OSHA Inspection: ALEX ROOFING

Issued

Feb 21, 2012

Abate by

Mar 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2):     Programs did not provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employers:    On or before December 23, 2011, during roofing activities, the employer did not provide programs that included frequent and regular inspections of the job site to identify and eliminate the hazards, such as eye protection, fall protection, and other hazards associated with the work being preformed at the worksite.

Issued

Feb 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1):     Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:    On or before December 23, 2011, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that employees using air nailers were protected from eye and face injuries.

Issued

Feb 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10):     Each employee engaged in roofing activities on low-slope roofs, with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arresst:    On December 23, 2011, during roofing activities, the employer allowed employees to work on a roof that was approximately 14 feet high with a 4/12 pitch and did not ensure that the employees were protected from falls.

Issued

Feb 21, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(16)(iii):     Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, were not rigged such that an employee could not free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor contact any lower level:    On December 23, 2011, during roofing activities, on a roof approximately 14 feet high, the employer allowed employees that were approximately 6 feet tall to used a 6 foot lanyard rigged to a rope at the employees feet. The employees were observed standing at the edge of the roof and this would have allowed the employees to fall approximately 12 feet before the system could arrest the fall.

Issued

Feb 21, 2012

Abate by

Mar 7, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,100 · Current $1,050 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(c)(3):     Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of fall protection systems or equipment indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill:    On December 23, 2011, during roofing activities, an employees' harness leg straps were not secured to ensure the employee would remain in the harness in the event of a fall.