JANESVILLE, WI —
OSHA Inspection: SHOWERS BUILDING RESTORATION CO.
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of SHOWERS BUILDING RESTORATION CO. in 108 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, JANESVILLE, WI 53548 (NAICS 238140). OSHA activity number 330771114.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- SHOWERS BUILDING RESTORATION CO.
- Site address
- 108 SOUTH JACKSON STREET
- City
- JANESVILLE
- State
- WI
- ZIP
- 53548
- Mailing
- 3231 FREEWAY COURT, MC FARLAND, WI 53558
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- 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
- 238140
- Employees
- 3
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- Nov 18, 2011
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $1,500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): In any workplace where respirators are necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators are required by the employer, the employer did not establish and implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures. The program shall be updated as necessary to reflect those changes in workplace conditions that affect respirator use. The employer shall include in the program the following provisions of this section, as applicable: Employer did not develop and implement a written respiratory protection program where employees were required to wear N95 respirators while performing tuck pointing.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $1500
- — C (S) $3000
- — Z (S) $3000
1910.134 D01 III
- Issued
- Nov 18, 2011
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation shall include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer shall consider the atmosphere to be IDLH. The employer did not identify and evaluate employee exposure to silica while tuck pointing a chimney.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $3000
- — Z (S) $3000
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Nov 18, 2011
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $1,800 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): General. The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. The employer may discontinue an employee's medical evaluations when the employee is no longer required to use a respirator. The employer did not provide a medical evaluation for employees required wear a N95 respirator while performing tuck pointing.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $1800
- — Z (S) $1800
1910.134 F01
- Issued
- Nov 18, 2011
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator pass an appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) as stated in this paragraph. The employer did not provide fit testing for employees required to wear a N95 respirator.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $3000
- — Z (S) $3000
1910.134 K01
- Issued
- Nov 18, 2011
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $3,000 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of at least the following: The employer did not provided training to employees required to wear N95 respirators while performing tuck pointing.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $3000
- — Z (S) $3000
1926.453 A01
- Issued
- Nov 18, 2011
- Abate by
- Dec 5, 2011
- Penalty
- Initial $4,200 · Current $2,100 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.453(a)(1): Unless otherwise provided in this section, aerial lifts acquired for use on or after January 22,1973 shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the applicable requirements of the American National Standards for "Vehicle MountedElevating and Rotating Work Platforms," ANSI A92.2-1969, including appendix. Aerial lifts acquired before January 22, 1973 which do not meet therequirements of ANSI A92.2-1969, may not be used after January 1, 1976, unless they shall have been modified so as to conform with the applicabledesign and construction requirements of ANSI A92.2-1969. Aerial lifts include the following types of vehicle-mounted aerial devices used to elevatepersonnel to job-sites above ground: An employee was working from an articulating boom platform with no fall protection.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $2100
- — C (S) $4200
- — Z (S) $4200
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238140)
More inspections in WI
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 330771114.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.