Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,195,903Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-18 Last loaded 2026-08-21

OSHA Inspection: PRETIUM PACKAGING, LLC

Referral inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of PRETIUM PACKAGING, LLC in 1 DEVCO DRIVE, MANCHESTER, PA 17345 (NAICS 326160). OSHA activity number 339910143.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Pretium Packaging, LLC for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Pretium Packaging, LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
1 DEVCO DRIVE
City
MANCHESTER
State
PA
ZIP
17345
Mailing
1 DEVCO DRIVE, MANCHESTER, PA 17345
Inspection type
Referral (C)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
326160
Employees
74
Ownership type
Private (A)

7 citations on file for this inspection.

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Mar 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $3,750 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 was free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees from a release of 20 percent fluorine:    (a)  1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The employer did not develop and maintain a tracking system to ensure repair and replacement recommendations were completed. A piping inspection resulted in a recommendation to place non-metallic pads between the stainless steel piping and the carbon steel pipe hangars to prevent corrosion of the stainless and cause it to fail. The employer did not take action to follow the recommendation, on or about August 20, 2014.     Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $3750
  • · Z (S) $5000

1910.119 D02 I D

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Apr 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $3,750 Reduced
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)  1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The employer did not ensure that safe upper pressure and temperature limits of vessel 1 were correct in the process safety information, on or about August 20, 2014.     Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $3750
  • · Z (S) $5000

1910.119 E03 I

Serious Gravity 5 3 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Jul 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $3,750 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The Process Hazard Analysis did not address the hazards of the process    (a)  1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The employer did not ensure that the process hazard analysis included all appropriate elements of the system.  The process hazard analysis did not included such items as but not limited to analysis of high or low pressures at each vessel,  on or about August 20, 2014.      (b)  1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The employer did not ensure that the process hazard analysis included all appropriate elements of the system.  The process hazard analysis did not include such items as but not limited to analysis of the failure of a nitrogen system, on or about August 20, 2014.    (c) 1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania -  The employer did not ensure that the process hazard analysis included all appropriate elements of the system.  The process hazard analysis did not include such as but not limited to analysis of the failure of the fluorine regulator, on or about August, 20, 2014.      Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $3750
  • · Z (S) $5000

1910.119 E03 IV

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Jul 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv): The process hazard analysis did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls:    (a) 1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The PHA did not adequately trace the consequence of failures such as but not limited to power failure to electrical controls to ensure that the system is failing safe, on or about  August 20, 2014.    Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.119 E06

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Jul 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): The Process Hazard Analysis was not updated or revalidated to assure it was consistent with the current process:    (a) 1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The employer did not update or revalidate the process hazard analysis  to assure it was consistent with the current process in that  alarm system settings and valve types used in the analysis were not the same as those in the current process, on or about August 10, 2014.      Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.119 O03

Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Apr 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $3,750 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(0)(3): The employer did not develop a report of the findings of the audit.      (a) 1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania - The employer did not develop a findings report after the completion of the compliance audit conducted in November of 2013, on or about August 8. 2014.      Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $3750
  • · Z (S) $5000

1910.119 O04

Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 20, 2015
Abate by
Apr 27, 2015
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4): The employer did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies had been corrected:    (a) 1 Devco Drive, Manchester Pennsylvania  - The employer completed the compliance audit in November of 2013.  The employer did not properly determine and document an appropriate response to each finding and document that the deficiencies had been corrected, on or about August 20, 2014.      Abatement certification required within 10 days after abatement date. The certification shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

View Pretium Packaging, LLC'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 339910143.

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