OSHA Inspection: THE WESTERN SUGAR COOPERATIVE

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $8,856 · Current $5,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(1): The employer did not perform an initial process hazard analysis (hazard evaluation) on processes covered by 29 CFR 1910.119:    (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not perform an initial process hazard analysis (hazard evaluation) on processes covered by 29 CFR 1910.119.  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  One cylinder of liquefied sulfur dioxide was connected to the piping which entered the production building for distribution to processes.  The employer placed a reserve cylinder of sulfur dioxide immediately adjacent to the in-use cylinder of sulfur dioxide for rapid changeover.  Each cylinder of sulfur dioxide contained a net weight of 1,000 pounds liquefied sulfur dioxide.  A Process Safety Management program, including an initial process hazard analysis, was required when the employer had a highly hazardous chemical at or above its threshold quantity.  The threshold quantity for sulfur dioxide was 1,000 pounds.  The employer had not performed an initial process hazard analysis.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements: steps for each operating phase; operating limits; safety and health considerations; and safety systems and their functions:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements: steps for each operating phase; operating limits; safety and health considerations; and safety systems and their functions.  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  One cylinder of liquefied sulfur dioxide was connected to the piping which entered the production building for distribution to processes.  The employer placed a reserve cylinder of sulfur dioxide immediately adjacent to the in-use cylinder of sulfur dioxide for rapid changeover.  Each cylinder of sulfur dioxide contained a net weight of 1,000 pounds liquefied sulfur dioxide.  A Process Safety Management program, including development and implementation of written operating procedures, was required when the employer had a highly hazardous chemical at or above its threshold quantity.  The threshold quantity for sulfur dioxide was 1,000 pounds.  The employer had not developed or implemented written operating procedures.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(1):  The employer did not provide initial training on operating procedures for employees required to work on or near a covered process:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not provide initial training on operating procedures for employees required to work on or near a covered process.  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  One cylinder of liquefied sulfur dioxide was connected to the piping which entered the production building for distribution to processes.  The employer placed a reserve cylinder of sulfur dioxide immediately adjacent to the in-use cylinder of sulfur dioxide for rapid changeover.  Each cylinder of sulfur dioxide contained a net weight of 1,000 pounds liquefied sulfur dioxide.  A Process Safety Management program, including training on the process and operating procedures, was required when the employer had a highly hazardous chemical at or above its threshold quantity.  The threshold quantity for sulfur dioxide was 1,000 pounds.  The employer had not provided initial training on the process or operating procedures to employees required to work on the sulfur dioxide system.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  One cylinder of liquefied sulfur dioxide was connected to the piping which entered the production building for distribution to processes.  The employer placed a reserve cylinder of sulfur dioxide immediately adjacent to the in-use cylinder of sulfur dioxide for rapid changeover.  Each cylinder of sulfur dioxide contained a net weight of 1,000 pounds liquefied sulfur dioxide.  A Process Safety Management program, including development and implementation of written mechanical integrity procedures, was required when the employer had a highly hazardous chemical at or above its threshold quantity.  The threshold quantity for sulfur dioxide was 1,000 pounds.  The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain piping systems and controls equipment, such as but not limited to the following.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.  1.    Piping used to transport sulfur dioxide to the diffuser or the thin juice tank 2.    Valves on the piping 3.    Controls, including pH monitors and pressure gauges

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(3): The employer did not train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks.  One cylinder of liquefied sulfur dioxide was connected to the piping which entered the production building for distribution to processes.  The employer placed a reserve cylinder of sulfur dioxide immediately adjacent to the in-use cylinder of sulfur dioxide for rapid changeover.  Each cylinder of sulfur dioxide contained a net weight of 1,000 pounds liquefied sulfur dioxide.  A Process Safety Management program, including training of employees in mechanical integrity procedures, was required when the employer had a highly hazardous chemical at or above its threshold quantity.  The threshold quantity for sulfur dioxide was 1,000 pounds.  The employer did not train employees on the procedures to maintain piping systems and controls equipment, such as but not limited to the following.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.  1.    Piping used to transport sulfur dioxide to the diffuser or the thin juice tank 2.    Valves on the piping 3.    Controls, including pH monitors and pressure gauges

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i):  Inspections and tests were not performed on process equipment:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not ensure that inspections and tests were performed on process equipment.  One cylinder of liquefied sulfur dioxide was connected to the piping which entered the production building for distribution to processes.  The employer placed a reserve cylinder of sulfur dioxide immediately adjacent to the in-use cylinder of sulfur dioxide for rapid changeover.  Each cylinder of sulfur dioxide contained a net weight of 1,000 pounds liquefied sulfur dioxide.  A Process Safety Management program, including training of employees in mechanical integrity procedures, was required when the employer had a highly hazardous chemical at or above its threshold quantity.  The threshold quantity for sulfur dioxide was 1,000 pounds.  The employer did not inspect or test process equipment, such as but not limited to the following.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.  1.    Piping used to transport sulfur dioxide to the diffuser or the thin juice tank 2.    Valves on the piping 3.    Controls, including pH monitors and pressure gauges

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Abate by

Jul 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $8,856 · Current $5,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(2): The employer did not develop an emergency response plan for emergencies which addressed the following minimum requirements of this standard: 1910.120(q)(2)(i) through 1910.120(q)(2)(xii):    (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not develop an emergency response plan for emergencies which addressed the following minimum requirements of this standard: 1910.120(q)(2)(i) through 1910.120(q)(2)(xii).  The employer utilized sodium hydroxide in its processes.  The sodium hydroxide was contained within approximately 300 gallon plastic totes which were transported via powered industrial trucks.  Employees were expected to respond and contain spills of sodium hydroxide.  This is a hazardous materials technician level response.  The employer had not developed an emergency response plan that addressed including but not limited to pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties, training, communication, safe distances and places of refuge, decontamination, PPE and emergency equipment, and emergency alerting and response procedures.  This condition exposed employees to a chemical hazard.    (b)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not develop an emergency response plan for emergencies which addressed the following minimum requirements of this standard: 1910.120(q)(2)(i) through 1910.120(q)(2)(xii).  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  Employees responded to reports of leaks of sulfur dioxide and contained such releases at the affected leaking valve.  This is a hazardous materials technician level response.  The employer had not developed an emergency response plan that addressed including but not limited to pre-emergency planning and coordination with outside parties, training, communication, safe distances and places of refuge, decontamination, PPE and emergency equipment, and emergency alerting and response procedures.   This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)(iv):  Employees engaged in emergency response and exposed to hazardous substances presenting an inhalation hazard or potential inhalation hazard, did not wear positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus until such time that the individual in charge of the ICS determined through the use of air monitoring that a decreased level of respiratory protection would not result in hazardous exposures to employees:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not ensure that employees engaged in emergency response and exposed to hazardous substances presenting an inhalation hazard or potential inhalation hazard, wore positive-pressure self-contained breathing apparatus until such time that the individual in charge of the ICS determined through the use of air monitoring that a decreased level of respiratory protection would not result in hazardous exposures to employees.  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  Employees responded to reports of leaks of sulfur dioxide and contained such releases at the affected leaking valve.  This is a hazardous materials technician level response.  Employees were required to wear a 3M full face tight fitting air purifying respirator when responding to leaks of sulfur dioxide.  The facility did not have fixed or portable sulfur dioxide detection equipment.  The IDLH for sulfur dioxide is 100ppm.  Employees were exposed to unknown concentrations of sulfur dioxide.  This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Abate by

Jul 22, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6)(iii):  Employees who participated as hazardous materials technicians, or were expected to participate as hazardous materials technicians, had not received at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level, and had not been certified as having such training, and, in addition, did not demonstrate  competency in paragraphs (q)(6)(iii)(A)-(I) of this section:    (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not ensure that employees who participated as hazardous materials technicians, or were expected to participate as hazardous materials technicians, had received at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level, and had been certified as having such training, and, in addition, demonstrated competency in paragraphs (q)(6)(iii)(A)-(I) of this section.  The employer utilized sodium hydroxide in its processes.  The sodium hydroxide was contained within approximately 300 gallon plastic totes which were transported via powered industrial trucks.  Employees were expected to respond and contain spills of sodium hydroxide.  This is a hazardous materials technician level response.  The employer had not provided these employees with hazardous materials technician level training.  This condition exposed employees to a chemical hazard.    (b)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 10/10/18, the employer did not ensure that employees who participated as hazardous materials technicians, or were expected to participate as hazardous materials technicians, had received at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level, and had been certified as having such training, and, in addition, demonstrated competency in paragraphs (q)(6)(iii)(A)-(I) of this section.  The employer utilized sulfur dioxide in its processes.  Employees responded to reports of leaks of sulfur dioxide and contained such releases at the affected leaking valve.  This is a hazardous materials technician level response.  The employer had not provided these employees with hazardous materials technician level training.   This condition exposed employees to a toxic and corrosive chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Abate by

May 8, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,314 · Current $3,400 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee use 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:     (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 3/11/19, the employer did not ensure that each affected employee use appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids. Quality Assurance Lab employees wore safety glasses when dispensing chemicals from carboys, mixing or using solutions of potassium iodide, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid and sodium hydroxide, preparing stock solutions of the above chemicals, or when disposing of waste solutions. Safety glasses do not provide adequate protection pf the eyes from a splash of a corrosive liquid.  The employer did not ensure that employees used appropriate eye protection. This condition exposed employees to a chemical hazard.

Issued

Apr 3, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(d)(3)(iv): Where the most recent exposure monitoring indicated that employee exposures were above the PEL, the employer did not repeat such monitoring within three months of the most recent monitoring:  (a)  The Western Sugar Cooperative, at 18317 Highway 144, Fort Morgan, CO: On and preceding 1/21/19, where the most recent exposure monitoring indicated that employee exposures were above the PEL, the employer did not repeat such monitoring within three months of the most recent monitoring.   On 1/19/16, air sampling determined that a lime kiln operator was exposed to respirable crystalline silica in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit.  The employee was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at a concentration of 1.00 mg/m3 as an 8 hour TWA.  This was twenty times the PEL.  The employee wore a filtering facepiece respirator or a half mask tight fitting air purifying respirator while performing duties in the lime kiln.  The Assigned Protection Factor for such respiratory protection is 10.  The employer did not conduct air sampling of the lime kiln operator for respirable crystalline silica until 1/22/19.  The employer did not repeat respirable crystalline silica air sampling following the overexposure found in 2016.  This condition potentially exposed the employee to a respirable crystalline silica hazard.