OSHA Inspection: NICHOLAS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC

Issued

Nov 17, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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:   For the jobsite at 3700 Faulkenburg Rd., Tampa, FL 33606, as observed on or about 09/17/2015, no fall protection was being used and employees were exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches. Suitable locations for anchor points were available and other means of fall protection was also feasible, though not used. The employer's fall protection plan was deficient in that it did not show that fall protection was infeasible for the work employees were doing, the plan mentioned controlled access zones but did not identify employees who would be working in controlled access zones, and the plan did not identify where controlled access zones were located.  a) At building 1, guardrails were missing at what the employer called a staging area. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.   b) At building 7, employees were installing guardrails at the floor edge and were leaning over the edge to install the guardrails. No fall protection was being used. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.

Issued

Nov 17, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(k)(5): The fall protection plan shall 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.  For the jobsite at 3700 Faulkenburg Rd., Tampa, FL 33606, as observed on or about 09/17/2015, no fall protection was being used and employees were exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches. Suitable locations for anchor points were available and other means of fall protection was also feasible, though not used. The employer's fall protection plan did not show that fall protection was infeasible for the work employees were doing.  a) At building 1, guardrails were missing at what the employer called a staging area. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.   b) At building 7, employees were installing guardrails at the floor edge and were leaning over the edge to install the guardrails. No fall protection was being used. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.

Issued

Nov 17, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 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.  For the jobsite at 3700 Faulkenburg Rd., Tampa, FL 33606, as observed on or about 09/17/2015, no fall protection was being used and employees were exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches. The employer's fall protection plan was deficient in that it did not identify where controlled access zones were located.  a) At building 1, guardrails were missing at what the employer called a staging area. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.   b) At building 7, employees were installing guardrails at the floor edge and were leaning over the edge to install the guardrails. No fall protection was being used. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.

Issued

Nov 17, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 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.  For the jobsite at 3700 Faulkenburg Rd., Tampa, FL 33606, as observed on or about 09/17/2015, no fall protection was being used and employees were exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches. The employer's fall protection plan was deficient in that it did not identify employees who would be working in a controlled access zone.  a) At building 1, guardrails were missing at what the employer called a staging area. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.   b) At building 7, employees were installing guardrails at the floor edge and were leaning over the edge to install the guardrails. No fall protection was being used. Employees exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches.

Issued

Nov 17, 2015

Abate by

Dec 2, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(b)(1): The employer did not verify compliance with paragraph (a) of this section by preparing a written (training) certification record including the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer.  a) For the jobsite at 3700 Faulkenburg Rd., Tampa, FL 33606, as observed on or about 09/17/2015, no fall protection was being used and employees were exposed to fall hazards of 32 ft. 6 and 3/8 inches. Documentation/certification of fall protection training for all employees exposed to fall hazards was not available.