BRANFORD, CT —
OSHA Inspection: CONTRERAS CONSTRUCTION LLC
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of CONTRERAS CONSTRUCTION LLC in 1 - 4 JERIMOTH DRIVE UNIT 2, BRANFORD, CT 06405 (NAICS 238170). OSHA activity number 340891902.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- CONTRERAS CONSTRUCTION LLC
- Site address
- 1 - 4 JERIMOTH DRIVE UNIT 2
- City
- BRANFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06405
- Mailing
- 77 CREST AVENUE, EAST HAVEN, CT 06513
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- 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
- 238170
- Employees
- 4
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
8 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.100 A
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets: JOBSITE: The employer did not ensure that the employees performing cleaning of the debris of the jobsite and working underneath overhead work were wearing protective hard hats.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1400
- — Z (S) $2000
1926.102 A01
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents. JOBSITE: The employee operating a circular Skilsaw to cut siding was not wearing eye protection.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1400
- — Z (S) $2000
1926.451 G01 VII
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,960 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1)(vii): Each employee on a scaffold, not otherwise specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(vi) of this section, more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above lower level was not protected from falls by the use of personal fall arrest systems or guardrail systems meeting the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section. JOBSITE: The employer did not ensure that the employees, installing siding from the working platform of the pump jack scaffold were protected from the hazard of falling 15 feet 9 inches to the ground by the use of guardrails systems and/or personal fall arrest systems.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1960
- — Z (S) $2800
1926.454 A
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Abate by
- Nov 3, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.454(a): The employer did not have each employee who performed work while on a scaffold trained by a person qualified in the subject matter to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffold being used and to understand the procedures to control or minimize those hazards. JOBSITE: The employer did not ensure that the employees, installing siding from the platform of the pump jack scaffold were trained by a competent person in the subject matter and the procedures to minimize such hazards.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1400
- — Z (S) $2000
1926.503 A01
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Abate by
- Nov 3, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards: JOBSITE: The employer did not provide training and information for the employees exposed to fall hazard while installing siding from the steep pitched (8 in 12 pitch) roof to recognize and minimize these hazards.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.1060 A01
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Abate by
- Nov 3, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1060(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each employee was trained by a competent person which would enable each employee to recognize hazards related to ladders and stairs, and the procedures to follow to minimize those hazards. JOBSITE: The employer did not ensure that each employee using a ladder had received training to recognize and minimize hazards associated with the use of ladders.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.501 B13
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b): JOBSITE: The employer did not ensure that the employees, engaged in residential construction activities on the 8 in 12 steep pitched roof to install siding were protected from the hazard of falling between 17 feet 10 inches to 30 feet 5 inches to the ground by the use of guardrail system, personal fall arrest devices or equivalent safe means.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1400
- — Z (S) $2000
1926.1053 B05 I
- Issued
- Oct 7, 2015
- Penalty
- Initial $2,000 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(5)(i): Non-self-supporting ladders were not used at an angle such that the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder was approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladder (the distance along the ladder between the foot and the top support). JOBSITE: The horizontal distance from the support to the foot of the Louisville 40-foot aluminum extension ladder was greater than one fourth (1/4) the working length of the ladder.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $1400
- — Z (S) $2000
More inspections at Contreras Construction LLC
View Contreras Construction LLC's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238170)
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 340891902.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.