OSHA Inspection: RAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Issued

Nov 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminants chemical state and physical form:  Employees were repairing a concrete parking garage.  The employees silica exposure was not assessed when they were jackhammering, sandblasting and using a hand held disc grinder to repair the concrete garage.

Issued

Nov 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(a): Employee(s) were exposed to Silica Quartz at concentrations above those specified in the Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists:  Employees were overexposed to silica quartz, when they were repairing damaged concrete.  a)   On August 17, 2012 an employee was exposed to 61.7 mppcf of silica, 2.6 times the permissible exposure limit.  Employee was sampled for 158 minutes, the remaining 322 minutes was calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  Employee was removing damaged overhead concrete with a hand held pneumatic jack hammer inside the basement office.   b)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 43.8 mppcf of silica, 1.8 permissible exposure limit.  Employee was sampled for 425 minutes, the remaining 55 minutes was calculated as 0(zero) exposure time.  Employee was removing damaged overhead concrete with a hand hled pneumatic jack hammer inside the 3rd floor containment.  c)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 28.4 mppcf of silica, 1.5 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 345 minutes, the remaining 155 minutes was calculated as 0(zero) exposure time.  The employee was removing damaged concrete with a PAM (pneumatic mechanical overhead jack hammer) machine inside the 3rd floor containment.  d)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 56.2 mppcf silica, 2.9 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 412 minutes, the remaining 68 minutes was calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  The employee was removing damaged concrete with a PAM (pneumatic mechanical overhead jack hammer) machine inside of the 3rd floor containment.  e) On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 144. mppcf silica, 5.2 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 118 minutes, the remaining 362 minutes was calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  The employee was sand blasting concrete stair case.  f)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 56.1 mppcf, 4.5 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 274 minutes, the remaining 206 minutes as calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  The employee was using an electric hand grinder to remove protrusion from the concrete.

Issued

Nov 20, 2012

Abate by

Jan 9, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee Silica quartz exposure(s):  At 113 South Henry Street Parking Ramp, employees were exposed to Silica Quartz when they were repairing damaged concrete:  a)   On August 17, 2012 an employee was exposed to 61.7 mppcf of silica, 2.6 times the permissible exposure limit.  Employee was sampled for 158 minutes, the remaining 322 minutes was calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  Employee was removing damaged overhead concrete with a hand held pneumatic jack hammer inside the basement office.   b)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 43.8 mppcf of silica, 1.8 times the permissible exposure limit.  Employee was sampled for 425 minutes, the remaining 55 minutes was calculated as 0(zero) exposure time.  Employee was removing damaged overhead concrete with a hand hled pneumatic jack hammer inside the 3rd floor containment.  c)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 28.4 mppcf of silica, 1.5 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 345 minutes, the remaining 155 minutes was calculated as 0(zero) exposure time.  The employee was removing damaged concrete with a PAM (pneumatic mechanical overhead jack hammer) machine inside the 3rd floor containment.  d)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 56.2 mppcf silica, 2.9 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 412 minutes, the remaining 68 minutes was calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  The employee was removing damaged concrete with a PAM (pneumatic mechanical overhead jack hammer) machine inside of the 3rd floor containment.  e) On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 144. mppcf silica, 5.2 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 118 minutes, the remaining 362 minutes was calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  The employee was sand blasting concrete stair case.  f)  On September 13, 2012 an employee was exposed to 56.1 mppcf, 4.5 times the permissible exposure limit.  The employee was sampled for 274 minutes, the remaining 206 minutes as calculated as 0 (zero) exposure time.  The employee was using an electric hand grinder to remove protrusion from the concrete.    Abatement normally will be multistep as follows:  STEP 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.  Abatement due 30 days from issuance date:  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 exposure to hazardous substance as referenced in this Citation.  This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the abatement dates required by this Citation:  1.  Evaluation of the extent and location of the hazard source.  2.  Evaluation of control measure option.  3.  Selection of optimum control measure(s).  4.  Ordering and delivery of equipment and materials.  5.  Installation of control measures.  6.  Training of employees in the proper operation and maintenance of the newly          implemented measures.  7.  Assurance of effective performance of control measures.  8.  All proposed control measures shall be approved for each particular use by a        competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Abatement due 60 days from issuance date:  Step 3:  Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.  Abatement due 90 days from issuance date:

Issued

Nov 20, 2012

Abate by

Dec 19, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:  One unshaven employee wore a full face respirator while using a hand held pneumatic jack hammer to removed damaged concrete.