Idaho Slaughterhouses

Code: 03G02
Violation: 417.2(a)(1)

Citation: On 12/14/2011 while review the establishments Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable HACCP [redacted] observed the following non-compliances. 1) Establishment 11032, packages Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable Beef Franks, This product was not listed on the product description/intended use page. 2) Establishment 11032 receives fully cooked Beef Franks in a tote from another establishment that produces the beef frank for establishment 11032 and then establishment 11032 packages the beef franks. Based on a review of the product ingredients for the fully cooked beef franks product, the prod uct contains the allergens, Non-fat dry milk and Soy protein concentrate. This establishment has not identified allergens in the HA for the process steps that are relevant to the producing of the beef franks. Step 1- Receiving of Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable Product, Step 2- Cold Storage, where they store the beef franks before packaging and Step 4-Packagi ng and labeling. CCP 03- [redacted] degrees (F) [redacted] was notified of the non-compliance. No similar non-compliances have been issued within the past 90 days.

Regulation:

417.2(a)(1) Hazard analysis. Every official establishment shall conduct, or have conducted for it, a hazard analysis to determine the food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in the production process and identify the preventive measures the establishment can apply to control those hazards. The hazard analysis shall include food safety hazards that can occur before, during, and after entry into the establishment. A food safety hazard that is reasonably likely to occur is one for which a prudent establishment would establish controls because it historically has occurred, or because there is a reasonable possibility that it will occur in the particular type of product being processed, in the absence of those controls.

Code: 03H02
Violation: 417.2(a)(1)

Citation: On 12/13/2011 at approximately 1:00 pm [redacted] was reviewing the Hazard Analysis and Flow Chart for the Heat Treated Not Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable HACCP Plan. This establishment has not identified allergens in the HA for Step 3-Transfer to Cutting Table, Step 4-Sizing and Slicing: Band Saw, and Step 5-Sizing and Slicing: Slicer. Step 1-Receiving of Heat Treated Not Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable product, allergens have been identified and Step 6-Packaging and labeling, allergens have been identified.This establishment receives Heat Treated Not Fully Cooked Not Shelf Stable product, (Cured Whole Hams, Ham Hocks and Bacon) from another establishment and slices and packages the product. Based on a review of the product ingredients for the cured product it contains, Hydrolyzed Soy, Wheat Gluten Protein and Hydrolyzed Soy Protein. A review of the Processing Operational Sanitation for processing # 2) states that [redacted] The Processing Operational Sanitation does not address the sanitation/clean up of work surfaces, machines, tools or any other contact area that the Heat Treated Not Fully Cooked Not Shelf f Stable Product may come in contact with prior to the processing of any other product. CCP 03- [redacted] degrees (F). It has been determined that no product was affected due to this non-compliance. [redacted] was notified of the non-compliance. No similar non-compliances have been issued within the past 90 days.

Regulation:

417.2(a)(1) Hazard analysis. Every official establishment shall conduct, or have conducted for it, a hazard analysis to determine the food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in the production process and identify the preventive measures the establishment can apply to control those hazards. The hazard analysis shall include food safety hazards that can occur before, during, and after entry into the establishment. A food safety hazard that is reasonably likely to occur is one for which a prudent establishment would establish controls because it historically has occurred, or because there is a reasonable possibility that it will occur in the particular type of product being processed, in the absence of those controls.

Code: 03C02
Violation: 417.5(b)

Citation: On 12/13/2011 [redacted] was reviewing the records for Raw in-tact product for the production day of 12/08/2011. Upon reviewing the monitoring log for CCP 03 [redacted] CSI observed that the time for the pm monitoring of CCP 03 cooler storage had not been recorded. There was no deviation of the critical limit for CCP 03 [redacted]. The recorded temperature for the Holding Cooler was [redacted] degrees (F) and the Drip Cooler was [redacted] degrees (F). The Critical limit for this CCP is less than or equal to [redacted] degrees (F). The Pre-shipment Review for this production day 12/08/2011 was conducted on 12/09/2011 and a Records Review was conducted for the CCP 03 [redacted] on 12/09/2011 at 9:45 am and documented down at the bottom of the CCP monitoring log. There was no documentation recorded anywhere on the production records for 12/08/2011 that showed that the time had not been recorded on the CCP monitoring log for the “pm” check or that it was found during the pre-shipment review or the records review. [redacted] was notified that a time had not been recorded for this CCP monitoring check. CCP 03 [redacted] – Critical limit is less then or equal to [redacted] degrees (F). [redacted] It is determined that no product was affected as a result of this non-compliance. No similar non-compliances have been issued within the past 90 days.

Regulation:

417.5(b) Each entry on a record maintained under the HACCP plan shall be made at the time the specific event occurs and include the date and time recorded, and shall be signed or initialed by the establishment employee making the entry.

Code: 03802
Violation: 417.5(a)(1)

Citation: On 11/30/2011 at approximately 4:00 pm [redacted] was reviewing/observing the establishment process for the Raw Ground. CSI noticed that on the temperature recording log for the ground beef that the temperature had been logged only one time at 8:50am that morning [redacted] asked the employee if any other temperature had been taken and he had stated no. [redacted] then notified [redacted] that only one temperature had been taken at 8:50 am. [redacted] then asked the employee why hadn’t any more temperatures been taken, the employee stated that ”They were really busy.” At approximately 4:15 [redacted] looked at the thermometer in the processing area that is used to monitor the processing rooms ambient temperature and the thermometer read 54 degrees (F). The last recording of the ambient room temperature was at 11:58 and it read 50 degrees (F) [redacted] then asked for the establishments thermometer to see what the product temperature of the ground beef at packing was. [redacted] took multiple temperatures of the ground beef packages at packing that were unsealed and temperatures that were from different batches that were ground that were packed sealed and out on the processing room floor and the thermometer read for the multiple packages at and between 52 to 56 degrees (F). CSI notified [redacted] and he had the employee place the product into the freezer. CSI review the establishments Process Control for Raw Ground. While reviewing the document [redacted] came and notified her that she had taken two temperatures since 8:50 am but forgot to write them down on the Grinder Mixer Temperature and Sanitation Log. [redacted] did state that she wrote them on her arm and CSI looked at her arm and they were there. The second temperature that was taken of the raw ground beef was at 11:35 am and that temperature read [redacted] degrees (F) the third temperature that was taken at 1:15 of the raw ground beef and that temperature was [redacted] degrees. [redacted] went and reviewed the Grinder Mixer temperature and Sanitation Log again and saw that the two temperatures that were written on the employees arm had been recorded and another temperature had also been added and that temperature was taken at 3:30 for the raw ground and it was recorded as [redacted] degrees (F). CSI then asked the employee about the recording of the temperature at 3:30 and the employee stated that they for got to record that also. The last recorded temperature of the processing rooms ambient temperature was done at 11:58 it was recorded as [redacted] degrees (F). There is no other recorded temperature that was taken after that time or prior to the observance of the room temperature at [redacted] degrees (F) at approximately 4:15 [redacted] . The frequency of the monitoring of the ambient room temperature at that point does not support the parameters of the supporting documentation that states, [redacted] Since there is no recorded temperature after 11:58 there is no way to tell how long the product had been sitting out in the processing area at 50 degrees or at 54 degrees. The establishment also has no support for the product temperature at 52 to 56 degrees (F). The support they use only supports the product if it is at or under [redacted] degrees (F) and only for a [redacted] hr period. Retain Tags #339999, 339940 and 340000 were applied to the raw ground product on 11/30/2011. CCP 3 [redacted] degrees (F). [redacted] was informed of the non-compliance. No similiar NR’s have been written within the last 90 days.

Regulation:

417.5(a)(1) The written hazard analysis prescribed in § 417.2(a) of this part, including all supporting documentation;

Code: 03C02
Violation: 417.2(a)(1), 417.2(a)(2)

Citation: EIAO’s [redacted] performed a Comprehensive Food Safety Assessment (FSA) at Rammell Valley Pack, Establishment 11027 M/1 between the dates of August 1, 2011, and August 12th, 2011.While performing the FSA the EIAO’s determined the following regulatory noncompliances: While [redacted] was discussing the establishment’s process with [redacted] of the firm on or around August 4, 2011, she asked [redacted] if the establishment ever stores finished products in areas other that the freezer [redacted] indicated in her reply that the firm does store finished products in coolers instead of the freezer based on product owner’s request. Each process step is required to be addressed in both Hazard Analysis and in the Flow chart for the affected HACCP Plan. These two separate noncompliance one concerning the flow chart and the other concerning the hazard analysis were deficiencies in both the Raw Ground and the Raw Not Ground HACCP Plans.The Hazard Analyses in the raw ground (038) and raw not ground (03C) HACCP processes do not identify a process step for the storage of fresh (unfrozen) raw ground meat products. [redacted] informed [redacted] of these regulatory noncompliances during that conversation . There has been no similar noncompliances in the last 60 days· The firm failed to develop Critical Control Points to control the identified hazard of Specified Risk Materials (SRM’s) associated with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy as required . The firm’s Hazard Analysis identified SRM’s as a hazard reasonably likely to occur. This noncompliance is evident and is common in Slaughter, Raw Not Ground, and Raw Ground HACCP Plans and is associated with 9 CFR 310.22 (d) (1) and 417.2 (a) (2). [redacted] informed Ground indicate that E. coli 0157:H7 is a [redacted] of these regulatory noncompliances on or around August 4, 2011. There has been no similar noncompliances in the last 60 days· The firm’s Hazard Analysis for both the Raw Not Ground and Raw This identified hazard is not prevented, eliminated, or reduces as required for hazards that are determined to be reasonably likely to occur. In addition, at subsequent steps in each of these hazard analyses E. coli 0157:H7 is identified as a hazard that is not reasonably l ikely to occur.with no support or process step that would of changed the status of this pathogen from being reasonably likely to occur to not reasonably l ikely to occur as required . The hazard analysis has inadequate supporting documentation for the decision that E.coli 0157:H7 is not reasonably likely to occur at these subsequent steps to the receiving step.. [redacted] informed [redacted] of this regulatory noncompliance on August 4, 2011. There has been no similar noncompliances in the last 60 days On December 23,2011 at approximately 1045 hours, [redacted] performed a PHIS HACCP Raw-Intact procedural task. Information and records for a production lot beginning on 12/08/11 and which concluded with a signed pre-shipment review on 12/21/11were observed.The documentation reviewed included the following three HACCP categories: Slaughter /Skin ned Critical Control Points; CCP1-Zero Tolerance, CCP2. [redacted] spray, and CCP3 [redacted] .). Raw Product, Ground Critical Control Points; CCP3 [redacted] ), CCP4 [redacted] .). Raw Product, Not Ground Critical Control Points;CCP3 and CCP4. No product was affected at this time.

Regulation:

417.2(a)(1) Hazard analysis. Every official establishment shall conduct, or have conducted for it, a hazard analysis to determine the food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur in the production process and identify the preventive measures the establishment can apply to control those hazards. The hazard analysis shall include food safety hazards that can occur before, during, and after entry into the establishment. A food safety hazard that is reasonably likely to occur is one for which a prudent establishment would establish controls because it historically has occurred, or because there is a reasonable possibility that it will occur in the particular type of product being processed, in the absence of those controls.

417.2(a)(2) A flow chart describing the steps of each process and product flow in the establishment shall be prepared, and the intended use or consumers of the finished product shall be identified.