BRIDGEPORT, CT ·
OSHA Inspection: ADN ROOFING, LLC
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of ADN ROOFING, LLC in 112 EDNA AVENUE, BRIDGEPORT, CT 06610 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 339518326.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- ADN ROOFING, LLC
- Site address
- 112 EDNA AVENUE
- City
- BRIDGEPORT
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06610
- Mailing
- 33 MURRAY STREET, ANSONIA, CT 06401
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 3
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.25 A
- Issued
- Mar 3, 2014
- Abate by
- Mar 13, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.25(a): During the course of construction, alteration, or repairs, debris was not kept cleared from work areas, passageways, and stairs, in and around buildings or other structures: JOBSITE: The construction debris, such as (but not limited to) broken pieces of lumber and pieces of old roof shingles, were scattered on the ground in and around the walking/working area.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $720
- · Z (S) $1200
1926.100 A
- Issued
- Mar 3, 2014
- Abate by
- Mar 13, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $1,200 · Current $720 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets: JOBSITE: The employee, cleaning debris underneath the overhead roofing work was not wearing a protective hard hat.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $720
- · Z (S) $1200
1926.501 B11
- Issued
- Mar 3, 2014
- Abate by
- Mar 13, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11): Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems: JOBSITE: The employees, installing tar paper to the steep (12 in 12 pitch) roof, were not protected from falling between 21 ft 2 inches and 36 ft to the ground by guardrails, safety net, fall arrest systems or other equivalent means.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1680
- · Z (S) $2800
1926.503 A01
- Issued
- Mar 3, 2014
- Abate by
- Mar 27, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards: JOBSITE: The employees, installing tar paper to the steep (12 in 12 pitch) roof, and exposed to fall hazards were not provided with training and information to recognize the hazards and the procedures to be followed to minimize such hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1200
- · Z (S) $2000
1926.1060 A01
- Issued
- Mar 3, 2014
- Abate by
- Mar 27, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1060(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each employee was trained by a competent person which would enable each employee to recognize hazards related to ladders and stairs, and the procedures to follow to minimize those hazards. JOBSITE: The employees, using aWerner 32 ft aluminum extension ladder to have access to the roof were not provided with training and information in the proper procedures to minimize the hazards associated with ladders.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1926.1053 B05 I
- Issued
- Mar 3, 2014
- Abate by
- Mar 13, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(5)(i): Non-self-supporting ladders were not used at an angle such than the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder way approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladder (the distance along the ladder between the foot and the top support). JOBSITE: The Werner 32 ft aluminum extension ladder used by employees to have access to the roof was not used at an angle such that the horizontal distance from the top supports to the feet of the ladder was approximately one fourth (1/4) the working length of the ladder.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1200
- · Z (S) $2000
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in CT
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 339518326.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.