OSHA Inspection: ESMERALDA FABIAN

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jul 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:    (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury/illness from dermal, ingestion, and inhalation hazards from exposure to hazardous chemicals.  The employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program to ensure that employees were aware of the hazards associated with the chemicals with which they work.  Hazardous chemicals used at the site included but were not limited to gasoline.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jul 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): The employer did not maintain copies of the required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical in the workplace:  (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury/illness from dermal, ingestion, and inhalation hazards from exposure to hazardous chemicals.  A copy of the required safety data sheet for gasoline was not maintained at the residential construction site exposing employees to dermatitis and burns.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jul 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area: (Construction Reference: 1926.59)  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury/illness from dermal, ingestion, and inhalation hazards from exposure to hazardous chemicals. Employees had not been provided with training or information regarding the hazardous chemicals with which they work.  Hazardous chemicals such as gasoline were used at the residential construction site.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $500 Reduced

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.  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to eye injury.  Employees operating pneumatic nail guns were not provided with eye protection.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jul 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.300(b)(2): Moving part(s) of equipment exposed to contact by employees or which otherwise created a hazard, were not guarded:  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury from an in-going nip point hazard.  A guard was not provided for the belt and pulleys on the air compressor powering the pneumatic nail guns.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each 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 system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b):  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury from a fall hazard of up to 20.7 feet eave to ground.  Roofers were not provided with fall protection while working on the 5 in 12 pitched roofs and 14 in 12 pitched roofs.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(c): When employees were exposed to falling objects the employer did not require employees to wear hard hats and did not implement measures to prevent objects from falling from higher levels as set forth in (c)(1)-(3) of this section:  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to head injury.  Employees engaged in ground work activities were not provided with hard hats.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $400 Reduced

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:  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury from a fall hazard in that they had not received training.  Roofing employees had not been trained to recognize, evaluate, and control fall hazards or in the use and limitations of fall protection.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder was used to gain access:  Employees engaged in roofing activities were exposed to injury from an 10.6 foot fall hazard while accessing and exiting the roof.  The ladder that provided access to the roof on the front of the house did not extend 3 feet above the eave.