OSHA Inspection: JOHN MORRELL & COMPANY

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

Penalty

Initial $2,038 · Current $2,038

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1):  The employer did not develop and implement written
operating
procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting
activities in each covered
process consistent with the process safety information and which addressed
the elements listed
in 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(v):
The employer did not establish and implement a written standard operating
procedure (SOP) for
dumping back the ammonia into the High Pressure Receiver (V-1) in the
event of an emergency.

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,400 · Current $1,400

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2):  The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment:
The employer did not ensure that written procedures were developed and
implemented for the
inspection and testing of equipment such as but not limited to:
a)pressure and temperature gauges;
b)ammonia alarms, detectors or sensorsrs

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $1,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5):  The employer did not correct deficiencies in
equipment that were
outside acceptable limits (as defined by process information in 29 CFR
1910.119(d) before
further use or in a safe and timely manner:
The employer did not correct equipment deficiencies in a timely manner in
that:
a)On or about July 22, 2010 the transducer for the Penthouse 4, 5, 6 was
not working
properly in that the equipment was not reading the ammonia levels because
the sensors
were beginning to fail and drifting to a negative number which the
transducer would not
recognize. The transducer had not been working properly for approximately
two months;
b)During the month of July 2010, gauges were reported bad on technician's
daily rounds
sheets such as but not limited to Unit 109 for 7 days, Unit 115 for 9
days, Unit 125 for
7 days, Unit 130 for 12 days, Unit 137 for 8 days and Units 114, 116, 111,
110b, 131,
132, 133 for 2 days;
c)Compressors RCP-09 and RCP-10 had been leaking oil due to a seal leaking
for 9-12
months.

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $1,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1):  The employer did not establish and implement
written procedures to
manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and
procedures; and, changes to
facilities that affect a covered process:
The employer did not ensure that a management of change was conducted
prior to making the
change in that:
a)On or about March 16, 2010 suction valves on BC-10, BC-11 and BC-12 were
chained
open without conducting a management of change;
b)On or about July 4, 2010 the reheat line for Unit #81 was removed but
the management
of change was not conducted until July 15, 2010;
c)On or about July 2010 the inspection of the Unit Coolers was changed
from once per
shift to once per day and a management of change was not conducted.

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $1,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(5):  A change covered 29 CFR 1910.119(l) resulted in a
change in the
operating procedures or practices required by 29 CFR 1910.119(f), and such
procedures or
practices were not updated:
The employer did not ensure that standard operating procedures (SOPs) were
updated when a
change in the ammonia system occurred in that:
a)The reheat coil was removed on Unit #81 on or about July 4, 2010 and the
standard
operating procedure was not updated;
b)The standard operating procedures for brine chillers 10, 11 and 12 were
not updated after
suction valves were chained open on or about March 16, 2010.

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Nov 2, 2010

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $1,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(2):  The investigation of an accident which resulted
in, or could
reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of highly hazardous
chemical in the workplace,
was not initiated promptly or within 48 hours following the incident:
The employer did not conduct an incident investigation within 48 hours
when
a seal leak
occurred on ammonia compressor RCP-05 on or about July 13, 2010. The
incident investigation
was not conducted until July 22, 2010.

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3):  The employer did not prepare a means of verifying
that the employee
had received and understood the training required by 29 CFR 1910.119(g):
The employer did not ensure that employees were given a means to verify
that the training was
understood in that no type of evaluation was done and site specific
training was not documented.

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Nov 16, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2)(vi):  The employer did not maintain a contract
employee injury and
illness log related to contractor's work in process areas:
The employer did not ensure that a contractor employee injury and illness
log was kept.ss

Issued

Oct 28, 2010

Abate by

Dec 14, 2010

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(5):  Corrective action and resolutions of the incident
investigation report
findings were not documented:
The employer did not ensure that recommendations or follow-up actions were
documented as
completed in that:
a)An incident report conducted on March 19, 2010 did not have
documentation that
recommendations had been completed or resolved;
b)An incident report conducted on July 22, 2010 did not have documentation
that
recommendations had been completed or rsolved as the incident occurred on
July 13,
2010.