Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: MENARD, INC.

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of MENARD, INC. in 5101 MENARD DRIVE, EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703 (NAICS 444110). OSHA activity number 342753282.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Menard, INC. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Menard, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
MENARD, INC.
Site address
5101 MENARD DRIVE
City
EAU CLAIRE
State
WI
ZIP
54703
Mailing
5101 MENARD DRIVE, EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703
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
444110
Employees
300
Ownership type
A

11 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.95 C01

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 12 exposed
Issued
Apr 16, 2018
Abate by
Oct 5, 2018
Penalty
Initial $12,195 · Current $7,920 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:    Menard, Inc.; The employer did not implement a continuing and effective hearing conservation program when employees were exposed to noise levels equal to or exceeding the 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels.    (a) Building 34; An employee operating the Hitachi saw (C12FDH) was exposed to continuous noise levels exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA during the 470 minute sampling period conducted on November 30, 2017. The employee's 8-hour TWA noise dose was 85.32% which is equivalent to approximately 88.8 dBA. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time period of 10 minutes.       (b) Building 10; An employee working at the Pallet Up-Ender station was exposed to continuous noise levels exceeding an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dBA during the 467 minute sampling period conducted on January 18, 2018. The employee's 8-hour TWA noise dose was 96.25% which is equivalent to approximately 89.7 dBA. Zero exposure was assumed for the unsampled time period of 13 minutes.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $7920
  • — Z (S) $12195

1910.134 C01

Other-than-serious 2 instances 12 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $8,130 · Current $4,065 Reduced
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:    (a) Building 36; A written respiratory protection program was not developed and implemented for employees required use of filtering facepiece respirators (dust masks) when working with boiler ash.    (b) Building F7; A written respiratory protection program was not developed and implemented for employees required use of filtering facepiece respirators (dust masks) when working with boiler ash.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $4065
  • — Z (S) $8130

1910.134 C02 II

Other-than-serious 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(ii): The employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program necessary to ensure that any employee using a respirator voluntarily was medically able to use that respirator, and that the respirator was cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user:    (a) Building 36; A written respiratory protection program was not developed and implemented for employees utilizing air-purifying half-face and full-face elastomeric respirators when working with boiler ash.    (b) Building F7; A written respiratory protection program was not developed and implemented for employees utilizing air purifying half-face elastomeric respirators when working with boiler ash.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 E01

Other-than-serious 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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:    (a) Building 36; The employer did not provide medical evaluations for employees utilizing half-face and full-face elastomeric respirators, as well as, filtering facepiece respirators (dust masks) when working with boiler ash.    (b) Building F7; The employer did not provide medical evaluations for employees utilizing half-face and full-face elastomeric respirators, as well as, filtering facepiece respirators  (dust masks) when working with boiler ash.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 F02

Other-than-serious 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:    (a) Building 36; Employees required to use filtering facepiece dust masks for protection against the inhalation of ash were not fit tested prior to use.     (b) Building F7; Employees required to use filtering facepiece dust masks for protection against the inhalation of ash were not fit tested prior to use.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 D01 III

Other-than-serious 2 instances 7 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $8,130 · Current $4,065 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace; including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form:    (a) Building 36; The employer did not identify and evaluate employees exposure to respirable dust, total dust, and heavy metals while handling ash and performing cleaning inside of the boiler.     (b) Building F7; The employer did not identify and evaluate employees exposure to respirable, total dust, and heavy metals while handling ash and performing cleaning inside of the boiler.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $4065
  • — Z (S) $8130

1910.1025 D02

Other-than-serious 2 instances 7 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
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:     (a) Building 36; An initial determination was not made to determine employees exposure to lead when handling ash and  performing cleaning inside of the boiler.      (b) Building F7; An initial determination was not made to determine employees exposure to lead when handling ash and  performing cleaning inside of the boiler.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1026 D01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI) in accordance with either paragraph (d)(2) or paragraph (d)(3):    (a) Building 36; Hexavalent chromium was identified while an employee was scraping ash from the fire box of the boiler, an initial determination was not made to quantify employee(s) exposures.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1027 D01 I

Other-than-serious 1 instance 7 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1027(d)(1)(i): The employer did not determine whether any employee was exposed to cadmium at or above the action level:    (a) Building 36; The employer did not assess employees exposure to cadmium when handling ash and  performing cleaning inside of the boiler.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.146 D05 I

Other-than-serious 4 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $8,130 · Current $4,065 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.146(d)(5)(i): The employer did not test conditions in the permit space to determine if acceptable entry conditions existed before entry was authorized:    (a) Building 36; On or about August 2, 2017 to August 3, 2017 employees entered the boiler to clean and did not test the conditions prior to entry.    (b) Building 36; On or about August 3, 2017 to August 4, 2017 employees entered the boiler to clean and did not test the conditions prior to entry.    (c) Building 36; On or about August 9, 2017 to August 10, 2017 employees entered the boiler to clean and did not test the conditions prior to entry.    (d) Building F7; On or about November 6, 2017 an employee entered the boiler to clean and did not test the conditions prior to entry.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $4065
  • — Z (S) $8130

1910.1200 H01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 30, 2018
Abate by
May 11, 2018
Penalty
Initial $8,130 · Current $4,065 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(1): Employees were not provided effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard that the employees had not been previously trained about was introduced into their work area:    (a) Building 36; The employer did not provide  information and training to employee(s) exposed to hazardous ash that contained heavy metals including, but not limited to, lead, arsenic, chromium, and cadmium prior to their exposure.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (O) $4065
  • — Z (S) $8130

View Menard, INC.'s full OSHA safety record →

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 342753282.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.