CINCINNATI, OH —
OSHA Inspection: KEVIN HAYSLIP
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of KEVIN HAYSLIP in 3889 E GALBRAITH RD, CINCINNATI, OH 45236 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 342787124.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- KEVIN HAYSLIP
- Site address
- 3889 E GALBRAITH RD
- City
- CINCINNATI
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 45236
- Mailing
- 2683 OLD U.S. 35, XENIA, OH 45385
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- 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
- A
Citations
3 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.501 B13
- Issued
- Dec 13, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $3,803 · Current $2,662 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): "Residential construction." Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502. Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems. (A) On Nov. 21, 2017, located on the north side of a commercial roof structure, two employees were observed performing roofing work while not utilizing a fall protection system. Potential fall heights were measured to be greater than 12 feet above the concrete surface below. (B) On Nov. 21, 2017, located on the northwest side of a commercial roof structure, one employee was observed performing roofing work while not utilizing a fall protection system. Potential fall heights were measured to be greater than 8 feet above the concrete surface below.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2662.1
- — Z (S) $3803
1926.503 B01
- Issued
- Dec 13, 2017
- Abate by
- Jan 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $1,630 · Current $1,141 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(b)(1): The employer shall verify compliance with paragraph (a) of this section by preparing a written certification record. The written certification record shall contain the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer. If the employer relies on training conducted by another employer or completed prior to the effective date of this section, the certification record shall indicate the date the employer determined the prior training was adequate rather than the date of actual training. (A) The employer did not have written certification of fall protection training for employees observed performing roofing work on a commercial roof while not utilizing a fall protection system and exposed to potential fall heights in excess of 12 feet. (B) The employer did not have written certification of fall protection training for employees observed performing roofing work on a commercial roof while not utilizing a fall protection system and exposed to potential fall heights in excess of 8 feet.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1141
- — Z (S) $1630
1926.1053 B01
- Issued
- Dec 13, 2017
- Penalty
- Initial $3,803 · Current $2,662 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): When portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails shall extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder is used to gain access; or, when such an extension is not possible because of the ladder's length, then the ladder shall be secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such as a grabrail, shall be provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder. In no case shall the extension be such that ladder deflection under a load would, by itself, cause the ladder to slip off its support. On Nov. 21, 2017, located on the north side of a commercial roof structure, employees were observed using an 18 foot extension ladder to gain roof access. The ladder did not extend at least 3 feet above the upper landing surface.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2662.1
- — Z (S) $3803
More inspections at Kevin Hayslip
View Kevin Hayslip's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in OH
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 342787124.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.