OSHA Inspection: MAVERICK ARMS INC.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(h)(1): Audiometric tests were not pure tone, air conduction, hearing threshold examinations, with test frequencies including as a minimum 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hertz. Tests at each frequency were not taken separately for each ear:    PROOFING ROOM: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees included in the hearing conservation program did not receive audiometric tests with test frequencies including as a minimum 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hertz.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $2,100 Reduced

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:    a) WOODWORKING AREA: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazards of particulate dust (wood dust), a lung irritant, when required to wear N95 respirators without medical assessment and approval.    b) DIPPING AREA: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazards of latex paint, a lung irritant, when required to wear N95 respirators without medical assessment and approval.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $2,450 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(6)(iii): Where the initial monitoring revealed that employee exposure to lead was above the permissible exposure limit, monitoring was not repeated at least quarterly and continued at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements taken at least 7 days apart were below the PEL and at or above the action level:  PROOFING ROOM: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazards of lead, when initial determination by the employer showed elevated levels of airborne lead dust where over the action level and permissible exposure limit, which were not retested quarterly.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $2,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(8)(ii): When the results of exposure monitoring indicated that the representative employee exposure to lead, without regard to respirators, exceeded the permissible exposure limit, the written notification did not include a statement that the permissible exposure limit was exceeded and/or a description of the corrective action taken or to be taken:  PROOFING ROOM: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazards of lead, when not notified in writing of exposure monitoring results that were in excess of the set forth PEL nor were they notified of the required corrective action to be taken.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $2,450 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(2)(v): Contaminated protective clothing to be cleaned, laundered, or disposed of, was not placed in a closed container to prevent dispersion of lead outside the container:  PROOFING ROOM: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazards of lead dust on contaminated personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, disposable coveralls and gloves, which were placed in an open container in the Proofing Room for disposal.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 1, 2015

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $1,750 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(2)(vii): Containers of contaminated protective clothing and equipment required by 29 CFR 1910.1025 (g)(2)(v) were not labeled as follows:   CAUTION: CLOTHING CONTAMINATED WITH LEAD. DO NOT REMOVE DUST BY BLOWING OR SHAKING. DISPOSE OF LEAD CONTAMINATED WASH WATER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATIONS:    PROOFING ROOM: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to lead dust on contaminated personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, disposable coveralls and gloves, which were placed in an open container without the required labeling in the Proofing Room for disposal.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 10, 2015

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $2,450 Reduced

Hazardous substances BWPB

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead:  FACILITY WIDE: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the hazards of lead dust when other areas of the facility such as, but not limited to, employee restrooms and break room, were not included in the Lead Housekeeping Program.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $2,100 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(6)(ii): Except as provided in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(7) and 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(8), the employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the product identifier and words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the chemicals and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available to employees under the hazard communication program, would provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical:    DIPPING AREA: On or about April 8, 2015, and at times prior thereto, employees were exposed to the chemical hazard of Activator IGJB-8T-2T (Xylene, Ethyl Benzene) without the required warning notifications or chemical information on the temporary container used.

Issued

Sep 30, 2015

Abate by

Oct 5, 2015

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $24,500 Reduced

Hazardous substances 811081118130

General-duty citation text

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:    a) PROOFING ROOM: On April 16, 2015, one employee proof testing firearms and was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100% dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 375 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 907.1% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 107.7 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for 105 minutes not sampled..  This is 9.1 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.        b) PROOFING ROOM: On April 16, 2015, one employee proof testing firearms was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100% dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 263 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 699% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 108.4 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for 217 minutes not sampled. This is 7.0 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.        c) PROOFING ROOM: On April 16, 2015, one employee proof testing firearms was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100% dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 266 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 620.6% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 107.6 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for 214 minutes not sampled. This is 6.2 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.        d) PROOFING ROOM: On April 16, 2015, one employee proof testing firearms was exposed to noise at a dose in excess of the 100% dose Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), where noise sampling performed for 266 minutes indicated that the employee was exposed to a 625.4% noise dose which is equivalent to approximately 107.7 dBA.  Zero exposure was assumed for 219 minutes not sampled..  This is 6.3 times the PEL. The employer had not implemented engineering controls to reduce noise exposure to below the levels listed in Table G-16.  This condition exposed the employee to a hazardous noise dose.