OSHA Inspection: INTERNATIONAL NUTRITION, INC.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $5,000 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:    a)  The employer is exposing employees working at its facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127  to the recognized hazard of fire, deflagration and explosion associated with using compressed air to blow accumulations of combustible dust off of surfaces and equipment in the presence of potential ignition sources creating dust clouds. The most recent examples of this occurred on January 20, 2014 when the employer had employees cleaning the facility with compressed air without eliminating all potential ignition sources.      Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement are:      1.  Complying with applicable provisions of NFPA 654: Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions From the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, concerning use of compressed air.  (See, 2013 edition including Sections 8.2.2, 8.2.2.4.)       2. The employer upgrading all the electrical in the facility that is near potential combustible dust locations to Division II Class II wiring.        3.  The employer providing employees with additional training on the recognition of potential ignition sources and the use of compressed air, specifically addressing the need to de-energize all potential ignition sources.        4.  The employer developing and implementing in depth written procedures specifically for the purpose of using compressed air for cleaning the facility, paying particular attention to the issues of combustible dust and de-energizing potential ignition sources.      b) The employer is exposing employees working at its facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127 to the recognized hazard of fire, deflagration and explosion associated with operating equipment that conveys materials that contain or generate combustible dust with the panel doors removed so that combustible dust escapes into the atmosphere.  The most recent example of this occurred on January 20, 2014 when the employer allowed employees working on bagging line #4 at the facility to operate the Inglet Scale conveyor belt system with the panel doors removed, allowing combustible dust generated during the handling of product to escape into the atmosphere creating the danger of a fire, deflagration, and/or explosion. On that day, access doors were open and covered with an approximately 1/8 inch layer of dust accumulation. The Inglett Scale conveyor belt enclosure provides a 5-sided exhaust hood to capture dusting from material transport dust emission sources such as impact at belt loading point, belt return idlers and belt discharge to the filling spout hopper. With the panel doors removed, the enclosure is compromised and belt dusting becomes fugitive dust resulting in dust accumulations on horizontal surfaces in the surrounding packaging area. If dispersed and ignited, the dust accumulations on horizontal surfaces can contribute to a secondary explosion in the packaging area as settled dust accumulations are lifted, ignited, deflagrate and possibly explode. Potential ignition sources include static electricity discharge from lack of electrical bonding of non-conductive, rubber flex hose at hood connections, hot foreign material from upstream failed equipment, upstream fire, etc.     Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement are:      1.     Complying with applicable provisions of NFPA 654: Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions From the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, (2000 edition), including Sections 4.1, 4.2.1.       2.     Implementing a work practice to reinstall the panel doors on the Inglet Scale conveyor belt system after maintenance/cleaning before the packaging line is used.        3.     Implementing a work rule prohibiting operation of the Inglet Scale conveyor belt system with the panel door removed.       4.     Installing a proof-of-closure switch could be installed on each panel door to prevent the operation of Inglet Scale conveyor belt system without closing the panel door.      c)  The employer is exposing employees working at its facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127 to the recognized hazard of fire, deflagration and explosion associated with using non-conductive, un-bonded synthetic flexible duct as part of the dust collection system handling combustible dust.  The most recent example of this occurred on January 20, 2014 at the facility where the employer allowed, at the dust collector for bagging line #4, use of un-bonded synthetic flexible duct as part of the dust collection system, creating the potential for static charge to build up as product passes through the flex duct and increasing the possibility of sparking the combustible dust and creating a deflagration ultimately leading to a secondary combustible dust explosion.  The non-conductive flexible duct conveys combustible dust.  Non-conductive flexible ducts without bonding allow electrostatic charges to accumulate at the discontinuity where bonding is lost while product is flowing.  Discharge of the accumulated electrostatic charges can be an ignition source for a combustible dust fire, deflagration and explosion in the dust collecting system.     Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement are:      1.    Complying with applicable provisions of NFPA 654: Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions From the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, (2000 edition), including Section 5.3.1.       2.      Replacing the electrically non-conductive flex duct with an electrically conductive duct.        3.     Bridging the non-conductive flex duct with a conductive cable bonding the metal duct and hood to each other with both options insure that the exhaust system is grounded.      4.      In conjunction with both 1 and 2, insuring the exhaust system is grounded.      d)  The employer is exposing employees working at its facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127  to the recognized hazard of fire, deflagration and explosion associated with loss-of-flow in the dust collection system handling combustible dust.  The most recent example of this occurred on January 20, 2014 at the facility where the employer allowed the dust collection system handling combustible dust to be operated with reduced flow as a result of the following defects:      1.  One of the 4? diameter exhaust ducts serving the exhaust hoods at packaging line #4 was plugged with a paper bag.    2.  Many of the 4? diameter, flexible exhaust ducts serving the exhaust hoods at packaging line #4 had holes in them. The holes in the flexible duct allow exhaust air, needed at the hood, to short circuit and enter at the hole.    Both 1 and 2 result in reduced exhaust air volumetric capacity at the respective hoods within the dust collection system.  The ability of the hoods to capture dust emissions from packaging is reduced, and consequently, more fugitive combustible dust from the packaging operation accumulates on the floor.         Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement are:      1.  Complying with applicable provisions of NFPA 654: Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions From the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, (2000 edition), including Section 4.2.1.      2.  Inspecting the bagging conveyor line for blockages, and where torn bags could be sucked into the hoods, using smoke trails to check hood performance and find any blockages.        3.   Replacing flex duct when holes are evident.      e)  The employer is exposing employees working at its facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127 to the recognized hazard of fire, deflagration and explosion associated with operating a dust collection system handling combustible dust that failed to contain isolation devices to prevent deflagration propagation in the event of a deflagration in the dust collector.   The most recent example of this occurred on January 20, 2014 at the facility where the employer allowed the production lines to operate using a MAC dust collector that failed to have isolation devices at various locations throughout the system:          i.    The system failed have an isolation device to prevent dust collector deflagration propagation through upstream ductwork to the work areas (e.g., mixers, conveyors, packaging, etc.) in the event of a deflagration in the dust collector. This event may lead to a secondary explosion in the work space as settled dust accumulations are lifted, ignited, deflagrate and possibly explode the building causing a catastrophic collapse of the structure.          ii.   The system failed to have an isolation device to prevent dust collector deflagration propagation through downstream exhaust ductwork (recycled air back into the building) in the event of a deflagration in the dust collector. This event may lead to a secondary explosion in the work space as settled combustible dust accumulations are lifted, ignited, deflagrate and possibly explode the building causing a catastrophic collapse of the structure.          iii.  The system failed to have an isolation device to prevent dust collector deflagration propagation from the dust collector hopper to the dust collector storage barrel in the event of a deflagration of the dust collector. This event may lead to a secondary explosion in the loading dock area where the dust collector storage barrel is located. The combustible dust in the dust collector hopper passes through a rotary valve and screw conveyor before falling into 55 gallon metal barrels in the loading dock.  Neither the rotary valve or screw conveyor have the ability to act as an isolation choke to prevent a fire or deflagration from propagating from the dust collector to the storage barrels.       Dust collectors can deflagrate when the bags are pneumatically pulsed during normal operation, creating a combustible dust cloud at minimum explosive concentration within the dust collector housing.  In the presence of an ignition source, the dust collector will experience a flash fire, deflagration, or explosion.  Potential ignition sources include static electricity discharge from lack of electrical bonding of non-conductive flexible ducts, hot foreign material from upstream failed equipment, upstream fire, etc.        Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement are:      1.   Complying with applicable provisions of NFPA 654: Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions From the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, (2000 edition), including Sections 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.13.7, and 2.1.3.      2.    Installation of isolation devices at all required locations pursuant to NFPA 654, Section 3 requirements.  These include chokes rotary valves, fast acting isolation valves, flame front diverters, and flame front extinguishers.        3.     Design of the dust collection system so that it prevents both return of dust with an efficiency of 99.9% at 10 microns and transmission of energy from a fire or explosion to the building. Such a design allows recycling of dust collector exhaust air.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $2,640 · Current $5,000

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 is failing to develop and implement a written respiratory program to address any potential respiratory hazards commonly associated with working in a dusty environment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer requires employees to wear N95 respirators while operating equipment and performing their duties on the bagging, mixing, micro picking and label preparation lines; as well as provides to the other employees within the plant 3M N95 respirators to use voluntarily in the protection against nuisance dust without having conducted air quality tests and developing and implanting a written respiratory program that would provide necessary information to include the but not limited to:    i.     Procedures for selecting respirators in the work place;   ii.    Medical evaluations for employees required to use respirators;   iii.   Fit testing procedures for tight fitting respirators;  iv.   Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonably foreseeable emergency situations;  v.    Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, inspecting, repairing, discarding and otherwise maintaining respirators;   vi.    Procedures to ensure adequate air quality, and flow of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators;   vii.   Training of employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations;   viii.   Training of employees in the proper use of respirators, including putting on and removing them, any limitations  on their use, and their maintenance; and  ix.    Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the program.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    The employer is failing to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with employees wearing and using respirators without having been evaluated by a medical professional prior to use.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer requires employees to wear N95 respirators while operating equipment and performing their duties on the bagging, mixing, micro picking and label preparation lines; without having the employees evaluated by a medical professional to identify any potential risk hazards or other pre-existing medical condition that may cause them serious harm during injury.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator were not annually fit tested:    The employer is failing to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with employees using N95 respirators while working in an inadequately ventilated area where dust is present without having been annually fit tested.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer requires employees to wear N95 respirators while operating equipment and performing their duties on the bagging, mixing, micro picking and label preparation lines; without having the employees fit tested both initially and annually thereafter to ensure that the respirators are protecting the employee as designed.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $4,400 · Current $4,000 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:     The employer is failing to protect employees from caught between, amputation and respiratory hazards associated with employees exposed to confined spaces in the work place.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127 where the employer has employees working around and entering confined spaces for cleaning and maintenance of the equipment without having provided those employees with adequate training.  Instances of adequate training include but are not limited to:    i.  The recognition of confined spaces and the difference between a confined space and a permit required confined space.   ii.  The restrictions and procedures associated with entering a confined space or a permit required confined space.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The training program of the employer did not include all the training elements listed under Items A-C of 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i):     The employer is failing to provide employees with adequate training on the application of lockout and tag out used in the safe maintenance of equipment with hazardous stored energy.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has inadequately trained employees repairing and cleaning equipment that have potential stored energy hazards.  Instances of inadequate training include but are not limited to:   i.  Spanish speaking employees provided training in English.  ii.  New hire employees performing their assigned duties prior to receiving required training.   iii. Failure to train employees on the use of energy control procedures.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(2)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each operator had successfully completed the training consisting of a combination of formal instruction (e.g., lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape, written material), practical training (demonstrations performed by the trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee), and evaluation of the operator's performance in the workplace.    The employer is failing to provide adequate training to employees on the proper methods of operating a powered industrial truck prior to releasing them to operate independently.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has inadequately trained employees using  various forklifts and pallet jacks to move product and ingredients throughout the facility.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $3,000 Reduced

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:    The employer is failing to protect employees from potential stored energy hazards associated with performing maintenance activities without having developed and implemented written specific procedures for the effective de-energizing of each piece of equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has employees repairing and cleaning equipment that have potential stored energy hazards without providing any written specific procedures on the step by step process of de-energizing, testing and re-energizing.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $6,160 · Current $5,000 Reduced

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:    The employer is failing to document the location of Class II Division 2 electrical wiring throughout the facility thus exposing their employees to potential electrical and explosion hazards.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has employees working on packaging line #4 where the employer had a contractor make repairs to the electrical wiring above the packaging line and without the knowledge that this area should only be Class II Division 2 wiring the contractor installed a standard junction box that is not dust proof thus exposing the employee to explosion hazards every time they blow down the area during daily cleanup.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c)(2)(i): Equipment in hazardous (classified) location(s) was not approved for the ignitable or combustible properties of the specific gas, vapor, dust, or fiber that was or could be present:    The employer is failing to protect employees from potential electrical and explosion hazards associated with installing inadequate electrical components to an electrical system that requires Class II Division 2 wiring.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has employees working on packaging line #4 where the employer had a contractor installed a standard junction box that is not dust proof to the electrical wiring above the packaging line where given the combustible dust that is generated from that line and the product they are packaging the electrical needs to be dust proof and only Class II Div 2 wiring shall be used.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $61,600 · Current $50,000 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:    The employer is exposing employees working at its facility, located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, to the recognized hazard of structural failure resulting from structural overload.  The most recent example of this was on January 20, 2014 when the employer placed limestone product it used in its manufacturing process into 4 storage bins, rice into hulls it used in its manufacturing process into 3 storage bins, and Solulac that it used its manufacturing process into 2 storage bins that were all part of an interconnected 9 bin storage structure (consisting of 9 square bins arranged in a square, connected equipment, and structural steel support columns, trusses, and components) located at and above the roof of its facility without knowing or determining the load capacity of the 9 bin structure.  The combined weight of the 4 bins of limestone, 3 bins of rice hulls, and 2 bins of Solulac exceeded the load capacity of the steel structural trusses and connections supporting the 9 bin structure causing them to become overloaded; this resulted in the employer exposing employees to being struck, crushed and killed by the falling bin structure or other elements dislodged by the falling bin structure.  As a result of the employer overloading the 9 bin structure, at around 9:40 a.m. on January 20, the steel structural trusses and connections supporting the 9 bin structure suffered a catastrophic failure causing the entire 9 bin structurewhich weighed close to 1,000,000 pounds, including the stored product, structural steel, connected equipment, and dislodged concreteto fall through three floors of the facility, killing 2 employees and injuring 9 others.                  Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement include:      1.     The employer obtaining a proper structural evaluation of the 9 bin structure from a qualified professional structural engineer to determine the amount of product that could be safely stored in the 9 bin structure as a whole and in each bin of the 9 bin structure individually.        2.     The employer placing appropriate load limits on the 9 bin structure and for each bin individually.        3.     The employer training its employees on the load limits for the 9 bin structure and for each bin individually.      4.    The employer establishing work rules, policies and practices to prevent overloading the 9 bin structure or any bin individually, including work rules, policies and practices instructing never to place product in a bin if the load capacity of the bin or the load capacity of the structure supporting the bin are unknown.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $12,320 · Current $6,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.:    The employer is failing to protect employees from potential struck by hazards associated with failing to ensure that compressed air nozzles used for cleaning are regulated so as not to exceed 30 p.s.i.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has employees using compressed air with air pressure estimated by management to be 120psi, to blow down dust accumulations and to blow out mixers and hoppers without ensuring the pressure has been regulated to 30 psi or less.      The International Nutrition, Inc. was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard International Nutrition, Inc, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 316018142, citation number 1, item number 5 and was affirmed as a final order on January 20, 2012, with respect to a workplace located at 7706 I Plaza, Omaha, NE 68127 .

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

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:     The employer is failing to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with employees wearing N95 respirators.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127, where the employer has employees exposed to dust throughout the facility and voluntarily wearing N95 respirators as a means of protecting themselves against nuisance dust without the company having briefed them in accordance with Appendix D of this subpart.

Issued

Jul 18, 2014

Abate by

Jan 21, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(e)(6): The employer did not retain each canceled entry permit for at least one year to facilitate the review of the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(14):     The employer is failing to protect employees from caught between, amputation and respiratory hazards associated with employees exposed to confined spaces in the work place.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4444 S. 76th Circle, Omaha, NE 68127 where the employer has employees working around and entering confined spaces for cleaning and maintenance of the equipment whereby permits were required and said to have been used however the employer has failed to maintain those permits the required year after entry so as to make them available to employees and their representatives.