OSHA Inspection: CROSSWIND PETFOODS, INC.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,147 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.38(a): The employer did not establish a written emergency evacuation plan for employees expected to evacuate in the event of a fire or other emergency:  At the establishment a written emergency action plan had not been developed nor implemented to inform all employees of the procedures to follow in case of fire or similar emergencies, thus exposing employees to fire hazards.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,060 · Current $1,530 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1):  The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure and employee training to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, start up or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment would be isolated, and rendered inoperative in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4):  Production employees cleaning the Meyer conveyor buckets on the production lines were exposed to struck-by / caught in between hazards due to no lockout / tagout being used after the equipment's isolation switch was placed in the off position.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees:  The employer failed to provide lockout / tagout training for all production line employee(s) who clean the Meyer conveyor buckets in recognizing hazardous energy, the methods, and means necessary for isolating the production equipment, thus exposing employee(s) to amputation or struck by hazards.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,825 · Current $1,912 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:  Machine specific procedures had not been developed for the stand up resealable pouches machines, blow wrappers, box erectors, and other hard wired equipment with multiple energy sources at the facility.  Employee(s) were exposed to struck by and electrical hazards.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,147 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct an annual or more frequent inspection of the energy control procedure to ensure that the procedure and requirements of this standard were followed:  The employer did not ensure that the required periodic inspection of the energy control procedures were performed as required. Employees were exposed to a shock and/or a struck-by hazard.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Oct 19, 2015

Penalty

Initial $3,060 · Current $1,530 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(c)(2)(i): All exposed part(s) of horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform were not protected by stationary casing(s) enclosing shafting completely or by trough(s) enclosing sides and top or sides and bottom of shafting:  Production employees placing product on the line 1 vibrating conveyor table were exposed to a struck by hazard due to no guard being provided for a rotating 2-1/2 inches shaft on the north side of the vibrating conveyor and a 1 inch shaft on the south side of the vibrating conveyor.  The rotating shaft had a diameter of approximately 1-1/2 inches and was operating at 1,725 revolutions per minute.

Issued

Oct 6, 2015

Abate by

Nov 24, 2015

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:  A personal protective equipment written hazard assessment had not been performed to determine the type of personal protective equipment needed for changing the propane cylinders of powered industrial trucks, working on energized wiring / equipment, and etc.