OSHA Inspection: SCCY INDUSTRIES, LLC

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $893 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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).

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1592

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:  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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $1,785 · Current $893 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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).

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Dec 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,570 · Current $1,785 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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:  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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1592

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 07301591

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:  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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 30, 2015

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:  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.

Issued

Aug 13, 2015

Abate by

Sep 9, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

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.