Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,197,549Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-27 Last loaded 2026-08-31

OSHA Inspection: NEVS INK, INC.

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of NEVS INK, INC. in 2500 W. SUNSET DR., WAUKESHA, WI 53189 (NAICS 322222). OSHA activity number 335240388.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Nevs INK, INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Nevs INK, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
NEVS INK, INC.
Site address
2500 W. SUNSET DR.
City
WAUKESHA
State
WI
ZIP
53189
Mailing
2500 W. SUNSET DR., WAUKESHA, WI 53189
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
322222
Employees
40
Ownership type
Private (A)

8 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.23 C01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Sep 21, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,100 · Current $700 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.23(c)(1):   Open-sided floors and/or platforms four feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level were not guarded with standard railings (or equivalent) and toeboards:  Note:  Toeboards are only required when persons can pass, there is moving equipment or there is equipment with which falling materials could create a hazard.  (a)  In the Finishing Department; employees were exposed fall hazards when on the top of the air compressor room to retrieve or store boxes.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $700
  • · Z (S) $2100

1910.147 C01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Oct 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1):   The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:  (a)  The employer had an inadequate Lockout/Tagout program in that it did not discuss the scope, testing or positioning of machines, equipment or components; outside personnel (contractors, etc.); group lockout or tagout; nor shift or personnel changes exposing employees to unexpected startup of equipment.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $2800
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.147 C04 I

Serious Gravity 5 3 instances 20 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Oct 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced
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:  (a)  The employer did not develop written energy control procedures for authorized personnel to follow when accomplishing set-up, service, maintenance, and cleaning on equipment such as but not limited to:  slitters, shrink wrap machines, and carousels.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.147 C07 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Oct 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i): The training program of the employer did not include all the training elements listed under Items A-C of 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i):  (a) At the 2500 and 2510 building, lockout/tagout training had not been provided to authorized and affected employees while set-up, servicing, maintenance, and cleaning operations were being performed to ensure they had the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the task safely.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.178 L04 III

Other-than-serious 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Sep 21, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $700 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii):   An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operators performance was not conducted at least once every 3 years  (a)  The employer did not evaluate all forklift operators at least once every three years to ensure they had the skills and knowledge necessary to operate the forklift safely.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $700
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.212 A03 II

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Sep 21, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii):   Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):  (a) In the Finishing Department, the Siat Slitter #2 had a guard which was easily removable exposing employees to struck-by hazards from the slitter blades.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1400
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.1200 F05

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Sep 21, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5):   The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged, or marked with the identity and appropriate hazard warnings regarding the chemicals contained therein:  (a) In the Finishing Department, a gallon of Acetate only had a half written name of the chemical but did not have the appropriate hazard warning exposing employees to health hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $2100

1910.22 D01

Deleted Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 30, 2012
Abate by
Oct 15, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1):   In every building or other structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial, or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official were not marked on plates of approved design which were supplied and securely affixed by the owner of the building, or the duly authorized agent, in a conspicuous place in each space to which they related:  (a)  In the Finishing Department, the air compressor roof was being utilized as a storage area without identifying the load capacity of said roof.  This exposed employees to material falling from overloading of the structure.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $0

View Nevs INK, INC.'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 335240388.

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