OSHA Inspection: ADAM PETTY

Issued

Apr 30, 2015

Abate by

Jun 4, 2015

Penalty

Initial $400 · Current $400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): The employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:  On December 29, 2014, Adam Petty dba Adam Petty Construction, was issued citations and the employer did not verify, through written certification that each citation was abated.  Abatement certification was not received for the following violations:      a.    Citation 1 Item 1a, b & c, and  b.    Citation 1 Item 2a & b, and c.    Citation 1 Item 3a & b.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 26, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1):     It shall be the responsibility of the employer to initiate and maintain such programs as may be necessary to comply with this part:    Employees were exposed to eye injuries and the employer did not have a safety and health program that addressed areas, such as, but not limited to, eye protection.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 26, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2):   The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s):  Employees were exposed to eye injuries and the employer did not ensure frequent and regular inspections of the site were performed by a competent person.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1):   Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:   Employees were exposed to eye injuries while using pneumatic nailers and the employer did not ensure the use of proper eye protection.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,600

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:    An employee was exposed to electrical shock hazards because of the lack of GFCI protection on the electrical outlet located in the house while using an extension cord and a Milwaukee 7-1/4" Tilt-Lok Adjustable Handle Circular Saw.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 5, 2015

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:  An employee was exposed to electrical shock hazards because of the lack of a ground prong on a yellow extension cord.  The extension cord was plugged into a Milwaukee 7-1/4" Twist-Lock Adjustable Handle Circular Saw.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13):    Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems, nor was an alternative fall protection plan which meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(k) developed and implemented:    Employees were exposed to fall hazards while performing roofing activities because of the lack of fall protection.  The employees were exposed to a fall distance of 11.9 feet.

Issued

Dec 29, 2014

Abate by

Jan 26, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1):   The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:   Employees were exposed to fall hazards while performing roofing activities because of the lack of fall protection and the employer did not have a training program for the employees to recognize fall hazards and procedures to minimize the fall hazard.