OSHA Inspection: CLAYCOMO SHOOTERS INDOOR RANGE LLC

Issued

Sep 14, 2022

Abate by

Oct 11, 2022

Penalty

Initial $349 · Current $349

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1903.19(c)(1): The employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:  The employer failed to provide to OSHA a certificate of abatement for the citations issued on March 8, 2022, for the facility located at a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: The certifications were due to OSHA by August 2022, and were not provided.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $2,393 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead; as well as respiratory hazards including, but not limited to dermatitis, inhalation hazard, or undetected medical conditions. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, and at times prior to when employees were wearing a half-face tight-fitting respirator as they dry moped the gun range as part of their weekly duties. The employer failed to implement a written program to cover such operations prior to employees' use of a respirator.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards including, but not limited to dermatitis, inhalation hazard, or undetected medical conditions. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, and at times prior to when an employee was wearing a half-face tight-fitting respirator as they dry moped the gun range as part of their weekly duties. The employer failed to provide medical evaluations for those employees wearing a respirator prior to their initial use.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

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):  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead and respiratory hazards including, but not limited to dermatitis, inhalation hazard, or undetected medical conditions. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, and at times prior to an employee was wearing a half-face tight-fitting respirator as they dry moped the gun range as part of their weekly duties. The employer failed to provide fit testing to employees required to wear a respirator prior to initial use.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

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:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead and respiratory hazards including, but not limited to dermatitis and inhalation hazards. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, and at times prior to when an employee who had a full beard was wearing a half-face tight-fitting respirator as they dry moped the gun range as part of their weekly duties. The employer failed to inform employees of no facial hair while wearing a respirator that it could interfere with the sealing surface of the respirator or valve function.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(h)(2)(i): Respirators were not stored to protect them from damage, contamination, dust, sunlight, extreme temperatures, excessive moisture, and damaging chemicals or were not packed or stored to prevent deformation of the facepiece and exhalation valve:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards including, but not limited to dermatitis, and inhalation hazards. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, and at times prior to an employee who had a full beard was wearing a half-face tight-fitting respirator as they dry moped the gun range as part of their weekly duties. Employees were storing their respirators in a backroom by hanging them on a wall without being placed in any type of protective packaging or container.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k): The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards including, but not limited to dermatitis, and inhalation hazards. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, when employees were not trained on how the respirator is to be maintained, cleaned, and what steps should the employee take when respirators fail to function or in emergency situations. Employees were not trained on fit testing for negative pressure respirators and the need for user seal checks after donning respirators, identification of hazards, the extent of employee exposure to those hazards, and the potential health effects of exposure.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $2,393 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:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 18, 2021, and at times prior to when an employee was wearing a half-face tight-fitting respirator as they dry moped the gun range as part of their weekly duties. The employer did not conduct an initial determination as to the level of exposure to lead experienced by employees and if that exposure was at or above the action level.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $2,393 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead. This was demonstrated on or about January 24, 2022, and at times prior to when the employer stated that no such program existed. The employer did not establish nor implement a written compliance program for lead exposure in their facility.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $2,393 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1025(h)(1): All surfaces were not maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of lead:  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO 64119: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead. This was demonstrated on or about August 24, 2021, and at times prior to when employees would perform their daily duties, including eating and drinking in areas where lead was present on various surfaces. Failing to maintain surfaces that are as free as practicable from the accumulation of lead can create an ingestion hazard for employees.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $4,351 · Current $2,393 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):   At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of a variety of chemicals. The employer did not establish a written hazard communication program for chemical exposure in their facility. This was demonstrated on or about August 24, 2021, and at times prior to when employees were exposed to a variety of chemicals; including, but not limited to Zep Penetrating Lubricant, Rubbermade Foaming Cleaner and Degreaser, SuperTech Lubricant, and Buckley 142 Solvent.

Issued

Feb 4, 2022

Abate by

Aug 2, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1025(m)(1)(iii): The employer did not include lead in the hazard communication program established to comply with the HCS (� 1910.1200), and the employer did not ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of lead and to safety data sheets, and that employees were trained on lead in accordance with the requirements of HCS and paragraph (l) of this section.  At a worksite located at 287 E 69 Hwy, Claycomo, MO: Employees were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances in the form of lead. This was demonstrated on or about January 18, 2021, and at times prior to when employees were exposed to lead as part of their duties and had not been provided training and implemented a program that covered lead. The employer did not establish a written hazard communication program to include lead exposure in their facility.