OSHA Inspection: ENCOMPASS RESTORATION COMPANY

Issued

Jul 10, 2012

Penalty

Initial $1,020 · Current $612 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 17, 2012, at a job site located at 2919 Campbell in Kansas City, MO, workers replacing a roof were exposed to possible shock and electrocution hazards while using a temporary branch circuit (i.e., extension cord) that lacked GFCI protection and the employer did not have an assurred equipment grounding program in effect.

Issued

Jul 10, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 17, 2012, at a job site located at 2919 Campbell in Kansas City, MO, workers replacing a roof were exposed to possible shock and electrocution hazards while using a temporary branch circuit (i.e., extension cord) that lacked a path to ground in that the grounding pin on the male end of the plug was missing.

Issued

Jul 10, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I):  Protection was not provided to avoid damage to flexible cords and cables used for temporary wiring which passed through doorways or other pinch points:      (a) On or about April 17, 2012, at a job site located at 2919 Campbell in Kansas City, MO, workers were exposed to potential electrical shock and electrocution hazards while using a temporary flexible cord that passed through a doorway and had been pinched between the bottom of the door and the sill.

Issued

Jul 10, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 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 17, 2012, at a job site located at 2919 Campbell in Kansas City, MO, workers replacing a roof were exposed to serious fall hazards while working on a steeply-pitched roof more than 25 feet above ground without any type of fall protection system or equipment in place or in use at the time of the inspection.  No alternative fall protection plan had been developed or implemented.

Issued

Jul 10, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1):  Portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder was used to gain access:      (a) On or about April 17, 2012, at a job site located at 2919 Campbell in Kansas City, MO, workers were exposed to serious fall hazards while using extension ladders., whose side rails did not extend at least 3 feet above the upper landing surfaces, to access the top of a porch overhang and the roof of the structure.