LEBANON, MO ·
OSHA Inspection: MISSOURI COOPERAGE COMPANY LLC
Referral inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of MISSOURI COOPERAGE COMPANY LLC in 1078 S JEFFERSON AVE, LEBANON, MO 65536 (NAICS 321920). OSHA activity number 343856274.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Missouri Cooperage Company LLC for free
Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Missouri Cooperage Company LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- MISSOURI COOPERAGE COMPANY LLC
- Site address
- 1078 S JEFFERSON AVE
- City
- LEBANON
- State
- MO
- ZIP
- 65536
- Mailing
- 1078 S JEFFERSON AVE, LEBANON, MO 65536
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 321920
- Employees
- 480
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
11 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.22 A01
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $13,260 · Current $0 Reduced
9210E200M110
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1): All places of employment, passageways, storerooms, service rooms, and walking-working surfaces were not kept in a clean, orderly, and sanitary condition: The employer is failing to protect employees by establishing a regular housekeeping schedule that would reduce the accumulation of dust in the Alternatives Area, classics side. The lack of housekeeping allowed dust (wood) to accumulate on all surfaces in the work area to include on top of and around numerous pieces of equipment, white oak wood dust is a combustible dust. This was most recently documented on March 15, 2019 at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. Employees are being exposed to severe burns, in that employees are exposed to fire hazards from the accumulation of dust located inside the building. Employees are operating equipment located in the classics side that generated dust as part of the production process.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $13260
- · Z (S) $13260
1910.22 A02
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
9210E200M110
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2): The floor of each workroom was not maintained in a clean and, to the extent feasible, in a dry condition: The employer is failing to protect employees by establishing a regular housekeeping schedule that would reduce the accumulation of dust in the Alternatives Area, classics side. The lack of housekeeping allowed dust (wood) to accumulate on the floor in the work area, white oak wood dust is a combustible dust. This was most recently documented on March 15, 2019 at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. Employees are exposed to severe burns, in that employees are exposed to fire hazards from the accumulation of dust located inside the building. Employees are operating equipment located in the classics side that generate dust as part of the production process.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.95 D01
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 11, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $10,419 · Current $8,000 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1): When information indicated that any employee's exposure equaled or exceed the 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program: a) The employer is failing to protect employees from occupational noise exposure by effective administration of their hearing conservation program. This was most recently demonstrated on April, 17, 2019 when personal noise monitoring was performed on ten employees at the worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO whose dose was in excess of fifty (50) percent on the A Scale. Personal employee monitoring had not been repeated at the facility since September, 9, 2010, since that time, the employer has not developed or implemented a monitoring program. 1) An employee working at the head sander was exposed to continuous noise levels at 305.5% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 98.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 475 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 5 minutes. 2) An employee working at the head cutter was exposed to continuous noise levels at 225.5% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.8 dBA. The sampling was performed for 441 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 39 minutes. 3) An employee working at cooping/operating was exposed to continuous noise levels at 145.7% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 92.7 dBA. The sampling was performed for 497 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 0 minutes. 4) An employee working at the fire bender was exposed to continuous noise levels at 91.2% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 438 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 42 minutes. 5) An employee working at the first inspection was exposed to continuous noise levels at 90% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 448 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 32 minutes. 6) An employee working at the planner was exposed to continuous noise levels at 82% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 470 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 10 minutes. 7) An employee working at cooping was exposed to continuous noise levels at 80% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 467 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 13 minutes.
Recent events (3)
- · F (O) $8000
- · C (S) $10419
- · Z (S) $10419
1910.95 D03
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 11, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
81108111
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(d)(3): Repeat employee exposure monitoring was not performed whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposure: a) The employer is failing to protect employees from occupational noise exposure by effective administration of their hearing conservation program. This was most recently demonstrated on April, 17, 2019 when personal noise monitoring was performed on ten employees at the worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO whose dose was in excess of fifty (50) percent on the A Scale. Personal employee monitoring had not been repeated at the facility since September, 9, 2010, since that time, changes have occurred at the facility with additions to production, process, and equipment. 1) An employee working at the head sander was exposed to continuous noise levels at 305.5% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 98.1 dBA. The sampling was performed for 475 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 5 minutes. 2) An employee working at the head cutter was exposed to continuous noise levels at 225.5% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 95.8 dBA. The sampling was performed for 441 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 39 minutes. 3) An employee working at cooping/operating was exposed to continuous noise levels at 145.7% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 92.7 dBA. The sampling was performed for 497 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 0 minutes. 4) An employee working at the fire bender was exposed to continuous noise levels at 91.2% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 438 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 42 minutes. 5) An employee working at the first inspection was exposed to continuous noise levels at 90% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 89.2 dBA. The sampling was performed for 448 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 32 minutes. 6) An employee working at the planner was exposed to continuous noise levels at 82% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.6 dBA. The sampling was performed for 470 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 10 minutes. 7) An employee working at cooping was exposed to continuous noise levels at 80% dose of the allowable 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA or an equivalent sound level of approximately 88.4 dBA. The sampling was performed for 467 minutes during one shift on April 17, 2019. The zero time was sampled for 13 minutes.
Recent events (3)
- · F (O) $0
- · C (S) $0
- · Z (S) $0
1910.95 I02 I
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $10,419 · Current $0 Reduced
81118130
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(i): The employer did not ensure that hearing protectors are worn by an employee who is required by 29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1) to wear personal protective equipment: The employer is failing to protect employees by not safeguarding the employees use, care, and maintenance of their selected hearing protection. This was most recently demonstrated on April, 17, 2019 when personal noise monitoring was performed on employees at the worksite whose dose was in excess of fifty (50) percent on the A Scale. At the worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO: Employees were exposed to occupational noise hazards. During each walkthrough of the facility over the course of numerous days; employees were overserved not wearing hearing protection as well as improper placement of the hearing protection in numerous work areas that were at or exceeded 85 dB on an A scale.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $10419
- · Z (S) $10419
1910.133 A03
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $8,335 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.133(a)(3): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee, who wore prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involved eye hazards, used protection that incorporated the prescription in its design, or wore eye protection over the prescription glasses or protective lenses with side shields. The employer is failing to protect employees from injuries to the eyes and face. Employees are being exposed struck-by hazards in various departments at a worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. 1) Employees were observed working in the Alternatives Area, classics side without the use of side shields on prescription glasses while using compressed air to clean large totes, which contain chips that are being sold as alternative wood products, which was demonstrated on or about March 13, 2019 2) Employees were observed working without the use of side shields on prescription glasses in the Heading Area while cutting wood products on a jointer, which was demonstrated on or about May 23, 2019. 3) Employees were observed working without the use of side shields on prescription glasses in the Bourbon Barrel Finish Area while inspecting barrels in which they hammer wood chips or cork into the barrel to fill any wholes, which was demonstrated on May 22, 2019
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $8335
- · Z (S) $8335
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 11, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $6,251 · Current $11,000
General-duty citation text
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: The employer is failing to protect employees from toxic or hazardous substances including but not limited to injuries to the mucous membranes and respiratory tract at a worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. 1) Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards when employees were directed to use filtering facepiece respirators and had not been medically evaluated before being permitted to use a respirator. This was demonstrated on May 13, 2019 when employees were engaged in cleaning activities in the Wine Barrel Finishing Area. 2) Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards when employees were using tight fitting respirators and had not been medically evaluated before being permitted to use a respirator. This was demonstrated on May 13, 2019 when employees were engaged in adding Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) to green dust in the Alternatives Area.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $11000
- · C (S) $6251
- · Z (S) $6251
1910.134 G01 I A
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 11, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $6,251 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A): Respirators with tight-fitting facepieces were worn by employees who had facial hair that came between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interfered with valve function: The employer is failing to protect employees from airborne contaminants including but not limited to wood dust and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) at a worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. Employees are permitted to have facial hair when they are fitted with a respirator and times there after. Employee are exposed to toxic or hazardous substances, which include dermatitis, allergic respiratory effects, mucosal and nonallergic respiratory effects, and respiratory tract hazards from compromised seals of the respirators. 1) Employees were exposed to respiratory hazards when employees were directed to use filtering facepiece respirators and were not instructed to be clean shaven before being permitted to use a respirator. This was demonstrated on May 13, 2019 when employees were engaged in cleaning activities in the Wine Barrel Finishing area. 2) Employees are exposed to respiratory hazards when employees are using tight fitting respirators and were not instructed to be clean shaven before being permitted to use a respirator. This was demonstrated on May 13, 2019 when employees were engaged in adding Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) to green dust in the Alternatives area.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $6251
- · Z (S) $6251
1910.157 G01
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Aug 23, 2019
- Penalty
- Initial $10,419 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.157(g)(1): An educational program was not provided for all employees to familiarize them with the general principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting: The employer is failing to protect employees due to a lack of training on the us of portable fire extinguishers at the facility located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. Employees are exposed to serious injuries, in that employees are not trained with regard to the portable fire extinguishers located through out the facility. This was most recently documented on March 15, 2019 and May 23, 2019 when the employer did not provide an educational program to familiarize all employees with the general purposes of fire extinguisher use and the hazards involved with incipient stage fire fighting upon the employees initial employment and at least annually thereafter.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $0
- · C (S) $10419
- · Z (S) $10419
1910.242 B
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 11, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $8,335 · Current $11,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.242(b): Compressed air used for cleaning purposes was not reduced to less than 30 p.s.i.: The employer is failing to protect employees from the hazards of working with compressed air when cleaning wood dust from various production processes. This was demonstrated in the Wine Barrel Finish, Craft, and Alternatives Area, classics side of the facility on March 13 to 15, 2019 at a facility located at 1078 Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO. Employees are exposed to hazards to the respiratory system, which may be damaged as the result of inadequate personal protective equipment, hazards to the eyes, due to a lack of chip guards, and/or uncontrolled release of compressed, air injection injuries from air nozzles that were not equipped with pressure relief openings. Compressed air was assessed in these areas and found to be in excess of 60 pounds per square inch (psi) rather than being reduced to 30 p.s.i. or lower.
Recent events (3)
- · F (S) $11000
- · C (S) $8335
- · Z (S) $8335
1910.134 D01 II
- Issued
- Jul 30, 2019
- Abate by
- Jan 11, 2021
- Penalty
- Initial $1,169 · Current $8,000
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(ii): The employer did not select and use a NIOSH-certified respirator in compliance with the conditions of its certification: The employer is failing to protect employees from injuries including but not limited to dermatitis, allergic respiratory effects, mucosal and nonallergic respiratory effects. This was demonstrated on April 17, 2019 when employees wore a generic dust mask that carried no designation or necessary NIOSH rating. Employees wore this mask while sanding barrels at a worksite located at 1078 S Jefferson Ave, Lebanon, MO.
Recent events (3)
- · F (O) $8000
- · C (O) $1169
- · Z (O) $1169
More inspections at Missouri Cooperage Company LLC
View Missouri Cooperage Company LLC's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 321920)
Aug 7, 2026
ECO Service Utah LLC · SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Aug 6, 2026
69430 - PF Pallets · CROFTON, KY
Aug 5, 2026
WA317992382 - Pilchuck Pallets INC · MARYSVILLE, WA
Aug 5, 2026
FOX Valley Wood Products, INC. · KAUKAUNA, WI
Aug 3, 2026
WA317992180 - Truckvault INC · SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA
More inspections in MO
Aug 11, 2026
Brookshire Construction · UNION, MO
Aug 10, 2026
Shaman Botanicals · KANSAS CITY, MO
Aug 7, 2026
Mario Gonzalez · PARKVILLE, MO
Aug 7, 2026
Thermo-Fisher Scientific · BERKELEY, MO
Aug 6, 2026
Long Sports and Entertainment, LLC · RIVERSIDE, MO
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 343856274.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.