Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,194,531Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-11 Last loaded 2026-08-14

OSHA Inspection: GENPAK LLC

Referral inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of GENPAK LLC in 116 SCHICANE DR., SEBRING, FL 33870 (NAICS 326140). OSHA activity number 343634283.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Genpak LLC for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Genpak LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
GENPAK LLC
Site address
116 SCHICANE DR.
City
SEBRING
State
FL
ZIP
33870
Mailing
10601 WESTLAKE DR., CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
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
326140
Employees
100
Ownership type
Private (A)

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.119 E03 I

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
May 2, 2019
Abate by
Jun 19, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(i): The process hazard analysis did not address the hazards of the process:  a. On or about November 17, 2018, at the extrusion area, the process hazard analysis conducted in March 2018 did not address the deactivation of de-ionizer fans from a power loss or partial power loss, exposing employees to a flash fire hazard.  b. On or about November 17, 2018, at the extrusion area, the process hazard analysis conducted in March 2018 did not address the loss of re-grind material from a power loss or partial power loss, leading to the feed of virgin material to  extruder #4 without a nucleating agent, exposing employees to a flash fire hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.119 E03 IV

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
May 2, 2019
Abate by
Jun 19, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(iv): The process hazard analysis did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls:  a.  On or about November 17, 2018, at the extrusion area, the process hazard analysis performed did not address the failure of engineering and/or administrative controls of such as, but not limited to the Extruder Static Eliminators and the Extruder Ventilation fans, exposing employees to fire hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.119 F01 II B

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
May 2, 2019
Abate by
Jun 5, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B): The employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for steps required to correct or avoid deviation from the operating limits in the covered process:  a) On or about November 17, 2018, at the extrusion area, clear instructions were not in place prohibiting the feeding of virgin material into the extruders without talc to mitigate the release of butane gas, exposing employees to flash fire hazards.  b) On or about November 17, 2018, at the extrusion area, clear instructions were not in place outlining the steps to be taken when a partial power loss occurs. A power loss de-energized the static eliminators and a ventilation fan for extruder #4 while leaving the extruder running resulting in a flash fire when butane gas was released.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.119 F01 III B

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
May 2, 2019
Abate by
Jun 5, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iii)(B): The employer's Standard Operating Procedures did not include precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment:  a) On or about November 17, 2018, flame/fire retardant clothing and adequate neck and face protection was not required by the standard operating procedures when there was a hazard of flash fires at the extruder die area.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.132 D01 I

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
May 2, 2019
Abate by
Jun 15, 2019
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $13,260
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(i): The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:    a) On or about Novembe17, 2018, employees were not provided with appropriate personal protective equipment that would protect them from flash fires that were likely to be present at the extruder area.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $13260
  • · Z (S) $0

View Genpak 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 343634283.

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