OSHA Inspection: BAYSTATE CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

The violations listed below are grouped together as a single violation because they describe different aspects of a particular hazard that increase the potential for an occupational hazard to occur.    ***************************************       29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):  *************************************************    a)  Former Kollmorgan Building, Northampton:  Employees operating the propane-powered tile scraping trucks did not receive training which was followed up by evaluation in the safe operation of the trucks as specified in paragraph (l) of this standard.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(3)(i)(J):     Powered industrial truck operators did not receive training in vehicle inspection and maintenance operations that the operator will be required to perform.    *******************************    a)  Former Kollmorgan Building, Northampton:  Employees operating the propane-powered tile scrapers did not receive training in the necessity to use specific types of propane tanks for the different types of scraper trucks that were being used at the site.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(3)(ii)(H):     Powered industrial truck operators did not receive training in the safe operation of trucks in closed environments and other areas where insufficient ventilation or poor vehicle maintenance could cause a buildup of carbon monoxide or diesel exhaust.  ************************************    a)  Former Kollmorgan Building, Northampton:  Employees operating the propane-powered tile scrapers did not receive training in the safe operation of the trucks in the closed environment of the asbestos containment enclosure.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Feb 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

Hazardous substances C730

General-duty citation text

The violations listed below have been grouped together as a single violation because they involve related hazards that may increase the potential for occupational illness resulting from exposure to a toxic material.    *************************************************    29 CFR 1926.55(a):     Employee(s) were exposed to a material at concentrations above those specified in the Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists:  ******************************************    (a)  An  Asbestos Remover was  exposed to carbon monoxide inside the containment at the former Kollmorgan Building in Northampton on 9/11/2012 at a concentration of 242 ppm as an 8 hour, time-weighted average (TWA).  This exposure exceeded the Threshold Limit Value for carbon monoxide which is 50 ppm as an 8 hour, TWA, by a factor of 4.8 times.  The source of the carbon monoxide was the operation of propane-powered tile scrapers.  This exposure assessment was based upon a documented carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) blood sample of 20 % COHb obtained on the employee approximately 95 minutes following the work operations.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Apr 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances C730

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b):     Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure(s):  **************************    (a)  Asbestos Remover Worker(s) were excessively exposed to carbon monoxide while working inside the containment at the Former Kollmorgan Building and feasible administrative and engineering controls were not utilized to prevent their exposure above the Threshold Limit Values.   Controls which were feasible in this instance include, but were not limited to the following:  (1) ensuring that the specific propane tanks necessary for proper combustion for a given tile scraper truck were available at the site and employees were trained in their differences,  (2) substitution of battery-powered tile scrapers instead of propane-powered machines,  (3)  ensuring sufficient ventilation and its even distribution throughout the containment area to handle spikes of carbon monoxide in areas of poor air movement,  and  (4)  continuous use of industrial type carbon monoxide monitors and alarms when using combustion-powered equipment inside asbestos containments.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Mar 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

The violations listed below are grouped together as a single violation because they describe or describe different aspects of a particular hazard and increase the probability of an occupational illness resulting from exposure to a toxic material.     **************************************************    29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(5)(i)(A)(3):     A minimum of  -0.02 column inches of water pressure differential relative to outside pressure were not maintained within the negative pressure enclosure as evidenced by manometric measurements:    ********************************************    (a)   Asbestos Containment on the north side of the former Kollmorgan Building.  A minimum pressure differential of -0.02 column inches of water pressure was not maintained between the air pressure inside the containment and outside as measured on 10/26/2012.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Mar 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(5)(i)(B)(1):     Before the beginning of each shift the negative pressure enclosure was not inspected for breaches and smoke-tested for leaks:  ************************************************    (a)  Asbestos Containment Enclosure on the north side of the former Kollmorgan Building.  The containment was not smoke-tested for leaks before beginning asbestos removal work each day.

Issued

Jan 28, 2013

Abate by

Mar 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(8)(i)(F):     Mechanical chipping was performed inside a negative pressure enclosure that did not meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(5)(i):    ************************************    (a)  Asbestos Containment Enclosure on the north side of the former Kollmorgan Building:  The employer utilized mechanical tile scraping machines that scraped and chipped asbestos-containing tiles off the floor and the enclosure did not meet the requirements of section (g)(5)(i) of this standard in that the air pressure differential between the inside and outside of the containment did not meet the minimum requirement and the supervisor did not perform daily smoke tests of the containment for possible leaks.