OSHA Inspection: CARLOS E HUETE CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Abate by

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s)   (a)  Carlos E Huete Construction, 3935 Utica Street, Denver, CO:  Prior to the start of work, the employer did not ensure a "competent" person was designated to conduct frequent inspections to identify and correct hazardous conditions capable of causing injury. On or about March 22, 2013, employees were observed installing plywood decking (4X8X3/4) on the second story of the new duplex home under construction. Condition exposed employees to a fall hazard of approximately 10 feet.   OSHA defines a "competent person" as someone capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.   Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is required for this item (See enclosed Abatement-Certification Letter).

Issued

Jul 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13):  Employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest systems:   (a)  Carlos E. Huete Construciton, 3935 Utica Street, Denver, CO:  On or about March 22, 2013, the employer had not ensured the use of appropriate fall protection while employees installed plywood decking (4X8X3/4) on the second story of the new duplex home under construction. Condition exposed employees to fall hazards up to an estimated 10 feet.     Exception note:  Under 1926.501(b)(13), the employer need not use conventional fall protection if it can demonstrate that doing so is infeasible or would pose a greater hazard. Instead, in that situation, the employer must develop and implement a written, site-specific fall protection plan meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(k). A note to 1926.501(b)(13) explains that "there is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the required fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan in lieu of implementing any of those systems."    Abatement Note:  Abatement certification is not required for this item.