OSHA Inspection: CAVINESS BEEF PACKING, LTD

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 12, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

1910.22(b)(1): Where mechanical handling equipment was used, sufficient safe clearances was not allowed for aisles, at loading docks, through doorways and wherever turns or passage must be made. Aisles and passageways were not kept clear and in good repairs, with no obstruction across or in aisles that could create a hazard.      On the fabrication floor, the employer did not maintain aisles and passageways free of obstructions in that cutting operations caused an obstruction in the aisle, exposing employees to a trip hazard and potential electrical hazards.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $3,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.37(a)(3): Exit route(s) were not kept free and unobstructed. Materials or equipment was placed, either permanently or temporarily, in the exit route:    In the Fabrication area, the employer did not ensure that an exit route was kept free and unobstructed.  A meat transportation cart was obstructing the exit door that leads to the basement.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(c)(1): The Employer did not develop a written plan of action for the implementation of employee participation required by this paragraph:     The employer did not ensure that a written plan of action was developed regarding the implementation of employee participation in the conduct and development of the process hazard analyses and other elements of process safety management including process safety information, mechanical integrity, incident investigation, and management of change.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(C): Information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include electrical classification.      The employer's process safety information did not include the electrical classification for equipment located in the engine room, such as but not limited to, the motors for compressors H-1 and S-1, junction boxes and electrical panels.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(b): Documentation for areas designated as hazardous (classified) locations under the Class and Zone system and areas designated under the Class and Division system established after August 13, 2007 was not available to those authorized to design, install, inspect, maintain, or operate electric equipment at the location:  In the engine room, the employer did not ensure that equipment in the engine room was documented as a hazardous (classified) location rated as Class I Division II.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The employer did not address the hazards of the process:    The employer did not ensure that the process hazard analysis (PHA) was appropriate to the complexities of the process.  The PHA did not identify, evaluate, and control the hazards of the compressors and evaporators in the engine room.     The employer did not adhere to the What-If methodology, developed by the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR), that it employed to determine and evaluate the hazards of the process.  Caviness Beef did not correctly use the risk matrix system, assigning relative-risk rankings based on severity and probability in the 2010 process hazard analysis (PHA), such as but not limited to the following instances:         a)     PHA Items 1-12, 14, 15, 17 for the compressors indicated that the consequences of compressor failure would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        b)     PHA Items 1-4.1-4.6, 4.8, 4.10, 4.12, 4.13, 4,14, 4.15, 4.16 for the pressure vessels  indicated that the consequences of pressure vessel failure would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        c)     PHA Items 1-6.1-6.11 for the relief valves indicated that the consequences of relief valve failure would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        d)     PHA Items 1-7.1, 7.3-7.8, 7.23 for the piping indicated that the consequences of piping failure would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.            e)     PHA Items 1-8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.9-8.11 for the NH3 pumps indicated that the consequences of pump failure would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        f)      PHA Items 1-10.6, 10.6, 10.8, 10.9 for the start-up of existing or modified systems indicated that the consequences of failure during start-up would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        g)     PHA Items 1-11.1-11.3 for  the shutdown of system indicated that the consequences of failure during shutdown would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        h)     PHA Item 1-12.1 for  the emergency situation of system was specific tor a loss of electric power indicated that the consequences of emergency situation would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        i)      PHA Items 1-12.2-12.10 for  the emergency situation of system indicated that the consequences of emergency situation would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        j)      PHA Items 1-13.3-13.5, 13.10 for  the charging of NH3 to system indicated that the consequences of failure during charging would only be isolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.        k)     PHA Items 1-14.3 for  the pump-out of system indicated that the consequences of failure during pump-out would only beisolated ammonia release, possible injury, requiring first aid, no on site impact; inaccurately assessing the risk.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(ii): The employer did not address in the process hazard analysis identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace:    The 2010 process hazard analysis did not identify any previous incidents which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences in the workplace; such as but not limited to the following:            a)     improper installation of piping due to bad welds in line identified as box storage unit BS-1 resulted in ammonia vapor release with liquid spill.            b)     corrosion of piping liquid line to Offal Cooler Unit 2 resulted in an ammonia vapor release.        c)    inadequate maintenance, administrative controls, procedures, training resulted in loose bolts on the liquid line of Hot Box 3 Unit 15 resulting in ammonia vapor release with liquid spill.           d)     corrosion of a check valve located on the LDI HTRL line resulted in ammonia liquid spill.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(4): The process hazard analysis was not performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations, and the team did not include at least one employee who has experience and knowledge specific to the process being evaluated.     The 2010 process hazard analysis team did not include at least one person with:    a)     knowledge specific to the process at the facility.      b)     engineering expertise.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(5): The employer did not assure that findings of the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) were resolved in a timely manner and actions documented.      The employer did not establish a system to promptly address findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented including, but not limited to:        a)    initial PHA (2005) open item 1.16 - schedule annual compressor safety checks.            b)    initial PHA (2005) open item 4.23 - verify that high side pumps shut down if low side re-circulator goes high level.        c)    initial PHA (2005) open item 6.10 - develop a PM to inspect piping penetrations that penetrate load bearing walls annually.            d)    initial PHA (2005) open item 6.15 - develop a PM to cycle all isolation valves annually.        e)    initial PHA (2005) open item 15.7 - develop PM to function test ventilation and NH3 detection.            f)     item 14-40 (2005) not completed.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements.      The employer did not ensure that the operating procedures were written to provide instruction for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process including, but not limited high pressure receiver, low temp re-circulator, high temp re-circulator, H-1 compressor, swing compressor, low stage compressor, auto purger, condensers, freezer, evaporators. Operating procedures were not provided for the following:              a)      initial startup.                b)      temporary operations.                c)      emergency shutdown.          d)      emergency operations.                e)      normal shutdown.              f)       startup after an emergency shutdown.         g)       normal operating procedures for draining oil out of the system.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $4,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and did not address normal operations.    The employer does not ensure that operating procedures are written to provide instruction for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process including, but not limited to normal operation. There are no procedures for draining four oil pots in the process system.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4): The employer did not develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; and confined space entry.    The employer did not ensure that safe work practices, which include specific lockout/tagout procedures, were established and implemented for all equipment such as, but not limited to,           a)    low stage compressor (Comp B-2) in the mechanical room.        b)    high stage compressor (Comp H-1) in the mechanical room.          c)     high stage compressor (Comp H-2) in the mechanical room.          d)    swing compressor (Comp S-1) in the mechanical room.          e)    evaporative condensers (EC-1&2) throughout the facility.          f)     fab floor cooler (FF-1 through FLD-2) in the fabrication floor.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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:    Throughout the facility, employer did not have equipment-specific energy control procedures for the following equipment for activities covered by 1910.147. The lack of documentation of machine-specific energy control procedures expose employees to unexpected struck-by, caught-by and electrical hazards.           a)    low stage compressor (Comp B-2) in the mechanical room.          b)    high stage compressor (Comp H-1) in the mechanical room.          c)     high stage compressor (Comp H-2) in the mechanical room.          d)    swing compressor (Comp S-1) in the mechanical room.          e)    evaporative condensers (EC-1&2) throughout the facility.           f)     fab floor cooler (FF-1 through FLD-2) in the fabrication floor

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(D): Lockout devices and tagout devices did not indicate the identity of the employee applying the device(s):     On the fabrication floor, inedible rendering area, and the mechanical room, the employer did not ensure the lockout device attached to energy control devices identified the employee applying the device, and access to the key for lockout devices was not controlled.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(1)(i): The employer did not train each employee in the operating procedures as specified in paragraph (f) of 29 CFR 1910.119.    The employer did not provide initial formal training to its employees prior to being involved in operating the refrigeration system including, but not limited to:        a)      initial startup.                b)      temporary operations.                c)      emergency shutdown.          d)      emergency operations.                e)      normal shutdown.              f)       startup after an emergency shutdown.         g)       normal operating procedures for draining oil out of the system.          h)      normal operating procedures.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Aug 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training. Refresher training was not provided at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understood and adhered to the current operating procedures of the process. The employer, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, did no determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.     The employer did not ensure that refresher training was provided to the refrigeration supervisor involved in the process safety management of the refrigeration system at least every three years.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Aug 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3): The employer did not ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process had received and understood the training required by this paragraph. The employer had not prepared a record which contained the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.      The employer did not ensure that any training received by operators of the ammonia refrigeration system was documented in a record which contained the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.  The employer did not have records documenting the training of each employee involved in operating and/or maintaining the ammonia refrigeration system, on the safety and health hazards, emergency shutdown operations and safe work practices, including but not limited to:       a)    plant engineer.       b)    refrigeration supervisor.       c)    refrigeration operator.        d)    refrigeration maintenance.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish or implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:     In the mechanical room, the employer did not ensure that written mechanical integrity procedures were established and implemented for the following equipment:         a)    external visual inspection of compressor B-1, B-2, H-1, H-2, and S-1.        b)    inspection and preventive maintenance of pumps LTVA-1, LTVA-2, LTBH-1 and LTBH-2.         c)    inspection, testing, and preventive maintenance of the compressor in the engine room S-1, B-1, B-2, H-1, and H-2.          d)    external visual inspection of vessels V1-V2, and V3.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(3): Training for process maintenance activities. The employer did not train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks to assure that the employee was able to perform the job tasks in a safe manner.     In the mechanical room and throughout the facility, the employer did not ensure that training was provided to employees working the day shift and night shift; these employees are involved in the maintenance and on-going integrity of process equipment such as, but not limited to:                  a)    electrical maintenance and repair of compressors, pumps, and evaporators.             b)     maintenance and repair of valves.             c)    replacement of evaporator coils.             d)    draining of oil from the system.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0170

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii): Inspection and testing procedures did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (note: this standard applies to pressure vessels and storage tanks; piping systems (including piping components and valves); relief and vent systems and devices; emergency shutdown systems; controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) and; pumps as referenced by sections (j)(1)-(j)(1)(vi) of this standard.     In the mechanical room, the employer did not ensure the vessels, evaporators, compressors, were inspected and tested in accordance with consensus documents such as but not limited to the following:           a)    external visual inspection of compressor H-1 in accordance with IIAR, Bulletin NO. 110 start-up, inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, Section 6.3.            b)    external visual inspection of compressor B-1, B-2, and S-1; in accordance with IIAR, Bulletin No.110; Start-up, Inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, Section 6.3.            c)     inspection, testing, and preventive maintenance of the compressor in the engine room S-1 in accordance with IIAR, Bulletin No. 110; Start-up, Inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigeration Systems, Section 6.3.            d)    external visual inspection of vessels V1-V2, and V3 in accordance with IIAR, Bulletin No. 110; Start- up, inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, Section 6.4.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(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.      In the mechanical room, employer did not ensure that written procedures for management of change are established and implemented for modification to equipment that affect  a covered process including, but not limited the following:         a)    mist eliminators designed to reduce the amount of debris entering the condensers.             b)    two chill cooler evaporator units in the carcass cooler.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(1): The employer did not investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of highly hazardous chemical in the workplace.     The employer did not investigate each accident which could have resulted in a catastrophic release of highly hazardous chemical in the workplace, including but not limited to the following:          a)    on or about December 7, 2012 suction check valve failed on H-2 compressor located in the engine room leading failure of H-2 compressor.         b)    on or about October 9, 2012 shaft seal failure on B-2 compressor located in the engine room led to failure of B-2 compressor.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(4): ): An incident report was not prepared at the conclusion of the investigation that included at a minimum, the date of the incident, date the investigation began, a description of the incident, and any recommendations resulting from the investigation.     The employer did not ensure that an incident report was prepared at the conclusion of each investigation that included at a minimum, the date the investigation began, a description of the incident, and any recommendations resulting from the investigation.        a)   corrosion of piping liquid line to Offal Cooler Unit 2.      b)   seal failure on B-2 compressor located in the engine room led to failure of B-2 compressor.          c)   suction check valve failed on H-2 compressor located in the engine room leading failure of H-2 compressor.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(2): An incident investigation was not initiated as promptly as possible, but not later than 48 hours following the incident.      The employer did not initiate an incident investigation within 48 hours of an incident occurrence including but not limited to:           a)    inadequate maintenance, administrative controls, procedures, training resulted in loose bolts on the liquid line of Hot Box 3 Unit 15 resulting in ammonia vapor release with liquid spill.             b)    corrosion of a check valve located on the LDI HTRL line resulted in ammonia liquid spill.          c)    compressor component failure in the mechanical room resulted in an ammonia vapor release.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 26, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(m)(3): An incident investigation team was not established and did not consist of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved, including a contract employee if the incident involved work of the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident.   In the mechanical room, employer did not establish an incident investigation team that consists of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved. Incidents in which ammonia releases were reported were not investigated by an incident investigation team, including but not limited to:       a)    corrosion of piping liquid line to Offal Cooler Unit 2 resulted in an ammonia vapor release, investigation report indicated only one person participated. investigation team was not identified on the incident summary, therefore qualifications of investigation team were not established.       b)    inadequate maintenance, administrative controls, procedures, training resulted in loose bolts on the liquid line of Hot Box 3 Unit 15 resulting in ammonia vapor release with liquid spill, investigation did not include contractors involved and report did not provide qualifications of members.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $4,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(n): The employer did not establish and implement an emergency plan for the entire plant in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.38     Throughout the facility, employer did not:         a)     perform physical evacuation procedures. The employer did not conduct fire, chemical release, and extreme weather evacuation drills.         b)     did not ensure that employees recognize the difference between alarms for fire and small and large releases for highly hazardous chemicals.         c)     did not ensure that reliable and adequate tests of non-supervised employee alarm systems were made at least very two months.          d)    employer did not train employees to assist in safe and orderly evacuation.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Nov 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4): The employer did not correct deficiencies identified during the compliance audit in a timely manner.     Throughout the facility, employees were exposed to fire/explosion hazards in that the employer did not ensure resolution items identified during the compliance audit including, but not limited to the following: items 14-22, 14-23, 14-30, 14-56, 14-58, 14-59 identified during the February 21-23, 2012 audit were outstanding at the time of inspection.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; this evaluation did not include a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Where the employer cannot identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer did not  consider the atmosphere to be IDLH.     In the mechanical room, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not select an appropriate respirator for the hazard when an employee entered the engine room to respond to a chlorine and sodium hydroxide leak.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(d)(2)(i)(A): The employer did not provide a full face pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a minimum service life of thirty minutes for employee use in IDLH atmospheres:     In the mechanical room, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not provide an adequate respirator for employees who respond to potential IDLH environments.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $5,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(g)(1): The employer did not provide training so that all employees whose work was regulated by 29 CFR 1910.146 (permit required confined spaces) acquired the understanding, knowledge, and skills necessary for the safe performance of the duties assigned under 29 CFR 1910.146:    Throughout the facility, employees who were required to enter confined spaces were not effectively trained in the recognition and avoidance of hazards associated with entry into permit required confined spaces.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(k)(2)(iv): The employer did not ensure that affected employees practice making permit space rescues at least once every 12 months, by means of simulated rescue operations in which they remove dummies, manikins, or actual persons from the actual permit spaces or from representative permit spaces:    Throughout the facility, the employer did not ensure employees who were designated to perform rescue from confined spaces held annual practice drills.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Sep 16, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(k)(3)(ii): An authorized entrant entered a permit space and did not have the other end of the retrieval line attached to a mechanical device or fixed point outside the permit space in such a manner that rescue could begin as soon as the rescuer becomes aware that rescue is necessary:    Throughout the facility, the employer did not provide the mechanical equipment necessary to promptly rescue or retrieve employees from confined spaces in the event of an emergency.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 10, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $2,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(b)(6): Conductors or equipment were located in damp or wet locations; where exposed to gases, fumes, vapors, liquids, or other agents that had a deteriorating effect on the conductors or equipment; or where exposed to excessive temperatures    Electrical switch boxes with enclosures not identified for use in wet and corrosive environments located in the machine room were exposed to condensation from ammonia refrigeration piping and vessels causing the corrosion of the boxes.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 12, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8):   The employer did not ensure that Safety Data Sheets were readily accessible during each work shift to employees when they were in their work area(s):    Throughout the facility, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not ensure the safety data sheet for ammonia was accessible for employees.

Issued

Jul 1, 2013

Abate by

Jul 19, 2013

Penalty

Initial $1,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    In the fabrication area and the mechanical room, employees were exposed to chemical hazards in that the employer did not ensure that employees were provided adequate information and training on the hazards of a chemical such as ammonia in their work place.