OSHA Inspection: PROTECH BUILDING SERVICES INC

Issued

Feb 11, 2020

Abate by

Mar 2, 2020

Penalty

Initial $3,856 · Current $2,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.28(b)(13)(i): When work was performed on a low-slope roof less than 6 feet (1.6 m) from the roof edge, the employer did not ensure each employee was protected from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or personal fall arrest system:    (a)  ProTech Building Services Inc, at 890 S Monaco Parkway, Denver, CO: On 1/22/2020, when work was performed on a low-slope roof less than 6 feet (1.6 m) from the roof edge, the employer did not ensure each employee was protected from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or personal fall arrest system.  Employees performed repairs to a lighted sign positioned above a sloped metal roof suspended above a concrete sidewalk.  The pitch of the roof was approximately 4:12.  One employee was standing upon the sloped metal roof while working.  The employee was not protected from a fall through use of a guardrail system, safety net system, restraint system, or personal fall arrest system.  This condition exposed the employee to an approximate 11.5 foot fall hazard.

Issued

Feb 11, 2020

Abate by

Mar 2, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.30(a)(1):  The employer did not provide training for each employee who used personal fall protection systems or who was required to be trained as specified elsewhere in this subpart, before any employee was exposed to a fall hazard:  (a)  ProTech Building Services Inc, at 890 S Monaco Parkway, Denver, CO: On 1/22/2020, the employer did not provide training for each employee who used personal fall protection systems or who was required to be trained as specified elsewhere in this subpart, before any employee was exposed to a fall hazard.  Employees performed repairs to a lighted sign positioned above a sloped metal roof suspended above a concrete sidewalk.  The pitch of the roof was approximately 4:12.  One employee was standing upon the sloped metal roof while working.  The employee had not been provided fall protection training.  This condition exposed the employee to an approximate 11.5 foot fall hazard.

Issued

Feb 11, 2020

Abate by

Mar 2, 2020

Penalty

Initial $3,856 · Current $2,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.67(c)(2)(v): A personal fall arrest or travel restraint system that met the requirements in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, was not worn and attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift:    (a)  ProTech Building Services Inc, at 890 S Monaco Parkway, Denver, CO: On 1/22/2020, the employer did not ensure that a personal fall arrest or travel restraint system that met the requirements in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, was worn and attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.  Employees performed repairs to a lighted sign positioned above a sloped metal roof suspended above a concrete sidewalk.  An employee operated the truck mounted aerial lift.  The operator did not utilize a personal fall arrest or travel restraint system that met the requirements in 29 CFR 1910, subpart I when working from the aerial lift.  This condition exposed the employee to an approximate 11.5 foot fall hazard.

Issued

Feb 11, 2020

Abate by

Mar 2, 2020

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.67(c)(2)(vi): Boom and basket load limits specified by the manufacturer were exceeded:  (a)  ProTech Building Services Inc, at 890 S Monaco Parkway, Denver, CO: On 1/22/2020, boom and basket load limits specified by the manufacturer were exceeded.  Employees performed repairs to a lighted sign positioned above a sloped metal roof suspended above a concrete sidewalk.  An employee operated the truck mounted aerial lift.  Two employees used the aerial lift to travel from the roof to the ground.  The basket was designed for a single occupant and had a single anchor point.  The capacity of the basket was 350 pounds without liner and 300 pounds with liner.  The manufacturer specification of a single occupant was exceeded.  This condition exposed the employees to an approximate 11.5 foot fall hazard.