OSHA Inspection: TOM'S ROOFING & HOME IMPROVEMENT, LLC DBA TOM'S ROOFING

Issued

Jun 21, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,173 · Current $1,087 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1):  Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:      Eye protective equipment was not used when employees were exposed to eye injury while tearing off asphalt roof shingles.

Issued

Jun 21, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $1,902 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m)  or more above lower levels was not protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b), nor did the employer demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems and develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of section 1926.502:      The employer did not ensure fall protection was implemented during residential construction operations when workers were exposed to the hazard of falling approximately ten (10) feet off the roof eve when they were tearing off asphalt roof shingles.

Issued

Jun 21, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $2,716 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(6)(iii): 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:    The employer did not ensure that a snaphook used on a personal fall arrest system was not connected to a Dee-ring to which another snaphook or connector was attached.

Issued

Jun 21, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(15): Anchorage points used for attachment of personal fall arrest equipment were not  independent of any anchorage point being used to support or suspend platforms and capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) per employee:      The employer did not ensure fall protection anchor points were installed to support at least 5,000 pounds for employees who were exposed to the hazard of falling approximately ten (10) feet while performing roofing activities.

Issued

Jun 21, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(16)(ii): Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, did not limit the maximum arresting force on an employee to 1800 pounds (8kn) when used with a body harness:     The employer did not ensure that a shock absorbing lanyard or lifeline was used as part of a fall arrest system.  Employees were working on a roof while using standard lanyards that were connected to vertical lifelines that did not have a shock absorbing or deceleration device.  This exposed the employees to arresting forces of greater than 1800 pounds in the event of a fall.

Issued

Jun 21, 2017

Abate by

Jul 19, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,803 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    The employer did not ensure that fall protection systems were used in a manner to keep employees from free falling more than 6 foot while performing roofing activities.