OSHA Inspection: ARBEN CONTRACTING OF NEW YORK, INC.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(e)(2): Where respirator use is required by this section, the employer did not institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer was required to wear respiratory protection (e.g., N95 respirator) and the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee working inside a trench shoveling rock dust/debris was required to wear respiratory protection (e.g., N95 respirator) and the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program; on or about 11/30/17.  b)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee sweeping up rock dust/debris on the street and assisting other employees performing rock breaking operations inside a trench was required to wear respiratory protection (e.g., N95 respirator) and the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee working inside a trench shoveling rock dust/debris was required to wear respiratory protection (e.g., N95 respirator) and the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator;  on or about 11/30/17  b)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee sweeping up rock dust/debris on the street and assisting other employees performing rock breaking operations inside a trench was required to wear respiratory protection (e.g., N95 respirator) and the employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $1,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

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:    a) 1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY: An employee working in a trench helping another employee who was performing rock breaking using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer was exposed to noise levels above the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit of 90 dBA on 11/30/17.  The employee was exposed to a continuous noise level of 95.9 dBA as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA), which was equivalent to 229.4 % of the Permissible Exposure Limit.  The sampling time was 263 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time of 217 minutes.  The employer did not administer a continuing an effective hearing conservation program which included noise monitoring and audiometric testing; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 5, 2018

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Eye or face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   An employee dry sweeping rock dust and further exposed to airborne rock dust while working in an area just above rock-breaking operations in a trench was not required to use eye protection; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1): The employer did not fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task(s) on Table 1, when the employer had not assessed the exposure of employees to crystalline who were engaged in tasks identified on Table 1:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer was exposed to 2,190.7 micrograms of respirable crystalline silica per cubic meter which was 43.8 times above the OSHA 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit of 50 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air).  The sampling time was for 214 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time of 266 minutes.  The employer did not fully and properly implement engineering controls, work practices and respiratory protection for the employee engaged in the task; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees were not exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 ug/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer was exposed to 2,190.7 micrograms of respirable crystalline silica per cubic meter which was 43.8 times above the OSHA 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit of 50 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air).  The sampling time was for 214 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time of 266 minutes..  The employer did not ensure that employees were not exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 ug/m3 calculated as an 8-hour TWA; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(i): The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer was exposed to 2,190.7 micrograms of respirable crystalline silica per cubic meter which was 43.8 times above the OSHA 8-Hour Time Weighted Average Permissible Exposure Limit of 50 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air).  The sampling time was for 214 minutes and zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of time of 266 minutes.  The employer did not assess the exposure of the employee performing this operation; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $1,600 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:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee was dry sweeping up rock dust/debris immediately adjacent rock breaking operations involving the use of a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer which had resulted in an employee being exposed over the 8-hour time weighted average PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) of 50 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter of air) for respirable crystalline silica; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:    a) 1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer, a helper working inside the trench and another employee dry sweeping rock dust and working just above the rock-breaking operation were exposed to respirable crystalline silica and the employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 26, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(h)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a reasonable time and place, for each employee who was required under this section to use a respirator for 30 or more days per year:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer was required to wear respiratory protection  for greater than 30 days (e.g., N95 respirator) and the employer did not make medical surveillance available to the employee; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $2,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(i)(2)(i)(A): The employer did not ensure that each employee covered by this section could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the health hazards associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica:    a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, an employee breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer, a helper working inside the trench and another employee dry sweeping rock dust and working just above the rock-breaking operation were exposed to respirable crystalline silica and the employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the health hazards associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(i)(2)(i)(B): The employer did not ensure that each employee covered by this section could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of specific tasks in the workplace that could result in exposure to respirable crystalline silica:   a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, employees breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer,  a helper working inside the trench and another employee dry sweeping rock dust near the top of the excavation were exposed to respirable crystalline silica and the employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of specific tasks in the workplace that could result in exposure to respirable crystalline silica; on or about 11/30/17.

Issued

Feb 16, 2018

Abate by

Mar 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(i)(2)(i)(D): The employer did not ensure that each employee covered by this section could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the contents of this section:  a)  1000 Fox Street, Bronx, NY:   On or about 11/30/17, employees breaking rocks inside a trench using a jackhammer and a hand-held pneumatic rock-breaking hammer, a helper working inside the trench and another employee dry sweeping rock dust near the top of the excavation were exposed to respirable crystalline silica and the employer did not ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the contents of this section (29 CFR 1926.1153  OSHA Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard); on or about 11/30/17.