Powered by GoogleTranslate

Violation Detail

Standard Cited: 5A0001 OSH Act General Duty Paragraph

Inspection Nr: 302766548

Citation: 01002

Citation Type: Other

Abatement Status: X

Initial Penalty: $300.00

Current Penalty: $120.00

Issuance Date: 10/07/1999

Nr Instances: 1

Nr Exposed: 6

Abatement Date: 11/02/1999

Gravity: 02

Report ID: 0830500

Contest Date:

Final Order:

Related Event Code (REC):

Emphasis:


Penalty and Failure to Abate Event History
Type Latest Event Event Date Penalty Abatement Due Date Citation Type Failure to Abate Inspection
Penalty I: Informal Settlement 11/02/1999 $120.00 11/02/1999 Other  
Penalty Z: Issued 10/07/1999 $300.00 11/02/1999 Serious  

Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 002 Hazard: FALLING

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to fall hazards while using a personnel platform on a rough terrain forklift: Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct these hazards is to retrain all employees and monitor the actions of the crews through inspections and interviews. a) At 910 Campbell, Kersey, CO. (Sinnett Builders Inc. jobsite): Employees using a personnel platform on a rough terrain forklift were exposed to falls due to not adhering to the following ANSI and company operating/training guidelines. 1. ASME/ANSI B56.6c-1991: 5.15.1(i),(l),(r), and (u): 2. Company operating procedures: (f.iii), (m.i,iii,iv) DISCUSSION OF 5A1 ELEMENTS: 1. The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed: The employees of Robert Barrow Const were exposed to fall hazards due to several improper actions taken with the use of a rough terrain forklift. The lift was being used to raise personnel on a platform. There were foremen for the company who were designated operators of the lift making some of the mistakes in set-up. 2. The hazard was recognized: The ansi standard dealing with this type of lift was sent to the CSHO by the company owner. He had acquired it years before from a consultant. The company training rules were also broken. The construction industry recognizes the danger of these lifts 3. The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm: The lift was being used at heights of 25 feet and over. Falls from that distance result in broken bones, internal injuries, and death. 4. There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard: The employees on site had been trained years before and didn't do too bad a job of using the lift. Retraining and enforcement of the company operating procedures would fix this problem.

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.

Close