OSHA Inspection: UCL, INC.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,873 · Current $5,767 Reduced

Hazardous substances F104Z102

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:    On or about November 9, 2017, the employer did not ensure employees engaged in abrasive blasting within bridge containment were exposed to air particulates such as, but not limited to, zinc oxide and iron oxide to below recommended permissible exposure limits.      Instance A      An employee was over exposed to iron oxide particulate at an eight hour time weighted average of 137.52 mg/m3 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit for total particulates of 15 mg/m3, by approximately 916%.             Instance B      An employee was over exposed to zinc oxide particulate at an eight hour time weighted average of 22.23 mg/m3 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit for total particulates of 15 mg/m3, by approximately 148%.           An employee was over exposed to iron oxide particulate at an eight hour time weighted average of 143.01 mg/m3 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit for total particulates of 15 mg/m3, by approximately 953%.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances F104Z102

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure(s):  On or about November 9, 2017, the employer did not implement administrative or engineering controls to reduce exposures of employees engaged in abrasive blasting within bridge containment to air particulates such as, but not limited to, zinc oxide and iron oxide to below recommended permissible exposure limits.   Instance A    An employee was over exposed to iron oxide particulate at an eight hour time weighted average of 137.52 mg/m3 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit for total particulates of 15 mg/m3, by approximately 916%.          Instance B    An employee was over exposed to zinc oxide particulate at an eight hour time weighted average of 22.23 mg/m3 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit for total particulates of 15 mg/m3, by approximately 148%.        An employee was over exposed to iron oxide particulate at an eight hour time weighted average of 143.01 mg/m3 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit for total particulates of 15 mg/m3, by approximately 953%.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(c)(1): The employer did not ensure that no employees were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air (50 ug/m3) averaged over an 8-hour period:   a) On or about November 9, 2017, an employee working as an abrasive blaster within bridge containment was over exposed to lead at an eight hour time weighted average of approximately 0.091 milligrams per cubic meter, which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter by 182%.   b) On or about November 9, 2017, an employee working as an abrasive blaster within bridge containment was over exposed to lead at an eight hour time weighted average of approximately 0.147 milligrams per cubic meter, which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter by 294%.   c) On or about November 9, 2017, an employee operating a vacuum within bridge containment was over exposed to lead at an eight hour time weighted average of approximately 0.055 milligrams per cubic meter, which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter by 110%.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to achieve compliance with 29 CFR 1926.62(c) prior to commencement of the job:  a) On or about November 9, 2016, The employer did not implement a written compliance program addressing topics such as, but not limited to, housekeeping and  hygiene facilities when employees' exposure to lead exceeded OSHA's permissible exposure limit, 0.05mg/m3. Employees engaged in bridge blasting operations and vacuuming responsibilities within negative pressure containment were exposed to lead concentrations above 0.05mg/m3 averaged over an eight hour period.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,873 · Current $5,767 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(3)(ii): Where shower facilities were available, the employer did not ensure that employees showered at the end of the work shift:    a) On or about November 9, 2016, The employer did not assure that employees, whose airborne exposure to lead is above OSHAs permissible exposure limit, showered at the end of the work shift. Employees engaged in bridge blasting operations and vacuuming responsibilities within negative pressure containment were exposed to lead concentration above 0.05mg/m3 averaged over an eight hour period.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,873 · Current $5,767 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.62(i)(4)(ii): The employer did not ensure that lunchroom facilities or eating areas were as free as practicable from lead contamination:    a) On or about November 9, 2016, the employer did not ensure that designated lunchroom facilities or eating areas were as free as practicable from lead contamination. Wipe sampling conducted in the lunchroom resulted in a positive presence in areas were food is stored.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,873 · Current $5,767 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1): Each platform on all working levels of scaffolds was not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and the guardrail supports as specified in paragraphs 1926.451(b)(1)(i)-(ii)    a) On or about October 19, 2016, the employer failed to ensure the supported scaffolding level from which an employee was performing bridge blasting operations was fully planked. The employer had laid aluminum picks (working platforms) across approximately 5 foot scaffolding frames. The use of a single pick left the remaining width of the 5ft. frame open to the ground below, exposing employees to a fall of approximately 20 feet.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Abate by

Apr 10, 2017

Penalty

Initial $8,873 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1): Employees on scaffolds more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level by fall protection established in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) of this section:    a) On or about October 19, 2016, The employer did not ensure employees were protected from a fall while performing bridge blasting operations from a supported scaffold.  Employees tasked with blasting operations from a scaffolding platform without standard railing were exposed to an approximately 20 foot fall to the ground below.

Issued

Mar 28, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,802 · Current $2,473 Reduced

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) On or about November 9, 2016, the employer did not ensure employees were provided with medical evaluations who were required to wear lose fitting NOVA 2000 supplied air helmets with an attached hood. Employees were exposed to pulmonary and cardiovascular stresses.