OSHA Inspection: FRISCO GUN CLUB LLC

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $10,210 · Current $7,150 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    In the firing range, where employees were required to wear 3M half mask respirators during clean up activities at the end of the day without having a medical evaluation to determine their fitness to wear a respirator.      (a) On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, an employee who was involved in clean up activities at the end of the day was required to wear a 3M half mask respirator and he had not been medically cleared to wear a respirator.    (b) On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, an employee who was involved in clean up activities at the end of the day was required to wear a 3M half mask respirator and he had not been medically cleared to wear a respirator.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

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):    In the firing range, where the employer allowed employees to use a 3M half respirator while conducting clean up activities and the employees were not required to pass a qualitative fit test or quantitative fit test.    (a) On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, an employee who was involved in clean up activities at the end of the day was required to wear 3M half mask respirator and he had not been required to pass a qualitative fit test or quantitative fit test.    (b) On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, an employee who was involved in clean up activities at the end of the day was required to wear a 3M half mask respirator and he had not been required to pass a qualitative fit test or quantitative fit test.    (c) On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, an employee who was involved in clean up activities at the end of the day was required to wear a 3M half mask respirator and he had not been required to pass a qualitative fit test or quantitative fit test.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(3)(i): The employer did not provide a follow-up medical examination for employees who gave a positive response to any question among questions 1 through 8 in Section 2, Part A of Appendix C, or whose initial medical evaluation demonstrated a need for a follow-up medical examination:    On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, in the firing range, where an employee who was required to wear a 3M half mask respirator during clean up activities, had not been medically cleared because he had given a positive response to the questionnaire and he had not been sent for a follow up examination by the employer.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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 April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, in the firing range, where an employee who was involved in clean up activities and who was allowed to wear a 3M half mask respirator, had a full beard that prevented a tight seal between the sealing surface of the half mask and the face.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $10,210 · Current $7,150 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:    On or about February 12, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, in the firing range, where employees who were exposed to airborne lead levels greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over and eight-hour period, as determined by personal air monitoring on October 16, 2018, were not provided follow-up air monitoring on a quarterly basis.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $7,293 · Current $5,100 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(2)(i)(A): The employer did not make available biological monitoring in the form of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoporphyrin levels at least every 6 months to each affected employee:    On or about February 12, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, in the firing range, where employees were exposed to airborne lead levels greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period and they had not been sent for blood sampling to determine blood lead levels.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $7,293 · Current $5,100 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(2)(i)(B): The employer did not make available biological monitoring in the form of blood sampling and analysis for lead and zinc protoprohyrin levels available at least every 2 months to employees whose last blood sample indicated a blood lead level at or above 40 micrograms per 100 grams of whole blood:    On or about February 12, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, in the firing range, where an employee who had been measured with a blood lead level of 40 micrograms per 100 grams of whole blood had not been sent for additional blood work at least every 2 months until two consecutive samples showed levels were below 40 micrograms per 100 grams of whole blood.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $20,420 · Current $14,300 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:    In the firing range, where employees were exposed to airborne lead levels greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period.    (a) Personal air monitoring conducted on April 2, 2019, during an 8-hour work shift indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne  lead concentrations of 67 micrograms per cubic meter which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter by approximately 1.3 times.    (b) Personal air monitoring conducted on April 2, 2019, during an 8-hour work shift indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne lead concentrations of 180 micrograms per cubic meter which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter by approximately 3.7.    Frisco Gun Club LLC was previously cited for violation of this occupational safety and health standard 1910.1025(c)(1), which was contained in OSHA Inspection 1070947, Citation 1 Item 1 and was affirmed as a final order on March 15, 2016.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $17,504 · Current $12,250 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1)(iii): Face shield, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective equipment which complies with 1910.133 of this Part were not used when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists:    In the firing range, where the employer did not provide and require employees  who were exposed to airborne concentrations of lead above the permissible exposure level during cleanup activities and firearms instruction to wear a face shield, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective equipment.      (a) Personal air monitoring conducted on April 2, 2019, during an 8-hour work shift indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne  lead concentrations of 67 micrograms per cubic meter which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter by approximately 1.3 times.     (b) Personal air monitoring conducted on April 2, 2019, during an 8-hour work shift indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne lead concentrations of 180 micrograms per cubic meter which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter by approximately 3.7.    Frisco Gun Club LLC was previously cited for violation of this occupational safety and health standard 1910.1025(g)(1)(iii), which was contained in OSHA Inspection 1070947, Citation 1 Item 6 and was affirmed as a final order on March 15, 2016.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $20,420 · Current $14,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(h)(2)(ii): Shoveling, sweeping or brushing methods were used to remove lead accumulations where vacuuming or other equally effective methods were available and feasible:    On or about April 2, 2019, and at times prior and thereto, in the firing range, where an employee who was exposed to airborne lead levels greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period was conducting end of day cleanup activities and picked up lead contaminated bullet casings with a shovel.    Frisco Gun Club was previously cited for violation of this occupational safety and health standard 1910.1025(h)(2)(ii), which was contained in OSHA Inspection 1070947, Citation 1 Item 7 and was affirmed as a final order on March 15, 2016.

Issued

Jul 9, 2019

Abate by

Nov 6, 2019

Penalty

Initial $20,420 · Current $14,282 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:     In the firing range, where the employer did not require employees who worked in the firing range and who were exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) to shower at the end of the work shift.     (a) Personal air monitoring conducted on April 2, 2019, during an 8-hour work shift indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne  lead concentrations of 67 micrograms per cubic meter which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter by approximately 1.3 times.     (b) Personal air monitoring conducted on April 2, 2019, during an 8-hour work shift indicated that an employee was exposed to airborne lead concentrations of 180 micrograms per cubic meter which exceeded the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 micrograms per cubic meter by approximately 3.7.     Frisco Gun Club was previously cited for violation of this occupational safety and health standard 1910.1025(i)(3)(i), which was contained in OSHA Inspection 1070947, Citation 1 Item 8b and was affirmed as a final order on March 15, 2016.