HARTFORD, CT —
OSHA Inspection: SEVERANCE FOODS, INC.
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of SEVERANCE FOODS, INC. in 3478 MAIN ST., HARTFORD, CT 06105 (NAICS 311830). OSHA activity number 341672848.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- SEVERANCE FOODS, INC.
- Site address
- 3478 MAIN ST.
- City
- HARTFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06105
- Mailing
- 3478 MAIN STREET, HARTFORD, CT 06120
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 311830
- Employees
- 60
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.37 A03
- Issued
- Oct 21, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $3,741 · Current $2,619 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.37(a)(3): Exit route(s) were not kept free and unobstructed: WAREHOUSE On, or about, August 4, 2016, the employer failed to ensure that exits routes were not obstructed. The emergency exit for the warehouse was impeded by pallets of stacked material. The aisle width was approximately 22 inches.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2618.7
- — Z (S) $3741
1910.132 D02
- Issued
- Oct 21, 2016
- Abate by
- Dec 9, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $4,988 · Current $3,492 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed: FACILITY On, or about, August 4, 2016, the employer did not have a written certification which verified that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed when employees were exposed to corrosive battery acid during forklift truck maintenance and required the use of chemical goggles and chemical gloves.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3491.6
- — Z (S) $4988
1910.133 A01
- Issued
- Oct 21, 2016
- Abate by
- Dec 9, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
2310
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation: FACILITY On, or about, August 4, 2016, the employer did not ensure that each employee use appropriate eye or face protection such as, but not limited to, safety goggles and, or a face mask when topping off corrosive forklift truck battery fluid which contained sulfuric acid.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.138 B
- Issued
- Oct 21, 2016
- Abate by
- Dec 9, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
2310
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.138(b): The employer did not base selection of appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the hand protection relative to the tasks to be performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and potential hazards identified: FACILITY On, or about, August 4, 2016, the employer did not ensure that each employee used appropriate hand protection such as, but not limited to, chemical gloves, when topping off corrosive forklift truck battery fluid, which contained sulfuric acid.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.147 C01
- Issued
- Oct 21, 2016
- Abate by
- Dec 9, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $6,236 · Current $4,365 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative: OVEN AREA On, or about August, 4, 2016, the employer failed to establish an energy control program that included employee training, detailed lock out and, or tag out instructions and periodic inspections for employees that serviced multi-energy source equipment in the facility, including, but not limited to the Casa Herrera Toaster Oven, Model (Odyssey -34-164).
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $4365.2
- — Z (S) $6236
1910.263 L09 II
- Issued
- Oct 21, 2016
- Abate by
- Dec 9, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $6,236 · Current $4,365 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.263(l)(9)(ii): All safety devices on the oven's were not inspected at intervals of not less than once a year by a representative of the oven manufacturer: OVEN AREA On, or about, August, 4, 2016, the employer failed to have the safety devices on the Casa Herrera Toaster Oven, Model (Odyssey-34-164), inspected by a representative of the oven manufacturer within the previous year.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $4365.2
- — Z (S) $6236
More inspections at Severance Foods, INC.
View Severance Foods, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 311830)
More inspections in CT
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 341672848.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.