Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: ALDRICO, INC.

Complaint inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint safety inspection of ALDRICO, INC. in 341 EAST WILLIAMS, WYOMING, IL 61491 (NAICS 333414). OSHA activity number 340808518.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Aldrico, INC. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Aldrico, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
ALDRICO, INC.
Site address
341 EAST WILLIAMS
City
WYOMING
State
IL
ZIP
61491
Mailing
P.O. BOX 97, WYOMING, IL 61491
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
333414
Employees
22
Ownership type
A

13 citations on file for this inspection.

1903.19 C01

Other-than-serious 3 instances 1 exposed
Issued
Mar 15, 2016
Abate by
Apr 17, 2016
Penalty
Initial $400 · Current $200 Reduced
29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): The employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation had been abated:    On December 9, 2015, Aldrico, Inc. dba Aldrich Company was issued citations and the employer did not verify, through written certification that each citation was abated.  Abatement certification was not received for the following violations:        a)    Citation 1 Item 1 and,  b)    Citation 1 Item 2 and,  c)    Citation 1 Item 3b.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $200
  • — Z (O) $400

1910.94 C04 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $1,600 · Current $800 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.94(c)(4)(i): The spray room, including floors, was not constructed of mansory, concrete, or other noncombustible material:    Employees conducting spray painting operations were exposed to potential fire hazards because the walls on the east end of the spray room is constructed with wood.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $800
  • — Z (S) $1600

1910.107 C06

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,400 · Current $1,200 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.107(c)(6): Electrical wiring and equipment not subject to deposits of combustible residues but located in a spraying area as herein defined were not explosion-proof type approved for     Class I, group D locations and did not otherwise conform to the provisions of subpart S of this part, for Class I, Division 1, Hazardous Locations:    An employee performing spray painting operations in the spray room was exposed to burns, in the event of a fire, and the employer did not ensure that the electrical wiring and equipment were approved for Class I, Group D locations.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1200
  • — Z (S) $2400

1910.134 C01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,400 · Current $1,200 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:    Employees engaged in spray painting activities during parts and equipment fabrication wore a 3M 7503 half face respirators with organic vapor/6001 cartridges and a written respiratory protection program had not been established by the employer to include the following provisions:    i) Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the workplace;  ii) Medical evaluations for those employees required to wear respirators;  iii) Fit testing procedures for tight-fitting respirators;  iv) Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonable foreseeable emergency situations;  v) Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting, storing, inspecting, repairing, discarding and otherwise maintaining respirators;  vi)  Procedures and schedules for changing cartridges and the method/means used to determine this schedule;  vii) Training employees in the respiratory hazards to which they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency situations;  viii) Training employees in the proper use of respirators, including putting on and removing them, any limitations on their use, and their maintenance;  ix)  Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the respiratory protection program; and
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1200
  • — Z (S) $2400

1910.134 D01 III

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:  The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards of the workplace during tasks such as the spray painting of products in the spray room. A 3M 7500 tight-fitting half face respirator was used to perform  the painting operations.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 E01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.   Employees engaged in spray painting operations wore a 3M 7500 tight fitting half face respirators with organic vapor/6001 cartridges and a medical evaluation had not been conducted by the employer.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 F02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:  Employees engaged in spray painting operations wore a 3M 7500 tight fitting half face respirators with organic vapor/6001 cartridges and a fit test had not been conducted by the employer.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 G01 I A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function:  An employee with a beard and other facial hair who was engaged in spray painting operations wore a 3M 7500 tight-fitting half face respirator and the employer did not ensure that facial hair did not interfere with the sealing surface of the respirator.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 K

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 28, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide respirator training that would ensure each employee could demonstrate knowledge of items in section (i)-(vii):   An employee wore a tight fitting half mask respirator while performing spray painting operations and the employer did not provide a information and training that would ensure each employee could demonstrate knowledge of items in section (i)-(vii) of this section.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.212 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced
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:    Employees operating the horizontal band saw are exposed to amputation hazards and the employer has not ensured that the unused portion of the blade is guarded.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1000
  • — Z (S) $2000

1910.217 B07 II

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 6, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.217(b)(7)(ii): Mechanical power press(es) using part revolution clutches were not provided with a red color stop control, which would immediately deactivate the clutch and apply the brake, override any other control, and require use of the operating (tripping) means which have been selected:    Employees operating the Slide Die press were exposed to amputation hazards and the employer did not ensure that the part revolution press was equipped with a red colored stop control.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1000
  • — Z (S) $2000

1910.217 C01 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 6, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $1,000 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.217(c)(1)(i): The employer did not provide and ensure the usage of point of operation guards or properly applied point of operation devices on every operation performed on mechanical power press(es):    Employees operating the Slide Die Press were exposed to amputation hazards and the employer did not ensure that two-hand controls were positioned at a distance that prevented the operator from reaching into the point of operation.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1000
  • — Z (S) $2000

1910.217 C03 VII D

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Dec 9, 2015
Abate by
Jan 6, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.217(c)(3)(vii)(d): Two hand controls used with mechanical power press(es) were not fixed in position so that only a supervisor or safety engineer was capable of relocating the controls:  Employees operating the Slide Die press were exposed to amputation hazards and the employer did not ensure that the two hand controls were in a fixed position.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

View Aldrico, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 340808518.

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