OSHA Inspection: WD FLOORING LLC

Issued

Jul 29, 2021

Abate by

Aug 26, 2021

Penalty

Initial $9,557 · Current $4,778 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.9(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:  At a workplace located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin, the employer did not administer a continuing and effective hearing conservation program:  a)  On or about April 20, 2021, an employee working on or near the Rip Saw and the Copy Rip Saw was exposed to noise at 151.3 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 98 dBA, as measured over 237 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 92.9 dBA accounting for the period of 243 minutes unmonitored.   b)  On or about April 20, 2021, an employee working on or near the Planar was exposed to noise at 94.1 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 95.6 dBA, as measured over 205 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89.5 dBA accounting for the period of 275 minutes unmonitored.   c)  On or about April 20, 2021, an employee working on or near the Flooring Machine and the conveyors on the north side of the production floor was exposed to noise at 87.6 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 95.2 dBA, as measured over 202 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89 dBA accounting for the period of 278 minutes unmonitored.   d)  On or about April 20, 2021, an employee working on or near the Flooring Machine and the conveyors on the north side of the production floor was exposed to noise at 80.8 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.4 dBA, as measured over 210 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 88.4 dBA accounting for the period of 270 minutes unmonitored.  All provisions of 29 CFR 1910.95 (c) through (n) shall be contained in an effective hearing conservation program. Key provisions include, but are not limited to:   1)	Monitoring 2)	Audiometric Testing 3)	Hearing protectors 4)	Training Program 5)	Recordkeeping

Issued

Jul 29, 2021

Abate by

Aug 26, 2021

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(k)(1): The employer shall train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of this section. The employer shall institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program.  At a worksite located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin:  a) On or about April 20, 2021, the employer did not train an employee working on or near the Rip Saw and the Copy Rip Saw who was exposed to noise exceeding 85 dBA as an 8-hour TWA in accordance with the requirements of this section and the employer did not institute a training program. The employee was exposed to noise at 151.3 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 98 dBA, as measured over 237 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 92.9 dBA accounting for the period of 243 minutes unmonitored.   b) On or about April 20, 2021, the employer did not train an employee working on or near the Planar who was exposed to noise exceeding 85 dBA as an 8-hour TWA in accordance with the requirements of this section and the employer did not institute a training program. The employee was exposed to noise at 94.1 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 95.6 dBA, as measured over 205 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89.5 dBA accounting for the period of 275 minutes unmonitored.   c) On or about April 20, 2021, the employer did not train an employee working on or near the Flooring Machine and the conveyors on the north side of the production floor who was exposed to noise exceeding 85 dBA as an 8-hour TWA in accordance with the requirements of this section and the employer did not institute a training program. The employee was exposed to noise at 87.6 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 95.2 dBA, as measured over 202 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89 dBA accounting for the period of 278 minutes unmonitored.   d) On or about April 20, 2021, the employer did not train an employee working on or near the Flooring Machine and the conveyors on the north side of the production floor who was exposed to noise exceeding 85 dBA as an 8-hour TWA in accordance with the requirements of this section and the employer did not institute a training program. The employee  was exposed to noise at 80.8 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.4 dBA, as measured over 210 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 88.4 dBA accounting for the period of 270 minutes unmonitored.

Issued

Jul 29, 2021

Abate by

Aug 26, 2021

Penalty

Initial $9,557 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B): Unless a physician determines that the standard threshold shift is not work-related or aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer did not ensure, when a standard threshold shift occurs, that for employees already using hearing protectors, employees be refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors and provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary:  At a workplace located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin:  On or about April 20, 2021, the employer had not ensured when a standard threshold shift occurred that employees already using hearing protectors were refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors and provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary.