GERMANTOWN HILLS, IL —
OSHA Inspection: RIVER CITY ROOFING COMPANY
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of RIVER CITY ROOFING COMPANY in 714 DEVON DRIVE, GERMANTOWN HILLS, IL 61548 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 340795442.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- RIVER CITY ROOFING COMPANY
- Site address
- 714 DEVON DRIVE
- City
- GERMANTOWN HILLS
- State
- IL
- ZIP
- 61548
- Mailing
- 7402 S ADAMS STREET, BARTONVILLE, IL 61607
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- 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
- 35
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.502 A02
- Issued
- Nov 27, 2015
- Abate by
- Dec 23, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $3,850 · Current $2,000 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. Employees performing construction activities on a roof were exposed to a fall hazard of nine feet, six inches and the employer did not ensure a suitable fall protection system was installed for each employee.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $2000
- — C (S) $3850
- — Z (S) $3850
1926.502 K01
- Issued
- Nov 27, 2015
- Abate by
- Dec 23, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(1): A fall protection plan was not prepared by a qualified person and developed specifically for the site where the leading edge work, precast work, or residential construction work was being performed: Employees performing construction activities on a roof were exposed to a fall hazard of nine feet, six inches and the employer did not develop a suitable fall protection plan for the site.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 K03
- Issued
- Nov 27, 2015
- Abate by
- Dec 23, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(3): A copy of the fall protection plan with all approved changes was not maintained at the job site. Employees performing construction activities on a roof were exposed to a fall hazard of nine feet, six inches and the employer did not maintain a suitable fall protection plan at the site.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 K05
- Issued
- Nov 27, 2015
- Abate by
- Dec 23, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(5): The fall protection plan did not document the reasons why the use of conventional fall protection systems (guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, or safety nets systems) are infeasible or why their use would create a greater hazard. Employees performing construction activities on a roof were exposed to a fall hazard of nine feet, six inches and the employer did not document in the fall protection plan the reasons why the use of conventional fall protection systems were infeasible or why their use would create a greater hazard.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 K07
- Issued
- Nov 27, 2015
- Abate by
- Dec 23, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(7): The fall protection plan did not identify each location where conventional fall protection methods cannot be used, these locations were not then classified as controlled access zones having to comply with the criteria of paragraph (g) of this section. Employees performing construction activities on a roof were exposed to a fall hazard of nine feet, six inches and the employer did not document in the fall protection plan each location where conventional fall protection methods cannot be used and then ensure a controlled access zone procedures are implemented in accordance with the standard.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 K09
- Issued
- Nov 27, 2015
- Abate by
- Dec 23, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(k)(9): The fall protection plan did not include a statement which provides the name or other method of identification for each employee who is designated to work in controlled access zones. Employees performing construction activities on a roof were exposed to a fall hazard of nine feet, six inches and the employer did not document in the fall protection plan the name of each employee who is designated to work in a controlled access zone.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in IL
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 340795442.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.