OSHA Inspection: IVEX PROTECTIVE PACKAGING INC.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(D): Information concerning the technology of the process did not include safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer's process safety information did not ensure the safe upper and lower pressures were documented for the resin pressure levels in the foam extruder.  If resin levels are to low, isobutane gas can travel upstream and down stream of the injection point and exit the extruder, causing fires or explosions.      b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer's process safety information did not ensure the safe upper and lower limits were documented for the die gap on the foam extruders.  If the die gap is too large, isobutane could be ejected out of the extruder and cause a fire or explosion.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(E): Information pertaining to the technology of the process did not include an evaluation of the consequences of deviations, including those affecting the safety and health of employees.      a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process safety information included the consequences of deviation for operating the foam extruders with low resin levels.  Low resin levels could allow isobutane gas to escape the extrusion barrel, causing fires or explosions.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process safety information included the consequences of deviation for operating the foam extruders with a large die gap.  A large die gap could cause isobutane to escape the extruder barrel and exit the extruder, causing fires or explosions.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(B): Information pertaining to the equipment in the process did not include piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's).     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure process piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs) for the high pressure isobutane pumping area were accurate in that the P&ID did not show the low pressure piping supplying isobutane to the second high pressure pump for Line #2 and the high pressure piping leading from the pump to the extruder.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure process piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs) for the high pressure isobutane pumping area were accurate in that the P&ID did not show that an older high pressure pumping system was disconnected from the system.     c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure process piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs) for the high pressure isobutane pumping area were accurate in that the P&ID did not show the numerous low pressure relief valves located on globe valves throughout the piping system.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii): The employer did not document that equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not document that the exhaust system leading to the regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), used to remove isobutane vapors generated in the polyethylene foam extrusion process, was capable of operating beneath 25% of the LEL under all conditions, including the maximum loading of all potential sources; that the employer did not document that the exhaust system complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in that it did not contain flammable vapor detection equipment or explosion isolation devices to isolate the work area from the RTO.  At the time of the explosion on January 25, 2013, the ductwork was not equipped with flammable vapors sensors and explosion isolation devices.    b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not document that the sizing on the relief system for the 18,000 gallon isobutane storage tank complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.     c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not document that the relieving location for the relief valves on 18,000 gallon isobutane storage tank complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(a):  Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, were not provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it was necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure employees working around the foam extruders were wearing flame retardant clothing to protect the upper torso, lower torso, and the head from fire and explosion hazards created by the ignition of isobutane gas.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Jan 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the hazard of isobutane gas entering the regenerative thermal oxidizer during foam extrusion start-up operations and process upsets, resulting in fire and explosion hazards.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the hazard associated with isobutane gas traveling back up stream from the foam extruder injection point and catching fire in the resin feed tube.    c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the hazard of the relief valves on the 18,000 gallon isobutane storage tank located on the north side of the facility, relieving to a safe location.  If a large quantity of isobutane vapor were to be relieved through the vessel's pressure relief devices, the vapors would sink to the ground under the isobutane tank and potentially expose employees to the flammable vapors.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv): The process hazard analysis did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the failure of engineering controls such as the combustible gas detectors located throughout the facility.  The combustible gas detectors are one of the main safety mechanisms used to shut off the flow of isobutane to the process in the case of an emergency.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the failure of the combustible gas detectors not detecting isobutane vapors at the beginning of the process due to the environmental chamber doors being open, upsetting the designed ventilation airflow through the room.     c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the failure of the isobutane emergency shutdown system.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v): The process hazard analysis did not address facility siting.      a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure facility siting for the environmental capture rooms was addressed in the company's process hazard analysis.  On January 25, 2013, an explosion in the thermal oxidizer sent a flame front down the duct work and into the employee's work area inside the environmental chambers.      b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure facility siting for the front offices and the main production building was addressed in the comapny's process hazard analysis.  The front offices are several hundred feet from the 18,000 gallon isobutane storage tank located at the North end of the facility.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(vi): The process hazard analysis did not address human factors.       a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed human factors such as the employees working in the environmental chambers were unable to see the isobutane warning strobe light located on the east wall of the production area.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed human factors such as employees not being able to access the e-stops for the isobutane delivery system if there was a fire or explosion.     c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed human factors such as employees not being able to identify certain valves mentioned in the operating procedures because the valve identification tags had fallen off the valves in the high pressure pumping area.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Jan 3, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(4): The process hazard analysis was not performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations, and the team did not include at least one employee who has experience and knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one member of the team was not knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis was performed by a team of individuals.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis was performed by an individual knowledgeable in the What-If process hazard analysis methodology.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Jan 13, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): At least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the process hazard analysis was not updated and revalidated by a team meeting the requirements in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the process hazard analysis was revalidated every 5 years.    b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a previous incident was included in the PHAs which included a 2007 fire in the resin feed tube leading to the foam extruder due to the escape of isobutane gas.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and did not address steps for each operating phase.      a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure that procedures for the foam extrusion operation, such as but not limited to, start-up procedures, normal operating procedures, emergency shut down procedures, and start-up procedures after an emergency shut down, clearly identified the steps employees needed to take to operate the foam extruders.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities invoilved in each covered process consistant with the process safety information and did not address operating limits:    a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure that procedures for the foam extrusion operation, such as but not limited to, start-up procedures, normal operating procedures, emergency shut down procedures, and start-up procedures after an emergency shut down, clearly identified consequences of deviation for adding isobutane too quickly to the extruder before there is enough resin downstream of the isobutane injection point.      b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure that procedures for the foam extrusion operation, such as but not limited to, start-up procedures, normal operating procedures, emergency shut down procedures, and start-up procedures after an emergency shut down, clearly identified consequences of deviation for adding isobutane too quickly to the extruder before there is enough resin upstream of the isobutane injection point.      c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure that procedures for the foam extrusion operation, such as but not limited to, start-up procedures, normal operating procedures, emergency shut down procedures, and start-up procedures after an emergency shut down, clearly identified consequences of deviation regarding the size of the die gap.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(A): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and did not address the properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process.          a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure that procedures for the foam extrusion operation, such as but not limited to, start-up procedures, normal operating procedures, emergency shut down procedures, and start-up procedures after an emergency shut down, clearly identified the safety and health considerations including the properties and fire and explosion hazards presented by the isobutane used in the process.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $0 Reduced

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(B): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and did not address the precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment.    a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure that procedures for the foam extrusion operation, such as but not limited to, start-up procedures, normal operating procedures, emergency shut down procedures, and start-up procedures after an emergency shut down,  addressed safety and health considerations including the engineering controls, personal protective equipment, and administrative controls such as:     1. The fire detection and supression systems used to control a fire at the die head;     2. The static dissipating devices such as the static blowers and the static mats the employees stand on when running the process to eliminate the build-up of static electricity which could ignite flammable isobutane gas;    3. Personal protective equipment such as flame retardant clothing to protect employees from flash fires and explosions when operating the extrusion process.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(1)(i): Each employee presently involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, was not trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. The training did not include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee's job tasks.      a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure assistant extruder operators were properly trained on the isobutane emergency shutdown system, how it operates, and at what levels the combustible gas sensors located throughout the facility activate.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3): The employer did not ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process had received and understood the training required by this paragraph. The employer did not prepare a record which contained the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure assistant extruder operator training was documented.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Jan 12, 2014

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the 18,000 gallon isobutane storage tank.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the underground low pressure isobutane piping which carries isobutane from the storage tank to the high pressure pumps.     c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the high and low pressure isobutane pumps.     d. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the facility's combustible gas detectors located throughout the facility.     e. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the pressure relief devices on the isobutane storage tank, low pressure piping, and high pressure piping.     f. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the of the isobutane safety shutdown system used to shut down the flow of isobutane from the storage tank in the case of an emergency.     g. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure a mechanical integrity program was established and implemented for the inspection and testing of the regenerative thermal oxidizer.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $4,500

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): Inspections and tests were not performed on process equipment.      a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure the 18,000 gallon isobutane storage tank located at the north end of the facility, received adequate inspections per the National Board Inspection Code.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Oct 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

Hazardous substances K105

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure management of change procedures were developed and implemented prior to installing a second foam extrusion process line and a thermal oxidizer in 2006.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about January 25, 2013, the employer did not ensure management of change procedures were developed and implemented prior to installing a low pressure isobutane sensor at the isobutane injection point on the extruders in 2007.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Sep 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $6,300

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i): Procedures shall be developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure lockout procedures were documented when employees were exposed to struck by hazards while entering the line #1 foam winding area to perform servicing operations.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Sep 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(2): The machine or equipment was not turned off or shut down using the procedures established for the machine or equipment. An orderly shutdown was not utilized to avoid any additional or increased hazard(s) to employees as a result of the equipment stoppage.    a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure employees shut down the foam winder on line #1 prior to performing servicing operations, thereby exposing themselves to struck by hazards and rotating equipment.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Sep 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3): All energy isolating devices that were needed to control the energy to the machine or equipment were not physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the machine or equipment from the energy source(s).     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure employees isolated the electrical, pneumatic, and potential energy to the foam winder on line #1 prior to performing servicing operations, thereby exposing themselves to struck by hazards and rotating equipment.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Sep 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i): Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees.    a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure employees attached lockout devices to the electrical, pneumatic, and potential energy isolation points an the line #1 foam winder prior to performing servicing operations, thereby exposing themselves to struck by hazards and rotating equipment.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Sep 3, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,450 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A): Each authorized employee did not receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control.    a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure foam line operators were properly trained as authorized employees on the company's lockout program.  Employees were exposed to struck by hazards when entering the line #1 foam winding area to perform servicing operations and were not locking out the equipment prior to entry.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Sep 20, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $4,350 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1): One or more methods of machine guarding were 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.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure the  mandrels for line #2 winder were guarded to prevent employees from contacting the rotating mandrel when working in front of and traveling under the mandrel to start a new roll of foam.     b. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure the  mandrels for line #2 winder were guarded to prevent employees from being exposed to ingoing nip points between the rotating mandrel and the foam sheet when tucking foam around the mandrels.     c. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure the s-wrap machine located on line #2 was properly guarded to prevent employee exposures to the rotating rollers.     d. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure the  pneumatic holding arm on the indexing mandrel for the line #1 winder was guarded to prevent employees from pinch point and struck by hazards created by the holding arm as it moved into position to secure the end of the mandrel.     e. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure the indexing winder for the line #1 foam winding process was properly guarded to prevent employees from being struck by the winder as it indexed.

Issued

Jul 15, 2013

Abate by

Aug 23, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, shall be guarded. The guarding device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standards therefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, shall be so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.     a. IVEX Protective Packaging Inc. located in Sidney, Ohio:  On or about May 8, 2013, the employer did not ensure the saw was guarded on line #1 to prevent employees from contacting the rotating 10 inch blade when pulling foam from the extruder and through the saw blade.