OSHA began an inspection Nov. 12, 2015, at the coffee manufacturing facility after the release of carbon dioxide asphyxiated a 53-year-old shift supervisor. Following its inspection, OSHA issued citations for nine serious violations. The employer did not provide proper training to its workers for stopping the release of a hazardous chemical. Additionally, the company did not have the proper procedures in place for stopping releases. Here is a breakdown of the emergency response citations:
Citation 1 Item 1
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which was free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were potentially exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that were immediately dangerous to life and health during uncontrolled releases of carbon dioxide:
On or about November 12, 2015, and at times prior to, at Houston, Texas where employees were exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that were potentially immediately dangerous to life and health.
In The Alternative: 29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance within the prescribed limits of1910.1000(a) – 1910.1000(d): On or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior to, where there were no engineering controls to maintain the levels of carbon dioxide below the permissible exposure limit (PEL). Among other methods, feasible and acceptable abatement methods to correct this hazard include: 1. Interlocking the alarm system with a ventilation system to ensure that high levels of carbon dioxide are quickly exhausted. 2. Utilizing a different decaffeination process that does not use carbon dioxide. Examples include the Swiss Water Method, Indirect-Solvent Process, and Direct-Solvent Process. 3. Keeping the windows open to increase ventilation.
Citation 1 Item 2
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(1): An emergency response plan was not developed and implemented to handle anticipated emergencies prior to the commencement of emergency response operations. The plan was not in writing and available for inspection and copying by employees, their representatives and OSHA personnel:
a) At the facility. on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, the written emergency response plan was not implemented in that the company did not follow the procedures outlined in the emergency response plan prior to and during an emergency response to an uncontrolled release of carbon dioxide.
b) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, the written emergency response plan was not available to employees.
Citation 1 Item 3
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(i): The emergency response plan did not address pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto. the emergency response plan did not address coordination of responses to the uncontrolled release of hazardous substances with the Houston Fire Department.
The alleged violations below have been grouped because they involve similar or related hazards that may increase the potential for injury or illness.
Citation 1 Item 4a
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(ii): The emergency response plan did not address personnel roles. lines of authority, training, and communication:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, the emergency response plan did not address the training of employees required to respond to the uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance.
Citation 1 Item 4b
Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(ii): 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:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, employees expected to stop the uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance had not received at least twenty-four hours of first responders operations level training.
Citation 1 Item 4c
Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(v): Incident commanders did not receive at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level and in addition have competency in the areas outline in 29 CFR1910.120(q)(6)(v)(A) through (q)(6)(v)(F) and or the employer did not so certify:
a) At the facility on November 12, 2015, employees expected to fulfill the role of incident commander, as well as those that acted as incident commander during the uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance, had not received at least twenty-four hours of first responders operations level training; did not know and were not able to implement the employer’s incident command system; and did not know how to implement the employer’s emergency response plan.
Citation 1 Item 5
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(iii): The emergency response plan did not address emergency recognition:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, the emergency response plan did not differentiate between emergency releases and incidental releases of carbon dioxide.
Citation 1 Item 6
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(viii): The emergency response plan did not address emergency medical treatment and first aid:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto. the emergency response plan does not make provisions for emergency medical treatment and first aid during the uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance.
Citation 1 Item 7
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2)(x): The emergency response plan did not address critique of response and follow-up:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, the emergency response plan did not contain procedures for evaluating emergency responses after the uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance.
Citation 1 Item 8
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)(i): The senior emergency response official responding to an emergency did not become the individual in charge of a site-specific Incident Command System (ICS). All emergency responders and their communications were not coordinated and controlled through the individual in charge of the ICS assisted by the senior official present for each employer:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12, 2015 and at times prior thereto, where an incident command system was not established to control an uncontrolled release of carbon dioxide.
Citation 1 Item 9
Type of Violation: Serious; $7,000
29 CFR 1910.156(b)(1): The employer elected to establish a fire brigade, and a statement or written policy was not maintained which establishes the existence of a fire brigade: the basic organizational structure; the type, amount and frequency of training:
a) At the facility, on or about November 12. 2015 and at times prior thereto, there was no written policy that established the existence of the employer’s fire brigade.
CLICK HERE for the citations