Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: BASTILLE METAL WORKS, INC.

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of BASTILLE METAL WORKS, INC. in 224 EAST BAY STREET, SAVANNAH, GA 31401 (NAICS 337110). OSHA activity number 340871656.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Bastille Metal Works, INC. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Bastille Metal Works, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
224 EAST BAY STREET
City
SAVANNAH
State
GA
ZIP
31401
Mailing
224 EAST BAY STREET, SAVANNAH, GA 31401
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
337110
Employees
9
Ownership type
A

6 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.95 C01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 8, 2016
Abate by
Mar 4, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(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)  In the Casting Booth, on or about September 10, 2015, 2015, a hearing conservation program was not implemented for the employee who was exposed to noise at 587% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 97.7 dBA during the 223 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.    (b)  In the Casting Booth, on or about September 10, 2015, 2015, a hearing conservation program was not implemented for the employee who was exposed to noise at 273% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 92.2 dBA during the 209 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1200
  • — Z (S) $2000

1910.134 C01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Feb 8, 2016
Abate by
Mar 4, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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) In the shop area, on or about August 25, 2015 and at times prior to, the employer did prepare and maintain a written respiratory protection program for employees who were required to wear respirators, resulting in a respiratory hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

1910.134 E01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Feb 8, 2016
Abate by
Mar 4, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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) In the shop area, on or about August 25, 2015 and at times prior to, the employer did provide medical evaluations for employees who were required to wear respirators, resulting in a respiratory hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

1910.134 F02

Other-than-serious 1 instance 9 exposed
Issued
Feb 8, 2016
Abate by
Mar 4, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:  (a) In the shop area, on or about August 25, 2015 and at times prior to, the employer did ensure fit testing had been completed for employees who were required to wear respirators, resulting in a respiratory hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

1910.134 G01 I A

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Feb 8, 2016
Abate by
Mar 4, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:  (a) In the shop area, on or about August 25, 2015 and at times prior to, the employer did not ensure that employees who were required to wear respirators did not have facial hair that would interfere with seal of the respirator, resulting in a respiratory hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

1910.134 K

Other-than-serious 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 8, 2016
Abate by
Mar 4, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:  (a) In the shop area, on or about August 25, 2015 and at times prior to, the employer did provide effective respiratory protection training for employees who were required to wear respirators, resulting in a respiratory hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (O) $0

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 340871656.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.