OSHA Inspection: MARSHALL INGREDIENTS, LLC

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 29, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,760

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): A continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (n) was not instituted when employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8 hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 dBA:  a)  Production Area, on or about 8/15/17: An employee working as a Prater Operator was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 141.3% of the dose of the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The equivalent dBA for the 141.3% dose is approximately 92.5 dBA calculated as the 8 hour time weighted sound pressure level. The sampling was conducted on 8/15/17 for 423 minutes. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 57 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing ear plugs.  b)  Production Area, on or about 8/15/17: An employee working as a Dryer Operator was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 78.4% of the dose of the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The equivalent dBA for the 78.4% dose is approximately 88.2 dBA calculated as the 8 hour time weighted sound pressure level. The sampling was conducted on 8/15/17 for 418 minutes. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 62 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing ear plugs.  c)  Production Area, on or about 8/15/17: An employee working as a General Laborer was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 84.2% of the dose of the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The equivalent dBA for the 84.2% dose is approximately 88.8 dBA calculated as the 8 hour time weighted sound pressure level. The sampling was conducted on 8/15/17 for 418 minutes. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 62 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing ear plugs.  d)  Production Area, on or about 8/15/17: An employee working as a General Laborer was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 84.9% of the dose of the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The equivalent dBA for the 84.9% dose is approximately 88.8 dBA calculated as the 8 hour time weighted sound pressure level. The sampling was conducted on 8/15/17 for 415 minutes. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 65 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing ear plugs.  e)  Production Area, on or about 8/15/17: An employee working as a Shift Supervisor was exposed to continuous noise at a level of 68.2% of the dose of the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The equivalent dBA for the 68.2% dose is approximately 87.2 dBA calculated as the 8 hour time weighted sound pressure level. The sampling was conducted on 8/15/17 for 415 minutes. Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 65 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing ear plugs.   Abatement methodology:  Step 1: An effective hearing conservation program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (n) shall be maintained.  An effective hearing conservation program shall include, at a minimum: (1)  a baseline audiogram for all employees exposed to noise levels equal to or in excess of the standard. (2)  Annual audiograms for each overexposed employee (3)  analysis of audiogram results with retesting and/or referral to an otolaryngologist or qualified physician when a significant threshold shift occurs.  A significant shift will be considered to be equal to or greater than an average of 30 dba over the 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz frequencies. (4)  Where insert ear plugs or custom-molded devices are utilized, individual employee fitting shall be conducted by a trained person, and employees shall be instructed in the care and use of the devices.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Feb 16, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,760

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1) Employer did not establish nor implement a written respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures when respirators were necessary to protect the health of the employee or whenever respirators were required by the employer:   a) Production Area, on or about 9/12/17: Employer did not establish nor implemented a written respirator protection program when employees are required to wear N95 Particulate Filtering Face piece for protection against total dust while hand bagging ground fruits and vegetables.  Employee exposures as referenced in Citation 1 Item 3a.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Feb 16, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight fitting face piece respirator was fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator face piece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter:   a) Production Area, on or about 9/12/17: Employees required to wear N95 Particulate Filtering Face Piece  for protection against total dust while hand bagging ground fruits and vegetables and had not been fit tested.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Feb 16, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide effective, comprehensive, understandable, and annual (or more often if necessary) training to employees who are required to use respirators:   a)  Production Area, on or about 9/12/17: Employees required to wear N95 Particulate Filtering Face Piece for protection against total dust while hand bagging ground fruits and vegetables and had not received respirator training.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Feb 16, 2018

Penalty

Initial $7,760 · Current $7,760

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(c): Employees were exposed to materials in excess of the eight hour permissible exposure limit, listed in Table Z-3 of subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910:   a)  Production Area, on or about 9/12/17: Employee hand bagging ground apple and was exposed to 64.17 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of total dust, eight hour time weighted average (TWA), approximately 4.28 times the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 15.0 mg/m3. The sampling period was for 443 minutes. A zero increment is included for the 37 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing a N95 dust mask.     b)  Production Area, on or about 9/12/17: Employee hand bagging ground apple and was exposed to 50.55 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of total dust, eight hour time weighted average (TWA), approximately 3.37 times the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 15.0 mg/m3. The sampling period was for 449 minutes. A zero increment is included for the 31 minutes not sampled. Employee was wearing a N95 dust mask.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jul 16, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9135

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d):   a) Production Area, on or about 9/12/17: Feasible administrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure to total dust while hand bagging ground fruits and vegetables to below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit. Employee exposures as referenced in Citation 1 Item 3a.     EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ABATEMENT INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:   1. Eliminate hand bagging operations   2. Provide local exhaust ventilation at point of operation for hand bagging operations  3.  Re-examine the dust collection system  4. Train employees on methods to avoid unnecessary exposure    5. Conduct air monitoring after any changes have been made to determine if improvements have been made.  ABATEMENT WILL BE MULTI-STEP AS FOLLOWS:  Step 1: Effective respiratory protection which complies with 29 CFR 1910.134 shall be provided and used by exposed employee(s) as an interim protective measure until feasible engineering and/or administrative controls can be implemented, or whenever such controls fail to reduce employee exposure to within permissible exposure limits. (10 Days )  Step 2: Submit to the Area Director a written, detailed plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and/or administrative measures to control employee exposure to hazardous substances as referenced in this citation. This plan shall include, at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the abatement dates required by this citation: (30 days )  (1)Evaluation of engineering/administrative control options   (2)Evaluation to be conducted by a qualified person such as a certified industrial hygienist and/or licensed mechanical professional engineer.  (3)Selection of optimum control methods and completion of design  (4)Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures  (5)Testing and acceptance or modification/redesign of control measures    Step 3:  Abatement shall have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance. (180 Days)

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $6,467

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit spaces:  a)  Production Area, on or about, on or about 8/2/17: No sign or any other equally effective means was placed at the access points on Dryer No. 1 designating the space as a permit required confined space to prevent unauthorized access to the space.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $9,054

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5)(i): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not evaluate permit space conditions when entry operations were conducted by testing conditions in the permit space to determine if acceptable entry conditions existed before entry was authorized to begin:   a) Marshall Ingredients, LLC, on or about 7/18/17 and 7/24/17: Employees entered permit required confined spaces: Dryer No. 1 without testing the conditions in the permit space to determine if acceptable entry conditions existed before entry was authorized to begin.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $6,467 · Current $6,467

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(e)(1): Before entry was authorized, the employer did not document the completion of measures required by 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(3) by preparing an entry permit:   a) Marshall Ingredients, LLC, on or about 7/18/17: The employer allowed an employee to enter a permit required confined space Dryer No. 1 without preparing an entry permit.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(14): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not review the permit-required confined space program, using the canceled permits retained under 29 CFR 1910.146(e)(6) within one year after each entry and did not revise the program as necessary, to ensure that employees participation in entry operations were protected from permit space hazards:  a) Marshall Ingredients, LLC,  on or about 8/2/17: Employer's written confined space program has not been reviewed and updated since 2013.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $9,054 · Current $9,054

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(j)(4): The employer did not ensure that each entry supervisor verified that rescue services were available and that the means for summoning them were operable:                                                                                                                                               a) Production Area, on or about 7/18/17 and 7/24/17: Employee entered Dyer No. 1 and the entry supervisor did not verify that rescue workers were available.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(k)(1)(i): An employer who designated rescue and emergency services, pursuant to paragraph (d)(9) of this section, did not evaluate a prospective rescuer's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner, considering the hazard(s) identified:                                                                                                                                        a) Marshall Ingredients, LLC, on or about 7/18/17 and 7/24/17:  Employer's confined space program designates local Fire Departments and Wayne County Fire Control  to respond to a confined space emergency. Employer did not evaluate the Fire Department's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(k)(3):  Whenever an authorized entrant entered a permit space, retrieval systems or methods were not used to facilitated non-entry rescue:                                                                                     a) Marshall Ingredients, LLC,  on or about 7/18/17 and 7/24/17: Employees entered permit required confined spaces including but not limited to: Dryer No. 1 and were not utilizing a retrieval system, including a harness, an attached retrieval line and winch.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Feb 1, 2018

Penalty

Initial $90,535 · Current $90,535

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4): When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:  a)  Marshall Ingredients, LLC, on or about 7/18/17 and 7/24/17: The employer's written confined space program was not implemented in that employees enter permit required confined spaces without following the elements being implemented: permits are not being completed; safety harness are not worn; atmospheric testing is not being conducted; hazardous energy is not being controlled prior to entry; training not provided to employees and rescue services are not notified prior to entry.

Issued

Jan 17, 2018

Abate by

Jan 22, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(g)(1): The employer did not provide training so that all employees whose work was regulated by 29 CFR 1910.146, Permit required confined spaces, acquired the understanding, knowledge, and skills necessary for the safe performance of the duties assigned:   a) Marshall Ingredients, LLC,  on or about 7/18/17 and 7/24/17: Entrants and attendants during entry into permit required confined spaces Dryer No. 1 were not trained on the understanding, knowledge and skills required to perform safe entries.