OSHA Inspection: KIMBLE CLAY & LIMESTONE

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1):      Employees were subjected to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table G-16 of Subpart G of 29 CFR 1910 and feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized to reduce sound levels:    On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Clear and Colored Glass station was exposed to continuous noise at 156.7% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour, time weighted average 90 decibels) or the equivalent sound levels of 93.24 dBA during the 473 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 7 minutes not sampled.      Note:  Methods of abatement include but are not limited to the following:  1.	Rotate employees out of the area once they have reached their maximum exposure of the workday.   2.	Install damping material on the sides of the metal hoppers that the glass is broken into.         Abatement Steps:    1.	Effective hearing protection shall be provided and used by all exposed employees as an interim protection measure and when administrative or engineering controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of table G-16.  In addition, an effective hearing conservation program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.95(c) thru (n) shall be maintained.  Abatement must be completed by January 17, 2012.    2.	Submit to the Area Director a written detailed plan of abatement outlining a schedule for the implementation of engineering and /or administrative measures to control employee exposure to noise as referenced in this citation.  This plan shall include at a minimum, target dates for the following actions which must be consistent with the dates required by this citation.      a)	Evaluation of engineering control options.  b)	Selection of optimum control method and completion of design.  c)	Procurement, installation and operation of selected control measures.  d)	Testing and acceptance or modifications/redesign of controls.    	All proposed control measures shall be evaluated for each particular use by a competent Industrial Hygienist or other technically qualified person.  Abatement must be completed by February 6, 2012.      3.	Abatement should have been completed by the implementation of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls upon verification of their effectiveness in achieving compliance.  Abatement must be completed by March 7, 2012.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1):     The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:    Employees were exposed to noise levels over the Action Level (8 hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA) and were not provided with an audiometric testing program consisting of baseline and annual audiograms.    a)  On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Clear and Colored Glass station was exposed to continuous noise at more than 50% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit for an 8 hour shift.  The level found was 172.0% during the 473 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 7 minutes not sampled.      b)  On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Paper Sorting Line next to the magnet was exposed to continuous noise at more than 50% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit for an 8 hour shift.  The level found was 87.4% during the 464 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 16 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Dec 20, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(i):    The wearing of hearing protectors was not ensured for employees exposed to sound levels exceeding those listed in Table G-16 of 29 CFR 1910.95 as required by 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1):    On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Clear and Colored Glass station was exposed to continuous noise at 156.7% of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour, time weighted average 90 decibels) or the equivalent sound levels of 93.24 dBA during the 473 minute sampling period, was observed not wearing hearing protection.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 7 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

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:    a)  On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Clear and Colored Glass station was exposed to continuous noise at more than 50% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit for an 8 hour shift.  The level found was 172.0% during the 473 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 7 minutes not sampled.  Employees were not provided with at least 3 types of hearing protection to select from.      b)  On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Paper Sorting Line next to the magnet was exposed to continuous noise at more than 50% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit for an 8 hour shift.  The level found was 87.4% during the 464 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 16 minutes not sampled.  Employees were not provided with at least 3 types of hearing protection to select from.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

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):    Employees were exposed to noise levels over the Action Level ( 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA) and had not been provided with a noise/hearing conservation training program.    a)  On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Clear and Colored Glass station was exposed to continuous noise at more than 50% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit for an 8 hour shift.  The level found was 172.0% during the 473 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 7 minutes not sampled.      b)  On or about September 27, 2011, an employee at the Paper Sorting Line next to the magnet was exposed to continuous noise at more than 50% of the permissible daily noise exposure limit for an 8 hour shift.  The level found was 87.4% during the 464 minute sampling period.  Exposure calculations include a zero increment for the 16 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Feb 15, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2):     The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through written certification that identified the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation had been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, identified the document as a certification of the hazard assessment:    As of August 12, 2011, the employer had not performed a written workplace hazard assessment for employees working on the recyclable sorting lines and who are exposed to hazards including but not limited to broken glass and uncapped needles.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Dec 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3):     The employer did not ensure that each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye hazards wears eye protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or wears eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses:    As of August 12, 2011, employees on the sorting lines were permitted to wear normal prescription glasses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards including but not limited to flying glass and chemical splashes to the eyes.  Other employees in these areas were required to wear safety glasses with side protection.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Dec 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

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:    As of August12, 2011, employees who sort materials such as glass, paper, and plastic for recycling were not provided with both cut and puncture resistant gloves.  Employees have experienced puncture wounds from used needles.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $0 Reduced

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:    As of September 27, 2011, the employer did not establish energy control procedures for employees required to perform maintenance and servicing on equipment including but not limited to the conveyor system and bailer.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $3,900

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:    As of September 27, 2011, employees required to remove a guard on the conveyor had not been trained as authorized employees to lockout the equipment and the surrounding employees had not been trained as affected employees.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Dec 30, 2011

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i):     Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees:    On September 27, 2011, an employee was required to remove an ingoing nip point guard on the conveyor to the bottle screener in order to clean out the accumulated materials.  The employee did not de-energize and apply a lockout device to the conveyor system before removing the guard.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Penalty

Initial $3,000 · Current $1,950 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(c)(4):     Portable fire extinguishers were not maintained in a fully charged and operable condition:    On August 12, 2011, the fire extinguisher by the large bottle sorter line was not charged, but available for employees to use.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 31, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.157(g)(2):     The educational program to familiarize employees with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting was not provided to all employees upon initial employment, and at least annually thereafter:    As of August 12, 2011, portable fire extinguishers were available for employee use, but training was not provided for the temporary employees.    Note the employer may exercise one of the following options:    1.	Provide portable fire extinguishers as specified in 29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1), meet the distribution requirements per 29 CFR 1910.157(d) (75 to the nearest extinguisher for Class A fires and 50 to the nearest unit for Class B fires), and provide training and education for all employees in the use of such equipment and the hazards associated with incipient stage fire fighting as specified in 29 CFR 1910.157(g).  The other sections of 29 CFR also apply.    2.	Provide extinguishers as specified in 29 CFR 1910.157(c)(1), designate certain employees to be the only employees authorized to use such equipment and require all other employees to immediately evacuate upon the sound of the fire alarm, establish this in writing in an emergency action plan as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.38(a) and train/educate designated employees per 1910.157(g).  Utilizing this option exempts the employer from distribution requirements of 29 CFR 1910.157(d).    3.	Establish a written fire safety policy which requires the immediate and total evacuation of employees from the workplace upon the sounding of a fire alarm signal.  This policy shall include an emergency action plan and a fire prevention plan as specified in 29 CFR 1910.38(a) and 29 CFR 1910.39(a).  Utilizing this option exempts the employer from the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.157 to include the need for providing portable fire equipment unless a specific standard requires that a portable fire extinguisher be provided (such as those requirements in 29 CFR 1910.106/107 related to the use/storage of flammable/combustible liquids).  If extinguishers are provided, but not intended for employee use, 29 CFR 1910.157(e) and (f) are still applicable (inspection, maintenance, and testing of equipment).

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $2,600 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):     One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    The following equipment was not adequately guarded on the recyclable sorting lines:    a)	The conveyor leading from the paper sorting line to the magnet had an opening in the barrier guard of 5 inches high by 12 inches wide exposing the in going nip point.      b)	The conveyor leading to the large bottle side of the line had an opening in the barrier guard of  4 inches high by 8 inches wide on the side that the employee stands and 3 inches high by 4 inches wide on the opposite side of the employee, exposing the in going nip point.    c)	The conveyor leading to the small bottle side of the line had an opening in the barrier guard exposing the in going nip point.    d)	The barrier guard for the conveyor under the bottle sorter was held together by a bungi style cord and was inadequate.     e)             The two horizontal shafts located under the conveyor belt leading to the magnet were not guarded.  The lower shaft was 51 inches from the floor and the upper shaft was 66 inches from the floor.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,550 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(i):     The employer having employee(s) with occupational exposure did not establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure:    As of August 12, 2011, the employer failed to establish and implement an Exposure Control Plan for employees who are exposed to needles while sorting materials for recycling and who are designated first aid responders.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(1)(i):     The employer did not make available the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series to all employees who have occupational exposure:    As of August 12, 2011, the employer had not offered the Hepatitis B Vaccination series to employees who are exposed to needles while sorting materials for recycling.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each employee with occupational exposure participated in a training program:    As of August 12, 2011, the employer had not performed training on bloodborne pathogens for employees who are exposed to needles while sorting materials for recycling.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.8(a):     The employer failed to record all work-related needlestick injuries and cuts from sharp objects that are contaminated with another person's blood or other potentially infectious material (as defined by 29 CFR 1910.1030).     As of August 12, 2011, the employer failed to record work-related needlestick  injuries on their OSHA 300 Logs.       NOTE:  To protect the employee's privacy, you may not enter the employee's name on the OSHA 300 Log (see the requirements for privacy cases in paragraphs 1904.29(b)(6) through 1904.29(b)(9)).

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(1):     A log of all recordable work-related injuries and illnesses (OSHA 300 or equivalent), was not completed in the detail as required by the regulation:    As of August 12, 2011, the employers OSHA 300 Log for 2008 had inadequate descriptions in Column E which is supposed to describe where the event occurred and Column F which is supposed to describe the injury or illness, the parts of the body affected, and the object/substance that directly injured or made the person ill.  Fourteen out of the fifteen  injures listed on the employers log each had the event location listed as Job Site in Column E (the fifteenth had Work Site) and each had failed to list the object/substance that directly injured the employee.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(1):     A log of all recordable work-related injuries and illnesses (OSHA 300 or equivalent), was not completed in the detail as required by the regulation:    As of August 12, 2011, the employers OSHA 300 Log for 2010 had inadequate descriptions in Column E which is supposed to describe where the event occurred and Column F which is supposed to describe the injury or illness, the parts of the body affected, and the object/substance that directly injured or made the person ill.  The ten  injures listed on the employers log each had the event location listed as Job Site in Column E and each had failed to list the object/substance that directly injured the employee.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(1):     A log of all recordable work-related injuries and illnesses (OSHA 300 or equivalent), was not completed in the detail as required by the regulation:    As of August 12, 2011, the employers OSHA 300 Log for 2011 had inadequate descriptions in Column E which is supposed to describe where the event occurred and Column F which is supposed to describe the injury or illness, the parts of the body affected, and the object/substance that directly injured or made the person ill.  Six out of the 7 injures listed on the employers log each had the event location listed as Job Site in Column E and each had failed to list the object/substance that directly injured the employee.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.30(a):  The employer did not maintain a separate OSHA 300 Log for each establishment that was expected to be in operation for one year or longer.    As of August 12, 2011, the employer was keeping one OSHA 300 Log for 2008 all of their establishments including those in operation for one year or longer.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.30(a):     29 CFR 1904.30(a)  The employer did not maintain a separate OSHA 300 Log for each establishment that was expected to be in operation for one year or longer.    As of August 12, 2011, the employer was keeping one OSHA 300 Log for 2011 all of their establishments including those in operation for one year or longer.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.30(a):  The employer did not maintain a separate OSHA 300 Log for each establishment that was expected to be in operation for one year or longer.    As of August 12, 2011, the employer was keeping one OSHA 300 Log for 2010 all of their establishments including those in operation for one year or longer.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Jan 14, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.32(b)(3):     The person who certified the annual summary was not a company executive as defined in 29 CFR 1904.32(b)(4):    As of August 12, 2011, the OSHA 300A Summary Form for 2009 was signed by the Workmans Compensation Administrator not a company executive.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3):     Every floor, working place, and passageway was not kept free from protruding nails, splinters, holes, or loose boards, in order to facilitate cleaning:    On August 12, 2011, the last employee work station on the side of the paper sorting conveyor closest to the magnet had floor holes in the wooden platform that were 4.5 inches deep and 10.5 inches deep.

Issued

Dec 15, 2011

Abate by

Apr 30, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(6):     The employer did not provide the basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of 29 CFR 1910.134, in written or oral format to employees who wear respirators when such use was not required by the employer:    As of August 12, 2011, employees were provided dust masks to wear voluntarily, but were not provided the information in Appendix D of 1910.134.