FirstAlerts

OSHA Cites Trenick Inc. of Castle Rock for Repeat and Serious Violations

The Washington employer faces a proposed $7,904 penalty after an inspection opened in April.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 2:53 p.m. ET
OSHA has cited Trenick Inc. at in , Washington, for violations classified as repeat and serious, with a proposed penalty of $7,904. The citation, issued July 17, 2026, follows an inspection opened April 9, 2026, under inspection number . The cited standards are 296-880-20005(6), 296-155-350(), and 296-155-120(2). The employer has contested the citation, so the penalty is not final and may be reduced, withdrawn, or overturned; no payment has been made based on it. This record states the citation, the standards cited, and the penalty proposed. It does not state that anyone was hurt, and a citation is an allegation by the agency until a final order settles it.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 18:53current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.