OSHA Inspection: GREGORY CRESS

Issued

Dec 11, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2016

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 September 14, 2015, Gregory Cress dba GCJV Renovation, 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:          Citation 1 Item 1a & b.

Issued

Dec 11, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2016

Penalty

Initial $400 · Current $400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer did not submit to the Agency documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required:  On September 14, 2015, Gregory Cress dba GCJV Renovation, was issued citations and the employer did not verify, through documents that each citation was abated.  Abatement documentation was not received for the following violations:      a.    Citation 1 Item 2a & b and, b.    Citation 1 Item 3a & b.

Issued

Sep 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1): The employer did not initiate and maintain accident prevention programs as necessary to comply with this part:    Employees were exposed to fall hazards while performing roofing work and the employer did not maintain an accident prevention program.

Issued

Sep 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not provide frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials, and equipment by a competent person:    Employees were exposed to fall hazards while performing roofing work and a competent person had not performed frequent and regular safety inspections of the construction site to identify and eliminate the hazards.

Issued

Sep 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

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 other provisions of paragraph (b) of this section used to provide an alternative fall protection measure:   Employees were exposed to a fall hazard up to 18 feet while removing and installing removing roofing material on a residential roof and a suitable fall protection system was not used.

Issued

Sep 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 24, 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 who might be exposed to fall hazards which enables each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and train each employee in the procedures to be followed in order to minimize the hazards:    Employees removing and installing roofing material were exposed to a fall hazard and the employees were not provided training which would have enabled them to recognize the hazards of falling and provided them with the procedures to follow to minimize the hazards.

Issued

Sep 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $1,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(13): The top or top step of a stepladder was used as a step:   Employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 9 feet when the top cap and top step of stepladder was used to descend from the roof.

Issued

Sep 14, 2015

Abate by

Sep 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1060(a)(1)(iii): The employer did not ensure that each employee using ladders had been trained by a competent person in the proper construction, use, placement, and care in handling of all ladders:    Employees were exposed to fall hazards because the top or top step of a stepladder was used as a step and the employer had not ensured that each employee had been trained by a competent person.