OSHA Inspection: ACADIAN FINE FOODS, L.L.C.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1): Employee(s) were not able to open an exit route door from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that employees had safe means of egress out of the walk-in carbon dioxide (CO2) freezer in the boudin room. The device to open the freezer door from the inside was broken. Employees had no way out of the freezer if the door was shut while they were inside.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(1): The employer did not develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated emergencies prior to commencement of emergency response operations.   On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to establish an emergency response and evacuation plan for employees. The facility had liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) being piped in from a 110,000 gallon tank sitting behind the plant. The CO2 lines in the plant have leaked in the past.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(h)(1): The employer did not provide the protective equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), used to comply with this part, at no cost to employees.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to provide, at no cost to employees, slip resistant foot wear. The employer required employees to purchase, without reimbursement, slip resistant foot wear to work in the facility.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to conduct periodic inspections to evaluate the energy control procedures for equipment, such as but not limited to, meat grinders, meat mixers, steam kettles and a pneumatic sealer machine.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that an adequate emergency eye wash and emergency shower was available for employees using corrosives including but not limited to sanitizer and boiler water treatment.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.  a. On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that the auger blades on a meat mixer in the boudin room were guarded.   b. On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that the metal plates on a sealer machine used in the processing area were guarded.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(iii): Special hand tools for placing and removing material(s) were not provided to permit easy handling of material without the operator placing a hand in the danger zone.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to provide employees with special hand tools when working at the meat ball forming machine. Employees used their hands to push a meat mixture into the blades of the machine.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $1,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.303(f)(2): Each service, feeder, and branch circuit, at its disconnecting means or overcurrent device, was not legibly marked to indicate its purpose, nor located and arranged so the purpose was evident.   On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that breakers in the panel boxes in the electrical room were labeled.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 26, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(B): Flexible cords and cables were being used where run through holes in walls, ceilings, or floors.   On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that flexible cords were not being used as a permanent means of wiring. Electrical cords were coming down from holes in the ceiling in the processing area to power including but not limited to sealer machine and conveyor system.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $5,390

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords and cables were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief was provided that would prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws.  a. On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that a flexible electrical cord running to a junction box on the assembly line in the processing area was provided with strain relief. Inner conductors were showing as the outer sheathing had been pulled away from the junction box.   b. On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that a flexible electrical cord running to a scale used in the processing area was provided with strain relief. Inner conductors were showing as the outer sheathing had been pulled away from the scale.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $1,925 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(ii): There was a defect or evidence of damage that could have exposed an employee to injury and the defective or damaged item was not removed from service.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that damaged electrical cords were removed from service. An electrical cord used to supply power to a tape machine in the processing area had damaged outer sheathing.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 26, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

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.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to develop and implement a written hazard communication program that describes how employee training will be conducted, how safety data sheets will be maintained and how hazardous substances will be labeled. Hazardous chemicals on site include, but are not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2), sanitizer and boiler water treatment.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $5,390 · Current $2,695 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(1): The employer did not have a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical in use.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that a safety data sheet (SDS) for carbon dioxide (CO2) was present in the workplace.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $38,500 · Current $13,420 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0530

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 on January 9 2014, employees were exposed to carbon dioxide at the following concentrations:           a. On or about 1-9-14 in the Boudin Room, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH). The carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was sampled at 97,954 parts per million (ppm), which is greater than 2 times the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).   b. On or about 1-9-14 in the employee bathroom, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The CO2 concentration was sampled at 49,200 ppm, which is greater than the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.   c. On or about 1-9-14 in the kitchen, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The CO2 concentration was sampled at 66,357 ppm, which is greater than the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.   d. On or about 1-9-14 in the pie room, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The CO2 concentration was sampled at 41,008 ppm, which is greater than the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 26, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0530

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employee(s) were exposed to an airborne concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the 8 hour Time Weighted Average concentration of 5000 parts per million (ppm).   a. On or about 1-9-14 in the boudin room, the employer failed to ensure that employee exposures did not exceed the 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5000 ppm for CO2. A worker in the boudin room, while putting racks of food in a CO2 freezer and also while CO2 was being directly applied to food for cooling purposes, was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of 7918.92 ppm, approximately 1.6 times the PEL. The exposure was derived from a sample taken over a 425 minute period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 55 minutes not sampled.  b. On or about 1-9-14 in the processing area, the employer failed to ensure that employee exposures did not exceed the 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5000 ppm for CO2. A worker in the processing area, while working around a CO2 pneumatic powered sealer machine, was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of 10769.18 ppm, approximately 2.1 times the PEL. The exposure was derived from a sample taken over a 432 minute period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 48 minutes not sampled.   c. On or about 1-9-14 in the kitchen, the employer failed to ensure that employee exposures did not exceed the 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5000 ppm for CO2. The kitchen cook, while directly applying CO2 to food for cooling purposes with a cone applicator, was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of 5292.17 ppm, approximately 1.06 times the PEL. The exposure was derived from a sample taken over a 404 minute period. Zero exposure was assumed for the 76 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0530

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d). Protective equipment or any other protective measures were not used to keep the exposure of employees to air contaminants within the limits prescribed in this section.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to use control measures to prevent employee exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2) at or above 5000 ppm over on 8 hour time weighted average. Employees were exposed to CO2 from machinery leaks and also from directly applying CO2 to quick freeze food products.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0530

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(a)(2): A respirator was not provided by the employer to each employee when such equipment was necessary to protect the health of the employee.  On or about 1-9-2014, the employer failed to provide respiratory protection to employees who were overexposed to the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) (5000 ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 overexposures were found in the processing area, boudin room, and kitchen.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 0530

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 hazard(s) and an identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Where the employer was unable to identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health).  a. On or about 1-9-14, in the boudin room, the employer failed to evaluate the employee exposure to respiratory hazards associated with carbon dioxide (CO2).  A worker in the boudin room, while putting racks of food in a CO2 freezer and also while CO2 was being directly applied to food for cooling purposes, was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of 7918.92 ppm, approximately 1.6 times the PEL.   b. On or about 1-9-14, in the processing area, the employer failed to evaluate the employee exposure to respiratory hazards associated with carbon dioxide (CO2). A worker in the processing area, while working around a CO2 pneumatic powered sealer machine, was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of 10769.18 ppm, approximately 2.1 times the PEL.  c. On or about 1-9-14, in the kitchen, the employer failed to evaluate the employee exposure to respiratory hazards associated with carbon dioxide (CO2). The kitchen cook, while directly applying CO2 to food for cooling purposes with a cone applicator, was exposed to an 8-hour TWA concentration of 5292.17 ppm, approximately 1.06 times the PEL.   d. On or about 1-9-14 in the boudin Room, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was sampled at 97,954 parts per million (ppm), which is greater than 2 times the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.   e. On or about 1-9-14 in the employee bathroom, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The CO2 concentration was sampled at 49,200 ppm, which is greater than the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.   f. On or about 1-9-14 in the kitchen, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The CO2 concentration was sampled at 66,357 ppm, which is greater than the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.   g. On or about 1-9-14 in the pie room, the employer failed to consider that the atmosphere in the room was IDLH. The CO2 concentration was sampled at 41,008 ppm, which is greater than the IDLH concentration of 40,000 ppm set by NIOSH.

Issued

Jun 18, 2014

Abate by

Jun 20, 2014

Penalty

Initial $10,780 · Current $5,390 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(d)(2): Panelboards were not mounted in cabinets, cutout boxes, or enclosures approved for the purpose and were not dead front.  On or about 1-9-14, the employer failed to ensure that a panel box in the electrical room was dead front. The panel box had missing breakers that exposed open areas in the panel box.  Acadian Fine Foods, L.L.C. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.305(d)(2) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 388142, citation number 1 item number 2 and was affirmed as a final order on 6-12-2012 with respect to a workplace located at 329 S. Main St. Church Point, LA 70525.