OSHA levies hefty $518,520 fine on All-Feed Processing and packaging Inc. for willfully violating OSHA standards.

GALVA, Ill. — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited All-Feed Processing and Packaging Inc. in Galva, Ill., with alleged serious, repeat, willful and failure to abate citations of federal workplace safety and health standards. Proposed fines total $518,520.

OSHA began its safety and health inspections at the pet food research and packaging facility in response to a fire in April that sent three workers to a local hospital. The resulting inspection revealed nine alleged willful, four serious, two repeat and two failure to abate violations.

Hazards identified as willful violations addressed the lack of explosion prevention systems for combustible dust, inadequate housekeeping where dust could accumulate, insufficient personal protective equipment, training deficiencies, failure to lockout energy sources during maintenance and other lockout/tagout issues, and the lack of warning signs where combustible dust was being processed. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

Serious violations included fall hazards and issues pertaining to employees entering or working in confined spaces where a variety of hazards could be present. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

The repeat violation cites the company’s failure to compile a list of hazardous chemicals used at the plant and the failure to include such a list in the hazardous communication program, and for the lack of proper employee training. The company had been previously cited for these violations and had agreed to correct the problems but had not done so. The failure to abate violations included use of flexible cords as a substitute for fixed wiring and equipment and wiring was not approved for hazardous locations.

“Recent events have shown the damage that can result from the failure to control dust and dust explosions,” said OSHA Area Director Nick Walters, Peoria, Ill. “The cost of human life and health is far too great a price to pay for anyone to ignore this hazard. All of us want to see working men and women go home safe at the end of every work shift.”

In business since 1997, the company has been inspected by OSHA on seven occasions since January 2000. These inspections have resulted in the issuance of 31 serious, nine willful, four repeat and seven other-than-serious citations.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with the OSHA area director in Peoria or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit

Top Stories

OSHA cites Steelplex Corp. for repeat workplace safety and health hazards following March fatality

OSHA cited Steelplex Corp. for alleged workplace safety and health violations found at a Clifton, N.J., worksite. Penalties proposed total $78,400.

OSHA initiated its investigation March 18 following a fatal workplace accident that occurred when a worker fell approximately 30 feet from the top of a structural steel. As a result of the investigation, the company has been cited with one repeat citation with a penalty of $70,000, and three serious citations, with an $8,400 penalty.

The repeat citation contains one repeat violation of employees exposed to fall hazards while engaged in steel erection activities.

“This company was previously cited for workplace hazards and did not take the necessary steps to be in compliance, resulting in this avoidable tragedy,” said Lisa Levy, area director of OSHA’s office in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J. “By establishing and maintaining effective safety and health management systems, future accidents can be prevented.”

The serious citations contain three serious violations including a hand-operated power tool missing the guard; an employee exposed to an electrocution hazard while using a power tool and extension cord; and an employee exposed to an electrocution hazard while using a damaged extension cord.

Top Stories

Last month a Moline, IL man has pled guilty to federal obstruction and making false statement charges for trying to cover up safety violations during a fatal 2007 roofing accident in Rock Island.Stephen F. Vyncke, 50, entered the plea Thursday May 21st  in U.S. District Court, Peoria, Ill., and is to be sentenced Oct. 15. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Vyncke’s co-worker, Walter L. “Boe” Whipple, 36, of Carbon Cliff, Ill., died Oct. 10, 2007, after falling 16 feet while working on the roof of a building at 513 31st Ave., Rock Island.

Top Stories

Cal/OSHA Violations Causing Death of an Employee Resulted in a Felony Conviction of a Roofing Company Owner.

Three construction workers were injured as the forms for the concrete floor they were pouring collapsed.  Read more at http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090428/NEWS01/904280360/1008/NEWS01/Floor+collapses+at+arena+site

Top Stories

Know the Steps to Safety When Using Escalators

Each year the ride between floors is made easier when an estimated 90 billion riders use an escalator. Although most of those rides are without incident, the CPSC estimates there were approximately 11,000 escalator related injuries in 2007. The majority of these injuries are from falls, but 10 percent occur when hands, feet or shoes are trapped in escalators.

The most common entrapment is to the foot. Soft-sided shoes are the most likely to get stuck and pose the possibility of injury to the rider. CPSC is aware of 77 entrapment incidents since January 2006, with about half resulting in injury. All but two of the incidents involved popular soft-sided flexible clogs and slides.

Here are some steps you can take to prevent escalator injuries:

·         Make sure shoes are tied before getting on an escalator.

·         Stand in the center of the step and be sure to step off of the escalator at the end of your ride.

·         Always hold children’s hands on escalators and do not permit children to sit or play on the steps.

·         Do not bring children onto escalators in strollers, walkers, or carts.

·         Always face forward and hold the handrail.

·         Avoid the sides of steps where entrapment can occur.

·         Learn where the emergency shutoff buttons are in case you need to stop the escalator.

Do all skylights require fall protection measures?

“Moreover, a definition given in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1977 edition) for “hatch” is “an opening in the…floor or roof of a building”; the same entry gives “hatchway” as a synonym. “Using these definitions, therefore, OSHA concludes that a skylight should be regarded as a hatchway, i.e., an opening in the roof of a building through which persons may fall. 29 CFR 1910.23(a)(4), therefore, requires that skylights in the roof of buildings through which persons may fall while walking or working shall be guarded by a standard skylight screen or a fixed standard railing on all exposed sides.

“When a skylight screen is selected for safeguarding the opening, and in the event the skylight is constructed of plastic material subject to fracture (as glass would be), then the skylight must at a minimum be provided with a skylight screen capable of withstanding a load of at least 200 pounds applied perpendicularly at any one area on the screen. On the other hand, a plastic skylight which can provide the necessary structural integrity to support the 200-pound load would not be required to be further safeguarded, since it would meet the intended function of a screen as well.

“As expressed in 29 CFR 1910.23(e)(8), the primary function of the screen is to support at least a 200-pound load such as a person may place upon it. This provision further relates that the screen shall provide a minimum deflection so as not to break the glass; but that portion of the requirement may be inapplicable when no glass is present. (The concern for breaking the glass results from the possible fragment exposure to persons beneath the skylight.)”

This letter can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=19180

Top Stories