OSHA Inspection: BERTO CONSTRUCTION INC.

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $6,827 · Current $6,827

Hazardous substances 9000

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:  Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0, Newark, NJ  a) The employer did not provide medical evaluations for employees  required to wear half mask elastomeric respirators for protection against silica containing dust liberated while using chipping hammers to demolish structural concrete pillars .     Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(f)(2):  The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter:   Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0, Newark, NJ  a) The employer did not provide fit tests for employees  required to wear half mask elastomeric respirators for protection against silica containing dust liberated while using chipping hammers to demolish structural concrete pillars .     Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $6,827 · Current $6,827

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:  Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0, Newark, NJ  a)  The employer did not fully implement engineering controls for employees  who performed chipping hammer demolition of structural concrete pillars and application of formed repair cement as part of bridge repair, in the workplace that exposes employees to respirable crystalline silica, as outlined and required by Table 1 of this standard.   The employer only directed an employee to use a manual sprayer to apply water during such work operations.      Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:   Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0, Newark, NJ  a) The employer did not assess employee exposure to airborne crystalline silica, as outlined in Table 1 of this standard, who performed chipping hammer demolition of structural concrete pillars and application of formed repair cement as part of bridge repair.  During such operations the employer only used a manual sprayer to apply water for dust suppression.        Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $6,827 · Current $6,827

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(g)(1)(ii):  The exposure control plan did not contain a description of the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica for each task:  Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0  a) The employer did not establish and implement a complete written exposure control plan for employees who performed chipping hammer demolition of structural concrete pillars and application of formed repair cement as part of bridge repair,  in the workplace that exposed employees to respirable crystalline silica.  The written plan in place did not outline the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to limit employee exposure to respirable silica for these tasks.    Violation occurred on or about November 16 , 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(g)(1)(iii):  The exposure control plan did not contain a description of the housekeeping measures used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica:   Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0  a) The employer did not establish and implement a complete written exposure control plan for employees who performed chipping hammer demolition of structural concrete pillars and application of formed repair cement as part of bridge repair, in the workplace that exposed employees to respirable crystalline silica.  The written plan in place did not outline housekeeping measures used to limit employee exposure to respirable silica.   Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1153(g)(1)(iv):  The exposure control plan did not contain a  description of the procedures used to restrict access to work areas, when necessary, to minimize the number of employees exposed to respirable crystalline silica and their level of exposure, including exposures generated by other employers or sole proprietors:  Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0, Newark, NJ  a) The employer did not establish and implement a complete written exposure control plan for employees who performed chipping hammer demolition of structural concrete pillars and application of formed repair cement as part of bridge repair, in the workplace that exposed employees to respirable crystalline silica.    The written plan in place did not have a description of the procedures used to restrict access to work areas, when necessary, to minimize the number of employees exposed to respirable silica for these tasks.  Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Issued

May 13, 2021

Abate by

Jun 7, 2021

Penalty

Initial $6,827 · Current $6,827

Hazardous substances 9000

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:   Worksite, Local Route 1 and 9 Northbound MP 46.0 to MP 49.0, Newark, NJ  a) The employer did not designate a competent person to implement a written silica exposure control plan for employees  who performed chipping hammer demolition of structural concrete pillars and application of formed repair cement as part of bridge repair, in the workplace that exposed employees to respirable crystalline silica.   Violation occurred on or about November 16, 2020 to November 21, 2020