OSHA Inspection: G & J PEPSI COLA BOTTLERS, INC.

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Mar 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $2,750 Reduced

Hazardous substances 00200170064014302085

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    (a) Personal protective equipment was not provided and used in that an employee (the blender) has to work from a platform on top of the sugar delivery trailer exposed while working to a fall from a height in excess of 9.4 feet to the ground or pavement below in that the employee(s) have to; open the dome hatch, take a sugar sample and install the bee bonnet. In addition, the employee (the Blender) has to climb the fixed ladder mounted on the delivery trailer while carrying tools and equipment such as, a scoop, a sample jar, a bee bonnet, and sometimes a wrench or pliers occupying both hands while ascending and descending the ladder exposed to falling to the pavement below.    (b)  Employees were not required to wear safety glasses in the QC lab when performing routine tasks, such as pipetting, stirring and titrating with solutions, such as 0.1 N Sodium hydroxide and Antifoam 07037*09*12F, which contained hydrogen chloride and phosphoric acid, to test the various syrup mixtures, which contained sodium benzoate, potassium benzoate, acesulfame potassium and citric acid, which could irritate or damage eye tissues.    (c)  Employees were not required to wear protective equipment, such as long sleeves or a lab coat, or protective gloves other than food service latex gloves, while performing routine tasks in the production areas, such as the syrup mixing room, where dry ingredients, such as aspartame, sodium benzoate, potassium benzoate, acesulfame potassium and citric acid were added by hand and irritated employees' skin causing a rash.        (d)  On or about July 30, 2013, the HR manager, who was also the OSHA contact person for employee safety and health, wore open toed sandals instead of closed toe and heel leather shoes on a walk around of the production area related to this inspection, which included filling, palletizing, de-palletizing, syrup room, QC lab, warehouse and loading trucks with product for delivery, where there were hazards such as falling cans and bottles, spills of empty cans with sharp metal ends, stacks of boxes and pallets of beverages that could smash toes and pallets of chemicals labeled corrosive that could leak and burn skin.       (e)  The PPE hazard assessment for maintenance employees who performed voltage testing and troubleshooting was inadequate in that it did not address neck and ear protection as provided by a balaclava sock hood as indicated in NFPA 70E for Hazard Risk category 2 or a full flash hood and did not address hearing protection (ear canal inserts) for prevention of damamge from arc blasts.      In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Mar 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $2,750 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0170053006402260C136

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1): The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:      (a)  The employer did not perform a PPE hazard assessment for employees who worked in the QC lab where eye and face protection, such as safety glasses among other PPE, should have been required to protect employees while performing lab analysis, such as pipetting, stirring and titrating with solutions, such as 0.1 N Sodium hydroxide and Antifoam 07037*09*12F, which contained hydrogen chloride and phosphoric acid, to test the various syrup mixtures, which contained sodium benzoate, potassium benzoate, acesulfame potassium and citric acid, which could irritate or damage eye tissues.    (b)  The employer did not perform a PPE hazard assessment for employees who worked in the production areas, such as can and bottle filling rooms, syrup mixing room, palletizer and de-palletizer, sanitation crew and in the warehouse, where eye and face protection, long sleeves for arm protection, respiratory protection or protective gloves other than food service latex gloves should have been required to protect these employees while they were performing routine tasks in the production areas, such as the syrup mixing room, where dry ingredients, such as aspartame, sodium benzoate, potassium benzoate, acesulfame potassium and citric acid were added by hand and irritated employees' skin causing a rash.        (c)  The employer did not perform a PPE hazard assessment for employees who worked in the office who must enter the production area that addressed eye and face protection or safety shoes that would provide protection while they were working in or observing the can and bottle filling rooms, syrup mixing room, palletizer and de-palletizer, sanitation crew and in the warehouse, where there were hazards such as falling cans and bottles, spills of empty cans with sharp metal ends, stacks of boxes and pallets of beverages that could smash toes and pallets of chemicals labeled corrosive that could leak and burn skin.       In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Feb 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,500 · Current $3,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 017005300640C136

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting respirator was fit tested prior to initial use, whenever a differenct respirator facepiece (size, style, make or model) was used, and at least annually thereafter.    (a)  On or about July 30, 2013, employees who were required to wear 3M 7800 full face or North 7700 half face tight fitting facepiece respirators on a daily basis while working where they were exposed to chemicals such as ammonia, chlorine, aspartame, sodium benzoate and acesulfame potassium, had not been fit tested since February 17, 2011.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Feb 11, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 017005300640C136

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    The employer's written respiratory protection program for employees who were required to wear 3M 7800 and North 7700 tight fitting facepiece respirators on a daily basis to protect them from exposures to air contaminants, such as ammonia, chlorine, aspartame, sodium benzoate and acesulfame potassium, did not adequately address the following procedures;    (a)  Fit testing procedures for tight-fitting respirators at the time of initial assignment and at least annually thereafter, or more frequently if necessary due to physical changes such as dental work or weight loss or gain;    (b)  Training of employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations at the time of initial assignment and at least annually thereafter;    (c)  Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the program at least annually.     In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET)

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Mar 5, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 017005300640C136

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; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminants chemical state and physical form:      (a)  The employer had not determined employee exposure to air contaminants, such as ammonia, chlorine, aspartame, sodium benzoate, acesulfame potassium and carbon dioxide that were present in the workplace.        In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Feb 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances 017005300640C136

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(5): Respiratory protection retraining was not conducted annually:     (a)  On or about July 30, 2013, employees who were required to wear 3M 7800 full face or North 7700 half face tight fitting facepiece respirators on a daily basis or in case of emergency ammonia leaks, while working where they were exposed to chemicals such as ammonia, chlorine, aspartame, sodium benzoate and acesulfame potassium, had not been trained on the employer's respiratory protection program since February 17, 2011.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.

Issued

Jan 15, 2014

Abate by

Feb 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,100 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(iv): Annual training for employees with occupational exposure was not provided within one year of their previous training:     (a)  On or about July 30, 2013, maintenance employees who were assigned to clean production machines following an injury incident where there could be blood or OPIM exposure had not been provided with annual exposure control training since 2011.    In accordance with 29 CFR 1903.19(d), abatement certification is required for this violation (using the CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET), and in addition, documentation demonstrating that abatement is complete must be included with your certification.  This documentation may include, but is not limited to, evidence of the purchase or repair of the equipment, photographic or video evidence, or written records.