OSHA Inspection: ALL FOILS, INC.

Issued

2026-04-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-08-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $9268.00 · Current $4634.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.147(c)(1): The employer did not establish a program consisting of an energy control procedure, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performed any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative:  On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not establish an energy control program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training, and periodic inspections. Employees were not protected from the unexpected energization, startup, or release of stored energy while performing servicing and maintenance activities, such as, but not limited to setting up, adjusting, inspecting, cleaning or unjamming of machines or equipment, making adjustments or tool changes. Equipment serviced and maintained in the facility includes but is not limited to the 60" & 70" Deacro, 40" Goebel, Schmutz, Maxson, Beck, Rotomac, Ruesch, Yoder, and Coater's 1, 2, 3 and 4. Hazardous energies present on the equipment includes but is not limited to mechanical, gravitational, kinetic, electrical, thermal, and pneumatic.

Issued

2026-04-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-08-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $9268.00 · Current $4634.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

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:  a) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Coater Machines 1, 2, 3 and 4 . Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the rollers. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  b) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the 40" Goebel machine. Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  c) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Schmutz machines. Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  d) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Ruesch machine. Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  e) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Beck machine. Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers,  and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  f) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the 60" Deacro machine. Guarding was not in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  g) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Rotomac machine. Interlocked door guard in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers, was removed and missing. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.  h) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that effective machine guarding was in place on the Maxson machine. Guard/panel in place to protect employees from the rotating actions of the coil/reel and rollers, was removed and missing. In-running nip points between the powered rollers, non-powered rollers, and the product itself, are present during operation of the machines exposing employees to caught-in hazards including but not limited to entanglement, crushing hazards, amputations, and degloving.

Issued

2026-04-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-08-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $9268.00 · Current $4634.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.219(c)(2): All exposed parts of horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform, excepting runways used exclusively for oiling, or running adjustments, were not protected by a stationary casing enclosing shafting completely:  a) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that the horizontal shafting on Coaters 1, 2 and 3 was guarded by a stationary casing enclosing the shafting completely. Shafting enclosures to Coaters 1, 2 and 3 were left open and the safety interlock was bypassed. Employees were exposed to amputation and entanglement hazards such as those created by the rotating horizontal shafting.  b) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that the horizontal shafting on Coater 4, were guarded by a stationary casing enclosing the shafting completely. The horizontal shafting on Coater 4 did not have any guarding in place. Employees were exposed to amputation and entanglement hazards such as those created by the rotating horizontal shafting.

Issued

2026-04-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-08-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.219(d)(1): Pulley(s) with part(s) seven feet or less from the floor or work platform were not guarded in accordance with the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.219(m) and (o):   a) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure all pulleys were guarded to protect operators and other employees from amputation and caught-in hazards such as those created by rotating parts on the Beck machine.  b) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure all pulleys were guarded to protect operators and other employees from amputation and caught-in hazards such as those created by rotating parts on the Maxson machine.

Issued

2026-04-06 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-08-03 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.219(f)(3): Sprocket wheels and chains which were seven (7) feet or less above floors or platforms were not enclosed:  a) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that the rotating sprocket wheels and chains located above the two (2) catwalks in between Coaters 1 and 2, were guarded to protect employees from caught-in hazards.   b) On or about February 11, 2026, the employer did not ensure that the rotating sprocket wheels and chains located on the 40" Goebel, were guarded to protect employees from caught-in hazards.