OSHA Inspection: CSC SUGAR, LLC

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $3,600

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1):  The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  a) Rock Run Production facility, invert process - On or about March 6, 2013, Employees transferring caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, from barrels to smaller containers for injection into Invert tanks 1 and 2, did not wear chemical goggles.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i):  The employer did not select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:  a) Rock Run Production facility, Invert process - On or about March 6, 2013, The employer selected only a chemical face shield for eye and face protection for employees transferring caustic soda and hydrochloric acid into Invert tanks 1 and 2. Safety Data Sheets for these chemicals require a face shield and chemical goggles.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Sep 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):     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 a fall hazard from the top of the hopper:    a) Roebling Road warehouse - On or about February 25, 2013, the sugar hopper did not have sae walkways for employees working to manually break up sugar lumps, that were causing clogs that were disrupting flow through the conveyor.    Abatement Note: Among other methods, one feasible and acceptable method to correct this hazard is the installation of effective fixed fall protection systems in the hopper area and to ensure the use of a fall protection system at all times when employees are exposed to fall hazards.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,480 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii): Unused openings in boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not effectively closed:    a) Rock Run facility, Second floor management office area, Production High Voltage Subpanel A HVSP5 - On or about March 6, 2013, unused openings for circuit breakers in a 277/480 volt sub-panel, with the door left partially open, were not effectively closed to prevent injury to employees caused by potential arcing from the internal conductors.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(2)(i):  Each outlet box in completed installations did not have a cover, faceplate, or fixture canopy:  a) Roebling Road Warehouse, Office/break room - On or about February 25, 2013, employees used 110 volt electrical outlets which did not have faceplates installed.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Sep 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $3,686 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.27(b)(1): Immediate supervisors of cargo handling operations of more than five persons did not satisfactorily complete an accident prevention course:      a) Roebling Rd. Warehouse - On or about February 25, 2013, nine employees were engaged in the handling and preparation of sugar, offloaded from a cargo ship, for shipment via truck to production facilities. The warehouse supervisor had not completed an accident prevention course that could enable him to recognize and mitigate hazards such as exposed belts and pulleys, fall and caught between/in hazards while working on the sugar hopper, and the evaluation, selection, and training of employees in use of Personal Protective Equipment.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Sep 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $6,186 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.49(c): Chute and hopper openings were not guarded to prevent employees from falling through them:     a) Roebling Road warehouse - On or about February 25, 2013, the top opening of the sugar hopper was not guarded to prevent employees from falling into the hopper.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,786 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1917.151(h)(1): Rotating parts, such as gears and pulleys, that are located 7 feet (2.13 m) or less above working surfaces were not guarded to prevent employee contact with moving parts.    a) Roebling Road warehouse, conveyor belt - On or about February 25, 2013, employees operating the sugar hopper feed control wheel were exposed to an in-going nip point created by the combination of the conveyor belt and idler pulley.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Nov 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $180 · Current $180

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment:    a) CSC Sugar, Rock Run production facility - On or about February 27, 2013, the employer did not have a written certification of hazard assessment.     CSC Sugar was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard or its equivalent Standard 1910.132(d)(2), which was contained in OSHA Inspection Number 313853806, Citation number 02, Item number 02 and was affirmed as a Final Order on February 18, 2010, with respect to a workplace located at 2185 High Hill Rd, Swedesboro, NJ.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Nov 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $180 · Current $180

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:     a) Roebling Road warehouse - On or about February 25, 2013, employees voluntarily wore MSA elastomeric respirators as protection against airborne sugar dust. The employer had not implemented those portions of a respiratory protection program including, but not limited to, medical screening of employees.    CSC Sugar was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.134(c)(2)(ii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 313853806, citation number 02, item number 03, and was affirmed as a final order on February 18, 2010, with respect to a workplace located at 2185 High Hill Rd, Swedesboro, NJ.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Sep 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(B): Affected employees were not instructed in the purpose and use of the energy control procedure:   a) Production floor, Rock Run processing facility - On or about February 27, 2013 Affected employees working near and operating processing equipment had not been trained in the purpose and use of the energy control procedure.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Sep 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  a) Rock Run production facility - On or about February 25, 2013, The employer had not implemented a written hazard communication program to ensure criteria of 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) were met. Without assurance of adequate training in the health and physical hazards of the chemicals, methods of protection, and explanations of safety data sheets and labels, employees were potentially exposed to injury, including but not limited to, a potential hazard of chemical burns and respiratory irritation during use of chemicals including but not limited to hydrochloric acid and caustic soda.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Nov 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2)(i): Employees were not informed of the requirements of this section:     a) Rock Run production facility - On or about February 25, 2013, The employer had not implemented a written hazard communication program to ensure employees were informed of the requirements of this section.

Issued

Aug 23, 2013

Abate by

Nov 7, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3): The employee training did not include the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv):    a) Rock Run production facility - On or about February 25, 2013, Hazard Communication training provided by the employer did not include an explanation of the labels received on shipped containers and the workplace labeling system used by their employer; and explanation of the safety data sheet, including the order of information and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information.