OSHA Inspection: RLS CONSTRUCTION LLC.

Issued

Mar 4, 2020

Abate by

Mar 27, 2020

Penalty

Initial $4,048 · Current $4,048

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1): The employer did not initiate and maintain such programs as may be necessary to comply with this part.  RLS Construction LLC., on or about January 30, 2020, at the address of 10199 Deimling Rd. Perrysburg, OH: The employer did not have a plan or program to identify job site hazards which assists employees in maintaining a safe working environment. Such programs would support the employer and employees in identifying and avoiding potential hazards, such as falls during roofing operations.

Issued

Mar 4, 2020

Abate by

Mar 27, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:  RLS Construction LLC. on or about January 30, 2020, at the address of 10199 Deimling Rd., Perrysburg, OH: The employer did not ensure that a fall protection training program was in place for employees that were exposed to fall hazards over six feet in residential construction. Two employees were observed sheathing the balcony roof of a three story residential building without the benefit of any type fall protection training.

Issued

Mar 4, 2020

Abate by

Mar 27, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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.  RLS Construction LLC., on or about January 30, 2020, at the address of 10199 Deimling Rd., Perrysburg, OH: The employer did not ensure that employees operating an aerial lift were trained by a qualified person to recognize and avoid hazards specifically associated with this type of aerial lift, such as fall protection requirements while working from an aerial lift.

Issued

Mar 4, 2020

Abate by

Mar 20, 2020

Penalty

Initial $4,048 · Current $4,048

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10): Each employee engaged in roofing activities on low-slope roofs, with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest system.  RLS Construction LLC. on or about January 30, 2020, at the address of 10199 Deimling Rd., Perrysburg, OH: The employer did not ensure employees were protected from falls while working above six feet in residential construction. Two employees were observed sheathing the balcony roof of the residential structure, without the benefit of any type of fall protection.

Issued

Mar 4, 2020

Abate by

Mar 20, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(v): A body belt was not worn and/or a lanyard was not attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.  RLS Construction LLC., on or about January 30, 2020 at the address of 10199 Deimling Rd., Perrysburg, OH: The employer did not ensure that employees using the aerial lift to access the structure were using fall protection. Individuals were operating the aerial lift without any type of fall protection available for employees.

Issued

Mar 4, 2020

Abate by

Mar 20, 2020

Penalty

Initial $2,313 · Current $2,313

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses 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.  RLS Construction LLC., on or about January 30, 2020, at the address of 10199 Deimling Rd., Perrysburg, OH: The employer did not ensure that employees operating the pneumatic nail gun were using the appropriate eye protection. Individuals operated the nail gun without the benefit of any type of eye protection to protect employees from flying object hazards.