OSHA Inspection: DAVID VASQUEZ

Issued

Jun 15, 2018

Abate by

Jul 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $2,217

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:  a) Job Site - On or about March 27, 2018, employees performing wood framing work were exposed to head injuries from falling objects and tools such as, but not limited to pneumatic nail guns and pieces of lumber.

Issued

Jun 15, 2018

Abate by

Jul 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $2,217

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  a) Jobsite - On or about March 27, 2018, an employee was not wearing adequate eye protection while using pneumatic nail guns to perform framing work on a residential home, thus exposing the employee to possible eye injuries.

Issued

Jun 15, 2018

Abate by

Jul 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each 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 1926.501 (b):   a) Jobsite - On or about March 27, 2018 and times prior to, employees framing the second story of a residential home were exposed to fall hazards of up to 19 feet, 7 inches in that the workers were not fall protected.

Issued

Jun 15, 2018

Abate by

Jul 12, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,217 · Current $2,217

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): When portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails were not extended at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder was used to gain access; or, when such an extension was not possible because of the ladder's length, then the ladder was not secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such as a grabrail, was not 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:  a) Jobsite - On or about March 27, 2018, employees were exposed to fall hazards of up to about 11 feet, 2 inches while using an aluminum extension ladder to gain access to the ceiling joists and top plates of a two-story home in that:  i) The side rails of the ladder were not extended at least 3 feet above the upper landing surface; and  ii) The ladder was not secured at its top to a rigid support that would not deflect and a grasping device was not provided for mounting and dismounting the ladder.