| Inspection Type |
FollowUp
|
| Scope |
Complete
|
| Safety/Health |
Health
|
| Close Conference |
2016-03-25
|
| Emphasis |
L: HINOISE, N: LEAD
|
| Case Closed |
2016-12-29
|
Related Activity
| Type |
Inspection |
| Activity Nr |
1047270 |
| Health |
Yes |
|
Violation Items
| Citation ID |
01001 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 B01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-10-31 |
| Current Penalty |
3402.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
5670.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
10 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized: The employer failed to utilize feasible engineering controls to reduce or eliminate noise levels for employees who are exposed to noise, equal or exceeding the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), of an 8-hour time-weighted average of 90 dBA or its equivalent noise dose of 100%, when testing firearms inside a booth. The following monitored employees exceeded the PEL (all exposure calculations included a zero increment for the time not sampled): a) On March 23, 2016, at the test room, an employee testing firearms, was exposed to continuous noise of 103.8 dBa or the equivalent noise dose of 684.1% during the 463 minute sampling period. b) On March 23, 2016, at the test room, an employee testing firearms, was exposed to continuous noise of 102.8 dBa or the equivalent noise dose of 596.7% during the 414 minute sampling period. |
|
| Citation ID |
01002 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 G05 II |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-09-16 |
| Current Penalty |
3402.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
5670.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
6 |
| Nr Exposed |
20 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(ii): Where mobile test vans were used to meet the audiometric testing obligation, the employer did not obtain a valid baseline audiogram within 1 year of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level: a) On March 23, 2016, at the test room, an employee testing firearms, was exposed to continuous noise of 102.8 dBa or the equivalent noise dose of 596.7% during the 414 minute sampling period. The employer did not establish a baseline audiogram within 1 year of the employee's first exposure at or above the action level. b) On March 23, 2016, at the test room, an employee testing firearms, was exposed to continuous noise of 98.4 dBa or the equivalent noise dose of 323.5% during the 475 minute sampling period. The employer did not establish a baseline audiogram within 1 year of the employee's first exposure at or above the action level. |
|
| Citation ID |
01003 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100151 C |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-09-16 |
| Current Penalty |
2066.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
3443.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use: a) On or about March 24, 2016, in the chemical room, employees were exposed corrosive chemicals such as, but not limited to, Tru Temp XL, Safe Scrub ST, Oxyprime, Almco 2250-1 Cleaning Compound, and Formula 409 Antibacterial All-Purpose Cleaner, and the employer did not provide suitable facilities for quick drenching and/or flushing of the eyes (eyewash station) and/or body (safety shower) for immediate emergency use. The employer only provided eyewash bottles which were not suitable eyewash facilities in that it does not provide a continuous flushing of the eye for 15 minutes. |
|
| Citation ID |
01004 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 G01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-09-16 |
| Current Penalty |
4158.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
6930.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
10 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1): Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment were not provided at no cost to the employee when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists: a) On or about March 24, 2016, an employee testing firearms in the testing room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.099 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2 times. The air sampling was performed for 415 minutes. The employer provided appropriate protective work clothing and leather shooting gloves, however, the employer allowed employees to cut the finger tip of the leather shooting gloves exposing the employees lead hazards through the skin. |
|
| Citation ID |
02001A |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19100134 E01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
8316.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
13860.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
11 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: a) On or about March 24, 2016, and at times prior thereto, at the testing room, employees were required to wear a North by Honeywell 5400 Series Full Face Respirator, to protect from lead exposure while testing firearms and cleaning up gun shells/lead residue. The employer failed to provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. b) On or about March 24, 2016, and at times prior thereto, in the manufacturing area, employees were required to wear 3M 6100/07024 Half Facepiece Reusable Respirator to protect against mists or vapors from heated corrosive chemicals. The employer failed to provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 1, Item No. 2c, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
02001B |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19100134 F01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
11 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT): a) On or about March 24, 2016, and at times prior thereto, at the testing room, employees were required to wear North by Honeywell 5400 Series Full Face Respirator, to protect from lead exposure while testing firearms and cleaning up gun shells/lead residue. The employer failed to ensure that employees passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) prior to requiring employees to wear respirators in the workplace. b) On or about March 24, 2016, and at times prior thereto, in the manufacturing area, employees were required to wear 3M 6100/07024 Half Facepiece Reusable Respirator to protect against mists or vapors from heated corrosive chemicals. The employer failed to ensure that employees passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT) prior to requiring employees to wear respirators in the workplace. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 1, Item No. 2c, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
02001C |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19100134 K03 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
11 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace: a) On or about March 24, 2016, and at times prior thereto, at the testing room, employees were required to wear North by Honeywell 5400 Series Full Face Respirator, to protect from lead exposure while testing firearms and cleaning up gun shells/lead residue. The employer failed to provide respiratory protection training prior to requiring the employees to wear the respirators in the workplace. b) On or about March 24, 2016, and at times prior thereto, in the manufacturing area, employees were required to wear 3M 6100/07024 Half Facepiece Reusable Respirator to protect against mists or vapors from heated corrosive chemicals. The employer failed to provide respiratory protection training prior to requiring the employees to wear the respirators in the workplace. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 1, Item No. 2c, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
02002A |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 I02 I |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-12-16 |
| Current Penalty |
5940.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
9900.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
10 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(i): Clean change rooms were not provided for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators: a) On March 24, 2016, an employee testing firearms in the testing room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.099 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2 times. The employer did not provide a clean change room for employees exposed to lead in excess of the PEL. The air sampling was performed for 415 minutes. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 1, Item No. 3b, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
02002B |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 I03 I |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-12-16 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
10 |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(i): Employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, were not required to shower at the end of the work shift: a) On March 24, 2016, an employee testing firearms in the testing room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.099 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2 times. The employer did not ensure that employees exposed to lead in excess of the PEL were required to shower at the end of the work shift. The air sampling was performed for 415 minutes. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 1, Item No. 3c, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
03001 |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 H01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-12-16 |
| Current Penalty |
200.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
200.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
100 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead: a) On or about March 24, 2016, the employer did not ensure that surfaces including, but not limited to, white refrigerator handle in the breakroom, two microwaves in the Assembly Room, and a prep table in the Assembly Room, which employees used, were maintained as free as practicable of lead accumulations. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 2, Item No. 3, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
03002A |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 F05 I |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
200.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein: a) On or about March 24, 2016, in the Manufacturing Area, the employer had five different unlabeled 5-gallon containers of hazardous corrosive chemicals, such as, but not limited to, Tru Temp XL, Safe Scrub ST, and/or Oxyprime which did not have the required label showing the identity of the hazardous chemical contained therein. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 2, Item No. 4b, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
03002B |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 F05 II |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings: a) On or about March 24, 2016, in the Manufacturing Area, the employer had five different unlabeled 5-gallon containers of hazardous corrosive chemicals, such as, but not limited to, Tru Temp XL, Safe Scrub ST, and/or Oxyprime which did not have the required label showing the appropriate hazard warnings. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 2, Item No. 4c, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
| Citation ID |
03003 |
| Citaton Type |
Repeat |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 H01 |
| Issuance Date |
2016-08-01 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2016-11-16 |
| Current Penalty |
160.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
200.0 |
| Final Order |
2016-08-31 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area: a) On or about March 24, 2016, in the Manufacturing Area, an employee working with hazardous corrosive chemicals, such as, but not limited to, Tru Temp XL, Safe Scrub ST, and/or Oxyprime, had not been provided with training on the health and physical hazards associated with the chemical. SCCY was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1047270. Citation No. 2, Item No. 4d, and was affirmed as final order on 9/01/2015, with respect to workplace located at 1800 Concept Court, Daytona Beach, FL 32114. |
|
|
| Inspection Type |
Complaint
|
| Scope |
Complete
|
| Safety/Health |
Health
|
| Close Conference |
2015-03-18
|
| Emphasis |
L: HINOISE, L: LEAD, N: LEAD
|
| Case Closed |
2015-12-28
|
Related Activity
| Type |
Complaint |
| Activity Nr |
967874 |
| Health |
Yes |
|
Violation Items
| Citation ID |
01001 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100095 C01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
892.5 |
| Initial Penalty |
1785.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
5 |
| Gravity |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent: a. On March 18, 2015, at the test room, an employee testing firearm, was exposed to a noise dose of 223.3%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 95.79 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 335 minutes during one work shift. b. On March 18, 2015, at the test room, an employee testing firearm, was exposed to a noise dose of 105.9%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 90.41 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 330 minutes during one work shift. c. On March 18, 2015, at the finishing room, an employee operating the sandblasting machine and vibration polishing machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 92.51%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 89.44 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 348 minutes during one work shift. d. On March 18, 2015, at the finishing room, an employee operating the sandblasting machine and vibration polishing machine, was exposed to a noise dose of 90.92%, or an equivalent dBA (decibels A scale) of 89.31 dBA, which is capable of causing permanent hearing loss. The noise sampling was conducted for 343 minutes during one work shift. The employer did not administer an effective hearing conservation program in that employees were not provided the required initial monitoring program, baseline or annual audiograms, and hearing protection training that included an explanation of audiometric testing, instructions on the fitting, use, and care of the various hearing protectors. |
|
| Citation ID |
01002A |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 C01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-12-09 |
| Current Penalty |
2450.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
4900.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Related Event Code (REC) |
Complaint |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1): Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period: a. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2.145 times. The air sampling was performed for 431 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. b. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.053 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 1.1 times. The air sampling was performed for 420 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. |
|
| Citation ID |
01002B |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 E03 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-09 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Related Event Code (REC) |
Complaint |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to reduce exposures to or below the permissible exposure limit, solely by means of engineering and work practice controls: a. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2.145 times. The air sampling was performed for 431 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. b. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.053 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 1.1 times. The air sampling was performed for 420 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. The employer did not establish a written compliance program outlining specific engineering controls to be implemented to reduce employee lead exposures to below the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). The written plan shall include at least the requirements set forth in sections 1910.1025(e) (3)(ii)(A)-(H). |
|
| Citation ID |
01002C |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19100134 C01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-12-09 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use: a. On or about March 17, 2015 , at the test room, employees were required to wear North 5400 full face air purifying respirators with cartridges, to protect against from lead exposure while testing firearms. The employer had not established nor implemented a written respiratory protection program with worksite-specific procedures to include, providing medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator and providing fit testing to affected employees. |
|
| Citation ID |
01002D |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 D02 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(2): An initial determination was not made to determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level: a. On or about March 17, 2015, employees testing firearms, performing cleaning activities such as sweeping gun shells, vacuuming, empting buckets containing gun shells, and changing filters in the ventilation system were exposed to airborne lead concentration above the action level (AL) and the employer did not make an initial determination to ensure employees were not exposed to lead at or above the action level. |
|
| Citation ID |
01003A |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 G01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-12-09 |
| Current Penalty |
892.5 |
| Initial Penalty |
1785.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Gravity |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1): Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment was not provided when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists: a. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2.145 times. The air sampling was performed for 431 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. b. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.053 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 1.1 times. The air sampling was performed for 420 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. The employer did not provide appropriate protective work clothing such as but not limited to coveralls or similar full-body work clothing, hat and disposable shoe coverlets to affected employees. |
|
| Citation ID |
01003B |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 I02 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-12-09 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Gravity |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(i): Clean change rooms were not provided for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators: a. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2.145 times. The air sampling was performed for 431 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. b. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.053 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 1.1 times. The air sampling was performed for 420 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. The employer did not provide a clean change room for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL). |
|
| Citation ID |
01003C |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 I03 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-12-09 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
2 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Gravity |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(i): Employee(s) exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, were not required to shower at the end of the work shift: a. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 2.145 times. The air sampling was performed for 431 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. b. An employee testing firearms in the test room was exposed to airborne lead concentration of 0.053 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) which exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3 by approximately 1.1 times. The air sampling was performed for 420 minutes during one work-shift on July 1, 2015. The employer did not assure that the employee with exposures to airborne lead concentrations exceeding the permissible exposure limit (PEL) showered at the end of the work shift. |
|
| Citation ID |
01004 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 J01 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-12-09 |
| Current Penalty |
2450.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
4900.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
5 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Related Event Code (REC) |
Complaint |
| Gravity |
10 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(1)(i): The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who are or may be exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days per year: a. On or about July 1, 2015, employees testing firearms in the test room and performing cleaning activities such as sweeping gun shells, vacuuming, empting buckets containing gun shells, and changing filters in the ventilation system were exposed to airborne lead concentration above the action level (AL) for more than 30 days per year. The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all affected employees. |
|
| Citation ID |
01005 |
| Citaton Type |
Serious |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 L01 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-09 |
| Current Penalty |
1785.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
3570.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| Related Event Code (REC) |
Complaint |
| Gravity |
5 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i): Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025: a. On or about March 17, 2015, employees were potentially exposed to airborne lead while testing firearm and cleaning up the gun shells in the test room. The employer did not provide them with information on the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025 regulation. |
|
| Citation ID |
02001 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19100305 G01 III |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iii): Flexible cords and cables were used for purposes prohibited by subparagraphs (A) through (E) of this paragraph: a. On or about March 17, 2015, a flexible cord was run through the doorway of the test room to provide power to a portable air condition unit, in the test room, exposing employees to electric hazards. |
|
| Citation ID |
02002 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 E04 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-09 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| Related Event Code (REC) |
Complaint |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(4)(i): When ventilation was used to control exposure to lead, measurements which demonstrate the effectiveness of the system in controlling exposure were not made at least every three months: a. On or about March 17, 2015, the employer used a ventilation system to control the employees exposure to lead while testing firearms but had not taken measurements at least every three months to ensure the system was effective at controlling such exposure. |
|
| Citation ID |
02003 |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101025 H01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
3 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead: a. On or about March 17, 2015, the employer did not ensure that surfaces including, but not limited to, break room table, refrigerator handler, and gloves which the employee used were maintained as free as practicable of lead accumulations. |
|
| Citation ID |
02004A |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 E01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
6 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met: a. On or about March 17, 2015, at the test room and finishing room, employees were potentially exposed to hazardous materials such as, but not limited to lead dust and Tectyl 506, a rust preventative compound. The employer had not developed nor implemented a written hazard communication program. |
|
| Citation ID |
02004B |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 F05 I |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein: a. On or about March 17, 2015, the employer had an approximately 3-gallon container and another 5-gallon container of rust prevention solvent located in the finishing room that did not have the required label showing the identity of the hazardous chemical contained therein. |
|
| Citation ID |
02004C |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 F05 II |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings: a. On or about March 17, 2015, the employer had an approximately 3-gallon container and another 5-gallon container of rust prevention solvent located in the finishing room that did not have the required label showing the appropriate hazard warnings. |
|
| Citation ID |
02004D |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 H01 |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-30 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
1 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area: a. On or about March 17, 2015, in the finishing room, an employee using chemicals such as, but not limited to the cooling solvent and Tectyl 506, a rust inhibitor, had not been provided with training on the health and physical hazards associated with the chemical. |
|
| Citation ID |
02004E |
| Citaton Type |
Other |
| Standard Cited |
19101200 H03 IV |
| Issuance Date |
2015-08-13 |
| Abatement Due Date |
2015-09-09 |
| Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Initial Penalty |
0.0 |
| Final Order |
2015-09-01 |
| Nr Instances |
1 |
| Nr Exposed |
4 |
| FTA Current Penalty |
0.0 |
| Citation text line |
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employee could obtain and use the appropriate hazard information: a. On or about March 17, 2015, the employer did not provide the information and training on the new label elements and the new Safety Data Sheet format to employees who had exposure to hazardous materials such as but not limited to lead and Tectyl 506, a rust preventative compound. |
|
|
