OSHA Inspection: MOSES MORENO MENDOZA

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Penalty

Initial $1,385 · Current $700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.      On the north side of the construction site, employees engaged in masonry activities were cutting brick without eye and face protection exposing them to struck-by hazards and eye injuries.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Penalty

Initial $1,847 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1): Each platform on all working levels of scaffolds was not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and the guardrail supports as specified in paragraphs 1926.451(b)(1)(i)-(ii).       On the north side of the construction site, employees working from a tubular welded frame scaffold that was not fully planked on all working levels were exposed to the hazard of falling.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,173 · Current $1,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1): For each employee engaged in a task identified on Table 1, the employer shall fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1, unless the employer assesses and limits the exposure of the employee to respirable crystalline silica in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.      On the north side of the construction site, the employer did not ensure employees using a DeWalt chop saw to cut masonry bricks were protected from being exposed to silica with the use of engineering controls, work practices and respiratory protection.

Issued

Dec 13, 2017

Abate by

Jan 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(i): The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section.   On the north side of the construction site, the employer did not ensure access potential exposure for the employees using a DeWalt chop saw to cut masonry bricks were not protected from being exposed to silica.