Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,645Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-16 Last loaded 2026-07-20

OSHA Inspection: LDA CONSTRUCTION LLC

Referral inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of LDA CONSTRUCTION LLC in PARKER PLACE, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492 (NAICS 238140). OSHA activity number 343118436.

Watch LDA Construction LLC — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for LDA Construction LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
PARKER PLACE
City
WALLINGFORD
State
CT
ZIP
06492
Mailing
21 COLBY COURT, NEW HAVEN, CT 06505
Inspection type
Referral (C)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238140
Employees
5
Ownership type
A

7 citations on file for this inspection.

1903.19 C01

Other-than-serious 6 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $311.00 · Current $311.00
29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): The Employer did not certify to OSHA, within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, that the cited violation has been abated:  Location:  Park Place, Wallingford, CT  06492  Abatement certification and verification for Citation 01, Item 1a;  Citation 01, Item 001b;  Citation 01, Item 001c; Citation 01, Item 001d; Citation 02, Item 001 and Citation 02, Item 002 with a Final Order date of October 31, 2018 were not received within 10 calendars day (by November 10, 2018) following the abatement due date (October 31, 2018).
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $311

1910.134 C01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $2772.00 · Current $2772.00
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use      Worksite: A worksite specific written respirator protection program was not established and implemented where employees were required to wear 3M N95 8211 respirators.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1910.134 E01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.            Worksite: The employees required to wear 3M N95 8211 respirators were not provided with medical evaluations prior to wearing the respirators.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 F01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(1): The employer did not ensure that employee(s) required to use a tight-fitting facepiece respirator passed the appropriate qualitative fit test (QLFT) or quantitative fit test (QNFT):   Worksite: The employees required to wear 3M N95 8211 respirators were not provided with qualitative (QLFT) fit testing or quantitative fit testing (QNFT).
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 K01

Serious Gravity 5 3 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

Hazardous substances 9015

29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide effective training to employees who were required to use respirators:     Worksite: The employees required to wear 3M N95 8211 respirators were not provided with training to ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of the necessity for the respirator, proper fit, use, and maintenance of a respirator.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.1153 D02 I

Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(i): The employer did not assess the exposure of each employee who was or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level in accordance with either the performance option in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) or the scheduled monitoring option in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section.  Worksite: The employer did not assess the exposure level of each employee who was reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica while dry cutting brick with a electric stone cutter.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $0

1926.1153 G01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1926.1153(g)(1): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:   Worksite: The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan where employees were reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica while dry cutting brick with a electric stone cutter.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $0

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 343118436.