OSHA Inspection: LOPEZ FAMILY CONSTRUCTION

Issued

2012-05-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1020.00 · Current $510.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:    a)  On or about April 12, 2012, employees were not protected from overhead hazards while working at ground level, in that employees were not provided with hard hats.

Issued

2012-05-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1020.00 · Current $510.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.404(b)(1)(i): Employer did not use either ground fault circuit interrupters as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, or an assured equipment grounding conductor program as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section to protect employees on construction sites.    a)  On or about April 12, 2012, employees were not protected from electrical hazards while using power tools without the use of GFCI protection or assured grounding program.

Issued

2012-05-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.404(f)(6): The path to ground from circuits, equipment, or enclosures was not permanent and continuous:    a)  On or about April 12, 2012, employees were not protected from electrical hazards while using an extension cord that was missing the ground pin.

Issued

2012-05-14 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.405(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords were not used in continuous lengths without splice or tap:    a)  On or about April 12, 2012, employees were not protected from electrical hazards while using an extension cord that contained a splice.

Issued

2012-05-14 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-05-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $800.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet or more above lower levels was not protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems, nor  did the employer demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems and develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of section 1926.502:    a)  On or about April 12, 2012, employees were not protected from falls in excess of 6 feet while installing roof sheathing without the use of fall protection.