ANEMOSTAT, A DIVISION OF MESTEK, INC.

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, ANEMOSTAT, A DIVISION OF MESTEK, INC. — a industry sector 00 facility located at 888 NORTH KEYSER AVENUE, SCRANTON, PA 18508 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 38 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $49,300.00. The inspection case was opened on 1989-08-30.

The volume of citations issued during this inspection suggests systematic compliance deficiencies rather than isolated incidents. Facilities with 10 or more citations typically face comprehensive abatement requirements and may be subject to follow-up inspections.

State Context: Within PA, this facility's penalty places it at the 99th percentile among 84,409 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $3,015.83.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 38 citations spanning 10 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 13 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition. 2 other-than-serious — The violation has a direct relationship to job safety and health but is unlikely to cause death or serious physical harm.

Enforcement Timeline: Citations were issued beginning April 24, 2000 with the latest abatement deadline set for May 30, 2000. Of the 38 total citations, 14 (37%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, which may indicate ongoing compliance gaps requiring further regulatory attention.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $49,300.00 reflects OSHA's gravity-based penalty calculation methodology, which considers the severity of potential injury, the probability of occurrence, the employer's size, good faith, and violation history. The per-citation average of $1,297.37 falls within the standard penalty range.

The 1989 inspection of Anemostat’s Scranton facility revealed a high-gravity risk profile characterized by profound mechanical and electrical safeguarding failures. The assessment of $49,300 in penalties—a substantial sum for the era—underscores the severity of the 38 citations issued. The presence of multiple maximum-gravity Serious violations (Gravity 03 and 10) under standards 1910.217 and 1910.212 indicates a systemic failure to protect employees from catastrophic amputation hazards. Specifically, the lack of point-of-operation guarding and inadequate foot pedal protection on mechanical power presses suggests that the facility prioritized production throughput over basic physical barriers. The inclusion of a General Duty Clause (5A0001) violation with maximum gravity further signifies that management recognized, yet failed to mitigate, hazards for which no specific standard existed, pointing to a broader breakdown in the corporate safety culture. Furthermore, the combination of electrical deficiencies (1910.303) and improper abrasive wheel guarding (1910.215) reflects a pattern of neglecting routine equipment maintenance and hardware safety. These were not isolated technical oversights; rather, they represented a pervasive environment of non-compliance where workers were routinely exposed to life-altering kinetic energy and electrical hazards. The penalty structure suggests OSHA intended to signal that the facility’s lack of a comprehensive safety management system had reached a level of institutional negligence.