OSHA Inspection: SEPTIMUS, INC.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 26, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 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 combustible cornstarch dust fire, deflagration, and explosion hazards associated with unprotected indoor cornstarch processing and dust collection equipment such as, but not limited to, fabric-filter media type dust collectors (baghouses), size reduction equipment (hammermill grinders), bucket elevators (legs), pneumatic conveying systems, and dryers:     a)      North and South Lines: The indoor hammermills were unsegregated from the rest of the manufacturing process and lacked a means of explosion protection.                 b)      North and South Lines: The indoor hammermills utilized standard steel components of construction within the milling chamber.        c)      North Line: The Mac model #96AVK39 indoor fabric-filter media type dust collector (baghouse) servicing the hammermill and sieve lacked 1) a means of explosion protection and 2) a means of deflagration propagation protection (isolation) to protect connected equipment.        d)      South Line: The Saunco Manufacturing model #85V5B25 indoor fabric-filter media type dust collector (baghouse) servicing the hammermill and sieve lacked 1) a documented means of explosion protection and 2) a means of deflagration propagation protection (isolation) to protect connected equipment.        e)      North and South Line: The Young Industries model #VC48-1640 indoor fabric-filter media type dust collector (baghouse) servicing the bagging system lacked a means of explosion protection. In addition, the system returned filtered air directly into the building.        f)       North and South Lines:  The indoor steam/belt dryers were located indoors without means of fire protection.      g)      North and South Lines:  The indoor bucket elevators (legs) lacked means of detecting a choked condition of the boot.      h)      North and South Lines: Indoor ribbon blenders/mixers used as holding tanks lacked means of explosion protection.      i)        North Line:  Lack of bonding and ground for connecting duct sections that were non-metallic such as, but not limited to:          a.        Non-conductive and non-metallic flexible hose coupling section was used to connect two sections of metallic pneumatic conveyance system piping from the sifting hopper to the final starch product silos.            b.        Non-conductive PVC duct (chute) was used to deliver material from a screen to a drum associated with final product bagging system.  The drum and the PVC duct were connected via a non-conductive plastic bag and duct tape.       j)        North Line: Equipment contained openings that allowed dust to be liberated into the indoor environment such as, but not limited to:          a.        The in-feed duct from the bucket elevator (leg) to the hammermill was not dust tight in that an access panel was observed to be missing a cover allowing dust to be liberated into the indoor environment.          b.        The sieve contained an open hole at the top allowing dust to be liberated into the indoor environment.          c.        The steam/belt dryer contained an open and unused exhaust port on the top of the system allowing dust to be liberated into the indoor environment.    Among other methods, one feasible method to correct these hazards would be to follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 61, ?Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities, 2013 ed.? ? Sections 6.1, 6.3, 7.4.1.5, 7.5.2.1, 7.5.2.2, 7.5.2.3, 7.5.2.4, 7.5.2.5, 8.4.3, 8.4.4.1, 10.3.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.10.1, 10.4.12.1, 11.2.1, and 13.4.    Specifically:    For indoor, unsegregated hammermills; 1) replace carbon steel parts in the grinding chamber with brass, bronze, stainless steel, or other metals with lower sparking potential and 2) provide indoor hammermills with a recognized method of explosion protection such as chemical deflagration suppression, deflagration containment, or inerting in accordance NFPA 69 ?Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems? or explosion venting to a safe outdoor location in accordance with NFPA 68 ?Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting?. Indoor explosion venting through listed flame arresting and particulate retention devices is also allowable under NFPA 68.     For indoor fabric-filter media dust collectors (baghouses); provide a method of explosion protection such as chemical deflagration suppression, deflagration containment, or inerting in accordance with NFPA 69 or explosion venting to a safe outdoor location in accordance with NFPA 68.  Indoor explosion venting through listed flame arresting and particulate retention devices in accordance with NFPA 68 may also be a viable option.  These dust collectors should, in addition to the explosion protection requirements noted above, be moved outdoors.  Also, ensure that recycled air from collectors is discharged to a safe outdoor location unless provisions are made in accordance with NFPA 69 to prevent a return of dust, combined products, flammable vapors, heat, and flames, into the building.    For indoor dryers; 1) inspect and clean the interior heated surface of the dryer to prevent the accumulation of starch that can attain a thickness or depth of 1/2 inch or greater and 2) provide a fire protection system (i.e. the means for detecting abnormal conditions that indicate the presence of or potential for a fire, subsequent alarms, extinguishment, and dryer shutdown).    For indoor bucket elevators (legs); provide a motion detection device that cuts off the power to the drive motor and actuates an alarm in the event the leg belt slows to 80% of the normal operating speed and subsequently cuts or diverts the product feed into the leg.    For indoor holding tanks; relocate holding tanks to outdoor, unoccupied locations.    For equipment and ducting; 1) ensure that equipment is bonded and grounded via the use of metallic, conductive components and 2) control dust emissions from open equipment by identifying openings in process, conveying equipment, or material transfer points and control the emissions by the use of dedicated ventilation and/or by sealing the openings with suitable covers.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): All places of employment, passageways, storerooms or service rooms were not kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary condition.    Employees in the production area were exposed to injuries in the event of a fire or an explosion from the accumulation of modified corn starch, a Class II Group G combustible dust. Starch had accumulated on machines, auger housings, lights, ventilation ducts, electrical conduits, and horizontal structural beams in excess of 1/16 inch.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): Floor(s) of workroom(s) were not maintained in a clean and, so far as possible, a dry condition:      Employees in the production area were exposed to injuries in the event of a fire or an explosion from the accumulation of modified corn starch, a Class II Group G combustible dust. The starch dust in excess of 1/16 inch had accumulated on the floor.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 Reduced

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:    Employees in the production area were exposed to injuries in the event of a fire or an explosion from the accumulation, loss of containment, and the processing of modified corn starch. The employer did not ensure employees were protected from burns by requiring the use of flame-resistant garments/flame-resistant clothing to protect against the flash fire hazards.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:  Employees in the production area were exposed to injuries in the event of a fire or an explosion from the accumulation, loss of containment, and the processing of modified corn starch. The employer did not assess the workplace to ensure employees were protected from burns by requiring the use of flame-resistant garments/flame-resistant clothing to protect against the flash fire hazards.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(c)(2)(vi)(a): The employer did not provide powered industrial trucks designated as EX for use in an atmosphere in which combustible dust is or may be in suspension continuously, intermittently, or periodically under normal operating conditions, in quantities sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable mixtures, or where mechanical failure or abnormal operation of machinery or equipment might cause such mixtures to be produced.      Caterpillar liquid propane fueled industrial trucks were operated in locations where dust was produced by the processing of cornstarch, a Class II Group G combustible material, and the trucks were not rated for Class II environments.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,600 · Current $215 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(2)(i): All exposed parts of horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform, excepting runways used exclusively for oiling, or running adjustments, were not protected by a stationary casing enclosing shafting completely or by a trough enclosing sides and top or sides and bottom of shafting as location requires:    Employees working on the South Line were exposed to getting caught in horizontal shafting when shoveling material onto the unguarded conveyor belt running into the bucket elevator.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1): Guarding. Pulleys, any parts of which are seven (7) feet or less from the floor or working platform, were not guarded in accordance with the standards specified in paragraphs (m) and (o) of this section:   Employees working on the South Line were exposed to in-running nip points on the tail pulley when shoveling material onto the unguarded conveyor belt that ran to the bucket elevator.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c): Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of equipment in hazardous (classified) locations were not intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location:      Employees were exposed to injuries in the event of a fire due to installations of equipment and electrical wiring was not intrinsically safe and approved for Class II locations.           a.    The light inside of the starch silo #5 was not made dust tight to prevent igniting combustible starch dust;        b.     Outlet and junction boxes on the Southwest wall next to the lab was not rated for Class II environments;        c.    Outlet on the bagging conveyor was not rated for Class II environments;        d.    Junction box on the South hammer mill was missing the cover;        e.    Electrical conduit above the South bay door was missing a threaded cover;        f.    Computer monitor along the West wall was not rated for Class II environments;        g.    Outlet along the West wall was not rated for Class II environments;        h.    Electrical switch on the West wall for the conditioner water was not rated for Class II environments.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,800 · Current $215 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employees were exposed to an airborne concentration of Total Dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit:    The employer did not protect employees from exposures to Total Dust (particulates not otherwise regulated) at concentrations in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit while performing routine work activities:    a)    On or about 05/21/14, Employee #1 (Bagging Operator) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 21.68 mg/cubic meter, approximately 1.35 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while bagging Staramic 747. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 301 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (179 minutes).       b)    On or about 05/21/14, Employee #2 (shoveling starch) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 41.11 mg/cubic meter, approximately 2.65 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while shoveling starch and stacking bags of Staramic 747. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 295 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (185 minutes).

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls are not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d) and protective equipment or any other protective measures are not used to keep the exposure of employee to air contaminants within the limits prescribed:   The employer did not determine and implement adequate engineering controls to prevent employee exposures to Total Dust (particulates not otherwise regulated) at concentrations in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit while performing routine work activities.    a)    On or about 05/21/14, Employee #1 (Bagging Operator) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 21.68 mg/cubic meter, approximately 1.35 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while bagging Staramic 747. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 301 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (179 minutes).     b)    On or about 05/21/14, Employee #2 (shoveling starch) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 41.11 mg/cubic meter, approximately 2.65 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while shoveling starch and stacking bags of Staramic 747. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 295 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (185 minutes).

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $270 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:    Employees were required to use chemicals in the workplace and the employer had not developed, implemented, or maintained a written hazard communication program.

Issued

Oct 8, 2014

Abate by

Nov 4, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:  Employees were required to use chemicals in the workplace and the employer had not provided training for the employees over the following hazardous chemicals: ammonium sulfate, starch, Staramic 747, Starpol 136, and Mira-thick 469.  Employees shall be informed of:               1.      The requirement of this section; 2.      Any operation in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present; 3.      The location and availability of the written hazard communication program.    Employee training shall include at least:    1.      Methods and observations to detect the presence/release of a hazardous chemical; 2.      The physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the work area; 3.      The measures employees can take to protect themselves; 4.      The details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer.