WATERBURY, CT ·
OSHA Inspection: EDWIN SANTIAGO
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of EDWIN SANTIAGO in 428 WEST MAIN ST., WATERBURY, CT 06702 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 339866014.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- EDWIN SANTIAGO
- Site address
- 428 WEST MAIN ST.
- City
- WATERBURY
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06702
- Mailing
- 87 SOUTH ST. FLOOR 1, WATERBURY, CT 06706
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 5
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
3 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.501 B10
- Issued
- Aug 8, 2014
- Abate by
- Aug 20, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,960 Reduced
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. Worksite: The employees who were working on the 4 in 12 pitch roof at above six feet were not protected from fall hazards by the use of guardrails, safety nets, personal fall arrest systems or a monitoring system.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1960
- · Z (S) $2800
1926.503 A01
- Issued
- Aug 8, 2014
- Abate by
- Sep 4, 2014
- 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. Worksite: The employees who were exposed to fall hazards of above six feet while performing roofing work were not trained in fall hazards and the procedures to be followed to minimize such hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1926.1053 B01
- Issued
- Aug 8, 2014
- Abate by
- Aug 20, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder's length allows, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed. Worksite: The extension ladder that was used by employees to gain access to the roof at a height of approximately 13 feet 9 inches above the ground did not have its side rails extended at least 3 feet above the landing surface.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1400
- · Z (S) $2000
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in CT
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 339866014.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.