OSHA Inspection: MAINE CONTRACT FARMING, LLC

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 30, 1999

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

Hazardous substances 0170

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 from the lack of engineering controls
to reduce employees
exposures to ammonia:
In the following instances, the employer failed to institute engineering
controls to reduce
employees exposures to ammonia when employees performing the job tasks
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 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH
1983-1984).
a)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees measured eight hour time weighted average (8 hr. TWA) was equal
to 41 ppm for the 428 minute sampling period. The employees exposure was
1.6
times the TLV.
b)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees measured eight hour time weighted average (8 hr. TWA) was equal
to 47 ppm for the 451 minute sampling period. The employees exposure was
1.9
times the TLV.
c)Plant #4 Barns, (12/29/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees measured eight hour time weighted average (8 hr. TWA) was equal
to 35 ppm for the 415 minute sampling period. The employees exposure was
1.4
times the TLV.
d)Plant #4 Barns, (12/29/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 547 minute sampling period and was equal to 43 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.7 times the TLV.
e)Plant #3 Barns, (1/6/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 529 minute sampling period and was equal to 35 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.4 times the TLV.
f)Plant #3 Barns, (1/6/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 509 minute sampling period and was equal to 51 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 2 times the TLV.
g)Plant #3 Barns, (1/6/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)for the 554 minute sampling period and was equal to 39 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.5 times the TLV.
h)Plant #2 Barns, (1/7/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 539 minute sampling period and was equal to 42 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.7 times the TLV.
i)Plant #2 Barns, (1/7/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 534 minute sampling period and was equal to 40 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.6 times the TLV.
Instantaneous colorimetric readings indicated that the ACGIH (1983-1984)
Short Term
Exposure Limit (STEL) of 35 ppm may be regularly exceeded. Instantaneous
readings
in excess of the STEL included;
DateTimeReadingLocation
12/10/982:30 p.m.60 ppmMiddle of Barn 80
12/10/982:38 p.m.80 ppmMiddle of Barn 81
12/10/982:50 p.m.45 ppmMiddle of Barn 85
12/10/983:00 p.m.85 ppmMiddle of Barn 84
12/10/983:05 p.m.50 ppmMiddle of Barn 86
12/17/983:05 p.m.60 ppmMiddle of Barn 85
12/18/989:05 a.m.50 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 84, adjacent to
Barnman
12/18/989:14 a.m.50 ppmNorth corner, end of Barn 85, adjacent to
Barnman
12/18/9810:33 a.m.60 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 86, adjacent to
Barnman
12/18/983:00 p.m.75 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 84, adjacent to
Barnman
12/29/988:33 a.m.50 ppmNear end of Barn 43, east wall, adjacent to
Barnman
12/29/988:55 a.m.100 ppmMiddle of Barn 47
12/29/9811:10 a.m.50 ppmCorridor adjacent to Tool Room, between
Barns 42-43 and 44-45
12/29/9811:17 a.m.50 ppmMiddle of Barn 40
12/29/9811:30 a.m.60 ppmMiddle of Barn 41
1/6/998:53 a.m.45 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 341/7/998:35 a.m.70
ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 22
1/7/998:57 a.m.50 ppmMiddle of Barn 25
1/7/999:12 a.m.40 ppmMiddle of Barn 27
Abatement Note:
Among other methods, some feasible and acceptable methods to reduce or
eliminate employee
exposure include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1.Frequent cleanout of deep pit barns (ex. between each flock - every
approximately 60 weeks)
2. Improved ventilation in deep pit barns. This may include increasing
ventilation
rates, moving
exhaust fans from cage level to pit level, arrange for closure of "gaps"
below chicken cages and
design for make-up air from one side of the pit to push/pull air across
the pit and out opposite
side, close doors between barns to allow more efficient operation of barn
exhaust fans.
3. Application treatments to manure in pit that include peat, vermiculite,
or alum.

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 30, 1999

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000

Hazardous substances 8110

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 permanent hearing loss due to lack of institution of
engineering controls to
reduce employees exposure to noise:
In the following instances, when employee exposure to noise exceeded the
OSHA PEL
(Permissible Exposure Limit) of 90 decibels as an eight hour time weighted
average,
the
employer failed to institute engineering controls to reduce employees
exposures.
a)Barn #55, (12/21/98) - Wash Crew employee performing cleaning power
washing
of barn using high pressure water for 300 minutes was exposed to excessive
noise
levels. The employees measured eight hour time weighted average exposure (8
hr. TWA) was equal to 93.7 dbA.
b)Barn #55, (12/21/98) - Wash Crew employee performing cleaning power
washing
of barn using high pressure water for 300 minutes was exposed to excessive
noise
levels. The employees measured eight hour time weighted average exposure (8
hr. TWA) was equal to 92.5 dbA.
Abatement Note:
Among other methods, some feasible and acceptable methods to reduce or
eliminate employee
exposure include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Design/purchase a water nozzle that reduces pressure at the end of the
nozzle that reduces
sound levels.
2. Reduce water pressure.

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 5, 1999

Penalty

Initial $3,500 · Current $3,500

Hazardous substances 8110

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 permanent hearing loss due to lack of annual audiometric
examinations:
At the establishment - In the following instances, the employees listed
below were not
provided annual audiometric examinations when such employees have
occupational
exposure to noise above 85 decibels averaged over their normal work shift.
a)1/5/99 -The employer failed to provide an annual audiogram for an
employee on
the Sanitation Crew with occupational noise exposure above 85 decibels (8
hr.
TWA). The employees baseline audiogram was provided on June 10, 1997 with
a second audiogram not provided until December 21, 1998.
b)1/5/99 -The employer failed to provide an annual audiogram for an
employee on
the Sanitation Crew with occupational noise exposure above 85 decibels (8
hr.
TWA). The employees baseline audiogram was provided on June 10, 1997 with
a second audiogram not provided until December 21, 1998.
c)1/5/99 - The employer failed to provide an annual audiogram for an
employee on
the Cleaning Crew with occupational noise exposure above 85 decibels (8 hr.
TWA). The employees baseline audiogram was provided on June 10, 1997 with
no subsequent annual audiogram provided.
Abatement Note:
Employer must provide audiological examinations on an annual basis for
those employees with
occupational exposure to noise in excess of 85 decibels averaged over an
eight hour time period.

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 5, 1999

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,500

Hazardous substances 8110

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 permanent hearing loss due to lack of provision of
training on effects of noise,
hearing loss, and use of hearing protectors:
At the establishment - In the following instances, the employees listed
below were not
provided training on the effects of noise, hearing loss, and the use of
hearing protectors
when such employees have occupational exposure to noise above 85 decibels
averaged
over and eight hour time period.
a)1/5/99 -The employer failed to provide training to an employee on the
Wash
Crew with occupational noise exposure above 85 decibels as an 8 hr. TWA.
b)1/5/99 -The employer failed to provide training to an employee on the
Cleaning
Crew with occupational noise exposure above 85 decibels as an 8 hr. TWA.
c)1/5/99 -The employer failed to provide training to an employee on the
Cleaning
Crew with occupational noise exposure above 85 decibels as an 8 hr. TWA.
Abatement Note:
Provide training on the effects of noise and hearing loss and the use of
hearing protectors to
those employees with occupational exposure to noise exceeding 85 decibels
as an eight hour
time-weighted average (8 hour TWA).

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Penalty

Initial $1,500 · Current $1,500

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 the hazard of communicable diseases associated with
exposure to Tetanus,
Salmonella and Hepatitis A in that provided shower facilities were not
used by employees in the
following instances:
At the establishment - December, 1998 - Employee interviews with one
member
of the
Sanitation Crew, two members of the Wash Crew, and two members of the
Cleaning Crew who
have regular contact with fecal matter in poultry confinement houses,
indicated that they do not
use the locker and shower facility.
Abatement Note:
Provide heated shower facility with adequate supply of towels and
assure/enforce the use of these
facilities by work crews at the end of their work shift.

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 30, 1999

Penalty

Initial $25,000 · Current $5,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 0170

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 from overexposures to ammonia:
In the following instances, employees performing the job tasks 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
American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH 1983-1984).
a)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees measured eight hour time weighted average (8 hr. TWA) was equal
to 41 ppm for the 428 minute sampling period. The employees exposure was
1.6
times the TLV.
b)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees measured eight hour time weighted average (8 hr. TWA) was equal
to 47 ppm for the 451 minute sampling period. The employees exposure was
1.9
times the TLV.
c)Plant #4 Barns, (12/29/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees measured eight hour time weighted average (8 hr. TWA) was equal
to 35 ppm for the 415 minute sampling period. The employees exposure was
1.4
times the TLV.
d)Plant #4 Barns, (12/29/98) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance
in poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.
The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 547 minute sampling period and was equal to 43 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.7 times the TLV.
e)Plant #3 Barns, (1/6/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 529 minute sampling period and was equal to 35 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.4 times the TLV.
f)Plant #3 Barns, (1/6/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 509 minute sampling period and was equal to 51 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 2 times the TLV.
g)Plant #3 Barns, (1/6/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 554 minute sampling period and was equal to 39 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.5 times the TLV.h)Plant #2 Barns, (1/7/99) - Barn crew
employee performing daily maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 539 minute sampling period and was equal to 42 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.7 times the TLV.
i)Plant #2 Barns, (1/7/99) - Barn crew employee performing daily
maintenance in
poultry confinement houses was exposed to elevated levels of ammonia.  The
employees exposure exceeded the eight hour time weighted average (8 hr.
TWA)
for the 534 minute sampling period and was equal to 40 ppm.  Employee
exposure was 1.6 times the TLV.
Instantaneous colorimetric readings indicated that the ACGIH (1983-1984)
Short Term
Exposure Limit (STEL) of 35 ppm may be regularly exceeded. Instantaneous
readings
in excess of the STEL included;
DateTimeReadingLocation
12/10/982:30 p.m.60 ppmMiddle of Barn 80
12/10/982:38 p.m.80 ppmMiddle of Barn 81
12/10/982:50 p.m.45 ppmMiddle of Barn 85
12/10/983:00 p.m.85 ppmMiddle of Barn 84
12/10/983:05 p.m.50 ppmMiddle of Barn 86
12/17/983:05 p.m.60 ppmMiddle of Barn 85
12/18/989:05 a.m.50 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 84, adjacent to
Barnman
12/18/989:14 a.m.50 ppmNorth corner, end of Barn 85, adjacent to
Barnman
12/18/9810:33 a.m.60 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 86, adjacent to
Barnman
12/18/983:00 p.m.75 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 84, adjacent to
Barnman
12/29/988:33 a.m.50 ppmNear end of Barn 43, east wall, adjacent to
Barnman
12/29/988:55 a.m.100 ppmMiddle of Barn 47
12/29/9811:10 a.m.50 ppmCorridor adjacent to Tool Room, between
Barns 42-43 and 44-45
12/29/9811:17 a.m.50 ppmMiddle of Barn 40
12/29/9811:30 a.m.60 ppmMiddle of Barn 41
1/6/998:53 a.m.45 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 34
1/7/998:35 a.m.70 ppmEgg conveyor aisleway, Barn 221/7/998:57 a.m.50
ppmMiddle of Barn 25
1/7/999:12 a.m.40 ppmMiddle of Barn 27
DECOSTER EGG FARMS AND ITS SUCCESSORS WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS
EQUIVALENT STANDARD, SECTION 5(A)(1), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA
INSPECTION NUMBER 122375512, CITATION NUMBER 2, ITEM 79A, ISSUED ON
07/12/96, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED IN TURNER, MAINE.,

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 3, 1999

Penalty

Initial $25,000 · Current $5,000 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

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 permanent hearing loss due to exposure to elevated noise
levels:
At the establishment - Employees were subject to permanent hearing loss
due to exposure
to noise levels exceeding the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90
decibels measured
in the A range (8 hr. TWA) and Action Level of 85 decibels measured in the
A range
(8 hr. TWA) as established by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
(OSHA). 90 decibels measured in the A range in the maximum allowable dose
(100%)
allowed over an 8 hour workday as established by OSHA.
For any sampling period listed below less than 480 minutes (8 hours), the
calculation
of
the TWA assumes zero exposure for the balance of the time unsampled.
In the following instances, employees were exposed to noise exceeding the
PEL:
a)Barn #55, (12/21/98) - Wash Crew employee performing cleaning power
washing
of barn using high pressure water for 300 minutes was exposed to excessive
noise
levels. The employees measured eight hour time weighted average exposure (8
hr. TWA) was equal to 93.7 dbA.
b)Barn #55, (12/21/98) - Wash Crew employee performing cleaning power
washing
of barn using high pressure water for 300 minutes was exposed to excessive
noise
levels. The employees measured eight hour time weighted average exposure (8
hr. TWA) was equal to 92.5 dbA.
DECOSTER EGG FARMS AND ITS SUCCESSORS WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS
EQUIVALENT STANDARD, SECTION 5(A)(1), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA
INSPECTION NUMBER 122375512, CITATION NUMBER 2, ITEM 81, ISSUED ON
07/12/96, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED IN TURNER, MAINE.,

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 5, 1999

Penalty

Initial $17,500 · Current $6,000 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 lack of training and
fitting of respirators, and
lack of medical determination prior to respirator use:
At the establishment - During the inspection, when respiratory protection
was required
to protect the health of employees, it was determined that employees
performing the job
tasks listed below had not received respirator fitting.
a)Plant #2 Barns, (12/10/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
a fit test when wearing a half-mask, negative pressure respirator.
b)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
a fit test when wearing a half-mask, negative pressure respirator.
c)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
d)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
e)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
f)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
g)(1/5/99) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on cages in
poultry
confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear respiratory
protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
At the establishment - During the inspection, when respiratory protection
was required
to protect the health of employees, it was determined that employees
performing the job
tasks listed below had not received medical surveillance prior to
respirator use.
h)Plant #2 Barns, (12/10/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
medical surveillance prior to wearing a half-mask, negative pressure
respirator.i)Plant
#8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
medical surveillance prior to wearing a half-mask, negative pressure
respirator.
j)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
k)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
l)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
m)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
n)(1/5/99) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on cages in
poultry
confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear respiratory
protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
At the establishment - During the inspection, when respiratory protection
was required
to protect the health of employees, it was determined that employees
performing the job
tasks listed below had not received training that includes, but is not
limited to, fitting
instruction/demonstration and practice of wearing a respirator,
description of a particular
respirators use and limitations, inspection, storage and cleaning.
o)Plant #4 Barns, (12/3/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
training that includes, but is not limited to, fitting
instruction/demonstration and
practice of wearing a respirator, description of a particular respirators
use and
limitations, inspection, storage and cleaning when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
p)Plant #3 Barns, (12/10/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
training that includes, but is not limited to, fitting
instruction/demonstration and
practice of wearing a respirator, description of a particular respirators
use and
limitations, inspection, storage and cleaning when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
q)Plant #3 Barns, (12/10/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
training that includes, but is not limited to, fitting
instruction/demonstration and
practice of wearing a respirator, description of a particular respirators
use andlimitations, inspection, storage and cleaning when wearing a
half-mask, negative
pressure respirator.
r)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
training that includes, but is not limited to, fitting
instruction/demonstration and
practice of wearing a respirator, description of a particular respirators
use and
limitations, inspection, storage and cleaning when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
s)Plant #8 Barns, (12/18/98) - Barnman performing daily maintenance in
poultry
confinement houses required to wear respiratory protection had not been
provided
training that includes, but is not limited to, fitting
instruction/demonstration and
practice of wearing a respirator, description of a particular respirators
use and
limitations, inspection, storage and cleaning when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
t)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
u)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
v)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
w)Barn 46, (12/29/98) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on
cages
in poultry confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear
respiratory protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a
half-mask,
negative pressure respirator.
x)(1/5/99) - Rail/Cage Crew employee who performs repairs on cages in
poultry
confinement houses for eight hours per day and required to wear respiratory
protection had not been provided a fit test when wearing a half-mask,
negative
pressure respirator.
DECOSTER EGG FARMS AND ITS SUCCESSORS WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS
EQUIVALENT STANDARD, SECTION 5(A)(1), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA
INSPECTION NUMBER 122375512, CITATION NUMBER 2, ITEM 79B, ISSUED ON
07/12/96, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED IN TURNER, MAINE.

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

Penalty

Initial $10,000 · Current $6,000 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 chemical hazards/burns to the eyes, face, and hands:
a)Hatchery Stock Room (12/1/98) - Hatchery manager dispensed corrosive
Magna
Q 43 Brand disinfectant with a pH of 13 from 55 gallon drum into secondary
container (5 gallon jug) without eye protection and wore inappropriate hand
protection (vinyl surgical gloves).
b)Hatchery (12/1/98) - Hatchery employee carried an open secondary
container of
Magna Q 43 Brand disinfectant with a pH of 13 from Washroom to Break room
without wearing any personal protective equipment.
DECOSTER EGG FARMS AND ITS SUCCESSORS WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS
EQUIVALENT STANDARD, SECTION 5(A)(1), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA
INSPECTION NUMBER 122375512, CITATION NUMBER 2, ITEM 80B, ISSUED ON
07/12/96, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED IN TURNER, MAINE.

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 1, 1999

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 biological hazards, including salmonella, through hand
contact:
50's Barns (12/10/98) - Barn employee had not utilized hand protection
when installing
pit scraper cable clamps. The employee was installing the clamps under the
chicken
cages.
DECOSTER EGG FARMS AND ITS SUCCESSORS WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARD OR ITS
EQUIVALENT STANDARD, SECTION 5(A)(1), WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN OSHA
INSPECTION NUMBER 122375512, CITATION NUMBER 2, ITEM 80C, ISSUED ON
07/12/96, WITH RESPECT TO A WORKPLACE LOCATED IN TURNER, MAINE.,

Issued

May 28, 1999

Abate by

Jun 5, 1999

Penalty

Initial $12,500 · Current $6,000 Reduced