OSHA Inspection: LINCOLN COLD STORAGE, INC.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,080 · Current $1,848 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1): Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards:Note:  Toeboards are only required when persons can pass, there is moving equipment or there is equipment with which falling materials could create a hazard.    The employer failed to protect employees from potential fall hazards associated with accessing elevated working surfaces without adequate fall protection.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees accessing the ceiling of the bathroom/lab room so as to store material and parts without having installed any guard railing or providing and requiring the use of a fall arrest system while exposed to a fall greater than 9 feet.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,080 · Current $1,848 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.26(c)(1): Good safe practices in the use and care of ladder equipment were not employed by the users to get maximum serviceability, safety, and to eliminate unnecessary damage of equipment:     The employer failed to protect employees from potential fall hazards associated with improper use of a portable ladder while accessing elevated work levels.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees using the step half of a Werner aluminum step ladder that was modified by the company employees and affixed to the bathroom/lab room to be used as a means of access/egress exposing employees to potential fall hazards in excess of 9 feet.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.    The ladder has been split in half and still used which is not the intent proper use by the manufacturer, in fact the manufacture states that damaged ladders are to be taken out of service.        ii.   The method in which the ladder was installed requires the employees to use the top two steps of the ladder which are in direct conflict with the instructions of the ladder which state the top two steps are not to be stepped on.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Feb 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,200 · Current $1,320 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): Protective eye equipment was not required where there was a reasonable probability of injury that could be prevented by such equipment:     The employer failed to protect employees from potential chemical hazards associated with servicing forklift batteries without wearing the required personnel protective equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has unprotected employees servicing forklift batteries by adding distilled water to batteries containing acid without wearing some form of splash resistant eye protection or face shield.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,320 · Current $792 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.138(a): The employer did not select and require employee(s) to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands were exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasion; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential chemical hazards associated with servicing forklift batteries without wearing the required personnel protective equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has unprotected employees servicing forklift batteries by adding distilled water to batteries containing acid without wearing some form of chemical resistant gloves or apron to protect exposed hands and arms.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $3,080 · Current $1,848 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential caught between and electrical hazards associated with performing maintenance activities without having implemented an effective lockout and tag out program.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees repairing and cleaning equipment that have potential stored energy hazards without having implemented a written lockout tag out program.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.    Failure to have developed trained and implemented the companys lockout and tag out procedure necessary for the isolation of hazardous stored energy.   ii.   Failure to train employees as either authorized, affected or all others level of training associated with the implementation of a written lockout and tag out program.   iii.  Failure to conduct periodic reviews of written specific procedures used to outline the step by step isolation of hazardous stored energy and the powering up of that equipment when the maintenance is complete.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential caught between and electrical hazards associated with performing maintenance activities without having developed and implemented written specific procedures for the effective de-energizing of each piece of equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees repairing and cleaning equipment that have potential stored energy hazards without providing any written specific procedures on the step by step process of de-energizing, testing and re-energizing.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

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:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential caught between and electrical hazards associated with performing maintenance activities without conducting annual periodic reviews of the written specific procedures for the effective de-energizing of each piece of equipment.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees repairing and cleaning equipment that have potential stored energy hazards without providing any written documentation of reviewing the written specific procedures on the step by step process of de-energizing, testing and re-energizing.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 28, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The employer did not provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees:    The employer failed to provide employees with adequate training on the application of lockout and tag out used in the safe maintenance of equipment with hazardous stored energy.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has inadequately trained employees repairing and cleaning equipment that have potential stored energy hazards.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $2,200 · Current $1,320 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.151(c): Where employees were exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body were not provided within the work area for immediate emergency use:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential chemical hazards associated with servicing forklift batteries without having an adequate eyewash facility located nearby.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has unprotected employees servicing forklift batteries by adding distilled water to batteries containing acid without having adequate eyewash and personnel protective equipment present.  Instances include but are not limited to:    i.    The only eyewash within the room where the batteries are serviced is the portable water squeeze bottles that do not meet the requirement for 15 minutes of continuous flushing of the eyes.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $1,760 · Current $1,056 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(3)(i)(M): Powered industrial truck operators shall receive initial training in the following topics to include but not limited to operating instructions, warnings, or precautions listed in the operators manual for the types of vehicle that the employee is being trained to operate:      The employer failed to protect employees from potential struck by hazards associated with operating a forklift that is missing a seat belt.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees operating a Yale forklift with an unserviceable seat belt to lift pallets of frozen product for storage and distribution throughout the storage facility, leaving the employee unprotected in the event of an accident involving multiple forklifts or collisions with the vast amounts of storage racks.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service:    The employer failed to protect employees from potential struck by hazards associated with operating a forklift without having conducted a pre-operation inspection.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees operating a Yale forklift with an unserviceable seat belt to lift pallets of frozen product for storage and distribution throughout the storage facility, leaving the employee unprotected in the event of an accident involving multiple forklifts or collisions with the vast amounts of storage racks.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1): On every building or other structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official were not marked on plates of approved design and securely affixed in a conspicuous place in each space to which they relate.    The employer failed to protect employees from potential fall and struck by hazards associated with using the ceiling of a room for storage without having the surface load tested and marked to prevent overloading it.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has employees accessing the ceiling of the bathroom/lab room so as to store material and parts without having had the floor load bearing measured and marked.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

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 has been performed through a written certification which included the requirements as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):  The employer failed certify through writing that an assessment of all potential hazards to employees by their job requirements was conducted whereby it identified the appropriate personal protective equipment necessary to protect the employees from those hazards.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has unprotected employees servicing forklift batteries by adding distilled water to batteries containing acid without adequate personal protective equipment and medical treatment facilities.  Instances include but are not limited to:   i.    Employees adding the distilled water to batteries containing acid without wearing gloves to protect their hands.  ii.   Employees adding the distilled water to batteries containing acid without wearing proper eye and face protection.  iii.   Employees adding the distilled water to batteries containing acid without wearing a protective apron.  iv.   Employees adding the distilled water to batteries containing acid without having adequate eye wash station nearby.

Issued

Feb 4, 2014

Abate by

Mar 9, 2014

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2): The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or by any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and the danger posed by the permit spaces:  The employer failed to protect employees from potential permit required confined space hazards associated with unmarked confined spaces.  This was most recently evident during the inspection of the maintenance area of the facility located at 1700 S. Folsom St. Lincoln, NE 68522, where the employer has untrained employees operating and working near mixers and grinders that have large unmarked tanks that meet the requirement of a permit required confined space.