OSHA Inspection: ALICIA VAZQUEZ FERNANDEZ

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Abate by

Dec 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1): A safety and health program was not initiated and maintained to provide compliance with the general safety and health provisions of the standard:  At the jobsite, the employer did not have a safety and health program that covered the following:      a) hazard analysis      b) hazard control      c) employee training      d) enforcement

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Abate by

Dec 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not initiate and maintain a safety program which provides for frequent and regular inspections of jobsites, materials, and equipment to be made by a competent person:  At the jobsite the employer failed to ensure that a competent person performed frequent and regular inspections.  The following hazards were noted:      a) lack of eye protection     b) inadequate fire protection     c) inadequate fall protection

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Abate by

Dec 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2): The employer did not instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his/her environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or injury:  At the jobsite the employer failed to ensure that employees were able to recognize the following hazards:      a) struck by hazard due to lack of safety glasses     b) fire hazard due to improper positioning of the fire extinguisher

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Abate by

Dec 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:  At the jobsite the employer failed to ensure that employees were able to recognize the fall hazard posed by the lack of a safety monitor.  Employees were removing flashing on a flat roof.

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

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:  At the jobsite the employees were removing roofing materials with shovels, scrapers and a flaming LPG torch and no eye protection was provided or worn.

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Abate by

Dec 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(i): Travel distance from any point of the protected area to the nearest fire extinguisher exceeded 100 feet:  At the jobsite, employees were using a LPG fueled torch to melt the tar that secured the flashing to the building and roof.  The portable fire extinguisher was located approximately 150 feet away inside of a white Chevrolet Astro van.

Issued

Nov 8, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10)  Each employee engaged in roofing activities on low-slope roofs with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or a combination of warning line system and guardrail system, warning line system and safety net system, or warning line system and personal fall arrest system, or warning line system and safety monitoring system.  Or, on roofs 50-feet (15.25 m) or less in width, each employee was not protected by use of a monitoring system:  At the jobsite the employer failed to ensure that employee(s) utilized a safety  monitoring system while performing roofing work.  The roof measured approximately 100 ' L X 4' W X 9 1/2' H.