PUEBLO, CO —
OSHA Inspection: M.A. CONTRACTING
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of M.A. CONTRACTING in 1612 E. ABRIENDO AVE., PUEBLO, CO 81004 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 337860027.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- M.A. CONTRACTING
- Site address
- 1612 E. ABRIENDO AVE.
- City
- PUEBLO
- State
- CO
- ZIP
- 81004
- Mailing
- 1101 E. ORMAN AVE., PUEBLO, CO 81004
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- 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
- 7
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
5 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.403 I02 I
- Issued
- Jan 4, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 10, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $2,000 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.403(i)(2)(i): Live parts of electric equipment operating at 50 volts or more were not guarded against accidental contact: a) On or about October 25, 2012 and at times prior, M.A. Contracting did not ensure that workers were protected from electrical hazards. Employees did remove and install metal sheet roofing on a shop where the power lines came within two feet of the peak. The power lines ranged from 1280 - 3600 kv.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2000
- — Z (S) $2800
1926.501 B10
- Issued
- Jan 4, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 10, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $2,000 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10): Each employee engaged in roofing activities on low-slope roofs, with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels, was not protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest system, or other approved system: a) On or about October 25, 2012 and at times prior, M.A. Contracting, did not ensure that workers were protected from fall hazards. The roofing crew did work, stocking material and removing old metal, on the lower level of the structure. They did not use fall protection.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2000
- — Z (S) $2800
1926.502 D19
- Issued
- Jan 4, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 10, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(19): Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading were not immediately removed from service and/or were reused before they were inspected by a competent person and determined to be suitable for reuse: a) On or about October 25, 2012 and at times prior M.A. Contracting, did not ensure that workers were protected from fall hazards. One of the vertical ropes, which were equipped with a rip away system, that had been deployed was being used.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $2800
1926.502 D21
- Issued
- Jan 4, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 10, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(d)(21): Personal fall arrest systems were not inspected prior to each use for wear, damage, and other deterioration, and/or defective components were not removed from service: a) On or about October 25, 2012 and at times prior, M.A. Contracting did not ensue that workers were protected from fall hazards. The fall arrest systems used by the crew were not inspected prior to use.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.602 C01 VIII A
- Issued
- Jan 4, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 10, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $2,000 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.602(c)(1)(viii)(A): The industrial truck was not equipped with a safety platform/cage firmly secured to the lifting carriage and/or forks when used for lifting personnel: a) On or about October 25, 2012 and at times prior M.A. Contracting did not ensure that workers were protected from fall hazards while using fork lifts. Employees did ride on roofing metal which was being elevated by a fork lift.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2000
- — Z (S) $2800
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in CO
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 337860027.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.