OSHA Inspection: NUNEZ CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC

Issued

2015-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4200.00 · Current $2940.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(15): Anchorage used for attachment for personal fall arrest equipment was not capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) per employee attached nor was it designed, installed and used as follows:     a. On or about April 03, 2015, at the above addressed jobsite, employees were using a Personal Fall Arrest System (PFAS), wherein the snap-hook of the shock-absorbing lanyard was connected to the top rail of a concrete shoring system (supported scaffold), and for which the anchorage point was not capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds.

Issued

2015-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4200.00 · Current $2940.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(16)(iii): Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, were not rigged such that an employee could not free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor contact any lower level:    a. On or about April 03, 2015, at the above addressed jobsite, employees were using a Personal Fall Arrest System (PFAS), wherein the snap-hook of the shock-absorbing lanyard was anchored to the top rail of a concrete shoring system (supported scaffold), and for which the anchorage point was approximately 12 feet above the ground/lower level, and was therefore not capable of arresting the fall of the employee before the employee contacted the lower level/ground, which resulted in serious injuries to the employee.

Issued

2015-09-30 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4200.00 · Current $2940.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(2)(ii): The employer did not assure that each employee, as necessary, had been trained by a competent person in the correct procedures for erecting, maintaining, disassembling and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used:    a. On or about April 03, 2015, at the above addressed jobsite, employees were using a Personal Fall Arrest System (PFAS) while working from a concrete shoring system, for which the employer had not provided the employees with adequate training by a competent person on the care, use, inspection and maintenance of the conventional (PFAS), wherein the PFAS was not attached to a 5,000 pound anchor and was also not capable of preventing contact of the employee with the lower level/ground, therefore exposing the employees to fall hazards.