OSHA Inspection: MELENDEZ ROOFING INC.

Issued

May 30, 2025

Penalty

Initial $6,620 · Current $6,620

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1926.100(a):Employees were not protected by protective helmets while working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns.  a. On or about May 20, 2025, between building 8 and 15: employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while working below roofing activities, in that, employees were not wearing hardhats.  b. On or about May 20, 2025, building 4: employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while working below roofing activities, in that, employees were not wearing hardhats.

Issued

May 30, 2025

Penalty

Initial $11,585 · Current $11,585

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1):The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying objects while using a nail gun.  a. On or about May 20, 2025, in building 4: employees were exposed to eye and/or facial hazards, in that eye protection was not provided by the employer while conducting roofing activities using a pneumatic nail gun.

Issued

May 30, 2025

Penalty

Initial $11,585 · Current $11,585

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 or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or a combination of warning line system and guardrail system, warning line system and safety net system, or warning line system and personal fall arrest system, or warning line system and safety monitoring system.  Or, on roofs 50-feet (15.25 m) or less in width, each employee was not protected by use of a monitoring system.  a. On or about May 20, 2025, at buildings 3: employees were exposed to a 16-foot 9-inch fall hazards while taking off shingles and underlayment on a 4:12 pitched roof, in that, a fall protection system was not used.  b. On or about May 20, 2025, at building 4: employees were exposed to a 16-foot 10-inch fall hazards while taking off shingles and underlayment on a 4:12 pitched roof, in that, a fall protection system was not used.  c. On or about May 20, 2025, at building 4: employees were exposed to a 11-foot 8-inch fall hazards while taking off shingles and underlayment on a 4:12 pitched roof box eve, in that, a fall protection system was not used.  d. On or about May 20, 2025, at building 10: employees were exposed to a 16-foot 5-inch fall hazards while taking off shingles and underlayment on a 4:12 pitched roof, in that, a fall protection system was not used.  e. On or about May 20, 2025, at buildings 14: employees were exposed to a 16-foot 9-inch fall hazards while taking off shingles and underlayment on a 4:12 pitched roof, in that, a fall protection system was not used.  f. On or about May 20, 2025, at buildings 15: employees were exposed to a 17-foot 5-inch fall hazards while taking off shingles and underlayment on a 4:12 pitched roof, in that, a fall protection system was not used.

Issued

May 30, 2025

Penalty

Initial $8,276 · Current $8,276

General-duty citation text

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.  a.  On or about May 20, 2025, at building 4: employees were exposed to 11-feet 8-inch fall hazard, in that a multi-position extension ladder was used and did not extend 3-feet above the roof landing to access a 4:12 pitch residential roof.  b.  On or about May 20, 2025, at building 10: employees were exposed to 16-feet 5-inch fall hazard, in that a aluminum extension  ladder was used and did not extend 3-feet above the roof landing to access a 4:12 pitch residential roof.