OSHA Inspection: CASA MECHANICAL

Issued

2012-10-02 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-10-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $720.00 Reduced

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:  For residential construction work performed on the property: On or about August 31, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not ensure that employees exposed to overhead hazards were protected by protective helmets. An employee was supplying materials to an employee working above him.

Issued

2012-10-02 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-10-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1600.00 · Current $960.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13):   Employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph (b)  Note:  If using these systems was infeasible or created a greater hazard, the employer should develop and implement a fall protection plan meeting the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.  For residential construction work performed on the property: On or about August 31, 2012 and at times prior thereto, employees were engaged in construction work and were not protected by a guardrail system, safety net system or personal fall arrest system, exposing the employees to a fall hazard of approximately 9 feet.

Issued

2012-10-02 00:00:00

Abate by

2012-10-17 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1):   The employer did not provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards:  On or about August 31, 2012 , and at times prior thereto, an employee working on the residential property had not received training on the use of fall protection prior to being allowed to work in elevated places, exposing the employee to a fall hazard of up to 9 feet.