Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,194,531Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-11 Last loaded 2026-08-14

OSHA Inspection: WARRENS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of WARRENS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. in 111 GRANT ST, WARRENS, WI 54666 (NAICS 333111). OSHA activity number 330975822.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Warrens Equipment Company, INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Warrens Equipment Company, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
111 GRANT ST
City
WARRENS
State
WI
ZIP
54666
Mailing
P.O. BOX 68, WARRENS, WI 54666
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
333111
Employees
7
Ownership type
Private (A)

9 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.178 L01 I

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,100 · Current $1,470 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator was competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l).    Where employees operate the Komatsu forklift, for material handling, the employer did not provide training.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $1470
  • · Z (S) $2100

1910.212 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $4,200 · Current $2,940 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1):     One or more methods of machine guarding was not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by rotating parts:    Where employee(s) are operating a Haas TL-20 CNC lathe, there is no machine guard providing protection from the hazards created by rotating parts.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $2940
  • · Z (S) $4200

1910.212 A03 II

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $4,200 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii):     Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):    a) Where employees were operating a shear, in the production area, the point of operation was not guarded exposing employees to an amputation hazard.     b) Where employees were operating a circular saw, in the production area, the point of operation was not guarded exposing employees to an amputation hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $4200

1910.215 A04

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4):     Work rest(s) on grinding machinery were not adjusted closely to the wheel with a maximum opening of one eighth inch:    The work rest on the grinding wheel, in the welding area, had an opening greater than one eighth inch.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1400
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.215 B09

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.215(b)(9):     The distance between the abrasive wheel periphery(s) and the adjustable tongue or the end of the safety guard peripheral member at the top exceeded one fourth inch:    The tongue guard on the grinding wheel, in the welding area, was greater than one fourth inch from the abrasive wheel.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1026 D02 I

Deleted Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Penalty
Initial $2,100 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(2)(i):     The employer using the scheduled monitoring option did not perform initial monitoring to determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium (VI) for each employee on the basis of a sufficient number of personal breathing zone air samples to accurately characterize full shift exposure on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:    Where employees are performing welding operations on stainless steel, the employer did not perform initial monitoring to determine the chromium (VI) exposure.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $2100

1910.1026 L01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1026(l)(1):     The employer did not ensure that all employees who were assigned to workplaces where there was exposure to chromium (VI) were provided with information and training as required by the Hazard Communication standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200:    Where employees were performing welding operations on stainless steel, the employer did not provide training on the hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1200 F05 I

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(i):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein:  (a)(LOCATION)(IDENTIFY SPECIFIC CHEMICAL/PRODUCT, SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE, AND CONDITION OF USE)    Where employees are using chemicals, including but not limited to: oils and lubricants, the employer did not ensure that containers were labeled.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $0

1910.1200 F05 II

Other-than-serious 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jan 9, 2012
Abate by
Jan 17, 2012
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii):     The employer did not ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace was labeled, tagged or marked with the appropriate hazard warnings:  (a)(LOCATION)(IDENTIFY SPECIFIC CHEMICAL/PRODUCT, SPECIFIC OPERATIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE, AND CONDITION OF USE)    Where employees are using chemicals, including but not limited to: oils and lubricants, the employer did not ensure that containers were labeled with appropriate hazards warnings.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (O) $0
  • · Z (O) $0

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 330975822.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.