OSHA Inspection: HOMEWAY HOMES, INC.

Issued

2016-06-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-06-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $6300.00 · Current $3150.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): 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 other provisions of paragraph (b) of this section used to provide an alternative fall protection measure:      a. On or about, April 6, 2016, employees were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet while installing roofing material on a residential roof and the employer did not ensure a suitable fall protection system was used.       b. On or about, April 5, 2016, employees were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet while installing trusses and a suitable fall protection system was not used.

Issued

2016-06-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-06-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(k)(1): A fall protection plan was not prepared by a qualified person and developed specially for the site where the leading edge work, precast work, or residential construction work was specifically being performed:  On or about, April 6, 2016, employees performing construction activities on a residential roof were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet and the employer did not develop a suitable fall protection plan for the worksite.

Issued

2016-06-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-06-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 jobsite:   On or about, April 6, 2016, employees performing construction activities on a residential roof were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet and the employer did not maintain a suitable fall protection plan.

Issued

2016-06-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-06-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 net systems) are infeasible or why their use would create a greater hazard:  On or about, April 6, 2016, employees performing construction activities including truss installation on a residential roof were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet, 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.

Issued

2016-06-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-06-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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:  On or about, April 6, 2016, employees performing construction activities on a residential roof were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet 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.

Issued

2016-06-01 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-06-13 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 w to work in controlled access zones:  On or about, April 6, 2016, employees performing construction activities on a residential roof were exposed to a fall hazard up to 16 feet and the employer did not ensure the fall protection plan included the name of each employee who is designated to work in a controlled access zone