OSHA Inspection: DARNELL FRANKS

Issued

Jan 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $3,803

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1): Employees on scaffolds more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level by fall protection established in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) of this section:  During tuck pointing work at 802 N. 1st St., St. Louis, MO, 63101 on December 6, 2016, where an employee was working on a supported scaffold, five levels high, there were no guard rails installed to protect a worker from falling, or any other fall protection used by the employee.   IN THE ALTERNATIVE:  29 CFR 1926.451(g)(2):  The employer did not provide fall protection for employees erecting or dismantling supported scaffolds where the installation and use of such protection was feasible and did not create a greater hazard:  During dismantling of a supported scaffold during tuck pointing work at 802 N. 1st St., St. Louis, MO 63101 on December 6, 2016 where an employee was working on the scaffold, five levels high, no fall protection was used.  An anchor point was available from the roof of the building for attachment of a lanyard for personal fall arrest equipment.

Issued

Jan 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1): Platform(s) on all working levels of scaffolds, were not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and guardrail supports such that the space between adjacent units, and the space between the platform and the uprights is no more than one inch wide:  During tuck pointing work at 802 N. 1st St., St. Louis, MO, 63101 on December 6, 2016, where an employee was working on a supported scaffold, five levels high, the top working level was not fully planked (only two planks were present).

Issued

Jan 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $1,630 · Current $1,630

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(c)(1): Supported scaffolds with a height to base width (including outrigger supports, if used) ratio of more than four to one (4:1) were not restrained from tipping by guying, tying, bracing, or equivalent means, as set forth in subparagraphs (i) - (iii) of this paragraph:  During tuck pointing work at 802 N. 1st St., St. Louis, MO, 63101 on December 6, 2016, where an employee was working on a supported scaffold, five levels high, and where the height to base width ration was greater than 4:1 (approximately 6:1), the scaffold was not secured to the building or any other method to prevent tipping.