OSHA Inspection: GREENROCK CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:     a) West Side of the Building on the Scaffold - Subcontracted masons were observed with eye protection when installing concrete blocks using wet mortar exposing them to a potential eye injury.     b) West Side of the Building on the Scaffold - Subcontracted laborers were observed with eye protection when mixing wet mortar exposing them to a potential eye injury.        This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, he was aware of the operations in progress. This contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.300(b)(3): The employer did not provide one or more methods of machine guarding to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are - barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.:       a) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A subcontracted mason's helper was observed using a mortar mixer where the guard was removed exposing him of the rotating parts of the mixer.       This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, he was aware of the operations in progress. This contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.404(b)(1)(i): Employer did not use either ground fault circuit interrupters as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, or an assured equipment grounding conductor program as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section to protect employees on construction sites:     a) West Side of the Building on the Ground Level - A subcontracted mason's helper was observed using a portable 110 volt electric mixer which was protected with a ground fault circuit interrupter exposing him to an electrical shock.       This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, he was aware of the operations in progress. This contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.405(d): Panel boards mounted in cabinets, cutout boxes or enclosures designed for the purpose were not dead front:     a) West Side of the Building on the Ground Floor - Subcontracted masons were observed using 110 volt 30 amp receptacle located directly next to an unguarded 220 volt 200 amp electrical circuit panel which was not protected against accidental contact exposing the masons to a potential electrical burns, shock and/or electrocution.     b) Northwest Corner of the Building on the Ground Floor - A superintendent and his subcontracted workers were observed using 110 volt 30 amp receptacle located directly next to an unguarded 220 volt 200 amp electrical circuit panel which was not protected against accidental contact exposing the masons to a potential electrical burns, shock and/or electrocution.       This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. Therefore, this contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy as well as having exposed employees to this hazard and creating the hazard.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1): Platform(s) on all working levels of scaffolds, were not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and guardrail supports such that the space between adjacent units, and the space between the platform and the uprights is not fully decked:     a) West Side of the Building on the Roof - Several subcontracted masons were observed on a tubular welded frame scaffold which was not fully decked exposing them to a 6 foot 6 inch fall hazard.       This contractor is the general contractor for the site, thusly; they are the controlling and correcting employer for the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, this contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems:     a) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A  subcontracted laborer was observed without fall protection while at the edge of the roof exposing him to a 12 foot fall hazard.     b) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A subcontracted laborer was observed without fall protection while operating the cement mixer which was positioned only 7 feet from the roof's edge exposing him to a 12 foot fall.     c) Mezzanine Level - Subcontracted carpenters were observed without fall protection while installing built up floor within two of the edge of the deck without using fall protection exposing them an 8 foot 10 inch fall hazard.     This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the masonry sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, he was aware of the operations in progress. This contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(4)(i): Each employee on walking/working surfaces was not protected from falling through holes (including skylights), more than six feet (1.8 m) above lower levels, by personal fall arrest systems, covers, or guardrail systems erected around such holes:     a) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A subcontracted laborer was observed working on the roof mixing mortar within 5 feet of an unguarded floor opening and walking over to the roof's edge within 2 feet of the unguarded floor holes exposing him to a 10 foot fall hazard.        b) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A subcontracted mason's helper was observed without fall protection while operating the cement mixer which was positioned less than 5 feet from the unguarded floor holes exposing him to a 10 foot fall.      c) ) Mezzanine Level - Subcontracted carpenters were observed without fall protection while installing built up floor within two of the edge of the deck without using fall protection exposing them an 8 foot 10 inch fall hazard.     This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the masonry sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, he was aware of the operations in progress.  Therefore, this contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.701(b): All protruding reinforcing steel, onto and/or into which employees could fall or come against, was not guarded to eliminate the hazard of impalement     a) West Side, Outside of the Building - Two subcontracted finishers were observed working near unprotected steel reinforcing rods exposing them to impalement hazards.       This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. Therefore, this contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1051(a): Stairways or ladders were not provided at all personnel points of access where there was a break in elevation of 19 inches (48 cm) or more, and no ramp, runway, sloped embankment, or personnel hoist was provided:     a) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A subcontracted laborer was observed climbing through a window into the building where the window sill was measured to be 47 inches above the roof level exposing him to a fall hazard.     b) West Side of the Building on the Roof - A subcontracted mason's helper was observed climbing through a window into the building where the window sill was measured to be 47 inches above the roof level exposing him to a fall hazard.       This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the masonry sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, he was aware of the operations in progress. This contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1052(c)(1)(ii): Stairways having four or more risers or rising more than 30 inches (76 cm), whichever is less, were not equipped with a stair rail system along each unprotected side or edge:      a) Northeast Side of the Building Between the Ground Floor & the Mezzanine Levels - Subcontracted Masons and laborers were observed using the existing stairway which was not equipped with a handrail on the open side of the stairs exposing them to an 8 foot 10 inch fall hazard.     b) Northeast Side of the Building Between the Ground Floor & the Mezzanine Levels - A subcontracted foreman and carpenters were observed using the existing stairway which was not equipped with a handrail on the open side of the stairs exposing them to an 8 foot 10 inch fall hazard.         This contractor is the controlling and correcting employer at the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, this contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.

Issued

Jun 6, 2013

Abate by

Jun 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4): Ladder(s) were used for purposes other than the purpose for which they were designed:     a) West Side of the Building on the Mezzanine Level - A subcontracted mason's helper and a laborer were observed climbing through a window into the building and stepping onto a 6 foot step ladder was positioned exposing him to a fall hazard.       This contractor is the general contractor for the site, thusly; they are the controlling and correcting employer for the site. The superintendent stated he conducts daily inspections and is continuously monitoring all operations. The superintendent stated in his interview that he corrected observed hazards involving the sub-contractor prior to the inspection. Therefore, this contractor is being cited under OSHA's Multi-Employer Workplace Policy.