OSHA returned to a food manufacturing facility and found previously cited hazards had reoccurred, the management of the business took an unusual step and told OSHA the company accepted responsibility for the safety and health hazards and signed a pre-citation settlement agreement with OSHA on Jan. 15. OSHA cited the business, which manufactures frozen foods sold under several brand names for four repeated, three serious, and three other-than-serious safety and health violations.
In its settlement, the business will pay penalties of $100,000. In addition, the agreement includes extensive enhancements and commitments for safety and health improvements. Here are the citations:
Safety Inspection
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(1)(1)(i)(D): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in emergency shutdown including the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown was executed in a safe and timely manner.
On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta facility, the employer did not develop and implement a written operating procedure that provided clear instructions for emergency shutdown of the refrigeration system.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,675
29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(iii): The employer did not explain the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan to contract employees who work on or adjacent to a covered process.
On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta facility, the employer did not ensure contracted refrigeration tech employees were trained in the company’s emergency action plan including response to small spills and SOP’s at the facility.
Citation 2 Item 1
Type of Violation: Repeat; $21,287
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B): The employer’s piping and instrument diagrams were not accurate and did not represent equipment that was existing and was part of the process.
On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta job site, the employer did not ensure P&ID’s were accurate for the existing process.
Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 941314, citation number I, item number 7 and was affirmed as a final order on 3/27/14
Citation 2 Item 2
Type or Violation: Repeat; $21,288
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment. On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta facility, the employer did not implement written procedures to maintain the on going integrity of the ammonia refrigeration system at the facility, including compressors, ammonia pumps, piping and valves.
Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 191O.119(j)(2), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 941314, citation number 1, item number 11 and was affirmed as a final order on 3/27/14
Citation 2 Item 3
Type of Violation: Repeat; $21,287
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section. On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta facility, authorized employees did not utilize lockout procedures for removing jams on production lines.
Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.147(c)(4)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 941314, citation number 1, item number 14 and was affirmed as a final order on 3/27/14,
Citation 2 Item 4
Type of Violation: Repeat; $21,288
29CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. On 7/15/15, in the production area employees were exposed to hazards of moving and rotating parts and pinch points at the following locations: a – Melting Kettle #1 b – IBL 3 Melting Kettle c – Blenders 3 and 4 d – IBL 3 C-Depositor c – DAF tank chain and sprocket in Waste Water.
Citation 3 Item 1
Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0.00
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(3); The operating procedures were not reviewed at least annually to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes lo facilities.
On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta facility, the employer did not review operating procedures at least annually to ensure all procedures were accurate.
Citation 3 Item 2
Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious;$0.00
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed.
On 7/15/15, at the Atlanta facility, the employer did not conduct a periodic inspection to correct for deficiencies in procedures and ensure all authorized employees were included. Two new pieces of equipment were installed in the last year and were without documented procedures: Bag lift system at New Cookie Oven and the Creamer System.
HEALTH
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $4,675
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(8)(i): Employees who were trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6) did not receive annual refresher training of sulfficient content and duration to maintain their competencies or did not demonstrate competency in those areas at least yearly:
Refrigeration technicians were assigned and expected to respond to an ammonia leak as a first responder operations level. A refresher training had not been conducted since May 2014, on or about 7 /15/15.
Citation 2 Item 1
Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0.00
29 CFR 1910.134(l)(2): Employec(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:
A Refrigeration Technician and a Waste Water Technician were assigned and expected to use of full face respirator for protection against ammonia. The employees were fit tested in May 2014. Annual fit test for year 2015 had not been performed, on or about 7/15/15.
CLICK HERE to see the citations