OSHA Inspection: EMILIO HERNANDEZ VASQUEZ

Issued

Jul 20, 2018

Abate by

Aug 24, 2018

Penalty

Initial $311 · Current $311

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer did not submit to the Agency 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:  On or about May 15, 2018, the employer failed to submit abatement verification and documentation that addresses the 8 serious citations (with instances) that were issued on April 24, 2018.  Abatement due date was May 15, 2018.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that employees were wearing protective eyewear when using items such as but not limited to an electric nail gun.  The employer had not performed a written or visual site hazard assessment to determine the potential hazards of the job site and any employee exposure to such.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1)(i): Each platform unit (e.g., scaffold plank, fabricated plank, fabricated deck, or fabricated platform) was not installed so that the space between adjacent units and the space between the platform and the uprights were no more than 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide, except where the employer can demonstrate that a wider space is necessary.  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that employees were protected from a fall from height hazard of approximately 18 feet when they were working from a scaffold at a residential home construction site.  The top level of the scaffold that employees were working from had planking that had spaces greater than one inch between them creating a trip and fall hazard.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(c)(2)(ii): Unstable objects were used to support scaffolds or platform units:  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that the scaffold the employees were using was set up on stable ground or other means of support.  The base plates were set up on pieces of wood that was unstable and some plates were bent both of which were exposing employees to a potential fall from a height of approximately 18 feet hazard.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(e)(1): When scaffold platforms were more than 2 feet (0.6 m) above or below a point of access, portable ladders, hook-on ladders, attachable ladders, stair towers (scaffold stairways/towers), stairway-type ladders (such as ladder stands), ramps, walkways, integral prefabricated scaffold access, or direct access from other scaffold, structure, personnel hoist, or similar surface was not used.  Crossbraces were used as a means of access:  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that employees who were accessing the scaffolding throughout the day were not using the cross braces as a means to access the upper levels of the scaffold.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(f)(3): Scaffolds and scaffold components were not inspected for visible defects by a competent person before each work shift, and after any occurrence which could affect a scaffold's structural integrity:  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that the scaffold being used by employees was inspected and verified erected properly and safe to use prior to the employees using the scaffold.  A scaffold that employees were using was missing, to include but not limited to, cross bracing, full planking and solid ground support.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1): Employees on scaffolds more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level by fall protection established in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) of this section:  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that the employees who were working on a scaffold that was approximately 18 feet high were protected from a fall hazard in that employees were working from the scaffold where there was no fall protection in place, such as but not limited to a personal fall harness, lanyards or guard rails.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.454(a): The employer did not have each employee who performed work while on a scaffold trained by a person qualified in the subject matter to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffold being used and to understand the procedures to control or minimize those hazards.  On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that employees who were working on a scaffold at a residential home that was under construction were trained to recognize the hazards associated with ineffective scaffold erection.  The scaffold employees were working on lacked, including but not limited to, effective guarding.  Employees were also climbing on the cross braces to access heights of approximately 18 feet.

Issued

Apr 25, 2018

Abate by

May 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

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):   On or about November 8, 2017, the employer failed to ensure that employees who were working at heights greater than 6 feet were protected from a fall from height hazard.  Employees were working on a residential roof at a height of approximately 10.5 feet at the lowest point and were not wearing a personal fall protection harness nor was any other form of fall protection in place.