Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,197,549Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-27 Last loaded 2026-08-31

OSHA Inspection: ND PAPER RUMFORD DIVISION

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of ND PAPER RUMFORD DIVISION in 35 HARTFORD STREET, RUMFORD, ME 04276 (NAICS 322121). OSHA activity number 343960878.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 ND Paper Rumford Division for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for ND Paper Rumford Division is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
35 HARTFORD STREET
City
RUMFORD
State
ME
ZIP
04276
Mailing
35 HARTFORD STREET, RUMFORD, ME 04276
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Union (A)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
322121
Employees
650
Ownership type
Private (A)

10 citations on file for this inspection.

5(a)(1)

Deleted Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Jun 26, 2019
Penalty
Initial $9,472 · Current $0 Reduced
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees, when not using restraint systems, were exposed to crushing and struck-by hazards during the operation of powered industrial trucks:  Finishing Department - It is the practice of operators of the new tow tractor or the "Nellie Belle" to operate it without wearing a seat belt.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $9472

1910.22 A03

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 10 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Penalty
Initial $7,577 · Current $5,304 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3): Walking-working surfaces were not maintained free of hazards such as sharp or protruding objects, loose boards, corrosion, leaks, spills, snow, and ice:    Under Track 19 - The concrete on the floor outside of the back accessway to the scrubber building was broken and cracked, resulting in a tripping hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $5303.9
  • · Z (S) $7577

1910.28 B03 II

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.28(b)(3)(ii): Each employee was not protected from tripping into floor holes:  Kraft Mill - On the third floor, between the #4 and #5 digesters, there was a 5" diameter floor hole that was uncovered.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.28 B13 I

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Jul 15, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $13,260
29 CFR 1910.28(b)(13)(i):  When work was performed less than 6 feet (1.6 m) from the roof edge, the employer did not ensure each employee was protected from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or personal fall arrest system:    In the following instances, the employer did not ensure employees were protected from falling while working within 6 feet of the roof's edge of the soft wood washer roof:    a)    While an employee was washing down the roof.  b)    While an employee was opening a vent on the roof.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $13260
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.30 A01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 25 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Aug 31, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.30(a)(1): The employer did not provide training for each employee exposed to fall hazards and who used personal fall protection systems or is required to be trained as specified elsewhere in this subpart prior to May 17, 2017:    Facility - The Employer did not provide training in the fall hazards associated with working on low sloped roofs and the systems or methods required to reduce those hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.178 L04 III

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 150 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Aug 5, 2019
Penalty
Initial $9,472 · Current $6,630 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:    Facility - Each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being evaluated every three years.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $6630.4
  • · Z (S) $9472

1910.212 A01

Serious Gravity 10 9 instances 15 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Jun 26, 2019
Penalty
Initial $13,260 · Current $9,282 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:    In the following instances, machine guarding was not provided to protect employees in the machine area from ingoing nip point hazards:    a)  R10, basement, tending side, 4th press - Nip point between roll 4-2 and the felt.  b)  R12, basement, tending side, 2nd press - Nip point between the stretch roll and the felt.  c)  R12, basement, drive side, 2nd press - Nip point between the stretch roll and the felt.  d)  R15, fourdrenier, tending side, tension roll #3 - The guard rail providing protection from contact with the roll and wire was missing a midrail.  e)  R15, fourdrenier, tending side, guide roll #5 - Nip point between the roll and the wire was not guarded.  f)  R15, basement, tending side, bottom stretch roll - The chain and sign providing protection from the nip point between the roll and the felt was missing the sign indicating "danger".  g)  R15, fourdrenier, drive side - The chain and signs providing protection from the nip points between the #4 stretch roll the #6 stretch roll, the #5 guide roll and the wire were missing signs indicating "danger".
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $9282
  • · Z (S) $13260

1910.215 B09

Serious Gravity 5 3 instances 16 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Jun 24, 2019
Penalty
Initial $7,577 · Current $5,304 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9): The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:    In the following instances the distance between the tongue guard and the abrasive wheel periphery was greater than one fourth inch:    a)  Pulp Mill Maintenance Shop - The Baldor grinder's tongue guard was over 1/2 from the abrasive wheel.  b)  North End Maintenance Shop - The Baldor grinder had no tongue guard for either of the two abrasive wheels.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $5303.9
  • · Z (S) $7577

1910.219 E01 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Abate by
Jun 26, 2019
Penalty
Initial $7,577 · Current $5,304 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.219(e)(1)(i): Where both runs of horizontal belts were seven (7) feet or less from floor level the guard did not extend to at least fifteen (15) inches above the belt or to a standard height:     North End Maintenance Shop - Horizontal belts approximately 6' above the floor, were not guarded on one side of the Bridgeport drill press.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $5303.9
  • · Z (S) $7577

1910.219 O01 I A

Other-than-serious 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Jun 18, 2019
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.219(o)(1)(i)(a): All guards shall be rigidly braced every three (3) feet or fractional part of their height to some fixed part of machinery or building structure. Where guard is exposed to contact with moving equipment additional strength may be necessary:  Line B, Basement - One of the screws that secured  the CLO2 MC Pump guard was missing.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $0

View ND Paper Rumford Division'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 343960878.

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