OSHA Inspection: HIGGINS PALLET CO INC.

Issued

Jan 31, 2025

Abate by

Apr 28, 2025

Penalty

Initial $11,585 · Current $5,793 Reduced

Hazardous substances 81108111

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 worksite located at 641 SE 10th Street, Lamar, MO 64759:  The employer failed to protect employees from occupational noise hazards. This was most recently demonstrated on or about November 13, 2024, when:  a) An employee performing work on the end return of the West Plans Resaw System (125 Series) was exposed to a dose of 110.1% or an equivalent of 90.6 decibels as an 8-hour time-weighted average and the employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program. The sampling was performed for 474 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 6 minutes not sampled.  b) An employee performing work stacking on various saws and equipment and was exposed to a dose of 125.3% or an equivalent of 91.6 decibels as an 8-hour time-weighted average and the employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program. The sampling was performed for 476 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 4 minutes not sampled.  c) An employee performing work on the Smith Morgan Chop Saw was exposed to a dose of 171.3% or an equivalent of 93.8 decibels as an 8-hour time-weighted average and the employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program. The sampling was performed for 475 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 5 minutes not sampled.  d) An employee performing work on the middle return of the West Plans Resaw System (125 Series) was exposed to a dose of 179.6% or an equivalent of 94.2 decibels as an 8-hour time-weighted average and the employer had not developed and implemented a hearing conservation program. The sampling was performed for 477 minutes during one shift, exposure calculations included a zero time for the 3 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jan 31, 2025

Abate by

Mar 27, 2025

Penalty

Initial $6,620 · Current $3,310 Reduced

Hazardous substances D150

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.106(b)(2)(vii)(a): The area surrounding a tank or a group of tanks was not provided with drainage as in subdivision (B) of this subdivision, or was not diked as provided in subdivision (C) of this subdivision, to prevent accidental discharge of liquid from endangering adjoining property or reaching waterways:  At a worksite located at 641 SE 10th Street, Lamar, MO 64759:   The employer failed to protect employees from potential fire hazards not preventing accidental discharge of liquid to adjoining property to reaching waterways. This was most recently demonstrated on or about August 29, 2024, and at times prior to when the area surrounding an above-ground diesel storage tank(s) was not diked or provided with appropriate drainage for a tank(s) containing diesel fuel near dust storage bin(s).

Issued

Jan 31, 2025

Abate by

Mar 27, 2025

Penalty

Initial $930 · Current $465 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify, through a written certification, that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed:  At a worksite located at 641 SE 10th Street, Lamar, MO 64759:  The employer failed to protect employees from exposure to potential physical and health-related hazards. This was most recently demonstrated on or about October 25, 2023, and at times prior to, when workers were exposed to physical and health-related hazards; including but not limited to flying wood particles, falling wood boards or large pieces, liquid chemicals, wood dust, and noisy equipment in the workplace as part of the manufacturing process. The employer had not verified that a hazard assessment had been performed at the facility through a written certification.