MONTROSE, PA ·
OSHA Inspection: BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC. in 2818 HAMLIN ROAD, MONTROSE, PA 18801 (NAICS 213112). OSHA activity number 339393498.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.
- Site address
- 2818 HAMLIN ROAD
- City
- MONTROSE
- State
- PA
- ZIP
- 18801
- Mailing
- 88 HECKMANS GAP ROAD, MILL HALL, PA 17751
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 213112
- Employees
- 40
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
4 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Jan 23, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $3,740 · Current $2,805 Reduced
9010
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: a) Gillingham Well Pad: An employee, Blender Tender, was required to wear an elastomeric respirator and had not been medically evaluated to wear the respirator prior to its use, on or about 09/05/2013. ABATED DURING INSPECTION NO ABATEMENT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $2805
- · Z (S) $3740
1910.134 F02
- Issued
- Jan 23, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
9010
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested: a) Gillingham Well Pad: An employee, Sand King Operator, was required to wear an elastomeric respirator and had not been fit tested within one year of his previous fit test, on or about 09/05/2013. b) Gillingham Well Pad: An employee, Blender Tender, was required to wear an elastomeric respirator and had not been fit tested within one year of his previous fit test, on or about 09/05/2013. c) Gillingham Well Pad: An employee, Chem Add Operator, was required to wear an elastomeric respirator and had not been fit tested within one year of his previous fit test, on or about 09/05/2013. ABATED DURING INSPECTION NO ABATEMENT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.1000 C
- Issued
- Jan 23, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 28, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $5,610 · Current $5,610
9010
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1000(c): The employer did not ensure that an employee's exposure to any substance listed in Table Z-3, in any 8-hour work shift of a 40 hour work week, did not exceed the 8-hour time weighted average limit given for that substance in the table. a) Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Gillingham Well Pad, Forest Lake Twp, PA: An employee, Sand King Operator, was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 0.534 milligrams per cubic meter of air, approximately 1.9 times the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.286 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Sampling was performed for 348 minutes on September 5, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time. ABATEMENT CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $5610
- · C (S) $5610
- · Z (S) $5610
1910.1000 E
- Issued
- Jan 23, 2014
- Abate by
- Apr 28, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
9010
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d): a) Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Gillingham Well Pad, Forest Lake Twp, PA: An employee, Sand King Operator, was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average of 0.534 milligrams per cubic meter of air, approximately 1.9 times the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.286 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Sampling was performed for 348 minutes on September 5, 2013. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time. The employer did not implement feasible administrative and/or engineering controls to reduce employee exposure levels to below the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit for respirable crystalline silica. ABATEMENT CERTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED GENERAL METHODS OF CONTROL APPLICABLE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: - Utilize alternative proppants (e.g., sintered bauxite, ceramics, resin coated sand). - Discontinue the practice of transferring sand from trucks to sand kings while employees are working in the crows nest on sand kings and/or adjacent to the thief hatches. - Utilize dust collection systems (e.g., baghouses) to capture silica dust ejected from thief hatches on top of sand kings during refilling operations. - Enclose areas where employee overexposures to silica are known to occur (e.g., crows nests). - Utilize wet methods (water misting) at dust generation zones (e.g. thief hatches and proppant transfer/drop zones). - Utilize flexible hose to transfer proppant from the sand kings to the blender. - Modify sand movers so that they may be remotely operated from outside of silica exposure zones. - Utilize video equipment to monitor the blender hopper and other transfer locations from outside of silica exposure zones. - Reduce the drop height between the sand transfer belt and T-belts and blender hoppers. - Limit the number of workers, and the time workers must spend in areas where dust and silica levels may be elevated, and consider ways to perform dusty operations remotely to completely remove employees from these areas. - Utilize alternative sand movers that can maintain silica exposure levels below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit. Abatement Schedule: Step 1. A written detailed plan of abatement shall be submitted to the Area Director outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposures to hazardous substances as referenced in this citation. This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the abatement dates required by this citation: (1) Evaluation of engineering/administrative control options; (2) Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design; (3) Procurement, installation, and operation of selected control measures; (4) Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of controls. All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. 45-day progress reports are required during the abatement period. Step 2. Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance. Date by which violation must be abated: Step 1 00/00/00 Date by which violation must be abated: Step 2 00/00/00
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
More inspections at Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, INC.
View Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 213112)
More inspections in PA
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 339393498.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.