WALLINGFORD, CT —
OSHA Inspection: BLUE TRAIL RANGE
Complaint inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of BLUE TRAIL RANGE in 316 NORTH BRANFORD ROAD, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492 (NAICS 451110). OSHA activity number 346820418.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- BLUE TRAIL RANGE
- Site address
- 316 NORTH BRANFORD ROAD
- City
- WALLINGFORD
- State
- CT
- ZIP
- 06492
- Mailing
- 316 NORTH BRANFORD ROAD, WALLINGFORD, CT 06492
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Complaint (B)
- 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
- 451110
- Employees
- 34
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
11 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.1025 C01
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Sep 30, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $10,938 · Current $5,469 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(c)(1):Employee(s) were exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight-hour period: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: On or about October 22, 2023, the employer did not ensure employees were not exposed to lead concentrations above the permissible exposure limit (0.05 mg/m3) for the workers exposed to 0.07-0.26 mg/m3 during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (6)
- — P (S) $5469
- — P (S) $5469
- — P (S) $5469
1910.1025 D02
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Sep 30, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(2): An initial determination was not made to determine if any employee may be exposed to lead at or above the action level: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: On or about July 10, 2023, the employer did not ensure that an employee exposure assessment was conducted for workers exposed to lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (6)
- — P (S) $0
- — P (S) $0
- — P (S) $0
1910.1025 E01 I
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Sep 30, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $10,938 · Current $5,469 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(1)(i): For any employees exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit for more than 30 days per year, the employer did not implement engineering and work practice controls (including administrative controls) to reduce and maintain employee exposure to lead : 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: On or about October 22, 2023, the employer did not implement adequate ventilation and administrative controls for employees that were exposed to lead concentrations above the permissible exposure limit (0.05 mg/m3) for more than 30 days per year. This include the workers exposed to lead concentrations of 0.07-0.26 mg/m3 (8-hour time-weighted average) during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (6)
- — P (S) $5469
- — P (S) $5469
- — P (S) $5469
1910.1025 E03 I
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Mar 29, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $10,938 · Current $5,469 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(e)(3)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program to reduce exposures to or below the permissible exposure limit, solely by means of engineering and work practice controls: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not establish and implement a written compliance program including: (1) a description of the operations emitting lead, (2) methods to control lead exposure, (3) a report of the technology considered to comply with the exposure limit, (4) air monitoring data, (5) a detailed schedule for implementation, and (6) a work practice program to reduce lead exposures for workers exposed to lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5469
- — Z (S) $10938
1910.1025 G01
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Feb 28, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(g)(1): Appropriate protective work clothing and equipment was not provided when employee(s) were exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators, or where the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not provide protective equipment to workers exposed above the permissible exposure limit during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 I02 I
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Feb 28, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(i): Clean change rooms were not provided for employees exposed to lead in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL), without regard to the use of respirators: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not provide any changing rooms for the workers overexposed to lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 J01 I
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Feb 28, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(j)(1)(i): The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who are or may be exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days per year: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not provide a medical surveillance program for the workers exposed to lead above the action level approximately once per week while performing tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 M01 III
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Mar 29, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $10,938 · Current $5,469 Reduced
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(1)(iii): The employer did not include lead in the hazard communication program established to comply with the HCS (� 1910.1200), and the employer did not ensure that each employee had access to labels on containers of lead and to safety data sheets, and that employees were trained on lead in accordance with the requirements of HCS and paragraph (l) of this section. 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not include lead in the hazard communication program or train employees on lead hazards for the employees exposed to lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5469
- — Z (S) $10938
1910.1025 L01 I
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Feb 28, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(i): Employee(s) working in an area where there is potential exposure to airborne lead at any level were not informed of the content of Appendices A and B of 29 CFR 1910.1025: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not provide the training information contained in Appendix A and B for the workers exposed to airborne lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 L01 II
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Feb 28, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(l)(1)(ii): The employer did not train each employee who is subject to exposure to lead at or above the action level, or for whom the possibility of skin or eye irritation exists, in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1025: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not provide the training information in the requirements of the OSHA standard for the workers over-exposed to airborne lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.1025 M02 I
- Issued
- Jan 10, 2024
- Abate by
- Feb 28, 2024
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
1591
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(2)(i): 29 CFR 1910.1025(m)(2)(i): Warning signs bearing information such as: DANGER, LEAD, POISON, NO SMOKING OR EATING, were not posted in each work area where the permissible exposure limit (PEL) was exceeded: 316 North Branford Road, Wallingford CT: The employer did not place any signage on the indoor range indicating the presence of lead hazards for the workers over-exposed to airborne lead during tasks such as (but not limited to) range safety officer.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 451110)
More inspections in 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 346820418.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.