OSHA Inspection: FREDERICKS, INC

Issued

Nov 15, 2011

Abate by

Mar 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $4,900

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2):     The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s)    a) There was no frequent and regular inspection program being maintained in use by a competent person to ensure the jobe site, materials and equipment such as structural steel temporary support systems or devices and structural steel erection concrete loading notifications were utilized and maintained in a safe condition.

Issued

Nov 15, 2011

Abate by

Mar 1, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.754(a): Structural stability was not maintained at all times during the erection process:    a) On or about September 4th, 2011 and prior to that time the contractor failed to ensure structural stability was being maintained during the systems-engineered building steel erection due to inadequate temporary bracing from moment frames to ground, X-bracing frame to frame at the roof beam level and some stand alone bay columns exposing employees working within the structure to collapse potentials by a combination of unrestricted twisting and longitudinal structure movement.

Issued

Nov 15, 2011

Abate by

Nov 18, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.752(a)(1): Before authorizing the commencement of steel erection, the controlling contractor did not ensure the steel erection contractor was provided with a written notification that the concrete in the footings, piers and walls or the mortar in the masonry piers and walls had attained, on the basis of an appropriate ASTM standard test method of field-cured samples, either 75 percent of the intended minimum compressive design strength or sufficient strength to support the loads imposed during steel erection:     a) On or about September 4th, 2011 and prior to that time before authorizing the steel erection contractor to begin structural steel column and roof beam assembly frame erection upon concrete surfaces the controlling contractor did not ensure the steel erection contractor was provided a written notification based on ASTM standard test method(s) the concrete in the footings, piers and walls had either met 75 percent intended compressive design strength or sufficient strength to support imposed erection loads.