SOMERS THIN STRIP - BRASS GROUP

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, SOMERS THIN STRIP - BRASS GROUP — a industry sector 00 facility located at 215 PIEDMONT STREET, WATERBURY, CT 06701 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 34 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $32,300.00. The inspection case was opened on 1999-12-03.

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 CT, this facility's penalty places it at the 99th percentile among 33,669 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $3,368.63.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 34 citations spanning 8 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 7 other-than-serious — The violation has a direct relationship to job safety and health but is unlikely to cause death or serious physical harm. 8 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition.

Enforcement Timeline: Citations were issued beginning February 20, 1998 with the latest abatement deadline set for March 16, 2007. Of the 34 total citations, 12 (35%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, which may indicate ongoing compliance gaps requiring further regulatory attention.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $32,300.00 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 $950.00 falls within the standard penalty range.

The inspection of Somers Thin Strip - Brass Group revealed a pervasive pattern of machine guarding deficiencies and equipment maintenance failures that pointed toward a systemic breakdown in the facility’s mechanical integrity programs. The sheer volume of citations under 29 CFR 1910.212—specifically targeting point-of-operation hazards and fan blades—demonstrated that management failed to provide the most fundamental physical protections against amputations and crushing injuries. When coupled with the General Duty Clause (5A0001) violation and high-gravity ratings, the enforcement record suggests that workers were routinely exposed to recognized hazards that lacked specific OSHA standards but were severe enough to warrant significant penalties. The penalty total of $32,300, while substantial for the era, reflects an aggregate risk profile where isolated incidents were less of a concern than the recurring failure to control hazardous energy and moving parts. The presence of 1910.147 (Lockout/Tagout) and 1910.179 (Overhead Crane) violations further indicates that the facility lacked the administrative controls and inspection rigor necessary for heavy metal manufacturing. These findings characterize an environment where production speed likely superseded preventive maintenance. For the EHS professional, this record underscores a failure of the internal audit process, as the cited hazards—unguarded pulleys, exposed wiring, and unmaintained lifting equipment—were visible, high-risk conditions that should have been mitigated through a standard safety management system long before federal intervention.