OSHA Inspection: TWIN FORK ENTERPRISES, LLC

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,200 · Current $1,400 Reduced

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).    Worksite: The employer failed not only to initiate and maintain program that would provide frequent and regular inspections of the job site and others, but also to designate a competent person in the understanding of the hazards associated with a construction worksite to perform the above tasks.

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,760 · Current $1,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I): Flexible cords and cables used for temporary wiring were not protected from damage.    Worksite: The two electrical extension cords that were used by employees to power tools while working on the roof were draped over the sharp edge of a metal roof and exposed to physical damage.

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,080 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(ix): Controls for the articulating and extensible boom platforms were not clearly marked to identify their function.    Worksite: The Articulating boom aerial lift that was used by employees to gain access to the roof did not have its controls clearly marked as to indicate their function.

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.454(a)(1): The employer failed to have each employee who performs work while on a scaffold trained regarding the nature of any electrical hazards, fall hazards and falling object hazards in the work area.  Worksite: The employees who were riding the basket/platform of the Articulating boom aerial lift to gain access to the roof of the building under construction without wearing appropriate types of restraint systems were not trained to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffold being used.

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(16)(iii): Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, were not rigged such that an employee could not free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor contact any lower level.  Worksite: The employees who were riding the basket/platform of the Articulating boom aerial lift to access the roof of the building under construction were not provided with a restarint system that would prevent them from free falling more than 6 feet and/or striking the ground below.

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,080 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.760(a)(1): Each employee engaged in a steel erection activity who is on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15 feet (4.6 m) above a lower level was not protected from fall hazards by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, positioning device systems, or fall restraint systems.    Worksite: The employees who were working above 15 feet while installing metal roofing onto a prefabricated steel building were not protected from falling by the use of guardrails, safety nets, personal fall arrest systems or fall restraint systems.

Issued

Feb 20, 2014

Abate by

Mar 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.761(b): The employer did not train each employee exposed to a fall hazard in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.761.  Worksite: The employer did not provide a training program for employees who were exposed to fall hazards of up to 28 feet above the ground while engaged in steel erection activities.