OSHA Inspection: VANDALIA RANGE AND ARMORY, INC.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $1,811 Reduced

Hazardous substances 811081118130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    a.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 96.3 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 241 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 12, 2017. The employer had not conducted noise monitoring for this position.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.    b.)A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 102.3 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 461 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 16, 2017. The employer had not conducted noise monitoring for this position.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.    c.)A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 103.2 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 407 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 16, 2017. The employer had not conducted noise monitoring for this position.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Abate by

Aug 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 811081118130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    a.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 96.3 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 241 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 12, 2017. This employee had not received an audiogram. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.      b.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 102.3 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 461 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 16, 2017. This employee had not received an audiogram. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.    c.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 103.2 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 407 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 16, 2017. This employee had not received an audiogram. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Abate by

Aug 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 811081118130

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k). The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:    a.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 96.3 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 241 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 12, 2017. This employee had not received training on noise exposure.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.    b.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 102.3 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 461 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 126 2017. This employee had not received training on noise exposure.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.    c.) A range officer was exposed to occupational noise at a level of 103.2 dBA as an 8-hour Time-Weighted Average during a sampling period of 407 minutes, as revealed by monitoring conducted by OSHA on June 16, 2017. This employee had not received training on noise exposure.  Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled portion of the shift.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $1,811 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:    The employer required tight-fitting half facepiece respirator use for employees who assist in cleaning the back stop area, but did not develop a written respiratory protection program.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    The employer required the use of tight-fitting half-facepiece respirators while employees cleaned the back stop of ranges with potential for lead exposure, but did not ensure that employees received medical evaluations.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):    The employer required the use of a tight-fitting half facepiece respirator while employees assisted in cleaning the back stops of ranges, but did not ensure that employees received fit-testing.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $1,811 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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 6/12/2017, on firing ranges, the employer had not determined employee exposure to lead for employees who conduct range officer duties and range cleaning activities.     b) On or about 6/12/2017, on firing ranges, the employer had not determined employee exposure to lead for employees who participate in the cleaning of range back stops area.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Abate by

Aug 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    On or about 6/12/2017, at 100 Corporate Center Drive in Vandalia, OH, employees were exposed to a lead hazard while performing duties such as sweeping up brass, cleaning the range, and observing customers operate firearms and the employer did not establish a written compliance program.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Abate by

Aug 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $0 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:    On or about 6/12/2017, at 100 Corporate Center Drive in Vandalia, OH, employees were exposed to a lead hazard while performing duties such as sweeping up brass, cleaning the range, and observing customers operate firearms and the employer did not inform them of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1025.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Abate by

Aug 25, 2017

Penalty

Initial $3,622 · Current $1,811 Reduced

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:    The employer did not develop a written hazard communication program for employees who are exposed to  hazardous substances such as lead (central nervous system effects) while performing range officer duties and solvents (flammables) while cleaning firearms.

Issued

Jul 21, 2017

Abate by

Aug 25, 2017

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:    The employer did not conduct training on hazard communication for employees who are exposed to hazardous substances such as lead (central nervous system effects) while performing range officer duties and solvents (flammables) while cleaning firearms.