OSHA Inspection: WD FLOORING LLC

Issued

May 15, 2025

Abate by

Jun 13, 2025

Penalty

Initial $1,023 · Current $1,023

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1):  The employer must submit to the Agency, along with the information on abatement certification required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required.  The employer has not certified to OSHA, and provided documentation, that the hazardous conditions identified in Citations 1-2-a, 1-2-b, 1-2-c, 1-2-d, 2-1-a, 2-1-b of this inspection have been corrected including the methods taken to correct the hazardous conditions.

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Abate by

Apr 1, 2025

Penalty

Initial $12,421 · Current $12,421

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): Written hazard communication program. Employers shall develop, implement, and maintain at each workplace, a written hazard communication program which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and employee information and training will be met.  At an establishment located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin;  a) On or about September 5, 2023, to December 13, 2023, in Plants A and B, the employer did not implement and maintain a hazard communication (HAZCOM) program for hazardous chemicals used and present in the workplace, including but not limited to, H.B. Fuller HL-9555 (flushing compound), Rapidex 4001-149 (hot melt adhesive), H.B. Fuller Swift Clean 9050 (adhesive removal agent), combustible wood dust, and liquid petroleum gas (LPG).

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Abate by

Apr 1, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(8): Safety Data Sheets. The employer shall maintain in the workplace copies of the required safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical, and shall ensure that they are readily accessible during each work shift to employees when they are in their work area(s). (Electronic access and other alternatives to maintaining paper copies of the safety data sheets are permitted as long as no barriers to immediate employee access in each workplace are created by such options.)   At an establishment located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin;  a) On or about September 5, 2023, to December 13, 2023, in Plants A and B, the employer did not maintain and make readily accessible to employees during each work shift copies of required safety data sheet (SDS) for each hazardous chemical present in the workplace. Hazardous chemicals present in the workplace included, but were not limited to, H.B. Fuller HL-9555 (flushing compound), Rapidex 4001-149 (hot melt adhesive), H.B. Fuller Swift Clean 9050 (adhesive removal agent), combustible wood dust, and liquid petroleum gas (LPG).

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Abate by

Apr 1, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(2): Employee information and training. Employees shall be informed of: (i) The requirements of this section; (ii) Any operations in their work area where hazardous chemicals are present; and (iii) The location and availability of the written hazard communication program, including the required list(s) of hazardous chemicals, and safety data sheets required by this section.   At an establishment located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin;  a) On or about September 5, 2023, to December 13, 2023, in Plants A and B, the employer did not inform employees of the requirements of the Hazard Communication section, did not inform employees of the hazardous chemicals present in their work areas, and did not inform employees on the location and availability of safety data sheets when employees worked with hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, H.B. Fuller HL-9555 (flushing compound), Rapidex 4001-149 (hot melt adhesive), H.B. Fuller Swift Clean 9050 (adhesive removal agent), combustible wood dust, and liquid petroleum gas (LPG).

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Abate by

Apr 1, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3): Employee information and training. Employee training shall include at least the topics from (h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(iv) of this section.   At an establishment located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin;  a) On or about September 5, 2023, to December 13, 2023, in Plants A and B, the employer did not provide training to employees regarding:   (i) how employees could detect hazardous chemicals in the work areas;  (ii) the physical hazards, health hazards and combustible dust hazards of the chemicals in their work areas;  (iii) the measures employees could take to protect themselves from hazardous chemicals through procedures and/or personal protective equipment (PPE); and  (iv) the details of a hazard communication program including descriptions of labeling on containers and safety data sheets (SDS).   Employees worked with hazardous chemicals such as, but not limited to, H.B. Fuller HL-9555 (flushing compound), Rapidex 4001-149 (hot melt adhesive), H.B. Fuller Swift Clean 9050 (adhesive removal agent), combustible wood dust, and liquid petroleum gas (LPG).

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Abate by

Apr 1, 2025

Penalty

Initial $24,842 · Current $20,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B): Follow-up procedures. Unless a physician determines that the standard threshold shift is not work related or aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer shall ensure that the following steps are taken when a standard threshold shift occurs: Employees already using hearing protectors shall be refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors and provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary.  At an establishment located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin:  The employer does not ensure that employees sustaining standard threshold shifts (STSs) of hearing have their hearing protectors refitted and are provided with retraining in the use of hearing protectors.   a) On or about September 5, 2023, in Plants A & B, the employer had not ensured that a nester employee working near the end matching machine who had a standard threshold shift (STS) was refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors.  b) On or about September 5, 2023, in Plants A & B, the employer had not ensured that a Maintenance Supervisor employee who had a standard threshold shift (STS) was refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors.  The WD Flooring LLC was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1526029, citation number 1, item number 1c, and was affirmed as a final order on August 18, 2021, with respect to a workplace located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin.

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Abate by

Apr 1, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1): Training program. 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:  The employer does not train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements 29 CFR 1910.95(k).   a) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee grading wood stock 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. A grading employee near the end-matcher machine was exposed to noise at 175.4 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.1 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 94.1 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  b) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee working near the end matcher 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 166.3 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 93.7 dBA, as measured over 478 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 93.7 dBA accounting for the period of 2 minutes unmonitored.  c) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating the Mereen Johnson rip saw and Compu-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 190.6 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.7 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 94.7 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  d) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating an up-cut saw near the flooring machine 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 243.7 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 96.6 dBA, as measured over 467 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.4 dBA accounting for the period of 13 minutes unmonitored.  e) On or about December 12, 2023, in Plant A and Plant B, the employer did not train an employee operating a forklift and banding floor planks 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 92.0 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 89.4 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89.4 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  f) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant B, the employer did not train an employee operating a Dewalt miter chop 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 70.7 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 87.8 dBA, as measured over 459 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 87.5 dBA accounting for the period of 21 minutes unmonitored.  g) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating a Cantek straight-line ripsaw near the flooring machine 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 298.2 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.9 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.9 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  h) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating an up-cut saw near the flooring machine 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 261.5 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.3 dBA, as measured over 456 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 96.9 dBA accounting for the period of 24 minutes unmonitored.  i) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee that was banding wood stock 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 111.4 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 91.0 dBA, as measured over 463 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.8 dBA accounting for the period of 17 minutes unmonitored.  j) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating the Hasko flooring machine 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 689.6 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 103.9 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 103.9 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  k) On or about September 5, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee marking wood stock near the Brute Optimizer 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 109.0 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 93.9 dBA, as measured over 302 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.6 dBA accounting for the period of 178 minutes unmonitored.  l) On or about December 12, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee that was sorting and block piling near the up-cut saws and flooring machine 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 180.3 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.2 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 94.2 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  m) On or about December 12, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating an up-cut saw near the flooring machine 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 167.0 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 93.7 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 93.7 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  n) On or about September 5, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee performing nesting operations near the end matcher machine 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 98.7 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 93.4 dBA, as measured over 295 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 89.9 dBA accounting for the period of 185 minutes unmonitored.  o) On or about December 12, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train a supervisor employee 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 supervisor employee was exposed to noise at 106.3 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 90.4 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 90.4 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.  p) On or about December 12, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not train an employee operating a planer and Mereen Johnson 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 174.0 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.1 dBA, as measured over 471 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 94.0 dBA accounting for the period of 9 minutes unmonitored.  q) On or about December 13, 2023, in Plant B, the employer did not train an employee operating an Ogden Group Eco-power Plus frame 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 172.4 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 94.0 dBA, as measured over 471 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 93.9 dBA accounting for the period of 9 minutes unmonitored.  The WD Flooring LLC was previously cited for a violation of this Occupational Safety and Health Standard, which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1526029, citation number 1, item number 1b and was affirmed as a final order on August 18, 2021, with respect to a workplace located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin.

Issued

Feb 28, 2024

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 8110

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(j)(1): Hearing protector attenuation. The employer shall evaluate hearing protector attenuation for the specific noise environments in which the protector will be used. The employer shall use one of the evaluation methods described in Appendix B: "Methods for Estimating the Adequacy of Hearing Protection Attenuation."  At an establishment located at 5215 Mill Road in Laona, Wisconsin:  a) On or about September 13, 2023, in Plant A, the employer did not evaluate the Silenta Bell II earmuffs the Cantek straight-line rip saw operator was using when exposed to noise exceeding 90 dBA as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). The employee was exposed to noise at 293.0 percent dose of the permissible daily dose, or an average sound level of 97.8 dBA, as measured over 480 minutes of sampling of an 8-hour work shift. This dose is equivalent to an 8-hour TWA exposure of 97.8 dBA accounting for the period of 0 minutes unmonitored.