OSHA Inspection: GEORGIA GUN CLUB, LLC

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:   On or about October 27, 2014: Employees working as range safety officer are exposed to a noise level at or above the 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels.  Employees were sampled on October 31, 2014 with the following results:  (a) Employee/Sample #193000 - TWA 90.8 (b) Employee/Sample #193001 - TWA 87.9 (c) Employee/Sample #192999 - TWA 90.4

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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:    On or about October 27, 2014:  Employees cleaning the range are required to wear a 3M tight fitting full face respirator.  The employer had not developed a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    On or about October 27, 2014:  Employees cleaning the range are required to wear a 3M tight fitting full face respirator.  The employees had not been medically evaluated prior to required use of the respirator.

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:   On or about October 27, 2014: Employees cleaning the range are required to wear a 3M tight fitting full face respirator.  The employees had not been fit tested prior to required use of the respirator.

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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:  On or about October 27, 2014: Employees performing firing range duties are exposed to lead.  The employer did not conduct initial monitoring to determine if employees are exposed to lead at or above the action level.

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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:    On or about October 27, 2014:  Employees performing firing range duties are exposed to lead.  The employer did not take measurements of the ventilation system to verify the system works properly to ensure that employees are not exposed to lead at or above the action level.

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Abate by

Jan 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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:   On or about October 27, 2014: Employees working in the facility located at 1951 Braselton Highway are exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to Hoppes #9 solvent and cleaning solutions.  The employer did not have a written program.

Issued

Dec 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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:   On or about October 27, 2014: Employees working in the facility located at 1951 Braselton Highway are exposed to chemicals such as, but not limited to Hoppes #9 solvent and cleaning solutions.  The employer had not conducted hazard communication training.