b'Jmployer Cited by OSHA for Fall Protection Safety Violations "Thiswasa veryhaza useoffal I protectionsystemsGordonu Bostonand rdousrged work site situation," Gordon said,[theemployerhasbeencitedSoutheasternMassachusetts "createdby anemployerwhoisonce for similar violations}.employersandemployeeswith well aware of OSHA\'s fall protec @)Four alleged serious violations,questionsregardingsafetyand tionsafetystandards,sincethiscarryingproposedpenaltieshealth standardstocontactthe employerbeen cited fortotaling $12,000, for: failure toOSHA area office in Braintree. She hassimilar violations before.It\'s unfortu require employees to wear hardaddedthatOSHA\'stol -free 1nate when any employer exposeshats on atruction project;nationwide hotline-1-800-321-consemployees to a hazardous work allowingemployeestousea0SHA (1-800-321-67- may 42) placesituation,butit\'stotallytubularweldedframescaffoldbe used to report workplace acciinexcusablewhenanemployer20 feet above the ground withdentsandfatalities or situations mifullyawareofapplicable safetynofallprotection;ineffectiveposing im nent danger to workrequirementswillfullydoesso.useof a safetymonitor;and,ers,especiallythosesituations That\'s why we are citing Capewayfailure to provide alad whichoccur outsideofnormal portable Roofing Systems forwill der whichextendedthreefeetbusiness hours. alleged ful and repeat violations,well asabove the landing surface and/OSHAisempoweredbythe as seriousandotherviolationsofor failure toprovided a hand OccupationalSafetyandHealth issue standards OSHA\'sfallprotectionrequire hold device to assist employeesAct of 1970 toand TheOccupationalSafetyandments."in safelymountinganddis rules requiring employersproto _Health Administration(OSHA) ofSpecifically,thecompanyismounting the ladder.vide their employees with safe and _ he U.S. DepartmentLabor hasbeingtor:oother-than-serousviola healthful workplaces and ofcitedOnejobsites, \'-{;ited Capeway RoofingSystems,oallegedwillfulviolation,tion withnoproposedpenaltyand to assure through workplace One Inc., of Westport, Massachusetts,carrying apenalty offor failuretoreplacepersonalinspectionsthat thosestandards proposed for alleged willful, repeat, serious$63,000, for: requiring employ fall arrest equipment withare followed. badly and other violations of the Occu ees to work on apitchedrusted hardware.Thecompanyhas 15 working steeply pational Safety and Health Act at aroofbetween21to26feetAviolation is defineddays fromreceipt of thetations willfulbycifire station construction project inabove theground withno fallOSHA as one committed with anandproposedpenalties to either South Weymouth,and hasprotection;intentional disregard of, or plainelectcomply with them, Mass.,torequest proposedpenaltiestotaling@ alleged repeat violations,indifferenceto,therequirem and participate in an informal conThreeents $119,000fortheallegedviola includingproposedpenaltiesoftheOccupationalSafetyandference with the OSHA area directions.totaling $44,000, for: failing toHealth Actregulations.tor,orcontestthembeforethe and AccordingtoBrendaGordon,protect employees walking andAviolation is defined byindependentOccupationalSafety repeat OSHA area director forworkingonlowslopedroofsOSHAasonewhere, upon re and Health Review Commission. Boston and SoutheasternMassachusetts, thefrom falls ranging from over sixinspection, asimilarEditor\'s Note:s substantiallyMRCASHARP alleged violations were uncoveredfeettoover20feet[theviolation isd.program is designed to specififounemployer has been cited previ Aviolation isfined ascally addressall of theroofing during an OSHA inspection of theseriousdefirestationconstructionprojectouslyforsimilarviolationsone in which thereis substantialsafety concerns definedOSHA. by locatedat 246Park Ave.,Souththree times}; creating over-headprobability thatdeathor seriousYou may meet and even exceed Weymouth, Mass. She noted thathazardsandfallhazardsbyph icalharmcould result, andOSHArequirementsbyjoining ysthe inspection took plaGe on Aprilstoringroofingmaterialsandthe employer kn ,should haveSHARP. Call the MRCA office ew or 24,2000,andrevealedthatequipment within afeet ofknown, ofhazard.for more details. fewthe employeesofCapewayRoofingroof edges[theemployer wasAn other-than-serious violation Systems, whowereconstructingpreviously cited once for ais athat would sim conditionprobably the roof of the station, were com ilarviolation];and,failingtonot cause death or serious physipletelyunprotectedfromfallsoftrainemployeestorecognizecal harm, buthave at woulddirecover 20 feet.the hazards of working on roofsa immediateimpactonthe nd and failing to train them insafety and health of employees. the'