EPA announces major regulatory reviews, overhauls

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on December 31, 2025, that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to the deadlines established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

The 2025 final rule:

• Extends the submission deadline for the notice of planned participation (NOPP) required for the subcategory of electric generating units (EGUs) seeking to permanently stop coal combustion by December 31, 2034;
• Extends compliance deadlines for zero-discharge limitations that apply to dischargers of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, bottom ash (BA) transport water, and combustion residual leachate (CRL);
• Establishes tiered standards for indirect discharges of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL; and
• Adds provisions that allow facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034.

Who’s affected?

The final rule impacts EGUs subject to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category (40 CFR Part 423).

What are the new deadlines?

The 2025 final rule delays the NOPP compliance date. It also extends the deadlines for zero-discharge limitations on FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. These apply to the best available economically achievable (BAT) limitations for direct dischargers and the pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for indirect dischargers.

What are the other changes?

EPA’s 2025 final rule sets tiered standards for indirect dischargers of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL:

• The first tier requires indirect dischargers to meet pre-2024 final rule standards by January 1, 2029.
• The second tier:
  • Allows indirect dischargers to continue indirectly discharging up to December 31, 2024, if they certify that they’ll convert to become direct dischargers; or
  • Requires indirect dischargers to meet the zero-discharge requirements by January 1, 2029, if they choose not to become direct dischargers.

The final rule also adds provisions that enable facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034. It allows EGUs to switch between complying with the zero-discharge limitations and the requirements that apply to the subcategory.

Key to remember: EPA has delayed certain compliance requirements for coal-fired steam electric power plants that discharge three types of wastewaters.

The clock is ticking for environmental teams. By 2026, several new EPA regulations will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies. Organizations that act now will avoid costly penalties and operational disruptions.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.

OSHA published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 3. Of note, the agency projects an April 2027 date for the Emergency Response final rule, and the Heat Illness proposal is slated to be finalized in October 2027. In November 2026, OSHA also expects to publish a final rule addressing the use of subpoenas during investigations.

OSHA reopened the comment period for 14 chemical-specific proposals. This allows the public 30 days to comment on recommendations made by OSHA’s Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health.

OSHA updated its Voluntary Protection Programs, which recognize workplaces with strong safety and health programs and low injury rates. The changes align with the seven core elements in the agency’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration withdrew 4 regulations that it says address outdated effective dates and requirements for various industry equipment and procedures. These relate to conveyor belts, blacksmith shops, diesel emission limits, and permissible flame safety lamps.

Turning to environmental news, EPA released detailed instructions and deadlines for pesticide registrants to begin compliance with the bilingual labeling requirements in the My PeST application. The first compliance deadline was July 31.

EPA aligned regulations under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 with OSHA’s Hazard Communication amendments for hazardous chemical reporting requirements. Facilities must use OSHA’s hazard classes with their categories for safety data sheet submissions and hazardous chemical inventory reports required under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312.

And finally, EPA published its 2026 regulatory agenda on July 3. Many of the proposed and final rules support the agency’s continued deregulatory efforts and may impact regulatory compliance with air, land, and water rules.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let's take a look at what happened over the last month!

OSHA will host an informal public hearing on its proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention rule on June 16. Information about the proposed rule and instructions on how to watch the hearing can be found on OSHA’s website.

OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction event, held the week of May 5, raised awareness of fall hazards in an effort to help prevent injuries and fatalities. Slips, trips, and falls were the leading cause of death in the construction industry in 2023, accounting for 421 fatalities.

After concluding its investigation of a California chemical facility fire, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is calling for improved heater safeguards to prevent similar incidents. The fire was caused by an overheated refinery furnace. The Board also made several safety recommendations for chemical facilities.

Following a number of recent fall incidents, the Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a safety alert advising miners to use fall protection. The most recent incident occurred when a miner fell from the deck of a bulldozer.

Turning to environmental news, EPA further delayed the PFAS manufacturing report submission period. The date was moved from July 11, 2025, to April 13, 2026. This is a one-time reporting requirement for manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl, or PFAS, substances.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

On April 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that further delays the submission period for the one-time report required of manufacturers on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (PFAS Reporting Rule).

This final rule pushes the starting submission period to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final rule updating the PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Who’s impacted?

Established under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7), the PFAS Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 705) requires any business that manufactured (including imported) any PFAS or PFAS-containing article between 2011 and 2022 to report. Covered manufacturers and importers must submit information on:

• Chemical identity, uses, and volumes made and processed;
• Byproducts;
• Environmental and health effects;
• Worker exposure; and
• Disposal.

What’s the new timeline?

The opening submission period was moved from April 13, 2026, to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Most manufacturers have 6 months to submit the report. Small manufacturers reporting only as importers of PFAS-containing articles have 1 year.

Why the delay?

In November 2025, the agency proposed updates to the PFAS Reporting Rule. EPA has delayed the reporting period to give the agency time to issue a final rule (expected later this year).

Key to remember: EPA has delayed the starting submission deadline for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule from April 2026 to no later than January 2027.

Citing elevated injury and illness rates, OSHA relaunched a National Emphasis Program on Warehousing and Distribution Center Operations on July 31. With this NEP, it’s now all hands-on-deck for federal OSHA inspectors nationwide for the next five years, as they knock on doors to:

• Warehousing and distribution operations,
• Mail processing and distribution centers, and
• Parcel delivery and courier services.

The warehouse NEP (CPL 03-00-026) is one of only 12 for the agency. NEPs are enforcement programs that concentrate the agency’s inspection and outreach efforts, based on emerging trends and strategic goals.

OSHA looked at federal data on rates for injuries and illnesses involving days away, restriction, or transfer. It turns out these industries continue to have higher rates than private industry overall. What’s striking is that, in some cases, those figures are over two to four times the private industry rate.

Hiring a new driver comes with a lot of responsibility, and if you’re feeling unsure about where to start or worried about missing something important, you’re not alone. Between federal requirements, background checks, and documentation rules, the process can feel overwhelming, especially when you’re trying to do it right the first time. The good news is, you don’t have to piece it together on your own. The playlist below pulls together some of the most helpful Compliance Network resources to walk you through each step, so you can hire with confidence, stay compliant, and get your driver on the road without unnecessary stress.

• Start by understanding everything required for driver qualification and hiring.
• Collect a compliant application.
• Run motor vehicle records (MVR) and Clearinghouse checks.
• Conduct previous employer investigations.
• Assemble and review the complete DQ file before dispatch.

This playlist brings together key Compliance Network resources to simplify the driver hiring process from start to finish. For deeper guidance, consider exploring related topics such as Driver Qualification Files, Hiring Drivers, Drug & Alcohol Programs, and FMCSA Recordkeeping Requirements within Compliance Network.

A Compliance Network playlist is a curated collection of practical resources designed to help you quickly address a specific event, task, or compliance challenge. Each playlist brings relevant guidance together in one place so you can spend less time searching and more time taking action. Stay tuned — more practical, ready-to-use collections are coming soon.

A truck driver’s routine pickup became a deadly reminder of how quickly loading operations can go wrong, especially when equipment doesn’t perform as expected and safe loading procedures break down.

According to a Washington State investigation, a 63-year-old truck driver with decades of experience was killed after being crushed by a yard tractor he was loading onto a beavertail gooseneck semi-trailer.

The yard tractor required a jump-start, but once it was running, the engine began revving uncontrollably and the brakes didn’t work. Nevertheless, the driver drove the tractor onto the deck until it came to rest against the front of the trailer. The driver began securing the tractor and was positioned between the axles when it suddenly rolled backward and crushed him. He died two days later from his injuries.

Canadian motor carriers may need a compass of strategies to help navigate through a National Safety Code (NSC) facility audit. This complex and challenging task requires the right approach to ensure a successful audit.

Here are some essential tips to help you through the journey of a NSC facility audit.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has finalized the HM-268 rulemaking package, turning many of its 2025 proposals into regulatory changes affecting a wide range of hazardous materials transportation requirements. The final rules were published on August 4, 2026, with most becoming effective on September 3, 2026.

Tightening environmental regulations are pushing carriers to purchase zero-emission vehicles. However, battery-electric power units may not be cost-effective without substantial government incentives. A battery-electric Class-8 truck can cost three times more than a traditional diesel-powered vehicle.

Trailers are usually 30-50 percent less expensive than trucks. Two trailer-based options to consider to achieve lower emissions and fossil fuel consumption are:

• Battery-electric trailer refrigeration units (TRUs), and
• Electric-drive trailers.

Transitioning from diesel refrigeration units and diesel-powered tractors may take some time. However, electrified trailer options can be part of a carrier’s plan to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.

She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.

The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.

No link between leave and termination

In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.

The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.

Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.

Ruling overturned

Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.

Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.

Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.

The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is an anti-discrimination law that requires employers to give employees reasonable accommodations. Unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where employees must have a disability, under the PWFA employees only have to have a limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This is a much lower threshold and can include minor limitations and time off for things like prenatal care. Under both the PWFA and the ADA, employers must provide an accommodation, unless doing so causes the employer undue hardship (i.e., disrupts the business, is too costly, etc.).

Sexual harassment in the workplace usually suggests offensive behavior by one employee toward another employee, or a customer behaving inappropriately toward staff.

Both those situations, while difficult, can be handled in a straightforward manner.

But when it is a patient harassing an employee in a healthcare setting, responding becomes more complicated.

While an employer can discipline an employee who is behaving badly or forbid a customer who harasses an associate from returning to a retail business, leadership cannot simply remove an offending patient in a long-term care facility, especially if that patient does not have all their faculties.

But a recent case out of Colorado shows, harassment by patients in health care settings cannot be overlooked or “swept under the rug.”

The lawsuit

In a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the operator of a Colorado senior living center agreed to pay $150,000 and provide other relief to settle the case.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, residents at the center repeatedly subjected female employees to sexual harassment by grabbing them, asking them for sexual favors, and directing inappropriate sexual language and gestures towards them.

The female employees complained about the harassment to the center’s management. Both the center’s management as well as its parent company’s administrative employees were aware of the residents’ ongoing hostile behavior and sexual harassment but did nothing to stop or prevent it.

The company then retaliated against a female employee who reported sexual harassment by suspending her without pay and firing her within days of her complaint.

Employer violated Title VII

The alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliating against employees who oppose the harassment.

While the operating company recently transferred all operations of its skilled-nursing facilities in the state to new companies and/or operators, the lawsuit specifies that should the company operate any skilled-nursing facility in Colorado in the future, it must:

• Review and revise its anti-discrimination policies to prevent unlawful sexual harassment, including sexual harassment by residents.
• Provide training to its employees in Colorado on how to properly care for and report residents who engage in hostile behavior or unwelcome sexual behavior.

In a statement, an attorney with the EEOC said the settlement in this matter heightens awareness about sexual harassment by clients in nursing facilities, informs staff of their rights, and hopefully, avoids such incidents in the future and in other nursing facilities around the country.

“Retaliation against employees who complain about sexual harassment is a separate violation of Title VII,” said Amy Burkholder, director of the EEOC’s Denver Field Office. “Over 50% of EEOC charges involve a retaliation complaint. Employees must be free to raise concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace without fear of reprisal.”

How to deal with sexual harassment in the health care industry

A Medscape.com survey revealed that 71 percent of nurses say that they had been sexually harassed by a patient. What can be done to lower that number? Here are seven preventative measures:

1. Train employees to recognize sexual harassment, whether it is coming from a coworker, supervisor, patient, visitor, or outside contractor.
2. Create strong anti-harassment policies.
3. Provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees on a regular basis, including bystander training.
4. Encourage employees to report any incidents of sexual harassment they witness or experience, including harassment of staff by patients.
5. Investigate all reports of sexual harassment and document all investigations thoroughly.
6. Train employees specifically on how to deal with harassment by a patient. Employers might suggest the employee start by telling the patient to stop the inappropriate comments or actions immediately, and then report the behavior to their leader. If the behavior stops, an investigation may not be necessary. However, it stops only temporarily and then starts up again, there will then be record of the earlier incident.
7. Instruct employees to immediately report any harassment that is severe or violent. Leaders should address serious incidents immediately. Sometimes reassigning employees can be helpful. Notifying a patient’s family member(s) and having them talk to the patient might also be helpful.

Key to remember: The EEOC takes sexual harassment in health care settings seriously, whether it is employees or patients doing the harassing. Employers in health care and all industries should provide sexual harassment prevention training and take all reports of harassment seriously.

EEOC v. SSC Montrose San Juan Operating Co., LLC and SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services LLC, d/b/a The San Juan Living Center, Civil Action No. 20-cv-03162

There’s a lot to keep track of when administering employees’ time off, especially when it falls under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Employers might wonder if they need to tell employees when their FMLA leave is running out. And the simple answer is “not really.”

Neither the statute nor the regulations specifically require you to notify or remind employees that their FMLA leave exhausted or is close to it. If you know how much time FMLA leave an employee is taking, you are, however, required to include that information on the designation notice. But, otherwise, there isn’t any other form or required document to tell an employee, “Hey, you’re running low on FMLA leave.”

Does this mean you may not give employees such a reminder?

Again, the simple answer is “no.” Employers may even have good arguments for doing so.

Why a gentle reminder can be helpful

When employees are on FMLA leave, the reason behind the need for leave will probably be of great importance to the employee. It could be because a baby was born or because a family member has a serious health condition. In any case, the employees most likely have a lot on their mind. They might not be constantly thinking about when they will return to work or when they will run out of FMLA leave.

Providing a gentle reminder can show employees that you’re thinking of them, and that you expect them to return on a particular date. Employees generally appreciate knowing what is expected of them. Giving them such a reminder can also help allay any questions about whether they knew they were expected back on such a date.

This could also be a good opportunity to remind employees that if they cannot return to work because of continued issues with their own serious health condition, they should let the employer know. In cases like this, an employer then can engage in an interactive process (dialogue) with the employee regarding possible reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. One accommodation, for example, might be more leave time.

Providing employees with reminders about how much leave time they have left can also address the consequences for any absences after FMLA protections expire. This is especially important in terms of maintaining employee benefits.

Designation notice changes

If the information in the designation notice changes, such as if the employee exhausts FMLA leave then requests more leave, you must provide a written notice of the change. Like with the original designation notice, a change notice must be given to the employee within five business days of receipt of the employee’s first notice of need for additional leave.

Therefore, if, after an employee exhausts all 12 weeks of FMLA leave, the employee asks for more leave, you are to notify the employee of the changes to the designation notice. You may use another designation notice if you wish, but you are not required to do so. You could simply indicate to the employee that there is no more FMLA leave available, so the additional leave will not be designated as FMLA leave.

Key to remember: Keeping the lines of communication open between you and employees who are on FMLA leave can benefit both employers and employees, even if all types of communication aren’t necessarily required.

Somewhere in your facility, there's probably a drum of hazardous waste with a date written on its label. That date is doing more legal work than you realize. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), that date is more like a countdown. When it runs out, your storage area doesn't just become "out of compliance" but transforms into something else entirely: an unpermitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF). This designation carries its own permitting requirements, inspection standards, and penalty exposure.

What this means for your program

The accumulation clock is unforgiving specifically because it's invisible until someone checks. EPA requires weekly inspections of Central Accumulation Areas, and a walk-through without a corresponding documented log is difficult to defend later, even if the walk-through actually happened. The practical fix is really easy. Just make sure to:

• Date every container the moment waste first enters it;
• Track that date against your generator category's specific limit;
• Document weekly inspections in writing; and
• Treat any episodic event as a formal notification process, not an informal grace period.

The waste itself rarely causes the violation. The forgotten date on the drum does.

Keys to remember: Most RCRA violations aren't caused by the waste itself but by failing to date, track, inspect, and ship waste before accumulation time limits expire.

A national retailer, with what OSHA calls a long history of violations, was slapped with four willful citations after local fire officials sent a referral to the agency regarding a Wisconsin store. Once inside the store last December and January, OSHA inspectors found a:

• Locked exit — Emergency exit doors to the back receiving room were padlocked with a bike lock and a board placed through the handles. Employees were not able to open an exit route door from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge. This violated 29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1). The violation was considered willful and serious because the retailer had previously been cited for the same violation three times elsewhere in the U.S. Now the store received the maximum penalty of $145,027.
• Blocked exit — Merchandise and carts blocked the exit in the receiving room, according to OSHA. The exit route was not kept free and unobstructed, and violated 1910.37(a)(3). This violation too was considered willful and serious because the retailer had been cited previously for the same violation 12 times in the U.S. This time the penalty was the maximum $145,027.
• Blocked extinguisher — A portable fire extinguisher in the back receiving room was obstructed with carts/containers. The extinguishers were not readily accessible per 1910.157(c)(1). OSHA found that the retailer previously violated this regulation twice in the U.S., so the violation was considered willful and serious and picked up another maximum $145,027 penalty.
• Blocked electrical panel — Adequate space around electrical panels was not provided says OSHA. Inspectors found that the employer obstructed the access and working space about electrical panels with carts/containers, in violation of 1910.303(g)(1). The citation explains that the retailer violated that regulation eight previous times in the U.S., and the violation was willful and serious, but OSHA did not propose a penalty amount.

While store managers explained that the doors needed repair to close properly, OSHA determined the doors were in disrepair for three months. The store has settled the case for $435,081 in penalties.

However, in January, a similar inspection was conducted at another one of the retailer’s stores in Ohio. That location was cited for barrel locks on the inside of a double-door emergency exit in the back room in violation of 1910.36(d)(1) . The Ohio store was cited for one willful violation and settled the case with $145,027 in penalties.

It is noteworthy that officials for the company had signed settlement agreements with OSHA in 2017, promising to resolve similar violations at its stores nationwide. However, OSHA officials say, based on the latest violations, the retailer continues to gamble with workers’ lives and must stop before tragedy strikes.

Know the rules...

In previous articles, I covered materials of trade (MOTs) but didn’t emphasize how they are covered under the hazmat regulations--mostly, because they aren’t. It’s important you understand why MOTs are an exception to the regulations and, therefore, handled differently.

A fatal highwall incident at a surface mine prompted the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to issue a safety alert to prevent similar incidents.

On January 29, a piece of rock fell from a highwall and struck the cab of a drill being operated by a miner, resulting in fatal injuries. Before beginning work, mine workers should look for hazards, such as loose rocks and overhangs. Miners should also:

• Scale highwalls from a safe location to eliminate hazards.
• Conduct highwall inspections prior to working or traveling near the highwall and more frequently as ground conditions warrant, especially after periods of rain, freezing, and thawing.
• Examine highwalls from multiple viewpoints and look for signs of cracking and other geologic features that could lead to instability.
• Use auxiliary lighting during low light conditions to conduct highwall examinations and illuminate active work areas.
• Work, travel, and operate equipment at safe distances from highwalls.

The full alert can be found at msha.gov.

An employer got a day in court for challenging OSHA’s authority to create safety regulations. The employer (plaintiff) argued that Congress unconstitutionally delegated OSHA too much discretion to create safety standards.

When Congress passed the OSH Act of 1970, it granted OSHA the authority to create regulations “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.”

The plaintiff argues that since Congress did not define “reasonably necessary or appropriate,” OSHA decides for itself whether a safety standard is necessary or appropriate. The plaintiff argued that, in effect, OSHA has no limits on its rulemaking authority. The plaintiff requested a permanent injunction to prevent OSHA from enforcing its standards.

The case Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Walsh questions the extent to which Congress can delegate legislative responsibility to federal agencies. The case started in a district court, which ruled in OSHA’s favor in September 2022. The plaintiff appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where three justices heard oral arguments on April 27, 2023. The three justices include two appointed by President George W. Bush and one appointed by President Donald Trump. That ruling had not yet been issued at publishing time, but the judges appeared skeptical about the validity of the plaintiff’s case.

Despite modern safety protocols, electrocution remains one of the leading causes of death in the construction industry. Why do these tragedies keep happening? Employers need to be held accountable.

OSHA has found a local electrical contractor could have prevented a 44-year-old foreman’s death by electrocution. The incident took place during storm recovery efforts.

Investigators learned the foreman was part of the three-person crew that was tasked with restoring distribution power to a series of natural gas pumps. While trying to replace a broken switch, the foreman suffered fatal electrocution from voltage in energized overhead power lines. OSHA inspectors later learned the switch was energized when the incident occurred.

“Electrical work is inherently dangerous, and industry employers must ensure basic safety standards are met to prevent a needless tragedy like this,” said the OSHA Area Director from Birmingham, Alabama. “Now family, friends and co-workers are left to grieve this terrible loss.”