First, describe the work and worksite
A restoration crew will remove selected mortar joints from a sound ground-level exterior brick wall with a shrouded grinder and dust extraction, then repoint them with specified mortar. This fictional learning example records planned controls; it supplies no actual inspections or work authorization.
- The investigation releases the wall condition, joint depth and hazardous-material status.
- The actual tuckpointing silica method and exposure requirements are established by the employer.
- This excludes structural wall stabilization, lead or asbestos abatement, elevated access and whole-wall demolition.
Questions before work
- What confirms the wall and coatings are suitable for this repair?
- Which tuckpointing dust-control pathway applies to this tool?
- What joint limits protect the masonry while allowing repair?
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. Release the repair limits
Hazard: An unstable wall or unknown coating can expose workers to collapse or hazardous dust.
Control: Foreperson obtains the condition and material investigation, identifies permitted joints and holds work for unknown hazards or movement.
Verification: Match wall condition and joint marks with the repair release.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A cosmetic repair description does not establish material safety.
2. Separate the work area
Hazard: Dust and fragments can expose occupants or passersby.
Control: Control the work boundary, neighboring occupancy and access. Arrange waste collection and keep the crew’s exit clear.
Verification: Lead confirms both worker and public separation before tool setup.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The wall may border a route used by people outside the crew.
3. Set up the grinder and extraction
Hazard: A damaged wheel or inadequate extraction can cause impact injury or silica exposure.
Control: Use compatible wheel, guard, shroud and dust collector maintained to the selected tuckpointing method. Under Table 1, provide its specified dust collection and respiratory protection; use the employer’s applicable respiratory-protection program. Do not treat extraction alone as the complete Table 1 method.
Verification: Operator checks the tool and airflow indicators; silica competent person checks implementation.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Tuckpointing has its own task-specific silica decision.
4. Remove the released mortar
Hazard: Kickback, flying fragments, noise and dust can injure the operator.
Control: Work from a stable position within the released joint limits, keep the shroud effective and use assessed eye, hearing and other protection. Stop for lost extraction or masonry damage.
Verification: Operator monitors control performance and the joint condition as removal proceeds.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Removing mortar must not become uncontrolled brick cutting.
5. Mix and place replacement mortar
Hazard: Cement contact and awkward hand work can cause burns or strain.
Control: Use the specified mixing and placement method with cement protection, workable tool positions and controlled batch handling. Keep extraction equipment safe while wet work begins.
Verification: Lead checks mixing protection and the prepared joints before placement.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The wet phase creates different exposures from grinding.
6. Collect dust and protect the repair
Hazard: Dry dust or unprotected repair material can expose the next worker.
Control: Use suitable HEPA or wet cleanup consistent with the exposure plan, contain waste and identify cure and access restrictions. Avoid uncontrolled dry sweeping.
Verification: Foreperson checks residue, repaired joints and handover conditions.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The dust control must extend through cleanup.
What does a useful control look like?
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| Be careful around the equipment. | Use compatible wheel, guard, shroud and dust collector maintained to the specified tuckpointing method. Establish required respiratory protection under the employer’s program where applicable. |
| Check the area before starting. | Foreperson obtains the condition and material investigation, identifies permitted joints and holds work for unknown hazards or movement. |
Decisions that change the analysis
Which respirator decision applies to mortar-removal grinding?
Table 1 row xi specifies a shroud and dust collection with at least 25 cfm per inch of wheel diameter, a filter at least 99 percent efficient, and a cyclonic pre-separator or filter-cleaning mechanism. It requires minimum APF 10 for up to four hours per shift and APF 25 above four hours. Fully implement that method or use the standard’s alternative exposure pathway. Required respirators need the applicable respiratory-protection program.
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
- Wall movement or unknown coating appears.
- Extraction fails or dust escapes the planned boundary.
- Tool, joint depth or repair method changes.
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
- Tuckpointing tool and extraction instruction under the applicable silica plan.
- Required respirator training and fit testing where the employer’s assessment requires a respirator.
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 1926.1153 Respirable crystalline silica
- OSHA 1926.300 Hand and power tools
- OSHA 1910.1200 Hazard communication
- 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.