WATERTOWN, SD ·
OSHA Inspection: WATERTOWN RENDERING CO.
Accident-driven inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened an accident-driven safety inspection of WATERTOWN RENDERING CO. in RR 3, 2 MILES SOUTH, WATERTOWN, SD 57201 (NAICS 000000). OSHA activity number 643478.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- WATERTOWN RENDERING CO.
- Site address
- RR 3, 2 MILES SOUTH
- City
- WATERTOWN
- State
- SD
- ZIP
- 57201
- Mailing
- P. O. BOX 146, WATERTOWN, SD 57201
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Accident-driven (A)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Non-union (B)
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 000000
- SIC code (legacy)
- 2077
- Employees
- 13
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
- Industry flags
- Manufacturing safety.
Citations
12 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
- Penalty
- Initial $640 · Current $640
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health ACt of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to: a) Where emloyee(s) were operating a freight elevator which was not provided with hoistway enclosures on all accessible sides at the basement level, exposing employees to the hazard of being crushed by the freight elevator platform. One feasible and acceptable abatement method of correcting the hazard, among other methods, would be to install a hoistway enclosure extending from the landing to a height of not less than 6 feet above the landing. b) Where employee(s) were operating a freight elevator and the hoistway door at the first floor landing was not equipped with combination hoistway door mechanical locks and electrical contractsor interlocks exposing employees to a fall hazard in excess of 4 feet. One feasible and acceptable abatement method, among others in correcting the hazard, would be to install hoistway doors with combination locks and electrical contacts or interlocks which would prevent the freight elevator car from moving when the hoistway door is not closed and would prevent the hoistway door from being opened when the freight elevator is not at the landing. c) Where no sign reading, "THIS ELEVATOR DESIGNED FOR GENERAL FREIGHT LOADING" was not permanently attached to the freight elevator exposing employees to the hazard of riding on a freight elevator. One feasible and acceptable abatement method would be to provide an approved sign attached to the elevator. d) Where employee(s) were operating a freight elevator which was not provided with a car enclosure around the elevator platform exposing employees to the hazard of falling materials. One feasible and acceptable abatement method of correcting this hazard would be to install a car enclosure on the freight elevator platform. e) Where no capacity and data plates were on the freight elevator being used by employees, exposing them to the hazard of overloading the freight elevator, causing serious injury. One feasible and acceptable abatement method would be to provide a capacity plate and data plate permanently fastened to the freight elevator. f) Where the freight elevator and associated hoistway mechanisms were not tested and inspected periodically for worn or rusted parts, exposing employees to serious hazards. One feasible and acceptable abatement method of correcting this hazard, among others, would be to have regular periodic tests and inspections on this equipment. g) The freight elevator and its associated hoisting mechanisms were not equipped with any means of a safety car holding device exposing employees to serious hazards. One feasible and acceptable method of correcting this hazard, among others, would be to install an overspeed governor that would activate a car safety device in the event of overspeed of the elevator in a downward position.
1910.212 A01
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
- Penalty
- Initial $210 · Current $210
1910.219 C02 I
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.219 D01
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.219 E03 I
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.219 I02
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.304 F05 V
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
- Penalty
- Initial $210 · Current $210
1910.305 B02
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Jan 18, 1986
1910.27 F
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.303 F
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.304 A02
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 1986
1910.305 B02
- Issued
- Jan 14, 1986
- Abate by
- Jan 18, 1986
More inspections at Watertown Rendering CO.
View Watertown Rendering CO.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 000000)
More inspections in SD
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA's own view of this case can be found through its Establishment Search.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.