OSHA Inspection: MORRIS BEAN & COMPANY

Issued

Sep 12, 2018

Abate by

Mar 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): Where respirators were necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures.     a) On or about July 19, 2018 Morris Bean & Company did not provide each employee a respirator when it was necessary to protect the health of the employees from respirable silica exposures levels in excess of the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) during periods necessary to install or implement feasible engineering and work practice controls. Employees were exposed to silica at 223%, 162%, and 116% of the permissible exposure limit for silica. Exposure to respirable crystalline silica can cause silicosis.       Step 1: Provide effective respiratory protection to and ensure it is used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering and/or administrative controls can be implemented or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits.

Issued

Sep 12, 2018

Abate by

Jan 29, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): Employees were exposed to crystalline silica, listed in Table Z-3, in excess of permissible exposure limit as calculated (10 mg/m3/ % quartz +2) as an 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Concentration:     a)    On or about July 19, 2018,  Morris Bean & Company did not ensure that employees were not exposed to respirable crystalline silica, in excess of the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). An employee working in the core room were exposed to a TWA of respirable crystalline silica of 0.860 mg/m3 which exceeded the calculated PEL of 0.384 mg/m3 by 224% based up on the sample containing 24% quartz.    b) On or about July 19, 2018,  Morris Bean & Company did not ensure that employees were not exposed to respirable crystalline silica, in excess of the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). An employee working in the core room were exposed to a TWA of respirable crystalline silica of 0.580 mg/m3 which exceeded the calculated PEL of 0.3571 mg/m3 by 162% based up on the sample containing 26% quartz.    c) On or about July 19, 2018,  Morris Bean & Company did not ensure that employees were not exposed to respirable crystalline silica, in excess of the calculated Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). An employee working in the core room were exposed to a TWA of respirable crystalline silica of 0.4642 mg/m3 which exceeded the calculated PEL of 0.400 mg/m3 by 116% based up on the sample containing 23% quartz.    Step 2: 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 .      All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person.  90 day progress reports are required during the abatement period.

Issued

Sep 12, 2018

Abate by

Mar 1, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 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) On or about July 19, 2018 Morris Bean & Company did not ensure feasible administrative or engineering controls were determined and implemented, to reduce employee exposures to respirable dust containing crystalline silica in the Core room. Employees were exposed to silica at 223%, 162%, and 116% of the permissible exposure limit.    Step3: Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.      Feasible engineering controls include, but are not limited to;  1) Installation of local exhaust ventilation for the core machines;   2) Installation of misting system daman airborne silica dust;  3) Substitution of silica free materials for silica sand in making of cores;  4) Installation of down drafts ventilation in the core room to reduce airborne dust;   5) Repositioning employees as far away as feasible from the dust production operations.  6) Utilizing HEPA vacuuming systems during cleanup operations.                   Step1: Abatement Date- 30 days.                   Step2: Abatement Date- 60 days.                   Step3: Abatement Date- 90 days.

Issued

Sep 12, 2018

Abate by

Jan 24, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $5,821 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section.    a) On June 1, 2018 while conducting a die change on a core making machine located in the core room the employer did not ensure that procedures, developed for the control of potentially hazards energy such as but not limited to, electrical and pneumatic, were utilized.

Issued

Sep 12, 2018

Abate by

Jan 24, 2019

Penalty

Initial $11,641 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    a) On May 16, 2018 while operating the Foxsaw, located in the saw room, the employer did not utilize methods such as but not limited to barrier guards or electronic safety devices that would prevent employee's exposure to hazard of the rotating saw blade.       b) On May 16, 2018 while operating the core machine #7, located in the core room, the employer did not utilize methods such as but not limited to barrier guards, two hand tripping devices or electronic safety devices that would prevent employee's exposure to pinch points created by the sand and gas heads moving over top of the mold.       c) On May 18, 2018 while operating the core machine #7, located in the core room, the employer did not utilize methods such as but not limited to barrier guards, two hand tripping devices or electronic safety devices that would prevent employee's exposure to pinch points created during the closing of the core box.