OSHA Inspection: JAMES JUELFS DBA J & M CONSTRUCTION

Issued

Dec 22, 2017

Abate by

Jan 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $406 · Current $406

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): Within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, the employer must certify to OSHA (the Agency) that each cited violation has been abated, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.  a)  For Citation 1, Item 5, issued on 10/20/2017, with an abatement date of 12/8/2017, the employer did not certify the complete abatement of the cited violation.

Issued

Dec 22, 2017

Abate by

Jan 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $406 · Current $406

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer must submit to the Agency, along with the information on abatement certification required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required.  a) For Citation 1, Item 1a, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. b)  For Citation 1, Item 1b, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. c)  For Citation 1, Item 2a, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. d)  For Citation 1, Item 2b, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. e)  For Citation 1, Item 2c, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. f)  For Citation 1, Item 3, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. g)  For Citation 1, Item 4, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA. h)  For Citation 2, Item 1, issued on 10/20/2017 with an abatement date of 11/17/2017, the employer did not submit documents demonstrating complete abatement of the cited violation to OSHA.

Issued

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,577 · Current $5,577

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 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 routed through a roof truss and connected back to the lifeline rope.

Issued

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

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 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

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,577 · Current $5,577

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

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(19): Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading were not immediately removed from service and/or were reused before they were inspected by a competent person and determined to be suitable for reuse:  The employer did not ensure that a shock absorbing lanyard, which was subjected to previous impact load, was taken out of service.  An employee was wearing the activated shock absorbing lanyard and was thereby exposed to injuries associated falls.

Issued

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(21): Personal fall arrest systems were not inspected prior to each use for wear, damage, and other deterioration, and/or defective components were not removed from service:  The employer did not ensure that that a shock absorbing lanyard, that was subjected to a previous impact load, was inspected prior to use by an employee. The employee was thereby exposed to injuries associated with falls.

Issued

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,577 · Current $5,577

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

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $5,577 · Current $5,577

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(17): The attachment point of the body harness was not located in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head:  The employer did not ensure that the connection point of an employee's harness was located in the center of the worker's back, near the shoulder level.

Issued

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Dec 8, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,984 · Current $3,984

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards:  The employer did not provide fall protection training to enable employees to recognize and control the fall hazards at their worksite while performing commercial roofing operations.  Employees were exposed to the hazard of falling approximately eleven (11) foot.

Issued

Oct 20, 2017

Abate by

Nov 17, 2017

Penalty

Initial $11,154 · Current $11,154

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10): Each employee engaged in roofing activities on low-slope roofs with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or a combination of warning line system and guardrail system, warning line system and safety net system, or warning line system and personal fall arrest system, or warning line system and safety monitoring system.  Or, on roofs 50-feet (15.25 m) or less in width, each employee was not protected by use of a monitoring system.  The employer did not ensure fall protection was implemented during commercial roofing operations when workers were exposed to the hazard of falling approximately up to eleven (11) feet off the roof eve when they were installing asphalt roof shingles.  James Juelfs dba J&M Construction was previously cited for a violation of an equivalent Occupational Safety and Health Standard [29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13)], which was contained in osha inspection number 1116378, citation number 1, item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on 02/03/2016, with respect to a workplace located at Lot 168 Bridgeway Dr., O Fallon, IL 62269.