OSHA Inspection: ELCO'S CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Jun 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,789 · Current $3,789

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Employees were not provided with eye and face protection equipment when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:  At the residential construction site located at 8123 90th Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri, 64118: Employees were exposed to struck by hazards. Employee was observed installing wood materials using a nail gun without eye/face protection.

Issued

Jun 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $5,304

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1)(vii): For all scaffolds not otherwise specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(vi) of this section, each employee shall be protected by the use of personal fall arrest systems or guardrail systems meeting the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section.  At the residential construction site located at 8123 90th Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri, 64118: An employee engaged in construction activities was exposed to serious injuries while working from an elevated position in a mobile scaffold. The employee was working over ten feet from the lower level without the use of fall protection. The employee was seen crossing from the scaffold to the roof/upper level of the residence.

Issued

Jun 27, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,304 · Current $5,304

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): "Residential construction." Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502. Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.  a) At the residential construction site located at 8123 90th Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri, 64118: Employees were exposed to fall hazards. Employees were observed installing wood panels to trusses and working at height. Employees were exposed to a fall distance of greater than 10 feet from working level to ground without use of fall protection.     b) Employee transferred from an elevated mobile scaffold onto the roof of the residential construction site without the use of fall protection.