Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: THE CONARD CORPORATION

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of THE CONARD CORPORATION in 101 COMMERCE ST, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033 (NAICS 332813). OSHA activity number 342069069.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 The Conard Corporation — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for The Conard Corporation is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
101 COMMERCE ST
City
GLASTONBURY
State
CT
ZIP
06033
Mailing
101 COMMERCE ST, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
332813
Employees
26
Ownership type
A

6 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.106 E09 III

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Mar 27, 2017
Abate by
May 11, 2017
Penalty
Initial $3,802 · Current $2,650 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.106(e)(9)(iii): Combustible waste material and residues in a building or unit operating area were not kept to a minimum, stored in covered metal receptacles and disposed of daily:    REAR BAY AREA    On, or about, January 30, 2017, approved metal waste cans were not provided for waste impregnated with flammable materials, such as, but not limited to 99% isopropyl alcohol. Flammable material was disposed of into an uncovered plastic waste bin.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2650
  • — Z (S) $3802

1910.132 D02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Mar 27, 2017
Abate by
May 11, 2017
Penalty
Initial $6,338 · Current $4,450 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not 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:      PRODUCT LINE    On, or about January 30, 2017, the employer did not certify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed when employees worked with hydrochloric acid, a corrosive chemical whose pH was 1.0, and required the use of chemical goggles and, or, a face shield.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $4450
  • — Z (S) $6338

1910.133 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Mar 27, 2017
Abate by
May 11, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation:  PRODUCT LINE  On, or about January 30, 2017, employees were not required to use chemical goggles and, or, a face shield when employees dispensed hydrochloric acid into the product line. Hydrochloric acid is corrosive with a pH of 1.0.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.178 L01 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Mar 27, 2017
Abate by
May 11, 2017
Penalty
Initial $6,338 · Current $4,450 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):      FACILITY    On, or about, January 30, 2017, employees that operated a Hyster forklift truck had not been trained and evaluated on safe forklift truck operations prior to operating the forklift truck.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $4450
  • — Z (S) $6338

1910.178 L04 III

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Mar 27, 2017
Abate by
May 11, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:  FACILITY  On, or about, January 30, 2017, previously trained employees that operated a Hyster forklift truck were not evaluated on their performance within the previous three years.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1200 H03 IV

Deleted Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
Mar 27, 2017
Abate by
May 11, 2017
Penalty
Initial $3,802 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(iv): Employee training did not include the details of the hazard communication program developed by the employer, including an explanation of the labeling system and the safety data sheets, and how employees can obtain and use the appropriate hazard information:  FACILITY  On, or about, January 30, 2017, the employer failed to train employees on the new labeling system and explain the new safety data sheet format when employees worked with a variety of chemicals including, but not limited to, ferric chloride solution, a parts etcher, whose pH was 1.0.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $3802

View The Conard Corporation's full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 342069069.

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