OSHA Inspection: JAMES TOFFOLI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Issued

2016-11-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $4988.00 · Current $4988.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(12): Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including, but not limited to the erection of wall panels, columns, beams, and floor and roof "tees") and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members, who was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems, and no other provision in paragraph (b) of this section provided for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.    a) For employees working at 23161 Via Coconut Point in Estero, as observed on or about July 18, 2016. Employees were installing precast concrete floor panels at a height greater than 6 feet above the lower level without the use of a fall protection system in place. The employer provided a fall protection plan that was deficient in the following:    -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.     -The fall protection plan did not include a written discussion of other measures that will be taken to reduce or eliminate the fall hazard for workers who cannot be protected with protection from the conventional fall protection systems.    -The fall protection plan did not identify each location where methods of conventional fall protection cannot be used and controlled access zones were not clearly identified.    -The fall protection plan identified the use of a safety monitoring system which cannot be used in precast placement operations.    -The fall protection plan did not identify the names or other means of identification for each employee who is designated to work in the controlled access zones.

Issued

2016-11-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 employees working at 23161 Via Coconut Point in Estero, as observed on or about July 18, 2016. Employees were installing precast concrete floor panels at a height greater than 6 feet above the lower level.

Issued

2016-11-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(k)(6): The fall protection plan did not include a written discussion of other measures that would be taken to reduce or eliminate the fall hazard as required.      a) For employees working at 23161 Via Coconut Point in Estero, as observed on or about July 18, 2016. Employees were installing precast concrete floor panels at a height greater than 6 feet above the lower level.

Issued

2016-11-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 employees working at 23161 Via Coconut Point in Estero, as observed on or about July 18, 2016. Employees were installing precast concrete floor panels at a height greater than 6 feet above the lower level. The fall protection plan in use on the site identified the controlled access zones but did not comply with the criteria of 29 CFR 1926.502(g) in that a control line was not utilized.

Issued

2016-11-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(k)(8): Where no other alternative measure had been implemented, the employer did not implemented a safety monitoring in conformance with 1926.502(h).    a) For employees working at 23161 Via Coconut Point in Estero, as observed on or about July 18, 2016. Employees were installing precast concrete floor panels at a height greater than 6 feet above the lower level. The fall protection plan in use on the site stated a safety monitoring system was in use during precast concrete placement. However, a safety monitoring system was not implemented.

Issued

2016-11-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2017-01-06 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 employees working at 23161 Via Coconut Point in Esterro, as observed on or about July 18, 2016. Employees were installing precast concrete floor panels at a height greater than 6 feet above the lower level.