MIDDLETOWN, OH —
OSHA Inspection: BAY WEST PAPER COMPANY
Complaint inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of BAY WEST PAPER COMPANY in 700 COLUMBIA AVE., MIDDLETOWN, OH 45042 (NAICS 000000). OSHA activity number 103228383.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- BAY WEST PAPER COMPANY
- Site address
- 700 COLUMBIA AVE.
- City
- MIDDLETOWN
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 45042
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Y
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 000000
- SIC code (legacy)
- 2679
- Employees
- 169
- Ownership type
- A
- Industry flags
- Manufacturing safety.
Citations
3 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.179 B05
- Issued
- Dec 9, 1999
- Abate by
- Jan 28, 2000
- Penalty
- Initial $4,500 · Current $2,000 Reduced
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2000.00
- — Z (S) $4500.00
1910.184 D
- Issued
- Dec 9, 1999
- Abate by
- Dec 14, 1999
- Penalty
- Initial $4,500
Recent events (2)
- — I (O)
- — Z (S) $4500.00
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Dec 9, 1999
- Abate by
- Jan 28, 2000
- Penalty
- Initial $4,500 · Current $4,500
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees in the wet end area were exposed to the potential of falling loads, hoists, and/or hoist components due to the following condiitons: a) Two Coffing 1 and 1/4 ton hoists, in the wet end area, were not marked on the bridge to show its rated capacity. The bridge showed signs of deterioration, in that the left portion of the bridge was blocked off to prevent its use due to the poor condition of the bridge. Moisture from the wet end had rusted the beam. b) The two Coffing 1 and 1/4 ton hoists in the wet end, were not separated by a bumper to prevent damage to internal parts, in that the hoists were hitting together on the bridge. c) The newly installed Jib Hoist in the wet end area was not marked to show its rated capacity on the supporting structure. One feasible and acceptable method of abatement is to develop and adopt rules and procedures which are consistent with ANSI B30.16 including weight capacity to be seen from the floor on both sides of the bridge; bumpers be installed to prevent damage when two hoists are on a bridge, and when a new hoist is installed, the hoisting and supporting structures be marked to show its rated capacity.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $4500.00
- — Z (S) $4500.00
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 000000)
More inspections in OH
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 103228383.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.