NORTH BRANFORD, CT ·
OSHA Inspection: MANUEL ORTEGA
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of MANUEL ORTEGA in 465 FOXON ROAD, NORTH BRANFORD, CT 06471 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 342446523.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- MANUEL ORTEGA
- Site address
- 465 FOXON ROAD
- City
- NORTH BRANFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06471
- Mailing
- 189 POPLAR STREET 2ND FLOOR, NEW HAVEN, CT 06513
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 4
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
5 citations on file for this inspection.
1903.19 C01
- Issued
- Nov 16, 2017
- Abate by
- Dec 1, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $305 · Current $305
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: Location: 465 Foxon Road, North Branford, CT 06471 a) Abatement certification and documentation for Citation 01, Item 002a was not received within 10 calendar days (by October 16, 2017) following the abatement due date (October 6, 2017). b) Abatement certification and documentation for Citation 01, Item 002b was not received within 10 calendar days (by October 16, 2017) following the abatement due date (October 6, 2017).
Recent events (1)
- · Z (O) $305
1926.501 B11
- Issued
- Sep 12, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $3,259 · Current $3,259
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11): Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems: Jobsite: The employees who were working on the 8 pitch roof were not protected from fall hazards by the use of guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $3259
1926.503 A01
- Issued
- Sep 12, 2017
- Abate by
- Oct 6, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $2,173 · Current $2,173
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: Jobsite: The employees who were exposed fall hazards while working on the 8 pitch roof were not trained in fall hazards and the procedures to be followed to minimize such hazards.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $2173
1926.1060 A
- Issued
- Sep 12, 2017
- Abate by
- Oct 6, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1060(a): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee using ladders and stairways, as necessary, which would enable each employee to recognize hazards related to ladders and stairways and train each employee in the procedures to be followed to minimize these hazards. Jobsite: The employees using a ladder to access an upper landing surface were not trained by a competent person in the proper procedures to minimize the hazards associated with ladders.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $0
1926.1053 B01
- Issued
- Sep 12, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $2,173 · Current $2,173
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder's length allows, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed: Jobsite: The side rails of the extension ladder that was used to gain access to the roof did not extend at least 3 feet above the landing surface.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (S) $2173
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in CT
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 342446523.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.