LEMOYNE, PA ·
OSHA Inspection: RAMSEY WINDOW CLEANING COMPANY
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of RAMSEY WINDOW CLEANING COMPANY in 650 N. 12TH STREET, SHAFFER ORECCHIA ASSOCIATION, LEMOYNE, PA 17043 (NAICS 000000). OSHA activity number 102697729.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- RAMSEY WINDOW CLEANING COMPANY
- Site address
- 650 N. 12TH STREET, SHAFFER ORECCHIA ASSOCIATION
- City
- LEMOYNE
- State
- PA
- ZIP
- 17043
- Mailing
- 650 MOHN STREET, STEELTON, PA 17113
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (N)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 000000
- SIC code (legacy)
- 7349
- Employees
- 5
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
- Industry flags
- Construction safety.
Citations
5 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Nov 25, 1992
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 1992
- Penalty
- Initial $750 · Current $450 Reduced
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to multiple injuries from a fall: THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS BELOW (1a AND 1b) HAVE BEEN GROUPED BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE SIMILAR OR RELATED HAZARDS THAT MAY INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY AND/OR ILLNESS. (a) Window Cleaning Site, 650 North 12th Street, Lemoyne Two (2) employees were observed cleaning windows at the edge of a flat roof with no fall protection provided exposing them to a 24 foot fall hazard, on or about August 12, 1992. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this hazard is to provide and wear safety belts and lanyard.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $450.00
- · Z (S) $750.00
1926.20 B02
- Issued
- Nov 25, 1992
- Abate by
- Dec 8, 1992
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Nov 25, 1992
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 1992
- Penalty
- Initial $750 · Current $450 Reduced
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to multiple injuries from a fall: (a) Window Cleaning Site, 650 North 12th Street, Lemoyne Employee was using a sky genie to clean windows and not utilizing a separate independent fall arrest system, inclusive of a safety belt, rope grap lifeline with anchorage exposing the employee to a maximum 50 foot fall hazard, on or about August 12, 1992. (b) Window Cleaning Site, 650 North 12th Street, Lemoyne Employee was using a sky genie to clean windows and the two (2) nylon ropes being used were not capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds exposing the employee to a maximum of 50 foot fall hazard, on or about August 12, 1992. (c) Window Cleaning Site, 650 North 12th Street, Lemoyne Employee was using a sky genie to clean windows and the ropes were not effectively padded where they contacted to edge of the roof, exposing the employee to a maximum of 50 foot fall hazard, on or about August 12, 1992. Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this hazard is to: 1. Training employees in the use of the equipment before it is used; 2. Inspection of equipment each day before use; 3. Proper rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks, in all cases, with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks when counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorage systems are used; 4. Use of a separate fall arrest system (including bodybelt, sit harness, or full body harness, rope grap or similar device; lifeline; and anchorage (all of which are completely independent of the friction device and its support system)), so that any failure in a friction device, support seat (or Harness), support line, or anchorage system will not affect the ability of the fall arrest system to operate and quickly stop the employee's fall; 5. All lines installed (such as by using knots, swages or eye splices) when rigging descent control devices shall be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds; 6. Provisions are made for rescue; 7. Ropes are effectively padded where they contact edges of the building, anchorage, obstructions, or other surfaces which might cut or weaken the rope; 8. Provisions are made for intermittent stabilization for descent in excess of 130 feet.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $450.00
- · Z (S) $750.00
1926.59 E01
- Issued
- Nov 25, 1992
- Abate by
- Jan 15, 1993
Recent events (2)
- · I (O)
- · Z (O)
1926.59 G01
- Issued
- Nov 25, 1992
- Abate by
- Dec 8, 1992
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 000000)
More inspections in PA
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 102697729.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.