OSHA Inspection: ANTONIO ROOFING LLC

Issued

Jul 24, 2018

Abate by

Aug 1, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s):  (a) Greenwood Valley Drive; The employer did not develop and implement a process for frequent safety and health inspections of jobsites.

Issued

Jul 24, 2018

Abate by

Aug 21, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

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 to illness or injury:  (a) Greenwood Valley Drive; The employer did not inform and instruct employees of hazard recognition and avoidance of safety and health hazards at jobsites.

Issued

Jul 24, 2018

Abate by

Aug 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $1,663 · Current $1,663

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:   (a) Greenwood Valley Drive; Eye protection was not worn while using pneumatic nail guns to install shingles.

Issued

Jul 24, 2018

Abate by

Aug 7, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): 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 systems:  (a) Greenwood Valley Drive; Employee's engaged in roofing activities greater than 6 feet above ground level were not utilizing adequate fall protection.

Issued

Jul 24, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772

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:  (a) Greenwood Valley Drive; One portable extension ladder utilized by employees to gain access to a residential roof did not extend three feet beyond the eave.