OSHA Inspection: CONTRACTORS IMPERIAL SERVICES, INC.

Issued

Jan 5, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 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:   a) For the jobsite at 1700 W Cleveland St, Tampa, FL as observed on or about 12/17/2014, employees were exposed to fall hazards of over 50 ft. to the ground while installing trusses and doing framing work and fall hazards of 9 feet to the floor below. Fall protection was not being used, infeasibility was not shown, and a fall protection plan meeting the requirements of 1926.502(k) was not available and being used. The fall protection plan used by the employer was deficient in the following areas:  1) The fall protection plan was not developed specifically for the site 2) The fall protection plan did not include changes that were made 3) The fall protection plan did not document the reasons why the uses of conventional fall protection systems are infeasible or why they would create a greater hazard. 4) The fall protection plan did not identify each location where conventional fall protection methods cannot be used 5) 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 the controlled access zones.

Issued

Jan 5, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(k)(1): The fall protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified person and developed specifically for the site where the leading edge work, precast concrete work, or residential construction work is being performed and the plan must be maintained up to date.  a) For the residential apartment complex being constructed at 1700 W Cleveland St., Tampa, FL, as observed on or about 12/17/2014, employees were observed installing trusses over 50 feet off the ground without using conventional fall protection.  The fall protection plan in use was not specifically developed for the site.

Issued

Jan 5, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(k)(3): 29 CFR 1926.502(k)(3):  A copy of the fall protection plan with all approved changes was not maintained at the job site.  a) For the residential apartment complex being constructed at 1700 W Cleveland St., Tampa, FL, as observed on or about 12/17/2014, employees were working at heights of over 50 feet installing trusses without conventional fall protection. Changes in work practices that deviated from the written plan on site were implemented in that employees worked at heights of over 50 feet without using conventional fall protection and the employer's fall protection plan was only developed for working at heights of 48 feet or below. These changes were not included in the employer's fall protection plan.

Issued

Jan 5, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2015

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.  a) For the residential apartment complex being constructed at 1700 W Cleveland St., Tampa, FL, as observed on or about 12/17/2014, employees were using a fall protection plan that did not document the reasons why the use of conventional fall protection systems are infeasible or why their use would create a greater hazard.

Issued

Jan 5, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2015

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.  a) For the residential apartment complex being constructed at 1700 W Cleveland St., Tampa, FL, as observed on or about 12/17/2014, employees were observed installing trusses at a height of over 50 feet from ground level. The fall protection plan in use on the site did not identify each location where methods of conventional fall protection cannot be used, and controlled access zones were not clearly identified.

Issued

Jan 5, 2015

Abate by

Jan 15, 2015

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.  a) For the residential apartment complex being constructed at 1700 W Cleveland St., Tampa, FL, as observed on or about 12/17/2014, the fall protection plan in use on the site did not identify each employee designated to work in the controlled access zones.