Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: MEAD WESTVACO

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of MEAD WESTVACO in 35 HARTFORD STREET, RUMFORD, ME 04276 (NAICS 322121). OSHA activity number 306535667.

What this inspection record means

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Mead Westvaco — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Mead Westvaco is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
MEAD WESTVACO
Site address
35 HARTFORD STREET
City
RUMFORD
State
ME
ZIP
04276
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Y
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
322121
SIC code (legacy)
2621
Employees
1100
Ownership type
A

6 citations on file for this inspection.

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 50 exposed
Issued
Mar 12, 2004
Abate by
Mar 30, 2004
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $5,000
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
were exposed to crushing injuries from the collapse of an unsafe structure
and burns and smoke
inhalation from fire:
Building 45 - R15 Maintenance Building - On or about January 20, 2004,
employees
were potentially exposed to the collapse of the roof and building caused
by excess ice
build-up on the roof.  The  subsequent fire destroyed the building,
exposing employees
to fire and smoke inhalation.
The collapse, although potentially catastrophic, resulted in no serious
injuries.
ABATEMENT NOTE: One feasible method to abate this may be to remove
accumulations of ice when the design limitations of the roof are exceeded.
The following conditions and circumstances contributed to the incident -
the roof collapse
due to ice build-up.  With reasonable diligence the employer could have
known of these
conditions and circumstances and addressed and abated them to prevent the
incident from
occurring.
1. Inadequate roof inspection by the current Buildings and Grounds Manager.
2. Inadequate training of the current Buildings and Grounds manager in
roof inspection
procedures by the previous Buildings and Grounds engineer.
3. The non-response to the roof leak at the point of danger -- the roof
valley
in the
northwest corner of Building 45 -- that was reported to the current
Buildings and
Grounds manager on or about January 14, 2004, six days prior to the
accident.  In the
document "Roof Maintenance Plan" developed by the Buildings and Grounds
Engineer,
the section on "Leak report / response:" stated that "Once a call has been
received
reporting a leak, it is the Buildings and Grounds Engineer
(responsibility) to go to the
site of the report and inspect the scene....If it is determined that the
leak is caused by
flaws in the roof or roof drains, the Buildings and Grounds Engineer will
need to
contract the required repairs."
4. The recognition that the Building 45 flash tank roof vent was
discharging water, as
evidenced by ice build up around the vent on the roofs of Building 45 and
the Trimmer
room and the outside walls of the Trimmer Room Building.  The safety
manager had
ropped-off with danger tape the ground area around the vent at Building 45
and the
Trimmer Room Building to keep pedestrians away from the area due to
falling ice.
5. Water exhausting from other roof vents, including roof flash tank steam
system vents,
had previously been reduced by trouble-shooting and repairing the steam
system.  R-9
Pulp Dryer wet end steam roof vent was an example of a steam system for
whichtrouble-shooting and repairs were done; the system was taken out of
service to prevent
ice build-up on the roof.-up
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $5000.00
  • — Z (S) $5000.00

1910.22 A01

Deleted Serious Gravity 04 2 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Mar 12, 2004
Abate by
Mar 18, 2004
Penalty
Initial $2,500 · Current $2,500
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2500.00
  • — Z (S) $2500.00

1910.165 B01

Other-than-serious Gravity 10 10 instances 100 exposed
Issued
Mar 12, 2004
Abate by
Apr 14, 2004
Penalty
Initial $5,000
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O)
  • — Z (S) $5000.00

1910.165 B05

Other-than-serious Gravity 10 10 instances 100 exposed
Issued
Mar 12, 2004
Abate by
Apr 14, 2004
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O)
  • — Z (S)

1926.1101 G08 I

Deleted Serious Gravity 02 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Mar 12, 2004
Abate by
Mar 18, 2004
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2000.00
  • — Z (S) $2000.00

1926.1101 E06

Deleted Serious Gravity 02 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Mar 12, 2004
Abate by
Mar 18, 2004
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S)
  • — Z (S)

View Mead Westvaco's full OSHA safety record →

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 306535667.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.