OSHA Inspection: BULLEY & ANDREWS MASONRY RESTORATION LLC

Issued

Jul 24, 2019

Abate by

Feb 15, 2020

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $3,315 Reduced

Hazardous substances 811081118130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.52(b): Employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in table D-2 of 29 CFR 1926.52 and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels:    At a construction site located at 201 W Capitol Ave, Jefferson City, MO: Employees are exposed to occupational noise above the action level. The employer is failing to protect employees from occupational noise exposure by effective administration of a hearing conservation program. A noise survey was performed for a 8-hour time-weighted average sampling during the sampling period on February 4, 2019, which showed decibel levels at or above a dose of 50 percent on the A scale or an equivalent sound level of 85 decibels. No administrative or engineering controls were being used at the worksite by the employer, instead noise reduction was dependent upon hearing protection only.     a) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 531% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 102.0 dBA. The sampling was performed for 426 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 54 minutes not sampled.    b) An employee working as a bricklayer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 574% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 102.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 430 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 50 minutes not sampled    c) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 474% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 101.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 472 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 8 minutes not sampled.    d) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 410% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 100.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 466 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 14 minutes not sampled.    e) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 352% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 99.0 dBA. The sampling was performed for 428 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 52 minutes not sampled.    f) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 325% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 98.5 dBA. The sampling was performed for 434 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 46 minutes not sampled.    g) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 224% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.8 dBA. The sampling was performed for 427 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 53 minutes not sampled.    h) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 223% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.7 dBA. The sampling was performed for 436 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 44 minutes not sampled

Issued

Jul 24, 2019

Abate by

Feb 15, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 811081118130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.52(d)(1): In all cases where the sound levels exceeded the values shown in Table D-2 of 29 CFR 1926.52, a continuing, effective hearing conservation program was not administered:    At a construction site located at 201 W Capitol Ave, Jefferson City, MO: Employees are exposed to occupational noise above the action level. The employer is failing to protect employees from occupational noise exposure by effective administration of a hearing conservation program. A noise survey was performed for a 8-hour time-weighted average sampling during the sampling period on February 4, 2019, which showed decibel levels at or above a dose of 50 percent on the A scale or an equivalent sound level of 85 decibels. Deficiencies exist in the hearing conservation program to include, but are not limited to a lack of monitoring employee noise exposure, the institution of engineering, work practice, or administrative controls for excessive noise, employee training and education regarding noise hazards and protection measures.    a) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 531% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 102.0 dBA. The sampling was performed for 426 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 54 minutes not sampled.    b) An employee working as a bricklayer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 574% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 102.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 430 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 50 minutes not sampled    c) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 474% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 101.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 472 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 8 minutes not sampled.    d) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 410% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 100.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 466 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 14 minutes not sampled.    e) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 352% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 99.0 dBA. The sampling was performed for 428 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 52 minutes not sampled.    f) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 325% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 98.5 dBA. The sampling was performed for 434 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 46 minutes not sampled.    g) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 224% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.8 dBA. The sampling was performed for 427 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 53 minutes not sampled.    h) An employee working as a tuck-pointer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 223% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.7 dBA. The sampling was performed for 436 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 44 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 24, 2019

Abate by

Feb 15, 2020

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $6,630

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1): For each employee engaged in a task identified on Table 1, the employer did not fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1, unless the employer assesses and limits the exposure of the employee to respirable crystalline silica in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section:                 At a construction site located at 201 W Capital Ave, Jefferson City, MO: Employees were engaged in jack hammering, cutting, and grinding into limestone. Wet methods or dust/vacuum collection systems were not in use. Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from the accumulation of dust when the vacuums systems or wet methods were not utilized with all equipment during the course of the project while working from the enclosed scaffold.      (a) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 730 mcg/m, which is 14.6 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.    (b) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 430 mcg/m, which is 8.6 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.    (c) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 360 mcg/m, which is 7.2 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.    (d) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 150 mcg/m, which is 3.0 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m

Issued

Jul 24, 2019

Abate by

Feb 15, 2020

Penalty

Initial $6,630 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(A): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:    At a construction site located at 201 W Capitol Ave, Jefferson City MO: Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from the dust being generated from the dry jack hammering, a tuck-pointing methods.  This was demonstrated when employees were engaged in dry jack hammering and the removal of mortar (tuck-pointing) of the exterior of the limestone building at this location.      (a) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 730 mcg/m, which is 14.6 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.    (b) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 430 mcg/m, which is 8.6 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.    (c) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 360 mcg/m, which is 7.2 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.    (d) On or about February 4, 2019, an employee working on the exterior of the building was exposed to a 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) level of 150 mcg/m, which is 3.0 times the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) of 50 mcg/m.