OSHA Inspection: DIASPORA TEA & HERB COMPANY, LLC

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,380 · Current $1,190 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air, that was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i., was used for cleaning purposes without effective chip guarding and personal protective equipment:     (a) In the Fuso Room compressed air for cleaning the the Fuso Machine was used at a pressure of approximately 80 p.s.i., when dead-ended, which potentially exposed workers to the hazard of air embolism.     (b) In the Fuso Room workers periodically used compressed air to clean tea debris from the Fuso Machine, but did not use suitable eye protection, such as safety glasses.  This condition potentially exposed workers to eye injury.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i): Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:  (a) Workers in the Fuso Room voluntarily used filtering facepiece dust masks when performing dust generating operations, such as cleaning with compressed air.  However, these workers were not informed of the contents of Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 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) Workers in the Fuso Room used small quantities chemical products, such as Simple Green and Food Grade Machine Oil, and had exposure to airborne tea and herb dust.  These exposures could result in irritation effects to the eyes and skin, and potentially could result in other adverse effects.  However, no written hazard communication program had been developed.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:(a) In the vicinity of the Fuso Room, a portable container of Simple Green, a cleaning agent which was used by more than one shift of workers, was not labeled with an appropriate hazard warning.  Exposure to this chemical could cause irritation to eyes and skin.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)(xi): Material safety data sheet (MSDS) for hazardous chemicals did not contain at least the date of preparation of the material safety data sheet or the last change to it: (a) The MSDS which the employer had developed for "Tea, Herbs, Spices: Dry", which listed various potential health hazards (e.g., exposure to particals can cause eye irritation, with symptoms including stinging, tearing, and swelling of eyes). However, the MSDS did not list either the date of preparation or the last change to it.

Issued

Sep 30, 2013

Abate by

Oct 25, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h): Employees were not provided effective information and training as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1) and (2) on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard was introduced in(a) Workers had not been provided information and training as required by this standard.  For example, workers in the Fuso Room had not been provided information regarding the labeling system and how to access material material safety data sheets.  Training had not been provided regarding hazards of chemicals in their work area, such as Simple Green and Food Grade Lubricant.