OSHA Inspection: DGF CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Oct 8, 2020

Abate by

Nov 4, 2020

Penalty

Initial $325 · Current $325

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:  The employer did not certify to OSHA that the cited violations has been abated for the jobsite located in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Northeast 102nd terrace and North Tullis Drive. The employer was required to submit abatement within 15 working days of receiving the violation.

Issued

Jul 30, 2020

Abate by

Aug 25, 2020

Penalty

Initial $1,735 · Current $1,735

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):   At a jobsite located in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Northeast 102nd terrace and North Tullis Drive, employees engaged in framing activities were exposed to health hazards from dermal, ingestion, and inhalation exposure to hazardous chemicals. The employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program to ensure that employees were aware of the hazards associated with the chemicals with which they work. Hazardous chemicals used at the site included but were not limited to adhesive caulking compounds.

Issued

Jul 30, 2020

Abate by

Aug 25, 2020

Penalty

Initial $2,892 · Current $2,892

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:  At a jobsite located in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Northeast 102nd terrace and North Tullis Drive, employees were exposed to serious head injury hazards. Employees were working at the base of the residential construction with other employees working above them. The employees below were not utilizing head protection to protect from impact or falling object hazards.

Issued

Jul 30, 2020

Abate by

Aug 25, 2020

Penalty

Initial $3,470 · Current $3,470

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.  At a jobsite located in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Northeast 102nd terrace and North Tullis Drive, employees were exposed to serious eye and face hazards from flying particles. Employees were operating pneumatic nail guns and assorted hand and power tools without the use of eye or face protection.

Issued

Jul 30, 2020

Abate by

Aug 25, 2020

Penalty

Initial $4,048 · Current $4,048

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.  At a jobsite located in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Northeast 102nd terrace and North Tullis Drive, employees were exposed to serious fall hazards. Employees engaged in framing activities on the second story of the residential construction were not protected from falling from the walking/working surface to the ground below. Fall hazard distances was measured at between 12 feet 2 inches to 20 feet 6 inches.