POPE & TALBOT, INC.

According to U.S. Department of Labor enforcement records, POPE & TALBOT, INC. — a industry sector 00 facility located at 1200 FOREST STREET, EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703 — was the subject of a formal OSHA inspection that resulted in 28 citation(s) and cumulative proposed penalties of $25,520.00. The inspection case was opened on 1991-03-15.

The volume of citations issued during this inspection suggests systematic compliance deficiencies rather than isolated incidents. Facilities with 10 or more citations typically face comprehensive abatement requirements and may be subject to follow-up inspections.

State Context: Within WI, this facility's penalty places it at the 98th percentile among 43,331 inspected facilities. The statewide average penalty is $3,505.68.

Citation Analysis: The inspection produced 28 citations spanning 6 distinct OSHA regulatory standards. The citation breakdown includes: 12 serious — A workplace hazard that could cause death or serious physical harm exists, and the employer knew or should have known about the condition. 1 repeat — A substantially similar violation was found during a previous inspection and the original citation has become a final order. 2 other-than-serious — The violation has a direct relationship to job safety and health but is unlikely to cause death or serious physical harm.

Enforcement Timeline: Citations were issued beginning May 10, 1989 with the latest abatement deadline set for August 23, 1993. Of the 28 total citations, 14 (50%) have been marked as abated in DOL records, suggesting partial progress toward required corrective actions.

Penalty Assessment: The cumulative penalty of $25,520.00 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 $911.43 falls within the standard penalty range.

The 1991 inspection of the Pope & Talbot facility in Eau Claire reveals a deeply concerning pattern of systemic non-compliance, particularly regarding machine guarding and fall protection. The sheer volume of citations—totaling 28 violations—indicates a pervasive breakdown in the site’s safety management system rather than isolated lapses. Of particular legal and financial significance is the citation under 1910.212(a)(1) classified as a Repeat violation, carrying a $6,250 penalty. This designation proves that management was previously alerted to hazardous points of operation or rotating parts but failed to implement permanent engineering controls, exposing workers to preventable amputation or crushing injuries. The presence of multiple Serious violations under 1926.500 underscores a failure to secure walking-working surfaces, creating high-gravity fall hazards that are often fatal in industrial environments. Furthermore, the integration of 1910.1200 Hazard Communication deficiencies suggests that the facility failed to adequately inform and train employees on chemical risks, a foundational requirement for industrial hygiene. The aggregate penalty of $25,520 was exceptionally high for the early 1990s regulatory landscape, signaling that OSHA intended to use this enforcement action as a deterrent. Collectively, these data points suggest a reactive safety culture where production objectives likely superseded fundamental life-safety protocols, necessitating a comprehensive overhaul of the facility’s mechanical safeguarding and fall arrest programs.