OSHA Inspection: FRANCISCO CERRANO ROOFING

Issued

Sep 15, 2014

Abate by

Oct 3, 2014

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): (a)  NOTE TO CSHO: USE THIS OPTION ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE INFEASIBILITY/GREATER HAZARD EXCEPTION IS NOT IN ISSUE.  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): (a)  NOTE TO CSHO: USE THIS OPTION ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE INFEASIBILITY/GREATER HAZARD EXCEPTION IS NOT IN ISSUE.

Issued

Sep 15, 2014

Abate by

Oct 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:   The employer is failing to provide training to employees on the potential fall hazards associated with re-roofing an existing residential home where the ground to eave is greater than 6 feet and the roof pitch is more than 4:12.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 1067 Westridge Dr., Blair, NE 68008 where the employer has untrained employees re-roofing an existing residential home without the use of fall protection.

Issued

Sep 15, 2014

Abate by

Oct 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(10): The tops of a non-self-supporting ladder with more than one support attachment were not placed with the two rails supported equally:  The employer is failing to protect employees from potential fall hazards associated with using ladders as a means of access and egress from elevated work surfaces where the ground to eave is greater than 6 feet and the roof pitch is more than 4:12.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 1067 Westridge Dr., Blair, NE 68008 where the employer has employees using an aluminum ladder as a means of access to the roof of an existing residential home where the employer has the ladder extended along the rake of the roof instead of the eave thus the top two rails of the ladder do not come into contact with the upper landing surface equally causing the ladder to rock as employees using thus exposing them to potential fall hazards.

Issued

Sep 15, 2014

Abate by

Oct 18, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1060(a)(1)(iii): The employer did not ensure that each employee using ladders and/or stairways had been trained by a competent person in the proper construction, use, placement, and care in handling the ladders and/or stairways:   The employer is failing to train employees on the potential fall hazards associated with using ladders as a means of access and egress from elevated work surfaces where the ground to eave is greater than 6 feet and the roof pitch is more than 4:12.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 1067 Westridge Dr., Blair, NE 68008 where the employer has untrained employees using an aluminum extension ladder as a means of access to the roof of an existing residential home without extending the ladder a minimum of three feet over the upper landing surface.