Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,196,249Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-20 Last loaded 2026-08-24

OSHA Inspection: B.W. GRINDING CO.

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of B.W. GRINDING CO. in P.O. BOX 307, LYONS, OH 43533 (NAICS 331511). OSHA activity number 334444932.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 B.W. Grinding CO. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for B.W. Grinding CO. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
B.W. GRINDING CO.
Site address
P.O. BOX 307
City
LYONS
State
OH
ZIP
43533
Mailing
P.O. BOX 307, LYONS, OH 43533
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
331511
Employees
41
Ownership type
Private (A)

9 citations on file for this inspection.

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 10 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):     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 the employees are exposed to crushing hazards from falling loads.    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, an employee was exposed to struck by, crushing hazards from a falling load while using an under the hook lifting device to lift molds on the loop line due to unknown rated load capacity of the lifting devices.    b)  On or about May 24, 2012, an employee was exposed to struck by, crushing hazards from a falling load while using an under the hook lifting device to lift larger metal casting in the swing saw and grinding area due to unknown rated load capacity of the lifting device.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $2450
  • · Z (S) $4900

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 6 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):     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 employees are exposed to struck by hazards from falling loads.    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, an employee was exposed to a struck by, crushing hazard from a falling load due to a broken latch on the hook for the 480V electric Shawbox wire rope hoist on the 10 ton Erie Products top running crane in the melt area of the foundry when carrying the 11,500 lb capacity ladle or lifting sand molds ranging from 100 lbs to 3000 lbs.    b)  On or about May 24, 2012, an employee was exposed to a struck by, crushing hazard from a falling load due to a latch that would not completely close the throat of the hook for the 480V electric wire rope hoist on the 2 ton crane in the green sand area of the foundry when carrying the 1600 lb capacity ladle.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1750
  • · Z (S) $3500

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1):     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 who used ladles with no mechanism to prevent tipping were exposed to burn hazards.    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, the ladles used by employees to pour molten metal were not equipped with a mechanism to prevent the ladle from uncontrolled tilting exposing employees to severe burns.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1750
  • · Z (S) $3500

1910.178 O01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(o)(1):     Load(s) on powered industrial truck(s) were not stable or safely arranged:    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure that the ladle being transported from the furnace to the green sand area by a forklift was stable.  The ladle is placed on the forks of the forklift and could slide off of the forks while in transport exposing employees in front of the ladle to severe burns.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1750
  • · Z (S) $3500

1910.178 P01

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 41 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $4,900 · Current $2,450 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(p)(1):     Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe had not been taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition(s)    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure the Toyota forklift (Model 7FGCU25 Serial# 02897) was removed from service during a time in which it was in need of repair.  Employees were exposed to injuries related to unsafe operating conditions in that the horn was not functioning.    b)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure the YALE forklift (Model GC050BCNNAT072GS Serial# N378495) was removed from service during a time in which it was in need of repair.  Employees were exposed to injuries related to unsafe operating conditions in that the horn and parking brake were not functioning.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $2450
  • · Z (S) $4900

1910.178 Q07

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 41 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7):     Industrial trucks were not examined before being placed in service, or were placed in service if the examination showed conditions adversely affecting the safety of the vehicle    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure the Toyota forklift (Model 7FGCU25, Serial# 02897) was examined for conditions that adversely affect the trucks safety before being placed into service.  The Toyota lift truck was not in a safe operating condition in that the horn was not operative, preventing the operator from alerting pedestrians.      b)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure the YALE forklift (Model GC050BCNNAT072GS, Serial# N378495) was examined for conditions that adversely affect the trucks safety before being placed into service.  The YALE lift truck was not in a safe operating condition in that the horn and parking brake were not functioning.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.215 B09

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9):     The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure that employees who operated both sides of the large snag grinder in the grinding area were protected from the hazards of wheel breakage in that the tongue guard, or the upper peripheral member, was not adjusted to no more than one-fourth inch from the abrasive wheel.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1750
  • · Z (S) $3500

1910.215 D01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 24, 2012
Penalty
Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(d)(1):     Spindle speed(s) on grinding machine(s) were not checked before mounting to assure that it did not exceed the maximum operating speed marked on the wheel.  Also wheel(s) on grinding machine(s) were not sounded (ring test) and inspected for damage before mounting:      a)  On or about May 24, 2012, employees were exposed to hazards associated with abrasive wheel breakage in that the employer did not assure to inspect the NORTON foundry abrasive wheels before they were mounted on both sides of the large snag grinder in the grinding area.  The employer did not sound (ring test) the wheel, and did not check to make certain that the grinders spindle speed did not exceed the maximum operating speed marked on the wheels before using the wheel for grinding operations.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1750
  • · Z (S) $3500

1910.132 A

Repeat Gravity 10 3 instances 5 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2012
Abate by
Dec 3, 2012
Penalty
Initial $49,000 · Current $24,500 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.132(a):     Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:    a)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure that employees pouring molten gray ductile iron into molds were wearing protective foundry pants to reduce exposure of radiant, ambient and conductive heat and contact with molten metal generated when pouring the molten (approximately 2,650 degrees F) metal into molds.    b)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure that the furnace operators who added scrap metal to the furnace were wearing protective foundry pants to reduce exposure of radiant, ambient and conductive heat and contact with molten metal generated when pouring the molten (approximately 2,650 degrees F) metal into molds.    c)  On or about May 24, 2012, the employer did not assure melting pourer helpers were wearing protective foundry pants to reduce exposure of radiant, ambient and conductive heat and contact with molten metal generated when pouring the molten (approximately 2,650 degrees F) metal into molds.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (R) $24500
  • · Z (W) $49000

View B.W. Grinding CO.'s full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 334444932.

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