OSHA issues COM DUST citations @ animal food plant ($161K)

OSHA found an animal food producer exposed employees to the risks of explosions, fires and long-term respiratory illnesses from excessive amounts of airborne dust, among two dozen safety and health violations they identified. The findings follow an inspection after the agency received complaints of unsafe working conditions.

OSHA inspectors found the company’s

poor housekeeping,
its failure to evaluate spaces for dust hazards, and
an absence of engineering controls to reduce dust

created serious combustible and airborne dust hazards. The agency also determined the business did not

develop a written respiratory protection program that includes medical evaluations, fit-testing, monitoring and training workers to recognize dust hazards.

OSHA also noted workers were exposed to

hazards from walking and working surfaces,
falls,
confined space
industrial trucks and forklifts when combustible dust hazards were present, increasing fire and explosion risks.

Inspectors cited the business for 19 serious and five other-than-serious safety and health violations. OSHA has assessed the company $161,332 in proposed penalties.

Citation 1 Item 1

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(l): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to combustible dried milk powder dust deflagration hazards when moving accumulated (layered) fugitive dust emissions from surfaces (i.e ., structural members, equipment, floors, walls, etc.) in a manner which allowed for the formation of dense dust clouds via the use of high pressure compressed air and which did not control for potential ignition sources:

(a) On or about March 1, 2024, in areas such as the Basement Area and Main Production Area, employees were allowed to utilize compressed air to perform blowdown methods of cleaning to remove accumulated combustible dried milk powder dust from surfaces, including but not limited to, horizontal surfaces including the floor, equipment, ducts, pipes, conduit, building structural members, and other associated equipment in a manner which allowed for the generation of dried milk powder dust clouds and which did not fully control for potential ignition sources from machinery and other electrical equipment. These conditions exposed employees in the building to the hazard of combustible dust deflagration (flash fire), capable of causing injury in the form of thermal burns.

Among other methods, feasible means of abatement may include following National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 652 “Standard on Fundamentals of Combustible Dust, 2019 ed.” – Sections 8.4.2.1 (Written Housekeeping Procedures), 8.4.2.2 (Vacuum Cleaning Methods), 8.4.2.3 (Sweeping, Shoveling, Scoop, and Brush Cleaning Methods), and 8.4.2.6 (Compressed Air Blowdown Method), 9.6.1 (Dust Control – Ventilation), 9.6 .3 (Dust Control Fans for Continuous Dust Control). In addition, similar requirements can be found in NFPA Standard l “Fire Code, 2012 ed.” – Section 40.3.2.2 (Housekeeping, Dust Cloud s). Please note that the 2012 edition of NFPA 1 is adopted under the Wisconsin State Fire Code – Wisconsin Legislature – Chapter SPS 314: Fire Prevention.

Specifically:

(1) Develop documented, written housekeeping procedures outlining the safe methods to be used for cleaning surfaces selected on the basis of reducing the potential for creating an explosive dust cloud, the frequency of cleaning, acceptable maximum dust layer levels, employer and employee responsibilities, the sequence of cleaning, etc.

(2) Reduce the amount of fugitive dust emission releases from equipment through the design, development, installation, and maintenance of local exhaust ventilation and dust collection system. Ventilation and dust collection systems should be designed in accordance with NFPA 91 “Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Particulate Solids” and various sections of NFPA 652 addressing the need for means of dust collector explosion protection, fire protection, and deflagration propagation protection (isolation).

(3) Reduce the potential for fugitive dust emissions to settle on horizontal elevated surfaced from the introduction of engineering technologies such as the installation angle of repose caps on exposed metal beams and/or oscillating fan system designed to keep fugitive dusts from sett ling and accumulate on elevated surfaces.

(4) Portable vacuum cleaners, where used, should be appropriate for use with combustible dusts and contain static dissipative or conductive components, should be bonded and grounded if necessary, shall contain the fan/blower on the clean side of the system, and shall be listed for Class II, Divi sion 1 locations if necessary.

(5) Manual methods of sweeping, scooping, and brush cleaning should be done in a matter so as to not generate dense dust clouds.

(6) Compressed air blowdown, if authorized, should be limited to the following conditions:
-Following the use of other methods, such as sweeping to remove the majority of dust layers.
-Dust layers do not exceed threshold housekeeping dust accumulations (maximum allowable dust accumulations).
-Equipping compressed air hoses with pressure relief nozzles to limit discharge pressure to 30 psi.
-All electrical equipment, including lighting, potentially exposed to airborne dust in the area during cleaning is either deenergized or determined suitable for use in Class II, Division 2, hazardous (classified) location.
-All other hot surfaces and ignition sources capable of igniting a dust cloud or dust layer is shut down or removed from the area.

Citation 1 Item 2

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that all places of employment, passageways, storerooms, service rooms, and walking-working surfaces are kept in a clean, orderly, and sanitary condition.

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure that the Basement Area was kept in a clean, orderly, and sanitary condition in that there was a significant accumulation of combustible dust present, presenting explosion, deflagration, and fire hazards to the building occupants.

In addition, similar requirements can be found in NFPA Standard 1 “Fire Code, 2012 ed.” – Section 40.3.2.2 (Housekeeping, Dust Clouds). Please note that the 2012 edition of NFPA 1 is adopted under the Wisconsin State Fire Code – Wisconsin Legislature – Chapter SPS 314: Fire Prevention.

Specifically:

(1) Develop documented, written housekeeping procedures outlining the safe methods to be used for cleaning surfaces selected on the basis of reducing the potential for creating a combustible dust cloud, the frequency of cleaning, acceptable maximum dust layer levels, employer and employee responsibilities, the sequence of cleaning, etc.

(2) Reduce the amount of fugitive dust emission released from equipment through the design, development, installation, and maintenance of local exhaust ventilation and dust collection systems. Ventilation and dust collection systems should be designed in accordance with NFPA 61 “Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities” and various sections of NFPA 652 addressing the need for means of dust collector explosion protection, fire protection, and deflagration propagation protection (isolation). This will serve to prevent dust accumulation.

(5) Manual methods of sweeping, scooping, and brush cleaning should be done in a matter so as to not generate dense dust clouds.

(6) Compressed air blowdown, if authorized, should be limited to the following conditions:
– Following the use of other methods such as sweeping to remove the majority of dust layers.
-Dust layers do not exceed threshold housekeeping dust accumulations (maximum allowable dust accumulations).
-Equipping compressed air hoses with pressure relief nozzles to limit discharge pressure to 30 psi.
-All electrical equipment, including lighting, potentially exposed to airborne dust in the area during cleaning is either deenergized or determined suitable for use in Class II, Division 2, hazardous (classified) location.
-All other hot surfaces and ignition sources capable of igniting a dust cloud or dust layer is shut down or removed from the area.

Citation 1 Item 3

Type of Violation: Serious; $9,680

29 CFR 1910.25(b)(8): The employer did not ensure that spiral, ship, or alternating tread-type stairs are used only when the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to provide standard stairs.

On or about February 28, 2024, employees utilized a ship stair system to access the Back Dump Station where the installation and use of standard stairs was feasible.

Citation 1 Item 4

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(3)(iv): The employer did not provide that each employee be protected from falling into a ladderway floor hole or ladderway platform hole by a guardrail system and toeboards erected on all exposed sides, except at the entrance to the hole, where a self-closing gate or an offset must be used.

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not provide that each employee accessing the back Silo Catwalk was protected from falling into a ladderway platform hole at the entrance to the hole, where a self-closing gate or an offset must be used.

Citation 1 Item 5

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures shall be developed, documented, and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section.

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure that procedure(s) for controlling hazardous energy on Mixers Ml and M2 in the basement were developed prior to employees reaching into the mixers to perform cleaning operations, exposing employees to amputation hazards.

Citation 1 Item 6

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees:

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure that employees tasked with cleaning Mixers M1 and M2 in the Basement were provided training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program were understood and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of energy controls was acquired by employees.

Citation 1 Item 7

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.147(f)(3)(ii)(D): Each authorized employee did not affix a personal lockout or tagout device to the group lockout device before working on the machine or equipment:

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure that each employee engaged in Mixer cleaning operations in the Basement affixed a personal lockout or tagout device to a group lockout device before reaching into Mixers Ml and/or M2.

Citation 1 Item 8

Type of Violation: Serious; $6,453

29 CFR 1910.176(b): Material stored in tiers was not stacked , blocked , interlocked or limited in height so that it was stable and secure against sliding and collapse:

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure that materials stored in tiers within the Warehouse and Shipping/Receiving Area was stacked, blocked, interlocked or limited in height so that they were stable and secure against sliding and/or collapse .

Citation 1 Item 9

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.l 78(c)(2)(vi)(a): The employer did not provide powered industrial trucks designated as EX for use in an atmosphere in which combustible dust is or may be in suspension continuously, intermittently, or periodically under normal operating conditions, in quantities sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures , or where mechanical failure or abnormal operation of machinery or equipment might cause such mixtures to be produced.

a) On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure that powered industrial truck(s) used in the Back Dump Area were designated as EX for use in an atmosphere in which combustible dust, such as but not limited to dried milk powder, was in suspension continuously, intermittently, and/or periodically under normal operating conditions.

b) On or about March 1, 2024, the employer did not ensure that powered industrial truck(s) used in the Main Production Area were designated as EX for use in an atmosphere in which combustible dust, such as but not limited to dried milk powder, was in suspension in quantities sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures during blowdown events.

Citation 2 Item 1

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $1,613

29 CFR 1904.32(b)(6): The annual summary was not posted no later than February 1 of the year following the year covered by the records and kept in place until April 30:

On or about February 28, 2024, the 2023 injury and illness annual summary was not posted at the worksite .

Citation 2 Item 2

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $1,613

29 CFR 1904.40(a): The employer did not provide an authorized government representative the records within the four business hours.

On February 28, 2024, the employer failed to provide copies of the injury and illness records to an authorized representative within four business hours. An employer may use the business hours of the establishment at which the records are located when calculating the deadline.

Citation 2 Item 3

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(4): Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe operation of powered industrial truck were performed by the employer without the manufacturer’s prior written approval:

On or about February 28, 2024, a Caterpillar forklift in the Premix Area was fitted with extended fork tines without the manufacturer’s prior written approval.

Citation 2 Item 4

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates or markings were maintained in a legible condition:

a) On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure nameplates and load capacity charts were maintained in a legible condition on the Caterpillar forklift in the Premix Area.

b) On or about February 28, 2024, the employer did not ensure nameplates and load capacity charts were maintained in a legible condition on the Komatsu forklift in the

Citation 1 Item 1

Type of Violation: Serious; $9,680

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(1)(i): Except as provided elsewhere in this section 29 CFR 1910.28, the employer did not ensure that each employee on a walking-working surface with an unprotected side or edge that is 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level is protected from falling by one or more of the systems described in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(1)(i):

On or about February 28, 2024, in the Back Dump area, employees were exposed to a fall hazard of more than 4 feet without fall protection measures in place.

Citation 1 Item 2

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(6)(i): The employer did not ensure that each employee less than 4 feet (1.2 m) above dangerous equipment is protected from falling into or onto the dangerous equipment by a guardrail system or a travel restraint system, unless the equipment is covered or guarded to eliminate the hazard:

On or about February 28, 2024, in the Back Dump area, employees were not protected from a fall into the moving parts of the horizontal baler.

Citation 1 Item 3

Type of Violation: Serious; $4,839

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(11)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each flight of stairs having at least 3 treads and at least 4 risers is equipped with stair rail systems and handrails as described in 29 CFR 1910.28 Table D-2-Stairway Handrail Requirements:

On or about February 28, 2024, the flight of stairs leading to the basement was not equipped with complete stair rail systems on each open side, exposing Maintenance, Foreman, and General Labor employees to a fall hazard.

Citation 1 Item 4

Type of Violation: Serious; $9,680

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(l): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) – (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:

On March 6, 2024, the employer failed to establish a written respiratory protection program where respirators were necessary to protect the health of Pre-Mix and General Labor employees.

Employees were exposed to air contaminants at levels that exceeded Permissible Exposure Limits instances such as, but not limited to:

a) On March 6, 2024, a Pre-Mix Lead was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 171.1 milligrams of Total Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 11.4 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 446-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 34 minutes.

b) On March 6, 2024, a General Labor employee operating on the Bag Line and Back Dump was exposed to an 8- hour time weighted average (TWA) of 24.3 milligrams of Total Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 1.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from
samples collected over a 443-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the uns ample d period of 37 minutes .

c) On March 6, 2024, a Pre-Mix Lead was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 15.5 milligrams of Respirable Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 3.1 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 446-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 34 minutes.

Citation 1 Item 5

Type of Violation: Serious; $9,680

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer failed to establish and implement elements of a written respiratory protection plan such as medical evaluation and respirator cleaning, storage, and maintenance to ensure that Pre-Mix Employees voluntarily using an elastomeric half face respirator were medically able to wear a respirator and fully protected while doing so.

The alleged violations below have been grouped because they involve similar or related hazards that may increase the potential for injury or illness.

Citation 1 Item 6a

Type of Violation: Serious; $9,680

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(l )(iii ): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace, including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant’s chemical state and physical form:

On March 6, 2024, the employer failed to evaluate the respiratory hazards in the Pre-Mix and Back Dump production areas where employees were overexposed to Total Dust.

Employee exposures to Total Dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air in instances such as, but not limited to:

a) On March 6, 2024, a Pre-Mix Lead was exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 171.1 milligrams of Total Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 11.4 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 446-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 34 minutes.

b) On March 6, 2024, a General Labor employee operating on the Bag Line and Back Dump was exposed to an 8- hour time weighted average (TWA) of 24.3 milligrams of Total Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 1.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 443-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 37 minutes .

Citation 1 Item 6b

Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated – Total Dust , listed in Table Z-1, in excess of the 8-hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air:

Employee exposures to Total Dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air in instances such as, but not limited to:

b) On March 6, 2024, a General Labor employee operating on the Bag Line and Back Dump was exposed to an 8- hour time weighted average (TWA) of 24.3 milligrams of Total Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 1.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 443-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 37 minutes .

Citation 1 Item 6c

Type of Violation: Serious

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.l000(a) through (d):

Employee exposures to Total Dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air in instances such as, but not limited to:

b) On March 6, 2024, a General Labor employee operating on the Bag Line and Back Dump was exposed to an 8- hour time weighted average (TWA) of 24.3 milligrams of Total Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 1.6 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 443-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 37 minutes.

1. Evaluate the efficacy of the ventilation provided for the Pre-Mix and Back Dump areas. Ensure that the ventilation meets or exceeds the most current recommendations outlined in the Handbook of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). This may include the use of localized capture ventilation.

2. Research administrative controls to reduce the amount of Total Dust released into the work environment. This may include the use of enclosing processes, modifying work procedures , or employee rotation.

Disclaimers:

1. The employer is not limited to the abatement methods suggested by OSHA;
2. The methods explained are general and may not be effective in all cases; and
3. The employer is responsible for selecting and carrying out an effective abatement method.

Abatement Schedule

STEP 1: Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering controls can be implemented or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposures to within permissible exposure limits.

STEP 2: A written detailed plan of abatement shall be submitted to the Area Director outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering 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 abatement dates required by this citation:
1. Evaluation of engineering control options;
2. Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design;
3. Procurement, installation, and operation of selected control measures; and
4. Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of controls.

NOTE: All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person.

STEP 3: Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.

The alleged violations below have been grouped because they involve similar or related hazards that may increase the potential for injury or illness.

Citation 1 Item 7a

Type of Violation: Serious; $9,680

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(l)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace ; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant’s chemical state and physical form:

On March 6, 2024, the employer failed to evaluate the respiratory hazards in the Pre-Mix and Back Dump production areas where employees were overexposed to Respirable Dust.

Employee exposures to Respirable Dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air in instances such as, but not limited to:

a) On March 6, 2024, a Pre-Mix Lead was exposed to an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 15.5 milligrams of Respirable Dust per cubic meter of air, approximately 3.1 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The exposure was derived from samples collected over a 446-minute sampling period, with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of 34 minutes.

Citation 1 Item 7b

Type of Violation: Serious

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated – Respirable Dust, listed in Table Z-1, in excess of the 8-hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air:

Employee exposures to Respirable Dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air in instances such as, but not limited to:

Citation 1 Item 7c

Type of Violation: Serious

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.l000(a) through (d):

Employee exposures to Respirable Dust exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air in instances such as, but not limited to:

1. Evaluate the efficacy of the ventilation provided for the Pre-Mix area. Ensure that the ventilation meets or exceeds the most current recommendations outlined in the Handbook of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). This may include the use of localized capture ventilation.

2. Research administrative controls to reduce the amount ofRespirable Dust released into the work environment. This may include the use of an enclosing processes, modifying work procedures, or employee rotation.

Disclaimers:

NOTE: All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person.

STEP 3: Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.

Citation 1 Item 8

Type of Violation: Serious; $8,067

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(7)(iii): The employer did not document the basis for determining that all hazards in a permit space had been eliminated, through a written certification that contained the date, the location of the space, and the signature of the person making the determination:

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer failed to provide Production Employees with a method of determining and certifying permit-space hazards had been eliminated before employees cleaning Mixer 3 entered the confined space.

Citation 1 Item 9

Type of Violation: Serious; $4,839

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use :

On or about February 28, 2024, maintenance employees performing the refilling of electric forklift batteries, exposed to the corrosive battery acid, were not provided suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body for immediate emergency use.

Citation 1 Item 10

Type of Violation: Serious; $11,292

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii): Employee training did not include the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area:

On or about February 28, 2024, employees across the facility were not trained on the physical, health, and combustible dust hazards of the chemicals in the work area, including but not limited to Hubercarb Q6 and combustible dust.

Citation 2 Item 1

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6): The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:

On or about February 28, 2024, the employer failed to provide production employees with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 before allowing voluntary use of respirators such as half-mask elastomeric respirators and N95 filtering facepiece respirators.

CLICK HERE for the citations

Related Posts