Skip to main content

US Department of Labor's OSHA fines North Central Farmers Elevator in Ipswich, SD, $378,000 for exposing workers to grain engulfment

BISMARCK, N.D. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited North Central Farmers Elevator in Ipswich, S.D., with six willful violations for exposing workers to being engulfed by grain. Proposed penalties total $378,000.

"It's fortunate that the North Central Farmers Elevator worker who was engulfed survived — because many don't. Grain entrapments are killing workers. Grain elevator owners and operators must implement well-known safety practices to prevent workers from being hurt or killed in a grain bin," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels.

At least 26 U.S. workers were killed in grain entrapments last year, and the numbers of entrapments are increasing, according to researchers at Purdue University. There were more grain entrapments in 2010 than in any year since Purdue researchers started collecting data on entrapments in 1978.

OSHA's area office in Bismarck began an investigation at the North Central Farmers Elevator facility in October 2010 following an incident in which an employee was engulfed by corn in a grain bin. The alleged violations relate to grain and confined spaces, and address the failure of the employer to ensure that lockout/tagout procedures were followed to prevent accidental energy start-up, complete confined space and grain bin entry permits, perform required atmospheric testing, protect employees from engulfment hazards, provide an entrance observer and prohibit entry into grain bins where bridging conditions exist. A willful violation exists when an employer has demonstrated either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the law or plain indifference to employee safety and health.

Since 2009, OSHA has issued fines exceeding $100,000 per employer to grain operators across the country following preventable fatalities and injuries. In addition to enforcement actions, OSHA sent a notification letter in August 2010 and another in February 2011 to a total of more than 13,000 grain elevator operators warning them of proper safety precautions, including prohibiting entry in grain storage facilities while grain is being emptied out or flowing in or out of the bin, prohibiting employees from walking down the grain and ensuring that employees enter the bin with the proper safety equipment.. "OSHA will not tolerate noncompliance with the Grain Handling Facilities standard," said Michaels in both letters. "We will continue to use our enforcement authority to the fullest extent possible." The February 2011 letter is available at http://www.osha.gov/asst-sec/Grain-Letter-2-1-2011.html.

In Denver, Colo., a regional emphasis program has been implemented for the grain handling industry to address serious hazards, and OSHA area offices in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota are providing assistance to help grain storage facilities comply with safety standards.

At the time of the investigation, the workers' compensation carrier insuring North Central Farmers Elevator was Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co., headquartered in Boston. North Central Farmers Elevator, which operates 17 grain handling and agronomy facilities throughout North Dakota and South Dakota, has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. OSHA's Bismarck Area Office can be reached at 701-250-4521. To report workplace incidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call the agency's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742).

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...