OSHA Inspection: MAINE CONTRACT FARMING, LLC

Issued

Nov 17, 2003

Abate by

Nov 27, 2003

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to:
Meadowbrook Farm - The energized lighting circuits, lighting equipment,
and 220
volt fan disconnects were not approved for Class 2 Division 2 locations.
Among other feasible and acceptable methods of abatement to reduce employee
exposure is to install Class 2 Division 2 electrical equipment; or
Institute an aggressive housekeeping program to limit the dust suspension
during the
cleaning process.

Issued

Nov 17, 2003

Abate by

Nov 27, 2003

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to inhalation hazards associated with the
overexposure to the dust
composed of sawdust, chicken feed, and chicken manure generated during the
cleaning
process in the barn:
In the following instances, the cleaning crew was overexposed to total
dust levels
during the barn cleaning process:
a)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker  #1's measured eight hour time weighted
average (8 hr. TWA) for total  dust, was equal to 131 mg/m3 for 371 minutes
sampling period; which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Level
(PEL) of 15 mg/m3 by a factor of 8.7. The 109 minutes time not sampled (8
TWA = 480 minutes) assumes zero exposure.
b)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #3's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8 hr. TWA) for total dust, was equal to 138 mg/m3 for 333 minutes sampling
period; which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 15
mg/m3 by a factor of 9.25. The 147 minutes time not sampled (8 TWA = 480
minutes) assumes zero exposure.
In the following instance, the cleaning crew was exposed to respirable
dust level
during the barn cleaning process:
Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #2's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8
hr.
TWA) for respirable dust, was equal to 19.6 mg/m3 for 363 minutes sampling
period;
which exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 5.0 mg/m3 by a
factor of 3.9. The 117 minutes time not sampled (8 TWA = 480 minutes)
assumes
zero exposure.
Among other methods, a feasible and acceptable method to reduce or
eliminate
worker exposure include, but not necessarily limited to:
Improve the ventilation system. Though the normally closed windows were
opened
and the same two fans were running, additional fans to increase the
ventilation for
better air flow would be needed. In order for increased ventilation to
become feasible,
additional electrical circuits need to be installed in the barn. Fans and
other electrical
equipment installed for the purpose will be approved for Class II Division
2 locations
due to the explositivity of the dust raised during the cleaning process; or
The application of a water mist to reduce dust exposure; or
If engineering and administrative controls fail to reduce exposures,
proper personal
protective equipment shall be provided in the form of respirators. A
feasible and
practical means to protect the workers is the importance of evaluating
worker
exposure levels, selecting the appropriate respiratory protection (based
on protection
factor), and understanding the elements of a respiratory protection
program.

Issued

Nov 17, 2003

Abate by

Nov 27, 2003

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to inhalation hazards associated with inappropriate
selection,
use
and care of respirators; lack of monitoring; lack of training; fitting of
respirators; and lack of
medical determination prior to respirator use:
In the following instances, cleaning crew was not provided with training on
appropriate respiratory protection from overexposures to total dust and
respirable dust
during the barn cleaning process:
a)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #1's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8 hr. TWA) for total dust, was equal to 131 mg/m3 for a 371 minutes
sampling period while wearing a non NIOSH approved disposable single strap
dust mask
b)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #2's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8 hr. TWA) for respirable dust, was equal to 19.6 mg/m3 for a 363 minutes
sampling period while improperly wearing a N95 NIOSH approved disposable
respirator.
c)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #3's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8 hr. TWA) for total dust, was equal to 138 mg/m3 for a 333 minutes
sampling period while wearing a non NIOSH approved single strap disposable
dust mask
Among other methods, a feasible and acceptable method to reduce or
eliminate
employee exposure include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Improve the ventilation system. Though the normally closed windows were
opened
and the same two fans were running, additional fans to increase the
ventilation for
better air flow would be needed. In order for increased ventilation to
become feasible,
additional electrical circuits need to be installed in the barn. Fans and
other electrical
equipment installed for the purpose will be approved for Class II Division
2 locations
due to the explositivity of the dust raised during the cleaning process; or
Application of water mist to reduce dust exposure; or
If engineering and administrative controls fail to reduce exposures,
proper personal
protective equipment shall be provided in the form of respirators. A
feasible
and
practical means to protect the workers is the importance of evaluating
worker
exposure levels, selecting the appropriate respiratory protection (based
on the
protection factor), and understanding the elements of a respiratory
protection
program.

Issued

Nov 17, 2003

Abate by

Nov 27, 2003

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to inhalation hazards associated with the
overexposure to the dust
composed of sawdust, chicken feed, and chicken manure generated during the
cleaning
process in the barn because an evaluation of employee workplace exposure
levels were not
conducted in order to determine the levels of air contaminants in the air:
In the following instances, the cleaning crew was overexposed to total
dust
levels
during the barn cleaning process:
a)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker  #1's measured eight hour time weighted
average (8 hr. TWA) for total  dust, was equal to 131 mg/m3 for 371 minutes
sampling period. The worker who wore the non NIOSH approved single strap
dust mask exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 15
mg/m3 by a factor of 8.7. The factor for a NIOSH approved disposable
respirator is 10 times the OSHA PEL.
b)Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #3's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8 hr. TWA) for total dust, was equal to 138 mg/m3 for 333 minutes sampling
period. The worker who wore the non NIOSH approved single strap dust mask
exceeded the OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 15 mg/m3 by a
factor of 9.25. The factor for a NIOSH approved disposable respirator is 10
times the OSHA PEL.
In the following instance, the cleaning crew was exposed to respirable
dust level
during the barn cleaning process:
Meadowbrook Farm - Worker #2's measured eight hour time weighted average
(8 hr.
TWA) for respirable dust, was equal to 19.6 mg/m3 for 363 minutes sampling
period.
The worker who wore the N95 NIOSH approved disposable dust mask exceeded
the
OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 5.0 mg/m3 by a factor of 3.9.
Among other methods, a feasible and acceptable method to reduce or
eliminate
worker exposure include, but not necessarily limited to:
Improve the ventilation system. Though the normally closed windows were
opened
and the same two fans were running, additional fans to increase the
ventilation for
better air flow would be needed. In order for increased ventilation to
become feasible,
additional electrical circuits need to be installed in the barn. Fans and
other electrical
equipment installed for the purpose will be approved for Class II Division
2 locations
due to the explositivity of the dust raised during the cleaning process; or
The application of a water mist to reduce dust exposure; or
If engineering and administrative controls fail to reduce exposures,
proper personal
protective equipment shall be provided in the form of respirators. A
feasible and
practical means to protect the workers is the importance of evaluating
worker
exposure levels, selecting the appropriate respiratory protection (based
on protection
factor), and understanding the elements of a respiratory protection
program.

Issued

Nov 17, 2003

Abate by

Nov 27, 2003

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to inhalation hazards associated with inappropriate
selection use,
and care of respirators; lack of monitoring; lack of training; fitting of
respirators; and lack of
medical determination prior to respirator use:
Meadowbrook Farm - During the inspection, it was determined that employees
performing the cleaning had not received fit-testing that included:
fitting instructions,
demonstrations and practice of wearing a respirator, proper
face-to-facepiece fitting,
description of conditions that prevent face-to-facepiece seal.
Among other methods, a feasible and acceptable method to reduce or
eliminate
employee exposure include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Improve the ventilation system. Though the normally closed windows were
opened
and the same two fans were running, additional fans to increase the
ventilation for
better air flow would be needed; or
The application of water mist to reduce dust exposure; or
If engineering and administrative controls fail to reduce exposures,
proper personal
protective equipment shall be provided in the form of respirators. A
feasible and
practical means to protect the workers is the importance of evaluating
worker
exposure levels, selecting the appropriate respirator protection (based on
the
protection factor), and understanding the elements of a respiratory
protection
program.on

Issued

Nov 17, 2003

Abate by

Nov 23, 2003

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards
that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that
employees were exposed to
Meadowbrook Farm - The employer failed to determine if employees were
medically
fit to wear such respirators.
Among other methods, a feasible and acceptable method to reduce or
eliminate
employee exposure include, but are not limited to:
Improve the ventilation system. Though the normally closed windows were
opened
and the same two fans were running, additional fans to increase the
ventilation for
better air flow would be needed; or
The application of water mist to reduce dust exposure; or
If engineering and administrative controls fail to reduce exposures,
proper personal
protective equipment shall be provided in the form of respirators. A
feasible and
practical means to protect the workers is the importance of evaluating
worker
exposure levels, selecting the appropriate respiratory protection (based
on the
protection factor), and understanding the elements of a respiratory
protection
program.on