OSHA Inspection: ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Aug 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

1926.501(b)(2)(i): Each employee who was constructing a leading edge 6 feet or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.    On or about May 6, 2014, employees engaged in re-roofing activities greater than six (6) feet above a lower level were not provided with the proper lifeline component for their personal fall arrest systems, exposing employees to fall hazards.

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Aug 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(a)(2): The employer did not provide and install all fall protection systems required by this subpart for employee(s) and did not comply with all other pertinent requirements of this subpart before employee(s) began the work that necessitates the fall protection.    On or about May 6, 2014, the employer did not assess the work area to ensure the lifeline component of the personal fall arrest systems would be effective where employees were engaged in re-roofing activities at a height greater than six (6) feet above a lower level, exposing employees to fall hazards.

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Aug 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(5): Non-locking type snaphooks were used as part of a personal fall arrest system.    On or about May 6, 2014, employees were using a shop-made wire rope cable as a lifeline for tie-off purposes with their fall arrest system; however, it did not include a locking-type snaphook, exposing employees to fall hazards..

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Aug 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(6)(v): A snaphook not of the locking type was engaged (i) directly to webbing, rope or wire rope; (ii) to each other (iii) to a Dee-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is attached;(iv) to a horizontal lifeline; or (v) to any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper and release itself.    On or about May 6, 2014, employees engaged in re-roofing activities at a height greater than six (6) feet were using a wire rope thimble installed on a shop-made cable, used as a part of the personal fall arrest system, which was not compatible with the lanyard snaphook.  This exposed employees to fall hazards.

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Aug 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

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 May 6, 2014, anchorage used with the personal fall arrest systems was not rigged such that employee(s) could neither free fall more than six (6) feet, nor contact any lower level.  This exposed employee(s) to fall hazards.

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Aug 29, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(23): Personal fall arrest systems were attached to guardrail systems or to hoists.    On or about May 6, 2014, an employee engaged in re-roofing activities at a height greater than six (6) feet above lower level was using the lifeline portion of the personal fall arrest system which was attached to the guardrail system of a catwalk, exposing employee to fall hazards.

Issued

Aug 27, 2014

Abate by

Sep 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(2)(iii): The employer did not assure that each employee has been trained, as necessary, by a competent person in the use and operation of guardrail systems, safety net systems, warning line systems, safety monitoring systems, controlled access zones, and other protection to be used.  On or about May 6, 2014, and times prior thereto, employees required to wear fall protection had not received adequate fall protection training, including training about the proper care, maintenance and useful life of the fall protection equipment, exposing employees to fall hazards.