WEST CHESTER, OH —
OSHA Inspection: GM ROOFING LLC.
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of GM ROOFING LLC. in 7849 W 2ND ST, WEST CHESTER, OH 45069 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 348482951.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- GM ROOFING LLC.
- Site address
- 7849 W 2ND ST
- City
- WEST CHESTER
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 45069
- Mailing
- 1500 BOLVO RD, MIAMISBURG, OH 45342
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- 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
- 4
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
4 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.501 B13
- Issued
- Sep 22, 2025
- Penalty
- Initial $4,965 · Current $2,000 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. a.) On or about September 4, 2025, at a residential new housing build the employer failed to protect employees from falls, while conducting roof work on a 6-12 pitch roof in that the employer did not properly utilize a fall protection system exposing employees to a fall height of 17'.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2000
- — Z (S) $4965
1926.502 D10 I
- Issued
- Sep 22, 2025
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(10)(i): Except as provided in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section, when vertical lifelines are used, each employee shall be attached to a separate lifeline. a.) On or about September 4, 2025, at a residential new housing build the employer failed to ensure that the vertical lifelines employees used in a fall protection system were independent and separate for each employee. Employees performing roofing activities were provided a fall protection system set up by the employer wrapping the lifelines around the peak of a truss allowing one lifeline to be draped on both sides of the roof instead of it being independent during the installation of shingles on the roof exposing employees to a potential 17' fall hazard.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 D11
- Issued
- Sep 22, 2025
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(11): Lifelines shall be protected against being cut or abraded. a.) On or about September 4, 2025, at a residential new housing build the employer failed to ensure that the vertical lifelines employees used in a fall protection system were protected from being cut or abraded. Employees performing roofing activities were provided a fall protection system set up by the employer wrapping the lifelines around steel nail mending plates at the peak of a truss subjecting the lifelines to cuts, fraying, severing from contact with the steal plates during the installation of shingles on the roof exposing employees to a potential 17' fall hazard.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.1053 B01
- Issued
- Sep 22, 2025
- Penalty
- Initial $4,965 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): When portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails shall extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder is used to gain access; or, when such an extension is not possible because of the ladder's length, then the ladder shall be secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such as a grabrail, shall be provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder. In no case shall the extension be such that ladder deflection under a load would, by itself, cause the ladder to slip off its support. a.) On or about September 4, 2025, at a residential new housing build, the employer failed to ensure that the side rails of a portable extension ladder used for roof access extended at least 3 feet above the upper landing surface. Employees used the ladder to gain access to a 6/12 pitch roof without the required extension, exposing them to a fall hazard of approximately 10' 11".
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $4965
More inspections at GM Roofing LLC.
View GM Roofing LLC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in OH
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 348482951.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.