OSHA Inspection: ASSURED QUALITY ROOFING

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $3,104 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1): Each employee on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge which was 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level was not protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.  On or about 4/27/2018, on the roof of the building at 5740 Steeple Chase Blvd, Cumming, GA: Employees observed working on and near the edge of the roof with unprotected sides and edges at height up to 24 feet were not protected from a fall hazard.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Aug 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $3,104 Reduced

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:    On or about 4/27/2018, on the roof of the building at 5740 Steeple Chase Blvd, Cumming, GA: Employer failed to ensure the personal fall arrest systems provided to the employees observed working on and near the edge of the roof with unprotected sides and edges at height up to 24 feet were inspected prior to use.  The personal fall arrest systems inspected was noted with defects such as but not limited to damage lanyards, manufacture identification tags torn off, and black tape used on the equipment.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Aug 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $3,104 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:    On or about 4/27/2018, on the roof of the building at 5740 Steeple Chase Blvd, Cumming, GA: Employees observed working on and near the edge of the roof with unprotected sides and edges at height up to 24 feet were not provided effective training on fall hazards. The employer failed to ensure each employee exposed to a fall hazard were able to recognize and understand the procedures and hazards of falling.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Aug 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $3,104 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(b)(1): The employer did not verify compliance with paragraph (a) of this section by preparing a written (training) certification record including the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer.    On or about 4/27/2018, on the roof of the building at 5740 Steeple Chase Blvd, Cumming, GA: The employer failed to ensure each employee working at heights at or above six (6) feet training was verified by written certification records.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Aug 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $415 · Current $249 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.59: 29 CFR 1926.59:  An employer engaged in construction activities did not comply with the requirements set forth in Part 1910, Section 1200, Hazard Communication:    On or about 4/27/2018, at 5740 Steeple Chase Blvd, Cumming, GA: A written hazard communication plan was not developed where employees are required to work with JM Membrane Bonding Adhesive chemicals while engaged in roofing work.

Issued

Jun 19, 2018

Abate by

Aug 15, 2018

Penalty

Initial $415 · Current $249 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.602(d): The employer did not certify that each operator had been trained and evaluated as required by paragraph 29 CFR 1910.178(l):Note: The requirements applicable to construction work under paragraph (d) of this section are identical to those set forth at paragraph (l) of 29 CFR 1910.178.    On or about 4/27/2018, at 5470 Steeple Chase Blvd, Cumming, GA: Employee observed operating a powered industrial truck to lift material, equipment, and other equipment was not trained, evaluated and certified to operate the powered industrial truck.