Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
4,113,118Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-13 Last loaded 2026-07-17

OSHA Inspection: SOMERSET DENTAL GROUP

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of SOMERSET DENTAL GROUP in 84 GLASTONBURY BLVD #201, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033 (NAICS 621210). OSHA activity number 343131322.

Watch Somerset Dental Group — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Somerset Dental Group is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
84 GLASTONBURY BLVD #201
City
GLASTONBURY
State
CT
ZIP
06033
Mailing
84 GLASTONBURY BLVD #201, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
621210
Employees
7
Ownership type
A

6 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.1030 C01 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $2772.00 · Current $1386.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(i): The employer having employee(s) with occupational exposure did not establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure:   FACILITY    On, or about May 2, 2018, the employer did not establish and implement a written Exposure Control Plan designed to reduce or eliminate employee exposure to bloodborne pathogens when employees were exposed to bodily fluids such as, but not limited to, blood, while performing dental activities.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1386
  • — Z (S) $2772

1910.1030 D03 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(3)(i): When there was occupational exposure, the employer did not provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields, masks, eye protection, and mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices:   FACILITY    On, or about May 2, 2018, the employer failed to provide and require employees to use puncture resistant gloves when employees cleaned sharp dental instruments contaminated with blood or other potentially infectious material.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1096 D01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $1663.00 · Current $832.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1096(d)(1): The employer did not make such surveys as necessary to evaluate the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions:  FACILITY    On, or about May 2, 2018, the employer failed to evaluate through a survey, the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions when employees operated radiation generating equipment such as, but not limited to the GENDEX GX-770, used to generate dental x-rays.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $831.5
  • — Z (S) $1663

1910.1096 D02

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $1663.00 · Current $832.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1096(d)(2): Appropriate personnel monitoring or equipment such as film badges, pocket chambers, pocket dosimeters of film rings were not supplied to or required to be used by employee(s) as described in 29 CFR 1910.1096(d)(2)(i),(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii):(a) (IDENTIFY LOCATION(S))Note:     FACILITY    On, or about May 2, 2018, employees that operated X-ray equipment, such as the GENDEX GX-770, which generated ionizing radiation, were not supplied monitoring equipment.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $831.5
  • — Z (S) $1663

1910.1200 E01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $1663.00 · Current $832.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Employer had not developed or implemented a written hazard communication program included the requirements outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii):   FACILITY    On, or about May 2, 2018, the employer failed to develop or implement a written hazard communication program when employees worked with SPOROX II, a corrosive chemical, used in the cold sterile process which contained hydrogen peroxide and phosphoric acid.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $831.5
  • — Z (S) $1663

1910.1200 F05

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
229 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5): The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged, or marked with the identity and appropriate hazard warnings regarding the chemicals contained therein:   On, or about May 2, 2018, the following containers were not labeled, tagged or marked with its contents and hazard warning:    a) a container  reported to contain SPOROX II, which contained hydrogen peroxide and phosphoric acid, and corrosive, with a pH of 1.8.    b) a container, reported to contain isopropyl alcohol, which is flammable and a skin irritant.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $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 343131322.