OSHA Inspection: GENERO CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Mar 26, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

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 (i.e., a person who is capable of identifying exist.)  When interviewed, the employees identified Frank Genero as their supervisor. Mr. Genero was not at the work location during the inspection, but was onsite earlier in the day. No changes were made to the site in order to correct the significant fall hazards, insufficient warning line materials, and no personal means of fall protection. The crew had been working on this particular location for two days.

Issued

Mar 26, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.95(a): Personal protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, was not provided, used, or maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition it was necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation, or physical contact.  At the time of inspection, employees were working on a flat-pitch roof with chemicals that feature health hazards without sufficient personal protective equipment (chemically protective gloves). Compounds featured skin sensitizing effects as further identified on material safety data sheets.

Issued

Mar 26, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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.   Two pieces of equipment were used on the roof at the time of inspection:  * gasoline-powered compressor (some kind of nail gun); and * pressing machine used to apply the glue/ roofing materials.  No eye protection was worn by employees. When interviewed, employees revealed that they were all issued eye protection prior to the job, but none were wearing it this particular day.

Issued

Mar 26, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2014

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 employee was exposed to a fall hazard in areas where the warning line was insufficient with OSHA 1926 fall protection standards (less than six feet from the roof edge.) Employee did not have any fall protection equipment (ex: personal fall arrest system, etc.) as a backup means of fall protection.

Issued

Mar 26, 2014

Abate by

Apr 21, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(f)(2): Warning line systems did not consist of ropes, wires, or chains, and supporting stanchions erected in accordance with (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v) of this section:   Warning lines at the jobsite consisted of caution tape and high visibility cones. No rope, wire, chain, or stanchions were found on the roof at the time of inspection.