Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,196,249Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-20 Last loaded 2026-08-24

OSHA Inspection: O.B. HILL MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., INC.

Referral inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of O.B. HILL MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., INC. in 197 W. CENTRAL STREET, NATICK, MA 01760 (NAICS 000000). OSHA activity number 100982560.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons: routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch O.B. Hill Motor Transport CO., INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for O.B. Hill Motor Transport CO., INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
197 W. CENTRAL STREET
City
NATICK
State
MA
ZIP
01760
Inspection type
Referral (C)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Union (Y)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Data loaded
NAICS code
000000
SIC code (legacy)
4212
Employees
15
Ownership type
Private (A)

1 citation on file for this inspection.

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Mar 3, 1995
Abate by
Mar 7, 1995
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:  The
employer did not
furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from
recognized hazards that
were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
employees in that employees
were exposed to an uncontrolled pressure vessel explosion:
(a) Location: Garage Area; On 2/10/95, the end cap blew off of a pontoon
which was
being filled with compressed air for testing purposes.  Neither
manufacturer's literature
providing instructions for pressure testing, nor the specifications under
which the pontoon
was manufactured were available.  The pressure that the pontoon was
manufactured to
withstand was not known.  The pontoon sat on the ground for thirty years
and the extent
of any deterioration of the metal or welds was not known.  The contents of
the pontoon
were not known and no testing was performed to determine the contents of
the pontoon.
The air pressure within the pontoon was not monitored while the compressed
air was
being introduced.  The employee performing the pressure testing had not
been trained
in the procedures to be followed when testing a pressure vessel.
Among other means, one feasible means of abatement would be to ensure that
any
employee required to test a pressure vessel be properly trained and
qualified, to have a
qualified person inspect the pressure vessel to determine how much
pressure the vessel
can withstand in its current condition, to test the vessel to determine
the existing
contents, and to monitor the pressure within the vessel at all times while
compressed air
is being introduced.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1400.00
  • · Z (S) $2800.00

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 100982560.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.