HEITKAMP, INC.

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, HEITKAMP, INC. — a industry sector 00 facility located at LIBERTY ST. & VALLEY ST., CONCORD, NH 03301 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 1 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $25,000.00. The inspection case was opened on 1999-09-08.

DOL records document workplace safety violations warranting formal citation under the OSH Act. While classified at the standard enforcement level, all OSHA citations require corrective action and may indicate areas where workplace safety programs should be strengthened.

State Context: Within NH, this facility's penalty places it at the 98th percentile among 12,674 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $3,397.44.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 1 citations spanning 0 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 1 unclassified — A technical violation that does not fit neatly into the standard classification categories.

Enforcement Timeline: Citations were issued beginning October 5, 1999 with the latest abatement deadline set for October 8, 1999. Of the 1 total citations, 0 (0%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, which may indicate ongoing compliance gaps requiring further regulatory attention.

Penalty Assessment: The per-citation average of $25,000.00 exceeds OSHA's FY2024 statutory maximum of $16,131 for serious violations, indicating the presence of willful or repeat classifications that carry enhanced penalty authority under Section 17 of the OSH Act.

The 1999 enforcement action against Heitkamp, Inc. centered on a significant breach of the OSH Act’s General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1)), carrying a substantial $25,000 penalty for a single violation. In the context of late-1990s penalty structures, this assessment was exceptionally high for a lone citation, signaling a high-gravity hazard that lacked a specific vertical standard but posed an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm. The reliance on the General Duty Clause suggests that the employer failed to