OSHA Inspection: TYREE CAMPBELL

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

Jun 4, 2024

Penalty

Initial $2,586 · Current $1,552 Reduced

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:  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee working from a supported scaffold was exposed to overhead hazards, while working below an employee working from an aerial lift, and the employer did not ensure the use of head protection.

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

Jun 4, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1):  Platform on all working levels of scaffolds, were not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and guardrail supports:  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee working from a supported scaffold was exposed to a fall hazard in excess of 10 feet while performing construction activities and the employer did not ensure the working level was fully planked.

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

Jun 4, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(c)(2):  Supported scaffold poles, legs, posts, frames, or uprights did not bear on base plates and mud sills or other adequate firm foundation:  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee working from a supported scaffold were exposed to fall hazards in excess of 10 feet while performing construction activities and the employer did not ensure the scaffold poles contained the necessary base plates and mud sills.

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

Jun 4, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1)(vii):  Each employee on a scaffold, not otherwise specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(vi) of this section, more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above lower level was not protected from falls by the use of personal fall arrest systems or guardrail systems meeting the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section:  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee working from a supported scaffold was exposed to a fall hazard in excess of 10 feet while performing construction activities and the employer did not ensure the use of fall protection.

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

May 29, 2024

Penalty

Initial $3,232 · Current $1,939 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(v):  A body belt was not worn and/or a lanyard was not attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift: Note:  As of January 1, 1998, subpart M of this part (1926.502(d)) provides that body belts are not acceptable as part of a personal fall arrest system.  The use of a body belt in a tethering system or in a restraint system is acceptable and is regulated  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee working from an aerial lift was exposed to a fall hazard in excess of 10 feet while performing construction activities and the employer did not ensure a harness or body belt and lanyard was attached to the boom or basket of the aerial lift.

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

Jun 4, 2024

Penalty

Initial $2,586 · Current $1,552 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1):  For each employee engaged in a task identified on Table 1, the employer shall fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1, unless the employer assesses and limits the exposure of the employee to respirable crystalline silica in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section:  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee was cutting manufactured stone with a Milwaukee handheld power saw and the employer did not ensure Table 1 was followed and engineering controls were fully and properly implemented to minimize exposure to respirable crystalline silica.

Issued

May 17, 2024

Abate by

Jun 4, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(i):  The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section:  On or about March 7, 2024, an employee was cutting manufactured stone with a Milwaukee handheld power saw and the employer had not conducted air sampling to determine the employee's exposure.