FORT MORGAN, CO ·
OSHA Inspection: CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS in 1505 E. BURLINGTON AVE., FORT MORGAN, CO 80701 (NAICS 311611). OSHA activity number 343601555.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
- Site address
- 1505 E. BURLINGTON AVE.
- City
- FORT MORGAN
- State
- CO
- ZIP
- 80701
- Mailing
- 1505 E. BURLINGTON AVE., FORT MORGAN, CO 80701
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Union (A)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 311611
- Employees
- 2130
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
1 citation on file for this inspection.
1910.132 D01
- Issued
- Mar 7, 2019
- Abate by
- Apr 11, 2019
- 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 are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE): (a) Cargill Meat Solutions at 1505 E. Burlington Ave, Fort Morgan, CO: On and before November 14, 2018, the employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present or likely to be present , which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment with regards to employee exposure to L-Lactic Acid. L-Lactic Acid in the 2-5 % range was being sprayed in an enclosure to sanitize carcasses but was not assessed as a chemical hazard with the potential to cause eye damage to Bag-Tendon, Head Flush/Dentition, and Brisket Saw employees who were exposed to L-Lactic Acid spray from the adjacent enclosure. L-Lactic Acid in the 2-5 % range was being sprayed by Lactic Acid Sprayer to sanitize carcasses and was assessed as a chemical hazard with the potential to cause eye damage to the Lactic Acid Sprayer employees but was not assessed as a chemical hazard with the potential to cause eye damage to the adjacent Brisket Saw employees, who were exposed to L-Lactic Acid spray from the adjacent the Lactic Acid Sprayer employees. Abatement Note: When then employer has determined that hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer shall: (1) Select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment; (2) Communicate selection decisions to each affected employee; and, (3) Select PPE that properly fits each affected employee. (4) The employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment. (5) Defective and damaged equipment. Defective or damaged personal protective equipment shall not be used. (6) The employer shall provide training to each employee who is required by this section to use PPE. Each such employee shall be trained to know at least the following: (a) When PPE is necessary; (b) What PPE is necessary; (c) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE; (d) The limitations of the PPE; and, (7) Each affected employee shall demonstrate an understanding of the training specified in paragraph (1) of this section, and the ability to use PPE properly, before being allowed to perform work requiring the use of PPE. (8) When the employer has reason to believe that any affected employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding and skill required by paragraph (2) of this section, the employer shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is required include, but are not limited to, situations where: (a) Changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete; or (b) Changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous training obsolete; or (c) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of assigned PPE indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite understanding or skill. (9) The employer shall verify that each affected employee has received and understood the required training through a written certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the date(s) of training, and that identifies the subject of the certification. (10) Paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section apply only to 1910.133, 1910.135, 1910.136, and 1910.138. Paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section do not apply to 1910.134 and 1910.137. Note: Non-mandatory Appendix B contains an example of procedures that would comply with the requirement for a hazard assessment.
Recent events (1)
- · Z (O) $0
More inspections at Cargill Meat Solutions
View Cargill Meat Solutions's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 311611)
More inspections in CO
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 343601555.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.