OSHA Inspection: OMAR ARMENTA ROOFING

Issued

Sep 12, 2013

Abate by

Oct 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.307(d)(1): Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet (2.128 m) or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraphs  (m) and  (o) of this section:Note:  Pulleys serving as balance wheels (e.g., punch presses) on which the point of contact between belt and pulley is more than 6 ft. 6 in. (1.976 m) from the floor or platform may be guarded with a disk covering the spokes.   The employer failed to protect employees from potential amputation associated with operating equipment with unguarded belt and pulley assemblies.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 2304 152nd Street, Omaha, NE 68116 where the employer had employees re-roofing an existing residential home using an unmarked air compressor to power the pneumatic tools without having a guard on the belt and pulley assembly.

Issued

Sep 12, 2013

Abate by

Oct 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.307(e)(1)(i): Horizontal belts which had both runs 7 feet (2.128 m) or less from the floor level were not guarded with a guard that extended to at least 15 inches (38.1 cm) above the belt or to a standard height specified in Table O-12:   The employer failed to protect employees from potential amputation associated with operating equipment with unguarded belt and pulley assemblies.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 2304 152nd Street, Omaha, NE 68116 where the employer had employees re-roofing an existing residential home using an unmarked air compressor to power the pneumatic tools without having a guard on the belt and pulley assembly.

Issued

Sep 12, 2013

Abate by

Oct 2, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b):    The employer failed to protect employees from potential fall hazards associated with re-roofing an existing residential home with a roof height over 10 ground to eve.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 2304 152nd Street, Omaha, NE 68116where the employer had employees re-roofing an existing residential home with ground eave heights over 6 and roof pitch greater than 4-12 without any form of fall protection.