OSHA Inspection: JOHN'S DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $14,063 · Current $9,300 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(b)(1): When employees were subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls were not utilized:  On or about October 17, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work in the recycling plant while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 87.1 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of one hundred percent, without effective administrative or engineering controls. The employer failed to successfully require the use of hearing protection to all employees where these controls were not adequate to reduce exposures below the PEL.   (a) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 151.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 91.1dBA, as measured over 414 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 66 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program, as described in paragraphs (c) through (o) of 29 CFR 1910.95, whenever employee noise exposures equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent:  On or about October 17, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work in the recycling plant while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without a continuing and effective hearing conservation program in place. The employer failed to implement the hearing conservation program to include monitoring to identify employees for inclusion into the  program, audiometric testing to provide surveillance for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), and hearing conservation training.  (a) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 151.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 91.1dBA, as measured over 414 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 66 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 65.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 84.2dBA, as measured over 470 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84dBA accounting for the period of 10 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 98.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.1dBA, as measured over 472 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87dBA accounting for the period of 8 minutes unmonitored.  (d) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 76.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.4dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.2dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (e) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 75.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.6dBA, as measured over 446 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.1dBA accounting for the period of 34 minutes unmonitored.  (f) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 104.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.5dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.4dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (g) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 107.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.8dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.6dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (h) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the plastic line was exposed to noise at 94.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.9dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.7dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (i) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 95.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.8dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (j) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 67.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.8dBA, as measured over 339 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84.3dBA accounting for the period of 141 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceeded the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program:    On or about October 17, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without a continuing and effective hearing conservation program in place with the element of employee monitoring for inclusion.  (a) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 151.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 91.1dBA, as measured over 414 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 66 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 65.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 84.2dBA, as measured over 470 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84dBA accounting for the period of 10 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 98.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.1dBA, as measured over 472 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87dBA accounting for the period of 8 minutes unmonitored.  (d) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 76.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.4dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.2dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (e) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 75.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.6dBA, as measured over 446 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.1dBA accounting for the period of 34 minutes unmonitored.  (f) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 104.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.5dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.4dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (g) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 107.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.8dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.6dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (h) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the plastic line was exposed to noise at 94.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.9dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.7dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (i) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 95.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.8dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (j) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 67.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.8dBA, as measured over 339 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84.3dBA accounting for the period of 141 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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:   On or about October 17, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without ensuring audiometric testing was done for each employee covered under the hearing conservation program in order to detect any instances of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).   (a) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 151.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 91.1dBA, as measured over 414 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 66 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 65.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 84.2dBA, as measured over 470 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84dBA accounting for the period of 10 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 98.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.1dBA, as measured over 472 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87dBA accounting for the period of 8 minutes unmonitored.  (d) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 76.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.4dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.2dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (e) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 75.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.6dBA, as measured over 446 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.1dBA accounting for the period of 34 minutes unmonitored.  (f) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 104.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.5dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.4dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (g) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 107.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.8dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.6dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (h) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the plastic line was exposed to noise at 94.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.9dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.7dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (i) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 95.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.8dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (j) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 67.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.8dBA, as measured over 339 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84.3dBA accounting for the period of 141 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

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). The employer did not institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program:   On or about October 17, 2022, and days prior, employees performed work on the shop floor while being exposed to noise levels that equaled or exceeded an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA), or an equivalent dose of fifty percent, without a continuing and effective hearing conservation that included training (both annual and initial) to inform employees about the effects of noise on hearing, hearing protectors, and audiometric testing.  (a) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 151.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 91.1dBA, as measured over 414 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.1dBA accounting for the period of 66 minutes unmonitored.  (b) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 65.1% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 84.2dBA, as measured over 470 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84dBA accounting for the period of 10 minutes unmonitored.  (c) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 98.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.1dBA, as measured over 472 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87dBA accounting for the period of 8 minutes unmonitored.  (d) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 76.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.4dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.2dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (e) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 75.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 85.6dBA, as measured over 446 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 85.1dBA accounting for the period of 34 minutes unmonitored.  (f) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 104.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.5dBA, as measured over 474 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.4dBA accounting for the period of 6 minutes unmonitored.  (g) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing maintenance activities throughout the facility was exposed to noise at 107.2% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.8dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.6dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (h) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the plastic line was exposed to noise at 94.6% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.9dBA, as measured over 468 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.7dBA accounting for the period of 12 minutes unmonitored.  (i) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the pre-sort line was exposed to noise at 95.9% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 86.8dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  (j) On October 17, 2022, an employee performing sorting operations on the LUBO screen near the paper line was exposed to noise at 67.8% of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 86.8dBA, as measured over 339 minutes of sampling. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 84.3dBA accounting for the period of 141 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Feb 16, 2023

Penalty

Initial $10,046 · Current $6,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.133(a)(1):The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  (a) On or about October 4, 2022, the employer did not ensure that each affected employee in the pre sort screen utilized face shields or eye protection with side shields to prevent flying particles such as glass shards, metals, and wood chips from entering the eyes.  This exposed employees to eye injury and loss of vision.   (b) On October 4, 2022, the employer did not ensure that each employee performing grinding operations utilized face shields or eye protection with shields to prevent flying particles and liquid chemicals from entering the eyes.   This exposed employee to eye injury and loss of vision.  (c) On October 4, 2022, the employer did not ensure that each employee performing welding operations utilized face shields or eye protection with shields to prevent flying particles, liquid chemicals, and injurious light radiation from entering the eyes.  This exposed employees to eye injury and loss of vision.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Feb 23, 2023

Penalty

Initial $8,036 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.135(a)(1):The employer did not ensure that each affected employee wear a protective helmet when working in areas where there is a potential for injury to the head from falling objects:  (a) On or about October 4, 2022, the employer did not ensure that each affected employee wear a protective helmet such as a hard hat or bump cap when performing work activities on the ground floor where there is a potential for injury to the head from falling objects, such as metals, glass, and other large objects from the conveyor lines and screening platform approximately 20 feet overhead.  (b)  On or about October 4, 2022, the employer did not ensure that each affected employee wear a protective helmet such as a hard hat or bump cap when performing maintenance and servicing activities on the screening platform where there is a potential for injury to the head from protruding machinery and moving machinery parts such as unguarded conveyor lines.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 30, 2023

Penalty

Initial $8,036 · Current $5,200 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.303(b)(7)(i): Unused openings in boxes, raceways, auxiliary gutters, cabinets, equipment cases, or housings were not effectively closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment:  (a) On or about October 17, 2022, employees were permitted to perform work on or around the IPS Balers, electrical control panel box -(Model #AT-965HS; SERIAL #H1608) that did not have the outer housing door closed and secured in place, exposing the energized internal 240 volt to 480 volt AC electrical equipment.  This exposed employees to an electrical shock and arc flash hazard.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 2, 2023

Penalty

Initial $6,026 · Current $3,300 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(e)(1)(i):The employer did not compile a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present using a product identifier that was referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet.  (a) On or about October 4, 2022, the employer had not compiled a list of hazardous chemicals for all areas where they were known to be present.  These chemicals included but were not limited to compressed gases (acetylene, argon, oxygen, and carbon dioxide),  Loctite,  Krylon, Primers, hydraulic fluid, Kwik Start, and propane canisters.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 2, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:  (a) On or about October 4, 2022, the employer failed to provide effective training on the contents of the hazard communication program to employees in the screening line areas.   (b) On or about  October 4, 2022, the employer failed to provide effective training on the contents of the hazard communication program to employees working in the bale storage areas at the north and south ends of the facility.

Issued

Feb 10, 2023

Abate by

Mar 2, 2023

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:  (a) On or about October 4, 2022, the employer did not complete a written certification that a hazard assessment had been conducted for all areas of the recycling plant operations.