OSHA Inspection: GLS INDUSTRIES, INC.

Issued

Jul 30, 2025

Abate by

Sep 18, 2025

Penalty

Initial $5,627 · Current $3,658 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) Besser Vibrapac (V3-12) Mold Machine;  On or about May 8, 2025, employees were exposed to pinch points on the mold machine. No form of guarding was in place to prevent employees from entering the point of operation where the mold and associated equipment was cycling.   (b) Besser-Matic Rack Loading/Unloading System; On or about May 8, 2025, employees were exposed to pinch points on the unload and load rack system. No form of guarding was in place to prevent employees from entering the point of operation when the system was cycling.  (c) Besser Block Splitter; On or about May 8, 2025, the point of operation was not adequately guarded as there was access to the blade.

Issued

Jul 30, 2025

Abate by

Sep 5, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.219(b)(1): Flywheel(s) with parts seven feet or less above floor(s) or platform(s) were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv):   (a) Besser Vibrapac (V3-12) Mold Machine; On or about May 8, 2025, the rotating flywheel/main drive pulley system on both sides of the machine were not adequately guarded.

Issued

Jul 30, 2025

Abate by

Sep 5, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.219(c)(4)(i):Unguarded projecting shaft end(s) did not present a smooth edge and end and projected more than one half the diameter of the shaft:  (a) Besser Block Splitter; On or about May 8, 2025, there was an unguarded rotating shaft projecting out (approximately 1 1/4 inch) more than one half the diameter of the shaft.

Issued

Jul 30, 2025

Abate by

Sep 18, 2025

Penalty

Initial $5,627 · Current $3,658 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(2): The employer did not assess the 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposure for each employee on the basis of any combination of air monitoring data or objective data sufficient to accurately characterize employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica:  (a) Block Plant; On or about May 8, 2025, the employer did not accurately determine employees exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) as employees monitored had exposures over the action level of 0.025 milligrams/cubic meter (mg/m3). An employee was exposed to RCS at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0455 mg/m3, approximately 1.82 times the action level. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 295-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 185 minutes. The employer utilized objective data from 2002, from a different plant, that was not representative of employee exposures at the Thorp, WI location.   (b) Block Plant; On or about May 8, 2025, the employer did not accurately determine employees exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) as employees monitored had exposures over the action level of 0.025 milligrams/cubic meter (mg/m3). An employee was exposed to RCS at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0427 mg/m3, approximately 1.71 times the action level. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 278-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 202 minutes. The employer utilized objective data from 2002, from a different plant, that was not representative of employee exposures at the Thorp, WI location.

Issued

Jul 30, 2025

Abate by

Sep 18, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(d)(4): The employer did not reassess exposures whenever a change in the production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work practices was reasonably expected to result in new or additional exposures at or above the action level, or when the employer had reason to believe that new or additional exposures at or above the action level have occurred:  (a) Block Plant, throughout the facility; On or about May 8, 2025, the employer did not reassess employees exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) when there was a change to include, but not be limited to, control equipment, personnel, work practice tasks, location (Thorp plant), and material utilized that would create exposures at or above the action level. An employee was exposed to RCS at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0455 mg/m3, approximately 1.82 times the action level. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 295-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 185 minutes.   (b) Block Plant, throughout the facility; On or about May 8, 2025, the employer did not reassess employees exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) when there was a change to include, but not be limited to, control equipment, personnel, work practice tasks, location (Thorp plant), and material utilized that would create exposures at or above the action level. An employee was exposed to RCS at an 8-hour TWA of 0.0427 mg/m3, approximately 1.71 times the action level. The exposure level was derived from samples collected over a 278-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 202 minutes.