OSHA Inspection: HILL AIR FORCE BASE

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Jul 30, 2013

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1):  Employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding
those listed in
Table G-16 of Subpart G of 29 CFR 1910.95 and feasible administrative or
engineering
controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in
Table G-16 of Subpart G of 29 CFR 1910.95 and feasible administrative or
engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels.  On 3/1/11
one
employee sanding aircraft parts in Building 238Q1 was exposed to noise at a
dose in excess of the one hundred percent dose Permissible Exposure Limit
(PEL).  The employee was exposed to noise at a dose of 162.6 %.  This is
1.62 times the PEL.  The employer had not implemented engineering or
administrative controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels
listed in
Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in
Table G-16 of Subpart G of 29 CFR 1910.95 and feasible administrative or
engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels.  On 3/1/11
one
employee abrasively blasting an aircraft in Building 275B2 was exposed to
noise at a dose in excess of the one hundred percent dose Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL).  The employee was exposed to noise at a dose of 442.7
%.  This is 4.43 times the PEL.  The employer had not implemented
engineering or administrative controls to reduce noise exposure to below
the
levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a
hazardous noise dose.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in
Table G-16 of Subpart G of 29 CFR 1910.95 and feasible administrative or
engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels.  On 3/2/11
one
employee abrasively blasting aircraft parts in Building 220 was exposed to
noise at a dose in excess of the one hundred percent dose Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL).  The employee was exposed to noise at a dose of 179.9
%.  This is 1.80 times the PEL.  The employer had not implemented
engineering or administrative controls to reduce noise exposure to below
the
levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a
hazardous noise dose.
(d)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in
Table G-16 of Subpart G of 29 CFR 1910.95 and feasible administrative or
engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels.  On 3/3/11
one
employee abrasively blasting aircraft parts in Building 507J4 was exposed
to
noise at a dose in excess of the one hundred percent dose Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL).  The employee was exposed to noise at a dose
of1116.0 %.  This is 11.16 times the PEL.  The employer had not implemented
engineering or administrative controls to reduce noise exposure to below
the
levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a
hazardous noise dose.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Feasible engineering controls include, but are not
limited to:
A reduction in employee noise exposure would be considered significant if
a three to five
decibel noise level decrease is achieved (CPL 2-2.35A).
1)Reduce air pressure of the abrasive blasting equipment.
2)For small parts, perform the abrasive blasting in insulated blasting
cabinets.
Abatement Note:  Abatement of this item will normally be multi-step as
follows:
STEP 1: Effective hearing protection shall be provided and 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 exposure
limits.
Hearing Conservation Program:
1)Employees working in, but not limited to, abrasive blasting or sanding
shops
are to be included in the existing Hearing Conservation Program.  No
additional costs anticipated.
2)Program to include all provisions required by OSHA Standards.
3)Costs associated with purchasing hearing protection are part of the
existing
PPE Program of the company.  No additional costs anticipated.
4)Indirect costs include, but are not limited to, decreased production on
audiometric testing day(s) and follow-up noise monitoring.
STEP 1 ABATEMENT DATE (15 DAYS): August 15, 2011
STEP 2:  Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement
outlining a
schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative
measures to control
employee exposures to industrial noise.  The plan shall include, at a
minimum, target dates
for the following actions which should be consistent with the dates
required by this citation:
1)Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source(s);
2)Evaluation of control measure options;
3)Selection of optimum control measures;
4)Determination of control measure design;
5)Ordering and delivery of equipment;
6)Installation of control measures;7)Training of employees in proper
orientation and maintenance of newly
implemented control measures; and
8)Assurance of the effective performance of control measures.
All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use
by a competent
Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty (30)
day progress reports
are required during the abatement period.  The progress report must
identify the action taken
to achieve abatement and the date the action was taken.
STEP 2 ABATEMENT DATE (60 DAYS): September 29, 2011
STEP 3:  Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible
engineering and/or
administrative controls and upon verification of their effectiveness in
achieving compliance.
STEP 3 ABATEMENT DATE (120 DAYS): November 28, 2011

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(c)(1): The employer did not develop a written plan of
action regarding
implementation of the employee participation required by this paragraph:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not develop a written plan
of
action regarding implementation of the employee participation required by
this
paragraph.  The wastewater treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur
dioxide
to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The employer maintained
approximately four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the
system.
The employer did not develop a written plan with regards to employee
participation in the process safety management program.  This condition
exposed employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(c)(2): The employer did not consult with employees and
their
representatives on the development of the other elements of process safety
management in
this standard:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not consult with employees
and their representatives on the development of the other elements of
process
safety management in this standard.  The wastewater treatment plant,
Building
575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The
employer maintained approximately four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur
dioxide in the system.  The employer did not consult with employees and
their
representatives on the development of the mechanical integrity program,
process safety information, management of change, audit, and other elements
of the process safety management program.  This condition exposed employees
to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i): The employer's compiled written process safety
information did
not include all the necessary information pertaining to the technology in
the process, in that
the process safety information did not include safe upper and lower
limits,
i.e., pressure, and
an evaluation of the consequences of deviations:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base's compiled written process
safety
information did not include all the necessary information pertaining to the
technology in the process, in that the process safety information did not
include safe upper and lower limits, i.e., pressure, and an evaluation of
the
consequences of deviations.  The wastewater treatment plant, Building 575,
used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The
employer
maintained approximately four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide
in
the system.  Process equipment included, but is not limited to Thatcher
Chemical Company one ton containers of liquified sulfur dioxide, Capital
Controls Company Inc Evaporator, Capital Controls Company Inc Vacuum
Regulator, Capital Controls Company Inc High and Low Vacuum Switches,
and Capital Controls Company Inc Injector.  The employer's process safety
information with regards to the technology of the process did not include
an
evaluation of consequences of deviations nor did it include safe upper and
lower operating limits.  This condition exposed employees to a sulfur
dioxide
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i): The employer's compiled written process safety
information did
not include all the necessary information pertaining to the equipment in
the process, in that
the process safety information did not include Process and Instrumentation
Diagram (P &
ID), materials of construction, safety systems and design, and design
codes employed:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base's compiled written process
safety
information did not include all the necessary information pertaining to the
equipment in the process, in that the process safety information did not
include
Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P & ID), materials of construction,
safety systems and design, and design codes employed.  The wastewater
treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI)
to
chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately four thousand
pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process equipment
included,
but is not limited to Thatcher Chemical Company one ton containers of
liquified sulfur dioxide, Capital Controls Company Inc Evaporator, Capital
Controls Company Inc Vacuum Regulator, Capital Controls Company Inc
High and Low Vacuum Switches, and Capital Controls Company Inc Injector.
The employer's process safety information with regards to the equipment of
the process did not include P & ID, materials of construction, safety
systems
and design, and design codes employed.  This condition exposed employees to
a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer did not establish a system to promptly
address the
team's findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are
resolved in a
timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions
are to be taken;
complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when
these actions are to
be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other
employees whose
work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the
recommendations or
actions:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not establish a system to
promptly address the team's findings and recommendations; assure that the
recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution
was
documented; document what actions were to be taken; complete actions as
soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to
be
completed; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other
employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be
affected by the recommendations or actions.  The wastewater treatment
plant,
Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium
(III).
The employer maintained approximately four thousand pounds of liquified
sulfur dioxide in the system.  The employer completed the initial process
hazard analysis in 1998.  The PHA team made recommendations with regards
to the sulfur dioxide system.  The employer did not establish a system to
address, resolve, schedule, and communicate the outcome of the
recommendations.  This condition exposed employees to a sulfur dioxide
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): The employer did not ensure that the process hazard
analysis was
updated and revalidated by a team meeting the requirements in paragraph
(e)(4) of this
section at least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial
process hazard analysis:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that the process
hazard analysis was updated and revalidated by a team meeting the
requirements in paragraph (e)(4) of this section at least every five (5)
years
after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis.  The
wastewater
treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI)
to
chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately four thousand
pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  The employer completed
the
initial process hazard analysis in 1998.  The employer did not ensure that
the
process hazard analysis was updated and revalidated at least every five
years
since the initial process hazard analysis.  This condition exposed
employees to
a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer did not develop and implement written
operating
procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting
activities involved in each
covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall
address at least the
following elements: steps for each operating phase; operating limits;
safety and health
considerations; and safety systems and their functions:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not develop and implement
written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely
conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the
process safety information and shall address at least the following
elements:
steps for each operating phase; operating limits; safety and health
considerations; and safety systems and their functions.  The wastewater
treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI)
to
chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately four thousand
pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process equipment
included,
but is not limited to Thatcher Chemical Company one ton containers of
liquified sulfur dioxide, Capital Controls Company Inc Evaporator, Capital
Controls Company Inc Vacuum Regulator, Capital Controls Company Inc
High and Low Vacuum Switches, and Capital Controls Company Inc Injector.
The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures
that
addressed steps to be undertaken, operating limits, safety and health
considerations, and safety systems and their functions.  This condition
exposed
employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Elements of steps for each operating phase to include:
1)Initial startup;
2)Normal operations;
3)Temporary operations;
4)Emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency
shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to
qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a
safe and timely manner.
5)Emergency Operations;
6)Normal shutdown; and,
7)Startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown.
Abatement Note:  Elements of operating limits to include:
1)Consequences of deviations; and
2)Steps required to correct or avoid deviations.
Abatement Note:  Elements of safety and health considerations to include:
1)Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in
theprocess;
2)Precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering
controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment;
3)Control measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure
occurs;
4)Quality control for raw materials and control of hazardous chemical
inventory levels; and,
5)Any special or unique hazards.

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not establish and implement
written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process
equipment.
The wastewater treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce
chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately
four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process
equipment included, but is not limited to Thatcher Chemical Company one ton
containers of liquified sulfur dioxide, Capital Controls Company Inc
Evaporator, Capital Controls Company Inc Vacuum Regulator, Capital
Controls Company Inc High and Low Vacuum Switches, Capital Controls
Company Inc 1620B gas detector, and Capital Controls Company Inc Injector.
The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain
the integrity of process equipment.  This condition exposed employees to a
sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii): The employer's frequency of inspections and
tests of process
equipment was not consistent with applicable manufacturer's
recommendations and good
engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary
by prior operating
experience:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base's frequency of inspections and
tests of process equipment was not consistent with applicable
manufacturer's
recommendations and good engineering practices.  The wastewater treatment
plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to
chromium
(III).  The employer maintained approximately four thousand pounds of
liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process equipment included, but
is not
limited to Thatcher Chemical Company one ton containers of liquified sulfur
dioxide, Capital Controls Company Inc Evaporator, Capital Controls Company
Inc Vacuum Regulator, Capital Controls Company Inc High and Low Vacuum
Switches, Capital Controls Company Inc 1620B gas detector, and Capital
Controls Company Inc Injector.  The employer did not perform annual
inspections, testing, maintenance, or replacement of parts per
manufacturer's
recommendations or per good engineering practices.  This condition exposed
employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement for this item may be achieved through
compliance with
Compressed Gas Association CGA G-3 1995 "Sulfur Dioxide".
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iv): The employer did not document each inspection
and test that had
been performed on process equipment:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not document each inspection
and test that had been performed on process equipment.  The wastewater
treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI)
to
chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately four thousand
pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process equipment
included,
but is not limited to Thatcher Chemical Company one ton containers of
liquified sulfur dioxide, Capital Controls Company Inc Evaporator, Capital
Controls Company Inc Vacuum Regulator, Capital Controls Company Inc
High and Low Vacuum Switches, Capital Controls Company Inc 1620B gas
detector, and Capital Controls Company Inc Injector.  The employer did not
document inspections of the process equipment.  This condition exposed
employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5): The employer did not correct deficiencies in
equipment that are
outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in
paragraph (d) of this
section) before further use:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not correct deficiencies in
equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety
information in paragraph (d) of this section) before further use.  The
wastewater treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce
chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately
four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process
equipment included, but is not limited to Capital Controls Company Inc
Series
1620B Gas Detector.  The gas detector is used to notify employees of a
sulfur
dioxide gas release.  The sulfur dioxide sensor was sixteen years old.
Manufacturer expected lifespan of a sulfur dioxide sensor is eighteen to
twenty
four months.  The employer did not ensure that the sulfur dioxide sensor
was
replaced according to manufacturer specifications.  This condition exposed
employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(6)(ii): The employer did not perform appropriate checks
and
inspections
to assure that equipment is installed properly and consistent with design
specifications and the
manufacturer's instructions:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not perform appropriate
checks and inspections to assure that equipment is installed properly and
consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer's instructions.
The
wastewater treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce
chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The employer maintained approximately
four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the system.  Process
equipment included, but is not limited to Capital Controls Company Inc
Series
1620B Gas Detector.  The gas detector is used to notify employees of a
sulfur
dioxide gas release.  The employer did not ensure that the sulfur dioxide
detection system was calibrated monthly according to manufacturer
recommendations.  This condition exposed employees to a sulfur dioxide
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed
"Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and
procedures; and, changes
to facilities that affect a covered process:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not establish and implement
written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology,
equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered
process.  The wastewater treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur
dioxide to
reduce chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  The employer maintained
approximately four thousand pounds of liquified sulfur dioxide in the
system.
The employer did not establish written procedures to manage changes to the
sulfur dioxide hexavalent chromium treatment process.  This condition
exposed
employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(4): The employer did not prepare a report at the
conclusion of the
investigation which included at a minimum the date of the incident; date
investigation began;
description of the incident; factors that contributed to the incident; and
recommendations
resulting from the investigation:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not prepare a report at the
conclusion of an investigation which included at a minimum the date of the
incident; date investigation began; description of the incident; factors
that
contributed to the incident; and recommendations resulting from the
investigation.  The wastewater treatment plant, Building 575, used sulfur
dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium (III).  A leaking gasket in the
system resulted in sulfur dioxide escaping the system.  The incident
occurred
approximately four years prior to this 2011 inspection.  The employer did
not
prepare a report with regards to the incident investigation.  This
condition
exposed employees to a sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Dec 31, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1): The employer did not certify that they had
evaluated compliance
with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify
that the procedures and
practices developed under the standard were adequate and were being
followed:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not certify that they had
evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every
three
years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the
standard
were adequate and were being followed.  The wastewater treatment plant,
Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium
(III).
The employer maintained approximately four thousand pounds of liquified
sulfur dioxide in the system.  The employer had not evaluated their PSM
program at least every three years.  This condition exposed employees to a
sulfur dioxide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Sep 29, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(ii):   Employees who participated, or were expected
to participate, in
emergency response as first responders at the operational level had not
received at least 8
hours of training and/or had not been certified as having such training
and/or did not have
sufficient experience to demonstrate competency in the areas addressed in
(q)(6)(ii)(A)
through (F), in addition to the areas listed for the awareness levels:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, employees who participated, or were expected to
participate, in emergency response as first responders at the operational
level
had not received at least 8 hours of training and/or had not been
certified as
having such training and/or did not have sufficient experience to
demonstrate
competency in the areas addressed in (q)(6)(ii)(A) through (F), in
addition to
the areas listed for the awareness levels.  The wastewater treatment plant,
Building 575, used sulfur dioxide to reduce chromium (VI) to chromium
(III).
Employee responsibilities included responding to leaks or releases of
sulfur
dioxide.  This action is a first responder operational level task.  The
employer
did not provide training with regards to emergency response as first
responders
at the operational level.  This condition exposed employees to a sulfur
dioxide
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Nov 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.126(e):  Cyanide tanks were not provided with a dike or other
safeguard to
prevent cyanide from mixing with an acid if the dip tank were to fail:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and prior to 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that cyanide tanks
were provided with an adequate dike or other safeguard to prevent cyanide
from mixing with an acid if the dip tank were to fail.  Aircraft parts were
electroplated in Building 505 using cadmium oxide, sodium cyanide, and
sodium hydroxide.  The cadmium/cyanide electroplating line was adjacent to
a
line using chromic acid, sulfuric acid, and/or nitric acid.  The basement
floor
beneath the lines was sloped such that leaks from either line would drain
into a
common drain field.  A floor drain, within this drain field, between the
lines
was intended to collect cyanide waste and direct it to a sump which pumped
waste to the wastewater treatment plant.  Approximate eight inch tall
diking
partially extended around the cyanide line.  The floor drain was outside
any
diking around the cyanide line.  Hydrogen cyanide is evolved when the pH of
a cyanide solution is reduced through mixing with an acid.  The employer
did
not provide diking or other safeguards to prevent cyanide from mixing with
acid if a dip tank were to fail.  This condition exposed employees to a
hydrogen cyanide hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Abatement for this item may be achieved through
compliance with
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z9.1 "Practices for
Ventilation and Operation
of Open-Surface Tanks".rface

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected
employee use
appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards
from flying particles,
molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases
or vapors, or
potentially injurious light radiation:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that each affected employee use
appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from
liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids.  Employees performed
electroplating
duties in Building 505.  Employees added solution, inserted parts, and
removed parts from plating tanks containing, but not limited to chromic
acid
and phosphoric acid.  Chromic acid and phosphoric acid are corrosive
liquids.
Employees were provided Jones & Company Visorgogs.  Visorgogs do not
provide adequate protection for the eyes from splash of corrosive liquids.
This
condition exposed employees to a chemical burn hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that respirators
issued for the
exclusive use of an employee were cleaned and disinfected as often as
necessary  to be
maintained in a sanitary condition:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that respirators issued for the
exclusive use of an employee were cleaned and disinfected as often as
necessary  to be maintained in a sanitary condition.  Employees painted
generators and small parts in Building 843B1.  The primer contained
strontium
chromate.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  The process generated
chromium (VI) aerosol.  Wipe sampling was performed on a respirator
following use and cleaning by the employee.  Wipe sampling determined
cadmium and chromium (VI) were present on the interior of the 3M model
7800 full face tight fitting air purifying respirator.  The employer did
not
ensure that the cleaning procedure adequately removed cadmium and
chromium (VI) contamination from the respirator interior.  This condition
exposed the employee to chromium (VI) and cadmium hazards.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that all respirators
were stored to
protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme
temperatures, excessive
moisture, and damaging chemicals, and that all respirators were packed or
stored to prevent
deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
2/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that all respirators were
stored to
protect them from damage and contamination.  Employees painted aircraft
parts in Building 507.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  The
hooded
Supplied Air Respirator used by an employee was stored in the spraypaint
booth.  The employer did not ensure that the respirator was stored to
protect it
from chromium (VI) contamination.  This condition exposed the employee to a
chromium (VI) hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Mar 30, 2012

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee exposure to a substance listed in Table
Z-1 exceeded the
8 hour Time Weighted Average for that substance:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that employee exposure to a
substance listed in Table Z-1 did not exceed the 8 hour Time Weighted
Average for that substance.  One employee abrasively blasted generators and
small parts in Building 843B1.  This process generated Particulates Not
Otherwise Classified (iron oxide total dust).  On 3/3/11 one employee was
exposed to iron oxide total dust at a concentration greater than the 8 hour
Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 15.00
mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to iron oxide total dust at a
concentration
of 1373.07 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 91.54 times the PEL.  Air
monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that employee exposure to a
substance listed in Table Z-1 did not exceed the 8 hour Time Weighted
Average for that substance.  One employee abrasively blasted generators and
small parts in Building 843B1.  This process generated copper dust.  On
3/3/11 one employee was exposed to copper dust at a concentration greater
than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit
(PEL) of 1.00 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to copper dust at a
concentration of 1.578 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 1.58 times the
PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Mar 30, 2012

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)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that feasible administrative or
engineering controls were determined and implemented to achieve compliance
with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d).  One
employee
abrasively blasted generators and small parts in Building 843B1.  This
process
generated Particulates Not Otherwise Classified (iron oxide total dust).
On
3/3/11 one employee was exposed to iron oxide total dust at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 15.00 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to iron oxide total
dust at a concentration of 1373.07 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 91.54
times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that feasible administrative or
engineering controls were determined and implemented to achieve compliance
with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d).  One
employee
abrasively blasted generators and small parts in Building 843B1.  This
process
generated copper dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to copper dust
at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.00 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to copper dust at a concentration of 1.578 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.
This is 1.58 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Feasible engineering controls include, but are not
limited to:
1.Use of abrasive blasting chamber, i.e., glove box, for small to medium
sized
parts.
2.Installation of local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation of
the air
contaminant.
Abatement Note:  Abatement of this item will normally be multi-step as
follows:
1.Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and 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 exposure limits.
STEP 1 ABATEMENT DATE (15 DAYS): August 15, 2011
2.Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement
outlining a
schedule for the implementation of engineering and /or administrative
measures to control employee exposures to the hazardous substance
referenced
in this citation.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for
the
following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by
this
citation:
a.Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source;
b.Evaluation of control measure options;
c.Selection of optimum control measures;
d.Determination of control measure design;
e.Ordering and delivery of equipment;
f.Installation of control measures;
g.Training of employees in proper operation and maintenance of newly
implemented control measures; and
h.Assurance of the effective performance of control measures.
All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use
by a competent
Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty day
progress reports are
required during the abatement period.  The progress report must identify
the action taken to
achieve abatement and the date the action was taken.
STEP 2 ABATEMENT DATE (60 DAYS): September 29, 2011
3.Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering
and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their
effectiveness in
achieving compliance.
STEP 3 ABATEMENT DATE (120 DAYS): November 28, 2011

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Jul 30, 2013

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(c): The employer did not ensure that no employee was
exposed to an
airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air
(5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA):
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee sanded aircraft parts in Building 265.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI) dust.
On 3/1/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration of 0.0074 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 1.47 times
the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 382 minutes.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee sanded aircraft parts in Building 238Q1.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI) dust.
On 3/1/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration of 0.0664 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 13.28 times
the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 408 minutes.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee painted aircraft parts in Building 220.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol.
On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration of 0.1382 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 27.64 times
the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 245 minutes.
(d)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee painted aircraft parts in Building 507.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol. On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration of 0.0310 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 6.19 times
the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 359 minutes.
(e)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 220.
The
primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
dust.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0131 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 2.61 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 301
minutes.
(f)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 220.
The
primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
dust.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0129 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 2.59 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 228
minutes.
(g)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee painted trailer parts in Building 838.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol.
On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration of 0.0067 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 1.33 times
the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 395 minutes.
(h)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed
toan airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms
per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee painted trailer parts in Building 838.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol.
On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration of 0.0074 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 1.47 times
the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 298 minutes.
(i)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 507J4.
The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium
(VI) dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.2670 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 53.40 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 374
minutes.
(j)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee abrasively blasted generators and small parts in
Building 843B1.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process
generated chromium (VI) dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to
chromium (VI) at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted
Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The
employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0922 mg/m3
as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 18.44 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was
conducted for 265 minutes.
(k)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of five micrograms per
cubic meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted
average
(TWA).  One employee painted generators and small parts in Building 843B1.
The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium
(VI) aerosol.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0087 mg/m3 as an 8
hourTWA.  This is 1.73 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 393
minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Jul 30, 2013

General-duty citation text

achieve abatement and the date the action was taken.
STEP 2 ABATEMENT DATE (60 DAYS): September 29, 2011
3.Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering
and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their
effectiveness in
achieving compliance.
STEP 3 ABATEMENT DATE (120 DAYS): November 28, 2011
29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(i): The employer did not implement engineering and
work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee sanded aircraft parts in Building 265.  The
primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
dust.  On 3/1/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0074 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 1.47 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 382
minutes.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee sanded aircraft parts in Building 238Q1.  The
primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
dust.  On 3/1/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0664 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 13.28 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 408
minutes.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee painted aircraft parts in Building 507. The
primer contained strontium chromate. This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0310 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 6.19 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 359
minutes.
(d)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building
220.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated
chromium (VI) dust.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average
(TWA)Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0131 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 2.61 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 301
minutes.
(e)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building
220.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated
chromium (VI) dust.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI)
at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0129 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 2.59 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 228
minutes.
(f)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee painted trailer parts in Building 838.  The
primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0067 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 1.33 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 395
minutes.
(g)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee painted trailer parts in Building 838.  The
primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium (VI)
aerosol.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0074 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 1.47 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 298
minutes.
(h)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building
507J4.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process
generatedchromium (VI) dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to
chromium (VI)
at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.2670 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 53.40 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 374
minutes.
(i)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee abrasively blasted generators and small parts
in Building 843B1.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process
generated chromium (VI) dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to
chromium (VI) at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted
Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The
employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0922 mg/m3
as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 18.44 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was
conducted for 265 minutes.
(j)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) at or
below the PEL.  One employee painted generators and small parts in Building
843B1.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated
chromium (VI) aerosol.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to chromium
(VI) at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.0087 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 1.73 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 393
minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Feasible engineering controls include, but are not
limited to:
1.Use of abrasive blasting chamber, i.e., glove box, for small to medium
sized
parts.
2.Installation of local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation of
the air
contaminant.
3.Substitution of primer containing strontium chromate with non-hexavalent
chromium containing primer.
4.Evaluate large spray and abrasive blasting booths.  Determine capture
velocities at points of operation.  Modify booth ventilation if capture
velocity
is insufficient to capture aerosol.
5.Modify spraypainting operations such that part to be painted may be
rotatedand painter maintains upstream position with related to generation
of air
contaminant.
Abatement Note:  Abatement of this item will normally be multi-step as
follows:
1.Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and 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 exposure limits.
STEP 1 ABATEMENT DATE (15 DAYS): August 15, 2011
2.Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement
outlining a
schedule for the implementation of engineering and /or administrative
measures to control employee exposures to the hazardous substance
referenced
in this citation.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for
the
following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by
this
citation:
a.Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source;
b.Evaluation of control measure options;
c.Selection of optimum control measures;
d.Determination of control measure design;
e.Ordering and delivery of equipment;
f.Installation of control measures;
g.Training of employees in proper operation and maintenance of newly
implemented control measures; and
h.Assurance of the effective performance of control measures.
All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use
by a competent
Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty day
progress reports are
required during the abatement period.  The progress report must identify
the action taken to

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Mar 30, 2012

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(f)(1)(ii): Where painting of aircraft or large aircraft
parts was performed
in the aerospace industry, the employer did not use engineering and work
practice controls to
reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI) to or below 0.025
mg/m3:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, where painting of aircraft or large aircraft parts was performed
in the
aerospace industry, Hill Air Force Base did not use engineering and work
practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to chromium (VI)
to or below 0.025 mg/m3.  One employee painted aircraft in Building 220.
The primer contained strontium chromate.  This process generated chromium
(VI) aerosol.  On 3/2/11 one employee was exposed to chromium (VI) at a
concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to chromium (VI) at a concentration of 0.1382 mg/m3 as an 8 hour
TWA.  This is 27.64 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 245
minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Feasible engineering controls include, but are not
limited to:
1.Installation of local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation of
the air
contaminant.
2.Substitution of primer containing strontium chromate with non-hexavalent
chromium containing primer.
3.Evaluate large spray booths.  Determine capture velocities at points of
operation.  Modify booth ventilation if capture velocity is insufficient to
capture aerosol.
Abatement Note:  Abatement of this item will normally be multi-step as
follows:
1.Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and 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 exposure limits.
STEP 1 ABATEMENT DATE (15 DAYS): August 15, 2011
2.Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement
outlining a
schedule for the implementation of engineering and /or administrative
measures to control employee exposures to the hazardous substance
referenced
in this citation.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for
the
following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by
this
citation:
a.Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source;b.Evaluation
of
control measure options;
c.Selection of optimum control measures;
d.Determination of control measure design;
e.Ordering and delivery of equipment;
f.Installation of control measures;
g.Training of employees in proper operation and maintenance of newly
implemented control measures; and
h.Assurance of the effective performance of control measures.
All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use
by a competent
Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty day
progress reports are
required during the abatement period.  The progress report must identify
the action taken to
achieve abatement and the date the action was taken.
STEP 2 ABATEMENT DATE (60 DAYS): September 29, 2011
3.Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering
and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their
effectiveness in
achieving compliance.
STEP 3 ABATEMENT DATE (120 DAYS): November 28, 2011

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer, who has a workplace or work
operation covered by
this section, did not determine the 8 hour TWA exposure for each employee
exposed to
chromium (VI).
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not determine the 8 hour TWA
exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI).  One employee
assisted the employee who abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building
507J4.
The assisting employee received parts that were abrasively blasted through
a
doorway into the abrasive blasting booth.  The employee was not using
respiratory protection.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  The
abrasive blasting process generated chromium (VI) dust.  The abrasive
blasting
booth was a regulated area.  The employer did not determine the assisting
employee's chromium (VI) exposure.  This condition exposed the assisting
employee to a chromium (VI) hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed
"Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(h)(3)(ii): The employer did not prohibit the removal of
chromium (VI)
from protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other
means that
disperse chromium (VI) into the air or onto an employee's body:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not prohibit the removal of chromium (VI)
from protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other
means that disperse chromium (VI) into the air or onto an employee's body.
Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 220.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  The process generated chromium (VI) dust.
Employees utilized a compressed air "blow down" system to blow dust from
their protective clothing prior to exiting the abrasive blasting booth.
The
employer's "blow down" system did not have adequate floor exhaust
ventilation, and as a result the method did not prevent the dispersion of
chromium (VI) dust into the air.  This condition exposed employees to a
chromium (VI) hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not prohibit the removal of chromium (VI)
from protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other
means that disperse chromium (VI) into the air or onto an employee's body.
Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 507J4.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  The process generated chromium (VI) dust.
Employees utilized a compressed air "blow down" system to blow dust from
their protective clothing prior to exiting the abrasive blasting booth.
The
employer's "blow down" system did not have floor exhaust ventilation, and
as
a result the method did not prevent the dispersion of chromium (VI) dust
into
the air.  This condition exposed employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(2): The employer did not ensure that change room
facilities at a
worksite with chromium (VI) exposures prevented cross-contamination:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change room facilities at a
worksite with chromium (VI) exposures prevented cross-contamination.
Employees painted aircraft parts in Building 238F1.  The primer contained
strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building 238F1 determined
chromium (VI) was present on an employee's locker handle and locker area
bench top.  The employer did not ensure that change room facilities
prevented
cross contamination of chromium (VI).  This condition exposed employees to
a
chromium (VI) hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change room facilities at a
worksite with chromium (VI) exposures prevented cross-contamination.
Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 238F2.  The primer
contained strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building 238F2
determined chromium (VI) was present in two employee "clean clothes"
lockers.  The employer did not ensure that change room facilities prevented
cross contamination of chromium (VI).  This condition exposed employees to
a
chromium (VI) hazard.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change room facilities at a
worksite with chromium (VI) exposures prevented cross-contamination.
Employees abrasively blasted aircraft in Building 275.  The primer
contained
strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building 275 determined
chromium (VI) was present on a locker room bench.  The employer did not
ensure that change room facilities prevented cross contamination of
chromium
(VI).  This condition exposed employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
(d)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change room facilities at a
worksite with chromium (VI) exposures prevented cross-contamination.
Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts or painted aircraft in
Building 220.
The primer contained strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in
Building 220 determined chromium (VI) was present on a central locker room
employee locker.  The employer did not ensure that change room facilities
prevented cross contamination of chromium (VI).  This condition exposed
employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(i)(4)(i): Whenever the employer allowed employees to
consume food or
beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present, the employer did
not
ensure that
eating and drinking areas and surfaces were maintained as free as
practicable of chromium
(VI):
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11 and 3/16/11, whenever Hill Air Force Base allowed employees to
consume food or beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present,
Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that eating and drinking areas and
surfaces
were maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI).  Employees painted
aircraft parts in Building 238F1.  The primer contained strontium
chromate.
Wipe sampling conducted in the employee break area in Building 238F1,
where they ate and drank, determined chromium (VI) was present on the
refrigerator handle and microwave oven handle.  The employer did not ensure
that the break area was free as practicable of chromium (VI).  This
condition
exposed employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11, whenever Hill Air Force Base allowed employees to consume food or
beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present, Hill Air Force
Base did not ensure that eating and drinking areas and surfaces were
maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI).  Employees abrasively
blasted aircraft or painted aircraft in Building 270.  The primer contained
strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in the employee break area in
Building 270, where they ate and drank, determined chromium (VI) was
present on a table top and counter top.  The employer did not ensure that
the
break area was free as practicable of chromium (VI).  This condition
exposed
employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, whenever Hill Air Force Base allowed employees to consume food or
beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present, Hill Air Force
Base did not ensure that eating and drinking areas and surfaces were
maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI).  Employees abrasively
blasted aircraft parts or painted aircraft in Building 220.  The primer
contained
strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in the employee break area in
Building 220, where they ate and drank, determined chromium (VI) was
present on the breakroom door.  The employer did not ensure that the break
area was free as practicable of chromium (VI).  This condition exposed
employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
(d)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, whenever Hill Air Force Base allowed employees to consume food or
beverages at a worksite where chromium (VI) was present, Hill Air Force
Base did not ensure that eating and drinking areas and surfaces were
maintained as free as practicable of chromium (VI).  Employees
abrasivelyblasted generators and small parts or painted generators and
small parts in
Building 843B1.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling
conducted in the employee break area in Building 843, where they ate and
drank, determined chromium (VI) was present on the microwave oven handle.
The employer did not ensure that the break area was free as practicable of
chromium (VI).  This condition exposed employees to a chromium (VI)
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1026(j)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that all surfaces
were maintained as
free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI):
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/1/11 and 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that all surfaces
were
maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).
Employees painted aircraft parts in Building 238F1.  The primer contained
strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building 238F1 determined
chromium (VI) was present on a computer mouse.  The employer did not
ensure that surfaces were free as practicable of chromium (VI).  This
condition
exposed employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that all surfaces were
maintained as
free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).  Employees
abrasively
blasted aircraft parts or painted aircraft in Building 220.  The primer
contained
strontium chromate.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building 220 determined
chromium (VI) was present on a central bathroom faucet handle.  The
employer did not ensure that surfaces were free as practicable of chromium
(VI).  This condition exposed employees to a chromium (VI) hazard.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that all surfaces were
maintained
as
free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).  Employees painted
trailer parts in Building 838.  The primer contained strontium chromate.
Wipe
sampling conducted in Building 838 determined chromium (VI) was present on
a restroom door handle.  The employer did not ensure that surfaces were
free
as practicable of chromium (VI).  This condition exposed employees to a
chromium (VI) hazard.
(d)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that all surfaces were
maintained
as free as practicable of accumulations of chromium (VI).  Employees
abrasively blasted generators and small parts or painted generators and
small
parts in Building 843B1.  The primer contained strontium chromate.  Wipe
sampling conducted in Building 843 determined chromium (VI) was present on
a restroom shower handle.  The employer did not ensure that surfaces were
free as practicable of chromium (VI).  This condition exposed employees to
a
chromium (VI) hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Jul 30, 2013

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(c): The employer did not ensure that no employee was
exposed to an
airborne concentration of cadmium in excess of five micrograms per cubic
meter of air
(5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA):
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of cadmium in excess of five micrograms per cubic
meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted average
(TWA).  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 507J4.
The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process generated cadmium
dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to cadmium at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to cadmium at a
concentration of 0.0663 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 13.27 times the
PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 374 minutes.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of cadmium in excess of five micrograms per cubic
meter of air (5ug/m3), calculated as an eight-hour time-weighted average
(TWA).  One employee abrasively blasted generators and small parts in
Building 843B1.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process
generated cadmium dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to cadmium at
a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to cadmium at a concentration of 0.1871 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.
This is 37.40 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Jul 30, 2013

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(f)(1)(i): The employer did not implement engineering and
work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to cadmium at or below
the PEL:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to cadmium at or below
the PEL.  One employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building
507J4.
The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process generated cadmium
dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to cadmium at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to cadmium at a
concentration of 0.0663 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 13.27 times the
PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 374 minutes.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not implement engineering and work practice
controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to cadmium at or below
the PEL.  One employee abrasively blasted generators and small parts in
Building 843B1.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process
generated cadmium dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to cadmium at
a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was
exposed to cadmium at a concentration of 0.1871 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.
This is 37.40 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Feasible engineering controls include, but are not
limited to:
1.Use of abrasive blasting chamber, i.e., glove box, for small to medium
sized
parts.
2.Installation of local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation of
the air
contaminant.
3.Substitution of metal treatment containing cadmium for a non-cadmium
containing metal treatment, i.e., the nickel-zinc treatment in the
piloting stage
as discussed by 507J4 staff.
4.Evaluate large abrasive blasting booths.  Determine capture velocities
at points
of operation.  Modify booth ventilation if capture velocity is
insufficient to
capture particulate.
Abatement Note:  Abatement of this item will normally be multi-step as
follows:
1.Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and used by exposed
employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering
and/or
administrative controls can be implemented or whenever such controls fail
toreduce
employee exposure to within exposure limits.
STEP 1 ABATEMENT DATE (15 DAYS): August 15, 2011
2.Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement
outlining a
schedule for the implementation of engineering and /or administrative
measures to control employee exposures to the hazardous substance
referenced
in this citation.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for
the
following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by
this
citation:
a.Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source;
b.Evaluation of control measure options;
c.Selection of optimum control measures;
d.Determination of control measure design;
e.Ordering and delivery of equipment;
f.Installation of control measures;
g.Training of employees in proper operation and maintenance of newly
implemented control measures; and
h.Assurance of the effective performance of control measures.
All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use
by a competent
Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty day
progress reports are
required during the abatement period.  The progress report must identify
the action taken to
achieve abatement and the date the action was taken.
STEP 2 ABATEMENT DATE (60 DAYS): September 29, 2011
3.Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering
and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their
effectiveness in
achieving compliance.
STEP 3 ABATEMENT DATE (120 DAYS): November 28, 2011

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(1)(i): Each employer of a workplace or work operation
covered by
this standard did not determine if any employee could be exposed to
cadmium at or above the
action level:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not determine if an employee
could be exposed to cadmium at or above the action level.  One employee
assisted the employee who abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building
507J4.
The assisting employee received parts that were abrasively blasted through
a
doorway into the abrasive blasting booth.  The employee was not using
respiratory protection.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  The
abrasive
blasting process generated cadmium dust.  The abrasive blasting booth was a
regulated area.  The employer did not determine the assisting employee's
cadmium exposure.  This condition exposed the assisting employee to a
cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(i)(3)(iii): The employer did not prohibit the removal of
cadmium from
protective clothing and equipment by blowing, shaking, or any other means
that disperse
cadmium into the air:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not prohibit the removal of cadmium from
protective clothing and equipment by blowing or any other means that
disperse
cadmium into the air.  Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts in
Building
220.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  The process generated
cadmium dust.  Employees utilized a compressed air "blow down" system to
blow dust from their protective clothing prior to exiting the abrasive
blasting
booth.  The employer's "blow down" system did not have adequate floor
exhaust ventilation, and as a result the method did not prevent the
dispersion
of cadmium dust into the air.  This condition exposed employees to a
cadmium
hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not prohibit the removal of cadmium from
protective clothing and equipment by blowing or any other means that
disperse
cadmium into the air.  Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts in
Building
507J4.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  The process generated
cadmium dust.  Employees utilized a compressed air "blow down" system to
blow dust from their protective clothing prior to exiting the abrasive
blasting
booth.  The employer's "blow down" system did not have floor exhaust
ventilation, and as a result the method did not prevent the dispersion of
cadmium dust into the air.  This condition exposed employees to a cadmium
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(j)(2): The employer did not ensure that change rooms were
equipped with
separate storage facilities for street clothes and for protective clothing
and equipment, which
were designed to prevent dispersion of cadmium and contamination of the
employee's street
clothes:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
2/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change rooms were equipped
with separate storage facilities for street clothes and for protective
clothing and
equipment, which were designed to prevent dispersion of cadmium and
contamination of the employee's street clothes.  Employees abrasively
blasted
aircraft parts in Building 507J4.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.
The process generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building
507 determined cadmium was present in employee clean clothing lockers and
employee dirty clothing lockers.  The employer did not ensure that change
room facilities prevented cross contamination of cadmium.  This condition
exposed employees to a cadmium hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
2/2/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change rooms were equipped
with separate storage facilities for street clothes and for protective
clothing and
equipment, which were designed to prevent dispersion of cadmium and
contamination of the employee's street clothes.  Employees abrasively
blasted
aircraft parts in Building 220.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.
The
process generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling conducted in Building 220
determined cadmium was present in an employee locker room bench top.  The
employer did not ensure that change room facilities prevented cross
contamination of cadmium.  This condition exposed employees to a cadmium
hazard.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that change rooms were equipped
with separate storage facilities for street clothes and for protective
clothing and
equipment, which were designed to prevent dispersion of cadmium and
contamination of the employee's street clothes.  Employees abrasively
blasted
generators and small parts in Building 843B1.  The metal treatment
contained
cadmium.  The process generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling conducted in
Building 843 determined cadmium was present in an employee clean clothing
locker interior surface.  The employer did not ensure that change room
facilities prevented cross contamination of cadmium.  This condition
exposed
employees to a cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(j)(4)(i):  The employer did not ensure that tables for
eating were
maintained free of cadmium:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/15/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that tables for eating were
maintained free of cadmium.  Employees abrasively blasted trailer parts in
Building 847.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  The process
generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling conducted in the employee break
area in Building 847, where they ate and drank, determined cadmium was
present on a break room table top.  The employer did not ensure that break
room tables were free of cadmium.  This condition exposed employees to a
cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(k)(1):  Surfaces were not maintained as free as
practicable of
accumulations of cadmium:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that surfaces were maintained as
free as practicable of accumulations of cadmium.  Employees abrasively
blasted aircraft parts in Building 507J4.  The metal treatment contained
cadmium.  The process generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling conducted in
Building 507 determined cadmium was present on a break room refrigerator
handle.  The employer did not ensure that surfaces were maintained as free
as
practicable of cadmium.  This condition exposed employees to a cadmium
hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that surfaces were maintained as
free as practicable of accumulations of cadmium.  Employees abrasively
blasted generators and small parts in Building 843B1.  The metal treatment
contained cadmium.  The process generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling
conducted in Building 843 determined cadmium was present on a break room
refrigerator handle.  The employer did not ensure that surfaces were
maintained as free as practicable of cadmium.  This condition exposed
employees to a cadmium hazard.
(c)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that surfaces were maintained
as
free as practicable of accumulations of cadmium.  Employees abrasively
blasted aircraft parts in Building 238F2.  The metal treatment contained
cadmium.  The process generated cadmium dust.  Wipe sampling conducted in
Building 238F1 determined cadmium was present on a computer desk top.
Employees of 238F2 utilized the computer and break area of 238F1.  The
employer did not ensure that surfaces were maintained as free as
practicable
of
cadmium.  This condition exposed employees to a cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(j)(3)(i):  The employer did not ensure that employees
exposed to
cadmium above the PEL showered during the end of the work shift:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that employees exposed to
cadmium above the PEL showered during the end of the work shift.  One
employee abrasively blasted aircraft parts in Building 507J4.  The metal
treatment contained cadmium.  This process generated cadmium dust.  On
3/3/11 one employee was exposed to cadmium at a concentration greater than
the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)
of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to cadmium at a concentration
of 0.0663 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 13.27 times the PEL.  Air
monitoring was conducted for 374 minutes.  The employer did not ensure that
the employee showered at the end of the work shift.  This condition exposed
the employee to a cadmium hazard.
(b)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/3/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that employees exposed to
cadmium above the PEL showered during the end of the work shift.  One
employee abrasively blasted generators and small parts in Building 843B1.
The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process generated cadmium
dust.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to cadmium at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 0.005 mg/m3.  The employee was exposed to cadmium at a
concentration of 0.1871 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This is 37.40 times the
PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 265 minutes.  The employer did not
ensure that the employee showered at the end of the work shift.  This
condition exposed the employee to a cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(1):  The employer did not ensure that no employee(s)
was exposed to
an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five
parts per million
parts of air (25 ppm) as an 8-hour TWA:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/15/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of twenty-five
parts
per million parts of air (25 ppm) as an 8-hour TWA.  Employees chemically
stripped paint from aircraft parts in Building 220 using Henkel Turco 5351
Paint Stripping Agent (containing 30-60% methylene chloride).  This process
generated methylene chloride aerosol.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed
to methylene chloride at a concentration greater than the 8 hour Time
Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 25 ppm.  The
employee was exposed to methylene chloride at a concentration of 251.6 ppm
for 57 minutes which resulted in an 8 hour TWA exposure of 30 ppm.  This is
1.19 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 57 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(c)(2):  The employer did not ensure that no employee was
exposed to an
airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of 125 parts per
million of air (125
ppm) as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/15/11, Hill Air Force Base did not ensure that no employee was exposed to
an airborne concentration of methylene chloride in excess of 125 parts per
million of air (125 ppm) as determined over a sampling period of 15
minutes.
Employees chemically stripped paint from aircraft parts in Building 220
using
Henkel Turco 5351 Paint Stripping Agent (containing 30-60% methylene
chloride).  This process generated methylene chloride aerosol.  On 3/3/11
one
employee was exposed to methylene chloride at a concentration greater than
the 15 minute Time Weighted Average (TWA) Short Term Exposure Limit
(STEL) of 125 ppm.  The employee was exposed to methylene chloride at a
concentration of 456 ppm as a 15 minute TWA.  This is 3.64 times the STEL.
Air monitoring was conducted for 14 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Feb 28, 2012

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(f)(1): The employer did not institute and maintain the
effectiveness of
engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or
below the PEL or
STEL:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/15/11, Hill Air Force Base did not institute and maintain the
effectiveness of
engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or
below the PEL.  One employee chemically stripped paint from aircraft parts
in
Building 220 using Henkel Turco 5351 Paint Stripping Agent (containing 30-
60% methylene chloride).  This process generated methylene chloride
aerosol.
On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to methylene chloride at a concentration
greater than the 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 25 ppm.  The employee was exposed to methylene chloride at
a concentration of 251.6 ppm for 57 minutes which resulted in an 8 hour TWA
exposure of 30 ppm.  This is 1.19 times the PEL.  Air monitoring was
conducted for 57 minutes.
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/15/11, Hill Air Force Base did not institute and maintain the
effectiveness of
engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to or
below the STEL.  One employee chemically stripped paint from aircraft parts
in Building 220 using Henkel Turco 5351 Paint Stripping Agent (containing
30-60% methylene chloride).  This process generated methylene chloride
aerosol.  On 3/3/11 one employee was exposed to methylene chloride at a
concentration greater than the 15 minute Time Weighted Average (TWA)
Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of 125 ppm.  The employee was exposed
to methylene chloride at a concentration of 456 ppm as a 15 minute TWA.
This is 3.64 times the STEL.  Air monitoring was conducted for 14 minutes.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification and documentation are required
for this item (See
enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Feasible engineering controls include, but are not
limited to:
1.Substitution of the paint stripper containing methylene chloride with a
non-
methylene chloride containing paint stripper.
2.Evaluate the spraypaint booth capture velocity at the point of
operation.
Modify the ventilation to ensure sufficient capture velocity for aerosol.
3.Install local exhaust ventilation at the point of generation of the air
contaminant.
4.Apply the paint stripper using an alternative method that does not
aerosolize
the methylene chloride.
Abatement Note:  Abatement of this item will normally be multi-step as
follows:
1.Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and used by
exposedemployees 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 exposure limits.
STEP 1 ABATEMENT DATE (15 DAYS): August 15, 2011
2.Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement
outlining a
schedule for the implementation of engineering and /or administrative
measures to control employee exposures to the hazardous substance
referenced
in this citation.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for
the
following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by
this
citation:
a.Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source;
b.Evaluation of control measure options;
c.Selection of optimum control measures;
d.Determination of control measure design;
e.Ordering and delivery of equipment;
f.Installation of control measures;
g.Training of employees in proper operation and maintenance of newly
implemented control measures; and
h.Assurance of the effective performance of control measures.
All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use
by a competent
Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Thirty day
progress reports are
required during the abatement period.  The progress report must identify
the action taken to
achieve abatement and the date the action was taken.
STEP 2 ABATEMENT DATE (60 DAYS): September 29, 2011
3.Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering
and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their
effectiveness in
achieving compliance.
STEP 3 ABATEMENT DATE (120 DAYS): November 28, 2011

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 15, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(h)(1): Where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced
skin or eye
irritation, the employer did not provide clean protective clothing and
equipment which is
resistant to methylene chloride, at no cost to the employee, and shall
ensure that each
affected employee use it:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
3/15/11, where needed to prevent methylene chloride induced skin or eye
irritation, Hill Air Force Base did not provide clean protective clothing
which
is resistant to methylene chloride.  Employees chemically stripped paint
from
aircraft parts in Building 220 using Henkel Turco 5351 Paint Stripping
Agent
(containing 30-60% methylene chloride).  Employees were provided AnsellPro
Orange Heavyweight 87-208 natural rubber latex gloves.  Natural rubber
latex
gloves do not provide adequate protection from exposure to methylene
chloride.  The employer did not ensure that appropriate gloves were
provided
to employees.  This condition exposed employees to a methylene chloride

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 15, 2011

General-duty citation text

with the seal of the respirator.  This condition potentially exposed the
employee to a hexavalent chromium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(3)(i): When the initial monitoring or periodic
monitoring revealed
employee exposures were at or above the action level or PEL, the employer,
at a minimum,
did not continue the semi-annual measurements until the conditions in 29
CFR
1910.1027(d)(3)(ii) were met:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/2/11, when periodic monitoring revealed employee exposures
were at or above the action level or PEL, Hill Air Force Base, at a
minimum,
did not continue the semi-annual measurements until the conditions in 29
CFR
1910.1027(d)(3)(ii) were met.  Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts
in
Building 507J4.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process
generated cadmium dust.  The employer had performed initial and periodic
monitoring and determined employee exposure to exceed the Action Level.
The employer performed periodic monitoring on 2/1/10 and during December
2010.  The employer did not ensure that semi-annual periodic monitoring
continued until the conditions in 29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(3)(ii) were met.
This
condition exposed employees to a cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(3)(ii): When the initial monitoring or periodic
monitoring indicated
that employee exposures were below the action level, the employer did not
confirm that
result by the results of another monitoring taken at least seven days
later:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/2/11, when the initial monitoring or periodic monitoring
indicated that employee exposures were below the action level, Hill Air
Force
Base did not confirm that result by the results of another monitoring
taken at
least seven days later.  Employees abrasively blasted aircraft parts in
Building
220.  The metal treatment contained cadmium.  This process generated
cadmium dust.  The employer had performed monitoring on 4/10/08 and
determined employee exposure to be below the Action Level.  The employer
did not perform additional monitoring to confirm the sampling result of
4/10/08.  The employer has not sampled for cadmium at this operation since
4/10/08.  This condition potentially exposed employees to a cadmium hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(4):  The employer did not certify that employees had
been trained by
preparing a certification record which included the identity of the person
trained, the
signature of employer or the person who conducted the training, and the
date the training
was completed:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/16/11, Hill Air Force Base did not certify that employees
had
been trained by preparing a certification record which included the
identity
of
the person trained, the signature of employer or the person who conducted
the
training, and the date the training was completed.  Employees abrasively
blasted or sanded aircraft, aircraft parts, generators, and small parts in
Buildings 275, 265, 220, and 843B1.  The metal treatment contained
cadmium.  These processes generated cadmium dust.  The employer had not
prepared certification records with regards to training required under this
paragraph.  This condition potentially exposed employees to a cadmium
hazard.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").-Certification

Issued

Jul 28, 2011

Abate by

Aug 30, 2011

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1052(d)(3):  Where the initial determination showed employee
exposures at or
above the action limit or above the STEL, the employer did not establish a
periodic exposure
monitoring program for methylene chloride in accordance with Table 1:
(a)Hill Air Force Base, at 7290 Weiner Street, Hill Air Force Base, UT: On
and preceding 3/15/11, where the initial determination showed employee
exposures at or above the action limit or above the STEL, Hill Air Force
Base
did not establish a periodic exposure monitoring program for methylene
chloride in accordance with Table 1.  Employees chemically stripped paint
from aircraft parts in Building 220 using Henkel Turco 5351 Paint Stripping
Agent (containing 30-60% methylene chloride).  This process generated
methylene chloride aerosol.  Previous sampling by the employer had found
employee exposure to methylene chloride in excess of the Action Level,
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), and Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL).
An exposure monitoring program in accordance with Table 1 was not
implemented.
Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See
enclosed "Sample
Abatement-Certification Letter").
Abatement Note:  Where employee exposure to methylene chloride exceeds
both the PEL
and the STEL, exposure monitoring must be conducted every three months.ed