OSHA Inspection: BEKESON GLASS LLC

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Penalty

Initial $3,315 · Current $2,000 Reduced

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)  Batching Operation - On or about March 10, 2022, employees were required to wear a 3M Half Mask Respirator in the work area and the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine whether the employees could use a respirator.

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:  Batching Operation - On or about March 10, 2022, employees were required to wear a 3M Half Mask Respirator in the work area and the employer did not ensure that employees were fit testing annually.

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Abate by

Aug 30, 2022

Penalty

Initial $5,801 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(d)(3)(i)(B)(1):The employer did not select a respirator for employee use that maintained the employee's exposure to the hazardous substance, when measured outside the respirator, at or below the maximum use concentration:  (a)  Batching Operation - On or about March 10, 2022, employees were required to wear a 3M Half Mask Respirator while exposed to a concentration of 1300 micrograms per cubic meter in the work area and the employer did not ensure that the Maximum Use  Concentration (MUC) was used in the proper selection of respiratory protection.   The MUC for the half mask is 500 micrograms per cubic meter.

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Abate by

Sep 21, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(c):  The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  (a) Batching Area - On or about March 29, 2022, an employee working in the Batching area was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average concentration of 1300 micrograms per cubic meter of respirable crystalline silica during a 340 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the unsampled time of the shift.  This exposure is approximately 26 times the permissible exposure limit  of 50 micrograms per cubic meter.   (b) Batching Area - On or about March 29, 2022, an employee working in the Batching area was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average concentration of 140 micrograms per cubic meter of respirable crystalline silica during a 337 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero increment for the unsampled time of the shift.  This exposure is approximately 8 times the permissible exposure limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter.

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Abate by

Sep 21, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(d)(1): The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(3) of this section:   (a)  Batching Area - On or about March 29, 2022, employees were exposed to approximately 26 times the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica while loading drums and the employer did not assess the exposure of each employees who may be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level.

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Abate by

Nov 7, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(f)(1): The employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL, unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible:  (a) Employees were exposed to approximately 26 times the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica while loading drums and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not used such as, but not limited to increasing the air volume flowrate through the hood, positioning the hood closer to the dust plume, or utilizing partial enclosure hoods.

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Abate by

Aug 30, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(g)(1): Where respiratory protection was required by this section, the employer did not provide each employee with an appropriate respirator that complied with the requirements of this paragraph and 29 CFR 1910.134:  Batching area - On or about March 10, 2022, employees exposed to respirable crystalline silica were required to wear a 3M Half Mask Respirator in the work area and the employer did not provide an appropriate respirator such as but not limited to a full face air purifying respirator (APR) or a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) used with a hood with an assigned protection factor (APF) greater than 26

Issued

Aug 8, 2022

Abate by

Sep 8, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(f)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:   (a)  Batching Area - On or about March 29, 2022, the  employer did not develop and implement a written exposure control plan for employees who were exposed to approximately 26 times the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica while loading drums.