OSHA Inspection: WEST PLAINS LLC

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):     Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:(a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION(S) AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY)    The employer failed to protect employees from potential chemical exposure hazards associated with employees using chemicals without wearing the appropriate personnel protective equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has an employee handling diesel fuel to fill the track mobile used to move the rail cars up and down the tracks running parallel to the grain elevator; without having been provided the personnel protective equipment or the guidance on usage of personnel protective equipment while performing this task.  Instances include but are not limited to:     i.  Lack of eye or face protection, the employer has never directed the use of any, the job hazard assessments provided by the employer do not address fueling vehicles; the only face shield available was worn to the point that you could not see through it safely.    ii.  The employer has three retractable lanyards installed on the overhead fall protection system, two of which are out of reach of the access platform and require the employee to climb the car ladder and stand unprotected on the top of the rail car as they pull the retractable towards themselves.    iii. The employer has three retractable lanyards installed on the overhead fall protection system, one of which is tied off to the railing on the access platform and had so much residual grain dust on it that touching it released a cloud of grain dust, demonstrating the lack of use considering that there were employees loading rail cars the day prior.      iv. Lack of proper hand protection, the employer has never directed the use of any the job hazard assessments provided by the employer do not address fueling vehicles; the employee wears the leather gloves the employer has provided for daily work throughout the facility, there were no nitrile, neoprene or PVC gloves available as recommended by the MSDS for diesel fuel, near the fuel point.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Apr 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):     The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE):(a)(LOCATION)(IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION(S) AND/OR CONDITIONS)(DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY)    The employer failed to conduct an adequate and effective assessment of the workplace to determine the personnel protective equipment necessary to safely perform every task throughout the facility.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees conducting various tasks associated with handling grain using a corporate generated personnel protective equipment program with a sample hazard assessment done in 2007 from the Bennett facility instead of having conducted a site specific hazard assessment for Omaha, by position and task.   Instances include but are not limited to:     i.   Lack of eye or face protection, the employer has never directed the use of any, the job hazard assessments provided by the employer do not address fueling vehicles; the only face shield available was worn to the point that you could not see through it safely.    ii.  Lack of proper hand protection, the employer has never directed the use of any the job hazard assessments provided by the employer do not address fueling vehicles; the employee wears the leather gloves the employer has provided for daily work throughout the facility, there were no nitrile, neoprene or PVC gloves available as recommended by the MSDS for diesel fuel, near the fuel point.    iii.  Lack of written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.     iv.  Lack of use of installed fall protection attributed to two of the retractable lanyards installed are out of reach of the access platform and require the employee to climb the car ladder and stand unprotected on the top of the rail car as they pull the retractable towards themselves.    v.  Lack of use of the installed fall protection demonstrated in that one of the retractable syttems is tied off to the railing on the access platform and had so much residual grain dust on it that touching it released a cloud of grain dust, further demonstrating the lack of use considering that there were employees loading rail cars the day prior.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(5)(ii)(C):     Employees entered into permit spaces that met the conditions set forth in 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(5)(i) but before an employee entered the space, the internal atmosphere was not tested with a calibrated direct-reading instrument(a)(LOCATION)(SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS)    The employer failed to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with lack of atmospheric testing during permit required confined space entry.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees conducting entry into permit required confined spaces without having met the requirements of this subpart.  Instances include but are not limited to:       i.   On September 20, 2012 the employer had employees conduct entry into the North Receiver Pit (dump pit), a predetermined permit required confined space; the employers permit states air test was 20% and was unable to explain why it varied from the normal air test for the area of 20.9%.    ii.  On September 20, 2012 the employer had employees conduct entry into the North Receiver Pit (boot pit), air testing was done using a Drager X-am 5000 and a Drager PAC 7000 neither of which the employer could verify have been calibrated in over a year and latest bump tests were at least 6 months ago.    iii. On September 20, 2012 the employer had employees conduct entry into the North Receiver Pit (boot pit), where the entrants were not notified of the results of any pre-entry testing done by the employer.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(g)(1)(iii):     The atmosphere within a bin, silo, or tank in the grain handling facility was not tested for oxygen content prior to employee entry:(a)(LOCATION)(IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS AND THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EXPOSED) (DESCRIBE CONDITIONS INCLUDING EXPOSURE LEVELS, SAMPLING PERIOD AND ANY PERIOD ASSUMED AS ZERO, SHIFT, AND DATE)    The employer failed to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with lack of adequate and effective atmospheric testing during permit required grain bin entry.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees conducting entry into permit required grain bins without having met the requirements of this subpart.  Instances include but are not limited to:       i.  On September 25, 2012 the employer had employees conduct entry into Bin 5, a predetermined permit required grain bin:     a.  The employers permit states air test was 20.2% and was unable to explain why it varied from the normal air test for the area of 20.9%.    b.  Air testing was done using a Drager X-am 5000 and/or a Drager PAC 7000 neither of which the employer could verify have been calibrated in over a year and latest bump tests were at least 6 months ago.    c.  Where the entrants were not notified of the results of any pre-entry testing done by the employer.    d.  Entry into Bin 5 from above going down on a boatswain chair 32 without testing the air quality at all levels, air test done at entry point only.    ii. On September 26, 2012 the employer had employees conduct entry into Bin 5, a predetermined permit required grain bin:     a.  The employers permit does not identify what the oxygen level was during the test.    b.  Air testing was done using a Drager X-am 5000 and/or a Drager PAC 7000 neither of which the employer could verify have been calibrated in over a year and latest bump tests were at least 6 months ago.    c.  Where the entrants were not notified of the results of any pre-entry testing done by the employer.    d.  Entry into Bin 5 from above going down on a boatswain chair 32 without testing the air quality at all levels, air test done at entry point only.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(k)(3)(i):     Each authorized entrant did not use a chest or full body harness, with a retrieval line attached at the center of the entrant's back near shoulder level, or above the entrant's head:(a)(LOCATION)(SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS)NOTE: Wristlets may be used in lieu of the chest or full body harness if the employer can demonstrate that the use of a chest or full body harness is infeasible or creates a greater hazard and that the use of wristlets is the safest and most effective alt    The employer failed to protect employees from potential emergency egress hazards associated with employees conducting permit required confined space entry without a body harness and retrieval line hooked up.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees conducting entry into permit required confined spaces without wearing a body harness and having a retrieval line connected.   Instances include but are not limited to:       i.   On September 20, 2012 the employer had employees conduct entry into the North Receiver Pit (dump pit), a predetermined permit required confined space; the employee was not equipped with a body harness or a retrieval line attached.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,150 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) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION(S) AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY)    The employer failed to protect employees from potential amputation hazards associated with employees operating and working around unguarded belts and pulleys.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the shipping tunnel area of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees handling grain and cleaning the facility within a foot of the inadequately guarded south receiving belt pulley(s), thus exposing them to the potential in going nip points of the belt and pulley.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

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) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY SPECIFIC OPERATION(S) AND/OR CONDITIONS) (DESCRIBE HAZARD(S) WHERE NECESSARY)Note:  If both runs were 42 inches or less, use Option 2.    The employer failed to protect employees from potential amputation hazards associated with employees operating and working around unguarded belts and pulleys.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the shipping tunnel area of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees handling grain and cleaning the facility within a foot of the inadequately guarded south receiving belt, thus exposing them to the potential in going nip points of the belt and pulley.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Mar 22, 2013

Penalty

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

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.305(b)(1)(ii):     Unused openings in boxes, cabinets, or fittings were not effectively closed:(a) (LOCATION) (IDENTIFY EQUIPMENT AND CONDITION(S)) (STATE HAZARD(S) TO EMPLOYEE(S))    The employer failed to protect employees from potential electrical hazards associated with employees accessing electrical panel boxes with unused openings.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees accessing the electrical panel box with unused openings as part of their lockout and tag out program/procedures.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.  Employees accessing 120v electrical panel box near the far door to turn off the power to the pumps in the boot pit as they conducted a confined space entry on 9/20/12; the front panel is unsecure from the box leaving a gap around the outside of the box.    ii.  Employees accessing 120v electrical panel box near the far door to turn off the power to the pumps in the boot pit as they conducted a confined space entry on 9/20/12; there is a circuit breaker missing and no blank adapter installed.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Apr 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(a):     The employer did not use an OSHA 300, 301 and 300A Form or equivalent.    Abatement Certification and Documentation is required    The employer failed to maintain a summary of work related injuries as required in this subpart.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has more than 10 employees corporate wide and failed to maintain the annual summary forms for 2010 and 2011.

Issued

Mar 4, 2013

Abate by

Apr 6, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i):     Respirator users were not provided with the information contained in Appendix D to 29 CFR 1910.134 when the employer determined that any voluntary respirator use was permissible:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential respiratory hazards associated with wearing a respirator in a voluntary status without having been briefed in accordance with Appendix D of this subpart.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1230 Ohio Street, Omaha, NE 68110, where the employer has employees wearing company provided 3M N95 NIOSH approved respirators (dust masks), on a voluntary status as a means of protection against nuisance dust without having briefed those employees on the hazards associated with wearing a respirator, proper usage, storing and maintenance of the respirator as well as ensuring they keep accountability of their respirator and dont wear anyone elses respirator.