Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: BUCCOS ROOFING

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of BUCCOS ROOFING in 412 EAST MAIDEN STREET, WASHINGTON, PA 15301 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 339908378.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Buccos Roofing — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Buccos Roofing is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
BUCCOS ROOFING
Site address
412 EAST MAIDEN STREET
City
WASHINGTON
State
PA
ZIP
15301
Mailing
259 THOMPSONVILLE ROAD, MCMURRAY, PA 15317
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Complete (A)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238160
Employees
8
Ownership type
A

9 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.100 A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Abate by
Sep 3, 2014
Penalty
Initial $1,600 · Current $960 Reduced
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:    (a) Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, employees who were working on the ground were not wearing hard hats when they were working below other employees who were using hand tools
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $960
  • — Z (S) $1600

1926.451 G01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,400 · Current $1,440 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1): Each employee on a scaffold more than 10 feet above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level:     (a) Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, two employees were working from a pump jack scaffold and they were not protected from falling to the ground.  The fall hazard was up to about 25 feet to the ground.  The employees were installing soffit from the pump jack scaffold.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1440
  • — Z (S) $2400

1926.451 C02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.451(c)(2): Supported scaffold poles, legs, posts, frames,  or uprights did not bear on base plates, mud sills or other adequate firm foundation:    (a) Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, two employees were working from a pump jack scaffold and the poles were not on base plates, mud sills or other firm foundation.  The ends of the pump jack scaffold poles were simply placed on the sloped yard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.452 J02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.452(j)(2): Poles were not secured to the structure by rigid triangular bracing or equivalent at the bottom, top, and other points as necessary:   (a) Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, the two aluminum poles used as part of the pump jack scaffold were not secured at the bottom.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b):       (a)  Jobsite, Rear Porch Roof:  On or about August 19, 2014, three employees were working on the rear porch roof and they were not protected from falling.  The fall hazard to the three employees was approximately 19 feet to the ground or about 9 feet to a lower roof.     (b) Jobsite, Front Porch Roof:  On or about August 19, 2014, an employee was working on the front porch roof and he was not protected from falling.  The fall  hazard to the employee was approximately 11 feet to the ground.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1680
  • — Z (S) $2800

1926.503 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Abate by
Sep 9, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially 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:   (a) Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, the employer did not provide fall protection training to its employees.  Employees were working from roofs and pump jack scaffolding and were not protected from falling to the ground.  The fall hazard to the employees was up to about 25 feet.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Penalty
Initial $1,600 · Current $960 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder's length allows, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed:       (a) Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, the 16 foot aluminum extension ladder that employees were using to access the back porch roof only extended above the roof by about 18 inches.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $960
  • — Z (S) $1600

1926.1060 A

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Abate by
Sep 9, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.1060(a): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee using ladders and stairways, as necessary, which would train each employee in the procedures to be followed to minimize hazards related to ladders and stairways:    (a)  Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, the employer did not provide a training program to employees on the safe use of ladders and the procedures to be followed to minimize hazards related to the use of ladders.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.1053 B16

Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Aug 27, 2014
Abate by
Sep 3, 2014
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(16): Portable ladders with structural defects, such as, but not limited to, broken or missing rungs, cleats, or steps, broken or split rails, corroded components, or other faulty or defective components, were not either immediately marked in a manner that readily identifies them as defective, or tagged with "Do Not Use" or similar language, and were not withdrawn from service until repaired:    (a)  Jobsite:  On or about August 19, 2014, employees were using a 16 foot aluminum extension ladder that had a smashed side rail.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

View Buccos Roofing's full OSHA safety record →

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 339908378.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.