Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: SEGUNDO MANUEL PINGUIL, INC.

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of SEGUNDO MANUEL PINGUIL, INC. in 211 N. HAVERHILL RD., KENSINGTON, NH 03833 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 345404412.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Segundo Manuel Pinguil, INC. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Segundo Manuel Pinguil, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
211 N. HAVERHILL RD.
City
KENSINGTON
State
NH
ZIP
03833
Mailing
19 CHESTNUT ST. APT. #2, DRACUT, MA 01826
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238160
Employees
6
Ownership type
A

6 citations on file for this inspection.

1903.19 C01

Other-than-serious 3 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Nov 5, 2021
Abate by
Dec 10, 2021
Penalty
Initial $329 · Current $329
29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): Within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, the employer must certify to OSHA (the Agency) that each cited violation has been abated, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section:  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation No. 1 Item No(s). 1a, 1b, and 2 nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent October 26,  2021.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $329

1926.20 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Aug 26, 2021
Abate by
Sep 8, 2021
Penalty
Initial $2,926 · Current $2,926
29 CFR  1926.20(b)(1):The employer did not initiate and maintain programs necessary to ensure compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Standards such as a safety and health program with policy, hazard assessment, and work site rules was not developed and/or implemented at this job site:  Site - On or about July 7, 2021, the employer did not initiate and maintain an accident and injury prevention program where employees were exposed to falls and electrical hazards on the jobsite.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2926

1926.20 B02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Aug 26, 2021
Abate by
Sep 8, 2021
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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):  Site - On or about July 7, 2021, the employer did not perform frequent and regular inspections by a competent person to identify electrical hazards and falls from heights at this jobsite.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.416 A01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 26, 2021
Abate by
Sep 1, 2021
Penalty
Initial $4,096 · Current $4,096
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:  Site - On or about July 7, 2021, an employee was exposed to electrical shock hazards while working in close proximity to the electrical drop lines while engaged in roofing activities where the electrical lines were not deenergized or insulated to prevent the hazard.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $4096

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Aug 26, 2021
Penalty
Initial $4,096 · Current $4,096
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):   Jobsite -    a) On or about July 7, 2021, employees were not protected from falls of more than 12 feet to the ground from the roof of the house where fall protection was not utilized properly when two employees did not hook their harnesses to lanyards and one was utilizing a waist belt that wasn't hooked to a lanyard.  b) On or about July 7, 2021, employees were not protected from falls of more than 7 feet to the ground from the roof of the garage where fall protection was not utilized.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $4096

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 7 exposed
Issued
Aug 26, 2021
Penalty
Initial $2,926 · Current $2,926
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:  Jobsite -   a) On or about July 7, 2021, the extension ladders setup and being used by employees to access the roof of the house did not extend at least three feet above the upper landing surface being accessed.  b) On or about July 7, 2021, the extension ladder setup and being used by employees to access the roof of the garage did not extend at least three feet above the upper landing surface being accessed.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2926

View Segundo Manuel Pinguil, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 345404412.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.