Oxford, Connecticut · Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing · NAICS 333414
Since 2007, OSHA inspectors have visited Eemax, Inc. in Connecticut 2 times.
The most recent inspection opened on Jul 29, 2016 after a complaint, in Waterbury.
In all, OSHA issued 8 citation items: 7 serious and 1 other-than-serious.
The proposed penalties came to $7,930; today they stand at $4,125, 48% less.
The rule cited most here is 1910.132 (personal protective equipment, general requirements), 2 times.
Among manufacturing employers, the typical cited inspection since 2015 ends with a $3,600 penalty. Eemax, Inc. averages $1,750 across 1 cited inspection.
Eemax, Inc. also files yearly injury logs with OSHA, summarized below.
Want to know if OSHA cites Eemax, Inc. again? Add it to a watchlist and we will email you the morning the citation shows up.
Watch this company400 Captain Neville Dr., Waterbury, CT 06705 · General Warehousing and Storage · OSHA's record · Phone and website on Google Maps
| Citation and rule | Type | Proposed | Current | Issued | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citation 1, item 1 29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i) · Forklifts and other powered industrial trucks |
Serious | $3,180 | $1,750 | Aug 30, 2016 | Final |
353 Christian Street, Oxford, CT 06478 · Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing · OSHA's record · Phone and website on Google Maps
| Citation and rule | Type | Proposed | Current | Issued | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citation 1, item 1 29 CFR 1910.101(b) · Compressed gases (general requirements) |
Serious | $1,000 | $500 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
| Citation 1, item 2a 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2) · Personal protective equipment, general requirements |
Serious | $750 | $375 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
| Citation 1, item 2b 29 CFR 1910.132(f)(1)(ii) · Personal protective equipment, general requirements |
Serious | $0 | $0 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
| Citation 1, item 3 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(5) · Eye and face protection |
Serious | $750 | $375 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
| Citation 1, item 4 29 CFR 1910.303(g)(2)(i) · Electrical equipment, general requirements |
Serious | $1,000 | $500 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
| Citation 1, item 5 29 CFR 1910.304(e)(1)(iv) · Grounding and circuit protection |
Serious | $750 | $375 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
| Citation 2, item 1 29 CFR 1904.29(a) · Injury and illness log |
Other-than-serious | $500 | $250 | Oct 15, 2007 | Closed |
From the Form 300A summaries employers file with OSHA each year. Rate = recordable cases per 100 full-time workers.
In 2020, the Waterbury site logged 1 recordable injury or illness among about 141 workers: 0.9 per 100 full-time workers, against a median of 2.3 for its industry.
| Site and year | Workers | Cases | Days-away cases | Rate | Industry median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eemax, Inc. Waterbury · 2020 | 141 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 2.3 |
Current text from the Code of Federal Regulations. Some citations were issued under older wording.
29 CFR 1904.29(a)
(a) Basic requirement. You must use OSHA 300, 300-A, and 301 forms, or equivalent forms, for recordable injuries and illnesses. The OSHA 300 form is called the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, the 300-A is the Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, and the OSHA 301 form is called the Injury and Illness Incident Report.
29 CFR 1910.101(b)
(b) Compressed gases. The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks shall be in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2)
(2) The employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA enforcement data. A citation is OSHA's allegation; employers can contest it, and the status column shows where each item stands. Something wrong on this page? Tell us.