ROCHESTER, NY ·
OSHA Inspection: NALGENE NUNC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of NALGENE NUNC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in 75 PANORAMA CREEK DRIVE, ROCHESTER, NY 14625 (NAICS 326199). OSHA activity number 341254969.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- NALGENE NUNC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
- Site address
- 75 PANORAMA CREEK DRIVE
- City
- ROCHESTER
- State
- NY
- ZIP
- 14625
- Mailing
- 75 PANORAMA CREEK DRIVE, ROCHESTER, NY 14625
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 326199
- Employees
- 980
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
4 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.147 D03
- Issued
- May 19, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $5,000 · Current $3,600 Reduced
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) On or about 02/17/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees, performing the Stripping of the Cores on the Jomar machines from being struck by the moving carousel when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine. b) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing Conveyor Alignment ( fine tuning) on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazard of the closing molds when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine. c) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing the adjustment of the bottle supports on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazard of the closing molds when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine. d) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing the adjustment of the proximity switch on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazard of the boss assembly and the frame of the machine when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine. e) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing troubleshooting or maintenance of the core rods on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazards of the moving molding carousel and the boss assembly, when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $3600
- · Z (S) $5000
1910.147 D04 I
- Issued
- May 19, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $5,000 · Current $3,600 Reduced
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) On or about 02/17/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees, performing the Stripping of the Cores on the Jomar machines from being struck by the moving carousel when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine and affixing a control device to the energy isolation devices. b) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing Conveyor Alignment ( fine tuning) on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazard of the closing molds when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine and affixing a control device to the energy isolation devices. c) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing the adjustment of the bottle supports on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazard of the closing molds when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine and affixing a control device to the energy isolation devices. d) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing the adjustment of the proximity switch on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazard of the boss assembly and the frame of the machine when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine and affixing a control device to the energy isolation devices. e) On or about 02/22/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees performing troubleshooting or maintenance of the core rods on the Jomar machines, from the caught between hazards of the moving molding carousel and the boss assembly, when they authorized employees to insert a key in the interlock guarding device on the front access door instead of shutting off the machine and affixing a control device to the energy isolation devices. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $3600
- · Z (S) $5000
1910.212 A03 II
- Issued
- May 19, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $7,000 · Current $3,600 Reduced
General-duty citation text
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) On or about 02/12/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees, involved in removing the excessive plastic from the mold area on the Jomar 11 during operating cycles, from the caught between hazard created by the 4.5 inch opening of the leader pin bushing. b) On or about 02/03/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees, involved in troubleshooting the boss assembly, from the caught between hazard created by the 7.75 inch opening on the guard on the front door of the Jomar 11. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $3600
- · Z (S) $7000
1910.212 A03 III
- Issued
- May 19, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $7,000 · Current $3,600 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(iii): 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(iii): Special hand tools for placing and removing material(s) were used in lieu of other guarding required by this section, permitting the operator to place a hand in the danger zone: a) On or about 02/12/16 in the IBM area; employer failed to protect employees involved in removing the excessive plastic from the mold area on the Jomar 11 during operating cycles, when they permitted the by pass of the guarding device and the use of a tool (the purge hook tool provided by the employer) which allowed access to a caught between hazard created by the unguarded opening of the leader pin bushing. NO ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $3600
- · Z (S) $7000
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 326199)
More inspections in NY
Source
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 341254969.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.