VICTORIA, TX ·
OSHA Inspection: CMA INC DBA KFC
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of CMA INC DBA KFC in 1010 E. RIO GRANDE ST, VICTORIA, TX 77901 (NAICS 722110). OSHA activity number 313861734.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- CMA INC DBA KFC
- Site address
- 1010 E. RIO GRANDE ST
- City
- VICTORIA
- State
- TX
- ZIP
- 77901
- Mailing
- PO BOX 631330, NACOGDOCHES, TX 75963
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- N
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 722110
- SIC code (legacy)
- 5812
- Employees
- 21
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
9 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- May 17, 2010
- Penalty
- Initial $450 · Current $270 Reduced
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing, or likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to struck-by hazards: On or about December 3, 2009, and at other times prior thereto, at this site, employees working at this retail restaurant were exposed to struck-by hazards by the following: a.The Reach-In Cooler had a defective door hinge which could shift and fall several inches suddenly when accessed and impact an employee's foot. Among others, one feasible means of abatement is to operate a substitute cooler until the original has a door in safe, working order. b.The Upright-Warmer was leaned up against an adjacent piece of equipment to prevent it tipping onto an employee from a defective wheel base. Among others, one feasible means of abatement is to operate a substitute warmer until the base can be repaired as plumb so the cabinet does not lean or tip. c.In the surrounding parking lot, light poles had severely corroded foundation hardware, posing a struck-by hazard to employees parking there and cleaning the lot. Poles have toppled in the past. Among others, one feasible means of abatement is structural assessment and replacement of all weakened foundation mounting hardware. d.The restaurant roof structure, sagging from water drain damage under the overhead air conditioning unit, requires assessment for structure stability.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $270.00
- · Z (S) $450.00
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 12, 2010
- Penalty
- Initial $600 · Current $360 Reduced
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing, or likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to burn hazards from manually handling hot oil: On or about December 3, 2009, and at other times prior thereto, at this site, employees were exposed to scalding hazards to the hands, feet, and other parts of the body. The employer continued operation of the fryers while the hot oil drain pump was broken. A receiving container with missing or broken wheels being pulled across an uneven tile floor has been the interim practice. Among other methods, one acceptable means to correct this hazard it to provide and require the use of a closed pump and filtering system.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $360.00
- · Z (S) $600.00
1910.22 A02
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 12, 2010
- Penalty
- Initial $450 · Current $270 Reduced
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $270.00
- · Z (S) $450.00
1910.22 A03
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 8, 2010
Recent events (2)
- · I (S)
- · Z (S)
1910.22 B01
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 26, 2010
Recent events (2)
- · I (S)
- · Z (S)
1910.138 A
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 26, 2010
- Penalty
- Initial $450 · Current $270 Reduced
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $270.00
- · Z (S) $450.00
1910.303 G02 I
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 26, 2010
- Penalty
- Initial $450 · Current $270 Reduced
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $270.00
- · Z (S) $450.00
1910.305 J01 I
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- Apr 19, 2010
Recent events (2)
- · I (S)
- · Z (S)
1910.134 D01 III
- Issued
- Mar 31, 2010
- Abate by
- May 10, 2010
Recent events (2)
- · I (O)
- · Z (O)
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 722110)
More inspections in TX
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 313861734.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.