OSHA Inspection: AGRI GENERAL COMPANY, LP

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Jan 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Feed Mill Maintenance Area - The cover was missing on the
electrical outlet at the work bench, the cord and plug shop
light was not approved for explosive atmospheres and the drill
press was not approved for explosive atmospheres.
b.Pullet 1, Barn 1 - The electrical outlets and light fixtures
were not approved for explosive atmospheres.
c.Layer 4, Barn 43 - The electrical outlets and light fixtures
were not approved for explosive atmospheres.
d.Breeder/Hatchery, Incubation Area - The electrical and light
fixtures were not approved for explosive atmospheres.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Dec 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $3,500

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 slips, trips, and falls:
a.At Layer 1, in the Egg Processing Room, between the egg
washer and the front line the floors were slippery with
water, detergent and eggs.
b.At Layer 2, in the Egg Processing Room, between the egg
washer and the front line the floors were slippery with
water, detergent and eggs.
c.At Layer 3, in the Egg Processing Room, between the egg
washer and the front line the floors were slippery with
water, detergent and eggs.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
apply a slip resistant surface to the floors.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · 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 employmnent 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:
a.Prior to and including 2/19/97, the drinking water available
to the employees at Pullet sites was contaminated with
dichlorobenzene.
b.Prior to and including 2/19/97, the drinking water available
to the employees at the Feed Mill was contaminated with
coliform bacteria.
c.Prior to and including 2/19/97, no safe drinking water was
made available for employees at the Farm Division in that the
water was contaminated with dichloromethane.
d.Employees at the pullet sites were exposed to chicken mite
bites.
e.Production employees at the layer sites were exposed to
chicken mite bites.
f.The break room and rest room at Pullet Site #1 were infested
with fly maggots, flies and rodents.
g.The break room and rest room at Pullet Site #2 were infested
with fly maggots, flies and rodents.
h.The break room and rest room at Pullet Site #3 were infested
with fly maggots, flies and rodents.
i.The break room and rest room at Pullet Site #4 were infested
with fly maggots, flies and rodents.
j.There were no rest room hand wash facilities or drinking water
at the Breeder Pullet site.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide new ventilated break rooms separate and removed from the
barns that have sanitary toilet, washing, and drinking water
facilities at the Pullet Sites, and supply employees with an insect
repellant.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Oct 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 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 struck-by and crushing injuries to the
feet because Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not required
by the employer:
a.For employees who were exposed to a crushing injuries to the
feet from bird moving carts and pallet jacks, such as, but not
limited to  bird movers and egg processing employees, the
employer did not require steel-toed footwear or other
appropriate PPE as a means to prevent injury.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be
to provide and require the use of steel toed foot wear for all
affected employees.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.For employees such as, but not limited to the bird movers who
were exposed to eye injuries, the employer did not require
safety glasses or other appropriate PPE as a means to prevent
injury.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be
to provide and require the use of eye protection for all
affected employees.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,000 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 smoke inhalation and burns due to
inadequate flammable/combustible liquid storage:
a.In the Farm Division Truck Shop, the lid on the parts washer
which contained Safety Kleen Solvent, a flammable liquid, was
prevented from closing by a light fixture.  Among other
methods, one feasible and acceptable abatement method to
correct this hazard is to move the light fixture so the lid
will close.
b.In the Farm Division Truck Shop on the west wall near the
middle, diesel fuel was dispensed out of a 55 gallon drum
through a non-self closing valve.  Among other methods, one
feasible and acceptable abatement method to correct this
hazard is to install a self closing valve on the drum.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide installations which are in compliance with the National
Fire Protection Association.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $2,500 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 the hazards of electric shock or
electrocution:
a.On the north wall of the Truck Shop, the panel was open
exposing energized live parts.
b.At Pullet Site 3, in House 15, Row 2, the case of the Lyon
Debeaker was not grounded.
c.The tension relief device was loose from the electrical box on
the west wall of the closet under the steps in the southeast
corner of the lower level.
d.In the Feed Mill, the Duracraft Pedestal Grinder was not
grounded.
e.In the restroom at the Feed Mill, the baseboard electric
heating unit was located so as to be in the direct path of the
discharge of water from both the emergency eyewash and the
blow-off valve of the hot water heater.  The baseboard heater
was not approved for wet locations.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
In the following locations compressed air hoses used for cleaning
the fronts of barns were tested at pressures above 30 psi:
a.Layer 2, Front of Barn 15 - Measured at 40 psi.
b.Layer 2, Front of Barn 16 - Measured at 76 psi.
c.Layer 2, Front of Barn 17 - Measured at 70 psi.
d.Layer 2, Front of Barn 22 - Measured at 75 psi.
e.Layer 2, Front of Barn 24 - Measured at 64 psi.
f.Layer 2, Front of Barn 28 - Measured at 90 psi.
g.Layer 3, Front of Barn 29 - Measured at 80 psi.
h.Layer 3, Front of Barn 38 - Measured at 80 psi.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide pressure reducers on all of the compressed air hoses that
reduce the air pressure to 30 psi or lower.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Oct 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
aEmployees who vaccinate chicks at the Breeder/Hatchery
facility were exposed to human blood from needle sticks from
the needles on the vaccinators.
b.Employees who debeak and vaccinate pullets were exposed to
human blood from needle sticks from the needles on the
vaccinators.
c.Employees who were first aid responders throughout the site
were exposed to human blood and other potentially infectious
materials.
Feasible and possible means of abatement could include, but
should not be limited to, the following:
1)Implement and train all affected employees on an
effective Bloodborne Pathogen program;
2)Provide and ensure the use of finger guards for all chick
vaccinators;
3)Provide and ensure the use of finger guards for all
pullet vaccinators; and/or install a guard that prevents
employee exposure to the needle on the
debeaking/vaccinating machine.
4)Offer the Hepatitis-B vaccination to all affected
employees.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Oct 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Employees enter into grain bins at the Feed Mill , the Pullet
Sites, and the Layer Sites to sweep out grain and perform
maintenance, exposing them to the hazards of confined spaces.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement is to develop
and implement an effective Confined Space Entry Program, to
prohibit employees from entering the confined spaces.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $2,500 · Current $1,250 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Nov 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $41,000 Reduced

Emphasis program

X

Hazardous substances 017091359130

General-duty citation text

an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.On 3/18/97 while moving chicks at Pullet 4, Barn 20 and
Pullet 2, Barns 6 & 7, Chick Mover employee (#OR) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 11.1 mg/m3 for a446 minute sampling
period.  Employee exposure level was
1.1 times the TLV.  During the same sampling period, this
employee (#OR) was exposed to ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average of 93.0 ppm for a 480 minute
sampling period, which is 3.7 times the TLV.  During a
fifteen minute period in Pullet 4, Barn 20, this employee
was exposed to ammonia at a time-weighted average of 130
ppm, which is 3.7 times the TLV.
2.On 3/18/97 while moving chicks at Pullet 4, Barn 20 and
The employer did not furnish employmnent and a place of employment
Pullet 2, Barns 6 & 7,  Chick Mover employee (#TW) was
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:
a.For the Bird Moving Crew who worked in Layer 4, Barn 52, and
Pullet 2, Barn 6 (as sampled on March 4 and March 6, 1997) -
Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or organic
dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible levels
set forth by the American Conference of Government Industrial
exposed to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average
of 41.5 ppm for a 472 minute sampling period, which is
1.7 times the TLV.  During a fifteen minute period in
Pullet 4, Barn 20, this employee was exposed to ammonia
at a time-weighted average of 220 ppm, which is 6.3 times
the TLV.
e.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
Hygienists (ACGIH).
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
1.Pullet 4, Barn 20 and Pullet 2, Barn 6: (3/18/97) - Chick
Mover/Feeder employee (#DT) was exposed to elevated
levels of ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average
level (8 hr. TWA) of 129.5 ppm for a 478 minute sampling
period.  Employee exposure level was 5.2 times the TLV.
2.(3/18/97) - During a fifteen minute period in Pullet 4,
Barn 20, this employee was exposed to ammonia at a time-
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
weighted average of 200 ppm, which is 5.7 times the TLV
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
(STEL).  While in Pullet 2, Barn 6, this employee was
exposed to a Short Term Exposure level of at least 200
ppm (5.7 times the TLV) as indicated by instantaneous
colorimetric reading at 11:17 am.
3.Pullet 4, Barn 20 and Pullet 2, Barn 6: (3/18/97) - Chick
Mover/Feeder employee (#BG) was exposed to elevated
levels of ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average
level (8 hr. TWA) of 152.6 ppm for a 478 minute sampling
period.  Employee exposure level was 6.1 times the TLV.
4.(3/18/97) - During a fifteen minute period in Pullet 4,
Barn 20, this employee was exposed to ammonia at a time-
weighted average of 200 ppm, which is 5.7 times the TLV
(STEL).  While in Pullet 2, Barn 6, this employee was
exposed to ammonia at an actual time-weighted average of
247 ppm for the 147 minutes sampled, which is 7.1 times
the TLV (STEL).
f.For Production employees in Layer 1 (as sampled on March 20,
1997) - Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or
organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible
levels set forth by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Layer 1, (3/20/97) - Caretaker employee (#JB) was exposed
to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-weighted
average level (8 hr. TWA) of 31 mg/m3 for a 478 minute
sampling period.  Employee exposure level was 3.1 times
the TLV.
2.Layer 1, (3/20/97) - Assistant Production Manager
employee (#JM) was exposed to elevated levels of dust at
an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of
11.9 mg/m3 for a 480 minute sampling period.  Employee
exposure level was 1.2 times the TLV.
g.For Production employees in Layer 1 (as sampled on March 20,
1997) - Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or
organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible
levels set forth by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Layer 1, (3/20/97) - Caretaker employee (#JB) was exposed
to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-weighted
average level (8 hr. TWA) of 31 mg/m3 for a 478 minute
sampling period.  Employee exposure level was 3.1 times
the TLV.
2.Layer 1, (3/20/97) - Assistant Production Manager
employee (#JM) was exposed to elevated levels of dust at
an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of11.9 mg/m3 for a
480 minute sampling period.  Employee
exposure level was 1.2 times the TLV.
h.For Production employees in Layer 2 (as sampled on April 1,
1997) - Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or
organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible
levels set forth by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Layer 2, (4/1/97) - Production Manager employee (#JK) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 84.5 mg/m3 for a
472 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level was
8.5 times the TLV.
2.Layer 2, (4/1/97) - Caretaker employee (#LE) was exposed
to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-weighted
average level (8 hr. TWA) of 29.5 mg/m3 for a 460 minute
sampling period.  Employee exposure level was 3.0 times
the TLV.
3.Layer 2, (4/1/97) - Caretaker employee (#SP) was exposed
to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-weighted
average level (8 hr. TWA) of 11.8 mg/m3 for a 470 minute
sampling period.  Employee exposure level was 1.2 times
the TLV.
i.For Production employees and Manure Removers in Layer 3 (as
sampled on April 3, 1997) - Employee exposure to air
contaminants (ammonia and/or organic dust containing
endotoxins) exceeded the permissible levels set forth by the
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH).
In the following instance, the employee performing the job
task listed below was exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Layer 3, (4/3/97) - Caretaker employee (#CS) was exposed
to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-weighted
average level (8 hr. TWA) of 15.4 mg/m3 for a 161 minute
sampling period.  Employee exposure level was 1.5 times
the TLV.
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) as established
by the ACGIH (1983-84).
1.Layer 3, (4/3/97) - Manure Removal employee (#DE) was
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 32.4 ppm for
a 454 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure was 1.2
times the TLV.
2.Layer 3, (4/3/97) - Manure Removal employee (#IC) was
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 28.3 ppm for
a 450 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure was 1.1
times the TLV.
j.For Production employees in Layer 4 (as sampled on April 9,
1997) - Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or
organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible
levels set forth by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
In the following instance, the employee performing the job
task listed below was exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Layer 4, (4/9/97) - Maintenance employee (#DG) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 11.7 mg/m3 for a
467 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level was
1.2 times the TLV.
k.For Debeaker employees who worked at the 4 Pullet Sites (as
sampled at Pullet 1 on March 11, 1997) - Employee exposure to
air contaminants (ammonia and/or organic dust containing
endotoxins) exceeded the permissible levels set forth by the
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH).
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) as established
by the ACGIH (1983-84).
1.Pullet 1, Barn 1: (3/11/97) - Debeaker employee (#TS) was
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 31.8 ppm for
a 468 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.3 times the TLV.
2.Pullet 1, Barn 1: (3/11/97) - Debeaker employee (#PA) was
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 31.0 ppm for
a 472 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.2 times the TLV.
3.Pullet 1, Barn 1: (3/11/97) - Debeaker employee (#BP) was
The employees were also exposed to ammonia in excess of the
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 28.8 ppm for
a 454 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.1 times the TLV.
4.Pullet 1, Barn 1: (3/11/97) - Debeaker employee (#RS) was
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 28.8 ppm for
a 472 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.1 times the TLV.
5.Pullet 1, Barn 1: (3/11/97) - Debeaker employee (#GS) was
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#AB) was exposed to elevated levels of
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 28.2 ppm for
a 448 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.1 times the TLV.
6.Pullet 1, Barn 1: (3/11/97) - Debeaker employee (#NA) was
exposed to elevated levels of ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 25.3 ppm for
a 453 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.1 times the TLV.
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
l.For employees in the Feed Mill (as sampled on March 25, 1997)
- Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or
organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible
levels set forth by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
In the following instance, the employee performing the job
task listed below was exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
TWA) of 23.4 mg/m3 for a 441 minute sampling period.
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
Employee exposure level was 2.3 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average level
of 26.4 ppm, 1.1 times the TLV.
2.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#AB) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 18.1 mg/m3 for a 351 minute sampling period.
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Feed Mill, (3/25/97) - Mill Helper employee (#KT) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 29.3 mg/m3 for a
447 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level was
2.9 times the TLV.
Among other methods, some feasible and acceptable methods to reduce
or eliminate employee exposure include, but are not limited to:
1.Implementation of effective engineering and/or administrative
controls including:
-Effective ventilation in all the barns to ensure removal
of air contaminants and adequate air exchange.
-Implement an effective housekeeping program to keep the
barns as dust-free as possible on a frequent and regular
basis.  Use vacuum cleaners with high efficiency filters
and collection bags in lieu of compressed air and/or
broom sweeping.
-Spread peat, vermiculite, wood chips, or other acceptable
materials on top of manure in deep pit barns to reduce
the release of ammonia.
-Frequent and regular removal of manure from deep pits of
barns to reduce the release of ammonia.
-Install effective leak prevention system for the water in
the barns to keep the manure as dry as possible.
2.Implementation of an effective respiratory protection program.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.
Employee exposure level was 2.1 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 23.9
ppm.
3.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#BG) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 26.1 mg/m3 for a 433 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.6 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposedto ammonia at an
eight hour time-weighted average level
of 27.9 ppm, 1.1 times the TLV.
4.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#BG) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 22.8 mg/m3 for a 350 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.1 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 24.1
ppm.
5.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#TW) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 14.4 mg/m3 for a 343 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 1.4 times the TLV.
6.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#RT) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 17.9 mg/m3 for a 442 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 1.8 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight hour time-weighted average level
of 22.9 ppm.
7.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#RT) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 22.9 mg/m3 for a 352 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.3 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 25.2
ppm.
b.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
1.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#RM) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 20.4 mg/m3 for a 438 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.0 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average level
of 24.7 ppm.
2.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#RM) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.TWA) of 27.0 mg/m3
for a 337 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.7 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 23.7
ppm.
3.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#JD) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 11.0 mg/m3 for a 370 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 1.1 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 22.3
ppm.
4.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52, (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#ER) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 22.8 mg/m3 for a 427 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.3 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period, this employee (#ER) was exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 21.5
ppm.
c.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
The employees were also exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
1.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#RL) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 20.6 mg/m3 for a 364 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.1 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 28.8
ppm.  Employee exposure level was 1.2 times the TLV.  The
employee's actual exposure level during this sampling
period was 38 ppm which exceeds the TLV (STEL) by 1.1
times.
2.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#JP) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 30.4 mg/m3 for a 341 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 3.0 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposedto ammonia at an
eight-hour time-weighted average of 32.1
ppm.  Employee exposure level was 1.3 times the TLV.  The
employee's actual exposure level during this sampling
period was 45 ppm which exceeds the TLV (STEL) by 1.3
times.
3.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#HD) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 21.8 mg/m3 for a 377 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure was 2.2 times the TLV.  During this
same sampling period the employee (#HD) was exposed to
ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 21.8
ppm.
4.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#HD) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 29.3 mg/m3 for a 344 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.9 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 29.9
ppm.  Employee exposure level was 1.2 times the TLV.  The
employee's actual exposure level during this sampling
period was 42 ppm which exceeds the TLV (STEL) by 1.2
times.
d.For the Chick Moving/Feeding employees who worked in Pullet 4,
Barn 20, and Pullet 2, Barns 6 and 7 (as sampled on March 18,
1997) - Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia and/or
organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the permissible
levels set forth by the American Conference of Government
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
The employees were also exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 20, 1997

Emphasis program

X

Hazardous substances 017091359130

General-duty citation text

Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
1.Pullet 4, Barn 20 and Pullet 2, Barn 6: (3/18/97) - Chick
Mover/Feeder employee (#DT) was exposed to elevated
levels of ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average
level (8 hr. TWA) of 129.5 ppm for a 478 minute sampling
period.  Employee exposure level was 5.2 times the TLV.
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
(Employee was not wearing a respirator approved for
ammonia.)
2.(3/18/97) - During a fifteen minute period in Pullet 4,
Barn 20, this employee was exposed to ammonia at a time-
weighted average of 200 ppm, which is 5.7 times the TLV
(STEL).  While in Pullet 2, Barn 6, this employee was
exposed to a Short Term Exposure level of at least 200
ppm (5.7 times the TLV) as indicated by instantaneous
colorimetric reading at 11:17 am. (Employee was not
wearing a respirator approved for ammonia.)g.For Production Employees in
The employer did not furnish employmnent and a place of employment
Layer 1: Prior to and including
February 19, 1997, when respiratory protection was required to
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:
a.For the Bird Moving Crew: Prior to and including February 19,
1997, when respiratory protection was required to protect the
health of employees, the employer failed to implement an
protect the health of employees, the employer failed to
implement an effective respiratory protection program
including the following:  employees were not required to wear
approved respirators to protect them against the hazards of
ammonia and organic dust containing endotoxins; the employer
did not appropriately evaluate employee workplace exposure to
determine levels of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins in the air; the employer did not instruct employees
on the selection, use, care and proper fitting of respirators,
including instruction as to how and why respiratory protection
was provided and to be worn, including any limitations placed
on a particular respirator, and instruction as how to inspect
a respirator for wear and damage; and for employees who
occasionally wore respirators, the employer failed to
determine if employees were medically fit to wear such
respirators.
h.For Production Employees in Layer 2: Prior to and including
February 19, 1997, when respiratory protection was required to
protect the health of employees, the employer failed to
implement an effective respiratory protection program
including the following:  employees were not required to wear
approved respirators to protect them against the hazards of
ammonia and organic dust containing endotoxins; the employer
did not appropriately evaluate employee workplace exposure to
determine levels of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins in the air; the employer did not instruct employees
on the selection, use, care and proper fitting of respirators,
including instruction as to how and why respiratory protection
was provided and to be worn, including any limitations placed
on a particular respirator, and instruction as how to inspect
a respirator for wear and damage; and for employees who
occasionally wore respirators, the employer failed to
determine if employees were medically fit to wear such
respirators.
Since 2/19/97, for the following employees required to wear
respiratory protection, the employer had not fully implemented
an effective respiratory protection program:
1.Layer 2, (4/1/97) - Production Manager employee (#JK) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 84.5 mg/m3 for a
472 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level was
8.5 times the TLV.  Employee was wearing a negative
pressure half-mask respirator with facial hair that
interfered with the facepiece seal.
i.For Production Employees and Manure removal employees in Layer
3: Prior to and including February 19, 1997, when respiratory
protection was required to protect the health of employees,
the employer failed to implement an effective respiratoryprotection
program including the following:   employees were
not required to wear approved respirators to protect them
against the hazards of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins; the employer did not appropriately evaluate
employee workplace exposure to determine levels of ammonia and
organic dust containing endotoxins in the air; the employer
did not instruct employees on the selection, use, care and
proper fitting of respirators, including instruction as to how
and why respiratory protection was provided and to be worn,
including any limitations placed on a particular respirator,
and instruction as how to inspect a respirator for wear and
damage; and for employees who occasionally wore respirators,
the employer failed to determine if employees were medically
fit to wear such respirators.
j.For Production Employees in Layer 4: Prior to and including
February 19, 1997, when respiratory protection was required to
protect the health of employees, the employer failed to
implement an effective respiratory protection program
including the following:  employees were not required to wear
approved respirators to protect them against the hazards of
ammonia and organic dust containing endotoxins; the employer
did not appropriately evaluate employee workplace exposure to
determine levels of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins in the air; the employer did not instruct employees
on the selection, use, care and proper fitting of respirators,
including instruction as to how and why respiratory protection
was provided and to be worn, including any limitations placed
on a particular respirator, and instruction as how to inspect
a respirator for wear and damage; and for employees who
occasionally wore respirators, the employer failed to
determine if employees were medically fit to wear such
respirators.
k.For Debeaker Employees who worked at the 4 Pullet Sites: Prior
to and including February 19, 1997, when respiratory
protection was required to protect the health of employees,
the employer failed to implement an effective respiratory
protection program including the following:  employees were
not required to wear approved respirators to protect them
against the hazards of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins; the employer did not appropriately evaluate
employee workplace exposure to determine levels of ammonia and
organic dust containing endotoxins in the air; the employer
did not instruct employees on the selection, use, care and
proper fitting of respirators, including instruction as to how
and why respiratory protection was provided and to be worn,
including any limitations placed on a particular respirator,
and instruction as how to inspect a respirator for wear and
damage; and for employees who occasionally wore respirators,
the employer failed to determine if employees were medically
fit to wear such respirators.
l.For employees in the Feed Mill: Prior to and including
February 19, 1997, when respiratory protection was required to
protect the health of employees, the employer failed to
implement an effective respiratory protection program
including the following:  employees were not required to wear
approved respirators to protect them against the hazards of
ammonia and organic dust containing endotoxins; the employer
did not appropriately evaluate employee workplace exposure to
determine levels of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins in the air; the employer did not instruct employees
on the selection, use, care and proper fitting of respirators,
including instruction as to how and why respiratory protection
was provided and to be worn, including any limitations placed
on a particular respirator, and instruction as how to inspect
a respirator for wear and damage; and for employees who
occasionally wore respirators, the employer failed to
determine if employees were medically fit to wear such
respirators.
Since 2/19/97, for the following employees required to wear
respiratory protection, the employer had not fully implemented
an effective respiratory protection program:
1.Feed Mill, (3/25/97) - Mill Helper employee (#KT) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 29.3 mg/m3 for a
447 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level was
2.9 times the TLV.  Employee was wearing a half-mask
negative pressure respirator which he had not been fit
tested for.
Among other methods, some feasible and acceptable methods to reduce
or eliminate employee exposure include, but are not limited to:
Establishment of a comprehensive respiratory protection program
that is reviewed on a regular basis for its effectiveness.
An effective respiratory protection program should include the
following elements:
1.Respirators must be selected on the basis of the hazards to
which a worker is exposed;
2.A respirator user must be instructed and trained in the proper
use of respirators, including any limitations;
3.Respirators must be regularly cleaned and disinfected.  If
respirators are to be worn by more than one worker, the
respirator(s) must be cleaned and disinfected after each use;
4.Respirators must be stored in a clean and sanitary location;
5.Respirators used routinely must be inspected during cleaning.
Worn or deteriorated parts must be replaced.  If an employerhas
respirators for emergency use (such as a self-contained
breathing apparatus), each respirator must be thoroughly
inspected at least once a month and after each use;
6.Appropriate monitoring of the work environment must be
performed to determine the employees who may be required to
wear respiratory protection and the appropriate level of
protection (type of respirator) that is needed;
7.If an employee is required to wear a negative pressure
respirator, a determination must be made as to whether the
employee is medically fit to wear the respirator while
performing work.  A physician must determine what health or
physical conditions are pertinent to the use of the
respirator.
8.The respirator(s) must be jointly approved by the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
7.The respiratory protection program must be reviewed on a
regular basis to ensure that it is appropriate and effective.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion
effective respiratory protection program including the
following:  employees were not required to wear approved
respirators to protect them against the hazards of ammonia and
organic dust containing endotoxins; the employer did not
appropriately evaluate employee workplace exposure to
determine levels of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins in the air; the employer did not instruct employees
on the selection, use, care and proper fitting of respirators,
including instruction as to how and why respiratory protection
was provided and to be worn, including any limitations placed
on a particular respirator, and instruction as how to inspect
a respirator for wear and damage; and for employees who
occasionally wore respirators, the employer failed to
determine if employees were medically fit to wear such
respirators.
Since 2/19/97, for the following employees required to wear
respiratory protection, the employer had not fully implemented
an effective respiratory protection program:
1.For the Bird Moving Crew who worked in Layer 4, Barn 52,
and Pullet 2, Barn 6 (as sampled on March 4 and March 6,
1997) - Employee exposure to air contaminants (ammonia
and/or organic dust containing endotoxins) exceeded the
permissible levels set forth by the American Conference
of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
b.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
The employees were also exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/4/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#AB) was exposed to elevated levels ofdust at an
eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 23.4 mg/m3 for a 441 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.3 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average level
of 26.4 ppm, 1.1 times the TLV.
2.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#AB) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 18.1 mg/m3 for a 351 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.1 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 23.9
ppm. (Employee was wearing a half-mask negative pressure
respirator with a beard.)
3.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#TW) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 14.4 mg/m3 for a 343 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 1.4 times the TLV.  Employee
was wearing a half-mask negative pressure respirator
which he had not been fit tested for.  Employee also had
a full beard.
4.On 3/18/97 while moving chicks at Pullet 4, Barn 20 and
Pullet 2, Barns 6 & 7, Chick/Bird Mover employee (#OR)
was exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour
time-weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 11.1 mg/m3 for
a 446 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level
was 1.1 times the TLV.  During the same sampling period,
this employee (#OR) was exposed to ammonia at an eight-
hour time-weighted average of 93.0 ppm for a 480 minute
sampling period, which is 3.7 times the TLV.  During a
fifteen minute period in Pullet 4, Barn 20, this employee
was exposed to ammonia at a time-weighted average of 130
ppm, which is 3.7 times the TLV.  (Employee was wearing
a half-mask negative pressure respirator with a beard.)
c.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to organic dust containing
endotoxins in excess of the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10
mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic meter of air) as an eight hour
time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) as established by the ACGIH
(1987-88).
The employees were also exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppm
as a STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
1.Pullet 2, Barn 6, and Layer 4, Barn 52: (3/6/97) - Bird
Mover employee (#RL) was exposed to elevated levels of
dust at an eight-hour time-weighted average level (8 hr.
TWA) of 20.6 mg/m3 for a 364 minute sampling period.
Employee exposure level was 2.1 times the TLV.  During
the same sampling period this employee was also exposed
to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average of 28.8
ppm.  Employee exposure level was 1.2 times the TLV.  The
employee's actual exposure level during this sampling
period was 38 ppm which exceeds the TLV (STEL) by 1.1
times.  Employee was wearing a half-mask negative
pressure respirator which he had not been fit tested for.
Employee also had a beard.
d.For the Chick Moving employees: Prior to and including
February 19, 1997, when respiratory protection was required to
protect the health of employees, the employer failed to
implement an effective respiratory protection program
including; Employees were not required to wear approved
respirators to protect them against the hazards of ammonia and
organic dust containing endotoxins; the employer did not
appropriately evaluate employee workplace exposure to
determine levels of ammonia and organic dust containing
endotoxins in the air; the employer did not instruct employees
on the selection, use, care and proper fitting of respirators,
including instruction as to how and why respiratory protection
was provided and to be worn, including any limitations placed
on a particular respirator, and instruction as how to inspect
a respirator for wear and damage; and for employees who
occasionally wore respirators, the employer failed to
determine if employees were medically fit to wear such
respirators.
Since 2/19/97, for the following employees required to wear
respiratory protection, the employer had not fully implemented
an effective respiratory protection program:
1.For the Chick Moving/Feeding employees who worked in
Pullet 4, Barn 20, and Pullet 2, Barns 6 and 7 (as
sampled on March 18, 1997) - Employee exposure to air
contaminants (ammonia and/or organic dust containing
endotoxins) exceeded the permissible levels set forth by
the American Conference of Government Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH).
e.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to dust in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 10 mg/M3 (milligrams per cubic
meter of air) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr
TWA) as established by the ACGIH (1987-88).
The employees were also exposed to ammonia in excess of the
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 25 ppm (parts per million) as
an eight hour time-weighted average (8 hr TWA) and/or 35 ppmas a STEL
(Short Term Exposure Limit) as established by the
ACGIH (1983-84).
For any sampling periods listed below less than 480 minutes (8
hours), the calculation of the eight-hour TWA assumes zero
exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
1.On 3/18/97 while moving chicks at Pullet 4, Barn 20 and
Pullet 2, Barns 6 & 7, Chick Mover employee (#OR) was
exposed to elevated levels of dust at an eight-hour time-
weighted average level (8 hr. TWA) of 11.1 mg/m3 for a
446 minute sampling period.  Employee exposure level was
1.1 times the TLV.  During the same sampling period, this
employee (#OR) was exposed to ammonia at an eight-hour
time-weighted average of 93.0 ppm for a 480 minute
sampling period, which is 3.7 times the TLV.  During a
fifteen minute period in Pullet 4, Barn 20, this employee
was exposed to ammonia at a time-weighted average of 130
ppm, which is 3.7 times the TLV. (Employee was wearing a
half-mask negative pressure respirator with a beard.)
2.On 3/18/97 while moving chicks at Pullet 4, Barn 20 and
Pullet 2, Barns 6 & 7,  Chick Mover employee (#TW) was
exposed to ammonia at an eight-hour time-weighted average
of 41.5 ppm for a 472 minute sampling period, which is
1.7 times the TLV.  During a fifteen minute period in
Pullet 4, Barn 20, this employee was exposed to ammonia
at a time-weighted average of 220 ppm, which is 6.3 times
the TLV. (Employee was wearing a half-mask negative
pressure respirator with a beard.)
f.In the following instances, the employees performing the job
task listed below were exposed to ammonia in excess of the

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $41,000 Reduced

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Bathroom - Light fixture over sink was missing two bulbs and
had no cover, exposing live parts.
b.Bathroom - There was no path to ground in the electrical
outlet in the medicine cabinet.
c.Southwest Bedroom, 1st floor - No path to ground on the
electrical outlet on the south wall.
d.Kitchen - The GFCI outlet above the sink had no path to
ground.
e.Southeast 2nd floor bed room - No path to ground on the west
wall outlet and exposed live wires on the lamp plugged into
the outlet.
f.Southeast 2nd floor bedroom - The north wall oulet was pulled
away from the wall exposing live wires, and the neutral was
open with the neutral wire plugged into the ground.
g.North 2nd floor bedroom - The outlets on the north and east
walls had open grounds, and the north wall oulet had no cover
exposing live parts.
h.North 2nd floor bedroom - The light switch on the east wall
had no cover, exposing live wires.
i.Basement - The electrical wiring on the furnace was not
covered, exposing live parts.
j.Southeast 1st floor room - The south and west wall outlets had
no path to ground.
k.The front porch light had no cover exposing live parts and had
no path to ground.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National electric Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.The water supply was not approved by the appropriate health
authority 142(c)(1)!.
b.Windows - Three windows were not provided with screens
142(b)(8)!.
c.Southeast corner of house - There was standing, stagnant,
black water from the basement drain 142(a)(1)!.
d.Sleeping quarters adjacent to the kitchen - There was no door
separating the sleeping quarters from the kitchen 142(i)(2)!.
e.Sleeping quarters adjacent to the kitchen - There were no
suitable storage facilities 142(b)(3)!.
f.Sleeping quarters adjacent to the kitchen - There was no
ceiling light 142(g)!.
g.Bathroom - The ceiling light did not work 142(g)!.
h.Bathroom - The toilet room was not cleaned on a daily basis
142(d)(10)!.
i.Northwest 1st floor bedroom - There were no suitable storage
facilities 142(b)(3)!.
j.Southwest 1st floor bedroom - The wooden flooring was loose
and warped 142(b)(4)!.
k.Southwest 1st floor bedroom - a six inch mattress placed on
the floor was utilized as a bed, and there was no door on the
clothes closet 142(b)(3)!.
l.Basement - The foundation was cracked allowing passage of
rodents and insects into the house 142(J)!.
m.South side exterior screen door - The door did not have a
self-closing device 142(b)(8)!.
n.South side of house - There was standing water providing a
breeding ground for insects 142(j)!.
o.Kitchen - The refrigerator temperature was at 56 degrees,
promoting food spoilage 142(i)(1)!.
p.No laundry facilities were provided 142(f)(1)(iii)!.
q.Northwest 1st floor bedroom - There was no ceiling light
142(g)!.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 21, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Kitchen - The outlet on the east wall and the outlet behind
the refrigerator had no path to ground. The outlet behind the
refrigerator was loose and pulled out from the wall exposing
live parts.
b.Kitchen - The GFCI outlet near the sink had a gap the length
of the cover plate.
c.Kitchen - There was a hole above the stove with live
electrical wires in it. The hole was covered with duct tape in
place of an approved cover.
d.Southwest 1st floor bedroom - There were five outlets with no
path to ground, two of which had reverse polarity.
e.Northwest 1st floor bedroom - A bed side lamp was ungrounded
and the bulb base was pulled loose exposing live parts.
f.Bathroom, 1st floor - The outlet in the medicine cabinet had
no path to ground.
g.Bathroom, 2nd floor- -The outlet in the medicine cabinet had
no path to ground.
h.Hallway, 2nd floor - The outlet had no path to ground.
i.Northwest bedroom, 2nd floor - There was an ungrounded,
improperly spliced light hanging from the wall over the bed.
The wires were exposed and the outlet it was plugged into was
pulled from the wall exposing live parts.
j.Southeast bedroom, 2nd floor - The light on the north wall was
plugged into the outlet with bare wires (no plug, no ground).
The outlet on the south wall had no path to ground.
k.Basement - There were exposed live wires above the exterior
door leading to the basement.
l.Basement - The outlet for the sump pump was not grounded and
the ground prong had been removed from the sump pump plug
m.Basement - There was a junction box in the ceiling with no
cover exposing live wires.
n.Basement  - There was an electrical outlet on the east wall
with no cover, exposing live parts.
o.Basement - There were exposed live wires on the hot water
heater.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations in compliance with the National
Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Dining room - The outlet on the west wall that the microwave
and refrigerator were plugged into had no cover, exposing live
parts.
b.Kitchen - Three outlets had no path to ground.
c.Basement - There was no cover on the light switch mounted on
the wall. The floor below the switch was wet.
d.Basement - There were exposed live wires in the ceiling, 80
inches above the floor.
e.Basement - The outlet cover above the sump pump was pulled
back, exposing live wires.
f.Basement - The breaker box on the east wall was open, exposing
live wires and parts.
g.Basement - The outlet on the south wall, used for the
extension cord on the sump pump, had no cover.
h.Attic - There was no cover on the light switch on the
stairway.
i.Back bedroom - There was no cover on the light switch.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Living room - There were 3 outlets which had no path to
ground.
b.Kitchen - There were 2 outlets, one of which the refrigerator
was plugged into, which were unapproved 3 gang strip outlets
having no path to ground.
c.Rear 1st floor bedroom - There were 2 outlets with no path to
ground.
d.Rear 1st floor bedroom - There was an outlet on the south wall
which was pulled out from the wall, exposing live parts and
wires.
e.Basement - There were two fuse boxes both with open blanks,
exposing live parts.
f.Basement - There was an unapproved, ungrounded outlet screwed
into the ceiling light.
g.Southwest 1st floor bedroom - There were 2 outlets with no
path to ground.
h.Front bedroom - There were 3 outlets with no path to ground.
i.Stairway - The light switch at the bottom of the stairs had no
path to ground.
j.Bedroom at top of the stairs - The outlet on the north wall
had no path to ground.
k.# 2 2nd floor bedroom - There were two outlets which had no
path to ground.
l.# 2 2nd floor bedroom - In the closet there was an exposed
live wire in the ceiling, 6'8" from the floor.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Front Porch - The wall light was pulled out of the wall,
exposing live wires and parts.
b.Living room - There were three outlets which had no path to
ground.
c.Front 1st floor bedroom - There were four outlets which had no
path to ground.
d.Kitchen - The two counter top outlets near the sink were not
GFCI type and had no path to ground.
e.Kitchen - The outlet behind the refrigerator had no path to
ground, was pulled out from the wall and had no cover.
f.Kitchen - The east wall outlet had no path to ground.
g.Northeast 1st floor bedroom - There were two outlets which had
no path to ground.
h.Northeast 1st floor bedroom - A lamp and a clock were
improperly spliced into one cord.
i.Bathroom - There were two light bulbs missing from the fixture
over the sink.
j.Northwest 2nd floor bedroom - There were two outlets with no
path to ground.
k.Northwest 2nd floor bedroom - There were exposed live wires in
the ceiling in the closet.
l.Southwest 2nd floor bedroom - There were three outlets which
had no path to ground.
m.West 2nd floor bedroom - There were three outlets with no path
to ground.
n.Basement - The sump pump was plugged into an outlet that had
no path to ground.
o.Basement - There were exposed live wires on the furnace
thermostat.
p.Basement - The access panel was off the hot water heater,
exposing live parts.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a. Living room - There were three outlets which had no path to
ground.
b.Dining room - There were two outlets which had no path to
ground, one of which was pulled out from the wall exposing
live wires and parts.
c.Kitchen - There were three outlets which had no path to ground
and an ungrounded light above the sink.
d.Basement - There was a knockout missing from the fuse box.
e.Northwest 2nd floor bedroom - There was an outlet on the west
wall which had no path to ground.
f.Northwest 2nd floor bedroom - There was an outlet on the south
wall which was pulled out of the wall exposing live parts and
wires.
g.Northeast 2nd floor bedroom - There was an outlet on the north
wall which had no path to ground.
h.Southwest 2nd floor bedroom - There was an outlet on the west
wall which had no path to ground.
i.Attic - There were two live outlets with no covers.
j. Bathroom - There was no cover on the light over the sink and
the outlet had no path to ground.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Dining room - There was an outlet which had no path to ground.
b.Living room/bedroom - There were two outlets which had no path
to ground, and an ungrounded light fixture which had no light
bulb in the closet.
c.Kitchen - The counter top outlets were not GFCI's, and the
outlet the refrigerator was plugged into and the outlet near
the back door had no path to ground.
d. Bathroom - The light above the sink was missing a light bulb.
e.Basement - There was unapproved temporary wiring used as the
fixed wiring of a structure plugged into an outlet which had
no path to ground.
f.Basement - There were exposed live wires in a junction box in
the floor joists.
g.Basement - There was an extension cord, which had no path to
ground, wired into an old Square D fuse box.
h.Basement - The outlet for the sump pump was not secured to the
wall, it did not have a path to ground, and the polarity was
reversed.
i.North 2nd floor bedroom - There were three outlets which did
not have a path to ground.
j.East bedroom - There were two outlets which had no path to
ground.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000

Emphasis program

X

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Kitchen - The ceiling light fixture was missing all light
bulbs, had exposed live wiring and there was no path to
ground. The fixture was 73.5 inches from the floor.
b.Kitchen - The two electrical outlets, on both sides of the
sink, were not covered, exposing live parts.
c.Hallway to basement - The ceiling light fixture was missing
one light bulb, was pulled from the ceiling and had no cover,
exposing live wires and parts. Fixture was 7 feet from the
floor.
d.Basement - There were exposed live wires coming out of wall
holes on both sides of the fireplace on the south wall.
e.Front Hall - The light switch had no cover, exposing live
wires and parts.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide electrical installations which are in compliance with the
National Electrical Code.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Emphasis program

X

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $65,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Feed Mill - On the catwalk going across the top of the grain
bins there were no guard rails to prevent a fall of
approximately 100 feet for employees who had to step over a
guide wire and over to a platform above the first grain bin
while walking on the catwalk.
b.Feed Mill - On the catwalk (just outside the east door at the
top of the elevator) the railing beside the steps leading
north used to access the catwalk across the grain bins was
inadequate in that it did not extend out far enough to protect
against a fall of approximately 100 feet.  There was a 29 1/2
inch space at the beginning of the stairs where employees
could fall over the edge.
c.Feed Mill - On the catwalk leading to the top of Wet Bin #1
there were no midrails to protect employees from a fall hazard
of approximately 60 feet.
d.Feed Mill - At the west end of the catwalk leading to a vessel
in the Head House the were no guard rails for the 37 inch and
27 inch openings between the end of the catwalk and the
vessel.  Employees were exposed to a fall hazard of
approximately 20 feet.
e.Feed Mill - In the Head House there were unguarded floor
openings on the platform above the Finish Feed Cleaner.
Employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 20
feet.
f.Feed Mill - On the west wall of the Head House the 27 feet
high fixed ladder that employees used to access the Air Lock
Vessel did not have a cage for fall protection.
g.Layer 4, Barn 52 - On or about 3/4/97 bird movers were exposed
to a fall hazard of approximately 8 feet while loading and
unloading carts of chickens onto a truck at the back end of
the barn across an inadequately guarded platform.
h.Pullet 2, Barn 6 - On or about 3/4/97 bird movers were exposed
to a fall hazard of approximately 8 feet while loading and
unloading carts of chickens onto a truck at the front end of
the barn across an inadequately guarded platform.
i.Pullet 2, Barn 8 - On or about 3/12/97 bird movers were
exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 8 feet while loading
and unloading carts of chickens onto a truck at the front end
of the barn across an inadequately guarded platform.
j.There was a gap of 20 inches at the opening to the barn at
House 8 where the chicken pullers unloaded carts to load
chickens into the carts.
k.The distance from the centerline of the rungs to the nearest
permanent object in back of the ladder was less than seven
inches at Layer Site 1, Barns 2 through 14, where a fixed
ladder was used to gain access to the manure pit, in that the
distance from the centerline of the rungs to the wall was 2
1/4 to 5 3/4 inches.
l.The distance from the centerline of the rungs to the nearest
permanent object in back of the ladder was less than seven
inches at Layer Site 2, Barns 15 through 28, where a fixed
ladder was used to gain access to the manure pit, in that the
distance from the centerline of the rungs to the wall was 2
1/4 to 5 3/4 inches.
m.The distance from the centerline of the rungs to the nearest
permanent object in back of the ladder was less than seven
inches at Layer Site 3, Barns 29 through 42, where a fixed
ladder was used to gain access to the manure pit, in that the
distance from the centerline of the rungs to the wall was 2
1/4 to 5 3/4 inches.
n.The distance from the centerline of the rungs to the nearest
permanent object in back of the ladder was less than seven
inches at Layer Site 4, Barns 43 through 56, where a fixed
ladder was used to gain access to the manure pit, in that the
distance from the centerline of the rungs to the wall was 2
1/4 to 5 3/4 inches.
o.At Layer Site 1, Barns 1 through 14, the fixed ladder used to
gain access to the manure pit was unsafe in that the rail at
the top was only 25 or 37 inches high.
p.At Layer Site 2, Barns 15 through 28, the fixed ladder used to
gain access to the manure pit was unsafe in that the rail at
the top was only 25 or 37 inches high.
q.At Layer Site 2, Barns 29 through 42, the fixed ladder used to
gain access to the manure pit was unsafe in that the rail at
the top was only 25 to 37 inches high.
r.At Layer Site 4, Barns 43 through 56, the fixed ladder used to
gain access to the manure pit was unsafe in that the rail at
the top was only 37 inches high.
s.The stairs to the  barns in the Layer 1 Egg Processing Area
were unsafe in that there was no guardrail on the side closest
to the conveyor.
t. The stairs to the  barns in the Layer 2 Egg Processing Area
were unsafe in that there was no guardrail on the side closest
to the conveyor.
u.The stairs to the  barns in the Layer 3 Egg Processing Area
were unsafe in that there was no guardrail on the side closest
to the conveyor.
v. The stairs to the  barns in the Layer 4 Egg Processing Area
were unsafe in that there was no guardrail on the side closest
to the conveyor.
w.The steps outside the Layer 1 Egg Processing Area exit which
lead to the parking lot were unsafe in that they had no
midrail.
x.The steps outside the Layer 2 Egg Processing Area exit which
lead to the parking lot were unsafe in that they had no
midrail.
y. The steps outside the Layer 3 Egg Processing Area exit which
lead to the parking lot were unsafe in that they had no
midrail.
z. The steps outside the Layer 4 Egg Processing Area exit which
lead to the parking lot were unsafe in that they had no
midrail.
aa. At Pullet Site 2, Barns 6 through 11, the steps from the lower
to the upper level in front of the barns were unsafe in that
they had no midrail.
bb.At Pullet Site 2, Barns 6 through 11, the steps from the lower
to upper level at the east end of the barn were unsafe in that
they had no midrail.
cc. The stairs to the  barns in the Layer 2 Egg Processing Area
were unsafe in that the last step descending on the stairs to
the barns was up to 2 1/2 inches greater rise than the rest of
the steps.
dd. The stairs to the in the Layer 3 Egg Processing Area were
unsafe in that the last step descending on the stairs to the
barns was up to 2 1/2 inches greater rise than the rest of the
steps.
ee.The stairs to the  barns in the Layer 4 Egg Processing Area
were unsafe in that the last step descending on the stairs to
the barns was up to 2 1/2 inches greater rise than the rest of
the steps.
ff.Throughout all the pullet barns and all the layer barns, in
the attics the employees were exposed to falls through theceiling to the
bird rack level in that there were no safe
walking/working surfaces in the attics.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
provide and install guard rails, ladders, stairs and surfaces that
are in compliance with the American National Standards Institute.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $65,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:
The employer did not furnish employmnent 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:
a.Layer 1, Barns 1 through 14 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
b.Layer 2, Barns 15 through 28 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
c.Layer 3, Barn 29 through 43 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
d.Layer 4, Barn 43 through 56 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
e.Pullet 1, Barn 1 through 5 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
f.Pullet 2, Barn 6 through 11 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
g.Pullet 3, Barn 12 through 16 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barn on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
h.Pullet 4, Barn 17 through 21 - There were no safe exits at the
far end of the barns on the chicken rack level which was eight
feet above the ground.
i.Breeder/Hatchery, Barn 1 through 5 - There were no safe exits
at the far ends of the barns on the chicken level which was
eight feet above the ground.
j.Breeder/Pullet, Barn 1 and 2 - There were no safe exits at the
far ends of the barns on the second floor level.
k.At the feed mill there were no emergency lighting or lighted
exit signs in the facility.
l.In the Farm Division Warehouse, the exit at the north end of
the warehouse was locked from the inside and was partially
blocked.
m.On the wall in the Dry Storage or Receiving Area from the Egg
Processing Room at Layer 1, the fire extinguisher was
obstructed by a trash can.
Among other methods, one feasible means of abatement would be to
install a man door and stairway to the exterior.
Abatement certification and documentation are required.tion

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Oct 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $40,000 · Current $35,000 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Oct 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $55,000 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $55,000 · Current $36,250 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $70,000 · Current $55,000 Reduced

Issued

Aug 18, 1997

Abate by

Sep 1, 1998

Penalty

Initial $1,000