Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: RED JACKET ORCHARDS, INC.

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of RED JACKET ORCHARDS, INC. in 957 STATE ROUTE 5 AND 20, GENEVA, NY 14456 (NAICS 445230). OSHA activity number 334259330.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch RED Jacket Orchards, INC. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for RED Jacket Orchards, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
957 STATE ROUTE 5 AND 20
City
GENEVA
State
NY
ZIP
14456
Mailing
957 STATE ROUTE 5 AND 20, GENEVA, NY 14456
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
445230
Employees
30
Ownership type
A

10 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.23 E01

Serious Gravity 5 2 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,600 · Current $2,160 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.23(e)(1):  Standard railing(s) did not consist of top rail, intermediate rail and/or posts and/or did not have a vertical height of 42 inches (106.7 cm) nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor, platform runway, or ramp level:    a) Press Area, on or about 5/9/12:  Good Nature Press had open sided floors and were not provided with an intermediate railing.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2160
  • — Z (S) $3600

1910.134 C01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Abate by
Aug 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,700 · Current $1,620 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)  Employer did not establish nor implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures when respirators were necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators were required by the employer:    a)  Chemical Room, on or about 5/9/12: Employer had not established a written respirator protection program when employee was required to wear full face air purifying respirator.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1620
  • — Z (S) $2700

1910.134 E01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Abate by
Aug 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a)  Chemical Room, on or about 5/9/12:  Employee required to wear a full face air purifying respirators and had not been provided with a medical evaluation.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 F02

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Abate by
Aug 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2):  Employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight fitting facepiece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter:    a)  Chemical Room, on or about 5/9/12:  Employee required to wear a full face air purifying respirator and had not been fit tested.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 K

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Abate by
Aug 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(k): The employer did not provide comprehensive, understandable training which did not occur annually and/or more often if necessary:    a)  Chemical Room, on or about 5/9/12:  Employee  required to wear a full face air purifying respirator and had not received respirator training.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.146 C04

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Penalty
Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4):  When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not develop and implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:    a)  Tank Area, on or about 5/9/12: Employees enter Cider Tanks and the employer did not develop or implement a written permit required confined space program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2700
  • — Z (S) $4500

1910.146 D05 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5)(i):  Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not evaluate permit space conditions when entry operations were conducted by testing conditions in the permit space to determine if acceptable entry conditions existed before entry was authorized to begin:    a)  Tank Area, on or about 5/9/12:  Employee entered permit required confined space including but not limited to: Raw Cider Tank No. R3 without testing the conditions in the permit space to determine if acceptable entry conditions existed before entry was authorized to begin.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.146 E01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Abate by
Aug 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.146(e)(1):  Before entry was authorized, the employer did not document the completion of measures required by 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(3) by preparing an entry permit:    a)  Tank Area, on or about 5/9/12: Employees enter permit required confined spaces and employer does not have a permit required confined space entry permit to be completed before entry.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.147 C01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Penalty
Initial $4,500 · Current $2,700 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of  energy control procedures, employee training, and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performing any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, start up or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment would be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.    a)  Red Jacket Orchards Inc., on or about 5/9/12:  The employer had not established an energy control program consisting of energy control procedures and periodic inspections for employees who perform servicing and/or maintenance on various machinery or equipment such as but not limited to: Good Nature Press; Federal Filler & Capper; Blend and Pasteurizer CIP and Boiler.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2700
  • — Z (S) $4500

1910.212 A01

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Jul 26, 2012
Abate by
Aug 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,600 · Current $2,160 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):  Machine guarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by: rotating parts:        a)  Bottling Area, on or about 6/26/12: Federal Filler was not provided with a point of operation guard.    b)  Bottling Area, on or about 6/26/12: Federal Capper was not provided with a point of operation guard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2160
  • — Z (S) $3600

View RED Jacket Orchards, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →

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 334259330.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.