FOREST PARK, IL ·
OSHA Inspection: FERRARA CANDY COMPANY
Referral inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of FERRARA CANDY COMPANY in 7301 HARRISON ST., FOREST PARK, IL 60130 (NAICS 311340). OSHA activity number 339805590.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- FERRARA CANDY COMPANY
- Site address
- 7301 HARRISON ST.
- City
- FOREST PARK
- State
- IL
- ZIP
- 60130
- Mailing
- 7301 HARRISON ST., FOREST PARK, IL 60130
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 311340
- Employees
- 500
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
2 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Dec 11, 2014
- Abate by
- Jan 30, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced
M110
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: 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 dust deflagration, explosion, or other fire hazards as the result of working at or near dust collection systems handling combustible starch and other agricultural materials which were not designed/installed/located to prevent or minimize exposure in the event of an internal equipment deflagration: Ferrara Candy Company: Employees were exposed to combustible dust deflagration hazards associated with dust collection systems and dryers that contained deflagration venting that discharged directly inside the employee occupied facility such as, but not limited to the following: a) Indoor fabric media dust collector, Sly Inc., associated with Mogul 1 & 2 batch tanks in the kitchen and used to collect starch and sugar. b) Indoor fabric media dust collector, W.W. Sly Mfg., Co. Pactecon, associated with the Mogul 1 starch buck and used to collect starch. c) Indoor fabric media dust collector, W.W. Sly Mfg., Co. Pactecon, associated with the Mogul 1 laser cleaner and used to collect starch. d) Indoor fabric media dust collectors, on the NID Triple Deck Vortex Dryer & Cooler associated with Mogul 2 and used to collect and return starch to the dryer and cooler. e) Indoor fabric media dust collector, NID associated with Mogul 2 and used to collect starch from the starch buck and sander and return it to the dryer and cooler. f) Indoor fabric media dust collectors, on the NID Triple Deck Vortex Dryer & Cooler associated with Mogul 3 and used to collect and return starch to the dryer and cooler. g) Indoor fabric media dust collector, NID associated with Mogul 3 and used to collect starch from the starch buck and sander and return it to the dryer and cooler. h) Indoor fabric media dust collectors, on the NID Triple Deck Vortex Dryer & Cooler associated with Mogul 4 and used to collect and return starch to the dryer and cooler. i) Indoor fabric media dust collector, NID associated with Mogul 4 and used to collect starch from the starch buck and sander and return it to the dryer and cooler. Among other methods, feasible and acceptable means of abatement include following the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard, 61 Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities, 2013 ed. Sections 6.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.3.1, 8.4.4.1, 10.4.3 and NFPA Standard 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2013 ed. - Sections 4.2.1.3, 6.6.1, 6.6.2 and A.6.6. Specifically, for all equipment containing deflagration venting discharging into indoor locations: Provide deflagration venting that discharges to a safe, outdoor location or discharges indoors in a recognized safe manner. NFPA 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting provides specific guidance on the safe venting of deflagrations on indoor enclosed process equipment. Deflagrations may be safely discharged to outdoor locations through relief ducting provided that consideration is given to the reduction in deflagration venting efficiency caused by the ducts, that the ducting is restricted to no more than 20 feet, and the ducting is able to withstand the maximum pressure developed in the vented enclosure (Pred). If deflagration venting through relief ducting is not feasible due to the proximity of the indoor vented enclosure to an outdoor wall, deflagration venting through a listed dust retention and flame-arresting device may be a suitable alternative.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $5000
- · Z (S) $5000
1910.95 C01
- Issued
- Dec 11, 2014
- Abate by
- Jan 23, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced
81108111
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent: Ferrara Candy Company did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of 85 decibels or an adjusted action level for an extended shift: 1) A temporary employee working as a cook in the kitchen on the fifth floor was exposed to noise at 56.07% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA levels of 56.07% is approximately 85.8 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 82.1 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 12-hour shift for 444 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 276 minutes. 2) A temporary employee doing scrap packaging was exposed to noise at 57.5% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 57.5% is approximately 86 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 83.4 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 10-hour shift for 480 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 120 minutes. 3) A temporary employee working as a dumper in fruit snacks was exposed to noise at 82.4% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. This is equivalent dBA level of 82.4% is approximately 88.6 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 83.4 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 10-hour shift for 478 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 122 minutes. 4) A temporary employee working as a dumper in fruit snacks was exposed to noise at 94.0% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 94.0% is approximately 89.5 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 83.4 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 10-hour shift for 480 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 120 minutes. 5) A temporary employee doing engrossing and polishing in the chocolate panning room was exposed to noise at 127.3% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 127.3% is approximately 91.7 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 83.4 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 10-hour shift for 408 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 192 minutes. 6) A temporary employee doing polishing in the sugar panning room was exposed to noise at 167.6% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 167.6% is approximately 93.7 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 83.4 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 10-hour shift for 466 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 134 minutes. 7) A temporary employee doing polishing in the sugar panning room was exposed to noise at 328.9% of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA. The equivalent dBA level of 328.9% is approximately 98.5 dBA which exceeds the adjusted action level of 82.1 dBA. Sampling was performed on November 5, 2014 during one 12-hour shift for 464 minutes. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled period of 256 minutes. 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 of abatement, or other written records.
Recent events (3)
- · F (O) $3500
- · C (S) $7000
- · Z (S) $7000
More inspections at Ferrara Candy Company
View Ferrara Candy Company's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 311340)
More inspections in IL
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 339805590.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.