OSHA Inspection: DAWSON FEEDERS, INC.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2000.00 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:    The employer is failing to protect employees from potential fall hazards associated with employees using an unprotected personnel elevator.  The most recent example of this was found on the job site located at 4375 Road 758, Lexington, NE 68850 where the employer has employees accessing the top of the grain elevator more than 50 feet tall without having a door or gate on the personnel elevator exposing the employees to a fall more than 4.      Among other methods, feasible and acceptable methods of abatement are:      1.     The employer could install a door or gate on the personnel elevator to prevent employees from falling out.        2.     The employer could require employees to use fall restraint such as a fall arrest harness with a lanyard short enough to prevent an employee from falling out the opening.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $2000.00

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):    The employer failed to protect employees from hazards associated with employees working in a grain handling facility without having conducted an analysis of the workplace hazards and identifying the steps necessary to protect the employees against injury or illness.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 Road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees handling grain throughout the facility, in an environment where there are many types of potentially hazardous conditions yet the employer has not conducted any formal type of analysis of the site nor has developed any alternative work methods or identified the necessary personal protective equipment needed.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2000.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4): When the employer decided that its employees would enter permit spaces, the employer did not develop and implement a written permit space entry program that complied with 29 CFR 1910.146:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential electrical, atmospheric and caught between hazards associated with employees entering a permit required confined space without having a written confined space entry program to manage that.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees entering the boot pit to clean it out and perform maintenance without having developed a written confined space entry program.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

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:     The employer failed to provide employees with training on entering a permit required confined space.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has untrained employees entering the boot pit to clean it out and perform maintenance while failing to meet several of the requirements of this subpart.  Instances include but are not limited to:     i.    An employee entering the boot pit without having conducted an atmosphere test first.   ii.   An employee entering the boot pit without having an attendant on standby.   iii.  An employee entering the boot pit without having filled out a written permit.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2200.00 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:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential atmospheric hazards associated with employees entering a permit required confined space without having first tested the air quality with an approved testing device.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees entering the boot pit to clean it out and perform maintenance without testing the air quality with an approved testing device thus exposing employees to air quality issues associated with grain handling.  Air quality testing tests for: oxygen levels, lower explosive limits, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(d)(6): Under the permit-required confined space program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not provide at least one attendant outside the permit space into which entry was authorized for the duration of entry operations:       The employer failed to protect employees from potential electrical, atmospheric and caught between hazards associated with employees entering a permit required confined space without having an attendant on standby at the entrance of the space.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees entering the boot pit to clean it out and perform maintenance without having another employee performing the duties of the monitor while they are inside.  Examples of the monitors duties include but are not limited to:     i.    Knows the hazards that may be faced during entry, including information on the mode, signs or symptoms, and consequences of the exposure.   ii.   Is aware of possible behavioral effects of hazard exposure in authorized entrants.   iii.  Continuously maintains an accurate count of authorized entrants in the permit space and ensures that the means used to identify authorized entrants under paragraphs (f)(4) of this section accurately identifies who is in the permit space.   iv.   Remains outside the permit space during entry operations until relieved by another attendant.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(e)(1): Before entry was authorized, the employer did not document the completion of measures required by 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(3) by preparing an entry permit:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential electrical, atmospheric and caught between hazards associated with employees entering a permit required confined space without filling out a written confined space entry permit.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees entering the boot pit to clean it out and perform maintenance without filling out and receiving approval for the entry on a confined space entry permit.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $2000.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(b): There was neither an infirmary, clinic, or hospital used for the treatment of all injured employees in near proximity to the workplace nor a person or persons adequately trained to render first aid:    The employer failed to provide employees with immediate and responsive medical treatment in the event of an employee being injured while working.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer had an explosion and fire in the feed mill where an employee was engulfed in flames burning 60% of her body with 3rd degree burns and without any trained first responders on site and emergency rescue more than 5 minutes away the employee was exposed to those injuries without treatment for almost 20 minutes.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $2200.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(d): The employer did not develop and implement an emergency action plan meeting the requirements contained in 1910.38(a):    The employer failed to protect employees from potential fire and explosion hazards associated with employees working in a grain handling facility without the benefits of having an established emergency action plan developed and implemented.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees handling grain throughout the facility, in an environment where there are potential grain dust build up and combustible dust concerns without having developed or implemented a written emergency action plan.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(e)(1): The employer did not provide training to employees at least annually and when changes in job assignments would expose them to new hazards in the grain handling facilities:    The employer failed to provide protect employees with training on working in a grain handling facility.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has untrained employees handling grain throughout the facility and thus failing to recognize the hazardous conditions typical to a grain handling facility.  Instances include but are not limited to:      i.    Employees failing to recognize the inherent dangers with conducting confined space entry into a grain bin or the boot pit.   ii.    Employees failing to recognize that the inside bucket elevator was not equipped with the necessary safety devices such as:  vibration monitoring, temperature monitoring, motion detection device and a belt alignment device.    iii.   Employees failing to recognize the hazards associated with cleaning the facility specifically understanding that areas around the legs are priority housekeeping areas that need more attention than the rest of the facility.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $0.00 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 in the grain handling facility:                                                                                                               The employer failed to protect employees from potential explosion hazards associated with employees working in a grain handling facility without the benefits of having a written housekeeping program.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees working in the feed mill producing feed for cattle and handling grain without a written housekeeping program that specifies which areas of the feed mill are priority housekeeping areas and what the standards for cleanliness are.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(m)(3): A certification record maintained of each inspection by the employer in the grain facility was not in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.272(1):    The employer failed to protect employees from potential mechanical, explosion, caught between and struck by hazards associated with employees working in a grain handling facility without the benefits of having an established maintenance program complete with certification records.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees performing maintenance throughout the facility without having developed a formal maintenance program with a written certification to track and manage future maintenance concerns thus failing to identify potentially hazardous conditions.  Instances include but are not limited to:        i.    Maintenance employees performing weekly and monthly maintenance to equipment based on verbal guidance from management but cannot identify which pieces of equipment were maintained and when the next schedule maintenance should occur.    ii.   The lack of a certification record contributed to the failure to identify that the big bucket elevator didnt have required safety monitoring devices installed.   iii.   The lack of a certification record left the employer without a written log of which maintenance personnel made repairs to which piece of equipment and when it was repaired.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $2200.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(q)(4)(ii): A vibration monitoring, temperature monitoring or other means to monitor the condition of interior bearings mounted inside or partially inside the leg casing shall be installed:   The employer failed to protect employees from potential mechanical and explosion hazards associated with employees operating an inside bucket elevator without having required safety devices installed.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees operating the big leg (inside bucket elevator) as means of moving grain from the boot pit into various bins for storage until used later to produce feed; the big leg was not equipped with any monitoring devices that could have potentially identified the grain belt rubbing on the inside of the vertical trunking thus creating an ignition source necessary in sparking the grain dust fuel and oxygen resulting in a grain explosion.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(q)(5): Bucket elevators shall be equipped with a motion detection device which will shut-down the bucket elevator when the belt speed is reduced by no more than 20% of the normal operating speed:   The employer failed to protect employees from potential mechanical and explosion hazards associated with employees operating an inside bucket elevator without having required safety devices installed.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees operating the big leg (inside bucket elevator) as means of moving grain from the boot pit into various bins for storage until used later to produce feed; the big leg was not equipped with a motion detection device used to stop the grain belt when there is a reduction in speed of the belt, a condition that may occur due to the grain belt rubbing inside the vertical trunk.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.272(q)(6)(i): Bucket elevators shall be equipped with a belt alignment monitoring device which will initiate an alarm to employees when the belt is not tracking properly:     The employer failed to protect employees from potential mechanical and explosion hazards associated with employees operating an inside bucket elevator without having required safety devices installed.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees operating the big leg (inside bucket elevator) as means of moving grain from the boot pit into various bins for storage until used later to produce feed; the big leg was not equipped with a belt alignment monitoring device used to initiate an alarm to the employees that the belt is not tracking properly and could potentially be rubbing on the inside of the trunk.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $400.00 · Current $0.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(a): A Log of all Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (OSHA Form 300), and/or the Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, (OSHA Form 300-A), and/or the Injury and Illness Incident Report (OSHA Form 301) or equivalent forms were not kept by the establishment:   The employer failed to maintain documentation on injury and illness statistics throughout the year.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 Road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has more than 11 employees and has not maintained injury and illness logs or completed the annual summary at the end of the year.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

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 employees wearing N95 respirators.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 Road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees handling grain throughout the facility and voluntarily wearing N95 dust masks as a means of protecting themselves against nuisance dust without the company having briefed them in accordance with Appendix D of this subpart.

Issued

2013-08-28 00:00:00

Abate by

2014-02-24 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:     The employer failed to protect employees from potential chemical hazards associated with employees using chemicals in the work place without having developed a written HAZCOM program.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 4375 Road 758, Lexington, NE 68850, where the employer has employees using various petroleum products such as grease and oils in the maintenance of equipment throughout the facility without having developed a written HAZCOM program that would outline the companys approach to handling chemicals and training employees.