BEDFORD, OH —
OSHA Inspection: I SCHUMANN & COMPANY, LLC
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of I SCHUMANN & COMPANY, LLC in 22500 ALEXANDER ROAD, BEDFORD, OH 44146 (NAICS 331492). OSHA activity number 343758231.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 I Schumann & Company, LLC — free
Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for I Schumann & Company, LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- I SCHUMANN & COMPANY, LLC
- Site address
- 22500 ALEXANDER ROAD
- City
- BEDFORD
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 44146
- Mailing
- 22500 ALEXANDER ROAD, BEDFORD, OH 44146
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 331492
- Employees
- 111
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
14 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.132 A
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $10,741 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered: On, or about March 5, 2019, the employer did not select and ensure that employees working in areas with exposure to molten metals were protected from injurious burns by the use of flame retardant coveralls.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $10741
- — Z (S) $10741
1910.132 D01 I
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment: On, or about March 5, 2019, the employer did not select and ensure that employees working in areas with exposure to molten metals were protected from injurious burns by the use of aluminized overcoats as identified in the hazard assessment.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.132 E
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $5,120
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(e): The employer did not ensure that employees did not use defective or damaged personal protective equipment in the workplace: On, or about March 5, 2019, the employer permitted employees to use aluminized overcoats that were damaged from being intentionally cut directly above the waistline, and with visible burn holes thus not providing full body protection from molten mental, fire, and heat.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $5120
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 C01
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $7,672 · Current $0 Reduced
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: On, or about, March 21, 2019, employees working in the following operations located in the foundry were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air over and eight-hour period: a) A foundry oven helper providing assistance to various foundry jobs was exposed to lead at an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 62.42 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 450 minute sampling period. This is 1.248 times the permissible exposure limit of 50.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Exposure calculations include a zero exposure increment for the 30 minutes not sampled. b) A skimmer that skims lead containing molten metal from slag pots was exposed to lead at an 8-Hour Time Weighted Average of 65.78 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 434 minute sampling period. This is 1.32 times the permissible exposure limit of 50.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Exposure calculations include a zero exposure increment for the 46 minutes not sampled. c) A casting line operator was exposed to lead at an 8-Hour Time Weighted Average of 83.60 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 423 minute sampling period. This is 1.67 times the permissible exposure limit of 50.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Exposure calculations include a zero exposure increment for the 57 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $7672
- — Z (S) $7672
1910.1025 C02
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to lead for more than eight-8 hours during the work day in excess of the reduced permissible exposure limit: On, or about, March 21, 2019, employees working in the following operations located in the foundry were exposed to lead for more than eight hours during the work day: A utility worker, that provided assistance in lead containing foundry operations was over exposed to lead at an 8-Hour Time Weighted Average of 150.47 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 509 minute sampling period. This is 3.00 times the reduced permissible exposure limit of 47.0 micrograms per cubic meter.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 E01 I
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(i): For any employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year the employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls (including administrative controls) were not implemented to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead : On, or about March 21, 2019, the employer did not reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limit by means of engineering controls and work practice controls for employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year. Employees working in the following operations located in the foundry were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air over and eight-hour period: a) A foundry oven helper providing assistance to various foundry jobs was exposed to lead at an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 62.42 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 450 minute sampling period. This is 1.248 times the permissible exposure limit of 50.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Exposure calculations include a zero exposure increment for the 30 minutes not sampled. b) A skimmer that skims lead containing molten metal from slag pots was exposed to lead at an 8-Hour Time Weighted Average of 65.78 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 434 minute sampling period. This is 1.32 times the permissible exposure limit of 50.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Exposure calculations include a zero exposure increment for the 46 minutes not sampled. c) A casting line operator was exposed to lead at an 8-Hour Time Weighted Average of 83.60 micrograms per cubic meter of air during the 423 minute sampling period. This is 1.67 times the permissible exposure limit of 50.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Exposure calculations include a zero exposure increment for the 57 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 E03 I
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
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 February 2, 2019, the written compliance program was not designed to reduce employee exposure to or below the permissible exposure limit, solely by means of engineering controls and work practice controls.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 E04 I
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(4)(i): When ventilation was used to control exposure to lead, measurements which demonstrate the effectiveness of the system in controlling exposure were not made at least every three months: On, or about February 2, 2019, exhaust hoods over the ovens, used to control exposure to lead were not tested quarterly with measurements that demonstrated the effectiveness of the system in controlling exposure. Employees were overexposed to lead.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 E03 II C
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $7,672 · Current $3,836 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(ii)(C): The written compliance program did not include a report on the technology considered: On, or about February 2, 2019, the written compliance program, dated June 28, 2000 did not include a report on the technology considered to reduce or eliminate lead exposure in the facility when employees were overexposed to lead.
Recent events (3)
- — J (O) $3836
- — C (S) $7672
- — Z (S) $7672
1910.1025 E03 IV
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(iv): Written compliance programs for lead were not revised and updated annually to reflect the current status of the program: On, or about February 2, 2019, the written compliance program for lead, dated June 28, 2000, was not revised and updated annually to reflect the current status of the program.
Recent events (3)
- — J (O) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 N01 II C
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(n)(1)(ii)(C): The employer's exposure monitoring record did not include the type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any: On, or about February 2, 2019, the employer's exposure monitoring record dated January 22 and January 24, 2019 did not include the type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any.
Recent events (3)
- — J (O) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 L01 I
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $7,672 · Current $0 Reduced
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 February 2, 2019, throughout the facility, the employer failed to train employees on the health hazards of lead, including, but not limited to those related to the reproductive system.
Recent events (3)
- — J (O) $0
- — C (S) $7672
- — Z (S) $7672
1910.1025 L01 IV
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(iv): A training program was not repeated at least annually for each employee subject to lead exposure at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation existed: On, or about February 2, 2019, throughout the facility, the employer failed to train employees on lead and lead hazards, medical surveillance and appropriate appendices annually.
Recent events (3)
- — J (O) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1200 E01
- Issued
- Jul 9, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 4, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $3,594
1591
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: On, or about February 2, 2019, the employer did not develop, implement and, or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program when employees worked with lead in various foundry operations. Lead is a potent, systemic poison to your blood-forming, nervous, urinary and reproductive systems.
Recent events (3)
- — J (S) $3594
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections at I Schumann & Company, LLC
View I Schumann & Company, LLC's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 331492)
Jul 16, 2026
Pease & Curren Incorporated · WARWICK, RI
Jul 8, 2026
Cascade Refining, INC. · WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
May 18, 2026
Westwin Elements, INC. · LAWTON, OK
Apr 1, 2026
Kolga LLC · BEACON FALLS, CT
Dec 18, 2025
Resonetics Smart Materials INC. · NEW HARTFORD, NY
More inspections in OH
Jul 17, 2026
Teknol, INC. · DAYTON, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Lippert · PAYNE, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Provia · SUGARCREEK, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Greenacres Foundation · CINCINNATI, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Whirlaway Corporation · WELLINGTON, OH
Source
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 343758231.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.