OSHA Inspection: U. S. BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Jan 3, 2017

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working in Burn Box was exposed to lead at a level of 0.052 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.1 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.  b) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working at Stacker #1 was exposed to lead at a level of 0.063 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Jan 3, 2017

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 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 :  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working in Burn Box was exposed to lead at a level of 0.052 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.1 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.  b) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working at Stacker #1 was exposed to lead at a level of 0.063 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 12, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working in Burn Box was exposed to lead at a level of 0.052 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.1 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.  A written compliance plan to reduce exposure was not developed.  b) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working at Stacker #1 was exposed to lead at a level of 0.063 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014. A written compliance plan to reduce exposure was not developed.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

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:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working in Burn Box was exposed to lead at a level of 0.052 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.1 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.  A site specific program had not been developed or implemented.  b) US Battery, Augusta, GA-An employee working at Stacker #1 was exposed to lead at a level of 0.063 Milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), approximately 1.3 times the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.050 mg/m3 for the 480 minute sampling period on or about June 18, 2014.   A site specific program had not been developed or implemented.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

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:   a) U.S. Battery, Augusta, GA - In the production area, temporary employees manufacturing batteries were required to use a half mask, negative pressure respirator for protection against lead. A medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator was not performed, on or about June 18, 2014.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not ensure that each employee can demonstrate knowledge of items in (i)-(vii)   a) U.S. Battery, Augusta, GA - In the production area,  temporary employees manufacturing batteries were required to use a half mask, negative pressure respirator for protection against lead. The employer did not ensure that the employees demonstrated knowledge of the proper use, procedures for maintenance and storage, and how to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators among other information, on or about June 18, 2014.      In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence of abatement, or other written records.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 12, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1): Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment 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:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-Employees were observed walking into the front office with their protective clothing such as boots, on or about June 18, 2014.  Personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to booties were not provided.  The employees had not removed lead dust by vacuuming or other cleaning methods.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Mar 12, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(4)(iv): Employees entering lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment were not required to remove surface lead dust by vacuuming, downdraft booth, or other cleaning method(s):   a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-Employees were observed walking into the lunch room prior to washing their hands, on or about June 18, 2014.  The employees had not removed lead dust by washing, vacuuming or other cleaning methods.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(c), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET).

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 Reduced

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(3)(i)(B): Medical examinations and consultations for lead were not performed prior to assignment for each employee being assigned for the first time to an area in which airborne concentrations of lead are at or above the action level:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA- Temporary employees had not received medical examination for lead prior to assignment, on or about June 17, 2014.   In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence of abatement, or other written records.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(3)(ii)(D)(3): Medical examinations for lead made available pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.1025 did not include a blood sample and analysis to determine zinc protoporhyrin levels:   a) US Battery, Augusta, GA- Medical examination for lead for exposures did not include, but is not limited to zinc protoporhyrin levels on or about June 17, 2014.  The medical examinations should also include, but is not limited to, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, hemoglobin and hematocrit determinations,  and red cell indices.   In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence of abatement, or other written records.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Dec 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 1591

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(3)(v)(A): Employee(s) were not provided with a copy of a written medical opinion for lead from each examining or consulting physician:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA- Medical examination for lead for exposures did not include a physician's written opinion, or about June 17, 2014.

Issued

Oct 24, 2014

Abate by

Nov 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $4,900 · Current $2,940 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:  a) US Battery, Augusta, GA-Temporary  and full time employees training did not ensure that they understood or demonstrated knowledge of the proper means to protect themselves against lead exposures.  Employees were observed walking in the lunchroom before washing and cleaning his protective equipment, on or about June 18, 2014.