OSHA Inspection: HASCALL & HALL INC.

Issued

May 5, 2020

Abate by

Jan 28, 2021

Penalty

Initial $5,735 · Current $2,868 Reduced

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:   Garage - The employer did not ensure that an effective hearing conservation program was administered, in the following instances:  (a)  Employees, conducting demolition work with PAM jackhammers at noise levels of 95-100 dBA, were not trained on how to properly use hearing protection.  (b)  Employees, working in areas that had noise levels of 95-100 dBA, did not have annual audiograms.

Issued

May 5, 2020

Penalty

Initial $5,735 · Current $2,868 Reduced

Hazardous substances 90109015

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, or 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:               Lower and first floor inside areas of garage - Employees conducted demolition work on the concrete floor with PAM jackhammers without using an integrated water delivery system or commercially available shroud and dust collection system, as listed in Table 1.

Issued

May 5, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(A): Where several employees perform the same tasks on the same shift and in the same work area, the employer did not sample a representative fraction of these employees in order to meet this requirement:  Garage - The employer did not conduct personal sampling of employees exposed to silica, while performing work on the concrete floor with unprotected PAM jackhammers and using dry sweeping.

Issued

May 5, 2020

Penalty

Initial $5,735 · Current $2,868 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(f)(1): The employer allowed dry sweeping or dry brushing where such activity could contribute to employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica and wet sweeping, HEPA-filtered vacuuming or other methods were feasible:  Garage - The employer allowed dry sweeping of concrete debris containing silica formed from jackhammered concrete where other methods such as HEPA vacuuming or wet sweeping were feasible.

Issued

May 5, 2020

Penalty

Initial $5,735 · Current $2,868 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(4): The employer did not designate a competent person to make frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement the written exposure control plan:  Garage - The employer did not designate a competent person to make frequent and regular inspections of the jobsite to ensure implementation of the silica exposure control plan.