WALLINGFORD, CT ·
OSHA Inspection: LDA CONSTRUCTION LLC
Referral inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of LDA CONSTRUCTION LLC in PARKER PLACE, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492 (NAICS 238140). OSHA activity number 343118436.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- LDA CONSTRUCTION LLC
- Site address
- PARKER PLACE
- City
- WALLINGFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06492
- Mailing
- 21 COLBY COURT, NEW HAVEN, CT 06505
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- 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
7 citations on file for this inspection.
1903.19 C01
- Issued
- Nov 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Dec 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $311 · Current $311
General-duty citation text
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
- Issued
- Sep 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 31, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
General-duty citation text
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
- Issued
- Sep 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 31, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
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
- Issued
- Sep 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 31, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
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
- Issued
- Sep 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 31, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
9015
General-duty citation text
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
- Issued
- Sep 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 31, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
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
- Issued
- Sep 26, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 31, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
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
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 343118436.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.