OSHA Inspection: POINT BLANK RANGE & GUNSHOP

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $1,300

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 1910.9(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.) On February 3, 2016, the Range Officer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 376.0% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 250 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 230 minutes not sampled.     b.) On February 3, 2016, the Range Officer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 219.0% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 155 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 325 minutes not sampled.     c.) On February 3, 2016, the Range Officer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 142.8% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 252minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 228 minutes not sampled.     d.) On February 2, 2016, the Range Officer was exposed to continuous noise levels at 141.5% of the permissible daily exposure (8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dbA or equivalently, a dose of 100 percent), during the 442 minute sampling period.   Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 38 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $1,300

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(f)(2)(i): The employer did not implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m) for each employee required by 29 CFR 1910.1025 to use a respirator:    On or about February 2, 2016, two employees were overexposed to lead while changing out the filters on the ventilation system. Employees were required to wear respiratory protection and had not received a medical evaluation and fit test prior to wearing the respirator.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $1,200

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(2): Portable fire extinguishers were not visually inspected at least monthly:    On or about January 4, 2016, the employer did not have ABC fire extinguishers located throughout the gun range visually inspected monthly.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3): Portable fire extinguishers were not subjected to an annual maintenance check:    On or about January 4, 2016, the employer did not have ABC fire extinguishers located throughout the gun range inspected annually.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2): The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter:    On or about January 4, 2016, the employer did not train employees on the ABC fire extinguishers located throughout the gun range.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,900 Reduced

Hazardous substances 15911592

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) On or about February 2, 2016, an employee changing filters on the ventilation system was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.094 mg/m3, which is approximately 1.88 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3, for 445 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.    b) On or about February 2, 2016, an employee changing filters on the ventilation system was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.083 mg/m3, which is approximately 1.66 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3, for 170 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(v)(C): Employees exposed to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed, were not informed of the purpose, proper selection, fitting, use and/or limitations of respirators:    On or about February 2, 2016, employees were required to wear respiratory protection while changing the filters on the ventilation system and had not first received training on the proper selection, fitting, use and/or limitations of the respirators.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 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:    a)    On or about February 2, 2016, an employee changing filters on the ventilation system was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.094 mg/m3, which is approximately 1.88 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3, for 445 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled. The employee did not shower at the end of the work shift before leaving the site.     b)  On or about February 2, 2016, an employee changing filters on the ventilation system was exposed to lead at a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.083 mg/m3, which is approximately 1.66 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3, for 170 minutes. Zero exposure is assumed for the time not sampled. The employee did not shower at the end of the work shift before leaving the site.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $1,900 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not train each employee who is subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025:    On or about January 4, 2016, company employees were exposed to lead while working and cleaning the shooting range. Employees have not received training on the hazards of lead.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Apr 29, 2016

Penalty

Initial $1,200 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): The employer did not provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment, and whenever a new physical or health hazard the employees had not previously been trained about was introduced into their work area:    On or about January 4, 2016, the employer did not provide training to new employees on the hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, d-lead all purpose cleaner, SEB RTU Mulit Purpose Cleaner, and disinfectant solution at the time of their initial assignment.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Mar 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:   On or about January 4, 2016, the workplace hazard assessment had not been certified with the person conducting the evaluation.

Issued

Mar 2, 2016

Abate by

Mar 12, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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:   On or about January 4, 2016, employees required to wear respirators while cleaning the front of the shooting range were not clean shaven to allow for the facepiece to seal correctly with the face.