OSHA Inspection: WATERPROOFING CONTRACTORS OF FLORIDA, LLC

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Nov 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.52(b)   When employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table D-2 of this section, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:    (a) Waterproofing Contractors Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On May 31, 2011 employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table D-2 of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1926.52 and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels.  Employees operated a gasoline-powered saw with a masonry blade to expand concrete joints on the exterior of a hotel.  On May 31 one employee was exposed to a dose of 363%.  This condition exposed the employee to hazardous noise.    (b) Waterproofing Contractors Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On May 31, 2011 employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table D-2 of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1926.52 and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels.  Employees operated a gasoline-powered saw with a masonry blade to expand concrete joints on the exterior of a hotel.  On May 31 one employee was exposed to a dose of 582%.  This condition exposed the employee to hazardous noise.    Abatement Note: Feasible engineering controls include, but are not limited to the use of a gas saw with a muffler or a masonry blade designed to produce less noise.  The saw manufacturer may have additional options.    STEP 1: Effective hearing protection shall be provided and used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering controls 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):     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 silica.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by this citaiton:    (a) Evaluation of the extent and locaiton 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  (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 (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):     STEP 3: Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving comliance.    STEP 3 Abatement Date: (90 Days):     Abatement Note: Abatement certification and documentation are required for this item (see enclosed "Sample Abatement Certificaiton Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.52(d)(1)  In all cases where the sound levels exceed the values shown herein, a continuing, effective hearing conservation program shall be administered:    (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before May 31, 2011 when sound levels exceeded the values shown in Table D-2 of this section, the employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.  One employee was exposed to a Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 99 dBA and was not included in a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.  This condition exposed the employee to work-related hearing loss.    (b) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before May 31, 2011 when sound levels exceeded the values shown in Table D-2 of this section, the employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.  One employee was exposed to a Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 103 dBA and was not included in a continuing, effective hearing conservation program.  This condition exposed the employee to work-related hearing loss.    Abatement Note: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that an effective hearing conservation program consists of the following elements:     (1) Monitoring of employee noise exposures;   (2) The institution of engineering, work practice, and administrative controls for excessive noise;  (3) The provision for each overexposed employee to have individually fitted hearing protection with an adequate noise reduction rating;  (4) Employee training and education regarding noise hazards and protection measures;  (5) Baseline and annual audiometry;  (6) Procedures for preventing further occupational hearing loss by an employee whenever such an event has been identified; and  (7) Recordingkeeping.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification and documentation is required for this item (see enclosed "Sample Abatement-Certification Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Sep 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(a):     Exposure of employees to inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or contact with any material or substance at a concentration above those specified in the "Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970" of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists occurred:    (a) Waterproofing Contractors Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before May 31, 2011 employees were exposed to inhalation of a material at a concentration above the Threshold Limit Value of Airborne Contaminants for 1970 in that Employee A was exposed to silica at a concentration of 99.9 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf), which is 6.4 times the permissible exposure limit of 15.6 mppcf.  This condition exposed Employee A to respiratory hazards including silicosis.    (b) Waterproofing Contractors Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before May 31, 2011 employees were exposed to inhalation of a material at a concentration above the Threshold Limit Value of Airborne Contaminants for 1970 in that Employee B was exposed to silica at a concentration of 116.6 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf), which is 7.5 times the permissible exposure limit of 15.6 mppcf.  This condition exposed Employee B to respiratory hazards including silicosis.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification and documentation are required for this item (see enclosed "Sample Abatement Certification Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Nov 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b):     To achieve compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must first be implemented whenever feasible. When such controls are not feasible to achieve full compliance, protective equipment or other protective measures shall be used to keep the exposure of employees to air contaminants within the limits prescribed in this section.     (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before May 31, 2011 the employer did not implement administrative or engineering controls to achieve compliance with paragraph (a) of this section in that the employer relied on respiratory protection when employees were exposed to silica in excess of the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL).   This condition exposed employees performing concrete joint expansion work to a respiratory hazard.    Abatement Note: 29 CFR 1926.55(b) further states, "feasible engineering controls include, but are not limited to the use of a dust capture system on the saw or use of a wet saw.  Any equipment and technical measures used for this purpose must first be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Whenever respirators are used, their use shall comply with 1926.103".  1926.103 defers to the General Industry standard for respirators, 1910.134.    STEP 1: Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering controls 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):     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 silica.  The plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which should be consistent with the dates required by this citaiton:    (a) Evaluation of the extent and locaiton 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  (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 (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):     STEP 3: Abatement will be completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls and upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving comliance.    STEP 3 Abatement Date: (90 Days):     Abatement Note: Abatement certification and documentation are required for this item (see enclosed "Sample Abatement Certificaiton Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):     A written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures , as specified in subparagraphs (c)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section was not established and implemented where respirator(s) were necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirator(s) were required by the employer:     (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: The employer did not ensure a worksite specific written respiratory protection program was established and implemented in the workplace when respirators were necessary.  Employees were exposed to silica during joint expansion work.  The respiratory protection program does not specify which tasks require respirator use and which tasks may have voluntary use, nor does the program include a record of past air monitoring which supports the decision for respirator use.  Procedures for cleaning and storing respirators at temporary jobsites were not specified.  This condition exposes employees to respiratory hazards such as silicosis.    Abatement Note: The written program shall include at least the following:  1. Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;  2. Medical evaluations of employees required to use respirators;  3. Fit testing procedures for tight-fitting respirators;  4. Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonably foreseeable emergency situations;  5. Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, inspecting, repairing, discarding, and otherwise maintaining respirators;  6. Procedures to ensure adequate air quality, quantity, and flow of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators;  7. Training of employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations;  8. Training of employees in the proper use of respirators, including putting on and removing them, any limitations on their use, and their maintenance; and  9. Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the program.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification and documentation are required for this item (See enclosed "Sample Abatement Certification Letter".)

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1)  The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before April 28, 2011 the employer did not provide medical evaluations to determine each employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use a respirator in the workplace.  This condition may allow employees with pre-existing medical conditions to use respirators when they are not physically capable of doing so.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification is not required for this item.

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Sep 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):     The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter:    (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: The employer did not ensure that employees were fit tested prior to using tight-fitting facepiece respirators.  Employees cutting concrete joints at the Westin Hotel were exposed to silica in excess of the OSHA PEL and were not fit tested prior to use of tight-fitting respirators.  Improper respirator fit exposes employees to respiratory hazards.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification is required for this item (see enclosed "Abatement Certification Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Sep 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1) The employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of subparagrahs (k)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section:    (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: The employer did not ensure that employees could demonstrate respirator knowledge in that workers required to wear respirators during concrete cutting were not thoroughly trained on the use and limitations of their respirators.  This condition exposed employees to respiratory hazards including silicosis.    Abatement Note: Employees required to use respirators must be knowledgable of the following:  1. Why the respirator is necessary and how improper fit, usage, or maintenance can compromise the protective effect of the respirator;  2. What the limitations and capabilities of the respirator are;  3. How to use the respirator effectively in emergency situations, including situations in which the respirator malfunctions;  4. How to inspect, put on and remove, use, and check the seals of the respirator;  5. What the procedures are for maintenance and storage of the respirator;  6. How to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators; and  7. The general requirements of this section.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification is required for this item (see enclosed "Sample Abatement Certification Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Abate by

Sep 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A)  The employer shall not permit respirators with tight-fitting facepieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with the valve function:     (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before 4/29/11 the employer allowed employees who are required to wear respirators to have facial hair.  Employees using a saw to expand concrete joints were required to wear tight-fitting respirators.  All four crew members were observed to have facial hair on the days air monitoring was conducted.  This condition exposes employees to inhalation of silica due to poorly sealed respirators.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification is required for this item (see enclosed "Sample Abatement Certification Letter").

Issued

Aug 4, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,260 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(e)(1)  When scaffold platforms are more than 2 feet (0.6 m) above or below a point of access, portable ladders, hook-on ladders, attachable ladders, stair towers (scaffold stairways/towers), stairway-type ladders (such as ladder stands), ramps, walkways, integral prefabricated scaffold access, or direct access from another scaffold, structure, personnel hoist, or similar surface shall be used. Crossbraces shall not be used as a means of access.    (a) Waterproofing Contractors, Inc. at 1672 Lawrence St. in Denver, CO: On and before May 31, 2011 employees accessed a scaffold platform by climbing crossbraces.  This condition exposed employees to a fall hazard.    Abatement Note: Abatement certification is not required for this item.