OSHA Inspection: WAGNER'S LLC

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Nov 21, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):  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 fall hazards and other serious injuries:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to hazards associated with the use of an unsafe manual personnel hoist in the east elevator due to the following:\r\n\r\n1.  The employer had not established a regular periodic inspection program for the hoist to ensure that it was in safe operating condition.  According to an inspection tag on the hoist, it was last inspected in 2007.\r\n\r\n2.  Employees were exposed to fall hazards while operating the hoist in that, the bars around the cage did not have a secure locking mechanism to keep the bars closed during operation.\r\n\r\nAbatement Note:  One feasible and acceptable method of abatement to correct this hazard would be to follow the requirements of ASME A17.1-2010 (Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators) with regard to inspection and maintenance of the personnel hoist.  Positive locking devices or other means should be installed on both cage bars to ensure that they do not open during operation.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $1,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): 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 hazards from vehiclular traffic:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to struck by hazards while operating forklifts in the street while transporting material between the north and south plants without traffic controls in place to protect operators.    Abatement Note:  One feasible and acceptable method of abatement would be to utilize another route between plants were operators would not be exposed to vehicluar traffic.  Another method would be to utilize controls to alert motorists to the operation of the forklfits in the street such as but not limited to signs, beacons, and use of spotters when exiting buildings onto the street.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $1,800 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1): Open-sided floor(s) or platform(s) 4 feet or more above the adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded by standard railings (or the equivalent as specified in 29 CFR 1910.23(e)(3)(i) through (v)), on all open sides:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to fall hazards in the following areas:\r\n\r\n1.  The bin access platform at the south plant did not have standard rails around the entire platform.\r\n\r\n2.  The access platform in the upstairs area of the south plant was missing a standard rail along one side of the platform.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.36(b)(1): At least two exit routes were not available in a workplace to permit prompt evacuation of employees and other building occupants during an emergency, except as allowed in paragraph (b)(3) of this section:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire hazards in that, there was only one means of egress from the head house of the west elevator.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Nov 21, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1):  A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:     a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards in that, the employer had not developed and implemented a respiratory protection program for the site when employees were required to use respirators during work activities including fumigation.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Nov 21, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employees ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were not provided with a medical evaluation prior to wearing tight-fitting respirators.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Nov 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d): Under the permit space program required by paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the employer did not ensure that the requirements of (d)(1) through (d)(14) were met:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, the employer had not developed and implemented an effective permit required confined space entry program where employees were entering permit spaces.  These spaces include boot pits located at the east and west elevators and north and south plants and enclosed semi trucks loaded with grain where employees were treating the grain with fumigant.  Deficiencies included, but are not necessarily limited to:    1.  The spaces were not effectively evaluated prior to allowing employees to enter them to assess all hazards present in the spaces and necessary precautions for safe entry.     2. Permits were not completed for every entry into the boot bits or semi trucks.    3.  Procedures for rescue were not developed.  No hoist or other means was available to remove an entrant from the boot pits of depths up to 30 ft.    4.  Lack of ventilation equipment.    5.  Employees were exposed to fall hazards of up to 30 ft while using a fixed ladder in the east elevator without a safety device, cage, or landings.    6.  Employees did not monitor the atmosphere prior to and during entry into the boot pits at the north and south plants.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Nov 3, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(g)(1): The employer did not provide training so that all employees whose work was regulated by 29 CFR 1910.146 (permit required confined spaces) acquired the understanding, knowledge, and skills necessary for the safe performance of the duties assigned under 29 CFR 1910.146:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees who were entering and performing work in permit spaces and acting as attendants were not effectively trained by the employer to afford them the knowledge, understanding and skills necessary to perform these duties in a safe manner.\r\n

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to amputations and other injuries in that augers located in grain hoppers in the upstairs area of the north plant were not guarded or covered.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(d)(1):  Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o):    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to injury in that, drive pulleys on a motors in the north plant were not completely enclosed.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 9, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.219(e)(1)(i): Horizontal belts which had both runs seven feet or less from the floor level were not guarded with a guard that extended to at least fifteen inches above the belt:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to injury in that, drive belts for motors in the north plant were not completely enclosed.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(j)(1): The employer did not develop and implement a written housekeeping program that established the frequency and the method(s) determined best to reduce accumulations of fugitive grain dust on ledges, floors, equipment, and other exposed surfaces:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, the employer had not effectievely implemented a housekeeping program to ensure that accumulations of grain dust and spills were regularly cleaned up.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(j)(2)(ii):  The employer did not immediately remove any fugitive grain dust accumulations whenever the exceeded 1/8 inch (.32cm) at priority housekeeping areas, pursuant to the housekeeping program for grain elevators:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to fire and explosion hazards where grain dust accumulations were not removed in the following areas:    1. The head house of the west elevator contained large accumulations of grain dust (up to 6 inches in depth) on floors and other surfaces.    2.  The cleaner area of the west elevator contained accumulations of dust on sills, around the perimeter of the floor and on equipment surfaces.    3.  The boot pits contained large accumulations of grain dust.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(m)(1)(i): Preventive maintenance procedures in the grain handling facility were not implemented to provide regularly scheduled inspections of the mechanical and safety control equipment associated with dryers, grain stream processing equipment, dust collection equipment including filter collectors, and bucket elevators:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, the employer had not implemented a preventative maintenance program to include regularly scheduled inspections of the bucket elevators at the site including documentation of such inspections.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(m)(1)(ii): Preventive maintenance procedures in the grain handling facility were not implemented to provide lubrication and other appropriate maintenance in accordance with manufacturers\\\' recommendations; or as determined necessary by prior operating records:\\r\\n\\r\\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, the employer had not implemented preventative maintenance procedures to ensure that lubrication and other appropriate maintenance was taking place.  Deficiencies noted include but are not necessarily limited to, lack of regular lubrication of bearings and lack of timely repair of leaks in grain handling systems.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 17, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv): Flexible cords and/ or cables were used for purposes prohibited by paragraphs (A) through (F) of 29 CFR 1910.305(g)(1)(iv):\\r\\n\\r\\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, flexible cords were used inappropriately as follows: \\r\\n\\r\\n1.  An extension cord was used to power the swamp cooler at the south plant where the cord was used as a substitute for fixed wiring by attaching it to the wall.  The cord was also run through a hole in the wall.\\r\\n\\r\\n2.  An extension cord was used to power the sprayers in the upstairs area of the south plant where it was attached to the ceiling.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Nov 21, 2011

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(j)(1)(i): Fixtures, lampholders, lamps, rosettes, and receptacles located within 8 feet of the floor had live parts exposed to employee contact:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical hazards in that:    1)  An electrical box in the upstairs area of the north plant near the controls was missing a cover, exposing live wires.  2)  An electrical box at the east elevator contained live wires spliced together that were not effectively covered.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $2,250 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.307(c): Equipment, wiring methods, and installations of equipment in hazardous (classified) locations were not intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location:\\r\\n\\r\\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to explosion and fire hazards where electrical installations in the cleaner area (west elevator) and receiving areas (east and west elevators) were not approved for Class II locations.  These areas were both subject to high concentrations of airborne dust during operations.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Sep 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $5,400 · Current $2,700 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(g)(2)(iii): Flexible cords and cables were not connected to devices and fittings so that strain relief was provided that would prevent pull from being directly transmitted to joints or terminal screws:\\\\\\\\r\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\r\\\\\\\\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, employees were exposed to electrical hazards in that, strain relief was not provided on a pendant outlet attached to a flexible cord where the fitting was detached from the outlet box.\\\\\\\\r\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\r\\\\\\\\n\\r\\n\\r\\nWagners, LLC was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard, or its equivalent 29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(ii) which was contained in OSHA inspection # 313715252 Citation 1 Item 5c, issued on January 6, 2010 and became a final order on January 26, 2010 with respect to a worksite located at 101 E. 4th St., Flagler, CO 80815.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through written certification that identified the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, identified the document as a certification of the hazard assessment:    a)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, the employer had not certified that the workplace hazard assessment had been completed.

Issued

Sep 9, 2011

Abate by

Oct 24, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i):  The employer did not conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirement of this standard were being followed:\r\n\r\na)  On or about August 1, 2011 and at times prior, the employer had not conducted a periodic inspection of their energy control procedure.\r\n\r\n