Violation Detail
Standard Cited: 19260020 B02 General safety and health provisions.
This violation item has been deleted.
Inspection Nr: 1282145.015
Citation: 01002
Citation Type: Serious
Abatement Date: 04/11/2018
Initial Penalty: $5,174.00
Current Penalty: $0.00
Issuance Date: 03/09/2018
Nr Instances: 1
Nr Exposed: 3
Related Event Code (REC):
Gravity: 10
Report ID: 0729700
Contest Date:
Final Order: 04/02/2018
Emphasis:
Type | Latest Event | Event Date | Penalty | Abatement Due Date | Citation Type | Failure to Abate Inspection |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Penalty | I: Informal Settlement | 04/02/2018 | $0.00 | 04/11/2018 | Serious | |
Penalty | Z: Issued | 03/09/2018 | $5,174.00 | 04/11/2018 | Serious |
Text For Citation: 01 Item/Group: 002 Hazard:
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 is failing to protect employees from fall, struck-by, and electrical shock hazards when making modifications to a communications tower aloft. This was most recently documented on or about December 9, 2017 at the jobsite located at 25056 CC Rd, Ransom, Kansas. The employer had not developed and implemented adequate frequent and regular jobsite inspection procedures for the purpose of identifying and correcting hazards for employees performing servicing, maintenance and/or modification/alterations to communication towers. Documentation that approximately 350 projects were completed during calendar years 2016-2017. Documentation of a total of seven (7) on-site inspections was provided. 1. None of the seven inspection forms provided identified the foreman and/or the employees that were on the site at the time of those inspections. 2. Only four of the seven inspection forms provided addressed safety in any fashion. 3. Only four of the seven inspection forms provided included a location on the form for the inspector to identify themselves. 4. The inspection forms provided did not identify the type of tower being inspected be it self-supporting, a guyed tower, or a mono pole.