| Inspection Type |
Complaint
|
| Scope |
Partial
|
| Safety/Health |
Safety
|
| Close Conference |
2024-02-29
|
| Emphasis |
L: FORKLIFT, N: FALL
|
| Case Closed |
2024-09-09
|
Related Activity
| Type |
Complaint |
| Activity Nr |
2136043 |
| Safety |
Yes |
|
Violation Items
| Citation ID |
01001A |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19260451 F03 |
| Issuance Date |
2024-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
4610.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
4610.0 |
| Final Order |
2024-08-23 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1926.451(f)(3): Scaffolds and scaffold components were not inspected for visible defects by a competent person before each work shift, and after any occurrence which could affect a scaffold's structural integrity: a) Jobsite: On or about 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the mobile safety work platform was inspected for defects prior to the start of the work shift when there were visible defects. |
|
| Citation ID |
01001B |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19260451 F04 |
| Issuance Date |
2024-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2024-08-23 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1926.451(f)(4): Part(s) of a scaffold that were damaged or weakened, such that the scaffold's strength was less than that required by paragraph (a) of this section, were not immediately repaired, replaced, braced to meet those provisions, nor removed from service until repaired. a) Jobsite: On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the damaged safety platform was removed from service. The guardrail system was bent and cracked in numerous areas and the walking/working surface was damaged. |
|
| Citation ID |
01001C |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19260451 G04 XI |
| Issuance Date |
2024-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2024-08-23 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| Gravity |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1926.451(g)(4)(xi): Guardrails were not surfaced to prevent injury to an employee from punctures or lacerations, and to prevent snagging of clothing. a) Jobsite: On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the safety platform was surfaced to prevent injury in that it had sharp surfaces created by the damaged railings. |
|
| Citation ID |
01001D |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19260602 C01 II |
| Issuance Date |
2024-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
4610.0 |
| Final Order |
2024-08-23 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1926.602(c)(1)(ii): Modifications or additions affecting the safe operation of the equipment were made without the manufacturer's written approval. If such modifications or changes are made, the capacity, operation, and maintenance instruction plates, tags, or decals shall be changed accordingly. In no case shall the original safety factor of the equipment be reduced: a) Jobsite: On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the addition of the safety platform was used in accordance with the Lull Owners/Operators Manual. The safety platform did not have means to securely mount and attach the platform to restrain it against the vertical face of the forks, carriage, or lifting mechanism. The platform was attached to the load backrest. b) Jobsite: On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the addition of the safety platform was used in accordance with the Lull Owners/Operators Manual. The platform did not have a restraining means to secure personnel, such as a guardrail, body belt or lanyard. The guardrail system was bent and cracked in numerous areas which lowered the height of the railing to less than 42" as required by the manufacturer, and a body belt or lanyard was not used. c) Jobsite: On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the addition of the safety platform was used in accordance with the Lull Owners/Operators Manual. The platform had bent and cracked guardrails which were not capable of withstanding a concentrated horizontal force of 200 pounds as required by the manufacturer. d) On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the addition of the safety platform was used in accordance with the Lull Owners/Operators Manual. The data plate of the platform was damaged and illegible which restricted employees from identifying the maximum workload capacity and weight of the empty platform. e) On or before 2/27/24, the employer did not ensure that the addition of the safety platform was used in accordance with the Lull Owners/Operators Manual. Due to the damage to the structure of the platform, it was not capable of maintaining a structural safety factor of at least 2 to 1. |
|
|
