Company hit with $406K fine in fatal grain explosion
April 18, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: Compliance, Fatality, fire/explosion, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Safety training, Who Got Fined and Why?
“Disregard for the law” is how Labor Secretary Hilda Solis describes the events that led to a grain explosion that killed six workers and left two others seriously injured. Now OSHA has decided on the penalties for two companies involved in the incident.
Bartlett Grain Co. faces $406,000 in fines for the October 2011 grain elevator explosion in Atchison, KS. A contractor employed by Bartlett, Kansas Grain Inspection Services based in Topeka, was fined $67,500.
OSHA issued five willful and eight serious violations to Bartlett, including:
- allowing grain dust to accumulate (willful)
- using compressed air to remove dust without first shutting down ignition sources (willful)
- using electrical equipment inappropriate for the working environment (willful)
- lack of proper preventive maintenance (serious)
- inadequate emergency action plan training for employees and contractors (serious)
- lack of employee and contractor training on job hazards (serious), and
- a housekeeping program that was deficient because it did not prevent grain dust accumulations (serious).
Kansas Grain Inspection Services was hit with three citations, including one willful violation involving a lack of fall protection for employees and one serious violation for the lack of a hazard communication program.
The Washington Post reports an OSHA spokesman says when there is a fatality along with a willful violation, the agency’s solicitor may consider forwarding the case to the Justice Department for criminal consideration, although no decision has been made at this time.
A written statement from Bartlett Grain’s president, Bob Knief, says the company will contest the citations. The company disagrees there was a hazardous accumulation of dust before the explosion and contends the dust found by OSHA was deposited by the incident.
Kansas Grain Inspection Services also plans to appeal the citations.
OSHA says over the past 35 years, there have been more than 500 explosions in grain handling facilities in the U.S. that have killed more than 180 people and injured more than 675.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: Bartlett Grain, dust accumulation, fatal grain explosion
Loading ...
April 19th, 2012 at 9:20 am
What a tragic event! I am sorry for the families who lost their loved ones in this explosion, and I appreciate the fact that OSHA’s intended purpose is to protect the health of the American worker. However, they seem to be doubling (or tripling) up on some of the citations. For example, “allowing grain dust to accumulate,” “a housekeeping program that was deficient because it did not prevent grain dust accumulations,” and the “lack of proper preventive maintenance,” appear to be basically the same violation phrased three different ways so as to make a stronger impression and to justify a higher penalty. Isn’t that kind of like saying a person failed to stay on his feet, fell down, and did not remain in an upright position, when all three statements mean the very same thing and have the same end result? I agree the company should be penalized if it deliberately or indifferently placed its employees in harms way; but regardless of the surrounding conditions or events, is it really justifiable to fabricate multiple “violations” for a single act or omission?
April 19th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
kentd: I was thinking the same thing. How many different ways can they phrase the same issue. My guess is this inspector is just trying to put a few extra feathers in his hat. When this gets contested and some of the charges get dropped because they are the same I think that OSHA should have to pay the attorney fees that are related to fighting the bogus charges. It should also go into the inspectors file so that a pattern of padding violations can be established. Ya probably just wishful thinking on my behalf.
April 20th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Both Joe and Kent are right. Understand that the three different ways that the violation is written per OSHA regulations 1910.272 allows for defining a situation from different perspectives so anyone who reads this regulation will understand it fully. In other words it is written so any person reading it is not left with questions about the situation described.
Having the violation is written up differently per 1910.272 prevents companys that are fined, with a possibility to have the fine lessen or dropped totally.
April 20th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Robert: I appreciate your comment and understand the concern with ensuring the written violation is not misinterpreted or kicked out on a technicality, but it seems the same could be accomplished by incorporating the same verbiage into one citation, rather than issuing separate citations with a monetary value attached to each. Otherwise, if all citations are successful the employer could theoretically be penalized multiple times for the same violation. In such case, upon conviction of all three charges, it seems the only ethical thing would be for only one of them to be used and the other two thrown out as redundancies. Unfortunately, our society in general tends to lean toward taking whatever one can legally get, rather than focusing on ethical values.
June 28th, 2012 at 4:18 am
I can tell none of you have worked at a grain storage facility,I have. the 3 charges appear the same but in fact they are different. 1 accumulation of dust is self explanitory. 2 housekeeping is your routine at keeping things tidy,the routine is under attack here 3 preventive maintaince is not housekeeping, it is to keep the machinery in good working condition such as greasing bearings.all 3 come hand in hand but all 3 had its role in this . btw my son was killed in this explosion.
June 28th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
jefff: Truely sorry for your loss. I have worked for grain storage facilities as well as saw mills in the past so I understand the severity that dust accumulations pose. In short what kentd and myself were getting at is they are double dipping. Because of a deficient house cleaning program dust accumulated, yes a very serious issue, but a side affect of the main issue.