ALTON, IL —
OSHA Inspection: SHOGUN JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE ALTON INC.
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of SHOGUN JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE ALTON INC. in 2723 CORNER COURT, ALTON, IL 62002 (NAICS 236220). OSHA activity number 340973882.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- SHOGUN JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE ALTON INC.
- Site address
- 2723 CORNER COURT
- City
- ALTON
- State
- IL
- ZIP
- 62002
- Mailing
- 2723 CORNER COURT, ALTON, IL 62002
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 236220
- Employees
- 100
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.20 B01
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $3500.00 · Current $3500.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(1): The employer did not initiate and maintain accident prevention programs as necessary to comply with this part: The employer did not initiate and maintain an accident prevention program to control and eliminate the hazards present at the jobsite in accordance with the OSHA regulations.
Recent events (3)
- — A (S) $3500
- — I (S) $1400
- — Z (S) $3500
1926.20 B02
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
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) 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.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.416 A01
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $4900.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.416(a)(1): Employees were permitted to work in proximity to electric power circuits and were not protected against electric shock by de-energizing and grounding the circuits or effectively guarding the circuits by insulation or other means: Employees working to install a parapet wall were working in close proximity to a 120/208v triplex service drop. The circuits were not de-energized or insulated.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $4900
1926.416 A03
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.416(a)(3): Before work began, the employer did not ascertain by inquiry, direct observation, or by instruments, whether any part of an energized electric power circuit, exposed or concealed, was so located that the performance of the work could bring any person, tool, or machine into physical or electrical contact with the electric power circuit. Employees working to install a parapet wall were working in close proximity to a 120/208v triplex service drop. The employer did not ensure that the electrical lines from the service drop were located so that employees working to build the parapet wall would not come in contact with electrical power circuit.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.501 B02 I
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $4200.00 · Current $4200.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(2)(i): Each employee who was constructing a leading edge 6 feet or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems: Employees working to build a parapet wall along the front and sides on a commercial building were exposed to falls of approximately 9 feet 5 inches to a lower level. Employees were not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or any other approved mean.
Recent events (3)
- — A (S) $4200
- — I (S) $1680
- — Z (S) $4200
1926.1053 B01
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $4200.00 · Current $4200.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where (a) portable ladder(s) was/were used for access to an upper level landing surface and the ladder's length did not allow the ladder side rails to extend at least 3 feet (0.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed, the ladder was not secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and/or a grasping device was not provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder. The employer did not ensure portable ladders were placed so three feet or more was extended above the upper landing. Employees using an aluminum extension ladder to gain access to the roof were exposed to falls of 9 feet 5 inches while ascending and descending from the roof.
Recent events (3)
- — A (S) $4200
- — I (S) $1680
- — Z (S) $4200
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 236220)
NEWPORT BEACH, CA—2026-07-16
KPRS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
CHANDLER, AZ—2026-07-16
SUN STATE BUILDERS
ROCHESTER HILLS, MI—2026-07-16
ICON RESTORATION SERVICES
WAUSAU, WI—2026-07-16
MIRON CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.
PONCE, PR—2026-07-15
FC CONSTRUCTION LLC
More inspections in IL
DEERFIELD, IL—2026-07-16
JOHN BURNS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC
BANNOCKBURN, IL—2026-07-16
BUILDER SERVICES GROUP, INC. DBA CJ INSULATION
BANNOCKBURN, IL—2026-07-16
ROOFING H.P. LLC
HIGHLAND PARK, IL—2026-07-16
UNITED PLUMBING AND DRAIN, INC.
FRANKLIN PARK, IL—2026-07-16
B & M PLASTIC INC.
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 340973882.