OSHA Inspection: MONDRAGON ROOFING, SIDING & GUTTERS LLC DBA MOONDRAGON ROOFING

Issued

Jun 23, 2020

Penalty

Initial $4,453 · Current $2,227 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.502(d)(17): ("Personal fall arrest systems." Personal fall arrest systems and their use shall comply with the provisions set forth below. Effective January 1, 1998, body belts are not acceptable as part of a personal fall arrest system. Note: The use of a body belt in a positioning device system is acceptable and is regulated under paragraph (e) of this section.) The attachment point of the body belt shall be located in the center of the wearer's back. The attachment point of the body harness shall be located in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head.    On June 4, 2020, located throughout a residential roof structure, employees were performing roofing work with body harnesses that did not have an attachment point in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder level in that employees had attached their self-retracting lifelines to the work positioning D-rings of their donned ANSI-compliant harnesses as part of a personal fall arrest system. Potential fall heights were 18' (upper roof) and 8' 2" (garage roof) above ground level.

Issued

Jun 23, 2020

Penalty

Initial $8,906 · Current $4,453 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): "Residential construction." Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.  Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.    On June 4, 2020, located throughout a residential roof structure, employees were performing roofing work without utilizing an effective fall protection system at potential fall heights of 18' (upper roof) and 8' 2" (garage roof) above ground level.    (a) Employees were not tied off while wearing ANSI-compliant harnesses as part of a personal fall arrest system (PFAS)    (b) Employees were wearing improperly fitted ANSI-compliant harnesses as part of a PFAS    (c) Employees had attached three self-retracting lifelines to one roof anchorage as part of a PFAS    (d) Employees had attached self-retracting lifelines to the work positioning D-rings of their donned ANSI-compliant harnesses as part of a PFAS    Mondragon Roofing, Siding & Gutters LLC was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1426807, citation number 1, item number 1-a and was affirmed as a final order on 1/09/2020, with respect to a workplace located at 488 Dorothy Lane  Springdale, OH 45246.