OSHA Inspection: LOBO ROOFING LLC

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,716 · Current $1,358 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2):  The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s):      The employer did not maintain jobsite inspections that were performed by a person competent to ensure employees were not exposed to the hazard of falling and being struck by hazards during roofing operations.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

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 using pneumatic nail guns to perform roof installation operations.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,716 · Current $1,358 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.152(d)(4): At least one portable fire extinguisher having a rating of not less than 20B:C units was not provided on all vehicles used for transporting and/or dispensing flammable or combustible liquids:    The employer did not ensure that a portable fire extinguisher was available to employees who were carrying a five (5) gallon gasoline can in the vehicle. The gasoline was being used to fill the air compressor.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

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 up to approximately twelve (12) feet off the roof eve when they were performing roofing operations.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(6)(i): 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 objectwhich 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 vertical lifeline rope.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 objectwhich 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 an anchor Dee-ring which another snaphook was connected.

Issued

Jul 18, 2017

Abate by

Mar 2, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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 twelve (12) feet while performing roofing activities.