OSHA Inspection: EDIFICE RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, INC.

Issued

Nov 30, 2012

Abate by

Dec 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A):  The employer permitted respirators with tight-fitting face pieces to be worn by employees who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the face piece and the face or that interferes with valve function:      (a)	 Edifice Restoration Contractors, Holland, Ohio:  On or about July 2, 2012, at the work site located at 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, Ohio, the employer did not ensure that an employee who was required to wear a tight-fitting respirator while performing waterproofing work and who was exposed to airborne silica had a good face-to-respirator seal.  The employee had a multiple days growth beard and wore a full-face respirator to protect from silica exposure.

Issued

Nov 30, 2012

Abate by

Dec 11, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(a):  Exposure of employees to inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption, or contact with any material or substance at a concentration above those specified in the Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970 on the  American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, were not avoided:    (a)	Edifice Restoration Contractors, Holland, Ohio:  On or about July 2, 2012, at the work site located at 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, Ohio, the employer did not ensure that an employee performing waterproofing operations was not exposed to silica above the permissible exposure limit (PEL).  An employee was exposed to silica at 51.2 mppcf which was 307 percent of the PEL of 16.7 mppcf.    (b)	Edifice Restoration Contractors, Holland, Ohio:  On or about July 2, 2012, at the work site located at 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, Ohio, the employer did not ensure that an employee performing waterproofing operations was not exposed to silica above the permissible exposure limit (PEL).  An employee was exposed to silica at 26.4 mppcf which was 143 percent of the PEL of 18.5 mppcf.

Issued

Nov 30, 2012

Abate by

Apr 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.55(b):  To achieve compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must first be implemented whenever feasible.    (a)	Edifice Restoration Contractors, Holland, Ohio:  On or about July 2, 2012, at the work site located at 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, Ohio, the employer did not ensure that engineering and work practice controls were implemented to limit employee exposure to silica while conducting waterproofing operations.  An employee was exposed to silica at 51.2 mppcf which was 307 percent of the PEL of 16.7 mppcf.    (b)	Edifice Restoration Contractors, Holland, Ohio:  On or about July 2, 2012, at the work site located at 3000 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, Ohio, the employer did not ensure that engineering and work practice controls were implemented to limit employee exposure to silica while conducting waterproofing operations.  An employee was exposed to silica at 26.4 mppcf which was 143 percent of the PEL of 18.5 mppcf.    Step 1:  Effective respiratory protection shall be provided and used by exposed employees as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering and/or administrative controls can be implemented, or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits.    Step 2:  Submit to the Area Director a written, detailed plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposure to hazardous substances as referenced in this citation.  This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the abatement dates required by this citation:    1.	Evaluation of engineering/administrative control options;  2.	Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design;  3.	Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures;  4.	Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of controls.    Step 3:  Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering controls and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.    	Feasible engineering controls include, but are not limited to:  (1)  Use angle grinder with dust extraction  (2)  Use wet methods