OSHA Inspection: HUHTAMAKI, INC.

Issued

Feb 25, 2013

Abate by

Mar 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1):  The employer did not assess the workplace to determine if hazards were present, or were likely to be present, which necessitated the use of personal protective equipment:    This violation was discovered on September 12, 2012, at the Paris, Texas manufacturing facility; where the employer did not perform an assessment to if personal protective equipment (PPE) was need to protect employees' eyes, face, hands and feet from injury.

Issued

Feb 25, 2013

Abate by

Mar 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(1):The employer did not establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment was isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:    This violation was discovered on September 12, 2012; where the employer did not establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to protect employees from injury from servicing and maintaining machines and equipment including but not limited to: three (3) Flexo Printing Presses; one (1) Flexo Press; one (1) Bobst Cutter; one (1) Sheeter Machine; three (3) Signature Gluers; and six (6) Nesters.

Issued

Feb 25, 2013

Abate by

Mar 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $5,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not conducted at least once every three years.    This violation was discovered on September 12, 2012; where the employer did not conduct an evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance at least once every three (3) years.

Issued

Feb 25, 2013

Abate by

Mar 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(6): The employer did not certify that each operator has been trained and evaluated as required by 29 CFR 1910.178(l):    This violation was discovered on September 12, 2012; where the employer did not certify that each powered industrial truck operator was trained and evaluated.

Issued

Feb 25, 2013

Abate by

Mar 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $7,000 · Current $4,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip-points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks:    This violation was discovered on September 12, 2012; where employees, who operated a Flexo Printing Press on Line #2 (operator's side), were not protected from the hazards created by ingoing nip-points and rotating parts.

Issued

Feb 25, 2013

Abate by

Mar 24, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employers did not develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of 29 CFR 1910.1200 for labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met:    This violation was discovered on September 12, 2012; where the employer did not develop and implement a hazard communication program to protect employees from injuries, who used hazardous chemicals including but not limited to inks, cleaners, and glue.