OSHA Inspection: JULIO GALINDO

Issued

Jul 8, 2015

Abate by

Jul 16, 2015

Penalty

Initial $440 · Current $440

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, the employer did not certify to OSHA that each cited violation has been abated:   As of July 8, 2015, Julio Galindo did not provide abatement information for the following items:  a) Citation 1, Item 1a - abatement date of 4/22/2015  b) Citation 1, Item 1b - abatement date of 4/22/2015  c) Citation 1, Item 2 - abatement date of 4/22/2015  d) Citation 2, Item 1 - abatement date of 4/22/2015  e) Citation  2, Item 2 - abatement date of 4/22/2015   f) Citation 2, Item 3 - abatement date of 4/22/2015  g) Citation 2, Item 4 - abatement date of 4/22/2015  These citations became a final order on, May 5, 2015 and attempts to acquire abatement information have been unsuccessful.  In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(c) abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET).

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,200 · Current $2,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): Such programs did not provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employer.  A. Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo worksite located at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio: On or about December 5, 2014, the employer failed to ensure the competent person on the site conducted inspections of the jobsite to ensure employees were not exposed to serious safety hazards.

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

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 work environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure:   A. Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo worksite located at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio: On or about December 5, 2014, the employer failed to instruct all employees in the recognition and avoidance of hazards commonly seen in the roofing industry. Employees were exposed to eye injuries and overhead hazards by not utilizing personal protective equipment to protect the eyes and head.

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,200 · Current $2,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053 (b)(1): When portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder is used to gain access.     A. Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo worksite located at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio: On or about December 5, 2014, the employer did not ensure the side rails of the aluminum extension ladder was extended at least three feet above the landing surface. Three employees were exposed to falls while using the ladder to access the lower roof on the north side of the residential structure.

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $4,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, are not protected by protective helmets:  A. The employer does not ensure employees are protected from head injuries while working below employees conducting roofing work above. The violation was most recently observed at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio, where employees were exposed to potential impact injuries caused from falling material and/or equipment. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure employees exposed to overhead hazards are provided with and utilize an adequate form of head protection.     Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.100(a) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 955319, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on April 3, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at Westerville, Ohio.

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,520 · Current $3,520

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Employees are not provided with eye and face protection equipment when machines or operations present potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:  A. The employer does not ensure employees are provided with proper eye protection while operating pneumatic nail guns to fasten asphalt shingles. The violation was most recently observed at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio, where employees were exposed to potential flying object hazards while operating the pneumatic guns. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure employees exposed to this hazard are provided with and utilize an adequate form of eye protection.  Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.102(a)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 900356, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on June 10, 2013 with respect to a workplace located at Columbus, Ohio.

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $38,500 · Current $38,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels is not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system nor are employees provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501(b):  A. The employer does not require the use of any form of fall protection during roofing work. the violation was most recently observed at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio, where employees were not protected from a 20 foot fall to the ground below. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure that its employees performing roofing work are protected from falls, and no employees are allowed onto a roof more than 6 feet high without adequate fall protection.  B. The employer does not require the use of any form of fall protection during roofing work. The violation was most recently observed at 3556 Oakway Dr., Toledo, Ohio, where employees were not protected from a 9 foot fall to the ground below. To abate this hazard the employer must ensure that its employees performing roofing work are protected from falls, and no employees are allowed onto a roof more than 6 feet high without adequate fall protection.  Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.501(b)(13), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 955319, citation number 2, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on April 3, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at Westerville, Ohio.

Issued

Apr 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 22, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $6,160

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(c): When the employer has reason to believe that any affected employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding and skill required by paragraph (a) of this section, the employer does not retrain each such employee:  A. The employer does not ensure that employees are trained in the appropriate use of fall protection such as but not limited to the use of personal fall arrest systems or alternative measures permitted under 29 CFR 1926.501(b) while performing residential roofing operations. To abate this item the employer must ensure each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards are trained/re-trained in the means and methods of fall protection appropriate to the scope of work.  Julio Galindo DBA Julio Galindo was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1926.503(c) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 955319, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on April 3, 2014, with respect to a workplace located at Westerville, Ohio.