OSHA Inspection: CLA GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC.

Issued

Jan 19, 2023

Abate by

Feb 14, 2023

Penalty

Initial $7,367 · Current $3,683 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.501(b)(13): Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not  protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system:  167 Chester Rd., Blandford, MA: On or about November 16, 2022, 3 employees were observed engaged in roofing activities on a residential structure with unprotected sides and edges greater than 19  feet (upper eave ) and 11 feet (lower eave) above the next lower level  and were not protected by either guard rails, safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems exposing them to fall from height hazards.  Specific abatement documentation that this violation has been corrected must be provided within 10 days of the abatement in accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19 (d)(1).  CLA General Construction Inc was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1926.501 (b) 13, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1543186 citation number 1 , item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on 12/6/2021, with respect to a workplace located at46 Lincoln Ave., Northampton, MA.

Issued

Jan 19, 2023

Abate by

Feb 14, 2023

Penalty

Initial $2,947 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.503(b)(1):The employer did not verify compliance with paragraph (a) of this section by preparing a written certification record:  167 Chester Rd., Blandford, MA: On or about November 16, 2022  the employer had not prepared a written certification record of fall protection training which included the name or other identity of the person trained,  the signature of the person trained, dates the training was completed and the signature of the person who conducted the training.

Issued

Jan 19, 2023

Penalty

Initial $4,420 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.1053(b)(5)(i):Non-self-supporting ladders were used at an angle such that the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder was approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladder (the distance along the ladder between the foot and the top support):  167 Chester Rd., Blandford, MA: On or about November 16, 2022, the employer had not ensured that the 5  employees using  portable extension ladders to access an upper level and were installed in manner in which the working angle did not exceed a ratio of 4:1 or one quarter the working length of the ladder. The ladder was set up at a seven tenths  ratio exposing employees to ladder displacement and fall from height hazards.