Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: BINGER OPERATIONS, L.L.C.

Complaint inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a complaint health inspection of BINGER OPERATIONS, L.L.C. in HWY 152 2.5 MLS EAST OF BINGER, BINGER, OK 73009 (NAICS 211112). OSHA activity number 336426994.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Binger Operations, L.L.C. — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Binger Operations, L.L.C. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
HWY 152 2.5 MLS EAST OF BINGER
City
BINGER
State
OK
ZIP
73009
Mailing
PO BOX 484, BINGER, OK 73009
Inspection type
Complaint (B)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
211112
Employees
8
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

5(a)(1)

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 8 exposed
Issued
Mar 14, 2013
Abate by
Aug 30, 2013
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,600 Reduced
OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): 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 the recognized hazard of fire, explosion or the catastrophic release of flammable material:    On or about September 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) to ensure the mechanical integrity of process vessels, piping and associated equipment:    a) The employer did not develop and implement an inspection program for all in-service process piping.  b) The employer did not develop and implement an inspection program for all in-service pressure vessels.  c) The employer did not ensure that pressure vessels repairs were approved and performed by qualified individuals.   d) The employer did not ensure repaired pressure vessels were inspected and tested prior to return to service.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1600
  • — Z (S) $2800

1910.132 A

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 8 exposed
Issued
Mar 14, 2013
Abate by
Mar 29, 2013
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,600 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities was not provided and used wherever it was necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through physical contact:    On or about September 18, 2012, the employer did not ensure employees wore flame retardant clothing when working in the process unit, exposing employees to the hazard of flash fire.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1600
  • — Z (S) $2800

1910.305 D02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 8 exposed
Issued
Mar 14, 2013
Abate by
Mar 26, 2013
Penalty
Initial $1,700 · Current $700 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.305(d)(2): Panelboards were not mounted in cabinets, cutout boxes, or enclosures designed for the purpose and were not dead front:    On or about September 18, 2012, the panelboard on the north wall of the warehouse was not deadfront, exposing employees to the hazard of electric shock.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $700
  • — Z (S) $1700

1910.1200 F05 I

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Mar 14, 2013
Abate by
Mar 26, 2013
Penalty
Initial $1,020 · Current $600 Reduced
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:    On or about September 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, in the Maintenance Area, containers of hazardous chemicals, such as, but not limited to, the parts washer containing Zep Dyna 143 (Hydrotreated light petroleum distillates) was not labeled with the identity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $600
  • — Z (S) $1020

1910.1200 F05 II

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Mar 14, 2013
Abate by
Mar 26, 2013
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:    On or about September 18, 2012, and at times prior thereto, in the Maintenance Area, containers of hazardous chemicals, such as, but not limited to, the parts washer containing Zep Dyna 143 (Hydrotreated light petroleum distillates) was not labeled with the appropriate hazard warnings.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 336426994.

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