OXFORD, CT ·
OSHA Inspection: BRAZILIAN MASONRY SERVICES, LLC
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of BRAZILIAN MASONRY SERVICES, LLC in BLDG. B, ROUTE 67 OXFORD TOWN CENTER, OXFORD, CT 06478 (NAICS 238140). OSHA activity number 341742583.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- BRAZILIAN MASONRY SERVICES, LLC
- Site address
- BLDG. B, ROUTE 67 OXFORD TOWN CENTER
- City
- OXFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06478
- Mailing
- 34 COEN ST. 2ND FLOOR, NAUGATUCK, CT 06770
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238140
- Employees
- 5
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
8 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 D01 III
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 25, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $3,741 · Current $2,244 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Worksite: The employer did not evaluate the respiratory hazards, such as (but not limited to) inhalation of silica while dry cutting natural stone at the worksite.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $2244
- · Z (S) $3741
1926.102 A01
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 11, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $2,672 · Current $1,603 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. Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employees who were required to dry cut masonry with a concrete saw were wearing eye protection.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1603
- · Z (S) $2672
1926.451 B01
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 11, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $3,741 · Current $2,244 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1): Each platform on all working levels of scaffolds was not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and the guardrail supports as specified in paragraphs 1926.451(b)(1)(i)-(ii). Worksite: The employer did not ensure that all working levels of the metal frame scaffold were fully planked.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $2244
- · Z (S) $3741
1926.451 C01
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 11, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $2,672 · Current $1,603 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.451(c)(1): Supported scaffolds with a height to base width (including outrigger supports, if used) ratio of more than four to one (4:1) were not restrained from tipping by guying, tying, bracing, or equivalent means, as set forth in subparagraphs (i) - (iii) of this paragraph. Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the metal frame scaffold which exceeded the ratio of 4:1 in height was restrained from tipping by guying, tying, bracing, or equivalent means.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1603
- · Z (S) $2672
1926.451 E01
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 11, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $3,741 · Current $2,244 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.451(e)(1): When scaffold platforms were more than 2 feet (0.6 m) above or below a point of access, portable ladders, hook-on ladders, attachable ladders, stair towers (scaffold stairways/towers), stairway-type ladders (such as ladder stands), ramps, walkways, integral prefabricated scaffold access, or direct access from other scaffold, structure, personnel hoist, or similar surface was not used. Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the metal frame scaffold platforms which were 18 feet 9 inches above the ground were provided with safe access such as a ladder or stairway.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $2244
- · Z (S) $3741
1926.451 F07
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 25, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $2,672 · Current $1,603 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.451(f)(7): Scaffolds were not erected, moved, dismantled, or altered, by trained and experienced employees under the supervision and direction of a competent person qualified in scaffold erection, moving, dismantling or alteration:; Such activities were not performed only by experienced and trained employees selected for such work by the competent person. Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the metal frame scaffold from which employees were required to work was inspected by a person competent in scaffold erection.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $1603
- · Z (S) $2672
1926.454 A01
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 25, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.454(a)(1): The employer failed to have each employee who performs work while on a scaffold trained regarding the nature of any electrical hazards, fall hazards and falling object hazards in the work area. Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employees who were required to work from the metal frame scaffold were trained to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffold being used.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1926.451 G01 VII
- Issued
- Sep 28, 2016
- Abate by
- Oct 11, 2016
- Penalty
- Initial $3,741 · Current $2,244 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. Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employees who were required to work from the metal frame scaffold at heights above 10 feet were protected from fall hazards by the use of guardrails or personal fall arrest systems.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $2244
- · Z (S) $3741
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238140)
More inspections in CT
Source
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 341742583.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.