OSHA Inspection: FLORES CONSTRUCTION, LLC

Issued

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:     The employer is failing to protect employees from hazards associated with flying debris and objects as a result of using pneumatic air guns while re-roofing an existing residential home.  The most recent occurrence of this happened on a job site located at 15014 Sprague St. Omaha, NE 68114 where the employer had employees re-roofing an existing residential home without by using pneumatic air guns to nail the shingling without wearing ANSI approved eye protection.

Issued

Jul 29, 2016

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 is failing to protect employees from fall hazards associated with re-roofing an existing residential home where the roof pitch is greater than 4:12 and the ground to eave height is greater than 6 feet.  The most recent occurrence of this happened on a job site located at 15014 Sprague St. Omaha, NE 68114 where the employer had employees re-roofing an existing residential home without fall protection.

Issued

Jul 29, 2016

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 train employees on the recognition of fall hazards associated with re-roofing an existing residential home.  The most recent occurrence of this happened on a job site located at 15014 Sprague St. Omaha, NE 68114 where the employer had inadequately trained employees re-roofing an existing residential home with ground to eave falls 9 feet and greater.

Issued

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where (a) portable ladder(s) was/were used for access to an upper level landing surface and the ladder's length did not allow the ladder side rails to extend at least 3 feet (0.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed, the ladder was not secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and/or a grasping device was not provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder:     The employer is failing to protect employees from fall hazards associated with using a ladder to access and egress from the roof of an existing residential home.  The most recent occurrence of this happened on a job site located at 15014 Sprague St. Omaha, NE 68114 where the employer had employees using an unmarked 20 foot aluminum extension ladder as means of access and egress of the roof of an existing residential home they were re-roofing, without having extended the ladder at least three feet over the upper landing surface.

Issued

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4): Ladder(s) were used for purposes other than the purpose for which they were designed:     The employer is failing to protect employees from fall hazards associated with the improper use of a ladder being used to access and egress from the roof of an existing residential home.  The most recent occurrence of this happened on a job site located at 15014 Sprague St. Omaha, NE 68114 where the employer had employees split a 20 foot aluminum extension ladder in to two parts and were using both parts to access the roof.  Instances of inadequacy include but are not limited to:    i.      When using the top half of the ladder on the ground as means of access and egress there are no cleats to hold ladder in place.    ii.     The 20 foot ladder breaks down to two 10 foot sections thus unable to be extended a minimum of three feet over the upper landing surface.

Issued

Jul 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1060(a)(1)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each employee using ladders and/or stairways had been trained by a competent person in the correct procedures for erecting, maintaining, and disassembling the fall protection systems to be used:     The employer is failing to train employees on the recognition of fall hazards associated with using a ladder to access and egress from the roof of an existing residential home.  The most recent occurrence of this happened on a job site located at 15014 Sprague St. Omaha, NE 68114 where the employer had inadequately trained employees using an unmarked 20 foot aluminum extension ladder as means of access and egress of the roof of an existing residential home they were re-roofing, without having extended the ladder at least three feet over the upper landing surface.