OSHA Inspection: TECHNOLOGY CONTRACTORS, INC

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(a): Employee(s) were exposed to material(s) at concentrations above those specified in the Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists:  Instances:  a) On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, an employee engaged in grinding concrete was over-exposed to respirable silica dust at a concentration of 1.39mg/m3 (equivalent to 13.86 mppcf) expressed as an an 8 hour time-weighted average of 1.32 times the daily Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.05 mg/m3 (equivalent to 10.53 mppcf) based on a 253 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero-increment for the 227 minutes not sampled.  b) On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, an employee engaged in grinding concrete was over-exposed to respirable silica dust at a concentration of 1.86mg/m3 (equivalent to 18.59 mppcf) expressed as an an 8 hour time-weighted average of 1.49 times the daily Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.25 mg/m3 (equivalent to 12.50 mppcf) based on a 392 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero-increment for the 88 minutes not sampled.  c) On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, an employee engaged in grinding concrete was over-exposed to respirable silica dust at a concentration of 2.30mg/m3 (equivalent to 22.97 mppcf) expressed as an an 8 hour time-weighted average of 2.16 times the daily Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.06 mg/m3 (equivalent to 10.64 mppcf) based on a 405 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero-increment for the 75 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure:  Instances:   a) On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, an employee engaged in grinding concrete was over-exposed to respirable silica dust at a concentration of 1.39mg/m3 (equivalent to 13.86 mppcf) expressed as an an 8 hour time-weighted average of 1.32 times the daily Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.05 mg/m3 (equivalent to 10.53 mppcf) based on a 253 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero-increment for the 227 minutes not sampled. The employer did not use feasible administrative controls.  b) On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, an employee engaged in grinding concrete was over-exposed to respirable silica dust at a concentration of 1.86mg/m3 (equivalent to 18.59 mppcf) expressed as an an 8 hour time-weighted average of 1.49 times the daily Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.25 mg/m3 (equivalent to 12.50 mppcf) based on a 392 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero-increment for the 88 minutes not sampled. The employer did not use feasible administrative controls.  c) On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, an employee engaged in grinding concrete was over-exposed to respirable silica dust at a concentration of 2.30mg/m3 (equivalent to 22.97 mppcf) expressed as an an 8 hour time-weighted average of 2.16 times the daily Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 1.06 mg/m3 (equivalent to 10.64 mppcf) based on a 405 minute sampling period; exposure calculations included a zero-increment for the 75 minutes not sampled. The employer did not use feasible administrative controls.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, the employer did not develop and implement a respiratory protection program for employees who had to wear a filtering facepiece air purifying respirator.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, the employer did not provide a medical evaluation for employees who had to wear a filtering facepiece air purifying respirator.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite, the employer did not provide a fit-test prior to having employees wear a filtering facepiece air purifying respirator.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program for employees exposed to chemical hazards such as but not limited to silica.

Issued

Jul 27, 2016

Abate by

Aug 22, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): Employers did not have a safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical which they use: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  On or about 6/14/2016, at the above address jobsite the employer did not have the safety data sheets for chemicals used at the workplace.