OSHA Inspection: ANGEL GARCIA

Issued

Sep 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $2,842

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:  On or about June 13, 2019 at 3963 Midvale Rd, Tucker, GA 30084:  (a) Employees engaged in roofing work at a residential home, were exposed to struck by hazards while working underneath other employees with no hard hats with framing work performed overhead.

Issued

Sep 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $3,978

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:  On or about June 13, 2019 at 3963 Midvale Rd, Tucker, GA 30084:  (a)  Employees engaged in roofing work were exposed to being struck by flying particles while utilizing a nail gun with no safety glasses.

Issued

Sep 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $2,842 · Current $2,842

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.405(g)(2)(iv): Flexible cords were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief is provided to prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws:(a)   On or about June 13, 2019 at 3963 Midvale Rd, Tucker, GA 30084, employer did not ensure that an extension cord used to energized equipment including, but not limited to air guns and saws had strain relief when it was pulled across a residential home and had exposed wiring exposing employees to an energized 120-V circuit when employees were in the process of roofing a residential home. Employees were exposed to electroshock hazards.

Issued

Sep 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $3,978

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, personal fall arrest systems, or an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b), nor did the employer demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems and develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of section 1926.502: (a)   On or about June 13, 2019 at 3963 Midvale Rd, Tucker, GA 30084: a) Employee engaged in roofing work on the upper level of a residential home while standing on the roof. The employer did not ensure that employees while exposed to fall hazards of approximately up to 10' and 5'' to the dirt below when no fall protection was used.

Issued

Sep 25, 2019

Penalty

Initial $3,978 · Current $3,978

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:  a) On or about June 13, 2019 at 3963 Midvale Rd, Tucker, GA 30084: Employees engaged in roofing work on a residential construction. The ladder used to access the roof was placed half a foot above the roof surface and not extended three above, exposing employees to fall hazards of approximately 10' to the dirt below.