EMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, EMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — a industry sector 00 facility located at MCI CONCORD, CONCORD, MA 01742 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 23 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $32,400.00. The inspection case was opened on 1992-03-13.

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 MA, this facility's penalty places it at the 99th percentile among 60,671 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $2,824.83.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 23 citations spanning 6 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 11 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition. 4 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 21, 1992 with the latest abatement deadline set for May 24, 1992. Of the 23 total citations, 15 (65%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, suggesting partial progress toward required corrective actions.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $32,400.00 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 $1,408.70 falls within the standard penalty range.

The inspection of EMSA Limited Partnership at the MCI Concord facility revealed a deeply entrenched pattern of systemic safety failures, characterized by a heavy reliance on the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1)) to address high-gravity hazards. The repeated citation of 5(a)(1) with maximum gravity ratings indicates that the employer failed to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm, likely involving specialized operational risks not covered by specific standards. The high penalty-to-violation ratio, particularly for these General Duty infractions, underscores the severity of the identified risks and suggests an environment where fundamental safety management was neglected. Furthermore, the data highlights a significant breakdown in Hazard Communication (1910.1200) and personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols. The failure to maintain written programs and provide adequate eye and face protection, coupled with deficiencies in medical services and first aid (1910.151), points to a workforce left vulnerable to chemical exposures and immediate injury without sufficient mitigation tools. The presence of multiple "Serious" violations across disparate categories—sanitation, walking-working surfaces, and hazardous materials—demonstrates that these were not isolated incidents but rather a comprehensive failure of the facility’s safety culture. For an entity operating within a correctional environment, these lapses represent an elevated liability profile, as the lack of standardized safety controls directly compromised both staff and occupant welfare.