Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: LINKEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of LINKEL CONSTRUCTION, INC. in 286 AUGUSTA ROAD, TOPSHAM, ME 04086 (NAICS 561730). OSHA activity number 344643341.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Linkel Construction, INC. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Linkel Construction, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
286 AUGUSTA ROAD
City
TOPSHAM
State
ME
ZIP
04086
Mailing
255 AUGUSTA RD., TOPSHAM, ME 04086
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
561730
Employees
9
Ownership type
A

10 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.36 H02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Sep 1, 2020
Penalty
Initial $2,313 · Current $1,157 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.36(h)(2): The outdoor exit route was not covered where snow and ice was likely to accumulate along the route:    Maintenance Shop - Just outside of the main exit from/to the shop, there was no overhead protection from snow and ice that was hanging over the edge of the roof.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1156.5
  • — Z (S) $2313

1910.134 E01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Jul 1, 2020
Penalty
Initial $2,892 · Current $1,446 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:     At the Facility - The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to those employees required to wear a respirator.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1446
  • — Z (S) $2892

1910.134 F02

Serious Gravity 5 4 instances 4 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Jul 1, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator and at least annually thereafter:    At the Facility - Employees required to wear half-face cartridge respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use and at least annually thereafter.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 H02 I

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
May 22, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(h)(2)(i): Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or  were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  At the Facility - Respirators used by employees were not properly stored to protect them from damage or contamination.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.305 G01 IV A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Sep 1, 2020
Penalty
Initial $2,892 · Current $1,446 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A): Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure:    Fuel Shed - An extension cord was being used in lieu of fixed wiring for supplying power to the diesel pump.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1446
  • — Z (S) $2892

1910.305 G01 IV C

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Sep 1, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(C): Flexible cords and cables were used where run through doorways, windows, or similar openings:    Fuel Shed - An extension cord, used to power the fuel pump, was run through a doorway of the shed.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1053 F02 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Jun 8, 2020
Penalty
Initial $2,892 · Current $1,446 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(i):  The employer did not establish and implement a written respirable crystalline silica exposure control plan:    At the Facility - The employer did not have a written exposure control plan for respirable crystalline silica.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1446
  • — Z (S) $2892

1910.1200 H01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Jun 8, 2020
Penalty
Initial $2,892 · Current $1,446 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    At the Facility - Employees did not receive effective training and information on the hazardous chemicals in their work area.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1446
  • — Z (S) $2892

1910.1200 G01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Jun 29, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a safety data sheet in the workplace for each hazardous chemical which they use:  At the Facility - There were not safety data sheets for the chemicals in the workplace.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.132 D02

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
May 12, 2020
Abate by
Jun 29, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:  At the Facility - The employer did not have a written certification verifying a workplace hazard assessment had been conducted.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

View Linkel Construction, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →

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 344643341.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.