OSHA Inspection: GREAT SOUTHERN PEANUT, LLC

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Sep 7, 2016

Penalty

Initial $3,850 · Current $1,100 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:    a) At the Hull House, on or about February 11, 2016, electrical equipment including but not limited to the general purpose control box for the auger system was installed in the Hull House, which was a Class II, Division 2 location, exposing employees to dust deflagration and fire hazards.      a) At the Clean Room, on or about February 11, 2016, electrical equipment including but not limited to the general purpose overhead lighting, electrical panels, breaker panels, disconnect switches, control boxes and electric motors was installed in the Clean Room, which was a Class II, Division 2 location, exposing employees to dust deflagration and fire hazards.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 16, 2016

Penalty

Initial $7,700 · Current $2,300 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.    a) At the Hull House, on or about February 11, 2016 and at times prior to, the employer failed to ensure that all elevated vertical and horizontal surfaces were free from hazardous accumulations of  peanut hull dust, exposing employees to fire and deflagration hazards.       b) At the Clean Room, on or about February 10, 2016 and at times prior to, the employer failed to ensure that all elevated vertical and horizontal surfaces were free from hazardous accumulations of  peanut hull dust, exposing employees to fire and deflagration hazards.       Great Southern Peanut, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.22(a)(1) which was contained in OSHA inspection number 924835, citation number 1, item number 001 and was affirmed as a final order on January 9, 2015, with respect to a workplace located at 132 Fifth Street, Leesburg, GA 31763.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 16, 2016

Penalty

Initial $770 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.32(b)(6): The Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (OSHA Form 300A or equivalent) for the previous year was not posted between February 1st and April 30th.     a) At the facility, on or about February 9, 2016 and at times prior to, the employer failed to post the annual summary of injuries and illnesses recorded on the OSHA 300 Log.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Sep 7, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(5)(i): The employer did not establish, within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared:     a) In the Peanut Processing Plant, on or about February 10, 2016, baseline audiometric testing was not provided for an employee who was exposed to noise at 212.6% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 90.4 dBA during the 402 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Sep 7, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(6): At least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram, the employer did not obtain a new audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    a) In the Peanut Processing Plant, on or about February 10, 2016, annual audiometric testing was not provided for an employee who was exposed to noise at 180.22% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 89.2 dBA during the 329 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.       b) In the Peanut Processing Plant, on or about February 10, 2016, annual audiometric testing was not provided for an employee who was exposed to noise at 308.6% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 93.1 dBA during the 467 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.      c) In the Peanut Processing Plant, on or about February 10, 2016, annual audiometric testing was not provided for an employee who was exposed to noise at 248.8 % of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 91.5 dBA during the 392 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.       d) In the Peanut Processing Plant, on or about February 10, 2016, annual audiometric testing was not provided for an employee who was exposed to noise at 153.42% of the action level (8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA) or an equivalent sound level of 88.0 dBA during the 446 minute sampling period, resulting in a noise hazard.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Sep 7, 2016

Penalty

Initial $770 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    a) At the facility, on or about and at times prior to February 9, 2016, the employer failed to provide medical evaluations for employees required to wear tight fitting respirators (dust masks) while performing cleaning and bagging operations, exposing employees to respiratory irritation and dermatitis.

Issued

Jul 21, 2016

Abate by

Aug 16, 2016

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    a) At the facility, on or about and at times prior to February 9, 2016, the employer failed to provide fit testing for employees required to wear tight fitting respirators (dust masks) while performing cleaning and bagging operations, exposing employees to respiratory irritation and dermatitis. 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:    a) At the facility, on or about and at times prior to February 9, 2016, t the employer permitted an employee with facial hair (more than one day's growth) to wear tight-fitting face piece respirators (dust masks) while performing cleaning and bagging operations, exposing the employee to respiratory and skin irritations.