OSHA Inspection: MIDWEST DRY TRANSLOAD, INC.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $1,775 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): The floor of each workroom was not maintained in a clean condition:     On or about June 13, 2018, employees were exposed to smoke inhalation and fire hazards when the floor near M2 was not maintained in a clean condition because pea dust that spilled from the hammer mill was not removed from the floor.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,696 · Current $2,220 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1): The employer does not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:       The employer does not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program where employees' exposure to noise exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent.  The employer does not provide baseline and subsequent annual audiograms to exposed employees.  The employer's hearing conservation program does not address provisions for baseline and annual audiometric testing:      a)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #1 (Pit Operator) was exposed to continuous noise levels at 78.6% (88.2 dBA) of the allowable 8 hour time-weighted dose of 50% while performing work activities at the Pit and M2 hammer mill. The exposure level was derived from a sample collected over a 418 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (62 minutes).    b)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #2 (Forklift Operator) was exposed to continuous noise levels at 79.3% (88.3 dBA) of the allowable 8 hour time-weighted dose of 50% while performing work activities at the Pit and M2 hammer mill. The exposure level was derived from a sample collected over a 407 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (73 minutes).    c)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #3 (Pit Operator) was exposed to continuous noise levels at 71.9% (87.6 dBA) of the allowable 8 hour time-weighted dose of 50% while performing work activities at the Pit and M2 hammer mill. The exposure level was derived from a sample collected over a 403 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (77 minutes).    d)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #4 (M2 Operator) was exposed to continuous noise levels at 126.3% (91.7 dBA) of the allowable 8 hour time-weighted dose of 50% while performing work activities at the M2 hammer mill. The exposure level was derived from a sample collected over a 405 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (75 minutes).

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(3): Employees were not given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer:  On or about June 13, 2018, employees were exposed to noise above the action limit and the employer does not provide employees a variety of suitable hearing protectors to select from.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): The employer did not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.95(k):  On or about June 13, 2018, employees processing and bagging peas with the M2 hammer mill were exposed to noise above the permissible daily exposure and the employer does not train the employees on the effects of noise on hearing, the purpose of hearing protectors, and the purpose of audiometric testing.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(l)(1): The employer did not make available to affected employees or their representatives copies of 29 CFR 1910.95 and did not post a copy in the workplace:  On or about June 13, 2018, employees processing and bagging peas with the M2 hammer mill were exposed to noise above the action limit and the employer does not post a copy of the standard on Occupational Noise Exposure.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(m)(5): When the employer had ceased to do business, the employer did not transfer to the successor employer all records required to be maintained by 29 CFR 1910.95. The successor employer did not retain all records for the remainder of the period prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.95(m)(3):  On or about June 13, 2018, employees were exposed to noise above the action limit and the employer has not transferred hearing conservation program records to its successor.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $1,775 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(2): No person shall be allowed to stand or pass under the elevated portion of any truck, whether loaded or empty:    On or about May 8, 2018, during the transfer of agricultural products from Super-Sacks suspended above a pit using a forktruck, the employer did not protect employees from struck-by hazards when their body was beneath the suspended sack while they cut and untied the bottom of the sacks.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Nov 30, 2018

Penalty

Initial $2,956 · Current $1,775 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1): Powered industrial truck(s) with defect(s) or in any way unsafe had not been withdrawn from service until restored to safe operating condition(s):    On or about May 8, 2018, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards and the employer provided a Clark forktruck (ECX360-0959-9853 KF) with a broken horn and the forktruck was not removed from service until it was restored to safe operation.

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2019

Penalty

Initial $5,174 · Current $3,105 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(a)(2): Employees are exposed to an airborne concentration of Total Dust listed in Table Z-1 in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit:    The employer does not protect employees from exposures to Total Dust (particulates not otherwise regulated) at concentrations in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit while performing routine work activities:      a)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #1 (Pit Operator) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 21.4 mg/cubic meter, approximately 1.43 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while working in in the Production Area. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 417 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (63 minutes).     b)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #2 (Pit Operator) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 22.9 mg/cubic meter, approximately 1.53 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while working in in the Production Area. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 406 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (74 minutes).     c)    On or about 6/13/18, Employee #3 (M2 Operator) was exposed to an eight-hour time-weighted average level of 21.3 mg/cubic meter, approximately 1.42 times the Permissible Exposure Limit of 15.0 mg/cubic meter for Total Dust, while working in in the Production Area. The exposure level is derived from a sample collected over a 397 minute sampling period with zero exposure assumed for the unsampled period of time (83 minutes).

Issued

Oct 30, 2018

Abate by

Aug 28, 2019

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1000(e): Feasible administrative or engineering controls are not determined and implemented to achieve compliance with the limits prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.1000(a) through (d) and protective equipment or any other protective measures are not used to keep the exposure of employee to air contaminants within the limits prescribed:    The employer does not determine and implement adequate engineering and administrative controls to prevent employee exposures to Total Dust (particulates not otherwise regulated) at concentrations in excess of the Permissible Exposure Limit while performing routine work activities. Employees in the Production Area were exposed to total airborne particulate concentrations ranging between 21.3 and 22.9 mg/cubic meter, approximately 1.42 to 1.53 times the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit.    General methods of control applicable in these circumstances include, but are not limited to:    a) Increase the general dilution ventilation of the main Production Area and Bagging Room;    b) Install local exhaust system(s) for tote and bag filling stations;    c) Seal-off unused conveyors to prevent unwanted discharge into the Bag Area;    d) Test and balance the ventilation system to ensure optimal exhaust performance;    e) Include a maintenance and inspection program for the ventilation system to ensure the ductwork is properly sealed and secured to the equipment it is designed to exhaust;    f) Eliminate broom sweeping in the Production Area and use a Class II Division 2 vacuum and/or wet method to capture settled particles;