HAMDEN, CT —
OSHA Inspection: PRO EXTERIORS LLC
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of PRO EXTERIORS LLC in 1247 WHITNEY AVENUE, HAMDEN, CT 06517 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 344469564.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- PRO EXTERIORS LLC
- Site address
- 1247 WHITNEY AVENUE
- City
- HAMDEN
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06517
- Mailing
- 63 GILBERT STREET, WEST HAVEN, CT 06516
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 8
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
11 citations on file for this inspection.
1903.19 C01
- Issued
- Mar 17, 2020
- Abate by
- Mar 30, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $325 · Current $325
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): Employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated: Location: 1247 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT 06517 Abatement certification and verification for Citation 001, Item 1a; Citation 001, Item 1b and Citation 001, Item 1c with a final order date of February 19, 2020 was not received within 10 calendar days (by February 28, 2020) following the abatement due date (February 18, 2020).
Recent events (1)
- — Z (O) $325
1926.21 B02
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $2,892 · Current $2,892
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2): The employer did not instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his/her environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or injury: Jobsite: The employer did not ensure that training program(s) were provided to enable the employees the ability to identify hazards associated with roofing work to include, (but not limited to) fall protection and ladder use.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $2892
1926.503 A01
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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: Jobsite: The employees who were exposed fall hazards while working on the roofs were not trained in fall hazards and the procedures to be followed to minimize such hazards.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $0
1926.1060 A
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1060(a): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee using ladders and stairways, as necessary, which would enable each employee to recognize hazards related to ladders and stairways and train each employee in the procedures to be followed to minimize these hazards: Jobsite: The employees using the extension ladder to access the lower roof were not trained in the proper means to erect the ladder, recognize hazards and the procedures to minimize any hazards.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $0
1926.102 A01
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $2,313 · Current $2,313
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Employees were not provided with eye and face protection equipment when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents: Jobsite: The employees who were installing asphalt roofing shingles with pneumatic nail guns were not wearing eye protection.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $2313
1926.501 B11
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $4,048 · Current $4,048
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11): Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems: Jobsite: The employees who were working on 8 in 12 pitch roofs with eve heights up to 24 feet above the ground were not protected from fall hazards by the use guardrails, safety nets or a personal fall arrest system.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $4048
1926.502 D15 II
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $2,892 · Current $2,892
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(15)(ii): Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest equipment was not capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) per employee attached, and not installed under the supervision of a qualified person. Jobsite: The employees who were exposed to fall hazards while working on the 8 in 12 pitch roof did not have fall protection anchorage point installed under the supervision of a qualified person.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $2892
1926.502 D16 III
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $2,892 · Current $2,892
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: Jobsite: The vertical lifelines of the personal fall arrest systems worn by employees while reroofing the 8 in 12 pitch roof were not rigged in a manner that could prevent employees from free falling more than 6 feet.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $2892
1926.502 D17
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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: Jobsite: The attachment point, "D Ring" of the body harnesses worn by employees while reroofing the 8 in 12 pitch roof was not located in the center of the employee's back near shoulder level.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $0
1926.1053 B01
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $2,892 · Current $2,892
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder's length allows, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed: Jobsite: The side rails of the aluminum extension ladder that was used by employees to gain access to the 8 in 12 pitch lower roof at a height of approximately 18 feet above the ground did not extend at least 3 feet above the landing surface.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $2892
1926.1053 B10
- Issued
- Jan 17, 2020
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(10): The tops of a non-self-supporting ladder with more than one support attachment were not placed with the two rails supported equally: Jobsite: The tops of the aluminum extension ladder used by employees to gain access to the 8 in 12 pitch lower roof at a height of approximately 18 feet above the ground were not placed equally onto the surface.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections at PRO Exteriors LLC
View PRO Exteriors LLC's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in CT
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 344469564.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.