EAST HARTFORD, CT —
OSHA Inspection: HARTFORD RESTORATION SERVICES
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of HARTFORD RESTORATION SERVICES in T.J. MAXX, 7 MAIN STREET, EAST HARTFORD, CT 06108 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 337789010.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- HARTFORD RESTORATION SERVICES
- Site address
- T.J. MAXX, 7 MAIN STREET
- City
- EAST HARTFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06108
- Mailing
- 11 VILLAGE STREET, EAST HARTFORD, CT 06108
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 10
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.1200 E01
- Issued
- Jan 25, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 14, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met: (Construction Reference: 1926.59). On or about 12/12/2012 at T.J. Maxx reroofing project in East Hartford, employees were working with flammable and hazardous roofing chemicals such as but not limited to Toluene and Acetone and the company had not developed, implement, and maintain a written hazard communication program that met the requirements of 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h).
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1680
- — Z (S) $2800
1926.152 F03
- Issued
- Jan 25, 2013
- Abate by
- Feb 13, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,680 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.152(f)(3): Flammable liquids were used where there were open flames or other sources of ignition within 50 feet of the operation:Note: Certain conditions warrant that flammable liquids be used farther than 50 feet from open flames or other sources of ignition. On or about 12/12/2012 at T.J. Maxx reroofing project in East Hartford, employees were using flammable roofing adhesives at, near, and within ignition sources.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1680
- — Z (S) $2800
1926.502 F01
- Issued
- Jan 25, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 31, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(f)(1): Warning lines were not erected around all sides of the roof work area: On or about 12/12/2012 at the T.J. Maxx reroofing project in East Hartford, employees were observed working on the roof using the warning line system as fall protection and the warning line did not enclosed the work area.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1200
- — Z (S) $2000
1926.502 F01 III
- Issued
- Jan 25, 2013
- Abate by
- Jan 31, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(f)(1)(iii): Points of access, material handling areas, storage areas, and/or hoisting areas were not connected to the work area by an access path formed by two warning lines: On or about 12/12/2012 at the T.J. Maxx reroofing project in East Hartford, employees were observed using a ladder to access and descend to and from the roof and no point of access was formed from the ladder to the work area.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.502 F02 II
- Issued
- Jan 25, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.502(f)(2)(ii): The rope, wire, or chain was not rigged or supported in such a way that its lowest point (including sag) was not less than 34 inches (0.9 m) from the walking/working surface and its highest point no more than 39 inches (1.0 m) from the walking/working surface. On or about 12/12/2012 at the T.J. Maxx reroofing project in East Hartford, employees were exposed to fall hazards while working on the roof using the warning line system and the warning line was lower than the minimum required 34 inches from the roof deck.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.503 A02 II
- Issued
- Jan 25, 2013
- Abate by
- Mar 14, 2013
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(2)(ii): The employer did not assure that each employee, as necessary, had been trained by a competent person in the correct procedures for erecting, maintaining, disassembling and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used: On or about 12/12/2012 at the T.J. Maxx reroofing project in East Hartford, the employees were not trained on the proper erection and maintenance of the warning line system.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1200
- — Z (S) $2000
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
More inspections in CT
Source
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 337789010.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.