This is a very interesting citation! OSHA issued citations to three (3) DIFFERENT organizations from the same inspection at a frozen foods plant. They cited the host company, a contractor who provides maintenance services for the refrigeration process, and the temp staffing agency that provided temp employees who worked in the plant. Not sure how this will all work out, but it is an interesting approach to the situation. Here is a breakdown of the PSM (and related) citations…
NOTE: PAY PARTICULAR attention to the fact that each employer who had employees exposed to the hazards was cited. For example, the host employer was cited for an egress issues in the engine room, as was the maintenance contractor who provided maintenance in the room. All three companies were cited for many of the same machine guarding issues as they had employees exposed to the same hazards, including falls from platforms and the roof!
There are dozens of Hearing Conservation citations for everyone! Seemed like OSHA was handing these out like candy!!! When you have a high noise area AND three different employers exposing their employees to the same hazard this is what can happen.
Quote… “During the inspection, OSHA inspectors paid special attention to the hazards facing temporary workers to determine the role of the host employer and the staffing agency in failing to eliminate serious hazards.”
PLEASE NOTE: these citations are NOT the final settlement and some are BEFORE the employer’s informal conference. They are shared as a learning tool to show what types of issues OSHA and EPA are finding in their PSM/RMP inspections. I have scrubbed all company information from these postings as this is NOT about any one company, but rather a trend of issues that continue to be found by OSHA and EPA.
Host Plant Citations
Exposed workers to dangerous conditions, many created by the company’s failure to follow PSM to protect workers from dangerous exposure to ammonia used in the refrigeration system. The employer was cited for failing to ensure that doors to the ammonia handling machinery fit properly, created a chemical hazard and failed to provide training on safe work practices applicable to the ammonia refrigeration systems used at the facility. It was cited for blocked and mismarked exits in hazardous areas, failure to train workers on controlling hazardous energy through standard lockout/tagout procedures during maintenance and services, and exposing workers to electrical hazards.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.23(c)(l): Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards.
On or about 9/11/13, employees were exposed to fall hazards. Instances included: …
8- Fruit Freezer catwalk – 16 ft. fall to lower levels
…
10 – On roof fall hazard 8 – 17 ft. to lower levels
11- B&G Shop Office and Technical services/Purchase Manager Office – 10 foot fall hazard
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $6,600
29 CFR 1910.36(g)(2): Exit access(es) were not at least 28 inches (71.1 cm) wide at all points.
On or about 9/11113, the employer did not ensure all egress paths from employee work stations were at least 28 inches wide. Instances included:
1 – At the output side of the tray wash area – egress was blocked by the tray conveyor and guardrails at the area and limited egress to 11 inches.
2 – At the Mixing station at IBL
3 – egress path to the stairs was blocked by product that is routinely set onto the platform for use and limited egress path to the stairs to 13 inches.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.37(b)(2): Each exit was not clearly visible and marked by a sign reading “Exit”.
On or about 9/11/13, in Ammonia engine room 1, the intended exit door was labeled “Not an EXIT”.
Citation 1 Item 5a
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(c)(3): The employer did not provide employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this standard.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer has not made Process Hazard Analyses and Process Safety Information available to refrigeration tech employees working at the facility.
Citation 1 Item 5b
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 1910.119(g)(1)(i): Each employee involved in operating a process was not trained in the safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks.
On or about 9/11/13, ammonia refrigeration employees did not receive training in the safe work practices applicable to the ammonia system in operation at the facility.
Citation 1 Item 6a
Type ofViolation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i): Process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include the elements specified in 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(A) through (H).
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not have process safety information pertaining to evaporative condenser 3 East, Frick Model #XLP2-1218-1075, serial number U122874001-01, installed in 2012.
Citation 1 Item 6b
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CPR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D): The employer did not maintain an accurate listing of the location, function, and inspection information for all Relief Valves (RV) within a covered process.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not maintain information pertaining to relief valves for the ammonia refrigeration system on site, such as the relief system design and design basis.
Citation 1 Item 6c
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(E): The employer did not have a compilation for written process safety information pertaining to the ventilation system design.
On or about 9/11/2013, the employer did not have information for the ventilation system design of the ammonia engine rooms located at the facility, i.e. current ventilation calculations.
Citation 1 Item 7
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
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 or about 9/11/13, the employer’s piping and instrument diagrams were not accurate. PID 07 has four relief valves on condenser piping that are not installed on the system.
Citation 1 Item 8
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
On or about 9/11/13, in the ammonia engine room, employees were exposed to an ammonia inhalation hazard as doors leading from the machine room into the production room were not tight fitting, self-closing open outward and equipped with panic hardware doors. Employees were exposed to an ammonia inhalation hazard when doors leading from the machine room into the production room were not tight fitting, self-closing open outward and equipped with panic hardware doors.
Citation 1 Item 9
Type ofViolation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(2): Operating procedures were not readily accessible to employees who work in or maintain a process area.
On or about 9/11113, the employer did not make documented operating procedures available to employees servicing and maintaining the ammonia refrigeration system.
Citation 1 Item 10
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(£)(3): The employer did not annually certify that operating procedures were current and accurate.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not review and certify operating procedures, at least annually, used to maintain and operate the ammonia refrigeration system were current and accurate.
Citation 1 Item 11
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.1190)(2): The employer did not implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not ensure inspections and tests were performed on ammonia process equipment to ensure mechanical integrity of the system.
Citation 1 Item 12
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(1)(1): The employer did not implement procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to facilities that affect a covered process.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer had not ensured management of changes were performed to assure considerations were addressed prior to any change for equipment including:
1 – Condenser 3 East
2 – Condenser 2
3 – Controls for Ammonia sensors
4 – Cut and cap of Air Units
5 – Coil # 18 replacements
6 – Booster # 1 suction valve replacement
Citation 1 Item 13
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.119(n): The emergency action plan did not include procedures for handling small releases.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not include procedures for handling small releases, including Ammonia releases, when employees were instructed to detect, stop and repair equipment involved in the leak.
Citation 1 Item 14
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
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 or about 9/11/13, the employer did not ensure specific written procedures were created for equipment, including:
1 – Streusel Depositor with metering belt
2 – 2 Belt weigh XE Check Weigher
3 – Pre-sliced Pie w/ paper dividers
4 – Cartoner at Wedge Line
5 – Cookie Jar Silo/Auger
6 – 20 XW Intensifier
Citation 1 Item 15
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
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 ofthis standard were being followed:
On 9/11/13, the employer did not conduct a periodic inspection on an annual basis that corrected for deviations identified on the specific written procedures, included a review between the inspector and each authorized employee, and certification of the inspection including the machine/equipment, date of the inspection, employees included in the inspection and the authorized employee performing the inspection.
Citation 1 Item 16a
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees.
On or about 9/11/13, production line employees who were trained as “Affected” employees under the company’s LOTO program were assigned and performing service and maintenance work to equipment on production lines.
Citation 1 Item 16b
Type of Violation: Serious
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A): Authorized employee(s) did not receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not provide training in established written specific LOTO procedures to designated “Authorized” employees performing service and maintenance work to equipment at the facility.
Many machine guarding citations (not listed here) – none directly related to ammonia equipment; however there was an unguarded chain and sprocket in the Waste Water DAF area.
Citation 1 Item 24a
Type of Violation: Serious; $6,600
29 CFR 1910.305(g)(l)(iv)(A): Flexible cords and/or cables were used as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.
On or about 9/11/13, outside the refrigeration office, the water fountain was powered with a temporary electrical extension cord in lieu of fixed wiring.
Citation 1 Item 24b
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 1910.305G)(l)(i): Fixtures, lampholders, lamps, rosettes, and receptacles located within 8 feet of the floor had live parts exposed to employee contact.
On or about 9/11/13, employees were exposed to electrical hazards as receptacles had live parts exposed to contact and were not protected. Instances included:
1 – Ammonia Refrigeration Office receptacle
…
Citation 2 Item 1
Type ofViolation: Other-than-Serious; $0.00
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii): Lockout devices and tagout devices were utilized for other purposes than controlling energy and were not singularly identified.
On or about 9/11/13, employees used Lockout locks, i.e. locks reserved for service/maintenance purposes, for indication equipment was out of service or had operational problems and did not identify the person that affixed the lock to the equipment.
Citation 1 Item 4
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii): Employees who participated as hazardous materials technicians, or were expected to participate as hazardous materials technicians, had not received at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level, and in addition have competency in the areas outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii)(A) through (q)(6)(iii)(I) and/or the employer did not so certify:
Refrigeration technicians expected to respond to releases from ammonia in a defensive manner were not properly trained, as referenced in 29 CFR 1910.119(n), on or about 9/11/13.
Citation 1 Item 6a
Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees’ ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:
A Refrigeration Technician expected to use a full face, tight fitting respirator for protection against ammonia, was not provided a medical evaluation, on or about 9/11/13.
Citation 1 Item 6b
Type ofViolation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:
A fit test was not provided for a refrigeration technician prior to initial use of a tight fitting respirator for protection against ammonia, on or about 9/11/13.
Refrigeration Contractor Citations
The contractor provided service and maintenance for the ammonia refrigeration system. It was cited for six serious safety and health violations, carrying penalties of $20,160. The violations were cited for exposing contract workers to excessive noise levels by failing to implement a noise monitoring program. The contractor also failed to provide necessary training, properly fitted respirators and clearly marked exits.
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $4410.00
29 CFR 1910.23(c)(l): Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards.
On or about 9/11/13, employees were exposed to fall hazards when working and walking on the roof. Fall hazards ranged between 10 to 17 feet.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $3150.00
29 CFR 1910.37(b)(2): Each exit was not clearly visible and marked by a sign reading “Exit”.
On or about 9/11/13, in Ammonia engine room I, the door leading to the outside designated marked emergency exit door was labeled “Not an EXIT”.
Citation 1 Item 3a
Type of Violation: Serious; $3150.00
29 CFR 1910.119(h)(3)(i): The contract employer did not assure each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform his/her job.
On or about 9/11/2013, for employees providing service and maintenance to the ammonia refrigeration system at the facility, the contracted employer did not ensure employees received training specific to the location including the lockout/tagout for the refrigeration system, had access to operating procedures, and information for the ammonia system located at the facility.
Citation 1 Item 3b
Type of Violation: Serious
29CFR1910.119(h)(3)(ii): The contract employer diid not assure each contract employee is instructed in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
On or about 9/11/13, the contracted employer did not assure employees providing service and maintenance to ammonia refrigeration equipment were trained in the site specific emergency action plan.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,150
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 sufficient content and duration to maintain their competencies or did not demonstrate competency in those areas at least yearly:
Contractor employees – Refrigeration Mechanics did not receive the annual refresher training as reference in 1910.119(n). Employees had responded and were expected to respond to ammonia leaks and releases, on or about 9/11/13.
Citation 1 Item 3a
Type of Violation: Serious; $3,150
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees’ ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:
Contractor employees – Refrigeration Mechanics were expected to respond to ammonia leaks and releases. The mechanics were expected to use full face tight fitting respirator for protection against ammonia. A medical evaluation had not been performed, on or about 91/1/13.
Citation 1 Item 3b
Type of Violation: Serious; Grouped
29 CFR 191O.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:
Contractor employees – Refrigeration Mechanics working were not provided a fit test prior to initial use of a tight fitting respirator for protection against ammonia, on or about 9/11/13.
Temp Staffing Agency
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $6,300
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A): Authorized employee(s) did not receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation.
On or about 9/11/13, the employer did not identify and provide training to all persons performing service and maintenance work to equipment at the facility. Production employees performing service to the lines did not receive authorized training and identified “Authorized” employees did not receive training in documented written specific procedures the employer had maintained.
A bunch of the same machine guarding issues cited to the Staffing agency since they were the “exposing employer”.
Also they were cited for using compressed air for cleaning crumbs.
Here are the official citations:
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/CIMCO_951039_0307_14.pdf*
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/CIMCO_951949_0307_14.pdf*
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Adecco_948156_0307_14.pdf*
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Adecco_952234_0307_14.pdf*
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/SchwansGlobal_941314-0307_14.pdf*
http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/SchwansGlobal_942121_0307_14.pdf*