WADSWORTH, OH —
OSHA Inspection: PREMIER ROOF SYSTEMS INC.
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of PREMIER ROOF SYSTEMS INC. in 121 HIGH STREET, WADSWORTH, OH 44281 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 339073637.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- PREMIER ROOF SYSTEMS INC.
- Site address
- 121 HIGH STREET
- City
- WADSWORTH
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 44281
- Mailing
- 471 EAST BERGEY STREET, WADSWORTH, OH 44281
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 15
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
9 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.501 B10
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $1700.00 · Current $850.00 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 or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or a combination of warning line system and guardrail system, warning line system and safety net system, or warning line system and personal fall arrest system, or warning line system and safety monitoring system. Or, on roofs 50-feet (15.25 m) or less in width, each employee was not protected by use of a monitoring system: On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, such as repositioning roofing materials, the employer did not ensure that employees were utilizing fall protection to protect them from fall hazards.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $850
- — Z (S) $1700
1926.502 D09
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $1700.00 · Current $850.00 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(9): Lanyards and/or vertical lifelines did not have a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN): On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that the lifelines had a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds. The ropes that the foreman had employees use were tied to homemade anchors with an overhand knot.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $850
- — Z (S) $1700
1926.502 D15
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(15): Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest equipment were not independent of any anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms and/or were not capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) per employee: On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that the anchorages were capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds. There were 4 employees on the roof and only 2 anchorage points. 2 employees were tied off to each anchorage point. The anchor points were homemade, and they did not have a weight rating.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 D16 III
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $1700.00 · Current $0.00 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 or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that the maximum free fall distance was limited to 6 feet. The ropes in use were too long to prevent an employee from free falling more than 6 feet.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $1700
1926.502 D15 II
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $1700.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(15)(ii): Fall protection was not used under the supervision of a qualified person. On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that the anchorages were used under the supervision of a qualified person.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $1700
1926.502 D17
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(17): The attachment point of the body harness was not located in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head: On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that the attachment points of the body harnesses of employees were located in the center of the wearers back, and near shoulder level. Employees had their attachment points of the body harness aligned with their lower back.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 D21
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $1700.00 · Current $850.00 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(21): Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for wear, damage and other deterioration, and defective components shall be removed from service. On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure fall arrest systems were inspected prior to each use for wear, damage and other deterioration, and ensuring defective components were removed from service. Lanyards were damaged and tied to make connections, and the ropes that were in use were frayed.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $850
- — Z (S) $1700
1926.503 C03
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $1700.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(c)(3): When the employer has reason to believe that any affected employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding and skill required by paragraph (a) of this section, the employer shall retrain each such employee: On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure all employees were retrained due to not understanding the skills required and dangers associated with fall hazards.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $1700
1910.178 A06
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates and markings were in place: On or about 5/17/13, during roofing activities, the employer did not ensure that the Skytrak 6036 had all nameplates and markings in place and maintained in a legible condition, for the operator to refer to during operation.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $0
- — Z (O) $0
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
SIOUX FALLS, SD—2026-07-13
H & R ROOFING OF SOUTH DAKOTA, INC.
HENDERSON, NV—2026-07-13
INTEGRITY ROOFING LLC
CORTLANDT MANOR, NY—2026-07-13
LG BUILDERS INC.
CAMDEN, OH—2026-07-13
ALBERTO MORALES
BLOOMINGTON, IL—2026-07-13
UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR
More inspections in OH
OXFORD, OH—2026-07-13
R&R SIDING LLC
CONNEAUT, OH—2026-07-13
CONTINENTAL STRUCTURAL PLASTICS
CAMDEN, OH—2026-07-13
ALBERTO MORALES
HARRISON, OH—2026-07-10
WEBER FAMILY FARMS LLC
JEFFERSON, OH—2026-07-10
LAKE CITY PLATING LLC
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 339073637.