First, describe the work and worksite
A repair crew will inject an engineer-designated nonstructural crack in a cured ground-level interior concrete wall with a metered two-component epoxy system. The room is isolated from normal occupancy. This fictional learning example records planned controls; it supplies no actual inspections or work authorization.
- The repair specification determines whether injection is appropriate and provides the permitted pressure and sequence.
- Ventilation and chemical protection must be selected for the actual resin and hardener.
- This excludes structural crack diagnosis, overhead work, polyurethane water-stop injection and pressurized connected systems.
Questions before work
- Who confirms crack suitability and the permitted injection method?
- Which resin and hardener hazards require separate controls?
- How will pressure be relieved and a blocked port managed?
Build the analysis one step at a time
What will the worker do? How could someone be harmed? What prevents or reduces that exposure? Who checks the control, and when?
1. Confirm the crack and repair release
Hazard: A crack can signal unresolved movement or conceal an unsuitable repair location.
Control: Foreperson checks the repair specification and engineering determination, marks the approved limits and holds work when the crack or surrounding condition differs.
Verification: Repair lead compares the actual crack with the released repair record.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The JHA cannot diagnose a structural defect.
2. Prepare the area and ports
Hazard: Surface preparation can release dust or expose workers to uncured adhesive and sharp fittings.
Control: Separate occupancy, protect the work area and use the specified surface and port preparation method. Apply the employer’s dust controls where material is disturbed.
Verification: Lead checks ventilation, preparation controls and the planned port positions before sealing.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Preparation hazards depend on the method actually chosen.
3. Set up and meter the components
Hazard: Resin or hardener can contact skin and eyes; incorrect mixing can create excessive heat or waste.
Control: Review both component SDSs and use the specified metering equipment, compatible protection and product limits. Keep containers identified and prepare only quantities permitted by the instructions.
Verification: Operator confirms product identities, ratio settings and equipment condition before connecting.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Each component needs its own hazard review.
4. Inject within the permitted sequence
Hazard: Pressure can eject material or fittings; leaks can expose the operator to uncured epoxy.
Control: Operate within the repair and equipment limits from a position clear of potential spray. Maintain the sequence and stop for leaks, unexpected resistance or uncontrolled flow.
Verification: Operator monitors the specified indicators and port behavior; lead checks the boundary remains intact.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Do not overcome a blocked port by improvising a higher pressure.
5. Relieve pressure and deal with a blockage
Hazard: Opening a loaded hose or port can release pressurized resin into the face or skin.
Control: Stop pumping and follow the unit’s pressure-release and energy-control procedure before disconnecting. Use the specified blockage method after the safe state is verified.
Verification: Authorized operator confirms pressure release under the equipment procedure before touching a fitting.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A stopped pump can leave pressure trapped in the line.
6. Secure cure and remove residue
Hazard: Uncured residue, contaminated tools or removed fittings can expose the next crew.
Control: Maintain product-specific cure and access restrictions. Collect chemical waste in compatible identified containers and remove ports only by the specified method after release.
Verification: Lead checks residue, waste and repair-access status before handover.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Cure time and cleanup requirements are product-specific.
What does a useful control look like?
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| Be careful around the equipment. | Review both component SDSs and use the specified metering equipment, compatible protection and product limits. Keep containers identified and prepare only quantities permitted by the instructions. |
| Check the area before starting. | Foreperson checks the repair specification and engineering determination, marks the approved limits and holds work when the crack or surrounding condition differs. |
Decisions that change the analysis
Can more pressure solve a port that will not accept resin?
Pause and use the repair specification and equipment blockage procedure. Additional pressure may rupture fittings or force material into an unintended path. The published example supplies no universal pressure limit.
What must be recorded before this example is used on a job?
Replace the scenario with the actual work, identify additional hazards with the crew, and record the applicable instructions, responsible people, inspection findings, unresolved actions and required authorization. A planned verification is not an inspection result.
Agree when the crew will pause
- Crack condition differs from the repair release.
- A component, ratio, pressure limit or ventilation arrangement changes.
- Leaks, blocked ports or unexpected material flow occur.
After a pause, correct the condition, reassess the work, and obtain required authorization before restarting. Keep unresolved actions visible.
Download the worked example and free template
No account or paid membership required. The worked example contains planned controls. The blank template is for your own work; neither includes fabricated inspection results, signatures or approval.
Your editable working copy
Build and download your draft
Start blank or load the learning example. Replace its assumptions with your actual conditions and involve the people doing the work. Your entries stay in this browser tab; download a copy before leaving or refreshing.
1. Describe your work and site
2. Work through each task
Describe an observable step, how someone could be harmed, and the control that acts on that hazard. Identify who checks it and what evidence is needed.
3. Record changes, checks, and open actions
Walk the work area, review with the crew, and resolve missing controls. Follow the required approval process. This tool does not judge completeness, verify signatures or authorize work.
Open the downloaded file in a browser, then use Print → Save as PDF for a printable copy.
Training needs to confirm
- Component hazards, metering, pressure release and product-specific first aid.
- Recognizing a deviation from the released repair method.
Confirm applicable qualifications, task instruction and actual training evidence for the people assigned. Related toolbox talks support crew discussion; they do not establish competence.
Common questions
Can this be used as a JSA?
Use the Task | Hazard | Control structure if it meets the employer’s format. Adapt the boundaries, controls, verification and records to the actual job.
Does this provide a completed USACE AHA?
No. Use the project’s required AHA process, risk method, supporting fields and acceptance requirements. The existing formwork AHA explains the additional structure.
Are these resources part of a paid course?
This walkthrough, browser draft builder and downloads are free public resources, separate from Academy course enrollment.
References and source note
- OSHA 1910.1200 Hazard communication
- OSHA 1926.59 Hazard communication in construction
- OSHA 1926.300 Hand and power tools
- OSHA 1926.21 Safety training and education
Original worked example developed for the stated scenario. Primary references support the planning framework; the actual equipment manual, product instructions and project design must supply applicable operating and acceptance criteria. Use actual equipment instructions and site requirements alongside these references. Reference review: October 9, 2026.