BRIDGEPORT, CT —
OSHA Inspection: GAMMA CONSTRUCTION SERVICE INC.
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of GAMMA CONSTRUCTION SERVICE INC. in 1208 BROAD STREET, BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 (NAICS 238130). OSHA activity number 337595417.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- GAMMA CONSTRUCTION SERVICE INC.
- Site address
- 1208 BROAD STREET
- City
- BRIDGEPORT
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06604
- Mailing
- P. O. BOX 297, MAHOPAC, NY 10541
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238130
- Employees
- 15
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.502 K03
- Issued
- Dec 27, 2012
- Abate by
- Jan 9, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,200 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(3): A copy of the fall protection plan with all approved changes was not maintained at the job site. Jobsite: A copy of the fall protection plan with all approved changes was not maintained at the job site.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $2200
1926.502 K05
- Issued
- Dec 27, 2012
- Abate by
- Jan 9, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(5): The fall protection plan did not document the reasons why the use of conventional fall protection systems (guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, or safety nets systems) are infeasible or why their use would create a greater hazard. Jobsite: The fall protection plan did not document the reasons why the use of conventional fall protection systems are infeasible or why their use would create a greater hazard.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 K07
- Issued
- Dec 27, 2012
- Abate by
- Jan 9, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(7): The fall protection plan did not identify each location where conventional fall protection methods cannot be used, these locations were not then classified as controlled access zones having to comply with the criteria of paragraph (g) of this section. Jobsite: The fall protection plan did not identify each location where conventional fall protection methods cannot be used.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 K09
- Issued
- Dec 27, 2012
- Abate by
- Jan 9, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(9): The fall protection plan did not include a statement which provides the name or other method of identification for each employee who is designated to work in controlled access zones. Jobsite: The fall protection plan did not include the name(s) or other method of identification for each employee who is designated to work in controlled access zones.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.503 A02 VII
- Issued
- Dec 27, 2012
- Abate by
- Jan 9, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,200 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(2)(vii): The employer did not provide a training program that described the employee�s roles and the requirements of the fall protection plan for each employee who was exposed to fall hazards. Jobsite: The employer did not train and or advise the employees that were part of a Fall Protection Plan as to their roles and responsibilities.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (S) $2200
1926.501 B13
- Issued
- Dec 27, 2012
- Abate by
- Jan 3, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $6,160 · Current $5,500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b), nor did the employer demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems and develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of section 1926.502: Jobsite: The employee(s) who were exposed fall hazards of up to 14 feet 9 inches above the ground while installing floor sheathing were not protected from fall hazards. Gamma Construction Service Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 323949, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on 05/25/2012, with respect to a workplace located at The Hills, Building 32 Danbury CT 06810.
Recent events (2)
- — I (R) $5500
- — Z (R) $6160
More inspections at Gamma Construction Service INC.
View Gamma Construction Service INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238130)
More inspections in CT
Source
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 337595417.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.