OSHA Inspection: LUIS SILVA

Issued

Nov 2, 2017

Abate by

Nov 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,183 · Current $4,183

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(f)(7): Scaffolds were not erected, moved, dismantled, or altered, by trained and experienced employees under the supervision and direction of a competent person qualified in scaffold erection, moving, dismantling or alteration:; Such activities were not performed only by experienced and trained employees selected for such work by the competent person.  On or about 8/14/2017 at 2437 Hancock Drive Braselton, GA, where scaffold was not designed or erected by a competent person. Scaffold inspection identified discrepancies including but not limited to:  a. Ladder did not extend 3 feet above the working level. b. There were no connecting pins installed where uplift could occur from the powered industrial truck. c. There were no toe boards installed. d. End rails and side rails were not completely installed at the working level. e. There was no controlled zone below the scaffold. f. Mud pan resting on boards, visibly bowed from the weight of the mud.

Issued

Nov 2, 2017

Abate by

Nov 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,183 · Current $4,183

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1)(vi): Each employee performing overhand bricklaying operations from a supported scaffold was not protected from falling from all open sides and ends of the scaffold (except at the side next to the wall being laid) by the use of a personal fall arrest system or guardrail system (with minimum 200 pound toprail capacity).  On or about 8/14/2017 at 2437 Hancock Drive Braselton, GA, where the employer failed to install end rails at the working level of the scaffold, workers installing CMU block were not protected against 18-foot fall hazards.

Issued

Nov 2, 2017

Abate by

Nov 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,183 · Current $4,183

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.451(h)(2): Employees working below a scaffold were not protected from falling tools, materials or equipment in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (h)(2)(i)-(v) of this section:  On or about 8/14/2017 at 2437 Hancock Drive Braselton, GA, employees were exposed to struck-by related hazards where the employer failed to protect workers below from falling tools and equipment where:  a. There was no controlled zone below the scaffold allowing for pedestrian traffic of all trades to pass.  b. There were no toe boards installed at the working level.

Issued

Nov 2, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,183 · Current $4,183

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.452(c)(4): End frames of tubular welded frame scaffolding were not locked together vertically by use of pins or equivalent means in areas where uplift could occur:  On or about 8/14/2017 at 2437 Hancock Drive Braselton, GA, the employer exposed employees to fall hazards of 18 feet to the lower level when the employer failed to install locking pins on a tubular frame scaffold where powered industrial trucks were used to lift block and mortar to the upper levels for employees to perform masonry activities.

Issued

Nov 2, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,183 · Current $4,183

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing being accessed:  On or about 8/14/2017 at 2437 Hancock Drive Braselton, GA, where the installed ladder did not extend to the working level exposing workers to falls of 18 feet to the ground below.

Issued

Nov 2, 2017

Abate by

Nov 22, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):  On or about 8/14/2017 at 2437 Hancock Drive Braselton, GA; where the employer failed to insure that powered industrial truck operators were trained.