OSHA Inspection: LEGGETT & PLATT, INCORPORATED

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 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 March 20, 2015, employees were required to wear respiratory protection due to lead exposure while working on the Patent line. The employer had not developed and implemented a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(5): Respiratory protection retraining was not conducted annually:   On or about March 20, 2015, employees had not received respiratory protection training on an annual basis.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 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:  On or about April 8, 2015, exposure monitoring was conducted on an employee working as the blocker for a total of 380 minutes. Results indicate that this employee was exposed to lead at an eight hour time weighted average of 0.068 µg/m3. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 100 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jul 8, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(i): For any employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year the employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls (including administrative controls) were not implemented to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead :  On or about April 8, 2015, exposure monitoring was conducted on an employee working as the blocker for a total of 380 minutes. Results indicate that this employee was exposed to lead at an eight hour time weighted average of 0.068 µg/m3. Engineering controls were not in place to reduce exposure levels below the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(ii)(A): The written compliance program did not include a description of each operation in which lead is emitted:   On or about March 20, 2015, the employer's lead program lacked a detailed description of the operation in which lead is emitted in that it did not discuss controls in place, crew size, employee job description, operating procedures, and maintenance practices.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(ii)(B): The written compliance program did not include a description of the specific means that will be employed to achieve compliance:  On or about March 20, 2015, the employers lead program lacked a detailed description of the specific means that will be employed to achieve compliance with the lead standard.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(ii)(C): The written compliance program did not include a report on the technology considered:   On or about March 20, 2015, the companys lead program did not contain a report of the technology considered in meeting the permissible exposure limit.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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:  On or about April 8, 2015, the employer did not ensure that employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit shower at the end of the work shift.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)(iii): The employer did not ensure that employees who were required to shower per 29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(3)i) did not leave the workplace wearing any clothing or equipment worn during the work shift:  On or about March 20, 2015, employees that work in areas where they are overexposed to lead were permitted to leave the workplace wearing boots that were worn during the work shift.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(iv): Employees entering lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment were not required to remove surface lead dust by vacuuming, downdraft booth, or other cleaning method(s):  On or about March 20, 2015, the employer did not assure that employees who enter the provided lunchroom in their work uniform first remove lead dust by vacuuming, down draft booth, or other cleaning method.

Issued

Jun 3, 2015

Abate by

Jun 23, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(iv): A training program was not repeated at least annually for each employee subject to lead exposure at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed:  On or about March 20, 2015, employees had last received lead training in September 2013.