Since 1997, OSHA inspectors have visited Endpak Packaging, Inc. in California 6 times.
The most recent inspection opened on Feb 15, 2023 after an accident, in Pico Rivera.
In all, OSHA issued 23 citation items: 14 serious and 9 other-than-serious.
The proposed penalties came to $155,040; today they stand at $71,290, 54% less.
Among manufacturing employers, the typical cited inspection since 2015 ends with a $4,500 penalty. Endpak Packaging, Inc. averages $15,668 across 3 cited inspections.
Endpak Packaging, Inc. also files yearly injury logs with OSHA, summarized below.
Inspection 345755649 OPENED JAN 27, 2022Closed
Accident · Partial · Safety · 84 employees at the site · Closed Oct 13, 2025
9101 Perkins St., Pico Rivera, CA 90660 · Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing · OSHA's record · Phone and website on Google Maps
Incident on Nov 18, 2021: Employee's fingers are amputated in machine
At 11:30 a.m. on November 18, 2021, an employee was working as a feeder/assistant operator for a Pinch Bottomer Machine. The employee was cleaning the left over glue residue in the machine where the paper bag is prepared and sealed by the compressor roller. As the employee was cleaning the surface, her glove got pulled in by the compressor roller crushing and degloving her index and middle fingers. The employee's index and middle fingers on her left hand were surgically amputated. The employee was treated without hospitalization.
| Citation and rule | Type | Proposed | Current | Issued | Status |
|---|
| Citation 1, item 1 29 CFR 3203(B) |
Other-than-serious | $175 | $125 | May 17, 2022 | Final |
| Citation 1, item 2 29 CFR 3314(C) |
Other-than-serious | $525 | $250 | May 17, 2022 | Final |
| Citation 2, item 1 29 CFR 4187(A) |
Serious | $9,450 | $470 | May 17, 2022 | Final |
| Citation 3, item 1 29 CFR 4186(B) |
Serious | $16,200 | $16,200 | May 17, 2022 | Final |
Inspection 312667397 OPENED JUL 27, 2011Closed
Accident · Partial · Safety · 95 employees at the site · Closed Mar 30, 2013
9101 Perkins St, Pico Rivera, CA 90660 · Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing · OSHA's record · Phone and website on Google Maps
Incident on Jul 14, 2011: Employee's finger is injured when caught in machine
At approximately 2:45 p.m. on July 14, 2011, Employee #1, a helper operator with Endpak Packaging, Inc., was using a piece of cardboard to clean ink from the ru nning rollers of a printing press. His right middle finger became pinched in the rollers. Employee #1 was treated at an industrial clinic for an avulsion to his finger. He indicated during an interview that he was not permitted to deenergiz e the machine during the cleaning task and was not provided with a hand brush to accomplish the task safely.
| Citation and rule | Type | Proposed | Current | Issued | Status |
|---|
| Citation 2, item 1 29 CFR 3314 C01 |
Serious | $16,200 | $7,000 | Dec 30, 2011 | Final |
Inspection 301336608 OPENED OCT 12, 2005Closed
Accident · Partial · Safety · 96 employees at the site · Closed Nov 21, 2008
7343 Paramount Blvd, Yico Rivera, CA 90660 · Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing · OSHA's record · Phone and website on Google Maps
Incident on Sep 30, 2005: Employee's fingers are amputated when caught in machine
At approximately 11:00 a.m. on September 30, 2005, an employee, according to the manager, opened the yellow cover of bag-making machine Number 100, operating at 240 volts. The employee started cleaning the interior moving rolls with a rag. His hand was caught in the rolls, resulting in crushing injuries to three finger s on right hand. He was hospitalized for seven days at USC Medical Center. The o fficial stated that the employee was not supposed to clean the moving rolls insi de the machine but chose to do so on his own. The employee was interviewed at a later date in his attorney's office and stated that he was cleaning the moving d rums of the machine with a rag, when his fingers were pinched in the drums. He a lso stated that he was not trained in lockout and tagout safety rules and given no hand brush for the cleaning job. He further stated that he cleaned the machin e in same manner about once per month whenever the machine malfunctioned. The ma chine was inspected with management officials during walk around in production a rea, and controls on the machine were found to be functioning properly at inspec tion time. The machine had been in use in work place for about 30 years, accordi ng to the plant manager who participated in the inspection.
| Citation and rule | Type | Proposed | Current | Issued | Status |
|---|
| Citation 1, item 1 29 CFR 4051 A |
Other-than-serious | $5,850 | $125 | Mar 23, 2006 | Final |
| Citation 2, item 1 29 CFR 4075 A |
Serious | $5,850 | $125 | Mar 23, 2006 | Final |
| Citation 3, item 1 29 CFR 3314 J01 |
Serious | $1,620 | $0 | Mar 23, 2006 | Final |
| Citation 4, item 1 29 CFR 3314 C |
Serious | $16,200 | $16,200 | Mar 23, 2006 | Final |
Incident on Oct 29, 1996: Employee's right hand fractured in bag manufacturing machine
Employee #1 was in the production area operating a Matador 300, model CE93Z, 744 6, a paper bag manufacturing machine made by Windmoller and Holsher. A coworker stacking the bags noticed that the machine was not counting the paper bags accur ately. He told this to Employee #1, who retrieved a rag and attempted to clean t he rotary drums while the machine was running. The rag became caught in the rota ry drums and Employee #1's right hand was pulled into the in-running pinch point s. he sustained crushing injuries to his hand, including multiple fractures and deep lacerations, especially to the palm, index, and middle fingers. Employee #1 later stated that he was an experienced machine operator with 4 1/2 years on th e job at endpack packaging. He said that he was directed by his immediate superv isor to operate the Matador 300, but that it was not standard procedure to clean machinery while it was running. He had received training for the specific job a nd its hazards. The investigation determined that Employee #1 was an experienced machine operator who had misjudged the hazards of cleaning the machine while it was running and therefore did not disengage the power source before staring to clean. The employer had instructed Employee #1 not to attempt cleaning the machi ne while it was running, but there was no written energy control program.
| Citation and rule | Type | Proposed | Current | Issued | Status |
|---|
| Citation 1, item 1 29 CFR 342 A |
Other-than-serious | $110 | $110 | Sep 26, 1997 | Final |
| Citation 1, item 2 29 CFR 3314 A |
Other-than-serious | $110 | $0 | Sep 26, 1997 | Final |
| Citation 1, item 3 29 CFR 3314 F |
Other-than-serious | $110 | $110 | Sep 26, 1997 | Final |
| Citation 3, item 1 29 CFR 4075 A |
Serious | $560 | $560 | Sep 26, 1997 | Final |
| Citation 4, item 1 29 CFR 4187 A |
Serious | $560 | $55 | Sep 26, 1997 | Final |
From the Form 300A summaries employers file with OSHA each year. Rate = recordable cases per 100 full-time workers.
In 2024, the Pico Rivera site logged 7 recordable injuries or illnesses among about 99 workers: 6.8 per 100 full-time workers, against a median of 2.1 for its industry. Those cases cost 44 days away from work.
Current text from the Code of Federal Regulations. Some citations were issued under older wording.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA enforcement data. A citation is OSHA's allegation; employers can contest it, and the status column shows where each item stands. Something wrong on this page? Tell us.