OSHA Inspection: KILBURN MILL

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Abate by

Nov 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $2,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

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: (Construction Reference 1926.103):   Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA): On or about 04/03/2024, prior to employees using tight-fitting respirators as protection against silica-contaminated dust, the employer did not provide workers with a medical evaluation to determine that employee's ability to use the respirator.

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:   Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA):  On or about 04/03/2024, workers who were required to jackhammer a concrete slab wore tight-fitting respiratory protection as protection against silica-contaminated dust.  The employer allowed the workers to wear the respirators with facial hair that would interfere with the respirator's face-to-facepiece seal.

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Abate by

Nov 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $2,074 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k):The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:   Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA):  On or about 04/03/2024, the employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable respirator training for those workers who were required to wear tight-fitting respiratory protection against crystalline silica-contaminated dust generated during  concrete jackhammering operations.

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(e)(1):Where respiratory protection was required by this section, the employer did not provide each employee an appropriate respirator that complied with the requirements of this paragraph and 29 CFR 1910.134:  Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA):  On or about 04/03/2024, workers were required to conduct jackhammering  operations of a concrete slab.  When the employer did not use adequate measures to control the silica-containing dust, not all employees were provided with an appropriate respirator that complied with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134.  One worker wore a disposable dust mask that was not effective against silica-containing dusts above the PEL.

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Abate by

Nov 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $2,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1): For each employee engaged in a task identified on Table 1, the employer did not fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1, unless the employer assesses and limits the exposure of the employee to respirable crystalline silica in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.  Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA):  On or about 04/03/2024, when employees were required to conduct jackhammering of a concrete slab, the employer did not fully implement the required engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task of "Jackhammers and handheld powered chipping tools" as outlined on Table 1, "Equipment/task (x)" outlined in 29 CFR 1926.1153.  Water was not used to control the dust generated, no shrouded tools, or tools outfitted with HEPA filtration. These controls are required because the employer did not conduct an employee exposure assessment in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section to determine if workers were overexposed to crystalline silica.

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances S103

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(d)(2)(i):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)(ii), or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section:  Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA): On or about 04/03/2024, when workers were required to conduct jackhammering operations to remove a concrete slab, the employer did not conduct an assessment of employee exposure to respirable silica-containing dust.  Due to the lack of engineering controls, work practices,  and inadequate respiratory protection in such an enclosed space, it was reasonable to assume employees could be exposed to respirable silica dust at, or above, the Action Level.

Issued

Sep 20, 2024

Abate by

Nov 22, 2024

Penalty

Initial $4,839 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(e)(2): Where respirator use is required by this section, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134:  Kilburn Mill (127 West Rodney French Blvd., New Bedford, MA):  On or about 04/03/204, when employees wore half-mask elastomeric respirators as protection against silica-containing concrete dust, the employer did not institute a written respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.