $1 billion in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), is being planned for a federal site in Idaho and is slated to start
generating power in 2029. For comparison, Millstone Unit 2 is rated at nearly
twice that megawattage and Millstone Unit 3 at 2.6 times more.
In recent years the nuclear narrative has migrated away from
being about safety, or accidents, or where to store permanently the burgeoning
radioactive waste that will be hazardous for tens of thousands of years.
Nowadays, the talk centers on how Connecticut needs every single carbon-free
kilowatt from its two aging nuclear units at Millstone — and perhaps from new
nuclear reactors as well.
Dominion Energy,
whose portfolio includes seven nuclear reactors along the East Coast, acquired
Millstone in 2000. The company is researching the feasibility of establishing
additional nuclear facilities at its 550-acre Waterford site — as well as
exploring the possibility of keeping Millstone’s two reactors operating after
their current licenses expire in 2035 and 2045. By then, the two units would be
60 and 49 years old, respectively. Opened in 1970, Millstone Unit 1 shut down
for refueling in 1995 and never started up again, in part because of safety
concerns raised by the NRC. It was licensed to operate until 2007.
Millstone’s Unit 3 includes a large, round containment
structure housing the reactor. Construction on Unit 3 began in 1974, took 12
years to build, and cost $3.77 billion. Due to such massive timelines and price
tags, many experts say the future of nuclear power, including perhaps at
Millstone, means clusters of smaller reactors that are cheaper and faster to
assemble.
“We’re going to take a look and review operations,” says
Michael O’Connor, Dominion’s site vice president for the Millstone Power
Station. “The next step would be to dismantle Unit 1 and free up space on the
site for other things, and other things could be SMRs. If Connecticut is to
meet its clean-energy goals, it needs to do so with nuclear power. We are
interested in supporting that vision as long as the plants can be operated and
maintained at the price we get for our power.”
While O’Connor speaks of the future without making firm
corporate commitments, he has good things to say about SMRs: “The national
electric grid in the future would be better served by many small contributors
rather than large contributors that have to shut down for 30 days to refuel.”
He adds that a national network of SMRs would lessen the risk that a large
nuclear plant would suddenly go offline, leaving a gaping hole in generating
capacity.
"There is room at Millstone for even more megawatts
than we are making now, for SMRs to provide New England with clean energy for
many, many years.”
O’Connor points out that Millstone produces nearly 40
percent of the state’s electrical energy and 90 percent of its clean kilowatts.
Without nuclear power, Connecticut’s air would not only be dirtier, but the
reliability of its grid also would be in jeopardy. Even with the current push
for clean, renewable energy sources — offshore wind, solar and increasing use
of hydropower from Canada — some argue that nuclear power could be needed even
after these alternatives are fully online.
Katie Dykes, commissioner of the state Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (DEEP), is fully on board the nuclear bandwagon, including
advocating for extension of the licenses of the two Millstone reactors as well
as being open to the possibility of locating the next generation of nuclear-generating
technology there. “Nuclear power is a critical foundation to achieve the rapid
de-carbonization of our electric grid as part of a portfolio of clean-energy
resources,” she says, pointing out that the NRC has been extending licenses for
plants to operate into their 80th year. “We are excited about the possibility
of these future technologies,” she adds. “We would be open to Millstone taking
advantage of the small nuclear reactor or other developing technology if and
when they become viable and cost effective.” She says that DEEP modeling of how
Connecticut would reach and sustain a carbon-free electric grid revealed that
it would be more costly and disruptive without nuclear power.
“There is a general understanding that piecing together the
grid of the future around renewables and storage batteries, while not
impossible, could have gaps,” said Norm Needleman, D-Essex, who is the Senate
chair of the state General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee. “We
would need baseload power to fill the gaps, and we don’t want that coming from
fossil fuels. Hydro Quebec is certainly one possibility for New England, but
nukes will be one of the tools nationally.”
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat whose district includes
Millstone, concurs: “There definitely has been an uptick in investment, both
public and private, and activity around nuclear power that is being driven by
concern over climate change.” A member of the House Spent Nuclear Fuel caucus,
which consists of more than 100 representatives with nuclear waste stored in
their districts, Courtney adds, “Getting to a serious path to zero emissions
really screams out for nuclear being a big part of the solution.” He predicts
it will be part of Connecticut’s future after 2045, when Millstone’s license is
scheduled to expire.
Environmentalists lately have tended to agree that
coexisting with nukes, at least for a while longer, if not ideal, is
unavoidable. “I think it is a necessary bridge to renewables,” says Patrick
Comins, executive director of Connecticut Audubon. “Every form of power
generation has a downside. If we were to try to replace the amount of power
that Millstone brings to the table, it would be very daunting … obviously its
toxic waste is one of the downsides. There are also impacts with thermal
pollution from the plants and the potential for fish kills. There is no free
lunch in terms of power generation.”
The water use at Millstone is substantial. A Yale School of
Management study pointed out that the two
units there draw about 2.2 billion gallons of water a day from Long
Island Sound to cool their reactors, and they can send it back as much as 32
degrees warmer. This thermal plume extends more than a mile and a half from the
facility, the study reported.
Still, Dominion can make a good case for its stewardship of
Millstone. A rocky period under the previous operator, Northeast Utilities, in
the late 1990s saw all three Millstone units closed for two years, in part,
because of significant safety issues. In 1997, the various violations
drew the
largest fine, $2.1 million, levied by the NRC up to that point. This
century has been largely problem free, according to Diane Screnci, an NRC
public affairs officer: “[Dominion] has operated safely and met all of our
safety objectives. Since the onset of the current Reactor Oversight Program
in April 2000, there have been no inspection findings of more than very low
safety significance at Millstone.”
The aging power station has also remained reliably
productive in recent decades. In 2021, Unit 2 operated at 90.6 percent of its
full generating capacity, while Unit 3 hit 96 percent, according to Dominion.
That year, the two units produced a respectable 17.2 million megawatts of
power, more than they did in many previous years, according to statistics from
the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
With things going well at Millstone, O’Connor speculates
about what the future might hold: “My vision for the Millstone Power Station,
if we were able to put the next technology in Unit 1’s spot, and we liked the
technology, and it was just as reliable and even safer than what we have now,
as the Units 2 and 3 get older, there may be an opportunity to shut them down
at the end of their current licenses, rather than extend them, and replace them
with more advanced nuclear.”
He adds bullishly, “There is room at Millstone for even more
megawatts than we are making now, for SMRs to provide New England with clean
energy for many, many years.”
Dominion’s tenure in Connecticut aside, things have not
always gone well for the nuclear power industry. Touted in its infancy as
eminently safe and reliable — even producing power that would be “too cheap to
meter” — the technology has since struggled economically here and elsewhere.
Millstone Unit 1 and the Connecticut Yankee plant in Haddam were closed in the
1990s, a decade before their licenses expired, largely because they were no
longer profitable.
When the price of natural gas used to generate electricity
hit rock bottom several years back, the economic viability of the remaining two
Millstone units also came into question. Dominion warned state officials in
2018 that shutting down Millstone was a distinct possibility. The state
subsequently negotiated a power-purchasing agreement between Dominion and the
state’s electrical utilities, which are obligated to purchase half of
Millstone’s output through 2029. Plus, natural gas prices have since gone sky
high, making Millstone’s kilowatts a cheaper option again.
In some states, the economics of large-scale nuclear
generation have been more challenging. Two plants that were nearly 40 percent
complete in South Carolina, to the tune of some $9 billion, were abandoned in
2017 and will not produce a single kilowatt. The cost of the two units expected
to come online this year in Georgia has ballooned to an estimated $30 billion —
from the original $14 billion price tag.
“The nuclear industry has been promoting the idea of a
‘nuclear renaissance’ for some time,” says Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear
safety for the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy organization that often has been critical
of nuclear power. “The first failed attempt was in the first decade of this
century when there was a push to provide more government subsidy for nuclear
plants, and there was the prospect of a large number of new reactor
applications. Most of those went away because the economics of nuclear power,
even with government support, weren’t working. Cost has been the biggest driver
inhibiting nuclear expansion.”
Then, of course, there are the periodic accidents to
consider. They have contributed significantly to the cost and lead time for new
reactors as well as to the public’s wariness of the technology. Smack dab in
the middle of Connecticut’s nuclear heyday — from the mid-1960s through
mid-1980s, when its four plants came online — the accident at Three Mile Island
occurred. The partial meltdown of a reactor core and the unplanned release of
radioactivity into the air sent shock waves through the industry, the NRC and
the public.
The accident was caused by a combination of equipment
failure and operator error. While the government insisted that the release of
radiation was not a threat to public health, the damage to the industry was
done. No new plants would be ordered for more than a decade, and many projects
in the pipeline, including the fully built Shoreham facility on Long Island,
were abandoned. Eight nuclear plants once operated in New England; now there
are three.
Consider this: Connecticut Yankee took less than four years
and about $100 million to complete in 1968. Millstone Unit 3 was begun in 1974,
took 12 years to build, and cost a whopping $3.77 billion. It was a much larger
plant, but, in addition, it had to satisfy new and costly regulatory scrutiny
spawned by the Pennsylvania accident.
Millstone Unit 3 finally went online in 1986, the same year
a far more severe nuclear accident occurred, at Chernobyl in what is now
Ukraine. This time the impact on the public could not be easily dismissed.
Fifty deaths were attributed directly to the accident, and an international
team of scientists predicted in 2005 that the ultimate toll from the release of
radiation would be approximately 4,000 fatalities in Ukraine, Belarus and
Russia. An area around the plant with a radius of about 18 miles has been
designated as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
Next, in 2001, the 9/11 terrorist attacks caused the NRC and
the industry to incorporate additional precautions into their security
planning.
In 2011, another nuclear disaster, considered on par with
Chernobyl for severity, occurred at the Fukushima complex in Japan when a
massive, earthquake-spawned tsunami crashed into the facility. With public
confidence shattered, the Japanese government suspended the operation of 46 of
the nation’s 50 nuclear reactors, only nine of which have since resumed
generating electricity.
Today Connecticut gets nearly half of its electrical power
from Millstone, about twice the national average of 20 percent, according to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which also reports that as of 2021
the U.S. was still burning fossil fuels to generate 60 percent of its
kilowatts.
Renewables nationally now account for roughly the same
kilowattage as nuclear power does. But in Connecticut renewables are just
getting started, generating a mere 5 percent of the state’s electricity.
The current heavy reliance here on nuclear power, if all
goes according to plan, will help the state in its effort to achieve
carbon-free electricity by 2040. But concerns remain about the technology and
Connecticut’s reliance on it. The 2022 bill that repealed the decades-old
moratorium on new nuclear reactors in Connecticut did not include as a
prerequisite the establishment of a national repository for the spent and
highly radioactive nuclear fuel that is accumulating at Millstone and 90
operating plants nationwide. Connecticut Yankee has been dismantled, but its
spent fuel is still on site in Haddam, in dozens of canisters above ground, as
it is at two dozen other shuttered plants across the country.
Since the dawn of the nuclear era more than a half-century
ago, some 100,000 tons of the highly toxic, radioactive material have been
generated nationally, equivalent to the weight of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
Some 2.3 percent of that total resides in Connecticut.
Nuclear waste was never meant to be stored at reactor sites
indefinitely. The federal search for a central repository began in 1982, and
the deadline set by Congress for having a facility up and running was 1998.
Remarkably, the U.S. Department of Energy is still searching. The initial
candidate, Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, on federal land in Nevada,
fell victim to fierce local opposition and safety concerns; it was abandoned in
2010 after the expenditure of $12 billion on the project. Even if completed, it
would only have had the capacity for less than three-quarters of the nuclear
waste scattered about the country today.
Because the federal government has failed to date in this
mandated endeavor, it is footing the bill for the storage of fuel at sites like
Millstone and Connecticut Yankee, to the tune of about $1 billion a year.
Safeguarding the fuel at the Connecticut Yankee site costs roughly $10 million
annually.
In recent years, the DOE has initiated a new push to
establish interim waste sites — a “consent-based” approach that is searching
for entities which would like to host a temporary repository, until a permanent
destination for the spent fuel is found. The material would be kept as it is
now at reactor sites: in canisters above ground.
In a statement to the magazine, Kathryn Huff, DOE assistant
secretary for nuclear energy, says: “The Department is currently using a
consent-based siting process to identify a site (or sites) for a federal
consolidated interim storage only. However, the Department continues to conduct
R&D work on geologic disposal as part of developing a path forward for an
integrated waste management system that includes disposal.”
Regathering and sequestering all that material in one
geologically stable, underground repository would be the final step to a
permanent resolution of the waste issue.
Huff reports that a 2021 “request for information” that the
DOE distributed has received 225 submissions from tribal, state and local
governments, academics and NGOs, adding that the department is “working on
translating this feedback into action.” Many of the respondents expressed
interest in hosting an interim site. A DOE report on these responses can be
found at tinyurl.com/nuclearwastestorage.
The DOE has already issued one license to a private firm
seeking to develop an interim storage facility in New Mexico, and it is
expected to issue a second license this year for a similar project in West
Texas. But both proposals have run into the same fierce political opposition
that helped doom the Yucca Mountain project. Both the governor of Texas, a
Republican, and the governor of New Mexico, a Democrat, have opposed the plans,
as have governors of neighboring states. Spent nuclear fuel would have to
travel through many states before it arrives at these interim destinations.
Eventually, the plan is to transport all the waste again, this time to a
permanent underground repository.
The DOE insists the transport of nuclear waste would be safe
and has already been done, albeit on a much smaller scale. Whether the public
will be reassured by that is far from certain.
Concern about a warming planet has clearly given nuclear
power a new lease on life, but its future is anything but clear.
Huff would not speculate on when interim, much less
permanent storage facilities, might come online, but she says that in 2017 the
NRC extended its approval for the above-ground dry storage of nuclear waste at
Millstone until 2055.
Millstone’s O’Connor would welcome the establishment of an
interim site but does not appear overly concerned if one is not established
soon. “We have plenty of room to continue operating, and it would not affect
the extension of our license even if no site is found nationally.”
Concern about a warming planet has clearly given nuclear
power a new lease on life, but its future is anything but clear. The cost of
large-scale nuclear development has risen dramatically, and the industry and
the federal government are hoping that new technologies, like that for SMRs,
can ride to the rescue in coming decades.
Nuclear kilowatts in the future have to be more than simply
carbon-free. They must be affordable, too — because the cost of energy from
renewable sources has been declining in recent years.
Another serious accident, of course, would be a disaster for
the prospects of nuclear power.
When asked about the potential of renewables, Kenneth
Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School
of the Environment, says: “That’s the million-dollar question. We’d all like to
see the cost of renewables continue to decline, and the costs have declined
remarkably. If that continues, there is no question that is the cheapest thing
to do.”
As for the future of nuclear power, he says: “I think there
is real potential for SMRs, but they are really new, and we don’t know how the
technology will pan out. I think we will know more in 10 years.”
Whether Connecticut eventually goes carbon free by 2040
depends not just on Dominion and ramping up green-energy sources, but also on
old-fashioned conservation efforts by its citizens, for example, installing
rooftop solar panels on homes and businesses. As Gillingham points out, “It’s
going to be a lot harder to decarbonize unless people are contributing to that
goal themselves.”
When it comes to nuclear energy, the next big thing is small
In the beginning, bigger was thought to be better when it
came to atomic power. Connecticut’s fourth and last (so far) nuclear reactor,
Millstone Unit Three, is more than twice the size of its first.
But today the industry and the federal government have
pulled a 180. NuScale, a Portland, Ore., company is betting that smaller and simpler
designs will be the trend for the next generation of nuclear reactors. The U.S.
Department of Energy is in on the action as well, helping to fund a NuScale
project at the Idaho National Laboratory to the tune of $1.35 billion. The
first of six clustered SMRs (small modular reactors) at the site is expected to
go online in 2029, with the rest expected to follow in 2030.
In 2020 the firm received approval from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for its SMR design — the first company to have
Washington’s blessing for the new technology. NuScale is now seeking approval
for a slightly larger reactor — 77 versus 50 megawatts per unit — based on the
same design.
There is international interest in SMRs, from Canada to
South Korea, and two plants are already operating in Russia.
NuScale maintains that its SMR design has many advantages,
among them:
A smaller, more compact size means the modular units can be
factory assembled and delivered to the site by truck or barge, streamlining
both the cost and duration of construction.
The small units can be combined in groupings of four, eight
or 12 to scale up the megawattage and accommodate varying energy niches. For
example, the project in Idaho will consist of six SMRs with a combined output
of 462 megawatts. A grouping of 12 units would produce 924 megawatts, roughly
three-quarters the output of Millstone Unit Three.
Their footprint is much more compact. The Idaho project fits
on approximately 65 acres. The Millstone site in Waterford is 550 acres.
Smaller plants make more sense in rural areas where a
full-scale facility would overwhelm the grid, or as reliable baseline power for
other carbon-free sources such as wind or hydro.
SMRs use less nuclear fuel per megawatt, creating less
radioactive spent fuel, and use 90 percent less water compared to reactors like
the two at Millstone.
SMRs› simpler design is safer: the reactor sits in a stable
pool of cooling fluid. They are designed to shut themselves down in an
emergency without operator intervention, backup generators, or additional
cooling water.
Republican Minority Wins Public Hearing On Highway User Fee
Christine
Stuart
Republicans are in the minority in the General Assembly, but
they were able to secure enough signatures to force a public hearing on
repealing the highway user fee that went into effect in January.
The Democrat-controlled Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee
refused to hold a public hearing on the bill, but according to Republicans they
secured 51 signatures to force the public hearing.
“Many members of the General Assembly proposed this
legislation on behalf of their constituents, and the committee’s failure to
raise the bill meant a large swath of Connecticut residents would be silenced,”
Rep. Holly Cheeseman, said. “That’s unacceptable given the far-reaching,
negative impact this tax will have on the cost of living here, and I’m thrilled
my caucus colleagues joined me in petitioning to deliver a public hearing that
will give everyone an opportunity to be heard on the most important issue we
face—affordability.”
Rep. Maria Horn, who co-chairs the Finance, Revenue and
Bonding Committee, said she was surprised to learn of the procedural manuveur.
“As I write this, the committee is holding a hearing that
concerns an exemption to the Highway Use Tax for agricultural vehicles, and it
may have been enlightening, and respectful of the public’s time, to have considered
both bills had I understood this earlier,” Horn said. “While I have not yet
seen the petition, I will certainly honor it and will hope that we will learn
something new about how to support the significant infrastructure investments
we hope to make in light of unprecedented federal resources available to us
that will require state matching funds.”
Republicans have been trying to repeal the fee because they
say it will increase the cost of goods trucked to the state.
The state is expected to start collecting revenue from the
highway user fee on Feb. 28, despite opposition from the business and trucking
community.
The mileage-based fee on trucks using Connecticut highways
was approved
by state policymakers back in 2021 in an effort to generate ongoing
revenue to support the Special Transportation Fund, which pays for the upkeep
and improvement of roads and bridges.
State fiscal analysts estimated the law would raise about $90
million a year through a per-mile tax on big rig trucks which will scale with
the weight of the vehicle. The fee will range from 2.5 cents per mile for
trucks weighing between 26,000 and 28,000 pounds to 17.5 cents per mile for
trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds.
“Before this legislation was adopted, we heard over and over
from trucking company owners who warned us of the trickle-down impact of this
tax, which will cause residents to pay more for basic services and goods such
as groceries,” House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora said. “Now that we’ve
raised our bill, Democrats who have gotten more comfortable talking about the
affordability crisis they helped create should put their money where their
mouths are and encourage citizens and business owners in their districts to
testify when a hearing date is set.”
Construction starts plummet 27%
Total construction starts fell 27% in January to a
seasonally adjusted annual rate of $865.6 billion, according to Dodge Construction
Network, a dramatic reverse from December, when new project kickoffs ended
2022 on the upswing. In the latest reading, nonresidential building starts fell
38%, residential starts lost 20%, and nonbuilding starts declined by 16%.
On a year-over-year basis, total construction was 14% lower
in January 2023 than in January 2022. Residential starts lost 34%, reflecting
the prolonged weakness in the housing market, while nonresidential building
starts were down 2% compared to a year ago. One bright spot was nonbuilding
starts — think roads and infrastructure — which were up 10% compared
to a year before.
Despite the stark contrast from a month before, Richard
Branch, Dodge’s chief economist, said the numbers should be viewed in context
of the unusually strong momentum seen at the end of 2022. “January’s decline in
construction starts should not be taken as the beginning of a cyclical downturn
in the industry,” Branch said. “Numerous megaprojects have begun over the last
few months, obscuring the underlying trend in construction activity.”
The challenging comparison to the wave of kickoffs at the
end of last year provides one reason to see the most recent numbers in a more
favorable light. But Branch noted that some areas of building are likely to
fair better than others in 2023, even as he highlighted building’s overall
strength.
“While some construction sectors will face stress as the
year progresses, current fundamentals point to an industry that is fairly well
positioned to weather the storm,” Branch said.
For example, the 38% drop in nonresidential building starts
last month was driven by a 91% pullback manufacturing starts following the
kickoff of several large projects in December. But within the category,
commercial starts dropped 11%, with the beleaguered office category showing the
only gain.
Likewise, the 16% drop in nonbuilding starts last month came
on the heels of a very large drop (-76%) in utility/gas plant starts following
a brisk December.
The 20% drop in residential was spurred by a 37% fall in
multifamily starts. The beleaguered single-family category pulled back another
5%. As a bright spot, multifamily starts were still up 21% on a rolling
12-month basis.
The largest nonbuilding projects to break ground in January
were:
The $750 million High Banks wind farm in Belleville, Kansas.
The $570 million first phase of the Highway 69 express toll
lanes in Overland Park, Kansas.
The $492 million CEPP/EAA reservoir in Palm Beach, Florida.
The largest nonresidential building projects to break ground
in January were:
The $1 billion Prime Data Center campus in Elk Grove
Village, Illinois.
The $515 million Amazon data center in Hilliard, Ohio.
The $460 million CoStar Group corporate campus in Richmond,
Virginia.
The largest multifamily structures to break ground in
January were:
A$200 million mixed-use building in Gowanus, New York.
A $172 million mixed-use building in Greenpoint, New York.
The $150 million The Cove residential community in
Sacramento, California.
5-year plan would improve Meriden road conditions citywide
Michael Gagne
MERIDEN — John Lawlor, the city’s director of public works
and engineering, told city councilors this week that the city would need to
invest around $5.5 million into road improvements annually in order to improve
the overall conditions of roads it owns and maintains.
Lawlor was joined by Anthony Garro, a senior vice president
of the engineering firm BETA group, Inc., in discussing the city’s road
improvement program. BETA was the firm retained by the city in 2022 to inspect
the condition of approximately 193 miles of roadway in Meriden. Before BETA
completed its inspection, the last time city roads were inspected was in
2018.
The firm used a zero to 100 scale to report out the
conditions of roads, in what Lawlor referred to as a “road surface rating,”
with zero as the lowest score — in poor condition — and 100 as the highest
score, meaning the road is in like new condition.
The inspection rated the city’s overall network of roads at
73.54, and categorized groups of roadways based on the level of repairs
inspectors determined those roads needed. This rating included 65.29 miles of
roadway considered in need of preventative maintenance, followed by 49.84 miles
of road in need of what BETA determined to be minor rehabilitation.
The inspection found another 44.16 miles of roadway in need
of routine maintenance, while another 11.3 miles required major rehabilitation,
and an additional 22.53 miles required no maintenance.
The overall cost to complete all the recommended levels of
repair would be just over $53 million.
From 2012 to 2022, the city completed a little more than 75
miles worth of roadway improvements.
About one-third of all city-owned roadways are in need of
preventative maintenance, another third major or minor rehabilitation and
another third routine or no maintenance, according to figures shown by Lawlor
and Garro.
Lawlor explained it would benefit the city to repair roads
incrementally, to achieve what he described as “a linear path of progress.”
Lawlor outlined a goal to increase the overall rating of city owned roads to at
least 76 over the next five years.
Several factors come into play as the city ranks and schedules
roads for maintenance.
Among those factors: how traffic flows on those roads, the
type of repair needed, as well as the scheduling of other maintenance involving
those roads — for example underground utility work that may also be planned by
Eversource, including gas line repairs or replacements, or pipe relining by the
city’s own water department.
Lawlor said roads are assessed a road surface value, as well
as a cost benefit value. Factors like traffic flow impact a road’s determined
cost benefit value.
“Those are things that make an impact,” Lawlor said. “... A
lot of things go into the decision — not just the road condition.”
Lawlor said a lot of information goes into determining a
list and schedule of road maintenance. “I hope it helps you gain a consideration
for the complexity of the plan,” he said. “We treat the funds the council gives
us for this work very seriously, to make sure we get the best technology.”
A few city councilors had questions during and after the
presentation.
Councilor Michael Rohde asked how much of a priority is
given to what he called “major arteries”, like Wall Street and Liberty Street,
which get a lot of traffic, versus smaller streets.
Lawlor responded that usage is a reason why a road might be
given high priority.
Deputy Mayor Michael Cardona asked Lawlor if a list of
public streets’ road service ratings and cost benefit values could be made
public so that a member of the public can check.
Lawlor said yes. But he recommended against presenting just
the raw data.
“It’s important to understand that there is a process,”
Lawlor said, recommending sharing information in a way that forecasts when road
maintenance is expected to be completed — “versus sharing raw data and people
making incorrect assumptions based on them.”
Cardona said he saw Lawlor’s point, in why presenting the
raw data could be problematic.
“I do think this information as a whole should be presented
to the public,” Cardona said. “I do think it’s good for the public to have this
information be made available to them.”
East Haven zoning officials approve 55+ housing complex on Sperry Lane
Austin Mirmina
EAST HAVEN — After years of arduous negotiations and
frequent setbacks, a Branford developer has finally gotten the go-ahead for a
55-and-older housing project at the site of a former Girl Scout camp.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the application
for a 378-unit housing complex on Sperry Lane and Foxon Boulevard, ending
a seven-year saga over plans submitted by Bluffs LLC developer Mark
DiLungo.
"It's a good feeling," DiLungo's attorney, Bernard
Pellegrino of the Pellegrino Law Firm, said Wednesday of the project's
approval. "I think our client is very happy — he's worked long and hard to
get a project approved there, and in this last version, we worked closely with
town staff to come up with a project that both parties are satisfied with."
Originally dubbed the Sperry Lane proposal, the restructured
plans call for four residential buildings with 378 units at the site of the
former Girl Scouts of Connecticut’s Camp Murray, decreased from the most recent
proposal of 504 units and six buildings.
According to the plans, three of the residential buildings
would have a total of 258 units, and the fourth building would contain 120
assisted-living units. All of the proposed units would be age-restricted, and
must have at least one tenant 55 or older, documents show. No resident may be
younger than 18.
In addition to accommodating older residents, the project
also will increase the town's availability of affordable housing, as the
developer has agreed that 39 of the 258 non-assisted units — or 15 percent
— would be deemed "affordable housing units" as defined by
state law.
Mayor Joe Carfora, who initially campaigned
against the Sperry Lane proposal, said the "recently approved site
plan, including all the terms of the stipulated judgment that must be complied
with, represents a better outcome."
As part of its approval, the PZC specified about 15 relatively
minor conditions that must be met for the complex's development, Pellegrino
said. Among those conditions were safeguards related to blasting work conducted
at the site, and settling design details for the final site plan,
according to Pellegrino.
The applicant will now seek additional permits from the
state Department of Transportation and Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, Pellegrino said. A construction timeline for the project has not
been set.
Throughout the lengthy application process, rock
blasting was a main concern for zoning officials and residents living
near the project site. Some residents said they feared they would be held
liable for any potential property damages caused by the vibrations from the
blasting work, which is expected to take about five to six months over a
three-year period.
Pellegrino had told the commission that the projected blasting
timeframe was a "worst case scenario," and that project officials
hope to reduce the amount of blasting as the process moves forward. To ensure
nearby residents are protected, project officials said they will issue pre-and
post-blast surveys, and notify households in a timely manner before any
blasting begins.
The project has gone through several iterations since
DiLungo first proposed the project in 2016. The PZC denied the application
multiple times, and DiLungo eventually appealed the board's ruling in
Superior Court. A stipulated agreement from a Superior Court judge laid the
groundwork for the current version of the housing project.
Another embattled East Haven housing project also took
a step forward last week, as PZC members approved a proposed
stipulation for judgement stemming from an application submitted by
Autumn View LLC. The plans now call for 69 standalone, market-rate apartments
to be built on about 17 acres on Strong Street. The units will not have an age
restriction or affordable component.
Pellegrino, who also represents Autumn View LLC, said that
client was "happy to get the settlement agreement approved" by the
PZC. The next step will be having a Superior Court judge approve the
stipulation, he said. Once the judge signs off, the applicant will submit a
site plan to the commission, and a public hearing will be held.
The Autumn View proposal, like the Bluffs application, has a
long and complex history in East Haven, including multiple
lawsuits over the years.
In 2007, the commission approved plans for 51 age-restricted
units on 14 acres at the property. But five years later, Autumn View filed an
application with the commission to rezone the project to be 17 acres with 105
units. The application removed the age restriction but included affordable
housing units. Several denials and court appeals ensued, leading up to last
week's approval of the proposed stipulation.
Hartford's Village at Park River eyes next construction phase with sense of community intact
Emily DiSalvo
HARTFORD — Westbrook Village was a pillar of the Hartford
community from the 1950s until its demolition in 2019. Over time, conditions at
the public housing project designated for low- and moderate-income tenants
began deteriorating..
Like Westbrook Village, its replacement, The Village at Park
River, includes affordable housing. However, the project, which is wrapping up
its fourth phase of residential construction, aspires to be much more.
"We wanted to move away from the barrack-style housing
that was here," said Anthony Healis, a partner with the Cloud Company, one
of the developers on the project. "It's not as inviting when you're trying
to build a community, especially a family-related community."
The Cloud Company is a minority-owned, family-run real
estate development firm focused on projects in the Connecticut market. The CEO
of the Cloud Company as well as Healis' father used to live in the original
Westbrook Village. The new project is a realization of community input and a
motivation to fill various needs in Hartford and the Blue Hills neighborhood.
The project consists of 200 completed and occupied units
from three phases of construction and 60 nearly completed units from the fourth
phase. The fifth phase of construction will also be residential. The Village at
Park includes primarily three-story residences with front porches, brick and
vinyl siding and big windows. The roads are lined with bike lanes and wide
sidewalks.
"We held probably 20 different community meetings where
we put out what's called a Charrette design program," Healis said.
"The people attending the meeting all had clickers, and we put up
different ideas. Do you like brick? Do you like this type of siding? Do you
like this type of style, this type of construction? They clicked on the stuff
that they liked, and then (the architect) took that information, that data that
was received from those meetings, and that's how they really kind of honed the
design."
Only 12 households from the original Westbrook Village
remained at the redeveloped Village at Park River, but they were given first
dibs on leases. Units, serving mostly tenants from the Hartford area, range
from market-rate housing to supportive housing for formerly house-less
residents. The goal is inclusivity.
"The units for the homeless are there with every other
unit," said property manager Yesenia Colon. "It's not like we have
set aside a building or specific area just for those. It's mixed."
The Cloud Company and Philadelphia-based Pennrose Management
Company have a long-term lease with the Hartford Housing Authority, which owns
the land. Of the 40 acres of land, 30 are designated for residential use. The
remaining 10 acres will be commercial, pending city zoning approval.
"A well-established restaurateur has already signed a
letter of intent with us. That will be kind of a standalone restaurant pad
space," Healis said. "We're also looking at other smaller spaces for
folks that have a small boutique shop and want to have a commercial
space."
The developers are also working with the University of
Hartford to expand some of its programming into the commercial space.
Also in the cards for Village at Park River are over a dozen
homeownership opportunities coming in a later phase of construction. Currently,
finding a way to fund the units is proving to be the biggest challenge.
"When we first started permitting the residential
phases, I believe DOH had a program to fund the development of
homeownership," said Rio Sacchetti, a developer with Pennrose.
"That's not around anymore, which is posing a challenge for us to figure
that out."
Funding for the project itself came from a patchwork of
housing programs and tax credits. About 50 percent of the funding came from
Federal Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Other funds came from the
Department of Housing, federal housing grants and a grant from the Greater
Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, which funded the community
building.
"We've cobbled together a lot of different funds,"
Sacchetti said.
Creating community and a positive living environment at
Village at Park River is also a patchwork, or a "cobbling." Colon, of
Hartford, has been property manager at the facility since 2020 when she was
operating out of a small trailer and construction was happening around her.
She has watched the community grow into what it is today.
And she's invested in where it's going.
"We're gonna build a bike trail and a dog park,"
Colon said. "In the center, a Central Park."
Colon pointed out the community garden, which she said will
be run by residents to grow vegetables in the spring and summer. She explained
the community's partnership with local shelters and food pantries allows a
regular food share program on site. She seemed to know the tenants personally.
"They all have ties to the Hartford community and
Westbrook," Colon said. "Either their grandparents lived here, their
parents. You know, there's history here. Most of the residents, they come from
this area or the Bloomfield area, and they have history. Like they're very
familiar with the old Westbrook."
Officials: Bridgeport Hospital eyeing old Harding High School site
Brian Lockhart
BRIDGEPORT — The city has placed the former Harding High
School property on the market, and several officials said neighbor Bridgeport
Hospital aims to submit an offer to expand in some capacity onto the site.
"They've always said they wanted it," said state
Rep. Andre Baker who, with other community leaders from that section of town,
has been part of behind-the-scenes discussions about the future of the
shuttered 200,000-square-foot school and 8 acres of land at 1734 Central Ave.
in the shadow of the medical campus.
"They've been meeting with the community (and) the
city's been in discussion with the hospital," said City Councilman Ernie
Newton.
He, Baker and others also said that they have been talking
to hospital representatives about including a housing component in any
deal.
Built in 1924, Harding has been vacant since students and
staff in 2018 moved into a new building on Bond Street.
The city's economic development department began
accepting requests for proposals from prospective developers for
the site Jan. 18. The deadline is March 2.
In a statement to Hearst Connecticut Media, Bridgeport
Hospital President Anne Diamond did not deny that institution's interest, but
declined to discuss it.
"It is way too premature for us to have a
comment," Diamond said. "The request for proposals is not even due
until next week and it would be inappropriate for us to comment during (that)
process."
Meanwhile staff with Bridgeport's economic development
department would only state that office is "open to proposals involving
new construction and/or the adaptive reuse of the existing building and
facilities." The wish list includes business incubation; an educational
and/or training facility; a laboratory or research facility; low impact light
industrial uses; a medical office and/or health services facility; a
recreational facility; a retail or lifestyle center; and some type of
residential or elderly housing.
Community leaders said they would like housing to be a component of any sale to
Bridgeport Hospital, whether built on the high school site or as a land swap in
which the hospital frees up some other properties it has accumulated over the
years for future residential development.
Newton emphasized that if the hospital, a top Bridgeport
employer, needs the former Harding to expand, he is not looking to get in the
way.
"We don't want to hurt Bridgeport Hospital,"
Newton said. "With the other properties that Bridgeport Hospital owns,
there may be an opportunity for us to get those sites."
Activist Ralph Ford said that he has been helping
to establish a nonprofit, the Seaview Avenue Community Development
Corporation, named after the key roadway that cuts through the Harding
High/Seaview Avenue neighborhood, linking it to Interstate 95.
"We've looked at Harding for the past two years as a
possible site for housing," Ford said. He added because the nonprofit is
still being formed, "The request for proposals process caught us off guard
(and) we really weren't prepared."
"We've had some conversations with Bridgeport Hospital
that have been fruitful," Ford said. "They understand what the
community's needs are in terms of housing, and we also understand their need to
expand and grow. We're hoping at some point we can come to some kind of
arrangement. Bridgeport Hospital owns quite a bit of property ... that has not
been developed. We're hoping we may be able to work out, with the assistance of
the city, some kind of joint venture."
Baker said it would make sense for the medical institution
to include some sort of residential units in its redevelopment plans for the
Harding land given the hundreds of people who work there.
"Why not do some housing for your employees so they don't
have to go that far? They can live in the area," Baker suggested.
"That's what I'm trying to dialogue with them."
Nick Roussas runs the Mill Hill Neighborhood Revitalization
Zone, one of a group of NRZs around town established to weigh in on economic developments
in their respective sections of Bridgeport.
"The best use would be housing there. There's no ifs,
ands or buts about it," Roussas said of the former Harding High School,
confirming he too has been involved in talks with the hospital. "If they
can come to an agreement and do something that's mixed, it would benefit both
the hospital and the city."
Keith Williams heads the East End NRZ, which will also
be impacted by the future sale of Harding.
"It's up to the city who they're gonna give it
to," Williams said.
He said while housing is needed, a larger Bridgeport
Hospital would mean more jobs.
"It's a win-win situation, either way," Williams
said. "Let them work that out and see what happens."
Trumbull officials OK Main Street complex; no action from Monroe
Andy Tsubasa Field
MONROE — A proposed 57-unit apartment complex on Route 25
has cleared one hurdle, and now has one more to go.
Trumbull planning officials have approved the proposed
development straddling Trumbull and Monroe. Those in Monroe discussed the plan,
including the issue of where children living there would attend school, but did
not vote.
The Trumbull Planning & Zoning Commission last week
approved the proposal by 7182 Main Street, LLC, and 7192 Main Street, LLC,
which includes a requirement to accept any requests from the town planner to
adjust the project’s landscape plan.
Attorney Chris Russo of Russo & Rizio, LLC, who
represents the developers, said children would enroll in schools corresponding
with whether they live in a unit located in Monroe or Trumbull. He said the
plan was designed to ensure apartments are not split between the two
towns.
The property presently sits in multiple addresses. But Russo
said when the applicant seeks a building permit for both towns, they will be
required to merge the addresses.
“At that point, we would talk to the engineers in both towns
to assign an address to it,” Russo said.
Still, Russo said, unit numbers assigned for apartments and
businesses would show whether tenants are located in Monroe or Trumbull.
Despite having a shared street address, the city in tenants' mailing addresses
would match that town.
Other conditions include a requirement that 10 percent of
parking spaces would have electric vehicle charging stations.
The proposed development, called Gateway Commons, is located
at 7180 and 7192 Main St., and includes a three-story building with a basement.
The building’s first floor would consist of retail or restaurant space, while
residents would have access to a lobby and area for an exercise room and work
space.
The basement would house an office and storage area. The
proposed development contains 198 parking spaces, shared between both residents
and customers.
About 80 percent of units would be one-bedroom, a total that
includes a few loft-style apartments. Others include studio and two-bedroom
apartments. Some units would contain balconies.
The proposed development is located near a pond connecting
to the Pequonnock River. On the other side of the site runs the
"Rails-to-Trails" walking and biking path in Monroe.
Russo told Trumbull planning officials that the applicant
plans to build sidewalks in front of the proposed building, but its residents
will not have direct access to the trail. He said he expects a future owner of
the neighboring property in Monroe to install sidewalks, too.
“When that happens, there will be direct sidewalk access to
the Rails-to-Trails,” Russo said.
During last week’s meeting in Trumbull, Commissioner Brandon
Cousins asked whether the applicant would allow those seeking to use
Rails-to-Trails to park at the complex. Russo responded the applicant would
review whether to permit the non-tenant and non-customer use if they secure a
direct connection to the trail for residents.
If the neighboring property was to be developed and provide
a direct connection for Gateway Commons' tenants to the trail, Russo said,
“compared to the other parking areas that I’ve seen connected to
Rails-to-Trails, I think we have more than sufficient parking on this site.”
He added, though, that the applicant does not plan to
encourage those hoping to use the complex as a parking spot for the trail.
“Those people would have to kind of understand on their own
that they could do that,” Russo said.
104-unit, mixed-use apartment development targeted for Bristol’s Center Square Village
Hanna
Snyder Gambini
ASouthington-based developer is proposing a mixed-use
apartment development with more than 100 units on an empty municipal lot in
Bristol, which he would purchase from the city if plans are approved by the
Zoning Commission.
Gino Carrier of Carrier Construction Inc. is looking to
build the multi-phase Center Square Village at 111 North Main St., between
Center and Hope streets.
The city-owned property is currently a parking lot, and
Carrier said he would purchase the lot for an undisclosed amount if he gains
project approval.
His plans call for the development of two buildings totaling
76,000 square feet, with 104 apartment units. The two buildings would contain
15,600 square feet of commercial space, 7,800 in each, the majority of which
could be used for restaurants with outdoor dining space.
All apartments will be market rate, with 46 one-bedroom
units, 44 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units, 12 of which will be
fully ADA accessible.
Units will range in size between 680 square feet to 1,650
square feet.
The development will have a total of 224 parking spaces; 187
spaces on-site including 18 fully enclosed in garages and 24 spaces underneath
the center carport. All residential parking spaces will be assigned.
Center Square Village will also have 46 available street
parking spaces along the project’s frontage and 72 spaces available in the
public lot on an adjacent lot.
Residents will have access to amenities such as a covered
pavilion, outdoor grill areas, a fenced-in pet area and pet spa, and package
delivery lockers.
Phases one and two will each include the completion of one
building and parking area. Carrier estimates work on phase one will begin
within six months of site-plan approval and be completed within 18 months.
Phase two will start six months after phase one is completed and also take
about six months to complete.
Carrier said he estimates this could be a three-year project
that will greatly improve the landscape and access to housing for that area of
the city.
Playing Nice With OSHA: How to Avoid Fines for Jobsite Violations
LUCY PERRY
The Department of Labor opened the year with an increase in
the cost of penalties for employer violations. This means not only the federal
Mine Safety and Health Administration, but the Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Wage and Hour Division and Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs are all under the fee-hike umbrella. So is OSHA.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's maximum
penalty increases include more than $15,000 per violation for serious,
other-than-serious and posting requirement violations.
The Federal Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements
Act of 2015 dictates that all federal agencies must increase their monetary
penalties annually in line with the rate of inflation.
However, the new rules are "intended to be a targeted
strategy," said Doug Parker, OSHA assistant secretary of labor.
They're written especially for "those employers who
repeatedly choose to put profits before their employees' safety, health and
well-being."
Targeting Offenders
In fact, OSHA regional administrators and area office
directors now have the authority to cite certain violations as
"instance-by-instance citations."
They can do so for cases where the agency identifies
"high-gravity" serious violations of OSHA standards supports a
citation for each instance of non-compliance.
This includes lockout/tagout, machine guarding,
permit-required confined space, respiratory protection, falls and trenching.
Cases with other-than-serious violations specific to
recordkeeping also fall under the discretionary authority.
According to OSHA, the change is intended to ensure agency
personnel are applying the full authority of the OSH Act where increased
citations are needed to discourage non-compliance.
"The new guidance covers enforcement activity in
general industry, agriculture, maritime and construction industries, and
becomes effective 60 days from Jan. 26, 2023," said OSHA.
The current policy has been in place since 1990 and applies
only to egregious willful citations.
At the same time OSHA reminds regional administrators and
area directors of their authority not to group violations. The staffers should
instead cite violations separately to more effectively encourage employers to
comply with the intent of the OSH Act.
"Smart, impactful enforcement means using all the tools
available to us when an employer ‘doesn't get it' and will respond to only
additional deterrence in the form of increased citations and penalties,"
said Parker. "Employers who callously view injured or sickened workers
simply as a cost of doing business will face more serious consequences."
Numbers Are Going Up
OSHA's maximum penalty increases are:
$15,625, up from $14,502, per violation for serious,
other-than-serious and posting requirement violations;
$15,625, up from $14,502, per day for failure to abate
beyond the abatement date;
$156,259, up from $145,027, for willful or repeated
violations.
The minimum penalty for a willful violation is now $11,162,
an increase from $10,360.
In January, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration announced a 5 percent increase in the civil penalties assessed
for violations of its regulations.
The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA)
reports that the number of OSHA inspectors increased by 19 percent. The
association concluded that the increase in staff "raises the possibility
of onsite inspections."
Before the COVID pandemic, OSHA performed approximately
31,000 inspections a year, according to Chris Mayne, GZA GeoEnvironmental,
Norwood, Conn.
Mayne, GZA health and safety manager, told CBIA that that
number dropped to approximately 24,000 inspections in 2021. He anticipates as
society adjusts to a post-COVID and with the increase in staff OSHA will at
least return to its pre-pandemic inspection levels.
"I have seen companies become more safety conscious
over the years with safety becoming integrated into the fabric of company
culture," he said.
These companies are spending more resources on
safety-related issues to prevent illness and injuries from occurring in the
workplace, and consequently, to reduce the likelihood of citations and fines,
he said.
"Having good safety management programs in place can
help identify areas of non-compliance or risk and drive solutions to address
these areas of concern."
Impact On Contractors
It helps a construction contractor tremendously to know the
difference between an OSHA violation and a citation.
A violation occurs when a company or employee willingly or
unknowingly ignores potential and real safety hazards. According to trainers at
Safety by Design, a violation does not always mean an incident occurred; it can
also happen during an OSHA inspection.
"Depending on the severity of the infraction, the
company can receive a citation or fine," noted the safety consulting firm.
Some OSHA violations do not put employees at risk, and as a
result, instead of issuing a fine, the agency gives the company a citation.
"Similar to a warning traffic ticket, a citation lets
the business know there is a violation to resolve," said the safety
consultant. "It will also include a date when the safety issue needs to be
fixed."
Only repeat OSHA citations are listed on a company's safety
record, the company further explained.
"It's classified as a repeat offense when a business
receives the same citation more than once in three years."
Safety by Design said with a complete list on its website,
OSHA has made it easy for employees, managers and business owners to look up
various violations.
The firm suggests that regular safety audits and inspections
performed by third-party safety consulting companies can help improve workplace
safety. These audits also can help reduce the likelihood of OSHA violations and
citations.
Avoiding Consequences
Understanding what an OSHA compliance safety and health
officer is allowed to investigate is crucial, said training solution provider
SafetySkills. It also helps to understand what employees' rights are both
during and after an inspection, said the Oklahoma City, Okla., company.
"But a proper safety plan needs to start well before an
inspection ever occurs," the firm added. "You should identify and
eliminate as many potential hazards from your workplace as possible."
As well, contractors should implement personal protective
equipment (PPE) wherever necessary.
"You also need to maintain accurate records of all
injuries, illnesses and deaths and train employees on proper safety procedures
for both everyday work and in an emergency."
Many employers choose to conduct practice OSHA inspections,
the firm noted.
"Just like when you had drills in school, practicing an
inspection means employees will be better prepared and likely more relaxed in
an official inspection."
SafetySkills believes beyond onboarding, ensuring every new
employee is also up-to-date on applicable safety standards could also
significantly reduce the incidences of workplace injuries.
"Unfortunately, OSHA does not have one consistent
standard for addressing safety training," the consultant cautioned.
"Instead, if there is a specific training requirement, it is outlined in
the OSHA standard itself."
The company instructs clients to keep in mind that training
does not guarantee OSHA compliance.
"Training simply makes employees aware of potential
safety hazards," it said, adding that maintaining proper training
documentation is key.
Documentation can serve as proof that the employer took the
necessary steps to avoid a violation, should an inspection come to that.
No matter what kind of hazard may be present on a job site,
there is some form of PPE that can help protect affected workers. Since 1974,
OSHA has developed many PPE standards covering everything from clothing and
fall arrest systems to hearing and respiratory protection.
"With few exceptions," said SafetySkills,
"employers are required to provide effective PPE that will protect each affected
employee from any identified hazards or potential hazards at no cost to the
employee."
Employers also are responsible for providing complete
training on any protective equipment that may be used. This training requires
instruction in how to properly put on, adjust and remove PPE, and understanding
any limitations of the equipment.
It is truly up to the employees to make sure safe habits are
being carried out each day, said the safety consultant.
"In the field or out on the floor, employees will likely
be the first ones to see any potential issues."
By making it easy for employees to anonymously report
potentially hazardous situations, employers can take the necessary corrective
actions, the company said.
"It is crucial for employers to make it clear that if
an employee raises a safety concern or files a complaint with OSHA, they are
protected from retaliation."
Employees also should be encouraged to conduct regular
safety checks of their own areas to ensure standards are being met by every
worker. Putting this power into their hands rather than in the hands of
management only fosters a culture of safety from the ground up, believes
SafetySkills.
If You Are Cited
OSHA provides a general overview of employer rights and
responsibilities following a federal OSHA inspection.
"But you should always consult your local OSHA area
director for any specific questions or concerns," urged SafetySkills.
Employers have options:
They can agree to the citation and penalty by paying the
fine;
They can request an informal conference with the OSHA area
director to discuss the citation;
They can contest part or all of the notice, including the
citation, penalty and/or abatement date; and
Finally, employers can file a petition for modification of
abatement if unable to meet the given deadline.
"Regardless, you must post a copy of the OSHA citation
at or near the place where each violation occurred, in order to make employees
aware," said SafetySkills. "This posting must remain for three
working days or until the violation is corrected, whichever is longer."
In announcing the fine increases, OSHA reiterated that the
enforcement changes are tools.
These tools are meant to help deter employers from
disregarding their responsibilities to protect workers. They're also meant to
"ensure compliance with OSHA standards and regulations." CEG
