GEORGETOWN STEEL CORPORATION

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, GEORGETOWN STEEL CORPORATION — a industry sector 00 facility located at FRASER ST., GEORGETOWN, SC 29440 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 80 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $34,148.00. The inspection case was opened on 1991-07-29.

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 SC, this facility's penalty places it at the 100th percentile among 39,390 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $977.57.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 80 citations spanning 11 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 7 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition. 8 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 May 9, 1988 with the latest abatement deadline set for May 23, 1988. Of the 80 total citations, 15 (19%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, which may indicate ongoing compliance gaps requiring further regulatory attention.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $34,148.00 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 $426.85 falls within the standard penalty range.

The 1991 inspection of Georgetown Steel Corporation revealed a pervasive breakdown in fundamental safety management systems, characterized by a staggering volume of 80 citations. The enforcement record highlights a systemic failure to maintain basic electrical safety and machine guarding protocols, which are critical in a high-hazard steel production environment. The concentration of violations under 1910.0303, 1910.0304, and 1910.0305 indicates a facility-wide neglect of electrical infrastructure, exposing workers to persistent risks of electrocution and arc flash. Furthermore, the presence of serious violations regarding Personal Protective Equipment (1910.132) and emergency eyewash stations (1910.151) suggests that management failed to provide the most basic layers of defense against chemical and thermal hazards. The penalty total of $34,148, while modest by modern standards, represented a significant enforcement action for the early 1990s, signaling that OSHA viewed the facility’s non-compliance as a chronic rather than isolated issue. The breadth of "Other-than-Serious" violations alongside serious citations points to a culture of operational complacency where minor hazards were allowed to proliferate until they created a compounding risk environment. For a primary metals facility, this pattern of citations reflects a reactive safety posture where maintenance and hazard identification programs were likely secondary to production demands, creating a workplace where catastrophic failure was a constant possibility.