AEPCO

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, AEPCO — a industry sector 00 facility located at 100 INDUSTRIAL ROAD, OSCEOLA, AR 72370 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 32 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $137,250.00. The inspection case was opened on 1999-08-04.

Cumulative penalties significantly exceed the national median for OSHA enforcement actions. The penalty amount suggests multiple high-gravity citations, indicating conditions that presented a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm to employees.

State Context: Within AR, this facility's penalty places it at the 100th percentile among 15,726 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $2,714.64.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 32 citations spanning 6 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 15 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition.

Enforcement Timeline: Citations were issued beginning January 21, 2000 with the latest abatement deadline set for February 24, 2000. Of the 32 total citations, 0 (0%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, which may indicate ongoing compliance gaps requiring further regulatory attention.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $137,250.00 reflects OSHA's gravity-based penalty calculation methodology, which considers the severity of potential injury, the probability of occurrence, the employer's size, good faith, and violation history. The per-citation average of $4,289.06 falls within the standard penalty range.

The enforcement record for AEPCO’s Osceola facility indicates a profound breakdown in fundamental occupational health and safety management systems, characterized by a staggering 32 citations and a penalty total exceeding $137,000. The concentration of high-gravity "Serious" violations under 29 CFR 1910.1030 (Bloodborne Pathogens) reveals a systemic failure to implement basic exposure controls, personal protective equipment protocols, and post-exposure evaluation procedures. In a manufacturing or industrial context, such pervasive non-compliance with biological hazard standards is atypical and suggests either a catastrophic misunderstanding of regulatory requirements or a complete absence of a formal safety program. Beyond biological hazards, the presence of 1910.304 and 1910.305 electrical violations, alongside 1910.176(b) material storage infractions, points to a facility where physical workplace hazards—ranging from electrocution risks to crushing injuries from unstable loads—were left unmitigated. The gravity ratings of 10 for multiple citations underscore that OSHA inspectors identified a high probability of death or serious physical harm. The sheer volume of violations across disparate standards suggests these were not isolated technical oversights but rather a symptomatic organizational failure to prioritize worker protection. The resulting penalty is significantly higher than industry averages for the period, reflecting the cumulative risk posed by the facility’s neglected infrastructure and lack of administrative safety oversight.