OSHA Inspection: TYSON POULTRY, INC

Issued

Mar 17, 2015

Abate by

Apr 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $4,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):  The employer did not document that the equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.       The employer does not ensure that it documented that equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).       A.     The violation occurred in the Ammonia Refrigeration Engine Room on or about January 8, 2015 and at times prior thereto. Employees were exposed to fire, explosion, and/or inhalation hazards from ammonia vapors when the employer failed to ensure a safety shower and eye wash station was installed external to the machinery room exit in accordance with ANSI-IIAR-2.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure it documented that equipment in the process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

Issued

Mar 17, 2015

Abate by

Apr 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $3,500

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(i)(2)(iii):  The pre-startup safety review for new facilities did not confirm that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to the process, a process hazard analysis had been performed and recommendations had been resolved or implemented before startup.       The employer does not ensure that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to the process, process hazard analysis recommendations had been resolved or implemented before startup.       The violation occurred in the Ammonia Refrigeration Engine Room on or about January 8, 2015 and at times prior thereto. Employees were exposed to fire, explosion, and/or inhalation hazards from ammonia vapors when the employer failed to ensure that prior to the introduction of highly hazardous chemicals to the process, process hazard analysis recommendations had been resolved or implemented before startup. Recommendations include but not limited to:       a.     Investigate installing crossovers on the roof for access and egress        Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure it documented that equipment in the process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

Issued

Mar 17, 2015

Abate by

Apr 7, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $4,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.165(b)(3): The employee alarm was not distinctive and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area or to perform action designated under the emergency action plan.     The employer does not ensure that an employee alarm was installed that was distinctive and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area or to perform action designated under the emergency action plan.     A.     The violation occurred in the Ammonia Refrigeration Engine Room on or about January 8, 2015 and at times prior thereto. Employees were exposed to inhalation hazards from ammonia vapors when the employer failed to ensure an employee alarm was installed in the facility that was distinctive for ammonia and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area.     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure that an employee alarm was installed that was distinctive and recognizable as a signal to evacuate the work area or to perform action designated under the emergency action plan.