OSHA Inspection: JOSE LOPEZ

Issued

Mar 9, 2018

Abate by

Apr 13, 2018

Penalty

Initial $311 · Current $311

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer must submit to the Agency, along with the information on abatement certification required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required.  a)  For Citation 1, Item 3a, issued on 1/12/2018 with an abatement date of 2/9/2018, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA.  b)  For Citation 1, Item 3b, issued on 1/12/2018 with an abatement date of 2/9/2018, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA.

Issued

Jan 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $2,217

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:    Head protective equipment was not used when workers were exposed to struck-by hazards when workers on the ground were working below unsecured tools and material on the roof.

Issued

Jan 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,326 · Current $3,326

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:    Eye protective equipment was not used when employees were exposed to eye injury while using hand tools and pneumatic nail guns to install asphalt roofing shingles.

Issued

Jan 12, 2018

Abate by

Feb 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.416(a)(1): Employees were permitted to work in proximity to electric power circuits and were not protected against electric shock by de-energizing and grounding the circuits or effectively guarding the circuits by insulation or other means:  The employer did not ensure that circuits were de-energized or insulated when employees working to remove asphalt roofing shingles in close proximity to a 120/208v triplex service drop.

Issued

Jan 12, 2018

Abate by

Feb 9, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.416(a)(3): Before work began, the employer did not ascertain by inquiry, direct observation, or by instruments, whether any part of an energized electric power circuit, exposed or concealed, was so located that the performance of the work could bring any person, tool, or machine into physical or electrical contact with the electric power circuit.  The employer did not ensure that the electrical lines from the service drop were located so that employees working to remove asphalt shingles on the roof would not come in contact with electrical power circuit from a 120/208v triplex service drop.

Issued

Jan 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

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 was not protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b), nor did the employer demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems and develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of section 1926.502:    The employer did not ensure fall protection was implemented during residential construction operations when workers were exposed to the hazard of falling approximately twelve (12) feet off the roof eve when they were installing roof shingles.