TAFTVILLE, CT —
OSHA Inspection: ONEKEY, LLC
Referral inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of ONEKEY, LLC in 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT 06380 (NAICS 236220). OSHA activity number 343120705.
What this inspection record means
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Watch Onekey, LLC — free
Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Onekey, LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- ONEKEY, LLC
- Site address
- 611 NORWICH AVENUE
- City
- TAFTVILLE
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06380
- Mailing
- 241 HUDSON STREET, HACKENSACK, NJ 07601
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- 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
- 236220
- Employees
- 30
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
19 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $6,467 · Current $4,850 Reduced
1591
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: (Construction Reference 1926.103) PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to May 1, 2018, an employee had been directed to wear a tight-fitting respirator when cleaning up dust and debris that was contaminated with lead-based paint. The employer had not developed and implemented a written respiratory protection program.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $4850
- — C (S) $6467
- — Z (S) $6467
1910.134 F02
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator and at least annually thereafter. PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to May 1, 2018, an employee who was required to wear a tight-fitting elastomeric respirator for cleaning up dust and debris contaminated with lead-based paint was not provided with fit testing before he first used the respirator.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.134 K01
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide effective training to ensure that each employee could demonstrate knowledge of 1910.134(k)(1)(i) - (vii): PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to May 1, 2018, an employee who was required to wear a tight-fitting elastomeric respirator when cleaning debris and dust contaminated with lead-based paint had not been provided training specific to proper procedures for donning his respirator. The employee was not familiar with how to perform positive and negative pressure checks to ensure a patent seal existed between the respirator and his face.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.62 D02 V A
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(A): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with appropriate respiratory protection in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(f): PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer had not conducted an exposure assessment and did not provide respiratory protection for employees, including subcontractors, who were working on the site and potentially exposed to lead from peeling paint and lead-containing dust that was present throughout the building. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.62 F01 IV
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(f)(1)(iv): Respirators were not used during periods when respirators were required to provide interim protection for employees while they performed the operations specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2): PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2017, employees, including subcontractors, who were performing tasks that may have exposed them to lead based paint were not provided with or directed to use respiratory protection. The employer had not conducted an exposure assessment to determine whether employees would be exposed to lead at concentrations greater than the permissible exposure limit. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1200 E02 I
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $5,174 · Current $0 Reduced
C326
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(2)(i): At a multi-employer workplace, the EMPLOYER'S hazard communication program did not include methods the employer used to provide other employers with on-site access to a material safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical the other employer(s)' employees may be exposed to while working: (Construction Reference: 1926.59) SITE-WIDE: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, multiple subcontractors; including painters, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and window installers; were working on the site. The employer, the General Contractor for the project, did not provide other employers with information about hazardous chemicals to which their employees may be exposed while working on site. Such chemicals include, but are not limited to, isocyanate-based spray in foam insulation containing diisocyanates. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $5174
- — Z (S) $5174
1926.62 D02 V F
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $3,880
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(F): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide to employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with training as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i) regarding 29 CFR 1926.59, Hazard Communication: PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer had not performed an exposure assessment nor had they provided employees or subcontractors with information related to lead exposure. Employees were demolishing and renovating an old mill that was built in the 1860s. Paint was visibly peeling from the walls. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite. Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $3880
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.62 L01 I
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that at least the following Lead hazards were communicated to employee(s): reproductive/developmental toxicity; central nervous system effects; kidney effects; blood effects; and acute toxicity effects. PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, employees and subcontractors working at an old mill (circa 1860s) were not provided with information regarding the hazards of lead exposure. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite. Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.62 D01 III
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $500
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not collect personal samples representative of a full shift, including at least one sample for each job classification in each work area, either for each shift or for the shift with the highest exposure level: PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer had not conducted full shift personal monitoring for employees working at the site to determine their exposure to lead. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $500
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.62 G01
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(g)(1): Where employees were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit, without regard to the use of respirators; where employees were exposed to lead compounds which may cause skin or eye irritation (e.g. lead arsenate, lead azide); and as interim protection for employees performing tasks as specified in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2), the employer did not ensure that each employee used appropriate protective work clothing and equipment that prevented contamination of the employee and the employee's garments: PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, employees and subcontractors were conducting demolition and renovation activities. No initial employee exposure assessment had been conducted and employees were not provided with personal protective equipment to minimize exposure and prevent contamination of employee clothing. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.62 E02 I
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $7,760 · Current $5,820 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(e)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to achieve compliance with 29 CFR 1926.62(c) prior to commencement of the job: PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer had not developed a written Lead Compliance Plan. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $5820
- — C (S) $7760
- — Z (S) $7760
1926.62 H02
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $7,760 · Current $500 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(h)(2): Where possible, clean-up of floors and other surfaces where lead accumulated was not accomplished by vacuuming or other methods that minimized the likelihood of lead becoming airborne: PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer did not ensure that dust, debris, and paint chips were cleaned up regularly to minimize employee exposure to lead. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $500
- — C (S) $7760
- — Z (S) $7760
1926.150 C01 I
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $6,467 · Current $500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(i): A fire extinguisher, rated not less than 2A, was not provided for each 3,000 square feet of the protected building area, or major fraction thereof: 4TH FLOOR, BUILDING 1, PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about April 27, 2018, there was not an adequate number of fire extinguishers available.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $500
- — C (S) $6467
- — Z (S) $6467
1926.150 C01 IV
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(iv): There was not at least one fire extinguisher located adjacent to stairways on each floor of a multistory building: 4TH FLOOR, PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about April 27, 2018, there was no portable fire extinguisher near either set of stairs on the 4th floor of the mill building.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.150 C01 VIII
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.150(c)(1)(viii): Portable fire extinguishers were not inspected periodically in accordance with maintenance and use of portable fire extinguishers, N.F.P.A. No. 10A-1970: 4TH FLOOR, PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about April 27, 2018, a portable fire extinguisher on the 4th floor had not been inspected since September 2010.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $0
- — C (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1926.405 B02
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $4,398 · Current $3,297 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.405(b)(2): All pull boxes, junction boxes, and fittings were not provided with covers: FREIGHT ELEVATOR, PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to June 21, 2018, employees and contractors working in the building were exposed to the following open electrical boxes: B. The cover to a light switch on a pendant was deformed and did not enclose the electrical conductors.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $3297
- — C (S) $4398
- — Z (S) $4398
1926.1053 B04
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $5,174 · Current $500 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(4): Ladder(s) were used for purposes other than the purpose for which they were designed: 1ST FLOOR, BUILDING 1, PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer provided a subcontractor with a 10-foot step ladder to use while installing windows. The employer instructed the subcontractor to lean the top of the ladder against a piece of lumber fastened across the window opening without fully opening the ladder and locking the spreaders.
Recent events (3)
- — F (O) $500
- — C (S) $5174
- — Z (S) $5174
1926.62 D01 I
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $7,760 · Current $5,820 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(d)(1)(i): Each employer who had a workplace or operation covered by 29 CFR 1926.62 did not initially determine if any employee was exposed to lead at or above the action level of 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air (30 ug/m3) calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA): PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer, acting as general contractor at a construction site, did not conduct testing to determine whether their employees or the employees of subcontractors who would be working at the site would be exposed to lead above the action level as a result of lead-based paint that was peeling from walls, ceilings and other building structures throughout the site. The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $5820
- — C (S) $7760
- — Z (S) $7760
1926.62 D02 V B
- Issued
- Aug 22, 2018
- Abate by
- Oct 10, 2018
- Penalty
- Initial $7,760 · Current $0 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(v)(B): Until the employer performed an employee exposure assessment as required under 29 CFR 1926.62(d) and determined actual employee exposure, the employer did not provide employees performing the tasks described in 29 CFR 1926.62(d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iv) with appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.62(g): PONEMAH MILL, 611 NORWICH AVENUE, TAFTVILLE, CT: On or about and at times prior to April 27, 2018, the employer did not provide appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment to employees who were involved in the manual demolition of areas of the building (e.g., removing windows and repairing window openings). The employer was the General Contractor for the site and had general supervisory authority over the worksite which was an old mill (circa 1860s). Paint that was peeling from the walls was analyzed at the Salt Lake Technical Center and was determined to be positive for lead.
Recent events (3)
- — F (S) $0
- — C (S) $7760
- — Z (S) $7760
More inspections at Onekey, LLC
Sep 18, 2023
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY
Jan 6, 2023
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY
Mar 1, 2022
TAFTVILLE, CT
Sep 4, 2020
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY
Nov 14, 2018
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY
View Onekey, LLC's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 236220)
Jul 17, 2026
Star Construction SVS INC · ROCHESTER, NH
Jul 17, 2026
Central Welding INC · WHITESTOWN, IN
Jul 17, 2026
John Caruso Builders LLC · MOUNTAIN LAKES, NJ
Jul 17, 2026
Rycon Construction, INC. · FAIRFAX, VA
Jul 16, 2026
Bratton Brothers Contracting INC · SHAWNEE, KS
More inspections in CT
Jul 16, 2026
Bianco & Sons, LLC · EAST HAVEN, CT
Jul 16, 2026
Moms Enfield · ENFIELD, CT
Jul 16, 2026
Harbor Freight · DAYVILLE, CT
Jul 14, 2026
Jananii, LLC · NEW BRITAIN, CT
Jul 14, 2026
Truss Manufacturing INC · NEWINGTON, 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 343120705.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.