OSHA Inspection: EUSTIS CABLE ENTERPRISES, LTD.

Issued

Nov 24, 2009

Abate by

Dec 1, 2009

Penalty

Initial $6,000

General-duty citation text

21 VSA Title 23, Chapter 3, Sub-Chapter 5, Section 223(a): The employer
did not furnish employment and a place
of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or
likely to cause death or serious
physical harm to employees in that the employee working and walking on the
roadway and was exposed to the
hazard of being struck by vehicle traffic that includes tractor trailers
on a main road artery leading to and from
Interstate 89 with a posted speed limit of 35 MPH.
Location: 79 River Street, Montpelier
Violation: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of
employment which were free from recognized
hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical
harm to employees in that the employee
working and walking on the roadway and was exposed to the hazard of being
struck by vehicle traffic that includes
tractor trailers on a main road artery leading to and from Interstate 89
with a posted speed limit of 35 MPH.
Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement include
but not limited to (a): a hazard
assessment of the work to be completed prior to beginning of work to
identify hazards  and controls of hazards
that include the use of personal protective equipment to protect employees
from injury or death; (b): provide
employees with high visible clothing such as a Class 2 ANSI safety vest
and require the use of the vest when
working near or in the right of way of vehicle traffic; (c): provide
training to employees on the use of personal
protective equipment and when the personal protective equipment is
required and ensure that employees understand
the training content, have the ability to follow the training content, a
follow up inspection by the employer to
ensure that the training is understood and employees understand and act on
wearing the personal protective
equipment.
This is classified as a Repeat Violation since the employer had violated
this same general duty clause standard by
not providing a workplace free from recognized hazards with similar or the
same condition(s) where employee(s)
were not wearing personal protective equipment in the form of high visible
clothing or a safety vest while working
on a roadway with active vehicle traffic located on College Street in the
City of Burlington on 20 June 2008,
VOSHA case number 311476865, Citation 01 001.